For some reason, after getting off to a great start, some of my squash plants are wilting and dying for no apparent reason. Here’s a picture I took today:
(Click for larger image)
Any idea what gives, what I can do to fix it, or failing that, what I can do to prevent it from happening to the other plants? Watering doesn’t seem to help, and I don’t see any obvious signs of pest infestation. Any ideas?
TIA.
June 12th, 2006
|
I do too have a life, Food & Cooking |
4 comments
Last Friday, I attended Mike Hollihan’s Memphis Blogger Bash. It was my second such event, but this time, unfortunately, I had scheduling conflicts and could only attend for a short while. I have to say that the highlight of the night was my lively debate with AlphaPatriot (and judging by his post about the bash, it was his highlight, too). What continually surprises me is how well I’m able to get along with people (like AP and Joe Carter and SayUncle) with whom I agree about virtually nothing. Though are debates did grow mildly heated at times, it was always friendly disagreement and never nasty (a fact which might surprise Xrlq).
Even more surprising, AlphaPatriot and I were able to come to some points of agreement and common ground. Unlike many in Right Blogistan with whom I debate, it turns out he and I often start from the same premises, and merely come to wildly different conclusions (a fact particularly well illustrated by our discussions of how to fix the public schools, and of late-term abortion).
Of course, it wasn’t all wine and roses. AP has completely drunk the Kool-Aid on Iraq: It was a war of necessity, vindicated by all those WMDs we’ve found — he insists we’ve made substantial finds — and it’s only because of a Vast Worldwide Media Conspiracytm to convince us that things aren’t going well that people don’t fully realize the truth. Oh, and according to AP, virtually every allegation made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has been proven true by the simple fact that nobody’s been able to conclusively prove them false1 (to AP). Ahh, America, the land of presumed guilty (if Democrat) until proven innocent! But by avoiding these issues, we kept the discussion civil and lively.
Oh, and side note to Mike: I’m loud all the time; it doesn’t mean I’m losing my temper. Anyone who has met me (Joe, Uncle, Kevin) can vouch for this. I appreciate you trying to calm things down, but they never were un-calm. Besides, I’m pretty sure AP was packing. If I’d gotten too uppity, he could have just shot me. 
1A side note on the SBVT stuff. AP insisted that John Kerry never released his service records to prove that he had earned his medals. This claim is simply false. He also claimed that most of their allegations were never effectively contradicted, and this claim is also false. My point stands: SBVT simply threw a bunch of baseless allegations against the wall hoping something would stick, for cynical political reasons. And while none of them did stick, the dirty tactic effectively nullified Kerry’s service record as an asset. Take note, Democrats: Scummy politics work.
June 12th, 2006
|
Bloggin |
4 comments
Joe Carter, at evangelical outpost, has an interesting take on Ann Coulter. He thinks her schtick is not just a deliberate put-on - it obviously is - but that she doesn’t believe even the general gist of what she’s saying, at least no farther than it serves to sell books and speaking appearances.
[W]hat I wonder is what will her admirers think when she taps out the conservative market and pulls a David Brock-style conversion to liberalism in order to sell even more books. Make no mistake: Coulter is playing you all for patsies.
I don’t know about this. For one thing, Joe seems to be implying that Brock’s own conversion was not sincere, but simply a way to make a name for himself. This seems wrong to me. For one thing, converting from the conservative to the liberal activist ranks is hardly a way to move up in the world. (It seemed to work for Brock, but I wouldn’t recommend it in general. Cushy think-tank jobs for platitudinous psychophants - Hi, Dinesh! - are a feature of the right-wing activism industry, not the left.) And Brock himself seems sincere in his change of heart, not least because what he criticizes most about conservative activism is his own behavior while in its service - again not a trait that seems like a particularly calculating career move.
For another, it suggests that Coulter’s insanity is itself insincere - that she will drop it when it’s played-out, and perform the same act all over again from the opposite direction, thus doubling her income and time in the limelight from her tired one-trick performance. This also subtly insulates the right wing from Coulter’s craziness, since, by Joe’s lights, she’s not a real conservative at all - she just plays one in the media. Since her “crazy conservative” act is fake, there are no grounds for accusing real conservatives of being crazy, or of tolerating (real) crazies in their midst.
But I don’t think that works. For one thing, she really does seem to mean what she says - correcting for hyperbole, stupidity, and craziness, that is. It’s generally agreed that she went fully nutso on 9/11 - but she was clearly conservative before then, and was personally connected to Republican high-ups long before. Nothing about her views seems to have changed, though she has discovered that she gets more press for stating them in outrageous terms. For another, I don’t think it would be possible for her to do a David Brock without a really heartfelt change of views - much like Brock’s own. When Brock got “unblinded”, he not only renounced Republican dirty tricks, he stopped performing them. For Coulter to do a similar turnaround, she would not only have to admit that her policy positions over the years have been wrong (”I see now that we shouldn’t forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity”), but that she herself has behaved reprehensibly in promoting them (”I was an insane fascist. Oops!”)
I suspect that’s a psychological leap much too great for Coulter to manage. The other problem is that, if she did so, what would she then have to offer? She can’t do the same things for the left that she does for the right - the left doesn’t play that game, and wouldn’t want to be associated with her. She can’t simply offer straight commentary and analysis - she isn’t any good at that. I’m sure she could get a book out and make some speeches, but it would basically be confessional, not political. Once she gives up her crazed harpy schtick, she’s over. Which is why she never will. And the right wing, of course, will always be happy to accomodate her.
June 12th, 2006
|
General, Politics, Writing, Culture, Media |
no comments
I am going to be busy this week, so, taking the advice of regular Ted, I am going to do a series of discussion posts. And to start, hopefully someone can answer this burning question for me: why does the entire world except the United States love soccer, or, in honor of the World Cup, football? I have heard the standard explanations and none of them seem to make sense. The notion that Americans want instant gratification doesn’t fly. Baseball and golf are two of our favorite sports. It cannot just be that there are more sports options because that is true of the entire industrialized world. It cannot be because no generation of Americans have grown up with the sport, because soccer was huge among kids even when I was young, and I am in my early thirties.
So why soccer? Why does the entire rest of the world so passionately follow a sport that one of the larger countries on the planet simply ignores?
June 12th, 2006
|
Sports, World Cup |
21 comments
