Dear friends and lynchmates... a few thoughts this morning... I tried dealing with this "issue" with humor, and again discovered that some simply don't carry a gene for it. This does not surprise me. It is much like finding strawberry jam in a peanut butter jar; just enjoy the flavor. I do not profess to be a "humorist"--though have been accurately tagged many times as a "smartass," and in another galaxy far away was voted the funniest boy in my high school class, but I've always suspected they meant "funniest looking." So, seriously: I find it interesting how those who articulate the pain that words can bring, how language can hurt, are often the first to holler RACIST! at someone when they see language they find disagreeable. Perhaps they mean "the words YOU use are hurtful, but not the words I use!" Similarly we often hear the term "homophobe" freely thrown about for those against same-sex marriage. Or, try to have an intelligent discussion about illegal immigration without the R word being played. Yes, words can wound; they can also preclude intelligent discussion. One would think that those in academia would best know this; would not only champion free speech but fight against exclusion of terminology they find distasteful, for academia cannot survive with controlled speech and thought control. The First Amendment is for unpopular speech, not that which we all agree may be "nice." I simply don't believe in wearing sackcloth and ashes and defense for silly euphemisms that I might use. Person-to-person, I can be surprisingly sensitive to needs and reactions. Like Sam I don't suffer fools well, nor do I unthinkingly accept "rules" of "proper protocol" for the spoken or written word. I doubt that these matters of the heart (racism) will ever be solved. I don't believe in the perfectibility of man, nor do I think Samuel Clemens believed in it. For each of us, how we treat our fellow man--what we do, not alone what we speak--is the key to whether or not we carry true brotherhood in our heart. I do believe in Sam's dictum that we are all at least 50th cousins. This is not a political forum. While I would be glad to take part in a civil discussion about whether liberal changes in American society over the past 50 years are "progress" as one poster claims, or whether to some extent such changes are reflective of a "mental disorder" as others claim, I will not do so here. This is a Mark Twain forum, so I will try to limit my future remarks to issues bearing directly on MT scholarship. If you wish to discuss politics, including a supposed right-wing conspiracy to co-opt civil rights, you may email me, though I cannot promise timely answers or thoughts due to my volume of work, self-imposed. This episode reinforces to me how irrational Americans can be on the subject of race. But things go in cycles, and at some point we will tire of this. In Sam's day the bogeyman was being a "warmonger." That's one term I haven't been called here. My original post thanked Robert Monroe for taking the time to review Sam's 1856-1883 cash book at the NYPL Berg Collection. My intent was simply that--to thank him, and to discuss the contents of Sam's little known cash book he transcribed (2 pages worth). I still would like any input on the 1868/9 page, which lists rent to Charles E. Cate (there is a Charles Cate listed in the 1864 SF City Directory), and on what the meaning of listings for "board schooling &c Della for 15 weeks from Apr 11 to July 23 @250pr an in gold @138" for 99.36 (1868) might mean. Also listed on this page is a Russel Cate and telegraphs to and from Mrs. Cate at a time when Sam was in Hartford. Thank you for your patience, and for the saner voices heard here. David H Fears PS apologies to Tracy, who is male. I made this mistake once with Lin Salamo, but quickly turned around on her longevity and gender.