Our toys for NELCWIT are getting some more attention, today!

The folks at Living Liberally are excited about Knitting Liberally and requested that we put together a post for Open Left, to let others know about our group and our project.

Head on over to read it.

And if you are here because you followed the link from Open Left - welcome! If yarn and politics are your obsessions, create an account and start posting.

Aside from being expensive and preying upon low income and military families,   

H&R Block won't do your Civil Union returns.

Wisebread had a great post about whether Target really is better for your conscience than Wal-Mart. You might not want to read this because if you're like me, you already know the answer and have been avoiding the exact details.

An exerpt from the post:

"Both have fought off employee unionization efforts, so far with 100 percent success in the United States. Target employees are shown an anti-union video as part of their orientation.

Neither store pays a living wage. A 2005 newspaper article quotes the United Food and Commercial Workers, which had tried to organize some Target workers, saying that wages and health plans at the two stores are similar, but Target's plan is more restrictive. "We feel they are worse than Wal-Mart because they are masquerading as this benign employer," said Bernie Hesse, a UFCW leader, in a Fortune piece published this month.

Target was found guilty in an EEOC suit on racial discrimination in Wisconsin stores."

The author does conclude by saying that Wal-Mart is still worse because of its longer list of documented atrocities. I'm not sure if this information will make me keep shopping at Target or if I will start shopping at Wal-Mart again. After all, evil is evil. It's awful but if I'm going to support evil, maybe I should go with the one that saves me more money. It's kind of like eating meat. Killing & eating animals is what it is, and sometimes I feel like if I'm going to eat meat then I shouldn't differentiate between say, regular grocery store beef (not free range or anything) and veal, which many meat eaters won't eat because they think it's excessively cruel. Does that make any kind of twisted sense to anyone else?

*I eat meat, by the way so I'm not judging meat eaters.

Since I can't make it to our meeting either today or next week, I thought I would post a little more background on the rainbow scarves knitting project for the uninitiated. Some of you may be wondering why in the world people would want to be wearing scarves in June - it may seem incongruous, but some historical background may explain this and deepen the meaning of the work.

In the early 1990s, the Presbyterian Church underwent a 3-year period of "dialogue" in which lgbt ministers and lay people were encouraged to come out and tell our stories to the church. Acting in good faith, Martha Juillerat and her partner Tammy Lindahl, who were serving 5 churches in rural Kansas and Missouri at the time, came out publicly, and faced ostracization and death threats. To add insult to injury, the Church then punished those who came out -- Martha was forced to set aside her ordination in 1995.

When she did so, 80 Presbyterian LGBT pastors, many of whom had experienced similar forms of discrimination and exclusion, stood by her side in a public, visual witness of litugical stoles, with letters attached telling their stories of injustice. Martha added her stole (given to her by her family the day she was ordained) to the group, and the Shower of Stoles Project was born. At subsequent General Assemblies (legislative meetings of the Presbyterian Church), the Stoles have been on display, and worn by activists for lgbt equality. When I did this work in the late 1990s, I would walk around the convention hall wearing a stole from an anonymous closeted minister, or a deacon brought before church courts for being gay. The awareness of my bearing witness to another's story was a compelling experience, a reminder of how many couldn't be there physically to join the struggle, but were present and contibuting to the work in other ways.

The stoles project is now interfaith, and travels as an educational art exhibit. For this reason, and to preserve the stoles, I believe that few if any stoles continue to be worn by activists at the General Assembly.

So now, there is the scarves project. While these scarves are not liturgical stoles, the history of the stoles project and the use of the stoles at previous General Assemblies gives a deeper meaning to the scarves and their use. Stoles are used in ordinations as a symbol of the commitment a person has made to set aside their work, talent, time, energy, imagination, etc. for a specific purpose. The scarf then can be a reminder to activists of the sacredness of the time they are spending to work for justice in the church - a way of consecrating their work, if you will. It is also a visual witness of the large numbers of individuals who wish to serve but are excluded, or who might be participating in the faith community if it weren't so backward on lgbt issues. It also visually demonstrates the rising tide of individuals present and seeking to change that policy.

As we think about joining this project and weaving our time and energy, our hopes and prayers, into this effort, I hope this provides some inight into the significance of the project.

Hello, and welcome, to anyone who is visiting via firedoglake.com!

Knitting Liberally was mentioned by Christy Hardin Smith yesterday in her Pull Up a Chair post.

Head on over to read the post and comments. It was lovely of her to feature our NELCWIT toys.

Obama Camp to Clinton Camp: Nice Try

This a response to Tracitalynne and Katywhumpus’ great posts and a marking of the horribly sad fifth anniversary this week of the Iraq War.

Tracitalynne and Katywhumpus, I whole-heartedly agree. I am so tired of hearing about how Obama people are rabid and cultish. Are we now so cynical that we look down upon inspiration and an individual’s ability to move many? We remember the great speeches for a reason. They move a country.

For 8 years we have had the opposite of inspiration. We have been lied to, and had things rammed down our throats. Our politicians on both side of the aisle have been cowards, and have done not what they knew was right, but what they thought would keep them in office in an atmosphere of crippling fear imposed top down.

I have been regularly disgusted during this campaign. This example is now old news, but as this week marks 5 long years since the war in Iraq began, I am going to bring it up. I found it despicable when Clinton said “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

How can you cram so much wrong into two short sentences? Insulting and dismissive for sure, but also as the excellent Rachel Maddow said, “That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's Vice Presidential choice.”

Not only was Clinton’s statement selfish and dangerous for her Party, it is also stupid. If you are setting up the argument that the one with the most lifetime experience should win, make sure you are the one with the most experience: Politics (or anything) 101. McCain is old as the hills, we all know about his military experience, and he has been in federal office for 26 years. She can’t come close to touching that. Thanks for just doing some overpaid Republican political consultant’s job for them.

Clinton should be careful about dismissing a candidate and his speech that was so on the money that he either had a crystal ball or was actually doing his homework leading up to Iraq. If you haven't yet, please read it. I, with no security clearance, was able to see past the dissembling of the administration and look at the facts and knew that going into Iraq was a disaster. So did Obama.

Clinton, with all her extra information as a Senator that I didn’t have with my laptop made a personal political choice and voted for it to not seem soft on terror. She wasn't thinking about the country, or national security. She was thinking about her political future. Same as John Kerry and a bunch of other Democrats. You don’t get a gold star in my book for that, and you get an extra demerit for belittling someone who had the courage to speak out when you acted as a coward.

What Senator Clinton has shown me is that she doesn’t think big picture, she doesn’t even think it out to the next logical step. She only worries about what will keep her in the game. That is not leadership, that is selfishness, and we have had enough of that for the last 8 years.

I know there were countless protests and public statements about, and against, the war on its 5th anniversary. But since this is a knitting blog I thought I'd give a nod to the Granny Peace Brigade and their New York City Knit-In for Peace.

The New York Times blog has nice coverage of today's event and gives some backstory on the group's beginnings which can also be found on the Granny's site.

In 2005, the women sought to enlist in the Army to replace the young people being sent to war. They were arrested, and so a movement began.

Joan Wile, one of the founders of the group, in an article about today's knit-in is quoted:

"We've had long lives. We don't want our young grandchildren, or all the grandchildren, to have to sacrifice their lives, so we thought lets replace them..."

That makes my heart just ache.

The Granny Peace Brigade members stood and sat in the rain knitting stump socks for soldiers who have lost limbs and blankets for Iraqi children.

(edited to add: while i was writing this post, i had no idea that femiknits was doing the same! great minds...)

Granny peace brigade holds knit-in in Times Square....check it out!

Janet Edwards, a friend of mine in Pittsburgh, PA (and yes, a descendant of Northampton's own Johnathan Edwards), is a Presbyterian minister who has been called on the carpet for marrying a lesbian couple. Janet is active as I was for many years in the Presbyterian movement for LGBT equality.

And she is organizing a knitting project for the Presbyterians' upcoming national meeting in June! Any other knitting liberals want to join me? (Even if you're not religious, there are lots of good reasons to support the religious left...)

Donna

When I was in college I had a workstudy job in a graphics lab. We mostly made slides for the Art History and Photography Departments. My boss, Fred, was a classic aging hippie. When things were slow we had long philosophical discussions. This was during the first Gulf War and a reoccuring theme of our discussions was "what was wrong with my generation". Fred couldn't understand why we weren't "doing something" about the war. The conversations usually ended with us agreeing that I was part of a generation lacking in unifying leaders.

We were a generation without a Ghandi, a Martin Luther King Jr, an Abbie Hoffman or even a JFK. We didn't have a Pete Seeger, a Dylan, Joan Baez or a Jane Fonda. No Edward Abbeys, Gloria Steinems, Ken Keseys or Alan Ginsbergs. People will disagree with me and talk about this politician or that rock star that had an impact. I agree there have been a few rays of light in the last three decades, but they haven't been powerful enough. They tend to appeal only to select groups who listen to their rap or watch their talk shows or attend their churches or read their self-help books.

I remember being completely discouraged by this as a college student. It felt like we were a lost generation only influenced by the 80s.

Yesterday, after listening to that speech, I started to feel like maybe, maybe we finally have that leader my 19 year-old self longed for.

More stuffed critters made their way to us over the past week, joining the the rest of the group:

These little works of art, knit with yarn donated by Webs, are awaiting their trip to the New England Learning Center for Women in Transition (NELCWIT), where they will be distributed to the children they serve as part of our Knitting Liberally Giving Project.

Today was the due date for turning in the toys. However, if you did not quite make it in time, but will be finished with your cuddly submission by the end of the week, contact us and we will work out a plan to get your toy before we deliver them to NELCWIT.

Thanks, everyone, for donating your hard work, talent and time to this project!

I listened to Obama's speech today at the gym, and it was timely/intelligent/well-reasoned/made me want to take my panties off and fling them at him. What was wonderful, also, was the entire row of treadmill runners were all glued to the CNN TV, and even when people were done their run, they stood, iPod earbuds plugged into the gym's television speakers. It's been a while, if ever, that a politician has had that kind of impact.

Which leads me to the second thing. In March's Vanity Fair, James Wolcott is quoted from his blog:

"I have nothing against Obama...but as obnoxious as is...Chris Matthews...or Imus..., the rah-rah gaga Beatlemania oozing out of the Huffington Post over Obama is even more revolting. Watching middle-aged men reclaim their innocence and idealism is like having to retrace Kevin Costner's steps through a field of dreams all over again- it was corny enough the first time."

I have heard similar sentiments before. I don't get it- you'd prefer to be a cool, hip, cynic than to have a government that actually functions by, for, and of the people? Is that what this is all about? Are some people afraid that if our goverment starts working towards a peaceful and prosperous nation that we won't be able to wear black and smoke cigarettes in the back and listen to the Smithsand the Sex Pistols and moan about how no one understands us? I feel that I am a realist, and I know that Obama is still a politician at the end of the day, but what is so wrong with being inspired, or being inspiring? Isn't that what we want? Isn't the inspiration the important thing?

In short, bite me, James Wolcott. Ironic disenfrancisement went out with the 90's. Get with the times.  

CraftSanity has a podcast interview with protest-knitter, Lisa Anne Auerbach. Go listen!

Look! It's what tracitalynne said, but in comic strip form:

Here's some more fuel for the fire discussion on the topic of Obama v. Hillary/racism v. sexism:

From Jezebel 

I don't think it is particularly feminist to vote for a candidate simply because she is female. I also disagree with the people saying they won't vote for Clinton simply because it would be another "legacy president"- (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton). How about the wild idea of voting for a candidate because you believe in their vision and agree with their policies and, perhaps, are confident in their ability to lead the nation?

Just throwing that out there.  

Huff Po is reporting that Keith Olbermann is going to do one of his "special comments" tonight. They are always great, but what makes this one different? It is the first time he has ever targeted a Democrat.

Hillary Clinton, I suggest you start paying attention. Here's some reading from Jen at Feministing to help you catch up.

Yeah. We're pissed.

Update: Here is the video. He was worked up and it was hot!

Geraldine Ferraro is clearly not just a racist and suffering from poor, put-upon white person syndrome, but she is also just crazy delusional.

She has gone on a media tear last night and this morning not just defending her racist comments but embellishing.

The Fox News Contributor (I couldn't make this up if I tried, and she proudly trumpets her status as a paid contributor in this clip) was on last night declaring that she is really the victim in this scenario.

And then she threatened the Obama campaign, saying that they better be nice to her or else she won't raise money for them.

And get this. She called the Daily Breeze back to say that she is getting picked on because she is white.

She was also on Good Morning America today. Same story.

You just keep talking, Geraldine. Just keep talking.

Hillary Clinton: you are still not off the hook. Your mealy-mouthed distancing is not "Rejecting and Denouncing," which is the benchmark you set. Aren't you glad you got semantic in front of all of us? You need to declare that you will take no more money raised by someone who is all over the networks making racist comments on your behalf.

Oops. Did I plagiarize, Mrs. Clinton?  

While we were all agog about Eliot Spitzer, news broke that Geraldine Ferraro made a ludicrous and extremely offensive statement to the Daily Breeze.

Right. Because Black men hold such a privileged place in this country. So privileged, according to Ms. Ferarro, that they rank above White men in the advantages they enjoy in the United States.

Allow me to school you for a moment, Ms. Ferraro.

• African American men, while only 13% of the population, comprise 49% of the prison population.
• Due to this, and discriminatory disenfranchisement felony laws, 13% of African American men who are free cannot vote. 
• African American men's incomes have declined over the past 30 years.
• 50% African American men in their 20's were jobless in 2004.
• African American men are less likely to go to college, and if they do have only a 35% graduation rate
• In 2006, the poverty rate for African Americans was 24.3%, double the national average. 
• African American men have the worst health and the highest death rate of all races/ethnicities and both genders.
• African Americans received the largest percentage of subprime loans, and will suffer the most foreclosures and loss of wealth due to the unscrupulous loans.

So you explain to me how it is that you think it is extremely easy for a Black man to become President of the United States.

Geraldine Ferraro, you should be ashamed of yourself. I understand that it might be hard for you to see the inequality from way up high on your post as principal to the Lobbying firm Blank Rome Government Relations LLS, and on the Board of Goodrich Petroleum, but it is there.

And Hillary Clinton, you're not off the hook. I call on you to "Reject and Denounce" this offensive, and factually insane statement.

I (and 800 other people!) spent this past weekend in Boston at the IMPACT
Conference. It was tough to work all week long, go to the conference, then go back to work on Monday but I had a great time. It's a student conference on "service, advocacy, and social action," so most of the workshops were geared towards college students though there were a good number of professors and campus administrators around (including myself).

I attended presentations by established organizations such as MoveOn and Idealist, as well as finding out about newer initiatives like Conscious Lifestyle and PolicyOptions.org (which I am going to try to bring to Western Mass) as well as some local organizations.

What I liked about this conference overall is that the discussions and workshops tended to focus more on the “big picture” of social change, about advocacy and structural change rather than direct service. There was also a lot of emphasis on networking and collaborations, which I was glad to hear given how college-aged people still tend to be a little bit... self-focused. I was consistently impressed by how engaged,eager, and driven the students were. They weren’t tired and beaten down by the system yet! I almost remember that feeling. I find comfort in knowing that the next generation of
changemakers is alive and kicking.

Three more cuties made by Knitting Liberally knitters for the Knit for NELCWIT Project:

If you are interested in joining this project, you still have a few days. Read more about it here.

It is so cold that even the trees need sweaters!

Check out this Boston Globe article Knitters dress up trees for public art.

Thanks to our pal Jaz for sending this our way.

So, Mark Penn is kind of a dick - even his own team agrees. His moral compass is askew. He is grossly overpaid, and for all that money hasn't done such a hot job of running Hillary Clinton's campaign...ok, where am I going with this?

 Despite all of his shortcomings, he is paying attention to the knitters.

In his book Microtrends he identifies 75 fast-growing group trends and on page 159 he gives the love to "Young Knitters."  He is really talking about high school knitters, maybe knitters in their early twenties, so I am a good decade out of this demographic, but being that I am closer to the young ones than the Granny Knitting set, I will pretend he is talking about me.

Reading his chapter, I can't help but think of the classic Yarn Harlot stories of non-knitters refusing to take knitters seriously and the evil havoc that can ensue when they disrespect the us. It reads a little like "Can you believe it? The kids, they are knitting. How wacky."

So what do you think? Are we a microtrend? Is this all about Mark Penn helping his giant corporate clients market to us?

What about Liberal Knitters? Are we a Nanotrend?

So it looks that even though we are combining two of the safest activites we have some how lost nine of our own.

As the primary race hits a fever pace this week, please take the time to step back, relax and remember, safety first.