Summer is in full swing now. The leaves are growing unbelievably fast. The first flowers I saw this year? Some purple flowers by the side of the road in town. I don't know what they were, though. :P
However, yesterday, I spotted a violet (which I've learned is probably actually a viola, but I've always called them violets) outside our house yesterday. Also found that the bluebell buds are starting to open. I took pictures of the violet and will post one of them.
I've been focusing a lot on trying to capture birds. I finally have some pictures of yellow-rumped warblers. They're not very good, but they're a start. I will be posting those when I'm done with blog. Finally got a good picture of a robin, as well. Just in the last few days, I have photographed robins, woodpeckers, juncos, and warblers.
I've also gotten some really good sightings of hermit thrushes. Now, normally I wouldn't know for sure if it were a hermit thrush, a gray-cheeked thrush, or another similar looking bird, however, at least one of them had the courtesy to sing for me, making him unmistakable. In my opinion, the hermit thrush has the most beautiful song around. :)
I also have some drawings I will try to post. I hope you enjoy! :)
Oh, yes, and the weather has been gorgeous! Mostly in the 70s, some cooler, some warmer. We could use a little more rain, though. God bless! :)
Ahh! The joy of spring! Spring and summer kind of blend together around here. It seems that spring is a feeling in the air before the snow melts; something that says "Summer's coming." Then it becomes a muddy, muddy mess as the snow melts. Had to redig some trenches this year. Well, now the spring streams are dried up, and the sun is out and so warm.... The dogs are happily lounging around in the sun. Ahhh, beautiful! And then...today a song was added among the cheerful varied calls of the chickadees and "sweeeet" of the redpolls. I have yet to see one, but the robin's song rang out sweet and clear. There's something about the robin's song...it takes my breath away every time.
Welcome back, sweet singers! :)
Have discovered snowshoe hare tracks on the property. Hope to see the hares themselves soon. I haven't seen evidence of them on this property in a few years. Also have been seeing a lot of black-cappped chickadees as usual. A few days ago, I saw two common redpolls near our feeder. A little over a week ago, we were visited by a pair of gray jays. They must have just been passing through because I haven't seen them since that day. The Iditarod is in full-swing, and I've been trying to keep up with it via the internet. The race is moving fast, but it's not clear who will be the champion. The leaders keep leap-frogging drastically. Should be a fun one to watch. Keep up with the Last Great Race at www.iditarod.com.
Fairbanks has gotten a lot of snow the last two days. I would estimate at least a foot. Right now the sun is shining, but the wind is blowing and it's snowing. There is so much fresh snow that some of the pathways that were just shoveled out yesterday can barely be seen--they had been a few feet into the snow already.
Now the subject I have chosen to dedicate the title of this blog to--a raven. I climbed up to the tree loft today and cleared off most of the snow. There was at least a foot and a half of snow on it, and I was concerned it might not be able to handle it. There were some ravens flying around and landing in the trees, some talking. Then the wind started to pick up and I noticed one raven being blown around in the wind.
At first I wondered if the big bird was being blown off course by the strong wind. But then I realized the truth; the raven was purposely "catching waves" so to speak. I watched in amused amazement as he flew up high and caught a breeze over and over again. "Now that's a real wind-surfer!" I said to myself.
Some of the time, he made me a bit nervous--the wind was so strong and was blowing him around like a leaf. "I sure hope you know what you're doing and are being careful!" I told the raven.
Yet another reason why I love ravens. They will never cease to be a great form of entertainment. They are beautiful, graceful, magnificent, and intelligent creatures.
"Stop and consider God's wonders" (Job 37:14, NIV).
Howdy everybody! :) I apologize for my long absence from the site. Life has been full of many things.
I adopted a new kitty about a month ago. She is currently sleeping on my lap.
For so long I worried that if I fell in love with another cat, I would somehow start forgetting Jeneen or that she wouldn't seem as special anymore. But I was utterly wrong. Velvet is wonderful, but she is no Jeneen. In the same way, Jeneen was no Velvet. They are both equally wonderful.
I believe with my whole heart that I will see Jeneen again someday. And when I do, I can't wait to introduce her to her new little sister. I know she'll love her! Jeneen was always very nurturing with other cats. She loved to play with them, cuddle with them, lick them.... Jeneen will love having a little sister--especially knowing that she comforted me when Jeneen couldn't be here.
A moose cow and her baby have been hanging around our place lately. I have some good pictures of them that I will have to post. It was Velvet who alerted me to their presence, actually. She was sitting in the window, gazing out intently.
Their tracks are hard to make out in the deep, powdery snow. But I found one place where the tracks were clear--under the tree loft where Jeneen is buried. Apparently, it's just high enough that the baby was able to walk under it. There's snow there, but now more than a few inches, so the tracks are beautiful. I wish I could've taken a picture, but I didn't have my camera with me at the time and haven't gotten back out there.
I need to save all my pictures to disk so I can delete them from my camera and take more pictures, but I've been having some difficulty with some problematic software. Hopefully, I'll get it worked out soon. :)
God bless you all!
If you have read any of my recent posts [on facebook where this was originally posted] concerning the Alaska senate race, you may be a bit confused as to where I stand. This is because over the last few days I have come to a different understanding of the situation.
There is a big dispute over what should be counted as a vote for Lisa Murkowski. My initial reaction was that as long as voter intent is clear, a vote should count.
Voter Intent
However, this still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and who is it who gets to interpret? I realized that if there were a vote for "Lisa Malancholiowsky" it shouldn't count. But I was torn on this because voter intent is still pretty clear here. If a voter had voted thus, I would be 99.9% sure that they had intended the vote to go for Lisa Murkowski. Still, I reasoned that as long as the spelling was phonetic, such as "Mercowsky", it should count.
I suppose I have been gracious because I am aware that others are not always as sensitive to or as good at spelling things correctly as I am.
Picky Cheaters?
While I am an adamant Miller supporter, my reaction to the ballots his people are challenging was the same as a Murkowski supporter's reaction might be. I was disgusted that people would try to throw out someone's vote on a technicality.
I was confused and wondered if I had been wrong about Mr. Miller's character.
But today I had a kind of an epiphany.
What the Law Says
Alaska state statute 15.15.360. states that:
(10) In order to vote for a write-in candidate, the voter must write in the candidate's name in the space provided and fill in the oval opposite the candidate's name in accordance with (1) of this subsection.
(11) A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.*
Interpretation of the Law
Yesterday, I looked at this carefully and it occurred to me that perhaps the crafters of this statute only intended to prevent acceptance of votes that were for initials (LM, JWM, etc.), for nicknames (The Governator, The Gipper, Princess Lisa, Joe, Leelee, etc.), or first names alone (Joe, Joseph, Lisa, etc.).
Today it occurred to me how foolish I'd been. It is the job of the lawmaker to debate and consider what should be covered in a law. No matter how ill-conceived a law may look, it is our duty to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their job and made the law to be exactly what they desired and saw fit.
The law must be implemented the way it was written. If someone does not like the law the way it is, he ought to work to overturn or amend it through legal means. It is never acceptable to simply ignore what the law says because you do not like it or believe that those who wrote it didn't know what they were doing. (Lest you think that I would never engage in "civil disobedience," let me clarify. There is a difference between defying a law and ignoring it. If you defy a law, you acknowledge its existence and humbly accept any consequences or punishment for defying it.)
The Law, Whether You Like it or Not
The law says that a vote for a write-in candidate must be written "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy." Therefore, unless Senator Murkowski put her name as "Markovsky" or "Murkoskie" on her application, such votes should not be counted.
Is this fair? It doesn't matter; it's the law. I do believe that there are higher laws than the ones put into place by man, but we are a nation of laws. If we go against a law, choosing to interpret it as we see fit, it gives license for every other law to be broken, as well. A law is meaningless if we allow it to be "interpreted" at will.
Laws are not meant to be interpreted, they're meant to be followed. Contrary to popular belief, a judge's job is not to interpret the law, but to determine if someone has broken it. A judge sits in judgment of people and proposed laws, not in judgment of the existing law.
Once again, if you believe a law to be flawed, by all means, work to change it! Ignoring it is not the solution.
Voter Responsibility
Should the law be as it is or should it be changed to accept minor misspellings? Initially, I thought that it should be changed. However, I have since changed my mind. I'll tell you why.
Whether the law stays as it is or not, a voter has a responsibility to know what that law is and to make sure that he follows it when he votes. I did not feel inclined to vote for Lisa Murkowski. However, if I had, I know that I would have looked up the law and then when I was in the voting booth, I would have looked over my ballot multiple times to be certain that I had done everything properly:
1. Filled in or marked the oval for the write-in candidate for the correct office? Check.
2. Wrote the candidate's name on the line for a write-in for the correct office? Check.
3. Spelled the candidate's name correctly? "M U R K O W S K I" Check.
If I thought I'd have trouble with the spelling, I would have included at the top of that list: Wearing my "Murkowski" bracelet for reference? Check.
It is my responsibility, not the government's, to make sure my ballot is filled out correctly. If my vote is thrown out because I wrote "Lisa Mercowskey", failed to fill in the oval, inanely filled in the ovals by the names of all of the senate candidates, or decided to "fix" a mistake on my ballot rather than asking for a new one, it is no one's fault but my own.
It was not Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, volunteers, or election officials who made the decision to throw out my vote, it was I who made the decision by being careless.
While these people must deal with thousands upon thousands of ballots, you have ONE ballot to worry about; yours. Make sure your intent is clear. It is not the job of the election officials to spend hours trying to decipher if you meant to be voting for Lisa Murkowski or Liza Minnelli.
Intent is not the issue. It is not the responsibility of election officials to make sure that your vote counts no matter how bad they feel that your vote for "Josephine Miller" is being discarded when they believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that you intended to vote for Joe Miller.
It is sad if your vote doesn't count because of a little mistake, but it is also sad when the neighbor's cat dies because you accidentally ran over it. It is still your responsibility, not the responsibility of the car, the car manufacturer, the car salesman, or your driving instructor. While we may accept that your intent was definitely not to run over the cat, the cat is still dead and you must face the consequences. It is not anyone else's job to "fix" this for you.
In the same way, when a teacher grades a research paper, he still has to take away points for misspelled words and improper grammar and punctuation, even if the content is good and he understands the author's intent. This is far from a perfect analogy, but it is enough to get the point, I believe.
Instead of insisting that Daddy Government checks your work for you AFTER you turn it in (at the expense of the tax-payers, most of whom filled out their ballots correctly), check your work BEFORE you turn it in and there won't be any need of special favors.
It has occurred to me since I originally wrote this and posted it as a note on facebook, that any time a ballot is not filled out exactly as the voter is instructed to fill it out, voter intent is NOT clear.
For instance, if someone wrote in the name "Lisa MurkyCOWsky" and filled in the oval next to it completely, who would you say the vote was for? It is quite close to "Lisa Murkowski", so some would say it should be counted for her. However, it is also quite possible that the voter wrote this as a protest vote, meaning "None of the above, especially Murkowski!" (An inappropriate jab at the senator, in my opinion, but I know there are people who would do it.)
While voting should not be a spelling contest, sadly, there is no way to tell what one's intent is unless the spelling is correct.
On the other hand, of course, those who choose to cast protest votes such as the example above should realize that their votes could easily be misconstrued by those who would take an extremely liberal interpretation of the law. However, we must give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they did this knowing that by law, their votes would not count for Senator Murkowski. Anyone who tries to make such votes count is doing these votes an injustice.
_______________________________________
*To read the entire statute for yourself, go to: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title15/Chapter15/Section360.htm
Nature around these parts of late:
Black-Billed Magpie
For several weeks, a black-billed magpie could be seen hanging around near our dogs' yard. He may still be around, I'm not sure. His presence is a bit of a surprise since magpies are not usually seen this far north. Look in any bird field guide, and it will not show magpies living as far north at any time of year.
However, in the past few years I have heard some reports of sitings from friends and acquaintences. This is the first I have seen of a magpie here in Fairbanks. (When I lived in Washington state, I saw them all the time.)
To see a picture of a black-billed magpie and hear its call, go to http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Black-billed_Magpie/id.
I observed this magpie flying around with a much larger raven. Not surprising on the raven's part; ravens are extremely playful.
Red Fox
A few days ago, I glanced out the window to see a small red creature trotting away down a path in the woods. My first thought was of a pomeranian. Of course, that seemed strange. A few moments later, I glimpsed his tail--big and fluffy with a white tip. It was definitely a red fox. About an hour later, I caught sight of him again for a few seconds. I waited a few minutes, then I went outside and cautiously made my way to where I had seen him. He was long gone, of course, but I did get some good shots of his tracks. Hopefully, I'll have those pictures up on the website soon. :)
I have to write a revision to the last blog. It has come to my attention that there is a significant movement to vote for Lisa Murkowski as a write-in candidate in the general election. Miller's race against her may not be over yet.
With this in mind, I think this makes it even more important that we make sure we do not let any disapproval of Senator Murkowski or her actions come out in slander or bashing. We want to convince people to vote for Joe Miller, not to hate him on account of vengeful, hateful supporters.
Most people are turned off by negative campaigning. As it is, I know some people who chose not to vote for Miller because they thought he was attacking Murkowski. As for me, I do not believe he was attacking her, and I believe it was necessary for him to point out her record in order to show that his voting would be different from hers. Without him pointing out Murkowski's record, most people would look at what they each have to say and think they were the same.
However, there are some who see anything but running on where you yourself stand on the issues as attacking your opponent. If we are to win such voters over, we are certainly not going to by actually attacking Murkowski. Keep it clean--please!
The primary election was held here in Alaska on Tuesday, August 24th, 2010. I believe the biggest victory in that was the passage of ballot measure 2, which makes it illegal for a minor to get an abortion without parental consent. I was very impressed with this measure--it was well-written, building a system that makes it very hard for abuse to take place on the parts of the court, the physician, the patient, or parents.
In my opinion, this law is not about abortion, but protecting our kids and putting parents back in their proper role.
I have heard the argument over and over again that requiring parental consent could endanger a girl if her parents would become abusive if they were aware of her pregnancy. I have to respond: So your solution is to force her to make the decision of aborting based on fear, have her go through a major medical procedure, then go back to a potentially abusive home to be treated as if nothing has just happened? This hardly seems right or safe. If a girl has to make the choice whether or not to abort her pregnancy based on what others will do to her then she has lost her freedom of choice. I am at a loss as to how someone can argue in favor of this "solution" and still call himself "pro-choice."
I am pro-life, but it seems to me that this should be a uniting issue for both proponents and opponents of abortion. If a girl must fear for her life or well-being in her current home, then we need to work to get her placed in a home where she can make her choice free of that fear, and where she will have loving guardians who will be her advocates to give her the support and guidance she needs.
This law is an excellent start to that.
Also significant in this primary was the race for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate. It was so close between incumbent Lisa Murkowski and challenger Joe Miller that we had to wait a week for the results. Joe Miller has now been declared the winner in that race.
I would like to make a statement on this. I am very glad that Miller won--as anyone could guess from the Miller banners placed on my site. However, I am getting really tired of the hatred and attacks aimed at Senator Murkowski that I have been seeing from some. I am as passionate about the issues as the next Miller supporter, but I do not hate anyone, least of all, Murkowski. I am very disappointed and even angered by many of Senator Murkowski's votes and legislation, but I still have a lot of respect and affection for her.
Murkowski has done some good things that I will be forever grateful to her for. She voted against Obamacare. She voted against the confirmation of Elena Kagan as a justice of the Supreme Court.
I spent a lot of time in prayer and study leading up to this primary and have tried to watch the candidates carefully. I believe that Senator Murkowski is sincere. She believes that she is doing what is right. I vehemently disagree with her on some of those things--thus my Miller vote--but I respect her. I will not slander her. If Joe Miller is the worthy candidate I believe him to be, there is no need to slander his opponents in order for him to succeed.
I have no problem with a little negative campaigning--that is, pointing out how your views and votes differ from your opponent's. But when it goes into slander--name-calling, presuming to know your opponent's motives, lying, villifying, and otherwise obsessing over your opponent's flaws to the point of running on his lack of credentials rather than on your own merit, I draw the line. Wrong is wrong. Besides that, to use an old cliche', you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. We are not going to win over Murkowski-supporters by slandering her. It is one thing to state the facts of what Senator Murkowski has said, done, or voted. That is not slander. Go ahead and argue the facts 'til the cows come home; I don't care--that's great!
But I would like to propose that you put yourself in the shoes of a Murkowski supporter. Imagine that Joe Miller has been in the senate for some years now. You are a strong supporter of his. You believe in him and have seen how he has come through on fighting against many of the Democrats' bills that you hate. Suddenly, an unheard of candidate comes along to challenge Senator Miller. She says that he might as well be a Democrat, that he is voting along with their agenda. How would you react? You would immediately protest, saying that he has been one of our only advocates in a Democratic congress that is intent on shoving its agenda down our throats. Am I wrong? I don't think so, because that is how I saw Senator Murkowski until I started doing more research during the primary. There really are honest, good people who believe in Murkowski as much as Miller supporters believe in him. Why did I give Miller a chance and look into his claims about Murkowski? Because he was respectful of her. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of some of his supporters.
One more thing to say: THE PRIMARY IS OVER!!! Stop campaigning against Lisa. Joe is not running against her anymore. He is now running against Scott McAdams. Miller only won against Murkowski by 2,020 votes. Don't alienate Murkowski's supporters. It's time to unite. Be kind and reasonable in trying to win them over. And for goodness sake, they know who won the primary; stop rubbing it in!
|
RSS Feed