Well, Ben doesn't let any grass grown under his feet. If you aren't up and working when he walks out, the tree will already be down. Thankfully, I heard his chainsaw fire up, so hurried to put my shoes on and rush outside to watch. This time the tree was about 80 feet tall [by our estimation, the maximum height]and we decided to fell it TOWARD B1 which is the Bieniaks unit. TRUST!
So, Ben first cut a wedge out of the B-Bldg. side of the tree about two fee from the base. Then he started to cut straight towards the wedge cut. Now, normally, the tree would just eventually bend into the wedge cut and fall square with the wedge cut. But today there was an east wind blowing directly against the direction of the fall. So, felling the tree is more complicated. Behind the saw blade he hammers in small wedges that force the tree "forward." Then he cuts a little more and then hammers in some more small wedges. Eventually the tree falls. Awesome! Whap - a thunderous whap - it hits the ground.
It was about 8 feet taller than we though, with a perfect small "Christmas Tree" at the top, except flat on one side. We allowed for about 15 feet from the front of B1's porch. So, we missed the porch as it turned out by about 5 feet. Whew! The artist did it again!
We also pruned several fruit trees, badly in need of pruning. We rented a chipper that turns branches up to 6" thick into wood chips. It has been a lot of work over 2 days, but the branches and leaves are now in a huge wood chip pile and we have tons of wood stacked everywhere for anyone that needs it. A lot of it needs splitting. The maple and the fruit wood will ultimately be great for fireplaces.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
An Unlikely Artist
Yesterday we felled 2 trees on the BSRC property in spaces most people would look at, shake their heads and say, "Your're nuts if you try." One of the trees was a maple tree with 4 trunks, each big enough to be a tree in its own right and all over 70 feet tall.
Ben Thompson, our friend and a logger by trade from the time he was a boy, studied the trees and determined that he could fell them. Skeptical, but trusting his judgement [because after all he is the expert] I watched as he artfully felled the trees along lines that he missed, if he missed at all, by less than twelve inches. Some of the trees leaned 90 degrees opposite to the direction of the fall. He climbed up 40 feet or more [mind you, he is not a school boy, but a 50 year old man], tied on a rope to be used "just as a precaution" and keep the tree from swaying in the wind before it fell correctly. But the direction of the fall ultimately depended and in fact happened by the skillful cuts that Ben made.
I never thought about calling a logger an artist, but Ben, you are an artist.
Ben Thompson, our friend and a logger by trade from the time he was a boy, studied the trees and determined that he could fell them. Skeptical, but trusting his judgement [because after all he is the expert] I watched as he artfully felled the trees along lines that he missed, if he missed at all, by less than twelve inches. Some of the trees leaned 90 degrees opposite to the direction of the fall. He climbed up 40 feet or more [mind you, he is not a school boy, but a 50 year old man], tied on a rope to be used "just as a precaution" and keep the tree from swaying in the wind before it fell correctly. But the direction of the fall ultimately depended and in fact happened by the skillful cuts that Ben made.
I never thought about calling a logger an artist, but Ben, you are an artist.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Income Tax
Last night's segment about income tax on CBS's 60 Minutes was well done and provocative. It confirmed my own ignorant bias towards progressive income taxes and renewed my hope that sanity may yet prevail in our economy and in our government. The two are inextricably linked of course.
Washington State's referendum on instituting and income tax (currently there is no state income tax in Washington) was used as a focal point of discussion, together with an interview of David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. See it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Leslie Stahl says, "Think your taxes are too high? David Stockman thinks they're not high enough. And he's a Republican who once helped engineer the largest tax cut in history. Ronald Reagan's former budget director tells Lesley Stahl why he's changed his tune on taxes. " She goes on to interview Stockman, Bill Gates Sr. and Washington's governor. She also interviews opposing individuals.
Everything I have read to date point towards the benefits of "taxing the rich" [or eliminating the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans], but the naysayers continue to state that higher taxes on the "rich" would hurt business. I don't get the connection. I can understand how some businesses might benefit from being in a state that has no income tax because they can retain employees that want to work in a no income tax state, but on the Federal level I don't see any viable arguments.
I do understand that an increased revenue stream tempts Congress to spend, spend, spend, but economists such as Paul Krugman argue that spending, targeted at stimulating the economy, is essential in the near term for digging out of this recession and that history proves such is the case. I have to believe he is smarter on the issue than I am even though I know equally smart people disagree with him. If Krugman is correct, then the problem is not taxes in the near term, but how to control spending in the long term. Many entitlement programs need to be brought under control and probably our standard of living as a whole will decline. But if things are not brought under control our standard of living will definitely decline with perhaps worse consequences both in duration and in severity. I am thinking in particular of the crime and political upheavals and wars that have accompanied global economic depressions.
Washington State's referendum on instituting and income tax (currently there is no state income tax in Washington) was used as a focal point of discussion, together with an interview of David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director. See it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7009217n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Leslie Stahl says, "Think your taxes are too high? David Stockman thinks they're not high enough. And he's a Republican who once helped engineer the largest tax cut in history. Ronald Reagan's former budget director tells Lesley Stahl why he's changed his tune on taxes. " She goes on to interview Stockman, Bill Gates Sr. and Washington's governor. She also interviews opposing individuals.
Everything I have read to date point towards the benefits of "taxing the rich" [or eliminating the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans], but the naysayers continue to state that higher taxes on the "rich" would hurt business. I don't get the connection. I can understand how some businesses might benefit from being in a state that has no income tax because they can retain employees that want to work in a no income tax state, but on the Federal level I don't see any viable arguments.
I do understand that an increased revenue stream tempts Congress to spend, spend, spend, but economists such as Paul Krugman argue that spending, targeted at stimulating the economy, is essential in the near term for digging out of this recession and that history proves such is the case. I have to believe he is smarter on the issue than I am even though I know equally smart people disagree with him. If Krugman is correct, then the problem is not taxes in the near term, but how to control spending in the long term. Many entitlement programs need to be brought under control and probably our standard of living as a whole will decline. But if things are not brought under control our standard of living will definitely decline with perhaps worse consequences both in duration and in severity. I am thinking in particular of the crime and political upheavals and wars that have accompanied global economic depressions.
NaNoWriMo
I started my novel this morning. I have been anticipating this event for several months now. Usually November ends up being overwhelmed with assorted activities and responsibilities, virtually prohibiting allocating enough time to participate. However, this year I decided that I wasn't as busy as usual and that I would try to keep it that way in order to have more time to write. There will still be a trip to Tehachapi for Thanksgiving, and between now and then there are days of work, including felling trees with the help of Ben Thompson, but with fidelity to some early morning writing and late evening writing [as needed] I think I can do it.
Today I completed 1675 words and may yet devote some time to writing more. The novel is historical fiction, set in pre-Civil War through early post-Civil War times. The heroine is based on a real person of whom I know very little, but believe she was educated, independent and liberal thinking for her time. She was an abolitionist and woman suffragist and a cousin to Harriet [Beecher] Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher. She was a Union sympathizer married to a southern man and trapped in the Confederate south, but in the area of Knoxville, TN recognized as a hotbed of Union sentiment because of many human ties to families in New England.
How does she cope when her husband's sentiments turn to support of the Confederacy and how does their relationship change? Does her loyalty to the Union cause(s) trump her love and devotion for her husband? When her husband is tried for war crimes after the war, what, if any, role did she play in the death of his victim and in his capture, and how will their own personal "civil war" resolve itself?
I don't know the answers or how it will end, but I have embarked on the journey.
Today I completed 1675 words and may yet devote some time to writing more. The novel is historical fiction, set in pre-Civil War through early post-Civil War times. The heroine is based on a real person of whom I know very little, but believe she was educated, independent and liberal thinking for her time. She was an abolitionist and woman suffragist and a cousin to Harriet [Beecher] Stowe and Henry Ward Beecher. She was a Union sympathizer married to a southern man and trapped in the Confederate south, but in the area of Knoxville, TN recognized as a hotbed of Union sentiment because of many human ties to families in New England.
How does she cope when her husband's sentiments turn to support of the Confederacy and how does their relationship change? Does her loyalty to the Union cause(s) trump her love and devotion for her husband? When her husband is tried for war crimes after the war, what, if any, role did she play in the death of his victim and in his capture, and how will their own personal "civil war" resolve itself?
I don't know the answers or how it will end, but I have embarked on the journey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)