The build-up to the 10th anniversary of my dad's suicide has been fairly quiet emotionally. I didn't even think about it much until the past week, although it has haunted me over the weekend. Yet, I didn't feel like rehashing the event in detail, as I have in the past. If you are interested, you can read about it here.
My thoughts have been most focused on the notes my dad left. He left 10 of them. Randy Cecil was nothing if not a planner. He knew exactly what he was doing and planned everything, even burning a disk of music he wanted played at his funeral. Out of the 9 personalized notes, the envelope with my name on it read, "Jason, Mom, Dad, and Judy". I didn't get my own note, which has bugged me. As his only son, I thought I deserved a note of my own. Perhaps he couldn't face the prospect. He adored my grandparents, so perhaps it was just easier to lump me into a note for them and his sister, my Aunt Judy.
Anyway, by the bedside table, Dad left the following note (italics indicate something written in my dad's handwriting):
February 13, 2001 5AM
To Whom It May Concern:
I took my own life without the knowledge or assistance of anyone. I used prescription drugs that I saved over time without my doctor's knowledge. Please notify Pam Cecil at 381-3332 (work) or 266-1591 (home) and Michelle Harr at 243-4882 (work), 312-4409 (mobile) or 223-4403 (home). Do not notify my parents or son as I prefer Pam or Michelle to do that.
Please give my will to Michelle Harr as she is my executor.
Randal H. Cecil
Randal H. Cecil
My physician is Dr. James Borders.
My therapist is Jacky Thomas.
I was struck at how, even at the moment of his impending suicide, Dad wanted to be sure that no one got into trouble because of his actions. He explicitly clears his medical doctor and therapist of any professional blame. And that was the right thing for him to do. I worked with Jacky to try to save him, and he fooled her in the end just as he fooled me.
Of course, the police had to open and read all of the suicide notes, even though mine was marked: "ONLY FOR Jason, Mom, Dad & Judy Personal"
This note read:
February 13, 2001
Dear Jason, Mom, Dad, and Judy,
I'm so sorry to cause you this pain, but I could not erase my pain any other way. I love you all very much. Please do not blame yourselves as you did all you could do. Please also know that I tried very, very hard for a long time to get well and could not. The pain hurts just as much, if not more, now than it did at first. Please do not blame anyone else either. Please forgive me.
It is my strong desire to be cremated and my ashes scattered here in Lexington at Raven Run Sanctuary. I do not want my body displayed! Just have my picture instead (the one I gave to Jason and Judy at Christmas). I would like a memorial service here in Lexington so that my friends can attend. I prefer not to have a minister or priest speak, just my friends and family. I created a CD of John Denver and Judy Collins music that I would like played at the memorial please.
As for my guitar and recordings, Judy, please let Jason have first pick. Also, I want my John Denver vinyl records and videos to be sent to Linda Symons in Australia.
Jason, please know that I am very proud of you and love you more than I can ever say. Please be strong, take care of your mother, and live a good life.
I've got to go.
Love,
Randal (Dad)
Randal
Dad had a really bad habit of signing cards and such to me with his name followed by "(Dad)" as if I needed the hint. LOL
The note itself is kind of impersonal, but I think it was difficult for him to write. He didn't get all of his wishes in the 2nd paragraph. I felt that since he had committed suicide, there were somethings we were going to compromise for the sake of his survivors, and if he didn't like that....tough. I did have him cremated, and became a HUGE fan of cremation in the process. When I die, I hope to be cremated myself. But, I only scattered half of his ashes at Raven Run Sanctuary with my mom. The other half I had placed into a cremation burial box, and buried it in the family plot in Dickson. My grandparents, especially, needed a place to visit my dad's remains. Someplace they knew a part of him lay. And since they will be buried next to him, they will always be close together.
The other compromise I enacted was having his body on display for family only before the visitation for friends and others. I know I wanted alone time with him, open casket, and I knew my family did too. I made sure we all had a few minutes alone with him to say whatever goodbyes we needed to say. It gave me a sense of peace, and I'm sure it helped everyone else too. For the general visitation, though, his casket was closed with a picture on top. His death was not gruesome at all. After he took his anti-anxiety meds on top of the screwdrivers he'd been drinking all night as he wrote the suicide notes (computer time stamps told the tale), he put on an allergy mask and then tied two trash bags around his neck, securing them with rubber bands. He suffocated within 30 minutes. I guess he just didn't want to be gawked at.
It's no secret that my lack of having someone unrelated to me who loves me enough to want to spend his life with me, and I with him, drives my depression cycles and sometimes leads to outright despair. But one thing about being a suicide survivor is that you know what it means to be left behind. It also takes suicide away as a potential choice, no matter how badly I might feel someday. I've lived through the devastation that haunts us to this day. There's a hole in the hearts of many people in my dad's life that will never be filled because of the way he left us. I don't think he anticipated that, or that we'd still care 10 yrs later.
But it is 10 years later, and I still do mourn for him. I think about him. I still miss him. But I do pray he's at peace.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Our Political Discourse
When I first heard the news that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) had been shot, I immediately figured it would turn out to be a teabagger exercising his/her "2nd Amendment Remedies". After all Giffords was one of those swing districts whose re-election was one of the last ones called. Her re-election campaign was ugly and full of fury on both sides. Sarah Palin had her as one of the "targets" to take out in 2010 since she had voted for Health Reform. I wasn't the only one who immediately jumped to that conclusion. Millions of other people did too, and like me, they tweeted about it.
I was scolded for jumping to conclusions and not being helpful. The nature of twitter is its immediacy. It's very much like a rolling national, sometimes international, conversation. There's a reason that so many people, mostly unconnected to one another personally, immediately thought about the Tea Party Movement with its talk of 2nd Amendment "remedies", watering the tree of liberty with the blood of martyrs, and threats of a 2nd American Revolution, and specifically Sarah Palin with her tradement "Don't Retreat - RELOAD!" crap.
That the right immediately went on the defensive indicates to me some evidence of a guilty conscience. They immediately starting saying things like:
But no, instead there is complete denial and attempts to change the conversation. There's no acknowledgement that just because we CAN say something that we should. There's no willingness to even discuss that perhaps political leaders shouldn't engage in the ultra violent rhetoric of the base. All the examples of Bush bashing, and the calls for Bush's death came from no-name fringe people, most of whom were anti-war. You didn't have Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, or any Democratic leader of note going on the nightly news to spew out the same crap, or suggest that liberals needed to take up arms to seize back the country. We were always focused like a laser on the next election, convincing people to show up to the polls. Harry Reid did insult Bush, calling him a liar on the Senate floor which was as bad as it got. We did feel that the Bushies were dangerous to the freedoms we loved under our Constitution, but we protested peacefully, sued (often successfully) in court, and got our voters to the polls in 2006 and 2008.
But conservatives have, since the Clinton presidency, presented liberals and Democrats as beyond the pale, trying to create a socialist dictatorship with FEMA concentration camps and death panels that will swoop in and kill healthy grandmas everywhere! Oh, and while we're at it, we're going to disarm the populace, and take a black marker to scratch out the 2nd amendment. Since Obama was elected, we've endured the unending charges of birthers that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim looking to exact vengeance on America for European colonialism in Africa?!? And we have just gone through a 2 year election cycle where House members feared for their lives, to the cheers to the GOP establishment. We saw my Representative, John Lewis, get spat upon while walking to cast his vote for health reform. And Giffords herself had her office windows broken after she voted Yes on health reform. We saw Sharon Angle saying that people might have to use "2nd Amendment Remedies" as if we were on the verge of a tyranny not seen since the election of Hilter in 1933.
Politics is rough, and campaigns have become mini-wars. No longer do we think people are merely wrong in their policy preferences, but somehow EVIL and out to DESTROY the Constitution! I've been as guilty as any teabagger in that fallacy. I've assumed that people on the right are driven by pure greed and a disdain against people different than they are. I think that not only are they misguided but dangerously so.
A lot of this feeling is driven by real sense of potential danger I feel as an openly gay man living in the South. I am accutely aware that the VAST majority of my fellow citizens in Georgia do not think I have many rights worth respecting. I don't have children, but I have many dear friends who do. I know there are people who would gladly use the police power of the state to remove those children from their homes because their parents happen to be gay. I know the Constitution of Georgia states that no relationship that I might enter into with another man will be recognized in any way, shape, or form. If I had a husband and someone tried to contest a will that left him as beneficiary, I have no confidence that my wishes would be followed unless the case was tried in DeKalb or Fulton Counties. For me, who is in charge makes a difference. It's the difference between attempts at writing discrimination into the US Constitution with a "marriage amendment" versus the repeal of DADT.
I have learned that not all Republicans are enemies, but I find it much easier to intellectually engage with fiscal conservatives and have a debate about how much and what kind of governement is necessary than I do to engage with social conservatives who I believe would do not consider me an equal human being in any way, shape, or form. I fear social conservatives, and until they learn to accept that gays are part of society and must be treated equally, I always will.
What frustrates me more than anything about Sarah Palin, her rhetoric, and the white washing of her record, and ludicrous denials of any responsibility whatsoever for dealing in over-the-top rhetoric...and all the conservatives who are screaming that Democrats are just as bad for even bringing up the rhetoric issue is the lack of personal responsibility. Keith Olbermann had the decency to personally apologize for overheated rhetoric he has used. Would it be too much to ask someone to acknowledge that he/she has engaged in overly violent rhetoric, and to agree that perhaps we need to tone it down? For too many on the right, the unfortunate answer seems to be YES, that IS asking too much.
The assassin in Tucson was undeniably off his rocker. I think he knew right from wrong, which is thankfully the definition of legal insanity. I hope that he will be put to death for what he has done. But honestly, people, it was only a matter of time before some crackpot decided to take matters into his/her hands. Our divisions are too great and too deep to promise that only polite conversation be used in debate and campaigns. But responsible political leaders need to have a filter for what is appropriate! Just because we CAN say something does not mean we SHOULD. Isn't that a lesson we were supposed to learn in Kindergarten?
Some suggest that making this argument is an attempt to chill political speech. That we should not only continue to engage in overheated, violent rhetoric, but revel in it. And when a tragedy happens like the attempted assassination of a member of Congressman, we should merely dab away the tears at the tragedy, lament the loss the loss of life, and then carry on. No reflection needed! After all, Freedom of Speech apparently means Freedom from Criticism. If we somehow suggest that we need to cool it with the war, revolution, and violence metaphors, then we are, by definition, enemies of freedom. I don't think asking for responsible maturity in our political discourse, especially from our acknowledged leaders, is anti-Freedom of Speech.
I hope we don't give in to pressure from the right to drop the discussion about the tone of our politics. No one should suggest making a law to regulate speech, but there's nothing in violation of the Constitution from applying shame and peer pressure to urge people to use a little judgement when exercising the precious right to free speech. It may be the only way to continue to preserve our system.
I was scolded for jumping to conclusions and not being helpful. The nature of twitter is its immediacy. It's very much like a rolling national, sometimes international, conversation. There's a reason that so many people, mostly unconnected to one another personally, immediately thought about the Tea Party Movement with its talk of 2nd Amendment "remedies", watering the tree of liberty with the blood of martyrs, and threats of a 2nd American Revolution, and specifically Sarah Palin with her tradement "Don't Retreat - RELOAD!" crap.
That the right immediately went on the defensive indicates to me some evidence of a guilty conscience. They immediately starting saying things like:
- "How DARE you suggest that our rhetoric might play a role!"
- "Dude was crazy, we had NOTHING to do with it! How DARE you!"
- "Liberals said worse about Bush!" (who, unless I missed something, never had someone take a SHOT at him)
- "Democrats use targets too!"
- "Violent rhetoric is just part of politics, and always has been!"
- "You're just crass and political trying to take advantage of a tragedy. How DARE you!"
But no, instead there is complete denial and attempts to change the conversation. There's no acknowledgement that just because we CAN say something that we should. There's no willingness to even discuss that perhaps political leaders shouldn't engage in the ultra violent rhetoric of the base. All the examples of Bush bashing, and the calls for Bush's death came from no-name fringe people, most of whom were anti-war. You didn't have Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, or any Democratic leader of note going on the nightly news to spew out the same crap, or suggest that liberals needed to take up arms to seize back the country. We were always focused like a laser on the next election, convincing people to show up to the polls. Harry Reid did insult Bush, calling him a liar on the Senate floor which was as bad as it got. We did feel that the Bushies were dangerous to the freedoms we loved under our Constitution, but we protested peacefully, sued (often successfully) in court, and got our voters to the polls in 2006 and 2008.
But conservatives have, since the Clinton presidency, presented liberals and Democrats as beyond the pale, trying to create a socialist dictatorship with FEMA concentration camps and death panels that will swoop in and kill healthy grandmas everywhere! Oh, and while we're at it, we're going to disarm the populace, and take a black marker to scratch out the 2nd amendment. Since Obama was elected, we've endured the unending charges of birthers that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim looking to exact vengeance on America for European colonialism in Africa?!? And we have just gone through a 2 year election cycle where House members feared for their lives, to the cheers to the GOP establishment. We saw my Representative, John Lewis, get spat upon while walking to cast his vote for health reform. And Giffords herself had her office windows broken after she voted Yes on health reform. We saw Sharon Angle saying that people might have to use "2nd Amendment Remedies" as if we were on the verge of a tyranny not seen since the election of Hilter in 1933.
Politics is rough, and campaigns have become mini-wars. No longer do we think people are merely wrong in their policy preferences, but somehow EVIL and out to DESTROY the Constitution! I've been as guilty as any teabagger in that fallacy. I've assumed that people on the right are driven by pure greed and a disdain against people different than they are. I think that not only are they misguided but dangerously so.
A lot of this feeling is driven by real sense of potential danger I feel as an openly gay man living in the South. I am accutely aware that the VAST majority of my fellow citizens in Georgia do not think I have many rights worth respecting. I don't have children, but I have many dear friends who do. I know there are people who would gladly use the police power of the state to remove those children from their homes because their parents happen to be gay. I know the Constitution of Georgia states that no relationship that I might enter into with another man will be recognized in any way, shape, or form. If I had a husband and someone tried to contest a will that left him as beneficiary, I have no confidence that my wishes would be followed unless the case was tried in DeKalb or Fulton Counties. For me, who is in charge makes a difference. It's the difference between attempts at writing discrimination into the US Constitution with a "marriage amendment" versus the repeal of DADT.
I have learned that not all Republicans are enemies, but I find it much easier to intellectually engage with fiscal conservatives and have a debate about how much and what kind of governement is necessary than I do to engage with social conservatives who I believe would do not consider me an equal human being in any way, shape, or form. I fear social conservatives, and until they learn to accept that gays are part of society and must be treated equally, I always will.
What frustrates me more than anything about Sarah Palin, her rhetoric, and the white washing of her record, and ludicrous denials of any responsibility whatsoever for dealing in over-the-top rhetoric...and all the conservatives who are screaming that Democrats are just as bad for even bringing up the rhetoric issue is the lack of personal responsibility. Keith Olbermann had the decency to personally apologize for overheated rhetoric he has used. Would it be too much to ask someone to acknowledge that he/she has engaged in overly violent rhetoric, and to agree that perhaps we need to tone it down? For too many on the right, the unfortunate answer seems to be YES, that IS asking too much.
The assassin in Tucson was undeniably off his rocker. I think he knew right from wrong, which is thankfully the definition of legal insanity. I hope that he will be put to death for what he has done. But honestly, people, it was only a matter of time before some crackpot decided to take matters into his/her hands. Our divisions are too great and too deep to promise that only polite conversation be used in debate and campaigns. But responsible political leaders need to have a filter for what is appropriate! Just because we CAN say something does not mean we SHOULD. Isn't that a lesson we were supposed to learn in Kindergarten?
Some suggest that making this argument is an attempt to chill political speech. That we should not only continue to engage in overheated, violent rhetoric, but revel in it. And when a tragedy happens like the attempted assassination of a member of Congressman, we should merely dab away the tears at the tragedy, lament the loss the loss of life, and then carry on. No reflection needed! After all, Freedom of Speech apparently means Freedom from Criticism. If we somehow suggest that we need to cool it with the war, revolution, and violence metaphors, then we are, by definition, enemies of freedom. I don't think asking for responsible maturity in our political discourse, especially from our acknowledged leaders, is anti-Freedom of Speech.
I hope we don't give in to pressure from the right to drop the discussion about the tone of our politics. No one should suggest making a law to regulate speech, but there's nothing in violation of the Constitution from applying shame and peer pressure to urge people to use a little judgement when exercising the precious right to free speech. It may be the only way to continue to preserve our system.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Crackin' on Crackers
It would appear that my earlier use of the term "cracker 'Democrats'" in a story link on facebook featuring the new Georgia House Democratic Leader Stacy Abrams has ruffled a few feathers. I have always understood the word "cracker" to be uneducated, poor white trash. It has never been synomyous with "rural" as I've known plenty of crackers who live in a city. Being uneducated poor white trash doesn't have a geographical limitation to me. It's more about your attitude toward life.
Anyway, my comment was meant to relay that if any more ignorant white elected Democrats (trash in my book) wanted to leave a party led by a smart, capable, African American woman like Stacy Abrams, they should just go now. Somehow, that's been translated by some to say, "F*ck you, rural Democrats! We don't want your kind no how." Which is certainly not true, and anyone who either knows me or has worked with me on political stuff over the years would know. There is a no more beseiged individual right now in the political landscape than a rural, white Democrat, especially if that Democrat is male.
With the collapse of Democrats in Georgia, I do wonder if we can get the rural areas back again under the Democratic banner. Since the Republicans have pretty much successfully characterized us all as only made up of "cityfolk, liberal whites, homos, and colored people", I don't have a lot of hope that despite having their economic best interest at heart, that we'll get them back. The Pennsylvania and Virginia examples could be telling. Statewide elections in PA are won by taking the cities by large margins, and winning the suburbs. Rural PA is as red as blood, but Democrats can win the state with an urban/suburban coalition. That's how Obama won Virginia in 2008. And in Georgia, the key to the surburbs is women. I really think that rural GA has simply stopped listening to us for the most part. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep talking to them, but acting like rebuilding the old urban/rural coalition for Democrats is realitistic is a sure way to keep on losing for decades to come.
Our party switchers have all been rural Democrats, plus the Representative from ATHENS. A lot of these guys looked many of us in the face before the election, denouncing the very IDEA that they'd ever be anything but Democrats. That was, until Roy Barnes got beat, Democrats lost EVERY statewide office we held, and the national GOP gained 60+ seats in the US House. November 2 was a VERY bad night in Georgia, no two ways about it. And some of the switchers have specifically said that the Democratic party is too urban, too gay, too black, and too liberal for them now. What I suspect is tha they pooping their pants imagining what kind of districts will be drawn for them if they DON'T flip to the GOP.
So yes, as I watched Democratic Leader Stacy Abrams discuss the party switchers over the last month or so, my thought was, "How could ANYONE not be proud to be part of a group led by such an intelligent, well spoken woman?" I do know that some folks are upset that the rural boys aren't in charge anymore, and there are some folks who still wear the Democratic label who nonetheless think that an intelligent, capable, African American woman who takes on the mantle of leadership is somehow the very definition of "uppity". That's definitely not the democratic party they knew, and they aren't really comfortable being a minority in their own caucus.
On the emotional level, I get why they would want to leave. I remember when I first went to Africa, and I'd be the only white guy that I'd see for days at a time. It was jarring, but the confidence I had instilled in me from being a white guy in America allowed me to quickly get over it. I realized it didn't have anything to do with me, and I could just carry on. The Democrats who have bolted could have carried on to, knowing they'd be the first to be screwed in redistricting. But carrying on would have required a moral fiber and strength of character that none of the bolters possessed. To me, that makes them trash, and since they happened to all be white (at least the bolters in the legislature), white trash. And I wonder how much having a black female leader from Atlanta played in their thought process.
So I commented that any crackers pretending to be Democrats who still wished to leave should just go. That was NOT a general invitation for all white rural Democrats to leave. The fact that I personally know Democrats from every state in the South, many of them in quite rural areas, not to mention states like Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah makes me very proud of my party. We do have lots to offer for the thinking person. We don't have an interest in taking away anyone's guns, even if I do think there is an argument to be made that urban gun control is a very different beast than rural gun control. I worry about the economic decay in our rural areas, the inequity of school funding, and a host of other issues that make a real difference in rural American life. It grieves me that so many just look at me as someone who wants to take away their freedom, confiscate their guns, force them to either have or watch gay sex, and God only knows what else! I sure as hell don't want to lose the people we have left in rural areas!
After I was informed by a friend that unnamed people were angry that I'd called all white rural Democrats "crackers" (I did not...they read that into 'cracker', not me), I decided to look up the formal definition of the noun "cracker".
In the Urban Dictionary, there were three definitions:
Anyway, my comment was meant to relay that if any more ignorant white elected Democrats (trash in my book) wanted to leave a party led by a smart, capable, African American woman like Stacy Abrams, they should just go now. Somehow, that's been translated by some to say, "F*ck you, rural Democrats! We don't want your kind no how." Which is certainly not true, and anyone who either knows me or has worked with me on political stuff over the years would know. There is a no more beseiged individual right now in the political landscape than a rural, white Democrat, especially if that Democrat is male.
With the collapse of Democrats in Georgia, I do wonder if we can get the rural areas back again under the Democratic banner. Since the Republicans have pretty much successfully characterized us all as only made up of "cityfolk, liberal whites, homos, and colored people", I don't have a lot of hope that despite having their economic best interest at heart, that we'll get them back. The Pennsylvania and Virginia examples could be telling. Statewide elections in PA are won by taking the cities by large margins, and winning the suburbs. Rural PA is as red as blood, but Democrats can win the state with an urban/suburban coalition. That's how Obama won Virginia in 2008. And in Georgia, the key to the surburbs is women. I really think that rural GA has simply stopped listening to us for the most part. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep talking to them, but acting like rebuilding the old urban/rural coalition for Democrats is realitistic is a sure way to keep on losing for decades to come.
Our party switchers have all been rural Democrats, plus the Representative from ATHENS. A lot of these guys looked many of us in the face before the election, denouncing the very IDEA that they'd ever be anything but Democrats. That was, until Roy Barnes got beat, Democrats lost EVERY statewide office we held, and the national GOP gained 60+ seats in the US House. November 2 was a VERY bad night in Georgia, no two ways about it. And some of the switchers have specifically said that the Democratic party is too urban, too gay, too black, and too liberal for them now. What I suspect is tha they pooping their pants imagining what kind of districts will be drawn for them if they DON'T flip to the GOP.
So yes, as I watched Democratic Leader Stacy Abrams discuss the party switchers over the last month or so, my thought was, "How could ANYONE not be proud to be part of a group led by such an intelligent, well spoken woman?" I do know that some folks are upset that the rural boys aren't in charge anymore, and there are some folks who still wear the Democratic label who nonetheless think that an intelligent, capable, African American woman who takes on the mantle of leadership is somehow the very definition of "uppity". That's definitely not the democratic party they knew, and they aren't really comfortable being a minority in their own caucus.
On the emotional level, I get why they would want to leave. I remember when I first went to Africa, and I'd be the only white guy that I'd see for days at a time. It was jarring, but the confidence I had instilled in me from being a white guy in America allowed me to quickly get over it. I realized it didn't have anything to do with me, and I could just carry on. The Democrats who have bolted could have carried on to, knowing they'd be the first to be screwed in redistricting. But carrying on would have required a moral fiber and strength of character that none of the bolters possessed. To me, that makes them trash, and since they happened to all be white (at least the bolters in the legislature), white trash. And I wonder how much having a black female leader from Atlanta played in their thought process.
So I commented that any crackers pretending to be Democrats who still wished to leave should just go. That was NOT a general invitation for all white rural Democrats to leave. The fact that I personally know Democrats from every state in the South, many of them in quite rural areas, not to mention states like Idaho, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah makes me very proud of my party. We do have lots to offer for the thinking person. We don't have an interest in taking away anyone's guns, even if I do think there is an argument to be made that urban gun control is a very different beast than rural gun control. I worry about the economic decay in our rural areas, the inequity of school funding, and a host of other issues that make a real difference in rural American life. It grieves me that so many just look at me as someone who wants to take away their freedom, confiscate their guns, force them to either have or watch gay sex, and God only knows what else! I sure as hell don't want to lose the people we have left in rural areas!
After I was informed by a friend that unnamed people were angry that I'd called all white rural Democrats "crackers" (I did not...they read that into 'cracker', not me), I decided to look up the formal definition of the noun "cracker".
In the Urban Dictionary, there were three definitions:
- Originally the white slave driver because he would "crack" the whip, hence the noun cracker.
- Noun. Slang word used to refer to those of European ancestry. The word is thought to have either derived from the sound of a whip being cracked by slave owners, or because crackers are generally white in color.
- opposite of "N-word", an insult to whites... except white people aren't dumb enough to walk around calling each other that word because it's intended to be demeaning.
Then I went to Dictionary.com, where I found the following:
- a thin, crisp biscuit.
- a firecracker.
- Also called cracker bonbon. a small paper roll used as a party favor, that usually contains candy, trinkets, etc., and that pops when pulled sharply at one or both ends.
- ( initial capital letter
) Sometimes Disparaging and Offensive . a native or inhabitant of Georgia (used as a nickname). - Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a poor white person living in some rural parts of the southeastern U.S.
- a tuft or knot of cotton, horsehair, hemp, etc., at the tip of a whip's lash; cracker; popper.
- braggart; boaster.
- a person or thing that cracks.
- a chemical reactor used for cracking. Compare catalytic cracking, fractionator.
- a break without complete separation of parts; fissure.
- a slight opening, as between boards in a floor or wall, or between a door and its doorpost.
- a sudden, sharp noise, as of something breaking.
- the snap of or as of a whip.
- a resounding blow: He received a terrific crack on the head when the branch fell.
- Informal . a witty or cutting remark; wisecrack.
- a break or change in the flow or tone of the voice.
- Informal . opportunity; chance; try: Give him first crack at the new job.
- a flaw or defect.
- Also called rock. Slang . pellet-size pieces of highly purified cocaine, prepared with other ingredients for smoking, and known to be especially potent and addicting.
- Masonry . check1 ( def. 41 ) .
- a mental defect or deficiency.
- a shot, as with a rifle: At the first crack, the deer fell.
- a moment; instant: He was on his feet again in a crack.
- Slang . a burglary, esp. an instance of housebreaking.
- Chiefly British . a person or thing that excels in some respect.
- Slang: Vulgar . the vulva.
- Chiefly Scot. conversation; chat.
- British Dialect . boasting; braggadocio.
- Archaic . a burglar.
So it appears that I was correct in thinking of a cracker as an ignorant (#21 Dictionary.com) white person. Being a southerner by birth, I did not associate it just with the South. Ignorant is ignorant, regardless of where it is found. And white trash can live in a holler or in a run-down urban tenement. Now before others think I'm calling names to people who might live in a holler or a run-down urban tenement, the key for me in someone being white trash, or a cracker, is ignorance. Willful ignorance that is not open to even hearing a different way of thinking.
Take home point: I was not calling all white rural Democrats crackers, nor was I wishing they'd leave the party. The ignorant, self-centered crackers who have bolted to the GOP in recent weeks were my target. I value, and desperately hope to keep what rural white Democrats we have left. I apologize for any impression I gave to the contrary regarding my rural brothers and sisters.
That said, the folks who thought it was necessary to go to people around me to express your displeasure, you are cowards. Anyone who's seen my wall on Facebook can see that I'm not opposed to people calling me out or arguing with me out in the open. The passive aggressive folks who like to whisper to everyone EXCEPT the person they are upset with, who also hint that perhaps a formal complaint should be filed -- well, you are the poster child for why the Young Democrats of America has been forced to rebuild from the ground up. I respect people a lot more who are willing to say to ME, "What the HELL, man?" whenever I've said or done something to offend. That's when we can talk it out and sort everything out. But I know for some folks, creating behind-the-scenes drama is like breathing.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Why I Oppose Pledging "Allegiance" to the Georgia Flag
“I pledge allegiance to the Georgia flag and to the principles for which it stands: Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation.”Certainly seems innocuous enough, right? Who could possibly disagree to the principle of Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation? Not to mention fidelty to the state which you serve? Well, there's plenty wrong with it when you look into the history of such a pledge.
In 2009, Sens. Pearson, Rogers, Williams, Wiles, Mullis, and Seabaugh introduced SR 632 - A RESOLUTION affirming states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles; and for other purposes (http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/sr632.htm). Sens. Williams and Rogers are the key leaders controlling the Senate at this point, and this pledge is part of their radical "states rights" agenda.
This resolution restated controversial propositions of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Among other things, this established Jefferson's belief that states had some kind of extra constitutional veto over federal legislation or action a state believed usurped its authoirty under the shared sovereignty doctrine of the Constitution. What the resolution fails to mention is that 10 states specifically condemned KY and VA for passing those resolutions and the ideas contained within them. South Carolina explicitly relied upon these resolutions in 1832 when it tried to nullify the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. President Jackson had to make preparations to invade South Carolina by force before a political compromise cooled the situation and South Carolina backed off.
The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the supreme laws of the land. Anything a state does contradictory to federal law is null and void. States have no nullification rights, and it's attitudes like those of the GA GOP Senate caucus that led to the Civil War, which honestly answered the question forever. We are AMERICANS first, citizens of the United States of America. We are citizens of our state and locality second. How can you pledge loyalty to the United States of America while at the same time pledging the same loyalty to the state of Georgia without diminishing BOTH pledges? I argue that you cannot.
Further, under our constitutional system, it is not up to the state legislature to interpret the US Constitution. We have courts for that, and the Supreme Court is more than willing to throw out federal laws that overreach federal authority. Implied threats of violence inherent in nullification and secesstion should not be tolerated. This is this spirit of nullification and threat of succession which is driving this "state pledge" idea. Even State Rep. Bobby Franklin (R) said that the pledge to GA was needed, “given the usurpations of Washington.” I understand that Franklin doesn't like the outcome of the elections of 2008 or any of the laws LEGALLY passed by the Congress now ending. But there are legal ways to attack such laws, and nullification/secession is NOT included.
What this pledge does is try to drive a wedge between Georgians and the United States Government. It says, "Sure, I pledge allegiance to the United States...only so long as it doesn't piss Georgia off." We are ONE nation, under God, INDIVISIBLE...as the national pledge says. Taking a pledge to Georgia does seem harmless, but the ideas driving it are dangerous and sinister. As a result, I would hope that my state Senator, Jason Carter, wouldn't participate. However, much to my disappointment, it appears that he will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)