On Hunting, and Cougar Populations

Last year a hunter shot and killed a momma cougar in Oregon. The State spent thousands to feed and care for 3 baby cougars and then sent them to live in a North Carolina zoo. Not sure that I understand that use of funds.

1) Cougar populations continue to climb. Estimates are that we now have around 5,700 in Oregon, probably up 10x what we had 20 or 30 years ago.

2) I've never understood why cougar hunters who paid the state for the privilege of hunting cougars with dogs were replaced with professional, public payroll hunters who hunt cougars with dogs. Excuse me? Why is it okay for the taxpayer to pay for a public employee to hunt cougars with dogs, but it is not okay for private citizens to pay into the public coffers for the same privilege? If the act is wrong, is it better for us to pay someone to do it?

3) To increase the number of cougars killed, ODFW dropped the price for cougar tags from $50 to $10. Why did ODFW drop the price? Because we have too many cougars for the terrain to support. This pushes cougars into neighborhoods and increases predation on stock such as sheep and cattle. Despite this change, just 275 cougars are killed each year, less than 1 for every 100 tags sold. That means that $1,000 goes into state coffers for each animal taken. The money is used for wildlife management.

4) Frequently, when cougars are killed in neighborhoods, they are skinny, even starving. Yet it seems to me that some people would rather have cougars die of starvation, or 1,000 deer die to feed cougars, than for one person to legally take a cougar with a rifle. Don't understand that one.

5) Anti-hunters, who feel that it is cruel to hunt animals, for some reason are happy to threaten hunters with violence. I've never understood why some people are anti violence against animals, but pro violence against people.

6) It would be nice if all the people who decry the "slaughter of innocent animals," were vegetarians. But I doubt if they are.

Curiosity didn't Kill the Cat - I did

Many years ago I visited a children's home in another country. I had some amazing times, and fell in love with the country and the kids. A memory-building trip, for sure. One of the kids had found a small, tired kitten and brought it home. About eight weeks old, he was dirty and skinny and spent his nights in an eight by eight garden enclosure. The kitten - he was a boy cat - had been there for a week or so. He certainly wasn't a mascot for the place. He received a little attention and little food. The only thing I saw anyone giving him was bread, but I suppose he must have received other food. There wasn't a lot of extra meat in the place. I think he was barely getting by. The staff shrugged when I asked them questions about the little guy. Don't know, don't care was how they thought of him. In short, he had a pretty low profile. My heart reached out for the little kitten, so when we next went to the grocery store I picked up a small bag of cat food. Up until this point, I think the staff could think of him as just passing through, a transient. But a bag of food meant that he was going to stay, one more resident in a crowded place. And every resident of the place meant work and expense. When I looked for him a few days later, he was gone. I found one of the staff to ask about the missing kitten. "What happened to the kitten?" "Oh, him? He's gone." "Where did he go? What happened to him?" "He's just gone. You won't see him again." Wink. "I took care of him." From his tone and demeanor, I don't think he meant that he had found a home to adopt him. I was afraid to ask for more information. And that was that. With a well-intentioned act of kindness, I think I killed the cat.

The Thought Police Have Arrived...

George Orwell's 1984 posits a world where thought police protect the country by punishing people for what they think.  Sounds pretty bizarre, doesn't it?

He was off by 30 years, but Mr. Orwell had it right:  The thought police have arrived. 

I'm thinking of Donald Sterling, of course, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, a pro basketball team.    The media and many players are abuzz with suggestions of suitable consequences for him for uttering racist comments to his girlfriend.  Or maybe his ex-girlfriend by now. 

"Make him sell his team." 

"Make him go out for counseling."

"Fine him."

"...the players trust that the new commissioner, on the job for less than three months, will find the right penalties for Sterling, who has owned the Clippers for almost 30 years"

"They don't think he's worthy to be an owner..." 

First of all, before I get hate mail, note that I find this guy to be reprehensible.  He's a fool, and an idiot, and living with racist attitudes that suggest a level of enlightenment that most of us don't run into often. He grew up in the 1940's, which may explain it, but that doesn't excuse him.

But being stupid or racist isn't a crime.  And it shouldn't be, any more than saying racist comments should be a crime - no matter what the race of the person being stupid.  Thoughts are not criminal.  And the First Amendment of the Constitution promises free speech for all of us.  Even stupid, bigoted speech.

I suppose this is a natural extension of the bizarre role to which we have elevated athletes.  They are supposed to be role models,and to stand up for all that is good and right.  Excuse me?  These are athletes.  I'll find my role models someplace else.  There are real heroes out there, some in uniform, some in public service.  Some teaching in public schools. 

So, what about this guy, running around with a girlfriend who is 49 years younger than him.  Is he "qualified" to own a basketball team?  Excuse me? Would you ask that about a stockholder of IBM or Westinghouse? 

How about Raytheon, McDonnell Douglas, or Lockheed?  Those are three of America's largest producers of munitions.  Should there be different qualifications to own stock in those companies?  Let's see, maybe only mean men should own stock in arms manufacturers, and nice ladies should own things like pet hospitals and stuffed animal companies. 

C'mon, people, he's an investor.  He's not even - or shouldn't be - the spokesman for the Clippers.

Now, what about consequences?  Leave the thought police, I mean, the NBA and the media, out of this.  If you find his speech offensive - and I do - what can you do?  I suppose you could boycott the Clippers, but be careful.  You will end up punishing innocent people, like the players, hot dog vendors, and parking attendants that are part of the Clippers machine. .  

I don't have an easy answer.  But that's okay.  This isn't my problem - or yours.  Haven't we each got enough of our own problems without wasting time on this?  By my math I may have another 262,656 hours to live, and a third of those will be spent snoring.  I won't waste another minute on this bigot.

The U.S. Air Force Academy has decided that it has the right to forbid a cadet to write a verse from the Bible on his personal white board for inspiration. 

I disagree.  I don't think that they have that right. Nor does, I believe the United States Constitution. 

I sent this letter to the Superintendent of the academy today.  If you agree, pass it on, and do the same, in your own words.  I'd love to see a million letters on her desk.  Please be respectful and polite, and give your communication to a Major General in the Air Force the thoughtfulness that it deserves. 

===========================

William G. Leslie

100 West Powell Blvd.

Gresham, OR 97030

(503) xxx-xxxx

williamleslie99@gmail.com

March 28, 2014

Superintendent, United States Air Force Academy

2304 Cadet Dr., Ste. 3300

USAF Academy, CO 80840-5001

Attn:  Maj. Gen. Michelle Johnson

Dear General Johnson:

As a patriot, I cannot let the recent actions by the United States Air Force Academy to stifle religious freedom among the Corps. of Cadets stand without a personal response. The Constitution of the United States does not provide for freedom of worship.  It is much broader than that.  It says, in part, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”  By forbidding the cadets to freely express themselves, and to demonstrate their faith, you are ignoring a document that you have sworn to protect. Do you take your oath so lightly?

It is not difficult to see that the writing of a personal message of inspiration on a cadet’s personal white-board is a protected form of communication, under both the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution, and under the freedom of speech clause.  

Please take a moment to review the Constitution.  It has stood up well for more than two hundred years.  Shall one of our nation’s finest institutions toss it aside carelessly?

Sincerely,

William Leslie

The Thought Police Have Arrived

Not long ago, a University of Oregon professor announced a writing assignment.  Students were told to choose an issue that was controversial, and write an argument in favor of either side of the issue. Students were told that they must choose a topic that had two valid sides.  The professor announced that some topics, like gay marriage or abortion couldn't be chosen, because there is only one valid argument or side to these issues.

Does this make you cringe?  It should.  One would think that a liberal arts college would encourage a diversity of opinion.  In this case, the professor forbid even a discussion of two of the most controversial - indeed, divisive - topics that our nation is dealing with today.

What are we teaching our students?  Certainly not to think.

The Heritage Foundation recently posted what follows.  Our liberal institutions of higher learning no longer even allow a diversity of opinion:

One student from Swarthmore said: “What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think should be tolerating conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

It is time to speak up.  Get involved.  When you hear things that disturb you, tell others. 

If you Disagree, Just ignore your Promises

I watched with interest as Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum announced that she would not defend the 2004 amendment that Oregonians passed in which they stated that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman.  This places our Secretary of State in the positon of announcing that she will not respect, not be bound, by the oath she took when she was sworn into office.

Some will applaud her stance.  "Good for her.  She is standing up for what she believes in."  I see it differently.  When the founding fathers found that they could not serve a distant crown because their conscience would not allow them to enforce unjust laws, they resigned their positions. Rather than take the honorable step of resigning, which I could respect, our Secretary of State dishonorably chose to ignore her oath.

In a press release Ms. Rosenblum announced that "there is no rational basis for Oregon to refuse to honor the commitments made by same-sex couples."  I can think of a rational basis - in fact, I can think of 1,028,546 rational reasons.  That's how many Oregonians voted in favor of the amendment to our constitution, which Ms. Rosenblum swore to defend.

She stated that she also swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, but that Constitution has no amendment regarding marriage, and the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to been heard.  In contrast, the Oregon amendment is clear and explicit.

I felt a similar twinge when our governor announced that he would not sign any orders for the execution of any death row inmates for as long as he is in office.  Upon reflection, I realized that that's different.  Our own statutes require the governor's concurrence before an execution can be carried out.  That may be a good plan, or a bad one, but it is clear that it is the governor's prerogative, and there is nothing in any statute or ordinance to require his concurrence.  His decision may defy the will of the people, but it is certainly honorable and lawful, and within the structures of laws that we have established.

The Secretary of State's stance is akin to to the employee who steals from his employer because he believes that he is not being paid enough.  The employee's own opinion allows him to justify his action.  When each of us does what we want to, and ignores the laws by which we have collectively agreed to be bound, that's lawlessness.

Some will say, "Ah, the author is anti-gay," but they are missing the point.  I am not anti-gay.  I am pro rule of law.  If the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the states should allow gay marriage, that will be the law of the land, and it would be wrong for our Attorney General to defy that law.

And it's wrong for our Secretary of State to ignore her oath because she, in her own mind, has decided that the Oregon Constitution is not "rational."

Our World Sure Has Changed: Banks and Credit Unions

On Monday I called my credit union to check on CD rates.  I was transferred twice and put on hold twice before I got to the right person.  I think I had to answer seven questions about my identity before she would quote me current CD rates. Who else is on your accounts? (Easy).  When did you open your first account?  (Hard.  It was thirty-nine years ago.)  What branch did you open your account at?  (No clue.)  When did you open your home equity line of credit?  (No clue.  We've never borrowed a cent on it).  The questions went on and on.  In the end, convinced that I was who I claimed to be, she quoted 0.21 % for a twelve month CD.  In a year I would earn about what it would cost her to mail me a confirmation for the new CD.  I told her I would pass.

I called my business bank today, and got the same sequence of events.  I think there were eight or nine questions to prove my identity.  My date of birth?  (Gee, I'm not sure I should trust you with that.  What's your date of birth?  Oh, you aren't allowed to share it, because it isn't safe?)  This conversation was made more difficult because I was talking to someone overseas, to someone with a heavy accent.

My bank encourages me to make deposits via eDeposit, which involves taking a picture of the check with my cell phone.  To make a deposit I have to provide my log in, my password, my pin, and the name of my best man.  It's supposed to save me time.  I think it takes ten minutes for me to log in and deposit one check.  If my time is worth anything, I'd be better off mailing the check.

I passed my lovely wife an envelope over coffee this morning.  It contained directions on where to dig in our front yard after I die, to get to our savings account.  It's in a mason jar.  It took me less time to dig the hole and write the note than it did to call the credit union.  While I dug, I listened to the birds tweet, and to the wind in the fir trees.  And when I was done digging, my blood pressure was lower than when I began.

Our world sure has changed, hasn't it?