I'm starting Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863 - 1877.
This is the last paragraph of the author's preface:
Over a century ago, prodded by the demands of four million men and women just emerging from slavery, Americans made their first attempt to live up to the noble professions of their political creed -- something few societies have ever done. The effort produced a sweeping redefinition of the nation's public life and a violent reaction that ultimately destroyed much, but by no means all, of what had been accomplished. From the enforcement of the rights of citizens to the stubborn problems of economic and racial justice, the issues central to Reconstruction are as old as the American republic, and as contemporary as the inequalities that still afflict our society.
Should be good ...
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
God and Money
Darrell over at The Yellow Fringe mentioned that Candidate Romney has promised to leave In God We Trust on our money. As if (wink, wink) that Godless heathen Obama with his 'War On Religion' has threatened to have it removed. Which he of course has NOT.
Fortunately for me I don't expect any better from our presidential candidates. I don't need them to campaign, really. No matter how many disappointments I can list regarding Obama, and there are several, there isn't a chance in hell I will be voting for anybody that today's Republican Party is going to be nominating anytime soon. Romney actually had potential, as did McCain, in my opinion, but they are/were both so damned determined to pander to the far right that they might as well be Herman Cain, or Donald Trump. They both (Romney and McCain) willingly threw away their credibility as normal, rational, free-thinking politicians to court the narrow-minded low information voter.
McCain probably had no chance of winning anyway, 2008 was going to be a 'switch to the other party' year. But 2012 was shaping up to be another one, already. The old, moderate Romney would have had a decent chance of winning. But of course he never would have gotten the Republican nomination. Aye, there's the rub!
But anyway, I meant to write about God and Money. Here's a question. How many of you actually give a shit if it says In God We Trust on our money, or not? In fact, how many of you would even notice, if it was quietly gone tomorrow? Not a whole lot, I bet.
And does anybody think 'God' could possibly care? About a slogan on our money?
Fortunately for me I don't expect any better from our presidential candidates. I don't need them to campaign, really. No matter how many disappointments I can list regarding Obama, and there are several, there isn't a chance in hell I will be voting for anybody that today's Republican Party is going to be nominating anytime soon. Romney actually had potential, as did McCain, in my opinion, but they are/were both so damned determined to pander to the far right that they might as well be Herman Cain, or Donald Trump. They both (Romney and McCain) willingly threw away their credibility as normal, rational, free-thinking politicians to court the narrow-minded low information voter.
McCain probably had no chance of winning anyway, 2008 was going to be a 'switch to the other party' year. But 2012 was shaping up to be another one, already. The old, moderate Romney would have had a decent chance of winning. But of course he never would have gotten the Republican nomination. Aye, there's the rub!
But anyway, I meant to write about God and Money. Here's a question. How many of you actually give a shit if it says In God We Trust on our money, or not? In fact, how many of you would even notice, if it was quietly gone tomorrow? Not a whole lot, I bet.
And does anybody think 'God' could possibly care? About a slogan on our money?
Saturday, September 8, 2012
I'm Back!
Figured out my log in issues and want to make some NFL predictions. I'll keep it very brief.
In the NFC I see the Packers at the 49ers in the NFC championship game.
In the AFC I'll take Houston at New England.
I'll predict the winners of those two games the night before they happen. ; )
In the NFC I see the Packers at the 49ers in the NFC championship game.
In the AFC I'll take Houston at New England.
I'll predict the winners of those two games the night before they happen. ; )
Monday, August 27, 2012
Latest Reads
So I've finished four books just lately. I mentioned the Wilson one a while back. Finished it about two weeks ago. I recommend it if you want to learn a great deal about our 28th president. It also gave me a somewhat new perspective on WWI.
Most recently (last night) I finished a biography of Bart Starr. It was very engaging, written by a guy who argues that Bart Starr is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time, but about half way through I started to count the factual errors in the text and became increasingly annoyed by them. Mike Ditka was not a linebacker, he was a tight end. 'Acid' and LSD refer to the same substance. About a dozen like that, eventually. Plus, the whole thing lacked depth. I would have loved this book when I was 13.
Friday night I finished Thirteen Moons, by Charles Frazier (Cold Mountain). I read this when it was new, back in the summer of '07. Just felt like reading it again. Frazier is a master of historical fiction. In Thirteen Moons Will Cooper, orphaned at a young age, is sent by the adults who had been caring for him to the frontier, at the age of twelve, to mind a store and 'earn his keep.' He is adopted by the Cherokee and lives with them for the rest of his rather long life.
In between Wilson and Frazier I finished Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. I had previously read his The Evolution of God, and while this one is a bit more of a slog it was worth finishing (I put it back on the shelf once but resumed it a week later). Wright examines an age old question: is there a point to all this? He argues that there is, and further that there needn't be a 'God' in the equation. Why? I'm not sure. Likely because he has decided that we're never going to know whether or not there is a 'God' but he thinks it would be 'nice' if we can still have some of the things that we usually attribute to God. Such as a purpose, one that reaches beyond our own, brief, lives, even.
The gist of his argument is the idea of Nonzero (it's in the title), a concept he takes from game theory. Zero sum games promote conflict, he argues (successfully, in my opinion) and inhibit cultural progress almost always. When humans recognize the value of cooperation, looking at 'nonzerosumness,' culture advances. Leading to the development of language, writing, science, art, etc. And also allowing for the proliferation of the species.
Then he takes it to another level and shows how non-sentient life behaves in the same way. When we study evolutionary theory we see a 'direction.' God would be the director if we accept the notion of God, but he makes a strong (convincing, for my money) case for nature pushing everything forward. God could still be there but He has covered His tracks, if He is.
I'd recommend any one of these books except the Starr bio. Unless you like books like that.
Most recently (last night) I finished a biography of Bart Starr. It was very engaging, written by a guy who argues that Bart Starr is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time, but about half way through I started to count the factual errors in the text and became increasingly annoyed by them. Mike Ditka was not a linebacker, he was a tight end. 'Acid' and LSD refer to the same substance. About a dozen like that, eventually. Plus, the whole thing lacked depth. I would have loved this book when I was 13.
Friday night I finished Thirteen Moons, by Charles Frazier (Cold Mountain). I read this when it was new, back in the summer of '07. Just felt like reading it again. Frazier is a master of historical fiction. In Thirteen Moons Will Cooper, orphaned at a young age, is sent by the adults who had been caring for him to the frontier, at the age of twelve, to mind a store and 'earn his keep.' He is adopted by the Cherokee and lives with them for the rest of his rather long life.
In between Wilson and Frazier I finished Robert Wright's Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. I had previously read his The Evolution of God, and while this one is a bit more of a slog it was worth finishing (I put it back on the shelf once but resumed it a week later). Wright examines an age old question: is there a point to all this? He argues that there is, and further that there needn't be a 'God' in the equation. Why? I'm not sure. Likely because he has decided that we're never going to know whether or not there is a 'God' but he thinks it would be 'nice' if we can still have some of the things that we usually attribute to God. Such as a purpose, one that reaches beyond our own, brief, lives, even.
The gist of his argument is the idea of Nonzero (it's in the title), a concept he takes from game theory. Zero sum games promote conflict, he argues (successfully, in my opinion) and inhibit cultural progress almost always. When humans recognize the value of cooperation, looking at 'nonzerosumness,' culture advances. Leading to the development of language, writing, science, art, etc. And also allowing for the proliferation of the species.
Then he takes it to another level and shows how non-sentient life behaves in the same way. When we study evolutionary theory we see a 'direction.' God would be the director if we accept the notion of God, but he makes a strong (convincing, for my money) case for nature pushing everything forward. God could still be there but He has covered His tracks, if He is.
I'd recommend any one of these books except the Starr bio. Unless you like books like that.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Latest Letter
Contrary to the opinion
expressed in a Saturday letter, the purpose of sensible gun regulation
isn't to "disarm the good." It is to keep guns out of the hands of
mentally/emotionally unstable individuals and to limit the firepower
that any one person can bring to bear in a given situation. Background
checks won't catch every person with stability issues, but they'll
help. A ban on assault-type weapons and extended magazines won't keep
everyone from obtaining them, but it will make it harder, and will allow
intervention by law enforcement before these weapons are used, at time
of purchase or upon discovery.
The problem with more people carrying more guns as a solution is that most people don't want to carry. Even in the 'old west' most people didn't. What we'd rather have is fewer chances for unstable people to easily act on their homicidal impulses. If a responsible citizen wants to arm himself for personal protection he still has that right. We just want him to demonstrate that he IS responsible. And if he can't protect himself with a nine shot semi-automatic pistol (or less) then maybe he should make some life-style changes. Is that too much to ask?
Sent about five minutes ago.
The problem with more people carrying more guns as a solution is that most people don't want to carry. Even in the 'old west' most people didn't. What we'd rather have is fewer chances for unstable people to easily act on their homicidal impulses. If a responsible citizen wants to arm himself for personal protection he still has that right. We just want him to demonstrate that he IS responsible. And if he can't protect himself with a nine shot semi-automatic pistol (or less) then maybe he should make some life-style changes. Is that too much to ask?
Sent about five minutes ago.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Droids
I've recently been informed that many people who go to college have their heads "filled with mush" by the professors, while there. Here's the actual statement:
"i find the ones how go to school really dont really have the answers they domt evan have any commen scents.but they can read spell and look good on paper.but there are some how go and really do learn they do not go and let there professor fell there head with mush. That is where you get the term droids."
I'm pretty sure that's NOT where we get the term 'droids, actually. But I digress. Here's another quote:
(Professor Suri, History 102) "It's great to learn about history. It's a fascinating field that tells us much about how humans interact. But the primary reason that you're here, in this room right now and at this school, is to develop your critical thinking skills. That is the primary purpose of higher education."
Ever hear that from the pulpit? Or on right wing talk radio? (Me either.)
Here's some more. Sign displayed in Professor Allen's lecture hall, Botany 240: Plants and Man:
"The greatest impediment to education is in admitting that one doesn't know something."
Professor Graham, Botany 100: "There is no certainty in scientific knowledge. Just degrees of likelihood."
I'll add more as I remember them (said the droid).
"i find the ones how go to school really dont really have the answers they domt evan have any commen scents.but they can read spell and look good on paper.but there are some how go and really do learn they do not go and let there professor fell there head with mush. That is where you get the term droids."
I'm pretty sure that's NOT where we get the term 'droids, actually. But I digress. Here's another quote:
(Professor Suri, History 102) "It's great to learn about history. It's a fascinating field that tells us much about how humans interact. But the primary reason that you're here, in this room right now and at this school, is to develop your critical thinking skills. That is the primary purpose of higher education."
Ever hear that from the pulpit? Or on right wing talk radio? (Me either.)
Here's some more. Sign displayed in Professor Allen's lecture hall, Botany 240: Plants and Man:
"The greatest impediment to education is in admitting that one doesn't know something."
Professor Graham, Botany 100: "There is no certainty in scientific knowledge. Just degrees of likelihood."
I'll add more as I remember them (said the droid).
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Why Don't I Go To Church?
I have been asked, several times over the years, why I don't go to church. I have a standard answer. I say, think about why you DO go to church and then turn that around. Many people go to church to 'set an example' for their kids. I have no kids. Or because they think they're supposed to. I don't think that. Or because they truly want to 'worship God.' I do not. I don't think there IS a 'God.' Some people like the 'fellowship', being a part of the community. I get that in other ways. Some people think it 'feeds the spirit.' I don't believe in spirits.
These are all good reasons for other people, I think. Just not good reasons for me. Most people accept my answer. Once in a while someone will try to sway me with some argument or another but generally they quickly realize that I really have heard all the arguments for it and they really don't work for me.
I do actually go to church, sometimes. Weddings, baptisms and funerals about cover it. So, once or twice a year, generally. And of course I went a lot when I was young. Catholic, even. So I'm familiar with what goes on there. I went for a baptism back in December. It was at a local Lutheran church. I don't think I had ever been to a Lutheran church before; if I had it was for a wedding and I didn't really listen for any differences between what they say and do and what the Catholics do. This last time I listened. Very similar. Extremely so, even. And therein lies the rub. ; )
The biggest reason I don't go is that I don't accept their main premise; that humans are stained by Original Sin and that Jesus Christ died for us so we could have our sins forgiven and achieve everlasting life in 'heaven.' And I don't accept that premise in just about every way possible.
First, that whole 'Original Sin' story is absolutely contingent upon accepting the Creation Story in the Book of Genesis. I do not. How can I? It makes a great story but was it even meant to be taken literally? I have my doubts. Every culture has its 'lore,' its mythology. Every other culture understands that the old stories are just that: old stories.
To accept the story I have to believe that there is an all-powerful super-being, and I do mean ALL-POWERFUL. Powerful enough to create the entire universe, every molecule in it, by simply willing it. I don't believe that. It's just too preposterous for me to even entertain the notion for very long. But of course there's more. This all-powerful super-being, 'God,' created this whole universe so humans would have a place to reside. He created humans, apparently, 'out of love.' How love existed in a universe that didn't exist yet I've never heard. Or maybe loneliness would be a better explanation. God was lonely. Well who wouldn't be, after an eternity or so of being all alone? But I digress.
After doing all this creating, (in six days, not all at once, not over millions of years) including a Garden of Paradise, God decides to 'test' his favored creatures. Basically, he tells them not to do something, then sends a talking snake to deceive them. One of them, anyway. Naturally, being children, more or less, they fall into the trap, as God must have known they would. And so God decides, almost literally, to Hell with them! They are turned out of Paradise and begin to lead lives of suffering. Sounds to me like God has anger issues. But he loves us, he's all about love and forgiveness. Just not right away.
Apparently God eventually 'calms down,' figures maybe (maybe?) he has been a little (a little?) rash. (This is after he kills the entire human race save for one family in a world-wide flood.) He concocts a plan to appease himself. He impregnates a virgin, waits thirty-three years, then watches as these humans that he has such disdain for (but still loves) kill this 'son' of his in the most grisly, painful way they can conceive and lo and behold, all is forgiven. (Or can be.) A fresh start for everybody, forgiveness of sins, original and otherwise, IF they/we/I accept that Jesus (the aforementioned son) did this FOR them/us/me. Somehow it 'takes away the sins of the world.' Why this impressed God so much has always been unclear to me since he orchestrated the whole thing Himself but I'm told if I just believe it I can have eternal life. Hunh.
Well, sorry, I don't. I can't. Feel free to yourself though.
These are all good reasons for other people, I think. Just not good reasons for me. Most people accept my answer. Once in a while someone will try to sway me with some argument or another but generally they quickly realize that I really have heard all the arguments for it and they really don't work for me.
I do actually go to church, sometimes. Weddings, baptisms and funerals about cover it. So, once or twice a year, generally. And of course I went a lot when I was young. Catholic, even. So I'm familiar with what goes on there. I went for a baptism back in December. It was at a local Lutheran church. I don't think I had ever been to a Lutheran church before; if I had it was for a wedding and I didn't really listen for any differences between what they say and do and what the Catholics do. This last time I listened. Very similar. Extremely so, even. And therein lies the rub. ; )
The biggest reason I don't go is that I don't accept their main premise; that humans are stained by Original Sin and that Jesus Christ died for us so we could have our sins forgiven and achieve everlasting life in 'heaven.' And I don't accept that premise in just about every way possible.
First, that whole 'Original Sin' story is absolutely contingent upon accepting the Creation Story in the Book of Genesis. I do not. How can I? It makes a great story but was it even meant to be taken literally? I have my doubts. Every culture has its 'lore,' its mythology. Every other culture understands that the old stories are just that: old stories.
To accept the story I have to believe that there is an all-powerful super-being, and I do mean ALL-POWERFUL. Powerful enough to create the entire universe, every molecule in it, by simply willing it. I don't believe that. It's just too preposterous for me to even entertain the notion for very long. But of course there's more. This all-powerful super-being, 'God,' created this whole universe so humans would have a place to reside. He created humans, apparently, 'out of love.' How love existed in a universe that didn't exist yet I've never heard. Or maybe loneliness would be a better explanation. God was lonely. Well who wouldn't be, after an eternity or so of being all alone? But I digress.
After doing all this creating, (in six days, not all at once, not over millions of years) including a Garden of Paradise, God decides to 'test' his favored creatures. Basically, he tells them not to do something, then sends a talking snake to deceive them. One of them, anyway. Naturally, being children, more or less, they fall into the trap, as God must have known they would. And so God decides, almost literally, to Hell with them! They are turned out of Paradise and begin to lead lives of suffering. Sounds to me like God has anger issues. But he loves us, he's all about love and forgiveness. Just not right away.
Apparently God eventually 'calms down,' figures maybe (maybe?) he has been a little (a little?) rash. (This is after he kills the entire human race save for one family in a world-wide flood.) He concocts a plan to appease himself. He impregnates a virgin, waits thirty-three years, then watches as these humans that he has such disdain for (but still loves) kill this 'son' of his in the most grisly, painful way they can conceive and lo and behold, all is forgiven. (Or can be.) A fresh start for everybody, forgiveness of sins, original and otherwise, IF they/we/I accept that Jesus (the aforementioned son) did this FOR them/us/me. Somehow it 'takes away the sins of the world.' Why this impressed God so much has always been unclear to me since he orchestrated the whole thing Himself but I'm told if I just believe it I can have eternal life. Hunh.
Well, sorry, I don't. I can't. Feel free to yourself though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)