Elizabeth Moon's Blog, page 35
September 14, 2011
Institutional Theft : Google and Academic Libraries.
Some years back, Google arranged with some academic and other libraries that they would provide books to be digitized, and the libraries would then get a copy of the scans, which they could make available to their patrons.
Both Google and the libraries considered this a wonderful thing for themselves and their users. Whoopee--lots of free books readily available in digital form. Unfortunately, this bright idea ignored copyright law, the way publishing works, and the rights of authors.
Project Gutenberg had already been digitizing old texts and making them available freely, and so had a few others, but those projects were confined to books clearly old enough to be out of copyright. Google and the new libraries involved had no such scruples. They considered that all books were fair game--including those that already had digital editions produced by their publishers (a clear conflict with copyright laws--those publishers already had the exclusive right--granted by contract--to distribute the electronic edition.) Google claimed that it would allow only partial downloads of books still in copyright...unless they were "orphaned" works. Google was sued by a number of writers and writers' organizations for the initial breach of copyright, and the initial settlement was overturned. The institutional libraries--we now know--had no such intent. The University of Michigan (and some other universities) are preparing to distribute free full downloads of works Google scanned (even though Google had no right to scan the works in copyright, and the library had no right to give books in copyright to Google to scan.) These works are now titled "Hathitrust" and are the subject of a new suit by aggrieved writers.
At the root of Google's bright idea is the assumption that all books should be available to all readers at no or minimal charge all the time--an assumption which strikes at the root of a writer's ability to be paid for his/her work and a publisher's ability to be paid for the work the publisher contributes. It directly conflicts with copyright law, under which a writer has the right to control the publication and distribution of his/her own work. But feeding that assumption is another--the presumed existence of hundreds of thousands of "orphan" works, works still protected by copyright, but out of print, and whose copyright owners--the writers or their heirs--cannot be found to ask permission.
There are several things wrong with this notion. First, current books may go in and out of print (be temporarily unavailable for order) between reprintings, though the author is easily found. Like most writers, I've had books go out of print for a few months--or longer--and come back into print. Second, even when books go out of print for good with one publisher, they may be picked up later by another--or the writer may self-publish (now increasingly common with self-pubbed ebooks and POD. Several ad hoc writers' groups, such as Backlist eBooks, as well as individual writers working on their own, have released e-editions of out of print works...works still clearly protected by copyright. I know dozens of writers who are both easy to find and are putting up their own backlists. (The only reason I'm not is that my books are still in print.) Third, the presumption that writers of out-of-print books are "virtually impossible to find" has allowed these would-be thieves an excuse to simply not look for the writer of any book they choose to make use of. Are there some copyright holders who can't be found? Yes. But the evidence is clear that those who wish to profit off someone else's books aren't looking for those who are alive, members of writers' organizations, still publishing, and whose books may even be still in print. Many such writers protested Google's actions, including me.
Like every other writer, I have a dog in this hunt. A library donated to Google--and Google scanned--most of my books. All were under copyright protection. All were currently in print from publishers easy to locate. As for the "virtual impossibility" of finding the author: a Google search on my name brings up first my main website, then the section of that website devoted to the Paksworld books, then a Wikipedia article about me. My website has come up first in a Google search on my name for at least a decade. (Yes, I checked.) In other words, a very cursory, minimal search would have found me. It is ridiculous for any librarian in the country or Google to claim that I was "virtually impossible" to find or contact. It is equally ridiculous for any librarian or Google to claim that my books were hard to find or purchase. I am not the only writer whose in-copyright and in-print books were taken by Google...nor the only one whose website and contact info were easy to find.
Evidently, no one looked: not the librarians who took my books off the shelf and sent them to Google for scanning, and not Google. No contact was ever made asking my permission to use my work this way. Instead, someone at some library gave Google the books to scan--without ever considering my rights--and Google scanned them with the same lack of concern. When I found out about it, I went through the laborious process (it took several days because of Google's clear intent to make it difficult) to refuse Google permission to allow the scans' use. Google indicated it would "probably" not use the scans for which permission was refused, but that was the best I could do.
Let's be clear here. As the copyright owner (the person who created the works) I have the right to license publication and distribution--or not--throughout the life of the copyright. I have the legal right to decide who--if anyone--can publish, and the legal right to terminate that right-to-publish under whatever contract I signed to allow publication in the first place. When one publisher finds a book not profitable enough and lets it go out of print, I have the right to end our contract and either let the book lapse or license another publisher (including myself.) I've been through rights-reversion with one publisher (and the next picked up the book and it's still in print.) Many writers have been through this. But should a writer prefer to let a book go completely "still"--remain unpublished--that's the writer's legal right. No one has a right to sneak into the writer's house and make off with a manuscript or a computer file and publish it...and no one has a right to take a book off the shelf of a library and make and distribute copies (paper or electronic) if the work is still under copyright protection. No one. Not a library. Not a corporation. Not an individual. It does not matter if there's only one copy in one library and there's a line out the door wanting to read it: the writer has the right to withhold permission for another round of publication (most of us would rather see a new edition--but I can imagine a circumstance in which a writer wouldn't. And it's the writer's choice.)
The difference between Project Gutenberg and other smaller projects that digitized out-of-copyright old books is this: money. Google saw a profit in holding a huge library of digitalized works, which it could make available for download at minimal cost--because of the ad income it could generate from clicks on the pages that displayed a text. Once it had the scans, it could charge for the downloads, or simply let the ad-clicks generate it. Google never planned to compensate writers for its use of their work--it planned to profit from their work without including them in the income stream. Libraries see profit in holding the Google scan, because they can either charge for downloads or for time on the computer in the library where patrons read or gain prominence (and perhaps funding) through having such a resource available. Like Google, libraries (who have long profited from writers' understanding that having their book in a library could attract readers who might later buy their books) had no intention of including writers in the income stream derived from allowing downloads.
All works protected by copyright should be summarily removed from the Google scan files, including those now held in the University of Michigan library and all other libraries involved. The courts should establish what is a sufficient search for the authors of books in copyright before any so-called "orphan" books are put back into the scanned list. The search should be extensive enough--in both range of search and duration--so that writers have a fair chance of recovering their work if they wish. There should be a provision for writers who were not found initially to remove their work later, if they wish. The cost of such search should be borne entirely by those who desire to find them and the complaints of Google, libraries, and their ilk that this will be too costly should be taken with an entire boatload of salt. Why should they bear the cost? Because they want the profit. I spent hours--many hours--trying to be sure that I had found every book of mine on the Google scan and correctly navigated their tortuous path to refusing permission for its use. That's unfair. They acted illegally in the first place, and they should bear the cost of fixing their blunders.
If you are a university librarian now holding the Google scans...I call on you to do the right thing and remove (if you can) or refuse to download to patrons any book still in copyright. If you think the book is permanently out of print (not just between printings) do an internet search for the writer and contact the publisher. If you are using the Google scan to fill out your own collection...buy a copy of the books that are still in copyright protection and in print. (I know--budget concerns. Writers have budgets too, almost certainly smaller than yours. Feed the writer.) Because otherwise, you're stealing from writers. Like Google, who probably came to you with this lovely, alluring, tempting idea, you're breaking copyright law. I've supported libraries for decades...but I can't support this.
If you're part of a university administration (and yes, University of Michigan, I'm looking at you!) you should be aware that your library's participation in the Google project and the use of its scan violates copyright law and you have a responsibility to correct these behaviors. Demonstrably, copyrights have been violated--mine, among others. Demonstrably, whatever "safeguards" were supposed to be in place to protect writers' interests failed. University administrators should ensure that the libraries under their umbrella are held accountable for their actions with respect to copyright law and the rights of authors.
If you're a university student or faculty member who is planning to use the works in "Hathitrust" through your university library, you should be aware that many of the works therein are not there legally: they were obtained without the writer's permission (and permission was not even sought) and their use violates copyright. Their presence is not the same as a book on the shelf...at some point that physical book represented a sale, from which the writer gained something (maybe only a few cents, but something.) Writers have not been, and will not be, compensated for the theft of their work that is now in "Hathitrust." You will be told these are orphaned works, that the writers cannot be found. That is a lie. No one looked. So please: take a look at the titles, authors, publication dates. Do a little research yourselves. If you see a writer name you recognize, that you're a little surprised to find in a group of supposed "orphans"--do a quick internet search and if you find the person, let your librarian know. And let the writer know.
Both Google and the libraries considered this a wonderful thing for themselves and their users. Whoopee--lots of free books readily available in digital form. Unfortunately, this bright idea ignored copyright law, the way publishing works, and the rights of authors.
Project Gutenberg had already been digitizing old texts and making them available freely, and so had a few others, but those projects were confined to books clearly old enough to be out of copyright. Google and the new libraries involved had no such scruples. They considered that all books were fair game--including those that already had digital editions produced by their publishers (a clear conflict with copyright laws--those publishers already had the exclusive right--granted by contract--to distribute the electronic edition.) Google claimed that it would allow only partial downloads of books still in copyright...unless they were "orphaned" works. Google was sued by a number of writers and writers' organizations for the initial breach of copyright, and the initial settlement was overturned. The institutional libraries--we now know--had no such intent. The University of Michigan (and some other universities) are preparing to distribute free full downloads of works Google scanned (even though Google had no right to scan the works in copyright, and the library had no right to give books in copyright to Google to scan.) These works are now titled "Hathitrust" and are the subject of a new suit by aggrieved writers.
At the root of Google's bright idea is the assumption that all books should be available to all readers at no or minimal charge all the time--an assumption which strikes at the root of a writer's ability to be paid for his/her work and a publisher's ability to be paid for the work the publisher contributes. It directly conflicts with copyright law, under which a writer has the right to control the publication and distribution of his/her own work. But feeding that assumption is another--the presumed existence of hundreds of thousands of "orphan" works, works still protected by copyright, but out of print, and whose copyright owners--the writers or their heirs--cannot be found to ask permission.
There are several things wrong with this notion. First, current books may go in and out of print (be temporarily unavailable for order) between reprintings, though the author is easily found. Like most writers, I've had books go out of print for a few months--or longer--and come back into print. Second, even when books go out of print for good with one publisher, they may be picked up later by another--or the writer may self-publish (now increasingly common with self-pubbed ebooks and POD. Several ad hoc writers' groups, such as Backlist eBooks, as well as individual writers working on their own, have released e-editions of out of print works...works still clearly protected by copyright. I know dozens of writers who are both easy to find and are putting up their own backlists. (The only reason I'm not is that my books are still in print.) Third, the presumption that writers of out-of-print books are "virtually impossible to find" has allowed these would-be thieves an excuse to simply not look for the writer of any book they choose to make use of. Are there some copyright holders who can't be found? Yes. But the evidence is clear that those who wish to profit off someone else's books aren't looking for those who are alive, members of writers' organizations, still publishing, and whose books may even be still in print. Many such writers protested Google's actions, including me.
Like every other writer, I have a dog in this hunt. A library donated to Google--and Google scanned--most of my books. All were under copyright protection. All were currently in print from publishers easy to locate. As for the "virtual impossibility" of finding the author: a Google search on my name brings up first my main website, then the section of that website devoted to the Paksworld books, then a Wikipedia article about me. My website has come up first in a Google search on my name for at least a decade. (Yes, I checked.) In other words, a very cursory, minimal search would have found me. It is ridiculous for any librarian in the country or Google to claim that I was "virtually impossible" to find or contact. It is equally ridiculous for any librarian or Google to claim that my books were hard to find or purchase. I am not the only writer whose in-copyright and in-print books were taken by Google...nor the only one whose website and contact info were easy to find.
Evidently, no one looked: not the librarians who took my books off the shelf and sent them to Google for scanning, and not Google. No contact was ever made asking my permission to use my work this way. Instead, someone at some library gave Google the books to scan--without ever considering my rights--and Google scanned them with the same lack of concern. When I found out about it, I went through the laborious process (it took several days because of Google's clear intent to make it difficult) to refuse Google permission to allow the scans' use. Google indicated it would "probably" not use the scans for which permission was refused, but that was the best I could do.
Let's be clear here. As the copyright owner (the person who created the works) I have the right to license publication and distribution--or not--throughout the life of the copyright. I have the legal right to decide who--if anyone--can publish, and the legal right to terminate that right-to-publish under whatever contract I signed to allow publication in the first place. When one publisher finds a book not profitable enough and lets it go out of print, I have the right to end our contract and either let the book lapse or license another publisher (including myself.) I've been through rights-reversion with one publisher (and the next picked up the book and it's still in print.) Many writers have been through this. But should a writer prefer to let a book go completely "still"--remain unpublished--that's the writer's legal right. No one has a right to sneak into the writer's house and make off with a manuscript or a computer file and publish it...and no one has a right to take a book off the shelf of a library and make and distribute copies (paper or electronic) if the work is still under copyright protection. No one. Not a library. Not a corporation. Not an individual. It does not matter if there's only one copy in one library and there's a line out the door wanting to read it: the writer has the right to withhold permission for another round of publication (most of us would rather see a new edition--but I can imagine a circumstance in which a writer wouldn't. And it's the writer's choice.)
The difference between Project Gutenberg and other smaller projects that digitized out-of-copyright old books is this: money. Google saw a profit in holding a huge library of digitalized works, which it could make available for download at minimal cost--because of the ad income it could generate from clicks on the pages that displayed a text. Once it had the scans, it could charge for the downloads, or simply let the ad-clicks generate it. Google never planned to compensate writers for its use of their work--it planned to profit from their work without including them in the income stream. Libraries see profit in holding the Google scan, because they can either charge for downloads or for time on the computer in the library where patrons read or gain prominence (and perhaps funding) through having such a resource available. Like Google, libraries (who have long profited from writers' understanding that having their book in a library could attract readers who might later buy their books) had no intention of including writers in the income stream derived from allowing downloads.
All works protected by copyright should be summarily removed from the Google scan files, including those now held in the University of Michigan library and all other libraries involved. The courts should establish what is a sufficient search for the authors of books in copyright before any so-called "orphan" books are put back into the scanned list. The search should be extensive enough--in both range of search and duration--so that writers have a fair chance of recovering their work if they wish. There should be a provision for writers who were not found initially to remove their work later, if they wish. The cost of such search should be borne entirely by those who desire to find them and the complaints of Google, libraries, and their ilk that this will be too costly should be taken with an entire boatload of salt. Why should they bear the cost? Because they want the profit. I spent hours--many hours--trying to be sure that I had found every book of mine on the Google scan and correctly navigated their tortuous path to refusing permission for its use. That's unfair. They acted illegally in the first place, and they should bear the cost of fixing their blunders.
If you are a university librarian now holding the Google scans...I call on you to do the right thing and remove (if you can) or refuse to download to patrons any book still in copyright. If you think the book is permanently out of print (not just between printings) do an internet search for the writer and contact the publisher. If you are using the Google scan to fill out your own collection...buy a copy of the books that are still in copyright protection and in print. (I know--budget concerns. Writers have budgets too, almost certainly smaller than yours. Feed the writer.) Because otherwise, you're stealing from writers. Like Google, who probably came to you with this lovely, alluring, tempting idea, you're breaking copyright law. I've supported libraries for decades...but I can't support this.
If you're part of a university administration (and yes, University of Michigan, I'm looking at you!) you should be aware that your library's participation in the Google project and the use of its scan violates copyright law and you have a responsibility to correct these behaviors. Demonstrably, copyrights have been violated--mine, among others. Demonstrably, whatever "safeguards" were supposed to be in place to protect writers' interests failed. University administrators should ensure that the libraries under their umbrella are held accountable for their actions with respect to copyright law and the rights of authors.
If you're a university student or faculty member who is planning to use the works in "Hathitrust" through your university library, you should be aware that many of the works therein are not there legally: they were obtained without the writer's permission (and permission was not even sought) and their use violates copyright. Their presence is not the same as a book on the shelf...at some point that physical book represented a sale, from which the writer gained something (maybe only a few cents, but something.) Writers have not been, and will not be, compensated for the theft of their work that is now in "Hathitrust." You will be told these are orphaned works, that the writers cannot be found. That is a lie. No one looked. So please: take a look at the titles, authors, publication dates. Do a little research yourselves. If you see a writer name you recognize, that you're a little surprised to find in a group of supposed "orphans"--do a quick internet search and if you find the person, let your librarian know. And let the writer know.
September 13, 2011
Snippety snippety
There's a new post up at the Paksworld blog with a snippet from Echoes of Betrayal, the book that will be out next spring.
Young Beclan's uncomfortable night in a dilapidated herder's shelter sets him up for some challenging times ahead. But those, major spoilers, aren't in this snippet.
Young Beclan's uncomfortable night in a dilapidated herder's shelter sets him up for some challenging times ahead. But those, major spoilers, aren't in this snippet.
Another Self-Indulgence
This past spring, I bought real chairs for our kitchen. I'd been looking for chairs to replace aging and mismatched folding chairs we'd used throughout our 40+ year marriage, and finally ordered library chairs. Loved 'em. That immediately brought up the issue of tables. The kitchen table was too small to seat six, though we'd crammed six into it from time to time. So I had a leaf made for it. It's still uncomfortably narrow (but the kitchen isn't big enough for a wider table--people would have their backs on the refrigerator and stove on one side, and cabinets on the other) but at least we can seat six in the kitchen. And on chairs that the seat won't sag out of, nor the folding mechanism collapse. "No more folding chairs!" was my motto.
But the big thing was a table to replace the makeshift table complex in the room at the other house where we have big dinners. It was my mother's house, and is now our weekend-guest-and-big-dinners house. For almost thirty years, since she moved there, we've used a combination of old and cheap-made tables to seat guests. There's the dining table from when I was a child, and the dining table my husband and I had in our first house (my mother was still using the other one) and a table I made out of plywood and purchased metal folding legs...no two the same width or height. The main T-day table (and we always have over a dozen for T-day) is the two old dining tables, both drop-leaf tables with additional leaves. One has four legs, slightly curved. The other is a sort of pedestal-leg combo (hard to explain, but there's a central pedestal at each end with legs that splay out from its bottom.) I drop the leaves on the ends where they're pushed together, but use the internal leaves, and it makes a long table...one wider and higher, the other narrower and lower. Thanks to the dropped leaves and the inconsistent legs, though technically quite long enough for 12, it's uncomfortable for more than 10. (We've put 12 at it, using the narrow folding chairs, but...not comfortable.)
And that's going to change, because I've ordered a "French Farm Table" that is the same width (and 2 inches wider than the wider of the two old dining tables--the width of the table I made) all the way down. 6 feet long to start with, and four one-foot leaves to take it to a full 10 feet, 120 inches...it will seat 12 in 6 inches less length than the two old ones as now arranged. No more worrying that the end leaves will give way when someone puts their elbows on one...no more struggle to get the tablecloth to look good over the "joint"...more space between seats and across the table so I can put dishes down the middle.
And I'll need more chairs, because the old chairs of the old tables are wearing out (the older are more than 60 years old; the younger more than 40.)
The new table won't be here by Thanksgiving, but may be here by Christmas, so I'm looking forward to a new year in which all guests at every feast can have a solid, comfortable table and chairs. There won't be any pictures until everything's in place.
But the big thing was a table to replace the makeshift table complex in the room at the other house where we have big dinners. It was my mother's house, and is now our weekend-guest-and-big-dinners house. For almost thirty years, since she moved there, we've used a combination of old and cheap-made tables to seat guests. There's the dining table from when I was a child, and the dining table my husband and I had in our first house (my mother was still using the other one) and a table I made out of plywood and purchased metal folding legs...no two the same width or height. The main T-day table (and we always have over a dozen for T-day) is the two old dining tables, both drop-leaf tables with additional leaves. One has four legs, slightly curved. The other is a sort of pedestal-leg combo (hard to explain, but there's a central pedestal at each end with legs that splay out from its bottom.) I drop the leaves on the ends where they're pushed together, but use the internal leaves, and it makes a long table...one wider and higher, the other narrower and lower. Thanks to the dropped leaves and the inconsistent legs, though technically quite long enough for 12, it's uncomfortable for more than 10. (We've put 12 at it, using the narrow folding chairs, but...not comfortable.)
And that's going to change, because I've ordered a "French Farm Table" that is the same width (and 2 inches wider than the wider of the two old dining tables--the width of the table I made) all the way down. 6 feet long to start with, and four one-foot leaves to take it to a full 10 feet, 120 inches...it will seat 12 in 6 inches less length than the two old ones as now arranged. No more worrying that the end leaves will give way when someone puts their elbows on one...no more struggle to get the tablecloth to look good over the "joint"...more space between seats and across the table so I can put dishes down the middle.
And I'll need more chairs, because the old chairs of the old tables are wearing out (the older are more than 60 years old; the younger more than 40.)
The new table won't be here by Thanksgiving, but may be here by Christmas, so I'm looking forward to a new year in which all guests at every feast can have a solid, comfortable table and chairs. There won't be any pictures until everything's in place.
September 9, 2011
Lazy Cooking: one technique
I'm supposed to be writing something else, but this is easier (for lazy cook and writer). To get a nice even covering of herbs/seasonings on the whatever-you're-about-to-bake--or on one side of it, at least--put down a layer of it on the bottom of the baking dish. For instance, sprinkle a layer of herbs and paprika and coarse-ground black pepper and salt on the baking dish, lay pieces of chicken skin-side-down on it and rock them back and forth. Sprinkle the visible side with salt and pepper (and the other flavors, if you want) When turned over, they have a lovely even coating of the flavor-stuff on the skin side. Sometimes I prefer to put the salt and pepper on the skin side separately after turning them back over. For something like a pork loin I put the layer of flavorings down, then roll the pork loin over in the pan, starting at one side, and the whole thing gets coated in one move.
Before I tried this, I had trouble getting an even coating onto things, but now--easy, and it looks better.
Before I tried this, I had trouble getting an even coating onto things, but now--easy, and it looks better.
August 29, 2011
Rick Perry and Religion
It's easy to say that Rick Perry is a right-wing religious bigot...and I'm not arguing that position...but it's not that simple, either. Perry's understanding of his putative religion--which is some form of Christianity, he thinks, is...um...shaky. On some of the standards of Christian religious conservatives (gays are evil, abortion is evil, evolution is just an evil theory, this is a Christian nation--with "Christian narrowly defined" [by their definition I'm not], there's nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state, etc.) he fits right in. But not all the right-wing Christians are Dominionists who want to see Armageddon 'cause they think they'll end up among the righteous and in power.
Take for example his fairly well-known statement about the BP oil spill "From time to time there are going to be things that occur that are acts of God that cannot be prevented." Even for right-wing conservative evangelicals, "acts of God" used to be confined to major natural disasters: hurricanes, tornados, floods, forest fires started by lightning (not people), blizzards, earthquakes. Things humans could not possibly have caused, in other words. God might send a natural disaster as punishment, but anything clearly connected with human activity wasn't an act of God...it was an act of Human, and the humans involved (not being God) could be held responsible. But Perry put the blame (though he didn't call it blame) on God Hisownself for BP's problem. Nobody could have prevented it because God Hisownself wanted that busted fitting and that leak to occur. And it just "occurred." That kind of thinking (if a person makes a mistake it's really God...and of course God can't be blamed for anything) reminds me of a bad doctor we went to one time, who made a serious diagnostic mistake with repercussions for the rest of our lives, and then tried to pass off said results as "God's will." Um...no.
As one of those much-despised (by the religious right) liberal Christians I find this disrespect of Perry's deity rather disturbing. As a little kid I learned that appeals to Deity to cover up my blunders were not OK. "God made me drop the glass that broke" or "God made the ball hit the window" did not fly. Even "Well, God made me this way, so I when I make mistakes, it's really God's fault for making me weak/clumsy/greedy/ less than a genius," where I clearly and carefully traced responsibility back to God, didn't work. Though the terms hadn't been invented yet (I don't think), there was a clear boundary (in modern psych terms) between child-who-broke-the-glass and God-who-made-the-child, and child-who-broke-the-glass was the one responsible for shards of glass and spilled milk on the floor. Here's the cleaning stuff: get busy.
A major part of the ethical training I got was aimed at convincing me that if I messed up, it was actually my fault. My responsibility. And as a parent, I spent many, many hours working with our kid (autistic, so making sure he understood was even more difficult) on the same territory. If you break it--admit it. Then clean up the mess. Don't blame the glass for falling; don't blame another person; don't blame (in the ultimate line of causation) God. You dropped it...admit it, clean it up, and go on from there. There can be disagreements (within a family, within a culture) about what things are mistakes or wrong, but clear thinking leads to connecting the person who actually did X with the responsibility for X.
Perry's religious statements have "evolved" through his contact with religious right funding sources...unless he's been concealing his real beliefs all along which--given his penchant for not exactly telling the truth, but instead the version that will appeal to the people from whom he wants money or votes--is possible. But there's been a pattern of not making that vital connection between who did X and putting the responsibility for it on the right person.
This ties into his refusal to consider the evidence in the matter of the death penalty, for instance. Although he has the authority to issue a stay of execution, he has expressed faith in law enforcement and prosecutors, so that he himself is not really responsible if an innocent man is executed. (Though he will bend considerable effort to prevent the evidence for such mistakes from coming out, as in the Willingham case.) His recent (unfortunately successful) effort to hide the cost of his special protection unit from Texas taxpayers (until after the 2012 election) after some embarrassing revelations about what we Texans paid for (scuba gear for his guards on a trip to Greece???) suggests that he's actually aware when he's doing something wrong, but he wants to evade responsibility for it.
Now many, if not most, right-wing religious folk don't really approve of secrecy to cover up wrongdoing (though, being as human as liberal Christians, they also sin and some of them hide it.) They say that confessions are good for the soul, that people should be "held accountable" and be "convicted of their sin." I know churches in which people are publicly and specifically shamed in the church for something someone thinks they did wrong. I know lots of right-wing religious folk (live among them) who get really angry about political dishonesty, about lack of accountability, wasting taxpayers' money, etc.
But...they voted for Perry. Who is as secretive and sneaky about how tax money gets into his hands and the hands of his major contributors as any of the supposedly unrighteous. That fundamental ethical base--that what you do, the choices you make, are your responsibility--and you can't evade that responsibility by pointing at someone else or God Hisownself--seems not to exist in Perry. (And doesn't really exist where theology isn't pretty darn stringent on the topic. Evasion of blame is a human characteristic that only hard work--by parents and then by individuals--grinds down. Groups that blame women for men's sexual behavior, for instance...that make women responsible for men's behavior, and give men power over women because of that initial false reasoning...wrong from the root.)
Sneaking back over to Christian Scripture: Jesus commanded a lot of things Perry doesn't do (such as "not making a show of your religion", feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, providing drink to the thirsty, visitng the sick and prisoners.) Jesus championed the poor, the sad, the sick, and the powerless against the rich, the comfortable and smug. Perry...has diverted money from social services to his supporters' businesses, used tax money (paid mostly by the poor and shrinking middle class since he's opposed to taxing the rich) to pay for things (like his protection team's recreational equipment) that he should have paid for privately. has demanded more protection than any previous Texas governor, has been, in short, an enemy of the poor, sick, homeless, hungry, disabled and anyone who isn't one of his group, and a suck-up to the rich. Someone who will say whatever he thinks will get him a big contribution or a cluster of votes.
So though on the surface he's a typical right-wing religious bigot...it's more complicated than that. Only God knows what Perry really believes, beyond "I'm right and whatever I do is OK if I can find someone else to shed the responsibility onto." Anyone can claim to be in any religion or any branch of any religion...so though it's tempting to say Perry doesn't qualify as a Christian, under the simplest of filters, there are whole churches calling themselves Christian who ignore what seem to others of us the obvious rules....and they would say we aren't Christians because we don't agree with them. And who gets to make the final ruling? (No, not the Pope. I'm not Catholic and I don't think any Pope has been infallible.) Well, um, God Hisownself or God Herownself (just to start the split widening.) Nobody else in the Christian belief system has the chops. We lesser beings can say "Perry isn't acting the way Jesus said to act" but we can't say (though boy is it tempting!!) that he's not a Christian at all.
But...what do you think God thinks (if you can conceive of God even momentarily) of someone who passes off his and his friends' mistakes on this third party--this very powerful, very knowledgeable third party? Perry claims to believe in God. Claims to pray to God. Would you really, honestly, ask favors of someone you'd wrongly blamed for something you'd done? Is that adult reasoning? Is that sane? ("Yes, yes, it's true I told everybody it was you who set off that cherry bomb in the school toilet and you got in trouble, and yes, I'm the one who did it....but I really, really want to come to your party at the country club with all the in-crowd, pleeeeeze?") Does Perry think so little of God that he thinks God can be fooled like that? There are teenagers who would see through that. Nine year olds who would see through that. Does Perry believe God is stupid?
So my take on Perry and religion is that he's a very confused individual who has eased his confusion by taking the easy way out: whatever anyone with enough money tells him, is truth. And God is on his side. Meanwhile, Texas has been in the middle of the huge brown blot of exceptional drought, and Perry's hot air floating prayers to God hasn't acomplished a single drop.
Note: I'm disabling comments on this for now, because I'll be offline for several days and then very busy at DragonCon with no time to keep an eye on the discussion. Anything with religion and politics can blow up huge and nasty in a hurry and that's not going to happen here. I'll do a post-DragonCon post when I'm ready for comments on this post.
Edit Note: In the first edit round (fixing typos) the paragraph breaks disappeared. I hope I've put them back this time. Checking it out--now if I go into "Edit" mode, all the paragraph breaks but one (why that one?) disappear and have to be re-entered.
August 27, 2011
Video's gone but not forgotten
So somebody (we can guess who) intimidated the person who put the video of that hilarious song up and they took it down.
But you know, you seriously, really, do not want to elect someone who can't stand to be laughed at and who wants to hide his mistakes.
So while I encourage some filkwriter friends to come up with something even better, here's a little more about Perry and his approach to governance. Or, "How much Perry likes the death penalty and how far he will go to hide the fact that he's killed innocents."
A man named Cameron Todd Willingham was accused of murdering his three children by deliberately burning down his house with them in it. The local fire investigator was sure he saw signs of arson--but he wasn't an expert, had no training. He did call in a state investigator, but this was a man who said under oath that as far as he knew he never made mistakes...the very signature of "closed mind, ignore contrary evidence." They immediately chose Willingham as the most likely suspect. The local prosecutor found it easy to get a conviction. Willingham was on death row over ten years...during which time more more evidence emerged that the fire was not arson and he had not murdered his children...and that both the state and local fire investigators had indeed made mistakes and were not as expert as the court had made them seem.
But Governor Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. He has repeatedly refused to grant stays of execution when new evidence or expert testimony has been found, just as Texas courts are reluctant to allow appeals. He vetoed a bill that would have kept mentally retarded individuals from being subject to the death penalty (on the grounds that there were already enough safeguards for them in place. And how are those safeguards protecting them from execution under Gov. Perry? Um...not very well at all. Anyway, this is part of his "tough on criminals" stance (doesn't apply to corporations, of course. Or their CEOs. Though it wasn't Perry, it was one of his strongest supporters in the Texas legislature who apologized to BP for the criticism BP received after the disasterous oil leak in the Gulf.) That's one part of Perry and the death penalty--he really likes that big tough stance looking down on the low-income criminals. (It's pertinent that Willingham was unemployed at the time of the fire.)
But there's worse. Five years after that execution, an investigator from the Texas Forensic Science Commission, looking at the evidence again, decided that the fire could not have been arson. Not "maybe wasn't" but "could not have been." His testimony would have been heard before the Commission, but Perry fired and replaced three of the Commission's members...ensuring that there'd be no hearing on the case. So not only was he a pigheaded SOB about the evidence in the first place, now that there's expert testimony that's going to make it clear he goofed and had an innocent man executed, he uses his power as a governor to cover it up. Couldn't just say "Damn, I was wrong, and I'm so sorry...and I'll learn from this that maybe I, too, am not God and do make mistakes." No. Like Bush before him, he can't stand to have anyone think he's less than gold-plated perfection.
But gold plated stupid mistakes are still stupid mistakes. A man who can't admit error has no business in power. As my engineer mother used to say "You can't fix a mistake if you don't admit you made it."
But you know, you seriously, really, do not want to elect someone who can't stand to be laughed at and who wants to hide his mistakes.
So while I encourage some filkwriter friends to come up with something even better, here's a little more about Perry and his approach to governance. Or, "How much Perry likes the death penalty and how far he will go to hide the fact that he's killed innocents."
A man named Cameron Todd Willingham was accused of murdering his three children by deliberately burning down his house with them in it. The local fire investigator was sure he saw signs of arson--but he wasn't an expert, had no training. He did call in a state investigator, but this was a man who said under oath that as far as he knew he never made mistakes...the very signature of "closed mind, ignore contrary evidence." They immediately chose Willingham as the most likely suspect. The local prosecutor found it easy to get a conviction. Willingham was on death row over ten years...during which time more more evidence emerged that the fire was not arson and he had not murdered his children...and that both the state and local fire investigators had indeed made mistakes and were not as expert as the court had made them seem.
But Governor Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. He has repeatedly refused to grant stays of execution when new evidence or expert testimony has been found, just as Texas courts are reluctant to allow appeals. He vetoed a bill that would have kept mentally retarded individuals from being subject to the death penalty (on the grounds that there were already enough safeguards for them in place. And how are those safeguards protecting them from execution under Gov. Perry? Um...not very well at all. Anyway, this is part of his "tough on criminals" stance (doesn't apply to corporations, of course. Or their CEOs. Though it wasn't Perry, it was one of his strongest supporters in the Texas legislature who apologized to BP for the criticism BP received after the disasterous oil leak in the Gulf.) That's one part of Perry and the death penalty--he really likes that big tough stance looking down on the low-income criminals. (It's pertinent that Willingham was unemployed at the time of the fire.)
But there's worse. Five years after that execution, an investigator from the Texas Forensic Science Commission, looking at the evidence again, decided that the fire could not have been arson. Not "maybe wasn't" but "could not have been." His testimony would have been heard before the Commission, but Perry fired and replaced three of the Commission's members...ensuring that there'd be no hearing on the case. So not only was he a pigheaded SOB about the evidence in the first place, now that there's expert testimony that's going to make it clear he goofed and had an innocent man executed, he uses his power as a governor to cover it up. Couldn't just say "Damn, I was wrong, and I'm so sorry...and I'll learn from this that maybe I, too, am not God and do make mistakes." No. Like Bush before him, he can't stand to have anyone think he's less than gold-plated perfection.
But gold plated stupid mistakes are still stupid mistakes. A man who can't admit error has no business in power. As my engineer mother used to say "You can't fix a mistake if you don't admit you made it."
August 25, 2011
One Texas ISD's Opinion of Rick Perry
There are so many reasons not to vote for Rick Perry--and I will be giving more of them in weeks to come--but Sanger ISD's skit does a pretty good job of telling you about one of them: Perry's willingness to gut Texas schools, cutting state funding, so that districts had to lay off teachers, eliminate some school bus routes, cut funding for all programs (already short due to earlier years of Perryization of the schools) and so on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Umf6p2dD8&feature=player_embedded#
Perry's caused more grief than this for Texas children and Texas families (cutting funding for programs that impact them such as WIC and CHIP). If this guy doesn't give a damn about Texas kids and Texas families, you know he's not going to do one solitary thing to support families and children nationwide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Umf6p2dD8&feature=player_embedded#
Perry's caused more grief than this for Texas children and Texas families (cutting funding for programs that impact them such as WIC and CHIP). If this guy doesn't give a damn about Texas kids and Texas families, you know he's not going to do one solitary thing to support families and children nationwide.
August 19, 2011
Beautiful Moth
Late this evening, after sundown, we found this beautiful moth on the ground near one of the big water tanks.
It's a Vine Sphinx, Eumorpha vitis, and I'm guessing it was a caterpillar on one of the vines near the house, still alive because we can water there. Elsewhere vines are dead from the drought. I did not want to handle it, as that always risks some damage to the moth's wing-scales and I don't know if it was freshly emerged from a chrysalis or an older moth near death. It's very hot tonight. We don't have anything blooming but firecracker bush and one turks-cap (the others, that we can't water, have died.) I hope it makes it to reproduction, if it hasn't done that already. It is a new species for our list.
It's a Vine Sphinx, Eumorpha vitis, and I'm guessing it was a caterpillar on one of the vines near the house, still alive because we can water there. Elsewhere vines are dead from the drought. I did not want to handle it, as that always risks some damage to the moth's wing-scales and I don't know if it was freshly emerged from a chrysalis or an older moth near death. It's very hot tonight. We don't have anything blooming but firecracker bush and one turks-cap (the others, that we can't water, have died.) I hope it makes it to reproduction, if it hasn't done that already. It is a new species for our list.
August 17, 2011
It's Only a Dream...
In this very hot weather, I get up before dawn and walk out to check the wildlife waterers (total distance, something over a mile--the trails wind around so not sure.) Also, the night's sleep is often interrupted by click beetles in the bedroom (click beetles buzz around, smack against a wall or lampshade, fall with a faint thud, and then go "click....click....click....click...." Rinse and repeat. Sometimes they get in the bed. Sometimes they get inside nightclothes, where a clicking click-beetle will definitely wake me up. And if they're not clicking, they're crawling around, tickling.
This explains the need for afternoon naps and the tendency of afternoon naps to produce dreams more often than when the click beetles haven't interrupted REM sleep. And that explains, I suppose, yesterday afternoon's extremely vivid, detailed, and surreal dream. As background to this, we have a few cows on rancherfriend's ranch, where we trade half the calf crop for pasture lease. The other half, we eat. We've known rancherfriends for over 30 years now, and have gone over to help out at things like fence work, gathering cattle and loading them into trailers, working them through chutes for dehorning and vaccination, etc. Our cows were their cows (I bought two of them.) Rancherfriend has hauled our now-big-enough Sir Loin and Mr. T(bone) to the custom slaughterhouse in various years, hauled our excess calves (if we have them) along with his to the auction barn, and we have processed the sheep I get from Farrier and one humongous bull at their place. Rancherfriends have registered Beefmaster cattle in a TB- and brucellosis-free herd, and the range-fed beef is lean, untainted, and delicious. Beefmasters aren't a color breed, and theirs include a range of colors and markings.
So, the dream. I was in an old pickup truck (thin metal steering wheel, no padding, two doors, bench seat, layer of receipts and notes and things on the dashboard, mud boots upside down between cab and bed, etc.) and hitched to it was an open-style stock trailer of like vintage. Rancherfriend was driving when the dream started, and we went into a pasture and loaded a few cattle. All the cattle were black, but they weren't built like Black Angus (kind of stubby and stocky) or black Brangus (leggier than Beefmaster.) They were like Rancherfriend's cattle but maybe a chunkier (just not to the Angus level) and black, a few with some white markings. Then we drove somewhere else and loaded a few more black cattle--cow-calf pairs and singles. Suddenly, in the dream, I was driving the truck. Now on those old trucks, I have to stretch to reach the pedals--and this old truck made old-truck noises, the gearbox was worn, and the brakes were not entirely adequate to the load behind. Meanwhile Rancherfriend would see another of his critters, and I'd have to stop the truck and he'd get out and wrestle the critter into the trailer.
The scene changed to hillier country than we've got. Now I was on a wider road, with more traffic, headed down a long hill with curves, and increasingly aware that with a bumper-hitch large stock trailer full (or nearly full) of cattle, the not-perfect brakes were becoming more of a problem. I've twice had brakes go out completely (two different vehicles) while I had a long drive to any service facility and traffic and terrain to deal with, so it was a familiar emotion to be braced with my shoulders against the seat back, reaching hard for the brakes and aware of the way that miserable stock trailer could jackknife and roll us on a hill curve. About this time, Rancherfriend wasn't in the truck anymore, but in another, newer truck, passing me on the right and waving "hi!"
Then the road straightened out, the slope leveled down, and ahead was an intersection with a traffic light, including a left turn lane. Rancherfriend cut in front of me and took the left turn lane, so I pulled into it. There was a tiny hamlet, with a building I recognized (even after waking--it's on 183 north of Briggs somewhere, at an intersection with no light and a road I like heading off east.) In the dream, though, it was in a town of maybe ten structures, and the town had a sign with its name on it. (That name does not belong to any town in this state.) The road we turned onto was smaller, very winding, and there was another black cow standing beside the road. About the time Rancherfriend (now back in the same truck with me) got out and picked up this obviously 600-pound critter in his arms and shoved it in the trailer, I woke up. And somewhere in the dream (this part faded quickly and I don't know where in the dream it was--before the hill and curve and brake problem I think) we had stopped to pick up a cow and I looked out the truck window and saw a very shabby, moth-eaten-looking mountain lion--very thin--slinking away up a gully on the other side of the road. I was excited at seeing one. Rancherfriend was annoyed he didn't have his rifle along.
Rancherfriends came over last night for another reason, and I told them the dream. They immediately wanted to know if the truck was like their first blue pickup (no) or the white one (no) and if the stock trailer was like the one that "Quotes" (a bull named for his "eyebrow" markings) had torn up when he went bonkers. Quotes was a very large and uncooperative bull that appeared early in their breeding program. When delivered (finally) to the auction barn, he proceeded to break one of the chutes. But no, it was a bigger stock trailer than the old red one, and not like the one they have now.
Rancherfriend is hauling cattle to auction today because of the drought--their herd's been cut repeatedly in the last 4-5 years, due to decreasing rainfall. I decided this was not my time to volunteer to help. Rancherfriend got a new pickup a year or so ago, from a cousin who got cancer, and it's not likely he'd have me drive the truck anyway (I have driven his tractor on very simple tasks), but still. Despite not being a dream-analyst, the dream still deters me from getting involved with hauling cattle...at least for awhile.
This explains the need for afternoon naps and the tendency of afternoon naps to produce dreams more often than when the click beetles haven't interrupted REM sleep. And that explains, I suppose, yesterday afternoon's extremely vivid, detailed, and surreal dream. As background to this, we have a few cows on rancherfriend's ranch, where we trade half the calf crop for pasture lease. The other half, we eat. We've known rancherfriends for over 30 years now, and have gone over to help out at things like fence work, gathering cattle and loading them into trailers, working them through chutes for dehorning and vaccination, etc. Our cows were their cows (I bought two of them.) Rancherfriend has hauled our now-big-enough Sir Loin and Mr. T(bone) to the custom slaughterhouse in various years, hauled our excess calves (if we have them) along with his to the auction barn, and we have processed the sheep I get from Farrier and one humongous bull at their place. Rancherfriends have registered Beefmaster cattle in a TB- and brucellosis-free herd, and the range-fed beef is lean, untainted, and delicious. Beefmasters aren't a color breed, and theirs include a range of colors and markings.
So, the dream. I was in an old pickup truck (thin metal steering wheel, no padding, two doors, bench seat, layer of receipts and notes and things on the dashboard, mud boots upside down between cab and bed, etc.) and hitched to it was an open-style stock trailer of like vintage. Rancherfriend was driving when the dream started, and we went into a pasture and loaded a few cattle. All the cattle were black, but they weren't built like Black Angus (kind of stubby and stocky) or black Brangus (leggier than Beefmaster.) They were like Rancherfriend's cattle but maybe a chunkier (just not to the Angus level) and black, a few with some white markings. Then we drove somewhere else and loaded a few more black cattle--cow-calf pairs and singles. Suddenly, in the dream, I was driving the truck. Now on those old trucks, I have to stretch to reach the pedals--and this old truck made old-truck noises, the gearbox was worn, and the brakes were not entirely adequate to the load behind. Meanwhile Rancherfriend would see another of his critters, and I'd have to stop the truck and he'd get out and wrestle the critter into the trailer.
The scene changed to hillier country than we've got. Now I was on a wider road, with more traffic, headed down a long hill with curves, and increasingly aware that with a bumper-hitch large stock trailer full (or nearly full) of cattle, the not-perfect brakes were becoming more of a problem. I've twice had brakes go out completely (two different vehicles) while I had a long drive to any service facility and traffic and terrain to deal with, so it was a familiar emotion to be braced with my shoulders against the seat back, reaching hard for the brakes and aware of the way that miserable stock trailer could jackknife and roll us on a hill curve. About this time, Rancherfriend wasn't in the truck anymore, but in another, newer truck, passing me on the right and waving "hi!"
Then the road straightened out, the slope leveled down, and ahead was an intersection with a traffic light, including a left turn lane. Rancherfriend cut in front of me and took the left turn lane, so I pulled into it. There was a tiny hamlet, with a building I recognized (even after waking--it's on 183 north of Briggs somewhere, at an intersection with no light and a road I like heading off east.) In the dream, though, it was in a town of maybe ten structures, and the town had a sign with its name on it. (That name does not belong to any town in this state.) The road we turned onto was smaller, very winding, and there was another black cow standing beside the road. About the time Rancherfriend (now back in the same truck with me) got out and picked up this obviously 600-pound critter in his arms and shoved it in the trailer, I woke up. And somewhere in the dream (this part faded quickly and I don't know where in the dream it was--before the hill and curve and brake problem I think) we had stopped to pick up a cow and I looked out the truck window and saw a very shabby, moth-eaten-looking mountain lion--very thin--slinking away up a gully on the other side of the road. I was excited at seeing one. Rancherfriend was annoyed he didn't have his rifle along.
Rancherfriends came over last night for another reason, and I told them the dream. They immediately wanted to know if the truck was like their first blue pickup (no) or the white one (no) and if the stock trailer was like the one that "Quotes" (a bull named for his "eyebrow" markings) had torn up when he went bonkers. Quotes was a very large and uncooperative bull that appeared early in their breeding program. When delivered (finally) to the auction barn, he proceeded to break one of the chutes. But no, it was a bigger stock trailer than the old red one, and not like the one they have now.
Rancherfriend is hauling cattle to auction today because of the drought--their herd's been cut repeatedly in the last 4-5 years, due to decreasing rainfall. I decided this was not my time to volunteer to help. Rancherfriend got a new pickup a year or so ago, from a cousin who got cancer, and it's not likely he'd have me drive the truck anyway (I have driven his tractor on very simple tasks), but still. Despite not being a dream-analyst, the dream still deters me from getting involved with hauling cattle...at least for awhile.
August 12, 2011
Tending to My Knitting
Since I started knitting again (whenever that was...April?) this is what I've accomplished:
Project #1 is folded under because I'm not at the end of a row and couldn't lay it out flat. It's roughly 40 inches wide, 180 stitches, with a 20 stitch border on either side and four 35 stitch divisions inside . It has suffered the most mistakes from my re-learning attempts and I made another one last night, knitting in a friend's house in inadequate light while listening to a conversation. Listening too much, in fact. I chose to make it wide, so that in relearning I'd have long rows on which to regain rhythm. That worked. But it's a big project (it's supposed to end up in the range of 48 inches long) and the long rows make it impractical to work on when I have very little time. It's also on size 7 needles and that makes it slower going than #2 and #3, just for that reason alone. It's on a 40 inch cable and would like to crawl off the ends. Note to self: do big finished-size projects on larger needles and a cable at least six inches longer than the project is wide, if possible.. However, I've taken it on long trips and made progress that way. It's also useful for long waiting periods at the doctor's office or hospital--if you know it's going to be an interval long enough to do a row or two.
#1 has a lot of mistakes, only some of which were corrected by ripping out and redoing. In anything but perfect lighting and silence I have trouble ripping out and capturing the next row of stitches. So some mistakes became design features, and some were cobbled back into the whole as best I could. I love the color of this thing, but I'm using multi-colored wood needle tips (Knit-Picks) and the colors are close enough together that in anything but perfect lighting I can miss a stitch and not see that it's not "made." #1 has a design of sorts (making it up...) with should've-been-squares but turned out rectangles of stockinette or stockinette with garter stitch stripes alternating with garter stitch and a garter stitch border. The first set of stockinette are done; I'm on the next set, checkerboarded to the first.
Project #2 has 30 stitch rows and is a useful project for taking into situations where I may not have time to finish a long row. It's on a 24 inch cable and readily stays put in the middle of the cable if I cross the needle points. I've had fun with it; I find the colors a bit easier to see than #1's --but part of that was using acrylic needles, and one size larger than those of #1. Ripping out a row was also easier, though still nerve-wracking.
Project #3 was chosen to force myself to learn how to cast off. I tried doing it my mother's way, which I did not remember as clearly as I'd hoped, and then went online (LOVE the variety of YouTube videos!!) My mother cast off with a crochet hook mostly, but I decided to learn the knit cast-off. Figured that having to do it every square would cement it in my mind, the same way the long rows of Project #1 re-fixed the feel of knit and purl. That's worked. My speed and rhythm of the knit cast-off have improved a lot in the last three squares. Project #3 is knit on another short cable, in 20 stitch rows (to get to that casting off part faster) with #9 wooden needles. The color of the yarn is different enough from the colors in the needles that it's no problem, and the larger size means faster work. OTOH, I've discovered that I really don't like being interrupted every 34 rows to cast off and cut the yarn and then have to cast on again. So part of this blanket will be knit in long strips, probably in a solid color.
Having this knitting going has been a sanity saver since early May, when my husband went into the medical system for multiple problems. I can sit more-or-less serene in a waiting room or hospital room and have something to do with my hands--feel productive, not just "waiting." Eventually the blankets will go to a charity project and the scarf to a friend. Eventually I will figure out how to make socks (I have trouble reading patterns because a) I don't know the code and b) I don't know how to do some of the things even when I do grasp the code.) Code-breaking will come. I'm not in a hurry.
Project #1 is folded under because I'm not at the end of a row and couldn't lay it out flat. It's roughly 40 inches wide, 180 stitches, with a 20 stitch border on either side and four 35 stitch divisions inside . It has suffered the most mistakes from my re-learning attempts and I made another one last night, knitting in a friend's house in inadequate light while listening to a conversation. Listening too much, in fact. I chose to make it wide, so that in relearning I'd have long rows on which to regain rhythm. That worked. But it's a big project (it's supposed to end up in the range of 48 inches long) and the long rows make it impractical to work on when I have very little time. It's also on size 7 needles and that makes it slower going than #2 and #3, just for that reason alone. It's on a 40 inch cable and would like to crawl off the ends. Note to self: do big finished-size projects on larger needles and a cable at least six inches longer than the project is wide, if possible.. However, I've taken it on long trips and made progress that way. It's also useful for long waiting periods at the doctor's office or hospital--if you know it's going to be an interval long enough to do a row or two.
#1 has a lot of mistakes, only some of which were corrected by ripping out and redoing. In anything but perfect lighting and silence I have trouble ripping out and capturing the next row of stitches. So some mistakes became design features, and some were cobbled back into the whole as best I could. I love the color of this thing, but I'm using multi-colored wood needle tips (Knit-Picks) and the colors are close enough together that in anything but perfect lighting I can miss a stitch and not see that it's not "made." #1 has a design of sorts (making it up...) with should've-been-squares but turned out rectangles of stockinette or stockinette with garter stitch stripes alternating with garter stitch and a garter stitch border. The first set of stockinette are done; I'm on the next set, checkerboarded to the first.
Project #2 has 30 stitch rows and is a useful project for taking into situations where I may not have time to finish a long row. It's on a 24 inch cable and readily stays put in the middle of the cable if I cross the needle points. I've had fun with it; I find the colors a bit easier to see than #1's --but part of that was using acrylic needles, and one size larger than those of #1. Ripping out a row was also easier, though still nerve-wracking.
Project #3 was chosen to force myself to learn how to cast off. I tried doing it my mother's way, which I did not remember as clearly as I'd hoped, and then went online (LOVE the variety of YouTube videos!!) My mother cast off with a crochet hook mostly, but I decided to learn the knit cast-off. Figured that having to do it every square would cement it in my mind, the same way the long rows of Project #1 re-fixed the feel of knit and purl. That's worked. My speed and rhythm of the knit cast-off have improved a lot in the last three squares. Project #3 is knit on another short cable, in 20 stitch rows (to get to that casting off part faster) with #9 wooden needles. The color of the yarn is different enough from the colors in the needles that it's no problem, and the larger size means faster work. OTOH, I've discovered that I really don't like being interrupted every 34 rows to cast off and cut the yarn and then have to cast on again. So part of this blanket will be knit in long strips, probably in a solid color.
Having this knitting going has been a sanity saver since early May, when my husband went into the medical system for multiple problems. I can sit more-or-less serene in a waiting room or hospital room and have something to do with my hands--feel productive, not just "waiting." Eventually the blankets will go to a charity project and the scarf to a friend. Eventually I will figure out how to make socks (I have trouble reading patterns because a) I don't know the code and b) I don't know how to do some of the things even when I do grasp the code.) Code-breaking will come. I'm not in a hurry.
Elizabeth Moon's Blog
- Elizabeth Moon's profile
- 2621 followers
Elizabeth Moon isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
