Jazz hands!

What can I say? He obviously aspires after Fred Astaire...

Les grenouilles: "Pas ces soir, Queen Elizabeth!"

June 6th is marked indelibly in most British schoolboy's memories - it's when 'D-Day' occurred.

'D-Day' took place in the final year of World War II; an invasion of Nazi-occupied France by Allied troops, which resulted in the eventual collapse of the German war machine.

As far as military operations go, it was mind-boggling. Over 160,000 troops landed on French soil that day, while over 5,000 ships provided transportation, support and offensive fire. It was a hard fought conflict - the Allies were outnumbered two-to-one - but D-Day saw them establish a toe-hold on the continent without which, the war could have continued indefinitely.

2009 is the 65th anniversary of D-Day and, as befits such an historic date, will be marked by solemn services of remembrance. French President Nicholas Sarkozy has invited President Obama to a commemoration at Colleville-sur-Mer, site of the American military cemetery.

However, one very important person has been pointedly left off the guest list for this important occasion - Queen Elizabeth II.

The Queen - who, unlike Sarkozy or Obama, actually served in the military during World War II (the only living Head of State to have done so) - didn't even receive an invitation.

She was deliberately left off the guest list because, in the words of French spokesman Luc Chatel, "the June 6 celebration is foremost a Franco-American celebration."

Understandably, the British are upset about this. The Daily Mail ran the headline: "A diminutive egomaniac, the stain of Nazi collaboration and why the French can't forgive us for saving them in the War."

...and as much as I hate to jump in on the nationalistic zealotry, I have to admit that they do have a point. This whole situation makes me as angry as when an American sneers "You Brits would be speakin' German if it wasn't for America."

Let's just quickly examine the facts:

For a start, Britain contributed over 60,000 troops to the Normandy invasion - over 40% of all soldiers entering battle. Considering nearly half of the Allied forces were made up of British soldiers, it seems totally incomprehensible that France would blindly ignore our contribution to their liberation.

Secondly, Britain contributed more than just men. It's not jingoistic pride that inspires me to write this - just cold, hard historical fact - but without Britain, more than any other contributing nation involved in World War II, the Nazis would have won.

They'd have conquered Europe (in fact by 1940, aside from the UK, they already had) and without the UK as a final fortress to stage from, all of America's might, wealth and power would have been useless in trying to reclaim that territory.

The Nazi regime would have ruled Europe, the Jewish people would have been ruthlessly eradicated and the world as we know it would have been hurled into a darkness from which it might never have escaped.

Why was the role Britain played so important?

Well, just look at the dates. 'World War II' started either in 1938 (after the Germans annexed Austria) or 1939 (when they invaded Poland) depending on your timeline. In any event, American troops didn't touch European soil until 1942 - and didn't see action against the Nazis until 1943.

During at least three years of the war - during which every other country in Europe was occupied by, or in cahoots with, the Germans, Britain stood alone in defying them.

If Britain had fallen, there'd have been no air-base from which to bombard Germany. There'd have been no staging post from which to plan an invasion. There'd have been nothing, except a Nazi stronghold separated from their American enemy by 3,000 miles of cold, inhospitable ocean.

Don't get me wrong - without America's sheer strength, it would have been impossible to eventually eliminate the German war machine. The United States delivered the killing blow that ended the war once and for all.

But without Britain supplying the leverage - holding firm in the face of impossible odds - the Americans would never have had the opportunity to end the conflict in the first place.

So Sarkozy's decision to snub Queen Elizabeth - and, by extension, ignore Britain's contribution to D-Day - is rude, ungrateful and an insult to the 2,700 Brits who become casualties that day.

Lies Conservatives Tell Us

"America is a Christian nation."

I've already established a convincing argument why any concept of America being a 'Christian' nation is a bunch of rubbish - you can read it here, but if you want the Cliffsnotes, it comes down to the Founding Fathers declaring:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Funnily enough, I discovered something new today that throws even more water onto the smoldering embers of evangelical indignation.

The next time somebody arrogantly sneers: "It's 'One Nation Under God', remember?" you can throw right back at them with: "No, it ain't."

"One Nation Under God" comes from the American 'Pledge of Allegiance', a ditty familiar to any American schoolkid, as they recite it under their nation's flag every morning in the classroom (a practice I thoroughly approve of.)

Most people will know the pledge as:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

This is the phrase that gives all those evangelicals their ammunition. "See, it reads 'One Nation Under God," they argue.

Well, the fact is it doesn't.

The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, by Francis Bellamy. Bellamy was a queer fish - an unrepentant Socialist (although also a devout Christian) he deliberately left out any mention of religion (he also left out references to 'equality' and 'fraternity' as that suggested that blacks and women should be included in the 'all men are created equal' bit in the Declaration of Independence.)

Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance - which was our nation's pledge for over fifty years, was a short, sweet and secular:

"I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

The words 'flag of the United States of America' were added in 1924, ostensibly to give the in-rush of Italian, German and Jewish immigrants a clear reference that it was the American flag they were pledging allegiance to, not their own.

President Eisenhower only signed an act adding 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 - under intense pressure from the Catholic Knights of Columbus (and, according to some, in order to appease the McCarthyites, who were quick to remind people that only 'evil' Socialists were non-religious.)

And ever since Eisenhower signed that alteration into law, there's been controversy surrounding the addition of the words 'under God' to the Pledge - with good reason. It doesn't take a Supreme Court Justice to realize that it violates the First Amendment clause (banning establishment of Religion.)

But even then, Christians laying claim to a 'Christian America' just because of a cynical addition to the Pledge of Allegiance is a bankrupt endeavor. America isn't - and has never been - a truly 'Christian' nation.

It was founded by Deists, Atheists and bickering Christians of every denomination - and almost every article of American law gives broad mention to an all-encompassing, monotheistic spirituality - but not one reference to 'Jesus Christ.'

In fact, America's 'religion' could reference practically any spiritual belief: There are mentions of the 'Laws of Nature' and 'Nature's God' and a reference to 'the Creator' - but all that's closer to paganism than Christianity. I challenge anybody to find a single mention of 'Jesus Christ' in any significant Government documentation...

...at least, one that wasn't scrawled in the margins by Donald Rumsfeld.

How California made the Wrong Choice the Right Way

NB: Since writing this, I might have even changed my mind. By the logic I put forward here, Loving vs. Virginia - the case which allowed an interracial marriage to take place, despite segregation - should have also been decided in the legislature, not the courts. By that logic, interracial marriage might still be illegal today! Not good!

As readers of Militant Ginger will know, I'm totally in support of same-sex marriage and was intensely disappointed when the California electorate shot down that liberty with their vile amendment to the State Constitution 'Proposition 8.'

However, when the California Supreme Court decided to uphold the amendment during appeal, I felt they made the right decision.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't changed my belief that same-sex couples should have the same right to marriage as heterosexuals. I just feel that this is an issue that's far too important to be decided in the courts.

Proposition 8 was ratified by referendum - the people of California were allowed to personally decide the issue, instead of leaving it up to the state legislature.

52.24% of them voted to redefine marriage as 'between a man and a woman,' obliterating the right same-sex couples previously had to enter into committed marriages themselves.

Sure, the fact that this issue was decided by referendum is incredibly disappointing. California's supposed to be a liberal state and has often led the way in progressive politics. These ballot results exposed underlying conservatism and religious zealotry in what many of us had previous considered 'safe territory.'

But the fact is, the vote was cast and the decision was made.

That it was the wrong decision is not up for debate - but, nevertheless, that's how democracy works. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

When the appeal reached the California Supreme Court, it stopped being about right or wrong and became about democracy and the law - and if the judges had upheld the appeal, it would have thrown everything the issue stands for into disarray.

"Put simply, the appeal complaint is that it's just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the referendum process," wrote Justice George, explaining the Court's decision. "But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail the Democratic process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it."

7 million people voted to redefine the institution of marriage. Despite questions about the morality of that decision, or whether or not it contradicted the US Constitution, you simply can't ignore the fact that 52.24% of voters said 'this is what we want.'

Conservative pundits like Mark Levin often throw around the term 'legislating from the bench,' but if the seven Supreme Court justices had upheld the appeal, overruling the Constitutional amendment, 'legislating from the bench' would have been exactly what supporters of Prop 8 would have accused them of doing.

To them, it would have been a clear demonstration that those seven voices were more important than their seven million. Any faith in the democratic process would have disappeared forever - 'Prop 8' detractors had already seen their freedoms stolen by the ballot box, now the proposition supporters themselves would see their voices overruled by the courts.

Supporters of Prop 8 would never have accepted a Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage. They'd have fought against it and won, as same-sex marriages would only continue until they manufactured another court ruling splintering that liberty once again.

The sad fact is; the only sustainable route to securing same-sex marriage is through the legislature. It has to be a freedom secured through democratic methods, otherwise it will never mean as much as the 'gay marriage' laws passed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and Vermont.

I'm not arguing that same-sex couples deserve the right to marry. I'm open-minded to comparisons between the struggle for gay rights and the civil rights movement. During the battle against segregation and racism, the majority of voters didn't always make what we know today to be the 'right' decision. The same applies today.

But, nevertheless, we have to uphold the democratic process, otherwise it's meaningless.

The good news: In 2010, the gay rights movement will have same-sex marriage back on the ballot - and this time, they'll win that fight. Last time around, less than 5% of votes separated the gay rights movement from victory. I'm confident that they can win those voters over this time.

When that happens - when a majority of Californians take a stand and support the freedom of same-sex marriage - then it'll be a long overdue, permanent victory. One that religious zealots and conservatives can't take away.

A Bad Week

We're officially having A Bad Week.

Mini Militant was very poorly last week, culminating in an impromptu trip to the emergency room. My pimpmobile's transmission fell out, which isn't exactly cheap to repair, and five days later, the exhaust of my wife's car fell off, 'clonk', leaving her Rav4 sounding rather like an old MGB when you rev the engine.

So in order to combat the bad karma, I thought I'd throw up some gratuitous Mini Militant magnificence.

Groundhog Day

Way back in July of '07, I encountered the Beastie of North Brunswick - our friendly, neighborhood groundhog.

Despite my stories, people have resolutely refused to believe that our portly pal actually exists - so here, for all to see, is documentary footage of the rodent rascal in resplendent repose.

And for those that continue to be in doubt - here's more photographic proof... We managed to get these by throwing roasted parsnips out of the window to entice him. Is this the first recorded instance of a groundhog easting parsnips?

Swim Talk

Mini Militant took to the waves this weekend, in preparation for visiting Grandmere et Grandpere and their pool this summer...

He wasn't entirely convinced that swimming was fun...

Button wins in Monaco

Jenson Button has pulled it out of the hat yet again, to take first place at the Monaco GP.

In my last post, I discussed the absurdity of the proposed Formula One 'budget cap' - a ridiculous idea, considering that a so-called low-budget team (Brawn GP, run by former Ferrari technical director Ross Brawn) is so effectively wiping the floor with the biggest names in the sport - namely Ferrari and McLaren.

Well, the stupendous Suki put it better than I could;

"The budget cap was being thought of at a point when Ferrari single-handedly decimated their competition thanks to their high budgets. But when competition has increased and the conditions that caused the rule are gone... what gives??"

That's exactly what I thought - it's rather amusing that the two teams leading the constructors' championship are both small and relatively low-budget; Brawn GP and Scuderia Toro Rosso (a shoestring operation formerly known as Minardi.) It proves that there's much more to winning at this complex sport than just who has the most money to spend.

Brit Gal USA had this to say:

"This season, the lesser teams have overtaken the stalwarts without any ridiculous budget cap; plus, if they had adopted Bernie Ecclestone's crazy plan of the winner being the man with the most wins, this season would already be settled!"

Her verdict? "They need to quit interfering with a winning formula."

Hopefully sanity will reign as Bernie Eccleston and Max Mosley, the head-honchos of F1, see that things are far from broken - Formula One is actually becoming more exciting than ever.

But if they do enforce this ridiculous budget cap? Well, Tom and I are already considering throwing our hats into the ring for a true budget motorsport - the infamous 24 Hours of LeMons (yes, LeMons, not to be confused with LeMans - as in 'lemons,' geddit?)

With a budget of $500 dollars, I think TomRo Racing could be seriously on the money...

The proposed TomRo Racer - I'd take it over a Brawn BGP 001 any day of the week!

Monaco Grand Prix and the Future of F1

Tomorrow is the Monaco Grand Prix - which is always an exciting and engaging race even in a sport commonly criticized for being more about strategy and pit-stops than actual racing.

It'll be a great race in what's turning out to be a great season; this time around, home-spun underdogs Brawn GP are wiping the garage floor with big-budget rivals Ferrari and McLaren.

But it's rather ironic that the most exciting season in years might also be the last.

F1 as we know it is on the brink of collapse, with many teams (including Ferrari, who have been involved in F1 since its very inception) threatening to walk out over new rule changes being touted by the FIA.

At the crux of the crisis is the concept of a budget cap; enforcing a strict $40 million budget on each team. This would, in theory, equalize the sport - removing the advantage teams like Ferrari and McLaren have (they often spend in excess of $200 million a season.)

But unsurprisingly, the big teams in F1 are opposing this measure, which would open up the championship to a whole slew of new entrants and eliminate the advantage their spending power gives them.

However, I can sympathize with the position the FIA is taking. Each and every season, spending increases to unprecedented (and unsustainable) levels. This makes the teams wildly disproportionate - with giants like McLaren always living lavishly, whilst underdogs like Minardi (now Red Bull sponsored Scuderia Toro Rosso) having to scrimp and save just to put a race-worthy car on the track.

The enormous spending also dramatically changes to competition itself - driving the development of motor-racing in new and exciting directions. However, every year it seems like the FIA is undermining each new and exciting technological innovation as soon it appears; all in an effort to keep the sport 'competitive.'

One of the most absurd examples of this used to be the mandatory use of the 'four groove' racing tyres, which eliminated the grip these monstrous racing machines had on the racetrack; essentially the equivalent of having Sebastian Coe run the 1500m in fluffy bunny slippers.( Fortunately, this season 'slicks' have been re-allowed.)

In some ways, a budget cap would level the playing field and help return the pinnacle of motor racing back to what it was always supposed to be - a competition between drivers, not developers. But in other ways, it would destroy the very spirit of the sport - which has always been about pushing the envelope of racing technology.

Many modern automobile innovations stem from racing roots; and more continue to do so. For example, this season's groundbreaking 'regenerative braking' system; which recycles the energy used in high-speed breaking. This race technology will probably find its way to the next generation of street cars and hybrids soon enough.

Reducing budgets would slow these innovations, which are one of the major reasons manufacturers like Renault and Toyota invest in competing in this wildly expensive sport.

Not to mention that 'Formula One' is simply synonymous with excess. It's the most expensive sport in the world - a game played by millionaires, sipping champagne on yachts on the Cote d'Azur. Part of its appeal and mystique has always been the spending of ridiculous sums of money; all for the sake of sending those tiny little cars zooming around the racetrack.

Capping the budgets would, quite frankly, put a limit on the excitment and entertainment.

Besides, the major reason Bernie Eccleston and Max Mosley have given for their crazy budget cap idea is the notion of equalising the teams. Watching the 2009 season - in which Brawn GP are dominating the bigger-budget competition - I think the teams have proven that they can equalise things enough already, without any FIA interference.

F1 continues to be one of the biggest and most successful sports in the world; the FIA would be well advised not to bugger about with its winning formula.

Engage Sleep Mode

I have no idea why Mini Militant insists on sleeping with his tiny tuchus sticking up in the air.

Atheist Bus Campaign FTW

As readers will know, I thought the 'Atheist Bus' campaign was a clever, well-intentioned gigantic waste of money. Their slogan 'There probably is no God; so stop worrying and enjoy your life' was so watered down and tepid, it made me (a marketing copywriter) cringe a little.

But if clever catchphrases are what was needed, the people behind the 'Atheist Bus' campaign have hit a winner with this; it sums up everything that makes me edgy about so-called 'faith' and it's rejection of science, rationalism and nature.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."

Religion: A Death Sentence?

Colleen and Anthony Hauser are devout Roman Catholics, who also belong to the Nemenhah Band, a group that promotes beliefs and spirituality derived from Native American traditions.

When their son, Daniel, was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma, they refused traditional medical treatments - instead pledging to 'cure' him with herbal supplements, vitamins and ionized water.

This, of course, had the side-effect of turning a highly curable condition like Hodgkins into a virtual death sentence. Despite the holistic treatment given to Daniel, court-ordered x-rays confirmed that the Hauser's treatment wasn't working and his tumor was continuing to grow.

As a result, a Minnesota judge last week ordered the Hausers to submit their son for traditional treatment - arguing that refusing the chemotherapy (and telling their son that such treatment would 'kill him') was nothing short of medical neglect.

But despite the evidence that she was effectively killing her son, Colleen and Daniel fled instead of undergoing chemotherapy - failing to turn up for court as demanded.

It's a tragic story - and one that's sharply polorized many people's opinion on parent's rights.

"Nanny knows best," writes Libertarian columnist Trevor Bothwell, sarcastically suggesting the the judge had reached his verdict "because chemotherapy apparently is a guaranteed cure for cancer. Because it's apparently painless. Because there apparently are no ill side effects. Because it apparently doesn't destroy every last healthy cell in the human body on the off-chance it will eradicate cancer cells."

Meanwhile, Atheist Michael Rosch defends the judge's decision: "This goes way beyond protecting the parents’ freedom of religion," he writes. "This should be a no-brainer decision." When it comes to Daniel's right to refuse treatment: "He's a minor, and not equipped to know the difference between real medicine and quackery."

The real killing blow? "The parents initially did agree to chemotherapy. It apparently wasn’t against their religion when they allowed his first treatment."

Since moving to America, I've become more and more open to the Libertarian-leanings of independent-minded Americans - but this is not a matter of personal or religious freedom. It's one thing to home school your kids with a Christian curriculum - it's another to actively deny them medical treatment that could save their lives.

As you'll know from this post, I'm deeply skeptical of the motives of pharmaceutical companies and the FDA - but even I believe them when they say that chemotherapy gives Daniel a 95% chance of survival. His parent's 'treatment' gives him the same percentage chance of dying.

Knowing that, how could any rational parent make the decision they did?

Religion makes people do some scary, scary things.

Militant Ginger goes to Washington

Yesterday took me further south than I'd ever been in the United States - down past the Mason Dixon line and into the heart of our nation's capitol, Washington D.C.

Washington is a beautiful city - as it should be, being entirely manufactured to become the seat of the fledgling American government in 1790. It was planned out by Pierre Charles L’Enfant, in gorgeous baroque style, which probably explains why the design and layout are so reminiscent of Paris.

Much of Washington D.C. is within walking distance, including the famous landmarks like the Washington Monument, Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials and the White House. All four city quadrants span out from Capital Hill, where the famous domed Capitol Building houses the federal Congress.

I enjoyed D.C. It was laid back, pretty and the people seemed very nice. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to hang out much, but was cheerfully accosted once ("You work for the government, don't you?") and got a giggle out of seeing congressmen and senators in Union Station, getting their shoes shined before taking the train back home.

Run, Boo, Run!

Um... SNORE!

On Blogging: Finding the right web hosting service

I've been running 'Militant Ginger' since June 2006 - and it's evolved considerably since then.

The most notable change is probably the design - when Militant Ginger started up, it was just a standard 'blogspot' template, with a text banner at the top and one column on the side.

Since then, I've fiddled around enough to customize my blog completely - with a funky banner, two columns of features and a central bit to post all my blogs. (I also think my writing has improved considerably, but I guess that's subjective!)

Customizing a blog is probably the most important thing you can do to make it stand out from the crowd - as it shows a commitment to your readers that a boring old template simply doesn't. Quality posts and writing skill is very important - but many visitors to your blog simply aren't going to make the effort to read what you've written unless the layout grabs them.

Take this as an example - my blog, compared to that of Neil Clark. Neil is a 'serious' writer, as he contributes regularly to The Guardian, the Daily Express and many other newspapers and magazines (none of which, unlike my journalistic endeavors, have pictures of naked women in.) However, his blog really doesn't do his successful writing career any justice - especially not when compared to mine (which perhaps promises more than it can deliver!)

Militant Ginger, on the left, looks more appealing than Neil Clark, on the right.

The good news is that customizing a blog isn't that difficult - for example, I know virtually nothing about coding in HTML or anything technical like that, but I've managed to push the limits of blogger's technology and come up with something I'm pretty proud of.

To really take it to the next level, though, it's time to look beyond the free hosting of blogger.

I've experimented with a couple of 'official websites' in the past - however, I've also had some pretty poor luck with them. In the wonderful world of the Internet, not all web hosting services are created equal and I the one I used (Easy Space) turned out to be less than cooperative.

Which is why it's great to discover a website like Web Hosting Geeks.

These self-confessed 'geeks' have put down a comparison of some of the top web hosting sites and services and compared them, so you can see exactly what you get for your money. Even better, they offer links to independent reviews of these hosts so you can see for yourself what people's experiences were.

If you're not technically minded - much like myself - than doing a bit of research on a website like webhostinggeeks.com can save you from a lot of headaches.

It's worth thinking seriously about what you want before you spend your hard earned money on web hosting. Successful blogs and website tend to have a 'concept' - a consistent thread which runs through each and every post. Establish that thread first, then decide what services you'll need (a domain name, specific email address or lots of bandwidth) and then, finally, use a service like Web Hosting Geeks to pick the provider that's right for you.

The best thing about Web Hosting Geeks is that you can use them for multiple domain hosting - so if you have more than one website or blog on the go, you can host them all from one convenient location, making editing and updating them a breeze.

Bibliophile Bookmarks by Erica Henderson!

I am a horrible, horrible person.

I fold over the corners of books while I'm reading them.

This kind of bibliocide is completely outrageous, as any book lover will tell you. There's nothing worse than reading a book and finding the corner missing every hundred pages or so...

Given my ambitious reading schedule (I'm tackling thick, but thrilling The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789) I felt it necessary to forgo my page folding fixation before a mob of librarians lynched me.

This is the answer I came up with:


These stunning bookmarks were the handiwork of incredibly talented cartoonist, artist, seamstress and blogger Erica Henderson. I've been a fan of her work for ages (see me rave about her here) and I've been in an official state of (entirely platonic) less than three ever since she immortalized dachshund diva Piglet.

Anyway. As soon as I saw Erica advertising these beautiful bookmarks, I knew I had to have 'em. If you feel the same way, you can purchase them from online arts and crafts store Etsy.

Check out Erica's online store here.

In the meantime, take a look at the beautiful artwork on each of these amazing items. The cards themselves are rigid and laminated - perfect for preserving your place even in a weighty tome from Oxford University.

Why Militant Ginger should avoid politics...

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama will restart military tribunals for a small number of Guantanamo detainees, with new legal protections for terror suspects, U.S. officials said. Full story here.

Oh, great. Thanks a lot, Obama...

Yesterday, I rail about how you've broke the promise to end the unethical detention of 'terror suspects' - and now you've delivered everything that I argued for! Yesterday's point was... erm... pointless?

Now, after careful review of the system implemented during the Bush administration, President Obama will continue to 'process' detainees. Major changes will be made to the system, however:

• (Some) suspects will get a trial, instead of being held indefinitely and without charge.
• Hearsay evidence ("I heard this guy said that this happened") won't be allowed.
• Nor will evidence obtained through 'enhanced interrogation techniques' (i.e. torture.)
• Detainees have the right to silence, instead of being sanctioned for refusing to testify.

Okay, so it's not like these detainees now have full constitutional rights, but that's okay with me. Yesterday's discussion with Tom convinced me that an accountable and transparent military tribunal is an appropriate court of justice for these detainees, who fall into the crack between 'prisoners of war' and 'criminal suspects.'

What I did object to was not giving them a trial, denying them basic human rights and obtaining 'evidence' through means which are commonly regarded as torture.

In so far as that, it seems like President Obama and I are on the same page.

It's still sketchy that dozens of detainees haven't been put on trial, charged or released years after their initial capture - but this is a step in the right direction and it's a marked improvement over what went before.

As for the liberals who are going to be enraged by Obama's decision - arguing that the detainees deserve full constitutional rights - I think people like Tom have convinced me that this isn't the case.

The Bill of Rights and the Constitution very clearly state that rights are awarded differently in wartime. Some people might argue that America isn't at war - but if that's the case, what the hell are our troops doing dodging bullets in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Playboy in trouble?

Hugh Hefner's been dialing back on the bunny food - Playboy Enterprises has taken another hit this year, with revenue falling 26%.

This has led to some pretty drastic changes over at the mansion - including the decision to cut back on circulation of the flagship Playboy Magazine and combine July and August's issues.

What does that mean? No more Miss July, for a start!

Playboy is still one of America's most iconic brands, but it's clean-cut image, old-school print business model and the horrible economy are all conspiring against the Empire of the Bunny.

I'm very sad - since coming to America, I've been mentioned on Playboy Radio and become involved in editing a magazine similar to the 'golden era' Playboys of the sixties and seventies. If trouble lies ahead for an American icon like 'the bunny,' what hope do the rest of us have?

Obama Breaks his First Promise

Since writing this, Obama's made some positive moves that completely undermine everything I complained about! Thanks for nuttin', Mr President! Read this post to learn more.

Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects
AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – As part of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration is considering holding some of the detainees indefinitely and without trial on US soil, US media reported Thursday. Fulls story here.

You know, I've read a lot of posts from conservative bloggers about President Obama breaking promises, or failing to deliver the changes he said he would (see Coffee Bean's blog here, or Reverse_Vampyr's here.)

Until this point, I'd taken all that criticism with a pinch of salt - after all, many of Obama's detractors (especially on conservative talk radio) descended into childish petulance simply because he won the White House.

But now Obama's broken a promise I'd believed in, too - that America would cease the sketchy shenanigans occurring in Guantanemo Bay. While Obama has decided to close that detention facility, he's now pondering the continued indefinite imprisonment of 'terror suspects' without charge or trial.

This is a total volte-face on his campaign promise, when he pledged to end the Bush administration's policy of locking people up without any accountability. That behavior is just wrong - especially when it's done by a country that prides itself on representing freedom, liberty and justice throughout the world.

Now since I first started opinionating on the subject, I have received quite an education (largely from regular contributor Tom) that has clarified why the Bush administration felt empowered to imprison people without any regard to habeus corpus: We're at war.

In World War II, for example, nobody expected to offer German prisoners of war trials or tribunals - and they certainly didn't get released or sent home until after the war was over.

But the 'War on Terror' has always been a fuzzy, poorly defined conflict and in recent months, that 'war' has dropped off the radar completely (Obama's given it the less emotive title of 'Overseas Contingency Operation')

The detainees in Guantanemo aren't 'enemy combatants.' They're not criminal detainees, either. They're not 'anything,' really. It's this lack of designation which gave the Bush administration the loophole to lock them up indefinitely (the Bush administration even tried to deny them the basic human rights granted under Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.)

Now, I'm not arguing that the detainees aren't potentially dangerous people - terrorists committed to causing terror and destruction across the free world. I'm just arguing that America - the 'land of the free' - has a responsibility to set an example to the rest of the world in how we deal with people in our power.

If the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are dangerous terrorists - people who have committed atrocities already and threaten to commit more if they're released - then we should continue to lock them up to protect America and the rest of the world.

However, we first need to establish by fact of law that these prisoners committed the crimes for which they were detained. Secondly, and more importantly, we need to establish that they pose a continued threat to world peace.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if these facts are established in a court of law or a military tribunal - but they do need to be established and it does need to done in a transparent, accountable environment.

It's not even that difficult. A detainee stands trial for throwing a hand grenade at an American soldier in Afghanistan? That soldier's testimony is enough to convice me he's guilty - and would be lobbing more grenades if given the opportunity again. Sentence him and lock him up.

I'm a reasonable, rational guy. It wouldn't take much to convince me that a detainee is a dangerous terrorist and should remained locked up. However, I still deserve to hear that case made. I don't trust the government enough to blindly hand them authority over other people's lives.

I'm not suggesting that the detainees deserve (or even appreciate) the concept of a 'fair trial' or basic legal rights or protections - but this is America, a country which was established on the ideal of justice for all. We can't claim to be principled people if we turn our back on those principles as soon as it's politically convenient.

The Founding Fathers rebelled against Britain for many reasons, including because King George III suspended their habeus corpus rights during colonial squabbles and denied those accused of smuggling, piracy, treason or sedition fair trials in their homeland (shipping some off to England for trial, or sentencing others without letting them plead their case in front of a jury.)

These rights are an essential, foundational part of what America stands for - and even in the midst of a 'War on Terror,' we need to stick to them.

Cheerios are no longer my anti-drug...

Is my baby Boozer on drugs?

He is according to the Food and Drug Administration, who today slapped the wrist of cereal-manufacturer General Mills for 'misrepresenting' their flagship breakfast cereal 'Cheerios' (which Boo munches by the tiny fistful.)

In a 'strongly worded' letter, they argued:

Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is a drug - your Cheerios product bears the following claim on its label:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"

This claim indicates that Cheerios is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. It may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.

As a result of this appraisal, General Mills have been ordered to dial back their Cholesterol-reducing claims.

What grind my gears is that the FDA didn't demand this because General Mills weren't being honest about their product's potential to reduce Cholesterol ("Cheerios' health claims were not in question," the Financial Times argued.)

The Food and Drug administration had their nose out of joint because General Mills dared to market themselves as 'heart healthy' without first filing a drug application with the great, all powerful (and willfully corrupt) federal poombah known as the FDA.

The more I witness the shenanigans of federal bodies like the FDA and the FCC (who police radio and television broadcasts) the more I shake my head. Lobbyists are rife throughout both organizations and most of their decisions are politically (or financially) motivated.

The FDA's argument that Cheerios should be reclassified as a drug is just the latest strike in a campaign to stamp out any form of health or wellness product that isn't championed by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists (those FDA officials need their kickbacks, after all.)

Even now, they're attempting to have massage oil reclassified as a 'medical device' (for which, of course, you need FDA approval to market) and slap the 'drug' label on vitamins, herbs, supplements and even teabags.

This means natural, homeopathic products which offer real health benefits could be muscled out of the market entirely - to make way for artificial, patented drugs marketed by the pharma industry (which claim to do the same thing, but in a chemically altered form which they're allowed to patent.)

Of course I want dangerous supplements and products removed from the shelves (and the FDA has done well to get dangerous diet-drugs like ephedrine taken off the market) but I'm not convinced that this organization is motivated by purely altruistic reasons.

Some of the products they wish to ban offer cheaper, natural and more effective alternatives to modern drugs. Some of the modern drugs the FDA have approved are far more dangerous than some of the supplements we've been warned about:

For example, take anti-inflammatory Rofecoxib - marketed as Vioxx - which the FDA approved in 1999; it was still an 'approved' drug when manufacturer Merck pulled it from the shelves for causing kidney disease and heart arrhythmia.

Rather cynically, I've stopped trusting what the FDA tell us - I think the majority of their decisions are influenced by lobbyists and politicians, instead of the medical professionals we should be relying on.

And, as for Cheerios?

Well, whether this makes him a 'drug-addict' or not, Boo will still be allowed to eat them!

Is the US Army responsible for soldier's 'losing it?'

In World War I, army recruiters faced a problem.

Thousands of soldiers were being drafted to replace those cut down on the battlefields of Ypres and The Somme - but military commanders feared they 'weren't made of the right stuff.'

An astonishing number simply refused to fire their weapons at an enemy soldier - arguing that the Bible explicitly told them 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder.'

This issue of Christian morality was dealt with through psychology. During basic training, roundel-shaped targets were replaced with those resembling a human silhouette - in order to get soldiers used to firing their weapons at something that was 'man-shaped.'

It was this technique which ushered in the uncompromising brutality of modern military training.

In order to ensure that soldiers don't have even a moment's hesitation in pulling the trigger, today's warriors are trained using human-shaped targets and ultra-realistic video games that desensitize them to the moral quandary posed by shooting another person.

Some American soldiers are even forced to listen to loud and aggressive rock music, to get the adrenaline flowing during combat.

It makes their job - kicking ass, suppressing opposition and blowin' shit up - much clearer and easier.

But just what long term effect does psychological conditioning have on our soldiers?

Last week, when Sgt. John Russell turned his gun on his comrades - slaying five of them. It was a shocking and unprecedented act - the 'fraticide' of a soldier's own comrades. However, despite committing five murders, Russell wasn't vilified. In fact, Russell's father wasn't alone in placing the blame firmly on the military:

"They broke him," father Wilburn Russell tearfully explained. "He's not a violent person. For this to have happened, there had to be something going on that the Army's not telling us about."

Since the war in Iraq began, there have been an increasing number of horror stories emerging from Iraq - like the actions of Private Steven D. Green

After drinking heavily, he and four squad-mates murdered an Iraqi family - apparently in order to rape their 14-year-old daughter. After Green was finished defiling her, he shot the girl in the head and set fire to her body.

Stories like this are horrific. What makes them even worse is that they're committed by American soldiers on a supposed mission of 'liberation.'

Certainly, the actions of Green and Russell are atypical of the disciplined behavior of the vast majority of soldiers serving in Iraq - but there are far too many 'shocking' stories emerging from that theater of war for any of us to feel entirely comfortable any more.

The fact that 42% of reservists returning from Iraq now need treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder just goes to show the mental strain an active combat role has on a soldier - but how much of that strain comes from being desensitized into committing atrocities?

The words of disgraced soldier Sabrina Harman are particularly chilling to me.

This 31-year-old soldier was a guard at the notorious Abu Gharib detention facility in Iraq - and later convicted of cruel 'maltreatment' of the prisoners in her care.

Despite the damning photographic evidence proving her involvement in the atrocities, a private letter to her sister - written before she was accused of any wrong doing - reveals that even she knew that the actions she was forced to take part in were wrong:

"These people are going too far. Even I can’t handle whats going on. I can't get it out of my head. Not many people know this shit goes on. I don’t know if I can take it mentally. What if that was me in [the prisoner's] shoes? These people will be our future terrorists. It's awful and you know how fucked I am in the head. Both sides of me think its wrong. I thought I could handle anything. I was wrong."

Although Harman was convicted and given a 'bad conduct' discharge from the army, it's difficult to view her as the 'bad guy.' Increasingly, it's apparent that the US operation in Iraq is turning into something of a meat-grinder - churning through thousands of soldiers to achieve the arguably unobtainable goal of 'democratizing' the Middle East.

All I can say is that the rarity of these horror stories is a fitting testament to the bravery, professionalism and humanity of the vast majority of soldiers serving overseas. They're clearly facing horrific challenges and yet they keep 'soldierin' on.'

I hope, as the Iraq conflict wraps up, that President Obama will make good on the promises Bush Jnr. failed to live up to - and ensure that returning veterans receive the medical and mental care they need to put their horrific experiences behind them.

Despite the horrors of what Sgt. Russell and Sabrina Harman did - they're as much victims as anybody.

ADDENDUM:

As usual, Tom has chipped in with some excellent facts which go a long way towards disproving the thrust of this article - read his comments below.

One article he links to has this to say:

"The lesson here, if there is one, is this: Treat your soldiers humanely and look out for their welfare. It won’t eliminate the stress of combat, but it will pay dividends."

To a certain extent, that seems that the US Army has done exactly that, if this is anything to go by:

"So far, Pentagon records show, there were 26 homicides in Iraq before Monday. In Vietnam alone, there were at least 450 homicides in the one category of "fragging" — the killing of an officer with a fragmentation grenade."

And in the army's defense, John M. Russell was evaluated the week prior to his shooting spree:

"He was referred to counseling the week before and his commander determined that it was best for him not to have a weapon," Maj. Gen. David Perkins explained.

According to preliminary reports, Russell actually wrestled a gun from his armed escort to commit his slaughter - he wasn't armed himself. Obviously the military had identified a problem and were making moves to deal with it - unfortunately, they weren't successful.

It's entirely possible to blame this incident on the government - for thrusting troops into an overseas combat zone that many Americans feel we have no place in. It's also possible to criticize the army - while they responded to Russell's psychological evaluation, people question why rapist and murderer Stephen Green - evaluated as being 'homicidal' - was allowed to remain armed and in a combat zone - with the opportunity to commit his crimes.

But ultimately, the thing we take away from this is just how difficult, challenging and traumatic active service can be - and in Russell's case, at least, the army has been surprisingly sympathetic to that. Maj. Gen. Daniel Bolger, the commander of Multi-National Division-Baghdad, surmised:

"A tragedy like this points to the challenges troops face. When something like this happens we've got to be careful not to judge too harshly."

Intel is fined for playing Monopoly

The European Union fined Intel Corp. a record euro1.06 billion ($1.45 billion) on Wednesday, saying the world's biggest computer chip maker used illegal sales tactics to shut out smaller rival AMD. Full story here.

I don't pretend to be much of an expert in these matters, but I'm deeply skeptical of the EU's decision to fine Intel this outrageous amount for running a 'monopoly.'

It's rather like the similar decision to nobble Microsoft a few years ago - the US Department of Justice accused MS of running a 'monopoly' because they bundled their Internet Explorer browser with their Windows operating system - thereby making it more difficult for competitors to get customers to use their competing product.

My problem stems from a simple premise - that these 'monopolies' didn't occur in a vacuum. The free market gave canny businessmen like Bill Gates a window to succeed - and that's exactly what he (and others) did. Now, because they dared to become 'too successful', the government punishes them for their achievements!

'Success' is the issue at the heart of this monopoly melodrama - Microsoft and Intel were both early innovators in a new and unexploited industry. Churning ahead of the pack allowed them to build a powerful position, which they then exploited to muscle out the competitors scrabbling to play 'catch up.'

Was that wrong? Not really, as Microsoft and Intel are both private industries, in the business of making money.

I find it wrong that the government feels like it can hogtie a business simply because it's done so well. One of the fundamental philosophies of the free market system is the concept of a level playing field - the rivals of Intel and Microsoft started at the same position the more successful companies did - the fact that they didn't achieve as much can't be laid at anybody else's door.

It's like an Olympic athlete complaining that the only reason he didn't win the race is because the other runners were 'cheating' by being faster than he was.

Besides, the government is the last body that should be interfering in the business of 'policing' monopolies. After all, many of the European Union's governments advocate public ownership, which is, essentially, nothing but a government sponsored monopoly.

And even America, the cradle of the Capitalist system, falls flat when it comes to government intervention in so-called 'monopolies.' Microsoft is just the latest example of a business falling victim to its own perceived 'over success.'

My favorite example of government meddling is Pan Am airlines: Back in the 40's, their CEO, Juan Trippe, manipulated the government into advocating a single-airline bill that would have granted Pan Am a monopoly over transatlantic flights (and dissected Pan Am's rival, the supposed 'monopoly' that was Howard Hugh's 'Trans World' airline.)

It was unfair, it was unethical and it was all championed by corrupt elements within the government. Who's to say that Microsoft and Intel's vilification didn't stem from similar shady elements within the government?

It seems to me that the official attitude towards 'monopolies' has always been entirely inconsistent. As far as the government's concerned, the only way to ensure 'fairness' is to handicap any business that gets too big for its britches.

But while I complain about the principle of the whole thing, I'll confess that this tactic has paid off for many of us. Without the government's involvement, Apple Mac wouldn't have blossomed into it's sleek, geeky gorgeousness - and I'm typing this post using Mozilla Firefox as my Internet Browser - the sworn enemy of Microsoft's 'Internet Explorer.'

For the consumer, choice is always a good thing - but I'm still wary of governments who feel entitled to punish success and give unfair advantages to businesses that arguably don't deserve them.

Is thoughts.com the new Myspace?

When it comes to social networking - those curious online communities like Facebook and MySpace - everybody's always looking for 'the next big thing.'

MySpace has definitely 'had its day' now - it's the domain of failed actresses and teenagers, with legitimate users being swamped by spam and 'friend requests' sent in-bulk by aspiring bands.

Facebook is being eclipsed too, by the burgeoning microblogger Twitter...

But what will replace Twitter when the time comes?

Some people are suggesting thoughts.com - a website that features the opportunity to maintain a Free Blog, along with the organization and social networking facilities of Friendster or Facebook.

It might be too early to suggest that thoughts.com is here to stay - but it certainly seems to have promise. Their current drawbacks are the lack of members (although more are joining each and every day) and the incessant anti-spam filters, which force you to enter a code when you do even the most mundane change to your profile.

But with its clean looks and 'new site smell' I think we'll be seeing more from them in the near future. Get your account and profile now - while it's still cool! Remember, if you join too late, you have to tell all your friends you only did it 'ironically.'

Is Demjanjuk really a mass murderer?

John Demjanjuk, an 89-year-old Ohio autoworker, was recently deported to Germany (by private jet, no less) to face charges that he was a concentration camp guard during World War II.

Many people are questioning this. After all, Demjanjuk has already been acquitted of similar charges (on appeal, during a trial in Israel) and is currently dying of Leukemia - pretty much making his deportation a death sentence whether or not he's found guilty.

The court in Germany accuses him of colluding with the SS to murder 29,000 people in Sobibor death camp during the war. Demjanjuk insists that he was a soldier with the Red Army during the conflict - and spent that period as a prisoner of war in a Nazi work detail.

It's a very complex and emotive situation. Despite almost seventy years having passed since those dark days, the Holocaust is still vivid in many of our memories (and thank goodness for that - dark forces are currently conspiring to wipe the Holocaust from history.)

So, of course we want everybody responsible to face the punishment they deserve.

But is that collective cause served by chasing Demjanjuk with such vehemence? This vendetta has proven devastating for his American-born family and incredibly costly for the American taxpayer (private transatlantic flights aren't cheap, you know!)

But, most importantly, it's basically given a death sentence to Demjanjuk; no matter what the court eventually rules. Even if he's acquitted of the charges (a second time) it's unlikely he'll ever live to see his home or family again.

Americans are generally good people - and I've spoken to many who still believe in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

Having given Demjanjuk that benefit of the doubt (at least, until a court can prove differently) it makes his treatment very questionable.

But to answer those valid criticisms, here is a brief rundown of the evidence leveled against this 89-year-old Ukranian:

Charges: The German court charge that John Demjanjuk was a Wachmann at the Trawniki concentration camp, later being posted to the Sobibor death camp. This made him partially responsible for the murder of 29,000 prisoners at Sobibor.

Evidence: To support their accusations, the German court can offer the following:

• Despite claiming to have fought against the Nazis as part of the Russian 'Red Army,' Demjanjuk has a scar under his armpit, covering up an SS tattoo which proves membership of the Nazi elite Schutzstaffel.
  
• Paperwork recovered from Trawniki include an SS I.D. that bears Demjanjuk's photo and his exact biographical data, including date of birth.
• Statements of other Sobibor Wachmann (which ironically exonerated Demjanjuk in his '93 appeal) confirmed that he was present at Trawniki and Sobibor in some official capacity.

Defence: Demjanjuk claims he was a forced laborer during World War II, after being made a prisoner of war by the Nazis. However, he is unable to offer any proof of his whereabouts during the period in question.

I certainly have no desire to see an innocent old man stand trial, especially not after being dogged by allegations for over thirty years. However, the evidence presented by the German courts is fairly convincing.

Perhaps most telling of all was the statement made by the Israeli Supreme Court. During his appeal in 1993, he was aquitted of charges that he was notorious camp guard 'Ivan the Terrible':

"By virtue of gnawing new evidence, we restrained ourselves from convicting the appellant of the horrors [committed by] Ivan Marchenko at Treblinka," the court ruled. "However, the facts proved the appellant's participation in the extermination process. The matter is closed — but not complete. The complete truth is not the prerogative of the human judge."

The Israeli Supreme Court released Demjanjuk not because he was innocent, but because "new charges would be unreasonable given the seriousness of those of which he had been acquitted."

Justice can be very cruel and false accusations can wreck lives. However, in the case of John Demjanjuk, I honestly think the right thing is being done. Whether it's sixty years, or six hundred since the holocaust - no length of time is ever going to undo the crimes committed in the name of Hitler's 'final solution.'

If he's guilty, he needs to face justice.