Socks and More...

So, I'm going to try to be more consistent on the blogging thing... 

We managed to escape any t-storms last night; today, it's clouding up a bit (and will most likely break loose about the time we take the dogs out the door to the vet) and there may be t-storms. I got brave, though, and put all the feeders back out and put the gazing balls back into their holders. 

And I hit the LYS for one skein of sock yarn. Go ahead. Laugh. So the LYS is having a KAL. (Translation: The local yarn store is having  a knit-a-long) And the yarn they're using is Trekking XXL - a sock yarn. The KAL benefits Ovarian Cancer research, so the color is Teal and it's called Susanne. It's really pretty - a bright pop of color. 

The KAL is for a toe-up sock. Ain't happening; I'm going to do my own pattern - well, someone's pattern that I like. I think it's crying for a great leg; perhaps a little simple lace, or a chevron. The nice thing about the yarn is that there's a TEN DOLLAR donation PER BALL of yarn to research. That's phenomenal. 

I have 2 very simple patterns; and I might just do the swirly rib that I'm using for Robin's Nest. Sure, it's the same pattern, but what do you want to bet that it looks totally different in a solid? 

The Collar of Shame

Tippi got The Collar of Shame last night. She was messing with the site of the pain patch. They removed the patch, but she's sensitive to the adhesive, apparently, and it irritated her skin. I tried to just be stern, but it didn't work, and I wasn't going to stay up all night making sure she didn't mess with the irritated leg. So this happened around midnight. She tried the "stink-eye." Then she tried the "sweetheart" -- and then she gave up. This picture was taken in her favorite hideout: my bathroom. She got it off to eat, but it's now back on. What happens is that she gets grumpy and then she figures out it's a good pillow. We go to the vet for the next bandage change; she's not bothering her incision at all. Thank goodness!! 

Cascade Heritage Silk

So, what else did I get at the LYS? Lots of Opal. I love the colors and it wears like iron! Here's what I have: Opal Sweet & Spicy, in colorways as shown on the pictures. Also, I've wound up the Cascade Heritage Silk. I was going to change to another yarn for G's scarf, but looking at the Heritage, I really want her to have silk. I added this to Ravelry, so you need to go there to find the pattern. The pattern is called Lettuce Leaf Scarf, by Janice Lynn for Madelinetosh. You can also go to the actual Madelinetosh site to find this; it's a free pattern. 

I'm noticing a lot of blue so far! Yikes! 

Opal 6752

Now for the Opals. They're all, as I said, in the Sweet & Spicy variety. I loved what 6752 looked like in the picture. There's a nice tweediness in the heel if I follow their pattern. Either way, it's a very pretty sock that would be good in a clog or even just a Birkenstock. I know - socks with Birks is cheesy. But I'm spending $20 per ball here, people... I want to show off my socks!

Opal 6755

The next one is 6755 - a very nice spring-ish green pattern with hints of taupe. What I like about this one is the variety of colors in this one, and how it's got that pop of orange in it. I think I can still use my size 2 needles. It can go down to a size 1, but I knit fairly tightly on the DPNs, so I don't have trouble doing a few rows and see how it looks. 

I did for grins just buy another set of DPNs - bamboo ChiaoGoo. Not my favorite, but just in case I delay putting the scarf on needles, I wanted a spare set of DPNs in the smaller size to get cracking on socks. At some point, I'll have to go order another set of Kollage. I do have some Kollage size 1 circulars...Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe I should just do one of these in Magic Loop? There's a thought.  

Magic Loop would certainly work better on this kind of yarn rather than the hiking socks that I tried it on! I have the basic idea, so it shouldn't be that hard to just wing it. It's only yarn. All I can do is try. If it doesn't work, I'll frog it. 

Opal 6757

This Opal 6757 was the first one I actually purchased; this was acquired about 3 weeks ago. It's a great fall colorway and I love the star anise on the label. Maybe that's what the German means? Who knows? I can barely ask where the bathroom is in Spanish. And even if I asked, I don't know enough Spanish to understand your directions anyway. 

So as I go forward with these socks, I will be sure to keep you posted. 

I actually went ahead and listed some of my favorite knitting blogs on my site. I really like several of these and I admire the dedication of these folks to blog -- Every. Single. Day. I wish. I was doing that for a while, but I fell off the rails on it. Now I really do need to get back to it.

Oh, the Robin's Nest? I think I'll start the decreases this weekend. I'm at about 6.75" now, and I have to go to 7.5" before I start decreases. The straight knitting is a breeze. 

On the news hole...I've kind of skimmed. I just didn't want to go there. It looks like Gov. Quinn might veto the initial handgun bill in IL. Actually, I'd really like to smack the NRA nutjobs; the only thing Illinois did right was to have the ban. But now, noooooooooo - it's more important for people to carry guns, as opposed to listening to those of us who don't want to be collateral damage. 

On SCOTUS. I'm sorry, you can gut the Voting Rights Act, and call that "effective use of time" but the DOMA thing you're having a problem with??? Justice Scalia is a nitwit. I would have loved to see Justice Ginsberg catch Alito in the eyeroll. 

On Texas. Well. What can you say to a Governor who's willing to spend millions in taxpayer dollars to legislate vaginas, but who won't pass a jobs bill, then claims to be "passionately pro-life" as his state executes its 500th person. And who says of those executions, "I can sleep at night" and not worry whether they're all truly justified. Lovely. Not. 

So, what's on your needles? What are your summer knitting projects? What else can I add to my own WIP stack??

I'm trying....

...to keep up here. We all got sick over Christmas, one by one. Started with The Kid, then came to me, and now Hubby is the last one standing. Or coughing, actually. He had a flu test, and it was negative. But he's got all the symptoms. So, high-test cough medicine, a stronger antibiotic, and he's sleeping on the couch, poor thing. I'm not forcing him - the cough is just that bad.

I attended a fantastic Raw Food seminar at Just Breathe Yoga, and learned that smoothies can fit into my overall plan of increasing fiber and the "good stuff" and getting all the "processed stuff" out of my diet. Or as much of it as one can in this day and age. So here's my lunch smoothie:

1 apple, quartered and cored
1 large handful baby spinach
1 c. unsweetened almond milk
1 little knob of ginger, peeled
1 handful almonds
1 cucumber
4 leaves of romaine
3 sprigs flat-leaf parsley

Peel the cucumber if it's waxy. Wash all the produce. Put all this in a fairly sturdy blender and whiz up till it's smooth-ish.

This makes A LOT of smoothie, but it's easy to eat. The other day, I made one with everything there except the ginger and I added a whole avocado (peeled and pitted, obviously). The gal doing the seminar is a certified instructor for raw foods, and she uses a honkin' VitaMix blender. Thanks, but until I blow it up, my Cuisinart will do ok! Can't quite spend $500+ on a blender. Here's her info, if you want; she's at dishonraw and will help you get a bit healthier in 2013.

I'd have put a picture up, but Blogger isn't cooperating! Well, maybe next time.

I started on the lace portion of the Monkey Socks (located at Ravelry), and I managed to mess up one section; so I have to take it to the LYS for a little help. I can already see the pattern develop and it's gorgeous!

I have to finish the baby blanket so I can start on the yellow one.... I set it aside and had committed to having a "Sock Sunday" where I work on anything BUT the baby stuff ("sock" only because I like the sound of "Sock Sunday" - it can be any of my WIPs, but I'm NOT starting anything new. Go ahead. Laugh.). And my week got busy what with the semester starting at work. Haven't picked it up all week, and I'm feeling guilty.

We still have no snow. Nothing. "Maybe" forecast for Saturday, but if it does, I hope it lasts. I have to work, of course, but I'll still be able to enjoy it out my window.

I can't believe I start my teacher training at Prairie Yoga next month! I have already started on the homework, and I realize that I've forgotten everything (or most everything) I knew about anatomy!! I mean, yeah, we haven't grown new bones, so I'm kind of familiar with the main ones, but this training includes some fairly intense sessions on musculature and bone stuff. It's good to stretch my brain - so I'm plugging away.

As far as the health issues are concerned, first off, I don't have to see the cardiologist for a year!! Huzzah!!! Second, I'm kind of hovering at the "lost 30 lbs." mark. I would like to lose about 8 more, but I'm taking it as it comes. I am a H-U-G-E carb fanatic, and I have to say that switching up to include more fiber and more protein has helped me tremendously. I've pretty much conquered my sweet tooth, and that was a big issue for me.

We had our first Tuesdays with Tippi for the semester. The pictures are still on my camera, and again - if Blogger can get its act together, perhaps the next post will be a pictorial.

So how about the NRA? Holy-moley - I'm almost using up my "Shakespeare Insult Kit" on comments about these folks. Between the claims that the whole Newtown shooting was "a set-up by the government and a hoax" to the commercial taking aim (yeah, I did that deliberately) at President Obama's children -- these folks are just poisonous milk-livered boar-pigs. (Shakespeare works!)

We need sensible solutions to the multi-pronged problem of gun violence. And you know what? MORE GUNS is truly NOT the answer. As this unfolds, we'll have to see what the government says and does. Of course, the red states, and even parts of IL are having trouble with what he's already proposed, but the President made an excellent argument:

"We have the right to worship freely and safely - that right was denied to Sikhs in Wisconsin; the right to assemble peacefully - that right was denied in Oregan and Colorado."  This was in this morning's Chicago Tribune. Obama turned on the "professor" mode and pointed out, quite rightly, that "that most fundamental set of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [were] denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown, and kids on street corners in Chicago on too frequent a basis to tolerate."

Which is kind of what I've been saying: When does YOUR right to carry a gun interfere with MY right to go about my business without fear of being collateral damage when the bullets start flying?

Of course, Republicans insist that "Second Amendment rights were non-negotiable."  You know what? So are the others. So what kind of country do you really want to live in? I'm not cool with the "live in fear" thing.

Honestly, call it crazy, but my friend and I went to see Les Miz (the movie) and I got jumpy when some folks moved around down in front. I'm not living my life that way. It also appears that even reasonable NRA members are embarassed by the current web commercial (I think it was already taken down but you can surely find it on YouTube), and many folks who are prominent conservatives are backing away slowly (seeing as the NRA is armed) -- because they jumped the shark by not only having a new "app" which is "suitable for 4 years and up" whereby kids can shoot at coffins... Yeah, I'm not kidding ... but also, that commercial asking "are the President's kids more important than yours" and ...wait for it... The NRA says that ad "wasn't aimed at Obama's children." Really?

I don't think I could belong to an organization which thought I was that stupid.

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.