Wild Hogs and Jim Fowler

Barrie and I watched a show last night about wild hogs (not the movie) and how they sometimes terrorize people when they come on and around their home and property. These hogs can weigh over 300 pounds, have sharp teeth and tusks and can be very dangerous, particularly if they feel threatened.

The show was filmed in various parts of the country, from Florida to Georgia to Texas and even in Hawaii. The troublesome hogs were all captured alive and most of them were processed as meat and donated to organizations who would use them to feed homeless people. It was a noble cause all the way around. The people hunting the hogs were unarmed except for a knife or two and some of them used dogs to assist in the hunt. Pretty dangerous work but they seemed to enjoy it.

In one segment of the show, in Hawaii, two men had captured a hog by the front leg in a snare they had set up. The hog, a 300 pound monster, was not at all happy about being caught. He was pulling every direction trying to free himself from the rope and would have charged the men with death in his eyes if he could have.

As the two men were approaching, the leader got a large branch with which he said he was going to “distract the hog while Steve goes up and grabs the back legs of the hog.” (Remember, this is a 300 pound, very angry hog.) I was instantly reminded of Jim Fowler, the working half of the two man team on Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.

Some of my younger readers may not remember Wild Kingdom. It was a show on Sunday evenings, one of the first shows about animals in the wild. Marlon Perkins was the host and the star of the show. He did all the talking and supervising and if something dangerous needed to be done it was deferred to Jim Fowler, who was the risk taker. (Marlon was rather old, even when the show started.)

Anyway, it would be Jim who would have been the one to “grab the hog by the back legs” in this particular show. Jim wrestled alligators, wildebeests, bears, you name it, while Marlon narrated, explaining what it was Jim was trying to do and just how dangerous it was. Marlon was never really in any danger. He stayed by the truck mostly, while Jim risked his life to make the show interesting.

There were many of us who watched the show every week and wished that Jim, when told by Marlon to go over and catch that lion by the back legs, just once would stop and say “I don’t think so Marlon. This time it’s your turn you old fart” and push Mr. Perkins into the danger zone.

I realize this is a bit warped on my part but Jim was always doing what his boss told him and Marlon rarely did anything. We simply wanted to see Marlon take a risk once in a while instead of risking Jim’s life and pitching Mutual of Omaha’s insurance policies. Is that asking too much?

Automatic Teller Machines And Life's Humorous Moments

Yesterday I had to go to the bank to deposit some cash. At this particular bank they have an ingenious new ATM that has done away with the need for envelopes and deposit slips. It’s actually very cool and easy. You swipe your ATM card, put in your code, touch “Deposit” then touch either “Cash” or “Checks”. The machine tells you which slot to put your deposit in (different one for each) but you simply put the cash or checks in the designated slot and the machine scans them, totals them and, in the case of the checks, will print a copy of the check(s) on your receipt if you wish. (It’s against Federal law to scan and print images of money.)

Although I’m sure there are others, this particular bank is the only one I’ve seen with this technology. I find it amazing but not surprising. It was only a matter of time.

The ATM also has audio services for people with visual impairment. I think it’s amazing that the machine’s creators, and the bank, make that service available. It’s a very modern, open minded and considerate thing for them to do. But the humorous part about it, to me anyway, is the sign on the machine that says “This machine has audio assistance for the visually impaired.” I realize the sign is for sighted people to read so they can inform a blind person of the capabilities of the machine but like the Braille keys on a drive through ATM, I just find the sign funny.

Granted, I have a very twisted sense of humor. I happily admit it. I sometimes find things funny that other people see as sad, sick or disgusting. It’s not that I am callous or uncaring, it’s just that I try to find humor in almost everything in life when I can. Laughter really is the best medicine for many things so I try to stay upbeat and look for the humor when possible.

I in no way mean any disrespect of any kind toward people who are visually impaired. I had an uncle who was blind who still ran his own business and was an integral part of the activities in the office every day. I very much admired the man and wondered how he did the things he did. And I feel the same way about anyone with the physical disability of blindness who doesn’t allow it to stop them from doing what they want to do.

Being blind is not funny. People who are blind, just like everyone else, can be funny depending on their personality and their attitude. The sign on the ATM was funny. Braille on drive up ATMs is funny. Many things are funny if you take them in the immediate context without putting too much deep thought into them.

May you all have a wonderful day full of little things that make you laugh, even if you have to do it silently so as not to offend anyone.

Can A Dog's Spirit Inhabit Another Dog?

Those of you who know me on Facebook know I had to put my dog down just after Christmas because she was suffering from cancer. She was a good dog with some quirks that made her endearing. But as difficult as it was to take her that day, I couldn’t watch her suffer anymore. Little did I know that I wouldn’t have to miss her as much as I thought.

Barrie’s dog, Nik, is a 15 year old Jack Russell. He’s a very calm, sweet, very loveable, and well behaved dog who normally just lays around contentedly unless it’s time to eat or time to go outside. (He does go on an adventure when he can – see “Nik – the Flying Wonder Dog” from October 17, 2010.) But overall, he’s simply been a quiet, trouble free dog. But that seems to have changed.

Can dogs come back from the grave and inhabit another dog? I have to wonder.

While Nik was always the one who stayed in his bed, or under our bed, while Lucky used to follow me everywhere, particularly into the kitchen. She was always hoping I would either give her some small treat or drop something on the floor. (Once something hit the floor it was normally hers. It was the only time she ever got to eat people food.) When I would leave the kitchen she’d stay, nosing around for a few minutes just to make absolutely sure I hadn’t slipped and let something fall unnoticed.

When I was feeding her she would always finish her food before Nik and then wait for him to finish so she could lick his bowl and make sure it was completely clean. I swear if it wasn’t for the germs and saliva I wouldn’t have ever had to wash them.

When we went into the back yard Lucky was all about chasing the birds, squirrels and rabbits out of her yard. It was her yard and she didn’t like sharing it with the wild creatures. She was OK sharing it with Nik but no one else.

Once the feeding was done, she’d been outside and the yard was clear she was content to lay down beside me and stay there for hours. That was just her.

About two weeks or so after Lucky was gone I started to notice new behavior in Nik. He was starting to follow me to the kitchen and wait for me to drop things. I then noticed he would remain in the kitchen checking the floor after I left.

We got a new dog in early January (Barrie said it was because Nik was lonely) and now there were once again two dogs in the house. Nik tolerates Gizmo well, except when Giz gets in Nik’s bed, and there has been no problem between the two. What’s interesting is that Nik has assumed almost all of Lucky’s traits.

As I said – he follows me to the kitchen looking for handouts and dropped items. Gizmo, being younger, always finishes eating before Nik and Nik goes from his bowl to Gizmo’s to lick it clean. Nik has begun to notice the birds and squirrels in the backyard and now, when I let him out, he runs around the yard constantly chasing them away. I sometimes have to call him several times before he’ll stop chasing the squirrels (they bother him the most) and come inside.

Finally, once the feeding and chasing are completed, Nik simply wants to come in and lay beside me for hours without moving. He’s content to just be there where we are and sleep when all is right in his world.

So can the spirit of one dog come back and inhabit another? It was so bizarre one afternoon, Nik was acting so much like Lucky that I looked at him and asked “Lucky – is that you?” almost expecting an answer. I didn’t get much of a chance to miss Lucky after she was gone because she seems to have quietly returned and take up residence in Nik. Nik doesn’t seem to mind. He’s adapted to his new activities well, particularly the laying beside me for hours.

Coincidence, you say? Probably. But it’s an interesting coincidence to say the least. The change in Nik is remarkable but fun. Lucky – if it really is you, welcome back.

Is A Blanket Pay Freeze The Right Answer?

The President and other politicians in Washington D.C., have decided that Federal employees don’t need or deserve a raise in the next five years. This is apparently intended to save Federal dollars but I think, no, I know those making the decisions are overlooking some important areas.
There are numerous Federal jobs out there, probably more than most people realize. Many are overpaid – that’s a fact. Some even do as little as they can do just to get by without really giving 100% of their work time and energy to the job. In other words, yes, there are some really lazy Federal employees who don’t deserve the money they get.

That said – there are numerous people out there working for the government who deserve every penny they earn and more. I’m talking about Federal law enforcement officials who risk their lives daily to protect and serve the people of the United States. Every agency, from the FBI, US Marshals, Border Patrol, and ICE, to the Bureau of Prisons, risk their lives daily when they go to work, yet the President doesn’t want to give them a raise for five years. Does he plan to keep the inflation rate from going up over those same five years or do these people simply have to take a pay cut? I wonder if his Secret Service detail, the one assigned to protect him personally, will be kept from a pay raise? If so, do they have a choice of whether or not to continue protecting him? Or should they only protect him as much as he thinks they’re worth?

Let’s face it - a maintenance person or a secretary working in a government office building, such as the Government Accounting Office or even a Federal courthouse, doesn’t face danger daily. Unless another Timothy McVeigh shows up one day, workers in these environments are reasonably safe and secure from physical harm. Should they get the same pay as those who face dangerous criminals every day? And I’m in no way criticizing these people but their jobs are not really dangerous, are they?

Being retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons I’m particularly interested in (BOP) employees. Every day these dedicated people go into prisons all across the country and face thousands of convicted criminals, some more dangerous than others, but all dangerous in their own way. These staff members, from the secretary to the maintenance people to the correctional officers to the cook foremen, deal with these dangerous inmates, normally at a ratio that most people would find very frightening, and now they’re going to be asked to do it without a pay raise for at least five years.

Will the people who clean and care for the 211 year old White House get a pay raise? I wonder if, out of loyalty to the building itself and the history, they’ll continue to work there without getting any more money as the cost of living continues to climb? Or will they quit because the occupants of the building don’t want to give them a raise?

Congress has voted against their automatic pay raise again this year. That is two years in a row. I’ll give credit where credit is due on this one since they did the right thing. Will they continue to do it for five years or will they let one or two sneak by without mentioning it? That remains to be seen.

There are those who would say “Federal employees make more than their civilian counterparts.” In many cases this is true. In those circumstances, by all means, consider the job and the civilian pay equivalent and adjust it accordingly. But when it comes to law enforcement, rather than decrease the pay of the Federal employees how about increasing the pay of the local city, county and state employees? After all - is one of their lives worth less than his/her counterpart in the Federal system? And do we want to cut the pay of the people who risk their lives every day in service to the people?

So, Mr. President and members of Congress – here’s what I suggest. When you decide to freeze wages of Federal employees take a good, long look at what it is they do, how important it is and how dangerous it is before you issue a blanket freeze order for all. Mr. President, think about the people who risk their lives daily to protect you and your family simply because you’re the President. Those people will take a bullet for you if necessary. Are you going to deny them a pay raise? If they get it, are they better than the other law enforcement officers because they protect you?

I think these are valid questions. I hope you’ll listen and think before making such a large, and possibly devastating decision. These people work for you. The least you can do is treat them fairly.

God Bless Our Law Enforcement Officers

In the last week in Florida six law enforcement officers have been shot, four of them fatally. These shootings didn’t happen as the officers interfered with the commission of a crime but when they were attempting to serve warrants on criminals with outstanding charges. Yesterday’s incident in St. Petersburg involved a suspect who was wanted for missing a court date and who had numerous violent crimes in his history.

Four officers were also shot, none fatally, in a police station in Detroit.

My blog today is dedicated to the men and women in blue who put their lives on the line every day to protect the people in the cities and counties they serve. Some people vilify the police saying they harass people and are corrupt. While things like this do happen in this country because people are human, I would guess most people who feel this way have had negative contacts with the police brought about by something they (those people) did to initiate that contact. Of the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in this country only a small percentage fall into the categories of corrupt, dishonest or untrustworthy.

Statistically, police do what they are hired, trained and expected to do. Unfortunately, the incidents of corruption and/or illegal acts by the few often end up in the news more often than the good police do every day.
Police and firefighters, like our brave military service personnel, are people who set aside their own safety to protect others. They are the ones who go toward the danger rather than run away from it. Imagine running toward gunfire instead of hiding or running the other way. Sure they take cover sometimes to keep from being hit. They have to. They can’t proceed to stop the incident if they get shot. But they still proceed forward, relentlessly, until the situation is resolved, even if it takes hours.

Following yesterday’s murders of the two officers the suspect’s step-mother stated the police “didn’t come here to arrest him, they came here to kill him.” This is the type of ridiculous rhetoric that gives police a bad name in some people’s minds. While I understand she was upset and grieving over the loss of her son, the man was hardly an innocent victim of police brutality, profiling or harassment. He had a history of violence, sexual assault, had been in prison and had resisted arrest with violence in the past. He was wanted yesterday for missing a court date on a sexual assault charge. When the officers arrived at the home they were told by the resident of the home that he was in the attic and possibly had a gun. And when the police approached the attic to get him to come out he began shooting, hitting two officers, one of them fatally. I feel for the step-mother, I truly do. But let’s put the blame where it’s due – on the suspect who decided he wasn’t going to be arrested.

Having worked in prisons for 22 years I know what it’s like to work in a dangerous environment where a threat can come from any direction. The biggest difference in my job and that of a police officer is that I knew where the threat would come from – any and every inmate around me. Police officers don’t have the luxury of knowing who is a threat and who isn’t. They have contact with numerous individuals daily. Many are simply average citizens who need assistance or simply need an understanding ear. Criminals are interlaced with these citizens and the police have to determine which is which. They also have to worry about those who have firearms who can reach out and touch them from a distance. That makes their jobs much more dangerous than mine was. Don’t get me wrong - working in a prison has inherent dangers that the staff face every day. But we suspect every inmate of possible misconduct or dangerous, aggressive behavior, and with good reason. Police have to suspect everyone as well but I think there is a different line between them and the general public than between prison staff and the inmates. I could be wrong.

Either way, police officers, sheriff’s deputies, state troopers, Federal law enforcement – you all have my respect and admiration. I thank you all for the job you do every day and your efforts to keep our communities safe for all of us. Sometimes people forget you are also working to keep the neighborhoods safe for your own families.

I ask all to say a prayer for the families, co-workers and friends of the brave men and women who gave their all in the performance of their duties, and for those who survived that they may fully recover. Thank you all for your dedication and sacrifice. May God keep you all safe and may He put a stop to the senseless actions of those who seek to harm you. God bless you all.


For Bucky and Dana. Please stay safe.

Should Teachers Be Armed?

After a Nebraska student entered his school, killed his principal, wounded the vice principal, and then killed himself, there has been legislation proposed in that state for school officials to be authorized to carry firearms on their person in the school. In the wake of so many shootings at schools and universities around the country in the last decade it’s not surprising that some are thinking in this manner. It’s terribly sad but it’s not surprising. Nebraska is not the first and it may not be long in coming.

Several years ago, to help deter airplane hijackings, pilots were authorized to carry firearms in the cockpits of their planes. They had to successfully complete a training course at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center prior to arming themselves but once they completed that training they were authorized to carry the weapons on the plane. Fortunately there have been no instances where a pilot has been forced to use one of those weapons but I’m sure it’s merely a matter of time.

Teachers and administrators face real danger every day in our schools – even more so than pilots. Everyone who gets on a plane is screened for weapons. Granted, sometimes the screening fails to find a weapon but many people, I’m sure, won’t attempt to carry a firearm on a plane for fear of getting caught by security. Most schools today don’t have that type of security. Some do, and that itself is a sad testament to where we are as a society. But most schools haven’t gone that far so no one knows what may be in a student’s back pack.

Would arming teachers and administrative staff solve the problem? I think not. It’s possible that an armed teacher or principal may stop an enraged, murderous student before he kills or injures a large number of people but unless they are able to act before the child begins his actions, people are still going to get shot. And if a student bent on killing believes a teacher to be armed and a threat who do you think he’ll shoot first? But should the teacher have the right and the ability to protect himself, his students and/or his colleagues?

On television, when a kid shows up at school with a gun, some kindly teacher, cop, or the class hero normally talks him out of hurting anyone and giving up the gun. As is proved over and over in our society today, this is rarely the case. (Where is Jethro Gibbs when you need him?) With few exceptions these days no one finds out about the gun until the student begins using it. And by then it’s too late; people are already beginning to die.

While I am not an advocate of banning all guns from ownership by private citizens I am very much in favor of reasonable gun control. Gun ownership is a great responsibility and should be limited to those people who pass a thorough background check that not only focuses on any criminal history but any mental health history. And it should be done for all gun purchases, not only from gun stores. Private gun sales and purchases at gun shows should be subject to the same regulations as the stores. What is the point of background checks for some if not for all? It makes no sense.

This is not a problem I have an answer for. I can see the solution both ways and neither of them is great. Not arming teachers and security personnel in schools will lead to more unchallenged killings and injuries in our schools across the country. Arming these staff could help minimize the extent of the carnage but won’t prevent it. And there are two things I worry about: 1) What if the teacher snaps one day and instead of being the protector of the students he/she becomes the threat? And 2) If a teacher or administrator is forced to shoot one of their own students, how will that effect that person’s ability to continue performing as an educator?

I’m going to let each of you ponder the question and answer it for yourself. I suppose I’m not living up to my usual, opinionated attitude but this one baffles me. I just don’t know what the right answer is in this case. I hope they can figure it out.

Is Hate Speech Really a Right Wing Exclusive?

In Washington on Wednesday, on the floor of the House of Representatives, the ugly rhetoric of politics returned in full force. Representative Steve Cohen (D-TN) invoked the Holocaust when speaking of the Republican stance on health care and compared their statements concerning the controversial law to the work of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

“They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing.”

It didn’t stop there.

“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it - believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover," Cohen said.

Cohen didn’t tell anyone to go get a gun and shoot anyone but then, neither did anyone else. What he did though was compare Republican opposition to a law that was forced down the throats of the American people to the propaganda constructed by the Nazis that eventually caused the deaths of millions of Jews during World War II.

Maybe Cohen agrees with Alan Grayson, the shamed, former Florida Representative who claimed, during the health care debates, that Republicans want people to “die early”. (Grayson lost his bid for re-election in November last year. Go figure.) What’s interesting is there was virtually nothing about Cohen’s statements from any of the mainstream media outlets. If a Republican politician (or pundit) had made a statement comparing Democrats to Nazis (which I believe actually did happen during the debate) it would have been front page, headline news on all channels. Yes, I said all channels, including FOX.

The liberal bias in the main stream media is getting to the point where nothing they report can be taken as fact anymore. I remember when news reporting was mostly unbiased, honest investigation of stories and when reporting on Washington was about keeping politicians that way. Today it seems most main stream media outlets simply look the other way when there’s bad or controversial news from the left.

Steve Cohen should be ashamed of himself for his comparison. Political rhetoric has been the focal point of the news since the Tucson incident and even the President has called for people to scale back the rhetoric on both sides. Obviously some people on the left don’t worry about what the President says or what he wants. Mr. Cohen made that very clear.