Since the mid-1960s, Hank Williams Jr.'s musical output has comprised some 50 studio albums and several career-spanning compilations. But according to Hank, his most recent disc, '127 Rose Avenue,' is also "one of the most special albums I've ever made" -- and one of the easiest to put together.
"A lot of the songs got written when I was out with my two Labradors and a hickory stick at 7:30 in the morning," says the legendary performer. "I don't think I've ever had a whole album where it came together this well and this quickly. It was, 'Here's the melody, here are the words -- bam! There it is.' There's a lot of magic here."
In addition to the topical single, 'Red, White and Pink-Slip Blues,' the disc features a collaboration with bluegrass band the Grascals on 'All the Roads.' Hank also reflects on his musical heroes and family legacy with songs such as 'Mighty Oak Trees' and 'Last Driftin' Cowboy,' a tune dedicated to the late musician Don Helms, best known as the steel guitar player in Hank Williams Sr.'s Drifting Cowboys band.
The album's ghostly title track is a reference to the boyhood home of Hank Sr., in Georgiana, Ala. -- although it's actually on Rose Street. Open to tourists, there are a number of the country legend's personal items on display. The town also hosts an annual festival at the Hank Williams Music Park, with Hank Sr.'s daughter, Jett Williams among the performers this year.
And speaking of daughters, on the same day Hank Jr. released his album, his daughter, Holly Williams released her latest, titled 'Here with Me.' And in August, Holly's half-brother Hank Williams III will unleash the latest album from his band Assjack.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Obama Goes Postal, Lands in Dead-Letter Office: Caroline Baum
Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases - - last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn’t cashed in on TARP!)
That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.
When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?
Obama Unscripted
These are just two of the questions someone listening to the president’s health-insurance reform roadshow might want to ask.
Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.
For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:
“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”
Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser,Larry Summers?
Capitalism Explained
Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.
Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com, put it this way in an Aug. 13 commentary on Mises.org:
“The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government’s involvement at all.”
Rockwell sees no “economic reason for a government postal system” and would abolish it.
Of course, there’s the small matter of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” A series of subsequent statutes gave the USPS a monopoly in the delivery of first-class mail. Congress thought that without such protection, private carriers would cherry-pick the high-profit routes and leave money-losing deliveries in remote areas to the post office. (In those days, the USPS covered most of its expenses with revenue.)
Less Bad Option
It was only through exemptions in the law that private carriers, such as UPSand FedEx, were allowed to compete in the delivery of overnight mail.
Short of a constitutional amendment or a waiver from Congress, we are stuck with the USPS.
But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.
Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.
(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York atcabaum@bloomberg.net.
August 19, 2009
Mr. Stan and Ann Moffat
3333 East 68th
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074
Dear Mr. Moffat,
Thank you for your email regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454). Rest assured I strongly oppose H.R. 2454, and I appreciate you taking the time to share how this legislation will impact small business and farming.
Climate change legislation represents a major loss of liberty, and a vast expansion of the federal government. It would concentrate power and authority in the Administrator of the EPA and related climate change boards based in Washington, DC, in what would amount to the most dramatic shift towards centralized economic planning in our history. Assuming the most conservative estimate, the system proposed in the last Congress would have transferred $7 trillion into the hands of the Administrator of the EPA, who would have immediately assumed a position of tremendous influence in our economy.
I am gravely concerned with the direction and leadership of our country in general. Our government continues to expand - wielding more power and proposing more arbitrary regulations on business and individuals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in particular often poses an enormous threat to our basic freedoms, especially in regards to its authority to regulate "greenhouse gases." EPA's increasing thirst for arbitrary regulatory authority in the name of saving the environment is growing at an exponential pace and must be stopped.
The economic well-being of Americans and the well-being of our environment are tied together; policies that do not recognize this fact are neither sustainable nor effective. The policies we create today establish a precedence that will continue to impact our lives and economy, thus it is imperative that we consider real science as we continue to debate environment issues.
We must do everything we can to protect our natural environment, but we must make sure these policies are actually necessary, effective, and within our constitutional authority. Cap and trade legislation will place an unbearable financial burden on consumers (much as it has in Europe) all based on a theory that is far from settled. While it is important to reduce harmful pollutants, it is not prudent to create far-reaching measures without scientific data that fully proves the dangers of global warming, especially if they have potentially disastrous economic consequences.
Though the debate on global climate change still rages on, the tide of sensationalistic global warming theories is actually beginning to turn as many scientists have spoken out against these scare tactics. In fact, many reports have claimed global cooling may be a greater concern. Although environmental extremists continue to claim imminent consequences if we do not quickly impose regulations, I am confident that science will disprove the idea that we must suffocate carbon-based industries.
Rest assured, under no circumstance will I support such a vast overreach of the federal government.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Please stay in touch.
Sincerely, A
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)