I have yet to really embrace the verb "to bird." I grew up knowing it as bird watching because that's what Dad called it. Many bird enthusiasts have embraced the verb, as well as the noun "birder." I tolerated that for some time, but not now.
About twelve years ago I took the Master Birding course from my local chapter of Audubon. It was a great course, with the identification classes taught by Dennis Paulson, a nationally recognized authority on shorebirds. Upon finishing the course, I was officially a Master Birder. Cool.
About four years later I was meeting some neighbors of my in-laws. One of them found my being a Master Birder to be quite hilarious, due to the fact that the term sounds similar to an activity not usually discussed in polite company. I am no longer a Master Birder. Nor am I a Master Bird Watcher. I'm just a bird watcher.
Even though I completed a course which entitled me to the rating of master, I've never really felt like a master. Advanced intermediate maybe, but not master. Frankly, I don't know how some of my classmates have found the time in their lives to get the bird identification practice needed to become as proficient as some of them have. I'm more than just a little jealous!
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Winter Hummingbirds
I continue to be amazed at the resiliance of the Anna's Hummingbird. One or more always seem to hang around my feeder throughout the winter. When the weather turns really cold (around here that means anything below freezing) I always expect they will disappear and not return. I don't understand why these birds don't freeze solid in such weather. Those tiny little bodies, they have so little mass to them. Wouldn't they lose heat so quickly as to become hypothermic 
during the long cold night?
Thinking of this reminds me once again of the complexity and fragility of our world, and the impact we have on it. Humans have made more negative impacts on the natural systems and cycles of Earth than any other living thing. In fact the only thing I can think of that possibly can eclipse human despoliation of the planet is an asteroid impact or our Sun reaching supernova status.
There is one thing which makes an impact greater than any. Our global population is now beyond six billion individual lives, yet their are so many among those masses who believe they must procreate beyond all practical guidelines. Often they believe so for religious reasons, sometimes they are driven by perceived economic benefits. In wealthy nations they can afford to say, "I want to have lots of kids!" just because it sounds fun or is thought to be rewarding in some non-economic way. And our government rewards such thinking through yearly tax credits.
Then there is the philosophy that we must have a continuously growing population to keep our economy healthy, which I have long believed sounds like the biggest pyramid scheme in the history of the world. Or maybe it's the purveyors of actual pyramid schemes who advance this plan as a way to ensure there continued economic security. But it's always the ones at the bottom of the pyramid who wind up suffering, and in the global pyramid those will be the impoverished and powerless.
during the long cold night?Thinking of this reminds me once again of the complexity and fragility of our world, and the impact we have on it. Humans have made more negative impacts on the natural systems and cycles of Earth than any other living thing. In fact the only thing I can think of that possibly can eclipse human despoliation of the planet is an asteroid impact or our Sun reaching supernova status.
There is one thing which makes an impact greater than any. Our global population is now beyond six billion individual lives, yet their are so many among those masses who believe they must procreate beyond all practical guidelines. Often they believe so for religious reasons, sometimes they are driven by perceived economic benefits. In wealthy nations they can afford to say, "I want to have lots of kids!" just because it sounds fun or is thought to be rewarding in some non-economic way. And our government rewards such thinking through yearly tax credits.
Then there is the philosophy that we must have a continuously growing population to keep our economy healthy, which I have long believed sounds like the biggest pyramid scheme in the history of the world. Or maybe it's the purveyors of actual pyramid schemes who advance this plan as a way to ensure there continued economic security. But it's always the ones at the bottom of the pyramid who wind up suffering, and in the global pyramid those will be the impoverished and powerless.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Romney's Religion Speech
Mitt Romney today defended his Mormon faith in public. Among other things he argued that many citizens are trying to remove use of the word "God" from the public arena. He went on to say, "It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
What Romney has forgotten is that there are religions which do not believe in "God." Buddhists do not have a capital G "God," although I understand some elevate Buddha to the status of a god. Shintoists also lack the capital G "God," as do the Taoists and Confucianists (alright, I admit their is some debate about whether the latter group is actually part of a religion). There are others who practice religions with no god, capital G or otherwise. Removing the word "God" from the public arena would be fair, not secular.
What Romney has forgotten is that there are religions which do not believe in "God." Buddhists do not have a capital G "God," although I understand some elevate Buddha to the status of a god. Shintoists also lack the capital G "God," as do the Taoists and Confucianists (alright, I admit their is some debate about whether the latter group is actually part of a religion). There are others who practice religions with no god, capital G or otherwise. Removing the word "God" from the public arena would be fair, not secular.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Religious Reactionaries
The latest radical Islamic brouhaha occurring in Sudan convinces me more than ever that religious conservatives of any stripe are out of their minds. In our country they call themselves things like Moral Majority and Aryan Nations. In Afghanistan they are known as the Taliban, and the only thing preventing our zealots from ruling like the former leaders of that nation is something called the Constitution of the United States.
I remember well when I first learned of the atrocities being committed in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. The law or principles known as Sharia were responsible for the justification of public beheadings and chopping off hands. I first saw a picture of an Afghan man holding up a hand dangling from a string, sporting a very pleased grin. Another picture showed a woman dressed in a burkha on her knees in the street being verbally attacked by men for whatever her perceived immoral behavior was. Judgement was passed summarily in Afghanistan in those bad old days, not much opportunity for legal appeal.
A British teacher is in jail in Sudan presently for allowing her students to name a stuffed bear "Mohammed." This is perceived as an insult to Islam. She was sentenced to fifteen days in jail, which is apparently pretty horrific in Sudan. She could have faced forty lashes, and today protesters filled the streets calling for her execution.
When the American press referred to the young California man captured while fighting for the enemy in Afghanistan as "the American Taliban," my first thought was, "No! Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the American Taliban!" Truly, if people of their ilk could have their way America would quickly become as medieval as any conservative Islamic Republic. My wife once dated a man who told her that according to the bible all homosexuals should be killed. He is also an American Taliban. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who run a website called GodHatesFags.com, among other bigoted activities could also be potential members of our Taliban.
Do you have any nominees for the American Taliban?
I remember well when I first learned of the atrocities being committed in Afghanistan in the name of Islam. The law or principles known as Sharia were responsible for the justification of public beheadings and chopping off hands. I first saw a picture of an Afghan man holding up a hand dangling from a string, sporting a very pleased grin. Another picture showed a woman dressed in a burkha on her knees in the street being verbally attacked by men for whatever her perceived immoral behavior was. Judgement was passed summarily in Afghanistan in those bad old days, not much opportunity for legal appeal.
A British teacher is in jail in Sudan presently for allowing her students to name a stuffed bear "Mohammed." This is perceived as an insult to Islam. She was sentenced to fifteen days in jail, which is apparently pretty horrific in Sudan. She could have faced forty lashes, and today protesters filled the streets calling for her execution.
When the American press referred to the young California man captured while fighting for the enemy in Afghanistan as "the American Taliban," my first thought was, "No! Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are the American Taliban!" Truly, if people of their ilk could have their way America would quickly become as medieval as any conservative Islamic Republic. My wife once dated a man who told her that according to the bible all homosexuals should be killed. He is also an American Taliban. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who run a website called GodHatesFags.com, among other bigoted activities could also be potential members of our Taliban.
Do you have any nominees for the American Taliban?
Monday, November 19, 2007
Those Rotten Seattle People!
This morning in a local paper a reader whined about the passage of HJR 4204. The whining was aimed at Seattle, the great satan of Washington state. Anytime a statewide office goes to a Democrat, or a ballot issue perceived as "liberal" passes, the shrill complaining begins. "Seattle has too much power!" It's not fair that the Seattle liberals always get what they want!" Cue the tantrum.
The reader in question proposed that a change be made to our state legislative system. Rather than each legislative district electing two representatives and one senator, that senators be elected by county. This certainly would reflect the makeup of the U.S. Congress, but that's not necessarily good. Any time you give a group power disproportionate to its size, you have an unfair situation. I would rather see our legislature go unicameral than switch to the county senator system.
One common argument for the supermajority is that it is needed to "protect property owners." In fact, the only people it protects are people opposed to any issue which requires more than a fifty-percent plus one majority to pass.
What makes me happiest about the victory of 4204 is knowing that school levy opponents may finally have to actively campaign to get what they want. For years school staff have been asked to donate money and time to pass school levies. This change in law eases some of the pressure on them and transfers it to the people who want to eliminate a major source of school funding.
Please, don't suggest that the legislature "fully funding" education is the solution to the levy problem, not getting rid of the supermajority. I would be entirely happy to get rid of levies altogether if the legislature ever comes up with a fair system to fully fund K-12 education in Washington. Until then, the simple majority should rule.
The reader in question proposed that a change be made to our state legislative system. Rather than each legislative district electing two representatives and one senator, that senators be elected by county. This certainly would reflect the makeup of the U.S. Congress, but that's not necessarily good. Any time you give a group power disproportionate to its size, you have an unfair situation. I would rather see our legislature go unicameral than switch to the county senator system.
One common argument for the supermajority is that it is needed to "protect property owners." In fact, the only people it protects are people opposed to any issue which requires more than a fifty-percent plus one majority to pass.
What makes me happiest about the victory of 4204 is knowing that school levy opponents may finally have to actively campaign to get what they want. For years school staff have been asked to donate money and time to pass school levies. This change in law eases some of the pressure on them and transfers it to the people who want to eliminate a major source of school funding.
Please, don't suggest that the legislature "fully funding" education is the solution to the levy problem, not getting rid of the supermajority. I would be entirely happy to get rid of levies altogether if the legislature ever comes up with a fair system to fully fund K-12 education in Washington. Until then, the simple majority should rule.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Global Idiocy
Global warming and global economy. Separate concepts, right? But is the global economy driving global warming?
Free trade agreements are the fertilizer for the global economy tree. The idea is that there be no restrictions to trade between nations. Laissez-faire for the world, more or less. Of course, that puts nations where government regulates industry at a disadvantage, like the United States. Mega-nations like China pump out products containing toxic substances, ship them around the world, and the industry regulations that protect American consumers from these products are rendered null and void. At the same time, the EPA regs designed to keep our air clean and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are weakened because so much manufacturing is done where there is no EPA.
All of this could create pressure to rescind many laws designed to improve the quality of life in our nation. That fits my definition of idiocy.
Free trade agreements are the fertilizer for the global economy tree. The idea is that there be no restrictions to trade between nations. Laissez-faire for the world, more or less. Of course, that puts nations where government regulates industry at a disadvantage, like the United States. Mega-nations like China pump out products containing toxic substances, ship them around the world, and the industry regulations that protect American consumers from these products are rendered null and void. At the same time, the EPA regs designed to keep our air clean and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are weakened because so much manufacturing is done where there is no EPA.
All of this could create pressure to rescind many laws designed to improve the quality of life in our nation. That fits my definition of idiocy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)