.gif)
I try to give an insight in my own life and dealings with rosacea. I also try to gather information that might be useful for everyone with rosacea, especially subtype 1 with burning, flushing and skin redness. I happen to be a bit unfortunate in that I have this condition for a long time already, and unlike many others, I haven't been able to get it into remission. I know it is more uplifting to read about someone who has beaten rosacea, but I like to write about the struggles that come for those who haven't achieved this. If this depresses you or scares you, it is probably best to skip my day to day life update posts here (which are only a fraction of all posts), and maybe stick to the rest of the posts, which gather information. .jpg)
.jpg)
June 30, 2023
.jpg)
I could hardly believe it, but I had covid a few weeks ago. Nobody even talks about it anymore here. Nobody seems to test themselves anymore either. So when a lot of people in my surroundings got sick with 'a type of flu', but they all believed it was just seasonal influenza or allergies, it did spread very easily. Ugh. Luckily I didn't get it very bad. Just was very tired, had no appetite, a mild fever and congestion. I continued to use my face fan and the airconditioning was on as well. My skin had one day of bad redness, when I had a fever of 38,8 degrees Celsius, but then it turned very pale for the duration of the virus infection. Weird.. But I have it too during the flu and a friend of mine said always the same: that when sick with influenza, he goes all pale as well. We assume because our immune systems are too preoccupied then dealing with a virus, to cause us trouble with auto-immune type of useless pesky skin inflammation. So this was a good thing, to go with the bad thing. As I had worried that my rosacea would explode. I took 3 days of ivermectin (have used it in the past to see if it could clear up my rosacea - nope. But I knew I had no side-effects from it) and I tested negative again within a week and without lasting symptoms, knock on wood. As far as I can say now. But it wasn't a fun week. At some point (maybe due to mucus formation), I had the feeling of having my throat squeezed a bit. I've had issues with reluctant to clear bronchitis in the past and feeling short of breath is really very frightening, This wasn't bad. My oxygen meter said my blood oxygen level was between 98 and 99%, so there was literally nothing going on there either. But when you pay attention to your breathing constantly, you can very easily imagine to feel short of breath.Seen the GP about it and my lungs were fine though. By now things are back to normal. What didn't help with my imagined breathing difficulties, was the news later on about the missing Titan submersible. I have always been very interested in the Titanic disaster and so this missing sub also had me gripped.
The gist cannot have escaped anyone probably. Commercial company organizes (very) deep sea dives to the Titanic in a sub-par vehicle and recruits millionaires to pay for very expensive tickets. This time it went wrong unfortunately and the sub lost all communication, pings and tracking before it could reach the bottom of the ocean and the Titanic.
There were five days of media frenzy and speculation. The local coast guard provided regular press conferences. Mostly everyone initially seemed to believe that the sub had imploded, me included. Why else would all communication and tracking suddenly stop? But the coast guards said from the beginning that sonar did not pick up on an implosion down there. And that they were still hopeful for a positive outcome.. And if the navy's supersonic sonar equipment did not detect a super loud implosion in the sea, then there was no full-blown implosion, you could deduct. So that opened the door for all sorts of suspicions of them being down there alive, tangled, what not.
Was the sub without power? Did it get entangled in the Titanic wreckage, unable to get back up? Did it already float to the surface of the ocean but were they not yet found? Those people were bolted into the sub from the outside, so even if they had surfaced, they had to be liberated by the mothership or by searchers, and helped out. If not, they could still suffocate after 96 hours, when the subs on-board oxygen would run out. Everyone imagined them having made it to the surface somewhere, adrift, and this still not helping because they wouldn't be able to get out before the oxygen ran out. But it was literally like looking for a needle in a haystack. And it is one thing to pinpoint a missing sub 4km down.. but quite another thing to find another backup vessel that would be able to reach the sub and get it up somehow. As the company OceanGate had no 2nd backup submersible. There are not many subs in the world that can go as deep as 4 kilometres. And this sub wasn't tethered. Perhaps because 4 kilometres of rope is too complicated. Perhaps because tethers can get snagged when floating close to or over the Titanic. But still: frightening that it was in no way secured to the mothership.
Then the media started reporting about knocking sounds being detected by sonar at 30-minute intervals. Systematic 30 minute apart banging that was following the SOS signal tapping. So then the speculation went mental, with all sorts of theories about them being alive down there. Media came up with the oxygen countdown angle. They brought in the experts, talked about suffocating and claustrophobia. Psychologists weighed in on what the five people in that sub had to endure all those days. I was honestly surprised that FOX or CNN didn’t have a visual countdown clock of how many hours of oxygen were left. That is many people's worst nightmare, being stuck in this tiny, soup can-sized pod on the bottom of the ocean, with oxygen quickly running out. So many of us were glued to the media for days.. But now it came out on Thursday finally, that on Sunday the American US navy already knew and told the US coast guards that two hours after the dive commenced (so at the same critical moment when all contact was lost with the sub), the acoustic sound of an implosion was detected...
I do agree with James Cameron's harsh words. In the media the OceanGate folks and their supporters have been interviewed, and they keep saying: "they were explorers/pioneers", "they died doing what they loved doing", "this is the spirit of exploration". But we're not talking about the invention of submarines here. And the Titanic has already been explored in depth, literally and figuratively, for decades by others. They weren't the first to do this, or the first to go deep sea diving. The MIR did it many more times, and safely, with internationally accepted material. Even James Cameron went down there many times. They did not do any scientific work; it was not about exploring unknown areas, but about commercially traveling to the "extremely attractive" wreck of the Titanic. Ocean tourism for the rich. It cost them 250k per passenger. Business, but without any certifications, emergency systems or standardized industry check-ups. Selling their business as important scientific pioneer exploration. They were warned by the industry and even by their own safety specialist employer (before he was fired) that the sub was very experimental and needed to be 'classed' and go through the standardized quality and safety procedures before tourists could be transported with it. But the CEO openly defied this and believed that rules and regulations were conservative and were only interfering with pioneering. It was about the CEO's ‘dream’, and funding it through tourism. (And he made a bit of a clown of himself on TV I think, by stating that he refused to hire experienced “50 year old white men” and instead hired based on youth, rather than expertise. Like; that one aged well...). Was this the deep-sea equivalent of going over Niagara Falls in a barrel? I saw a movie about the Kursk some time ago and it was beyond frightening and claustrophobic. Those passengers had to go down there for their bread and butter, it was their job. But at least these Titan passengers had an Authentic Experience, I guess...
Hundreds of years' worth of technology and experience from the real pioneers of underwater exploration were available to them, to build something that would have allowed them to do what they loved doing and have a far, far greater chance of coming back to the surface alive and well. I guess that in light of this tragedy, there's no excuse for the cost-cutting and shabby engineering that characterised this vessel. The communication with the mothership went through an Xbox / PlayStation type of device. It navigated via USBL text messages with the mothership. It used old, heavy, rusty construction pipes and sandbags for ballast. It was designed so that all you needed to do to surface was release the ballast weights. That was done by getting everyone to lean to one side. The weights would fall off and up you go. It was super low tech in that respect. They were told to bring one water bottle each. There were Ziplock bags for a toilet. Titan had no steel sphere but instead was made of carbon fibre (never before used for a very deep-sea sub) and titanium. Was it fit for all those dives to the bottom of the ocean? Could the material have shown progressive fatigue from the pressure down there? These millionaires signed a waiver, but were they informed of the real risks? And could the company have known that the vessel was unsafe, basically? That there was no backup plan, no second sub to come to the rescue if need be? Having your clients pay 250K but not having a plan B. I see court cases looming... Chris Parry, a former Royal Navy Commander, called the submersible an "Absolute death trap".
but it seems to come back on already 😅
Been a while since I updated here. No particular reason I guess, my skin is the same as always. Constant need to keep it cool and I still systematically use anti-flushing medication. Flare ups alternate with periods of calm. Photos show my skin this week when I was not flushed, so that is just my basic skin colour during the day. (Sorry for the stupid sunglasses, but got such bad eyesight at -4 that I wear them or regular glasses all the time now and forget to take them off). Getting nevertheless really tired and fed up still with the severity of my subtype 1 rosacea, especially when thinking back of the way my skin was before that dreaded first IPL treatment. I thought it was bad then, but in reality I could function without ventilators still and just flushed (badly) occasionally from indoor heat, alcohol and stress and such. But not unprovoked. Nowadays I have so many faulty blood vessels in my face that I have a day's job managing it. I know about the warm room theory and to be careful to only cool minimally, to prevent rebound etcetera. But it is all a bit of a horror show, Nevertheless I made it my normal by now and rather use my time for other things that interest me. I spent so many years looking into everything related to rosacea (basically throughout my entire 20's), trying everything I could, being preoccupied by it near-constantly, that by now in my early 40's I am just sick of it. A friend sent me information about a new 'yellow laser' and after reading the info I did think for a nanosecond: Should I try this...? But soon after the thought of more risk taking just made me shudder. Probably not a good idea. Can't be bothered with the anxiety, the test patches, the three weeks of reactivity, then the disappointment of the laser having done nothing or worse. Then rinse and repeat. Nah. I have taken my losses and even though I am still interested in health and medicine in general, I stay away from more Russian roulettes. This rosacea has changed the course of my life quite profoundly I think, although you can never be sure how things would have panned out without it. I could have died in a business-related plane crash if I had been in great health, for all we know. Or during childbirth. But it also gave me a life with so much time and opportunities to do things I have a passion for, like traveling and work in writing/research that does not pay as much as my initially trained for lawyer job, but gives me a lot of satisfaction either way. Time for books, movies, nature, friendships, relationships, my cats. Things can always be worse. I still never caught covid either, despite deciding against getting the mRNA injections. Grateful. And the cold urticaria has been very minimal this winter. I think because I have tried to keep temperature inside above a certain temperature threshold (15 degrees C), also at night. 
The next week I went for a second opinion with another GP. A slightly older woman with lots of empathic powers. Had to wait a very long time first, as in the post-covid era there are still all sorts of hurdles for seeing a doctor face to face and half the town seemed to want to see the doctor at the same time as me. The waiting room was also very hot so I had warm throbbing cheeks soon. Ughh.. I was the only one in the room not wearing a face mask. Three hours later and the GP welcomed me in, had me show her my ankle and then was furious that I had been waiting around for 10 days with such a massive ankle. She kept shouting "This is not a simple sprain!" Then said the foot looked terrible and that I needed to go to the ER right away with it for scans and likely a cast. It was pretty absurd, as she was walking around the room like some tiger, hand in front of her mouth, rambling in disbelief, crying out which doctor earlier sent me home without hospital scans for such an ankle. Without anything to immobilize that foot, what had I been thinking? And what was the name of that other doctor, because she would call her right now to tell her off. I did not want to snitch so said I had forgotten her name.
So had to go to the ER after that, since this GP said we needed scans. Because the treatment of a broken foot is very different from the treatment of a torn ligament, or the treatment of a simple sprain. I was slightly freaking out by now. Had I been too lax and had I wasted my time those ten days prior, not treating this thing correctly? My main relaxation is to walk, to hike. Now I was worried I couldn't do that anymore for months to come. [Which turned out to be correct...]. So after three hours of waiting in a hot doctor's office, I now had to wait many more hours in a hot hospital waiting room for an MRI and Xray.... Among all these sick people, puffing and coughing. ER waiting rooms are often sinister places with an odd hushed vibe. Sometimes woken up by true emergency cases. A woman in slippers, wearing a coat and a dressing gown was sitting across from me, supported by a young girl and a guy in his 20's. She looked like she was coming straight from that movie with Jack Nicholson, One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest. It was terrible as she was wailing and had her head in her hands often, or was rocking back and forth. From what I could hear she was diabetic and forgot her medication. A young woman in her mid 20's, wearing a red leather jacket, kept playing games on her smartphone with the sound on loud. So there was a constant background noise of 80's video games. There were about twelve people in the (once again hot) room, mumbling among each other and coughing. Some were openly complaining it was too hot. Hospitals always seem so bloody hot, I wonder why. When I was seen, about two hours later, the doctor did scans of my ankle and foot and later came back to tell me that three X-rays showed no bone fractures or bone cracks or anything. The ER doctor inspected my ankle and said that the ankle ligaments are damaged to a degree. That I had to wrap it up with bandages for 15 weeks (woah!!!), rest it for two more weeks without any walking or trying to stand on it, and then after those two weeks I had to go to a physiotherapist to start to build up some muscle strength and slowly start moving that foot again. Luckily no need for a rigid cast, although at this point I was mostly fretting about need for operations and metal plates having to be attached to my bones or something (I am allergic to metals). So it was just a very bad sprain after all. I hope the GP didn't call the other doctor's office for a bitchfest in the end..
Roald Dahl
But that was somehow misunderstood or willingly overlooked. The “sensitivity readers” trawled through his entire body of work and selected hundreds of his words and phrases that might be triggering to the easily offended. How Orwellian (but of course his works are probably up next). “Language relating to weight, mental health, violence, gender and race” have been altered. The Oompa-Loompas are now made gender neutral. Augustus Gloop is no longer called fat, but is now “enormous,” as if that is any less likely to cause upset.😄 Miss Trunchbull no longer has a "horsey face" (we loved that one as kids as it was so graphic), but just 'a face'. Mrs Twit's no longer “ugly and beastly” but simply “beastly.” The Cloud-Men are now called “Cloud-People,” and Miss Sponge is no longer allowed to be called “the fat one.” “Eight nutty little idiots” has been changed to “eight nutty little boys,” and a reference to a character “turning white” has now become “quite pale.” Oh dear... “Mothers and fathers” has been replaced by “parents.” “Ladies and gentlemen” is now “folks,” presumably lest it offend non-binary children. And comically, the phrase “you can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and double chin and stick-out teeth” had “double chin” removed. Why on Earth is that deemed more offensive than the other physical critiques? In Dahl’s 1983 novel “The Witches,” (my favourite) about a young boy growing up in a world run by witches, there have been no less than 59 changes. The word “chambermaid” became “cleaner.” “You must be mad, woman!” is now “You must be out of your mind!” and “the old hag” is altered to “the old crow.” Even “foul bald-headed females” is cut to “foul females” despite the fact the witches are all bald in the book. Apparently, it’s fine for kids to think witches can be foul, they just can’t be hairless. And to pander to anyone who may be bald due to a medical condition (Jada, you there?), they added an entire new passage in the book: "There are plenty of other reasons why women might wear wigs and there is certainly nothing wrong with that." Gone is the magic of the scary bald witches... The sentence “Even if she is working as a cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman” now reads: “Even if she is working as a top scientist or running a business.” So should kids now think that it’s demeaning to be a supermarket cashier or an office assistant? Most hysterical, in “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” a reference to tractors that reads “the machines were both black” has been cut on grounds of subliminal racism. The colour of a bloody tractor is now deemed racist, god help me..
All chuckling aside about so many absurd corrections, Dahl refined his texts all the time himself while writing them and was one of the world’s greatest wordsmiths, taking extraordinary care over every word he wrote. The overwriting of his work like this can be seen as a woke overhaul performed by people who have no business doing so, and is basically graffiti. Cultural vandalism. Leave other people's works alone. The only one who should censor his own work is the author himself. And the only thing Dahl ever changed about his books is the looks of the Oompa-Loompa's. They used to be black but he changed them into orange in 1971 and then white in 1973. To avoid racist interpretations. But bring up how all these new "improvements" are bonkers or unacceptable, and you are guaranteed to be accused of being insensitive and prejudiced anyway. Sensitivity readers are a plague for writers and creativity though, as their censoring and often strangely conservative take on things cause ripples, in which publishers become more and more cautious too when accepting manuscripts. Worried about offending anyone and it causing bad publicity. In the process they steer away from 'possibly problematic' manuscripts, further narrowing the book pool. And even authors themselves are not immune and are steered towards constantly thinking about all these sensitivity restrictions when writing. Self-censoring their work before it is even shown to these morality knights. Who has voted for these people to decide what others can and cannot read anyway? Art and literature and books are supposed to be controversial at times. Showing people different views, different opinions and situations they may not feel comfortable with. Books are not meant to confirm your own world view. They are supposed to widen your horizon and imagination, not narrow it. If you do not confront people with different opinions and challenging views, you get the excesses of today, with some overly sensitive youngsters without any intellectual resilience or ability to deal with differences of opinion through argumentation. People who rather block or cancel different opinions, or stick their fingers in their ears. "Nah nah naaaaah". As someone wrote: 'Is it even hilarious that the 'most progressive generation like evahhhh' is so fragile that they can't read Roald Dahl without collapsing into whimpering heaps? There's something wrong with these kids.' 
Roald Dahl sold over 300 million copies of his books worldwide. People love them just the way they were written. Let writers portray the world as it really is. Add an introduction page to the book if need be for context, to explain that a book was written in another time with different views on things, instead or rewriting or removing the text. Literature is meant to be surprising and provocative. If the language in a book is that offensive to you, then don’t read it. Simple as that.
Applause (not jazz hands)
Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion (2022)
.jpg)
September 14, 2022
The passing of Queen Elizabeth IIBeen a bit sad that the end of an era has come. Even though I'm not British, I quite like the history of royalty in general. Most of all the Tudor era, but also more modern day monarchs. I don't remember a time in my life when Elizabeth II was not Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. In the Netherlands we have a monarchy as well and our Beatrix became queen when I was a baby and she reigned 'only' 33 years, but was like a national grandmother by then. I quite like that Elizabeth reigned until her death. Like others did before her, including Victoria. There is something touching and stately about that. I have watched some long docu's about Elizabeth II's reign this week and it seems that she was as neutral as they come. Most people have no idea what her personal beliefs were on many political or ethical topics, as she became queen at such a young age (25), and always stuck to the demand to be a neutral clean slate; a queen for all and for everyone. Never Explain, Never Complain. I did love her wit and her ability to seemingly always know what to say in any situation. She was not an intellectual (preferred to talk about dogs and horses and the country life) but she was intelligent and so sharp and funny. Can see why she and Philip had such a long, successful marriage. (Even though there was talk of a mistress but if even true, that still is commonplace among the aristocracy). They did seem very well matched and Philip was very straight forward and she relied on him a great deal. He was like an orphan almost when they met, living here and there and nowhere, and he always did everything to cherish the family he and Elizabeth created. But Philip would mock the Queen as well and told her to get on with things when she was chatting (yapping) too long. She quite liked that I read. A proper man who didn't grovel to her. I also quite liked their sense of duty, hard work, lack of self-pity or flagrant self-promotion. I was a bit of a fan of Elizabeth. She made for a good queen I think. No fuss, hard working, fair and stable and with an eye for those less privileged in life. I also liked how much attention and consideration she had for the overseas areas of the Commonwealth. And she was rather glamorous in her youth. Philip as well. Young people today probably don't realize what a vibrant young woman she was. But she wasn't as frivolous and self-destructive as her very attractive sister Margareth. They were also the product of their time.
Someone once said that if you want to understand someone, you have to look at the way the world was when they were 21 years old. As that is usually their formative age. The way of living at that time is often a guideline later in life. Elizabeth was born in the mid 20's, during austerity and she came of age during the 2nd world war. And all that seriousness and practicality and unshaken steadfastness of that generation; well that's what Elizabeth and Philip stood for too. As a friend wrote me: 'Her 1953 coronation probably predates even the birth of the parents of the majority of people in the country. When she was made Queen, Winston Churchill was alive and well, Josef Stalin had passed away only three months previously, Dwight Eisenhower was the new President of the United States, with John F Kennedy still a few years away yet. Man (Neil Armstrong) would not walk on the Moon until Sixteen years later - 1969(!). Britain and Europe were still coming to terms with the end of the second World War, and all of its trauma and hardship was still fresh..'.It's interesting how the times in which people grow up shapes them so much. The post-war (WW2) generation in general were hard working, no-nonsense, forward looking, problem-solving. But Elizabeth and Philip would never hold hands in public. They also did not raise their kids with obvious emotions on show. They did not air their dirty laundry to the public. Elizabeth even believed you should not burden the people around you with your personal grievances, emotions and insecurities. One deals with those things privately. Clearly a generational stance. That's probably also why she couldn't deal with rather hysterical Diana most of the time. It was probably at least partially the result of the era in which she grew up, and the manner in which. For context: in the Netherlands, we had Jewish camp survivors come back (not many of them) after World War 2 ended, and there was very little empathy for them upon returning. 'Don't complain, be glad you made it out, now we will rebuild the country'. That was the spirit back then and people did not visit psychologists en masse to talk about their feelings and emotions. Of course, in case of trauma that is not necessarily a good thing. But people growing up today experience the almost polar opposite. My own grandparents were Resistance fighters during WW2 but never felt like talking about it much after the war, let alone boast about it. My grandfather went through traumatizing things, very similar to the opening scene of Inglorious Bastards from Tarantino and lived with the guilt all his life, but they kept those things to themselves. Maybe that is also why I (a child in the 80's and a teenager during the 90's) struggle to understand the modern day 'feelings over facts' attitude, and the way in which younger people seem to scramble to claim one or another victimhood status. And then tell the outside world/online world about it. I talked with a friend about it the other day and back in the days we would rather melt than portray ourselves as victims of anything. You got on with things and did not revel in being seen as weak or special. If that makes sense? There are of course true victims of horrible crimes and that's a different story. And I am telling others through this blog also about the unfortunate things that happened to me, such as that disastrous IPL treatment. But that is also to try to give it some sort of purpose and to hopefully help other people in the same boat to feel less alone. I'm more hinting at the constant offense and 'trauma' some people claim to have with regards to encountering different opinions for instance, or things in life that didn't go all smoothly. The pampered generation is coming of age now, and boy do we need to hear about it. Speaking of generations, I think mine is a little more emotional and self-centered than the never complaining Great Generation, and a little bit more independent and less pampered than Millennials and Gen Z.
And what Bill says is common sense; not some eccentric fringe belief. Looking at modern day America is sometimes like watching a room full with adult sized babies with diapers on debating. Context, people. I myself always chuckled quite a bit when it came to Prince Philips non-pc comments, called gaffes later. He has some of the funniest and most famous quotes of all time. Some of them are just hilarious, some are very controversial nowadays. But he would often use humour to make people feel at ease. He just had a wicked sense of humour and maybe it is a culture thing as well. Americans take most often offense it seems and don't always get the British sarcasm and tongue in cheek humour. Although Philip could also be boorishly rude at times haha. One time a really round looking chef told Philip his profession, or he was accepting some chef award or something. And Philip said to him: 'No wonder you are a good chef because you certainly have the size for it'. The chef himself found it hilarious and laughed out loud. And during some opening in Canada he also spoke right before the reveal of some artwork to the audiences: “I declare this thing open, whatever it is” 😅 OK, some more then:
- Upon being shown art during a trip to Ethiopia: “It looks like the kind of thing my daughter would bring back from her school art lessons.”
- About the war: "It was part of the fortunes of war. We didn't have counsellors rushing around every time somebody let off a gun, asking 'Are you all right - are you sure you don't have a ghastly problem?' You just got on with it!"
-Discussing a tartan design with Scottish Tory Annabel Goldi: "That's a nice tie... Do you have any knickers in that material?"
-On being shown Nottingham Forest FC's trophy collection: "I suppose I would get in a lot of trouble if I were to melt them down."
-Joining a group of female Labour MP: "Ah, so this is feminist corner then".
Ok, the culturally tinged comments are no longer bon-ton these days, but times were different back then and we do not have to 'cancel' everyone from those times in order to "do better" today. Most of his quotes gave me a chuckle anyway. Maybe also because of the zealous anti-humour times of today, where there seems always someone screaming offense online. And I also wonder: would the USA be a different place with an all connecting institution like the royals? I know the entire basis of the USA is that it was founded as a republic. But just see how divided and at war they all are today. In the UK there may be different political parties, but the royals have always been a connecting and solidifying force. Just look at the millions of people who are out in the streets now, this week, coming from all directions to say farewell to the queen. They are from mostly all walks of life, all colours and backgrounds. Even though modern day royals do not have much political power anymore, they still symbolize tradition, history and unity to me. Although not everyone agrees there of course. Another friend from England wrote: 'No I'm not a fan. They take 100 million a year from the taxpayers and that doesn't include all the rent and tax free earnings they make for owning land, hotels, castles etc etc. They're worth a few billion quid so what do they need to rob the public for? Loose change? Not to mention that we've not had a genuinely English monarch since 1066.' - I can see his point as well of course. And then there are the people unhappy with the royals because of links with colonialism. But the entire world, throughout history, was fought over and went through transitions under different rulers from different tribes or nationalities. Most countries have been taken and retaken over the ages and plundered as such. That's not isolated to one area only, or to the last countries who dealt with that fate. Anyway, a week full of ceremony and emotions in the UK. It is not just the end of this queen, but also the end of an era, and it must be mourned as such.
There is a massive energy crisis here currently. Europe was heavily relying on Russian (cheap) gas for years and years, and Putin has as good as closed the pipes and now everyone is scrambling for gas and oil. Prices are up 300% or so I read. Although this fluctuates. But prices are up enough for mostly everyone's energy bill go double or tripple (or worse) overnight. The Netherlands have the highest gas price of all the European nations. A small family will this year pay 4000 euro more than previous years, the media revealed. One in four households will struggle to pay their bills, and many already do. Even people with good paying jobs are in trouble with such a massive cost increase for basic gas and electricity bills. Some already spend a quarter to half of their monthly income on electricity bills. And even someone like myself, who barely ever heats the house and does not like hour-long hot showers, notices it one way or another, as these high energy prices are reflected in mostly anything we buy. From our groceries being 20% more expensive on average, to petrol and diesel for our cars being a lot more expensive. And most shops are dealing with more expensive production- and transport costs as well, which means they increase the prices of their products. Similar for most services. So more or less everything has become a lot more expensive, but wages and benefits have not been increased. Not even the minimum wage has gone up, despite the Netherlands having an official inflation of more than 12%. This is about as bad as during the last great world war. People have the same income, but must pay more for everything. There are already people unable to pay their bills and one woman made it into the papers for having her energy company come round to lock off her gas, as she cannot afford to cook or heat the house anymore. We tend to have central heating here, which is gas-driven. The Netherlands both import and export gas, and as a country it does not lose, overall. But due to the current inflation, the people get poorer, while the state stays neutral and the electricity companies are making record profits. Shell, all the oil companies; they all made record profits the last 6 months due to the high oil price. But also companies like Unilever, who sell their produce through the supermarkets for super high prices (and they already made record profits during the covid years, when many people had only their supermarket trip and food for comfort). And now they increase prices even when it isn't necessary or linked to an increase of costs for them. So all costs are rising exponentially, but the incomes do not increase. The government is trying to help out a bit, but it isn't much so far. The Netherlands have a right-wing, conservative block of parties in power. But this problem is hitting many European countries. The French government has installed a 4% energy price increase cap. So energy companies are not allowed to raise prices beyond that 4% mark. Spain gives its citizens free train traveling. Belgium has a 'social tarif' where anyone who earns less than a certain amount gets 30% reduction on electricity bills, arranged by the state.
Now the European Union has come up with an agreement yesterday which is pretty ambitious. They want to limit how much profit the oil and gas industries can make within Europe (33%), and every euro they make more they have to hand in to the EU, who will use these expected 100 million euros to help struggling Europeans. Energy companies are making record profits at the moment. Especially energy providers who use nuclear and wind- and solar energy, as they don't have to invest more than they normally would on the heated international gas and oil market. The European Union will soon also allow gas companies to only ask a maximum price of €180 per megawatt hour. Last month this price was €364 per megawatt hour. While one year ago, that prices was around €25 per megawatt hour.... So, insane price increases. The prices on the energy market are more than 10 times higher now than last year, for us in the NL. And the electricity use within the entire European Union also has to be decreased with 10% this upcoming year. The EU puts full blame for this fiasco on Vladimir Putin. Because he broke the energy agreements. I remember Trump warning EU leaders about this dependency we have on Russian oil and gas back in 2018 I believe it was, and they smirked in his face and on camera back then. I guess he was right though, in hindsight. In that respect. And we're not laughing anymore now. Mostly everyone thought beforehand that Putin wouldn't do this, because Russia would need our European gas dollars for their war, etc etc. But the tap is turned off. And interestingly enough, the ruble seemed to become rubble and tumble at first, but is now recovering very well again. Didn't hear yet from Greta T. how we should deal with a cold house this winter and not enough money to get groceries. Already, many folks with a normal income level can no longer pay their gas bills, and we all have central heating in our houses which is powered by gas. It will be carnage this winter, even more so than last winter, when people were told by politicians to stick their thermostat in the house to 17 degrees (62 F.). That's not a problem for me as I don't like heat at all, but most folks like it warm and snuggly at at least 21 degrees (70 F.) in the house. It's going to cost them big time. Putin probably considers Europe's support of Ukraine a valid reason to stop delivering gas and oil to the EU. A war which still rages on by the way, but the Russians are struggling as the Ukrainians are well trained and armed. But the fact that the EU now has to do a bidding war on a heated international market is not helping the situation. And the EU is also buying expensive American gas, as predicted. And even when energy prizes drop overnight, the reduced price will not be passed on to customers initially, who are charged the same high tariff or are charged even more temporarily. As gas companies first need to get their money back from earlier high investments. And the market remains very volatile. Next thing we could also be submitted to eco taxes. Meanwhile the preachy yet self-serving elite have good salaries, mass funds and a gold plated pension, not to mention private jets that come and go. Stashing their cash away on the Cayman islands. Next thing we'll give people limits on their carbon footprint. Politicians have been toying with the idea of a tax on the number of miles you drive. A bit like that Chinese social credit system. Of course, this will mainly hurt the poor because the poorer people often have to travel further for work or they live in the least convenient places.
I would love green energy... as long as it will be very affordable and actually sufficient to keep society running. Unfortunately right now, we are far from ready for green energy replacing fossil fuels. Same for all those electric cars. We are told here that we have to replace our petrol and diesel cars for electrical cars, but how will they be charged exactly? What will provide the energy you need for your electric cars? Right. There is not enough of that as we speak. Green energy is just not enough at this moment in time. There are not enough charging points and most normal earning people cannot afford an electrical car yet either. I worry that as it stands right now, the green new deal will mostly affect the poor and the middle classes, while the elite will just get more rich and continue to fly their private jets over the globe, uncontrolled. Same with their empathetic pleas for more refugees and helping the homeless personally. Yet they never seem to invite them in their Park Avenue apartments and gated elite compounds and 'wild reserves'. Like that joke from earlier this week, when 50-something refugees traveled to Martha's Vineyard and the rich liberals instantly took their woke signs out of their gardens ('In this house, we believe: blabla, No Human Is Illegal, blabla, Kindness is Everything'). And they called the cops to have the refugees removed again by bus. I mean, refugees are fine, but NOT in our neighborhood. Why not invite them into your houses, rich liberals? Why not have them camp in your lush gardens? It's the staggering hypocrisy that annoys me the most tbh. The fake activism, preaching to others in lesser circumstances what to do, while isolating themselves from all the poverty and sacrifice in their rich, protected elite compounds. Do these people not have any self-reflection? A typical case of 'Do as I Say, Not As I Do'. 
Anyway. Add to that the risk of a recession.. As it is often said, inflation is a cruel tax on the middle and lower classes. The poor are now also paying the price for putting economies on hold for two years. But should you look into the primary providers of energy in your own region, I’m willing to bet they’ve also reported record profits in recent months. It isn’t inflation to simply raise prices just because you can. This is greedy old Masters of the Universe doing greedy old dickish things because it is in their interest and nature. We've also been dealing with shocks to the supply system because of the pandemic and the printing of extra money by governments. Our markets and retirement funds here have been hammered too, as the world markets have all been getting hammered. And it has been great for the climate and such that we have closed down coal mines and refocus from fossil fuel on green energy, but from an economic (and now also political) point of view, Europe has been committing 'energy suicide' over the past decade with our reliance on Russia for oil and gas. Not only is reaching our climate targets (Paris agreement and the aim to reduce CO2 emission) in this way an ostrich tactic, when you just push the emission problem over the border basically. It is also interesting in a way that Europe, along with the USA, would give Russia so much energy power. Who knows if it emboldended Putin to invade Ukraine, knowing that Europe and America basically gave Putin all this energy power and money, and any sanctions against the invasion would hurt Europe and America economically. And it has. Meanwhile Biden laughed and mocked the Ruble and did a victory lap, but the Ruble is actually higher right now than before the invasion. Everybody is asked to pay their Russian fossil fuel in Rubles now, instead of American dollars. 
.jpg)
My skin at the moment
Ivermectin pills did not seem to do much for the little red rash, but it is hard to be certain. I still had heat rash on and off during and after the ivermectin course (15 mg twice, one week apart). But right now, things have calmed down a lot again. I mostly can link the outbreaks to being overheated and warm weather tbh. The cheek I sleep on now has most of the little itching red bumps, which is the opposite of what I experience outside of summer, so for the rest of the year: then the cheek I sleep on is most pale and the other one - sleeping on my side always - seems most flushed in the morning. But the ivermectin didn't make matters worse for sure, and I had no side-effects really. Only felt a little bit dizzy for a few hours, right after taking each pill and that was it. Photos attached here are without filters or any of that, but taken in the morning, when I'm always more puffy unfrt. Will be 43 yo soon, and despite the constant skin trouble and need to cool my skin (and all in all having no wild social life to speak of), the tiniest silver lining may perhaps be that despite obviously ageing in general, I have no big wrinkle issues. Yet.. 😉😌 Despite not using any skin care, no creams, no skin products at all (and no beauty treatments of course). Not that it would matter if I did. But I find it interesting to track, since back in 2004 or so, my dermatologist told me to give my skin a break and just use water on it.. I stuck with that ever since. And did worry about premature ageing and skin wrinkling and all that, but 18 years of only washing my face with water did not do too much harm it seems. Perhaps all that extra oxygen that's sent to the skin through the facial flushing plays a role, I don't know. But of course it also means I have no soothing skin products to rely on, and for all I know I would be less pink/red if I had continued and actually succeeded in finding a skin product that does not make my skin flare and burn. I just gave up on that, to be honest. Also having some mild eczema/perioral dermatitis issue in the corners of my mouth. I just use some vaseline there (spot treatment) as it isn't too bad. But it gives a red rashes/skin scaling issue.
CovidStill didn't catch covid, touch on wood. Despite traveling, not wearing masks anymore in public and not being vaccinated. Hope it stays this way. A blood test I did some time ago showed no covid antibodies, but they can only be traced for about 6 months or so, I believe. So it doesn't say much about whether or not I was exposed to covid in 2020. and developed long lasting antibodies back then, perhaps. Otherwise it may just have been good luck or my overly aggressive pest of an immune system, perhaps.
Bottled Water
I spent some time with my mum and sister and nephew on one of the Dutch islands. Made some photos, will add a few here. It was nice, we spent some time at the beach and walking in the dunes and such. We had a good time and the weather wasn't too warm, around 21 degrees C. But it was sunny often and the bungalow we rented for a few nights did warm up to 24 degrees inside. I tried sleeping in one of the bunk beds the first night, with a clip fan blowing on my face and placed close to the tiny window. But I was so red and flushed all night that I resorted to sleeping on the couch in the living room the next night, keeping the sliding door to the garden open. Didn't sleep too much either then, as vigilent for intruders (who never came, lol), but was at least cool and pale when getting up in the morning. Luckily the people that are close to me all understand my skin needs and make no fuss about it. I bring neck fans with me these days, and have a bunch of them, so there are always a couple fully (usb)charged and ready to use. They last for about 5 hours I think, on lowest speed. But they enable me to be out and about, or simply move around freely in the house without the need of sitting still in front of a cable fan. And they prevent me from getting maroon red and flushed. I still can feel deflated and sad soon over minor things, as this constant pressure of avoiding most stuff that makes life fun and always trying to be a few steps ahead of a flushing and burning skin attacks, is just tiring. And depressing. But I try to focus on other things much more nowadays, and just try to accept that this is my way of getting through life. Like some other unfortunate people have to carry an oxygen tank with them, for instance, or any other medical device really. I always wear a hat also, even when it is winter and people give me strange looks for wearing a running fan around my neck and a hat on. The latest ones luckily no longer look like propellers that can lift you off any moment, lol, but more like you are carrying bulky earphones around your neck. I have this one and this one, among others.
So I really dislike summer. Always have. And with my rosacea it has become even more miserable. My friend in Australia has suggested staying with her throughout our European summers, as it is cooler in Australia then. I am seriously considering this for the future, especially since she has a baby now. My other Aussie friend is in the same boat as me also, in terms of face flushing and burning and the need for fans and restrictive living. We dream of going to the Orkneys to 'hibernate' during summers. But now I have a trip in the making for the spring/summer of 2023, and I am soooooo excited about this. My next dream trip is going to the Faroe islands! Will have to save a lot of money to be able to go there, but it is possible and affordable to fly there through Copenhagen, Denmark. Would love to stay there for a bit, seeing the puffins on their island, hiking in the cool weather and just witnessing that great landscape. It never really gets very warm there at all, and has notorious windy, clouded weather. Perfect for me.
My Aussie friend responded: "STUNNING Nat!! I have never heard of these islands. I googled more and looked at airbnb as well, just to see what it is like. It looks amazing! Geez, you can see how the continents and land divided when you see that land surrounded by ocean with the lake/river running through the middle. It looks like it would be quite cold there. My god, I can not imagine how cold it must get in these places with the wind coming off the ice in the north. Would you stay in the town Nat or would you go and stay in one of the more remote places and do big walks?" - It is most often overcast with clouds or rain, from what I can see on the weather forecasts of the past years. And in many youtube videos of the place it also often looks covered with clouds, or rain. I imagine you'd be lucky to get a couple of sunny days in a row, especially when skipping the 'high season' of July an August. And often tons of wind. A natural airco slash fan to walk in. Like most Scandinavian places, it seems fairly expensive to go there, but am saving already. My dad told me that he will donate 1000 euro's for that trip, as he thinks it is so brilliant and so good/cold for my skin, yayy. It is just an absolute nightmare and hurdle race to go anywhere for me, unless it is cold and not sunny... But this place I think it among our best bets in that respect. It is not too big over there. Small islands. I think that with a rental car, you can cross around fairly quickly. The tunnels and ferry's are expensive I read, so am looking at renting small cottages in different locations, near where I want to walk and photograph. I really want to go walk here at the witches finger, which is also where Daniel Craig aka James Bond supposedly died, or something. I just don't know if I'd dare doing this walk, just see the trail and how steep. Will try though, even if I have to go on hands and knees haha. 
Cold Case - Arjen KamphuisI have a Cold Case crime blog (you can read it here) and am now working on the English translation of a brand new Dutch docu series about a missing Dutchman. In 2018, cyber expert Arjen Kamphuis mysteriously disappeared in Norway. To this day, the disappearance raises many questions and his story is a source of many theories as to what happened to him. Is there 'someone' or 'something' behind the disappearance of this WikiLeaks specialist? So I am adding short parts of this 4-part series on a separate blog. You can only add 100 MB videos at one time there, and on youtube these translated videos are instantly blocked due to copyright claims. But since it may interest people to hear more about this mysterious case, I try to work around all that. Read about it here (am still working on the translations though, so it may take a bit longer before you can watch the full translated series)
June 8th 2022
Now that it is almost summer, my rosacea is acting up again in that summertime manner. For years now I have specific skin symptoms in both winter and summer, on top of my skin flushing and burning very easily and me using a fan most of the time (neck fan's too lately) to keep it from flaring up. In winter there are the cold urticaria hives and in summer there are breakouts. Now that it is getting warm I have that heat rash on my face AGAIN, sigh :( It's like tiny red dots on my cheeks, not everywhere but mostly on the apple of the cheek area. They mildly itch, which convinces me these are no regular rosacea outbreaks, like my derm thought last year. Although they of course might be.. The bumps don't respond to any anti-inflammatory/rosacea creams and strictly come up in june/july/august, when it is warmest here. The rest of the year I don't have them typically. The whiteness in the photos is the zinc oxide cream I put on them as spot treatment. I still don't know how exactly these red bumps are linked to the summer.
** Perhaps they are triggered by heat and it is simply the face breaking out due to my facial sweat glands not properly functioning (heat rash is linked to that, and it honestly looks the same as some heat rash pictures online). My skin is also a bit warmer to the touch than normal anyway, and sleeping with one cheek pressed on the pillow, in warm temperatures, seems to cause me breakouts which I normally do nothave. Normally, the cheek I sleep on is most pale (I suspect the other cheek gets more red from 'blood pooling' there due to gravity).
** Another explanation may be me using the air-conditioning in the bedroom in summer. But I have properly cleaned it and I can't imagine the rash being the result of some dirt in those aircons.
** I have been eating chocolate every day, but no more or less than throughout the other months of the year haha.
** My skin gets a bit more dry in summer, maybe it is linked to that.
** Or maybe this is linked to demodex mites. I wrote a long blog post about the link between rosacea and demodex mites, but don't necessarily believe they are an issue in my own rosacea, as demodex mites would surely be active throughout the year and cause breakouts throughout the year then? And not just during the summer months. But an American friend of mine with rosacea suggested that the warmer temperatures may push the balance in my skin and make it more favourable for demodex mites. Maybe the heat somehow kicks those mites into gear. She showed how her own skin (redness, flushing, occasional break outs) improved from tea tree oil. I don't use anything on my skin though, aside from water. No creams, serums, make-up, nothing. The time I tried out topical ivermectin gel on my chin, it burned and was red for a month or so. It just seems too strong for my flimsy skin and I fear tea tree oil will be too strong and painful as well... But there is information online that apparently two doses of oral ivermectin, taken over the span of two weeks, also kills the demodex mites. I honestly think it is just my skin responding to the heat, just as it responds with hives in the coldest winter months. But I took 14 mg ivermectin yesterday morning anyway, and if all goes well, will take another dose in a week. Don't expect any changes, but as least I can sort of rule demodex out then.. So anyway, I suspect my rash is more like prickly heat, heat rash. But I nevertheless tried the ivermectin pills (14 mg, one dose so far). It only made me a bit dizzy for half the day. I didn't flush more from it and today I have no 'die off' symptoms and extra bumps or redness. Will keep you updated. Photos below are of this week. I was not flushing when these photos were taken. (I'm getting old).
.jpg)
What causes a heat rash ('prickly heat')
A clog in the narrow pathways (ducts) that carry sweat to the surface of your skin (pores) causes a heat rash. Your body reacts to the clog and attempts to heal it by creating inflammation that forms a rash. Heat rashes can irritate your skin, which can be itchy or sometimes painful. Many factors cause sweat glands to clog, including:
*Small pieces of dead skin cells (skin secretions) block your gland.
*Too much sweat builds up between your skin and your clothing.
*Hair follicles block your glands.
*Hormone changes; like being on your period.
*Not enough airflow between your skin and clothing.
Heat rashes are usually itchy. Most heat rashes have a mild itch or irritation. More rare cases have severe itching that gets worse the more you itch it. Since the skin where you have a heat rash is sensitive, the bumps on your skin can break open easily when you scratch. This could lead to an infection. If calamine lotion or a prescribed cream doesn’t alleviate your itch, contact your healthcare provider. Heat rashes affect an estimated 4% to 9% of newborns between one and three weeks of age. The condition also affects nearly 30% of adults who live in humid climates.
How do I treat a heat rash?
Depending on the severity of your heat rash, you can treat your rash at home by:
*Keeping your skin cool and dry: Use a fan or air conditioner to cool your body down if the temperature is hot or humid. Take a cool shower and either lightly pat your skin dry with a towel or let your body air dry to prevent further irritation.
*Wearing cotton clothing: Choose clothing items made of cotton that allow airflow between the material and your skin. Avoid synthetic materials that often trap heat.
*Using anti-itch medications: If you have severe itching or pain from your heat rash, your healthcare provider might recommend using a corticosteroid cream or calamine lotion to soothe the area.
*Avoid using baby powders, ointments, scented lotions or lotions with petroleum or mineral oils and that could clog your pores and make your heat rash worse.
*Try not to itch your rash, and use calamine lotion to calm your skin. Make sure you don’t use powders or creams that’ll clog your pores to prevent the rash from becoming more irritated.
*Keep your body cool and dry.
*Avoiding excessive activity in very hot or humid temperatures.
Once you start cooling your body down, a mild heat rash could go away within a day. On average, heat rashes last two to three days. More severe heat rashes can last up to a couple of weeks without treatment.
.jpg)
Update - Johnny Depp won the trial
Johnny Depp has won his defamation trial against Amber Heard, on all counts. Heards statements in the Washington Post were proven by a jury to have been defamatory with actual malice. Depp wins all three claims and the jury awards Johnny Depp 10 Million dollars in compensatory damages and 5 Million dollars in punitive damages. Since the punitive damages by law are limited to a maximum of $350K, the 5 million awarded will be capped at $350K. I followed the case for the most part, but read a good recap from Natalie Whittingham Burrell, who is a criminal defense attorney. Here’s why Amber Heard lost, from a legal perspective: "Johnny Depp sued Amber heard for defamation of character. So he had to prove by “a preponderance of the evidence” that AH published a statement that was false, that harmed his reputation and that the statement was about him. Because JD is a public figure, he had to prove that AH acted with “actual malice” in doing these things, which is a higher standard than what non public figures face. This means AH acted with a reckless disregard for the truth and didn’t just honestly believe her claims. So coming into this, JD had a very difficult hurdle to overcome. VA has a case called Herbert v Lando that says that JD has to bring evidence of all the surrounding circumstances, including the history between the parties and prior statements by AH.
That’s a hefty burden... A jury doesn’t get to just go off of how they feel about the parties in assessing the evidence. They have to follow the law that’s given in jury instructions. One of those instructions is about the credibility of witnesses who provide the support for the surrounding circumstances. Based on all of that, the evidence has to be overwhelmingly in favour of JD, for him to win. And it was. Here’s why. The jury has to consider all of these factors when assessing the credibility of witnesses. Credibility matters, because that’s what proves the actual malice. Most important in this case was number 6. Contradictions. When AH contradicted other evidence, JD got more evidence of actual malice. And also more evidence that the statements were false. And also more evidence that the statements were about him. Here was the evidence that contradicted AH, by the incidents alleged.
Incident 1. The PENTHOUSE INCIDENTAH said JD assaulted her, in their penthouse, leaving behind destruction and injuries to her. Witness Alejandro Romero, a front desk manager, saw AH the next day and saw no injuries. Isaac Baruch testified that he saw AH within hours of the alleged assault, and saw no injuries to her. He wept on the stand about the injustice of her false allegations. Three LAPD officers testified that they responded immediately after the alleged physical harm incident and saw NO signs of injury to AH and that they saw none of the alleged property damage. AH alleged that JD spilled wine in the hall and had pics of it, but on body cam, there was no wine.
Incident 2: the FILING OF THE TRO The next day AH appeared at a courthouse to request a restraining order against JD, with a bruise on her face. The bruise that was not seen by five witnesses or bodycam footage. AH testified that she had no idea the media would be there.. However, a former TMZ staff member testified that they were alerted that AH would be at the court, with a bruise on the left side of her face. (And which side to photograph). AH herself testified in a deposition previously that TMZ had been alerted, before gasping and covering her face (when she realized instantly then what she had just admitted to accidentally). Let me be clear here, AH contradicted her own self. That’s bad, real bad. It’s always evidence of deception. The very next day, after appearing with the bruise, AH was photographed smiling with her friend Rocky, with no bruise on her face.
.jpg)
Incident 3: HICKSVILLEAH testified that JD flew off in a jealous rage after they all got high on drugs and a woman cuddled with her. AH claimed that JD grabbed the wrist of that woman and threatened to break it. He then trashed their trailer and committed SA against her. AH acting coach testified that JD yelled at AH, but did not witness him grabbing anyone. Rocky Pennington (AH’s friend) testified that JD yelled, but not that JD grabbed the woman. The manager of the trailer park testified that the trailer wasn’t trashed. Only a light was broken. These are, once again AH own witnesses contradicting her. They have no reason to cover for JD, but didn’t see what would have been a horrible assault. Because, it didn’t happen.
AH alleges that JD assaulted her with a bottle. JD alleges that AH threw a bottle at him and severed his finger. AH testified that JD’s finger was severed when he smashed a phone into the wall. There was no smashed phone in any of the pictures in evidence however. AH didn’t receive any medical attention for her alleged injuries, yet JD received extensive treatment for his. AH told her acting coach that JD severed his own finger with a liquor bottle. AH took pictures of writing on a mirror but not her own injuries. Doctors testified that the mechanism of injury was consistent with JD’s allegation (AH threw a bottle at him). Multiple medical professionals were present at the scene to offer assistance to AH, she reported no SA.
AH testified that she hit JD, for the first time, after he assaulted her and tried to push her sister Whitney down the stairs. She said all she could think about was Kate Moss and the stairs. Implying that JD had pushed Kate Moss. Whitney said while she was standing at the top of the stairs with her back to JD, he came up the stairs and pushed her in the back. This contradicts AH’s allegation that JD was in front of Whitney and was going to push her down the stairs. Whitney did not testify that JD hit AH before this push. Travis McGivern, JD security, testified that AH was on a jealous rage and that she hit JD at the top of the stairs without provocation and that JD never hit AHFinally, probably most damning, Kate Moss, JD ex-girlfriend and supermodel, testified from the UK that JD never pushed her down the stairs. This is damming because it appears that AH just made this rumour up, to justify her “decking” JD.
*JD proved that AH published statements, because she wrote them in an op-Ed and made a tweet adopting the title, which said that she suffered sexual violence.
This is why JD won and this is why any take that is saying that JD winning hurts victims of abuse is absurd. AH lied on the stand, repeatedly. Demonstrably. Even at times, contradicting her own self. AH hurt victims of DV by making it possible that all people will be more sceptical of true victims. The jury really didn’t have a choice but to find in JD’s favour. The blame lies with her."
Then there was a separate counter-claim by Amber HeardShe wanted damages herself because lawyer Adam Waldman, who represented Johnny Depp amid Heard's abuse allegations in 2016, called her claims a "hoax" orchestrated with the help of her friends. Waldman said that “Amber and her friends roughed the place up and called the police again.” Waldman's statement mentions complicity with a lawyer and publicist, which wasn't proven. So on this one count (Ct. 2) in her counterclaim, Heard won something back. But she lost Ct.1 and Ct. 3 of her counterclaim. Amber Heard was awarded 2 Million dollars in compensatory damages and 0 dollars in punitive damages. Meaning that at the end of the day, Amber is left with an $8.35 million damages bill which she has to pay Johnny Depp.
During the trial, Heard admitted she was unable to donate $7million to charity after her divorce from Depp in 2017 (as she publicly said she would), because her ex-husband had filed a $50million lawsuit against her. She will likely have to post bond for the full $10.35million judgement, plus interest, if she decides to appeal Wednesday's ruling - something her spokesperson, Alafair Hall, told the New York Times she now plans to do. If she can't fulfill her obligation to pay, the court may choose to garnish part of her wages, if it is found Heard has the requisite earning potential. Or Depp can waiver part of the amount she has to pay him, perhaps. Or even decide not to execute the judgement. He stated after winning the trial: 'The goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome. 'I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that.' Heard could also file for bankruptcy which would likely wipe away the $8 million in compensatory damages, but she might still have to pay $350,000 in punitive damages. Or she could use the divorce money she received from Johnny Depp, since she clearly hasn't donated it yet (just 'pledged' --> On the Dutch tv show, she said she had donated it, not pledged: “Every penny…. I wanted nothing”). Or Depp may himself say that once he gets the money off her, he will donate it to fulfill the 'pledges' to the charities that she has reneged on. Or maybe she has something on Elon Musk, and have him pay the money.
Amber Heard also said: 'I'm sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American - to speak freely and openly.' - No. You cán say whatever you want, but in a free country, publishing unsupported claims about someone in the press can be challenged in court. And after 6 whole weeks of trial, you were found guilty of making false, malicious and defamatory statements.
POST-TRIAL STUFF
Jury members are not allowed to read up anything about the case during the trial and are given strict instructions in that regard. But Ambers lawyers are now blaming social media for their loss... As is Amber Heard herself in a post-verdict interview. Elaine, it was your own expert that told the Jury what was trending on Social Media during the trial... Of course they knew public opinion. You told them what it was. Since losing the case, Elaine has already done four interviews with American TV networks. Right after the trial ended. In which she is trying to spin the case and blame the jury. I don't think this comes across very well. It may even border on defamation, since she is acting as an agent to AH. For an officer of the American legal system, Elaine Bredehoft throwing shade at the judge, the jury, Depp's legal team, the media (both main stream and social) is beyond the pale. She's basically saying that the legal system failed, the judge was incompetent, the jury broke their oath and followed the trial when they weren't supposed to, Ben Chew's team played dirty tricks, the media and commentators who don't back her client are misogynists. But we all watched the trial live and saw how it actually played out. She said basically; we have to assume the jurors broke their oath. What an accusation. She may get smacked in the face with a cease and desist letter. I even read that according to the American Bar Association ethical professional code of conduct 4.1, Elaine's interviews could be cause for disbarment.
JD's lawyers could also go around from show to Show and tell everyone that those Australia recordings which weren't legally allowed to be played in this trial (as someone else was speaking on it who has since passed away) in fact do exist, and that Heard is clearly heard saying in them that she indeed severed his finger and didn't mean to hurt him. In fact, there are more tapes which didn't get played in court, but which are circulating online for all to hear. In another recording you can hear her telling Johnny Depp, after she got the restraining order against him, that she only did so because she thought that she was going to become homeless after the divorce. And you can hear her begging him to hug her and to look at her, while he is distant and does not want to touch her. Hmmm. But Depp's team don't talk about that stuff in post-trial interviews. I suppose that is the more classy and professional thing to do. On the other hand, Elaine tries to spin her client's loss as misogyny and pulls the victimhood card yet again. But Heard lost because her evidence was flimsy, her testimony was considered not credible and her witnesses both personal and professional were inconsistent and left much to be desired. Elaine didn't do the best of job either imo. Her closing statement alone was a raging dumpster fire. A court reporter said that the jury members dozed off and lost concentration during Elaine's closing statement. Enough already, she lost. Don't try to gaslight the public now through post-trial interviews with favourable TV networks who only throw softball questions. Heard was slapped with significant punitive damages. To have her attorney repeat that Ms Heard is a victim/survivor of DA and more, without pushback from journalists, is peculiar. Heard said on the jury stand that she just wanted this all to be over, and for Johnny to leave her alone. But Miss Heard will appeal and drag this thing out even further.. But she will probably first have to pay Johnny his millions. Pay, not pledge.
Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard trial
I have been following this trial the past weeks, and aside from it having been entertaining and voyeuristic, it also has been a very interesting peek into civil court cases in the United States. Depp is suing Amber Heard in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia for $50 million over a December 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as "a public figure representing domestic abuse." His lawyers say he was defamed by the article even though it never mentioned his name, and that it cost him acting roles. Heard is counter suing for $100 million, claiming Depp defamed her when his legal team referred to her claims as “fake” and a “sexual violence hoax”. Heard said she is "harassed, humiliated, threatened every single day" thanks to Depp and his attorney Adam Waldman's statements about her. Depp and Heard were married from 2015 to 2017 and both accuse the other of being physically violent during the relationship. They each deny the other’s claims.
Quite a few media outlets, the liberal ones, were quick to resort to not all that neutral reporting on the case. The Washington Post itself for instance, gave way more information in favour of Amber's claims and arguments than Depp's. Overall, there is that well-known trial by mob-thing going on, where just the accusation of sexual abuse is deemed enough to cancel the alleged perpetrator. This made the actual trial all the more interesting, and boy were we not disappointed. Amber Heard was the over-the-top, eye rolling, screaming, grimacing and frankly off-putting centrepiece of the trial. Johnny was on the mumbling, more minimalistic approach. But Depp's lawyers (in particular Camille Vasquez) are not disappointing either. Depp has denied he ever struck Heard and says she was the abuser in the relationship. Heard has testified about more than a dozen separate instances of physical abuse she says she suffered at Depp's hands. Depp calls Heard's accusations "insane." "Ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful, savage, unbelievably brutal, cruel, and all false," Depp said, when asked about his reaction to hearing Heard's allegations when she testified in the trial.
Over the weeks, Heard and her team have not provided any hard evidence of said violence, with the exception of some photos which are claimed to have been altered in photoshop by a specialist witness. But her friends, make-up artist and the police she called over, testified to never having seen her injured, for instance the broken nose she claims Johnny has beaten her. There are no medical records verifying this either. She bought him a big hunting knife for his birthday, and could not explain in court why a victim of DA, petrified of her own safety, would do that. Depp does admit that he used drugs and alcohol at the time, as did Amber herself on occasion. Depp testified that he smashed a kitchen cabinet, but never hit Heard or any other woman. He said she was the one who became abusive and “bullied” him with “demeaning name-calling”. Audio and video footage confirm this and show Amber insulting and sneering at Depp. Heard is recorded admitting she had been hitting Depp ('but not punched'), and even mocked him and told him no one would believe him, a man, if he said to others that he was a victim of domestic abuse. Amber Heard says literally loudly on audio to him: "Tell the world Johnny, tell the world that I, Johnny Depp, a man, am also a victim of domestic violence. And see how many believe or side with you". You can hear her almost daring him, in a horrible tone, to do it and see what would happen. After having hit him and admitting this also on audio. But at the same time Heard says she was petrified of Depp and wouldn't antagonize him...
Depp initially did stay silent, after their divorce. But Amber wrote a Washington Post op-ed article in 2018, joining the MeToo movement and implying Depp physically and sexually abused her. - The audio recordings also allow us to hear Depp pleading with Amber from within a closed bathroom to leave him alone. “If I stayed to argue, eventually, I was sure it was going to escalate into violence, and oftentimes it did,” he told the court. Amber is heard roaring outside the bathroom door and Depp said she would chase him around a ton of rooms and bathrooms in the house, to harass him and also beat him. Heard herself has said “she didn’t assault Johnny, ever”.
Then there was the 2015 incident in Australia, where the top of one of Johnny's fingers was sliced off. He says it happened as Heard hurled a vodka bottle at him which exploded. The medical specialist witness confirmed that the specific injuries that were recorded in hospital, could match this scenario. Heard on the other hand says that Depp did it all to himself, and she also claims that he sexually violated her with said vodka bottle. No evidence of this has been provided. A few months later, Heard said, Depp broke her nose and ripped out chunks of her hair during another violent encounter. Again; no evidence of this exists. She did not have medical files or photos to prove this (despite her taking pictures that night of some damage Johnny created in her view) and none of her friends or acquaintances could confirm this broken nose. Photos and videos of Heard taken right around that time, show her face being flawless, but Heard says this was all down to proper make-up use. Depp's team accuse her of using make-up to actually stage bruises and red skin areas in the photos she took of herself to 'document' her 'injuries', sustained at the hands of Depp. He denies ever having hit her or physically violated her in any way. A photo editing specialist called to testify by the Depp team, declared under oath that Heard's various photos of these facial injuries had been edited, in the sense of being photoshopped. It is mainly Ambers' sister Whitney Heard Henriquez, who claimed that she personally witnessed Depp hitting Heard. Although she also declared under oath that it was Amber who started to hit Johnny, and he then retaliated, in her recollections. Then there is a very unsavoury incident in the bed, that gave Amber the nickname 'Amber Turd'. Depp sent horrible text messages to a friend, suggesting “Let’s drown her before we burn her”. He says they were sent by him when he was very upset and angry and hurt. (And since Amber Heard never handed over her text messages, unlike Johnny Depp, we cannot compare).
Psychologist Shannon Curry took the stand, testifying that Heard shows symptoms borderline personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Heard claims she has PTSD, but Shannon Curry also claimed Heard exaggerated signs of PTSD during her testing. Ambers lack of empathy shown in court to even her own teams witnesses - and her constant posing for the court camera - do not come across very well I think. She accused several witnesses of lying under oath, because their evidence contradicted her own stories. But Depp's lawyers already caught Amber Heard on multiple lies and inconsistencies. One particular lie was about Amber's promised donations of all the 7 million dollars she received from Johnny Depp, to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and a Children's hospital. Amber had declared on TV that she had paid both these 7 million dollars. During trial, Depp's team proved that Amber Heard lied about this, and only paid a fraction of this amount. Heard tried to twist the story and said she had 'pledged' the money and that this, to her, is the same as 'donated'. Camille Vasquez corrected her and said the two are not technically the same thing, and Heard only seemed to have spread this story in the media to gain sympathy. Heard herself claimed she couldn't pay the rest, as Depp sued her and she needed the money for herself. [Camille should have asked if Rottenborn and Elaine Bredehoft also agreed with Amber pledging them their millions in wages, or if she actually had to PAY them.. I bet they know the difference full well when it involves their own bank accounts].
THE MOST INTERESTING PART
The most interesting part of the trial to me happened today actually, and it is the following. There has never been a denial that Heard wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post (though it was revealed months ago that the ACLU wrote it for her, in her name). But she's denied that the op-ed was about Johnny Depp. She made that denial frequently and pointed to the fact that his name isn't mentioned and that anybody interpreting it as being about Depp, including by Depp himself, was mistaken. “It’s not about Johnny,” she told the court. “The only one who thought it was about Johnny was Johnny. It was about me, and my life after Johnny.” In the many drafts seen from the ACLU team writing and creating the op-ed, their own lawyers constantly worried that it had details that pointed to Depp and tried their best to remove them and or make it neutral to avoid pointing fingers at him, lest he'd sue them. But Depp himself says that this article wás written in particular to create the association that HE was the abusive ex-partner she referred to, and that it in effect cancelled Johnny Depp's studio career and more. But Amber and her team insisted throughout the trial that this is not true. And then this happens.. on the very last day before closing arguments.
So on her final examination, on the stand and under oath, Amber Heard said loud and proud that the op-ed was about Johnny Depp. Amber said: ''I know how many people will come out and say whatever for him. That's his power. That's why I wrote that op-ed. He is a very powerful man and people love currying favor with powerful men. That's why I wrote that op-ed." That's an admittance that the article was about Depp, the whole reason why they're in court! It opens the door of defamation wide open. I really hope the judge and jury picked up on that and if not, Depp's team should repeat it tomorrow on closing day. I bet Heard's team and the ACLU are despairing right now. Kudos also to Camille Vasquez, who has been outstanding during this trial I think. And going by Camille's facial expression and quiet smile, she knew right away what Amber was admitting to here and she pushed her to get it. All in all, this honestly should be game over for team Heard, in a legal sense. I would like to be a fly on the wall in Amber Heard's camp of Rottenborn and Elaine Bredehoft after that. Weeks of carefully construction one narrative, only to end up with a "You can't handle the truth" moment. She did exactly what Camille had intended. Ask her many questions in succession so that it would catch her out and she'd answer a question that wasn't even asked. In Amber's frustration, she angrily admitted that she wrote the op-ed due to Johnny Depp being a "powerful figure" protected by the establishment. If I were her laywer, I'd be very nervous to put her on the stand, as she does not seem to easily stick to a plan, when given a chance to speak. So many lies and inconsistencies on Amber's 'I haven't lied about anything' part. It are women like Camille Vasquez that young girls should be looking up to, not fake social media celebrities. Can't wait for the closing argument tomorrow. This should be case closed, legally. But of course, with a jury you never know.
But by now we have seen Amber lie about donating the money, lie about not writing the op-ed article about Johnny Depp, lie about hitting Depp immediately after a clip was played where she admits to hitting him. We have heard her taunt him and mock him while he begs for her to leave him alone for a bit, while at the same time claiming she was deadly afraid of him and suffering from PTSD. Even if Depp was abusive, this trial has not proved it. Heard violated the NDA she herself had requested, by contacting him again and being recorded begging for another chance with him. She most likely leaked a video of Depp smashing something to TMZ, who under oath declared as much, but Heard denies everything, always. Everything seems always somebody else's fault and never her own. What's wrong with saying she leaked something to TMZ if she was abused? "Yeah, he was beating me so I wanted to share my version of events." But no, never with her. Therefore she's left her legal team scrambling harder than a pan of eggs to come up with anything. She had the audacity to say that world famous KATE MOSS was coming 'out of the woodwork' to defend Johnny for attention. Amber has claimed that every witness who disagreed with her was a liar or wrong. Her never admitting any fault, may have given a very bad impression to the jury, just like her ongoing looking at and turning towards the jury when she spoke. I bet it made them uncomfortable, and feeling like they were being intimidated and maybe even played. That was not a wise decision of Amber.
ABUSE
Depp seems to have had substance abuse issues, but at no point during this entire trial did Heard and her team offer the evidence that Johnny Depp indeed physically or sexually abused Heard in that relationship. I could possibly believe that Johnny only got violent in one relationship, even if all his past partners say he was never violent. But I cannot believe that Amber went her whole marriage being "beaten up" by a man who she said never ever took his many big rings off, and literally no-one could testify even a single time that they ever saw her with a verified injury, other than the few red marks seen in photographs of which one specialist witness claimed they were edited. She blames Depp for her career status and all the hell that has been brought on, but she is the one who penned the op-ed in a miscalculated attempt to ruin Depp's career. Which in fact it may have.
Amber was and stayed in a relationship with a man who had alcohol and drug problems, and she chose to stay with him despite this self-destructive behaviour. I have experience with that myself, and it was no fun. But it was my choice at the time to stay and try to make him change (didn't work). Amber tolerating that sort of behaviour for years is not the same as suffering physical and sexual abuse on his hands. She may have, but legally she never proved this, despite publicly accusing him of it in a national newspaper. Amber chose to stay with a man who on occasion smashed kitchen cabinets and passed out from substance abuse. She tried to secretly record it and document it, but never documented evidence of him actually physically or sexually abusing her, and he left her in the end. And what's worse: that video evidence had nothing to do with her: he'd just found out by telephone that his manager had stolen or made him lose almost $650 million dollars, so he started kicking kitchen cupboards. She knew this but walked in, stirred things up and secretly started filming. But now - years later - she uses that footage to blame him for abuse, because of it. In other audio you heard Amber provoke and chase Depp, and then taunt him and his career and his wimpish nature. It made me seriously think: what victim of physical abuse intentionally baits and instigates arguments with their abuser? As opposed to pacify and avoid conflict with them? Maybe he wás an abuser, but during this case, Amber's team in my view have not proven that he actually smashed her up or raped her. But over the course of the weeks, Amber's team also kept moving the goal posts. Now sending nasty messages to a friend = abuse (suddenly they make it about emotional abuse and move their own goal posts); having a bag of weed = abuse. Raised voices are abuse, passing out = abuse. Slamming kitchen cabinets = abuse. Anything but proving the actual claimed physical and sexual abuse. But Amber admitting she hit Johnny in the face and attacked him, that is just her being imperfect and not abuse. Same for her on audio recording belittling him, mocking his acting work, challenging him that nobody will believe him after admitting to hitting him = all no abuse. Sad, the entire situation. (Is having to listen to Elaine Bredehoft lie and ramble on and on and on also abuse, I now wonder?)
While Depp vowed that Amber would never see his eyes again during her lifetime, and avoided looking at her throughout the trial, she on the other hand stared at him, pulled faces at him, laughed at him in court and rolled her eyes. When you want the jury to believe you are petrified of this man, this is not a good technique. Practically speaking. And her acting on the stand has been horrible, frankly. Crunching up her face in an attempt to cry, without any tears. In fact, the only tears came from Johnny. Heard mostly seemed full of rage and out for revenge. She looked at times like an embittered Nurse Ratched. I'm no big fan of either of them, but she has done herself no favours after being found out telling numerous lies in court. If I had been her defense lawyer, I'd have struggled to contain this hot mess. And not even the two weathered lawyers Rottenborn and Elaine Bredehoft could contain her. It is all very sad. Regardless of the outcome of this courtcase, I don't see her ever work in the top Hollywood movie industry again and this will cost her a fortune. I think no big studio in Hollywood will ever want to work with Amber Heard again after this is all done, regardless of the jury verdict. Johnny Depp had his voice heard publicly and won the court of public opinion, it seems.
UPDATE:
here you can listen to the closing argument from Johnny Depp's team. It summarises his part of the story, which his legal team - in my opinion - proved throughout the trial. And here you can hear the version of events from Amber Heard and her team. It is good that the stories of 'female victims' are not blindly believed without subjecting them to the duty to prove their accusations. Especially in this cancel culture and trial-by-mob era. That is also equality, #MeToo or no MeToo movement. (Or as Depp's lawyer said: "#MeToo without any Me Too in Mister Depp's case"). Sometimes it is #MenToo.
WIMBLEDON
Sports wise it is a great time for me. I follow Formula 1 with my F1TV subscription and am of course rooting for my fellow countryman and race hero, Max Verstappen. It is an incredible season, with new regulations and cars that allow for much closer racing, making the competition so much more interesting than 2013-2020 were. Mostly a vastly superior car leading, with the merry-go-round of cars trailing behind it in a parade. Boring. But last season was grandiose and this one has been very good so far as well, with a close race at the top between Red Bull and Ferrari. I'm loving every bit of it and am fully invested again.
Then there is football and tennis. Right now Roland Garros in Paris, and I am rooting for Djokovic and Medvedev, although there are plenty of good players to enjoy, such as Alexander Zverev, Andrey Rublev, Stéfanos Tsitsipás and others. The Spanish have Nadal and a new kid on the block (playing in a somewhat similar style); Carlos Alcaraz. But a lot of Russians are playing and ranked within the top 10. Unfortunately, these excellent players have been controversially banned this year by Wimbledon. Earlier this month, Wimbledon laid out its stance as it announced a ban on all Russian and Belarusian players. It did not matter if these athletes played under a neutral flag, and it also did not matter if they ever spoke out in any way about the war in Ukraine. Wow.... Insane. That is blatant racism, unfortunately, in order for the UK to virtue signal its political stance. Wimbledon said in a statement: 'We share in the universal condemnation of Russia's illegal actions and have carefully considered the situation in the context of our duties to the players, to our community and to the broader UK public as a British sporting institution.'
Luckily the overarching ATP was not charmed by this unilateral decision of Wimbledon either, and they have decided that such a move would 'set a damaging precedent for the rest of the tour'. 'Discrimination by individual tournaments is simply not viable on a Tour that operates in more than 30 countries.' ATP were also critical of the way in which Wimbledon caved into government pressure, who provided informal guidance but not a mandate. And of the way that Wimbledon acted 'in isolation'. And they also decide to act. As a result of Wimbledon's decision, the tournament is stripped of all ranking points. In other words: players can go and play there and earn some cash, but they will not gain any ranking points in the overall tournament. These ranking points determine a player's eligibility for entry into other tournaments throughout the year, and, for the highest-ranked, their seeding in tournaments. It has become just a show tournament therefore. And players will now lose their points from 2021, so the likes of Novak Djokovic will be denied the chance of defending the 2000 he won from twelve months ago. Very painful for Wimbledon and the UK... And a number of players have already expressed their concern about the prospect of playing at what is effectively an exhibition tournament, with Naomi Osaka already admitting she may skip it. World No 1 star Novak Djokovic came out in opposition of Wimbledon's decision, saying he could not support it - even though the ATP's call to strip them of points threatens his status at the top. 'They haven't discussed it with anybody from ATP or any individual players - or, for that matter, Russian or Belarusian players - to just communicate and understand whether there is a common ground where both sides could be making a compromise and something could work out,' Djokovic said about the All England Club. 'So I think it was a wrong decision. I don't support that at all.' Seven-time Grand Slam winner McEnroe also said the tournament's organisers made a 'mistake'. 'I think it was a mistake by Wimbledon to do what they did in the first place, kicking out the Russians and Belarusians,' he said.
Wimbledon responded by expressing its 'deep disappointment', adding: 'We believe these decisions to be disproportionate in the context of the exceptional and extreme circumstances of this situation. We remain unwilling to accept success at Wimbledon being used to benefit the propaganda machine of the Russian regime.’ Yeh sure... I think Wimbledon should stick to the overall sport ethics. In sport especially, one should not be discriminating against innocent people, simply because of their passport or the country they were born in. Many players including Medvedev don't even live in Russia, they all live in Monte Carlo! And they have never supported the war in Ukraine. Tennis players play as individuals, not for their countries. It's not the Olympics. And their place of birth is not a choice. The Russians even play under neutral flag, instead of the Russian one! No-one particularly cares that Usain Bolt is Jamaican or that Michael Phelps is American. The fact they are going to exclude the World No.2 because his country (which is not even a democracy so the people literally have no say) decided to self-destruct, makes no sense to me. The Wimbledon decision is completely unfair. It basically comes down to guilty by association. Many people do not understand that if this 'collective guilt' thing is applicable (by whim) it can be used against YOU as well in the future. As they say: 'the path to hell is paved with good intentions', but that lesson seems to be largely forgotten by each generation, thinking it is historically exceptional. And Djokovic has principles. He spoke out when he was banned from the Aussie Open. And he showed he has principles by speaking our for his banned competitors now. Frankly, it is just more empty virtue-signalling from countries and clubs that never banned players from South Africa during apartheid, and who take money from regimes like Saudi Arabia. Can't you remember all the cancellations at the Baghdad open? Remember Iraq? Libya? Did Wimbledon ban American and British players during that unethical, illegal war? No. That war launched by the west had in essence the same impact on the civilian population. Ban Russian players but still ok to buy Russian gas.... Don't get me wrong, I think Putin's actions are evil, but we can't operate a double standard here. Politics has no place in sport. The ATP are correct in their actions. Ranking points aside, the majors are where the big money is made for players and nobody complained when Wimbledon shut down completely in 2020 and cashed in themselves on pandemic insurance money.
Some people, I read, want Marxist-type of public denouncements of such players. The whole "if you do not openly condemn it, then you are endorsing it" nonsense. But realistically (and aside from the ridiculous regressiveness of such a move), these Russian players cannot realistically just come out and say they are against the war, because of family and friends still living back in Russia, not to mention that when they retire they will most likely head back there themselves. Sport is entertainment. Sadly, in part, more and more sports people have forgotten that and use it as a platform for whatever views they may have cultivated or been forced upon. There is no place for discrimination in sport. Be it on ethnic, xenophobic, religious, orientation or whatever grounds. Wimbledon's unbelievable action of banning these players will completely devalue their tournament. As I said: these players don't even play under the Russian/Belarusian flag, they don't even live in these countries - they just happen to have been born in those countries - banning them is the most perverse action Wimbledon has ever taken in its history and could actually end up with the tournament losing its Grand Slam status if they aren't careful. Wimbledon has spinelessly pandered to a public moral crusade, in a way that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Putin, but does abuse the human rights of dedicated professional athletes who have nothing to do with wars. I believe that in their scrambling to appear woke and politically correct, Wimbledon has missed the mark, broke an ethical sports code and also severely damaged their brand. Or is discrimination allowed when it suits the narrative? Keep politics out of sport.
Homo Deus, from Yuval Noah HarariI really enjoy audio reading this book by Yuval Harari, and uploaded the audiobook in the below link for you, in case you are also interested. He is a historian and got a lot of fame from his book Homo Sapiens, and this is the second one, Homo Deus. You can read this book all on its own, and do not need to have read Homo Sapiens first. Homo Deus looks back on our history but only shortly, and then moves on to explain modern history and makes predications for the future then. It is a great listen, even though I may not agree with 100% everything. The first topics and chapter about health care and pandemic control sounded a little bit outdated for instance, with the covid pandemic that happened since (he wrote this book in 2016 and made it sound like big pandemics are a thing of the past). Plus he also repeats himself a bit in these very first chapters. But then the rest of the book was really very enjoyable and interesting. Overall it is like a massive, engaging university lecture and I thought it thought-provoking. He moves to world religions versus humanism and how modernity changed the world. Harari also delves into historic warfare, then goes onto capitalism versus socialism and liberalism, and then onto the future for us homo sapiens.
I don't always understand why he calls communists like Mao for instance 'socialists', but voila. That is a difference of definition perhaps. He uses often easy to follow arguments and examples, but keeps it all interesting. I never got bored from listening to this. Some ah ha moments were for me when he explained the difference in world view and sense of meaning between a traditional religious person and a humanist. It makes me understand this modern quest for ongoing experiences better. A religious friend of mine was fuming because of the assumed contempt from the author for religion, but I didn't read it like that at all. More like an intellectual historical take on the function which religion used to have in societies and how these functions have by now been taken over by other ideologies and technological advancement, for a good part. And how things have changed throughout history. Although I suspect he the author is an atheist and there is some bias there in the way he treats these topics.
He in the end tries to make informed predictions about the future, but of course they are just that; predictions. I think this 3rd, last part of the book is most interesting to a lot of readers, although I liked the second part also (how homo sapiens gave meaning to their world until now). The author roots his ‘predictions’ for the future in present trends, which he in turn explains by looking at how humankind came to be. He also dissects the concept of 'free will' in humans and corrects it based on new scientific findings in the field of brain- and neuroscience. Not a lot of what he predicts sounds too far off to me, tbh. For instance: Harari explains that even today already, a lot of specialty fields work with robots and algorithms. Doctors for instance already use algorithms to double check their analysis of X-ray photos and MRI scans, as the algorithms consistently detect smaller tumors which human doctors at times overlook. During the corona pandemic we all experienced just how difficult it can be to make a face to face appointment with a GP. Harari predicts that in the future, robots will take over the work of GP's for a good part (if not altogether), as they rely on comprehensive algorithms which much more reliably connect symptoms of the patient with the correct ailment diagnosis. He names an example where these algorithms picked up 90% of undiagnosed lung cancer patients, based on their comprehensive symptoms, compared to only a shocking 50% among actual GP's. Robot doctors are not just thorough and easily updated with the latest information and scientific discoveries, they also are never sick, work 24/7 and are always available. The only thing they miss is emotion. But Harari says that, like in call centres, the algorithms already can easily detect in patients or clients what personality type they are and in what sort of psychological state they are, hence attaching the right emotional approach to them. One person prefers a matter of fact like approach, the other needs kind reassurance and patience. Harari also explains that the same super intelligent robots will soon be able to do part of the work of lawyers, going through case precedents in seconds, where it could take a human lawyer years to go through all previous cases of interest. Scientists can already see through brain imagery if a person tells the truth or lies. This will be further used in the practicality of court cases in the future. And modern day armies already consist of a smaller group of military specialists who use powerful weapons. They days of the first two great World Wars, with millions of humans serving as canon fodder in the trenches, are gone. In the future, wars will increasingly be fought by robots or weaponry which only requires a person pushing a button. This all makes you wonder about the future of mankind, and the role in which the individual human beings are left to play in it. So this was all very interesting, in the 3rd part of this book. A lot of extremely plausible predictions are made about our future and the implications therein. All in the quest of immortality, divinity and happiness. I think that if you stick through this, it will be one of the best history classes, sociology courses and future predictions you'll ever had 😀
Cycle tour through home town
.jpg)
.jpg)
Chihuahua laughsOh and this made me chuckle. I do love animals and particularly cats, donkeys, geese and dogs. But I read this article and had to laugh about some of the comments below it. Chihuahua's are these pint-sized dogs that are often carried around in handbags. They can look very cute, but apparently have a bit of a reputation for snarling and yapping haha. So in this article, one specific chihuahua dog is described as the local hooligan. See some of the comments:
-"I had one, and it was also known as the village hooligan."
I also love watching the odd travel show. After The Amazing Race's forelast disappointing season 32, where very unsympathetic glory hunting backstabbing teams pretty much ruined everything, I may go back to the latest season 33, but for now discovered a British travel show, where teams have to make it through a continent with a limited budget, but without too many show manipulation elements. It's called Race Across the World, and so far I really like it. Episode one of the second season is added below. (To avoid the annoying advertisements, disable your Ad-Blocker to get this DailyMotion video started, then enable the Ad-Blocker again right away once the video itself is running).
Wimbledon
Am also annoyed with Wimbledon banishing Russian and Belarusian tennis players from the tournament. Supporting Ukraine is obvious, but this, to me, is cancel culture going mad, again. I'm a Medvedev fan so well.. But in general, since when are sportspeople lifted out of tournaments due to their native nation's wars? Mixing politics and sport..... Hypocrisy and virtue signalling. Why should a player like no. 2 Medvedev be banned just for being Russian? Would Wimbledon ban any professional Saudi player if there was one, on the bases of the Yemen war? Of course not because that's more than tolerated by the West, despite longer suffering there. I also don't recall UK and US players being banned at the time of that illegal invasion of Iraq by Blair and Bush... Chinese players are also still allowed. How is Medvedev in any way responsible for the war in Ukraine? Are we heading towards Chinese Communists scenes soon here in the West, where players like him have to show repentance on live TV, disowning their homeland or something? First the Djokovic vaccination soap in Australia, now this. And I won't even start on recently transitioned males winning medals in women's sport. Anyway, I think it's unfair for Meddy but well, the UK makes its own rules. 
April 9th, 2022
March 31st, 2022- Ricky Gervais
The next day, the Academy made it known that David Rubin, the president of the Academy, and CEO Dawn Hudson, díd ask Will Smith to leave the venue, soon after the incident. But he refused. And that was that, apparently. He stayed. And the Academy's cameras still gave him rolling full coverage during his acceptance speech. Too hot to handle for security? If true (and this could very well just be lies and attempts to cover their own backs): who dares to refuse to leave when asked so by the CEO and President of the Oscars? A troubled couple who feels entitled and smug and thought this was their night. The self-appointed King & Queen of the show. I hope they kick him out of the Academy after all this. Or that this was the last Oscar event altogether. And as for Chris, he was seriously let down by almost everybody. He looked humiliated and at a loss before an audience of "friends" and "peers" who didn't lift voice or finger in his defense, thereby appallingly taking Smith's side. You couldn't hear a single boo from the audience. A powerful actor publicly physically assaults someone, is allowed not only to remain in the theatre but receive an award and a standing ovation from his peers. Reminiscent of how they all smiled and posed and cooed over Weinstein, before others cleaned up his mess for them. And then there was the aftermath: imagine being assaulted and having the entire world try to decide if it was right... I followed some online discussions about the whole thing, and am surprised by the people making excuses for this assault. The slap may not have done much physical harm, but imagine the humiliation to have it done to you on live TV, watched by millions and seen directly in the venue by hundreds of other actors. How many kids or victims of domestic violence were traumatised from unsuspectedly witnessing this on ABC? It is just unacceptable, regardless if the joke was not well liked by the wife. Having a medical illness does not give people special rights to censor others or hit them in the face. If Will Smith would have had any class or wits about him, he would have used his stage to tactfully bring awareness to (Traction) Alopecia. I can't even be sure anymore about the amount of times people have joked about my red face. I don't go around with a baseball bat to get my revenge. You try to smile and explain the reasons behind the red face.I also don't get the whole hierarchy behind victimhood. So does Jada feeling offended about being compared to a bad ass heroine with a shaven head trump the victimhood of a Chris Rock, of whom everyone knows that he was bullied both physically mentally - and even sexually - as a teen? After all he has been through, is it OK to potentially traumatise him or anyone having to watch this unexpectedly during a live entertainment show, just because Will Smith is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and had to revenge his wife's honour? Because that's what it was all about. Did that justify for Chris to be slapped by a fellow colleague and be humiliated in front of millions? But as The Critical Drinker points out, these celebrity people live in a different dimension. One where they stand above the rules, and one in which the virtue signallers call for the 'cancelling' of people with the wrong political opinions, but totally protect their own or turn a blind eye if speaking out jeopardises any of their life's privileges. Expect everyone but Will Smith to be cancelled. He will go into some kind of 'rehab' and all will be forgiven. These actors are no role models or heroes. They are just very rich professional entertainers, and should not be taken for philosophical or political inspiration. As the Critical Drinker points out; in today's culture you hear them more than ever before however, talking or lecturing about what others should think or do. Personal political opinion is not something we heard the Hollywood heroes of the past talk much about. And for good reasons, as the public simply wants to see actors morph into characters. We don't need to know everything about their private lives, as it only distracts. Plus: familiarity breeds contempt, in this day of excessive social media. What a great analysis this is of modern day celebrity. I'll upload both the direct youtube video itself, as well as a copy. Since some videos over time disappear from youtube for all sorts of reasons, and I then forget what I posted exactly and how to replace it.
.jpg)
If people accept the kind of behaviour displayed by Will Smith, then they have to be OK with other comedians getting assaulted for telling jokes that "offend" people. If we as a whole are OK with comedians getting assaulted for "offending" someone, we have to be OK with everyone else being assaulted for "offending" anyone. Which automatically means we have to be OK with "subjective offence = justified violent response". Which easily leads to the government and other structures of authority using violence to silence anyone who does not agree with them because they are "offended". Do people really not realise where this goes? It is a beacon of the developed world to have freedom of opinion. This isn't just about two celebrities or their private quarrel, this is also about public perspective, our values and where the collective wants modern culture to head towards. If this is not punished in some way, more comedians could be slapped or knocked out on stage by anyone claiming victimhood. Because that is where the whole offense thing is rooted in. Makes you wonder how former host Ricky Gervais made it out in one piece:
Something else, that had me chuckling. This is just some parody comedy, and should not be taken too seriously probably, as there are so many real problems in the world right now (as I sometimes blog about as well). But that's why it can be good for someone to mock the more extreme aspects of modern day society a bit. We can all take a good joke, right? (Except for Will and Jada). In this case, the jokes are on local politicians and law-makers. I know several friends who had or still have a very hard time of being heard by their councils. Who have trouble with violent psychotic neighbours from hell, or who are badly treated in other ways. And they just cannot seem to get through to local politicians, or be heard. Or taken seriously. One was even told that the police were too busy dealing with online 'hate crime' to look into his reported burglary. In extension, one topic I am always interested in, is the appalling way in which police handle women who are stalked. There have been dozens of high profile cases in the media, of poor women who looked for police protection against a violent, revengeful ex-partner, and who have been told time and time again that the police can do nothing of substance for them - other than installing a no contact order, which die hard stalkers do not respect. Not until the stalker commits an actual crime, and by that time it is often already too late. Gruesome murders have taken place of young women, mothers, who asked help in all the right places, but who were let down by the system. I had some sort of experience with that myself in the past and honestly think that when a woman does everything right, by the book, and still has to wait it out and look over her shoulder all the time, it is time to arm yourself in a reliable manner. I'll just leave it at that. But luckily most struggles with the authorities cover more mundane topics. Nevertheless, fighting against the faceless men in the concrete government buildings can be extremely frustrating and exhausting. That's why this man's comedy had me laughing. Thanks to my friend B. for linking me to it all. So what is the story here? This bloke, Alex Stein, gatecrashes town meetings and takes the piss. Stein said in an interview that he gatecrashes democratic city council meetings because he is sick of politicians not taking him seriously when he has legitimate issues. So he thought this gatecrashing style was the only way he could get heard. To get full attention, he steps up to discuss topics that are hot talking points in society and in the mainstream media right now, such as vaccine mandates, transgender rights in professional sports, recruiting soldiers to fight in WW3 in the "Ukraine Foreign Legion". And then he magnifies it. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but what amuses me most of all, is that the council members have to sit through it and cannot take away his democratic free speech right of a few minutes (or they KNOW they could be cancelled and sued in case he is in fact serious). And the officials don't always know whether he is serious or not, or if he is on their side or not.😅 Inventive, although a bit crude comedy. (The Plano committee must be so sick of this guy lol. Every time they hold a meeting sitting anxiously wondering when Alex Stein is going to show up & have his voice be heard... Or maybe they look forward to a bit of comedy in an otherwise boring long day).My friend Peter sent me these photos of an article he read about rosacea. Interesting read and am glad that the author mentioned that rosacea can be linked to an abnormal immune response to a range of factors. It highlights the common basics about rosacea, but I will add the article below anyway. Bottom line; don't call people names over their red faces, as they may be rosacea patients.
Pfizer's recently published COVID-19 vaccine side-effects, produced together with BioNTech. Despite Pfizer's wish to keep its vaccine research documents sealed and secret, a federal judge in Texas ordered the Food and Drug Administration to make public the data it relied on to licence Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. When Pfizer applied for FDA approval, they were aware of almost 158,000 adverse events from their vaccine, calculated only over the first three months of use of the vaccine, and Pfizer requested these documents remain sealed for 75 years [By December of 2021, so nine months later, there were already nearly 950,000 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in the VAERS database alone, with almost 20,000 events listed as “death.”]. I have read the documents and have selected some serious and wildly varied side-effects that are mentioned in their now published documents, and explain if needed what the terminology means. You can read about it in a separate blog post HERE👈, if you like 😊
NYT National Security Correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, Pulitzer Prize winner, was caught saying some interesting things, for instance about the NYT inner culture, the aggression of the extreme left wacko's and about printing stuff that isn't necessarily true, in order to make headlines. He comes across pretty sympathetic in this video footage if you ask me; the kind of guy you'd wished was allowed to run the New York Times. I used to love reading that newspaper, but nowadays it gives me allergic urticaria. So much hysteria, such extreme opinions, so biased in their reporting. I don't read newspapers as an extension of the social media hysteria. I want to read newspapers to find some balance and some sanity in reporting, and read well informed pieces. But those days are gone. Anyway, here is some of the footage:
horrible Ukraine conflict
No comments:
Post a Comment
scarletrosacea@gmail.com