Well as promised, here are some recent photos of the garden. I took these this morning, the day after the big transplant.

Here’s the herb and ornamental pepper portion of the garden. The peppers that are in there are: 6 Thai peppers, 3 fluorescent purples, and a medusa. Other than that, we’ve got six curly parsley, six catnip, six sweet basil, four purple basil, one spicy globe basil, on Thai basil, one rosemary, and probably some plants that I can’t recognize. Yes, I am aware that my catnip is down hard in this image, and in need of water. The reason is that the catnip is in a black 7″ pot with no mulch or anything to hold in moisture, is in full sun, is fully rootbound, and it was freaking 97 degrees out today. Yeah, if I were a plant, I’d want to lay in the dirt, too.

This next one is a shot of the majority of our peppers. These peppers transitioned from cell trays to styrofoam cups to 7″ pots and now to their final pots, varying between 4.5 gallons and 7.7 gallons per pot. The two peppers that are closest in view in the five gallon buckets are our two carry-overs from last year. On the left is a Tabasco pepper, which last year grew to about six feet in a way-undersized 8″ terra cotta pot. It yielded about 200 peppers or so. On the right is the Scotch Bonnet originally from grocery store seed. Last year, it barely grew. It made it up to maybe a foot and a half, and it yielded two or three peppers that didn’t mature until November, and which I didn’t eat. They were a nice yellow color, though, if I recall correctly. You can’t tell, but there are at least a dozen and a half peppers on that plant, some that I expect to change color any day now. Jaime even observed that the peppers, which were hanging down for the majority of the fruit growth, have turned up towards the sun– almost as if they somehow rotate when the time to change colors approaches.

Same section, shot from the other side. You can easily see the massive size of these 7.7 gallon pots. They took a ton of potting mix to fill, but my bet is that the results will be spectacular. You can also see that the majority of our peppers are still pretty small– between a foot and about two and a half feet. That’s about as I expected, considering these were started from seed on March 19 and germinated by about April 1. Given that our peppers grew to between four and six feet last year in 8″ pots, I’m expecting great results out of our big pots this year.

Here’s a closeup of one of the Scotch Bonnet peppers. It’s nice and big, and is tempting me to pull it off and eat it. Considering it’s June 9 and I’ll start harvesting in probably just two or three weeks from now, it looks like we’ll be eating some nice, spicy food this Independence Day.

Here’s one of the fluorescent purple peppers that I’ve been raving about. Look closely at the leaves. You’ll notice silvery patches, purple patches, and some patches that look almost pearlescent. Everyone I show it to says that they’ve never seen anything like it before. Good job, Pepper Joe!

And last, here is a closeup of one of the fluorescent purple pepper’s flowers. Purple leaves, purple flowers, purple peppers (while ripening)– what a cool pepper.

That’s it for now. I’ll be posting more pictures and information soon, especially considering that just today I transplanted about 20 herbs from 12oz cups into 7″ pots. Dill, cilantro, oregano, sage, thyme, and– oh yeah, not an herb, but…– some decorative blue fescue grass.

Let’s call modern environmentalism what it is: envirocrap.

Most of the time when I read an article that is obviously meant to be “pro-environment,” I come up with critical flaws in the presentation of the subject matter. These flaws reveal what appears to be the author’s true intent in writing the article: pushing a personal agenda.

Take for example, this article. The article basically states that the Minneapolis City Council has voted to pass an ordinance limiting vehicular idling to no more than three minutes. Of course, I see tons of problems with the legislation itself: police idle all day long by necessity, some vehicles require idling to operate (cement trucks for example), and semis must idle for an extended period of time– especially in Minneapolis winters– to properly warm up the engine, just to name a few.

Hell, I even think it’s a good idea to limit idling– if a person chooses to do so. I am, of course, opposed to any laws such as this. I refuse to consider government-enforced environmentalism as being conducted under the right motives until, at a minimum, the legislative body exerting their power outlaws drive through windows, mandates closed-cooling grocery stores, and mandates automatic door closers for homes. Hell, what am I saying? There are no “right motives” for the government to enforce their opinions upon the populace.

But anyway, back to this article, and why I don’t like it. Here’s the quote:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are the major source of human-caused climate change.

OK, this statement is clearly presented as fact, correct? Now, answer me this:

If a chemical like dirt is “linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are [is] the major source of human-caused climate change,” then why can I buy bags of dirt at the store? Why can I have dirt in my yard? Why can a person who works at a greenhouse, as I once did, conduct their work without the same sorts of chemical suits that are used when spraying pesticides?

If a chemical like dust– referenced here as “particulate matter”– is “linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are [is] the major source of human-caused climate change,” then why– in the name of national health and safety– do we not have a National Dusting Corp whose duty it is to eradicate the deadly dust that brings us closer to death with each passing day?

Ooooh. I get it. The author is saying that the particulate matter and the dust– the items listed first– can cause asthma– the symptom/disease listed third. Is this spin? Is this pushing an agenda? Is this just careless or incompetent journalism? I’d argue it’s the second and third.

All the author had to do in order to remove the agenda from these two sentences was to substitute an “and” with an “or,” and add in “believed to be.” It is likely that either careless or incompetent journalism dictated otherwise.

Compare these, my bolding. The original:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are the major source of human-caused climate change.

My one-word change and three word addition:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease or asthma and are believed to be the major source of human-caused climate change.

There, see how easy that was? Now any reader who implied that dirt caused cancer or was the major source of human-caused climate change would be a fool. As it stands, it is the author who appears foolish.

I could go on and on dissecting this piece, but I’m not going to go any further. I will say, however, that the cumulative effect of articles like these– articles that distort reality– is that the masses of asses eventually begin to believe whatever assertions that those in a position of information authority decide to make. And that can not be good.

This is just an update to my prior post about the car accident in which I was involved. As you recall, another driver traveling at about 35mph collided head-on with my Corolla, which was traveling at about 10mph. Airbags all around, no major injuries, and the other driver was at fault and cited for failure to yield.

His insurance company, State Farm, has decided to total out my car. They initially offered me $6,000 or so, plus a few hundred for tax, title, etc., so around $6400. Most everyone I talked to said that it’s a take it or leave it situation, but I have to tell you that it is not. Their initial offer is just that– an offer.

I had a list of reasons why my car was improperly valued, focusing on the fact that the NADA website states that they only list the most common options. My contention was that the appraiser missed quite a few options for which I paid (Winter package w/ upgraded starter and heat, color-keyed mirrors (match the body paint), a trailer hitch (used for my bike rack), and floor and trunk mats). I had the original sticker from the day I bought my car (Oct 28, 2000), and I knew exactly what I paid for those options. I used them as a negotiating tactic– “You valued a base-model Corolla, which my car was not”– and was able to get them to up the offer a little bit. Hey, something is better than nothing, right?

I was able to talk them up to an even $7,000, which to me isn’t that bad. Hell, $6,500 wasn’t bad, and was certainly more than what I’d get were I to sell the car outright, prior to the accident. But, $7,000 is better. The car had a broken windshield, the lights on the dashboard had started to go out, the Savannah heat had caused just about all the door and window seals and plastic to pop (some torn right off), the interior was in terrible shape, the door was missing an interior handle, and I had never even checked– let alone replaced– my transmission fluid and antifreeze. Of course, I had done some repairs to the car– two new tires for $100 or so, and new brake drums and pads on the back for another $60 or so, plus my own labor. So I only got to use those parts for about 90 days.

I’d say $7,000 is pretty fair.

So tomorrow, Jaime is taking the day off and we’re buying a car. We’ll have the $7,000 to spend, along with up to $3,000 that is available to us from our bank if we need it.

I’ll let you know what we get!