Thoughts on Quilting

    As most of you know, I am what in the quilting world is known as a fabricholic. I am not alone in this addiction. We exist all over the globe, from the woman who sits on a dirt floor in India, piecing together tens of thousands of tiny scraps of fabric to make a beautiful and colorful quilt which she will sell for the equivalent of a couple of dollars and which will be resold for thousands or end up in a quilt museum somewhere, to those who have a $75,000 longarm programmable quilter and an embroidery machine that you program and walk away from, letting the machine do all the work. 

    We all, no matter how good or bad a craftsperson we are, no matter if we quilt by hand or machine, whether we are male or female, old or young, we all share a love of textiles that is an addiction just like alcohol or cocaine. How does this happen? The beauty of fabrics is like a balm to us on one hand and appeals to our creative urges on the other. I quilt in order to justify buying fabric. Truly. I love quilt design but in all truthfulness am not crazy about the actual sewing and quilting unless I am just trying to see if something can be done. I love vibrant colors, see art in each piece of fabric, and tend toward sort of wildly colored quilts although I can do traditional quilts too.
      While going through a little book of memoirs I have been putting together for my grandchildren, in case they ever get curious about what their GG's life was like, I came across a couple of papers on quilts I wrote for a quilt project called a round robin that I did a few years back. I thought I might share these with you so perhaps you can understand how a quilter, at least this quilter, thinks. The second has a lot of quilting terms in it and you may understand some of it and some you may not understand. So any way, here goes:

 

Reflections of a Fabricholic 

 by VG

My life is like a quilt
Some of my points don't match
And I am near to coming apart at a few of my seams.
While some of my scraps are dull,
There are some that are joyously wild and colorful.
I am not too evenly stitched but
each piece of cloth is held together
by the strong threads of love and loyalty
for and from family, friends and country.
Every experience, those remembered and
Those long forgotten is a thread that has been
woven into the fabric of my being.
I am worn thin in some places, and too
lumpy in others, but I still can wrap
myself around my loved ones and help
keep them warm and comforted.
I am a quilt to be used.
To be sat on, tossed in the washer and dryer, and enjoyed.
No mere art quilt am I. I want to be a warm memory
of those I touch long after each of my threads has worn away.

 

My Thoughts on Quilters

by VG

• Quilters have been around the block a few times.
• Quilters keep UFOs in their homes.
• Quilters are on the square.
• Quilters put it together piece by piece.
• Quilters don't need the INS; they take care of their own borders.
• Quilters thoughts are sometimes biased.
• Quilters fabricate their world.
• Quilters have batts in their belfries.
• Quilters love Shakespearean plays; their favorite is "Measure for Measure".
• Quilters are like clothes horses; they are always buying new threads.
• Quilters have been known to cut corners.
• Quilters have wide backs.
• Quilters are artists by design.
• Quilters should belong to the National Audubon Society; they love Flying Geese and they are on the lookout for round robins.
• Crabby quilters sometimes make fussy cuts.
• Quilters sometimes go against the grain.
• Quilters are on the cutting edge---by a scant quarter inch, of course.
• Some quilters are like orangutans---they have longarms.
• Quilters love the company of men---Michael, Robert, Alexander and Kaffe.
• Quilters seam on the straight and narrow, but sometimes they zigzag.
• Quilters are a scrappy lot.
• Quilters know that cotton is a drug and they are all addicts.

Gun Control Lunacy

   There are a lot of gun control lunatics out there on both sides of the issue.  You have your idiots who think they should be allowed to carry a gun openly wherever they go and then you have your idiots who think that by totally disarming the populace, there will be less violence.  I, being the voice of reason, of course, fall somewhere in between the two extremes, as I imagine the majority of the population does.

When our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution, they were trying to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government.  Based upon their experiences with British rule, they wanted to be sure that a well armed militia could be maintained to defend the people from both foreign governments and our own government, should the need arise.   This is stated quite clearly.  Back then, states did not supply arms to the militias.  Members supplied their own arms so they needed to be guaranteed the right to do so. 

Also, as many people hunted in order to supply their families with food, I think the Founders assumed that people could keep arms for that purpose and for personal defense.  So I do believe the Second Amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms. 

 But every right guaranteed us in the Constitution has limits.  Everyone knows the old example that although we are guaranteed free speech, we cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire lest we start a panic in which people may be harmed.  And of course we can be held accountable for slander or libel. So, I think it reasonable that we have limits regarding gun ownership and usage.  Convicted felons, minors, and people with a history of mental instability certainly should not be allowed to own guns.  Of course there are criminals who do not have a record of felonies, and people who are mentally unstable but have no record or have not  yet been identified who are running around out here .  So they would slip through the cracks in gun control.  I include minors because I believe that first, minors usually do not possess the judgment required that anyone owning a gun should have, and because in most cases, they cannot be held legally responsible for their acts.  Further, I believe if a minor gets hold of a gun and commits a crime, the gun owner should also be held accountable as it is his responsibility to safeguard his weapon.  

I am totally opposed to open carry, which to me is just an excuse for idiots to try to convince others of how tough they are and that they are standing up for their Second Amendment rights.  Actually, it shows they are unstable enough that they are among those that should not own guns at all.  Carrying a gun is no proof of manhood or toughness.  Also, some of these open carry types use that right to intimidate others.  It works.  I would never go anywhere I saw people, other than legal authorities carrying guns and certainly would not want children there.  

I believe in concealed carry but with restrictions.  First, an in depth background check should be passed.  Second, if a place prohibits firearms, not even concealed carry should be allowed except by legal authorities or in some cases by someone who is legally designated to do so (and who has passed certain checks in order to qualify).  Third, I think there has to be a reasonable need to conceal carry.   

I believe all guns should be registered.  Of course, criminals will still have unregistered guns, but a registration will help identification of gun ownership in some crimes.  Access to this information would require a writ.

I oppose most efforts at more gun legislation simply because I believe there are probably enough, more than enough, laws now but that the problem is lack of enforcement.  Only if a state lacks a law or the people wish to change an existing law should new legislation be passed.  I see this as a state issue but would like to see some uniformity in laws across state lines.

I do not think that gun legislation will prevent incidents like Sandy Hook.  I see that as the fault of the mother who thought introducing an unstable child to guns was a good idea.  And of course she was held accountable for this in a way commensurate with the crime her son committed with weapons she owned and to which he had access.  He killed her. 

I think if someone is determined to kill others, they will with or without a gun.  The thing is a gun is often easier and more practical to get and use than say, a bomb.  But that does not mean that a person who keeps a gun to defend himself in his home or business should be denied that right because some idiot decides to shoot up a school. 

The key to this issue is enforcement.  Make the consequence for committing a crime with a gun so severe it serves as a deterrent.  Make punishment for allowing a minor access to guns that results in shootings, accidental or otherwise, severe and hold the gun owner equally responsible or at least strongly responsible for the minor's actions.  Make gun safety training a requirement for gun ownership and registration. And narrow the definition of stand your ground laws. 

So yes, I favor what I consider responsible gun control, but I do believe people have a right to own guns.  I believe I have a right to shoot anyone illegally entering my home because I have to assume, armed or not, they are willing to do me or my family bodily harm. I would not hesitate to do so.   To not assume this is downright foolish. However, I do not see the need for assault weapons or large caches of weapons by private owners.  

I do not see everyone who favors gun ownership as a pawn of the NRA, a redneck, or threat.  I think those opposed to guns do more to turn off people to control than not, when they try to paint all supporters of gun ownership this way.  And truth is, most gun owners are responsible people.   

And I do not give a damn about what statistics are in other countries.  They are not the US and they have different forms of law enforcement and different cultural issues.  Besides statistics can be jiggled to fit anyone's needs.  For example, gun death statistics usually include suicides, but do not necessarily say so.  In my opinion, a person who wants to kill himself, will do so, gun or no gun.  Also, that should not be considered a crime anyway. It is a personal choice, a stupid one in most cases, but should not be considered a crime.  Yet, it figures into crime statistics. 

Well, that is my rant for the day.  I really don't care whether you agree or not.  My blog. My opinion. 

My take on the Government Stand Off

Time for a rant. I am not going to proofread this because I know it will be long, so if you bother to read it at all, just assume all the misspellings, errors in grammar, etc. are due to my just plopping this down.

Hope those idiots on both sides, but especially the Dems and the idiot in the White House come to an agreement soon. There has to be a limit on our debt. And if the stock market drops because of this, we may see a depression that makes the Great Depression look like a mere recession. We cannot go on making temporary budgets. At the same time, now is not the time to increase the debt ceiling and institute a health program that will cost us all so much. (Yes, I know the Unaffordable Health Care Act is Law, but as such, it needs to apply to all or none. And it needs to be delayed while it is reviewed and some kinks are worked out. Of course, if Congress had actually read the act prior to passing it, and we had not allowed Congress to pass it just to push through a liberal agenda as quickly as possible, we would not be debating Obama Care now.) Common sense should tell us that is no way to run a personal or government budget. The only solution is to cut federal spending and to rigorously promote private sector jobs and get every able bodied person working. Everyone who can has to work to help enrich themselves and the economy.  

 Almost all government, national and international issues work basically like personal issues, only on a grander scale. I do not know why people cannot figure out why more government and more government jobs does anything but hurt the economy. How does spending one's own money to pay workers grow one's wealth?? Well, the answer of course is it does not. And borrowing more money just increases one's debt. And borrowing from one' s enemy just gives the enemy a foothold in controlling your life. And when you are deeply in debt, you do not go and buy something that will not only increase that debt, but which your grandkids will have to help pay for most of their lives. And creating more money to cover this just devalues the money. Our creditors will not want to invest in us and our credit rating will nose dive. And we do not want to declare bankruptcy because that opens another can of worms which will necessitate even more cut backs and make us appear even more irresponsible (which we would be) and make it difficult to get the things we really need. This all seems simple to me. Admittedly, it is a bit more complex when applied to government, but basically the same. So if the average person of any intelligence can see this, why can't Congress and those advocates of the liberal economic agenda??

 So who is to blame for all this mess? WE are. We are for demanding government provide us with everything. We are for confusing luxuries and non-essentials with necessities. We are for electing people who cannot balance a budget because they are more concerned about their positions of power than what is best for the country. We are for encouraging several generations who think the rest of us are responsible for giving them everything instead of their working for it and thereby shrinking the tax base needed to support necessary government programs. That is why we do not have the money to pay those who truly cannot help themselves, or those who are trying to work but cannot find jobs that pay enough for basic sustenance.

  No one wants to see those who actually cannot take care of themselves, suffer. But the problem is spending on unneeded programs, supporting those who can support themselves, and enlarging government, just means in the end, everyone suffers. Socialism is for dreamers and not a practical solution. And who in their right mind wants more government control over their lives? Anytime you become dependent on someone or something else, you are giving up your own ability to be independent.   If you allow your parents to buy your house, buy your food, buy your clothes, etc., your parents control your life. Isn't that one reason most kids can hardly wait to leave home when they grow up?? Same with the government.

  A free society has to put independence from government control whenever possible as a priority. Of course there is a role for government. We want controls that enable us to travel more efficiently (roads, airlines, etc) and which protect business and commerce. We want enforcement of the Constitution so all US citizens (emphasis on CITIZENS and people here LEGALLY) get equal treatment and opportunity under the law. And we want equal opportunity. But even these things, as do all rights, come with limits. No one gets total independence and total rights. No society could be a society like that. But if we abrogate our personal responsibilities to the government, then we are at its mercy and lose choice and personal control over our lives. And no one wins.

 I hear people point out European models. Well, guess what? Europeans pay enormously high taxes with little income left for discretionary spending. And having lived in Europe, it is my observation that they do not care about personal rights as much as Americans do. Perhaps because they have never had the personal freedoms we have. They are more pragmatic about government. That is okay. It is their choice. But personal freedoms are what has built this country into the leading nation it is.   And, I for one, have no desire not to be on top of the heap among nations because that helps ensure that we can maintain our way of life and not be subject to other nations, such as the Chinese. That is why we must pay off our foreign debt and control the domestic debt.
Okay. I am done. If you disagree, you are just plain wrong, but you have the right to disagree. Except on my blog.  Rant on your own blog.

Oh, and a postscript. Not everyone who opposes Obama Care is an ignorant redneck and wants to see people suffer. Not everyone who is opposed to responsible, sane people being allowed to own guns is a redneck baby killer. Not everyone in the South is uneducated. Not everyone who opposes the idiot in the White House is a racist (no need to be... there are plenty of legitimate reasons to think he is a total incompetent). Not every conservative is a far right narrow minded religious reactionary. In fact, not all Conservatives are religious at all. Favoring the Constitution over Sharia law is not racism. It just means we have our own laws which govern the land.  (Besides, look how good Sharia law serves Islamic nations.  That should scare the hell out of everyone.) Being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration does not make us racists. There is a vast difference between illegal immigration and legal immigration. Wanting a strong military does not make us want war. Just the opposite. And not all conservatives think abortion belongs as an issue in a Presidential and Congressional race, no matter which side of the issue you stand on. And most conservatives are not homophobes nor do they want to repress women or their reproductive rights.  And questioning the theory that global warming, if it exists, is entirely a man made phenomenon and seeing the Kyoto Accords as a financial scam and Al Gore as a self serving idiot, does not mean we do not believe in science.
 

 

We recently placed a carry out order at Applebee's for two burgers and two orders of onion rings. When we got home we found we each got exactly three small onion rings. The largest ring was about two inches in diameter. I wasn't expecting a blooming onion, but what the heck?  And on top of that, the rings tasted like Sonics.  Not good. What a rip off.  This just rubbed me the wrong way.   Someone had to fill that order and had to know what they put in it.  So either they were negligent or the restaurant's serving is inadequate.  I know they do not give big servings of onion rings at Applebee's because I have seen them delivered to other people's tables when I have been eating inside.  But, this is ridiculous.  I was so irked, I called the manager and complained and he just mumbled something, but no "sorry", no explanation, nothing.  Then I wrote the corporate headquarters.  (Told you I was mad!)  This was Saturday night.  Today I get a couldn't -be -sorrier letter from the manager of the local restaurant, offering free burgers and onion rings. Coincidence?  I think not.

 It is pathetic when you have to write a letter to corporate headquarters to get an appropriate, if most likely insincere, reaction from the manager.  All I wanted was a decent sized order of onion rings the first time around.  If they are only going to serve three small rings per order, they should print it on the menu.  I do not think my expectations were unreasonable, especially at the price they want for onion rings.   No wonder restaurants go out of business.  Unfortunately, in our town, we do not have a decent restaurant...certainly not a good local one,  and the chains are inferior to the ones elsewhere.  
We also only have one theater, which is so filthy, we do not go to it. You can feel and hear your shoes sticking to the floor when you move your feet.  I am afraid to put my purse or coat down. I fear I will bring home roaches or bedbugs or some other vermin.  So we go elsewhere if we want to see the same movie that is playing about two miles from home. We drive  45-110 miles for dinner and a movie. 

No wonder so many people from here go out of town for food and entertainment, putting tax money into communities other than our own and creating employment for those communities.  We never have a night out in our own town and that is too bad. One should expect more in a town of 46,000 people.

So what is the problem?  Lousy help?  Lousy pay?  Attitude?   It may be a combination of things.

Worse yet, is our town is a medical hub for people in the north central and northwest part of the state.  Some drive all the way from the far reaches of the panhandle to use our services.  I cannot but wonder what they think of our restaurants and theater and general lack of amenities.  Yes, I guess we probably have more than they have, but quantity does not equate with quality, apparently.

This town  cannot keep good young professionals.  Local kids have to leave to get ahead.  Part of this is common to a lot of small towns, but I have been to smaller towns than ours that thrive and seem to offer so much more.  We need to reinvent ourselves in many ways, not just in the field of entertainment offerings. 
 
So this is the complaint.  Not sure what the answer is, but I do know that if there is no change, the town will decline and die.

End of the Summer Whine

It has been a long time since I have written anything on this blog.  The main reason I created it was just to learn to blog.  But I think I may start posting to it again now that summer is beginning to fade and I am indoors a bit more. 

Speaking of the fading of my favorite season, my summer plants are starting to look a bit scraggly so I have been trying to find plants that will do well in pots and stay green and bloom most of the winter here in my neck of the woods. That means they have to survive a couple of ice storms, some snow, and drought.  I have come to the conclusion that instead of getting these plants at a nursery, perhaps a trip to Hobby Lobby would be better!  Oh, how I dread fall and winter. 

    I think I will take the window coverings off in my sewing room to let in as much sunshine as possible this winter. Of course then, my neighbors would probably appreciate my not sewing in my underwear.

   The table for the diy quilting table project I created for DB is on its way.  I suppose that means I have to try  to clean and make some order in the sewing room which is currently in a bit of disarray.   One nice thing about having a small sewing room is it stays so crowded no one else ever wants to enter it.  I can find my way through it in the dark without stubbing a toe or cracking a hip bone (good thing at my age), but few others, except maybe my granddaughters, want to venture in there.

   I would think that for a small kid the room would be a wonder.  No end of things to see and so many colors and textures.   Small kid, nothing. That is what I love about it, too.  Thanks to DB's handy work, it seems really fabulous to me, except for its size.  But considering I, like most women, had to sew and quilt on the dining room table for years, I feel pretty lucky to have what I have...including DB, who has made so much what I have possible.  And I am not just speaking about material (no pun intended) things.

   I have decided DB should be cloned.  If all kids had a dad like him, I have a feeling the world would be in much better shape.  Alas, I refuse to let him set out to prove me right!!! That reminds me, I am getting ready to quilt a simple quilt I made him that consists of different fabrics with cheesecake pictures.   I think I will name it (quilters always name their quilts) "Allowed to Sleep with Other Women" because those are the only other women DB is allowed to sleep with.  

Dual Citizenship, Dual Loyalties

I am a die hard BeeGees fan and with the tragedies the family has suffered, I have been thinking more about them lately.  In fact, it was learning that Barry Gibb has dual citizenship (the US and England) that prompted this post.  I have been thinking about dual citizenship.   Dual citizenship is being the citizen of two countries at one time.  Many countries allow this.  The US has no laws specifically prohibiting dual citizenship.  But I think it should have. Yes, I think Barry should have to give up his British citizenship if he wants to keep his US citizenship.  He should choose one or the other, but should not be allowed both. 

A person may be a citizen of the US and another country if his parents are US citizens and he is born in a foreign country.  And if two foreign nationals have a kid in the US, that kid automatically gets US citizenship.  (This should not be allowed if the parents are illegally in this country when the child is born!) Also a US citizen can obtain dual citizenship by marrying a foreign national.  Only if a US citizen actually applies for citizenship somewhere else does he risk losing his US citizenship. 

I see some real problems with dual citizenship.  How can a person pledge allegiance to two countries and maintain such allegiance in the event the interests of those two countries should be in conflict?  This is no place for fence straddling.  You are either an American or you are not.

Play Ball

I just found out I have to pay a Spring Training and Cactus League baseball tax to rent a car in Arizona.  This is about $8 bucks on a small car for five days. This merely adds to the already outrageous taxes on car rentals in AZ.   Who does this ball tax benefit?  The cost of a seat at a spring training or Cactus League game is pretty high for the average working schmuck. (I think I read it is now up to about thirty bucks to sit on the grass in some stadiums!)  So he probably cannot afford to go anyway. 

Okay, baseball brings in lots of money to the state and private businesses in AZ. Lots of tourists visit there to see games.  But my guess is very little of that actually benefits most Arizonians. If a restaurant gets more business due to increased tourism, will it pay its waiter or other worker better?  Are the tips he gets going to make a huge increase in his take home pay? Perhaps in some venues but certainly not in most, although I am sure the waiter can use anything extra he gets.  Is the guy cleaning the stadiums going to make more money?  I doubt it, although you might argue he would not have a job at all if there were no tourists to come to the games. That would not hold water, though because the tourists come to see the games and do not come because they benefit by the tax. In other words, the tourists would be there regardless of the tax and so the tax does not provide the person cleaning the stadium with a job.  He would be needed anyway.


So tourists are picking up the tab for a private enterprise--Major League Baseball in AZ.  How is this tax levied?  Is it just on certain items like car rentals, or is it included on most things?  Is everyone paying it or mostly just tourists and people visiting AZ on business? I don't know.  I like baseball but think it should pay for itself like most businesses have to do. The Cactus League clubs, like most other major league clubs, seem intent on pricing themselves out of reach of the average person.  Who, besides players, owners and investors benefit from that extra money?  I have a feeling it is not anyone I know. But of course, this is private enterprise so whatever people are willing to pay determines price.  But for the state to add a tax to an already too high cost of a game charged by the clubs, seems like gouging. Just where does the income earned by the state via this tax go? It may be that it is put to really good use, say, education or securing the border. That would certainly make the tax seem less odious.  If anyone can tell me, I would like to know.  It seems to me there could be other ways to encourage baseball in AZ besides this tax.  I realize you have to spend money to make money and I have no problem with that as long as everyone who spends it is also making it.  

Here is a article on another aspect of baseball and taxes:  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-jock-tax/