Why Britain shouldn't adopt the Alternative Vote.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson

On Thursday, the people of Britain get to vote in only their second referendum (and look how great the results of that first one turned out!)

They'll be deciding whether or not to scrap the current voting system – know as "first past the post" and adopt a system of proportional representation instead.

The differences between the two systems are largely in complexity.

In the existing system, candidates stand for election and the one with the most votes wins. All voters have to do is tick the box for their favorite candidate.

So my vote would look like this:

I support Mr. Conservative, so therefore tick his name to place my vote.

With proportional representation – the so-called AV or Alternative Vote – voters write a '1' in the box for their favorite candidate, and then are free to "rank" their alternative choices in order of preference (or not at all.) If their first choice candidate gets knocked out, their second choice votes get tallied and added to the scores of the remaining candidates. If their second choice gets knocked out, their third votes get tallied and so on.

So my vote would look like this:

My first choice would be Mr. Conservative, but if he didn't win I'd pick Ms. Lib Dem next and Ms. Green after that. I wouldn't support either Labor or the BNP with even a 4th or 5th place vote.

The logic behind AV is that it gives more than the two leading parties the opportunity to win by taking into account most people's second or third votes.

For example, in a constituency in which the Labor candidate got the most votes, those who voted for the candidate with the least votes would have their second choices added to the pile instead. Hypothetically, let's say it was the BNP candidate got knocked out – and most of those 'second choice' votes would be for the Conservative candidate, edging him above the Labor candidate with the most votes.

It's slightly complicated and involves an additional step in the voting process (ticking more than one box.) It also stands to significantly redefine which parties eventually get into power.

Which is, in all honesty, the reason the Lib Dems and smaller parties are so keen on it.

Currently, they are vastly outnumbered in parliament and they believe that AV would give them more of a shot at winning seats. Many in the Labor party – realizing that they're basically unelectable for the next decade – also support AV because most Lib Dems would put their second choice vote down as Labor rather than Conservative, and give Labor candidates who would have traditionally lost an election the boost in votes they'd need to win.

Which is why, after carefully considering the system, I don't support it.

Because essentially, it's being touted only by the parties who never win in the first place - so that they can cynically get seats in parliament that they don't deserve. Their motive? Democracy didn't work, so finagling the system might. It's basically a referendum to rig the ballot boxes and I don't think that's right.

I can understand supporters of minority parties who feel frustrated that their candidates never wins – but that's politics.

If your message doesn't appeal to enough people, it might be time to start rethinking it; rather than trying to change the system to get your way regardless.

Fox News: In Defense of Indefensible Media

I've heard reports recently that Fox News - Rupert Murdoch's right-wing media channel - has been refused broadcast rights in Canada because of Canada's Radio Law, which states a broadcaster may not "broadcast....any false or misleading news."

Ironically, I'm not entirely sure whether this account isn't in itself false or misleading - it seems to stem from a single piece written by Pace University Professor Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. that isn't holding up to independent scrutiny.

Nevertheless, it raises a really interesting question about the media in America.

Now, I'm no fan of Fox News. I think all news outlets tend to be biased, but Fox News is deliberately so - and engages in journalistic practices ranging from the outright dishonest to the mind-numbingly stupid.

But I am a fan of the 1st Amendment - and dislike any attempts to finagle with the freedom of the press.

One such attempt was the so-called Fairness Doctrine, introduced by the FCC in 1949 to 'balance' different political positions on the radio (and subsequent broadcast mediums.) It should have been called the 'unFairness Doctine', though, because it basically amounted to a tiny group of regulators having the power to dictate the scope and form political discussion could take - an absolute violation of the 1st Amendment.

Ronald Reagan wisely scrapped the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and that led to the explosion of conservative talk radio - which has since then unequivocally ruled the airwaves. So much so, that many liberals argue that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated to balance the right-wing opinion out.

But they're wrong.

Because while it's true that talk radio is dominated by the right wing, let us not forget that Hollywood, the television industry, the majority of newspapers, magazines and the bulk of TV news outlets are undeniably (and sometimes proudly) left-leaning.

Complaining about the balance of talk radio is taking the same short-sighted view of the media as the critics of the SIRIUS and XM Satellite Radio merger - it ignores the fact that radio is not the only form of broadcast media people get exposed to these days (which wasn't the case when the Fairness Doctrine was written.)

Given that people get their political opinion from papers, podcasts, online videos and the TV - all in addition to radio - you'd have to admit that balance and fairness already exists. In fact, if there is a bias, amidst the conglomeration of all those other forms of broadcast media, it's almost certainly to the left.

Which is why I think there's an important place for news sources like Fox News - not just in America, but in Canada too. If people are demanding a different form of news media - one that is more aligned to their political opinion - is seems fundamentally undemocratic to deny them that; especially under some self-righteous claim of 'fairness.'

That being said, I would welcome a law like the one Kennedy referenced - which makes it illegal to broadcast 'false and misleading information.' Because if I have one criticism of Fox News (and I actually have plenty) it's that they've been caught lying their pants off time and time again.

Just recently, for example, I was watching the protests in Wisconsin unfold and saw an interesting news clip of a Wisconsin 'union thug' pushing an 'honest, working American' to the ground.

In the background of that clip, however, were palm trees - which resolutely fail to grow in Wisconsin; especially in February!

It was later revealed that the clip used in the Wisconsin news report was taken from a protest in California six months earlier. That's the kind of false and misleading 'reporting' Fox News should be rightly vilified for.

But if America was to adopt a law similar to Canada's - which forbid broadcasting 'false or misleading' information - would Fox News be the only broadcaster to fall foul of it?

What do you think?

Why the Tea Party needs Straining

I'm a newly-minted American - and very proud of that fact. I love this country, it's history and everything it stands for.

Which is why I was absolutely disgusted - disgusted - to watch this video of so-called 'Tea Party' activists gathering outside an Islamic center in Orange County, California.

Enraged by a charity fundraiser being held there, they were reduced to yelling 'go back home' to women and small children as they gathered for a fund-raising event there.

Watch the video and you'll see what an intimidating, unpleasant experience it was for those attending the event - having to walk up to the entrance of the Muslim Center while a flag-waving crowd yelled and roared abuse each step of the way.

The fund-raising was for "women’s shelters, fighting hunger and homelessness in the area" - arguably a very valid cause. But the event had caused offense to the local Tea Party because two of the speakers invited to the event had been 'linked to terrorism.'

This caused speakers like city council member Deborah Pauly to attend the Tea Party protest and boast on camera that she knew "quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help 'those' terrorists," pointing at the people entering the mosque, "to an early meeting in paradise."

But 'linked to terrorism' was actually a bit of misnomer, as the speakers in question, Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Amir Abdel Malik Ali, had been investigated for possible links to terrorism, but never actually indicted. Those two New York clerics were admittedly nasty pieces of work, who've expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas, but being nasty pieces of work is a long way from actually being actively involved in terrorism (which they're not.) I understand they both declined the invitation to speak, in any case, due to the controversy their attendance would incite.

Nevertheless, the Tea Party protest went ahead. This meant that abuse and slurs were yelled at the women and children attending the event, despite the fact that most of them were born and bred in Orange County California, and were no more linked to terrorism than I was.

Deborah Pauly's blithe comments - calling for 'Muslim Americans to be killed' according to one liberal news source - were even more offensive in that context.

Even ignoring that vile woman's words, the protest meeting - heralded by fluttering American flags and patriotic chants - was horrifying because 'American' and 'Patriotism' are two words that these bigoted racists have no right to lay claim to.

I have a number of friends who identify as members of the 'tea party' - but none of them would be willing to be associated with the kind of fascist scum gathered at this little hate parade in California.

What I found most offensive - as a brand new American citizen myself - were the calls of 'go back home.' How dare anybody tell American citizens to 'go back home.'

If somebody told me to 'go back home' because I expressed an opinion they disagreed with, I'd be tempted to punch them in the face. I earned my American citizenship - and likewise I don't consider any of the bigots waving American flags to be 'more' American than any of the Muslim-American citizens attending that fundraiser.

You don't have to be white, Christian or even originally born in this country to be 'American' - and as those racist demonstrators proved, you can be all three of those things and still barely deserve a claim to the title.

The fact that this revolting event was organized by so-called members of the 'tea party' proves one thing - the movement needs 'straining' of racist bigots, before it loses all political relevance altogether.

Thanks to the conservative friends I have, I still take the Tea Party seriously - but that's a sentiment undermined by what I saw going on in Orange County.

Now I'm absolutely horrified by the connotations of supporting such a movement. I'm reasonably conservative myself - certainly not a fan club of Muslim-driven politics or social culture - but when it comes to the basic values of American society; the freedoms of religion and expression protected by the 1st Amendment; I'd rather side with Muslims than with the maggots and bottom-feeders who attended the hate-filled 'tea party' protest in California.

Clear the Bench Colorado - a tea party done right?

I love crass generalizations as much as the next person, but we ought to be wary in making them about the so-called ‘tea party.’

[Because they’ve all got guns! See! I love crass generalizations as much as you do! - Editorial Bear]

It’s easy to lump the whole ‘tea party’ movement in with the nutjobs who scream that Obama is a Kenyan/socialist/Muslim/the Anti-Christ (delete as applicable.)

However, since the movement claims to represent 30% of Americans, such stereotypes ultimately don't stand up to scrutiny.

In fact, when you look past the loudmouths and lunatics in the tea party fringe, even the most liberal-minded of us might be presented with an appalling realization – that some of the stuff the tea party are going on about actually makes sense.

As an example, one of the more pragmatic tea party projects I’ve learned about is the grassroots movement to ‘Clear the Bench Colorado.’

Doing exactly what it says on the tin, Clear the Bench Colorado is a campaign to oust three State Supreme Justices when they come up for reelection in November (in Colorado, Supreme Justices are elected to run 10-year terms, so opportunities like this don’t come around very often.)

The reason being that Clear the Bench Colorado believes these judges - Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice - have been 'legislating from the bench' for years; undermining democracy in Colorado and exploiting the electorate.

The leader of Clear the Bench Colorado, Matt Arnold, puts forward four examples of rulings in which he believes violate the spirit, if not the letter, of Colorado law.

The first, Mesa County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Colorado, saw the justices side with Mesa County in ‘freezing’ property taxes – effectively linking them directly to climbing house prices. This had the effect of violating one of Colorado’s most celebrated laws; the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) which demands that the electorate be allowed to vote on any net tax revenue gain beyond the rate of inflation.

The second ruling, Barber v. Ritter, also saw the justices allow a violation of TABOR, albeit in a different way. They ruled that ‘fees’ were different from ‘taxes’ and not subject to voter approval. As a result, Colorado massively increased a number of ‘fees’ that sounded suspiciously like taxes to me – like the Colorado Car Tax (which sounds exactly, not just suspiciously, like a tax to me!)

The next, Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corporation, concerned eminent domain. In England, this is called ‘compulsory purchase’ and involves the right of an authority (in this example, the Colorado township of Telluride) to force a landowner to sell them their property. Logically enough, the township of Telluride only had authority to make compulsory purchases within the town limits.

In this case, the Supreme Justices ruled that the township could force a local company to sell them 570-acres even though it was outside the town limits – in fact, they ruled that any municipality could push any eminent domain anywhere in the state (which sounds daft.)

Finally, Matt Arnold brings up Salazar v. Davidson, one of the earliest cases for the supreme court justices currently up for reelection.

In 2001, they ruled that the Colorado Supreme Court was part of the Colorado General Assembly - and used that to weigh in on congressional redistricting (which might explain Colorado’s significant congressional shift from Republican to Democrat.)

The problem here is that this ruling clearly violates the most fundamental facet of the American democracy – the ‘checks and balances’ of separating the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

With these four examples, Clear the Bench Colorado raises some totally legitimate concerns that even a socially liberal person like myself is angered by. What's more, Matt Arnold, although a conservative himself, gained my support by wisely sidestepping judicial rulings regarding the traditionally ‘conservative’ agenda of gay rights, abortion and other social issues.

Clear the Bench Colorado wants to jettison the justices because of how they’ve ruled regarding the taxpayer and voter – not how they might rule on issues like gay marriage, or the controversial Amendment 62 (a push to have personhood extended to unborn babies, right from the moment of conception.)

This means even people like myself, who support same-sex marriage and think banning abortion would be a disaster, can support his campaign.

So there we have it - a tea party I wouldn't mind an invite to. Clear the Bench Colorado suffers from association with a movement of characterized by extremists and kooks - but theirs is ultimately an admirable cause.

In fact, it’s perhaps the best example of the what the tea party would like to identify itself as – a true grassroots movement standing up to an abusive authority. In many ways, the aim of Clear the Bench Colorado does resemble what the original ‘Sons of Liberty’ were trying to accomplish when they jettisoned all that tea into Boston Harbor.

You can find out more about Clear the Bench Colorado at their website – and if you’re a Colorado resident, don’t forget to vote to oust Michael Bender, Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice this November 2nd.

Liberal Don't Read Books?

Forget Barnes and Noble - my source for reading material is our local Dollar Tree.

This bargain store - in which everything on offer is a dollar - features an extensive book collection with a ton of releases that are less than a year old. I've been scooping up handfuls of them for a section I'm thinking of adding to Militant Ginger called the 'Bargain Book Club.'

However, there's one unmistakable trend about these discounted books: The ones I'm most interested in reading - the ones with a topical political bent - are almost invariably liberal.

Barack Obama in His Own Words, When You Ride Alone You Ride with Bin Laden, Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Most Important Ideals and It's Still the Economy, Stupid: George W. Bush, The GOP's CEO- all a dollar each!

I find this oddly telling.

The Dollar Tree clearly buys boxes of these books for just pennies from the publisher - probably because they printed too many, or they just weren't selling. What was clearly a commercial cauchemar for the printing houses turned out to be a boon for text-hungry amateur pundits like myself.

But the fact that these unsuccessful books are almost invariably liberal in nature is interesting. It's not that there aren't conservative books - in fact, there are hundreds published each and every year. Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter churn out one a year, and I've even reviewed one of the better ones.

The only explanation I can think of is that conservative books actually sell, whereas liberal ones don't.

And to be honest, that appraisal makes sense. Just look at talk radio - Conservative talk radio is a storming success, while liberal attempts at mimicking the formula invariably fail (like Al Franken's ill-fated 'Air America.') Conservatives listen to similarly-minded pundits, while liberals similarly don't.

It makes perfect sense to assume that conservatives also read books that appeal to their political opinions - and that liberals don't.

At the risk of pissing my liberal friends off - especially admitting that I'm ostensibly liberal myself - I think it might be because we libs tend to assume we 'know it all already,' while conservatives are hungry to learn more (as long as that 'more' comes from voices that they trust and agree with.)

So I'm not really claiming that liberals don't read books - but I do believe they don't read political books - certainly not in the same manner conservatives voraciously do. That's why the Dollar Tree is stuffed with liberal literature, but there isn't a conservative cover to be seen there.

Are the Town Hall disruptions staged?

Intimidatingly intelligent commenter Tom took exception to my post comparing the Town Hall disruptors to Hitler's brownshirts - and posted a rather fascinating link when he did so.

While I still stand by my accusations about the loud, verbally disruptive Conservatives who attend these meetings - and the intimidating, gun-toting thugs who linger menacingly nearby - this revelation is simply too astonishing NOT to repost.

Was the most famous OBAMA=HITLER placard a Democratic plant?

Is this man a fraud? And I mean the one holding the poster.

It sounds almost too absurd to be true, but Conservatives insist that one of the disruptive events I was blogging about - a man turning up to a town hall rally with a poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache - might have actually been a fraud.

Democrat John Dingell held a Town Hall event last week, in which this angry protester was spotted with the enormous poster of Obama-as-Hitler. This was reported on MSM as proof that the Conservatives were engaging in dirty tactics to protest health care reform.

However, this same man was apparently spotted later in the day actually working with John Dingall's team - handing out fliers for the Democratic politician!

So was he a Democratic plant? Ordered to hoist a placard far more offensive than any the Conservatives themselves carried? There's anecdotal evidence to support that accusation here, on the link that Tom posted.

But what's perhaps more interesting than the accusation itself is the startling lack of proof.

Even in the words of the blogger Tom linked to; "If the link is out there," proving the accusation, "I haven't found it yet." It all apparently hangs off the word of a nameless couple who apparently attended the event - not exactly firm evidence.

But the fact that suspicion remains should remind us that the ol' 'Hitler' comparisons are used by both sides to attack each other - and perhaps that's something we should both stop doing.

For eight years, as Tom pointed out, President Bush was compared by Liberals to Hitler (which was stunningly absurd, since Hitler's primary attribute was being a powerful orator - and George Bush's patently wasn't!)

So surely it's just par for the course for the Conservatives to level the same accusation at Obama? (Who arguably did conjure up almost hypnotic support during his campaign.)

Well, even if it's not fair, they've insisted on doing so since before the election!

But why do I bring it up?

Because if Tom's right in the stern conclusion to his intricately researched comment, in which he argues that comparing the opposition to Nazis "shows which side has abandoned debate in favor of name-calling," surely both Conservatives and Liberals are equally guilty.

Perhaps Tom's comments suggest that we should 'step away from the Swastika' and start debating each other on the basis of facts from now on.

The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh by Ian Marsden

Is this the end of American Conservatism?

At a time when American conservatives should be regrouping and re-recruiting, they've circled their wagons; embracing a siege mentality that suggests their period of political relevancy is at an end.

What contributed to the collapse of this once-powerful political movement?

The Five Fatal Mistakes of American Conservatism:

Country Club Conservatism: During the movement's birth, in the lead up to the 1980 Presidential Election, conservatism triumphed because of its accessibility. Evangelical leaders like Robert Grant and Jerry Falwell gave America's disenfranchised conservatives a unity of purpose - allowing conservatives the opportunity to overlook their differences and work together to achieve a common goal.

Today, the opposite situation exists. The title of 'conservative' is no longer one that voters can adopt for themselves - instead of a unity of purpose, there's a doctrine of dogma; and failure to live up to the standards set by so-called 'leaders' like Rush Limbaugh leave many more moderate conservatives out in the cold.

As long as conservatives pick and choose their supporters, like members of a country club committee, their ranks will dwindle.

Failure to Evolve: Many conservatives don't believe in Evolution, which explains why their movement is still stuck in the seventies.

The success of the 'moral majority' during the election of Ronald Reagan came down to conservative Christians uniting together to support timely, relevant and effective political positions. Times have changed dramatically since then - but, in most cases, those political positions haven't.

Unless the conservative movement is willing to address the issues of our time - environmentalism, war and economic uncertainty - they will continue to represent an era and an outlook whose time has passed.

A Dying Breed: It's a documented fact that each new generation is progressively more liberal than the last. Nowhere is this more apparent than America, where the grandchildren of segregationists just elected the nation's first African American president.

However, in its failure to address the changing beliefs and values of young Americans, the conservative movement excludes those who could offer conservatism its future.

The Democrats have successfully courted the under-30 vote in every presidential election for the past fifteen years. This trend shows no sign of changing. Until the aging core demographic of the conservative movement grows up and accepts that young Americans aren't so militant about issues like homosexuality and explicit sex education, they will always be marketing an agenda that alienates the very people it's essential they win over.

The Lowest Common Denominator: Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin may have bemoaned the 'liberal elite media,' but in the arena of Talk Radio, conservatism is king. Political pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin rule the airwaves with their angry rants about the state of the country.

But it's that anger which is so damaging to the conservative movement. While it does resonate strongly with the conservative core, it was proven in the last election that America is looking for a message of hope and change, not anger and frustration.

As long as the public face of conservatism continues to be bitter, angry little men like Levin and Limbaugh, that's going to be the only demographic it appeals to.

Eating Themselves Alive: The final mistake of the conservative movement is the one that will hasten their ignominious demise - a self-destructive urge to tear their party asunder from the inside out.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the public arena - where the GOP leader, Michael Steele, was recently eviscerated by Rush Limbaugh for 'daring' to imply that abortion is a woman's choice, not merely cold-blood fetal murder. When we see the de jure head of the Republican party skewered by the de facto head of the conservative movement, we witness a party and a movement that's in no position to govern itself - let alone the country.

Every Silver Lining Has a Cloud

The astonishing sensation of Barack Obama winning the presidency has most American feeling euphoric and optimistic, but it wasn't all good news.

In California, Arizona, and Florida, conservatives made some headway into 'social issues' with their constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

It's caused enormous consternation in California, especially since more that 18,000 gay couples have tied the knot since same-sex marriage was legalized in June.

Already, conservatives are launching legal bids to have those marriages annulled.

Personally, I'm disgusted.

Coming from Europe, the idea of discriminating against people because of their sexuality is as abhorrent to me as discriminating against people based on their race, or gender.

Yet in California, straight-faced conservatives argue that it's not about bigotry. It's about 'freedoms.' Like how banning gay marriage would preserve their 'religious freedom' to refuse to rent their church halls and accommodation to same-sex couples, just like those same conservatives had fought for similar 'freedoms' to exclude black people during the days of segregation.

I really don't see what their problem is. This is 21st century America. If two people of the same sex want to have a committed, monogamous relationship, what problem does that cause?

Why does their gender give conservatives the right to refuse them the most basic of constitutional rights - the right to marry who you want to? The right to the same goods and services as everybody else?

It's not just the term 'marriage' that they're fighting over, either.

In Britain, people overcame the bigots by reclassifying same-sex marriage as a 'Civil Union,' which meant two people could make a commitment that shared all the same legal and social rights and duties of a traditional marriage, just avoided the religious ones.

Rights like being able to file a joint tax return, or share a spouse's benefits and become the beneficiary of their life insurance if they die. Basic stuff...

But Californians refused them that right - basically saying: "No, your relationships are not equal to ours."

I think it's disgusting.

It's gets better/worse, though. In Arkansas, the voters passed a law banning unmarried couples from adopting children. This is a blanket ruling, which covers common-law heterosexual couples, but is clearly aimed at lesbians and gays. Basically, unless you are in a traditional, Christian marriage, you're unfit to be parents.

It's so stupid, it makes my head hurt.

The statistical 'evidence' they have to support this hypothesis is so blindingly one-sided, it astonishes me.

Yes, according to your figures, middle-class, white, married heterosexual couples are more stable and secure.

Yet by those same statistics, middle-class, white, homosexual couples actually fair better than, for example, middle-class African-American married couples.

So if you're working on the idea that human achievement is limited purely to demographics, the good people of Arkansas should have just out-and-out admitted their old-school racism and banned black people from adopting kids as well as the gays and unmarried couples.

But, of course, that would be morally reprehensible. Thankfully, even they realize that your ability to be a parent isn't defined by statistics. It's defined by you.

So, instead, regardless of demographic origin, couples are allowed to prove to an Adoption Board that they will make good foster or adoptive parents, as is absolutely right and appropriate.

Whether you're black, white or purple, your ability to be a parent should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not on the color of your skin.

But gay couples and the unmarried can't take that test. Why? Because there's the conservative fear that they might go right ahead prove themselves suitable or even excellent potential parents.

It's disgusting. Redneck conservatives in Arkansas complain bitterly about abortion, yet then go and limit the number of financially secure, committed couples who can adopt kids.

"We have a thousand children still waiting to be adopted," said Julie Munsell, spokeswoman for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, which oversees adoptions and foster parenting. "We will have to target our recruitment efforts to those folks who are eligible under the law."

Like in all matters relating even remotely to abortion, the conservatives are the first to throw practical solutions towards reducing abortion under the bus, just so they can push their retarded, bigoted agenda.

GOOD JOB, you IDIOTS!

On a day that has given so many Americans hope for a better future, these conservative victories serve as a chilling reminder that the shadow of bigotry didn't die when we elected our first African American president.

Oh. My. Gosh.

I've written before about the laughable propaganda engine called 'Conservapedia.'

Conservapedia is the American right-wing's 'alternative' to Wikipedia, which they claim: "shows a systematic liberal bias." Therefore, New Jersey lawyer and history teacher Andrew Schlafly, started his own 'trustworthy encyclopedia' which presents the (ahem...) facts from a 'Conservative perspective.'

[You mean a completely retarded one? - Editorial Bear]

Which translates as it being a place where Conservatives can go to find Wikipedia-like articles telling them all the make-believe they want to hear: Rubbish like how evolution isn't true, that the mighty vegetarian Tyrannosaurus Rex hung out with Noah and his pals and, of course, all sorts of rubbish about the 'enemies' of Conservatism, like our pal Obama.

For old time's sake, I visited Conservapedia to see what they've got written about Barack Obama. Check it out - it's hysterical and terrifying all at the same time:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

For the sake of your sanity, though, I'll present some of the best bits. Remember, pundits who visit Conservapedia consider these to be 'facts.'

This picture from Conservapedia shows Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegience. This clearly indicates that he's a radical, white-hating militant Muslim who eats the tender flesh of aborted babies.

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have observed that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols.

Yes, apparently we're all under the hypnotic control of Barack Obama.

"Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen." Obama's "birth certificate, from the state of Hawaii," has been "verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts."

Like with every other citation in the article, it's impossible to find links to the 'experts' - which is probably as a result of them not existing.

If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.

I can't even think of anything funny to write about that claim. It's just a pathetic lie.

Obama has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the result of affirmative action.

Remember, according to true Conservatives, no African American ever achieved anything through their own grit, determination or ability. Especially not the richest woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey.

Obama and his wife, reared a Baptist, have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Wait, didn't they claim he was a Muslim earlier? You'd think they could get their (ahem...) facts straight in the same article.

Oh, about the Trinity United Church of Christ. Aside from the antics of firebrand preacher Jeremiah Wright, the proof of Obama's Godless, heathen ways is proved because: "this denomination was the first in America to ordain blacks as ministers."

Fortunately, it's not all Conservative insanity. In the 'talk' section of the article, some people have objected to this fact-free, cobbled-together of badly-written, disgusting propaganda.

One person writers: "The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff."

To which Andrew Schlafly, the owner of Conservapedia, responded with an instant ban on that user, smugly adding: "That's your first -- and only -- contribution here."

Another user pointed out that many of the article's claims had no citations, as sites like Wikipedia insist on.

One reader complained: "Citations... in the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to anecdotal evidence based on the observation of the person who wrote this article."

Andrew Schlafly's response to this allegation? Pointing out that it's not Conservapedia's policy "to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true."

So straight from the horse's (ass's) mouth, his 'trustworthy encyclopedia' doesn't trust it's truthiness to those pesky, liberally biased things you and I would call 'facts.'

Over the past few months, I have been simply astonished at some of the things people have come to believe about Barack Obama. I often wondered what contagious mental illness they must have contracted.... turned out it's a little some called 'Bollockus Conservapediaus.'

Remember, folks: Andrew Schlafly is a teacher and an advocate of homeschooling. So when the next generation of American kids can quote Deuteronomy by heart, but have forgotton every medical and scientific advance more technical than the asprin, go and knock on that asshole's door.

A shameless nonsensical rant...

So here's why I'm always bitching about some (but not all - you know who you are) social conservatives - they really don't seem to get the idea of 'liberty.'

What I should be doing is bitching about the most extreme liberals - who really don't seem to get the idea of 'personal responsibility.'

Actually, those accusations work equally well the other way around!


The Far Right

Take some conservatives. They boast about being 'good Americans' and supporting 'liberty' and the 'constitution,' but they do no such thing!

The first amendment means that the social conservatives should stop trying to ban pornography! Barring child porn and bestiality (which require child abuse or animal abuse to produce) I think anything filmed between two consenting adults (and viewed by consenting adults) is fine.

If you don't like it - don't buy/rent it!

It is not up to the 'moral majority' (which is neither moral nor a majority) to dictate to the rest of us!

Likewise - let's have some T&A back on the television, please. I think after a 10pm watershed, American television should show all the nudity and bad language they want. If parents don't want their kids to be 'corrupted' then DON'T LET THEM WATCH IT.

It's not the network's responsibility to monitor what kids watch (after a certain time.) If parents don't like it, they really shouldn't let their kids have TVs and access to the Internet in the privacy of their bedroom.

Don't they remember being kids themselves? Of course they want to watch the naughty stuff! (Back in my day, I used to thumb through Jilly Cooper novels just to get to the saucy bits.)

It's called the 'off' button people. Learn to use it. The television is no longer your kid's babysitter! (The DVD player is.)

Let's move on...

How about teaching creationism (old school creation doctrine, not fluffy 'intelligent design') in schools? It's totally stupid, but I'll meet the social conservatives half way on this one...

If people want to home school their kids, or send them to private school, I think it's fair enough. Teach the we tykes whatever you want (thank goodness there are responsible home schoolers like Coffee Bean who give their kids a well rounded education - and still manage to squeeze in the religion.)

I think teaching 'new earth' creationism is ridiculous and still say it's tantamount to child abuse - but it's your money, they're your kids - if parents want to send them out into the 'real world' thinking that the earth is six thousand years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens, that's their (ir)responsibility.

But public schools, funded by taxpayers money, should only teach secular, proven fact. Not even intelligent design, which is meaningless and unprovable.

And if parents don't like that? What about letting them have 'vouchers' so their property tax can be refunded to pay for their kids to attend religious or private schools?

Hmm. Why not? Then they'd stop demanding prayer in public school, intelligent design in the public classroom and stuff like that. There would be the opportunity for them to have education their way and leave us to have (sensible) education our way. I think that's a fine compromise.

Okay, onto gay rights.

Let's talk turkey for a second. Despite long arguments with CK, I suspect he's probably right.

The Bible probably does say that "teh ghey" is wrong, ghastly, unnatural and an abomination. But the Bible says a lot of things that turned out to be rubbish (and a few things that didn't) and I'd prefer to look at a more progressive picture.

Men and women, just like animals in nature, occasionally turn out 'a bit gay.' They seek sex and relationships with their own gender. And you know what? That's absolutely fine with me.

Seriously, it's like what I wrote about pornography. If their sexual and romantic tastes were directed towards children or animals, that would be wrong (since it would involve or risk child or animal abuse.) But between two consenting adults? I think that's fine.

It doesn't do me any harm whatsoever - and that goes back to the essential rule about American society - I don't have to like it, but if that's what you want to do with your life, leave me free to do what I want to with my life in return.

So whether it's marriage or civil partnerships, I think there should be a system in place for men and women to enjoy the same rights and protects of a married heterosexual couple (and suffer the same divorce problems if that relationship breaks up.)

Anybody who disagrees? They're sticking their oar in and trying, once again, to dictate to America what is and isn't 'moral' according to their own narrow-minded agenda. That's not acceptable. You don't dictate how I live my life (unless if affects you, which, in this case, it doesn't.)

Abortion. How about that?

Well, I can see where social conservatives are coming from here. But when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, they're not the ones facing the most difficult decision of their lives...

Imagine that you're a forty-five year old single woman and you're accidentally pregnant (and there's a good chance that the kid will be seriously disabled when it's born.)

You're not financially, emotionally or physically ready to bring this baby into the world... Yet somebody else, sitting in the smug comfort of another state (and another life,) decides that they should make the decision about what's best for you and your unborn baby. Then they take no responsibility for what happens after they've decided that your baby should be born.

I don't know. It's a trickier issue because we're talking about another life. But I think, within reason (say, up to 13 weeks, or when there are medical issues) we might just have to accept that what's best for mother and baby might, just might, be up to mother and baby to decide.

And I don't think that's a decision any pregnant woman makes lightly (or forgets in a hurry.)

The Far Left

Let's leave the social conservatives alone for a second and move onto the liberals. These guys can be just as bad, if not worse.

I mean, take Barack Obama, dictating that the oil companies 'make too much profit.'

I'm sorry, but if you run a private business and operate within regulations, you should be free to make as much damn profit as you like! It's not like the oil companies are even the biggest businesses in America. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions more than Exxon. What are you going to do? Start redistributing their profits next?

Good luck, America. I think the supply of new and exciting drugs will start to dry up pretty damn quickly when that happens.

This is America - the land of opportunity. You should have the freedom to (legally) make as much profit as you want - and keep it (or redistribute it to your shareholders.) The government should butt out!

While we're at it, what is up with this reckless abandonment of personal responsibility? I thought the conservatives were bad enough, trying to ban pornography. Liberals want to ban smoking and trans fat (and have succeeded in New York.)

I hate eating in a smoky restaurant as much as the next person - but I think there should be bars in New York that are allowed to let smokers in. Give people the choice - smoking or non smoking. If they want to go to a smoking bar, that's their responsibility and their right.

Likewise, if you don't want to have smoke blown in your face, you should also have that right. I agree with some specific 'smoking' bars, but I also agree with a ban in every other public venue, like cinemas and sports arenas.

It's the same with trans fat.

Okay, so it's really, really bad for you - but nobody's forcing you to shove Kentucky Fried Chicken down your gullet. If you eat too much fatty food and have a heart attack, that's your shauri. You made that choice (and this is America. It's your right to.)

Banning trans fat is the start of a slippery slope. Next what'll it be? Dairy? Salt? If the liberals had their way, we'd all be eating nothing but a homogenized vegan slop.

It gets worse. I recently heard of a bartender on Long Island who got arrested because a woman he'd served got into her car (over the limit, since she'd been drinking elsewhere) and killed some poor kid on her drive home.

Lock that lady up and throw away the key - I'm fine with that. But the bartender? He was just doing his job? I know bartenders are not meant to over serve, but by suggesting he's responsible for the girl drink-driving also suggests that she isn't.

**adopt sarcastic tone** Poor little lamb. Despite the fact that she was probably drunk when she rolled up to the bar in the first place, it's not her fault that she drove drunk. It's that mean ol' bartender, who served her a drink even though she was already tipsy. All because she would have yelled at him if he didn't.

Liberals seem so desperate to relieve us of responsibility for anything. Why doesn't anybody man up, hold up their hands and say: "Yeah, I made a bum decision and I take responsibility for it?"

That'd be refreshing.

The Big Picture

At the end of the day, the far left and the far right have the same vision. They see America and it's problems and want to fix them.

Statistics prove that banning smoking saves lives. People claim that banning pornography would reduce sexually transmitted diseases. The Bible said that the world was created in six days and somebody in the Tennessee backwoods wants to teach their boy that (and demand that every copy of Jurassic Park get burned.)

Perhaps banning these things would work for the 'greater good.' But manipulating society to 'make it better' is social engineering. It's the sort of thing you'd expect in Communist China or North Korea.

This is America. Whether they're right or wrong, we should have the right to make our own decisions here.

It's inalienable, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit doesn't interfere with anybody else's, why should it be restricted?

In the upcoming election, people banter around words like 'patriotism' and phrases like 'a good American.' Well, isn't this what being a good American is all about? Defending the freedoms that the founding fathers fought and died for?

Even if they never anticipated that those freedoms would be the right to produce pornography, marry another man and gorge ourselves to death on fried chicken!

Obama dares to confront Evangelical Hypocrisy

"Even if we had only Christians in our midst - if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America - whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?"

Bang. Nailed it right on the head. Well played, Mr Obama.

Barack was speaking in Colorado, trying to bridge the divide between the Democratic party and the Evangelical right wing (who could possibly muster up to eighty million votes in the coming election.)

With John McCain losing out because of his lack of 'conservative credentials' (i.e. he won't pander to the pious nutjobs who lead the Evangelical movement) Obama was hoping to convince some Christian groups to support him in the upcoming election.

He's not doing too bad a job, either. Up to 15% of conservative Christians who'd previously identified as 'Republican' have left that party - dismayed by the war in Iraq and the gloomy state of the economy.

But his comments today have upset some people - including James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and 'Kingmaker of the Religious Right.'

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter!"

Basically, unless you're shouting out your hatred and intolerance for gay people, you've got no right to call yourself a Christian.

Fortunately, most sensible people agree that James Dobson is a complete and utter idiot.

Before Obama, the last person he'd picked a fight with was annoying cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants, who he accused of promoting a 'homosexual agenda.'

He also wrote a popular book 'Dare to Discipline,' which advocated corporal punishment for children - and warned parents that if their kid cried as a result, they should "offer him a little more of whatever caused the original tears." [i.e. wallop him again - Editorial Bear.]

Unfortunately, non-sensible people hugely outnumber the sensible ones and Dobson boasts of having delivered election victories to Bush in both Ohio and Florida in the 2000 election. He even warned the president that unless Bush upped the pressure against advocates of abortion and gay rights, he'd 'pay a price in four years time.'

Obama's measured and thoughtful speech might have impressed many people today - but it didn't impress Dobson and I've got a feeling we'll hear an awful lot more bullshit from him as a result.

California Supreme Court gives Thumbs Up to Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court has overturned a state law banning gay marriage, declaring that it violates the state constitution.

But despite that fact, conservative groups in California are pushing to amend the state's constitution to add a clause: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

My question is: Why?

I mean, seriously... Why bother? Why is it so important to conservative idiots like the National Organization for Marriage to ban same-sex couples from committing to a life-long relationship?

You don't have to like it. You don't even have to condone it. But this is America and one of the most fundamental rights is that of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

The US Supreme court even recognized that: "Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Two people of the same-sex getting married does not affect me in the slightest. It doesn't have any impact on my life whatsoever. Since nobody's life is altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to get married, why should anybody have to right to oppose it?

By supporting gay marriage, I'm not advocating homosexuality or what conservatives laughingly refer to as 'the homosexual agenda.' All I'm doing is supporting an American's personal freedom. The right to make their own decisions.

I find it hypocritical that so many conservatives vote Republican - the party that's meant to protect Americans from the government interfering in their personal choices.

Conservatives demand the right to bear arms and the right to practice whatever retarded religion they want. Yet when somebody else demands their rights, like two consensual adults deciding to have a committed relationship, the conservatives want to the government to stick their oar in.

What these idiots don't realise is that they're weakening their own positions. After they've empowered the government to decide who can and can't get married, they'll find themselves in a much more vulnerable position when it comes to defending their own rights.

Second amendment gun-nuts and fundamentalist religious loonies really ought to be reaching out to the gay community instead of attacking it. They're both actually fighting the same battle. The conservatives are just too stupid to realise it.

_____apedia.

It the Internet has one major flaw, it's that people tend to accept everything they read on it as fact. This is why websites like Snopes.com popped up, to debunk an awful lot of myths and hoaxes (never respond to an email round-robin without checking the first.)

Wikipedia is a particularly thorny problem when it comes to Internet credibility, since Wiki entries are actually contributed by users themselves - meaning people like you and I can go to a specific Wikipedia entry and change it as we see fit (just click on the 'Edit' button at the top of the page.)

As Stephen Colbert put it: "On Wikipedia, any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true. Together we can create a reality that we all agree on — the reality we just agreed on."

The good thing about Wikipedia, however, is that it's moderated by a dedicated and impartial team who remove malicious editing and require everything posted there to be backed up by some form of credible evidence (you'll spot the words 'citation needed' in some entries, signifying that the statement is not supported by evidence.)

This poses a problem for some people, who would love to have their opinions and beliefs endorsed by instant 'wikiality' - yet aren't willing to compromise by relying on something so erroneous as 'facts' and 'evidence' to back these beliefs up.

Hence the creation of 'Conservapedia.'

Truly one of the most cynical inventions in the Internet's history, Conservapedia is a 'Conservative Wikipedia.' It's like Wikipedia, except everything on it is written with a 'conservative' slant. It still demands all statements are backed up by facts - just not the sort of facts us regular folks would give credibility to.

For example, on discussing creationism, the Christian magazine 'Journal of Creation' is listed as a 'peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Which it's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination!

Conservapedia is one thing and one thing only. A place for conservatives to post their baseless theories onto the Internet and have them receive the vicarious credibility of being listed on a Google search engine. This in turn means they can link to Conservapedia as 'evidence' to support their ridiculous fantasies on blogs and in discussion forums.

Global Warming - Or Global Freezing...

Although most of my political opinions are pretty distant from American Conservatism, I was intrigued by a post on Jenn of the Jungle's blog over at Screw Liberals.

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling. Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming.

Now I'm not entirely sure what qualifications the journalists over at infotech site Daily Tech have to comment on a global phenomenon like global warming - but I will admit, the article initially impressed me.

While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Now although I'm a firm believer in global warming and man's devastating impact on the climate, I have bitched about how closed minded conservatives are and therefore, it would be very hypocritical to dismiss this evidence just because it doesn't agree with my predetermined opinion regarding climate change.

So yesterday, I very nearly abandoned my position on global warming and adopted the conservative consensus that mankind has nothing to do with rising world temperatures.

However, before I changed my mind - I peeked into the data Daily Tech had supplied. And you know what? It doesn't add up.

Because while the article is entirely accurate - the global temperature over the last year has plummeted by an astonishing amount - in the 'big picture' of global temperature measured across the entire last century, it's just a drop in the ocean.

In fact, the Daily Tech writers must have realised that, since their impressive looking graph only shows world temperatures back as far as 1988.

According to this graph, yes - the drop in temperature looks alarming (and would seem to disprove any notion of global warming.)

However, if you compare that chart - only going back as far as '88 - to a chart measuring global temperatures right back to the 1860s, the article's credibility vanishes like a melted iceberg.

When you look at the big picture, it's alarming. You can see that the world's temperature has steadily increased year on year, directly in relation to man's industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels.

Sure, there are peaks and troughs. After the Second World War, there was an almost 40 year drop in world temperatures (which caused many people to think that the globe was actually cooling.) However, that drop soon reversed and then what happened? The temperatures actually climbed higher than before the 1940s - and steadily continued going up.

Some people suggest the rapid drop in the world's temperature after 1945 might have had something to do with the two nuclear bombs we dropped in Japan. Nuclear winter, anybody?

In any event, the authors of the Daily Tech article and the conservatives in general might celebrate a one year dip in global temperature - but it's a hollow victory.

The fact is, the world's temperature has increased dramatically since mankind started churning out the greenhouse gases. We might have occasional cool spells now and then - but they're getting rarer and less cool as time goes on.

Conservatives who tout the Daily Tech article as 'proof' that global warming does not exist are lying to themselves. By using an utterly misleading set of statistics, the conservative regime are doing what they always do - finding data to match their conclusion, instead of making their conclusion match the data.

The Big Freeze

Well, since I've made such a big deal about having an open mind, I ought to admit, I might have badly misjudged the onset of global warming.

Bloody nippy is how I'd have described it this morning. That was before three inches of snow fell while I was at work - and showed no letting up as I gingerly guided my rear-wheel drive yacht home. Average speed? Maybe 20mph. And I felt like Juan Pablo Montoya as I did it.

Whatever happened to the facts?

I realise I've been ragging on conservatives for quite a while - but the problem is they drive me crazy! Especially trying to debate something with one.

Because conservative logic is blissfully free of fact. Opinions and decisions are not reached through an objective appraisal of the evidence, but through sheer, pig-ignorant gut feeling. "This is the way I feel," a conservative will argue, "and nothing you tell me or show me will make me feel any different."

It's a condition comedian Stephen Colbert characterised as 'Truthiness.' "We're not talking about truth," he explained, "we're talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist."

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," he continues, "but that's not the case anymore."

Colbert managed to hit the nail right on the head with his definition of the word 'truthiness.' Because we live in a world now that's moving further and further away from rationality, straight into the lap of blissful ignorance.

And there, facts are totally redundant.

A conservative doesn't base his or her opinions on facts. Instead, they're based on a more nourishing mixture of gut feeling and assumptions. Assumption always comes before fact - whereas a rational person examines the facts first and makes assumptions based on them afterwards.

Take creationism, for example. A creationist makes the assumption that the Bible contains an 100% accurate account of the creation of the world - 7,000 years ago when God made Adam from the clay of the earth and Eve from one of his ribs. He examines the evidence afterwards and interprets it in a way that will match his assumption.

A rational person, on the other hand, examines the evidence first and uses that as a basis for his assumptions. Learning that every tree grows a 'ring' during each year of it's life, he could cut down the oldest tree in the world, count the rings and assume (based on the facts) that the world is 4,000 years old (the age of the oldest tree on earth.) Or he could learn that there's a new layer of ice grown in the North Pole every year, so he could drill through the ice and count the layers to discover that the 'world' (or, at least, ice) was 420,000 years old. Similarly, examining geological evidence suggests the world is half a billion years old. All assumptions are based on physical evidence.

That same physical evidence is open to interpretation - which means a rational person might come to one conclusion, but be forced to change their mind should further evidence disprove their original hypothosis. The problem with conservative is that their assumptions are set in stone - often before they've even examined the facts.

Once those assumptions have been made, a true conservative is incapable of changing their mind - no matter what the 'facts' say. That's my major problem with them.

You can't debate with somebody who's incapable of changing their mind. You might as well argue with a brick wall.

Abortion shouldn't be a political issue...

Over on CK's blog, he's gearing up for a month-long debate on an issue about which he feels very strongly. Abortion.

Totally unlike England, where the topic is wisely avoided, American politicians stake their political territory with their attitudes towards abortion.

No other social topic polorises the American people. CK himself admits that Democratic "financial and social policies would fly with most of the Christian right, but their stance on abortion forces them to vote predominately Republican."

It's a very thorny topic - so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

When it comes to abortion, I have two positions.

1. I do think abortion is wrong.
2. I don't think abortion should be banned.

These two statements might seem to be contradictory, but they're not. You don't have to agree with or condone abortion to realise that it's a problem that won't be solved by some utterly ill-considered blanket ban.

A federal ban on abortion - which is what I'd imagine hard core conservatives like CK are calling for - is an utterly unrealistic, unconstitutional and downright stupid idea. And I'll tell you why.

Why Abortion is Wrong

When it comes to the morality of abortion, CK and I are on the same page.

It's really quite simple. When sperm and egg combine and create a viable zygote, a woman is considered 'pregnant.' That zygote soon becomes an embryo, a multicellular diploid eukaryote, which ideally imbeds itself in the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus.

Unless something's wrong with it (25% of all pregnancies end before 13 weeks) or an accident happens, that bundle of cells will grow into a fetus and then be born as a baby. To all intents and purposes, new life begins at the moment of conception.

An abortion terminates that pregnancy - and snuffs out that potential new life before it even has a chance to begin. While the pro-choice advocates try to shuffle around the cold hard reality of it, it's really as simple as that. An abortion stops a beating heart.

Advances in science mean a premature baby can be kept alive earlier and earlier now. On the other end of the spectrum, scientists can create embryos and grow them in test tubes and could, theoretically, produce babies entirely independently of a human womb. So you can't really gloss over what abortion actually is.

Now I have a robust attitude towards life and death, growing up on a farm and being a firm advocate of meat-eating and huntin' and fishin' and all the animal-slaughtering resultant therein. However, I also believe that if you're grown up enough to let your eggs and your sperm get within touching distance of each other, you're grown up enough to deal with the consequences.

I personally consider the 'pro-choice' decision to be no decision at all.

Why an Abortion Ban is wrong...

Despite that being my personal take on the abortion issue, I am strongly opposed to the Republican demand for a federal ban on abortions - or giving individual states the right to ban the procedure. There are several reasons for this.

An Abortion Ban won't End Abortion

Remember prohibition, anyone?

The abortionist is probably the world's second oldest profession - probably stemming from a need generated by the first! Throughout recorded history there have always been abortions and doubtless, there always will be in the future.

From medicine women giving herbs and tinctures to induce miscarriage, to midwives with coat-hangers doing a side business 'helping' careless girls - the history of abortion is pretty much as long as the history of civilisation.

Abortion has only been legal for the last half century - yet it was a flourishing business in America long before then. Frank Sinatra's mother, Dolly, used to perform abortions in pre-war Hoboken.

The simple fact is, as long as there is a demand for abortions, there will be people willing to supply them - legally or illegally. Last year, there were 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States alone. Conservatives who imagine a ban will end them overnight are delusional.

At least legal abortions are performed by licenced physicians in clean, clinical conditions. A woman visiting an abortion clinic is offered counseling to ensure she's fully aware of the ramifications of the decision she's making. As it is presently, woman having abortions are at least offered a safe environment in which to do so.

If conservatives successfully overturn Roe vs. Wade - the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right - the abortion industry would simply go underground.

1.2 million women every single year seek abortions. The vast majority of them would continue to do so even if abortion was made illegal. They only difference is, they'd have them performed by unlicenced physicians, in unsanitary conditions - without any form of accountability.

History has shown that illegally performed abortions have a very high rate of infection, injury and death. If conservatives overturned the ban on abortions, they wouldn't save the lives of 'all' the babies. They'd just add a large number of young women to the death toll.

This is the number one reason why a ban on abortion is stupid. You don't have to like abortion - but you do have to accept the reality of the situation.

It's the conservatives' fault...

Abortion 'friendly' England is famed for it's high rate of teenage pregnancy. However, it's interesting to note that the real figures for unplanned teenage pregnancy are actually much higher in the United States - more than double.

Head down south to Texas and that percentage rate shoots up to be more than three times the figure in England - almost sixty girls out of a thousand wind up pregnant. Statistically, that means a higher percentage girls are having abortions in Texas too.

And why? Well, ironically, it's the fault of the same people calling for an abortion ban! Conservative policies are often to blame for unplanned pregnancies in the first place!

Take, for example, sex education. In modern society - with depictions of sexually active teenagers all over the television and movie screens - it's an accepted fact that youngsters are going to sexually experiment.

Yet abortion-hating conservatives also demand that teenagers are given 'abstinence only' sexual education. They're not told about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases or condoms. Instead, the conservatives believe teenagers should simply be instructed to 'keep it in their pants' until the day they walk down the aisle.

Yet mountains of research has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that abstinence only sexual education does not work. Kids are just as likely to be sexually active after receiving abstinence only sexual education as kids who were taught about the 'bells and whistles' of responsible sex.

The only difference is that 'abstinence only' kids don't use protection.

How conservatives could ever imagine that abstinence only sexual education works is beyond me. The only thing I do understand is that this policy directly contributes to unplanned pregnancies.

Conservatives are a driving force behind the demand for abortions.

I'll tell you what to do, but I sure ain't helping...

Another way in which conservative policies directly contribute to the number of abortions performed in America regards their attitudes towards welfare.

In England, 17% of all pregnancies are terminated. In the United States, that figure is 22%. Why is the figure so much higher in America, where 50% of the population is supposedly against abortion?

The answer is easy - and directly linked to the number one reason why women have abortions. "I can't support a baby right now."

Britain's 'nanny state' policies reward single teenage mothers. Having a baby means a council house, welfare cheque and child support. For many teenage girls in lower class parts of the country, having a baby is seen as career choice. Women are 'set for life' if they knock out a couple of sprogs by age 20.

It's not an admirable policy - but it explains why more women in Britain are willing to follow their pregnancy through than in America.

Because rightly or wrong, America has a considerably smaller welfare system and the state is not going to be there to support every single mother. An unplanned pregnancy often means a woman simply can't support herself or her new baby - driving women towards having abortions simply because they have no other choice.

And ironically, it's conservative policies that drive this demand for abortions. The Republican's are the party of 'small government' in which Americans are expected to fend for themselves in matters of welfare and healthcare.

Republicans angrily insist that pregnant women carry their pregnancies to term - but then refuse to support them when they do. It's utterly contradictory and hypocritical. The pro-life conservatives cry that 'all life is sacred' as long as it's not their life and they're not expected to pay for it.

I'm not saying it's a good idea - I myself have conservative financial values - but if the conservatives REALLY wanted to reduce the number of women having abortions, they'd be there to offer them support. If a woman is driven to an abortion clinic because she 'can't support a baby,' a true pro-life campaigner would reach into their pocket and pay the rent cheque and grocery bill that this new mother can't.

But, of course, that's not how most conservatives think. They limit their appraisal of abortion to moral condemnation and angry jundgementalism. They never think of the consequences of their actions.

1.2 Million Served...

Zooming out and looking at the big picture, there are some other serious ramifications behind a conservative call for a blanket ban on abortions.

Last year, 1.2 million women had an abortion. Imagine, for a second, the inconceivable notion of 1.2 million women with unplanned pregnancies actually carrying them to term every single year!

Right now, the conservatives are bitching about the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every year. Imagine what would happen if a group as large as the population of Dallas, Texas turned up in our maternity wards as well?

Constitutional Hypocrisy

Let's not forget the possibly most important reason why a ban on abortion is an idiotic idea. Because the Supreme Court - the highest court of law in the United States - said a ban on abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional.

According to the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, banning abortions violates the Fourteenth Amendment. That ruling means that no state or national legislative body can ban abortions. You don't have to like it, but it's the law.

Conservatives who oppose abortion want to elect a president who will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court - and hope that one of them will overrule Roe vs. Wade. There's nothing like bypassing the democratic process when you've got an axe to grind, eh?

Let's not beat around the (George) Bush. It's very clearly established in the Constitution that judges are not supposed to legislate from the benches. Making laws is the job of Congress and the Senate - and those laws must fit within the confines of the Constitution.

If conservatives want to pass a law banning abortions, they're damn well going to have to do it through the legislative, facing the scrutiny of this nation's elected representatives. Screwing around with Supreme Court is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

Conservatives may decry people burning the American flag, but apparently they're more than willing to stomp all over it to get what they want.

Just plain dumb...

And, finally, there's just the very unlikable face of the pro-life conservative movement, who undermine the morality of their argument each and every day with offensive and hypocritical actions.

Life is sacred, say the conservatives. Yet fervant anti-abortionists shoot doctors dead outside abortion clinics. Conservatives still support the death penalty. The right wing only 'Support our Troops' as far as sending them abroad to be shot at by Islamic fundamentalists.

I really don't like being lectured about the sanctity of life by people whose hands are practically dripping with blood.

The Solution

It's not all bad news. There is hope for the conservatives and for a rational, practical campaign to eliminate the need for abortions. Those who are pro-life have to look at the big picture and decide which values are more important to them - and what they're willing to sacrifice to help stamp out the demand for abortions in the United States.

Because banning them won't work - but long term changes might.

There are two main keys to reducing the number of abortions - and hopefully setting a precedent that will see the demand for pregnancy termination practically reduced to zero.

• Adequate sex education for teenagers - so they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy if they're sexually active (and two out of three are.)
• Adequate resources for poor mothers - so if a woman finds herself pregnant, she doesn't need to worry about paying for a roof over her head or affording food and medical bills.

The downside, of course, is that conservatives are going to have to put up with higher taxes to pay for this - and they're going to have to get off their blinkered high horse about decent sex education.

Whether or not the average conservative is willing to make that sacrifice is a question I can't answer - but until they're willing to, women will still seek abortions (legally or not.)