1) The "Conservative Knitters" group on Ravelry might as well be renamed "Bigots R Us." (Stumbled into it by accident via another member's profile.)
2) Although not directly related to that, they made me laugh quite heartily with their hypocrisy, too. Direct quote: "No surprise that she is a nasty lefty (but that’s redundant). She isn’t satisfied with talking about her book, she has to go insult conservatives." Look me in the eye and tell me you didn't snert.
3) This is the book that has them all a fluster. You can see just how horrible and insulting it is. (Hell yes I want a copy.)
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
I was right!
Over the summer, I called bullshit on the old "whatever group that isn't us makes intentional mistakes to show only God is perfect" crap.
Someone kindly directed me to this article, specifically the second on Humility Blocks. End result of research: it is crap!
Amish do not intentionally put a mistake into quilts, and are aghast at the idea that they would or would think they would need to.
I lambasted the idea towards Navajo work last time.
And the article there talks about how experts in Persian rug and that history also believe the Humility Boof to be BS.
So, enough with the racist crap, fellow artisans.
Someone kindly directed me to this article, specifically the second on Humility Blocks. End result of research: it is crap!
Amish do not intentionally put a mistake into quilts, and are aghast at the idea that they would or would think they would need to.
I lambasted the idea towards Navajo work last time.
And the article there talks about how experts in Persian rug and that history also believe the Humility Boof to be BS.
So, enough with the racist crap, fellow artisans.
Friday, December 12, 2008
In which Kati waffles about the car industry bailout failure.
OK, I'll admit up front that I don't know much about the proposed American auto industry bailout. I'm discussing from a very theoretical standpoint, and as such I don't mind if someone wants to give me some more information or gently correct errors.
Now, just from an academic standpoint, I was torn about the idea of a bailout. On one hand, this industry falling right now would be positively detrimental, but on the other, the American auto industry has been doing poorly for twenty or thirty years. The Big Three have been run on an insanely short-sighted "business strategy" when this result was quite predictable to anyone willing to take a long-term view, and our government has done them no favors by coddling them during that time. For example, the American government's refusal to set any reasonable gas mileage standards (and overturning states who did so) and the corporations' neglect of developing higher mileage cars on their own insured that the American car makers' market is limited exclusively to the United States. Any analyst could tell you that's a horrible state for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be in, but investing in a wider (and thus more stable) market long-term would have amounted to higher expenses short term.
Next, with the bailout work that just fell through, I think the UAW should have been included at least as much as the high company executives were -- especially as cutting UAW wages became the primary mechanism to reestablish profitability. I think it is also essential that CEO wage limits be a part of any type of bailout. It's not just a matter of the money -- although at the money CEOs get, that is significant. It's a matter of proving good faith. A limit on a CEO's wages is the same as the earnest money you pay when negotiating to buy a house. The limit is to prove that "yes, we really are in this much trouble and yes, we really are serious about fixing the problems."
Furthermore, if we're going to expect the ground-pounding workers to be paid as much as their counterparts working for Japanese companies, isn't it only fair that we expect the American company CEOs to be paid as much as their Japanese company equivalents?
Also with that, although I could be wrong and I don't have any statistics to back this up, I strongly suspect that the Japanese-owned plants are safer than the American-owned ones. I base this on a comparison of how Japanese corporations usually operate and how they balance long-term versus short-term costs, compared to American corporations. The higher wages and benefits negotiated for workers in American plants are not just smoke and mirrors. They have been at least partially negotiated to compensate for higher risks.
Finally, I find this unthinking economic recovery strategy of corporate welfare, coupled with the abhorrence of citizen-level socialism, to be pretty scary. For example, with the auto industry bailout, instead of giving $34 billion in handouts to the companies, couldn't we instead give $34 billion of rebates to households that buy a brand new, American made automobile? We pump the money directly into the economy, it ultimately gets more money to the auto industry because the households that participate will be adding in some of their own, it increases the market for the companies' products and probably trickles down to other industries. I can't say that it's the best option, since on the flip side there's also the risk of crashing the used car market as it's flooded with trade-ins (although on the third side, that also reduces the price of them, encouraging those who couldn't afford a brand new car even with rebate to buy a used car) and who knows what other effects. But my point is that it was never even on the table.
You can see this also in the 700 billion bailout. $700 billion would stop a LOT of home foreclosures, which is what caused the problem. But it was never considered to give this money to citizens, to directly benefit the American people. The only lever our politicians consider pulling is dumping money on companies that have proven their irresponsibility and hoping that it trickles down.
That's absurd.
Now, just from an academic standpoint, I was torn about the idea of a bailout. On one hand, this industry falling right now would be positively detrimental, but on the other, the American auto industry has been doing poorly for twenty or thirty years. The Big Three have been run on an insanely short-sighted "business strategy" when this result was quite predictable to anyone willing to take a long-term view, and our government has done them no favors by coddling them during that time. For example, the American government's refusal to set any reasonable gas mileage standards (and overturning states who did so) and the corporations' neglect of developing higher mileage cars on their own insured that the American car makers' market is limited exclusively to the United States. Any analyst could tell you that's a horrible state for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be in, but investing in a wider (and thus more stable) market long-term would have amounted to higher expenses short term.
Next, with the bailout work that just fell through, I think the UAW should have been included at least as much as the high company executives were -- especially as cutting UAW wages became the primary mechanism to reestablish profitability. I think it is also essential that CEO wage limits be a part of any type of bailout. It's not just a matter of the money -- although at the money CEOs get, that is significant. It's a matter of proving good faith. A limit on a CEO's wages is the same as the earnest money you pay when negotiating to buy a house. The limit is to prove that "yes, we really are in this much trouble and yes, we really are serious about fixing the problems."
Furthermore, if we're going to expect the ground-pounding workers to be paid as much as their counterparts working for Japanese companies, isn't it only fair that we expect the American company CEOs to be paid as much as their Japanese company equivalents?
Also with that, although I could be wrong and I don't have any statistics to back this up, I strongly suspect that the Japanese-owned plants are safer than the American-owned ones. I base this on a comparison of how Japanese corporations usually operate and how they balance long-term versus short-term costs, compared to American corporations. The higher wages and benefits negotiated for workers in American plants are not just smoke and mirrors. They have been at least partially negotiated to compensate for higher risks.
Finally, I find this unthinking economic recovery strategy of corporate welfare, coupled with the abhorrence of citizen-level socialism, to be pretty scary. For example, with the auto industry bailout, instead of giving $34 billion in handouts to the companies, couldn't we instead give $34 billion of rebates to households that buy a brand new, American made automobile? We pump the money directly into the economy, it ultimately gets more money to the auto industry because the households that participate will be adding in some of their own, it increases the market for the companies' products and probably trickles down to other industries. I can't say that it's the best option, since on the flip side there's also the risk of crashing the used car market as it's flooded with trade-ins (although on the third side, that also reduces the price of them, encouraging those who couldn't afford a brand new car even with rebate to buy a used car) and who knows what other effects. But my point is that it was never even on the table.
You can see this also in the 700 billion bailout. $700 billion would stop a LOT of home foreclosures, which is what caused the problem. But it was never considered to give this money to citizens, to directly benefit the American people. The only lever our politicians consider pulling is dumping money on companies that have proven their irresponsibility and hoping that it trickles down.
That's absurd.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Something to think about.
From "Dance of Fear" (or "Fear and Other Uninvited Guests") by Harriet Lerner:
"In reality, every human being is dependent on the help and support of others. There's nothing shameful about recognizing how much we need each other -- a fact we can deny when we're healthy and things are going along well. What's shameful is the myth that with the right "can-do" attitude, we can bootstrap our way to health, wealth, and happiness. Or that staying strong, vigorous, and youthful is what matters most, rather than cultivating acceptance for what is. Or that fear and suffering is weak, and that our job is to "take control of our lives" and "run the show." Surrender is not the American Way. We are expected to turn even the most terrifying experiences and unfathomable losses into an opportunity for personal growth. Writer Michael Ventura calls this our "consumer attitude" toward experience and notes that other cultures would find it unnatural.
"In reality, every human being is dependent on the help and support of others. There's nothing shameful about recognizing how much we need each other -- a fact we can deny when we're healthy and things are going along well. What's shameful is the myth that with the right "can-do" attitude, we can bootstrap our way to health, wealth, and happiness. Or that staying strong, vigorous, and youthful is what matters most, rather than cultivating acceptance for what is. Or that fear and suffering is weak, and that our job is to "take control of our lives" and "run the show." Surrender is not the American Way. We are expected to turn even the most terrifying experiences and unfathomable losses into an opportunity for personal growth. Writer Michael Ventura calls this our "consumer attitude" toward experience and notes that other cultures would find it unnatural.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Enough with the Prop 8 Racist Crap.
I'm so sick of the B.S. racial blaming here.
1) Why are we talking about the 856,000 black people that voted for Prop 8, but NOT the 3,774,000 white people and 1,180,000 Hispanic people? 5 and 3/4 as many white and hispanic people (4 1/2 times as many white people alone) voted for Prop, and somehow it's the black voters' fault the thing passed? There are people who deserve to be beaten over this sort of misinformation.
2) Is it just me, or does some of the "this happened because black voters came out to vote for Obama" rhetoric sound an awful lot like "Black people shouldn't vote" and/or "a black man shouldn't have been running"?
3) Anyone else notice that some of the white anchors reporting on how this was black people's fault look a little... sheepish? "Gosh, I sure hope no one guesses which way I voted while I'm blaming the black people."
4) And finally, fellow white folk, how about we shut up about why we think 70% of black voters supported Prop 8, and actually go talk to some black voters who went that way and find out why. Let's get some information on what activist failure was here, and fix it. Because that kind of statistical flyer, however small in absolute numbers, shows a serious and embarrassing problem in tactics.
1) Why are we talking about the 856,000 black people that voted for Prop 8, but NOT the 3,774,000 white people and 1,180,000 Hispanic people? 5 and 3/4 as many white and hispanic people (4 1/2 times as many white people alone) voted for Prop, and somehow it's the black voters' fault the thing passed? There are people who deserve to be beaten over this sort of misinformation.
2) Is it just me, or does some of the "this happened because black voters came out to vote for Obama" rhetoric sound an awful lot like "Black people shouldn't vote" and/or "a black man shouldn't have been running"?
3) Anyone else notice that some of the white anchors reporting on how this was black people's fault look a little... sheepish? "Gosh, I sure hope no one guesses which way I voted while I'm blaming the black people."
4) And finally, fellow white folk, how about we shut up about why we think 70% of black voters supported Prop 8, and actually go talk to some black voters who went that way and find out why. Let's get some information on what activist failure was here, and fix it. Because that kind of statistical flyer, however small in absolute numbers, shows a serious and embarrassing problem in tactics.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Well, that was sickening.
I had to get my car worked on this morning. And OF COURSE the television was on in the waiting room, and it was on the news, talking about the economic crisis with some so-called experts.
If ever I have wanted to hit the button that blows up the world because it's a lost freakin' cause...
Honestly, it was truly sickening. It made me want to hurt someone. Some highlights:
1) We shouldn't raise taxes on rich people because they don't like it. *jaw, meet floor. Floor, jaw. You two are going to be muchly acquainted.*
2) Besides, the rich people will cheat out of it anyway. (Um, isn't this like saying we shouldn't make serial killing illegal, since most serial killers are smart enough that they never get caught?)
3) Instead, we should take money away from the working classes and give it to the rich. This, somehow, will solve everything and there will be rainbows and unicorns and little kittens who never scratch or poop.
You know, I can't help but think that if we had econ 101 classes in middle school instead of college, our public policy discussions would look completely different. The only reason some of this bullshit is even allowed in polite discourse is because most people don't understand how money actually works -- and as evidence towards that, I present the percentage of non-regular readers who read that and went "Duh, don't you know how money works? You give some money to the store and they give you something in return."
That's one step out of hundreds or thousands, guys.
So, very briefly, how money works. Say, I've got a buck. I spend my dollar at my yarn store. I now have $1 worth of yarn and the yarn store lady now has a physical dollar bill. She spends that bill at the butcher's and gets $1 of meat.
That single dollar bill has now bought $2 worth of stuff. Butcher goes to buy something from the bakery, now it's bought $3 of stuff, and so on.
So, what happens if the baker puts it in the bank instead spending it? Now something interesting happens. The bank lends to someone else -- and suddenly that single physical dollar bill is two dollars -- one owned by the banker, and one simultaneously being used the borrower. This works as long as there is growth, so that the dollar the borrower spent returns more than a dollar, so they can return what they borrowed plus interest and hopefully keep something. However, if the borrower defaults, not so good things happen.
So, you can see that money on a large scale is a lot more complicated than a stack of bills.
Now, let's take a quick high-level look at so called "trickle down" economics versus bottom up approaches. At best, you can now see there's no advantage to giving the money to the rich. They won't be spending it, so they'll invest it and it'll get out that way. However, there are some problems with this.
1) It's a slower process than giving the money directly to the poor and working classes. The lower classes spend what they have; they have to. It immediately gets out flowing through the economy buying people food and electricity and houses and all that stuff people need. Give it to the rich, it has to go through the delay of going to the bank and getting lent and then the borrower spending it and so on.
2) Think about who borrows from banks. It's not people trying to meet their everyday needs -- those people don't get lent to. It's businesses and larger investors -- which can be small businesses and home buyers, but is OFTEN large corporations spending someone else's money so they don't put their own at risk, or the rich doing the same.
Furthermore, the richer you are, the more return you're going to demand for the money you invest -- which means the harder it will be for others to borrow it, and thus the more elite the borrowers will be.
What this amounts to is that money tends to move upwards. Oh, there will be little bits that temporarily go to the gardener or the maid or the burger flipper, but most of it moves upwards and stays there.
If you want a quick jolt to the economic system, you put money into the lowest levels. It circulates (and thus multiples) quickly there, improving the customer base which is required to be in place to support the larger business that money will eventually move into as it gets invested.
There is some decent argument for simultaneously injecting funds into the middle levels -- local business, that sort of thing -- so that they can be prepared for the growing consumer base coming from the low-level injection.
But there is no justification for taking money from the lower levels to put into the highest levels unless you are intentionally trying to crash 80% of the population, or you just don't care as long as you personally benefit. Unfortunately, look at who is in that last group: every corporation by definition, and thus the media that are corporate owned; and large chunks of our government.
If ever I have wanted to hit the button that blows up the world because it's a lost freakin' cause...
Honestly, it was truly sickening. It made me want to hurt someone. Some highlights:
1) We shouldn't raise taxes on rich people because they don't like it. *jaw, meet floor. Floor, jaw. You two are going to be muchly acquainted.*
2) Besides, the rich people will cheat out of it anyway. (Um, isn't this like saying we shouldn't make serial killing illegal, since most serial killers are smart enough that they never get caught?)
3) Instead, we should take money away from the working classes and give it to the rich. This, somehow, will solve everything and there will be rainbows and unicorns and little kittens who never scratch or poop.
You know, I can't help but think that if we had econ 101 classes in middle school instead of college, our public policy discussions would look completely different. The only reason some of this bullshit is even allowed in polite discourse is because most people don't understand how money actually works -- and as evidence towards that, I present the percentage of non-regular readers who read that and went "Duh, don't you know how money works? You give some money to the store and they give you something in return."
That's one step out of hundreds or thousands, guys.
So, very briefly, how money works. Say, I've got a buck. I spend my dollar at my yarn store. I now have $1 worth of yarn and the yarn store lady now has a physical dollar bill. She spends that bill at the butcher's and gets $1 of meat.
That single dollar bill has now bought $2 worth of stuff. Butcher goes to buy something from the bakery, now it's bought $3 of stuff, and so on.
So, what happens if the baker puts it in the bank instead spending it? Now something interesting happens. The bank lends to someone else -- and suddenly that single physical dollar bill is two dollars -- one owned by the banker, and one simultaneously being used the borrower. This works as long as there is growth, so that the dollar the borrower spent returns more than a dollar, so they can return what they borrowed plus interest and hopefully keep something. However, if the borrower defaults, not so good things happen.
So, you can see that money on a large scale is a lot more complicated than a stack of bills.
Now, let's take a quick high-level look at so called "trickle down" economics versus bottom up approaches. At best, you can now see there's no advantage to giving the money to the rich. They won't be spending it, so they'll invest it and it'll get out that way. However, there are some problems with this.
1) It's a slower process than giving the money directly to the poor and working classes. The lower classes spend what they have; they have to. It immediately gets out flowing through the economy buying people food and electricity and houses and all that stuff people need. Give it to the rich, it has to go through the delay of going to the bank and getting lent and then the borrower spending it and so on.
2) Think about who borrows from banks. It's not people trying to meet their everyday needs -- those people don't get lent to. It's businesses and larger investors -- which can be small businesses and home buyers, but is OFTEN large corporations spending someone else's money so they don't put their own at risk, or the rich doing the same.
Furthermore, the richer you are, the more return you're going to demand for the money you invest -- which means the harder it will be for others to borrow it, and thus the more elite the borrowers will be.
What this amounts to is that money tends to move upwards. Oh, there will be little bits that temporarily go to the gardener or the maid or the burger flipper, but most of it moves upwards and stays there.
If you want a quick jolt to the economic system, you put money into the lowest levels. It circulates (and thus multiples) quickly there, improving the customer base which is required to be in place to support the larger business that money will eventually move into as it gets invested.
There is some decent argument for simultaneously injecting funds into the middle levels -- local business, that sort of thing -- so that they can be prepared for the growing consumer base coming from the low-level injection.
But there is no justification for taking money from the lower levels to put into the highest levels unless you are intentionally trying to crash 80% of the population, or you just don't care as long as you personally benefit. Unfortunately, look at who is in that last group: every corporation by definition, and thus the media that are corporate owned; and large chunks of our government.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Oh God, it's starting early.
"Some people don't celebrate Christmas and they won't even pretend! This oppresses me! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It's *ALWAYS* the economy, stupid.
Dear Senator McCain,
Thank you for resolutely refusing to talk about, much less have a workable proposal to address, the biggest issue in this country right now, the one that is on just about everyone's lips. In all your much-vaunted years of experience, surely you've seen how often this one single issue wins or loses an election under normal circumstances. Here we are in terribly abnormal circumstances, possibly facing the worst economic disaster in 80 years, yet you refuse to talk about it unless your arm is absolutely twisted. Then you suggest the same policies that got us into this mess, funded by taking money away from the people who need it most. Then you try to divert to absolutely stupid shit.
By the way, thank you for your absolutely stupid shit, too. You've already got the insane bigot vote, after all. As for undecided voters, I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to think that "Obama is a terrorist" is the level of Big Lie that makes people go "WTF? That can't be right." And when they hear what the real deal is with that Ayers guy, you look like a fucking moron. You look like a half-senile dimwit who's grasping at the tiniest of straws because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which is what you are, so I appreciate your honesty.
Keep up the good work. You're giving me a glimmer of hope that there might be a chance for this country after all.
~Jinnayah
Thank you for resolutely refusing to talk about, much less have a workable proposal to address, the biggest issue in this country right now, the one that is on just about everyone's lips. In all your much-vaunted years of experience, surely you've seen how often this one single issue wins or loses an election under normal circumstances. Here we are in terribly abnormal circumstances, possibly facing the worst economic disaster in 80 years, yet you refuse to talk about it unless your arm is absolutely twisted. Then you suggest the same policies that got us into this mess, funded by taking money away from the people who need it most. Then you try to divert to absolutely stupid shit.
By the way, thank you for your absolutely stupid shit, too. You've already got the insane bigot vote, after all. As for undecided voters, I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to think that "Obama is a terrorist" is the level of Big Lie that makes people go "WTF? That can't be right." And when they hear what the real deal is with that Ayers guy, you look like a fucking moron. You look like a half-senile dimwit who's grasping at the tiniest of straws because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which is what you are, so I appreciate your honesty.
Keep up the good work. You're giving me a glimmer of hope that there might be a chance for this country after all.
~Jinnayah
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Keep your proselytizing to yourself.
I know, you can't really keep your proselytizing to yourself, or else it's not proselytizing. Of course, that's my point. In any event, the particular incident I'm about to get into isn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things by itself. However, it is a scenario I've seen played out a hundred times. Those kind of numbers make it a big deal as a collective, and like many people, I'm really getting sick of it.
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
"The most unexpected happy surprise is stated in John 3:16As someone else phrased it, that really took the wind out of my sails. I was not aware that a condition of participating in this knit-along was giving the designer a chance to proselytize to me. I am not on good terms with the Christian religion. I would technically be considered a Christian (I prefer the older term "Follower of the Way"), and I do go to church, but you have to understand that's a UCC with a congregation of about 12 people, where a sermon about the parable of the vineyard owner trying to collect his profits from workers who don't want to hand them over starts with "this passage has been used to justify so much anti-Semeticism. But there's so many different ways to interpret it. Who says God is the absentee landlord?" and then we discuss slumlords and mistreatment of the working poor.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Again triggered to get off my hinder and post by a post by ldragoon.
Last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book titled "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them." Yes, with emphasis in the title and everything. Bad sign, that.
So, perhaps the biggest environmental catastrophe us liberals don't want you to know about? When women take hormonal birth control, some of those hormones are carried out of her body in her urine and pass into the water supply, where they are affecting the reproductive abilities of aquatic species downstream.
1) I thought everyone already knew about that. Guys, there's this problem with widespread birth control use I don't want you to know about, that's why I just told you about it. I don't know any reliable links, or I'd direct you to those. Because I don't want you to know about this.
2) You know, there's always trade-offs and you need to make apples to apples comparisons. Hormones in water supplies in amounts that effect ecosystems are a problem. Over population among humans is also a problem. Which do you suppose causes more damage overall, the amount of hormones a woman taking birth control pisses into the ecosystem over her lifetime, or the three extra humans beings she would bring into the world on average without them and the damage they would do over their lifetime, not to mention the extra humans they would then produce?
3) If you consider the existence of birth control to be "liberal", then YOU'RE A FUCKING WINGNUT! Iain Murray = wingnut. George W. Bush = wingnut. McCain = likely wingnut, because you don't pause like that when you actually don't know about an issue, you pause like that when you know what you want to say will royally piss someone off.
On top of that, I'm probably heading into a political debate with my mother. She sent me a political joke that was a bit too conservative for my taste. I wrote back "Dare I ask who you plan to vote for? Or should I just say that I'm voting for the one who isn't a mysogynistic war-monger and leave it at that? ^_~"
If she wants to get into it, I'm just going to ignore her. I can NOT deal with her ignorant hypocritical shit right now.
Last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book titled "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them." Yes, with emphasis in the title and everything. Bad sign, that.
So, perhaps the biggest environmental catastrophe us liberals don't want you to know about? When women take hormonal birth control, some of those hormones are carried out of her body in her urine and pass into the water supply, where they are affecting the reproductive abilities of aquatic species downstream.
1) I thought everyone already knew about that. Guys, there's this problem with widespread birth control use I don't want you to know about, that's why I just told you about it. I don't know any reliable links, or I'd direct you to those. Because I don't want you to know about this.
2) You know, there's always trade-offs and you need to make apples to apples comparisons. Hormones in water supplies in amounts that effect ecosystems are a problem. Over population among humans is also a problem. Which do you suppose causes more damage overall, the amount of hormones a woman taking birth control pisses into the ecosystem over her lifetime, or the three extra humans beings she would bring into the world on average without them and the damage they would do over their lifetime, not to mention the extra humans they would then produce?
3) If you consider the existence of birth control to be "liberal", then YOU'RE A FUCKING WINGNUT! Iain Murray = wingnut. George W. Bush = wingnut. McCain = likely wingnut, because you don't pause like that when you actually don't know about an issue, you pause like that when you know what you want to say will royally piss someone off.
On top of that, I'm probably heading into a political debate with my mother. She sent me a political joke that was a bit too conservative for my taste. I wrote back "Dare I ask who you plan to vote for? Or should I just say that I'm voting for the one who isn't a mysogynistic war-monger and leave it at that? ^_~"
If she wants to get into it, I'm just going to ignore her. I can NOT deal with her ignorant hypocritical shit right now.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
You know what else?
Link-hopping off of ![[info]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uGvjLELfTGsvR_VRSFM9Y2QhSp1WP-opRmJLf-wFA_VZqaX0Ec0mJEFJee78X952j6kb8tBiSeaFRKIfssNh9TYRvCXVi6S5c8koQ7r0orXpI=s0-d)
ldragoon's "Spec Fic Wank" post, I find a mention that James Watson is racist. James Watson... Oh, Watson and Crick DNA double-helix Watson.
Yup, he's racist. You know what else? He's sexist, too. And much of the work he's credited for was actually done by a woman named Rosalind Franklin. But, you see, she didn't have a penis, but she wasn't really pretty and feminine and ladylike either. So Cambridge didn't really want her getting credit for the discovery of the decade. So they just kind of gave her research to the guys without asking her or giving her credit. And she was even nice enough to die before she could make a big stink out of it.
Sadly, someone can be a brilliant scientist and still be a huge wanker. My reading suggests that James Watson is very much a product of his times -- and unfortunately those times were the 1950s.
ldragoon's "Spec Fic Wank" post, I find a mention that James Watson is racist. James Watson... Oh, Watson and Crick DNA double-helix Watson.Yup, he's racist. You know what else? He's sexist, too. And much of the work he's credited for was actually done by a woman named Rosalind Franklin. But, you see, she didn't have a penis, but she wasn't really pretty and feminine and ladylike either. So Cambridge didn't really want her getting credit for the discovery of the decade. So they just kind of gave her research to the guys without asking her or giving her credit. And she was even nice enough to die before she could make a big stink out of it.
Sadly, someone can be a brilliant scientist and still be a huge wanker. My reading suggests that James Watson is very much a product of his times -- and unfortunately those times were the 1950s.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A Harry Potter Observation
First, let me lay out an assumption. Line up all the Harry Potter books in order. It is a fact that the final length of the first was dictated by editorial decree (i.e. Rowling was forced to cut it down to have it published.) There is a large increase length at book 4, without an equivalent increase in actual significant content. Therefore, I'm going to assume that, with book 4, the editor was no longer exercising significant creative control over the content.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
OK, this is really sad.
I saw gas for $3.98 a gallon, and I got excited. *shakes head*
So, people out there who are following the election: does any candidate support getting the Federal Reserve a flippin' clue? Earlier this week, they decided to leave the interest rate at 2%, but they're now putting back on the table the option of raising it later to combat inflation, because the economy is looking better.
*blinkblink*
Economy is looking better. Where do I start here?
1) I don't know anyone, including myself, who is doing as well now as they were a year ago. Most people I know, including myself, are doing noticeably worse than they were 3-6 months ago. I'm seeing a noticeable Not Improvement here.
2) One of the big problems is that the dollar exchange rate has been in the toilet for years. YEARS. What's one way to fix that? Raise the interest rates, thus making other countries want to invest in this one, thus making dollars more desirable in order to do so. (To put it in highly simplified terms, of course.)
As I touched on in February, I am very much getting to the point where I think "economic growth" is a euphemism for corporations pumping resources out of this country as quickly as possible for the benefit of a few. The more the economy "grows", the worse actual people seem to be doing.
So, people out there who are following the election: does any candidate support getting the Federal Reserve a flippin' clue? Earlier this week, they decided to leave the interest rate at 2%, but they're now putting back on the table the option of raising it later to combat inflation, because the economy is looking better.
*blinkblink*
Economy is looking better. Where do I start here?
1) I don't know anyone, including myself, who is doing as well now as they were a year ago. Most people I know, including myself, are doing noticeably worse than they were 3-6 months ago. I'm seeing a noticeable Not Improvement here.
2) One of the big problems is that the dollar exchange rate has been in the toilet for years. YEARS. What's one way to fix that? Raise the interest rates, thus making other countries want to invest in this one, thus making dollars more desirable in order to do so. (To put it in highly simplified terms, of course.)
As I touched on in February, I am very much getting to the point where I think "economic growth" is a euphemism for corporations pumping resources out of this country as quickly as possible for the benefit of a few. The more the economy "grows", the worse actual people seem to be doing.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Obesity
Rants bounce around my head for a while before finally hitting the electrons. This one's been in there for a while, and since Ldragoon posted something on this topic just today, what the hey.
So, as we've all heard five bagillion times, there's an obesity epidemic in America. There's all sorts of theories of various levels of insult on why this is, from the overweight are lazy bastards (what parental marital status has to do with it is anyone's guess), to more sedentary professions and city planning that is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists.
In general, though, it's reduced to "eating more calories than you use." Which is certainly a very effective way to gain weight, but I'm not convinced
There's this phenomena with cats that a cheap food can be more expensive than a more expensive, better quality food, because the cat must eat more of the cheap food in order to get the amount of nutrients it needs, and it will instinctively do so. Of course, because the cat is also eating a lot more filler (i.e. empty calories), this is a recipe for obesity (and thus vet bills, higher longer term costs, and thus cheap food really isn't).
There's no reason to think that human food is immune to this. In fact, given the obesity rates among the poor, there's very good reason to believe that human food is absolutely subject to this same phenomena. So, let's go to the pantry and see what's in our food. Let's see what I can grab at random. I've got a can of Cream of Mushroom soup here. What's the fourth ingredient? "Modified food starch". You know what that is? Filler. Empty calories. Next to zilch in the way of nutrional value. [I really did go into the kitchen and grab the first container of something I saw. I didn't pick and chose.] American food is FILLED with that kind of stuff.
Worse than the worthless fillers, though, there may be things in our food that actively make us fat. Studies suggest that high fructose corn syrup can mess up the body's response to leptin, which is the hormone that tells you when you're full. Let's see, what's has high fructose corn syrup in it? Oh, EVERYTHING. (You know why? Because it's cheaper than sugar. You know what that is. Because 1) our government subsidizes the growth of way more corn than we need, and 2) because there is a "protective" tariff on sugar that raises the American cost to 2 or 3 times the worldwide price. :P)
Here's another one: improper estrogen levels cause weight gain. Too high, too low, both ways can cause weight problems depending on other factors and the person involved. (Remember the PCOS patients I mentioned?) Soy products contain plant estrogens. What is soy used as a filler in? Oh, everything ELSE.
This 'personal responsibility' mentality, the idea that all obesity is caused by personal failing? Bunch of bullshit. If you look at the studies, "laziness" and "poor character" are just about never listed as causes of obesity. Exercise and healthy eating are important, and will work for some people, but not everyone, and it's not their fault. There are a lot of societal issues here. Some are obvious: vehicular-centered city planning, widespread overworking that eliminates time (and energy) for exercise. Some are not so obvious. All the personal responsibility in the world is not going to give us a better food supply and a healthier environment.
So, as we've all heard five bagillion times, there's an obesity epidemic in America. There's all sorts of theories of various levels of insult on why this is, from the overweight are lazy bastards (what parental marital status has to do with it is anyone's guess), to more sedentary professions and city planning that is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists.
In general, though, it's reduced to "eating more calories than you use." Which is certainly a very effective way to gain weight, but I'm not convinced
- it's always that simple, and
- that eating more calories than needed is as avoidable as we like to think with the American food supply.
There's this phenomena with cats that a cheap food can be more expensive than a more expensive, better quality food, because the cat must eat more of the cheap food in order to get the amount of nutrients it needs, and it will instinctively do so. Of course, because the cat is also eating a lot more filler (i.e. empty calories), this is a recipe for obesity (and thus vet bills, higher longer term costs, and thus cheap food really isn't).
There's no reason to think that human food is immune to this. In fact, given the obesity rates among the poor, there's very good reason to believe that human food is absolutely subject to this same phenomena. So, let's go to the pantry and see what's in our food. Let's see what I can grab at random. I've got a can of Cream of Mushroom soup here. What's the fourth ingredient? "Modified food starch". You know what that is? Filler. Empty calories. Next to zilch in the way of nutrional value. [I really did go into the kitchen and grab the first container of something I saw. I didn't pick and chose.] American food is FILLED with that kind of stuff.
Worse than the worthless fillers, though, there may be things in our food that actively make us fat. Studies suggest that high fructose corn syrup can mess up the body's response to leptin, which is the hormone that tells you when you're full. Let's see, what's has high fructose corn syrup in it? Oh, EVERYTHING. (You know why? Because it's cheaper than sugar. You know what that is. Because 1) our government subsidizes the growth of way more corn than we need, and 2) because there is a "protective" tariff on sugar that raises the American cost to 2 or 3 times the worldwide price. :P)
Here's another one: improper estrogen levels cause weight gain. Too high, too low, both ways can cause weight problems depending on other factors and the person involved. (Remember the PCOS patients I mentioned?) Soy products contain plant estrogens. What is soy used as a filler in? Oh, everything ELSE.
This 'personal responsibility' mentality, the idea that all obesity is caused by personal failing? Bunch of bullshit. If you look at the studies, "laziness" and "poor character" are just about never listed as causes of obesity. Exercise and healthy eating are important, and will work for some people, but not everyone, and it's not their fault. There are a lot of societal issues here. Some are obvious: vehicular-centered city planning, widespread overworking that eliminates time (and energy) for exercise. Some are not so obvious. All the personal responsibility in the world is not going to give us a better food supply and a healthier environment.
You know what I hate?
The old "Navajo/Persians/Amish/Islamic Artists/whatever group isn't us always put a mistake in their artwork to show that only God is perfect" BS. It's the definition of glurge, in that something that's supposed to be 'sweet' and 'inspiring' is actually amazingly racist.
- It's completely out of touch with reality. Example: A Persian rug has a few hundred thousand knots in it. Hell yes there's there's going to be a mistake in it somewhere. There's no need to add a fake mistake.
- It accuses the other group of amazing ego. They think they could make something perfect and Godlike, so they chose not to.
- With some groups, it's a major projection of Western Christian belief on others. For example, why would the Navajo feel the need to show only God is perfect? I know little about their religion, but enough to know that they have multiple deities, and perfection is not a requirement. Just the idea itself reflects the Western belief that perfection is desirable and the goal that must be aspired to in any endeavor.
- With some cases, it's disrespectful and denigrating to the actual work. Again with a Navajo example, an odd bead in a piece of beadwork is not necessarily a mistake. Often they are intentionally added to mark some event that happened in the maker's life, which might be minor or major.
- What group hasn't been accused of this at some time or other?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Open Letter to Clothing Manufacturers
OK, you clothing-making assholes,
1) Give me ALL the shirt buttons. I will decide how much of my blouse I want to leave unbuttoned.
2) You know what's tossed on my bed right now? Brand new men's pants. And you know what I'm going to do with them? I'm gonna WEAR them. I have absolutely had it with poor quality, thin fabric, and stupidly small pockets. After traipsing all over that damn mall trying to find something vaguely acceptable, I took my child-bearing hips and all the junk in my trunk over to the men's section, and you know what I found. Stuff that fits. Screw you, women's clothing makers!
I wish I'd tried the men's section years ago. I honestly didn't think it would work with my body shape. I've got a 34 inch waist, 43 inch hips, and 27 inch inseam. 36X29 or 38X29 pleated fronts, baby. Taken in a vacuum, I'll admit they don't have the nicest line possible. I'm using pleats designed to hang straight in order to get room for my hips, so there's a bit of flair. But you compare to the women's equivalent, and you know what? Most women's pants do that to me, too, except now I won't have my wallet and my keys protruding from my hips like a pair of saddlebags. Men's pockets just keep going and going! I stick my hand in one and keep going to mid-forearm. It's wonderful.
They really don't look any different on me than most of the women's pants I've bought. I don't think anyone will be able to tell they're men's.
Honestly, right now I'm thinking all that "women's bodies are so different that they need specially made pants" stuff is a bunch of advertising hooey. It would certainly be true if clothing was well shaped and tailored, but it's not in this mass-produced world. I think women's and men's pants patterns are a LOT more similar then the companies want us to believe.
So, ladies, if you haven't tried to see if men's pants would fit you, take some time and see, even if you're curvy. If you don't find anything you like, you're not out much, and if you do, you'll be very happy. Even if you don't think it'll work, give it a try. 9-inch waist-hip difference here, worked just fine.
I was so intoxicated by the functional pockets thing that I bought myself a nice comfy pair of cargo pants. :) I swear I could throw a knitting project into one of those pockets, ball of yarn and all. (Single sock knitting would fit just fine, I have no doubt at all. Ooh, that'd be deliciously geeky.)
A few weeks ago, someone who works for a clothing manufacturer wrote into a thread on Ravelry (I think) explaining what she goes through, and suddenly all the problems with women's clothing make sense. It all comes down to money, both at the design company and then again at the manufacturing plant. Every quarter inch of fabric they save, every curve they reduce to straight lines, every button and buttonhole they don't put on, every extra patternset they can cut out at once (even though it negatively affects the fit of the bottommost pieces), basically every single cent they can squeeze out of a single item is worth it at their volumes, regardless of what it does to fit or quality. Screw the customer. And they can get away with this in women's clothing because historically, every clothing producer has done this and there's no competition. We're used to have no pockets, to having to try on every individual item because even the same items differ between units, and having our clothes wear out in three months, and there's little to nothing on the market for us that doesn't have these problems.
Men's clothing, on the other hand, has historically been long-wearing, fit to size, and had deep pockets. A 34-waist, 32-inseam guy buys his 34 X 32 pants without trying them on, gets them home, and finds they don't fit, he takes them back and he doesn't buy that brand anymore, because he knows when he grabs the competitions off the rack, they will fit. He sticks his hand into a pocket and about breaks his fingers before his wrist is into it, he's going to raise hell and buy the competition. His clothing wears out after 12 washes, he's taking it back, complaining, and buying the competition.
In men's clothes, those are defects. In women's clothes, they're industry standard. In case I'm not clear, let me stress that these problems are not the faults of end consumers, they're the fault of the manufacturers. We female consumers don't have alternatives. Show me a women's clothing manufacturer that, for decent prices, makes clothing that's robust, always fits like the tag says, and has deep pockets. (PLEASE. I'm desperate to buy from the company.)
Until then, guess I'm buying men's pants. :)
1) Give me ALL the shirt buttons. I will decide how much of my blouse I want to leave unbuttoned.
2) You know what's tossed on my bed right now? Brand new men's pants. And you know what I'm going to do with them? I'm gonna WEAR them. I have absolutely had it with poor quality, thin fabric, and stupidly small pockets. After traipsing all over that damn mall trying to find something vaguely acceptable, I took my child-bearing hips and all the junk in my trunk over to the men's section, and you know what I found. Stuff that fits. Screw you, women's clothing makers!
I wish I'd tried the men's section years ago. I honestly didn't think it would work with my body shape. I've got a 34 inch waist, 43 inch hips, and 27 inch inseam. 36X29 or 38X29 pleated fronts, baby. Taken in a vacuum, I'll admit they don't have the nicest line possible. I'm using pleats designed to hang straight in order to get room for my hips, so there's a bit of flair. But you compare to the women's equivalent, and you know what? Most women's pants do that to me, too, except now I won't have my wallet and my keys protruding from my hips like a pair of saddlebags. Men's pockets just keep going and going! I stick my hand in one and keep going to mid-forearm. It's wonderful.
They really don't look any different on me than most of the women's pants I've bought. I don't think anyone will be able to tell they're men's.
Honestly, right now I'm thinking all that "women's bodies are so different that they need specially made pants" stuff is a bunch of advertising hooey. It would certainly be true if clothing was well shaped and tailored, but it's not in this mass-produced world. I think women's and men's pants patterns are a LOT more similar then the companies want us to believe.
So, ladies, if you haven't tried to see if men's pants would fit you, take some time and see, even if you're curvy. If you don't find anything you like, you're not out much, and if you do, you'll be very happy. Even if you don't think it'll work, give it a try. 9-inch waist-hip difference here, worked just fine.
I was so intoxicated by the functional pockets thing that I bought myself a nice comfy pair of cargo pants. :) I swear I could throw a knitting project into one of those pockets, ball of yarn and all. (Single sock knitting would fit just fine, I have no doubt at all. Ooh, that'd be deliciously geeky.)
A few weeks ago, someone who works for a clothing manufacturer wrote into a thread on Ravelry (I think) explaining what she goes through, and suddenly all the problems with women's clothing make sense. It all comes down to money, both at the design company and then again at the manufacturing plant. Every quarter inch of fabric they save, every curve they reduce to straight lines, every button and buttonhole they don't put on, every extra patternset they can cut out at once (even though it negatively affects the fit of the bottommost pieces), basically every single cent they can squeeze out of a single item is worth it at their volumes, regardless of what it does to fit or quality. Screw the customer. And they can get away with this in women's clothing because historically, every clothing producer has done this and there's no competition. We're used to have no pockets, to having to try on every individual item because even the same items differ between units, and having our clothes wear out in three months, and there's little to nothing on the market for us that doesn't have these problems.
Men's clothing, on the other hand, has historically been long-wearing, fit to size, and had deep pockets. A 34-waist, 32-inseam guy buys his 34 X 32 pants without trying them on, gets them home, and finds they don't fit, he takes them back and he doesn't buy that brand anymore, because he knows when he grabs the competitions off the rack, they will fit. He sticks his hand into a pocket and about breaks his fingers before his wrist is into it, he's going to raise hell and buy the competition. His clothing wears out after 12 washes, he's taking it back, complaining, and buying the competition.
In men's clothes, those are defects. In women's clothes, they're industry standard. In case I'm not clear, let me stress that these problems are not the faults of end consumers, they're the fault of the manufacturers. We female consumers don't have alternatives. Show me a women's clothing manufacturer that, for decent prices, makes clothing that's robust, always fits like the tag says, and has deep pockets. (PLEASE. I'm desperate to buy from the company.)
Until then, guess I'm buying men's pants. :)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
See, this is why I hate Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is convenient to the bus line, so every once in a while the grocery shopping gets done there. Now, I usually have a little container of yogurt as a mid-morning snack at work. Usually I get the grocery store brand, which isn't fabulous yogurt but is pretty good. So we picked up the Wal-Mart equivalent.
Ugh! Ack! Melodramatic gagging sounds! That is absolutely the most disgusting thing I can remember having eaten. The stuff tasted like flavored corn starch. And since those were two of the top three ingredients, I suppose that's not surprising. I know a lot of commercial yogurts have corn starch in them, but most of them don't taste like it. This was not yogurt. I'm sure it met some legal definition of yogurt, but it's not yogurt.
OK, so I got some lousy yogurt. But this just reinforces my biggest gripe about Wal-Mart: its exploitation of the poor. There's this strong (and I would say cultivated) air about Wal-Mart of "you have to shop here because you can't afford anywhere else." And indeed, I know many people who shop at Wal-Mart because they don't think they can afford anywhere else. But the thing is, and the thing my family members can't seem to catch on to, is that Wal-Mart has a very bad value-to-cost ratio. The stuff they sell isn't just cheap, it's crappy beyond what it's price suggests. Take the yogurt again. The grocery store brand is actually cheaper, tastes much better, and I think has better nutritional capabilities. In my experience, just about everything Wal-Mart sells can be had elsewhere at similar prices and better quality. But they've cultivated this image of "we're the cheapest", and a further insinuation of "you can't afford any better" to those most struggling to keep it together financially.
No more Wal-Mart shopping, I don't care how convenient it is.
Ugh! Ack! Melodramatic gagging sounds! That is absolutely the most disgusting thing I can remember having eaten. The stuff tasted like flavored corn starch. And since those were two of the top three ingredients, I suppose that's not surprising. I know a lot of commercial yogurts have corn starch in them, but most of them don't taste like it. This was not yogurt. I'm sure it met some legal definition of yogurt, but it's not yogurt.
OK, so I got some lousy yogurt. But this just reinforces my biggest gripe about Wal-Mart: its exploitation of the poor. There's this strong (and I would say cultivated) air about Wal-Mart of "you have to shop here because you can't afford anywhere else." And indeed, I know many people who shop at Wal-Mart because they don't think they can afford anywhere else. But the thing is, and the thing my family members can't seem to catch on to, is that Wal-Mart has a very bad value-to-cost ratio. The stuff they sell isn't just cheap, it's crappy beyond what it's price suggests. Take the yogurt again. The grocery store brand is actually cheaper, tastes much better, and I think has better nutritional capabilities. In my experience, just about everything Wal-Mart sells can be had elsewhere at similar prices and better quality. But they've cultivated this image of "we're the cheapest", and a further insinuation of "you can't afford any better" to those most struggling to keep it together financially.
No more Wal-Mart shopping, I don't care how convenient it is.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Crafting Copyright Confusion Causes Katian Craziness
(Don't hit. How often do I get to be that alliterative? ^_~)
Mini rants:
Rant 1: The need to slap up an "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice" disclaimer on stuff like this. Why do we live in such a paranoid society? Frivilous lawsuits are actually very rare. And usually started by corporations, not individuals out to make a buck.
Rant 2:
Rant 3: There is a difference between 'legal', 'ethical', and 'moral'. Going to the almighty dictionary:
The other thing to remember is that morality is changeable and individual. There are certain big things that society as a whole considers immoral (example: murder), but even those are changeable and debatable given the circumstances (example: killing during a war).
If you ever want to see the stages of moral development in action, watch a copyright and licensing thread on a craft board. I would probably help my sanity a lot of I'd remember that many people don't make it past level 4, "legal = right".
(In general, it's sad how many people never get past the second stage - "What's in it for me?".)
Mini rants:
Rant 1: The need to slap up an "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice" disclaimer on stuff like this. Why do we live in such a paranoid society? Frivilous lawsuits are actually very rare. And usually started by corporations, not individuals out to make a buck.
Rant 2:
- Clothing is a useful good.
- Useful goods cannot be copyright.
- Therefore, a clothing pattern with a standard "all rights reserved" copyright notice and nothing supplemental to that covers the pattern itself, but NOT the finished item. It is not "always illegal to make something for sale from a copyrighted pattern."
- Many designers now do include extra licensing terms. How legal these are remains to be seen, but in a society that allows click-through licenses to add additional conditions with no additional return, the odds are good they would be binding. *eye roll*
Rant 3: There is a difference between 'legal', 'ethical', and 'moral'. Going to the almighty dictionary:
- Legal: conforming to or permitted by law.
- Ethical: conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct.
- Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.
The other thing to remember is that morality is changeable and individual. There are certain big things that society as a whole considers immoral (example: murder), but even those are changeable and debatable given the circumstances (example: killing during a war).
If you ever want to see the stages of moral development in action, watch a copyright and licensing thread on a craft board. I would probably help my sanity a lot of I'd remember that many people don't make it past level 4, "legal = right".
(In general, it's sad how many people never get past the second stage - "What's in it for me?".)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Atheist writers
I am about ready to toss in the towel looking for a good, open-minded, inclusively leaning atheist writer. My atheist friends, I really feel for you. It's not enough that you guys face major discrimination, that a majority of American voters wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate, you have to put up with this weird Freudian projection thing from opponents, that... Well, you know the laundry list better than I do. But on top of that, the representatives who get the major air time are... Well, it's about like if I were judged on the basis of Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. (Never trust an evangelist named Pat.)
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Zealots ruin everything.
During my last chain store visit, I was frustrated to discover that prayer shawls are going the way of the WWJD bracelet: something that had good meaning and intention when it was limited to a small group who believed in it, moved into yet another brainwashing technique, and is now on its way to becoming meaningless commercial fluff.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)