"Some of My Best Friends are..."

That's the start of a quote from Tallulah Bankhead's character in the Hitchcock movie "Lifeboat."

She uses that refrain a lot in the movie. So I'm grabbing it. 

Some of my best friends are...

teachers

students

parents

school officials

grandparents

siblings


And this Mama is mad. What, you say, do all of the above-listed folks have in common?

They're all victims of shootings. Mass shootings, which are now as familiar to us as a regular old weekday. 

Oh, my friends the politicians (some of my friends are even politicians...) will offer their "thoughts and prayers." And some of those "friends" will mightily castigate those who seek to "politicize" the shootings. 

You know THOSE folks. The ones who want - NOW, finally, THIS TIME to talk about mental health issues and gun regulations. 

"But it's TOO SOON." 

Then?

BAM. The next shooting. 

"But it's TOO SOON."

Then? 

BAM. The NEXT shooting. 

It's a bad refrain to an oft-sung song. 

It's NOT too soon. It's almost too late. 

Does anyone recall that the latest shooting in Parkland, Florida is TEN YEARS from the shooting at Northern Illinois University? To the day, people. 

How long (dare I even put this in writing) till someone decides to do "anniversary shootings"? Seriously, don't you dare laugh. Don't you DARE tell me "it's not the guns."  DON'T you dare tell me that it's a "terrorist" if the shooter isn't a white male. 

The mental health safety nets (what few of them still exist) will be shredded under the current administration's iteration of that farcical piece of garbage called their "budget." And we aren't allowed to mention gun restrictions - like restrictions on large purchases of ammunition - because it might upset the NRA and they won't be able to buy and sell their (really, once upon a time, OUR) representatives. 

Here's an idea. Those responsible gun owners that we hear from and about? How about ALL OF YOU resign from the NRA. Seriously, take your money and spend it elsewhere. Maybe when the NRA has only the zealots, and their budget tanks? Maybe THEN we can talk about sensible limits. Sensible regulations. Politicians that aren't bought. 

Because right now? Apparently, the lone "presidential" tweet sending "thoughts and prayers: isn't cutting it, and it is, after all, "too soon."

But not too soon to plan funerals for youngsters whose only misstep was -- going to school. 

Lots to Talk About...

Yeah, I know. It's been another "while." I promised I would keep this up more regularly, but stuff happened.

I got a dose of that vile bronchitis going around, and it slowed me down a bit. I'm done with the antibiotic - this followed a sinus infection about 2 weeks prior. I swear, global warming sucks: we need about 2 weeks of a good, hard freeze to wipe out all the crud.

However, all that being said, I'm better; I just get a little croaky and my vocals aren't where they should be yet. And I could do without the massive post-nasal drip. Sorry for TMI...

But. I've been knitting. And I've got everything baked, wrapped, purchased for dinner, and practiced for. I'm done. Ready for Santa. Two days ahead of time. Wowza.

Here's the headband for K, the girlfriend (Kid #1's girlfriend). She's a lovely blonde, so this should look great on her. Alongside it is a small bottle of "Soak" for her to use. "Soak" is the equivalent of Eucalan - a rinseless product for use on knitting, fine lingerie, etc. I like using it for my stuff that needs to be blocked. It also smells nice.

In case you're curious, the wide part goes on the top of your head, and the I-cords go under, then back over the wide part, to be tied into a bow or fancy knot at the top of your head. She's also got long hair - I'd never be able to pull this one off, because I'm frankly in the same pixie cut I've had for a century and a half!

She's also getting a tote (small one) of Bath and Body products. She's been around a while, so the gifts are a little more plenteous this time.

Yellow Sweater

Also, Orange Sweater is done. Not assembled, but done. We know, though: a BOY and a GIRL. My mom is beside herself with being able to buy "pink." We all run to boys, so it's been a long, LONG time for her! Yellow Sweater is still in the works (I should be knitting on it now...) and it should be done before I go back to work. Here's what they look like, so far.

Orange with buttons

I've put the buttons "on" the orange one, just so you can see. I'm not interested in "twinning" the babies to death, so the only things that match will be the buttons. And of course, the basic structure of the sweater, but that's kind of secondary. I could truly whip out a couple more of these for "baby stash" because they're just about mindless, but they look really cute. They only go up to 6-month size, and since I refuse to make "newborn" patterns, this is it. I love the off-center front, and the fact that this is a basic construction. This pattern is rated "easy" and for good reason. But still - there's a ton of knitting in here. I'm sure a faster knitter than I would say "oh, a weekend sweater" but I'm not going to fuss. This was enough to enable me to make 2 sweaters. The crib afghans are going to be a haul, but these are almost an "instant gratification" project.

Flat knit

Here's the basic format before you fold and stitch, and a close-up of the buttons. The buttons look very different on each sweater.  I suppose a more talented knitter could make this bigger - for say a 12-month size. But by that time, I'd just give in and make a poncho!

Buttons.... The buttons are plastic, washable. Obvious, right? You might be surprised!! I remember my friend Mary Ellen made a whole layette out of Debbie Bliss Cashmerino - and her DIL washed it. Washed. It.

This is, as I said, Cascade 220 superwash. I don't mess around.

And this may be a repeat, but I'm going to post it again. Here's a shot of our 2012 crop of ornaments. The only thing I need to do is find 36 more - for the upcoming twins!! I haven't done that yet, but if nothing else, I'm sure I can find them on The Google somewhere. I finished one kid...and next year, there'll be one  more off to college, so she'll be done, too.

And of course, my kids got theirs, too - even though Kid #1 is 29 and Kid #2 is 24... Kid #1 has the blue Santa in the middle. And Kid #2 has the bright green ornament to the right. He's a high school teacher and the colors of his school are green and white.

So on to the rest of the stuff going on. I've done the intro to the yoga teacher training already and I signed up. Wish me luck! I'm excited, and I'm hoping that all goes well. I think it will. I'm training at Prairie Yoga, doing the weekend intensives. It's a 9-month program, and I have a year to finish - I have to put off one seminar because of a Zonta Club event... I have all my books; I've read 2 of them (well, 3, but I have to re-read #3). I have my calendar all set up already. It's all good.

And finally, I can't help myself. I'm beyond sorrow about Sandy Hook Elementary. And I'm beyond mad at the NRA - in the person of Wayne LaPierre. I think he and his organization need a rectal-cranial enema. Because maybe then that will dislodge where his (and his members') heads are. "Arm the teachers." Right. Not. He is, apparently, ignorant. Well, obviously. But ignorant about basic facts of history. Columbine High School had an armed security guard. That worked well... So did Virginia Tech (a whole campus security department), and Northern Illinois University. And the Gabby Giffords shooting? The one guy with a gun couldn't get a clean shot, so instead of taking out MORE people, he chose (wisely) not to shoot.

We need common sense gun regulation. We need to parse the Second Amendment and realize that it does NOT give us the right to military-style assault weapons. It may give us the right to have a gun, but I can't see the Founders reacting well to this situation. The Second Amendment says we can arm ourselves to protect ourselves from an oppressive government - which isn't the country we live in.

And we need to become a kinder society. Caring for the least of these, caring about individuals and making sure that people are given what they need to function in society. Unfortunately, we're not there. I'm afraid that we won't be, for some time yet.

Gun Control Discussion...

Politicians are busy this season avoiding any hard discussions about the reality for the need of gun control. Nobody wants to "anger the base." However, it's a discussion that is literally the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. It needs to be had, hang the "base."

Just as an aside, the alternate definition of "base" is "lowly" -- as in "lowest common denominator." So politicans appealing "to the base" are appealing to those voters who usually are one-issue voters, vote without educating themselves, and are usually also the "vocal minority." Squeaky wheel, and all that.

There is no God-given right to own a gun. If you can cite a source in the bible that says you can own an AK-47 (or an AR-15) with an extended clip, I'd like to see that. The Second Amendment, vaunted as the 'be-all and end-all' of the gun discussion, also doesn't mention any right to own a gun conferred by God.

Actually, the Second Amendment (as ratified by the States and authenticated by then-Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson) reads as follows:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since so many people insist on "strict interpretation" rather than realizing that our Constitution is a living document meant to be deliberately vague for the growth of this nation, we'll go that route.

So... No "God" in that Amendment at all. There goes that argument. Then there's the phrase "well regulated militia" -- a militia, in the strict definition, is "a reserve military force that is on call for service only in an emergency." (Webster's II, third ed.) So, let's look at the last part of that definition: on call for service only in an emergency. Is your argument that you are part of a "reserve military force" so you are required to own a gun? Is your argument that there's always an emergency? That's a little paranoid. An individual is not a part of a reserve military force in 2012. In the late 1700s? Well, yeah. There were no organized police forces; the military was just being put together. People lived in agrarian areas far from their nearest neighbor, unless they lived in a town - which was usually remote from the next one. I can drive to the next town over. Heck, I can walk down the block and across one street and be in the next town. In 1787, for example, I had to get on a horse or in a wagon to go to the next town. A militia in this case was necessary because I couldn't exactly dial up the cops when someone was robbing me or breaking into my house. A gun was necessary when it was me or the wolves. A gun was necessary for me to get my dinner, since we didn't have the local Jewel 2 miles from my house.

And let's look at the next phrase "necessary to the security of a free state." Well, there's the hole in your argument. We have a police force. We have a military, and a National Guard. The "free state" is usually relatively protected. All of us go about our business unscathed, and we don't have to be worried about Indians coming around the corner to ambush our settlements. We have modern communications: if we need official protection, we call 911 and people who are actually trained in protection will come to our aid.

The phrase "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is also worth some discussion. Again, no God. But if you look at this without the "crazy-eyed" notion that someone is going to take your guns away, you can see that the Founders didn't want us to stockpile our own arsenals. You may have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but do you really, really need an automatic weapon with an extended clip?

And to those who say, "Oh, if the folks on Colorado were armed, they'd have stopped the shooter"... I have 2 words for you: FORT HOOD.

If you recall, in Ft. Hood, a crazy gunman shot people on an ARMY BASE. Where they routinely CARRY weapons. And they're trained to deal with them properly: they know how and when to shoot. And still, 13 people were killed by one guy. Who had access to "the most technologically advanced weapon on the market and the one with the highest magazine capacity." He told the gun store owner, who asked a logical question ("How do you intend to use this weapon?") that he "simply wanted the most advanced handgun with the largest magazine capacity." He also was able to return to the store on a weekly basis (red flag much??) to purchase extra magazines and hundreds of rounds of ... ammunition. (Wikipedia, accessed 7/26/12) When he was finally apprehended, he had in his pockets 177 rounds of unfired ammunition in both 20- and 30-round magazines.

In a logical world, you don't need that kind of capacity. Unless you're in uniform and deployed to war, or a cop. And I'd even question the cops having that amount of firepower on a "normal" basis.

I have a crazy right-wing uncle. Otherwise intelligent, a gun collector, hunter and absolutely rabid in his assertion that this president can 'take away the Second Amendment.' Procedurally, that's not correct. A president can't unilaterally make any changes to the Constitution. Period. That's how the Founders wanted it. Amazingly, they knew they didn't want to give that much power to one person. You won't find that factoid in any talking points, though, because it's much more effective to promote the agenda that "the black guy in the White House will be taking your guns away."

The only thing I agree with about this uncle is that he's equally as rabid about gun safety. His guns are stored in a locked safe. His ammunition is stored in a totally different safe. He hunts, but usually with a bow and arrow, because "it doesn't give me an unfair advantage against the animal." When asked about semi-automatic weapons and hunting, his comment is, "Why would you want to ruin the meat?" He hunts for food, not for trophies.

I'll give him that. But otherwise, he's kind of a crazy-gun-guy and is determined to have an arsenal. Some of his weapons are historical in nature, but quite a few of them are modern weapons. Be that as it may, every year, he requalifies through a gun safety course. And he makes sure that his hunting buddies, and his family, also do that before he'll go anywhere near them with a weapon (like to the shooting range or to hunt).

We need to address the very basic gorilla (maybe a chimp?) -- you don't have to "restrict" the ability to own a gun. But you do have to regulate it. People with mental problems do not need guns. People with criminal records do not need guns. People who amass arsenals need to have a chat with authorities. These are common-sense regulations. They will help keep people safe.

In the movie theatre, one politican said that "if everyone was armed, it would've been over." OK: picture this. Darkened movie theatre. Assailant in full body armor. He tosses tear gas. Crowded and closely-packed area.  People pull out guns, they're blinded by tear gas, and they randomly shoot. C'mon, use logic. How much collateral damage would've occured? And how could an amateur actually shoot a guy in full body armor?

I owned a gun. A .357 magnum 6-shot. I sold it, because it became more gun than I would ever need. I was a decent shot. But I truly believe that only my crazy uncle or perhaps my brother (who taught me to shoot) might --- just might have been able to make that shot.

When I was studying criminal justice, one of our instructors, a former police officer, gave us "Shoot, Don't Shoot" training. Even those of the students in the law enforcement track were unable to reliably complete the training. Our instructor said something that's stuck with me to this day: "Even well-trained cops can screw this up. Shooting someone is forever.  What you do with a gun will haunt you all of your days."

I don't want that responsibility. I don't really want my neighbor to have it either, because I'm convinced that most of us civilians not only "couldn't hit the broad side of a barn" but we're not psychologically ready to make that grave decision to pull the trigger with the realization that what we're doing is forever. Not that all my neighbors are nuts. They're just civilians. They're untrained. They haven't been in the position to have to shoot in self-defense. And I don't think they understand the permanent nature of firing a weapon at another human being.

That doesn't even count the people who really do have psychological issues. If you're on medication for a psychiatric disorder or ailment, you don't need a weapon that could kill you, permanently maim you, or hurt someone else. You just can't deal with it. Period. Cold hard fact.

If you're a criminal, even if it was a "non-violent" crime, you've abrogated your right to have a gun. You broke the law. You're done. Period. Cold hard fact.

If you do decide you need a gun, you really do need to get training - and not from some clerk wanting to make a sale. You need to have real training in what you're getting yourself into. Buy only the gun you need. And normally, honestly? That's a rifle to hunt with and a handgun if you feel like you need the protection. And neither of those needs to be an automatic with a large magazine.

If you want to go the "carry" route, then let's do away with "concealed" carry. Wear it proud, folks. Why have a criminal "think" that you "may" be carrying. Own it. But be prepared that statistics show that a person wearing a weapon has a better-than-even chance of having his or her weapon used against them. Do you really want to be shot by your own gun?

The politicans have to grow a spine and address the 800-lb. gorilla. It needs to be done because we're already almost "out of the news cycle" where we'll forget what has happened in Colorado. Tell me honestly, did Ft. Hood even cross your mind till I wrote those words? Nope. Because we're easily distracted by shiny objects. Our politicians and news media have made us that way. We don't bother to do our own independent thinking and we rely on "authorities" to tell us what to think and what to say.

The Founders, I'm sure, wanted a thinking nation. A nation unafraid to deal with the tough issues. And a people brave enough to know when to say "Enough" -- and make a brave change to ensure the fundamental safety of all of us.

Conformity Isn't Necessarily Good...

In today's Chicago Tribune, there's a front-page article about how the State of Illinois is the only state to not have concealed-carry laws. Now that Wisconsin is on the brink (and I use that phrase deliberately) of passing concealed-carry laws, the pressure for Illinois to follow the herd will increase dramatically.

In full disclosure, I have nothing against guns. I used to own a .357 Magnum. My brother and I would regularly go to target practice and I found that I actually preferred his Browning 9mm - it was easier for me to hold. And I'm a pretty good shot.

But that's not the point. So far, Illinois and Washington, DC are the only places in the US that do not allow concealed-carry. And you know what? I'm ok with that.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. I applaud Governor Quinn's veto threat to the bill proposed last month. But it's scary because the legislation only failed to pass by six votes. That's the closest it's come.

I don't want "concealed-carry" laws. Period. There is no up-side to this. I don't care that the law is, according to its Democrat sponsor, "...so watered down  that you could only have it on your person walking around or in your own house."  It's the walking around part that gives me pause. The bill's "watering down" came down to this:

The bill would have prohibited concealed weapons in bars, restaurants, certain businesses, courtrooms, schools and college campuses. Chicago's ban, overturned by the US Supreme Court, forced the city to rewrite the law to allow weapons to only be kept in the home, not in public. They're banned in garages, front porches, yards, hotels, dorms and group living facilities.

Still... you can carry it. It's not the guns, really. It's truly the people. I can't see that this will help "keep people safe" which is the argument the NRA and other pro-carry people will force down our throats.

Some guy who owns a gun store (go figure) says, "Are 49 states wrong and we're right?"

Well. Yeah, maybe. Ever heard of "groupthink"?? Let's turn this on its head: Just because 49 states have this law, does it mean we have to go along with them? No. Not really.

Guns can only exacerbate an already tense situation. So you've got the gun. (A) do you know how to use it? and (B) do you know WHEN to use it?

And (C) --- are you prepared for the very real consequences? Bullets kill people. Bullets maim people. If your aim is off, "collateral damage" isn't just a video game...it's real.

When I was a criminal justice major, even though my field wasn't law enforcement, we all had to view and participate in the "Shoot, Don't Shoot" program. What an incredible eye-opener.

Of course, we were all in our 20s, studying for what we thought would be our life's work. And we knew ourselves. You can see where this is going, right?? Well, after the experience, our instructor, a former cop from St. Louis, debriefed us. And we knew then: Guns are for real. Bullets are for real. And in 90%+ of the situations presented to us as civilians, we didn't have a clue. We were wrong.

IF concealed-carry passes, then I suggest the following: tighten up the training and requirements. You must recertify every year. You must be licensed. You must have a "waiting period" before the purchase is consummated, so that a complete background check can be done on you. This background check should be nation-wide, not just state-wide -- this prevents someone coming into Illinois with a record as long as my arm, and buying a gun because he or she can waltz into the local gun show or Wal-Mart. And you must carry additional insurance for your home and auto, because if you do do something stupid, the people you harm must have appropriate means of redress.

Of course, I see a whomping new market for insurance companies: "So, you have a gun at home? Are you licensed? Have you been trained? Is your training up to date? If so, your premium is $XX... If NOT, then your premium goes up 50%. Your premium, by the way (on both your home AND auto) will be going up 200% anyway, because you are now a higher risk to us. You will need to pay those premiums or we will drop you. And of course, under state law, your auto at least MUST be insured."

This will, of course, make pro-gun people scream like crazy. "We have a right to carry guns."

And I have a right to not worry about being shot by some idiot channeling John Wayne or Annie Oakley.