Dammit
Jun. 22nd, 2025 03:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
( astrology geekery )
...
I hate being right about bad things. :(
The most recent Horse Illustrated magazine has a wonderful article about Vitamin E. It was very clearly written and contained a ton of information I didn't really know.
Vitamin E is in green pasture grass. Vitamin E disappears from the hay until it is gone, a few months after the hay is cut.
Vitamin E helps protect horses from or prevent myopathy, VEM (equine neuroaxona distrophy); eNAD/EDM (equine degenerative myeloencephalopathy); and EMND (equine motor neuron disease). I have read elsewhere that it may also have a preventative role in Cushings.
Horses need: 500 - 1000 IU per day for maintenance; 800 - 1000 IU for performance horses; and 1,500 - 5,000 IU per day for horses with muscle disorders or neurological conditions.
Synthetic versions of Vitamin E are not well absorbed and should be avoided. Synthetic version are labeled: dl-alpha-tocopherol, all racemic or all-rac vitamin E. Naturally derived ingredients are desirable and should be labeled: RRR-alpha-tocopherol.
Vitamin E, along with Vitamins A, D & K are all fat-soluble and should NOT be over supplemented as they can build up in the horse's body and have negative health effects.
Horses should be supplemented with Vitamin E at any time they are not grazing for at least 1/2 day on green grass.
If you have any questions about your horse's Vitamin E levels there is a simple blood test that the vet can do to measure it.
If you would like to read the original article check out the July-August 2025 issue of Horse Illustrated.
Our head gardener has most exacting standards: everything must be Just So. Specifically, everything must be Just So to please his visual aesthetic, to attract tasty beautiful hummingbirds and delicious crunchy ecologically-vital bees while also providing easy pouncing-distance visual access to said treats busy and useful pollinators.
We are in fact doing our humble two-legged best to make our decks pleasant, useful, and safe for all its denizens. This year it involved rebuilding the hanging basket situation to dangle both the hummingbird feeder and the Hot Lips salvia they love so much a) close to each other and b) well above both the ground and the deck railings. And the hummingbirds love it.
Here’s another angle on that.
This video was taken while Charlie was sitting right there in that chair grumpy because he’s no fool—he knows he can’t reach the birds and he knows the birds know that. They taunt him—they don’t taunt George because George is too busy trying to work out how to surprise Boris and Natasha (the wild rabbits that love our front garden). Also, as pointed out to Charlie, “It’s insulting—they even stick their tongues out at us!”
We still haven’t quite finished planting but here’s what we have so far on the back and kitchen decks.
Today is midsummer—announced in Seattle, appropriately enough, by torrents of rain. But the rest of the month and July will be prime growing weather. Expect an abundance of pictures of an abundance of blooms.
Meanwhile, Happy Sunday!
I hope that some of the listeners to the podcast have been intrigued enough by the quick synopsis it gave of Charity and Sylvia's lives to follow up with the more extensive summary presented here in the blog--or even to track down a copy of the book for the full story. I don't often coordinate the blog and podcast quite this closely, but it's often the case that I'll do a run of articles on a theme in preparation for working up a podcast. The blog and podcast are intended to work in tandem, with the blog working on the academic side and the podcast working more on the general public side (even if it doesn't always feel like it). I know that about 200 people follow the podcast (or at least, we average around 200 downloads, though some of those may be bots). It's much harder to know how many people read the blog, without doing a lot of tedious digging through website stats. It's much easier to know how many people talk to me directly about how much they appreciate the blog: relatively few, but greatly appreciated!
Cleves, Rachel Hope. 2014. Charity & Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-933542-8
Chapter 9 & 10
Chapter 9: Charity and Lydia 1806
Lydia Richards was another schoolteacher who prized the opportunity the work gave her for freedom and avoiding marriage. When she came into Charity’s orbit, she expressed a desire “to be your constant companion.” They had first met half a dozen years earlier and felt an immediate bond that was disrupted when gossip forced Charity back to her parents’ home. The two kept up a correspondence through the Mercy years, though Lydia more faithfully than Charity. She repeatedly longed for “mutual love” “clasped in each other’s arms.” When Charity once again moved to the town where Lydia lived, this wish was fulfilled by an initial two-week visit to Lydia’s family.
After that initial visit, Charity and Lydia spent as much time as possible in each other’s company and wrote copious letters to fill the absences, including complaints of what could not be set down on paper. They exchanged gifts typical of those given by courting couples. Friction between Charity and her brother’s in-laws was making her living situation untenable, and Lydia began floating the idea that Charity move in with her family. Charity did so for two months, but during a visit the two made to another friend in a nearby town, word came from Lydia’s parents that she was to return alone.
There are suggestions that Lydia’s parents had found some sort of evidence of the true nature of the couple’s relationship. Despite Lydia’s pleas, Charity determined to accept an invitation from friends in Vermont, promising to continue loving Lydia forever.
Lydia’s continued letters reflect increasing longing for Charity’s love and return, but half a year later, Charity was still in Vermont and the letters became increasingly pleading and lonely. By the time a year had elapsed, Lydia heard from a third party that Charity had set up housekeeping with a younger woman in Vermont.
Only after an eventual visit from Charity, with Sylvia in tow, did Lydia acknowledge the end of her hopes, in a letter filled with bitter literary allusions. But after that, they realigned their relationship as a friendship that lasted until death. Lydia never did marry.
Chapter 10: Charity and Sylvia February 1807
The couple who invited Charity to join them in Vermont were distantly related—not uncommon in the small-town culture of New England. The husband was related to Charity’s mother, and the wife was the sister of Sylvia Drake. The family connections—however distant—may have helped people justify the bond that sprung up between them. Sylvia was initially anxious about the introduction of another single woman into their circle—one who had had the educational opportunities she lacked. Despite their differences in background, a romantic relationship began quickly.
Charity began work as a tailor and Sylvia apprenticed to her to keep up with the work. Two poems, written during the period when they were first getting acquainted and attributable to Sylvia, celebrate Spring as a time of budding romance and love, though adding further seasonal imagery of the eventual coming of winter. Initially, Charity had planned to stay for three months, and the anticipated end of the visit may have prompted Sylvia’s concern for the turning of the seasons.
Charity was beset by a steady stream of Lydia’s letters and omitted all mention of her new friend in response. Charity extended her visit, then extended it again. In mid-summer, Sylvia moved on to stay with a different family member—a typical arrangement for an unmarried woman being maintained by her family. The two promised to write, but this promise was unnecessary. A month later, Sylvia returned and they would never again be parted in the succeeding 44 years.
This time, Charity made some practical plans. Never again would a relationship be at the mercy of a host family’s scrutiny and disapproval. The amount of sewing work shew as receiving was enough to establish an independent household. She rented a room, while retaining the community good will of being part of a familial network. Charity wrote Sylvia asking her to join her. The sewing work was the cover to make their arrangement acceptable to the community. Charity would “hire” Sylvia as her assistant, thus bypassing questions of why Sylvia was no longer living with family members.
December 7th, 1941: the Empire of Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. American President Franklin D. Roosevelt called it “a day that will live in infamy” in his famous speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war against Japan.
That particular epithet – that’s a strong one. And unlike most such epithets, it’s held up. People know it, still.
I mean, sure, slogans like “Remember the Maine!” rallied people at the time, but it’s an historical footnote; “Remember the Alamo!” has more weight, but not because of the attack – it’s because of the hopeless and romanticised defence.
(That it was, push comes to shove, in defence of slavery is important but not relevant to my line of thought here.)
Why was the Pearl Harbour attack somehow that much worse?
It wasn’t that Japan attacked a purely military target in a United States territory. Nothing wrong with that by the rules of war. Certainly nothing infamous about it, either. Within the rules of war, it’s fair play.
It’s not that it was a surprise, even – though it was, and that tends to be what people think of when they hear the phrase. Most people at the time assumed a Japanese Imperial attack would come in the Philippines, not in Hawai’i. But surprise attacks are the meat and gravy of war, and simply good strategy – again, not a source of infamy.
It wasn’t even, really, that they started the war with the attack. That’s kind of how wars tend to go. As a rule, one doesn’t go declare war and then stand around a while giving your enemy a week or two to get their defences in place.
So why were people who were absolutely expecting war – absolutely getting ready for a war – with Japan still so very angry about the way it started? What made a crowd certain that war was inevitable – a crowd that was getting ready for it, whether they liked it or not – go, “oh, that is too goddamn far”?
It was that Japan was literally still negotiating as the bombs fell.
Roosevelt mentions this in his speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war. It’s shallow in the specifics, but it’s explicitly there, in the first minute. He didn’t have to get into the weeds of details; everybody in Congress knew.
The Japanese attack started at 12:48pm Eastern time. The military finally got word sometime after 1:30pm Eastern time. The Japanese ambassador had scheduled a meeting with Secretary of State Hull for 1:45pm, and didn’t show up until 2:05pm, by which time the bombs had been falling for over an hour – and even then, they delivered a statement responding to a previous US position paper delivered on November 26th.
It was harsh, but it was no declaration of war.
The Japanese delegation were literally negotiating as their air force’s bombs fell.
That betrayal – that subterfuge, that backstab – coloured the entire rest of the war in the Pacific, up to and including the decision to use those atomic bombs.
Does that still-negotiating-as-the-bombers-let-fly trick sound like something that just happened this afternoon?
Maybe it should.
Japan’s plan was a quick but heavy knockout blow on a military target, to weaken American forces in the Pacific and force the Americans to accede to their demands in China.
Trump’s plan was apparently also a quick but heavy knockout blow on military targets, to force the Iranians to accede to Trump’s – and Netanyahu’s – demands in the Middle East.
Iran is in no way the 1940s US; Trump’s clown car criminal crowd is in no way the leadership of Imperial Japan. This is not World War II, and since Trump didn’t go nuclear, I don’t think it’s World War III; this is not that kind of projection, so don’t make it into one.
I’m just talking infamy. As far as infamy goes?
Yeah.
I could really see saying this is an act of infamy.
Obviously, that’s the kind of thing Iran would say, no matter what. Aside from that, times have changed. Asymmetrical war, disinformation, irregular warfare as a primary strategy – all those old ideas about war have rather gone by the way side. It’s hard to talk about something as infamous in war these days.
But still. I could see it.
And more importantly… I could see people believing it.
Couldn’t you?
Posted via Solarbird{y|z|yz}, Collected.
First climbing experience, and after an hour of trying different walls
Sophia made it to the top!
Original
is here on Pixelfed.scot.