Liberal Roundup

After a long absence, Liberal Roundup has returned. The writings of the communists liberals are as strange as ever. Most of the thinking on these blogs falls into one of a few categories: the health care bill made history except that it ignored reproductive rights, Joe Lieberman should be hanged for wanting to know why mass murder occurred in Texas, and the obligatory rhetoric on climate change and gay marriage.

Daily Kos

Meteor Blades at the Daily Kos is upset that climate change is being under reported in relation to agriculture. When an investigation into the combined use of "climate change" and "agriculture" in media stories was complete, the writer says "only 109 of the articles included even a brief mention of one of the phrases, and only 20 of them took as its primary topic the relationship of food or agriculture to climate change." It never enters the writer's mind that this could mean the relationship is small, or nonexistent. He uses the United Nations as a source to try to prove the "relationship is huge." The UN has no credibility whatsoever. Nice try, Libbie.

And Laura Clawson is monitoring "marriage equality" happenings in the Northeast:

There are two ways equality could be overturned in New Hampshire. One is legislation overturning June's equality bill. Defending Democratic majorities in New Hampshire's House and Senate must therefore be a priority for 2010.

I'm sure "marriage equality" is important to more than just a few people, but I'm not one of them, because I can think of 10,000 issues that are more important. Maybe I'm exaggerating -- it's only 9,999.

And Steve Singiser is teaching his small children about same-sex marriage. How many mommies does Heather have? Or Bruce, or Brad, or Biff? Pat, anyone?

This comes, to say the least, as a shock. I am pretty well to the left-of-center politically, and my wife, if anything, is to my left. So, hearing my elementary school-aged son coming out as a proponent of marriage discrimination was a bit of an eye-opener.

I'm waiting for the day the libbies teach their children it's okay for humans and monkeys, and dogs, and hamsters to join in holy matrimony because, gosh darn it, the furry creatures of the world have rights too! I remember a British organization trying to claim monkeys have a right to an attorney, so my bemusement of these weirdos has some basis.

For the record, I don't care if gays and lesbians can marry. In fact, I don't see any reason they shouldn't. I'm just tired of hearing about it every time I turn on a TV or get on the web. And why would anyone fight for the right to get married? As a happily divorced man, I can tell ya that marriage should be illegal for everybody.

In a short post called "History Made", mcjoan is quite the little activist. This spunky lefty has a self-important tone, similar to a chihuahua barking at a real dog:

This is the first time a chamber of Congress has passed healthcare reform since Medicare was enacted. There's a lot of work left to do on this, and a lot of ugly to be undone, but we made it this far against long odds. Now the really hard work: the Senate.

You can almost hear the kettle drums giving us a dramatic base beat, cantcha? Keep on tracking the "history", toots. I'm sure you've got lots of regular readers -- women with hairy underarms, deballed men, and the like.

Mother Jones

High drama at Mother Jones. I've just read my first "investigation" piece over there, and the opening cannot be missed by anyone who considers himself normal. Ever see Conan the Barbarian, the movie? The opening narration in the film is similar to this:

Sooner or later, you have to draw a line. We've spent the last 20 years in the opening scenes of what historians will one day call the Global Warming Era—the preamble to the biggest drama that humans have ever staged, the overture that hints at the themes that will follow for centuries to come. But none of the notes have resolved, none of the story lines yet come into clear view. And that's largely because until recently we didn't know quite where we were. From the moment in 1988 when a nasa scientist named James Hansen told Congress that burning coal and gas and oil was warming the earth, we've struggled to absorb this one truth: The central fact of our economic lives (the ubiquitous fossil fuel that developed the developed world) is wrecking the central fact of our physical lives (the stable climate and sea level on which civilization rests).

I think the Conan flick used slightly different words, something like "This is a tale of high adventure." The author of the high adventure at Mother Jones is Bill McKibben, and I think we can conclude that the only way to inject that kind of tone is to smoke a bit of weed beforehand. Happy smoking, Bill.

Firedog Lake

Some clever fellow calling himself Attaturk is standing up for Muslims by bashing a man who is second only to Dick Cheney for his pure evilness, Joe Lieberman:

So we now hear that Joe Lieberman wants some hearings on the Committee he for some reason is going to be allowed to Chair in order to single out Muslim-Americans as being dangerous America-haters. All together now, A-W-E-S-O-M-E. Good job Harry Reid, he’s with you on everything except constant douchebaggery.

Speaking of the Ft. Hood massacre, I wonder what could have possibly motivated that good American to just snap like that. Any ideas, Attaturk? Perhaps he suffered "vicarious trauma"? A complete mystery! Oh, I know, Attaturk -- he had information that could prove the moon landing was faked, and so he was set up by Reich-Wingers!

Another Ft. Hood post, by a Jim White, was titled "Lieberman to Whip Up Anti-Muslim Hysteria With Homeland Security Hearing on Fort Hood Shooting".

How dare anyone say anything intolerant, even if it's true and sensible! Let's bash Lieberman for even thinking something intolerant about somebody who isn't white and male.

Democratic Underground

Somebody called Angry Mouse has an angry vagina, and we can assume it has been dry for quite some time, too:

Something clicked for me last night, as I watched the scum of the Democratic party vote against me. We've been having the wrong fight. Because it's not about abortion. It's not about religious beliefs. It's not about whether it's okay in certain circumstances, but wrong in others. "Partial birth" abortion, parental notification, waiting periods, mandated lectures from doctors about what characteristics your fetus might have had -- it's not about that.

It's about something much more simple. Either women are full and equal citizens of this country, with the exact same rights that men have -- including autonomy of our bodies -- or we are not.

Please note that nearly every sentence from above was posted as a seperate paragraph -- I put them together in a way that eluded Angry Mouse.

The writer concludes with: "Tell me how you feel about my rights. Tell me whether you believe I am a full and equal citizen. Tell me whether you really believe the Democratic party stands for women."

I've always supported equal rights for everyone, and I have been pro-choice all of my adult life. But I do have to wonder how many Einsteins and Mozarts and Goddards and Cricks have been denied humanity because a woman couldn't be troubled to think about birth control. But why all this anger, anyway? I thought all liberals were going to marry somebody of the same sex (making abortions irrelevant)? After all, for a liberal, making a political statement is more important than doing the right thing (see: Obama).

You can easily surmise that Angry Mouse doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant. What self-respecting man would bed down somebody so bitchy? It's always the woman who can't get laid who is most concerned about "reproductive rights".

Another interesting title caught my eye at Firedog Lake: "Books, Not Bombs: How Military Spending Hurts the Economy and Education Spending Helps"

You not only have to be a liberal to believe something like that, you have to be a fucking moron.

Huffington Post

Donna Schaper laments reality:

This week was a big week, politically, with gay marriage being defeated in Maine and the biggest spender winning in New York, in the mayoral election and on the baseball field, shifts in Jersey and Virginia, and round one on the health care bill. The Stupak Amendment, banning federal funding for abortions, also passed. The Roman Catholic Bishops are responsible for the Stupak amendment, throwing into grand relief the issues cited by the Gallup Poll. The Catholic Bishops also kept immigration OUT of the bill and did quite a few other things that are good for women.

Perhaps Donna should wake from her liberalism and recognize that her views don't represent the one correct way, and that people who feel otherwise aren't necessarily uneducated fools who have fallen prey to right-wing propaganda and Catholic Bishops.

Case in point: I'm a pro-choice atheist. No bishop has ever influenced me or my politics, and never will, yet I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions, and I don't want illegal aliens to get healthcare or any other "free" service that is funded by people who are here legitimately. I guess Donna doesn't know that people like me exist -- independent thinkers who have concluded that collectivism is a net negative for me and society. Hello, Donna!

TPM Cafe

Front and center at the TPM Cafe is writer M.J. Rosenberg, another person offended that Joe Lieberman wants to find out why the Ft. Hood jihad occurred:

Of course, as a self-proclaimed "man of faith", he won't say that the problem is not Islam but fanatics of all faiths. I mean, just because the history of the world has been scarred by one religious massacre or assassination after another by people of all faiths is no reason not to single out Muslims. Well, not for Joe, anyway.

If Joe said "the problem is not Islam but fanatics of all faiths," Joe would be a delusional liar.

After that reality-denying opening, Rosenberg drones on, citing the few instances of Jews shooting people. Does this guy not understand that the ratio of Muslims who commit mass murder in the name of their ideology to all others combined is about ten million to one? Seriously, is Rosenberg lying, or is he stupid?

Liberals have turned their desire for "tolerance" into a delusion. How did they get like that?

I found another jaw-dropper from Rosenberg, this time writing in support of Iran's nuclear ambitions. This guy is really out there:

Even the strongest opponents of the regime believe Iran has the same right to nuclear development as any other country in the world. As for nuclear weapons, there is little evidence that Iran is pursuing them but, even if there was, the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory spells out its rights and obligations.

Riiiiight. Iran violated that little NPT, which Rosenberg is citing in Iran's favor! WTF? It was precisely the violation(s) that got the entire world concerned about Iranian nukes in the first place. Why would Iran enrich uranium in secret for years, violating the NPT, if their efforts were for peaceful purposes? The NPT allows for the acquisition of enriched uranium without the need to accomplish it covertly.

I highly recommend that everyone read TPM Cafe regularly. So what if it generates revenue for them? This is where the real weirdos hang out.

Hullabaloo

Didn't take long to find a gem on Hullabaloo. From a writer called digby:

There is some deeply creepy, psychosexual stuff happening in fundamentalist religion. The Christian moralists in our culture seem to be addicted to torture.

I've noticed the term "ruling elite" on many of these liberal blogs. From another Hullabaloo post:

I knew that after all the sturm and drang over the past few months over the public option, the number one liberal priority in the health care debate, there would be a price for its success. The ruling elite could never allow an unambiguous liberal victory. It would endanger their narrative that says fealty to business, religion, military and other authoritarian structures is democratically inspired. They have to maintain the fiction that the people prefer to be subjects. If politicians aren't convinced that there will be a price for being liberals, they might get the idea that they can actually govern liberally.

Does the writer get a point for using "ruling elite"? Is there a lefty point system? Let's give him a point.

Crooks and Liars

Here's one that made me laugh. Nicole Belle used a blog post to make fun of herself and her kind. She is commenting on Virginia's Republican governor supposedly being considered for VP next time around:

The famous Fox News "some people say" followed by a statement that nobody who really wants to keep the Republican Party vital would actually want? And who is on the "short list" for President? Palin? Wow. Between the two of them, they'd have..what? three years governance experience between them? Brilliant!

Let's see if Nicole can figure out her big screw-up. (Here it is, but don't tell her: she and her libby pals just elected a community organizer with no governance experience at all. None!)

Ah, and a good one from Heather Sunday:

In what world do all Americans have health care coverage? Oh yeah, the emergency rooms. That's the GOP's idea of health care coverage and "freedom".

Truth be told, Heather, honey, only illegal aliens get free health care in emergency rooms -- on the backs of citizens. For Americans to get free health care, we have to leave our driver's license at home and say our name is Juan Rodriguez.