Quick hit: NHS privatisation: compilation of financial and vested interests

Read this. List of politicians who will directly benefit from the NHS bill (http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk).

This list represents the dire state of our democracy. The financial and vested interests of our MPs and Lords in private healthcare. Why are these people allowed to be in charge of our NHS, to vote on a bill that they clearly have something to gain from. Who cares that they have put it in the register of interests. This doesn’t excuse their interests, it merely highlights clearly why they should have no part in voting for the privatisation of the NHS. It is privatisation, despite the media’s continued use of the word ‘reforms’. The question must be asked. Are they public servants or corporate servants?

The list is long, and could surely be longer, I make no apology for that, tragically that is the reality of our politics today; and although the majority of vested interest lies with the Conservatives, as you might expect, it is however a cross party issue. It is compiled from accessible and trusted sources throughout the Internet. If one of these listed is your MP, then contact them and let them know you will not be voting for them again if this bill goes through. If the Lord is under your area, email them and let them know what you think. If there are others to be added, then please let me know with link to source – as this is by no means a complete list. Equally if you think someone should not be on here, then please say with reason and then they may come off if justified as the list should be as strong as possible.In short – they won’t be stopped unless they are stopped. They do not listen and nor do they care. The time has surely come to protest in large numbers and for the union members to ask their leaders to call for a strike. You can help apply pressure by spreading this out on twitter. It is already gone quite viral, but can go wider still.

Read on.

 

Quick hit: one jesus for liberals, another for conservatives

No surprises here.The GOP has been manipulating Christianity and its teaching for its own ends for years. (See also Cameron et al.)

Love thy neighbour, so long as he is not an illegal immigrant. Blessed are the poor, so long as they are deserving. And, though it may be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle, multimillionaires should have no problem passing through the door of the Oval Office.

Religion and politics have always made uneasy bedfellows; yet how can Christians from all shades of the political spectrum reconcile their diverse views with the teachings of a single man?

A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions. The Bible may claim that God created man in his own image, but the study suggests man creates God in his own image.

[guardian]

Quick hit: when states abuse women

Here’s what a woman in Texas now faces if she seeks an abortion.

Under a new law that took effect three weeks ago with the strong backing of Gov. Rick Perry, she first must typically endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina. Then she listens to the audio thumping of the fetal heartbeat and watches the fetus on an ultrasound screen.

She must listen to a doctor explain the body parts and internal organs of the fetus as they’re shown on the monitor. She signs a document saying that she understands all this, and it is placed in her medical files. Finally, she goes home and must wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion.

“It’s state-sanctioned abuse,” said Dr. Curtis Boyd, a Texas physician who provides abortions. “It borders on a definition of rape. Many states describe rape as putting any object into an orifice against a person’s will. Well, that’s what this is. A woman is coerced to do this, just as I’m coerced.”

[nytimes]

Quick hit: racial bias in presidential pardons

In analysis of Presidential pardons during the George W. Bush administration, ProPublica has found that whites were four times as likely as non-whites to be granted a pardon. Pardons were granted to 12% of whites, 10% of Hispanics and Asians, and zero percent of Blacks and Native Americans. The disparity remained even when investigators controlled for type of crime.

[sociological images]

Quick hit: Racial Bias in Presidential Pardons

Quick hit: Racial Bias in Presidential Pardons

Well, would you look at this. Hands up everyone who is not surprised at all.

In analysis of Presidential pardons during the George W. Bush administration, ProPublica has found that whites were four times as likely as non-whites to be granted a pardon. Pardons were granted to 12% of whites, 10% of Hispanics and Asians, and zero percent of Blacks and Native Americans. The disparity remained even when investigators controlled for type of crime.

Read more at sociological images.

In brief: women to be vaginally probed before abortions (via thinkprogress)

Yesterday, my day was ruined by reading about some stalker “research”; today, it’s been ruined by reading about a law which is about to be enacted in Virginia. Under this law, women who seek abortions will be forced to undergo a “stunningly invasive procedure” beforehand “for no medical reason whatsoever”. The state wishes to see an ultrasound of the foetus before a woman can have an abortion. The aim? Well, presumably to shame the little tart into changing her mind. And here’s where it gets gruesome:

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.

Nice, huh? One would hope that the authors of this law had just not realised exactly what it is that they’re doing, and how brutal this procedure really is, but that’s not the case, as the following statement by one GOP lawmaker suggests. The thinking? Well, they’ve already consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.” *

Atta boy! If she’s a little slut already, then we can assume she won’t mind a lump of metal shoved up there. And, you know, that would be a proper shaming for the little tramp, amirite?

–

(Source: thinkprogress)

–

* UPDATE: Please note that this quote was initially attributed to Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R). That was an error. Gilbert is reported to have actually said: “in the vast majority of these cases, [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience,” which some might argue illustrates as little understanding of, or sympathy for, women’s lives, needs, and decisions as his GOP colleague above.

Damned no blogging

I need to blog more. I say this 100 times a year, I know. I have a lot to say but very little time to say it. Not blogging is on my top ten list of stresses (#firstworldproblems). But, now, I need to work. (And therein lies the problem.)

In the meantime, please read Patrick Stewart’s fantastic post in the Guardian: Domestic violence blighted my home. That’s why I support Refuge

I grew up in a home darkened by domestic violence – which I wrote about two years ago. My father was an angry and unhappy man who was not able to control his emotions, or his hands. I witnessed violence against my mother and felt powerless to stop it. When Refuge, the national domestic violence charity, asked me to become a patron, I accepted without hesitation. I accepted for my mother. As a child, there was little I could do to help her. But now I can give support and encouragement to women who live in the same sort of fear that she did.

…

The impact of these cuts will be devastating. The financial footing of women’s charities has been shaky for many years; now it is in real danger of slipping into the abyss. Let me be quite clear about what is at stake here. Without services such as refuges, more women and children will be trapped in violent relationships. Domestic violence rarely peters out. On the contrary, abuse tends to escalate over time. If they can’t get help – preferably at the earliest opportunity – their stories may well have the most tragic of conclusions.

…

My mother had no escape route. There were no refuges she could run to; no helplines to call; no advocates to speak out for her. No one came to help, even though everyone knew what was happening behind our closed doors. The small houses in our road were close together, and every Monday morning I walked to school with a bowed head, praying that I wouldn’t run into a neighbour who had heard the weekend’s rows. The police, when they were called, were little help. I remember hearing them say things like “She must have provoked him”, or “Well, Mrs Stewart, it takes two to make a fight”. They had no idea. My mother did nothing to provoke the violence she endured – even if she had, violence is an unacceptable way of dealing with conflict.

Full article.

Where Julie Bindel tells us all what sort of feminist we should be

I’ve put about 100 things aside recently to blog about and none of them are timely or current any longer. I’m not going to blog about the UK riots because I really have to make a commentary on them in a journal article I’m writing and I haven’t thought them all the way through yet. I’m also not going to blog about what’s going on in Libya because that is very far outside of my expertise. So, I’m going to backtrack on a few things I’ve been reading recently and hope that they’ve not disappeared too far into the ether to be no longer relevant. The Internet is a busy place and, it seems, you either comment on something quickly or you don’t bother commenting at all. Well, in my head it’s still 1998 so ya’ll can just have patience.

So, then, about two weeks ago Julie Bindel wrote in the New Statesman that “fun feminism” should be confined to the rubbish bin. By “fun feminism” she meant, for instance, movements such a SlutWalk (because challenging rape culture is a-laugh-a-freaking-minute, don’t you know). For Bindel, any form of feminism that isn’t defined as strictly radical (a definition of feminism that’s as moveable as any other, it’s worth noting) is just not feminism. Most of all, she dislikes the kind of feminism that attempts to include men and argues that “if men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working.”

Now, I find myself disagreeing with Bindel a lot but never more so than on this occasion. I wrote on a comment on a friend’s blog at the time:

I have many problems with Bindel’s piece: she’s resolutely opposed to (and seemingly very threatened by) anything post-second-wave and remotely intersectional; she is dictating what type of feminism is acceptable (and what type apparently isn’t) and what sort of feminist everyone should be (as if there’s a bullet point list of criteria); and she’s horribly silencing of young or "just arrived" feminists who are still finding their place in the movement and figuring out where they stand. I thought it was a disgraceful article.

That pretty much sums up my stance, still. Let me develop on a few points. There is no bullet point list of criteria for feminism, and the argument that there is and that you must be a certain “type of feminist” is hurting the movement. I don’t personally have a tolerance for the belief that feminism is some sort of dirty word that should be avoided (and there’s a discourse, currently, that we should change the name because it’s so loaded with negativity), and I have little patience for the argument that the term has come to represent something that is so uncomfortable to many that they would rather deride feminism than identify with it, but at the same time, insisting that there is only one way to “do” feminism is nonsensical. (That sentence got very long; I apologise.) It’s not a case of “you are either with us or against us”; it’s a not a binary state. Yes, one would assume that there is a fundamental set of core beliefs that feminists share but there doesn’t need to be a rigid typology to which we all must subscribe. Bindel appears to be advocating that there is. If you are not part of a “radical” movement that seeks to overthrow the patriarchy, then you’re not allowed to play in her gang. I mean, who doesn’t want to overthrow the patriarchy? I certainly do. But if I’m the kind of feminist who doesn’t see that as our most crucial goal, would I be any less of a feminist? I don’t think I would. If I want my feminism to include men, am I not a feminist any more? Don’t be ridiculous!

Which brings me to a related point. We feminists can be an unforgiving lot. We will call you on your privilege, we will tell you each and every time you’re being patriarchal, and our –ism radar is like a finely tuned military machine. We will shout and scream. (Or maybe that’s just me.) The feminist interweb, which is where the majority of the feminist debate takes place now, is a minefield. Half of the feminist blogosphere seems to be waiting for the other half to say something which could remotely, vaguely, even at a stretch be construed as anti-women or anti-feminist. Sometimes this vigilance is welcome (trolls and misogynists are easily identified) but sometimes it means that feminists who have things they want to say are too terrified to say them. If you say something anti-woman/ feminist, then of course you should be called on it but too often that’s not the real motivation. In short, what some feminists are very good at doing is silencing other feminists. (If you’ve ever happened upon some in-fighting between feminists on one of the more popular blogs, you’ll know what I mean.) As a rule, it’s the young, “new” feminists who are most silenced by the older, established (and generally quite privileged) feminists who are there and ready to pounce. I don’t think it’s even a conscious action at times, but it is prevalent. Bindel is one such established (and privileged) feminist. And in defining and stating what she thinks is “pointless” feminism, she has silenced an enormous number of young feminists who are still trying to find their way with the movement and who have many important things to say.

By the way, I consider myself one of those “young feminists” even if I am next door to ancient. So well done Julie. If your aim is to establish some sort of monopoly on feminism, keep at it; you’re doing a good job. On the other hand, if you want to contribute meaningfully to a movement that is as vital now as it was when you first identified with it, then allow others to do the same.

Abortion Rights – Anti-choice counselling: tell your MP to say NO!

This might well be the most important thing I post all year.

PLEASE follow this link and write to your local MP.

We need you to stand up for access to safe, legal abortion and the right to impartial information.

The Department of Health is planning to introduce new counselling requirements for women seeking abortion, which could limit their access to impartial advice and delay access to services.

Based on amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, the proposals strip abortion providers of the right to provide pre-abortion counselling, and could see anti-choice groups invited to offer pregnancy counselling in their place.

The purpose of these proposals is to limit access to impartial information and deter women from having the procedure. We believe they are damaging, unnecessary and should be rejected.

The amendments could be debated and voted on in the House of Commons as early as 6th or 7th September.

We want to make sure MPs know the facts about what these changes would mean for women and hear the views of the pro-choice majority who support the right to safe, legal abortion in this country.

In brief: cultural snow: the sins of the sons

Via the inimitable cultural snow: the sins of the sons.

Grammar aside, is this not a very good question?