Because this is photo heavy, I'm just linking to my photo albums and people can browse. But I have the school clothes done and some great shots of my work!
Enjoy!
I just finished signing up for the first semester of classes for my fashion design certificate at Emily Griffith so my sewing will improve!
The main album... On the left are all the individual things we made ...
Lots skirts. All the blouses are in an album together cuz I didn't sew them, I just decorated them. So it's all shots of the details there.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Trickle Down Morality
There is a fundamental belief in people that if we can only put the right rules in place, people will change. The morals will trickle down from the top until we are all moral people.
Libertarians think that we have enough personal responsibility that we can self govern. And with fewer laws there will be fewer issues because we'll shoulder that responsibility once we have the option.
Republicans and democrats both seem to think that we can be personally responsible in some areas but not in others. So some things need governed and others we should choose. They both have different ideas of what those areas are and how much we need our hands held.
The Christian Reicht seems to believe that if they dictate every social act, people will quit offending them. I'm mean, quit sinning. We'll all become good, moral folk.
But people don't seem to realize that they're all assuming the same thing. With the right governing in place, we will become what they wish everyone was. From self responsible to biblically moral, they all think that they can change what people are. Some of their ideas are more or less offensive to their various followers, but their ideals are all the same.
People seem to have a real tendency to invert cause and effect. The people at the top reflect the people they rule. In America, this is because we're a democratic republic. We vote for people to make choices for us. We vote for people with our values so that their choices will not be too distasteful. They make their choices based on pleasing their constituents so that we will continue to vote for them. Family values do play an important part. What values we have dictate the chain all the way up.
The biggest driver for social change is economic change. Not laws or governing. What they are really trying to do is control the economics that will bring about the social changes they most want. If you think that family values mean a woman stays home with the children and the man works and runs the household, you need a financial situation that reflects that. A man has to be able to afford his family and childcare must be prohibitive to a female working. She should also be paid enough less that she is the logical choice to stay home.
So when someone says "return to traditional values", what they are saying is they want women to be paid less and childcare to be very expensive so that society has no choice but to have the man work while the woman stays at home. She also has to be forced into having children to tie her down, so contraceptives should be difficult and abortions illegal.
If you want everyone to have an equal voice, you want everyone to have equal income. Hence higher taxes on the rich and "fair" hiring laws. In order to have smaller government, you need more personal power, which means more personal wealth and buying power. Both are a catch-22: if you eliminate all competition so that everyone is the same, you also lose incentive for growth. If you push competition, you are going to have richer and poorer folk.
Here's another thing: people vote into office what they want. People want governed. They want told what to do. They want hand holding, coddling, and fairness. While a few of us might want smaller government, most people want big government. Huge government.
Once again, hearken back to nature. In all social animals, there are few leaders, many followers, and those followers need their leaders. They need to be told what to do and how to do it and don't survive well without that structure. There's a reason cultures are what they are. It's what is most needed. Anarchy is followed, gratefully, by monarchies and dictatorships. The first thing humans do when given freedom is to make rules. Tell young children to free play and they choose a leader who invents rules and everyone else follows them. This doesn't change as people age, only the form of game does.
So when people talk about family values, and laws to keep people safe, think about what they really want. It's a play on words for economic control. It's the morals of the people that dictate who is in office.
I get very tired of people bashing whoever is in charge for their choices when they are in charge, with those choices to make, because of all of OUR choices.
TED Talk on the need to believe, which I think is what influences our views on govvie.
Libertarians think that we have enough personal responsibility that we can self govern. And with fewer laws there will be fewer issues because we'll shoulder that responsibility once we have the option.
Republicans and democrats both seem to think that we can be personally responsible in some areas but not in others. So some things need governed and others we should choose. They both have different ideas of what those areas are and how much we need our hands held.
The Christian Reicht seems to believe that if they dictate every social act, people will quit offending them. I'm mean, quit sinning. We'll all become good, moral folk.
But people don't seem to realize that they're all assuming the same thing. With the right governing in place, we will become what they wish everyone was. From self responsible to biblically moral, they all think that they can change what people are. Some of their ideas are more or less offensive to their various followers, but their ideals are all the same.
People seem to have a real tendency to invert cause and effect. The people at the top reflect the people they rule. In America, this is because we're a democratic republic. We vote for people to make choices for us. We vote for people with our values so that their choices will not be too distasteful. They make their choices based on pleasing their constituents so that we will continue to vote for them. Family values do play an important part. What values we have dictate the chain all the way up.
The biggest driver for social change is economic change. Not laws or governing. What they are really trying to do is control the economics that will bring about the social changes they most want. If you think that family values mean a woman stays home with the children and the man works and runs the household, you need a financial situation that reflects that. A man has to be able to afford his family and childcare must be prohibitive to a female working. She should also be paid enough less that she is the logical choice to stay home.
So when someone says "return to traditional values", what they are saying is they want women to be paid less and childcare to be very expensive so that society has no choice but to have the man work while the woman stays at home. She also has to be forced into having children to tie her down, so contraceptives should be difficult and abortions illegal.
If you want everyone to have an equal voice, you want everyone to have equal income. Hence higher taxes on the rich and "fair" hiring laws. In order to have smaller government, you need more personal power, which means more personal wealth and buying power. Both are a catch-22: if you eliminate all competition so that everyone is the same, you also lose incentive for growth. If you push competition, you are going to have richer and poorer folk.
Here's another thing: people vote into office what they want. People want governed. They want told what to do. They want hand holding, coddling, and fairness. While a few of us might want smaller government, most people want big government. Huge government.
Once again, hearken back to nature. In all social animals, there are few leaders, many followers, and those followers need their leaders. They need to be told what to do and how to do it and don't survive well without that structure. There's a reason cultures are what they are. It's what is most needed. Anarchy is followed, gratefully, by monarchies and dictatorships. The first thing humans do when given freedom is to make rules. Tell young children to free play and they choose a leader who invents rules and everyone else follows them. This doesn't change as people age, only the form of game does.
So when people talk about family values, and laws to keep people safe, think about what they really want. It's a play on words for economic control. It's the morals of the people that dictate who is in office.
I get very tired of people bashing whoever is in charge for their choices when they are in charge, with those choices to make, because of all of OUR choices.
TED Talk on the need to believe, which I think is what influences our views on govvie.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
the Fear Factor
It seems to me that autism is a very fear based disorder. All the neurological components eat at the ability to process past fear. Lack of filters and natural structure. Lack of social skills required to create a network of support. Irregulations in hormone balance. Heightened sensory input.
Constant bombardment from the world until we have to flee.
We create anything we can to simulate filters and structure. We overstim and shut down. We make enough noise to block out the noise that other have natural filters for. That handy thing where once a sensation is there a while it gets blocked out... not so much. We feel it and feel it and feel it unless we out shout it or shut down enough we can't feel anything.
How do you tell the difference between avoiding something due to rational processing versus due to fear? They feel an awful lot alike. The results are similar. They both take an act of bravery to push through. They both leave the bad taste of cowardice.
It forces one to create a new line of questioning: If someone walked you through could you do it? Would it be possible if certain factors were removed? What would you need to be able to do this? Could you do it with anti anxiety drugs?
Maybe it's because I'm autistic, but cowardice is second only to lying in things that make you worthless.
Perseveration and avoidance tend to be fear based. Hermitude. Stimming out the world. Shutting out the world.
I'm just not sure I understand that balance. Some things one fears because it actually presents a danger. Some things are dangerous only until one has the skills to do it safely. Some things you fear just because you have nothing better to do, or out of habit. Some things are feared only for being new. Others are feared due to a bad experience. I can't help but wonder if the sorting is easier for those with categories and filters.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
And since when is the feeling of dying inside a bad sign?!? I have to admit a great deal of confusion. How can it be a sign of depression when one feels awe and wonder at everything and always has reasons to be joyous? Why can't you have non stop pain so intense everything inside screams even while it's dancing in pleasure? And why do people get upset when you know that some day it will stop and you can rest or be done and that's just as joyous as every day being a sensory orgy?
Why does pain have to be a stopper? Can't it just be there too? Along with the laughter and fear and joy and tears and everything else that seems to always be there? Or is this another filter thing?
If it's a filter thing than, once again, autism wins!
Constant bombardment from the world until we have to flee.
We create anything we can to simulate filters and structure. We overstim and shut down. We make enough noise to block out the noise that other have natural filters for. That handy thing where once a sensation is there a while it gets blocked out... not so much. We feel it and feel it and feel it unless we out shout it or shut down enough we can't feel anything.
How do you tell the difference between avoiding something due to rational processing versus due to fear? They feel an awful lot alike. The results are similar. They both take an act of bravery to push through. They both leave the bad taste of cowardice.
It forces one to create a new line of questioning: If someone walked you through could you do it? Would it be possible if certain factors were removed? What would you need to be able to do this? Could you do it with anti anxiety drugs?
Maybe it's because I'm autistic, but cowardice is second only to lying in things that make you worthless.
Perseveration and avoidance tend to be fear based. Hermitude. Stimming out the world. Shutting out the world.
I'm just not sure I understand that balance. Some things one fears because it actually presents a danger. Some things are dangerous only until one has the skills to do it safely. Some things you fear just because you have nothing better to do, or out of habit. Some things are feared only for being new. Others are feared due to a bad experience. I can't help but wonder if the sorting is easier for those with categories and filters.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.
And since when is the feeling of dying inside a bad sign?!? I have to admit a great deal of confusion. How can it be a sign of depression when one feels awe and wonder at everything and always has reasons to be joyous? Why can't you have non stop pain so intense everything inside screams even while it's dancing in pleasure? And why do people get upset when you know that some day it will stop and you can rest or be done and that's just as joyous as every day being a sensory orgy?
Why does pain have to be a stopper? Can't it just be there too? Along with the laughter and fear and joy and tears and everything else that seems to always be there? Or is this another filter thing?
If it's a filter thing than, once again, autism wins!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)