Different Styles of Embroidery

Embroidery involves every kind of decorative work done using a stitching needle. This work is normally done on various types of fabrics such as satin, canvas and more. Embroiders are known for their inventiveness. But for you to provide the best embroidery results you require special skills to help you produce excellent piece of art. You should be able to experiment different embroidery styles and continue to create astounding work of art. A good embroider is one who is able to mix different styles of embroidery in a creative way. Most of the existing embroidery styles originated from the prevailing stitches that were used in the early times. Others acquired their names from their places of origin. For instance, the "Berlin Wool Work" originated from Berlin.

However, it is rather difficult to different between various styles of embroidery because some styles have different names. This makes it hard for you to find the exact type of embroidery you want. For instance, pulled thread and hardanger are known to mean the same thing. You can also use a single embroidery style to produce various designs. For example, you can create both the flat and relief effects using one embroidery style. In short, virtually all effects needed can be created using embroidery. These effects include fancy stitches, baubles, and more. Embroidery is certainly among the most flexible crafts ever discovered by man. If you want to succeed in your embroidery carrier, you should acquaint yourself with knowledge of the existing styles of embroidery. The following are some of the most common styles of embroidery today:

Alphabet style embroidery: This style was initially used to blot household linen and personalize handmade presents. This style mostly utilizes paddling stitches and a smooth layer of leveled stitches to create an elevated embroidery effect.

Applique: This style takes a pattern of a single fabric, placed on another which creates the ground. The edge of the pattern can either be sewed over or decorated with a beautiful cord. This style can be used to decorate a wide range of fabrics especially when you are designing your fashion accessories such as hats, and other head dresses.

Arrasene style: This embroidery style was extremely popular back in the Victorian times. It was first used in the year 1883 in the production of artistic items. Many people believed that this style would supersede other embroidery styles especially those used in creating bold designs. This style somewhat resembles the superior Chenile and normally comes in a variety of fabrics including silk, wool, and more.

When it comes to choosing the best style of embroidery, you should make sure to pick a style that suits your level of experience. It should also be in line with the kind of needlework being done. This means that you have to consider the purpose of your embroidery. It is also imperative to consider the recipient of your needlework. Before you even start searching for the best style of embroidery, you should take time to consider the kind of image you intend to embroider. Make sure that you have the ability to complete the images effectively.

Political Mirroring Techniques, Mass Media Propaganda, And Seventh Grade Debating Tactics

Recently, there have been two interesting comments by President Obama in the same week as he starts his political re-election campaign. First, he stated that he was confident that the Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare and stated that the Supreme Court ought not "legislate from the bench" and he also stated that the GOP budge was that of "rightist radicals," so basically, whatever the political opposition says, Obama says the exact opposite back at them, as if holding up a mirror. It's an old juvenile debating trick - in fact, I think I learned that one in the Junior High debating class actually?

Interestingly enough, you know who else does this extremely well - Ahmadinejad in Iran. He does it with everything, no matter what anyone says about his actions, he says the same thing about his opponents. When the US says it has been testing a better bunker buster, he puts out a news release that he has a new anti-aircraft missile, high-speed underwater torpedo, indigenous built fifth generation stealth fighter, or is planning new war games in the Straits of Hormuz.

You know who else does well at this mirroring political rhetoric - Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, he also does it all the time, it must drive his opponents nuts, I bet? Indeed, the best way to get false leaders to stop playing these childish games is really simple. Call them on it, and state in the media that this is a false-debating point, mirroring trick and that those who are unfit to lead use it early and often to deflect their own leadership failures. Once everyone sees through it, it no longer works in the media. Once you take a mega-phone, teleprompter, sounding board, soap box, or media from such a leader, everyone just stops listening.

You see, here is the deal - first, the President of the United States and leader of the Free World has a responsibility to answer for his actions, and failures. Blaming others isn't going to be enough anymore, we need leadership. Our country is too important to avoid questions and deflect responsibility. Whereas, other leaders of the world may get away with it for a short period, it does not belong here, we are better than that, and we need a leader who can stand above it all and lead.

If we reduce the responsibilities of the Oval Office to mere sound bites and media "gotchas" we are no better than the rest, in that case our commander in chief has forfeited our right to lead here and we've forfeited our right to lead abroad. Please consider all this and think on it.

Are Young and Stupid People in Better Shape Because They Are Dumb and Inefficient?

The other day, I was at Starbucks I was talking to someone and we were observing a couple of folks who came into the store. One of them said that they forgot something, and they ran out the door, ran to their car, and then ran back, it appeared to have been there Starbucks card. The person I was talking to said; "how do people like that stay so thin?" It's not that my acquaintance was overweight, he just wasn't as wiry, forgetful, or skinny as the group which just came in.

In considering what just happened, I made a funny comment; "maybe because they are scatterbrained, they keep forgetting what they're doing, and it takes them multiple trips to get anything accomplished, so they are running around spinning their wheels all the time, and all that extra exercise is keeping their fat off." Of course, I was just joking, but then we got to thinking about it, maybe that did have something to do with it. Wouldn't that be funny? For instance, this new theory my goes something like this;

Smart people combine trips - Dumb people don't

Thus, spinning your wheels might have advantages in that case, namely they will never get diabetes, because they will be running around in circles trying to get anything done, and therefore stay in shape. I know that sounds hilarious, but there might actually be something to it? People that have to carry around extra weight would simply get too tired if they had to make multiple trips all the time, so therefore they work very hard to remember what they are doing, to combine trips.

Super Intelligent people probably don't have to make a lot of lists because they can easily remember what they are doing without bothering to write it down. Therefore they move around less, probably spend more energy running their brain than their mouths or feet in this case. It's an interesting study, however when I went on to Google scholar, I couldn't find any research on this topic. Nevertheless, it does make sense.

It would also coincide with youthful vigor and older wisdom - for instance, young offspring would need to be very fidgety, fast-moving, and skinny and somewhat athletic to make up for their mistakes, otherwise the saber tooth tiger would have eaten them, in which case their offspring would not have survived, because they wouldn't have never been born. Whereas, the ancient "older person" people in the group who may have moved slower, had to be more strategic, and pay more attention, because he or she knew they couldn't run faster than the saber toothed tiger, or faster than the younger generation, therefore being the slowest amongst their human group, and becoming lunch.

Thus, this reality could actually be explained through the evolutionary process and the sub theory of; "survival of the fittest," and, I will leave you with that thought. Please consider all this and think on it.

Global Warming Theory May Not Be All That Global - A Concept After All, Say NASA Insiders

A few weeks ago, I was talking to an interesting fellow who told me that the theory concerning global warming had already been proven, and that NASA even said it was so. In case you are unfamiliar with the exact definition of "global Warming theory" it states in essence that the ambient temperatures of Earth are heating up due to mankind's emissions of green house gases and specifically CO2. But actually this isn't so. Why you ask?

Simple, mankind's CO2 emissions barely account for 2.5% of all the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, the rest comes from nature. Now then, in case you also believe that this theory has been settled and proven, and approved by NASA as fact, well, you might be surprised to learn the reality on that. You see, there was an interesting feature article on CFACT (dot) org online news recently titled; "Astronauts and scientists send letter to NASA: Stop global warming advocacy," which stated;

"Joint letter from 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts to the current NASA Administrator blasts agency's policy of ignoring empirical evidence about global warming," and the letter "admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question,"

The letter was written to NASA's Chief Bolton on March 28, 2012 and you can read a full excerpt online. Now then, one comment that seems to stand out is this; "There's a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA's current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust."

Well, I'd say that it is too late to save NASA's reputation, in my mind, and realize I operate a think tank which is online, personally, I can no longer trust NASA's research and question any and all information coming from the agency now. That's not to say I don't trust NASA more than I trust the Obama Administration for instance, obviously that would be a no-brainer hands-down contest in favor of NASA (again my personal opinion), but still, you get the point, the credibility of the agency is shot in my mind.

Obviously, if there are this many NASA insiders speaking out, there must be more. I would submit to you that the scientific community has been hijacked, and now the backlash is coming - I'd say it's overdue. Please consider all this and think on it.

"In The Beginning": Why?

The most famous of all mythological creations starts off with the sentence in the Old Testament, Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Now maybe we invented the concept of creations in order to give our gods something to actually do. Unfortunately, say in the case of God and Genesis that peters out after just six days! Now what? Anyway, back to Genesis 1:1.

Now I don't know who actually wrote Genesis 1:1, it certainly wasn't a supernatural all-powerful, all-knowing, deity. Whoever it was however possessed knowledge that you wouldn't assume upon reflection to have been knowable or even suspected way back then. Now that someone who wrote Genesis 1:1 had no right to know these things, that heaven (the sky and beyond) and Earth were created, yet they did know these things. Now that suggests that somebody else who knew these things, informed the Genesis 1:1 author. If you believe in time travel, perhaps we of the 21st century (or later) who know better, travelled back in time and told him (or her), though that's unlikely in the extreme. That someone else probably wasn't terrestrial.

Now every cultural mythology has a creation story or stories, and that shouldn't be the case based on first hand human observation. If you are going to propose an "in the beginning" scenario it should be based on your personal observations and understandings of the natural world as you view it, or on historical records. So something is slightly funny here since presumably it's the same humans who shouldn't suspect any such thing as creation that in fact wrote all those creation mythologies! And these creations are all unique one-off creations. God only gave 'birth' to Adam and Eve (or humanity) once. So, it's unique (one-off) creation mythologies, like Genesis 1:1 that are puzzling, not creations per say, like say the birth of your cat. A birth, a dawn, etc. maybe a creation of sorts, but it's not a unique creation. It's not a one-off Big Bang "In the beginning", beginning.

Could you, in your day-to-day observations of the heavens and the earth (or life the Universe and everything) assume anything other than both heaven and earth have always existed? The heavens are that which exists above our heads; the earth that which exists below our feet. Since there's no human who has ever lived who can't attribute knowledge of the heavens above and the earth below; that can't verify any animal or plant species popping into existence in their time and place, what need for creation? Perhaps Genesis 1:1 should have been written "From the infinite beginnings God just enjoyed overseeing the eternal heavens and earth and directing the events that unfolded on them." To our historical ancestors, that actually should have made more sense.

It's often easier, as in the above invented quotation, to accept something has always been and always will be than to try to explain how it came to be in the first place, especially if it is not all that obvious that it (whatever you're interested in) ever needed to come to be in the first place.

Whatever you are interested in comes in standard forms. There are various creations in mythology that are fairly universal.

Creation of the Universe is a case in point; those stationary points of lights in the night sky - the stars. Now the fact that the patterns in the night sky don't alter from your birth to your death, and haven't altered from historical records, suggest something unchanging, and therefore without need of a beginning or a creation.

Creation of the heavens involves those moving points of lights in the night sky - the Sun, Moon and planets. The problem here is that they endlessly repeat; move around and around in circles. In fact, if you consider a circle, or an ellipse, where is its starting point?

Creation of the Earth is a universal myth, yet equally universal is the fact that there is no human record or observation anywhere, anytime, that Terra Firma didn't exist.

Creation and separation of the land, the sea and the sky is another near universal tale, yet the same objection holds - all personal observations and historical records note and log all three, so why not assume the separate land/sea/sky interface has always been?

Creation of your territory or nation is another case in point. The Japanese have a mythology that accounts for the creation of Japan, yet no humans were around when Japan was 'created' by various natural geological forces.

Creation of life is another part of the Genesis creation story, but one hardly unique to the Old Testament. You may have had a sequence of pets, say cats. Individual cats are born, and they die, but the concept of cats collectively goes back and back and back as early as the earliest of human records. So, why is there a need for God (or any other deity or natural process for that matter) to create cats? Haven't cats always existed?

Creation of humans by God (or in other cultures the gods) is also puzzling since there was never a time when, in historical records, it is recorded that a human being (who could be verified as an actual historical figure) was aware that they were the first human being and therefore human beings were created.

The need for mythology isn't all that difficult to explain but creation mythology is difficult to explain since eyewitness testimony suggests that how things are is how they always have been. At the heart of this mystery is the concept of infinity. You have a personal beginning and an ending, but you can't really conceive of THE BEGINNING or THE END. That's because of that nagging question that always pops up, "well what came before that" and "what happens after that" - cause and effect; endlessly; cause and effect. It's not difficult to keep extrapolating back and back and back in time without running out of 'back'. It's not difficult to keep extrapolating forward and forward and forward in time without running out of 'forward'.

INFINITY: Your personal observations require things to be ongoing in a linear sense (no beginning; no end) or cyclic (round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows) - there's no alpha, no first cause, and no omega, no last effect - but there is ever ongoing causality in all things.

A sort of combination of the two infinities, birth - death, is that most fundamental of all observations, and it repeats and repeats and repeats. Any individual birth - death is linear and unique; but on the larger scale a birth gives rise to a death, but before that death there's another birth and the wheels just go around and around - different players; same scenario. So what need is there to propose a first birth; a first creation?

LINEAR INFINITY: From a past infinity, eventually arose your great, great grandparents; great grandparents; grandparents, parents, children; children's children; children's, children's children to a future infinity. No beginning, therefore no creation. Or, in the opening words of the TV show "Ben Casey": "Man; Woman; Birth: Death: Infinity".

CYCLIC INFINITY: Seasons are cyclic; sunrise/sunset ditto; phases of the Moon are also cyclic; the planets go round and round. No circle has a beginning, therefore no creation need apply.

Among the other great terrestrial cycles, not all obvious within a human lifespan or sometimes not obvious without scientific analysis, we have the rock cycle (compression - erosion); the water cycle (evaporation - precipitation); the carbon cycle (carbon dioxide - carbon + oxygen); the nitrogen cycle; and others as well.

CAUSALITY INFINITY: Cause and effect; everyday in every way you observe cause and effect. A cause is in turn the effect of a previous cause. An effect in turn causes something else to happen. So the words 'cause' and 'effect' are synonymous. Again, there cannot have been a first cause, nor a final effect.

If every record you consult, from your own memory to the memories of your elders to your elders' elders to all written and pictorial records, and you note, without exception, in that they all record that lions roam the plains of Africa, then you must assume that Africa always existed and that lions always roamed and did so on the plains of Africa. You have no evidence to the contrary. What logical reason do you have for assuming that wasn't always the case? So, what need for a creation mythology that creates lions, creates their roaming around abilities, and creates the plains and Africa for them to roam in? There's no pressing or obvious need to speculate that "in the beginning" a deity created Africa, the African plains for the deity's lions to roam in.

The solution is that while you can't come up with plausible creation stories, modern science can. Modern cosmology now tells of the 'in the beginning' Big Bang event. Darwin and palaeontologists tell us that once upon a time there were no lions, and geologists say that way back then there was no uniquely African continent, and climatologists note that there were no plains in Africa. Alas, creation mythologies predate modern science by thousands of years so we're back to square one. The answer lies elsewhere, but again still with those more knowledgeable than us. Those more knowledgeable, all those thousands of years ago were the 'gods', or IMHO advanced (modern scientists and then some) aliens. ET tells us about "in the beginnings" having boldly gone where our modern terrestrial scientists are only now just treading.

Now these 'gods' often take credit for some of those creations they had bugger-all to do with (like God of the Old Testament as related in the Book of Genesis). In many cases the creation tales are muddied because ancient humans, who ultimately were the scribes who penned down these stories as told by ET, couldn't, for example comprehend a Big Bang cosmology but could deal with a golden cosmic egg that hatched. Modern genetics was so much mumbo-jumbo but creating a woman out of a male rib, while mysterious, was in their ballpark of comprehension. Modern geology and plate tectonics would have been double-dutch to the ancient Japanese, but it made perfect sense for the original pair of their gods to stir the oceans with a spear and the salts that crystallised out at the tip became the first of the many Japanese islands, all created by their gods.

In summary: Could you, all by yourself, based on your lifelong observations, come up with a requirement that the Sun and Moon needed a creator? Or that the stars in the sky weren't really infinitely eternal but needed a creator? Or, those members of your own kind, human beings, weren't always around, and forever shall be around? There is nothing you observe, or that any of your ancestors observed, that could in any way lead you to postulate, identify and accept any ultimate "in the beginning(s)". If that's the case, then my 'ancient astronaut' ET scenario is an alternative and viable hypothesis.

Further reading:

Van Over, Raymond; Sun Songs: Creation Myths from Around the World; Mentor, New York; 1980.