Banning the N - Word from Huckleberry Finn Isn't Just PC Gone Mad.

There has been a controversy in the US this past week about a book editor called Alan Gribben who has brought out a version of Mark Twains popular "Huck Finn" with the word "nigger" excised and replaced with the less racially charged "slave." instead. This has led to Gribben being pilloried as some kind of politically correct vandal kowtowing to "hurt feelings" of "minorities", the usual spiel which we see associated with stuff like this. But people who have only heard that bit of the story are missing the point. Mr. Gribben is a well known scholar on these stories, possibly the only man who knew more about them was old Mark Twain himself. The reasoning [on Gribbens part] behind this act was to actually stop schools in the South from banning the book outright for it's perceived racist connotations, that the editorial would explain the change and allow everyone to understand the racial terminology in the correct context. It was not an act of censorship, but an attempt to circumvent it. Alan Gribben should be applauded, but I doubt many see beyond what they want to see in this whole affair.

In an ideal world the book should be printed as Twain wrote it. People should have at least some grasp of artistic and narrative context. Just because someone uses iffy terminology or controversial stuff doesn't mean that they are endorsing or approving it. There are three reasons I see that results in people wanting to ignore the whole thing, all of which are in some way a response to people not taking what I have just said on board. Firstly the racism and slavery that are themes of the book are still very uncomfortable topics in that part of the US. There is shitloads of baggage around the whole thing. Just overlooking the Huck Finn books is one easy way for teaching boards to skirt the issue. Secondly some black commentators and others hear about all this racist talk without actually reading the books and jump to the wrong conclusions, calling for this "racist nonsense" to be barred in the classroom, which gives the boards another reason to do the first thing. And finally because racist boneheads start calling for the books to be taught ostensibly as it is PC Marxism not too, but largely because they get off on books with nigger written in them. These people don't realise that Twain's works actually condemn racism, as subtext and context don't mix well in the literalists mind. It's rather like those BNP people who deliberately buy gollies and black and white minstrel memorabilia. They think they are being rebellious.* Or on the other side, why on later film versions of "Oliver Twist" Fagin's overt Jewishness** had to be toned down as the perceived anti-Semitic nature of the character began to overshadow the "message" of the story. So we have a mixture of - on the firsthand - being well intentioned and buck passing at the same time, others missing the point totally, and for the latter - missing the point and being racist as well. Alan Gribben has discovered (I hope) a method of getting Twains brilliant books back into the classroom avoiding the above in one stroke.

It really is a shame these books are banned. They aren't racist. Mark Twain wrote them precisely to challenge the prejudice of the age. As his readers perhaps would have thought back then, that Huck Finn was right to think that Tom Sawyer was wrong to help some (and someone elses) mere slave boy escape. Huck and the readers learn through getting to know "nigger" Jim and to learn about his plight and see how he is a victim. To see him as a human with feelings and emotions and not just some piece of property. To see that Tom Sawyer was right to challenge the racist "wisdom" of the age, to his conscience. Twain is challenging the reader to see the wrongness of treating human beings as slaves and to appeal to the plight of your fellow man and not to the racist dogma of the age. These are important stories, and no-one is going to come out a raving bigot if they read them properly. So far from being a PC busybody perhaps Alan Gribben will end up doing us all a favour.

* This scientific phenomenon is also known as "looking like a bit of a prat."

** That was the point really. Fagins Jewishness wasn't really all that relevant to the actual story. It is sort of hinted at in dead exposition in the books that he was a Jew who had fled from pogroms in his native land to London. But anti Semites blew it up as his "Jewishness" being responsible for his villainous character. The simple fact is Fagin could have been from Birmingham and it would not have changed the story in any real way. You just need a grotty looking weirdo who's dodgy and gets kids to steal for him. It doesn't matter where he came from.

There is No "War On Motorists" But there Should Be.

Both Eric Pickles and Philip Hammond seem to think that there is something called the "War on motorists", and have vowed to end this so called war. Well let me just explain something.

THERE IS NO WAR ON MOTORISTS TO STOP!

I hear this phrase from Jeremy Clarkson and Richard Hammond, just about every right wing columnist who's ever existed, people who write angry letters to newspapers about being (gasp) fined for parking somewhere they shouldn't. People who moan at speed cameras slowing people down (isn't speeding actually dangerous and all that "hit me at 30 I live, 40 I die! stuff btw??) and so on and so on. So bloody what if you get fined for speeding - tough titty it's illegal you moron. Got booked on double yellows? Schoolkids know you get done for that. Fined for overstaying on a meter zone, buy a watch then!

Why is this such a "pissed off" posting? My particular beef about this kind of thing has come about because A) Eric Pickles, the communities secretary has got rid of the last governments limits on town centre parking and higher fees for parking in town centres, because what we obviously need is more cars clogging up our town centres that can barely cope with what they have now. B) Philip Hammond is Transport Secretary and has said that this is a part of stopping the war on motorists (translates to sucking up to petrolheads) and that:

"cars are a lifeline for many people – and that by supporting the next generation of ultra-low emission vehicles, it can enable sustainable green motoring to be a long-term part of Britain’s future transport planning."

Which loosely translates into "Fuck changing our car dependency, that's way too much bother on our part. What will Jeremy Clarkson say about that? I'll just make up some stuff about future cars that run on antimatter, and pass the buck for some other guy to pick up down the line."

Let me say off the bat, that I do drive, and there is no doubt the car is on some level a useful tool. In an ideal world we could use them to our hearts content and they would benefit our lives. Say they ran on air, and could turn into a briefcase you could carry around when you didn't need them (a la the Jetsons) so no need for stuff like parking spaces then. Unfortunately they don't work like that, and we don't live in a Hanna Barbera cartoon. Our dependency on the car is a serious problem and it needs tackling. But no one has the balls to do anything about it, and that is a problem when the guy tasked with handling this stuff is bullshitting his way out of facing up to the terrible problems the car addiction is stacking up. I saw this was likely to be the way we were headed (in a traffic jam probably) when the rather clever M4 bus lane was said to be facing the chop, the motorway equivalent of having Scrappy Doo shot dead in an episode of the Scooby Doo cartoon. Then the speed cameras in Oxfordshire are to be deactivated to save cash (thought they were there to fleece motorists?) This has confirmed my worst fears.

Our obsession about private car use is a lot like being addicted to crack. It may make us feel better in the short term, it gives people a buzz and our high with their new machines, and we all go crazy if someone tries to get a grip on our addiction. Like crack these small pleasures are eclipsed by so many pitfalls. Yes, crack may feel nice for a while, but you do realise you have to steal from grannies to get cash: you have pock marked skin and about four teeth left at 25, you stink and look awful and all this is a result of wanting that high. Likewise cars clogg up our streets and town centres, and then the bypasses, then the bypasses of the bypass that had to bypassed. They are smelly and expensive to run. They kill about 71 people per day (UK), and maim many others for life. They poison our air. They require roads and motorways that scar our landscape, and can bisect communities as that snarling bypass acts like an impenetrable tarmac frontier (the Twyford Down cutting on the M3 was nothing short of environmental vandalism. Bloody dreadful). The petrol they run on helps fund vile regimes like Saudi Arabia, and has caused so much shit in the Middle East. They make us miserable and cause seemingly mild mannered people to explode into ranting swearing lunatics for stuff as simple as someone taking a few seconds longer to park up. They disrupt wildlife and cause carnage to wildlife populations and, oh they fuck the climate up too. Truly a record anyone should be proud of. Some say cars are liberating, they seem to just enslave us as much in my opinion. And yet any attempt to try and fix this addiction results in derision and anger, as does anyone who is addicted but won't admit it when confronted. And this rage makes transport secretaries crumble. But the problems excessive car use cause won't go away. Indeed the 6 billion PFI sum (no really) being spent on the M25 widening project* should be a nice little sum our kids will have to pay back over the long haul.

The problem of excessive car usage is compounded by how it drives ugly libertarian impulses in the more vocal petrolheads that can cascade downwards to other motorists. How the freedom to drive at 46 mph on a suburban main road is now somehow seen as some sign of resistance against the "Big brother state" and not just the actions of a selfish prick with a small penis who is going to kill someone if he's not careful. How traffic wardens** are seriously compared to the Gestapo and have to wear those cameras lest they be punched in the face by a driver too stupid to realise that he doesn't have a sovereign right to park his Audi "sportscar" where he likes. To quote that quintessential darling of the right :-) George Monbiot:

"When you drive, society becomes an obstacle. Pedestrians, bicycles, traffic calming, speed limits, the law: all become a nuisance to be wished away. The more you drive, the more bloody-minded and individualistic you become. The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the Australians, into a nation which recognises only the freedom to act, and not the freedom from the consequences of other people’s actions. We drive on the left in Britain, but we are being driven to the right."

One of the less remarked comments of Margaret Thatcher that although seemed quite innocuous, turned out to have great consequences was her crass remark about any man over 26 being a failure if he couldn't drive and used public transport. Some of that mud sticked. We need urgent urgent investment of public transport, and more bums on buses and trains. I can't see how the car focused society is ultimately sustainable. It will be bitter medicine to swallow, people won't like it, but I don't see how it is avoidable if we want to avoid serious problems in the future. War on the motorist. If only.

* I'm astounded this doesn't seem to generate a great deal of controversy. The Variable Speed Limit signs they put up seem to arouse more pique. (the Nanny State is slowing us down.) Do these VSL signs (used to regulate a steadier traffic flow discipline) also hint that widening may still not be enough?

** The issues around private clamping, or wardens being paid on commission to book people are separate arguments, and IMHO are both better done by the public sector for the simple purpose of up keeping traffic parking regulations and not to make cash. Cutting the dependency of car use will be a painful process and the public need to be won over (a bit). Stuff like this just antagonises everyone and is dodgy anyway.

Guilty Because He Looks A Bit Weird

I have no idea if Chris Jeffries killed poor Johanna Yeates, and I am sure no one else knows exactly who did kill her (except for the killer) at the moment either. But isn't the amount of insinuation about the man from both the press and from general conversation (I overheard one woman say he must be guilty as he has a "paedophiles face". Really) really quite unsettling, way beyond what should be appropriate for the current stage of the enquiry. Apart from the controversy about him (or not) reporting Johanna leaving her flat the day she vanished, the accusations that he might have done it include:

*He is a "Peeping Tom" (well that was some blokes wifes opinion anyway. Not that the Mirror didn't let it stop them printing a "Jo suspect is "Peeping Tom" headline.)

*He has a daft hairdo

*He made former tenants wife "uncomfortable."

*He entered said flat (of which he was landlord) without asking

*He had mucky fingernails.

*He likes poems (he's an English teacher.) and got wrapped up in reading them aloud.

*He looks funny.

*He had a strange coat.

*Some of his former pupils called him "Strange Mr. Jeffries."

*Some other pupils thought he was gay on the single basis of him not being married.

*He read poems by writers who were obsessed with things like death (Also known as nearly everyone who writes poems.)

*He let out a flat (Johanna's flat) to a fellow teacher 12 years ago who was done for sexual assault of a minor years later.

*He was a bit eccentric, and people who commit murder on telly are always eccentric.

Stuff like this is not very helpful. It is way too early in the enquiry to start muck raking about a bloke who let us make this clear: - MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING BY THE WAY! A slightly eccentric English master at a posh school is certainly nothing new, and being "a bit strange" doesn't immediately mean you have a propensity to strangle young women to death, and all the "psycho poses" like the one above don't really change that.

Petitions to be Debated in Parliament. A Gateway to Mob Rule, or A More Open Democracy?

This plan to allow the most popular online petitions to be debated in parliament - a Tory election manifesto pledge - has been given the go ahead by the coalition. Naturally this has unsettled some who see it as a potential road to mob rule, however the government and the reasoning behind the plan claim it is a way to reconnect with voters who feel increasingly shut out and alienated since the expenses crisis broke last year. A chance to kick start democracy and parliamentary enthusiasm to a jaded and indifferent electorate. Critics say it will end up meaning that parliament will be honour bound have to debate supporting / opposing wacky petitions such as making Jeremy Clarkson prime minister (50'000 signed that e-petition, the minimum limit proposed is double that.), or making the Jedi a recognised religion, and so forth. Or that these petitions are often rather based on the ephemeral fickle desires of the electorate. These are legitimate concerns, so we must ask; will this idea be a good or bad one?

My own personal answer to this question is yes. It will be both a good and bad thing. Mass participant democracy is so multifaceted and fickle and nebulous it can't be much else. The positives are that the plan is certainly democratic to a degree. It also has the benefit of being able to bring transparancy to the arguments of the proponents and opponents of controversial popular issues such as membership of the E.U, capital punishment and immigration (I guarantee at least one of these will be at the head of the list of stuff to be debated.) in parliament being forced to up their game and fight their corner in the public debate on these issues, raising public awareness of the pros and cons of each. Sometimes lots of people may have strong views on this kind of stuff, but little working knowledge of how these would be put in practice. Hopefully this kind of debate could give laypeople insight into how the mechanics governing a country actually works. It could also reassure an electorate that issues that may be popular talking points in the public sphere, but are seen to be "ducked" in the Commons are now being debated (though we must emphasise that they are "only" being debated and are not full blown referenda.)

Now for the downsides of the idea. Surprisingly the issue of stuff like the "Clarkson for PM" petition having to be debated is pretty minor. For one thing the criteria around the new petitions is more robust, and it would take about 5 seconds to reject it if it was put through for debate (Clarkson says he doesn't want to be PM for a start. Debate over.) There is the risk that parochialism, short term gain at the expense of long term goals and appeals to popular prejudices and xenophobia may become more prevalent. (though that may be seen as acting in the course of popular democracy) That there will be more soundbites and appealing to raw populism. Almost certainly we may see "astroturf" campaigning where petitions ostensibly started by "the grassroot public" will have bigger interest groups behind them, who can use these things to their own effects (and can call it the "will of the people"). Ditto for those right wing libertarian groups who mask their dislike of a certain form of regulation as "climate change scepticism". They will likely slow decision making and the parliamentary process, as the various debates of the pros and cons eats in to Westminster's time. I can see various back bench MP's stirring up these petitions of their own making to pursue their own eccentric obsessions (Don't be too surprised if Philip Davies tries getting a "Ban Political Correctness"* petition started. I could see Nadine Dorres doing this kind of thing as well.) And lastly they could actually make people more dejected at the state of our democracy. People may end up being a bit pissed off when their large petition that they signed; say on leaving the EU, doesn't get them the referendum (and cross channel divorce into the bargain one would presume) they were so keen on, as the Eurosceptic John Redwood explains in this blog post here . As we see the practical issues are not as clear cut we may think. Time will tell I suppose.

*Banning Political Correctness may be both fairly popular and could seem to be an easy thing to achieve. But then we remember that PC is just a vague adjective for a bunch of stuff / people / regulations some other vague group of people don't approve of. Even debating what passes as "PC" and "Non PC" could be wrangled over for ages. I'd hate to think how this would then be translated into workable laws, which could be wrangled over for even more ageser. Ditto for the inevitable calls for bans on "Elf - N -Safety", "Non Jobs" and "Worthless Degrees" How do you translate abstract terms to solid laws? Answer not very easily.

Christmassy Thing

I should have posted more over the past few days but I have been sick as dog with some cold virus seemingly everyone in the North of England went down with as well. It also didn't help just spending about 36 hours of this weekend sitting there doing little more than eating Celebrations and drinking cans either. But even I managed to be shaken into some form of stunned lucidity on Christmas Day by seeing Matt Lucas blacking up on my TV screen, running around in Stanstead Airport pretending to be a female Afro Caribbean coffee shop assistant for a mockumentary on a fly on the wall look at an airport (Come Fly With Me BBC 1.). He even did the wacky Jar Jar Binks accent too. I mean actually fucking hell! Naturally this all went down like seven pounds of dog shit in a jacuzzi with critics and viewers.

Great call guys!!!

Ding Dong Merrily on High and Dry.(See what I did there?)

A few years ago I worked at a major UK supermarket, we'll codename it ASDA as that was what it was called. ASDA used to be closed only four days a year, Christmas Day; Boxing Day*; New Years Day, and Easter Sunday. Well now it seems all the major supermarkets (except our local Morrisons) are now opening on Boxing Day, so the workers have one less holiday day at Christmas, and that it sad.

Christmas serves an important function in our society. Now I am big time atheist, Jesus was no more the son of God, as Arthur Askey was. The Nativity may be as factually valid as an episode of Buck Rogers, but that doesn't mean we should just do away with it. Now I'm a cynical misanthrope who lives in a dirty bin lid and swears incoherently at passers by, and even I manage to capture some of the Christmas spirit, you'd have to either be very miserable or currently Tyrone of Coronation Street not to even let a little of the festive spirit rub off. A good natured affirmative group celebration like Christmas is good for us all, a time to realise life isn't all work and practical stuff, that human existence should be life affirming. And getting presents is a bonus too! In short Christmas is everything the ultra free market isn't.

A young woman on Facebook has fallen foul of this extra opening day. And she was understandably put out. It just seems wrong opening the supermarkets on Boxing day, and you got that sense from her comments. I mean come on! Will these mega companies really go bust if they allow their staff (who often have young families, who are now deprived of the company a loved one at Christmas) two days off at Christmas. This is precisely what bugs me about ultra free market advocates (who incidentally often seem pretty protected from the arse end of this kind of society.) reasoning. It may generate wealth**, but it doesn't generate human wealth so to speak. These aren't inanimate units of production, but human workers with desires and lives and families, and a desire for emotional comforts and the comforts of home and hearth and whatever.*** That is perhaps why I have a soft spot for Christmas. It stands as a long standing bulwark against the free market fundamentalism that may have made us richer but not happier. But will the day itself come under threat? I have heard (but have no verification) that some US superstores do open for a few hours on the 25th now. Bugger.

*Pretty much every year I was there there were rumours that this was the year they'd take the plunge and open Boxing Day.

**No I'm not a communist by the way. The free market has its uses, but should not be a societal end in itself. To quote David Starkey "It remains true as always, people are motivated by more than just market forces."

** It has been argued that some people are so lonely at Christmas that they would welcome them all being open on the day as they would at least have a shop assistant to speak to that day. This always breaks my bloody heart when I hear it. Perhaps we should try to change the factors that allow people to become this cut off as an all year round project, rather than making it a reason to open stores on Christmas Day.

Information for the New Year, and Transporting Stuff that Was Supposed to be on this Blog to a New One.

I did say a few weeks ago that I would be doing some reviews of several episodes of Sci Fi shows on this blog. However I just don't feel that they "fit" in here somehow. They seem out of place on a broad brush blog that devotes most of the time to currant affairs, popular pseudoscience and taking the piss out of the Daily Mail (all indeed enjoyable pastimes I might add.) I don't know where they fit in on here overall. Now I did say when I started that stuff like that would be put up, but it hasn't really happened. But then again I was just making this whole thing up on the fly, and most of the stuff I still put up is largely spur of the moment stuff that happens to tickle my fancy at a given moment. However the desire to review the episodes of a few sci fi shows close to my heart has never left me, and indeed in 2007 I had some bare bones reviews of the Star Trek spin off Deep Space 9 put to paper, as it was being shown on syndication on Virgin 1 (Channel 1 as it is now known) at the time. Indeed taking a leaf out of the expansion of Chuck Sonnenburgs superb SFDebris reviews to blip TV has spurned me on even more. There is a lot of personal enjoyment for me in mulling over shows that ran through my formative years. So I have decided to put them all together on a separate blog I intend to start up some time in the new year. It makes more sense that way, and not just on a blog seemingly established to picking holes in Peter Hitchens opinion pieces. After all there is no rule to say you can't have more than one blog on the go.

So the shows I intend to review will probably start with Star Trek Deep Space Nine (Seasons 1 to 7 concurrently in viewing order), then the Trek Movies, and Babylon 5 after that. After that, who knows? It's a lot of telly for sure. But I think something like that needs a separate, more specialist blog altogether. I'll start setting notes up at Crimbo, and put the details up on here before everyone is too pissed to be physically capable of reading anything at all as New Years Eve kicks in to gear.

Happy Days.