Well Then

Midway through talking about my symptoms my voice audibly started shaking as I was describing them, clearly upset.

In the middle of my monologue he turns the tablet to face me, closes whatever program he has open and the wallpaper is this fucking collage of pictures of lord farquaad from shrek, lovingly decorated. Dude just sat there placidly smiling at me until I noticed and stopped dead in the middle of a sentence. We sat there in silence like this for like a solid minute before I started wheezing laughing. Before I could even say anything else or process it he picked up the tablet and wordlessly left the room, and I just sat there dumbfounded until the doctor showed up. 10/10 doctor experience tbh

I didn’t own a cell phone at the time to get a photo so this rendition from memory is all I can provide you

I've seen this attitude pushed more on social media that "kids and especially teenagers are naturally defiant and naturally want to upset and piss off adults and parents and teachers need to just accept this and deal with it" and tbh, I don't agree. I don't remember wanting to piss off or upset anyone on purpose for fun as a kid or teenager.

What I do remember is that when I was getting a budding sense of morality and justice I would stand up to misogyny / racism / homophobia or general cruelty from adults and/or peers and it would usually be dismissed as "oh she's just at an age where she wants to be rebellious for the sake of it, she just wants to defy adults for fun because she's at that age" and that logic was used to dismiss it.

Likewise the same logic was being applied to kids, I'm talking especially privilged kids like the white kids and the boys especially the cishet boys, with budding cruelty that was a result of unchecked privilege. Like boys being grossly misogynistic and homophobic, "oh he just wants to be rebellious and piss off adults, it's fine". Do you see the issue of brushing the behavior of marginalized kids who are developing a sense of justice with the same stroke of privileged kids being cruel and bigoted? Oh that they're both just being rebellious and trying to get a rise out of you and it's fine just ignore it don't try to actually address it or do anything about it?

I think kids and especially teens usually have more complicated reasons being their behavior than "oh it's hard wired into their biology that they just HAVE to be defiant for the sake of it at that age" and using that logic prevents adults from actually having to think about and address the root of their behavior.

It also lets adults off the hook from actually having to do something about dangerous behaviors kids and especially teens do, like binge drinking until they have to be hospitalized. "Yeah it's just normal and natural because they have to be rebellious and make stupid decisions at that age, it's just hard wired into their brains that they gotta" is just fucking lazy. When I was at that age I understood drinking until I blacked out and needed to be taken to the hospital was bad and should be avoided because adults in my life had taken the time to explain to me it was bad. I was actually capable of rationalizing "hmm, alcoholism and alcohol poisoning are bad and I should avoid those things" and being warned against it did not tempt me to go out and drink dangerous amounts. Why the fuck would it? That makes no god damn sense and is just a lazy excuse not to actually teach kids better in a way they can understand.

Also I mean sure, part of it is laziness, but I also think some adults are so scared of looking like the buzzkill killjoy to young people because they're afraid of aging and actually having to look like a grownup. A lot of this is our culture's worship of youth and demonization of aging, so a lot of people are really scared of looking "out of touch" from the youth and really want to look like the cool hip understanding adult.

But also part of this is privileged adults wanting to protect the behavior of privileged kids. Just rebranded "boys will be boys" if you will. Of course an adult man is going to say "oh come on he's just a teen, teens are gonna be stupid and want to break the rules" about a teenage boy behaving in a reckless and cruel way. Of course white adults are going to say this about white kids behaving in a reckless and cruel way. They got away with it when they were teens so of course they want the same for today's youth who share their privilege.

And finally, FINALLY! having it spread out on the bed atop a dark contrasting color enabled me to see just what was so wrong that it was abandoned to the thrift:

Ch8 and join to make ring.

Into ring, Ch5, (tc, ch2)x7, sl st into 3rd chain of ch5 to join [8 tc spokes]

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, (3tc into sp, tc into tc) around, 3tc into sp, sl st to join [32 tc]

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, tc in next 3 st, ch2, (2tc in 1 st, tc in each of next 3 st, ch2) around. Sl st to join top of 1st ch/tc. [8 repeats

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, tc in next st, ch1, 5tc in same st, sl st back through ch1 just made, tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2, (2tc in tc, tc, ch1, 5tc in 1 st, sl st back around ch1 just made, tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2) around, sl st to join [8 repeats]

***that was a weird row, here’s a top view of one of those 5tc bobbles to show how you connect back to that ch1 behind the 5tc to force them to puff out

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, tc in next 2 st, tc into joining st behind the top of the 5tc bobble, tc in next 2 st, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2, (2tc in same st, tc into joining st behibd bobble, tc in next 2 st, 2 tc in last st before ch so, ch 2) around, join

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, tc, ch, 5tc bobble, join around ch1 behind, tc in next 3 st, ch, 5tc bobble, join around ch1 behind, tc, 2tc in last st before ch so, ch2, (2tc in same st, tc, ch1, bobble, join, 3tc, ch1, bobble, join, tc, 2tc in same st, ch2) around, join.

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, 2tc, tc in bobblejoin st, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin st, 2tc, 2tc in last st before ch so, ch2, (2tc in same st, 2tc, tc in bobblejoin, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin, 2tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2) around, join.

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, 3tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, 3tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch 2, (2 tc in same st, tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, 3tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, 3tc, ch1, 5tc bobble, join, tc, 2tc in last ch before ch sp, ch2) around, join.

Ch4 or chainless starting tc, tc in same st, 2tc, tc in bobblejoin, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin, 2tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2, (2tc in same st, 2tc, tc into bobblejoin, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin, 3tc, tc in bobblejoin, 2tc, 2tc in last st before ch sp, ch2) around, join

That’s the most of it. I need to stare at the triangle bits to sort out how they attach and how many stitches and such, but I am Le Tired

This bitch

A) remind me and I will look at it, whilst better rested and under better light

2) I write all the above straight to post without double checking or edits. If my abbreviations don’t make sense lmk. If I have egregious typos lmk. If anybuggy does a test make by following these instruction, I would dearly like to see it!

this is what i got by following it as you wrote- i did use US dc for the main body since they seem to match the height in the photos a little more, but kept the US tc for the bobbles to make them puff out more

going by the photos, it almost looks like they attached entirely new strands of yarn for the triangles/lacy bits, but that didn't seem right based on how fiddly it would be (especially for a blanket) or based on how it's coming apart, so instead i tried doubling back with chains, tc, and sc to create it

so for mine the last round was:

ch 3 or chainless starting dc, dc 1 in same sp, dc 13, 2dc in last st before ch sp, ch 2, (2dc in same st, dc 2, place marker, [dc 5, place marker] x 2, ch 4, turn, tc 1 in 2nd marked/center st, ch 8, tc 1 in same st as previous tc, ch 4, sl st to 1st marked st, ch 1, turn, sc 1 in top of same st as sl st, sc 4 in ch4 sp, sk tc, [sc 5, ch 3, sc 5] in ch8 sp, sk tc, sc 4 in ch4 sp, sc 1 in last marked st, dc 1, 2dc in last st before ch sp, ch 2, 2dc in same st, dc 13, 2dc in last st before ch sp, ch 2) around

(separated out for readability since that was a block of text)

You can do it

You can be people who create also, the magic is inside you

If your magic requires permission for activation purposes, I provide that now. Proof! It is I, your fairy craftmother, activating in you the ability to go fuck around with stuff and learn from all the things that go wrong, and keep trying things, and watch other people make things and ask them questions sometimes too, so that you can learn from their shit, and just.

Jay & Silent Bob: Jays of Future Past #1 (2026)

Article reads:

These rules often exist for very good reason. Many people are afraid of or have anxiety over dogs. Fears and phobias of dogs are far more common than you might realize, and it's easier to trigger that fear/anxiety/phobia of your dog if they're off a leash.

It's also especially dangerous in areas where meeting a horse is a possibility. A dog scaring a human but not doing anything will only result in a scare. A dog scaring a horse can lead to injuries.

You also don't know how someone else's dog could react. Growing up I had a German shepherd, and I loved that dog with my whole heart, but she was a rescue and very clearly had some history because from the moment we got her, she was extremely suspicious of strangers and other dogs. I did my best to train her to manage that fear, and we got to a point where she did alright around other dogs that kept their distance, minded their business, or approached respectfully.

I cannot tell you how many times we abruptly encountered an off leash dog that came darting over and wanted to be up in her business. Little dogs. Dogs that absolutely, no way in heck, were going to win a fight with a German shepherd. Some of them were just doing it to be friendly! But it got to the point where I was afraid to walk her by myself because I was worried about encountering an off leash dog that would finally push her far enough that she felt the need to defend herself. I always had to have someone else come with me to ward off any unleashed dog that approached because even if that dog was friendly, mine was not, and while I knew how to handle her fear in a controlled situation (such as with another leashed dog passing by), off leash dogs could take a situation that was under control and rapidly turn it into one that wasn't. And I was aware of her fear and actively working on training her regarding it. Many dog owners are not.

If you are using a retractable leash this applies to how long you let the retractable leash get when there are people and/or other animals around. You need to keep the retractable leash relatively short if there are other people and animals around. Do let let the retractable leash stay at maximum length so that your dog can get to other people or animals if there are other people and animals around.

I was just walking the little chihuahua I'm dogsitting, and someone with a much larger dog was out walking their dog at the same time, and they let the leash stay at maximum length so that the dog could have gotten to my dog, to the point of where I had to pick her up to keep this other dog from getting to her. The other people made no effort to lock or shorten the leash or keep their dog back in any way, they just kinda stood there staring and not doing anything.

This is exactly why you keep your dog on a normal leash, and why I find retractable leashes to be irresponsible and dangerous. What if I'd had a dog or a small child with me?

Please respect the no dogs rules in national parks and fragile wilderness areas. Those rules are in place to protect threatened wildlife(birds, marmots etc) The mere presence of a dog can make wildlife retreat from these areas because of the smell of the pet alone.

A dog can be a significant risk of triggering a bear or cougar attack. Specifically off leash dogs have been involved in half of bear attacks against humans in the United States over the course of a 3 year study period. You are making yourself and your dog safer by simply having them on leash. (And just because you are in a town does not mean you are safe from bears, in 2022 a woman was attacked while walking her dog in her town by a black bear with cubs) The overall point is that in bear country you are not safer with a dog and in fact you want to be more vigilant about bear safety when you take your dog out.

Dogs are also injured and even killed regularly by mountain goats on trails. These cases are almost always off leash dogs

Most dog friendly hiking trails require a dog to be leashed unless it is expressly stated that off leash is allowed (even then I do not recommend it)

Dogs do not have right of way on most hiking trails. On hiking and walking trails it is generally the job of a dog owner to get to the side of a trail and allow others to pass as needed. It's important to have your dog under control in these tight situations.

Dogs are not wild animals, they do not have the same instincts as a wolf. They cannot properly defend themselves against wildlife, and they can also aggravate wildlife to the point of a serious attack(raccoons, cougars, bears, coyotes and eagles all see your dog as valid prey)

Be mindful of your dog in outdoor spaces, even if there are no other people around, it is best for your safety as well as the safety of your furry friend.

I say all of this because I have seen the impacts off all of the above. I have seen dogs get lost and injured because they were off leash outdoors. I have seen ptarmigan chicks get separated from their mother because a dog was on a national park trail. I have seen dogs get injured by mountain goats, I have known people who have been nipped at and bit while trying to go on a hike on trails where off leash is not allowed. It is safest for you, your dog, wildlife, and other people to keep your pet leashed.

BABY EAGLES IN CHICAGO!

Last week, the Trump administration quietly released a sweeping new federal rule that would use funding threats to force institutions across the country to reject transgender people. The 400-page proposed regulation would codify the administration's anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward "gender ideology"

The proposed rule, formally titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a "pre-issuance review" conducted by a political appointee—not a career expert or peer reviewer—to ensure it is "consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for "denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic." [...] An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist—through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes—could be deemed to "deny the sex binary" or to “support the notion that sex is mutable” and have its federal funding blocked.

This torches everything. And I do mean everything.

A very abbreviated list of its ramifications include (but are not limited to):

ending funding for ALL DEI related initiatives

allowing the government to terminate grants at any point for any reason

preventing researchers from publishing, going to conferences, and being part of academic societies

requiring that topics must support the president’s agenda.

What this means, and if anything I’m under selling it, is the death of science and research in America. It allows the government to restrict any topic they please at a whims notice, putting officials who have no background in the topic in charge of deciding funding continuity. It controls what gets researched and if/how researchers are allowed to share their discoveries. There are no books to burn if the government never allows them to be written. This is fascism plain and simple.

Public comments are not a vote, it is a chance for you to say "here is an issue with this law I think you need to address" and provide justification for legal challenges if it goes forward:

"Comments raise the bar that agencies have to meet when making a rule; “if an agency fails to adequately respond to significant, relevant comments in a final rule, members of the public may seek to challenge the rule in court on that basis and claim it could be struck down.ˮ"