Weighty Issues

Last year, you might remember me lamenting my weight. I was actually topping the scales at 196lbs at one point.

Well, I'm pleased to say that's finally changed. Since January, I've been using My Fitness Pal, an online calorie counter recommended to me by Paisley Penguin. Now, I've slimmed down to 180lbs.

I've still got another ten pounds to lose before I've back at the fighting weight I was during my early twenties - but I'm optimistic I'll get there. Finally, after almost half a decade, I've found a diet that actually works!

It's very simple. My Fitness Pal works out how many calories you burn during an average day and calculates how many you should consume to lose weight. Then you can 'spend' those calories on food.

With an enormous database of popular foods from the UK and US, it's dead easy to search for each item and enter it into your 'food counter.' (from a 12oz bottle of Sam Adams Winter Lager to a single tortilla from a box of Old El Paso.)

With that in mind, I've managed to more-or-less stick to a reduced calorie diet for the past five weeks or so - and it's actually worked!

More importantly, I think it's made some positive changes to the way I live my life.

In France, the word for diet is régime. It's very appropriate - dieting means following a regime and making changes to your lifestyle, rather than just denying yourself for a month or so.

Having a limited number of calories to 'spend' forces you to think about exactly what it is you eat. You don't need to deny yourself anything, but you do need to eat it in moderation.

Over the course of the last five weeks, that means I've:

• Reduced the portion size of almost all my meals.
• Started eating a lot more pasta, vegetables and lean protein, which 'fill me up.'
• Cut out snacks like crisps, popcorn and pork rinds (my secret weakness.)
• Moderated my drinking, switching sparkling water for a second glass or wine or beer.

I haven't missed out too much. There have been days I've gone over my calorie limit, like when we ordered the occasional pizza (the nutritional information for which you'll find on My Fitness Pal's database.) I've also had wine or beer most evenings with my meal.

I think the 'trick' is just to tone it down and make yourself smaller portions - and stop grazing between meals. I've been successfully on this diet for over a month now and they say that 30 days is long enough to turn a change into a habit. Perhaps this diet will be a permanent, positive adjustment to my eating habits.

It's not all roses, though. Cutting down on calories and drinking less means my 'party' instincts aren't as robust as they used to be. A couple of weeks ago, an empty stomach and a couple of Martini cocktails conspired to kick my arse. Those things should come with warning labels. I've officially sworn off them, despite my James Bond pretensions.

But all in all, I'm happy. As I've learned in life, the satisfying part isn't necessarily 'getting there,' it's just knowing that you're traveling vaguely in the right direction.

Mrs Janglebutt, by Boo

Her name is Mrs Janglebutt,
She is an Elephant,
I like to shake her up and down,
Until I start to pant,

Because Janglebutt's got bells in,
Somewhere in her bum,
I shake and shake and shake her hard,
Jangle! Jangle! Jum!

Janglebutt's my favorite,
Of all my furry toys,
And even though she's 'missus,'
She's just one of the boys.

Ssshhhh. It Happens...

Over on Sasha's wonderful blog, she's got a cute habit of posting music videos that particularly relate to her life and how she's feeling at the moment.

I don't generally like posting videos if I can help it, but Sasha inspired me to post a song that's been, like, the anthem of my life for the past week or so.

I'm afraid there's no official music video - this single only just hit the airwaves on Satellite Radio, so it'll be a while before they made a video of it.

So may I present 'It Happens,' by Sugarland. I particularly like the way Jennifer Nettle sings 'Shhhh!' just moments before launching into the chorus of 'It happens.' Because, well, we all know what she's really saying!

Dissecting Twilight

I hadn't even heard of the Twilight series of books until I wound up at the midnight launch party of Breaking Dawn (amidst countless teenage girls in prom dresses.)

However, Twilighters now seem to be everywhere and it seems like everybody's discussing them.

Stephanie Meyer's Twilight saga certainly has its detractors - Stephen King remarked that: "Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."

However, that hasn't stopped the books being wildly popular. Now they're not my cup of tea (I find any books featuring vampires to be incredibly dreary) but I can see why they've become so successful. Say what you want about Stephanie Meyer as a writer, but you can't deny that she delivers very good 'product.'

I've heard accusations that the Twilight saga is nothing more than a teenage girl's wish fulfillment. Stephanie Meyer has certainly tapped into the eroticism and fantasies of that target audience - delivering a package that spoke directly to their subconscious desires.

However, on a deeper level, Meyer has written something about the nature of love and romance itself, which resonates with more than just the 'teeny Twilighters.'

Just like Harry Potter, to which the Twilight saga is often compared, Meyer's books have an appeal far beyond teenagers- although you wouldn't have thought that at the launch I went to.

In Twilight, Stephanie Meyer has done what every successful writer needs to, and focused on a specific audience when she created the characters, situations and emotions of the Twilight books.

As a result, that target audience of teenage girls love Twilight, because it speaks directly to them and their experiences. However, older women love Twilight too, because (to quote an old marketing manager of mine) "At heart, all grown-ups are aspiring teenagers."

But what specific elements make the Twilight books so popular?

Character Elements that make Twilight so successful:

Bella: The heroine of the Twilight saga is a blank slate, left deliberately devoid of distinguishing characteristics so the reader can more easily step into her shoes.

Second only to books written in the first person perspective, this is the easiest way for authors to suck readers into the world they have created.

Bella's story is one of a teenage girl's sexual awakening; her desire for Edward to turn her into a vampire is a grand, all encompassing romantic gesture similar to a teenage girl surrendering her virginity to the boy she loves. (It's hardly an original metaphor Meyer's used, but it's an effective one.)

Bella's final transformation, when she becomes a vampire in Breaking Dawn, is another metaphor - this time for the secret desire of every teenage girl to be transformed from an awkward, adolescent bundle of self-esteem issues into a beautiful, 'sparkling' creature full of grace, confidence and strength.

Bella's journey in the Twilight saga reads like a wishlist of teenage fantasies, which is compelling for her audience because Stephanie Meyer was so careful to avoid unnecessary characterization when she wrote about Bella. Therefore, it's blissfully easy for women and girls to see themselves in her stylish (yet affordable) shoes.

Edward: Impossibly beautiful, moody and sullen, yet incredibly seductive; Edward is the living embodiment of every teenage girl's crush.

Edward at first treats Bella abominably (just like kids at school bully the girls or boys they secretly fancy.) Then he reveals his hunger for Bella - in the entirely literal sense (he wants to drink her blood.)

Out of all the characteristics that make Edward every teenage girl's dream date, it's that hunger that's the most important. His desire for her blood is a metaphor for him desiring her - and for the danger that desire poses. Danger is sexy - and what's more exciting and erotic to a teenage girl than a beautiful, mysterious boy who desires her deeply, desperately and dangerously?

and that's not just a teenage girl's fantasy. Even my wife agrees that one of the sexiest things a man can do for her is make her feel beautiful and desirable.

Given that women are assaulted from all angles by unattainable representations of feminine beauty (the skinny girls in posters, the anorexic models on TV) perhaps the most powerful part Edward plays in the Twilight saga is simply making Bella (and, by extension, the reader) feel beautiful, sexy and desirable.

But to a lesser extent, Edward also represents the unattainable boy in high school. In addition to being beautiful and seductive, he's got all of the materialistic possessions teenage girls are supposed to be impressed by. A 'stupid, shiny' Volvo S60R [Yawn - Editorial Bear] and an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish.

Finally, you have to remember that Edward was born and raised in the early 19th century, making him the quintessential gentleman of every girl's fantasy. The fact that he refuses to make love to Bella until they're married is further wish fulfillment - the very opposite of most teenage girl's first experiences of love and sex.

Edward represents respect and romance and appreciation for Bella and for the gift she's honoring him with (her virginity.) That's a sharp contrast to the 'real world', where horny boys, devoid of romance, just want to 'do it' in the backseat of their Pontiac Sunfire.

Jacob: Oh, poor Jacob. He, too, represents a figure that features in most teenage girl's lives - the lovesick best friend - making him (like Edward and Bella) more of an archetype than a real character.

Jacob first appears in Twilight, where he suggests to Bella that Edward is a vampire. Bella likes Jacob enormously and Jacob develops a crush on her. What teenage girl hasn't experienced a male friend having a crush on her, while she's only interested in being friends?

This crush simmers through the book New Moon, but comes to a head in Eclipse, when Jacob (and his feelings for Bella) mature somewhat. In another twist that teenage girls will be familiar with, Bella discovers that she, too, has feelings for her 'just good friend' Jacob and they kiss.

Although the Jacob/Edward/Bella 'love triangle' totally fizzles out in the Twilight saga, it's another succulent situation Stephanie Meyer threw into her story, knowing that her target audience would devour it greedily, murmuring: "Oh, my God. This is just like my situation with [insert boy's name here.]"

Jacob makes the story of Twilight appear directly applicable to the reader's real life.

Jacob also serves as a reminder to Bella that her love for Edward is greater and more all-encompassing than her feelings for him. It validates the idealistic teenage belief that an unconsummated crush is more 'real' than feelings you might have for somebody you already know and care about.

Without Jacob as the 'friend with feelings' to mitigate Bella's romance with Edward, Edward could never ascend to become the archetypal romantic hero.

Jacob plays a vital role in making the Twilight saga resonate so successfully with female readers - but many agree with me that he basically got boned.

I was secretly delighted to to find myself discussing the situation with teenage Twilight fans at the launch of Breaking Dawn. Many of them hoped that the conclusion of the Twilight saga would see Bella end up with Jacob instead of Edward. No such luck!

Other Elements that made Twilight so successful:

Vampires: People love vampires. Just look at the success of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter. It was the books of Anne Rice that first invented the concept of 'noble' and misunderstood vampires - and the vamps of Twilight represent the very worst of those vampire clichés. They're beautiful and strong and sexy, rather than decaying corpses who thirst for blood. In Twilight, Stephanie Meyer has successfully tapped into the conventions that make vampire fiction so wildly popular.

High School: Twilight begins with Bella attending a new school in Washington, thousands of miles away from her old home in Arizona. The 'new school' scenario is tried and tested - one almost all of Meyer's readers will be familiar with, which just adds to the ease in which they can relate to Bella's story.

Sex: Stephanie Meyer writes about teenage sexuality with surprising skill and subtlety. Even Stephen King, who eviscerated Twilight in a recent interview, admitted that Meyer's description (and allusion to) teenage sexuality was what made the book resonate so strongly with a female audience:

"She's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up a kind of 'safe' joining of love and sex. It's exciting and it's thrilling, but it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual."

"A lot of the physicality is conveyed in ways, for example, like how the vampire will touch [Bella's] forearm or run a hand over her skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."

Whatever shall we make of the Twilight Saga?

Stephen King attacked Twilight because is was compared to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter saga - and it doesn't take a literary genius to spot that Stephanie Meyer is no J.K. Rowling.

However, she's still an immensely talented writer.

Rowling's gift was in her vibrant imagination and the beautiful way she laid her visions out on the page. Stephanie Meyer's talent, on the other hand, is a powerful empathy for her target audience and the ability to transcribe a fantasy that speaks directly to them.

I think the Twilight saga is more 'product' than literature. That probably explains why it was scooped up by Little, Brown and Company just months after completion (whereas it took J.K. Rowling several years and many rejection slips for her bestsellers to find a publisher.)

Because of all the elements described about, Twilight is simply more 'bankable.'

But as I've often said, the proof of a great writer is not the recognition of their peers or the appreciation of the critics. It's not even in the awards the writing has won (and Twilight won the New York Times Editor's Choice, Publishers Weekly Best Book of the Year and a place on the American Library Association's "Top Ten Best Book for Young Adults" and "Top Ten Books for Reluctant Readers.”)

A good writer simply writes what people want to read - and what captures their imagination.

The Twilight saga, if its millions of fans are anything to go by, certainly achieved that goal - which makes it a damn good series of books as far as I'm concerned.

Why Facebook is the enemy...

Never friend your boss or colleagues on Facebook, as this Australian call center employee found out after filing for a 'sick day' with his HR department.

Our Aussie pal Kyle received this response to his request:

From: Niresh Regmi
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:35 a.m.
To: Kyle Doyle
Subject: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008

Hi Kyle,

Please provide a medical certificate stating a valid reason for your sick leave on Thursday 21st 2008.

Thank You

NIRESH REGMI
Real Time Manager, Workforce Operations

To which he responded:

From: Kyle Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:38 a.m.
To: Niresh Regmi
Subject: RE: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008

Niresh,

1 day leave absences do not require a medical certificate as stated in my contract, provided I have stated that I am on leave for medical reasons.Thanks.

Regards,

Kyle Doyle
Resolutions Expert - Technical

Niresh promptly sent this back:

From: Niresh Regmi
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:39 a.m.
To: Kyle Doyle
Subject: RE: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008

Hi Kyle,

Usually that is the case, as per your contract. However please note that leave during these occasions is only granted for genuine medical reasons. You line manager has determined that your leave was not due to medical reasons and as such we cannot grant leave on this occasion.

NIRESH REGMI

Kyle snottily replied:

From: Kyle Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:43 a.m.
To: Niresh Regmi
Subject: RE: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008

Hi Niresh,

My leave was due to medical reasons, so you cannot deny leave based on a line manager's discretion, with no proof, please process leave as requested. Thanks.

Regards,

Kyle Doyle

And, the payoff - Niresh's response:

From: Niresh Regmi
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:50 a.m.
To: Kyle Doyle
Subject: RE: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008


Hi Kyle,

I believe the proof that you are after is below

The response:

From: Kyle Doyle
Sent: Wednesday, 27 August 2008 9:55 a.m.
To: Niresh Regmi
Subject: RE: Absence on Thursday 21st 2008


HAHAHA LMAO epic fail
No worries man
Regards,

Kyle Doyle

Quick Post

I'm sorry about the lack of posts recently. Oh, such a lot going on; and yet nothing going on at all. Like I occasionally do, I've reached a momentary empasse in my life and while I'm negotiating it, I haven't had the motivation to be the prodigious blogger that I normally am.

Life toddles on, though. That much always seems to be the case. I find that inevitability both more and less difficult as I've grown older.

Having Baby Boo was an epiphany. When you're feeling blue and worthless, there's nothing quite the same as having a little face look up at you and break into a smile - or a pair of chubby little arms wrap around your neck as you pick him up.

Having a Baby Boozer is terrifying because it inspires you to be better. But it's also blissful, because whatever happens, you can just hug him and retreat into that moment like the calm in the centre of a storm.

I think Baby Booshakalaka came about at exactly the right moment in my life and gave me exactly what I was looking for when I needed it the most.

Now I just have to live up to that. Which is terrifying in itself.

Also, he sticks his tongue out a lot.

Bottle Shocking!

In researching my review of the wonderful new movie, Bottle Shock, I found out quite a few interesting facts about the story of the '76 'Judgment of Paris.'

Bottle Shock is the first of two movies about the 1976 Paris Wine Tasting. The second, an upcoming movie entitled 'Judgment of Paris,' is the 'officially endorsed' version, based on journalist George Taber's account of the competition, which he wrote in 1978.

Steven Spurrier (left), whose connection to the 'Judgment of Paris' film might be more than just nostalgic, threatened to sue the producers of Bottle Shock, claiming: 'There is hardly a word that is true in the script and many, many pure inventions as far as I am concerned.'

Alan Rickman, who plays Spurrier in Bottle Shock, actually knows him. Both fans of Italian wine, they met while staying at Castello di Argiano in Montalcino.

Upon getting the role, Alan Rickman wrote to Steven Spurrier to let him know that he'd be representing him on screen.

"Knowing that the script described me as “an impossibly effete young Englishman”," Spurrier admitted to the press, "I simply wished him the best of luck."

Bottle Shock

We may have moved beyond the days of ‘freedom fries’ and boycotting Beaujolais, but as far as America’s concerned, it’s still open season on the French.

That’s definitely one of the motivations behind Bottle Shock, a comedy-drama that debuted last year at the Sundance Film Festival.

Starring Bill Pullman, Alan Rickman and (soon-to-be Captain Kirk) Chris Pine, it tells the story of the infamous ’76 ‘Judgment of Paris,’ a blind wine-tasting in which California wines beat out home-grown Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon.

Bottle Shock is a sumptuous movie, filmed on location in the bright and beautiful Napa Valley of California. Encompassing blue skies and postcard-perfect vineyard vistas, the entire film plays like a commercial for the California Tourism Commission.

But there’s also a stonking good story to be enjoyed here.

Bottle Shock kicks off with snobbish British expatriate Steven Spurrier, played by a stuffy Alan Rickman, travelling from Paris to California to locate wines worthy of the upcoming competition.

Spurrier’s uptight mannerisms highlight the perceived differences between the French and American wine industries. French vintners are portrayed as stuffy and snobbish, peering down their noses at what they think are the ‘cowboys’ out in California.

When Spurrier arrives in America, he initially buys into this stereotype. After all, in playing the leading winemakers in the region, actors Pullman, Pine and Ugly Betty star Freddy Rodriguez are all portrayed as hicks in flannel shirts and jeans.

But the cowboy hats and rusty pick-up trucks are misleading props. Simon Spurrier soon discovers that these California ‘cowboys’ have compensated for their lack of wine-making experience by exploring daring new trends and technologies – producing wine with almost surgical precision.

In fact, it’s this ‘precise’ wine that gives this story it’s most stirring moment of drama – as Bill Pullman’s character, based on the real-life winemaker Jim Barrett, sends hundreds of bottles of discolored Chardonnay off to the landfill, unaware that the brown ‘taint’ is a temporary result of his near-perfect bottling process.

Don’t worry – things get sorted out in the end. Jim Barrett’s floundering vineyard finally gets the validation it deserves at the ’76 Paris Wine Tasting.

Although certain aspects seem overplayed – the moral of the story appears to be: ‘Dammit, we Americans make wine every bit as good as those damn Frenchies!’ - the script zings, the acting’s pitch-perfect and the story is wonderfully uplifting.

This leave Bottle Shock as an immensely satisfying movie experience (and, like many things in life, one that’s best enjoyed with a nice glass of wine.)

Bottle Shock is available in North America from Amazon.com, priced $19.99

Obama Cartoon

"I guess they thought we were chimpanzees," Al Sharpton said, of this topical cartoon appearing in the New York Post. "They will find out we are lions."

Oh. My. God.

Listen, guys. I've bought into the politically correct nonsense as much as I can but THIS IS RIDICULOUS.

This is a cartoon referencing a chimpanzee who clawed some dim woman's face off (it's been front page news across America), suggesting that the psychotic animal was also responsible for writing the much derided Economic Stimulus bill.

The fact that Al Sharpton immediately appeared, objecting to the image of a monkey being used in a cartoon referencing President Obama (who just happens to be black, which apparently makes him 'monkeyish'), says more about Al Sharpton than it does about the New York Post.

A century ago, black people were called 'monkeys' by bigots and racists. However, today isn't a century ago - and the editors of the New York Post were presumably colorblind enough not to have even considered that people would be stupid enough to think that the New York Post was calling Obama a 'monkey' because he was black.

The fact that Al Sharpton would even sink to that level is disgusting. YES, there is racism at work here, but Al Sharpton's the racist one. Al Sharpton's the one who connected a newsworthy chimp with the president of the United States. He manufactured this 'racist' outrage.

Let's face it - the New York Post is a liberal paper. It's readers are liberal. It's published in New York, probably the most liberal and least racist state in the Union. Al Sharpton's ire is just... it's just...

It's just f*!king retarded!

God, what a ridiculous, stupid waste of time this is. What a disgusting self-publicist Al Sharpton is. Jesus, how many innocent victims must this racist bastard hurl under the bus in order to win himself more column inches?

How much longer must he perpetuate racist imagery in order to keep his manufactured outrage alive?

Al Sharpton and his supporters do more to keep racism alive than anybody else.

A lot of non-racist people at the New York Post, who never even considered race when they published this response to Obama's stimulus package, are being targeted by Al Sharpton and his 'politically correct' mafia in order to further their political agenda. He doesn't care whether they were actually racist or not. He doesn't care about anything or anybody unless it serves his purpose.

Al Sharpton does everything he can to foster racism and keep racism alive because without it, everything that keeps him relevant in 21st century America evaporates.

Wishful Thinking

A bit of wishful thinking never harmed anybody - which is why Wifey and I have been entering the HGTV contest to win their beautiful 'Dream Home' in Sonoma, California.


Sonoma is one of California's premiere patches of wine country and their Zinfandel is meant to be legendary (Cali Zin is definitely my favorite New World wine.)

I don't enter the lottery and aren't that prone to wild flights of fancy - but Lord I would love to win this house. It's beautiful.


There are actually Zinfandel vines growing in the backyard - not sure if they're enough to make wine out of, but I'd certainly like to try!

Here's the kitchen... Oh, I could imagine using that big oven and roasting up something delicious. It's the sort of kitchen you could imagine having parties in - and there's an adorable 'nook' with windows for having breakfast in.

Here's the sitting room. There's a flatscreen on the wall. Of course, we'd stick some bookcases in there. LOTS of bookcases.

The master bedroom... I don't think Wifey or I are fans of the green walls, but you can't look a gift house in the mouth.

Here's Boo's room. Isn't it cute?

Around the back there's a patio and enormous BBQ. I can just imagine having dinner parties out there, sipping local wine long into the night.

There's a two car garage - perfect for me - and you even win a brand new GMC Arcadia. I'd trade that in instantly, of course, and buy something a little more me.

Well, there goes my flight of fantasy. I hope you enjoyed the ride.

I'd dearly love to live in a house like that, but even if we did inexplicably win - Wifey pointed out that we probably wouldn't able to afford the capital gains tax or the property taxes on such a beautiful house.

As she pointed out - "You know you're poor when you can't even afford a 'free' house!"

Doing More Harm Than Good...

So check this out:

Founder of Islamic TV station accused of beheading wife
From Deborah Brunswick and LaNeice Collins - CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of an Islamic television station in upstate New York aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes has confessed to beheading his wife, authorities said. Full story here.

If you haven't heard of Muzzammil Hassan, let me give you a little background on the founder of 'Bridges' - a TV network targeted towards American Muslims.

He founded the television station in order to combat negative portrayals of Muslims in 'traditional' media, news and television - especially following the attacks of 9/11.

You know what negative portrayals we're talking about - that all Muslims are misogynistic, controlling and prone to acts of wild and brutal violence (like, ahem, beheading women who 'disrespect' them.)

His ambition was a fine one - the few Muslims I know in America happen to be wonderful people and it would be great to see them represented more fairly.

However, in doing this - by brutally murdering his wife and then decapitating her - it threw all of Hassan's work into doubt.

Muzzammil Hassan was supposed to represent moderate Muslims - the business-suited, upper middle class citizens we share the subway with on our way to work.

To suddenly see one of the 'acceptable' faces of Islam revealed to be a brutal, grotesque killer is disconcerting, to say the least.

There's something horrific about how Hassan beheaded his wife, rather than just killed her. He deliberately used the same ritualistic methods as the Islamic fundamentalists who murdered reporter Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg in Iraq. His actions connected his crime directly to the murky world of the shadowy fundamentalists we see on grainy videotape footage, pledging 'death to America.'

Following his bizarre and horrific crime, you have to start questioning everything that Hassan claimed he stood for. He said he wanted to protect moderate Muslims from discrimination and unwarranted hostility - yet ended up becoming the very manifestation of everything us 'regular folk' fear about Islam.

Narcoleptic Baby

Bears make good pillows...

Boozer the Cruiser

My career as a country artist...

On Stephen Fowler

I don't watch reality television, so I missed the shameful performance of Stephen Fowler, a British man featured on the LIFE television show 'Wife Swap.'

'Wife Swap' features two families who 'swap mums' for a fortnight. In this case, it was Stephen Fowler and his American wife, who both live in a wealthy district of San Francisco, who 'swapped' with a blue collar family from Missouri.

Fowler's wife, Renee, went off to Missouri - where she banned the family from playing paintball and organized compulsory French lessons.

Gayla, the Missouri 'mom', visited San Francisco, where she was subject to a tirade of insults from the snobbish, arrogant Fowler.

It apparently made for great television. Fowler was as snide and bitter as Basil Fawlty and cut Gayla down to size at every opportunity - lambasting her for her weight, her perceived lack of education, her patriotism and her 'redneck' ways. In the space of a forty-minute television show, Fowler managed to insult or alienate a broad range of middle Americans, from military families to NASCAR fans.

When the television show hit the air, the backlash was inflammatory. "You rude disgusting little limey prick" was probably the most polite of the comments made against him.

What annoyed me about the backlash, however, was that it manifested itself in a form just as offensive as Stephen Fowler's rants. I guess the old law is true - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The first thing Stephen Fowler was attacked for was being British - the perrenial cry of 'go back to your own country, you limey prick.'

Then he was attacked for his lauded 'education.' The fact that he sent his kids to a bilingual French school was labelled 'useless' and people scoffed, wondering why anybody would 'bother learning French.'

Just like Fowler had labelled Gayla a 'redneck' and attacked her for traits like her weight or her patriotism, many of the people reacting to Fowler attacked him for his nationality and for other facets of who he was that had nothing to do with the despicable things he'd said.

Why is this a problem? Because I took many of them personally.

I share more than a few similarities with Stephen Fowler. I'm a British man married to an American. I have a son who I intend to raise learning French. I'm perceived as 'educated' because of my accent and my job. When outraged mid-westerners attack him for merely being all those things, they're simultaneously attacking me.

Which entirely defeats the purpose. They're ignoring what Stephen Fowler actually did wrong - berated and belittled somebody, wallowed in his own sense of superiority and insulted millions of hardworking blue collar Americans and military families.

Their reaction to his disgusting behavior is along the same lines as his. Stereotypes, jingoism and reverse snobbery are the order of the day.

It's the same old rubbish we witnessed during the election; the perrenial conflict between 'elitist' liberals on the East and West coast and the 'real' Americans who live between them.

Fowler is perceived as 'bad' NOT because he's an arrogant, rude prick, or because of his disgusting behavior. No, he's 'bad' because he's a West coast, liberal foreigner who wants to send his kids to learn the language of those 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' over in France.

When it comes down to it, is that any better than him attacking Gayla and her brood for being 'uneducated rednecks'? Merely because she didn't have a college degree and they live in the Midwest?

When you start attacking people for what they are instead of what they do, the whole point of the argument loses cohesiveness. Thanks to these middle Americans and their scatter gun attacks, the Stephen Fowler debate has descended into a bunch of 'redneck hicks' insulting an 'elitist snob.' Nobody's talking about what he actually did wrong.

As for me?l I was personally disappointed that Stephen Fowler was British. Perhaps I'm being guilty of the same judgementalism as the people I'm complaining about, but I was always under the impression that certain Brits from a certain class were raised not to behave the way he did.

I certainly wasn't - I have never considered myself 'better' than anybody else. I have friends from all sorts of backgrounds and I respect all of them equally. Growing up in Hampshire or the West Country, mixing with the friends of royalty or penniless Cornish farmers, my parents always taught me that people are defined by their actions, not their class.

So, I'm not going to be ashamed to be a liberal, East Coast, 'intellectual' foreigner with 'funny ideas' about my son learning French. If the people attacking Stephen Fowler have a problem with me because of who I am, that says more about them than it does about me.

Why did 'God' only write one book?

A contributor I shall refer to as 'Siger' piqued my interest by sending me this:

The One Book Author

Many authors are well known for only one book, and many with a best-selling first book never follow it up with another successful one. The best-selling book of all human history is of course the Bible, actually written by many authors over nearly a thousand years. First published after many editorial battles, it is regarded by many as having been actually written by an author referred to as 'God'.

It is strange that after such a successful product, God has not released the sequel for nearly two thousand years.

It could be, as some have surmised, that God is dead. However, others postulate that his alter ego Jesus lives. He, apart from being nearly two thousand years old (an all-time record that would probably be accepted by the Guinness Book of Records) proves difficult to contact except through a method known as 'prayer.'

There must be many publishers eager to know where he lives, his address, telephone and mobile numbers, or whether he is on e-mail - and even if he would be prepared to give interviews or appear on television.

Google gives more than twenty-six million references but does not include any of this information.

Great will be the success of the agent who is able to persuade Jesus to release to the world 'Bible II.' We look forward to the publication.

It raises a very legitimate question.

If God does exist - and if the literal Biblical interpretation of his is accurate - where is he?

In the Bible, he regularly spoke to his children, or appeared in the form of miracles that could not be attested to anything other than divine intervention.

Today, however, he seems absent. 'Miracles' tend to be the domain of The National Enquirer and the only place Jesus seems to be appearing (aside from the lyrics of 85% of Country songs) is on a variety of breakfast produce.

Why did God stop 'writing' two thousand years ago?

I would be fascinated to hear people's opinions.

More on the Gingermobile...

As you might remember, I've been seriously considering what my next 'Gingermobile' will be.

The cars of literary heroes James Bond and Simon Templar helped me define some of the essential characteristics of a Gingermobile, but there's another important influence to consider.

When it comes to the soul of the Gingermobile, you have to look down south - to the fictional county of Hazzard, Georgia, and a '69 Dodge Charger that two boys used to run moonshine across the territory in.


The General Lee.

When you get down to brass tacks, the General Lee represents everything required in a Gingermobile. It's a massive great beast of a car, born of NASCAR heritage and with some of the finest lines ever seen emerging from Detroit.

The original General Lee was a 1969 Dodge Charger, painted in Corvette Flame Red with a 383 cubic inch V8 mounted to a three speed A727 Torqueflites automatic transmission. The car rolled on 14X7 inch American Racing brand "Vectors" wheels and B.F.Goodrich racing tyres. With the doors welded shut for stability, a full roll-cage installed inside and front 'push bars' added, it was a serious tank.

I wrote earlier that my next Gingermobile will have to fit the specifications of Bond and Templar's cars - fast, big and luxurious. The Dodge Charger fits all three of those, although the General Lee itself wasn't so 'luxurious' - as befits a racing car, the luxuries were pared down to the essentials.

The General Lee, however, reiterates two points about Simon Templar and James Bond's cars that I missed. Although not nearly to the same extent as the Duke boy's chariot, both Simon's Hirondel and Bond's Bentley were heavily modified and unique.


Simon Templar was forever taking his cream and red Hirondel to the factory for additional modification, while Bond's Bentley's were 'mildly' modified (by the addition of an Arnott supercharger and coat of matt, battleship grey paint) or heavily modified (with a custom-built, two seater convertible body that Bond boasts is 'really convertible') depending on the book.

Taking all of this into account, it seems obvious now that in addition to being big, fast and luxurious, my Gingermobile will have to be uniquely modified. That's what makes it a 'mobile' rather than just a car.

Also, like The Saint's car and Bond's Bentley, the General Lee was perfectly suited for high octane adventure. It was fast and tough, with a big boot (for running moonshine) and comfortable seating for four or five people (with bench seats up front.)

What's more, there was something rough and ready about it. I used to love climbing in and out of the windows of Tiffany III. My new Gingermobile will also have to have 'fenestral-entry' and two doors, to make sure it's obviously 'sporty.'

So, thanks to the General Lee, my list of Gingermobile requirements stands at:

1. Fast
2. Big
3. Luxurious
4. Tough
5. 'Rough and Ready'
6. Two-door with a big boot
7. You can climb in and out of the windows.

Bloggers are people too! And they drink cider!

So this blogosphere is a crazy place.

Every single day, I read the online musings of all sorts of myriad people, from all over the world. I see photos of their homes and families, or hear stories of their lives and loves. I'm part of a whole community of people I have never - and might never - meet.

Well, I did meet one of them the other day - the inestimable Sasha Sappho.

Sasha happened to be in New York, so I gave her a quick tour of where I work and then exposed her [Bad choice of phrase - Editorial Bear] to my friends and colleagues at a local pub (and, inexplicably, she's still willing to talk to me!)

It was very odd to meet somebody who I paradoxically know so much, yet so little, about.

Ever since I first discovered Sasha's blog, I thought she was awesome. Her writing just pushed my button. She seemed smart and clever and open minded. Hers is one of the first blogs I catch up on every day.

So I was already confident that when I met her, I'd think she was awesome. I mean, she already was awesome in my head. The great thing though, was that when I did actually meet Sasha, she not only met expectations - she exceeded them!

She was everything she is in her blog, only more so!

And now, aside from having a great time meeting her, I like to think that Sasha isn't just a bloggy friend any more, she's a real friend. Which is pretty cool. Who knew that there was a door that led from the blogsphere into the realosphere™ [Trademark 2009 - Editorial Bear] ?

Is Dissent still Patriotic?

Over on CK's blog, he raised a very interesting question, to which I delivered a needlessly flippant answer. He posted an article entitled Is Dissent Still Patriotic? His question was:

For 8 years many on the left stood by their hate for Bush and his policies because dissent was patriotic. So now when I stand against Obama, I’m still patriotic… right?

Although the quote 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism' is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, it was actually a phrase coined by left-leaning historian Howard Zinn, during an interview in which he explained his opposition to George W. Bush's 'War on Terror.'

CK's question is a legitimate one. Considering that the concept of 'dissent is patriotic' was coined by liberals, now that President Obama has been elected, does that render 'patriotic dissent' inapplicable? We liberals thought standing up to Bush and his regime was patriotic, but will we now cry 'foul' when the conservatives stand against Obama?

It's a good question - and the answer is 'no.' As long as the opposition is done for the right reasons.

What made our objections to Bush's policies 'patriotic' was that they were protests against unAmerican things Bush did while in office. His actions contradicted the fundamental foundations of American society - meaning that people weren't standing up against Bush, they were standing up against his assault on American values.

If conservatives want to take a stand against Obama, it's their right to do so. If they're protesting actions that conflict with American principles, it's entirely appropriate for them to label that dissent 'patriotic.'

There are already some issues it might be worth discussing further:

• Will the trillion dollar stimulus package help America's economy, or just succeed in shackling us to decades of GDP-shrinking interest payments?
• Now that America has finally elected it's first African-American president, how appropriate is it to use race and affirmative action in a land in which 'all men are created equal.'?
• Proposition 8 and other anti-gay legislation is clearly disgusting, unAmerican trash that violates everything this country is founded on - but how appropriate is it to fight these laws via state and federal courts - essentially 'legislating from the bench?'

At the moment, though, it does seem somewhat unpatriotic to attack Obama's presidency. He hasn't done anything yet to deserve it!

When he launches a costly foreign war, or starts locking up people in a shadowy limbo prison, or taps our phones in violation of the constitution, then we'll talk about 'patriotic dissent.'

But for the moment? President Obama's election is something of an American fairytale.

His story is the quintessential American one - a black kid from a modest background, raised by a single mother, works hard to succeed in life and eventually achieves the highest office in the land through nothing more than hard work, ability and grit.

Obama's election proves that in this wonderful country, anybody can achieve anything they put their mind to. Isn't supporting that ideal what American patriotism is all about?

Geeze - compare his story to that of President Bush Jnr - the spoilt son of an obscenely wealthy family, with a former-president for a Dad. He perpetuated the myth that, in America, the only way to reach the top was to be a rich, white boy from a well-connected family.

Right now, the right wing's just going to have to accept that Obama's in a special position. 'Standing up to him' comes across as petty, childish and just a tiny bit pissy- certainly not 'patriotic.'

The time for 'patriotic dissent' isn't here yet. But it'll come. Already Obama's revealed that he's not as bipartisan as he claimed and many of the Democratic agendas that moderates and Republicans dislike will start to gain ground. Then there'll be real reason for people to 'stand up against' President Obama in the interests of 'patriotic dissent.'

But not yet. Right now, opposing Obama on the grounds of 'patriotism' just undermines the very concept of what 'patriotic dissent' is all about.

Is this the ultimate real-life James Bond gadget?

At just (?) $37,900, this stylish Jaeger-LeCoultre AMVOX2 DBS Transponder Watch is a pretty Bond-worthy wristwatch in it's own right.


But it gets better - in addition to telling the time, it's a fully functional remote for your Aston Martin DBS - offering remote start, central locking and a host of other features.

Why Obama has a 70% approval rating...

Stephen King on Twilight

Stephen King raised a few eyebrows recently by claiming that Stephanie Meyer, author of the popular 'Twilight' series of books, doesn't deserve to inherit J.K. Rowling's 'teen queen' crown.

"Both Rowling and Meyer, they're speaking directly to young people... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."

Having just read Stephen King's memoir, On Writing, I am no stranger to the caustic remarks he reserves for some overrated authors (along with praise for his favorites.)

However this assassination is particularly interesting, since Stephanie Meyer's 'Twilight' series of books take more than a few pointers from King himself - He's not credited nearly often enough with reinventing the vampire genre in his 1975 novel 'Salem's Lot.

That being said, his attack on Meyer wasn't as brutal as it could have been - he gives her kudos for (bad?) writing that still proves incredibly compelling for its intended audience:

"She's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up a kind of 'safe' joining of love and sex. It's exciting and it's thrilling, but it's not particularly threatening because it's not overtly sexual."

"A lot of the physicality is conveyed in ways, for example, like how the vampire will touch [Bella's] forearm or run a hand over her skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."

I find the whole spat rather fascinating, since King's attack on Meyer mirrors many criticisms made about his own writing over the years. Stephen King is a simply brilliant author, but for decades, his writing was dismissed as populist 'schlock' because it had the audacity to sell well.

It seems there's still a certain snobbery in the publishing industry - books that appeal to a wide audience and sell well are never taken seriously by the literati. There's 'literary' fiction (the stuff that wins Booker prizes) and 'popular' fiction (the stuff that sells millions of copies.) A powerful lobby within the publishing industry makes sure that 'never the twain shall meet.'

Stephen King represents just one of the authors who bridges the divide between literary and populist fiction. Books like The Dark Tower and The Stand are astonishingly complex masterpieces that just happen to appeal to a huge audience.

Seeing how King has been dismissed so often for his popularity, it seems somewhat unsportsmanlike to lay into Stephanie Meyer for exactly the same reason!

But then again, even by the most generous standards, Stephanie Meyer is no Stephen King.

Should Obama 'buy American?'

There are many critics of the 'bailout bill' President Obama is promoting, but one aspect in particular is proving to be very controversial.

Obama's 'bailout' consists of tax cuts and public spending. Much of this spending will be in the form of development projects, intended to bulk up America's infrastructure and create jobs by building roads, bridges and other 'public works.'

In an effort to promote American industry, this initiative is tempered by a commandment to 'buy American.' If bridges, roadworks or buildings require steel or other resources, the bill demands that these materials are sourced from the United States itself - inspiring the rest of the world to cry 'protectionism' in protest.

It's an interesting situation. With the federal government pledging to buy American steel, it could give the American steel industry a huge boost - helping secure jobs and profit in an industry that's particularly beleaguered by undercuts from foreign imports.

However, the pledge to 'buy American' means the federal government will be deliberately purchasing more expensive materials, offering less value for taxpayers and shamelessly flouting the 'free market' system that's meant to be at the heart of American society.

The international community is understandably upset. The United States has free trade agreements with dozens of countries, agreeing not to put up tariffs on imported goods even if it puts more pressure on their own domestic industries to remain competitive.

With the American economy often driving the world economy, it's understandable that steel-producing countries hungrily eyed up the boost Obama's spending plans would have made to their own besieged economies and are now disappointed by the news.

That being said, Obama indicated that the purpose of his spending plan was to boost employment and secure jobs in America. Is it so wrong to give an important domestic industry (important enough that the Pittsburgh Steelers were named after that city's steelworkers) a much needed boost during this economic downturn?

Subjectively, I support Obama's decision to promote American industry and encourage the government to spend on American products. I'm reassured that there's a 'safety clause' which liberates any project from using domestic materials if the price of those goods would increase the overall project cost by 25% or more.

Objectively, however, I know that this form of patriotic protectionism never works. Successful business evolves through a form of economic Darwinism. Companies that remain competitive remain in business. If Obama gives a temporary boost to a beleaguered American industry, it will merely postpone their inevitable decline.

I'm just about old enough to remember the end of the coal industry in Great Britain during the 1980s - a tragic period in which a subsidised industry finally accepted that it could no longer afford to support the thousands of employees who relied on it. Do we want to see a repeat of that?

A look at America's experiments with protectionism in the past reveal that government mandated 'buying American' is a self-defeating solution. Despite the apparent logic of boosting the economy by encouraging domestic industry, protectionism almost always winds up hurting the economy, not helping it.

It's also ripe for graft and corruption. If the American steel industry knows it has a captive market, there's nothing to stop the price of American steel elevating overnight. Without foreign competition to drive the prices down, it's a seller's market.

It all ends up with the taxpayer paying more. Considering the ambitious nature of the bailout bill -and how much it will cost us, our children and our children's children to repay - that's not something any politician should allow to happen.

Republicans often tout America's 'free market' system of Capitalism, but the sad truth is that the system already fails to stand up to scrutiny. With powerful unions in many of America's industries, plus subsidies for farmers and tariffs on many imports, the American economic system is already twisted and manipulated by politicians to profit a canny few.

While things like petrol are dirt cheap compared to Europe, other commodities (most obviously milk and cheese) are vastly inflated compared to prices abroad. If Obama pledges to 'buy American,' surely this situation is just going to get worse.