Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

In the garden: How rainy was it?

So rainy there are mushrooms in my front garden! (Also, the wildflowers are coming along very nicely; the frondy plants are Poppies.) I don't know what mushrooms say about the state of my soil; good things, I assume.

This is the Plume Poppy I bought at the Church Garden sale, a perennial with airy flowers said to grow eight feet tall (!).

Honeysuckle, the obligatory water-droplet-in-leaf photo.

And some cukes. Generally, if I can't put seedlings in the ground right away, I put the flat on their bed, so they can get acclimated to the angle of the sun, and so forth. But it's so wet I was afraid they'd get eaten by slugs, as some Zinnias did. So I left them on the dirt I shovelled over the new hugel bed that, when it becomes sunny again -- it's 50°F and rainy, colder than Fairbanks, Alaska -- I will sheet mulch and turn into a tomato patch.

Wore my winter coat, today. This is ridiculous!

AttachmentSize
front_garden.JPG161.24 KB
plume_poppy.JPG291.17 KB
honeysuckle.JPG235.45 KB
cukes.JPG261.8 KB
0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

V. Arnold's picture
Submitted by V. Arnold on

Yes, mycelium is an indicator of soil health; and in fact, adds to the health of soil.
You would be well served to further investigate how to ensure the continued health of the mycelium in your soil.
Mycelium is a fascinating study; it's the future of the worlds health...

Submitted by lambert on

It never occurred to me to connect the mushrooms to the mycelial mat, but you're right. In fact, I've done a lot of work to improve the soil in that part of the garden. Now I see that my efforts have born fruit, or at least fruiting bodies.

Also too Paul Stamets is God.

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

Well they look like liberty caps to me. Some are more potent than others, perhaps by orders of magnitude. They grow everywhere in the spring. I think they consume mowed grass and such.

If I recall correctly, there are no real lookalikes that are outright poisonous. They are often hard to identify without microscopes, etc. "LBMs" is an almost technical term for unidentifiable "little brown mushrooms." I suppose you could find out by eating six of them (but that would be technically against the law). A great way to relieve migraine headaches though.

You know, those tasty mushrooms you buy at the market are very slightly poisonous? Some biologists think that animals evolved from mushrooms (fungi). So be nice to them.

Submitted by lambert on

No, the very last thing I need in my life now is psychedelics. Maybe later! But thanks for the recommendation; I will look at shrooms and fungi in my garden with new respect!

Submitted by lambert on

And as late as 2010. To me, Jackson himself is painful to watch, but the music video itself is great (and I don't even like music videos, especially).

Cf. Baltimore, by Prince?

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

Time for the great mutiny from those who have stolen our treasure to rule the world. Stolen our lives. To rule the world.

Simple score voting.

No more Clinton/Bush.

Stop it.

We have the old single-selection two-party. So no choice at all for you.

The "republic" is simply ruled by judges who may, for example, throw gays a bone for show now and then, but really only watch out for the rights of the people who matter -- the rich, of course.

Democracy means knowingness and good will of the PEOPLE. Not the republicist rapaciousness of the judges.

Teach the people! Trust The People! We are not the "mob"! The rich Great Gamers are the real mob. You have to know the truth and seek the truth and the truth will set you free.

There are two entirely different kinds of elections, and kinds of "contestants". An election of the president of a science fiction novel forum is not at all the same thing as an election of a United States President. The former is really a contest between two (or more) individual candidates (and their agendas), but the latter is actually a contest between the weak and the mighty — the well-supported candidates of a very few elites versus the grass-roots candidates of the vast multitude of non-elite people.

Simple score voting can be completely described in one short simple sentence: Give no vote at all, or from one to ten votes to any number of candidates you wish (up to some reasonable limit, say 20 candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.

It can be completely machine-free! If machines make tallying X time easier, they make coordinated rigging X times easier. Which can we truly afford???

One could say that simple score eliminates 90% of the spoiler effect. To illustrate: if a voter gives 10 votes to Nader and 9 votes to Gore, it is simply obvious that, if Nader does not win, the voter has only sacrificed exactly 10% of their voting power. Not 100% as they would have had they been forced to use the usual single-selection (“faux plurality”) voting method.

No fancy math is necessary to compare and contrast it to every other option for effectiveness and simplicity, including single-selection (aka "plurality," our present "system") Condorcet, Borda, IRV, Range (with its tricky "averages"), Approval (which is not adequately discriminative), etc.

The simple score method I advocate is the very simplest, since it only allows from 1 to 10 votes to be given, not from 0 to 9, or 0 to 10. That is simply another complication. It also has no vote-averaging that seriously complicates the "range" score method. I also seem t be the only one to point out that voters should always vote artfully (aka strategically), not artlessly or heroically (aka "honestly" or "sincerely").

(Simple score is not like approval voting at all -- it is vastly more discriminative.)

PLEASE NOTE: score voting has never been used when there were truly high stakes for the voters. The single-selection method has always been utilized to spoiler effect enforced two-party or two-candidate choices. And would three money-empowered choices be better? Did Greece and Spain with their parliamentary schemes fare well with their "systems"?

And the people MUST vote strategically -- NOT artlessly ("honestly", "sincerely")! Do the Senators and judges act with honesty and sincerity? Do they vote heroicaly? Take a wild guess!

And why do you suppose they don't have just ONE money-empowered candidate or party? Something to think about?

https://politicalscienceisanancientfraud.wordpress.com/

blues's picture
Submitted by blues on

Nothing to do with "consensus" (nor the tyranny of consensus). Nothing to do with the complicated and peculiar "Robert's Rules" (of Disorder).

It is very simply aimed at removing virtually all of the spoiler effect, thus eliminating the crippling two-party system.

It's that simple.

Submitted by lambert on

I don't see what it would be inapplicable.

As for Roberts Rules, they work fine if the chair knows what they're doing and actually follows them; the key point being to run the meeting, and not participate. Most people don't follow them.