Thousands of Brits celebrate their granny-killing, evil, socialist euthanasia engine [NHS love]

I’ve been following the American healthcare pantomime with the usual morbid fascination I reserve for their insane media (you can include political leaders and citizens under that adjective for that matter). After a while, however, I started to be genuinely concerned that this madness is going to cost the non-crazy Americans a chance for real healthcare reform. Hmm… not so funny anymore.

And into this shitstorm was unfairly thrust the good ol’ NHS, better known across the pond as an evil and Orwellian socialist institution that would have let Stephen Hawking’s die, had he been cursed to be born British (I can understand the confusion; as Ricky Gervais said, born in Oxford but speaks with an American accent? Pretentious). Even worst, one of our own (meant very loosely) joined the attack. Tory MEP Dan Hannan tears into the NHS (on Fox News, no less!), seemingly lending weight to the nightmare perception of the British system. Mikeno12’s comment sums things up succinctly.

We weren’t going to put up with that shit. The #welovethenhs Twitter campaign mobilised us Brits to shout our support for the ‘cradle to the grave’ free health care provided to everyone – whether rich, poor, sick, dying, hypochondriac or just a small-breasted teen who fancied a bit of a cleavage.

Yesterday, Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah Brown, joined the campaign with an emotive Tweet (an oxymoron?) and, since then, the British media has been covering this story pretty extensively (something that does not seem to have been echoed in the US, unfortunately – though the only reference to this I would ever expect to see on Fox News would be along the lines of “do you want British socialist scum recommending US policy?”).

Possibly the most interesting development in the whole tale was the Conservative leader, David Cameron, interrupting his holiday to publicly distance his party (the British equivalent to the Republicans) from aforementioned NHS-basher, Daniel Hannan. Rule #1 of British politics: fuck with the NHS at your peril.

Note to Americans: I’ve read some comments suggesting health care reform would decrease accountability. In this country, dissatisfaction is voiced in the most powerful way, by decisive elections! Perhaps, this is why the Republicans are so scared of reform? They’re worried it will prove so popular and benefit so many people, they’ll either never win an election again or have to completely change their ideology. Best to keep the public stupid and scared, eh?

Looking at the facts (a rare practice in this debate) provided by the BBC, US health isn’t the ‘best in the world’. Of course, the NHS isn’t either, and this explosion of support shouldn’t make us ignore some of the very real problems people have had with the system (for the record, not me; I’ve had three pretty significant operations with the NHS and have no complaints – if you’re looking for anecdotal comparisons, I recommend reading this moving account by someone who’s experienced both).

My own, considerably less moving, account of my own surgery last year:

As a patient, I was an absolute cunt

Spent the first three days angrily asking where's my belly button!? Still got it though

No, not some lovely NHS nurses. Gorgeous Crunkettes lending some moral support (with custom tees!)

I guess the point is that having shitty health care that may bankrupt you so private companies can get grotesquely wealthy just sounds offensive to my British delicacies. It makes me feel ill thinking about it. I suppose the saddest thing is that some American’s seem to be so obsessed with the ‘dream’ of corporate greed that they don’t see how innately unfair their system is.

Ed West hates teenagers, gays and making a coherent argument – loves sardine cities and tradition

In the words of The Joker, “I have found myself an enema”.

Performing a spot of research into accurate, rational arguments for and against so-called eco-towns, I stumbled upon this nonsensical article by social commentator for The Telegraph, Ed West.

To quickly nip that article, titled “For a greener Britain, we should build jails not eco-towns”, in the bud: West argues that we’d be better off living in ‘compact cities’, but that this would require people behaving better, so cops should be harassing teenage gangs (presumably including all young people hanging around in groups – as socialising young people are wont to do) and, basically, do their job by arresting criminals. Which I tend to assume they’re doing. When someone argues that police should be arresting people who are committing crimes, the suggestion is that they’re not. No matter what political party is in charge, I’m fairly confident the police will still be aiming to arrest criminals, meaning this is usually a pretty accurate indicator that the person making the point hasn’t really got one.

Ed West’s view of the world appears to be diametrically opposed to mine. Just some of the more obvious signs of the anti-Crunk are as follows:

1. A rose-tinted view of a mythical social golden age – usually combined with an assumption that the time we’re living in represents the worst things have ever been
2. Nothing threatens the security of the country more than our children (well, other people’s children). Despite rising test scores, they’re also dumber than ever. Conversely, they’re being taught too much about certain subjects (sex), which somehow means they’re making less intelligent decisions about certain things (sex).
3. It’s not racist to think that immigration is the second worst thing ever. It’s not homophobic to think that homosexuality is the worst thing ever.
4. People getting married and staying married will solve all of our problems.
5. Vague, contradictory, anti-human dogma that is thousands of years old should forever be our primary source of moral guidance – and screw any culture whose own thousand-year-old dogma challenges that.

Ed West’s latest twisted post is a bitter rant against the below quote by Terry Prendergast who works for Marriage Care (an agency associated with the catholic church):

“Statistically, children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving. Note that I stress adult, not married, since there is no evidence that suggests that children do best with heterosexual couples.”

This seems to make sense to me. To Ed West, however, “what [Prendergast's] saying is untrue”. He doesn’t really explain why this comment is untrue, he only references a study showing the better lives of children raised by married couples compared to those raised by single parents. Which, when you think about it, clearly supports Prendergast’s opinion that a steady, stable and loving relationship works best. I would like to know if a study comparing children raised by non-married couples in a long-term relationship with single parent children would show similar results. Prendergast seems to think it would, I would tend to agree and consider it obvious, while West doesn’t actually formulate any argument against this. On what grounds then is he claiming the statement is untrue?

The rest of the article does nothing more than quote further extracts from the speech, assuming the reader will disagree without offering anyone with an open mind an argument of why they should. Pointless.

Clearly, the most contentious part of the speech was the second sentence, that there is no evidence suggesting children do best with heterosexual couples. Presumably, this was the more ‘untrue’ part of the speech and is what really gets West’s goat… Here are some extracts from West’s article which lead me to believe this:

“In double-blind test after double-blind test all studies have shown that children in old-fashioned marriages have an almost unassailable advantage over those in “non-conventional” set-ups.”

“Children do best educationally, behaviourally and in every other sphere when raised by two original biological, married parents.”

Let’s be clear that those studies are only comparing married (i.e. “stable”) units with broken families (what West misleadingly terms “non-conventional”). I should point out that the findings of these results have been challenged anyway. Regardless, West is twisting these studies to argue against the claim that there is no evidence to suggest same-sex couples raising children will be any worse at it than heterosexual couples. Twisting is right because that’s not what the studies show at all.

When challenged more about the same-sex issue in the comments section of the blog, West completely contradicts himself:

“In terms of gay couples its hard to do stats because its an entirely new area…”

So, is he saying there is no evidence!? That’s exactly the statement he’s claiming is untrue! To be fair to the man, I’ll quote the rest of his comment in full:

“…But children do far, far better when they’re brought up by two biological parents who are married. No other family model comes anywhere near, which is why his speech is so dishonest. His/her parents being married (currently not an option for gay couples, admittedly not their fault) is the key factor in determining a child’s future wellbeing.”

Currently, the only statistics are looking at two biological parents, meaning any question of sexual preference can not be commented on – unless to say there is no evidence! And, to labour a point, the stats are comparing a stable relationship with broken families – which is not the “family model” Prendergast is suggesting as “the best”!

West should have no argument here, as a careful analysis of his position shows he actually agrees with the statement. What’s obvious is that questioning the institution of marriage and supporting the suitability of same-sex parents counters West’s personal, prejudiced opinion and he is instinctively compelled to oppose on dubious, religious ‘moral’ grounds rather than from a position of logic, rationality and humanity. I think it’s remarkable he managed to write that entire blog post without engaging the higher functions of his brain once.

In summary:

1. Prendergast said that the best environment for a child to be raised is by loving adults in a stable relationship.
2. He also said that there is no evidence that heterosexual relationships are better.
3. West said both these statements were untrue.
4. He then reels out statistics comparing children raised in stable relationships (represented by married couples) with children raised in unstable relationships (separated parents).
5. When considered, these statistics can be seen to not counter Prendergast’s first claim – and could be seen as supporting it.
6. He uses these statistics to suggest children who have been raised by same-sex couples will be worse off.
7. He later admits that there is no evidence to support this view – thereby agreeing with Prendergast’s second statement.
8. Any extrapolation from the aforementioned studies concluding that non-heterosexual couples will raise their children in an environment worse than heterosexual couples is completely misleading – the studies only compare stable with unstable relationships and in no way look at the impact of sexuality.
9. Ed West is a tool.

Until next time…

When sperm goes wrong: the problem with children

Based on what I’ve seen, children are a regrettable side effect of reproduction. Nothing more than the unfortunate, albeit necessary, larval stage of human development subjecting everyone involved to a torturous eighteen year period that seems to benefit none involved.

You just can’t rely on children to get on with their own shit and not fuck things up. They ask too many questions. They turn up everywhere. They require near-constant feeding, care and attention while mostly detracting rather than adding to your income.

To summarise: children annoy and frighten me. 99% of kids I encounter are right little bastards. I don’t understand what motivates them, how to talk to them or why they’re bothering me.

Fortunately, I’m not a parent or lawmaker. If I felt this way and I WAS in a position to affect the way we treat this nation’s youth, that would be scary. Possibly resulting in such craziness as…

British cops identify 200 school children as potential terrorists
Teenage girl arrested over nude self-pics on MySpace
British local governments deploy anti-teenager pink lights designed to make kids ashamed of their appearance
Protecting our children by turning them into felons
Children are amongst the ‘most at risk’ from Britain’s Database State
London imposes de-facto 9pm curfew on under-16s

I’m hoping that when I do spawn a brood of crunklings (or, even more terrifyingly, run this country), I take the time to understand and accept them for what they are – and I’m sure other sane people share this sentiment.

[You may notice that I didn't dig particularly deep for those links. The sad truth is that I didn't need to.]

“[The children have] bad manners, contempt for
authority, they show disrespect to their elders…. They no longer
rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents,
chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their
legs, and are tyrants over their teachers.”

“The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have
no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all
restraint. They talk as if they alone knew everything and what passes
for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for girls, they are
forward, immodest and unwomanly in speech, behaviour and dress.”

The wise words of Socrates (c. 469 BC – 399 BC).

Why you should avoid dating a foreign person – part one

There are many benefits to dating a Eastern European immigrant. Least of all because their standards appear to be significantly lower than those of British women. However, the pluses must be measured in consideration of the minuses. With over a year’s worth of experience dating a lovely foreign divku, I feel moved to share some of the lessons I’ve picked up with you guys.

Lesson one: never underestimate the language barrier.

I recently underwent surgery to heal my twisted gut after a particularly unpleasant bout of Crohn’s disease. The good news is that I now feel better than I have done in years. The bad is that roughly a foot’s worth of my intestine had to be taken out. That may not seem like much of a loss and, to be honest, it’s not like I miss it.

The problem lies with my Czech girlfriend’s inclination for a particularly embarrassing malapropism whereby she replaces intestines for testicles.

I only found out tonight that my loving, caring girlfriend has been letting just about everyone know that her poor boyfriend had to go into hospital to have his testicles removed.

For anyone reading this who may have been told otherwise: my balls are perfectly intact and exactly where they’re supposed to be.

Americans: Not here to make friends

Funny video showing how, in the world of reality TV at least, Americans are not interested in making friends.

It’s funny, but you can kind of imagine George Bush Jr and co. saying the same thing at international meetings: “An’ I’m all like, **** you Iran, I’m a ****ing global superpower y’know, I’m not here to make no ****ing friends.”

[via Hollywoodtuna]