Ask Militant Ginger

We haven't had an edition of 'Ask Militant Ginger' for a while - and this month we had some doozies of questions! So after an inexplicable absence, here is a question and answer session based on real-life questions that people have typed into search engines - and been taken to 'Militant Ginger' as a result. First off, two questions related to the same movie!

Does the guy smoke in 'He's Just Not That Into You?'

In the romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You, Bradley Cooper plays a philandering husband married to obsessive-compulsive Jennifer Connelly. It's not his affair that upsets his wife, though - it's the suspicious that her husband is sneakily smoking behind her back (he promised to quit, because Connelly's father died from lung cancer.)

In the final moments of the movie, Connelly is lamenting losing her husband... Right up until the moment she finds a packet of smokes in his suit pocket. Enraged that he'd own up to his affair - but lie about smoking - causes her to finally kick the ungrateful lug out of her house.

So, gentle reader, the answer is yes. Bradley Cooper's character in He's Just Not That Into You is
sneakily smoking behind his wife's back - revealing just how immature and deceitful men can be about seemingly innocuous things.

What car does Ben Affleck's character drive in He's Just Not That Into You?

Bradley Cooper's best friend is played by Ben Affleck - a man with a fondness for 'boy toys.' In addition to his fifty-foot yacht, he has an utterly awesome 'woody' - a wood panelled car.

Thanks to an episode of Pimp My Ride I'd seen earlier that day, I was correctly able to identify Affleck's classic car as a Jeep Wagoneer - one of America's first 'sports utility vehicles.'

They were manufactured virtually unchanged from 1963 to 1993 - making it very difficult to identify the specific year Affleck's was. However, I found the actual car for sale on eBay and can confirm that it was an '87 model.


Why doesn't Socialism work?

This is a question I tackled here. Although I don't think socialism is remotely close to the scary, evil bugbear the conservatives nail it as - I don't think it works.

There are all sorts of reasons why socialism is sketchy, but the root cause behind all of them is 'human nature.' Humans don't want to live in a society in which we're all equal. Man is programmed to want more than his neighbor.

Personal gain is the major incentive to work harder. When a community takes the profits of its hardest workers and distributes them to 'equalize' compensation, it takes away the reason for that one worker to work so hard. He reduces productivity - and the entire community loses out as a result.

But while socialism makes for a crappy business model, but it's not entirely worthless. When it comes to vital infrastructure - like railways, postal services, schools and the like - state ownership often means more flexibility in operating an important public service. Even in so-called 'Capitalist' America, many institutions are state owned because they simply couldn't operate effectively as private industry (like the Postal Service.)

Why do Christians hate gays?

Christians shouldn't 'hate' anybody, but some of them do.

These are mainly the evangelicals and fundamentalists of America (who number 80 million, although that figure is rapidly dwindling.)

Those particular Christians are hypocrites. In the words of Randall Terry, an outspoken Christian activist:

"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...."

He was talking about people who voted for Clinton - but a more common target for evangelical Christian ire are 'homosexuals.' Gay people are blamed for just about everything - including 9/11. To quote Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Evangelical movement (who last year hosted the presidential debate between McCain and Obama in his 'megachurch'):

"The gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make homosexuality an alternative lifestyle -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this [9/11] happen.""

Those right-wing Christians claim that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible also says that eating shellfish and wearing cotton is wrong, but these Christians pick and choose which bits they want to listen to (because if they had to adhere to the whole thing, life wouldn't be much fun at all!)

The Biblical debate is a big one. I've written extensively about it here. In short, though, it boils down to whether or not you think modern society's rules and standards should be regulated by a 2,000 year old piece of corporate propaganda.

Some Christians are unable to remove the Bible from their moral equation - and are therefore unable to judge something based on anything other than their own blinkered standards. Those evangelical Christians 'hate' gays because they believe the Bible told them to. If the Bible told them all to jump off a cliff, presumably they'd do that, too (we can only wish.)

But not all Christians are as limited as these ones. For example, Mummy Militant and I attend a church which welcomes gay people, and even has a few same-sex couples in the congregation. This is because some Christians are evolved, and have realized that Christ's message of love is more important that some fine-print minutia condemning homosexuality.

Why do pirates wear eye patches?

When I was a kid, I got told that pirates wore eye-patches because splinters or swords had popped their peeper out (much the same reason for the prerequisite wooden legs and hooks on their hands.) In actual fact, though, even biopic (i.e. two-eyed) pirates never went into battle without an eye-patch.

This is because the ocean could be a very bright place. On deck, the sun beat down mercilessly. Once you went below deck, however, the bowels of a pirate ships were dark and dim (pirates roamed the seas before electricity was invented.)

It takes up to thirty seconds for your eyes to adjust from bright light to near-dark - so when a raiding pirate stormed below decks, he'd be literally blinded until his eyes adjusted to the dark. That's why they took to wearing eye-patches.

Before the battle, a pirate would don his patch and one eye would adjust to the gloom. The other he'd use normally, and would be all squinty in the sunlight. After battling the enemy on deck, our raiding buccaneer could jump into the gloom below decks and lift his eye-patch - revealing his pre-adjusted eye and having instantaneous vision even in the gloom of the galley.

It's a neat trick - and one that's still used today. My father taught me a trick he used on guard duty with the RAF. Stand with one eye scrunched shut, so if the enemy cut the lights, you'll still have some pre-adjusted night vision and be able to react much faster than waiting for both peepers to adjust to the blackout.

What does Quantum of Solace mean?

'Quantum of Solace' was a fantastic short story from the James Bond anthology 'For Your Eyes Only.' It hardly features Bond - and was more about the story of two young lovers and their doomed love affair.

In it, Ian Fleming coined the term 'Quantum of Solace' to describe the smallest smidgen of love or respect that keeps somebody in a relationship. 'Quantum' is the smallest amount measurable by man. 'Solace' comes from the Latin word for consolation or comfort.

It's generally the 'Quantum of Solace' that keeps somebody in a bad relationship. If a boyfriend ignores his girlfriend, goes out with the boys without her or cheats on her, she might want to leave him - but when he does that one thoughtful thing - like making a mix-tape of 'their' songs or something equally inconsequential - it reminds her of 'why she fell in love with him' and the whole vicious cycle starts all over again.

But, more than that, the 'Quantum of Solace' is that essential spark which keeps love alive. As long as there's that 'Quantum,' a relationship can exist. When it's extinguished (by, perhaps, one thoughtless act too many) love can never be rekindled.

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

High Time to Kill, Raymond Benson

How do I start writing adventure stories?

It's easy! Pick up a pen and get scribbling!

As readers of Militant Ginger will know, I love old-fashioned adventure stories. In fact, a constant thread throughout my life has been my efforts to get 'Adventure Eddy' into print.

While I haven't been altogether successful, my years of writing have taught me A LOT about penning adventure stories - specifically:

• You've got to grip the reader from the first paragraph - like in the Adventure Eddy story 'Science Lesson,' in which he opens a package somebody mailed him and finds a deadly fat-tailed scorpion inside!
• You need to have an unanswered question which keeps the reader motivated to continue reading - like just who sent Adventure Eddy that deadly scorpion!
• The characters must have good motivation for doing what they're doing. Characters drive a story forward, not plot. Give the characters believable motivation (like revenge, or a need to clear their name) and it'll make the whole unlikely scenario believable.
• Instill a sense of urgency! Time limits, or being chased by bad guys or police, give characters that extra bit of motivation to do dangerous things, and take risks they might not normally.
• Set up a few action set pieces - There are moments in a book that you'll remember forever - like James Bond's escape down the mountainside in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Think of some really thrilling, really dangerous obstacles to overcome and it'll rack up the sense of peril.
• Put your characters in real danger - In Live and Let Die, James Bond's eponymous best friend Felix Leiter was mauled by a shark - a trick Fleming used to let his readers know that the dangers Bond faced were real, and there was no guarantee that even 007 would make it to the end of the book.
• Have a twist in the tail! The hardest trick is to throw a satisfying denoument into the mix. At the climax of the book, you've got to turn things around in such a way to blow the reader out of the water - and leave them breathless, yet satisfied. A good example is in the climax of Hugh Laurie's book 'The Gun Seller.' I won't spoil it, but it's a cracker and involves an exploding helicopter.

Do Nephilim die from copper shotgun rounds?

This is probably the oddest question I've ever been asked - linking back to my synopsis for a story called 'The God Squad.'

In it, a band of Vatican-approved 'monster hunters' would face off against an evil Nephilim - one of the half-angel, half-human creatures God had attempted to wipe out with 'The Great Flood.'

As far as I know, Nephilim are not noted for having any specific vulnerability to copper, so I'm not sure what significance that would make - but that wouldn't stop my band of morally ambiguous monster hunters riddling him with shotgun shells, if they thought that would get the job done!

How much does 'Private' medical care cost the taxpayer?

The Economist blew me out of the water today with their analysis of the American Health Care system. In acknowledging it's strong points (like excellent cancer recovery rates) it exposed something I think most Republicans would find surprising.

Compared to other countries - including countries with entirely 'socialized' medicine like Great Britain - the American tax-payer pays just as much to treat people (and sometimes more.)

The American tax payer is already funding a public-medical system that exceeds the British NHS

For example, the average health care costs of an American individual are $7,000 dollars per year. Of that, private health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses cover just $4,000 of it. The rest is picked up by the tax-payer.

Compare that to Great Britain, where our (admittedly inferior) health care system spends just $3,000 a year on each individual (with people picking up about $500 out-of-pocket.)

What does that mean?

It means that the tax-payer burden of providing 'free' health care to every individual in Great Britain is actually LESS than the cost of providing 'privately funded' health care in America. What's even worse, is that on top of the American tax-payer paying more than enough to fund a system like the NHS, they're then asked to pay $4,000 on top.

They're basically paying for health care twice. And as good as the American health care system is, it's not that good.

I've argued before that 'socialized medicine' and universal health care already exist in America - but I can see that I grossly underestimated the problem. We, the health care consumer, are being fleeced - and Republicans who demonize so-called 'socialized health care' are unaware that they've been contributing to it for years now.

Micheal Jackson is dead...

...and I am spectacularly unmoved.

Objectively, I can recognize the enormous contribution the man made to music and fashion over the past four decades. I have a very vivid memory from 1987, of sitting in the car of a school friend's Dad so we could listen to 'Bad' on cassette tape.

But in all honesty, I never particularly liked his music. I didn't like his style. He creeped me out, especially with that skeevy movie 'Moonwalker.' No, I was over the castrati-voiced star long before his 'fall from grace' following accusations of child-molestation in 1993.

In fact, let's not ignore that. Although he was acquitted of sexually abusing a child in 2005, Jackson was dogged by frankly weird behavior around kids his entire life. Dangling an infant over a hotel balcony, for example, isn't exactly grounds for great parenting.

I'm old enough to remember when 'Bad' actually mean bad. Or was that a Huey Lewis song?

The media's been obsessed with Jackson's crazy antics for almost a decade. We've vilified him as a paedophile, a lunatic, a bad parent and a bankrupt has-been. That's why it seems deeply hypocritical to suddenly start revering him now he's dead (before the poor bastard's even gone cold.)

Newsreaders are crying. Stores are piping out 'Thriller' and 'Billie Jean.' People are wailing about what an important part of their lives Micheal Jackson was. A friend of mine complimented somebody on their 'MJ' t-shirt and that person shook their hand and burst into tears!

Insane!

So Jackson died. He was clearly a deeply troubled man and we, the gawkish public, contributed enormously to that condition. In fact, even though they're still awaiting the autopsy results, we're probably all complicit in his demise. We suffocated him beneath a pile of news reports, gossip magazines and childish exposés.

The very same people who are wailing about missing him today were demanding he be strung up as a kiddie-fiddler three years ago.

Where there's smoke, there's fire? I argue that Jackson was acquitted, so it's really not cricket to throw the 'paedophile' label about... Although I still wouldn't have let him babysit Mini Militant!

So in marking Mr Jackson's passing, I thought I'd do the opposite of everybody else. I'll recommend catching a show from some modern-day musical legends who are very much around (despite rivalling MJ for lyrical longevity.)

How about Metallica? These legends of heavy metal started out just two years after Micheal Jackson did and are still going. In fact, they just launched an enormous comeback with a new album, a Guitar Hero video game and you can catch Metallica Tickets for a whole new tour in 2009.

U2 went live three years before Jackson launched his solo career. They've never slowed down and are on a world tour this year. U2 concert tickets for July, August, September and October are available now.

Chickenfoot is the opposite of U2 and Metallica (and Jackson himself.) They started off just last year, but are already being labelled a 'rock supergroup.' That's because this hard rock band feature venerable talent in the form of Van Halen and Red Hot Chilli Peppers alumni - meaning that even for a 'new' band, they've got decades of rock 'n roll experience to bolster their credentials.

They're kicking off a tour this October, in Toronto, and Chickenfoot Concert Tickets are still available for performances in Chicago, New York and Atlanta (plus many other less salubrious locations.)

So if you're like me - and Micheal Jackson's death hardly registers on your pop-culture radar - than do what I do and crank up the stereo with some other performer's music.

Obama's medical plan - not good enough for his own family?

Obama's controversial overhaul of the American health care system is infuriating both Republicans and health care industry moguls - leading one doctor to plant a poser on the president during an ABC News town hall event:

"Will you promise," the doctor demanded, "that your wife and daughters will only get the medical services covered by your new health insurance plan?"

"No," said Obama. "I'd always want them to get the very best care." Even if that meant buying a more expensive insurance program, or paying for non-covered services out of pocket.

Critics are highlighting this as an example of hypocrisy - a 'Dukakis moment' according to some. Obama's proposing a health care system that even he wouldn't entrust to cover all his family's medical needs.

But is that hypocritical? Or merely honest?

Obama's health care proposal offers some medical care for millions of uninsured people. It might not be comprehensive coverage - the 'best that money can buy' - but it is at least some coverage.

It hasn't been put in place to replace private medical insurance. It's been put there to supplement it - to offer the uninsured something, where they used to get nothing.

If Obama could find a way to offer medical coverage that was better than private health insurance, he wouldn't just be a miracle worker - he'd be the first man in history to make a nationalized health care system work!

[And yet, the Republicans would still attack him, for destroying the 'free market' private health care industry. You just can't win with them. - Editorial Bear.]

No, what he proposes isn't perfect. But perhaps it's the step in the right direction. And, more importantly, it's not like his Republican critics have managed to put forward anything better.

They criticize Obama for not entrusting his family's health to his new system. Perhaps the question should be reversed:

Would they show their 'faith' in the existing system by entrusting their family's health to the current options open for America's 46 million uninsured?

If the answer to that is 'no' (as it should be, for anybody who cares about their family's welfare) than they're the ones who the accusations of hypocrisy should be leveled at.

What does the BNP's popularity mean for Britain?

There's a country-wide caterwaul emerging from Britain, in response to the British Nationalist Party making substantial inroads into legitimate British politics.

[The British Nationalist Party, for the benefit of foreign readers, are a populist movement that emerged from the World War II era British Union of Fascists. They're unashamedly neo-Nazi in policy and practice, barring membership to all but 'ethnically British' Christians and pledging a populist manifesto that includes banning non-white immigration, reintroducing the death penalty and reincorporating Ireland into the United Kingdom. - Editorial Bear]

Thanks to intense dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties, the British Nationalist Party managed to secure two seats in the recent European Parliamentary elections - and found positions on local councils for former MEP Andrew Brons and party chairman Nick Griffin.

Labor and the Conservatives joined together in solemn head-shaking at the news, issuing statements that the BNP's victory was a 'sad moment.' Meanwhile, activists pelted Griffin and Brons with eggs as they attempted to hold their first press conference.

But, for the most part, the British public has been united in blaming the people who didn't vote for what happened. (This rather petulantly ignores the ones who did vote, for the BNP, who are really to blame for this debacle.)

One political pundit on Facebook declared: "This emotional response to their election is right and proper, but it needs to be directed at those who didn't vote. It's largely their fault that the BNP got elected. When only one in three vote this sort of thing will happen."

Unfortunately, when it came to the pathetic state of British politics, not voting in this election might have been a legitimate political statement. Politics should be about choosing leaders, not sifting through the pile to pick the 'least unelectable.'

But blaming poor voter turnout ignores the obvious. Take a look at recent history - the 2006 and 2007 local elections in the UK - as far back as early 1997. The BNP have continued to make consistent gains across the country for over a decade now; something you can't blame on a single turnout in a single election.

In truth is this: In twelve years, the BNP have doubled the number of votes they receive three times over. It appears the British Nationalist Party - racist, fascist, populist movement that they are - give out a message that resonates with a growing number of people.

That terrifies me, but it doesn't surprise me.

In 2006, Sky News held of survey of British voters and found that 59% of people agreed with BNP's general policies - as long as, that is, they weren't told beforehand that the policies they were considering were those of the BNP.

The British Nationalist Party's biggest obstacle, it appears, isn't their racist rhetoric or fascist policies. People are already on board with all that. The BNP does dismally in elections simply because they're them. It's a branding problem. They need to hire Saatchi and Saatchi!

That branding issue aside, it means the ideological battle has already been won. If Sky News is right, people apparently support many of the BNP's aims already. The only reason they're not a legitimate political presence is because people are still too ashamed to tick the 'BNP' box on the voting slip.

Thank Goodness.

But if the elections were any indication, that might be changing.

There's a reason for this, of course: People in Britain are quite simply getting pissed off.

It's a certain class of 'person' who's upset - and they're upset for reasons that us polite, politically correct middle-class types don't want to talk about:

'Reasons' like how two Christian church workers handing out leaflets in a Muslim district of Birmingham were recently accused of hate speech by a 'Community Support Officer' - while our government simultaneously condoned an Islamic school in Acton that used textbooks referring to Jews as 'apes' and Christians as 'pigs.'

'Reasons' like a London council erecting roadsigns in Polish to cater to the influx of immigrants.

As far as people like me are concerned, it's not polite to talk about 'reasons' like these, because criticizing Islam is 'Islamophobic' and picking on Polish people is 'Xenophobic.'

However, people who haven't bought into the middle-class, BBC-watching, politically correct mindset like I have are upset at the disparity between how 'us' (the white, English speaking Christian) and 'them' (anybody with an accent and a beard) are treated.

The BNP successfully tap into popular opinion that I would diplomatically label as 'unevolved' - the simmering, lager-fueled resentment at those who come to this country and 'don't speak English,' or don't celebrate Christmas (a holiday that they already claim is 'under attack.)

The BNP thrives on tackling these issues because the rest of us simply don't want to acknowledge them. We 'civilized' people, who support the Labor Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, consider ourselves above pandering to populist opinion that's arguably racist and ignorant - but that ignores the fact that this opinion still exists.

The longer the mainstream political parties ignore these 'problems,' the more supporters the likes of the BNP are going to pick up.

The fact is, the only way the mainstream parties in Britain are going to stop the gradual build up of support for the BNP is by opening a dialogue with the people who are tempted to support them. Talk on their level, about issues that matter to them.

Maybe then, we can engage them as voters - and steal them away from the BNP.

I don't think that's impossible. Deep down, I still have faith that British people don't want an 'all-white England' or a country in which immigrants and foreigners aren't welcome. Britain's rich multicultural heritage is a beautiful thing and I believe most British people are proud of it. Their votes for the BNP were a protest, not an endorsement.

Think about it... Some of our most indisputably, quintessentially British celebrities (like newsreader Trevor MacDonald, Conservative politician Derek Laud and dreadlocked show-jumper Oliver Skeete) are people the BNP would condemn as 'not ethnically British.' Hell, our national dish has become curry, not fish and chips!

So we shouldn't misinterpret the BNPs success as 'the shape of things to come.' But nor should we do what the British press and pundits have been doing - trying to downplay the significance of the fascist's growing popularity and ignore the 'uncomfortable' issues.

But eclipsing even the smoldering nationalism of the BNPs supporters is a bigger problem - and one Labor and Conservatives are equally inadequate in tackling: How British people feel like they simply don't have a voice any more.

It seems opinions polls and government policy have never been more disjointed. To a huge extent, the mainstream parties simply don't offer a choice between them any more. That's why extremists like the BNP are winning favor.

Just look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Back then, Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored public opinion (and more than 2 million protesters) to support the American-led invasion of Iraq. In contrast (or rather, not) the opposition party, the Conservatives, supported exactly the same thing.

It's a similar situation with the European Union. If we held a referendum tomorrow, the British people would probably vote to sever ties with the continent immediately. That means when the government rubber stamps European dictates - like supporting the adoption of the so-called 'European Constitution' - it's understandable for voters are going to feel disenfranchised.

Britain's politicians sit within the vaulted walls of the Houses of Parliament and decide 'what's best' for Britain without ever asking what Britain actually wants.

The BNP's success in the elections is nothing less than a harsh wake up call. It's a message to our representatives in Parliament that they're simply not doing their job.

They've got to stop thinking about what's 'best' for Britain and start thinking about what Britain wants. Because, after all, that is supposed to be how democracy works.

We shouldn't misinterpret the BNPs success as 'the shape of things to come.' But nor should we do what the British press and pundits have been doing - trying to downplay the significance of the fascist's growing popularity. The increasing number of votes the British Nationalists are receiving isn't the problem. It's a symptom.

Unless we address what's really wrong with Britain, it's a 'symptom' that's going to be more and more prevalent on the ballot rolls.

Militant Gingerisms

"Women are like tigers. Beautiful, smart, graceful - but deadly. Never to be underestimated, taken for granted or entirely trusted."

Militant Ginger, July 23rd 2009

Can a reproduction ever come close to a classic?

Bond - a man who knew his motors...

Readers of Militant Ginger will know my feelings on modern cars: They bore the pants off me. Especially modern American ones. To me, they embody everything James Bond sneered about American motoring back in 1954's Live and Let Die.

Most American cars bored him. They lacked personality and the patina of individual craftsmanship that European cars have.

They were just ‘vehicles’, similar in shape and in colour, and even in the tone of their horns. Designed to serve for a year and then be turned in in part exchange for next year’s model.

All the fun of driving had been taken out of them with the abolition of a gear-change, with hydraulic-assisted steering and spongy suspension. All effort had been smoothed away and all of that close contact with the machine and the road that extracts skill and nerve from the European driver.

To Bond, American cars were just beetle-shaped Dodgems in which you motored along with one hand on the wheel, the radio full on, and the power-operated windows closed to keep out the draughts.

Back in the 'old days', I'd have disagreed with Mr Bond - there were certainly some loin-girding muscle cars being produced in the sixties and seventies. But modern American cars? Show me a lincoln mks and I'll show you an armchair on wheels - a modern vehicle that packs so many luxuries, its headunit even plays DVDs.

Even foreign cars are falling foul of the corpulent cushiness of American motoring. Take the lexus rx for example. It comes with everything - built-in Bluetooth, hand-free satellite navigation and even keyless entry. The only thing they haven't perfected is how to make the damn thing drive itself.

That's why I crave classic American cars - the old Detroit steel that made this country great. That old cliche, 'they don't build 'em like that any more' has come true. Hell, you can't imagine Bruce Springsteen wailing 'Oh, Sweet Lexus!' with the same enthusiasm he garnered for that old rock 'n roll classic 'Mustang Sally.'

But there is a car on the market at the moment which is at least attempting to recapture the testicular fortitude of its American muscle-car lineage - the chevy camaro. The 2010 Chevrolet Camaro definitely looks the business - with styling cues clearly taken from the 1967 original. But can it possibly live up to the classic that made the 'Camaro' name so evocative? Look at these car pictures.

The wicked looking muzzle of the 2010 Camaro

The original Chevy Camaro was introduced after a secretive development - specifically to nail the 'pony car' market that Ford had created with their highly popular Ford Mustang. When the Camaro was unveiled to the public, people often asked: "What does Camaro mean?" To which the marketing bods at Chevrolet responded: "A small, vicious animal that eats Mustangs."

Camaro combined the stability of a front-engined, rear-wheel drive coupe with the flexibility of accepting pretty much any of Chevrolet's current lineup of engines - from the inline straight-6 to their monstrous 396 cubic inch V8 (displacing six and a half liters.)

That, combined with the car's light curb weight, made for one hell of a performer.

The original - and still the best?

So forty years - and five incarnations - later, the modern Chevy Camaro has a lot to live up to.

Limiting your appraisal to the specs, things might look good. The new Camaro is seven inches shorter than it's chubby predecessor (the limp, forth generation) and the base model is driven by a 304hp V6. Pair that with a six-speed manual gearbox and you've definitely got a car to write home about.

But most Americans, despite being transfixed by the car's racy looks, will probably plump for the automatic transmission and that, in combination with the StabiliTrak electronic stability/traction control system, means the driving experience will be resolutely safe. Hardly the tyre-squealing, white-knuckle thrill-ride getting behind the wheel of an original one was.

The soft 'clunk' of the doors, the big, airbag-equipped wheel and the fully-featured headunit all conspire to make this a sporty-looking, but sedentary vehicle. There's no scent of gasoline, or tinny-reverb from the twin exhausts. The window panes don't rattle and the tachometer doesn't twitch. Really, what the bods at Chevrolet have done isn't to civilise the Camaro - they've damn near domesticated it.

I'll stick with the original, thank you very much.

Television's Most Fantastic Females

I've never been much of one for the celebrity crush - and when somebody asked me which television stars I fancied the other week, I pretty much drew a blank.

If I'm entirely honest, I've never been much of one for 'just a pretty face.' In answering the question - and searching for the cutest characters on Direct TV at the moment - I found my choices swayed more by a leading lady's onscreen personality than their physical appeal.

If I was going to pick three of TV's most adorable actresses, they'd have to be the following:

Anne Dudek plays the eponymous 'Cutthroat Bitch' on Fox's brilliant medical drama House. Despite dying at the end of the previous season, 'Bitch' is back as the hallucinatory embodiment of House's Vicodin-riddled subconscious - a snide, sarcastic and sizzlingly sexy foil to the brilliant Hugh Laurie.

Dudek's appeal lies in living up to her 'Cutthroat Bitch' nickname. She's brilliant and capable, which are attractive enough qualities all by themselves. However, she matches them with almost criminal cunning - willing to step over whomever it takes to meet her objectives.

This cold, calculating streak makes her attractive because she's dangerous and challenging. Challenging women (and God knows I've fallen foul of this) are most men's krypotine. They should come with warning labels.

House is off the air for the summer, but fingers are crossed that when the show comes back to Direct T V this Autumn, it'll include plenty of House-hallucinations featuring the oh-so-lovely Cutthroat Bitch.

Next on my list is the star of the ill-fated remake of Knight Rider.

Smith Cho played Zoe Chae, the brilliant technowhiz who helped support KITT and Michael Knight as they whizzed around America writing wrongs and fighting crime.

What made her sexy was her sass. Smith Cho played Zoe as a teasing, tormenting tyke who kept every single one of her male cast-members in a constant state of unconsummated sexual arousal. She was free-spirited, brilliant and mischievous - by far and away the best thing in the canceled series.

But don't panic: While Smith Cho doesn't have a return to DirectTV planned any time soon, you'll be able to see her in Broken Lizard's 'The Slammin' Salmon' when it's released later this year.

She's also got a role in cheerleader comedy 'Fired Up,' but whether or not it's worth the rental price simply to see her is debatable.

The final entry on my eligible actress list is Stephanie March, who played Assistant district Attorney Alexandra Cabot on Law & Order.

March's character represents everything I find attractive - she's smart, focused, brilliant and ruthless. Her character was written out of Law & Order when she risked assassination to convict a Colombian drug baron - but Alex Cabot is going to be back next season as A.D.A. in Law & Order: SVU.

I admit, my trio of terrific totty does seem to have an unhappy bias towards tall, frosty blonds - but I still argue that it's personality that attracts me to these actresses, not their looks.

That's why I simply don't buy into the traditional Hollywood hotties. Megan Fox, who's pretty much the hottest commodity in California right now, leaves me absolutely cold compared to these leading ladies.

What's the deal with the Iranian elections?

#freeiran

That's a 'Twitter' 'hashtag' that's winging its way across the Internet right now, spread viraly by millions of 'Twitterers' decrying the alleged election fraud that took place in Iran.

But let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment. Are these accusations of fraud authentic?

Don't get me wrong. I loathe incumbent president Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād as much as anybody. I was fervently hoping for the predicted landslide for his opponent, reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh.

But when the election results came in - with Ahmadinezhad winning the election by an average of two votes to one - I was suspicious of just how fast people started crying 'fraud!'

It would be desirable and convenient for the disgusting Ahmadinezhad to be ousted from office, but we must never allow ourselves to buy into the belief that if you want something to be true, you can make it true (kind of like fundamentalists to try to with creationism.)

As much as I'd like to join in the clamor for electoral equality, let's examine the evidence first.

Iran's a big country and this election saw a voter turnout of nearly 85%. That meant almost 40 million votes were tallied (according to BBC Persian.) Of those votes, Ahmadinezhad won over 24.5 million of them.

Contrary to the cries of 'fraud,' this actually matches the results predicted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion. Three weeks before the election, this non-profit group held an independent poll and found that twice as many people pledged to vote for the incumbent president as Mousavi.

Supporting this analysis, Guardian contributor Abbas Barzegar argued that the western response to the election results showed complete ignorance of the real situation in Iran. Western media, such as the BBC and the New York Times, tended to concentrate on opinion and analysis from more liberal Iranians, coming from wealthier parts of the country. This ignored, according to Barzegar, "the wide support Ahmadinejad enjoys in poor and rural communities."

There is some logic to that opinion. If residents of only New York City and San Francisco had been polled in the leadup to the 2004 Presidential Election, nobody would imagine George W. Bush could win a second term. However, that's exactly what he did - with the support of America's infrequently opinioned 'heartland'

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, in an article in The Politico, pointed out much the same thing. In the 2005 Presidential Election, when facing similarly moderate Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinezhad won with almost 62% of the vote. That's practically the same result as in this disputed election - but, of course, there was no outcry of 'fraud' last time around.

It's certainly true that we, in the West, made certain assumptions about the election that didn't necessarily hold true. Mousavi, for example, was expected to poll well in his native Azeri provinces. However, Ahmadinezhad's speaks fluent Azeri and ran a blinding campaign in the two provinces (even quoting Azeri and Turkish poetry onstage.)

To quote the United States Intelligence Service, as they pragmatically analysed the results: "It is not outside the realm of possibility that Ahmadinejad won this election."

They, too, conclude that the Western media were relying on biased opinion from expatriate Iranians and urbane, pro-Western correspondents from capital city Tehran. The US officials wearily noted: "Tehran is Tehran, but it’s not Iran."

M K Bhadrakumar, writing in the Asia Times, dismissed even the post-election protests as 'inconsequential' - carried out by wealthy, young members of the 'Gucci crowd.' They are unrepresentative of the 'real Iran' and "the rural poor who, in their multitudes, form the bulk of voters and constitute Ahmadinejad's political base."

In short, it possible - perhaps even likely - that the election results were as fair as can be expected to be in a country like Iran.

Certainly, there are questions raised. At least 30 polling sites reported voter turnout of 'over 100%' and the New York Times reported a leak from the Interior Ministry hinting at a fraud campaign that had "been prepared for weeks."

But are any of these allegations truly convincing? Walter R. Mebane Jr., professor of political science and statistics at the University of Michigan (and an expert on detecting electoral fraud) concluded: "There are suspicious elements here, but there's no solid evidence of fraud."

Likewise, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett suggested that the anomalies identified in the Iranian election results were less significant than those of the 2000 Presidential Election in America (specifically, the debacle in Florida.)

I certainly don't want to be identified as a supporter of Ahmadinezhad - but in objective, rational analysis of this election, the evidence strongly suggests that his victory is legitimate.

We don't have to like it, but we may have to accept it. The media circus surrounding the 'election fraud' is damaging our credibility. It sends a message to the people of Iran that America and the west are only willing to support sovereign democracy if the people of that nation vote 'the right way.'

In this instance, they didn't. But that was their choice to make - and in the absence of any cold, hard, credible evidence to prove otherwise, we might just have to shut up and accept that.

Fanboys

Don't get me wrong - I love Star Trek; but when it comes to the crunch, even the adventures of Kirk, Spock and Scotty can't eclipse the true king of science fiction fantasy - Star Wars.

The Star Wars saga is a seminal slice of my generation's culture. Everybody has heard about the adventures of Han, Luke and the villainous Darth Vader. It's part of our upbringing (and I don't think there's a single guy I know who doesn't make 'light-saber' noises and swoosh their flashlight around on a foggy night.)

Star Wars is just the pinnacle of fantastical entertainment - and the oh-so 'worthy' adventures of the Starship Enterprise seem somewhat drab by comparison.

But much to my surprise, apparently not everybody feels the same way I do (well, I once had a girlfriend who was a true-blue Trekkie and claimed to hate Star Wars, but I figured she was just an exception.)

There are actually loyal Trekkers out there who pledge allegiance only to the Church of Trek - they consider the Skywalker saga to be nothing short of heresy!

It's this conflict between 'Wars' and 'Trek' fans that linchpins together hysterical new comedy 'Fanboys', just released on DVD.

Set in the 'dark ages' of 1998, 'Fanboys' follows the adventures of four die-hard Star Wars fans as they plot a cross-country caper to break into George Lucas' Skywalker Ranch and steal a copy of the eagerly awaited 'Episode 1.'

Highway flashing - an essential ingredient of any road trip movie

Their epic journey takes them into the no-man's land of Riverside, Iowa (future birthplace of Captain Kirk) where they cross paths with a team of tyrannical Trekkies - and that's how the chase begins.

'Fanboys' is simply sublime. It's one of those movies that has you laughing so hard, you worry about rupturing something. From beginning to end, it's a roller coaster ride filled with over-the-top antics, slapstick comedy, acerbic wit and more Star Wars fan-service than you can shake a snowspeeder at.

The highlight has to be Dan Fogler, in the only role he's ever been good in. He plays 'Hutch,' an overweight, one-testicled Han Solo-wannabe who considers his Star Wars-sloganed van to be the Earthly equivalent of the Millennium Falcon. It's this chariot which takes the team across America - even though it's just as prone to malfunction as Han Solo's fictional starship.

Not since the A-Team have we seen a van quite so cool...

There are a whole host of sci-fi cameos - from Captain Kirk himself, William Shatner, to Star Wars alumni Billy Dee Williams and Carrie Fisher. You'll also spot other familiar faces, like 'Jay and Silent Bob' stars Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, plus redheaded comedy legend Seth Rogan.

But this is a movie that's about more than clever cameos. It's a sympathetic, reverential but consistently funny film - and one of the rare American comedies that manages to insert some dramatic tension (a motivational plot about a character dying of cancer) without turning cheesy.

Although 'Fanboys' is clearly marketed to Star Wars fans, you don't need to be much of a fan to enjoy it. The comedy itself is fairly broad and some of the misadventures that befall our heroes - such as becoming impromptu strippers at an all-gay biker bar - would make even a serial Star Trekker smirk.

Does George Lucas' garbage room have Deathstar-style crushing walls? Find out!

It's not highbrow. It's not great art. It certainly doesn't hold a candle to the great works of cinema it pays homage to - but 'Fanboys' still exceeds expectations and delivers a treat of a movie. Grab the popcorn and get watching!

Aces High!

Last weekend, I took another flying lesson. That makes two in the last twelve years. At this rate, I should be eligible for my private pilot's licence by the time I'm 487-years-old.

The flying lesson was gift from Mini Militant, who thought that it would be wise for his father to take a refresher course in flying before heading off on hols in France. If something went wrong en route (like the pilot had a bad oyster, or something) I'd apparently have the know-how to bring that baby down.

I'm not entirely convinced by Mini Militant's logic, but I was more than happy to take him up on his Father's Day gift anyway!

I flew out from Princeton Airport, which is as spectacularly humble an airport as you're ever going to find. It was awesome.

Princeton Airport - Unsurprisingly, there's no Duty Free shop

Unlike in Britain, where everything is regulated to death, the Americans are wonderfully pragmatic about taking to the skies. My instructor did a pre-flight check with unfussy professionalism and within minutes, we were taxing down the runway.

I got to 'drive' the plane on the runway myself - and took the controls just as soon as we'd hit a thousand feet. Completely different to my experience in England, I got to fly the plane all by myself for the entire hour - and my instructor didn't scream once (which suggests I'm a much better pilot than I am a driver.)

My steed - an '81 Cessna 172 SkyHawk. The vinyl interior looked like it came from a similar vintage Chevrolet Camaro

Flying in New Jersey is brilliant. I never realized quite how big, green and beautiful this state is. I'd never seen so many trees in my life - you have no idea just what a forest NJ is until you're flying above it.

In my journey, I flew over Princeton itself (I recognized the Hospital from episodes of House) and then crossed over into Pennsylvania and banked across the beautiful town of New Hope. Then, following Route 1 back to the airport, I was allowed to bank us into position and my instructor only took the controls back when we came into land.

Cheesy grin? CHECK! Pre-flight check complete. Chocks away!

Flying is fun. I've always had aspirations to be a World War II flying ace, and this is probably as close as I'm ever going to come. But the buzz from taking to the air - when you feel the wind buffet you as if you were as light and inconsequential as a bird - is still pretty heady. I loved it.

Apparently, getting your pilot's license in America is a fairly straightforward process - but I don't think I'll do it. For a start, where would I fly, even if I had a licence? And secondly, if I struggle to get Mummy Militant onto a damn airliner, I think it's impossible that I'll ever get her into the passenger seat of a Cessna 172!

Boo studies Bond

We've all got to start somewhere... Boo picked appropriate reading material.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People

Simon Pegg is one of Britain's most likable comic talents, so he's definitely playing against type in tackling the role of Sidney Young - the unlikeable protagonist of 'How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.'

A movie adaptation of Toby Young's painfully earnest autobiography, the film follows scrappy hack Young as he 'hits the big time' and moves from London to the Big Apple - to become a writer for the prestigious glossy magazine 'Sharps.'

Within hours of arriving in New York, Young manages to piss off, antogize, alienate or offend just about everybody he meets - resulting in a film that's so squirmworthy you'll want to leave the room just to avoid witnessing the cringe-inducing results of Young's career suicide.

'How to Lose Friends' is produced in part by Film Four - and the 'Britishness' of the script shows through. There's something akin to an old episode of Fawlty Towers in all of Sidney Young's misadventures. The chaos is cumulative - with Sidney's 'solutions' to each problem just immersing him deeper and more inextricably into the chaos.

However, towards the second half of the movie, Hollywood takes over. Soon, a pitch-perfect comedy morphs into a cheesy romance - as Sidney Young has to decide whether to pursue his publishing aspirations, or abandon them all for the colleague he's been having a love-hate relationship with.

Ultimately, what starts out as a really original film becomes a mish-mash of cimematic cliches... The high-profile abandonment of his successful career, the race to rendezvous with his abandoned love interest and the climatic kiss beneath the backdrop of the Brooklyn Bridge.

It's not a bad movie, by any means - Jeff Bridges is excellent as evil editor Clayton Harding (a thinly-veiled portrait of Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter.) However, the whole thing is just so cynically 'Hollywood' that it ultimately comes across exactly the same as the character of Sidney Young - 'sold out.'

Britain's Hottest Ginger

Perhaps there's hope for England yet.

It turns out that the island of itinerant ginger-haters have admitted that the most eligible bachelor in Britain is none-other than copper-topped crown royal Prince Harry.

"He's posh and polite, yet rugged, fun and down-to-earth at the same time," explained Victoria While, editor of Company magazine. "Aside from being third in line to the throne, he has a seemingly endless list of attributes..."

Including his ginger hair?

A British Boy...

...always consumes with his pinky finger extended.

Blogging and Anonymity

Bloggers are a childish lot, myself included. We're all prone to throwing our toys out of the pram on occasion, and occasionally saying things behind the safety of a computer screen that we'd be FAR too cowardly to say to anybody's face.

But the worst of us are commonly the 'anonymous' bloggers.

Anonymity is a delicious mask to hide behind, resulting in far too many bloggers falling foul of what the Internet has come to call 'John Gabriel's Great Internet Fuckwad Theory.'

This theory evolved on webcomic Penny Arcade

But the fact is, not all anonymous bloggers are idiots. In fact, many people blog behind the shield of anonymity for legitimate reasons.

After all, the problem with expressing opinions over the 'net is that you can later be called to task for them. I mention in this post some examples of Internet activity coming back to bite poor bloggers - including the story of a schoolteacher fired for publishing a picture of her consuming an alcoholic beverage on MySpace.

I know plenty of 'anonymous' bloggers who write incognito to protect their 'real-life' reputations - and that freedom to truly express themselves is why their blogs tend to be good. 'Out and proud' bloggers, myself included, occasionally censor ourselves because people we know might be reading.

So anonymity is a choice - and one that evolved bloggers respect.

Which is why is was incredibly disappointed to hear about National Review Online hack Ed Whelans smugly 'outing' an anonymous blogger who dared to mock him.

Ed Whelan, a conservative pundit, was so incensed by a response posted by anonymous blogger publius that he tracked down publius' real identity and shared it with the readers of his blog.

"I’ve been reliably informed that publius is in fact the pseudonym of law professor John F. Blevins of the South Texas College of Law," Whelan smugly announced, in a post entitled Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger. He brushes off the mistake publius was criticizing him for - instead declaring "Gee, I think it’s the guy hiding behind the pseudonym who has reason to be embarrassed."

publius, AKA John Blevins, held up his hand after this exposure and admitted his identity - revealing that he'd written anonymously because: "I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging can cause problems – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable based on my posts."

I think Blevins has handled his 'outing' with grace and class - which is more than I can say for Whelan. As a contributor to National Review Online, I thought he'd have had at least a modicum of respect for his blogging peer. Instead, he smugly gloated about his 'victory' in three follow up posts.

He brushed off criticisms of what he did, arguing that people "seem to assume that I owed some sort of obligation to Blevins not to expose his pseudonymous blogging. I find this assumption baffling. A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, but I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision."

Whelan clearly doesn't 'get it.' His decision to 'out' Blevins - deliberately, and with the understanding that doing so might criticize the professor's job - says more about Whelan that it will ever say about Blevins.

Ed Whelan was unable to sustain an intellectual debate with his detractors, so he resorted to the final, desperate act of the ethically bankrupt - he decided to make a 'real life' attack against somebody in 'revenge' for having his Internet credibility questioned.

It's frankly pathetic. If Whelan was half the man he arrogantly thinks he is, he'd have been able to nail publius in debate, without resorting to personal attacks. What he did is disrespectful, cowardly, pathetic and reprehensible; a well-respected 49-year-old legal professional has reduced himself to childish antics.

But while Ed Whelan is clearly the 'bad guy' here, it does present a sobering warning to the rest of us.

There is no such thing as Internet 'anonymity' Not truly. That's why we've all got to think very hard about exactly what we share on the Internet.

Whatever we write, we may very well have those words thrown back in our face at some point in the future. Therefore, before you hit the 'publish post' button, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we're really willing to stand by what we write.