It is our first snow-day of the season! And I'm glad they finally closed things -- I went out to get my paper and promptly fell on my butt. This is definitely not a good day to go anywhere in a car. It's supposed to continue snowing through tomorrow, which is no doubt when they will finally decide to do something about the roads. They usually don't do anything until after it stops snowing.
The puppies are loving it. Betsy still is trying to eat all of the snow. I'm not sure why, but apparently, it's more fun than just drinking water. She eats chunks of ice, too. Oh, and Adagio gets to come live with us after the holidays! Her family is moving, and they can't take him with them. I was going to hold off before getting Betsy another puppy to play with, but I can't let them put Adagio in a shelter. They're such good buds, they'd miss each other a lot if they were separated. Adagio's been staying over the past week in an effort to get them used to living with each other.
It seems to be going fairly well. Betsy's still getting used to the idea that Adagio is now allowed in the house. There haven't been actual fights, but Betsy's making a concerted effort to keep me to herself. If I pay attention to Adagio, especially in the house, she will try to start a game with him to get him outside. She then sneaks back in, while he's outside. This is getting less, though. Adagio doesn't seem to mind this at all. He does whatever Betsy wants him to. He's so easy-going, he'll let Betsy chew on his ears all day, so long as he gets his head patted on occasion! That's a retriever for you! So far, my solution is to call Adagio over to me and give him pats, and if Betsy interferes, both dogs go behind the gate in the kitchen. They come in when both are calm and Betsy's allowed Adagio back through the dog door. If Betsy does not interfere, both dogs get pats. If they are both lying quietly in the same room with me, I periodically give individual pats.
Adagio has also been getting some remedial training. He's surprisingly good in the house, for as much time as he's spent outside. He is house trained, and does not get on furniture, nor does he steal things off counters or tables. His main problem is that he just gets so excited about everything, especially human contact! He knows "sit," so he'll sit at you until you pet him. By this, I mean he sits so close to you that if you're not careful, your knees will buckle. He pushes with his head, and prances all four feet (a strange sight, while he's sitting!). If this fails to get your attention, he jumps up, and actually pushes at you with his forefeet. In an approximately 60-65 pound dog, this is not good. (Yes, he outweighs Betsy by a fair amount, but they're about the same height. Betsy weighs under 50 lbs.) So Adagio and I have been working on the jumping up, and it is getting better. Ignoring him is the easiest way: when calm, he gets pats. When excited, he does not! He's not stupid, he's figuring it out. Anything for attention!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
On Liberalism and Knitting
No, there is nothing connecting these topics together, other than I happen to have been thinking about them both a lot lately. Perhaps if I were an English professor, I would be able to come up with something that links these two ideas together. But since I'm not, I won't try.
I've been wondering for a while now, when did the word "liberal" become "bad"? I mean the word "liberal" means open-handed and generous, not literal or strict, according to Merriam-Webster. But all I seem to be hearing about for the past election cycle is how horrible it is to be liberal: how liberals are pro-abortion and even pro-death. Now I've known many, many people in my lifetime who identify themselves as "liberal," politically. But, I know of not one person who thinks abortion is a "good" thing to do. No one recommends everyone have one. And as for "pro-death," isn't it those horrible liberals who oppose the death penalty? Oppose the war in Iraq? Even try to save such things as tree-frogs and spotted owls? All as a result of their dislike of death. It is my opinion that it is myopic, and even mean-spirited to say that anyone is "pro-death," regardless of your opinion of another's view of the death penalty, abortion, or the tree-frog.
Personally, I am opposed to abortion: I believe it to be a sin, immoral, and I believe life begins at conception. However, as I do not run the world (and I have no wish to), I recognize that not everyone will agree with me. Scientists and doctors cannot agree on when life begins! And, as my belief regarding this comes from the Bible, I do not feel that I am in a position to impose my views regarding this upon others. I certainly do not believe it is the place of the government of this country to impose its views on this either, especially not when based primarily on religious philosophy. So, yes, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. Both.
This country needs liberals. Without liberals, schools could still legally be segregated, the Voting Rights Act would not have been passed, it would be perfectly legal to discriminate against a person because of their race in private establishments, and none but the first ten amendments to the Constitution would be in existence. All were the results of "activism," and flew in the face of strict adherence to the letter of the law, then in existence. However, change for the sake of it is not good in government, either. You can't be changing the Constitution every ten minutes on a whim, and the Court cannot decide to depart from the current law, "just because." It would create the most unstable government in the world!
So, yes, this country needs conservatives, as well, to hold back and say, "Look! This is the Constitution, and this is why these things were put in there in the first place! This is what our country was founded upon." But keeping things the way they always have been, just because "this is the way it's always been" is a danger as well. Nothing makes me more angry about office procedure than the following conversation: "Why do we do this in this way?" "Because it's the way we've always done it." "But wouldn't it be more efficient to do it this other way?" "Sure." "Then, why can't we do it that way, instead?" "Because we've always done it this way." We need both parties in government. Liberal and conservative. We need the liberals trying to move forward and change things all the time, and conservatives trying to hold things the way they are. This way, we never get too far ahead too fast, but yet when change is needed, it can be done.
End of sermon: Now the knitting! These are my July and September socks!
Here's a better view of the green ones, so you can see the pattern, hopefully.
Now, I'm all excited about my winter project: a fisherman's sweater. Cozy and cabley. I got a really light caramel color brown for it. (I only paid around $25 for the yarn!) And, it's the kind of pattern that lets you figure out measurements and shaping and stuff for yourself! I'm thrilled.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Happy Veterans' Day!
One of the perks of working "in government" is that you get random days off work: Veterans' Day, for example. So today, Betsy and I had our yearly vet appointment to update her rabies, bordatella, and parvo shots (I think there are a couple more in there, too); test her for heart worm; get more chewies; and an all-around check-up. She's apparently in excellent health -- her temp was a little high, due to excitement, and her heart rate was somewhat low. The vet attributed the heart rate to her "athletic" lifestyle. While I'm not particularly athletic, with the exception of a daily walk and an occasional hike, Betsy is. She plays and runs randomly around until she simply collapses. Every moment not playing is wasted, according to her! When she was teeny-tiny, she'd be so sleepy by bed-time that she would sit there in her crate swaying back and forth trying to stay awake! And today at the vets, she made friends with all the techs and one of the other canine patients. She tried to make friends with a large German Shepherd, but he was a little large and loud. She was a little frightened of him, and he wasn't so much in the mood to make friends. No one still has any clue what breeds she might be comprised of, although everyone I've asked about it is pretty sure there's either Australian Shepherd or Border Collie or both in there somewhere. The face, ears, body-size and behavior make that pretty clear. Everything she does screams "I am a herding dog!"
So, after the vets, I had lunch with a friend, went shoe-shopping, grocery shopping, and bought another video game. It was the most efficient shoe-shop I've ever had. In and out in 15 minutes, with two pairs of shoes. I generally hate shoe-shopping, but if it was like that every time, I'd do it more often! It was definitely time, too. My tennis-shoes are 13 years old! (But they are so comfortable! Who needs treads?)
Oh, and a couple weekends ago Adagio re-appeared. I discovered this upon going to investigate a huge commotion of thumping going on at the back door, and I saw two fluffy dog-heads in the dog-door. Eventually, they sorted out who was to come in first (which was what the problem was, apparently) so here's the both of them, panting up a storm, both with soggy chewed-on ears. And yes, Betsy's nearly as tall as Adagio now, but weighs somewhat less. Sadly, Adagio's latest escape resulted in the neighbors finding it necessary to lock her in an ex-pen with a piece of plywood for a floor (so she can't dig out, presumably) during the day. Normally, I'd say that's not so bad, but there's a doghouse in there, in addition to their other dog, making for not much room. Plus, it can't be comfy for a dog to have to "potty" on plywood so close to her bed. However, just as I finished the last sentence, Betsy went over to sit at the baby gate, intensely interested, and I hear this surreptitious "clink, clink." Lo and behold Adagio has come in my dog door, all the way across my house, looking for Betsy! I took down the gate to let Betsy out, and they both went straight outside for their romp. What fun!! I'm now going to try out my new game.
Monday, November 03, 2008
If I Won the Lottery
I think everyone must think about this from time to time: What would you do if you did not have to work for a living? If you could do anything you wanted, without regard for the cost, what would it be?
My answer is probably quite unique: I'd go back to school! Not to "better myself," necessarily, but to learn stuff. I'd get a masters in history, and maybe a doctorate. American history, probably focusing on either the civil war or the decades between 1917, when we entered World War I and the end of 1941, when we entered World War II. And I'd probably want to teach some classes. Probably high-school or college.
Why in the world do I want to study history? I'm not entirely sure. All I know is that I find it interesting. I don't think memorizing a bunch of dates and places is interesting -- so many people seem to teach history badly. History is not about that. History also isn't about minutia, either: it's not this corps of that army occupied that hill, and this other army sent these guys in this formation to take it with these types of guns, and there were this many thousand casualties. That's not history either. History is about humanity. The decisions people make while they are suffering. Have you noticed that those dates people memorize are always about when horrible things were happening? When you learn your dates in ninth-grade history, it's always about "December 6, 1941 was the bombing of Pearl Harbor" or "October whatever-it-was in 1929 was Black Tuesday the stock-market crashed and began the Depression." The events one learns about are usually incredibly difficult times that shaped those times that came afterward.
What I find interesting about history is how people of those times responded to the crises in which they found themselves: from the small to the great. Some despaired, others made momentous decisions that changed the course of events for better or worse, and yet others simply survived -- living on from day to day as best they could. I think that's why I find the American Civil War intriguing. Those four years -- April 1861 until April 1865 were crucial in shaping our country: probably more crucial than any other event in this country's history, with the exception of the drafting and signing of the Constitution. This country, itself, was tested more than it has ever been before or since. People don't think about it now, but had things turned out differently, we would not have a Federal Government, it would likely be more of an advisory board that coordinates the supreme governments of the States. People would not now have bumper stickers on their cars about "Proud to be an American." It would be "Proud to be a Virginian" or a Rhode Islander, or a Wyoming-ite? Each state would have decided for itself whether to go to Europe during World War I, rather than the U.S. Congress. There would be no federal taxes, nor federal programs.
But unlike the Constitution, the Civil War directly affected the lives of every single person alive in this country. From the end of slavery to food shortages to the massive percentage of men in this country who were away from their families for four years and returned ever-changed, if at all. Everyone felt the impact of war. And one of the most exciting things to a historian, if I may be so bold, is that so many people wrote about it. They wrote diaries and letters. Those that couldn't write often had others write letters to family members for them. Soldiers would dictate to their more literate fellows heartfelt letters to wives, sweethearts, sisters and mothers about being cold or homesick. Sometimes there were just scrawled, poignant notes of missing home and loved ones, but lots of these letters went on for pages and pages. They wrote about why they fought: the Cause, as termed by men on both sides. And there was a Cause -- a higher purpose for those on both sides. The Cause was ironically the same for those on either side. Both sides believed God had pre-ordained their victory. Both sides believed they were fighting for their country, and their freedom. People on each side believed that should they lose the war, the ideals for which their fathers' fathers fought King George would be destroyed, forever.
And so, should I win the lottery, I'd want to learn more: dig deeper, read more. And then I'd want to teach: that is what history's about. It's not about "In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Oh, and about 1917 through 1941 -- I'd want to learn a lot more about that. I know next to nothing about that era. And that was the time the United States grew up. The Civil War made the U.S. a real nation, as opposed to a collection of small nations. The time between WWI and WWII was when we came into our own as a world power: economically and militarily. That is the time during which we went from a new nation, admired but yet to be tested on the world stage, to a nation to which all other nations look.
My answer is probably quite unique: I'd go back to school! Not to "better myself," necessarily, but to learn stuff. I'd get a masters in history, and maybe a doctorate. American history, probably focusing on either the civil war or the decades between 1917, when we entered World War I and the end of 1941, when we entered World War II. And I'd probably want to teach some classes. Probably high-school or college.
Why in the world do I want to study history? I'm not entirely sure. All I know is that I find it interesting. I don't think memorizing a bunch of dates and places is interesting -- so many people seem to teach history badly. History is not about that. History also isn't about minutia, either: it's not this corps of that army occupied that hill, and this other army sent these guys in this formation to take it with these types of guns, and there were this many thousand casualties. That's not history either. History is about humanity. The decisions people make while they are suffering. Have you noticed that those dates people memorize are always about when horrible things were happening? When you learn your dates in ninth-grade history, it's always about "December 6, 1941 was the bombing of Pearl Harbor" or "October whatever-it-was in 1929 was Black Tuesday the stock-market crashed and began the Depression." The events one learns about are usually incredibly difficult times that shaped those times that came afterward.
What I find interesting about history is how people of those times responded to the crises in which they found themselves: from the small to the great. Some despaired, others made momentous decisions that changed the course of events for better or worse, and yet others simply survived -- living on from day to day as best they could. I think that's why I find the American Civil War intriguing. Those four years -- April 1861 until April 1865 were crucial in shaping our country: probably more crucial than any other event in this country's history, with the exception of the drafting and signing of the Constitution. This country, itself, was tested more than it has ever been before or since. People don't think about it now, but had things turned out differently, we would not have a Federal Government, it would likely be more of an advisory board that coordinates the supreme governments of the States. People would not now have bumper stickers on their cars about "Proud to be an American." It would be "Proud to be a Virginian" or a Rhode Islander, or a Wyoming-ite? Each state would have decided for itself whether to go to Europe during World War I, rather than the U.S. Congress. There would be no federal taxes, nor federal programs.
But unlike the Constitution, the Civil War directly affected the lives of every single person alive in this country. From the end of slavery to food shortages to the massive percentage of men in this country who were away from their families for four years and returned ever-changed, if at all. Everyone felt the impact of war. And one of the most exciting things to a historian, if I may be so bold, is that so many people wrote about it. They wrote diaries and letters. Those that couldn't write often had others write letters to family members for them. Soldiers would dictate to their more literate fellows heartfelt letters to wives, sweethearts, sisters and mothers about being cold or homesick. Sometimes there were just scrawled, poignant notes of missing home and loved ones, but lots of these letters went on for pages and pages. They wrote about why they fought: the Cause, as termed by men on both sides. And there was a Cause -- a higher purpose for those on both sides. The Cause was ironically the same for those on either side. Both sides believed God had pre-ordained their victory. Both sides believed they were fighting for their country, and their freedom. People on each side believed that should they lose the war, the ideals for which their fathers' fathers fought King George would be destroyed, forever.
And so, should I win the lottery, I'd want to learn more: dig deeper, read more. And then I'd want to teach: that is what history's about. It's not about "In fourteen-hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue." Oh, and about 1917 through 1941 -- I'd want to learn a lot more about that. I know next to nothing about that era. And that was the time the United States grew up. The Civil War made the U.S. a real nation, as opposed to a collection of small nations. The time between WWI and WWII was when we came into our own as a world power: economically and militarily. That is the time during which we went from a new nation, admired but yet to be tested on the world stage, to a nation to which all other nations look.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
The Presidency of the United States
I just watched the debate. And I watched the VP debate last week. Here's the thing. The President of the United States must be a visionary. He must see the country as it should be, and then strive to make it so. It's this whole thing about "experience" that I don't understand. I mean, experience doing what? Being president? As far as I can tell, there is no job in the world that gives a person "experience" with the types of decisions required of the President of the United States. What other job requires a decision about whether to exert the entire military might of the most powerful nation in the world in a given situation? What other position brings with it the sole responsibility for the welfare of an entire nation, and a nation as diverse and great as this one? While the actual welfare of the nation is likely outside the control of the president, he is the one held responsible for it. Who else can launch nuclear missiles? While I admire Senator McCain: his service to the country, his patriotism, and even his dedication to the American People, I don't get the point of his tallying up voting records. And I don't believe that he has the vision required of the next president. How much "experience" did John F. Kennedy have? How much did Reagan have? F.D.R.? George Washington?
Electing anyone, whether known in politics or not, is a risk. While you may know what they did previously, you will never know what they will do in that round room when the proverbial phone rings at 3 a.m. until it actually happens. I don't care how close you are to what is going on in the Oval Office, until it's your decision, it's just not the same. I think the thing is, the President must have the inherent ability to listen to advice from the Joint Chiefs, the House and Senate, his Cabinet, and anyone else he sees fit; he must then process the monumental amount of information at his disposal, and make the right decision, whether it polls well or not. He must do so with the welfare of the American People always at the forefront of his decision, and he must do so with as full as possible an understanding of the global consequences of any course of action.
Another thing the President must do, that seems to be often overlooked these days, is that he must be the standard-bearer for the United States of America. He must give the People confidence in this country, and the core values upon which it was founded: the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all. He must also be able to convey this to American citizens and to the world. The President must have a certain...gravitas.
These are unquantifiable things. The citizens of this country have made good decisions in this regard, and bad ones. I have a soft spot for Woodrow Wilson. He was a great visionary. However, he lacked the second requirement: the ability to convey to others what in the world he was talking about. No one could get behind him or his plans, because no one could understand what his goal was, or why. Other presidents have had the opposite problem: they were all about charisma, and people were completely behind them, but they never ended up actually leading anywhere.
My favorite president in American history? Well, I like Taft, but more on a empathetic level, than as a great president. He was never cut out for that job. But yet, he "busted" more trusts than the "Trust-Buster" (Teddy Roosevelt). He wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice, never president. (His wife and mother ganged up on him to make him run. Twice!) He was a jurist. He liked figuring out fine points of the law, and making case-by-case decisions. He didn't like the publicity, pressure, or the grey areas of leading a country. He didn't like that his decisions affected so many people. He finally got to be a Supreme Court Justice! Under Coolidge, I think.
The greatest president in American history? Easy. Lincoln. Why? He was a rags-to-riches story. The epitome of the American Dream. And he was perfect for that job, in that time. In another time, I don't know. But he made many monumental, and often unpopular decisions. Those decisions both kept the country in one piece, and righted an unconscionable wrong that had pervaded through centuries. By the way, how much experience did he have upon assuming the presidency? I think a term in Congress? I leave you with that.
Electing anyone, whether known in politics or not, is a risk. While you may know what they did previously, you will never know what they will do in that round room when the proverbial phone rings at 3 a.m. until it actually happens. I don't care how close you are to what is going on in the Oval Office, until it's your decision, it's just not the same. I think the thing is, the President must have the inherent ability to listen to advice from the Joint Chiefs, the House and Senate, his Cabinet, and anyone else he sees fit; he must then process the monumental amount of information at his disposal, and make the right decision, whether it polls well or not. He must do so with the welfare of the American People always at the forefront of his decision, and he must do so with as full as possible an understanding of the global consequences of any course of action.
Another thing the President must do, that seems to be often overlooked these days, is that he must be the standard-bearer for the United States of America. He must give the People confidence in this country, and the core values upon which it was founded: the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all. He must also be able to convey this to American citizens and to the world. The President must have a certain...gravitas.
These are unquantifiable things. The citizens of this country have made good decisions in this regard, and bad ones. I have a soft spot for Woodrow Wilson. He was a great visionary. However, he lacked the second requirement: the ability to convey to others what in the world he was talking about. No one could get behind him or his plans, because no one could understand what his goal was, or why. Other presidents have had the opposite problem: they were all about charisma, and people were completely behind them, but they never ended up actually leading anywhere.
My favorite president in American history? Well, I like Taft, but more on a empathetic level, than as a great president. He was never cut out for that job. But yet, he "busted" more trusts than the "Trust-Buster" (Teddy Roosevelt). He wanted to be a Supreme Court Justice, never president. (His wife and mother ganged up on him to make him run. Twice!) He was a jurist. He liked figuring out fine points of the law, and making case-by-case decisions. He didn't like the publicity, pressure, or the grey areas of leading a country. He didn't like that his decisions affected so many people. He finally got to be a Supreme Court Justice! Under Coolidge, I think.
The greatest president in American history? Easy. Lincoln. Why? He was a rags-to-riches story. The epitome of the American Dream. And he was perfect for that job, in that time. In another time, I don't know. But he made many monumental, and often unpopular decisions. Those decisions both kept the country in one piece, and righted an unconscionable wrong that had pervaded through centuries. By the way, how much experience did he have upon assuming the presidency? I think a term in Congress? I leave you with that.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Really Strange
Ok, so I checked my email and discovered a "comment" waiting to be moderated on a post from over two years ago that has completely baffled me. (The comment baffled me, my post did not.) It had to be "edited for content," as I would like to keep this blog at least "rated PG." I can't, for the life of me, figure out what this guy's point is. It certainly had nothing to do with my post, other than brief mention of "public pretenders" and private attorneys. See what you think:
So what, exactly, is a "Zionist neocolonial typeregime"? I mean I recognize "Zionist" and "neocolonial," but have any of you heard of a "typeregime"? I mean I'm not Jewish, and I certainly don't want to colonize anything. Is he saying that all that is needed to achieve justice, is to say, "F*** the power" in court (I'm sure that will help my clients a lot) and have long hair? I've got long hair, and, thus far, it seems to have had little impact. And who (or what) are "occult orders"?
Anyway, in spite of his vehemence, I think I'll stick with my own efforts to achieve justice. While it may be less exciting than pumping one's fist in the air and raving against the Establishment, at least I can see the justice I am able to get for my clients, from time to time. And I can avoid going to jail! (an extra bonus!) Well, to each his own!
K has left a new comment on your post "Public Pretender": If the Public
Pretender is loyal to the same zionist/neocolonial typeregimes as the judge and even your defense lawyer
then how the f*** isthat justice?Justice is that if about twenty
percent of Americans say F*** THE POWERand would consider having long hair or do have
long hair... then abouttwenty percent of this nations municipalities
and counties should startbeing handled by such folk who wouldn't waste
public funds on some uglyrobe and will tell it like it F***IN' is... when
we say that we wouldrather see our sons smokin' joints then
signing their life andconsciences away to the occult orders that have
been running most ofthis nations criminal justice system.
So what, exactly, is a "Zionist neocolonial typeregime"? I mean I recognize "Zionist" and "neocolonial," but have any of you heard of a "typeregime"? I mean I'm not Jewish, and I certainly don't want to colonize anything. Is he saying that all that is needed to achieve justice, is to say, "F*** the power" in court (I'm sure that will help my clients a lot) and have long hair? I've got long hair, and, thus far, it seems to have had little impact. And who (or what) are "occult orders"?
Anyway, in spite of his vehemence, I think I'll stick with my own efforts to achieve justice. While it may be less exciting than pumping one's fist in the air and raving against the Establishment, at least I can see the justice I am able to get for my clients, from time to time. And I can avoid going to jail! (an extra bonus!) Well, to each his own!
Sunday, September 21, 2008
an update
It has been around six weeks since I posted last, and a rather strange six weeks, at that. I guess the strangeness began when my good friend left our office to be a public defender elsewhere. We still email and talk regularly, but it's just not the same without her around the office.
Further strangeness occurred when the cold I came down with mutated into pneumonia. I was out of the office for a week and a half, and was becoming quite annoyed with remaining in the house so long by the end. I've never taken more than one sick-day in a row before, and this was a really odd experience for me. Betsy tried her best to help, but was quite unsure how. Her first instinct was to try to engage me in a fun game, involving running around and such. Obviously, that wasn't happening! She then tried to cheer me up by licking my chin and my ears. A slight improvement, but still... I did get quite a bit of knitting done, and I read a lot.
Oh, and the prairie dogs are back! Well, one of them anyway. A couple years ago, the prairie dog town had to re-locate to the other side of the field (out of view) due to workmen with large machinery digging near their town. But this spring, one came back to reside in the old holes. I was initially concerned, as it struck me as unusual for a prairie dog to live by himself. They're so social with their town and barks and romping around together. But I looked it up and apparently, it is usual for a prairie dog to set up house a short distance from the main group when he's a year or two old after mating season, but before the new pups arrive. It prevents over-crowding in the town, and in-breeding. According to my reading, he'll still make social calls back to the main group. And maybe in the spring, he'll entice a mate from the town to join him and start his own group. Currently, he's concentrating on getting fat, so he can hibernate comfortably through the winter. (He's doing very well at that.)
Further strangeness occurred when the cold I came down with mutated into pneumonia. I was out of the office for a week and a half, and was becoming quite annoyed with remaining in the house so long by the end. I've never taken more than one sick-day in a row before, and this was a really odd experience for me. Betsy tried her best to help, but was quite unsure how. Her first instinct was to try to engage me in a fun game, involving running around and such. Obviously, that wasn't happening! She then tried to cheer me up by licking my chin and my ears. A slight improvement, but still... I did get quite a bit of knitting done, and I read a lot.
Oh, and the prairie dogs are back! Well, one of them anyway. A couple years ago, the prairie dog town had to re-locate to the other side of the field (out of view) due to workmen with large machinery digging near their town. But this spring, one came back to reside in the old holes. I was initially concerned, as it struck me as unusual for a prairie dog to live by himself. They're so social with their town and barks and romping around together. But I looked it up and apparently, it is usual for a prairie dog to set up house a short distance from the main group when he's a year or two old after mating season, but before the new pups arrive. It prevents over-crowding in the town, and in-breeding. According to my reading, he'll still make social calls back to the main group. And maybe in the spring, he'll entice a mate from the town to join him and start his own group. Currently, he's concentrating on getting fat, so he can hibernate comfortably through the winter. (He's doing very well at that.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)