Thursday, 29 May 2008

An Experiment (please ignore the post)



A good friend of ours (whose posts we've borrowed on one or two occasions) was discussing certain political issues with us the other day, and she mentioned that one - just one - of the posts in her blog does not show through Google search even several YEARS after having been posted.

Is it really just a coincidence that the post contains thoughts that some overzealous watchdogs might consider "politically incorrect"?

Is it?

We'll see soon enough, I think.
Because we're reposting the post here, if only for a few weeks - long enough for Google to crawl over it.


P.S.
It worked - within minutes.
We still don't know why the original blog post is being ignored, though.

But that's not the main point of this post scriptum... A few minutes after posting this, the forget-me-not who really forgets not (like, anything!) said: "Say... isn't it May 29 today? The anniversary of the Fall of Constantinople!"

So it is.
And, believe it or not, it is a synchronicity.

Don't you just love it when that happens? ;)





"The Holy Wisdom has left the building"

In case anyone doubted it, the vocal (and in their patent irrationality almost touching) demonstrations by the Turks have now irrefutably demonstrated that their country - I mean Turkey, not any of the European countries hosting their emigrants - would indeed be an undesirable addition to the EU.

The Turks are bitter with "Europe" for expressing its concerns about Turkey as a candidate for the EU and for, shockingly, even pointing out Turkey's attitude towards its citizens of Kurdish nationality.

Furthermore, Turkey is opposed to the EU basing its frame of unity on Christianity as a value reference point. It doesn't really matter whether this is true or not. It's the underlying principle what matters.

Each and everyone of the current EU members is a secular state, with a well-defined constituional separation of Church and State. So is the EU, as a sum of its components as well as an autonomous structure.

So, what is there for the Turks to fear? If Turkey is really a secular state (not that Ata Turk's reforms were really all that beneficial for the country in the long run), why should it fear a political structure loosely - and nominally - based on values such as unconditional forgiveness and equal "charity" towards everyone?

I can only speculate what the answer could be. Islam would not have equal standing in the allegedly christocentric EU - right?

Wrong.
All religions - in fact, almost all cults (with very few notable exceptions) - have equal standing in the EU: that is, no real "standing" at all. (Which might be precisely the cause of many troubles this attitude was supposed to prevent - but more on that on some other occasion...)
If anything, non-Christian religions are more shielded than any of Europe's cultural and (especially) religious traditions.

A glance at the crowds on Istanbul's streets makes it obvious that Turkey's outrage (?!) at the Pope's announced visit to Istanbul, the ex-Constantinople, is indeed clearly based on religious grounds, denying the country's nominal secularity - and casting a sharp shadow of ridicule on its own claims against the alleged religious basis of the EU structure.

Furthermore, there's loud talk of reverting the "Aya Sofia" (a name phonetically adapted from the Greek Hagia Sophia, the 'Holy Wisdom'), which was made into a museum by Ata Turk, to its former role of mosque. Of course they fail to mention that it became a mosque only after the 1453 Turkish occupation of Constantinople; before that, since 637, when it was completed, it was a Christian church - in fact, the greatest and most revered one of all Christian churches.

They are only "making a point", of course. And that point should be taken by the EU; it should be taken very seriously.

Turkey would like to join the EU either

(a) for economic reasons only (and I am sorry to disappoint all of you, cynics, but merely economic allegiances never stand the test of time)

or

(b) with some other purpose in mind - and if so, you bet it isn't "multicultural coexistence".

I am somewhat saddened by the politically correct silence of the EU, although I wouldn't expect it to react in any other way. There is a huge elephant in the middle of the room, and nobody is speaking about it. When I was in school (not very many decades ago), we still knew and dared to mention that "elephant". I am not sure that today's school children do.

Let's mention the name of that historical monster: it's the Turkish invasions and bloody excursions into Europe.

There is enough material about them on the web - though not nearly enough to convey even half of the horror that they brought to the European population of the 15th, 16th and 17th century (and in certain parts of Europe even later).

I wish the textbook stories about the Turkish invasions were exaggerated; for a long time I thought they were.
Now I know history and so I know better: they weren't exaggerated. The impaling of babies and toddlers in front of their parents' eyes, the raping of women regardless of their age and condition (including those who had just given birth), the disappearance of thousands upon thousands of people, of entire villages, reduced to slavery or horrific death, are - much to my sadness - NOT a legend, not a lie, not even an exaggeration. They are the historical truth - a truth that my ancestors had to live with, day in and day out.

Is Europe entitled to reproach (not that it does) atrocities to Turkey, considering its own bloody past?

Yes, it is - precisely because of its own bloody past.

Europe has been chastised by its own wars and aggressions, and has learned from them. By acknowledging its own history, it has transcended it.

No such thing seems to have happened in Turkey. They have apparently not been chastised, not by themselves, not by anyone else. They have chosen to forget their subhuman war "tactics" (as well as the many defeats that the unarmed peasant and town populations had inflicted upon their great army by means of pure wit and self-preserving unity, before the Turks' final defeat in 1683).

They have chosen to forget all that; and no official voice from Europe has ever reminded them of those unpleasant facts.

I mention such "ancient" history because the Turks themselves have now, rather short-sightedly, chosen to poke into the embers of "ancient" history.


Furthermore, the Turks' apparent genocidal tendencies were horrifically confirmed by their effective genocide of Armenians as late as 1917. And they still are being confirmed to this day, by their treatment of the Kurdish people.

I can certanly understand that Europe fails to mention the Turkish invasions of the past centuries. It would be rather awkward to do so - even though the disingenuous, double-faced attitude of Turkey towards history would make it perfectly justifiable.

What we, the peoples of Europe, absolutely should not tolerate, by remaining silent, is the fact that the EU - and the USA - have failed to even properly acknowledge the Armenian genocide of 1915-17 and even before that. That is an unforgivable and intolerable distortion of history by omission, by silence.

As for the Kurds, God bless them, the Turks don't like to hear about them or, much less, about their treatment of them and other "minorities". That's not going to change.
Which means that "we" have to.
Or else, it means that we are going to condone genocide, past and present, and invite an unrepentant thug into our living room.

In my opinion, the EU should definitely change its official attitude towards Turkey.

I certainly changed mine.

If asked to vote for or against Turkey entering the EU, until a few weeks ago I would have abstained. In the name of honesty, impartiality and good will, I would have refrained from voting, for I really didn't know whether Turkey's joining the EU would be a good idea, either for the EU or for Turkey itself.

As from today, this EU citizen's vote in that matter would be a definite NO.



***






Wednesday, 28 May 2008

Miracles of the Tongue



If somebody had told me that there was a substance called
miraculin, I would have laughed: it sounds too much like third-rate science fiction, complete with pidgin-Latin pharmaceutical lingo.

Apparently, it does exist. And it is called so because of its "miraculous" effect on the taste buds.
It turns the taste of Tabasco sauce into the taste of "hot donut glaze"; and lemons "sweet as candy".

It isn't a healing fruit - not that we know, that is - and yet I can see how it could turn out to be nothing short of a miracle in many people's lives.

Imagine a person who is addicted to sweets and wants to stop or reduce their intake.
Unless s/he stops eating sweets, s/he won't succeed.
But sweets are hard to ditch, unless you have a very good "replacement" - or very strong motivation.
This "miracle fruit" could be both. Our sweet-toothed person wouldn't have to eat sweets anymore: after having a berry or two, s/he could just bite a lemon - and it would taste "sweet as candy".

What else could you possibly want?
Oh, the facts about the nutritional value...?

Here are the fruit facts for you.





And here's an excerpt from the FAQ article above, that shows you the working - and the shortcomings - of the pharma-driven research data:

"Commercial Potential:
The plant is not important as a food crop. Attempts to exploit the striking effect on perception of sour flavors in development of artificial sweeteners have not been successful but are continuing."

Oh really...?
Who the heck wants yet another artificial sweetener, when the fruit could clearly be "exploited" to enhance the flavours of otherwise sour or just plain disagreeable edibles (yes, sometimes we all have to ingest them) and make them FUN?

Here's another excerpt, from the NYT article from the links above (for those who are too lazy to click):

"During the 1970s, a ruling by the Food and Drug Administration dashed hopes that an extract of miraculin could be sold as a sugar substitute. In the absence of any plausible commercial application, the miracle fruit has acquired a bit of a cult following."

Well, all I can say is... that sounds like a "cult" worth joining. ;)


Anyway, you be the judge.
Try it on your own here.
Or buy it here.





Sunday, 25 May 2008

VOTE FOR THY NEIGHBOURS AND THY BRETHREN IN FAITH (not to mention thy guest workers' homelands)




The text below is borrowed
verbatim from a sister - well, "cousin" - blog. The post was written more than a year ago - and yet everything said in it still applies... (duh!)

***


I've always wondered how many people actually watch (I hesitate to use the word "listen to") the dinosaur called the Eurosong.

It is my suspicion that most people only watch the final voting (which has long since become a self-parody, noticeable to everyone except the voters and the votees, it seems).

But even that has become tedious and boring beyond ridiculousness. After all, anyone who has ever watched it more than two or three times, knows by heart how each country will vote: Andorra will always vote for Spain and for France. Greece will vote for its neighbouring countries (except Macedonia, which it doesn't recognise as a country), with the highest number of votes going to Cyprus (the Greek part, of course), and viceversa. Russia will vote for all its surrounding neighbours and for countries which claim adherence to the Orthodox faith. Turkey will vote for Armenia (oh yeah, that'll take the sting out of the genocide of 1916!), Germany will vote for Turkey, no matter what: it's the country whence most of its foreign »guest workers« come from.

And so on.

The endurance of the cretinous anomaly called the Eurosong is one of the great mysteries of our time. I am pretty sure you have no idea who won last year, even if you did listen to the... ehm, music. With very few exceptions, none of the winners – not to mention the non-winners (who were more often than not actually better than the winners) – faded back into international obscurity whence they had emerged for that single night.

It's the debutante ball for »new democracies« - a sort of Vienna Ball, minus the music. In other words, it's tacky, wasteful, has no discernible social or even political purpose (even though voting is done almost exclusively on the basis of current politics).

Bring in the clowns already...
They are way more entertaining and they certainly have more political relevance, free thought - and more durable musical influence.


***


N.B.

And the clowns ARE in... :)



Tuesday, 20 May 2008

FUTILITY



We love, LOVE this modest-looking website!



(And we ain't paid to say so.)


But may we suggest an ever so slightly bolder font?
Or just a different type...?



Oh... You thought it was going to be about the Sex and The City stars' premiere closet?

A fair mistake.

You can read what Lynx had to say:



(If you like the title, you're gonna LOVE the description of Sarah Jessica's hat - and BTW, Lynx loved it.
In principle, that is.
Lynx is big on principles... And on oases; and on Beduins.

Sorry, Lynx, we just can't resist it:


"Had the hat been designed in such a fashion that the ikebana on the top were slightly tilted or just placed lower, so that it could rise from behind her head – instead of looking like an oasis clamoring to the heavens for water, complete with the aerial of a second-hand satellite dish brought in by a caravan of Beduins, or something – it would have lent SJP's lovely angular face a touch of lush, sensuous extravagance; her face would have been softened and enhanced by it, as if emerging from a cascade of lush greenery."















Monday, 12 May 2008

LifeCell... what the hell?


(A.S. If you want a firm verdict on this product, there is none. Clearly it has harmed some, perhaps worked for others, and its marketing relies on dubious ploys much too heavily for comfort. If that's all you wanted to know, you can surf away now - but not before you scroll all the way down and read the final edit. :-))


Well (and that makes a double rhyme), you'll excuse my language, but that's what I keep thinking after having browsed around looking for information about "anti-aging" creams, and a certain product in particular...

After sifting through the usual irritatingly prolific (and still proliferating!) batch of links for anti-wrinkle creams - which is NOT what I am looking for, I am interested in anti-sagging products - weariness finally got the best of me, and I clicked on a link just to give my eyes a rest...

And there it was.
The WONDER cream!
The Holy Grail of anti-wrinkle creams!

I don't have wrinkles - certainly not in my opinion - but I do have a relative or two who would be very interested in such a product, so I kept reading...

Wow, I thought... This must be really something!
And in order to determine just what it would be, I kept on searching and clicking.

But it just kept looking more and more promising: blog after blog - all personal blogs, and we all know that personal blogs are the last outpost, the last virtual sanctuary of innocence and integrity, right...? - all vouching for the wonderful qualities of said cream. (Or serum - whatever.)

It's not that I don't believe in "wonders" of any kind.
I do.

(In fact, I've seen quite a few happen in my own kitchen. A few years ago, I managed to mix up a home-made skin preparation that worked miraculously - there is no other way of putting it. Unfortunately, the second time around, the recipe - which had been improvised - didn't work... Oh yeah.)

So, yes, I do believe in wonders - even in "wonder creams".

But something in the tone of all those blogs didn't sound right.
They were very well written, with just the right amount of "subjectivity"...

And then, I found a website that purportedly featured "independent reviews".
Same story: not many reviews, but those that were there were positively glowing... except one.

Aha! I thought, and avidly read on.

The cream and its marketing is all a scam, said the reviewer.
And yet, there was something just a tiny bit obfuscating about that review itself: not enough data to support the negative claims, so I wasn't readily convinced... Google-search for "scam" (+ the name of the cream, of course), it said.

OK, I thought, and I did.

And what do you know... The very first result on the first results page had this title:

NAME-OF-CREAM WARNING

 
(Aha! I thought again, very happy with my own pre-shopping sagacity...)


And the first line under that title, visible on the Google results page, said this:

Don't get NAME-OF-CREAM before you read this review.


Goody! Let's read then!, I thought, and I clicked on the link.

Without further-ado - no word of warning, no scams even mentioned on the page itself! - the "warning" review proceeded to sing the praises of said cream and list it as the number 1, the best, the bestest...
So did the comments in apparent response to the review.

Now you tell me: don't you find it odd that a search on "NAME-OF-CREAM scam" would bring up a seemingly independent non-commercial website with no actual mention of any of the search terms in it?
Why exactly would a independent non-commercial website try to lure visitors by including keywords as "scam" or "warning" - when its content does nothing but shower praise on the product?

I am sure it's a fine cream. But I don't have wrinkles anyway.
And if I stay away from the murky waters of the internet where so many prey on the abyss of human good faith, I might delay their appearance for another ten years or so... ;)


P.S.

If you think this might be yet another angle to the same scam, I must say that you're very perceptive and intelligent, and I predict you'll go far.

But it's not.

However, if you work for the product's makers or marketers and are seeking yet another propaganda outlet, I am open to offers... Just send me the right amount: of the cream and of the $. ;)
I will definitely give it a try, and I might even consider plugging it here.

But I might as well tell you right now that I will be openly admitting to marketing it.


And then, there was silence... 



EDIT (April 16, 2011):

For some reason, this post seems to be one of the most popular - by far - in this blog.

I suspect the reason is that the product in question is still making the rounds, luring people.

Proceed with caution - that's all I am saying.
And feel free to report how it worked for you.

However, if you believe that your skin has been damaged by this - or any other - product, do not despair.
There are natural products that can help you. I would suggest you try argan oil (cold-pressed)
So far I haven't seen or heard anyone have a bad experience with it, but a large majority report a significantly improved skin.

BTW, a blog of ours, about beauty, is expected to be re-opened soon
I am sure argan oil will be discussed, among other products.

Stay tuned. ;-)


EDIT (May 19, 2011): The blog that I talked about earlier in the text - The Self-Made Beauty - has (finally!) been reopened.
Do not expect Lynx, its main author, to spend too much time on it. She is one incredibly busy lady.
But I am sure the posts you will find there will be more than worth your while.













Thursday, 1 May 2008

"I loved Marilyn, and she had cellulite, and then I ran away"


The Italian newspaper La Reppublica published an interview with the Neapolitan veteran actor Carlo Croccolo a few days ago. What makes this particular piece apparently so interesting to many, is the fact that he revealed a purported affair with Marilyn Monroe, back in 1961. And that she had cellulite.

We had actually something else in mind for today, but we decided to heed the mounting pressure of those poor souls who are willing to stoop as low as to engage the services of Babel Fish (!!!) in order to decrypt the rather paltry offering. So, here is an almost-exclusive translation for your reading pleasure.



"I loved Marilyn and then ran away"
(Doesn't that qualify as "Hit and Run"...?)


»Yes, unfortunately it's true. Marilyn and I had a love affair. ['Storia d'amore' in this context doesn't really translate to 'love story' - unless you insist...] It lasted only three months, but I was madly in love with her. Only, being with her was hell, so in the end I ran away.«
This revelation comes from Carlo Croccolo, 81, a veteran with a very long film and stage career behind him.
[SNIP: information of secondary interest for this story.]

»I met Norma [...] in what was the worst period of her life; she died about a year later, in 1962. She had just come out of a sanatorium and was fighting a bad depression that she had been suffering ever since the end of her affair with Yves Montand. He had been beastly to her and she had suffered a lot, just as it happened with Arthur Miller, her third husband, a bastard who treated her badly and beat her. I met her at a party in LA, through Sammy Davis and President JFK's entourage. We started to talk and... That's how it started, like so many stories do.« 
The actor has also revealed a detail that may dent [MM's] image:  
»Marilyn was gorgeous, even though she had a bit of cellulite. When we started [going out together], Norma was already taking 'uppers' and drinking. And her body had started to show it. All the time we were together I did everything I could to make her stop. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed. Certainly, it wasn't easy to be the ever-obliging knight, not even with a woman as extraordinary as she, but there was no other way of being around Norma. You had to take anything, accept anything she did, even if, drunk, she met somebody else and took off with him for a few days. I accepted it, until one day I could take it no more and ran away.«

There.
Happy now?




FURTHER READING:

MM: the Self-Perpetuating Machine (with a link to Clive James's brilliant essay).

CAVEAT: If you're a die-hard MM fan, your're unlikely to like either one.