TSRF wrote:

Thank gods I didn’t listen to you and run out and plant some! My back deck is covered in ice. We had rain and then a freeze last night. Do you know what a freeze does to Basil? DO YOU??

Anyway, yes. We still have pesto in the freezer from last year’s crop. I’m moving my seed in the ground date to May 21st because of this freakishly cold spring.

======================

Yeah, i had a bunch of pots out on my patio. I had to bring many of them inside. But I didnt have room for all of them.

So, i had to decide which plants lived, and which plants died. I’m a God. God of Plants. The decider.

w
v

nittany ram wrote:

I have been intrigued by the idea of “rewilding” my yard for a few years. Lawns are a problem because grass just doesn’t support a lot of insect diversity. The issue is local ordinances surrounding lawn appearance, height, etc.

————

Any opinion on this:

“Native bees are more efficient pollinators, having a 91 to 72 percent advantage over honey bees…..We’ve been duped by ‘save the bee’ campaigns that show images of European honey bees or graphics of honeycomb. We don’t really need honey bees in North America for pollination. The primary group that needs honey bees is an industrial agriculture system that has come to depend on them; this insect species is one more cog in the industrialization of life that minimizes and destroys ecosystems for profit. We put great stress on these bees, shipping them around the nation, treating them like machine parts with dollar values as their primary worth.”
― Benjamin Vogt, A New Garden Ethic: Cultivating Defiant Compassion for an Uncertain Future
—
“Ultimately, every garden is an ideology.”
― Benjamin Vogt, A New Garden Ethic: Cultivating Defiant Compassion for an Uncertain Future

Salazar got the Bernie treatment from the Corporate-Capitalists.
Unlike Bernie, she managed to win, anyway.

Jacobin:https://jacobinmag.com/2018/09/julia-salazar-state-senate-dilan-media

“….
……..Like many people in an increasingly complex world, Salazar has a complex life story. Her first attempt to tell it to the public — a public that’s conditioned to consume identity and biography in soundbites, despite soundbites’ inadequacy to the task — had some inconsistencies. Salazar and her campaign made some mistakes. But the politically interesting story here isn’t those inconsistencies. It’s the exceptional ardor with which her opponents seized on them.

A thorough investigation into the source of the smears against Salazar is in order. They were surely coordinated; after all, many wealthy and well-connected people backed Dilan and had a vested interest in Salazar’s defeat, and they know how to contact reporters. As Ben Beckett noted, “One aggressive anti-Salazar journalist publicly acknowledged he was tipped about at least one salacious story.” There’s likely more where that came from.

But whatever their specific provenance, the scrutiny Salazar was subjected to was completely unprecedented in a state senatorial race. News outlets questioned her faith and her identity —but that was just the beginning. They speculated on the contents of deleted twitter accounts from her college years, and rifled through her family’s decades-old mortgage applications and funeral notices. They called her mother and brother repeatedly and leveraged their recollections of a multifaceted family story, geographically diffuse and of mixed-class character, against her own.

They dredged up claims made against Salazar by the ex-wife of a family friend when she was nineteen years old — claims which were found to be fraudulent in a lawsuit Salazar filed against her accuser, leading to a monetary settlement in her favor — and circulated them in the national and even the international press. A Colombian genealogist looked into centuries of her family history; reporters used the genealogy to interrogate her claim to Jewishness. And by planning to run a story identifying her as a victim of sexual assault without her consent, they compelled her to discuss a highly traumatic personal experience before an uncharacteristically wide and unexpectedly hostile audience.

Julia Salazar was clearly a threat to somebody, or many somebodies, and they threw everything they had at her. As a result she received more news attention than any state senatorial candidate in American history, the vast majority of it biased negatively against her. And it didn’t work.

The smear campaign was an attempt to distract from the political distinctions between a democratic socialist candidate and a corporate centrist one. Salazar refused to let those distinctions fade into the background. Throughout the controversy, Salazar endeavored to retrain the focus on the political conflict between her and her opponent, and to characterize it as a proxy for a greater conflict between the working majority and the elite minority who control New York politics.

“I am not running on my identity. I’m running on my record, as a health care and housing activist, a criminal legal reform advocate, [and] a dedicated union member,” she said the first time she was obliged to make a statement about the media controversy. “Now we are talking about these baseless accusations,” she said the second time, “rather than how to protect affordable housing or win universal health care — issues my opponent has refused to champion and address as a State Senator and throughout this race.”

All the while Salazar, her campaign, and her dedicated volunteers — a large share from the Democratic Socialists of America, of which Salazar is also a member, but also from community organizations like Make the Road and New York Communities for Change — knocked doors tirelessly in an effort to expose as many people as possible to her political vision.

That vision was of a New York for the many, organized to sustain not just the survival but the flourishing of ordinary people: those who don’t own productive assets, don’t trade on Wall Street, don’t have an impressive real estate portfolio, but do constitute the vast majority of the populace, create all of society’s wealth with their labor, and have every right to expect their fair share.

With profit-driven landlords, developers, and speculators sending housing prices through the roof, with the private health insurance industry denying countless life-saving procedures and forcing millions into medical debt, with educational opportunities slipping away as public schools succumb to privatization and college tuition balloons, and with wages stagnating and workers losing their ability to fight for better conditions and pay, people are fed up.

They’re sick of the pro-corporate status quo, ready for change, and not nearly as vulnerable as perhaps they once were to scandal-mongering. They want to talk about how to make housing affordable, how to get necessary medication without going bankrupt, how to get the training and education they need to get a good job, and how to make sure that job stays good in an era of eroding worker protections and economic unpredictability. They don’t want to talk about what a candidate may or may not have tweeted in college. They want a new economy that works for working people.

And whatever else people may say about her, Salazar clearly stands for workers. In a stunning illustration of the principle, a paid Dilan canvasser stood up at Salazar’s victory party on Thursday night in Brooklyn and described how he ended up voting for Salazar, because politicians “need to fuckin’ listen.”

All told, Salazar received over twenty thousand votes — nearly three times the number of votes Dilan won with in 2014 and 2016. The stunner is not just that she won, it’s that she did so by bringing thousands of people into the political process. And you can bet those people weren’t the 1 percent…..” see link

waterfield wrote:

“Cynicism: an inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism.”

That is everywhere on this board ! Centrist democrats are motivated only by “self interest”. Republicans are interested only by self interest. Progressives are not motivated by “self-interest” and do not harbor “skepticism”. (LOL).

Aside from that, Ball’s question at its core is ” because the issue is so big isn’t it impossible to address it”? To me that is cynical in that it is doom and gloom and nothing can be done about it.

=========================

Well, if we were on the Titanic, I would indeed say, “hey this is REALLY bad.”
Would that be ‘cynical’ ? Is it ‘cynical’ to call a disaster a disaster?
Michael Moore called one issue the “Climate Emergency.” I agree with that characterization. And thats just ONE environmental issue.

Leftists are used to being called ‘cynical’ by centrists. Centrists pick on Reps. Leftists pick on the System.

I dont really know what you mean when you say that Leftists say the Reps and Dems are ‘motivated by self-interest’ and the leftists dont see themselves as ‘skeptical.’ I dont really know how to untangle all that.

I dont think i ever use the term ‘self-interest.’ It’s kindof a vague, catch-all term that could apply to every human on earth.

I pick on Corporate-Capitalism, W. Thats what i pick on. Thats what i blame.
Mostly.

I dont ‘necessarily‘ blame it for the loss to the Patriots 🙂

w
v

waterfield wrote:

wv wrote:

Check out the Krystal Ball question at the 11 minute mark. And the Michael Moore answer. The dynamic applies to more than just the environmental movement. You see this problem all over the place.

w
v

I think what your referring to is Ball’s question about the issue of environment being so big it simply causes people to think nothing can be done about it. Moore challenges that by essentially saying we have no choice but to take it on. On this one I’m on the side of Moore. However, isn’t the cynicism expressed by Ball’s question prominent on this very board and among many across the political spectrum: “its too big, Capitalism has doomed us, we can’t change a thing, we’re all fucked, there is no hope, blah, blah, blah.”

===================

Well, i dont think Krystal Ball’s question is at all ‘cynical.’ I dunno why you think her question is cynical. I think her question is a really good one, and its one that a lot of far-leftists ask everyday, in many political contexts.
I liked Michael Moore’s answer and I liked her question.

At any rate, if you think Corporate-Capitalism is Fueling the ‘Climate Emergency’ (as Moore calls it)and fueling Deforestation, Mass Extinctions, War, Imperialism, Poverty, etc — then yes, it is truly hard to be optimistic. Far-leftists often battle with thoughts of doom-and-gloom. So do scientists, these days. There’s articles about that. About how SCIENTISTS are having trouble coping with what they are finding out.

Centrists have lots of hope, I know. Just beat Trump, and the DNC will build a shining city on a hill.

w
v

JackPMiller wrote:

How I grade the draft
Cardials – A
49ers – C+
Rams – D
Seahawks -D-

==

Well, i think there ‘is’ an argument that the Rams should have taken a RB further down in the draft, i guess.

w
v