Building Childrens Furntiture
Having glued and joined all T’s and L’s, the next step is to assemble these joined sections together to complete the basic shape of the piece.
It is best to do this without glue at first, assembling the entire unit with screws alone. Then, when it is together in good order and you are satisfied that nothing is out of line, take it apart, clean and sand all the pieces to prepare them for finishing, and reassemble the unit again, this time permanently with glue.
Though this method imposes some extra time and effort on your part, it makes the sanding operation easier and better, and reassembly goes fast and accurate witheverything fitting back into place like a glove.
Furniture, in order to have good lines and smooth working drawers and doors, must be squared up during assembly before letting the glue-joined sections dry.
In many cases, a large square will serve to check the accuracy of smaller joined sections. On larger cabinets with big rectangular compartments, you can check for squareness by measuring diagonally across the compartment opening from corner to corner. Note this measurement and then measure the opposite crossing diagonal in the same manner. You can also do very nice corner sofa
If the cabinet is square, the two measurements will be the same. If the measurements differ, the piece is not square. To make it square, apply pressure on the corner that has the longer measurement until the cabinet has been forced into a square shape and both diagonal measurements are the same.
You can make weby nice corner sofa bed from fabric or leather.
Having squared the cabinet, it is a good idea to tack the back panel on next before making any doors or drawers, or doing any further work. The back panel will serve to hold the cabinet in shape while adding the rest of the features and, if necessary, it can be removed temporarily whenever it interferes with work to be done.
Before you start hunting for a property to obtain, you are going to need to know exactly what you want. It’s beneficial to begin by exploring the new homes for sale to be able to get a sense of what is available as well as precisely what you like.
You are able to look at many different homes on the internet. First of all, do not narrow down the options by area or spending budget. Rather, simply search through all the accessible listings as well as click those that appeal to your interest for more information. Observe exactly what you like about them or everything you dislike. This listing is going to be very helpful when you are in fact looking at properties in your preferred budget and location. It’s a wise decision to write every little thing down so you won’tforget something crucial afterwards. Take your time carrying this out so you can take a look at a variety of properties and make certain you’ve got a good idea of the kind of house you wish to purchase and also exactly what features will be more essential to you as compared to other ones.
After you have a listing of exactly what you want and do not desire in a house, the next thing is to find properties that complement your own needs. Go to my site just for more info or maybe get started working along with a real estate professional straight away to be able to discover the best property quickly.
To many people, the image of
The reality is that neither of these extremes is correct. If you’re visiting LA, the chances are that you won’t see a celebrity. But equally, if you live in
Another nugget of truth that can be sifted out of the rumours of
Some of the stars’ favourite restaurants include seafood specialist Crustacean, where the key is to dress and act like a movie-star; Spago, famous chef Wolfgang Puck’s own restaurant, which many argue sets the standard for eating in
The top nightspots where the stars choose to shine include music venues The Viper Room, which, although small and intimate, has seen stars of sizeable magnitude, including Johnny Cash, Tom Petty, The Counting Crows and Lenny Kravitz; The Roxy, which was once a second home to rockers Guns ‘n Roses; and The Troubadour, which has seen the likes of Elton John and Tom Waits performing. Favourite nightclubs include world-famous Whisky a Go Go (which itself has a impressive musical history), El Floradita and The Sky Bar.
And finally, if you feel you need to take something with you from the land of the stars, the shops that are best-loved by celebrities include Di Fabrizio Shoes, shoemaker to the likes of Frank Sinatra, Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli; Book Soup, a book store that often has star-signings as well; Illume Candles, candle makers that keep the stars’ homes glowing; and every celebrities’ favourite fashion store, Fred Segal, which is mentioned in fashion-obsessed films like ‘Clueless’ and ‘Legally Blonde’, and has a reputation for trend-setting and essential fashion.
LA has two Fred Segal stores, one in
There are also a great deal of top-quality hotels in Santa Monica, so if you feel like living like an LA star, this is the place to be!
The other day I heard from a woman who was fired from her management track job for having a close friendship (not yet an affair) with a male colleague. From what I can tell the man was not fired.
Which got me on my soapbox again…My partner was surprised that that kind of dismissal would happen in this day and age. I told him that women are often treated badly and unequally in business out there in the corporate world, (as opposed to our little self-employed, protected non-corporate world of friends here).
Then I began reading the Women in Hollywood blog. First the writer mentioned how some great women’s shows are being axed for next year (Men in Trees, one of my favs). On another WIH blog, Kristen Davis, one of the stars of Sex in the City addressed the eternal question of whether the four women get along or hate each other. Kristen’s very smart point was that these questions were sexist and that people didn’t repeatedly question the Sopranos stars in that way. Opening of Sex in the City in London
Still on WIH blog, Jennifer Fox, writer, producer and subject of Flying, a six-part series on Sundance takes the position that women without children aren’t perceived as real women in our society. She says: “We define women as being married mothers actually”. I think she has a valid point. Our culture often perceives child-free women as somehow different…lacking…selfish..oh, I don’t know…But not complete.
And then of course there’s the invisibility angle – the idea that women over a certain age (~45) just aren’t noticed – it’s like they’re not even there. That’s why two Australian women, who go by the names Loris and Lucy, began their eclectic blog for midlife women.
It pains me that this is happening in this day and age. We only have to look at Hilary Clinton and the ongoing “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” criticisms of her and her campaign to see that we’re a far cry from equality as yet.
Like Dr. Richard Land I have also seen the importance of becoming involved with the democratic process on every level. It is not as important as the call to the gospel but it is folly to ignore political process. From the single vote to full blown activism it is all too apparent that doing nothing would be fatal to freedom to all that is right and in the end to society and the church itself.
Unfortunately I have discovered that the church has a lot of folk who seem to have little political savvy. Perhaps that is why Jesus said, “…for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” Luke 16:8
A few Christians who are politically inept pose no great danger but for those who rise to celebrity status it is a different matter. The sphere of influence increases exponentially as does the responsibility. Hollywood actors are best known for misusing their celebrity to make swelling unsubstantiated and blaringly cockeyed statements. Reaching the heights of success does not guaranty that what they say didn’t come from the depths of hell. It is a common error that has become all too common among Christians as well.
When asked if he is politically left or right, liberal or conservative Warren often replies with his now famous retort “I’m for the whole bird.” Some may think this is a reflection of a very large minded individual who prefers to take in the full spectrum of the matter, yet others think the bird is a chicken and the position is chicken too.
First analysis of Warren’s “whole bird” idea comes from Rick’s own bible. I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Rev 3: 15-16
Straddling the fence may work well in politics but it is particularly abhorrent to the Lord when found in his people. It isn’t about taking sides as much as it is about sending a clear signal. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1Cor 14: 8
Most of the criticism of Warren’ politics comes because Barack Obama was invited to speak along with others in Warren’s conference on aids. Obama is a left wing liberal who supports abortion rights and same sex marriages. Warren is quick to remind those who question sharing the podium with Obama that the subject was aids not abortion or same sex unions. I would stand corrected if someone could show me that what we stand against is just as important as what we stand for.
Compartmentalizing issues may also work well with politics but fails miserably in Christianity. Not leaving this statement hanging in mid air from nothing let’s look a bit further into the analysis.
No one would disagree that the spread of aids is a direct byproduct of an age of permissiveness. Abortion is also a byproduct of the “me” generation. It’s a play but no pay attitude that says, “My sex life cannot not be threatened by anyone’s idea of morality but the life it may produce can be ended with complete impunity.” Blaming society for causing the spread of aids may not always be acceptable but taking personal responsibility for our own actions is.
Although inverted the truth coming out of the whole analogy remains the same. The promotion of abortion rights and same sex unions is connected at the hip to the spread of aids. It’s like trying to sell a generation a scam based on “play any old way and you’ll not have to pay” and no one notices the scam until they get a bill in the mail marked “aids pay up or die.”
Just because the term “consenting adults” has taken on an air of holiness doesn’t mean it comes without consequences. We’re quick to warn children not to play with matches but that doesn’t mean adults don’t get burned in fires just as easily as children. Sexual freedom is like most all other freedoms it is not free.
During the civil war a union soldier found himself separated from his company. He knew he was near the Mason Dixon line and not wanting to get shot by either side he wore blue pants and a gray shirt. As he crossed the line the Yankees shot him in the chest and the Confederates shot him in the pants. It worked! He didn’t get shot, he got shot twice! The bottom line is that Warren’s bird cannot fly. One wing wants to go up while the other wants to go down you can’t have it both ways.
Bollywood’s elder statesman, actor Amitabh Bachchan, and his daughter-in-law, actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who has had some crossover success in the West, are the two Indian movie stars most frequently interviewed by foreign media, and condescending Western reporters often ask them why Bollywood doesn’t make “serious” or “realistic” films, to which they tiredly reply that Bollywood is “escapist cinema.” I can’t blame them for giving reporters the answer they want to hear. The Bachchans are probably trying to be polite and diplomatic because they’d love to gain new fans in the West. Or maybe they’re just sick of explaining what appears to be a baffling concept to Western critics: entertainment is supposed to be entertaining.
But Bollywood films aren’t all fun and frivolity. What could be more serious and grounded in the reality of most people’s lives than finding love and making relationships work? Or how about struggling to resolve domestic problems and religious differences that tear families and communities apart? The clash between tradition and modernity is another favorite Bollywood theme, as is the experience of Indian emigrants. Indians are fiercely proud of their culture and they want to protect their values-just as American values are important to us-and films are vehicles for asserting the meaning of those values and exploring their relevance.
So the claim that Hollywood is realistic because it focuses on the marginalized and degenerate and that Bollywood is not because it focuses on different social realities doesn’t make any sense. And realistic or not, on a basic level, all entertainment is escapist-otherwise, what would be the point?
If the movie, The Wrestler, for example, is realistic, then I’ll have to take Hollywood’s word for it because I don’t know any washed-up professional wrestlers, and I have no idea if Anne Hathaway’s portrayal of a narcissistic drug addict in Rachel Getting Married is spot-on because I don’t hang out with anyone like that. And yet, I watch these films and enjoy them-but not because of their realism. Rather, they’re a departure from my normal, ordinary existence. And likewise, the reason I love Indian films is because they’re so different from my American life.
In August 2003, Time magazine reporter (and Bollywood fan) Richard Corliss wrote: “Movies give audiences what they don’t have. In the U.S., an economically comfortable nation, films often deal with life on the edge: danger and deprivation are glamorous to those who have everything. The same, upside down, applies in India: it’s a poor country, so the movie image is of the middle, upper-middle and fabulously-rich classes.” I understand the latter-why would poor people want to watch movies about social injustices they experience every day? But the former, while clearly true, is unsettling to me. Finding deprivation glamorous-and fancying ourselves hip and enlightened for it-says what to the deprived?
Indians weren’t wild about the film Slumdog Millionaire, partly because they were offended by the portrayal of poverty (protesters outside Mumbai theaters carried signs that read: “Poverty Porn” and “I am not a slumdog”), but also because they found the story so unrealistic-preposterous even. Perhaps Indians are more acquainted with the reality that such stories simply do not happen in real life. Obviously, Americans felt otherwise (myself included-I loved it) because it was a fairy tale of determination and destiny triumphing over impossible odds (America’s cultural myth), set in a nightmarish world of poverty (we love cinematic grittiness)-and it made our hearts soar. Hmm, an emotional fantasy based on cherished cultural values and told through accepted film conventions-kind of sounds like the same criticism leveled at Bollywood movies.
The modern movie was born in 1915 with the release of D.W. Griffith’s silent epic “Birth of a Nation,” and the first Hollywood movie awards followed little more than a decade later.
Eager to head off the potential threat of disruption cause by increasing unionization within the industry, Louis B. Mayer of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio founded the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in May 1927. The organization aimed to promote harmony and solidarity among the five major divisions of the film production process: directors, producers, actors, writers, and technicians.
Two years later, in an effort to further promote unity, the Academy announced the launch of a series of awards for cinematic excellence. The very first Academy Awards ceremony took place on the evening of May 16, 1929, and was attended by around 270 guests.
Every film played at any theater in Los Angeles between Aug. 1, 1927 and Aug. 1, 1928 was eligible for nomination with one exception. The first ever feature-length motion picture to include synchronized dialogue, “The Jazz Singer,” was disqualified from the Outstanding Picture category on the grounds that its pioneering use of sound gave it an unfair advantage against all of the silent movies that were in contention.
Although “The Jazz Singer” still received nominations for the categories of best Adapted Screenplay and Engineering Effects, it won neither. In consolation, a special honorary award for the film was presented to Darryl Zanuck, head of production at Warner Brothers, for having “revolutionized the industry.”
Although they were hugely successful at the time, these first-ever award winning movies are now little remembered and studied only by students of film history. The awards for Best Production and Engineering Effects were both won by “Wings,” a silent film about fighter pilots in World War I, while the romantic drama “Seventh Heaven” won in three categories, including Best Director.
This first event was chiefly focused on the actual presentations, as the names of the winners had all been announced roughly three months earlier. It also featured the sole appearance of a separate award for the best director of a comedy film, won by Lewis Milestone for “Two Arabian Knights.”
The iconic statuette was designed by founder Academy member and MGM art director Cedric Gibbons and has changed little since it first made its debut at the first ceremony. No one quite knows how the statuette earned the “Oscar” nickname, but it is most often attributed to actress Bette Davis who is said to have named the figure after her husband.
The gold-plated statuettes stands 34 cm tall, weighs 3.85 kg, and depicts a medieval knight holding a broadsword and standing on a five-spoke film reel, where each spoke represents one of the five filmmaking disciplines.
The second Academy Awards in 1930 marked the first time the recipients were announced on the actual night of the ceremony. An arrangement was made to release the names of the winners to the newspapers earlier in the day on the understanding that they would not publish them before 11 p.m.
The Best Picture winner of 1930-31, “Cimarron,” was the only Western film to win the top prize until “Dances with Wolves” seized it some sixty years later. In 1934, Frank Capra’s “It Happened One Night” became the first film to make a clean sweep of the five most sought-after categories: Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay. Forty years had passed before any other film achieved the same feat.
One of the most remarkable years in the early history of film awards was 1939; this is due to the fact that the competition for Best Picture included several movies that, unlike the early silent movies, have gone on to stand the test of time and continued to receive widespread acclaim.
That year the John Wayne vehicle “Stagecoach” was vying for Best Picture with the Howard Hawks’ screwball comedy “His Girl Friday,” the ground-breaking “The Wizard of Oz,” and the hugely popular “Gone with the Wind.” More remarkable still is that, despite such stellar competition, “Gone with the Wind” managed to sweep the board with a total of eight Oscar wins.
For the first few years, awards related to all the work a particular actor or director had done was completed during the qualifying period. It was only in 1933 that the system was changed to honor specific works instead. Another major change came in 1935 when the qualifying period was altered to represent the previous calendar year rather than a period spanning two years.
In 1940, the Los Angeles Times busted the long-standing embargo and revealed the names of that year’s winners in its evening edition. Ever since, the Academy has made use of the now famous system of sealed envelopes, keeping everyone in suspense until the very last minute.
Bollywood stars today are no longer happy to just stay on the big screen. Many have also tried their luck on the small screen with great success. Besides acting in TV series and judging shows, they have also tried their hand at hosting shows. Their onscreen popularity translates into instant buzz and business.
It has become a recent trend in Bollywood for many A-list actors to appear on the small screen. These stars are being seen more on reality and performance shows than on TV serials. Their visibility on these shows enhances profits and viewership for channels and the stars in turn reach out to a bigger audience.
Salman Khan who has hosted quite a few editions of Bigg Boss hosted the seventh edition of Bigg Boss too. It became a major hit in India and raked up many controversies that made headlines.
To Salman, a TV show gives a chance for the audience to see the actors in a completely different light, a far cry from their characters in Bollywood movies. “For any actor, the real heroes are his fans. So, by doing a TV show, my audiences get to see the real Salman. Isn’t this (TV) a better reward for me?” he said. Sana Khan, one of the contestants in Bigg Boss 6, bagged a major role in Salman’s upcoming movie Jai Ho. Her spat with a rival contestant won Salman’s heart. When Salman was looking for an innocent yet aggressive character in Jai Ho he felt that Sana would fit the bill.
Amitabh Bachchan hosted the mega game show Kaun Banega Crorepati which went on to create history on the small screen. There were impulsive reactions to the show and it grabbed even more eyeballs when for the first time a female was handed the crorepati title.
Television has become so big that Bollywood’s superstar Shah Rukh Khan admits that an actor’s success today is not measured merely by box office profits, but his association with a TV show. “Today stardom is not about awards and box office numbers, but about who has a bigger TV show. So I am trying to do something. I have told Punit and the Zee family to look out for something for me,” the actor said.
Shah Rukh started his career on the small screen with the show Fauji followed by Circus in 1989. “The TV audience is very big and I also started with TV and I respect the medium a lot. Television is a great platform for every actor and actress. I would love to participate in it whenever given a chance,” he added.
Ajit Thakur, business head, Sony Entertainment Television says: “Shows like KBC and Bigg Boss are as big as films. The reach TV gives today is far wider than the film release on a weekend. And the remuneration is also high. All these factors make stars host TV shows.”
Cortisol is one of the hormones secreted by the Adrenals (also known as the “Stress Glands”) when the body goes into “Fight or Flight”. It is a life saving hormone that helps us survive as we go through life. It gives us the ability to act fast in life threatening situations.
People with addictions of any sort invariably have weak adrenal glands. This is why addicted people gravitate towards substances, situations or activities that will stimulate the adrenal glands and give them a hit of cortisol. These addictions can include anything from caffeine, cocaine, marital drama, fear, vigorous exercise to ANGER as well as many other things. Here’s how it goes… The person needs the hit of cortisol because their adrenal glands are weak and not secreting enough so they seek out the thing that will give them that hit. This ends up weakening the adrenals further due to over use and drives the person deeper into addiction. A sad and vicious cycle. Understanding this about addictions can often be the key to stopping giving our power away to the addictions and taking back control.
So What about Anger Addiction?
The reason we develop an anger addiction in the first place is personal to each of us. It could be due to our genes; because we were abused as a child or adult; bullied in school or at work; from a dysfunctional family which role modelled anger as a way of life; played on too many computer games as a child which constantly stimulated the adrenals; had too much exposure to an often stress inducing and violent mainstream media (in all it’s forms – from TV News to Hollywood action films)… any number of reasons.
But whatever got us with the addiction we are stuck with it until we can understand what is happening with us and take back our power from it. This is how it works:-
- Something in our life creates the anger pattern and cycle
- The regular inner or outer expression of anger (as anger can be turned inward too and cause depression as well as be expressed outwardly) weakens our adrenal glands
- Our bodies then work harder to get our deficient hormone which in turn…
- Reduces our ability to cope with stress and further weakens our adrenal glands.
- Our bodies are then subconsciously on the lookout for things to make us angry so we can get our cortisol hit to make up for our weakened adrenals and the whole sorry cycle just goes round and around and our addiction to anger deepens and progresses.
How Can we Help Ourselves?
First of all we need to admit to ourselves that we are in this cycle and that we have an addiction to cortisol. Our mental attitude is everything. If we keep on denying who and what we have become in relation to anger, then we are giving the universe a message that we want more of the same and the Law of Attraction will be very happy to oblige and will keep on sending us negativity and reasons to be angry. The person who is choosing to recover from anger addiction will miss the road rager by 5 minutes for example whereas the person who chooses to stay in anger addiction will meet that road rager head on – IT’S THE LAW! (of Attraction!).
The next step is finding ways of dealing with anger that work for you. We are all different and what works for one person will not work for another. Do some research on anger management, find something that is tailor made for you and make the decision to turn your life around using that approach. It won’t be easy as recovery from any addiction takes a decision, stickability and a long term positive mental attitude but it can be done and your life can turn around as can the lives of those whom your anger is touching.
The fashions and aesthetics of the 1930s especially appeal to me. The extreme decadence of the costumes in the movies, transported you to a different place outside of your own life, especially if you had been living in the depression era. Most people were hard up from the end of the First World War, and the market crash caused many families to starve. It was certainly a stark contrast to the exotic locations, glamorous clothing and over the top interiors that these movies portrayed. One of my personal heroines that personifies the 30s glamour is Claudette Colbert. Relatively unknown now, compared to a lot of her contemporaries, like Marlene Dietrich and Garbo, a lot of people would not know this feline beauty, despite her super stardom at the time. Her career was almost unheard of in Hollywood, although almost all of the 40 odd movies that she made were smash hits. David O. Selznick the famous producer, who was notoriously hard to get on with, confessed that all her movies had grossed more than a million, and he would pander to her every whim.
She landed her first movie role while studying fashion design. She made her first talkies in 1927, and thereafter she worked on screen for 20 years. Her acting range was varied. She played a mysterious, exotic vixen in ‘The Sign of the Cross’, a spoilt society heiress in ‘It Happened One Night’ and an ambitious, single mother in ‘The Imitation of Life’. All of these, she played with extreme professionalism and unforgettable performances. The timing of her line deliveries was so famous that her co-star Gary Cooper was intimidated by her.
I adore her exceptional beauty, with her extremely arched eyebrows, sphinx-like features and delicate bone structure, she sure had a face one can’t forget.
There was a famous story that her role in ‘All About Eve’ was meant to be designed for her. She had damaged her back in another movie and unwillingly she had to pass the movie to Bette Davis. The director spoke of his regret at not being able to capture her feline features in the movie. I think her cat-like aura, with her fluid, gold physique would certainly have caused riots in that masterpiece.
She was also famous in every movie that she appeared in, for demanding to be filmed from the right side of her face. Regardless of technical difficulties, she would insist with this diva-like demand to ensure that she retained this ‘movie star’ image. I guess that is why movie stars had such a mystery and mastery in their persona. The image that they projected to the audience only allowed for perfection. The stars were flawless, and obtained a consistent image all the time.
Claudette Colbert was always impeccably dressed, on and off screen. In ‘Tomorrow is Forever’ (1946), Jean Louis was hired to create eighteen changes of wardrobe for her, according to Wikipedia. Colbert’s style is best described with a quote from Jeanie Basinger in The International Dictionary of Films and Filmmakers: “[Her] glamour is the sort that women attain for themselves by using their intelligence to create a timeless personal style.”
Claudette Colbert starred as Empress Poppaea in Cecille B. DeMille’s ‘The Sign of the Cross’, 1932. The costumes were designed by Mitchell Liesen, who was also the Art Director for the film. As you can see, this film was released before the Motion Picture Production Code, or censorship, was enforced, beginning in 1934. Colbert’s costume had a low decolletage, bare midriff, and cut outs at the hips. In this scene from the film, you’ll see her cavorting in a milk bath with another suggestive costume being worn by Vivian Tobin as Dacia.
The liquid satin, bias-cut evening gowns that she often wore in her movies, would certainly not be easy attire to wear in our everyday life, but we certainly could aspire to a shorter version. With a bit of luck, you could be a screen siren too, sipping martins and become a classic beauty like Claudette.