44

What is in the conventional cooking oil one buys from the grocery stores? How much do they change, or better to ask, how much do they remain the same and still could be called by their names after processing? 

In addition to what is I already know about the effect of heat on polyunsaturated fat, what brought those questions back with vengeance to my mind is something I noticed lately. I have been, for couple of weeks now, trying to practice the oil pulling method of regularly swishing oil in the mouth for 20 minutes or more. I started with extra virgin olive oil so that at least it is the of best healthy choices in case I swallow some of it. Many sources over the internet, including from dental professionals, say that you should see the oil turns milky white after you spit it out. However, no matter how long I kept that oil in my mouth it never turned to a white color or anywhere close to that. One day I noticed that I am about to run out of olive oil so I decided to use canola oil until I go shopping. To my surprise this one did turn milky white. Initially I hoped that I improved myself to this level or that it could be a question of viscosity. Later I tried safflower, corn and vegetable (soybean) oils with similar results. I went back to the extra virgin olive oil and it still looked as yellow as it gets after being spitted out. On the other hand those other oils seems to turn that white within seconds of swishing them or even immediately.This made seeing what those other oils do as a chemical reaction unavoidable. It also makes one wonder, with this level of different reaction how much could those processed oils affect the body differently. 

For the oil pulling practice itself, what is even stranger is that no matter how much I searched about it and the number of sites stating that milky color as indication for the effectiveness of the process, I  found no mentioning of what I described here.        

43

Isn't it impressive how much republicans can tolerate criticism and get hammered for their issues? The corruption guy here appears to have been trying for sometime to make me talk, and later to use my silence, about issues related to the judges identified more as democrats in the Supreme Court in order to show moral compromising from me in order to please them. What impresses me is how much those who are identified more to have republican views are generally taken for granted to accept criticism that I got no sign that he tried a similar thing toward the judges who belong to that group in that court. For example, he tried to use silence from me toward an abortion issue he manufactured for that purpose but I don't think he came anywhere close to use my long silence and much lower activity on the second amendment issue for the same purpose.

And, by the way, why is there so much concentration on how much Fox News show republican party views as if it is not overwhelmingly countered by generally every other network?   

42

The actress playing the main character in Jane The Virgin TV Series seems to ordinarily deliver what could be used to demonstrate acting in text books teaching it. 

41

continuing from post 30

If those evaluating acting are doing it naturally then what I am going to say here could be just a rationalization. But as much as what seems to me as extremism in demanding the absence of the actor in the portrayed character is influenced by things like the conclusion reached HERE then they could be missing things limiting themselves to see an entire dimension by only looking at it through the other one or at least a prematurely reached whole. Instead of that definition, I view acting more as being related to the existence of the portrayed character minus the existence of the actor. Yes, the addition to the second of those two could be much more damaging than a lacking in the first but that should still be within limit and not be taken as free pass on conservative acting. 

    

40

Speaking about Muslim women, I once was watching on Fox News Channel a show in which they were talking about countries in which women reached the top of leadership. I thought OK lets test the fairness and see if they would mention that two of the most populous Muslim nations, including the most populous one, which are Indonesia and Pakistan had woman at the positions of president and prime minister respectively. The later, Benazir Bhutto, even used to appear with hijab clothes. But despite the low number of cited examples one probably could have only dreamt that things like headscarf and hijab would not limit their minds from seeing those two nations. I also do not think it is likely things would have been different on a different network.

By the way, speaking about Benazir Bhutto I can hardly remember any announcement of findings related to investigating her assassination and despite the closeness in time to the election and the potential for her and her party to win again. It was as if her blood went like nothing. She was granted amnesty by Musharraf but was assassinated very shortly after she returned to Pakistan.

39

I want to emphasize that my talk about the right of some people to do or have something should not by itself imply recommending (neither does this statement imply recommending not doing or having) that thing and this include my talk in the posts below about the wearing of headscarves.     

38

I just want to know if anyone had complained to Microsoft about how hard it is to find a way to maximize a window for them to punish us inhumanely with this thing of a window gets maximized on its own every time you bring one to the corner trying to manage your space? 

37

continuing from the preceding post 
If you go to Australia you would see, I heard, that when you flush the toilet water will spin in the opposite direction. And  apparently if you go to France you would see that the separation of church and state works like THAT .

36

continuing from the preceding post 

Speaking, in post 34, about inferring the religious connection, what if a person wearing a cross hides it from the view by inserting it beneath his shirt or sweater? Would that still be illegal under that law ( LINK ) just because of the knowledge that the visible part of the chain around his neck is connected to a cross?

Also, like I said earlier, unlike a cross or a yamaka or a crescent, things like the headscarf do not have any significance in themselves in Islam. Therefor the manifestation of religious affiliation in these things is based merely on the uniformity that is created by wearing them. But that uniformity is the result of sharing a similar purpose (preventing being seen by males) and is not the result of deciding to share an outfit. Therefore the law does not apply on things like the wearing of headscarf by Muslim girls because the persons wearing those things did not decide to make the uniformity in outfit which led to the manifestation of religious affiliation.

A thing that could illustrate how the uniformity in wearing those things here was not decided by those wearing them appears if one imagine replacing them. For example the headscarf could be replaced with a bike helmet or a hood without affecting the religious function for which the headscarf is being generally used.  

35

continuing from the preceding post 

One could also say that the headscarf is worn by Muslim girls to be directed toward the outside world as much as the person walking in the rain under his umbrella is holding his umbrella  to direct the top of it toward the sky. 

34

continuing from the preceding post
If you want to count on a person things that reveal the religious affiliation despite not being intended for that purpose then clothes that do not cover the body could also fall in that category because one could know the religion of the person wearing those clothes from even just the color or tone of the skin. 
And what if a person gets recognize as a Muslim because of, for example, the change in his look and weight during the fasting of the Ramadan month? Would the cloth that do not cover that or are not baggy enough to create the illusion of him being bigger in size be also forbidden because they reveal his religious affiliation? And since one doesn't have to limit the thinking to existing religions, we can ask this question about a religion with fasting periods long enough to make such noticeable change more probable.
Moreover, even if we assume that the use of the word  "ostensiblement"  HERE  has nothing to do with intention and is merely about the clarity of the "manifestation" of religious affiliation with the worn attire, it still seems to better fit being about clarity stemming from the directness in the religious connection expressing the religious affiliation rather than the commonality of understanding the behaviour as resulting from that religious affiliation. At least one reason for that is the les élèves (the pupils/students) being made the subject in les élèves manifestent ostensiblement..(the pupils overtly/ostentatiously manifest..). Having the people inferring the religious affiliation to which a student belongs is not something done by the student. 

33

Despite how one may want to discuss how bad or good and the constitutionality of the law I am talking about in the preceding two posts, the reason for which I started writing is how something like a headscarf can be understood as a symbol then extended the talk about the other things mentioned when I found that. However HERE is what I found as the text of the law. And  guess what?  The word translated as "symbols" actually translates as "signs" in both the title and the text of the law. There is a huge difference between signs and symbols. So why did the media feel that much liberty in translating it that way? I don't know. 
Moreover, the translation of the page above seems to talk, in the body of the law,  about the pupils doing the action of showing the religious affiliation through the outfit not the outfit doing that, while leaving the door open for both interpretations in the title.
Theses two things seems to take away the arguments I made in the preceding posts except for the one about the passivity in the action.

    

32

continuing from the preceding post

The point about the use of clothes and garment for a purpose and that they have no value in themselves and therefore are not religious symbols apply even on clothes, like Abaya in the middle east, that are made specifically to serve the function of covering the body of a woman from being seen (hijab). 

For answering the garb that shows religious affiliation part, we say that if a girl uses a piece of garment as a headscarf or wear bigger size clothes and because of that she gets recognize as a Muslim it is the way those things were used that show the "religious affiliation" not the bigger clothes or the piece of garment themselves. If you look at a crescent or a cross or a yamaka by itself you can still see its religious connection. But what religious connection can you see in, for example, a piece of garment that was used as a headscarf when it is not being worn?                                                                                                                                                                                          

31

Now that I am more acquainted with how the type of reasoning courts use is not far from normal reasoning, I want to return back to something I heard before this familiarity and kept wondering about. It is related to the alleged applicability of the French law that forbids "conspicuous religious symbols" (LINK) in public schools on the headscarf warren by Muslim girls. Unless I am missing something here, how could that rule apply on that thing? The headscarf has a purpose. Its purpose is to prevent seeing the body of those girls by males not related to them. It has no value on its own and as much as there is no reasonable chance for being seen by men, wearing it or not doesn't matter religiously and you would see that nobody wears it. Nothing of that can be said about wearing a cross or a Yarmulke or a crescent. 
     

That was the argument against the interpretation of the law as reported in being targeting religious symbols. But the law is translated like this according to the link above. 

["Law #2004-228 of March 15, 2004, concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools"]
However, addressing the "garb" part as having a different purpose than the "symbols" part, one could still argue that it is not the intended purpose of a headscarf and any other body covering clothes to show religious affiliation but it shows that only passively and despite all the wishes for that not to happen. So if we want to interpret that part to include anything allowing the conclusion of belonging to a religious affiliation by external parties then God knows to how far it can extend to reach. 

30

continuing from the preceding post:

Actually, the "French movie" is considered from Belgium but the main character was nominated for best actress here and in France through participating in the best foreign film category which I don't think is that common. 

However it is not like I am having much easier time fitting the French winner for best actress with my evaluation. That seems to support even more my understanding about how I am messed up inside in evaluating or seeing what connect only to the self. 

It is still would be interesting to see what would be the difference from current results if we switch the nominated movies between, for example, France and here.