Monday, December 27, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The True Meaning of Christmas
Although nominally a Christian holiday, Christmas is also widely celebrated by many non-Christians,[1][13] and many of its popular celebratory customs have pre-Christian or secular themes and origins. Popular modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, music, an exchange of greeting cards, church celebrations, a special meal, and the display of various decorations; including Christmas trees, lights, garlands, mistletoe, nativity scenes, and holly. In addition, several similar mythological figures, known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas and Santa Claus among other names, are associated with bringing gifts to children during the Christmas season.[14]
Because gift-giving and many other aspects of the Christmas festival involve heightened economic activity among both Christians and non-Christians, the holiday has become a significant event and a key sales period for retailers and businesses. The economic impact of Christmas is a factor that has grown steadily over the past few centuries in many regions of the world.
Etymology
The word Christmas originated as a compound meaning "Christ's Mass". It is derived from the Middle English Christemasse and Old English Cristes mæsse, a phrase first recorded in 1038.[8] "Cristes" is from Greek Christos and "mæsse" is from Latin missa (the holy mass). In Greek, the letter Χ (chi), is the first letter of Christ, and it, or the similar Roman letter X, has been used as an abbreviation for Christ since the mid-16th century.[15] Hence, Xmas is sometimes used as an abbreviation for Christmas.
Celebration
Further information: Christmas worldwide
Christmas Day is celebrated as a major festival and public holiday in most countries of the world, even in many whose populations are mostly non-Christian. In some non-Christian countries, periods of former colonial rule introduced the celebration (e.g. Hong Kong); in others, Christian minorities or foreign cultural influences have led populations to observe the holiday. Countries such as Japan and Korea, where Christmas is popular despite there being only a small number of Christians, have adopted many of the secular aspects of Christmas, such as gift-giving, decorations and Christmas trees. Notable countries in which Christmas is not a formal public holiday include People's Republic of China, (excepting Hong Kong and Macao), Japan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Thailand, Nepal, Iran, Turkey and North Korea.
Among countries with a strong Christian tradition, a variety of Christmas celebrations have developed that incorporate regional and local cultures. For many Christians, participating in a religious service plays an important part in the recognition of the season. Christmas, along with Easter, is the period of highest annual church attendance. In many Catholic countries, the people hold religious processions or parades in the days preceding Christmas. In other countries, secular processions or parades featuring Santa Claus and other seasonal figures are often held. Family reunions and the exchange of gifts are a widespread feature of the season. Gift giving takes place on Christmas Day in most countries. Others practise gift giving on December 6, Saint Nicholas Day, and January 6, Epiphany.
The Nativity by Charles-François Poerson, 1667.
Date of celebration
For many centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born.[16] In the early 18th century, scholars began proposing alternative explanations. Isaac Newton argued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice,[10] which the Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25.[17] In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church.[11] According to Judeo-Christian tradition, creation as described in the Genesis creation narrative occurred on the date of the spring equinox, i.e. March 25 on the Roman calendar. This date is now celebrated as Annunciation and as the anniversary of Incarnation.[18] In 1889, Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after Annunciation, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus.[19]
The December 25 date may have been selected by the church in Rome in the early 4th century. At this time, a church calendar was created and other holidays were also placed on solar dates: "It is cosmic symbolism...which inspired the Church leadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice, December 25, as the birthday of Christ, and the summer solstice as that of John the Baptist, supplemented by the equinoxes as their respective dates of conception. While they were aware that pagans called this day the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas," according to modern scholar S.E. Hijmans.[20]
However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on December 25 is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian denominations;[21][22][23] rather, the belief that God came into the world in the form of man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary purpose in celebrating Christmas.[21][22][23]
Starving Children Eat Bugs to Survive!
Starving Children Eat Bugs to Survive!
Globalization Will NOT End World Hunger
This is an excerpt from Anita Roddick's book "Take it Personally."
"The globalization of agriculture fails to address the world's hunger crisis. In fact it makes it worse. During the past two decades, the total amount of food in the, world has increased, but so has hunger.
The main problem is that globalization of food production pushes small, self reliant farmers off their lands and replaces them with large chemical and machine-intensive corporate farms. It does not emphasize food for hungry local communities. Instead, it encourages exports resulting in monocultures - a single crop grown over thousands of acres. These crops are usually luxury items cultivated for export and are notoriously vulnerable to insect blights and bad weather, and cause soil infertility.
Starving children searching for insects to eat in Sudan
From 'Take it Personally' Anita Roddick.
Global biotechnology companies claim they have the answer to world hunger. But biotech production does nothing to solve local hunger problems. Does anyone believe that the invention of biotech plants whose seeds are sterile - forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year - has anything to do with stopping hunger? The biotech industry's goal is not to feed the hungry, only to feed itself."
A recent United Nations study confirms that the world already has enough food. The problem is one of distribution. Global trade rules put food production and distribution in the hands of agribusiness giants, supplanting the traditional system of local production for local consumption.
The world is producing the wrong kind of food, by a process that leaves millions of people landless, homeless, cashless, and unable to feed themselves.
Is it any wonder that there is huge resentment against the west?
END
________________________________________
Eating Mud Cookies to Survive
Researchers have found that the average American family throws away 1.28 pounds of food per day, for an annual total of 470 pounds per household, or 14 percent of all food brought into the house.
________________________________________
The Reason Why You Shouldn't Give Money to Big Charities
I am disgusted with America's charities, who pay their executives 6-digit salaries. Children International asks for donations of $22 per child to provide food, medical, education and other needs. Yet, their CEO was paid $347,381 in 2007! It is appalling to me that an organization that stresses how far a mere $22 will go per month, pays their CEO $347,381 a year! That's just plain wrong in my opinion. Anything can be justified, but that doesn't necessarily make it proper or ethical.
The Salvation Army isn't quite as bad, they only paid their CEO $175,050 in 2004. No doubt, they have all kinds of excuses to justify such outrageous salaries; but no one needs that kind of salary, and it is certainly unbecoming of a so-called “charitable organization.” I realize that top executives are often paid high salaries for their fund-raising abilities and expertise; yet, it's just inconsistent with all the plethora of ads we see begging for our donations, which might mean “life or death to some child.” If that's the case, just think how many more children's lives could be saved if the CEO's of these fat cat charities were to give back 80% of their salary, God forbid, and actually have to live on $75,000 a year! My, oh my, how would they survive?
What gets me is that a charitable organization can actually pay their CEO $375,000 a year and still be rated by the BBB as a great company. Not in my book! The BBB is a joke in America! Many companies who support the BBB are given preferential treatment. In my opinion, you can't trust information from the BBB, nor from America's big charities.
Red Cross and United Way are even worse. The top CEO at Red Cross pulled down a $651,957 salary in 2003! According to Forbes, United Way's top executive made $629,950 in 2004! Why do people support these fat cat charities?
A lot of people give money to charities to boost their public image, feel good about themselves or to find a tax write-off. It is a sore evil in America. While an estimated 18,000 children continue to starve to death daily throughout the world, and others eat bugs to survive, America's biggest charities continue to pay their top executives outrageous salaries. It is a false balance in God's eyes. Few people realize these days that America's charities have become lucrative businesses.
My advice to people is to find some poor person and give the money directly to them. There are many poor people today, and others who have lost their jobs, or are homeless, and you can be a blessing to them directly. And best of all, you know that 100% of the money is going to charity, and not helping to pay someone's $600,000 salary! Really, it is insane to pay someone that kind of money in a so-called “charity.”
Who do you think will appreciate your money more... some fat cat charity or a struggling family who has no income?
If you DO decide to support any charity, demand a financial report of where the donations are being spent. This way you can see first hand where your money is going, and can make sure that you're not buying someone a mansion in the suburbs. Don't accept a vague summary, kindly ask for specifics. If they don't disclose such information, give elsewhere. Honestly, too many people are abusing the system today, living extravagantly on donations, because people don't think.
I just can't in good conscience drop my money into a Santa Claus's bucket at Christmas time, when I know the top dog at the Salvation Army is getting paid $175,000 a year!
I cringe when I hear ads telling people how much their $22 a month can do to better a poor child's life, knowing that the CEO of that charity got paid $347,381 in 2007! Yet, so many people sit at home, staring at some picture of a child they're supporting for $22 a month, failing to realize that the CEO of that company makes 15-TIMES what the average American family gets paid annually. No CEO of a charitable organization ought to be paid more than $47,381 a year, which leaves $300,000 remaining from this guy's salary. For $22 per month, $300,000 can help an additional 1,136 poor children! Yet, the charity appeals to the American public, from families who are struggling financially to live on $30,000 a year, to give $22 per month. The whole charity scene in America is enough to make one want to go vomit.
Please stop giving to big charities and start giving money directly to the poor.
Furthermore, most of those big charities don't share the Gospel with the people being helped. Even the Salvation Army is more Army than Salvation these days. When you give money directly to the poor, you can witness to them concerning Jesus Christ, or give them a Gospel of John. Just think how much further your money can go by giving it directly to the poor. I am a firm believer in helping the poor, but not through some fat cat organization that keeps back $600,000 a year for it's CEO. That's crazy!
Globalization Will NOT End World Hunger
This is an excerpt from Anita Roddick's book "Take it Personally."
"The globalization of agriculture fails to address the world's hunger crisis. In fact it makes it worse. During the past two decades, the total amount of food in the, world has increased, but so has hunger.
The main problem is that globalization of food production pushes small, self reliant farmers off their lands and replaces them with large chemical and machine-intensive corporate farms. It does not emphasize food for hungry local communities. Instead, it encourages exports resulting in monocultures - a single crop grown over thousands of acres. These crops are usually luxury items cultivated for export and are notoriously vulnerable to insect blights and bad weather, and cause soil infertility.
Starving children searching for insects to eat in Sudan
From 'Take it Personally' Anita Roddick.
Global biotechnology companies claim they have the answer to world hunger. But biotech production does nothing to solve local hunger problems. Does anyone believe that the invention of biotech plants whose seeds are sterile - forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year - has anything to do with stopping hunger? The biotech industry's goal is not to feed the hungry, only to feed itself."
A recent United Nations study confirms that the world already has enough food. The problem is one of distribution. Global trade rules put food production and distribution in the hands of agribusiness giants, supplanting the traditional system of local production for local consumption.
The world is producing the wrong kind of food, by a process that leaves millions of people landless, homeless, cashless, and unable to feed themselves.
Is it any wonder that there is huge resentment against the west?
END
________________________________________
Eating Mud Cookies to Survive
Researchers have found that the average American family throws away 1.28 pounds of food per day, for an annual total of 470 pounds per household, or 14 percent of all food brought into the house.
________________________________________
The Reason Why You Shouldn't Give Money to Big Charities
I am disgusted with America's charities, who pay their executives 6-digit salaries. Children International asks for donations of $22 per child to provide food, medical, education and other needs. Yet, their CEO was paid $347,381 in 2007! It is appalling to me that an organization that stresses how far a mere $22 will go per month, pays their CEO $347,381 a year! That's just plain wrong in my opinion. Anything can be justified, but that doesn't necessarily make it proper or ethical.
The Salvation Army isn't quite as bad, they only paid their CEO $175,050 in 2004. No doubt, they have all kinds of excuses to justify such outrageous salaries; but no one needs that kind of salary, and it is certainly unbecoming of a so-called “charitable organization.” I realize that top executives are often paid high salaries for their fund-raising abilities and expertise; yet, it's just inconsistent with all the plethora of ads we see begging for our donations, which might mean “life or death to some child.” If that's the case, just think how many more children's lives could be saved if the CEO's of these fat cat charities were to give back 80% of their salary, God forbid, and actually have to live on $75,000 a year! My, oh my, how would they survive?
What gets me is that a charitable organization can actually pay their CEO $375,000 a year and still be rated by the BBB as a great company. Not in my book! The BBB is a joke in America! Many companies who support the BBB are given preferential treatment. In my opinion, you can't trust information from the BBB, nor from America's big charities.
Red Cross and United Way are even worse. The top CEO at Red Cross pulled down a $651,957 salary in 2003! According to Forbes, United Way's top executive made $629,950 in 2004! Why do people support these fat cat charities?
A lot of people give money to charities to boost their public image, feel good about themselves or to find a tax write-off. It is a sore evil in America. While an estimated 18,000 children continue to starve to death daily throughout the world, and others eat bugs to survive, America's biggest charities continue to pay their top executives outrageous salaries. It is a false balance in God's eyes. Few people realize these days that America's charities have become lucrative businesses.
My advice to people is to find some poor person and give the money directly to them. There are many poor people today, and others who have lost their jobs, or are homeless, and you can be a blessing to them directly. And best of all, you know that 100% of the money is going to charity, and not helping to pay someone's $600,000 salary! Really, it is insane to pay someone that kind of money in a so-called “charity.”
Who do you think will appreciate your money more... some fat cat charity or a struggling family who has no income?
If you DO decide to support any charity, demand a financial report of where the donations are being spent. This way you can see first hand where your money is going, and can make sure that you're not buying someone a mansion in the suburbs. Don't accept a vague summary, kindly ask for specifics. If they don't disclose such information, give elsewhere. Honestly, too many people are abusing the system today, living extravagantly on donations, because people don't think.
I just can't in good conscience drop my money into a Santa Claus's bucket at Christmas time, when I know the top dog at the Salvation Army is getting paid $175,000 a year!
I cringe when I hear ads telling people how much their $22 a month can do to better a poor child's life, knowing that the CEO of that charity got paid $347,381 in 2007! Yet, so many people sit at home, staring at some picture of a child they're supporting for $22 a month, failing to realize that the CEO of that company makes 15-TIMES what the average American family gets paid annually. No CEO of a charitable organization ought to be paid more than $47,381 a year, which leaves $300,000 remaining from this guy's salary. For $22 per month, $300,000 can help an additional 1,136 poor children! Yet, the charity appeals to the American public, from families who are struggling financially to live on $30,000 a year, to give $22 per month. The whole charity scene in America is enough to make one want to go vomit.
Please stop giving to big charities and start giving money directly to the poor.
Furthermore, most of those big charities don't share the Gospel with the people being helped. Even the Salvation Army is more Army than Salvation these days. When you give money directly to the poor, you can witness to them concerning Jesus Christ, or give them a Gospel of John. Just think how much further your money can go by giving it directly to the poor. I am a firm believer in helping the poor, but not through some fat cat organization that keeps back $600,000 a year for it's CEO. That's crazy!
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Frizz or formaldehyde? Trendy 'do poses a hairy dilemma
Frizz or formaldehyde? Trendy 'do poses a hairy dilemma
Testing finds compound in Brazilian Blowout (but it sure makes hair look fabulous)
Nathan Weber / for msnbc.com
Jennifer Dooley's hair was transformed from frizz-prone to perfectly smooth and straight when she underwent a Brazilian Blowout two months ago. The product is labeled "formaldehyde-free" but recent tests conducted in Oregon and Canada suggest otherwise.
By Diane Mapes
“Suffer for beauty” has been taken to a whole new level with recent controversy surrounding a trendy hair treatment called the Brazilian Blowout.
The product, used in pricey salons, turns frizzy, unmanageable locks into the luxurious pin-straight looks made popular by celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow.
The catch? Tests conducted by the state of Oregon earlier this month determined that the product contains unsafe levels of formaldehyde — as in, embalming fluid — a known carcinogen.
But that’s not deterring some from the pursuit of fabulous wash-and-wear locks.
“Chemicals are a way of life now,” says Stefeny Anderson, a 36-year-old event planner from Renton, Wash., who got her first Brazilian Blowout two weeks ago in an effort to tame “corkscrew curls” that frizz at the slightest hint of rain (a given in Washington state). “It’s not like you’re putting it in your hair every day.”
Introduced at salons a few years ago, the Brazilian Blowout costs about $250. But after the two-hour treatment — which involves coating the hair with the chemical, then flat-ironing it — coarse, kinky hair becomes soft, smooth and straight for two to three months. Sort of an anti-perm, the Brazilian Blowout has been touted as more effective and less time-consuming than other hair-straightening methods such as conventional relaxers, Japanese thermal processing or other keratin-based treatments (there are several available), although concerns have been raised about the product’s possible formaldehyde content in the past, when Allure magazine did an exposé.
These concerns soon dissipated, though, once the company reformulated the products and began distributing bottles labeled “formaldehyde-free.”
Formaldehyde-and-seek
Earlier this month, though, Oregon Health & Science University issued two public alerts after tests performed by the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration found up to 10.6 percent formaldehyde in the product (.2 percent formaldehyde is considered safe by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel).
Brazilian Blowout disputes the finding. "We have no formaldehyde in our formula," spokesperson Dana Supnick said.
In other tests a couple of weeks ago, Canada's health department found up to 12 percent formaldehyde and warned people to stop using it, citing consumer complaints of “burning eyes, nose, and throat, breathing difficulties, and one report of hair loss associated with use of the product.”
According to the National Cancer Institute, formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen with research suggesting an association between formaldehyde exposure in workers and several cancers including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. Short-term exposure is no picnic, either; adverse effects include watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat, coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation.
Health complaints from stylists who’ve performed the Brazilian Blowout on clients have prompted at least one class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. The FDA has also announced it’s received “a number of inquiries from consumers and salon professionals concerning the safety of this product” and are currently looking into the issue.
Godsend or health gamble?
Despite these hair-raising headlines, the Brazilian Blowout has proved to be such a godsend for those with frizzy, unmanageable hair that health-conscious women are left in a tangled dilemma.
Jennifer Dooley says surviving this year's annual Jimmy Buffet concert without frizz is the true test of the Brazilian Blowout. On the left, she's at last year's show, with "curly hair as big as the stadium he played in." At this summer's show (right), Dooley's hair stayed sleek through the encore.
“I keep debating with myself,” says Jennifer Dooley, a 31-year-old hospital public affairs officer from Romeoville, Ill., who got a Brazilian Blowout two months ago. Dooley says her new stick-straight hair requires no maintenance whatsoever, as opposed to her kinky curls which made her hair look like a “football helmet” in Chicago’s humidity.
Dooley says the true test of the Brazilian Blowout came at the end of the summer, when her formerly frizzy hair withstood eight hours of tailgating in 100-degree heat at a Jimmy Buffet concert. At last year's concert, she ended the night with "curly hair as big as the stadium he played in."
“I’d probably be doing infomercials for it if there weren’t so many concerns about it right now,” she says. She goes to a reputable salon and trusts her stylist so says when the solution was touted as “formaldehyde-free” she decided to give it a try. “But it does make you think, ‘What did they really do to my hair to make it do that?’ I know how curly it is. I’ll think twice before I’ll do it, but I wouldn’t say no to doing it again.”
Others, like Anderson, believe the formaldehyde issue has been blown out of proportion.
“I think people tend to freak out about things and don’t know all the details and then all of the sudden, something gets banned,” she says. “It’s totally worth it. I love the way my hair looks.”
Video: Sesame Street's 'I love my hair' video goes viral
Better safe than sorry?
Despite customer demand, Vasken Demirjian, owner of the Vasken Demirjian Salon in White Plains, N.Y., stopped offering the treatment.
“I pulled it off the menu the second I found out about the test in Oregon,” he says. “I’ll probably lose some clients but I could care less at this stage. The whole thing is alarming.”
Alarming, but perhaps not totally unexpected.
“One of my stylists said it made her eyes water when she was using it so she started wearing a mask,” he says. “When I saw her wearing that mask, I asked myself, ‘Does that look good? No.’”
Testing finds compound in Brazilian Blowout (but it sure makes hair look fabulous)
Jennifer Dooley's hair was transformed from frizz-prone to perfectly smooth and straight when she underwent a Brazilian Blowout two months ago. The product is labeled "formaldehyde-free" but recent tests conducted in Oregon and Canada suggest otherwise.
By Diane Mapes
“Suffer for beauty” has been taken to a whole new level with recent controversy surrounding a trendy hair treatment called the Brazilian Blowout.
The product, used in pricey salons, turns frizzy, unmanageable locks into the luxurious pin-straight looks made popular by celebrities like Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow.
The catch? Tests conducted by the state of Oregon earlier this month determined that the product contains unsafe levels of formaldehyde — as in, embalming fluid — a known carcinogen.
But that’s not deterring some from the pursuit of fabulous wash-and-wear locks.
“Chemicals are a way of life now,” says Stefeny Anderson, a 36-year-old event planner from Renton, Wash., who got her first Brazilian Blowout two weeks ago in an effort to tame “corkscrew curls” that frizz at the slightest hint of rain (a given in Washington state). “It’s not like you’re putting it in your hair every day.”
Introduced at salons a few years ago, the Brazilian Blowout costs about $250. But after the two-hour treatment — which involves coating the hair with the chemical, then flat-ironing it — coarse, kinky hair becomes soft, smooth and straight for two to three months. Sort of an anti-perm, the Brazilian Blowout has been touted as more effective and less time-consuming than other hair-straightening methods such as conventional relaxers, Japanese thermal processing or other keratin-based treatments (there are several available), although concerns have been raised about the product’s possible formaldehyde content in the past, when Allure magazine did an exposé.
These concerns soon dissipated, though, once the company reformulated the products and began distributing bottles labeled “formaldehyde-free.”
Formaldehyde-and-seek
Earlier this month, though, Oregon Health & Science University issued two public alerts after tests performed by the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration found up to 10.6 percent formaldehyde in the product (.2 percent formaldehyde is considered safe by the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel).
Brazilian Blowout disputes the finding. "We have no formaldehyde in our formula," spokesperson Dana Supnick said.
In other tests a couple of weeks ago, Canada's health department found up to 12 percent formaldehyde and warned people to stop using it, citing consumer complaints of “burning eyes, nose, and throat, breathing difficulties, and one report of hair loss associated with use of the product.”
According to the National Cancer Institute, formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen with research suggesting an association between formaldehyde exposure in workers and several cancers including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. Short-term exposure is no picnic, either; adverse effects include watery eyes, burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat, coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation.
Health complaints from stylists who’ve performed the Brazilian Blowout on clients have prompted at least one class action lawsuit against the manufacturer. The FDA has also announced it’s received “a number of inquiries from consumers and salon professionals concerning the safety of this product” and are currently looking into the issue.
Godsend or health gamble?
Despite these hair-raising headlines, the Brazilian Blowout has proved to be such a godsend for those with frizzy, unmanageable hair that health-conscious women are left in a tangled dilemma.
Courtesy of Jennifer Dooley
Jennifer Dooley says surviving this year's annual Jimmy Buffet concert without frizz is the true test of the Brazilian Blowout. On the left, she's at last year's show, with "curly hair as big as the stadium he played in." At this summer's show (right), Dooley's hair stayed sleek through the encore.
“I keep debating with myself,” says Jennifer Dooley, a 31-year-old hospital public affairs officer from Romeoville, Ill., who got a Brazilian Blowout two months ago. Dooley says her new stick-straight hair requires no maintenance whatsoever, as opposed to her kinky curls which made her hair look like a “football helmet” in Chicago’s humidity.
Dooley says the true test of the Brazilian Blowout came at the end of the summer, when her formerly frizzy hair withstood eight hours of tailgating in 100-degree heat at a Jimmy Buffet concert. At last year's concert, she ended the night with "curly hair as big as the stadium he played in."
“I’d probably be doing infomercials for it if there weren’t so many concerns about it right now,” she says. She goes to a reputable salon and trusts her stylist so says when the solution was touted as “formaldehyde-free” she decided to give it a try. “But it does make you think, ‘What did they really do to my hair to make it do that?’ I know how curly it is. I’ll think twice before I’ll do it, but I wouldn’t say no to doing it again.”
Others, like Anderson, believe the formaldehyde issue has been blown out of proportion.
“I think people tend to freak out about things and don’t know all the details and then all of the sudden, something gets banned,” she says. “It’s totally worth it. I love the way my hair looks.”
Video: Sesame Street's 'I love my hair' video goes viral
Better safe than sorry?
Despite customer demand, Vasken Demirjian, owner of the Vasken Demirjian Salon in White Plains, N.Y., stopped offering the treatment.
“I pulled it off the menu the second I found out about the test in Oregon,” he says. “I’ll probably lose some clients but I could care less at this stage. The whole thing is alarming.”
Alarming, but perhaps not totally unexpected.
“One of my stylists said it made her eyes water when she was using it so she started wearing a mask,” he says. “When I saw her wearing that mask, I asked myself, ‘Does that look good? No.’”
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Remembrance Day
In World War I, Canadians fought in historic battles such as the battles of Ypres, Passchendaele, and Vimy Ridge, and Canada’s “Hundred Days” offensive which ended the War on November 11, 1918. Canadian soldiers became known around the world as an elite force, and were nicknamed “storm troopers” by those who feared them.
In World War I (1914-18), World War II (1939-45) and the Korean War (1950-53), more than 1,500,000 young men and women bravely served overseas. More than 100,000 of these soldiers never returned home.
If you would like to learn more about the role Canadians have played in major wars, visit the Veterans Affairs Canada website at:
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/ or the Royal Canadian Legion website at http://www.legion.ca/
What is Remembrance Day?
The signing of Armistice occurred at 11am on November 11, 1918, marking the official end of World War I. On November 11th by remembering the soldiers lost in World War I. Since then, we pause for a moment of silence on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month , promising to never forget.
Why Do We Wear The Poppy?
While stationed near Ypres, Belgium in April of 1915, a Canadian soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, wrote the famous poem, In Flanders Fields.
Those who read the poem were inspired to wear poppies in memory of the soldiers lost during the war. The poppy has since became a national symbol of remembrance for Canadians.
Where Can I attend a Remembrance Day Ceremony?
Sunrise Ceremony – 7:30am, Prospect Cemetery, 1450 St. Clair Avenue West (St. Clair Avenue & Lansdowne Avenue)
York Civic Centre – 10:45am, York Memorial Collegiate, 2690 Eglinton Avenue West
Toronto City Hall – 10:30am, Cenotaph, 60 Queen Street West
North York Civic Centre – 10:45am, George Weston Recital hall at the Toronto Centre for the Arts, 5040 Yonge street
For updates on times and locations, visit http://www.toronto.ca/lestweforget/remembrance-city.htm or contact Mike Colle’s office at 416-781-2395
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The History of Rememberance Day
MULTI SERVICES REMEMBERS
The Royal Canadian Legion suggests that poppies be worn on the left lapel, or as close to the heart as possible.[39] In Canada, the poppy is the official symbol of remembrance worn during the two weeks prior to November 11, after having been adopted in 1921.
The Canadian poppies consist of two pieces of moulded plastic covered with flocking with a pin to attach them to clothing. The head portion of the pin is bent at an angle in a simple unusual design that requires a unique machine at manufacturing. Originally the poppies were manufactured with a black centre ever since their original design in 1922. From 1980 to 2002 the centres were changed to green to represent the green hills of Flanders. Current designs are black only; this reversion caused notable confusion and controversy to those unfamiliar with the original design.[40]
An older poppy design, in use until c. 1970, involved three pieces: red, then a black piece in the current style but made of felt, then a small circle of green felt in the very centre.
Until 1996, poppies were made by disabled veterans in Canada, but they have since been made by a private contractor.[41]
In 2007, sticker versions of the poppy were developed for children, the elderly, and health care and food industry workers. The stickers were not designed to replace the lapel pin poppies, but merely to allow those who could not normally wear one to do so safely.[42]
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Start with Trust
Start with Trust
MULTI SERVICES
Residential & Commercial Cleaning Service
Professional Cleaners without the Professional Price
We’re fully Licensed, Trained Certified and are Safety Certified, Bonded & Insured
Our company has been a BBB Accredited business since December 2009. This means it supports BBB's services to the public and meets the BBB Accreditation standards.
We welcome all homes, businesses and establishments:
At Multi Services we understand that your satisfaction means a job well done.
Call for a Free Estimate Today
416-782-3417
MULTI SERVICES
Residential & Commercial Cleaning Service
Professional Cleaners without the Professional Price
We’re fully Licensed, Trained Certified and are Safety Certified, Bonded & Insured
Our company has been a BBB Accredited business since December 2009. This means it supports BBB's services to the public and meets the BBB Accreditation standards.
We welcome all homes, businesses and establishments:
At Multi Services we understand that your satisfaction means a job well done.
Call for a Free Estimate Today
416-782-3417
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)