Mike Huckabee - Woman Hater

Scary stuff from The Guardian a couple of days back. Turns out one of the frontrunners is a bit of a woman hater:

Staunchly opposed to abortion (which he has compared to the Holocaust), one of Huckabee's first acts as governor was to block Medicaid, the health scheme for people on low incomes, from funding an abortion for a 15-year-old with learning disabilities who had been raped by her stepfather. This went directly against federal law, which requires states to fund abortions in cases of rape.

As the article rightly claims, this could be 'one of the most terrifying presidential candidates in memory', and he is up against some pretty stiff competition.

Abortion in Nicaragua - A Warning

With the election of Daniel Ortega, there was much to be positive about the future of Nicaragua. At last, there was a leader that responded to the needs of the poor, rather than pandering to the rich, American loving elites. Certainly there have been encouraging developments since his election, in part due to the development of close ties with Chavez, Morales et al. However, not everything is rosy in Nicaragua. Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion, even if her own life was at risk. Since the law was passed, nearly 100 women have died. Rory Carroll has written a heart-breaking account in The Guardian of the fight to have the law changed in Nicaragua. Here's an extract:

María de Jesús González was a practical woman. A very poor single mother, the 28-year-old's home was a shack on a mountain near the town of Ocotal in Nicaragua. She made the best of it. The shack was spotless, the children scrubbed. She earned money by washing clothes in the river and making and selling tortillas.

That was not quite enough to feed her four young children and her elderly mother, so every few months González caught a bus to Managua, the capital, and slaved for a week washing and ironing clothes. The pay was three times better, about £2.60 a day, and by staying with two aunts she cut her costs. She would return to her hamlet with a little nest-egg in her purse. She bought herself one treat - a pair of red shoes - but she would leave them with her family in Managua, as they were no good on the mountain trails she had to go up to get home.


During a visit to Managua in February she felt unwell and visited a hospital. The news was devastating. She was pregnant - and it was ectopic, meaning the foetus was growing outside the womb and not viable. The longer González remained pregnant, the greater the risk of rupture, haemorrhaging and death.

What González did next was - when you understand what life in Nicaragua is like these days - utterly rational. She walked out of the hospital, past the obstetrics and gynaecological ward, past the clinics and pharmacies lining the avenues, packed her bag, kissed her aunts goodbye, and caught a bus back to her village. She summoned two neighbouring women - traditional healers - and requested that they terminate the pregnancy in her shack. Without anaesthetic or proper instruments it was more akin to mutilation than surgery, but González insisted. The haemhorraging was intense, and the agony can only be imagined. It was in vain. Maria died. "We heard there was a lot of blood, a lot of pain," says Esperanza Zeledon, 52, one of the Managua aunts.

This is just one example of the butchery that has emerged in Nicaragua since the passing of this law. A further 81 women were victim to similar circumstances as Maria. If nothing else, these heart-breaking stories emphasise the consequences of any action to take away the right to abortion. It is a right that is worth protecting.

The Enemy Within

Once more, religious extremists are attacking our liberties.

A senior Vatican cardinal said yesterday that Catholics should stop donating to human rights group Amnesty International because of its new policy advocating abortion rights for women if they had been raped, were a victim of incest or faced health risks.

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, accused Amnesty of turning its back on its mission to defend human rights.

There have been increasing moves by Christian zealots to undermine our liberties, aided by the anti-Islamic covering fire provided by the right. While the general public are distracted by the repeated attacks on Islam, the Christian church steps ever closer towards fundamentalism. In recent months they have even threatened elected officials in their attempts to force politicians to criminalise abortion. And while these zealots continue to threaten our democracy, how does the right respond? With a noticeable silence. Perhaps our liberties and democracy aren't that important after all.

Fuckwitpedia Now Online!!!

I have been meaning to blog about this ever since I saw it reported in The Guardian last week. A group of right-wing activists have got together to produce a competitor to Wikipedia, which they see as being too left-leaning and liberal. Called 'Conservapedia', it is an attempt by the right to redress this balance. It is, however, unintentionally hilarious in it's ignorance. Here are a few choice selections from this Bible of Wonder:

George W Bush

In 2004, George W. Bush won reelection by a popular margin of millions of votes, including a landslide victory in the State of Florida where the outcome had been so close in 2000.

[Marvel at the specific detail]

The Democratic Party

....the national leadership of the Democratic Party tends to be soft on terrorism, insufficiently patriotic, supportive of abortion on demand, and hostile to America's founding principles such as freedom of religion.

Evolution

...the biological world has the strong appearance of being created...

Abortion

The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies. Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy. It is undisputed that having a baby protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth.

Interestingly, the last, rather disturbing, entry cites a report by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. A conservative group, they have also previously published a report on the effects of immigration on healthcare. Here's a little sample of that report:

Illegal aliens' stealthy assaults on medicine now must rouse
Americans to alert and alarm. Even President Bush describes
illegal aliens only as they are seen: strong physical laborers who
work hard in undesirable jobs with low wages, who care for their
families, and who pursue the American dream.

What is unseen is their free medical care that has degraded and
closed some of America's finest emergency medical facilities, and
caused hospital bankruptcies: 84 California hospitals are closing
their doors. Anchor babies' born to illegal aliens instantly qualify
as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in
Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income
and Disability Income.

Close America's borders.
Prevent illegal entry with fences,
high-tech security devices, and troops re-deployed from Germany
and South Korea. Deport illegal aliens. Homeland Security's
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a division of Detention
and Removal dedicated to deportation. It is hobbled by the
powerful Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the
Department of Justice court system that consists of the U.S.
Immigration Court (USIC) plus an appellate court, the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). The equation EOIR = USIC + BIA
usually provides amnesty for the illegal alien, plus another level of
appeal against deportation in federal circuit court.
Internment and deportation are politically incorrect. But
America's inadequate federal border enforcement permits massive
daily border penetrations that violate the integrity of our medicine
and our national security.

Something tells me that they are slightly less concerned with medical fact than political point scoring. Whatever their intentions are, it is perfectly clear that any report that they produce will be heavily skewed towards a particular viewpoint. How do these shitheads sleep at night?? The last one in particular is pretty offensive stuff to say the least. In actual fact, no major charities support this view and various studies have been conducted that suggest this is complete bollocks. Perhaps they should rename it 'Fuckwitpedia'.

Further Information: If you want more information on the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, ConWebWatch has more, or visit the Wiki page.

Christian Groups Threaten Our Democracy

Apologies for the lack of posting the past couple of days. I was intending to blog last night, but we had a power cut which subsequently disabled the main PC. Luckily, my father in law has a lap top that I am able to borrow (on the downside, the keyboard layout is totaally different to what it says on the keys, so the punctuation might be a little odd). Anyway, one of the dubious pleasures when I am away, is the ability to watch Fox News. Now, I do not have SKY at home so, although I am aware of the content, I am not subjected to it every day. What is particularly fascinating at the moment is the focus on James Cameron's new documentary. Particularly in light of the storm caused over the Danish cartoons.

Whilst watching Neil Cavuto the other day, I was interested to see him interview a member of the Christian community about the documentary. During the course of the interview, Cavuto asked why Christians have been so calm in their response. The guy he was interviewing claimed this is because they are taught to 'turn the other cheek', in contrast to the Muslim community. This went unchallenged (this is Fox after all) and there was no attempt to balance this viewpoint. Imagine my surprise when I watch it today, only to see a Christian demanding that the documentary should not be broadcast. According to him, the documentary is offensive towards Christians. Yet, nobody claimed that this was an attack on free speech (as would have been the case if this had been a Muslim protesting). Mmmm, that kinda got me thinking. When the Muslim community protested about the publication of the cartoons, they were smeared as attacking the right to free speech. It was claimed that Christians would never behave in this way, and that their response was disproportionate to the cartoons themselves. Yet, according to Fox, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians to demand that a programme should not be broadcast because it is 'offensive' to them. This is, of course, not without precedent.

Back in January 2005, a cult known as Christian Voice, went beserk when the BBC aired Jerry Springer - The Opera. They even went so far as to claim that the programme breached their human rights. Luckily, the BBC ignored their protests and pushed ahead anyway, refusing to acquiesce to a bunch of religious zealots. Of course, we all know what the response would be if the Muslim community were to protest against a similar show about the Prophet Mohammed. The mainstream media would work itself into a frenzy of attacks upon the Muslim community.

Now, those that seek to protect the extremist Christian lobby would argue that they do not resort to violence to further their cause. They would argue that only the Muslim community would protest through violent means. This is, of course, entirely false. The Christian community is equally guilty of using violence to further it's cause. For example, there are those in America who have been guilty of murdering many abortion providers, including three doctors. All of these murders were committed by those that claimed to be Christian. There has been a campaign of violence and intimidation against abortion providers for many years and these tactics have been slowly making their way over to the UK. James Dowson in particular has been guilty of encouraging attacks on those that practice abortion. He has distributed names and addresses via the internet and encouraged those who share his twisted agenda to send hate mail and death threats in an attempt to intimidate those who do not share his views. Again, imagine how the mainstream media would react if a Muslim will engaging in such activities. No doubt they would be threatened with extradition, they would certainly not be ignored.

The supposed silence on questions of Islam, whilst Christianity is under continual attack, is a total fabrication. There have been continual attacks on the Muslim community in recent years, whilst the Christian community is treated with total veneration. As Media Matters has noted, commentators such as Glenn Beck and Bill Donohue, make constant attacks on Islam and yet will not accept any legitimate criticism of Christianity. Media Matters notes Glenn Beck's comments that:

"There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion."

But when you examine his record, there is a wide range of attacks on Islam:


During a November 14, 2006, interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who recently became the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

Beck mocked Islam by "mark[ing] the death" of Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with a "Zarqawi bacon cake."

He described as "surprising" a letter criticizing Al Qaeda in Iraq because "the man who wrote it" -- Islamic Society of Nevada director Aslam Abdullah -- "is a Muslim."

Beck aired a segment mocking the names of several missing Egyptian students in which the announcer said that one "may or may not be accompanied by his camel." The segment showed pictures of crowds and pointed to random, unidentifiable people as the missing Egyptians. It ended with a reading of the students' names in quick succession followed by the announcer pretending to gag as he struggled to pronounce them.

As for Donohue, his record is much the same:

On the February 9, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Donohue said: "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty."

On the December 8, 2004, edition of Scarborough Country, he said: "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost."

In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, August 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press." Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips."

The very idea that somehow criticism of Islam is not allowed in the media is a ridiculous notion. The media is dominated with it. When there is an outcry by the Muslim community, there is talk of an over-reaction. When there is an outcry in the Christian community, there is talk of a community being under sustained attack. The fact of the matter is that both communities are guilty of over reacting when their faith is criticised. The difference is that the media always seeks to defend the Christian community, whilst seeking to demonise the Muslim community.