MISSISSIPPI IS A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY

From my post on the Hattiesburg American forum:

Extrano, are you implying that Mississippi doesn't have "dilapidated towns" or "crumbling infrastructure" or "crime and corruption" in government?

If so, you're dreaming. This state is a hellhole. And yes, I live here and pay taxes here and all the rest. So I'm allowed to say that. But even someone who doesn't live here or pay taxes here is allowed to say that. There is objective, independently verifiable evidence to point to the conclusion that Mississippi is, like I said, a hellhole.

Just go check out the "American Community Survey" at the Census Bureau website:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTSelectServlet?ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_

Here are the facts:

Mississippi is dead last (or near it) in:

-Median household income
-Median Family Income (In 2007 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School (Includes Equivalency)
-Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed a Bachelor's Degree (next to last place)
-Employment/Population Ratio for the Population 16 to 64 Years Old (next to last place)

Mississippi is first (or in the Top 10) in:

-Percent of grandparents responsible for grandchildren (3rd place)
-Percent of People 65 Years and Over Below Poverty Level
-Percent of Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People Below Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months (For Whom Poverty Status is Determined)
-Percent of Related Children Under 18 Years Below Poverty Level
-Percent of People 21 to 64 Years Old With a Disability (2nd place)
-Infant Mortality (2005 figure from this link: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank17.html)

THIS JUST IN: SLAVERY IS THE BASIS FOR THE CONFEDERACY

And the debate over the rebel flag goes on at the Hattiesburg American forum. I did a lot of research and writing about that today, so here are two of my posts...

"U.S. Flag Protected Slave Trade"

Logik (a member of the HA forum): "The U.S. Stars & Stripes did protect the slave trade on the high seas, even after January 1, 1808."

This statement, while true, lacks a significant qualifier that puts the lie to the point Logik is trying to make about the U.S. flag. That qualifer is that the U.S. flag protected slave ships from British ships, but not from the U.S. Navy. Logik does acknowledge that the U.S. flag "prevented any foreign police actions against...slave ships."

He then erroneously states that Congress and the Navy "did basically nothing" to enforce the ban on the slave trade. To be sure, thousands of slaves were smuggled into the U.S. despite the ban, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. did not attempt to enforce the law. For instance, the U.S. Navy's "African Squadron" patrolled the coast of West Africa from the 1840s to the beginning of the Civil War in order to catch violators of the slave trade ban. It is true that the squadron was mostly, but not completely, unsuccessful.


There were also attempts to interdict American slave ships headed to the United States prior to the formation of the African Squadron in 1843. The following passage indicates how U.S. and other flags were used:

"The Cyane [U.S. Navy vessel] continued on to intercept slavers, on 10 April 1820 bagging nine vessels suspected of slaving. At least six were from Baltimore, Charleston, and New York, but they had changed both names and colors to Spanish at sea."

"The next day, with the temperature hovering at 120 degrees on deck and 92 degrees below deck, 'the American schooner Exchange anchored near us, a prize...She is a slave trader from Baltimore via Havannah.' The expedition returned from upriver the following day. "They left their schooners nearly ready for taking on slaves but all under Spanish colors.'"

When a slave ship flying the U.S. flag was being chased by a U.S. Navy ship, the following would happen:

"...its ostensible 'captain' would hoist the Spanish flag, substitute Spanish registration papers, and might even carry a Spanish crew hidden below decks. This stratagem would be exactly reversed if apprehended by a British man of war."

For this reason, the U.S. flag was flown by foreign slavers:

"Acknowledging that foreign slavers used the American flag as a shield against British cruisers, [Navy] Secretary [Abel] Upshur warned that it should not be imagined that 'the mere hoisting of [the American] flag shall give immunity to those who have no right to use it.'"

And some slavers intentionally flew no flag at all, only to hoist a U.S. flag at the last minute before capture seemed inevitable, as described here in the journal of a sailor in the African Squadron:

"Making all sail, we chased him, under no colours; she tried hard to give us the slip, but at 11 o'clock we came up with her but she, showing no colours, we fired a shot cross her bows, & in a twinkling of an eye, the Stars and Stripes were floating at her peak, no colours have ever been hoisted faster than these were.
She had evidently been waiting for us to hoist our Ensign first so that she might hoist false ones & thus blindfold us. She thought us to be an Englishman & hence her hoisting the American flag, as if we had been what she expected, we could not have searched her."

Long story short, the presence of a U.S. flag on the mast of a slave ship did not constitute endorsement of that ship's activities by the United States.

Also, once the Civil War started, the U.S. concluded a secret treaty with the British to let the British assume the interdictions of the African Squadron. This treaty also ended the safe haven that the U.S. flag had once provided against seizure by the British:

"In the emergency, President Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, negotiated a secret treaty with the British to assume the nation's share of the African blockade, including the long-denied right of search of American-flag vessels by British warships."

Obviously, if a slave ship was flying an American flag, it was to escape capture by the British (who, admittedly, were far more effective at interdicting slave ships), not to demonstrate the approval of or sanction by the United States.

Info above can be found in this well-documented and very interesting article.

Confederate Vice-President says CSA based on slavery

The "rebel flag" we are all familiar with was incorporated into both the 2nd and 3rd official flags of the CSA. So in every conceivable way, the "rebel flag" is inextricably linked with the Confederacy, and we know that Mississippi joined left the Union and joined the Confederacy in order to be able to perpetuate the practice of slavery.

Even CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens knew the real reason the Confederacy came into being:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negr0 in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Slavery was, in Stephens' words, THE immediate cause of the formation of the CSA. He didn't say it was the only cause, to be sure. It was just the cause that had the most direct bearing on the secession. That's all.

Stephens goes on to whip up some of that good ol' "Southern pride" and "heritage, not hate" for ya:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negr0 is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


Logik, when he's not busy reading "Complicity," might want to take note of the similarities to N@zi logic in the above statement.

But seriously, I don't know why so many people who post on this forum wish to argue that slavery really didn't have all that much to do with the creation of the Confederacy. Especially when the fucking VP of the CSA himself said that making blacks subordinate to "the superior race" was the very "cornerstone" of the CSA! He actually said that slavery for blacks was normal and constituted a great "moral truth."

And we're supposed to believe that the flag of such a country doesn't represent slavery and racism? And that such a flag's inclusion on our state flag doesn't hearken back to that sentiment? Really?

Well, sorry--that shit doesn't wash. Mississippi said its decision to secede was to protect slavery, the VP of the CSA said that the very basis of the new nation (not really, though, because it was never recognized by any foreign country) was slavery, and God only knows what else.

Rebel Flag=slavery, white supremacy, tyranny and racism of the worst possible kind. End of story. It needs to be removed from our state flag--we're the last state in the Union to cling to it. It's pathetic, really. The flag stands for hate, not heritage.

Take down the rebel flag!

MISSISSIPPI GAS VS. CIGARETTE TAX

My local paper printed a great column today regarding the debate going on over raising cigarette taxes here in Mississippi:

Therefore, the priority of Mississippi government - Gov. Haley Barbour the lead dog and his lapdogs in the state Senate chief among them - is that we keep the 4-out-of-4 Mississippians who must purchase gasoline to get to work, school and church paying within 7 percent of the national average gasoline tax so that we can protect the apparent divine right of the 1-in-4 Mississippians who smoke to pay 72 percent less in tobacco taxes than other Americans.

If Mississippi's gasoline excise tax rate was equalized with the state's cigarette excise tax rate at 72 percent less than the national average, this state's gasoline excise tax rate would drop from the current 18.4 cents a gallon to 3.56 cents per gallon - or a drop of almost 15 cents per gallon at the pumps.

If there is any logic or fiscal responsibility a state artificially keeping cigarette taxes almost 10 times lower than gasoline taxes, it's lost on this writer.

I wrote a post about it on the Hattiesburg American forum, which I reproduce below.

GAYS, TAXES, MINIMUM WAGE, and the "great" LOTT & COCHRAN

Of course Salter's got a great point. The "anti-tax" sentiment of the people that run this state has no rational defense or basis in reality. It's simply a ploy to seem "fiscally conservative" which is supposed to translate in voter's minds to "I hate gays and love Jesus."

Meanwhile, large parts of the public convince themselves that as long as gays can't get married, somehow this country is still great and fair even though there are all types of the kinds of things Salter's talking about going on that are not common knowledge.

Like the fact that recently, our great Senators Lott and Cochran joioned 26 other "pro-family" Republicans and voted in favor of an amendment to the minimum wage bill passed by the House that would have effectively cancelled the minimum wage.


Did the Hattiesburg American write about that? If they did, I didn't read it.
Seems like a pretty big story to me when the state with the LOWEST median household income, LOWEST median family income, and the LARGEST percentage of people below the poverty level has senators who claim to be "pro-family" and yet vote for an amendment to kill the minimum wage despite the fact that they know the amendment has no chance of passing!


Lott and Cochran wanted to put themselves on the record as being in favor of big business, not in favor of the little guy. Just like Barbour. Please, let's not continue to fool ourselves--these guys are no good for this state.

GENE GENE THE CORPORATE-BEHEMOTH FIGHTING MACHINE

From today's Hattiesburg American:

"[Gene]Taylor wants a national all-perils insurance policy, federal oversight of the property insurance industry and repeal of its exemption from antitrust laws, which he said allowed the companies to consult each other when determining how they would handle Katrina claims."

I've always thought Taylor was good dude but acted too much like a Republican to call himself a Democrat. But this is some gutsy, populist stuff. Good for him--and us! It's about time the insurance industry was investigated.

I remember our State Farm insurance adjuster telling me that "you're not supposed to profit off of insurance," to which I added in my mind "yeah, but you sure do."

This is why Democratic control of Congress is a good thing. If you doubt that, ask yourself why Trent Lott didn't do this already when he was in the majority. Oh that's right, because insurance companies have been among Lott's biggest contributors. Taylor has taken money from insurance companies, but not as much.

Just sayin'...

BARBOUR AND MINIMUM WAGE (written Thursday, 1/4)

Haley Barbour opposes raising the minimum wage in Mississippi to $7.25/hour, which would be 40% higher than the current national rate of $5.15. His laughable argument against such an increase is that it would, according to an AP article, “drive jobs out of this state.”

Having not read Barbour’s actual statement on this issue, just a brief AP story, I don’t know this for sure, but I would imagine that the reason he thinks a minimum wage increase would drive jobs from Mississippi is because corporations and other employers are looking for places with cheap labor and would therefore be turned off by higher labor costs.

Why Haley is wrong

It is certainly true that corporations favor the lowest possible labor costs. So why aren’t all major corporations currently clamoring to get down to Mississippi? We not only offer low labor costs but also a “right to work” law. After all, as I pointed out in a post a few days ago, Mississippi ranks 49th in median household income–low wages are the norm in this state and people are mostly used to them, for better or worse.

In other words, it is absurd to argue that improving the wages of Mississippians will discourage corporate interests from setting up shop in the state, because corporations apparently aren’t interested in coming here under the current low-wage, right-to-work conditions. Why should Mississippians be kept in their current low-wage status when maintaining that status obviously isn’t acting as an incentive for corporations to move here? For that matter, why should that status be maintained even if corporations theoretically did want to move here? Mississippians have been poor long enough. Besides, isn’t the right-wing, cheap-labor conservative argument that minimum wage jobs are mostly held by teenage burger flippers anyway? If that’s true, what’s the difference if all the Wendys and McDonalds and Burger Kings close down and leave the state?

The difference, of course, is that a significant number of adults do work for minimum wage, and that many of the jobs that currently exist here and that would theoretically be brought here would be minimum wage positions. Barbour and the right-wingers know this but don’t want to admit it. Barbour wants to pretend that he would be doing Mississippians a favor by bringing in more jobs, but most jobs that would likely be brought in would be for minimum wage with minimal or no benefits. But if more corporations brought in even minimum wage jobs, Barbour could then argue that unemployment went down on his watch, even if the jobs that are created are not so-called “good jobs” that pay a living wage. After all, Barbour’s partner in crime George W. Bush called having three jobs “uniquely American.”

Raising the minimum wage will provide relief to a large number of Mississippians and will not punish corporations, who have no plans to come here anyway. And maybe one of the big reasons they don’t want to come here even with our current status quo of low wages is because of another statistic that I mentioned a few days ago: of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Mississippi has the fewest number of high school graduates who are 25 and older. Knowing that, many corporations likely feel that a lot of Mississippians aren’t even competent enough to make change, much less to make some high-tech product.

On top of all of that, the new Democratic congressional majority that was sworn in today has already said that they’re going to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years, the very policy Barbour despises, in the first 100 hours of their tenure. So Barbour’s objections not only reveal him to be a spiteful political hack who invariably sides with the rich and powerful, they are largely moot to begin with.

NOTHING CHANGES ON NEW YEAR'S DAY...

...like the fact that the situation in Iraq just keeps getting worse. Circumstances may be a little different--Saddam being hung, for instance--but what you can count on always staying the same is that Iraq will never get better and will always get worse.

Like for instance, the fact that we've now lost over 3,000 soldiers. That's different--yet exactly the same.

What a way to ring in the new year!

Why is 1938 always analogous?

I had a conversation with a family member recently and I asked him what he thought about a troop "surge" in Iraq. He said that we should either get out completely or nuke the place. I suggested that given those two options, we should leave.

He elaborated further and said that well, the situation is more complicated than that, that we might be able to fix our mess with more troops, etc. I pointed out that similar logic drove thousands to their deaths in Vietnam and we now agree that Vietnam wasn't worth the sacrifice.

Oh, but that wasn't the preferred analogy for this reciter of conventional wisdom. We can't just pull out and pretend that all is well and that pacification is complete. Isn't that what Chamberlain did at Munich--pretend that all was well?

It occurred to me during this conversation that even the lessons of history cannot dissuade people if they have their mind set on something. Oh, they will speak as though history has taught them even if there is a more recent and contradictory example. I just marvelled at the logic that always accepts Munich as analogous to every situation that we face, while Vietnam holds virtually no lessons for the present (except, as Bush averred recently, that we only lose if we leave).

It's official...and quite telling

Reading in a post about Robert Novak at Americablog, I learned that Novak had this to say about the GOP and an escalation of Iraq:

Even in Mississippi, the reddest of red states, where Bush's approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops.

It's official--Mississippi is the reddest of the red states. Now is that a good thing? I think not. Mississippi leads or nearly leads the country in almost everything bad and trails the country in everything good. For example:

-Mississippi is number 2 in infant mortality
-Mississippi is number 49 in median household income
-Mississippi was tied for 2nd place in number of citizens below the poverty level
-Mississippi is dead fucking last in number of people 25 and older who have completed high school

And so forth and so on. I think therefore that a strong argument can be made that being a "red state" is a bad thing. If you want your state to be poor and uneducated, then be a red state--that's the message that not many people in this state seem to get. Is that because they're poor and uneducated? Hmmm...just asking.

Happy New Year!

SOBERED UP HIPPIES FOR PEACE

Tonight my wife and son and I went to the Zoo Boo, a Halloween carnival in Hattiesburg. We were riding the train that goes around the park when I felt someone touching my back. I was wearing my "Imagine" T-shirt that has John Lennon's face on the front with a peace sign for each of the lenses in his trademark round specs and a giant red peace sign on the back with "War is over if you want it" and apparently the kid behind me was attracted to the big red peace sign and was poking at it.

The kid's father said "I think he likes your peace sign," and I just kind of smiled and said "Yeah, no big deal." I thought that was that. Then, as the train pulls into the station, he says "Wish we saw more of those around."

Intrigued, I turned around and said, "Yeah, it's kinda creepy seeing that some of these kids' Halloween costumes are like soldiers in Iraq." He said "Well, I haven't seen any George W. Bush masks..." and I kind of completed his sentence--"...that'd be real scary."

Anyway, it was nice to talk to strangers in Mississippi that like the peace sign. We talked with him and his wife a little more over Sprite and a cupcake, and it turns out that he is now what he called "a sobered-up hippy." He talked about evading the Vietnam draft and finally getting out of it because a dog had bitten off part of his thumb in his childhood.

ALLERGIES & THE LAW

So I discovered that my Claritin had been accidentally thrown away last night. It was 12:15 a.m. when I discovered this. Rather than go without it, I ran to Walgreens to get some more.

However, when I got to the pharmacy, their registers were down. Therefore, even though they had the medicine and the front register was open, I couldn't purchase the medicine because they couldn't punch my drivers' license number in and check me against the database to make sure I'm not a meth-head. Because the law now states that you have to buy products with ephedrine in them from the pharmacy, even though just last year you could get them off the shelf yourself and walk to the counter and pay for them.

So I went back home empty-handed.

So I got to thinking--"I hope crystal meth is a giant problem that this law really solves," because supposedly crystal meth is a so pervasive that a law had to be passed requiring ephedrine products to be sold in limited qualities from behind a pharmacy counter, etc.

59 Meth Arrests

Well, come to find out, Mississippi's second most populous county only arrested 59 people for using crystal meth for the 2005-2006 period:

By the numbers

The Harrison County Sheriff's Department reports increased arrests for 12-month periods, these statistics for the period ending Sept. 18, 2005, in comparison with the period ending Sept. 18, 2006:

• Total arrests: 685 to 1,212; up 76.9 percent

• Marijuana arrests: 278 to 429; up 54.3 percent

• Cocaine arrests: 51 to 155; up 203.9 percent

• Meth arrests: 36 to 59; up 63.9 percent

Is that worth it? To inconvenience law-abiding citizens trying to purchase legal medicine to arrest 59 people? That's the big meth threat?