Dear Modern Language Association:
I am sure you are familiar with the controversy regarding the new novel from NewSouth productions, which substitutes “slave” for "nigger" in the book currently titled “Huckleberry Finn.” However, I am surprised to see that most of this controversy misses the point. Even with the modifications, Twain’s work is so rife with politically incorrect language that far more extensive editing is necessary. Fortunately, as a revised version of the book currently titled “Tom Sawyer” has not yet been released, we have an opportunity to properly revise this putative American classic before further damage is done. I have most graciously taken it upon myself to initiate this effort, with some further modifications and a sample of revised text.
Of course, simply removing one word is inadequate. What of Jim himself, a real human, and Jim itself, a name that reflects the inhuman kidnapping, brainwashing, and oppression that led Jim, and “Jim”, to their roles in modern literature? To paraphrase Carroll, is Jim Jim, or is Jim simply what he is called? Hence, Jim is hereafter named Olaudah.
The term “Injun Joe” has long been a source of controversy. While there is universal agreement that the term is racist, there is inadequate appreciation of the designation that this gentlemen deserves. For far too long, modern society has ignored the true accomplishments of Native Oppressees, who may not have had official degrees recognized by ivory tower institutions (with all respect to your readers, of course), but were nonetheless quite learned in geography, history, lore, and many other fields. It is time for society to appreciate this knowledge. Hence, “Injun Joe” is now “Professor Josephson”, a Full Professor of Literature with an affiliation not specified in this manuscript.
Huckleberry Finn is, of course, doubly offensive. The phrase “I’m your Huckleberry” may have different associations that include violence. Other berries may be worse. A raspberry is now associated with a denigrating and vulgar emission that could bruise an ego for life. Elderberries convey ageism, and gooseberries may offend readers from underrepresented species. “Blackberry Finn” is right out. The surname is a racial slur. Hence, both “Huckleberry” and “Finn” need to be replaced with two names that are not necessarily negative. We can capitalize on this opportunity to compensate for many decades of antimulticulturalism by calling this character “Dingo Chavez”, although other suggestions are welcome.
Tom Sawyer needs a similar revision. While neither name is as blatantly denigrating as “Huckleberry” or “Finn”, the name also reflects a white European origin that may underrepresent the diversity of the world today. Hence, Dingo Chavez is complemented nicely with Long Thik Pu, whose name reflects influences from other regions. Ben Harper, in a new chapter, opts for surgery to become Sheena Tlateloco.
However, changing names is only the beginning of the solution. Countless other terms in the book currently titled “Tom Sawyer” might give offense. For example, in this engaging dialog, “Huck” informs “The Old Welshman” that he
"stood in the dark and heard the ragged one beg for the widder, and the Spaniard swear he'd spile her looks just as I told you and your two -- "
"What! The deaf and dumb man said all that!"
Huck had made another terrible mistake! He was trying his best to keep the old man from getting the faintest hint of who the Spaniard might be, and yet his tongue seemed determined to get him into trouble in spite of all he could do. He made several efforts to creep out of his scrape, but the old man's eye was upon him and he made blunder after blunder. Presently the Welshman said:
"My boy, don't be afraid of me. I wouldn't hurt a hair of your head for all the world. No -- I'd protect you -- I'd protect you. This Spaniard is not deaf and dumb; you've let that slip without intending it; you can't cover that up now. You know something about that Spaniard that you want to keep dark. Now trust me -- tell me what it is, and trust me -- I won't betray you."
Huck looked into the old man's honest eyes a moment, then bent over and whispered in his ear:
"'Tain't a Spaniard -- it's Injun Joe!"
The Welshman almost jumped out of his chair. In a moment he said:
"It's all plain enough, now. When you talked about notching ears and slitting noses I judged that that was your own embellishment, because white men don't take that sort of revenge. But an Injun! That's a different matter altogether."
It is a hearty, pulse-pounding passage – or would be, were the reader not constantly choked by insulting, misleading associations that clog the stream of consciousness like atherosclerotic plaque. Twain’s ignorance and passive malice are unconscionable. This passage reflects absolutely none of the sentiment and sensitive language of the politically correct movement! Aside from words that could be hurtful to persons with particular conditions, associations, or uniquenesses, the opening sentence implies that damaging a womyn’s appearance is a particularly grievous offense. Readers may be encouraged to associate appearance with character traits, and could not help but ponder violence against wymin. Worse, the passage concludes with the assertion that only persons without color would consider this harrowing prospect unconscionable. Hence, this threat is replaced with a lighthearted deflection.
"stood in the dark and heard the sartorially challenged gentleman beg for Ms. Douglas, whose current or former marital status may be kept private, and Don Bastardo swore he'd spile her books just as I told you and your two -- "
"What! The consistently quiet man said all that!"
Dingo had made another terrible mistake! He was trying his best to keep the wise gentleman from getting the faintest hint of who Don Bastardo might be, and yet his tongue seemed determined to get him into trouble in spite of all he could do. He made several efforts to creep out of his scrape, but the wise gentleman's eye was upon him and he made blunder after blunder. Presently the gentleman with unconventional payment tendencies said:
"My offspring, don't be afraid of me. I wouldn't hurt a hair of your head for free tofu. No -- I'd protect you -- I'd protect you. Don Bastardo is not consistently quiet; you've let that slip without intending it; you can't cover that up now. You know something about Don Bastardo that you want to keep secret. Now trust me -- tell me what it is, and trust me -- I won't betray you."
Dingo looked into the wise gentleman's honest eyes a moment, then bent over and whispered in his ear:
"'Tain't Don Bastardo - it's Professor Josephson!"
The gentleman with unconventional payment tendencies almost jumped out of his chair. In a moment he said:
"It's all plain enough, now. When you talked about notching "nigger" and substituting "slave," I judged that that was your own embellishment, because healthy people don't take that sort of revenge. But a Literature Professor! That's a different matter altogether."
Friday, January 28, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
uv ajed
Is Telepathy Sound? Bem et al. (2010) Scientific grant proposal
Background and Need
Recently, Bem et al. (2010) has raised a firestorm of controversy over statistics and a nova of controversy over their highly significant and nontrivial implications. Two keys to the scientific method are replicability and dissemination. New themes or directions should rely on studies that other could replicate to see whether similar results occur. One effort to replicate one experiment (Galak and Nelson 2010) did not produce an outcome supporting ESP. As its authors correctly noted, this failure to replicate results does not conclusively answer this very important research question. Hence, further efforts to assess this phenomenon are needed.
Opportunity
Furthermore, these efforts might be extended to improve the likelihood of detecting precognition. A recurring notion in Bem et al. (2010) is that persons could anticipate erotic stimuli (specifically, images presented on a monitor) statistically above chance because of ESP, and that they did not anticipate non-erotic stimuli above chance. This presumably occurs because only erotic stimuli are sufficiently titillating to produce arousal even a few seconds before their generation. Notably, these effects occurred in unscreened Psychology students, and hence could be validated by other persons who work in a Psychology environment, such as the grantwriter and his colleagues.
Hence, this proposal capitalizes on this opportunity by delivering a series of studies that replicate key elements of Bem et al. (2010). Furthermore, to increase the likelihood that precognitive effects (if existent) are observed, the emotional salience of the erotic stimuli will be substantially increased.
Research Procedure
This study will assess whether male persons who work in a Psychology environment can anticipate erotic events before they occur. Advertisements will be posted through numerous mechanisms to seek female Psychology students eager to contribute to a scientific endeavor of pivotal importance. To avoid ethical issues surrounding proper treatment of research subjects, these persons will not be research subjects (as noted below).
First, the grantwriter (or one of his colleagues who he alone may designate) will be seated in a comfortable leather chair. Next, this person (who is the research subject) will be asked to guess which of two curtains will contain the erotic stimulus. After the guess is recorded, the student will be asked to stand behind one of the curtains (decided completely randomly) and disrobe. Next, the curtain that the subject picked will be lifted. If the experimenter fails to correctly guess the curtain that would contain the erotic stimulus, he will receive a mild electric shock. If he successfully guesses, the subject will be told that, for the good of science, she must provide the most erotically exhilarating reward ever. Indeed, if humanity is ever to resolve one of the most pressing and pondering quandaries in its entire history. you must challenge conceivable limits of what two human beings can handle. The experimenter shall similarly so endeavor, thereby increasing the likelihood that any effect (if any) is found.
One methodological facet of Bem et al. (2010) that was noted in Alcock's reply is that study's reliance on images that the research subject selected. To maximize accord with the original article, we will also allow the subject to select the erotic stimuli in this study.
To ensure that any desired effects can be found, we will also replicate scientific procedures and attitudes regarding multiple comparisons and post-hoc testing. Specifically, all subjects will complete a questionnaire with numerous questions about background, lifestyle, phone number, and other details that may correlate with psychic ability. Next, we will conduct several t tests. We will assess whether the subject could correctly guess the curtain more often than chance for students with certain characteristics or combinations of them. We will not apply correction for multiple comparisons, thus increasing the likelihood of attaining significant results. We will then develop an hypothesis consistent with these results.
Our guarantee of this project's success is the exceptional enthusiasm of the consortium. Our consortium relies on experts with very strong experience wanting to conduct a study of this nature. While we recognize that consortia and proposals often espouse eagerness toward a certain research direction, we really really mean it this time. We are very open to negotiate as needed to make this project a success. For example, to both broaden the statistical base and facilitate the reviewing procedure, it may be scientifically appropriate for some of the persons reviewing this grant to also participate as research subjects.
Conclusion
In summary, we need to resolve whether ESP is real. Bem et al. (2010) suggested that people may be able to anticipate erotic stimuli through ESP, but effect sizes were small, and could be amplified via more erotic stimuli. The opportunity to capitalize on this potential Kuhnian paradigm shift can not be ignored.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1699970
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_alcocks_back_from_the_future_comments_on_bem
Background and Need
Recently, Bem et al. (2010) has raised a firestorm of controversy over statistics and a nova of controversy over their highly significant and nontrivial implications. Two keys to the scientific method are replicability and dissemination. New themes or directions should rely on studies that other could replicate to see whether similar results occur. One effort to replicate one experiment (Galak and Nelson 2010) did not produce an outcome supporting ESP. As its authors correctly noted, this failure to replicate results does not conclusively answer this very important research question. Hence, further efforts to assess this phenomenon are needed.
Opportunity
Furthermore, these efforts might be extended to improve the likelihood of detecting precognition. A recurring notion in Bem et al. (2010) is that persons could anticipate erotic stimuli (specifically, images presented on a monitor) statistically above chance because of ESP, and that they did not anticipate non-erotic stimuli above chance. This presumably occurs because only erotic stimuli are sufficiently titillating to produce arousal even a few seconds before their generation. Notably, these effects occurred in unscreened Psychology students, and hence could be validated by other persons who work in a Psychology environment, such as the grantwriter and his colleagues.
Hence, this proposal capitalizes on this opportunity by delivering a series of studies that replicate key elements of Bem et al. (2010). Furthermore, to increase the likelihood that precognitive effects (if existent) are observed, the emotional salience of the erotic stimuli will be substantially increased.
Research Procedure
This study will assess whether male persons who work in a Psychology environment can anticipate erotic events before they occur. Advertisements will be posted through numerous mechanisms to seek female Psychology students eager to contribute to a scientific endeavor of pivotal importance. To avoid ethical issues surrounding proper treatment of research subjects, these persons will not be research subjects (as noted below).
First, the grantwriter (or one of his colleagues who he alone may designate) will be seated in a comfortable leather chair. Next, this person (who is the research subject) will be asked to guess which of two curtains will contain the erotic stimulus. After the guess is recorded, the student will be asked to stand behind one of the curtains (decided completely randomly) and disrobe. Next, the curtain that the subject picked will be lifted. If the experimenter fails to correctly guess the curtain that would contain the erotic stimulus, he will receive a mild electric shock. If he successfully guesses, the subject will be told that, for the good of science, she must provide the most erotically exhilarating reward ever. Indeed, if humanity is ever to resolve one of the most pressing and pondering quandaries in its entire history. you must challenge conceivable limits of what two human beings can handle. The experimenter shall similarly so endeavor, thereby increasing the likelihood that any effect (if any) is found.
One methodological facet of Bem et al. (2010) that was noted in Alcock's reply is that study's reliance on images that the research subject selected. To maximize accord with the original article, we will also allow the subject to select the erotic stimuli in this study.
To ensure that any desired effects can be found, we will also replicate scientific procedures and attitudes regarding multiple comparisons and post-hoc testing. Specifically, all subjects will complete a questionnaire with numerous questions about background, lifestyle, phone number, and other details that may correlate with psychic ability. Next, we will conduct several t tests. We will assess whether the subject could correctly guess the curtain more often than chance for students with certain characteristics or combinations of them. We will not apply correction for multiple comparisons, thus increasing the likelihood of attaining significant results. We will then develop an hypothesis consistent with these results.
Our guarantee of this project's success is the exceptional enthusiasm of the consortium. Our consortium relies on experts with very strong experience wanting to conduct a study of this nature. While we recognize that consortia and proposals often espouse eagerness toward a certain research direction, we really really mean it this time. We are very open to negotiate as needed to make this project a success. For example, to both broaden the statistical base and facilitate the reviewing procedure, it may be scientifically appropriate for some of the persons reviewing this grant to also participate as research subjects.
Conclusion
In summary, we need to resolve whether ESP is real. Bem et al. (2010) suggested that people may be able to anticipate erotic stimuli through ESP, but effect sizes were small, and could be amplified via more erotic stimuli. The opportunity to capitalize on this potential Kuhnian paradigm shift can not be ignored.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1699970
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/response_to_alcocks_back_from_the_future_comments_on_bem
Friday, January 21, 2011
ET Nay
I remember reading several months ago that ETA was trying to negotiate, and saw some updates last week. They said that ETA offered a cease-fire. I thought, good, that's progress. Then it said Spain said no. Oh, those scheming Nationalists, I thought! Then it explained why Spain said no: ETA only offered the ceasefire on the conditions that it not give up any weapons, and "progress" on Basque independence.
Why is this even news? Isn't this exactly the same position they held forever? "If you give us independence, then we will stop killing civilians." Duh. Yeah, we know that's what you what. The reason you did not get it is not that you didn't phrase it coyly enough. (Another reason is the Spaniards and French arrested half of you last year, so how about YOU make concessions?)
Is this an improvement of an earlier held position? Did they previously say: "If you give us independence, then we will continue killing civilians, and also cats" and then try to negotiate from there?
Berlin, 1945
Adolf Hitler complained about the Allied rejection of his cease-fire offer today, according to a man pointing a gun at me right now. "Why do they reject peace?" Hitler said, who is widely known for seeking peace, and being an underappreciated painter as well. "We made our offer and they chose war. How could they? What of all the innocent people?"
US President Roosevelt replied that he was always open to peace negotiations. However, he noted that the cease-fire offer included two conditions: first, the Nazi people would not give up weapons; and second, "progress" on non-German independence. Hitler agreed that the failed negotiations were America's fault. "If we could only resolve this nagging technicality regarding your independence, we could have a cease-fire. The world would be free of war. But no, the allies chose war, so we will push them all the way back to the Rhine!"
Why is this even news? Isn't this exactly the same position they held forever? "If you give us independence, then we will stop killing civilians." Duh. Yeah, we know that's what you what. The reason you did not get it is not that you didn't phrase it coyly enough. (Another reason is the Spaniards and French arrested half of you last year, so how about YOU make concessions?)
Is this an improvement of an earlier held position? Did they previously say: "If you give us independence, then we will continue killing civilians, and also cats" and then try to negotiate from there?
Berlin, 1945
Adolf Hitler complained about the Allied rejection of his cease-fire offer today, according to a man pointing a gun at me right now. "Why do they reject peace?" Hitler said, who is widely known for seeking peace, and being an underappreciated painter as well. "We made our offer and they chose war. How could they? What of all the innocent people?"
US President Roosevelt replied that he was always open to peace negotiations. However, he noted that the cease-fire offer included two conditions: first, the Nazi people would not give up weapons; and second, "progress" on non-German independence. Hitler agreed that the failed negotiations were America's fault. "If we could only resolve this nagging technicality regarding your independence, we could have a cease-fire. The world would be free of war. But no, the allies chose war, so we will push them all the way back to the Rhine!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
