Friday, December 19, 2014
street news, views and stories of justice and injustice
Follow me on Twitter

Search WitnessLA:

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Meta


Idiotic PC-ness versus Mark Twain, History, Literature and Intelligent Discourse

January 6th, 2011 by Celeste Fremon


If I had to choose one novel above all others to represent the glories of American literature
it would be The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It’s not perfect. Many critics, myself included, believe that Twain stumbles slightly when he reintroduces Tom Sawyer in the last quarter of the book. But, like the flaws purposely woven into Navaho rugs so as not to displease the spirits, the fact that this masterpiece has one or two dangling threads only serves to humanize Twain’s incandescent genius.

This week, however, week, NewSouth Books, a publisher based in Montgomery, Alabama, decided it was going to improve on Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” by removing some of the icky words notably found in the text.

First among those words is, of course, the “N” word. Nigger. This appears 219 times in Huck Finn. NewSouth has decided to replace the offending word with “slave.”

The publisher has also replaced “injun”—as in Injun Joe”— with “Indian.”

As my friend Tod Goldberg put it on Facebook: “In other news, the latest edition of The Things They Carried will no longer contain mention of the Vietnam war.”

NewSouth’s editing gambit is exactly that mind-bendingly stupid.

Another pal, David Ulin, had this to say in the LA Times:

To give their project credibility, NewSouth teamed with Alan Gribben, chair of the English department at Alabama’s Auburn University, to do the clean-up job. According to Publishers Weekly, Gribben was motivated by his own deep discomfort over the novel’s language and by the reactions of younger readers. “After a number of talks,” he told PW, “I was sought out by local teachers, and to a person, they said we would love to teach … ‘Huckleberry Finn,’ but we feel we can’t do it anymore. In the new classroom, it’s really not acceptable.”

I agree: The N-word is not acceptable -- although I’m not sure “slave” is much of an improvement, with its unthinking conflation of servitude and race. Like professor Gribben, I’ve discussed “Huckleberry Finn” in the classroom, and it is always difficult and awkward to work around that word. This, however, is precisely why it needs to remain part of our experience of “Huckleberry Finn.”

Literature, after all, is not there to reassure us; it’s supposed to reveal us, in all our contradictory complexity. The fact that it makes us uncomfortable is part of the point — like all great art, it demands that we confront our half-truths and self-deceptions, the justifications and evasions by which we measure out our daily lives.

Huck is a perfect case in point, a rebel who can’t reconcile his love for the escaped slave Jim with his cultural indoctrination, who goes back and forth about whether his companion is fully a human being.

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell,” he announces when he finally decides the matter. The choice of words is telling, since in choosing not to return Jim to slavery, Huck articulates the central moral argument of the book. This is the point Twain is making, that there is a difference between custom and conscience, between social convention and the ethics of the individual. At the heart of this is the issue of language, the words we use and how we use them, and what they tell us about the reality we construct.

The passage below from Huck Finn—that Ulin quotes in part— is one of the most important in American letters. To remove the “N word because of its obvious offensiveness is to willfully deny the central point that Twain was making about our nation’s horrifically injurious past in which a boy could, no kidding, believe that he would be condemned to hell for considering a black man a person.

Whitewashing that historically truthful moment in Twain’s book is what causes the real damage-–not the appropriate and contextual use of the wounding word in question.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn’t know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I’ll go and write the letter- and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather, right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send. HUCK FINN

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn’t do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking- thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me, all the time; in the day, and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a floating along, talking, and singing, and laughing. But somehow I couldn’t seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I’d see him standing my watch on top of his’n, stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him agin in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had smallpox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he’s got now; and then I happened to look around, and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell”- and tore it up.

Yes, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn draws blood.

It’s supposed to.


PS: Both the NY Times and the LA Times have editorials on the matter in their Thursday editions.


AND IN OTHER NEWS….DR. ATUL GWANDE ON SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS TORTURE

Gawande’s 2009 New Yorker article on the topic, “Hellhole” is important and unforgettable. He recaps and expands on the issue on Democracy Now.


OHIO PRISONERS GO ON HUNGER STRIKE AFTER 17-YEARS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT

And while we’re on the subject:

… Four prisoners at the supermax Ohio State Penitentiary in Youngstown have gone on a hunger strike to protest their solitary confinement. Their only demand: that they be moved to the state’s Death Row.

The prisoners—Bomani Shakur, Siddique Abdullah Hasan, Jason Robb
and Namir Abdul Mateen—were sentenced to death for their involvement in the 1993 prison uprising in Lucasville, Ohio, in which a guard and several inmates were killed. They have now been in 23-hour-a-day solitary for more than 17 years. Based on the nature of their crime, they are being denied the privileges given others on Death Row in Ohio, and condemned to permanent isolation.

The Youngstown Vindicator has the more complete story.

Posted in academic freedom, American artists, art and culture, arts, Freedom of Information | 36 Comments »

36 Responses

  1. Rodger Jacobs Says:

    Bravo, Celeste! And thanks for the wonderful words from Ulin, whom I don’t always agree with but he is spot-on here, 100 per cent spot-on.

    My initial reaction to the controversy was, “Well, hell, if it will put the book back into the hands of youth in school districts that have previously banned it from curriculum, then it’s not such a bad thing.”

    But then a better angel perched on my other shoulder reminded me that educators are in the classroom to discuss literary works with students and to place said books in the context of the authors times, and I settled foursquare in opposition to this folly.

    I read at least 50 books annually, fiction and non-fic, and if I come across a passage that strikes me as offensive, the first thing I do is process that emotion and try to figure out why I had such a strong visceral reaction; the next tier on the ladder is to learn more about the author and explore where they might have been coming from; in this two-tiered process, I usually end up learning something about social and cultural history and … myself. Isn’t that the proper function of books?

  2. Sure Fire Says:

    A few weeks ago I was at Disneyland walking with two of my granddaughters ages 4 and almost 3. I noticed that there were people walking on Tom Sawyer Island and I hadn’t seen anyone on the island the last ten times I’d been at Disneyland (my family has had season passes for a while) and was glad to see it was apparently open.

    When I explained to my older granddaughter what the island was all about and how my brothers and I played there when we were kids she asked what we played. I told her, “Cowpersons and Native Americans”. The people at New South Books would be proud of me.

  3. Answering The Question Says:

    This crapola goes hand in hand with the absurdness of the ultra PC movement that we have been going thru in this country for 20 years now.

    These idiotic PC types just can’t wait to be offended. And it’s always to make others jump thru hoops or because they really don’t like the message.

    Example A: A person is constantly whining and complaining about things. So, another person tells them to quit “bitching”. Then the complainer goes on a long diatribe about how the person who used the word “bitching” is bigoted toward women.

    It’s people trying to use PC as a club to quell discussion or opinions they don’t like.

  4. reg Says:

    You’re talking, of course, about the idiots who claim they are constantly under attack as “Christians” ? “PC” is increasingly a ridiculous right-wing convention (and the term originated, incidentally, on the left by folks who were making fun of their over-zealous brethren and “sistren.” It was picked up opportunistically by “conservatives” to rationalize their forays into bigotry and reactionary knee-jerk whining about the fact that times and socially acceptable conventions and locutions change. What we’re really talking about isn’t what’s “Politically Correct” – which was most recently on display in full force at that yahooized GOP Chairman “debate” where everyone had to have the “correct” answer in 25 words or less – but what’s socially acceptable in polite company when the world isn’t as white or male-supremacist as it was fifty years ago. This is not a big deal for adults. Unfortunately there aren’t many adults left on the contemporary FOXoid Right – just whiners, hysterics, the congenitally ignorant, liars and paranoids.

  5. Rob Grocholski Says:

    Have to agree with Celeste on the reading of Huckleberry Finn. Seems to be an easy argument that it’s a cowardly act by adults to try to alter the text (and texture) of the novel for fear of offending. The words matter.

    And speaking of a cowardly act by adults, what a farce I see on C-SPAN this morning with the GOP reading an amended, slavery free version of the Constitution. Where’s the Tea Bagger outrage about not hewing to the original intent?

  6. Rob Grocholski Says:

    In Prometheus Bound, as Prometheus is nearing his fate for rebelling against Zeus, he has this little exchange with the daughters of Oceanos:

    Oceanos: Do you not know, Prometheus, that words are doctors for a diseased temper?

    Prometheus: Yes, if in season due one soothes the heart, not violently reduces the swelling temper.

  7. jim hitchcock Says:

    I’m thinking Mark Twain would have a few choice words about Michele Bachmann being handed a slot on the House Intelligence
    Committee.

  8. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Are you claiming Christians aren’t under attack Reg? Didn’t you just “attack” Christians with your first line? Hey Randy, you’re all about facts and proof, shouldn’t you be jumping Reg about now or did he show some type of proof they weren’t under attack while on the attack himself?

    When you say this Reg, “You’re talking, of course, about the idiots who claim they are constantly under attack as “Christians””, are you talking only about Christians in this country regarding what many of them believe to be attacks on their holidays, like Christmas?

    By and large who attacks the followers of Islam in this country (or anywhere on the planet actually) when one feels there’s a need? Isn’t it others of the same religion? Can you say that about Christians or do the attacks, you know the real vile ones (I won’t even mention what’s starting to maybe look like genocide in some other areas); come from outside the Christian community when thought of as a whole?

    Regarding your thoughts on PC…” It was picked up opportunistically by “conservatives” to rationalize their forays into bigotry and reactionary knee-jerk whining about the fact that times and socially acceptable conventions and locutions change”

    Picked up from where Reg? That change you speak of, who was it forwarded by and by what right if one was needed, if not where did the necessity for the change come from? In particular what groups or individuals determined this change you’re talking about was needed and most importantly had to be placed upon people who they apparently determined had no say in the matter.

  9. Answering The Question Says:

    Re: comment #4.

    Hogwash. Pure and simple. Trying to make it a right vs. left issue isn’t going to do anything to solve the issue. The ISSUE is, are we going to be so PC that we start changing literary works of art?

    OR

    Are we going to be so afraid of offending someone that we quit having FRANK AND HONEST discussions?

    I simply mentioned the crosses at Arlington because they are on federal property. This isn’t a right vs. left issue. It’s a common sense vs. absurdity issue.

    For example, should the bloggers on this very blog have refrained from telling Celeste “Merry Christmas” because someone might find that choice of words offensive?

    Anybody who gets their chonies in a bunch over shit like that is looking to be pissed off. At what point do we just say:
    Put your big girl/boy pants on and grow up. We aren’t going to go thru life catering to your extreme sensitivities.

  10. Answering The Question Says:

    Come on now. Are really at this point?

    To My PC Friends:
    Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

    To the rest of you:
    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    I hope we aren’t there, and I hope we never get there.

  11. Answering The Question Says:

    Reg, if you want to be PC ( uh, sensitive and tolerant )you need to reconsider before you label any religious group as “idiots”. This is an ABCNews Poll. Not FOXoid propaganda.

    Special attn to the last three paragraphs.

    ABCNEWS.com Poll:
    Most Americans Say They’re Christian
    Varies Greatly From the World at Large

    Analysis
    By Gary Langer

    July 18 — Ask Americans their religion and you’ll get an earful — 50 individual answers in an ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, ranging from agnostics to Zen Buddhists. The vast majority, though, have something in common: Jesus Christ. Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.
    That’s quite different from the world at large: Fifty-two percent of the world’s population is non-Christian, compared to 4 percent in the United States; and one-third is Christian, compared to 83 percent in the United States. (These are rough comparisons, because the world figures, reported by the Encyclopedia Britannica, are for the full population, while the U.S. figures are among adults only.)

    Religion in the U.S. vs. the World:
    United States World
    Christian 83% 33
    No religion 13 15
    All non-Christian religions 4 52

    This poll used an open-ended question to gauge religious affiliation: “What if anything is your religion?” Most of the 50 affiliations cited are Christian denominations, ranging from the Assembly of God to the United Church of Christ. Added up they show that 53 percent of Americans are Protestants, 22 percent Catholics and 8 percent other Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Protestant Groups

    The largest group within the ranks of American Protestants is unaffiliated: Nineteen percent of Americans say they’re Protestants, but don’t cite a specific denomination. They account for more than a third of all Protestants.

    Another 15 percent of Americans identify themselves as Baptists or Southern Baptists, meaning this group accounts for nearly three in 10 Protestants. No other Protestant denomination comes close in size.

    Baptists are especially prevalent among black Americans: Nearly half of blacks, 48 percent, say they’re Baptists, making it far and away their No. 1 denomination (next are nondenominational, at 15 percent of blacks, and Methodist, at 8 percent of blacks). Among whites, 22 percent are Catholics, another 22 percent are nonaffiliated Protestants and 13 percent are Baptists.

    Blacks, who are overwhelmingly Christian, are also more likely than whites to have any religion: Just 3 percent of blacks say they have no religion, compared to 13 percent of whites. (“No religion” includes people who describe their religion as atheist or agnostic.)

  12. reg Says:

    “Are you claiming Christians aren’t under attack Reg? ”

    I’m not going to get in a go-round with Surefire because he’s proven himself to not be worth the time of day with that asinine question. Of course Christians aren’t “under attack” in the USofA. What planet does this clown live on. I’m amazed at such whining and infantile assertion. “Conservatives” are babies.

  13. reg Says:

    Why “conservatives” are hypocrites as regards “PC”…and why the whining above is asinine.

    “The American people were treated on Thursday to a (mostly) full and complete reading of the Constitution of the United States from the floor of the House of Representatives. The performance was proposed and organized by the new Republican majority in that chamber for the purpose – according to them, anyway – of announcing that America is about to start going back to being America again. There’s an irony in this, insofar as they chose to skip the Constitutional parts about African Americans not really being people. That portion of the document is a vital part of our shared history, so yeah, leave it to the GOP to to snip, redact and edit our founding document, even if it’s just in a bit of political theater.” (William Pitt – “Truthout”)

  14. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Good at making excuses like most big mouths but not so quick to jump into the actual fray. No matter where he posts Reg is the only guy who knows anything and can prove it without posting a single fact to back him up. Don’t believe me, just ask him. He’s an incredible talent.

    If you can’t answer I understand Reg and that’s fine.

  15. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    In 1787, delegates from 13 colonies were meeting in Philadelphia trying to hammer out a document to form a new union — The United States of America. Different colonies, though, had different goals. The Northern colonies were determined to end slavery. Southern colonies felt slavery was necessary for their economic survival. The issue came to a head during discussions on how the populations of the various states would be counted to determine representation in the newly formed House of Representatives. Convention delegates opposed to slavery (generally from the North) wanted to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Southern delegates wanted every slave counted. Why? Because the higher population numbers would give them more members in the House.

    A compromise was reached. For the purpose of congressional apportionment, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the new Constitution provided that the state populations would be determined by the number of free persons in each state and adding “three fifths of all other persons.” In other words, for every 100 slaves in the state, 60 people would be added to its population count. Indentured slaves were counted as free persons and “Indians not taxed” were left out of the tally entirely. There was NO mention of race and NO suggestion that anyone counted as three-fifths of a human being. There were, by the way, black slave owners who were counted and white slaves who were not.

  16. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Please no personal attacks. Everyone’s comments are actually stronger and more engaging without them. Thanks.

  17. Sure Fire Says:

    Your boy Celeste, he brought it not me.

  18. reg Says:

    I’m not anybody’s “boy” – put that where you sit.

    Second thought, maybe our “boy” is right. The war against Christians:

    “Because the United Methodist Church, like many religious institutions, supported passage of the DREAM Act last month, a leading right-wing activist, Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips, has suggested the church should no longer exist. Phillips, a former member of the church, said he left the Methodist tradition because, as he sees it, it’s “the first Church of Karl Marx,” and “little more than the “religious” arm of socialism.” Phillips concluded his tirade by saying, “In short, if you hate America, you have a great future in the Methodist church.” (Political Animal blog at Washington Monthly.)

    (And the notion that pulling crank Bill O’Reilly talking points out of one’s bum is creating a “fray” that is intimidating to intelligent people, rather than making a fool of oneself is astonishing but not really surprising in this instance. I don’t like this guy for good reason’s one little bit – because of the dishonesty and low level of discourse and life is better without wasting time.)

  19. reg Says:

    So it had nothing to do with the institution of slavery and slavery had nothing to do with race. We’ve just learnedd that slavery was, of course, a multicultural enterprise rife with black slave-owners and white slaves.

    This kind of sophistic garbage is why I don’t read the comment section here very often. Too much “fray” that challenges my ability to marshall “facts.”

    And exactly what “fact” was I supposed to respond to in that idiotic “war against Christians” assertion ? Have at it, boy. Show the people your heavy duty analytical skills and your brilliant use of “facts.”

  20. reg Says:

    Just to be clear, the point that is obvious is that the Constitution officially recognized the institution of slavery, which anyone is free to claim wasn’t predicated on the dehumanizing of African people if they so desire. And the GOP wants to avoid any parts that support the fact that the Constitution is not a “sacred text” but a document that has been tempered by messy history and cultural “norms”, some of which have been ugly.

    This is evident to adults. Sophomoric apologists for right-wing hypocrisy, uh, not so much.

  21. Rob Grocholski Says:

    You know, I tried to think about this Huck Finn revision issue from the point of view of the NewSouth folks and Alan Gribben. So what about this idea that by changing the text one might get more people reading the novel? Don’t languages evolve? Off course. Classics from Homer, Aeschylus, Virgil or say Beowulf get redone or repacked time and again. But those stories from Antiquity were but together in an idiom or language that has gone through massive overall. Today’s Greeks don’t speak in the same sort of meter as Homer. But in the case of American literature, our lit is still very young. Going back what, 250-300 years? That’s not so long ago. Now add in the fact that every year, there are tens of thousands of Americans who re-enact everything from the daily grind of the Pilgrims to the Civil War. In the case of the Civil War, there’s been as many as many as 40,000 brought together to re-enact some of those battles.
    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War_reenactment
    Thus, I find it odd that in a country that has so many ready participants to relive the “walk” we have such a hard time dealing with the “talk”

  22. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    Sure you’re her boy otherwise she’d have gone right after you with the name calling you initiated in violation of posting rules. I don’t care that yiu are, just pointing it out. This isn’t high school and you’re not about to get in a fight so quit the posturing, play that with your fans at Cooper.

    I’ll post later, football time.

  23. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    BillO’Reily? Are you high Reg? Nothing I posted was from Bill O’Reily and I watch him like omce a month at best. That’s all a guy like you has, if someone thinks in a different manner than you their dishonest, what a load.
    Coming from you it means nothing.

    Nice to know that I’m only one of about a truckload that I’ve seen that feel that way about you on blogs.
    Screaming whiners like you that want to make history something it isn’t is what the left is all about. The constitution doesn’t say or claim that African-Americans weren’t real people, but to the people who can’t find real ponts to make their case they’ll play one that doesn’t exist.
    As for your cut and paste job on the church that I could really care less about, like any other incompetent you tell part of a story without delving into the real meat of what was being talked about. As usual you’re all about attacking the messenger and posting some girly type gossip as if you got someone. That supposed to put one in the win column for you?

    The Dream Act is a farce and should never be passed based on what the act says, period. Don’t post on that though Reg, more fun to act like you’re in jr. high on a playground. Only someone with no credibility or game would post or even care about one guy’s take on his former church’s position on the Dream Act. You only did it to take a swipe at a group of people that just kicked the shit out of the type of lame ass politicians you’d back. Still smarting from that huh Reg? You lost, get the fuck over it.

    You jumped into nothing and proved zero Reg. All you did was post trash, hope it felt good.

  24. Celeste Fremon Says:

    Oh, for crying out loud. That was directed at both of you.

  25. Answering The Question Says:

    “You’re talking, of course, about the idiots who claim they are constantly under attack as “Christians” ?”
    ******************************************************

    No. That isn’t what/who I was talking about.
    And just for clarification purposes; when labeling certain groups of people as “idiots” I’m quite certain that most objective intelligent adults would in fact call that an attack.

    Example A:
    If I was to say: “you’re an idiot” I’m quite sure Celeste would consider that a personal attack.

    So yeah, it’s hypocritical as hell that you would “attack” a group for their religious beliefs while at same time denying they are being attacked.

    THAT’S my point about PC types. And you proved it for me.

    Unless of course you’re willing to label all people of any religion who believe in a supreme being as idiots.
    Never heard you do that with any other group but “Christians”. And why is that? Because it’s OK in our PC society right now to do so.

    You would have to wear the mantle of anti-semetic, islamaphobic or racist if you were to simply say:
    “Religious people who believe in a supreme being are idiots”.

    So you refrain from that, while singling out a specific group as idiots. But, while trying to cloak yourself in the protection of your PC veil, you violate the very tenets of PC’ness ( see post 11 ).

    If I’m incorrect Reg, all you have to do is refute me by telling us you believe Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc. are idiots for their spritual beliefs. You know, basing their whole lives around the belief in a supreme being.
    Or, since you specifically labeled “Christians” as idiots, go ahead and tell us whether or not you consider the vast majority of African Americans who identify themselves as Christians idiots for their beliefs.

    Again Reg, THAT’S my point about PC types. And, again, unless you’re willing to have the courage to label ALL religious people as “idiots”, you’ve proved it for me.

  26. reg Says:

    SF – You suggested that I was attacking “Christians” when I dismissed the idiotic rhetoric of Bill O’Reilly and such who claim that “Christians” are under steady attack in our culture. You proceeded to give credence to the notion that Christian holidays are under attack and that I was somehow attacking Christians when I was obviously attacking the kind of inflated paranoia that you certainly appeared to defend.

    This discourse on your part or anyone elses – so as not to make it purely personal – is beyond silly – and you obviously were taking the side of the hysteria of “Christians”, like O’Reilly, I referenced or you wouldn’t have proceeded to attack me for questioning their seriousness, or for that matter their sanity (although opportunists in the media who make millions off of this crap are obviously “sane” – and just as obviously despicable.) I don’t care what Teevee shows you watch, just the BS you responded with that attempts to rationalize the O’Reillyesque blather of obvious cretins. The rest of it, trying to whitewash the Constitutional provisions of counting slaves as “3/5 of a person” I’ll leave to speak for itself. It speaks rather loudly, incidentally, but not in any way that flatters your intellectual or moral integrity. Your welcome to sit in the mess you’ve made. My last here for a while, because it’s very hard to be “civil” when confronted with such rank and aggressive asininity.

  27. Answering The Question Says:

    The O’Reilly analogy fly Reg. It is a nice attempt to re-direct though.

    It WOULD fly, if you or ANY of the PC types would be willing to label the spokespersons from CAIR, JDL, Anti-Defamation League, or any other religioun based orginization as “idiots” for claiming they are under attack for their religious beliefs.

    Of course, they’re NOT idiots for believing that. They DO come under attack for their religious beliefs.

    But, if anybody points out how Christians also come under attack, they AND ONLY THEY are idiots in your opinion.

    Laughable.

  28. Answering The Question Says:

    ^^^^^
    Insert “won’t” before fly.

  29. Answering The Question Says:

    George Carlin had no problem telling us he believed religious people were silly because they believed in superstition.

    RELIGIOUS people Reg.

    THAT’S the courage to say what’s on your mind.

    Labeling only a certain specific group (Christians)of religious people as idiots because it’s socially acceptable takes no courage.
    That’s what the PC types do.

    HOLD THE PHONE!!!!!! Wait a minute……Talk about a slippery ass slope.
    Bill O’Reilly is Catholic. I just looked it up. So if O’Reilly is an idiot for his religious beliefs, and he is Catholic, are the millions of Catholic Hispanics idiots too?

    Oops. You PC types are hilarious. You just can’t seem to keep from stepping in it.

    Talk about sitting in the mess you’ve made.

  30. The Bartender Says:

    Now you know why I don’t allow discussions about religion or politics at this bar.

  31. reg Says:

    So in our culture the Christian religion and Christmas are “under attack.” And Jews or Muslims have no reason – as very tiny religious minorities with a history of hate crimes and discrimination – to be vigilant. And how in the hell is referencing Bill O’Reilly an attempt to “redirect” in response to someone who defends the notion that Christians aren’t nutty for claiming their holidays are “under attack” ????

    Go “fly” yourself. This stuff is just plain childish – which is the default position for “conservatives” (i.e. knee-jerk FOXoid reactionary babies, hysterics and grifter$ intent on a Payday by poisoning the public square with lies, insanity and misdirection – to use one painfully relevant example, like painting targets on Democratic opponents, screaming about doctor/patient counseling as “Death Panels!” and then acting like THEY’RE the ones who are victims.)

  32. Sure Fire/Nikki Says:

    There’s no room for a guy like Reg in civilized debate, in fact it’s the lack of self control that Reg admits he has a problem with (Reg-My last here for a while, because it’s very hard to be “civil” when confronted with such rank and aggressive asininity) that leads to the type of events that took place in Arizona. Of course Reg is also the guy who wnated to have a cop hand him a gun so he could killa guy that what was it, robbed him?

    Is this what being a “progressive” is all about?

  33. Answering The Question Says:

    reg, with your comment #4 you were the one who took the subject off topic and tried (unsuccessfully Imight add) to make the subject matter a left vs. right issue.

    When the issue is whether or not we should change literary works of art so as not to offend.

    I opined that it was due to PC’ness…which is a no brainer.

    You took off on your next post about conservatives.

    Now then champ, tell us again about redirecting?

  34. reg Says:

    ATQ – I’m a Christian. What I’m dismissing are the idiotic statements of mindless hysterics that they or “Christmas” are the victims of a “war” in the Christian-dominant USofA. This has nothing to do with religious belief and everything to do with FOXoid insanity that has currency on the Right.

    Get a grip and try to upgrade your reading comprehension.

  35. reg Says:

    You might also want to see if there’s a Logic 101 course you might sign up for at a local community college. Or more likely, you don’t really give a shit about making any sense “connecting dots.”

  36. reg Says:

    There has been no movement against building mosques by peaceful muslim clerics in the US but there has been a war to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas.

    Every intelligent person knows this…

Leave a Comment





Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.