Saturday, November 28, 2009

Bring the Holidays in...

Now that Thanksgiving is over, everyone's ready for the Christmas season. Here are some hot items on sale right now, perfect for any holiday party.

Stewart Weitzman Noveau Sandals for the Sugarplum Fairies out there...
Steve Madden Trikked Pumps. So glamorous.

Casadei Holiday Shoes. Also in red. How festive can you get?

Schuh Sugar Side Bow Heels. Props to a friend of mine for finding these gems.

Pierre Hardy Paillette Sequin booties. For someone who likes a little pizzazz.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Balenciaga and Shoe Art

I'll take this opportunity to tell you how much I appreciate it when people turn something with such a mundane purpose as keeping your feet covered into a work of art. Balenciaga does just this.
A slideshow of more amazing model pictures:

Some of their latest for Winter 2009:

Love the heels on this one...


Monday, November 23, 2009

Another one!

Look! It's another one of those open-toed boot things again!! I guess they're in this winter... Despite the chilly toes. :D
Steve Madden Towwer Black Leather on sale $89.97

Lady Gaga Hello Kitty?

Don't quite know how I feel about these Hello Kitty shoes Gaga wore at a recent photoshoot. I love the style... but I wonder just how much farther she'll be able to get away with going.

Betsey Johnson Red Plaids...

I don't know about you, but Betsey Johnson's got me MAD FOR PLAID.

Check out these 4-inch heel boots. $188.

Some of her previous red plaid styles.... This pattern never gets old.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

My favorite Ballin for Anna Sui

Check it out... an open-toed boot. Interesting. Totally defeats the purpose of "boot," but still looks great. I'd wear it.
Then again, I'd wear anything.
Purple is my favorite color, by the way. That's why I particularly like the Ballin' for Anna Sui line that's out this season.

Katy Perry

Let's talk Katy Perry, shall we?

Amazing platforms. Go to this link for the detail. It's worth it.

Some amazing boots... Katy Perry Style.
Right: Louboutons!!!

Classic red heels we adore.

Her custom designs: Disco Princess by Vans and her custom black-and-white Keds.

Apparently these are some of her favorites:
Javari sequins!!

She's often seen in Louboutin.

"Thinking of You" shoes by Giambattista.

I got these pics from -- yet another shoe blog of which I draw my best inspirations. The actual black shoes worn by Perry are now out of stock. Bummer.

Here they are in action. Everything about this outfit I love.

And, to top it off, she performs in a giant shoe. I love her.

The Best of Ten Inches...

Friday, November 20, 2009

Strutt Coture kind of wins the award for most amazing wedding shoe. All their stuff is great, but this shoe, in particular, would look pretty amazing on a bride. Comes in pearl, lilac, and pink. Lovin them.

They won't let me cut and copy the image of the white one, which makes me sad. Here's a link. Check out their other stuff. I really like all the purple.

The Material Gift: Scripture Study Session, November 14

Last Saturday I went to a little discussion group thingy with two guy friends of mine. There's a student professor who teaches philosophy at UVU who has scripture study nights on Saturdays. We choose a passage of scripture and talk about what it means. I knew we'd go in depth, but I DIDN'T know we would end up talking about five verses for five hours!
At the beginning I was really quiet. But the minute I felt comfortable, I talked up a storm. This professor -- Brother Spencer, I think his name was -- is definitely a guy I wish to be like some day. He was SO intelligent and he just loves to think. He's read like every book on human thought imaginable, and he provided so much insight it was amazing. He also said I asked poignant questions, which made me feel very smart. To be complimented by a guy like Brother Spencer is definitely an honor in my book.

Anyway, what did we talk about for those five hours?

Our passage of focus was Moroni 7:6-10.
I will quote it....

"For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing.
For behold, it is not counted unto him for righteousness.
For behold, if a man being evil giveth a gift, he doeth it grudgingly; wherefore it is counted unto him the same as if he had retained the gift; wherefore he is counted evil before God.
And likewise also it is counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; eya, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such.
Wherefore, a man being evil cannot do that which is good; neither will he give a good gift."


What does it mean to give a gift or say a prayer "with real intent?" And what does the Lord mean when he says it "profiteth a man nothing" to give a gift grudgingly. When does it "not count for righteousness?"
In regards to Profit:
A double negative is not a positive conclusion.
In classical thought, if something isn't NOT A, it's A. But not all lines of thought see things this way.
So the term "profiteth him not" doesn't necessarily mean there's a way to actually get profit.
If we don't give a gift with real intent, we get no profit. But if we do give with real intent, that doesn't mean we'll get profit either. But the cool thing is if we give with real intent, we won't be looking for profit, so it doesn't matter. The minute you start looking for profit, you lose the profit. That's what the scripture actually means! All you have to do is give the gift! Do or do not. There is no try.

How do we pray with real intent?
Real intent: Without pride.
Pray with "our father" in mind.
"Thy will," not "My will."
Christ, when he taught us to pray, told us to "enter into our closets and secret places." AKA we should pray alone. Completely alone.

But then he goes on to recite the Lord's prayer, he tells us to use the words OUR FATHER. We're alone, yet we use the word "Our." What does this mean?
It's still collective. Consecrated. It's not about us.

"Vain repetitions" in prayer doesn't necessarily mean stuff that's repeated over and over again. We use vain repeitions all the time when we babble or when we use words we normally wouldn't say... "bless the hands that prepared it," "thank you for the moisture." Even "in the name of Jesus Christ" can be vainly repeated. Remember that.

We put a "halo" around our gifts. We tie other seperate meanings to a gift. For example, we say, "I don't deserve this," or "I can't believe you took the time to get this for me," or "Oh, great, now I need to give something back." These are all halos. We do this for a ton of things. We take God's gifts of tribulations and trials, for example, and say "Well, let's think of all the things this trial is supposed to accomplish." Halo has just been created. We are not accepthing the gift for the gift itself. All gifts carry baggage for us.
Brother Spencer's ideal is to accept the MATERIAL GIFT for exactly what it is. No baggage attached. That way we are truly accepting the gift for the gift's sake, and without grudge. He believes gifts go through a MATERIAL CHANGE when they are given. I don't know if it's that extreme but there is definitely something to that. The minute you give something, it's not just that something; it's a gift. The question is, how do we define gift?
The atonement is a gift from God.
We want to earn it. Or we want to do something in return. But we can't. These are halos. Get rid of the halo. He's giving us eternal life. He is not asking us to justify or to even say thank you. He is just asking us to accept it.
My problem with this is I think a gift is supposed to have a certain halo.
A gift:
1. Required time and thought (see Aristotle's three causes below)
2. Is actually -- in retrospect -- a gift from God.
3. Is an opportunity to be Christlike. To be like God. To play God, almost. We can manipulate what we own in a righteous way by making it not our own anymore.

Aristotle Talks about Different Causes. I can remember three, though I don't remember what they are formally called. This is interesting.

1. The material.
Example: You need tools, metal, wood, land, manpower to create a building. Without proper earthly materials, the building could never exist.
2. The idea.
Example: Without the knowledge of structure, architectural principles, and the creativity to design a building, a building cannot be built. You need a blueprint, a plan, a thought.
3. The goal.
Example: A person needs to WANT to build a building before a building can be made/created/built. You need a desire, a goal, a will to create something.

Apparently there's also a fourth... I can't remember what it was.

God used these causes to create the world. He took materials that were already present, had a will to create earth, and had the knowledge to do it.

Creation out of nothing vs. Creation out of something already there.
Honestly, which one sounds more mystical? Obviously creation out of nothing.

Spirit = matter. Is there spirit matter in gifts?

Compare, in the passage, these two forms:
If man, being evil, vs. If man being evil
Do you see the difference? Both of these forms are used in the scriptures. We, personally, referred to the first of these two forms. This implies that all men are evil, and can only be evil. (Remember, natural man is an enemy to God).

Evil = Fallen. To be "fallen" is to be unable to do something you know you should do. We relate this to the idea that mankind is evil. The natural man is an enemy to God. It is fallen.

The opposite of the natural man is an immortal. Overcoming the fall.

One of my friends asked, "Why do man and God have to be so different? We're the same species!"
Perhaps it's really all about exaltation and an eternal perspective. We have the poential to be like him but we are still in a fledgling state. A bird in an egg is still a bird, but a full grown bird and an egg are very different.

Law of Consecration:
Stewardship vs. Ownership.
You had to give everything up before you became a steward, which means the whole process originally began with ownership.
Giving, then, is redeeming an object from ownership...
Which is therefore redeeming an object from the fall...
Which is therefore giving an object back to God.
Maybe this is what is meant by the phrase, "Service of fellowmen = service of God."
Is that the material change Brother Spencer talked about?

Does that mean a gift is like Aristotle's cause of will?

What does it mean for God to own everything? Does this really mean we own nothing? Does that allow him to give things to us as he does?
Perhaps the eternal definition of ownership is different than ours. I, personally, believe God is able to actually own things because he truly and completely understands them. We do not. Perhaps it has also to do with the fact that he created everything. Do you own all things you create?
When God gives gifts, he is releasing stuff from his possession. Man then has dominion over it -- stewardship.

Paul refers to "use" of a woman.
Not ownership. It's another relationship. It's about potential.
Prayer is use.

USE is what keeps things from being owned. That's what capitalism is. To own something but not to USE it. Not good.

So instead of putting that useless piece of junk grandma gave you on a shelf, give it to someone else so it can be used! So it can reach its full potential.

Faith vs. Works vs. Forks... or Waith.
Those who base their life off of faith, alone, live in a telestial environment. It involves proclaiming belief but not following through, which is dishonest, telestial behavior.
Those who base their life off of purely works live in a terrestrial environment. There is a good desire, but reliance on the atonement is lacking, and this is deeply important.
Works AND faith is the celestial environment.

Faith is not an excuse to sin. But you don't have to save yourself, so now there's nothing stopping you from actually working.

Sin is a refusal to believe. Any time you sin, you lose grace, and must find it again. It is a symptom of unbelief. We also touched a bit on punishment.
According to Brother Spencer...

People worry about the big picture, but forget the small things. No good. True belief -- TRUE belief -- is fidelity. The minute you step away, you are no longer faithful.

Sin = Punishment = Misery.
(not to be confused with "Sin LEADS TO punishment LEADS TO misery.)
Sin IS punishment. People CHOOSE to be punished by choosing sin. And deep down, they know that. The reason people sin is because they WANT misery. In the end, people will realize that this is not joy and owe up to the fact that they are lying to themselves. But in the long run, we all choose where we end up going, and we all will be satisfied with that choice.

How I Feel about New Moon:


Here are the 6 reasons why:

6.) It describes the emotions of the book well. The loneliness of Bella, and the need to see Edward, no matter what the cost. The need for distraction, the depression, the lack of understanding. It's all there. Sure, the screaming in the middle of the night was kind of played up, but it definitely brought out the good parts of the book. A rommate of mine said that this was the first movie she has seen that was better than the book, and I would have to agree. While the book series is.. well, meh... the plot was made for the screen, and I like what I see.

5.) Portrays the Voltori as a very creepy and very old clan of vampires. I really like the red eyes (except those on Dakota Fanning; those looked fake), the costumes, and the very ancient feel of the whole scene. I was not left disappointed.

4.) The CG animation of the wolves is realistic, which makes for much better action shots. I'm also liking the tats on the wolf men. A nice little addition. Effects, scenes, and costumes, in general, were a lot less plastic in this movie.

3.) They've made the entire Cullen family, particularly Alice, more of a part of the personal story of Bella. I was a little worried in the first movie because Alice didn't seem like that much of a FRIEND to Bella, but the email narration in the second movie fixed that problem. New Moon actually fixed a lot of problems found in Twilight. As a matter of fact, this movie totally pulverized the first one. Vampires looked meaner, the love intrigue grew, and there isn't as much staring into each other for five whole minutes without anything happening (of course, there still is some of that, but if that totally went away, it wouldn't be Twilight...)

2.) Jacob is a good guy. I'm really growing tired of this whole "Team Edward/Team Jacob" thing because there are good and bad things about both of them. There IS a legitimate reason why Bella has trouble choosing between them. To be honest, I always was a bit of a Jacob fan. I liked his spirit. While Edward is an old soul -- protective, fatherly, passionate, and thoughtful -- Jacob is a bit more down-to-earth. He is young, naiive, eager to please, and (in my opinion) a lot easier to spend time with. Jacob is a lot more REALISTIC than Edward is. They are polar opposities. Warm and cold, young and old -- and this is as it should be. Even their body shapes depict that difference. There really should be no "better guy" between these two because it's sort of because of one that the other exists. Bella needs both yin and yang in her life. She cannot truely love Edward without experiencing a different love first. So while Jacob can be a little bit forward and headstrong, this is something Bella -- and the plot -- needs. This movie really pushed that idea.

Jacob was Bella's only source of happiness when Edward left. Jacob later became a part of her secret and a part of who she is. I am glad Jacob is seen in such a positive light in this movie... which leads me to my number one reason why this movie was so great...

1.) You probably saw this one coming from a mile away, but Taylor Lautner really converted me to Team Jacob, purely because of his absolutely amazing body. I would like to publicly thank Stephanie Meyer for creating a character who must be shirtless for over half of the movie!! I always was a huge Rob Pattinson fan -- I think he even was up to number four on my list at one point. But man, Lautner really grew up. Apparently, in order to keep the role, he had to get that buff within a matter of months. I deeply congratulate him. Number 1 at this point, for me.

Yes, there's the near eight-pack and the broad shoulders, but we can't forget the gleaming white teeth, the perfectly proportioned lips, and the boyish ears. Lautner has a unique bright (canine?) smile that lights up the screen. Excellent casting. I'm glad they had faith in him.

I don't understand why no one liked the long hair. It made him look particularly Native American, and that was kind of hot. But, of course, the short hair definitely makes him look older, and the whole idea of this movie was to show that Jacob's not just a kid anymore, but a man.

All my roommates commented that seeing Edward shirtless at the end of the movie was kind of a letdown after so much Lautner... but, as I already stated, they both have very different beauties about them. With Edward, there's this stone quality. This man is unmoveable, unshakable in his devotion, and silently powerful. With Jacob, the warm, welcoming life that every girl really wants (how Bella is able to constrain herself when she hugs him in her bedroom is absolutely astounding to me). My point in saying this is that, while Lautner's physique definitely made the movie, Pattinson is not left that far in the dust. And we must all remember: In the end, Bella does not just base her love off of appearance. Good for her.

I hate to make such a big deal about such a... well... shallow part of the movie. But I tried to add in more intellectual stuff before and, I admit, hot bodies are definitely something I think of often. Live with it.

I guess I could quickly list some of the things about this movie I didn't like:

1. I almost forgot Edward existed halfway through the movie. Whenever he appeared in Bella's mind, or whenever he was mentioned, I suddenly would remember that HE'S the main character. So while the emphasis on Jacob was good, perhaps the emphasis on Edward could have been better?

2. I already mentioned Dakota Fanning's eyes. They tend to overemphasize the red eyes sometimes.

3. Kristen Stewart is far from an amazing actress. Granted, her skills have improved, but I really don't think she's acting much in these movies. I bet she acts the exact same way in real life. Even in the most dangerous and traumatic of circumstances, she seems to exude this apathetic, glazed-over look. Doesn't work for me.

4. Of course, there are the problems I have with Stephanie Meyer's writing. It's hard to create an absolutely AMAZING movie out of a blah book. I applaud the directors for how much substance they actually were able to pull out of this series. Once again, Stephanie Meyer has a way with amazing movie-worthy plots. NOT character development, NOT mythological accuracy, and NOT descriptive and impressive language.

I should probably mention that New Moon was my favorite of all the Twilight Books. It's everyone else's least favorite, but I like it because of Jacob and because I can relate to the feelings Bella felt over losing her first love. Really... It's like time is a blur. The loss of interest, the hunger for distraction, the empty feelings. That's all there for a female who has lost someone like that. I believe Meyer might have had some firsthand experience with this, because she portrays it very realistically. This is the only real intellectual boon the book series has.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Frisoni Fringe!!

Some amazing fringe action happening on Bruno Frisoni Spring 2010 Line.

Lady Gaga struts her stuff.

Just some great Gaga footwear... because I love her.
Check out these boots. Imagine trying to LACE these things.
Of course, if I ruled the world, I would wear these every single flippin' day.

These platforms are more realistic, yet still provide enough flair to make a LOUD statement.
P.S. Umbrellas? Amazing.

She recently had to perform barefoot on the Tonight Show because someone stole her custom Louboutins. This is what they looked like. Of course, they would look ten times better on her feet.

Guinness Wears McQueen Shoes

Daphne Guinness wore McQueen's amazing alien shoes at Francois Nars' party November 12.

Don't know if I dig the flesh color yet. There's SO MUCH you can do to decorate these shoes. But I suppose it fits the outfit.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Michelle Obama in Sneakers

To celebrate their 100th day in the White House, Michelle Obama and Jill Biden participated in bagging food for needy children at the Capital Area Food Bank in Washington. They both dressed down for the occasion... Jill wore some conservative silver flats. But with Michelle, nothing is ordinary. She wore pink metallic Lanvin captoe sneakers. They cost $540. Yikes.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Speaking of McQueen

More Alexander McQueen amazingness...

These are my favorites on sale on his website...