in which I write about stuff
One more feature of a good pattern for meetings: short rows* or circular knitting. I’m working on a hat right now that’s mostly knit flat, and the rows are fairly long. That means I have to judge at the end of each row whether I think the meeting will continue all the way through the next one. (Or if it’ll change in such a way that I’ll be writing or whatever.) And that can get a bit annoying.
* not “short rows” in the technical knitting term, just small number of stitches per row.
Back in January I wrote about “cold spring” and “warm spring”, because that’s the way I remembered it…now we’re actually getting into spring, and I’m feeling a need to adjust from my earlier comments, partially because spring is so erratic. I’d almost say at this point that there’s a mild wet spring and a bright spring (cold at night, warm in the day) that are entirely intertwined. If it’s overcast/raining, then it’s probably about the same temperature (mid40s – mid50s) day and night. If there’s sun, then it’s cold at night and warm (near 60) by midafternoon. Although we’ve also gotten some of those days when it’s clear early in the evening, clouds over into the morning, and then burns off late. So yes, erratic. (Also: some almost-snow here, actual snow in other parts of the region, a couple of days last week.)
Another thing about patterns for knitting in meetings: they shouldn’t look too complicated to other people. So the piece I’m working on now — a pair of fingerless mitts worked in the round — is really simple, but DPNs (double-pointed needles) look freaky complicated. And that distracts other people, even if I’m just fine.
(I finished my last meeting-friendly project; a Fibonacci scarf for C. I need to start something new before next week! I have a hat/bonnet in mind that is mostly a pretty straightforward rib.)
Conversely, the nice thing about taking knitting to a meeting — and being early — is that it makes something of a conversation piece, a good topic for friendly chit-chat.
author: Jean H. Baker
name: Elaine
average rating: 3.67
book published: 2004
rating: 4
read at: 2008/11/17
date added: 2013/03/05
shelves: history, non-fiction
review:
I picked this up after reading a blog entry that claimed that Bush couldn’t be called the worst president ever as long as there was Buchanan.
And I think the guy had a point, although it may be that only the existence of the slavery problem made that so. (Ie, a problem so huge that it was already tearing the country in two before Buchanan ever got there; except for 9/11, Bush seems to have manufactured all this sh*t himself.)
Because otherwise, the failings of the 2 administrations feel quite similar. In particular, a blind devotion to a particular ideology and to particular advisers. (Neocons = Southerners?)
Sometimes he seems to have acted beyond his own perceived limitations (in re: Kansas — the section on the statehood battle was fascinating), and in other moments chosen not to act and let let things get substantially worse, esp with the situation in South Carolina after the 1860 election.
Apparently the usual judgment is that he dithered, but this author thinks it was more deliberate than that, a choice not to act because his sympathies were essentially traitorous. (Holy moly!) She makes a decent case, I think, highlighting his behavior throughout his life in public service. It’s one of those stories that almost automatically draws out the “what if.” And it’s a sad, sad story, ultimately, both for Buchanan himself and for our country.
The book is also a very quick and lively read! Well worth a couple of afternoons.
author: Jean H. Baker
name: Elaine
average rating: 0.0
book published: 2004
rating: 4
read at: 2008/11/17
date added: 2013/03/05
shelves: history, non-fiction
review:
I picked this up after reading a blog entry that claimed that Bush couldn’t be called the worst president ever as long as there was Buchanan.
And I think the guy had a point, although it may be that only the existence of the slavery problem made that so. (Ie, a problem so huge that it was already tearing the country in two before Buchanan ever got there; except for 9/11, Bush seems to have manufactured all this sh*t himself.)
Because otherwise, the failings of the 2 administrations feel quite similar. In particular, a blind devotion to a particular ideology and to particular advisers. (Neocons = Southerners?)
Sometimes he seems to have acted beyond his own perceived limitations (in re: Kansas — the section on the statehood battle was fascinating), and in other moments chosen not to act and let let things get substantially worse, esp with the situation in South Carolina after the 1860 election.
Apparently the usual judgment is that he dithered, but this author thinks it was more deliberate than that, a choice not to act because his sympathies were essentially traitorous. (Holy moly!) She makes a decent case, I think, highlighting his behavior throughout his life in public service. It’s one of those stories that almost automatically draws out the “what if.” And it’s a sad, sad story, ultimately, both for Buchanan himself and for our country.
The book is also a very quick and lively read! Well worth a couple of afternoons.
So I’ve found that I can focus in meetings where I’m not participating much if I have something to knit. It keeps the fidgety part of my brain out of the way, keeps me from doodling about things not related to the meeting or futzing about on the internet. So I actually listen better. But there are a few key points.
Some particularly formal meetings or groups just aren’t a great fit. It helps to show up a little early and already be knitting when the meeting starts, especially if one’s habit isn’t widely known in the group. And I think it’s helpful to occasionally stop to make a note or whatever when there is something that’s specific to why I’m there.
As for the knitting itself, it should be relatively small (no afghans!) and simple; scarves, shawls, and the bodies of hats (not the crowns) seem particularly well-suited. Patterns shouldn’t require any noticeable counting, either of stitches or rows. Basically, it should look like you’re not really looking at the knitting, just doing it.
Probably my favorite pattern for meeting knitting so far has been something called the Fibonacci Scarf. It’s a ribbed scarf, but with a bit of variation, the ribs being in Fibonacci sequence: Slip knitwise, knit, purl x2, knit x3, purl x5, knit x8, purl x5, knit x3, purl x2, knit, knit; then the other way around for the even-numbered rows. It turns out really pretty, and has a bit more variation than the usual ribbed whatnot. Plus math!
author: Richard W. Wrangham
name: Elaine
average rating: 3.84
book published: 2009
rating: 3
read at: 2010/04/25
date added: 2013/03/03
shelves: history, non-fiction, psychology, science, sociology, health
review:
Review of the evidence for cooking as an important part of our evolution, looking at the fossil record, the habits and physiology of other primates, and the practices of modern hunter-gatherer groups.
He spends a chapter taking down the raw-foodist movement, mostly based on a German study, before getting into the evidence for cooking in our evolution. Most of that study’s participants were at a chronic energy deficit, and a number of the women suffered from amenorrhea…and they had access to all the foodstuffs and processing devices of the modern world!
The physiology bits were fascinating: the trade-off between energy use in the gut and energy use in the brain, the differing jaw and teeth formations.
There’s quite a bit of just-so-story of the kind that one often finds with evolutionary psychology & biology, but it seems more carefully constructed than some. The chapter(s) on cooking and the evolution of the pair-bond relationship are troubling but hard to refute, at least by me. (Cooking leading pretty much directly to patriarchy. Damn.)
I could have used some graphics, both to show the actual differences, and to keep track of the timeline. I often had to jump back to remember which groups were which, and who might have evolved what when.
But definitely interesting nonetheless.
author: Richard W. Wrangham
name: Elaine
average rating: 3.85
book published: 2009
rating: 3
read at: 2010/04/25
date added: 2013/03/03
shelves: history, non-fiction, psychology, science, sociology, health
review:
Review of the evidence for cooking as an important part of our evolution, looking at the fossil record, the habits and physiology of other primates, and the practices of modern hunter-gatherer groups.
He spends a chapter taking down the raw-foodist movement, mostly based on a German study, before getting into the evidence for cooking in our evolution. Most of that study’s participants were at a chronic energy deficit, and a number of the women suffered from amenorrhea…and they had access to all the foodstuffs and processing devices of the modern world!
The physiology bits were fascinating: the trade-off between energy use in the gut and energy use in the brain, the differing jaw and teeth formations.
There’s quite a bit of just-so-story of the kind that one often finds with evolutionary psychology & biology, but it seems more carefully constructed than some. The chapter(s) on cooking and the evolution of the pair-bond relationship are troubling but hard to refute, at least by me. (Cooking leading pretty much directly to patriarchy. Damn.)
I could have used some graphics, both to show the actual differences, and to keep track of the timeline. I often had to jump back to remember which groups were which, and who might have evolved what when.
But definitely interesting nonetheless.
author: Richard W. Wrangham
name: Elaine
average rating: 3.84
book published: 2009
rating: 3
read at: 2010/04/25
date added: 2013/03/03
shelves: history, non-fiction, psychology, science, sociology, health
review:
Review of the evidence for cooking as an important part of our evolution, looking at the fossil record, the habits and physiology of other primates, and the practices of modern hunter-gatherer groups.
He spends a chapter taking down the raw-foodist movement, mostly based on a German study, before getting into the evidence for cooking in our evolution. Most of that study’s participants were at a chronic energy deficit, and a number of the women suffered from amenorrhea…and they had access to all the foodstuffs and processing devices of the modern world!
The physiology bits were fascinating: the trade-off between energy use in the gut and energy use in the brain, the differing jaw and teeth formations.
There’s quite a bit of just-so-story of the kind that one often finds with evolutionary psychology & biology, but it seems more carefully constructed than some. The chapter(s) on cooking and the evolution of the pair-bond relationship are troubling but hard to refute, at least by me. (Cooking leading pretty much directly to patriarchy. Damn.)
I could have used some graphics, both to show the actual differences, and to keep track of the timeline. I often had to jump back to remember which groups were which, and who might have evolved what when.
But definitely interesting nonetheless.
