I Wish They’d Stop Sanitizing History

Recently, I heard that a publisher is going to change the word “nigger” to “slave” in Huckleberry Finn, and my thought is that they missed the point.  Mark Twain was controversial, heck, he still is; the fact that he didn’t want his autobiography published until 100 years after his death speaks to that.  I think Twain had a better grasp of the controversy than the publishing house making the changes seems to think, and, by changing the words, the book will probably lose some of its impact.  If people are so offended by a word that they won’t read a book because of it, than maybe those people should think about that, and what it says about them.  (They also might not want to read the KJV of Deut. 23:2 for a different offensive word.)  Starting down this road of censorship seems like a bad idea to me.

Another thing I heard about on the news was that the House of Representative’s reading of the Constitution left out the ‘slaves being counted as 3/5′ passage.  It’s almost like they’re trying to rewrite history.  It makes me wonder what else they left out, and what they’ll try to leave out as they write new laws.  Beyond the fact that the people who wrote it were setting guidelines, I get the feeling that the people who pushed for the reading of it were mostly just trying to waste time.  And leaving parts out seems to point to a selective view of history.  Looking at how it was and how things have changed can be a valuable lesson.  Ignoring history doesn’t make it go away.

Let Them Pass

The more I hear about the tax cut expiration, the more I think they should just let them end.  I doubt there will really be that much difference for people who don’t make a lot of money, as the news tells me, they will spend what they get.  And the government can always give them extra refund checks like they have been, so that would easily negate any increase that they may have to pay.  The people who are considered rich, can easily afford their taxes going back to what they were (39%) before they were lowered (35%).  People who make a lot of money tend to invest in long term endeavors, which is what I would do if I were rich so I don’t blame them, but that means that what they spend largely won’t help the economy short term.  So, all these arguments that say letting the tax cuts on them expire will hurt the economy are largely flawed.  And extending them for a couple of years would likely cause more instability than just letting them end now, because many of them could quite likely wait until then to see if they will be extended again then.  If the tax cuts end now, then they will at least know where they stand.  Even if they don’t like it, it would still be more stable than an extension would be.

Also, considering that ‘the rich’ have had to pay up to 94%, they really shouldn’t complain about a minor shift that would take place if the tax cuts ended.  And, as I understand it, a rate of 70% to 75% wasn’t uncommon for the rich for a significant amount of taxation.  It’s not that I’m advocating going back to that, especially right now, but what they are being asked to pay, percentage-wise, isn’t really unreasonable from a historical perspective.  And, it’s not like there aren’t legal ways to lower taxable income, so most of them can lower the amount of money they are paying taxes on in the first place; which means they aren’t really paying the percentage it appears they are.  I don’t have a problem with this in general, but I’ve heard that higher income groups get a higher percentage of income than lower incomes do.  This I have a problem with, if anything lower incomes should get a higher incentive.

But, since it was regarding charitable giving, it’s not likely that the lowest of incomes could participate no matter what the incentive was.  I personally don’t think that people who are below the poverty line should have to pay income tax in the first place, or even close to what is considered the poverty line, because it’s probably too low as it is.  It takes a certain amount of money to pay for the basic things, and taking a percentage of that just doesn’t make sense to me.  Perhaps I’m reading the charts wrong.

Average Joe Ad

I saw an ad clip on the news that said, ‘this ad is not paid for by corporate front groups or oil businesses that are trying to buy this election’.  I don’t know what the rest of the ad said, but this part I can get behind.  It’s nice to see somebody else is fed up with all those ads.  Now, not having seen the rest of the ad, I don’t know if I’d agree with it or not, but it’s interesting that someone used this tactic.  I wonder how effective it will be.  .

Beat That Dead Horse

There are a lot of political ads that just go over the same things again and again.  They keep pointing out the same bad things about their opponents, or the same few positive things about themselves.  I’m getting tired of these ads that essentially beat a dead horse.  Not to mention how often they’re on, it get’s to be wearying.

The Rent’s Too High Party

I recently heard about “The Rent Is Too D*mn High Party”, and I like it.  It tells you exactly what it’s all about, unlike that group named after a childhood game.

Disagree with the Supreme Court

Recently, on the news, I heard a debate question to the effect of, ‘which recent Supreme Court decision do you disagree with?’  And my first thought was, ‘you mean, like the companies as people thing?’  But the person being asked the question asked for a specific example.  Beyond the fact that that didn’t answer the question, it didn’t make sense as a response.  I heard later that the reason the person was tripped up was because she agreed with so many of them.  If she really did agree with most of them, then she should have just said that instead of trying to waffle or misdirect.  I’d like to believe that if she’d done that she’d have gotten less flack for it.

Are There Safe Ones?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled political ad snark…
I recently saw an ad that talked about putting away “dangerous child molesters”; and my first response was ‘there are safe ones?’ I know it’s a silly thing to get hung up on, but that kind of redundancy seems a little excessive. I’m pretty sure that the ad-makers were just trying to make sure their point hit home, but I just found the whole thing distracting.

What’s A “Real” Job?

There’s an ad out there that says one of the people running has never had a real job.  But what is a real job?  It seems like anything in politics isn’t.  But, if that is the case, then why is the guy making the claim even running?  Why would he want to have a job that isn’t a “real” one?  And, perhaps that’s as good a reason not to vote for him as any other; he doesn’t have respect for the job he’s running for.

Generic Happy-Sounding Group

Am I the only one concerned about these generic happy-sounding groups that are running campaign ads?  We don’t really know anything about them or their funding.  My inclination is to support anyone they don’t.  Considering their funding probably comes mainly from big businesses and other people who likely don’t have my best interests at heart, it’s probably a good idea to view these ads as warning signs and vote for anyone but the people supported in them.  this message not brought to you by Generic Happy-Sounding Co.

She’s Not Me

Have you seen the ‘I’m not a witch; I’m nothing you’ve heard; I’m you’ ad?  My immediate response to that was, ‘no, you’re not’.  Not because I believe the negative ads, I don’t think she’s a witch, but because it’s not possible.  She can’t be me, even if she had a similar background to me and outlook on life, she’s not me.  And the fact that she went on a date with a witch tells me she doesn’t.  And, even if that video clip is being taken out of context, she still probably has a different background than me and a different outlook. Beyond that though, it’s physically impossible for her to be me.

Another thing about her ad that’s annoying is the ‘I’m nothing you’ve heard’ line.  If this is true, than nothing she’s said about herself up to this point is true either, and that’s a disturbing thought.  Not that it’s likely she meant that, but it’s not a good thing for her to say.  And it’s probable that something I’ve heard is true, even if I didn’t hear it from her (and I haven’t heard a lot of what she has to say personally).  Regardless, it’s not a good thing to be saying.  So, her ad was lost on me.  Not that it matters, because she’s not running for a position that I can vote on anyway.