Am I One Of Those?

Once upon a time in America, especially in 'the South,' there was a term used that we no longer hear much.  It seems to have finally fallen away.  Progress, I guess.  But it lived for a good hundred years after Emancipation and died a slow, bitter death, if indeed it really is dead.  The term was "nigger lover" and it was the harshest imprecation one (usually southern) white man could hurl at another.  "Nigger lover!"

Think about it.  What does one say back to something like that?  To deny it is to acknowledge that it's a valid term, and that it's a bad thing.  "Nigger lover!"  It's the word that caused Ty Cobb to snap, in the 19 teens.  After ignoring verbal abuse from a deranged fan for six innings one day, Cobb 'snapped' and leaped into the seats and pummeled a paraplegic (as it turned out) after he heard "Nigger lover!".  How dare that guy?

What did it even mean?  In the minds of the dimwits who would use such a term there were two kinds of people.  White people and "niggers."  Remember the 'n word' was used quite casually by a large segment of the population for that hundred years.  And "niggers" needed to 'know their place.'  (Hence the term 'uppity' for the ones that  didn't.)  A "nigger lover" was anybody that wasn't sufficiently 'down' with the idea of White Supremacy.  "Nigger lover!"

I've never been called that and I don't remember ever reading or hearing the term except historically.  But there's a new term I'm seeing and hearing a lot, just lately, one that I HAVE been called.  The term is "Obama worshiper."  It apparently means someone who is not sufficiently 'down' with the idea that President Obama is an America-hating, reverse-racist, terrorist-sympathizing, America-apologist, secret Muslim, intent on turning the U.S. into a Marxist-Socialist-Islamo-Fascist state, with gay marriage and abortion on demand for all.  Which makes me one, I guess, since I don't accept any of those things as being grounded in reality, much less even remotely true. 

Kind of weird, too, since the idea of actually 'worshiping' seems to me like some relic from our dark and distant past.  It seems to me that any being actually worthy of being worshiped would not want to be (It would lack the requisite vanity) and any being that demanded it would not merit it (but only want it for its own ego-gratification.)

Obama worshiper!  And I'm hearing this from otherwise normal people too, who work and play and eat and sleep and live and love just like you and me.  They just have this one blind spot.  Somehow they can't see, can't even allow for the possibility, that the rest of us see a man trying to do a very difficult job in a very difficult, even hostile environment and doing a pretty fair job of it.  Nothing more.  No worship.  No 'Lord Barry.'  Just a president that looks different from the previous forty-two who isn't pursuing a right-wing agenda (as we knew he wouldn't). 

I was asked in the summer of '08 if I thought America was really ready for a black president.  I said, of course.  Why not?  Was I wrong?     

Obama

Question: Has Obama kept all his campaign promises? 

Answer: No.  (Has anybody, ever?  Also no.)  Has he kept some?  Yes.  Which ones has he not kept that he should have? One that gets mentioned frequently is that he promised to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and then didn't.  True enough.  Should he have?  Maybe.  I'd like to see us cede that territory back to Cuba.  We basically stole it, didn't we?  But whether we keep the territory or not I've never liked the idea of secret prisons.  I have no say in what Cuba does, or China, or Russia.  I do get to comment on what the U.S. does, though, and vote based on what the candidates say when they run for office.  Maybe Romney should promise to close Gitmo.  He could always back off it tomorrow ...

Question: Has Obama disappointed me, a 2008 and likely 2012 supporter? 
Answer: Yes.  Right from day one when he had Rick Warren at the inauguration to invoke the blessing of an almost certainly imaginary super being.  Not  that I don't understand it.  Even if he thought it was a bad idea he'd have likely done it.  Though he could have chosen somebody less 'controversial.' 

I also have been very disappointed with his administrations continued prosecution of the 'War On Drugs.'  They've even stepped it up and gone after dispensers of 'medical' marijuana in states which permit such dispensaries.  Grade: F

Question: Would I like a better candidate to vote for?

Answer: yes.  Anybody know of one?  That's actually running?  (I won't vote for Romney.)

New Book

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 ...  

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? 

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.  ;  )

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.

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.