
My favourite - caraganas. Well, I suppose it could have been worse.
Check out his portfolio here.
Posted by Kate at May 23, 2006 3:38 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3969
Great photos. Actually, the one I liked was the red, rusted switch box against the red barn. You could practically feel and smell the wood, the metal, the hot sun.
Posted by: ET at May 23, 2006 4:12 PMHeh-- I thought the "worse" was pretty funny... a cow scratching its butt on a tree... well, who can blame the bovine? They don't have hands with which to scratch the ol' hiney!
Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at May 23, 2006 4:48 PMJust spent about 2 hours viewing only part of the portfolio. Thanks for steering us to such sheer beauty ...
Posted by: Gabby in QC at May 23, 2006 5:32 PMHe has reasonable prices too.
Posted by: Kate at May 23, 2006 6:20 PM...nice pixs!
Posted by: tomax7 at May 23, 2006 7:26 PMKate, I came by to link to your original post about Tommy Douglas weed, and here I find an update. I just posted some caragana pictures (nowhere near as fine as that one) and some evidence that maybe there actually is a socialist plot behind all this. You see, caragana seeds are a potential permaculture staple. Who knows, they could be poised to become the poster plant for a prairie self-sufficiency movement.
http://arcologist.blogspot.com/2006/05/another-edible-legume.html
Posted by: Laura at May 23, 2006 8:24 PMStatic and boring. Colors are either nondescript or a little bit over the top. Pretty but not stimulating. Flat dynamics.
I give them a passing grade, 5 out of a possible 10.
Try making a statement first then concentrate on the visual secondarily.
Posted by: Ansel Adams at May 24, 2006 11:23 AMWow!!! A proper time to just enjoy!!!
Posted by: Buffalo Bean at May 24, 2006 11:24 AMStatic and boring. Colors are either nondescript or a little bit over the top. Pretty but not stimulating. Flat dynamics.
I give them a passing grade, 5 out of a possible 10.
Try making a statement first then concentrate on the visual secondarily.
Posted by: Ansel Adams at May 24, 2006 11:24 AMHey Ansel, please provide a link to YOUR photo portfolio so we may critique it too.
Posted by: Eskimo at May 24, 2006 12:27 PMAnsel Adams, the Ansel Adams?
If so, the surprise would come in the rather negative challenge to another photographer's work.
It did send me though to your photos and prints, again. They are spectacular, but in a different way.
Sean's will tug at the hearts of those who are familiar with the prairies....in a friendly way...in fact a more friendly way, now;)
Posted by: Buffalo Bean at May 24, 2006 1:26 PM"Try making a statement first then concentrate on the visual secondarily."
The statement is not to be found in one image, but in many. My prairie images are meant to be viewed together, not individually.
Posted by: Sean at May 24, 2006 1:43 PMAnsel, as you must be posting from the other side, as I have read your obit, could you please tell us if those terrorists really get all those virgins, or are they burning in hell. We need to know, you could be the answer to world peace.
Posted by: maryT at May 25, 2006 5:59 AMIt looks a lot like "Gorse" -- the scourge of New Zealand. Anyone know if it is the same plant? Thick and tough and has pretty scary/ugly thorns about 1'' long.
Posted by: morison at May 25, 2006 6:31 PMName me one Tory leader who's not surrounded by scandal. You make fun of Tommy Douglas and why. He's right up there with Martin Luther King and John Kennedy. Your Tory leaders leave nothing but a trail of camel dung behind them. The only reason you can go on this blog,me too is because people like Tommy Douglas fought for the right to do so. If Tories ran the show they would censor all of us. The tories hate an opposition.
Posted by: ok4ua at May 25, 2006 8:46 PM"The only reason you can go on this blog,me too is because people like Tommy Douglas fought for the right to do so."
Unless your parents belonged to one of the groups that Douglas wanted to sterilize. Be happy that he didn't get his way or you would never have been born.
Posted by: Sean at May 26, 2006 8:09 PMI heard the federal government years ago wanted to sterilize people. Not Tommy Douglas.
Posted by: ok4ua at May 28, 2006 12:37 PMok4u, seems Tommy Douglas *did* suggest sterilization of "defective subnormals".
The rest of the "subnormals", he suggested that they be segregated, like lepers.
And this was CBC's 'Man of the Whatever-whatever' not long ago.
Goodness, a little chat about the lowly, tough little caragana has become a sound reminder that things are not always what they seem!
For those who missed this, as I did:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/05/tommy-douglas-secret-of-demigod-part_18.html
"The first, is the state, or as Douglas puts it, ‘The problem of the subnormal family is chiefly one for the state.’ Legislation, physical intervention, and medical intervention are seen by the author as the most logical solutions.
He starts out by suggesting that legislating tougher marriage requirements would make it harder for subnormals to marry, and thus produce offspring. T. C. Douglas goes into great lengths describing ways in which legal impediments could be used to prevent the union of the diseased and mentally deficient. But, as Douglas laments, legislation of this sort might have little impact because subnormals are people ‘to whom the marriage bond means little.’
Next, Tommy suggests that ‘Social Segregation’ might be an effective solution to the subnormal family. After all, he states, leper colonies have been used to protect society, so why not subnormal colonies. He defines segregation as follows:
‘By segregation we mean the location of this class in a community by themselves, where the physical, mental, and moral effects listed above would no longer affect the community… Another advantage of such a segregation would be that they would become less of a public burden.’
Douglas concludes his proposition for segregation by suggesting that segregation could include the separating of subnormal men from women.
Next, the author recommends sterilization which ‘seems to meet the requirements of the situation most aptly (as it) …deprives the defective of nothing except the privilege of bringing into the world children…’
As far as sterilization being a breach of human rights, the author suggests that the sterilized could still have intercourse and would therefore be happy because, ‘this is all the defective asks.’
He goes on to suggest that only defectives would be sterilized, not all subnormals, because some subnormals are capable of raising families. Subnormals though should be given training in the use of contraceptives so that their reproduction rates can be reduced."
Posted by: Buffalo Bean at May 29, 2006 11:06 AM