“Racially isolated whites in Arkansas or Alabama may have been more afraid of voting for Obama not because they are more racist than white voters in Minnesota or Montana, but because they perceive greater racial competition with nearby black populations.”

Seriously: WTF? This is like saying: “It is not that they are racist, it is just that they have a reason to be racist.”

“When Frank got into a car accident while under the influence of alcohol, it isn’t because he was a drunk driver, it is just that he has been going through a lot lately, and he enjoys drinking a lot of cheap beer.”

To be fair, Oliver is trying to say “competition with minority groups on the lower end of the economic scale will tend to make folks a bit bitter and even prejudiced against minority groups.” Fair enough, and worth knowing. But in the end, if you didn’t vote for Obama because you have an issue with black folks, you’re a racist. Plain and simple. This doesn’t make you an irredeemably bad person, but it does mean you have some room for improvement.

And yes, it is important to understand what drives racism, but it is also important that understanding doesn’t lead to being an apologist for racist behavior. Understanding should lead to fixing the issue, and part of that is to allow someone to admit that yeah maybe they are somewhat racist, and why that may be, and then, what they might do to improve their own self-understanding. That way in 2012 they may evaluate Obama not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

The word “satiated” looks to derive from Latin “satis” which means enough. (Satisfied?)

“Sate” derives from older English, Dutch, and Germanic, and apparently shares the same root word with “sad”.

The Brooding Northern European part of me wonders if my ancestors had some keen understanding of the connection between satisfaction and sadness.

Merriam-Webster boils down several synonyms in terms of “repletion”:

SATIATE and SATE may sometimes imply only complete satisfaction but more often suggest repletion that has destroyed interest or desire. SURFEIT implies a nauseating repletion. CLOY stresses the disgust or boredom resulting from such surfeiting.

At any rate, I see that there’s nothing wrong with being “satiated” yet it is perfectly fine for me to stick with sate and sated. (Though I do enjoy the word “satiety”.)

I am satisfied with this state of repletion. I am sated.

Bush escalates the war while Democrats hem and haw. I don’t get it: with a majority in both houses, is a “nonbinding resolution” really the best they can do? It sounds like something a timid married couple dreamt up to invigorate their humdrum sex life.

Sy Safransky’s Notebook
The Sun
July, 2007

I chuckled on the BART this morning.

Which brings up a different anecdote. When I was young I overheard some British people refer to the process of “repatriation.” I later learned that this is because they were “ex-patriots.” It seemed kind of harsh that these people should be treated as ex-patriots simply for spending some time in a foreign country. (In America, “patriot” means Paul Revere, and anyone who becomes an ex, in need of re, is not someone you would respect.) I wondered if repatriation involved classes on the Monarchy and Parliament and other stuff to get the Americanness out of their systems, and if this was common for people returning to their countries — If I ever left, would I have to attend classes and re-take the Constitution test before I could be trusted to behave as an American again?

With time and an improved understanding of Latin word roots, I figured that they had been referring to the process of repatriating expatriates. There is no English word “patriate” but in Spanish and French the patria is the country-side, derived from Latin pater, for father . . . so, the land of your father. (The derivation of “patriot” is similiar.)

English is a twisted, gnarly language, even for native speakers, so if I should mistake a “kilt” for a “quilt” because my wife can’t wrap her tongue around the kw- sound, it is only fair.