Bangkok Love Story (Thai: เพื่อน...กูรักมึงว่ะ or Puen, literally "friend") is a 2007 Thai film written and directed by Poj Arnon. A gay romantic crime action drama, it is the story of a man who falls in love with a gunman who is ...
Movies and Television - recent... - http://blip.tv
Sunday, September 7, 2008
New Show `Chand Ke Paar Chalo`, a passionate love story from NDTV ...
It’sa classic love story, set in the heart of Lucknow…full of poetry and passion… pain and sacrifice” Chand Ke Paar Chalo is a co-production between ...
See all stories on this topic
See all stories on this topic
AIDS Article & loving me
I asked you to post my AIDS article on the front page, it gets no posting, but here is the secret either you’ll will sing my song or they will die, because the world will know the truth before I rescue them. ...
What's Up News - http://frankpaulgambino7.wordpress.com
What's Up News - http://frankpaulgambino7.
Iconic Czech epic turned into new film
Director František A. Brabec: “The problem of the film adaptation is that there is no story. The poem is first of all a celebration of nature, of beautiful ...
See all stories on this topic
See all stories on this topic
Hillary, Bill and Obama - a love story?
By Jimmy Orr | 08.26.08 You expect partisan politics to be bare-knuckle boxing these days. But Night One in Denver was remarkable for the polite way the ...
See all stories on this topic
See all stories on this topic
The super spice that balances blood sugar and gives you up to a 20-fold burst of energy!
Earlier I told you that the accidental discovery of the effect of cinnamon on blood sugar has been a key breakthrough in the search for natural solutions for blood sugar problems. And here’s why it’s the fifth exclusive ingredient in Advanced Blood Sugar Solution™.
Once chemist Richard Anderson and his co-workers at the Human Nutrition Research Center found that the cinnamon in apple pie had positive effects on blood sugar, they investigated this popular spice.
They learned that cinnamon makes your fat cells more responsive to insulin, which regulates sugar metabolism and thus controls how much glucose is in your blood.
More important, cinnamon actually increases glucose metabolism—the process your cells use to convert glucose to energy.
Their key discovery: The most active compound in cinnamon—methyhydroxy chalcone polymer (MHCP)—increases glucose metabolism up to 20-fold!
More important, after testing some 50 plant extracts, none came close to MHCP’s affect on glucose metabolism.
What this means is, cinnamon not only helps balance your blood sugar—but it can give you as much as a 20-fold burst in energy!
Conventional wisdom says if you’re not having symptoms, your blood sugar problems are not a big deal. WRONG!
When I tell patients they have blood sugar problems, many tell me, “That can’t be. I don’t have any symptoms such as excessive thirst, frequent urination, hunger, fatigue or blurry vision.”
The truth is, blood sugar problems can go unnoticed for years. Left unchecked, they can wreak havoc on your body—eventually destroying your kidneys, your eyes, your heart, or your circulation—and you may not even know it until it’s too late.
It may take decades for little sugar deposits to do their damage, but if ignored, they will cause you major health problems.
- Conventional wisdom says low-fat dieting can control your blood sugar. WRONG!
Patients assume, “If I could just eat more low-fat foods, I’ll be okay.”
But what you’re not hearing is that low-fat diets can actually make your blood sugar problems worse. That’s because meals without fat pass out of your stomach more rapidly and get absorbed more quickly—creating blood sugar “spikes.” Too many of these spikes can lead to elevated blood sugar problems.
What you eat is important, but low-fat dieting alone won’t be the answer to all your blood sugar problems.
- Conventional wisdom says natural solutions just won’t work for blood sugar problems. WRONG again!
Many of my patients initially believe, “I need something stronger than what nature can offer to help me with my blood sugar problems.”
That’s because the Medical Establishment has done a good job of brainwashing the American public and making them dependent on expensive, conventional solutions that make up a multi billion dollar-a-year business.
But as you’re about to see in this Special Alert, new natural solutions for blood sugar problems are powerful and proven effective by clinical studies and scientific research.
Bottom line: It’s now possible for you to take control of your blood sugar, glucose and insulin—and boost your overall health. All safely, naturally and affordably.
The best way to start is…
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Some Download's
Special Offer
YOU ROCK!!! That's why Blockbuster's offering you a 2 Week FREE Trial of Blockbuster Total Access!
Flock, The Social Browser
Free browser delivers a more personal experience of the social web.
Mor
The politics of Photoshop.
The Internet has been amazingly adept at bringing like-minded people together and allowing them to make their voices heard. Even if the voices are screaming "We Love Dr. Horrible." Now, a collective of individuals has challenged the magazine industry to provide a magazine cover that is not subjected to rigorous Photoshopping.
You know, I understand that I'm sitting here blogging from under the auspices of The Man, but I can honestly say that I'm torn about the topic of altering photos and here's why: I have a permanent red vein in one of my eyes from an old injury and I 'Shop it out of just about every photo that makes it out of my hard drive. Sure, the super mondo bloodshot eye shows up in the photos that other people take of me, and I'll absolutely admit that I do it, so it's not like I'm fooling anyone, but I think it looks ugly and since I can't surgically do anything about it, I do the only thing I can, which is to digitally remove it. Sometimes, while I'm in there, I'll wipe out a zit or smooth over some acne scarring too. And at least once, I've shadowed in an egregious and unfortunately exaggerated double chin. You can smell the slippery slope from there, can't you?
Get ready for your close-up! High-definition TV has brought celebrities' skin flaws into tight focus. Learn from their tricks with SELF's advice.
Maybe I'm jaded, but I tend to view cover photos as works of art rather than photojournalism. It's a beauty ideal that doesn't exist in nature, much the same way in that makeup represents lips that are far too red or glossy or metallic and eyelashes that are way too thick and dark to come out of the head of a natural blonde. I know this. I understand this. If I myself were altered beyond recognition (the way that Tina Fey looks practically unrecognizable on the May 2008 cover of Marie Claire), I might be upset, but I don't honestly know how those stars feel about it, nor do I know how much money they're making to be some Photoshop artist's muse of the moment. What's more, having looked at untouched photos of stars, I can tell you that Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a lot more speckly than GQ would lead you to believe. But honestly, I don't really care, because I can understand that what I'm seeing is a representation of a person, just like a painting. I firmly believe that if Picasso or Rubens would have had the technology, they would have created similar depictions of their beauty ideal as well. The difference between the masters of yore and the masters of today is that our eyes can no longer see the brush strokes.
Photographic evidence: Anne from Elastic Waist comes to terms with her body by taking daily snapshots of herself. Could it work for you?
I get that. I think a lot of people do too. What I think people are questioning isn't the technology of photo altering, or even the philosophy behind it, but rather the aesthetic that is driving those changes. So therein lies my problem in justifying or denying the Photoshopping.
Weetabix wants you to know that Ugh Weekly doesn't want fat readers, thank you very much!
What about you guys? How do you feel about the obviously manipulated cover shots? Does it upset you when People airbrushes out Angelina Jolie's veiny forearm? Is it realistic to demand things from what is, in essence, a product? If there were a magazine whose tagline was "No Photoshopping Ever" would you buy it, on principle? The comments are ready for their closeup.
You know, I understand that I'm sitting here blogging from under the auspices of The Man, but I can honestly say that I'm torn about the topic of altering photos and here's why: I have a permanent red vein in one of my eyes from an old injury and I 'Shop it out of just about every photo that makes it out of my hard drive. Sure, the super mondo bloodshot eye shows up in the photos that other people take of me, and I'll absolutely admit that I do it, so it's not like I'm fooling anyone, but I think it looks ugly and since I can't surgically do anything about it, I do the only thing I can, which is to digitally remove it. Sometimes, while I'm in there, I'll wipe out a zit or smooth over some acne scarring too. And at least once, I've shadowed in an egregious and unfortunately exaggerated double chin. You can smell the slippery slope from there, can't you?
Get ready for your close-up! High-definition TV has brought celebrities' skin flaws into tight focus. Learn from their tricks with SELF's advice.
Maybe I'm jaded, but I tend to view cover photos as works of art rather than photojournalism. It's a beauty ideal that doesn't exist in nature, much the same way in that makeup represents lips that are far too red or glossy or metallic and eyelashes that are way too thick and dark to come out of the head of a natural blonde. I know this. I understand this. If I myself were altered beyond recognition (the way that Tina Fey looks practically unrecognizable on the May 2008 cover of Marie Claire), I might be upset, but I don't honestly know how those stars feel about it, nor do I know how much money they're making to be some Photoshop artist's muse of the moment. What's more, having looked at untouched photos of stars, I can tell you that Jonathan Rhys-Meyers is a lot more speckly than GQ would lead you to believe. But honestly, I don't really care, because I can understand that what I'm seeing is a representation of a person, just like a painting. I firmly believe that if Picasso or Rubens would have had the technology, they would have created similar depictions of their beauty ideal as well. The difference between the masters of yore and the masters of today is that our eyes can no longer see the brush strokes.
Photographic evidence: Anne from Elastic Waist comes to terms with her body by taking daily snapshots of herself. Could it work for you?
I get that. I think a lot of people do too. What I think people are questioning isn't the technology of photo altering, or even the philosophy behind it, but rather the aesthetic that is driving those changes. So therein lies my problem in justifying or denying the Photoshopping.
Weetabix wants you to know that Ugh Weekly doesn't want fat readers, thank you very much!
What about you guys? How do you feel about the obviously manipulated cover shots? Does it upset you when People airbrushes out Angelina Jolie's veiny forearm? Is it realistic to demand things from what is, in essence, a product? If there were a magazine whose tagline was "No Photoshopping Ever" would you buy it, on principle? The comments are ready for their closeup.
Poor people modeling obscenely expensive clothes!
The man in this picture is carrying a $200 umbrella. Even though he is toothless, barefoot and probably living on about $1.25 a day. Elsewhere in Vogue India's August issue, regular (read: not wealthy) Indians carry $10,000 Birkin bags and the children of poor women don $100 Fendi bibs.
Vogue India's editor Priya Tanna told the New York Times that by choosing ordinary Indians over models she wanted to show "the power of fashion...[That] fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful."
Um, yeah. Anyone can make anything look beautiful if it was FREE. But the fact that 456 million people in India (half of the country's population) live on less than $40 a month, means that yes, fashion is solely a rich man's privilege and a symbol of affluence. I wonder if Ms. Tanna would buy an umbrella that cost her five months' pay. Sigh.
Vogue India's editor Priya Tanna told the New York Times that by choosing ordinary Indians over models she wanted to show "the power of fashion...[That] fashion is no longer a rich man's privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful."
Um, yeah. Anyone can make anything look beautiful if it was FREE. But the fact that 456 million people in India (half of the country's population) live on less than $40 a month, means that yes, fashion is solely a rich man's privilege and a symbol of affluence. I wonder if Ms. Tanna would buy an umbrella that cost her five months' pay. Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
