View allAll Photos Tagged cause
You may notice that this green iguana is not in fact green! She came to The Living Rainforest after being a pet for a number of years. It is common in the pet trade to selectively breed individuals with more desirable traits, and artificially create different colour morphs. This can cause issues within the captive population of the species, as it often involves in-breeding.
The green iguana (Iguana iguana), also known as the American iguana or the common green iguana, is a large, arboreal, mostly herbivorous species of lizard of the genus Iguana. Usually, this animal is simply called the iguana. The green iguana ranges over a large geographic area; it is native from southern Brazil and Paraguay as far north as Mexico, and has been introduced from South America to Puerto Rico and is very common throughout the island, where it is colloquially known as gallina de palo ("bamboo chicken" or "chicken of the tree") and considered an invasive species; in the United States, feral populations also exist in South Florida (including the Florida Keys), Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Green iguanas have also successfully colonised the island of Anguilla, arriving on the island in 1995 after rafting across the Caribbean from Guadeloupe, where they were introduced.
A herbivore, it has adapted significantly with regard to locomotion and osmoregulation (the maintenance of constant osmotic pressure in the fluids of an organism by the control of water and salt concentrations) as a result of its diet. It grows to 1.5 m in length from head to tail, although a few specimens have grown more than 2 m with bodyweights upward of 9.1 kg.
This animal is a resident of The Living Rainforest which is an indoor greenhouse tropical rainforest that is located in Hampstead Norreys in Berkshire, England. It is an ecological centre, educational centre and visitor attraction consisting of three glasshouses, operated and run by the Trust for Sustainable Living. The glasshouses are named Amazonica, Lowlands and Small Islands respectively.
The Living Rainforest has been accredited by the Council for Learning Outside of the Classroom and awarded the LOtC Quality Badge. Each year around 25,000 children visit the Living Rainforest as part of their school's curriculum. It is open 7-days a week from 09:30 to 16:00.
Cause I love them. Dreaming of converting one of the old heroes to live in.
Born near the sea in a city with one of the biggest harbours, there are some things you are drawn to.
Andrejsala, Rīga.
___
Roidweek 2017 # day 2
Littman 45 single / 553
Esposizione: 1/125 sec
Apertura: f/8,7
Focale: 15mm
ISO: 200
La causa sono quelle gocce... L' effetto è quello che si vede in foto...
Inspired By Dons
[Explore #55]
'Cause we're hot like hell
Does it burn when I'm not there?
When you're by yourself
Am I the answer to your prayers
I'm giving you the pleasure of heaven
And I'll give it to you
Hotter than hell
Hotter than hell
Cause of death...
"Inspector. He was found hanging, had been shot (with bullets sticking out of him - one for the esotericists there), stabbed and the victim of blunt force trauma. What shall I put it down as...?"
"Pass me that cotton wool bud would you PC Bobbins", said Inspector Smart.
Hello there. Relevant comments welcome but please do NOT post any awards, banners, etc. All my images are my own original work, under my copyright, with all rights reserved. You need my permission to use any image for ANY purpose.
Copyright infringement is theft.
“Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit cannot be severed; for the effect already blooms in the cause, the end preexists in the means, the fruit in the seed.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
A flowering head of blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides), very difficult to control in farmers fields and if left unchecked can cause large reductions in yield
do you wanna step outside
or do you want me to ride?
i dont know just what i feel
but i feel it all tonight
this was in the comments of the one i posted last night.
i think this one might be my favorite out of the bunch
Peter Duesberg is a "scientist" who is widely recognised as being one of the foremost idiots who thinks that HIV does not cause AIDS. He thinks that everyone gets it from taking ARVs and doing too much poppers and too many recreational drugs. Celia "Thats why they put blood on my face" Farber has spent an awful long time defending this lunatic "faith".
A new Harvard study has claimed that the deaths of around 330,000 South Africans occured as a direct result of Mbeki's HIV denial.
Peter Duesberg was on Mbeki's AIDS panel, so advised him in his murderous denial.
Of course I am not pointing the finger directly at Duesberg as the buck stopped with Mbeki and his health minister Dr Beetroot, and the policies they enacted.
However it would be wrong to completely ignore the role that Duesberg and others played in the deaths of all of these people.
Duesberg is currently employed by the University of California Berkeley. Maybe in light of this new evidence they should seriously consider his position within their (ANY!) teaching institution.
Mbeki Aids policy 'led to 330,000 deaths'
Sarah Boseley Thursday November 27 2008 00.01 GMT
The Aids policies of former president Thabo Mbeki's government were directly responsible for the avoidable deaths of a third of a million people in South Africa, according to research from Harvard University.
South Africa has one of the most severe HIV/Aids epidemics in the world. About 5.5 million people, or 18.8% of the adult population, have HIV, according to the UN. In 2005 there were 900 deaths a day.
But from the late 90s Mbeki turned his back on the scientific consensus that Aids was caused by a viral infection which could be combated, though not cured, by sophisticated and expensive drugs. He came under the influence of maverick scientists known as Aids-denialists, most prominent among whom was Peter Duesberg from Berkeley, California.
In 2000 Mbeki called a round-table of experts, including Duesberg and his supporters but also their opponents, to discuss the cause of Aids. Later that year, at the international Aids conference in Durban, he publicly rejected the accepted wisdom. Aids, he said, was indeed brought about by the collapse of the immune system - but not because of a virus. The cause, he said, was poverty, bad nourishment and general ill-health. The solution was not expensive western medicine but the alleviation of poverty in Africa.
In a new paper Harvard researchers have quantified the death toll resulting from Mbeki's stance, which caused him to reject offers of free drugs and grants and led to foot-dragging over a treatment programme, even after Mbeki had taken a vow of silence on the issue.
"We contend that the South African government acted as a major obstacle in the provision of medication to patients with Aids," write Pride Chigwedere and colleagues from the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
They have made their calculations by comparing the scale-up of treatment programmes in neighbouring Botswana and Namibia with the limited availability of drugs in South Africa from 2000-2005.
Expensive antiretrovirals came down in price dramatically as a result of activists' campaigning and public pressure. In July 2000 the pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim offered to donate its drug nevirapine, which could prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child during labour. But South Africa restricted the availability of nevirapine to two pilot sites a province until December 2002.
Eventually, under international pressure, South Africa did launch a national programme for the prevention of mother to child transmission in August 2003 and a national adult treatment programme in 2004. But by 2005, the paper's authors estimate, there was still only 23% drug coverage and less than 30% prevention of mother to child transmission.
By comparison, Botswana achieved 85% treatment coverage and Namibia 71% by 2005, and both had 70% mother to child transmission programmes coverage.
The authors estimate that more than 330,000 people died unnecessarily in South Africa over the period and that 35,000 HIV-infected babies were born who could have been protected from the virus but would now probably have a limited life.
Their calculations will withstand scrutiny, they say. "The analysis is robust," said Dr Chigwedere. "We used a transparent and accessible calculation, publicly available data, and, where we made assumptions, we explained their basis. We purposely chose very conservative assumptions and performed sensitivity analyses to test whether the results would qualitatively change if a different assumption were used."
The authors conclude: "Access to appropriate public health practice is often determined by a small number of political leaders. In the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of a failure to accept the use of available ARVs to prevent and treat HIV/Aids in a timely manner."
Since Mbeki's ousting from the leadership of the African National Congress in September South Africa has urgently pursued new policies to get treatment to as many people as possible under a new health minister, Barbara Hogan.
November 26, 2008
Study Cites Toll of AIDS Policy in South Africa
By CELIA W. DUGGER
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?_r=1
JOHANNESBURG — A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.
The Harvard study concluded that the policies grew out of President Thabo Mbeki’s denial of the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it.
Coming in the wake of Mr. Mbeki’s ouster in September after a power struggle in his party, the African National Congress, the report has reignited questions about why Mr. Mbeki, a man of great acumen, was so influenced by AIDS denialists.
And it has again caused soul-searching about why his colleagues in the party did not act earlier to challenge his resistance to broadly accepted methods of treating and preventing AIDS.
Reckoning with a legacy of such policies, Mr. Mbeki’s’s successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, acted on the first day of his presidency two months ago to remove the health minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, a polarizing figure who had proposed garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies.
He replaced her with Barbara Hogan, who has brought South Africa — the most powerful country in a region at the epicenter of the world’s AIDS pandemic — back into the mainstream.
“I feel ashamed that we have to own up to what Harvard is saying,” Ms. Hogan, an A.N.C. stalwart who was imprisoned for a decade during the anti-apartheid struggle, said in a recent interview. “The era of denialism is over completely in South Africa.”
For years, the South African government did not provide antiretroviral medicines, even as Botswana and Namibia, neighboring countries with epidemics of similar scale, took action, the Harvard study reported.
The Harvard researchers quantified the human cost of that inaction by comparing the number of people who got antiretrovirals in South Africa from 2000 to 2005 with the number the government could have reached had it put in place a workable treatment and prevention program.
They estimated that by 2005, South Africa could have been helping half those in need but had reached only 23 percent. By comparison, Botswana was already providing treatment to 85 percent of those in need, and Namibia to 71 percent.
The 330,000 South Africans who died for lack of treatment and the 35,000 babies who perished because they were infected with H.I.V. together lost at least 3.8 million years of life, the study concluded.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.
“They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would consider their numbers quite reasonable,” James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said in an e-mail message.
The report was posted online last month and will be published on Monday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
Max Essex, the virologist who has led the Harvard School of Public Health’s AIDS research program for the past 20 years and who oversaw the study, called South Africa’s response to AIDS under Mr. Mbeki “a case of bad, or even evil, public health.”
Mr. Mbeki has maintained a silence on his AIDS legacy since his forced resignation. His spokesman, Mukoni Ratshitanga, said Mr. Mbeki would not discuss his thinking on H.I.V. and AIDS, explaining that policy decisions were made collectively by the cabinet and so questions should be addressed to the government.
The new government is now trying to hasten the expansion of antiretroviral treatments. The task is urgent. South Africa today is home to 5.7 million people who are H.I.V.-positive — more than any other nation, almost one in five adults. More than 900 people a day die here as a result of AIDS, the United Nations estimates.
Since the party forced Mr. Mbeki from office and some of his loyalists split off to start a new party, rivalries have flared and stories about what happened inside the A.N.C. have begun to tumble out, offering unsettling glimpses of how South Africa’s AIDS policies went so wrong.
From the first year of his presidency in 1999, Mr. Mbeki became consumed with the thinking of a small group of dissident scientists who argued that H.I.V. was not the cause of AIDS, his biographers say.
As president he wielded enormous power, and those who disagreed with him said they feared they would be sidelined if they spoke out. Even Nelson Mandela, the revered former president, was not immune from opprobrium.
In a column in The Sunday Times of Johannesburg on Oct. 19, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, a senior party member now running the party’s 2009 election campaign, recounted how Mr. Mandela, known affectionately as Madiba, was humiliated during a 2002 A.N.C. meeting after he made a rare appearance to question the party’s stance on AIDS.
Mr. Ramatlhodi described speakers competing to show greater loyalty to Mr. Mbeki by verbally attacking Mr. Mandela as Mr. Mbeki looked on silently. “After his vicious mauling, Madiba looked twice his age, old and ashen,” Mr. Ramatlhodi wrote.
Mr. Ramatlhodi himself acknowledged in a recent interview that in 2001 he sent a 22-page letter, drafted by Mr. Mbeki’s office, to another of Mr. Mbeki’s most credible critics, Prof. Malegapuru Makgoba, an immunologist who was one of South Africa’s leading scientists. The letter accused Professor Makgoba of defending Western science and its racist ideas about Africans at the expense of Mr. Mbeki.
In 2000 Mr. Mbeki had provided Professor Makgoba with two bound volumes containing 1,500 pages of documents written by AIDS denialists. After reading them, Professor Makgoba said in an interview that he wrote back to warn Mr. Mbeki that if he adopted the denialists’ ideas, South Africa would “become the laughingstock, if not the pariah, of the world again.”
But Mr. Mbeki indicated last year to one of his biographers, Mark Gevisser, that his views on AIDS were essentially unchanged, pointing the writer to a document that, he said, was drafted by A.N.C. leaders and accurately reflected his position.
The document’s authors conceded that H.I.V. might be one cause of AIDS but contended that there were many others, like other diseases and malnutrition.
The document maintained that antiretrovirals were toxic. And it suggested that powerful vested interests — drug companies, governments, scientists — pushed the consensus view of AIDS in a quest for money and power, while peddling centuries-old white racist beliefs that depicted Africans as sexually rapacious.
“Yes, we are sex crazy!” the document’s authors bitterly exclaimed. “Yes, we are diseased! Yes, we spread the deadly H.I. virus through our uncontrolled heterosexual sex!”
In 2002, after a prolonged outcry over Mr. Mbeki’s comments about AIDS and the government’s policies, Mr. Mbeki agreed to requests from within his party to withdraw from the public debate. That same year, the Constitutional Court ruled that the government had to provide antiretroviral drugs to prevent the infection of newborns. And in 2003, the cabinet announced plans to go forward with an antiretroviral treatment program.
“We did an enormous amount of good in the early days in South Africa, not because of the Health Ministry, but in spite of the Health Ministry,” said Randall L. Tobias, who was appointed by President Bush in 2003 to lead the United States’ $15 billion global AIDS undertaking.
In the same years, former President Clinton and his foundation were also deeply involved in helping South Africa get a treatment program going. Mr. Clinton attended Mr. Mandela’s 85th birthday celebration in Johannesburg in 2003. During the dinner, he and Mr. Mbeki slipped away to talk about AIDS, Mr. Clinton recalled in a recent interview.
Mr. Clinton said he told Mr. Mbeki how antiretroviral treatment had reduced the AIDS mortality rate in the United States and reminded him, “I’m your friend and I haven’t joined in the public condemnation.” That evening, when Mr. Clinton offered to send in a team of experts to help the country put together a national treatment plan, Mr. Mbeki took him up on it.
The Clinton Foundation helped devise a plan and mobilized 20 people to travel to South Africa in 2004 to help carry it out. But the South African government never invited them, Mr. Clinton said. So the foundation, which had projects all over Africa, was to have none in South Africa.
Changes since Mr. Mbeki’s fall from power have prompted many to hope for forceful South African political leadership on AIDS. Mr. Mbeki’s rival and successor as head of the party, Jacob Zuma, who is expected to become president after next year’s election, himself made a famously questionable remark about AIDS.
In his 2006 rape trial, in which he was acquitted of sexually assaulting a family friend, he testified that he sought to reduce his chances of being infected with H.I.V. by taking a shower after sex. Nonetheless, he seems to have more conventional views on the pandemic.
“Who would have thought Jacob Zuma would be better than Mbeki, but he is,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration who heads a coalition of businesses fighting AIDS. “The tragedy of Thabo Mbeki is that he’s a smart man who could have been an international statesman on this issue. To this day, you wonder what got into him.”
For South Africans who watched the dying and were powerless to stop it, the grief is still raw. Zackie Achmat, the country’s most prominent advocate for people with AIDS, became sick during the almost five years he refused to take antiretrovirals until they were made widely available. He cast Mr. Mbeki as the leading man in this African tragedy.
“He is like Macbeth,” Mr. Achmat said. “It’s easier to walk through the blood than to turn back and admit you made a mistake.”
Mbeki's opposition to ARVs cost 330,000 lives, shows study
Michael Carter, Thursday, November 27, 2008
www.aidsmap.com/en/news/97BFC49D-E43C-4028-8E4D-CACF15F82...
The refusal of the Mbeki government to roll-out antiretroviral therapy and treatment to prevent mother-to child transmission in South Africa resulted in 330,000 needlessly premature HIV-related deaths and 35,000 avoidable case of mother-to-child HIV transmission according to estimates published in the December 1st edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
South Africa is one of the countries hardest hit by HIV. UNAIDS estimates that 19% of the adult population is HIV-positive, some 5.5 million individuals. In 2005, an estimated 320,000 individuals died because of HIV.
President Thabo Mbeki’s government consistently resisted the provision of antiretroviral therapy. The first important evidence of this was in 1999 when, under pressure to provide AZT monotherapy to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, President Mbeki announced that the drug was dangerous and that it would therefore not be provided by his government. This was followed by Mbeki publicly questioning that HIV caused AIDS and the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy. The Mbeki administration then resisted the use of nevirapine to prevent mother-to-child transmission and obstructed the acquisition of grants from the Global Fund.
US investigators estimated the lost benefits resulting from the Mbeki government’s opposition to provision of antiretroviral therapy and treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission. To do this, they compared the actual number of people who received HIV treatment or therapy to prevent mother-to-child transmission between 2000 and 2005 and compared this to the number that could feasibly have been treated during this period. This difference was multiplied by the average efficacy of antiretroviral treatment and treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission to give the lost benefits consequent upon the South African government’s decision to prevent access to anti-HIV drugs.
“Our overriding values in choosing methods were transparency and minimization of assumptions and we were purposely conservative”, write the investigators.
When estimating the number of people who could reasonably have been provided with antiretroviral therapy or treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission, the investigators noted that HIV treatment became significantly more accessible between 2000-2005. This was because:
* The price of anti-HIV drugs fell significantly in this period.
* More money was available for donor organisations, such as the Global Fund and PEPFAR, to purchase antiretroviral drugs.
Nevertheless, the South African government still maintained opposition to the provision of HIV drugs.
To estimate the number of people who should have been eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy, the investigators obtained from UNAIDS the number of HIV-related deaths in South Africa between 2000-2005. Patients who died of HIV without receiving anti-HIV drugs lost the entire potential benefits of antiretroviral therapy.
Next, the investigators obtained figures showing how many individuals received antiretroviral therapy in the same period. Their sources were UNAIDS and the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “3 x 5” antiretroviral treatment access programme. These figures showed that fewer than 3% of patients received antiretroviral treatment in 2000, increasing to approximately 10% in 2003 and 23% in 2005.
The researchers considered it reasonable that South Africa could have treated no more than 5% of eligible patients with HIV in 2000. However, because drugs became less expensive and more international funding became available, “ramping up” access to treatment was feasible, meaning that by 2005, 50% of HIV-positive patients in South Africa should have been receiving antiretroviral therapy. They note that the maximum of 50% treatment coverage is significantly lower than the 71% achieved by Namibia and the 85% achieved by Botswana.
Finally they estimated the number of life years that would be gained per patient due to antiretroviral therapy. They used the most conservative estimate of 6.7 years.
Their calculations showed that 330,000 lives and 2.2 million person years were lost because the Mbeki government resisted the implementation of a reasonable antiretroviral treatment programme.
They tested their model using a number of other assumptions. For example, if they reduced the number of patients who could reasonably be expected to receive antiretroviral therapy in 2005 to 40%, then the number of lives lost fell to 226,800 or 1.5 million person years.
Consequences of opposition to treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission
The researchers' model to test the impact of the Mbeki administration’s opposition to treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission also included a number of conservative assumptions.
First, they calculated the number of children infected with HIV vertically. They looked at a number of sources and selected the lowest estimate of 68,000 per year and revised this down to 60,000 to take into account the high adult HIV population and marginal increase in population growth in South Africa during this period.
A number of sources suggested that in 2005, coverage of treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission was 30%, having increased from below 3% before 2000.
To estimate the proportion of women who could have received treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission, they considered that treatment would have been free during this period, that it is easy to administer and that 84% of pregnant women in South Africa receive antenatal care.
Based on these assumptions, the investigators calculated that no more than 5% of women would have received treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission in 2000, but that this could have increased to 55% by 2005.
Next the investigators estimated the efficacy of such therapy, taking as their benchmark the HIVNET 012 study which showed that single-dose nevirapine reduced the risk of transmission by 47% compared to short-course AZT amongst women who breastfeed.
Finally, they assumed an average life-expectancy at birth of 48 years, and subtracted from this the average three year life-expectancy of infants infected with HIV at birth.
The investigators therefore estimated that 35,000 cases of mother-to-child transmission (or 1.6 million life years) were the result of the Mbeki administration’s policies.
One again, the investigators tested their results using other assumptions. If they accepted 40% coverage of treatment as acceptable, then the excess number of babies infected because of government policies was 18,000, a loss of 800,00 life years. However, had there been 70% coverage (still below what was achieved in Namibia and Botswana), then HIV infections in 44,000 babies (or 2 million life years), would have been avoided.
When the investigators combined their two estimates – years of life lost because of opposition to antiretroviral treatment, and life years lost because of the failure to provide treatment to prevent vertical transmission – they found that some 3.8 million life years were lost because of the Mbeki administration’s policies.
They conclude, “in the case of South Africa, many lives were lost because of failure to accept the use of available antiretrovirals to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS in a timely manner.”
Reference
Chigwedere, P. et al. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 49: 410-15, 2008.
'Cause nobody wants to go it on their own
And everyone wants to know they're not alone
Somebody else that feels the same somewhere
There's gotta be somebody for me out there.
...'cause I'm having mine.....
(and sorry for no comments today.....it's been a special but not an easy day..)
See you soon...
RCastro
Encontré ésta florecilla en mi camino y me pareció que siendo tan pequeñita pasaba desapercibida, pero no para mí, ya que pienso que lo más bello es lo más sencillo. Saludos!!
I found this flower on the road and being so little, it can't be seen, but not for me, 'cause I think of that the most beautiful is the most simple, . Greetings!!
The Karlsson family posing on the porch of their new red cottage home in Hallsberg (Örebro County, Central Sweden) in 1913. My restoration and digital hand colorization of Samuel Lindskog´s image in the Örebro County Museum archive. (We only know the first name of the husband, Samuel.)
The red paint -. called the Falu red - is produced as a by-product of the Falun copper mine.
"The original red paint—bright, and almost luminescent in the afternoon sunlight—was already popular, due in part to the whimsies of the rich and royal during an architectural period known as the Brick Renaissance. Even though it wasn’t commercially manufactured until 1764, it was used as early as the 16th century. “The king of Sweden in the 1570s ordered that the castle in Stockholm and in Turku, Finland be painted red from material from the mine here,” says Nybelius. Back then, the grand Gothic brick buildings of the Netherlands were especially popular among northern European nobility. “When Sweden was a great power, we wanted our buildings to look like the bricks in Holland. But we have a lot of wood, so they just painted it to look like brick,” explains Anna Blomster, a PhD in Scandinavian studies from UCLA who wrote her thesis on Swedish red cottages. It was thus that red became a symbol of Swedish royalty, and, ironically, a nod to the pomp and grandeur of faraway kingdoms.
It was only in the early 1900s that the red paint became recognized as the archetype of Swedish country life. “We had a bad housing situation and had very high rents,” says Blomster. There was a shift to the countryside from the cities, due to a national recession that caused mass unemployment and evictions. By 1900, the rents in Stockholm were the highest in Europe. In 1904, a bill was passed to provide loans for people to build their own houses in the country. “If you were working class and sober, you could get financial aid to build your own house,” she says. “Somewhere in this process they started to talk about the red paint as the Swedish color and started to connect it to Swedishness.” In short, if you had a home and didn’t know what color to paint it, red was the recommended hue.
From then on out, the red cottage in the country has become an irreversible part of the Swedish identity—a perpetual motif on postcards, in storybooks, and in real estate agent listings. “If you ask a child to paint a house, it’s always painted red. The red house is the heart of Sweden,” says Nybelius."
(Smithsonian Magazine)
You've got it all
You lost your mind in the sound
There's so much more
You can reclaim your crown
You're in control
Rid of the monsters inside your head
Put all your faults to bed
You can be king again.
So I shoot with Jordan a lot, but I barely ever shoot anything conceptual of him. Last week I decided it was time to change that and it ended up being very similar to the only other conceptual photo I've ever shot of him, years back when we were just friends.
p.s. I seriously hope the links I've put in this description work, since Flickr updated they never seem to link through properly
p.p.s you should all check out the song I used the lyrics from! Lauren is AMAZING