Why I Haven’t Been Writing and a Thought or Two Comparing Computers and Romance

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you probably have guessed that I stopped writing because I finally decided to respect your time.  Well, that guess is wrong.  Very wrong!

 

The truth is — and if any young children are reading this post, now might be a good time to go back to your Pokemon cards — because the truth is this:  I cannot handle the pain!

 

It is a punishing pain, an inescapable frustration — a crushing frustration– a deep soul crushing frustration…indeed a punishing crushing frustration!  A real pain in the ass.

 

What I mean really is this, writing on a goddamn Dell Studio 1735 laptop computer is a punishing pain.  And I’m sure Microsoft has some blame here, so perhaps I am after the wrong burden.  Either way, I quit my computer and started eating sandwiches instead.

 

Look, I’m not a fool.  I’m a wise guy.  Computer technology is something like romantic love…which is to say it is a lie, a cruel joke played on adolescents and the naive.  In short, computers are not supposed to work.

 

A Dell Studio 1535 laptop computer (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Not unlike romance, however, a working computer is more process than stability.  It is a relative thing, something like being only slightly less frustrated than the unhappy couple cutting each other’s throats down the block.  I know that.  So I came back.

(Here I am, little blog…)

 

But like dealing with a crazy bitch, there comes the time to cut away and now might be time for techno change, time to say goodbye.  You see, unlike romance, a computer should be more than mere folly.  Unlike a romantic lark, my Dell Studio and its Vista soul never has — and never will — offer any happiness!  (There’s no future in that, kids.  None.)  Pah!  It gets worse.  My Dell isn’t even naughty!  Try streaming a video late at night.  Forget it…it is not happening here.

 

This computer — if that’s what this is — should have been toxic waste in a landfill before its lid was ever lifted to the light of day.  It started badly, it is ending worse.  This computer is nothing more than a cruel hoax, nothing less than a betrayed promise…

 

Not me, but my feelings exactly.

But wait…maybe I have gone too far.  There is a positive side effect.  Trying to work on a computer like this puts people — real people — in perspective.  Suddenly I like people.  I like them a lot.  I talk to them now.   And sometimes I even listen to them.

 

But there’s a limit to all of that goodness.  I cannot write and research on the stomach of some slob sitting next to me at the bar.  I can’t do that.  I don’t want to do that.  As a computer, people have limits.  They can go only so far, only offer so much…

 

And so then I am alone again, recklessly starting paragraphs and sentences with conjunctions whenever I am not staring at some green spinning Vista ring on a faded computer screen waiting for something to happen.  Mindless waiting, pointless waiting, and not having much hope any of it it will ever be worth anything.  (Yes, computers indeed are like the women I love.)

 

So that’s where I have been, kids.  I have been AWOL, tripping about in a dark techno perdition that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone…other than, perhaps, the women I love.  (It is that bad.  Really.  But now look…I am back!)

 

And with that…I am done, with this post at least!  And finished it within 30 minutes, approximately the maximum stretch my computer gives before a needed reboot.

 

So, now that I have that off my chest.  Who’s up for reading the dictionary with me?

 

Related articles

 

• MacBook Pro declared ‘best performing’ Windows laptop (news.cnet.com)
• Shut Down Computer or Leave It Running? (lockergnome.com)
• Technology Dependent: Death of a Laptop (projectworkingtitle.com)
• Frustration and Anxiety (voxboxx.wordpress.com)

How I Know the Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked

Slightly different photo, makes it appear that the crosshairs have changed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am siding with the conspiracy theories.  We didn’t get to the moon and back.  Come on!  Really?  I am supposed to think that we got a group of guys to the moon, landed them there softly, and brought them back without crashing when forty years later we cannot build a simple computer that won’t crash?

We can’t even make a waterproof computer.

Come on, how gullible are we going to be?

The moon mission was all about split-second timing, precise calculation, and exact synchronization…and I cannot even get a MS Word document to open in less than 40 seconds.

And here’s the funny part.  Hold on.  They did this with old fashioned transistor computers stuffed into a giant tin can and called it a rocket ship!  Ha, ha, ha, ha…good god, there’s a sense of humor there!

Here on Planet Earth, my little laptop struggles to keep up with my keystrokes as I type.

You know, I was going to research video of the moon landing — look for film crew members reflected in the masks of “astronauts”, for example — but my crappy little post-Space Age computer cannot stream the video steadily.  It drove me to the brink of insanity, to edge of my endurance, and virtually to the dark side of the moon as a matter of fact!

By the way, all those techies and engineers and scientists who jump up and down and nearly wet themselves in an orgy of geeky celebration are not nerds, they’re just hack actors and extras pulled off the street because they own a white short sleeve dress shirt and a pocket protector.  (That’s why Hollywood is believable than real life…there is no real life.  Remember that.)

So I am just going to accept that somethings are not what they seem to be and we can live in denial all we want as long as it makes for a good story and keeps the peace, but can we please — please! — take on a more terrestrial challenge and develop a computer that flipping works?  Then and only then I might start to believe in moon missions.

Until then I am scanning for jet contrails and power transmission lines in those “Mars” photos they’re sharing with us now.  Tee hee…oh, how funny those science guys can be.

Related articles

• One small step for man, requires one giant leap of faith (bizgovsoc6.wordpress.com)
• Apollo 11′s Moon Landing Guide For Sale – What’s Hot and What’s Trending 17 March 2013 (whatshotwhatstrendingnow.com)
• Relive Apollo 11 Lunar Landing Minute-by-Minute with Thamtech’s First of Its Kind Fully Synchronized Interactive Website-’The First Men on the Moon’ (prweb.com)
• Apollo Collectibles That Are Out Of This World (prweb.com)
• More American Registered Voters Believe Moon Landing Was A Hoax Than Are Members Of The NRA (nottheworstnews.com)

 

Why You Need to Know Me in Minneapolis

Editor’s Note:  Not sure what is up with WordPress formatting today.  Sorry.

I might not be exceptional and handsome (although, come to think of it…I am pretty amazing and not bad to loo at), but I am most definitely unique.

You can talk to every other person you can possibly find in Minneapolis, everyone from a law-abiding neighbor, school bus drivers, priests and nuns, school teachers, cops and fire fighters, certainly even the mayor and the dog catcher.  I don’t care who it is, none of them is like me. Why?

In Minneapolis I am the only driver who stops at stop signs.  The only person.  Period.  If you see a car stop at a stop sign, that is me driving.  (Your odds of so easily identifying me at this way at stop lights, however, go down, although not by much.)

I cannot explain it, but in Minneapolis slowing down at controlled intersections is good enough.  Stopping “in obedience to a stop sign” is the law in the state, but it simply does not happen in Minneapolis, Minnesota’s largest city.  And if you see a yield sign…watch out!  Minneapolitans don’t recognize that sign or don’t know what it means or both.

Over 73% of kindergarteners can guess the meaning of this sign. 100% of people in Minneapolis — less one — wouldn’t care.

Overall Minnesotans are among intelligent life’s worse drivers.  There are parts of Costa Rica, greater Samarkand, and rural southern Italy were driving is purported to be worse, but until I see it, I’m not convinced.

So, in review, if you want to meet me — or if you just want to meet someone unique for a change — come to Minneapolis, hang out at an intersection with a stop sign, and wait for a car that stops..  And when that  happens…you found me!

Related articles

• History of Stop Signs: Legal Stop Signs, Yellow Stop Signs and Red Stop Signs (myparkingsign.com)
• Minneapolis…This “Parking” Ticket is Ridiculous (alittletourinyellow.wordpress.com)
• Minnesota Driver’s Manual (dmv.org)
• Minneapolis – Jan, 2013 (cigartravelz.wordpress.com)

How We Solve the Taxing the Rich Problem

Top Tax Rate was 15% in 1973.

Minnesota’s Governor, Mark Dayton, would like to raise additional state revenue with a marginal income tax rate.  Right now the number looks like an increase for annual incomes over %150,000 for individuals and an increase for straight married couples earning over $250,000, roughly the state’s top 2% of income earners.

A couple things to note here.  First, it is a marginal rate.  Minnesota’s top income tax rate is 7.85%.  Dayton proposes an increase to 9.85%.  In Minnesota, marginal rate only applies to earnings within the applicable tax bracket.  Therefore, that extra 2% is added to dollars earned over $150,000 for individuals or $250,000 for straight couples.  So if you’re earn $10,000 more than the threshold, your extra tax is $200 above what it is today.

Is that a lot?  I would argue that it is a sustainable tax rate and worthy investment.  We can debate that.  But it doesn’t seem like the facts behind the figures ever get discussed.  Why?  Because it gets lost in this almost belittling “tax the rich” rhetoric.

Politicians and reporters almost chortle…”Ho, ho, ho!  Tax the rich!  $150,000 a year?  Do you think that’s rich?”  Of course everyone shakes his head…

Is $150,000 a year rich?  Again, this is something we can debate and frankly the idea of what is or is not rich is entirely subjective.  To someone making $20,000 a year, $150,000 might not be the wealth of fantasy, but it is still a hell of a lot more than $20,000.  To a very fortunate person earning ten times as much, %150,000 might not seem like much at all.  My point is, why talk about taxing the “rich” at all when the meaning  of “rich” is so arbitrary?

I always like to point out that 35% of Americans think they are in the top 10% of income earners to shed light on how little we really understand about income tiers in the first place.  The tax the rich arguments simply distract people from the facts in the matter.

Even the arguments that these two-percenters in Minnesota are small business owners is merely a distraction.  First off, it isn’t any more true that a business owner is among the 2% than he is mixed in with more “middle class” incomes.  The fact is the majority of business owners are not in this tier.  But even if they were…so what?

In reality, we are taxing incomes, not people.  Whether you think $150,000 per individual (or $250,000 for straight married couples) is rich or not is hardly the point.  It is an income enjoyed by minority of people in the state who also are more likely to pay a lower effective overall tax rate anyway.  Again, we can debate who benefits more from a strong economy, the well-to-do or the poor, but it would seem obvious that the higher incomes have more means to pay.

A more philosophically honest and morally direct criticism of marginal tax rates is to say that all people should pay the same rate — a flat tax — regardless of  income status, but we are nowhere near that.  Conservatives in this country openly defend lower taxes for the wealthiest even as they cry foul about taxes generally.  It is hard to see how you can make any fairness or moral argument if in the first place your policies create different tax liabilities and subsidies.  (So screw them.)

But once again, in defending existing unfair tax policies, conservative politicians hide behind the seemingly uncool and unpatriotic position that you cannot tax the rich.  The argument works because we really don’t know what rich is, but more importantly it works because it takes focus away from facts and puts it on misunderstood abstractions about wealth, fairness, and demographics.

So the solution:  Stop talking about taxing “millionaires and billionaires” and start talking about what the tax is, what the marginal rates are, and why these necessary taxes are good for all of us, rich and poor alike.

Related articles

• Video: What are Income Tax Rates? (turbotax.intuit.com)
• House Progressives have the best answer to Paul Ryan (washingtonpost.com)
• Dayton’s new plan includes higher taxes on cigarettes, wealthy (minnesota.publicradio.org)

Sales Tax as a Moral Issue

National Public Radio reported on the trend among Republican governors to cut income taxes, often by proposing a broader sales tax.  Even in once-progressive Minnesota, Democratic governor Mark Dayton is proposing a scheme to increase sales tax by increasing the goods and services subjected to the tax.

In an era when the wealthiest enjoy a lower real tax rate than the poorest, it seems immoral to increase the tax burden on the poorest.  Furthermore, we have a depressed economy and that hurts the poor and the middle class the most.  Meanwhile, the very wealthiest, those already paying the lowest tax rates, have realized strong economic gains.

Forget the phony arguments about supporting job creators and business owners — an argument you’ll hear in NPR’s story — isn’t this really a moral question when we choose to increase taxes on those least able to pay them while those who have the resources to pay them get by with lower real rates?  There’s something almost criminal about that.

Let’s look at an example.

Let’s use after-tax disposable income and say that Family A has $50,000 after taxes and Family B has $500,000.  In this hypothetical example the sales tax rate is 5%.  Suppose family A spends only $40,000 of their income on taxed items at 5%.  That’s a tax of $2000.   Family B spends $200,000.  That’s a tax of $10,000.  So Family B is doing more to support our government, right?

Well, yes…in dollars.  But Family B has $300,000 in savings, a valuable asset that Family A does not have.  We could talk about the material benefit of having five times as much goods and services to enjoy, too, but cranks will complain that this is a subjective criticism akin to resentment.

The real issue is in the rate of tax.  We can look at the rate of tax as a factor of overall disposable income to make a comparison.  Family A pays an effective rate of 4%.  Family B, however, pays an effective rate of 2%, half as much.  Now I think we CAN look at the discrepancy of material benefit in items and services bought and savings gained.  Family B is much better off in the end while Family A pays a disproportionately higher amount in taxes.

In the age of inequality — with all the harm that that it creates — why would we foster further inequality?  On what sensible argument can you justify further depressing the wealth and power of those who are already behind?

Keep in mind, too, that the very poorest among us cannot escape sales taxes.  The mean-spirited argument that some people pay no taxes at all is demonstrably false.  Those “tax free” people actually pay.

Finally, as taxes expand to cover essentials like food and services like legal representation, the poorest are hit again.  We should protect the basic necessities of life, like food, clothing, and shelter.  And in a society where the quality of legal representation matters in issues of justice, freedom itself can depend on the ability to pay for legal services.  Taxing these services only tips the balance away from serving the poor and working classes.

In the age of inequality, sales taxes are not just a bad idea, they are an unjust solution that point to moral problems in our society.

Related articles

• Wealthiest Americans Pay Half the Effective Tax Rate That Poorest Pay in State and Local Taxes (yubanet.com)
• Budget 101:  A graphic primer to Dayton’s budget proposal (minnpost.com)
• The New Republican Tax War:  State Tax Hikes on the Poor to Fund Tax Cuts for the Rich (politicususa.com)
• Poor Americans Pay Double the State, Local Tax Rates of Top 1 Percent (huffingtonpost.com)

God, I Drink A Lot

I’m toxic, aren’t I?  Any chance to make amends with mothers in my past or employers in my future are shot to hell with artillery fired straight off this blog.

But I am looking at my recycling bag tonight and I am thinking…

I just dumped out that bag the night before last.  Tonight, less than forty-eight hours later, it contains two empty orange juice cartons, an empty milk carton, several empty diet coke cans, and several empty liter bottles of Gerolsteiner.

I love the Gerolsteiner, by the way, can’t get enough of it.  I buy it by the case, fifteen beautiful bottles at a time, a crisp clear life-giving luxury.  As a matter of fact, this post is nothing but celebrating my affair with Gerolsteiner.  What could be better?

Well, a girl I once knew would bring over fruit-flavored fizzy water, but that water has gone flat and those days are over…

So it is Gerolsteiner!

And as I train for my Lenten sabbatical from booze — allowing for appropriate exceptions, of course — I understand that all I need is a glass of something in front of me and I’m fine.  Wine or soda water, it really doesn’t seem to make a difference.  Perhaps people won’t notice.

Drinking water, after all, is the only thing I can do on the sly.  (And, as you can guess, that is disappointing.)  People are always harping:  Drink more water, drink more water, drink more water…but her I am, a recreational user of Alka Seltzer, drinking water by the liter every hour and still I hear drink more water.  No one seems to notice.  Or maybe like so many other things, they just don’t give a flying leap.  Hey, you!  Drink this!

So anyway…

This is what I have for you today.  My little brother Gary already informed me that I need to be more disciplined and maybe he has a point.  The guy has to have a point once in a while.  But don’t wear yourself down, we have big things working over here at A Little Tour in Yellow and I just might tell you about one or two of them.  Plus I am bored, terribly terribly bored.  I’m pishy poshy, too, and worried about kidney stones or whatever you get when you drink too much mineral water.  (Actually, just the opposite is true.  See below.)

Good night, sleep well, and drink your water.

Glug, glug.

Related articles

• Drink or eat during writing sessions? (ejquinn.wordpress.com)
• Mineral Water and Kidney Stones (buzzle.com)
• Drink Water on Empty Stomach (nelsonmcbs.wordpress.com)
• The Importance of Water in Your Diet Plan (everydayhealth.com)

Christmas Day, Perfect for Reflecting…on Disappointment

Almost 20 years ago I went to the Grand Canyon for my second Christmas there.  Two years before I had spent Christmas in a cabin at Bright Angel Lodge with my fiance.

A fabulous, exceedingly indulgent Christmas for a young couple.  Many gifts, big meals, and a steady, but more or less responsible, supply of drinks all dressed up in fine holiday clothes.

And as if by special order:  Snow, and plenty of it.

I trimmed our cabin with simple colored lights and put a small tree in the corner windows. Warm light inside, cold smoke-scented air from the fireplace outside.  Even a waxing moon high breaking though the clouds.  An admirable set up, I’d say.   A photographer spent a half hour taking photos.  He promised to send a print or two.  Never did.  Nice guy though.

Later that night we found ourselves at the Bright Angel Lodge singing Christmas songs at the bar — in German — with German and Japanese tourists.  The streak of more or less responsible drinks had passed.  And at the end of the night, head pounding a bit in the altitude, I walked with my fiance back to the cabin, stopping to look down into the canyon.  With the bright moon shining and receding to the west, snow all around on the canyon rim, and the deep dark canyon below, the sensation of floating among the clouds finished the night appropriately.

The cabin was warm and smelled nicely of smoke and pine branches.  We didn’t say much.  No need.  We were happy, unmistakably happy.

I felt pretty damn smug and proud of myself; felt like a young boy, really, excited that we planned to stay a few extra nights.  Time seemed infinite and if the future were going to be anything like that night I was grateful and happy to splurge on happiness.

Two years later, however, I was again at the canyon, but alone, broke and not quite divorced.  I had made reservations over a year ago for another Grand Canyon Christmas  that I hoped would be at least half as good as the first.  Alas, it wasn’t going to happen, and even if I were going to do it alone I was stubbornly going back again.

And you know…it wasn’t a bad Christmas.  I wasn’t the proud clown showing off his reckless confidence — it was a bit more subdued holiday, to be sure — I cannot even say it was a very happy time, but it was a good time, if I can convince you that it makes any sense.

It is an odd thing to be alone for a holiday at a place like the Grand Canyon.  You truly are alone in the crowd.  It turned out to be a good thing to follow through however.  Keeping that vacation might have been one of the best decisions I have made up to then or ever since.

My disappointment in my short marriage didn’t go away after that Christmas, but I think I got going forward again.

And so on Christmases since, I have thought Christmas as a good time of the year to reflect — to reflect honestly — on the previous year’s disappointments.  This is a good thing and doesn’t have to ruin anything.  In fact I think it is a key part of a better tomorrow.

All Christmases as good in some way.  I have felt that happy, reckless optimism again.  That won’t happen if you become cynical.  I owe a lot of happiness to people dear to me who have shared their holiday with me.  Don’t think you have a grumpy misanthrope here.

We all spend so much energy focusing on all that is great and wonderful, to set even greater and more wonderful goals for the future, and smile cheerfully through it all.  But it is only part of it all.  Without some balance, happiness can be a bit of a let down, can’t it?  Certainly we are all blessed and have much for which to be grateful and proud, but until you face what might not have gone so well, it might be difficult to fully appreciate all those great and wonderful things you already have…or once had.  Even those good things that are lost are not without good purpose.

Or maybe more importantly, to see what is going well now and might grow into something more meaningful and good for the future, it is necessary to face what didn’t work.  In short, Christmas might be the season to remind yourself not to give up.

Isn’t it easier to see a snowflake against a black card than it is to see one on a snow bank?

We hear so much about the blues and depression and all of that muck during the holidays.  People really let themselves get down, probably in part because of the big build up and all the expectations that come with it.  But there’s something happy about confronting disappointment.  (It can even be comic, cannot it not?)

Whether it is love, happiness, family, faith — whatever it is — if it really is valuable, it is good to know the good from the bad.  Otherwise you might give up on real happiness.  Frustration and disappointment are not the same thing.  So why not give yourself the gift of past disappointment to better steer clear of frustration in the future?

Plus how are you going to start fresh tomorrow if you don’t get through yesterday?

Anyway…soon I am off for dinner, gifts, family…the best part of the day…but I will look forward to getting home and beginning tomorrow to do what I do, hopefully just a bit better than what I have already done.  It is a good thing, a Christmas thing.

Merry Christmas!

 

Related articles

• The Holiday Season (betterwithpen.wordpress.com)
• Merry Christmas (ykgoh.wordpress.com)
• Dec 24 Daily Reflection (stand-with-steve.com)
• Look of the Day: Christmas Cheer (fabsugar.com)
• The Grand Canyon (ardunward.com)

Read the Second Amendment

Pretend you’re an English teacher, even a mediocre one…perhaps English is your second language, you might even be from outer space.  What does this say?

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.^["

Now we what this MEANS because great thinkers -- among them guys like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and the NRA -- know exactly what long-dead men writing in the 1700s were thinking, but what does this say?

If the people who know what the long-dead men in the 1700s were saying are correct-- and of course they are -- what grade would you give the writer for writing such a shoddy bit of law?

The People

I would give them a failing mark.

What’s the subject of this sentence?  (I’ll help.)  It is “militia.”  The direct object, if I am correct, is “state.”  And now wait…am I a people or a person?  Seems that well-educated guys, even the long-dead ones, would be careful to get that clear and right, but never mind.

The sticky point, as I see it, is the fact that “states” have pretty much always maintained armies and had guns and such.  Then of course there is the tradition of the Minutemen, so important to kicking British ass, that it is obvious that the long-dead Founding Fathers meant you and I should have a (French-loaned) Charleville Musket in our closet.

Of course today we have Minutemen of a different sort that will do the ass kicking for us and Thomas Jefferson never imagined a 50 mm rifle, but we the people still need to maintain a militia, right, one person at a time?

If the Founding Fathers — as godly as they were — had meant we should have unlimited access to guns wouldn’t they have been godly smart and anticipated assault weapons?  Shouldn’t the Second Amendment says so?  Why not?  These guys knew what was best for us today and forever, why didn’t they be more thorough?

I don’t know…more benign rights like voting are up for debate.  Why is voting a right that isn’t as sacred as owning a killing tool?

I am close to being judgmental and saying something about stupidity and gun lust…the people that is…and of course — of course! — I don’t feel that way.  So I will just wrap things up here.

(I do, by the way, have a hunting rifle and a shot gun, both gifts from my father, and I wouldn’t mind a bit if I had to get a license or registration to keep them.)

He’s so smart!  And cute, too.

Related articles

• Obama must now make gun control his legacy (newstatesman.com)
• Thoughts on the American Second Ammendment (the Right to Bear Arms) (sleaf62.wordpress.com)
• The History of the Second Amendment (anthonycollebrusco.wordpress.com)

Mass Shootings and the New Normal

Yet another mass shooting in America.  Oh, but wait, we’re repeatedly told these things don’t happen more often today than they did years ago.  I heard this again several times today, in fact.  But I have my doubts.  I need to see some supporting numbers.

Then I listened to an expert of some sort or another explain that kids are still safer at school today than they are in cars or other common activities.  As a public health statistic, mass shootings — especially school shootings — are extremely rare events and represent only a the smallest of chances of danger for people.  This, I suppose, is supposed to reassure us.

And then it occurred to me…We are really messed up.

It is inherently wrong to look at these shootings as a public health statistic and make reassuring remarks that kids, regardless of the distorting bad news, are safer in schools than they are in cars.  Push the statistics aside and there is nothing that is not wrong about these senseless mass shootings.

Doesn’t a moral question exist here?  Dying in a mass shooting is different from dying in a car wreck.  Driving in a car is a socially acceptable activity that unfortunately comes with some risk.  Are we now saying that going to school or the mall or a movie theater is a socially acceptable activity that also entails — albeit the teeniest of tiniest — bits of risk…of being shot?!

No, it is quite different.  Most car wrecks, for example, are unforeseen accidents.  If we start thinking that being at the wrong end of a gun is an unforeseen accident, I think we’re treading into dismal territory.  It is pathetic, really.

These commentators sound like apologists, not for the gunman, but for a society that tolerates gun rights as our country does.  That isn’t right.

So when I hear people make the point that the risk of dying as a result of a mass shooting is low in comparison with things like riding in a car or taking a shower, I get uncomfortable.  And I hope you will start to feel uncomfortable, too.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”  Right, got that, I know.  ”If we restrict gun rights only criminals will have guns.”  Yes, right, I know…and I don’t entirely disagree with these arguments.  But when we start normalizing and tolerating violence and bad behavior, we reset the standards of civil society.  We are a crass and awkward culture.  No doubt.  And when educated people present apologetics in order to reason away individual risk and danger, I think we’re missing the big picture.

Maybe it isn’t guns that kill people or even people who kill people, but a coarsening of our standards and behavior that has evolved into a more barbaric normal.  Shouldn’t we worry about that?

Related articles

• 27 Killed in Connecticut School Shooting (nytimes.com)
• Why People will Over-React to Tonight’s Mall Shooting (thetruthaboutguns.com)

I’ve Never Seen a Squirrel Fly, But I Have Seen Them Fall

This summer while I was cleaning my car a falling squirrel nearly hit me.  A big old squirrel fell from a large tree with a heavy thud, the first time I can recall ever seeing a squirrel fall from a tree and this isn’t the sort of thing I would miss.  I have always wondered, do squirrels fall out of trees? so I have always kept a keen look out for falling squirrels.

Well, guess what, the other day I heard another thud and turned to see cloud of snow and fur and a little squirrel picking himself off the sidewalk.  Bad luck.  A fresh foot of snow had just fallen and this squirrel has the misfortune to land on the cleared sidewalk.  But he seemed fine, more or less.  Once he got to his feet he cleared out in a hurry.

I suspect squirrels quickly hide after a fall partly out of pride and partly for practical reasons.  The squirrel’s misfortune, after all, could be another animals opportunity.  Imagine a fortunate fox who might happen to be where I was standing…just a quick couple of loping hops and there’s dinner.  Or lunch.  (This happened midday.  I should keep my stories truthful and believable.)

I did walk toward where the squirrel ran to hide and found him sitting peacefully, catching his breath.  He saw me and scattered.  He looked fine, though.  No limp, no stitch in his gait.  It seems squirrels can take quite a fall and bounce right back.  That’s good.  I worry less about squirrels now.

Not long a go I knew a woman who liked squirrels almost as much as I do.  She comes to squirrels via Italy and had a noble way of calling them.  Her pronunciation was something like “squire-earl”, which I thought was a nice way to talk about squirrels.  I still have a fun card featuring stylized drawings of squirrels I planned to give to her.  Not sure that opportunity will ever come again.  But then I was never sure I would see a squirrel fall out of a tree either.

Related articles

• 100 years ago: Britain welcomes grey squirrel colonists (guardian.co.uk)
• Monday Mischief: The Elusive Squirrel (sagechronicles.wordpress.com)
• Realm of the Lone Grey Squirrel (lonegreysquirrel.blogspot.com)