Politicians Use Their Words

When my kids were little they went to Montessori school. When they started slugging each other, the M. teachers didn't say, "Hey cut that out!" the way I did. Instead, they said, "Use your words." I found that hilarious. Recently, I've been listening to politicians using their words.

I know that "mendacious politician" is a redundancy: words are part of the superhighway of lies that politicos pave every day. But even so, when they use their words, it can matter.

On the down side, we have our Maine Governor, He Who Will Not Be Named. He managed to garner a headline in the Bangor Daily News - the best paper in the state by the way - because his response to a state representative who had been trying to meet with him about unemployment was to cuss the guy out. In public. Twice. Using words I won't use in this blog.

Gov. He-Who has again failed to comprehend the meaning of civic leadership. This instance is quite over the top - a leader of a state sets a tone,  he embodies civility. He is a lubricant for the democratic process.

Gov. Cuss's behavior is - again - an embarrassment; he brings shame on the great state of Maine.

On the other hand, there's Sec of State Clinton making a resounding speech about GBLT rights. Never mind that it's about gay rights internationally, never mind that the administration in which she serves has not kept some of its key promises to the same-sex communities in our country. The speech was made, the sentiment is a good one, the words matter. Good for her, and for her boss, our President.

I mocked those Montessori folks decades ago, but they were right: words really do carry power. Words are not just abstractions that just float away. People make decisions and form values based on words from leaders. In the case of our Mean Governor here in Maine, he demonstrates a real contempt for the most essential processes by which we run our community life. And Sec. Clinton shows that communicating respect and caring is powerful - and positive for all citizens in our land.

Lions and Tigers and Bears

After my animal post the other day, Jan sent me a list of animals he's seen in his yard here in our village: moose, cougar, coyote, coy dog, wolf?, deer. He sent an illustration:

Jan is up on the hill, I live down on the marsh, so even though we live only a matter of yards away from each other, Jan and I have different life lists. I guess he sees animals more related to the woods, mine are more aquatic.

Everyone here sees geese, they even cause traffic jams on the roads. And deer of course, known locally by their other name: dinner. I can hear the coyotes up near Jan - unless that's Jan singing - but I've never seen one.

I do see foxes during denning and baby time, January-March. They eat water animals and I assume lots of little mice and voles and other crunchy little things. Those of you who migrated here from Mary's blog, Duck Dreams, have heard a lot about the foxes.

Earlier this year I was visited by two river otters, they came very close to the house at high tide. I was expecting river otters to be like ocean otters, small and cute. Instead they were great big things, more like beavers without the flappy tails. They were lithe and graceful and seemed extremely alert. Worried about Jan's wolves and coyotes I bet.......

And I've been visited a number of times by mink. I never seen such animals before I started living on the marsh. Mink look like weasels wearing gorgeous coats, they'd fit right in on Fifth Avenue in NYC. They're very fast and more than a little nasty-looking - no doubt who the predators are.

Finally let me give a shout-out to the main animals around here: the books on salt marshes say that we have something like 600 tiny snails in every square meter of marsh. They're easy to find, even though they're the size of two or three strike-anywhere match heads. The key thing about these non-charismatic creatures is - they make the marsh work. They are the crucial link between the plant communities and the animals that live on the marsh. Sometime in warmer weather I'll try for a shot with my camera. They may not be as flashy as the fleet foxes, but they're important and they do HOLD STILL.

Glen's New Ride

You folks may remember the big news around here when our mail carrier got a new vehicle for himself. It's not a slow news day in Sheepscot - this kind of thing is important!

Expert Photog Jan got a good shot of Glen's Honda. You can even see the magnetic pad under the window, one of quite a few modifications he's made to help him deliver our mail every day but Sunday:

Sit! Stay!

According to the American Veterinary Association, 43 million Americans own dogs, 37 million own cats, 4 million own birds, 2 million horses, and another million other animals ranging from ferrets to fish.

Yesterday as I was waiting for an appointment, a fellow was talking about a woman who is visited daily by a beaver. She feeds the beaver, and in winter it sleeps next to the furnace in her basement. I was fascinated by the story, for obvious reasons, including a part of me that felt uncomfortable with the idea of a “wild” animal living indoors with someone. As I write this, Jimmy the bichon frise is asleep jammed up against me, and my Australian Shepherd Francie is giving me that meaningful stare to compel me to open the back door for her. My cats Norby and Colossus are sleeping off their breakfasts.

The current 4:1 ratio of pets to humans in this house feels normal to me. The animal population, especially when we lived on a farm in California, has been much higher. What I want to mention now is this classification of animals as wild or pets. Actually, I think there are 4 categories: wild, pets, domestic, and food.

Let's leave out the last 2 for now–although some time it will be interesting to talk about hunting in the state of Maine. What I'm curious about is why I have this line drawn in my mind between pets and wild animals. I used to have a parrot, and received a certain amount of criticism for keeping a bird in a cage, although actually that particular pet flew around the house freely much of the time. When I look at Jan's wonderful pictures of neighborhood birds, I would say the same thing if Jan popped them into cages instead of just capturing their images.

Similarly, I feel discomfort at the idea of a beaver putting its head on a woman's lap and eating pieces of apple, but I would engage in the same behavior with animals I label as pets. I'm obviously pro-pet: I think we are more human when we gain perspective on ourselves by interacting with nonhumans. It puts us in relationships of responsibility, and mutuality, and not requiring the world to function only on our terms. Living with an Australian Shepherd, a really smart animal, requires continual negotiation with her powerful demands. There are many lessons from little Jimmy, who may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas light string, about unequivocal love–and optimism. He's a creature who lives in a world of positive expectations.

I've read some of the literature of the animal rights movement, including Peter Singers first book on the topic, and I've spent time with people who are involved in efforts to “liberate” animals, including those are defined as pets, from human domination. I think a great deal of what is wrong with families, communities, and societies in our world has indeed to do with the tendency of many to engage in dominating relationships. I can't easily dismiss the point made in the animal rights community that we use our intelligence and physical power to dominate animals. We do purchase large numbers of cages, tanks, leashes, and fences. The animals we restrain with those devices aren't given a voice in whether or not they will be used, and the very existence of Jimmy's colorful harness hanging next to his leash says a lot about our relationship. And I'm the one who wishes that lady would let the beaver live its life out in the natural world.

So why all the pets? Maybe I've traveled very far down Rationalization Avenue, but I think pets as opposed to other animals are defined by their physical and even genetic juxtaposition with human beings. That is, pets are to a certain extent artifacts created by humans for their amusement. Under the best of circumstances, there is mutuality–pets benefit from our care and our love, and we receive something in return. Jimmy, you see pictured at the top of this blog, comes from a breed of dogs that was "invented” in the 18th century by French sailors. Stuck in cramped conditions on sailing ships sometimes for years at a time, they wanted companionship. So they created these little dogs to fit in small spaces and have “merry” dispositions. This pup, who I got from a rescue group, fits my needs similarly.

I'm not sure this explanation is really an explanation at all, is it begs the question of oppression and domination. I do take good care of this creature, but he lives his life on my terms. If my concerns sound kind of extreme, talk to people in the animal rights movement. By the way, the animal rights movement, like some others, is terribly caricatured by the press. So often, the media find the most extreme and shrill proponents of animal liberation, and then use the broadest of brushes to make everyone who's concerned about the welfare of animals look like a kook. I've known people who have well thought out and heartfelt positions against the keeping of animals and pets–or the eating of animals, for that matter. I don't agree with them in many respects, but they are offering important ideas and positions.

Here's my bottom line:

I believe that we benefit deeply from sharing daily life with the non-human creatures whom we love and care for. Our pets make us more human. I also believe that our moral rationale for why we do this is frail and poorly thought out. We and our pets would benefit from a more competent examination of what we're doing, and why. 

And now, I'd better let the pups out.

Misty Moisty Morning

Here's the marsh this morning, before the fog got too thick for pictures:

Marriage Equality

As predicted, I attended a terrific event on 12/3 hosted by the Frances Perkins Center, to learn about the securing of Social Security. I'm going to report on that event in the Perkins Center blog, and I'll share the link when it happens.

I want to mention one thing now that occurred towards the end of the back-and-forth between the presenters and the audience, as people in the near–capacity crowd told their stories about Social Security. A number of people shared their narratives like everyone else, but mentioned that their partners would not be able to receive survivors benefits from Social Security like the rest of us, nor would they if they were left by a deceased spouse.

I know like most other people that this form of discrimination against lesbian and gay people in our society exists. I thought I was there to learn about Social Security, which I did do. But I was brought back sharply to the unremitting discrimination that results from the complacency of people like me, and more substantially from the organized hatemongering of what is now undeniably a minority in our country.

Every one of us, no matter what our orientation, is harmed when we lived in the country whose laws include grotesque discrimination. As marriage equality measures come up on ballots around the US, and as efforts to repeal the Orwellian–named Defense of Marriage Act build up steam, I hope every single one of us, and the married ones too, will step up and do our part to remove this outrageous and shameful blot on our nation.

Here's one of Jan's pictures that seems to fit this topic, because to me it looks like a homecoming:

Great Blue

I said yesterday that I would try to photograph our resident heron. Pictured below is my attempt, which gives me even greater appreciation for the talents of this blog's real photographer, Jan, whose pictures will appear separately, to avoid guilt by association with my amateur attempts.