Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Thursday, December 16, 2021

I’ve been a lazy slug. I had intended to finally post a review of “The Crisis : The President, the Prophet, and the Shah — 1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam”, by David Harris today. It’s been well over a month since Time Warner Book Group sent it to me for my review, and a couple of weeks since I finished it. But I simply haven’t geared myself up to write it.

So, by way of committing myself to it, I’m posting this teaser here. I will definitely post a review tomorrow, come hell or high water. Mark it down.

by Costa Tsiokos, Thu 12/16/2004 07:45:29 PM
Category: Book Review
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (1)


If the European Union isn’t going to let Turkey into its club, it really should stop extending these phony gestures:

The EU has offered to begin membership talks with Turkey next year, with 3 October given as a start date.

EU leaders said the aim of the talks - which could take up to 15 years - would be full membership, but Turkey’s entry could not be guaranteed…

EU leaders warned Turkey that it would have to take steps to recognise Cyprus before the talks started.

Some other conditions that would be just swell with Europe: Turkey should abandon Islam, and change its ethnic makeup to something more Caucasian. Do that, and then maybe they’ll let them in.

It’s pure farce. The EU is going through the motions of membership procedure, with no intention of actually following through. They’re just hoping that Turkey will get exasperated and go away. And making them wait a whole year before talks even start, let alone 15 years for any fruition (hypocrisy at its height, since the most recent expansion was fast-tracked in less than a third of that time) will do the trick.

With societal tensions between Muslim immigrants and Europeans growing each day, there’s no chance of getting popular support for admitting a Muslim country into this bloc (not that the EU’s machinations always depend upon popular mandate, but it is a factor). It’s too bad the rest of the Union can’t pin the blame on Greece, as has been the usual approach, since the Greeks have improbably become the chief proponents for Turkish membership; but the opinion polls in the other countries make the Euro attitude on the issue quite clear.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

Let me be perfectly clear to what I feel is obvious: The European Union, will never, never, NEVER admit Turkey. Never. Never. Never. To paraphrase one Chris Rock: You know how they say “never say never”? I’m saying NEVER. There is no way Christian Europe will let a populous Muslim nation into their front stoop. Turkey has a better chance of becoming one of the United States than it has of becoming an EU member.

And that’s the size of it. Turkey’s spent the past eighty years Westernizing itself, and it’s still not enough for Europeans. And it never will be.

by Costa Tsiokos, Thu 12/16/2004 07:36:35 PM
Category: Political
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (1)


Over the past couple of days, I’d come across a few blog/website references to artist Michael Paulus’ “Skeletal Systems” exhibition. It’s funny-interesting to see what well-known cartoon/comic strip characters would look like under their skin (although I question whether a shmoo, with it’s shape-shifting and stretching ability, would even have any bones).

I didn’t find it compelling enough to post anything about it here, though. But this morning, while reading the paper, I saw today’s edition of “Mother Goose & Grimm”:
click for larger size
It looks like Paulus has provided inspiration for the funny papers!

by Costa Tsiokos, Thu 12/16/2004 06:40:50 PM
Category: Internet, Pop Culture
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


Coca-Cola is brewing up some new libations for 2005:

During a Thursday conference call with analysts, President and Chief Executive Office John R. Alm said the new products are an energy drink called Full Throttle, additional Dasani water flavors, and an unnamed innovation in regular soft drinks that will be announced next year.

“Unnamed innovation”? It sounds ominous. Maybe they’re going to rip off the SmoothPour idea.

Alas, for all this flash and dash, I know Liz is disappointed over the lack of a chocolate-flavored Coke.

by Costa Tsiokos, Thu 12/16/2004 06:06:31 PM
Category: Business, Food
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback


Last week’s post about the passing of the pantyhose elicited more response than my typical scribbling.

Apparently, I wasn’t the only one to be so blessed. The St. Pete Times got enough feedback to run a few reader comments, raw and in the buff.

I generally like the “Word For Word” feature the Times occasionally runs. However, I much prefer it when the object of skewering is a corporate press release or some absurd marketing copy — something generally produced by a faceless drone. Using it to showcase reader response strikes me as being a tad mean-spirited (even if the readers likely wouldn’t object). In this particular instance, it also feels like editorial laziness to mask the non-editing of the letters by claiming to want to show them “unblemished” (hopefully, the noticable laxness at tbt* isn’t creeping into the mothership).

That said, some of the items are quite a hoot:

I am a man who pays attention to fashion and will tell you that there is not a single garment that beats the sensual look that pantyhose (or stockings) give. None. Conversely, a cheap, trashy… slut like look is guaranteed with bare legs or spray-on hose. For me, it’s simply repugnant.

“Snorri Gudmundsson”

Bare-legged or spray-on is slutty? News to me.

And “Snorri Gudmundsson”… I’ll have to add that one to my new-name candidates. It’s already taken, but I’m sure there’s room in the world for one more.

You poor soul to think pantyhose should be a thing of the past… Goodluck with your bare legs honey, but I will not take a second look if you stroll by me.

NdnOutlaw

* * *

It’s been a sad time for me having to live with this stupid era of women embracing the “bareleg look.” Do you have any idea how ugly it is to see a women who is superbly dressed in a skirt suit with stilettos and those ugly bare legs? I make it known to the women I date that bare legs are ugly and that they wear nylons when dating me.

“Al Trainer”

Somehow, I feel that the womenfolk in the vicinity of NdnOutlaw and Al Trainer aren’t much sweatin’ what either of them think.

Women’s fashion, is controlled more by the approval of OTHER women then of other men. So women who look down on hosiery disapprovingly are only suppressing other women from wearing something that will INVARIABLEY attract OTHER MEN.

Women who wear hosiery because THEY KNOW that it attracts men, have a competitive evolutionary advantage over women who don’t. So by continuing to engage in a suppressive behavior when it comes to supporting something that CLEARLY attracts other men, those women are only working against themselves.

Those who adapt, survive and move on. Those who don’t… don’t. It’s really all about the Darwin.

Eddie

Wow, I’ve never seen a more succinct illustration of Darwin’s theory of evolution in my life.

Obviously, this is a hot-button topic with both the guys and the gals. I’ll reiterate my original points:

- The word on whether pantyhose are in or out comes from the alleged experts. Neither I nor the Times is declaring it one way or the other; we’re just relaying the info.

- It all comes down to whether or not a woman has the legs to pull off the bare look. If you can see spots, veins and other less-than-appealing markings, then keep those limbs covered. If you’ve got a nice pair, then show them off however you like.

Last note: Since I’m not really a leg man, for me the point is moot. Do what you wanna do.

by Costa Tsiokos, Thu 12/16/2004 02:36:16 PM
Category: Fashion, Women
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (2)