Defending my view of "The South"
Let me explain my position on "the South." I am not bigoted against southerners; in the statement that gave offense, I said "some racist southerners," which was in no way intended to imply that I think all southerners are racist (the adjectives "some" and "racist" make clear I am referring to a subset of southerners), though certainly the statement reveals a bias I have about the South.
Now, unless you're a judge or a journalist, bias is not a dirty word; we all have biases, and that's OK.
I have a difference in values from what is generally associated with "Southern values." Having a value system and thinking negatively about another value system is not bigoted. If it is, every thinking human being is bigoted, since every thinking human being has opinions (or, if you prefer, biases) about particular values. We don't all share the same values. I don't need to get into the specifics about what I mean by "Southern values" or what it is that I dislike or disagree with. Let it be enough to say that I have a values difference (if anybody actually wants to know about these values differences, I'd consider writing it on another blog and linking to it here).
Do I have negative assumptions about "the South"? Absolutely. But I am self-aware and honest, and I admit that these are biased assumptions, not objective truth. Having awareness of our biases is a much better approach than pretending we have no biases. Do my biases about Southern values mean that I hate all southerners? Of course not. I try as hard as anybody to be tolerant, to be nonjudgmental, and to assess individuals as individuals. If I'm a generally misanthropic person, that has nothing to do with the particulars of the people. In general, the only thing I have intolerance for is intolerance.
If you still think I'm a douche, fine. I probably am. I resent being called bigoted, but I recognize the statement I made showed my biases. I don't care if I offended anybody and I don't feel the need to be objective on my BLOG.
Why did the Lions sign Josh McCown?
I have no idea. They signed Jon Kitna and made him the starter, and they signed McCown and made him the backup. Was McCown worth it? Did they have the idea that he would ever be the starter? And now, when their 2006 season is clearly going nowhere and they must know Kitna is not their QB of the future, why aren't they playing McCown to see what he can do? Peter King thinks the Lions should have drafted Matt Leinart last year, and thinks they should draft Brady Quinn for next year. Is Josh McCown even a real person, or did I imagine one of the worst moments of my football fan life (Viking fans, you know what I'm talking about)?
Pat Williams is doubtful, and so are my chances for a happy Sunday
"What was that bang?" should have a good game preview; he hates the Bears more than I do so I'll leave the vitriol to him. But I'm worried that Pat Williams is doubtful. Williams is the most important player on the defense; he's the reason they have an historically good run defense. Without him, the Bears might not become one-dimensional, and Sexy Rexy might not throw to Darren Sharper, Dwight Smith, Fred Smoot, Antoine Winfield, and Cedric Griffin. I am sad about this. I will do my best to enjoy Friday and Saturday (read: gin) because Sunday might be a rather unhappy day.
The Bengals, eh?
I didn't really have faith in Cincinnati going into the season. I usually have high regard for teams that feature toughness and defense, and that didn't seem to be Cincinnati. I didn't know how Carson Palmer would return, and given that they've had one successful season in...well, in a long damn time...I didn't really know whether they could follow up an 11-5 year with another playoff year. Now they're 7-5, still two games behind 9-3 Baltimore in the AFC North, but with a legitimate shot to win out. And we all know what can happen to teams that finish the year playing their best football. I'd like to see the Bengals playing some games in January.
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Except Packer and Bear fans.