La sindrome del pubblicitario neuron-free / atto primo: il delfino "tonnato" della Coop

Vi è capitato di recarvi alla Coop ed acquistare le scatolette di tonno all'olio d'oliva "in-house"?

Andiamo, sono quasi sempre in offerta, vi sarà capitato sicuramente!

Su ciascuna scatoletta appare la raffigurazione di un essere di dubbia identità, che il marchio si cura di informarci essere un delfino.

"Dalla parte dei delfini", per la precisione.

Ora, posto che esprimere il proprio sostegno a questi splendidi odontoceti su di una scatoletta di tonno è come organizzare un Bar-Mitzvah ad Auschwitz, penso che la prima reazione di chiunque noti questa inquietantissima immagine sia di chiedersi "perché?! Cosa fanno solitamente quelli del tonno in scatola ai delfini?!".

Ebbene, non si tratta di un'esternazione frutto di un umorismo nero degno dei Monty Python, bensì dell'infelicemente concepito marchio indicante la conformità del tonno in scatola Coop allo standard di certificazione indicato dallo Earth Island Institute, un'organizzazione non-profit con sede a San Francisco il cui oggetto è - non scherzo - la salvaguardia dei delfini nella pesca del tonno. No, non è il titolo di un manoscritto mai pubblicato di Douglas Adams, bensì un'esigenza di tutela scaturente dai metodi a quanto pare barbarici utilizzati nell'Oceano Pacifico Orientale per la pesca del tonno, che sono la causa del tasso di mortalità abnormemente elevato dei delfini in quella zona. Purtroppo quella parte del mondo sembra essere particolarmente crudele nei loro confronti, basta vedere lo straziante documentario "The Cove", vincitore del premio Oscar nel 2010.

Data la serietà del problema, forse sarebbe stato preferibile ingaggiare dei pubblicitari (non so se si chiamino ancora così ma chi se ne frega) con qualche neurone all'attivo, specialmente in considerazione del fatto che la denominazione del marchio non suona bene in alcuna lingua, complice il fatto di essere per sua definizione esclusivamente presente sulle scatolette di tonno (l'inglese "dolphin safe" sembra quasi voler alludere al fatto che i delfini si cibino di tonno in scatola... quella sì che sarebbe stata una pubblicità deliziosamente raccapricciante, non trovate?). E la Coop come ha pubblicizzato l'iniziativa? Così: "I delfini? Togliamoli di tonno"... si commenta da sola.

Fun Fact: Was the Name of a Minor Harry Potter Character Inspired by a Relative of Mine?

Let me start off by saying that I haven't read the Harry Potter books. It's not that I didn't want to, but when I was sent a copy of the first book for Christmas back in 1997, before it became famous, I found the first few chapters oddly boring and dragged out. I'm sure the reason was that I was still a child and was more interested in the world I had created through my drawings and stories (I didn't own a TV, you see...) than someone else's.

Plus, it had only been about four years since I had discovered "Star Wars and, if you are a Star Wars fan, you know what those first few years felt like.

My first experience with the movies was traumatic: it was Boxing Day 2001, "Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone" had been out in Italy for a mere twenty days and the cinema was packed. Add to that the fact that the listings had a typo and everyone had shown up late, therefore making that day's second showing especially packed, the fact that I was sitting behind a really tall guy and in front of two hysterical, thirty or forty-something harpies who kicked the back of my chair for the whole duration of the film and you get the picture - no pun intended.

It wasn't until I became very close with a massive Harry Potter fan a few years later, after the final Lord of the Rings film had been released, that I finally decided to give that saga another chance: no one I knew - English or otherwise - was enthusiastic about J.K. Rowling's writing, so I decided to give the films a go.

I bought the DVDs of the ones that had already been released (the first four, if I remember correctly) and watched one every night until I was done.

Guess what: I loved them.

Shortly before then, I visited my great uncle and aunt in Aberfeldy, Scotland. I had never been to their house before and soon after I arrived they told me their neighbour was J.K. Rowling and even took me round to see her house. At the time I didn't make much of it, given that I was not a fan, but the purpose of this overly long and annoying introduction is to explain my surprise when I went to see "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I" and discovered that the Minister for Magic's was called Rufus Scrimgeour (in the film he is portrayed by an uncharacteristically stern Bill Nighy).

Since my relatives often met J.K. Rowling while on their daily walks and lived right next to her while she was writing the second half of the saga, I wonder whether they were her inspiration for this particular character's surname. I guess we'll never know...

Mark Ruffalo: The Importance of Being Honest

In the midst of all the controversy surrounding the positively medieval Texas Abortion Bill, one voice stood out from the crowd: the distinctively even-tempered, soft-voiced Mark Ruffalo.

Even though most people know him as Bruce Banner/The Hulk from the star-studded blockbuster "The Avengers", Ruffalo took part in quite a few movies before reaching much deserved fame, as he jokingly remarked a little over a year ago while chatting to Graham Norton by citing his "eight fans".

To me he'll always be sweet, awkward Matt Flamhaff from the 2004 comedy "13 Going on 30", but Ruffalo was no short of fierce in speaking up for women's rights in a recent open letter for an abortion rights rally in Jackson, Mississippi.

By bravely recounting his own mother's traumatic experience with the illegal abortion procedure she underwent before the historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Ruffalo noted (the following exerpts are taken from US Weekly): " It was a time when women were seen as second-rate citizens who were not smart enough, nor responsible enough, nor capable enough to make decisions about their lives. It was a time that deserved to be left behind, and leave it behind we did, or so it seemed." He then added: "I don't want to turn back the hands of time to when women shuttled across state lines in the thick of night to resolve an unwanted pregnancy, in a cheap hotel room just south of the state line. Where a transaction of $600 cash becomes the worth of a young woman's life." And finally: "I trust them with their choices, I trust them with their bodies, and I trust them with their children. I trust that they are decent enough and wise enough and worthy enough to carry the right of Abortion and not be forced to criminally exercise that Right at the risk of death or jail time."

Bravo, Mr Ruffalo! It's quite unheard of for a man to take such an honest and reasonable stance on abortion in the face of widespread fanatism. I wish all men had such massive balls and that much good sense.

I say good sense because nowadays who the hell remembers what common sense is all about?!

A few weeks ago I was talking to an acquaintance about the murder of Dr George Tiller by an anti-abortionist fanatic and, at some point, this person blurted out something about the good doctor deserving to die because he himself had murdered innocent lives.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that defining the term "life" is not a walk in the park, given that there is hardly a shared view as to its actual meaning and implications, I remarked that if the value placed on life alone was to be considered exclusive, what was preventing us from criminalizing women who suffered miscarriages? After all, didn't their bodies put an end to innocent lives too?

The very notion is absurd, of course, but what anti-abortionists don't seem to realise is that you either decide to oppose abortion based on the sole natural - if nebulous - element of life, in which case no anti-abortionist should believe anyone deserves to die, or you admit that you have an idea as to who you think should live and who shouldn't, based on your moral, religious and what not beliefs.

In the former case, the idea that a young woman could die as a result of an illegally performed procedure should alarm these people at least as much as the thought of abortion itself. They seem to believe that if you outlaw abortion, women shall magically stop seeking them, but every single person who is blessed with the tiniest spark of intelligence knows that wouldn't happen, for the agony of carrying an entity which is perceived as foreign and therefore hostile, as many studies suggest, greatly outweighs the fear of getting cought.

In the latter case, the implication is clear: once you admit your aversion to the procedure is based on your personal view of the world, you admit someone else has a different view and forcing them to follow your rulebook has nothing to do with protecting others, but is merely a selfish desire for control.

Anyway, bravo Mark Ruffalo!