Anyone who believes Wikipedia has a liberal bias is an idiot. In 2006, one such idiot — lawyer, home-schooling enthusiast and conservative Christian Andrew Schlafly — decided the world needed an alternative to the pernicious, Leftist Wikipedia … a place where other idiots could gather to read about a variety of topics without the terrible inconvenience of truth getting in the way of their backward-arsed ideology.

And so Conservapedia was born.

Nothing — and I mean nothing — demonstrates the rank imbecility of this website more than its entry on Barack Hussein (!!1!) Obama. The whole article is worth reading, just to marvel at how desperate and deranged its authors are — but for your convenience, here are a few highlights:

Obama used his Muslim middle name when sworn in as President,^[7][8] and chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath. Elected by claiming he’s a Christian, Obama has since avoided attending church on Christmas and Sundays.^[9]

Obama refers to America in the third person, as a foreigner would.

To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of Lenin.^[14]

Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for “Pakistan” rather than the common American one.^[36]

Obama has consistently shown himself to be an elitist who looks down on “ordinary” Americans.

Obama’s smears usually fall into two categories: race-baiting and distortions.

Seriously, go and have a look — there’s plenty more gold where the above nuggets came from. And if you have time while you’re there, do yourself a favour and check out the references for the entry’s most outlandish claims (the Lenin poster one is particularly laughable). They make Leon Bertrand QC’s spectacularly inept fumbling for evidence to support his claims seem like the work of a perfectly persuasive genius.

But the last word goes to Wikipedia itself, whose Conservapedia entry lays bare the kind of attitudes that led to its creation:

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a young Earth creationist, Americentric, right-wing^[2] and Conservative Christian point of view.

[...]

Several articles on the site have had reputations for bias and inaccuracy.^[9][10][11] Conservapedia has also been seen as part of a trend of conservative and Christian-themed Web sites imitating the format of mainstream sites to provide a right-wing antidote or Christian alternative.^[3][12]

Fair dinkum — even if I’d been stupid enough to hitch my wagon to the ideology of the Right all those years ago, I would still be mortally embarrassed by the abortion (pun intended) that is Conservapedia. I wonder how many “conservatives” are.

Remember Ant’s post about pamphlets being distributed to letterboxes around Melbourne’s suburbs? Well, the author of a letter to the editor of The Melbourne Times has totally pwned Mr Rogenous.

What’s the real problem?

I am writing regarding a recent article about the pro-life pamphlets being distributed to residents “MLA condemns abortion pamphlets”, TMT, March 19). (sic)

The fact that disturbs me most about the pamphlet drop and subsequent media coverage is that all the outrage was focused on a letter drop. Yes, it is disgusting. Yes, it is graphic. This is happening every single day in our country.

And what is horrifying people the most is that they are exposed to these images? Where is the outrage that babies are being destroyed? What was actually disturbing about the pamphlet distribution? Pictures on a piece of paper, or the fact that this kind of dismemberment, destruction and torture is a condoned daily practice in our country?

Madeleine Tope / Bundoora

Your turn, Ant.

Every time I’m riding a tram down Wellington Parade in East Melbourne, I have to stop myself from alighting at the Fertility Control Clinic and breaking the necks of the anti-abortion protesters who stand at the gate terrorising passers-by and patients with graphic posters of maimed foetuses.

I am neither pro nor anti-abortion, but I virulently oppose this kind of wanton emotional violence.

Contrary to what these zealots seem to believe, the decision to have an abortion is not undertaken lightly. The overwhelming number of people who use abortion clinics do so under extreme stress, and arrive there having made the most excruciating decision of their lives.

Do these (mostly Christian) crusaders honestly believe their god would condone their judgemental bullying, or even reward them for it in the hereafter? The god I learned about in 15-odd years of Catholic catechism would take a particularly dim view of such despicable passive-aggression.

Anyway, my contempt for these people was thrown into sharp relief today when I received an email from my wife, E. She’d returned home from a walk with Baby Rogenous to find an anti-abortion leaflet in the letterbox, containing several bloody photographs of aborted foetuses.

E and I suffered the pain of a miscarriage two years ago. It hasn’t gone away; I suspect it never will. She was, understandably, distraught upon seeing the pictures.

Do the people who peddle this kind of indiscriminate emotional terrorism give a fuck? Does the elderly woman next door to us, who in her youth suffered years of failed attempts at pregnancy, have anything to gain by seeing these images?

What of the people who receive this leaflet who have had abortions, and who might be battling the demons of regret — as many do for the rest of their lives? Does it persuade them any more than the residual torment of their procedure already has that abortion is a course of action not to be taken lightly? That it’s morally wrong?

Does enforced guilt serve any purpose other than to compound remorse or suffering? Has guilt ever helped anyone make a resolution for the right reasons?

I don’t think I’ve ever been more appalled than I am today. For the safety of the ever-present East Melbourne protesters, I think I’ll catch the train home tonight.

Since Peter Costello is so keen to tell Muslims what governmental model they should aspire to, perhaps he should urge Australian government to follow that same advice. And since Pete thinks that Turkey is the perfect example of Islamic government, with its complete separation of church and State, I look forward to Mr Costello lobbying for the abolition of daily Christian prayers in parliament and the end of government ministers continually pandering to the Christian lobby.

I know Costello’s trying desperately to broaden his policy scope beyond his portfolio but all he’s managing to do is broaden the view that he’s a bumbling, ignorant and divisive fool.