James Phillips' version of psychiatric reductionism.

[kathleen]

To: Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov

Subject: [SpinLyme] Hillary and Fear (Paul Craig Roberts)

Date: Jan 24, 2008 6:37 PM

ROBERTS and others on HILLARY.

No- let's talk about it.


The issue of Hillary for women is voting against *oppression.* Just
like I don't
know what it is like to be black - except for the part where I
witnessed outrageous
abuse of the black women prisoners, something only LIKELY to be
believed if stated
by white women and not black women - I don't expect a man to know what
the chronic
abuse of women is like.

The issue is oppression, not "feminism."

I don't actually know what feminism is. The Rockefellers thought it
up and
the CIA funded Gloria Steinem's campaigns.

We would like men to start acting like men. Take care of their women
and children.
This is the biggest thing NOT happening in America today. Men are
stupid cowards
and do nothing but cause trouble.

The issue is oppression, something a WASP can't really understand.


You know what? I recommend everyone hang out with James Phillips (88
Noble Avenue,
Milford, CT). He'll tell you about how everything wrong with the
world is because
of YOU, and because YOU are not giving everyone enough sex.

EVERYTHING.

See how you like every bit of your humanity reduced to the concerns of
your, um,
parts, and um, providing your parts to be in service to whoever,
whenever;
*** Reduced to being a sperm receptacle.***

Then report back and tell us how you enjoyed that abuse.


Oh, and men will obviously have to take it up the you know.


Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org

==============

January 24, 2008
The Era of Dynastic Politics, Where Nothing Really Changes
President Hillary

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

If polls are reliable, Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. The
Democratic
groups that prefer Obama are not sufficiently numerous to give him the
nomination.

Of course, anything can happen in a political campaign, but the latest
Field Poll
of likely California Democrats and independent voters gives Hillary a
39 to 27 percent
lead over Obama. This is bad news for Obama, because California is a
progressive
state where race is less likely to be a handicap.

Obama is favored by those who rank the Iraq war and foreign policy as
the most important
issues, by blacks, college graduates, and those with higher incomes.

Hillary is favored two to one by women, two to one by lower income
groups and three
to one among Latinos. Hillary has a further advantage. At the 2004
Democratic National
Convention approximately 50 per cent of the delegates were women. As
Democratic
delegates are invariably feminists, they are not going to miss the
chance of putting
a woman in the presidency.

Are the Democrats choosing Hillary because she has the moral integrity
to stop an
unjust war and to hold war criminals responsible for leading America
into war based
on lies and deception? Are they choosing Hillary because she defends
the US Constitution
from usurpation by executive power? Are they choosing her because she
is public-spirited
instead of personally ambitious?

No. The Democrats are choosing Hillary because of gender and race.
Despite all the
efforts of Democratic activist groups, the majority of Democratic
voters are more
concerned with race and gender issues than with their country's
reputation and
their civil liberties.

If elected president, Hillary will bring no more change than did the
Democratic
congressional majority elected in 2006.

Obama might not bring any change either. But he is the only candidate
in the running
who has expressed concern over Israel's mistreatment of the
Palestinians and
who voted against the Iraq invasion. Clearly, he is a better bet for
change than
Hillary. However, Democrats are more attuned to race and gender issues
than to war
crimes and loss of civil liberties.

This is not to argue that Republicans are an improvement. Their likely
nominee is
McCain, who has recently said that he is OK with a hundred-year war in
Iraq. McCain
is as willing to attack Iran as Bush and Cheney, and he would not be
adverse to
conspiring with Israel and the neoconservatives to pull off an attack.
Republicans
don't even have a "change" candidate in the running. They have worked
to marginalize Ron Paul precisely because he would be an instrument of
change.

Even if Obama were elected and was sincere about change, what could he
do? Probably
very little. The pool of candidates from which he could staff an
administration
is not that much different from that of any other candidate. He can
pass over a
neocon architect of the Iraq invasion and settle on an architect of
President Clinton's
bombing of Serbia.

Moreover, Congress will still be controlled by the same interest
groups. If Obama
were to appoint people opposed by the military-security lobby, the
Israel Lobby
or the offshoring lobby, the Senate would be unlikely to confirm them.
No president
wants to nominate people who cannot be confirmed. Presidents have to
staff their
administrations according to who can get the approval of powerful
interest groups.
This makes if difficult to change the status quo. It only takes one
senator to put
a hold on an appointment. Change in Washington requires breaking many
iron grips.

In the presidential race, Hillary would defeat McCain, who without any
doubt is
the war candidate. Hillary will get the women's vote, the minorities'
vote,
and the anti-war vote. McCain will get the vote of angry macho white
males.
What Hillary has to worry about is a major terrorist attack, whether
real or orchestrated,
that would revive the 9/11 fears and send voters scurrying to put the
presidency
into the hands of a war hero. As Hillary is not regarded as a threat
to Israel's
territorial expansion or to the interests of the military-security
complex, the
only wild card is some terrorist action that would require the failure
of US security
in order to succeed.

Of course, all of this ignores the salient fact: No one knows how the
Diebold electronic
voting machines programmed by Republican operatives with proprietary
software will
count the votes.

If it hasn't become a stolen affair, the American presidency has
become a family
affair, one that is passed from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush and back
to a Clinton.
The interest groups are satisfied, and nothing of importance changes.

After Hillary will we have Jeb?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration.
He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and
Contributing
Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good
Intentions.He can
be reached at: PaulCrai...@yahoo.com