Daily news sites| Find Breaking World News
Latest Updates

Painted trousers





 What loves the most a painter?... brushes, paintings, art in general, and of course the colors! And I will not say no to a pair of painted pants either:) Thanks to Sugarlips.com I have an artistic pair of trousers that I was very happy to chose from their website. To make this trousers the center of attention they totally deserved, I paired them with a black leather jacket, wore as a top, and black lace hells;
Voila! a simple yet colorful outfit. And guess what: I wore this outfit on a visit at an art gallery :)

P.S visit my style icon page to see my top picks on Sugarlips.com here



                                                                           Pants: thanks to Sugarlips.com/Here
                                                                           Leather jacket: Asos/ similar style Here
                                                                           Heels: Zara
                                                                           Leather bracelet : Thanks to Poshlocket.com
                                                                           Bag: Liz Claiborne/ option Here 
                                                                           Ring: vintage
                                                                           Sunglasses: Ray Ban




Something To Consider Before Casting Your Ballot...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny



It appears, at least to David Wasserman anyway, the House of Representatives will remain in republican control. It is possible republicans could actually gain seats in the House. This of course either a good or a bad scenario, depending on how you view good or bad.

It depends actually on whether or not President Obama is reelected. If he is we can almost be assured, based on his prior four years serving as President, of continued partisan gridlock. Assuming the Senate remains in democratic control of course, which it no doubt will.

On the other hand if Mittens is elected the chances of actually getting anything done increases. Why? Simply because Romney, governing in a overwhelming democratic state (MA) had to take a bipartisanship stance. Everything else aside, Romney knows how to work across the partisan aisle.

The Weekly Standard - Democratic hopes of capturing the House next Tuesday are long gone. And Democrats now could wind up actually losing seats.

David Wasserman, the Cook Political Report’s expert on House races, changed his rating of 15 contested House races, 11 of them to the benefit of Republicans. For example, Republican Bob Dold, supposedly doomed because his affluent district north of Chicago was badly gerrymandered, now is in a tossup race.

Wasserman counts six Republican seats as lean or likely Democratic and nine Democratic seats as lean or likely Republican. And “if the 28 races in our Toss Up column were to divide evenly between the parties, Democrats would score a net gain of a single seat in the House,” Wasserman concluded.

This is especially bad news for House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Unless Democratic candidates do far better than Wasserman projects, she may be forced to give up her leadership post. There’s already speculation in Washington than she may retire.

In Ohio, two incumbents – Republican Jim Renacci and Democrat Betty Sutton – face each other in a merged district. Wasserman has changed their race from tossup to lean Republican.

Something to think about.

Via: Memeorandum

A Definition Of Intolerance... From the Left

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


Exposing the intolerance of the gay left. H/T GayPatriot

Our reader Tim in MT shared this video with us that he had made after catching Michelangelo Signorile on SiriusXM radio yesterday.

The left-wing radio talker, twice in the segment (at about 2:15 & 3:45) advises his gay Romney-supporting caller to drink arsenic or other poison so he can commit suicide. At 2:57, he tells the young man that he should not be allowed to vote.



Such tolerance.

To which I can only echo... Indeed, such tolerance.

Exposing the hypocrisy of the left.

Via: Memeorandum

Is It Arrogance Or Is It Over Confidence...

Is It Arrogance Or Is It Over Confidence...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


George Will is often on par with reality. Once again he hits the nail squarely on the head.

The Washington Post, By George F. Will

“It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know he is not a great man.”

Calvin Coolidge

Energetic in body but indolent in mind, Barack Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate. His long campaign’s bilious tone — scurrilities about Mitt Romney as a monster of, at best, callous indifference; adolescent japes about “Romnesia” — is discordant coming from someone who has favorably compared his achievements to those of “any president” since Lincoln, with the “possible” exceptions of Lincoln, LBJ and FDR. Obama’s oceanic self-esteem — no deficit there — may explain why he seems to smolder with resentment that he must actually ask for a second term.

Speaking of apologies, Syracuse University’s law school should issue one for having graduated Joe Biden. In the 2008 vice presidential debate, he condescendingly lectured Sarah Palin that Article I of the Constitution defines the executive branch. Actually, Article II does. In this year’s debate, he said that overturning Roe v. Wade would “outlaw” abortion. Actually, this would just restore abortion as a subject for states to regulate as they choose. Biden, whose legal education ended well before he was full to the brim, was nominated for his current high office because Democrats believe compassion should temper the severities of meritocracy. It is, however, remarkable, and evidence of voters’ dangerous frivolity regarding the vice presidency, that Biden’s proximity to the presidency has not stirred more unease. To forestall that, Biden should heed Alexis de Tocqueville: “To remain silent is the most useful service that a mediocre speaker can render to the public good.”

Two economic themes of Obama’s campaign have been that outsourcing jobs is sinful and that he saved GM, which assembles 70 percent of its vehicles on lines outside America. He thinks that ATMs and airport ticket kiosks cause unemployment but may understand that buying an iPhone involves outsourcing to China the jobs of assembling it. Although his campaign slogan is “Forward!” he evidently wants America to compete with China in the manufacture of T-shirts and toasters. His third economic theme — that he will “invest in” (spend on) this and that — has been inaudible amid the clatter of crashing companies he has invested in.

Much of the Democratic Party’s vast reservoir of condescension is currently focused on women, who are urged not to trouble their pretty little heads about actual problems but instead to worry that, 52 years after birth control pills went on the market and 47 years after access to contraception became a constitutional right, reproductive freedom is at risk. This insult may explain the shift of women toward Romney. {Read More}

It's not that President Obama is not a likable and honorable man because he is both. Rather the issue is his view, or vision if you will, is clouded with uncertainty. He wants to take America down the path he wants us to follow, even though the country is split damn near down the middle, if you believe the polling data anyway.

Perhaps Obama, if reelected, will chart a center course in a second term and thus bring America together. Like Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did. Given the President's lofty attitude it is likely if he is reelected he will view the results as he was given a mandate to rule. If so, may the Gods have mercy.

Via: Memeorandum

Mittens Continues His Consistency Problem... Which Is It Mitt?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny



There is always something to be said for prioritizing the importance of issues. The devastating force of Sandy and the resulting national disaster it brought about is representative of such importance.

CBS NEWS - There's nothing like a natural disaster to test the depth of politicians' preference for small government.

And so it turns out that after superstorm Sandy battered the East Coast, Mitt Romney is far more supportive of the government agency in charge of coordinating disaster relief. Only last year, as Romney hewed to the right while battling for the GOP nomination, he seemed to downplay the federal government's role in disaster response.

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," Romney said at a debate last June. "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that's even better."

Asked by moderator John King of CNN whether that would include disaster relief, Romney said: "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids."

Now, a week before Election Day, after of a massive disaster, Romney's campaign is reassuring voters that his administration wouldn't leave disaster victims in the lurch. The public's attention is locked on the devastation caused by Sandy at a time when Romney and President Barack Obama are locked in a close presidential campaign. With Obama heavily involved in getting federal funds to those in trouble, the Romney campaign moved quickly to reassure the public it supports a strong program of storm relief.

"I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters," Romney said in a statement supplied by his campaign Wednesday. "As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters."

Wednesday's statement came after the candidate ducked a spate of opportunities Tuesday to personally clarify his position and the statement essentially endorsed the current disaster aid system. {Read More}

One of Mittens biggest problems is he often speaks before he has thought something through. It has become abundantly clear this is his weakest characteristic and the result is no one really knows what Mitt's core values are. He has demonstrated he will change positions in response to political consideration in a way that he deems will engender support that will ultimately become votes. Sounds like a man who might sell his soul if he thought it would ensure him the presidency.

So, in a nut shell, here is the simple reality as I see it; A) Vote for Obama if you want a larger more intrusive federal government that over time continues to limit individual liberty, B) Vote Romney if you want smaller government and less regulation. But, be prepared for any one of many Mitt's to emerge, and expect changing priorities often. C) Vote Gary Johnson if you REALLY want a more limited federal government with more personal liberty and a true focus on the private sector without the burden of unnecessary regulatory controls. With Johnson, as with Obama you can expect consistency. We know Obama's record as President, and hopefully you've checked Gary's record when he served as the two term Governor of New Mexico.

On a final not, the only candidate that will really do something about reigning the defense budget is Gary Johnson. Both Obama and Romney are pretty much comfortable with the status quo.

That's my take, I know who I'll be voting for (his picture and link are at top left of the page). Soon it will be over and the people will have spoken. I would say may the BEST candidate win, but I know that is a probable impossibility.

Via: Memeorandum

Bush Vs Clinton Clinton Wins - So Romney says NO to Bush Support!

Bush Vs Clinton Clinton Wins - So Romney says NO to Bush Support!
"We have had two great economic experiments in America over the last 30 years. One succeeded. The other failed -- in fact, it was a man-made disaster" Clinton Success and Bushes Failures.



Earlier this week -- as he was barnstorming the country for Barack Obama -- former President Bill Clinton subbed in for the president as Obama flew back to Washington to oversee the country's response to a major hurricane.
That would seem an appropriate context to ask the question, why hasn't the most recent Republican President, George Bush, been barnstorming the country for Mitt Romney?
It says a lot that for most Americans this sounds like an absurd question.
Clinton was a major featured speaker at the Democratic Convention. Bush wasn't even invited to Tampa.
Bush is not campaigning for Romney because he and the policies he implemented are politically radioactive to most American voters.
George Bush is off in political Siberia because the Romney campaign is doing everything humanly possible to prevent voters from realizing that Romney intends to return precisely those same failed Bush policies to the White House if he is elected president next week.
Let's start with the matter that is uppermost in the country's attention -- the hurricane.
It's fair to say that his response to Hurricane Katrina was not Bush's finest hour. But Bush's failure to respond quickly and effectively to Katrina was not simply a reflection of his administration's incompetence. It was a reflection of the fact that his administration didn't believe in government.
Natural disasters make people remember why it is so important that we have a society where we have each other's back. They make us remember that government is the name we give to the things we choose to do together.
Natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy make us remember why the law of the jungle -- why a self-centered, irresponsible, unbridled focus on you and you alone -- isn't what we learned in Sunday School.
Even far right New Jersey Governor Chris Christie reprimanded New Jersey citizens who refused to evacuate low-lying areas because they would put the lives of first responders at risk -- because they had a responsibility to each other.
Bush -- and his response to Katrina -- exemplified the right wing's failure to understand that most Americans believe in a society where we are all in this together, not all in this alone.
And Mitt Romney completely shares Bush's view. Romney actually proposed eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and hand over responsibility for response to disasters to the states. Romney ignores that when disaster strikes, we are Americans first. We have each other's back whether we are from Mississippi or New Jersey. We do that because it's right. We also do it because while disaster may strike our neighbors in New Jersey today, it could strike those of us who live in Illinois tomorrow.
But of course there are many other reasons why the Republicans have failed to ask George Bush to campaign for their presidential ticket. Two stand out.
We have had two great economic experiments in America over the last 30 years. One succeeded. The other failed -- in fact, it was a man-made disaster.
The first was led by President Bill Clinton. Clinton believed that you grow the economy from the middle out -- not the top down. He understood that businesses don't invest and hire unless there are customers out there with money in their pockets -- that they are the "job creators" -- not a bunch of hedge fund managers on Wall Street.
Clinton proposed a federal budget that would eliminate the deficit mainly by calling on the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes -- and by investing in infrastructure and education to grow the economy. And Clinton forcefully defended programs like Medicare when Newt Gingrich wanted to cut them to give tax cuts to the rich.
When his budget was debated in Congress, Republicans predicted it would lead to massive job losses and recession.
The Republicans were dead wrong. Clinton presided over the most prosperous period in human history -- literally. On his watch the economy experienced robust growth and created 22 million new American jobs. Clinton eliminated the Federal deficit and left his successor with budget surpluses as far as the eye could see.
Then came George Bush. He cut taxes for the rich -- arguing that this would turbo-charge job growth and that the deficit would take care of itself. In fact, Bush's Vice President Dick Cheney -- a man who has also been noticeably absent from the campaign trail this fall -- famously said that "deficits don't matter."
The result: Bush left office having presided over the worst record of job growth since the Great Depression -- zero net private sector jobs created; that's right, zero.
Worse, his failure to regulate Wall Street set the stage for the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, costing eight million Americans their jobs, wiping out 40 percent of many people's pensions, collapsing of the housing market, and causing the worst economic downturn in 60 years.
Bush's trickle-down tax policies not only failed to create economic growth -- they left the Federal Government saddled with more debt than all of the previous presidents had racked up since the beginning of the Republic. And remember, that debt load made it even harder for President Obama to clean up the economic mess once he came into office in 2009.
It's not surprising, then, that you don't see George Bush on the stump trying to convince Americans that Mitt Romney's economic policies will create a better life for the middle class. Of course he could step in for Mitt, he certainly knows the script -- in fact he wrote the script.
After all, Mitt Romney is promoting exactly the same economic policies that Bush used to create zero private sector jobs, crash the economy and run up the deficit just a few short years ago.
But there's more. You don't see George Bush campaigning for Romney because most Americans think his foreign policy was another man made catastrophe. Bush led us into two wars -- which by the way he paid for on the nation's credit card -- and alienated America from the rest of the world.
He intentionally lied about the rationale for the War in Iraq -- convincing the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, when he had none. The War in Iraq cost thousands of American lives and left tens of thousands injured or disabled. Some economists think it may ultimately cost up to three trillion dollars to the American economy -- money that could instead have been spent building schools and roads and bridges and investing in jobs in the United States.
Bush's go-it-alone, bull in a china closet foreign policy alienated people around the world, stretched the American military and left America weaker. And the pictures of humiliation at Abu Ghraib -- his policies of torture and rendition and lack of respect for the rule of law -- created recruiting posters for our enemies.
Bush doesn't campaign for Romney because the Romney campaign has zero interest in focusing the attention of the voters on the fact Romney is surrounded by exactly the same gang of foreign policy advisers that presided over the War in Iraq. In addition they both share the same credentials: Both had zero foreign policy experience before they ran for president.
The fact is that if you liked the War in Iraq, you'll love the Romney foreign policy. So for the next six days, every time you hear about Bill Clinton campaigning for President Obama, let that be a reminder of the guy you won't see out their campaigning for Mitt Romney.
The choice is clear. If you liked the way things were going under George Bush, vote for Mitt Romney. But if you want long-term economic growth, if you believe in defending the middle class, if you don't want to go back to the policies of George Bush -- vote to reelect President Barack Obama.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, 

Romney ads are so offensive because it is a bald-faced lie. And he knows it's a lie.

Romney ads are so offensive because it is a bald-faced lie. And he knows it's a lie.

Apart from the storm news, there has been some political news that I cannot let go of.
Mitt Romney must realize that he has lost the industrial Midwest because he's completely lost a grip on reality. He's decided to throw a Hail Mary pass that will cause his already-struggling campaign to implode in Ohio.
Last week, Romney falsely claimed, "Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."
When Romney said that, Chrysler responded by calling the statement "a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats" to suggest that it would close U.S. facilities and move all operations to China. In fact, Chrysler is hiring over 2,000 more people in Toledo and Detroit.
But Romney decided to double down on the deception. The campaign is running the ad in the video below in select Ohio markets.

Chrysler had this response to the ad: "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to china." Sergio Marchionne, the CEO of Chrysler, sent an email to employees today again expressly stating that Chrysler is absolutely not sending jobs to China.
The Washington Post's Fact Checker gave the ad four Pinocchios -- you can't get rated any more deceptive than that.
President Obama's campaign ran this response to the ad.
And then, Romney's campaign did it again! But this time it wasn't Chrysler - now they're paying for a radio ad saying the same thing about General Motors.
Which caused GM to issue this statement:
We've clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days, no amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.
The Romney ads are so offensive because it is a bald-faced lie. And he knows it's a lie. But because Romney is such a desperate, opportunistic, single-minded politician, he doesn't care that he's lying.
It's his scorched earth policy -- he'll do whatever it takes to win, no matter what the consequences to our politics, our country, or our people.
It's what Leo Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers, yesterday called "winning without honor." I'm not sure that even goes far enough.
Ohioans aren't going to be fooled by this deception. Here's how the Cleveland Plain Dealer put it: "It won't work. Ohio voters know who stepped up when the auto industry was at the abyss -- and it wasn't Romney."
Let me say this to the people of Ohio -- I can understand why you'd be ticked off. Mitt Romney is lying to you because he thinks you're too oblivious to remember the truth,
Unfortunately, neither you nor I can respond with the choice words we might like to use. But fortunately we can send an even more powerful response to this garbage. You'll have the final word, in one week. On election day.


Michael Brown, Of 'Heckuva Job' Fame, Says Obama Reacted Too Fast To Hurricane Sandy

Michael Brown, Of 'Heckuva Job' Fame, Says Obama Reacted Too Fast To Hurricane Sandy

Michael Brown, the former FEMA director infamously praised by President George W. Bush for doing a "heckuva job" during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, told a local paper that President Barack Obama acted too quickly in mobilizing relief for Superstorm Sandy.
"Here's my concern," Brown told Denver's Westword on Monday, suggesting that the official response was actually making people complacent. "It's premature [when] the brunt of the storm won't happen until later this afternoon."
Obama declared states of emergency all along East Coast states in the path of Sandy on Sunday, well before the storm hit, allowing federal resources to start flowing where governors thought they would be needed. FEMA and local responders were able to pre-position a lot of the material being drawn upon now.
Obama also held a press conference warning people to pay careful attention to the storm.
"This is a serious and big storm," Obama said after meeting with FEMA officials and talking to governors Sunday. "And my first message is to all the people across the Eastern seaboard, Mid-Atlantic, going north, that you need to take this very seriously."
Brown suggested Obama was just trying to look good.
"He probably figured Sunday was a good day to do a press conference," Brown said in his interview.
He also thought Obama's response contrasted poorly to his response to the deadly attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which the U.S. ambassador and three others died. "One thing he's gonna be asked is, why did he jump on this so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in ... Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas?" Brown said.

Color-Blocked



Non neutral colors and jewelry was the theme from Poshlocket.com Project this month. Non neutral is exactly what I love the most, so this theme suits me perfectly. I chose to style this minimalistic "Gabrielle Organic" gold bangle that I think can be worn whether with a minimalistic, sporty, bohemian or colorful outfit. Simply the perfect glimpse of gold for any look. And now the COLORS: red jeans, red top, fuchsia coat, and a burst of cobalt blue from the clutch, all in the mix that I created for this outfit. The mirrored sunglasses complete this look perfectly and for that I have to thank to zeroUV.com .
No days without colors... do you agree with me ?
P.S  I hope everyone on the East coast is ok after the hurricane Sandy !



                                                                     Bangle bracelet : thanks to Poshlocket .comHere
                                                                     Coat: Lands' End/ option Here
                                                                     Blouse: Zara
                                                                     Jeans: Mango/ another great version  Here
                                                                     Heels: Nine West/ similar design Here
                                                                     Clutch: American Apparel/ I also love this one Here
                                                                     Sunglasses: thanks to zeroUV.comHere  





cane chair makeover

Good gracious. I've been cussing more than usual and my hands look like I've been working on a barge. This can mean only one thing - I'm reupholstering again.

Remember these beauties?


Oy what a labor of love they became. They took far longer than I had planned. I'm distracted easily. But wahoo, they are finished. Now no sense in prolonging the reveal even longer, let's get to it.

First step was stripping both chairs, some very light sanding and then painting them black. For some reason I had always envisioned these painted white, but my mom suggested black and I think it was a rather smart choice. Good work Jan.

newly painted chairs against my newly painted walls
Now compared to the couch, this project was a dream. No guessing on what part of the furniture to start with or thinking ahead about how each section would relate to the other. Nope. There is a seat and there is a back. Easy peasy lemon squeezey.

The outside back goes first. I made sure to rip off the old fabric pieces as much in tact as possible to use those pieces as templates for my new pieces.

The hubs helped me out on the inaugural cut.
These chairs have the same grooves as the couch did so following the staple line was really straight forward. After stapling the piece in place, I trimmed off the excess.


That band in the middle of the chair was there when I stripped the fabric. It is sturdy as can be and helps to keep the front cushion from pushing thru the back of the chair. If the first upholsterer was smart enough to put that in, who am I to argue? So back in it went.


With the outside back in place, next came the inside back... or the front back. The terminology on this chair got very confusing. Luckily the back cushions were in great shape, so I could reuse them. Score.

that's fabric. laying on top of a piece of foam. photographic genius.
After stapling and more stapling, I landed here. Staples showing but piping was in the works.


The base below the seat cushions were easy as well. Just a matter of covering the old base and stapling. Just like wrapping a present. Or riding a bike. Pick your analogy. And a cheat I made - you can see the rip in the fabric in the very back of the seat. I ran out of fabric. But a cushion is going over top of this so I didn't sweat it. If you come over and pull up your seat cushion to see the 'not all the way covered' base I'll be happy to pay for the extensive therapy you'll need to get over the horror. I'm a generous host.


Next up came the cushion. And as many of you know, I'm not sewing. I bought a sewing machine, but haven't yet taken it out of the box. Don't judge. There have been a lot of good Real Housewife franchises that require my attention. So, I sent them out to a local genius by the name of Catherine Healey (if you are local let me know and I'll give you her info). She made my cushion vision a reality.

I couldn't be happier with my little babies. Two words - contrast piping.


I also used some of the leftover piping for the back cushions. No more staples.


And with that, these chairs went from this


to this


Holla! Big difference.

A few things I learned this time around.


Although the couch was far more daunting in size, this project seemed to be harder because there are two. So everything I did, had to be done again. A big downer when you are on your third straight night of staple pulling and your hand is turning into a claw.

A chair like this, which doesn't have to be a 'central/big furniture' piece is the perfect opportunity to have some fun with fabric and patterns. For example, check out the fabulous junk in this chair's trunk.


This chair looks just as good from the back as it does from the front. And from their position in the living room they will be enjoyed from both directions. (more on that with the living room reveal)

And most importantly, embrace color. Live a little. It's good for the soul.

And now, just like with childbirth, I will promise that I will never again go thru the labor of reupholstering. Until this weekend when I see a sweet little chair in need of a little love.

And please keep your thoughts and prayers with everyone in the northeast who are dealing with the effects of Sandy.

buffalo soldier

Do you think Bob Marley had any buffalo check pillows? Where does 'buffalo check' come from anyway? Totally off topic. Moving on...

Many of you were super curious about this teaser pic I shared last week.


Well, I would love to say that these beauties are now sitting pretty in my dining room but actually I recovered them for a client. I'm working with a cute and energetic young family on their new to them house. We'll call them Family F (for fun).

Mrs. F inherited her mom's dining room furniture and wanted to give it a refresh for her family. Here is what we started with.


The chairs are in great shape, but the fabric had seen one too many dinners.


We are going to be working with blues thru out the kitchen, dinning room and living room so this navy and white buffalo check was a great base. Me and Mrs. F love a good buffalo check.


Now there are 6 of these suckers, so it took me the better part of a week to get them all done. Sadly though I didn't take pictures during the process. Bad blogger. I was just too busy concentrating.

But no worries, I'll reenact it for you - unscrew, rip fabric, pull staples, many staples, cut fabric, attach new foam, staple fabric, staple more, re-screw. Repeat. Thank god for Bravo and DVR.

There were many squeals and happy jigs when the chairs were delivered. And Mrs. F loved them too!


I love a good furniture refresh! This room is off to a great start and I'll be sure to share more as it progresses.

So what about you? Any fabrics or patterns you are in to lately? C'mon now, wouldn't these look great in my dinning room?