16GB iPhone "SLR" includes high-quality 8MP camera

And it still fits in my pocket:

Garden Tea Party Themed Baby Shower

The baby shower went really well yesterday. Here is a summary of all the crafty details:

I used the tissue paper pom poms from Martha Stewart again. They are just too pretty and were almost mesmerizing to sit under - with the air conditioner going, they spun slowly overhead. It was a nice effect. :) I also make mini poms (half fluffed) as napkin rings - there are instructions in Martha's tutorial for this as well. I put the rolled napkins in the tea cup at each place setting. With the help of my friend Megan, I thrifted all over town to find teacups (silver tea set, which I didn't need, but couldn't resist). There are some nasty thrift stores in Manhattan, but I also found a few real gems.

I also used Martha's pattern for a paper garland. You can use the .pdf of the alphabet in her tutorial, to customize and print your own (I enlarged the letters for mine) or you can buy a kit at Martha Stewart Crafts.


Ah ... my diaper cake. Perhaps my greatest crafting achievement? I think I am just pleased with myself because I didn't use someone else's instructions and came up with a pretty solid method. I photographed each step and will hopefully have the tutorial up by the end of the week.

My favorite parts of the diaper cake are the rose decorations. They look pretty real, right? Well, don't be fooled ... I made them out of coffee filters! Another great project on marthastewart.com. A woman named Cassie Chappell from Seattle showed Martha the process on her talk show, so there is a tutorial and an instructional video. You can check out her roses at www.mommymakesroses.com. I will post more on them later as well, but go to Martha for the detailed step-by-step instructions.


Keeping with the theme, I made a teapot cookie for each guest. They turned out cute, but were incredibly fragile (the spouts just snapped right off). I had 7 extras, but by the time they were iced and transported, I had just enough for an unbroken cookie per guest - phew. I'll post on the cookies later.

This baby shower was at work, and one of the benefits of working at a large law firm is we have an on-site caterer. It was great! The presentation was so nice, and the catering manager saw to every detail personally (he was setting up almost as long as I was!).

1. Turkey sandwiches with Dill Havarti on Seven Grain Bread
2. Roasted Red Peppers with Fresh Mozzarella and Pesto Spread on Foccacia
3. Truffle Risotto in Phyllo Dough

1. Chicken Cobb Salad in a Lettuce Cup
2. Piquant Pepper Stuffed with Fresh Mozzarella
3. Chicken Salad with Mango Salsa on Raisin Bread

1. More of the Chicken Cobb Salad
2. Jumbo Lump Crab Cake with Dijon Remoulade

For dessert:
1. Fresh Scones with Jam
2. Skewered Strawberries with Chocolate Fondue
3. Miniature Tartlets
4. Petit Fours

For hot beverage, they served an assortment of teas, coffee and hot chocolate (for me). :) It was so thick and chocolatey. Have you ever read the book, Chocolat? (It was also made into a movie). My bookclub girls will know what I am talking about, but it tasted precisely how I imagined Vianne Rocher's to taste. I had to dilute it a bit with water because it was so strong. Yum.

I forgot to take a photo of the cold beverage service, but they served pink lemonade and various sparkling ciders (my favorite was the apple-mango).

So, are your mouths watering? Flik (our in-house caterers) really outdid themselves. It was so nice to just pick the menus and let the pros do their thing.


All in all, a wonderful baby shower. It took me who knows how long to prepare and 4 1/2 hours to set up (I fluffed all the pom poms that morning in the office. Can you imagine me walking down Broadway trying to carry those things?). Everyone wanted to take one home, so the room came down in less than 5 minutes - that was kind of sad. But now I can start thinking of ideas for the next one ... another one of my managers is due in January.

preview

going to bed ... will post more photos tomorrow.

Garden Tea Party Baby Shower

Have you ever seen the blog, Style Me Pretty? I love it - although it is a wedding blog, there are so many beautiful ideas that can be used for other events and celebrations. One of my favorite parts of her blog are the Inspiration Boards she frequently posts. She recently had an inspiration board contest and the submissions from readers was impressive as well.

So, when I recently got involved in a co-worker's baby shower, I decided to put together an inspiration board of my own. She is having a girl, and we decided to do a "Garden Tea Party" theme.

Here are my ideas:

1. Tea pot or tea cup sugar cookies as a favor - I'll have to head on over the NY Cake to get a new cookie cutter.

2. bowls or large teacups full of pink jelly beans/candy on the table - anyone know where I can get bulk pink candy in NY?

3. We are still deciding on a group gift. Almost everything on her registry is already purchased, so one possibility is to get a car seat to decorate and fill with goodies

4. Finger sandwiches and other tea party food - hopefully displayed on pretty cake stands. Hostess with the Mostess posted about a new line of Martha Stewart whitewear at Macy's that looks promising.

5. A diaper cake

6. Lots of pink lemonade as a beverage

7. Tissue paper pom pom flowers hung from the ceiling - I was thinking in shades of pink, cream and mint green. I've made these before, so it should be easy.

8. Matching pom pom napkin rings

9. A garland hung in one of the windows or over the food table - ours will say "congratulations" or "baby brewing"

10. Assorted teacups at each table setting - this will be a little tricky. I am going to hunt around the city's thrift stores and see if I find cheap ones.

That's about it so far ... do any of you have ideas to add?

Disneyland!

It really is the happiest place on earth. Jared and I just got back from our trip to California. It was so fun to have a week to relax and hang out with this family. One of the highlights was definitely going to Disneyland, especially for a first-timer like myself.


We went on a lot of exciting rides, but we decided the best shared experience was going on the Teacups with Jared and his sister Holly. Our legs were completely jammed in that tiny cup and we spun our hearts out.


I took a few photos on the ride and this one is my favorite - Jared just looks so happy and carefree. It also helps that he is not pulling one of his "photo faces" (see teacups photo above).

Another highlight was Fork Man in the parade. He was really great.

All in all, a wonderful day! We slept through the next afternoon to recover.

I made a couple of baby blankets in Santa Barbara. I'll post photos of them soon.

Reality, page 191

...replaces all objects of belief with one single thing: reality itself. We believe only in this universe. We don't believe in the afterlife. We don't believe in the sovereignty of nations. We don't believe in money or power or fame. We don't believe in our idols. We don't believe in our positions or our possessions. We don't believe we can be insulted, or that our honor or the honor of our family, our nation or our faith can be offended...

We just believe in reality. Just this.

...doesn't ask you to believe in anything you cannot confirm for yourself. It does not ask you to memorize any sacred words. It doesn't require you to worship any particular thing or revere any particular person. It doesn't offer any rules to obey. It doesn't give you any hierarchy of learned men whose profound teachings you must follow to the letter. It doesn't ask you to conform to any code of dress. It doesn't ask you to allow anyone else to choose what is right for you and what is wrong.

...is the complete absence of belief. ...is the complete lack of authority. ...tears away every false refuge in which you might hide from the truth and forces you to sit naked before what is real. That's real refuge.

Reality will announce itself to you in utterly unmistakable ways once you learn to listen. Learning to listen to reality, though, ain't so easy. You're so used to shouting reality down, drowning it out completely with your own opinions and views, that you might not even be able to recognize reality's voice anymore. It's a funny thing, though, because reality is the single most glaringly obvious thing there is... Yet we've forgotten how to recognize it.

What does it mean to own a "right"? Was Gandhi a thief?

From the Wikipedia entry on Gandhi's 1930 Salt March:

The British monopoly on the salt trade in India dictated that the sale or production of salt by anyone but the British government was a criminal offense punishable by law. Salt was readily accessible to coastal area dwellers, but instead of being allowed to collect and use it themselves for free, they were instead forced to purchase it from the colonial government.

In other words, the British government owned the right to produce and sell salt in India.

And another page says:

On April 5, 1930 Gandhi and his satyagrahis reached the coast. After prayers were offered, Gandhi spoke to the large crowd. He picked up a tiny lump of salt, breaking the law. Within moments, the satyagrahis followed Gandhi's passive defiance, picking up salt everywhere along the coast. A month later, Gandhi was arrested and thrown into prison, already full with fellow protesters.

Was Gandhi stealing salt from the British government, or was he simply breaking the law which gave the British the exclusive right to produce salt?

Since Gandhi wasn't actually taking the salt away from the British, and the ocean contained a practically infinite supply of salt (so it can't be claimed that he was taking it from anyone else), I'd argue that he was not stealing anything.

Did Gandhi steal the legal "right" to produce salt? Not really. A right has no substance or physical reality, so it is difficult to outright steal one (you could perhaps trick someone into signing a contract transferring the right, but clearly that's not the case here).

Gandhi's actions DID decrease the value of the British right to produce salt, but many actions could have that effect. For example, he could have convinced the people of India to switch to a lower salt diet, thereby decreasing the demand for salt and the value of the British monopoly. I don't think that anyone would call that stealing.

In fact, I've never seen anyone claim that Gandhi was a thief. It seems like a somewhat silly argument.

So what's my point? Owning a "right", which is a form of "Imaginary Property", is not the same as owning real property. If someone violates your exclusive rights, they may be breaking the law, but they are not stealing. To claim otherwise is silly and dishonest.

Update: Some people have interpreted this post as meaning that I'm opposed to Imaginary Property, or that infringing on other's legal rights is ok. That is not the case at all -- IP can serve an important and beneficial role in society. My only point is that Imaginary Property is not the same as Real Property, and that infringing on someone's legal rights isn't the same as theft. Pretending that they are the same has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble.

Super hero shirt with cape

I made a "Super Sam" shirt for my nephew's birthday. I appliquéd the star and S on the front (a first for me), added some ribbon trim and a cape that velcros to the shoulders.

I think he looks super cute in it. :)

I got the idea from a post over at Cool Mom Picks (which I love). In April, they posted about Little Capers, a company that makes really cool super hero t-shirts with capes. So very cute. If you aren't into sewing and your kid is over the whole bath towel-as-cape look, this is the place to go. Anyway, Sam seems to like it. Yay!


The long dog was a bigger hit. He got loaded with hugs and kisses as soon as he was pulled from the box. My sister said Sam named him "Polkadot."

So cute.

I love you Sambo!

The first thing that you need to understand about humans

Humans aren't rational -- they rationalize. And I don't just mean "some of them" or "other people". I'm talking about everyone. We have a "logic engine" in our brains, but for the most part, it's not the one in the driver's seat -- instead it operates after the fact, generating rationalizations and excuses for our behavior.

I first realized this fact several years ago when I read something about "split brain" people. These people have had their corpus collosum, the structure which connects the left and right brain hemispheres, cut or damaged, leaving the two halves of the brain largely unable to communicate with each other. I don't recall where I read that, but a quick Google turned up this similar article:

"A split-brain patient shown a photograph of Hitler only in the right hemisphere, for example, might exhibit facial expressions indicating anger or disgust. But when asked to explain those emotions, the patient will often invent an answer, such as 'I was thinking about a time when someone made me angry.'" (Newberg and D'Aquili 2001, p. 23)

Kenneth Heilman offers another, more concrete example, writing about the research of Dr. Michael Gazzaniga and his colleagues. In one experiment, they showed sexually suggestive pictures to a woman with callosal disconnection, flashing them only on the left half of a screen so only her right hemisphere could perceive them. The woman giggled and blushed, but when asked why she was doing so, she replied that she was thinking of something embarrassing (Heilman 2002, p. 129).

Are these people lying? In one sense of the word, perhaps; but it seems clear that there is no conscious intent to deceive. Rather, researchers have concluded, what is happening is that the right hemisphere, upon seeing an image with strong emotional connotations, generates the appropriate response. However, due to the callosal disconnection, it cannot transmit the associated sensory data to the left hemisphere and its language centers. The left hemisphere perceives a change in the body's state, but does not know why - and so it "fills in" the missing details, fabricating a logical reason for the emotional reaction. This happens at a subconscious level, so that the person genuinely believes the verbal explanation they provide. In the language of psychology, this filling-in process of unconscious invention is called confabulation.

The important realization is that this process of "confabulation" is not limited to people with brain damage -- everyone does it -- people with "split brain" are just a little more obvious.

It's tempting to think that "most people" have this problem, but that you or I are different, to think that our actions are all logical. That is a mistake -- denying the truth is irrational and dangerous. By accepting that people are fundamentally irrational, we can deal with ourselves and others in a more rational and effective manner. We can learn to manage our irrational selves (somewhat). If, however, we insist that all of our actions and feelings are rational, then we will never be able to deal with them honestly, and are more likely to cling to irrational beliefs and limitations. If we are going to be honest, then we must admit the possibility that everything we know and believe is, in fact, incorrect.

The fascinating (and easy to read) book "Influence: Science and Practice" has some great examples and explanations of how people actually work. Here's a great quote about the effect of attractiveness, and how unaware people are of their true decision making process:

A study of the 1974 Canadian federal elections found that attractive candidates received more than two and a half times as many votes as unattractive candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Despite such evidence of favoritism toward handsome politicians, follow-up research demonstrated that voters did not realize their bias. In fact, 73 percent of Canadian voters surveyed denied in the strongest possible terms that their votes had been influenced by physical appearance; only 14 percent even allowed for the possibility of such influence (Efran & Patterson, 1976). Voters can deny the impact of attractiveness on electability all they want, but evidence has continued to confirm its troubling presence (Budesheim & DePaola, 1994).

A similar effect has been found in hiring situations. In one study, good grooming of applicants in a simulated employment interview accounted for more favorable hiring decisions than did job qualifications—this, even though the interviewers claimed that appearance played a small role in their choices (Mack & Rainey, 1990). The advantage given to attractive workers extends past hiring day to payday. Economists examining U.S. and Canadian samples have found that attractive individuals get paid an average of 12-14 percent more than their unattractive coworkers (Hammermesh & Biddle, 1994).

Equally unsettling research indicates that our judicial process is similarly susceptible to the influences of body dimensions and bone structure. It now appears that good looking people are likely to receive highly favorable treatment in the legal system (see Castellow, Wuensch, & Moore, 1991; and Downs & Lyons, 1990, for reviews). For example, in a Pennsylvania study (Stewart, 1980), researchers rated the physical attractiveness of 74 separate male defendants at the start of their criminal trials. When, much later, the researchers checked court records for the results of these cases, they found that the handsome men had received significantly lighter sentences. In fact, attractive defendants were twice as likely to avoid jail as unattractive defendants. In another study —- this one on the damages awarded in a staged negligence trial -- a defendant who was better looking than his victim was assessed an average amount of $5,623; but when the victim was more attractive of the two, the average compensation was $10,051. What's more, both male and female jurors exhibited the attractiveness-based favoritism (Kulka & Kessler, 1978).

Other experiments have demonstrated that attractive people are more likely to obtain help when in need (Benson, Karabenic, & Lerner, 1976) and are more persuasive in changing the opinions of an audience (Chaiken, 1979).

Understanding our irrational nature is also critical to product design. How can you expect to make something for humans if you don't understand how they think or make decisions?

Another book, "The Culture Code", has some great examples based on the author's experience helping companies improve the design and marketing of their products.

The people at Chrysler had indeed asked hundreds of questions; they just hadn't asked the right ones. They kept listening to what people said. This is always a mistake. As a result, they had theories about moving the Wrangler in multiple directions (more luxurious, more like a traditional car, without removable doors, enclosed rather than convertible, and so on) with no clear path to follow.
...
When I put groups of consumers together, I asked them different questions. I didn't ask them what they wanted in a Jeep; I asked them to tell me about their earliest memories of Jeeps.
...
I returned to those wary Chrysler executives and told them that the Code for Jeep in America is HORSE. Their notion of turning the Wrangler into just another SUV was ill advised.
...
The executives weren't particularly moved. After all, they had vast research that told them consumers said they wanted something else. ... I asked them to test my theory by making a relatively minor adjustment to the car's design: replacing the square headlights with round ones. Why? Because horses have round eyes, not square ones.
...
They tested the new design and the response was instantly positive. Wrangler sales rose and the new "face" of the Wrangler became its most prominent and marketable feature. In fact, the car's logo has incorporated its grille and round headlights ever since.

Using surveys and focus groups to design your product is a great way to produce boring and mediocre products that are the same as everything else.

Another great quote from "The Culture Code" connects us back to the "split brain" example that I started with:

What do Americans look for in a car? I've heard many answers when I've asked this question. The answers include excellent safety ratings, great gas mileage, handling, and cornering ability, among others. I don't believe any of these. That's because the first principle of the Culture Code is that the only effective way to understand what people truly mean is to ignore what they say. This is not to suggest that people intentionally lie or misrepresent themselves. What it means is that, when asked direct questions about their interests and preferences, people tend to give answers they believe the questioner wants to hear. Again, this is not because they intend to mislead. It is because people respond to these questions with their cortexes, the parts of their brains that control intelligence rather than emotion or instinct. They ponder a question, they process a question, and when they deliver an answer, it is the product of deliberation. They believe they are telling the truth. A lie detector would confirm this. In most cases, however, they aren't saying what they mean.

The reason for this is simple: most people don't know why they do the things they do. In a classic study, the nineteenth-century scientist Jean-Martin Charcot hypnotized a female patient, handed her an umbrella, and asked her to open it. After this, he slowly brought the woman out of her hypnotic state. When she came to, she was surprised by the object she held in her hand. Charcot then asked her why she was carrying an open umbrella indoors. The woman was utterly confused by the question. She of course had no idea of what she had been through and no memories of Charcot's instructions. Baffled, she looked at the ceiling. Then she looked back at Charcot and said, "It was raining."
...
Even the most self-examining of us are rarely in close contact with our subconscious. ... Therefore, we give answers to questions that sound logical and are even what the questioner expected, but which don't reveal the unconscious forced that precondition our feelings. This is why polls and surveys are so often misleading and useless.

Of course this understanding is important to more than just product design. It's critical to anything involving humans, which is everything involving us. How does it apply to your life and work? Are you still making decisions with the assumption that we are rational?