It’s only love

Before I get to today's topic, a few programming notes.

1. Sheeba asked me to tell you all that he appreciates the worship and well-deserved appreciation, but would like me to remind everyone that "I am not a GIRL!" Long story short, the person Ken got him from thought Sheeba was a girl (no comment), and Ken named her Sheeba, after his very first cat, Shee. (I think that's right--he'll correct me if I'm wrong.) We saw pretty quickly that Sheeba the girl kitty had a couple of extra body parts that she shouldn't have had, and we realized that Sheeba was a Heeba. And yes, he's very lucky (and very spoiled) to have a personal masseur.

2. Notre Dame-Michigan State coming up in about an hour. I'm already feeling agitated and nervous, so I'm working some of that out by writing. [Update as I get ready to post this: ND 7-MSU 0...now it's 7-3. Now 13-3. 13-10! Guess I'd better post this soon! Stop with the penalties already, Irish—they’re killing you!]

3. Scott the Botanist has posted his entry about Swamp Angel Nature Preserve. It's an excellent write-up, and I especially enjoyed the part about the parasitic plants, including the pitcher plant I mentioned here. I hope you'll stop by and see the viewpoint of a professional, rather than that of just a casual observer like me.

Now, to the topic at hand!

A Facebook friend posted this picture today, and I loved it. I've been pondering an entry about this for a while, and decided it was high time I did so.

I grow increasingly impatient with those who would legislate their own version of morality based on their religious views. Morality is a vague and subjective term based upon many criteria, including societal and philosophical. There can also be a religious element in there, but when it comes to legislation, it must also be vague and not predicated on any one religion or faith. People can quote the Bible or any other sacred text they want to, but in looking at this collection of Deuteronomy verses, I think most of us would agree that we cannot take much of this literally. If we stoned every woman who isn't a virgin when she gets married, we could very well be looking at the end of our species!

One of the great things about where we live is that we have the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe. Even if we don't want to believe anything at all. Whatever we believe, it doesn't mean that religion can be forced onto anyone else, or that it should shape our laws. Societal morality is one thing; religious morality is quite another. In other words, it is against the law to steal from someone because you are taking what is rightfully theirs—not because the Bible says it's wrong.

So when it comes to gay marriage, I look at it as a civil rights issue, not a religious one. Our country prides itself on equality for all, although we often fall miserably short of that worthy goal. Let me put it to you straight (so to speak): I don't care if you quote scripture at me until you're blue in the face. Your religion has no place in this debate. You are trying to force your religious beliefs on what is an equality and civil rights issue, and that is wrong. God doesn't approve of gay marriage, you say? So what? Apparently he doesn't approve of women who aren't virgins entering into marriage, either, and I don't see us trying to legislate that. I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I believe it's a valid one. It's time to get beyond this argument, because we don't legislate based on any religion or any religious tenets.

In the past, I was one of those who felt, okay, let marriage be between a man and a woman, but let civil unions—with all the benefits conferred to hetero couples—be okay for whoever wants them. I explored my thinking on this a little further, and realized that I had no good reason why that should be the rule. I believe completely that people are born the way they are, and love who they are wired to love. It's based on genetics, nothing more. (I still laugh at the Homosexual Agenda that so many people talk about. I'd be interested in getting a copy of that, if anyone has one.) If that's the case, that it's genetic, why should marriage be denied to anyone? Simple answer: it shouldn't. Don't even get me started on that "pray away the gay" bullshit.

I worked with a guy in Indianapolis who spent many years with his "husband" (not legally married here in Indiana, obviously, but that's the way they thought of each other). He stuck with his husband through years of severe illness; stuck with him as he suffered amputations, became confined to a wheelchair, and went blind due to diabetes. His husband was an artist, and his blindness made him angry and hard to deal with, but my friend stuck by him all the way to the very end. His sense of loss was as profound as anyone I've encountered who has lost a spouse, and their commitment to each other was every bit as real. They should have been allowed to marry...for real.

It's time to set aside objections based on religious grounds—they have no place in this debate. As far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Gay marriage will soon be the law of the land. It will happen. It is inevitable, because it is the right—and only—thing to do.

I’m just waitin’ on a friend

I had a very pleasant lunch today with my pal Jim from the lab! (This isn't a current picture--this is from the last time we were out with some other lab friends.) We met at Granite City Brewery, and it was Jim's first time there. He seemed to really like the atmosphere and food, and was excited to see that they have 25¢ wings on Mondays. We gabbed and ate for a couple of hours, talking about everything from his Mom's recent surgery to politics to Notre Dame football. It's always great to see him, and thanks for lunch, Jimi! Next time it's on me!

It was kind of funny...I got there about ten minutes early, so I was waiting in the foyer. The hostess saw me and asked, "Are you Becky?" I said, "No, I'm Beth, and I'm waiting on a friend." (The Stones song is going through my mind now.) She said, "Beth, yeah...I must have written it down wrong. He's here." So I follow her, and we come up to this booth and she stops. There's a fairly small guy with glasses and brown curly hair sitting there. Jim is a big guy, with short, mostly grey hair. Sometimes he even shaves his head. And he doesn't wear glasses. I said, "Uh...not the guy I'm meeting." The hostess was like, "Oops, sorry!" I went back and sat in the foyer again, and a few minutes later, Other Beth came in. Yes, her name really was Beth. What a weird coincidence!

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments I got on my entry yesterday concerning President Carter's remarks about racism. I made it explicitly clear that I was not equating everyone who is against Obama's policies with racists, and that I believe that the worst and most hateful of the protesters that are anti-Obama are the ones who are often motivated by racism. I don't think I could have been any more explicit than I was. I stand by my remarks, and I still agree with President Carter. However, the Obama administration is treating this as a distraction from the important work of health care reform, and does not want the focus to be on any discussions of racism. I can understand that to a certain extent; President Obama addressed the issue of race during the presidential campaign, so why should he have to do so again? I will respect their wishes and not continue the discussion to any great length until after health care reform is passed, but I do think it is something that can and should be discussed.

Jim and I talked about it at lunch today. We agreed that it is hard to pin down, but you know when a remark makes you feel uncomfortable. We have both resolved to speak up when we hear something that bothers us. It's always tempting to keep the peace and not start any sort of debate, but I've come to believe that silence is tacit acceptance of such remarks and behavior. You don't have to start a fight with anyone, but you can simply say, "I don't think that's a fair remark" and let your feelings be known. Until we all start speaking up, the sub rosa thread of racism will continue to run beneath the workings of our country. I don't believe we can eradicate it, but we can certainly do our best to show that we believe it to be shameful behavior.

I'll say little more about the subject...for now.

After I got home today, I was excited to dive back into Angle of Repose, and I finished this afternoon. I won't give any spoilers, because I know Laurel is reading it now. I will say that it is one of the best books I've ever read. Not only did I love the plot, I found the writing wonderful. I have a few passages that I wrote down in my journal, and I know you'll be thrilled to find out that I'm going to share them with you! [grin]

A wandering dog of a night wind came in off the sagebrush mesa carrying a bar of band music, and laid it on her doorstep like a bone.

I love that. I really do.

Civilizations grow by agreements and accommodations and accretions, not by repudiations. The rebels and revolutionaries are only eddies, they keep the stream from getting stagnant but they get swept down and absorbed, they're a side issue. Quiet desperation is another name for the human condition.

This book was published in 1971, so all the uncertainties, violence, and upheaval of the 60's made its way into it. I found it interesting to see what was happening at the time reflected in the writing.

...her white summer handbag like a white kitten in her lap...

More excellent imagery. God, that is some kickass writing. I was just delighted with this book, and it's one of the reasons I'm glad I'm reading the books on the Modern Library list. (Thanks for starting the group, Jillian!) It's gotten me to read some books that I never would have read otherwise, and I've enjoyed some of them very much. After I had finished the book and posted on our Google group site, I read what another member had to say about the book (I think she was the only other member who read this one). Oddly enough, she was not so enamored of the book, and actually put it at the bottom of her favorites! This member lives out of state, so I've never met her, but I have to chuckle that we're so opposite on which books we've enjoyed. My previous favorite from the list was The Magus, and she put that right at the bottom. Isn't it strange to see what strikes different people? I suppose that is the way with all art or literature. What speaks to one person leaves another completely indifferent, or sometimes even disgusted. It's fascinating to me to see the different reactions some of these books generate.

Oh, and we had another nice life is like a box o' chocolates moment! Both Ken and I got comments from Scott the Botanist, who was on the Swamp Angel tour from last weekend. He has a blog, too, and is working on a write-up of our tour. I'll link to it as soon as he posts. How cool that he found our entries! He might be sorry...I can see myself picking his brain about native plants!

Take a hike!

This afternoon Ken and I went hiking--no, not the Appalachian Trail!--at a place called Swamp Angel Nature Preserve.

Swamp Angel is located near Kendallville, Indiana, about an hour and a half southeast of us. It was a nice drive through farm and Amish country, and I told Ken that I was having a childhood flashback. I remember just driving around with my folks when I was a kid, enjoying the sights, usually stopping to visit a relative at some point. Seeing all the farmhouses and fields of corn, soybeans, and sorghum reminded me so much of those drives! Some of my relatives had farms, and often had barns built by my Grandpa. Even the houses were a reminder...white siding, two story, a porch (often with a porch swing), a clothesline in the back yard, big trees, a grain silo...it was a powerful feeling of nostalgia with some very sweet memories.

As supporters of the Nature Conservancy, Ken got an email a couple of weeks ago asking if we wanted to join in a guided hike, and we thought it sounded like fun. Come to find out, I'm really glad we did it, because Swamp Angel isn't open to the public due to the sensitivity of its plants and ecosystem. They don't even publish the address of the place, and only send out directions when people like us accept these invitations.

We had an interesting group, led by our guide, Beth. She's not much bigger than me, but she is a land steward of five or six Conservancy preserves, doing much of the work herself! One of the cool things about the Nature Conservancy is that they manage the land, and sometimes that isn't the equivalent of preservation. Well, in the long term it is, but they do planned burns because areas like this are managed by fires, which kills off the growth that isn't conducive to the continuation of the high ground oak portions or to the fens. They also go in and remove non-native, invasive species, which can quickly choke out native, desirable growth. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Swamp Angel is named after a character in the Gene Stratton Porter story "Freckles." Porter was an Indiana native and had a home near the preserve. She was a feminist, naturalist, photographer, and writer, publishing in the early 1900's. One of our fellow hikers was a big fan of Porter, and was able to tell us a lot of information about her, and that was great, because I know very little about her. (I know of her most famous work, A Girl of the Limberlost, but have never read it.)

Another hiker was Scott the Botanist, and how lucky to have a botanist along on a nature hike! He had his observation journal along with him, as well as a field guide, and was able to tell us names of various plants and other information that even Beth the Guide didn't know. One of the coolest things was getting to see a pitcher plant! I've only seen pictures of them, and have never seen one in the wild. It is a carnivorous plant, collecting dew and rain water in its pitcher-shaped leaves. Insects fall down into the water, and can't climb back out; the plant digests the insects and uses them for nutrients. Isn't nature awesome?!

Me? I just had questions. What is the difference between a fen and a swamp? Why cut down maples and cherry trees? I wasn't seeing a lot of birds...do they not hang out in the fen, or were we disturbing them?

1. The botanist explained the difference between a fen and a swamp. A true swamp is forested, with stands of trees and deeper water fed by fresh or salt water inundations. (Think New Orleans' swamps.) Beth the Guide explained that a fen is fed by groundwater, and the water pH is neutral to alkaline due to minerals, with plants that thrive in such a pH. Some further research when I got home shows that bogs are similar to fens, but have acidic water; marshes are wetlands that have grasses and soft-stemmed plants rather than woody plants. All are types of wetlands, and it would seem that our wetlands at Nutwood are marsh. Which is good, because that's what I've always called it!

2. Even though maples and cherry trees are native to our area, they sort of take over and compete with the undergrowth. The high areas of this preserve, which was formed by glaciers, are populated with tall oaks, and need to be fairly open, without a lot of other trees choking out the undergrowth. It's about 95 acres of high areas with oaks, and low-lying wetlands of fens with wildflowers and grasses (and poison sumac...yikes!), and smallish lakes.

3. Since it was mid-day, Beth the Guide said that the birds would be pretty quiet. In the fen, she sees sandhill cranes, and quite a few ducks. I saw a couple of perching birds in the oaks, but couldn't get a close enough look to see what they were.

I take it back...I did have one answer to give. A fellow hiker asked an off-topic question about whether the Conservancy has found the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, which was sighted in Arkansas a couple of years ago, after having been thought to be extinct for 50 years or so. It was a very exciting sighting, and caused quite a stir in environmentalist circles! (Trust me...it was really cool.) It was also controversial, with some saying that it wasn't an Ivory-Billed but a Pileated (like we have here), and I was able to say that as far as I know, they've never found confirmation of the sighting. No further sightings, no nest, no nothing.

But mostly I just listened!

It was a very enjoyable two hours (and an enjoyable three of driving). I am in constant awe of the variety of habitats and ecosystems that exist, throughout the world, our country, and even here in our own state. I'm fascinated by the way everything interacts, whether it's antagonistic or synergistic. If I were starting my career over again (and I'm glad I'm not), I might consider some sort of career in this field. Environmental engineering, field biologist, botanist, forest ranger...? I really do find it all fascinating, and I applaud the Nature Conservancy for their thoughtful, scientific approach to land stewardship, as well as their allowing some of us to visit places we'd otherwise not get to visit. It was a true treat, and our natural resources and the beauty and uniqueness of our ecology is something to be treasured and nurtured.

Update

Go to Ken's blog for a very nice slideshow of our trip!

Disaster averted…sort of

Ken and I enjoyed a lazy day today, and turned on football in the early afternoon. We half-watched some games and turned it over to ABC for the 3:30 Notre Dame-Michigan game. Just before kickoff...the station's signal cut out.

NOOOOOOOO! For the love of all that is holy, NOOOOOOOO!

We scrambled to try to find other ways to watch it. The TV in the bedroom didn't have a signal, either. The local ABC station didn't come in on the TV in the garage. We couldn't find a webcast. I caught updates on ESPN's website while Ken tried to figure out other options. We thought about going somewhere to watch it, but it's not as much fun watching it in a bar or restaurant; we were figuring we were going to have to go over to his Mom's, but I hated to drop in on them with such short notice. Both latter options had the added drawback of my not doing well with watching games around others except for Ken--I get way too agitated, foul-mouthed, and intense (although I'm not that way when I'm actually at a game...go figure). I don't want to make small talk, I don't do chitchat. I'm watching the game. You probably wouldn't enjoy watching a game with me. Besides, if we went somewhere, I'd have to put on pants.

Finally, DirecTV put up a notice that they were opening up other ABC channels that were usually pay channels, so we were able to get the game about five minutes into it. Whew. I was on the verge of a thrombo.

After seeing the way the game played out, it might have been better if we hadn't been able to watch it. Notre Dame had it won, but allowed Michigan to march down the field for a late touchdown--too late for them to mount a return drive. It was a very exciting game, and all in all, I thought Notre Dame played well, but they screwed themselves with too many penalties, and their defense was spotty. A reluctant congratulations to Michigan for the win (and you know I luvs ya, Alaina!).

I was feeling rather surly after the loss, so I made an executive decision and...took a nap. I haven't gotten a lot of sleep the past couple of nights (staying up too late, yes, my own fault), and after going through that emotional wringer of a game, a nap seemed to be in order. It felt good, and I feel much better now. The surliness is definitely gone! On to Michigan State next week--that should be another good game, but I'll hope for a better outcome for the Irish!

We're looking forward to a fun and interesting afternoon tomorrow today. Ken got an email last week from the Indiana branch of The Nature Conservancy about a guided hike in the Swamp Angel--Swamp Angel, Swamp Angel, will you be mine?--Nature Preserve, about an hour and a half southeast of us, and we thought it would be a fun thing to do. I'll be taking my camera and hope to get some neat pics, and I've got my pocket field guide ready to go in case I see some new birds to add to my Life List. Nothing like a healthy dose of nature to put everything into perspective.

I also cheered myself up by watching this. Thanks, Craig!