Gas Prices - A Load of Hot Air?

When George W. Bush is the man making the most sense, you know you've got problems.

But yesterday, he stood up in front of the nation and was surprisingly honest about America's imminent fuel crisis - admitting "If there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it."

Petrol prices in America have been rocketing up. Prices at the pump have more than doubled since George Bush took office and in all fairness, not all of the blame can be laid at the doorstop of the White House. America's reliance on oil has been an Achilles heel for many years. The worry is that we've reached breaking point.

Presidential candidates Clinton and McCain are both launching rhetoric designed to tackle the rising fuel costs, but President Bush is right. There is no magic wand to solve the problem of expensive fuel and the only way forward is a longer term solution.

But what's causing the rocketing fuel prices?

One of the major reasons oil is becoming more expensive is because there's less of it. For decades, we've known that oil is a limited resource and the 'black gold' that does remain buried is getting more and more expensive to pump. Hence rising prices.

Secondly, global demand is increasing. Both India and China are becoming major oil consumers and the more demand there is for a limited resource, the more the suppliers can charge for it.

Thirdly, there's simply less oil in circulation. Before George Bush advocated invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime produced 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the invasion, the same country has struggled to sustain 2.3 million barrels of oil a day and this oil costs more to produce because of the increased security. That's more than a million barrels of oil taken out of circulation every single day.

Lastly - and importantly - the real 'oil giants' of the world (the OPEC members like Saudi Arabia) are holding the world's oil supplies ransom. They control the vast majority of the available oil resources and because demand is increasing, they can charge pretty much what they want for it.

Although President Bush has called for OPEC to release more oil for sale, you can't really blame the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries for refusing to do so. At the moment, they can sell their oil for a specific price. If they released more, that price would drop. Therefore, to meet the same profit level, they'd have to sell more of their commodity. It's basic business to charge the most that they can for their oil and the fact that we're all still willing to buy it suggests that this is a very successful strategy.

OPEC is a very powerful organisation. Their stranglehold on the oil industry inspired the gas crisis in the 70's, when the Shah of Iran warned America: "You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say 10 times more."

Basically, the reason oil is so expensive these days has little to do with the White House. It's the law of supply and demand and the manipulation of OPEC. The only influence the federal government has on the price of petrol is in the tax they stick on it - which both John McCain and Hilary Clinton advocate dropping during the summer to cut the price at the pump.

It's an impotent gesture. For the average consumer, an entire summer's worth of savings would realistically only save them $30 or $40 dollars.

What can we do?

In the short term, the easiest solution to the oil crisis would be to find a new and plentiful source of cheap oil, to lower the overall cost of fuel and cut the legs from under the OPEC blackmailers.

George Bush suggests drilling in wildlife reserves in Alaska, which might well produce a plentiful new supply, reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and give us all a break when we fill our tanks.

There are several problems regarding this, however.

Primarily, drilling for oil in Alaska would devastate the wildlife. Wiping out species of birds and animals all for the sake of a cheaper fill-up seems rather wrong.

Secondly, it's a short term solution. Oil is running out. How much oil is there in Alaska? How long will it be before that runs out as well?

And thirdly - perhaps most importantly - the continued burning of oil and other fossil fuels is permanently damaging the environment. The question of how long the Alaskan oil will last might prove to be redundant if we oven-bake the globe exploiting it.

Alternative Suggestions

There are alternatives - and one of the reasons America's in such a crisis at the moment is because these alternatives are being explored in an utterly incompetent fashion.

The most touted solution to the oil crisis are alternative sources of energy. Sustainable organic fuels. Clean and renewable energy generation. The technology exists now and with sensible investment, we could solve the world's energy crisis practically overnight.

But misguided environmentalists and greedy politicians have utterly messed up the whole process.

As far as gas prices go, oil used for generating power could be diverted into the fuel market if America adopted clean, safe nuclear power. Instead, we still have costly, cumbersome and environmentally apocalyptic coal and oil fired power plants.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. France has successfully relied on it for decades. Yet the shadows of Chernobyl and misguided environmentalists argue about the perceived 'danger' of nuclear power and stand in the way of America finally fixing it's rickety and outdated power grid.

This is the twenty-first century, yet California continues to have 'brown outs' and power cuts because of primitive power-plant technology. This is really unacceptable.

When it comes to fuel itself, an alternative to petrol already exists - ethanol. Clean, cheap and easy to produce, ethanol could pretty much replace petroleum with very minor upgrades to most vehicle's fuel system.

Yet greedy politicians have created an ethanol stranglehold almost as wretched as OPEC's claw-like grip on the global oil market.

Ethanol is produced from organic crops. The vegetation you use to produce ethanol effects the power to production ratio involved in making it. In Brazil, sugarcane ethanol generates about eight times as much energy as it takes to produce.

In America, however, the vegetation of choice is corn - which has a pathetic one-to-one power to production ratio. Basically, it takes as much energy to make corn-based ethanol as the ethanol actually produces when poured into a gas tank.

That's simply unsustainable.

But it gets worse. The likes of environmentalist Al Gore have pushed so hard for the production of ethanol that they've given American farmers enormous subsidies to produce it - and whacked a 52 cent import tariff on ethanol imported from overseas.

This means that American farmers are using food-crop to produce ethanol, rather than corn flakes, which is shooting up the cost of food across America. In addition, the expensive fuel they produce is no cheaper than imported gasoline. What's worse, the cheap ethanol from overseas (that could be mixed with American petrol and actually bring the pump-price down) is no longer priced competitively because the government has slapped a tariff on it.

Basically, Al Gore and his cronies have successfully tied up American ethanol production with so much red tape, graft, greed and corruption that it's effectively a dead end. A self serving money-generating gravy-train for a few politicians and thousands of farmers.

If we're going to end the fuel crisis and finally give America sustainable and cheap power, here's what we need to do:

1. Build nuclear power stations to replace the coal-fired ones. This will make a huge difference to the environment (but put thousands of coal miners out of work. Still, it worked in England.)
2. End the subsidies for farmers to produce ethanol from corn. That corn will return to the food-market and lower the cost of groceries across the country.
3. End the tariff on imported ethanol. This will mean that cheap, efficient ethanol can be mixed with petrol in the short-term to lower the price at the petrol pump.
4. Research and develop cheap, clean efficient alternatives to oil. They already exist. We just need to make them practical.

Given the corruption and incompetence in government, plus the stranglehold of the misguided environmentalists, I can't see this happening any time soon.

Darwin's Legacy

CK left a comment on this post and pointed out that debating Creationist Doctrine's Ku Klux Klan roots is all well and good - but Darwin's Theory of Evolution didn't exactly bring out the best in some people, either.

In fact, the idea of 'survival of the fittest' inspired many proponents of Darwin's theories to suggest that the human race itself could be 'improved' by directly manipulating the evolutionary process.

Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, discovered that statistics suggested a congenitally deaf person was more likely to parent a deaf child than somebody with normal hearing. Therefore, theoretically, if the deaf didn't procreate, deafness could be eliminated from the human race. It was thinking like that which was the beginning of Eugenics.

Eugenics was such a popular theory that even Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, advocated it. In 1907, he supported Indiana becoming the first of thirty states to introduce compulsory sterilization of 'inferior' human specimens. Other states, like Connecticut, had already brought in legislation barring the "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying.

By 1945, over 60,000 Americans had been forcibly sterilized to avoid 'polluting the gene pool' with their 'inferior' genes.

Although forced sterilizations continued until 1963, for the most part they stopped in 1945. This is when America was forced to come to terms with the legacy of their experimentation into eugenics.

During the Nuremberg trials, when top-ranking Nazi officers were placed on trial for the shocking and inhumane crimes they committed during World War Two, the issue of eugenics was raised. The Nazis had forcibly sterilized over 450,000 people - many for the genetic 'crime' of being Jewish.

Hitler himself had written: "I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

That was a bitter pill for the American government to swallow. That realisation pretty much ended the experiment into 'social eugenics.'

And not a moment too soon, because eugenics is a quack science.

Some of the basic theories, like Alexander Graham Bell's observation that deafness could be 'bred out' of the human race, sound convincing, but the theory of 'racial purity' flirted with by early American eugenicists (and embraced by the Nazis) is more likely to produce genetic abnormalities than 'cure' them.

For example, observant Ashkenazi Jews tend to marry within their own community (for social reasons) and as a result, have a much higher rate of certain hereditary diseases (such as Tay-Sachs, Cystic Fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Goucher's disease.) This illustrates that 'racial purity' promotes a less diverse (and therefore less healthy) gene pool.

Most dog breeders have known this for centuries - it's well established that mongrel dogs tend to be healthier than 'pure breeds' and closely bred types of dogs often suffer problems because of their limited gene pool. The effort to breed the 'perfect' Bulldog, for example, results in many animals who have trouble breathing because their noses are so squished.

Eugenics simply misinterprets the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested that 'natural selection' favoured animals who varied in a 'manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life.' His whole theory celebrates genetic variety, while eugenics itself tries to eliminate it.

But in any event, CK was absolutely right when he pointed out that Darwin's theory of evolution has probably had a far more devastating effect on the United States than proponents of the Doctrine of Creationism. That's because Darwin's theory is based in fact - and fact is always infinitely more dangerous than fantasy.

That's the major difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Creationism.

The modern Doctrine of Creationism was the child of the fundamentalist movement (many of whom were documented members of the Ku Klux Klan.) It was based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Eugenics, on the other had, was created by manipulating a scientifically sound theory. The reason eugenics was such a popular lie - embraced by governments and people alike - was because it was based in fact.

When it comes to eugenics, I think this quote is appropriate:

"The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted." George Christoph Lichtenberg.

When it comes to the Doctrine of Creationism, the classics are always the best:

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what a man wishes, he believes to be true." Demosthenes.

Is Big Beautiful?

At nearly six feet tall, with an Amazonian 38-32-42 figure, there aren't many men who fail to notice seventeen year old Chloe Marshall, the plus-sized finalist for the Miss England crown.

But Chloe, who is described by her agency as 'luscious,' is a real breath of fresh air. A model who looks like a real woman.

It was bound to happen eventually. After a twenty two year old Uruguayan model, Luisel Ramos, starved herself into a heart attack last year and 21-year-old Brazilian model, Ana Carolina Reston, quickly followed suite by dying from complications arising from anorexia, the long-overdue backlash was inevitable.

What was with all these ridiculously skinny, underweight models? All bones and ribs and hollow cheeks. For years, top catwalk processions have looked more like a line-up of heroin addicts than 'the world's most beautiful women.'

The politically incorrect have blamed it on the powers behind the fashion industry, who they argue tend to be women (the harshest critics of the female form - especially their own) and gay men (who aren't remotely interested in what a 'real' woman is supposed to look like.)

Whoever's to blame, hopefully Chloe is ushering in a new generation. After all, it's no secret what men find attractive in a woman. Hips and boobs and a narrow waist. Thick, lustrous hair. Bright eyes and creamy complexion. Chloe's got all of that, plus she likes riding horses, probably looks great in jodphurs and she's from Hampshire.

It's also worth remembered that Marilyn Monroe - probably the most famous icon of feminine beauty - wore an American size 12 dress, which would equal a British size 16, just like Chloe pours herself into (or out of.)

Now I'm not saying Size 16 is the new Size Zero, but I do think a woman's attractiveness should be judged on more than just her waist-to-weight ratio.

Good luck in the Miss England competition, Chloe.

Darwin Versus God

My continued research into the rich history of the United States has reached the brink of the Great Depression, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.

Steve Wiegand's book on the history of America touched on a subject very close to my heart - the uniquely American obsession with doctrine of creationism.

"The Ku Klux Klan's greatest influence," Wiegand writes, "developed in small and mid-sized cities and in rural areas, and the repressive attitudes it catered to were also quick to embrace 'fundamentalism,' or the idea that everything in the Bible was literally true."

"In 1925, the Klan succeeded in passing a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools."

Now I don't think Monsieur Wiegand was suggesting a link between modern proponents of creationist theory and the Ku Klux Klan. However, as in all things, it's important to look at the origin of one's beliefs and the legacy they carry.

Most modern supporters of the doctrine of creationism are God-fearing Americans. Good people who love their families and are passionate in their beliefs. The fact that they believe in Creationism - that the world was created 6,000 years ago despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary - does not reflect on their good spirit and kind hearts.

Yet the fact remains, incontrovertible, that the modern creationist movement was forged at least in part in the fires of racism. It was the Ku Klux Klan, rejecting logic, science and reason, who helped give birth to modern creationist doctrine and fought to give it the legitimacy of the Tennessee state legislature.

Modern creationists, even if they're good hearted, patriotic and tolerant of other people's beliefs, should remain aware of their doctrine's sordid history. Their efforts to further the medieval thinking of 'Creationist Doctrine' is furthering the work of some of the 20th century's most despicable men.

Ask Miltant Ginger

It's been a while since the last edition of Ask Militant Ginger.

As always, I'll be answering some of the genuine questions entered into search engines that have directed surfers to my blog.

What is the difference between nurofen and ibuprofen?

About £2.66 at last count. And that's it. As I explained in this post, Nurofen is nothing more than normal, over-the-counter ibuprofen in a fancy box. Both regular ibuprofen and Nurofen contain the same active ingredient - 200mg of ibuprofen. The only difference is that Nurofen consumers are paying eight times more for the pretty packaging and clever television commercials.

What does Quantum of Solace mean?

As I explained in this post, the Quantum of Solace is a reference to a short story written by Ian Fleming and first published in his anthology For Your Eyes Only.

The Quantum of Solace is the almost immeasurable spark of love and compassion one person has for another. They say that the opposite of love isn't hate, but indifference. If that quantum of solace is extinguished, the relationship is over.

James Bond himself, British actor Daniel Craig, perhaps explains it better than I can: "Ian Fleming says that if you don't have a quantum of solace in your relationship then the relationship is over. It's that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have you might as well give up."

Quantum of Solace is also the name of the upcoming James Bond movie, set for release this November.



I have problems receiving a signal with Stiletto 2. What do I do?

The SIRIUS Stiletto 2 is a hand-held satellite radio and personal MP3 player. In order to receive live satellite radio, the Stiletto 2 needs to either be outside, with a clear and unobstructed view of the sky above, or within range of terrestrial 'repeaters' which SIRIUS has set up in major cities, transmitting the SIRIUS signal in much the same way radio stations and cell phones work.

The Stiletto 2 is pretty nifty, though. Even if you don't have a clear satellite signal, you can use any accessible WiFi network (like a hot spot in an Internet cafe or Starbucks) to tune in and receive SIRIUS Internet Radio. Just select Internet Radio from the menu and follow the instructions.

Why do most religious people dislike gays?

There are many splinters in the Christian church, from Catholic to Anglican, Baptist to Methodist and a hundred other worthless protestant permutations in between. This generally proves one thing: That most Christians don't generally agree on much.

What some Christians can agree on, however, is who to hate. It started off the the Muslims (crusades, anybody?) then moved on the black people (their dark skin was the 'mark of Cain') and most recently, 'scripture' has given legitimacy to open discrimination and hate speech targeted towards homosexuals.

Never mind that the average gay person wants nothing more than the same rights as everybody else. Because of a narrow minded and completely false interpretation of sections of the modern Bible, some Christians today choose to 'hate 'em gays.'

The scriptural arguments supporting this bigotry hold no weight whatsoever. You can read about this here. Really, the only reason religious people openly hate gays is because a thin veneer of religious respectability allows them to, while regular folks would be indicted with hate speech for saying the same things.

Is Minnie Driver a ginger?

From watching the BBC drama series Mr Wroe's Virgins, in which she appeared naked (and clearly without access to a feminine razor) I would say most definitely not.

Well, that's the end of Ask Militant Ginger for this month. Remember, if your search-engine questions drag you here, I'll get around to answering them eventually!

More wisdom from our founding fathers...

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

Rapid dog bites three... Typo, or dangerous fast-paced dog on the loose?

A rapid dog on the lose? Probably a dachshund, since they have been known to be very fast on their paws on occasion.

Police have issued this picture of the suspect:

Inside the British Mindset...

I recently picked a fight with a blogger* (although I think we might have reached a detente now.)

I don't often do this. Normally, I make friends with other bloggers, since blogging interaction is an important part of this self-expression we call blogging - sometimes the friends we meet on the 'blogosphere' are the only people who actually read our blogs!

But this blogger pushed my buttons!

The blogger in question is actually a very fluent and compelling writer and her blog is written in a great 'stream of consciousness' style. I just hated it because her blog clearly illustrates the mindset of some Brits I've met. She is the sort of person I moved away from Britain to escape!

Her writing represents every judgemental, negative character trait traditionally associated with a miserable minority of British people. For example, when it comes to 'my kind':

"Red-headed men are surely the most unattractive male specimens on the planet at the best of times, but they look even worse with their horribly pale, freckled skin... "

Thanks, lady. Us gingers can't hear that enough.

Of course, I find this comment offensive - but I don't sweat it. Yes, I know that British men are considered unattractive in the UK. That's the basis behind the Militant Ginger blog!

Fortunately, in more civilised places like France or America, red hair can be seen as attractive, so I don't take her stupid comment to heart. I think this blogger says more about herself with that nasty opinion than anything about redheads.

Still, I guess it could be worse. Since our blogger's rants are blissfully anonymous, she could just of easily have really rocked the boat and written: 'Black men are surely the most unattractive male specimens on the planet,' or 'Asian men look even worse with their horrible yellow, hairless skin...'

She probably just doesn't want to be labelled as a judgemental, vacuous racist. So she winds up just being labeled judgemental and vacuous instead.

Still, I guess everybody's entitled to their own opinion - and as far as opinions go, she's got lots more of them. One of the others that got up my nose was:

"It's strange the way that I still get a shiver of repulsion down my spine when I hear a certain kind of English accent, normally a Southern one. I immediately think to myself "Wanker!" When I hear a southern accent, I immediately assume the person is culturally arrogant and more privileged than me, without knowing anything about them."

Since I've got a received-pronunciation English accent (what a Scottish bird might easily identify as 'southern') I took this comment personally too (just like I did with her opinion of redheaded men.)

But it's just as vacuous and judgemental as the previous rant, so I shouldn't lose any sleep over it. It just makes me sad - another typically negative 'Brit' stereotype from our opinionated blogging pal.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw who famously said: "It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him." Our blogger's clearly a proponent of that theory. Somebody speaks - so she judges them based on how their voice sounds.

One of the most refreshing things about moving to America is the absence of this 'accent assumption.' I think it's a curiously British obsession with class that immediately makes Brits judge somebody by their accent (and assume this new person is either socially inferior, 'one of them' or 'stuck up.')

This blogger's judgemental attitude illustrates one of the major difference between Brits and Americans.

For the most part, Americans are more or less confident about who they are and what their place is in the world, no matter how humble their upbringing.

A dirt poor, gun-owning, truck-driving Pennsylvania resident might feel out of place at a multi-million dollar Hampton's yacht party, but certainly wouldn't feel 'inferior' to the WASP'y guests (the Van Der Beeks and the Chuffington-Herberts.)

Instead, in Britain, we get taught to have an unhealthy obsession with how other people perceive us. There's no such thing as the 'working class' any more, but some people still have a 'working class' chip on their shoulder.

Likewise, the middle-class scramble desperately to keep up with the Jones, while their children descend the other way. Public schoolboy Charles Smythe goes to University, adopts an estuary accent and becomes 'Charlie Smith' - at least, until his parents pick him up in the Volvo at the end of term.

Whatever class niche we're born into, far too many Brits spend their lives making an upward or downward scramble out of it. It all rather sad, really.

Reading this blogger's rants and opinions, it just reinforced how pleased I was to be shot of the dark and dreary mindset of Brits like her. In the vast majority of blogs I've read, one invariably comes to like and sympathise with the author, even if you don't agree with them.

She manages to achieve the almost impossible - becoming more and more unlikeable with every blog post she writes. I find it quite astonishing really. Almost compelling. Part of me wonders, if we met face to face, whether she'd be just as unlikeable in person or whether we'd actually get on (as bizarrely sometimes happens in this sort of situation.)

In any event, I'd just like to let North American readers know that our friendly blogger is NOT typical of my countrymen (although not nearly rare enough, either.) For some much better British blogs, check out the list of links I have on the right hand side!

* her blog is here, but be warned that it is targeted towards adults and somewhat explicit in nature.

Criminal Parking

As you all know, I'm a stern opponent of the death penalty. Although sadly, there are some crimes for which it is the only appropriate form of punishment. Parking in two spaces is one such offence.

It's ALWAYS the owners of brand new, shiny and expensive luxury vehicles who do this. They roll up into a parking lot and decide that their new ride is too perfect to risk proximity to the trash regular plebs drive - so they straddle the white line to keep regular folks at bay.

I hate these people.

I hate them with such a vengeance.

I never experienced this phenomenon in England, but in America there seems to be some misguided belief that the value of the car you drive somehow relates to the strictness in which you have to obey the traffic laws. BMW and Mercedes owners in America, for example, are always far more likely to speed, cut you up and switch lanes without using their turn signals (another offence that should be punishable with death.)

It's always these idiots who decide to play the two-space parking game.

I can understand that they're protective of their expensive cars (despite driving them like they're stolen.) But American car parking spaces are so enormous anyway that there's really no advantage to be had by selfishly claiming two of them.

In fact, your car is more likely to be 'randomly' selected for obscene messages scrawled on the windshield in lipstick, nasty notes left under the window wipers or tyres being deflated.

Stop being such selfish oafs and park your cars normally.

Attention Gun Owners!

I am all about civil liberties and personal responsibility, so I've always backed the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. Despite my best judgement.

You see, for every dry and academic report proving that private gun ownership reduces crime (Editorial Bear lists some here) there's an inbred idiot like this:

Man Shoots Wife While Installing Satellite Dish
by John Blunda, WCSH Portland

A Missouri man shot his wife while trying to install their satellite television dish.

The Deepwater, Missouri man apparently wanted to punch a hole in the wall to run some wires. When drilling didn't work, he used bullets. He says he had no idea his wife was standing outside in the line of fire.

Full story here.

This illustrates the major problem in letting everybody have the right to own firearms. You're letting everybody have the right to own firearms.

And 'everybody' is a bloody idiot.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fair enough to own a handgun for 'home defence.' Whatever you think about gun control, it's a proven fact that burglary rates in America are minuscule compared to Great Britain because nobody wants to raid a house if the owners are 'packing heat.'

It's also perfectly acceptable to own shotguns and rifles for hunting - when I was growing up we had a shotgun that my father used to blast magpies with.

The problem lies in dumb people owning guns. Like people who own an excessive number of guns (there's being a collector and there's being a small, one-man military dictatorship.) Or people who use guns for a purpose to which they're not designed (like installing a satellite dish, or changing a car tyre.)

Dumb people owning guns. That's the problem. And you don't even have to be that stupid to be a dumb gun owner. When I was a teenager, I had a blank-firing six-shooter and after emerging from one accidental, ear-ringing cloud of gun smoke, I discovered first hand that you can never take anybody's word for it when they tell you 'don't worry, it's not loaded.'

Until gun owners stop bleating mantras like 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' and actually start doing something about keeping guns out of the sticky fingers of stupid people, the only cause they're going to be giving ammunition to is the anti-gun lobby.

Bio-Fuel Balls Up

When I first moved to America - which was only ten months ago - corn-on-the-cob was available from our local supermarket for 19 cents an ear.

These days, it's approaching European prices - $1.99 for two ears.

Part of this is because corn's not in season at the moment. Another major influence has been the big push into the production of biofuels.

I've written about it before. Most biofuels aren't really a viable replacement for petrol yet - especially the ones derived from corn. For a start, it takes just as much energy to produce biofuel from corn as the fuel actually generates. If the original source of energy is coal, oil or petrol-based, a gallon of 'clean' ethanol has actually generated as much greenhouse gas as a gallon of regular gasoline.

Secondly - wasting corn in the production of an inefficient petrol substitute removes it from the food chain, reducing supplies of a staple feed crop. This dramatically increases the price of corn-based produce in the shops. That effects everything from my corn-on-the-cob to all the supermarket foods laden with high fructose corn syrup (which includes everything from extended-life bread to 'all natural' soda drinks.)

This has effected all of us - but my expensive ears of corn are nothing compared to the effects food-inflation is having on the rest of the world. All across the globe, the very poor are finding it increasingly difficult to feed themselves as they face what the World Nation's Food Program call a 'food price tsunami.'

It's about time we stopped blithely following the climate-change trend and actually looked sternly and objectively at the whole picture.

Most biofuels are not efficient. More research has to be done to produce an efficient and sustainable alternative to gasoline (my brother mentioned that, in the future, genetically modified enzymes could be used to turn seaweed into fuel.)

Until a decent alternative has been found, we should stop wasting vast amounts of money (and food crop) on producing overpriced ethanol, which does nothing to protect the environment.

There are entirely viable, clean and efficient energy solutions out there. It just seems that nobody's willing to invest the time researching them - especially not when a short term 'solution' like corn-based biofuel is making us all feel like we're doing something positive to prevent climate change.

Really, all that's doing is directing money into the pockets of farmers and politicians who are more interested in making a quick profit than actually doing anything constructive to save the environment.

Famous People I'd like to see shut the hell up... #1 Paul McCartney, #2 Pope Benedict XVI

Paul McCartney made a statement today: "The biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian. I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future."

When it comes to vegetarianism, Paul McCartney has officially become a bore. It was bad enough when his former wife, the late Linda McCartney, cynically packaged a series of 'healthy' vegetarian frozen meals that were laden with fat and salt. Now Paul's pushing vegetarianism as the best thing for the environment since the hybrid.

Which is typically hypocritical from a man who drives a gas-guzzling Cadillac CTS Sport.

Meanwhile Pope Benedict XVI finished his visit to the United States with a gigantic mass at New York's Yankee stadium, attracting a crowd of almost 60,000 people wrapped up in 'Pope Fever.'

Personally, I find the Pope's stern and moralistic lectures on the evils of American excess slightly distasteful. He's a former member of the Hitler Youth, who shot at British and American planes during World War Two. Now he's head of an organisation which criminally conspired to cover up decades of sex abuse scandals.

Political pundit Bill Maher skewered the Catholic Church with typical accuracy, identifying the parallels between the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic church and the recent raid and arrest of hundreds of 'cult' members in a Texas Compound:

"I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy Texas cult. For one thing, altar boys can’t even get pregnant."

"But what really tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands, all over the world. Cults get raided, religions get parades. How does the Catholic Church get away with all of their buggery? Volume, volume, volume!"

"If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If have a billion, they call you 'Pope.' It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re Bear Stearns and we bail you out."

Boris Johnson - Up in Smoke?

The likeable Boris Johnson, who is running against 'Red' Ken Livingston for the position of Mayor of London, is getting a lot of flak for his outspoken comments about the UK's recently adopted smoking ban.

Johnson believes that local authorities should have the right to opt-out of Britain's blanket ban on smoking in public places - but many people feel this is merely because his campaign received a much-needed cash injection from the Tobacco Association last year.

Whether or not that's true, Johnson's raised a very valid point. In a free country, isn't there something fundamentally wrong about our Nanny government telling us where and when people can light up?

I'm no fan of smoking. I don't enjoy going to a club or restaurant and coming back reeking of tobacco. However, I am a fan of free choice and I think the smoking ban is the thin edge of a wedge which will quickly see drinking, eating fatty foods and even being a coach potato 'banned' in the interests of 'public wellness.'

It's happening in America right now. Even though the Americans are generally a little more protective of their personal liberties, New York city followed up a blanket ban on smoking with a ban on foods containing trans fat. What's the next target in the health fascist's sights?

I'm personally an advocate of that most important of all human liberties - personal responsibility. We should be allowed to make our own decisions about these things.

Smoking causes cancer. Drinking effects the liver. Eating trans fat clogs the arteries. We all know the risks involved in enjoying our 'vices' and if that's the case, what's to stop us from making an informed decision to continue indulging ourselves?

As for the ban on smoking - I'm entirely behind Boris Johnson. I believe there should be a general smoking ban across the country, but certain pubs and bars should be allowed to appeal to their local authority and 'opt out' of it if they want to.

It would work, even if you're not a smoker. In a street with five pubs and bars, punters would have four smoke-free alternatives should one of the bars decide to allow smoking.

I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis and I'm even open to certain stipulations (like only bars or clubs that don't serve food opting out of the smoking ban.)

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to support this idea. As I mentioned earlier - smoking is just the first (and biggest) target on the Nanny State's list. Next will come drinking, fatty foods and idleness. They won't stop until the entire nation is vacuum sealed, homogenized and sterile.

The battle for our personal freedom begins here.

Adventure Eddy in Paris...

After finishing Bootleg Boys last year, I became acutely aware that my first full-length Adventure Eddy novel (set in Paris) was simply not up to scratch.

So in amongst my other myriad writing projects, I added the task of rewriting Adventure Eddy (which got to about the 10,000 word mark and then sat, simmering on the back burner.)

Today I peered at my rewrite and saw a lot of good stuff there - but also realised the amount of time, effort and sweat that would need to go into reworking it into something approaching the same questionable quality of the Bootleg Boys.

I decided to just forget it, leave the flawed novel as-is and move onto new and exciting projects.

It's rather sad, since I could really enjoy getting back into a rip-roaring adventure in Paris, making the plot a bit more complex (and the bad guy not so transparent) and improving on the rest of it. The unrequited love story and the big red car would be a lot of fun to revisit (especially since I now own Adventure Eddy's gigantic Firebird.)

But maybe some other time. Right now, I have other fish to fry (or, more exactly, books to write.)

So farewell, Adventure Eddy. In the mean time, I will leave you with the opening page of my rewrite - aimed at grabbing people's attention from the start.

Factual Discrepencies

One of my biggest criticisms of those crazy conservatives is that they refuse to admit when they're wrong - whether it's debating the theory of evolution or whether or not being 'gay' is a liberal conspiracy.

But that being said, it would be totally hypocritical of me to not admit when I'd made a booboo. Like the one I made on Monday, when I complained bitterly about the wretched misinformation site Conservapedia misrepresenting the verdict of a 1986 Oxford University Debate featuring 'Darwin's Rottweiler,' professor Richard Dawkins.

The debate was The Huxley Memorial Debate, a celebration of the 1860 debate between the Bishop of Oxford and Thomas Henry Huxley - debating the theory of evolution.

The 1986 rematch featured widely discredited creationist Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith debating with Richard Dawkins over the hypothesis "That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution."

After three hours of debate, the motion was defeated and Richard Dawkins clearly won the debate - but things get fuzzy when people try to work out by how much.

The actual records of the debate from Oxford University have inexplicably gone missing, which means it's pretty tricky to get an accurate gauge of the margins to which Dawkins won the debate. Wilder-Smith claims that 'a third - almost one half - of those attending supported creationism' while the American Association for the Advancement of Science only adds to the confusion by recording 198 votes in favour of Professor Dawkins and only l 5 supporting creationism.

The letter 'l' followed by the number 5. On Monday, I had misread this as '15.'

Because of this typo, I can't really accuse the likes of Conservapedia of misrepresenting the number of 'aye' votes because the AAAS clearly didn't record them accurately.

However, I'm also loath to believe Wilder-Smith's claims that 'almost half' of those attending the debate voted in support of creationism. After all Wilder-Smith was a pathological liar (proven by his involvement in a scam to forge dinosaur and human tracks at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park - in order to support the theory than man and dinosaur walked the earth at the same time.)

Fortunately, the correct answer was easy enough to find - on Professor Dawkin's own website.

The adamant atheist provides his own take on the voting - admitting that a significant number of people supported the creationists (far more than the 15 I'd surmised) and then provides MP3 recordings of the debate itself, which clearly feature the votes being counted and 115 'ayes' being acknowledged.

Finally, to support Dawkin's account of the debate, the actual number of voters was estimated to be around 300. If the AAAS had been correct - and only 15 had supported the creationist motion - around 100 voters would have abstained (which is unlikely.)

Therefore, I have to hold up my hands and admit I was wrong.

This doesn't mean I support Conservapedia. I still think they're a wretched mine of misinformation. Their entry on Richard Dawkins, for example, has a single paragraph on the man's belief and background and pages of discussion over whether or not he's a 'real' Oxford Professor (since he's on the Oxford University payroll, listed as a professor, I'd say the answer was 'yes.')

Discrediting Dawkins seems far more important to Conservapedia clowns than actually writing an encyclopedia entry on him.

Friendly Fire Terminates Kitty

JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP, New Jersey (AP) -- A piece of artillery that was apparently misfired by the military crashed through the roof of a New Jersey home miles away Friday and injured a young girl's cat, which had to be euthanized, officials said.

Yay! Good to know such an efficient and tightly run military organisation is stationed mere miles away from my house.

I feel really sorry for that family - and especially for that poor cat. I mean, the kitty was just sleeping on this little girl's bed and then BLAMMO. In comes a shell, flying through the roof. What are the odds?

I'm still bitter from poor Ava getting hit by a car. I'd be irreconcilable if my beloved pet cat was the victim of artillery bombardment.

This story gratuitously stolen from Erica Henderson's site.

Love is...

Your wife having your Gingermobile washed, waxed and detailed while you're off working in New York City for the day.

Further on Conservapedia

In the spirit of impartiality, I registered with Conservapedia to try and correct a small mistake they had in their section on militant athiest Richard Dawkins.

It was regarding the 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, in which Creationists and Evolutionists debated the hypothosis:

"That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution"

Conservapedia had this to say on the topic:

"In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate."

I wanted to correct that paragraph because it's completely incorrect. In actual fact, the records of Oxford University list 198 votes for the noes and 15 for the ayes - meaning only one in ten of those at the debate supported the creationists at the conclusion of the debate.

Upon entering that information, however, my edit was swiftly deleted and my account blocked.

I wonder how Conservapedia creator Andrew Schlafly justifies the slogan 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia' with an attitude like that?

_____apedia.

It the Internet has one major flaw, it's that people tend to accept everything they read on it as fact. This is why websites like Snopes.com popped up, to debunk an awful lot of myths and hoaxes (never respond to an email round-robin without checking the first.)

Wikipedia is a particularly thorny problem when it comes to Internet credibility, since Wiki entries are actually contributed by users themselves - meaning people like you and I can go to a specific Wikipedia entry and change it as we see fit (just click on the 'Edit' button at the top of the page.)

As Stephen Colbert put it: "On Wikipedia, any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true. Together we can create a reality that we all agree on — the reality we just agreed on."

The good thing about Wikipedia, however, is that it's moderated by a dedicated and impartial team who remove malicious editing and require everything posted there to be backed up by some form of credible evidence (you'll spot the words 'citation needed' in some entries, signifying that the statement is not supported by evidence.)

This poses a problem for some people, who would love to have their opinions and beliefs endorsed by instant 'wikiality' - yet aren't willing to compromise by relying on something so erroneous as 'facts' and 'evidence' to back these beliefs up.

Hence the creation of 'Conservapedia.'

Truly one of the most cynical inventions in the Internet's history, Conservapedia is a 'Conservative Wikipedia.' It's like Wikipedia, except everything on it is written with a 'conservative' slant. It still demands all statements are backed up by facts - just not the sort of facts us regular folks would give credibility to.

For example, on discussing creationism, the Christian magazine 'Journal of Creation' is listed as a 'peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Which it's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination!

Conservapedia is one thing and one thing only. A place for conservatives to post their baseless theories onto the Internet and have them receive the vicarious credibility of being listed on a Google search engine. This in turn means they can link to Conservapedia as 'evidence' to support their ridiculous fantasies on blogs and in discussion forums.

Great American Gingers No. 1: Thomas Jefferson

Unsurprisingly, my school didn't spend much time teaching us about American history. "We lost" was about the gist of it, followed by the much more seemly study of King George III's descent into insanity.

Now I'm living in America, however, it's about time I learnt what most American kids do in High School - the history of the great American nation.

It's pretty exciting stuff. I've started off with Steve Wiegand's U.S. History for Dummies, which gives an astonishingly brief and inconsequential overview of the major events - I will have to return to and study it in more depth later with The Great American Handbook by Cheri Sicard, A History of the United States by Philip Jenkins, New York Times bestseller Don't Know Much About American History by Kenneth C. Davies and all three volumes of Magill's The American Presidents.

All courtesy of North Brunswick public library, I might add.

So far, I'm up to 1800 and one thing has become apparent. Thomas Jefferson was (to use an American expression) 'the man.'

And, more importantly than that, he was ginger.

Yep, another of history's outstanding gingers. He joins the ranks of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Christopher Columbus and Winston Churchill. A truly astonishing man and an even more astonishing redhead (although his ginger bouffant had turned white by the time he was in his early thirties.)

Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the third president of the United States. More than that, he was one of the founding fathers and the author of the Declaration of Independence. John Adams (soon to be second president) commissioned him to write it in his stead, saying: "I am obnoxious, suspect and unpopular. You are very much otherwise... ...you can [also] write 10 times better than I can."

That's what gave birth to the most famous document in modern history and the concept that 'all men are created equal' - even though hundreds of Americans, including Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. In mitigation, though, it's worth remembering that Jefferson was an outspoken opponent of slavery (despite owning them himself) and unsuccessfully motioned for it to be outlawed in the Virginia legislature in 1769.

Thomas Jefferson also gave birth to the Republican party - although his streamlined and sensible political party has become distorted, hypocritical and entirely contradictory to the original Republican ideals it once stood for.

He was also an atheist - or, more specifically, a 'deist.' He suspected there of being some higher power, but entirely rejected Christianity and organised religion. Instead of superstition and blind faith, he believed man was placed on the earth with the power to discover things for himself through reason and rationality. He believed overwhelmingly in the complete separation of Church and state. The fact that Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence is further proof that America was founded on secular principles.

All in all - and considering I'm not even up to his first term in office yet - Thomas Jefferson seems like a legendary man. Brilliant. Charismatic. A true American hero. As John F. Kennedy once said, when welcoming some impressive guests to a dinner at the White House, "you gentlemen are the finest group of genius and talent to sit at this table since Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

Adieu The Pimpmobile

With Tina just about ready to pop, we'd had to give serious thought to getting a more sensible automobile - which meant that one of the two red Rolymobiles had to go.

Hearing this, the Lincoln decided to do what every single Roly car does upon hearing the news that it might be sold... [In a couple of week's time, after still being an invaluable transportation unit until that time - Editorial Bear]

It died.

There'd been an intermittent problem with the starter for a while now. Occasionally, if the car wasn't firmly in Park or Neutral, the starter would whizz, but refuse to start the car.

Occasional became permanent. This morning, the Lincoln refused to start and no amount of coaxing, jiggling or swearing would get it to work.

So while I was at the office, oblivious to the whole thing (my parents did the same thing when they got the cat neutered) Tina called the tow company and the Lincoln went away to wherever old livery cars go when they die. [The scrap heap - Editorial Bear.]

I am actually very sad about this. I loved that stupid old car.

For such an astonishing ridiculous beast, it was comfortable, reliable (until this morning) and drove like a dream. It was like cruising in a recliner, sitting behind that big, wooden dashboard, staring out across six feet of gleaming red bonnet.

The Pimpin' Lincoln had style. It cruised on a cushion of air. It could do 85 for hours on end, absolutely silently and without breaking a sweat. The metallic red paint and heavy-duty sound system were worthy of any ghetto-fabulous Pimpmobile and - according to popular legend - former New York Governor Jim McGreevey had done the deed (with all sorts of people, in a variety of combinations) in the back seat.

It had even been discussed on Playboy Radio. My car. Mentioned on their breakfast show.

Goodbye, Pimpmobile. You will be missed.

Thomas Jefferson on The Bible

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine."

"In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

The Bible as Literature

My recent tongue-in-cheek post about the Bible resulted in a couple of emails and a blog comment.

One acknowledged that I 'didn't mean any harm' by my post, another implied that my reference to the contradictions, discrepancies and inaccuracies in the Bible 'reveal a lack of understanding of the work.'

It's the second statement I disagree with. This is a very common response from people who don't agree with my particular take on the Bible and the context of what's written within it - but I went to a theological university (albeit to study history) and took classes on the history and origins of the Bible.

I think this puts me in a better position to discuss it than a certain sect of the Christian community, whose 'knowledge' of the Bible stems from them reading their own particular English translation of the Bible and discussing it amongst themselves.

There is an important difference between 'studying the Bible' (in which one learns about the documentary history of the Bible, the historical and political influences that effected it's development and the context in which it was written) and 'Bible studies.' Reading four chapters of the Bible every day does not give you a better understanding of it.

The fact is, each of the 21 English-language translations of the Bible are riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and inaccuracies. Even ignoring the internal inaccuracies, it's difficult to reconcile how one translation of the Bible (such as the popular King James) is often in contradiction with another (such as the Revised Standard Bible.)

I've written quite extensively about it here - The Bible and Star Wars.

It doesn't have to be a big deal. The inaccuracy of the Bible shouldn't be a question of faith.

For example, I'm an atheist and I still believe that the Bible contains many historical and philosophical truths. Catholics and Episcopalians still believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for our sins - yet they're willing to accept that the story of creation was allegorical and the actual birth of mankind follows what scientific study has taught us.

[You should listen to the Catholics, guys. When it comes to The Bible, they wrote the book. Literally. - Editorial Bear.]

The problem arises when fundamentalist evangelicals - and yes, I'm sorry I'm always ragging on you - try to claim that the Bible isn't inaccurate. It's not allegorical. It's literal fact and it's the infallible word of God.

I simply find it astonishing - mind boggling - that we live in the early years of the 21st century (man has split the atom, sent men to the moon and harnessed the power of DNA) yet there are millions of people in the United States who honestly believe that the world is 7,000 years old and God made Eve out of one of Adam's ribs (what was she? Six inches tall?)

But I've discussed this particular troubling issue many, many times over and generally reached the same impasse. They tell me: "If the facts don't agree with our belief system, then the facts are wrong." There's very little point discussing it further.

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that's not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. What is important? What you want to be true, or what is true?" Stephen Colbert

Riddle Me This...

Assuming for a second that the Bible is the infallible word of God and the copy you've got sitting in your bookcase (let's say it's the Revised Standard Bible) is entirely 100% accurate (even if it has several inconsistencies with your neighbour's King James Bible) could you answer me these questions? I'll make them multiple choice, to keep things easy.

Let's look at some of the attitudes and inspirations behind Christian faith first.

God is...

1. ...love, which is not jealous or boastful
2. ...a jealous God, who will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins and will turn and do you hurt, and consume you

The Bible's attitudes towards feminism are:

1. Progressive. "There is no such thing as male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus."
2. Chauvinistic. "Women should keep silent. They have no permission to talk. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home."

What was God's attitude to enemies and war?

1. He was an old softy! "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors. There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds."
2. He was a vicious old bastard. "Go now, fall upon them! Destroy them! Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys!"

If that hasn't confused you, let's have a look at some of the purely factual evidence regarding certain events (like Christ's Crucifixion.)

After Judas betrayed him, following the Last Supper, which of the Jewish authorities decided whether to hand Jesus Christ over to Pontius Pilate or not?

1. Jesus is placed on trial in front of the whole Sanhedrin.
2. There's no trial. The Sanhedrin merely hold an inquiry to decide.
3. There isn't even an inquiry. Jesus only appears before Annas and Caiphas.

When Jesus is arrested, how does he tell his disciples to react?

1. Non-violently. "Those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword," he warns them.
2. Aggressively. "Whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one!"
3. He doesn't say a thing. He's too busy getting arrested.

After betraying Jesus, Judas Iscariot...

1. Gave back the money he'd been bribed and hung himself.
2. Kept the money, fell over and died after his intestines randomly fell out.

The answer to all of the questions is 'all of the above.'

These are just a tiny handful of the hundreds of blatant contradictions contained within the Bible, ranging from major theological issues (is homosexuality a sin? Or does Jesus condone it?) to some mundane, but important facts (Luke says Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth, while Matthew implied they lived in Bethlehem.)

I've said it once. I ought to say it again. The fact that the Bible is a deeply flawed and inaccurate document does not stop it being an enormously important book - nor diminish the message of faith it contains. However, it is not the infallible word of God, as certain evangelicals would like to believe. It's not even the infallible word of man.

In the course of the Bible's long journey to your bookshelf, the real events that inspired it have been significantly warped, manipulated, misquoted and fictionalized. The worst of that damage has been done in the last century or so - when dozens of forthright and opinionated 'translators' delivered their own 'versions' of the King James Bible, using creative licence to insert their own religious agendas in amongst the so called 'words of God.'

There are no less than 21 different English translations of the Bible. You can see that list here. What troubles me more than any of the inconsistencies within the scriptures itself are the discrepancies between one edition of the 'English Language Bible' and another.

One Bible translates something one way. Another translates it different. This website allows you to take a specific passage from the Bible and compare each of the 21 translations against each other. Before anybody claims that 'the Bible' is the infallible word of God, they should take their favourite passage and see how different it appears in other versions.

Which one is the 'infallible word of God?'

None of them. And the sooner the evangelical movement accept that faith in God doesn't require slavish devotion to a flawed religious text, the sooner we can all embrace rationality and reason, instead of cynical superstition.

Work in Progress...

As you may have noticed, there's been a funky addition to the left hand side of this blog (no, your other left.)

I have managed to wrangle myself a whole extra third column! Which is far better than a fifth column as any politician will tell you! It's all thanks to the brilliant tutorials over at Tips For New Bloggers, which presents blogging instructions even I can understand.

How this will effect the overall shape of the blog, I'm not quite sure - but it's filled with possibilities. Until then, don't mind the mess (a new header is desperately needed to fill in all that extra blank space.) I will have everything back to looking pretty soon enough.

I've been tagged: Six word memoir...

Fashionista in PDX tagged me with the 'Six Word Memoir!'

Quoted from Smith Magazine: "Six-Word Memoirs: The Legend. Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Last year, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”). "

So here's mine:

"Hi! I'm Roland. Emigrate here often?"

Now comes the tricky bit - tagging five friends to write their own Six Word Memoir.

Here are the rules:

1. Write your own six word story.
2. Post it on your blog (with picture.)
3. Link to the person that tagged you in your post (that's me.)
4. Tag at least five others (mention them in your post, with links to their blogs.)
5. Don't forget to leave a comment on the tagged blogs with an invitation to play.
   Have fun!

So without further ado, I'm going to tag Scarlett, from I'm No Belle, Jodi from Faster, Pussycat... Type! Type!, Laura Parish (Laura, you need a cool name for your blog,) Jo from Jo's Haunted Eyeball and Kirsty from Words, Wine and Whatnot.

And, in the mean time, go and check out Fashionista's responses (and the rest of her blog) at Chronicles of a Fashionista in PDX.