[it's not in the lips] it's more in the character

Disclaimer - this applies equally to male and female.


The Maildotcom piece on lips makes the usual mistake:

Lips can say so much without ever uttering a single word. On a face, they really are the finishing touch to an entire look.

Why a mistake? Lips DO say so much. However, the nature of the person behind the lips also comes through and I don't like this female above. There's nothing "come hither" here but "I'm going all out for what I can get" in that determination and in the fixed stare of those glinting eyes.

The danger signals are the cold eyes and hard voice.


The other day, there were some comments on the character Linnet in Death on the Nile and we discussed accents. It finally registered in the brain - it wasn't her being dolled up or her accent or her poise or whatever - it was that she came across as a hard-nosed b--ch, where she's the sun and everyone else is a planet in orbit and I don't like those.

It comes out in the hard voice, in the look in the facial muscles, in the walk, in the talk.

You can doll yourself up all you like, male or female, but character always comes through.

Character can't be practiced but life changes can be effected.

[This post is part of #Silly Week.]
.

[california] taking its first steps without completely understanding

H/T His Girl Friday:

CALIFORNIA HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LEADER,

LET’S BE THE LEADER IN TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK,

ONE STATE AT A TIME.

Imagine that the State was turning off the water in CA farmers' fields, that supply 25% of this nation's food (to "save" a little fish called the Smelt), and farmers were competing with international beverage corporations that sell bottled water, and their fields were turning into the CA dustbowl. It's happening.

Imagine that due to our own version of Cap & Trade, AB32, passed in 2006, with new requirements every year, that our logging industry was being shut down, and we were forced to import lumber from WA and OR at 30% higher costs. It's happening.

Imagine that for both of these industries and many others (like cement companies) , AB32 is outlawing non-compliant diesel engines coming this Sept, and that they have to replace all their very expensive equipment with EXPENSIVE "COMPLIANT" EQUIPMENT (huge chippers, large combines, etc, that cost tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars), or stop working. It's happening.

Imagine the jobs that we have already lost being tripled, or more...what will that do to budget/taxpayers? Not to mention the workers who lose their jobs. And food prices increases. Think about the "domino effect."

It’s happening.

Imagine what would happen IF, farmers and loggers, and other industries' owners and workers, and whole cities that depend on these industries, got together with CA Tea Party Patriots in our State's Capitol, on August 28th (the day that Tea Party Express leaves Sacramento to head to DC for "Taxpayer March on DC 9/12"). AND just IMAGINE what it would look like if there were 50,000 PROTESTORS, HUGE TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT PARKED IN THE STREETS IN FRONT/AROUND THE CAPITOL BUILDING, completely SHUTTING DOWN SACRAMENTO, BEGINNING AT NOON....ALL DEMANDING THE REPEAL OF AB32 AND A "HARDSHIP CAUSE" FOR THE WATER TO BE TURNED ON.....

CAN YOU
IMAGINE?!?!?!?

Well, imagine no more
...IT'S HAPPENING!

What: SAC828 PROTEST -- STOP ECO-TYRANNY, REPEAL AB32

When: FRIDAY, AUGUST 28TH, NOON
Where: SACRAMENTO, CA, CAPITOL BUILDING

IT STARTS HERE…AMERICA IS WATCHING

http://www.TeaPartyIE.com Pass it on!

Great stuff and very, very necessary BUT it is not going to result in anything sustainable ten years down the track as long as people don't also understand this.
.

[quokkas] the quick and the dead

This "attack" is not really an attack, IMHO. When we went to Rottnest, everyone could only get round by bike and still there were dead quokkas all over the path. They leapt out from the undergrowth, maybe sensing food and you'd have to stop your bike quickly.

I recall one quokka looked up, as this one in the vid is doing, clambered up my leg and onto my shoulder, then leant forward and peered round at my face. After some time, dissatisfied, he jumped down again and hopped away. I'll always remember that.

The other place to go, in the West, is Monkey Mia, much further north, where the dolphins can be fed.


[This post is part of #Silly Week.]

[what to wear] to the supermarket

At last - truly sensible fashions you can wear to the supermarket or to the game. Also double as swimwear.

Top left: The Oops, I've Forgotten Something

Top right: The Boys Will Be Girls

Lower left: The Take Me Seriously, Will You?

Lower right: The Ecumenical Effect

Click on pic to zoom ...

[This post is part of #silly week.]

[#silly week kicks off] 1934 america's cup

IT'S #SILLY WEEK!!!

Brought to you by Man in a Shed [L'Homme dans un Hangar]

This week, different bloggers around the sphere will post on silly, weird or bizarre things, as some sort of relief from the dire news.

I haven't made a good start this morning, finalizing how to neutralize the Central Bankers so my Cunning Plan is as follows:

To post one sensible post each early morning and follow it up during the day with silly and unusual posts. To start with:


1934 Rainbow defeats Endeavour after rule change

The American defender, Harold Vanderbilt's Rainbow, has defeated Tommy Sopwith's Endeavour, 4 races to 2, the closest margin in a long while. The English have refused to race since 1895, when the Americans changed the rules to reverse a victory by the Earl of Dunraven's challenger and in 1934, it's now happened again, prompting an English wit to exclaim:

Britannia rules the waves but America waives the rules.

The Americans, on the other hand, hotly dispute that there has been sharp practice, maintaining that everything is above board and that the English simply failed to read the slight rule adjustments before the race. Silly oversight by Tommy Sopwith.

Either way, America remains undefeated on the ocean waves. The picture below is of Rainbow and Endeavour, the beautiful new J Boats which now race for the coveted trophy.

[child killer] needs our sympathy and understanding

Stefanie Rengel, Canadian girl stabbed to death on the orders of a schoolmate

The lead story at the Canadian Globe and Mail today had this:

From everything I've read about M.T., the now 17-year-old girl who is to be sentenced tomorrow after being convicted of first-degree murder for cajoling her boyfriend to kill Stefanie Rengel, the Toronto teenager, stabbed six times and left to bleed to death on an icy sidewalk in January, 2008, she is a monstrous kid.

Judith Timson, columnist, then called for the "monster's" execution, yes? Well actually ... no. Here is the headline which I didn't report first up:

DON'T SENTENCE M.T. AS AN ADULT

and the tagline:

If M.T. serves a mandatory life sentence in an adult prison, she will less likely become a better person, one who ultimately feels true remorse.

Our compassionate and sweet-smiling Judy


Ms Timson accepts that M.T. is a "cold-hearted monster" but wants this monster "understood" as it might affect her future life if anything bad happens to her. And Ms Timson's view of the ... er ... victim, lying in a pool of blood?

She seemed at 14 like a terrific kid.

Seemed a terrific kid. Y-e-e-es, isn't that lovely? Let's follow Judy's example and show compassion for all the perpetrators, for example, say, Ian Huntley. He might have had a difficult childhood and we wouldn't want him scarred for life now, would we? This is the compassionate, "prizes for all" society, after all and monsters need to be understood and given a six figure book deal to help them with their rehabilitation.

And ... um ... what about the boyfriend who so willingly obeyed the monster's decree of death? He doesn't get a mention; he's not as pretty as a gorgeous young girl - doesn't sell as many papers. Oh and the Globe and Mail have thoughtfully disabled comments on this news item.

Now interested, I googled the incident, to see how the other news services reported it. Here was Canada dot com:

M.T. was standing in court behind her lawyers, dressed in a blue sweater and dark pants, with her hair in a ponytail, as the verdict was read out. M.T. started to cry quietly before she was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs and returned to the Toronto area youth jail where she has been held for the past 14 months.

M.T. started to cry quietly, dressed in blue sweater and dark pants? Right, right and how did the victim's parents feel about it all perchance? What were they dressed in on the day? Did they "cry quietly" too? This doesn't seem to interest the journos as much.

Choking on the toast and marmalade here. Is there some sort of charge which can be brought against cold-hearted and exploitative journalists?
.