Where does the "N-Word" stand in the world today?

In class on Friday we talked a lot about the "N-word" and where it is destined to end up in the future. I found this discussion very interesting, especially after watching the movie about Huck Finn and looking at how the concerned parents of 1976 viewed the book. Is this kind of language okay to be used in Huck Finn? I think it is because it is history, and like Bolos said, teenaged students in our society know better than to go around repeating it in the hallways or to our friends. I agree with what the entire classed discussed, such as how it is almost getting whitewashed from history, but it is in history because it was offensive to be used during slavery.
In our world today, where does it stand? I think it stands in the history, or in the music in which some of us listen to. This does not mean it is okay, however because of cultural aspects, I don't think it should ever be used. It is kind of like how I make a lot of jokes about my religion with my friends of the same religion, but when someone of a different religion tries to make that joke, it is just insulting.
This weekend, I was watching The Longest Yard, the 2005 version of a classic movie made in the 70s. It is mainly about a prision relationship between the convicts and the guards. In one of the scenes, the convicts, who were mainly African American, were cleaning up the library, and when they were done, the Caucasian guards dropped more books on the ground. The guards were beating up on this one convict in particular, who is actually Nelly, and kept calling him the "N-word" along with "boy" and many other derrogatory names. I immediatley thought of our discussion when watching this scene. It really surprised me how much our history was coming through through that one scene.

White House e-mails missing

This political cartoon was my artifact for the final yesterday. I related it to many things like the Lessig Lecture on President Bush being pathological, the memory radiolab we listened to, Ellsberg and the pentagon papers, and more recent happenings like Guantanamo Bay and the Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame incident.
For those who don't know, Plame was a CIA operative who Libby disclosed in 2003. In this political cartoon, you see Bush and a CIA agent putting tapes into the fire. These tapes are documentation from the past seven years of Bush being in office.
I am writing this blog because today on the front page of the Chicago Tribune, a story caught my eye that was titled White House E-mails Missing. While reading the article, I realized that this cartoon is based off of what has been happening in the White House since 2003. E-mails are not being properly preserved like a law that President Clinton enacted in March 2000. The administration's emailing system has been under survaillence for quite some time now, and before 2003, all of the archieving tapes were recycled.
When I opened up the paper to read more of the article, Valerie Plame's picture was right next to the article. It is ironic that after such a long time of the tapes being hidden, this article comes out the day after our final.
Robert Dallek, a presidential historian is quoted in the article, saying "Given how secretive this administration has been, it of course fans the flames and suspicions about what has been destroyed here." He wants to get an investigation going to see what is actually going on. Could this be a scandal as big as Watergate?

What about Clinton?

On the front page of yesterday's Tribune, there was an article talking about what may have set Hillary Clinton more over the top than her conteders.

The first reason they addressed was her "rare display of emotion" on Monday. The paper called this the "Reverse Muskie Movement," commenting on Edmund Muskie who ran in 1972, won both the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses, but because of his "display of emotion," did not go on to win the party nomination. Another reason is that she recieved about half of the woman's votes, where in Iowa, Obama recieved the majority of those votes.

So why all of a sudden did this happen? Since her display of emotion, which was no display at all, people have found Clinton much more personable. This artcile says that more people would rather have a personable President, because it would show that they actually care about what they are doing.

I think that this is not really the case. If someone wanted to succeed at their job, it is sure a lot useful to show that they care by showing some emotion. But, I think being President is in an entire different league. Not saying that it was terrible that she "choked up" on Monday, but just saying that many people would pull that off as being a more of a weak than personable measure, which is how I took it.

So, does it have to do with being so enthralled in her work, or was this "rare display of emotion" just a choke up?