Lincoln, Redux

I'm reading a book, Lincoln's Political Thought, by one of my college professors, George Kateb (Modern Political Thought).  I know, I know, "Haven't you read enough books about Lincoln?"  No, I haven't, although the number is now in excess of 40.  I just find Lincoln and his story very inspiring and I learn new things about him with each book.  Anyway, Professor Kateb reminds me in this book of his teaching--he thinks things most of the rest of us don't or can't, yet makes them comprehensible.  And I'm glad to read that he's conflicted at times in "evaluating" Lincoln.  Good because I am often that way, too.  It's also comforting to read confirmation from someone like Professor Kateb of my own views of Lincoln.  It's not light reading and I go about 20 or so pages at a sitting, but it's very worthwhile.

David Bowie died last week.  (I almost wrote "Jim Bowie."  Heh Heh.)  I admit I was never a big fan of his; in fact, I was no fan at all.  I suppose there may have been a tune or two of his when I didn't immediately switch the radio station, but I can't recall any.  I can't recall any songs of his, any of them, although no doubt if someone were to mention the biggest of his hits, I might recognize them or at least some of them.  What surprised me was how many of the articles, online and in the newspapers, referred to him as "a genius."  Huh?  When I think of "genius" I think of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and the like (and I have no idea of their IQs).  But David Bowie "a genius?"  I guess either I don't recognize genius or we've, like so many other things, have redefined (downward I'd say) the word.  That's not a dig at Bowie.  A lot of people liked him and his work.  Great and good for them and him.  But "genius??????"

I have a question.  Back in the '50s and '60s (and likely long before then), blacks were referred to as "coloreds."  That has, for the most part, become passe, seen as pejorative.  I haven't really heard anyone use that term in that context since, well, my parents' generation.  So, my question.  I heard on the radio this AM while picking up Michael from practice a black radio talk show, one I hadn't heard before.  The host referred to "people of color."  I've heard that term before and, of course, there is the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.  Why are "color/colored" acceptable in those contexts?  Just asking......

I think I'm distressed at the news of more and more technology in cars.  One of the big things coming out of the auto show and other places is "driverless cars."  Boy, that seems frightening, doesn't it?  I wonder how those work?  Are there censors that, for example, read other censors in speed limit signs?  How does the car know how fast or slow to go?  Of course, I'm leery of much of the technology in the cars.  I think they are distractions that lead to many accidents, including fatal ones.  But, what do I know?

I still don't understand why Alan Trammell wasn't elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.  He wasn't even close.  Do the sportswriters who vote not really know the game?  Wasn't he flashy enough (doing back flips, for instance) to catch their eyes?  I know a little about the game (OK, I know a lot about the game) and he certainly deserves it.  I might also make the cases for Lou Whitaker and Jack Morris, although I'm not as convinced they are as deserving as Trammell.  But they might be.  And, of course, most folks who know me realize I think Ted Simmons belongs in the Hall, esp when he is held up in comparison with most of the catchers already in the Hall.  Oh, heck, here's one, too.  I also think there's a very deserving athlete who belongs in a local hall of fame--but likely will never get selected.  Too bad, because he, too, is more deserving than many already there.

The two carjackers who murdered a popular local musician in Detroit were caught.  The other day another crowd gathered outside the police station demanding the firing of an officer who shot and killed a man (known as a criminal to the police and local business owners) who was wanted on an outstanding warrant, who was wanted for a larceny earlier in that day, and who fought with the officer for his gun.  I'm not saying the felon deserved to die, but where is the mob, er, crowd protesting at the jail where the two carjackers are being held, protesting that they get the death penalty?  Who gave these guys the right to kill someone because he refused to give up his car?  For that matter, where are the protests against the woman (and her friends?) who shot up a house because someone in it earlier had "dissed" her, the shots killing a 7-year old girl who was playing with her Chris presents?  Who led this woman (and her friends) to think that "dissing" is a capital offense?

I know it's more difficult, but another murderer, to get even, didn't use guns, but merely set a house on fire. The arson ended up killing several people.  So, I guess, guns aren't necessary to kill others.

My Jan column was finally posted.  I hope people like it.  It was fun to write, comparing people's views on favorite and least favorite race distances (running).  Here it is, for your dining and dancing pleasure:  www.runmichigan.com/view.php?id=28412.  Read or delete at your whim.  (You might have to cut and paste into your browser.)

I almost didn't run today.  My two runner partners canceled out on me, which is fine.  I thought, initially, I'd just take a needed day off from running.  Ultimately, largely due to some building frustrations, I opted to get in a short one.  It went, as I should have expected, longer than I had planned.  And, upon finishing, I'm glad I decided not to rest today.  It was a good run.

I was completing one of several online surveys I often do and was stunned when I filled out the demographic data.  There is someone out there with my name, my exact name, who is 67 years old!  67!!!!!!  Really.  I wonder who it is......