Why I left YouTube

I would never have thought that leaving YouTube could ever pain me at all, let alone pain me as much as it does. But it does.

As you may have noticed if you've read some of posts, especially about Google, I have an intense dislike of said corporation's policies and of their increasingly intrusive attitude in general. Not because of some paranoia, but simply because I instinctively withdraw from any attempt to be herded and "managed" - especially not by a corporation on an ego trip, the sole aim of which is to amass big bucks and exert control over the virtual world. 

Now, YouTube is demanding that you link your account to an email address - or else (you won't be able to interact with anyone on YouTube, or even give feedback).


Ask yourself: why on earth would they possibly need your email address? 

There are several possibilities, not necessarily mutually exclusive. 
Let's go with the most harmless possibility and venture this answer: to "improve" your Google profile - or should I say, your Google dossier? 
To build a comprehensive mine of information about your tastes, choices and way of thinking - so they can cater to it, of course. So they can serve you advertisements that you are - or so they think - more likely to click.

I don't mind panhandlers. I just don't like it when the panhandling is disguised and presented as something for my benefit.
I also don't like being treated like a semi-literate idiot, only interested in shopping - especially not by brainless crawlers who cannot understand a repeated "no" because, well, they don't have a brain.

And so, when Youtube suddenly started prompting me to link my existing account with an email address, I first ignored it and sailed past it.

Then it became impossible.

And so I left.

Obviously I still visit YouTube and listen to music - as an anonymous user or "guest" - but I cannot communicate with other users anymore.

I hear you: Yeah, so?

Well, here's the thing. In my years on the internet I have visited many, many, many websites and forums. Many promised stimulating interaction, but eventually my enthusiasm fizzled out, because the few interesting people visiting them were outnumbered, silenced - or simply chased away - by a multitude of ignorant (and quite possibly pubescent) loudmouths.

Of course YouTube has more than its fair share of idiots and vulgar, aggressive loudmouths. However, there's one big difference. 

If you go to YouTube, it is presumably to listen to a piece of music or to see a video or a film that you find interesting. Which means that the majority of comments you'll see under any given video will also be from people who are interested in the same thing as you. Some of the feelings and thoughts expressed resonate with you; some resonate in the deepest core of your being.

And because YouTube currently is the most popular such website in the world, it is visited by millions - all sorts of people, from all over the world.

Which is why it is hardly surprising that some of the most incredible, lucid, intelligent, smart, funny, lovely, interesting comments I've seen or heard in my entire life I found on YouTube.

Every now and then, rarely, I happen to stumble upon a person who sounds like the long-lost twin I never had. My heart startles and flutters wildly in recognition, almost in panic, like a bird startled out of its slumber.

When that happens, you want to give the person a heads-up, just to let them know that there is another person out there, in the wide world, that feels or thinks exactly like them. 

Or perhaps you want to say something that you feel is vital, on that small, day-to-day scale. Or you want to smile at them.

Or perhaps you simply want to get the heavy load of unexpressed gratitude off your chest, so that your heart, swollen with momentary bliss, can breathe again.

You simply want to say thank you, that was lovely and it made my day better.

That is what I'll miss. My own acknowledgement, small and humble as it may be, of people whose faces I have never seen, but I have seen their mind and their heart. They spoke to me, and I won't forget them. 
My acknowledgement may not mean much to them, but it means a lot to me.

I think acknowledgement of what is beautiful, or true, or just feels right, can be as important as creating those values. It has a civilisational value that grows in proportion with the ugliness and vulgarity and ignorance that seem to be sweeping over the WWWorld.

I hear you again: You're willing to abandon something you like that much over a principle?

Yes, I am. It is simply a matter of having choice, but that is compelling enough a reason.  

Avalanches are nothing but billions of harmless tiny crystals, as soft as water.

P.SS                 . When the internet thinks it knows you

             Personalized information filters pose a threat to democracy.
          (Not to mention that the inability to prevent such gathering and compiling of information about you already is anti-democratic.)

An American Tragedy: How Hollywood Thinks

Well, this is how it used to think cca 1930, at any rate.

But the bottom line - both literal and  figurative - is still in place today.

A Memo from David O. Selznick about An American Tragedy

Read this memo from David O. Selznick, and then, if you like, read the entire script by Sergei Eisenstein. 
(The American Tragedy, to which it refers is, of course, the same novel that was later, in 1951, made into the famous film, A Place in The Sun, with Montgomery Clift, Elizabeth Taylor and Shelley Winters.)

Another memo from Selznick: keep your bourbon bottle at hand.

This ain't no popcorn stuff.

C. Chaminade: "Automne"

No end of the world today.
But this may be the beginning of a new blog.
Maybe not.

How astrology works (and why you should stay away from it)

A friendly acquaintance of mine (you know: more than an acquaintance, but less than a friend) emailed me a "tweet" from a famous astrologer. The astrologer was chirping excitedly about May's promises. "You will LOVE May!" said the astrologer, adding that it would be one of the best months of this year.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't really believe in predictive astrology. None of us here do.

Before you hasten to email us that we have to read our ascendant (or rising) sign, too, in order to get an accurate forecast, let me tell you: that's what we've been doing for YEARS now. Reading our ascendant forecasts - only secondarily our sun sign predictions.

But that's a moot point, anyway. This May was "supposed" to be lovely for most signs.

Imagine my friendly acquaintance's nasty surprise when a few days into the merry month of May she was hit with a bill for 1500 + Euros for some debt she did not know she had.

Another friend (different sign) was suddenly faced with a divorce. Just like that - like a bolt out of the blue, her husband asked her for a divorce.

My May days also have been troubled by unexpected setbacks.

I also doubt that Maria Shriver is loving this May. Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, for that matter.

Ot Seve Ballesteros' family.

Or that Gunther Sachs did. An "iconic" figure of the merry 1960s jet set and ex-husband of Brigitte Bardot, he committed suicide on May 6th.

I am mentioning Sachs because astrology was among his more abiding interests. He founded an institute for the study of astropsychology, to find out whether there was any truth in the assertion that sun signs influence character traits.

It turned out there was. At least that's what he claimed in his book The Astrology File: Scientific Proof of the Link Between Star Signs and Human Behavior.

(For some critical observations on the method, see this article, from a good sceptically oriented site on astrology research.)

I believe him. For some obscure reason, there really seems to be a correlation between the position of planets and personality, especially when you take into account the ascendant and other planetary influences, not just the sun sign. I have noticed it many years ago. There are personality traits, predicted by my astrological chart, that are so specific that they cannot be ascribed to pure chance or coincidence.

But how is it possible? How could planets influence a person's behaviour and character?

The truth is, nobody knows. But - to some extent, at least - they do.

One of the most common misconceptions about astrology is that it's the actual, physical planets that influence us. It is not. What seems to be happening - this according to ancient astrologers - is that planets have a sphere of action, of influence, that is immeasurable with ordinary sensory equipment. Just like there is a "subtle heart" in addition to out physical heart, there are also "subtle planets", so to speak (this is my expression, so don't blame the astrologers of yore if you find it silly). And THAT is what is influencing our personalities here on Earth - not the physical, visible and measurable, plane of the planets.

For some reason, however, this does not seem to work for predictive astrology, i.e. astrological forecasting of future events and happenings.

For example, Jupiter in one's sign rarely, if ever, seems to bring the joy and happiness and success that many astrologers like to chirp about; nor is Saturn nearly as ominous as they say (but many people pay a lot of attention to unfortunate events, and since Saturn is always somewhere, in some house, they attribute whatever it is going on to that planet's influence).
No, predictive astrology does not seem to work.

Which is just as well. If you are really interested in the "co-creation" of your life, as the obnoxious but basically accurate expression goes, then forget about astrology. Either you decide what's going to happen - or you don't. You cannot use predictive astrology for "support" because there's always going to be some "negative aspect" lurking somewhere; and your mere awareness of it will, without a doubt, undermine the determination you absolutely need to materialise what you want. 
(And if you're counting on some rare overwhelmingly "positive" aspect, it will likely make you feel an anxious urge to make it happen while the aspect lasts. But creation does not run on ordinary timetables.)

Predictive astrology is at odds with a creator's mind and will. THAT is why all the Christian churches (as well as other major religions) are against astrology. Not because of some obscurantist desire to keep Prometheus shackled - it's the opposite: to give Prometheus the strength to shed his shackles. The lingo they use to explain this may be off-putting to some; but that's the essence of the negative stance on astrology and other predictive methods. Your freedom. Your unshackled WILL, coupled with the fire and light of a heart turned towards good.

When it comes to "co-creation", it's all or nothing.

No wonder so few succeed.

IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT LIKE:  

The Answer

Did Seve Ballesteros change the image of Spain?

That's what Kevin Myers, from the (Irish) Independent, is claiming.

Seve's Dignity and Joy Rewrote World's Image of Spanish People

I am not sure I agree with Mr. Myers. 

But that, my friends, is one good, funny, illuminating and, oh yes, funny article to read.

You almost forget it's an obituary. 

And you don't even have to like golf.

The Wedding

A few of our regular readers (I am constantly amazed that we have any of those!) have been discreetly prying into our - especially Lynx's - opinion about the wedding. Wills & Kate's. William and Catherine's.

It turns out none of us has seen it live in its entirety. One made sure to see the arriving guests and then left for a picnic; another two saw the latter part of the ceremony; yet another one also saw the two kisses.

But of course, with so many channels retransmitting the event in its entirety, it was not difficult to reconstruct it.

Do we have a consensual opinion?

No. So I'll only give mine.

Venue and decoration:
Westminster Abbey is possibly the most magnificent venue for a ceremony of any kind. The decoration - with young trees (then to be transplanted) - was to die for, in my opinion. It was perfect.

Music selection:
 A -. It was glorious.

(The minus refers to the absence of the music that I would have wanted to hear, but then I was not the one getting married.)

Reading and sermon:
Perfect.
I still do not quite grasp the relevance of the chosen reading to the occasion, but it was a wonderful passage - and it was very well read. Who knew a cake master could read so well, with such impeccable timing and sense of drama? (It may sound snide, but it isn't.)

And the sermon was just wonderful: to the point and pronounced in a lively, personally affecting manner.

The bride's dress:
Catherine looked very graceful and dignified in it, which is what matters the most. The "old fashioned" veil - not frilly, but falling smoothly over the face, and long - was a total success in my eyes.

The cut of the dress suited Catherine, and she did a great job complementing it with the right posture. (Her walk was less than perfect at certain points, but that's a minor quibble.)

However, I did not like the neckline, or the upper part of the dress in general.

The V-neckline is very tricky. In reality - as opposed to theory - it is not really flattering to anyone except very busty women (because it visually slims the torso), and there is something inherently "dowdy" about it, so it has to be cut very low - much lower than Catherine's was - to transcend that. But of course a very low-cut neckline would be too risky and inappropriate for such an occasion, unless it were very narrow, perhaps partly held together with buttons.

I wish she had chosen a Sabrina, a portrait or even a bateau neckline. They always looks elegant, even "regal", and they flatter practically all figures, except the very busty (which Catherine is not), and even there are exceptions. From among more revealing necklines, the empire neckline would have been very nice, I think, even though it would visually elongate Catherine's already longish neck. (Which would have been perfectly all right.)

Lace is always beautiful, but this particular combination with the V-neckline - or "scalloped" neckline - did not strike me as particularly successful. It looked like a "half-baked" solution, almost as an afterthought.

All in all, I did not think it was a striking dress. There was not enough for the eye to linger on it (and I don't mean frills or beads or sequins, nothing like that). But Catherine did look very nice and regal in it. My grievance is that she could have looked  regally WOW in a differently shaped bodice.