I am a Native American.
Oh, no, my ancestors didn't live here before Columbus. As far as I can tell, most of my great-great-...-great grandparents came from farms and towns in Ireland, Scotland, Germany, the Netherlands, even Russia. But I was born here. My parents were born here.
All four of my grandparents were born in this country. My father and his parents were all born in the city of Detroit, Michigan. Dad was the fifth generation to be born and live in the Detroit area. My mother and her parents were from the Kentucky-Ohio region, living at times on one side or the other of the Ohio River. Her father, my grandfather Charlie, lived in his later years, until his death, in the house in which he had been born. That is native, meaning, of course, "born here".
I am becoming disturbed by the fact that the descendants of pre-Columbian North Americans in the United States have come to be known as Native Americans. In Canada, they are, I believe, known as "First People". This is indisputable. The "First People" immigrated here probably from Asia unknown centuries ago. The European explorers who discovered the two American continents found them populated already, although probably somewhat more sparcely than Europe was populated at that time.
My ancestors did not come over with the Spanish and Portugese who claimed vast tracks of land for their distant Kings, despite the fact that these lands already were inhabited by earlier immigrant groups. A few of my ancestors may have fought with the then-called Indians, especially as I am supposed to be related to both Samuel Houston and a relative or friend of Daniel Boone. Those ancestors are long dead, as are the victims of those wars.
We cannot take back the wars. We cannot take back the territories gained and lost. We cannot restore life to those who lost it in the fighting.
We cannot unbuild the houses, dams, roads, hospitals, and churches which have been build. Or, I suppose we could but the consequences would be unacceptable. We also cannot uninvent the electric light, automatic washing machine, or safety pin. We can choose to live without these conveniences, but few do. We can only go on from where we are now.
We know we made mistakes in the past. We can study the past and not repeat these mistakes. We know we are still making mistakes with our land, our air, our water. Scientists have been studying these issues, and the evidence is not at all clear. We have cleaned up some of our great waterways. We can do better with the land, with the air. We MUST do better, if we are to pass along a clean and safe world to our descendants.
I wasn't going here with this topic. I meant to focus on who I am as a Native American. But I cannot help admiring the aboriginal Australians, who care for their land and protect their landmarks and beg visitors to be equally respectful. I appreciate the First People in the United States who also wish to protect the land and leave a lasting legacy for their decsendents, and ours. As a Native American, I too wish to take care of the environment, preserve our freedoms and traditions, and pass along a legacy of caring to my descendants. Our land is rich with resources, recourceful people, beauty, adventure, industry. We need to start now, here, with who we are and what we have, and create a land and legacy worth inheriting.
I think I am entitled to call myself a "Native American". I am not German. I am not Irish, or Russian, or Dutch, or Scottish. I am American and
I WAS BORN HERE.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Processing fiber
Romney fleece part 1
I purchased 2.73 pounds of Romney fleece at the Black Sheep Festival in Eugene Or, July 19, 2009.
Step one: Sorting
I sorted the fleece into basically three types (but I didn't see much difference between the second and third types). The locks were a muddy yellow in color with very dark tips.
First: The locks that were less than about 2.5 inches long. These I placed tip end up in two plastic oval bins that are each 9.8 inches long and 5.8 inches wide at the widest, and 2.5 inches tall. I was able to use the height of the bin to judge which locks belonged in the bins, and which were longer that that.
These locks eventually filled both pans to the point where I was firmly packing the wool sideways to allow room for the next set of locks. They were both packed fairly tightly, and I believe each one may have held about 4 ounces, although I did not weigh the wool at this point. Probably this was about one third of the entire fleece that I bought.
Second: The middle length locks, from 2.5 inches up to about 3.5 or 4 inches. These I placed in rows on a plastic bag and on a mesh bag. I ended up with several rows of these locks, which I put tip to tip across the floor of my kitchen.
Third: The longest locks. There were not very many of these. I ended up combining these with the second type. Because my book says that Romney is longer than this, and because of the small amount of fleece, I'm guessing that I received either a poor fleece or just the leftovers (perhaps legs and neck cuts?? Are there such things?) from a bigger fleece. Most of the locks were about three inches. I discarded the short bits I found, and some really dirty bits, but there wasn't much of that, perhaps two or three ounces, certainly no more than four ounces.
Step two: Washing
I started out by washing the shortest fibers. I covered the bins with tulle for one and a mesh bag for the other pulled as tightly as I could, and washed the pans in the hottest water from our tap. The bins have a solid bottom, but the sides are open so the water would circulate easily through the fiber.
I used some Dawn dish detergent. After an hour, the water was awful, and the fleece were completely white, except for the tips, which remained brown and matted together. I then washed the pans again, using more Dawn this time, and again, the water was gross, the fleece was white, except the tips, which remained brown. The I rinsed and rinsed. I left the first and maybe the second rinse water to soak, but then just rinsed over and over until the water was fairly clean.
Incidentally, once wet, the fiber condensed so that they filled only about two thirds of the pan, whereas I had had to really press them to the side to fit the final few locks in when they were dry. This did make it easier to rinse, and to check to make sure that the fibers were clean inside and not just on the edges of the fiber mass. I handled them very gently in order not to felt the fiber, but was able to separate the fibers in the middle of the pan and ascertain that these fibers were as shiny white as the edge fibers. I rinsed one of the pans in vinegar water, prior to step three.
Step three: Dying
The fiber was already wet, and I had a boatload of Koolaid at hand. So I placed the bin with the wet fiber in another container which was deeper than the bin, and dumped two packets of grape koolaid (disolved in water of course) on one end of one of the plastic bins, and two packets of yellow Koolaid in water at the other. The yellow end didn't look very yellow, so I added some yellow food coloring, which appeared red or orange from the bottle. Then I made sure that the water completely covered the fiber and microwaved it, two minutes on and two minutes rest for 12 minutes total cooking time (maybe less)(probably less). The water around the fiber was clear or slightly green (green, I didn't use green, just purple and yellow). I then let the whole thing rest and cool off slowly overnight.
Next morning, I rinsed the dyed fiber (all of the water had been absorbed and the rinse water was clear). I was amazed to find out that the dye had not penetrated to the bottom of the bin. Only the tops of the fiber had been dyed. I had been careful not to mix the dyes, so at one end the fiber was still clearly purple (on the tip ends) and the other end yellow on the tips ends. But the fiber in the bottoms of the bins did not get any dye and stayed white. Also, I was amazed to see that the purple Koolaid had evidently separated, as there were parts of the wool that were pale blue, parts green (where the blue had migrated to meet the yellow that had migrated), and some smallish parts even red. It is the most amazing stuff, as almost every fiber is multicolored. I can't wait to spin it up and find out what it will be like spun.
Step four: Drying
This is perhaps the hardest part, since it was necessary to separate the locks somewhat in order to let it dry. And it is almost impossible not to play with it at this stage. However, I tried really hard to just separate the locks, gently squeeze out as much water as possible, then towel dry the spread out locks with our super absorbent towel. The white bin of course, was drying while the other was dying, so I was able to see what awesome looking locks I had here. It seemed to dry fairly fast (one day). The dyed locks were squeezed and toweled the next morning, and also appeared dry in about one day. I have since stored them in the mesh bags (dried separately while the fiber dried on the toweling), in case they were not completely dry when I found it necessary to put them away (visiting grandchild who cannot leave the fiber alone especially when grandma is playing with fiber instead of said grandchild.)
I have started to spin with the colored parts. Stay tuned. I may even tell you about it.
I purchased 2.73 pounds of Romney fleece at the Black Sheep Festival in Eugene Or, July 19, 2009.
Step one: Sorting
I sorted the fleece into basically three types (but I didn't see much difference between the second and third types). The locks were a muddy yellow in color with very dark tips.
First: The locks that were less than about 2.5 inches long. These I placed tip end up in two plastic oval bins that are each 9.8 inches long and 5.8 inches wide at the widest, and 2.5 inches tall. I was able to use the height of the bin to judge which locks belonged in the bins, and which were longer that that.
These locks eventually filled both pans to the point where I was firmly packing the wool sideways to allow room for the next set of locks. They were both packed fairly tightly, and I believe each one may have held about 4 ounces, although I did not weigh the wool at this point. Probably this was about one third of the entire fleece that I bought.
Second: The middle length locks, from 2.5 inches up to about 3.5 or 4 inches. These I placed in rows on a plastic bag and on a mesh bag. I ended up with several rows of these locks, which I put tip to tip across the floor of my kitchen.
Third: The longest locks. There were not very many of these. I ended up combining these with the second type. Because my book says that Romney is longer than this, and because of the small amount of fleece, I'm guessing that I received either a poor fleece or just the leftovers (perhaps legs and neck cuts?? Are there such things?) from a bigger fleece. Most of the locks were about three inches. I discarded the short bits I found, and some really dirty bits, but there wasn't much of that, perhaps two or three ounces, certainly no more than four ounces.
Step two: Washing
I started out by washing the shortest fibers. I covered the bins with tulle for one and a mesh bag for the other pulled as tightly as I could, and washed the pans in the hottest water from our tap. The bins have a solid bottom, but the sides are open so the water would circulate easily through the fiber.
I used some Dawn dish detergent. After an hour, the water was awful, and the fleece were completely white, except for the tips, which remained brown and matted together. I then washed the pans again, using more Dawn this time, and again, the water was gross, the fleece was white, except the tips, which remained brown. The I rinsed and rinsed. I left the first and maybe the second rinse water to soak, but then just rinsed over and over until the water was fairly clean.
Incidentally, once wet, the fiber condensed so that they filled only about two thirds of the pan, whereas I had had to really press them to the side to fit the final few locks in when they were dry. This did make it easier to rinse, and to check to make sure that the fibers were clean inside and not just on the edges of the fiber mass. I handled them very gently in order not to felt the fiber, but was able to separate the fibers in the middle of the pan and ascertain that these fibers were as shiny white as the edge fibers. I rinsed one of the pans in vinegar water, prior to step three.
Step three: Dying
The fiber was already wet, and I had a boatload of Koolaid at hand. So I placed the bin with the wet fiber in another container which was deeper than the bin, and dumped two packets of grape koolaid (disolved in water of course) on one end of one of the plastic bins, and two packets of yellow Koolaid in water at the other. The yellow end didn't look very yellow, so I added some yellow food coloring, which appeared red or orange from the bottle. Then I made sure that the water completely covered the fiber and microwaved it, two minutes on and two minutes rest for 12 minutes total cooking time (maybe less)(probably less). The water around the fiber was clear or slightly green (green, I didn't use green, just purple and yellow). I then let the whole thing rest and cool off slowly overnight.
Next morning, I rinsed the dyed fiber (all of the water had been absorbed and the rinse water was clear). I was amazed to find out that the dye had not penetrated to the bottom of the bin. Only the tops of the fiber had been dyed. I had been careful not to mix the dyes, so at one end the fiber was still clearly purple (on the tip ends) and the other end yellow on the tips ends. But the fiber in the bottoms of the bins did not get any dye and stayed white. Also, I was amazed to see that the purple Koolaid had evidently separated, as there were parts of the wool that were pale blue, parts green (where the blue had migrated to meet the yellow that had migrated), and some smallish parts even red. It is the most amazing stuff, as almost every fiber is multicolored. I can't wait to spin it up and find out what it will be like spun.
Step four: Drying
This is perhaps the hardest part, since it was necessary to separate the locks somewhat in order to let it dry. And it is almost impossible not to play with it at this stage. However, I tried really hard to just separate the locks, gently squeeze out as much water as possible, then towel dry the spread out locks with our super absorbent towel. The white bin of course, was drying while the other was dying, so I was able to see what awesome looking locks I had here. It seemed to dry fairly fast (one day). The dyed locks were squeezed and toweled the next morning, and also appeared dry in about one day. I have since stored them in the mesh bags (dried separately while the fiber dried on the toweling), in case they were not completely dry when I found it necessary to put them away (visiting grandchild who cannot leave the fiber alone especially when grandma is playing with fiber instead of said grandchild.)
I have started to spin with the colored parts. Stay tuned. I may even tell you about it.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Knitting and Fiber Terminology
Heather Ordover on "CraftLit" was ranting - okay talking - about using expressions such as "begging the question" correctly. Well language does change, and sometimes in ways we don't always like. HOWEVER....
I really have difficulty with companies, vendors, and others in the INDUSTRY using technical terms incorrectly. I'm speaking of fiber here.
For instance, in some places, the word "wool" can be used as a synonym for "yarn" as in 'This "wool" 100% acrylic', or 'Does this "wool" contain some nylon?'. Wool is a fiber which comes from a sheep. Yarn is a product which is produced by "spinning" fiber of various sorts into long strings which can them be used for knitting/crocheting, crafts, and other things. When yarn shops and manufacturers blur this distinction, I think something is irretrivable lost.
Another example, the use of "ply" to indicate the thickness of yarn. Ten lashes with a wet two or three ply YARN for Australia and other places in the world where this is common. Ply should be IMHO reserved for the number of individually spun "singles" which are combined to form the finished product. There are other ways to indicate the thickness of a yarn, but I do not know of any other term for the number of individually spun "singles" combined to make the finished product.
Worsted as a weight of yarn also drives me crazy, especially now that I know that it is a specific fiber preparation. I was always bothered by the use of this term, and the use of DK (for doubleknit) as a yarn size.
We have "lace-weight", fingering, sport, bulky and chunky, which have specific meanings. We should exchange "sweater" or "jumper"* for worsted as a description of weight, and leave the term "worsted" to refer SOLELY to its use as a fiber preparation, not weight. DK doesn't bother me quite so much, as you most often hear the term DK, and don't think about what it means, but again, any weight, or thickness, of yarn and be used to "double-knit" so why use the term as a thickness of yarn as well as a specific type of knitting.
*I like the English/Australian/wherever term "jumper" better than "sweater", however, sweater is so common that I doubt we can really change it at this late date.
I am just getting into spinning, and I have been so confused about various fiber preparations. I'm just learning to tell the differnce between "roving" and "top", carded and combed. And my confusion was totally compounded by the incorrect use of these terms by salespeople or others who should know better. I ended up making a chart and I refer to it constantly, so when I do find it used incorrectly, I can mentally make the correction and realize what the person is talking about.
Fiber addicts: Use terms correctly, please. And maybe if we all protest and jump up and down and correct salespeople and complain and whine, we can eventually get rid of the improper use of these terms and keep their specific meanings. This will help our art/craft immensely, removing one source of confusion for newcomers and making what we are trying to do much clearer.
I really have difficulty with companies, vendors, and others in the INDUSTRY using technical terms incorrectly. I'm speaking of fiber here.
For instance, in some places, the word "wool" can be used as a synonym for "yarn" as in 'This "wool" 100% acrylic', or 'Does this "wool" contain some nylon?'. Wool is a fiber which comes from a sheep. Yarn is a product which is produced by "spinning" fiber of various sorts into long strings which can them be used for knitting/crocheting, crafts, and other things. When yarn shops and manufacturers blur this distinction, I think something is irretrivable lost.
Another example, the use of "ply" to indicate the thickness of yarn. Ten lashes with a wet two or three ply YARN for Australia and other places in the world where this is common. Ply should be IMHO reserved for the number of individually spun "singles" which are combined to form the finished product. There are other ways to indicate the thickness of a yarn, but I do not know of any other term for the number of individually spun "singles" combined to make the finished product.
Worsted as a weight of yarn also drives me crazy, especially now that I know that it is a specific fiber preparation. I was always bothered by the use of this term, and the use of DK (for doubleknit) as a yarn size.
We have "lace-weight", fingering, sport, bulky and chunky, which have specific meanings. We should exchange "sweater" or "jumper"* for worsted as a description of weight, and leave the term "worsted" to refer SOLELY to its use as a fiber preparation, not weight. DK doesn't bother me quite so much, as you most often hear the term DK, and don't think about what it means, but again, any weight, or thickness, of yarn and be used to "double-knit" so why use the term as a thickness of yarn as well as a specific type of knitting.
*I like the English/Australian/wherever term "jumper" better than "sweater", however, sweater is so common that I doubt we can really change it at this late date.
I am just getting into spinning, and I have been so confused about various fiber preparations. I'm just learning to tell the differnce between "roving" and "top", carded and combed. And my confusion was totally compounded by the incorrect use of these terms by salespeople or others who should know better. I ended up making a chart and I refer to it constantly, so when I do find it used incorrectly, I can mentally make the correction and realize what the person is talking about.
Fiber addicts: Use terms correctly, please. And maybe if we all protest and jump up and down and correct salespeople and complain and whine, we can eventually get rid of the improper use of these terms and keep their specific meanings. This will help our art/craft immensely, removing one source of confusion for newcomers and making what we are trying to do much clearer.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
When is a pattern not a pattern?
[Planning to knit "Malabrigo Loafers", pattern by Julie Weisenberger of Cocoknits. I got the pattern. I had some wool, although I really planned to buy Malabrigo for this project. But didn't. I got out the wool I had and the needles weren't being used for something else. So I started the project one evening about midnight when I couldn't sleep. It was quick and easy, but I just needed a bit more time. I wrote in my Ravelry account at that time:
Have wool. Have pattern. Have needles.
Please provide time.]
4/12/2009: Lots of car rides lately = time found to knit. Finished the Moccasin loafers.
When is a project not the project from the pattern but something else? I started out to knit these slippers as the pattern was written, I really did. I didn't have malabrigo, (and it was after midnight, so a trip to the LYS was out of question) so I substituted Soy Wool Stripes (Paton's) but after knitting one slipper/loafer, I decided they might felt, and I wanted to make felted clogs from the SWS anyway, and I didn't really like the slipper/loafer that much in the SWS since it was the wrong color, so I frogged that and started again with the Silky Flamme. Aaaah, better.
The Silky Flamme was the right color (gray for the sole, and green for the tops) and the right consistency (soft) and knit up beautifully. Except,....
I really did like your pattern, Julie from Cocoknits. But, I thought it would be better to start knitting from the toe, not the heel. I have a really wide foot, you see, and I wanted to add some width, and (while I was still using the SWS) I realized that if I started the sole at the toe, I would end up at the heel, thus allowing me to start with sides without breaking the yarn and starting another, which would be two less ends to weave in. When I switched to the Silky Flamme, I just kept starting at the toe anyway.
Then I couldn't get the front to look right, and I thought LOAFERS have a little ridge right around the top of the toe, so if I did a row of purls on the front half, that would look like the ridge on leather loafers. And it did.
So then I had to change the way the top of the slipper was knit. I tried four or five times and frogged and compared. I would knit one and then the other using a different method and compare and rip out the one I didn't like - usually the first way - and reknit and then do something differently, so I would have to frog the other one to make it match.
In the process of frogging and reknitting, I realized that I thought I would like to double knit just the little top of the slipper, the part that peeks out above the penny holder if this is a penny loafer which it isn't. I had to do that several times until it came out right.
I had decided way back in the SWS version, that I thought it might be cool to finish off the tops of the sides with I-cord, to simulate the part of loafers which is usually a piece of leather folded over. So when the two fronts were finally right, and matching, I finished off the back edges with I-cord, which looks really slick. And I continued the I-cord over the toe so I could sew it back down invisibly (sort of like kitchner, except the other end wasn't live stitches) and you can't easily tell where the ending is.
Finally, when I was doing the double-knit part, the flap, I realized that the soles should be thicker, and double knit might be good there too. I have enough yarn. I wonder if I can double knit garter stitch. Next time, I will try. I do still have two more balls of the Flamme. No, I cannot frog the slippers and double-knit the sole. But I might try adding a second layer of knitting to reinforce the sole. And for the next pair....
So have I created a new pattern - Non-malabrigo, non-penny loafers, or is it just Julie's pattern, with some modifications?
Maybe I should ask Julie.
Have wool. Have pattern. Have needles.
Please provide time.]
4/12/2009: Lots of car rides lately = time found to knit. Finished the Moccasin loafers.
When is a project not the project from the pattern but something else? I started out to knit these slippers as the pattern was written, I really did. I didn't have malabrigo, (and it was after midnight, so a trip to the LYS was out of question) so I substituted Soy Wool Stripes (Paton's) but after knitting one slipper/loafer, I decided they might felt, and I wanted to make felted clogs from the SWS anyway, and I didn't really like the slipper/loafer that much in the SWS since it was the wrong color, so I frogged that and started again with the Silky Flamme. Aaaah, better.
The Silky Flamme was the right color (gray for the sole, and green for the tops) and the right consistency (soft) and knit up beautifully. Except,....
I really did like your pattern, Julie from Cocoknits. But, I thought it would be better to start knitting from the toe, not the heel. I have a really wide foot, you see, and I wanted to add some width, and (while I was still using the SWS) I realized that if I started the sole at the toe, I would end up at the heel, thus allowing me to start with sides without breaking the yarn and starting another, which would be two less ends to weave in. When I switched to the Silky Flamme, I just kept starting at the toe anyway.
Then I couldn't get the front to look right, and I thought LOAFERS have a little ridge right around the top of the toe, so if I did a row of purls on the front half, that would look like the ridge on leather loafers. And it did.
So then I had to change the way the top of the slipper was knit. I tried four or five times and frogged and compared. I would knit one and then the other using a different method and compare and rip out the one I didn't like - usually the first way - and reknit and then do something differently, so I would have to frog the other one to make it match.
In the process of frogging and reknitting, I realized that I thought I would like to double knit just the little top of the slipper, the part that peeks out above the penny holder if this is a penny loafer which it isn't. I had to do that several times until it came out right.
I had decided way back in the SWS version, that I thought it might be cool to finish off the tops of the sides with I-cord, to simulate the part of loafers which is usually a piece of leather folded over. So when the two fronts were finally right, and matching, I finished off the back edges with I-cord, which looks really slick. And I continued the I-cord over the toe so I could sew it back down invisibly (sort of like kitchner, except the other end wasn't live stitches) and you can't easily tell where the ending is.
Finally, when I was doing the double-knit part, the flap, I realized that the soles should be thicker, and double knit might be good there too. I have enough yarn. I wonder if I can double knit garter stitch. Next time, I will try. I do still have two more balls of the Flamme. No, I cannot frog the slippers and double-knit the sole. But I might try adding a second layer of knitting to reinforce the sole. And for the next pair....
So have I created a new pattern - Non-malabrigo, non-penny loafers, or is it just Julie's pattern, with some modifications?
Maybe I should ask Julie.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Someday
SOMEDAY, my coffee table will hold two or three "coffee table" books, period. It will not contain two years worth of knitting and quilting magazines, a lost library book, a world atlas, assorted women's magazines, and part of last week's laundry waiting to be folded.
SOMEDAY, my grandchildren will be grown and get money from me for Christmas, not something handknitted by me (with stripes, and a kitty, per request). They will learn to eschew the gray sweatshirt with the embroidered cat mouse and heart motif. They will distain wearing the soft blue vest with matching leggings, or the cabled sweater.
SOMEDAY, I will go to the store to buy yarn for one project which I will complete BEFORE beginning another. My yarn stash box will be empty and the scraps left over from other projects will have been knitted up into hats, scarves, and other small projects. There will be no STASH.
SOMEDAY, The kitchen table in our house will be a place to eat, not a storage location for all the mail and flyers we've gotten in the past month, the single sock that didn't have a mate from last weeks laundry (or was that three weeks ago?). The laptop computer will live elsewhere, along with assorted notes, the receipts to enter into Quicken and, oh, that's where that check got to.
SOMEDAY, We will eat all of our meals at the above mentioned table. Our meals will consist of a nutritious variety of locally grown produce, lovingly handbaked bread, whole grains and fresh meat and seafood. Our recycling bin will no longer be stuffed with frozen food boxes, pasta boxes, empty cans, and plastic bottles.
SOMEDAY, My garage will sport a workbench and tool storage unit along the north side, gardening equipment tidily placed near the third garage door, a few boxes stacked neatly on shelves between these two, and acres of empty, swept space in the center where we can, and do, park our two cars, with the third bay cleverly and conveniently left vacant in case space is needed for a visitor's car, or to complete a project.
SOMEDAY, I'll be organized.
MEANWHILE, The socks I'm knitting are a horrid color. I can't imagine why I ever chose this ugly green. The scarf is nearly finished, only a few more rows to go and the yarn will be gone. I'll have to look up the directions for the top to this hat, then it will be completed. I'm really not in the mood for lace knitting. I guess I will cast on for the sweater I want to make next. I will have to run to the store to get the rest of the yarn I need. Knitting will pass the time nicely until someday arrives.
Oh, and SOMEDAY, there WILL be peace on earth.
SOMEDAY, my grandchildren will be grown and get money from me for Christmas, not something handknitted by me (with stripes, and a kitty, per request). They will learn to eschew the gray sweatshirt with the embroidered cat mouse and heart motif. They will distain wearing the soft blue vest with matching leggings, or the cabled sweater.
SOMEDAY, I will go to the store to buy yarn for one project which I will complete BEFORE beginning another. My yarn stash box will be empty and the scraps left over from other projects will have been knitted up into hats, scarves, and other small projects. There will be no STASH.
SOMEDAY, The kitchen table in our house will be a place to eat, not a storage location for all the mail and flyers we've gotten in the past month, the single sock that didn't have a mate from last weeks laundry (or was that three weeks ago?). The laptop computer will live elsewhere, along with assorted notes, the receipts to enter into Quicken and, oh, that's where that check got to.
SOMEDAY, We will eat all of our meals at the above mentioned table. Our meals will consist of a nutritious variety of locally grown produce, lovingly handbaked bread, whole grains and fresh meat and seafood. Our recycling bin will no longer be stuffed with frozen food boxes, pasta boxes, empty cans, and plastic bottles.
SOMEDAY, My garage will sport a workbench and tool storage unit along the north side, gardening equipment tidily placed near the third garage door, a few boxes stacked neatly on shelves between these two, and acres of empty, swept space in the center where we can, and do, park our two cars, with the third bay cleverly and conveniently left vacant in case space is needed for a visitor's car, or to complete a project.
SOMEDAY, I'll be organized.
MEANWHILE, The socks I'm knitting are a horrid color. I can't imagine why I ever chose this ugly green. The scarf is nearly finished, only a few more rows to go and the yarn will be gone. I'll have to look up the directions for the top to this hat, then it will be completed. I'm really not in the mood for lace knitting. I guess I will cast on for the sweater I want to make next. I will have to run to the store to get the rest of the yarn I need. Knitting will pass the time nicely until someday arrives.
Oh, and SOMEDAY, there WILL be peace on earth.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Oldie and goodie
When I was ten years old, my parents aquired a television set. It had two knobs or dials on it. Just two. You turned the one on the left counterclockwise to turn the set on (there was a distinct click) and then to adjust the volume, just like you did for a radio. You turned the one on the right up or down to the twelve available channels, 2 through 13. Only 2, 4, and 7 were actually used, however. Each of these setting produced a grainy or snowy picture in black and white, accompanied by sound. It was sooooo coool.
Up to this time, we had watched TV by standing on the porch at the neighbors and peering in their window. The drawback to that program was that we could not hear the sound. I do not know if these neighbors objected to the presence of four or five small children peering in their front window. They could have closed the curtains, of course, but that would not have advertised so well the presence of a television set in their living room.
That was it. Just two buttons, on/off, sound up or down, channel selection - any one of three. No start and stop, no mute, no menu, you didn't even need a college degree to run the thing. I recollect we did it just fine with only a fourth or fifth grade education. Of course, the buttons never got lost either, being attached rather firmly to the TV itself.
The TV itself couldn't get lost either. It was larger than the one we have now. Not the picture part of course, that was a small screen about 10 inches across. But the box it came in was a regular piece of furniture about the size of a footstool around, and as tall as a short bookcase. It lived mainly in our basement, along with the porch furniture which was stored in the "play" side of the basement for the winter.
We rarely watched TV in the summer anyway, since it was mostly reruns. One notable exception was the summer of 1952, when we watched the Republican National Convention which nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Republican candidate for president. I'm not sure how much interest I took in the proceedings, but we were allowed to WATCH the TELEVISION, so we watched. We also watched the test patterns which were run before the TV station actually started broadcasting, so this may indicate our level of interest.
My mother was preparing for our annual vacation, two weeks at a summer cottage in Northern Michigan. Her major preparation that we were aware of was an intense ironing compaign. Everything we owned was ironed, including sheets and pajamas, as well as all my dresses and my brothers' shirts and pants. In order to pack for vacation she washed everything we owned, ironed it all, and then we were allowed to pack it carefully in the suitcase for the trip. All of the ironing I remember from that summer seemed to take place in front of the television set, now residing for the duration of the Republican Convention on the back porch, as it was more comfortable for ironing than the empty basement.
I seldom iron anymore without thinking of the nomination and election of Eisenhower. Actually I seldom iron anymore.
Up to this time, we had watched TV by standing on the porch at the neighbors and peering in their window. The drawback to that program was that we could not hear the sound. I do not know if these neighbors objected to the presence of four or five small children peering in their front window. They could have closed the curtains, of course, but that would not have advertised so well the presence of a television set in their living room.
That was it. Just two buttons, on/off, sound up or down, channel selection - any one of three. No start and stop, no mute, no menu, you didn't even need a college degree to run the thing. I recollect we did it just fine with only a fourth or fifth grade education. Of course, the buttons never got lost either, being attached rather firmly to the TV itself.
The TV itself couldn't get lost either. It was larger than the one we have now. Not the picture part of course, that was a small screen about 10 inches across. But the box it came in was a regular piece of furniture about the size of a footstool around, and as tall as a short bookcase. It lived mainly in our basement, along with the porch furniture which was stored in the "play" side of the basement for the winter.
We rarely watched TV in the summer anyway, since it was mostly reruns. One notable exception was the summer of 1952, when we watched the Republican National Convention which nominated Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Republican candidate for president. I'm not sure how much interest I took in the proceedings, but we were allowed to WATCH the TELEVISION, so we watched. We also watched the test patterns which were run before the TV station actually started broadcasting, so this may indicate our level of interest.
My mother was preparing for our annual vacation, two weeks at a summer cottage in Northern Michigan. Her major preparation that we were aware of was an intense ironing compaign. Everything we owned was ironed, including sheets and pajamas, as well as all my dresses and my brothers' shirts and pants. In order to pack for vacation she washed everything we owned, ironed it all, and then we were allowed to pack it carefully in the suitcase for the trip. All of the ironing I remember from that summer seemed to take place in front of the television set, now residing for the duration of the Republican Convention on the back porch, as it was more comfortable for ironing than the empty basement.
I seldom iron anymore without thinking of the nomination and election of Eisenhower. Actually I seldom iron anymore.
Friday, February 13, 2009
A Rant about slanted news
I was listening to the news the other night and they had a bit about construction on the I-5 freeway in Seattle. Starting now, rather than in two or three months, they are going to close some lanes at night (11 pm to 6 am or some such), creating traffic problems that this item was warning us about.
Between the lines (and hurray, on another stations newscast later that day) was information about how the city/county/state was going to be spending money set aside for this project now rather than later, creating jobs and providing business for the suppliers for the project. Also the other news cast mentioned in detail the miles of roadway that were going to be smoothed out, the pavement cracks that were going to be fixed and the other work to be done.
In other words, rather than emphasizing the traffic disruptions (and why aren't you home in bed between 11 pm and 6 am), the news could have (and one station did) emphasize the smoother better roads that were being created, the employees who would be getting a paycheck much sooner than expected, the care being taken to make the necessary disruptions as limited as possible, and the fact that the better roads would be available to drive on much sooner than originally expected.
But I expect little from our news broadcasts, unfortunately. They are constantly harping on the 6 or 7 percent of people out of work, rather than the 93 or 94 percent who are working, on the thousands or so who have lost their homes, rather than the millions who still have homes. It's doom and gloom at every turn. Which is why I frequently don't even listen to the news.
End of rant.
Between the lines (and hurray, on another stations newscast later that day) was information about how the city/county/state was going to be spending money set aside for this project now rather than later, creating jobs and providing business for the suppliers for the project. Also the other news cast mentioned in detail the miles of roadway that were going to be smoothed out, the pavement cracks that were going to be fixed and the other work to be done.
In other words, rather than emphasizing the traffic disruptions (and why aren't you home in bed between 11 pm and 6 am), the news could have (and one station did) emphasize the smoother better roads that were being created, the employees who would be getting a paycheck much sooner than expected, the care being taken to make the necessary disruptions as limited as possible, and the fact that the better roads would be available to drive on much sooner than originally expected.
But I expect little from our news broadcasts, unfortunately. They are constantly harping on the 6 or 7 percent of people out of work, rather than the 93 or 94 percent who are working, on the thousands or so who have lost their homes, rather than the millions who still have homes. It's doom and gloom at every turn. Which is why I frequently don't even listen to the news.
End of rant.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The blog that nobody reads: Population Crisis
Since this is the blog that nobody reads, I though I would weigh in with my thoughts on overpopulation and such.
The birth of octuplets the other day has apparently spurred interest on the internet in the ethics and morality of doctors providing fertility servies to a woman who already has chidren (six to be exact). Now I suppose that it may turn out that all of these six were adopted, but I don't think so.
Fertility services should be for women who can't get pregnant, not those who have already bourne more than their fair share. Period. Do we have to pass a law, because people are so short sighted and STUPID? Fertility services should be restricted to those who have AT MOST one living child. Period. End of discussion.
We are collectively worried about climate change, about genocide, ethnic cleansing, about starvation in Africa and disease and our food supply, energy demands and growing healthy economies.
There are too many people on the earth. We can't feed ourselves, we can't provide energy and a good quality of life, we are paving over our fields and cutting down our rain forests, all to provide too little food and too little safety to the people we already have.
When I was a child, the prevailing scientific point of view, at least as it was passed on to school children, was that animals who over-procreated starved to death, thus limiting their populations to sustainable levels. It now appears that many animals limit their families in lean times, thus having only the size family that is sustainable.
Human beings also have the capability of limiting their families. While we don't know how animals do it, we humans have developed birth control and death control (well at least disease control and methods of protecting ourselves from some causes of "premature" death), to help us limit our procreation and popluation. But only China seems to have a national policy regarding population, and we don't like their methods, even if we can admire the purpose behind it.
Instead, we have religions deliberately prohibiting people from utilizing the science we have, encouraging large families regardless of whether or not the family and the world can sustain them. It seems that they believe that God would say, "Okay, I'll let other animals limit their populations, and I'll let humans discover simple safe methods of limiting their populations, but then I'll mandate that I, and only I, the one and only GOD, will decide family by family who should have children and how many." How can anyone believe in this sort of God? God, our loving, caring parent, is going to allow us to discover simple safe methods of population control, then forbid us to use them? What???? Particularly in view of that fact that having too many pregnancies is not only unhealthy for the mother, but also for the children.
Back in the seventies, when I was having my family (two children, thank you very much) there was an active group called Zero Population Growth, with the motto "Stop at Two". What happened to this group? What happened to this philosophy?
There was one compelling reason NOT to stop at two. If all intelligent, alert, caring people do in fact stop at two, leaving only the stupid and uncaring to unlimited procreation, then the population of uncaring and stupid people would increase while the population of intelligent people would stay stable, thus becoming a minority. Is that what happened? In fact, gross population studies seem to show that as people achieve the high standards of living that seem to be standard in the US and Europe, people naturally limit their families. European families have been notoriously smaller than on other continents for some time. I read somewhere that the population of Europe prior to the black plague in the 1300's (not sure of the time frame) was not reached again until World War II.
Apparently, as immigrant groups move into the United States with their large families, they adopt smaller families as standard within a generation or two. Currently, the Hispanic migration into this country is driving population growth, and Hispanics are becoming a larger and larger minority--soon to be a majority? But I read somewhere (don't remember where) that as they assimilate into the US culture, Hispanics are expected to embrace the smaller family size already common here, as other ethnic groups already have.
But they're Catholic, and the Catholic church is opposed to abortion and birth control? Yes but as my very devout Catholic friend said, she wasn't going to allow some old men who had never married or had families to dictate what was right for her family. Her two girls are about 6 years apart, and her son is about six years younger than the younger girl. She probably planned SOMETHING.
Although I didn't include this in my "If I were Queen" list, I think the time has come for the US to face upto the population crisis (we call it the energy crisis, but it is really population). Let us pass an income tax law which limits the deduction for dependents to the first two BIRTH Children ONLY. Adopted children could be exempt. {There might be a special exemption for those families who through no fault of the own have twins or triplets.) I have more problems with the following suggestion, but I think it may be part of the solution. Limit welfare payments, food stamps, and other government handouts to an amount based on two children. In others words, if you have two children or ten, you would get the same amount of welfare benefits. Let those who cannot use their heads and iimit their family size figure out how to provide for the remaining children.
The birth of octuplets the other day has apparently spurred interest on the internet in the ethics and morality of doctors providing fertility servies to a woman who already has chidren (six to be exact). Now I suppose that it may turn out that all of these six were adopted, but I don't think so.
Fertility services should be for women who can't get pregnant, not those who have already bourne more than their fair share. Period. Do we have to pass a law, because people are so short sighted and STUPID? Fertility services should be restricted to those who have AT MOST one living child. Period. End of discussion.
We are collectively worried about climate change, about genocide, ethnic cleansing, about starvation in Africa and disease and our food supply, energy demands and growing healthy economies.
There are too many people on the earth. We can't feed ourselves, we can't provide energy and a good quality of life, we are paving over our fields and cutting down our rain forests, all to provide too little food and too little safety to the people we already have.
When I was a child, the prevailing scientific point of view, at least as it was passed on to school children, was that animals who over-procreated starved to death, thus limiting their populations to sustainable levels. It now appears that many animals limit their families in lean times, thus having only the size family that is sustainable.
Human beings also have the capability of limiting their families. While we don't know how animals do it, we humans have developed birth control and death control (well at least disease control and methods of protecting ourselves from some causes of "premature" death), to help us limit our procreation and popluation. But only China seems to have a national policy regarding population, and we don't like their methods, even if we can admire the purpose behind it.
Instead, we have religions deliberately prohibiting people from utilizing the science we have, encouraging large families regardless of whether or not the family and the world can sustain them. It seems that they believe that God would say, "Okay, I'll let other animals limit their populations, and I'll let humans discover simple safe methods of limiting their populations, but then I'll mandate that I, and only I, the one and only GOD, will decide family by family who should have children and how many." How can anyone believe in this sort of God? God, our loving, caring parent, is going to allow us to discover simple safe methods of population control, then forbid us to use them? What???? Particularly in view of that fact that having too many pregnancies is not only unhealthy for the mother, but also for the children.
Back in the seventies, when I was having my family (two children, thank you very much) there was an active group called Zero Population Growth, with the motto "Stop at Two". What happened to this group? What happened to this philosophy?
There was one compelling reason NOT to stop at two. If all intelligent, alert, caring people do in fact stop at two, leaving only the stupid and uncaring to unlimited procreation, then the population of uncaring and stupid people would increase while the population of intelligent people would stay stable, thus becoming a minority. Is that what happened? In fact, gross population studies seem to show that as people achieve the high standards of living that seem to be standard in the US and Europe, people naturally limit their families. European families have been notoriously smaller than on other continents for some time. I read somewhere that the population of Europe prior to the black plague in the 1300's (not sure of the time frame) was not reached again until World War II.
Apparently, as immigrant groups move into the United States with their large families, they adopt smaller families as standard within a generation or two. Currently, the Hispanic migration into this country is driving population growth, and Hispanics are becoming a larger and larger minority--soon to be a majority? But I read somewhere (don't remember where) that as they assimilate into the US culture, Hispanics are expected to embrace the smaller family size already common here, as other ethnic groups already have.
But they're Catholic, and the Catholic church is opposed to abortion and birth control? Yes but as my very devout Catholic friend said, she wasn't going to allow some old men who had never married or had families to dictate what was right for her family. Her two girls are about 6 years apart, and her son is about six years younger than the younger girl. She probably planned SOMETHING.
Although I didn't include this in my "If I were Queen" list, I think the time has come for the US to face upto the population crisis (we call it the energy crisis, but it is really population). Let us pass an income tax law which limits the deduction for dependents to the first two BIRTH Children ONLY. Adopted children could be exempt. {There might be a special exemption for those families who through no fault of the own have twins or triplets.) I have more problems with the following suggestion, but I think it may be part of the solution. Limit welfare payments, food stamps, and other government handouts to an amount based on two children. In others words, if you have two children or ten, you would get the same amount of welfare benefits. Let those who cannot use their heads and iimit their family size figure out how to provide for the remaining children.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
If I were Queen
If I were Queen of the world (because merely being president wouldn't do it, I'd want to do all this stuff by fiat, and not have to convince a couple of houses of Congress to go along), here's my list.
1. All schools would be in session 52 weeks a year, 5 days a week, except maybe for a few holidays, and (maybe)a week or two at the end of December and another week or two at the end of June for thorough cleaning. Not all of the time would be traditional class time, though. There might be 9 weeks of classes, followed by a three week intersession. The intersession would be a chance for schools to get creative and imaginative. There might be camp-like activities. There might be a "night school" session, meeting from 6 pm until midnight, with lessons on astronomy and a chance to view actual stars. There might be a foreign language immersion, live like the pioneers, or other "theme" activities. And these intersession sessions would probably be optional, or allow students to mingle in different ways for different activities. For instance, one group of students from many high schools might meet in a certain location to put on a play. Another group might meet in another location to do all week art projects, or go in depth into biology fieldwork or cooking lessons.
2. The age at which a person could drive a car would be raised to eighteen, and REQUIRE a high school diploma. (Just think what that would do to high school graduation rates. If a student didn't get a diploma, then he/she would have to wait until age 25 to get a driver's license.
3. Voting age would be raised again to 21, along with leaving the drinking age at 21. And members of the armed services could NOT be sent into combat until they were at least 21. That's only fair.
4. Every young adult would be required to put in at least a year of service in the armed forces, or volunteering at some charity, inner city program, Peace Corp, VISTA or the like. Every one. No exclusions for handicaps or anything. Maybe if you were totally dependent on caregivers to live, but being blind or deaf or in a wheel chair should NOT except you from serving your community or country.
5. A dormitory would be built near every high school. These dorms would house students who can not live at home. Following the rules would be required, and failure to do so would be a juvenile offence, landing the student in a Juvenile Correctional Facility. Noone under the age of 18 could choose to be homeless. Every person under the age of 18, not living at home (or obviously, at a boarding school or with other family members), would be required to live in one of these dorms, and follow the rules.
6. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to convince people that trains and buses can and should take the place of automobiles, tracks would be installed along all freeways, and eventually, all major roadways. Cars would be fitted out with a "converter" to allow them to travel along the tracks. Drive up to the freeway ramp, pay the fee, and "put down your rail gear". Now a computer driven ramp monitor speeds up the car to freeway speeds, and pops the car onto the track in the next available space between other vehicles. The car is whisked along at 65 miles per hour until the desired destination is reached, at which point, the computer announces that it is returning control to the driver, the car is routed off the track and onto a siding and the driver once again controls the car as he drives off to whatever destination he desires.
Immediately, there is increased capacity (since the vehicles could and should be literallly bumper to bumper) and decreased fuel usage, since the cars will all be going at the exact same rate of speed. No accelerating to get around another car, no slowing down for traffic, just the same speed as everyone else.
I do not know whether it would be better to have the track system provide the propulsion system (which would then be very flexible and could be powered by whatever means would be more efficient given the local conditions) or whether each individual vehicle would provide it's own power. I will leave engineers to figure this point out. However, I see this alternate as being safer, more efficient and just as flexible and comfortable as our present system. (Ever been on a freeway at 4 am? Lots of cars. No buses or trains, just cars.) (Ever been 30 seconds late for a bus?)
This system would allow nurses, convenience store clerks, emergency personnel, retail store clerks, hospital staff, and a host of others with non-traditional job hours to benefit equally. Bus and train systems only benefit those who go to work and return home in the "eight to five" area, which leaves many many people out.
If you don't have a car, no problem. Small "buses" accomodating 6 to 80 or 100 people, could be available to take walk-ups (or those who choose to get to the on-ramp via bicycle, golf cart, or skateboard- it wouldn't matter.) Eventually, the system could be set up so that prior to leaving one's office at say, 10 PM, a user could log onto a web site, give the instructions "I will be at the Oak Street on-ramp, going south, at 10:10 pm" and a mini-bus could be there waiting for him/her. Try doing that with a bus system.
7. Internship/apprentice programs would be started in all sorts of areas for students in grades eleven and twelve. Traditional areas such as carpentry, auto repair, cooking, and plumbing, and non-traditional areas such as art, craft, and other areas would have programs to teach students how to do real jobs in real career fields. Included in these programs would be the necessary bookwork, including classes in such things as "how to manage a checking account and pay taxes" etc. as well as on-the-job training. The programs would be set up in such a way that a student would complete the program as well as earning a high school diploma.
We need to recognize that not all students are qualified to attend college, nor interested in attending college. We should also know by now that having a full time job and other responsibilities is not a bar to getting a college education to a motivated adult. We need to make a high school education prepare someone for meaningful work in a decent career field.
8. Communities would need to provide safe walking routes to every school within their jurisdiction. A town could either provide paved sidewalks, block off part of a street and prohibit motor vehicles, or otherwise provide safe walking paths EVERYWHERE. Having to bus kids a quarter mile because there is no way to walk to school safely makes no sense, especially in this age when lack of exercise and childhood obesity threaten to make this younger generation less healthy that the one before.
9. Schools would operate on an "eight to five" schedule, or perhaps even longer. "After school sports" could and should be moved to before lessons, to give teenagers, particularly, a chance to wake up and get going before they are required to think. All children would participate in these school sports, which could be expanded to include dancing, walking (see below) and other non-competitive physical activities. Homework clubs, and activity groups would occupy the hour or two after lessons. Students could leave early with parents permission, but would often want to stay to participate in the activities.
10. Walking would become a national sport. Everybody would get books to keep track of their mileage and participation, and awards would be given out for certain milestones.
Wow. I planned on seven, and I got ten. How's that for reaching or exceeding a goal. I just hope someone is listening. Thanks you for reading this.
1. All schools would be in session 52 weeks a year, 5 days a week, except maybe for a few holidays, and (maybe)a week or two at the end of December and another week or two at the end of June for thorough cleaning. Not all of the time would be traditional class time, though. There might be 9 weeks of classes, followed by a three week intersession. The intersession would be a chance for schools to get creative and imaginative. There might be camp-like activities. There might be a "night school" session, meeting from 6 pm until midnight, with lessons on astronomy and a chance to view actual stars. There might be a foreign language immersion, live like the pioneers, or other "theme" activities. And these intersession sessions would probably be optional, or allow students to mingle in different ways for different activities. For instance, one group of students from many high schools might meet in a certain location to put on a play. Another group might meet in another location to do all week art projects, or go in depth into biology fieldwork or cooking lessons.
2. The age at which a person could drive a car would be raised to eighteen, and REQUIRE a high school diploma. (Just think what that would do to high school graduation rates. If a student didn't get a diploma, then he/she would have to wait until age 25 to get a driver's license.
3. Voting age would be raised again to 21, along with leaving the drinking age at 21. And members of the armed services could NOT be sent into combat until they were at least 21. That's only fair.
4. Every young adult would be required to put in at least a year of service in the armed forces, or volunteering at some charity, inner city program, Peace Corp, VISTA or the like. Every one. No exclusions for handicaps or anything. Maybe if you were totally dependent on caregivers to live, but being blind or deaf or in a wheel chair should NOT except you from serving your community or country.
5. A dormitory would be built near every high school. These dorms would house students who can not live at home. Following the rules would be required, and failure to do so would be a juvenile offence, landing the student in a Juvenile Correctional Facility. Noone under the age of 18 could choose to be homeless. Every person under the age of 18, not living at home (or obviously, at a boarding school or with other family members), would be required to live in one of these dorms, and follow the rules.
6. Rather than spending billions of dollars trying to convince people that trains and buses can and should take the place of automobiles, tracks would be installed along all freeways, and eventually, all major roadways. Cars would be fitted out with a "converter" to allow them to travel along the tracks. Drive up to the freeway ramp, pay the fee, and "put down your rail gear". Now a computer driven ramp monitor speeds up the car to freeway speeds, and pops the car onto the track in the next available space between other vehicles. The car is whisked along at 65 miles per hour until the desired destination is reached, at which point, the computer announces that it is returning control to the driver, the car is routed off the track and onto a siding and the driver once again controls the car as he drives off to whatever destination he desires.
Immediately, there is increased capacity (since the vehicles could and should be literallly bumper to bumper) and decreased fuel usage, since the cars will all be going at the exact same rate of speed. No accelerating to get around another car, no slowing down for traffic, just the same speed as everyone else.
I do not know whether it would be better to have the track system provide the propulsion system (which would then be very flexible and could be powered by whatever means would be more efficient given the local conditions) or whether each individual vehicle would provide it's own power. I will leave engineers to figure this point out. However, I see this alternate as being safer, more efficient and just as flexible and comfortable as our present system. (Ever been on a freeway at 4 am? Lots of cars. No buses or trains, just cars.) (Ever been 30 seconds late for a bus?)
This system would allow nurses, convenience store clerks, emergency personnel, retail store clerks, hospital staff, and a host of others with non-traditional job hours to benefit equally. Bus and train systems only benefit those who go to work and return home in the "eight to five" area, which leaves many many people out.
If you don't have a car, no problem. Small "buses" accomodating 6 to 80 or 100 people, could be available to take walk-ups (or those who choose to get to the on-ramp via bicycle, golf cart, or skateboard- it wouldn't matter.) Eventually, the system could be set up so that prior to leaving one's office at say, 10 PM, a user could log onto a web site, give the instructions "I will be at the Oak Street on-ramp, going south, at 10:10 pm" and a mini-bus could be there waiting for him/her. Try doing that with a bus system.
7. Internship/apprentice programs would be started in all sorts of areas for students in grades eleven and twelve. Traditional areas such as carpentry, auto repair, cooking, and plumbing, and non-traditional areas such as art, craft, and other areas would have programs to teach students how to do real jobs in real career fields. Included in these programs would be the necessary bookwork, including classes in such things as "how to manage a checking account and pay taxes" etc. as well as on-the-job training. The programs would be set up in such a way that a student would complete the program as well as earning a high school diploma.
We need to recognize that not all students are qualified to attend college, nor interested in attending college. We should also know by now that having a full time job and other responsibilities is not a bar to getting a college education to a motivated adult. We need to make a high school education prepare someone for meaningful work in a decent career field.
8. Communities would need to provide safe walking routes to every school within their jurisdiction. A town could either provide paved sidewalks, block off part of a street and prohibit motor vehicles, or otherwise provide safe walking paths EVERYWHERE. Having to bus kids a quarter mile because there is no way to walk to school safely makes no sense, especially in this age when lack of exercise and childhood obesity threaten to make this younger generation less healthy that the one before.
9. Schools would operate on an "eight to five" schedule, or perhaps even longer. "After school sports" could and should be moved to before lessons, to give teenagers, particularly, a chance to wake up and get going before they are required to think. All children would participate in these school sports, which could be expanded to include dancing, walking (see below) and other non-competitive physical activities. Homework clubs, and activity groups would occupy the hour or two after lessons. Students could leave early with parents permission, but would often want to stay to participate in the activities.
10. Walking would become a national sport. Everybody would get books to keep track of their mileage and participation, and awards would be given out for certain milestones.
Wow. I planned on seven, and I got ten. How's that for reaching or exceeding a goal. I just hope someone is listening. Thanks you for reading this.
Friday, January 9, 2009
More lessons from spinning
I forgot to add item 4 (5):
Keep a notebook. I have spun four items so far, red wool, natural corriedale, blue colonial, and natural BFL, and already I can't remember what I did with what, exactly.
The natural corriedale was the second wool I spun, and I did it in two or three pieces, then dyed the three pieces at the same time, but not the same way. One was dyed multicolored (orange, yellow-orange, yellow, and green) and one green and gold and the last one was dyed redish and red-orange. Because I remember that I dyed it at the same time (my husband does not like the smell of vinegar, so I try to limit the dying as much as possible) and because I have pictures taken at the same time, I know the green-gold and the multi are the same Corridale.
However, you would never know looking at the wool. Somehow, between the first small batch (green-gold) and the last (multi) I evidently "got it" and began spinning much much more evenly. They even have a slightly different feel.
Wow, what I'm learning is awesome.
Keep a notebook. I have spun four items so far, red wool, natural corriedale, blue colonial, and natural BFL, and already I can't remember what I did with what, exactly.
The natural corriedale was the second wool I spun, and I did it in two or three pieces, then dyed the three pieces at the same time, but not the same way. One was dyed multicolored (orange, yellow-orange, yellow, and green) and one green and gold and the last one was dyed redish and red-orange. Because I remember that I dyed it at the same time (my husband does not like the smell of vinegar, so I try to limit the dying as much as possible) and because I have pictures taken at the same time, I know the green-gold and the multi are the same Corridale.
However, you would never know looking at the wool. Somehow, between the first small batch (green-gold) and the last (multi) I evidently "got it" and began spinning much much more evenly. They even have a slightly different feel.
Wow, what I'm learning is awesome.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
spinning lessons
I have been spinning since mid October. My second or third attempt, (all on a spindle) was very chunky and uneven. I had dyed it green and yellow-gold, using Koolaid. This was about 13 yards of very variable yarn. I also had another skein of the same fiber, more even, also Koolaid dyed. I would like to make a hat out of these two pieces. but the chunky/skinny part wasn't very good. So I took it apart.
That's right. I unplyed it, which wasn't too difficult. Then I took each ply and respun it, twisting it backwards to get out the excess twist where that had happened. I picked apart the chunky parts, which were somewhat felted together. Then I gently redrafted the fiber into skinnier strips which twisted into a much more even yarn. It broke dozens of times, of course. Each time, I carefully separated some of the fibers, and tryed to hold enough together as I twisted to create a thin, but not threadlike, yarn. Still not completely even, but way better.
I then washed the two pieces, the former plys, in order to get out some of the kinkiness. I just soaked them in hot water, with a dash of wool wash, for about 20 minutes, and hung them to dry on a plastic hanger, weighted down with water bottles (so I could control the weight and not put too much weight on each strand). Finally, I replyed them together.
In the original yarn, the colors had been somewhat handpainted to create two rather short lengths of yellow-gold (maybe four or five yards total) and the remainder a fairly dark green, (maybe 8 or 9 yards). However, what with dramatically lengthening the fat parts of the yarn, due to redrafting them into more reasonable thickness, the colors in the two strands (plys) no longer matched up when I replyed the yarn. Also, the colors became more muted, sometimes significantly, because the redrafting and respinning exposed some of the undyed fibers at the center of the yarn. At some sections, of course it matches pretty well, since there was more of the green. However, in some sections, there is now a barberpole effect with green plyed with gold. Other sections are in between in the color process. I don't want to redye it; I think it is nice the way it is.
Here is what I found out about my spinning process:
1) The thick parts felted somewhat. I had to pick and pick at some of them to get them separated enough to redraft. This happened even though as a new spinner, I hadn't heard about whacking your yarn in the finished process, and was VERY VERY careful to handle it gently, using only medium temperature water, not agitating it at all, and patting it gently to get the water out before hanging it to dry.
2) The thin parts were often way overtwisted. Sometimes the fiber had made a little series of corkscrews that I had not been aware of when I previously worked with this yarn. I kept it under enough tension to prevent it curling back on itself, but the corkscrews were abundant, and not always in the thinnest part of the yarn.
3) Although I had thought I had used a lot of Kool-aid, it had only covered the surface of the yarn. Thus the fat places were totally white inside, and even the corkscrews were white where the original plying had covered some surface of the strand. In other words, only the outside of the plyed yarn had dyed, not the inside, or even the side where the plys laid together.
4) I have apparently learned a whole lot about spinning in the less than three months I have been at it.
This was really worth doing. I am glad I took the time to undo and redo. I really like the new skein, which is now about 19 yards, and very pretty. When I finished it, having learned much more about yarn, I washed it in hot water, rinsed in cool, toweled it as dry as I could, whacked it a couple of times (I am still not sure about this, need to take a lesson or have a demonstration), and let it dry. Then I took pictures.
See even an old dog can learn new tricks.
Remember this is all being done on a spindle. I really like the spindle for learning. There seem to be three basic steps, drafting, twisting, and winding on. On the spinning wheel, I couldn't seem to separate the steps in my mind, and felt I had no control. I didn't know what I was doing, and although I did make "yarn", it seemed like magic and not something I was doing. With the spindle, I can see each step as I do it. They are separate somewhat. When I was practicing at home, I was very diligently parking, drafting, twisting, and winding on. Repeat. Then at some point I realized that I had been forgetting to park, and just drafting as the spindle merrily spun and spun, and the yarn got twisted. On the spindle, you can examine each half yard or so before you wind it onto the spindle, and make corrections for over/underspinning, over/underdrafting, and so forth, before you wind on. This is the way I have been managing to make a somewhat consistent yarn.
Naturally as I improve, I imagine that the whole process will become more automatic and easier, and just as I found myself drafting and twisting at the same time without really realizing this happened, I think the whole process will become more automatic and simpler.
I have been watching my grandson, age four, learning to write his name and the letters of the alphabet, and just as he improves gradually as he practices, so I hope to improve my spinning until I become the boss of it, and NOT the other way around.
That's right. I unplyed it, which wasn't too difficult. Then I took each ply and respun it, twisting it backwards to get out the excess twist where that had happened. I picked apart the chunky parts, which were somewhat felted together. Then I gently redrafted the fiber into skinnier strips which twisted into a much more even yarn. It broke dozens of times, of course. Each time, I carefully separated some of the fibers, and tryed to hold enough together as I twisted to create a thin, but not threadlike, yarn. Still not completely even, but way better.
I then washed the two pieces, the former plys, in order to get out some of the kinkiness. I just soaked them in hot water, with a dash of wool wash, for about 20 minutes, and hung them to dry on a plastic hanger, weighted down with water bottles (so I could control the weight and not put too much weight on each strand). Finally, I replyed them together.
In the original yarn, the colors had been somewhat handpainted to create two rather short lengths of yellow-gold (maybe four or five yards total) and the remainder a fairly dark green, (maybe 8 or 9 yards). However, what with dramatically lengthening the fat parts of the yarn, due to redrafting them into more reasonable thickness, the colors in the two strands (plys) no longer matched up when I replyed the yarn. Also, the colors became more muted, sometimes significantly, because the redrafting and respinning exposed some of the undyed fibers at the center of the yarn. At some sections, of course it matches pretty well, since there was more of the green. However, in some sections, there is now a barberpole effect with green plyed with gold. Other sections are in between in the color process. I don't want to redye it; I think it is nice the way it is.
Here is what I found out about my spinning process:
1) The thick parts felted somewhat. I had to pick and pick at some of them to get them separated enough to redraft. This happened even though as a new spinner, I hadn't heard about whacking your yarn in the finished process, and was VERY VERY careful to handle it gently, using only medium temperature water, not agitating it at all, and patting it gently to get the water out before hanging it to dry.
2) The thin parts were often way overtwisted. Sometimes the fiber had made a little series of corkscrews that I had not been aware of when I previously worked with this yarn. I kept it under enough tension to prevent it curling back on itself, but the corkscrews were abundant, and not always in the thinnest part of the yarn.
3) Although I had thought I had used a lot of Kool-aid, it had only covered the surface of the yarn. Thus the fat places were totally white inside, and even the corkscrews were white where the original plying had covered some surface of the strand. In other words, only the outside of the plyed yarn had dyed, not the inside, or even the side where the plys laid together.
4) I have apparently learned a whole lot about spinning in the less than three months I have been at it.
This was really worth doing. I am glad I took the time to undo and redo. I really like the new skein, which is now about 19 yards, and very pretty. When I finished it, having learned much more about yarn, I washed it in hot water, rinsed in cool, toweled it as dry as I could, whacked it a couple of times (I am still not sure about this, need to take a lesson or have a demonstration), and let it dry. Then I took pictures.
See even an old dog can learn new tricks.
Remember this is all being done on a spindle. I really like the spindle for learning. There seem to be three basic steps, drafting, twisting, and winding on. On the spinning wheel, I couldn't seem to separate the steps in my mind, and felt I had no control. I didn't know what I was doing, and although I did make "yarn", it seemed like magic and not something I was doing. With the spindle, I can see each step as I do it. They are separate somewhat. When I was practicing at home, I was very diligently parking, drafting, twisting, and winding on. Repeat. Then at some point I realized that I had been forgetting to park, and just drafting as the spindle merrily spun and spun, and the yarn got twisted. On the spindle, you can examine each half yard or so before you wind it onto the spindle, and make corrections for over/underspinning, over/underdrafting, and so forth, before you wind on. This is the way I have been managing to make a somewhat consistent yarn.
Naturally as I improve, I imagine that the whole process will become more automatic and easier, and just as I found myself drafting and twisting at the same time without really realizing this happened, I think the whole process will become more automatic and simpler.
I have been watching my grandson, age four, learning to write his name and the letters of the alphabet, and just as he improves gradually as he practices, so I hope to improve my spinning until I become the boss of it, and NOT the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)