The other day I ran across a 'new-to-me' blog called
Monday, April 25, 2011
Show Some Bloggy Love
Friday, April 22, 2011
Criminals are ugly – yes, really
Has it ever struck you that in movies the villain is pretty much always ugly? Whether you take a James Bond film, a horror movie, or a Disney character, the bad guy is usually rather ‘esthetically challenged’, dotted with rather unsightly, coarse features.
Well, it now appears that these film makers are rather more realistic in their portrayal of the bad guys than you might have guessed. Criminals – as research by professors Naci Mocan from Louisiana State and Erdal Tekin from Georgia State University showed – are often indeed pretty ugly.
Naci and Erdal obtained data on 20,745 people, who were interviewed and rated at various points during their lives (in the period 1994 – 2002). A small army of independent interviewers rated the person’s level of attractiveness (ranging from very unattractive to very attractive). Subsequently, Naci and Erdal statistically compared this indicator of physical attractiveness with the incidence of the respondent having been involved in a crime, such as property damage, burglary, robbery, theft, assault, or drug-related crimes. And even when they corrected these models for all sorts of background characteristics, such as ethnic background, religion, family situation, income, and so on, the answer was pretty clear: criminals are ugly.
The intriguing question is, of course, how come? Although this involves a healthy dose of speculation, we do know quite a lot from prior research about the influence of physical attractiveness on such things as income and schooling, which might shed some light on the issue. For example, we know from prior studies that good-looking children receive more attention at school, are considered more trustworthy, and are judged to have higher academic potential.*
The problem is that many of these prejudices start to act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Ugly children start to do less well at school because of the low expectations placed on them: they have less belief in themselves, less confidence, they receive less personal attention from their tutors, and so on. And, as a consequence, the prophecy comes true; they do achieve less.
Once on the job market, they are then once again confronted with the same prejudice, making things even more challenging. For example, research has shown that, given the same qualifications, physically attractive applicants are considered more suitable for a particular job. They are also recommended to receive higher starting salaries.* Indeed, the handsome subjects in Naci and Erdal’s study also made substantially more money than their esthetically more challenged counterparts. To conclude, handsome children are helped to achieve more, once they reach adulthood they are more likely to be successful in a job interview, and once they are in the job they get paid more.
As a consequence of these effects, on the margin, ugly people are more often tempted – or perhaps pushed – into a life of crime than people who are physically attractive. The ugly ducklings amongst us are often devout of the opportunities that befall the beautiful and, therefore, comparatively are more prone to end up in crime. So next time Donald Duck traps the thugs, or 007 eliminates the villain, we should also allow ourselves to feel a slight sense of grief and sympathy for the ugly crooks, who might have achieved so much more in life had mother nature made them just that little bit more pleasing to our eye.
* How fundamental our human inclination is to look upon handsome people more favorably than on uglier ones is evidenced by research that shows that, interestingly, even babies pay more attention to the good-looking people peering into their pram than to their equally enthusiastic but less handsome aunts and uncles (Samuels & Elwy, 1985).
** One exception to this rule is that physically less attractive women are generally deemed more qualified than their attractive counterparts when the job they are being considered for is a stereotypical masculine job (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979).
Well, it now appears that these film makers are rather more realistic in their portrayal of the bad guys than you might have guessed. Criminals – as research by professors Naci Mocan from Louisiana State and Erdal Tekin from Georgia State University showed – are often indeed pretty ugly.
Naci and Erdal obtained data on 20,745 people, who were interviewed and rated at various points during their lives (in the period 1994 – 2002). A small army of independent interviewers rated the person’s level of attractiveness (ranging from very unattractive to very attractive). Subsequently, Naci and Erdal statistically compared this indicator of physical attractiveness with the incidence of the respondent having been involved in a crime, such as property damage, burglary, robbery, theft, assault, or drug-related crimes. And even when they corrected these models for all sorts of background characteristics, such as ethnic background, religion, family situation, income, and so on, the answer was pretty clear: criminals are ugly.
The intriguing question is, of course, how come? Although this involves a healthy dose of speculation, we do know quite a lot from prior research about the influence of physical attractiveness on such things as income and schooling, which might shed some light on the issue. For example, we know from prior studies that good-looking children receive more attention at school, are considered more trustworthy, and are judged to have higher academic potential.*
The problem is that many of these prejudices start to act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Ugly children start to do less well at school because of the low expectations placed on them: they have less belief in themselves, less confidence, they receive less personal attention from their tutors, and so on. And, as a consequence, the prophecy comes true; they do achieve less.
Once on the job market, they are then once again confronted with the same prejudice, making things even more challenging. For example, research has shown that, given the same qualifications, physically attractive applicants are considered more suitable for a particular job. They are also recommended to receive higher starting salaries.* Indeed, the handsome subjects in Naci and Erdal’s study also made substantially more money than their esthetically more challenged counterparts. To conclude, handsome children are helped to achieve more, once they reach adulthood they are more likely to be successful in a job interview, and once they are in the job they get paid more.
As a consequence of these effects, on the margin, ugly people are more often tempted – or perhaps pushed – into a life of crime than people who are physically attractive. The ugly ducklings amongst us are often devout of the opportunities that befall the beautiful and, therefore, comparatively are more prone to end up in crime. So next time Donald Duck traps the thugs, or 007 eliminates the villain, we should also allow ourselves to feel a slight sense of grief and sympathy for the ugly crooks, who might have achieved so much more in life had mother nature made them just that little bit more pleasing to our eye.
* How fundamental our human inclination is to look upon handsome people more favorably than on uglier ones is evidenced by research that shows that, interestingly, even babies pay more attention to the good-looking people peering into their pram than to their equally enthusiastic but less handsome aunts and uncles (Samuels & Elwy, 1985).
** One exception to this rule is that physically less attractive women are generally deemed more qualified than their attractive counterparts when the job they are being considered for is a stereotypical masculine job (Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979).
E's Easter Party
Yesterday was E's Easter party, and I was one of the helpers. I'd like to say that it went off without a hitch, but that's not true. It was slightly underwhelming, and of all things, we forgot to bring drinks...DUH!
BUT, I got to witness E's very first program at school, and it was so exciting for me...it wasn't spectacular by any means, but it was a "First" for him, and I got to witness it. I even got a little misty-eyed at the beginning. I am really proud of him..he's a good boy:o)
I spent Wednesday getting ready for said festivities. After I got home from church, I whipped up this shirt for E.
The inspiration came from THIS post. I just made it a little more masculine:o)
For teachers' gifts, I found some jars (50% off at Hobby Lobby this week) and filled them with candy. I found the printable from THIS post.
These are the CAKE POPS that I made for the party. They are supposed to be Easter Eggs:o) Most everyone seemed to really like them. Just a little side note, the actual cake part needs to be frozen for 2 HOURS or the melted chocolate will not harden fast, and it becomes a drippy mess.
They are delicious though:o)
Aren't these little bunnies the sweetest thing? E's teacher made them for all of her students.
And here are the
put to use.
One of the other mothers helping with the party put 3 Peeps in a sammy bag and tied it off with curling ribbon. Then we attached the little Peeps tag. Turned out cute:o)
So obviously with all of this sugar, I had some WILD children when I got home.
There were delayed naps, an incident involving mud on my floors AND a wall, a "come-apart" performed by yours truly, and a poopy "event" with the puppy which involved scrubbing the dickens out of his little hind parts(that had to be one of the grosser things I have ever had to do).
Needless to say, yesterday wasn't what I had planned, but I survived....and isn't that what it's all about anyway?
SURVIVAL???
:O)
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
New Free Easter Printable
Two posts today...weird I know. I am in the middle of helping with E's Easter party, and I had a free printable I wanted to share with you. This is sort of a last minute thing. The other day I ran across THIS post over at Joy Ever After. She had this really cute idea using peeps, and tags. I thought, PERFECT! We can use these printables as party favors for all of the little ones. But then I realized it was for the cards and not the tags that were available for printing:o(
So I just spent the last little bit making these.
They are similar, and they will definitely do the trick.
To download this printable, go
I'll share the little baggies that we are attaching these tags to tomorrow.
House Cleaning
Yesterday I spent the better part of nap time doing a little house cleaning...not my actual house, which desperately needs it, but on my blog.
I made a new header and created a new button...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
PBK Inspired Bed Skirt
A very dear friend of my mine is expecting her second baby, and Baby Girl should be here in about a month. So momma bird is nesting:o) She found this beautiful bed skirt at Pottery Barn Kids and fell in love with it, but they don't offer it in the crib size. Plus the twin size is $149.00...YIKES!
So I told her I would make it for her:o)
(picture credit to Pottery Barn Kids)
And this is what hers looks like:
(please excuse the flash photography...the room was dark)
It was actually pretty easy to make, and a lot cheaper than trying to get it from Pottery Barn Kids. Momma Bird was thrilled with the results, and so am I:o)
Monday, April 18, 2011
The Business April 20th 2011, "Two Year Anniversary" Edition
Ignore that other, number-based occasion going on this Wednesday and roll to The Dark Room to help us celebrate our huge deuce! The Business turns two this week and we couldn't be prouder of our little trainwreck. In honor of this new leaf, we've got a roster that’s packed hella fat. We’ve imported three strains of kind buds from LA to perform for you, as well as the dank home-grown shit you know and love.
From the finest clubs ...in Los Angeles:
Jake Weisman is a comedian and storyteller. He loves cats and podcasts, and he has two of each. One of his podcasts, The Morning After…Podcast, is about pornography, and it recently won Punchline Magazine’s 2010 Best New Comedy Podcast of the Year award. Just to remind you, he loves cats.
Dave Ross is a stand-up comedian and the creator of the wildly successful Holy F*ck comedy show. He performs regularly at renowned shows and clubs across California, including What's Up Tiger Lily? and the Hollywood Improv. His comedy career began as a radio DJ at KRZR in Fresno, but he quickly decided to leave and make less money standing on stages. He's smiley as hell and probably likes you.
Shawn Pearlman is from Los Angeles, CA (where nobody is from). In his hometown, he has performed at Comedy Death Ray at UCB, Largo at the Coronet, the Hollywood Improv, and that’s all. Just kidding, other places too! He is never homesick.
And keeping it local we have the Businessmen selection: Alex, Sean, Chris and Bucky. Plus a special video premiere from Chris!
While other shows going on this Wednesday may offer you a free "medical" gift, we still believe laughter is the best medicine you can get without having to pay a fake doctor to give you a state-recognized identification card. All you need to get our goods is five on it. And if you get the munchies, we are surrounded by burritos.
From the finest clubs ...in Los Angeles:
Jake Weisman is a comedian and storyteller. He loves cats and podcasts, and he has two of each. One of his podcasts, The Morning After…Podcast, is about pornography, and it recently won Punchline Magazine’s 2010 Best New Comedy Podcast of the Year award. Just to remind you, he loves cats.
Dave Ross is a stand-up comedian and the creator of the wildly successful Holy F*ck comedy show. He performs regularly at renowned shows and clubs across California, including What's Up Tiger Lily? and the Hollywood Improv. His comedy career began as a radio DJ at KRZR in Fresno, but he quickly decided to leave and make less money standing on stages. He's smiley as hell and probably likes you.
Shawn Pearlman is from Los Angeles, CA (where nobody is from). In his hometown, he has performed at Comedy Death Ray at UCB, Largo at the Coronet, the Hollywood Improv, and that’s all. Just kidding, other places too! He is never homesick.And keeping it local we have the Businessmen selection: Alex, Sean, Chris and Bucky. Plus a special video premiere from Chris!
While other shows going on this Wednesday may offer you a free "medical" gift, we still believe laughter is the best medicine you can get without having to pay a fake doctor to give you a state-recognized identification card. All you need to get our goods is five on it. And if you get the munchies, we are surrounded by burritos.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Busy Sewing Day
I missed out on some major yard sales today b/c I have a mission...
.plus I don't have any money:o)
This mission WILL be accomplished TODAY.
I have 4 dresses that need to be made for some bridesmaids. The wedding has a vintage feel to it, and from the sound of it, it's going to rock!
Here are the dresses that I am making:
The blue one on the far right...it's reeeeeally cute:o)
And this pattern:
These dresses are fairly simple in construction, and I won't have to finish them completely since I will need to do a fitting, but THEY GOTTA GET DONE!!
I can't wait to see them completed:o)
I hope you all have a fantastic weekend...I really want to start fixing up all of my yard sale finds from last weekend, but these dresses have to take priority.
Wish me luck;o)
b.t.w....this is day 4 of not having Facebook....I feel sort of cut off from the world...but I am trying to be free;o) If I weren't so stinkin' nosy, it might not be as bad..lol!!
Holla!
b.t.w....this is day 4 of not having Facebook....I feel sort of cut off from the world...but I am trying to be free;o) If I weren't so stinkin' nosy, it might not be as bad..lol!!
Holla!
Friday, April 15, 2011
International Protection for Broadcasts Gaining New Momentum
The proposed international treaty on the protection of broadcasters is inching forward after nearly 10 years of consideration and member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization and other stakeholders are moving toward consensus on the central elements of what it is to do and what is the object of the protection.
Much of the rhetoric of stakeholders—particularly pay TV channels and sports rights organisations—has led many to believe it is about protecting their business models and revenue. They have done the proposed treaty a disservice.
It is about protecting the value creating activities of broadcasters in content selection, packaging and distribution—something that is not protected by copyrights, but can be protected with a neighboring right. What the treaty is intent on doing is protecting the broadcast—in a signal and derivative of the signal—which embodies the broadcasters value creation activities and is the object of the proposed protection.
The result may assist revenue generation and strengthen the business model of rights holders, licensers, and broadcasters, but it does not directly protect those.
What it will do is provide a streamlined mechanism for broadcasters to enforce their rights internationally when unauthorised reception, decryption, and retransmission and rebroadcast of their signals are done by other broadcasters and cablecasters. Such practices regularly occur in some countries and sometimes involve the second broadcaster substituting their own advertising and charging fees to obtain the broadcast.
The treaty essentially gives broadcasters the right to license other uses of their broadcasts and halt uses they have not licensed, but does not give them rights to the content in the broadcasts that they do not own.
The proposed treaty includes some protection of public interests, by permitting national limitations and exceptions for clearly public purposes such as education, service to visually or hearing impaired persons, etc.
Some scepticism about the proposals exists in developing nations, because most of the benefits will occur to broadcasters in high income and upper middle income nations and only limited benefits will occur in other states.
The thorns on the rose bush, however, involve the fact that many of the nations where egregious reuses of broadcasts have occurred have never well enforced copyright, so one must be highly optimistic to believe that passage of the treaty will solve the problem.
Much of the rhetoric of stakeholders—particularly pay TV channels and sports rights organisations—has led many to believe it is about protecting their business models and revenue. They have done the proposed treaty a disservice.
It is about protecting the value creating activities of broadcasters in content selection, packaging and distribution—something that is not protected by copyrights, but can be protected with a neighboring right. What the treaty is intent on doing is protecting the broadcast—in a signal and derivative of the signal—which embodies the broadcasters value creation activities and is the object of the proposed protection.
The result may assist revenue generation and strengthen the business model of rights holders, licensers, and broadcasters, but it does not directly protect those.
What it will do is provide a streamlined mechanism for broadcasters to enforce their rights internationally when unauthorised reception, decryption, and retransmission and rebroadcast of their signals are done by other broadcasters and cablecasters. Such practices regularly occur in some countries and sometimes involve the second broadcaster substituting their own advertising and charging fees to obtain the broadcast.
The treaty essentially gives broadcasters the right to license other uses of their broadcasts and halt uses they have not licensed, but does not give them rights to the content in the broadcasts that they do not own.
The proposed treaty includes some protection of public interests, by permitting national limitations and exceptions for clearly public purposes such as education, service to visually or hearing impaired persons, etc.
Some scepticism about the proposals exists in developing nations, because most of the benefits will occur to broadcasters in high income and upper middle income nations and only limited benefits will occur in other states.
The thorns on the rose bush, however, involve the fact that many of the nations where egregious reuses of broadcasts have occurred have never well enforced copyright, so one must be highly optimistic to believe that passage of the treaty will solve the problem.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Are family-friendly workplace practices worth their money? New evidence
Do family-friendly work practices – offering flexibility in case of unexpected childcare emergencies, job sharing schemes, subsidy for childcare, entitlement to work from home, switch to part-time work, etc. – enhance the performance of the firm that adopts them?
Quite a bit of research suggests they do: Several studies have provided evidence that firms offering such practices have higher levels of employee retention, organizational citizenship behavior, and work attitudes. However, I also have to admit that I am a bit skeptical of such “evidence from research”… for several reasons:
First, it is often clear that the researchers conducting these studies wanted to find such a positive relationship, and I cannot suppress a suspicion that there might be just as many studies conducted that fail to turn up the same heart-warming evidence but, as a result of this failure, therefore are not published, and hence we never hear about them.
Second – and at least as important – even if we’d accept this evidence as a given, it does not take into account the financial costs of implementing the family-friendly humbug. Sure, higher levels of employee retention, citizenship behavior and so on, are nice things to have, and I am sure they help an organization become better, but they don’t come for free; family-friendly workplace practices are sometimes plain expensive, and it is not clear from the studies conducted whether the (alleged) benefits outweigh these often substantial financial costs. Past research measured the benefits, but did not take into account the costs involved.
New evidence
Fortunately, recently, professors Nick Bloom, Toby Kretschmer, and John van Reenen (from Stanford, the University of Munich, and the London School of Economics) conducted an extensive study examining the effect of family-friendly practices on hard variables such as firm sales per employee and return on capital employed, using a large database of firms from the US, the UK, Germany, and France. What they found was intriguing and surprising, slightly disappointing, but also reassuring – and, yes, all at the same time.
In their initial, relatively simple statistical analysis, they too found a positive relation between how many family-friendly practices a firm employed and its financial performance – that is, companies with a lot of family-friendly practices generally were more profitable than those without them. But then Nick, Toby, and John decided to correct these statistical models for the quality of the firm’s management. They used an extensive survey and interview procedure (using and elaborate so-called double-blind procedure) to determine the quality of each firm’s management. And then they found that those firms that implemented family-friendly practices were already good to start with. It is not that the practices made them any better; well-managed firms adopted them more often than their more poorly managed counterparts.
Happiness for free
Hence, Nick, Toby, and John’s models showed that well-performing firms implemented family-friendly practices, but subsequently those family-friendly practices did not increase their financial performance even further. Don’t be mistaken; this does not mean that the family-friendly practices did not improve these organizations beyond their original starting point; they probably did. It is just that these benefits did not outweigh the costs incurred; at the end of the day, financially it didn’t make any difference whatsoever whether you adopted them or not. To conclude, firms that had implemented a bunch of family-friendly practices fared well as a result of the increased employee retention, citizenship behavior, and improved work attitudes, but the amount of money they had to spent on the practices exactly equaled the financial benefits that resulted from them.
And I would say that that is not so bad. Basically, family-friendly practices come “for free”; sure, they are expensive, but the benefits you experience from them exactly cover those (substantial) costs. Or, as Nick and his colleagues put it: “this rebuts the claim that providing family-friendly workplace practices detracts from profits. Our results show that although providing family friendly workplace practices may not increase profits, they at least pay for themselves”.
And in a way I like that even better than when firms had been implementing them just because they increased financial performance. Now, it shows that firms do not adopt them out of selfish reasons, but because good managers understand that it does not cost them any money (although it doesn’t make them any either). Because when you can basically increase the happiness of your employees without it costing you a single dime, why not do it? Good managers let the world be a nicer place, not because they benefit from it themselves, but just because they can.
Quite a bit of research suggests they do: Several studies have provided evidence that firms offering such practices have higher levels of employee retention, organizational citizenship behavior, and work attitudes. However, I also have to admit that I am a bit skeptical of such “evidence from research”… for several reasons:
First, it is often clear that the researchers conducting these studies wanted to find such a positive relationship, and I cannot suppress a suspicion that there might be just as many studies conducted that fail to turn up the same heart-warming evidence but, as a result of this failure, therefore are not published, and hence we never hear about them.
Second – and at least as important – even if we’d accept this evidence as a given, it does not take into account the financial costs of implementing the family-friendly humbug. Sure, higher levels of employee retention, citizenship behavior and so on, are nice things to have, and I am sure they help an organization become better, but they don’t come for free; family-friendly workplace practices are sometimes plain expensive, and it is not clear from the studies conducted whether the (alleged) benefits outweigh these often substantial financial costs. Past research measured the benefits, but did not take into account the costs involved.
New evidence
Fortunately, recently, professors Nick Bloom, Toby Kretschmer, and John van Reenen (from Stanford, the University of Munich, and the London School of Economics) conducted an extensive study examining the effect of family-friendly practices on hard variables such as firm sales per employee and return on capital employed, using a large database of firms from the US, the UK, Germany, and France. What they found was intriguing and surprising, slightly disappointing, but also reassuring – and, yes, all at the same time.
In their initial, relatively simple statistical analysis, they too found a positive relation between how many family-friendly practices a firm employed and its financial performance – that is, companies with a lot of family-friendly practices generally were more profitable than those without them. But then Nick, Toby, and John decided to correct these statistical models for the quality of the firm’s management. They used an extensive survey and interview procedure (using and elaborate so-called double-blind procedure) to determine the quality of each firm’s management. And then they found that those firms that implemented family-friendly practices were already good to start with. It is not that the practices made them any better; well-managed firms adopted them more often than their more poorly managed counterparts.
Happiness for free
Hence, Nick, Toby, and John’s models showed that well-performing firms implemented family-friendly practices, but subsequently those family-friendly practices did not increase their financial performance even further. Don’t be mistaken; this does not mean that the family-friendly practices did not improve these organizations beyond their original starting point; they probably did. It is just that these benefits did not outweigh the costs incurred; at the end of the day, financially it didn’t make any difference whatsoever whether you adopted them or not. To conclude, firms that had implemented a bunch of family-friendly practices fared well as a result of the increased employee retention, citizenship behavior, and improved work attitudes, but the amount of money they had to spent on the practices exactly equaled the financial benefits that resulted from them.
And I would say that that is not so bad. Basically, family-friendly practices come “for free”; sure, they are expensive, but the benefits you experience from them exactly cover those (substantial) costs. Or, as Nick and his colleagues put it: “this rebuts the claim that providing family-friendly workplace practices detracts from profits. Our results show that although providing family friendly workplace practices may not increase profits, they at least pay for themselves”.
And in a way I like that even better than when firms had been implementing them just because they increased financial performance. Now, it shows that firms do not adopt them out of selfish reasons, but because good managers understand that it does not cost them any money (although it doesn’t make them any either). Because when you can basically increase the happiness of your employees without it costing you a single dime, why not do it? Good managers let the world be a nicer place, not because they benefit from it themselves, but just because they can.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Yard Sale Love
Last weekend we had several neighborhood yard sales just down the street from us, so you can imagine how pumped I was. I came back with so many goodies! I had to call it quits b/c I ran out of room in my van:o)
Here are some of the big items that I brought home:
A Sofa Table..
I was using the drawers to hold down some plastic in plcae while spray painting another project
A small bookshelf...it needs some major love:o)
An oak rocker. This chair has perfectly worn arms on it. I was so happy to find it and at such a good price. This guy will be getting a new seat. I have already ripped out the stuffing...which was original...blech!
A sweet little pillow form. I have this for sale in my Etsy shop. If you are interested in it, just click on the link in the upper right hand corner on this page.
And a small strainer...also for sale in my Etsy shop.
These are just a few of the things that I rounded up for the day. I found so many more treasures. The kids were super pumped about the air hockey table that I got for them for $10. They have had so much fun with it.
I am definitely going to have a busy weekend finishing up all of my projects that I purchased. I have a few other pieces to share, but I am saving that for a special post:o)
Oh, and for all of you out there who were friends with me on Facebook....I deactivated my account. Yep, I took the plunge and I am not sure how liberated I feel:o) I am starting to purge things from my life that are taking attention away from my family. Getting rid of Facebook seemed like a good place to start. So if any of you guys need to get in touch with me, you will either have to email me or contact me through this blog.
Have a fantastic day!
Monday, April 11, 2011
Skip To My Loop Skirt
We had a birthday party to attend this weekend and it was so much fun! Cinderella made an appearance at the party, and S.R. was IN LOVE! She was Chatty Cathy once Cinderella walked thru the door. I really wish I had brought my camera:o/
Anyway, the Birthday girl needed a gift, and being the procrastinator that I am, I didn't have a gift for her. Saturday night I was racking my brain as to what I could make that would be super fast, but still be super cute...this is what I came up with:
This is 100% designed by me...if there is another skirt out there just like it, I promise I haven't seen it.
I came up with this particular design because I always have the hardest time judging how long to cut the elastic. Sometimes it's too small, sometimes it's too big, and every now and again it's just right...sounds like something out of the Three Little Bears, right?
The waist has button holes and a belt laced thru it. Problem solved:o) You can tighten or loosen to your heart's content.
S.R. was a little upset that she couldn't keep the skirt on for the party, but I had to remind her that we were giving it to her friend as a birthday gift. 3 year olds...I tell ya;o)
I will be making a pattern and tute soon, and it will be available in my Etsy shop.
***
In other news...I had a fantastic yard sale weekend. I will share with you guys my great finds in the next few days.
Participating in:
Participating in:
The Business April 13th 2011, "Beard or Glasses or Both" Edition
This week the Business welcomes SF's own Kevin O'Shea, LA's own Stefan Stignei and welcomes back founding Businessman Alex Koll!
Alex has been touring this great country of ours, performing his magical stand-up and exploring every diner, drive-in, and Zagat-rated rest stop along the way. He's back this Wednesday, with laser-like focus, a chip on his shoulder, and a dynamite recipe for chili con carne that will knock your socks off.
Kevin O'Shea is a friend to the Business and a force in the San Francisco comedy scene. He's performed at Sketchfest and produced such shows as Funny Jerks, Blah! Blah! Blah!, and the short-lived cult sketch favorite, Frown Land. Please enjoy his dark, rough-and-tumble, absurdist comedy - but keep your hands where Kevin can see them, pilgrim.
Stefan Stignei is a comedian from Los Angeles who performs at the Comedy Store, the Hollywood Improv, and many other spots. He's an expert on video games and a savant at one-liners. And if you have anything disparaging to say about Oregon State University, he will leg wrestle you on the spot.
We've also got Bucky, Chris, and Sean on hand to help out. As always, the Dark Room is BYO-Burrito, and Cancun Taqueria remains across the street. Five bucks, 8 PM.
Alex has been touring this great country of ours, performing his magical stand-up and exploring every diner, drive-in, and Zagat-rated rest stop along the way. He's back this Wednesday, with laser-like focus, a chip on his shoulder, and a dynamite recipe for chili con carne that will knock your socks off.
Kevin O'Shea is a friend to the Business and a force in the San Francisco comedy scene. He's performed at Sketchfest and produced such shows as Funny Jerks, Blah! Blah! Blah!, and the short-lived cult sketch favorite, Frown Land. Please enjoy his dark, rough-and-tumble, absurdist comedy - but keep your hands where Kevin can see them, pilgrim.
Stefan Stignei is a comedian from Los Angeles who performs at the Comedy Store, the Hollywood Improv, and many other spots. He's an expert on video games and a savant at one-liners. And if you have anything disparaging to say about Oregon State University, he will leg wrestle you on the spot.We've also got Bucky, Chris, and Sean on hand to help out. As always, the Dark Room is BYO-Burrito, and Cancun Taqueria remains across the street. Five bucks, 8 PM.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Business takes LA on April 29th, 2011!
In conjunction with our upcoming two year anniversary, the Business is proud to announce we are invading our neighbor to the south: Los Angeles. That's right, we've taken it upon ourselves to initiate the bloody civil war we all want between the North and the South of California. The Business, San Francisco’s long running weekly alt-comedy showcase, heads south to Hollywood for a night. Four comedians (Sean Keane, Chris Garcia, Bucky Sinister, Alex Koll) each curate a portion of your evening, bringing you a variety of comedy for only five bucks. That mixture regularly includes special guests ranging from standup comics to authors to sketch performers to musicians and dancers. All forms and styles are exploited. It is the comedy equivalent to an "everything bagel." An exploited "everything bagel"...that explodes. Special guests and surprises to be announced as the date gets closer, so keep an ear on the internet tracks. The Business Friday, April 29th 2011 10:30pm $5 The Improv Lab 8162 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90046 SPACE IS LIMITED, so get your tickets ahead of time here: |
Thursday, April 7, 2011
A Dress, Some Fun, and a New Adventure
Yesterday I made this dress for S.R. I have been in sewing mode here lately and it's been so much fun!
She looked so sweet in it last night at church and had so many compliments.
I got to do something even funner than sewing yesterday as well (yeah, I know funner isn't really a word, but that's how much fun it was;o). I got to rearrange my friend's living room. She bought an ottoman, and didn't know where to put it. One thing led to another, and I ended up shopping her house and completely redoing her living room. It turned out so awesome! She was really excited about it as well. So if any of you out there need someone to come rearrange your house...I'm ya girl!;o)
In other news...
I finally bit the bullet and opened up an Etsy Shop...yep, I caved:o) I have fought the idea for a while now, but with the government furlough approaching, we might need the extra income...just in case. I only have a few items listed, but hoping by the weekend to get a few more up. Look over at the right side of the page and you will see some of the items I have for sale. Just click on the pics:o)
I hope you all have a fantastic weekend. I have lots of plans for the next few days.
See ya'll back here on Monday!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The Business April 6th 2011, "Haynes Now, You're an All-Star!" Edition
Andy Haynes returns to The Business once again to get his game on and go play. We love us some Haynes here at The Biz. In fact at this rate of return, Andy may knock Hari Kondabolu out of his long held title as "Fifth Businessman" if he keeps it up. (Don't get upset Thayer, technically you are the Fourth Businessman right now. We'll re-do all the calculations when Alex gets back). But this is definitely not a bad thing; it just highlights the fact that we love his style and jokes so much, we gotta keep him coming back. All that glitters is goooooold!
And as is true every week, we have the regular Business men: Bucky, Sean and continuing to fill in for Alex, irregular Businessman Chris Thayer. It is also still true the show is only five dollars, starts at 8pm, and is burrito friendly.
Batman Cape
Last Saturday was my first time out this year for yard sales. I was pumped and ready to go...but apparently those needing to rid themselves of unwanted junk were not of the same mindset. I only came across 3 yard sales near us:o( I found a few things, but nothing that you would call a "treasure." Anyway, the last yard sale I went to had a lot of dress up clothes, mainly for girls, but they did have a Batman mask. I snatched that up b/c I new that E would have a fit over it.
I was right:o)
So I thought I would make him a Batman cape to match. I got busy making it yesterday, and I was so excited to show it to him.
He was really excited to see it...and then he put it on...
He said, "Where are the holes so that I can fly?" with utter disappointment.
I apparently told him that I was going to make little pockets for him to put his hands in so that he could spread the cape out, but the way I made the cape, it wasn't possible.
He then told me that he didn't want it....my feelings were hurt:o( That is the very first time that I have made anything for my children that "FAILED".
So who's wearing the cape, you ask? Why, S.R. of course:o) She even came in this morning with it on. She loves it, and doesn't care that she can't "fly" in it! It is the perfect size for a 3 year old:o)
I guess I will be making a larger one with pockets/holes for flying. I will include a tutorial with that one as well.
I hope that you all have a wonderful Wednesday!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Spring-y Dress for S.R.
Yesterday we had some nasty storms. I knew they were coming and new there was a chance of no electricity, so instead of preparing our supper early, I decided to make a dress...b/c you know a sewing machine needs electricity;o)
I had the fabric on hand, and I had an inspiration dress. To see said dress, go HERE.
The creator of the inspiration dress has her own blog, Girl.Inspired. She has so many cute ideas, and is one talented lady. I have been following her for a couple of months now, and she has given me so many ideas. Definitely take the time to check out her blog.
Here is a close up of the top of the dress.
When I was making the top, I thought I was being crafty in the way I was constructing the dress. However, I forgot to take into consideration that there needed to be a place for the straps to go...on the back that is:o) So I came up with a quick solution. I put button holes in the back as well, and just ran the strap thru it. Turned out cute, don't you think?
S.R. is always excited about a new dress, and I am excited for her to have something nice and Spring-y;o)
Editing, the Richness of Content, and the Current Limits of Web and Social Media
Editors matter.
The March 28-April 4, 2011, edition of the struggling news magazine Newsweek—which I admittedly have not read in years— provides some of the finest articles I have read in many months, illustrates the limits of online and social media, and shows why editors matter.
There is great benefit from both edited and unedited media and I don’t believe they have to be seen in dichotomous choices for the future of media. But I believe those who argue they don’t need to edited media doom themselves to narrowness and ignorance.
If I relied only on the links I receive daily from colleagues on Facebook, my news alerts for topics of interest, or digital listings of stories, I would miss the most important contribution of edited media—the service editors provide by reviewing and thinking about the world and putting journalists to work to provide a coordinated understanding of the available information. This week’s Newsweek epitomises that reality.
Although I often have my attention drawn to information and stories of interest from my social media, the pattern of stories and information sent to me would not have led me to Bill Emmott’s Newsweek story on the impact of disasters on politics, economics, and national psychology or Paul Theroux’s explanation of how Japan’s history has shaped its culture and how the generous global response to the earthquake and tsunami is forcing it to confront the fact that it is not alone and isolated in the face of geographical and physical constraints.
Had I relied on to the multiple news websites I peruse weekly, the ways they are presented and the ways that I search for news on them would not have led me to Newsweek’s fascinating story of the nuclear disaster at an Idaho test station in 1961 that may have been the result of a murder-suicide, its account of why a London murder has led to a boycott of Coca-Cola, or its account of why political ignorance in America is higher than that in European countries.
My point here is not that we should all be rushing out to subscribe to Newsweek (My apologies to Sydney Harmon, Barry Diller and Tina Brown), but that the functions of editors matter. Having someone look at the world and see ways that it fits together, have editors coordinate and incentive talented writers, and having editors create a collection of stories and information continues to produce value.
Those who believe that news, information, and understanding of the world can come through a disaggregated and uncoordinated flow of information and stories, much of which is not prepared by professional writers on a regular basis, miss the entire reason for the success of edited media over the past 300 years.
I do not wish to be construed as saying that online and social media do not make enormous contributions to our communications ability, but until they mature to the point they can support regular oversight and thought about the world and compensate professionals for whom investigating and reporting developments is their primary employment, digital media will not be able to replace the contributions of well edited print media.
After a decade and a half of digital media it is clear that we are able to move news and information to those platforms, but we are nowhere near the point we can shut off the presses without a great deal of loss of oversight and understanding about the world around our lives.
The March 28-April 4, 2011, edition of the struggling news magazine Newsweek—which I admittedly have not read in years— provides some of the finest articles I have read in many months, illustrates the limits of online and social media, and shows why editors matter.
There is great benefit from both edited and unedited media and I don’t believe they have to be seen in dichotomous choices for the future of media. But I believe those who argue they don’t need to edited media doom themselves to narrowness and ignorance.
If I relied only on the links I receive daily from colleagues on Facebook, my news alerts for topics of interest, or digital listings of stories, I would miss the most important contribution of edited media—the service editors provide by reviewing and thinking about the world and putting journalists to work to provide a coordinated understanding of the available information. This week’s Newsweek epitomises that reality.
Although I often have my attention drawn to information and stories of interest from my social media, the pattern of stories and information sent to me would not have led me to Bill Emmott’s Newsweek story on the impact of disasters on politics, economics, and national psychology or Paul Theroux’s explanation of how Japan’s history has shaped its culture and how the generous global response to the earthquake and tsunami is forcing it to confront the fact that it is not alone and isolated in the face of geographical and physical constraints.
Had I relied on to the multiple news websites I peruse weekly, the ways they are presented and the ways that I search for news on them would not have led me to Newsweek’s fascinating story of the nuclear disaster at an Idaho test station in 1961 that may have been the result of a murder-suicide, its account of why a London murder has led to a boycott of Coca-Cola, or its account of why political ignorance in America is higher than that in European countries.
My point here is not that we should all be rushing out to subscribe to Newsweek (My apologies to Sydney Harmon, Barry Diller and Tina Brown), but that the functions of editors matter. Having someone look at the world and see ways that it fits together, have editors coordinate and incentive talented writers, and having editors create a collection of stories and information continues to produce value.
Those who believe that news, information, and understanding of the world can come through a disaggregated and uncoordinated flow of information and stories, much of which is not prepared by professional writers on a regular basis, miss the entire reason for the success of edited media over the past 300 years.
I do not wish to be construed as saying that online and social media do not make enormous contributions to our communications ability, but until they mature to the point they can support regular oversight and thought about the world and compensate professionals for whom investigating and reporting developments is their primary employment, digital media will not be able to replace the contributions of well edited print media.
After a decade and a half of digital media it is clear that we are able to move news and information to those platforms, but we are nowhere near the point we can shut off the presses without a great deal of loss of oversight and understanding about the world around our lives.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Easter Decor
I cannot believe that Easter is at the end of April this year. We actually get to enjoy having out all the Easter decorations for a tad longer than usual.
I love spring decorating. It brings life back into your home after the hum drum of winter.
I hope to be sharing lots of spring decorating with you this month. Here is a little something I made a few weeks ago....
I made this flower arrangement for my mother as a "get well" gift for her surgery. I wanted to give her something that she could enjoy for years to come.
I fell in love with this little lamb and bunnies from Pier 1. I knew I had to use them somehow:o) The flowers were purchased from Hobby Lobby.
This was such a fun arrangement to make. My mother loves most anything with spriggy things coming off of them, so it was perfect for her.
She was very happy with it...or maybe it was the drugs she was on;o)
Participating in:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)