America is a Secular Nation

If you repeat a lie often enough, it almost becomes the truth.

One such lie is: "The United States was founded on Christian Principles!"

This 'misconception' is often touted as truth by conservative Christians. It appeals to the more evangelical of them. Popular history paints the pilgrims as pious and protestant and it's affirming for conservatives to believe there is a direct link between the beliefs they hold today and the beliefs of the people who built the American nation.

But however affirming and appealing the idea is, it remains a lie.

America is a secular nation, founded on secular principles. All it takes to dispel the fantasy of America's 'Judeo-Christian roots' is to open a history book.

America's Secular Roots

Conservative Christians often argue that the founding fathers themselves - as devout Christians - would have incorporated their faith when penning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The problem is, the founding fathers weren't necessarily devout - or even Christian. This is just an assumption conservatives make because the founding fathers lived during the tail-end of the eighteenth century.

In fact, out of the 55 delegates at the Philadelphia Convention (who we now refer to as the 'Founding Fathers') many belonged to no particular Christian affiliation at all.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, was a confirmed atheist. He penned the 'Jefferson Bible' which removed all superstition and supernatural references from the Bible. It presented the story of Jesus as if he was just a wise, yet mortal man - similar to how I've come to consider the story of the New Testament.

George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine wrote extensively against organised religion and many of the 'Christian values' conservatives claim America was founded on.

Franklin, Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen were deists - believing that if there was a heavenly creator, he did not come to mankind through religion, but by granting man the gift of rationality and reason.

In short - the founding fathers were not all pious Christians. In fact, the most American of Americans (like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin) would be horrified at 21st century evangelical superstition.

The Proof - On Paper

If there are any lingering doubts about the secular background of many of the founding fathers, it's worth looking at the documents they penned. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are clearly and indisputably secular in nature.

The "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle people - not a Christian God.

"The Creator" grants all men "with certain unalienable Rights." Not God. Not Jesus. In fact, not not necessarily a deity at all. Just that which has created man.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by no less than Thomas Jefferson as "a wall of separation between church and state." This clearly establishes that the foundation of the United States of America took place entirely independently of any religious considerations.

Further irrefutable proof

If that mountain of evidence is not enough to satisfy the more rabid conservative Christian, the following will. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by the founding fathers without any discussion, debate or opposition, states the following firmly in black and white:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

These words were written by - and signed into law by - the founding fathers of the United States. The 55 delegates who created the American nation - comprising atheists, deists, protestants and catholics amongst them - were unified on this important principle.

The United States has was never founded on Christian principles. Anybody who tells you differently is either ignorant - or a liar.

An Empty Room

After believing in God for nearly thirty years, I sometimes find it difficult to shake off some the old habits I used to have back in my 'faithful' days.

Like when faced with adversity - which could mean some life threatening crisis, or just hoping Tina doesn't discover I spilt candle-wax on the carpet - I often retreat into myself to that little imaginary room where I used to speak to God.

Except, of course, it's empty.

I find it very strange that my faith in God has completely evaporated, yet that room still remains. As an amateur psychologist [Since when were you an amateur psychologist? - Editorial Bear] I imagine everybody has this empty room in their heads and as people grow up, they fill it with whatever symbol of faith gives them comfort (or they're ruthlessly indoctrinated with.)

I'm going to stick a bookshelf in mine. Full of science and history books.

The Social Security Money-Pit

Being brought up as a child of the Thatcher government, I've never really considered Britain a socialist country - although that's what it's labelled by many Americans.

It's Anglicised 'socialism' that's proving to be the crux of the upcoming presidential election, with both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton advocating British-style programs to care for certain American citizens, while John McCain and the Republican party continue to advocate a completely privatized system.

It's a tough sell for McCain & Co. Universal access to adequate health care is clearly the cornerstone of a 'civilised' society and whether you believe in public or private health care, it's difficult to argue that the current system isn't in need of a serious overhaul.

The other 'tough sell' is Social Security. Developed by President Roosevelt after the great depression, Social Security is a mandatory payment by working citizens into a federal fund, which supplies the retired and disabled with a pension.

Many Republicans want this abolished, leaving citizens responsible for paying into their own retirement programs. Most Democrats, on the other hand, want Social Security expanded, to cover more people and offer more benefits.

On the face of it, the Democrats have a much stronger argument. After all, if somebody's paid into Social Security for their entire life, why shouldn't they receive a pension upon retirement? And if a person becomes disabled, isn't it the government's duty to pay their costs of living?

Whatever argument the Republicans come up with to counter this proposal makes them sound callous and uncaring. However, there is one uncomfortable nugget of truth in their argument that Democrats and Liberals are increasingly wary of acknowledging.

Social Security doesn't work.

In theory, Social Security is just a government-funded pension scheme. Workers pay in 12% of their income every paycheque and that money is invested in a 'fund' which generates enough revenue (from interest and investments) to pay for that worker's retirement after thirty or forty years of payments.

It's exactly how a modern day 401k system works - except for a couple of serious issues.

The return on the invested money is considerably less. An average American investing $285,000 dollars into Social Security over the course of his life (about average for somebody earning $60,000 a year) will receive a pension of $2,200 a month upon retirement. If that same $285,000 had been invested in a private high-grade corporate bond, the monthly return could conservatively be estimated at $7,400 a month.

The interest bearing 'fund' has already been spent. Or, at least, that's what Economist Thomas Sowell suggests - arguing that the retirement pensions of the first generation of Social Security contributors is actually being paid for by the contributions of the second generation. The money that should have been in trust - developing interest to pay for future Social Security payments - has actually been borrowed in the form of Government Bonds. This causes a problem when the 'Baby Boom' generation retires and the Social Security contributions of the 'next generation' are only able to cover 75% of the expected costs.

The Money Pit

Social Security Board of Trustees issued their annual report on Tuesday which outlined this exact problem. By 2017, the income from the current Social Security payments American workers make will fall below the cost of the pensions Social Security has promised to pay out.

In short, those of us planning to retire after 2017 will either have to accept a smaller pension payment - or be prepared to pay more taxes.

And if that sounds bad enough, it gets worse. With advances in medicine and science, the demographic gap between retired Americans and working ones is increasing - meaning the diminishing Social Security investment will have to be spread across a widening group of retirees.

It's absolutely unsustainable. In fact, to pay the pensions of retiring Americans at their current rate, Social Security payments will have to be increased by 300%! That means the average working American will see an instantaneous tax increase of 12.4% - and a self-employed American will technically be required to pay an additional 24.8%.

The only other alternative is to pay out less upon retirement - further widening the disparity between private investment (through a 401k scheme) and the money you get back from a lifetime paying into Social Security.

Democrats Lose

Alarmingly, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton seem to be addressing this alarming issue. In fact, Clinton has made it very clear that she wants to expand both Social Security and Medicare.

On the surface of it, that appeals to a lot of Americans - more pension money. More health care benefits. But it will come at the cost of increasing income taxes - dramatically.

For most working Americans, Social Security is not longer a realistic plan for the future. Unless they invest more of their own money into a private 401k scheme, there will simply not be enough money in the Social Security fund to give them a livable pension.

The Alternative...

For many people - myself included - it would seem to be far more sensible and profitable to take the 12.4 percent paid into Social Security (half by you, half by your employer) and pay it directly into your 401k (where an additional 6% of my income already goes.)

That way, you can maximise the effectiveness of your investment (if the earlier example holds true) winding up with three or four times the monthly pension that you would through Social Security alone.

In addition, if you could invest 12.4% of your income privately, into a 401k that would actually give you a decent return on your money, you might not need to do what millions of Americans (including myself) do and supplement your Social Security retirement 'plan' by investing a further 6% of your income privately. That's 6% to spend elsewhere adding up to thousands of dollars a year.

...and why it's not viable

As rosy as this option sounds, it's not viable for several reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, the inefficiencies of the current Social Security system mean that our Social Security payments are required to pay for the retiring Baby Boomers. In fact, these payments won't even add up to 73% of the promised payments the Baby Boom generation is expecting - so Social Security payments have to continue - or possibly increase - even though they're not contributing to our future retirement at all!

Secondly, what the Social Security system lacks in return-on-investment, it at least offers in stability (in theory.) Recent financial disasters like Enron and Bear Stearns show that even low-risk investment portfolios do carry some risk. In the private sector, if a lifetime's investment is wiped out overnight, there's nobody you can go running to.

• That being said, if the government's habit of dipping into the Social Security trust had been copied in a private company, the 'dippers' would be facing lengthy jail-terms, rather than reelection.)
• That additionally being said, the fact that Social Security is due to go into the red by 2017 suggests that investment in government Social Security is no safer - perhaps even less so - than putting money into a private investment portfolio.)

Thirdly, the mandatory Social Security payments make sure every American worker is investing in their retirement (even if they get terrible return on their investment.) If American workers had 12% of their income freed up in order to invest in their future... who's to say they would?

It's exactly the same problem that plagues the health care system. Almost 50 million Americans are without health insurance - ostensibly because they can't afford it. How long would it be after Social Security was privatised before millions of Americans started claiming they couldn't afford to invest in their pension schemes, either?

Whether or not they can afford healthcare, they can afford to invest 12.4% of their payroll into a pension scheme - they do so already because the Social Security payments are compulsory. But if payroll taxes were abolished and somebody had the option of spending money or not, many would choose not - resulting in a sizable chunk of people descending into poverty when they hit 65.

THIS is the real Achilles heel of privatised Social Security. The fact that some people are far too bloody stupid to actually take it seriously.

So where does that leave us?

Roll the dice. Take your chances. Whichever way you look at it, the future of Social Security is very grim indeed.

Currently, Social Security is a cash-gobbling monster headed directly into debt. In less than a decade, either the Baby Boomers or the American 9-to-5'er (or both) are going to feel a firm fiscal pinch. Somebody is not going to get what they were promised - either in the size of their Social Security cheque or the amount of tax rudely hacked from their paycheque.

The reality is, Social Security no longer offers anybody a secure future. For my generation, Social Security deductions are basically just another form of income tax. We receive no benefit for them whatsoever. Unless we invest the rest of our paycheque into a 401k scheme, there is little hope of ever receiving an adequate pension from Social Security.

Social Security is already effectively privatised.

When are Hillary and Obama going to admit that?

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

"Pound for pound, minute for minute, Elizabeth: The Golden Age could possibly contain more sustained church-bashing than any other film I can think of. How is it possible that this orgy of anti-Catholicism has been all but ignored by most critics?" Steven D. Greydanus, National Catholic Register

You know what they say... If something's controversial, chances are it's good.

And although Elizabeth: The Golden Age didn't register as anti-Catholic propaganda with me, it did prove to be a hugely entertaining historical adventure about one of the most thrilling chapters in English history.

The Golden Age

Made almost a decade after the academy award-winning Elizabeth, Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a sumptuous sequel that's starkly different to it's predecessor.

The first film was introspective and largely character driven, chronicling the early reign of Queen Elizabeth. In contrast, The Golden Age takes place further into Elizabeth's reign - when it was not just conspiracy her nation faced - but outright invasion.

The plot of The Golden Age is suitably more epic, climaxing in an sumptuously rendered battle between the Spanish Armada and the embattled English fleet.

Elizabeth the Queen

The climax of the first film saw Elizabeth hack off her flaming red hair and become reborn as the 'Virgin Queen' of England. It's this cold, aloof and desperately lonely woman that we follow throughout The Golden Age - played with precision by a sublime Cate Blanchett.

Her portrayal of Elizabeth illustrates the conflict between Elizabeth the woman - intensely vain and vulnerable, living vicariously through her trusted lady-in-waiting Elizabeth Throckmorton - and Elizabeth the Queen - a magnificent, decisive and powerful leader who was the equal of any man.

Blanchett's portrayal is pitch perfect. Her Elizabeth is both sympathetic and terrifying - one minute alarmed at her crows-feet and fading beauty - the next leading a charge across the white cliffs of Dover to give her troops a stirring speech worthy of Churchill himself.

The rest of the cast is solid as well, with Geoffrey Rush reprising his role as Elizabeth's confident Sir Francis Walsingham - while Clive Owen is a slightly cocky Sir Walter Raleigh, winning Elizabeth's heart while simultaneously bedding her favourite lady-in-waiting (the delicious Abbie Cornish.)

The cinematography is sumptuous. Glorious English landmarks (such as Winchester Cathedral) stand in for seemingly mundane locations (like Elizabeth's bath-chamber and bedroom.) The costumes are magnificent, too - even more so than the first film. Careful attention to detail brings the Elizabethan era vividly to life on-screen.

The violent climax is thrilling - rendered almost like a painting-come-to-life through powerful CGI effects.

All in all, Elizabeth: The Golden Age is a real treat of a film. As with most historical dramas, the actual facts don't always match up with what happens in the script, but what historical liberties have been taken seem to have contributed to the overall look and feel of the film, rather than detracted from it.

As the credits rolled, I found myself thinking that I'd enjoyed The Golden Age far more than the original Elizabeth. It's rare than a sequel manages to prove better than the first film, but The Golden Age managed to do so by building on the first movie's solid foundations.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age is available on DVD now.

The Tudors - Season One

Many people think history isn't sexy - unless you make it sexy.

Which is probably why Showtime's new historical melodrama, The Tudors, winds up looking more like a renaissance-themed GQ photo shoot than a gritty historical drama chronicling the life of a young Henry VIII.

Not that it isn't good - or wildly entertaining. It's just seeing handsome, nut-brown young men with à la mode crew-cuts and carefully waxed chests suggests that the producers felt more commitment to aesthetics than history. However good it gets, The Tudors is always going to end up looking more like Beverley Hills 90210 than A Man for All Seasons.

But looking past the absurdly anachronistic pearly-white teeth and San Tropez tans, The Tudors is a pretty solid slice of entertainment. The Henry VIII we all know - the obese redheaded man with a ginger beard and six wives - started out life as a dashing, handsome young King and it's these formative years which provide the focus for this series.

It's not very historically accurate. Wild liberties are taken with certain events (such as merging the identities of Henry's two real-life elder sisters into a single character, Princess Margaret - or making the character of acclaimed composer Thomas Tallis bisexual.) However, the spirit of the series remains pure - reminding us all that Henry VIII was once considered a sexy young stud and a powerful and decisive leader.


In some ways, The Tudors is perfectly marketed towards fans of the renaissance lifestyle - the people who attend the Renaissance Faires and dress up in historical outfits. Just like their embrace of 'Creative Anachronism,' the world The Tudors inhabit seems to be the middle ages as they were meant to be - free of bubonic plague, open sewers and poor personal hygiene.

So if you want to enjoy a medieval melodrama, you can't go far wrong with The Tudors. It's sexy, exciting and fun. However, if you're looking for a history lesson on DVD, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.

The Tudors, Season One, is available now on DVD.

Tina and the Bunny

In a fit of bravado, I decided to go for a stroll today, and walked through the park up to where Tina works (at the local book store.)

I was greeted by a six feet tall bunny by the name of 'Nut Brown.'

'Nut Brown' was the special Easter Bunny and star of Guess How Much I Love You by Sam McBratney and illustrated by Anita Jeram.


It was Tina's job to entertain a floor full of expectant kids by regaling them with the story of Nut Brown the Bunny (accompanied by the appropriate hand movements) and she managed to keep a room full of children spellbound for fifteen minutes (while crafty parents took a quick break from supervising their little troublemakers!)

Notes from a film set...

We hold these film-shoot truths to be self evident:

1. That the most attractive woman around is always, without fail, the makeup artist.
2. That the people who order the salads and wraps for lunch always scoff their face with chicken fingers and fried mozzarella sticks.
3. That nothing baring electric shocks or psychotropic drugs can make an unwilling twelve year old smile.
4. That there's nothing unfunny about a makeup artist yelling: "I'm just going to go and touch-up the kids!" (Touch-up their makeup, that is.)
5. That a good director can make genius look effortless.

I am driving a minivan...

I am driving a minivan...

Not from choice, mind you. Tomorrow, I'm script-supervisor at a film shoot and have also been delegated the responsibility of taking one of the 'stars' to the set. That 'star' is a three-ton monstrosity the Dodge motor company whimsically call 'Caravan.'

Swapping my Firebird for a Caravan - even if it's only for a day or two - reminds me worryingly of the responsibilities that lie ahead and how some of the boyish things you've coveted since childhood (in my case, a bloody great, unsophisticated sportscar) might have to be sacrificed for the 'greater good' of an expanding family unit.

And although I am an unrepentant atheist, the familiarity I have developed with the Bible (all the better to quash a believer's flawed arguments, m'dear) made me immediately think of something Paul said in Corinthians:

When I became a man, I put away childish things. Chapter 13, verse 11

My questions is: Do we ever truly put away childish things?

Although the last decade has seen me grow up, develop emotionally and learn from quite astonishingly varied experience (deported much?) I really don't feel any more 'grown up' than I was when I was twenty.

And some of the 'grown up' choices I've made haven't exactly been because I felt more adult in making them. Like, for example, I gave up playing video games. Not because I'd grown out of them - just because I wanted to use my shrinking allotment of free-time for writing, drawing or other juvenile projects instead.

I still think like a teenager. My wife constantly reminds me that I sometimes act like a teenager. Sometimes, it's hard to understand why your parents had managed to grow up by the time they reached your age and you haven't.

But coming to America has somewhat softened that thought. Here in the states, boyhood is an extended process - and cyclical. There are plenty of people my age who still shamelessly act like they're teenagers - and the 'grown up' ones occasionally have a mid life crisis, shed their family unit and wholeheartedly embrace the single lifestyle all over again at 45 (only to be disappointed when they can no longer pick up twenty year old girls.)

In Britain, the 'grown ups' I've known (especially the ones my age) always seemed so poised and perfect. But living in America has made me suspect that they're full of it. Nobody really grows up. The staid and sensible thirty-something Brits are no more 'grown up' than I am. They're just better at acting like it.

Petite Anglaise

Although blogs are a great way to make friends online and keep your parents and friends up-to-date with your adventures, it's fairly obvious that the most dedicated (i.e. self important) of us bloggers are sometimes out there just to make a name for ourselves.

Which is why the success of bloggers-turned-authors like Belle Du Jour can be both frustrating, yet strangely affirming.

The latest blog-into-book is the blog of 35 year old expat Petite Anglaise.

Catherine Sanderson, under the nom de souris Petite Anglaise, started her blog in 2004, inspired by the likes of Belle Du Jour (which leads me to suspect that she harboured a certain self-publicist streak right from the very beginning!)

It started off as the amusing anecdotes of a British woman living and working in France, dutiful wife to 'Mr Frog' and loving mother to the bilingual baby 'Tadpole.'

But within a year of starting her blog, Sanderson shifted the focus of her writing away from the amusing expat experience (like her recommendations for working with FFs (French Females) to a more introspective and personal journal. This chronicled the breakdown of her marriage and her relationship with a new man she met in the comments section of her blog.

Her blogging continued it's surprising twists and turns when her boss uncovered Sanderson's candid chronicles - and swiftly gave her the boot (not the first time a blogger has been canned for their online antics.)

Taking her employer to court for wrongful dismissal, Catherine Sanderson picked up a £30,000 settlement, as well as a tornado of media interest promoting her story (and her blog) in British and French national newspapers. It even earned her a place on Richard and Judy's well-worn pastel sofa.

And just like that, Sanderson earned the happy-ending all blogger's secretly fantasise about. The media whirlwind inspired Michael Joseph (an imprint of Penguin) to publish her blog. We'll finally see the adventures of Petite Anglaise hit the bookshelves this June.


Bookish Blogging

Seeing the success of a blogger like Petite Anglaise can inspire conflicting emotions amongst us 'undiscovered' bloggers.

In some ways, it's incredibly exciting to see a fellow blogger make 'the big time' through their online exploits. But it's also rather frustrating to see somebody else succeed when your blog still languishes in relative obscurity.

However, skirting the emotional issues, it's clear to see why Catherine Sanderson's blog succeeded where others (such as mine) would fail.

Writing a publishable blog

Sanderson's blog makes for compelling reading - it's as simple as that.

My blog is pretty unpublishable, because it contains a few snippets of my boring life (painting the nursery and cooing at shiny red cars) in amongst reviews, editorials and completely unqualified opinionating about topics I have no authority to blog about (Kosovo, for example.)

Petite Anglaise has been a focused Bridget-Jones-esque journal from day one - and her romantic misadventures make the desire to find out 'what happens next' totally addictive. Catherine Sanderson expertly writes a real-life, expat soap-opera and we want to know more about her life - even if we disapprove of it.

And it is sometimes difficult to sympathise with Sanderson. Having just settled into my forth year of marriage, I find it rather uncomfortable the way a wife and mother like Petite Anglaise so swiftly dropped her spouse for an Internet beau - although I took no satisfaction in reading about her getting similarly dumped just over a year later.

It's also easy to be cynical about the way she embraced the media firestorm following her dismissal.

Catherine Sanderson made perfect headline fodder, but the beautiful young blond settled into her new role of 'celebrity blogger' disturbingly easily (similar observations have been levelled towards the most famous blogger/author Belle du Jour, who many people think is just the fictional alter-ego of some frustrated London hack.)

But leaving aside my petty prejudices, I can see the immediate appeal of an attractive, intelligent expatriate sharing her romantic misadventures in a blog-turned-book.

Whether you approve or disapprove of the choices she's made, Catherine Sanderson has one hell of a story to tell and if her blog is any indication of her writing skills, it's going to make for entertaining reading when it hits the bookstores.

Petite Anglaise by Catherine Sanderson is available on June 17th from Amazon.com and bookstores.

Scream for Me by Karen Rose

Karen Rose is a critically acclaimed American author best known for mixing gritty, hard-boiled detective fiction with red-hot, melodramatic romance. It's a formula that clearly works. Karen's a USA Today best-selling author.

Being something of a snob, however, I wasn't expecting much from my advanced reading copy of Karen's latest novel, Scream for Me (to be released in May 2008.)

I'm not a great fan of the genre and the last detective book I read, Peter Robinson's Friend of the Devil, was enjoyable, but ultimately underwhelming.

What a contrast Scream for Me turned out to be, though.

Just two pages in, I found myself swept up in a barn-stormer of a page-turner, which kept me hooked and guessing right through until the novel's explosive and violent climax.

Scream for Me

Scream for Me is the story of Alex Fallon, a traumatised young woman who left her home town of Dutton, Georgia, thirteen years earlier - after her mother committed suicide the same day Alex's twin sister was found raped and murdered in a ditch.

She's reluctantly brought back to Dutton when her step-sister, a former junkie, goes missing, leaving her four year-old baby seemingly abandoned.

But Alex's return coincides with another violent murder - the daughter of a prominent local citizen is found gruesomely raped and beaten - exactly like Alex's sister had been over a decade earlier.

Special Agent Daniel Vartanian, another haunted former Dutton resident, immediately spots the connection between Alex's murdered sister and this new killing.

But as Alex and Daniel try to uncover the identity of the vicious murderer, they instead discover that their tragic pasts are more intertwined than either of them could possibly have imagined - and also realise that they share a simmering passion for each other which is increasingly difficult to ignore.

Crime and Melodrama

Karen Rose is just a cracker of a writer. Scream for Me could be held up in front of a classroom of aspiring novelists as the perfect example of how to write a detective story.

The plot is carefully paced and planned. The story progresses logically and at a fast-pace, giving the reader satisfying clues every step along the way. Karen's prose is pared to within an inch of it's life. All in all, in blissful contrast to most recent crime/detective fiction, the book simply shines with polish.

I didn't particularly enjoy Daniel and Alex's blistering love affair - which seemed shoehorned into the plot - but romance is one of the defining characteristics of Karen Rose's popularity, so what I didn't enjoy, I presume the majority of her readers will.

But looking past the romantic subplot (despite it being one of the major selling points) we're left with an expertly written crime-drama that holds it's own against more 'serious' detective fiction (like the procedure-heavy books of Peter Robinson.)

Scream for Me illustrates why Karen Rose is so popular and why her books are so acclaimed. In a field dominated by formulaic fiction, she manages to produce something original, unexpected and, most importantly of all, very well written.

Scream for Me by Karen Rose is available in hardback this May.

Can I sell it on eBay?

My cherry-red 1986 Lincoln Town Car has done us proud since we arrived in America.

It's gamely taken me to and from work every day, plus handled the occasional 'jaunt' out of state, to the suburban strip-malls of Long Island or the unspoilt farmland of Pennsylvania.

But like in all good melodramas, just as you've come to love and trust a (mechanical) member of your family, it's daunting and dastardly back-story emerges.

In this case, it's the sordid story of another disgraced tri-state Governor - and the starring role my Lincoln plays in his continued infamy.

You see, I bought my cherry-red car from a rapper, who had sprayed it metallic red to suit the rest of his fleet of old, but well preserved luxury cars. In it's 'previous life,' my Lincoln had been a business-like silver and apparently belonged to non-other than disgraced New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, back in the days when he was mayor of Woodbridge.

I say apparently because I have no proof. I'm taking the word of a virtual stranger, who maintained that the reason my Lincoln's central-locking has a virtual life of it's own is because it was 'uprated' to provide the former Governor 'enhanced security.'

He could have been fibbing - but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

The Governor's Lincoln

Before Eliot Spitzer's hypocrisy was revealed, the most recognizable 'grubby governor' in the New York area was James Edward "Jim" McGreevey - a Colombia and Georgetown alumni who served as an New Jersey assemblyman, local mayor and state senator before winning the 2001 gubernatorial election and becoming Governor of New Jersey.

A controversial governor, mired by accusations of corruption, his downfall came with the appointment of Israeli Golan Cipel as his homeland security adviser.

When the Bergen County Record revealed Cipel's lack of qualifying experience for the position, a background check was launched, leading to The Record classifying Cipel as a 'poet' and a 'sailor' and making innuendo-laden references to Cipel and McGreevey's 'close friendship' and how they 'often travelled together.'

Forced to explain the decision to appoint Cipel to the post, it was soon revealed that Cipel and McGreevey were more than just 'close friends.' They were, in fact, lovers - which probably went a long way to explaining why McGreevey had appointed him to a position for which Cipel was unqualified.

The allegations of corruption and the revelation that McGreevey had cheated on his wife with another man led to the Governor stepping down from his position in November 2004. So ended the sordid saga of Jim McGreevey... Or so you would think.

The Blameless Wife

Meet Dina Matos McGreevey - Jim McGreevey's second wife, who he was married to when revelations of his gay affair came to light.

After learning of her husband's homosexuality, she filed for divorce - and that messy court case has been dragging on since October 2004.

Jim McGreevey wants custody of their kids. Dina Matos wants $600,000. So far, her major trump-card has been her status as the wronged woman, cruelly deceived by a man who lied to her from the very beginning about his sexual orientation.

But just today, Teddy Pedersen, the former driver of then-Mayor McGreevey, revealed that Dina Matos was just as guilty of hypocrisy as her husband. Not only was she fully aware of her husband's malleable sexuality - she regularly joined in a weekly three way known to the participants as 'Friday Night Specials.'

Starting out with dinner and drinks at a local TGI Friday's restaurant, the 'party' would continue in no-less than the back of my car - before winding up at McGreevey's Woodbridge condo.

I'm happy I got the velor seats shampooed now!

This revelation has seriously dented Dina Matos McGreevey's veneer of innocence - possibly giving former Governor McGreevey more clout to demand custody of his kids.

"It's frustrating to hear her call Gov. Spitzer a hypocrite while she's out there being as dishonest as anyone could be about her own life," said Pedersen, 29. "She's framed herself as a victim - yet she was a willing participant."

"She had complete control over what happened in her relationship," he said. "She was there, she knew what was happening, she made the moves. We all did. It's disgusting to watch her play the victim card."

In addition to providing the transport for McGreevey's much-publicised 'Friday Night Specials,' I wonder what other misadventures my Lincoln's witnessed?

If only that walnut-veneer dashboard could talk...

Disclaimer: Although it is widely accepted (by me) that my Lincoln Town Car previously belonged to Jim McGreevey, I have no proof of this beyond the word of a rapper and a bumper-sticker promoting McGreevey's 2001 campaign for Governor. Take this article in the spirit in which it was written.

Justice League: The New Frontier

As comic-book fans grow up, so do their comics.

This is displayed clearly in the new animated Justice League movie Justice League: The New Frontier.

Although it features Superman, Batman and all the rest of the caped crusaders we loved as kids, this is clearly a grown-up film aimed at an adult audience.

Set during the fifties, New Frontier mirrors the dubious McCarthy witch hunts of that period with the suspicious activities performed today under the mandate of the War on Terror. An elegant script ponders the question of what makes America great - and what 'superhero' America's place is in this violent and terrifying world.

Featuring an all star line-up of voice talent - with the likes of square-jawed Kyle MacLachlan as Superman and cocky Angel star David Boreanaz as the Green Lantern - New Frontier isn't limited by it's animated format. In fact, it uses animation to show on-screen what could never be accomplished without a $150 million live-action budget.

The plot features America's greatest Superheros, like Wonder Woman, the Flash and Batman, struggling to understand their place in the world. Superman is the government's 'go to' guy when it comes to national emergencies, while Wonder Woman is a free agent, racking up bad press with her violent crusade for justice. The Flash, voiced by Doogie Howser star Neil Patrick Harris, just wants to be left alone by a government determined to capture him and discover the secret to his amazing superpowers.

But all their troubles pale into insignificance when an astounding alien menace - 'The Centre' - comes to earth threatening to wipe humanity from the planet. As the fate of the world hangs in the balance, the superheros unite as The Justice League to save America and the world.


Too Short

My only criticism of Justice League: The New Frontier is that it's too short. For commercial reasons, Warner Brothers demanded that the movie by squeezed into a tiny 72 minute span - meaning the pace and scripting are racked up a notch and an enormous amount of story is unsuccessfully crammed into not-enough time.

With a slightly longer airtime - and more space to expand some of the characterization - this could have been a truly exceptional project. As it is, it's a thought-provoking cartoon that is marred by the endless superhero cameos (Was that Green Arrow? Did we just see Aqua Man in the background?) which wasted time that could be better spent focusing on the smaller, central cast of characters.

Grown Ups Only

What's really surprising about this movie is just how adult it is. With a suicide in the opening scenes, pacifist Green Lantern being forced to kill a North Korean soldier a few moments later and a thinly-veiled reference by Wonder Woman to Indo-Chinese women being raped by the enemy (and later allowed their bloody vengeance) you can clearly imagine that Justice League: New Frontier won't be making it's way to Saturday morning television any time soon.

There's on-screen blood. Characters are injured and die. Questions are raised about America's right to interfere overseas (and how it polices it's citizens back home.)

All in all, Justice League: The New Frontier turns out to be an incredibly brave piece of film making that would have been even better if Warner Brothers had been as daring commercially as they were creatively.

Justice League: The New Frontier is available now from Blockbuster

The Saint plays a Saint...

Television's new Simon Templar - British actor James Purefoy - has actually played a saint before. Saint George, to be exact, in the 2004 movie 'George and the Dragon,' recently released on DVD.

Produced by the Sci-Fi channel, George and the Dragon is an anachronistic reinvention of the legend of Saint George, the dragon-slaying Patron Saint of England.

Historical accuracy isn't the forte of this low budget film. Nor is originality. From the opening scene, it's pretty apparent that the script of George and the Dragon was cobbled together from various historical epics.

The movie starts off with young Englishman George returning from the Crusades with his new friend, an imposing Muslim warrior (just like Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.) The action then shifts to rural England, where Lord Garth (played inexplicably by American legend Patrick Swayze) is trying to find his kidnapped betrothed (mirroring the plot of The Princess Bride.)

As George and Garth team up, they cobble together a curious band of friends - like robust friar Jean-Pierre Castaldi (who in one scene, 'invents' the skateboard, just like Marty McFly did in Back to the Future) and even Val Kilmer has an appearance, playing the fifth incarnation of the legendary El Cabillo (another nod to The Princess Bride - and doubly curious since Kilmer also played The Saint in the dire movie version.)

Michael Clarke Duncan and Coyote Ugly star Piper Perabo buoy up the ranks, plus we have pop-ups by British sitcom legends like Bill Odie and Simon Callow. If nothing else, George and the Dragon is a great 'Spot the Star' game for movie buffs!

But all those stars can't quite make up for inconsistent acting and a truly dodgy script. If it wasn't for the injection of some laugh-out-loud slapstick comedy (like a village thatcher who constantly falls off his roof) then this movie would be an abject flop.

As it is, we're left with a fairly generic historical fantasy that manages to display James Purefoy's comedy skills, if nothing else. Although saddled with some truly awful dialogue, Purefoy has a sly wit and great timing - which makes me think he'll make a truly exceptional Saint in the upcoming TV movie.

George and the Dragon is available now from Blockbuster.

A Silly Poem...

Brilliant artist and cartoonist Erica Henderson, who I wrote about here and who Pigletized me here, has a wonderful blog which features her daily scribbles.

(Although her daily scribbles look like most people's ridiculously involved, long and drawn-out graphic projects. This is because Erica is digustingly talented.)

Anywhoo. Erica very much enjoys drawing girlies - good, old fashioned girlies with rumps and thighs and slightly bemused expressions... Bemused, I presume, because they're rarely wearing pants!

Pants. Panties. Knickers. Trousers. Skirts. Shorts. Dresses. In Erica's world, her nubile heroines are always finding themselves cruelly robbed of clothing!

Because I am slightly crazy, this has always led me to ponder WHY. What on earth happened to these girl's trousers? So when Erica posted the beautiful illustration above, it inspired me to write a little ditty pondering that very question.

Please, don't be too critical. My metrical rhythm got upset in a couple of these verses, but when you're dealing with lines that are up to ten syllables long (about a girl who's lost her knickers, no less) it's kind of difficult to keep up.

Wherefore art thou, pants?
by Roland Hulme

Beautiful girl, curvaceous rump,
With golden hair and lips so plump,
You make me wonder every day,
What caused your pants to go away?

While your hoodie is quite chic,
All of us can clearly peek,
Beneath your top’s immodest hem,
And what we see is quite… ahem.

What did happen to your pants?
Were they carried off by ants?
You loose them in a game of chance?
Or did they slip right off mid-prance?

Not that your bottom isn’t swell,
It just makes me kind of… well…
Let’s just say, it’s quite a sight,
Booty haunts my dreams at night!

And through you’re sexy, saucy, cute,
Please tell me why, my nuded beaut,
You’re left with rump exposed this way,
Who came and took your pants away?

I’ll find them, dear, I swear I will,
Or get you new ones from Goodwill.
A pair of knickers I shall claim!
To help you cover up your shame…

Four years married and STILL capable of astonishing me...

My boss has been away this week, so I've been working later and later in the evening to help get a major project get completed within the tight deadline.

Which means I've been pretty oblivious to the industrious project my wife spontaneously started this week, taking place in our spare bedroom (soon to be nursery.)

This is the amazing thing about my wife. She's more than happy to spend 18+ hours a day asleep or quietly pottering about when she wants to - but when she's inspired to do a 'project,' it utterly consumes her and she works with astonishing energy and focus.

And so here's an overview of her project - a painting scheme I was incredibly dubious of at first - but which has turned into something stunning and unique.

That's my wife. We've been married more than four years and she can still totally surprise and astonish me with her hidden talents.

Spitzer's call girl...

For the last few days, the newspapers, radio and television have been dominated with stories about the downfall of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

Eliot Spitzer, who had aggressively pursued organized crime and prostitution as a New York city District Attorney, was investigated by the IRS after he made several curious wire-transfers to a company believed to be the cover for a New York prostitution ring.

Originally, authorities launched this investigation thinking that Spitzer was making the secret transfers because he was being blackmailed or extorted. However, it soon became apparent that he was parting with the money voluntarily - and receiving something in return.

That something turned out to be 22 year-old singer/model Ashley Alexandra Dupre - an aspiring musician from New Jersey. And she's far more interesting than Eliot Spitzer.

The $4,300 Call-Girl

When Ashley Alexandra Dupre dreamed of being famous, it was probably not under these circumstances.

An aspiring singer, she'd moved to Manhattan to further her music career - releasing two pop/RnB tracks she hoped would propel her into the spotlight.

But the lifestyle of a New York pop-star - even a wannabe one - is expensive. Ashley claims she was lured into the escort business when her boyfriend walked out, leaving her saddled with the $3,500 a month rent of their swanky Chelsea studio apartment.

“I just don’t want to be thought of as a monster,” she told the New York Times when her identity was revealed.

In fact, the newspapers and media have been pretty forgiving of this attractive young woman. She's avoided prosecution by agreeing to give evidence in front of a grand jury. But while the legal system won't judge her - it's likely the entire country will.

I find it all rather sad, really. Here's a girl who came to be big city to seek fame. Instead, she's courted infamy. Where ever fate leads Dupre in the future, it's inevitable that any musical career will always be overshadowed by the memory of this scandal.

Some people say that's the least she deserves. Others portray Ashley Alexandra as a young and naive victim. Whatever you believe, seeing her face and reading her frank words in the New York Times brings a whole new human angle to what had previously been a largely political scandal.

Some Thoughts about Universal Health Care

When it comes to the ongoing debate about American health care, I'm definitely in the privatised, American camp. I've seen the British version of 'universal health care' and it's not pretty.

So far, Tina and my experiences with the American health care system have been much more positive than what we experienced in England - even if they cost more.

Our experiences

Tina's expecting a baby - so that means plenty of visits to Robert Woods Johnson Hospital for scans, checkups and advice. After the contributions of my job's health insurance package, we've been left with about $1,000 to pay out of our own pockets.

In England, the NHS would not have charged us any money. However, the treatment we've received in America has been in a beautiful, clean, well-appointed new hospital with very modern equipment. We weren't left waiting for very long and the doctors and nurses have held our hand through the entire process.

At the Royal Hampshire Infirmary, in Winchester, we had a couple of terrible experiences, being expected to wait about four hours for treatment in a dirty hospital, with old equipment and a doctor who once gave Tina a potentially life-threatening misdiagnosis (delivered in a rude and offhand manner.)

Even worse, two new mothers from Winchester recently died from the same form of streptococcal infection they'd coincidentally picked up while in the maternity ward of the Royal Hampshire Infirmary.

Clearly, private health insurance offers us (Tina and myself) a much higher standard of health care that we could receive back home

The Downside of Private Health Care

That being said, Tina and I are in the enviable situation of having a good health care package and living close to an excellent hospital.

The reason health care is such an important issue in the upcoming presidential election is because almost 50 million Americans - close to 20% of the entire US population - have no health care coverage at all.

This is because private health care is rocketing in price - and many companies, like Wal-Mart, don't offer an adequate health care package even to full time employees.

Now, even if you're a stuffy old Tory, like me, you can't help but admit that this is wrong. Adequate health care is a basic human right. That shouldn't be a political issue for either the Democrats or Republicans. It's only the best means to accomplish this goal which should be up for discussion. In theory...

In theory.

Because currently, the debate's taken a rather surreal twist and more and more conservative Republicans are railing against any notion of 'universal health care' as proposed by Barack Obama, Senator Clinton or even their own candidate, John McCain.

In fact, in his daily radio show, conservative pundit Mark Levin often claims that Obama and Clinton are pitching a 'socialised' medical system along the same lines as Britain's National Health Service - and he enjoys using the dismal state of the NHS as an example of why it would never work.

But the problem with the conservative argument (as is increasingly common with any conservative argument is that it's utter rubbish.

American 'socialism.'

Pundits love to label the likes of Hillary Clinton as a 'socialist' or 'Marxist' when they have no real concept of the term. For a Brit - at least one who's lived long enough to remember the socialist Labor party (before Tony Blair came along) - the idea of calling Obama or Clinton a socialist is completely laughable.

Neither Democratic candidate wants to introduce a nationalised health service along the lines of the NHS. Instead, the 'universal health care' they're suggesting would simply mean that everybody in America (hence 'universal') would have access to affordable medical care (hence 'health care.')

For those in poverty, that could be some kind of system like Medicare or Medicaid. For low income families, it could be some form of subsidized or Federal health insurance.

Additionally, Obama, Clinton and McCain want the consumer cost of private medical insurance to be reduced by opening up competition - meaning consumers wouldn't be limited to the health insurance package their employer offers - and could seek more competitive quotes out-of-state.

Also, big companies like Wal-Mart would be forced to do what they should have done from the very beginning - offer their full-time employees adequate health care.

Whatever happens, the intended result of universal health care would be a system in which everybody in America has access to medical treatment. And apparently the conservative Republicans loath this idea!

Why?

The major argument conservatives have against any form of universal health care is that it would be tax-payer funded. They're worried that their hard-earned income would be taxed in order to pay for the health care of low income families (read: other people. Conservatives don't like giving money for the benefit of other people.)

There is a simple and indisputable reason why this argument is idiotic. America already has a system of 'universal health care' that's funded by the tax-payer (and subsidized by the health insurance consumer.)

Federal law forbids hospitals from turning away patients. If a visitor to a hospital doesn't have health insurance - or the means to pay their bills - it's the government or hospital that eventually has to pay up for that patient's treatment.

Which means the tax payer already pays $15 billion a year towards the health care of people without insurance. What's worse, hospitals and doctors cover the expense of 'writing off' uninsured patients by charging paying customers more - which in turn dramatically hikes up health insurance premiums.

So whether it's through tax-dollars or an increase in health insurance premiums, at the end of the day, the bad-tempered conservatives are already paying for other people's health care.

It seems stubborn and idiotic for them not to open their minds to a more efficient (i.e. cheaper) way of doing what they're already doing now.

The Simple Maths

Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years - and one of the major reasons is because hospitals and doctors have needed to recoup their losses from treating uninsured patients.

Since about 20% of Americans have no health insurance - plus the millions of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers - the current situation works something like this:

Four people go to the hospital and have treatment that costs $300.

One of those four people has no health insurance. So to cover their costs, the hospital is forced to split that loss amongst the other three paying customers.

$300 ÷ 3 = $100 each added to their bill.

That bill ends up being $400 instead of $300. Basically, they're paying 25% more.

And it's a spiralling problem. As health insurance premiums increase, more and more people can't afford insurance, which means doctors and hospitals have to increase their costs to cover them.

That, in turn, increases insurance premiums again, which again means that more people 'drop out' of health insurance programs...

And do you see where I'm going with this?

Something needs to be done.

This situation needs to be addressed - and conservatives can't stick their head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Currently, all three of the presidential candidates have interesting and promising solutions to the health care crisis.

Senator John McCain

John McCain's solution is within Republican party lines.

While he rejects any form of government funded or subsidized universal health care, he wants to offer a $5,000 tax rebate for families with private medical insurance (helping considerably towards the cost.)

In addition, he wants to reduce health insurance premiums by opening up competition between states. Currently, health insurance providers can operate in one state alone - meaning there are a limited number of suppliers in each state.

McCain's idea is to allow consumers to select insurance from companies based all across the United States, forcing suppliers to offer more affordable premiums.

In addition, Senator McCain wants to allow consumers to opt-out of their company's health-insurance package and take their employer's contribution elsewhere - again forcing health insurance companies to offer more competitive rates, rather than 'signing up' big businesses and forcing a big, fat premium out of every employee.

"In health care," John McCain explains, "I believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care."

Basically: We help those with the means to help themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Even though her opponents (like talk show host Mark Levin) accuse Hillary of being a socialist, the universal health care package she champions is very different from the National Health Service in England.

In fact, she spent [wasted - Editorial Bear] millions of dollars while her husband was in the White House investigating - and ultimately ruling out - a single-payer health care system like we have in Britain or Canada.

Clinton advocates government subsidies for low-income families, meaning that they will be able to afford health insurance.

She also wants to set up a federal health care system, which Americans can 'buy into' instead of their employer's health insurance package. This will force private health insurance companies to make their premiums more competitive and offer health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions - people who would normally be refused private health insurance.

Because of the subsidies and the setting up of a federal health care system, Hillary Clinton's solution to America's health care crisis is the most expensive. However, with costs of $110 billion per year (in contrast, the war in Iraq costs $144 billion per year) this can be paid for by eliminating the controversial 'Bush tax cuts.')

However, it's the thought of killing this tax break which makes Hillary's plan so unpopular with the conservatives.

Clinton's election promise: "One of the goals that I will be presenting is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American."

Senator Barack Obama

Obama similarly believes in real 'universal health care' and on the face of it, many of his ideas are similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Most importantly, the idea that every American should have access to affordable health insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Critics of Obama have pointed out his lack of specific details when it comes to a proposed universal health care package - but it will still be rooted within the existing system of private health insurance providers (with some government intervention.)

Obama's plan will ultimately hope to reduce health care costs for all Americans, while providing low-income families or those with pre-existing conditions access to the medical care they are currently excluded from.

It's been a long time coming...

Whichever candidate ends up the White House, I'm confident that they will introduce improvements to the existing health care system and allow more people to have access to better care at a cheaper price.

One thing to note is that none of the candidates - not even Hillary Clinton - plans to eliminate the concept of private health insurance. They just want to regulate and streamline it.

Hopefully this means that the advantages of private medical insurance - driving the development of cutting-edge new technology and pharmaceuticals - will remain, while the disadvantages (the high insurance premiums and difficulty getting medical coverage for pre-existing conditions) will be addressed.

Having experienced both socialised and privatised heath care, I am convinced that the private system offers the consumer a better service. However, just like in any privatised industry, the demand to make money often threatens to overwhelm the mandate to provide a service.

I just hope that whichever presidential candidate makes it to the White House, they ensure that the patient always comes before the shareholder.