sea monkeys

As the ouzo works its magic and I descend into the reverie that only Friday night and the realisation that i am freed of the shackles of gainful employment for the next two days can bring, my thoughts turn to sea monkeys, as they do. This is largely due to my good mate, Tom, who recently underwent a traumatic experience when his sea monkey eggs failed to hatch. When I was a child and utterly hooked on Superman comics, I remember reading advertisements for them in the comics each month. I dreamed of having my own nuclear family swimming around in my bedroom and cursed the backwardness of parochial England for not selling them in Woolworths Could anybody out there in cyberland tell me, what the hell are they? Are they baby shrimps, frogs, what? Enquiring minds need to know.

Thank you in advance.

As ever, kalhnyxta se olous, kala Xristougenna, Nadolig Llawen and have a great Christmas,

Jamie

Changing the name of Lesbos

When I first came to Athens many years ago, I remember seeing an advertisement on a bus. It was, my limited knowledge of Greek told me, an advertisement for a performance of "The Lesbian Choir of Athens." I was well impressed, in what I had been told was a conservative country, to see advertisements for an all-woman, all-gay choir, proudly displayed on the number 11 trolley. I was so disappointed when I discovered the choir was made up of ex-Mytilinean ladies who'd moved to Athens. Never mind, I'm sure the performance was excellent.

Kalhnyxta kai kales giortes se olous
Good night and Merry Christmas, everyone

illegal immoral or fattening

I am sitting here drinking an ouzo large enough to make the late great Oliver Reed tremble. At the same time, I am smoking a cigarette, which, according to the health warning, has enough toxins in it to wipe out a small army. I am enjoying both of them thoroughly. Why is is that human beings enjoy the things that are so bad for them? Why do I not want to eat twenty portions of fresh uncooked vegetables a day, whereas twenty cigarettes a day come so naturally? Why is it that two portions of fresh fruit a day are a drag, whereas two drinks a day are an utter pleasure? Why is it that I put off going for a healthy walk, yet when I wake up on Sunday morning, I have no desire at all to put off staying in bed?
Answers on the back of a cigarette packet please.
Kalh nyxta se olous

Jamie

Inspirational legal leadership, guys.

Apparently, the lawyers trying to ban Alexander have abandoned their legal case. The reason behind this sudden change of heart? They SAW the film. Yup, they never actually mentioned that they hadn't actually seen the film they were trying to stop. Apparently they were invited to a private screening and suddenly decided "it wasn't that bad". " Innocent until proven guilty" has become "guilty until you actually watch it". I shall be conducting my own defence if I ever get arrested.

kalhnyxta

Jamie

Historical Truth Rools

I was delighted to hear assurances from a group of lawyers attempting to sue the makers of the new film about Alexander the Great that they are motivated solely by a desire to see films portray historical truth and that anti-gay prejudice has nothing to do with their legal action.

One wonders where they were when Dreamworks portrayed Professor John Nash as a heterosexual in A Beautiful Mind. Why did they not pressure Warner Brothers into going into somewhat more detail about what precisely Achilles was doing in his tent for four days with his close friend until he finally agreed to come out and fight? And why did the death of his aforementioned close friend leave him quite so cheesed off with the Trojans?

Indeed, this intrepid group of history-loving but not at all prejudiced lawyers have so much work to do in their quest for historical truth. They could harangue Mel Gibson for his hugely entertaining and historically almost entirely fictitious version of the life of William Wallace in Braveheart. They could have a go at the jokers who informed us that their film was the historical truth a few months ago in the unentertaining story of King Arthur (whoever heard of a Celtic tribe called the Woads - woads was a type of body paint).

Returning to the not prejudiced history-loving lawyers, one of the reasons they objected to the film is that there is, in their opinion, no documented evidence that Alexander in any way enjoyed the intimate company of men and therefore it is historically inaccurate to suggest that this was the case. Well, first of all, many historians would beg to differ. Indeed, one respected historian recently had to be escorted away by the police after attempting to claim such evidence did exist. A large group of unprejudiced truth seekers tried to stone him in the name of historical accuracy. Secondly, does the absence of evidence mean he must be straight? There's absolutely no documentary evidence that I like men so, in the unlikely event of future film makers wanting to make a film about a sad old ex-pat like me, should they automatically portray me as straight? Is straight the default option? Of course not. Especially if all you are interested in is historical accuracy.

Kαληνύχτα σε όλους and good night to all.
Jamie