McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 16,210
Number of posts: 16,210
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
- 2016 (6)
- 2015 (72)
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (4)
- 2012 (69)
- 2011 (13)
- December (13)
- Older Archives
That is six more times that Eleanor Roosevelt. Clinton got bumped once by Mother Theresa and once by Laura Bush in the wake of 9/11. But other than those two times, she has riden a wave of public approval that no one in this country, male of female can match.
Now, I must admit that I am sad that Clinton has managed to bump Michelle Obama from a position that is often held by the first lady. I love Michelle and she has been a great first lady.
But Hillary Clinton is something special---and Americans know it. Except for that wierd little blip after 9-11 when Americans thought it was their patriotic duty to love the president and his wife, Clinton was the most admired woman during the Bush administration----and she sure as hell did not derive any of her popularity from Bush. During the Obama administration, she has retained her title as the woman that more Americans can agree upon. As much as our nation belittles and disrepects and distrusts women, Americans know in their hearts that Hillary Clinton is strong, she is fair, she has their backs.
Anyone who says that Hillary Clinton can not win the general election is delusional or lying.
I love the way that this primary is shaping up. I love the fact that corperate America is giving Bernie Sanders a platform on which to speak his mind, for the simple reason that Big Business hopes that he will upset Clinton in the primary. I am still pissed at the way that they shut out John and Elizabeth Edwards, who had many of the same things to say, back in 2008, because Wall Street was afraid that Edwards might actually get elected and enact some of the reforms that he and his wife talked about. I hope that the GOP continues to promote Sanders as the Great-Anti-Hillary to its party members. I hope that Bernia Sanders take full advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity for a Socialist to Speak the Truth About America--and not get blacked out by the mainstream media.
But when the food fight is over, I know that Sanders will throw his support behind Clinton. He will do it graciously, the way that Clinton did in 2008 for Obama. Because Democrats know that some battles are bigger than the individual combatants.
Oh, and any Republicans reading this, I am only kidding. Of course, Bernie Sanders will run a third party splitter campaign in the general. You have my word on that. Keep throwing your support his way. Keep getting his message out to the voters. Americans cannot be told too many times that its Bankers are Banksters.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:35 PM (19 replies)
Yes, Pat Buchanan, there really was and is a Southern Strategy. A few years ago---in 2006 to be precise--- on Countdown, Buchanan told Keith Olbermann that the Republicans could keep control of Congress by reminding voters that a Democratic victory would mean a committee chairmanship for Rangel. Even though Buchanan has denied that there ever was a Southern Strategy, he was proof of it at that moment.
For almost fifty years, the Republican Party has been hard at work trying to make sure that Southern white voters are scared shitless of their Black neighbors. The dialogue has changed, but the message is still the same.
Republican strategist Lee Atwater discussed the Southern strategy in a 1981 interview later published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis.
No, Atwater, you were not doing away with the "racial problem". You were just creating a newer, more acceptable code for your racism. A racism that blamed the mortgage crisis on the minority home owners who were (illegally) forced into high risk mortgages when they qualified for traditional mortgages. A racism that would rather see Americans deprived of health insurance than see a single Black man or woman get treated in time for cancer. A racism that, to this day, demands that young men of color prove that they are not a public menace. What more can we do? Carry crosses on our backs, like Jesus, to show that we mean no one harm? They killed Jesus and they keep killing us---and by us, I mean fellow Americans. Because some hotshot political strategist in a smoke filled room said "If we make them blame the ____s for their problems, we can split their vote and win this election." In Germany, the blanks were the Jews. In the US, the blanks are Blacks. In Burma, the blanks are Muslims.
The Charleston shooter----who does not deserve to have his name mentioned, because he is just a cog in a huge, death machine----thought he was acting in self defense. He thought he was protecting himself from all the bogey men who keep him scared and shaking at night. The joke---macabre, awful, but still a joke, as the devil's temptation of Eve was a joke---is on him. A bunch of rich, corporate fat cats will be laughing all the way to the bank as they dissuade their employees from joining unions by telling them "The unions will give your jobs to Blacks, to Mexicans, to anyone but you."
The election of President Barack Obama saw a new type of Southern strategy emerge among conservative voters. His election is utilized as evidence of a post-racial era to deny the need of continued civil rights legislation, while simultaneously playing on racial tensions and marking him as a "racial bogeyman". Thomas Edge described three parts to this phenomenon saying:
Strange fruit, indeed.
Now pardon me, while I cry.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Fri Jun 19, 2015, 02:19 PM (8 replies)
“The past is never dead. It's not even past.”
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Fri Jun 19, 2015, 01:31 PM (0 replies)
We saw it in the 1960s. Being anti-war or anti-segregation was hip, cool, socially acceptable. Being anti-sexual discrimination made one a "bra burner", "frigid", a "man hater", a "castrating" you know what. Civil rights activists were lauded. Feminists were targets of ridicule. Leftist women were expected to shut up and put out---they would get their "equality" through a kind of trickle down effect.
Why are we, as a society, so scared of strong uppity women?
I found this interesting article online. In Europe in the Middle Ages, women 1) who could read and write, 2) who expressed their spirituality by being active in the Church or as mystics 3) who expressed political opinions who 4) wielded power and 5) who worked outside the home were more likely to be accused of being witches. Even their attempts to promote the Church (which was conducting the Inquisition) were viewed as being deviant, suspect. If they looked like they were trying to do good deeds which took them outside the home and into the public world, it was all an act. They had devious, hidden motives. Joan of Arc--who claimed to hear the voice of the angles--had to be a witch. Only a witch would attempt to lead a nation. Only a witch would have that kind of political power. A woman with political power was dangerous. A woman who could move people with a spiritual message was dangerous---
I look around at my country now, and I see a lot more of the same.
Don't be afraid of uppity women. Women with political power are not necessarily doing it for "Satan" or in order to denigrate men or because they have penis envy. Women with political power are not freaks. Some of them are concerned citizens who feel compelled to help others. Some of them are very good at what they do.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:32 AM (75 replies)
Don't tell me you have forgotten the "Race Memo"! That was the document that was distributed by an Obama staffer to members of the press in order to interject race into the 2008 race. The "Race Memo" would have been devastating to the Obama campaign had it come to light in the fall of 2008, after the primary when the GOP could have used it to sully Obama's "nice guy" image. The Huffington Post realized what was up---they sprang the trap eight months too early when they published the "Race Memo" in January 2008. For some reason, the rest of the MSM pretended that they had never heard of it---even though news reporting in the weeks following the memo's release was obviously influenced by it. This strange media silence got me worried. Did the MSM plan to sit on the story and then suddenly pretend to "find" it after the Democratic convention? Not good. That was why I wrote what I wrote in 2008. There was no way in Hell that I was going to allow any corporate media whore to claim that Obama "stole" the nomination from Clinton. Obama would be nominated by a party that knew all about the "Race Memo" and did not give a fuck.
Why dig up the sorry carcass of this sorry piece of political dirty trickery now? It has come to my attention that some people think that they can take advantage of American's notorious political amnesia. (Go watch "Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia" It's on Netflix!) They think they can prompt people to recall that they heard something way back in 2008 about how Hillary Clinton made a bunch of racist attacks on Obama, as she attempted to "crib death" his campaign.
If we are going to take a trip down memory lane to 2008, then I think we should see all the sights and remember everything that made that year so much fun. So, here it is, one from the vaults. Here is what I wrote in 2008:
Putting All The Race Cards on the Table: "The Race Memo"
And now it looks like some want to start Race Wars Round III. Not cool. Not smart. And not very Democratic. Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite dirty trick.
Oh, and will the real author of the race memo please stand up? Back in 2008, I thought it might be Rove. Since then, I have changed my mind. I don't think Rove was smart enough to pull that stunt. I suspect Pat Buchanan was the real author. Buchanan was pretty slick, once upon a time.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu May 28, 2015, 04:00 AM (2 replies)
The Suprax drug rep came by recently with some coupons. Since Suprax is older than my son (now 22) I asked "How come Suprax doesn't have a generic yet?"
She just smiled and shrugged her shoulders.
Not a good sign. We have all seen generic drugs go back onto patent only (colchicine for gout) or stay on indefinite name brand only status. Why was Suprax---unique in that it is basically an oral form of third generation cephalosporins which are so good at treating UTIs---still so damn expensive?
Apparently, Wyath's patent in Suprax expired in 2003.
In July 2002, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals (Collegeville, Pennsylvania) discontinued manufacturing cefixime (Suprax®) in the United States. In October 2002, the company ceased marketing cefixime tablets (200 mg and 400 mg) because of depletion of company inventory. Wyeth's patent for cefixime expired on November 10, 2002. No other pharmaceutical company manufactures or sells cefixime tablets in the United States. Wyeth will continue to sell cefixime suspension (100 mg/5 ml) until March 31, 2003, or until company inventory is depleted, whichever is sooner.
It decided to stop making the drug, which the WHO considers an essential antibiotic. What happened next is truly surreal. Lupin Ltd got FDA approval to market the drug exclusively in the US.
Lupin Ltd today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) has approved the company's Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for Cefixime Suspension 100mg/5ml. Earlier this month, Lupin received approval for its Cefixime Tablet 400 mg ANDA.
How could one company get the exclusive patent for a drugs whose patent expired? Why did it take 11 years for the FDA to allow a generic version to be produced and sold in this country?
Dayton, NJ (April 20, 2015)
Lupin has not taken the competition well. Their stocks have gone down in value.
"The earlier-than-expected generic competition for Suprax and Antara has been a negative surprise. LPC may pursue acquisition to scale up the brand business near term. An acquisition may be marginally earnings accretive in the near term. However, we are less certain of considerable value accretion," the report said.
Earlier than expected? Did they expect to own the rights forever?
If someone understands how this happened, please let the rest of us know. I can see no reason why patients have to pay hundreds of dollars for an antibiotic that is over two decades old.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon May 25, 2015, 08:58 PM (9 replies)
I see a lot of folks rewriting history. "Everybody hated the idea of invading Iraq back in 2003." "Anyone with a brain was against the Invasion." Etc. However, I remember 2002-3. Back in July 2002, when Sy Hersch reported that the Bush administration intended to invade Iraq, there were a total of four letters to the NYTs raising objection. Four. I wrote a letter to my own home town paper objecting. As best I could tell at the time, those five letters were it. No one else bothered to loudly object. I know. I was interested in the issue and I followed the protests (or rather the lack of protests). A few folks, like Phil Donahue who tried to object, got shot down. And no one seemed to care. There was no massive, vocal opposition before the war, just a huge media march to war. The left had some muted criticism, but it did NOT get out there front and center to object to the war. The first really BIG anti-war protest was the one in DC in the fall of 2005, after Katrina and the stolen 2004 election, when Bush' popularity was in the toilet. And no, that was not all of us finally coming to our senses. The MSM pushed Americans into that protest the same way it pushed us into the war.
For those who have forgotten the MSM's stormy relationship with Bush, here is a summary. The majority of MSM (minus Fox) split from Bush in early 2005. Several factors were involved. First, outgoing FCC chairman Michael Powell got even for his dad by revealing that Bush had never intended to honor promises made to the MSM to relax media ownership rules. It was all a big scam. The networks covered up the Ohio election exit polls for nothing. CBS crucified Dan Rather for less than nothing---they lost their star reporter and still didn't get the media ownership changes they needed to get into compliance with the law. Second, Bush attempted to declare was on Iran in early 2005. The Pentagon said "no" to war on three fronts. The Pentagon's mouthpiece, GE's MSNBC, NBC and Newsweek took up the Pentagon's cause. In early 2005, MSNBC had the first (of many) round tables about how wars for oil were a bad idea. This after NBC led the March to War in 2002-3. Finally, the Bush administration decided to pander to the right by attempting to create A La Carte cable for the purpose of getting rid of such unGodly shows as "Sponge Bob Square Pants." Disney relies upon bundled cable to keep its merchandising empire afloat. The Mouse was not amused. It pretended to go along---agreeing to produce "Path to 9-11" which was supposed to be the GOP's ace in the hole for the 2006 election. However, the creative minds behind Disney made sure that the show was an unwatchable bomb. And then, ABC outed Mark Foley in 9-2006.
The MSM's change in positions on Bush/Cheney exactly mirror the American public's opinion of Bush--and of his war of choice for oil.
How many people hated the Iraq Invasion back in 2003? According to Gallup a whopping 23%. That is the same 23% who can always be trusted to take a contrarion position. As in "Hell yes, the earth is flat!" and "Yeah, the moon is made of cream cheese!" and "I love me some Dick Cheney!" 75% of Americans polled loved the invasion in 2003.
Two years passed before the "It was a huge mistake" crowd began to consistently outnumber the "Great war!" crowd.
How I wish that all you folks who claim to have been such vocal critics of the war back in 2002-3 had been a bit more...vocal. Maybe we would not have lost thousands of US lives, millions of Iraqi lives and trillions of US dollars. However, only a very small number of us were willing to go against the grain at the time. Easier to sit back and say nothing and not have to risk being fired (Phil Donahue) or shamed (Dixie Chicks, Bill Maher). I am sure that after seeing how Bill and the Chicks have profited from their vocal, early anti-Bush stance, many people who want to promote their own careers would love to have us believe that they were at the very forefront of the massive, anti-war movement in 2003. But dudes, if you were out there, I didn't see you. And I was watching. I was writing. I was protesting.
That isn't to say that there were not protests. Hundreds of thousands of people got out in the streets--in other countries. The world was absolutely horrified. But at home, in the US, the protests were much smaller---100s to 1000s at most. Because face it, who wants to be called "UnAmerican" when our troops are marching off to war?
So, yeah, the Iraq war was always a massively bad idea. But don't try to rewrite history and say that everyone with a brain knew it. Because if you do, that means that 75% of Americans should be on life support.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Apr 30, 2015, 01:18 PM (8 replies)
I am sorry that some real liberals who can not stand Clinton feel that they are being discriminated against at DU. I am sorry that you feel as if you are the victim of a witch hunt or vendetta or a smoke-filled back room coordinated offensive to deprive you of your free speech and your vote. But remember, nothing occurs in a vacuum, and context counts.
The anti-anti-Hillary crowd is not being masterminded by anyone in a corporate office. The anti-anti-Hillarys are speaking up on their own. Because they remember 1972. They remember when Dick Nixon and Pat Buchanan manipulated the press---and Democratic voters---into ignoring their most general election viable candidates and throwing all their eggs into a basket which the GOP had already filled with holes in preparation for the general. Tactics which have been recycled again and again. They remember 1968, when a lack of Democratic solidarity cost this country six more years in Vietnam, the Killing Fields of Cambodia, Kent State and a whole lot of other pain.
So, no, none of you personally is on the payroll of CREEP II or CREEP IX or whatever the GOP smoke filled back room is calling itself this time. None of you have personally gotten the memo with the GOP talking point du jour---Hillary is Insincere.--in your inbox. None of you is anything other than you seem---
But, from the perspective of someone who does not know you, someone who can not see your face, when you start trying to tear down the most popular Democratic candidate we have---well, warning bells go off. Because we have been burned before and many of us have vowed never to get burned again.
Here's my advice. Read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72." Then read his essays about Watergate. Then, when you sit down to spell out your issues with Clinton, you will know exactly how to phrase your ideas without giving anyone the wrong idea. Note--that means no character attacks. Anytime anyone starts indulging in character attacks, be very, very afraid. The GOP does not slime on issues. They attack character. Phrases like "war hawk" and "corporate" sound an awful lot like a GOP Big Lie, like Gore is a Liar or Kerry is a Waffler. ALL politicians will support some war, sometime---think WWII. All politicians take some money from some rich people---think Soros.
Yes, it is a pity that we can not all write exactly what we think and be believed. But if we believed everything that was written, the entire US Gross National Product would not be the property of some guy in Nigeria.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Apr 19, 2015, 03:53 PM (43 replies)
You can slice and dice the US electorate in many ways. Rural versus urban. Old versus young. Black versus white. Immigrant versus native born. However, there is one demographic that transcends age, race, birth status, economic status. That is gender. If you are a woman in the United States, you are a second class citizen.
We have all been there. We are denied promotions. We are forced to train the newly hired men who will become our bosses. We are paid a fraction of what men make for doing the same work. Our ideas are ignored in meetings. Our ambition is treated as shameful--unfeminine.
Our bodies are kicked around like footballs by men trying to score ideological points---why protect the already born when you can protect the unborn to show your "family values"? We are denied birth control then condemned for trying to raise children we "cannot afford." We are condemned if we ask the fathers of our children to help in their care---"That whore probably got pregnant to collect child support," say the woman haters.
If we speak up to question our lot in life we are called "bitch", "witch", "castrating." We are told that issues which affect us are less important than issues which affect men---our concerns are just "women's and children's issues." We are told that we can have our equality after our men have their equality. We are supposed to be happy with "trickle down" equality---if our men get ahead, then we will get ahead. In this last respect, we are treated like children, who derive their social status from that of their parents---
Fifty years into the new feminist movement that started in the later 1960s, women are still treated as infants. Well, this "dumb blond" stopped being a child many decades ago. She is a grown up, and she expects to be treated as a grown up.
It is not my job to make men feel better about themselves by hiding my intelligence, agreeing with them when they are wrong or apologizing before I (reluctantly) have to set them straight in order to keep them from making fools of themselves and steering our organizations into disaster. I expect to take part in a dialogue about the policies which will guide my company, my country, my world. I expect to have my voice heard. And I don't think it's right that in order to do this, I have to assume a gender neutral name, so that trolls will not flame me for being female.
I am not smart in spite of being a woman. I am smart, in large part, because of the shit I have been forced to endure because I am a woman. The oppression which I have suffered (and yes, even a physician in this country suffers oppression, if the doc is a woman) has taught me a lot. I have learned to value my own opinions, to distrust social dictum. I am willing to cast off the old and look for a new, better way, if the new, better way will make life better for all of us, especially the children, who---as the dependents of adult women who have been turned into children themselves----are doubly disenfranchised and doubly oppressed.
How did sexism affect my life? Let me count the ways. It started before I was born. My mother, an Emory grad, could not go to medical school because she got married and had a child. Having a spouse and child would not have been a barrier to a young male pre-med back in the 1950s, but it was an absolute barrier for a woman. And guess what? Twenty years later, when I applied to medical school, I was told by several interviewers to reconsider my career choice. My sin? I had married an engineer. I was told that if I wanted to keep my husband, I would have to rethink being a doctor, because he would never be able to stand the shame of having a wife who made more money than him. By the way, we recently celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary.
As a child, we moved from apartment to apartment. Even though my mother was a computer scientist for NASA contractors and later NASA, she could never get a home loan, because she was divorced. In the 1960s, banks would not write a mortgage unless there was a man's signature attached. Oh, and speaking of computer science jobs, my mother was interviewed and hired by one firm in the 1960s. Then the real boss got back to town. He summoned his secretary into his office. He had her sit on his lap. He told my mother that his firm only hired women to be secretaries---
We have come a long way, baby, but we still have far to go. And one of the hurdles we need to overcome is the myth that a woman president is unnatural. That a woman who wants to be president must be some kind of freak. That a woman as president can not keep us safe. That she will be too easily swayed by the men around her. That she will not be able to accept campaign contributions without repaying that money in quid pro quo, because women are weak, puppets, devoid of ideas, fueled only by a single desire---the desire to please the men around them, meaning that we do not judge women on their own worth, we judge them by the worth of their men.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:54 PM (86 replies)
Here they are, our two pals Ren and Stimpy, demonstrating the two very different reactions at DU to Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's upcoming announcement that she will run for the office of POTUS. Oh boy! We are in for a fun primary! We all want a fun primary, don't we? It would not be a Democratic primary if it was not a food fight at a monster truck rally!
"I'll teach you to be happy. I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs."
Look, Sally, look! See Hillary run! Run, Hillary, Run!
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Apr 11, 2015, 04:42 PM (1 replies)