Planetaki Planet knitting

Chinese version available!

2010-06-22T08:08:08Z

ni hao ma?

We just released a Chinese version of Planetaki. You can switch to Mandarin from the "preferences" link on the top right of your planet.

Check this video for more info.

What the World Needs Now

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

The song says, “what the world needs now is love,” but we may have gone way beyond that. Love is a natural emotion that comes and goes as situations change, but usually becomes easier to muster when things are going well and the world seems to be a beautiful place.

Haven’t posted anything in a while because it just didn’t seem worth it with all the propaganda going on. It felt like a losing battle to add my two cents into the fray on this little blog. I thought, “why would anyone trust what I have to say when all this spinning was going on in the media and in the halls of Congress?”

As I thought harder about it, it dawned on me that what’s wrong in the world, I mean the real underlying problem is a severe lack of trust. Or perhaps to put it even clearer . . .

What the world needs now is something to trust in!

It’s so great when the majority of the world’s population rallies around a tragedy, like what happened in Haiti. It shows we really do have it in us to come together and work for a particular cause when the situation at hand is real.

Tragedies, although terrible, are trustworthy. They can’t be faked on such a scale, and so people know for sure anything they do to help will actually make a difference for the victims. The magnitude of the help provided in these types of situations also tell us how much people want something trustworthy enough to participate in.

However, when we turn our attention away from places like Haiti and Louisiana after Katrina, what else is there to trust in?

From religion, to government, and right down to the products we need to survive, all we get is spin, corruption, and deceit. It’s gotten to the point where most people expect to get screwed over every time they get out of bed.

It’s going to take a while to get us to the mindset where we can trust again, but “something’s gotta give,” and someone big is going to have to step up and begin putting people ahead of profit.

A Supreme Shift in Campaign Planning

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

I’m a firm believer that any negative can be turned into a positive with a little Yankee ingenuity added to the mix. Take the latest Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to flood as much money as they want into the campaigns of the candidates of their choosing as a perfect example.

While on the surface, this seems like a terrible thing to happen because it defines the end of competitive campaigning.

No one group or organization will be able to raise as much money as a corporate greed machine, so it pretty much makes it inevitable that most, if not all campaign ads will be corporate funded.

This will make it easy to know which candidates the corporations are for and which they’re against, provided grassroots organizations like MoveOn.org don’t try to compete.

A simple ad, constantly run all over the country stating that only corporations are running political ads for candidates now, and unless you want to support the corporate agenda, any candidate being endorsed by these ads will not be working for the people.

Likewise, any negative political advertising can be dealt with in the same fashion. If the corporations are against a candidate, then there’s a good chance he or she will do the most good for the people.

This lets the corporations spend all the money on political ads, and frees up organizations like MoveOn.org to educate people on what corporate endorsed candidates mean for the country.

Technorati Tags: campaign ads, corporate endorsed candidates, corporate political funding, Supreme Court

Time Flies When You’re Holding Your Breath

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

I haven’t been posting anything in almost a month? Wow, does time fly when you’re holding your breath! You see, the health care reform bill has really got me on the edge of my seat. I’m hoping for the best, but it looks like we’ll all be settling for a lot less, unless the Dems have something coming in under the radar.

I guess we’ll know soon enough. But I’ve been hesitant to state any opinions because things keep changing around so fast.

One day the public option is alive, the next its dead and expanded Medicare is on the table, then its dead too.

All I know is a lot of people are going to be pretty pissed off if they’re forced to pay for health insurance through a mandate, and get no concessions from the insurance companies.

Maybe our last best chance is if the House Dems show the Senate Dems what a real bill should look like and stick to their guns.

Technorati Tags: changing the bill, expanded Medicare, health care reform, public option, senate bill

Stoning Themselves in the Foot

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

The conflict between Patrick Kennedy and his Catholic bishop uncovers the underlying fail of most of the fundamental Christian groups that choose to ignore the separation of church and state policy. By playing this political game, they in essence abandon the philosophy of their founder.

The words were simple, “whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone.”

The lessons behind the words were far more complex, however.

First, they indicated the end of the Mosaic Law and ushered in the era of spiritual principles. What it meant was, people would be punished “by” their sins not “for” them. Sinning or not sinning is a personal matter, and judgment is a conscience issue based on an individual’s relationship with the principles taught.

To back this up, when the disciples were being commissioned for the ministry, it was explained clearly that if anyone rejected the “message,” the disciples were to “kick the dust from their sandals and walk away.” No judgment, no condemnation. They were just to walk away and move on.

It was the spreading of the message that was the important duty to fulfill, not the dispensation of judgment or the imposing of doctrine. The message itself was a road map, not a rule book, and it was up to the individual whether or not the road was to be taken and how accurately the map followed.

The reward or loss as the final outcome, is to be determined by the individual’s loyalty to his or her own trained conscience and how well the principles were applied throughout the person’s life.

Secondly, and more important to the failure of organized religion is the removal of authority of one over his or her fellow man. By removing governance by law and replacing it with principles, teaching was to be the primary duty of the congregations rather than enforcement.

The level of an individual’s association with the congregation then, is based on their willingness to be “like-minded” with the other members, and severance to be determined by the individual’s “straying from the flock.”

It is the teachings and strength of the group that serves as a shield of protection to keep the congregations clean. The elders’ function then is in the areas of persuasion and guidance as a shepherd. Their job is to watch for those straying and try bringing them back to the security of the message, not to impose punishment. If the member responds favorably, then the elder did his job. If the member continues to stray, then the elder simply notifies the rest of the congregation of that one’s current standing in order to protect them from influence.

And finally, the matter at hand between Kennedy and his bishop . . .

It was said, “keep doing this in remembrance of me.” It was not said, “keep doing this only if you’re following all the rules and have the approval of your elders.”

By partaking in the memorial ritual, an individual is merely acknowledging the “new covenant.” His or her level of adherence to the principles of that covenant is inconsequential to participation in the ritual itself. However, by participating, the individual’s life performance in connection to the covenant then becomes a matter of conscience and brings value or lack there of to the act of participation.

But in any event, the entire thing is about a person’s relationship and standing with the covenant and in no way should be dictated or governed by anyone else.

So then, when religion tries to influence law in order to enforce adherence to principle, they end up leaning back toward judgment and punishment revoked by the “new covenant” and ignore the teaching of the one they claim to follow.

And that’s exactly what the bishop did when trying to force Kennedy’s hand based on his position on the law rather than on his own personal adherence to spiritual principle. Kennedy’s job binds him to the secular constitution, and in good conscience must vote accordingly. Yet as a Catholic, he may never consider doing certain things allowed in that secular law for his own life or those of his family.

As a disciple once said, “all things may be lawful, but not all things are advantageous.”

This should serve as a clear separating factor between secular law and Christian principle. And so, if the elders were doing their job correctly, there would be no reason to concern themselves with whether or not the law was in step with what they’re supposedly promoting, nor whether or not their flocks were taking advantage of the lawfulness of certain acts.

It’s all a matter of principle, and they’d do well to stick to that.

Technorati Tags: christian, church and state, law, Patrick Kennedy, principles, spiritual principles

Who Hired This Guy Anyway?

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

Hello? Hello?!?

For eight long years we had this guy as the Commander-in-chief, the Leader of the Free World, and an arm’s reach away from the “football.” Is there any wonder why the rest of the world held their collective breath, and why they’re so relieved now?

It’s just amazing after 8 years of Bush, so many of the Teabaggers would want us to go back to that. Do people on the far right all have short term memory loss? Or do they all answer their phones like this?

Technorati Tags: Bush, political opinion, politics, teabaggers, world view

Foolishness and Daylight Savings Time

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

If you ever want to know whether the government is honest, fair, and logical, just ask a Native American . . .

Native view of goverment foolishness

But what this Indian didn’t realize when speaking about the foolishness of the government is . .

They didn’t sew the blanket. They used highly classified special staples that cost $600K each.
They spent 1000 hours in Congressional committee to decide exactly where each staple would go.
The Republicans said no at first because they were holding out for special interests who wanted the blanket cut in many places to use more staples and help the corporate empire who fund their campaigns.
The Democrats were split with some wanting to save money by using wider staples costing $900K each but using 10% less over all.

And the secret agenda? It would all be decided on at the last minute, so the work would be done after dark, and nobody would notice nothing changed.

Technorati Tags: daylight savings time, foolishness, government, government waste, Native American

Opting Out Options to Opt Back In

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

Senator Harry Reid said today that the health care reform bill he’ll take to the floor of the senate will have a public option, but one that’ll let individual states opt out of if they so choose. Now this seems like a good idea, and it should get more senators to vote for it. But there’s a couple of points I haven’t heard anything about yet . . .

First, who in each state will decide whether to opt in or opt out?

I suppose it would be the governors after conferring with their house and senate leaders, but I sure would like to see it brought to ballot at some point or another. If the states have to opt in at first, like some are proposing, then that would give them plenty of time to allow the people to vote on it.

Sure the senators have said they’re basing their voting decision on their constituents, but that’s what they say. Who knows which one they’ve talked to, and how much money they’ve been paid to hear these people’s opinions? So bringing it to the people is the fairest way to go.

Secondly, if a state decides to opt out, can they change back later on?

I live in a state where, from time to time, we get a Republican governor. If one was in office when the decision was to be made, I know a lot of people around here would be mightily furious. There should be a way of turning back any decision that wasn’t actually brought to a general vote.

Hopefully these questions will be answered soon.

Technorati Tags: health care reform, public option

Breaking Up the Monopolies

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

In his address this week, President Obama urged the passing of the Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Enforcement Act. This, hopefully will be passed and become part of the over all health care reform presently going through Congress. But you can help!

Senator Leahy would like your help in making sure everyone involved in passing this is notified about the peoples’ wishes. To give your support, you’re urged to go here: http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust and sign a letter addressed to your state’s senators.

You can also see President Obama’s comments about this at the above site.

The Health Insurance companies have literally gotten away with murder, because there is nothing preventing them from dominating any state’s health care market, and deciding who lives and who dies. Now we get a chance to fight back.

Technorati Tags: anti-trust, health care reform, Health Insurance Industry Anti-Trust Enforcement Act

If It Doesn’t Hurt Anybody

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems very few people ever get killed in marijuana related car accidents, or many who get arrested for domestic abuse due to being under the influence of pot. Neither are there many cancer deaths from smoking marijuana, or liver problems, or anything like that. So maybe it is just me, but if something doesn’t hurt you, and in many cases actually helps people, why on Earth would it be illegal?

Some may make the argument that, because of all the drug cartels making a fortune on it, the government couldn’t support legalizing it. But isn’t the very fact of it being illegal give rise to these profits from shady groups? Certainly none of the shops in California where medical marijuana is legal go to these cartels for their supplies, do they?

In fact it stands to reason, if marijuana was fully legalized, new farm businesses could open up and put these shady characters on the run. People could start growing their own supplies, sure, but that wouldn’t cut into tax revenue any more than the people who make their own beer in their bathtub.

Another argument against legalizing marijuana might be, if you legalize pot, then you’ll be on a slippery slope to legalizing the real, harmful drugs. However, there’s one important difference here. Marijuana is actually an herb, not a drug. It’s only called a drug by those seeking to keep it evil. For centuries it was an herb, and it remains so regardless of its legal classification.

So simply declassify it and let it take its rightful place among all the other helpful herbs we know of. All the other substances known as drugs are created or modified in a lab. Marijuana is grown in a garden or field and is harvested just as it is with no modification. Even alcohol, a far more damaging substance, is processed. Thus its not a real long shot risk to merely call marijuana what it really is, and be done with all that slope talk.

After all, if it doesn’t hurt anybody, and there’s documented medicinal benefits to it, with the worst it might do is contribute to obesity because of the “munchies” that come with it, then why keep marijuana illegal? Just doesn’t seem right, does it?

Technorati Tags: legalization, marijuana, medicinal value, pot, Society

Noetic Science: Believing is Seeing

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

There’s no doubt the most divisive force to the human community on the planet is religion. Perhaps it’s because so many of them all claim to be the true one, and so their adherents are less willing to back off, which in turn creates fertile ground for conflict. But how could every religion exclusively hold the truth? The answer might be found in the study of Noetic Science.

Noetic Science is basically the study of mind over matter, but more specifically its the study of how the mind’s perception creates realities. Drawing its authority from Quantum Physics, it proposes the universal consciousness permeating the energy field that is the universe allows all living things, as observers, the capability of creative perception.

In other words, how we perceive things makes it real for us. Collectively, we all see the galaxy, our world in the same basic way because, through time we’ve been programmed to see it that way. So if someone mentions a pine tree, or a cloud mass, everyone gets pretty much the same picture in their mind.

But individual experiences in our world can alter perception of specifics and thus give different people various views of the same thing.

For example, a group of people may gather below a building, gazing up at an image on a glass window. To them it could be a sign of proof that the Virgin Mary is visiting with a validation of their Catholic beliefs. For others, it could be merely an appreciation of the amazing ability of how condensation can paint beautiful pictures in the strangest places. Or still others could perceive it as a ghostly image, validating their belief in the paranormal.

A poet once wrote, “Two men looked through prison bars. One saw mud, the other saw stars.” How we perceive things makes our world either wondrous or miserable, so why would it be so hard to comprehend that our perceptions could make certain things real for us?

When we believe something, that which we believe in begins to solidify in our mind. We reason how it fits with our present reality, and thus accept it as true. Once this happens, all events or other occurrences will tend to validate what we believe, and thus make it more solid to us. Then, the more we participate in life with these beliefs solidly fixed in our perceptions, the truer they become until we’re willing to stake our.

Couple that with the sense of community when several million believe similarly, and you have a remarkably solid set of perceptions that aren’t easily questioned, let alone quickly abandoned when faced with oppositions.

But in the end its all based on perceiving our world based on personal experience and occurrence. Any belief can become true if it fits, and if enough people share the same perceptions.

So which religion has exclusive rights to claiming its the true one? In light of Noetic Science, it would have to be all of them, because like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, believing IS seeing and as long as there are observers with their own life experiences, every observation would therefore be true to those who see it that way.

If humanity could only understand beliefs are personal, and thus truth is also an individual reality, perhaps then we could live in peace without fear of our realities being threatened.

Technorati Tags: belief, beliefs, noetic science, realities, reality, Religion, truth

Running a Three-Legged Race With a One-Legged Partner

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

You know, it’s amazing that anything gets done in Washington. Congress is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the nation, but more often than not, it acts more like its running a three-legged race with a one-legged partner. Someone is always refusing to carry their weight for political or monetary reasons, which makes everything drag on far longer than it should.

Take health care reform for example . . .

There’s absolutely no reason why Congress should be concerning itself with protecting the over glutted coffers of the insurance companies. And yet, it seems making sure the top CEOs continue to bring in 57 thousand dollars an hour is top priority.

Does it make any sense? Well it does if you look at it from a strictly “kick back, re-election fund overflowing with money” point of view. Apparently, when the right wing and blue dogs say the #1 priority in the country is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” they mean their own jobs. Keeping the millions of dollars in contributions streaming in from corporations like the insurance companies, gives them a sense of job security they just can’t seem to pass up.

But we, the people have a recourse! If these politicians think their job security lies in how many deals they can make with corporations, then we need to show them their real job security actually depends on us and our vote.

Think about it, how long will huge re-election funds matter when no one pays any heed to the advertising they pay for? Great ads, with grandiose promises can’t stand up to actual track records on the ground, and so its up to the people to remember what these senators and congressmen really do while on the job, and who they’re actually working for.

Technorati Tags: corporate kick backs, politics, re-election funds, special interests, three-legged race, Washinton, we the people

Our Special Interests

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

We hear a lot about special interest groups lobbying Congress to get special corporate favors. They seem to buy senators and representatives who’s votes appear to hold no other logic than to satisfy these lobbyists’ agendas. As these politicians’ re-election funds are padded with corporate money, and their sent on free elaborate vacations, the people should be asking, “What about our special interests?”

While watching TV the other night, a political commercial came on for one of the people running for the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. It was the usual rhetoric about changing Washington, blah, blah, blah. But near the end, the candidate made an interesting statement . . .

He declared, “I will not take any money from Special Interest Groups.”

Wondering if he’d be willing to put that in writing, it occurred to me how great it would be if all candidates running for the 2010 election would be willing to sign a statement proposed to them, declaring themselves off limits to lobbyists.

Perhaps a group like MoveOn.org could head that up?

It would certainly give us an indication of where each candidate stood in regard to doing the right thing and serving the people he or she takes an oath to serve. It wouldn’t have to be an elaborate, drawn out statement either. Just something simple like . . .

“I, [candidate], declare myself off limits to Special Interest Groups, and will not take any money from anyone in exchange for special favors or to sway my vote. If I am elected, I put all citizens on notice that my seat will not be for sale.”

As these signed statements are collected, the running tally of names could be posted online somewhere so everyone could see it. Then we’ll know which candidates are for the people, or for themselves and their corporate buddies.

Then it would be just a matter of us holding them to it.

Technorati Tags: 2010 election, candidates, lobbying, lobbyists, politician, politics, Special Interest Groups, special interests

Health Care Redirect

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

With sixty-five percent of the American people in favor of the public option, and the rest of the majority not fully aware of what the public option is (medicare for all), perhaps there’s another way for us to bring about a sort of health care redirect that could very well change the playing field.

Imagine if every American who was denied health care, whether it be from a “pre-existing condition,” or for whatever reason, took what they’d normally pay for a monthly insurance premium, brought it down to one of the 1,200 free clinics in the US (see http://freeclinics.us/ for one near you), and donated it with the words, “Here! Grow!!”

Or if you couldn’t donate any money, then perhaps donate some volunteer time. Everyone on staff are strictly volunteers, from doctors, nurses, down to the reception people. No one gets paid, but everyone gets quality health care.

Here’s what their website says . . .

The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC) is the only nonprofit 501c(3) organization whose mission is solely focused on the issues and needs of the more than 1,200 free clinics and the people they serve in the United States.

Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., the NAFC is an effective advocate for the issues and concerns of free clinics, their volunteer workforce of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, technicians and other health care professionals, and the patients served by free clinics in communities throughout the nation.

These clinics are not funded by anything other than public donations. The government has nothing to do with them, the big Pharma and Insurance corporations are not involved, yet they help thousands of uninsured or under insured people every day.

With some help from ordinary, working people, these free clinics could very well turn into a real public option, owned and operated by and for the people.

Think about it next time you get the sniffles, or just plain don’t feel well.

Technorati Tags: free clinics, Health Care Redirect, insurance, insurance premium, National Association of Free Clinics

Economic Cannibalism

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

Ever wonder what it would be like to be on the bottom of the food chain? Well, chances are you’re already experiencing it whenever you go to the super market, or pay your utility bills, or buy anything for that matter. Corporate greed is feeding off everyone who remotely resembles a consumer, and chances are, that includes you.

In the eyes of a corporate CEO, we are not citizens, we are livestock and our commodity is our hard earned pay. They manage to fleece us of virtually everything we own, and all the while convincing us its for our own good.

Take the super market industry for example . . .

Last year when the price of gas rose to over four dollars a gallon, we were told the prices of most products would have to rise as well to cover the extra cost of delivery. That sounded reasonable at the time. It would cost them more to intake all these products, and so “sharing” the expense with their customers was an acceptable way to go.

But the cost of gas is no longer four dollars a gallon, yet it seems food and other product prices continue to rise. Why?

Well, simply put, they’ve gotten us used to paying higher and higher prices, so why stop now. As long as we “need” these products, we’ll be willing to pay the price. So the average Joe will work two to three hours at his job just so he can get his laundry done at home. And mom won’t mind paying five dollars a gallon for milk, because its the only way she can get it to her children for their cereal.

When you think about it, the whole plot is ingenious. But when you think about it as to how it pertains to you and your family, and you don’t feel like you’re very existence is being eaten up by the bigger beast, then you’ve really been asleep at the wheel.

In the long run, one of two things are going to happen . . .

Either the people are going to put their foot down and find a way to fight back, or the entire system we all come to rely on will crumble. Siphoning people’s livelihoods until there isn’t anymore is unsustainable, after all.

A CEO doesn’t need to make $57,000 a hour, especially when families are losing everything they’ve worked their lives for just to pay his salary. But unfortunately it appears Congress doesn’t agree and will make health care reform a big win for these people.

Or maybe Congress knows something we don’t! Perhaps this whole thing is a giant plan to ship everyone to Canada and Mexico so they can turn the United States into one big country club for the 1% who can survive this economic cannibalism we’re all experiencing, and all those in Congress who go along with it can stay for the party.

It’s not very logical no matter how you view it, but who knows?

The United Corporates of America sound good? Nah, once we’re all gone they’ll just start eating each other. Nothing united about that!

Technorati Tags: cannibalism, corporate greed, Economic Cannibalism, Economy, prices

Morals Vs. Natural Inclination

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

When Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, his most important discovery was that the people he met were, in his words “in dios,” or like God. They had no tenets or moral codes to follow, but rather were naturally inclined to living a peaceful, hospitable life. When explorers go into the Amazon region, they too meet up with indigenous people who have no inclinations towards hostility or savagery in any way. So we need to ask ourselves, have indoctrinated morals replaced the natural inclination of humans, and is this a good thing?

It may be interesting to note, while Columbus and his crew came from a society with a strict moral code imposed by the Church, they had no problem taking advantage of these so called savages. These peaceful people were almost immediately subjected to brutal treatment like slavery, rape, murder, their homes were claimed for the crown, their resources exhausted, and were left for dead when Columbus finally decided to leave.

It seems then, the concept of living by a moral code, imposed and enforced, becomes an inclusive entity that demands comparison to other moral codes, or a lack of one. The level of authority that set a moral code in place also tends to imply class distinction and a greater abhorrence to anything “other” a different group may be governed by.

Columbus noted the indigenous people had no moral code when it came to nudity, thus they were “lesser” in his eyes. They had no army, and thus were weaker. Had no currency, and so were poverty-stricken, helpless creatures.
All of this, observed through his own moral code gave him the impression of “sub-human” when he viewed the habits of these people. His perception of superiority was a direct result of his having a code of morality instilled in him from the society he lived in. It gave him the authority and justification to act harshly.

On the other hand, the indigenous people certainly must have seen these visitors as strange and very uptight people. Hostility was a foreign concept to them, and history shows that it took quite some time before they even realized they should be protecting themselves from it. Their natural inclination was to share, claiming no ownership to anything. So in their eyes, Columbus and his crew must have had a great need, otherwise why else would they be taking everything?

So while it would be a natural thing to have two people, separated by an enormous ocean, find themselves with totally different lifestyles, an established moral code proved to be the most divisive element between them. And we can clearly see how different moral standards among the people of the Earth remains an extremely divisive force. More than 95% of all wars fought throughout history have been caused for religious and moral reasons.

But could we as a society live without imposed morals now? Would we be better off to just let our natural inclinations take over? Or would that, as some suggest, create chaos and anarchy?

Perhaps we’re all too far gone to go back. Or perhaps the world is slowly beginning to see the artificial aspects of a morality written down in a book, yet rarely lived.

Technorati Tags: morality, morals, morals vs. natural inclination, natural inclination, Religion, Society

Are We Losing the Edge in Foreign Policy?

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

The Right thinks if we don’t continue the neocon’s programs in dealing with the rest of the world, we’ll be losing the edge in foreign policy. But is this true? Is the “we’d rather bomb you than talk to you” approach the best chance we have for world order? Or is President Obama, our Community-Organizer-in-Chief leading us in the right direction?

Being the schoolyard bully certainly has its perks. Nobody dares take anything that belongs to you, no one would even consider standing up to you, or refusing you your favorite seat in the cafeteria. The downside is, nobody will stand up with you, or share anything with you unless you take it from them.

In other words, bullies have no real friends they can rely on!

Sure they get their way most of the time, because everyone is afraid of them. They also get a lot of space, because no one will go near them. The tough guy life is a lonely life indeed!

And this is exactly what we’ve seen throughout the Bush years. The United States pretty much had to go it alone with just a handful of nations, possessing little power of their own, tagging along. It was very costly for the nation both monetarily and in casualties. The Bush concept of “coerced democracy” left us with a wide berth in the schoolyard, and alienated itself from the rest of the world.

Now we have the “we’re all in this together if its going to work” mentality through President Obama, and the Right Wing thinks we’re a lot less safe. Yet the President is mending alliances throughout the world, including with Russia, and the world is beginning to stand together on some important issues. Sounds a lot safer this way, don’t you think?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen many a bully get what’s coming to him when the other kids finally had enough of him. Yet I never did see any kid, with the ability to come up with inclusive ideas for the whole schoolyard, get a beating.

It’s all a very simple equation really, the World is a community (whether anyone likes it or not), and all it needed was a “community organizer” to begin the process of setting things right. So if you ask me if we’re losing the edge in foreign policy with Obama at the helm, I’d have give a resounding “No!”

Technorati Tags: Community Organizer, foreign policy, Obama, Pesident Obama

I Knew the Teabaggers Reminded Me of Something . . .

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

I kept trying to wrack my brain about who these teabaggers reminded me of. It was something I had witnessed before, but I wasn’t quite sure where or when. Then it hit me!

It was the People’s Front of Judea! Or was that the Judean People’s Front? Splitters!!

Technorati Tags: protesters, teabaggers

Remembering the Words of Candidate Obama

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

In light of all the hubbub going on with right wing protesters who cry out about big government, and government take overs, it would be good if we took a moment remembering the words of Candidate Obama about that very topic during the presidential campaign.

“It’s not whether we have big government, or we have small government. It’s whether or not we have good government. Government that works.”

Now I know we’re all fed up with government bureaucracy, and how it seems when a crisis comes up, the government builds a new department with a whole new set of requirements and regulations, and how even when the crisis passes, the government never backs down. This has created a real mess in the way the country runs, and the taxpayer has to carry the burden of all that wasted effort to keep those agencies functioning with nothing really to do.

But it seems to me, the now President Obama still holds to the concept of good government. He certainly doesn’t seem the sort to waste time, effort or money. And he definitely doesn’t give one the impression that he’s for the “set it and forget it” style of bureaucratic uselessness we’ve seen over the years.

Rather it appears his methods are designed to handle a crisis, see it through, then back off. We see this in how he’s dealt with Wall Street and various other problems. TARP funding is temporary and will not continue once the banks are recovering. The car industry got a boost from government with a bailout and the “cash for clunkers” program, but now they’re relatively on their own.

Regulations need to be put in place to prevent the same problems from occurring again, but this is not “government take over.” It’s government working for the best interests of the people so the people aren’t faced with the same hardships in the future we face now. It’s government protecting the “common wealth” so we can all prosper.

In essence, it’s government doing the job government is suppose to do. To me, that’s good government.

Technorati Tags: bureaucracy, government, government take over, Obama

Perfect Pitch

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

Among all the FoxSpews zombies at the latest 9/12 march, there was a group who had perfect pitch. Billionaires for Wealthcare sang out the praises of letting things remain as they are. These guys were great, but its amazing how many people around them had no idea Billionaires for Wealthcare were laughing at them.

Check them out

And read more here about the Billionaires for Wealthcare

Technorati Tags: Billionaires for Wealthcare, FoxSpews, protest, tea baggers

And the Lights All Went Out in Massachusetts

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

At this moment we’re facing one of the most historic votes in Congress. More than sixty years in the making, and finally we may have a real health care reform bill being signed by the President. This was Senator Ted Kennedy’s life work, and sorrowfully he isn’t here to see it through. But what’s even worse is, we may not have full representation from the state he came from. At this point it seems the lights are out in Massachusetts and nobody’s home.

State lawmakers are dragging their feet in allowing Governor Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Senator Kennedy. This is temporary mind you. The replacement will only be in office until a special election can take place, and the person getting the position cannot run in the election. Its merely to give Massachusetts full representation at this critical time.

Now I understand the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” problem. If the Democrats in Massachusetts allow this now, it could happen again when a Republican governor is in office later. Naturally a Republican governor would appoint a Republican replacement, and that could spell problems for the state.

But its only temporary! Senator Kennedy asked for an interim replacement pending a special election. So even if a future Republican governor got the opportunity to appoint someone somewhere down the road, the special election would remedy the situation with little time to do very much damage to the state’s policies.

So what’s the problem here? Will someone please turn the lights back on?!?

Technorati Tags: interim replacement, Massachusetts, Massachusetts lawmakers, Senator Kennedy, special election

Their Behavior Said It All

2010-06-01T16:42:45Z

President Obama’s health care speech to the Joint Houses of Congress certainly shook things up a bit, and I in no way want to belittle it. It was masterfully given, and spelled out exactly what everyone wanted to hear. But the best part of the night for me was the behavior and appearance of the Republicans throughout the whole evening.

It reminded me of a group of school bullies who were being brought to terms by their principal. There was defiance for sure, but the majority of them looked like the jig was up for them and they were about to spend the rest of the year in detention.

Though I’m still deeply troubled by the lack of respect given to the office of the President by these supposedly intelligent, patriotic leaders, I can understand their frustration. For so many years the Republican party has stood their ground on purely partisan politics, using fear and misinformation to thwart Democratic liberalism. But now they’re up against a President who’s smarter than they are, totally dedicated to working for the people, and perhaps the best “roper-doper” since Mohamed Ali.

One has to wonder if Obama’s push to get a bill voted on before the August recess wasn’t a calculated maneuver to send the GOP into a frenzy, knowing full well it would nudge them into revealing all their dirty tricks throughout the recess. Let’s face it, they threw everything they had at it, but in the end, health care reform is still the most popular way to go according to the majority of Americans, and all the right-wingers managed to do was expose their lack of a plan and their unwillingness to participate like adults.

Politics is a bit like gambling, and our President seems to have an excellent poker face.

Technorati Tags: behavior, Democrat, health care reform speech, Joint Houses of Congress, political bad behavior, politics, President Obama, Republican

Rectangular Toe for Toe Up Socks

2010-06-01T16:42:54Z

I'd heard of using a rectangle to begin a toe up sock but had never seen a pattern, so I came up with my own method. It uses a set of 4 dpns, but could easily be adapted to 5 dpn's if needed.
Knit a rectangle 8 sts wide and 6 rows long (stocking stitch)

1. With ndl 1 k8 (along the 'working' edge of the rectangle),
2. with ndl 2 pickup 4 sts along side of rectangle (ends of the six rows) and 4 more sts from other end (halfway across the cast on edge), on 3rd ndl pick up 4 sts from other end (other half of the cast on edge) and 4 more sts from other side (other end of the 6 rows) - you'll have 8 + 8 + 8 = 24 stitches in total
3. Knit one round even
4Move first 2 sts from ndl 2 and last 2 sts from ndl 3 to your first ndl. You'll have 12 on first ndl and 6 on each of the other ndls (with the picked up sts)
5. On ndl 1 k1 m1 k10 m1 k1, on ndl 2 k1 m1 k5, on ndl 3 k5 m1 k1
6. Work one round even
7. On ndl 1 k1 m1 k12 m1 k1, on ndl 2 k1 m1 k6, on ndl 3 k6 m1 k1
8. Work one round even
9. Continue increasing in this manner til you have the number of sts you need for the foot of the sock

You could change the frequency of the increase rounds, the number of sts picked up, and / or the size of the rectangle if you like.

Step By Step: Learn To Knit

2010-06-01T16:42:54Z

From Barbara Breiter,

Getting Started

Before you begin, you'll need to go shopping. All you'll need is yarn and knitting needles. Visit a yarn shop, where there will be experts on staff to help you in your selection.

Yarn is available in many fibers and weights (from very thin to very thick). Select a worsted weight yarn (a medium weight) spun from wool. Wool is the most elastic fiber and very forgiving. You'll find it much easier to knit with than a fancy yarn with a lot of loops and eyelashes, which make it difficult to see what you're doing.

Needles are made from a variety of materials. What you select is a matter of personal preference. There is no right or wrong. Aluminum needles are heavy and slippery; some yarns "stick" on needles and you might find aluminum needles easier to knit with for these type of yarns. Bamboo needles are light and warm to the touch. Bamboo tends to grip the yarn so you'll be less likely to have problems with your stitches falling off the needles. They come in a variety of sizes that are used with various thicknesses of yarns. Select a size 8 US (5 MM, 6 UK) needle for practice.

Pick a time when you can be alone and concentrate. A chair with no arms (or very low arms) and a good light are essential.

Like many things in life, it takes practice. It will feel awkward at first, as if you were all thumbs. This is normal and something we all experience. Soon, it will become second nature and you won't need to think about each maneuver.

Holding The Yarn And Needles

There is no right or wrong way to hold the needles or the yarn as it flows from the ball. Find the way that is most comfortable for you. Remember it will feel awkward in the beginning, regardless of how you hold the yarn and needles.

We are going to learn what is called Continental Knitting, where the yarn is held in the left hand. You can use either the outside or the inside end of the ball of yarn. Using the inside end is generally best as this keeps the yarn from rolling around and getting away from you; if you use the outside end, contain it in a plastic bag, box, or other means. You can wrap the end of the yarn around your index finger or loop it around your fingers; this is what controls the yarn. Again, there is no right or wrong way.

You will hold one needle in your left hand. You begin by casting on (next step) stitches on to this needle. Later, when you knit or purl, you will work into the stitches on the left needle, transferring them to the right needle as you complete each stitch. When you knit all of the stitches on the left needle, the left needle will be empty and the right needle will be full. Transfer the right needle to your left hand and the empty needle to your right hand. You will be ready to begin the next row.

Knitting instructions

Learning To Knit

2010-06-01T16:42:54Z

So you've decided you'd like to learn to knit? Those of us who enjoy the art of knitting find it soothing and relaxing to the body and spirit. But learning how to knit takes some effort. How should one go about it?

There are several methods to choose from. I learned by taking books out from the library and following the illustrations. It felt awkward at first, but soon I was knitting and purling without even looking. You might also choose to take lessons from someone; seek out your local yarn shop. If they don't offer classes, they can point you in the direction of someone who does. There are also a wide selection of videos available to help you on your journey as well as lessons on the net.

There are two different methods of making stitches: Continental and American. Which method you choose doesn't matter; the stitches are exactly the same. Experiment and find which you are most comfortable with.

I would suggest using wool for your lessons and medium sized needles--about a size 7 works well. Wool is forgiving and "bounces back", making it easier for you to get an even tension. Larger or smaller needles can be especially awkward to beginners to work with.

Sit in a comfortable chair, one in which the arms are not too high so as to interfere with the needles as you work. Have good lighting available. Most of all RELAX--tensing up with only take away from the experience and knitting will become a chore instead of a soothing way to spend some time.

Knitting instructions