New Year 2021

 A new year. This year will be my 70th year on this Earth in this life. My body knows it. I have pains in places I did not know could hurt. But, it is fun to be alive, even if it is a grind sometimes.

I have been getting dreams lately, dreams of the Appalachian Trail. I have lived near it, have even hiked bits of it in the Smokies, but I dream of trail shelters, the trail itself, and hiking. I know absolutely I will never be able to "through hike", but there is the dream. Of course, since I have this compulsion, almost a "geas", this drive to go on the trail, I have started to mentally prepare. I do not grab something to help me out of the bed, propelling myself now with my legs. I do not complain quite so much when my feet hurt, but carry on as best I can. It is almost as though I am training for hiking. I even try and take Beau on longer walks.

He seems to be a good little trail companion, though is just a puppy.

I have no idea how I will be able to do this; due to an Aortic Dissection, I am unable to carry much, only a few pounds. I have thought of a goat or a Llama, but that is just a thought. Something to carry gear and food, and give me a pull on steeper grades.

Hopefully, there may be a way, posting on Patreon and GoFundMe, but we will see. It is the middle of Winter here, and not really hiking season.

Just letting the world know what I am thinking about.

Second Amendment Obsolete?

I listen to Liberal radio a lot. Why? Because that is where my political leanings lean. I voted for the President (who, BTW is NOT a Muslim, and WAS born in Hawaii, which was a State at that time), I support Unions, think money should be out of politics, believe in Free Speech and Freedom of Religion, believe that "Trickle Down" in the words of Rev. Al, is "30 years, and we seen a lot of down, but we ain't seen no trickle", the rich should be taxed according to how rich they are; since they got rich on our society, they should have to support it, I am a believer in Light and not dark, am Spiritual and not religious, and I own guns, eat red meat, hunt occasionally, and am in the process of getting a Concealed Carry license. Just a mess of contradictions, right? No, not really. Even Buddhists allow self defense and the defense of life.Though Jesus told a follower to put his sword away, He said nothing about the carrying of one.

Now, I do not agree with these "Open Carry" buffoons. Open carry scares some folks, though I prefer to know who is armed around me. Too many are scared of guns, but the gun is naught but a tool.

Now, I have heard Mark Thompson and Michelangelo Signorile  talk about repealing or altering the Second Amendment. I think this is dangerous and will tell you why.

My State, and I capitalize State, as it refers to North Carolina, legislature tried to pass a law establishing a State religion, Christianity, I presume, and likely a more radical denomination of that most likely, seeing the majority of our legislature is made up of far right Tea Party types. If you read the comments in this link I referenced, you will see a discourse by a very astute person who has some good data about our Founders (Dewey Sayenoff is his username), and shows what I have said for a long time, that the First Amendment is part of a "Grand Experiment" called The United States of America.

Now, you say, "what does the (obsolete) Second Amendment have to do with the First? A helluvalot! They are part of a much more grand document called The Bill of Rights, sort of like the American Magna Carta for all Americans. The Bill of Rights is to be taken as a whole, and has been for 238 years.  To pick it apart for much of any reason is frightening, and taking apart our Bill of Rights for a little perceived security is puerile and likely in the long run counterproductive.

Many have said "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand", and people like Signorile, Mark Thompson and Ari Rabin-Havt then go into the first part of the Second, which talks about a "well regulated militia" (which no state has at this time, the National Guard NOT being a Militia, and the so called "Militia movement", which is just another name for White Supremacy, is not regulated at all), but, there is a catch! The Second Amendment has two parts, the first allowing a "well regulated militia", and the second part saying simply " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.". This comes after a comma, which has gotten a lot of press, but let's keep going. We repeal it. We no longer have the right to keep and bear arms (and then no way to protect our homes, our families, get food, if we live in a remote area, no way to protect crops from vermin, we can keep going, but hopefully you get the idea), and the Bill of Rights jumps from the First to the Third Amendment, and we have gone into the parchment of the original and excised the Second Amendment (in order to remove any historical reference to it). What then? The Bill of Rights is then broken, opening any part of it to repeal or "change for the good". As said above, then the Congress CAN establish religion (and don't bet they will forbear), and it may be something you don't like. Because if the Bill of Rights is no longer complete, ANY part of it can be considered obsolete! And keep believing this won't happen. I have this bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you for a good price, which you may be able to use to get out of being convicted for being the wrong religion.

Another thing. "The country is awash in guns" Wow, the sky is falling too. Let's say I want to buy a gun. Any place but a gun show or a private sale (and those "loopholes" need to be firmly closed, BTW). I have to be checked through a computer search right there at the store, and must have no record, or I can't buy the thing. Here in NC, you have to go to the Sheriff's Department of your county, fill out a lot of paperwork, and wait a week. Now, before 1968, you could order a gun from a catalog and it would be delivered to you in the mail!!! IN THE MAIL!!! AND WE HAD NO SCHOOL SHOOTINGS!!! You cannot do that today! And the country is awash in guns. BS I call. This country has had free ownership of guns for as I said, 238 years. Stop the war on drugs and the war on the poor, and a lot of the violence would go away. Since Reagan, there has been a strong upsurge in gun violence and drug related violence.

More later

I am hoping to get a reasoned voice out there for responsible gun ownership. Anyone who knows me knows I am pretty centrist on most things, and pretty far Left on others, yet I grew up in a family, both sides, who owned and do to this day, own guns. I also own them, some for hunting, though I rarely go any more, some for target shooting, a beloved pastime though not good at it, and a few purely for defense.

I was listening to Mark Thompson on Sirius today, and he was yelling at some Right Wing person, and sometimes yelling over him, about gun ownership, and whether this right is as important to him, the caller, as the right to "not get shot" is to ordinary Citizens. Mark also said that the Second Amendment is "obsolete", something I have heard also from Michelangelo Signorile and even Ari Rabin-Havt. There are some local people here in my home town who feel the same, that the Second Amendment of our Constitution should be repealed, as was done with the Eighteenth Amendment, or modified to reflect "modern firearms". I rarely listen to Right Wing radio - need to keep my blood pressure low - but there is no reason on that side either, and mostly anti-government rhetoric and racist stupidity, along with arguments that do not reflect any reality.

However. "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Is gun ownership an essential  Liberty? According to some. Some people thought it essential enough to make part of the famous Bill of Rights of our Constitution, and also so much that they made it second in line, just after freedom of religion, press, speech, free assembly, such as Moral Monday, and the Peoples right to petition for redress of grievances. Now, why would they do that?

Along with being a Biologist (yes, I study Evolution, which is not a "belief" or "just a theory", but I digress), a Nature Lover, a Conservationist, a shooting sportsman, and a number of other things, I am a Ham Radio Operator. If you look at Ham Radio, it has a long history and tradition. It is not "just a hobby", but is a service, and is defined as such in Part 97 of the FCC rules. Rather than buying a license, we have to work for one, It takes study, and we have to pass a test that shows we are aware of the rules and are proficient enough to manage our own stations for interference. Back in 1958, Hams (known properly as the Amateur Radio Service) had an interesting band known as the 11 meter band, where they could talk, run Slow Scan TV, experiment with data, and do all kind of things. Problem was, in 1958, the sunspots, which control long distance communication in radio, called "skip" were at an all time low, making 11 meters unusable for long distance communication, so the FCC decided to remove it from Amateur (Ham) service, and start a new radio service like Australia had, and call it the Citizen's Radio Service. Naturally, Hams did not like this. This "service" was to be for families, small businesses, farmers, tradesmen and the like, to help carry on business. It was limited to 5 watts of input power to the finals (which translates to around 3 watts out from the antenna connector), and was for local communications only. The people who got into this CB thing in the 1960's immediately tried to make and style themselves like Hams, talking "skip" (illegal for CB - no talking over 150 miles away) running high power (often more than Hams could legally run), and making a pest of themselves, sometimes causing interference with other radio services, often Hams, but too often government and commercial, including military. They at first had to buy a license, later just apply for one (it was then free), and later were allowed to operate without a license.
Now, at this time, Hams could buy or make a low power transmitter (usually less than 10 watts), and later, when they could afford it, buy an amplifier (called a "linear", but often pronounced "linner", or "leanyer" - called "linear" due to the linearity needed to amplify a signal without distortion) that would take this small signal and amplify it about 100 times to 1000 watts, which was legal input in that day (about 500 to 700 out, depending on a lot of things). CBers got hold of them in short order, and began using them. Next thing you know, Hams had a rule passed on them limiting them to only amps that would amplify 10 times, and required that the popular 10 meter band (next to 11 meters) be locked out! We were very bitter about this, and CBers wonder why Hams don't care for them much.

Now, all this is to illustrate a point, that perfectly respectable and "law abiding" (a term that has taken a beating), honest people were being punished for what scofflaws, lawbreakers, and, yes, thugs and hooligans were doing. Don't believe me? Go to Channel 6 (27.025 mhz) and listen around. Yes, they are "running power". Go to Channel 19 (27.185 mhz) or 11 (27.085 mhz) and listen to the filth there all too often; I have heard of people who will not let their kids listen to the CB for this very reason.

What has this to do with guns? Gun owners, legal ones, get punished for what the criminals do. I am not likely to come shoot you Mark, Michaelangelo,  Ari. Why must I suffer and give up a right guaranteed under the Constitution for what nuts, criminals and terrorists do? And, have you been shot or shot at? (No!)

The Sandy Hook massacre was horrible. The Las Vegas shooting was awful. The shooting of Gabrielle Gifford was - well I have run out of words. But, I didn't do it, any of it, and neither did the millions of legal gun owners in the US! We none of us had a thing to do with it! And, if you start taking away rights, the guns will still be out there. Illegal people will still be doing illegal things. Just go to Channel 6 and listen. They are still out there, plus, now you can buy a "Dave Made" amp for "10 meters" that has a lot of "pills" (transistors), and will put out on the order of thousands of watts on the CB band!

My family, both sides, mom's and dad's, were Mountaineers of the Southern Appalachians. My maternal grandfather carried a .32 Special, especially when going to "town" (Asheville). A shotgun sat in the closet, and we knew "don't play with that". No "reasoning", no argument, no whining. Full stop. My maternal uncle, who taught me much of what I know about the woods was the same. So was every other of the uncles (3), and most of the aunts - my eldest aunt carried a .32 Auto in her purse. My cousins, and there are many (and I do not always agree with their politics or religion), most own guns, have guns in the house, many carry daily. NONE OF THEM, and I cannot stress this enough, NONE OF THEM has ever hurt another person with a gun. NONE OF THEM!!! NOBODY!!!! So, why do they need to give up a Liberty guaranteed us by the Founders, so you can feel more secure?

I will write more on this later, and will try to be reasoned, and back up my arguments with as much data as I am able. Until then, remember:

"Gun control means hitting your target!"

This is an open letter to our Local Edge Radio on 880 The Revolution, and to all my Liberal friends.

Dear Vonciel;

I wanted to write to you, as it is so difficult to talk to you on the radio. I am Alex, the one that keeps calling about gun control, and, honestly, I feel that I cannot get my point across to you. I am trying to give a reasoned viewpoint of the honest, legal and responsible gun owner, the one who might go hunting, the one who might simply go target shooting, whether plinking or competitive, or the one who simply may have heard about home invasions in the area, and wishes to guard her home against intrusion. I am talking for even the one who fears that terrorists may attack (I know that terrorists will never attack the United States, right? I mean, they never have, right?), and wants to be able to at least attempt to protect her family from terrorists (no American would ever join a terrorist organization, right?), even if the terrorists are sure to be better armed than she. Plus, I am talking for the ones who are fearful of a “gun grab”, which, even as a Liberal (and I am one, just check out my Website and Facebook page), I am all too concerned may happen.

Vonciel, when I call to talk to you, I make one comment, and you proceed to talk over me, making a series of points directly from the ultra-Liberal gun hating... (I won't even call it Left, as I cannot see a true Liberal talking about taking away a right guaranteed by the Constitution) extremists, and then, suddenly “whoops, time to take a break, thanks Alex, gotta go”, and I am left with a dead phone. After the break, you proceed to list all the reasons I am wrong, and continue on. Why is a reasonable, thoughtful, soft spoken voice for responsible gun ownership such a threat? I have heard Blake and Leslie (sp?) keep a Right Wing nut job on through several breaks, letting him make point after point, and as long as he doesn't cuss, he gets a forum. I am disturbed that I can't. Honestly, it is like calling Rush or Bill (or even Glenn), and trying to talk about why unions are important, why we should tax the heck out of the stinking rich, why social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are important. You will get talked over, and kicked loose at the first break.

It disturbs me that my fellow Liberals are very protective of our Constitutional rights, whether Free Speech (I was on the periphery of the Free Speech movement of the 1960's, dating myself), religion, self incrimination or whatever, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, they want to repeal it! The ACLU, whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States” will go all out for any American, even so far as going to bat for the KKK in several cases, but absolutely will not make a peep when states, cities or counties ban citizens from owning or keeping guns. This to me is rank hypocracy.

Vonciel, guns are not the problem. A gun is a lump of inanimate metal. It is the people who are the problem, and there is something in our United States that is causing people to break, and that is the problem. I know, “ready access to guns”, but if there were no problem, this “ready access” would be a non-starter. Take away the guns, and the problem is still there. Look up Gary Kleck.

I would call you again, but only if I thought that I could have a reasoned discourse. And, please don't say “nobody is suggesting we take away all guns from everybody; there are people saying that every day.

I am tired of writing, and will write more soon. I am sending this directly to your email, but am going to post it as an open letter on my blog. We HAVE to have a discussion, a reasoned one, and we HAVE to involve gun owners, not just gun haters

Respectfully;

Alex

I was blindsided by the shooting at the school in Sandy Hook Connecticut. I did not find out about it until I went to pick my wife up and found her talking about it, saying all guns should be banned, and the shooter should have been dragged out and drawn and quartered, and it was a shame he killed himself. As we have a 5 year old nephew, she was understandably upset, and so incoherent with rage that I had to go to the Internet for information, and listen to my local Liberal Progressive radio station next day. She simply would not converse with me on this, and we haven't talked about it since. Also, since I listen almost exclusively to a Liberal Progressive radio station, WPEK, The Revolution, I got a very solid left wing view, and the consensus among them was that we need gun laws, or we need an outright ban on guns, we need to amend, rewrite or repeal the  Second Amendment to the US Constitution, or re-interpret it in the light of modern firearms. The justices who dissented in the last couple of cases talked about placement of the comma, and whether, in the light of the absence of any state regulated militia, whether an ordinary citizen should have access to a firearm at all.

Now, folks, I am a Liberal, so much so that I sometimes see our current President as dangerously Conservative. I believe that the 2% should be taxed, purely because they are the ones that have the money, and as the society in which they live has made them rich, they owe a lot more to that society. I believe that the poor are also made so by that same society, so are owed a livable wage for the work they do, and support in hard times which the rich do not need. If we do not care for the poorest or unfortunate in our society as Governor Romney intimated when he said he didn't care about that 45, 46 or 47 percent who wouldn't vote for him, as they "don't matter", then we are a poor excuse for a society. Even the Mormon church disagreed with him, as they are very concerned about the poorest among them. Notice that nowhere did I say that anyone should not work if they are able; as any good Socialist, I do not believe in getting something and not working for it.

I am a Liberal, listen to Left Wing radio, belong to several Liberal and Progressive email lists, and I own guns, several of them. I have owned guns since old enough to do so legally, and have shot guns since a child. Don't worry, any guns I have are securely locked away. Many local gun shops allow you to store guns on premises for a small fee. Gun safes can be bought at Lowes that would take dynamite to get into. I have never shot anyone, never pointed a gun at anybody, and have no criminal record.  I feel that forcing me to turn in my guns because a mad man in Connecticut went into a poorly secured school and went berserk is simply unfair to me and to the millions of legal and honest American gun owners, and incidentally, is simply not going to solve the problem either.

To many people who have never been around guns, they are evil, and are for "only one purpose", which is a very facile and specious argument, and is simply not entirely true; I have shot many a gun that has never killed anything but tin cans, and oddly, that is their purpose, "plinking" (a type of target shooting). But even so, so what? To some, the very act of having a gun in proximity is going to turn an ordinary person into a stone killer, and having an assault weapon is an invitation to anyone nearby to go on a rampage in a school. I submit that nothing is further from the truth. And, addressing mental health, as most of the recent rampages have been perpetrated by the mentally ill, is only addressing part of the problem.

Yes, I submit that there is a problem, and it is not guns. Nor is it entirely mental health, though the people that have done the most recent crimes were demonstrably crazy. We have a social problem, one that causes people to snap, and some use guns, others use explosives, and still others use anything available.

The idea that having a gun around is going to cause a school shooting is simply silly. In my school years, from 1957 to 1969, there were few school shootings, and you could buy surplus M1 rifles and M1 Carbines at Sears.Until 1968 you could mail order a gun! We school kids would never have thought of bringing a gun to school, we did not have school security in the form of a "resource officer", and no one ever worried about getting shot at school. The country had just as many guns per capita as today, many of them semi-automatic (NONE of the weapons used in recent theater, mall or school shootings were "automatic"), and things like this just did not happen. Yes, people were killed, as Kennedy, King, and Malcolm X were, and this prompted the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, as many such laws, punished only the innocent and "law abiding", and did not touch the guilty. No, we have a social problem, and it is going  to take Sociologists and Psychologists to solve it, not guns; they are not the problem! The use of them in many crimes is  a symptom of an underlying disease, not the disease itself.

Back in 1979 I began studying for a Ham Radio license. I had been into Citizens Band Radio since 1976, but was convinced by a friend that Ham Radio had so much more, and he was right. I quickly made it to General class, and got myself a small low powered radio, only a couple of watts, and began looking for a linear amplifier to boost the signal to 100 or so, since as a Ham, I was licensed for 1000. I could not find one, as it was illegal to make one commercially. Since CB was created from a Ham Radio band in 1958, irritating Hams greatly, illegal use of linear amplifiers to boost CB signals from the legal 3 watts as set by the FCC to hundreds and even thousands of watts became common. This led to interference by high powered stations not only on the CB band, but to television reception, business and government radio, and many other problems caused by poorly operated high powered stations. Thus, the FCC, in typical bureaucratic fashion, passed a law that no one could build a linear amplifier that could tune to 11 meters, the band stolen from hams in 1958, so all linear amps (called by the CB crowd "lean-yers" or "lean-yars") had to be blocked from operation on 10 meters, it being so close to the CB band, which was 11 meters, and no amplifier could be made which required less than 50 watts drive, or would amplify a signal more than something like 10 db, which is like amplifying from 100 to 1000 watts. Therefore, I could not buy a commercially legally available linear amplifier for my little rig, even though I was a legally licensed ham Radio operator, legally licensed to operate my station at 100 or even 1000 watts. Oh, and did I mention that this did not at al lsolve the problem? A significant number of CB'ers continued to use old Ham linears, foreign made illegally (poorly made, I might add) obtained ones, badly constructed amps made by other CBers with some electronic abilities, and CB radio still had this problem, there was still interference (actually worse), the FCC still did nothing about it, and I still can't get an amp for a low powered station. And so it goes. The bad people break the law, a law is passed to stop it, and only the innocent and righteous are affected. The crooks, jerks and jacklegs go right on.

One woman who contributes to one of my Left Wing email lists wrote up a petition that said "I don't own a gun, I don't want a gun, and I don't need a gun, and nobody else should either", and was asking for signatures to this petition, saying that the Second Amendment was an antiquated and stupid law, and should be amended or repealed. I would not sign it, as, I said,  "I do, I do, and it matters not whether I need one, for now it is my right guaranteed under the Constitution". Never heard back. You see, this annoying Second Amendment is tied into a series of Amendments called The Bill of Rights, and the one my Liberal friends most defend is the First Amendment, most notably Free Speech and freedom of religion. My feelings are equally strong on these rights, but I fear that the Right Wing would happily take both those rights away from me too if they were able, and a dilution or repeal of the Second Amendment would play right into their hands.

You see, there are many people who would love to control the religious belief in our country today. This is in direct contradiction to the Founders idea of a country not controlled by any religion, and that was free, not only in religion, but in speech, the Press, and in assembly. If any part of that Bill of Rights is diminished, as perhaps a Supreme Court decision stating that the Second Amendment is wrong, antiquated, or repealed, I can see the rest of them falling like dominoes; think of a Court saying "well, the Second Amendment was found not to apply to a modern America, so the others can be revisited also". This is a function in law called a precedent, and this precedent of diluting, rewriting, or in some other way altering an Amendment in The Bill of Rights could establish a dangerous one.

Now, I would like to show you some numbers. Numbers of dead people from 2010.

Traffic       32,000
  Speeding  10,530
  Alcohol    10,228

Guns         31,513
  Homicide 11,105

 This is data from 2010. It shows that motor vehicles kill 32,000 Americans a year, a significant number of them children, but no sane person would suggest banning automobiles. However, notice that both speeding and alcohol each kill about the same as gun involved homicides (the rest of gun deaths are almost all suicides, and trust me, a suicide does NOT need a gun - availability would make little difference). There is absolutely no call for banning alcohol, though it was tried before autos were popular - that is where our organised crime was mostly born, the illegal liquor trade of Prohibition. Plus, I have not heard any cry for banning speeding, and there are even gadgets for helping people avoid a speeding ticket, and songs in popular culture glorifying speeding.
This just makes no sense to me. The need to punish people who are causing no problem (legal and honest gun owners), and giving people who are lawbreakers (speeders and drunks) a slap on the wrist for drunk driving, or a high five for beating a speeding ticket.

We have a social problem, not a gun problem. We have a war on drugs, which is a war on the poor, and that translates into gun violence. Until we solve our social problems, we will not solve our violence problem.

Religion, Politics, and my Yahoo groups

I was going to write this and post it on one of my Yahoo groups, but decided to post it here, and make a link to it, as my groups (Dragonflies and Damselflies of the Southeast, Water Turtles, Southeastern Insects, and others) have specific raison d'être, and I did not want to interject my rant on the group or groups.

A while back, a lady, seemingly a nice one, joined one of my scientific groups, and complemented me on being a generalist, and I replied that my desire in all my life has been to be an all around Naturalist like the old time greats like Ausubon, Alexander Wilson, John and William Bartram, and Charles Darwin. She, supposedly interested in science, wrote back that she did not know of any of those people (Audubon????? OMG!!!), but thought Darwin's thinking was sloppy and just plain wrong. Eh? Well, I kind of knew where this was going, but played along, saying that many people of the Enlightenment era had had such thoughts, and that Darwin was just voicing these ideas, and put them down in book form (before his contemporary and rival Alfred Russell Wallace could publish) so that they were in a coherent form. Well, she kept writing me, making sure she copied the whole group, telling me Darwin was wrong, and how "Creation Science" explained how the Earth was only 6000 or so years old, how Evolution could never have happened, and just going on with this "Creation Science" BS, and most of the group, responsible Biologists (I had started this group for Biologists, later opening it up to hobbyists at the behest of the Biologists) stayed silent, so I asked for some help with this woman, as I am only a lowly BS myself (Bachelor in Science), and there are several PhD's on the group who have seen these specious arguments, and can refute them in their sleep. They joined in, having a discussion of sorts, until she insulted a grand old man of Biology in a major university, and I had had enough, shutting off the discussion, and eventually moderating her posts, as she had begun "testifying", though she maintained (at first) that her "Creation Science" had nothing to do with religion (BULL COOKIES!!!). She finally left, taking a few other religious folks with her (good riddance!.

Now, a few weeks ago, a lady asked for a very simple ID that any Sunday duffer should be able to get out of any field manual. Not really a problem, but this was in tiny script, and her signature file was a diatribe about how Jesus had changed her life, how she was happy, and all this sort of thing, including, as I remember, a diatribe against public schooling (for some reason, they hate public school, and want to dismantle it, and give us vouchers to send our kids the THEIR religious schools - how curious). Well, this offended me, and I wrote a message to her saying this:

 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", plus see Amendment XIV.

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (US Constitution Article VI).

And "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (Thomas Jefferson)

Plus: "Adams at one point said that Christianity had originally been revelatory, but was being misinterpreted and misused in the service of superstition, fraud, and unscrupulous power. (!!!) (From Wikipedia, author cited in article.)

Oh, and for you "Christians" who like to (mis)quote founding Fathers, and who hate Public Education:
 "The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves." (Bold my doing.)
 – John Adams, September 10, 1785

And, just read this; too long to quote, all from Jefferson:

http://zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/

People keep trying to say that the Founders were "Christian", but in actuality, most were NOT (Deists and Humanists), and most feared the injection of religion into our Government (as happened yesterday here in NC). I find this in-your-face Christian proselytizing irritating and disturbing, and do not think such a signature really belongs on a list devoted to Dragonflies and kin. I do not try to inject religion into any list to which I belong, nor try to blast people with my beliefs; they are mine alone. If you are happy with your beliefs, wonderful! I, however, do not need to  know about it.

I respectfully ask that folks are polite, keep religious views off the list, and respect others. I am indeed a benevolent despot, but a despot nevertheless. Most people who think they are following Jesus are NOT.  I will direct you to Matthew 7: 22 & 23.





Now, as you can see, I do not like religion. That does not mean I am Atheist; I do not see how an intelligent person could espouse Atheism, at least not a Scientist; one cannot demonstrate the existence of an Almighty, nor can one demonstrate the absence by any empirical means. At most, a Scientist can be an Agnostic, but not an Atheist, and Atheist Scientists are espousing a religious "thing" too. No, I am intensely spiritual (I do believe in God, as I understand God, and follow much of Jesus teachings, along with some of Buddha's and others; my religion or spirituality is no one's business but mine own, or those with whom I choose to share it , and no, you so-called-Christians, I do not choose to share it with you!) Religion is responsible for the horrors of the Crusades, the Inquisition, 911, Oklahoma City, and a host of other things; sometimes the bad outweighs the good.
If you are a Christian, especially Right Wing, read this: http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/


So, what I am saying is, do not come on my lists, especially the scientific ones, and start up with religion; I will go after you. Do not come on a list and go on about Politics, as I will go after you too; I am on the Left of the spectrum, and believe the Right Wing is controlled by money and Satan (see above link), and when I look at some Right Wing politicians and preachers, I see Satan looking out their eyes. I do.
More later.....

     Well, I haven't posted in a while, and that is just wrong. For those following, sorry!
    
Just going over my e-mail, and it looks like the Miami Blue Butterfly is going to be added to the Endangered Species List, and it will affect the Cassius Blue and others, as they look so similar. I sent a notice to the list where I received this telling members they better add this one to their collection before they're all gone. I hope to cause a firefight, as, you see, I have no use for collections of insects, and feel the collectors are just plain wrong. I feel the same way about trophy hunting.
    
      Not that I have anything against hunting, just trophy hunting; you are killing off your breeding stock. No farmer in this world would kill off his prize herd bull, but we do it every season by killing off "record breaking" deer, elk, moose, and what have you. And they wonder why there are so few record breakers in modern times. When you kill bucks with big antlers, you select against that trait, and select for smaller antlers (bucks with smaller antlers live, where the big boys get killed - smaller antlers live to get their genes to the next generation, while the big boys don't. Any other argument has little validity, and is just an excuse for trophy hunting.). Ask any Biologist. Oh, I am a Biologist! People who hunt for food, on the other hand, are hunting for the smaller, younger (and therefore less tough) specimens, and are leaving the bigger ones alone to breed and make healthy youngsters.
   Back to collecting. Same thing here. All the arguments with the notable exception of scientific research have little validity. One prominent group on the Internet (Yahoo Groups) has the motto "We cannot Protect What We Do Not Know". Another argument for collecting of moths and butterflies, and I say "horse apples" With modern photography and the ability to take close up photos of even genitalia, that argument ends in the scrap heap along with oology (collecting of bird's eggs) and plume hunting. And, yes, there are collectors who hunt butterflies commercially, to provide specimens to people who want to "fill out" their collections.


     Now, I figure that some of these folks would be just like the fellows in the early days of our country who collected birds and their eggs, and if it were legal, would happily collect them without a single thought or prick of conscience, and would argue loudly (and these butterfly and moth collectors do, flaming me mightily when I post my views on collecting) if we were to talk about outlawing it, but, alas, birds are protected for the most part by the North American Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the hunting of game birds and waterfowl are tightly controlled. You see, market hunting (sort of like commercial butterfly and moth collectors) and egg collecting and specimen collection for people's drawing rooms, or even study skins (sort of like people's drawers full of butterflies) had cut many bird populations to almost nothing, forcing the US government in 1918 to step in and stop all of this, forming a treaty with Canada and (later) Mexico. Nothing, however, was ever done about collecting butterflies and their cousins the moths, which goes rolling along without a glitch, and these "responsible" collectors go out and teach young people how to do it, how to set up this once living stamp collection, and how to do it most effectively.

     Now, you see, what bothers me most is that these creatures are living, breathing entities, and people are killing them wantonly to make a pretty collection, in most cases before they even have a chance to breed, as they want "fresh" specimens. Older "worn" ones don't look so pretty, and thus hold less appeal. Of course, if you are good at collection, you will never have to see a worn one, as they won't have a chance to get that way.

     I hope this gives people a reason to think, and I hope they will think a little before attacking me. I do not see why we can't simply enjoy a living creature without the desire to catch it and add it to a collection.

Spring on the Parkway

I finally managed a small trip North up the Parkway from Asheville. It was spur of the moment after visiting my mom at her temporary residence at a nursing facility. If you start out from US 25 from Biltmore Forest, you might see a few Birdfoot Violet, Viola pedata L. on the east road bank. From 70 north, I was able to see a number of wildflowers, including a few Flame Azalea, Rhododendron calendulaceum (Mich.) Torr. (called Wild Honeysuckle by the natives). A few white blooming shrubs can be seen on the rock face near the Haw Creek overlook, which look like Old Man's Beard, or White Fringe Tree, Chionanthus virginicus L. On the way up, it is easy to see little coves with Trillium carpeting the ground. I didn't get out to see what species, but suspect T. erectum L. or T. catesbaei Ell. Will try to get a better look later this week.

Notice that I use scientific names, and give the author of the name. The name is in italic, and the author of that plant's scientific name is after the italicized name, and is not italicized. When you see "L." as an author, it means that the person who named this plant is Carolus Linnaeus, the fellow who developed this naming system, called "binomial nomenclature", a way to classify living things which mostly avoids the confusion inherent in common names. "Michx." stands for Andre Michaux, a prominent French Botanist who did a lot of exploring around here, and "Torr." is for John Torrey, an American Botanist. Note that these are links, to articles on Wikipedia.

Also along this drive, I saw the Giant Chickweed, Stellaria pubera Michx., also called the Star  Chickweed along the roadside and in the woods, and a the tiny Phacelia dubia (L.) Trel. all over the road verge, and seeming to grow right into the road. A look at the rock faces all over here reveals a number of other stress selected plants which I will have to go back to identify, along with a field notebook to keep notes; my 60 yo brain is not so absorptive as in former years.

I terminated my drive at Tanbark Ridge tunnel at BRP mile 374.4 where the Park Service has thoughtfully made some rough parking pullouts, and grabbed my stick from the back of the truck, and started to walk, west across the road and up the little creek there, flowing full and vigorous after all the rain we have had this spring. I was struck first by the Dwarf Crested Iris, Iris cristata Aiton, which lines this trail and stream as far as I could see. A few photos with my cell phone was all I could do, as I left my camera at home. First is a bed of Iris on the trail next to the stream:

Next is a photo of a violet near a fallen log. This one looks like the common violet that is in everybody's lawn, but I think it is another species; will have to take a book next time:

And finally, the stream itself, which I promise, you dear reader and myself, to get a better photo in the future:

The time for these spring flowers is no later than this weekend. I have seen people call these flowers "spring ephemerals", and this is exactly right; in no more than a week they are gone, not to be seen for another year. In fact, the whole cadre of spring flowers is like that, from the Bloodroot, which is one of the first, to the Mayapple, which is one of the last. In a couple of weeks, the hills will be a lush green with just a few things flowering, and you will have to look hard for them.

I will give a further report on this drive, as I hope to have more time and a few nice days. Keep looking, and come back and see us!