Health and Wealth and Care

The big political news this week was President Obama's Health Care Summit, in which he invited members of the Republican Party to a televised debate in order to present their ideas for health care reform.


It was a pretty bold move; and put the Republicans firmly on the spot by demanding they actually present ideas, rather than simply snark and snipe and attack the bill that the Democrats have presented.

Televising it was also a daring move by Obama; as what the Republicans came up with would be broadcast for the world to see in stark relief; instead of being filtered through the protective spin of Fox News or Conservative Talk Radio.

I didn't get to see much of it (as some of us have copy to write.)

However, I did catch the highlights and I'll admit that President Obama was magnificent; cutting several people down to size (reminding Senator John McCain that 'the campaign is over') whilst also acting with class and dignity by acknowledging legitimate points the Republicans raised (a capitulation that left that same Senator, John McCain, speechless with confused and angry pride at one point.)

Ultimately, though, I can understand the Republican's frustration with the summit. The Democrats made one point abundantly clear - they weren't going to scrap their 2,700 page Health Care Reform Bill and start from scratch, with a true bipartisan approach.

While you can understand the Dems taking that position - which would drag reform out for months - it kind of soured the spirit of bipartisanship.

On the other hand, the Republicans are fighting a losing battle by claiming that the government should butt out of health care. Last year, average health insurance premiums rose by 25% at my company - yet the health insurance companies had the audacity to reduce the amount of coverage that insurance offered and reported record annual profits.

It's disgusting. I'm all for making a profit; but not when it involves denying people access to health care.

What really rankles me is the fact that the United States government already pours billions into providing health care for the population; enough per head of population to finance a National Health Service like the Brits have without raising taxes a dime.

The American tax payer is already paying more than France does to provide the best health care system in the world. The fact that Americans are then expected to pay between 40% and 90% more than that out of our own pockets is just wrong.

When it comes to politics, I do tend to lean slightly the right of center. I believe in certain Republican principles (or, at least, the ones they pay lip service to) like fiscal responsibility.
Therefore I want to know why Republicans think it's remotely acceptable or defensible that Americans already pay so much more for health care than the rest of the world.

Sadly, the only solutions provided for 'improving' our system seem to be a trillion dollar spending program by the Democrats, or the Republican preference for maintaining a system that sees even basic health care coverage rapidly being priced out of the range of most middle class American families.

The truth is, I think America will have a European-style, single-payer health care system within a decade - no matter what either side do.

The current system is making so many more and more people reliant on public funds - either in the form of 'free' health care coverage, or subsidized health insurance - that in a few years so many people are going to be on government-funded health care programs that we'll have a de facto 'socialized medicine' program in this country even if nobody ever sat down and voted for it.

(One would imagine that the health insurance companies would realize that hiking rates and dropping coverage would eventually eliminate their potential customer base - but one would also have imagined that the American auto manufacturers would have realized the same about churning out gas guzzling SUVs and pick up trucks. The fact is, private business is so short sighted in modern, corporate America, that it's literally eating itself alive - and seems totally oblivious to that fact!)

Progress, or nothing like it...

I am a proud American.

I mean, technically I'm not - since I'm not an American and don't have citizenship yet - but when it comes to my attitude to life, the American mentality fits me like a glove.

Take unemployment, for example. Uncle Sam owes me months of plump unemployment cheques and I'm not interested in accepting a single one of them.

I want to work. I've had that attitude ever since I first entered the job pool. In my life, I've spent precisely two weeks on 'the dole' and soon traded my $40 a week of unemployment payments for $38 a week spent tending bar in the roughest club in Cornwall.

I'd rather work than not, even if I don't get any extra money for it.

In America, the system ostensibly rewards you for that attitude. I have the option of claiming months of unemployment cheques, but instead I made a couple of phone calls and founds myself a job two weeks after getting fired earning just a little bit more.

In the land of opportunity, there's always a dollar to be earned if you're willing to get out and shovel for it (or, in my case, write a shitload of marketing copy.)

But this is where the 'American dream' loses its luster and you suddenly see the advantage of the so-called 'socialist' European system.

In Europe, thanks to universal health care coverage, you could happily leap into temporary work assignments and support yourself and your family well into the indefinite future.

In America? Not so much...

Because while I can earn the same dollar amount working a temporary writing assignment, such gigs don't cover health insurance. Instead, I'm forced to rely on the federal system, COBRA, or try and find such 'benefits' privately. They are, for want of a better term, extortionate.

COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, gives workers up to twelve months of their former health insurance after being laid off. However, they have to pay the entire whack, rather than what their employer previously covered. For me, that turns a $120 monthly payment into an $800 one.

Likewise, the cheapest health insurance package available for my family in New Jersey was $650 a month and covered the bare minimum, with huge out-of-pocket percentages.

It's not until you're 'out there' trying to find health care coverage for yourself and your family that you realize quite how broken the American system is.

What I find so frustrating is that the right wing and the idiot 'tea partiers' are arguing that there's nothing wrong with the current health care system - but that's because they're blinkered dolts who all have health care provided for them by their mundane day jobs. Throw them into the same situation as I'm in right now and hopefully they'd realize that the health insurance companies of America are bleeding them dry in a shameless act of extortion.

But, sadly, few of these idiots are presented with reality very often and that's why they keep peddling their poorly informed right-wing rubbish.

These idiots are supposed to be all about what makes America great - which is independence and opportunity. Instead, they're backing a system that perpetuates a generation of health care slavery - with people forced to work underpaid, under-appreciated jobs merely for the benefits they offer.

I propose something truly radical - a country in which affordable health care was available for all, regardless of whether or not it was bought through your employer. I'd quite happily never take a full time job again - and earn a lot more money and generate a heck of a lot more income for the economy doing so - if I knew I could guarantee health coverage for my family independently.

Unfortunately, that's fantasy. While the left wing talk about 'government sponsored' health care, the right wing are perpetuating a system that's nearly as tyrannical - one in which corporations possess the same monopoly that the 'tea partiers' are worried the government might one day have.

Ultimately, they're as dogmatic as the most left-wing Democrats and I'm left realizing that the true spirit of American independence - individualism, personal responsibility and opportunity - is something far beyond their comprehension.

The Bureau of Immigration Triumphs Again!

Tonight, we got a knock on the door at about 8:30pm. Opening it up, I found myself staring into the face of my former neighbor. Fortunately I don't know the Spanish for 'Holy Crap!' because that's exactly what I would have said to him.

You see, my neighbor was an illegal immigrant. He'd been arrested and deported a couple of years ago and, after popping straight back across the border, been subsequently arrested again and banged up by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services - in a federal prison where, I'd been led to believe, he was going to rot.

Except here he was, on my goddamn doorstep.

Not that I'd wanted him to rot, I kept reminding myself. I had nothing against this guy, apart from the fact that he had flagrantly and repeatedly violated the immigration law's I'd spent five years as a slave to, reaped the benefits of New Jersey's free health care and schooling while I struggled to pay for insurance and daycare, didn't pay a dime in taxes (and subsequently pulled in more a month than my wife did) and insisted on driving his unregistered, uninspected, uninsured minivan home drunk off his arse every night.

But seriously. Apart from that? Nicest guy ever.

Anyway. Instead of being behind bars like I'd been led to believe he was, the guy was standing on my porch, politely inquiring if our landlord was around.

After a moment's disorientation, I shook his hand, invited him in and Mummy Militant and I found him our landlord's number. During the process, we exchanged what niceties we could given the language barrier.

"You've lost weight!"

"Thanks, so have you."

"Well, I've been in a federal prison for five months."

"Ah, right." Awkward pause. "So, erm. What happened then?"

"I got deported back to Mexico."

"And?"

"I came back here."

"Like, immediately?"

"Oh, no." He paused. "It took three weeks."

So with another shake of his hand, I sent our border-hopping pal on his way and closed, locked and bolted the door. Pressing my back against it, I asked Mummy Militant: "These immigration guys... Are they freaking kidding me?"

Since President Bush left office, a lot less attention has been paid on the question of illegal immigration of America. In fact, Obama's accomplished more in the past year regarding the issue than Bush and his cohorts did during two terms in office (which isn't necessarily a good thing. Obama's policies are brusque and unforgiving.) Tie that into a crappy economy - when even illegals find difficulty getting a job - and you're looking at the best immigration situation for years.

But the fact is, my neighbor was back. Being arrested, imprisoned and deported - twice - was as minor an inconvenience to him as renewing his motor-vehicle registration.

Which, incidentally, he never did.

It just goes to show that, whether the government's Democratic or Republican, they're all equally pathetic and powerless in the face of illegal immigration. In fact, it seems like the only reason people like my drink-driving neighbor are considering leaving the Land of Opportunity is because our crappy economy means those 'opportunities' are fewer and further apart than they used to be.

Are the Democrats to blame for Gay Marriage failing in NJ?

As many advocates of same-sex marriage will already be aware, the upcoming gay marriage bill in New Jersey has been rejected in the NJ senate by a 20-14 majority.

It's an unexpected defeat for supporters of marriage equality, as the generally liberal-leaning New Jersey was expected to accept the motion with little resistance.

Garden State Equality chairman Steven Goldstein admitted: "We resent, more than you can imagine, remaining second-class citizens a bit longer. On the other hand, at least the ball has moved at little bit forward."

In retrospect, though, this defeat was inevitable - and not because of any overwhelming hostility towards same-sex marriage by the residents of the Garden State (who, in polls, largely supported the motion.)

The new New Jersey governor, Republican Chris Christie, made it a campaign promise to veto any same-sex marriage bill if it crossed his desk - meaning that ultimately this bill would have been cast aside even if the senate had won that single extra vote they needed to pass it.

Which makes this a failure created by the Democratic party in New Jersey, not the Republicans (who opposed Same Sex marriage from the very beginning.)

If incumbent Governor Jon Corzine hadn't been so absurdly corrupt and inept, perhaps he'd have won last November's election - and kept in place a political hierarchy that would have been much more receptive to the passing of this controversial law.

Republican Chris Christie, as I wrote here, had a shameful political record when he stood for election - but that was par for the course in this utterly corrupt state. He won victory over Jon Corzine not because he was better, or more competent (which he inarguably wasn't.) He won merely because he was the least corrupt politician out of the two (which wasn't much of a claim, either!)

The gay and lesbian population of New Jersey, who had formerly been proud of the fact that theirs was going to be one of the earliest states to adopt gay marriage, have every right to be angry that this law didn't pass.

However the blame should be placed squarely at the foot of the state's Democratic party - who acted with such irresponsibility and incompetence over the previous four years that the largely liberal-leaning people of New Jersey had no option but to vote against them and get 'in bed with the enemy' (in this case, the Republican party') come the 2009 election.

Soaring property taxes and a gaping deficit ultimately overshadowed the ongoing struggle for marriage equality in this state. The fact that the financial survival of the many overwhelmed the civil rights of the few is a shameful legacy for New Jersey Democrats to have to contend with.

Ignorance is Inherited

This just makes me sad.

The note from the ignorant parent reads:

“Note: Just to let you it is not that we don’t believe in things like that, it is just misleading when you talk about it being billions of years old, when we all know that the world is only about 6,000 years old. So why would I pay so that you can misslead my children, your world is just a revolving(?), ours has a start and an end. God created the world. He created animals and man all in the same week. It was also Adam who named all the animals, they will do the essay ‘Rock and Minerals’ but it might not be 5 pages long, and about billions of years, it will be according to the Bible.”

The Invasion of the Cheerios!

Becoming a parent, I have noticed one worrying phenomenon: There is not a single part of my life that has not been colonised by Cheerios.

Cheerios - the delicious 'o' shaped breakfast cereal, made by General Mills - are a staple part of any new parent's arsenal. They're delicious, nutritious and perfectly proportioned for pudgy little fingers. Mini Militant scoffs them by the tiny fistful.

Yet Cheerios have more nefarious characteristics. They bounce, they roll and they're small enough to get everywhere.

• On the sink in the bathroom.


• In the bed.


• On the dashboard of my car.


• In my laptop bag (apparently Mini Militant was hording them.)

In fact, I don't think there's a single place in the house that Cheerios haven't hidden themselves away in. I AM BESET ON ALL SIDES BY CHEERIOS!

That reminds me. I need to get some milk.

More Ginger Discrimination from Britain

"Santa loves all kids - even GINGER ones!"

So boasts a new Christmas Card from British supermarket chain Tescos - replete with a picture of a grumpy Santa tolerating a freckle-faced redhead sitting on his lap. The Daily Mirror have the story here.

Redheaded mum Davina, and her three ginger tots.

Tesco has been blasted for selling a Christmas card which pokes fun at ginger kids. The card has left the mother of three red-headed children fuming after she spotted it while shopping.

"I've shown it to a lot of friends and they're disgusted by it. I just don't find it funny at all."

"I have never seen anything in my life promoting making fun out of people with ginger hair. Maybe I am just being naive but they shouldn't be able to make fun of ginger children like that."

The redhead mother, Davina Phillips, might never have seen anything making fun of ginger kids before, but I certainly have. Remember this ad, with a happy ginger family and the slogan 'There are some things in life you can't choose?'


I find it deeply disturbing that Britain's sinking deeper and deeper into a sort of 'politically correct' fascism, in which you can't say anything remotely negative about somebody's race, sexuality, disability or religion - yet it remains 'open season' on redheads.

The inimitable Mycroft emailed me today with a quote from urbane American Reginald D. Hunter, who announced on Have I Got News For You that the Brits couldn't even get racism right:

"You try, of course - but you just don't get it right... Take Ginger people. They aren't even a race and you give the guys hell..."

He's absolutely right, of course. Prejudice against redheads seems to remain a uniquely British - and uniquely stupid - phenomenon.

Winter

Snow officially hit New York today.

For a European, it's difficult to explain New York winters. It means REAL snow - what you'd get in a season in Britain, you get in an hour in New England. Temperatures drop faster than you can believe. For instance, it was a balmy 67 degrees on Friday - today it's in the mid-thirties.

Whatever you want to think - winter's here.

Safety First!

Despite America being a pretty litigious place, it's still 'cowboy country' compared to overly-regulated, Nanny-state Britain. You can own guns, you can have bull-bars on your truck and even Mini Militant's ride-on quad doesn't come with an extra safety button like the (almost) identical models in the UK.

But while this freedom is refreshing, it's not without cost. One of the reasons that Britain has become a 'nanny state' is because some people need 'nannying.' We have exactly the same problem in America - some people are just idiots - but we prefer to leave them be. There's a philosophy of 'personal responsibility' that's uniquely American - plus the unspoken opinion that if somebody kills themselves doing something 'dumbass stupid' than maybe they're doing the gene pool a favor.

Take this gentleman, for instance. While you have to applaud him for finding a way to avoid the 'home delivery' charges at Home Depot, you do wonder if he needs some safety signs to warn other drivers of his idiocy.



Likewise, repairing a petrol pump with a lit cigarette in your mouth is an admirable bit of multi-tasking, but some safety glasses might be in order to protect your eyebrows from being scorched off when the pump (and the gasoline reservoir below) explodes in your face.

Finally, this gentleman's doing sterling work proving that you don't need wishy-washing, girly safety equipment like 'ropes' to transport an oversized bed in the back of your pick-up. All you need is a friend willing to weigh them down. I don't see any problem at all with this scenario - although he might want to invest in a pair of safety boots before they hit highway speed.

The problem with people, as these pictures demonstrate, is that they're flippin' idiots. Countries like Britain are forced to adopt 'nanny' regulations to protect these evolutionary throwbacks from themselves. People are pushing for the same sort of regulations to be put in place in America - so far we've resisted (as the rising cost of health insurance is evidence of.)

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.

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.

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.

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 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!

When Pigs Fly: Swine Flu stokes my inner conspiracy theorist.

(Apologies in advance to Occasional Professor Tom)

Today, pharmaceuticals giant Sanofi-Aventis announced some very healthy profits. Which weren't quite so healthy when you consider how they got them (nor were the $1 billion windfall of fellow pharma-giant GlaxoSmithKline)

They, along with a few other pharmaceutical conglomerations, are finding their coffers swollen by the bulk-purchase of millions of doses of 'Swine Flu' vaccine - 75 million doses to the United States alone.

The H1N1 'Swine Flu' crisis has been bandied about all year. Just as we thought we were reaching the end of the hysteria, President Obama went on television to announce that the flu epidemic was nothing less than a 'National Emergency' and billions of taxpayer's dollar were being poured into distributing the rushed-into-production vaccine (although curiously enough, very few people I've spoken to have actually seen hide nor hair of it in their neighborhood!)

My problem with all this? I suspect it's a scam!

The H1N1 virus looks to me like a pathetic misdirection. This 'pandemic' may have caused 1,000 deaths in the United States so far - but that's compared to almost that many who die every week from regular flu.

And let's get serious for a second here. While H1N1 can be very dangerous - hospitalizing 8% of the people infected with it - that's nothing compared to the 18% of people infected with regular flu who wind up in the hospital.

Regular flu is more widespread and more dangerous - but is hardly making a blip on our radar.

And why's this? Well, the cynical side of me suspects it's because the pharmaceutical lobbyists - who outnumber congressmen two and a half to one - have been investing millions into 'recruiting' politicians to their cause.

Scare up a scandal. Hype up the hysteria. Get people good 'n worried about the 'swine flu.' Follow that up by greasing a few palms in congress and then the next thing you know, the government has no choice but to invest billions into a dubious vaccine to supplement the existing flu vaccines.

So a few million invested by the drug companies reaps a tenfold reward. It's good business -but a bad example of the way things are done in Washington.

Okay, so some people might argue that I'm being ridiculous. Swine flu, after all, is entirely different to regular flu and while it might not be as dangerous, it poses it's own unique risk to vulnerable members of society. Surely it warrants it's own vaccine?

All I can say is: I'm not convinced. Statistically, while the Center for Disease Control admits that regular flu vaccine is between 70%-90% effective in combating flu 'in healthy adults,' it's not healthy adults who are at risk from flu.

The majority of deaths occur amongst children, the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Regular vaccine is far less effective amongst the people who need it the most - in fact, studies from Alberta claim it doesn't reduce mortality at all.

...and if regular flu vaccine could just be a big, fat placebo (and an enormous - simply enormous - government-funded windfall for the pharmaceutical companies) what should we believe about Swine Flu vaccine?

There's even debate about whether the vaccine is needed at all. According to President Obama and the CDC, Swine Flu is already a 'pandemic.' But is it?

Interestingly enough, the CDC stopped recording individual cases of H1N1 in late July - after over 90% of those reporting 'Swine Flu' infection in the emergency rooms were discovered to either have regular flu (between 3-5%) or no infection at all.

The CDC - the federal body we trust to protect us from disease - doesn't keep any records of H1N1 infections. Yet they are still willing to claim it's a 'pandemic.'

It might well be - that colleague you hear coughing in the cubicle next to you could be hacking and spluttering Influenza A H1N1 all over the office. But, more likely, he's just got the sniffles, or is choking on a pretzel. The truth? We'll never know.

And that means if the CDC want me to take their 'word' about the risk of so-called Swine Flu, I will do.

When pigs fly.