Militant Ginger

The Ten Commandments

2008-07-18T07:18:00.001-07:00

Dear Son,

The problem with being a parent is that most mothers and fathers are terrible at 'leading by example.'

We want you to grow up into a happy and healthy adult and avoid some of the mistakes we made. But the reason your parents made these mistakes in the first place is because we're flawed, human and sometimes just as prone to temper tantrums as you are (and they're not as easily solved with a bottle of milk.)

So I'm going to outline the 'ten commandments' my thirty-odd years of life have taught me. I learnt them the hard way. Hopefully, if you do as I say (and not as I've done) you won't have to.

The Ten Rules

#1 Don't lie. Son, I'm going to be honest with you - which is something I wasn't altogether very good at during the formative period of my young adulthood. Little white lies always come back to bite you on the arse.

Until I 'grew up,' I often thought smudging the facts could avoid a confrontation - despite the fact that I was proven wrong time and time again. I can honestly say that almost every single emotional upset I had for a good eight year period was caused my well intentioned 'economies with the truth.'

So here's the straight up gospel. Don't lie. Telling the truth is often scary and often difficult - but telling the truth from the get-go is like tearing off a plaster/band aid quickly. It hurts for a moment, but then it's gone.

When you tell a fib, people might believe you for a little while - but the longer the lie continues, the more difficult it is to maintain and eventually your 'web of intrigue' will collapse around you and end up causing much, much more upset than if you'd just been honest in the first place.

#2 Do what you say you're going to do. Reliability is one of the great virtues. People gravitate towards people who can 'Get Shit Done.' So if you volunteer to do something, go right ahead and make sure you do it.

If anything's going to help you achieve success in life, it's this. It might take ages to establish a reputation as a reliable person - but once you do, influential people will pass responsibility and power your way because they know you'll deliver on what you promise.

But be warned. While it takes years of 'Getting Shit Done' to establish a reputation as a reliable person, it takes just one defaulted promise to destroy that reputation. Make a promise you can't keep and you'll be labelled as 'all talk, no trousers' even if you've never let anybody down a hundred times before.

But how can you make sure you always deliver on what you promise? Well, that brings me onto #3.

#3 Don't be afraid to say 'No.' A career in sales taught me one thing: Nobody likes to say 'no.' Except those people who love to say 'no.' You'll meet a few of those in your lifetime. They're normally impotent, angry, insecure gnomes and should be largely ignored.

But most people hate to say 'no.' Our most human instinct is to be liked and appreciated and we often instinctively feel we can accomplish this by agreeing to things.

But all the tough lessons I learnt from #1 and #2 on this list stemmed from #3 - my inability to say no.

Being nice, polite, middle-class and painfully English, I loved to say yes to things.

I wanted to make people happy so I agreed to things that I pretty soon realised I couldn't accomplish. And the momentary buzz of making somebody happy by agreeing to do something s quickly overwhelmed by the negative vibe generated by failing to make good on your promise.

So don't say 'yes' unless you want to and you can do. When it comes to the crunch, most people are used to hearing the word 'no' and won't hold it against you if you say it. Plus, saying 'no' sometimes avoids the problems you encounter with #4.

#4 Nobody loves a martyr. If there's one thing I've learned from painful experience, it's that you don't get a medal for being a martyr. So if you don't want to do something - if you really don't - then for God's sake, be honest about it.

Don't agree to go on a fishing trip (as an example) if you'd much rather stay home in bed. You'll be miserable - and your attitude will make everybody else miserable. This is where the expression 'misery loves company' comes from.

Do what you want to do. Because as much as you huff and puff and feel self righteous deep inside inside for selflessly sacrificing yourself to whatever task you don't want to do - I guarantee nobody else is remotely interested and there's no reward for making a martyr of yourself.

#5 Be cheerful. If I was king of the world, the first thing I'd do is round up every miserable bastard in the country and ship them off to Alaska.

At the end of the day, miserable people make other people miserable. Likewise, happy people make other people happy. So embrace life with a smile and make the best of it. I guarantee the way you experience the world (and the world experiences you) will be greatly improved because of it.

There are three major problems with wallowing in misery and self pity. First of all, it's unattractive. Miserable people are miserable to be around.

Secondly, the crazy law of attraction means miserable people seem to become magnets for more misery. It's as if providence hears your complaints and decides to teach you a lesson by delivering something you really will complain about.

Thirdly, most importantly, however bad you think you've got it, I guarantee somebody (possibly even the person you're complaining to) has got it a lot worse. Remember this famous quote:

“I cried because I had no shoes, then I met a man who had no feet.”

There's an often unheard third line to that one.

"And the man with no feet quickly realised he didn't have it so bad when he met a man who had no legs, had just had the bank foreclose on his house, was diagnosed with a terminal disease and had his wife leave him (taking the dog.)"

Hopefully, you'll always go through life with far more to be thankful for than not thankful for.

#6 Never talk about somebody behind their back. Oh gossip, you are such fun. There's really nothing more satisfying than sitting down with a good friend and having a total bitch about a mutual acquaintance.

But you know what? As fun as it is, no good ever comes from talking about somebody behind their back.

Sure, there's the obvious reason. The reason I learnt my lesson. The subject of your slander could find out and that would expose you as being petty and malicious!

But even if that person never suspects that you and your friends love to bitch about them behind their back, think what it says about you...

Most obviously, it reveals that you're two faced - because almost everybody who back-talks about somebody will be nice to them to their face. Duplicity is never an attractive characteristic.

Secondly, it leaves everybody wondering what you say about them when their back is turned.

Kid, stick with the age-old philosophy: 'If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.' And if you do have to open your trap about somebody - be man enough to never say something about somebody behind their back that you wouldn't tell them to their face.

And that neatly brings me onto #7:

#7 Sometimes, it's worth keeping your trap shut. There's another old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Basically: "If you don't know what you're talking about, maybe you shouldn't be talking."

Now, I'll contradict myself and suggest that a comprehensive competency in the age-old art of bullshit is probably a good knack to master - but sometimes you'll appear much wiser by staying schtum when you're not sure about what you're talking about.

Back your facts up - or preface opinion with the words: 'I think..." Or, say nothing as all, narrow your lips, wrinkle your brow and look very thoughtful. People will promptly grow concerned that you're thinking about what they said - and be more concerned that you realise they're talking rubbish than thinking that you might.

But just as importantly as saving face, the art of silence is one of the greatest tools a charming communicator has in their armory.

Son, let me educate you about a universal truth: Everybody loves the sound of their own voice.

I consider myself a fairly friendly, likable and charming person and it all stems from doing one thing. Shutting up and letting the other person talk.

If you can cultivate the qualities of being a 'great listener' you will reap the benefits for the rest of your life. People love to talk - and if you listen to them, you'll do more than learn lots about them (without having to share personal details about yourself.)

You'll appear more attractive to the opposite sex (listening to the ladies is sexier to them than six-pack abs or Chanel cologne) and more capable at work (middle management always fancy themselves as Donald Trump and won't hesitate to promote you so they can continue telling you why.)

People who listen - who ask questions - who appear genuinely interested - will always swim effortlessly through social circles.

On the other hand, people who won't shut up - who throw their ill-considered opinions angrily into any and all conversations - are jarring, abrasive and difficult to like.

You'll meet plenty of people like this - I'm afraid opinionated people are even more prevalent in the United States than Great Britain. You'll spot them instantly by the way they can divert all conversations back around to stories about themselves - or seem to fancy themselves as experts in whatever subject you're talking about.

Just do the opposite of what these harpies do and you'll do fine. And, son, if you must have angry opinions about things, just do what I did. Start a blog!

#8 Be excellent at something. Nobody wants to be a 'Jack of all trades, Master of none.'

One thing I've always regretted is not being excellent at something. I mean, I have skills. I can ride a horse and shoot a gun and drive a car with a manual transmission. I speak French marginally better than Tony Blair. I even get paid to be a writer, so I've apparently fulfilled Stephen King's cynical definition of 'talented.'

But I've never truly been excellent at anything.

Son, the world is a great big confusing mess and I suspect the only way to survive with your insanity intact is to develop a passion and excel at it. Because a passion gives your life focus - and being excellent at something gives you pride, confidence and a sense of accomplishment.

Trust me - the few times I've actually been capable at something (at least, in comparison to those around me) I've felt a buzz that could become quite addictive. I guess this is why some people get manically competitive.

Being overly competitive is pretty tragic - but being capable and competent in something (at least, more so than the general public) will reward you and impress others more than I can explain in words.

It does matter what it is. Oil painting. Pottery. Fixing cars. Playing the guitar. Anything but writing (the people who consider themselves talented aren't and the people who are 'talented' realise that they've pretty much sold out.)

Just be good at something you enjoy. I promise it'll make you happy.

#9 Learn. Everything you can. Only the truly stupid (and religious fundamentalists) embrace ignorance. However, scarily enough, one increasingly popular movement in both England and America seems to be a celebration of stupidity.

For example, the Brits made a celebrity of Jade Goody - the grotesque chav who thought Saddam Hussein was a boxer and that East Anglia was 'abroad.'

In America, the religious right are trying to repress the teaching of Darwin's theory, come up with sham science to deny global warming and even keep their children in ignorance by only teaching them 'abstinence only' sex education (is this the first generation that actively tries to make their own children more ignorant than they are?)

Son, there's nothing smart about being dumb. Promise me you'll keep an open mind and learn at every opportunity you get.

Read. Learn. Think for yourself. Compare facts, accounts and opinions and draw your own conclusions. Let me make one thing absolutely clear - the moment you think you've got all the answers, you've just admitted you know none of them.

So read books. Watch the news. Study other people and listen to what they tell you. Just be wary of people who try to inform you what the 'truth' is.

If there's one wisdom your deeply unwise father can give you, it's this: [And you stole it from Indiana Jones - Editorial Bear]

"There is no such thing as 'truth.' There are only facts. If it's 'truth' you seek, enroll in a philosophy class."

#10 Do what makes you happy. That's paraphrasing singer Jeff Lang.

You only get one shot at life and by the time you turn 25, it screams past. So let me give you what might possibly be the most important bit of advice I can.

Do whatever makes you happy.

Maybe I covered this in #3 and #4, but even if I did, it's worth repeating. If you don't do what makes you happy, nobody else is going to do it for you.

Please, don't ever do 'the right thing' for the sake of it. If you spend your whole life dutifully doing something you don't want to because you felt 'it's what you ought to do' than I can promise you only one thing. You won't get a medal for it at the end.

At the end of the day, the only person who is truly in charge of making you happy is YOU.

Your Mother and I want you to be happy, sure. But we aren't you. We'll just do what parents have done since time immemorial and try to guide you into doing what would have made us happy (since logically, if it would have made us happy, surely it would have done the same for you.)

No, you have to decide what you want out of life and it's up to you to pursue it (religiously, although hopefully it won't be religion.)

Seriously, son. The years go by like lightening. I remember at 18, I was boasting that I'd have my first book published by 21. Here I am, twelve years later and all I've got out of it is a couple of rejection slips. Life goes by too fast! Hopefully you won't do what so many people do: Get to thirty five and realise that they didn't want to be an Insurance Salesman after all.

Nothing will give your life more meaning than a sense of purpose. At the very core of it's being, ambition is the reason successful people spring out of bed in the morning. When life is at it's darkest and most dreary, sometimes that unfulfilled accomplishment will be the only light you have at the end of the tunnel (and explains the greatest piece of advice anybody ever gave me. When it comes to the hard times: 'The only way out is through.')

My ambitions might seem dumb. Since I was a teenager, I'd wanted to move to America and write a novel. But sometimes, when life's seemed impossible, it was the thought of those two ambitions that kept me going and forced me to maintain a 'stiff upper lip.'

Son, decide what you want out of life. Choose what you know will make you happy. Set your ambitions high. Don't worry if your goals seem impossible. Remember what Josie Bisset once said: “Dreams always come a size too big, because we'll grow into them.”

But if you'll only listen to one piece of advice I give you, make it this one:

At the end of the day, be happy. Because that's all your mother and I could possibly want for you.

Religion and Baby - it's back, baby!

2008-07-16T06:11:00.000-07:00

Readers might have noticed posts appearing and disappearing over the last few days. Hopefully now the lines of communication have been reestablished, this shouldn't happen again.

So after a three day absence, here's the reappearance of my last post - which, as I mentioned before, is an angry, opinionated rant that's bound to offend good Christians everywhere...

As readers of my blog will know, I stopped believing in God over six months ago and since then have taken a very dim view of Christianity (or the popular American derivation of it.) (See the addendum below for some clarification about this.)

But with baby's long term upbringing to consider, it's been agreed to give him a somewhat traditional introduction to religion.

I don't think this is a bad thing at all. I mean, while I don't believe in God, I'm still interested in the history and politics of Christianity and can't help but acknowledge the enormous importance The Bible has had in the development and history of western civilisation.

The Bible as (bad) Literature.

Learning about the Bible is still a valid and important thing and whether my son eventually believes in it or not, he'll still benefit from a firm comprehension of the Christian religion.

Also, it's very important not to impose one's own beliefs on your children. It's up to them to make their own minds up - when they're old enough.

The success of the more militant evangelical groups in America's Midwest seems to come from parents brainwashing their offspring as early as possible (I recommend watching the terrifying documentary Jesus Camp to see how valid this accusation is.)

Hopefully, my wife and I can give our son a broad base of knowledge with which to reach his own conclusion when he's grown up a little.

But when it comes to Christianity, what's the most appropriate sect to follow?

What flavour of Christianity do you fancy?

Well, as a historian I'm pretty old school about this. There are only two truly valid forms of Christianity. Catholic and Orthodox. They date back practically to the Biblical period itself and in the western world, all modern scripture and canon originates with the Catholic church.

However, raising our son as a Catholic isn't really a practical proposition. For a start, I'm not a Catholic myself and I certainly have no intention of going through the motions to 'pretend' to be one for the sake of him joining that church.

Secondly, and more importantly, the Catholic church is a wildly corrupt and cynical organisation headed by an octogenarian former Nazi. Plus the John Jay Report revealed that between 1950 and 2002, 4% of Catholic priests had been embroiled in accusations of child sexual molestation and that's hardly the environment I want to expose my son to!

Throw in some of the more recent decisions the Catholic church has made - like angrily declaring the use of condoms in AIDS raddled Africa as a Biblical sin - and it's fairly obvious that the Catholic church is no place for anybody capable of making rational decisions!

But where does that leave us?

Splinter Groups

Well, if there's one thing America has, it's thousands of protestant Churches. Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals... The list goes on and on and on - leaving us with a rather generic wad of mediocre protestants who add up to a whopping 80 million Church going Americans!

I have several issues with the idea of joining any of these Churches, though. For a start, tracing the history of any splinter group of modern Christianity generally reveals them to have begun for cynical, flawed and 'human' reasons rather than any particular spiritual imperative.

Protestants broke away from the Catholic church because they didn't want to give money to the Pope, or they wanted their priests to have families, or any of a thousands similarly inane reasons. Scripture rarely comes into it and if it does, it's used as a cover to rationalize a more practical reason to abandon the Catholic church.

What really annoys me about the dreary evangelical movement is their blithe decision to pick and choose which scripture they like and which they don't. Leviticus says it's a sin to 'lay with another man,' so they oppose homosexuality. Leviticus also said it's an equal sin to eat shellfish, but go to any 'pot luck' Church picnic and somebody will have brought a shrimp cocktail along!

Three first hand accounts of Jesus' life never recorded him saying anything against homosexuality. Paul, a guy who'd never even met Jesus, attributed anti-gay rhetoric to the King of Kings and conservative Christians accept it.

In fact, they'll pick and choose any out-of-context scripture if it appears to support their 'family values.' And that's the problem... The evangelical movement is Christianity cynically marketed towards the lowest common denominator.

It's scriptually unsound and, when you delve a little deeper into the evangelical movement's murky history (throw in the Klu Klux Klan, adultery, embezzlement, homosexuality and homophobia) it's pretty clear that the movement is fairly morally bankrupt as well.

So where does that leave us?

Well, in the end there was only one clear choice for me when it came to our son's spiritual upbringing - but it's an organisation that is tarred by almost all of the flaws I've mentioned above.

The Anglican, Episcopalian, Church of England.

The Anglican church began life in exactly the same cynical, political manner as any other form of protestantism.

King Henry VIII wanted to annul his marriage to his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The Pope refused to allow him to do this (as he'd actually make a papal decree making the marriage legitimate in the first place.) Angry and frustrated, King Henry split from the Catholic Church and established a 'Church of England' of which he was the head.

This had the added benefit of allowing him to ransack the Catholic Churches and monasteries, which swiftly made his bankrupt nation one of the richest in the world.

There were pages and pages of scriptural and spiritual analysis written to 'justify' the break from the Catholic church, but looking at the facts it's difficult to see the foundation of the Church of England as anything other than a cynical political move by an unscrupulous (but brilliant) monarch.

However, since that time, the Anglican church has remained pretty true to itself and it's adhesion to certain Catholic traditions make it a comfortable compromise for many churchgoers. This, plus some excellent missionary work during Britain's empire days, has helped make the Episcopalian Church the third largest in the world.

I am, of course, very comfortable with the Anglican Church. My grandfather was a vicar and a Chaplin in the RAF. I was raised in the days before religion was banned from schools, so we sung hymns at assembly and went to the Harvest Festival at the local Anglican Church. I attended a theological college (to study history, admittedly) and dated a priestess-in-training, so I wound up going to Church far more often than I'd liked!

In fact, several of my university buddies have ended up being ordained or working in the church, so it's a body I've continued to be associated with for most of my life.

Not to mention, the Anglican church - even if you're attending services in America, Africa or elsewhere - has a irrevocable streak of Englishness about it that I am excited to expose our little Anglo-American boy to.

My wife is also unopposed to raising our son as an Anglican, because the Episcopalian church services resemble Catholic ones and it's a respectable, established church instead of one of these fly-by-night offshoots America seems littered with (what the hell is the difference between the denominations of Baptists and why do they all hate each other so much?)

Problems with the Anglican Church

Of course, one of the problems with the Anglican church is that right at this second it's basically self destructing. In Canterbury, Bishops are gathering for the annual Lambeth conference and there's enormous controversy surrounding it.

This is because the Anglican church is traditionally fairly progressive - which is why I prefer them to the Catholic church (whose attitudes towards homosexuality, sexuality and 'sin' borders on the crazy.) But even the liberal church finds itself divided over the issue of openly gay priests (the first openly gay Bishop was recently ordained in New Hampshire) and the idea of female Bishops (which was recently introduced.)

Vast numbers of Bishops are boycotting the Lambeth conference to protest these progressive moves and even though I'm fairly liberal and have no issues with gay or female priests or bishops, I can't really blame them given some of the rubbish that comes out of the Archbishop of Canterbury's mouth.

That being said, one of the reasons I'm starkly opposed to the American evangelical movement is because they spend so much time and energy ranting and raving against homosexuality and female equality. Whatever happens, I'm not prepared to embroil my son in any religion that uses poorly interpreted scripture as an excuse to be actively homophobic or misogynistic.

More important to me than any religious rubbish are the founding principles of American society - the inalienable right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' I don't have to approve of gay marriage or female priests, but since the lifestyle choices these people make do not affect myself or my family in any way, it is deeply hypocritical and unAmerican to infringe their rights simply because I don't approve of them!

This is America. Freedom is our most important commodity. What terrifies me about exposing my son to any form of organised religion is that Christians are actively campaigning to erode people's freedoms every single day.

But, like I said. I can introduce my son to my own opinions and beliefs, but as a responsible parent I should ensure he makes his own decision about things. I just hope (since I can't pray to a God I don't believe in) that he makes the right ones.

Addendum:

Since writing this, I have been asked to clarify my position towards religion and the existence of God, so here goes:

I am not opposed to the concept of a ‘higher power’ because, in many ways, it seems so wildly improbable that this ONE planet in this enormous solar system could just randomly produce life… and of that life this ONE type of monkey randomly develop language and music and art and Cheverolets… While the rest live in the trees and all the other planets are barren rocks.

It's so random. So unlikely. When you look at the probabilities like that, it seems insane that there’s any other explanation for the existence of humanity.

In many ways, it’s like the world’s an experiment. A Petri dish. An art project. And if that's the case, there HAS to be a God-like scientist, chemist or art student overseeing the whole thing…

So while I might not believe in it myself, I certainly don't entirely discount the possibility of this 'higher power.' What I do discount - absolutely and with extreme prejudice, is the concept of a Christian God.

The God described in the Bible is irrational and contradictory. He falls totally flat from the get-go, especially with things like the concept of good and evil, or the Christian God being ‘good’ but letting bad things happen.

The tsunami killed millions for no good reason. If ‘God’ is the ultimate power, who controls everything, why did he decide to do that?

How the word was created is a mystery, and while I definitely lean towards atheist rather than agnostic, a deity could exist. However, I firmly refuse to believe in the Christian God. He seems so hypocritical. So false. So wrong.

I mean, what’s up with the Book of Job? God made the man’s life a total misery to prove a point to Satan? To win an arguement? That makes God an enormous... Well, I won't say what it makes God, at the risk of offending one of my readers. Let's just say that it doesn't make God a very nice man at all.

And I don’t like the idea of original sin. When I look at my sleeping son, he looks so sweet and innocent and I hate the concept of a religion that’s condemning him to hell until he’s baptized and grows up to accept Jesus Christ as his savior. I mean, the Bible says we have free will, but it’s not exactly free will when the deal is: ‘Accept Christ or go to hell.’ That’s not free will at all! It's slavery!

So just to clarify, my athiest pretentions are more theological in nature than philosophical. Believing in science and reason might answer more questions can Christianity ever could - but the big ones still remain unanswered.

Back to the Grindstone...

2008-07-15T10:28:00.000-07:00

Well, my first week as a day FLEW by - and now I'm back at work.

In Europe, dad generally gets two weeks paternity leave. Before everybody jumps on the 'isn't corporate America awful' bandwagon, my company here gives the new father a similar deal (without it having to be government mandated) but unfortunately, you have to have worked there for a year to get it.

So I was at home for just a week - which was long enough to appreciate that stay-at-home mothers don't have it quite as easy as we working men sometimes imagine (and that's even without Tina having sheep, horses and a successful non-fiction career to wrangle with at the same time, like my mother did!)

But it's nice to be back at work. For a start, it means I come home eager to bounce my wee bairn on my knee - which gives Tina a few hours of blissful rest until the graveyard shift begins again.

That being said, Martin continues to be a very good baby, sleeping and eating well. The only downside seems to be his ability to generate twice his weight in garbage/rubbish every day!

The whirlwind of becoming a parent seems to be over. Now settling into a routine seems to be the next step...

Oh, and yes - that really is my 'office.' Tina bought me the poster!

Repost...

2008-07-14T18:41:00.001-07:00

This is the post I wrote immediately after Martin came home for the first time... Sadly the original got deleted.

...

I'm overwhelmed at all the kind comments on Martin's first post! Thanks so much for your kind words and I hope to get to thanking each and every one of you in turn properly!

Well, today was the first day little Martin got to come home. When he was born, he had a rash and a fever, but was soon given the thumbs up from the wonderful nurses at the hospital. He came home and soon confirmed what we suspected about Martin - that he takes after his father in being able to quaff an outrageous amount and fall asleep at the drop of a hat.

But being a parent is a very, very weird thing!

Tina has taken to it like a duck to water. Just like pregnancy seemed to make her blossom, she slotted into mothership mode really easily and has a natural confidence that I wish I shared.

Fatherhood, to me, seems to involve two aspects:

The first is the physical one. There's a little animal in our house that needs to be taken care of. Fortunately, growing up on a farm, my parents gave me a lot of early observation caring for newborn lambs - and contrary to popular belief, babies really aren't that dissimilar.

In fact, I felt a bit removed from the whole birth process, which didn't seem like a miraculous and religious thing to me. It just reminded me of all those sheep... and cows... and dachshunds... giving birth. Which was weird because it was my wife lying on the table instead of a furry little animal.

But that was actually nice because I understood what was happening, what was involved in the whole process and what the end result would be.

Also - I was reminded that being a MAN means you're getting off lightly when it comes to the whole reproductive process. Tina is still recovering!

Anywho. Tina was a little trooper and managed 20 hours of labour very well. She was a robust little thing - sticking up to more pain than I'm sure I could handle. But she was also sensible and got the right amount of pain relief before she squeezed my hand into a bloody pulp.

Following birth comes the delirious period in which baby requires feeding every two hours. Now the wonderful people at the hospital have a great setup, which means that they'll take care of the essential post-birth care (including feeding) for the first day or so to give Mum and Dad time to rest.

Unfortunately, Tina's rabid mother-mode combined with my 'if it works for newborn sheep, presumably it works for babies, too' mode meant that we nipped back and forth every couple of hours so Tina could feed Martin freshly brewed colostrum instead of formula.

See, Mother! I was listening when you explained to me how important it was to get baby lambs to feed during the first few days! I didn't think that knowledge would be important to me during the first few hours of fatherhood, though.

I did sleepwalk through those first 48 hours, though...

The second weird thought process was trying to get my head around the whole idea of BEING A DAD.

I mean, I'm a DAD now. A father. Un pere. I'm far too exhausted to remember where the accent goes in that.

This is a very confusing situation because I'm only used to be a son. Being a father is a total reversal of my comfort zone. Fortunately, I think the fatherly challenges are starting off easy, since all I have to worry about is eating, pooping, crying etc - whereas my father had to worry about a series of wildly impractical sports cars/girlfriends and then a move to a different continent.

Anyway...

Let me tell you a little about Martin.

Ever since Tina became pregnant, I've been looking a little more intently at babies and definitely noticed babies I like and babies that are 'fine, I guess.' It's all very dispassionate, though. I mean, babies are babies and it's difficult to get beyond the 'cute or not cute' question since I don't get exposed to any of the other baby aspects.

So considering that Martin is the first baby I've ever really known intimately, I think I'm probably being wildly biased when I say that he's a totally awesome baby.

I mean, he's big and he's handsome and he is an intently practical baby who only cries or complains when he wants something. He is very strong - he's amazed all of us by lifting his head up and gazing around curiously at things, even though he's not meant to be doing that yet.

But I guess EVERYBODY thinks their baby is so much cuter, cleverer and more capable than anybody else's baby, so I will admit that I'm probably being biased. But he is a very good baby.

At the moment, he doesn't resemble Tina much (although my father points out that all babies look like their fathers for the first few months.) He has my fair-but-rosy complexion, my father's square jawline and chin and his hair reminds me of my brother's. He's definitely a Hulme.

Taking him home was a bit weird and I panicked trying to be the 'good Dad' and change him, put him to bed etc. Fortunately Tina took over with an astonishing capability and our parental responsibilities seemed to be outlined at that point. She does the driving caring for the baby and I do the driving caring for her. Which seems fine.

All in all, it's going fine for the time being. It's just a bit strange, crossing that line that can't be uncrossed. Going from child to adult.

I've always been a bit of a Peter Pan and refused to grow up (check out the silly car in my driveway) but when you actually have a child yourself, you suddenly stop being Martin's son (my dad's name is Martin, too) and turn into Martin's father.

It's a very weird transition I haven't quite got my head around yet.

But I'm happy. Little Martin is adorable, cute, clever and beautiful and it's very exciting to step out of the retreating sunset of childhood into the bright sunrise of fatherhood. Whatever existential angst and premature mid-life crisis I might have had seems to have been forgotten.

Looking unselfishly at Martin, rather than selfishly at myself, I can content myself by knowing the best years truly are yet to come.

Here's to fatherhood!

Breakdown in Service

2008-07-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

Where did Martin go?

Well, that's a legitimate question. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, all baby Martin's appearances disappeared. However, he is BACK now, and as cute as ever.

Guest Post by Editorial Bear

2008-07-03T10:46:00.001-07:00

Hello! Editorial Bear here, with some quick thoughts about the election!

Voting is VERY important. Anybody who can legally vote, but chooses not to, should be soundly beaten with a wet fish. People fought and died for your right to vote and you disrespect their memory when you chose to remain politically impotent.

REMEMBER! There is only ONE reasonable excuse for not voting. You don't want to put your name on the Electoral Roll because you don't want to get picked for Jury Service.

I do understand that some people just don't know who to pick in the upcoming election. For that reason, I've compiled the handy 'Editorial Bear Political Spectrum Analysis.'

Simply plot your position on the chart (somewhere between pothead and redneck) and the candidate closest to where you land is the one you should vote for.

For example, if you're a typical boring leftie, with delusions about 'sharing the wealth' and driving hybrid cars, you should clearly vote for Obama.

If you're in the middle of the spectrum - you really couldn't give two hoots about politics, gays are alright in your book, you want lower taxes and you believe in the death penalty than you're slightly left of middle-of-the-road McCain - and you should vote for him.

If you're a shotgun wielding hick with a pick up truck emblazoned with NRA bumper stickers, you might think McCain is a too darn liberal - but you should still vote! Even though he's FAR to the left of whatever back-wood you're standing in, he's still a damn sight closer to your tobacco-chewin' political opinions than ol' Obama!

If you chose not to vote this election, I can only promise you one thing. The candidate you don't want will get elected (especially if you don't want either of them.) So get up off your La-Z-Boy and do your duty. Vote for the candidate you hate the least!

But getting all serious for a second - I can't stand the political pessimism at the moment. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are the most exciting and promising presidential candidates for forty years. If this election has proven anything - it's that the left keep whining and the right won't stop bitching.

Shaddap and vote!

Oh, and thanks for stopping by.

Love and vodka,

Editorial Bear

Turning a Blind Eye

2008-07-03T07:45:00.000-07:00

America is pretty lax about Drink Driving. a huge number of people seem to do it and there's no real social stigma attached (unless you get caught.) Most people have at least one funny story of how they narrowly avoided failing a sobriety test at one point or another.

For a Brit, that's pretty shocking. Over in England, drink driving is taken incredibly seriously. You automatically lose your licence for a year if you get caught (as opposed to just three months in America - less if you take a 'driver's ed' course.)

What's proven to be a far more compelling reason not to drink and drive, however, is the scorn and condemnation you'd get from your British peers. It's not seen as funny, or mischievous. It's seen as reckless and irresponsible and anybody with half a brain doesn't do it.

Funnily enough, however, both countries take a similarly lax attitude towards something that's proven to be four times more dangerous than drink driving - talking on your mobile phone while behind the wheel.

In America especially, it's as if half of the drivers you pass on busy roads have a cell phone clamped to the ear. I guess it's easier for them than me (my car has a manual transmission) but it still leaves them unable to use their turn signals or steer effectively - so they don't.

These irresponsible idiots blather away and cause untold accidents and injuries... Yet police still seem resolutely unwilling to punish them for their behaviour.

Studies have proven a driver is four times more likely to have an accident than if they'd quaffed more booze than an 0.8 reading on a Breathalyzer. Shouldn't this logically mean they should suffer consequences four times worse for their actions? Or, to play devil's advocate, that drink drivers should be punished four times less severely (a $5 fine and a warning, that would mean.)

I don't know. But what I do know is that people who talk on their cell phones while driving are irresponsible idiots and I have nothing but scorn for them.

Tarred with the same brush?

2008-07-03T06:46:00.000-07:00

Coffee Bean has been giving me a run for her money over on her blog, with a very brave and honest post about her faith and how it's ebbed and flowed throughout her life.

From what she wrote, I learned it's very easy to tar one group by the same brush as its more extreme members. For example, as April pointed out, not all people who identify as conservative Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and condemn homosexuals.

This proves one important thing - that Christians are clearly more evolved than politicians. Apparently, to be a Democrat or Republican you must - MUST - believe in certain things to meet the approval of your party.

I find this very frustrating as we march towards the 2008 election.

Mostly because John McCain, who I respect enormously, is getting more and more ensnared by party political bullshit.

What I really admire about John McCain (apart from the fact that he can fly a fighter plane) is that he's a maverick. He has his own beliefs and for most of his political career, he wasn't afraid to share them.

Immigration. The Environment. Abortion. Homosexual rights. John McCain bucked the Republican trend on all of them and that made him an outstanding candidate in my book. A man who had sensible Republican financial ideals, but was able to rise about the social conservatism that I despise.

Sadly, now he's won the nomination for President in the face of more 'conservative' Republicans, John McCain faces the challenge of not only winning over undecided voters, but the more right-wing members of his own party as well.

That's meant he's been forced to compromise on some pretty important issues. His campaign website has shown a u-turn on certain issues - which is bad. Not just because it scares off more moderate voters. It also makes people concerned that McCain is buckling under the pressure of a party that has spent the last eight years making a litany of poor judgement calls.

McCain's biggest asset (aside from his gorgeous and brilliant daughter, Meghan) is his history of bipartisanship. If he loses the ability to cross party lines on decisive issues, he'll lose his appeal to the more moderate voters and that will cost the Republicans the election.

You have to ask the more right wing Republicans - what's more important? Sticking to your (hand)guns on all your so-called 'values?' Or actually winning the election?

Because until the right wing is willing to swallow their pride and stump up support behind their candidate, they have little hope of defeating Obama.

Innocence and Slavery

2008-07-02T07:07:00.000-07:00

In the face of imminent fatherhood, I guess it's only natural that you pay more attention to kids you run into on a day-to-day basis. It's quite amusing. Kids seem a lot smarter than they look. Certainly smarter than their parents!

My nephew-in-law, for example, hurls whatever he's given out of his hand. 'Mom' hands him a bottle and crash! Down it goes onto the floor. 'Mom' obediently picks it up and hands it back to the grinning baby and crash! Down it goes again, waiting for her to return it.

The cheeky little devil is playing 'fetch' with her, as if she was a dog!

It certainly dispels the myth of kids being 'innocent' (since I believe they're cunning and devious little bundles.)

But 'innocence' is an interesting concept when it comes to kids - and one that troubles me.

Of course, kids are innocent. They're born knowing nothing - and the way they see the world is shaped by their parents from day one. Nature versus nurture is an ongoing debate, but nobody can argue that a parent has enormous responsibility in helping create the person baby grows up to be.

Yet Christians believe that nobody is 'born innocent.' They believe in the myth of 'Original Sin,' which means newborns are automatically cursed with the sin of Adam and Eve, who disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and were suitably punished (along with all of their descendants - basically all of mankind.)

I think this is a HORRIBLE concept. For Christians, as soon as they're old enough to talk and listen, they're taught that they're somehow dirty and wrong and their whole lives are shaped by this reinforced sense of inadequacy.

It's clearly true... It seems everybody I know who was raised as a Christian is riddled with neurosis (myself included.) The ideas of 'Catholic guilt' and 'Protestant sensibilities' must stem from somewhere!

I think the reason politically-minded conservative Christians spend so much time trying to alter other people's behaviour (ban pornography! Homosexuality is a sin!) is because they're constantly fighting an inner battle between their own natural instincts and the rigid morality enforced by the church.

Kids are taught that they are wrong and the only way to find salvation and be 'fixed' is to submit yourself entirely to Jesus. Only by subjugating yourself to him will you avoid burning in hell.

And THAT'S the bit that really troubles me.

You can live a sin-free life, remaining virginal and chaste, honest and kind, sober and pure, yet none of that's good enough to get yourself into heaven. Only subjugation to Jesus counts.

Which leads you to the impossible situation of 'bad' people, who drank and gambled and led sinful lives full of sex, drugs, pornography and rock 'n roll, being just as eligible for entry into heaven as the 'pure' man.

Sign on the dotted line, pledge your drug-raddled body to Jesus and all those years of sin (and fun) are forgotten. In fact, if you read The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) you'll see that a life of sin can be a fast-track route to salvation while the 'pure and chaste' route largely goes unrewarded!

As the elder son (the non-prodigal one) complained: "Lo, these many years have I served thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this thy son was come who hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf."

Basically: "I was a good son and I got bumpkiss for it. My badly-behaved brother slinks back home and you treat him like royalty."

I never did understand that story (which, like The Book of Job, seems only to illustrate that God could be an enormous dick when it came to his faithful followers.)

[Did you have a point? Editorial Bear]

I did indeed have a point.

This is all rubbish! It's one of the concepts of Christianity (like the existence of evil and bad things happening) that make no sense whatsoever.

Making Sense of It All

One of the most troubling aspects of Christianity (for Christians, that is) is how to explain how bad things are allowed to happen, which is where the whole (entirely inadequate) explanation of 'free will' comes into the equation.

The purpose of the early church was not to make people believe in God and live pure and chaste lives. It was to get 'bums in pews' and have the collection plate overflowing with donations (hence why the Catholic Church remains one of the richest organisations in the world.)

In order to 'convince' [blackmail - Editorial Bear] people into following the church, they cleverly created the concept of Original Sin so that people would be required to subjugate themselves to Jesus even if they lived pure and totally blameless lives.

'You're born wrong!' the church says, 'and your only hope for salvation is Christ.'

When it's 'God's Way or the High Way [To eternal torment - Editorial Bear]' it doesn't seem like there's too much 'free will' in there at all! It's slavery, pure and simple.

Oh well. What can you do. As more and more of the vagaries and inconsistencies that riddle Christianity are pointed out to me, the more astounded I am that believers fight so enthusiastically to rationalize them.

But I still 'tut tut' at parents letting their kids run around naked, or other 'inappropriate' behaviour, so I guess I'm still just as brainwashed by the Church's moral rectitude as the rest of them.

If nothing else, my theories on Original Sin make a brilliant idea for a fantasy screenplay. How about an adaption of The God Delusion, along the same vein as the Da Vinci Code? [Hokey and melodramatic? Seems like it'll suit the source material - Editorial Bear]

**adopts deep and booming 'trailer' voice...**

For centuries, the people of planet Earth have been cursed by a cruel and vengeful God.

Born condemned to an eternity of torture, only slavery to their undead zombie master* can spare them. Until one day, a hero emerged to lead the enslaved to freedom...

His name was Ricardo Dawkins... and he exposed 'The God Delusion.'

The God Delusion
Coming to Cinemas 2010.

Starring:

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Richard 'Ricardo' Dawkins

Jeremy Irons as Undead Zombie Jesus

Tom Wilkinson as Pat Robertson

Anne Hathaway as Repressed Virgin

.
*that's Jesus, who I guess was technically 'undead' or a 'zombie' when he arose from the dead

Gun Control?

2008-07-01T18:42:00.000-07:00

Based on some comments I received from the lovely Coffee Bean and Tom, I decided to reprint something I wrote after the tragic Virginia Tech shootings - on my defunct 'political' website, Editorial Bear.

You can read the original here...

Gun control is fundamentally flawed. Out of the millions of guns floating around America, a significant number (15% apparently) are unregistered and illegal. These are the guns floating around in the hands of criminals. This minority of guns causes the majority of crimes and banning the 85% of registered weapons will do nothing to curb the circulation of illegal firearms.

In fact, statistics show gun control can have a negative impact on crime figures.

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.
In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 %.
Over 50% of American households own guns, despite government statistics showing the number is approximately 35%, because guns not listed on any government roll were not counted during the gathering of data. [9]
Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime.
Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.[8]
UK banned private ownership of all handguns in 1997. Since 1998 the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled, despite massive increase in number of police personnel.[9]
Violent crime accelerated in Jamaica after handguns were banned.

The problem is in America itself. Despite a century of advancement, the country is still very much like the Wild West. Guns are everywhere. Effective gun control, like we've got in the UK, would take decades to really work.

Statistics suggest that 9 children under the age of 19 die from gunshots every single day in the United States. If private gun ownership was banned, would that figure be reduced?

But more importantly, would the American right wing be willing to sacrifice the "security" of private gun ownership to prevent these deaths?

In a country in which most states still allow people to carry concealed weapons (at least the cowboys had 'em on show) I think the answer to that question is a resounding no.

And so it begins...

2008-07-01T11:54:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the right to bear arms might have been legal... But was it for the common good?

Already, gun freaks [That's an offensive term. We prefer to label them sufferers of 'Small Manhood Syndrome' - Editorial Bear] are pushing the envelope to see just how much idiocy they can get away with.

Target Practice in Texas

Read the story here...

In Texas, a 62 year old man saw suspected burglars in his neighbour's house. He called 911 and told them he was going to take his twelve gauge and confront them.

In the 911 call, a dispatcher urged the Texan to stay inside his house and not risk lives.

"Don't go outside the house," the 911 operator pleaded. "You're going to get yourself shot if you go outside that house with a gun. I don't care what you think."

"You want to make a bet?" the Texas gunman answered. "I'm going to kill them."

And he did - shooting both burglars in the back.

Remarkably, a Grand Jury eventually decided not to press charges against the 62 year old, citing he committed the double homicide in self defence. Despite the fact that:

The burglars were outside, he was safely inside and they presented no immediate threat to him.
He shot them by surprise, in the back, again suggesting that they presented no immediate threat to him.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating burglary and I think if you break into somebody's house, you deserve everything you get. But there is a clear difference between self-defense and making a premeditated decision to ambush and shoot two (possibly unarmed) men in the back - especially after announcing your intention to a 911 operator beforehand!

Premeditated pre·med·i·tat·ed /prɪˈmɛdɪˌteɪtɪd/ –adjective : done deliberately; planned in advance: i.e. a premeditated murder.

This Texan wasn't 'defending his home.' He was 'administering justice.' That's not his job - and he should pay the penalty for taking the law into his own murderous hands.

Airport Antics

Georgia, home to the Duke boys and the gorgeous Katie from Cuppa Joe, has recently passed a law allowing people to carry concealed handguns pretty much anywhere they like.

Previously, even if you had a Carry and Conceal permit, you were forbidden from taking your gun into any store or business that displayed a sign banning handguns (it's called personal choice, people!)

Gun nuts have helped overturn that ruling, allowing people to heft their concealed 'manhood compensation' anywhere they'd like. But Atlanta airport - the most fearsome Delta hub on the planet - is not impressed with that ruling.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin said; "allowing citizens to carry firearms would create an environment that would endanger millions of people."

And she's quite right. Airports are the last place I want self-righteous sociopaths to be packing heat. One wrong move and your turban-wearing baggage handler might suddenly find himself the wrong end of an idiot's '2nd Amendment Rights' just because he was guilty of 'lookin' kinda A-rab.'

Anybody who's seen Goldfinger knows that airplanes and guns don't mix. Therefore, I will feel a LOT safer if guns are quite rightly forbidden from the airport. Currently, the General Manager of the airport has made the situation clear: "Leave your firearms at home."

However, some people, like Republican Tim Bearden, have decided to ignore the politely worded instruction and boasted to the Associated Press that he'd be packing 'concealed heat' when he headed over to the airport to pick up his family that week.

Read the story (and weep) here.

Mentality

This is the problem with private gun ownership. THE PEOPLE WHO OWN GUNS.

In countries like Switzerland, the military is made up of a civilian militia and therefore every homeowner in the country is required, by law, to own a fully automatic rifle at home. Yet per head of population, their rate of gun crime is fractional compared to America's.

Why?

Because these poor people don't proudly choose to become gun owners. They have gun ownership thrust upon them. They are the very living embodiment of 'a well regulated militia' as defined by the 2nd Amendment - and well regulated militias don't shoot retreating burglars in the back.

I can understand the logic of private gun ownership. I can understand the desire to protect your home and family. What I can't understand is crossing that line from 'home defence' to pretending to be a cowboy. This is why I'm convinced that the most vocal advocates of gun ownership are the people least suitable to keep firearms!

Patriotism by the Dashboard Light

2008-07-01T06:39:00.000-07:00

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."

Euro Baby?

2008-06-30T14:49:00.000-07:00

According to this article, pregnancy in America lasts 39 weeks.

Which, for Tina, was this weekend.

The doctor, after doing some prodding, reported that baby wasn't going anywhere in a hurry, so we're looking at the more civilised 41 week mark, which is how they do things in France.

In my own secret way, I'm wondering if this is Baby's unspoken decision to become an 'Euro' rather than 'Amero' baby. Fortunately, because of Tina and my citizenship, Baby will have the blissful choice of being either.

But up above, I've posted an artist's rendition of 'Le Bebé Hulme' in Euro mode.

Farmer's Market...

2008-06-30T07:41:00.000-07:00

Supermarkets are pretty appalling in America, when you compare them to Sainsburys or Tescos or the wonderful French hypermarches like E.LeClerc.

They're dingy, dirty and the range of produce is pretty miserable. There's nothing like the 'ready meals' Sainsburys are so good at and things just look dirtier.

But, I quickly learnt, you learn to overlook your European shopping-snobbery when you pop into the local Spanish bogeda next door, which trades dirty for filthy and throws in a side order of smelly as well.

I'm not too fussed. The average American supermarket is no scarier than a French market, which would have most hygiene obsessed Americans reaching for their hand sanitizer.

Which is why, this weekend, Tina and I decided to break away from the neat, homogenized safety of shrink-wrapped American food and risk 'the wild' of the local farmer's market.

Farmer's markets in America aren't like 'farmer's markets' in England. We used to have the most wonderful Farmer's Market every second Sunday, which took over most of Winchester's pedestrian precinct and sold delicious, but expensive, produce produced locally.

The farmer's market we went to this weekend was more of a shop - or a warehouse, specifically, which had rows of wooden shelves brimming with freshly picked New Jersey vegetation.

Carrots. Spinach. Even parsnips (oh, how I've missed them!) And, astonishingly, it was all a lot cheaper than the local supermarket - and even cheaper than the wholesale shop we get our groceries from!

Plus it's all fresh, delicious and hasn't been shipped all the way from Mexico.

Tina and I bought $50 worth of vegetables (at the local supermarket) for $26 and they were utterly delicious. The only thing worrying was how corn - which was 19c an ear when I first arrived - has already climbed to 50c.

Ethanol or popcorn? Will America have to make this choice? Will I?

In any event, I'm very happy we decided to go the hippy, Prius, tree-hugging route (as some of our incredulous friends describe it) and check out the farmer's market. It's brilliant!

Anybody got a TARDIS?

2008-06-30T06:56:00.000-07:00

It's not often I'll say this... but I'm (vaguely) homesick. If we were back in England, we'd have the BEST episode of Doctor Who EVER to enjoy on Friday.

The Daleks. Captain Jack. Rose and Martha and Donna (the annoying ginger one with the big chest) and even Sarah Jane Smith!

All in one episode that can't possibly live up to the hype...

I guess I'll just have to wait for three more weeks until they show it here.

Good news? At least Baby will have an amazing introduction to Doctor Who (even if the lil' tyke is too small to appreciate it.)

Doctor Who was one of my earliest memories. Tom Baker, the quintessential 'Doctor' left the series in 1981 and I was only three - so technically I don't how I could possibly have remembered him. But somehow I did - and his miraculous 'tin dog' K-9.

I wonder if Baby will have such fond memories of this classic British TV show?

Just because you drive a fancy car...

2008-06-30T05:56:00.000-07:00

I was pondering today... (as a Range Rover cut me up close enough to trade paint, the driver unwilling to use his turn signals because that would mean he'd have to put down the mobile phone clamped to his ear)

What's the problem with luxury car owners in New Jersey?

In England, I knew plenty of people who owned luxury cars. Mercedes, Jaguars, Range Rovers and Beamers... And they were all careful, considerate drivers (because they didn't want to scratch their shiny new car.)

In America, however, it seems like getting behind the wheel of a fancy motor means you suddenly have a Licence to Roadhog.

I get cut up, overtaken, undertaken and rattled by a litany of drivers each and every morning on my commute down U.S. Route 1 - but the worst offenders are ALWAYS luxury car drivers.

It's worse when you see them, pulled to the side of the road with their car's bonnet lodged six inches into the boot of the car in front (Ooops. Those fancy German disc brakes aren't quite so effective if you're not paying attention.) Their angry response to the State Troopers is always the same...

"It was NOT my fault. Do you know how much this car's worth? THIS CAR IS WORTH MORE THAN YOUR SALARY, BUDDY!"

I'm not making this up - that's honestly what they say!

I have a fairly British mentality when it comes to luxury car drivers. Take BMWs for example. In England, a 1 or 3 series Beamer equals: Sales Manager. A 5 series equals: Regional Sales Manager. A 7 series means: Premiership Footballer Not Old Enough to Shave Yet.

In a gross display of typical reverse snobbery, I actually look down on BMW owners as cookie-cutter social climbers. People with real class drive real cars. The wealthiest people we knew in England drove a Skoda Estate, for goodness sake!

In America, the decision to own a BMW gets even more ridiculous. For a start, most BMWs aren't built in Munich, but in a factory in Virginia. I mean, to all intents and purposes, they're a damn domestic car.

Then you've got to wonder about the mentality of somebody who chooses to pay the equivalent of my rent every month to lease a monstrous Mercedes... Sometimes when their salary isn't actually that much more than mine (I worked with somebody who lived in their parent's basement so they could afford a luxury Acura sports coupe.)

And finally... What the hell is the point of owning a beautiful built 'driving machine' if you're going to have an automatic gearbox in the damn thing? Really, you're just paying for a gadgets laden dodgem car at this point.

Yep - most luxury car owners in New Jersey are beneath contempt. In order to redeem themselves to society, the following needs to happen:

Luxury Car owners must take a British-style driving test and learn how to operate a vehicle properly.
Your fancy car comes with fancy 'hands free' Blue Tooth. Your driving privileges are revoked if you continue to wedge your cell-phone under one ear as you swerve blindly between traffic.
I own a 5.0 litre hot rod and even I've grown out of tearing away from traffic lights like it's a drag race. And I have the excuse of a manual gearbox. Slow it down, dodgem driver.
Quit acting so entitled. Your $1,500 a month lease doesn't mean you're better than other people. It just means you have more money than sense.

And I'd also like to answer some commonly asked questions from luxury car owners:

Yes, I understand BMWs are beautifully made cars. The BMW manufacturing excellence dates back to when they were building engines for Fokke Wolfe fighter planes.
Yes, I understand Mercedes are beautifully made cars. The Mercedes manufacturing excellence dates back to when they were building staff cars for high-ranking Nazi officers.
Your Jaguar/Range Rover is just a rebadged Ford. Sorry, buddy. Nil pointes.

Okay. Rant is over. You can go about your business now.

Weekend with Chileans

2008-06-29T18:20:00.001-07:00

Elmo gets political...

Bikini Cake Fight...

More Bikini Cake Fight...

North Pole set to unfreeze this summer...

2008-06-27T09:17:00.001-07:00

You heard it here first! [No, I'm pretty sure they didn't - Editorial Bear]

This summer, for the first time in human history, the North Pole is going to melt - breaking apart enough so ships could sail clean through what used to be a gigantic, frozen island.

Read all about it here.

Now, to all those conservative cretins, try and tell us that this isn't incontrovertible proof that mankind has seriously effected the climate of the earth.

Remember the most important part - this is the first time in human history that this has occurred. Which incidentally coincides with a century of human industrialisation.

I hope this might see the end of the ridiculous, retarded movement in the right wing that refuses to accept global warming despite FACTS like this proving their wishful thinking to be... well, wishful thinking.

Global warming. It's here. It's a fact.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams