Avoid the 70's awful clothing style.
Supertramp
The Logical Song
When I was young,
it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees,
well they'd be singing so happily,
Joyfully,
playfully watching me.
But then they send me away
to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical,
responsible,
practical.
And they showed me a world
where I could be so dependable,
Clinical,
intellectual,
cynical.
There are times when all the world's asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won't you please,
please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Now watch what you say
or they'll be calling you a radical
Liberal,
fanatical,
criminal.
Won't you sign up your name,
we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable,
respectable,
presentable,
a vegetable!
At night, when all the world's asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man.
Won't you please,
please tell me what we've learned?
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Love Me Love Me Love Me (I'm a Liberal)
Love Me, I'm a Liberal
| By Phil Ochs (Born 1940, died 1976) I cried when they shot Medgar Evers I go to civil rights rallies I cheered when Humphrey was chosen The people of old Mississippi I read New Republic and Nation I vote for the Democratic Party. Once I was young and impulsive |
Another Edition of Lessons in Safe Logic
I see commentary like this everywhere among Hillary supporters. Using this line of thinking you could hardly blame Obama for losing his temper, if he ever did, if someone criticized his child or his wife. Furthermore, using this same rational, you could hardly blame Bill Clinton for reacting as violently as he did towards Barack Obama when Obama ran a better campaign than the both of them have done. I mean, after all, we shouldn't blame people for losing their tempers when they prove themselves human and protective of those they love, right? Well, maybe. If that applied all the way around, you might have a point.
The sexist attitudes apparent in the misogynist attitudes that led to the public reprimand of at least one MSNBC talking head and in the conduct of many others show us both how far we have come and how far we have to go as regards equal rights based on gender and the breaking of the so-called glass ceiling. If I felt as though sexism alone was responsible for Clinton's communication breakdown with voters, I might be more sympathetic.
Cynically speaking, I certainly didn't see these sorts of attacks out in force until Obama overtook her for the lead. Obama may benefit from his status as a black man regarding his treatment in the mainstream media, but then again, he has never openly invoked a notion that he is running as the first African-American male. His soaring rhetoric alone has frequently mentioned that he is running to transcend race, not divide us between pro-black and anti-black. Hillary has, however, invoked the fact that she is a woman on the stump, particularly when playing the girl card is to her own benefit. Her view is woefully myopic because it presupposes that male versus female is the reason she is trailing in the polls. To an extent she is right, but her whole context of pleading her case to the American public is as deeply sexist as the sexist attitudes which want to see her fail.
NOW's constitutional equality amendment, proposed in 1995 as a revision of the oft-championed but never ratified Equal Rights Amendment states: Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished
Second-wave feminism made advances for women and gave Hillary the ability to run as a woman and be taken seriously. However, the backlash against Ms. Clinton is largely of her own doing. Men and women both in a public setting are criticized for lack of charisma or warmth. This is probably a discriminatory act, but I see no movement championing rights for Charisma deprivation and no -ist ending statement to encapsulate that notion either. Charismaist? Warmthist? To her credit, she has tried to improve her frosty attitude, but to minimal success. Barack Obama oozes charisma and likability from every pore. Not because he is a man, but because he was graced with those talents. Politics is theater and we all see bad actors and actresses when they appear on stage and clearly know how distinguish convincing ones from unconvincing ones. We love to criticize mediocrity in our stars and hyper-magnify all their flaws, even those they are not responsible for creating.
Hillary is trying to have it both ways, and the American Public sees this, to its credit, and will not let her get away with it. You can't claim you're running on your own merit and not your husband's when you use him as your surrogate. You can't claim to be your own woman when you use your husband to do the knee-cap breaking for you and outsource your desire to criticize your opponent to a man, husband or not. Hillary Clinton has used Bill Clinton to her own advantage. Bill is as responsible as she is for her high negatives and now runner-up status in the Democratic primary. You can't say a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle and then prove yourself hypocritical to the whole notion of feminist empowerment when you clearly believe you NEED him and his credentials to win.
If Obama wanted to use Clinton logic, he'd run his wife Michelle on a dual ticket, use her in a public setting to criticize Hillary, because according to that line of thinking there's some rule that only another woman can criticize another woman just like there's some rule that only a man can criticize another man. Taken this way, we could say that no white person has any right to criticize any black person, no black person has a right to criticize any white person, and no one of any race has any right to criticize any other person of any other race.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ms. Clinton. You can't invoke experience when your role in eight years of Bill's Presidency has been nebulously defined. You particularly needn't invoke it when your prominent face as the champion of health care reform was a dismal failure and created a serious backlash, whether justified or not. You cannot tell me you are running on your own merits and experience, when you have been a member of the Senate for only a handful of years longer than Mr. Obama. You cannot expect to invoke eight years of a Clinton White House and not expect to revive memories of both its successes and its failures. You cannot take credit, in good conscience, for the good times when they benefit you personally, and dismiss the bad times as his, not yours, when they work against you.
The sexist attitudes apparent in the misogynist attitudes that led to the public reprimand of at least one MSNBC talking head and in the conduct of many others show us both how far we have come and how far we have to go as regards equal rights based on gender and the breaking of the so-called glass ceiling. If I felt as though sexism alone was responsible for Clinton's communication breakdown with voters, I might be more sympathetic.
Cynically speaking, I certainly didn't see these sorts of attacks out in force until Obama overtook her for the lead. Obama may benefit from his status as a black man regarding his treatment in the mainstream media, but then again, he has never openly invoked a notion that he is running as the first African-American male. His soaring rhetoric alone has frequently mentioned that he is running to transcend race, not divide us between pro-black and anti-black. Hillary has, however, invoked the fact that she is a woman on the stump, particularly when playing the girl card is to her own benefit. Her view is woefully myopic because it presupposes that male versus female is the reason she is trailing in the polls. To an extent she is right, but her whole context of pleading her case to the American public is as deeply sexist as the sexist attitudes which want to see her fail.
NOW's constitutional equality amendment, proposed in 1995 as a revision of the oft-championed but never ratified Equal Rights Amendment states: Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished
Second-wave feminism made advances for women and gave Hillary the ability to run as a woman and be taken seriously. However, the backlash against Ms. Clinton is largely of her own doing. Men and women both in a public setting are criticized for lack of charisma or warmth. This is probably a discriminatory act, but I see no movement championing rights for Charisma deprivation and no -ist ending statement to encapsulate that notion either. Charismaist? Warmthist? To her credit, she has tried to improve her frosty attitude, but to minimal success. Barack Obama oozes charisma and likability from every pore. Not because he is a man, but because he was graced with those talents. Politics is theater and we all see bad actors and actresses when they appear on stage and clearly know how distinguish convincing ones from unconvincing ones. We love to criticize mediocrity in our stars and hyper-magnify all their flaws, even those they are not responsible for creating.
Hillary is trying to have it both ways, and the American Public sees this, to its credit, and will not let her get away with it. You can't claim you're running on your own merit and not your husband's when you use him as your surrogate. You can't claim to be your own woman when you use your husband to do the knee-cap breaking for you and outsource your desire to criticize your opponent to a man, husband or not. Hillary Clinton has used Bill Clinton to her own advantage. Bill is as responsible as she is for her high negatives and now runner-up status in the Democratic primary. You can't say a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle and then prove yourself hypocritical to the whole notion of feminist empowerment when you clearly believe you NEED him and his credentials to win.
If Obama wanted to use Clinton logic, he'd run his wife Michelle on a dual ticket, use her in a public setting to criticize Hillary, because according to that line of thinking there's some rule that only another woman can criticize another woman just like there's some rule that only a man can criticize another man. Taken this way, we could say that no white person has any right to criticize any black person, no black person has a right to criticize any white person, and no one of any race has any right to criticize any other person of any other race.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ms. Clinton. You can't invoke experience when your role in eight years of Bill's Presidency has been nebulously defined. You particularly needn't invoke it when your prominent face as the champion of health care reform was a dismal failure and created a serious backlash, whether justified or not. You cannot tell me you are running on your own merits and experience, when you have been a member of the Senate for only a handful of years longer than Mr. Obama. You cannot expect to invoke eight years of a Clinton White House and not expect to revive memories of both its successes and its failures. You cannot take credit, in good conscience, for the good times when they benefit you personally, and dismiss the bad times as his, not yours, when they work against you.
Saturday Video
Catatonia were a Welsh band with a prominent female lead singer, Cerys Matthews. Her girlish vocals counterbalanced the typical late 90s sound of post-Britpop.
They were a MORE than minor UK success when I was last there in those long ago days of 1999, and have now since broken up. This song "I Am The Mob" was one of several UK hits and is, coincidentally, The Angry Ballerina theme song.
I'll be over at The American Street later today. Send me some love and let me sleep another precious six hours before I have to go to work!
They were a MORE than minor UK success when I was last there in those long ago days of 1999, and have now since broken up. This song "I Am The Mob" was one of several UK hits and is, coincidentally, The Angry Ballerina theme song.
I'll be over at The American Street later today. Send me some love and let me sleep another precious six hours before I have to go to work!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Friday Video
I was of the Nirvana generation, so this song served as an appropriate soundtrack for much of my early teens. No matter what decisions we all make going forward, keep in mind what Mr. Cobain says in this song.
Make No Mistake, It Will Not Be Easy
“This will not be easy,” he advised, “make no mistake about what we're up against.”- Barack Obama, victory speech, Madison, WI, 10 February 2008.
Senator Obama, to his credit, knows that though he entertains front-runner status nationally and leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates, he still faces a formidable, albeit weakened opponent in his own party. Though he is leading overall based on capturing a majority of states, basking in the glow of a media honeymoon, and riding a strong surge of momentum due in no small part to having won the last eight primary/caucuses over Senator Clinton, the race is far from decided.
He entertains a small lead over Senator Clinton in Wisconsin, and faces a stronger than expected fight for his home state of Hawaii on Sunday. Obama may well win both states, increase his delegate count and lose the 4 March primaries of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Rhode Island also votes on that day, and while the most recent polling data favors Clinton by a narrow margin, maverick former Republican senator, now independent Lincoln Chafee has endorsed Obama in his state's primary.
As MSNBC commentator, Chuck Todd pointed out after the Chesapeake Primaries, Clinton would have to win every state in contention on 4 March by 60% of each state's primary to re-capture a substantial delegate lead over Obama. No candidate, Obama or Clinton, has come close to capturing that sort of support in any state and as the race has tightened, the tide has turned against Senator Clinton, and the momentum has swung dramatically towards Obama, it is unlikely to think Senator Clinton could win by that much. Even winning Pennsylvania, Ohio, AND Texas, thanks to proportional allocation of pledged delegates might not be enough to overcome Obama's lead or pull her into anything more than a virtual tie for the nomination. It will take a resounding resurgence in her campaign to give Clinton the right to stay on the ballot in November.
Despite having narrowly captured New Mexico, with the final counting of provisional ballots, Clinton won a roughly equal share of delegates with Obama, rendering her win significant only that it does not add to Obama's lead. Furthermore, that victory emphasizes Senator Clinton's belief that Latino voters will support her over him by decisive margins. The assertion is that there exists some sort of deep-seeded animosity between the country's two largest minorities, and that Latino candidates would not support a Black candidate. One wonders if the reverse would be true as well. Both myths are refuted by Los Angeles Times columnist Gregory Rodriguez in his column entitled "Clinton's Latino Spin".
Assuming conventional wisdom holds true and Obama wins both Wisconsin and Hawaii on Sunday, the deciding factor may come down to an event which has largely been overlooked in the media. In twelve days from now, on Tuesday, 26 March, MSNBC is holding a debate between Obama and Clinton at Cleveland State University in Cleveland, Ohio. Tim Russert and Brian Williams of NBC news both will moderate. This event will be the likely final appearance between the two of them in person before the nomination is decided. It will be the last chance for both candidates to plead their case to four states and the country as to which of them is best suited to defeat John McCain in November, and end eight horrible years of GOP control of the Executive branch. One crucial slip up by either candidate in the debate might very well spell doom for either candidate and decide the party's nomination.
I know who I think can best win, but ultimately the will of the people will decide who will represent us in November. I think I speak for all of us when I note that I am heartsick of losing elections to the Republicans. Whomever we select will have a formidable challenge ahead of them. May the best person win. May God help us if we are wrong.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The State of Health Care in America
These were taken on my latest journey to visit the doctor to treat my chronic condition. Despite the flu, I had an appointment and I forced myself out of the house both to get new prescriptions and a check up. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.
On the interstate into Downtown Birmingham.
When waiting to be seen by the doctor, make sure to read up on the all the not-so-current magazines.
Always good to be reminded.
And, of course, let us not forget the power of prayer.
Or who the true God really is.
On the interstate into Downtown Birmingham.
When waiting to be seen by the doctor, make sure to read up on the all the not-so-current magazines.
Always good to be reminded.
And, of course, let us not forget the power of prayer.
Or who the true God really is.
A Video Reminder.
We who are socially active and Progressive talk about the strides we have made in racial equality. We point to the advances made between black and white as a product of the Civil Rights Movement. We point to the fact now, in the year 2008, the front runner for the Democratic nomination looks like this.
Good for us. We are making progress, and we have made progress. But let us not forget that often overlooked is the plight of another oppressed minority, one who suffered and died and has more of a claim to be truly American than any of us: African-American, Asian-American, Caucasian, or Latino.
Native Americans, or as we used to say, Indians.
The last Democratic candidate to speak out on behalf of Native Americans was this guy.
Say what you will about his legacy or his last name, I do seem to recall he met a most unpleasant end. So did they.
Good for us. We are making progress, and we have made progress. But let us not forget that often overlooked is the plight of another oppressed minority, one who suffered and died and has more of a claim to be truly American than any of us: African-American, Asian-American, Caucasian, or Latino.
Native Americans, or as we used to say, Indians.
The last Democratic candidate to speak out on behalf of Native Americans was this guy.
Say what you will about his legacy or his last name, I do seem to recall he met a most unpleasant end. So did they.
State of the Democratic Race
Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates and dubious, though undeniably competitive edge with Super Delegates, combined with eight straight primary/caucus wins, including a surge which places him ahead of Clinton in opinion polling has given him a razor-thin status as front-runner.
Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris provides this assessment, entitled "Why Hillary Will Lose". It is important to know, however, that Morris was fired by Clinton, Bill and has a grudge against both of them. Personal bias aside, Morris' analysis is generally sound. Hillary's message until recently would have been a sure winner, in THE REPUBLICAN primary. Democrats historically have run campaigns based on the concept of change and against the status quo. I would add to Morris' commentary that due to the weakened economy, an unpopular war, and a general belief in the minds of most every American that the country is on the wrong course play to Obama's strategy of change perfectly.
Today's New York Times has a much more cautious analysis, one I am inclined to agree with more. The race is far from over. But what both columns concede is that Obama has the momentum and that combined with Obama's edge in personal charisma may be the deciding factor. On Sunday, Obama will likely win Hawaii without much problem, and has been leading Clinton in Wisconsin substantially in recent days. If Obama can win both states, winning ten states in a row would be a formidable, to put it lightly, edge to overcome that Clinton could not hope to begin to mute.
It depends, of course, on timing. A better than expected showing by Obama in Texas and Ohio, or an unexpected narrow victory in one or the other and it is game, set, match Obama. What has gotten lost in the shuffle is that two other smaller New England states hold their primaries/caucuses on 4 March: Vermont and Rhode Island. Vermont, home of 2004 early favorite Howard Dean would seem to be Obama's as would Rhode Island, since Obama has shown he is much more effective at winning smaller states. In the final analysis, however, it may not matter and I hope if Ms. Clinton does not perform as expected next Tuesday she will do the prudent thing and concede for the good of the party. I hope she will not try to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, to which she has no clear right. I hope she will not force a convention fight in late August, because division in the party is the best chance a weakened GOP has to maintain its hold on the Presidency. We need a Democratic President for the future and health of the country.
It is a long time between now and November, and defeating John McCain will be no easy task.
Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris provides this assessment, entitled "Why Hillary Will Lose". It is important to know, however, that Morris was fired by Clinton, Bill and has a grudge against both of them. Personal bias aside, Morris' analysis is generally sound. Hillary's message until recently would have been a sure winner, in THE REPUBLICAN primary. Democrats historically have run campaigns based on the concept of change and against the status quo. I would add to Morris' commentary that due to the weakened economy, an unpopular war, and a general belief in the minds of most every American that the country is on the wrong course play to Obama's strategy of change perfectly.
Today's New York Times has a much more cautious analysis, one I am inclined to agree with more. The race is far from over. But what both columns concede is that Obama has the momentum and that combined with Obama's edge in personal charisma may be the deciding factor. On Sunday, Obama will likely win Hawaii without much problem, and has been leading Clinton in Wisconsin substantially in recent days. If Obama can win both states, winning ten states in a row would be a formidable, to put it lightly, edge to overcome that Clinton could not hope to begin to mute.
It depends, of course, on timing. A better than expected showing by Obama in Texas and Ohio, or an unexpected narrow victory in one or the other and it is game, set, match Obama. What has gotten lost in the shuffle is that two other smaller New England states hold their primaries/caucuses on 4 March: Vermont and Rhode Island. Vermont, home of 2004 early favorite Howard Dean would seem to be Obama's as would Rhode Island, since Obama has shown he is much more effective at winning smaller states. In the final analysis, however, it may not matter and I hope if Ms. Clinton does not perform as expected next Tuesday she will do the prudent thing and concede for the good of the party. I hope she will not try to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates, to which she has no clear right. I hope she will not force a convention fight in late August, because division in the party is the best chance a weakened GOP has to maintain its hold on the Presidency. We need a Democratic President for the future and health of the country.
It is a long time between now and November, and defeating John McCain will be no easy task.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Bad News
Dear Beloved Readership,
Comrade Kevin has the flu. As his second job, he works at a library, and likely contracted it there. One of the children's librarians came down with the disease Monday and missed work yesterday because of it. It is going around, you might say, and this was apparently my time to get it.
Please give me time to comment on your blog posts when I am feeling better. I appreciate and love you all and your comments recently have been very uplifting and appreciated. I will feel better. About the only thing you can due for any virus, including influenza is rest in bed and that is all I intend to do for the next several days.
Thanks for understanding,
Comrade Kevin.
In Honor of...
Barack Obama's wins in the so-called Chesapeake Primaries, having swept Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia by overwhelming margins. Even with Super Delegates, Obama now has a delegate lead.
A poll conducted yesterday by USA/ Gallup puts Obama ahead of Clinton for the first time ever! Obama 47%, Clinton 44%. Welcome to your new front-runner status, Senator Obama!
Live from the Ed Sullivan show, circa 1964.
P.S. You do realize being the front-runner means you are are going to to get some some godawful criticism now, from everyone, correct? Just checking, Senator.
A poll conducted yesterday by USA/ Gallup puts Obama ahead of Clinton for the first time ever! Obama 47%, Clinton 44%. Welcome to your new front-runner status, Senator Obama!
Live from the Ed Sullivan show, circa 1964.
P.S. You do realize being the front-runner means you are are going to to get some some godawful criticism now, from everyone, correct? Just checking, Senator.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A Family Story
During the Civil War, my Great-Great-Grandfather William A. Camp, took up arms in the bloody sectional conflict known as the Civil War. However, despite being from Alabama, a state which officially seceeded from the Union, Mr. Camp fought for the North instead. My father's father's father's father owned no slaves, was dirt poor, and despite being nineteen year old, already had three children and a wife to support.
He had never been a devotee towards the Southern cause at all, but by 1864, when he decided to fight, the Confederacy was ruined. It had lost at Gettysburg a year before and it was within 9 months of surrendering. Confederate paper currency, valuable in the heyday of the C.S.A. was practically worthless by the end of the war. The Union however, paid in gold. I think he made a wise choice.
But he was hardly the only Southerner to fight for the Union.
When the gathering dark clouds of war were all encompassing in the South and in Northwest Alabama in particular in the spring of 1861, the voices of dissent were loud and clear. While some were eager to fight for a newly created secessionist government, many others considered an impeding war as a wicked, treasonous undertaking and wanted no part of it.
Indeed, a majority in the hills of Northwest Alabama, mostly poor yeomen dirt farmers, saw little value or reason in taking arms against the federal government. They recognized quite early that this was not their fight, but that it was the landed gentry. It was obvious to the hill folk that the plantation owners and their political spokesmen were fanning the war flames and talked the loudest about separation.
With their money and property and political power, it was the planters who felt most threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln as president.
That “Black Republican” Lincoln, the planters said, would mongrelize the races. He would destroy everything they built as a finer civilization. Southern women would not be safe from roving gangs of black thieves. They only thing to do, the planters contended, was to fight protect their very way of life, to secede and create a government that would protect their interests, protect their property rights, and protect that “peculiar institution.”
Of course, the peculiar institution was slavery.
But in the rugged landscape of northern Alabama, slaves were few and far between. The same was true in the mountains of East Tennessee and North Georgia and western North Carolina, and western Virginia, which would later become a state because of its overwhelming anti-confederate sentiment.
Few slaves were owned in the upland South, simply because the land would not support a plantation economy. Those who did work the land in the mountain South were a fiercely independent breed, poor but proud, and of no mind to lend support to plantation owners who looked down upon them as uneducated and inferior.
Winston County resident James B. Bell, a farmer who owned no slaves, was typical of an Alabama unionist. He blamed secession on large "Negroholders." In a letter to his pro-confederate son in Mississippi on April 21, 1861, he wrote. "All they [slave holders] want is to git you pupt up and go fight for there infurnal negroes and after you do there fighting you may kiss there hine parts for o [all] they care."
Southern unionists were not threatened by Lincoln’s election but saw him more as a blank slate. They were willing to give him a chance as president and did not see the federal government as any threat to their property rights.
Read more, here.
Great-Great-Grandfather Camp we was part of the 1st Alabama Cavalry, officially of the state of Indiana.
The details.
Name: William Anderson Camp
Birthplace:
Malone. Randolph Co., AL
County Seat: Wedowee.
Occupation:
Farrier
Rank at enlistment:
Private
Rank at discharge:
Corporal
Company Assignment:
B
8/1/1864
Enlisted
Wedowee, AL
8/1/1864
Mustered In
Rome, GA
6/13/1865
Promoted
To Corporal.
10/20/1865
Mustered Out
Huntsville, AL
Buried: Forrest Chapel, Wedowee, Randolph Co., AL.
Here is his actual tombstone.
He had never been a devotee towards the Southern cause at all, but by 1864, when he decided to fight, the Confederacy was ruined. It had lost at Gettysburg a year before and it was within 9 months of surrendering. Confederate paper currency, valuable in the heyday of the C.S.A. was practically worthless by the end of the war. The Union however, paid in gold. I think he made a wise choice.
But he was hardly the only Southerner to fight for the Union.
When the gathering dark clouds of war were all encompassing in the South and in Northwest Alabama in particular in the spring of 1861, the voices of dissent were loud and clear. While some were eager to fight for a newly created secessionist government, many others considered an impeding war as a wicked, treasonous undertaking and wanted no part of it.
Indeed, a majority in the hills of Northwest Alabama, mostly poor yeomen dirt farmers, saw little value or reason in taking arms against the federal government. They recognized quite early that this was not their fight, but that it was the landed gentry. It was obvious to the hill folk that the plantation owners and their political spokesmen were fanning the war flames and talked the loudest about separation.
With their money and property and political power, it was the planters who felt most threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln as president.
That “Black Republican” Lincoln, the planters said, would mongrelize the races. He would destroy everything they built as a finer civilization. Southern women would not be safe from roving gangs of black thieves. They only thing to do, the planters contended, was to fight protect their very way of life, to secede and create a government that would protect their interests, protect their property rights, and protect that “peculiar institution.”
Of course, the peculiar institution was slavery.
But in the rugged landscape of northern Alabama, slaves were few and far between. The same was true in the mountains of East Tennessee and North Georgia and western North Carolina, and western Virginia, which would later become a state because of its overwhelming anti-confederate sentiment.
Few slaves were owned in the upland South, simply because the land would not support a plantation economy. Those who did work the land in the mountain South were a fiercely independent breed, poor but proud, and of no mind to lend support to plantation owners who looked down upon them as uneducated and inferior.
Winston County resident James B. Bell, a farmer who owned no slaves, was typical of an Alabama unionist. He blamed secession on large "Negroholders." In a letter to his pro-confederate son in Mississippi on April 21, 1861, he wrote. "All they [slave holders] want is to git you pupt up and go fight for there infurnal negroes and after you do there fighting you may kiss there hine parts for o [all] they care."
Southern unionists were not threatened by Lincoln’s election but saw him more as a blank slate. They were willing to give him a chance as president and did not see the federal government as any threat to their property rights.
Read more, here.
Great-Great-Grandfather Camp we was part of the 1st Alabama Cavalry, officially of the state of Indiana.
The details.
Name: William Anderson Camp
Born: 23 November 1845
Died: 11 December 1925
Aged: 80 years
(Old for those days)
Age upon enlistment:
19
Birthplace:
Malone. Randolph Co., AL
County Seat: Wedowee.
Occupation:
Farrier
Rank at enlistment:
Private
Rank at discharge:
Corporal
Company Assignment:
B
8/1/1864
Enlisted
Wedowee, AL
8/1/1864
Mustered In
Rome, GA
6/13/1865
Promoted
To Corporal.
10/20/1865
Mustered Out
Huntsville, AL
Buried: Forrest Chapel, Wedowee, Randolph Co., AL.
Here is his actual tombstone.
Obvious? Or just me?
Readership, Comrade Kevin knows he is not exactly "normal". Or the normal male.
But in his job at the library today, he sheleved this book below. The title speaks for itself.
What are your thoughts?
Now, Now, Let's Not Be Premature
Hillary Clinton's campaign, while not in turmoil is certain in damage control mode. Readership, Comrade Kevin makes no predictions for many reasons, most of which is that politics varies day to day, as do the odds. As much as I would like to believe the above column, I think it is stretching it, to put it likely that her campaign and her candidacy is bankrupt. What is for sure is that she is predicted to likely not win another primary/caucus victory for the rest of the month and is hinging her bets on Ohio and Texas, both 4 March. Obama is comfortably ahead in today's so-called Chesapeake Primary of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia and expected to carry all three.
The only chance Clinton has for an upset is in Virginia. Sunday, Wisconsin and Hawaii vote. Until recently, Clinton had a slight edge in Wisconsin, but Obama's overall country-wide momentum has pulled both candidates dead even in that state. Obama is expected to win Hawaii, where he spent most of his early childhood. A win in Wisconsin would cement him as the front runner. Clinton would then have to win Ohio and Texas both by comfortable margins, and if Obama mania persists into next month an air of inevitability (talk about a reverse of fortunes) would rule supreme over Obama's campaign and he would take the nomination.
So while we who support Senator Obama and his bid for the White House cheer him on, let's stay realistic. If he wins the Nomination, let us hope he can respond to the likely negative, Rovian tactics facing him from an extremely desperate GOP reluctantly backing John McCain.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Beatles actually MORE Popular than Christ
Fun fact: at 4:13 p.m. Monday, January 21, 2008, "the Beatles" = 39,100,000 hits on google.com beating "Jesus Christ" = 38,100,000 hits meaning the Beatles are officially more famous than Jesus.
Somewhere, John Lennon is gloating.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Universal Health Care Plan That Might Pass
Physicians for a National Health Program are a grassroots organization of medical doctors, healthcare professionals, and medical students proposing a single-payer system of the sort proposed by Dennis Kucinich. The site is obsessively and extensively documented. The only problem I see is that it makes too much sense. What is more likely is a compromise.
I posted this yesterday at The American Street, but this issue is so important to me that I'm reposting it in its entirely here. We all know that the best solution is not always the won that passes muster and I'm attempting to find a system that would pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.
Let me begin this post on a personal note. I am twenty-seven years old, male, white, college-educated, and have both a B.A. and graduate school credit to my name. I work two jobs and both combined provide a whopping $19,000 a year. Thanks to the student loan Gods, I owe $24,000 in loans to the government, approximately $2,000 of which I have paid off. I pay $141 a month with the ultimate goal of paying these off entirely. If at any point at time I became unemployed and/or refused to make monthly payments, the federal government would garnish my wages to pay off my outstanding student loan debt. This includes unemployment and/or medical disability if I were unable to work due to a worsening of my condition.
I posted this yesterday at The American Street, but this issue is so important to me that I'm reposting it in its entirely here. We all know that the best solution is not always the won that passes muster and I'm attempting to find a system that would pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.
Let me begin this post on a personal note. I am twenty-seven years old, male, white, college-educated, and have both a B.A. and graduate school credit to my name. I work two jobs and both combined provide a whopping $19,000 a year. Thanks to the student loan Gods, I owe $24,000 in loans to the government, approximately $2,000 of which I have paid off. I pay $141 a month with the ultimate goal of paying these off entirely. If at any point at time I became unemployed and/or refused to make monthly payments, the federal government would garnish my wages to pay off my outstanding student loan debt. This includes unemployment and/or medical disability if I were unable to work due to a worsening of my condition.
In addition to these challenges, I also have chronic illnesses that require prescription drugs to treat them and constant visits to a specialist to monitor my conditions.
You might say I have a vested interest in seeing a viable Universal Health Care plan passed. I’m not asking for anyone’s sympathy, just perhaps a understanding of why I want so desperately to see Universal Health Care sooner than later. And I’m far from the only person who would benefit from a workable program.
In two prior posts: here and here I have proposed prior solutions to establish universal care for every American. Suffice to say neither Obama’s plan nor Clinton’s plan is workable for me.
In an ideal world, the single-payer system proposed by Dennis Kucinich would be the most effective for us all. But I don’t need to inform all of you wise people reading this that what is ideal is not often what occurs in reality. What we often resort to is compromise. A single-payer system could be funded partially by rolling back the Bush tax cuts and ending the millions of dollars we pay every day in Iraq. But those alone would not provide the billions of dollar we would need to have a system that would be, at best, inefficient, underfunded, and another one of those dreaded unfunded mandates.
Passing a Universal Health Care plan is going to require a Grand Compromise between Republicans and Democrats. Even if in November we elect a Democratic President and maintain a Democratic controlled Congress (potentially even adding gains to the Democratic majority), the GOP representatives, Senators, and lobbyists who cater to members of BOTH parties will be hellbent trying to thwart every and all attempts made.
Expanding competition to include more than the four of five insurance companies who hold an effective monopoly over the health care industry is one solution. With expanded competition, prices would be forced by the nature of the Capitalist system to lower costs for everyone. The drawback of that approach is that the only way to increase competition is to decrease regulation. The Healthcare system in the United States is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world. The reason Canada and other countries can sell prescription drugs cheaper than we can is because their Healthcare industries are not as tightly regulated as ours are. We pay $500 a month for a 30 day supply of medication when Canada pays 1/5 of that because U.S. residents absorb the medical and research costs involved in developing newer and more effective medications.
The drawback with de-regulation, one that Democrats would take serious offense to is that with de-regulation comes personal abuses. Flim-flam, fourth-rate, snake oil sales companies would spring up and certain individuals would unknowingly invest in policies that fleece them of their money while providing at best, insufficient, and at worse, utterly useless medical coverage. But in that case, consumer education and let the buyer beware comes into play. Free-market advocates, many of them Republican have long advocated these very same principles. Thus, they would be much more inclined to play ball if they won these concessions.
Democrats, rightly so, would cry foul. We need regulation, they say! Any time people are tricked and deceived by corporations is an utter travesty! And they’re right. But guess what? That sort of thing happens all the time anyway, under the current flawed system. Think about how many ways insurance companies deny coverage to needy people based on fine print and by claiming that they do not cover “pre-existing” conditions. The capitalist system ensures that bad companies go under with time because enough bad press ensues, enough people get angry, and these companies get enough criticism and lose enough business that they go out of business anyway.
A placated GOP would concede to de-regulation but deregulation alone is not enough to pay for Universal Coverage. Taxes need to be raised as well. Although Americans are notoriously loathe to pay raised taxes for anything, and this goes all the way back to the American Revolution, where a majority of soon-to-be Americans fought a war on the pretense that they were being taxed without representation, there is an ingrained repulsion in the American mentality towards increased taxation of any kind, regardless of whether or not it ultimately benefits us all in the end.
However, taxes will need to be raised. How much and on whom is a matter of debate. The fairest system would increase taxes directly proportional to income. Those living in poverty could not afford the increased tax load and would benefit from universal coverage the most. Not just because they are often the ones fleeced by greedy Big Pharma, but that with more money in their pockets, less bankruptcy and less poverty would result. These people would have more more at their disposal and no matter where they spend it, they would thrust more capital into the system and increase the economy. I’m not nearly naive enough to believe that people will best spend their money to benefit themselves. The money not spent on healthcare might be spent on cell phones, lottery tickets, or computer games systems but at least these people would be able to add money into the economy rather than draining it by contributing nothing at all.
I think taxation would then need to begin at a minimum income that would be adjusted for inflation periodically. Those who make more would ultimately be taxed more. That’s how we do it now to fund a variety of other social services. A Compromise that includes a Democratic tax raise in return for a promise of deregulation to appease Republicans is the best solution.
The problem then is that Big Pharma doesn’t want expanded competition. They want to make as much profit as possible. They have made billions of dollars of money based on sheer greed. Their lobby has an equal sway over representatives of both parties. The challenge will be to offer some kind of incentive to big Pharma because if they feel threatened, they will fight against legislation tooth and nail. Perhaps we could propose tax breaks to big Pharma. But that’s not fair, you say! These people make money hand over fist as it right now under the current system! Rest assured, Big Pharma, like all corporations, will do whatever it can to keep its monopoly and allocate money, propaganda, and resources to driving everyone else out of the business. The balancing factor is that with more companies in the insurance business, they can offer additional incentives the Big Boys can’t, like increased customer satisfaction, lower premiums, and additional strategies the Bigger Companies are not currently providing. That being the case, we all win, because effective strategies in business are inevitable absorbed into all because the ultimate motive in a capitalist system is to make money, and as much of it as possible. Competition often creates innovation.
Life is not fair and in order to get what is in the best interest of everyone, everyone’s going to have to get something out of the bargain. None of us is going to get exactly what we want exactly the way we want it. That is just the way life works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
