trapped.
dark basement.
dolores.
ball gag.
guacamole.
please.
can't take.
any more.
barry manilow.
somebody.
help me.
oh god.
the horror.
the horror.
6 days ago
7.20.2006
7.15.2006
Blowing into the Windy City
Hey all!
Just wanted to let you know that I am heading to Chicago later today for the Gay Games. I will be away for 8 days, but will have lots to talk about when I get back, including a report on a mysterious package I received from the Bathtub Nudity Coalition yesterday...
Just wanted to let you know that I am heading to Chicago later today for the Gay Games. I will be away for 8 days, but will have lots to talk about when I get back, including a report on a mysterious package I received from the Bathtub Nudity Coalition yesterday...
7.07.2006
Why I keep my Canadian citizenship...
I know, this is isn't what most of you expect to see from me. A non-knitting post. But, let me tell you! I was so angry yesterday when the ruling came down from the New York Court of Appeals. As you may already know, same-sex marriage is still only a dream in New York. I would have been merely frustrated or disappointed with the ruling had the justices simply said, "Nope, we're not touching this one with a ten-foot pole. Let the legislature handle this one." Instead, the writer of the majority opinion just had to include his view that fags and dykes make terrible parents. (His words, or how I heard them in my head.)
Ummm, what does procreation have to do with getting married? I mean, I would love to have kids of my own, but then I realize that I can't just leave them in a kennel for the weekend. Kids are a huge investment of time and resources and, unfortunately, they aren't a priority for me right now.
Does that change the fact that I have been in a committed relationship for almost nine years? No. I say that if you want to argue that it is "rational" to use procreation as a justification for marriage, then maybe the legislature should look into a "non-baby" tax and dissolve marriages that don't result in children within a year and charge these non-(re)productive couples a fee representative of the amount of benefits that they received as a result of getting married. Infertile? Not my problem. You shouldn't have gotten married then.
My Swiftian logic makes about as much sense as this recent ruling. But it sure got me angry! I was watching the news and saw that a rally had gathered in Sheridan Square. After work, I decided to drive into the city to become a part of what I hoped would be the defining moment of my queer generation. (I missed Stonewall by about six months.) I had become complacent in my own way and I could feel my repressed activist tendencies bubbling up to the surface. (Try and imagine being the only queer kid in a town of about 40,000 who had the balls to come out at 14. Trust me, I'm very good at getting in your face when I have to.)
The rally was a little disappointing. The crowd hovered only around 200 or 300 people. A gay-positive assembly, they were almost too polite. The usual suspects of politicians were there, preaching to the choir. The pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in New York, Rev. Pat Bumgardner, was the most inspirational speaker and she closed the rally. She mentioned that the only "until death do us part" statement in the Bible happens between two women. She pointed out that straight people can have babies "by accident", but all gay couples WANT to have their babies and will fight like heaven for that right. She also stated that, by law, she can't tell you who to vote for; but she can tell you who NOT to vote for. Don't vote for people who don't have respect for your basic civil rights. Can you tell that I liked her logic?
Talking about the rally with some friends afterwards, I pointed out that the queer kids of today won't realize that this is an important issue until they start trying to access some of these rights when they get older. I never realized how good married couples have it until we tried to buy a house together, until I was in intensive care for 4 days after a stroke and the doctor wouldn't even acknowledge Monte, let alone tell him what was going on. (Monte had to call my mother in Canada who then had to give her permission to the doctor for him to talk to Monte.) It cost us $1,000 at the accountant's office to set up a business partnership recognized by the IRS in order to enjoy the benefits that married couples receive upon filing a joint tax return. It cost us $1,500 at the lawyer's office to set up wills and health care proxies to protect ourselves when one of us passes away.
What pisses me off the most, though, is that it would be better for Monte if I were to die at home instead of dying in the line of duty. That's right. New York State has no problem with me putting my life on the line at work, but doesn't recognize my registered domestic partner if I were to die protecting the streets of New York City. We're talking close to a million dollars that a widow would receive automatically that Monte would miss out on. Does that sound fair to you?
If you live in New York State, call your State representatives now and demand the right for same-sex couples to marry. It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay. We're not talking about special rights; we are talking about equal rights.
And to think that I could simply move back to Canada with Monte and get married there.
Ummm, what does procreation have to do with getting married? I mean, I would love to have kids of my own, but then I realize that I can't just leave them in a kennel for the weekend. Kids are a huge investment of time and resources and, unfortunately, they aren't a priority for me right now.
Does that change the fact that I have been in a committed relationship for almost nine years? No. I say that if you want to argue that it is "rational" to use procreation as a justification for marriage, then maybe the legislature should look into a "non-baby" tax and dissolve marriages that don't result in children within a year and charge these non-(re)productive couples a fee representative of the amount of benefits that they received as a result of getting married. Infertile? Not my problem. You shouldn't have gotten married then.
My Swiftian logic makes about as much sense as this recent ruling. But it sure got me angry! I was watching the news and saw that a rally had gathered in Sheridan Square. After work, I decided to drive into the city to become a part of what I hoped would be the defining moment of my queer generation. (I missed Stonewall by about six months.) I had become complacent in my own way and I could feel my repressed activist tendencies bubbling up to the surface. (Try and imagine being the only queer kid in a town of about 40,000 who had the balls to come out at 14. Trust me, I'm very good at getting in your face when I have to.)
The rally was a little disappointing. The crowd hovered only around 200 or 300 people. A gay-positive assembly, they were almost too polite. The usual suspects of politicians were there, preaching to the choir. The pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church in New York, Rev. Pat Bumgardner, was the most inspirational speaker and she closed the rally. She mentioned that the only "until death do us part" statement in the Bible happens between two women. She pointed out that straight people can have babies "by accident", but all gay couples WANT to have their babies and will fight like heaven for that right. She also stated that, by law, she can't tell you who to vote for; but she can tell you who NOT to vote for. Don't vote for people who don't have respect for your basic civil rights. Can you tell that I liked her logic?
Talking about the rally with some friends afterwards, I pointed out that the queer kids of today won't realize that this is an important issue until they start trying to access some of these rights when they get older. I never realized how good married couples have it until we tried to buy a house together, until I was in intensive care for 4 days after a stroke and the doctor wouldn't even acknowledge Monte, let alone tell him what was going on. (Monte had to call my mother in Canada who then had to give her permission to the doctor for him to talk to Monte.) It cost us $1,000 at the accountant's office to set up a business partnership recognized by the IRS in order to enjoy the benefits that married couples receive upon filing a joint tax return. It cost us $1,500 at the lawyer's office to set up wills and health care proxies to protect ourselves when one of us passes away.
What pisses me off the most, though, is that it would be better for Monte if I were to die at home instead of dying in the line of duty. That's right. New York State has no problem with me putting my life on the line at work, but doesn't recognize my registered domestic partner if I were to die protecting the streets of New York City. We're talking close to a million dollars that a widow would receive automatically that Monte would miss out on. Does that sound fair to you?
If you live in New York State, call your State representatives now and demand the right for same-sex couples to marry. It doesn't matter if you are straight or gay. We're not talking about special rights; we are talking about equal rights.
And to think that I could simply move back to Canada with Monte and get married there.
7.05.2006
Trying my Manos at Experimenting
Well, it's been a busy couple of weeks for me. I have worked over 120 hours in the last two weeks, what with two people in the office on vacation. So, I haven't had much time to do anything other than eat, sleep and work. However, I did manage to toss off another hat while watching mindless reality shows. I present to you my Short Rows Hat:
I could resist the Siren's call of the Manos no longer. I loved the colors when I first saw them and it was a pleasure to work up on US 10.5's. (A little big for the yarn, but I was wanting to see what would happen if I went a little bigger.) The only thing I didn't like about the Manos was the uneven thickness of the spinning, especially when I thought that it was being held together by a thread, literally.
I have also been trying to find some time for "fun" reading, and my choice of book definitely influenced this design. I have been reading a history of mathematical group theory by Mario Livio and his discussions on Galois and permutations. I began by trying to knit up and down waves into a project and thought I would be able to accomplish this using short rows, working off of what I learned making the Multidirectional Diagonal Scarf. (I skimmed "Loop-d-Loop" recently at the bookstore and saw a Fair Isle Short Rows project that created this effect. I really should just go out and buy the book instead of trying to figure it out on my own.)
Realizing that I still don't have the ability to translate increasing and decreasing diagonal lines in my head to a project, I settled on working up to six stitches with short rows and then connecting to the next set of six stitches. This created a really cool bobble effect that I imagined as sails in the wind.
At this point, I calculated (using group theory) that if I offset each six-row collection of bobbles by one, I would get back on track and each stitch would eventually have the same number of rows by the time I started decreasing. This would look something like this (with each column containing each unique member exactly once):
(612345)
(561234)
(456123)
(345612)
(234561)
(123456)
Unfortunately, I also realized that 6x6=36 rounds and I knew from my prior experience that a hat only goes to about 50 rounds total. With 9 rounds of 3x3 ribbing and (9+3=)12 rounds of stocking stitch to roll up the brim, I would either run out of wool or create a hat destined for a giant. (I cast on 90 stitches, because 90 is divisible by 3, 6 and 9; this is one loose hat!)
I settled on offsetting the bobbles by 3 and separating the bobble collections by 3 rows. I thought this created a nice balance and symmetry consistent with group theory. I wanted to do 3 six-row collections, but thought that I might once again run out of wool. (I did consider making a trip into the city to buy more at Knit NY!) I then did more decreasing than I wanted to, starting with K8, K2tog (9x10) instead of K5, K2tog (6x15). The intervening K rows didn't help.
In the end, I came away with a greater appreciation for just trying something, even if it doesn't work out the way you want. The old me would have ripped the whole thing back and made more room to roll up the brim, added the third collection of bobbles and decreased more quickly. Or I would have just done bobbles over the entire hat. Casting on less stitches might have helped as well. (I need to step back and use my common sense at times instead of striving for mathematical purity at all costs.)
However, I realized that my twin sister is going to love the hat anyway, not caring about my mathematical designs or my missed intentions. (She's a redhead and the colors should suit her perfectly.) Non-knitters are so easy to please!
Of course, I went shopping again as well. The shop this time was Sandy's Knit and Tell at Union Turnpike and Parsons Boulevard in Queens. I stopped in on my meal break while working some overtime in the 107th Precinct, my first command. I almost scared the little old ladies when I entered the store in full patrol uniform. I quickly won them over with my knitting anecdotes and helpful demeanor lifting boxes onto shelves. I went in looking for some US 1 dpns for my Jaywalker socks. (Thanks for the offer, Joe!) I picked up some vintage Susan Bates; check out the packaging!
I couldn't leave without something made of fiber, so I left with 3 balls of Plymouth Royal Bamboo. I liked the colors and at $7.00 a skein, it was much cheaper than the Alchemy. The store was packed to the roof with a jumbled assortment of colors and yarns and I didn't really have the time to sort through all of it, so I went with what I knew. I also picked up a surprisingly expensive needlepoint canvas for my mother's 70th birthday next week. It's what I like to call TPP (Tacky Police Paraphernalia) after TMP (Tacky Music Paraphernalia). My mom will enjoy working it up and then give it to me for my birthday in December. (We've done this before...)
And if I knew that I would get so many comments, I would have posed naked a long time ago. (You can forget about the Claudia shot, Carol. Even I have some pride left.)
I could resist the Siren's call of the Manos no longer. I loved the colors when I first saw them and it was a pleasure to work up on US 10.5's. (A little big for the yarn, but I was wanting to see what would happen if I went a little bigger.) The only thing I didn't like about the Manos was the uneven thickness of the spinning, especially when I thought that it was being held together by a thread, literally.
I have also been trying to find some time for "fun" reading, and my choice of book definitely influenced this design. I have been reading a history of mathematical group theory by Mario Livio and his discussions on Galois and permutations. I began by trying to knit up and down waves into a project and thought I would be able to accomplish this using short rows, working off of what I learned making the Multidirectional Diagonal Scarf. (I skimmed "Loop-d-Loop" recently at the bookstore and saw a Fair Isle Short Rows project that created this effect. I really should just go out and buy the book instead of trying to figure it out on my own.)
Realizing that I still don't have the ability to translate increasing and decreasing diagonal lines in my head to a project, I settled on working up to six stitches with short rows and then connecting to the next set of six stitches. This created a really cool bobble effect that I imagined as sails in the wind.
At this point, I calculated (using group theory) that if I offset each six-row collection of bobbles by one, I would get back on track and each stitch would eventually have the same number of rows by the time I started decreasing. This would look something like this (with each column containing each unique member exactly once):
(612345)
(561234)
(456123)
(345612)
(234561)
(123456)
Unfortunately, I also realized that 6x6=36 rounds and I knew from my prior experience that a hat only goes to about 50 rounds total. With 9 rounds of 3x3 ribbing and (9+3=)12 rounds of stocking stitch to roll up the brim, I would either run out of wool or create a hat destined for a giant. (I cast on 90 stitches, because 90 is divisible by 3, 6 and 9; this is one loose hat!)
I settled on offsetting the bobbles by 3 and separating the bobble collections by 3 rows. I thought this created a nice balance and symmetry consistent with group theory. I wanted to do 3 six-row collections, but thought that I might once again run out of wool. (I did consider making a trip into the city to buy more at Knit NY!) I then did more decreasing than I wanted to, starting with K8, K2tog (9x10) instead of K5, K2tog (6x15). The intervening K rows didn't help.
In the end, I came away with a greater appreciation for just trying something, even if it doesn't work out the way you want. The old me would have ripped the whole thing back and made more room to roll up the brim, added the third collection of bobbles and decreased more quickly. Or I would have just done bobbles over the entire hat. Casting on less stitches might have helped as well. (I need to step back and use my common sense at times instead of striving for mathematical purity at all costs.)
However, I realized that my twin sister is going to love the hat anyway, not caring about my mathematical designs or my missed intentions. (She's a redhead and the colors should suit her perfectly.) Non-knitters are so easy to please!
Of course, I went shopping again as well. The shop this time was Sandy's Knit and Tell at Union Turnpike and Parsons Boulevard in Queens. I stopped in on my meal break while working some overtime in the 107th Precinct, my first command. I almost scared the little old ladies when I entered the store in full patrol uniform. I quickly won them over with my knitting anecdotes and helpful demeanor lifting boxes onto shelves. I went in looking for some US 1 dpns for my Jaywalker socks. (Thanks for the offer, Joe!) I picked up some vintage Susan Bates; check out the packaging!
I couldn't leave without something made of fiber, so I left with 3 balls of Plymouth Royal Bamboo. I liked the colors and at $7.00 a skein, it was much cheaper than the Alchemy. The store was packed to the roof with a jumbled assortment of colors and yarns and I didn't really have the time to sort through all of it, so I went with what I knew. I also picked up a surprisingly expensive needlepoint canvas for my mother's 70th birthday next week. It's what I like to call TPP (Tacky Police Paraphernalia) after TMP (Tacky Music Paraphernalia). My mom will enjoy working it up and then give it to me for my birthday in December. (We've done this before...)
And if I knew that I would get so many comments, I would have posed naked a long time ago. (You can forget about the Claudia shot, Carol. Even I have some pride left.)
