NaNoWriMo 2008

Holy Page Turner!

This time last year, I was struggling to even come up with an idea for my NaNoWriMo novel - which I had to pen 50,000 words of in just 30 days.

In the end, I flunked out, starting several books, but even combined, writing less than 25,000 words.

Amazingly, even though I'd said I wasn't going to even participate this year, I've managed to go ahead and bust 25,000 words out - over half the challenge - in just seven days. On a book I hadn't even dreamed up until the morning the challenge started.

It's not a book I'd EVER let friends or family read, since it's of an.. ahem... 'erotic' nature. But it's a lot of fun. I was inspired by those old Fighting Fantasy and Choose Your Own Adventure books, so in The Reluctant Nymphomaniac, you take control over the action and guide our heroine through some very steamy misadventures.

Writing a Choose Your Own Adventure takes planning and plotting - but I'm doing okay so far. Maybe I'll even win this year - despite my best efforts!

Obama wins...

Last night, America made the choice between marching towards change and progress, or clinging to the status-quo.

Fortunately, my adopted nation did not disappoint. The overwhelming support for Barack Obama reminded me why I love the United States and, deep down, what great-hearted, aspirational and wonderful people Americans are.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain were, in their own ways, outstanding candidates. From a personal basis, I came into 'election fever' fully behind McCain, who I thought represented determination, bravery, independence and a rare willingness to embrace ideas from both the right and left wings of American politics. But, I realise now, the 2008 wasn't between two men.

It was a choice between two paths. The one America has blithely trod for the last eight years, which has led us to:

A costly, bloody war we entered into without reasonable justification; the erosion, or outright elimination, of the values, freedoms and liberties the United States was founded on; stagnation politically, socially, economically and scientifically and the polarization of America between 'red' and 'blue' states, each showing outright contempt of each other.

Or the other path, which offered:

Nothing. Nothing concrete, anyway. Just the promise of change, the audacity to hope that things would be different. A step towards humanism, rationality and tolerance. A deliberate decision to discard conservative ideology and dogma, which is ultimately just as destructive as the socialist rhetoric the right-wing fear so much.

Keeping a close eye on this race over the last few months, I learned so much about America. As John McCain embraced the core conservatives who won victory for George Bush in 2000 and 2004, I realised that this election was probably going to be the most historic election in my lifetime - and an acid test of whether or not the United States truly lived up to the vision I'd seen through what my fellow expats called my 'rose tinted spectacles.'

But, you know what?

America didn't fail this test.

Everything I'd come to fear - the accusations of racism, of stubborn conservatism, of fear-mongering and hatred and outright lies - came to nothing.

The vast majority of Americans saw that the choice came down to staying where they were, or moving forward. So they tightened their bootlaces and took that first step.

Last night, on Fox News, I watched the map of the United States sweep with blue. I felt the palpable excitement building as people realised - yes, this was really happening.

And, this morning, it feels like waking up to a spring morning after a long, cold winter.

Everybody I've met has seemed upbeat, hopeful, positive and proud today.

Proud of themselves and proud of their country. Excited about what lay ahead, because wherever this new, uncharted course took America, it meant we were leaving what went wrong behind us.

Hope is a very powerful force. In many ways, Barack Obama's election means little. It'll be seventy days until he's sworn in - and many months more before we begin to see the changes he's promised.

But like a battle-field rally, this election result has breathed new life into the American dream. This morning, it's as if everybody who supported Barack Obama realised that: "If, together, we can achieve this... What can't we achieve?"

Maybe it'll be another Camelot. Maybe it'll be a disaster. Whatever happens, however, the next page of American history has been left tantalisingly blank. It's up to us to fill us in.

And for me, today marks a special event. As I say with Mini-Militant bouncing on my knee, watching the morning news, I realised that this was another of those 'you'll always remember where you were when it happened' events.

Except unlike the shooting of JFK, or the death of Diana, or the falling of the Twin Towers - this is a historic day we'll remember for all the right reasons.

Thank you, America, for holding firm when I was in doubt. I'm enormously excited to be part of whatever happens next.

Nanowrimo 2008

Well, it's that time again - the time when insane aspiring writers conspire to churn out 50,000 words in just 30 days. For my sins, I've got caught up in the adventure again this year - despite failing dismally last time.

But why listen to me tell you about Nanowrimo. Let's hear it from another aspiring writer - my friend, fellow blogger and legendary (at least to me) radio presenter Laura Parish:

Laura! For the uninitiated, what is Nanowrimo all about?

Nanowrimo runs from 1st November - 30th November. The challenge is to write 50,000 words in 30 days.

It can be any genre and any subject you like, provided it's not pre-prepared prose, so a completely new idea and no, it can't be the same word 50,000 times over. Planning is allowed though, thank goodness.

What I love about it, is that it encourages you to just write and not focus so much on the quality, but just on the enjoyment of writing.

What have you got planned for Nanowrimo 2008? Romance? Adventure? Science fiction?

My plan at the moment is Romance, but the exciting thing is that it could turn into something completely different.

What do you think the secret of ‘winning’ NaNoWriMo will be?

The secret is to try to write a little bit every day. If you divide the words over the month then it works out at about 1,667 words per day, which doesn't seem so daunting. My vice will be to waste time reading what I have written. If I can stop myself from doing that, I am half way there.

What might be a reason you’d fail?

Trying to over think the writing instead of just going for it. Life also has a habit of getting in the way but if I find I don't finish then its not the end of the world. I've done what many people only talk about doing. I've started.

When you’re on good form, how do you make sure you get your 1,667 words per day?

I just write. If I go over 1,667 words then I see it as a bonus. I just write when I can.

What ‘aids’ do you use (i.e. coffee, chocolate, drip-feed caffeine?)

Tea on a constant flow seems to work for me and chocolate is always a winner!

I also tend to have a film I have seem a million times or music I know really well on in the background as I prefer noise to silence, but I know other writers prefer peace and quiet.

Sometimes a change of scene helps me. If I can't concentrate at home (the internet is very distracting), then I go out, a cafe, the park. This helps shift my focus back. I know it's a cliche but it seems to do the trick.

Do you do any ‘pre-game’ planning, like plot charts or anything like that?

Last year I didn't plan, I just had an idea of the story in my head.

This year I have written bullet points regarding the plot and a character list to see if this method will benefit. I think it depends on what kind of writer you are. The thought of planning scares me a little as I never quite know how much to do, but I think you've just got to find what works for you.

Husband: Help or Hindrance?

When I want a distraction he's brilliant. When I need to focus and he wants to do other things, he's a pain. Most of the time though he is great.

What the hell is a ‘plot bunny?’

Google is a wonderful thing. However, there were a few definitions so who knows!

One definition told me that its a 'tempting idea that hares off into strange territory upon pursuit. Another told me that it was an idea for a story, usually referring to an author having more ideas than he/she can use.

Or it could be an idea that gnaws away at you until it's written or could simply refer to an idea for a story.

Take your pick.

Once Nanowrimo’s finished, what are you going to do with your masterpiece?

First I am going to get very excited about the fact that I've finished and then maybe gain some time on it, then maybe re-draft.

A final message from Laura?

Good Luck everyone! Here's to 50,000 words. :)

Biden on Barack

"I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

So said Joe Biden of Barack Obama a few months ago. That was before Barack Obama selected him as Vice Presidential candidate for the upcoming election.

The choice of Joe Biden is an interesting one. Politically, Biden and Obama have a lot of common ground - but at the risk of mixing metaphors, there's also been a lot of water under that bridge of 'common ground.'

The problem is that Joe Biden himself stood for election - so he ruthlessly attacked Obama during that campaign. It's now very difficult for him to stand and deliver convincing support when his past words can be dredged up and used against him.

I mean, why does Joe Biden think Obama won the Democratic candidacy in the first place?

“...you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

The wail of anguish you just heard was every racially sensitive person in America. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both one-time African-American cabinet members and pretty much the definition of 'mainstream,' probably resent the implication that they're inarticulate, dumb, dirty and ugly.

But even if Biden is resentful of Obama's victory and insensitive about his race, at least the Senator for Delaware is in support of his policies and plans. Or is he?

"I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."

Well, perhaps Joe Biden at least will be unified with Obama in teaming up against their rival, Republican senator John McCain.

“John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with... ...John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

YIKES.

Yes, Joe Biden is a risky selection for Vice President. Although history has shown that the VP nomination generally doesn't influence the voter's final decision, it's certainly not going to reinforce Obama's campaign like he'd perhaps hoped. McCain will be using his inopportune quotes with glee abandon.

[Oh... Another gripe with Biden? Back in the 1988 presidential election, when he stood for nomination for the first time, he tried to rally his core supporters in the coal-mining heartland of Pennsylvania with a rousing speech. A speech he'd plagiarized from no less than Welsh-windbag Neil Kinnock. - Editorial Bear.]

Patriotism by the Dashboard Light

Given that both presidential candidates are fairly exceptional and admirable individuals, it's only natural that their detractors have to clutch at straws when it comes to finding 'dirt' to fling at them.

Obama

The perennial issue with Barack Obama is his 'patriotism.' The right wing have attacked him for not wearing a U.S. flag pin on his lapel.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said in response. "Shortly after 9/11...that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

I absolutely understand Obama's position. True patriotism doesn't come from wearing a pin, or having a 'God Bless the USA' badge on the tailgate of your pick up truck. Those are merely things and I think it's rather sad that certain people feel they can attack another's 'patriotism' merely because they don't chose to wave the same things that they do.

It's a stupid and inane attack. Now Obama's elected to sport a lapel pin, what's next? Are the right wing going to stick two pins to their lapel and attack anybody who only has one as being 'half as patriotic?'

There are many opinions and actions that make somebody patriotic - but conforming to the dumb mentality of the masses is not one of them. The lapel pin argument is based on St Patrick's day logic. In reality, wearing a green hat doesn't make you Irish.

McCain

In a similarly inane attack, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, yesterday attacked McCain's military service record as proof that the senator is 'untested and untried' when it comes to national security.

"He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or his own congressional staff."

As far as lame attacks go, this one is utterly limp.

McCain might not have been a 'great general' like Presidents Eisenhower or Grant. However, he had a distinguished military career, served with great honor and proved himself to be a hero several times over.

Compare that to Barack Obama, who has had no military service whatsoever. Compare it even to George W. Bush, who ducked out of service in Vietnam thanks to his family connections and went AWOL from the 'champagne squadron' he was assigned to.

McCain has a credible record of active military service - but more than that, he has a credible record of making tough decisions and supreme sacrifices.

In 1967, when the aircraft carrier McCain was assigned to was engulfed in flames, the 30 year old Lieutenant Commander suffered serious injuries trying to save the life of a fellow pilot.

In 1968, after spending nearly a year in the hellish 'Hanoi Hilton' as a prisoner of war, the horribly injured McCain was ruthlessly tortured when he refused to accept the offer of repatriation to America and instead stayed with his fellow prisoners.

That decision cost him five years of his life in a brutal prison, suffering torture that has left him with life-long disability. What John McCain endured is beyond the comprehension of most people. I read about what happened to him and know that I could never have survived what he did.

But John McCain didn't just survive it. For the sake of honor and comradeship, he remained a prisoner when he could have had the opportunity to leave.

I don't believe anybody - especially not a fellow Vietnam veteran like Wesley Clark - has the right to attack McCain's qualifications to be president based on his military service. If anything, John McCain's experiences have proven him to be a brutally tough, disciplined, principled man who has experienced the ugly reality of war in a way no other presidential candidate in forty years has.

Whatever weaknesses McCain's campaign has, lack of experience is not one of them. As he himself admits: "I'm older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."

Some Thoughts about Universal Health Care

When it comes to the ongoing debate about American health care, I'm definitely in the privatised, American camp. I've seen the British version of 'universal health care' and it's not pretty.

So far, Tina and my experiences with the American health care system have been much more positive than what we experienced in England - even if they cost more.

Our experiences

Tina's expecting a baby - so that means plenty of visits to Robert Woods Johnson Hospital for scans, checkups and advice. After the contributions of my job's health insurance package, we've been left with about $1,000 to pay out of our own pockets.

In England, the NHS would not have charged us any money. However, the treatment we've received in America has been in a beautiful, clean, well-appointed new hospital with very modern equipment. We weren't left waiting for very long and the doctors and nurses have held our hand through the entire process.

At the Royal Hampshire Infirmary, in Winchester, we had a couple of terrible experiences, being expected to wait about four hours for treatment in a dirty hospital, with old equipment and a doctor who once gave Tina a potentially life-threatening misdiagnosis (delivered in a rude and offhand manner.)

Even worse, two new mothers from Winchester recently died from the same form of streptococcal infection they'd coincidentally picked up while in the maternity ward of the Royal Hampshire Infirmary.

Clearly, private health insurance offers us (Tina and myself) a much higher standard of health care that we could receive back home

The Downside of Private Health Care

That being said, Tina and I are in the enviable situation of having a good health care package and living close to an excellent hospital.

The reason health care is such an important issue in the upcoming presidential election is because almost 50 million Americans - close to 20% of the entire US population - have no health care coverage at all.

This is because private health care is rocketing in price - and many companies, like Wal-Mart, don't offer an adequate health care package even to full time employees.

Now, even if you're a stuffy old Tory, like me, you can't help but admit that this is wrong. Adequate health care is a basic human right. That shouldn't be a political issue for either the Democrats or Republicans. It's only the best means to accomplish this goal which should be up for discussion. In theory...

In theory.

Because currently, the debate's taken a rather surreal twist and more and more conservative Republicans are railing against any notion of 'universal health care' as proposed by Barack Obama, Senator Clinton or even their own candidate, John McCain.

In fact, in his daily radio show, conservative pundit Mark Levin often claims that Obama and Clinton are pitching a 'socialised' medical system along the same lines as Britain's National Health Service - and he enjoys using the dismal state of the NHS as an example of why it would never work.

But the problem with the conservative argument (as is increasingly common with any conservative argument is that it's utter rubbish.

American 'socialism.'

Pundits love to label the likes of Hillary Clinton as a 'socialist' or 'Marxist' when they have no real concept of the term. For a Brit - at least one who's lived long enough to remember the socialist Labor party (before Tony Blair came along) - the idea of calling Obama or Clinton a socialist is completely laughable.

Neither Democratic candidate wants to introduce a nationalised health service along the lines of the NHS. Instead, the 'universal health care' they're suggesting would simply mean that everybody in America (hence 'universal') would have access to affordable medical care (hence 'health care.')

For those in poverty, that could be some kind of system like Medicare or Medicaid. For low income families, it could be some form of subsidized or Federal health insurance.

Additionally, Obama, Clinton and McCain want the consumer cost of private medical insurance to be reduced by opening up competition - meaning consumers wouldn't be limited to the health insurance package their employer offers - and could seek more competitive quotes out-of-state.

Also, big companies like Wal-Mart would be forced to do what they should have done from the very beginning - offer their full-time employees adequate health care.

Whatever happens, the intended result of universal health care would be a system in which everybody in America has access to medical treatment. And apparently the conservative Republicans loath this idea!

Why?

The major argument conservatives have against any form of universal health care is that it would be tax-payer funded. They're worried that their hard-earned income would be taxed in order to pay for the health care of low income families (read: other people. Conservatives don't like giving money for the benefit of other people.)

There is a simple and indisputable reason why this argument is idiotic. America already has a system of 'universal health care' that's funded by the tax-payer (and subsidized by the health insurance consumer.)

Federal law forbids hospitals from turning away patients. If a visitor to a hospital doesn't have health insurance - or the means to pay their bills - it's the government or hospital that eventually has to pay up for that patient's treatment.

Which means the tax payer already pays $15 billion a year towards the health care of people without insurance. What's worse, hospitals and doctors cover the expense of 'writing off' uninsured patients by charging paying customers more - which in turn dramatically hikes up health insurance premiums.

So whether it's through tax-dollars or an increase in health insurance premiums, at the end of the day, the bad-tempered conservatives are already paying for other people's health care.

It seems stubborn and idiotic for them not to open their minds to a more efficient (i.e. cheaper) way of doing what they're already doing now.

The Simple Maths

Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years - and one of the major reasons is because hospitals and doctors have needed to recoup their losses from treating uninsured patients.

Since about 20% of Americans have no health insurance - plus the millions of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers - the current situation works something like this:

Four people go to the hospital and have treatment that costs $300.

One of those four people has no health insurance. So to cover their costs, the hospital is forced to split that loss amongst the other three paying customers.

$300 ÷ 3 = $100 each added to their bill.

That bill ends up being $400 instead of $300. Basically, they're paying 25% more.

And it's a spiralling problem. As health insurance premiums increase, more and more people can't afford insurance, which means doctors and hospitals have to increase their costs to cover them.

That, in turn, increases insurance premiums again, which again means that more people 'drop out' of health insurance programs...

And do you see where I'm going with this?

Something needs to be done.

This situation needs to be addressed - and conservatives can't stick their head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Currently, all three of the presidential candidates have interesting and promising solutions to the health care crisis.

Senator John McCain

John McCain's solution is within Republican party lines.

While he rejects any form of government funded or subsidized universal health care, he wants to offer a $5,000 tax rebate for families with private medical insurance (helping considerably towards the cost.)

In addition, he wants to reduce health insurance premiums by opening up competition between states. Currently, health insurance providers can operate in one state alone - meaning there are a limited number of suppliers in each state.

McCain's idea is to allow consumers to select insurance from companies based all across the United States, forcing suppliers to offer more affordable premiums.

In addition, Senator McCain wants to allow consumers to opt-out of their company's health-insurance package and take their employer's contribution elsewhere - again forcing health insurance companies to offer more competitive rates, rather than 'signing up' big businesses and forcing a big, fat premium out of every employee.

"In health care," John McCain explains, "I believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care."

Basically: We help those with the means to help themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Even though her opponents (like talk show host Mark Levin) accuse Hillary of being a socialist, the universal health care package she champions is very different from the National Health Service in England.

In fact, she spent [wasted - Editorial Bear] millions of dollars while her husband was in the White House investigating - and ultimately ruling out - a single-payer health care system like we have in Britain or Canada.

Clinton advocates government subsidies for low-income families, meaning that they will be able to afford health insurance.

She also wants to set up a federal health care system, which Americans can 'buy into' instead of their employer's health insurance package. This will force private health insurance companies to make their premiums more competitive and offer health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions - people who would normally be refused private health insurance.

Because of the subsidies and the setting up of a federal health care system, Hillary Clinton's solution to America's health care crisis is the most expensive. However, with costs of $110 billion per year (in contrast, the war in Iraq costs $144 billion per year) this can be paid for by eliminating the controversial 'Bush tax cuts.')

However, it's the thought of killing this tax break which makes Hillary's plan so unpopular with the conservatives.

Clinton's election promise: "One of the goals that I will be presenting is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American."

Senator Barack Obama

Obama similarly believes in real 'universal health care' and on the face of it, many of his ideas are similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Most importantly, the idea that every American should have access to affordable health insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Critics of Obama have pointed out his lack of specific details when it comes to a proposed universal health care package - but it will still be rooted within the existing system of private health insurance providers (with some government intervention.)

Obama's plan will ultimately hope to reduce health care costs for all Americans, while providing low-income families or those with pre-existing conditions access to the medical care they are currently excluded from.

It's been a long time coming...

Whichever candidate ends up the White House, I'm confident that they will introduce improvements to the existing health care system and allow more people to have access to better care at a cheaper price.

One thing to note is that none of the candidates - not even Hillary Clinton - plans to eliminate the concept of private health insurance. They just want to regulate and streamline it.

Hopefully this means that the advantages of private medical insurance - driving the development of cutting-edge new technology and pharmaceuticals - will remain, while the disadvantages (the high insurance premiums and difficulty getting medical coverage for pre-existing conditions) will be addressed.

Having experienced both socialised and privatised heath care, I am convinced that the private system offers the consumer a better service. However, just like in any privatised industry, the demand to make money often threatens to overwhelm the mandate to provide a service.

I just hope that whichever presidential candidate makes it to the White House, they ensure that the patient always comes before the shareholder.

McCain wins New Hampshire

The Republicans of New Hampshire have spoken - and they've backed McCain as the man to lead their party to the White House.

Nearly ten points clear of rival Mitt Romney, McCain won the state through the support of independent voters - who were attracted by his moderate policies and strength of character.

For America, this is fantastic news. McCain stands a real chance of getting the Republican nomination and if it's a battle between him and Barack Obama, America is in the blissful situation of being able to 'cherry pick' their 44th President from two excellent candidates.

Why I Back McCain

A few weeks ago, I really came to admire Arizona Senator John McCain.

It was at one of the Republican debates and McCain was in discussion with the 'usual suspects.' Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and, of course, good old Fred Thompson.

Since Republican debates normally sink into discussion of homosexuality, abortion or 'national security,' it was no surprise that the candidates started ranting about how they were going to 'keep America safe' and what they were willing to do in order to achieve that.

And interrogation came up.

Specifically, what President Bush and the CIA euphemistically call 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' In other words, water boarding and other questioning techniques that are tantamount to torture.

Man for man, each of the Republican candidates stood firmly behind these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and declared how important they were in keeping America safe.

“If I didn't use intensive questioning," Rudy Giuliani boasted, "there would be a lot of Mafia guys running around New York right now, and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is.”

There was a lot of posturing, a lot of machismo and the scent of testosterone was heavy in the air. Until, that is, the question was handed to the white-haired senator from Arizona.

He flat out refused to consider 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' There was no beating around the bush. No political fluffery. Just a straight up, honest no.

"The United States is not like the terrorists," McCain explained. "What we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are."

For the right-wing conservatives sitting at home, the senator might have seemed to have wimped out - but as I saw it, he'd made every single Republican candidate in that debate look like a loud, bawling baby.

John McCain won my (Republican) support during that debate.

McCain in the Know

What did Senator McCain bring to that debate that none of the other candidates had? And what gave his condemnation of torture such impressive weight?

The fact that John McCain was the only one of those politicians who'd ever had first-hand experience of what they were boasting about. In August 1968, as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, McCain had been brutally tortured over the course of four long days.

Torture Garden

In July of 1968, McCain had already been a prisoner of the Viet Cong for almost a year. He was a skinny, sickly shadow of the dashing pilot who'd been behind the joystick of an A-4 Skyhawk when it was shot down during an attack on Hanoi's thermal power plant.

But he was strong willed and determined, despite long months in solitary confinement.

In fact, McCain was only selected for 'special treatment' by his captors when his father, Admiral Jack McCain Jnr, was made Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Command.

As a good-will gesture, the Viet Cong offered to return the commander's son to American soil - but the young John McCain refused to go until every single one of the Viet Cong's prisoners captured before him were released as well.

"First in," McCain explained, repeating the Code of Conduct of the US Fighting Forces, "last out."

Angry at the defiant young airman, the Viet Cong began what would John McCain's introduction into the effects of torture.

He was tightly bound with rope - squeezing his limbs and joints into unnatural positions for days at a time. Twice hourly, guards would come into his cell and beat him with their fists and lengths of bamboo. His bones were deliberately broken. His teeth were beaten and cracked from his jaw.

John McCain always recounts that the Vietnamese were successful in breaking his spirit - but even when McCain was brutally coerced to give the names of his squadron members, he cynically gave the Viet Cong the names of the Green Bay Packer's offensive line instead.

In all, John McCain spent nearly six years as a Prisoner of War and during those years, he probably learned more about the 'art' of torture than any man should in several lifetimes.

So forty years later, it was probably with a great deal of disgust that he witnessed American politicians - possibly amongst them the man who would become the 44th President of the United States, discussing and advocating the disgusting techniques he'd so brutally experienced at the hands of the Viet Cong.

There are many other reasons why John McCain stands head and shoulders above any of the other Republican nominees - but it was his determination and strength-of-character in that debate than won him over for me.

Obama goes for Broke

The right-wing conservatives have a nick-name for Hillary Clinton - Shrillary.

As it turns out, that derisive term has hit pretty close to the mark.

In recent days, Clinton has launched into a high-pitched attack against her Democratic rival Barack Obama, who shot past her in the Iowa primaries to take the lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"Elect a doer, not a talker," she declared. ""You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."

[What does that even mean? Editorial Bear]

Democrats in New Hampshire have met Hillary's criticism with the opposite of her intended reaction. Just one day before the all-important New Hampshire primary, Obama's a wicked 10 points ahead of her in the opinion polls.

At this rate, the Democratic nomination will be wrapped up in no time and the 44th President of the United States might just be the nation's first African-American one.

What's been Hillary's mistake? It's pretty much the same as Rudy Giuliani's.

In September of last year, New York's former mayor was a clear front runner for the Republican nomination, with a 76% approval rating from New York's Republicans. However a 'dirty' campaign attacking his rivals has lost him a lot of the support he'd garnered.

Having his pal Kerik hauled up on 16 counts of tax fraud didn't help.

From his position as front-runner, Rudy found himself standing sixth out of the seven candidates in the Iowa caucus.

What was his mistake? The one Hillary is so gleefully repeating.

Running such a negative campaign.

The fact is, bad-mouthing your rivals and attacking their credibility is a wonderfully therapeutic strategy, but an ultimately unrewarding one. At the end of the day, teacher always said to keep your mouth closed if you can't think of anything nice to say - and that philosophy is just as valid in a presidential election as a classroom.

Barack Obama's greatest strength in the upcoming election may be his positive focus. He talks about his plans and ambitions if he makes it to the White House. In contrast, Hillary attacks his lack of 'experience' in office.

Sure, she had eight years 'experience' in the White House - but only as First Lady. That doesn't mean she's got greater experience in running the country. It just means she knows where the linens are in the Lincoln bedroom.

Unless Hillary can shift her campaign towards telling people what she will do - rather than what her rivals won't - she'll soon find the widening gap between her and Barack Obama stretching so far, even a former President as First Husband won't help her bridge it.

Mitt Romney

In order to make it's caucuses politically significant, Wyoming recently moved them from February to January - and received universal condemnation from the Republicans and Democrats as a result.

In addition, their largely ignored contribution to the presidential nomination process went almost completely ignored as a result.

But if you scan the bylines of your national newspaper, you'll find that the people of Wyoming have spoken too - and stood firmly behind former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney as Republican candidate for the presidential election.

Now after my condemnation of ridiculous evangelical Mike Huckabee, you might think I'd be equally scathing about Mormon Romney. After all, he is a Mormon - and Mormonism is one of the most absurd and ridiculous religious cults of recent history.

I feel awfully guilty about writing that, because I have a friend who is a Mormon - and she's one of the most lovely, intelligent and talented people I know... If she's representative of the Mormon community as a whole, maybe we should pack our bags and move to Utah.

But we won't and we shan't.

Because while people condemn Mitt Romney for being a Mormon, you can't really blame him. Mormonism is in his blood. It was Romney's great, great Parley P. Pratt (appropriate name, as it happens) who helped found the Church of the Latter Day Saints way back in 1830. His family has been Mormon for five generations and after that long, paying lip service to to citizens of Zion makes about as much sense as kissing the Pope's pinky ring.

Here's what his opponents don't want you to know - his Mormonism isn't really a big deal.

Oh, sure, he doesn't smoke or drink - but nor does President Bush. When it comes to the big picture, though, Mitt Romney neatly avoids the normal Mormon stereotypes by not having multiple wives (actually, that was officially banned in 1890) and if he goes round knocking from door to door, it's to demand your vote rather than pass round copies of The Watchtower. [That's Jehovah's Witnesses - Editorial Bear]

He actually seems like a pretty evolved guy - much more so than creationist Mike Huckabee - who's convinced the world is only 7,000 years old and dinosaurs were just really big chickens.

That being said - do we really want Mitt Romney as our next president?

Well, I'll give the man his due. He's a fearsomely effective businessman. He managed to reverse the fortunes of sinking Bains & Company back in 1990 in less than a year - without any layoffs or partner defections. He was CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and turned a $379 million shortfall into a $100 million profit. A true fiscal conservative, as Governor of Massachusetts, he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus. Compare that to former governor Mike Huckabee's record in Arkansas and you can see that Mitt Romney knows how to stretch a dollar better than our evangelical friend.

He's even fairly broad minded, as far as social issues go. No friend of the common or garden gay person, he at least admits he'd back Civil Unions if the only alternative was legalised Gay Marriage. He has sensible ideas about tackling illegal immigration (when the Mormon guy starts telling you that 'the big fence' idea is dumb, it's really time to listen) and he is opposed to the use of torture in questioning terrorism suspects.

He does support the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' but not the use of torture. Just to make that clear.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet.

So all in all, he does seem to be a much better bet than Mike Huckabee.

For a start, he's likely to credit the republicans of Wyoming for his nomination, rather than Huckabee's quaint manoeuvre of thanking Jesus (who is not registered to vote.)

Plus the guy can balance a chequebook and that's a trait the Republican party has been sorely missing for the last thirty years.

But there is one ominous facet to Mitt Romney that should warn us all off backing him in the race to the White House.

He hates eggplant.

Call it eggplant, aubergine or brinjal (that's what they call it in India) this delicious potato/tomato perennial is a regular in my kitchen and if Mitt Romney doesn't like it - something ain't right.

I mean, we all know it's 'cool' to have presidentially vetoed vegetables (Bush senior hated broccoli) but eggplant is a queer choice. Yet as Mitt shamelessly admitted, he dislikes “eggplant, in any shape or form.”

Is that the kind of man we really want running this great nation?

And my final reason for doubting the follower of the late nutcase Joseph Smith Jnr is Mitt Romney's rather frightening facial similiarity to legendary horror movie actor Bruce Campbell.

Do we really want to have a man in the White House who could, at any time, be replaced with a chainsaw-weilding time traveller brandishing his 'boomstick?'

I think not...

Mitt Romney, eggplant hater and potential 44th President of the United States versus Bruce Campbell, star of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness. Or is it the other way around?

A Grim Day for Politics

The Iowa caucuses are the first post in the marathon run to presidential nomination - which makes them incredibly important.

In both 1996 and 2000, the results of the Iowa caucuses accurately predicted which Republican candidates would run for election that year. If that accuracy is repeated, it puts former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on the bill to stand for election as the 44th President of the United States of America.

Which is a disaster.

I don't heart Huckabee

My major reason for disliking Mike Huckabee as a presidential candidate is his slavish devotion to Christian evangelicalism. Now there is nothing wrong with being devout - but from the birth of the American nation to the present day, there has always been (in theory) a policy dividing church and state. Mike Huckabee doesn't want any part of that policy.

"Let's take this nation back for Christ." So said Mike Huckabee in 1998 - and on December 31st 2007, he stood by that comment on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'

Here is a man who believes that the bible is the literal 'word of God,' defiantly supports Creationism (and believes it should be taught in schools) and proudly declared that "homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle."

How on earth did this man win the support of the Iowa GOP?

"There's only one explanation for it," he proudly declared, "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

Divine intervention, apparently.

Blatant Hypocrisy

Although Huckabee claims to believe that the bible is the literal word of God (including that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' bit) he's still a grudging supporter of the death penalty.

Despite being a Republican (supposedly the party of 'small government' and fiscal responsibility) his tenure as Governor of Arkansas saw a 65% increase in spending and an explosion in the state's debt to a whopping $1 billion.

His 'dedication' to democracy is clear - in 1999 he attached a 4% tax increase on diesel fuel in the state of Arkansas without voter approval, in direct violation of his oath of office.

And his attitude towards government? In 1998, Huckabee proudly declared: "Government doesn't have the real answers. The real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives."

Jesus is not on the Electoral Roll

There is nothing wrong with being religious. The tenants of Christianity offer excellent moral guidance in how to live our day-to-day lives and interact with other human beings with kindness and tolerance (well, as long as they're not homosexual, apparently.)

However, a heavily edited, oft-translated, trimmed, tweaked and tailored manuscript written two thousand years ago DOES NOT offer an effective basis for running the most powerful nation on Earth.

America requires leadership dedicated to humanity, rationality and logic - and Mike Huckabee can offer the United States none of those things.

If Mike Huckabee wins the 'ticket' to run for the presidency, even the most devout Christian would be best off praying for a Democrat to win the election.

New Year's Lull

Well, it's 2008.

2007 has gone the way of the dodo - and it's funny, looking back at my blog entry on January 3rd 2007 to see where I was then and where I am now.

Back then, I was blogging about Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse, some fraud called Donny Tourette being in the Big Brother house and I had an interview with the incredibly gorgeous radio presenter Claire Anderson.

Well, the biggest change is that I'm now LIVING IN AMERICA. Which was my dream for so many years, it's kind of unbelievable that it actually came true.

In fact, I'm on the brink of all sorts of life-changing events that I won't go into here - but certainly make me feel pretty shallow for worrying about television dribble like Big Brother this time last year.

So 2008. What will it bring? Stay tuned to find out.

Howard Dean and Al Gore

Just tonight, I watched two interviews with former Presidential candidates.

First was Al Gore - who is an utterly charming, clever, sharp and highly capable man. I mean, he's won an Oscar and (part of) a Nobel Prize. Given that the man who beat him in the 2000 election can't even pronounce the word 'nuclear' it's kind of a sharp indictment of American society that he's not in the White House right now.



Second was Howard Dean, former presidential candidate (he lost the Democratic nomination to John Kerry) who now runs the Democratic National Committee. He again struck me as a clever, considered man who delivered sharp, quick responses to difficult questions.

Given that the Democratic nominees seem to be tied up in infighting and bitchiness - plus the fact that both front runners (Hillary and Obama) are up against discrimination regarding their sex and race, it's a real shame that neither of these two apparently capable men are throwing their hats into the ring.

I don't doubt either front-running Democratic candidate's abilities. I'm just not sure America is as ready for them as the world is.

Fred Thomspon on Immigration

My presidential hopes are pinned on Stephen Colbert at the moment - who is running in the South Carolina primaries as both a Democrat AND Republican.

But on the off chance Comedy Central's finest can't pull a win out of the hat, my general feelings are still pointing in the direction of the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani is an excellent 'moderate' choice, seeing as he's supportive of gay rights and other issues which the evangelicals get their knickers in a twist about, but make very little actual difference in the grand scheme of things.

If two gay men want to get married, how does that negatively impact my life? It doesn't - not one jot - and it makes two gay men happy at the same time. Win / Win. Further evidence that religion and politics need to be ruthlessly separated.

But Rudy has always been soft on immigration. As mayor of New york City, he fought hard for the rights of illegal immigrants and won them schooling for their kids (fair enough) and the right to avoid questions regarding their immigration status from city employees (not really right.)

Since he threw his hat into the ring, Rudy has flip-flopped about immigration. He's done an about-turn and come more in-line with the Republican party's official policy. That doesn't mean he buys it, however.

Fred Thompson, on the other hand, seems to know exactly where he stands on illegal immigration and he won't let the Republicans or Democrats tell him any different. Today he released his 'presidential' policies regarding the thorny topic and they make for compelling reading. Read them here.

My highlights include: "Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States." Hooray! My one major gripe with illegal immigrants. Why should they be patted on the back for skipping over the border while I obey the rules and get stiffed out of three years of my life and thousands of dollars in 'fees.'

"Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home." If illegal immigrants were unable to work, companies would have to rely on American labour - and pay them appropriately. The minimum wage in some states is barely $5 a hour. If a company is too cheap to pay an American citizen even that pifling sum, they have no rights employing anybody in the first place.

"Reduce the backlogs and streamline the process for immigrants and employers who seek to follow the law. Also, simplify and expedite the application processes for temporary visas." I waited nearly four years for the right to enter the United States because the immigration process was so backlogged and inefficient. If the systems were in place to give immigration hopefuls a 'yay' or 'nay' within a few weeks - instead of years - maybe there would be fewer incentives for illegal immigration to take place.

"Caps for any category of temporary work visa would be increased as appropriate, if it could be demonstrated that there are no Americans capable and willing to do the jobs." If people are talented, dedicated and hard working - and can really contribute something to the American economy - give them a shot at working there. If the opportunities are available, people will choose legal immigration over illegal - and aliens would enter American based on their skills and knowledge, rather than their ability to scale fences.

"Make English the official language of the U.S. to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status." Are you reading this, Bank of America? Quit sending me stuff in Spanish just because you saw the 'non-American citizen' box was ticked on my application.

These are all sensible, reasonable and - most importantly of all - effective policy suggestions that could positively transform the dismal state of American immigration as it currently stands.

Fred Thompson? You have scored some brownie points today.

Presidential Foresight

Today I watched an episode of Law and Order filmed in 2000. In this episode, the District Attorney Arthur Branch (played by 2008 Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson) is replaced by Nora Lewin.

And who introduces the new District Attorney? None other than 2008 Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani, in a brief cameo.

One potential president backs out. Another appears alongside his replacement. The episode is called 'Endurance.'

I wonder if life will imitate art. With Fred Thompson announcing his intent to run for the White House, the two Law and Order stars are going to cross paths sooner or later.