Anti-Obama. Already.

Eight days into his new job, and – farcically – Obama already has those who are ready to write him off. One such person is Mary-Ellen Synon. In what is an audacious piece of spin, she manages to take what has been a strong first week in the Oval Office and turn it into a scenario where Obama is losing. Badly. Let’s take a look:

Yesterday, just eight days after the inauguration, President Obama had his £576bn so-called stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives - but without a single vote from any Republican.

Imagine: Republicans not voting for a Democrat measure. This really is unprecedented, isn’t it? The next thing you know, we’ll be hearing that the Republicans and Democrats are different parties who don’t agree on everything. What crazy times we live in.

Congressman Eric Cantor, one of the leading House Republicans, says an analysis of the Bill shows it is mostly pork: just 12 cents of every dollar in the spending will go to any genuine economic stimulus, such as creating jobs.

Yep, and you could put the same question to a House Democrat who would give you a completely different answer. The truth is normally somewhere in the middle of the two views, but seriously, a House Republican who voted against the measure is not going to be, on any level, an unbiased analyst of the legislation. Plus, this Cantor fella is going to be an outspoken critic of Obama. After all, he could be one of the people who runs for the Republican nomination in the future.

Yet Obama was keen to have support from the Republicans. He didn't get it, because what he really wanted was submission from the Republicans.

I know what she was trying to say, but reading that paragraph just makes no sense. He wanted support, but actually he wanted submission. So he didn’t want support then? Contradicting yourself over the course of two, short sentences really does undermine what you have to say.

Clearly the Republicans on the Hill don't reckon they are going to get any backlash from the voters in their districts because they have given a No to The One. They understand that already their voters don't like what Obama is doing, or indeed the arrogance with which he is doing it.

Couple of points on this one. Firstly, the next election for representatives is just under two years away – even if there is a backlash, then the chances are that the voters will have forgotten about it before those legislators try for re-election. And it is also worth noting that most of these people will be from Republican leaning districts, meaning that their voters probably don’t support Obama anyway.

Just two days after the inauguration, when Republican legislators told the president they objected to the massive spending bill, Obama dismissed them with two words: 'I won.'

Well, I hate to break it to you, but he did win. And the Democrats won control of Congress, partly in response to Republican policies. The Republicans can object as much as they want, and with some justification, but last November the voters spoke and gave the Democrats the right to implement their policies – for better or for worse.

That was a particularly stupid mistake by the new president. Hard-left Democrats may cheer at such gloating, but most Americans don't like that kind of contempt being shown to Congress.

Really? The voters don’t like that kind of contempt? Are you sure? ‘Cos let’s look at two examples of Presidents who showed contempt to Congress. FDR was re-elected in 1936, 1940 and 1944 – despite shitting on Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution. And LBJ won one of the most spectacular landslides in US electoral history despite bullying and cajoling Congress until basically it was his bitch. Showing contempt to Congress may not be a great thing to do constitutionally, but it certainly doesn’t seem to worry the voters that much.

Indeed, as the American website Politico points out, with those two words 'Obama brought the curtain down on the 48-hour era of bipartisanship.' He liberated the Republicans from any mainstream media pressure to offer support to Democrat policies. He dismissed 'bi-partisanship,' so why shouldn't they?

Why shouldn’t they anyway? Why shouldn’t the Democrats bin bi-partisanship? Why isn’t a little debate and disagreement between the two parties a good thing? Why is there this reverence for consensus? If the two main parties are meant to agree on everything, then they should just form one big party. Fundamentelly, bi-partisanship has a limited life-span anyway, what with there being two parties with clear differences in ideology and policy.

The big spending and the big arrogance are why Obama's support is already falling. During the transition from the Bush administration to the new administration - that is, during the weeks in which Obama kept near-quiet and had to do nothing - his ratings in the Gallup opinion poll were 83 percent. After just three days in office, Gallup showed his support had already dropped by 15 points to 68 percent.

Four points.

1. 68% is still pretty spectacular.
2. It is easy to be so popular when you have to do nothing – it is still good to be at 68% when you start doing stuff.
3. 68% is still far more than the percentage of Americans who voted for Obama last November and still represents support from the vast majority of Americans.
4. 68% is far better than the utterly appalling polling figures that the last President was getting.

As any economist will tell you, what is important in a statistic is not the number, it's the trend. In this case, the trend is down, and fast. Americans are already having buyer's regret about their new president.

I’d also imagine that most economists will want more than two numbers before they start assessing trends.

Then of course there is his naiveté in foreign policy. A few days ago he gave an embarrassingly-wet interview on Arab-owned television and offered unconditional talks to Iran.

Because, of course, Bush’s policy of being simultaneously angry, silent and aggressive towards Iran worked so well. Actually offering them talks is a novel policy. Furthermore, offering talks is just that – talking. Obama hasn’t offered unconditional concessions, he has offered a conversation with a regime that we should, as a hemisphere, start trying to have more of a constructive relationship with.

Iranian president Ahmadinejad replied, as one knew he would, with a fierce demand that he wouldn't talk to Obama until the Americans had issued an apology - ie, grovelled - for unspecified 'crimes' and had withdrawn all their troops from all other countries.

Yeah, and who looks like the ignorant, unreasonable cunt now – Obama, or Ahmadinejad? Frankly, I think Obama has done a great job in stitching Ahmadinejad up nicely.

(Note: some countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually want the American forces there. I don't. But then, I alas am not the king of Saudi Arabia nor one of the ruling al-Sabahs of Kuwait. And judging by my brief time with one of the al-Sabahs, more the pity for Kuwait.)

(Note: I’m not arrogant enough to assume that anyone cares what I think about American forces in the Middle East. And that lack of arrogance is one of the reasons why I could never write for The Daily Mail.)

And there is Obama's naiveté about Islamic terrorists. He wants to close the prison at Guantanamo.

Yep, he wants to close the unconstitutional prison that is synonymous with torture and acts as a lightning rod for fundamentalists everywhere. Frankly, he deserves a round of applause for that.

Fine by me. But he has made that his policy without first figuring out where he is going to put the 245 remaining inmates, some of whom are undoubtedly keen to get back to the job of mass-murdering.

If they are guilty of something, they can be put through the courts and imprisoned. If they are innocent, then they should go free. After all, the fundamental foundation of almost any justice system is being innocent until being proven guilty. Basic, basic stuff.

Two men already released from Gitmo turned up six days ago on a video posted on a jihadist website. A US counter-terrorism official told AFP news service that one of them is a Saudi man called Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri who on his release was taken into the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

A few questions:
1. When were these people released? Under Obama?
2. What were they doing on the website? What were they saying?
3. What were they in Gitmo for? Was there any evidence to keep them there?

If he or any of the other 245 turns up as part of another jihadist atrocity, the new president is going to have to have more to say than, 'Gosh, whoops.'

Yep, and the FBI and CIA are going to have to justify why they didn’t at least keep a watchful eye over people America has already imprisoned for being fundamentalists. But again, if there is no evidence, people should be released. You can’t imprison people because you think they might do something bad in the future. This is the real world, not Minority Report.

And he is going to have to find another job after 2012. By that time, Americans will be looking for change they can believe in.

So, Obama – currently with 68% approval rating, having got his stimulus package through the House of Representatives and having done the popular and decisive move of closing Gitmo, can be written off already? Sweet Jesus, what does a President have to do to get re-elected in the demented mind of this writer? Walk on fucking water whilst bringing peace to all mankind?

And what change they can believe in for 2012? Sarah fucking Palin? Do me a favour. As it stands, Obama will win in 2012. And win big. I’d also imagine he has better things to do over the course of the next four years than worry about the opinion of hacks writing for The Daily Mail…

The Joker Did It!

It must be difficult to report on tragedies; especially tragedies that involve kids. You have to report the facts, yet do so in a way that is sympathetic to those who have lost so much but at the same time avoid the sensationalism that it is so easy to drift towards. Unless, of course, you write for the Daily fucking Mail, in which case you should grab any floating rumour and print it as fact.

Take this factoid about the terrible nursery killings in Belgium:

The knifeman, said to have a history of mental illness, wore a bulletproof jacket and make-up similar to The Joker in the Batman films.

Really? Did he wear that sort of make-up? If he did, what bearing does that have on his crimes? If he didn’t, or if you aren’t sure, why report it?

And… guess what; the make-up may not have been that much like the Joker as the Mail first suspected. As they themselves are now reporting.

Ten other children, including a one-month-old baby, were knifed by the man who had smeared black and white warpaint on his face and sprayed his hair red.

Let’s just remind ourselves of what the Joker looks like in the films. This, this and this. White face paint, green hair. Not black and white make-up, except for a little bit around Heath Ledger’s Joker’s eyes. Not red hair. Small, yet essential, details that renders the reporting in the first article absolutely incorrect. But, and let’s be honest about this, The Daily Mail printing shite is nothing new.

But let’s stop for a moment, an posit a “what if.” What if this killer had been wearing Joker style make-up? What difference would that make? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the direction The Daily Mail would have taken this in. Ban the filthy Dark Knight - before our kids get killed too! Except there is nothing in The Dark Knight that might make even an unbalanced person attack children. Even though the Joker is utterly psychotic in the film, he doesn’t (according to my memory at least) threaten children directly. One of the characters – Two-Face – does, but the nursery killer doesn’t seem to have burnt off half his face to be like that fictional entity.

Put simply, The Daily Mail added a comparison to their article on the murder of children and babies that managed to both be wrong and irrelevant. Such are the standards of journalism in our favourite hate rag.

Take a look at this article in The Guardian, which deals with Sir David King's attack on, amongst others, The Daily Mail.

Of course, I enjoy reading anything that has a pop at The Daily Hate. But there is a very interesting comment in the article from King:

King said the Daily Mail had waged a "brilliant campaign" on GM food. "The use of the word 'Frankenfood' by the Daily Mail I would have to say was a piece of brilliant journalism. It brought through all of the fears, these gut fears, about tinkering with the genetic code and these mad scientists in their laboratories."

We can attack The Daily Mail and other hatemongers in the media for their angry, poorly researched ignorance, but actually they know exactly what they are doing. They very carefully, very clinically, provoke people to rise to their ignorant, ugly campaigns.

Which is what makes them all the more dangerous.

Abortion

When a medical professional writes about abortion you might expect an even-handed, well thought through presentation of the facts. Unless, of course, that medical professional happens to be writing in The Daily Mail. Dr Chapman begins her anti-abortion tirade with this sentence:

"For far too long, the debate about abortion has been clouded by blind prejudice from both sides. On the one hand are those who, often for religious reasons, believe the whole concept of abortion is morally repugnant. On the other are the pro-choice zealots who see any suggestion that abortion should be restricted as a threat to women's inalienable rights."

Yep, every debate has zealots on either side. But if you look hard enough (ie at some other than The Daily fucking Mail) then something quite interesting happens. You see a broader debate; you see calm and rational argument. Sadly, Chapman has no time for such rational arguments – instead milking the emotional side of the argument like a dairy farmer with their prize heifer. She goes on:

"Now, at last, we have a real chance to discuss the subject openly, honestly and impartially."

What, with a hysterical, whinging headline like "Why should we doctors save tiny lives in one room... and end them in another?" Do go and fuck yourself, you miserable shithead. You are clearly borderline retarded if you think for one second that your argument is anything other than polemical, emotionally charged tripe. And the very fact that beneath the above sentence there is the picture of a prematurely born baby makes my point – your article isn’t about intelligent, reasoned argument. It is about tugging on the heartstrings of those who read the Mail. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Yesterday, Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, told the committee that she has heard no evidence to support a lowering of the upper age limit, nor seen any need to change the existing law. Which makes me wonder exactly where she is getting her evidence from."

Well, not from your hysterical claptrap, Chapman. And thank fuck for that small mercy.

"For in my 37 years as a gynaecologist, I have seen quite enough to persuade me that, for the sake of women and babies, we urgently do need a change in our law - not only to lower the upper time limit but also to help reduce the current rate of 200,000 abortions carried out in Britain each year. Now, let me be absolutely clear: I do not believe we can or should abolish abortion completely."

Oh goody, you don’t want to abandon abortion altogether.

"I have carried out abortions throughout my career where there was a threat to life, and I know very well that there will always be a need for terminations as a last resort for women in great distress."

But you do want to push it back to the limits prior to the legalisation of abortion – back to the era of Vera Drake; of back street abortions, of abortions for the elite rather than the general population. Nice. And who would be a judge of whether the distress is great enough to warrant an abortion, Chapman? Oh, wait, it would be you. Fuck-a-doodle-do. ‘Cos you’re fucking impartial, aren’t you?

Cunt.

"But I also believe that the law should be there to protect life. That is why I would like to see the time limit for abortion set at 17 weeks - a level that would still be considerably higher than France, Germany or Italy, where the cut-off point is 12 weeks."

Right, let me try to get this absolutely fucktarded argument clear in my mind, because it makes about as much sense as a whore teaching a Sunday School class about good moral conduct. First of all, and I really can’t stress this enough, there are laws to protect life! And why on earth should we reduce a woman’s right to choose because we will still be offering a greater time period than various European countries? Let’s play this argument out to the logical extremes. Let’s ban abortion after 4 weeks, because in some states in the US ban abortion altogether except where the life of the mother is threatened or where rape/incest caused the conception. Fuck, let’s bring back executions behind closed doors, because we’d still be better than Iran, where they hang people in public.

"My reasoning owes less to moral or ethical objections than to my decades of medical experience."

Shite. Total fucking shite, Your arguments relate more to ill thought through observations and anecdotal evidence. Your medical training may make you special in your own head, Chapman, but in the real world you come across as a compelling ignorant fuckwit.

"Thanks to advances in scientific knowledge, we now know that it is legal in Britain to abort babies who, if born prematurely, might live - however slim that chance might be."

Yeah, a baby born after 22 weeks might live. But here’s the rub – there is some sort of issue that means the mother/parents of the child don’t want the baby. So what you gonna do? Make the mother have the kid, then put the kid up for adoption. So why stop there? If you abort a baby after 4 weeks there is a real chance that, if not aborted, the baby could live. If you prevent an egg from being impregnated by a sperm then you prevent a child who might live from living. So what, you going to ban contraception?

Oh wait, you can’t. Because then we are heading to the back street abortions again.

"That leaves us doctors in a very awkward position. For example, if I were to deprive a premature 22-week- old baby of oxygen and thus cause a long-term disability, I could (quite rightly) be sued for negligence. And yet the law also allows me to abort that same baby until 24 weeks."

There is also the small question of choice here. If the mother wants you to save her baby born after 22 weeks, as a doctor, you have an obligation to do so. Likewise, if the mother wants the baby aborted and the law allows you to do so, you have an obligation to do so. So, actually, it ain’t fucking awkward at all. It is actually really simple, but comes down to a different mindset – of patients being able to make, and being responsible, for their own choices, not their fucking doctors.

"For doctors, trained to preserve life, that is a terrible inconsistency in the law."

Doctors are also trained to stop suffering. So sometimes an abortion might reduce suffering, even though it does not preserve life. Just as sometimes turning off a life support machine might reduce suffering at the same time as not preserving life.

"Pro-choice campaigners say that such situations rarely arise in practice, and point out that only a tiny number of babies survive if they are born before 24 weeks."

Yeah, God forbid we should let fucking reality interfere with a damn good bit of hysteria.

"Well, I'm sorry, but that should not be an excuse to take young lives."

Opinion, pure and simple. Tell you what, you don’t have to abort any baby you might have in the 23rd week of any pregnancy. But you shouldn’t force your opinions on others.

Then she hits us with another type of deeply unconvincing argument. Oh yes, it is time for the anecdote.

"I remember being on duty as a young doctor, shortly after the implementation of the 1967 Abortion Act, and spending the night treating a premature baby, born at 22 weeks. During the shift, I chatted to a consultant who had just carried out an abortion on two 24-week-old twins. What she told me was utterly chilling, but I make no apology for repeating it here. Discussing the termination she had just performed, she said: "The babies were so strong and were crying so loudly that I didn't know what to do. Eventually, I had to bash their heads to shut them up."

Right. So we should change the law based on something someone told Chapman nearly 4 decades ago? Seriously, what the ruddy, Christing fuck is this total cunt banging on about? Firstly, she might not be remembering the story correctly. Secondly, who’s to say that the consultant was telling the truth and not just winding up or trying to impress a young doctor? And this is one fucking incident: it does not represent everything that has happened in relation to abortions since 1967.

"Tell me, what was the logic in my trying to preserve the life of a 22-week-old baby in one part of the hospital when, in another part, two even larger babies were having their lives taken?"

Logic? Where is the logic in reducing the number of weeks in which a woman can have an abortion based on anecdotes and crappy comparisons? Chapman invoking logic is like the Pope invoking the memory of Buddha – completely alien to everything they have said and done before now.

"No, an Act that was intended to deal humanely with the occasional patient and to end the horrors of backstreet operations has instead become a licence to end healthy infant lives."

Yep. That’s what it does. Both removing the backstreet abortionist and increasing the number of abortions. If you allow abortion, healthy babies will be aborted. Some women will make the choice to abort a baby that could grow up healthy. And it is there choice, as it is their body. For what it is worth, I struggle to support their choice – it doesn’t seem right to me. But I defend their right to choose.

"Sadly, I know that it can damage many women, too. People understandably fear the return of the backstreet abortionist. But towards the end of my career I was seeing far more women with complications from legal abortions than I was seeing from backstreet abortionists in the bad old days."

Oh, sweet Jesus, it is difficult to read this crap. Seriously, did no-one proof read this article and note the complete deficits of logic? Of course there were more complications from legal abortions than back street abortions by the end of your career, Chapman, you total and absolute cuntbrain. When you were a junior doctor the Abortion Act had only just come into force! There would be far more back street abortionists and far less legal abortions, wouldn't there?

"Yet we hear so little about these complications that it is almost as if there is a conspiracy of silence to mask the truth."

Perhaps the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard. Of course there isn’t a conspiracy of silence. I’m aware of the damage abortions can do to a woman, and I don’t really need to know as a male who will never have an abortion and, to date, has not been involved in the situation where a choice has to be made on abortion. I don’t need to know. Those who do need to know about the complications surrounding an abortion are those who face the choice about having an abortion or not – and those who should be aware of all the facts are those women who are seriously contemplating an abortion.

"I realise that many abortions are sought by women who are in great distress, but I have also seen for myself how - with adequate counselling and support - a huge number of those women who thought they had no option other than abortion can not only come to terms with their pregnancy, but end up treasuring their child. Why, then, is this counselling not more rigorously encouraged? Why is a termination always seen as the default position?"

Right, and whose job is it to provide that counselling and advice? Politicians or doctors? And who says termination is always the default option? If you actually provide some evidence for what you state then people might be able to take you seriously.

And then we hear a lot from Chapman about the damage an abortion can do. Yep, don’t dispute the facts. However, it is the job of medical professionals to advise on the risk and offer suitable counselling. We should not have to resort to the government further restricting freedom and choice in this country.

"I stress the fact that abortion is justified if the mother's life is at risk, or if the foetus has a severe genetic disability but, as Lord Steel - the original architect of the Abortion Act - has himself conceded, many of those seeking abortions today are not desperate women falling back on abortion as a last resort, they are simply using it as a method of contraception."

Great, so your evidence to back up your claim is one man – Lord Steel – who is a politician rather than, you know, say, a reputable study or some sort of meaningful research. Chapman’s approach to research and evidence is shameful given she should have some sort of background in science.

"And that is not only wrong, it carries a risk to the mother's health - especially in the case of late-term abortions."

Right, so explain that to women contemplating a late-term abortion, rather than banging on about changing the law.

"Back in 1967 it was said that easier legal abortion would prevent physical and psychological trauma for the reluctantly pregnant woman. In fact, for many women it has led to the exact opposite. How can that be right?"

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Please can we have some evidence to support your claims? Please? And what is the alternative to legal abortion? Making it illegal again? Return to the back street abortionists? ‘Cos that really fucking ain’t going to reduce "physical and psychological trauma" now, is it?

"It is 40 years on, we know so much more and we should surely think again - for the sake of the women and the babies."

Yep, let’s think again. From a personal standpoint, I am concerned with the research into the level of humanity a foetus has at the various stages of development and what that shows us about both the rights of a foetus to life and a woman to chose what happens to her own body. I am pro-choice, because I believe people should have the right to choose for themselves. But I am also concerned about the rights of a foetus. I see this as a hideously complex area, both morally and empirically. I want to see arguments from both sides, clearly argued, and backed up by reasoned evidence.

Which is why I cannot stomach the absolute shite spouted by Chapman and her odious, ignorant, ill-educated ilk. This debate should happen, but the likes of Chapman have nothing to offer to that debate, and nothing to add.

The Daily Mail proves itself to be at the forefront of scientific reporting with this story. Apparently:

“Parents can predict their children's exam performance simply by looking at their hands, according to research.”

Excellent. I look forward to their next science exclusive. Perhaps they will reveal that you can tell who is a criminal by look at their physical features. Or that you can ascertain whether someone is a witch by looking for witches’ marks. Whatever happens, I am sure we can rely on The Daily Mail to keep us up to date with ground breaking scientific breakthroughs.