liberals

With all the hoopla people have been subjected to ,including court cases, regarding Obama's birth certificate, why oh why aren't the klaxons sounding about Romney's likely inability to run for the Presidency?

"No one who has received amnesty for a serious crime, such as tax evasion, can be president. "

Yet, it cannot be told with any certainty that Romney did NOT receive amnesty for tax evasions.

Not until he releases all his returns going back to 2002. And his wife says that just isn't going to happen. Read below the fold...

Shit Liberals Say to Radicals

Favourites so far include:

"Obama's just biding his time to get a second term, then he's gonna come out swinging."

"I agree with you, but you have to be more realistic"

"Socialist, you mean like Canada?"

You can SUBMIT your own too! Read below the fold...

So I don't have to talk about how important voting is on this website (I hope). Anyhow, in completely awesome news it looks like the Conservative Party of Canada is poised to take a minority again which will probably result in the stepping down of Stephen Harper (the man responsible for the precedent setting dissolution of Parliament last year like so many awesome dictators before him). Read below the fold...

Note: I originally posted a version of this at FireDogLake.com, only to see it flagged as spam and my account deactivated. I guess certain persons don't like having their lack of any moral foundation challenged. Oh well. Read below the fold...

In the Department of "Just for FUN" here's a neat little quiz that will tell you where you fall on the Canadian political spectrum. I'm a commie pinko bastard NDPer. What are you? Read below the fold...

In the FIFTH EVER no confidence vote the coalition of the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc Québecois voted the Harper government out today 156 to 145. (sidenote: WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!)

Election looms as government falls

After the vote, Speaker Peter Milliken addressed Stephen Harper as a member of Parliament rather than as prime minister when Harper rose to move the House adjourn. Conservative MPs left the House chamber quickly for a caucus meeting.

Read below the fold...

I seem to recall that someone, late last month, posted an entry arguing that it is immoral for Democrats not to run a primary challenge against Barry Obama in 2012, in light of the things he's done to institutionalize Bush-Cheney crimes. (Glenn Greenwald chronicled the latest violation of the Constitution by Obama on his own blog, which you can read here). Read below the fold...

Due to being back in the community a scant week I was reminded of this post and thought I'd bring it to a larger audience. It's my first piece of theory ever and I hope you get something out of it, because it's still as true now as it is when I wrote it years upon years ago.

Those of you who subscribe to off our backs may have seen a slightly condensed form of this, but here you are, my first (and published!) feminist theory in its entirety.

NOTE: This is about very specific groups, namely activist/anarchist scenes, and hetero polyamory within them.

The Rise of Polyamory:
Leftist men’s self-serving cure all for sexism.

“The pornographic conception of female power is
fundamental to the anti-feminism of sexual-liberation Read below the fold...

(Explanatory note: After contemplating the fall of so many liberal icons, like Dennis Kucinich, who supported Health Whatever after pledging not to, or Carolyn Maloney, who wrote the amazing book "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated" but voted for Health Whatever with Stupak attached, or Paul Krugman, who has recently taken to shilling for policies he adamantly opposed before Obama espoused them, I was wondering what had happened to our heroes/heroines and their principles. Read below the fold...

(Version with links available here. I can't seem to get links included when I copy and paste texts.)

Mark Danner's Choice

A long standing staple of Fox News discourse claims that liberalism in the academy holds sway as a kind of semi-official ideology. This view is largely correct, though it should be kept in mind that it is the liberalism targeted in recent denunciations by Adolph Reed and Chris Hedges, not the "radical leftism" of teabaggers and other fantasists of the right. Read below the fold...

When I was young the United States had some liberals of courage in the Senate. People like Estes Kefauver, Paul Douglas, Hubert H. Humphrey, Herbert Lehman, Wayne Morse, Richard L. Neuberger, Maurine B. Neuberger, Eugene McCarthy, Mike Mansfield, Ernest Gruening, Pat McNamara, Phil Hart, Frank Church, George McGovern, Albert Gore, Sr., Ralph Yarborough, Warren Magnuson, and William Proxmire. These liberals could be counted on to go to the mat for most liberal causes. They said what they meant, and meant what they said. They compromised. Read below the fold...

unless you were compromising with yourself. I'm sick of hearing the "public option was the compromise". No, it wasn't. You can't compromise on something when it's the only policy for which you have advocated. The public option, not single payer, is the demand. A compromised public option is likely to be the compromise. Improved and Enhanced Medicare for All, or single payer, was never on the table. It was never part of the negotiations, thus it was never a policy up for compromise. Read below the fold...

What frustrates single payer advocates the most is how they have been sidelined from the national health finance reform debate. People who support single payer, or enhanced and improved Medicare for All, have long waited for the chance to present their case to the American people for real health care reform via a single payer method. With the ever increasing cost of care, and the growing number of uninsured and under insured Americans, single payer advocates view inclusion of proposals that support a one payer system for financing health care an essential part of the debate. Read below the fold...

Before the primary it had been so long since Democrats held power I never noticed how much Democratic philosophy and policy advocacy had changed.  But during the primary I started to note what I would call a split in the Party between those who sought economic justice for the middle class, and those who sought social benevolence for the poor.  I'm always on the side of helping the poor, but in policy terms, I've always thought what helps the poor most is to empower the middle class.  Policies that target only the poor through subsidies and welfare programs, and sort of ignore the plight of Read below the fold...