Althouse: Spring wildflowers.

May 5, 2014

Spring wildflowers.

Dutchman's Breeches at 5 p.m. in Governor Nelson State Park.

22 comments:

Guildofcannonballs said...: So I like Metallica.

I understand, somewhat, differences in taste, yet cannot account for it with accuracy because the precision is to be determined too much; always.

That said great art is Mettalica Unforgiven 3, which encompasses the theme from The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly from guys that didn't in any way need to do it.

So the lack of need now is why I appreciate Mettalica, is my guess, more than most.

This extends to a hero of mine, the great William Frank Buckley Junior.

This man.

Wow.

Again, just wow.

This is a link to the Great Man William Frank Buckley Junior aka WFB aka Bill.

So I have this man's name in my online identity and I realize I suck.

What but the worst of cowards would try, even in attempting homage (because the attempt was deemed to fail immediately, with both precision and accuracy), but an idiot like me who believed "no press is bad press" or whatnot and some shit.

In any event, I will keep using the NOT QUITING/QUIETING un (me) Buckley.

The idea is people read "notquiteunBuckley" as Not Quieting Buckley" as the g in quieting is dropped.

So "not quite un Buckley" is that someone feels he is missing, not that he is missed.

Rob Long taught me that.

James Rosen taught me Journalism.

Stacy McCain blocked me and I hate him but he is basically Andrew Breitbart too.

Jeff Goldstein is so right it hurts him.

Mark Steyn is more than all the thoughts of mine, though I tried to get him to quit NR before he found better ground, linking so much, so often (gratuitously) to fucking Kathy fucking Shaidle.

I love everything about this woman's freedom and revelry except her slander and hatred of William Frank Buckley Junior.

So in the end, all I know is me and my emotions and thoughts are all not running as they should.

Steyn should apologize (heh) (heh) (heh) for linking someone who slandered and libeled (right?) Buckley. Shaidle should realize what a dumbass treasonous attention-grabber she wrote for WFB's death and R E F U C K I N G P E NT every word.

Then the credibility, in my eyes, is decent.

And we all lose.; 5/5/14, 9:49 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I think it is fair to say, WFB strove for a nice conversation.

He was able and ready to demolish but much more focused on understanding.

When confronting misunderstanding he understood why the misunderstanding occurs and acted on that in argument.; 5/5/14, 10:18 PM
Titus said...: These flowers are all over my parents farm.

Is it true it is illegal to pick them? And wood lilllies too?; 5/5/14, 10:19 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I was and am remiss regarding the song sacred Black:

Burn One Down.

This is a link I might regret Clint Singing long as I be singing Clint Black; 5/5/14, 11:10 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Nb3A_NO28

Meant to post that earlier.

Didn't haavve teh words.; 5/6/14, 12:06 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I've never doubted, not once, that certain people don't like the French Horn much as I.

Truth hurts.

It heals; but hurts first.; 5/6/14, 12:28 AM
Meade said...: "Is it true it is illegal to pick them?"

Only if you're a Republican.; 5/6/14, 8:14 AM
MadisonMan said...: Is it true it is illegal to pick them?

I can't imagine it would be -- they're not endangered, or anything.

The only plants that I know that are illegal to pick (as in uproot) in WI are ginseng and lady's slippers.; 5/6/14, 8:37 AM
kjbe said...: Is it true it is illegal to pick them?

Yes.

From the Wis. DNR website: Bruce Chevis and Jason Fritz with DNR's Bureau of Parks and Recreation respond: "In fact, it is illegal by Wisconsin Administrative Code to pick any flowers on state lands under the management of the Department of Natural Resources. This would include state parks, forests, trails and recreation areas, natural areas, and wildlife areas. With the millions of people that enjoy these areas each year, if even a small percentage pick flowers it would have a significant effect on the habitat.

"The reasons for prohibiting the cutting and removal of flowers (even dried flowers) are based on one of the basic reasons that we have state parks: to preserve natural flora, fauna, geological features, and archaeological/cultural sites to allow all our citizens the opportunity to observe, learn, and enjoy them now and in the future. Every flower cut down is one that the next park visitor will not be able to see and enjoy.

"Cutting dried flowers in the fall concerns us because many flowers will not drop their seeds until the fall or winter. Thus, a cut flower will reduce the number of flowers sprouting next spring. Also, readers should be aware that the roadsides within the boundaries of state properties are normally considered state property and the same "no cutting" rules apply. The state often spends significant time and funds to plant roadsides with wildflowers to increase natural beauty while reducing maintenance. Those flowers play important roles in our parks. And, as always, if readers have specific questions about a state property, they should contact that property directly. If in doubt, ask!"; 5/6/14, 10:08 AM
test said...: I'm very disappointed Meade has chosen not to explain why he applies different definitions of racism to Crack and conservatives.; 5/6/14, 11:18 AM
Meade said...: I don't apply different definitions of racism. Does that help?; 5/6/14, 11:39 AM
test said...: And yet you claimed Crack isn't racist because he doesn't believe any race is inferior to others. For that statement to be true racism must only mean believing a race is inferior to others.

And yet when you chided conservatives you claimed they must oppose racism "in all its forms". What other forms must they oppose when according to your defense of Crack there is only one?; 5/6/14, 12:19 PM
Meade said...: My defense of Crack? I don't remember "defending" Crack. He's a grown man. He can defend himself

I don't know if Crack is racist or not. I'm pretty sure he self-identifies as "black" or as "African-American" but I could be wrong - he might simply identify as "American". If he uses his "race" or the origins of his ancestors or his nationality to oppress or dehumanize people he perceives to be outside whatever group he feels he's in, I would condemn that behavior. I'd condemn that behavior no matter who the actor is.

Marshal, tell me — how would you answer the question: How, if accused, does one prove one is not a racist?; 5/6/14, 12:59 PM
test said...: Whether you call it a defense of Crack or not you claimed Crack was not racist based on one single fact. Why resort to word quibbling? Misdirection?

I'd condemn that behavior [to oppress or dehumanize people] no matter who the actor is.

What if we added "denigrate"? It seems clear Crack accusing whites of racism is denigrating, yet I've read not one word of condemnation from you. Did I miss it? Is denigrating groups by race not racist?

How, if accused, does one prove one is not a racist?

Since you can't prove a negative you have to evaluate how much evidence supports the accusation.; 5/6/14, 1:30 PM
Meade said...: Bring the evidence, Marshal — the evidence of Crack unfairly criticizing "whites". (For me, you will also need to prove that "white" even IS a race. But I won't blame you if you choose not to attempt that.); 5/6/14, 1:38 PM
test said...: I already provided Crack's own statements supporting group racial guilt (whites only) and assigning negative characteristsics by race.

If you want to hide behind the claim that "white" isn't a race but "black" is I suppose I won't blame you.

But Crack's racism isn't the issue, it's why does your standard of "racist" differ between Crack and conservatives.

A few possible reasons:

-Because Crack is black.
-Because Crack is not white.
-Because you support Crack's attacks on conservatives as racist.
-Because you believe conservatives should be held to a higher standard to prove they are not racist.; 5/6/14, 1:51 PM
Meade said...: Nothing to hide behind. "White' is not a race and neither is "black". Historically, skin pigmentation, along with other characteristics, were used by some groups of Americans to force labor from other groups of Americans. An ideology of "scientific" racism was developed by people such as Thomas Jefferson (see his Notes On the State of Virginia) as a means of justifying that "peculiar institution". The legacy of the attitudes of that brand of racism is with us today. It's a better America today than when I was a boy in the 50's but we still have a long way to go to get to a "color-blind" society. Do you disagree?

My standard of "racist" does not differ between anybody and anybody else.

How can I know you are not a racist, Marshall?; 5/6/14, 2:36 PM
test said...: "White' is not a race and neither is "black".

So we have two choices, (1) to conclude therefore racism doesn't exist or (2) to conclude the term in this context is a slight generalization from the scientific meaning that has no bearing on the discussion.

This argument seems similar to campus arguments that Arabs can't be anti-semitic because they are semites. This ignores that the term was specifically invented to describe hatred or bias against Jews and the point that Arabs can't be anti-semitic is semantic not substantive. Similarly whether race is or is not "scientific" has no bearing on the underlying facts the discussion references.

Do you disagree?

I think tying racism to a specific justification would exclude many things we consider racism and therefore would not be helpful. If you mean how far we have to go it's hard to tell. When you look at attitudes by age there's reason to hope.

How can I know you are not a racist, Marshall?

By noting that I have never said anything racist.

My standard of "racist" does not differ between anybody and anybody else.

But we've already established that it did differ in at least one case. Are you saying that was a mistake? If so what led you to make it, and in which direction was the mistake?; 5/6/14, 3:39 PM
Meade said...: How can I know you are not a racist, Marshall?

"By noting that I have never said anything racist."

Noted. Thank you. And I agree with you when you said, "When you look at attitudes by age there's reason to hope."

I haven't found anything racist Crack has said either. Have you? Something specific? In which he unfairly criticizes all "whites" or all "blacks" or advocates for the oppression or dehumanization of an entire racial group?

As for "chiding conservatives", I don't think I've chided, for expressing racism, conservative groups any differently than I've chided liberals. Unless you're referring to the expression "states' rights", a term I've never heard a liberal use.; 5/6/14, 6:15 PM
Nichevo said...: I haven't found anything racist Crack has said either. Have you? Something specific? In which he unfairly criticizes all "whites" or all "blacks" or advocates for the oppression or dehumanization of an entire racial group?

Meade: kidding, right? Scarcely a thread where Crack is NIT assigning collective traits, behavior, guilt, to all whites through all time.; 5/7/14, 7:54 AM
Meade said...: Nope — not kidding. Show me an example.; 5/7/14, 9:06 AM
test said...: Meade said...
I haven't found anything racist Crack has said either. Have you?

I think Crack's support for race-based group guilt (that whites alive today are guilty for slavery and lynching) is obviously racist, but I think that's less interesting than why you're so vested in a definition of racism which excludes his beliefs.

His exact quote:

The Crack Emcee said...
Marshal,

"But race preferences are difficult to support. It's hard to justify discriminating against little white and asian kids who in many cases attended the same schools and lived in the same neighborhoods as those receiving the race preferences."

Is not - you show them a picture of a lynched black and say "Whites did that to blacks for 400 years" and then they're quite understanding.

Conservatives, not so much,...

4/3/14, 10:01 AM; 5/7/14, 1:39 PM