Could just be something that interests you. Not necessarily career advancing.
For example my dad took up bee keeping at a similar age.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s on your mind?
- Thread starter Gutwrench
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For example my dad took up bee keeping at a similar age.
What interests you?
Is there anything that has always intrigued you, fascinated you, that you would like to explore, or that you didn't have the time (or money) to pursue while engaged in "normal life"? Travel? Learn new skills?
My father took up creative writing - and took classes for a few years - when he retired and loved it, as it was something he had always wanted to do.
My mother - who had always held down a full time salaried position, (plus the usual family responsibilities), studied for a degree by taking classes at night - several days a week - over several years - and later, always took courses at night (history of art, philosophy, English literature, French, among others) during the winter months, while playing golf (at which she excelled) in summer, and she also adored gardening. And travel.
A colleague - a senior retired police officer, with whom I had worked abroad - did a cookery course when he was at home for several months between deployments; it was a gift from his wife, and was something he had always wanted to do.
[automerge]1590402266[/automerge]
Exactly.
Last edited:
Some fantastic posts here...now today I must complete all financial reporting for the weird semester that just finished and try not to get distracted.
Exercise... but there's a limit on how much of a day one wants invest in that for its own sake.
How about something that requires fine motor skills or that exercises spatial recognition skills - even regular jigsaw puzzles... or consider something like learning how to do one or another form of traditional needlework: Japanese sashiko (originally just a utilitarian but decorative way of mending ripped or worn clothing) is fun and can be freeform or patterned. Can always use a square of denim that's big enough to use as a drink coaster when done working on it. Everyone has some old pair of jeans sitting around waiting to be scissored up...
And don't imagine that ordinary cross stitch always has to be flowers or tiresome mottoes like the patterns I was given as a kid... "A stitch in time saves nine" and etc. There are all sorts of more whimsical options these days, or just make up your own.
One of my uncles was a surgeon; when his daughter got married, the bridesmaids all carried baskets of flowers down the aisle. On the front of each rectangular basket was glued a little piece of handworked needlepoint on canvas with a floral motif in the colors of the wedding party's clothing. Family members had created those pieces, and one of them was done by my uncle! He found that kind of needlework relaxing and at the same time it helped keep up his suturing skills for the job.
I'm more usually into machine piecing of blocks for wallhangings or quilts, and not so much into hand-quilting, but I always figure with stuff like hand-eye coordination or fine motor skills, it's perennially about either "use them or lose them".
So when practicing those, I figure I might as well do something where I can end up with something more useful than just a scrap of fabric with embroidery stitches on it. So I'll practice by making a fanciful repair of a rip in a shirt, or transform a plain dishtowel by making a series of simple embroidery stitches across the ends, just to keep my hand in. If I mess up, so what. It's not like anyone else is going to notice or even see the thing, but it's fun to learn something new for the merry hell of it. And the next time I try that same stitch, I might see an improvement in results.
And I confess I like jigsaw puzzles, although these days I tend only to do the ones online that The New Yorker provides (they put up a random cover of an archived issue and there's a choice as to level of difficulty). One doesn't need a subscription to use that part of their site.
Jigsaw | The New Yorker
I do one of those when my brain tires of translating words into meaning, but I'm not quite annoyed yet at the idea of "just sitting around".
I say this every year, but people who say "Happy" Memorial Day... I know you mean well, but please, don't
My itch for a convertible car (was looking at you Mustang and Corvette) has faded. I just went for a nice drive in my current vehicle and opened the sunroof. It didn't take but a mile or two for me to close it and then just tilt it up instead. It is 89 F (31 C) outside here this afternoon. That's too damn hot for me anymore.
I was considering the convertible last week when the weather was much more pleasant, like 67 F to 74 F. I told my dad that he should ask me again in August if I still want a convertible or not when it's 95 F (35 C) out there. Well, I didn't have to wait until August to make that decision. This is the first day over 80 and it almost made it to 90. Yuck.
I'll keep my coupe sedan's with sunroofs instead for a daily driver.
I was considering the convertible last week when the weather was much more pleasant, like 67 F to 74 F. I told my dad that he should ask me again in August if I still want a convertible or not when it's 95 F (35 C) out there. Well, I didn't have to wait until August to make that decision. This is the first day over 80 and it almost made it to 90. Yuck.
I'll keep my coupe sedan's with sunroofs instead for a daily driver.
Summer (in most places) is really too hot for a convertible, certainly around here, but during the spring, and especially in the fall when the humidity really drops - and for us, a good bit of winter - there's no substitute (if you're a "convertible person" at all, some people just aren't). Quite a few modern convertibles give up very little vs. their coupe counterparts (at least short of a track event), and when you drop the roof on a cool fall evening, and see nothing but stars, what little it does is meaningless 
Sigh.
Not the finest hour, etc, etc.......
You know, if Spitting Image had attempted to show that story as a sketch, it would have been dismissed as wildly improbable.
We are almost beyond satire.
I can’t sleep. Been having poor sleep for weeks surviving on 3-4 hrs but still functioning and doing ok with so little sleep. Fudgeeeeeeee
And this, (Austria) is also something I wished to return to.
The 'invasion' of Austria was preceded by a plebiscite (doubtless deeply flawed) whereby Austria voted for the Anschluss. By then, I fear, that much of Austrian society actually supported the Anschluss, bribes and bullying and beatings and murders - and they all happened - notwithstanding.
In other words, I would argue that by 1938, it was too late to have intervened - too much of Austrian society supported the Anschluss (although a significant number of people did not).
When I was an undergrad, the father of a classmate of mine served as ambassador to Austria, and I do recall fascinating conversations (amply lubricated by appropriate quantities of wine or beer) with the son, who argued persuasively, (perhaps echoing his father), that "those chapters in some (history) books entitled, "Anschluss: The Rape of Austria" are a bit simplistic, when the true story was more complex, for it was also a case of "ravish me, ravish me,"", adding, and I agreed with both himself and his father when they made this point, that Austria had - exceptionally successfully - spun a postwar narrative of itself as Hitler's "first victim," when, instead, it was both victim and willing accomplice.
In truth, Austrian society was deeply divided, and had yet to come to terms with the loss of status (and identity) that followed from the complete collapse of the Habsburg empire; building a (stable, and respected) nation state out of the ruins of a multi-national empire would have been a challenge in the best of times, and the interwar years were not the best of times.
Worse, the Nazis were quite strong in the country, (as elements of their programme found enthusiastic support from some of the Austrian electorate), and were busily undermining what remained of Austria's institutional and constitutional integrity: Remember, in 1934, they had been behind the actual assassination of an Austrian PM, Dollfuss, - and, to my mind, that was the moment to have come down hard, excruciatingly hard, on them.
For the assassination of another country's PM - especially one that has been vigorously defending his (or her) country's sovereignty - is something that does call for a multilateral, unified, and above all, a robust response, internationally.
However, I suspect, that sympathy for Austria - in the conditions that obtained in Europe post WW1, or, during the interwar years, was not all that extensive, not least because of the fact that the exceptionally culpable role played by the "war party" - certain elements of the Austro-Hungarian military elite and political establishment in 1914, - in ensuring that war with Serbia actually came about, was not in doubt.
Notwithstanding that, an embarrassing percentage of the Austrian population, difficult to determine, yet substantial, strongly supported the Nazis, and some of Hitler's foulest minions (Seyss-Inquart, Kaltenbrunner, to name but two) were Austrian (as indeed, was AH himself by both birth, and upbringing).
Last edited:
@yaxomoxay: You wrote of wondering why Halifax hadn't succeeded Chamberlain, and refused - or, rather, declined, - the position, when Chamberlain stepped down, in 1940.
I meant to return to this point, (about Halifax) but was waylaid while discussing both Churchill and Chamberlain (both of whom, in very different ways, merit respect), and subsequently forgot about it.
Re Lord Halifax, there seemed to have been a number of considerations in play: Firstly: The vacancy (in the position of PM) came about because of the need for the construction of a 'national government' - i.e. an all party administration, to manage the conduct of the war (as had happened in WW1) - and Labour (Attlee had been leading the party since 1935) had made it clear that they would not serve in such a government under Chamberlain.
The two Tory (Conservative) candidates deemed likely to succeed Chamberlain were Halifax (who was Foreign Secretary) and Churchill (at the Admiralty).
Of this pair, Halifax was undoubtedly the preferred choice of the establishment, i.e. the King, the Tory party, etc.
However, he was manifestly unsuited for the top position during war by temperament and by dint of altered political circumstances, circumstances reflecting a transformed political culture.
Taking the second point first: Politically, he would have been a difficult 'brand' to sell - especially in a time of war - because he was a member of the House of Lords, not the Commons; the days when a PM could expect to hold the reins of power, and control both Houses of Parliament from the elevated vantage afforded by membership of the Lords were long gone. By 1940, the PM had to come from the Commons. In fact, to a large extent, by 1900, the PM had to come from the Commons.
(Bear in mind that years later, both Tony Benn, born as Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was to succeed Harold Macmillan as PM, both resigned their seats in the House of Lords to contest seats in the Commons, as it was inconceivable that one might harbour serious prime ministerial ambitious from the Lords.)
Temperamentally, he didn't want the job, not in those circumstances, (war, facing the very real possibility of defeat) not least because it seems (that, privately) he thought that the government would fail, and fall, - perhaps, in circumstances of military defeat - and he might then be in a position to easily succeed the fallen Churchill, albeit under circumstances of severely compromised independence.
Labour, about to enter government, also had a veto (rather than an express choice, although, in fact, it almost amounted to the same thing) over the name of the person who was to serve as PM - in other words, as they had already made perfectly clear with regard to Chamberlain, they had the right to stipulate whom they would not serve under. While they remained scrupulously silent on the subject of the internal Tory succession, I cannot imagine that they were other than lukewarm on the matter of serving under Halifax.
Moreover, - on the matter of temperament and core values - to me, (yes, with the pluperfect vision afforded by hindsight), it is also clear, and worth noting, that the right choice was made, in appointing Churchill PM, for, very shortly after that government was formed, with Churchill as PM, the inner war cabinet - Halifax was still Foreign Secretary and remained in that post until the following December when he was appointed Ambassador to the US, - discussed the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany.
This was at a time of crisis: It occurred during the Dunkirk evacuations, with France on the verge of complete defeat, and Italy - not yet in the war, and thus, for Halifax (keen to keep her out) - seen as a state mooted as a possible "honest broker" of such a negotiated peace, the conditions of which would have left Britain, in a position somewhat akin to Spain, i.e. left alone to mind their own business, studiously neutral, while Germany remained in control of Europe.
The key point here is that - at the worst possible time - Halifax was prepared to contemplate a negotiated peace with Germany; it is not that he was a Nazi, or fascist, but that he wished to preserve the ordered, deferential, hierarchical world he knew (and loved) and was prepared to treat with monsters - monsters he didn't think could be withstood, let alone defeated - for this to be achieved.
Both Roy Jenkins's biography of Churchill, and Andrew Marr's (excellent, and well worth reading) "A History of Modern Britain" discuss this series of extraordinary meetings of the inner war cabinet, meetings where Churchill - disliked and distrusted by many in the Conservative party, newly appointed as PM, as yet unsure of his authority in the Commons or cabinet, equally unsure of how Labour (which had pursued a policy of pacifism not all that long before, even though Attlee himself - still referred to as Major Attlee - had served with distinction during WW1 - and which had loathed the economic policies of the Conservative party) might respond to this overture - and he knew that Halifax, still Foreign Secretary - who had been the preferred establishment candidate for PM, even though he had declined it - was strongly in favour of a negotiated peace, and had supported Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, while Chamberlain himself, the architect of appeasement, was still in government, and treated respectfully by Churchill, almost as a deputy PM, and - given his own earlier actions and position (appeasement) might also favour - as a reluctant necessity - the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany.
In those meetings, perhaps paradoxically, and rather unexpectedly, it was the two Labour members (Attlee and Greenwood) who passionately opposed the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany, - they rightly saw it as a death for democratic values - and insisted, instead, that the fight continue, along with Churchill, whose very instincts revolted at the idea, seeing it, correctly, as a form of future vassalage, "(probably) with someone such as Mosley as PM" (and, one suspects, Edward VIII back on the throne); the Liberal leader, Sinclair, concurred.
Likewise, it is now clear that Halifax was the most enthusiastic of those voices - exclusively Tory - who pushed for a negotiated peace.
Given his marked preferences on that key issue, (and his almost utter indifference to Europe, like Chamberlain, he was insular by inclination), I think it would have been nothing short of catastrophic - because this was an instance where character and core values and vision mattered, every bit as much as ability, or competence - had he been appointed PM in 1940.
In any case, - and I suspect mindful of those days in late May 1940 - Churchill took advantage of the death of the UK ambassador to the US later in the year, and appointed Halifax to succeed him, thereby getting him out of the way, into a position where he could do little harm (the prestige of having a former Foreign Secretary appointed as ambassador wasn't lost on the Americans), and some good (the US wasn't yet in the war, and Halifax is regarded as having performed well in that post), and also allowed Churchill to appoint his own choice as Foreign Secretary, who happened to be Anthony Eden (who had a much better record on matters related to appeasement and how best to deal with Nazi Germany; Eden's own political problems lay in the far future, with his marked tendency to mistake others, such as Colonel Nasser - who merely wished to assert sovereignty - for future potential Hitlers, when they were nothing of the sort.)
I meant to return to this point, (about Halifax) but was waylaid while discussing both Churchill and Chamberlain (both of whom, in very different ways, merit respect), and subsequently forgot about it.
Re Lord Halifax, there seemed to have been a number of considerations in play: Firstly: The vacancy (in the position of PM) came about because of the need for the construction of a 'national government' - i.e. an all party administration, to manage the conduct of the war (as had happened in WW1) - and Labour (Attlee had been leading the party since 1935) had made it clear that they would not serve in such a government under Chamberlain.
The two Tory (Conservative) candidates deemed likely to succeed Chamberlain were Halifax (who was Foreign Secretary) and Churchill (at the Admiralty).
Of this pair, Halifax was undoubtedly the preferred choice of the establishment, i.e. the King, the Tory party, etc.
However, he was manifestly unsuited for the top position during war by temperament and by dint of altered political circumstances, circumstances reflecting a transformed political culture.
Taking the second point first: Politically, he would have been a difficult 'brand' to sell - especially in a time of war - because he was a member of the House of Lords, not the Commons; the days when a PM could expect to hold the reins of power, and control both Houses of Parliament from the elevated vantage afforded by membership of the Lords were long gone. By 1940, the PM had to come from the Commons. In fact, to a large extent, by 1900, the PM had to come from the Commons.
(Bear in mind that years later, both Tony Benn, born as Anthony Wedgwood Benn, and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was to succeed Harold Macmillan as PM, both resigned their seats in the House of Lords to contest seats in the Commons, as it was inconceivable that one might harbour serious prime ministerial ambitious from the Lords.)
Temperamentally, he didn't want the job, not in those circumstances, (war, facing the very real possibility of defeat) not least because it seems (that, privately) he thought that the government would fail, and fall, - perhaps, in circumstances of military defeat - and he might then be in a position to easily succeed the fallen Churchill, albeit under circumstances of severely compromised independence.
Labour, about to enter government, also had a veto (rather than an express choice, although, in fact, it almost amounted to the same thing) over the name of the person who was to serve as PM - in other words, as they had already made perfectly clear with regard to Chamberlain, they had the right to stipulate whom they would not serve under. While they remained scrupulously silent on the subject of the internal Tory succession, I cannot imagine that they were other than lukewarm on the matter of serving under Halifax.
Moreover, - on the matter of temperament and core values - to me, (yes, with the pluperfect vision afforded by hindsight), it is also clear, and worth noting, that the right choice was made, in appointing Churchill PM, for, very shortly after that government was formed, with Churchill as PM, the inner war cabinet - Halifax was still Foreign Secretary and remained in that post until the following December when he was appointed Ambassador to the US, - discussed the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany.
This was at a time of crisis: It occurred during the Dunkirk evacuations, with France on the verge of complete defeat, and Italy - not yet in the war, and thus, for Halifax (keen to keep her out) - seen as a state mooted as a possible "honest broker" of such a negotiated peace, the conditions of which would have left Britain, in a position somewhat akin to Spain, i.e. left alone to mind their own business, studiously neutral, while Germany remained in control of Europe.
The key point here is that - at the worst possible time - Halifax was prepared to contemplate a negotiated peace with Germany; it is not that he was a Nazi, or fascist, but that he wished to preserve the ordered, deferential, hierarchical world he knew (and loved) and was prepared to treat with monsters - monsters he didn't think could be withstood, let alone defeated - for this to be achieved.
Both Roy Jenkins's biography of Churchill, and Andrew Marr's (excellent, and well worth reading) "A History of Modern Britain" discuss this series of extraordinary meetings of the inner war cabinet, meetings where Churchill - disliked and distrusted by many in the Conservative party, newly appointed as PM, as yet unsure of his authority in the Commons or cabinet, equally unsure of how Labour (which had pursued a policy of pacifism not all that long before, even though Attlee himself - still referred to as Major Attlee - had served with distinction during WW1 - and which had loathed the economic policies of the Conservative party) might respond to this overture - and he knew that Halifax, still Foreign Secretary - who had been the preferred establishment candidate for PM, even though he had declined it - was strongly in favour of a negotiated peace, and had supported Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, while Chamberlain himself, the architect of appeasement, was still in government, and treated respectfully by Churchill, almost as a deputy PM, and - given his own earlier actions and position (appeasement) might also favour - as a reluctant necessity - the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany.
In those meetings, perhaps paradoxically, and rather unexpectedly, it was the two Labour members (Attlee and Greenwood) who passionately opposed the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany, - they rightly saw it as a death for democratic values - and insisted, instead, that the fight continue, along with Churchill, whose very instincts revolted at the idea, seeing it, correctly, as a form of future vassalage, "(probably) with someone such as Mosley as PM" (and, one suspects, Edward VIII back on the throne); the Liberal leader, Sinclair, concurred.
Likewise, it is now clear that Halifax was the most enthusiastic of those voices - exclusively Tory - who pushed for a negotiated peace.
Given his marked preferences on that key issue, (and his almost utter indifference to Europe, like Chamberlain, he was insular by inclination), I think it would have been nothing short of catastrophic - because this was an instance where character and core values and vision mattered, every bit as much as ability, or competence - had he been appointed PM in 1940.
In any case, - and I suspect mindful of those days in late May 1940 - Churchill took advantage of the death of the UK ambassador to the US later in the year, and appointed Halifax to succeed him, thereby getting him out of the way, into a position where he could do little harm (the prestige of having a former Foreign Secretary appointed as ambassador wasn't lost on the Americans), and some good (the US wasn't yet in the war, and Halifax is regarded as having performed well in that post), and also allowed Churchill to appoint his own choice as Foreign Secretary, who happened to be Anthony Eden (who had a much better record on matters related to appeasement and how best to deal with Nazi Germany; Eden's own political problems lay in the far future, with his marked tendency to mistake others, such as Colonel Nasser - who merely wished to assert sovereignty - for future potential Hitlers, when they were nothing of the sort.)
Last edited:
Fantastic post @Scepticalscribe !
By reading this, it seems that the system did what it was supposed to do, that is push the most appropriate individual to number Ten. I assume that lots of "luck" and unforeseen circumstances played a part, but ultimately I assume that "unity" in the response is what actually drove Churchill to the hot PM seat (honestly, I can barely think the weight that he must've felt on his shoulders, but again, he prepared his whole life for it). I didn't realize that Halifax was sent to the US, quite a smart move by Churchill. I've read about Anthony Eden; for the little I understand he was also eaten by his own monsters.
I'm actually surprised at how well modern convertibles execute with the top up (in "coupe mode"). Many soft tops (you know, vs. retractable hardtops) have excellent insulation (both temp and sound) with multilayer construction, thick glass rear windows. The chassis are rigid, and the ride made very accomodating (while remaining "sporty") by tech like magnetorheological dampers, some cars, you can flip a switch the exhaust goes into a near silent operational mode.
Certainly, it's not a fixed hard top in that capacity, but the amount of compromise vs. a convertible of 30, 20, heck, even 10 years ago is no longer present
Results of this weekend's people watching:
- Line at Jo Ann's. 18 people in line. 10 with a mask. 8 of them with their nose sticking out. 1 with mask on one side only.
- Grocery shopping at Kroger. Most people with a mask. I counted 3 with the nose sticking out, 1 with the mask under the chin (mouth and nose out), 1 with mask hanging. Saw a group of employees (4 or 5), all with mask, only one with mask correctly worn (all others had their nose out).
- In 'n Out burgers (carryout). 7 or 8 people in line. 0 with a mask.
- Saw one nice lady throwing mask outside of car window.
- Went to the park but just for 15 minutes or so (rain...). 1 smoker, most people wearing a mask.
Well putting aside the COVID stuff all on our minds - what a pleasure to read the exchange between @yaxomoxay and @Scepticalscribe - especially great insight by the latter. This was a period that fascinated me in my youth and led me in past years to join some history-minded forums that went beyond the rather self-indulgent "how many Shermans/T-34s/ to beat one Tiger" or even worse "what if the battleships Yamato met Bismarck in battle in case of an Axis victory" and sought to look deeper into politics, culture, economics etc.
Saved an animal's life today.
Behind my office sits a large tower, a large generator, and all of the buildings A/C units. Over the years, groundhogs have been digging and living under the concrete pad the A/C units sit on. The pads, and the generator have been slowly sinking and are no longer level due to the groundhogs digging.
I've had a live trap out there for years and never has one gotten caught in it until this year, twice.
A couple of months ago I caught my first one. We called the DNR (Michigan Department of Natural Resources), and had one of the officers stop by to take care of the groundhog. These nuisance creatures are actually protected I found out and people aren't supposed to kill them (though most people do, on farms and out in the rural areas) or move them. But the State can, and the DNR officer took the groundhog and relocated it someplace else on state land.
This morning when I came in from a long weekend (haven't been there since last Thursday), I found I had caught another groundhog. We tried calling the DNR numerous times today, but no officer for our area has checked on duty. The weather here today, and yesterday, has been sweltering. It's very humid and about 91 F. The poor little guy was caught in the trap (unharmed) but no doubt dehydrated and scared. I don't want the little creature to die or to suffer and we don't know when we can get a DNR officer to come get it.
I went out there a couple of times and gave it water. I had to pour it on the cement where it pooled up just enough to where he could lap it up from inside the cage, through the metal grate. I had no way of getting water inside the cage without risking being bitten or it escaping.
Since I couldn't get the DNR out here, I called our animal control, whose building is in the same parking lot as mine, and they agreed to put the little guy up for the night indoors and out of the heat. We put it in a dog kennel and gave it a bowl of water and some cat food. We don't know if it will eat the cat food or not, but at least it's something.
I don't wish any harm to the creature, or any animal, because it was doing what groundhogs do to live it's life out. They're only a nuisance to us because they interfere with what we want. But to the groundhog, it has no malice or intent to ruin our stuff or make us unhappy. It's just a animal doing what it was born to do. It also doesn't know or understand things the way we do and all it knows, being caught in the trap, is that it cannot get out and that it's scared. That alone breaks my heart because I hate to see animals caged up. It also breaks my heart when I go into animal control and see dogs and cats in the cages.
But, I can feel better about this one creature that it's not suffering anymore, and is still alive in the air conditioned dog kennel until tomorrow. Either a DNR officer will come to relocate it, or our animal control chief will relocate it on state land. Either way, the little bugger should be fine.
Behind my office sits a large tower, a large generator, and all of the buildings A/C units. Over the years, groundhogs have been digging and living under the concrete pad the A/C units sit on. The pads, and the generator have been slowly sinking and are no longer level due to the groundhogs digging.
I've had a live trap out there for years and never has one gotten caught in it until this year, twice.
A couple of months ago I caught my first one. We called the DNR (Michigan Department of Natural Resources), and had one of the officers stop by to take care of the groundhog. These nuisance creatures are actually protected I found out and people aren't supposed to kill them (though most people do, on farms and out in the rural areas) or move them. But the State can, and the DNR officer took the groundhog and relocated it someplace else on state land.
This morning when I came in from a long weekend (haven't been there since last Thursday), I found I had caught another groundhog. We tried calling the DNR numerous times today, but no officer for our area has checked on duty. The weather here today, and yesterday, has been sweltering. It's very humid and about 91 F. The poor little guy was caught in the trap (unharmed) but no doubt dehydrated and scared. I don't want the little creature to die or to suffer and we don't know when we can get a DNR officer to come get it.
I went out there a couple of times and gave it water. I had to pour it on the cement where it pooled up just enough to where he could lap it up from inside the cage, through the metal grate. I had no way of getting water inside the cage without risking being bitten or it escaping.
Since I couldn't get the DNR out here, I called our animal control, whose building is in the same parking lot as mine, and they agreed to put the little guy up for the night indoors and out of the heat. We put it in a dog kennel and gave it a bowl of water and some cat food. We don't know if it will eat the cat food or not, but at least it's something.
I don't wish any harm to the creature, or any animal, because it was doing what groundhogs do to live it's life out. They're only a nuisance to us because they interfere with what we want. But to the groundhog, it has no malice or intent to ruin our stuff or make us unhappy. It's just a animal doing what it was born to do. It also doesn't know or understand things the way we do and all it knows, being caught in the trap, is that it cannot get out and that it's scared. That alone breaks my heart because I hate to see animals caged up. It also breaks my heart when I go into animal control and see dogs and cats in the cages.
But, I can feel better about this one creature that it's not suffering anymore, and is still alive in the air conditioned dog kennel until tomorrow. Either a DNR officer will come to relocate it, or our animal control chief will relocate it on state land. Either way, the little bugger should be fine.
Last edited:
Couldn’t you just take it somewhere and release it? A nice field somewhere?
Technically, yes, I could physically do that. However, by the letter of the law, I am prohibited to do that. Only the State can do that, and it's the DNR's responsibility.
This.
And very well said - although I have taken the liberty of quoting what you have written in another section - SFF - and thread (posters asking to be excluded from PRSI, or those who have already, for various reasons, chosen to exclude themselves from PRSI) and post.
But, it is perfectly true: Sometimes, you don't realise that you have come to hold a view, or why you hold a view, stance, opinion - until you come to write about it, which is when, with dawning insight, you arrive at the realisation that you have thought this, but didn't know it until the act of writing - and articulation - crystallised your thoughts.
As happened to me today, here, when I wrote the above post about Austria; I don't think that a single thought about the unfortunate and tragically assassinated Dollfuss had crossed my mind for decades, but I realised today, when pondering this, with (an almost belated anger) that his murder was important and why it mattered.
When mulling over thoughts about what happened in Austria in those years, the name "Dollfuss" fleetingly crossed my mind in the shower - (yes, I think about history more than sometimes in the shower, each to their own), when I knew that I wished to write a post on Austria in the 1930s, and explore and tease out and think through and explain why I disagreed with @yaxomoxay's initial exploratory argument that AH's pacman-like progress re the Austrian Anschluss (gobble, munch, crunch, devour, digest) might have been stopped had France moved to stall it (and thank you, for asking these questions - it is very good - and necessary - to be made to return to material one has not looked at in decades, and examine it with fresh eyes, and sometimes, with new material).
Actually, I hadn't known until today - well, until I read your post - that I disagreed with you, and then, I had to work out - to myself, a process that only became clear as I wrote the post - why I had arrived at those conclusions.
Thank you for your kind words.
I've enjoyed thinking about - and writing about - this sort of stuff - you can probably gather that I loved teaching history (and talking about history, and reading about history) in the days when I dwelled in "the groves of academe".
And yes, I remember those "how many Shermans etc does it take"? discussions; very male, and sometimes very self-referential, and borderline esoteric. When I started university and said I was interested in history, this is what some of my male friends (who said that they were interested in history) thought I meant.
However, I, too, preferred - and prefer - the socio-political-economic-cultural stuff, although the military stuff can be of deep - and fascinating - interest at times, such as when it has an effect, a transformative effect - on both military (and political) outcomes.
There were airforces that still used biplanes (yes, as aircrew flight training craft, but still) as late as 1939, whereas the end of the war - a mere six years later - saw the sort of accelerated development of, or introduction of, or use of, atomic warfare, something almost approaching the use of intercontinental rockets, jet engines, parachutes and paratroops, radar, sonar.....the space age beckoned.
Last edited: