That Woman’s Party in California

Special thought added on Sunday, 11/9/13, a day after what’s below was posted: Women need a break. Children too, of course. It is coarse to think that we should give our heartbeats over to any woman politician careerist — be it a Hillary Clinton, a Sarah Palin or a Diane Feinstein — to address the issues which are most dear to our hearts. Like what is the focus of the work at http://stjohnsshelter.org/ and http://www.covenanthouse.org/. I ask Sister Margaret, Lisa Ling and other concerned citizens in a position to do so… to take me up on my offer to SERVE. There is an urgency attached to the issues under “Afterthoughts” below; if the body here is boring or off-putting, at least read that and get back to me.

“The most well-meaning, highly experienced, proactive citizens you deal with, Papi, seem to have no clue as to exactly how ‘resigned’ they are vis-à-vis the major issues of our time, how they’re exclusively engaged in applying tourniquets.” — one of the author’s home schooled teenage charges, 2012

Note: In this unedited first draft, I ask the reader to not get into the numbers behind electoral demographics. Don’t count women. Don’t get clever and insightful about your definitive breakdown of registered or likely voters. That’s your first job here. To not show how much you know. Second job would be to contact me at aptosnews@gmail.com… to debate the value of my proposal here, my call to immediate action. Which, in spite of initial/superficial/understandable impressions, is NOT a gender-based gesture for the electoral arena. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/08/sacramento-a-capital-awash-in-o il-money/ is what got me started tonight… before I read Blum’s words (below).

Woman’s Party, not Women’s Party? The Woman’s Party? What woman? You, perhaps? Yours? This piece might understandably mislead the reader into thinking that this is some kind of Lysistrata plea. It is not. It has to do with much more than anything Aristophanes ever thought of. [Also, it should be noted that I am not asking anyone to violate non-profit or separation of Church and State parameters here.] Okay, maybe Party of Women, POW!

That Woman’s Party in California
Asking Sister Margaret and Stacy Twilley et alia to forgive my coarse language below
by Oxman 11/10/13, 10:20am PST

There are many reasons why something significant and fresh needs to be launched in California in 2014, why we can’t wait tactfully until 2018 to secure the gubernatorial office of the Golden State. Many reasons.

But of ALL the reasons, ranking high has to be helping the public to self-educate about the Hillary Horror, preventing another electoral abortion, if you will. Making sure that California’s in a position to shatter all forms of delusion brought on by Obama, guarantee that Hillary doesn’t continue his abominations… preparing people to deal with Greater Evil Republicans in a different way than they are slated to do at present.

A Woman’s Party of California (WPC) could do that. Without a single man on board — and there would be men volunteering* to serve as assets for the WPC, joining hands in solidarity — left-of-center women could capture, or come historically close to securing the Sacred Seat of Sacramento, and thereby get a jump on preventing a Clinton from returning to the White House.

*I’m a man. People like me could be considered The Woman’s Party fellows, perhaps.

ANYONE WHO DOESN’T THINK THAT PREVENTING HILLARY FROM HAVING CREDIBILITY IS EQUIVALENT TO PREVENTING A MELTDOWN OF REACTOR 4 IN FUKUSHIMA… please give me a chance to argue with you. I mean — seriously — the former is NOT quite as important as the latter, BUT… the point here is to underscore how very important it is. So I ask you to forgive the momentary hyperbole. [Fact is, most educated citizens I know don't have a clue exactly how dangerous the Fukushima situation is at present.]

See my buddy Bill Blum’s take on Hillary directly below; it’s the last 11 paragraphs from his http://www.zcommunications.org/nsa-the-government-that-listens-by-will iam-blum.html.

Let’s not repeat the Barack fuckup with Hillary

Not that it really matters who the Democrats nominate for the presidency in 2016. Whoever that politically regressive and morally bankrupt party chooses will be at best an uninspired and uninspiring centrist; in European terms a center-rightist; who believes that the American Empire – despite the admittedly occasional excessive behavior – is mankind’s last great hope. The only reason I bother to comment on this question so far in advance of the election is that the forces behind Clinton have clearly already begun their campaign and I’d like to use the opportunity to try to educate the many progressives who fell in love with Obama and may be poised now to embrace Clinton. Here’s what I wrote in July 2007 during the very early days of the 2008 campaign:

Who do you think said this on June 20? a) Rudy Giuliani; b) Hillary Clinton; c) George Bush; d) Mitt Romney; or e) Barack Obama?

“The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections. They gave the Iraqi government the chance to begin to demonstrate that it understood its responsibilities to make the hard political decisions necessary to give the people of Iraq a better future. So the American military has succeeded. It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions which are important for their own people.” 6

Right, it was the woman who wants to be president because … because she wants to be president … because she thinks it would be nice to be president … no other reason, no burning cause, no heartfelt desire for basic change in American society or to make a better world … she just thinks it would be nice, even great, to be president. And keep the American Empire in business, its routine generating of horror and misery being no problem; she wouldn’t want to be known as the president that hastened the decline of the empire.

And she spoke the above words at the “Take Back America” conference; she was speaking to liberals, committed liberal Democrats and others further left. She didn’t have to cater to them with any flag-waving pro-war rhetoric; they wanted to hear anti-war rhetoric (and she of course gave them a bit of that as well out of the other side of her mouth), so we can assume that this is how she really feels, if indeed the woman feels anything. The audience, it should be noted, booed her, for the second year in a row.

Think of why you are opposed to the war. Is it not largely because of all the unspeakable suffering brought down upon the heads and souls of the poor people of Iraq by the American military? Hillary Clinton couldn’t care less about that, literally. She thinks the American military has “succeeded”. Has she ever unequivocally labeled the war “illegal” or “immoral”? I used to think that Tony Blair was a member of the right wing or conservative wing of the British Labour Party. I finally realized one day that that was an incorrect description of his ideology. Blair is a conservative, a bloody Tory. How he wound up in the Labour Party is a matter I haven’t studied. Hillary Clinton, however, I’ve long known is a conservative; going back to at least the 1980s, while the wife of the Arkansas governor, she strongly supported the death-squad torturers known as the Contras, who were the empire’s proxy army in Nicaragua. 7

Now we hear from America’s venerable conservative magazine, William Buckley’s National Review, an editorial by Bruce Bartlett, policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan; treasury official under President George H.W. Bush; a fellow at two of the leading conservative think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute – You get the picture? Bartlett tells his readers that it’s almost certain that the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. So what to do? Support the most conservative Democrat. He writes: “To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative.” 8

We also hear from America’s premier magazine for the corporate wealthy, Fortune, whose recent cover features a picture of Clinton and the headline: “Business Loves Hillary”. 9

Back to 2013: In October, the office of billionaire George Soros, who has long worked with US foreign policy to destabilize governments not in love with the empire, announced that “George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary.” 10

There’s much more evidence of Hillary Clinton’s conservative leanings, but if you need more, you’re probably still in love with Obama, who in a new book is quoted telling his aides during a comment on drone strikes that he’s “really good at killing people”. 11 Can we look forward to Hillary winning the much-discredited Nobel Peace Prize?

I’m sorry if I take away all your fun.

[Much more mild Ralph's got something to say about all this too: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/11/the-dynastic-hillary-bandwagon/ .]

I’m all for women all across the state getting together to say, “You’re not going to fuck me anymore.” [Again, please excuse my coarse language.]

Let’s help make that happen, and then see what happens.

Afterthoughts:

I don’t care about losing the vote of every single registered Republican woman, conservative Democrat, or permanently marginalized third party citizens. This is made of different blood and bones. Use your imagination respecting exactly what kinds of waves might be stirred up. Remember, we’re fighting a five-hundred-foot wave with a teaspoon no matter what approach we use, and no traditional inroads made in the next six years or so — none — will count for much unless the apathy, resignation, cynicism, habits, ignorance and atomization are dealt with NOW. [Pause.] In a new way.

I expect to attract ALL mothers who want to provide a future worth living for for their children, and a means for properly nurturing them in the present.

Don’t give a damn about recruiting any women who want to “support our troops” UNLESS that means:
a) dramatically reducing our current historic record-high suicides within the armed services;
b) dramatically reducing the over-the-top number of rapes within the services;
c) dramatically increasing the quality of health care coverage for vets;
d) reducing the numbers of tours of duty required;
e) bringing home record numbers of service men and women post haste;
f) providing proper protection measures/material while service men and women are on duty;
g) reducing military (financial) waste and the number of bases abroad;
h) transforming the military so that it’s not the single greatest polluter on earth;
i) changing military recruitment practices;
j) addressing issues which force youngsters into the military as their only means of survival, and which have to do with the militarization of society.

I’d like to get “Blue Collar” Lisa Ling, Ellen Brown, Alice Walker, Susana De Anda, Suraya Keating, a close friend of Chellis Glendinning’s (who must remain anonymous for the moment) and Angela Davis together for a rendezvous ASAP. For starters. [Out of the public spotlight, of course.]

Additional note as of about noon, 11/10, offered up in the interest of serving justice humbly: As per the quote from the home schooled child above, too many are not fighting the good fight very well. Rather, they’re fighting it on the run, “running away from facing real source of their grief,” to quote Edna St. Vincent Millay. I met the great poet just prior to my eighth birthday in 1950, not long before her untimely death at her beloved Steepletop. Some question how my home schooled charges can be so eloquent… so perceptive at such a young age. Well, Edna wrote most of the incomparable Renascence when she was still a teenager. She recited to the ending lines to me — the last twelve — after bringing up her “involvement” in the Sacco/Vanzetti executions, and I referred to her as a “great person.” She noted, without the slightest hesitation, that “we’re all great.” Yes, we are. And we can do better than we’re doing… effortlessly.