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?

Spidey Senses are Tingling

There was only one scene in the new Spider-Man film that slightly disrupted my suspension of disbelief.

Harry Osborn, horribly disfigured after another unsuccesful attack on his nemesis, Spider-Man, ponders his options. Peter Parker has just swung onto his balcony and begged for help rescuing their mutual friend Mary Jane.

Peter is Harry's best friend. But he's also Spider-Man, who killed Harry's father, the Green Goblin. His best friend. His worst enemy. They're both the same person! What is a chemically enhanced supervillain to do?

This is when his butler appears and reveals that Spider-Man wasn't actually responsible for Oborn Snr's death. The Green Goblin killed himself accidently. He's known it all along.

In the film, Harry hugs his butler and skims off on his flying snowboard to save the day. In my version of the script, however, Harry would have yelled:

"What? You KNEW ALL ALONG that Spider-Man didn't kill my dad? And you've STILL let me WAGE A ONE MAN WAR against the webslinger? Let me get knocked silly in an alleyway while Spider-Man blew half my face off? Why didn't you TELL ME? What DO I PAY YOU FOR?"

Then the butler would get impaled on the spiky snowboard thing and Harry Osborn would disappear off to find a good therapist and a plastic surgeon.

That small disruption aside, Spider-Man 3 was an amazing film. Crammed full of action and adventure, the two and a half hours flew by and three distinct storylines all wrapped up neatly into a thrilling battle on the top of a partially contructed skyscraper.

Spider-Man 3 continued the adventures of our friendly, neighbourhood Spider-Man, as he came head to head against a trio of wacky bad guys.

There's Sandman, an ex-con trying to go straight who is able to turn himself into an enormous sand creature. There's slightly loopy best friend Harry Osborn, who has adopted his father's legacy and become the new Green Goblin, intent on squishing Spidey like... well... a spider. Finally, there's a lump of venomous black goo that turns itself into a chic new Spidey suit - but the extra strength and agility it grants Spider-Man is offset by amplifying his aggression and negativity.

An awful lot to cram into one film, but director Sam Raimi manages it. He also keeps the pace varied, with some awkward emotional scenes that make you cringe and some brilliant comedy asides, such as Parker's disco strut down Fifth Avenue and a cameo by Raimi favourite Bruce Campbell as a sleazy French waiter.

The theme of the movie is redemption and every character goes through it. Spider-man discovers the darkness within when he dons his alien black suit. Harry Osborn struggles to reconcile his love for his best friend, but his hatred for Spider-Man. All Sandman wants to do is steal money to pay his daughter's hospital bills - but Spider-Man keep getting in his way. The only irredeemable character is the evil black blob. Which is an evil black blob, so very little time is spent on developing it's character.

I liked this movie a lot. Like all the Spider-Man films, it's a rich, emotional journey that remains loyal to it's comic book roots. It's not quite as polished or satisfying as Spider-Man 2, but remains a very worthy chapter in the excellent Spider-Man movie franchise.

.

One question... Why is it Spider-Man and not Spiderman? Answers on a postcard please.