[AGL] Pity our poor, technology limited, countries, yours and mine

[Frances Morey]

I worked in close quarters with HRC for 6 months in
1972 when we were both employed in the McGovern Texas
State Presidential campaign, a bit more than a
handshake, okay? I was totally impressed with her
intellect, talent, focus and her brilliant mind. I'm
doing my best to clear political cobwebs out of my
mind as much as possible. The present moral stasis of
this country is much too depressing. I don't think
Bush could be impeached even if he had a blow job in
public and televised. 
I witnessed the pent up power of the women at the
Women's March in 2004, Washington, DC, and I think
that they are strong enough to elect a woman
president. While I admire Barbara Boxer I think HRC is
more universally electable and that is what I want to
see, a win for a change. I've seen and heard Senator
Clinton speak on many occasions, in person, and she is
inspiring, and speaks of uplifting hopeful things I
can totally agree with. She makes Dudya look like what
he is, a blathering bleepin' idiot.
She is certainly not a RWDemocrat simply because you
tack that appellation on her. That is not her
philosophical stance at all. I have said it before,
she is developing as a femininist, beyond feminism.
Hers is a more universal appreciation of the plight of
women in our society as well as their fundamental
value. I feel that she is in a better position to do
something for all the women of America if elected, not
just those who would prefer it had they been born
male.
Frances

--- Bill Irwin <billi at aloha.net> wrote:

> Frances:
> If you don't like right wing Republicans why would
> you like right wing Democrats?  Just because HRC
> shook your hand one time doesn't qualify her for any
> thing.  How about a real change?  I saw this article
> and thought of you so am sending it along.
> Ewie
>             Published on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 by
> CommonDreams.org  
>             I'm Tired of Bushes and Clintons  
>             by Jeff Cohen 
>               
>             Every presidential election since 1980
> has had a Bush or a Clinton on a major party ticket.
> And the pundits say we're likely to see a Clinton
> atop the next Democratic ticket. 
> 
>             Unlike the last seven presidential
> elections, I dream of a 2008 contest that is Bush-
> and Clinton-free. Our country needs new leadership
> and fresh ideas beyond the realm of just two
> families. 
> 
>             Of course, influential political
> families are as old as the Republic. Our nation's
> first vice president and second president was an
> Adams; his son was our sixth president. A Republican
> Roosevelt dominated U.S. politics at the turn of the
> 20th century; a Democratic Roosevelt, his distant
> cousin, was even more dominant decades later (joined
> by our country's greatest first lady, a Roosevelt by
> birth as well as marriage, who toiled for human
> rights for years thereafter.) Then came the '60s and
> the brothers Kennedy...but both John and Robert were
> killed before the age of 47. 
> 
>             Those earlier eras were marked by hope
> or social progress. By contrast, the Bush-Clinton
> era is marked in many respects by political regress
> and decline. And as major national problems fester,
> neither Team Bush nor Team Clinton are willing to
> seriously address them. 
> 
>             Don't get me wrong: I'm not in any way
> equating the Clintonites with the extremists in
> today's White House. No one comes close to Bush
> recklessness and fecklessness. But I believe that
> until we sweep away the Bush-Clinton era and
> transcend narrow Bush-Clinton debates (and
> non-debates), we won't be able to put our country
> back on the road to social progress. 
> 
>             In the last couple decades -- as power
> has passed from Bush to Clinton to Bush -- we've
> seen major problems worsen. 
> 
>               CORPORATE POWER -- Much of our
> economy, including healthcare and media, is in the
> grip of a shrinking number of giant amoral
> corporations. This power grab was not a natural
> process but the direct result of conscious decisions
> made, often corruptly, in Washington -- like
> President Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996,
> a bigger gift to the Rupert Murdochs and Clear
> Channels and Sinclairs than any George W. Bush was
> able to muster. Even as exciting new technologies
> allow for greater competition and decentralization,
> both Clintons and Bushes have favored the media
> goliaths. (In that context, Hillary Clinton's recent
> romance with Darth Murdoch is not a huge surprise.) 
>               The corporatization of healthcare has
> been accomplished by insurance giants who've built
> one of the biggest and most wasteful bureaucracies
> in the world. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's proposed
> reform in 1993 would have rewarded the largest
> private insurers; it buried the obvious solution --
> non-bureaucratic national health insurance, which
> was endorsed by 100 members of Congress, physicians,
> labor unions, Consumers Union, et al. 
> 
>               Americans across the political
> spectrum tell pollsters that big business has too
> much power. Religious Right politicians have
> exploited sentiment against declining ethics, even
> as their policies in Washington foster corporate
> greed and amorality. But the Clintons, so webbed up
> with corporate power and donations (Hillary spent
> six years on Wal-Mart's board), are in no position
> to address this national problem. 
> 
>               CLIMATE CHANGE -- With our nation
> making up 5% of the world's population but producing
> 25% of the world's greenhouse gases, it would be
> nice to have a president at the forefront of the
> global effort to address the climate crisis. And one
> who saw renewable technologies as a spur to jobs and
> small business. But the Bush oiligarchy is
> obstructionist, flatly rejecting the Kyoto Climate
> Treaty -- after the Clinton administration had
> sought to weaken it. It's worth remembering that the
> Clinton White House steadfastly ignored
> environmentalists' calls to raise auto fuel
> efficiency standards. (As a senator, Al Gore had
> written powerfully about global warming -- but muted
> his voice for Team Clinton and his presidential
> run.) 
> 
>               POVERTY -- In our wealthy country, it
> took a hurricane and the racist neglect afterward to
> rediscover America's poor. Since the 1980s,
> government policy has done more to criminalize the
> poor than to lift them out of poverty. Money for
> prisons has been plentiful; money for proven
> anti-poverty programs has been scarce. Due largely
> to a racially-biased "drug war," our country's
> prison population grew during the Clinton years from
> 1.4 million to over 2 million -- many of whom were
> nonviolent drug offenders, poor and minority. The
> Florida recount fiasco of 2000 exposed the appalling
> reality that felony convictions had stripped three
> of ten black men in that state of their right to
> vote. 
> 
>               FOREIGN POLICY -- Martin Luther King
> Jr. went to his grave opposing an immoral war based
> on lies and a costly, militaristic foreign policy.
> He envisioned a country known around the globe more
> for its helping hand than its slugging arm. Today,
> U.S. military spending is roughly equal to that of
> all other countries on the planet combined. Bush's
> disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq was
> supported by Hillary Clinton, who can muster only
> vague grousing over its execution. There is no
> difference today between Bush and Clinton policies
> on Israel, where uncritical, longstanding U.S.
> support for occupation of Palestinian land has
> produced intransigence and needless suffering on
> both sides -- and is a source of anti-Americanism
> easily exploited by Islamist extremists. 
> 
>             Many Americans long for a strong
> presidential candidate in 2008 who will go beyond
> the tepid Bush-Clinton dialogue and chart a new
> course for our country -- including in foreign
> affairs. Aspiring Democrats who refuse to forcefully
> challenge a failed foreign policy in fear of being
> labeled "weak on defense" will fare no better than
> Kerry did. The backpedaling, "GOP-lite" strategy
> doesn't work. 
> 
>             Any Democrat who breaks from the
> Bush-Clinton consensus will become a target of
> mainstream media -- not just Fox News -- much like
> Howard Dean was in the weeks before the Iowa
> caucuses. If Al Gore steps out to run for president
> on a platform derived from his recent speeches on
> Iraq, foreign policy and Constitutional liberties,
> brace yourself for the spectacle of elite pundits
> straining to convince us that the man who was vice
> president for eight years is now irresponsibly
> leftish and "out of the mainstream." 
> 
>             Thankfully, corporate media and
> corporate money are no longer as crucial in
> determining the Democratic nominee. (Dean nearly
> succeeded in '04 with little of either.) That's
> because the last half-dozen years have seen near
> continuous growth in Internet organizing,
> independent media, and movements and coalitions for
> peace, global justice, fair trade, immigrants
> rights, media reform, etc. It would be smart
> politics for an '08 presidential contender to align
> with these coalitions -- smarter than the Clinton
> approach of wowing elite punditry by pushing away
> from activists and triangulating halfway between
> progressive Democrats and rightwing Republicans. 
> 
>             Among mainstream pundits, it's
> conventional wisdom that Bill Clinton and his
> centrist realpolitik saved the Democrats. But simple
> math tells us the opposite: Triangulation may have
> worked for Clinton personally (and for corporate
> backers seeking media consolidation and
> corporate-friendly trade deals like NAFTA), but far
> from saving the Democrats, the Clinton years
> represented a free fall for the party. When Clinton
> entered the White House, Democrats dominated the
> Senate, 57-43; the House, 258-176; the country's
> governorships, 30-18, and a large majority of state
> legislatures. By 2000, Republicans controlled the
> Senate, 55-45; the House, 222-211; governorships,
> 30-18, and almost half of state legislatures. 
> 
>             For Americans who want to turn our
> nation toward health, driving Bush-style extremism
> from the White House is essential. But it won't be
> enough to replace it with Clinton-style vacillation
> and triangulation. 
>            
>      
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Frances Morey 
>   To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto
> Daze in the 60s 
>   Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 9:23 AM
>   Subject: Re: [AGL] Pity our poor, technology
> limited, countries, yours and mine
> 
> 
>   Maggie,
>   The booghie man of political manipulation used to
> be the TriLateral Commission. I don't have the
> fascination with conspiracy scenarios. HRC to me is
> like a symbol of woman's equal importance in the
> world geopolitical ball game kinda like Indira
> Ghandi was. I support her for being a symbol and
> don't dwell on past utterances or future predictions
> to the possiblity of her doing dastardly things to
> US if elected. After all, it really matters little
> who is in office to the day to day reality of my
> life. Reagan was the only president who did me in
> personally, close to home, effecting my losing my
> real estate with novel tax laws put in effect for a
> short time to devastate current owners, clearing
> them out of their property as though with a neutron
> bomb attack, to divert equity and wealth into the
> stock market. Other than pissing me off Bush by
> being such a brutish no style pretender to the
> throne he hasn't really done anything to effect me
> in particular. Then again I don't have soldier age
> sons or live in NO.
>   Frances 
> 
>   Margaret Martone <maggiemartone at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>     Frances: Do you know about the Illuminati (the
> Bilderberg (burg?) group) and 
>     the fact that they have controlled events in the
> world for a LONG time and 
>     continue to do so. Of course, they're grooming
> HRC to run for the 
>     presidency...as they did with ALL of our past
> presidents. Jimmy C. just 
>     wouldn't do their total bidding, so he was
> replaced. London Times reported 
>     yesterday that the dollar is taking an HUGE
> drop...what can we do?? Just be 
>     informed and inform others. My housemate is
> really up-to-date on what is 
>     happening with the UN owning most of our
> National Parks, China controlling a 
>     number of our seaports (Long Beach, Seattle, New
> Orleans?), France owning 
>     our CapMetro, German and Denmark owning most of
> our waterways, and, now, 
>     Spain getting paid for our toll roads, for which
> we as taxpayers have 
>     already paid! America is in Receivership! The
> list goes on. She showed me 
>     today how ALL the news stations have gone over
> to blue and orange logos or 
>     bottom strips...the UN colors. Don't know...but,
> I'm trying to educate 
>     myself on the reality and not get sucked in by
> all the hullabaloo that is 
>     supposed to keep us occupied and afraid (bird
> flu, terrorists). 
>     Unfortunately, the terrorists are our own
> government who orchestrated 
>     Oklahoma City (there were no FBI or other
> government workers (or very few, 
>     at least) in the building on that day...had all
> been told to stay home). 
>     Anyway, I'll shut up and continue to check out
> what Connie has told me and 
>     learn how much is real...and I think that most
> of it is REAL! I've never 
>     been a paranoiac, but I am concerned.
> 
>     Have a GREAT day.
> 
>     Margaret
> 
>     >From: Frances Morey 
>     >Reply-To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin
> Ghetto Daze in the 60s 
>     >
>     >To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin
> Ghetto Daze in the 60s 
>     >
>     >Subject: Re: [AGL] Pity our poor, technology
> limited, countries, yours and 
>     >mine
>     >Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
>     >
>     >And we are stuck with anti-science-Dudya who
> hobbled our scientists while 
>     >other nation's scientists make stem cell
> research breakthroughs. It makes 
>     >me feel as though hopelessness is upon us. For
> the federal government to 
>     >weigh in with marijuana sanctions because they
> say that it hasn't been 
>     >scientifically tested, and that is the case
> because they made such research 
>     >illegal, is just another cause for psychic
> depression here in 'Merika.
>     > Looking forward to your visit.
>     > Best,
>     > Frances
>     >
>     >hpo wrote:
>     > Hi Frances,
>     >this article not yet public in German minds,
> show how stupid the politician 
>     >here are. German know how suppressed, now
> copied
>     >in foreign land (China).
>     >Had German Industry, that created MAGLEV,
> started to built this system here 
>     >in Germany, it would have been desired and sold
> worldwide.
>     >
>     >But NO, they built an experimental airport mag
> lev shuttle in China and let 
>     >the chinese copy and now make their own. German
> Taxpayers loose.
>     >It is frustrating to see such stupidity on both
> sides of the pond. Scotty 
>     >beam me up.
>     >
>     >
>     >On Tuesday, May 02, 2006, at 05:26AM, Frances
> Morey wrote:
>     >
>     >original detached
>     >
>     >
>     >- - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
>     >Hans-Peter Otto
>     >Freelance
>     >TV Cinematographer
>     >Reichstrasse 101
>     >14052 Berlin, Germany
>     >
>     >Mobile +49 172 321 5956
>     >Tel +49 30 667 75450
>     >
>     >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>