IN PRAISE OF ... Man v. Food

I know that, on one level, it is truly gross and, as a vegetarian, I should be appalled by it but I absolutely love Man v. Food. It's my guilty secret. If you've not seen it you must.

Originally a Travel Channel programme, it's currently being aired on Dave in the UK.

Beginning in 2008, Adam Richman has now had four seasons of eating his way around America's favourite "pig out" joints - finding out about the food, how it's prepared and, at the end of each show, taking on an eating challenge.

The eating challenges vary. Some are sheer quantity (huge platefuls of meat or seafood, a 12 patty burger, etc.) while some are because of the number of super hot chillies in the food. Always, the task is incredible and most, but not all, of the time Adam succeeds in defeating Food!

It's all very macho and you could easily think he's talking about sports or cars, but Richman genuinely loves food and, in this slightly gross out way, the programme is a celebration of food.

It ought to be awful and cringeworthy but, because Adam
Is both likeable and knowledgable, as well as being a good presenter, it is compelling television.

Man v. Food makes Gordon Ramsey's approach to cooking and presentation seem very timid and effete.

I'm sure there are dieticians and doctors appalled by the size of platters that get devoured, and I dread to think what the calorie count is on each show, but it's not like it's every meal, and he's not saying that it's good to just stuff your face. Indeed, he visits the kitchens and sees the food being prepared with love and care.

I'd love there to be a European edition, or a worldwide series, but, sadly, the most international Man v. Food has got so far is to cross the Northern border into Canada!

Why does the West insist on acting like the world's police?

Over the past quarter of a century, Western powers have increasingly taken on the role of being the world's police - either through political pressure and threats of possible military action or, in some cases, direct action that has resulted in the overthrow of national governments.

But why? What makes the USA and the UK feel they have a moral duty to interfere in the internal machinations of other countries? Why is it that we think our political systems and way of life are right, while those employed by other nations are wrong?

The other issue is the rather selective way that the USA/UK chooses the nations it feels necessary to interfere with.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 atrocities in New York and Washington D.C. It was based on "intelligence" that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in the mountains there - he wasn't. And the invasion, and ensuing war, involved the overthrow of a sovereign government just because "we" wanted to, as far as I can see.

Yes, there was much to dislike about the Taliban regime, but let's not forget that 20 years earlier, as the Mujahideen, they had been allies of the West, and freedom fighters standing up to Soviet imperialism. They had the same unpalatable beliefs, so what had changed?

The reasons, and legality, of why the USA/UK invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein has been debated long and hard. Clearly, the excuse that he had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be fired within 45 minutes was untrue and it would be possible to debate for weeks whether this was a misunderstanding or deliberate, but comments from Tony Blair, British PM at the time of the Iraq invasion, has suggested that regime change was at the heart of his reasons for taking action.

Again, it is undeniable that Saddam was an evil and oppressive dictator who made the lives if many of citizens a living hell. But what right did the USA/UK have to interfere in the internal politics of a sovereign nation?

Why did we invade Iraq, for instance, when there are so many other evil and oppressive regimes around the world including Zimbabwe, North Korea, China and any number of the Arabian nations.

Sure, it's very easy to say that the Iraq war (BOTH Iraq wars) was really about oil. Even if that was the case, the question still has to be, does it justify our involvement in a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians?

So what should we do? Just sit back and let evil dictators do whatever they want?

During the 1930s and 1940s the rest of the world did nothing about the concentration and death camps that the Nazis had built, and where they were sending Jews. There was as much, if not more, evidence for these camps as there was for WMDs in Iraq but the USA/UK did nothing to stop the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. Instead, when war was finally declared, it was to defend a treaty protecting the sovereignty of Poland. Where were the morals of the West?

I think the line has to be drawn when dictators and oppressive regimes are harming their people. Sure, we might not like a political system, we might not agree with the lack of freedoms that women or homosexuals have. We might disagree with rigged elections and want democracy to happen in other countries. But those things aren't sufficient for military intervention.

Military intervention must only be used when a regime is physically harming or killing its citizens - and such intervention should be truly international and not the preserve if one it two nations imposing their will in others.

I guess I see an international force as being more of an International Rescue group than a traditional army.

Similarly, all international arms sales must be made illegal or, if, say, a Middle Eastern dictator uses British weapons against its people then Britain stands just as guilty.

So, the West should have stepped into Syria months ago, they should have taken action against Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and they should do whatever is needed to protect human life whenever there is suffering. But political change must be made by education, empowerment, pressure, campaigning and the will of the people - not because we disagree with it.

OPINION: 10 years since Gary McKinnon's arrest

Today the Gary McKinnon passes its 10th anniversary. 10 years ago he was arrested but he hasn't yet faced court. This is ridiculous and must be resolved quickly for the sake of justice.

Mr. McKinnon is charged with hacking into US defence systems, something which he admits but he claims he was looking for evidence of aliens and UFOs and wasn't there for any other reason. he's now spent 10 years trying, successfully so far, to not be extradited to the USA to face trial.

Since being charged he has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, part of the autistic spectrum, and this has been at the heart of his defence and is regularly referred to by his vociferous support team who, online, often come across more as a baying mob than a reasoned and intelligent group arguing a point of law.

The US authorities claim that not only did McKinnon hack into the systems, he damaged systems, switched off defences and left insulting and xenophobic messages in various places.

McKinnon's defenders, and especially his mother who is the chief spokesperson for his "team", claim that the damage is a lie and that his behaviour, a fixation on finding information beyond what most people would do, is as a result of his Asperger's.

A growing number of those with Asperger's find the McKinnon defence insulting. They say that they know the difference between right and wrong and don't want the syndrome to be used as an excuse for criminal activity.

Then his "team", go on about the evils of the US legal system, how awful prisons in the US are and that the extradition treaty between the US and the UK is unbalanced and unfair. these are, of course, red herrings but, sadly, red herrings that the Little Englander media lap up and, consequentially, this self-confessed criminal gets much more support than might have been expected. Quite how his campaign is taken seriously, when it is founded on so much blatant, and unpleasant, xenophobia and anti-Americanism, is beyond me.

The McKinnon "team" also go on about how awful it is that his maximum penalty could be 70 years or more in jail. On closer examination this isn't true. As with many of the McKinnon "team"'s claims this is a gross exaggeration but, hey, if it were the case maybe he shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.

They also claim that he was in the UK when he did his crime, so should be tried in the UK. Again, another red herring. The crime, the actual hack, took place in the US, via the Internet, and so it s perfect toy reasonable that he is tried in the USA.

And that is the point, he is avoiding being tried. It's more than likely that, if medical assessment aupport his claims to have Asperger's (of which he was only diagnosed after he had been charged and which many claim looks rather "convenient"), the court will take this not consideration, but why should he be able to avoid trial?

It's time for this to be sorted;It's time for McKinnon to face court; and there is no sensible reason for that day in court not to be in the USA.

He's admitted the crime, though claims exaggeration by the US authorities about damage caused, I hope this is resolved soon and, when found guilty, he is left to rot in a US jail for as long as possible.

COMMENT: In exactly one year the U.S. President will be sworn in

Yes, exactly one year today, the President of the United States of America will be sworn in at his inauguration ceremony.

Americans have a choice between right wing, religious lunatics, though the Republicans are still sorting out which lunatic they want.

Increasingly it looks like Newt Gingrich will be the candidate of the GOP who will attempt to depose Barack Obama, who hasn't had the best first three years in power, and has certainly lived up (or down) to many people's fears that he was more about style than substance.

Increasingly, in the UK, we have a similarly narrow choice of party - right wing, capitalist and, sadly, of faith.

It is time both the US and UK looked beyond the gormless, extremist numpties and voted on principle rather than habit. It is time to accept that capitalism has failed too may times and needs to be replaced as the economic system that controls world finances. It is time to realise that those "of faith" cannot be trusted to behave sanely - after all, they believe there are invisible superbeings for which there is absolutely no evidence. And it is time we rejected politicians who have warmongering attitudes.

It makes no difference whether, in twelve months time, it's Obama or Gingrich being sworn in. Or, for that matter, any other moron the Republican Party puts up. All if them are equally ridiculous, all of them are equally stupid and all of them will be dangerous with their finger on the nuclear button.
,

US 2012 Presidential election: timetable of primaries

Here's the timetable of the various primaries and caucuses in the US Presidental election.

January 3, 2012
Iowa (caucus)

January 10, 2012
New Hampshire (primary)

January 21, 2012
South Carolina (primary)

January 31, 2012
Florida (primary)

February 4, 2012
Nevada (caucus)

February 4–11, 2012
Maine (caucus)

February 7, 2012
Colorado (caucus)
Minnesota (caucus)
Missouri (primary)

February 28, 2012
Arizona (primary)
Michigan (primary)

March 3, 2012
Washington (caucus)

March 6, 2012 - Super Tuesday Alaska (caucus)
Georgia (primary)
Idaho (caucus)
Massachusetts (primary)
North Dakota (caucus)
Ohio (primary)
Oklahoma (primary)
Tennessee (primary)
Vermont (primary)
Virginia (primary)

March 6-10, 2012
Wyoming (caucus)

March 10, 2012
Kansas (caucus)
U.S. Virgin Islands (caucus)

March 13, 2012
Alabama (primary)
Hawaii (caucus)
Mississippi (primary)

March 17, 2012
Missouri
GOP caucus

March 20, 2012
Illinois (primary)

March 24, 2012
Louisiana (primary)

April 3, 2012
District of Columbia (primary)
Maryland (primary)
Wisconsin (primary)
Texas (primary)

April 24, 2012
Connecticut (primary)
Delaware (primary)
New York (primary)
Pennsylvania (primary)
Rhode Island (primary)

May 8, 2012
Indiana (primary)
North Carolina (primary)
West Virginia (primary)

May 15, 2012
Nebraska (primary)
Oregon (primary)

May 22, 2012
Arkansas (primary)
Kentucky (primary)

June 5, 2012
California (primary)
Montana (primary)
New Jersey (primary)
New Mexico (primary)
South Dakota (primary)

June 26, 2012
Utah (primary)

OPINION: Councils and prayers

This week, the National Secular Society has taken a case to the High Court calling on Bidedord Council to end its practise of having prayers before council meetings.

I just had to check my calendar - it is the 21st century and not 1511. What on earth is any state, government or council institution doing having prayers before meetings?

It's bad enough that their are elected officials who believe in such superstitious nonsense and believe that praying to a fictional super being will help them, it's another matter entirely that the concil endorses such behaviour by making time for it.

Sure, Bideford Council doesn't "take a register" until after the prayers are over, attendance at them is not compulsory, but what a waste of time and what an awful and bigoted message it sends out to their constituents.

The can be no justification for maintaining this tradition - and saying its a tradition is. I defence, traditions and customs change over the centuries.

In France and the USA, to name but two nations, the state and education has, by law, to be secular. "Faith" and all religious mumbo-jumbo isn't allowed. Schools aren't allowed to indoctrinate children with the daily acts of worship that we, in the UK, have by law; state occasions don't have priests, vicars, rabbis, etc. at them; and council meetings don't have prayers before them.

France and the USA, both very religious countries, realise that "faith" is a private matter and has no place in state or educational matters.

It is time we left the Dark Ages and moved to having a secular society - and when that's achieved we can look more closely a why so man still believe the lies of the churches and see if improved eduction might cure them of their "faith" illness.

48 years ago today - the assassination of JFK

48 years ago today, at 12.30 pm on the 22nd November 1963, John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States of America, was assassinated as his motorcade drove through Dallas, Texas.



Today, nearly half a century later, we're still unsure as to who pulled the trigger. Sure, the Warren ommission found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone to shoot JFK and Jack Ruby acted alone to kill Lee Harvey Oswald but, as the years have passed, more and more conspiracy theories and potential cover-ups leave us with a situation where it is thought 80% of Americans believe that there was more to it than a lone gunman shooting their President.

Will we ever know the truth? It seems very unlikely now. Most of the main players are now long gone and all the theories seem inconclusive at best and some, well, just crackpot.

What is worth contemplating is what sort of world we might have now had Kennedy lived.

He would, quite likely, have won the 1964 Presidential election, defeating Nixon who might not have ever become President. It's possible that the fall of communism in Eastern Europe might have been sooner than the late 80s/early 90s. If no Nixon, then, possibly, no Reagan and the arms race that threatened the future of the whole world.

Kennedy had his faults as a human being, as do we all, but there is no denying news an inspirational figure, perhaps on a scale not seen until Barrack Obama's election to the White House. Had JFK lived on November 22nd 1963 the is no doubt the world would be a very different place today in 2011.

OPINION: One Year to go... will Obama get re-elected?

We're just 12 months from the next election for US President. Has Barrack Obama done enough for the American people to give him a second term?

I think it's fair to say that I've been disappointed by Obama, he's been style over substance from the word go. Then again, I guess I've been disappointed by just about every American President. The difference between UK and US politics means that we in the UK have a choice of two centre-right parties (plus a barnacle that, last time round, found something to stick to). In the US they have a right-wing party (the Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party (GOP). The choice is limited, but, then, the parties on offer only represent the views of America.

To me, I'm sorry to say, Obama was elected BECAUSE he was black, rather than anything else he said or had done. On the campaign trail, he never promised much, and he's lived up to that promise well.

Obama has had some success: with Healthcare reform; the killing of Osama bin Laden; the killing of Colonel Gadaffi. There's a worrying theme growing there. With attention spans short I think the leaders of any rogue states would be best not annoying the Prez until after the election, it could just be an electorally positive act for him to complete his hat trick.

But he's failed on so many levels. Surely, Obama is, perhaps, the most disappointing Presidents since at least Ford?

To me, his saving grace is the opposition being put up against him by the Republicans. They're all nutters - most put the Bible before science, most would probably bomb the hell out of the whole of the Middle East (except, of course, Israel) if it meant they'd get a vote, and all are stupendously wealthy and have no idea about the real, ordinary person.

Yes, Obama is also a "believer" - at a dangerously evangelical church - but his idiocy is nothing compared to the "faith" of the morons being put forward by the GOP.

So what will happen next November? It's probably too early to tell, one major event, one significant cock up, one more Axis of Evil's leader's head on a pole and things could change.

If I had to guess, I'd predict Obama will narrowly get a second term but, by 2014, be a lame duck President unable to do anything.

Mind you, he's done little so far.