Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Guess the tree can't count its blessings anymore.
Guess the tree can't count its blessings anymore.89 rings.. and not one tweet?Not a smart tree.
One less tree in the Arb.
Althouse is pining away this week.
That pic reminds me of the mystery man at the mystery gothic farm at the end of a 500 mile non-stop high speed Meade run from Madison.Her concerned commenters quickly figured out her Cincinnati location, but they could not stop the runaway Professor.
Looks like Meade then proceeded to tip the Mrs over and count her rings.I'm betting 39.
Yesterday fit and fiddle, that tree never had a chance. Now a remnant, a log that never saw it coming. Lying out for the elements, one last look at the life what came by. Like the two-legged critter counting his rings exposed...
At the Petrified Forest in AZ last week, saw beautiful trees become stones. Some are polished into jewels, others remain as fallen sentinels, their ancient rings recording seasons long forgotten.
Do you count the rings from the center outwardly or from outside to the center? This is a scientific inquiry. I could never get very far with confidence and the final count was always dodgy. I've given up on tree ring counting.
This is like that scene in Vertigo, when Madeleine traces the tree rings."Somewhere in here I was born. And there I died. It was only a moment for you, you took no notice."Althouse, don't let Meade go into the bell tower.
Next Meade will count the number of toes on a dead spotted owl, and how long the tail feathers are on the bald eagle he killed.
Nicely cut. I'm guessing Oak. I have seen more timber piles and log trucks in south central Wisconsin lately than I have for a long time. The open winter made it easier to get in the woods. Firewood piles, usually depleted by March, are at record heights.
I girdled a black locust Sunday.You don't get to count the rings. As I recall it will leaf out this summer but have an early autumn, and then become home to bugs and woodpeckers.That's if it doesn't heal over, which black locusts are sometimes able to do.
Tree rings and stumps.This year's election is pivotal.We must stem the tide of liberalism that threatens to crumble the foundation of this country.
I offer this quote to all of the progressives/liberals out there and ask you to thoughtfully consider:“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay any claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”Calvin Coolidge – July 5, 1926
Meade: "See, there was a Medieval Warm Period!"Ann: "Ugh, Moors and Goths in shorts"
That's a tree ring circus!@yasha: Yes! That's what all us literary types thought!
If the government can make you buy health insurance, and can require it to cover contraceptives, Why can't they also mandate that women must take contraceptives?Can they also demand women have abortions, because 'you have enough children already', or because the State feels it cannot afford another life on its overburdened health roster?Why not? Being alive is already participating in commerce, by their thinking, so they can now quite easily regulate life itself.Whether by desired number or allotted special class, they can now do so.And why not force a pregnancy for needed parts, or just for stem cells?We're all commodities now.
Agreed, Pogo. Once the government has decided to involve itself in healthcare, there is no activity that the government won't eventually try to restrict in order to "reduce costs." And I thought it was ridiculous to mandate helmets for motorcyclists. Only the start.
89 years ago was 1923.Who the hell remembers what happened in 1923?I guess the tree does.
Once the government has decided to involve itself in healthcare, there is no activity that the government won't eventually try to restrict Actually, I think it all started when Uncle Sam decided to ban folks from ingesting an all-natural/non-poisonous plant.Once ya start beleiving that illegal gardeners should be locked up in prison then anything else is possible...
ctually, I think it all started when Uncle Sam decided to ban folks from ingesting an all-natural/non-poisonous plant.It started with a tax on whiskey.Unintended consequences?A moonshiner in the 30s decides to defend himself with a sawed off shotgun.We then have the United States vs Miller. One side doesn't even show up and the Supremes get to decide what constitutes an acceptable militia weapon. The federal agency in charge of taxing tobacco and spirits now gets to regulate firearms.Now go smoke a bowl.
Then you agree that the government has overreached here, purple?And that Obamacare should therefore be repealed?
Then you agree that the government has overreached here, purple?I've been saying for years that the mandate-to-buy-insurance is an improper use of gov't power.How long have you been saying that the War on (some) Drugs is an overreach?
Close to 90% of that tree's lifespan was during a time when adult women actually looked like adult women.
So, that means you will vote against Obama, right?Or don't you really mean what you have long been saying?
See, I think you're really only a drug libertarian, meaning you'll violate all other princliples of liberty in the hopes that the most statist administration in American history will finally free you to smoke pot without committing a crime, all other freedoms be damned.
So, that means you will vote against Obama, right? Or don't you really mean what you have long been saying?Why do you keep asking me more questions when you didn't even address both of mine? Kinda selfish, no? Anywhos, I thought that my comments (on here and elsewhere) have made my feelings about Obama clear but I guess there is still some confusion on your part. I didn't vote for him before and I disagree with much of what he has done since being elected. If the election was held today I would not vote for our current President, and it would take a LOT for him to earn my vote by next November.
So, Nader, am I right?
No, like most of your assumptions about me you're not right about that either.Why do you keep asking me more questions when you don't even address the questions asked of you? Are you this selfish of a person overall or just when having discussions with others?Your personal attacks aside, I'm still trying to treat you with respect and dignity. Is it really too much to ask that you return the favor?
I do not accord leftism much respect, as it accords me none.And if you're not a leftist, I apologize, but damn, you do a really good imitation.The only question you asked me is if I supported the WOD, which I find disingenuous, implying as it does that one must be against all state intervention if decrying it at all.
And if you're not a leftist, I apologize, but damn, you do a really good imitation.Ain't the first time I've been mislabeled...won't be the last.I'm curious tho; other than being opposed to the collective bargaining ban what exactly leads you to beleive I'm an Obama supporter? 'cause I've been clear...on this blog and elsewhere...about my feelings in regard to him.The only question you asked me is if I supported the WOD, which I find disingenuous, implying as it does that one must be against all state intervention if decrying it at all.Funny you should say that...'cause you implied that I supported Obama, which I kinda found disingenuous, implying at it does that one must be in favor of all of those on the left if sharing a couple opinions with the left.Guess we got something in common afterall, eh? :D
Post a Comment