[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.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)