Call me old fash­ioned, but Ill take glam­orous stars like Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe, Grace Kelly, Audrey Hep­burn and Eliz­a­beth Tay­lor over spoiled pseudo-celebs like Paris Hilton, Ash­lee Simp­son, Nicole Ritchie and their ilk any day of the week. Whereas Old Hol­ly­wood oozed class, sophis­ti­ca­tion and mys­tery, todays over­ex­posed star­lets lack grace­and some­times even tal­ent! Take the way they present them­selves: Todays stars walk the red car­pet barely clothed, drip­ping in out­ra­geous, tacky bling, yam­mer­ing on about their per­sonal lives. Yes­ter­days icon­s­Jackie O and Lady Diana also come to mind­pro­jected a glam­orous ele­gance one would actu­ally strive to emu­late. They dressed with flair, acces­sorized with style and kept their pri­vate lives pri­vate. Whats more, many of the Old Hol­ly­wood elite wore my favorite gem, the pearl, whose lady­like, demure rep­u­ta­tion is so fit­ting for these ele­gant women. Luck­ily for me, and the rest of the world, pearls are mak­ing a big come­back. Lets hope Hol­ly­wood revives old-style lady­like behav­ior along with the lady­like gem. As an homage to Old Hol­ly­wood glam­our, lets take a look at the pearl jew­elry made famous by some of our most beloved female icons.

Eliz­a­beth Taylor

Per­haps the most famous jew­elry col­lec­tor of our time, leg­endary actress Eliz­a­beth Tay­lor also owns the most famous pearl, La Pere­g­rina. Given to her in 1969 by then-husband Richard Bur­ton (yep, hes the one Liz mar­ried twice), La Pere­g­rina, an enor­mous, pear-shaped white pearl, was found by a slave in the early 1500s in the Gulf of Panama. First given as a wed­ding gift to Mary Tudor, the daugh­ter of King Henry VIII, the rare and extra­or­di­nary gem was owned by a suc­ces­sion of roy­alty before being pur­chased at auc­tion by Bur­ton for Tay­lor as a Valen­tines Day gift. (Why she divorced him I dont know. Why she divorced him twice is even more of a mys­tery. Any man who gave me jew­els like that would be a keeper.) After receiv­ing the huge pearl, which was hang­ing from a thin chain, Tay­lor instructed famous jew­elry designer Cartier to cre­ate a ruby and dia­mond neck­lace incor­po­rat­ing the gem. The breath­tak­ing result is absolutely stun­ning. (Search online for a photo; the neck­lace is truly spe­cial.) Trivia: Tay­lor once lost the famous La Pere­g­rina pearl in her home. A fran­tic search turned up the enor­mous white gemin her dogs mouth! Thank good­ness Tay­lor found it before it was scratched!

Mar­i­lyn Monroe

You wouldnt think lus­cious Mar­i­lyn, emu­lated by every mod­ern day celebrity from Madonna to Lind­say Lohan and Christina Aguil­era, would sport a demure sin­gle strand of pearls. With her blonde locks, eye-popping cleav­age and breathy voice, the Mar­i­lyn Mon­roe we love is more over the top than that­but a sin­gle strand of pearls is exactly what she wore. Mar­i­lyn received the lumi­nous salt­wa­ter pearl strand from base­ball slug­ger Joe Dimag­gio, her sec­ond hus­band. Joltin Joe pre­sented Mar­i­lyn with the gor­geous 16-inch Miki­moto neck­lace made from forty-four matched round white Japan­ese akoyas while they were on their hon­ey­moon. Per­haps Dimag­gio, in giv­ing lus­cious Mar­i­lyn the gor­geous pearl strand, was try­ing to turn the sexy star into the per­fect 1950s house­wife? They were known as Mr. and Mrs. Amer­ica, after all. Alas, their mar­riage lasted but a year.

Audrey Hep­burn

Break­fast at Tiffanys is a clas­sic film not only because its a won­der­ful roman­tic com­edy that stars beloved screen leg­end Audrey Hep­burn, but because it show­cased the wai­flike Ms. Hep­burns ele­gant and effort­less style. The dress she wore in the film, her now-famous sim­ple black sleeve­less style, was the per­fect back­drop for the six-strand pearl and rhine­stone neck­lace she sported as adorable Holly Golightly. (In the film, the beguil­ing but pen­ni­less Golightly would endear­ingly stare in the renowned jew­eler Tiffanys win­dow, day­dream­ing of own­ing the trea­sures within.) Trivia: Hep­burns neck­lace in the film is faux, made from marquise-shaped rhine­stones (not dia­monds!) that cas­cade gor­geously from the imi­ta­tion pearls. Faux or not, the ornate pearl neck­lace looks just gor­geous on Hep­burns grace­ful neck.

Jackie O: Sur­pris­ingly, Jackie Os famous and much-photographed triple strand pearl choker is also sim­u­lated. The gor­geous pearl choker shes known for fea­tured round white pearls on strands of grad­u­ated lengths, and typ­i­fied Jack­ies sig­na­ture crisp, ele­gant style. The neck­laces pop­u­lar­ity went through the roof when Jackie was pho­tographed hold­ing her son John-John while he played with her pearls. Trivia: Jack­ies triple-strand faux pearl neck­lace went up for auc­tion in 1996. The sim­u­lated pearls, nearly val­ue­less were it not for their asso­ci­a­tion with Jackie, were expected to fetch $500-$700. The Franklin Mint bought the piece for $211,500!

Princess Diana

Another beloved icon of style, wealth and class, Princess Dianas most famous pearl piece is prob­a­bly her dan­gling pearl and dia­mond tiara. Dubbed the Cam­bridge Love Knot, this gor­geous tiara was given to the princess by her mother-in-law, the Queen of Eng­land. Copies of Lady Dis pearl tiara are now worn by brides the world over on their wed­ding day. But Lady Di wore the Spencer fam­ily tiara on her wed­ding day, not the Cam­bridge Love Knot, and paired it with a sap­phire and pearl choker she received as a wed­ding gift from her husband-to-be, Prince Charles. Over the top? Not when you con­sider the dress this jew­elry was meant to acces­sorize: Princess Dianas ivory silk gown had a 25-foot long train and was dec­o­rated with 10,000 pearls and sequins. Fit for a princess, indeed.

Other famous pearl admirers

When dish­ing about celebrity pearl jew­elry, no arti­cle would be com­plete with­out men­tion­ing fash­ion maven Coco Chanel, the scrappy French designer who made pearls her sig­na­ture look in the 1920s. Wear­ing pearl ropes as eas­ily as other women wear jeans, Cocos House of Chanel used pearls in many jew­elry pieces, and put out such gor­geous jew­elry as a bracelet made of 105 akoya pearls sur­rounded by dia­monds and gold. Recently, the Paris-based fash­ion house pre­miered its annual jewel col­lec­tion, which fea­tures one-of-a-kind pearl pieces priced from $29,000 to $450,000.

When talk­ing about celebrity pearl jew­elry, we must also men­tion Sarah Jes­sica Parker, the actress and mod­ern day style icon who made lay­ered over­size pearl neck­laces chic in her mem­o­rable Gap ads from last year. Nor can we neglect Rene Russo. The neck­lace the model– turned-actress wore through­out the movie Tin Cup, which fea­tured white pearls evenly spaced on fine chain, received almost as much atten­tion as the Golden Globe-nominated roman­tic com­edy. Renes Tin Cup neck­lace, now a jew­elry sta­ple, sparked a new trend in mod­ern, sophis­ti­cated pearl jew­elry. Today, sev­eral stun­ning vari­a­tions of this sim­ple and ele­gant Tin Cup neck­lace can be found in jew­elry stores worldwide.

Speak­ing of mod­ern chic, Kiera Knightly rocked pearls at the pre­mier of her movie The Black Pearl by sport­ing a black baroque pearl choker made with dif­fer­ent shades of Tahit­ian pearls. (Lucky girl not only gets to wear gor­geous jew­elry, she also gets to work along­side Orlando Bloom and Johnny Depp.) Life isnt fair! And we cant for­get style icon Kate Moss; the fash­ion­able model is also fre­quently seen in pearl strands.

So how about it young Hol­ly­wood? Why not drop the out­ra­geous bling, dar­ing dresses and out­landish behav­ior in favor of the lady­like glam­our, sophis­ti­ca­tion and enigma that sur­rounded the screen leg­ends of the past? Amer­ica is sorely lack­ing screen icons that we admire, much less want to emu­late. Lets bring back style, class, and pearls.

A grad­u­ate of the Gemo­log­i­cal Insti­tute of Amer­i­cas Grad­u­ate Pearls pro­gram, Amy Drescher is a fash­ion writer and acces­sories buyer for http://www.moonriverpearls.com She wel­comes your ques­tions. Reach her at adrescher@moonriverpearls.com

Author: Amy Drescher
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com
Pro­vided by: Con­sole game news

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Bipasha Basu done a pro­mo­tional photo shoot for her upcom­ing
Bol­ly­wood movie Pankh. She plays an imag­i­nary girl in this movie. I think is a unique role for bips, will this movie enter­tain just wait and watch.

Related Posts:

• Bollywood’s trib­ute to Michael Jackson
• Pre­ity Zinta turns Item Girl for Salman Khan
• Bol­ly­wood Actress Shilpa Shetty observes Mauna Vrat
• Neha Dhu­pia to Host AXN Action Awards
• Shilpa Shetty With Fiance Raj Kun­dra at The Tiffin­bites Restaurant

What is weird, well in the 21st cen­tury its get­ting more and more dif­fi­cult to define what is weird and what isnt. Accord­ing to the dic­tio­nary one def­i­n­i­tion is Of a strik­ingly odd or unusual char­ac­ter; strange. Surely that isnt enough any more? A quick look at eBay and you will find hun­dreds of items that would com­ply with that def­i­n­i­tion. Toast with faces on it, Glass jars con­tain­ing Ghosts and numer­ous exam­ples of weird and wacky objects, (well weird and wacky accord­ing to the peo­ple who have sub­mit­ted them.) The sheer num­ber of them should pre­clude them from being classed as Weird. Main­stream News­pa­pers now have pages of weird news and no short­age of peo­ple will­ing to appear on them. The nightly news no longer fin­ishes with heart warm­ing local story it fin­ishes with some weird local hap­pen­ing Weird is big news.

It seems that weird and bizarre are now main­stream and are con­sid­ered mar­ket­ing tools or a gate­way to 15 min­utes of fame. In ear­lier cen­turies the high­light of the year was the visit of a cir­cus or a fair and their cast of weird and won­der­ful char­ac­ters and crea­tures. Queues would form out­side the tents as peo­ple waited to see the lat­est freaks and bizarre sights. The Inter­net is the mod­ern equiv­a­lent of the Freak Show and with a bit of plan­ning and prepa­ra­tion you can use this desire for the weird and wacky to pro­mote your site or your company.

Viral mar­ket­ing is the key to your suc­cess, Find some­thing that peo­ple will find funny and amus­ing and want to show their friends and you are halfway there. Some recent exam­ples are the plumbers van that had a naked body painted on door so that it looked like a naked per­son was dri­ving. The pho­to­graph trav­eled from inbox to inbox each time the name of the com­pany was seen along with the URL of their site, it was picked up by local news­pa­pers and local TV and the work flooded in (sorry for the pun!).

It doesnt take a big bud­get just a big imag­i­na­tion, Find some­thing weird, pho­to­graph it water­mark the pho­to­graph and place it on your site take some anti leech­ing pre­cau­tions to stop peo­ple copy­ing it and send the link out, visit a few forums and place the link in your sig­na­ture, pass the photo to some of the many sites spe­cial­iz­ing in weird soon you will have a stream of traf­fic to your site.

There is no dif­fer­ence from the Inter­net to the freak shows of the 19th and 20th Cen­turies except that this time the freaks are on the out­side of the tent!

Mark Thomp­son ran an IT con­sul­tancy in Lon­don for many years . He now live in Spain and earns an full time income online. He shares what he has learned about earn­ing an income online at The Income Academy

Author: Mark J Thomp­son
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com
Pro­vided by: Mobile game news

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Some basic premises often fash­ioned by lead­ers and sup­ported by the led exer­cise the col­lec­tive con­science of the led in so far as they stim­u­late a willed devel­op­ment. The devel­op­ment is usu­ally supe­rior but not nec­es­sar­ily civ­i­lized. The premises in ques­tion are of this form: Our level of tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment is sec­ond to none. Upon reach­ing this level, we also have to pre­pare our soci­ety for peace, and to guar­an­tee the peace, tech­nol­ogy must be revised to fos­ter the pol­icy of war. Tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment that is pushed in this direc­tion sets a dan­ger­ous prece­dent for other soci­eties that fear a threat to their respec­tive sov­er­eign­ties. They are pushed to also fos­ter a war technology.

In the domain of civ­i­liza­tion, this mode of devel­op­ment is not praise­wor­thy, nor is it morally jus­ti­fi­able. Since it is not morally jus­ti­fi­able, it is socially irre­spon­si­ble. An inspec­tion of the premises will reveal that it is the last one that poses a prob­lem. The last premise is the con­clu­sion of two pre­ced­ing premises but is not in any way log­i­cally deduced. What it shows is a pas­sion­ately deduced con­clu­sion, and being so, it fails to be reck­oned as a con­clu­sion from a ratio­nally pre­pared mind, at least at the time at which it was deduced.

A soci­ety that advances accord­ing to the above pre­sup­po­si­tions and espe­cially accord­ing to the illog­i­cal con­clu­sion — has trans­mit­ted the psy­che of non-negotiable supe­ri­or­ity to its peo­ple. All along, the power of pas­sion dic­tates the pace of human con­duct. Whether in con­struc­tive engage­ments or willed part­ner­ships, the prin­ci­ple of equal­ity fails to work pre­cisely because of the supe­ri­or­ity syn­drome that grips the leader and the led. And a dif­fer­ent soci­ety that refuses to share in the col­lec­tive sen­si­bil­i­ties or pas­sion of such soci­ety has, by the expected logic, become a poten­tial or actual enemy and faces con­fronta­tion on all pos­si­ble fronts.

Most of what we learn about the present world, of course, via the media, is dom­i­nated by state-of-the-art tech­nol­ogy. Soci­eties that have the most of such tech­nol­ogy are also, time and again, claimed to be the most advanced. It is not only their advance­ment that lifts them to the pin­na­cle of power, supe­ri­or­ity, and fame. They can also use tech­nol­ogy to sim­plify and move for­ward an under­stand­ing of life and nature in a dif­fer­ent direc­tion, a direc­tion that tends to elim­i­nate, as much as pos­si­ble, a prior con­nec­tion between life and nature that was, in many respects, mys­ti­cal and unsafe. This last point does not nec­es­sar­ily mean that tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment is a mark of a supe­rior civilization.

What we need to know is that civ­i­liza­tion and tech­nol­ogy are not con­ju­gal terms. Civ­i­lized peo­ple may have an advanced tech­nol­ogy or they may not have it. Civ­i­liza­tion is not just a mat­ter of sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy or tech­ni­cal infra­struc­ture, or, again, the mar­vel of build­ings; it also has to do with the moral and men­tal reflexes of peo­ple as well as their level of social con­nect­ed­ness within their own soci­ety and beyond. It is from the gen­eral behav­iour makeup of peo­ple that all forms of phys­i­cal struc­tures could be cre­ated, so too the ques­tion of sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy. Thus, the kind of bridges, roads, build­ings, heavy machin­ery, among oth­ers, that we can see in a soci­ety could tell, in a gen­eral way, the behav­ioural pat­tern of the peo­ple. Behav­ioural pat­tern could also tell a lot about the extent to which the nat­ural envi­ron­ment has been uti­lized for infra­struc­tural activ­i­ties, sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy. Above all, behav­ioural pat­tern could tell a lot about the per­cep­tions and under­stand­ing of the peo­ple about other people.

I do believe and, I think, most peo­ple do believe that upon accel­er­at­ing the rate of infra­struc­tural activ­i­ties and tech­nol­ogy, the envi­ron­ment has to recede in its nat­u­ral­ness. Once advanc­ing tech­nol­ogy (and its atten­dant struc­tures or ideas) com­petes with the green envi­ron­ment for space, this envi­ron­ment that houses trees, grass, flow­ers, all kinds of ani­mals and fish has to shrink in size. Yet the growth of pop­u­la­tion, the relent­less human crav­ing for qual­ity life, the need to con­trol life with­out depend­ing on the unpre­dictable con­di­tion of the nat­ural envi­ron­ment prompt the use of tech­nol­ogy. Tech­nol­ogy need not pose unwar­ranted dan­ger to the nat­ural envi­ron­ment. It is the mis­use of tech­nol­ogy that is in ques­tion. While a soci­ety may justly uti­lize tech­nol­ogy to improve qual­ity of life, its peo­ple also have to ask: how much tech­nol­ogy do we need to safe­guard the nat­ural envi­ron­ment? Sup­pose soci­ety Y blends the mod­er­ate use of tech­nol­ogy with the nat­ural envi­ron­ment in order to off­set the reck­less destruc­tion of the lat­ter, then this kind of posi­tion­ing prompts the point that soci­ety Y is a lover of the prin­ci­ple of bal­ance. From this prin­ci­ple, one can boldly con­clude that soci­ety Y favours sta­bil­ity more than chaos, and has, there­fore, the sense of moral and social respon­si­bil­ity. Any state-of-the-art tech­nol­ogy points to the sophis­ti­ca­tion of the human mind, and it indi­cates that the nat­ural envi­ron­ment has been cav­a­lierly tamed.

If humans do not want to live at the mercy of the nat­ural envi­ron­ment which, of course, is an uncer­tain way of life but accord­ing to their own pre­dicted pace, then the use of tech­nol­ogy is a mat­ter of course. It would seem that the prin­ci­ple of bal­ance that soci­ety Y has cho­sen could only be for a short while or that this is more of a make-believe posi­tion than a real one. For when the power of the human mind grat­i­fies itself fol­low­ing a momen­tous achieve­ment in tech­nol­ogy, retreat, or, at best, a slow-down is quite unusual. It is as if the human mind is telling itself: tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment has to accel­er­ate with­out any obstruc­tion. A retreat or a grad­ual process is an insult to the inquir­ing mind. This kind of thought process only points out the enigma of the mind, its dark side, not its finest area. And in seek­ing to inter­ro­gate the present mode of a cer­tain tech­nol­ogy accord­ing to the instruc­tions of the mind, the role of ethics is indispensable.

Is it morally right to use this kind of tech­nol­ogy for this kind of prod­uct? And is it morally right to use this kind of prod­uct? Both ques­tions hint that the prod­uct or prod­ucts in ques­tion are either harm­ful or not, envi­ron­men­tally friendly or not, or that they do not only cause harm directly to humans but directly to the envi­ron­ment too. And if, as I have stated, the pur­pose of tech­nol­ogy is to improve the qual­ity of life, then to use tech­nol­ogy to pro­duce prod­ucts that harm both humans and the nat­ural envi­ron­ment con­tra­dicts the pur­pose of tech­nol­ogy, and it also fal­si­fies an asser­tion that humans are ratio­nal. Fur­ther­more, it sug­gests that the sophis­ti­cated level that the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or ratio­nale of qual­ity life. In this regard, a peace­ful coex­is­tence with the nat­ural envi­ron­ment would have been deserted for the sake of an unre­strained, inquir­ing human mind. The human mind would, as it were, become cor­rupted with beliefs or ideas that are unten­able in any num­ber of ways.

The advo­cacy that is done by envi­ron­men­tal­ists relate to the ques­tion of envi­ron­men­tal degra­da­tion and its neg­a­tive con­se­quences on humans. They insist that there is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for pro­duc­ing high-tech prod­ucts that harm both humans and the nat­ural envi­ron­ment. This con­tention sounds per­sua­sive. High tech­nol­ogy may demon­strate the height of human accom­plish­ment, but it may not point to moral and social respon­si­bil­ity. And to this point, the ques­tion may be asked: In what ways can humans close the chasm between unre­strained high tech­nol­ogy and envi­ron­men­tal degradation?

Too often, most mod­ern humans tend to think that a sophis­ti­cated lifestyle is prefer­able to a sim­ple one. The for­mer is sup­ported by the weight of high tech­nol­ogy, the lat­ter is mostly not. The for­mer eases the bur­den of depend­ing too much on the dic­tates of the nat­ural envi­ron­ment, the lat­ter does not. The lat­ter tends to seek a sym­bi­otic rela­tion­ship with the nat­ural envi­ron­ment, the for­mer does not. Whether human com­fort should come largely from an advanced tech­nol­ogy or the nat­ural envi­ron­ment is not a mat­ter that could be eas­ily answered. If the nat­ural envi­ron­ment is shrink­ing due to pop­u­la­tion growth and other unavoid­able causes, then advanced tech­nol­ogy is required to alle­vi­ate the pres­sures to human com­fort that arise. It is the irre­spon­si­ble pro­lif­er­a­tion of, say, war tech­nol­ogy, high-tech prod­ucts, among oth­ers, that are in need of crit­i­cism and have to stop.

About The Author

Mr. Ainsah-Mensah has worked in var­i­ous capac­i­ties mostly in Canada and now in China. He is an edu­ca­tion and race rela­tions con­sul­tant, projects coor­di­na­tor, writer, and post-secondary instruc­tor in busi­ness courses, life skills, and crit­i­cal think­ing. He is cur­rently the prin­ci­pal of Handan-Lilac Edu­ca­tion Group in China.

kamch22@yahoo.ca

Author: Stephen K. Ainsah-Mensah
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com
Pro­vided by: Dig­i­tal pipeline

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

These recipes are won­der­ful and they are old fam­ily recpies.
Armen­ian Baked Fish

3 lbs. whitefish-in the white fleshed bland fish may be substituted

3 fresh toma­toes or one small canned tomatoes

1 cloves gar­lic mashed

1 tbsp. flour

1 c. water

4 tbsp. minced parsley

1/2 cup olive oil

juice of 1 lemon

1 tea­spoon salt

1/2 tea­spoon pepper

fil­let and rinse fish. Spread the fil­lets skin side down in a but­tered bak­ing pan. Cover fish with toma­toes gar­lic and the flour mixed with water. Spread with pars­ley. Sea­soned with salt and pep­per. Pour oil and lemon juice all around fish. Bake at 325 after 420 to 40 min­utes depend­ing on the thick­ness of the fish. Spoon pan juices over the fish sev­eral times while bak­ing. May be served hot or cold. Gar­nish with sliced lemon. Serves six.

Pine smoked trout

Use a wire holder to get a smoky fla­vor when cook­ing trout. The idea is to be able to turn the meat over like the type made to hold hot dogs or hamburgers.

Cut server pine boughs and place them on your camp­fire. Lay the holder with your trout directly on top. Light the pine boughs, then the fire will sear, cook, and smoke your trout in about a minute before burn­ing out. Just turn the holder over to sear the other side repeat the process. A cou­ple of boughs and less than a minute for each side is per­fect for a half-pound trout.

Pick­led Bluegills

Use only a stain­less steel pan for good taste.

Cut fish into small pieces you will need about 5 cups of fish. Soak in a quart of water and one cup of salt for 2 days. Rinse fish in cold water and drain. Then pour two cups of white vine­gar over the fish and put it in the fridge for another 2 days. Pour it off.

Next, cook the fol­low­ing mix for five min­utes and let cool

2 cups white vinegar

1 cups sugar

1 tsp. mus­tard seed

1 tsp. whole black pepper

1 tsp. whole allspice

1 tsp. whole cloves

4 bay leaves

After it cools pour it over the fish, and place slices of lemon and onions on top. Refrig­er­ate for 5 days, then remove the spices and pack into jars. It makes three pints.

Sun­fish

Once you have skinned and fil­leted the Sun­fish, try this recipe.

Youll need:

1 lb. sun­fish fillets

2 scal­lio­nis sliced thin

1 green pep­per sliced thin

1 small jar of spaghetti sauce

1 chopped tomato

cup water

cup white wine

Pinch salt

Com­bine scal­lions, pep­per and sauce. Cover and sim­mer for r10 min­utes. Add fish, salt, tomato nad wine. Sim­mer, cov­ered, for six min­utes. Ladle over rice and rim with parsley.

When you are all done skim­ming and fil­let­ing your sun­fish, plant the car­casses deep in your tomato patch or rose bed. They make excel­lent fertilizer.

Fish Loaf

After you fil­let your fish, dont throw away the bones. There is still meat attached to them, and you can make a tasty dish with the left­overs. Begin by either bak­ing the back­bone scrap­ings in a 350 degree Fahren­heit oven or steam­ing them over boil­ing water until they are cooked. While the fish is cook­ing, gather the fol­low­ing ingredients:

1 cup toasted break cubes

1 small onion, diced

2 stalks cel­ery, diced

1 tsp. salt

1 egg, beaten

cup tomato sauce

cup grated ched­dar cheese

Paprika

1 cups cooked, flaked fish (from the scrapings)

Mix all ingre­di­ents except paprika and one-quarter cup of the grated cheese in a large bowl. Work in the flaked fish until a uni­form tex­ture is attained. Spoon the mix­ture into a 9X5-inch bread pan and shape it into a loaf. Spread the remain­ing grated cheese over the loaf and sprin­kle paprika on top. Bake the loaf at 350 degrees Fahren­heit for one hour. Let it cool five to 10 min­utes before cutting.

Add chili pep­pers or hot pep­per sauce as desired.

Baked Cis­coes

10 cis­coes, filleted

1 tbsps. Lemon juice

2 cups heavy cream

1 cup light cream

1 tsps. Flour

1 tbsp. butter

Salt and pepper

But­tered toast

Quar­ter the fiil­lets. Place fish pieces in a but­tered flat bak­ing dish. Sprin­kle with the lemon juice. Heat but­ter and flour in saucepan. Add the two cups heavy cream and the cup of light cream slowly. Bring to boil­ing point, stir­ring con­stantly. Pour sauce over fish and sp rin­kle with salt and pep­per. Bake at 325 degrees Fahren­heit for about one hour. Serve fish and sauce on (or with) but­tered toast.

Copy­right 2005 EveningSecretFishing.com Fishing

Frank Faldo is a Long-Time Fish­er­man and friend of EveningSecretFishing.com (http://www.eveningsecretfishing.com/specialsecret/Fish_Recipes.php)

Feel free to use this arti­cle on your web­site or any­where else — but all links and bio infor­ma­tion must remain in tact.

Author: Frank Faldo
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com
Pro­vided by: Word­press plu­gin Guest Blogger

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Free funny ani­mated ecards can be found on a vari­ety of Inter­net web­sites sim­ply by typ­ing in a few key words on a search engine, and allow­ing that search engine to pro­vide the Inter­net surfer with results. Free funny ani­mated ecards can come in every sub­ject area imag­in­able to tai­lor any spe­cial event or can be sent just to say hello. Ecards are elec­tronic cards. All peo­ple have at one time or another received or sent a card the tra­di­tional way, through the postal mail. All peo­ple are happy to get cards in the mail because it shows that some­one cares about them and was will­ing to show it by send­ing a greet­ing, birth­day, hol­i­day or thank you card.

While this ges­ture is sweet, it does take time, money and patience. Remem­ber those times spent stand­ing in the card isle at the store, look­ing for that per­fect card to say exactly what the sender feels. The pur­chase of the card costs upwards of $3-$4 dol­lars or more. Once the card has been picked and pur­chased, a stamp is needed to mail it, tak­ing any­where from 2–10 days to receive by the recip­i­ent. With free funny ani­mated ecards, item selec­tion can be done from the com­fort of home on the computer.

The free funny ani­mated ecards are more than just pic­tures and words. The char­ac­ters on the ecard move around, there may even be the option of adding sound. Most free funny ani­mated ecards allow per­son­al­iza­tion of the ecard. Once the selec­tion process is com­plete, the ecard can be mailed to the recip­i­ent and received instan­ta­neously. Some free funny ani­mated ecards can be sent with a per­sonal mes­sage or song directed towards the recip­i­ent. Send­ing free funny ani­mated ecards is a won­der­ful way to just say hello, or to acknowl­edge a per­sons birth­day, hol­i­day or spe­cial event.

Keep­ing in touch with peo­ple is much eas­ier using the advances in tech­nol­ogy that are avail­able to the aver­age per­son. The free funny ani­mated ecards web­sites are user friendly and allow for free funny ani­mated ecards to be for­warded and recy­cled by the recip­i­ent. If the free funny ani­mated ecards are really good, more peo­ple will visit the com­pany web­site and see other related prod­ucts that are offered. Hope­fully this type of free mar­ket­ing will bring in cus­tomers to pur­chase related items so that free funny ani­mated ecards can remain free to all for enjoyment.

For more infor­ma­tion about free funny ani­mated ecards, visit:
http://www.christianet.com/christianecards/
http://www.christianet.com/christianecards/funny/
http://www.christianet.com/

Author: Chris­t­ian N
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com
Pro­vided by: Guest blog­ger

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Savvy event pro­duc­ers fol­low the Golden Rule: know thy audi­ence. When they set out
to cre­ate a spe­cial event, the first thing they do is slip into the shoes of a typ­i­cal
guest. Under­stand­ing their audi­ence helps them choose the right loca­tion for the
event, deter­mine ticket prices, and select the proper adver­tis­ing and pro­mo­tional
vehi­cles.

The same mea­sured approach should go into select­ing the enter­tain­ment. The right
band, come­dian or speaker will drive ticket sales, help secure spon­sors and
gen­er­ate the right amount of excite­ment, glitz and glam­our for the occa­sion.
Indeed, the most care­fully con­sid­ered enter­tainer can reach far beyond the event,
gen­er­ate a great deal of pub­lic­ity, and build equity for your client or cause.

Such was the case when we booked Jes­sica Simp­son at a cor­po­rate event for
Chicken of the Sea. Most of Amer­ica had seen, or heard about the episode of MTV’s
“New­ly­weds” in which Simp­son, while eat­ing out of a can of Chicken of the Sea,
won­ders aloud whether it is tuna or chicken. This, along with many other gaffs,
helped cement Simp­son as America’s favorite ditz.

By agree­ing to appear for Chicken of the Sea, Simp­son showed she could laugh with
us. And Chicken of the Sea laughed all the way to the bank. We secured her ser­vices
for less than her usual rate and, though no press attended the event, a post-event
release with photo gen­er­ated press cov­er­age worth an esti­mated $1 mil­lion dol­lars
(ad space equiv­a­lent). In our ten years of book­ing celebri­ties for events, this project
had by far the best return on invest­ment (R.O.I.) for any client.

“How can I pos­si­bly repli­cate that?” you ask. Admit­tedly, Chicken of the Sea was
very lucky. The plan­ets and stars did align on that occa­sion. But the prin­ci­ple of
rel­e­vance still applies. Pro­duc­ers must com­mit to research­ing tal­ent for com­mon
touch-points. Whether you cap­i­tal­ize on cur­rent events as they did, or you focus on
which tal­ent best matches your objec­tives, the more rel­e­vant your tal­ent, the bet­ter
it will serve your needs. And, some­times much more

Jonathan Holiff is pres­i­dent and CEO of The Hollywood-Madison Group — the lead­ing recruiter of celebri­ties for endorse­ments, events and pub­lic rela­tions cam­paigns. Visit the web­site at http://www.hollywood-madison.com

Author: Jonathan Holiff
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Win­ner of two Acad­emy Awards, and nom­i­nated for seven oth­ers, LA Con­fi­den­tial was the sur­prise thriller of 1997. Prior to Amer­i­can Beauty and Glad­i­a­tor, Kevin Spacey and Rus­sell Crowe starred in this seedy crime and sus­pense film — one of the best of the decade. Set against the back­drop of 1950’s Hol­ly­wood and the celebrity cul­ture of that era (quite indis­tin­guish­able from the celebrity cul­ture of this era), LA Con­fi­den­tial projects a LA police depart­ment filled with cor­rup­tion and a town obsessed with acquir­ing fame, money, and celebrity at any cost.

When mem­bers of impris­oned mob boss Mickey Cohen’s gang start show­ing up dead, it’s up to three cops on the LA police force to get to the bot­tom of the mys­tery. Their supe­rior, Capt. Dud­ley Smith (James Cromwell) con­vinces wiseguys from other parts of the coun­try to go home. It seems that some­one is mov­ing in on Cohen’s under­world ter­ri­tory, but who? The police are led to the home of wealthy devel­oper Pierce Patch­ett (David Strathairn), who runs a pros­ti­tu­tion ring of Hol­ly­wood look-alikes.

The inves­tiga­tive task falls to three cops, each of whom goes about his busi­ness in a dif­fer­ent way. Deputy Lt. Edmund Exley (Guy Pearce) is a by-the-book offi­cer, fol­low­ing in the foot­steps of his dead father — a for­mer cop him­self who was mys­te­ri­ously mur­dered. Offi­cer Wen­dell ‘Bud’ White (Rus­sell Crowe) is a vig­i­lante agent of law enforce­ment who believes in per­son­ally exact­ing jus­tice and pun­ish­ing those who fail to sub­scribe to his own per­ceived moral­ity. As the son of a wife-beater, White has zero tol­er­ance for abusers of any type. And round­ing out the three is Sgt. Jack Vin­cennes (Kevin Spacey), a self-absorbed cop in search of Hol­ly­wood celebrity (he con­sults for TV shows on the side) and money. In the end, these three men of dif­fer­ing real­i­ties must come together if they hope to uncover the truth sur­round­ing these mys­te­ri­ous killings.

In the mean­time, the con­flict between the three men and Capt. Smith heats up. Each must wage a per­sonal bat­tle against the fra­ter­nity cul­ture of the police force, the bureau­cratic machine, and the ram­pant cor­rup­tion that infests every cor­ri­dor of city hall. Along the way, Bud White strikes up a rela­tion­ship (as does Exley) with one of the pros­ti­tutes from the inves­ti­ga­tion, Lynn Bracken (Kim Basinger), which com­pli­cates the inves­ti­ga­tion and com­pro­mises his judg­ment. But when a break in the case takes place, Exley and White put their dif­fer­ences aside and work together to solve the case

With a sur­prise end­ing that’s one of the best of the decade, LA Con­fi­den­tial is a cin­e­matic mas­ter­piece. Wrought with sym­bol­ism, and sport­ing a well-written screen­play, the film cap­tured crit­i­cal acclaim as well as box office suc­cess. Highly enter­tain­ing, and drip­ping with sus­pense, LA Con­fi­den­tial more than qual­i­fies for its des­ig­na­tion as a must-see film. If you haven’t seen it, then don’t wait another minute longer

About the Author

Britt Gillette is author of The DVD Report, a movie review site where you can find more reviews like this one of the LA Con­fi­den­tial (DVD) Review.

Author: Britt Gillette
Arti­cle Source: EzineArticles.com

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Do you know what it’s like to lose your cell phone? Well, I bet you would feel sim­i­lar to the way that these guys on the roof feel like.

“Don’t lose your con­tacts when your drop your phone. Air­tel. SMS BACKUP”

Oh, by the way, where is the blood?

Adver­tis­ing Agency: REDIFFUSION Y&R Gur­gaon, India
Chief Cre­ative Offi­cers: Ramanuj Shas­try, Sagar Maha­balesh­warkar
Exec­u­tive Cre­ative Direc­tors / Cre­ative Direc­tors: Jaideep Maha­jan, Deepesh Jha
Copy­writ­ers: Deepesh Jha, Megha Dutta
Art Direc­tors: Jaideep Maha­jan, Shameem Moham­mad, Anunay Rai
Pho­tog­ra­pher: Tarun Vishwa

Related Posts:

• BC Lung Asso­ci­a­tion Great Ad
• Minis­sha Lamba yearns for a beach vacation
• Bollywood’s hottest accord­ing to MAXIM
• Garam Masala’s Neetu Chandra
• Some Sexy Hot Pics of Really Sexy Women

Ran­dom, Funny, Weird, Twistr(ed), Pho­tos from the Web.

Related Posts:

• Twistr(ed) Ran­dom Funny Wierd Pictures
• 10 Failed attempts to break a bot­tle over someone’s head
• Hot & Sexy Model: Emma Frain
• Aud­rina Patridge Is Red Hot
• Cat Dances Unexpectedly