Blog #6 There's so much to argue about...

     The leading topic that I'm leaning towards for my persuasive writing paper is the one concerning whether or not works of literature should be altered because they may seem offensive. The main examples of this that I have found is that people want to remove the "n" word from Huckleberry Finn and replace it with the word "slave." I feel that this is not something that should be done and is not fair to the author of the book. If we started changing and patronizing literature, we end up changing the past. There will always be another novel that someone doesn't agree with. If you don't feel that the content in a book is appropriate, don't read it. It's as simple as that. But you  have to accept that when the book was written, the author was simply being honest. I feel that I could relate this controversy back to some previous books that I have read that, although may not be under the chopping block, may have instances in them that are controversal. I don't believe that altering literature will stop at the classics either. If they strip away the "n" word from a book, it could lead to any sexual material being cut away from books. Eventually, books like The Outsiders could be targeted as innappropriate for pre-teens to read because of all the violence and smoking and death in the book. I read The Outsiders when I was in 8th grade and thought it was a great book. Huckleberry Finn is thought of as being a great book. Why spoil that?
     The second arguement that I am weighing against altering literature is the one concerning food stamps. These topics are really polar opposits, but I know about food stamps firsthand from working at a grocery store. My arguement would be supporting the government's possible guidelines for preventing food stamps to be used on unhealthy foods. I cannot tell you enough how often a mother or father comes in and buys cookies, soda, Hostess products, and energy drinks with their Link card. It enranges me that they are having taxpayers, including me, pay for them to bing out on shitty food that will only kill them sooner. I think that food stamps and Link cards are only necessary for buying things that are considered FOOD. I thought that common sense would render a mother or father to stop and think: "wow, I can't afford to have food for my family on my own, so the food they kids and myself receive should be something healthy and worth while." But at least once a night while I'm working, I have a lady come up with seven energy drinks being juggled in her arms and she shoves her Link card at me. There's an overweight man who comes in with his little son, who must only be about six years old, and buys nothing but pop and chips. I think that guidelines for a food stamp or Link card could keep taxpayers happier and prevent obesity rates from increasing.