Euro Baby?

According to this article, pregnancy in America lasts 39 weeks.

Which, for Tina, was this weekend.

The doctor, after doing some prodding, reported that baby wasn't going anywhere in a hurry, so we're looking at the more civilised 41 week mark, which is how they do things in France.

In my own secret way, I'm wondering if this is Baby's unspoken decision to become an 'Euro' rather than 'Amero' baby. Fortunately, because of Tina and my citizenship, Baby will have the blissful choice of being either.

But up above, I've posted an artist's rendition of 'Le Bebé Hulme' in Euro mode.

Farmer's Market...

Supermarkets are pretty appalling in America, when you compare them to Sainsburys or Tescos or the wonderful French hypermarches like E.LeClerc.

They're dingy, dirty and the range of produce is pretty miserable. There's nothing like the 'ready meals' Sainsburys are so good at and things just look dirtier.

But, I quickly learnt, you learn to overlook your European shopping-snobbery when you pop into the local Spanish bogeda next door, which trades dirty for filthy and throws in a side order of smelly as well.

I'm not too fussed. The average American supermarket is no scarier than a French market, which would have most hygiene obsessed Americans reaching for their hand sanitizer.

Which is why, this weekend, Tina and I decided to break away from the neat, homogenized safety of shrink-wrapped American food and risk 'the wild' of the local farmer's market.

Farmer's markets in America aren't like 'farmer's markets' in England. We used to have the most wonderful Farmer's Market every second Sunday, which took over most of Winchester's pedestrian precinct and sold delicious, but expensive, produce produced locally.

The farmer's market we went to this weekend was more of a shop - or a warehouse, specifically, which had rows of wooden shelves brimming with freshly picked New Jersey vegetation.

Carrots. Spinach. Even parsnips (oh, how I've missed them!) And, astonishingly, it was all a lot cheaper than the local supermarket - and even cheaper than the wholesale shop we get our groceries from!

Plus it's all fresh, delicious and hasn't been shipped all the way from Mexico.

Tina and I bought $50 worth of vegetables (at the local supermarket) for $26 and they were utterly delicious. The only thing worrying was how corn - which was 19c an ear when I first arrived - has already climbed to 50c.

Ethanol or popcorn? Will America have to make this choice? Will I?

In any event, I'm very happy we decided to go the hippy, Prius, tree-hugging route (as some of our incredulous friends describe it) and check out the farmer's market. It's brilliant!

Anybody got a TARDIS?

It's not often I'll say this... but I'm (vaguely) homesick. If we were back in England, we'd have the BEST episode of Doctor Who EVER to enjoy on Friday.

The Daleks. Captain Jack. Rose and Martha and Donna (the annoying ginger one with the big chest) and even Sarah Jane Smith!

All in one episode that can't possibly live up to the hype...

I guess I'll just have to wait for three more weeks until they show it here.

Good news? At least Baby will have an amazing introduction to Doctor Who (even if the lil' tyke is too small to appreciate it.)

Doctor Who was one of my earliest memories. Tom Baker, the quintessential 'Doctor' left the series in 1981 and I was only three - so technically I don't how I could possibly have remembered him. But somehow I did - and his miraculous 'tin dog' K-9.

I wonder if Baby will have such fond memories of this classic British TV show?

Just because you drive a fancy car...

I was pondering today... (as a Range Rover cut me up close enough to trade paint, the driver unwilling to use his turn signals because that would mean he'd have to put down the mobile phone clamped to his ear)

What's the problem with luxury car owners in New Jersey?

In England, I knew plenty of people who owned luxury cars. Mercedes, Jaguars, Range Rovers and Beamers... And they were all careful, considerate drivers (because they didn't want to scratch their shiny new car.)

In America, however, it seems like getting behind the wheel of a fancy motor means you suddenly have a Licence to Roadhog.

I get cut up, overtaken, undertaken and rattled by a litany of drivers each and every morning on my commute down U.S. Route 1 - but the worst offenders are ALWAYS luxury car drivers.

It's worse when you see them, pulled to the side of the road with their car's bonnet lodged six inches into the boot of the car in front (Ooops. Those fancy German disc brakes aren't quite so effective if you're not paying attention.) Their angry response to the State Troopers is always the same...

"It was NOT my fault. Do you know how much this car's worth? THIS CAR IS WORTH MORE THAN YOUR SALARY, BUDDY!"

I'm not making this up - that's honestly what they say!

I have a fairly British mentality when it comes to luxury car drivers. Take BMWs for example. In England, a 1 or 3 series Beamer equals: Sales Manager. A 5 series equals: Regional Sales Manager. A 7 series means: Premiership Footballer Not Old Enough to Shave Yet.

In a gross display of typical reverse snobbery, I actually look down on BMW owners as cookie-cutter social climbers. People with real class drive real cars. The wealthiest people we knew in England drove a Skoda Estate, for goodness sake!

In America, the decision to own a BMW gets even more ridiculous. For a start, most BMWs aren't built in Munich, but in a factory in Virginia. I mean, to all intents and purposes, they're a damn domestic car.

Then you've got to wonder about the mentality of somebody who chooses to pay the equivalent of my rent every month to lease a monstrous Mercedes... Sometimes when their salary isn't actually that much more than mine (I worked with somebody who lived in their parent's basement so they could afford a luxury Acura sports coupe.)

And finally... What the hell is the point of owning a beautiful built 'driving machine' if you're going to have an automatic gearbox in the damn thing? Really, you're just paying for a gadgets laden dodgem car at this point.

Yep - most luxury car owners in New Jersey are beneath contempt. In order to redeem themselves to society, the following needs to happen:

• Luxury Car owners must take a British-style driving test and learn how to operate a vehicle properly.
• Your fancy car comes with fancy 'hands free' Blue Tooth. Your driving privileges are revoked if you continue to wedge your cell-phone under one ear as you swerve blindly between traffic.
• I own a 5.0 litre hot rod and even I've grown out of tearing away from traffic lights like it's a drag race. And I have the excuse of a manual gearbox. Slow it down, dodgem driver.
• Quit acting so entitled. Your $1,500 a month lease doesn't mean you're better than other people. It just means you have more money than sense.

And I'd also like to answer some commonly asked questions from luxury car owners:

• Yes, I understand BMWs are beautifully made cars. The BMW manufacturing excellence dates back to when they were building engines for Fokke Wolfe fighter planes.
• Yes, I understand Mercedes are beautifully made cars. The Mercedes manufacturing excellence dates back to when they were building staff cars for high-ranking Nazi officers.
• Your Jaguar/Range Rover is just a rebadged Ford. Sorry, buddy. Nil pointes.

Okay. Rant is over. You can go about your business now.

Weekend with Chileans

Elmo gets political...

Bikini Cake Fight...

More Bikini Cake Fight...

North Pole set to unfreeze this summer...

You heard it here first! [No, I'm pretty sure they didn't - Editorial Bear]

This summer, for the first time in human history, the North Pole is going to melt - breaking apart enough so ships could sail clean through what used to be a gigantic, frozen island.

Read all about it here.

Now, to all those conservative cretins, try and tell us that this isn't incontrovertible proof that mankind has seriously effected the climate of the earth.

Remember the most important part - this is the first time in human history that this has occurred. Which incidentally coincides with a century of human industrialisation.

I hope this might see the end of the ridiculous, retarded movement in the right wing that refuses to accept global warming despite FACTS like this proving their wishful thinking to be... well, wishful thinking.

Global warming. It's here. It's a fact.

"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

Thanking the Academy

My blog has won an award!

Okay, so it might not be as prestigeous as 'Best British Blogger in Britain,' but I'm very proud to have been picked by Brit Gal' in the U.S.A. as a 'Special Scribe.'

Brit Gal' is a fellow UK transplant to the Brave New World - winding up in the windswept beauty of Oklahoma. She very kindly said of this blog:

"Roland's writing is always current, informative, often controversial and very to the point. I may not always agree with his opinions, but they are always well written and interesting."

I'm particularly flattered by the 'to the point' bit, since my wife is always complaining that I dilly-daddle when I'm trying to communicate with her. From now on, I'll give up speaking to her and just hold up a sign referring her to my blog!

Posts along the lines of: 'Dinner is in the oven' or 'I'm going to be late home from work tonight.'

I'd certainly recommend heading over to Brit Gal's Blog. She's always got some great posts going, runs regular competitions and helps educate America with a weekly BWOTD (That's British Word of the Day.)

Sometimes it's more of a 'phrase,' but for anybody interested in the English language (or England's continued abuse of it) it's certainly worth seeing what gems Brit Gal' has dredged up.

Her American experience is also fascinating - very different from mine. I run into Italians in sweat pants and Lincoln Town Cars. She's rubbing shoulders with farmers in tractors. And where she lives, they have tornadoes. Did I mention the tornadoes? I'm pretty sure I did.

Now, having been selected for this wonderful award, protocol demands that I send it along to some of the finest blogs in my 'blogroll.' I have to admit, though, that the whole rose thing is a bit too girly for me, so I have created the Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging instead. The Dinsey, in the vernacular.

The Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging, just to make it sound more valid than it perhaps is (since I just made it up) judges blogs on a number of criteria:

• Frequency of Updates - a blog should be updated at least once a week. This unfortunately rules out some truly excellent bloggers I know!


• Actually Writing a Blog - a blog should actually involve well written consideration and discussion. Just posting a news story and writing 'Can U freakin' believe that???' isn't blogging!


• A Brush with Excellence - to be awarded an 'excellence award' you actually have to be excellent at something. A good example is the wonderful Haunted Jo, who unfortunately doesn't update enough for Editorial Bear's liking, but writes astonishingly hilarious and funny reviews which certainly deserve recognition.

I found it VERY tough to selected only five from the many blogs I enjoy. However, the following blogs are really worthy of the Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging because they do go that extra mile:

Erica Henderson's blog I Fail At Life (That's Why I Became An Artist) is a truly excellent blog. Erica keeps us updated often, with beautiful illustrations, updates on her career as a kick-ass cartoonist and random silliness that is guaranteed to start anybody's day off right. A well deserved winner of The Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging.

Lisa Bettany probably doesn't need another award for her techie blog Mostly Lisa. She's already received numerous accolades - including being voted '5th Hottest Girl on the Web' by G4's television show 'Attack of the Show.' But her blog is really impressive. It looks great, it's updated often, features beautiful photography and wacky videos and while some of the more technical posts and Apple idolatry are over my head, what she writes is often hysterically funny. Another well deserved winner of The Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging.

Smells Like Grape is a new addition to my blogroll, but a great one. Taster A and Taster B are wine connoisseurs on a journey of drinking discovery. The best part about their blog is that the two talented tasters aren't 'experts' but 'enthusiasts' and therefore taste an enormous variety of wines, from bargain-bin bottles for under ten bucks to really outstanding wines and brandies. They also make the link between their vinous voyage and suitable foods to accompany each bottle, which makes this blog a treat for foodies (and 'drinkies') everywhere.

One of the sweetest and most beautifully written blogs on the web is Reluctant Memsahib, written by a British expatriate living in the African bush with her adorable daughter Hat. This blog struck an immediate chord with me because my parents used to live in Africa and peeking into Memsahib's life is kind of like peering into the life my parents must have had back in the day. Compared to Mostly Lisa, Reluctant Memsahib's website seems remarkably unflashy - but the quality of Memsahib's writing shines through, she publishes the most beautiful pictures and updates regularly, making her a perfect candidate for the The Editorial Bear Award for Excellence in Blogging.

My final blogger, and the only man on this list, surprisingly, is Dr Ian Hocking. Ian was the first blogger I ever interacted with when I started this blog and has an excellent and intellectual blog which looks absolutely gorgeous - if you have all the bells and whistles on your computer to view it! It's actually a bit too technical for my machine, which steadfastly refuses to load his front page. Nevertheless, I picked Ian's blog because it's consistently intelligently written, thought-provoking and just downright clever. In addition to being a skilled writer, he's got a strong sense of personal brand which is apparent as soon as you visit his blog.

So there you have it. I really wish I could have highlighted far more bloggers from my blogroll. The fact that these five blogs are 'excellent' doesn't mean they're my favourite, or my most often read, or that none of the others are fantastic - because they all are.

I mean, where would by morning blog-about be without catching up with Tequila Mockingbird's drunken exploits, or leggy-lovely Katie's 'Cuppa Joe' blog, featuring her brutal tennis smackdowns and plenty of wiener-on-kitty harassment action. Not a day goes by without visiting arch-leftie Neil Clark or conservative Christian CK and getting fired up by something they wrote (seriously - being moderate gives you a bigger cross section of targets for impotent Internet ire.)

I think all of the bloggers I link to are great and worth a visit - so I hope I haven't offended anybody by leaving them off my list.

Supreme Court silliness

Gasp - I think I actually agree with the conservatives when it comes to their angry rants against the Supreme Court!

The Supreme Court is the highest court in America - and it's appointed justices decide the final interpretation of all sorts of important issues.

Most recently, they've made some good decisions, like securing Constitutional Rights for the remaining inmates on Guantanamo Bay and banning states from executing prisoners for non-capital crimes.

Although (to paraphrase James Bond) 'guns upset me', I also supported their decision to uphold the 2nd Amendment and lift the ban on handguns in Washington DC.

But despite making mostly the right decisions (upholding the death penalty was a mistake. Surely capital punishment is the very embodiment of 'cruel and unusual punishment) there is one worrying thing about all of the Supreme Court's decisions.

They tend to rule 5-4.

As in, five of the judges rule one way - the other four rule against the majority.

Generally, this is done on party lines - so for the 2nd Amendment issue, the four liberal justices (John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter) voted against lifting the handgun ban, while the four conservative justices, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Saluel Alito voted for it.

These two 'parties' voted on strict ideological grounds on all of the issues - so it was left to Justice Anthony Kennedy to decide the issue.

This is annoying for all sorts of reasons - first and foremost, because it shows just how vulnerable the Supreme Court system is to abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, cases like the one concerning the Guantanamo Bay inmates and the 2nd Amendment should have been clear-cut. The law is transparent and even if the Justices didn't politically agree with it, they should have voted for what the law said.

Instead, both conservative and liberal justices attempt to legislate from the bench - and overturn clear cut laws with established constitutional precedent.

At the moment, because Anthony Kennedy seems to be fairly clear headed, this is mostly working out for the better. But all it would take is another conservative Justice to tip the balance and see America's liberties poured down the drain.

Likewise, as far as Republican voters are concerned, it would be a nightmare scenario if Obama was elected president and slid another liberal Justice into the Supreme Court - because then the 4/4 split would be tipped towards the liberal's favour.

Even though I'm fairly liberal in my outlook, I don't necessarily think that would be any better for America than a conservative Supreme Court. Whether dominated by the left or the right, it's still fundamentally wrong that they try to shape the application of the law to suit their political leanings.

The Supreme Court's job is to maintain the constitution and strike down laws which violate it. They should be about LAW and JUSTICE and remain totally independent from politics.

Guns and Glory

The term 'landmark ruling' is bantered about quite freely by both the left and right.

In reality, it should be reserved for Supreme Court decisions like the one today - in which a 5 to 4 majority defended the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. They said it clearly grants Americans the right to own and keep guns in their home for self defence.

Unbelievably, it was the first time in America's 200 year history that the Supreme Court had to decide on this hot issue - which divides right and left as sharply as issues like abortion.

Despite my clear dislike of guns - as I wrote about here - I have to admit that I'm happy with this decision. Why? Because it's clearly the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

The issue arose when a security guard, Dick Anthony Heller, was refused permission to keep a handgun in his Washington D.C. home. The District of Colombia has had a blanket ban on private gun ownership since 1976 - citing the sensible argument that suburbanites don't need weapons.

Which is true - and I fundamentally agree with that principle. However, the Constitution of the United States wasn't written with Washington suburbanites in mind. It was written with the memory of the Revolutionary War fresh in everybody's memory - and the knowledge that the revolutionary army was often made up of farmers and plantation owners bringing their own muskets to the battlefield.

The fact that these private citizens owned guns was the sole reason they were able to fight back against British occupation - and that cemented the importance of private gun ownership in the common American psychology.

But private gun ownership in America was important long after the revolutionary war.

Private citizens with rifles and pistols fought off Mexicans at the Alamo. People defended their plantations and homes against Confederates or Union soldiers during the American Civil War.

In the lawless wild west, a shotgun and pistols were essential to defend your homestead from Indians or desperadoes - or to deter shenanigans in a saloon-room game of poker.

Even during the 20th century, private gun ownership has played it's part. During the days of 'lynchings,' more than a few African American families were saved when 'Pop' scared off the mob with the business end of a twelve gauge.

When corrupt local lawmen wouldn't help, it was the 2nd Amendment (or, at least, the principle of it) which provided the most desperate last line of defence.

So while it's all too easy, in our smug suburban existence, to forget the important role the 2nd Amendment has played in American history, we should make an effort not to.

Yes, it's true. Living in the commuter belt of New York city, I know I don't need a gun. In fact, I'm more worried about my neighbours 'packing heat' than what might occur if we left our homes 'defenceless.'

I've said it once and I'll say it again - a Louisville Slugger is probably the most effective form of home defence out there.

But the issue up for discussion was THE LAW.

Aristotle told us: The law is reason free from passion.

Therefore, as much as I hate guns - passionately, in fact - the only reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the one decided on today by the Supreme Court.

The Evolution of Evolution

Back in April, I wrote a couple of posts about Evolution - since I continue to be astonished that there's a movement in America that refuses to accept Darwin's theory and still believes in 'Creationism' (as in, God invented it all over the course of a week.)

No, that's not the astonishing part. The fact that this movement hasn't been ridiculed into non-existence yet is the bit that boggles my mind!

One of the reasons 'Creationism' is still bantered about is because seemingly intelligent, reasonable people advocate it - such as blog friend and commentator CK.

Back in April, he had a few dissenting opinions on my appraisal of evolution - arguing that intelligent design was clearly a better theory since there were 'missing links' that had so far eluded scientists and prevented them from pinning down evolution as anything more than a theory.

As CK said: 'Intelligent Design: No need to see a fish turn to a bird, if a bird was designed as a bird and a fish as a fish. Animals adapt and evolve... but they don't change what animal they are in the process.'

He argued that God invented birds and birds, fish as fish and the rest of the animals started off as what they were and any 'evolution' that has occurred has been purely incidental.

It's a pretty logical argument, which makes sense since CK is a pretty logical guy. The flaw is that these 'missing links' DO continue to be discovered - reinforcing Darwin's theory and punching holes in the idea of Creationism.

In fact, last Thursday saw the discovery of the most convincing 'missing link' discovered yet. 'Ventastega' is a 100 million year old fish with tiny legs - currently the oldest discovered four-legged animal and concrete proof that the four legged mammals of today started their evolutionary journey as fish.

That's what is so comforting about theories like evolution. They start from the assumption that we don't know all the answers - but the more we find out, the more the facts back our theories. Creationism is the opposite - it stems from a belief that we DO know all the answers (or, at least, the Bible does) and it must be infuriating for 'believers' to see their doctrine hammered by reality each time a new fossil is unearthed.

More hypocrisy from PETA...

As you're all well aware, I can't stand the animal-murdering frauds who call themselves PETA - The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [Or, more accurately, Parasites for the Enrichment of Their (own) Association - Editorial Bear]

At the moment, this vile organisation is attacking the organisers of Wimbledon - who have found that the two hawks they employ aren't up to the task of scaring off London's militant pigeons and have resorted to shooting the flying rats rather than let them dive-bomb players and pedestrians with guano.

“Cruel and illegal behaviour!” A PETA spokesman called it.

And they should know! After all, PETA have been captains of cruel and illegal behaviour for years.

Read my previous post for more details - including the circumstances that let to this tragic picture of slaughtered puppies.

But just in case you were fuzzy - let me lay out the basics for you. PETA raise upwards of $25 million dollars a year in the United States - which they donate to bona fide terrorist organisations or squander on fraudulent adverts urging impressionable children to give up eating meat or wearing leather (the best was 'Your Daddy's a Murderer' with a picture of a blood-hungry father returning from his 'genocidal' fishing expedition.)

Yet despite raking in such huge amounts of money each year - PETA is actually responsible for murdering more animals than any other so-called 'humane' organisation.

PETA aggressively lay claim to abandoned and homeless puppies, kittens and animals - and then murder over 90% of them every year. They claim they can't afford to do anything except 'euthanize' these animals - but that's not true. If they used their fortune to pay for keeping these pets long enough to re home them, most of them could be spared.

Other humane organisations did - and on a fraction of PETA's budget. Virginia Beach SPCA, right down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, managed to adopt out almost 70% of the animals in its care last year.

So the fact remains - PETA fraudulently squeeze money out of ill-informed animal lovers and then WASTE all of it. Since their wretched organisation's inception, they have failed to do one single positive thing for the welfare of animals - and have, in fact, slaughtered thousands of them.

PETA murders animals - and anybody who willingly donates money to them is as guilty as they are of animal cruelty.

Obama dares to confront Evangelical Hypocrisy

"Even if we had only Christians in our midst - if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America - whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?"

Bang. Nailed it right on the head. Well played, Mr Obama.

Barack was speaking in Colorado, trying to bridge the divide between the Democratic party and the Evangelical right wing (who could possibly muster up to eighty million votes in the coming election.)

With John McCain losing out because of his lack of 'conservative credentials' (i.e. he won't pander to the pious nutjobs who lead the Evangelical movement) Obama was hoping to convince some Christian groups to support him in the upcoming election.

He's not doing too bad a job, either. Up to 15% of conservative Christians who'd previously identified as 'Republican' have left that party - dismayed by the war in Iraq and the gloomy state of the economy.

But his comments today have upset some people - including James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and 'Kingmaker of the Religious Right.'

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter!"

Basically, unless you're shouting out your hatred and intolerance for gay people, you've got no right to call yourself a Christian.

Fortunately, most sensible people agree that James Dobson is a complete and utter idiot.

Before Obama, the last person he'd picked a fight with was annoying cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants, who he accused of promoting a 'homosexual agenda.'

He also wrote a popular book 'Dare to Discipline,' which advocated corporal punishment for children - and warned parents that if their kid cried as a result, they should "offer him a little more of whatever caused the original tears." [i.e. wallop him again - Editorial Bear.]

Unfortunately, non-sensible people hugely outnumber the sensible ones and Dobson boasts of having delivered election victories to Bush in both Ohio and Florida in the 2000 election. He even warned the president that unless Bush upped the pressure against advocates of abortion and gay rights, he'd 'pay a price in four years time.'

Obama's measured and thoughtful speech might have impressed many people today - but it didn't impress Dobson and I've got a feeling we'll hear an awful lot more bullshit from him as a result.

The Two Tiers of Immigration Law

I once got turned away from entering the United States due to a piddling VISA issue (which got sorted out and I'm now a happy - and lawful - permanent resident thank you very much.)

But because of that experience, I've kept a watchful gaze on the behaviour of other non-resident rogues and the attitude the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services has toward them.

And I have to admit, I've been disgusted. As far the Immigration people go, it seems they're willing to overlook just about anything as long as you're rich enough.

I mean, we've already had the likes of brawlers Naomi Campbell and Russell Crowe given the green light to come and go, despite very public arrests for violent attacks on innocent bystanders. Russell Crowe lobbed a telephone at a desk clerk - and Campbell tossed a more lady-like mobile at a personal assistant.

Crack addict Amy Winehouse - who was recently diagnosed with emphysema from all the drugs she's smoked - was snubbed by the VISA department originally, but then allowed in at a later date - despite being a publicly acknowledged drug addict, having drug possession charges on her record and being charged with perverting the course of justice in the case that landed her husband behind bars.

And singer turned DJ Boy George even managed to keep his green card despite inviting cops around to his apartment while stoned out of his bald little brain - and letting them discover cocaine there.

Fortunately, it seems like even the BCIS has a finite tolerance towards celebrity bullshit. Due to new charges arising from Boy George kidnapping and 'molesting' a male model in his London apartment, the BCIS have denied him a VISA to go on tour in the United States.

But there's hope for Boy George yet - and despair for the rest of us law abiding immigrants. The BCIS is likely to reconsider their decision when the trial comes up.

What REALLY annoyed me about this situation is the statement the US Embassy released when they announced their decision to bar Boy George from visiting America.

"This is not in respect of anything he has done in the past, but because he is facing a trial in November in London."

Two years ago, he was arrested for possessing cocaine! In Manhattan! Which clearly violates the 'John Lennon' law, stating that anything other than a charge of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana constitutes grounds for a lifetime ban.

If you look online, you'll see thousands of hopeful American immigrants have been permanently banned for less - like drink driving, lesser drug possession or getting into fights while in America.

Not that I'm advocating their behaviour. I just want the rules to be the same for everybody. Why do the BCIS hold regular, normal folk accountable for their actions, but give carte blanche to celebrities who do far worse?

Just for once, I'd like to see the likes of Boy George, Amy Winehouse and Naomi Campbell held to task for their actions and forced to serve as an example for the rest of the world.

The real Climate (Control) Crisis...

In the winter, the house is 62 degrees, so the average American whomps up the heat to a balmy 80 degrees.

During the summer, the house is a balmy 80 degrees, so the average American cranks up the air conditioning and chills it down to a wintry 62 degrees.

It seems whatever the natural temperature, it's the human condition to be unsatisfied with it.

I am aiming to wean myself off air conditioning. On my drive to work today, traffic was at a standstill for an hour and a half. To make matters worse, my car was overheating - so to ease the radiator's burden, I was forced to crank on the heating.

Stuck on 100 degree asphalt, with my car's heater on scorching full blast...

When we finally got moving again, I opened the windows and basked blissfully in the breeze. Who needs air conditioning when the alternative is baking like a canned ham?

British Hypocrisy at it's Best!

Two news stories, right next to each other on Yahoo's homepage.

First, we have Chancellor Alistair Darling urging 'restraint' in giving pay increases and bonuses to Britain's workers - in an effort to curb inflation. Prime Minister Gordon Brown even pompously announced that Members of Parliament would forgo their annual pay increase to set an example to the British people.

But another story, on the same page, announced that Members of Parliament, although losing their 4% annual pay increase, would see their salaries increased by a whopping £40,000 a year! This was in order to compensate for losing their expenses budget which paid for a second home in London.

The £40,000 pay increase is equal to the maximum expenses claim, so more MP's will reap the benefit of this pay increase and, like EVERYTHING Gordon Brown's government touches, it will cost British tax payers more.

More hypocrisy from Gordon Brown and his cronies!

Campbell is a [Insert word beginning with 'C' here...]

I am generally a loving and peaceful person who extends goodwill to all men (except people who change lanes without using their turn signals.)

However, there is one celebrity I utterly, utterly detest. Naomi Campbell.

The British 'supermodel' has been in the newspaper so many times for assault and abuse that it's not funny. From slapping personal assistants to lobbing mobile phones at people, she is the living embodiment of the 'utterly worthless celebrity diva' stereotype.

Now she's done it again - brawling with police at Heathrow Airport. Apparently she was yelling insults at the captain of her British Airlines flight (including baselessly accusing him of being a racist) and then assaulting the three police officers who came to escort her off the flight.

Blissfully, a court has found her guilty as charged! The destructive diva faces six months in jail and a £5,000 fine.

I'd prefer it if she was forced to suffer the consequences of her actions - and lost her VISA to work in the United States. That's what would happen to a regular person charged with these crimes. Unfortunately, Campbell - like other celebrity brawler Russell Crowe - will use her money and influence to remind people that the benefit of fame and fortune is not having to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting to hear what she gets sentenced with. I think some time in jail would teach this waste-of-oxygen a valuable lesson - and spare the rest of us from her detestable presence.

Tipping the Scales...

The other day, my boss affectionately patted me on the stomach and said: "Puttin' on some weight there, Roland..."

Aside from obliterating any pretense at professionalism in the American workplace, it highlighted something that I'd suspected for the last couple of months - that Tina wasn't the only one growing a little rounder in the Hulme household!

My boss suggested it was because Tina was expecting - apparently fathers-to-be gain a little baby bulge in sympathy. Hopping on the scales this morning confirmed it. Over the last six months, I've gained six pounds.

The question is - what am I to do about it? Ironically, since the beginning of the year I've been trying to lose weight, not gain it!

Unfortunately, living in America is not conducive to staying trim. I have a sedentary job, I drive to work and there's really nowhere to walk to, like there was in England. New Jersey is the dominion of the strip mall! In fact, with a heavily pregnant wife to look after, it's not unheard of for us to actually drive from one end of the strip mall to the other...

In fact, the most exercise I get is when I'm working in New York city, where I get a brisk two-mile walk every day as I yomp from Penn Station to Avenue of the Americas. This is why very few New Yorkers are overweight.

I've been considering this situation and haven't quite found a solution yet.

Suggestions have included 'get your ass in a gym' and to give up alcohol / carbohydrates / sugar / food. None of these really seem very sensible - because in all honesty, short lived diets and exercise regimes simply don't work.

There's a simple reason I've gained 6 pounds in six months. Over the last half a year, I've consumed 21,000 more calories than I've expended - and those surplus calories have added up to six pounds of body weight (it takes 3,500 calories to gain (or lose) a pound.)

This isn't actually too daunting. Breaking it down, that means I'm eating about 150 calories a day more than I'm burning. If I can just tip the balance from surplus into deficit, I'm going to reverse the bulge-building and head towards a slimmer, trimmer Roly! [In theory - Editorial Bear]

And that doesn't sound impossible! I mean, what does 150 calories add up to, anyway?

A can of Coke? A packet of crisps? A half pint of beer? A bread roll?

Or, looking at it another way, 25 minutes riding a horse, 40 minutes strolling in the park or less than 20 minutes of vigorous weight lifting (or, using this Conservative calorie counter, 1 hour and 45 minutes of praying in church!)

Unfortunately, living in a quiet street in New Jersey's equivalent to Mexico City, horses aren't all that common (except in the 'carne' section of the local bodega.) And while we've got a lovely park just yards away from our front door, Tina's far more interested in moving furniture and dousing everything in bleach than going for a stroll with me at the moment.

In order to lose my gut, I've got to come up with a practical, realistic way to change my lifestyle and get some exercise in...

I could bicycle to work (1,400 calories burned) but that would take four hours - assuming I survived the sociopathic drivers on Route 1. Plus I don't have a bike.

Joining a gym is too expensive and, being brutally honest, I'm not sure I'd go regularly if I signed up. The trick to losing weight is to integrate a calorie burning activity with your regular lifestyle - not fork over cash with good intentions, but over-ambitious demands on your time/laziness.

Cutting down the calories is an option - although I honestly don't tend to eat a huge amount in the first place - and considering how grumpy I get when I'm hungry, I don't think my marriage would last a week if I cut out dinner!

There's the idea of giving up alcohol - although I'm with Dean Martin on this one. 'I pity the guy who doesn't drink. When he wakes up in the morning, that's the best he's gonna feel all day.'

A glass of wine with dinner is, sadly enough, one of the highlights of a dreary working week and I don't feel any shame in admitting that.

I've lost interest in people criticizing those who drink every day. Is it more sensible to self-medicate with Vin de Table? Or accuse virtual strangers of borderline alcoholism while scoffing prescription mood-enhancers like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft or Xanax?

In all honesty, I'm not sure what the answer is - but I do know this. In just a few days, Tina's going to pop a baby out and after that, my lifestyle's going to change dramatically whether I like it or not. Perhaps I ought to hold off plotting any domestic enhancements until I've found out what life with the lil' tyke is going to be like.

But that being said - when I unpack my sandwich for lunch today, perhaps I'll reach for a 'diet' soda instead of the regular stuff. That's 150 calories - and my daily surplus - right there.

Witless Protection

He's fat. He's uncouth. He's got a southern accent so thick, you could spread it on a biscuit... No, I'm not talking about veteran west country comedian Jethro - but instead the inexplicably popular 'Blue Collar Comedy' star Larry the Cable Guy.

This week saw the release of Larry the Cable Guy's third movie - the aptly named Witless Protection. Like his previous flicks, Health Inspector and Delta Farce, Witless is pretty much just a vehicle for Larry's comedy talents - and likewise sees Larry playing something (anything) other than a 'cable guy.'

[For Pete's sake, when do we get to see Larry the Cable Guy actually play a cable guy? Is that too much to ask for? Editorial Bear.]

Witless Protection sees Larry as a small-town Mississippi lawman, dealing with the day-to-day shenanigans of shotgun wielding locals, but dreaming of 'the big time' and a career with the FBI. Only his girlfriend, waitress Jenny McCarthy, keeps him tethered to his dead end deputy designation.

[Larry the Cable Guy? Dating Playbody centrefold Jenny McCarthy? So much for 'suspension of disbelief! Editorial Bear.]

Larry's chance at the big time arrives when a black Suburban pulls up containing Bosnian beauty Ivana Miličević and shadowy federal agent Yaphet Kotto (who has obviously fallen on hard times, after nearly snuffing out Roger Moore in Live and Let Die.)

Larry takes matters, and the law, into his own hands and 'rescues' Ivana - zooming off in his Ford Bronco while Kotto and his boys follow in hot pursuit [Howd pursooot, as it's called in Mississippi - Editorial Bear.]

It turns out that Ivana is the star witness in a Chigaco embezzlement case - and her ex lover, Swedish actor Peter Stormare (playing 'Arthur Grimsley', with what has to be the most appalling British accent ever committed to celluloid) wants her dead.

Cue comedy misadventures, plenty of flatulence jokes and an awkward scene of animal cruelty as an airport security German Shepard passes out after sniffing Larry's boots.

Witless Protection sounds pretty appalling - but it's not. In fact, it's a consistently funny, low-brow comedy that keeps the chuckles (and occasional howls) going right through the final credits.

Clearly, don't rent or buy this thinking it's anything other than a comedy vehicle for Larry the Cable Guy. As far as action adventures go, the plot doesn't make much sense and sometimes it's so amateurishly directed that you'd think it was closer to a sketch on Saturday Night Live than an actual feature film.

But it is funny - all the way through.

Say what you like about Larry the Cable Guy, but he is a hysterical guy. His trademark quips, analogies and malapropisms keep on coming (proving that his dumb character stems from an anything-but-dumb actor.) Throw in the site of bikini-clad Jenny McCarthy wielding a shotgun and you've got yourself a prime piece of popcorn fodder.

Verdict? Southern-fried silliness from beginning to end.

McCain's Secret Weapon...

Okay, last blog post for today (I don't know what got into me.)

Has anybody seen John McCain's secret weapon? His totally gorgeous daughter?

Meghan McCain is more than just your typical corn-fed, all American girl. She 'keeps things real' from the John McCain campaign trail with her cute blog - featuring lots of snaps and a daily music recommendation (something sorely lacking from Obama's campaign!)

Considering McCain's major disadvantage is his appearance as a crabby, grumpy old man, it's quite ingenious to use Meghan to appeal to younger people. But don't imagine for a second that Meghan's just there to add 'youth' appeal to McCain's campaign.

She's socially liberal, defiantly outspoken and was, until recently, a registered Independent. Although she's accompanying her dad across America, be under no illusions: She's no Chelsea Clinton.

Thank God. [Note beer clutched in right hand - Definitely our kind of girl - Editorial Bear.]

The New Jersey Gas Paradox

New Jersey has some of the lowest petrol prices in the country - still a hair's breadth under $4 a gallon while the rest of the country heads towards $5. What New Jersey doesn't have, however, is a single gas pump selling Ethanol.

Now I've mentioned several times that Ethanol is not the answer to America's gas crisis - but it might well be the solution to my own personal gas crisis (the five litre 'gas crisis' I've got parked on the driveway.) Driving a Firebird 'hot rod' would be a lot more affordable if I could fill up on the $2.75 a gallon ethanol for sale in neighbouring New York and Pennsylvania.

Which I can't, since my Trans Am can travel about 175 miles on a single tank of gas, which is barely enough to drive me to the nearest Ethanol pump and back.

It does make me wonder why New Jersey hasn't embraced Ethanol. Da Doity Joiz, as some people call it, is one of (occasionally the) richest state in America and liberal enough to embrace most tree hugging 'hippy crap' people suggest.

I'm sure such misguided people (like me) would make Ethanol a roaring business in this state, as long as the costs remained cheaper than petrol. But, no.

Nobody's got the testicular fortitude to give that game a try and as such, I'm left pretty much like the entire United States - a slave to fossil fuels.

Nuclear Family

America has a problem.

Despite being the nation that put the first man on the moon and pioneered the technology behind the Perfect Pancake Maker, compared to most European countries, American infrastructure is pretty pathetic.

Take, for example, the power-cut that crippled the North East back in 2003. That was all caused by a single branch falling into a single power station somewhere near Canada.

Even today, places like California commonly suffer 'brown outs' as the beleaguered power plants struggle to supply all the juice needed to run millions of air conditioners and televisions. In my home, I find it slightly scary that plugging in a hairdryer causes all the lights to dim!

Money that's wasted on foreign wars, bridges to nowhere and shadowy foreign internment camps could be much better spent fixing the wiring and bringing America up to the standards of the 21st century. We're the world's greatest superpower - surely there's no excuse for people in the suburbs of Los Angeles not having electricity!

One excellent suggestion that John McCain is advocating involves building another 45 nuclear power stations.

It's not rocket science [Actually, it pretty much is - Editorial Bear]. Nuclear power is safe, clean, cheap and efficient. Yet because of bad press and the legacy of Chernobyl, people in America shy away from the concept and prefer to rely on dirty old coal power plants (compare coal-mining deaths to the casualties of Chernobyl and it's pretty clear which is safer.)

In fact, America hasn't built a nuclear power station for thirty years - and John McCain admits that the major hurdle in building new power plants will be the fact that the technology and expertise has largely been lost!

That in itself reveals something scary - that to some extents, America is in the midst of a technological 'dark ages.'

Places like France have proven that nuclear power is effective and efficient in delivering a nation's energy needs. What's more, switching just 1/5th of America's power from coal to nuclear would save the entire world from carbon emissions equivalent to every single automobile in the United States.

Environmentalists claim the key to overcoming the energy crisis is to embrace new technology. A little research reveals that, in fact, the technology doesn't even need to be that new.

The Flaw with the 2nd Amendment...

I'm not sure if any of you heard about this, but in Colombia, South Carolina, a four year old girl accidentally 'exercised her 2nd Amendment rights' with her grandmother's concealed handgun.

The girl fortunately survived the gunshot wound to her chest - and South Carolina police didn't press charges against her grandmother (we are talking about South Carolina, here.)

It did raise some interesting issues, though - like what the hell a 47 year old grandmother was doing with a handgun concealed in her purse. I didn't realise shopping at Sam's Club Wholesale Store was so dangerous!

The woman in question, aside from being an idiot, was a county magistrate and claimed that her job was 'dangerous' enough to warrant carrying a concealed weapon. The authorities were more than happy to issue her a 'Carry and Conceal Permit (we are talking about South Carolina, here.)

However, herein lies the flaw I've identified with the 2nd Amendment...

Most of the people in America who vehemently defend their right to own handguns are the last people in the world who should be owning handguns.

Seriously, the first rule of disqualifying somebody for a 'Carry and Conceal' permit should be the fact that they applied for a 'Carry and Conceal' permit in the first place.

I absolutely agree with private gun ownership - but only for people who are quite rightly terrified of guns, hate them and keep the damn things in pieces, locked up in a safe in their basement.

The people who love guns - who fetishize them [You just made that word up - Editorial Bear] should immediately be banned from ever owning them.

• Seriously - you own more than three handguns? Clearly not the sort of person we want wielding a semi-automatic.
• You think the mattress-mounted bedside shotgun rack is an essential part of your home defence strategy? You are NOT sane enough to own a scatter gun.
• If you have ever used the expression 'Guns don't kill people... People kill people' unironically, [You just made that word up too - Editorial Bear] you are CLEARLY two cans short of a six pack.

Basically, if you think guns are 'sexy', it's quite possible you're missing that essential brain-component that makes you a good candidate to own a weapon. Shotguns and handguns are for farmers, police officers and secret agents. Suburbanites like us should consider a Louisville Slugger all we need to defend our homes and family.

Actually, scratch that. I'm personally with the philosophy you'll find over at our partner blog, Renaissance Babes. Who the hell wants to own a loud, messy, dangerous gun when you could be wielding the ultimate in personal defence equipment - a sword!

"I don't see why so many Americans get their knickers in a twist about the 2nd Amendment, since swords are so much cooler than guns."

Jedi Blues

There's a reason every guy my age wants to be a Jedi Knight.

Ignoring the cool fringe benefits, like a glowing laser sword, faster-than-a-speeding-blaster reflexes and the cool little ginger beard (if you're Ewan McGregor) the life of a Jedi Knight is everything the life of a suburbanite isn't.

A Jedi doesn't need to worry about rent, or bills, or storage space or cleaning out the garage. All they possess are the robes they stand up in (which invariably look really, really cool.)

Jedi don't have wives or girlfriends or relationships. They don't need to worry about remembering anniversaries, picking their kids up from soccer practice or dealing with the in-laws. Some Jedi do have apprentice sidekicks to look after (or Padawan, in Lucas-speak) but they can generally look after themselves - and it is nice to have somebody to talk to on those long space journeys.

But the best thing about being a Jedi is the sense of purpose.

Jedi Knights are told what to do by the Jedi Council. Go to this planet. Fulfill this mission. Save this person/race/star system.

They have a goal to work towards. They have a sense of identity, purpose and importance and, even better, they're left to their own devices to get on with it (the Jedi Council aren't big on micromanagement.)

For any husband who's been dragged around Wal-Mart at 11pm (looking for an attachment to their vacuum cleaner which can Hoover Venetian blinds) the idea of jetting off to a distant star system to free an enslaved race - without being told 'you're not doing it right' while doing so - is indeed the stuff of fantasies.

But, then again, surely one of the best parts about having a child is the moment when they're old enough to finally sit down and watch Star Wars with you.

Why can't you just listen to your doctor?

"Those adverts with their sure sense of how to play on our doubts and insecurities are a symptom of the restless energy of American capitalism."

In his dreary editorial for the BBC, Washington correspondent Kevin Connolly delivers the Beeb's mandatory sneer at the vagaries of American culture - but incidentally manages to mention a very valid concern.

Is it really wise to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise prescription-only drugs on the television?

If you've never been to America, you won't have experienced this phenomenon (and might even be skeptical of it, since it sounds so ridiculous.) But take it from me - the majority of commercials on Cable networks are for drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies advertise drugs for a variety of illnesses - from asthma to indigestion - and suggest that the viewer; 'ask your doctor if this drug is right for you.'

What does this result in? Millions of Americans going to their doctors and demanding he switch them from their current prescription (which works just fine) to the shiny new drug they saw on the television.

It's a logical progression, given the mindset cultivated by privatised health care. When you go to the doctor, you're not a 'patient,' but a 'customer' and that puts you in the driving seat regarding your health care. Unlike the NHS, if your American doctor doesn't switch your prescription to the shiny drug you saw on television, you can leave and find a doctor who will.

(Then again, most NHS surgeries are so blasé, you're lucky to get an aspirin and a pat on the head in the first place.)

When you give your bossy and demanding 'patient/consumer' access to medical websites like Web M.D., you end up creating a monster: An ignorant, opinionated customer who thinks their Internet-gleaned diagnosis puts them on equal footing with somebody with a doctor's licence.

This is why you end up with ridiculous situations like doctors being pressured into prescribing antibiotics for patients who have colds (read more about that here.)

What America really needs is a doctor who'll sit their patients down and give it to them straight.

"There's not a damn thing wrong with you. Go back to work."

"Lady - you have a cold. Deal with it."

"You have indigestion because you eat too much. Here's a leaflet about Weight Watchers."

"Your depression is caused by being 34 years old and living in your parent's basement. I'm cancelling your Prozac. Here's a prescription for getting up off your arse and getting a damn job."

And, of course, the most important one:

"You want to switch your current prescription drug for that one you saw on TV?" SLAP! "Get out of my office and quit wasting my time."

What America really needs is a doctor who's like the crabby, irascible Dr Cox on Scrubs.

“I’m a doctor. And we believe that without surgery, a patient in your condition can suffer from a major case of deadness.”

Militant Ginger: Legal Genius?

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the case the Chicago District Attorney brought against popular rapper R Kelly - alleging he made a pornographic movie of him having sex with an underage girl.

My problem with this case? It was absent of any form of convincing evidence whatsoever. The case for the prosecution hung off a grainy VHS tape showing one man, who's face is never seen, having intimate relations with a young woman, who you apparently can't identify (and doesn't look underage.)

After seeing R Kelly's distinctive mole, which proved conclusively that he wasn't the man in the video, the jury took less than a day to come back with a unanimous verdict. R Kelly was cleared.

Witnesses also indicated that the girl in the video wasn't the (then) minor Kelly was accused of sleeping with (who is in her twenties now and vehemently denies being involved.)

The question still remains - if R Kelly was so clearly innocent, why did the Chicago District attorney's office spend six whole years building this case against him? How much did it cost? Aren't there real criminals they could be chasing (like Chicago slum lord - and friend of Barack Obama - Tony Rezko.)

At least it proved one important thing - that even against the overwhelming might of the Chicago District Attorney's Office, America is still a country in which you can get a fair trial.

More on Gitmo and the Supreme Court

A few emails raised some issues regarding the Supreme Court's decision to allow detainees of Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment.

Issue 1: The US Constitution protects American Citizens and aliens ON United States territory. Since Guantanamo bay is in Cuba and the detainees aren't American, they shouldn't be given Constitutional rights.

Rebuttal: Guantanamo Bay is effectively United States territory. It was a military base cynically established 90 miles from Florida's coast to allow the government to detain 'enemy combatants' without having to worry about pesky things like the Constitution. But for all intents and purposes, it is American territory. American troops. American equipment. American fences protecting American turf and American burgers and hot dogs served in the canteen. As damned-as-near it, it's American soil and to argue it isn't is just semantics. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees have Constitutional rights.

Issue 2: The detainees are Prisoners of War and therefore don't have the same Constitutional rights as defendants in Criminal cases.

Rebuttal: I can see the logic behind this - we certainly didn't offer Japanese or German prisoners of war Constitutional rights during World War II. However, the reality is this: Nobody's quite sure if these detainees are enemy combatants or not. I remind you of the 13 year old held without charge in Gitmo for two years (and then released.)

Because of the ambiguous nature of the 'war on terror,' we're left with the burden of proving that these detainees are enemy soldiers and not just Afghanistani goat herders. The burden of proof hasn't been met - and therefore the government can't treat these detainees as prisoners of war on innuendo alone.

Conclusion: The words 'piss up' and 'brewery' spring to mind - as in 'couldn't organise one.'

During the start of the war, when public opinion was behind them, the military should have made public record of how and when these detainees were captured - and, most importantly, WHY.

Instead, the murky government has scooped up people (perhaps even at random) and held them without charge for years. Are they guilty? Apparently, we the American public aren't privileged enough to find out. All we're 'privileged' enough to do is see our tax dollars go towards paying to incarcerate these people.

If the government wants to spend our money running an internment camp, I think it's only fair that they show us what the people who are interned there are guilty of.

Americans believe in certain inalienable rights extended to all men (not just US citizens). That much is 'self evident' (according to the Declaration of Independence.) No American authority has the right to take those inalienable rights away from anybody - at least not without good evidence.

When it comes to Guantanamo Bay, we've been bullied into surrendering other people's Constitutional rights. That's the start of the slippery slope towards surrendering our own.

More on tipping...

I had a couple of disgruntled emails following my post about tipping etiquette. They were from Americans and basically came done to: 'Are you seriously trying to tell me that British people don't know how to tip?'

You know what? That's exactly what I'm trying to tell you.

England is a straightforward place. If you go to a restaurant and order a £10 steak and chips, the bill you get at the end of your meal will be for £10.

You can leave a tenner on the table and walk out without thinking twice about it. If the service was good - or the waitress was cute - you might live a quid as a tip (a mere 10%.) But it's NOT expected of you.

Generally - and I worked in catering for two years, so don't argue with me on this - you don't get tipped if you wait tables. Brits don't tip - not because we're cheap. Just because it's not expected of us.

This is why the concept of 'tipping' in America (which is basically more like a 15% waiter / waitress tax) is so alien to us. Unless we know better, we Brits generally think the price we get on our bill is all we're expected to pay. That's not our fault, it's just how it is in England (and why bartenders and waitresses in New York rudely tell British tourists 'you do know you're expected to tip in this country, don't you?')

The hidden costs aren't just limited to food. In New York and New Jersey, no price sticker is what it seems. If you go to a 'Dollar Store' and buy a screwdriver for (supposedly) $1, you'll be understandably surprised when the price at the register rings up at $1.07.

Sales tax - it gets added on to all non-food sales here in New Jersey.

To Brits, that's frustrating. We pay 'sales tax' as well - a whopping 17.5%! But in England, the tax is included on the sticker price, so you know what you have to pay when you pick it up (instead of trying to keep a mental tally of what products will have tax added to them.)

It's just a very simple philosophy - in Britain, you pay what's quoted on the label.

But cultural differences (and hidden costs aside) that £10 steak and chips I mentioned earlier... Even with a 15% tip, it would probably only cost $11.50 over here in America.

Gitmo Detainees to have access to American Courts

Reverse_Vampyr has written an angry post railing against the Supreme Court's decision to give the 270 remaining detainees in Guantanamo Bay access to US Courts so they can challenge their detainment.

I totally disagree with him - this is LONG overdue. Terrorists or not, the idea of holding men indefinitely, without any charges being brought against them, is quite simply disgusting.

It is repellent to everything the American nation and constitution stand for. Just look at the Bill of Rights, which declares that nobody can be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' and demands the 'the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.'

The standard Conservative argument is that these detainees are not American citizens and aren't on American soil - and therefore aren't protected by the US Constitution. That's just an offensively twisted defence. America stands for something - freedom and liberty and justice.

If American troops and American tax payer's money is going to be used to operate a detention facility, it must do so under the umbrella of American laws and ideals. Semantics and spin doctoring aside, Guantanamo Bay is effectively US soil. Therefore, the rules of American society should hold authority there.

The other argument Conservatives make is that 'these detainees are terrorists!'

Well, that's not entirely true. It took two years for him to be released, but one of the 'terrorists' was a 13 year old boy who was released back to his 'country of origin' with no charges being brought against him. He wasn't a terrorist. Logically, not all of the other detainees are, either.

It should be straightforward enough to find out. Hold a trial! Present evidence! Charge these men with something - it doesn't even need to be that convincing. At least abide by the rule of law. Don't just lock them up for half a decade.

That sort of behaviour's more in keeping with the dictatorships America opposes - certainly not appropriate for 'The Land of the Free.'

The fact is, George Bush has gone on television hundreds of times touting the American way of the life and American values. It's entirely hypocritical to claim our society is inherently better than those we oppose when we behave in a manner just as despicable as theirs.

'Homeland security' is one thing - we want our families and nation to be safe. But if that safety comes at the expense of surrendering the basic 'inalienable rights' our forefathers fought and died for, perhaps this nation's not really worth keeping secure.

By holding ourselves to higher moral and legal standards than our enemies, we make ourselves more vulnerable - but I believe that vulnerability is worth living with, to defend something much more important. The founding principles of the American nation.

In the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Once again, I leave the final word to The Great America, Thomas Jefferson:

"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume." Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

In Defence of the Beckhams

Victoria and David Beckham caused consternation on Tuesday when they enjoyed a 'complimentary' meal at a posh Los Angeles restaurant - and then neglected to tip their waiting staff.

While Channel 2 relabelled Victoria 'Cheap Spice,' I actually sympathised.

Remember, Posh and Becks are not the brightest expatriate Brits to come to these shores - and the etiquette regarding tipping in America is Byzantine.

I'm going to give the Beckhams the benefit of the doubt and assume they made an honest (and common) mistake - they thought their 'free' meal would be exactly that - free.

In reality, American dining involves doing business with two contractors - the ones who prepare your food and the ones who deliver it. Unless you get your noggin around this principle, the tipping system in America makes no sense at all.

How Tipping Works

Typically, in the states, a restaurant pays it's waiters and waitresses below minimum wage and their pay-packet is made up of tips - generally 15% of a meal's cost.

Therefore, the price on the bottom of your 'check' only covers the food and beverages. The payment for getting them delivered is on top of that.

This is why Brits abroad should never make the mistake of 'only tipping for good service.'

If the service was great, by all means tip more. But if you food arrived at your table at all, you are still obliged to leave 15% of the bill to your waiter or waitress. The tip is the price of their service, not a reward.

If service is genuinely bad - and I mean rude, untimely or just plain wrong (and they didn't try to make it up to you) it's acceptable to leave a reduced tip. If you're skimping on a tip merely because the waitress forgot to top up your coffee on her last visit to your table, you're being cheap.

The myth of a 'free meal.'

My father always warned me that 'there's no such thing as a free lunch.'

When it comes to American restaurants, he's absolutely right.

If you, like the Beckhams, ever find yourself receiving a complimentary meal, remember the golden rule of American dining.

Only the food and beverages are free. You still need to pay the price of having it served to you!

This is where David and Victoria got it wrong. They thought (entirely understandably, from a British perspective) that the 'free' meal meant they could keep their wallets in their pockets. 'Free' involves 'no cost.'

In fact, only the chef's side of the bargin was 'free.' The waiting staff still expected to get their payment for serving the celebrity couple.

Once you've got your head around it, the concept is fairly straightforward. It's no different to getting a free item by mail order - you still need to pay the Post Office to deliver it.

I got caught by this myself, when I got a 'free' drink from a bartender, who was then very pissed off that I didn't tip him for pouring it (well, it's not 'free' then, is it?)

It doesn't need to make sense [That's good, since it doesn't - Editorial Bear] - it's just how it is here in America. Learning to tip gracefully is just part of adapting to the American way of life.

After a year in the States, I'm surprised Posh and Becks hadn't realised that.