Instead of wanting to disappear and disappear and disappear, I want to appear, and appear, and appear; to take up all the space, all the oxygen, all the room, and all the righteousness that I have turned over to any other human being, alley-cat, tailgating car, or man who endlessly professes his dying love to me. I will take up the room I was denied.
Yes, and I will take up more than that.
With each breath I take I will be alive, and beyond ignoring, or dismissing; and you will gasp for breath as you try to breathe in the air that I’ve already turned into CO2.
So, this fact is obviously not news to Ethan S. Rafuse – military historian – but since you mention cotton,
what about the South deciding to use that great stick they certainly did have – COTTON – by choosing to starve the system instead of flooding it?
Look, I’m sure this is probably the stuff of tons of scholarly debate that simply doesn’t rise to my level of experience, but point me to it, because I would very much like to add to it.
I could, in but a few hours, add thousands of words and hundreds of footnotes on why this was
the stupidest decision everin the history of warfare.
And that statement contains only the thinnest shred of hyperbole, despite my reputation.
The South should not have risked the chance that the world could survive without their cotton.
Even in the realm of the tightest Secondary Order Effect [SOE] it has little payoff for what should have been seen as an unacceptable risk.
Because it was an unacceptable risk.
No serious scholar argues this.
In trying and starve the globe of cotton in the hopes that it would come begging, the South also bankrupted itself.
But of course, the worst and most foreseeable risk was that the world might discover that it could survive just fine without slave-picked cotton.
As it did.
Meanwhile, you’ve bankrupted yourself for the promise of a payday that will never materialize.
(P.S. You might want to search YouTube for Chris Hayes Bernie Sanders in Trump Country. I would just embed it, but WordPress doesn’t seem down with that, so I can’t.)
All the live versions of “Pedestrian at Best” are so varied that the object randomness of the range of options is actually a constant.
I picked this one, not becaue it’s the best version; best sound, best of the shifting beat of the lyrics- syncopated or not so much – but because it’s the most Courtney.
I would prefer just the first scene, truth be told, but I made the decision to include – because of its example of pure perfection in character definition.
(Keeping in mind that several things are happening at once, but for the audience, the primary issue, although as is the case in the most intricately executed storylines, it is one most likely not grasped consciously, yet the tension is there: we might forget that up until now everyone surrounding “William Wallace”/Mel Gibson is well known to us. They have deep histories with the main character, but now, new, unknown people are showing up and a natural, nebulously felt tension is there.
This concise, unequivocal second scene with Stephen the Irishman tells us, and, equally important, shows us, who he is, what he is made of, and that he is now vital to this group of knowns.)
Yes, it effectively initiates Stephen into the knowns.
I also admire the fact that, although in his introductory scene what is most memorable are Stephen’s words, those words are also accompanied by bold, swift, and effective action, and this process is reaffirmed and confirmed; again, in an excellent lesson in conveying purpose and primacy to a new character.
And, in case you don’t think about such things, it is not Stephen who actually seals the mold on this. The clip ends with Mel Gibson looking heavenward, the “bagpipes” -(not)- playing, and what is as unmistakable a recognition and confirmation of the solidity of this certainty as is rarely seen, ever, in film. Especially of a supporting role.
Areas of Law: Health Law, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury
Florida Constitution Article X, section 25 (Amendment 7), adopted by citizen initiative in 2004, provides patients “a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.” “Adverse medical incident” includes “any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient.” Amendment 7 gives medical malpractice plaintiffs access to any adverse medical incident record, including incidents involving other patients [occurrence reports], created by health care providers. The Federal Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act, however, creates a voluntary, confidential, non-punitive system of data sharing of health care errors for the purpose of improving medical care and patient safety, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21(6), and establishes a protected legal environment in which providers can share data “both within and across state lines, without the threat that the information will be used against [them].” The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a holding that Amendment 7 was preempted. The Federal Act was never intended as a shield to the production of documents required by Amendment 7. The health care provider or facility cannot shield documents not privileged under state law by virtue of its unilateral decision of where to place the documents under the federal voluntary reporting system.
Instead of wanting to disappear and disappear and disappear, I want to appear, and appear, and appear; to take up all the space, all the oxygen, all the room, and all the righteousness that I have turned over to any other human being, alley-cat, tailgating car, or man who endlessly professes his dying love to me. I will take up the room I was denied.
