Definitely a something mobile...

After three months with only one car, Mummy Militant's new job demands that we have two vehicles... So may I present the latest in a long line of unique cars I have owned...

It's not red, so it's not an authentic 'Gingermobile.' However, it is pristine, luxurious and rather striking.

The Saintmobile and the Bondmobile

Two of my major influences have been messieurs Templar and Bond (both pictured here by the same actor, Roger Moore.)

Simon Templar, the ubiquitous 'Saint', is quite simply the greatest adventure hero of all time. Suave, charming, debonair and brave, he personifies everything I idolize - even though about the only characteristic I share with the 'Robin Hood of Modern Crime' is a pathologically cheery outlook on life and a bent for flippancy.

James Bond, the 'blunt instrument' of Her Majesty's Secret Service, represents a dying breed of self-confident masculinity. Bond was an idealized version of his creator, Ian Fleming, who could eat, drink and womanize without restraint (which explains why Bond's still going, while Fleming croaked aged just 56.)

Both of them adored cars, and often appeared behind the wheels of vehicles lavishly described by the author. Although both Bond and Templar went through quite a number of vehicles over the years, they each have a trademark 'mobile which shares many of the characteristics I strive for in my own 'Gingermobile.'

The Saint's Car

When we first met Simon Templar, he drove a 'Furillac' - a fictional sports car with an American-sounding name (I often envisaged it as a Cord convertible, much like this one from A Kilted Travel Agent's blog.)

Templar later borrowed his friend Norman Kent's car - and after Norman died heroically at the end of The Last Hero, Templar adopted the 'Hirondel' and drove it throughout almost all of his European-based adventures.

Like the Furillac, the cars of the Hirondel Motor Corporation were fictional - however, we do know what they looked like. Author Leslie Charteris based Templar's cream and red Hirondel on his own twelve-cylinder Lagonda Rapide, meaning the car The Saint drove resembled something like this:


We know it was very fast, low-slung and practical enough to contain four people (who could be slung in and out of the vehicle with relative impunity, thanks to the convertible top.)

We also know the car did about 5mpg and the Hirondel Motor Corporation was based in Britain (and appeared to produce a limited number of these cars, practically assembling them by hand.)

Bond's Car

To most us us, the name James Bond is synonymous with 'Aston Martin.'

But while the movie incarnations of 007 have always been behind the wheel of that stylish brand of luxury touring car, the original James Bond was very particular about his choice of transportation. He drove a Bentley, plain and simple.

In Casino Royale, we were introduced to Bond's 1930 Bentley Blower, a super-charged 4½ litre Le Mans car in matt, battleship grey. As tended to become a habit with Bond, he crashed it at the climax of the story (car chases and martinis clearly don't mix, even in the 1950's.)

In later books, author Ian Fleming promoted Bond's chariot to the 'Bentley Continental Mark IV' - a car equally as fictional as Simon Templar's Hirondel. Although Bentley never produced a real Bentley Mark IV, it's fair to imagine it might have looked something like a contemporary Bentley Continental, like this one I've stolen from A Kilted Travel Agent's blog.


Bond suitably modified his car with an Arnott supercharger (leaving Rolls Royce no choice but to wipe their hands of this 'bastardized child') which allowed the Bentley to cruise at 100mph 'with 30 in reserve.'

Just like Simon Templar's Hirondel, Bond's Bentley fulfilled three major criteria:

1. It was fast.
2. It was big.
3. It was luxurious.

Operation Gingermobile

Now I'm on the path to my future Gingermobile, I think it's important to look at what I've learned from James Bond and Simon Templar and put that information to work choosing my own Gingermobile.

If I had an unlimited budget, I think my choices would be expanded somewhat. At ideal candidate might be a Jensen Interceptor (which a television incarnation of Simon Templar actually drove in the 1980's.)


It combines speed, size and luxury with the good looks and polish of a fastback grand tourer.

Unfortunately, I don't have $20,000 to blow on a Jensen - but it has at least given me a bit of direction towards what car I'll ultimately select as my own Gingermobile.

Watch this space!

The Search for the Gingermobile

Three months ago, I sold my beloved Gingermobile and we have been surviving as a one car family ever since. For the most part, this has been a storming success. We've saved a bundle of money on car insurance, maintenance and petrol and the only inconvenience has been Mummy Militant having to walk a mile or so to her job a couple of days a week.

However, now she's got a new job - stupidly close to where I work, but with hours just different enough to make sharing a ride impractical. It looks like we'll be getting another car.

One thing is certain, though. Given our financial restrictions, it's unlikely to be what I would class as a 'Gingermobile.'

But the search for my elusive car isn't over...

Mini Bus

We live in a largely immigrant neighborhood and are no stranger to the ubiquitous 'Mini Bus' - the transporte de choix of our many illegal immigrant neighbors.

These are clapped out mid-nineties mini-vans (Dodge Caravans and the like) with expired inspection stickers and out-of-state plates. They're normally seen swerving in and out of traffic crammed to the gills with friendly folks inside, as a sort of communal bus service.

We often wonder why we bother paying for insurance and maintaining our vehicle, since they seem to be able to drive about with impunity. If an mini bus ever does get pulled over, this is the result:

Gay? You're outta here...

Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship. Full story here.

This is absolutely disgusting.

Just yesterday, I was attacking the concept of Bush's 'No Child Left' mandate. Here's living proof that plenty of children are being left behind as the Christian right wing get their hooks further into the system.

What particularly irks me is the 'alleged' comment. Apparently, girls and boys don't even need to actually be gay, lesbian or (most likely) not entirely sure what they are. All that's needed to kick them out of school is the suspicion of them possibly not being neat and twee straight kids.

What example does this set for the rest of the kids at this high school?

Ten Things Bush did right?

Over on CK's blog, he has listed the 'Ten Things Bush Did Right.'

I find myself unable to agree with more than one of them.

CK claims (and I respond):

1. He stood against global warming. Which has proven to be a prudent decision. Standing against a popular theory because of conflicting evidence is heroic. Standing against a popular theory because you're knee deep in shenanigans with the oil industry and Saudi Arabia is merely self serving and crooked. While some have claimed that 2008 is the year 'Global Warming was Disproved', I don't think that had anything to do with Bush's 'stand.'
   
2. He enhanced interrogation of terrorists. He condoned torture. How anybody could possibly claim that this was a 'good' thing is beyond me. Civilized societies don't perform torture. A society that condones torture to 'protect' itself isn't a society worth protecting. At least John McCain (the only Republican who's actually BEEN tortured) had the guts to stand up and attack this absolutely indefensible precedent.
   
3. Rebuilt presidential authority. For a start, the reins of power in the Bush administration were held by Dick Cheney. An incumbent President who defers to his Vice President isn't exactly wielding much authority. But consider other actions Bush condoned - helping cover up the conspiracy to 'out' CIA agent Valerie Plame, dismissing US attorneys for political gain, misleading the public into a costly foreign war and leading the country into the worst economic crisis for a generation. His was a presidency of cronyism, deceit, fraud and disrespect towards the American people and the beliefs outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
   
4. Unswerving support for Israel. I will admit, my sympathies are generally towards Israel - I have Israeli friends and I can understand that they can't exactly sit on their hands when Hamas or Hezbollah are firing rockets at civilians. However, as far as the diplomatic situation in the Middle East goes, this 'unswerving support' for Israel is one of the major sticking points that has left America open to terrorism. Unswerving support isn't what Israel needs. It needs support dependent entirely on responsible behavior.
   
5. No Child Left Behind. While No Child Left Behind has seen test scores improve, Bush let the side down by supporting billions of dollars for totally ineffective abstinence-only sex education, which left many teenagers with children of their own! In addition, he allowed the religious right to force their propaganda into the curriculum across the country, teaching a generation of kids Biblical fairy tales as if they were fact. In addition to vetoing the health care extension for children, Bush actually left many, many kids behind in the interests of courting the religious right.
   
6. Promoted democracy. Bush won his first term through the Supreme Court, rather than the electorate. He promoted unilateral military action in opposition to the democratic principles of the UN. The Patriot Act, amid other legislation, undermined all American's constitutional rights. Bush's presidency was marked with a sharp departure from responsible, transparent government which has made some of America's actions overseas appear deeply hypocritical.
   
7. Medicare prescription drug benefits. Finally, George does something right... Kind of. This expansion actually led to the current situation in the United States, in which Americans pay vastly inflated prices for drugs pharmaceutical companies sell cheaper in neighbouring Canada. It's a cash cow for pharma, and a huge waste of money for taxpayers.
   
8. Supreme court appointments, John Roberts and Sam Alito. Conservatives often accuse liberals of using the Supreme Court as a way of 'legislating from the bench.' They would know. Alito and Roberts were appointed to pad the Supreme Court with conservatives in order to support a right-wing agenda that had little to do with the law or the constitution.
   
9. Foreign relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India. Good Lord, I can hardly contain my excitement! I don't wish to undermine Bush's achievements, but foreign relations weren't exactly terrible with these nations in the first place. Had he made headroads with Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, then I'd be impressed.
   
10. Troop surge. The surge worked, don't get me wrong. However, it's questionable whether Bush can claim to have 'done right' when the surge itself was in response to something he'd 'done wrong.' The war in Iraq is arguably Bush's most damning legacy. The surge was merely a response to that. When somebody breaks a glass full of milk, do they get to claim credit for merely mopping the mess up?
    

When History Becomes Extinct

Today marks the 64th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz - the notorious Nazi death camp that has come to symbolise the 'final solution.'

It was in camps like Auschwitz that between 9 and 11 million 'undesirables' were exterminated during the Second World War, as part of Adolf Hitler's plan to 'cleanse' his Third Reich of 'inferior' human specimens.

Today is marked by the UN as a memorial for all the victims of this Holocaust.

Survivors of the camp are still alive, making the Holocaust living history - but the way that history's being treated sends a shiver down my spine. What happened during the Second World War was, quite simply, the most horrific moment in modern history and one that we, as human beings, deserve to have seared on our collective memory for centuries to come.

Yet, already, the 'history' of the Holocaust is becoming lost. As more of the survivors succumb to old age, the factual evidence of what transpired behind the gates of Auschwitz (emblazoned with the cynical logo ARBEIT MACHT FREI - Work Makes you Free) is being lost.

First, there's the common perception of the Holocaust in the Western World. Ask anybody about that period in history and nine times out of ten, you'll get this answer:

"The Holocaust was when Adolf Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews."

Which is absolutely true - except the death toll of the Holocaust could have been as much as double that. Although Jews were the foremost target of the 'final solution,' up to 5 million other people (intellectuals, homosexuals, Poles, Russians, Gypsies - even redheads) were put to death in the camps as well.

Yet their murders have largely been forgotten. In less than two generations, we've rendered insignificant the extermination of as many people as currently live in Los Angeles and Houston combined. That's unforgivable.

I understand that the Holocaust (or Shoah as it's referred to in Israel) has immense cultural and historical important for the Jewish people. It represents a concerted effort by a regime to wipe out their race in it's entirety. In many ways, it's entirely appropriate that the Holocaust is considered a part of Jewish history above all else.

However, I think it's immensely disrespectful that we choose to forget millions of other victims. Their callous extermination has become a by-line in the history books. That is unacceptable. we should be ashamed of ourselves for letting that happen. The next time somebody tells you that the death toll of the Holocaust was 6 million - for God's sake correct them!

But even more terrifying, there's a populist movement across the middle east to deny the Holocaust entirely.

Islamic nations are teaching their youth that the Holocaust was a conspiracy - a made-up event created in order to give Jewish people the 'moral authority' to occupy Israel.

Islamic 'scholars' (an oxymoron) are creating a swath of misleading and false 'evidence' to suggest that the number of people murdered during the Holocaust was vastly exaggerated. Some even claim that the holocaust didn't occur at all.

This is considered 'standard teaching' in many Islamic schools. A whole generation of children are being taught that the Holocaust was a great Jewish conspiracy - brainwashed into believing a lie for the sake of murderous political expediency.

It's even occurring in the West. Islamic schools in France and Britain have already been criticized for leaving out the Holocaust during history class, because mention of this 'Zionist conspiracy' might offend parents.

This is mind boggling; wretched and totally unacceptable. Rewriting history is a crime many religions and regimes have been guilty of (the foundation of the Catholic church was based on such activity) but to so while the victims of the Holocaust are still alive is just disgusting.

The mentality that history is open to 'creative revision' is shocking to me (I'm a historian, after all.) I understand that facts can be interpreted in different ways, but the whole concept of Holocaust Denial is absent of facts. It's filled with lies and half-truths. The fact that they're appearing in Middle Eastern textbooks merely gives them the appearance of authenticity.

Revisionist history is something we are having to tackle with in the West, as well. Thirty years ago, 'creation study' and 'intelligent design' would have been unthinkable areas of 'study,' yet such religious propaganda is finding its way into the classroom thanks to the efforts of hard-core religious fanatics. It's this mentality - that history is malleable - that terrifies me.

So do your bit to honor the memory and significance of this date. Remember how many people really died during the holocaust - and make sure that you pass on an accurate account to your children. As their generation grows up, it'll be their responsibility to make sure the facts and details of the most infamous event in modern human history is never forgotten.

Things that go Bump in the Night

So how can somebody who doesn't believe in God still believe in ghosts?

It's a very valid question - and one I've pondered for years.


Ever since I was a boy, I've always been fascinated by ghost stories. When I was a teenager, our family moved to Devon and I eagerly devoured the self-published books on 'Ghosts in Devon' and 'Haunted Dartmoor.' For such a desolate place, it sure seemed thick with hauntings.

For a few months, I even lived in a haunted pub - one visited by the ghost of former highwayman Tom King, who was said to ride his spectral mare through the hallway of the inn (and on dark nights, you could hear the clattering of his horse's hooves on the cobblestones.)

Did I ever see Tom King? No... In fact, the only thing that ever occurred to me while I was living in the Stag Inn was returning to my room to find all the lights and electric switches turned off. If Tom King was haunting the place, he was being very environmentally aware about it!

But plenty of people HAD heard Tom King clatter through the hallway, so I've always had an irrational belief in ghosts (tempered with a rational understanding of why they might exist.)

According to popular myth, ghosts are spirits of the dead. There are two classes of ghost. Hauntings, which are passive and Apparitions, who are active. I'll get to Apparitions some other time.


Haunted Houses

Most hauntings are well recorded and have been seen by more than one person. They are normally limited to a fixed geographical location - a particular room in a haunted house, or a particular location outside.

Hauntings appear to be like a wretched replay of some horrific event. Most people report that haunted locations involve a specific ghost doing a specific thing at a specific time. A popular one in Exeter was a Roman centurion, clad in armour, walking through the pantry of a pub. He always arrived at the same time, walked the same path and disappeared through the same wall. His appearance had been corroborated by many independent witnesses - yet the ghost never interacted (or even acknowledged) any of them.

So what are hauntings?

Most ghost stories and hauntings revolve around a specific even in history - a murder being the most common. So-and-so was murdered in this spot 250 years ago and ever since, their ghost has been seen haunting that spot.

Many people argue that the 'ghost' is their spirit, cursed to walk the Earth after death. Entirely rational people, however, believe it's something else entirely.

Allow me to digress...

I have a friend who can walk into your front room, sniff the air and say: "Ah, you had fish and rice for dinner last night."

It's not that we live in a fish-scented house - their nose is just so sensitive, they can identify smells that other people wouldn't even notice.

Things like smells linger for days after they've gone, even though they're undetectable to most of us. Likewise, scientists have successfully identified and separated sound waves bouncing back and forth in a room hours or even days after the sound in question was silenced. Similarly, some people theorise that emotions can remain lingering in a location, if they're strong enough.

It's a theory that holds water. Just think of the last time you went to an old church... Stepping through the door, even if you're totally alone, it's impossible not to suddenly feel awash with a sensation of calm, tranquility and introspection. People have been feeling like that for centuries in that location, so even the most emotionally insensitive of us (i.e. me) will admit that places like churches can instantly and inexplicably affect one's mood because of the mood of hundreds of people who've been there before me.

By that theory, it's quite possible that a brutal murder would leave a similarly vivid emotional 'vibe' behind. Strong emotions of anger, fear, pain, suffering, guilt and remorse flood the room when the event takes place and linger for centuries afterwards.

A common theory about ghosts is that the people who see them tend to have an acute sense of emotion, which means they can pick up on lingering emotions that other people are oblivious to...

But because there's no real 'sense' of emotion (it's a kind of sixth sense) their brain misfires into them experiencing visual or aural manifestations of this traumatic event.

I don't know if that theory sounds remotely plausible or not, but I know this much. I've been to certain places where horrible things are said to have happened (like the aisle in Chagford Church, where a bride was gunned down by a jealous lover, in an act that would later inspire the novel Lorna Doone.)

I felt cold and uneasy, nervous and uncomfortable - and I'm not even 'psychically attuned.'

I can certainly believe that somebody more sensitive might experience the same feelings I did, just much more acutely.

It's only a theory, of course, but it's a fairly solid one. Most people I know share the ability to detect a 'vibe' from a room or building. Some homes, for example, you walk into and feel bright and happy (like the love of the family who lived there is still keeping it warm and cosy.)

Other places just feel wrong. I remember exploring old Nazi bunkers in Normandy with my friend and feeling something more than just an understandable sense of claustrophobia chilled me to the core.


I don't know - as I wrote earlier, I've never seen a ghost. Yet if a friend of mine can sniff the air and tell me what I cooked for dinner the night before, it doesn't seem any more impossible that a similarly 'talented' individual could detect the psychic echoes of some traumatic event in a location's distant past.

Tolerance in America

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among human creatures.

Abraham Lincoln

In the past few months, I've witnessed an awful lot of people bleating about their rights, claiming persecution and donning the mantle of victimhood. I've stood up for quite a few positions during this time - some of which I was right about, others that I might not have been.

I've come think the secret to a happy society is tolerance. But what is tolerance?

I've been thinking about this a lot and I think tolerance is actually easy. Tolerance is the subtle art of not getting up off your arse to meddle in somebody else's business.

For example, if my evangelical Christian next-door-neighbor wants to home school his kids, (teaching creationism and other delightful fairy tales) my natural instinct it to leap up and do something about it. But do you know what? Maybe it's none of my business. Maybe I should let him do whatever he wants and confine my opinions to how I live my life.

Likewise, if the two young men next door want to get married, the idea might be sickening and disturbing to you - but their union isn't going to affect you at all. In fact, to propagate a popular stereotype, their house renovations might raise the property value of the entire street. Maybe you should leave them to do whatever they want to do and confine your opinions to how you live your life.

The best thing about tolerance is that it's that easy. You don't have to do anything.

To protest religious homeschooling, you have to write an angry letter to the school board ("Dear Sir, teaching creationism is akin to child abuse!")

To protest gay marriage, you have to campaign for legislative reform and paint placards (God Hates Fags! Mal 1:3!)

To do the right thing - and be tolerant and respectful of other people's rights to live how they want to - the only thing you have to do is settle back into your chair and take a sip of your Plym and Tonic.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to support it. All you have to do is recognize that it's none of your Goddamned business (and therefore, your opinion on the matter is completely insignificant.)

Here endeth the sermon - but I think it's just as valid a lesson for liberty-lovin' liberals like me as the right wing people I'm always attacking. Looking back, I realise there's no ideological right or wrong. When it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the Conservatives have been right on some issues, the Liberals have been right on others - and they've both been wrong on things a number of times!)

As long as they don't infringe on anybody else's freedom and nobody gets hurt, we've no right to prevent people making their own choices in life. It's called progress, Baby, and you'd best not stand in the way of it.

Freedoms?

Over on Coffee Bean's blog, 'An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics' she's discussing a fascinating issue - so-called 'religious freedom.'

Borrowed from 'Slap Upside the Head'

Normally, when I hear the words 'religious freedom' they make me shudder, because they're normally used in the concept of denying somebody their freedoms. Such as a Christian business demanding their 'religious freedom' to refuse service to a homosexual couple.

But as she often does, Coffee Bean's raised the stakes on the issue. I'd recommend going to have a peek at her blog.

So what is religious freedom? What does it mean, and it is just a misnomer like I've claimed?

Advocates of 'religious freedom' claim that being forced to do things that conflict with their religion violates their constitutional 'freedom of religion.' For example, a hospital forcing a Catholic doctor to perform abortions or distribute contraceptives.

Opponents of religious freedom claim it's just an excuse to get away with bigotry, citing churches who refuse to rent out their halls to same-sex couples holding commitment ceremonies.

By and large, I think the whole concept of 'religious freedom' is anything but 'free.'

I can understand Catholic doctors fighting to stop their employer (sometimes even the federal government) forcing them to perform things that conflict with their religion... to a degree.

For example, I agree that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions if it conflicts with their religion...

But distributing contraceptives? That's not nearly on the same level as abortion. Hell, it's part of the job.

I think when you start getting to the point in which nurses and doctors can pick and choose what medical services they offer depending on their religious beliefs, you start to have an environment in which everybody can 'pick and choose' their work responsibilities by hiding behind claims of 'religious freedom.'

[Yes, that environment's called 'Great Britain' - Editorial Bear]

If somebody's religious convictions prevent them being able to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of their job, shouldn't the solution be simple? Fire them.

Face it, if we don't draw the line in the sand somewhere, we'll end up in an environment in which (for example) Muslim garbage men can refuse to collect the trash cans if they contain leftover pork or empty beer cans.

Religion should not dictate the practices of government!

But then there's the other side of the argument, in which private individuals defend their questionable actions by hiding behind claims of 'religious freedom.'

Coffee Bean gave a good example - a New Mexico photographer who refused to photograph a same-sex couple at their commitment ceremony was fined $6,000 for 'discrimination.'

Homosexual relationships conflict with his religion. Does that give him the 'religious freedom' to refuse to serve his homosexual customers?

Consider where a man with a similar religious background might have found himself sixty years ago, when evangelical Christianity defined interracial marriage as a sin. Would the shield of 'religious freedom' have allowed the photographer to refuse to take pictures at the marriage of a white woman to a black man?

The irony is that those two situations are largely the same, but most people's responses to them would be different. Ask many Christians and they'll say the real-life photographer who refused to photograph the same-sex couple was well within his rights and protected by his 'religious freedom.' Yet these same people will argue that the hypothetical photographer who refused to photograph an interracial couple was in the wrong and should be punished.

It's that hypocrisy and double standard which makes 'religious freedom' such a dangerous and untenable concept.

The indomitable Two Dogs explained the reality: As a private businessman, this photographer should have the right to refuse service to anybody, for whatever reason. Black or white, gay or straight, the photographer is under no obligation to provide service to anybody - and the constitution protects him from prosecution if he chooses not to.

I see the irrefutable logic behind Two Dog's assessment, but I'm not sure I like it.

As a fluffy liberal, I think the photographer shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anybody. He can go to hell with his 'religious freedoms' (and probably will.) Although it's not in the constitution, there are enough people with enough funny ideas to make a world in which we can pick-or-choose who we want to do business with a rather unpleasant one.

It would be like legitimizing the concept of segregation all over again. I wouldn't want to live in an America in which shops can hang signs out of their windows saying "No Gays!" or "No Blacks!" depending on which version of the Bible they read.

That being said, I have to agree with Two Dog's assessment. If we were really free, we wouldn't have to have such things mandated by law in the first place.

Which is better? To live in the ugly reality of a truly 'free' society, or to live in a fantasy of freedom in which our 'liberties' are decided by the government?

Bush and Class

CK left this comment the other day: "The lack of class from the left toward GWB makes me sick."

In his honor, I thought I'd post this. Forget the left or right wing - the Daily Show's comparison of Bush and Obama's 'press style' shows that Bush wasn't above a bit of rude and classless behavior himself!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

President Goofus and President Gallant - Peer Pressers

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

There's an old maxim: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

If there's any validity to that statement, it's most obvious regarding writers.

Check on Amazon for 'writing guides' and you'll see literally thousands of books about 'How to Write That Bestseller!' or 'Writing Fiction that Sells!' The irony? The books in question could themselves be classed as 'fiction'.

Most books on writing are written by, at best, moderately successful writers. Certainly, none of them are household names. If these writers failed to sell their bestsellers, what makes them qualified to tell you how to sell yours?

That's what makes On Writing an entirely different kettle of fish.

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is a book about successful fiction writing by one of the most successful fiction writers in recent history. Stephen King has written over fifty novels and sold millions of books. He's probably one of the best known names in populist literature and I vehemently argue that he is the singly most important American writer of the past fifty years.

Critics may scoff, but screw 'em. Stephen King is legendary - so there is nobody better qualified to teach the art of good fiction writing than he is.

That declaration out of the way - does On Writing live up to the hype I've just given it?

The book is split into roughly three sections. The first is biographical, giving an earnest account of Stephen King's formative years and the path he took to become a successful writer. It's as amusing and entertaining as any biography you're apt to read - penned with King's trademark observations of living in lower middle-class Americana, while brutally honest about his shortcomings and successes as a writer, husband and father.

The second part is purely about the art of writing - about the words themselves, and how to craft successful fiction. Stephen King has always had a rather unique vision of writing. He's vehemently opposed to pre-plotting or planning novels in advance - preferring to consider himself the 'first reader' of a preexisting story he's merely channeling onto the paper.

The final part is the most fascinating, yet most disjointed. The manuscript of On Writing was only two-thirds finished when Stephen King was hit and nearly killed by a reckless driver on the side of a remote stretch of Maine blacktop.

He uses the final section of his book to outline his injury and recovery and put it in terms of his writing. It's tangibly creepy. During the middle section of On Writing, Stephen King referenced an unfinished book (From a Buick Eight) which I remember featuring a character dying in a roadside accident (one that eerily mirrored his own experience a few months later.)

Even creepier, a year after hitting and nearly killing him, the man who knocked King down died on Stephen King's birthday.... Creepy little details that prove the old adage 'truth is stranger (and scarier) than fiction.'

So it's a storming read - but is it useful for aspiring writers?

On Writing is certainly filled with helpful tips and advice for budding writers, but I think the major benefit of this brilliantly written book is attitude. Stephen King explains his motivation for writing, which appears to be more of a compulsion than anything else.

Despite being one of the most well-paid writers in America, he freely admits that he'd have kept writing even if he'd never sold a thing, simply because he had to.

That compulsion for storytelling is obvious: On Writing becomes a window into the mind and machinations of the real Stephen King. That in itself is fascinating.

In many ways, after devouring so many of their books, we readers sometimes imagine we understand and 'know' a writer. After reading On Writing, I realize I didn't know Stephen King at all. I still don't, but now I believe I know him a little better.

In On Writing, King's tone hovers between arrogance and self-deprecation. He was more than willing to cut down other writers and their style (naming and shaming quite a few), yet never above putting his own bad writing under an unflattering microscope. He both acknowledged his success, yet also seemed to be slightly embarrassed about it. He scoffed at critics who'd written him off as a 'schlockmeister' or purveyor of populist pap, yet sometimes wore that mantle with a certain amount of disdainful pride.

To me, it just magnified the mystique of Stephen King.

Stephen King's books have always had an important place in my mental bookshelf. His magnum opus, the Dark Tower chronicles, featured a gunslinger called 'Roland' on an inexorable quest which I paralleled with my own determined mission to live within reach of my own 'dark tower' (The Empire State Building.)

'Bag of Bones' was the book I read when I first returned to America in 2006, and King's crisp observations on rural American life strangely mirrored my experiences as I spent a week in the woods and farmland of sub(un)urban New Jersey.

Because of the appreciation I have for Stephen King, I found On Writing to be a fascinating peek into the inner workings of the man who who invented the modern American fairytale.

As a writer, On Writing has certainly given me some solid techniques and tips on improving my writing, but as a Stephen King fan, it's also enriched the experience of reading and enjoying books from this prolific writer's ever-expanding library.

For anybody interested in writing, or Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is a must-read.

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft is available from Amazon for $7.99 and up.

Happy Inaugeration Day!

What could I possibly say that isn't being plastered, far more eloquently, across blogs, newspapers, magazines and television screens across the country?

Today sees George Bush leave the White House for the last time. In his stead comes a man who's already earned his place in American history.


With approval ratings of 79% (even Republicans and conservatives can't help rooting for him) Obama's got a tough gig ahead of him. The promise of change is always easier to deliver than change itself. Expectations for Obama's presidency are huge. Can he possibly live up to what we've all imagined him to be capable of?

It's also time to say goodbye to George Bush. Will he be missed? Not by me. I've never been an 'anti Bush' nut, but you'd have to be an idiot not to recognize his shortcomings.

His legacy will be a bloody war overseas, an economic crisis and a political climate in which conservatives encroached alarmingly on territory normally reserved for rational, sane politicians.

But I've sometimes stood for Bush - most noticeably in the 2004 election. My best friend and Wife disagreed with me fiercely, but I somehow think that today's inauguration of Barack Obama proves that Bush winning the 2004 election was the best thing that could have happened.

Imagine if John Kerry had become president? On a campaign based on nothing more than 'Vote for me, because I'm not Bush.' Mediocrity was not the answer: In some ways, things had to get worse before they could get better.

It took four more years of 'Dubya' to change the political climate sufficiently for last year's elections to take place. What historic elections they were!

For the first time in American history, politics was no longer the playground of rich, white men. We nearly had a female president. We nearly had a female vice president. What we ended up with was even more historic - the first African American president in American history.

If we'd had four years of Kerry, could this have happened?

I don't think so. In many ways, it took four years of Bush to make this possible.

But that's not the only reason to recognize George Bush's presidency. Like it or not, he exhibited some admirable traits. He might have been wrong about many things - abstinence-only sex education and the war in Iraq, for example - but he wasn't afraid to stick to his guns. He believed in things and he'd doggedly defend those beliefs even in the face of overwhelming public opinion.

It was that dogged determination to maintain untenable positions which earned him his dismal approval ratings - but in many ways, I think that characteristic will earn him a more favorable consideration by future generations.

He came across as an arrogant, swaggering idiot at times - but was also a very 'real' President, who wasn't afraid to address his own shortcomings. Despite being born with a silver spoon in his mouth - far more elitist than Obama could ever be considered - Bush somehow represented the working and middle-class of 'middle America.'

He didn't 'talk pretty.' He readily admitted he was a 'c' student at college. He used more malapropisms than Larry the Cable Guy. He was a former drunk, once a cocaine abuser and a convicted drunk-driver - yet he became a 'born again' Christian (which somehow gave him the moral authority to attack the rest of America's shortcomings.)

He came across as a likable guy - the sort of bloke you could go for a pint with. For the leader of the free world - and the rich son of a former president - he sure did seem like 'one of us.'

Boo in Abstentia

Sorry for the lack of posts - this is the first weekend in months that Mummy Militant hasn't been working, so the Militant Ginger triumvirate was able to 'hang out' (as you adorable Americans insist in calling it.)

More posts soon...

What does 'Quantum of Solace' mean?

"The Governor had presented Bond with a theory concerning love, betrayal and cruelty between marriage partners. Calling it the 'quantum of solace,' the governor believed that the amount of comfort on which love and friendship is based could be measured. Unless there is a certain degree of humanity existing between two people, he maintained, there can be no love. It was an adage Bond had accepted as a universal truth."

High Time to Kill, Raymond Benson

The other day, I received this comment on my post 'What does Quantum of Solace mean?'

"Sorry. I still don't understand, "What does Quantum of Solace mean?" Can you give a simply synonymic phrase? It's too difficult for me to translate into another language. Thanks"

The truth is, it's not exactly an easy concept to explain. Ian Fleming, who originated the phrase in a short story from 'For Your Eyes Only,' was prone to occasional philosophical musings and the 'Quantum of Solace' was both his most memorable and mysterious.

But in my arrogance, I am going to attempt to explain it.

Empathy between people is measurable. The 'quantum of solace' is the smallest measurable iota of consideration you have for another person. Unless you have that 'quantum of solace' for somebody - as in, that smallest scrap of consideration and empathy for them and their feelings - you lack the capacity to love or befriend them.

I'll give a real-life example: A girl who was in an open relationship with an older guy (by open relationship, I mean 'friends with benefits' - as in, they occasionally hung out together and might occasionally sleep together.)

She liked him; as a friend and possibly even as a lover. She would drop last minute plans to see him if he called. She'd pick him up from the bar when he was too drunk to drive home. She wrote him emails. She brought him Chinese takeout when he'd got home from work. She didn't want to be his 'boyfriend,' exactly. She just made an effort because she liked him.

He liked her, too. Maybe. If he did, at least, he never seemed to show it. He just couldn't really be bothered. He'd cancel plans with her at the last minute. He'd sleep with other people and expect her to listen to his romantic laments - even while they shared a post-coital cigarette. He was the kind of guy who'd 'forget' to pick her up at the airport, even though he'd promised to. If she broke down at midnight, he'd ignore her call, roll over and go back to sleep.

In many ways, their relationship proved another Ian Fleming maxim: "In love, there is always one partner who kisses; and another who offers the cheek."

As in, there's always one partner who makes the effort, and the other who'll let them make the effort.

He was with her merely because it was convenient. She was generous to a fault, she was easy to get along with, she was fun and non-judgmental. She was always doing kind things for him, without expecting anything in return - and when there wasn't anybody else around, she was available to go to bed with him.

Yet the mismatched balance of their relationship wasn't sustainable. Eventually, after months of feeling unappreciated and exploited, this girl decided enough was enough. She was going to end their 'friendship' because she made all the effort and received no consideration in return.

He ignored her. He took her for granted. He made her feel like she was entirely inconsequential to his existence. That 'quantum of solace' - the small part of him which acknowledged and was considerate of her feelings - no longer existed. She felt like if she walked out his life forever, he probably wouldn't even notice.

And then he did something entirely unexpected. He made her a mixtape of U2 songs - the ones they'd listened to when they'd gone to a concert together (she'd got free tickets and given them to him.)

The fact that he'd sat down for twenty minutes and made that tape for her - not for anybody else, and in remembrance of something they'd done together - was enough to rekindle their relationship and she abandoned plans on walking out of his life.

The 'friends with benefits' relationship continued. He continued being a shit to her. Their mismatched relationship continued and he never stopped making her feel unappreciated and taken for granted. But that mixtape somehow represented that tiny iota of consideration he had for her. He'd done one inconsequential act to make her feel 'special' and that was enough to sustain something unsustainable.

While I might not be able to explain exactly what the 'quantum of solace' is in a short, easy to understand way, I can give you that true-life example of the concept in action.

I've really no clearer way of explaining it: The 'quantum of solace' is nothing more than homemade mixtape of U2 songs, or some other seemingly inconsequential, almost immeasurable thing that makes the difference between indifference and affection.

PETA wastes money on 'Kittens of the Sea' propaganda

PETA Attempts To Make Fish More Adorable
by Anne Hillman

"PETA thought that by renaming fish sea kittens, compassionate people who would never dream of hurting a dog or a cat might extend that sympathy to fish, or sea kittens," PETA campaign coordinator Ashley Byrne says. Full story HERE.

Cynical brain washers of innocent children, accomplished scam artists, funders of domestic terrorism or plain, old animal murders, there are plenty of names you could call at PETA. They prefer to go by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Their latest attempt to manipulate the minds of innocent children (following their highly successful 'Your Mommy Kills Animals' campaign) has seen the development of a cute and child-friendly website dedicated to preserving the 'kittens of the sea' - known to rational people as 'fish.'

I wonder how much this campaign cost?

PETA annually bring in more than $30 million (donated by stupid people and brainwashed kids.) This makes them far and away the best funded 'animal rights' organisation in the world.

Their ill-gotten gains are spent on celebrity endorsements, child-propaganda (like the the 'sea kittens' campaign) and funding environmental organisations - including some recognized by the FBI as 'domestic terrorists.'

Despite their enormous financial resources, all this Hollywood shin-digging and terrorist-hugging comes at a price. Last year, for financial reasons, PETA was forced to euthanize 90% of the animals in brought into its animal shelters. In total, they've exterminated 20,000 healthy cats and dogs in the interests of 'cost effectiveness' - more than any other humane organisation in the United States.

[PETA and the word 'humane' do not belong in the same sentence - Editorial Bear]

Some of 80 perfectly healthy animals murdered by PETA in the car-park of an animal shelter.

All that advertising on MTV is expensive, apparently!

It's rather a pity, too. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who operate on a shoestring budget compared to PETA, managed to successfully re-home 70% of the animals they sheltered. If PETA really cared about animals, you'd think they'd attempt to match that success.

Unfortunately, PETA really don't care about animals. All they care about is encouraging dissent and vandalism, recruiting impressionable youngsters and - most importantly of all - generating huge amounts of money in order to keep their wretched organisation going.

PETA. If you have any concern for animals, they are the last organisation you should ever consider giving money to.

Curing America's Ills: Is Universal Healthcare the answer?

When I first arrived in America, I was gung ho about the American system of health care.

Private health insurance seemed like a sensible enough idea - despite universal healthcare in Britain, more and more people were turning 'private' anyway, so why not just roll out the system across the entire country?

Likewise, my wife and I had a great experience with the birth of our baby, staying in a wonderful hospital and getting the level of care we couldn't have dreamed of on the NHS.

However... As time goes by, I'm starting to see some serious flaws with the health care business.

The American system of private health care is overly complex, overly beauracratic and wildly inflexible. I'm not suggesting we roll out universal health care in America, but I think it's time Republicans and Conservatives listened to the facts and stopped trying to tell everybody that the health care system is fine as it is, 'cos it ain't.

Health care and pharmaceuticals are the largest money making operations in America. They dwarf the oil companies and represent something astonishing, like 20% of the country's GDP.

The problem? Americans are getting ripped off.

An excellent example of this is in regards to drugs. For some reason, US citizens pay far more for prescription and generic drugs than people living in neighbouring Canada or Mexico - sometimes as much as 10 times as much.

In Canada, where we can at least be confident that the drugs are the same ones we get in America, there's no justifiable reason for this. More and more Americans are buying drugs from Canadian 'online pharmacies' simply because the cost of getting prescriptions filled in America is criminal.

The pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots with the insurance companies and have jacked up the price of American drugs as high as they can. It's extortion, plain and simple. The typical flag-wavers for the pharma industry, the Republicans, are promoting the very opposite of the 'free market' that conservatives supposedly support.

The second rip off is health insurance itself. This is partly the fault of profiteering insurance companies, who have been jacking up the price of insurance year after year, far above the rate of inflation (one year, it was as much as 25%.) In addition, they're slowly whittling away the benefits this insurance gives, meaning that Americans pay more and get less.

But another contributing factor is America's de facto universal health care. Even if you don't have health insurance, you can still walk into a hospital and receive thousands of dollars worth of treatment - it's mandated by state law across America. The cost of that 'free' treatment is swallowed up by the hospital, which dutifully passes it onto the only people who can mediate the cost - the poor, ignorant schlubs who actually pay for their medical insurance.

Again, Republicans are against the concept of universal healthcare for people who can't afford it, failing to realise that this system already exists and they're already paying above the odds for it.

Say what you will about the inefficiencies of government beauracracy, but it'd be a damn sight cheaper for working and middle class people if the taxpayer picked up the burden of America's clandestine 'free' health care system, rather than the people who pay for it via their overpriced health insurance premiums.

The final complaint about America's health care system is simply that it's cruel, inflexible and twisted.

You may only go to doctors who accept your health insurance program. If you go to an 'outside' providor, you will be liable for thousands of dollars worth of bills. Often, you are not told who is 'in' or 'out' of your program until after the fact.

Health insurance providors reserve the right to retroactively refuse to cover certain treatments you receive. Rode in an ambulance? If they decide you should have taken a cab, expect a bill for $3,000. Had an MRI? It's entirely within their rights to refuse to pay for it. It's like walking into a restuarant and being expected to order a three course meal without being told how much it costs in advance.

If health care is a 'business' and patients are 'customers,' you would expect that the same rules of business should apply as they do in every other consumer industry on Earth.

Maybe private health care knows it's days are numbered - that's why they are ripping the consumer off for as much as they can while they can; more and more each year.

Premiums cost more. Coverage offers less. Drugs are more expensive. More and more 'nonessential' costs are being shifted to the patient (which is why more and more of them are declaring bankruptcy because of medical costs.)

Like a greedy vampire, the American health care system is sucking their consumer base for more and more each month - willfully ignorant to the fact that sooner or later, they'll suck them dry and kill their only source of nutrition.

I was against the idea of universal health care when I arrived in America, but a year and a half of witnessing how badly run the health care system is has convinced me that it might not be so bad after all.

Quit flashing the 'racism' card at Prince Harry

Prince Harry has hit the headlines again, being accused of racism for a couple of remarks he made during a clandestinely-filmed video leaked by his 'friends' to the media. Full story HERE.

The accusations are centered around two terms he used: In one scene, he refers to an Asian solider as 'Paki' (in Britain, considered a very derogatory term for anybody of Pakistani or Indian descent.) In another scene, he comments that the headgear a (white) solider is wearing makes him look like a 'raghead.'

The BBC, amongst others, have wheeled out the usual crew to condemn Harry and demand an apology; which was duly given. After Harry uttered a sincere apology, the furor inevitably continued as more cheerily self-righteous 'journalists' lambasted the third in line to the throne.

Personally, I think it's a load of hot air.

Sure, Prince Harry seems to have adopted his grandfather's 'robust' sense of humor (Prince Phillip once warned a British diplomat that spending too much time in China would give him squinty eyes.)

However, this video is very different to Harry's previous fall from grace, in which he stupidly dressed as a Nazi officer to a fancy dress party (that made for some great tabloid front pages, I can tell you.)

This time? Yawn.

Out of the 'raghead' and 'Paki' comment, I would agree that 'Paki' is an offensive, derogatory term and out of context, I'd be the first to agree that it's use was shocking. However, it's been confirmed that the solider Harry was talking about was actually nick-named 'Paki' by his friends - in much the same way Harry is nick-named 'Ginge' (because, of course, it's entirely appropriate to make fun of redheads in England.)

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The 'Paki' comment was understandable, in the circumstances, and it's pretty pathetic that the media have grabbed it and tried to run with that at the center of their manufactured 'scandal.'

As for the 'raghead' comment?

Again: Yawn.

I own a racoon skin hat and when I wear it (it's about that time) I often get accused of looking like a 'canook' or some other slang term for a Canadian. My sister in law is Chilean - and to get her goat, family members sometimes joke about her being confused for a Mexican. Like it or not, cultural jokes are a pretty accepted part of culture in America and the UK (find an Englishman who doesn't refer to the French as 'frogs' - I dare you.)

The only scandal with the 'raghead' comment was that OH, GOSH, NO, it was referring to people of a particular sect of Islam who wear scarves on their heads. You know, the one the BBC and all media in general are willing to appease by aquisencing to pretty much any of their demands.

This particular sect, you will probably be aware, is the same sect that's protesting in the streets of London right now with signs reading 'Death to all Jews' (or, 'juice' in one instance.)

Personally, 'raghead' is an inocuous and inoffensive statement - especially compared to signs held aloft in London reading 'Behead those who insult Islam.'

Besides, I don't know that many military types, but those I do know frequently refer to Iraqis and Afghans as 'towelheads' or 'ragheads.' I'm not saying it's appropriate or acceptable, but I see no reason why Prince Harry should be held to a higher standard than every other member of the US and UK armed forces.

Currently, America and the UK are in the grip of a 'whining mentality,' that screams 'offensive' or 'racist' to pretty much anything. It's stupid - it's desensitizing all of us to when something happens that truly is offensive. When something truly despicable happens, I imagine most of Britain will view it the same way I look at the Prince Harry crisis: Yawn.

Besides - Prince Harry is a ginger, much like myself. Even as the third in line for the throne, I've witnessed him be the target of Britain's 'good natured' campaign against redheads. Find a single tabloid article about him that doesn't mention the word 'ginger' and I'll give you a quid.

Part of the reason my blog's called 'Militant Ginger' - and part of the reason I left the United Kingdom in the first place - was that the very same television networks and newspapers that lead the 'politically correct' crusade tended to fill their pages with 'amusing' jokes, insults and jibes aimed at gingers (who, along with fat people, are the only acceptable targets for discrimination these days.)

When the Sun and the Daily Mirror expect me to jump on the politically correct bandwagon, all I can think of saying is: "Bugger you, you bunch of hypocrits!"

Prince Harry, proving to everybody that he is a sober, responsible character.

Standing room only?