Believing Fashion

Years ago, I, for a reason I can't now remember, was observing a friend's make-up. She had on, or was putting on, what looked like grey eyeshadow. I asked if it was, indeed, grey, since I thought the object of make-up was to look less, er, grey (so to speak). She said, no, it was blue, and it was supposed to either make her eyes look bluer or otherwise enhance them somehow.

It didn't. It just looked like grey sitting on her lids. (Naturally I didn't point this out.) But one must follow fashion advice, mustn't one. Just like I should never wear green eyeshadow because I have green in my eyes. Takes away, or something.

Well, I've tried it and it looks pretty good, if done right (and sparingly). And no, this is not a fashion advice column. I just wish that people would realize that just cuz Angelina Jolie looks good with poofy lips it doesn't mean everyone does:

(Not the best comparison pics; for a better view, watch "Spy Kids" then "Night in the Museum", or even just watching "Night" by itself makes you realize that something is just wrong with her lips.)

Or who in their right minds would prefer:

yet practically everybody adopted the ironed hair despite the fact that it was flattering to but very few. (I don't mean naturally straight hair, which can be quite flattering, but the sticking-out-at-the-ends-deliberately-straightened stuff.)

I have a small, "rosebud" type mouth which I have no intention of poofing up even though it's crooked due to a bike accident I had when I was 15. My mouth size suits my face, as most mouths usually do; Jennifer Connelly looked much prettier in "The Rocketeer" than in her skinnier films, and Botox is just a creeeeepy idea. Open your eyes, folks, and see what looks--if that's what you're into--best for you.

Either-Or

"When someone asserts that we must choose between two things, when in fact we have more than two alternatives, he is using the either-or fallacy.

--The Fallacy Detective, pg 108

Yet among Christians this is the norm. You're only allowed to be either a Calvinist or an Arminianist, a futurist or a preterist (actually, there are four views but the principle is the same; no one allows you to be a prefuturist, for example), and so on. When are people going to realize that there is only one Person who never made a mistake in His theology, only one human who was perfect in all He thought? Do we ever think about the possibility that in following one "ist" or "ism" to the letter we might be following a doctrine rather than a Person? Why can't one be a Calminianist, or even not make up your mind as per preterist/futurist and shelve the matter pending developments (not necessarily events)? There are things I just don't know and though I may have leanings I realize I'm not seeing the whole picture, and am open to correction.

As an example, I became a Christian almost 27 years ago, and for approximately the first 25 years had only heard of, had been taught, the futurist view of eschatology. I didn't even know there was any other view, let alone four. Now that I have read about all the views, I realize there are some very valid* points in at least two of the views and all have possibilites, and I am shelving a conclusion (suspending judgement), although I'm currently finding one view more valid than the rest. But I'm not insisting that everything this view says is correct and that all others are not worth looking into or that all others are heretical.

I guess it goes back to the old thing of examining things for yourself. Or maybe just being willing to listen. Reminds me of a song I once wrote about that...

______

* "very valid" seems akin to saying "very pregnant" but I wanted to emphasize the validity and can't think of a proper way to do that. Maybe our resident grammarian reader can suggest one.

That Abraham Post

Ok, I guess I finally need to post this. The idea came to me a while back, and reading this post this morning prompted me to once again attempt to dredge it up out of myself. (Is "dredge up" redundant?)

The thing that occurred to me was that the only "plan" God had for Abraham's life was to have a kid. He commanded Abram to move, and to have a child; granted, when he was too old to, but still, he got written up in the Hebrews Hall of Fame, studied, mentioned almost every time God was mentioned ("the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob") and all he basically "did" was move and have a child. This is not to belittle his accomplishments in any way. His move to another country and culture was a big risk and the child he loved so dearly he was willing to sacrifice, and was the foreshadowing of The sacrifice. Still, he didn't lead people out of 400 years of bondage, found a ministry or write best-sellers. So maybe some of us can take another look at what we haven't done. Maybe the only thing that's required is to move and have a kid or two. ;) Maybe the only thing that's required is that we give of us everything we have.

Age of Machine

I wasn't the one calling it Big Brotherish this time.

The imagination boggles at the places this goody could be taken.

Big Brother creeping up behind you

This post really belongs at my husband's blog, but until he starts putting 'em up I'm gonna do it. Sorry, this is sort of choppy; I'll probably refine it over the coming days.

____________

"There is nothing wrong with your thermostat. Do not attempt to adjust the temperature. We are controlling your power consumption. If we wish to make it hotter, we will turn off your air conditioner. If we wish to make it cooler, we will turn off your heater. For the next millennium, sit quietly and we will control your home temperature. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your thermostat."

California is considering a measure that would require, on new homes and any renovations of the heating/cooling system in existing houses, a thermostat with an FM receiver so that the state could override the programming during peak hours or emergencies to save energy.

California, the home of rolling blackouts, and brownouts; every summer that I lived there I remember the power going out at least once. Not because lightning hit a transformer, the common cause here, but because "California's population growth and its affluence have strained the state's electric and natural gas resources. Famously, rolling blackouts have occurred due to shortages of electrical generation during peak periods." But instead of building new energy plants,

"In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course."

One can easily see a way around this; room air conditioners and portable heaters could make up any deficit when your power's zapped off, but then, they're back where they started; more energy is being used to make up their attempts to control it.

Sounds kind of like certain light bulbs previously mentioned.

And To All a....forced toxin

(revised version)

Thanks to a newly signed bill, by 2012 incandescent light bulbs will be gradually unavailable for purchase starting in 2012. Light bulbs will have to comply to new, more efficient standards, and currently the only ones that do are Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. I'm all for saving energy, but I'd like to be able to restrict my own lighting usage without the government's interference, thank you. I do not have a deranged desire to put toxic materials in every room in my house:

According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, (Brandy) Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.

The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.

Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.

Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”

Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.

Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.

The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.

This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.

...It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury.

Read the full article here.

Why not instead do something like make it a law that major businesses canNOT set their A/C temp below a 73-76 or so degree range in the summer, thus enabling me (and maybe others) to abandon my practice of taking my sweater with me when I shop in the dead of summer? I've actually seen it set in the high 60s! (Or set so that the thermometer registers 75 or thereabouts, which is most people's comfort zone. I set mine at 80, but not many people like that.)

Guess I'll have to put bug lights and candelabras in everywhere instead.

Thank you to Pith for the story (and sending me the links after repeated pestering).