Dachshund Agenda

This cute, but tragic video was produced in the seventies.

My parents think Piglet's manic furniture licking is a problem! Ha!

Weiner Races

Every year, in Buda, Texas, they hold the national "Weiner Dog" Races. For this reason, Buda's known as "The Wiener Dog Capital of Texas."

Why nobody's thought of racing Dachshunds before, I can't fathom. Small, sleek and low to the ground, there is nothing more appealing than watching a sausage dog go flat out.

Unlike other dogs, with boringly long legs, a Weiner Dog has several styles of racing. There's the 'flat out' drag racing of the Buda 'Weiner Dog Races' (so called because the dachshunds risk dragging their undercarriage over the track.)

But there's also the 'hop, hop, hop' style of racing, a technique used by dachshunds to overcome the obstacle of long grass or undergrowth.


The key to this is forward momentum. Each 'bound' gives the dachshund an eagle (well, almost) eye view of the territory ahead - but losing momentum often means getting lost in the field of undergrowth.

Alien Versus Predator: Requiem

In sharp contrast to the amazing I Am Legend, Alien Versus Predator: Requiem hits the cinema screen without pretending to be anything other than scary popcorn fodder.

But it's not bad. It really isn't.

Following on from 2004's disappointing Alien Versus Predator, the plot continues the vendetta between the universe's greatest hunter (Predator, star of the '87 Schwarzenegger hit Predator) and the xenomorph known only as 'Alien.'

This time, the action takes place in Gunnison, Colorado, a quiet town in the woods and mountains. A crashed Predator ship releases dozens of alien-producing 'face huggers' and a dominant alien/predator hybrid who then prey on the unsuspecting townfolk.

It's more disaster movie than horror movie. In the same set-up we saw in Airport and The Towering Inferno, we're introduced to a bevvy of characters and then watch them get picked off one-by-one by the terrifying aliens.

But this film is a huge improvement on the first Alien vs. Predator movie. From the moment the movie opens - with a father/son hunting party falling prey to face huggers - it's pretty clear that nothing is sacred and none of the characters you've come to love [Love? Are you sure? Even like would be a push - Editorial Bear] will be safe.

Another improvement is the Predator. Considering Aliens and Predators are two of the movie industry's most famous baddies, it's tough to pick which one to 'root for.' In the original movie, the Predator was presented as an honorable hunter, who teamed up with humans against the aliens. In this movie, directors Colin and Greg Strause go back to the source material and give us back the amoral, human-skinning predator we loved when he faced off against Arnie in the original.

Nothing here will rock you - but you won't be disappointed, either. Unlike the previous chapter, Alien Versus Predator: Requiem sticks tightly to the established 'canon' and delivers a movie that satisfies sci-fi fans and pop-corn munchers in equal measure.

When you bought the tickets, you knew what you were getting. If your expectations go no higher than that, you'll find Alien Versus Predator: Requiem to be an entirely satisfying movie experience.

I Am Legend

For a while now, I've suspected that Will Smith is the greatest actor of the decade. His performance in sci-fi thriller I Am Legend might just prove it.

Based on Richard Matheson's 1954 novel, I Am Legend has already been adapted to the screen twice, in 64's The Last Man On Earth and 1971's The Omega Man.

Director Francis Lawrence brings the story bang up to date, though, and presents a gut wrenching, terrifying, thought provoking tour de force that will stun cinema goers.

The plot is simple. A scientist (with the unfortunate name of Doctor Krippen - played by Emma Thompson) has created a 'cure for cancer.' A retro-virus genetically engineered to do good instead of harm to the human body. But this rapidly mutating virus soon spirals out of control and infected humans across the globe develop violent tendencies, a taste for human flesh and an aversion to sunlight.

Within months, the entire human race seems extinct. In the centre of Manhattan, military scientist Robert Neville soon comes to believe that he might be the last man alive. He is left alone in the centre of New York with only a German Shepherd for company. At night, the mutated survivors of the devastating virus emerge from the subways, underpasses and ruins to scour the deserted city for prey.

Like all of the most classic horror movies, I Am Legend begins by establishing the rules. Robert Neville, holed up in a Washington Square apartment, is free to roam the deserted city by day, but at night, he must cover his tracks, retreat to his steel-lined apartment and wait out the darkness while an army of mindless vampire/zombies rule the streets.

His life is divided between routine - an early morning regimen of push-ups and weight lifting, a planned scouring block-by-block for food and medicine and the search for a cure to the mutated super virus - and diversions, intended to maintain his sanity. Each day, he visits the same record store, for example, and interacts with window mannikin's he has set up to give the illusion of human company.

Director Francis Lawrence quickly sets a scene that everybody can relate to. The familiar streets of New York city are a fine canvas to explore the loneliness, desperation and resilient spirit of Will Smith's character. It's his relationship with Sam, the German Shepherd who remains his only companion, that maintains Neville's tenuous link to sanity.



But like the greatest horror movies, the shocks come when the established rules get broken. Soon after declaring the zombie survivors of the virus 'totally absent of human thought,' Robert Neville finds himself caught in an elaborate trap set by the leader of the zombie army. As dusk falls, he struggles to escape and it's only the sacrifice of Sam that saves him from a trio of vicious zombie dogs.

But with Sam gone, how can Robert Neville survive the nightmare of being the last man alive?

I Am Legend brilliantly sucks you into the story. There's simply no way to avoid getting caught up in the emotional roller coaster. Will Smith, as practically the only actor in the movie, gives a stunning performance that yanks on every emotion you have. As his situation worsens - and despair begins to win-out over his resilient spirit - you can't help but feel your own pulse race in time to the terrified scientist's.

It's not a perfect movie, by any means. At the plot winds up, things start to get a little formulaic and there's a clearly spiritual message rammed down your throat during the denouement. But nothing can detract from the stunning visuals (a deserted, overgrown New York City) the blistering acting (Will Smith is incredible) and the emotional impact of the tightly worded script.

I Am Legend grabs you by the throat and keeps you trembling throughout every second of it's 100 minute run time. It's quite simply one of the finest horror/sci-fi movies ever made and I recommend it to anybody.

Courting Jesus

Jesus is very hip in America at the moment - especially during the holiday season.

Which is why you'll find him in all sorts of places - including inviting fictional workaholic Nick Cominsky out to dinner in David Gregory's best-selling pocketbook Dinner with a Perfect Stranger.

This throwaway novella, published by WaterBrook press in 2005, uses the notion of Jesus - the real, authentic bloke - inviting cynic Nick Cominsky out to dinner. Over Italian food, the two discuss life, religion and the meaning of existence - and cynical Nick returns home with a slightly greater appreciation of the Christian faith.

In many ways, this book is a masterpiece. It's beautifully printed, it's short enough to read over the course of an afternoon and it's so utterly fluffy and inconsequential that even the most die-hard atheist would struggle to find too much to object to in it.

Which is really why it's so horrible. I mean, it's meant to be our protagonist, Nick, who's the cynical one - but I think there must have been a fair bit of cynicism behind David Gregory's smoothly written prose. "They'll eat this up," he must have chuckled.

The major fault with David's book is that it's ridiculously soft-focus. The big issues - the stuff that really drives a wedge between a rational man and the Christian faith - are glossed over deliciously quickly. Oh, sure, Nick Cominsky asks Jesus some tough questions - like where in God's plan did it say his parents would have to get divorced, or his father pass away when he was a teenager?

The soft-focus comes in when Nick swallows the responses David Gregory's Jesus gives him. In this case, a very 'book of Job' reply which states that letting bad things happen to his followers strengthens their faith in the maker.

When bad things happen, people often turn to God. So Jesus - according to David Gregory - turns people's life to shit and expects them to love him for it.

Given the growing emergence of a Christian Renaissance in America, it's understandable that authors want to jump on the bandwagon and write marketable books intended to bring the Christian faith into the 21st century. However, David Gregory does it in such a hamfisted way that what you're left with is a brief, flippant sermon that panders to our lowest superstitious denominator.

Whether you're a Christian or not, I'd steer well clear of this book. Just as Jesus apparently expects his followers to love him for putting them through hell, David Gregory expects good Christian men and women (or even those on the fence) to swallow this nutritionless gruel he's spoon feeding your spirituality.

Avoid.

Dinner With a Perfect Stranger, by David Gregory, is available from bookshops and online for $12,95. Which is, coincidentally, the same price as one month's subscription to SIRIUS radio and I know which one I'd prefer!

North American Wildlife and Cars Built before ABS...

As a keen writer of adventure stories, I have often used the phrase: "The car slewed to a halt."

Until tonight, I'd never actually experienced it. However, driving home at 10pm on Veronica Avenue, I suddenly found two deer caught helplessly in my headlights.

Even before my brain focused the thought "I'm never going to stop in time," my foot had slammed on the brake pedal and two tons of Detroit steel tried to dig her heels in.

There was a Hollywood-esque squeal of tires and the car slewed - yes, 'slewed', across the road, eventually coming to a halt at a 45 degree angle to where she'd started.

Maybe - at a generous guess - six inches from the flank of one startled deer.

Chewing cud, they ambled off while I sat there, gripping the big wooden steering wheel in shock.
Two thoughts...

1. Thank goodness I was sober, paying attention and going well under the speedlimit.
2. Blimey, that never happened to me in England...

And it does... Happen in England, I mean. There are deer there and presumably they are no smarter or less suicidal than their American cousins. But after six months of settling into American life - being surprised by the similarities rather than the differences - it suddenly occurred to me just how different the wildlife is here (whether or not it's splattered over the bonnet of your Lincoln.)

Deer are one thing... But did you know there are bears here, too?

In fact, bears are a growing problem in New Jersey. The militant anti-hunting brigade has been so successful that a growing population of black bears are making incursions into populated territory. The New Jersey DEP just released a flyer about how to bear-proof your home.

Then there are raccoons - who look cute, but carry rabies and root through your rubbish. Possums, who are big rats that scurry through the undergrowth. And chipmunks. Adorable, stripy chipmunks (who I've never actually seen up close.)

Oh, and skunks, too. I'd seen pictures of them, but I'd never seen a skunk until I moved to America.

As it happened, I smelt one before I ever saw it.

Oh, sure. To us Brits, the idea of a skunk being smelly is old news. But just how smelly? It boggles the mind when your nostrils flair, your eyes water and you wonder 'just what the hell is that?"

I've even mentioned groundhogs before. We have one in hibernation somewhere in our yard.

To residents of New Jersey, their wildlife might seem mundane. For a country boy from England, it's like living in a Disney cartoon.

But as much as I love wildlife, my encounter with Bambi and her brother on the road was as close as I intend getting any time soon. If you're on the North American roads this winter, keep a good eye out and keep your speed down.

Eragon

I'd been under the mistaken impression that the writer's strike in Hollywood had only been going on for a few weeks. However, after catching the movie Eragon on cable television, it's apparent there's not been a lot of writing going on over in Tinsel Town for quite some time.

On paper, Eragon sounds fantastic. Swords, sorcery, dragons and horses. All wonderful things. It's based off a self-published novel by young author Christopher Paolini , who lived every writer's dream by publishing his own book, promoting it through grit and determination across America and eventually getting that hard work rewarded by a publishing deal.

But instead of creating something truly wonderful with all these ingredients, Hollywood writer Peter Buchman turns it into tripe. Utterly predictable rubbish that borrows shamelessly from every hackneyed sword-and-sorcery plot since movies began.

There's the young orphan boy, the wise mentor, the evil king and his vicious army. Doting family gets slaughtered at the prerequisite point and wise mentor, played with dreary lack of enthusiasm by Jeremy Irons, follows suite twenty minutes later.

Cue ethnically-diverse rebellion movement, pretty princess and fiery conclusion and all you're left with is nothing that you haven't seen sixty times previous to this. Even the computer animated dragon has nothing on the Sean Connery fire-breather we saw in Dragonheart - and that's pretty pathetic considering that film hit our cinema screens eleven years ago.

All in all, an utterly underwhelming effort - and more's the pity. The modest box office haul (first-time director Stefan Fangmeier cheerfully claims Fox were "modestly happy with the worldwide box office takings") probably doomed the rest of Christopher Paolini's books to obscurity.

Although in some ways (given the fact that he's a disgusting five years younger than me) that's nothing I should complain about.

The Militant Ginger Rap

Listen to Militant Ginger - The Militant Ginger Rap

Just in time for Christmas, my own addition to the seasonal showdown.

Howard Dean and Al Gore

Just tonight, I watched two interviews with former Presidential candidates.

First was Al Gore - who is an utterly charming, clever, sharp and highly capable man. I mean, he's won an Oscar and (part of) a Nobel Prize. Given that the man who beat him in the 2000 election can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear' it's kind of a sharp indictment of American society that he's not in the White House right now.



Second was Howard Dean, former presidential candidate (he lost the Democratic nomination to John Kerry) who now runs the Democratic National Committee. He again struck me as a clever, considered man who delivered sharp, quick responses to difficult questions.

Given that the Democratic nominees seem to be tied up in infighting and bitchiness - plus the fact that both front runners (Hillary and Obama) are up against discrimination regarding their sex and race, it's a real shame that neither of these two apparently capable men are throwing their hats into the ring.

I don't doubt either front-running Democratic candidate's abilities. I'm just not sure America is as ready for them as the world is.

When Copy Writers Attack (spell check hates me when I write things like this)

Behold, the new Ford Kuga.

Yes, I said 'Kuga.' As in 'cougar.'

There is already a Ford car named after North America's native mountain lion, so when Ford executives decided on the name of their new quasi-crossover-concept, they decided to keep the macho sounding 'big cat' name, but give it an edgy 'text-generation' spin by spelling it wrong.

Kuga.

Good grief.

I mean, I do realise that naming cars isn't exactly an easy thing (what does it involve? Open dictionary, randomly insert push-pin, email marketing department...) but this one really takes the cake.

And that's even by Ford standards (who's Car Focus Group managed to come up with the highly original car names 'Ka' and 'Focus.' Wait for the Ford 'Group' in 2009. But they'll probably spell it 'groop.')

I mean, seriously, people.

I know I'm a writer. I know I'm in marketing. I know I once dumped a girl because she pronounced the 'd' in Wednesday. But doesn't anybody else think that 'Kuga' is just the most ridiculously stupid name since Nissan produced the 'Qashqai'? Or am I just being anally retentive.

In any event, when it's announced in five years time that Ford downsized their marketing department to a bunch of chain-smoking chimpanzees with typewriters (they knock out romance novels in their spare time) don't say I didn't warn you.

Ford! In fact, car manufacturers around the world - we need REAL car names.

Like Mustang, Firebird, Blaze, Roadster, Bulldog, Hirondell, Furillac... Names that sound big and gruff and rough and tough and CAR-LIKE.

Kuga is just DUMB.

Although, in retrospect, it's less dumb than car manufacturers who just name their cars with numbers. BMW 318. Peugeot 407. Come on, people! At least make an effort!

End of rant.

NJ Bans the Death Penalty

Today, New Jersey Governer Jon Corzine signed into law the historic state legislation which bans the death penalty.

Both New Jersey's assembly and senate approved the measure, which replaces death by lethal injection with life imprisonment without chance of parole.

Although there had been much ire about the move - which on paper spares death row inmates like child sex killer Jesse Timmendequas - in reality all the legislation did was legitimise a de facto ban on capital punishment. No inmate has been put to death in New Jersey since 1963.

The death penalty is one of the biggest contradictions in American society. To many, the very existence of capital punishment undermines the United State's place as 'leader of the free world.'

In the European Union, vocal critics of the death penalty point out that 'capital punishment is incompatible with a civilised society' and cite that membership requirements of the European Union include a total ban on capital punishment.

Supporters of the death penalty claim that convicted murders and terrorists cost the tax payer thousands of dollars every year by keeping them locked up - and the death penalty ensures that the guilty will never re-offend.

However, I believe the ban on the death penalty is a good thing. While convicted offenders might deserve to die (or, rather, not deserve to live) it's a very hypocritical society that considers itself authorised to kill them.

Al ordenar, hable por favor español

The future of America is at (cheese) steak!

Joe Vento runs a Pennsylvania steak joint called Geno's.

Demand for his famous 'Philly Cheese Steak' keeps the lines long outside of Vento's door - but the ever-shifting demographic in Philadelphia isn't doing anything to help that line move any faster.

Joe Vento and his staff keep running into problems because visitors to his store - specifically Hispanic immigrants - aren't ordering in English.

This led Vento to put up a controversial sign: "This is America. When ordering, please speak English."

This immediately incurred the wrath of various groups who claim his sign violates a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment, public accommodation and housing on the basis of race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Their argument? That putting up that sign discourages customers of a 'certain background' from eating there.

But there's a hole in their argument. It's utter bunkum.

Bunkum

Professor Camilla Charles, of the University of Pennsylvania, claims that Vento's sign harks back to the 'Whites Only' signs of the segregated 1950s. But that's apologetic rubbish.

First off, Vento's not banning anybody from coming into his store or enjoying his cheesesteak. He's just asking that they speak English when they order it. Secondly, a request to speak English isn't discriminatory against Hispanic people. It equally targets tourists and immigrants from non-English speaking countries across the world.

The real issue is that Joe Vento and his staff do not speak Spanish - or Serbo-Croat, Swedish, Swahili or French. Therefore it's totally unreasonable to demand that they do business in a language they do not understand.

Like it or not - and despite the enormous numbers of Spanish speaking immigrants - America continues to be an English-speaking country.

Hypocrisy

What annoys me about this situation is how hypocritical it is.

In today's 'politically correct' world, a reversal of the situation - a Mexican diner that had a sign saying; "Ésta es América latina. Al ordenar, hable por favor español," would never be subjected to the same level of scrutiny because the left-wing 'thought police' dismiss any criticism of Hispanic culture as 'racist.'

But the very core issue here is not racism on Vento's part - but a refusal to integrate on the part of the disgruntled Spanish speaking customers of Geno's Steaks.

And that isn't an issue restricted to Hispanic immigrants to America.

For any responsible traveller, there is a clear duty to speak the language of the country you're visiting. Nobody goes on holiday to the Costa Del Sol, Mexico, France or Germany without at least attempting to learn a few words of the local language. [I believe British holidaymakers regularly do just that - Editorial Bear] And immigrants especially can't expect to live or do business in a foreign country without some grasp of the lingo.

When I lived and worked in France, I discovered pretty quickly that speaking French was the only way to get things done and be taken seriously. Surely the same rules apply to Spanish-speaking immigrants to America?

Not according to the 'politically correct.'

Neatly ignoring how far they'd get in Tijuana without a bit of Spanish to back them up (not far) apologists in America seem determined to grant Hispanic immigrants (especially the illegal ones) all the benefits of living in America without them meeting us halfway and making some conciliatory gestures (like learning the language and obeying our immigration rules.)

What's worse than that, they're willing to string up innocent, well-intentioned Americans like Joe Vento just for the crime of standing up to them.

America is a nation of immigrants - but a true 'American' immigrant embraces the culture, history and language of the country he intends to call his home.

If an immigrant refuses to learn even the most basic tenants of English (ordering a cheese steak isn't exactly difficult) then one has to accept that the issue isn't whether or not they're welcome in Joe Vento's steakhouse - but whether they belong in the United States at all.

Recent immigrants Militant Ginger and Editorial Bear still live under the misapprehension that American immigration regulations are mandatory.

Lies our pundits tell us...

Mark Levin - Thought talk is cheap? See his advertising rates!

Last night, as I drove home, I inexplicably tuned into SIRIUS Patriot - the right wing talk channel. I ended up listening to conservative New York chat-show host Mark Levin for as long as I could stand him.

His 'radio persona' is a vile, nasal little man with a short fuse and an enormous chip on his shoulder. It makes for compelling listening, due to the disgusting way he handles people who stupidly call into his show:

"It's says here you're a Liberal, Caller. Answer me this... Why do you hate America?"

It's also a bit like listening to fingernails down a blackboard, since Levin's a remarkably inept radio host.

He lines up 'cuts' from various speeches (last night it was Fred Thompson during the Republican debate in Iowa) and when he wants them played, he yells furiously as his producer: 'Cut four! Now!'

It's clear from his tone of voice that he expects the entire radio station to come crumbling down around his ears unless he yells instructions like a German U-Boat commander.

Listening to Mark Levin - whose show is inexplicably highest-rated for the time slot in New York, Chicago, Detroit and Dallas - prompted me to write about my views on the American political spectrum.

Tight Spectrum

When I was young, there was a real political spectrum to enjoy in Britain. On the left, there was the Labour Party - who believed in socialism. On the right, there were the Conservatives, who believed in capitalism. It was as simple as that.

Then Tony Blair came along and convinced the Labour Party to abandon socialism, so we ended up with two political parties trying to occupy the same space on the political spectrum. Even now, over a decade later, the Conservatives are still struggling to work out what their party is and what it stands for these days.

I considered myself a stuffy old Tory, on the right wing of British politics. So I was astounded to arrive in America and have it determined that I was actually a moderate (with a slightly liberal bias.)

While pundits like Mark Levin might accuse the Democratic Party of being 'Marxist' and 'Stalinist,' he's laughably unaware of what it's like to live in a country in which those views actually exist. It seems the entire American political spectrum exists on the right wing of what we're used to in England.

And - speaking as a stuffy old Tory again - that's no bad thing.

Lies our Pundits tell us

Despite the spectrum being tight, people get very passionate about politics in America. The country's divided into two halves, the Liberals and the Conservatives. And in my dispassionate study of these two sides (I'm a moderate, remember) I've decided that I don't really like either of them that much.

It seems a hard-core Liberal or Conservative is fueled by their belief that they are better than the other side. Liberals believe they are more intelligent than Conservatives. Conservatives believe that they are 'morally better' than the Liberals.

And then there are the pundits, like Mark Levin, who make careers out of attacking the other side and spoon feeding their own audience exactly what they want to hear.

Which is, in all essence, a pack of lies.

What astounds me about both the Liberals and the Conservatives are the lies the pundits tell - and how the lies have been repeated so many times, people have started to believe they're actually true.

In explaining this, it's worth pointing out that the term 'Conservative' is pretty synonymous with 'Republican' and Liberals support the Democrats.

Lies Conservatives Tell:

Conservatives represent the working man: This is one Mark Levin likes to spout time and again. Despite the fact that he's a nationally syndicated talk-show host and best-selling author, he still describes himself as a regular 'working man' to his listeners.

But the Conservatives and Republicans are not the party of the blue collar, working man. They may claim to be - and their core support comes from millions of 'red state' Americans who buy into the lies. But it is a lie.

Conservative governments have always supported the big business model, the tax-cuts for the super-rich and the reduction of social programming that leaves the job of 'keeping America truckin'' firmly on the shoulders of the middle and working class.

Take Ronald Reagan - he cut the top tax rate (for the super rich) from 70% to just 28% - but the tax rate on the average man's paycheck actually increased.

Conservatives are fiscally responsible: This is a whopper. Although the likes of political pundit Ann Coulter might claim: "Taxes are like abortion - both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats" the truth is the absolute opposite.

The governments of famous Republicans, like Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr. and his son, George Dubya, have all been times of enormous economic upheaval. Reagan increased the American deficit from $700 billion to a whopping $3 trillion. It was Bill Clinton - a Democrat - who demanded: 'it's about the economy, stupid,' and put the American checkbook back into the black.

Right now, George Bush Jnr is trying to leave a legacy as a 'fiscally conservative' President by vetoing endless programs like the Child Health Care bills.

However, after running America into massive global debt, tipping the country into a recession and bleating for hundreds of billions of dollars in expensive foreign loans to support an unpopular conflict aboard, he is very far from a conservative spender of tax payer's money.

Look at the facts: George Bush Jnr. turned an $86 billion surplus left by Clinton into a $434 billion deficit.

Liberals Hate America: Mark Levin loves this one. Somebody calls up and claims to be a Liberal? Mark yells down the phone line: 'Why do you hate America?'

But Liberals don't hate America. That's just a lie. Sadly, it's been yelled so many times, it's no almost become a truth.

It's like a playground cry. It's just utterly retarded and pathetic. The next time Mark Levin accuses somebody of 'hating America' merely for disagreeing with his right-wing opinions, he deserves a firm slap around the chops.

Liberals Hate the Troops: This is the other half of the Conservative war cry. If Liberals call for an end to the war in Iraq, or question any Republican foreign policy, they're hit with 'you hate the troops!'

In fact, it's the absolute opposite. It's the Conservatives who hate the troops. Or, rather, they don't give two hoots about them. Oh, sure, they might buy 'Support the Troops' ribbons for the back of their cars, but at the end of the day, you've got to be pretty callous to put American troops into harm's way in the first place.

Rightly or wrongly, Conservatives support the war in Iraq and aggressive foreign policy. That policy gets American soldiers killed. Liberals don't support the war in Iraq and want to troops brought home. That saves troop's lives. So at the end of the day, it's pretty clear who’s really on the side of the soldiers.

Now to defend America against the threat of global terrorism, it’s necessary to send American soldiers abroad, into harm's way. But doing that out of anything other that real, vital necessity sends American soldiers to their deaths for no good reason.

And that's the work of people who really 'hate the troops.'

All the 'Support the Troops' bumper stickers in the world won't replace the life of one American soldier killed without a bloody good reason.

Conservatives are 'morally superior' to Liberals: Conservative America enjoys core support in the Christian heartland. Christianity and conservatism are so intertwined, it's often impossible to see the two as anything other than a single entity.

Essential Conservative beliefs, like being against abortion and the rights of gay people, stem from Christian doctrine. The idea of 'family values' and 'decency' and 'morality' are all shields hoisted high by the Conservatives.

Liberals believe in gay rights. Abortion. Sex before marriage. Pornography. All 'evil' and 'immoral' things.

But morality goes beyond Christianity. A system of 'right' and 'wrong' based purely on Christian doctrine is no better than the Sharia law of the Islamic Middle East. In the 21st century, humanity must decide what's right and wrong based on more than the teachings found in a two thousand year old book. After all, millions of Americans aren't Christians.

And, hypocritically, core Conservative beliefs - like supporting capital punishment - seem utterly at odds with what's considered morally 'right' in any case - whether by human terms or from what's found in the bible.

When you hear Conservative Pat Robertson demanding political assassinations in other countries, or Ann Coulter gleefully admit 'I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment' it's difficult not to start worrying that a slice of the political movement that claims 'morally superiority' is actually just morally bankrupt.

The Lie Liberals Tell:

But it's not just the Conservatives who lie. The Liberal agenda plugged by the pundits is also full of half-truths and political porkies. The biggest one is clearly:

Liberals support Free Speech: This isn't always the case. Time and time again, the Liberals have proven that they support free speech up to, but not including, anything deemed 'politically incorrect.'

There's a deep seated and almost fascist agenda for 'thought control' amongst polite Liberal society. Part of the reason it's always the Conservatives spouting the offensive stuff is that the Liberals have a clearly marked scale of what's acceptable and what's not.

And most of it's stuff that's not appropriate in polite company anyway. Attempts to ban use of the 'N-word' (that's the highly offensive racial slur 'nigger') seem kind of redundant since nobody uses that word anymore for the risk of becoming a social pariah.

What's slightly more worrying - and stands up in the face of free speech - is when certain ideas get stifled or censored under Liberal pressure - like city officials trying to stifle San Francisco talk show host Michael Savage when he attacked their scheme to get tax payers to sponsor green card applications for illegal immigrants.

Discussion about the conduct of Muslims, or criticism leveled against the millions of illegal immigrants - both very serious issues concerning American security - is quickly slapped down with the cry of 'racist!'

'Racist!' is the Liberal equivalent of 'You hate America!' It's a discussion ender - a firm indication that the opposing party isn't interested in acknowledging differing opinions.

Gun Control Prevents Gun Crime: It seems an entirely logical proposition - ban the private ownership of handguns and gun crime will fall. The Liberals have been bleating this as long as the Conservatives have been bleating: 'Guns don't kill people... People kill people."

But the sad, documented fact is that it's not true.

Now, I'm no fan of private gun ownership and certainly don't understand why anybody who believes in the Second Amendment needs to keep more than one rifle over the fireplace (which is surely what the founding fathers envisaged when they wrote it.)

However, the facts have shown that gun crime actually increases in places with stringent gun control. Like in New Jersey, in 1966, some of the most stringent handgun ownership laws were put in place and the murder rate shot up overnight by 46%.

In 1976, Washington D.C. adopted an incredibly strict handgun ban (pretty much banning them in the city.) Yet this led to a 136% rise in the murder rate, while nationally, the number of murders actually dropped by 2%.

There are two facts responsible for this truth.

Firstly, that 15% of all handguns in America are unlicensed and unregistered - banning handguns does not take these weapons out of circulation. Given that almost all gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons, it's clear to see that banning private gun ownership does nothing to address the root cause of the gun crime problem.

Secondly, private gun ownership is a deterrent. Compared to the United Kingdom, the burglary rate in the United States is a drop in the ocean. People don't rob houses here the same way they do in countries with strict gun control. Why? Because residents own guns and the law is on their side if they shoot dead a trespasser on their property.

In a country with a 'wild west' mentality, private gun ownership actually protects people. Yet the Liberals do everything they can to distort the facts and bleat the same anti-gun mantra over and over again.

Illegal Immigrants are not a problem: This is a subject I feel very strongly about. Having worked and sacrificed for the chance to 'make my fortune' in America, I resent the millions of people who come here illegally.

I chose to come to America. I chose to abide by America's laws and live within the bounds of it's incredibly diverse culture. I chose to contribute to the workforce and the tax-pile. I chose to live as an American because I deeply respect the history and mentality of this great nation.

And illegal immigrants don't.

They don't abide by immigration laws - and therefore criminal and civil laws are equally meaningless to them. They can't get driving licenses, insurance or inspections - so they go without and leave the costs of injuries and accidents to the tax-paying American people.

In one county upstate, a whopping 25% of all criminals arrested turned out to be illegal immigrants. Across America, the entire nation is forced to become bilingual. Essential costs the average American has to shoulder - like healthcare, local taxes and schooling fees - creep ever upwards as undocumented workers use civil services without contributing to them.

Illegal immigration from 'south of the border' is the greatest threat to the cultural, financial and institutional stability of the United States of America. But just like an alcoholic's 'elephant in the living room,' no Liberal will dare address the issue.

Because calling it out is akin to racism. And racism - just like the Conservative cry of 'You Hate America' - is that blanket protest that stifles all free expression.

Liberals are more intelligent than Conservatives: Like it or not, there is bias in the Liberal media to pigeonhole Conservatives. They're either the big, greedy, corporate 'fat cats' or, more likely, they're the poor working-class folk who 'foolishly' vote for Conservative politicians.

And this bias is easy to see. Turn on a sitcom or political satire show and any footage of President Bush doing something dumb (of which there are countless clips) is usually followed by a Liberal rolling his eyes, considering which 'chumps' voted for the man.

A common Liberal cry is: 'We didn't vote for him!' which neatly opens up the fact that, in the 2004 election, 51% of the American population DID vote for George W. Bush.

Cue the map of the United States which shows the guilty party - the 'red' states.

Yes, Liberals consider themselves smarter than 'red staters.' And on the whole, just like Conservatives generally consider themselves the 'moral superiors' to Liberals, Liberals generally consider themselves the intellectual superiors to their Conservative cohorts - and not without some reason. 49% of self-confessed Liberals are college educated.

However, the average Conservative-voting 'red stater' isn't dumb. Not by any means. They're voters who care about having low taxes, a secure country, a job to go to and a politician who goes to church and seems to represent the same values as they do.

That's not dumb by any means. In fact, that's kind of smart.

Liberals can claim to be more intellectual that Conservatives - but it's just arrogant to pretend they're smarter.

In Conclusion

Remarkably, the people who decide elections and control the electoral process in the United States are neither the Liberals or the Conservatives.

It's actually the people like me - the 'undecided' moderates who support a side depending on circumstance, rather than ideology.

And the problem with the hard-line positions Liberals and Conservatives take is that they alienate more and more of the people they should be reaching out for.

If I visit a right-wing website and comment on the issue of gay rights, so something equally innocuous, I'm derided as a 'Libtard.' When I go to a Liberal site and point out the flaws in the gun-control issue, I'm labelled a 'neocon Repuke.'

Personally, I think 'bugger the both of them.'


Ann Coulter, that gorgeous but utterly hateful pundit, sums up the opinions of right and left best:

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

Whereas, in reality, the swing voters are really the only ones who are capable of making their minds up for themselves. The Liberals and Conservatives are so blinded by their dreary dogma that they'd support ideas they oppose just to prevent an 'opposition' member getting the edge.

The next presidential election will be won by the man (or woman) who wins over the most swing voters. The likes of Ann Coulter have already disenfranchised themselves by refusing to be more open minded to other people's opinions.

And based on the lies spouted by pundits from both sides of the political spectrum, I know one of the most important values I'll need to see in a potential president will be honesty.

Kosovo

Poor old Kosovo.

Since 1999, this little province of Serbia has been under United Nations administration. The vast majority of the Kosovo population - up to 90% by some estimates - are ethnic Albanians and want to secede from Serbia and become their own ruling country.

In theory, this is fair enough. The vast majority of the population want to break free from Serbian rule and when you're talking about such a vast percentage of the population, it's kind of reasonable to bow to democracy.

However, two obstacles stand in their way.

Firstly, the United Nations made Resolution 1244 in 1999, which said that Kosovo could not become an independent country without their thumbs up.

Secondly, Serbia itself is fiercely opposed to letting it's province break away. It's taken brutal military action in the past to ensure that Kosovo remains under their jurisdiction.

Serbia's obsession with Kosovo dates back. Way back.

The Battle of Kosovo

It was actually the Battle of Kosovo, in the year 1389, that really set this whole unfortunate situation up. Until that time, Kosovo was part of a medieval Serbian state and her population was made up of Slavic Serbs. However, the advancing armies of the Ottoman Empire had their eye on this prize piece of land and in 1389, the armies of Prince Lazar of Serbia and Sultan Murad of the Ottoman Empire clashed to decide possession.

The Ottoman's outnumbered the Serbs two-to-one and scattered the defending army. Prince Lazar himself fell to Ottoman swords. However, defeat was not total. A cunning Serbian knight, Miloš Obilić, assassinated Sultan Murad just after the battle, leaving a vacuum at the head of the opposing army.

The battle of Kosovo left the region in the hands of the Ottoman Empire. However, they'd regrouped after Murad's death and a small portion of Kosovo remained under the leadership of the Serbian House of Branković, which was little more than a vassal state under de facto Turkish authority.

Following the Battle

Kosovo remained firmly in Ottoman hands for the next five hundred years. However, the Serbs never forgot the crushing defeat of 1389 and talk had always been of one day reclaiming what they saw as Serbian territory.

In fact, Serbia had made sporadic strikes into Ottoman territory throughout the last decades of the 19th century. In 1912, under the united banner of the Balkan League (along with Montenegro Bulgaria and Greece,) they moved forward in a united push. The Kingdom of Serbia reconquered Kosovo.

However, the demographics of their prize left it hard to hold onto. The vast majority of the population was Muslim, loyal to the Ottoman Empire. The only option was a powerful surge of recolonization, matching the Albanian population with Serbs loyal to the Kingdom.

What followed was a rather brutal period of ethnic cleansing, with ethnic Albanians driven from Kosovo's towns and cities and replaced by Serbs. This was seen as 'revenge' for the 1389 Battle of Kosovo (as any James bond fan will know, the Eastern Europeans have long memories.)

So with a larger Serb population in place and Serbian troops stationed to enforce sovereignty, the Conference of Ambassadors in London (in some ways, a forerunner to the UN) acknowledged Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo.

World War I

And that should have been the end of the story, but it wasn't.

The outbreak of World War I changed everything. Serbian troops, fighting against the Austro-Hungarian Empire - were forced to retreat from Kosovo territory. This enabled the Albanians, who joined the fight in support of the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, to surge into Kosovo and 'liberate' it from the Serbians.

And it was liberation, no doubt about that. The vast majority in Kosovo was still ethnic Albanian and they heralded the 'invasion' with cheers.

It wasn't until the end of the war, in 1918, that the crippled Serbian army had recovered sufficiently to press home a counter attack.

Unable to count on the support of the Central Powers, who were themselves battling the British, French and Russian armies, the Albanians retreated and Serbs once again swept into Kosovo - committing countless atrocities and ethnic cleansing to once again lay claim to this war torn province.

Following the War

The peace treaties that ended World War I saw Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia (including Kosovo) united in a great Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

While Yugoslavia was a largely Serbian/Slavic state, the territory of Kosovo still consisted of an 80% Albanian population. In 1921, they begged the League of Nations to allow them to secede from Yugoslavia and join their countrymen as part of Albania. This request was refused and the Serbs identified Kosovo as a troublesome province that needed sorting out.

This 'sorting out' consisted of even more colonization and ethnic cleansing.

Land and housing was roughly appropriated from the Albanian population and an estimated 150,000 Albanian Muslims were forced from Kosovo soil. Vasa Cubrilovic, a Serbian intellectual, was the father of this plan - a simple solution to reduce the Albanian population of the territory by simply deporting them.

World War Two

The Serb/Kosovo conflict played an important part in the treatment of the territory during World War II.

The Nazis swept into Serbia from the north and the fascist Italians, under Mussolini, conquered Albania and Kosovo in vengeance for the Italian army's defeat at their hands in 1920.

Soviet Influence

Following the defeat of Germany and Italy at the hands of the Allies, Kosovo was once again clumped with Serbia in another European restructuring. The parliament of the newly reconstructed Yugoslavia then democratically elected a communist ruling party and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was born.

Although at first allied with the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia remained an independent communist state following president Josip Broz Tito's falling out with Stalin.

As part of his regime, Tito planned to end the hundreds of years of ethnic antagonism between Serb and Albanian by way of his Brotherhood and Unity policy - the belief that all Yugoslav ethnicities should be recognized as equal national groups and coexist peacefully in the federation.

What followed was a relatively blissful time for Kosovo. Although part of Yugoslavia, their province was pretty much autonomous and the Albanian population even had independent Albanian-speaking schools and universities to reinforce their cultural identity.

In fact, the living and economic prospects and freedoms the Albanians enjoyed in Kosovo were so good that actual Albanians fled their post-war People's Republic to come to Kosovo!

The rise of Slobodan Milošević

Tito's successful regime was based partly on his policy of subjugating the Serbian majority. While Kosovo was made up of an Albanian population, Serbs themselves made up the majority of Yugoslavia's 12 million residents and it was only by reducing their influence that the Brotherhood and Unity policy could work.

Within Yugoslavia itself, Serbia was as autonomous as Kosovo - recognized as a Republic. This led the Serbian leaders to start questioning their place in the Yugoslavian federation. In 1986, the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (SANU) decided that Serbia was contributing more than her fair share.

It was Kosovo that angered them. Since they'd started enjoying the fruits of Tito's regime, the government in Kosovo had been strengthening the position of the Albanian majority by firing Serbs from positions in government and industry. The Serbs living in Kosovo rebelled and protested.

This led a relatively unknown communist party member, Slobodan Milošević, to travel from the Republic of Serbia to meet with the Kosovo Serbs and see if he could quell their anger. There, he witnessed Kosovo police beating the protesting Serbs.

In an impromptu speech that won him the support of Serbs on both sides of the border, Milošević was seen on the Serbian evening news announcing to the Kosovan Serbs: "No one should dare to beat you again!"

He followed his new-found popularity by returning to the Serbia and organizing a coup d'etat. Slobodan Milošević became president of the Serbian Republic and leader of Yugoslavia.

Kosovo under Milošević

The regime change in Kosovo was brutal.

It went beyond countering discrimination of Serbs by the ethnic Albanians. When Milošević took power, he immediately revoked the autonomy of Kosovo and replaced her leaders with his own men - strengthening his position in Yugoslavia.

The Province of Kosovo lost it's government and political institutions. Albanian language media, such as the newspaper Rilindja and radio and television broadcasts in Albanian, were banned outright.

Serbian troops replaced the police and security forces. The Albanian-language university was disbanded, throwing over 20,000 students onto the streets. All the sovereignty and identity Kosovo had enjoyed since 1945 was eliminated overnight.

Kosovo became a police state - so tightly controlled by the Serbs that 80% of the Albanians found themselves unable to find work. Families were faced with starvation under Milošević’s rule.

The Fall of Communism

Meanwhile, as the Berlin Wall fell and communism ended across Eastern Europe, there was common cry throughout the other republics that made up the Federation of Yugoslavia. They wanted independence.

In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia both broke from the Yugoslav Federation, to be closely followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Slobodan Milošević strongly opposed this succession and what followed was a brutal period of violence and bloodshed known as the Yugoslav Wars.

The Battle for Independence

In order to regain control of these errant territories, Slobodan Milošević equipped Croatian and Bosnian Serbs (who made up a minority in their respective republics) with supplies, weapons, money and leadership in order to combat their governments and prevent each nation's independence.

It was a bloody struggle. Milošević's Serbs fought with ferocity and brutality. Their tactics were violent and inhuman - in Bosnia, for example, Serbs ruthlessly massacred 8,000 boys and men in the town of Srebrenica just to avoid them possibly fighting for independence.

In the end, it took the UN and NATO bombardment to quell the atrocities the Serbs were committing and bring about the independence of Bosnia and Croatia.

Kosovo Seeks Freedom

The success of the breakaway Bosnia and Croatia inspired Kosovo to break free from Milošević's oppressive rule as well. In 1995, Albanians organized into the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and launched a bitter campaign of bombings and murders against Serbian police and civilians living in Kosovo territory.

It was a situation that mirrors struggles for independence throughout the ages. To the people of Kosovo, the KLA were Freedom Fighters. To the people of Serbia, they were terrorists.

The Serbian response was brutal. In 1997, as the KLA grew in strength, Serbian police responded to attacks by killing dozens of civilians, both women and children. Over 300,000 Albanians were 'displaced' by the Serb forces. Tens of thousands of Albanians fled to the woods, where they faced a bitter winter without adequate food or shelter. Serbian security forces committed atrocities, murdering hundreds of civilians as they fought the KLA.

But after the successful independence of Croatia and Bosnia, it was difficult for Milošević to retain control of the disputed territory. The United States did not recognize the KLA as a terrorist organization and the US envoy, Richard Holbrooke, was photographed with KLA members, further strengthening the independence movement's legitimacy.

As more and more atrocities emerged, the United Nations offered Milošević a deal. Stop the military action in Kosovo or watch American bombers reduce Belgrade to rubble.

When Milošević failed to negotiate, the bombing started. The goal of NATO was clear - to get Serb forces out of Kosovo, to bring United Nations peacekeeping forces in and to allow the hundreds of thousands of Albanian refugees back home.

But Milošević did not go down easy. Serbs stepped up their campaign of ethnic cleansing, killing hundreds and driving almost a million Albanians from their homes. They called it Operation Horseshoe - a deliberate plan to ensure the 'Serbinization' of Kosovo by driving the ethnic Albanian population out.

It was only after continued bombardment that Milošević surrendered. His Serbian forces withdrew and a UN Peacekeeping Force, backed by NATO troops, entered Kosovo to help bring stability and peace.

As American tanks rolled into Kosovo, the grateful Albanian population, both young and old alike, greeted the NATO troops by cheering and throwing flowers.

The Aftermath

As the smoke cleared, UN Security Council passed Resolution 1244 - placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration until her fate could be determined.

Bruised and bloodied, Slobodan Milošević tried to consolidate his position in Yugoslavia by calling early elections - and ordering his security forces to assassinate his political opponents.

However, when the opposition party won the first round of elections, Milošević rejected the decision and in doing so, sparked 'The Bulldozer Revolution,' which saw his regime collapse. His back-up plan, a brutal coup d'etat, was foiled when the Army commanders he'd counted on to support his regime refused to support him.

Vojislav Koštunica took the presidency - and without the immunity of the highest office, Yugoslav officials arrested Milošević and delivered him to the United Nations, where he was charged with the atrocities committed by his Serbian forces during the Yugoslav and Kosovo wars.

He died from a heart attack in the detention centre of The Hague.

The Future of Kosovo

For almost eight years now, Kosovo has been under the authority of the United Nations - and during that time, the population has continued to demand independence from Serbia.

While the international community generally acknowledges Serbia's sovereignty over the province, there is widespread sympathy for Kosovo. The vast majority of the population is not Serbian and has no ties to that country. After Croatia and Bosnia successfully battled for independence, it seems grossly unfair that this small province should be denied the same right.

But there's more at stake than just the future of the ethnic Albanians.

Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia and a fellow Slavic nation, is battling her own independence problem in breakaway states such as Chechnya. If the United Nations was to accept Kosovo's right to breakaway from Serbia and become independent, it would put great pressure on Russia to allow member states to do the same.

In addition, there are still Serbs living in Kosovo. If the country did become independent, Serbia would most likely send troops to protect the minority population still living there. As recently as the 1980s, the ethnic Albanian population has show itself just as capable of discrimination as the Serbs.

Right now, there's stalemate.

The Americans and British are backing Kosovo's independence, which is clearly the right thing to do. Kosovo has a long and bloody history as a pawn between greater powers. The nation deserves an independent run.

However, the Russia we see now is very different from that which gave grudging support to the UN in the days of Milošević. Premier Vladamir Putin is harboring a warm nostalgia amongst his people for the days of Communism - it's been just long enough for them to have forgotten what it was like really like living under the regime of the Hammer and Sickle.

Putin knows that the future of his country hands in the balance. The decision of the UN will either support or break apart his fragile hold on member states with itchy feet. Now that Russia has regained some of her former clout, this ruthless KGB officer will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the UN plays the game on his terms.

Kosovo itself in a betting chip in a newly reenacted battle between East and West.