Cage shoes

Those who have been visiting this blog for a while may have noticed my interest (to avoid saying obsession) for cage shoes and dresses inspired by architectural structures,all things that look geometrical and 3d and make me think at origami.
These shoes do enter in this category. These shoes look like a pair of pumps trapped in a cage or put in a scuptural box. This original design is signed Andreia Chaves who soon will produce her first collection in a limited edition.




Chi visita questo blog da un po' avrà notato la mia passione (per non dire ossessione) per tutti quegli accessori ed esperimenti di moda ispirati all'architettura o alla geometria 3d o ancora quelli ispirati agli origami.
Le scarpe che vedete qui rientrano decisamente nelle categorie sopra descritte.Sono veramente notevoli non trovate? Sembrano delle scarpe classiche intrappolate in una gabbia oppure riposte in una scatola scultura. Questo design così originale è firmato Andreia Chaves la quale produrrà a breve la sua prima collezione in edizione limitata.

Luxury Wedding Invitations | Silver and lace details | Fisher Island Invitations

When Stephanie came to Lela New York for her luxury wedding invitations she was looking for something luxurious to match her venue, The Fisher Island Club in Miami and wanted her guests to be wowed!

Lela created silver silk covered trifold invitations to match her silver wedding details and venue inspiration. We added our classic lace that we are known for and added a custom crystal brooch for an added luxe touch!

She loved it!

xo

Photography by Lucky Me Photography

Chris Tillman is Getting A Bad Rap

"Where do I need to put that horseshoe again?"

All across the media, everyone is talking about what happened to Chris Tillman yesterday. Evidently, he was thrashed, rocked and hammered by the Kansas City lineup yesterday.

But while Tillman's boxscore was plenty ugly, I wonder if the authors of those headlines actually watched the game.

I did. Twice. And while Tillman was not as sharp as he could have been, most of the runs he gave up were due to poor defense and bad luck.

The first three hits Tillman gave up were groundballs that weren't even that well hit. At least two of those balls should have been outs and probably all three. Then there was a misplayed popup but Mark Reynolds and Robert Andino.

The middle infield defense was not good. After giving Andino kudos for his renewed focus in the field, he looked absolutely terrible yesterday.

Anyway, my point is, Tillman pitched well enough to get 6 or 7 outs in the that first inning. There was only one well struck ball in the first.

In the second, Alcides Escobar hit a solid double to left. But he was driven in by Chris Getz who hit a fluky flare down the leftfield line that spun away into foul territory. By my count, there were only two well struck balls hit in the first three innings. Those 5 runs should have been just 1. Or maybe none at all. That deep hole was dug by the entire team, not just Tillman.

Tillman did get hit pretty bad in the 4th while walking the leadoff man, but he was at 79 pitches when he left and should have been into the 5th by then. It was not a stellar outing for Tillman but it really wasn't a bad one. He struck out 3, only walked 1, got a couple popouts and got the opposing batter to hit grounders 47% of the time. But the team has to catch the ball.

Fortunately, Buck Showalter and pitching coach Mark Connor seem to understand that.

Sure, Tillman needs to develop the toughness to pitch through innings where your defense (and luck) lets you down. He definitely got rattled (the balk showed that) and he needs to learn from the situation and improve his mental approach.

Meanwhile, there is already talk of a possible replacement for him in the rotation. Tillman does have a 7.16 ERA but according to FanGraphs.com, Tillman has a 3.50 FIP (the best on the team) and a 4.42 xFIP which is pretty respectable.

It doesn't show in the boxscore but Tillman is making improvements. Now the defense needs to help him out.

Friday Funnies

From the Department of Stupid Questions:



Dead on!

An Aristocat

Spencerdaughter sez the newest addition to the Spencer clan reminds her of...



Shooter O'Malley has a nice ring to it, doncha' think? More about this lucky animal can be found here.

The Torture Debate Is Back

Did the harsh interrogation program (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc.) get us the info that led to Bin Laden? More importantly did it save American lives? My print column is up.

UPDATE: Meanwhile former CIA chief Michael Hayden sez as late as 2006 fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from harsh interrogations.

Mike Mukasey writes:

Osama bin Laden was killed by Americans, based on intelligence developed by Americans. That should bring great satisfaction to our citizens and elicit praise for our intelligence community. Seized along with bin Laden's corpse was a trove of documents and electronic devices that should yield intelligence that could help us capture or kill other terrorists and further degrade the capabilities of those who remain at large.

But policies put in place by the very administration that presided over this splendid success promise fewer such successes in the future. Those policies make it unlikely that we'll be able to get information from those whose identities are disclosed by the material seized from bin Laden. The administration also hounds our intelligence gatherers in ways that can only demoralize them.

They should knock it off or be voted out next year.

UPDATE II: Gene "Gene the Liberal Dancing Machine" Robinson offers "Torture is still Torture."

OK. Fine. But we're for it if it is needed and used to save American lives. Period.

Still, I would add that I am unconvinced that it would have been justifiable alone in tracking and killing of Bin Laden for two reasons.

First, Bin Laden was no longer the operational head of al Qaeda. He was the symbolic and spiritual head, but he wasn't the man behind the plan, devising terrorist attacks against us. He was only in touch with his courier about six times a year, so that he couldn't be tracked down and killed. All that is to say that catching and killing him at this point was probably not necessary when it came to directly saving American lives.

Having identified the courier that led us to him, the man was not immediately picked up and tortured to get the information. And he probably wouldn't have been under the Bush administration either. He was quietly followed for months. After 10 years and Osama more or less removed from the day to day terrorist operations of al Qaeda there was no hurry, no ticking bomb reason, to force the issue.

That information gleaned from EITs may have ultimately led to the Osama is a bonus, but may not have justification enough to have used the rough techniques in the first place. That too is an open question to me. But I am convinced that our intelligence agencies and Commander in Chief need the latitude and discretion based on their own knowledge of terrorist threat levels to use whatever means necessary to stop imminent terror attacks.

More Mukasey:

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. "Do this for all the brothers," he advised his interrogators.

Any questions?

UPDATE III: More from James Taranto.

A Powerful Lesson in Class

[Posted by Jake]

Today, President Bush graciously declined to join President Obama on his victory lap around Ground Zero. This despite the recent events which have obviously validated the Bush Administration's anti-terror policies.

It has to be difficult for Democrats to appreciate Republican Presidents who choose to step away from public affairs and the limelight when they leave office. They're accustomed to these Democrat ex-Presidents who won't go away.

Jimmy Carter never misses an opportunity to say something stupid just to let us know he's around. The problem with Obama getting Osama is now Carter is going to be stuck with that "Worst President" label for the foreseeable future.

And then there is the Clintons, who view themselves as the successors to the Kennedys as the first family of Democrat politics. While Bubba could go cocktail-to-cocktail, and bimbo-to-bimbo with Ted, even the American public is not so shortsighted as to overlook the seamy Clinton soap opera that disgraced the highest office in the land.

President Bush has refrained from criticizing the Obama Administration, despite the hypocrisy and unrelenting cacophony of blame contrived by the Democrat apologists. "W" has carried himself with dignity, and he and his whole family have been a powerful lesson in class for all Americans.