Maverick McCain

You'd think, following Obama's speech to over 80,000 loyal Democrats, that all attention would be on America's first African-American presidential candidate - but in a perfectly executed manoeuvre, rival John McCain just yanked the carpet out from under Obama's feet by announcing his surprising pick for Vice President.

It wasn't Lieberman or Romney, like people suspected. In fact, McCain gave the nod to a little known Alaskan politician who has proven herself to be almost as much of a maverick as he is.

The Republican Vice Presidential Nominee is Sarah Palin, the current Governor of Alaska.

Both the left and the right are going to be reeling from this decision, but I think McCain's hit a home run. Palin is an incredibly shrewd choice - notching up the rivalry between the Obama and McCain camps.

Don't know anything about Sarah Palin? You're not alone. Despite being governor of the largest state in the union, not that many people are familiar with her. For the benefit of the uninitiated, therefore, here's a very brief bio:

Sarah Palin was born in Idaho, but moved to Alaska when she was an infant and has never looked back.

She grew up in the small town of Wasilla, where she hiked and hunted with her father and earned the nickname 'Barracuda' on the basketball court, where she captained the team and won the championship in 1982 despite playing on a broken ankle.

As charming and beautiful as she was competitive and athletic, Sarah came second in 1984's Miss Alaska competition and won a scholarship to college and the title of Miss Congeniality. Her degree in Journalism, combined with her good looks, rewarded her with a sports reporter job on local television, before she entered local politics as a councillor in Wasilla.

This is the point at which Sarah's story really gets interesting - and her strengths as a VP become apparent.

Palin complained of corruption and wasteful spending by Wasilla's mayor and challenged his for his seat in the 1996 election - winning the close race based on her promise of reducing property tax in the town by 60%. Unlike most politicians, Sarah actually made good on her election promise and was voted in for a second term by a huge margin.

Palin's political star rose stratospherically. Shortly afterwards, she became Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - a position she was meant to keep nice and quiet in. Instead, Palin fulfilled her duties admirably, exposing the corruption of Republican state chairman Randy Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes.

They both resigned - and Palin cemented her reputation as a scrupulously principled politician who didn't mind facing off against corrupt elements within her own party.

It was that reputation that allowed her to defeat incumbent Governor Murkowski in the gubernatorial primaries - and then claim the position herself despite being outspent and outmaneuvered by her Democratic rival. In 2006, Palin became Alaska's youngest governor at just 42 years old.

Since then, she's been exemplary in that position - killing wasteful projects like the famous Bridge to Nowhere and showing that same maverick spirit by distancing herself from fellow Republican politicians like Ted Stevens (which was an excellent decision, since he's being indicted on federal charges for financial indiscretion.)

In Alaska, Sarah Palin is a well respected - and well loved - figure. I don't think it'll take long for the rest of America to share that opinion of her.

McCain's Maverick

The biggest weakness in McCain's current campaign are the accusations that he's 'Bush 2.0.' The appointment of Sarah Palin to his campaign will help deflate that accusation, since she's about a removed from the Republican party elite as it's possible to get.

Her career has been fueled by throwing corrupt or lazy Republican colleagues onto the fire. She's illustrated time and time again that she has zero tolerance for party political bullshit.

That being said, her appointment will also be an olive branch to the more conservative elements of the Republican party, who are concerned about McCain's stance on abortion rights and same-sex marriages. Sarah Palin is staunchly pro-life, pro death penalty and helped push for an amendment to the Constitution of Alaska that defined marriage as between 'a man and a woman.'

That being said, she's also in support of equal rights for gays and mentions that she has 'several gay friends,' which might go some way towards placating any moderates scared off by the more bigoted extremes of the Republican party.

On a more personal level, Sarah Palin is simply a great gal. She's a good Christian lass, which will appeal to the evangelical voters, and is a huntin', fishin', meat eating outdoors girl with a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association.

Plus, did we mention that she's really rather yummy? Tall, slender, athletic and brunette. I think I share the opinion of many red-blooded men - we wouldn't be too upset if we were trapped on a mountain with Sarah Palin and had to snuggle with her for warmth.

The Election

Sarah Palin is an astoundingly astute choice for McCain's VP. A capable, confident woman with good, old fashioned Republican ideals. Once people get wind of her colourful life story, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of Hillary's supporters lean towards voting for her.

Could she tip the balance in McCain's favour? Probably not - history has shown that the Vice Presidential nomination rarely makes much of an impact on the election.

Regardless of what happens during this election, though, I think it's raised an interesting possibility. Hillary Clinton was determined to be America's first woman president. My bet is on Sarah Palin instead.

Homeland Security? EPIC FAIL

So about three months ago, our neighbour disappeared.

He and his wife lived underneath us and, although I don't know this, it's a pretty safe guess that they were illegal immigrants. They didn't speak English, they received mail in about fifteen different combinations of Spanish-sounding names and he drove a beaten up old Dodge Caravan with mismatched Pennsylvania plates.

From various sources, we pieced together the reason why he didn't come home one night. Apparently, he'd been driving back from his black-market job, drunk (as he tended to be most nights) and got pulled over by the police.

No licence, insurance or registration, plus a prior record and tequila-scented breath you could light with a match, were enough to get him locked up and, unbelievably, the Immigration Department actually came and collected him.

That in itself is surprising - the local police are forbidden from demanding a prisoner's immigration status and unless there's a busload of them, the Immigration Department normally argue that it's not worth their while 'taking ownership' of prisoners.

For once, 'the system' apparently worked. Our plucky Mexican friend was bundled into a detention centre and then sent back home to Mexico.

That was three months ago. He turned up back on our doorstep yesterday.

In the intervening three months, his wife and kid has stayed in the house (still paying their rent in cash every month) and insisted to those who spoke Spanish that 'he'd be back.'

But I didn't believe her. I mean, this guy was a convicted criminal who'd been deported. I got 'refused entry' for a visa misunderstanding and it took me FIVE YEARS to return. Surely it was impossible - inconceivable - that this little Mexican bandito would be back in just three short months.

But he was.

So it looks like business as usual downstairs. The same slamming doors, the same swerving, rattling, smoking minivan knocking over dustbins every morning. A familiar, friendly smile from his nut-brown face as he scurries past our front door every night.

It just leaves one question unanswered:

HOW THE HECK DID HE GET BACK?

As it happens, the answer to that is obvious. He made use of the thousands of miles of border between America and Mexico that are only defended by a handful of rangers and a bunch of rednecks calling themselves a 'militia.'

Maybe he snuck over in a truck. Perhaps he floated across the Rio Grande in an inner tube (how many illegal immigrants earn the nickname 'wetbacks.') Perhaps he paid a 'coyote' to sneak him over the border - or crawled through miles of stinking sewer pipes like many illegal immigrants do.

Whatever the reason, it highlights the complete and utter incompetence of the Immigration Department. While they mercilessly harass legitimate immigrants at airports, the real problem is ignored - how illegal immigrants continue to sneak across the border into America.

Reports have claimed that a 'crack down' by the Immigration Department has successfully reduced the number of illegal immigrants in America by 20%. If that's true, they obviously weren't working in Jersey this week.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've got nothing against this guy. His wife is very sweet and their son is adorable (and an American, since he was born here.)

I just resent the fact that the current system rewards illegal immigrants. Whether McCain or Obama gets elected, they'll be given a safe route to citizenship despite breaking the rules. As it is, the local police turn a blind eye to them working under the table and driving cars without insurance or registration.

It's only the legitimate immigrants who get punished. They get harassed at the airport, they get stung with thousands of dollars in 'processing fees' and they spend years waiting for stamps on forms from a unaccountable bureaucracy. They get screwed.

When you reward the rule-breakers and punish the law abiding, you reap what you sow. That's why the immigration situation in America is such a God-awful mess.

An Uneducated Housewives Guide to Politics

The lovely Coffee Bean has started an ambitious project over at An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics - and asked me to contribute!

Coffee Bean, who describes herself as a 'fun lovin' and home makin' Christian wife and mama' has two kids set to vote in their first presidential election this year - so she started a blog to peer into the murky world of politics and help give her kids the opportunity to cast an informed vote come November.

Coffee Bean, who really doesn't live up to her self deprecating title of 'uneducated', isn't going to do what most of us bloggers do (wax lyrical with a pompous sense of self importance.)

Instead, she's going to highlight a few important issues and ask some of her blogging chums (myself included) to give their opinion on the subject. This allows her kids to see a broad range of political punditry and make their own decisions about who to vote for.

Along with me, there'll be Liam and Two Dogs - diametrically opposed, but fluent and enthusiastic bloggers. They'll be giving two very different views of the American political process. I'm sure Coffee Bean would LOVE your opinions as well, so do take a peek and leave a comment with your own opinions.

Ask Miltant Ginger

It's time for our regular question and answer column - answering the queries that have been entered into search engines and have sent the reader to this blog.

Should people with a nut allergy eat Honey Nut Cheerios?

The answer to this question is: 'No.' Followed by 'What?!?'

Or, even, answering that question with another question: 'Are you retarded?'

The stuff people enter into search engines boggles the mind sometimes. Was this a legitimate question?

Did somebody with a nut allergy really wonder if it was okay to eat honey nut cheerios? Which, it would be safe to assume, contain nuts. Otherwise they'd be breaching the Trade Descriptions Act!

Good grief! It's idiots like this that force us to print instructions on toothpicks!

More to the point, it's idiots like this that force us to write 'May Contain Nuts' on packets of peanuts (leading to the response: 'Well, I should bloody well hope so!')

So, to answer this question: "You know what, chum? Why don't you go ahead and pour yourself a big bowl of honey nut cheerios and dig right in?"

It would be nice to see Darwin's Theory of 'Survival of the Fittest' in action just to prove the conservatives wrong on creationism.

What does it mean when a New Jersey resident has Pennsylvania Plates on their car?

Well, it could mean that their car is registered in Pennsylvania!

People can live and work in New Jersey, but still keep their auto insured and registered at an address over in the Keystone State. I had two friends who lived in New York, but kept Pa. plates on their cars because the insurance was so much cheaper.

But, just as likely, it's owned by an illegal alien who's got hold of a set of Pa. plates so he can drive about without being pulled over by the local cops.

Where I live, in an almost entirely Spanish neighbourhood, a significant number of cars have battered plates from Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and even Texas. They're all driven by illegal aliens (and mysteriously, the local cops do nothing about it.)

In either event, I'd recommend keeping your distance from cars with out of state plates. If somebody's living and working in Jersey, but have their car registered elsewhere, insurance companies often refuse to pony up if they have an accident.

If you get into a smash with an illegal driver, on the other hand, they'll normally speed away from the scene of an accident just as fast as their piece-of-shit cars will let them.

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.

What does the nickname Simon James and Hill mean?

Simon James and Hill are two talented radio presenters I've had a bit of an antagonistic relationship with ever since they took the helm of Original 106's breakfast show.

I suggested that they weren't right for that audience - and the bosses at Original clearly agreed with me, since my old colleague Pat Sissons soon took over the coveted Breakfast show.

But the boys are talented - and swiftly got got promoted to breakfast show presenters on Keerang! radio, following smug git Tim Shaw's well overdue dismissal. Their rambunctious antics make them a perfect match for the popular rock-radio's audience.

As for the nickname? Simon James and Hill is the duo of Simon James and James 'Hill' Burrell. It's a cute moniker that has lots of people asking; 'are Simon, James and Hill three distinct people?' Or, as I once thought; 'are there two Simons, James and Hill?'

Whatever the reason for their nickname, you can read more about the breakfast boys here.

Keeping it real? EPIC FAIL.

Spare a thought for multi-millionaire Sean Combs, also known as 'P. Diddy,' 'Puff Daddy,' 'Puffy' and 'Diddy.'

The rapper has been forced to cut back on the essentials due to the current state of the economy.

"As you know," he told his fans on his blog, "I do own my own jet and I have been flying back and forth to LA pursuing my acting career."

"Now, if I'm flying back and forth, like, twice in a month that's like $200,000 or $250,000 round trip. Fuck that! I'm back on American Airlines right now, okay?"

"This is proof that gas prices are too high, we need to do something about it, so tell whoever the next president is that we need to bring gas back down."

For months now, I've been selfishly thinking about the working people these high gas prices are effecting - the people who have to stretch each dollar that much further to cover the cost of commuting too and from work - doubling their expenses.

So thank goodness for Puffy, who's 'keeping it real' and demanding sympathy for the people this gas crisis really impacts. The super rich rap superstars.

I mean, never mind the fact that Forbes say Puff Daddy is worth a cool $346 million. That kind of money doesn't mean anything when you have to suffer the humiliation of travelling on regular airlines.

Imagine it!

One minute, you're flying across the country in your own private yet. The next you're slumming it, forced to sip non-brand name champagne in the squalor of American Airlines First Class (at a relatively cheap $2,500 a ticket.)

Sean Combs was born in the public housing projects of Harlem, New York. Many of his classmates and neighbours are still there - battling crime, poverty and discrimination.

But their plight pales in comparison to Diddy's woes and I'm sure they'll celebrate his attempt to 'keep it real' and show the world that he's affected by the gas crisis just like the rest of us.

The Mycroft Protocol - an excerpt...

Eddy Newbolt was woken by the sound of rattling.

It started off quite softly – a faint clatter reverberating through the walls of the old Victorian townhouse. Eddy lay on his back, staring up at the vaulted ceiling, half wondering if he’d even heard anything to begin with.

But then it got louder.

He sat up in the big, sturdy bed and listened intently.

Definitely rattling.

It was coming from downstairs. Rattle, rattle, rattle, followed by a few seconds respite. Then another chorus of rattling.

And it was getting louder. More desperate.

Throwing back the heavy duvet, Eddy rolled out of bed. The floorboards creaked under his bare feet.

Downstairs, the rattling continued.

He paused, peering around the bedroom for a weapon.

Eddy was staying in his brother’s house – he had been ever since his older sibling had disappeared off the radar a few months ago.

Elliott, Eddy’s older brother, might not have kept axes, swords and baseball bats around, but he was something of an amateur golfer, so there was a leather bag containing titanium clubs leaning against the wardrobe.

Tip-toeing across the room, Eddy reached into the bag and selected a driver.

Suitably armed – and clad only in his Union Jack boxers – the redheaded young man pushed open the bedroom door and crept onto the landing.

There was another sudden flurry of rattling from downstairs.

It continued for a full thirty seconds – rattle, rattle, rattle, rattle. Whatever was going on downstairs, it was angry and it didn’t mind being overheard.

Raising the golf club like a baseball bat, Eddy crept down the creaking stairs.

In the living room, it was dark. Heavy velvet curtains doused the early morning light and only a few, bright beams shone across the floorboards.

The rattle rattled.

Eddy froze, cocking his head to identify the source of the noise.

Rattle, rattle.

It was coming from the downstairs loo – located beneath the stairs.

The door was shut, but a bright border of light encircled the frame. Somebody was in the toilet – and by the rattling, they couldn’t get out.

The door shook violently. The lock rattled so hard, the painting of a Siamese cat on the wall rattled with it.

Eddy gripped the golf club tightly.

He crept across the floorboards, his breath rattling in his lungs. Reluctantly releasing one hand from the club, he reached forward and closed his trembling fingers around the battered brass doorknob.

He turned it.

The door burst open.

Eddy Newbolt screamed in fright.

I haven't had a Martini in months...

I Heart New York?

New Jersey is the butt of every New Yorker's jokes - in some ways, unfairly.

Sure, for urban New Yorkers, Jersey is just the west side of the Hudson river. All they see is the Jersey turnpike, flanked by petrochemical plants, an airport and the only reason any New Yorker would venture into that no-man's land - an IKEA.

But beyond the Newark suburbs, Jersey lives up to the title of 'Garden State.' Somerset and Hunterdon counties are lush and green, while Princeton and Windsor are two of the prettiest all-American towns in the nation.

That being said - it'll never replace New York in my affections.

It's not just the city that's so wonderful - there's something about New York state itself. The mentality and mindset. I spent several months on Long Island in and loved it in a way I don't quite feel here in Jersey.

To the uninitiated, New Yorkers and Jerseyites might seem quite similar. They've got similar accents and a close ethnic mix (significant numbers of Irish, Italian and Jewish people.) The swarthy guy with bulging muscles and the Camaro could equally come from Rockaway, NJ or Ronkonkoma, NY. New York and New Jersey even share baseball and football teams (although there's intense rivalry between the Jets and Giants, Yankees and Mets.)

But there is a different sort of energy with New Yorkers. I don't quite know how to describe it. To some, they might seem just that bit harsher than New Jersey residents - more likely to butt into a conversation and quicker to express their opinions.

To many people, this seems kind of rude (hell, New Yorkers aren't famous for their courtesy.) However, I think it's just their way.

New Yorkers cram as much as they can into every 'New York Minute' (a period of time much shorter than a regular minute - often considered to be how long it takes between the light turning green to the guy behind you honking his horn.)

The fact that New Yorkers are always in such a hurry - and demand information and resolution in a few short moments - means they might come across as rude, but they're not. In fact, I've always found New Yorkers to be blissfully devoid of bullshit. They simply don't have time for it.

They are direct and to their point - which, for somebody stuffy and British like me, is refreshing.

I think the other thing I love about New Yorkers is their tolerance. Yes, that's right, I'm accusing New Yorkers of being tolerant. Allow me to explain...

Perhaps not to slowness, stupidity or not getting out their damn way - but in a city (and therefore, state) that is the very epitome of the American 'melting pot,' a New Yorker is surprisingly tolerant of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities and races. New York is the capital of Irish-America, Italian-America - it encompasses Harlem, Chinatown, Little Brazil, Little India...

It encompasses everybody, really - and in New York, whoever you are and wherever you came from, you can find a home here.

New Jersey might only be a few miles across the river, but things definitely change once you cross the Hudson. The people, the accents - even the skyscrapers of Newark - are very similar to New York, but perceptively different.

I'll staunchly defend New Jersey - the 'Misunderstood State...' But between you and me?

It ain't New York.

It could happen...

It was Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairperson (not Chairwoman) of the Convention, called for silence in the auditorium. The Democratic party began what was intended to be just a formality - the state-by-state roll call vote for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sitting on-stage beside his vice presidential nominee, Barack Obama smiled. The handsome senator from Illinois was cool and collected - ready to tip his hat to his rival, Hillary Clinton, in a gesture of respect. The joint roll-call was intended to smooth any feathers ruffled during months of bitter infighting for the Democratic nod.

Hillary, sitting further downstage, was poker-faced. She sat looking out across the crowds of delegates - her face a stony mask.

Pelosi cleared her throat - and the roll call began.

"Alabama - for Senator Obama, twenty seven delegates. For Senator Clinton, twenty five."

"Alaska - for Senator Obama, nine delegates. For Senator Clinton, four."

Pelosi's shrill voice continued through the list of states, counting off California, Colorado and Connecticut. On stage, Obama's smile suddenly faded.

He leaned closer to his running-mate, Delaware senator Joe Biden.

"D'you hear that?" He hissed.

"Hear what, Barry?"

"California..."

Biden's crinkly grey eyes narrowed. He followed Obama's eyes to the screen behind Pelosi.

Sure enough, the tally for California - meant to show 204 of the candidates pledging support for Senator Clinton - actually showed 214.

And California wasn't the only state that defied the estimates.

As they methodically listed each state by name, more and more showed a slight shift towards the New York senator. Not many votes - just a few here and there. Enough, though.

New Jersey and New Mexico announced their tally - both Clinton strongholds, the scores stayed clear in her favor. Then came New York - the home field advantage landing her 139 delegates.

There was a pause in the roll call.

This was the point at which Hillary Clinton was meant to stand up and address the audience, calling for union in the divided party and pledging her support to Barack Obama - essentially conceeding the competition instead of suffering the humiliation of defeat.

But with the subtle shift in pledged delegates, Clinton's 'certain defeat' had actually turned into a neck and neck race with Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator actually found himself just three delegates ahead...

Sitting grimly on stage, the handsome senator gulped.

"Pppst," it was Biden. "What happens now? She's meant to be behind."

"Yeah," Obama nodded. "Don't I know it."

"She's meant to concede because she's behind." Biden snapped back. "How can she concede the race if she's not behind..."

"Well, she is behind. By three delegates."

"Yeah, but you think that's gonna be enough?" Biden's vocie was hoarse. "D'ya think she'll stick to the deal with just three delegates in it?"

That seemed to be the question on everybody's lips. There was a deathly hush in the great auditorium - as almost two thousand people looked up expectantly at Nancy Pelosi.

The Chairperson (not Chairwoman) nervously cleared her throat. She looked across the stage at the two rival candidates. She looked at Clinton, looking for orders.

Obama was looking at Clinton too - his brown eyes burning in an unspoken message. "Concede, dammit..."

But Clinton kept her poker face - peering across the sea of delegates with her icy blue eyes.

Eventually, after interminable seconds, the New York senator turned to Pelosi and gave the slightest of nods. Not the order to quit. The order to continue.

And Pelosi did.

Her shrill voice echoed through the auditorium. she read the results. North Carolina was next. Then North Dakota. Then Ohio.

For the most part, the original estimates were on track. Barack Obama watched the delegates being marked off on the big screen above Pelosi's head. He was still ahead...

But then came especially Pennsylvania, which had originally pledged just 85 delegates to Clinton. Now the Keystone State appeared to have promised almost a hundred.

West Virginia and Wisconsin were called. Barack Obama peered up at the screen with mounting horror.

With just one state left, the scores between him and Hillary were even.

But he was still going to win. Wyoming had pledged seven delegates to his campaign and just five to Hillary Clinton. Or so he hoped.

As Pelosi's voice read out the tally, Barack Obama realised that one delegate - just one damn delegate - could rob him of the chance to run for president.

His brown eyes narrowed. He peered venomously across the room, to where Hillary Clinton sat primly at her table.

The New York senator turned her puffy, pale face to Obama.

She smiled.

As she did so, all of America heard Nancy Pelosi's voice read out the results for the Wyoming vote...

Biden on Barack

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

So said Joe Biden of Barack Obama a few months ago. That was before Barack Obama selected him as Vice Presidential candidate for the upcoming election.

The choice of Joe Biden is an interesting one. Politically, Biden and Obama have a lot of common ground - but at the risk of mixing metaphors, there's also been a lot of water under that bridge of 'common ground.'

The problem is that Joe Biden himself stood for election - so he ruthlessly attacked Obama during that campaign. It's now very difficult for him to stand and deliver convincing support when his past words can be dredged up and used against him.

I mean, why does Joe Biden think Obama won the Democratic candidacy in the first place?

“...you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The wail of anguish you just heard was every racially sensitive person in America. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both one-time African-American cabinet members and pretty much the definition of 'mainstream,' probably resent the implication that they're inarticulate, dumb, dirty and ugly.

But even if Biden is resentful of Obama's victory and insensitive about his race, at least the Senator for Delaware is in support of his policies and plans. Or is he?

"I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

Well, perhaps Joe Biden at least will be unified with Obama in teaming up against their rival, Republican senator John McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with... ...John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

YIKES.

Yes, Joe Biden is a risky selection for Vice President. Although history has shown that the VP nomination generally doesn't influence the voter's final decision, it's certainly not going to reinforce Obama's campaign like he'd perhaps hoped. McCain will be using his inopportune quotes with glee abandon.

[Oh... Another gripe with Biden? Back in the 1988 presidential election, when he stood for nomination for the first time, he tried to rally his core supporters in the coal-mining heartland of Pennsylvania with a rousing speech. A speech he'd plagiarized from no less than Welsh-windbag Neil Kinnock. - Editorial Bear.]

The Price of Ambition

I would like to live in a farmhouse in the country.

I think it's a very worthwhile ambition. I just have to work out how exactly I can make it happen.

This picture above shows exactly the kind of place I'd like to live in. An old American farmhouse in New England (in this example, upstate New York.) Somewhere with trees and rivers and those beautiful slate-grey mountains that make the rural wilderness north of New York city so beautiful.

I like the idea of having my stupid old car in a barn, so I can tinker with it. I like the idea of Tina pottering around with arts and crafts in a downstairs studio. I can imagine the old fashioned kitchen, with it's wood-fired range that crackles comfortingly in winter (and has a couple of Dachshunds lazing in front of it.)

It would be great for Martin to grow up with woods and fields to explore. Maybe we could have a horse. A little stream or river to go fishing on. I'd buy him a sheepdog, since I swear I was never fitter than when my parent's dog Tig used to take me on long voyages through the Cornish countryside.

This is a warm and cuddly dream and maybe, one day, I'll achieve it (like I eventually managed to get myself to America.)

But the question is: How?

Now the problem with my generation - brought up on a diet of non-celebrities like Jade Goody - is that we all feel that we're entitled to our dreams without actually having to do anything to deserve them. Jade Goody, for example, was rewarded with fame, TV shows, lucrative endorsement contracts and millions of quid purely for being a thick-as-pigshit, hideously ugly, racist, ignorant chav.

No, I've evolved enough to realise that I'm going to have to do something to achieve this ambition. Now, I'd like to imagine I could do this by writing. I can just imagine getting a successful series of books published, which gives me an excuse to buy a remote farmhouse and type away in my study in the tranquility of the upstate backwoods (while Martin plays outside and Tina makes pottery downstairs.)

I'd be like one of the typical protagonists in a Stephen King novel, except my farmhouse wouldn't be in Maine and hopefully the walls wouldn't start bleeding and the ghost of my cojoined twin/murdered black woman/half demonic hellspawn wouldn't attempt to murder me and steal my soul.

The problems with this dream are:

1. The chances of me getting a book published are, I think we've estimated, 1 in 500.
2. The chances of that book being successful are probably about the same.
3. In fact, the odds are more likely to land me a murderous cojoined twin/murdered black woman/half demonic hellspawn than a publishing contract.

There are some things I can do to improve my odds, though.

I can actually finish what I start writing. So far, I've got 30,000 words into a wacky spy thriller, 9,000 words into a Gothic horror adventure, 2,000 words into a gritty spy thriller (notice a pattern) and I've got a fully completed book, The Bootleg Boys (which received a thumbs up from Saint Club chairman Ian Dickerson) and I've not sent it out to anybody. I need to finish what I've started!

I can continue to improve my writing. Although I haven't written anything fictional in, like, a year - I have learnt a huge amount (I might write about this later.)

I can quit wasting time - abandon the unsellable writing projects, focus on what I can achieve and possibly even tone down the blogging. I need to write more targeted articles and essays and send them out to see if I can get them published (I've got two things in print this year, Woot! Woot! Why not continue the trend?)

All in all, I think the major thing I need to do is get focused and organised. Energy and enthusiasm are useless unless they're pointed in a particular direction (otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.)

I've set myself this ambition. Now it's time to get out there and achieve it.

Russian dictionary confuses 'Withdrawal' with 'Occupation.'

Associated Press: SACHKHERE, Georgia – Russian forces on Wednesday built a sentry post just 30 miles from the Georgian capital, appearing to dig in to positions deep inside Georgia despite pledges to pull back to areas mandated by a cease-fire signed by both countries. Read the article here.

Vladimir Putin: Crazy Ivan?

Would somebody please explain what Russia's up to?

First they invade a country and effectively annex two of it's provinces, looting, raping and ransacking on the way. And now, despite promises to withdraw their troops from Georgia, they're digging in and helping themselves to whatever the can get their grubby Russian mitts on (in one case, a few American humvees.)

As if this wasn't bad enough, they're even threatening to nuke Poland! The former Soviet republic, now chummy with America and NATO, is installing an anti-missile shield to protect the west from any missiles fired by rogue states (and yes, my Russian comrades - I think that includes you.)

"Poland is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," General Anatoly Nogovitsyn , the deputy chief of Kremlin staff, was quoted as saying. "Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them."

Basically translated as: "If you help America (or France, or Britain, or Israel) we have given ourselves the authority to nuke you."

Is it a genuine threat? Or just more duplicitous Russian sabre-rattling?

"The United States has a firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gently warned, admitting: "such comments [from Russia]border on the bizarre, frankly.''

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop dismissed Russia's threats as: ''Pathetic rhetoric. It's unhelpful and it leads nowhere."

It might be unhelpful, but it's pretty frightening. Russia's become (to use a frankly ridiculous American term) 'emboldened' in recent months and I think they're just testing the waters to see how much bullshit they can get away with - rather like a child poking a dog with a stick.

Amusingly, the more outrageous Russia's behaviour becomes, the quieter the pro-Russian bloggers get. Despite utterly fantastical attempts to justify the invasion of Georgia, I think even their ability to suspend disbelief falls flat when faced with the latest Kremlin craziness.

I would not be surprised in the slightest if Comrade Vladimir Putin is swigging some of his country's homemade vodka, the way he's been acting lately.

Don't Blame it on Rio by Jewel Woods and Karen Hunter

The Real Deal Behind Why Men Go to Brazil for Sex.

Don't Blame it on Rio is an ambitious and bold book by doctoral candidate Jewel Woods and Pulitzer-winning journalist Karen Hunter. In it, they examine the phenomenon of middle class and professional African American men making regular trips to Rio de Janeiro to look for the sex, freedom and respect they feel they don't get here in America.

It's a fascinating read - a brutally honest examination of a growing trend that, Woods and Hunter argue, has devastating consequences for African-Americans back in America. Consequences that affect the women they date and marry here at home, plus the outlook and mentality of the men who engage in Brazilian 'sex tourism.'

The entire book is balanced on something of a tightrope. Looking into the reasons (or excuses) men give for travelling to Rio, Jewel Woods can't help but uncover some uncomfortable home truths that polite, 'politically correct' society wouldn't want to talk about.

For example, the idea that African American men journey to Rio because the relationships they have with African American women in America simply aren't satisfying.

It's cringe worthy stuff - through a series of anonymous interviews, Jewel Woods reveals the true feelings of many African American men - feelings they might not have been willing to admit publicly.

Some men feel that the modern black woman is too materialistic, too competitive and too masculine to have a old-fashioned relationship with. Others complain that the high rates of obesity amongst African American women (which is far above the norm amongst other ethnic groups) mean that the majority of women simply aren't as attractive as their Brazilian counterparts.

By far the most convincing reason Wood's interviewees give is that, in Brazil, they can have satisfying relationships with beautiful Brazilian women without all the 'bullshit' they have to deal with here in the states.

Finding out what encourages African American men to travel to Brazil brings up a very difficult question that Jewel Woods asks: "Are black women necessary?"

It's a question he only addresses in the final chapters.

A Difficult Read

I felt awkward reading Blame it on Rio because the book was clearly intended for an African American audience - a good example being Wood's use of the term 'sisters' to describe black women. Considering I'm white and British (so neither African nor American) I clearly don't have the background knowledge to fully appreciate the book.

What I did appreciate was the raw honesty required to answer Wood's questions straight on. He doesn't pull any punches. Jewel Woods highlights exactly why he believes African American men are looking elsewhere for sexual and emotional relationships and some of those observations are painful. The fact that they're so awkward and uncomfortable to read must stem from the fact that they're based in truth.

Despite being a brutal read, Don't Blame in on Rio actually ends on a very satisfying note. Jewel Woods spends two hundred pages explaining the perceived faults with African American women and the seductive nature of the Rio life style. However, his final chapters turn the whole focus of the book around and place the 'blame' for Brazilian sex-tourism not on Rio itself, nor on the African American women black men find so unsatisfactory. He accuses African American men of taking the easy route, of not being loyal to black women in the same way they expect them to be loyal in return.

In short, the message of Don't Blame it on Rio seems to be 'grow up.'

Considering Rio de Janeiro seems to be something of a Disneyland of Sex, I'm not sure how many sex-tourists will be dissuaded from vacationing there based on this book alone. But even if it doesn't stop the phenomenon of 'business trips to Rio,' it will at least make any man who reads it closely examine his reasons for buying that airline ticket.

Don't Blame it on Rio is available from all good bookstores and Amazon.com.

Republicans don't play fair...

Jerome Corsi is a truly despicable human being.

In 2004, when Vietnam veteran John Kerry stood against George Bush in the presidential election, he published a book called 'Unfit for Command,' which was a cynical pack of lies aimed at discrediting the decorated officer's wartime record.

'Unfit for Command' was the inspiration for the 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' - a group of right wing Vietnam veterans who raised money and campaigned against John Kerry in the lead up to the election - and possibly contributed to Kerry's defeat.

Just like 'Unfit for Command,' the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were largely discredited - but not early enough to prevent the damage they did to Kerry's campaign.

Well, it's a new election and the Democrats have a new candidate - but it's business as usual for Jerome Corsi.

He's just published 'The Obama Nation' (abomination, geddit?)

Just like 'Unfit for Command,' this book is nothing but a cynical attack against the Democratic candidate, filled with page after page of bullshit.

For example, that Barack Obama currently uses marijuana and/or cocaine (because, in Obama's biography, he admitted experimenting with the drugs in college.)

Or that Barack Obama is a 'secret Muslim' (because he spent a few weeks at a madrassa while living abroad.)

These aren't lies exactly. More just wild, erroneous, malicious speculation based on the most tenuous sliver of fact. And the scary thing is that stupid people are going to believe them.

Currently, after the Georgian crisis highlighted his canny eye for the international scene, John McCain's managed to clamber to a level footing with Obama in the polls. He can win this election all by his own damn self - he doesn't need the cheap lies and petty slander of the likes of Corsi.

I hope John McCain does what he did with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - and disassociates himself from Corsi and his cronies.

He's what he said when the Swift Boaters paid to slander Kerry on the television:

"I condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong."

As for Obama? Well, the quality of a man's character is often revealed by the people who revile him. He's gone up a notch in my book.

Only in America: Example #796

The Last Word on Georgia...

I don't think there's much point in me writing anything more about the crisis in Georgia. You can read more accurate fact and opinion elsewhere. I'd only originally started blogging about it because I was annoyed at certain bloggers delighting in Russia's rampant aggression.

The fact is, what started off as pro-Russian pandering by a few misguided bloggers has now descended to little more than farce. This morning, scrappy journalist Neil Clarke decided to launch the 'Russophobe of the Week award,' attacking journalists who criticized "Russia's perfectly legitimate and proportionate action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in South Ossetia."

Honestly - there's no need for me to try and repudiate that rubbish. It's just so utterly blinkered that anybody with an ounce of journalistic integrity is rolling in the aisles after reading it.

Even Mancunian-in-Mexico The Exile, who has been successfully wading through the facts and fiction of this war (and less successfully, trying to put a pro-Russian spin on it) admitted today that "the war over South Ossetia was an old fashioned land grab."

You can interpret the origins of this crisis any way you want - but you can't deny how it's all ended up. Russia is occupying Georgian territory and clearly has no intention of leaving until their aims are accomplished - specifically the absorption of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Whatever feeble higher moral ground Russia might have had has been abandoned now they've got their eyes on the prize.

Why Socialism Doesn't Work

"What we're saying is; there's a limit."

That's Democratic Senator Dick Durbin - and he's talking about profit.

Profit from the oil companies, specifically, but also profit from American businesses in general.

Dick believes that there's a limit to how much profit a company should make - and once they cross that line, the government should step in and redistribute it along the lines of Barack Obama's 'windfall tax' scheme.

Now, I'm as annoyed about ExxonMobile's outrageous profits as anybody. I don't understand how oil prices and petrol costs can be through the roof - yet the 'struggling' oil companies are managing to make the biggest profits in corporate history quarter after quarter.

But at the end of the day, as I wrote about here, I'm totally opposed to the idea of taxing the 'excessive' profits of ExxonMobile and redistributing it to American families.

For a start, Exxon is an American company and the benefit of making all those profits internationally is that this money comes back to help boost the American economy.

Secondly, the likes of Exxon are public companies - there isn't a big, fat cat boss-man enjoying these outrageous profits. They're redistributed already to shareholders, hedge funds and even my 401k.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the idea of taxing these 'excessive' profits violates Roland's Law of the Three Rabbits.


Roland's Law of the Three Rabbits is economics distilled down into a form simple enough for a numpkin like me to understand - and it works like this:

There are three rabbits: Max, Toto and Bozer. They live in a burrow and spend their days collecting carrots to eat.

• Max isn't too smart a rabbit, so he only manages to collect one carrot every day.
• Toto is a smart lil' bunny and manages to collect three carrots every day.
• Bozer is a mediocre rabbit and scoops up two carrots every day.

As the system works, Toto's hard work is rewarded and he gets to eat three times as many carrots as Max. But Max isn't starving.

However, Bozer gets elected chief rabbit and declares that the current system is unfair - that every rabbit is entitled to two carrots a day and Toto needs to give his third carrot to Max to even out the share and make all the rabbits equal.

Max is overjoyed about this - Toto less so.

So much 'less so,' in fact, that he starts getting up later and enjoying a more leisurely day - going out and collecting only two carrots instead of his normal three. That means, when he comes home, there's no third carrot to give to Max so he goes back to only having one, while Toto and Bozer both have two - leaving neither Max nor Toto happy. So from a system in which two rabbits were happy, Bozer introduced us to a system in which only one rabbit is.

It's all hinged on a specific fact about humanity - unless we're given motivation to go that extra mile (like eating a third carrot) the vast majority of people will only do the bare minimum to get by. Or, as the great American Thomas Jefferson more eloquently explained it:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

This is how capitalism works - and if Barack Obama or the Democratic party started capping profits, the only thing they'd manage to do is convince companies to stop working so hard to make a profit in the first place.

Less profit means less money in the economy. That means less money coming in from taxation - which means the government needs to increase taxes to make up the shortfall. That leads to even less money in the economy...

Basically, capping profits leads to only one thing - capping productivity.

Now I can applaud all sorts of things about Barack Obama's campaign and his politics, but when it comes to stuff like 'windfall taxation' and capping corporate profits, I'm deeply skeptical. I honestly don't think the Democrats 'get it.'

In life, there are one carrot rabbits and three carrot rabbits. The only problem with redistributing carrots to less advantaged bunnies is that, at the end of the day, we'll all just wind up with less carrots going around.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity."

Back when James Bond got taken out of retirement in 1996's Goldeneye, he slyly said to his boss, M, that when it came to Russia: 'Governments change. The lies stay the same.'


Yesterday, the Russian government angrily refuted claims that tanks and soldiers were occupying the Georgian city of Gori. This morning, they admitted that the troops were there - and that they were sending even more of them in.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told the world - Russpeak for 'watch while we annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia like we'd intended to do from the very beginning.'

For years, the Russians have been funnelling funding and weapons to the two disputed provinces to stir up a separatist movement. Russians have handed out Russian passports to 90% of the population, preparing them for the inevitable. South Ossetia and Abkhazia will surrender autonomy for autocracy - and be swallowed up by their neighbour.

Accusations of war crimes and an angry refusal to speak with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili were the first steps of Russia's second objective - to topple the democratically elected and pro-western government of Georgia and replace it with one more sympathetic to their former Soviet masters.

Fortunately, America has stepped up to the plate. By sending humanitarian supplies into the Georgian capital of Tbilisi - soon to be joined by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - they've given Russia a very clear message that the government's staying exactly as the voters wanted it.

Condoleezza declared: "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

But have they really changed that much?

With up to 100,000 Georgians ethnically cleansed from the disputed provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, there's little to stop the Russians redrawing the map and enveloping the two regions into their own country. America and the United Nations certainly aren't in much of a position to stop them.

Nobody's quite sure how this will all end - but one thing is certain. The bleating of the pro-Russian apologists is getting increasingly less convincing as this diplomatic crisis continues.

Kremlin: "It depends on how you define 'invasion'..."

Mancunian-in-Mexico The Exile is continuing his coverage of the conflict in Georgia with stiff denials that the Russians are up to anything. The 50 tanks reported rolling into Gori this morning were, according to him, just a military resupply column that 'got lost.'

In 1939 a German military resupply column 'got lost' all the way to Krakow.

In all honesty, I don't think Russia's trying to take over Georgia any more. They might not even head towards the capital, Tbilisi. All they're doing is making the Georgians, Americans and Europeans very clear who is in charge down there.

The Russians are swarming all over Georgian territory. That much is a fact. All these photos were taken today, in Georgian territory, by Reuters and Associated Press reporters.

Is it an invasion? Possibly not. What it is is a buttload of Russian soldiers, tanks and trucks slap-bang in the middle of Georgia - where the Russians cynically claim they're not.

I think the political term for this is 'inplausible deniability.'

.

These guys are seperatist militia from South Ossetia - driving Russian military vehicles past convoys of Georgian refugees.

To the untrained eye, these pictures might seem to show a convoy of Russian tanks rolling through Georgian territory. Rest assured, both the Russians and The Exile know better. They're just a figment of your imagination.

Here are pictures of the poor, lost 'resupply convoy' that the big, nasty Associated Press misrepresented as a heavily armed military convoy rolling through Gori this morning.

Although one of the Russians in this convoy yelled to a reporter: "We're going to Tbilisi!" they apparently started heading off in a completely different direction - lending weight to The Exile's theory that they plugged the wrong address into their Tom Tom GPS.

Ceasefire (the Russian version.)

Russian tanks photographed in Gori this morning. But not 'invading' apparently.

One of the prices of war is an awfully large amount of bullshit.

Yesterday, Russia and Georgia reached a tentative ceasefire in their conflict over the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The pro-Russian bloggers (like charmingly misguided journalist Neil Clarke) celebrated:

"This is a crushing defeat not only for Georgia... ...but for the entire Russophobic movement. The British scribblers who wrote of Russia's invasion of Georgia... ...have got an incredible amount of egg on their face.There was no 'Russian invasion of Georgia'"

Mancunian-in-Mexico The Exile even demanded tribute for his 'accurate' assessment of the conflict:

"On Monday most of the world's media were reporting that Russian troops were flooding out of South Ossetia and into Georgia proper. They claimed that the cities of Gori and Senaki were occupied and went on to make the risible claim that the whole of Georgia had been cut in two... ...There was only one slight problem with that thesis: it was pure bollocks, as readers of this blog knew at the time. Put bluntly, your friendly Exile got the story right, and most of the media just got it wrong. Is my work worth a donation? ...is a fiver too much to ask?"

The only problem - this morning, the Russian's give both our erstwhile bloggers the middle finger, doing exactly what Neil and The Exile promised they wouldn't. The Russians continued their advance into Georgian territory. About 50 Russian tanks rolled through the city of Gori today - one Russian soldier proudly boasting to an Associated Press reporter: "Come with us! We're going to Tbilisi!" [That's the Georgian capital - Editorial Bear]

So, Exile - I'm afraid you'll have to wait a while on that five quid from me. Your 'right' version of the story appears to be getting more and more 'wrong' by the minute.

An opening so good...

"After Doctor Ted Maiman demonstrated the world’s first laser back in 1960, it was only a matter of time before somebody figured out an excuse to shoot people in the face with it. The result was LASIK – a form of laser eye surgery used to correct short-sightedness."

I have been writing an article about LASIK surgery and came up with a zinger of an opening line... Unfortunately, the direction my article took meant I had to change it.

But it was so good, I'm printing it here so you can all see what a funny and talented writer I am [Or pompous git - Editorial Bear.]

More on Georgia...

Like a toddler fighting a heavyweight, Georgia isn't putting up much of a fight against Russia's troops. Despite calls for a ceasefire, Russia is brutally advancing through the small country and has successfully bisected it.

This is quite astonishing. It's not a diplomatic matter any more - a squabble over a couple of rogue provinces. It's an invasion, plain and simple. Within hours, Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, might be captured. Will that be before or after the last of the Georgian resistance is eliminated with typical Russian efficiency?

I think it's clear what Russia's intention is - to teach Georgia (and any other former Soviet republics) that friendship with the US and support of the United Nations will not be tolerated. I imagine a new government (friendly to the Russians, rather than the West) will be put into power soon enough to eliminate the 'problem.'

In addition to neutering a potential NATO ally, Russia's diplomatic (if not military) control of Georgia will give them access to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which pumps millions of gallons of oil to the Black Sea.

We've all just seen how easily manipulated the price of oil can be (and how devastating the effect on America's economy it is.) It fills me with dread to think of the unscrupulous Russian government with a stranglehold on 'America's addiction.'

NOTE: Some people are already talking about a third tactic explaining Russia's wildly disproportionate military response. With war in the headlines, oil prices creeping higher and more uncertainty in the world, it's almost certain that an increasing number of America voters will lean towards a presidential candidate who they feel has experience in 'national security.' i.e. John McCain.

Russia shows her true colours...

Since I've written extensively about Kosovo in previous posts, I guess it would be remiss if I didn't throw in my opinion about the chaos that's overtaken Georgia at the moment (that's the former Soviet Georgia, not the one the Duke boys live in.)


The Conflict in Georgia

Georgia used to be part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, as the Iron Curtain fell, the region declared independence. However, two regions of the new Republic of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, contained a strong separatist movement that refused to accept being part of the new Republic of Georgia. They almost immediately declared themselves independent of the Georgian government and, in 1995, 'ethnically cleansed' the two provinces of over a quarter of a million Georgian citizens.

Since that date, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have both effectively been independent provinces, despite angry noises from the Georgian government. Georgia has attempted to regain control, but the separatists have led a fierce resistance against them.

A few days ago, the tentative ceasefire broke down when the Georgian government accused the separatists of bombing villages in Georgia. The Georgians entered separatist territory to 'defend themselves' and reclaim their turf. However, the Georgian push was met with a frightening response.

The old bear, Mother Russia herself, sent troops and airplanes into separatist and Georgian territory - reacting with brutal military might to 'protect the independence' of the two breakaway provinces.

What we're left with is a de facto invasion by Russian forces into a neighbouring country.

Hypocrisy

The Russians may want people to believe that they're 'lending military support' to the separatist movement in Abkhazia and South Ossetia - and both breakaway governments have actively asked for their support in defending themselves from the Georgians.

However, their real intentions are utterly transparent.

Given their angry response to Kosovo's independence - Russia's never been too fond of breakaway republics ever since they got a bloody nose in Chechnya - it seems astonishing that they'd suddenly support the fight for independence in Georgia.

The truth is, Russia's not interested in independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia at all. They're looking to absorb both provinces into Russia itself. Once the Georgian military is silenced, both provinces will be occupied by the might of the Russian army for a long, long time to come.

NOTES:

Following some emails, I'd just like to clarify the following:

1: No, I'm not 'on the Georgian's side.' Shooting at women and children, burning down villages and generally being brutal towards civilians in disputed territory is unacceptable. It was certainly unacceptable when it was Serbs doing it is Kosovo, so I don't see why it should be any different here.

2: 90% of the population of South Ossetia have Russian passports. Some emailers have argued that this means that the breakaway province might as well be part of Russia. Funnily enough, some of these emailers are the same people who argued the complete opposite when I pointed out that 90% of Kosovo's population was ethnic Albanian, so why should the province become part of Serbia?

3: I don't see how Russia's invasion of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia can be called a 'liberation' by the same people who said the UN's arrival in Kosovo to stop the bloodshed was an 'unwarranted, illegal occupation.' I don't see how they can justify Russia killing thousands of civilians in bombing raids as 'within their rights' and yet criticise Bill Clinton for bombing Belgrade during the Bosnian crisis. Are these people really so blind as to not see the similarities?

McCain pulls another one out of the hat...

Defending Barack Obama is all very well, but it's tough to beat this new campaign contribution from John McCain - official 'McCain' brand chocolate!

This is the real deal, hot off the press from McCain's gorgeous daughter (and eminent blogger) Meghan McCain (pictured here on board the Straight Talk Express - the bus her dad will hopefully be throwing the social conservatives under come November.)

Personally, I think the only way to top McCain-brand candy would be an Obama-brand beer (preferably dark and rich, just like the candidate himself.)

Oh, wait! There already is one! Pity you can only get it in Kenya.

In Defence of Barry Obama #2

America's talk radio is dominated by the conservatives - and when they're attacking Barack Obama (which is pretty much all the time) they love to throw words around like 'socialist' and 'Marxist.'

As a Brit, I find the whole idea of labelling Obama a socialist to be laughable. These poor Republicans have no concept of what a real socialist is.

Back when I was a boy (before Tony Blair made the Labour Party all cute and fluffy) there was a real socialist movement in the UK. The sort of thing that would have driven the likes of talk radio presenters Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Mike Reagan running for cover.

Fear Comrade Obama

Part of the right wing campaign of mischaracterization stems from the conservative's desire to frighten voters.

Although 'the Red Menace' disappeared when the Cold War did, America still remembers the days of the McCarthy witchhunts and the fear that your next door neighbour could be a 'red.'

Socialism and Marxism are dirty words (whereas in England, they just make you think of angry young students trying to flog you copies of The Socialist Worker.)

There are two pieces of ammunition the right wing use to label Obama as a socialist. One of them is his call for 'Universal Health Care.'

The Spectre of the NHS

To the conservatives, the idea of 'Universal Health Care' is interpreted as some kind of nationalized health program akin to the National Health Service we have in the UK. The only problem is that Barack Obama isn't advocating anything of the sort.

'Universal Health Care' does not mean government run health care. It simply means 'health care for all.' And that's the crux of his health care policy. Obama wants to make affordable health care available for everybody, with guaranteed eligibility for those with 'pre-existing conditions.'

In addition to giving the 'uncoverable' access to medical treatment, he also wants to reduce the overall cost of health care by an average of $2,500 per family. He intends to do this by cutting the costs of actual medical treatment and reducing drug costs by eliminating patents pharmaceutical companies have.

I'm not in agreement with Obama's ideas. The idea of eliminating patents has the disadvantage of removing any incentive pharmaceutical companies have for developing new drugs, so like many of Obama's policies, it's blissfully naive. I think John McCain's health care strategy is more realistic and practical.

However, nothing Obama proposes could be interpreted as 'socialised' health care - even the government sponsored health coverage for children and those with pre-existing conditions.

What the conservatives attack as 'nationalised' government health care for the uninsured is nothing of the sort. In fact, Barack Obama isn't advocating anything that doesn't already exist.

Despite all the propaganda, America does offer free medical treatment to millions of uninsured people every single year - hospitals are forbidden by law from turning away the sick or injured. Because hospitals have to absorb the costs of treating these uninsured people, treatment costs go up and, as a result, so do insurance costs. We pay for it in our high premiums.

By actually organising and regulating health care for the people who fall through the cracks of the current medical system, Obama will hopefully save hospitals millions of dollars and those economies will be passed on to us, the consumer. Sure, we still have to pay for giving these people health care - but I'd rather pay less through taxation than more through health insurance premiums.

Misrepresented

Barack Obama is a lot of unlikeable things - misguided and idealistic in some respects (the other 'socialist' strategy the right wing attack him for, taxing the oil companies and redistributing that money to the tax payer, is certainly some kind of off-colour social engineering program.)

But he's not a socialist - no matter how much the right wing try to convince us he is.