Squirrel siblings in greeting
October 11, 2008
The Squirrel is Back
October 9, 2008
Millet that was part of last year’s squirrel food germinated and grew in this year’s backyard habitat. And it’s reached maturity and has begun to produce. So this year the squirrels have started getting it fresh off the stalk.
They are quite the acrobats. Sometimes the stems bend under a squirrel’s weight, but these guys always manage to win their prize.
So, another great thing about a backyard habitat turns out to be one’s never knowing what will happen next. We had never anticipated that some of the uneaten seeds in the wild bird food would begin growing of its own. And these millet plants not only please the squirrels, they’re very beautiful. So, next year we might just plant some deliberately. Meanwhile, these plants are great. They’re close to the house so we get a front row view of the squirrel acrobatics.
Please note: This squirrel has nothing to do with their ACORN!
“Audacity” Deserves Another Look
October 4, 2008
Joe Conason of Salon’s piece on Sarah Palin is so representative of contemporary “progressive” thought that it pays revisiting. He asks — in that sanctimonious way so beloved by his tribe:
Why should we pretend not to notice when Gov. Palin’s ideas make no sense? Having said last week that “it doesn’t matter” whether human activity is the cause of climate change, she said in debate that she “doesn’t want to argue” about the causes. It doesn’t occur to her that we have to know the causes in order to address the problem. (She was very fortunate that moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t ask her whether she truly believes that human beings and dinosaurs inhabited this planet simultaneously only 6,000 years ago.)
Since Mr. Conason and his readers cannot make the inference themselves, we who support the GOP must be careful from this day forth to fill in the passages of reasoning over which they cannot ever seem to leap: that “global warming” and its purported causes is irrelevant. We used to have a whole lot of people who cared about the thing you call “the environment” (we used to call it “nature”) and we used to call these people ”conservationists.” Madonna and Al Gore insisted that the name be changed because it sounded too much like “conservative,” and therefore might have brought forth bipartisanship on a topic that concerns everyone. Horror, people agreeing. Cannot have that. Plus Madonna thought it might hinder her marketing if people were encouraged to care about serious things.
So, friends, in order to seem to monopolize the issue it was renamed “environmentalism” and became the trademarked and copyrighted property of the Left and nature be damned.
However, as Sarah Palin has so gently tried to point out to Katie Couric (a discerning intellectual of leftwing politics), people can do a lot to counter effects of pollution and habitat destruction. We can still care about clean water, clean air, wild animals, and wilderness with or without a theory of global warming. The inference that if global warming is natural that various helpful actions are still possible (besides wringing one’s hands in despair) is not an idea that Left-wing thinkers can “get” unassisted.
We have to tell them that Sarah Palin actually knows something about “nature.” She can still see it from her front porch.
You know, it’s too bad that Gwen Ifill didn’t ask Sarah Palin the question about whether she believed that humans and dinosaurs existed during the same geologic period. Palin could have simply said, “No.” And that would be the denouement of Conason’s little fantasy.
Global Baloney
September 6, 2008
I found this posted at Holycoast:
Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.
With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.
The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.
William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was “definitely colder” than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.
So, is it melting or not?
I’m not a scientist, and I make no claims about global warming one way or the other. The candidate I support, John McCain, takes the issue seriously and says the U.S. needs to take action. I am skeptical, myself. Once “science” became politics, it stopped being science.
Anyway, before we get too gung-ho, it might behoove us to find out what’s really going on. In the meanwhile, clean air, clean water, preservation of wild places, and respect for wild life are not partisan issues — or they shouldn’t be.
I found the beautiful photo above at the the Brit’s Embassy.




