“Fashion With A Mission”

According to Valeri Reeves, “Anyone can create a trend, I want to create a keepsake…”. Reaves is a fashion designer, author, and child advocate … wife, mother and grandmother … among many facets. She is the founder of MyMeApparel Ready-to Wear Fashions, editor of the MyMeApparel Fashion News Blog and model booker of the MyMeApparel Faces of ME! Model Booking Services.

Between Reeves many hats she manages to make sure she is still active in giving back to the community. Through doing what she loves, Reeves has made it a point to incorporate a charity fashion show to 10 Georgia State Licensed Family Child Care Providers. Each recipient will receive a play center, such as a reading center, a dramatic play center, an outdoor play center, small/large manipulative center, etc. The next tour stop is scheduled for Thursday, September 22, 2011,7pm-11pm, doors open at 6:30pm. It will be located Downtown Conference Center, 6701 Church Street, Douglasville, GA 30134.

On the third week of September of every year, MyMeApparel hosts an annual fashion show specific to MyMeApparel Ready to Wear Fashion House and Model Booking Service. It is an opportunity to showcase only MyMeApparel garments and accessories, a piece from the MyMeApparel Expressions of ME! Apprentice, the MyMeApparel Faces of ME! models (and other models) and to identify and fund raise for the annual designated MyMeApparel Charitable Recipient.

During the 2nd Annual MyMeApparel Fashion Show & Charity it will be “A Memoir of a First Year Designer”, a bound compilation of the struggles and accomplishments, dreams-to-fruition projects, construction of garments and charitable contributions to society that Reaves has made during the first year of becoming the founder and head fashion designer of MyMeApparel, a Ready-to-Wear Fashion House and Model Booking Service, complete with color photos of garment construction, models, events, behind-the-scenes of events and photo shoots, charitable recipients, and more.

When Disaster Strikes

The worse case scenario was realised for a client recently. Their web-mail account was hacked, and despite all our attempts the account could not be recovered.

We value our e-mail accounts, but should treat them like they're a treasure. Especially, as in this case, when the account is used as the main means of doing business with clients.

Losing all your contacts details is a loss in itself, but what if you've lost e-mails that not only contain your credit card details, but also those of past clients? Think also of the loss of future business, as people use the old, hacked e-mail address. Think of the hacker rubbing his hands in glee as people try to pay him with a credit card...

It is truly a nightmare situation, but there are steps you can take to prevent this happening to you.

1. Backup your webmail contacts once in a while
Depending on your webmail service, you should export your contacts:

Yahoo - click Contacts tab, select all, click Export all. To a CSV
Hotmail - click Options, and click the Export Contacts list. Auto saves to a contacts csv.
Gmail - in Contacts, click More, then Export.. then choose CSV.


2. Make sure you've a strong password
8 characters or more, numbers, letters, Capitals, punctuation. Then change it.

3. Use the security question option
And change it once in a while.

4. If there are credit card details in an e-mail:
print it, file it safely, and then delete it. Then empty your Trash folder.

5. Above all: never never never click on a link that then asks for your account details. And never click on an .EXE attachment. And never send (or ask for) credit card details by e-mail. In fact, trust nothing anyone asks for in an e-mail.

What Makes A Hero?

The other day I was chatting with a friend and he told me that he felt I put him on a pedestal and thought of him as a hero and that this made him feel uncomfortable. He added that long as I thought of him as a hero that we could never really be friends that he wanted me to think of him as an equal. I told him we could compromise on this. What I really should have explained was how I define a hero. Super heroes to me aren’t really heroes. While they are fictional, the concept is that they have these extra abilities that allow them to do all kinds of cool stuff like fly or bend things with their minds. For me the definition of a hero is a normal person who uses the abilities they have, the talents they have to do extraordinary things. Super heroes are just using the abilities they have to do things they should be able to do by virtue of their powers. Is this really that spectacular? For me a hero is someone who falls down and gets back up. It's someone who knows what is right and does it. It's someone who may make a mistake and realize that their actions hurt someone and apologizes, not for the sake of repenting of their deed with God, but in making it better with the person they hurt. This will make it right with God, but the intention is selfless and not motivated by a desire to fix things for themselves. A hero is that person who stands up for what is right when it seems like it’s not the PC or the accepted thing to do. He's the guy who may not show up on time to speak in Sacrament meeting but if he doesn’t it’s because he stopped to help someone change a tire on the way to church. They may not be perfect but they understand that perfection isn't about a state but a process, it’s about becoming complete and they are trying. They may not be able to recite scripture word-for-word but their lives are an example of the Gospel in action. A hero to me is someone who may not write a book, who may not ever grace the cover of a fashion magazine or look good in their jeans or whatever. But they are an example and a reflection of what they believe. They may be the last to finish the race, but they didn't give up. They may fall down on their climb to the top and sometimes they may have to stop and sit for a while, and ponder if they really do want to keep climbing, but they do eventually get back up and look down only to see how far they have made it. They may not always spell everything correct. Their ties don’t always match their shirt. Their hair may not always have product in it. They may have bad breath. They may not even be able to lift their own body weight. Heroes for me are the ones who realize that sometimes holding on to the Iron Rod is possible only if they are holding and supporting someone who is also doing this. They aren't afraid to hold on tight to someone else while they cling desperately with their other hand. They don't give up on people, they forgive; try to see the best and the potential in someone and they love like Christ would. Heroes don't stand on their pedestals, they get off them and they do something extraordinary with what they have. That is what makes the ordinary extraordinary.

Why I Love Horror Films: Overcoming the Fear of the Painted Devils

One blogger asks, "Do you like horror movies? I don't. It surprises me that people would want to watch something that makes themselves feel scared" ("Horror Movies" from Don't Convert Me).

I love horror films because they once epitomized my childhood fears. I hold my dad somewhat responsible for instigating this fear. He was never a fan of horror films, but he did force me to go to haunted houses each Halloween, a yearly tradition that filled me with dread each October. My dad also loved to tell wild tales to horrify my brother and me, and more often than not, the veracity of these tales was left up in the air. To this day, my dad has never told me that he was only joking about that tractor beam pulling him into a UFO ship late one night in Chauvin, LA--which, incidentally, occurred within a week after a night of quality family programming--i.e. a "documentary" about alien encounters. When I was in first grade, I remember watching JAWS III with my dad, and I also remember bolting from the room after some dude's severed head floated across the screen. Another reason I associate childhood fears with my father is because of a night in second grade. I remember lying on the couch with him as he flipped through the channels (an exhaustive number since we had just bought a satellite dish). He stopped flipping on a backyard scene. A teenaged girl was walking through her yard wearing a white nightgown. A hatted silhouette appeared on a boarded fence. Suddenly, a monstrous, disfigured face filled the screen; he then chopped off one of his own fingers! That was all I could handle. My dad laughed a little as I struggled to escape his grip and the grip of the scary man wearing the fedora. Another vivid experience I remember was hearing the voices of my neighbors crying for help during a sleepless night after watching Stephen King's CAT'S EYE. In fourth grade, the first scene of King's CHILDREN OF THE CORN caused me to flee to my room, and two years later, I spent another sleepless night mulling over scenes from King's PET SEMATARY. These moments with the "painted devils" of the screen etched the names of both Freddy Krueger and Stephen King into my mind.

It wasn't until the summer after my parents' divorce that I found the strength to face my fears and watch some of the horror movies that I had, for years, cowered from. Before the divorce, I remember peeking at the grotesque VHS boxes in the video store horror section, from a safe distance, hoping my dad wouldn't see me. I was afraid he would rent one and make me watch it, just like he made me go to haunted houses for all those years. But now, I was ready. That summer my brother and I watched the NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST series (five films had been released by that time), all eight FRIDAY THE 13th films, both FRIGHT NIGHT films, several PUPPET MASTER movies, and countless others. I checked out my first adult book at the local library--Stephen King's NIGHT SHIFT--and within the next few years I had consumed IT, NEEDFUL THINGS, PET SEMATARY, and THE STAND. So, I spent the following years watching and reading horror. I even gained a friend in the deal: I noticed a guy on my bus reading one of the books in King's DARK TOWER series, and eventually he became my best friend, and for the next decade we watched and read horror together, making it through some of the worst (most of the Full Moon pantheon, BOARDINGHOUSE, etc.) and the best (HALLOWEEN, EVENT HORIZON, SCREAM, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, etc.).

To this day, I try to watch the major horror releases or buzz films, and I'm still working on reading the entire Stephen King library (32 down and 35 to go). Since my wife hates horror, I don't get to watch as many as I would like (married guys might be able to understand this predicament). Furthermore, few adults in my social circle watch horror (I've counted one in the last five years of living in B.R.). Horror films, in addition to countless other pubescent fixations, let me know that I belong where I'm at--in a high school. It's the only place where I can have a good conversation about this genre. Nowadays, I've grown desensitized, not only to the gore and terror, but to the victory over fear that these films once represented. My adolescent obsession and pride has become an intellectual pursuit lately (as have most subjects of interest since studying literature in college)--I'm fascinated with finding the inciting force of societal fears reflected in popular horror--but, after reading the blog of a random person who commented on my previous post, I guess I just felt the need to explain why I would want to watch something of this nature.

Weddings do not make a Marriage

Weddings do not make a Marriage
Kim Kardashian is getting a divorce. After just 72 days of marriage that began with a wedding estimated to have cost $10 million, Kardashian is divorcing Kris Humphries, citing "irreconcilable differences." How exactly one can determine that differences are irreconcilable after only 72 days, is beyond me. Either something truly awful was revealed on the honeymoon or Kim Kardashian really is as superficial and vapid as she appears on T.V.

I regularly hear, "Marriage is a sacred union." By a casual look at the news, i find it difficult to reconcile "sacred union" with a spectacle costing millions and with the resulting marriage only lasting 72 days. If actions speak louder than words, and there is not more to this story than presently known by the public, then Kim Kardashian's marriage was not sacred. Marriage is not, in and of itself, holy. Some alliances can be unholy, even an alliance going by the name "marriage."

If marriage is holy, Indiana woman Linda Wolfe, who married (and divorced) 23 times, should probably be beatified. No one does holy that many times! St. Francis couldn't compete.

Britney Spears married Jason Allen Alexander. That marriage lasted 55 hours, and her record label later released a statement claiming that the whole thing had been "a joke." If a wedding can be a joke, then it is not necessarily sacred. If marriage can be a joke, then marriage is not, by definition, holy.

A married couple may feel that they've been blessed to find one another, they may experience their wedding as a spiritual event, and they may even understand their marriage as a sacred institution. But marriage, in and of itself, has never been sacred. All marriages are not Holy Matrimony.

Marriage is a tax shelter and a smart way for a couple to combine assets. It is certainly a civil institution. In Kardashian’s case, it appears to be a good way to make a quick $8 million. The wedding was said to have cost $10 million, but grossed $18 million in sponsorships. In Kardashian's case, it also appears to have been a good photo-op.

Marriage as an institution, in and of itself, is not sacred. Love is what makes marriage holy. But, not any ole kind of love. Romantic love is fleeting. Lust is even more fickle. Steadfast love, committed love, is what makes a matrimony holy. The promises one typically makes at a wedding are meant to ensure that the love in question is not merely of the romantic or erotic variety. Many take the vows of marriage, however, not as the most sacred promise they are likely ever to make, but as audible window dressing for the photo shoot.

British scientists find 'lost world' of unknown species 8,000 feet down on Antarctic sea bed - kept alive by undersea volcanoes

British scientists were shocked to discover a ‘lost world’ hidden in total darkness nearly 8,000 feet (2,400m) deep on the sea floor off the coast of Antarctica.

They were exploring off the coast of Antarctica and found colonies of marine life including crabs, an octopus and starfish totally new to science, living in the murky depths.

The reason their existence is remarkable is that they were found on top of undersea volcanoes called hydrothermal vents, which pump out plumes of black smoke causing temperatures to rise to 380C - hot enough to melt lead.
Anemones and barnacles near a hydrothermal vent: Researchers found species unknown to science living next to hot hydrothermal events 8,000 feet down near the East Scotia Ridge in Antarctica

Anemones and barnacles near a hydrothermal vent: Researchers found species unknown to science living next to hot hydrothermal events 8,000 feet down near the East Scotia Ridge in Antarctica

With no sunshine there, they live in complete darkness but the creatures get their energy from breaking down highly toxic chemicals found in the smoke.

The researchers from Oxford and Southampton universities and the British Antarctic Survey say their existence in such hostile conditions will help understand the origins of life – and whether it could exist on other planets.

The most numerous of the two dozen new species found is a type of ‘yeti crab’ around 16cm long, which was piled in huge heaps of up to 600 animals near the vents.

Unlike other crabs it has a dense mat of hair on its chest which it is thought to use to grow bacteria to eat.

Researchers also discovered an unknown type of octopus they believe is a new species - although they were unable to catch it - and a seven-armed starfish, as well as barnacles, clusters of snails and sea anemones.

The Best And Worst Wines Of 2011

The Best And Worst Wines Of 2011
With over 600,000 wines in the world ,obviously, these are not The Best and The Worst in the whole world.They are just some of my faves, and disfaves(?), unfives(?), anti-fave(s)? that I've tasted in the past year.They appear in no particular order, just stream of consciousness, you know.

:Worst:

Roederer Brut - WhaT a disappointment!Neither fresh and elegant like Crystal, nor creamy like Napa Roederer Estate, I really wanted to send this one back. It tasted metallic, old or cooked, no pizzaz. Was it spoiled or poorly made? Fortunately we had a backup for New Year's Eve. The next day we tatsed it again. This time it was softer, less obnoxious. Still didn't like it Give it a 65
2009 Quivera Zinfandel This one reallywasn't that bad, only by comparison with the glorious 2007. Too much herbaceousness, eucalyotus, vegetative taste for me. Give it an 80
2006 Domaine Du Moulie -I was so excited to find a Madiran from the southwest of France Another disappointment! Lacking real Madiran quality, it was so acidic as to be undrinkable. We finally managed to use for cooking. Give it a 70.


Best:

NV Chandon Brut - Fresh, lively, a lazer beam when really cold, fuller, softer, but still pleasingly dry when warmer. When it's on sale for $12 at Safeway, it's a great bargain .Give it an 88.
1998 Nelm's Road Merlot -This would have been one for Ryan's cellar. I purchased a case roughly ten years ago, and it has been getting better and better. The first bottline was, great, though high in tannin. The last bottle was beautifully complex with a panoply of dark fruit flavorsIn the old days Parker might have given it an 80, not it definitely rates a 90-good stuff at a reasonable price.
NV Quail Oak Merlot - well, not quite the same as the Nelms Road, but we prefered it to Two Buck Chuck. and Southern from Walgreen's. Good basic Merlot, not too sweet or sappy - great for cooking. Call it Four Buck Chuck.
1991 Togni Cabernet Sauvignon - We first met Phillip in the 1970s when he was winemaker at Cuvaison up the Silverado Trail near Calistoga. We had done a tasting of three French White Burgundies and three Napa Chardonnays totally blind. Phillip"s Cuvaison won by far. When he read the results in the Northwest Consumer's Wine Guide, he invited us to visit. When he started his own "Togni" winery on Spring Mountain we continued to follow him..Tthe twenty year old 1991 Cab, not surprisingly, tastes like a well aged Bordeaux with a little more "stuffing as the English say. Let's give it a "91".
1975 Chateau Latour - The first Chateau Latour I tasted was a 1963 for which I paid $3. As a poor student that represeted approximately .001% of my yearly income, but it was worth it. Okay, you 1%ers, don't turn up your noses at a 1963. Yes it was a lousy year, but the Latour taste was there. Even though Robert Parker has always kind of panned 1975 it was mindblowing good - flowers, dark fruit, peonies, roses and tar = complex, holds your attention, soft and velvety, but with plenty of substance. Definitely better than Parker's "93+".
-2009 Chateau Greteau - It's a good thing we didn't taste this after the Ch. Latour, but on it's own it is a delicious 2009 Bordeaux at Costco for about $10. A best buy and still, I think, available.
2004 Andrew Will- An outstanding wine from Chris Carmada. This Washington State beauty is mad from Champoux vineyard grapes. I keep debating with myself about which is better - Champoux or Ciel Du Cheval. I'll take either one. Fabulously rich, fruity and complex. A delight to drink. Give it a 94.
2003 Peppe Bridge Walla Walla Pepper Bridge Vineyard Reserve - Another fabulous wine from Washington State. Jean Francois Pellet has fashioned a big rich velvety red an outstanding flaor profile. If you want to debate more terroir, compare Jean Francois' wines from Peper Bridge Vineyard with those from neighbor Seven Hills Vineyard. Give it a 91
2005 Cayuse Syrah En Cerise - You will feel like you've been hit by a bowling ball that splits open to reveala spicy fruitbomb. Give it a 92
1997 Dunn Cabernet Sauvignon - With this one a baseball bat will hit it out of the park. A BIG, linear, powerful gamma knife that that will cut your steak for you. Belive it or not, it is only 13% alcohol. It's a style! Give it a 90.
1997 Stag's Leap Wine Cellars Fay Vineyard Cabernet Sauvignon - Winner of the 1976 Spurrier tasting in Paris, Warren Winiarski launched Napa and California on a journay to the top of the wine world with his 1973 "Cask 23" Cab. Robert Parker has bee poohpoohing the winery since to 90s saying the winery is living on it's reputation. Rollover Robert, this is possibly the best California wine I've tasted. At 14.5% alcohol it is a velvet tapistry or soft textures and complex flavors. No jammy in-your-face here. Reminiscent of a really big but soft St. Julien from Bordeaux Diane and I decided to give it a "110".
2009 Chateau Bois Redon - This Bordeaux Superior is a Right Bank style red with 75% Merlot. It is an amazing value at $10 from Total Wines. Give it an 85.
2009 Ch Haut Sorillon - Perhaps the best value I've tasted this year at $9 from Trader Joe's. Delicious Bordeaux at a great price (85)