March Forth
Today is a most unusual date. You can't February 25, you can't July 4, you can't September 11, you can't December 25 and so forth, but you can March 4. You can March 4th into battle, or you can March 4th for the Arts, as one charity would have us do. That caused the online periodical Newszap to pose this question:
"P.S. GF's annual quiz question: What's the only date on the calendar that issues a command?"
The intended answer is today, of course. March 4th. March Forth. Of course this is correct; you can march forth. However, today is not the only day of the year that is a command. They overlooked that one can March 1st. In fact, whoever Marched 1st probably were not the ones that Marched 4th, since they marched before everyone else.
A Journey through Blogrealm
Blogtrek
Blogtrek
2004/03/04
Religion R vs One Big Mess
Last May (2003) I blogged about the saying "God is a definite integral.", by the Rev. Sarah Voss, minister of the Sioux Falls, SD, Unitarian Universalist Church. Her idea was that God was like the area under a curve and above the x-axis of a Cartesian graph, from one place on the horizontal axis to another. One can approximate the area under the graph by subdividing the interval into a number of subintervals, then drawing rectangles from these to the curve and adding up their areas. The finer the mesh, the closer the area comes to the area under the curve; i.e., to God or the Ultimate. She imagined that each religion was like a subdividing of the interval, and that the closer the area, the finer the mesh, to the ultimate curve, the more like The Reality or God the mesh and the interval was. She then said, take the subdividings representing each religion, one for Christianity, one for Jainism, one for Buddhism, and so forth, and take the union of all their subdividing points and take the sum of areas based on that. That comes much closer to the actual curve than any of the individual meshes or religions does. In mathematics, one takes the limit of these areas, and the result is called the definite integral of the function on the interval. That is where Rev. Voss gets her saying from. She called this combined religion Religion R, and she remarked that her and my faith, Unitarian Universalism, out of all the religions, comes the closest to being Religion R. See her book What Number is God? for details.
However, I read a newsletter a little while ago called Human Kindness Foundation: a Little Good News. In the Christmas 2003 issue, Bo Lozoff wrote "An Impatient Letter from God". In it, God says,
I'm not telling you to abandon your religions. I want you to enjoy your religions, honor them, learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents. But do you walk around telling everyone that your parents are better than theirs? Your religion, like your parents, may always have the most special place in your heart; I don't mind that at all. And I don't want you to combine all the Great Traditions into One Big Mess. Each religion is unique for a reason. Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves.
He seems to say that Rev. Voss' Religion R is "One Big Mess". The newsletter makes a case for not considering your religion as above the others. But then he says don't try to practice them all. If indeed your own religion is not something special, it follows that you might want to try following some tenets of another religion. But then Bo, as God, says that makes a big mess. So which is it, a big mess or the religion that comes closest to The Way?
I say the difference is this. If you go out and try to practice all the religions, you indeed get a big mess. In fact, you get contradictions all over the place. For example, you revere Jesus as God (Christianity), and you revere Jesus as an important human prophet, but not God (Islam). That is a blatant contradiction. I think that Rev. Voss means take the best of each religion and combine these best beliefs into a Religion R. That can resolve the contradictions. For instance, you then believe in a Christianity that reveres Jesus as a model human, but not a god, or you may believe that everyone has a little bit of God or the divine in them (Wicca). Indeed, to me it seems this Religion R, and to a somewhat lesser extent Unitarian Universalism, does indeed come closer to the Ultimate Reality than any of the individual components does, just like with the areas. It seems to me that Religion R then is the way to go.
Last May (2003) I blogged about the saying "God is a definite integral.", by the Rev. Sarah Voss, minister of the Sioux Falls, SD, Unitarian Universalist Church. Her idea was that God was like the area under a curve and above the x-axis of a Cartesian graph, from one place on the horizontal axis to another. One can approximate the area under the graph by subdividing the interval into a number of subintervals, then drawing rectangles from these to the curve and adding up their areas. The finer the mesh, the closer the area comes to the area under the curve; i.e., to God or the Ultimate. She imagined that each religion was like a subdividing of the interval, and that the closer the area, the finer the mesh, to the ultimate curve, the more like The Reality or God the mesh and the interval was. She then said, take the subdividings representing each religion, one for Christianity, one for Jainism, one for Buddhism, and so forth, and take the union of all their subdividing points and take the sum of areas based on that. That comes much closer to the actual curve than any of the individual meshes or religions does. In mathematics, one takes the limit of these areas, and the result is called the definite integral of the function on the interval. That is where Rev. Voss gets her saying from. She called this combined religion Religion R, and she remarked that her and my faith, Unitarian Universalism, out of all the religions, comes the closest to being Religion R. See her book What Number is God? for details.
However, I read a newsletter a little while ago called Human Kindness Foundation: a Little Good News. In the Christmas 2003 issue, Bo Lozoff wrote "An Impatient Letter from God". In it, God says,
I'm not telling you to abandon your religions. I want you to enjoy your religions, honor them, learn from them, just as you should enjoy, honor, and learn from your parents. But do you walk around telling everyone that your parents are better than theirs? Your religion, like your parents, may always have the most special place in your heart; I don't mind that at all. And I don't want you to combine all the Great Traditions into One Big Mess. Each religion is unique for a reason. Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves.
He seems to say that Rev. Voss' Religion R is "One Big Mess". The newsletter makes a case for not considering your religion as above the others. But then he says don't try to practice them all. If indeed your own religion is not something special, it follows that you might want to try following some tenets of another religion. But then Bo, as God, says that makes a big mess. So which is it, a big mess or the religion that comes closest to The Way?
I say the difference is this. If you go out and try to practice all the religions, you indeed get a big mess. In fact, you get contradictions all over the place. For example, you revere Jesus as God (Christianity), and you revere Jesus as an important human prophet, but not God (Islam). That is a blatant contradiction. I think that Rev. Voss means take the best of each religion and combine these best beliefs into a Religion R. That can resolve the contradictions. For instance, you then believe in a Christianity that reveres Jesus as a model human, but not a god, or you may believe that everyone has a little bit of God or the divine in them (Wicca). Indeed, to me it seems this Religion R, and to a somewhat lesser extent Unitarian Universalism, does indeed come closer to the Ultimate Reality than any of the individual components does, just like with the areas. It seems to me that Religion R then is the way to go.
Weather Report Errors
It is sometimes interesting to listen to TV weather personnel give their weather report on the six o'clock news (AM and PM) and on the Weather Channel, although I have not looked at that much lately. When thunderstorms come, they march (as though they had feet) or roll (as though they had wheels), or they are popcorn. They will say when a cold spell comes that temperatures are headed south, even though temperatures are usually warmer to the south. They will say that storms check out, although it seems they never try to collect the bill, like any hotel would. They even go to the extent of trying to use a broom to sweep away pesky clouds on the satellite map that have been making several days in a row cloudy.
But at least they should do it without errors. I notice that when they venture outside weather, say to astronomy, they can make mistakes. For example, once I heard one say that the time it takes the Earth to go around the Sun is 365.24 days. That is not true. It takes 365.2564 days. Besides, that's not what he is really talking about; he meant the year, which is not the time it takes for the earth to go around the sun. The year we live by is the time it takes the seasons to repeat. That is indeed 365.2422 days. The two differ by precession, which takes the vernal equinox all the way around the ecliptic or zodiac in 26,000 years.
He then said that leap year is not always every 4 years. Actually, it is, usually. It is true except for some century years. He then said that every 400 years we skip a leap year. That isn't true, either. He is talking about the century rule. Among century years, it is actually every 400 years that is a leap year, not every 400 years that it is isn't. The other century years are common years. Specifically, if a year is a century year, it has to be divisible by 400 to be a leap year. This means that 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 wasn't.
Newscasters and weathermen, this is a place where you can clear up the fog of confusion about science. Tell how it really is, and that will help clear the fog.
It is sometimes interesting to listen to TV weather personnel give their weather report on the six o'clock news (AM and PM) and on the Weather Channel, although I have not looked at that much lately. When thunderstorms come, they march (as though they had feet) or roll (as though they had wheels), or they are popcorn. They will say when a cold spell comes that temperatures are headed south, even though temperatures are usually warmer to the south. They will say that storms check out, although it seems they never try to collect the bill, like any hotel would. They even go to the extent of trying to use a broom to sweep away pesky clouds on the satellite map that have been making several days in a row cloudy.
But at least they should do it without errors. I notice that when they venture outside weather, say to astronomy, they can make mistakes. For example, once I heard one say that the time it takes the Earth to go around the Sun is 365.24 days. That is not true. It takes 365.2564 days. Besides, that's not what he is really talking about; he meant the year, which is not the time it takes for the earth to go around the sun. The year we live by is the time it takes the seasons to repeat. That is indeed 365.2422 days. The two differ by precession, which takes the vernal equinox all the way around the ecliptic or zodiac in 26,000 years.
He then said that leap year is not always every 4 years. Actually, it is, usually. It is true except for some century years. He then said that every 400 years we skip a leap year. That isn't true, either. He is talking about the century rule. Among century years, it is actually every 400 years that is a leap year, not every 400 years that it is isn't. The other century years are common years. Specifically, if a year is a century year, it has to be divisible by 400 to be a leap year. This means that 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 wasn't.
Newscasters and weathermen, this is a place where you can clear up the fog of confusion about science. Tell how it really is, and that will help clear the fog.
2004/03/02
Mission Accomplished
No, not Iraq. Mars. Today, NASA scientists announced that they have obtained results from the two rovers going over the surface of Mars and drilling into rocks. They have found definite indications that at one time the area that Opportunity had landed into was soaked in water - probably underwater in a sea or lake. The objective of the two rovers was to find evidence that Mars has or had water on it. Today they have met their objective. Mission Accomplished.
The big question is, however, was there ever life on Mars? The rovers did not find this and were not expected to. But with water on Mars, conditions suitable for life may have once existed. Maybe we won't find out until humans are on Mars. However, the chances look good. That may not be so good. If there is or was life on Mars, then that suggests that there is life all over the place in the cosmos. However, we have not detected any signal from an extraterrestrial civilization. Putting these two facts together with the Greenbank equation suggests that advanced civilizations are short-lived. That would not be good news for us, that our civilization may last only a hundred or more years or so. But it was good that they at least found water on Mars. The money put on this program was well spent. Keep going, NASA.
No, not Iraq. Mars. Today, NASA scientists announced that they have obtained results from the two rovers going over the surface of Mars and drilling into rocks. They have found definite indications that at one time the area that Opportunity had landed into was soaked in water - probably underwater in a sea or lake. The objective of the two rovers was to find evidence that Mars has or had water on it. Today they have met their objective. Mission Accomplished.
The big question is, however, was there ever life on Mars? The rovers did not find this and were not expected to. But with water on Mars, conditions suitable for life may have once existed. Maybe we won't find out until humans are on Mars. However, the chances look good. That may not be so good. If there is or was life on Mars, then that suggests that there is life all over the place in the cosmos. However, we have not detected any signal from an extraterrestrial civilization. Putting these two facts together with the Greenbank equation suggests that advanced civilizations are short-lived. That would not be good news for us, that our civilization may last only a hundred or more years or so. But it was good that they at least found water on Mars. The money put on this program was well spent. Keep going, NASA.
Dick Clark commits age discrimination
I heard an unbelievable story today. Ralph Andrews, 76, with a considerable background in the entertainment industry, was rejected for a job with Dick Clark's Bandstand because he was too old. Here is what the CNN site said:
"I have great respect and admiration for your accomplishments, and wish you success in your desire to 'get back to work," Clark's letter read, according to the suit. (But) the last development guy we hired was 27 years old. Another person who is joining our staff next week is 30. People our age are considered dinosaurs! The business is being run by 'The Next Generation."' Clark added, "On a brighter note, Ralph, please know that if any project comes up where we could use your experienced hands, I wouldn't hesitate to call you."
Dick Clark himself is 74 years old! To me this is blatant age discrimination. If he feels this way about old people, he should fire himself. How much do those two measly years mean, anyway? Mr. Andrews has filed a suit against Dick Clark. Maybe it's good. Mr. Clark was not shown in a favorable light in the movie "Bowling for Columbine". Mr. Andrews has filed a suit against Mr. Clark. Good. I hope he wins.
I heard an unbelievable story today. Ralph Andrews, 76, with a considerable background in the entertainment industry, was rejected for a job with Dick Clark's Bandstand because he was too old. Here is what the CNN site said:
"I have great respect and admiration for your accomplishments, and wish you success in your desire to 'get back to work," Clark's letter read, according to the suit. (But) the last development guy we hired was 27 years old. Another person who is joining our staff next week is 30. People our age are considered dinosaurs! The business is being run by 'The Next Generation."' Clark added, "On a brighter note, Ralph, please know that if any project comes up where we could use your experienced hands, I wouldn't hesitate to call you."
Dick Clark himself is 74 years old! To me this is blatant age discrimination. If he feels this way about old people, he should fire himself. How much do those two measly years mean, anyway? Mr. Andrews has filed a suit against Dick Clark. Maybe it's good. Mr. Clark was not shown in a favorable light in the movie "Bowling for Columbine". Mr. Andrews has filed a suit against Mr. Clark. Good. I hope he wins.
2004/03/01
Bowling for Columbine
No, this is not about strikes and spares, nor is it about flowers. It is a movie about guns. This movie, written by Michael Moore, is much better than the previous one I reviewed, The Passion of the Christ. This time I saw the entire movie. It made a lot of good points about our obsession with guns in this country. It does have some weak points, primarily in supporting material for some of the claims made in the movie, and because it had some glaring omissions. But it was a movie worth making and seeing. I give it five stars and recommend to anyone wanting a movie to see to see this one, a winner at a film festival last year.
The movie features several memorable scenes. Two children with bullets in their body from the slaughter at Columbine High School go with Michael Moore and others to K-Mart to demand a change to their gun policy. This group actually went to a K-Mart and bought ALL the ammunition at that store and bought it to the headquarters. After some discussion and some delaying, a spokesperson came out saying that K-Mart would change its policies. Michael interviewed Charlton Heston but got nowhere. A bank offered a gift of a gun for opening an account there. That's right, a gun. The best moment of the film was in comparing statistics for annual gun deaths in a number of countries. Japan, European countries, and Canada had two and three digit numbers of deaths from guns, but the US had 11,127. That's right, five digits. So big that the fact that the US is bigger doesn't matter. Further, the usual arguments for the US having so many gun deaths don't work. The US has had a bloodthirsty history. True, but what did Nazi Germany have? And the Germans have a two-digit annual gun death total, probably 68. There are a lot of guns in the US. There are guns in every block. But so does Canada, which has a much lower rate. Even Windsor, right next to gun-happy Detroit, has a low death toll from guns. The US is entertained with violent TV and video games. Where did those video games come from? Japan, that's where, and Japan has a low death toll from guns. No none of these arguments work. That baffled me at first, and a movie that does that is usually a good movie. Later on, after reading some about it, I concluded that it's the hypermedia again. They blow up anything violent, and even create fears in us that are unfounded, such as fear from terrorists, overseas dictators, and even African bees.
One important omission, one which could explain part of the toll as well, was that of illegal drugs. Many deadly shootings and prison convictions in this country result from the sale of drugs. So it seems to me that a solution to the problem of gun deaths in this country is to legalize drugs and discourage their use, as well as countering the hyperboles of the media. Overall, it is a good movie. Stay home and watch it on DVD, or go to a theater and see it, if it is still there.
No, this is not about strikes and spares, nor is it about flowers. It is a movie about guns. This movie, written by Michael Moore, is much better than the previous one I reviewed, The Passion of the Christ. This time I saw the entire movie. It made a lot of good points about our obsession with guns in this country. It does have some weak points, primarily in supporting material for some of the claims made in the movie, and because it had some glaring omissions. But it was a movie worth making and seeing. I give it five stars and recommend to anyone wanting a movie to see to see this one, a winner at a film festival last year.
The movie features several memorable scenes. Two children with bullets in their body from the slaughter at Columbine High School go with Michael Moore and others to K-Mart to demand a change to their gun policy. This group actually went to a K-Mart and bought ALL the ammunition at that store and bought it to the headquarters. After some discussion and some delaying, a spokesperson came out saying that K-Mart would change its policies. Michael interviewed Charlton Heston but got nowhere. A bank offered a gift of a gun for opening an account there. That's right, a gun. The best moment of the film was in comparing statistics for annual gun deaths in a number of countries. Japan, European countries, and Canada had two and three digit numbers of deaths from guns, but the US had 11,127. That's right, five digits. So big that the fact that the US is bigger doesn't matter. Further, the usual arguments for the US having so many gun deaths don't work. The US has had a bloodthirsty history. True, but what did Nazi Germany have? And the Germans have a two-digit annual gun death total, probably 68. There are a lot of guns in the US. There are guns in every block. But so does Canada, which has a much lower rate. Even Windsor, right next to gun-happy Detroit, has a low death toll from guns. The US is entertained with violent TV and video games. Where did those video games come from? Japan, that's where, and Japan has a low death toll from guns. No none of these arguments work. That baffled me at first, and a movie that does that is usually a good movie. Later on, after reading some about it, I concluded that it's the hypermedia again. They blow up anything violent, and even create fears in us that are unfounded, such as fear from terrorists, overseas dictators, and even African bees.
One important omission, one which could explain part of the toll as well, was that of illegal drugs. Many deadly shootings and prison convictions in this country result from the sale of drugs. So it seems to me that a solution to the problem of gun deaths in this country is to legalize drugs and discourage their use, as well as countering the hyperboles of the media. Overall, it is a good movie. Stay home and watch it on DVD, or go to a theater and see it, if it is still there.
2004/02/29
Operation Iraqi Liberation
Recently I ran into an incomprehensible acronym: OIF, and also OEF. After doing some research, I found that OIF stood for Operation Iraqi Freedom (and OEF for Operation Enduring Freedom). I suppose that ONE then is Operation Noble Eagle; there can be only one such operation, apparently. I think these operation names should not be acronymed. Spell it out or the reader may not understand. It is an Operation Iraqi Freedom, not an oif, whatever that is. If you insist on using acronyms, at least make them meaningful. Name the operation Operation Iraqi Liberation instead and then the acronym will mean something: OIL.
Recently I ran into an incomprehensible acronym: OIF, and also OEF. After doing some research, I found that OIF stood for Operation Iraqi Freedom (and OEF for Operation Enduring Freedom). I suppose that ONE then is Operation Noble Eagle; there can be only one such operation, apparently. I think these operation names should not be acronymed. Spell it out or the reader may not understand. It is an Operation Iraqi Freedom, not an oif, whatever that is. If you insist on using acronyms, at least make them meaningful. Name the operation Operation Iraqi Liberation instead and then the acronym will mean something: OIL.
Leap Year Day
Today was Leap Year Day, 2004 February 29. It was a Sunday, so I went to church for the fifth time in the month. Five Sundays in February is rare; the last time it occurred was in 1976. The day was warm, but it seemed like any other day to me. But it was out of the calendar. Saying "A year from now" does not make sense, for instance, since there will be no 2005 February 29. February 29 has special properties; for example, women can ask men for dances, dates, and marriage today, but many of them do anyway in today's egalitarian age, so that does not make any difference. The only difference now is that women may ask women for dances, dates and marriage, and men may ask men.
So how often does this day occur? In the original Julian calendar, any year that was divisible by 4 was a leap year. That means the years 0, 324, 1776, and 1900 were leap years, and 1801, 1946, and 2003 were not. This assumes the year is 365.25 days long. It isn't. The year is no nice multiple of the day in length, and the number of days in a year continually changes due to variations in the motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other planets. It comes close to being 365.242199 days long. This is a tiny fraction, but over centuries, this added up to 10 days. So Pope Gregory XIII ordered his astronomical operations research analysts to come up with a way of correcting the situation. They decided that from now on, century years such as 1900 and 2000 were leap years only if they were divisible not only by 4, but by 400. Since the Pope thought that March 21 as spring was ordained presumably by God, he would not change that, so he ordered 10 days chopped from the calendar. 1582 Oct 4 was followed by 1582 Oct 15, causing massive accounting headaches and a few rebellions ("give us back our 10 days!"). He could have left the beginning of spring at March 11. But for once the Church and the Pope came up with a good decision. However, since the Pope was associated with it, Protestant nations such as England would have nothing to do with it and Britain did not convert until 1752, chopping 11 days out of September, including September 11.
The resulting Gregorian calendar has done well for us. The most unusual Leap Year Day in 2000 came by and went without any Y2K or any other trouble. This year's Leap Year Day is only an ordinary Leap Year Day, but still it is unusual enough to notice. There are two proposals for ensuring accuracy in the millennia ahead. Herschel would make 0, 4000, 8000, years, divisible by 4000, common years, as by then the Gregorian calendar would be off by a day. That has the disadvantage of being unstable at year 0. First it is a leap year, now it is a common year. Another change, the New Orthodox calendar, would from now on make a century year a leap year if and only if it leaves a remainder of 200 or 600 upon division by 900. This is more accurate than the Gregorian calendar and even the Herschelian calendar. 2400 is a leap year in both calendars, so the first difference is 2800 is a leap year in the Herschelian calendar, but 2900 is the leap year in the New Orthodox calendar. But that is for people living 750 years or so from now to figure out. Right now our calendar satisfies our needs, even if February gets short-changed, leap year or no.
Today was Leap Year Day, 2004 February 29. It was a Sunday, so I went to church for the fifth time in the month. Five Sundays in February is rare; the last time it occurred was in 1976. The day was warm, but it seemed like any other day to me. But it was out of the calendar. Saying "A year from now" does not make sense, for instance, since there will be no 2005 February 29. February 29 has special properties; for example, women can ask men for dances, dates, and marriage today, but many of them do anyway in today's egalitarian age, so that does not make any difference. The only difference now is that women may ask women for dances, dates and marriage, and men may ask men.
So how often does this day occur? In the original Julian calendar, any year that was divisible by 4 was a leap year. That means the years 0, 324, 1776, and 1900 were leap years, and 1801, 1946, and 2003 were not. This assumes the year is 365.25 days long. It isn't. The year is no nice multiple of the day in length, and the number of days in a year continually changes due to variations in the motions of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and other planets. It comes close to being 365.242199 days long. This is a tiny fraction, but over centuries, this added up to 10 days. So Pope Gregory XIII ordered his astronomical operations research analysts to come up with a way of correcting the situation. They decided that from now on, century years such as 1900 and 2000 were leap years only if they were divisible not only by 4, but by 400. Since the Pope thought that March 21 as spring was ordained presumably by God, he would not change that, so he ordered 10 days chopped from the calendar. 1582 Oct 4 was followed by 1582 Oct 15, causing massive accounting headaches and a few rebellions ("give us back our 10 days!"). He could have left the beginning of spring at March 11. But for once the Church and the Pope came up with a good decision. However, since the Pope was associated with it, Protestant nations such as England would have nothing to do with it and Britain did not convert until 1752, chopping 11 days out of September, including September 11.
The resulting Gregorian calendar has done well for us. The most unusual Leap Year Day in 2000 came by and went without any Y2K or any other trouble. This year's Leap Year Day is only an ordinary Leap Year Day, but still it is unusual enough to notice. There are two proposals for ensuring accuracy in the millennia ahead. Herschel would make 0, 4000, 8000, years, divisible by 4000, common years, as by then the Gregorian calendar would be off by a day. That has the disadvantage of being unstable at year 0. First it is a leap year, now it is a common year. Another change, the New Orthodox calendar, would from now on make a century year a leap year if and only if it leaves a remainder of 200 or 600 upon division by 900. This is more accurate than the Gregorian calendar and even the Herschelian calendar. 2400 is a leap year in both calendars, so the first difference is 2800 is a leap year in the Herschelian calendar, but 2900 is the leap year in the New Orthodox calendar. But that is for people living 750 years or so from now to figure out. Right now our calendar satisfies our needs, even if February gets short-changed, leap year or no.
Squirrel Circus
We like to feed the birds outside, using a feeder that hangs from a pole, as well as seed on the ground. We have had a variety of birds access our feeder, including red-bellied woodpeckers, nuthatches, juncos, cardinals, and mourning doves. The biggest problem we have had was squirrels. Every time we put out food there for the birds, squirrels would show up, as many as nine of them. They would climb up the pole and dangle down from the top of the cylindrical feeder and eat all its food. Most of our bird food was going to the squirrels instead. So we needed to stop them. Anne put out some metal pipe around the base of the feeder. That didn't stop them. They'd go to the top of the feeder by hopping from a nearby branch. So I cut off the branch. They still got to the feeder by leaping from the tree trunk to the feeder, a sizable distance. They were like flying squirrels, and once they got on the feeder pole, they'd dangle upside down and eat all the food.
Recently, at the Maymont Flower and Garden Show, I found a device being sold by Wild Bird Center in Richmond and Fredericksburg. It is a tall cylindrical feeder, like the one we have, but it has feeding holes only at the bottom, and it has a ring around it at the bottom for the birds to perch on. There is a battery-powered mechanism on the feeder that causes the ring to rotate rather strongly if pressure is put on it. If a bird were to land on this feeder, nothing would happen; the bird would be able to eat. If a squirrel were to land on this feeder, since it is heavier, it would cause the ring to rotate, and that would throw the squirrel off. I saw some comical video of this happening. Since we have a squirrel problem and since the feeder resembles the one we have, I purchased it for $100.
I then tried it out. I got no squirrels wanting to go to the feeder at first. Chickadees, titmice, and wrens landed on it and ate the food. At the end of the work week, I had more time to observe it. I saw some really comical action, although most of it was not squirrels getting whoaaaaa… thrown off the thing. I saw one squirrel dangling from the wooden post to the feeder, putting his paws gently on it. He was able some of the time to get the food out and eat it, although occasionally it would rotate. Apparently my new device failed. But no. I shifted the feeder to another hook, this time lower, so that the squirrel would have to dangle from slippery metal.
Later in the day, I saw a squirrel leap from the nearby tree to the right and out towards the feeder. Instead of going to the top of the pole, he apparently went straight for the feeding circle and completely missed, plopping on the ground, scaring birds and some other squirrels. I then saw one climb up the tree, make a flying leap to the feeder, and then he did not know what to do. He hopped from there to the top of the feeder. He tried leaning downwards. Then he retreated. Then he went back and leaned downwards again, and fell off, plop, on the ground. He tried this again, and this time he hopped from the top of the feeder to the top of the pole to the top of the metal area of the pole and so forth, not knowing which way to go. After a while he gave up.
Later I saw the squirrels try something else. Now they are thinking of leaping from the ground straight to the pole or feeder. I see them sit up on their hind legs. I have never seen so many squirrels act like prairie dogs in my life. One of them looked far up and strained his neck. Then he leaped for the black tape area of the pole, and instantly leaped from there to the ring on the feeder, whereupon the ring rotated, throwing the squirrel off the feeder. That one was really funny to watch.
Since then, many squirrels have been making prairie dogs at the feeder, but they have not attempted to access it. The device worked. Now birds may safely graze on the feeder. Birds have taken it over. There are still a few problems; for example, one mourning dove flew at the feeder repeatedly and then flew back down again or to the top of the pole. Apparently he thought he could get at the food. But I think the feeder has improved the bird situation considerably since I installed it. Try it some time if you want to thwart squirrels.
We like to feed the birds outside, using a feeder that hangs from a pole, as well as seed on the ground. We have had a variety of birds access our feeder, including red-bellied woodpeckers, nuthatches, juncos, cardinals, and mourning doves. The biggest problem we have had was squirrels. Every time we put out food there for the birds, squirrels would show up, as many as nine of them. They would climb up the pole and dangle down from the top of the cylindrical feeder and eat all its food. Most of our bird food was going to the squirrels instead. So we needed to stop them. Anne put out some metal pipe around the base of the feeder. That didn't stop them. They'd go to the top of the feeder by hopping from a nearby branch. So I cut off the branch. They still got to the feeder by leaping from the tree trunk to the feeder, a sizable distance. They were like flying squirrels, and once they got on the feeder pole, they'd dangle upside down and eat all the food.
Recently, at the Maymont Flower and Garden Show, I found a device being sold by Wild Bird Center in Richmond and Fredericksburg. It is a tall cylindrical feeder, like the one we have, but it has feeding holes only at the bottom, and it has a ring around it at the bottom for the birds to perch on. There is a battery-powered mechanism on the feeder that causes the ring to rotate rather strongly if pressure is put on it. If a bird were to land on this feeder, nothing would happen; the bird would be able to eat. If a squirrel were to land on this feeder, since it is heavier, it would cause the ring to rotate, and that would throw the squirrel off. I saw some comical video of this happening. Since we have a squirrel problem and since the feeder resembles the one we have, I purchased it for $100.
I then tried it out. I got no squirrels wanting to go to the feeder at first. Chickadees, titmice, and wrens landed on it and ate the food. At the end of the work week, I had more time to observe it. I saw some really comical action, although most of it was not squirrels getting whoaaaaa… thrown off the thing. I saw one squirrel dangling from the wooden post to the feeder, putting his paws gently on it. He was able some of the time to get the food out and eat it, although occasionally it would rotate. Apparently my new device failed. But no. I shifted the feeder to another hook, this time lower, so that the squirrel would have to dangle from slippery metal.
Later in the day, I saw a squirrel leap from the nearby tree to the right and out towards the feeder. Instead of going to the top of the pole, he apparently went straight for the feeding circle and completely missed, plopping on the ground, scaring birds and some other squirrels. I then saw one climb up the tree, make a flying leap to the feeder, and then he did not know what to do. He hopped from there to the top of the feeder. He tried leaning downwards. Then he retreated. Then he went back and leaned downwards again, and fell off, plop, on the ground. He tried this again, and this time he hopped from the top of the feeder to the top of the pole to the top of the metal area of the pole and so forth, not knowing which way to go. After a while he gave up.
Later I saw the squirrels try something else. Now they are thinking of leaping from the ground straight to the pole or feeder. I see them sit up on their hind legs. I have never seen so many squirrels act like prairie dogs in my life. One of them looked far up and strained his neck. Then he leaped for the black tape area of the pole, and instantly leaped from there to the ring on the feeder, whereupon the ring rotated, throwing the squirrel off the feeder. That one was really funny to watch.
Since then, many squirrels have been making prairie dogs at the feeder, but they have not attempted to access it. The device worked. Now birds may safely graze on the feeder. Birds have taken it over. There are still a few problems; for example, one mourning dove flew at the feeder repeatedly and then flew back down again or to the top of the pole. Apparently he thought he could get at the food. But I think the feeder has improved the bird situation considerably since I installed it. Try it some time if you want to thwart squirrels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)