Free Soil Party Blog

When I think of the international Stop Porn Culture (SPC) conference I attended in Boston last June, the first image that comes to mind is of a giant plastic foot with a slot in it for men to ejaculate into (Dr. Gail Dines discussed this during her presentation). The first phrase that comes to mind is humantoiletbowls dot com, the domain name of a mainstream porn site. And the first sound that comes to mind is that of a young boy gasping for breath as he is suffocated and raped by a trusted adult man addicted to pornography.

If what you’ve just read disturbs you, it should distress you even further to know that children are consuming porn at a younger age than ever before. Indeed, according to one of SPC’s presenters, the fourth most common word searched for by children is “sex,” (and what do you think shows up after such a search?); the fifth is “porn”. Where do you think your children are getting their sex-education, parents? Not from the “abstinence only” school curricula, that’s for sure.

Pornography is increasingly impacting our emotional health as well. Dear Abby had a sixteen-year-old girl write to her about porn addiction! Porn addicts have even been known to sing songs to their porn collections and stay home from vacation to masturbate to images. While we all were aware of the financial collapse, how many of us knew that men working at the Securities and Exchange Commission were jerking off to Internet porn, some as much as eight hours a day? And porn has increasingly come to (negatively) impact intimate relationships; some dub it the new “other woman.”

But, as is obvious to every woman alive, not everyone sees our porn-saturated society as a problem. As one of the founding members of Stop Porn Culture, Dr. Gail Dines, pointed out at the first SPC conference, while porn has become increasingly harsh, a feminist challenge to the porn industry has gone underground. Thus, SPC was founded in the hopes of bringing a radical feminist analysis of pornography back to the forefront of the feminist agenda. In order to combat porn, Dr. Dines suggests raising pornography consumption as a public health issue, much as was done with smoking. While this idea may be the most pragmatic way to challenge the industry, I’m saddened the exploitation of women required to make pornography does not in itself cause outrage. Perhaps male violence could be incorporated into a “public health” approach, but how likely this would be in a male-dominated society, I do not know. Yet, just the act of lessening porn production and consumption would have the effect of decreasing some violence against women, clearly a feminist goal.

Somewhat similarly, the topic of porn and capitalism came up among conference attendees. Several of the conference-goers I talked to seemed to believe if capitalism is dismantled, violent porn would cease to exist. I found this a rather odd assumption, since male supremacy is clearly present in non-capitalist societies. What reason is there to believe the images created by this imaginary society would be kinder and gentler to women? None, as far as I can tell.

These thoughts were echoed by the speakers on the panel regarding legal approaches to challenging the pornography industry. The first scholar, a woman from Durham University, stated that any new laws confronting pornography should be based on a feminist analysis of the industry as opposed to a moral one. The following presenter, Diane Rosenfeld, reminded us that the feminist community has a limited amount of monetary and time resources; we have to decide what the best use of these resources is: legal, education, etc. Rosenfeld also gave us a fairly recent example, the case of Abu Ghraib, where pictures were used to indict individuals for actions. But, when it comes to women, torture is a means to male sexual pleasure.

So, what did I take away from this feminist anti-pornography conference—in addition to overwhelming anger, that is? One of the main messages I got was that there are women fighting back; despite what the pornographers say, women will not be cowered into silence. Even if half the male population gets off to our pain, we will not go down without a fight. We will not give in to your phallic-like missiles, knives, and guns because we have justice on our side.

Starhawk posted an essay Thursday on her site, explaining why she will vote for Obama. Heart alluded to being discouraged by that essay, which was sent out on the Global Sisterhood Network list. I posted this in response:

I also read that letter from Starhawk. I imagine she is trying to take a practical approach. Why she thinks Obama “is headed in the right direction, toward the future,” I cannot say. I think that is wishful thinking, and if this debate did not make that clear, I do not know what will. It almost seems she is saying, a candidate with principles is unelectable. That may seem true, but in my eyes, a candidate who betrays most principles important to me is not headed in the right direction. I imagine Starhawk thinks, or at least hopes, Obama is a principled politician. I was disgusted by his performance tonight, but not surprised. Commentators are saying he held his own in the area where McCain supposedly held an advantage, foreign policy. Yeah, he held his own; he can talk the warmonger talk with the worst of them. He even had the gall to deny he threatened to attack Pakistan.

Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here’s what I said.

And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.

That is not talking about attacking Pakistan? I think the people of Pakistan would disagree. Obama also said,

You don’t muddle through stamping out the Taliban.

Just how does he propose to do that? This is heading in the right direction?

Now, what I’ve said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put — provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

This is his vaunted timetable, refined so that in 16 months we SHOULD be able to REDUCE our combat troops? His fans have been saying his plan would end that war in 16 months! How does he propose to crush al Qaeda? Start a war with Pakistan? The next President might well inherit a war with Pakistan, the way things are going already! If not, it will be despite this reckless rhetoric from Obama!

I do not know if people really believe Obama would bring real change, but they seem to be comparing him to Bush, and in that light, he seems to represent progress. He may be more sensible than Bush or McCain, but that is a far cry from headed in the right direction. I imagine many women figure Obama is the best that can be expected. Considering how messed up the Green Party has been, this may seem the realistic approach. I see nothing realistic in rushing headlong toward the inglorious end of this empire, but I think Obama is masterfully playing on our hopes and fears, so many think he is what they hope he is. Starhawk says,

Obama may or may not be all we hope.

She knows better, but I think her fear of McCain has gotten the better of her. This is a terrifying time, but making decisions out of fear never makes things better.

One way or another, the Democratic Party is self-destructing. People may not yet be convinced its promises are hollow, same old tripe masquerading as change, progress, hope, whatever one wants to call it, it is all shameless posturing. Obama has no real answers, but he certainly is skillful at snowing people. Charm and erudition cannot substitute for principle, but in the reality most people see, principles and politics do not mix. Principles are seen as utopian, beyond the realm of practical politics. This is a sure recipe for disaster, and we are witnessing the results. The curious thing is that a variation on the standard recipe for disaster is considered practical, progressive, real change. Corporate media can allow no other perspective to gain traction. The survival of the corporate empire is at stake, so it will do its damnedest to circumscribe the range of acceptable political perspectives.

There was plenty more belligerent warmongering talk from Obama in this first debate:

Well, I think that, given what’s happened over the last several weeks and months, our entire Russian approach has to be evaluated, because a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Their actions in Georgia were unacceptable. They were unwarranted. And at this point, it is absolutely critical for the next president to make clear that we have to follow through on our six-party — or the six-point cease-fire. They have to remove themselves from South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

And to countries like Georgia and the Ukraine, I think we have to insist that they are free to join NATO if they meet the requirements, and they should have a membership action plan immediately to start bringing them in.

So back in April, I warned the administration that you had Russian peacekeepers in Georgian territory. That made no sense whatsoever.

Obama is rewriting history. Those peacekeepers had been there for decades. Georgia was the aggressor, invading its breakaway province South Ossetia on the pretext of rebel attacks. Russia responded with overwhelming force, which was disproportionate and opportunistic, but it was not the initiator of the violence. There are reasons to suspect the Administration encouraged Saakashvili to move to reclaim those rebellious provinces, which he has wanted to do for many years.

I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Obama was concerned that Senate measure was provocative. What, encouraging Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO is not provocative? So what is the plan if tough diplomacy with Iran, whose Republican Guard he agrees is a terrorist organization, fails? What is the plan if Israel gets impatient with diplomatic efforts and attacks Iran? The likely new Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni, is less impatient to attack Iran than many Israeli politicians, but she may bow to their pressure eventually. A month ago, Obama said:

“My job as president would be to try to make sure that we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we’ve mobilized the world community to go after Iran’s program in a serious way, to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a difficult calculation,” Obama said in response to a voter’s question at a campaign event in Iowa. “We’ve got to do that before Israel feels like its back is to the wall.”

So if Israel attacks Iran for pursuing its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would be another flagrant violation of international law, this stalwart ally must be defended at all costs? Israel has no respect for that treaty or international law, but Obama sees no cause to pressure Israel to back off? One can only hope Ms. Livni has more sense than these candidates.

I actually believe that we need missile defense, because of Iran and North Korea and the potential for them to obtain or to launch nuclear weapons…

How does this deliberately misleading excuse for that unworkable total waste of resources called missile defense differ from Bush? Clearly Obama has no concern about provoking Russia, which sees the missile defense program as a threat, enough so to threaten a nuclear attack on Poland for accepting a deal last month to host missile defense facilities. Russia called the line about deterring rogue states like Iran or North Korea a fairy tale. Why is Obama parroting this Bush lie? Why are he and Biden helping whip up Cold War style rhetoric about a very aggressive Russia that must be contained?

Look, over the last eight years, this administration, along with Senator McCain, have been solely focused on Iraq. That has been their priority. That has been where all our resources have gone.

In the meantime, bin Laden is still out there. He is not captured. He is not killed. Al Qaeda is resurgent.

In the meantime, we’ve got challenges, for example, with China, where we are borrowing billions of dollars. They now hold a trillion dollars’ worth of our debt. And they are active in countries like — in regions like Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. They are — the conspicuousness of their presence is only matched by our absence, because we’ve been focused on Iraq.

We have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens, not to mention, look at our economy. We are now spending $10 billion or more every month.

And that means we can’t provide health care to people who need it. We can’t invest in science and technology, which will determine whether or not we are going to be competitive in the long term.

There has never been a country on Earth that saw its economy decline and yet maintained its military superiority. So this is a national security issue.

So Obama wants to maintain military superiority so USA can project power around the world. In other words, he is as intent as any neocon to keep this empire in control of the world. No country has ever maintained military superiority, period. All empires must fall. What makes Obama think this one will be different? Is this what Obama thinks being President means, projecting US power around the world? Is this what passes for red-blooded American patriotism these days? This is what people around the world despise about USA, its sense of entitlement to project its power as the corrupt policeman of the world to promote transnational corporate interests. There is no right to military superiority and no way to maintain it. Does USA stand for the rule of law, or might? Obama wants his turn at emperor, figurehead of the corporate world. A President could renounce empire, military superiority, projecting power, but that would require some respect for international law. USA and Israel are right up there with the worst scofflaws. The list of war crimes makes international law seem like a bad joke. Obama wants to put Pakistan on the list of illegally invaded countries, to crush al Qaeda and stamp out the Taliban. He does not mince words, but he does duck and compromise major issues.

Why did he let McCain go on about how well the surge worked? The troop increase deserves little or no credit for the drop in violence. The ethnic cleansing had already nearly run its course, deals were cut with hostile tribal leaders, foreign forces wore out their welcome. Those trends could unravel, so the generals warn the progress is fragile. It is worse than fragile, it is a scam, a lull at best resulting from this desperate sham strategy of shaky alliances and manipulating the availability of information to create the image spin doctors want people to believe is real. Obama had chances to contest the surge theory, as well as many other dubious points McCain made, but let them pass. Too complex for the audience, he may think? I think not. Surge or not, most Iraqis want US troops out so they can rebuild their country.

That means that we, as one of the biggest consumers of oil — 25 percent of the world’s oil — have to have an energy strategy not just to deal with Russia, but to deal with many of the rogue states we’ve talked about, Iran, Venezuela.

And that means, yes, increasing domestic production and off-shore drilling, but we only have 3 percent of the world’s oil supplies and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. So we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem.

What we’re going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology.

Obama is a long time supporter of ethanol, but he has been trying to back away from that lately. McCain said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies. Aside from that, the energy plans of these candidates differ only in the details. After this debate, it should be clear that the foreign policies of these candidates also differ very little. Obama might end the war on Iraq sooner, but keeps refining his withdrawal plan to push that end farther down the garden path. McCain said Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. If Obama can pass for liberal or progressive, those terms have become so thoroughly mainstreamed as to be meaningless. Mainstream policy is nowhere near headed in the right direction. I fear many women thinking like Starhawk have been blinded by their hopes and fears, played for fools by this slick master politician, just like Bill Clinton. She says,

I don’t think Obama will be our savior. But if he’s elected, the wind will shift. The breeze will be at our backs, pushing us further and faster toward destinations we otherwise cannot reach.

So, voting for Obama is the only hope. Where have I heard that kind of defeatist attitude before? I hear that argument every election, the Democrat is not a savior, but he is the only hope for progress. That is political reality, the fantasy world perpetuated by corporate media that keeps these two wings of mainstream opinion in control of politics. What would it take to dislodge this misplaced loyalty to this Democratic Party, that pretends to care about women’s rights, peace, the environment? That is all for show, but Democrats get away with it because most people opposed to Republican madness are convinced they have nowhere else to go. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people stop believing it, it will lose its stranglehold on political reality.

Barack Obama talks a good game about change, peace, the environment, abortion, but he is as compromised as any politician, as hawkish, macho, tough, opportunistic, slick as they come. I imagine many Obama fans thought he mopped the floor with McCain. I note how far apart they are from my perspective. From some angles, they are far apart, but not on most issues that matter to me. On balance, neither is someone I would trust, and that has nothing to do with skin color or sex. If this rant about his foreign policy has not revealed sufficient reasons, A Case Against Obama Nation goes into some depth. Bush seems emboldened by the belligerent rhetoric from Obama on Pakistan. I have posted a chain of news stories on the recent border skirmishes there, starting with Fear of losing drove US ground raid in Pakistan.

Obama Girl says in her video It’s Hopeless, directed at Hillary Clinton, which made ABC News back in March,

It’s become an Obama Nation…
We all have a crush on Obama

Anyone reading this, contrary to the perspectives behind those notions and the new swiftboating book Obama Nation, is not likely altogether convinced Barack Obama is a different kind of politician, or represents the kind of change one can believe in. The change he represents, I have heard it all before. He is a kinder gentler figurehead of the corporate state. His candidacy is different, not because he is such a different kind of Democratic politician, but his perspective is not that of a white man. His erstwhile primary opponent shared that distinction. This is significant, but their moderate posture is not otherwise groundbreaking, not the kind of root change needed to solve the problems of this time, slightly more rational on domestic policy, but on foreign policy, more of the same, while shifting primary focus of the war efforts from Iraq to what some call the just war, or real war on terror, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is from a recent flyer asking for money, substituting bold for underlined. What is it with is for these slick Democrats? Here is the Obama brand of change as of that flyer, already slightly revised for the next, the underlined is noticeably absent.

Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth. Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it, and an education policy that gives every child a chance at success.

Change is ending a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized, and finishing a war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan that should have never been ignored.

(My name), that’s what change is. And that is the choice in this election.

It’s more of the same versus change. It’s the past versus the future. This choice has confronted generations before us. And now it is our turn to choose.

His message for a recent Democratic National Committee fund raiser substituted:

Change is an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. Change is a health care plan that guarantees affordable coverage to all who want it. And change is ending a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and never been waged and that distracted us from winning the war against al-Qaeda. That’s what change is.

When the proposed future looks like the usual stale veneer of a kinder gentler version of corporate empire, Democratic style, a different kind of choice confronts the people. More of the same, with a slight swerve toward moderate politics, or turn it all around to clean up this mess politicians like these choices have fostered while pretending to the public, everything is under control, there is no cause for alarm, the experts know what they are doing. Obama thinks he can send some more troops to Afghanistan and its people will come around, the job can be finished with military victory there, terrorists smoked out of Pakistan, and friendly Iraqis running Iraq? Obama is dreaming. I can say that with confidence, because I am a dreamer. The Free Soil plan to end the war on terror is more visionary and feasible than his, no comparison. Obama is predictably selective about who is eligible for negotiation, and under what conditions. Free Soil supports a full accounting of all the war crimes on all sides. That means stopping this pretense to hold the moral high ground, negotiating with those these politicians dismiss as envious evil terrorists, the ringleaders Obama and McCain promise to eliminate. USA has lost whatever shaky claim to moral high ground staked after agents of blowback delivered that act of war that could not go ignored, even by a complacent citizen of empire.

Obama finally renounced his Pastor Jeremiah Wright, not for things he said that made me bristle, but for reiterating some inconvenient truths about US foreign and domestic policy. The war on terror is doomed to defeat, because it is battling rebellion against empire. No empire can stand for long, and these days any attempt will fall amazingly fast, this one already showing manifold effects of internal rot, its economy tottering precariously on a house of cards as mountains of junk debt devalue, while a few mostly white men get richer. To maintain the Obama image matters more than truth, so he can say he will finish the war on terror. How he expects anyone with an ounce of sense to believe that shows his arrogant disregard for reality. What does he mean, finish the war? I shudder to imagine what Obama might do to show how tough he can be on those terrorists. From Bloomberg, July 13

“I continue to believe that we’re under-resourced in Afghanistan and that that is the real sediment for terrorist activity that we have to deal with, and deal with aggressively,” Obama told reporters while campaigning in San Diego today.

Afghanistan is notorious for not staying conquered. What makes Obama think this time will be different? How does he expect to find the recruits to expand the ground forces? This is from the text of his remarks on Iraq and Afghanistan published in the New York Times on July 15.

I will restore our strength by ending this war, completing the increase of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time.

He sounds like another warmonger to me, but he wants to fight the real war, hoping a US friendly Iraqi government and army will be able to take over there. I see parallels to Vietnamization. It might be possible, if the occupation ended smoothly, but not if US keeps meddling and blaming Iraqis for the violence and not meeting milestones, like that peculiar oil sharing agreement to divvy up oil profits, intended to give control of Iraqi oil to transnational oil companies. These milestones were not meant for the benefit of Iraqis, as they would see it. The point is this change Obama touts is another bunch of timid pseudo solutions people who can remember have come to expect from Democrats, lofty promises never meant to be delivered. Obama talks about health insurance for all and a chance for success for every child. Success as a cog in some corporate machine, or an education policy that gives everyone a fair and reasonable chance to develop their talents and skills? Free Soil has a few things to tell Senator Obama about the meaning of change. There is no need for health insurance if necessary health care is taken as a basic right, as an essential consequence of the right to life.

That right was not meant for a fetus, but Obama thinks if the fetus is far enough along, so-called partial birth abortion can be declared illegal unless birth would endanger the health of the mother. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Congress passed in 2003 is vague, banning a medical procedure, with no health exception, not only used for late-term abortion, so what late means is up for dispute, the label just another distortion to inflame people against abortion. Obama is the new Mr. Slick, pretending to have a perfect pro-choice record, ignoring the twists thrown on the common sense notion that women should not have late-term abortions unless necessary for health reasons, since after viability the procedure is generally more hazardous for a woman not otherwise expecting complications than carrying the baby to term. The procedure is rarely used, but is sometimes the best alternative before viability, so it is not a trivial matter if Obama would support this bill, with a health exception. It does appear he would not oppose a ban after viability with more limited mental health exceptions than exist in present law. Then there were controversies about him saying sweetie to a reporter, coded language about Senator Clinton, and his present votes in the Illinois state legislature, instead of no on five anti-choice bills, on request of Planned Parenthood as a practical political strategy, but protested by NOW. Is this practical politics at work? Since his supposed trustworthiness on abortion and other feminist issues is a big Democratic selling point for women, one might wonder, what principle will he not sell out in his quest for the center of conventional wisdom?
(more…)

I note this because I catch part of her show and have been posting off and on at her forum about feminist revolution. I doubt she paid any attention, while the posters mostly seem to think I am too fringe to worry about. However, she is invited to join Free Soil, as any rebellious woman who wants to make noise, rock the boat, change the way politics, commerce, relationships operate in this world. That is intentionally vague, but I think most women will understand, especially if they know anything about Free Soil. Men can tag along as well, if they are sincere about wanting to help. Heart has put up her platform, as a work in progress, here.

Not to rain on the parade of this budding Randi Rhodes Party in the making, but she should know what it would mean to work outside the system. Once her upstart party gets any attention the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to smash down the threat. This is a given. Shudder to imagine what they will say about surrendering the war on terror if her party goes too far toward renouncing war. The only reason it has not happened to Free Soil is because Free Soil has gone unnoticed, under the radar as a threat, so far. Ace in the hole? There will be more surprises than just what is new in the platform. Free Soil invites such an attack, which could only help get our message out. Is this new party a way to save the Democratic Party, or will it only destroy it? That may be in the eye of the beholder. The party regulars may take down any such rebellion as the party as they know it collapses. They may try and fail. Will there be anything left to save after the kitchen sink strategy plays out?

Where else would the rank and file of the Democratic Party go once they realize the party people do not represent their best interests? Women might go to a party dedicated to representing the interests of women, once they decide the Democratic Party is hopeless. Many might think there is no hope but to work within the system. I think Randi Rhodes might relent, since the pressure to try to reform the system from within is so strong. That pressure means less to me, being outside the system by intention, than being dismissed as fringe. Why that may be, I would like to know. My ideas are outside the mainstream because I am an innovative feminist philosopher, what else could one expect? I think they are better than anything in the mainstream, knowing so do a million other people, so why should anyone pay attention to me or Heart? Is it that, or are our ideas really so outlandish? Possibly anyone who reads enough could see we did our homework, that women can construct a new, more practical way of relating not burdened by male assumptions or limitations.

I wish this new party luck in saving the Democratic Party. As rare as it is for me to agree with party faithful, I have to expect any such effort could only succeed in destroying the party, inflaming the self-destructive feeding frenzy escalating with last-ditch desperation tactics of the Clintons. A rebellion needs a radical vision to change anything of significance. Nothing significant will be changed by a halfhearted rebellion that only means to split or take back a party so many reluctantly swallow as the lesser of two evils. The rebels are free to try defining a new party however they choose. That field is wide open, most attempts not worth mentioning or ravings of lunatics. Randi Rhodes is not a lunatic, and might create a big problem for the party before she intends to. Though she has gotten plenty mad at the party people in the past, I did not expect her to so emphatically threaten to abandon the party. I have invited her to interview Heart a few times, at her forum, not expecting a response, but I had to try. She has her own ideas, and it would make sense for her to try to orchestrate a new party herself. It is possible she will notice Free Soil someday soon, but she likely will soon fall back in line, to concentrate on getting Obama elected.

Heart posted an article Robin Morgan wrote in support of Hillary Clinton, Goodbye To All That (#2). Heart was thrilled to watch

the giants of our movement rising up to speak out against the horrifying misogyny and sexism in this presidential campaign.

While I agree Hillary Clinton is being subjected to grossly sexist attacks having nothing to do with her stands on issues, I have grave misgivings about many of her stands on issues, enough to make it impossible for me to support her. There was a reason Elizabeth Edwards could claim her husband was better on women’s issues than Ms. Clinton without sounding ridiculous. Remember the Clinton welfare reform. Ms. Clinton says she is proud of the record of the Clinton presidency. This does not lead me to believe she will be a better President than Bill Clinton, though I would not argue she would be worse than the current President. A stone would be an improvement; at least a stone could do no harm of its own accord. This was my response, comment 41 there.

Sigh. This is why I predicted Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for feminism. She is simply not representing anything new, besides the fact she is not male and on occasion speaks about women’s issues. Male Democrats have done that too, though she is more convincing. She is DLC through and through. She supports nuclear power, genetic engineering, and ethanol. If nothing is done to stop those first two, we can kiss the integrity of DNA and biodiversity goodbye. Ethanol from corn, which is what will be the source for this country for a good while, does absolutely nothing to solve global warming. Some environmentalists say it is worse than gasoline, but it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil!

Hillary Clinton is a typical politician, again, except that she is not male. Her equivocation on the Iraq war is disgusting to me. In the last debate, in Hollywood, she blatantly lied about the days of bombing of Iraq Bill Clinton carried out in the height of the impeachment fiasco. She said

We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors.

Sorry, Ms. Clinton. It did not happen that way, and she of all people should know that. See What a Difference Four Years Makes–Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq–then and now from FAIR

Another bad sign was her taking Barack Obama to task for saying he did not think nuclear weapons would be necessary in his planned attack on Pakistan. This is the voice of experience? Yeah, the voice of empire making sure nobody assumes USA is not crazy enough to drop some more nukes!

I do not think Barack Obama is any better. My beef is not with either of these candidates, rather mainstream politics in general. I see the Democratic Party trying to capitalize on the worst Presidency in history, and they do not deserve to benefit from that. They have done virtually nothing to stop Bush, and since the 2006 election, they have no excuse. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Liberal feminists are liberals first. There is not a radical bone in the body of Ms. Pelosi or Ms. Clinton. I want more than a cosmetic change, but that is all I see offered from any of these mainstream candidates. Must I settle for crumbs, yet again? I would rather throw away my vote.

Robin Morgan wrote a great piece. Too bad it had to be in support of Hillary Clinton. She is the visible one getting all this crap thrown at her, but is it really any worse than what any of us get? Thanks to Hillary Clinton, it is now in the spotlight for all to see. Why did it have to be a woman so hard for anyone with radical principles to support? Because the big corporations love her. They think they can work with her, just like they did with her husband. They are giving Obama plenty of money as well, because they think they can work with him as well. Either way, women and this Earth are screwed.

This is the California Green Party Statement of Purpose, from the California Presidential Primary Election Official Voter Information Guide

GREEN PARTY

Voting Green for president is voting for the only national party that:

* Supports immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, closing Guantanamo, and ending the anti-civil liberties Patriot Act.
* Supports immediate, strong measures to address climate change through efficiency, conservation, and clean renewable energy.
* Supports universal healthcare.
* Openly acknowledges the 2000 Florida election process was stolen and led the 2004 Ohio recount.
* Supports voter verifiable auditable paper trails and open source coding for computer voting machines to mitigate future election fraud.
* Supports abolishing the outdated Electoral College and replacing it with a national popular vote.
* Supports instant runoff voting to allow voters to rank candidates, protecting majority rule and voter choice.
* Supports 100% public financing of campaigns; free time for candidates on our publicly owned radio and TV airwaves; and repeal of unfair ballot access laws that privilege major parties and obstruct third parties and independents.
* Supports proportional representation, same-day voter registration, and a constitutional right to vote.
* Opposes the early primary scheduling shuffle that rewards big money/media campaigns at the expense of community-based, grassroots organizing.
* Supports more than just two voices in the general election presidential debates.
* Supports living wages, immigrants’ rights, and education not incarceration.

Most of those ideas I would also support, but there is a glaring omission here. Missing in action is any specific mention of rights for women, unconscionable for a party claiming feminism as a key value. Is recruiting Cynthia McKinney and (presumably) Cindy Sheehan supposed to be enough to satisfy feminists? The Democratic Party statement mentions they will continue fighting for a woman’s right to choose. The Peace and Freedom and Libertarian parties mention equal rights for all. Are these supposed to be too obvious to merit any mention for the Greens?

Perhaps progressive really is the new mainstream, so rights for women are too controversial for such a progressive party to make a top priority. The Greens put the priorities of the male left up front and center. What else is new.

I am a bit heartened to see the Democratic Party statement include a woman’s right to choose, since the national leadership has been lukewarm on that issue, too keen on swing voters to take a strong stand.

Feminist revolution may sound scary because of fools who insist on distorting what it means. Men valuing male privilege do have lots to lose. It means women are so fed up with all men do to women, children, each other, and the planet that the ideas and ways of men have lost all claim to any unearned deference, trust, or credence. Whoever among men disavows prevailing ideas and ways should make it known, or they might as well be complicit. This is to say, men have a choice. Women can meet men halfway, but owe our oppressors nothing, and will fight back when attacked. Women have enemies willing to threaten anything to shut down our voices of revolution. As a mild sample from self-proclaimed great defenders of free speech, “the Free Soil Party website has been taken down by the Internet Police [edited from Anonymous].” I had not known that side of the perils of internet warfare. I had seen verbal trolling, spam, threats, vendettas, but that was no idle boast. The site had to be moved to where it could be well protected. Heart, a primary target as candidate for President, along with her friend whose candor on her forum got their attention, got hit much worse.

In defiance of all attempts to silence me, past or future, I say this. Women are revolting. The prevalent ideas and ways are toxic, emphatically not in our best interest, to be generous. There are always better ways, though improvements may range from minor, such as the Hillary touch on business as usual, to major overhaul necessary to substantially limit the damage, to the total revisioning necessary to reverse all the damage. There are ways to detoxify, rethink, revision, create a different reality, restore natural balance in our lives and the environment to whatever extent possible, as a goal instead of willfully trashing natural balance as a means to profit and subordination. It is not necessary or wise to foul our nest or resort to physical coercion against others, unless they initiate violence. No theory, system, or philosophy invented by man is free of corruption from the cultural rot of this order, based and dependent on fundamental imbalance between male and female, extended to all manner of hierarchy for its own sake.

On a level field, competition could be about quality instead of winning. Taxes could be mostly on luxuries. The hierarchical value system is thoroughly messed up, rigged beyond meaningful hope of reform or repair, headed for environmental collapse not so far off. Feminist revolution could supplant it top to bottom with philosophy that affirms life and balance, values people and other beings regardless of how they look, for their gifts, diversity, uniqueness, skills, effort, who they are by their own lights, their own sense of purpose and meaning.

It is about time to try out ideas of a feminist revolution. Women want our say, our chance to try out ideas, make everything from the economy to relationships work in ways that respect ideas from anyone according to the respect they are due, on merit. Respect is more than I can expect from enemies. Their conventional wisdom I scorn, as worn out shadows cast by their distortions of reality, with predictable disastrous consequences, such a sad, gross corruption of what reality could mean on this planet. As a sample of what that means, this is a sneak preview of the Free Soil Party platform currently in development, bearing in mind it is not like feminist revolutionaries such as myself, my web site editor, Heart, or friends, are blessed with free time or funds for a campaign, grassroots working women all. Men can be friends, those who prove deserving. Language and reality are being reclaimed, agreement is not expected, perfect agreement is not possible. The party has its basic principles it will honor and fight to bring about.

The system is fundamentally corrupt, rigged to perpetuate the existing hierarchical order, all the way down to its core value and belief systems.

There is no political reality, besides what men create to maintain the system. That deserves no more credence than any other illusion men have created for their benefit.

Artificial hierarchies of any kind cannot be allowed to abuse authority.

At least a truce will be negotiated with all enemies willing to negotiate in good faith.

To break down the hierarchical order, a first step will be to roll back all hostile takeovers, another abuse of this unbridled exchange economy known as modern capitalism. Businesses should grow by providing quality products or services, not by taking over rivals or otherwise exploiting political or economic clout to force competitors out of business.

The free trade agreements are the modern face of colonialism and should be dismantled.

A Pollution Abatement Corps will clean up toxic messes, equip buildings to collect solar energy, and build wind farms in suitable locations worldwide to phase out nuclear power and fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Toxic chemicals will be phased out as quickly as possible, heavily taxed as luxuries to encourage alternatives.

All sacred cows are under challenge at the Free Soil Party.

(That is a relatively recent statement of principles and high priority goals. The following is one of the oldest, nearly unchanged over a quarter century. The party was founded nearly thirty years ago by four women deciding our consciousness raising group was diverse and political enough to form a political party. Intent on abolishing sex roles, the original basis of slavery, we revived the name Free Soil, an abolitionist party preceding the less radical Republican Party, which took its time, but did abolish slavery during the war, then passed constitutional amendments granting black men rights, excluding women by design. Both big parties have practiced the art of betraying women to this day.)

Bill of Missing Rights

Whereas, the original bill of rights permitted slavery of Blacks and women, trashing the environment, and other abuses of economic and political might too plentiful to list; Free Soil therefore declares the following rights fundamentally necessary to secure blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all:

The right to nourishment, shelter, and professional care sufficient for good health, with fully informed choice among all alternatives, excepting unwarranted invasive experiments or life support efforts beyond the scope of public support.

The right to noninterference and privacy; the property, dignity, actions, and bodies of people define an inviolable zone against uninvited intrusions, excepting government or business authorities, and people under clearly warranted suspicion of violating or threatening some right of another person.

The right to sufficient basic and vocational education to qualify for a job reasonably consistent with the talents, abilities, and potential of a person. Those people demonstrating unusual creative abilities would be allowed three years of self directed apprenticeship to develop independence. While attaining sufficient skills for survival, no person should be held liable to pay for survival.

The right to procreative and sexual autonomy; birth control, abortion, child care, and assistance to escape abuse should be readily available, at least as high quality public health services, and household work should be fairly compensated.

The right to full information on anything potentially dangerous to a person, including: All possible side effects of any ingredient of anything one may ingest, and of any poisons, irradiation, drugs, hormones, and other treatments used in its production. All possible consequences of medical procedures and exposure to hazards in work, living, and other environments. All files which concern one’s interests or government activities, excepting methods of producing weapons of mass destruction. The right to know belongs to the people, not bureaucrats.

The right to effective prevention of unwarranted disruptions of ecological quality and balance, including: nuclear power; radioactive, ozone depleting, and other unconfined unselective harmful substances; high energy waves; genetically engineered forms of life; endangering species; deforestation; monoculture; cloud seeding; overfishing; whaling; and other irresponsible practices. An appropriate bounty shall be paid for evidence of covert polluting or poaching. The people or legislators of any state or locality may vote for additional specific restrictions, including banning or taxing the production, sale, or use of any selected polluting substance within that area.

The right to fair and equal consideration and opportunity, before the law, and in all fields of endeavor, without regard to sex, ethnicity, or persuasion.

Nothing in this Bill shall be construed to deny or limit any right defined in the Constitution or its Amendments, as Amendment IX states: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The people of any local community or state may vote to overrule any restrictions on rights, or tighten rules on business activities, regardless of previous recognition.

Women have more reasons to revolt than anyone can imagine, because the reasons all compound on each other. Just about everything I have written on this blog, and the home page, is about that compounding. This list that follows may appear unconnected, but I do not mean to separate them, because my perspective connects them all. Things are the way they are by male design. Females have other ways. Some ways are better than others, but how that comes down depends on the confluence of individual perspective and actual results.

In the spirit of that feminist aphorism from Robin Morgan, all issues are women’s issues, this is a list on my mind presently. This is by no means a comprehensive or in depth list. These issues are not of equal importance or scope, to me or feminist rebels in general. Every woman has different reasons to rebel, or different ways of looking at issues. The multiplicity of issues has been used by men to divide and conquer women. This is a bluff. Women cannot agree on anything in particular, so what? Most women can agree there are too many reasons to challenge the powers that be and how they run things. Individually and in groups, women have worked together on important issues, making a mark on history that cannot be ignored. Women will not go back. Women will not let men go on ruining the world. That is the bluff, that women will find no way to work together on a scale threatening business as usual.

Men run the world. The world is a mess, in more ways than I can think about, but I have to live here and deal with all that. Male dominant value systems demean and devalue women in more ways than I can think about. There are answers to problems men in charge do not want to think about, so they dismiss these solutions, as though conventional wisdom has all the answers. Men think free speech, supposedly meant to protect the right to dissent from authority, means they have a right to buy images of women sexually degraded and violated in horrendous ways. A man taking home millions a year for insulting women and minorities thinks free speech means he can say on the air women playing championship college basketball are whores, because he thinks that is funny. He went too far with that line, cost him his job. Once in awhile when a man goes too far, it costs him. That depends on public reaction. Women have long been forced to tolerate routine vicious male nonsense, at great cost. If a man must express his hate for women, he should do it in private so he can only hurt himself.

A man taken by police for psychiatric evaluation for stalking two women students, initially found to be an imminent danger to himself or others, is then reevaluated and released with a voluntary recommendation of counseling. His hostile behavior causes most of his class to stop attending and a professor to threaten to quit. Yet nothing goes on his record to show up on a background check to stop him from casually buying a semi-automatic with enough ammo for a massacre at his college.

Men have big problems treating women with respect. It is beyond the capacity of typical men, since they believe men are superior. What men believe about women, and how men form expectations of women as a result, has filled volumes, both their expositions and women dissecting all that smug male theory about things men cannot understand, having no experience, no insight or perspective or inside way of knowing that of which they speak so knowingly. Some males pretend they have women figured out.

Men routinely rape women who trusted them, thinking nothing of the violation, as if they did nothing wrong. The idea of consent is twisted to cover for men, to make it almost impossible to prove no meant no, short of visible wounds.

Men think they have some business interfering with the choices women make about reproducing.

Men think a relationship means a woman is his property, to abuse as he sees fit.

Men routinely terrorize and batter women under the cover of love, thinking this is appropriate discipline, or that it was her fault he overreacted, so an apology should mend the fences. Often she has no recourse, no protection if she leaves him. If she kills him, she may be prosecuted for cold-blooded murder, though sometimes juries are wiser than to go along with that.

Men sexually harass women, for fun, and have the gall to think women ask for it, like it, or deserve it for the nerve of competing with men. Men think they have some right to foster a hostile work environment for women.

Women are expected to go along with male decisions. Women almost never get credit due for what women contribute, in all areas of life.

Women are expected to take care of needy men and children, without fair if any compensation, appreciation, or respect.

Some men pretend they can transform into female by hormones and surgery. That certainly can affect appearances and how one is treated by others, but they are not female, nor can they understand how females think or feel, though they may be atypical males. Feeling compelled to express this pretense gives no right to cross natural boundaries to impose beliefs on women. The expression can be done freely in private so it hurts noone else.

Women are expected to wear makeup and high heels. Most cosmetics contain toxic ingredients.

Most food contains genetically engineered and toxic ingredients or residues. Big agribusiness has no respect for biodiversity, nutritional value, or sustainability. Ancient trees are clearcut to make room for development, or paper or biofuel plantations, with token if any respect for biodiversity or sustainability.

Industry thinks it has a right to pollute air, soil, and water, with the gall to claim overregulation while species extinction and cancer rates accelerate.

Millions of women are still prescribed hormone replacement therapy, despite the uproar when the mainstream finally could no longer deny its harmful effects.

Women feel pressured to go on unhealthy diets to lose weight. Some develop an obsession, lose too much, committing unintentional suicide. Most diets can cause health problems, yet these frauds rake in the dough.

Male doctors perform many unwarranted surgeries on reproductive organs of women, especially in the USA.

Uranium is used in conventional warfare, spreading radioactive dust on the winds. Nuclear energy is promoted as an answer to global warming by most politicians and some environmentalists. Safety standards are relaxed to extend the lifetime of old nukes while new nukes line up on the drawing board. This is technology at its worst, while endless energy showers Earth, untapped except by infant industries and plants, naturally tapping sunlight for photosynthesis.

Fluoride is added to public water to prevent childhood tooth decay in many cities in the USA, though most everywhere else abandoned the reckless experiment long ago.

The poisons of orthodoxy and putting profit over truth have taken hold of scientists in service of big business. Regulatory agencies are plagued by conflicts of interest, protecting industry at the expense of public health and safety. Serious charges have been leveled about the poor results of conventional medical practices, and attempts to stifle legitimate competition from alternative modalities. These charges should be fully investigated by independent reviewers. Science should be about truth, innovation, finding better ways to serve people, from producing goods, services, and energy to preventing and treating disease.

People in general, but particularly women and children are routinely drugged for behavior judged abnormal. For authorities to make that judgment is dangerous at best, easily a tool for enforcing conformity. Drugging or involuntary treatment should be a last resort reserved for those who are truly unbalanced to the point of threatening others.

The major parties are both committed to an endless war on terror. One talks as if it opposes the occupation of Iraq, but still votes to fund it, finally with some flimsy conditions attached. Such tepid opposition is typical of US politics, quibbling over tactics, slinging mud, making hay of scandals, anything to keep the public diverted so the gravy train of money driven politics keeps rolling while meaningful opposition is kept off the table.