Ginger hatred comes to America

Three Calabasas middle school students arrested in 'ginger attacks'

Three boys have been arrested in connection with the so-called "ginger attacks," instigated by a Facebook message, in which at least seven red-haired children were beaten up at a Calabasas middle school, a sheriff's spokesman said this morning. Full story here.

If you search for the term 'ginger' on this blog, you'll find dozens of posts I've written about how English society had it in for redheads. From catcalls to outright assaults, it ain't easy growing up ginger in the UK - especially not since society generally condones or dismisses this ingrained prejudice.

Me as a ginger kid! Victimized because, according to the Facebook group mentioned above: "gingers are not proper humans and should be socially mocked."

America's generally a different story - since the nation's such a melting post, most people are more accepting of different appearences, especially in this area. Since the New York area was colonized by the Irish, redheads historically haven't been as much of a 'minority' as they were in England - not to mention the fact that nobody would pick on a ginger since many Irish New Yorkers were in, or had family in, the police.

When I first 'red' the story about the Calabasa attacks, I was dismayed - was 'gingerism' finally making it's way over the Atlantic? Then I realised that the way the paper was treating the whole situation was different. In the UK, when somebody's victimized for being ginger, the newspapers have a field day with the funny language - 'mugging victim sees red' or 'ginger nut gets cracked.' It's all one big joke to them.

Here in America, the newspapers and authorities haven't really made much issue of why the redheaded kids were victimized - just that they were.

That's another reminder of why I enjoy living here.

I'm not saying America's perfect - there's still an awful lot of ingrained racism and prejudice, especially in certain parts of the country, or regarding gays and lesbians. But for me, at least, it's a whole new world. Stories like the one above make me sad, but the reaction to them reminds me of everything I've come to appreciate about living in America.

Will Conservative Ideology destroy the Republican party?

Despite victories in New Jersey and Virginia, the Republican party is still reeling from the loss of the 2008 election.

To prevent the party tearing itself apart, conservative members like chairman Michael Steele are suggesting a new 'ideology test' to approve membership of the GOP.

They believe nobody's a 'true' Republican unless they support the ten 'essential' Republican positions, as laid out below.

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
4. We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

It's a deeply stupid proposition. Editorials have ironically pointed out that Ronald Reagan - the patron saint of modern conservatism - would probably have only signed off on eight of these 'ideologies.' If he wasn't 'right' enough, where does that leave the majority of Republicans?

Or to put it another way, if this new ideology is adopted, will it doom to the Republican party to political irrelevance?

I say 'yes', but I've had people disagree with me on this. CK and other conservatives argue that the way for the Republicans to win the next election is to migrate further to the right, not try to take the middle ground back from the Democrats. This simply can't work, though.

The further right you retreat, the more voters you separate yourself from. You need to appeal to the broadest possible spectrum to win, not a core elite.

Since I like making diagrams, I made a diagram to explain my point:

This is what the American electorate looks like. There are clumps that are die-hard Democrats and committed Republicans and never vote any differently. Then there are the undecided voters - the ones who actually get to pick the next president. As you can see, they're largely moderate, but definitely have a bias to the right.

Here's what last year's elections probably looked like. The blue is the Democratic 'position' and how many voters in encompassed. The red is the Republican position.


In any given election, a party's policies can only appeal to a certain 'stretch' of these voters. Last year, the Democrats had a fairly liberal agenda, but appealed to just enough undecided voters to achieve victory.

The Republicans started out fairly moderate and retreated further to the right (with the selection of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential candidate, and by forcing McCain to back down on certain principles) and this alienated some of the moderates - costing them the election.

If the Republicans retreated even further to the right, here's what will happen in 2012: They'll lose.

The further right they go, the further they retreat from those undecided voters - and they aren't making up the shortfall anywhere else. Conservatives don't vote Democrat; by appealing more to the core of the conservative movement, you're not winning any more support. You're actually losing it.

The only way this tactic can work is if the electoral layout of America dynamically changes - if voters themselves become more right-wing. That's certainly a possibility (a dark, terrifying possibility) but it won't happen by 2012.

Instead of adjusting something they can control - their policies - the Republicans are relying on changing something they can't control - the will of the general population. This is a recipe for failure, every time.

Instead, Republicans should head back towards the center - to soften their rhetoric on controversial policies (like abortion and the war) and strengthen their resolve on the issues that they have majority support on (like small government and low taxation.)

What would this result in? I think it would look something like this:

By shifting slightly further to the middle - and not much, because American voters naturally have a bias towards the right - the Republicans could put themselves in a position that it would be damn near impossible for the Democrats to oust them from.

But the loudest voices in the party present - conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh - are too stupid to realize this. They're willing to sacrifice political victory in order to preserve 'ideological purity' and as long as they continue to do that, America belongs to the Democrats.

New Moon: Or, when puberty attacks...

Oh, God. Occasional Professor Tom was right.

Any full-grown man who makes the decision to watch Twilight sequel New Moon should know this beforehand: You are legally required to surrender your testicles as a result.

For a start, I was the only man in the audience (and Mummy Militant and I were the only people over the age of 17.) That made me feel deeply uncomfortable.

This feeling wasn't helped by the lower half of the auditorium simultaneously hitting puberty at the exact point teen heartthrob Taylor Lautner removed his shirt.

The collective moan of "Whoooo!" was almost drowned out by the sound of sixty pairs of knicker elastic all snapping at one.

Nevertheless, Mummy Militant and I bravely ploughed our way through two hours of vampy melodrama last night and the verdict was ultimately:

Meh.

To give director Chris Weitz the benefit of the doubt, New Moon was a visually stunning film. In fact, if you'd have ditched moping vampire Edward entirely and given whiny leading lady Bella a sound spanking beforehand ("Act like a flipping grown up, you silly twit") there were the workings of a pretty entertaining werewolf love story mixed up in there.

Washington? Beautiful. Old cars? Awesome. Animated werewolves? Brilliant.

But the problem was the script; tied slavishly to Stephanie Meyer's original novel. It just bogged the entire movie down throughout - and no amount of beautifully animated werewolves or gorgeous redheaded vampires could make up for the wilted romantic tosh.

The plot of New Moon sees beautiful Bella (a neatly anonymous stand-in for every single teenage girl to imagine herself in the place of) coming to terms with the fact that it's not easy dating a hundred-year-old vampire - especially not when his family try to eat you if you get so much as a paper-cut in front of them.

After a disturbing scene at Bella's eighteenth birthday party - when Edward bravely 'defends' her from his bloodthirsty brother by hurling her across the room and through a plate glass cabinet - he and his vampire brethren decide to ditch town to prevent any more 'accidents' like that one.

Giving Bella the old: "I don't want to be with you - but secretly I do, sniff sniff" farewell speech, Edward and his menacingly Aryan family depart and the entire movie becomes 200% better as a result.

But when Edward leaves, you have to start wondering what kind of message a movie like New Moon gives to its teenage audience. As far as she's concerned, Bella's life 'ends' when Edward leaves.

First, she curls up in a ball in the middle of the forest and is so incapacitated by grief that local Native American Sam Uley has to scoop her up and bring her home. Then, she sits in her room in an almost catatonic state for three months, only taking time out to mope her way to school or wake up the middle of the night, screaming.

Her dad, a local cop, has to rush in to her bedroom to brush her hair out of her eyes and utter soothing platitudes like 'there, there, Bella.'

(Seriously, after a week of that shit, I'd have smothered her with a pillow before the neighbours could call in a sound complaint.)

This pathetic behaviour is just the tip of the iceberg, though - because when Bella accidentally discovers that she can 'see' hallucinations of Edward when she's in physical peril, she starts to become something of an Adrenalin junkie - doing whatever it takes to 'bliss out' to images of her departed boyfriend.

This includes ditching a friend in the middle of town to take a ride on the back of some sleazy guy's motorcycle (the same sleazy guy who tried to rape her in the previous movie.)

This was the point when I realised that the script left Bella as a totally self-obsessed narcissist - and a pretty lousy friend to boot. Suggesting to teenage girls that it's in any way acceptable to leave your friend alone and vulnerable in a dangerous part of town is just offensive.

(Also, riding on the back of the motorcycle of a guy who previously tried to rape you is not smart.)

However, as is appropriate for a movie that's little more than teenage wish-fulfillment, there are no consequences for Bella's disgustingly selfish behavior. Instead, she follows it up by buying a couple of motorbikes - and flutters her eyelashes at doting friend Jacob (the doe-eyed Taylor Lautner) so he'll fix them up for her.

Another important message for teenage girls; it's entirely acceptable to manipulate the feelings of lovesick boys as long as you get something out of it. In Bella's defense, she pretty much admits to Jacob that she only sees him as 'a friend' - yet continues to give him just enough 'sugar' (and free pizza) to get what she wants out of the bargain.

(Just for the record, I'm not saying that boys should 'expect' anything from girls when they do stuff for them. I'm just saying that if you're motivation is unrequited love, then the girl who's plucking at your heartstrings is a pretty shitty friend. But since she also ditches her gal pals in a rough part of town to take a spin on the back of a rapist's motorcycle, the 'shitty friend' part has already been firmly established.)

There are further parts I have problems with - like how Sam 'wolfed out' and mutilated his fiancee, which serves as a rather blunt metaphor for abusive relationships (and how the mixed up 'moral' of the story is that it's okay to stay with a dangerous partner, just don't get him angry.) I also groaned when Jacob asked what possible motivation evil vampire Victoria might have for returning to Forks:

"She's after me," Bella breathily reveals.

I yelled out in the theater - and got some teeny-bopper death glares as a result: "For Christ's sake, it's not always about you, Bella!"

And finally, the bit that almost made me throw up in my mouth a little was the ending, in which Edward triumphantly returns and promises to 'turn' Bella - transform her into a vampire like himself. He'll only do it on one condition: "Marry me."

Stephanie Meyer might as well have painted 'abstinence until marriage' on a wooden board and clocked us around the face with it. It's not that I object to blatant moralising in movies - it's just that this abstinence message seems so out-of-place in a movie that spends two hours condoning every kind of self-obsessed, self-destructive, abusive and manipulative behavior teenagers might be prone to.

In real life, Bella's stupid behavior would have ended up with her committed, drowned, murdered, run over or eaten by vampires. All of those risks were worthwhile, though (according to the script, at least) as long as she didn't make the worst mistake of all: Open her legs.

Sheesh!

Why I think New Moon will suck (but I'm still going to see it anyway.)

Ever since I first dissected the Twilight saga, I've found myself roped into the whole melodramatic mess in a way that I'm not entirely comfortable with. In fact, this Sunday I'm actually going to see the sequel movie New Moon.

Mood: Brooding, with a slight chance of angst

Now, you all know my objections to Twilight:

• It's melodramatic
• The vampires don't abide by the accepted rules of vamparism
• It's romanticizing a clearly abusive and co-dependent relationship between Edward and Bella
• It's teenage wish fulfillment (new girl meets boy who literally wants to devour her)
• It's materialistic (Edward's pretty cars)
  
• It's focused on looks (everybody's beautiful.)
• The author might have plagiarized the whole saga
• The author wants to ban gay marriage

But my main reason for hating it, of course, is that Stephanie Meyer casually wrote Twilight over the course of three months, got a $750,000 advance and now has millions of adoring fans making her wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice (or Militant Ginger.) And she's not even half the writer I am. Bitch.

Anyway. Before I go and see the new movie, I wanted to explain why I hate that too - even though I'm secretly excited about sitting down with a bowl of popcorn this Sunday.

It's got a new director:

Even now, Hollywood's not exactly packed with female film directors - so when Catherine Hardwicke took the helm of the original Twilight, it was a thumbs up to women's lib and all that liberal nonsense.

Hardwicke did a bloody good job, too. Twilight wound up being a pretty good film (even by my standards) and Hardwicke coolly earned the distinction of having the best opening weekend of any female film director in history.

Hence why I was astonished when Summit Entertainment dropped her from directing the sequel, New Moon, without as much as a by-your-leave.

Like benching your quarterback when he's just scored a touchdown, Summit sacked their star performer and replaced her with a guy.

Not that New Moon director Chris Weitz is exactly a nobody - he was nominated for an academy award in 2002. It's just I don't the reason for ditching a successful director - especially not when her vision of the original book was so spot-on.

They ditched the ginger:

Rachelle Lefevre, the Canadian actress who portrayed sexy vamp Victoria in Twilight, will be back for New Moon - and up to her old tricks again. Yet Summit Entertainment, clearly establishing a pattern against well-performing female team members, canned her toned little tush for the third film in the series, Eclipse.

Lefevre as Victoria: She can bite me anytime.

"I was stunned by the decision," Lefevre admitted, "and greatly saddened not to continue my portrayal of Victoria." Legions of fans appealed to Summit to 'bring back Rachelle' but their plea landed on deaf ears. In Eclipse, Victoria will now be played by Terminator: Salvation's Bryce Dallas Howard.

It's fan service.

So one of the things I liked about the original Twilight movie was that it stuck pretty closely to the book - but improved upon it.

There was no real sense of danger in the original Twilight, as the 'bad guy' was a single rogue vampire and Bella had a whole house full of sycophantic Aryan bloodsuckers to protect her. In Hardwicke's movie adaptation, she at least upped the ante and made Bella genuinely appear to be in danger.

But in New Moon? No difference at all.

Literally, no differences at all. In fact, if you look up 'differences between the book and movie' on the Twilight wiki (Warning: This is the very heart of the Twilight fan consciousness - those who visit might not escape alive) you will see the differences are reduced to:

• Bella wears a green dress to her birthday party, instead of a blue shirt.
• The Volturi wear red cloaks instead of black ones.
• At Bella's party, the birthday cake is green instead of pink.

That's it? That's it?

Come off it! Here you are, transferring a story from one medium (print) to an entirely new exciting, immersive medium (celluloid) and the only way you can think to improve and expand upon it is to do a wardrobe change?

Suddenly the reason they canned the original director, Catherine Hardwicke, becomes obvious. She must have had some wild and crazy 'vision' for the movie that was considered too outlandish to pass muster with the fans. Perhaps it involved making a totally disruptive change to the story - like having paper napkins in the scene at Bella's birthday party, instead of cloth ones.

Listen, I'm all for consistency - but when you fire the director and one of the stars (the ginger one, no less) of the original movie, I think you're then permitted to take a few further risks with the script at well.

Okay, so maybe I'm ranting a little - but these reasons are why I'm dubious of New Moon. Perhaps my arguments would be a little more convincing it I wasn't (in a manly, totally non-squealing teenage girl way) still a little excited to see it.

Militant Ginger's Weekly Roundup

Today, I'm just going to take a quick whizz through some of the headlines and stories that have sparked my interest this week.

New ancient crocodile species fossils found: Full story here.

Paleontology is not normally my thing - apart from using it to point out how idiotic those creationist lunatics are. However, this caught my attention:

"A 20-foot-long crocodile with three sets of fangs — like wild boar tusks — roamed parts of northern Africa millions of years."

National Geographic's Paul Sereno: "Damn, that's a big crocodile."

Right, I'm immediately shelving plans to build a time machine. I'm no fan of crocodiles at the best of times - but one that's as long as my Lincoln Town Car? And has three sets of fangs? I mean, how many sets of fangs does one twenty-foot long killing machine really need?

If this monstrous reptile was created by an 'Intelligent Designer' than that designer clearly had the mentality of an eight-year-old boy. "You know what this croc needs? More fangs!"

White House at odds with bishops over abortion: Full story here.

"The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion."

Oh no! If only we had some kind of immutable precedent separating Church and State! Then perhaps this wouldn't be an issue! Oh, wait, we do. It's called the First Amendment.

The Pope shoes President Obama knick-knacks from his days as a member of the Hitler Youth (I wish I was joking about that one...)

Seriously, I'm actually understanding of the position conservatives are taking - the ones who want to put rules into place with government-funded health care to ensure that tax-payer money doesn't go towards funding abortions. I don't personally think banning abortion in America is sensible or practical, but it's one of the few right-wing positions that I can at least sympathize with.

While I don't think the right wing can argue that 'all life is sacred' when they support Capital Punishment in the US, torture detainees, bomb civilians abroad and send under-equipped soldiers to their deaths in (arguably) pointless foreign wars, anybody with a brain can see that there are deep ethical implications connected to abortion. I can understand how some Americans are wildly upset to think they'd be indirectly paying for them.

My problem? That bishops are getting involved. So maybe they're more 'community leaders' than 'messengers from God' - but I'm an old school, Revolutionary-mindset American and I think the Catholic Church has no business meddling in the affairs of state.

Kate Moss Slammed for Skinny Comments: Full story here.

"Groups representing the anti-eating-disorder movement in the U.K. are blasting supermodel Kate Moss for a seemingly offhand remark she made in a recent interview with the fashion website WWD: 'Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.' "

I think Kate Moss is a vacuous idiot, who's far too skinny, has terrible teeth and makes an awful role-model by hanging around sleazy, heroin-addicted enfant terrible Pete Docherty.

Kate Moss - singlehandedly perpetuating the stereotype of all Brits having bad teeth since 1994

Yet as somebody whose just lost 30lbs on a diet, what she said totally speaks to me. When I'm salivating over the thought of a slice of pizza (Dominos, thin crust, pepperoni, Italian sausage, onions and bacon) all I have to do is remember that eating right has helped me get into the same size jeans I wore when I was 18 - and I don't want to throw away all that progress for a slice of pie (even delicious, tangy, spicy pizza pie.)

[And prize for most metrosexual comment of the day goes to... Militant Ginger! Congratulations! Come down and accept your gift vouchers for a free manicure and copy of Woman's Weekly - Editorial Bear]

Don't get me wrong. I love women with a few curves. These skinny size-zero models are simply disgusting to me (believe me, you should meet them in the flesh - what little of it there is.)

I think they're a terrible role model for kids, too. Yet there's nothing wrong with wanting to be a reasonable weight and in a country in which 66% of us are officially 'chubby' I don't think it's any bad thing to find personal motivation not to gorge.

Because eating too much is entirely natural. We're evolved from cavemen, who were programmed to scrounge constantly for food and eat as much of it as they could. This is why the human body finds 'moderation' a pretty tricky concept.

If we need a little intellectual motivation every now and again - to do something unnatural, and not stuff our faces - remembering how feeling of being a healthy weight lasts longer than the delicious sensation of a slice of pizza is a perfect place to start.

Oprah Winfrey Ending Talk Show Run On Network TV: Full story here.

"Oprah Winfrey will announce on Friday that her popular daytime talk show, "The Oprah Winfrey Show," will end its run in 2011."

Oprah Winfrey's story is pretty amazing. The poor daughter of a single mum in Mississippi, she overcame hardship and poverty to become the richest African American of the 20th Century. She was the world's first black billionaire, one of America's richest women and, arguably, the most influential woman on the planet. She took the concepts of 'white/male privilege' and the so-called 'glass ceiling' and showed the world that those rules didn't apply to her.

Oprah is an inspiration to everybody - proof that you make your own destiny, no matter what hand fate dealt you in the very beginning.

For twenty-five years, the flagship of Oprah's empire (which encompasses terrestrial and satellite radio, the Internet and print media) has been 'The Oprah Winfrey Show', broadcast from her home city of Chicago on ABC.

Today, it's ending - and the focus of Oprah's television dynasty will move to her cable-only channel The Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN.)

It's a pretty startling move, as the Oprah Winfrey Show is one of the most popular TV shows in America. I personally wonder if she's making a similar move to the one Howard Stern made in 2005: After decades as America's most popular radio personality, Howard Stern basically 'made' the Satellite Radio industry by forcing his legions of fans to switch to SIRIUS.

If Oprah Winfrey decides to relaunch the Oprah Winfrey Show on OWN, when it hits the air in 2011, her millions of fans will face the same dilemma. The only way to get the Oprah Winfrey Network will be to choose a cable or satellite TV provider like Direct TV - you won't get OWN on regular cable.

Because of the proliferation of cable and Direct Satellite TV, over 70 million views will already be able to get OWN as soon as it goes live - simply by keeping their subscription to Satellite Directv.

However, just how many new Oprah fans will decide to switch their cable provider simply to get her show?

It stands to be an incredible coup for the companies lucky enough to have already made contracts with OWN.

Up

If you were going to design a perfect movie for me, it would almost certainly include zeppelins, biplanes, talking dogs and flying goggles. That doesn't mean it would be any good (I'm looking at you, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.)

But with Up, the computer-animated adventure from Disney/Pixar, they've managed to get the mixture right.

At first glance, you'd think Up was just another animated kid's flick in the mold of Cars, Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. Except it's not.

Not by a long shot.

From the moment Up opens, you realize all your expectations have been thrown out of the window.

The movie starts off telling the story of Carl Fredickson and his wife Ellie - and when I say 'story' I mean the whole story.

From meeting to marrying and spending a lifetime together. Pixar manage to cram an entire movie into fifteen minutes of dialogue-free footage - and when that segment ends, anybody who says they don't have tears in their eyes is lying.


And that's just the start of the movie. Up opens where other stories end. After a live well lived, widower Carl has gone from bright-eyed boy to curmudgeonly geriatric. His life is one of loneliness and guilt - distraught that he and his wife never took the adventure to South America they'd dreamed of their whole lives.


So when fate takes a final swing at old Carl, he does what any self-respecting balloon-salesman would do. He inflates twenty-thousand helium balloons and sets his home of sixty years soaring high into the sky - to finally make that voyage he and his late wife had been talking about all their lives.


Up is very nearly a perfect movie. It hits you hard in the solar plexus on a variety of levels. It's a rip-roaring adventure, a timeless love story and a not-so-subtle metaphor for the burdens we carry living in sophomoric suburbia. What could be a clearer message about not clinging to material things than a grumpy old man, who can't rescue his friends or save the day because he's got everything he owns - quite literally, in the form of a floating house - strapped to his back?


If Up has one shortcoming, it's that it's not a movie for kids. Although marketed as such, the sad and slow first fifteen minutes (which give more than a few nods to the finest of French cinema) won't hook short attention spans for long. But I suspect the writers of Up never intended it to be a kid's movie in the first place. It's something more - and I love it for that fact.

Up is available on DVD now for $18.99

Alfred Hitchcock comes to North Brunswick

We had a rude awakening this morning - when about a thousand uninvited travelers took a rest stop directly on our house!


Amidst deafening chattering and chirping, a flock of migrating birds decided to land directly on our street - and blanketed the entire corner. It was extremely disconcerting!


Mini Militant didn't know what to make of it - but Mummy Militant suggested these birds were heading south before a cold spell - a really cold spell - hit. Only time will tell if she's right.


They didn't stay long - but they were loud enough to make sure nobody on our street missed the experience. All our neighbors gathered - nervously - to watch the spectacle.

It's difficult to get across the sheer spectacle just with pictures, so here's a video we shot:

Om Nom Nom

Mini Militant is not an enthusiastic eater, but he has already found a few favorites. As befitting a baby born on the Forth of July, they're classically American.

Here he is 'om nom noming' on some sweet, delicious corn on the cob.

And what can get more American than a 'Happy Meal' from McDonalds - even if the toy is from some meaningless Japanese cartoon show he's never heard of (and neither has Daddy.)

Militant Ginger's Country Awards

Last night was the Country Music Awards in Nashville, Tennessee.

Again.

(I guess they must be a bi-annual event, as I could have sworn we had coverage of the last CMA only a few months ago!)

It was a great event, with Taylor Swift and former Hootie and the Blowfish lead Darius Rucker both having their talents recognized

(Rucker is only the second African-America country artist to be similarly honored - but in the genre's defense, black country artists aren't exactly common in country music!)

To honor this event, I've complied my own list of country music chart toppers. These are all songs released within the last couple of months and give a great sample of the range and talent that exists in the spectrum of 'country.'

Samples are below. In the immortal words of Steven Tyler: "Just press play."

I owe somebody an apology...

In this post, I ranted about a 'ginger' crack made by one of my favorite webcomic creators, Randy Milholland, for his snarky strip 'Something Positive.'

Randy actually took the time to respond to my criticism - and revealed why he'd thrown the ginger zinger in there.

As I mentioned earlier, the characters of Something Positive are all based off real friends of Randy's - including the lovable Jason. Except in real life, Jason isn't blond, as he appears in the comic strip. Apparently, he's incontrovertibly, irredeemably ginger.

So the 'joke' of Jason's gingerist comment was that he's really ginger himself. That turns it from a blithe anti-ginger crack to a sublimely hilarious 'inside joke' that I simply didn't get (and nor would anybody else who didn't know Randy and his friends.)

So now, not only do I realize that Randy's got an even more highly-developed sense of snark than I'd originally anticipated - I can also feel all smug and self-satisfied knowing that I'm 'in' on a joke that other people will miss.

So Randy? I owe you an apology - and thanks for explaining things.

Veterans Day

'Support our Troops.'

This Veterans Day - as we thank those who've served our country in wars past and present - I think it's important to take a moment to reconsider what 'support Our Troops' actually means. After all, it's emblazoned on the bumpers of millions of American cars and trucks.

Following 9-11, and during the past two presidential campaigns, 'Support our Troops' has been a slogan adopted by the right wing. 'Supporting our Troops' implied more than just supporting the brave men and women putting their lives on the line in the service of our country. It implied an unspoken approval of the two military operations they were embroiled in.

Criticize the military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, as many left-wing pundits did, and you were accused of 'betraying the troops' and your patriotism was challenged.

But 'supporting the troops' doesn't have to involve supporting foreign wars. In fact, to use another bumper-sticker slogan, many consider the best way to 'Support Our Troops' is to 'Bring Them Home.'

Every week, we read about more servicemen and women killed and crippled in Iraq and Afghanistan and no matter what your political position, you have to wonder how effectively we 'support' these heroes when we place them directly in harm's way.

How many politicians who cry 'Support Our Troops' voted to send them to Iraq or Afghanistan? You'd be surprised (or not) at the answer.

In fact, the hypocrisy of the people crying 'Support Our Troops' goes further than that. 'Supporting our Troops' is all well and good when they're off in the desert, dodging bullets and IEDs. But what about when they come home again? What about the troops who served our country in Iraq the first time around? Or in Kosovo, or even Vietnam?

Sadly, some of the people who proclaim 'Support Our Troops' have shameful records of actually 'supporting' soldiers and veterans.

Take John McCain, for example. Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America gave the former presidential candidate a failing 'D' grade for his voting record concerning veterans. McCain voted against funding to give serving soldiers additional body armor in the field (writing it off as 'pork barrel') and similarly voted to curb funding to treat victims of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury when they got home from the battlefield.

Similarly, McCain voted against increasing the funding for veteran's Health Care four times in the last six years - despite claiming that this was his 'number one priority' during his presidential campaign. He toured Veteran's Hospitals that had been declared dirty, unsanitary and unsafe - yet voted against funding to restore them.

Similarly, 'patriotic' Republican Joe Wilson - the man who yelled 'you lie' at President Obama - claims to 'Support Our Troops,' but has voted no less than eleven times against Health Care for veterans - even cutting their health care funding by $14 million in 2003.

It seems completely disingenuous to parade our patriotism one day a year if we turn our backs on veterans for the rest of the time. This Veterans Day, instead of just muttering platitudes, why don't we really think about the incredible bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers - and how we can truly show our gratitude for it?

I think this starts by examining what it is we actually ask of them. Our soldiers serve out of duty and honor - so we should honor them by remembering our duty not to put them in harm's way unless the safety of this country truly depends on it. Is that the case in Iraq or Afghanistan? I can't say - but I have my doubts.

Secondly, we have to give them all the support we can while they're in the line of fire. Withholding funding for the wars - as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton attempted to do a year or so ago - puts lives at risk for the sake of winning a few political points. Curbing 'pork barrel' spending, as McCain did, isn't helpful when that spending puts an extra layer of armor between our soldiers and the enemy's bullets.

And lastly, we have to remember to give our veterans the gratitude and support they deserve when they come back home. As my friend Michael Knight (not the one who drives KITT) tweeted today: "In war, there are no unwounded soldiers." Let's give those vets suffering debilitating injuries, or post traumatic stress disorder, the treatment they deserve and get them healthy and well as quickly as possible.

The fact is, in a modern democracy, we all play our part in the giant game of international chess - in which the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are the pieces. Because we're all culpable for the risk we put them under, we're all equally responsible for the results.

So lets remember our responsibility to our soldiers and veterans. If there's a 'message' or 'moral' behind Veteran's Day, I truly believe it's that.

Men and women in uniform? Thanks for everything.

Disney's A Christmas Carol

There were countless reasons to be skeptical of Disney's A Christmas Carol.

Firstly, it was another conventional take on Dicken's 'classic' (i.e. ridiculously overplayed) Christmas tale - and the world needs a new 'Christmas Carol' movie about as much as it needs another ice-age!

There are already no less than 26 'faithful' movie adaptations of A Christmas Carol and countless spoofs and imitations (from Bill Murray's amazing 'Scrooged' to 'The Flintstones Christmas Carol.')

Secondly, it starred Jim Carrey - in multiple roles. Funnily enough, 'Jim Carrey - in multiple roles' translates in my native tongue as: 'Gag me with a spoon.'

There's only so much of the Carreymeister one man can handle (and I was nearly at saturation point already.)

And thirdly, finally, it was written and directed by Robert Zemeckis - and produced in his trademarked 'CGI-animation' style which he used during 'The Polar Express' - another dreary film in which the lead actor (Tom Hanks) played just about every part.

So let's just say I wasn't looking forward to this movie. Only three things sustained me:

• It was a the first time I was going to see a 3-D movie in the cinema.
• Our tickets were free, thanks to coupons in the PennySaver.
• I was buoyed by two schooners of Sam Adams beforehand.

So even though I was reluctantly dragged to the theater, at least I had a pair of 3-D glasses to look forward to.

Stylish and practical! Score!

3-D movies have evolved since the days of the green/red acetate glasses. Instead, we got plastic glasses which were (presumably, I'm no expert) polarised differently. This meant you could see perfectly with them on (and make your way to the bathroom without tumbling down the steps.)

Settling into our seats, the movie began - and I was blown away.

The opening scene of A Christmas Carol is a view through a frosty window, into the streets of Victorian London - and it looked real. Real enough to reach out and touch the glass. The 3-D effects were simply breathtaking. The computer graphics produced a vividly rendered version of Victorian London that was so realistic you felt like you could have clambered through the screen and dropped down into them.

Carrey played Scrooge as halfway between Shylock, from Merchant of Venice, and Victor Meldrew from One Foot in the Grave.

But the truth be told, that was where the excitement, originality and energy began and ended.

Despite looking simply astonishing, A Christmas Carol turned out to be one of the most boring, pedestrian and unoriginal adaptations of the Dicken's classic that I'd ever seen.

Oh, don't get me wrong - it was utterly faithful to the original book; even down to the verbatim dialogue. But considering that there are already at least a dozen 'faithful' and verbatim adaptations of the Christmas Carol, this made the entire thing utterly bland. The 3-D effects were skillfully played so as not to dominate the movie (you didn't spend the entire time waving your hands in front of you, murmuring 'whoooooo!') but that meant it was up to the script and acting to sustain the film - and they weren't up to par.

Did you know that the clichéd portrayal of ghosts, as dragging about their clanking chains, originated entirely from the description of Jacob Marley in Dicken's A Christmas Carol?

And they were both adequate enough, before you wonder. The script was as good as if Dickens had written it himself (well, he had!) and Jim Carrey was utterly convincing as vile, irascible Scrooge. However, it had all been done before. Even the few peppy additions (like a chase scene, with a shrunken Scrooge skidding through icy drainage pipes) were just tedious and felt tacked on.

After two hours, when Scrooge awoke on Christmas morning and ordered the biggest turkey for the Cratchits, it was difficult not to suppress a yawn. The fact that we left the theater discussing the amazing effects, and whether or not we recognized the voice behind one particular character or another, should be indicative of how uninspiring and flat the narrative actually was.

A Christmas Carol is 3-D is a technically adept movie, and highly 'worthy' on its individual merits. However, when the whole package is wrapped up - even with the stunning visual effects - it ends up being less than the sum of its parts.

I feel that the story of Dicken's 'A Christmas Carol' was sucked cinematically dry a long time ago - and this latest version did nothing to pump new life into it.

Militant Ginger sics on Something Positive

The name of my blog, Militant Ginger, sometimes seems like something of a relic. I haven't felt 'ginger angst' for a long time since moving to America (except for my spat with Nintendo.) Living in a civilized country, it's easy to forget that I once lived in a nation in which being a redhead meant being the butt of everybody's joke.

But I got a reminder today - from a most unlikely source. Randy Milholland, creator of the fantastic webcomic 'Something Positive', threw in a completely cheap 'ginger joke' in today's strip.

This was gleaned from this comic and stolen under the auspices of the Fair Use doctrine.

It's not so much that it's a 'ginger' crack that annoys me - after all, South Park managed to stretch the ginger thing into an entire episode and I was nearly wetting myself throughout. It's just that it's a lame 'ginger' crack. 'Never trust a damn ginger' is about as funny as some of the punchlines Garfield cracks these days (i.e. not very.)

Well, I'm not going to get my knickers in much of a twist about it, but I'm still left thinking; not cool, dude. I love Something Positive - as demonstrated by my fanboy rave here - but still feel like the 'ginger' punchline was a little beneath Milholland.

Why being a toddler must rock...

In the classic style of Tintin and Snowy - and a bunch of other, less Belgian dog/boy partnerships - every day is an adventure when you're a toddler. Things to explore, climb, touch, lick, point and crawl through - all with your faithful furry dachshund (toy) at your side.

Why Pelosi's Health Care Bill is bad medicine...

Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house and one of the fiercest Democrats in Congress, has launched her own Health Care bill which she aims to put to the vote on Saturday, or early next week.

The problem is? It stinks.

Much like Max Baucus' broken bill, it's filled with useful provisions, but fatally flawed - this time by conceding to the conservatives and including a line that bans illegal immigrants from buying health insurance.

Currently, illegal immigrants are allowed to buy health insurance - many of them just don't. One of the reasons my health insurance premiums jumped 40% this year alone is because hospitals, doctors and clinics are legally required to give free health care to the uninsured - and the costs of providing that 'free' care get passed along to people who actually buy insurance, like myself.

However, some illegal immigrants do buy health insurance - and many more would, if it was a requirement (as it will be for legal residents.) But now, even the minority of illegal immigrants who do buy insurance won't be allowed to - and that means more and more of them will be relying on 'free' health care from cash-strapped emergency-rooms and clinics across the country.

And who pays for that?

We do - the health care consumer.

So instead of reducing costs, like she promised, Nancy Pelosi's bill has immediately made the most pressing problem facing the health care industry worse - and made all of us pay more.

The Maine Vote - Conservatives vs. Progress

I've been thinking about the vote in Maine - which overturned the law allowing same-sex marriage in that state. It was a narrow vote, but still a decisive one.

The 'will of the people' was apparently the will to take away a liberty previously granted - the antithesis of everything I believe America stands for (a nation in which liberty should only be granted, never removed.)

It's easy to be disappointed in the decision of 53% of the Maine electorate - but it shouldn't be surprising.

After all, it's worth remembering that if similar issues had been held to a general referendum - allowing the general population to decide on what was and wasn't legal - America might still have slavery (or at the very least, segregation) and interracial marriage would be as controversial today as same-sex marriage is.

The fact is, people lean towards conservatism - and to quote Edmund Burke, the Anglo-Irish political philosopher and father of modern conservatism, perhaps a certain mean-spiritedness.

I am convinced that we have a degree of delight, and that no small one, in the real misfortunes and pains of others.

The issue of same-sex marriage is such a peculiar one. Allowing same-sex marriage hurts nobody. In doesn't diminish the 'sanctity' of 'traditional' marriage, as some activists claim. In fact, it celebrates the institutions of monogamy and commitment - something 'traditional' marriage is commonly lacking (seeing as more than half of them end in divorce.)

I am convinced that the only reason the right-wing have fought so vehemently against gay marriage - something that won't diminish their lives or beliefs in any way - is simply because they enjoy hurting other people. If they have the power to take away another person's freedom, they'll gleefully, maliciously take it.

That's not very 'Christian' of them - but then again, I've argued that not many evangelicals are very 'Christian' in their attitudes.

Yet even Edmund Burke, the man often hailed as a philosophical hero by true conservatives, saw the writing on the wall. Same-sex marriage will become legal, in state after state and in our lifetimes. It's inevitable. Burke said so:

We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation.

53% of Maine voters turned down same-sex marriage. That was fewer voters than a decade ago. In ten more years, will time and progress have tipped the scales towards marriage equality?

I can't see the answer being anything other than a resounding, unequivocal 'yes.'

The Democracy Debate

So yesterday, voters across the nation hit the polling stations.

Here in New York, Michael Bloomberg won an unprecedented third term as Mayor of New York City, although the race was much closer than anybody anticipated.

Democratic candidate Bill Thompson ended up netting 46% of the vote - almost ten points more than anybody had expected. That still wasn't enough to usurp Independent incumbent Bloomberg and that was something the whole city should be grateful for. Bloomberg was undeniably the superior candidate.

In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie managed to pull victory out of the hat - nailing incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine by four and a half percentage points. Many people had expected Christie's campaign to be derailed by the popularity of Independent candidate Chris Daggett - who'd polled as high as 20% in the weeks prior to the vote. However, in the end less than 6% of people voted for Daggett and those that didn't invariably supported Christie.

In upstate New York, the right-wing suffered a deliciously well-deserved defeat in the special congressional election. The original race was supposed to be between Democratic candidate Bill Owens and moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava - one of the few women in the GOP. However, hard-line conservatives within the party - including vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and right-wing television hack Glenn Beck - fought bitterly to oust Scozzafava because of her support for gay equality and abortion rights (which mad her an 'unacceptable' candidate, despite her having the full support of local party members.)

A tearful Scozzafava stood down from the race, to be replaced by hard-line Conservative Douglas Hoffman. However, the voters soundly rejected his conservative rhetoric and Bill Owens won an election that would clearly have gone to Scozzafava if the Republicans hadn't been so pig-headed about ousting her. Their loss is their fault.

Most disappointingly of all, voters in Maine supported 'Question 1' - a motion to overturn the court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in that state. It was a close battle - with 47% of voters supporting marriage equality - but the message was clear. Just like California before it, the majority of residents still weren't behind gay marriage.

All in all, there were a mixed bag of results. Personally, I was very happy with the results in New York - both in the mayoral elections and the upstate congressional election. Michael Bloomberg is an honest and pragmatic politician with the city's best interests at heart, while the extreme right-wing of the Republican party needed a firm and unequivocal bitchslap to remind them that America is a nation of moderates - not fire-breathing, Bible-beating wackos!

The New Jersey election was another matter. I was no fan of Christie, as readers of Militant Ginger already know. But my candidate, independent Chris Daggett, was never in with much of a shot. The race was always between Corzine and Christie and as much as I disliked both of them, if I had to give it to either, I guess Christie would be my choice.

I dislike many of his hypocritical social policies and if his record as US Attorney is anything to go by, he's a big, fat, corrupt sleazeball. However, his campaign was centered around the financial mess that New Jersey is in - the rocketing tax rates and gaping budget deficit. If he concentrates on fixing those problems, perhaps The Garden State is still in with a shot of redemption.

As for Maine? It's disappointing. Just like with Proposition 8 in California, I find it ridiculous that the right-wing wasted so much money, energy and time to take away the rights of other people. 'Protecting' marriage is a farce. Same-sex marriage actually supports monogamy and commitment - while the 'institution' that the right wing are trying to 'protect' is a broken system that ends in divorce in the majority of cases.

But the people spoke - and even if you don't agree with what they said, it's important that we at least live in a country that gives them a chance to say it. Compare American democracy to what transpires in Europe - in which a states-wide 'constitution' is ratified without letting the majority of voters ever have a say in it. Why? Because if democracy was allowed to run it's course - and the people of Europe were actually given a vote - the treaty would be soundly and irrevocably voted down.

America is at least a country in which the people have a voice - and the government is transparent enough to let them use it, even if that means the 'people' don't always end up making the 'right' decision.

New Jersey Governor's Election: Corzine or Christie?

Tomorrow's the big day - when New Jersey residents pick between incumbent governor, Democrat Jon Corzine, or outspoken opponent, former US Attorney Chris Christie.

I've already written about Republican Chris Christie - and how his shameful record of corruption makes him a horrible choice for Governor. Fortunately, I'm not the only person to realize this - and recent opinion polls have shown that Christie's dropped from the clear favorite to running neck-and-neck with Jon Corzine.

(Unfortunately, independent Chris Daggett doesn't look like he has much of a shot.)

Christie's reversal of fortunes can largely be blamed on the incompetence of his own campaign. Bickering with Corzine over negative campaign ads is childish enough - but even more so when Christie's major whine was that Corzine's commercials 'emphasised his fatness.'

Christie also scored an own-goal when fellow Republican Joe Wilson arrived to press-the-flesh and support Christie's campaign. Wilson is best known as the man who yelled 'You lie!' at President Obama during a joint session of the houses - a churlish, irascible bully whose behavior doesn't win him much favor in 'civilised' New Jersey.

And just when you thought Christie's campaign couldn't get any more farcical, it does. Rather like a sketch from their popular 70s TV show, Christie's now being sued by none than Monty Python themselves - for copyright infringement.

A Christie campaign ad used cuts from Monty Python sketches to ridicule Jon Corzine - but permission to use the footage was never asked for, and certainly never paid for. It was shameless misappropriation of somebody else's intellectual property and the ad was swiftly pulled from Christie's website - but the damage had already been done.

Terry Jones, former Monty Python star, told the Huffington Post:

"It is totally outrageous that a former US Attorney knows so little about the law that he thinks he can rip off people. On the other hand -- another of Bush's legal appointees was Alberto Gonzales and he didn't seem to know much about the law either..."

Chris Christie is a joke. I'd even rather take insidious weasel Jon Corzine over this loud-mouthed, blustering clown - and hopefully the majority of voters will decisively agree with me when they head to the polling stations tomorrow.

Vote 'Chris Daggett' for New Jersey Governor!