For the sharp-eyed: yes, there have been some changes from the original sketch. And such changes are soooo Project Runway, yes?
And we haven't eaten ALL the Halloween candy.
So, yeah, we're ready for Halloween.
It's a new day
For the sharp-eyed: yes, there have been some changes from the original sketch. And such changes are soooo Project Runway, yes?
And we haven't eaten ALL the Halloween candy.
So, yeah, we're ready for Halloween.
And here's how ours turned out:
Just like the box, right?
And I made a set of 10 holiday cards for Cards for Heroes last night:
I haven't crafted in a while, but it was a great reason to start crafting again. As you can see, I even busted out the heat gun for a little shiny embossing. Now that I got the joints moving again, I hope I can make another set.
Now on to the work week...
I highly recommend Green Apple fruit rolls (look for a natural line in the produce aisle, not the fruit snack aisle) for the seaweed as the tartness balances out the sweetness of the rest of the ingredients.
This is, literally and figuratively, a sweet dessert.
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Also, Yes on 8 is concerned that children in public schools would be taught that gay marriage is on par with straight marriage because of the California Department of Education's compliance to Education Code 51933 (b)(7), which, according to their website, states, "Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships." Actually, due to California’s laws, which already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, it appears the public schools would already be required to at least teach about gay domestic partnerships, as they can be defined as "committed relationships". The Yes on 8 website claims that "Prop 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have" So, are Yes on 8 supporters fine with teaching about gay domestic partnerships?
Obviously, the answer is no. According to their website, Prop 8 "prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs." Ultimately, this is a "gay" issue for Prop 8 supporters. It is very unfortunate that they are willing to curtail the civil rights of their fellow Americans to justify such discrimination.
Gay marriage has been legal for a few months now. Not much has changed because of it including a lot of personal beliefs. As an American whose heritage comes from one of the most homogenous countries in the world--Korea, I have had heard many arguments in the community on why marrying outside of an ethnicity is disgraceful, shameful, and just plain wrong, despite the fact that interracial marriage has been legal for decades. I've also heard of similar parental and family "guidance" from friends of other enthnicities and religions. Bottom line: though it is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, you get to keep your personal beliefs about Korean, non-Koreans, gays, and so on.
Is this an argument of semantics? Is the argument simply about the meaning of the word "marriage"? The American language, due to our diverse influences, changes as the population brings new words, like "bromance" (ironically, not a gay reference) and "ginormous", and changes how other words are used. Can you believe that "gay" simply meant "merry" at one point in time? Do Prop 8 supporters want to eliminate the use of the word "marriage" when there is a "marriage of ideas" or "marriage of flavors"? I doubt it. I'm guessing salt and pepper "marrying" is acceptable, but not same-sex couples who want to make life-long commitment. Or is this about the semantics of "traditional marriage"? Biblically speaking, are we talking about polygyny? Historically speaking are we talking about marriages when women were simply property and had virtually no rights or when you could only marry within your race? "Traditional marriage" has also been redefined throughout history. Some might say it's been for the better.These stamps could be applied to sooooo many aspects of everyday life.
Or is it just me?
I dug up this picture from H'ween 2004. This was one of my fave costumes for me--so comfortable--just face paint! I love homemade costumes--no need to wait in the horrendous line at the Halloween store and settle for the picked-over leftovers varying from Naughty Nun to Sexy Witch to Slutty Nurse.
Of course, this costume is appreciated more by folks of a certain age. Unfortunately, the girl had no idea who Paul Stanley is or KISS was, but she was humoring me as she Princessed out.The following years I was Sally (from "The Nightmare Before Christmas"), Jessie, the yodeling cowgirl (from "Toy Story 2"), the cowboy from the Village People, and Scary Spice.
So the question is, what should it be this year? I'm aiming for something where I don't have to wear a wig (ugh, uncomfortable with a capital UN) and something that I can wear to the office (as I have for the last 5 Halloweens) and sit at a desk comfortably, see my computer screen, and not get reprimanded by my boss for wearing something ridiculously inappropriate.
Seriously, I'm open to suggestions...