1. Eating Like Michael Phelps

2. French Women Don't Get Fat

3. Obama: Master of Ambiguity

4. 'Poor Little Georgia' – Not!

5. Human Brain Will Be the Battlefield in Future Wars

6. American Media Knee-Jerk Response to Caucasus Crisis

This is what Michael Phelps consumes in a single day

Eating Like Michael Phelps

Michael Phelps, the greatest swimmer of all time, eats 12,000 calories a day. Eggs, mayonnaise and assorted fats make up a jaw-dropping proportion of his diet.

How can he force it all down? And what is it doing to his body? With nothing to lose but his waistline, our intrepid reporter tries dining like an Olympic champion

Here we go then: The Michael Phelps Diet for Health, Happiness and More Olympic Gold Medals Than Anyone Else Ever.

We'll ignore, momentarily, the fact that the best swimmer the world has seen stands 6ft 4in tall, has a wingspan - fingertip to fingertip - of 6ft 7in, and weighs in at 192lb.

We'll ignore also the fact that he spends most of his life in a pool, swimming at least 50 miles a week very fast indeed, and the rest of it in a gym. We'll ignore, finally, the fact that I am not quite as big as him, and do not, most days, get quite as much exercise.

I am going to see what it is like to eat what Michael Phelps eats in a day.

"It just smells so horrible," says the photographer, helpfully, as we survey the table before us. On it are a large bowl of porridge; three doorstep-sized sandwiches of white bread, butter, fried egg, fried onion, lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise; a five-egg omelette tastefully garnished with parsley; three slices of French toast liberally sprinkled with sugar; three pancakes topped with chocolate chips; and two large cups of coffee.

That's breakfast. Yummy.

Next to it is lunch, which consists of 1lb (that's a very large bowl) of pasta with tomato sauce; two large ham-and-cheese sandwiches with more lettuce, tomato and don't forget the mayo; plus four bottles of a proprietary high-energy sports drink that always makes me burp.

For dinner, it's another pound of pasta, a large cheese-and-tomato pizza, and another four bottles of the same proprietary high-energy sports drink that always makes me burp.

"You poor thing," says the photographer, generously. "I so don't envy you."

French Women Don't Get Fat

Despite a diet stuffed with cream, butter, cheese and meat, just 10 per cent of French adults are obese, compared with our 22 per cent, and America's colossal 33 per cent.

The French live longer too, and have lower death rates from coronary heart disease - in spite of those artery-clogging feasts of cholesterol and saturated fat.

This curious observation, dubbed 'the French paradox', has baffled scientists for more than a decade. And it leaves us diet-obsessed Brits smarting.In Chic and Slim: How Those French Women Eat all that Rich Food and Still Stay Slim, Anne Barone seeks to unravel the puzzle. As it turns out, it's all about knickers.

'Never underestimate the power of a black lace garter belt,' she writes. 'Even French women's lingerie helps to keep them slim, [it's] a constant reminder to make choices that pay off in slimness.

'Their belief in this principle is demonstrated by the fact that there are almost as many lingerie shops in Paris as bakeries.' Vanity, it seems, is a very useful vice if you want to fight the flab.

'Forget diets,' continues Barone. 'They are no fun and don't work. What I learned from French women is that ultimately staying slim is not about counting calories or fat grams. It is not about exercise exhaustion. It is really about personal style.'

Obama: Master of Ambiguity

Over the last month, Barack Obama's comments about withdrawal have raised major questions about the U.S. commitment to occupying Iraq.

The statements Obama has made over the past year, when taken in total, leave no doubt that he is a master of ambiguity and deception.

Obama has made wonderful rhetorical statements aimed at placating the majority of Americans, who have viewed the Iraq war as "not worth it" since late 2004, and supported a timetable for withdrawal since mid-to-late 2005.

Obama recently promised:

"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war - responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."

This statement was made in response to media complaints about Obama's perceived flip-flopping on the Iraq issue. It's not difficult to see why this confusion has arisen.

Obama has claimed that he is open to "refine[ing]" his policies on Iraq after meeting with military commanders, should he win the presidency.

The New York Times described Obama's posturing as driven by his desire "to retain flexibilitiy as violence declines [in Iraq] without abandoning a central promise of his campaign: that if elected, he would end the war."But has Obama really promised to end the Iraq war? The evidence is not very convincing.

Obama has vaguely stated that "the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability.

" It is true that in the past Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007." That plan, however, was precisely what its name suggested, a blueprint for de-escalation, not for withdrawal or for ending the war. The bill promised only to remove all "combat" troops by March of 2008.

It did not promise to remove all troops from Iraq, or prohibit plans for permanent military bases - requirements that Democrats have refused to demand.

Rather, the plan has always been to retain an extended troop presence in Iraq (perhaps permanently), allegedly in order to train Iraq forces and "fight terrorism."

'Poor Little Georgia' – Not!

The myth of poor little Georgia, a newborn and promising "democracy" threatened, bullied, and battered by Putin-the-reincarnation-of-Stalin is bogus from beginning to end.

It is a Bizarro World rendition of what is really happening in South Ossetia and the wider region: that is, a curiously and consistently inverted version of reality in which up is down, black is white, and the Georgians did not invade South Ossetia, killing thousands and driving many more northward.

According to our "free" media, the Georgians didn't invade the land of the Ossetians – they merely tried to "retake" it, as a child would bloodlessly and even quite playfully retake a shiny red ball from a playmate.

Those evil Russkies, on the other hand, invaded, plunged into, and escalated their attack on Georgia. At least, those are the words our "reporters" are using.

As George Orwell emphasized, the corruption of language is a form of control, and the American media in collusion with the government is expert at this, especially in its war reporting.

The Human Brain Will Be the Battlefield in Future Wars

Rapid advances in neuroscience could have a dramatic impact on national security and the way in which future wars are fought, US intelligence officials have been told.

In a report commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency, leading scientists were asked to examine how a greater understanding of the brain over the next 20 years is likely to drive the development of new medicines and technologies.

They found several areas in which progress could have a profound impact, including behaviour-altering drugs, scanners that can interpret a person's state of mind and devices capable of boosting senses such as hearing and vision.

On the battlefield, bullets may be replaced with "pharmacological land mines" that release drugs to incapacitate soldiers on contact, while scanners and other electronic devices could be developed to identify suspects from their brain activity and even disrupt their ability to tell lies when questioned, the report says.

"The concept of torture could also be altered by products in this market. It is possible that some day there could be a technique developed to extract information from a prisoner that does not have any lasting side effects," the report states.

American Media Knee-Jerk Response to Caucasus Crisis

The Washington Post accused Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of lying to justify the attacks on Georgia.

“His brazen invocation of the Big Lie to justify Russia’s aggression – accusing Georgia of ‘complete genocide’ [against South Ossetians] – provided an answer” of how far Putin would go in his autocratic ways, the Post said.

The editorial then turned to tough talk: “The West will have to decide whether to continue its efforts to soothe and placate Mr. Putin, as if he were a petulant child who could be bought off with candy and words of praise, or whether to rise to the geopolitical challenge his regime poses.”

The harsh rhetoric again ignored the mirror image of another “petulant child,” George W. Bush whose lashing out – both in his attacks on other countries and his multiple violations of international law – was aided and abetted by the Post’s editorial board.

The Post also was throwing stones from a glass house when it cited the “Big Lie” technique. Nothing Russia has said in justifying its attacks on Georgia has matched the lies the Bush administration – and the Washington Post – told about Iraq.