For those who remember the debate about the comma just before “and” in a list … thought you’d enjoy this.
My editors know how to make me happy. #ProOxfordComma
The most stunning example (and true staff favorite) is Prunus pendula var. ascendens, one of the biggest and most beautiful cherries on our grounds. It is situated just above Wamsler Rock (the big outcropping you can see from the main Tram Stop near the Visitor Center), at the juncture of the Rock Garden and the soon-to-open Native Plant Garden.
In addition, the monumental sculptures of Manolo Valdés are getting serious backup from a few stunning trees, the tulips are starting to lend bold shots of color to our landscape, and the topiary in the Everett Children’s Adventure Garden have put on their summer frocks.
The weather this spring is proving perfect for blossom longevity, so many of the plants that we reported as blooming last week and the week before are still looking gorgeous. For day-to-day updates on what we’re seeing around grounds, be sure to follow us on Instagram and Twitter where we post daily updates from our staff and visitors. Also, need help getting around? Our iPhone app can help out there. It’s free and available in the App Store. ~AR
That’s it. I’m going. This week.
I went this weekend with a very special someone and made sure she brought her camera. The end result was a day of amazing pictures.
Walking into the kitchen in the morning to see dishes in the sink and thinking, “I should really get these in the dishw…Oh.”
- This living retro moment has been brought to you by the realization that a dishwasher is a pretty handy thing.
And the letter P. For Palmolive.
From the Huffington Post. Illinois state Rep. Jeanne Ives, a Wheaton Republican, was the subject of a threat over recent remarks she made in opposition to same-sex marriage.
This is 2013, right? Sometimes I feel like we’re still living in the dark ages …
|JUSTICE BREYER:||Assume that you could distinguish California. Assue that we accept your argument -- or Mr. Scalia's version of your argument. And that distinguishes California. Now, let's look at California: what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as the procreation of children, that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married that can't have children. So take a state that does allow adoption and say, there -- what's the justification for saying "no gay marriage"? Certainly not the one you said, is it?|
|COOPER:||Uh, y-y-y-you --|
|BREYER (interjecting):||Am I not clear? Look: you said that the problem is marriage, as an institution that furthers procreation --|
|COOPER:||Yes, Your Honor.|
|BREYER:||And the reason there was adoption. But that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California, and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument -- about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that in California too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time?|
|COOPER:||Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic, traditional procreative purposes. And it will re-focus, re-focus the purpose of marriage a-and the definition of marriage away from the, uh, uh, raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.|
|KAGAN:||Well, suppose a State said, "Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of 55." Would that be constitutional?|
|COOPER:||No, Your Honor. It would not be constitutional.|
|KAGAN:||Because that's the same State interest, I would think. You know? If you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in protecting procreation through marriage. So why is that different?|
|COOPER:||You, you, Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple -- are infertile.|
|(Laughter from the gallery.)|
|KAGAN (interjecting):||No really, because the couple -- I can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.|
That awkward moment when you agree with Thomas Jefferson…(via section9)