Mediaboss Marketing

Marketing executive and former journalist Dai Le. Photo: James Alcock

Pressure is building on the NSW Liberal Party to preselect a woman to its upper house ticket for next year's state election, with four female candidates putting their hands up.

Marketing executive and former journalist Dai Le nominated shortly before the deadline of October 1.

She is joined by Woollahra councillor Katherine O'Regan, who served as chief of staff to former environment minister Robyn Parker,andMary-Lou Jarvis, an adviser to Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells.

Woollahra councillor Katherine O'Regan is one of four female Liberal candidates for next year's state election. Photo: Tamara Dean

Their nominations follow that of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's sister Christine Forster, who is a City of Sydney councillor.

Advertisement

Ms Le, who stood unsuccessfully for the Liberals in the seat of Cabramatta at the 2011 election, was a surprisenon-starter for the south-western Sydney provincial spot on the upper house ticket this year. She is close to retiring upper house MP Charlie Lynn and was regarded as a strong contender to replace him.

Instead, a little-known motor mechanic and Wollondilly councillor, Lou Amato, was the only candidate to nominate for Mr Lynn's position. He secured the winnable spot thanks to backing from local powerbroker Jai Rowell, who is the minister for mental health.

Mr Lynn told Parliament in May that he was "absolutely perplexed as to how a position that commands a six-figure salary with a secure eight-year tenure could attract only one applicant, apparently an unknown tradesman with an invisible history in the Liberal Party".

More here:
Liberals under more pressure to preselect a woman to upper house

Bill Maher - Liberals don #39;t stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims
This is exactly why Liberals are criticized by Conservatives as having no Principles, because it actually takes courage to defend your Principles when it matters, not when its simply convenient...

By: TheAsianRepublican

View original post here:
Bill Maher - Liberals don't stand up for Liberal Values with Muslims - Video

Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman
June 2, 2014, Philippe Assouline discusses growing misinformation and liberal hostility to Israel as result of Palestinian propaganda.

By: philippe assouline

Here is the original post:
Philippe Assouline discusses Pro Israel Liberals with David Pakman - Video

I have a slightly different take on California's recent decision to regulate college sex. Don't get me wrong, it's beyond idiotic, unworkable, even borderline Orwellian. We'll get to all that.

But I also think it's incredibly useful. You see, for years I've been railing and ranting about the ridiculous myth that liberalism is socially libertarian; that liberals are "live and let live" types simply defending themselves against judgmental conservatives, the real aggressors in the culture war.

That thinking runs counter to most everything liberals justifiably take pride in, as liberals. You can't be "agents for change," "forces for progress," or whatever the current phrase, and claim that you're not the aggressors in the culture war. Liberals have redefined a millenniums-old understanding of marriage while talking as if it were conservatives who wanted to "impose" their values on the nation.

Most libertarians are surely against racial discrimination, sexism, poor eating habits, homophobia and so on. But their proposed remedies don't look anything like a liberal's. Libertarians, for the most part, do not favor racial or gender quotas. They're against banning big sodas, campus speech codes or forcing elderly nuns to pay for birth control coverage, among other things.

Liberals, meanwhile, are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. The difference is that when conservatives try to do it, liberals are quick to charge "theocracy!" and decry the Orwellian horror.

Enter Gov. Jerry Brown, whose answer to the alleged "rape epidemic" on campuses was to sign the new "affirmative consent" law. It will require a verbal "yes" at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.

The incredible overreach of the law has been discussed at great length. The Times editorial board expressed its own sensible misgivings in an editorial before Brown signed the bill into law. "It seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely as to tell young people what steps they must take in the privacy of their own dorm rooms."

This strikes me as extremely understated, but the sentiment is right. Some defenders of the law say it doesn't really matter because it will only have an effect when women accuse men of sexual assault. "The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters," feminist writer Amanda Marcotte reassures us. "It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint."

Never mind that it will also likely change the standard of proof in such situations, making it much easier to charge and administratively convict students of rape based solely on an allegation. Don't worry about false accusations, says Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler, they amount to only "about 2% to 8% of cases." Tell that to people who fall into the 2% to 8%.

Other defenders insist that such concerns miss the point. Ann Friedman of New York magazine rhapsodizes about the law's positive cultural impact. It will help in "deprogramming the idea that nice girls don't admit they like sex, let alone talk about how they like it." She notes that the "law will force universities to talk to all students, female and male, about how enthusiastic consent is mandatory." And that is great because "Confirming consent leads to much hotter sex."

The rest is here:
Liberals storm California's bedrooms

Theres a difference between liberals and people in the Tea Party,Bill Maher said during an interview with Salon. For one, he says, liberals apparently are not crazy.

After he and Sam Harris got into an argument with actor Ben Affleck, where they fought over the essential nature of Islam on Real Time With Bill Maher Friday, the pundit did not want to elaborate about the contentious exchange during the interview. However, he did say he felt frustrated fighting with a fellow liberal because he felt he wasnt being heard.

Were liberals! Were liberals. Were not crazy teabaggers, yknow, and so its kind of hard to be making this case -- based on facts, based on polling, I think based on what everybody really knows, Maher told the news site Monday.

Ben Affleck stars in the much-anticipated film adaptation of Gillian Flynn's best-seller, "Gone Girl," which opens Friday, Oct. 3. Reuters

We are not bigoted people, he continued. On the contrary, were trying to stand up for the principles of liberalism! And so, yknow, I think were just saying we need to identify illiberalism wherever we find it in the world, and not forgive it because it comes from [a group that] people perceive as a minority.

Affleck appeared on the show to promote his new movie Gone Girl, but an argument erupted after Maher said Islam seemed to be the only religion that acts like the mafia and which would f---ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book.

The actor called Mahers comments gross and racist and told him he was stereotyping. Affleck argued: How about more than a billion people who arent fanatical, who dont punish women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray five times a day, and dont do any of the things youre saying of all Muslims.

Follow me on Twitter @mariamzzarella

The rest is here:
Bill Maher After Ben Affleck Islam Fight: 'Were Liberals, Not Crazy Teabaggers'