Seattle Yogini

New Socks

I finished up a pair of socks a week or so ago, which of course meant that I cast on for a new pair a couple of days ago.

The completed pair are "Go With the Flow Socks" by Evelyn A. Clark (from Favorite Socks).  I used Cherry Tree Hill Supersock Merino in "Mulberry" and size US 1/2.25mm needles.  I liked making these socks a lot, though I found the yarn a teensy bit splitty, which was annoying.  The pattern was easy to memorize, which made them a fun and interesting take-along project.  I have quite a bit of it leftover (I have small feet) so I'll probably be able to make a pair or two of baby socks with the remainder.  The socks fit well, and I'm very pleased with them:

Since I am a member of the Yarn Pirate's "Booty Club", I get new sock yarn every month.  I think I joined almost a year ago, because there are at least eight skeins of fabulous sock yarn lying around here and there (I just discovered more when moving the stash the other day).  I decided to put some of it to use (the last time I used any was for the Snow on Cedars mitts) for a new pair of socks.

I chose the "Jaywalker" pattern by Grumperina and went ahead with the recommended size US 1/2.25mm needles.  Within a couple of pattern repeats I had the zig-zag memorized, so I've been happily knitting away for a couple of days (most recently, while with my husband at REI...snork).

Today I decided I'd knit enough to check the gauge, and make sure that I could get them on.  The results?

Ummmm, the gauge is a bit "off" - hahaha.  My gauge is 32 sts/4", and the pattern calls for 38 sts/4".  Oopsies!  The zig-zag pattern does not create much give, either, and as you can see above I couldn't even manage to get the tube around the angle of my ankle.  Oh, well.  Back to the needle case!  I'm thinking I'll just skip the size US 1/2.5mm and jump ahead up to the comparatively gigantic US 2/2.75mm and just see what happens.  I'm enjoying the knit, and watching how the colors play out (I was excited that the pink was making a diagonal stripe).  It'll be cool to see what a difference in color patterning the bigger gauge makes.  I'll keep you posted!

How bad is Bad? or: Am I a "Vet" or a "Combat Vet"?

Last Friday I had the pleasure of speaking on the radio for the first time.  I was invited as a guest on "The Ron and Don Show" (AM710 in the Seattle area).  They wanted me to talk about my work with yoga for veterans and my upcoming workshop, "Finding Peace in the Chaos".  It was a great opportunity to get the word out in my community, and I had a good time.  If you'd like to hear it (without commercials!) follow this link.  It was the Friday, June 13 show, 4:00 - 5:00 hour.

It was also a very thought-provoking experience.  Right off the bat they asked a question that some can answer with a simple "yes" or "no" but that I feel compelled to explain - or rather, to put in context.  They wanted to know if I am a "combat vet".  I find this a challenging question because it really depends upon the questioner's definition of the term.  There is the official definition of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and then there is the general perception of the U.S. population and/or whatever the media is currently saying.

For me, this simple question holds within it many more questions which function as an equation, of sorts:

Was I in a combat zone?                                            yes
Was I shot at?                                                           no
Was I afraid for my life?                                              yes
Was I afraid for the life of "my men"?                           yes
Did I fire my sidearm?                                                no, I wasn't issued one
Did I have to wear my flak vest, helmet, gas mask?     yes, sometimes
Did I see anyone die?                                               not in person (it's complicated)

What do these answers add up to?  A simple yes, or a simple no?  As a vet, and considering the Big Conversations this question provoked for my husband and me (we both served in the air campaign part of the war - not the on-going occupation) I think it really depends upon whom you ask. I've heard stories about young vets almost getting chased out of the VFW by Vietnam vets, if they're true then I've no doubt that there are vets from other conflicts that might argue that I hardly even qualify as a vet.  Others would tell you that anyone who served during a conflict - no matter where they were of if they were actually "in combat" - is a vet, combat or not.  Of course, there are also any number of answers in between.

I do not want to misrepresent myself.  I answered yes, because I feel that I am, in fact, a combat vet.  We could argue the finer points, though I have no desire to argue.  I felt the burden of keeping my pilots out of harm's way.  I saw the footage of their bombs making contact, I felt the relief each time a jet landed safely back on our airstrip.  We suffered no casualties.  We were not bombed.  We had no idea what to expect, which was very frightening.  We rode to work in a bus with tinted windows...which weren't for sun protection, if you know what I mean.  Men drove by us shaking their machine guns at us.

I feel that questions such as this are covering up a different, more probing question:  "How bad was 'bad'"?  As if being a veteran of war weren't a "bad" enough experience, many inquisitive people want detail.  Over the last five years, I've been asked a number of odd questions surrounding my military experience, and always I am left wondering:

-  Is the question actually a way to titillate one's own imagination (much in the way that some people want the gory details of sensational news stories)?
-  Do people want to differentiate between combat and "simply" vet in order to better understand me and my comrades?
-  Do people want to really know, or do they want a Coppola-esque tale woven for them?

I answered "yes" and proceeded with the interview non-plussed.  I am thankful for the chance to come to terms with this issue, which I didn't even realize I needed to clarify.  As I said, I do not wish to misrepresent myself, and while overall I feel comfortable with my answer I am not sure that I could answer so simply in the future.

Added to Edit:  When I say "bad" here, I am not referring to people being "bad", but rather to a bad situation/experience.  Just wanted to clarify that.

The Best Bad News I've Ever Had

So today, finally, we got to see the "specialist" (OB/GYN).  We were waiting to see the same doctor who treated me last time.  We had many questions from our Memorial Day weekend ER experiences, the biggest one being:  was it an another ectopic or not?  We knew that my body had resolved the pregnancy, but we wanted to know if the blob near my right ovary, which we saw on ultrasound, was embryonic or not.

Ahhhh, the difference between seeing a general practitioner in the ER and someone who specializes in your innards.  He asked us what had happened, how I am today, etc.  He asked if we had any questions, and we started in...I referenced the ultrasound and he looked a bit surprised.  Not surprised that I was asking, but surprised because to him it was a non-issue.  He said, basically, "Oh.  That just looked like what you would expect to see so early in a pregnancy - a corpus luteum."  This is what pumps pregnancy-sustaining hormones into the body until the placenta is mature enough to assume that function.  He manner exuded "Nothing to worry about there" which was so wonderful!  "So," I proceed, "is there reason to believe this was a proper intra-uterine pregnancy"?  I try not to bite my lip as I wait the nanosecond it takes him to reply.

"No, no reason.  It looks like it was intra-uterine and something just went awry very early."  He went on to talk about how common this is, that when the cells multiply and copy their DNA to the next cell, if a teeny bit of it is wrong the body is likely to pick up on that and stop the pregnancy.  In essence, while the loss is a blow, the fact that my body did its job properly is heartening.  Another thing he pointed out, which I believe that those of us trying to conceive would do well to really hear, is that early pregnancy testing can put us in a difficult position.  In the blink of an eye we go from "I tested positive!" to "I'm having a baby!" when, frankly, that might not be the likeliest outcome.  His was an objective perspective of a very subjective moment, but I think that for me, at least, tempering my enthusiasm until the cells really are a baby will be a good practice in the future.  I am an optimist, but also a realist, and while I hope for the best for future pregnancies, I know that there's a lot that needs to happen just right in order to go from two blue lines to ten sweet fingers.

Still, his statement was like the heavens opened up and angels sang to me.  As far as we were concerned this was the best news we could get, under the circumstances.  Nothing can change the fact that the pregnancy was lost...but knowing that it was at least in the right place this time, that we can conceive (even when I ovulate on the "suspect" side), and he topped it off with reassuring us that just because I had one ectopic does not mean I ever will again.  Statistically, I am more susceptible, you could say, but he said that lots of women have an ectopic early in their reproductive years and never have another one again.
So, basically, today we got the best bad news I've ever had, and we were relieved to hear it.