McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 07:05 PM
Number of posts: 16,227
Number of posts: 16,227
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
Why do we choke up when we see a stranger empathize with a gay couple denied service in a restaurant? Being kicked out of a Mexican eatery in Mississippi seems like such a first world problem. There are folks all over the world who are being murdered for their sexual orientation and the color of their skin and their religious beliefs. Why does this little--in the relative scheme of things---bit of discrimination evoke such a massive amount of emotion?
For all our rhetoric about the right to freedom and happiness, if you are born in the USA, you are expected to toe the line. This is true for men, who are told from an early age that big boys do not cry. And for girls, who are told that little ladies do not fight. Since sorrow and anger are two essential human emotions, we resist the social boundaries. We try to express our true feelings--our emotions of anger, sadness and love. And time after time, we get knocked down, slapped back, ostracized, criticized---until it seems that the only way we can survive is by wearing a mask.
And so, we enter adulthood hating the selves that we truly want to be. We enlist in the military and allow ourselves to be used as fodder for the latest war for oil, because being a soldier means that we are real men. We accept 78 cents on the dollar of what our male coworkers make and do not say a word or make a wave, we allow our children to grow up in poverty, because being a doormat means that we are ladies.
But secretly, we long to be ourselves---the true selves which society condemns. And so, when we see someone else, say a person of color or a gay couple or someone who is disabled or a member of a minority religion treated unfairly, cruelly, we react. We can not cry for our lost selves---we have absorbed society's criticism so completely that it now defines who were are. We have been incorporated into the machine, perfect little cogs and wheels which do not question their function. But in our hearts, we remember and know This is not who I am. I was forced to be this way. And so, when we see someone else who has the courage to stand up against those all too powerful social forces in the defense of someone else, a stranger, we say our quiet Thank yous. Because that person stood up for all of us.
All of us are Black. All of us are Gay. All of us are Women. All of us are Children. All of us are Disabled. All of us are Muslim. All of us are Different, squares pegs forced into round holes, our rough edge smoothed down, the wounds of our social indoctrination still raw no matter how old or successful we are.
Put your paws up, baby. You were born this way.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Mar 30, 2015, 02:20 PM (0 replies)
Sexism is alive and well in the U.S. today. Take my own profession, medicine. A male doctor who is not a complete dick is treated as something special. A female doctor who is not 100% Mary Poppins is a "bitch." Another way to say the same thing: patients will not tolerate a female physician who does not act motherly, but they often respect--and continue to consult--- a male physician who is curt, abrupt or even downright rude---like the one who started a visit by saying to me "I will ask the questions and you will answer the questions and you will not say anything else." Yeah, he was an asshole, everyone knew it. But a man like that can maintain a practice. His god-complex is a sign that he is good at his job.
On a related note, if the corporation is run by "good old boys" who thank the Lord each day that they were born men and not women, because being a man makes them "better", lower level staff will be tempted to scapegoat females, even females in positions of power--i.e. their bosses--- because they know that the Good Old Guy(s) at the top are so eager to discredit the female competition that they will readily believe that the woman executive caused the latest disaster--even if she had nothing to do with it. The female executives will be required to "prove" that they are loyal and up to the job---but the harder they try, the more threatened the men will become, and the more eager they will be to accept any criticism of their female colleagues. Hillary Clinton is a victim of this. We have all seen how often she is "accused" of doing the same things that male politicians do. She can only get a break when she is practically doing a Mother Theresa routine. Those who write and read the mainstream news know that their Good Old Boy bosses are scared to death of not being better than even a single woman, and so they level vicious attacks on her as a cheap, fast way to earn favor. Everyone wants to get ahead. If they can get ahead by blaming their mistakes on a woman---then "cherchez la femme".
Of course, anyone who has to label him or herself "better" than someone else in order to sleep at night is a bundle of neurosis and self doubt, and really should not be in a position of power. But it is these same scared little boys and girls who crave power--or rather the illusion of control---so that they can stop being frightened. And so they claw their way to the top of the dog pile. But no matter high they get, they never stop being afraid. And their fear paralyzes the organizations which they control, preventing them from enacting meaningful change in order to 1) increase profits 2) improve services and 3) build a lasting enterprise. They create a house of cards which looks flush on paper but really has no more substance than a soap bubble, and if they are lucky they cash out. And if they are unlucky, they go bankrupt--and find a woman to blame. All because 10,000 years ago, before the advent of agriculture, those who did not have wombs had to have a different mindset and different hormones in order to track and kill mammoths in order to feed those who did have wombs.
Of course, the third world has it twice or maybe even a hundred times as bad. There, women are treated as chattel, property. There, the poorest man knows that at least he isn't a woman. It helps him bear the indignity of his life. And if it all gets to be too much, he can use his woman as a punching bag and know that his culture will say "She had it coming. She gave him lip. She showed her ankles." You have to wonder, if all that rage against social injustice wasn't being channeled against women, maybe the victims of oppression would notice who the real enemy is. Maybe they would create a well organized, effective resistance, rather than houses of cards, like ISIS and Al Qaeda which temporarily boost their machismo, but in the end are just "sound and fury signifying nothing."
All this effort spent keeping women suppressed---excuse me, I meant to say safe--is a drain on our time and resources. Dwindling resources. Our overpopulated world can no longer afford sexism. There are no more mammoths. When we want to eat, we no longer have to hunt. We no longer have the option of hunting. We have to work together to create a social and economic structure capable of feeding and providing shelter for the billions who now live on our planet.
Isn't it time for the human race to grow up?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 28, 2015, 06:48 PM (35 replies)
1. Men ganging up to attack her. Her star began to rise in New Hampshire when Edwards and Obama did a dog pile on her during the debate. My mother, an Edwards supporter up until then, switched immediately to being a Clinton supporter after watching how well Clinton handled herself in the face of what she considered male bullying. Sorry to all the guys out there. I know you did not create our sexist, woman bashing world and I am sure that you are not personally guilty of sexism. However, you live in a world where women get paid 78 cents on the dollar, are accused of "asking for it" if they get raped at the age of 11 and where reproductive politics take a back seat to economic politics, even though lack of choice is why so many children (as in over half of them) live in poverty. Men---especially heterosexual men---have benefited from sexism all their lives whether they realize it or not. They attack women from a position of power--at least that is how it looks to women.
2. Her tears. Forget Muskie. That was a whole other gender. A woman's tears are her weapon. Society does not allow women to get angry--they label angry women "shrill", "hysterical". Society prefers that women cry to show their sorrow and their anger. Those were not "crocodile tears" in New Hampshire. Those were a woman's feelings. Those were all women's feelings. When Hillary cries over the plight of third world children forced into sex slavery or folks here at home who can not get necessary health care, she completely negates all the "war hawk" rhetoric. She does not have to actually mess up her makeup. It is enough for her to get a little choked up and misty eyed. Yes, I know the guys think that it is unfair that women use their tears. But remember, we make 78 cents on the dollar, do not have access to birth control, have fewer opportunities to become professional athletes, are tossed on the Hollywood rubbish heap when we turn 30, get passed over for promotion---- and are called psychotic if we get mad about it.
3. Denigrating motherhood. Every time someone says that being a mother is not an important job experience or that "women's and children's issues" are optional (and yes, it really was posted here at DU), they buy into the old myth that raising a family is not a vocation, it is a vacation. Those who claims that motherhood does not teach important life skills which can be useful in the White House--can you cite an example of a mother who was a bad president? No, you can't. Because we haven't had a woman president. Not yet.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:26 PM (3 replies)
...and that is why I love---and support---Mother Hillary.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:49 AM (8 replies)
Finally figured it out. This is America, the land of the rugged individual. When so many self styled liberal pundits join each other in lock-step to declare that they would rather poke out their eyeballs with flaming hot skewers than allow former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be our Democratic nominee, it can mean only thing---they love the woman. They are trying to bolster her middle of the road creds for the general. They know that she will be the nominee, and therefore they are playing Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch.
"Oh please, Mr. Democratic primary voter. Don't make me vote for Hillary Clinton in the general. I'd rather do anything than that. Yes, I would."
Brilliant strategy! Declare that she is a "war hawk"! That will reassure the independents who are worried about terrorists and who fear that a woman does not have the balls to keep them safe. Remind us that she attended Christian prayer breakfasts in Congress---last I heard, only about 80% of the American electorate consider themselves Christians. What else? Oh, yes. The Patriot Act. Because voting to give the telecoms immunity was such a thorn in the side of Obama during the 2008 general election. Yes, indeed, I can not remember how many soccer moms and NASCAR dads I heard questioning Obama's judgment on that one. While you are at it, blame her for the Iraq War. Since even the most historically challenged American recalls that Bush/Cheney and Powell are the ones who tricked us into war, this will make you look like a bunch of idiots with a grudge, negating the effect of any other barbs you may lob her way.
So, all you playful progressives, keep it up! Tell mainstream America over and over again how absolutely, disgustingly moderate you think Senator Clinton is. And while you are at it, repeatedly mumble "She's ok on women's and children's issues. I guess. For what that's worth." That way you won't have to worry that the nation's women---who tend to be a little left of middle---might take your ranting at face value. In fact, alienate as many women as you can. It will only solidify her base, which will rally around her as they perceive her being the target of yet another witch hunt. Yes, it means that many of you will suffer, condemned as sexist pigs for your increasingly shrill attacks on the woman. But hey, your personal reputation is a small price to pay in order to pave the way for Eight More Years!
Oh, and consider this. What if Clinton has decided to take a page from her husband's playbook? Bill Clinton chose to run with Al Gore rather than a VP from the North or West, because picking a running mate like himself made him seem more self assured in the eyes of voters. More comfortable in his own skin. So, if I were Bill Clinton, I would suggest that Hillary pick a strong woman to run with her. A woman like Elizabeth Warren. But I'd keep it quiet. That way when Clinton and Warren do their surprise team up at the convention, it will be one of those "Let's all come together" moments that Democrats love--like the one in 2008 when Obama chose Clinton to be on his team. I saw that one coming from a mile away, though many at the time called me crazy. "What? Obama embrace Clinton? That woman is the evil-anti Obama! It will never ever happen!"
Isn't politics fun! And don't you wish you were a fly on the wall when Clinton and Warren had their little talk? Who here really believes that if Clinton offered Warren the VP slot--and a shot as the highest office herself in eight years---Warren would "Just say no"? How does it feel knowing that Hillary Clinton has the power to do what you only wish that you could do---put Elizabeth Warren in the White House?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 01:25 AM (3 replies)
I'm gonna make this fast and easy, because folks don't have the attention span they used to. This will not be a twenty paragraph OP with links and pics. This will be a 20 item list.
1. Gas Is Going to be $2 a gallon this summer
2. Exxon's profits are dropping
3. If we invade Iran, oil prices will go back through the roof
4. Jeb Bush is in the pocket of Big Oil
5. Jeb Bush helped write the "Project for a New American Century" in the 1990s, which called for invading Iraq and Iran, "liberating" their oil.
6. Jeb Bush's Brother, W. used 9-11---which happened on his watch due to his ineptitude---as an excuse to invade Iraq.
7. Oil prices were through the roof under W.'s watch.
8. In 2005, W. wanted to invade Iran, too, but the Pentagon would not let him. Did not want war on three fronts.
9. Did I mention that oil prices are going to drop to $2 a gallon this summer? Yeah, I did. Twice. This is the third time. That is because cheap gas is what this is all about. Or rather, the oil industry's plan to raise the price of gas back to $4 a gallon.
10. The NeoCons and their puppets---NYT, WaPo, certain factions in Israel, the GOP---are now demanding that we invade Iran. They are currently trying to soften up the American public to accept the idea of another war for oil in the Middle East.
11. Jeb Bush's number one problem if he runs for president will be his brother and father's oil-hawkish tendencies---they both went to war in the Middle East---and the fact that Jeb also is a well documented hawk who advocated invading Iran for its oil back in the 1990s.
12. America wishes we had never gotten into Iraq. America is leery of getting into Iran.
13. Jeb Bush's best chance at being president is to trick Dems into nominating someone who is not well known, so that the GOP controlled MSM can shape the debate on that person's "character." You know, call him or her a "waffler" a "fake". This will put the Dem nominee on the defensive like McGovern in 1972, keeping him or her from focusing on Jeb's many weaknesses.
14. Jeb Bush will crash and burn if he has to run against someone who already has a well known persona that can not be morphed by the MSM. Or against someone who is too charismatic to be trashed.
15. The Dems must nominate someone who is absolutely charming in person that no one in the press will want to trash his or her character---like another Obama---or someone with so much history that the public already knows the person. Howard Dean, Al Gore or Hillary Clinton all fit the bill. In other words, we need either charisma or fame. Or both. Give me a nominee with charisma and/or fame and I will jump on the bandwagon. Give me someone who is unknown to the majority of independent Americans and that person had better have "I wanna drink a beer with him/her" potential.
16. So, if you want someone fresh and new, ask yourself "How many independents will want to drink a beer with my candidate?" If the answer is "Not too many, but he or she will do great things once in office!" you are backing the wrong candidate.
17. If Jeb "wins" or steals this election, we will be at war in Iran, our national debt with go through the roof again, you will be paying $4 a gallon for oil.
18. Since this is a free country (for at least two more years) you have a right to ignore number 17 and parrot the GOP whose current talking point for the Dem primary is that Clinton is a "war hawk". Go on. You know you want to say it. War hawk, war hawk, war hawk. Rand Paul called her that on Meet the Press last year. Rand Paul told the nation's Democrats that if they nominate Clinton, she will be perceived as too "hawkish" for independent America. I am sooo glad that Rand Paul has our party's best interests at heart. (Yeah, I am being sarcastic).
19. Anyone who rushes to defend Rand Paul and spit on Hillary Clinton in the replies to this thread is, by definition, a Republican. No, this point is not negotiable.
20. The "enemy" is not any Democrat. The enemy is Jeb Bush/the NeoCons/ and Big Oil.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Mar 14, 2015, 12:26 PM (13 replies)
Still the most unbeatable combo we have. The fact that so many Republicans are all over Clinton---i.e. three separate House committees--proves that they are scared of her.
The latest little bit of pathetic criticism which I read here at DU was that Clinton looked old. And tired.
Dudes and Dudettes, you think women in office is "old and tired" because you are Democrats. You will not determine the outcome of the general. That will be the unaligned so called Independent voters who have to have something fun and new given to them in order to capture their attention and get them to the polls. Well, to them, Clinton/Castro will be extremely new and lots of fun. When a woman with a real shot at winning is at the head of the Democratic ticket, it will be the hottest ticket around. We will see a national debate on gender. We will see a few NASCAR dads vote against her out of fear of a strong woman. We will see even more Soccer moms and GOP women vote for her in disgust at the wretched behavior of the NASCAR dads.
We will discover who really wears the pantsuits in this country.
And with Castro on the ticket, we beat the GOP once again when it comes to the ever growing Latino vote---and pave the way for President Julian Castro in 2020 (I am betting she won't run for re-election) or in 2024.
If we can only persuade Al Franken to run a (pretend) campaign so that he can take part in each debate and drive up the ratings, the Democratic primary will be even more fun and more new. We also need a couple of uber-lefties to get out there and scare middle America with their uber-lefty talk, so that middle America realizes that Clinton is not the Marx spouting Lesbian witch that the Republicans will try to portray her as being.
I can not wait.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Thu Mar 12, 2015, 01:47 AM (2 replies)
Here's a lesson that I learned in 1968. Back then, I knew people who loved Hubert Humphrey, LBJ's VP and the eventual Democratic nominee after the food fight on steroids in Chicago. The folks who loved him were often (but not always) Black. They loved him because of all the things that he had done for Civil Rights. As LBJ's VP, he had worked like a dog to gather the necessary vote to pass the Voting Rights Act and other legislation.
However, equal rights under the law were not the only issue on the table in 1968. The other big topic of concern was the draft. Young men were dying in Vietnam, in a war which LBJ could not win but from which he could not extricate the country, either. Realizing what a mess Vietnam was, LBJ decided not to run again, so that he could concentrate on ending the war. His man, Henry Kissinger, conspired with the GOP candidate Nixon to derail the peace talks and keep the war going, because the war was Hubert Humphrey's big weakness among Democratic voters.
You see, all those young men subject to the draft and their friends and family members hated LBJ as much as Blacks folks loved him. I remember, in the same week, going with my 3rd grade teacher (Black) to greet LBJ when he arrived in Austin and attending an anti-war rally where he was vilified by my mother's UT friends.
The hatred of LBJ rubbed off on Humphrey. Being LBJ's VP, he could not run against the war---it would have been disloyal. So, he was labeled a hawk. He was reviled. A man whose focus had always been on domestic equality under the law was suddenly transformed into some kind of war criminal. No one cared about the good he had done at home for underprivileged people. They looked at him and saw only WAR. They were convinced that his only reason for being in politics was to promote war.
Humphrey lost by the narrowest of margins. Nixon, who ran on a campaign of "Four years is enough to end a war" promptly escalated the war and illegally invaded Cambodia and Laos. He is responsible for many more deaths of young US men. No doubt, some of those men stayed home in 1968 as a "protest vote" against Humphrey the Hawk. Some of them probably voted for Eugene McCarthy. And their votes may well have cost them their lives.
What does this mean in 2016? Be very careful of labeling any Democratic a "hawk" and deciding that a protest third party vote or stay home vote is the best way to turn the party to the left. Those protest third party votes in 2000 did not turn us to the left. They gave us eight years of Dumbya and then a middle of the road Obama. Those protest third party votes in 1968 did not turn us to the left. They gave us the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Washington Post (briefly) turned us to the left because Nixon/Mitchell threatened some of Katie Graham's media holdings and so she turned loose two of her reporters on Nixon in order to get even. That is not likely to happen again, not with our current MSM. If we buy another GOP Neo-con we will be at war in Iran. If the Dems keep the White House, we won't. It is as simple as that.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 02:44 AM (34 replies)
Colchicine is one of those ancient drugs that doctors have been using forever. Like aspirin and morphine, no one has a patent on it, because it is so old that its use predates patents---
That was until 2009 when a wily pharmaceutical company conducted clinical trials to see if colchicine was effective in treating gout. No surprise about the outcome. Doctors had been using the medication for decades to successfully treat gout. The surprise came when URL Pharma---which was later purchased by Takeda---applied for an exclusive patent on colchicine based upon their low cost no risk trial---they knew that it was going to work. The FDA gave URL Pharma--and later Takeda--the sole right to sell the gout medication in this country.
Prior to the FDAs decision, colchicine was available as a low cost generic made by over 20 companies. Once URL Pharma/Takeda got the patent, they were able to raise the price so high that average Americans could no longer afford it. The ugly truth is spelled out in the amicus brief filed by the American College of Rheumatology
What's next? Will Pfizer do a trial, discover that aspirin prevents strokes and heart attacks and apply for a patent so that they can get the exclusive right to sell it at $5 a pill? Maybe Sandoz can do studies of marijuana's affect on nausea and get a patent to control all weed that is sold in the US. Marijuana would get a lot more expensive, but we could be assured that it would be available. The government would never ban a drug that could make Big Pharm a ton of money. Maybe someone should patent water--you know, H20. Has anyone done an official trial to see what effect oral rehydration with H20 does for heat exhaustion? Maybe Smith-Kline could become the sole licensed water dealer in the US---and we could pay $5 for a glass of water.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Tue Mar 10, 2015, 02:08 AM (13 replies)
That's right. DU is frothing at the mouth, demanding that Some---no make that Any Democrat play Dorothy and throw a big bucket of water on the Clinton Witch and dissolve her before she has her witchy way with us. How do I know? Because I read the posts here, which commonly ascribe Clinton with superhuman---magical, witchy powers.
1. Hillary " the War Hawk" Clinton: Funny, I thought that was Rand Paul's name for her. So why is that DU's favorite name for her? Guess a lot of us just love the wit and wisdom of Rand Paul. Anyway, Hillary singlehandedly started the war with Iraq because hers was the only Senate vote that counted. She is so all powerful that if she had voted the other way, every other Senator would have followed her lead. Plus, she is responsible for Afghanistan, too. Obama was lying when he said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan if elected. He was trying to appeal to the independents. He would have been a total peace-nick.... except that Hillary used her witch powers and her position as SOS force him to commit more troops to Afghanistan and to invade Iran---oh, wait. She didn't seize the opportunity to invade Iran. I wonder if that was part of some super-tricky Hillary witchiness.
2. Hillary "the Lawless" Clinton: Hillary never met a law that she did not break. Just to prove she could. Using her crystal ball, she looked ahead in time, saw that there would be a law in the future requiring government officials to use their government email accounts and so she deliberately and maliciously used her own email account just so she could brag later that she broke the law--and got away with it.
3. Hillary "The Bankster" Clinton: Know why the Obama Administration did not indict Goldman Sachs? It's because Hillary would not let them. To quote from a recent Greatest DU thread. "She is snuggled up good and tight with organized crime crews like Goldman Sachs that stole our future." Never mind that Clinton was SOS and Holder was Attorney General. It was her job---as the Universal Mom--to protect us from the Banksters and she blew it. And while we are on the subject of a recent Greatest Thread...
4. Hillary "She Who Squashes Our Civil Rights Beneath Her Stiletto Heels" Clinton: That witch! She voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, forcing every single other US Senator at the time--except Russ Feingold--to vote for it too. She must have an awesome magic wand. I want one of those. And---OMG!---she forced Obama to vote in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot in 2006! How dare she!
5. Hillary "She Who Is Just Asking for It" Clinton: My all time favorite friendly fire criticism. It goes something like We can not support her because she is too divisive. She deliberately forces people to hate her. It is her own fault that the press plants phony stories about her. She should be nicer, then people would like her more and they would stop saying all those mean, false things about her. If she was not so mad with her own witchy power, she would stop trying to get people to hate and fear her by doing all those awful things she does. You know, like
All this Hillary Has Witch Powers talk is not new. The Press, Republicans and Democrats commonly ascribed supernatural powers to her during the 2008 election. Every time an opponent stumbled, it was because Hillary stuck a pin in a voodoo doll. Every time Matt Drudge slimed a Democrat it was because Hillary Made Him Do It! She turned the ultra-left of left wing New Hampshire Democratic primary voters into white hood toting KKKers who voted not for her but against Obama. Her cackle was the subject of months and months of MSM debate. She was accused of using her sexuality to try to sway the minds of weak willed men---MSNBC spent 23 minutes talking about her cleavage. Her tears were crocodile tears. She was a "whore" (to quote Randi Rhodes) who slept her way to the top---nice trick considering that the press also labeled her frigid and a Lesbian. She was Medea, according to Chris Mathews, the evil mother who wanted to "crib death" her opponent's campaign. Oh, and then there was her magical, witchy stare. A quote from Comedy Central that sums up all the craziness of those who fear the Big Bad Hillary Witch
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Fri Mar 6, 2015, 03:30 PM (4 replies)