The Periwinkle Dragon

Inbreeding and a Genetics Lesson

2009-10-05T17:45:00.004-04:00

Recently in a discussion about something completely unrelated, a person made some very incorrect statements about how inbreeding works. Their argument was that it actually benefits small populations, helping to eliminate disease- and disability-causing genes from the gene pool.

Um, no, that's not how genetics works. At least, not in people. See, breeders of all kinds, but especially those who deal with livestock, use some degree of inbreeding to produce the best traits in the largest proportion of animals. They tend to use quite a few females, but very few males. So a half a dozen males - let's say dairy breed bulls - that have historically produced daughters that calve easily and give lots of high-quality milk may be the fathers of hundreds of children (ah, the miracles of sperm production and freezing), and some of those children may be more males that are also excellent breeding stock and are bred to many of their own half-sisters in an attempt to make the grandchildren cows even better producers. This, in combination with a careful management program and the odd infusion of outside stock, is a very successful way to make a highly inbred, highly successful herd of dairy cattle.

But wait! We're not dairy cattle! The reason inbreeding works to remove less fit alleles from a cattle population is because we kill off all the ones that aren't good enough out of the offspring. We, as human beings, go looking for cows who have poor milk yields, diseases, or defects, and we cull them without letting them reproduce, or in conjunction with not breeding their existing offspring (i.e., selling them for veal). This is a very artificial environment with extremely unrealistic gene flow conditions. We certainly can't artificially inseminate women with sperm from a small group of men chosen to be the breeders and kill (or at least sterilize) all the other men, and we definitely can't selectively kill babies with disabilities and the women that gave birth to them!

Lesson One: We Are Not Dairy Cattle. Human populations cannot be assumed to produce the same results from inbreeding as livestock populations, because the mating system and selection pressures are completely different.

This person quote-mined an article on wild bird populations (of all things!) to try to support the argument that inbreeding makes things better. However, the context of the article was that inbreeding is a problem that can be compensated for by birds mating with non-relatives most of the time even if they mate with a half-sibling once in a while. That is true. However, by compensating for inbreeding the researchers mean "offsetting the likelihood of nest failure" in inbred bird pairs. In other words, birds are far less likely to have surviving offspring in the inbreeding year, but the impact of that on their general reproductive success is small, as long as they mate with non-relative birds in other years, producing live, healthy chicks.

Do humans have babies every year? Technically we're capable of it, but most people don't. And even among those that do, very very few (hopefully none) are mating with a different person every year, raising babies for a year and then getting rid of them only to start over again the next year with someone new.

Lesson Two: We Are Not Birds.

Getting away from the tongue-in-cheek a bit here, let's talk a little bit more about why the initial statement of "eliminate disease- and disability-causing genes from the gene pool" is ridiculous. Not only can we not kill (or forcibly sterilize) people that have disabilities or genetic flaws - hello eugenics movement - but doing so would not eliminate bad genes. Not only are a large number of genetic problems recessive - that is, they are only disease-causing in people with two copies of the bad gene, so carriers are totally healthy - but there are also a number of diseases that are cumulative, ones that are due to spontaneous mutations, and ones that are not fully penetrant.

To explain in more detail, cumulative genetic diseases includes many types of autism as well as Huntington's disease. What happens in these cases is that the bad gene in question is bad because it has an excessive number of repeats in the "junk" part of the gene, and this number often increases in each generation. So someone who has Huntington's disease but does not show symptoms until their 50s may have children with the disease that show symptoms in their late 40s and grandchildren with the disease that show symptoms in their early 40s. There can be many generations with no problems, but once the number of repeats passes a certain threshold, each subsequent generation is affected and over time the disease gets worse. But before that threshold is reached, there is no way to know that the family is carrying the possibility of developing that disease. So inbreeding wouldn't make any problems show up - the gene needs time to copy that section more times, and inbreeding won't make that happen any faster.

Diseases caused by spontaneous mutations are not something inbreeding can help "weed out" either. About a third of haemophilia cases are de novo (Latin: newly occurring) mutations where neither parent had a bad gene. Since there is no way to predict when these mutations will happen, they will occur at random and at the same rate regardless of what kind of breeding occurs. Not to mention spontaneous chromosomal disorders such as Down's Syndrome are also impossible to predict and can happen to any couple, related or not.

Many diseases generally labelled "dominant" do not behave like one would expect when that term is used. Normally, dominant genetic diseases mean that if you have the bad gene, you have the condition. But a few strange cases where diseases thought to be dominant seem to skip a generation helped geneticists discover that many of so-called "dominant" genetic diseases are not fully penetrant; that is, there is not a 100% chance that someone who has the bad gene will show any symptoms of the condition it's associated with. So, in some cases, a person with a genetic condition can have children that are totally unaffected, and yet they may go on to have affected children anyway. Again, so much for using inbreeding to draw out and eliminate genetic disorders.

So, we're not dairy cattle and we're not birds. We ethically can't kill off people that don't meet our standards of what is "normal", we can't produce offspring in litters, and we don't get a chance to start over every year. Not to mention that genetic diseases are not simple enough that we can just eliminate them by breeding - often they are phenotypically invisible, occur spontaneously, or build up over time. They are not something you can "weed out", nor, might I add, is it ethical to encourage people to try to produce fatally ill children just so those genes are exposed.

This idea of inbreeding to strengthen a population is a myth. It won't work and it has serious racist and ableist undertones that make me very nervous, not to mention the genetic problems it can cause. The Human Genome Project has taught us that each human being carries, on average, between 7 and 10 recessive genes that can cause fatal conditions when no dominant gene is present. So producing offspring with siblings and cousins brings with it a serious increased risk of those children being fatally ill. Diverse parental genes are also a benefit to children's immune systems due to a mixing of genes for immune proteins that protect us from disease.

With much increased risks, and no benefits, inbreeding is not a solution to any sort of problem, in any situation. Sometimes it is necessary because there are no other options, but in a world where it's not difficult to meet people outside the family, why anyone would advocate choosing to "keep the gene pool pure", for any reason, is totally beyond me.

Yes, I Do Suck

2009-09-26T23:13:00.005-04:00

I have seriously failed at updating lately. I'm in a very intense university program for the next 8 months that is seriously kicking my ass. Don't worry, I still have opinions, knitting projects, and recipes to share, but The Boyfriend is out of the country (so not much baking until he gets back), and I haven't had a chance to knit in over two weeks. After this week my workload should lighten up some and I should have a chance to get back to updating this regularly.

I'm trying to find time to read The God Delusion, and I am also now the proud owner of God Is Not Great and The Portable Atheist, so those should provide lots of atheist fodder. I also have a beautiful edition of On The Origin Of Species (a Boyfriend graduation gift!), The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Ancestor's Tale to help me cope with not being immersed in biology for the next little while. I do have at least one more Nintendo washcloth in the works, hopefully two will be done by the end of the year (poll to be posted soon on which one to do next!). The lace sweater I'm designing is past the bust now and the neckline appears to be working. If I get to the armpits and find it is screwed up yet again, there will be a Sweater Design Odyssey entry for sure. I have a scarf most of the way finished as well - I'm usually a fairly monogamous knitter, but the difficulty level of the sweater has me becoming poly to save my sanity. However, now I'm finding that I'm not finishing the sweater because the scarf is easier. I really need to finish the scarf so I can focus on the sweater again.

Just so this post has something more than lame excuses, here's a link to the cinnamon roll recipe I made last week. They turned out great - I took them to class for my turn to bring an afternoon snack and they disappeared so quickly that I felt badly for not making more! Do NOT be intimidated by the use of yeast. The instructions are really easy to follow and they were fun to make, if a little messy.

Not to worry - I'm still alive and I'll be back to at least weekly postings soon.

Toad Washcloth!

2009-07-27T00:26:00.007-04:00

I know, it's about time I got this up, since I finished it about a month ago.

But here it is:

It's the Toad Washcloth!

Pattern:

The finished product is 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long, just like the others, and is also worked from right to left instead of from bottom to top.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

Toad is just so helpless and lovable. He's so cute that you just want to pinch his cheeks!

Enjoy!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, and Boo patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 40

2009-06-22T09:39:00.001-04:00

All religions, with their gods, demigods, prophets, messiahs and saints, are the product of the fancy and credulity of men who have not yet reached the full development and complete possession of their intellectual powers.

~Mikhail Bakunin

Why the Anti-Vaccine Movement is Completely Illogical

2009-06-20T12:31:00.003-04:00

Today I'd like to post some information about vaccines. This is, to me, a very important issue. Let me preface anything I rant about here by saying that I have a degree in biology and I studied virology, pathology, epidemiology, and statistics as part of my education. I am not just some opinionated person here - I have read the original research papers and evaluated both the methodology and the statistical analyses for myself. I understand how viruses and human bodies work better than most people.

Just thought I would point that out first.

In recent years, people have begun to distrust the vaccines that people cheered about just a generation or two ago. Mostly this began with a UK study about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, which I will tear apart in detail further on, but it is partially a problem with visibility. Half a century ago, people died or were disabled due to polio, measles, rubella, etc. on a regular basis. No, scratch that - children died from those diseases at a predictable frequency. Many, many families lost children to measles encephalitis, had a child blinded by rubella, or had a child confined to a wheelchair (or worse, an iron lung) by polio. It was tragic, but it was not uncommon. Vaccines changed all that, and at first people were grateful. Those people who are now in their 50s and 60s all vaccinated their children (those of us born in the 1970s and 1980s) because they remembered losing a classmate or having a disabled relative from theses diseases and they knew that a few pinpricks were worth the protection.

Then people forgot - or, more accurately, never knew just how bad it had been.

Now is a good time to explain herd immunity. As an example, measles is highly contagious and requires well over 90% of the population to be vaccinated in order to prevent disease outbreak and protect the small percentage of people that react badly to vaccines or cannot get vaccines for whatever reason. We do not force people with certain allergies to the serum, or who have parents or siblings that have had a bad reaction to a vaccine, to get vaccinated. For those few people, vaccines are dangerous. But as long as enough other people are immune due to the vaccine, those people who are not immune are still safe because it's very unlikely that a sick person (say someone new to the country from a place where a vaccine is not available) will come in contact with a non-immune person. They are far more likely to only come into contact with immune people, who will not catch the disease and therefore there will be no outbreak to endanger the unvaccinated few. That is how herd immunity works.

So, as long as people felt a responsibility to protect their own families by getting vaccines, everything was fine. Most people were vaccinated and many childhood diseases became things of the past in developed countries. However, people are self-centred and so once the drive to protect your own children was not as strong because people didn't really know firsthand how dangerous the diseases were, the drive to protect your neighbours and your community was not very strong. As soon as people had an excuse not to vaccinate, and bad information splashed all over the newspapers about how "dangerous" vaccines are, they stopped.

As for where that bad information came from, at first it was just anecdotal - someone had a kid with autism (which begins to show as symptoms around the time vaccinations are being given - six to twelve months of age) and they decided that the symptoms were due to the MMR vaccine, and not some other genetic or environmental factor, and they would sue the doctor or shout to the media about the chemicals in vaccines. This earned some publicity, but the biggest problem was a paper published in the UK claiming that such a link truly existed. Now, it should have raised flags in the scientific community when every scientist collaborating on the paper refused to have their name associated with it except someone who was notoriously anti-vaccine, but it managed to get published somehow anyway (an embarrassment to the scientific community, as far as I'm concerned). It said that it found that getting vaccinated was a huge risk factor for autism, and this is what the papers all ran as the headline the next day. What they failed to mention, however, is that the study only looked at 12 children (a statistically useless sample size to start with), and these children were not chosen at random from the population to get a good sample. Instead, the researcher went out and found 12 infants who displayed the early musculature warning signs of autism, and asked if they had gotten the MMR vaccine. Most had by that point, which was to be expected at the time and with the existing vaccine schedule. Since they all had known possible early autism symptoms, it was no surprise that 8 of them presented with diagnosable autism as they got older, and since most of them had been vaccinated, it was also no surprise that most of those had been vaccinated before they started showing symptoms. There was no control group in the population to see how many kids without autism had been vaccinated versus unvaccinated (which would have at least shown whether the percentage of unvaccinated versus vaccinated in the autistic children was different from non-autistic children). The methodology was so poor that the bias in the study alone made the results totally confounded by other factors and utterly useless for drawing conclusions.

And yet, because all that information was missing from news reports, people believed it. And even after the researcher behind the study has been widely discredited and hundreds of studies showing he was wrong have been published, many people still think vaccines cause autism and so they put their children - and, due to herd immunity requirements, the children of other people with legitimate concerns about vaccines in their family - at risk for the diseases that twenty years ago were largely eliminated from their community.

Why is it that people are so much more willing to believe unscientific crap (even long after it's been thrown out and stomped on by every reputable scientific journal) than they are to believe actual science, like human evolution and early-universe physics? I don't get it. I don't know why people will cling like crazy to totally wrong information that puts their families and their communities at risk. It's totally ridiculous. People need to smarten up and realize that getting measles is not a hand-waving risk. Out of every 1000 cases of childhood measles, three of those sick kids die. Of measles. I don't know about everyone else, but if all the kids in my elementary school had've gotten measles, that means that one or two of them would be dead now rather than healthy, productive adults. And that's just my school. Multiply that by thousands and thousands of schools and the effect becomes clear: before the vaccine, thousands of children were dying of measles (not to mention the tens or hundreds of thousands that needed hospitalization), and now they're not. However, measles is extremely contagious and it doesn't take much of a gap in the herd immunity for it to get back in.

So, anti-vaccination advocates, those are your options: either vaccinate your kids with a vaccine that has been shown to be safe by all reputable research, or put them at risk of dying of a preventable disease. Choose to protect the kids who are actually at risk of a bad reaction to the vaccine, or leave them exposed to death as well through no fault of their own, because of your inability to think logically.

Your choice.

Atheist Quotes of the Week 38 and 39

2009-06-15T07:09:00.001-04:00

Okay, I know, F for "you suck at updating your blog, for sure's on dat, eh". Here's another double atheist quote post to get me caught up, and I promise I have a really good rant in the works to post later in the week. I'm back in Canada now, so I'll be working on the sweater project and organizing some Nintendo washcloth designs in the next few weeks.

The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.

~Arthur C. Clarke

The rash assertion that 'God made man in His own image' is ticking like a time bomb at the foundation of many faiths, and as the hierarchy of the universe is disclosed to us, we may have to recognize this chilling truth: if there are any gods whose chief concern is man, they cannot be very important gods.

~Arthur C. Clarke

Truly a brilliant man who could see beyond the past and the present to put the consequences of both into sharp focus by writing about the future. I particularly like the second quote, since it reminds us that we are completely insignificant on the spatial and temporal scales of the universe. It must be nice to think that some god is out there, totally concerned by human beings, but the fact is that even if there was a god that created the universe, people are not even a blip on the universe's radar. So reality is that we live in a universe that has no guiding force to care about us at all, and even if it did, it still wouldn't care about us at all. It's a cold dose of reality, but somehow it makes me appreciate the fact that I'm alive at all, considering how many cosmological phenomena could have wiped out life on Earth at any time (and still can), but we've been able to evolve for a few billion years. That's pretty impressive.

Atheist Quotes of the Week 36 and 37

2009-06-01T11:59:00.000-04:00

I know I missed last week, but I was packing, then flying, then adjusting to jet lag so it just kept getting put off. Here are two quotes, one for last week and one for this week, to make up for the difference. While I'm in Europe there will be no new Nintendo washcloths (watch for one of those potentially in late June/early July, however) and no updates on the lace sweater project, which remains in Canada during my trip. I do have wifi though and will use it to rant if necessary alongside the atheist quotes each week.

But people ... don't even know what atheism is. It's not a negation of anything. You don't have to negate what no one can prove exists. No, atheism is a very positive affirmation of man's ability to think for himself, to do for himself, to find answers to his own problems. I'm thrilled to feel that I can rely on myself totally and absolutely; that my children are being brought up so that when they meet a problem they can't cop out by foisting it off on God. Madalyn Murray's going to solve her own problems, and nobody's going to intervene. It's about time the world got up off its knees and looked at itself in the mirror and said: "Well, we are men. Let's start acting like it."

~Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Agreed. One of my main complaints about religion is its ability to explain everything while solving nothing. Anyone having a problem can say that it was "God's will", as if that somehow makes it better, or they can give their god credit for their success, thereby negating the effort they put into their achievements, or they can even say that current problems facing society are their god's way of punishing us because some of us are doing something it doesn't approve of. Why is there HIV? Because God hates gays. Why did Katrina destroy New Orleans? Because people there were sinning. Why does a child die of starvation and disease in a poor country? Because God wanted it that way. It explains everything but offers no compassion, no solution, no nothing.

The main reason, I think, is because if you remove God from the equation, suddenly HIV exists because it jumped from primates and it spreads today at least in part because we fail to teach proper sex ed in North America and religious organizations denounce the use of condoms in Africa. Katrina destroyed New Orleans because the government of the country failed to maintain the levees and so many people died or were left homeless because that same government failed to act swiftly in the face of a natural disaster. Children starve to death in poor countries because greedy rich countries do not behave like the world is one community and we would rather have another widescreen TV than help provide the essentials of life to other human beings. Those explanations are hard truths, and demand action to improve things. That's much less simple than just hand-waving some deity into the mix. It scares some people to death that we might have to actually work hard and sacrifice some wealth and some superstitions in order to make life better for our fellow human beings. Why not blame them instead? That is just so much easier.

As Madalyn says, it's time to start acting like men.

Why am I an atheist? The short answer is that I cannot accept any of the alternatives. I simply don't find them believable. As for the accusation of intellectual pride, surely the boot is on the other foot. Atheists don't claim to know anything with certainty—it's the believers who know it all.

~Barbara Smoker

This is related to the above quote in that it also references the easy answers believers seem to need. Rather than using their brains, they prefer to have pre-packaged answers for questions that really require thought on an individual level. While it must be nice, in a way, to have simple answers to any and all questions about life and the universe, I wonder why we, as thinking human beings, should be content to just be fed answers to everything. We are able to think for ourselves, so, even if it creates more questions than answers and more uncertainty than reassurance, it's independent thought, critical thinking, and scientific truth that should be what we are looking to achieve, not soundbite "truths" that are really just bedtime stories to make us less unsure of ourselves.

Atheists are not afraid to say, "I don't know." We are not afraid to face constant uncertainty and a neverending set of questions that may never have satisfactory answers. It is the believers who are afraid to not have an instant answer to any question. It is the believers who are afraid of change, afraid of needing to adjust their worldview, and constantly clinging to comforting but completely incorrect ideas and insisting they are true.

So, then, who is it that is arrogant, closed-minded, and know-it-all? Not the atheists, who by definition go where the evidence goes and must therefore be open-minded, humble in the face of being wrong (which happens all the time), and able to freely admit when they do not know the answers. Those sorts of insults are the product of frantic defensiveness on the part of believers who are trying to discredit a point of view that is contrary to the easy answers that make them feel safe and keep them from needing to think too hard about anything. Atheism, despite the fact that it is not an organization and does not have goals or some kind of agenda, is extremely threatening to religion, but for an interesting reason: as a philosophy, it promotes thinking for yourself. And, as it turns out, thinking for yourself usually ends with people moving away from organized religion.

I wonder why that is? Maybe to a thinking person (which we all have the ability to be), those "easy" answers aren't so easy to swallow after all.

Atheist Quote of the Week 35

2009-05-18T09:47:00.001-04:00

The scientist yearns to find and eventually know the truth; the religious man wants the truth to fit his preconceived mold. So, as a result, the scientist alters his perception to conform to the facts, while the religious man tries to change the facts to conform to his beliefs.

~Anonymous

I do try to avoid quotes ascribed to "Anonymous" as much as possible, but this one is so accurate and succinct that I wanted to include it anyway. Scientific thought is not instinctive for humans (we prefer to see patterns that we want to see, instinctively, which is why scientists must always be self-aware about their own biases), but it is the best way to truly understand the universe. Again and again we have found that conclusions we like (for example, the Earth is the centre of the universe) are not necessarily the conclusions that are correct, and it requires someone to put aside preconceived "truths" to discover that the actual truth is something more interesting than we ever thought possible. It's never popular (Copernicus refused to publish until he was on his deathbed, Galileo got put under house arrest by the Vatican, and Darwin is vilified by religious leaders even 150 years after publication), but that's just because some people are resistant to change and too proud to admit that they are wrong. Ironic, isn't it, that the very same religion that places pride as a sin also has too much pride to admit that some of the details of how they think the world came to be are incorrect, while the scientists they vilify are constantly behaving with humility by admitting their errors and adjusting their worldview according to new insights?

Atheist Quote of the Week 34

2009-05-11T07:52:00.001-04:00

I do not support religion because it demands that we give up our most important human asset, the ability to question. It demands that we simply believe. Isn't that true of any dictator, of any totalitarian society? Insofar as social development is concerned, nothing is of greater importance than the human function of questioning... Questioning led to the development of civilization.

~Vladimir Pozner

The Sweater Design Odyssey, Part 2

2009-05-05T16:51:00.004-04:00

So, yesterday I took the sweater apart and started over. But I didn't cry and I didn't slam my head into walls. At first, I thought I might do both those things; I initially was frogging several rows of hard work because I failed to pay attention to my own decreasing notes. However, once I got the work off the needles, I tried it onto my hips and discovered that I could have fit a third bum cheek in the space the sweater bottom wanted to enclose. And I am not a skinny girl. So, in a way, screwing up the decreasing to the waist made me catch a much more devastating and much more important problem that I might not have otherwise noticed until I got to the armpits. Silver lining on the dark cloud of moronic mistakes, I suppose.

Did I mention that I'm terrible at picking up stitches (especially lace stitches) onto the needles again once they're off? Before I realized that I was making myself a maternity sweater, I was ready for tears because putting it back on the needles after frogging was an exercise in futility. I freaking hate yarn overs. Thank goodness I ended up starting over, or else there may have been a balled-up pile of bamboo yarn in the corner rather than a reborn sweater on new needles. I was that close to giving up on this project.

Before I totally tore it apart, though, I was smart: I measured gauge again. I found that it was significantly different on the circulars than it had been on my little gauge swatch (what the point of that was, then, I don't know), and then recalculated everything. That, plus the re-planning, took several hours and I failed to do the laundry again as a result. The boyfriend is going to run out of clean socks in short order, but he'll survive until my knitting crisis has gotten under control. Priorities, people, priorities.

Now I had to move onto a shorter circular needle set and cast on about 70% of the stitches I had before. I'm now on row 1. Again. Lessons learned: one, do gauge swatches for projects in the round in the round, and two, don't just talk about putting in a lifeline - freaking do it! Just because one repeat goes well doesn't mean you're not going to make a mess of things partway up from there. Especially if you're me.

Part 1 of this saga of trying to design and then knit a lace sweater can be found here.

Atheist Quote of the Week 33

2009-05-04T16:43:00.001-04:00

The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation.

~Emma Goldman

Atheist Quote of the Week 32

2009-04-27T08:05:00.000-04:00

They felt that science would be corrosive to religious belief and they were worried about it. Damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive to religious belief and it's a good thing.

~Steven Weinberg

The Sweater Design Odyssey, Part 1

2009-04-26T10:18:00.004-04:00

After I made my Tempting sweater, I've been dying to try making a lace sweater with a V-neck. I looked around and found a few patterns I really liked and will probably make at some point (notably Marnie McLean's Bijou), but nothing that suited exactly what I was looking for. I also am afraid of seaming (i.e., I am very, very bad at doing it properly), so knitting my first lace sweater in pieces, then having to painstakingly sew them together just sounded like torture. So I took some of what I learned from Tempting and some new ideas of my own, adapted a lace pattern to suit my needs, and studied up on some construction details (like how to make a V-neck). Now I'm going to try designing my first lace sweater (um, actually, it's my first major lace project ever) and we'll see how it turns out.

I got my yarn (15 skeins!) last week from Yarn By The Bag and now I'm ready to get started. I also bought one skein ahead of time from a Michael's to do a gauge swatch (I will admit that I've never done that before, but it was necessary for this), then did the math to figure out how much yarn I needed to buy (then added two more skeins, just in case). Today I'm working on some more calculating (good thing I'm good at math!) so I can cast on the right number of stitches and start knitting.

This pattern is going to allow for great flexibility in sizing so that anyone can make it to fit their body - I'm planning on creating instructions for sizes beyond just S, M, L, XL. This isn't going to sort-of-fit - it's going to flatter every woman's body. It is an intermediate-level lace pattern knit seamlessly in the round using a non-traditional waist shaping technique that makes it easy to customize the pattern, even for novice knitters like me. I want people to make this sweater and be happy with how it fits them. However, I have to try making it for me before I'll know if it even flatters one woman's body, and right now I still have a lot of holes in my mental pattern. I don't know how I'm going to do the shoulders, the sleeves are a constant source of concern, and I'm terrified that I'm going to screw up the lace a lot (but I suppose that's what lifelines are for).

I figure this project will take at least the whole summer to complete, and I'll post periodic updates as I accomplish things, solve problems, and want to tear my hair out in frustration.

Part 2 of this saga of trying to design and then knit a lace sweater can be found here.

Boo Washcloth!

2009-04-23T22:58:00.005-04:00

It's another one of those freaking Mario-gang washcloths! When am I going to stop? Never!

(Hey, this is too much fun to stop!)

Without further ado:

It's the Boo Washcloth!

Pattern:

The finished product is 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long, just like the others, and is also worked from right to left instead of from bottom to top.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

This washcloth is super-easy and really fun to make. Boos are such hilarious-looking things to start with (what are those little fin-like things supposed to be, anyway?), but I like this version with the fangs and the frowny eyebrows. I would have done it with the tongue out, but it's just not as recognizable that way in knitting.

Enjoy!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, and Yoshi patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 31

2009-04-20T21:30:00.001-04:00

Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

~Chapman Cohen

Atheist Quote of the Week 30

2009-04-13T18:14:00.000-04:00

You don't have to believe in atheism, because atheism is based on REASON.

~Manfred F. Schieder

Yoshi Washcloth!

2009-04-07T15:47:00.007-04:00

Before posting this pattern, I wanted to thank all the people who have left such positive and supportive comments here or on Ravelry about this series of Mario-gang washcloths. I'm having a ton of fun making them and I'm so glad that other people are enjoying the patterns as well! The Bowser version was posted on Knitting Pattern Central, so now the traffic on this blog has increased tenfold just in the last week. I'm honestly quite surprized at all the interest, but I'm just glad everyone is enjoying something that I created.

Anyway, now it's time for:

The Yoshi Washcloth!

Pattern:

The finished product is 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long, just like the others, and is also worked from right to left instead of from bottom to top.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

The Yoshi cloth is a simpler pattern than some of the other ones in the series, but the small details give it the impression of highly complex workmanship. (This will impress non-knitters, but in reality the cloth is just knit and purl stitches.)

Enjoy!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, and Boo patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 29

2009-04-06T22:39:00.000-04:00

I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion is anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.

~Bertrand Russell

Atheist Quote of the Week 28

2009-03-30T11:57:00.003-04:00

If we go back to the beginning, we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests. If the ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them.

~ Baron D'Hollbach

The Baron D'Hollbach was a French aristocrat and perhaps the first modern atheist to express his views pointedly and without reservation. He did write his incredibly controversial book anonymously, but at his home he hosted many gatherings of like-minded people to give them an opportunity for expression of controversial views and a feeling of belonging to a common mindset about religion. If atheism has a modern "founder" of the philosophy, it would probably be him, and not the Hitchens and Dawkins phenomenon of the last decade, who took the first steps to make saying "there is no god and believing in one is neither necessary nor a foregone conclusion" acceptable in society.

Atheist Quote of the Week 27

2009-03-23T22:17:00.002-04:00

Let us overthrow the totems, break the taboos. Or better, let us consider them cancelled.

~Pierre Elliott Trudeau

That guy was awesome. I'll bet Stephen Harper is embarrassed to even share the same title with the man, which just makes it even better. There's someone who had a take-no-crap, say-what-he-thinks attitude. Not like the Harper Gag Order routine. And beyond just a great persona, he set the tone for society to accept things like totally secular government and same-sex relationships. It's hard to complain about that!

Bowser Washcloth!

2009-03-19T18:10:00.009-04:00

So, as per the poll results (thanks to those who voted!), it's time to start introducing some bad guys to the Mario character washcloth lineup!

This is the first one that really seems appropriate black!

It's the Bowser Washcloth!

Pattern:

The finished product is 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long, just like the others, and is also worked from right to left instead of from bottom to top.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

The Bowser cloth is probably the most complicated of the four patterns so far. However, it still only took me a couple of evenings to whip up the test cloth. I know it's been a month since the Peach cloth, and I'm trying to put out the cloths sooner. The next one will be Yoshi (since he was a close runner-up in the poll), and I'll try to get that out around the end of the month of March. Watch for it!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, and Boo patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 26

2009-03-16T11:32:00.003-04:00

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

~Bertrand Russell

Russell's Teapot in his own words. In short: it's not my job to prove something does not exist when there is no proof that it does. Anyone can claim something exists and, when challenged, say that it is impossible to prove that it doesn't exist. That's not an argument. That's avoiding the issue. When someone says, "There's no proof that teapot exists", the correct response is not, "But you can't prove it doesn't exist!" The correct response is, "Here is my evidence for saying the teapot exists" or "Here is my sound reasoning as to why you should believe me when I say the teapot exists".

It makes far more logical sense to not believe in the existence of something for which there is absolutely zero proof, then to believe in something for which there is no proof, just because there is no evidence to the contrary. After all, the logical extension of the non-belief stance is that a person believes in only things which have evidence to support their existence, and, as new evidence comes in, that person adapts their beliefs to suit what we understand about reality. On the other hand, the logical extension of the believer's stance is to believe in everything unless someone can prove it's not true, which means believing in anything anyone tells you unless someone else proves otherwise. Fairies, unicorns, every deity ever imagined, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, etc. Which of those two options sounds more rational?

And, more importantly, which one sounds more like the person is thinking about and engaged in the world they live in rather than believing whatever they're told?

Atheist Quote of the Week 25

2009-03-09T11:29:00.001-04:00

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.

~Bertrand Russell

Atheist Quote of the Week 24

2009-03-02T09:38:00.004-05:00

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

~Carl Sagan

This is truly the root of atheism. Believers are always presenting Pascal's Wager in some form or another: "Why not believe? If you believe, and there is a supreme being, you get to go to heaven. If you don't, and there is one, you'll go to hell. Either way, none of it matters if there is no God, so what difference does it make? Believing could win you eternal life, or nothing. Not believing could get you eternal suffering, or nothing. Why choose the option with no good outcomes?"

As always, they focus too much on the hypothetical afterlife - and only their version of it, might I add - and not on the life we know we are currently living. I consider it a massive waste of my precious time alive to sell my integrity, my dignity, and my intelligence for some vague sense of reassurance that nothing is my fault, "God has a plan". I refuse to live in a state of deliberate ignorance and vapidity just so that I get to have easy answers to all the great questions of existence. Why would I want to ignore the way the universe really works just so I wouldn't have to learn and grow throughout my lifetime? Why would I want to have morality dictated to me so that I don't have to make any difficult decisions using my own mental faculties? It's laziness, it's fear, and it's an unwillingness to accept that we are not special and that there are no easy answers.

Sure, it would be nice to believe that some father-figure deity up there cares about me and has created some kind of destiny just especially for me. And it would be nice to think that this guy wanted me to live forever in eternal happiness (just as long as I believed in his existence, no matter how much doublethink and willful ignorance it required). But it's more important to me to be honest in my search for purpose and knowledge in the lifetime I know I have, rather than to sacrifice my integrity and my intelligence in exchange for something for which no one can offer proof. Why focus on an afterlife when I can have a sincere and fulfilling present-life?

Delusion, no matter how much more comforting, is not worth losing the ability to understand the sober truth of the reality of the universe.

Lime Pop Rocks Cheesecake

2009-02-26T11:28:00.003-05:00

They said it couldn't be done. "Pop Rocks will not survive within a recipe," they said. "They will fizzle out and all you will be left with is melted Red Dye #3."

They were wrong!

This is a recipe I created based on the No-Bake Lime Cheesecake recipe from tasteofhome.com, but with a popping twist: there are Pop Rocks in the crust, embedded in the cheesecake layer, and sprinkled on top for a final product that is both a light and delicious cheesecake, but also a truly unique dessert that both kids and adults can appreciate. The sour lime flavour keeps it from being unbearably sweet, and, surprisingly enough, the Pop Rocks survive the process quite well, with lots of popping in every bite.

Lime Pop Rocks Cheesecake

Note: This recipe works with practically any two kinds of Pop Rocks. I recommend choosing two flavours that are different colours for the contrast, and the only flavour I wouldn't suggest using is the bubblegum. You will need three packages of each of two flavours (six packages total) to make the finished cheesecake. Using only one flavour, possibly the green-coloured sour apple flavour, might be more appropriate for a more formal occasion and a more subtle presentation, but I used blue berry and red tropical punch flavours and it was very festive-looking when finished.

Crust:
1 1/2 cups Oreo cookie crumbs
4 1/2 tbsp melted butter
2 tbsp sugar
2 pouches of Pop Rocks, one of each flavour

Filling:
2 envelopes unflavoured gelatine
1 cup lime juice
1/4 cup cold water
1 1/2 cups sugar
5 eggs, lightly beaten
2 packages (8 ounces each) cream cheese, softened
1/2 cup butter, softened
Green food colouring (optional)
1/2 cup heavy whipping cream
4 pouches of Pop Rocks, two of each flavour

In a bowl, mix together Oreo crumbs with melted butter and the 2 tbsp sugar. Wait for the butter to cool down and then combine the 2 packages of Pop Rocks gently into the crushed mixture.
Immediately press into the bottom of a well-greased 8 or 9" spring-form pan. Chill in refrigerator for 30 minutes or until needed.
In a small saucepan, sprinkle gelatine over lime juice and cold water; let stand for 1 minute. Stir in the sugar and eggs. Cook, stirring frequently, over medium heat until mixture reaches 160°, then remove from heat.
In a large bowl, beat cream cheese and butter with electric mixer on medium-high speed until fluffy. Gradually beat in gelatine mixture until combined. Add several drops green food colouring, if desired, and blend (without the food colouring, the eggs make the cheesecake very yellow). Cover and refrigerate for 45 minutes or until partially set, stirring occasionally.
In a small bowl, beat cream until stiff peaks form. Fold into lime mixture and stir to mix evenly. Spoon about half the filling into the crust. Evenly sprinkle 2 packages of the Pop Rocks (one of each flavour) over the filling. Spoon in the remaining filling and cover. Refrigerate for 3-4 hours or until set.
Before serving, evenly sprinkle remaining 2 packages of Pop Rocks (one of each flavour) over the top of the cheesecake. Serve chilled and refrigerate any leftovers.

I made this as a contribution to a friend's 90s-themed party, and it was a big hit. In fact, it was so popular that I didn't get to get a picture before it disappeared! When I make it again (and I will), I'll post a picture of it here.

Atheist Quote of the Week 23

2009-02-23T11:01:00.000-05:00

We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universe, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.

~Charles Darwin, Notebook N (1838)

Princess Peach Washcloth!

2009-02-19T12:23:00.010-05:00

Now that we have Mario and Luigi, what comes next? They need someone worth saving, of course! And that someone is the Princess.

It's the Princess Peach Washcloth!

Pattern:

This is the same size as the Mario and Luigi versions: 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long. As with the others, I went a little unorthodox on the charting and worked the raised-stitch pattern from right to left instead of from bottom to top. The photo above was based on a first draft of the chart, which I have since slightly modified to make the face part look nicer and to fix the weird way the hair-defining lines look. If I make a second cloth, I'll post a picture of the results of the better chart.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. In the next row, follow K2, P40, K2, then knit one row. The next row (row 6) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row. For the next (WS) row, follow K2, P40, K2. Knit the next 3 rows, then BO with knit stitches.

Compared to the Mario and Luigi patterns, this one is by far the easiest to knit with the simplest pattern (it's all that hair!). It is based on the same aesthetic that I used for those two patterns and so it complements them well.

Enjoy!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Yoshi, and Boo patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 22

2009-02-16T12:08:00.001-05:00

"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.

~Friedrich Nietzsche

And wanting to know what is true is what makes us truly human - intelligent, curious, sentient. So why is not being religious and not believing in a supreme being, especially in such an age of knowledge and science, treated like something unnatural? It is more natural for humans to ask questions and seek the truth than for us to accept easy answers that are clearly not good explanations for the world around us. That attitude is a denial of the extraordinary intelligence we have and a spit in the face to the natural world that caused us to be this way.

Atheist Quote of the Week 21

2009-02-09T08:21:00.001-05:00

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

~Albert Einstein

(Hey, why didn't anyone tell me I'd already used this one? Here's a bonus quote to make up for my ineptitude.)

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.

~Albert Einstein

Atheist Quote of the Week 20

2009-02-02T23:43:00.000-05:00

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

~Seneca the Younger

Rotisserie-Style Turkey

2009-01-30T11:39:00.002-05:00

This recipe was inspired by the Rotisserie-Style Chicken recipe over at A Year of Crockpotting, which I have made and I loved, but I significantly altered the spice combination to better suit the turkey thighs I got on sale after the holidays. If it wasn't for that blog, I never would have thought that a slow cooker could make poultry crisp up just like an oven does. It's like magic!

Slow Cooker Rotisserie-Style Turkey

2 large frozen turkey thighs, bone in, skin on
1 tsp salt
1/2 tsp paprika
1 tsp onion powder
1/2 tsp dried thyme
1 1/2 tsp dried sage
1/3 tsp cayenne
1 tsp parsley

Place turkey thighs in the slow cooker, arranging them so that the lid of the cooker will fit and they are overlapping as little as possible.
In a small bowl, mix salt, paprika, onion powder, thyme, sage, cayenne, and parsley until well-blended.
Rub spice mixture over the outside of the turkey pieces, coating them generously. If some falls into the bottom of the cooker, don't worry, it won't burn.
Cover and cook on low 7-8 hours or on high 4-5 hours. Some drippings will accumulate in the bottom of the cooker, but do not drain them during cooking time.
Serve over rice.

I am not a fan of spicy-hot food, and I really enjoyed this. The little bit of cayenne is just enough for flavour, but not enough to add zip, so if you like more heat in your food, I'd double the amount listed above. However, the proportions I used made for lots of flavour and meat that was so tender it fell off the bone. Keeping the drippings in for the whole cooking time prevented the meat from drying out and also kept the wayward spice particles that didn't stick to the meat from burning onto the stoneware. I cooked my thighs directly from the freezer, so they were frozen solid. I would reduce cooking time by 1-2 hours on low (1/2 hour to an hour on high) if fresh turkey is used.

I love my slow cooker. No fuss, hardly any mess, and food that appears to have been carefully monitored all day long with almost no real work.

Atheist Quote of the Week 19

2009-01-26T16:32:00.001-05:00

He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave.

~William Drummond

The Political Spectrum

2009-01-22T15:59:00.003-05:00

My Political Views
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 6.32, Libertarian: 4.38

Political Spectrum Quiz

I found this test very American-centric. The opinion on cutting military spending was a problematic one, for example, since our military is massively under-funded, so even though I don't support offensive military action, I would support them being adequately funded for peacekeeping and sovereignty duties. However, it was clear the question was geared to Americans, whose military has a black budget and is inclined towards offensive military campaigns, so I would support cuts to their military spending. Regardless, my results are fairly predictable. I think I'm less libertarian in reality than the quiz indicates, since I support government taxation to fund social programs to a greater extent than the questions asked could explain, but again, it was clearly US-centric.

The quiz divides it up into foreign policy and culture specifically as well:

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -6.77

Political Spectrum Quiz

My Culture War Stance
Score: -7.43

Political Spectrum Quiz

No surprises there. I like peacekeeping and I don't like governments trying to legislate their religious morality on everyone else (big shocker there, I know).

Now might be a good time to outline (briefly) my position on several major issues:

I am pro-choice. Pro-every-choice. I believe both that women have an absolute right to their reproductive freedom, and so abortion should be both legal and easily available, but I also believe that women should not be criticized for choosing motherhood as a career path. Feminism gave us the ability to choose something other than being a housewife and a mother. That doesn't mean we are obligated somehow to not pursue that option.

I am pro-gay in general and pro-same-sex-marriage. Being gay is not a choice, nor is it somehow immoral in the least. Marriage is not a special word that only religious people get to use. It is the name of a legal contract that two people choose to enter that has secular consequences. It can have spiritual consequences as well, but the religious ceremony and the legal contract are two separate things. My favourite argument is this: if marriage is solely a religious commitment, why can I, a mouthy atheist, get married in a hall by a justice of the peace to another atheist as long as the other atheist is a man? If marriage is a religious thing, you should be trying to annul all the atheistic marriages, not all the same-sex ones. My second-favourite argument is that it's been legal here for nearly five years and so far, no divine retribution. Either your god doesn't care, or your god doesn't exist. Either way, you're wrong.

I am also pro-universal social services, so pro-universal health care, pro-welfare, pro-universal drug plans, and pro-subsidized higher education. I think our health care system needs work (and could benefit greatly from creating a fast-track qualification program for foreign-trained doctors), but it is a great equalizer. If no one ever needs to worry about paying a hospital bill, they are far more likely to seek treatment before things become critical. Freely available health care improves the health of the whole population and gives the poor the same ability to maintain good health as the rich. In the US, I hear a lot about the inequality of the races. I don't think race is the problem anymore. At one time, visible minorities were oppressed and became impoverished as a result, and then, despite the civil rights movement, they couldn't achieve equality with their white oppressors not because of racism, but because of their continued poverty. There was no support system to keep them healthy and fed, no universally funded education system to help them learn, and no subsidization of the costs of higher education to help them get better jobs and so to give them a fair chance at achieving true equality. The problem in the US now is poverty more than any remnants of a racist past. A better social support structure would eliminate a lot of the inequalities like no anti-racism equality plan ever could.

I am anti-war. I am patriotic, and I can see the justification for some past conflicts, so I support the sacrifices of the military. I will never belittle the dangerous position they put themselves in for our sake. But I think world conflicts are only exacerbated, not solved, by war. Peacekeeping, diplomatic negotiation, and economic sanctions are all better ways of managing foreign conflicts than killing people.

I am also anti-gun. Hunting, fine. Police, fine. Sport shooting, fine. Personal handguns? No freaking way. Those aren't for shooting moose or ducks. Those are for killing people. The less guns there are out there, the less guns the criminals have access to. And we have very few gun murders in a year in this country, the majority of those being gang-related, not as a function of criminal activity against innocent citizens. If ordinary citizens don't have guns, most of the time criminals don't bother getting them either. But if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that someone will get shot. Especially if those people with guns are not experienced hunters or trained to handle guns, but ordinary people who don't know enough about using a deadly weapon to be expected to store it safely and to keep calm in a dangerous situation.

Obviously, I am anti-morality legislation. Legislating religious beliefs into "blue laws" or other rules that have no value as laws except to impose the morality of a single belief system onto everyone in a population is not only ridiculous but also unsupportable by the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As an atheist, those sorts of things mostly just piss me off.

I am, however, anti-hate speech. This may seem at odds with free speech, but I believe that if it is a narrow enough definition, it is a very important tool to prevent the spread of hate and continued oppression of minority groups. I do think that the government in a democracy has a responsibility to protect the minority groups, even though they are elected by the majority. People shouldn't be able to get away with trying to convince people that some group is worthy of derision by publicly decrying them with hate speech. Hopefully one day hate speech laws will be irrelevant. But for now, they are a way to protect minority groups from propaganda meant to damage them just for belonging to that group.

I am pro-capitalism, but only with industry regulations and anti-monopoly statutes, as well as unions and minimum wage/workplace safety laws. Competition produces a healthy economy and a better quality of life in a country, but unregulated capitalism produces a 95/5 problem where 95% of the wealth is held by 5% of the population. Social responsibility and some government regulation helps that wealth spread out a bit.

Finally, I am anti-censorship. Hate speech should have consequences, but should not be hidden. "Bad" language, video game violence, and pornography are things that we should learn to adapt to and respond appropriately to, not things that we should try to ban. Parents should control what their children are exposed to based on their parenting philosophy, but the violence and nudity still exists and needs to be dealt with, not censored.

Overall, I think that putting someone somewhere on a political spectrum is maybe too simplistic. A person's views are not one-dimensional or even two-dimensional; they are so multi-dimensional that each person has a political spectrum position that is not exactly the same as any other person on the planet. That is why I don't like labels for political opinions in general; I am left-wing in relation to my own country's definition of the word, but other than that I'm not willing to use many other labels, because (as seen above) there are just too many to list in an easy package of opinions.

Luigi Washcloth!

2009-01-21T06:49:00.005-05:00

What's Mario without Luigi?

After making the Mario Washcloth chart, I immediately thought of making a complementary pattern with Luigi on it. And so the Luigi Washcloth was born.

It's-a the Luigi Washcloth!

Pattern:

This is very similar to the Mario version and they look very much like a matched set. The Luigi one has a teensy bit more stockinette stitch at the beginning and end of the chart so that they would both be the same size: 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long. As with the Mario pattern, I went a little unorthodox on the charting and worked the raised-stitch pattern from right to left instead of from bottom to top.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

I'm the sort of person who roots for the guy in second place, so I have a special place in my heart for Luigi. The guy deserved his own pattern too!

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Mario, Princess Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, and Boo patterns available!)

Mario Washcloth!

2009-01-20T17:28:00.008-05:00

When I finished my Scottie Washcloth project, I discovered that I had way, way overestimated the quantity of black accent yarn I needed. What on Earth was I supposed to do with piles and piles of black, dishcloth-quality cotton yarn?

I'm a take-lemons-make-lemonade sort of person, so I designed a new washcloth pattern. Since the yarn is black, I figured something unusual was in order, so I chose to knit a Mario washcloth. After all, I am a part of a generation that grew up with Super Mario World.

It's-a the Mario Washcloth!

Pattern:

The finished product is 44 stitches wide and 61 rows long. I went a little unorthodox on the charting and worked the raised-stitch pattern from right to left instead of from bottom to top as is conventional. I found that way easier to chart so that it turned out looking correct.

CO 44 stitches. Knit three rows. The next row (row 4) will be a WS row and the first row of the pattern chart (click to enlarge):

Start and end every row with K2. For the 40 stitches in between the edge stitches, follow the chart. Blank spaces are knit stitches for RS rows and purl stitches for WS rows. Dots are purl stitches for RS rows and knit stitches for WS rows.

After the chart is finished, you should be about to start a RS row. Knit this row and the next two (three rows total), then BO with knit stitches.

Voilà! It's a bathroom accessory worthy of a Nintendo geek.

(Psst! Looking for the other Mario-gang washcloth designs? There are also Luigi, Princess Peach, Bowser, Yoshi, and Boo patterns available!)

Atheist Quote of the Week 18

2009-01-19T00:15:00.004-05:00

History is full of people who out of fear, or ignorance, or lust for power have destroyed knowledge of immeasurable value which truly belongs to us all. We must not let it happen again.

~Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Knowledge and its continued availability, not faith in some supreme power, is the means to immortality. In increasing somehow the sum of human understanding, even just by a small amount, and passing that knowledge on to others, we become a part of that intelligence. Though we as individuals may die and disappear, our contribution to society lives on as others use it at a starting point upon which to build their own understanding.

One depressing thing about the series The Universe is the sobering reality of the fact that someday the Earth is going to be obliterated, either by our sun dying, or by a nearby larger cosmic phenomenon, or by the universe ripping itself apart atom by atom. It is very difficult to accept that, no matter what we do or how hard we try to survive, reproduce, and pass on our experiences to the next generation, someday all of our effort will disappear, as if it had never happened at all. It's important to focus on the present, sure, and the pursuit of knowledge has innate value, but no matter what we do to prevent ignorant human beings from destroying sources of human understanding, someday our universe will destroy every hint that we ever existed not due to malice, but due to the laws of physics. I can see why believing there is intelligence controlling the universe is comforting, because knowing that it is simply the sum total of fundamental forces with no central mind to choose to protect us is terrifying. Nothing out there cares what happens to our tiny little planet in our insignificant corner of the universe, and we can't make anything care, no matter how smart we are, or how nice we are, or how much we want to believe in its existence. It's not there. Nothing is out there caring about our little primate species, or about anything at all whatsoever.

We need to stop hoping that something out there will protect us and save us from destruction, because nothing will. Someday, each and every one of us will die. Far in the distant future, someday our planet will be obliterated and all evidence of our existence will disappear. There's nothing we can do about that. We need to focus on what is innately valuable, even if it will inevitably be lost in the future - we need to forget about our petty disputes over land and resources and (pettiest of all) religious worship sites. We need to work together to achieve great things and improve the quality of life for everyone. If each generation is happier and more peaceful than the last, and each one increases our knowledge of the universe, then we are doing valuable things with our lives. It's important to focus on the big picture. Life is too short and the capabilities of human beings are too unusual to waste both on war and religious dogma.

Cinnamon Chocolate Chip Bread

2009-01-18T13:28:00.004-05:00

I improvised this recipe on New Year's Eve while getting ready to have people over. I knew some of the people would be staying over, so I needed a breakfast plan. I had already organized omelet ingredients, but I thought we could use a bread to go with them, and I thought something sweet would be nice. It disappeared so quickly that I didn't get a photo of it before it was gone!

Cinnamon Chocolate Chip Bread

6 tbsp water
6 tbsp milk
2 eggs
1 1/2 tbsp butter
1 1/2 tbsp sugar
1 1/2 tsp salt
3 cups flour
3 tsp cinnamon
3/4 cup chocolate chips
2 1/2 tsp yeast

Place all ingredients in bread machine in the order listed above.
Set for 1/2 lb or 2 lb loaf, white bread cycle, light crust and start.
Double-check the consistency of the bread during the first mixing cycle. If it is sticking to the sides too much, add flour, and if it is too dry, add a little bit of milk or water. (I found that the generous amount of cinnamon made it a little dry, so I added more milk.)

I found that in my machine the chocolate chips survived intact. If your machine tends to melt them down, I would wait to add them until the second mixing cycle, because otherwise the chocolate might overwhelm the cinnamon flavour if it's all mixed together. We toasted the bread and put butter on it, and it was a big hit.

The funny story associated with this is that I had a small panic attack after the second mixing cycle when it looked like it wasn't going to rise at all. Don't panic if this happens to you! I suspect it just was due to the greater mass of the bread with all those chocolate chips. It turned out fine in the end - plenty big and not too dense.

Atheist Quote of the Week 17

2009-01-12T15:50:00.003-05:00

If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?

~Justin Brown

This is not directly related to this week's quote, but I just found out about the History Channel series "The Universe", and I've been watching the first season. It illustrates perfectly what I mean when I say that the reality of the universe is far more awe-inspiring and magnificent than any mythological creation story. Our very existence is fascinating not because we are unique, but because we endure. Earth has been pounded by asteroids and comets, flooded by radiation, and is destined to one day be burned away to nothing by its own sun. And yet, as soon as there were conditions even remotely suitable for life, there was life. Life finds a way to replicate itself, obtain nutrients, and maintain its systems even in the harshest and most unforgiving environments, some with no sunlight, some with toxic chemicals, some extremely frigid, and some exceedingly hot. When an object pounded into Earth and killed nearly all living species, those that were left did not give up and die - rather, they went on to repopulate the entire planet with the body forms we recognize today, such as tetrapods, arachnids, and insects. We are a powerful astronomical phenomenon away from ceasing to exist at all times, and yet life still strives on.

My point is, life isn't unique. It almost certainly exists, or at the very least once existed, elsewhere in our solar system. The inspiring thing about life is that it keeps showing up. Conditions do have to be within certain parameters, but they're much wider than we once believed, and life is far from being a miraculous occurrence. It turns out that us being in a very narrow "habitable zone" in our orbit around the sun is just one favourable circumstance that made life turn out the way it has on our planet, but it is not necessary for life to develop. Scientists believe microbial life once existed on Mars (and possibly still does, underground), and that Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, also has the right conditions for life. Mars may be close to us, but Europa certainly isn't anywhere near the so-called "habitable zone".

The series so far makes me feel a little bit insignificant and vulnerable, and that's scary. In a way, I can see why religion might make that feeling go away for some people, but I feel it's more honest to admit we're only a blip in history, a tiny spec on the arse of the universe. That doesn't make us unimportant, because life is always important, even if it isn't unique, but it does give us a sense of perspective. Specifically, we aren't special little favourites of some divine power. We don't have "dominion" over the rest of the life in the universe. We aren't separate from it; we're part of it. And we're as vulnerable as anything else to things beyond our control.

We should remember that, rather than spending our time hiding under the covers with books we already know to be fiction, hoping desperately that we're more "special" than everything else.

My First Sweater!

2009-01-09T21:20:00.005-05:00

Today I completed the project that officially makes me a knitter: the first sweater. (And no, I did not invoke the Sweater Curse by making it for the boyfriend. If he's lucky, he'll get one next winter.) It was surprisingly simple: a tube with two little tubes dangling off of it. I don't think I've ever had so few ends to sew in. There is a major advantage to making things just one colour!

This is my Tempting sweater with a cable adaptation created by Catherine:

It's the Tempting Sweater with Cables!

The last photo didn't come out quite the right colour (I took it in a room with compact fluorescent light bulbs), but it's a good closeup of the cabled yoke. The other two photos represent the correct colour of the sweater.

I like the final product (though I'm still getting used to not hiking up the off-the-shoulder look), which I made one inch longer than the pattern suggested. I also extended the sleeves by an inch or so. Knitting it was incredibly boring, though... K2 P2 rib for 16 inches? Not my idea of a brain workout, and having to switch every two stitches from knitting to purling made the work go slower as well. I'm thinking about using the same principle of ribbing for stretch to make something less mind-numbing in the future. We'll see.

As for my next project, I'm not going to make the same mistake I made last year and start a scarf in January, only to finish it at the end of March when things are warming up. A toque, maybe, because it's faster than a scarf (and I really, really want to make one for myself with a Darwin fish on the front), but I'm mostly thinking about spring clothes next. But not having a project feels bizarre. I'd better get another one going soon, or else I might do something drastic, like lug the laundry down to the machines.

Overall, the sweater was very easy and produced something worth wearing. Hard to complain about that!

Atheist Quote of the Week 16

2009-01-05T11:24:00.002-05:00

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!"

~Dr.Pepper@f241.n103.fidonet.org

Welcome to 2009! I am now the proud owner of a beautiful, leather-bound, gold-paged copy of On The Origin Of Species. This week's quote has long been one of my favourites, and I thought it would be appropriate to kick off the first Monday of the new year with it.

As in every year, this year I challenge everyone to take charge of their lives, take full responsibility for the consequences (positive and negative) of their actions, and to do what is right, not based on what people claim is "moral", but what each individual knows is right in their minds. And finally, if every day we all made an effort to imagine ourselves fully in another person's situation, we would be more compassionate, more fair, more giving, and more caring individuals living in a world that valued equality over fear, equalization over greed, and reason over superstition. If we embraced our fellow human beings as equals rather than promoting a fear of outsiders and a fear of change, and if we used logic to explain things rather than clinging helplessly to explanations that make people feel special, we would live in a world that was infinitely more tolerant, more honest, more healthy, more educated, and more sustainable.

It's hard to see a problem with that.

Atheist Quote of the Week 15

2008-12-29T10:16:00.002-05:00

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.

~Frater Ravus

Asking questions with a constant desire for further understanding of the universe around us is what makes us human. Just because the answers religion provides seem easy and comforting does not mean that they are correct, and, ultimately, refusing to seek new evidence and learn more truth about the universe is possibly the most detrimental thing that could happen to a person, a society, or a nation. It leaves us with nothing but myth and superstition, and encourages the survival of the dimwitted and the easily led. Where would human society be if it was not for the nonconformists, the creative minds, the think-outside-the-box people, the open-minded scientists, the revolutionary thinkers, and the protesters? The minds of human beings can give us the tools to be fairer, kinder, smarter, and more innovative if we only allow people the chance to express their ideas and provide an environment where evidence and logic are required in order to make authoritative decisions. Most religions want us to blindly follow where they lead, living on "faith" and not on education. The last time we tried that, 90%+ of the people were illiterate, dissenters and people who came to unpopular conclusions were executed, and almost no progress was made for a thousand years.

Why do these people want to go back to a world of ignorance, misery, and faith when today we have a world of enlightenment, education, intelligence, equality, and reason? Faith is not worth it. Believing in some distant, invisible father-figure may make people feel less small and unimportant, but propping up insecurities is, frankly, an idiotic reason to ignore cold, hard facts in favour of being ignorant, uneducated, and insistent on forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

Scottie Washcloths!

2008-12-29T09:47:00.006-05:00

Being a knitter herself, my mother always appreciates knitted gifts for the holidays, and this year I found a pattern that I thought was perfect: a dishcloth with a raised pattern of a scottie-breed dog on it. However, I am not a huge fan of raised patterns, and I didn't like some of the letter styles, so I downloaded some knitting chart software and converted the written pattern to an intarsia chart:

Using my altered chart, I made not one, not two, but six cloths. Then I decided to hide the less-pretty backs of the cloths by sewing them together in pairs. The result? Three thick, soft, bathroom-matching washcloths that my mom and my grandmother think are "too nice for washcloths".

Here are all six cloths:

Since my Tempting sweater project is slowly making me insane (it's the K2 P2 rib that goes on forever), it was a nice change to make projects that could be done in a day or two. I way overestimated the amount of black yarn I needed, though, so there may be some Mario and/or Luigi washcloths in my future too, just for fun.

Atheist Quote of the Week 14

2008-12-22T12:13:00.002-05:00

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

~Christopher Hitchens

Probably the most common comment I get from believers when they hear I'm an atheist is, "You can't prove there's no god!" They don't seem to understand that it makes more sense not to believe in something for which there is no proof than to believe in something for which there is no proof. Concepts like Russell's Teapot and The Invisible Pink Unicorn came from attempts to explain this to people. In the absence of evidence for something's existence, it is logical to assume that it doesn't exist. It is not logical to get offended when someone takes that position, claiming that it makes sense to believe things until they're proven to be incorrect.

Imagine if other institutions functioned like that. In the justice system, people are considered innocent until proven guilty, or, in other words, it is assumed that they did nothing until sufficient evidence is presented to convince a judge and/or a jury that they actually did commit the offense in question. What if people assumed instead that, in the absence of evidence, it made more sense to assume the person had done what they were accused of and they demanded that the defense prove the negative - that is, every trial would be about proving something didn't happen rather than proving that it did. Would that make for a fair and rational justice system, throwing people in jail if they couldn't prove themselves innocent? Anyone could accuse a person of something, and the state wouldn't need forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony to convict them - if the defendant didn't have an ironclad alibi, that would be enough to convict them.

How illogical is that?

However, believers make the same sort of argument when it comes to a god. In the absence of positive evidence to convince people of its existence, they insist we should believe anyway, or else provide ironclad evidence of the negative, that this figment of their imagination does not exist. Or, they say, since there is no evidence, we can't be sure that their god does not exist. But what sense does it make to assume it is likely or even possible that something exists when no one can prove any evidence that it does? Assuming it does not exist at all is the logical position. I will freely admit that I am open to real evidence, and if some ever appears in favour of the supernatural, I may change my mind accordingly.

However, I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Centuries of science have consistently proved religion wrong over and over again, and that trend is likely to continue. Supernatural beings were once the only explanation humans could come up with to explain the mysteries of the universe. Now, there are much better explanations and I go where the real evidence and solid proof are: science, logic, and reason.

Atheist Quote of the Week 13

2008-12-15T08:21:00.002-05:00

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

~Delos B. McKown

Passing Bible Study... Without Studying

2008-12-10T14:09:00.004-05:00

You know the Bible 71%!

Wow! You are truly a student of the Bible! Some of the questions were difficult, but they didn't slow you down! You know the books, the characters, the events . . . Very impressive!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Take More Quizzes

Well, I guess if these are my results on the "Ultimate Bible Quiz", I can now tell the nutty fundies that even though I have never read the bible, ever, not one word (well, except the nonsense people quote at me), I still have B-grade knowledge of their silly book. I can't decide whether that means their religion is way too prevalent in society (likely), or if their mythology is just way too easy to guess at (since I did make guesses on about 2/3 of the questions). I suppose it's probably a little of both.

Simply and Eloquently Put

2008-12-09T17:34:00.004-05:00

A very kind and tactful person on Ravelry posted this and asked us to pass it on. It was the most clear and thoughtful analogy I've seen so far on the subject, so I offered to re-post it here. The following is copied verbatim from her, someone I wish could bring her wife to my country so they could enjoy the same rights that their Canadian equivalents do. Someday, in their home state of Florida, I hope that they will.

~Peridragon

An argument has been coalescing in my mind recently, as more and more religious people are making me understand that their definition of marriage is “a specific type of union that is sanctified by God according to their beliefs.”

I draw your attention to an adoptive mother. She is not, biologically, a mother. But she is legally (and socially and practically) a mother. But none of that will ever make her biologically a mother.

Let’s say a group of people, for some reason, decided that it was patently ridiculous for someone to be legally allowed to use the term ‘mother’ and have all the rights & responsibilities associated with motherhood when they were clearly, factually, not a mother biologically. They decided that the definition of a mother was a female who had borne a child, and to that child, or children, she was now a mother. Well, that’s impossible to argue with, right? I mean, that’s the biological definition of mother.

To those religious people who believe that a marriage is any union between any one man and woman and therefore sanctified, that definition is as true to them as the biological definition of mother is a true definition. But that’s the key–it’s only one definition of mother. Legally, mother has another meaning. You can be an adoptive mother without having to call it “civil parenthood” or “nonbiological parenthood” or some other weird word whose rights were not clearly defined already and may not be recognized even if legal. You’re just a mother – a different type of mother.

So why can’t we do it this way with marriage? To be a biological mother or a legal mother you don’t have to fulfill the same criteria. It should be that to have a (sanctified according to some religions) marriage and a (legal; has nothing to do with religion) marriage you don’t have to have the same criteria, either.

The stranger who swats the cat away from eating my hair at night pointed out that in Connecticut, the reason they wound up with gay marriage was that they tried separate but equal (the civil union thang) and people weren’t recognizing it. Like, they passed a law saying they were supposed to be treated equally, but people weren’t. It’s not just a word. It’s over a thousand individual rights. That’s one definition of marriage. The one some Christians talk about is clearly another one. We don’t need another word, just like we don’t need to call someone a life parent or some other contorted phrase when they’re a mom of an adopted kid.

~Farfalla

Atheist Quote of the Week 12

2008-12-08T17:31:00.002-05:00

I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it.

~Edith Sitwell

Atheist Quote of the Week 11

2008-12-01T15:36:00.002-05:00

It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.

~Thomas Jefferson

Bye-bye Harper?

2008-12-01T15:24:00.003-05:00

So I have been negligent in my political awareness lately and I'm finding out three days late about this.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain it in great detail right now, but this is the thought that is predominant for me right now:

WHO SAYS CANADIAN POLITICS IS BORING?!

This is exciting enough to make me feel a teensy bit better about my fellow Canadians' inability to see through the phony Harper exterior. He is too authoritarian, too unfriendly, too distant, and too wrapped up in his own agenda to bother to fix the economy. A coalition government? Not a bad solution. Dion is not threatening to the other parties, since he's on the way out, Layton is happy to have more influence, and Harper has pissed off Quebec enough that Duceppe is willing to side with them. It's an unusual set of circumstances that is creating some of the most interesting politics I've ever seen (to date, the winner for that was the floor-crossing maneuvers that passed the same-sex marriage bill, but this is bigger than that was).

The non-confidence vote is a week from today. Sometime before that, I'll explain the background of this and what it means for Canadians, as well as keeping us all up to date on the soon-to-appear Harper attack ads (seriously, doesn't this guy have any other tricks up his sleeve besides attacking his opponents' character?).

Woohoo! This time next week, Harper might be gone!

Asian Teriyaki Beef Dip

2008-11-29T12:06:00.003-05:00

So, with the exception of some leftover salad, I have no vegetables in my house after having made some tofu stir fry for dinner last night. So what can I make for dinner tonight?

Well, I have four frozen packages of stewing beef and some frozen leftover beef broth, along with leftover sauces from the stir fry. So tonight we're having:

Asian Teriyaki Beef Dip

0.7 kg (1.5 lbs) stewing beef
1L (about 4 cups) beef broth
1/3 cup soya sauce
1/2 cup teriyaki stir fry sauce (thinner version of regular teriyaki sauce)
2 cloves garlic, peeled and minced
3 tbsp flour

Place all ingredients in the slow cooker and cook on low 6-8 hours (I cooked mine more like 8 hours because my broth and my meat was frozen) or on high 4-5 hours. I recommend the longer time on the lower temperature, though, because stewing beef is more tender if it cooks more slowly.
Lift the lid of the slow cooker and let it cook on high for 30 minutes or so to let the flavours blend and steam out some of the water.
Serve meat with sauce over homemade bread or egg noodles.

This would probably be good with a root vegetable side dish. In general, I would suggest keeping some vegetables around so that you, unlike me, can have a more balanced dinner menu.

Hey Creationists!

2008-11-27T16:47:00.018-05:00

Have you ever made the claim that there are no transitional fossils? Well you can stop it right now because I'm about to give you a picture-filled post of just a few of the transitional fossils that exist. Real pictures of fossils where you can see the features that are emerging. I won't include ones that actually require an understanding of vertebrate anatomy to appreciate, because all those long words are a lot less persuasive than clear pictures (click on them to see a larger version for more detailed examination). Rest assured, however, that if you so desire I can provide a detailed description, complete with literature citations, of exactly how things like eyes and ears and wings evolved. But that's a task for another day.

Oh, and by the way? Transitional animals are not chimeras. You aren't going to find something that has a head just like a modern bird, a body just like a modern lizard, and a tail just like a modern amphibian. That's not how it works. If that doesn't make sense to you, go learn something before you try to "disprove" evolution with your old book.

Exhibit One: Archaeopteryx

This is probably the most famous transitional fossil ever found. I have a photograph of the real thing (not a cast) to start with, and then I'll point out the details.

See those feathers? That's what makes this reptile so special. It has all the structures necessary for powered flight, and the feathers we associate with modern birds, but it still has a reptilian skull (including teeth, if you look closely), and claws on the end of the forelimbs. It also still has a full bony tail, something modern birds have since mostly lost. The other evidence supporting this transition is overwhelming, from flightless dinosaurs with feathers for display to the close similarity between the protein that forms reptile scales and the one that forms bird feathers in modern times.

This is Epidexipteryx, and it's a dinosaur, not a bird. It could not fly. However, there are clearly feathers visible in the fossil, possibly for display purposes. This is not the only fossil of its kind (China seems to have all kinds of feathered dinosaurs in its rocks), but it is a particularly good one, where the feathers are very easy to pick out. It's fossils like this that make it clear that the question, "What good would feathers do for a reptile that couldn't fly?" is a silly one. Yes, feathers are lightweight and useful for flying, but most likely they were first an advantage for body temperature regulation, then for attracting the opposite sex, then finally as an asset for gliding (and later still, powered flight). In modern birds, all three uses exist (after all, why else do penguins, emus, and ostriches have feathers even though they can't fly? Temperature regulation and looking good for the ladies, that's why). Now with fossils like Epidexipteryx, we see that flight may have been a sideline for only one part of a group full of temperature-regulating, good-looking dinosaurs with feathers.

Oh, and in case you wanted an example of a dinosaur which probably only had feathers for warmth?
Here you go. This is called a "fuzzy raptor", and it's another fairly new discovery from China. Those orange areas, if examined closely, are not mineral elements from the fossilization process. They are proto-feathers - strands of keratin that create fluffy, soft feather-like projections. Good for warmth, but not all that pretty, and useless for flight because they are not aerodynamic. Like Epidexipteryx, the fuzzy raptor was flightless and its skeleton is reptilian, but feathers would have still been very useful as insulation.

So, which came first, the feathers or the wings? The feathers did. And as for the teeth, well, modern birds can still grow reptilian teeth in their beaks. The gene is just off, not gone. Believe it or not, but genetics is a powerful tool for providing evidence for relationships between species.

Exhibit Two: Tiktaalik

This fossil was actually found in Nunavut, Canada, which I think is great. Not that I would want to try excavating fossils in permafrost way up on Ellesmere Island, but it's a fantastic discovery that was made in my home country, so I'm doubly impressed.

Tiktaalik is a transitional species between fish and tetrapods (meaning four-limbed animals, which includes all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals). It is part of a group that is the ancestors of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, and seems to most resemble crocodilians, with eyes on the top of its head and sharp carnivorous teeth. Leg bones are visible in this photo, but they are fin-shaped. Other aspects of the physiology indicate that these limbs could not have carried Tiktaalik around on land much, if at all, because they most likely could not support the animal's entire weight easily. However, they had movable joints within the fin structure like the bones in our shoulders, elbows, and wrists and a more flexible neck without the bony gill plates of fish, features that today only exist in tetrapods and not in fish species.

As for transitioning from gills to lungs...

The close-up at the bottom-right of the image shows rib bones similar to modern tetrapods', with the ability to encase lungs. However, it still had gills for use underwater. Those are harder to see in fossil photos, but the bones where gills would be attached are labelled on the above diagram as "cbr", meaning "ceratobranchial", a bone structure associated with gills in modern fish.

Exhibit Three: Ambulocetus

Whales are always a point of contention for creationists. How could land-living mammals become so well-adapted to the water that they look just like fish? (Well, except for their bone structure and the fact that they breathe air and so on.) In fact, we know a considerable amount about whale evolution now. Here is a series of three photos that lead up to modern whales, and there is a fairly smooth transition between them:

This is Pakicetus. It was a land-bound carnivore (see those huge teeth?), but it had long webbed toes for swimming. Because of this, it is possible that it did a considerable amount of hunting in the water.

This is the aforementioned Ambulocetus, the main (but not sole) transitional fossil in the whale lineage. Somewhat similar to Pakicetus, it has long toes, most likely with webbing, but its joints are set up primarily for swimming and not for running or walking. It would have been able to swim easily, but walking would have been awkward, so it most likely spent the majority of its time hunting (teeth!) in the water. Also, its longer and better-reinforced tail would have been more useful for water propulsion than Pakicetus' thinner, shorter tail.

This is Dorudon. Its front limbs are much smaller than those of Ambulocetus and shaped like flippers, as is seen in modern whales, except that the finger bones are more elongated than in a modern whale. It also has a long, strong tail that would have made it a very powerful swimmer. What is most important, however, is the hind limbs. In modern whales they are teeny tiny hip bones with no outer musculature associated with them, but in Dorudon they are small but noticeable protrusions. Dorudon, who is in so many ways like a whale, still has legs.

One other aspect of the three photos worth looking at is the skulls. All three are very similar in shape, with the only differences being in nostril position (closer to the top of the skull for Dorudon compared to its earlier relatives) and minor shifts, such as the loss of the plate at the back of the skull seen in Pakicetus (not aerodynamic), and the rounder jawbone seen in Dorudon (again, more aerodynamic).

Exhibit Four: Odontochelys

Turtles seem like an unusual group of reptiles. Since the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction, they are the only marine reptiles left in existence, and their morphology (having a shell, for example), makes them seem very different from all other modern reptile groups, even if they belong to a land-living species. However, now we have a fossil of a proto-turtle with only the bottom part of a shell, pictured below:

This is a top-down view of Odontochelys. It looks a bit like a turtle, with the wide torso and the small skull, but the more interesting photo is below:

This is what that same creature looks like from the bottom. Does that bony underside look familiar? It's almost identical to the underside of modern turtles, but these reptiles hadn't developed a full shell yet. Oddly enough, scientists predicted that early ancestors of turtles might look like this because when turtle embryos develop, they grow their underside armor first and their shell afterwards, suggesting that shell development might have come at a later point in the turtle lineage than the development of an armored underside. Embryonic morphology has long been an indicator of an animal's evolutionary past, and this is just one of many instances where evolutionary history and modern animal development both support the same conclusion.

Exhibit Five: Australopithecus and the other Homo species

It seems to terrify a lot of people to think that humans aren't a special exception to the laws of nature. We evolved, just like everything else. Humans are animals, vertebrates, mammals, and primates, as well as hominids, so we evolved from other species just like everything else has. If we were created to be special, why do we share between 95% and 98% of our genes with chimpanzees? Why do human embryos grow gills, webs between their digits, and tails during development? Why do we function biologically like every other placental mammal on the planet? The most obvious, while possibly not the most meaningful, answer is that we are just another animal who, due to a series of natural events and fortuitous mutations, happened to get smarter and smarter until we were capable of creativity, innovation, and imagination. Sentience may be a rare trait that is not easy to evolve naturally, but it certainly makes more sense that increased intelligence was a beneficial adaptation to an otherwise ordinary animal species rather than we were created separately from all the other animals and "chosen" to be extra-important... even though in most ways we are no different from any other creature on the planet.

These are example skulls from the eight best-studied Australopithecus and Homo species, including us. The upper left skull is very similar to modern chimpanzees, with a relatively small braincase and a simian facial structure. As the skulls progress from left to right, there is a gradual increase in brain size, and in the Homo species particularly in the front of the skull, where the frontal lobe is located. More human facial structures are also seen gradually emerging, with the face becoming less sunken and more even with the jaw.

What, that's not enough transitional fossils for something as important as humans? Fine then!
This gives both front and side views of humanoid skulls, again from Australopithecus afarensis in the top left to Homo sapiens in the bottom right, but with even more gaps filled in. With this series, the skull changes look even more gradual and sequential, with the first looking very much like an ape and the last few looking very similar to us. This is very compelling evidence for human evolution. Where is the evidence that we appeared out of nowhere? How can creationism explain the existence of all these fossils?

Need I say more? Human evolution is not "speculation". This is one of the most complete sets of fossil transitions we have for any animal on Earth, and it shows where we, the human animal, came from. We came from apes. Before that we looked a little like lemurs, and long before that we looked like shrews. It's not embarrassing or horrifying to be connected to the rest of nature. It shouldn't be frightening either. We are merely equally important as everything else, not more important - that should give us some humility and some perspective on our place on this planet.

Sure, it'd be nice to be specially chosen to be smart enough to reflect on our own existence, but we weren't. We got it through nature, just like whales got their flippers from nature, turtles got their shells from nature, and birds got their feathers from nature. If anything, this should tell us that being aware of our impact on other species like no other creature can be comes with the responsibility to act sustainably within the world's ecosystems. Destroying nature hardly seems like a way to show we're grateful for being this smart, and we need to stop justifying lording over everything by saying we have some "divine" right to do whatever we want with the Earth. We don't. We are not special. We will die along with millions of other species if we continue to harm the balance of nature like we are doing today. Being sentient will not save us from starvation if we breed our plants into genetic uniformity and destroy the ecosystems that protect our food species from disease and allow them to reproduce successfully. Believing in some higher power bestowing leadership on our species will not save anyone from being killed by a new disease that could have been cured by a plant that we burned and deforested into extinction.

Any questions?

Atheist Quote of the Week 10

2008-11-24T18:59:00.005-05:00

No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.

~George Bernard Shaw

Every time a person uses religion to support their point of view, this is a better-articulated version of what I'm thinking. They can make that book of theirs appear to support all kinds of bigotry, discrimination, and hatefulness, and yet all the while they claim it is really all about "love".

Bullshit.

If they really had kindness and love in their hearts for their fellow human beings, they wouldn't try to justify being hateful, prejudiced, ignorant jerks. They would stop doing it and start seeing other people as the equally important human beings they are, despite their differences from the Christian ideal.

Your interpretation of your poorly-translated compilation of thousands-of-years-old writings of men is not justification for supporting the willful discrimination against others. You are just a bigot and an asshole, plain and simple, so stop making excuses and stop trying to legislate your hate under the guise of "religion". One, religion has no bearing on what is equitable under the law, and two, that's just your attempt to rationalize the fact that you're afraid of people that are different and afraid of change. That's approximately the emotional development of a preschooler.

Grow up.

Herbed Sweet Potato Fries

2008-11-20T08:00:00.001-05:00

According to my mother, as a baby I seemed to have a major preference for orange food, especially carrots and sweet potatoes (a.k.a. yams). Although we didn't cook them much once I was on solid food, I've rediscovered sweet potatoes on my own as an adult and I can't get enough of them. Over time, I've developed a sweet potato recipe that involves cutting sweet potatoes like fries, but baking them and flavouring them more like Shake-n-Bake potatoes. Only better.

Herbed Sweet Potato Fries

2 sweet potatoes, peeled and chopped into long, thin strips like fries
olive oil
1 1/2 tsp dried basil
1 1/2 tsp dried sage
2 tsp granulated garlic (which has the texture of garlic salt rather than powder, but without all that salt)

Preheat oven to 350^oF. Cover a baking tray with foil.
Place cut-up sweet potatoes on the tray and use a small amount of olive oil to just coat them. Sprinkle spices evenly over fries.
Bake for 10-12 minutes, turn, and bake an additional 10 minutes or until sweet potatoes are soft and bright orange.

These are fast and easy with very little cleanup (throw out that foil and you're done!), and they are a great complement to beef, pork, and chicken, making them a cure for "now that we have this meat, what are we going to eat with it?" disorder.

Italian Mozzarella Bread

2008-11-19T08:00:00.006-05:00

I love experimenting with the bread machine. Of course, at first I was careful to exactly follow all the directions and only use recipes exactly as they were... but then there were some mini-disasters that came from major screwups, and I realized that bread is more flexible than I thought. It doesn't hurt that I'm in Canada and I can used all-purpose flour to make bread (no expensive bread flour for me!), so if I make some kind of blackened or gooey mess, it's not the end of the world. But so far, I haven't done that! And that includes the recipe I made up today, despite the fact that I sort of combined two recipes from different sources and then messed with the proportions from there.

I call it...

Italian Mozzarella Bread

1/2 cup water
1/4 cup milk
2 eggs
1 1/2 tbsp butter
1 1/2 tbsp honey
1 1/2 tsp salt
3 cups (bread) flour
1 1/2 tsp dried basil
1 1/2 tsp dried marjoram
1 1/2 tsp dried oregano
2 tbsp dried onion flakes
3/4 cup mozzarella cheese, cubed
2 1/3 tsp yeast

Place ingredients in bread machine in the order listed above.
Set machine for white bread, light or medium crust. This will work for either a 1 1/2 lb or a 2 lb loaf setting.
Double-check the consistency of the dough during the first mixing cycle. Ensure that it is not crumbly, but it does not stick to the sides - I have listed approximately how much water I used, since mine was very dry at first, but climates and machines vary, so double-check that the dough is forming correctly before leaving it to cook.

I only have one word to say: YUM. This made my whole place smell good and it has a strong, but not overpowering flavour. I like it just with butter, but it would compliment a meatball sandwich quite nicely, I think!

Double-Cabled Headband

2008-11-18T12:53:00.008-05:00

This project started as a way to try out a new cable, but I liked it so much that I turned it into a simple finished product.

This is how it turned out (the ties are hidden underneath).

Pattern:

Weight: worsted*
*For my project, I twisted three different colours of the same lightweight yarn together, so this is just approximate.
Gauge: 3 stitches by 5 rows in stockinette stitch makes 2.5 cm x 2.5cm (1" x 1"), however, the cable pulls it closer together than that in the final product.

CO 22 stitches, leaving a very long tail (at least 40-50 cm).

Double cable:

C3F: Sl 3 st to cn and hold in front, K3, K3 from cn.
C3B: Sl 3 st to cn and hold in back, K3, K3 from cn.

Rows 1,5: K2, P3, K12, P3, K2.
Rows 2,4,6: K5, P12, K5.
Row 3: K2, P3, C3B, C3F, P3, K2.

This is what the cable looks like as it grows.

Repeat rows 1-6 until work measures long enough to sit from ear to ear on top of the head.

BO, leaving a very long tail as in the CO.

Attach two lengths of yarn of at least 40-50 cm to each of the two corners of the piece not occupied by the tails from the CO and BO. Attach two more identical lengths of yarn to the centre of each of the beginning and ending rows as well. There should now be three long lengths of yarn attached to each end of the band.

On each side:

Pull three lengths of yarn together and knot securely about 7 cm from the band. Braid the three lengths together until the braid measures at least 15 cm, or until it meets the other behind the head. Knot the end of the braid and sew the ends into the last few wraps. Once both sides are done, it should be easy to secure the band to your head by tying the two braids together under your hair.

Done! Another fast and easy knit.

Atheist Quote of the Week 9

2008-11-17T09:42:00.003-05:00

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

~Richard Dawkins

This is why science is not a religion. Religious people like to claim science is a religion, and I'm sure they think they are very clever when they say so, but in reality it is much closer to being the opposite of religion. As Dawkins said, religion teaches stagnant, unchanging beliefs, and/or "god(s) work in mysterious ways", with no ability to question anything. Science teaches critical thinking, searching for answers about the universe, and constant change as the evidence builds and technology allows us to observe new things.

In short, religion:

demands faith in things that cannot be proven to exist,
is resistant (to say the least) to shifts in thinking and new paradigms,
characterizes people who believe differently from them as "deviants", "evil", and "pitiable",
requires that your beliefs be 100% (or nearly 100%) consistent with the official doctrine of the organization,
and has definite, absolute, and unquestionable answers for everything.

Science, on the other hand:

demands evidence to back up hypotheses and scrutinizes every bit of data presented,
relies on new ideas, new ways of thinking, and new technology to advance itself,
tries to amalgamate different people's theories until a synthesis that explains things best is achieved,
contains a wide variety of opinions, hypotheses, theories, and ideas, all of which are debated constantly with new evidence all the time to support or disprove existing beliefs,
and is content with some answers currently being unknown, and searches for answers to provide the truth of how the universe works by building evidence rather than relying on easy cop-outs.

Science is presented in such a way that information is available to be evaluated. No scientist believes any other scientist blindly and on faith, as religious people believe their holy books on faith alone. Scientific studies provide methodology, statistical analysis, and are peer-reviewed by other experts in the field to allow others to critically evaluate the data presented. Are the conclusions logical? Are the results statistically significant? Was the methodology sound? Were biases controlled and appropriate sample sizes used? Have the results been repeated by independent groups? Science merely presents information, and then critical thinking is required to make decisions about what is true.

No scientist will ever hear a person say something like "the Earth is 6000 years old" and say, "That is not true! You must believe what I say!" Rather, they will say, "That is not true and here is my evidence to support that statement." Scientists who provide neither proof nor logic to support their postulates are ridiculed in the scientific community. Science is about collecting data and then drawing conclusions from it, not believing something is true and then trying to convince everyone else that you're right.

Science is flexible, science is variable, and science is always changing. Religion is dogmatic, absolute, and unalterable. Those are hardly the same thing. Scientists do not worship theories or merely repeat the things they are told; they challenge existing knowledge, develop new ideas, and attempt to explain the world around us. Religion tells us what to believe and how to think, and worships "tradition", as if the world was a better place when women were the property of men, children died of childhood diseases, nearly everyone was illiterate, and monarchs ruled by divine right. Science creates progress while religion wants to revert back to a more oppressive and dangerous way of life.

Which would you choose? The security blanket of easy answers and a ticket to an afterlife paradise that doesn't even exist, or the intellectual challenge of reviewing evidence, thinking critically, and making up your own mind?

Idea...

2008-11-10T23:21:00.009-05:00

Right now I'm working on a Tempting variation for myself, but the *K2, P2* repeat *...* ad infinitum is making me a little crazy. I need my next project to be challenging, and possibly my own design, because the simplicity is nice for early clothing attempts, but it's also getting old fast.

I saw my Ravelry friend Knitivity is making a "Reconciliation Scarf", a symbol of reconnecting Democrats and Republicans now that the US election is over. I like the idea, and the tricolour cable reminded me of my bygone attempts at cabling with intarsia in the past. I've been wanting to design a cable pattern of my own above and beyond braids and twists, and, being into politics, it seems appropriate. However, I'm thinking I can put a Canadian spin on it. Using a black background colour, I could do something similar, except with blue, red, orange, light blue, and green (and light green, and dark green, and purple...).

I could make it historical, with colours separating from the main cable when the party won an election over time, or snarky, by putting "before 2008 election" on one side, followed by an amalgamation and cable in the middle, then separating the colours again into "after 2008 election" on the other side (with the same order, of course), or just plain pretty, with an elaborate cable incorporating those colours. Maybe I could even superimpose relative changes in popular support over the course of the election, assuming the changes were significant enough to be visually appealing. This shows seat distributions over time, which might be interesting, and this shows popular support, which might give a more interesting picture. However, there are three different parties that have used the colour green, which is kind of a pain. Social Credit might have to be turquoise. Or maybe neon green. But I think that popular vote one is probably what I'll do.

It's an idea, anyway. Maybe once I have some spare time and some spare cash I'll whip something up (okay, carefully plan and painstakingly chart something up) and see how it looks. What's the point of being in a country with a multiparty system if you can't make pretty knitted things with the historical polling data?

Atheist Quote of the Week 8

2008-11-10T01:46:00.003-05:00

The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.

~Terry Pratchett

I love Terry Pratchett; I loved him even before I knew he was an atheist. I've read The Science of Discworld alone about 10 times. How could I ever dislike someone who so clearly mocks every fantasy stereotype and is an atheist to boot?

CNN Bugs Me But I Watched It Anyway

2008-11-04T21:50:00.012-05:00

Since CNN likes to go off on tangents, I'm going to use the free time between presidential electoral vote projections to post updates. All times are Eastern, since that's my time zone, and I started keeping track around 9:30 pm, although I was sort of watching while knitting before that.

Times the polls close in each state (Eastern).

9:35 pm: Ohio called for Obama; the Republicans have never won the presidency without Ohio before. Obama 194, McCain 69.

This is what the CNN projection of states looked like at 9:40 pm.

9:50 pm: Iowa projected for Obama. Obama 199, McCain 78. I don't care about Elizabeth Dole's never-ending speech about nothing that's going on right now. You lost, Liz. And you deserved to, after the way you demonized atheists in your attack ads. Congratulations Kay Hagan!

10:00 pm: Utah and Kansas projected for McCain. Obama 206, McCain 89. CNN is bugging me with the repeated use of the word "blogosphere". They keep using that word, but I don't think they have a clue what it means. It's the equivalent of them saying "pwned n00bs" or something and it sounds very awkward - just call them bloggers, will you? At least that's a word that's slipped into mainstream usage.

10:10 pm: Arkansas projected for McCain. Obama 207, McCain 95.

10:20 pm: Texas projected for McCain. Obama 207, McCain 129. They are talking to a commentator who is saying that Obama's race was less important in the election than McCain's age. I know that was certainly the case for me - I'm not afraid of McCain's policies, but I am terrified that, should he become president, that he would last a year or two and then die and leave us with Palin the Creationist nutcase. And of course I couldn't care less what race Obama is (really, race is such an arbitrary thing anyway in terms of actual genetic differences), but it is nice to see the US in the process of electing a minority that only 40ish years ago would have been scorned as an unnatural half-breed. I am concerned about the loony tunes trying to shoot him later, though. Hopefully that is just paranoia.

10:25 pm: Mississippi projected for McCain. Obama 207, McCain 135. The commentator is saying that it's "nearly impossible" for McCain to win the presidency now. Woohoo! Apparently at the Republican location where McCain will make a speech, they've been trying to hide the poor results since before Ohio was called, but in the age of BlackBerrys and such, that was a futile effort. They "do not see a path to victory" at this point even there, in the McCain inner circle.

10:35 pm: Electoral votes unchanged, but on the politics ticker at cnn.com I found the results of a poll based on religion:
Protestant (55% of voters surveyed): 53% McCain
Catholic (26% of voters surveyed): 53% Obama (surprisingly enough)
Jewish (2% of voters surveyed): 78% Obama
"None" (12% of voters surveyed): 76% Obama

Senate seat projections as of 10:45 pm.

10:45 pm: Same electoral projections as 10:25, but they cut to a sad-looking Sarah Palin party in Alaska. Suck it up, people. Creationism and anti-abortion ideas are a step back that Americans are not willing to make, apparently. Way to go Americans!

10:55 pm: Democratic majority in the Senate is predicted. They currently hold 54 seats.

House seat projections as of 10:55 pm.

11:00 pm: Virginia projected for Obama. Obama 220, McCain 135. Barack Obama is projected as the winner of the US presidency! Yay! Thank you, Americans! There is much cheering in the Obama camp, and I swear I heard crickets in the McCain camp.

11:15 pm: New projections are in. Obama 297, McCain 139. They are singing some song on CNN that I can't understand the words to, but it sounds nice and I feel a little emotional, since it's coming from Martin Luther King Jr.'s church. I haven't been proud of my American cousins in a long time, but I'm proud of them tonight.

11:20 pm: McCain and Palin are making their speech in Arizona. McCain apparently has already called Obama and congratulated him, and upon the boos that inspired (grow up, people), he silenced them very quickly and was absolutely as gracious as he could be in defeat. I was impressed with his acknowledgement of the importance of electing an African-American president, and his mention of the death of Obama's grandmother late Monday night in condolences. Thank goodness he didn't let Palin talk.

11:30 pm: Obama 333, McCain 155. Apparently Obama will give his speech at midnight.

This is the results map as of 11:40 pm.

11:45 pm: Obama 335, McCain 155. According to CNN, Bush invited Obama and his family to visit the White House "at [their] earliest convenience" by phone at about 11:12 pm.

12:00 am: Obama 338, McCain 156. Obama is making his speech in Chicago. He was gracious to McCain as well, which was nice, and he included gays in his list of the diversity of the nation. (I can only hope there is a national same-sex marriage legislation coming next year.) He seems interested in fixing health care and education, as well as the economy. He told an interesting story about a black woman 106 years old who has lived through women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, and two world wars, which I found truly inspiring. Now there's a woman who's seen the world change. Unfortunately, he still ended with "God bless America", but I'll wait to pass judgment on that until he implements some social policies. Just as with Palin, we didn't hear from Biden, but I suspect it was for every different reasons. Biden will have lots of opportunities to speak as Vice President.

12:15 am: House: Democrat 225. Republican 140, undetermined 70. Senate: Democrat 56, Republican 40, undecided 4. Electoral College: Obama 338, McCain 156, undecided 44.

12:25 am: So Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States. Final numbers will be in first thing tomorrow morning, but there is no chance of any major change at this point.

Thank you, America. The rest of the world just cheered and cried with you, and I couldn't be more proud of my next-door neighbours.

Dear Neighbours to the South,

2008-11-04T07:00:00.003-05:00

The rest of the world is watching you today. We don't want you to negate over 200 years of democracy and social change towards a free and egalitarian society by allowing the rights of gays, women, atheists, and other oppressed groups to be further reduced. You were the first example of a modern democracy and we want you to stay that way - you were an inspiration to us all at one point. We like you a lot and would like to see you pull through the economic crisis with leadership that will put you back in the good books with the rest of the world.

Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, please don't vote in the Creationist. Please.

Love,
Canada.

Atheist Quote of the Week 7

2008-11-03T17:35:00.004-05:00

"There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes.

~James Morrow

I hate how patriotism has morphed in some places from being a feeling of national pride and connectedness to one's country to a "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. I feel a great connectedness to my country. I am informed about politics and I would never follow anyone blindly, and that's because I feel like it's my duty to my country to be informed and vote accordingly, and maintain a system of checks and balances to protect the country from ineffective or dangerous leaders. To me, that's patriotism. I support the values of my nation, I reject politicians who want to take it in a direction that conflicts with those values, and I feel incredibly lucky to live my life as a natural-born citizen of this country. As a part of that privilege, I have a responsibility to ensure that the country is for my children just as worthy of pride as it has been for me.

Rarely, that does include "foxholes" - Nazism was a worthy cause, for example, to go to war. I probably would have wanted to go and help if I had been born in that time period. Most of the time, however, war is pointless, poorly supported, and not a good solution for the problem at hand. If atheists are not found in the foxholes of those wars, it is because we are capable of thinking for ourselves, and that is an important aspect of patriotism in a modern democracy. True patriots do what they can to preserve the values of their country, and in doing so critically evaluate the motivations and justifications behind a leader's decision to go to war. If it is not justifiable and the motivations behind it are questionable, a patriot does not support it. Actual patriotism, informed patriotism, supports the country, not necessarily the leader. People who blindly follow a leader, regardless of whether their actions support the values of the country, and do what they are told is right, without thinking about it, are not patriots. They are sheep.

Supporting unjust wars is not an act of patriotism, and just because many atheists are smart enough not to fall for the "if you don't agree with the leader of the country, you are against the country" fear-mongering does not make them traitors or cowards. It makes them the ideal kind of citizen: informed, engaged, and capable of thinking for themselves. And treating them like pariahs for being that way is ultimately extremely destructive to democracy in a country. If a government supports blind faith in the government and accuses anyone with a capacity for critical thinking of treason, that encourages the kind of attitude that negates democracy and creates a nation of easily manipulated people - in the case of the US, fundamentalist Christians who already have a great capacity for ignoring facts that don't suit their worldview and following leaders without question. And considering the nuclear stockpile still available in the US, that is positively terrifying.

No atheists in foxholes? Maybe not when the foxhole only exists to support the agenda of a powerful human being, not to protect the integrity and values of a nation. And what, exactly, is wrong with that?

Variegated Cabled Vest!

2008-10-31T17:50:00.011-04:00

So it's Halloween and I have no plans - I'm not willing to brave the bars on Halloween in general, but when it falls on a Friday? Definitely not. So what have I done, in the absence of costume preparation?

I finished a knitting project! For me!

Introducing...

The Variegated Cabled Vest!

I got motivated and finished it this afternoon. I had to teach myself how to pick up stitches around the neckline and armholes properly (there were some early disasters while attempting to do that), but it still turned out well. I'm happy with the overall end product, but it over-emphasizes the flab at the waist a little more than I would like. (Oh well, maybe it'll be motivation to go for a run later.) The pattern can be found here, but be warned that there are some typos. They were mostly in the back section, and it was pretty clear that it wasn't intended to be that way. I figure they're pretty minor, since I could find them and adjust for them without frogging rows and getting angry.

I did need to add 16 stitches to the circumference to make sure it would fit, and I also made the sleeves longer by about 4 cm. I can't believe this is labelled M/L sizing - there is no way. I may not be stick-thin, but I'm 5'7" and I wear a size 12 (usually a large or sometimes a medium), and as written this would never fit me. Heck, with 36Cs it would sit way too high up on my body to fit me, regardless of the waist size, with sleeves that short. I liked that it measured everything in cm rather than rows because the gauge on the yarn the pattern author used was unusual, but it still was more like a size small, maybe a medium as written.

I was thinking that I'd be finished the vest by Christmas, but now it's done and I still have almost 2 months. That gives me time to get the dishcloths for Christmas done (and this year the projects are getting done in November, not Christmas Eve), and possibly my new sweater as well. We'll see.

Atheist Quote of the Week 6

2008-10-27T17:11:00.003-04:00

An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated.

~Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Couldn't have said it better myself.

No More Babies!

2008-10-21T14:16:00.015-04:00

Well, at least no more baby stuff that needs to be knitted. I finally finished the toddler-size kimono dress for the little girl who will be 2 around Christmas.

May I present:

It's the Kimono Dress!

The pattern is one I found on Ravelry. I love variegated yarn, so it's not really a shock that I chose a pattern ideally suited to that sort of colour patterning. I chose the lavender for the accent because, while the variegation is mostly blue and green, there is that same colour in there as well as a more subtle part of it (it's mostly only visible in the photo right near the hem of the skirt).

It was actually a really fast knit. I didn't like the thick garter stitch around the sleeves and skirt bottom, so I reduced them to just a couple of rows. I also did 7 rows between increases, not 5, because I wanted it to be a bit longer. I wanted to make sure it fits, even with a diaper on.

Now that the summer/fall of knitting baby stuff is over, I've been able to start a new project for me. I'm making a vest out of a less wild variegated yarn, suitable for wearing over dress shirts. It has cables (and I have been missing my cables... I haven't used them since the DNA scarf:
with three cables knit in intarsia that I made for myself last winter). The vest only needs finishing on the neckline and armholes right now, but that may take a while. I've already had to knit and completely frog one armhole because it was painfully small. I've already adjusted the pattern for width, and now I see I'm going to have to adjust the armhole finishing as well. (I swear, my arms are really quite thin! I may have needed extra waist space, but as written the armholes are stick-figure tiny. And it wasn't the binding off either... even pre-binding off the armholes were way, way too small.) So much for an easy first adult vest/sweater/etc. project. But it looks great enough that I'm willing to work at it to get it right.

Atheist Quote of the Week 5

2008-10-20T08:51:00.005-04:00

There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.

~Richard Lederer

I get angry on a regular basis about this. Humanity wasted a thousand years on superstition, corruption, suppression of intellectualism, and control of the poor through what was essentially propaganda.

I am forever asking myself: Considering where the Greeks were in terms of philosophy, and where the Romans were in terms of technology, what would have happened to Europe had the Christians not taken over the Roman Empire? It was ultimately ideological differences that made the Empire split, weaken, and eventually fall. The descent into the Dark Ages came swiftly from there.

We could have achieved this level of enlightenment in society hundreds of years ago, and who knows where we would be now if religion hadn't punished scientists and intellects and kept the common people illiterate and impoverished.

Welcome to Canada...

2008-10-15T10:19:00.006-04:00

...where we hold elections that change nothing.

I sat and watched the election coverage last night until they started showing Vancouver information only at about 1:30 am my time. My riding was highly contested and I was anxious to see if my vote mattered.

See, in this country, unless you vote for the person who gets elected in your riding, your vote doesn't count. It is put into the popular vote numbers, but they're mostly just fun statistics, since the popular vote numbers never accurately reflect how the seats in the House of Commons are divided up.

To prove my point, here are the popular vote numbers for the five main political parties in Canada, plus independents:

Conservatives - 37.63%
Liberals - 26.24%
New Democrats - 18.20%
Bloc Québécois - 9.97%
Greens - 6.80%
Independent/Other - 1.16%

and here are the seats won:

Conservatives - 143/308 = 46.43%
Liberals - 76/308 = 24.68%
New Democrats - 37/308 = 12.01%
Bloc Québécois - 50/308 = 16.23%
Greens - 0/308 = 0%
Independent - 2/308 = 0.65%

Does there seem to be some discrepancy in those numbers? The Bloc only runs in Quebec (because they're a separatist party that wants Quebec to cease to be part of Canada), and they get a disproportionately huge influence over the government with over 1.5 times the number of seats that their popular vote percentage would suggest they are owed. The Greens and the NDP both get ripped off for about 6% of their popular vote, and, in the case of the Greens, they get no voice in parliament as a result despite representing a portion of the population only 3% smaller than the Bloc's support. The Conservatives very rarely get more than 40% of the popular vote (that tends to be the left/right split in Canada: 60/40), yet with the right vote-splitting on the left side, they can get 10% more seats than they should. In fact, this election caused only an overall change in popular support of 1% in favour of the Conservatives, but it earned them a 5% increase in the percentage of seats in the House that are theirs.

Fortunately, my somewhat-strategic vote for the Liberals actually mattered this time and my riding went Liberal despite the overwhelming trend towards Conservatives in the non-Toronto, non-Ottawa, non-Hamilton part of southern Ontario. But that didn't make me feel better about the election results.

It costs about 300 million dollars to run an election. Harper called an election way earlier than he needed to in an attempt to get a majority government (probably my worst nightmare). He failed. (This was mostly due to the fact that no one in Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritimes trusts his Alberta Big Oil agenda and religious undertones. Or so I would like to think... it's probably mostly because he does a very poor job of pretending like he cares about or understands ordinary - a.k.a. non-Big-Oil - Canadians at all.) So basically we paid 300 million dollars for nothing, because Harper is still PM (dammit), but still doesn't have a majority (thank goodness).

What I can't understand is why more people aren't suspicious of Stephen Harper. He is a former Canadian Alliance party member - does anyone else remember them? They were the right-wing nutjob party with the ignorant morons who are anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun, pro-privatization, anti-social programs, pro-American, anti-evolution, and pro-Bible. In the wake of the Everyone Hates Mulroney (And Campbell Too) party that was 1993, the centre-right Progressive Conservatives (who are completely reasonable, for the most part) got decimated in the House. To try and bring them back up to their former glory (Mulroney actually had two majority governments prior to his 11% popular support downfall), some members of the PCs decided that a merger with the Alliance crazies (who at the time were doing well out west) was their best option. Joe Clark, my favourite PC leader, was opposed to the idea, as were many others in the party, mostly because although their economic ideals lined up, the Alliance had some seriously Republican ideas about social policy.

The merger went through anyway, and in the ensuing leadership race, they made Stephen Harper, the former-Alliance candidate, their leader. Since then, he has surrounded himself with former-Alliance crazies that he has spent most of his past two years in office trying to keep quiet. After promises in the wake of the Sponsorship Scandal that he would run a transparent and open government, he did NOTHING OF THE SORT. Chrétien may have been involved with some misappropriation of government money, but at least he spoke to reporters briefly and answered questions nearly every day while parliament was in session. Harper, once elected, hid from the media and kept a very tight leash on his cabinet to prevent the nuts from saying anything ignorant and offensive (which they will do, if given half a chance).

Progressive Conservatives, you were complete idiots. You only had to wait a couple more years and the tables would have turned back towards you from the Liberals (hell, with over a decade in power, they were bound to screw it up sometime). Now we're all stuck with our only right-wing party being full of pseudo-Republican lunatics. You will never get a majority government as long as Eastern Canada sees your party as being controlled by the crazy portion of the Albertan right-wing. Harper (and all his cronies) scare the crap out of us. The PCs would have been a viable option when the Liberals fell into corruption. The Harper Conservatives are not.

In a way, this minority government is the best-case-scenario, though. While I feel like Stéphane Dion is sincere and intelligent, he lacks the charisma (in French as well as English) to consolidate the left vote. With this incredibly poor showing in popular support and in seats, Dion will be gone within six months. With luck, the Liberals will get a leader that Canadians can feel good about voting for. And Harper has to be the PM during an economic crisis he is ill-prepared to deal with, and he is totally clueless about Quebec and about the concerns of ordinary Canadians nationwide. If he screws up badly enough, his party might get rid of him later. Best-case-scenario is that the party revolts against his oppressive leadership and too-far-right agenda and they either go back to centre-right or split back into a reasonable party and a nutty party.

In a way, it's a relief to know that Harper got a minority last night. Because if he can't get a majority under last night's circumstances (weak Liberal leader, NDP and Greens pushing hard to split the vote, poor economic conditions that the Conservatives are reputed to be good at fixing), he'll never get one. Ever. And considering the fact that he ended his victory speech with "God bless Canada", I feel like that says a lot for the ability of my fellow Canadians to judge when someone is putting on a nice face until they get enough seats to impose biblical rules on us. We won't put up with that Christian-agenda-pushing Republican-esque shit up here.

Atheist Quote of the Week 4

2008-10-13T14:27:00.003-04:00

~Albert Einstein

I have always thought it was bizarre and illogical that very religious people should claim that they have the moral superiority over me because they have religion to provide their moral guidelines. When pressed, they will almost without fail insist that without God to tell them what to do, they would lie, cheat, steal, and harm others. So, then, who is the better person deep inside: the very religious, who require the constant threat of punishment to prevent them from doing wrong (or who require the dangling of eternal reward in order for them to do good); or me, who is moral out of a sense of inner ethics, who wants nothing more than a stable, peaceful society, and who expects no reward and fears no punishment?

Atheist Quote of the Week 3

2008-10-06T12:54:00.006-04:00

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.

~Aldous Huxley

I think it must be easy to tell when I've been watching BBC specials on atheism and evolution for a week.

Note to creationists: creationism (or its identical twin with a face lift, "intelligent" design) is not science. Science is the sum total of facts and evidence gathered together, and the conclusions drawn from that indisputable data. There is no evidence and not a single piece of factual data that promotes the acceptance of the hypothesis that the Earth was created by anything intelligent. In fact, as a biologist, I would say that nothing intelligent would have ever created humanity with so many obvious design flaws (food and air sharing a tube is a very bad idea) and completely useless parts that can blow up (hello, appendix). So either this "creator" is a complete moron or we developed without a plan, directed only by which traits helped us survive in our environment at the time. And the evidence supports the latter.

Since I was in university, I have been collecting research papers from scientific journals that explain some of the tougher things about evolution. I have detailed data on the evolution of bacterial flagella, complex eyes, hind limb loss in marine mammals, hormone receptor complexity, and many other complex traits that creationists try to argue are "too complicated" to be attributed to the forces of nature. To paraphrase Randall Munroe (of xkcd fame), I say, "Evolution. It works, bitches." All the most complex traits humans have down to the cell walls of bacteria - it can all be explained by billions of years of slow changes and tough selection pressures. Who needs God? I can explain why I'm here and why my body works the way it does without needing to believe that some intelligent thing chose humans to be its favourites.

What a juvenile thing that belief is, really... it's so transparently due to a need to feel reassured that people are somehow special. Why else would it be so important to them to deny all the facts of evolution and insist on believing mythological nonsense that has been proven wrong again and again? Clearly they are insecure, and it's too bad, because the elegant simplicity of the natural selection concept makes the world seem more miraculous than any religious bedtime story ever could. I appreciate my existence because I know that the odds against me being here are astronomical. The fact that life is hardy enough to exist at all, and that human beings survived a near-extinction and thrived, and that my ancestors managed to remain healthy and safe long enough to reproduce without fail - those are real miracles.

I can't understand the fear and disgust at being labelled an animal, either. I'm an animal. I eat, drink, have sex, excrete waste, and someday I'll die. Sentience is, in a way, irrelevant. It hasn't freed us from the basic bodily functions every other animal has to perform, and in terms of evolution it was more or less a fluke. It's the byproduct of an evolutionary pressure to be innovative enough to survive in an incredibly hostile environment. In order to be creative enough to not starve to death, our frontal lobes had to develop. We lived in groups, so our social and communication skills had to be excellent in order for the whole tribe to work together to eke out a living. At some point, that became complex language, altruistic behaviour, and extreme creativity in the form of arts, and we became aware of ourselves like no animal ever had before. We were the first to wonder why we existed and ask how our world worked. Nothing designed us to be this way; being smart was a survival skill, and some part of that just went far enough to push us out of the rules all other animals live by. I'm not ashamed that I can think enough to write this sentence because of a quirk in our adaptation to our environment. It overwhelms me with how amazing it is.

Who wants to be a pawn in some spiteful god's game when the evidence tells us that we're some of the heirs to a genetic lineage that has lasted 3.8 billion years, and the only survivors that can comprehend the significance of that? What a waste of the brains we have to refuse to acknowledge that it was the pressures of nature that gave them to us.

When I'm Sick, Everyone Suffers

2008-10-01T16:04:00.007-04:00

...at least, the boyfriend does when it comes to meals. Since last Thursday we've been living on a steady diet of soup, store-bought pasta dishes, and, one lucky day, some of the meatballs I froze last week. (He gave me the cold, so don't feel too bad for him.) Finally, today I'm feeling better (and we're running out of easy meals in the freezer), so I'm making real food.

Specifically, I'm making chicken thighs in the slow cooker with the Brown Sugar Chicken recipe from Crockpot 365. It smells good right now (it's been in there for three hours or so on high), but I have no idea how it's going to turn out. I had to improvise on several fronts: first of all, my chicken was completely frozen and has bones in it, creating considerably more meat mass than the recipe calls for; also, I had no fresh garlic so I used a bunch of granulated garlic instead; finally, I only had about a third of a cup of brown sugar, so the rest of the cup was made up of white sugar and a tablespoon of molasses. This is going to be interesting. It is highly recommended on Crockpot 365, and I've loved everything I've made from there, so I'm sure the recipe is great when made correctly. My "what I had in the cupboards" version, however, may not be.

Also, since Thanksgiving is traditionally a really big holiday in my family, we're seeing the boyfriend's family this coming weekend for an early Thanksgiving. I think I'm going to make the Pumpkin Whoopie Pies from Dozen Flours to contribute, and that means a big shopping trip because my baking supplies are severely depleted.

A couple of weeks ago, I made up a bread machine recipe that I need to write down before I can't remember what I put in. I used the basic part of a buttermilk bread recipe, then added some spices to create something that sounds weird, but it tasted great (which surprised me more than anyone, let me tell you). It was a bit of an odd greyish colour, but that didn't stop it from disappearing! Introducing:

Buttermilk Chai Bread

1/2 cup water
1/2 cup buttermilk
1 1/2 tbsp vegetable oil
1 1/2 tbsp sugar
2 1/2 tsp cinnamon
1 1/2 tsp ginger
1 tsp cardamom
3/4 tsp allspice
1 1/2 tsp salt
3 cups flour
2 1/4 tsp yeast

Place ingredients in the bread maker in the order written above, being careful not to let the yeast touch the liquid or the salt while it's being put in.
Set bread maker for 1 1/2 - 2 lb loaf (I did 1 1/2, but this should work on a 2 lb setting as well), light crust. Run on white cycle, ensuring that the dough is not too wet or too dry during the initial mixing. It should stick to the sides of the pan a bit, but peel itself off of them cleanly and regularly during mixing. (I added a little more buttermilk, I think, but I'm also a little haphazard with my flour measuring, so no guarantees that more liquid will actually be necessary.)

It was kind of a greyish colour inside when I cut into it, but that's just from the cardamom. It tasted great warm with butter - but hey, what doesn't?.

Atheist Quote of the Week 2

2008-09-29T09:43:00.001-04:00

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

~Robert A. Heinlein

This was one of the main things I noticed about religions that strengthened my conviction that it is humanity that created gods, not the other way around. The Greek gods are a fantastic example; if you read the mythology, the gods bicker like spoiled children among themselves, treat humanity like tools for their disputes out of jealousy and pettiness, and commit atrocities like the worst kind of human being. And though that religion is not a modern one, the same applies to modern gods. The number of evil things people do to each other in the bible, all justifiable "because God willed it" is sickening. Rape, torture, murder... God justifies it all if the victims violated some arbitrary rule, or - and this is worse - if the perpetrators are part of God's team. That is, if the Hebrews want their Promised Land, and God said they could have it, screw the current residents. Enslave them, rape them, kill them, whatever you want - that land is theirs by divine decree and anything they do to get it is perfectly okay (Judges 21:10-24 is a great example of this mindset).

In general, gods are used as justification for all the evils of humanity. History is written by the winners and so is religion - because those vicious men wandering around the Middle East 3000 years ago ended up having the religion that survived and became the three biggest religions on Earth, their actions are justified. How ridiculous is that?

I can't see any other purpose for having religion except to control the masses and justify otherwise unjustifiable actions. How, exactly, does that lend itself to faith in what is essentially a propaganda technique?

Spiderman Baby Blanket

2008-09-24T16:49:00.011-04:00

I'm not really into making washed-out-pastel baby stuff. I'm not totally against the idea, but why give babies such boring things? Babies like bright colours, and little boys grow out of powder blue pretty quickly. Why not make those babies something a little bit wild (because hey, they're babies and they have no say in how crazy it looks) and with a bit of a longer life? Something they might still like when they're 5 or 6 years old.

With that philosophy in mind, I present:

The Spiderman Blanket!

The pattern came from a very talented Finnish knitter who was kind enough to translate this truly awesome pattern into English for Ravelry. The blanket turned out huge (728 stitches were on my circular needles when I bound it off, after all) - about 130 cm (50") in diameter. Now that's something that's big enough for even a preschooler to be wrapped up in! I used a bright red and a bright blue soft acrylic with the black accents (the digital pictures just don't do the colours justice - think more vibrant), and it's adorable, yet cool enough that the kid just might like it for a few extra years as he grows up.

I learned to crochet for this project, because the lines radiating from the centre needed to be put on at the end. I tried teaching myself to crochet with Crochet for Dummies (hey, I mostly taught myself to knit with Knitting for Dummies), but my results were mediocre. My mother isn't much better at crochet than I am, but she is good enough to know how to do the lines, and she showed me how to do it. I think I made them a little too tight, but the blanket looks good, so I consider that a minor flaw in the completed piece.

Tomorrow the yarn store is open late and I can go get the yarn for the kimono dress and hopefully for something for me as well! I love those variegated yarns, and now tomorrow I get to buy two different ones!

Italian Meatballs

2008-09-23T19:24:00.011-04:00

When extra-lean ground beef goes on sale, but only in the 2 kg jumbo value packs, what does the cook for the 2-person household do?

Why, she makes 80 meatballs and makes up a recipe as she goes! Then she freezes them to eat later, leaving the boyfriend to wonder what all that cooking was for if there's nothing for dinner.

I'm big on spices and herbs, so I used marjoram, oregano, and basil to give my meatballs some flavour. I didn't think of garlic until I sat down to write this, and I'm not a huge onion fan, so that's all I put in, flavour-wise. However, they turned out better than any other meatballs I've ever made!

Italian Meatballs Recipe

2 kg (approx 4.5 lbs) extra-lean ground beef
1 1/2 cups bread crumbs (I used store-bought ones since I bake my own bread at home)
2 tbsp oregano
2 tbsp basil
2 tbsp marjoram

Preheat the oven to 400^oF. Place the ground beef in a large bowl and let it warm up a little bit. (Cold ground beef hurts your fingers when you mix it - trust me.) Measure the bread crumbs into a small bowl and the spices into another bowl so that you won't have to wash your hands between additions.
Mix the ground beef with your hands, adding the bread crumbs and the spice mixture alternately until they are all mixed in. Blend well, adjusting the amounts slightly until the mixture sticks together well and is easy to roll.
Roll the mixture into 1" meatballs. Bake in a single layer in the oven for ten minutes or until cooked through and brown on the bottom. Let cool.

This made 81 meatballs for me. I froze 75 of them in portions of 15 for dinner/lunch combinations later, leaving 6 whole meatballs for tonight (so yes, I did feed the hungry boyfriend). I had to completely rearrange my freezer to make room for all the containers of meatballs:

Mmm... meatballs.

Atheist Quote of the Week 1

2008-09-23T15:06:00.006-04:00

One of the first things I did when I moved into my very first apartment off-campus in university was mock the bible-quoting people who had lived in residence with me by plastering my tiny room with many brightly-coloured atheist quotes. Some were funny, some were offensive, and some were sort of out of context (hey, at least I've figured that out since). Since I can't plaster my current apartment with them (although I'd do it in a second if I didn't care about offending the boyfriend's parents, I kid you not), I'll find a good one and post it here every week until I run out. Which will probably be... never, since I found this site that has over 2000 available, and that would last about 40 years of weekly quotes. Gotta love the internet. From now on, I'll try to get these up every Monday.

This week's quote is a classic that sums up why, as a preteen, I realized I was an atheist:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

~Epicurus

The Summer of Babies

2008-09-23T12:47:00.012-04:00

I started knitting a few years ago to relax and make nice things. When I joined Ravelry (my username is peridragon, for all my fellow Ravelers out there), I made up a queue of garments for me and ordered them from easiest to more challenging, so I could work my way up.

So far, I haven't made any of them. Why? Because my family has apparently instituted a breeding program.

Don't get me wrong; I love babies. I want some someday. Knitting baby stuff is fun, since I get to use wild colours and patterns that I would have no excuse to use otherwise. But sheesh, four babies have been brought into the family in a year and a half. No close relative had had a baby in over a decade, and now there is a 20-month-old, a ten-month-old, a three-month-old, and a two-month-old who have all been born to people I know well and want to give gifts to (two of my cousins that I grew up with and two of my mother's cousins that I'm close to). So this has been the summer of baby stuff, and it's not over yet. I have two projects finished and delivered as gifts, one with just the ends to be sewn in, and one I plan to start within about a week that needs to be done by Christmas.

This is the blanket I made for the three-month-old baby girl. I made it using the Pinwheel Baby Blanket pattern. This photo was taken pre-blocking - hence the books holding it flat. It was a lot of fun to make, and very easy, with yarn overs every other row in each section to make the pinwheel effect. It was made with a machine-washable baby wool, which was soft but made me itchy (yes, I am a knitter who has a mild wool allergy). I'm happy with the way it turned out, and I'd definitely use the pattern again. That is, once I've made blankets out of every other crazy style I can find.

This is the baby sweater I made by slightly modifying a Seamless Baby Kimono pattern. Since it was for a ten-month-old, I made it longer and gave it short sleeves so it would be more likely to fit (and because I was running out of yarn... I swear, people on Ravelry lie about how many meters of yarn they use for projects). I used acrylic for this because it's so easy to wash, and I compromised on the pastel primary colour so that I could get the little flecks of colour I liked in it. I wasn't as happy with the way it turned out, but it was my first attempt at a sweater. Lesson learned: rather than upsizing an infant outfit for an older baby, next time make a toddler-sized child sweater and let her grow into it.

The almost-finished project is a Spiderman baby blanket (pattern PDF file found here) for the two-month-old boy. It's huge! There are approximately a million ends to sew in, but it has been probably the most fun project I've ever done. I learned some basic crochet so that I could do it, and I didn't even complain (much) when the yarn estimates were way off for the black and I had to run out for another ball at the last minute. Who cares?! The blanket is quite possibly the coolest thing ever. Once I don't have a whole bunch of black ends sticking out, I'll block it and take pictures to post here, but trust me, it's something I would have drooled over as a kid and I'm a girl who never watched Spiderman.

Finally, the 20-month-old is getting a cute kimono-style dress, which I'm going yarn shopping for once my bonus from my summer job is deposited into my account tomorrow.

Maybe, finally, once that is done, I'll get to start on the vest I've been dying to make for myself for months. I keep telling the boyfriend that he'll get a sweater by next winter, but if my family keeps having a new baby every six months or so, he'll be lucky to get one ever. I've even already picked out a pattern for a blanket for the next baby that appears because I'm so sure that there will be another one fairly soon.

I think knitting might be taking over my life just a little. But I love it anyway.

Funky Cell Phone Holder

2008-09-22T22:10:00.005-04:00

Well, I may as well start off this new blog with the first knitting pattern I've ever made from scratch!

I was bored on a Sunday back in January and decided to knit myself a cell phone holder, since I'd broken my old cell phone nine months earlier and I wanted to protect my new one from a similar fate. I made the pattern up as I went, and I used yarn that my mom gave me as scraps. It turned out surprisingly great!

This is the end result (in reality the phone doesn't stick out; it fits nicely all the way inside. I just wanted to illustrate which way was up).

This is what it looks like closed up properly.

Pattern:

Weight: Medium*
*I used two different colours of the same lightweight yarn and knitted them twisted together. Medium weight is just an estimate of the yarn weight from that.
Gauge: A 1" x 1" (2.5 x 2.5 cm) square is 5 stitches by 8 rows.

Pocket:

CO 27 stitches. Transfer to 3 dpns. Knit in the round until you get about an inch from the bottom of the cell phone. On the next row, dec 3 stitches evenly. Knit around once. *Dec 6 stitches evenly; knit around once.* Rep *...* until 12 stitches are left. Pull yarn through stitches and pull together. Sew in end.

Flap:

Pick up 10 consecutive stitches along one side of the cast on stitches of the pocket. Knit 2 rows, then continue in stockinette stitch. Insert cell phone to test desired length and continue until flap pulled over the opening reaches about 1/2 to 2/3 of the way down the opposite side. Bind off, leaving a relatively long end; do not sew in end yet.

Finishing:

Sew a button onto the side of the pouch where the flap will be secured, far enough below it that securing the flap will cause it to be slightly pulled, keeping the opening closed.

Using a wool needle, take the end from binding off the flap and use it to encircle the button. Pull tightly and sew the end into the opposite side of the flap securely. Twist the remaining yarn around the line holding the flap around the button and sew the end into the side with the original bind-off point, eventually sewing it in completely. Sew in any other loose ends.

That's it!

I love projects that only take a few hours to do.