Egypt kills every single pig to prevent swine flu...

CAIRO – Egypt began slaughtering the roughly 300,000 pigs in the country Wednesday as a precautionary measure against the spread of swine flu even though no cases have been reported here yet, the Health Ministry said. Full story here.

Poor bloody pigs!

That being said, we should never be surprised at what our middle eastern brethren will do when given the opportunity to manipulate a world health crisis for political purposes.

After all, Israel has already rejected the name 'Swine Flu' because it's not kosher (they prefer the less pig-specific moniker 'Mexican Flu') Why shouldn't anybody else jump on the bandwagon?

Muslims don't eat pork - which they view as 'unclean' according to the Quran - yet some of the minority of Christians in Egypt do keep pigs so they can grow their own delicious bacon and ham.

This causes much consternation amongst the more devout followers of Islam, as you can imagine.

So, by ordering the entirely unnecessary extermination of all pigs in the country, the Egyptian government has neatly managed to eliminate the 'infidel heresy' of pig-keeping in one fell swoop.

Naturally, the Christians who keep these pigs won't be compensated for having their livestock and livelihood exterminated.

Will this protect Egypt from the possible pandemic of 'Mexican Flu?'

Was that ever really the point of the exercise?

This isn't a criticism of Islam (or Judiasm) but more of a complaint about religion in general. Swine Flu is a real issue with potentially devastating consequences - yet in the middle east, the cradle of religious absurdity, people are more worried about semantics and pork chops than dealing with the actual issue.

Just wait until the world gets hit with 'camel flu.' Then we'll see what Egypt's really made of.

Egypt began slaughtering its roughly 300,000 pigs Wednesday even though experts said swine flu is not linked to pigs and not spread by eating pork. Angry farmers protested the government degree.

In Paris, the World Organization for Animal Health said Thursday "there is no evidence of infection in pigs, nor of humans acquiring infection directly from pigs."

Killing pigs "will not help to guard against public or animal health risks" presented by the virus and "is inappropriate," the group said in a statement. Full story here.

Is Arlen Specter playing Benedict Arnold?

"There's little honor in betrayal."

Republicans have warned Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter, who defected today to the Democratic party, that he'll discover the truth of that saying soon enough.

But is Specter, a five-term Republican senator, really to blame for his defection? Or was he drummed out of a party that's crawling increasingly towards extremism?

Specter has long been derided by the GOP as a 'RINO' - 'Republican In Name Only.' He's voted with the Democratic party on several key issues - most recently Obama's controversial economic stimulus package. However, his moderate views made him a popular representative who's well liked in his Pennsylvania constituency.

What inspired his decision to defect wasn't an important national issue or political expediency - it was pressure from the GOP. Despite winning five terms in the senate - and being hugely popular amongst voters - Arlen Specter's moderate politics marked him as a maverick within the Republican party itself.

At the end of his current term, they planned to oust Specter from the Republican ticket - running another candidate in the 2010 election.

Most people agree that such a move would be political suicide for Pennsylvania Republicans - but the conservative element within that local party clearly cares more for their own political proclivities than sticking by a successful senator - one who guided them to victory five times over.

In short: The Pa. GOP would rather back a loser that towed the party line, than support a winner they weren't sure they could control.

Arlen's Future

Whatever his motivation for making this decision, Arlen Specter's defection was a very clever chess-move.

In sacrificing his uncertain future with the Republicans, Specter stepped into the welcoming arms of the Obama administration; who've promised him their full support when he runs for the senate in 2010 - as a Democrat.

For Obama, it's a boon. In addition to winning the champion of moderate Pennsylvanian voters, he's also managed to get one step closer to that all important filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the senate - effectively making his presidency politically unstoppable.

And as for Arlen - he's regained the backing of a major political party and gets to be on the side of the 'good guys' (as, thanks to Obama's continued popularity, the Democrats are viewed as.)

Of course, in an ideal world, Arlen would have stayed exactly where he was. The Republican party desperately needs men (and women) like him - people who understand that the future of the party doesn't rest with conservative Christians and blowhards like Gingrich and Limbaugh.

But it was the Republican party who manufactured this debacle - and, as the party continues to tailspin into oblivion, it's the GOP who'll ultimately pay the price for their short sightedness.

Good luck, Specter - the GOP will miss you (even if they don't realize it yet.)

Le Road Trip de Boo

It was the most gorgeous weekend here in New Jersey, so we took the Baby Boozer out on his first official road trip.

First port of call was the Cook Campus of Rutgers, where we enjoyed their annual folk festival.


Baby Boozer got to test out his new 'all terrain' ride, which paid for itself by tackling even the most rugged terrain. It's made by 'Jeep' - and like most of their vehicles, doesn't do many miles per gallon. The engine (i.e. me) has to be refilled with beer at the end of the day.


Cook Campus is where Rutgers students can study agriculture, so Boo got his first introduction to the farming lifestyle. We prepped him for his upcoming summer trip with a practice run on this cute little horse.


Boo clearly inherited some farming genes, as he went crazy for the Friesian cows on campus.


When it was time to leave, he clung stubbornly to the gate and wouldn't let go!


Next, we went off to the 15th Annual 'Cops and Rodders' car show (see last year's here). Mummy Militant immediately spotted a ride which appealed to her.


I got all wistful when I spotted this beautiful black 'bird.


But in the end, we both decided we wanted matching his 'n' hers Dodge Chargers.

Boo: "I am Harry Potter!"

The Boozer is a walkin' baby!

What constitutes torture?

"Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."

Quoted from a letter by Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, US Navy, Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, US Navy, Major General John L. Fugh, US Army and Brigadier General David M. Brahms, US Marine Corps (all retired, formerly of the Judge Advocates General judicial arm of the U.S. military

President Obama recently caused consternation when he released formerly classified documents describing the much-debated 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used against prisoners and those accused of terrorism by the CIA and Homeland Security.

According to the reports, the six prescribed 'techniques' were as follows:

The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

The question of whether or not these 'techniques' can be classified as 'torture' is something that's being hotly debated at the moment.

Conservatives argue that they're not 'torture' as they don't cause any long-term physical suffering to the victim. Also, any question about how ethical these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' are is mitigated by the value of the information that has been gleaned from using them.

But as far as I'm concerned, the very fact that we're debating whether or not these 'techniques' could be classified as torture pretty much answers that question - of course they are. Waterboarding is the most troubling of them.

Is waterboarding torture?

There's a general consensus condemning techniques like 'waterboarding' - and it's not amongst 'liberals' and 'lefties' like the conservatives might think.

Many, if not most, military experts agree that waterboarding is clear, unequivocal torture.

John McCain had this to say during his campaign for the White House:

"Waterboarding is where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth—causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned.

He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating.

The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal.

In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank.

I believe that it is torture. Very exquisite torture."

If the words of John McCain aren't enough to convince you, a quite glance at a history book should. The origins of 'waterboarding' are linked to the Spanish Inquisition - a brutal period of Spanish history in which those accused of heresy were tortured into giving confessions through a variety of brutal methods.

The tortura del agua, what we now know of as 'waterboarding', was a favorite as it caused no scars, burns or visible injuries on the victim. This made their 'confessions' that much more compelling, as if wouldn't have been obvious that they'd been acquired through the use of torture.

The United States first experimented with waterboarding (then know as 'the water cure') during the Spanish-American war of 1898.

When President Roosevelt learned that a prisoner, Tobeniano Ealdama, had been tortured with 'the water cure' by a certain Captain Edwin Glenn, he dismissed the Captain from the army immediately and called upon the army to "prevent the occurrence of all such acts in the future."

Waterboarding was a technique used with alarming regularity by the Japanese Kempeitai and Nazi Gestapo during World War 2. French paratroopers later used it during the Algerian War of 1954-62. Henri Alleg, a French-Algerian journalist who was waterboarded during the conflict, reported that accidental death of victims was 'very frequent.' He described his experiences:

"I couldn't hold on for more than a few moments. I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. In spite of myself, all the muscles of my body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation."

Henri Alleg, La Question, 1958

Waterboarding was officially regarded as torture by American generals during the Vietnam War It's use was strictly forbidden - with soldiers found guilty of using the technique facing swift court-martial.



How that position could have changed in the intervening forty years is beyond me. This was a favorite torture technique of the Pinochet regime and the Khmer Rouge - that in itself rules out any ambiguity for all but the most rational of people.

Was torture worth it?

Like in much of what they do, conservatives have a contradictory two-pronged defense regarding waterboarding. On the one hand, they argue that it's not torture. Then, they argue that torture like waterboarding would be acceptable, anyway, because the information gleaned from it helped defend America from terrorism.

Turning to John McCain once again - probably the best qualified man in America to discuss the reality of torture - he has only this to say:

"I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron.

Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse.

It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers."

Certainly, the CIA operatives who 'waterboarded' 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly weren't satisfied with the answers he gave. They were forced to waterboard him 183 times over the course of a single month. That's almost six times every single day.

An effective torture, one imagines, gets answers after only one judicious application.

Because Barack Obama has refused to declassify the information gleaned from waterboarding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, it's impossible to judge whether the techniques were 'worth it.' That being said, it's very doubtful that I'd change my mind on the subject, no matter what information had been gleaned.

As far as I'm concerned, when a country is reduced to torturing its prisoners for the sake of 'protecting the country' it's no longer much of a country worth protecting.

The Bottom Line

Of course, I still think America is worth protecting. However, I disagree completely with the path that the government went down following 9-11 and think that the discussion about the 'validity' of torture is totally bankrupt. Why are we defending the indefensible?

What the conservatives who defend waterboarding, Guantanemo Bay and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' fail to realise is that these 'techniques' are all so unequivocally unAmerican that it's a stain on this country's history that such abuses were ever condoned.

It doesn't matter whether or not the 'victims' of this torture were terrorists. That's backwards thinking, trying to argue that the ends justify unjustifiable means.

The fact is, Americans are meant to be the 'good guys' - and good guys don't do things like torture. Not because torture is illegal, or ineffective (although it's both) - but because it's wrong.

America is a nation founded on the ideals of justice and freedom. As a nation, we've always believed (rightly or wrongly) that there are some moral absolutes. Whether or not torture works should always be second to whether we want America to be known as a country that tortures.

We condemn foreign lands that commit torture. One of the justifications for invading Iraq was that Saddam Hussein brutally tormented his subjects in secret 'torture factories.'

So when we discuss the issue of 'waterboarding' and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' it's that we should be thinking about. Do we want to live in a country that commits the crimes Saddam Hussein was eventually hanged for?

I certainly don't - and I'm overjoyed that President Obama has exposed this scandal so we can make sure it's never repeated.

The Spirit - Verdict's in...

I don’t owe the fans a goddamn thing."

Frank Miller, interviewed in MAXIM magazine

I made no secret of my suspicions regarding Frank Miller's big-screen adaptation of 'The Spirit.'

I loved the original comic books - written and penned with wit and grit by the legendary Wil Eisner. The trailers I'd seen of Miller's film version, however, looked appalling - sharing nothing in common with the comic-book character I loved so much.

That's why I waited until The Spirit was released on DVD before I watched it.

Well, I've finally seen it - and it confirmed every fear I had.

Frank Miller's movie, slick and stylish as it was, turned out to be unmitigated trash from beginning to end.

It was a messy cinematic cocktail, combining his trademark Sin City cinematic style with a cliché-riddled script and a totally incomprehensible plot. There was simply nothing original - not one goddamn thing - about the whole dire movie.

Exotic dancers, swords and Nazis made some scenes reminiscent of 1967's Casino Royale spoof

But that's incidental to Miller's capital crime, of course. He adapted his 'Spirit' movie from the comic books of Wil Eisner - a legendary comic-book creator who inspired a generation of new artists (including Miller himself.)

The Spirit was groundbreaking because he was a regular joe - a man who fought crime with anonymity because his real-life alter ego had been declared dead. The Spirit didn't have any secret powers, hi-tech weapons or superhuman strengths. He could bleed, bruise and break just as easily as anybody else (and frequently did - several of Eisner's stories end with the Spirit in crutches or worse.)

Yet in Miller's film, The Spirit was an indestructible super-hero - injected with a chemical that allowed him super-strength and the ability to instantly heal his injuries.

The Spirit gets riddled by bullets, stabbed by scimitars and brained by a toilet - the only thing that gets broken is his tailor's heart.

By doing that, Frank Miller undercut everything compelling about the character. It rendered the whole movie pointless. There was no element of risk, no whiff of danger and nothing that remained from Eisner's original stories.

Considering that Frank Miller is such a legendary comic book artist in his own right, I found it incomprehensible that he would so enthusiastically slaughter this beloved comic-book icon.

What was even worse was the way he addressed concerns from avid Spirit fans. During the lead up to the movie's release, he arrogantly sneered that he didn't owe the Spirit's fans 'a goddamned thing.'

He made that clear enough with this movie - which is pretty much a ninety-minute middle-finger to everybody who loved Wil Eisner's incredible creation.

I suppose it's not an entirely wasted celluloid experience, though.

Raspy voice-overs aside, leading man Gabriel Macht actually fitted the role of The Spirit fairly well. He looked the part and lifted a few choice lines from the script to deliver with The Spirit's trademark optimism and charm. In a 'real' version of The Spirit stories, he'd have been pretty perfect for the part.

Gorgeous Eva Mendes, as The Spirit's long-lost love Sand Saref, is pretty much wasted. That being said, there's a single scene in which she wriggles out of a towel and the three-second flash of her round, ripe, naked bottom is probably worth the rental price of the DVD all by itself.

And finally, there's the lovely Sarah Paulson - playing alternative love-interest Ellen Dolan, the commissioner's daughter. She nails the best line of the movie - one that reminded me a lot of my days as a remorseless (but largely unsuccessful) womanizer!

"You're in love with every women you meet, Mr. Spirit. You say lovely things to all of us and you mean every word you say."

The film's too awful to have a saving grace, but if it did, it would be Sarah Paulson. Or Eva Mendes' bottom

The Bill of Rights

I was so inspired by my trip to Philadelphia. I learned a HUGE amount. It radically altered my perception of American society and the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they created the American nation.

I've been inspired to write Baby Booshakala a little book about 'What America Means...' I was going to tell him the story of the American Revolution and explain how documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution give him certain rights and freedoms - the freedoms that make America so special.

It's not easy, though. I took my first stab at explaining the Bill of Rights in a simple, child-friendly way. I'd love to know if any of my readers think I got it right, or disagree with the way I've explained things.

Remember, I'm writing for a child here. That's why I've left out a lot of the sophistication of the Bill of Rights. - also, I don't know if I 'get' the Ninth Amendment at all - but I think I've got the gist of what the first ten amendments to the Constitution mean:

1. The First Amendment gave people ‘freedom of speech’ – it made sure that the government couldn’t punish people for saying what they thought, or stop people from practicing whatever religion they wanted.
2. The Second Amendment gave people ‘the right to bear arms’ – it made sure that every grown up was allowed to keep a gun to defend their home and family, as long as they were willing to serve in the ‘militia’ – a local army made up of regular folks – when asked to.
3. The Third Amendment made sure that the government couldn’t force you to let soldiers live in your house during peacetime.
4. The Fourth Amendment gave people protection from ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ – it made sure that soldiers and police couldn’t search people or their houses, or take their things, without good reason.
5. The Fifth Amendment protected people in trouble with the law. It made sure the police had to have evidence that somebody might be guilty before they could be locked up, and allowed people not to say anything if it would get them into trouble.
6. The Sixth Amendment made sure that people in trouble with the law had the right to have a lawyer help them - and in court, a group of regular people called a ‘jury’ got to hear both sides of the story and decide whether or not the person was guilty of a crime before they could be punished.
7. The Seventh Amendment gave people in a disagreement the right to argue their side of the story in front of a ‘jury’ of regular people – and those people would decide who was right and who was wrong.
8. The Eighth Amendment gave people the protection from ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ like being tortured or locked up unfairly.
9. The Ninth Amendment explains that the Bill of Rights doesn’t list every freedom or right people have - and just because a freedom or right isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t give the government the power to take that freedom away.
10. The Tenth Amendment made sure that each of the states in the United States were allowed to make their own laws and rules, as long as they wouldn’t break any of the rules in the Bill of Rights.

South Carolina

I've been reading The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Oxford History of the United States) and it's been very educational in learning about the original 13 colonies that rebelled against British rule in 1776.

One of them was South Carolina, originally founded as a colony in 1670 and the first to declare its independence from Britain in March of '76.

Colombia is the capital city of South Carolina, but just as famous is the founding settlement, Charleston, which was famously declared the 'best mannered city in the USA by etiquette expert Marjabelle Young Stewart.


One of the most gorgeous spots in South Carolina is Myrtle Beach - a popular tourist destination that attracts almost 15 million visitors per year. Tailored for tourists, Myrtle Beach is one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the USA and a blossoming hub for state of the art hotels and attractions - like North Myrtle Beach Resort.


Myrtle Beach ResortNorth Myrtle Beach Resorts is a particularly nice resort because it's right on the doorstep of the stunning Cherry Grove Pier - a nearly thousand-feet long pier stretching off into the beauty of the Atlantic Ocean.

Makin' History

So my best friend was visiting from England - and he's a history teacher.

Therefore, he had no excuse to duck out of a trip to Philadelphia to take in the sights. We loaded up the Lincoln and set out to visit some of the most important locations in American history.

I'd only been to Philadelphia once before - on business - so it was nice to return on a warm, spring day.

So nice, in fact, that I fell in love with the place!

Philadelphia is wonderful.

Admittedly, we only went to the Old City - the former stomping ground of John Adams, Ben Franklin and the rest of the founding fathers - but it was such a gentle place compared to the intensity of New York.

We started our day by visiting the Liberty Bell - an American symbol of freedom and independence. This massive bell was originally forged in Whitechapel, London, and brought over to ring out from the Pennsylvania State Legislature building (what's now Independence Hall.)

Ironically, this bell cracked the first time it was rung out - and cracked twice more after being reforged by local iron workers. Following that, it was retired from duty before it literally rung itself to pieces!


The Liberty Bell is something of an odd symbol of freedom - after all, it's 'freedom' with an enormous great crack down the middle. I find that oddly symbolic - mirroring some of the 'cracks' in the notion of American freedom (like the slavery which existed even while Thomas Jefferson penned the famous line 'all men are created equal.')

Next, we booked 'tickets' for the tour of Independence Hall.


Rather annoyingly, these are 'timed' so you have a window of opportunity to see the birthplace of the American nation. Ours was during the afternoon, so during the wait we went on a Philly-institution - the 'duck' tour!

The Philly Ducks are amphibious tour-vessels that lead tourists around town and even into the Delaware River itself! We had a great time - our host (who was really called 'Betsy Ross') was hysterical.

I'm not sure how much history we learned, but it was a lot of fun and we got free duck calls that Baby Boozer went crazy for when I got home.

The 'ducks' are a great way to get the lay of the land - my friend and I spotted where we planned to go for lunch from the back of our trusty steed!


After returning to dry land, we headed back to Independence Hall (and deftly avoided the line with our timed tickets.)


Considering that this redbrick building was the birthplace of modern democracy, it's remarkably unremarkable. Originally, the building housed the Pennsylvania assembly, supreme court and governor's offices. When the Continental Congress formed, made up of representatives from all 13 colonies, the Pennsylvanians were moved upstairs and the assembly room was turned over to matters of American business.

The room's been faithfully preserved - even down to the original seat George Washington rested his derriere on. There's a wonderful, tangible sensation of history there - and it really makes you think about the modest origins of the now-legendary 'Founding Fathers.'


At this point, lunch was the order of the day - and in keeping with colonial spirit, we crossed the mall to the famous 'City Tavern.'

This is the same tavern that Jefferson, Washington and the others frequented - John Adams described it as 'the most genteel in Philadelphia.' To honor their old patrons, the City Tavern still serves colonial food in authentic costume - and you can wash it down with beer brewed from period recipes.

I chose a tasting platter to sample with my schnitzel and quaffed Washington's porter, Jefferson's ale (which was delicious) and Hamilton's pilsner. Ben Franklin's unique ale also made it onto the taste test, but lost points because of the overwhelming taste of rosemary (making the beer somewhat like drinking roast lamb.)


Finally, we strolled uptown to Christ Church, the episcopal church where Betsy Ross, George Washington and John Adams attended services. It's a beautiful old building (and, built in 1744, only three years older than the Anglican church we attend here in New Jersey.)

Although there were no services going on, we did get to sit in the same pew as Washington and Adams - which was pretty humbling. It's amazing to think that these legendary American figures walked the same tiles as we did that day...


That concluded our little day-trip to Philadelphia - but it was wonderful. A beautiful city, distinctly different from the hustle and bustle of Manhattan.

I particularly enjoyed the way the Philadelphians had embraced their history. The visitor's center, where we parked, was beautiful and extremely easy to find and get to. The tickets to the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall were free - practically unheard of in Europe (I'm still smarting from paying nearly £20 to take a friend around Westminster Abbey.)

What made it really special was the love and enthusiasm for the city. From the Park Rangers at the visitor's center to the staff at Christ Church, everybody loved talking about the place, it's history and what it meant to them. Whereas New York garners a hard-edged loyalty amongst it's residents, there's something earnest about the love people have for Philadelphia.

A wonderful day in a wonderful city - I can't wait to return!

How to be an Adventure Hero

I'm passionate about old fashioned adventure stories - James Bond, The Saint and pretty much anything that combines fast cars, beautiful women, scheming villains and lashings of alcohol.

In my own life, I aspire to adventure hero status (tying to live up to my fictional alter-ego, Adventure Eddy) but come up considerably short.

If I'm being brutally honest with myself, I wouldn't last five minutes in an Eddyesque exploit - much less be able to tackle the tribulations that faced Simon Templar or James Bond.

So I've decided to examine what it takes to be a real adventure hero - and see if I can't do something about improving my abilities!

According to my research (a lifetime reading pulp adventure stories) any aspiring Adventure Hero must be able to:

Put up a fight. While we'll leave it to Batman and Simon Templar to tackle a room full of bloodthirsty thugs single-handed, even the most modest of adventure heroes needs to be able to handle themselves in a fight.

Drive expertly: Simon Templar and James Bond were both renowned for their driving skills, combining the high-speed expertise of a racing driver with wheelmanship a police driver would be proud of. The essential skills required are the ability to outrun a pursuer (including the cops) while also keeping on the tail of a fleeing bad-guy.

Seduce a Lady: Indiana Jones seduced Kate Capshaw, even while dripping with sweat, dirt and the blood of all the Nazis he'd just beaten up. James Bond, meanwhile, bed-hopped more than a cimex lectularius. Romance is an indispensable component of the adventure hero lifestyle.

Be knowledgeable: With one sip of solera, Bond could name the vintage of the wine upon which it was originally based. Simon Templar spoke several languages like a native. Sherlock Holmes, of course, was the very epitome of encyclopedic knowledge (as long as it interested him; he knew nothing of literature, philosophy or politics, arguing: "A man's brain is like a little empty attic, and you should only stock it with such furniture as you choose.")

Be brilliant: Simon Templar electrocuted his captors with nothing more than a damp towel and a table lamp. James Bond made a makeshift knuckle-duster out of his Rolex. Sherlock Holmes, of course, was the master of deduction and inspirational thinking. To be an adventure hero, you need to be sharp. Initiative, intuition and intelligence are second only to the true test - inspiration.

Be gentlemanly: James Bond never 'spanked a girl on an empty stomach' - and likewise, all the best adventure heroes know when to keep it classy. Adventure heroes aren't petty, mean-spirited or gossipy. They almost universally treat people with the respect they deserve.

Out of the practical skills adventure heroes should possess, these struck me as some of the most popular:

• Ride a horse
• Fight with a sword
• Shoot a gun
• Scale a wall
• Swim strongly (and underwater)
• Fix a car
• Hold their liquor
• Fly a plane
• Run five miles
• Hotwire a car
• Pick a lock
• Start a fire without matches or a lighter
• Shoot a bow and arrow
• Throw a knife
• Mix a Martini
• Get out of handcuffs

Now how do I rate?

Put up a fight. I've had absolutely no formal training in fighting - I took Kung Fu for a couple of weeks, but spent more time doing press-ups than actually learning anything practical. That lack of training, pitted with my (fortunately) meagre real-life combat experience means that I'd be mincemeat in the face of even the most feeble foe. Verdict: FAIL.

Drive expertly: I'm a pretty good driver, even if I do say so myself. However, driving safely and precisely is very different from driving fast and well. Like with the fighting, I don't think this is an area I can lay any claim to without some time on a track or an advanced driving course. Verdict: FAIL.

Seduce a Lady: As the existence of my nine-month-old will testify to, I've seduced at least one woman in my time. In fact, I've generally been quite a likable and female-friendly chap - I even had a reputation as an ambitious, if generally unsuccessful womaniser in my time. While I'm certainly no Lothario (and don't measure up to Templar or Bond) I do think I hold my own in this department. Verdict: C+ (could do better)

Be knowledgeable: Does the ability to quote Thomas Jefferson, or the skill to mix the perfect Martini, allow me to rank myself as 'knowledgeable?' I'm really not - although I've got a serviceable knowledge of history, speak fluent French (badly) and developed some practical skills growing up on a farm. In the right circumstances, I think I could pull something out of the hat. Verdict: C (could do better)

Be brilliant: I have my moments, but when it comes to flashes of inspiration and shrewd deductive reasoning, I'm woefully inadequate. I don't think I've ever had a moment of genius like Sherlock Holmes, or outwitted a cunning enemy like The Saint. Verdict: FAIL.

Be gentlemanly: Now this is my area of expertise! I like to think I'm charming, affable and painstakingly polite, so I think I definitely rank as a 'gentleman.' Plus, I have a British accent! Verdict: A

Now how about those skills?

• Ride a horse - Yes, I've been riding since I was a child.
  
• Fight with a sword - No, despite owning several of them.
  
• Shoot a gun - Maybe, I was a crack shot with air pistols and shotguns (but I hate guns)
  
• Scale a wall - No, because I'm too fat and unfit
  
• Swim strongly (and underwater) - Maybe, I'm a good swimmer, but monstrously unfit
  
• Fix a car - No, although I've had plenty of opportunity to peer at broken motors
  
• Hold their liquor - No, since I drink radically less than I used to
  
• Fly a plane - No, although I've taken a lesson and enjoyed it
  
• Run five miles - No, because I'm too unfit
  
• Hotwire a car - No, although I did hotwire a Golf Cart once
  
• Pick a lock - No, but I've done it a few times with poorly made locks
  
• Start a fire without matches or a lighter - Maybe, bang a few rocks together?
  
• Shoot a bow and arrow - No, because I've done it, but can't hit a damn thing.
  
• Throw a knife - No, not without a spectacularly nonlethal 'clonk' at the other end.
  
• Mix a Martini - Yes, my Martinis are sublime
  
• Get out of handcuffs - Maybe, I keep a handcuff key in my pocket just in case!
  

Two out of sixteen is pretty appalling! Unless my 'adventure' revolved around a horse and a wet bar, I'd be pretty stumped!

So the verdict is inarguable: I'd make a pretty terrible adventure hero (as it currently stands!)

Of course, the fact that I'm not an adventure hero and will probably have very little reason to ever become one (as I sink even further into suburban serenity) is irrelevant. It's pretty depressing to realize that I'd be woefully inadequate should I ever 'hear the sound of the trumpet' and be called to action.

Therefore, I need to do something about this!

Where to begin, though?

I'll have to give this some serious thought. One thing is certain - I can't be expected to learn all these important adventuring skills overnight!

Out of all of them, though, I think two strike me as the most important. The first is 'Put up a fight.' I really ought to get back into taking a martial art, or joining a boxing gym, as a bit of self defence knowledge is never a bad idea.

The second one would fix several of my inadequacies - simply getting fit. Indiana Jones wouldn't have lasted five minutes against the Nazis if he was as pale and portly as me. I need to get myself in gear so (if the occasion ever called for it) I too could outrun a boulder or swim across the ocean to a descending U-Boat (you never know - it might happen!)

Well, watch this space. Reinventing myself as an adventure hero is just beginning

Meghan McCain - Republican Rock Star?

Democrats have been rubbing their hands in glee at the tribulations of the Republican party.

They're politically bankrupt, ideologically challenged and searching desperately for leadership in the most inopportune places - Rush Limbaugh, anybody?

Yet quietly, methodically and efficiently, an unlikely GOP hero has been creeping into the spotlight - John McCain's daughter Meghan McCain.

Blond, beautiful and brainy, Meghan McCain makes an unlikely Republican, even by her own standards. Before her father stood for the presidency, she was a registered Independent with notably moderate views.

Clambering onto the campaign bus with her father, however, changed everything - starting with her signing up as a registered Republican.

During the 2008 presidential election, I argued that Meghan McCain was the Republican's secret weapon: She did something nobody else in the GOP had dreamed of - gave McCain's campaign a voice accessible to young, hip people (not easy, given that her Dad, no matter how cool he was, would still have been the oldest president to enter the White House if he'd won.)

She achieved this by hitting the information superhighway while she hit the campaign trail; giving us McCain Blogette - a regularly updated photo-blog showcasing her adventures on the trail.

Her blogs were fun, enthusiastic and real. She even kept readers up to date with hit tunes from her campaign play list (proving that those 'hip' credentials were genuine) and revealed the enthusiasm and support regular Americans had for her father's presidential bid (my favorite was when they visited a Harley Davidson convention.)

Meghan's grasp of social media gave her an audience that nobody else in the Republican party had access to - and the people who'd tuned in during the campaign continued to follow her even after the election ended.

That popularity stems from the way she continues to express her heartfelt, earnest beliefs. They resonate deeply with her audience, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that they defy traditional Republican dogma - like, for example, her most recent article for The Daily Beast - Memo to the GOP: Go Gay.

She confronted an ugly truth - that the Republican party needs to shed its homophobic reputation. While that belief sparked outrage amongst entrenched conservatives, it turned her into something of a Republican Rockstar amongst younger, more moderate voters - arguably the only political demographic that really matters.

"If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric," Meghan writes. She goes on to highlight the support the gay community once had from an unlikely Republican hero - their revered leader, Ronald Reagan. "The ultimate Republican rockstar helped fight anti-gay proposition because he knew it was wrong."

Most Republicans argue that Reagan could do no wrong, so maybe it's time they started following their mentor's example.

If anybody needed proof that Meghan's article was powerful and convincing, they need look no further than the wags at Comedy Central. She stirred up admiration from the acerbic wits behind The Daily Show, who gently poked fun in this article:

"Meghan McCain may claim to be a Republican… But — as is easily evidenced in her newest piece from The Daily Beast — she has clearly shown herself to be neither borderline mentally-disabled nor small-minded and bigoted…"

The fact that she's softened the most hardened of the 'elite, liberal media' means that Meghan's actually onto something. She's a Republican young people listen to - proudly standing for the best of everything the Republican party represents - small government, low taxation, personal responsibility and individual freedoms - while soundly rejecting every negative albatross hung around the GOP's neck.

If the entrenched die-hards in the GOP can summon up the courage to listen to her, Meghan McCain might prove herself to be voice that leads the Republican party out from political obscurity and into the 21st century.

Keep an eye out - I hope we'll be hearing a lot more from her.

PETA plumb new depths of hypocrisy

Joe Biden might have lost the race to the White House, but he still managed to beat Barack Obama in the race to the doghouse - getting a new puppy for his family weeks before Obama's family took possession of their much lauded 'First Dog.'

PETA, the vile 'animal rights' organisation, were on the warpath when they learnt about the new addition to the Biden family. Joe Biden had bought his new puppy from a breeder, not an animal shelter as PETA encouraged.

This inspired them to blow some of their annual $30 million budget on a series of controversial ads with the slogan 'Buy One, Get One Killed.'

In the words of PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk: "Buying from a breeder kills a shelter dog's chance of being adopted. Four million unadopted animals are killed in shelters every year."

As is typical for PETA, their campaign is wildly hypocritical. While the message about adopting animals is correct, what Newkirk and Co. fail to mention is that PETA itself is the leading killer of shelter animals in the United States.

Despite having an annual budget in the tens of millions, PETA execute over 90% of all animals brought to their PETA adoption centers. Compare that to the Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who have a shoestring budget compared to PETA, yet successfully re-home 70% of animals brought to their shelter.

PETA is in a better situation than any so-called humane organization in America to actually save animals lives - yet they prefer to spend their budget on adverts encouraging children to give up eating meat, or abandon drinking milk.

To criticize the Bidens for not adopting a shelter pet is disgusting, considering that PETA murdered over 20,000 shelter animals in recent years.

PETA's cruelty towards animals is unprecedented. In 2007, two PETA employees (Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook) went around the Virginia area visiting local animal shelters and taking healthy cats and dogs from them to 'rehome.'

After loading up 80 pets in their van (including 'Happy', a puppy belonging to Animal Control Officer Barry Anderson, who made Hinkle promise that the puppy would be re-homed and not 'put down') Hinkle and Cook idled their van in the parking lot of that same shelter and began systematically exterminating all of the animals with a (highly illegal) lethal injection.

Within twenty minutes of promising to rehome all these animals, the two PETA employees had killed every last one of them. They then proceeded to dump the bodies in the dumpster of a local Chinese restaurant, rather than dispose of the murdered animals properly.

Here are the results of PETA's handiwork:


So when Ingrid E. Newkirk warns that buying a puppy kills a shelter dog's chances of adoption, what she fails to mention that PETA will be doing the killing.

PETA are an absolute disgrace and anybody who donates money to them is contributing to animal cruelty.

Happy Zombie Jesus Weekend!

This weekend is the anniversary of several great events - like the birth of Playboy mogul Hugh Hefner (9th April 1926) and the date the United Kingdom first adopted the Union Flag (often incorrectly referred to as the 'Union Jack') as the flag of our great nation (12th April 1606.)

But for most people, it's also the date which marks the entombment and subsequent resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth - a Middle Eastern carpenter whose skill with a mortise and tenon joint was considered so divine, the religion of Christianity was founded around it (or something like that.)

The story of Jesus' death and reanimation is probably the most well-recorded instance of a zombie outbreak in human history. Not only was Jesus raised from the dead three days after being entombed, but according to The Gospel of Matthew (27:51-53) his death was marked by an earthquake during which many other corpses escaped their graves:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Back in Biblical times, a zombie-outbreak must have been a pretty scary occurrence and no doubt Jews and Romans alike had their brains eaten by shambling, reanimated corpses (zombies are into equal opportunity evisceration.)

Fortunately, thanks to documentaries like Dawn of the Dead and Shaun of the Dead, we 21st century types are far more educated about how to deal with an outbreak of the walking dead.

So should this Sunday bring about another outbreak of zombiefictation in your neighborhood, here's what to do:

Get All the Answers

To quote the great philosopher, G.I. Joe, 'Knowing is half the battle*' - in this case, being well-versed in all the skills you need to survive a zombie-outbreak is essential. I recommend getting your hands on this book: The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead.


This handy tome has it ALL. Where to hole up, what weapons you'll need and survival tactics for outwitting the shambling, rotting corpses of your neighbors, friends (and, possibly, the symbolic head of your religion.)

If you can't get hold of it, though (Barnes and Noble might be swarming with the living dead) here's what you need to know:

• Zombies have only one purpose - to eat the living flesh and brains of humans. When they are aware of living humans in the proximity, they will ceaselessly attempt to devour them.
• A single bite from a zombie will be fatal, due to overwhelming bacterial contamination (much like the bite of the Komodo Dragon.) Once a person has died from an infected zombie bite, they will be reanimated as a zombie within the course of a the next few hours.
• The only way to successfully kill a zombie is by severing the head or destroying the brain (by bullet, impalement or blunt object trauma.)

That knowledge is pretty much all you need to know to survive a zombie outbreak, although some of my more conservative friends have pointed out the inevitable:

Should another Biblical zombie outbreak occur - perhaps in your town - the survivors will be the ones with guns. Although I've argued against the 2nd Amendment in my past few posts, I realize now that without free and easy access to large caliber handguns, we're all screwed!

I always wondered why so many conservative Christians supported the 2nd Amendment (as they should, technically, be against violence and killing.) Now I do! When they rambled nonsensically about 'home defense,' it wasn't burglars, illegal immigrants or liberals they needed to 'protect' their family from. It was ZOMBIES!

Matthew 27:51, man. It's all there, in black and white. Should have paid attention at Theological College (in my defence, I was studying history.)

So, now I know better - and hopefully you do to! Be prepared, but I hope you all have a zombie-free Easter Weekend!




* the other half of the battle is violence. Bloody, unmitigated violence. Hence why they call it a 'battle.'

Why Global Warming is still a problem...

The reactionary push-back on Global Warming has turned me from a firm believer into somebody who is more open-minded about the subject. There are parts of the case for Global Warming that don't add up entirely - but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all wrong.

Contributing to that is the conservative approach to disputing Global Warming - which suffers from the fact that it is a conservative approach.

Like disputing the age of the Earth or the facts regarding evolution, conservatives decide what they believe first and try to dredge up supporting facts afterward, which means even if they're right, they're wrong in the way they got there.

The conservatives who dispute Global Warming often undermine their argument by confusing real fact with conjecture, half-truth and (sometimes) outright lies. A close examination of the conservative argument against Global Warming runs into several so-called 'truths' that contradict each other.

That's what keeps their case from being watertight. You can't just scoop up all the 'reasons' why Global Warming is a myth unless they logically fit together.

Take the 'case' presented by American Policy Roundtable - an online forum for conservative discussion. Their reasons to dispute Global Warming include:

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”
   

Taken at face value, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they make a compelling case against Global Warming. However, let's examine the evidence a little more closely.

Where the Conservatives get it Right

Firstly, the facts that do shake the foundations of Global Warming Theory:

1. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

This is true enough. Even cursory examination of the computer models used to 'predict' the impact of Global Warming show them to be wildly off-kilter.

One such computer model used 'flux adjustments' to justify boosting the claimed impact of Global Warming by 2500%. Another produced the same 'hockey stick' predication for global temperatures no matter what numbers were entered into the database. Telephone numbers from the local Yellow Pages produced the same result as accurate temperature readings!

The scientists in charge are either postulating wildly, or simply lying their arses off.

1. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

One of the most compelling arguments against Global Warming was satellite temperature analysis of the troposphere.

Scientists have been recording ground temperatures for decades, watching them steadily increase to support the Global Warming theory. However, satellite readings of the troposphere (the layer of the atmosphere where scientists predicted the biggest increase) originally showed no discernible increase in temperature over the course of 23 years - undermining the case for climate change.

Since then, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has 'corrected' that data to better support their case for Global Warming. Given the less than accurate computer models I complained about above, I find these 'corrections' highly suspicious.

While they don't disprove global warming theory, they certainly make me more skeptical about the evidence used to support it.

Where the Conservatives have got it Wrong

Then let's look at the 'facts' that undermine the argument against Global Warming.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

This is an outright lie. An outright lie. While there are thousands of scientists who dispute global warming, they in a minority compared to the hundreds of thousands who do. One Salient Oversight (who is himself a conservative Christian, just one with a brain) posted this chart that shows the real scientific consensus regarding global warming:

This chart illustrates that 97% of scientists who study climate change agree that Global Warming is a fact.

Over 90% of climatologists who don't study climate change, merely the climate, don't dispute Global Warming either.

As OSO succinctly put it: "It is obvious from the study that the "controversy" exists only in the minds of the general public and not in the minds of the experts who know the facts."

Just as the dodgy computer models and 'corrected' data cast doubt on the case for Global Warming, the fact that the opponents blatantly lie makes it very difficult to take them (or their arguments) seriously. If they lie about this, what else are they lying about?

1. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

This is the same argument that conservatives use to 'dispute' things like evolution. There are so-called 'theories' (like gravity) which are supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence to make most arguments against them nothing short of ludicrous.

Conservatives think they demand a high burden of proof (which is why they still haven't accepted evolution.) The truth is, scientists demand an even higher burden of proof (which is why gravity is still considered a theory.)

Short of having total control over the entire planet's CO2 production (including farting cows) it would be impossible to 'prove' Global Warming. Instead, you have to make do with millions of pages of evidence that indicate that it's real.

But even that isn't the real kicker in the argument. I mentioned earlier than the conservative argument against Global Warming is often self-defeating. This is an example.

Conservatives argue that the world isn't warming up, yet they then use the scientific data that proves it is to dispute whether or not mankind is responsible. Not only have they failed to prove their theory, they've also contradicted one of their arguments against it.

1. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

American Policy Roundtable use a real Global Warming enigma to shore up this claim: Back in the middle ages, there was an unexplainable 'hot period' which defied current understanding of climate change (and possibly offers the most convincing argument against the theory.)

What is doesn't do is support the belief that Global Warming would be a good thing.

Back in the middle ages, the 'warm' period was a boon - making crops grow faster and making relatively uninhabitable places (like Greenland) warm enough to colonize (as the Vikings did.)

So for the people of the medieval heatwave, the increase in temperature was a good thing. However, there were merely millions of them - as opposed to the billions who inhabit Earth at the moment. This means those millions could simply move to escape the less positive effects - like rising oceans and desertification.

Because the world is so densely populated today, rising sea levels and the expansion of the desert will prove devastating for millions of people - there's no way around that fact.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting Global Warming theory is the fact that the Sahara Desert expands 30 miles further south each and every year - destroying grassland and forcing more and more people towards starvation.

There are simply too many of us on this little planet - so Global Warming will be devastating in a way undreamed of back in the 'hot' medieval period.

Where the Conservatives got it Stupid

Finally, we need to examine the last three 'arguments' against global warming - these neither support or oppose the theory. They're merely stupid.

1. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

First off, this isn't an argument about the veracity of Global Warming - it's an argument against doing anything about it.

The cost and effectiveness of any anti-Global Warming campaign is a very important topic to discuss. The fact that China and India churn out more and more gases every year makes the West's effort to curb their CO2 emissions somewhat self-defeating.

But whatever you might feel about the government's plans to tackle Global Warming, that has no relevance on whether or not Global Warming is real.

1. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets.

Again, the fact that tackling Global Warming might well be economically and socially catastrophic doesn't mean it's not real.

This kind of 'argument' is pathetic. It's as futile as King Cnut, enthroned on a beach, demanding that the waves don't wet his robe.

The conservative mindset seems to equate the undesirable with the impossible. Just like they 'choose' to believe in creationism and intelligent design, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they 'choose' not to believe in Global Warming because the moment they do, they have to start addressing the difficult choices in how to deal with it.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the conservatives, however.

When it comes to tackling Global Warming, I don't think the current administration's policy of offsets and trade caps will be the best for the country. But just because I disagree with the way this problem's being dealt with doesn't mean I'd be so arrogant as to refuse to believe in the problem itself.

1. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.”

This is my personal favorite of the American Policy Roundtable arguments against Global Warming - because it isn't. It's basically the conservative way of accepting the inevitable, admitting that global warming exists and saying 'so what?'

It undermines all seven of the previous arguments.

But it gives a sensible solution to the problem - asking: If the price of today's technological marvels, international transportation and modern conveniences was Global Warming - would we have done anything differently?

The conservative position is ideologically one which embraces the status quo. In many ways, their refusal to examine the facts and accept that Global Warming is real has nothing to do with whether it is (or not.)

They just refuse to accept Global Warming theory because, if they do, it means they have to address it and deal with the consequences.

If the conservatives really wanted to win this debate, they should embrace the facts: "Global Warming might be real - but that doesn't mean we have to do anything about it."

It's not smart. It's not clever. It's not very sophisticated. But it would prove that conservatives aren't idiots (because they actually accept facts when they're thrust into their face) and it would win the support of the masses.

After all, not doing anything is something the general population are very good at.