Besides the scores of crises that California already has, another has reared its ugly head (and antlers). Researchers are spending three hundred thousand dollars to determine why deer are getting killed crossing Interstate 280 in the Bay Area. At the time the news article was published, Department of Fish and Game officials had astutely isolated the main cause for these freeway tragedies. Duh…… the deer are getting hit by speeding cars!
According to officials, the carnage seems to have a distinctive pattern. “We’re trying to understand why some deer don’t make it to the other side,” one said. “It seems older deer are generally successful in making it across the freeway. The highway slaughter typically involves younger animals.” Speculating what might be done to solve the problem, present ideas include building wildlife tunnels under the freeway, or installing deer-proof fencing along certain portions of the road.
Now, doing research is something I love. Learning about this funded study, then, I figured perhaps I could help out the Department of Fish and Game (plus the deer community and my bank account), by subcontracting to come up with insights and solutions to the problem. So while I’m waiting for Sacramento to get back to me regarding my five thousand dollar proposal, I’ll let you in on some of my preliminary findings.
1. Young deer have shorter legs than older ones. As I know personally, shorter legs mean you can’t run as fast. If you can’t run as fast, faster objects usually beat you to any given point… especially on highways. Cars are faster than deer. So legislation should be considered restricting deer from crossing roads until they are at least 21 years of age (in deer years), or 36 inches tall at the shoulders.
2. “Deer Crossing” signs seem to give these young animals a false sense of security. In this entitlement society, if you’re important enough to have your own sign, you certainly feel that sign should protect you. This, of course, is a fatal assumption. It is well known, that California motorists have a difficult time reading signs at 80 mph, or concentrating on the road while texting and eating their In-N-Out burgers at the same time.
3. There appears to be too little collaboration between deer and chicken. After decades of “crossing the road” in jokes and such, few if any chickens have ever been documented as killed or maimed, and their legs are far shorter than those of even the youngest deer. With more understanding of their crossing techniques, then, the Bambi Brigade might substantially reduce their highway tragedies by adopting such foul, time tested, road-crossing strategies.
4. It is said that deer have dichromatic (two-color) vision that poorly distinguishes the colors orange and red. If this is true, cars painted these two colors should be permanently banned from using Interstate 280 under any circumstances.
5. Most deer cross the road in order to find a better selection of vegetation to eat. This being the case, the Department of Fish and Game should carpet bomb one side of the highway with surplus Agent Orange defoliant, thus eliminating any need for them to cross in the first place.
6. Finally, the cost of this safety research may simply be a colossal waste of taxpayer money. My investigation has seemed to uncover that deer may not be the brightest gang in the glen. This was evident when I interviewed a juvenile I found pacing nervously on the shoulder of a deserted section of Interstate 280. Here’s a partial transcript of our exchange:
Me: I’ve been watching you for over twenty minutes, now, and you haven’t tried crossing the road. Why not?
Deer: Duh, I’m waiting to see if any cars are coming.
Me: Have you ever had any close calls crossing the highway?
Deer: No, cell phone reception is pretty crappy in this part of the state.
Me: Why do you think the "deer crossing" signs have not improved safety?
Deer: They have. None of us have ever been hit by other deer crossing the road, just those damn cars.
Me: Do you look both ways before you cross?
Deer: No, I look just about the same as I do now.
So there you have it. California spending more taxpayer money to rescue a species that perhaps would be better served by the leveling effect of natural selection. Of course, considered all the other money this state wastes, at least this time the Sacramento Stupidos can dupe the taxpaying public by saying they’re trying to save us a buck here and there, and lots of doe, as well.
Recently our local newspaper reported that there had been a change in the election results for a local School Board seat. While I didn’t know the surprise winner, I certainly fit the description of someone who should have been solidly in his constituency. But as with any politician, it’s dangerous to jump on a bandwagon simply because you think the candidate is “one of you.” And certainly the surest way to get elected here in California, (no matter how good or bad you are), is to somehow link your campaign to the support of teachers, and in a small town like this, by touting your Christian values. So, here’s my take on the whole thing, exactly as I expressed it in a letter to the editor after reading the article.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Letter To The Editor:
As a retired CVUSD teacher and Christian, I wasn’t automatically encouraged by the front page news, that the registrar’s final vote tally determined a surprise School Board winner who strongly and unashamedly supports these two constituencies. (Champion, December 1) Quoting the article, he said, “(I) will be an advocate for the teachers and emphasize Christian values. Everything will revolve around the teachers. That’s where my prejudice lies.”
First of all, coming into any governing body with “prejudice,” closes one’s mind to ALL the possibilities needed to solve important issues. Secondly, revolving one’s efforts around teachers instead of kids, is backwards. Kids should come first, even when it conflicts with those who educate them. And in the end, if it’s good for kids, it’s usually good for teachers, too.
Finally, being an advocate for “teachers” can only be decoded as support of their union, which in other than salary and/or working condition issues, rails only minimally against the smaller but more insidious instructional stresses that actually wear it’s members down, and ultimately burn them out.
As for this new School Board member’s emphasis on Christian values, if he means in the conduct of his daily personal and professional life, that’s great. But if recent history has shown one thing, it’s that such “emphasis” has too often mutated from personal belief, into a zealous mission to inject religious ideology into public policy, forcing those who don’t agree to conform. Such a stance would not only be divisive, but an unnecessary distraction from the current educational issues that need fixing.
That said, good luck to the newest School Board member. I hope that after he’s sworn in and the realities of the job finally hit home, he is guided towards solutions using an open and unprejudiced mind, with sole focus on his greatest constituency, the children he has taken an oath to serve.
Paisano (December 1, 2012)
(NOTE: If you’re a man, you can probably skip this post because you’ll learn nothing new by reading it. Every word will make perfect sense to you, while those same words will be scrutinized with great suspicion by your female counterparts.)
I think the term “Dirty Old Man” is mostly unfair. The other night I was flipping channels when I came across a movie where two attractive young ladies were walking past a stoop in some urban neighborhood. Sitting there were two older men, who when the women walked by, began to beam and made some comment about the scenery getting better by the second. Showing obvious disdain, one female said to the other, “Ignore them, they’re just dirty old men.”
As I could well have been one of those smiling gents, her comment ticked me off. So I looked up the term, “dirty old man,” in a number of on-line dictionaries. Let me give you just four of the definitions I found, then comment on each in defense of we older guys around the world:
1: “An older man that is thought to show an unnatural interest in sex.” The problem with this definition, is that it assumes that a geriatric interest in sex is unnatural. If you want to prove that’s bogus, just go to a mall someday and watch an old man slumped on a bench, seemingly exhausted from all the walking he’s been doing. Notice how quickly he perks up when a pretty woman in a tight skirt or short shorts walks by. And, if only for a moment, he sits upright and swivels his arthritic neck around like he was an owl, watching her posterior sway rhythmically as she fades from clear sight. It’s as natural to him as breathing. It’s an instinct planted deeply within him by the Creator.
2. “An older man who is sexually interested in younger women or girls.” To this definition I’d simply utter, “DUH…?” Of course his interest would be in younger women. Have you stopped to consider the wrinkled, gravity ravished selection he might have at the Senior Citizen Home? You see, while a man’s body and mind deteriorates with age, that tiny impulse button implanted deep within in his brain, (the one meant to maintain the population of our species), continues to work around the clock. And when a beautiful or sexy young woman walks by, that button kicks in like it did when the man was young, unchecked by the obvious variable that it’s now encased in a disintegrating body. Again, the response is automatic, and proven by the fact that the last thing about which that old man will ever think before lapsing into a final coma, are the supple breasts of the attractive nurse standing at his bedside.
3. “A mature or elderly man with lewd or obscene preoccupations.” This is probably the most inaccurate definition of the bunch. It seems a little presumptuous that many women think any older man that “flirts” with them wants to get them naked and into the bedroom. Let’s be realistic here! How embarrassing would it be for an old guy if he was actually invited to strip down and “do the deed” with a gal half his age or less? It would end up badly, like going to a “high noon” shootout without your pistol or ammunition. And if it’s one thing old guys don’t need more of, it’s embarrassment regarding their dwindling physical prowess.
4. “An older man who offends people by being sexually interested in someone younger than him.” First of all, if my innocent “flirtiness” offends a woman, (or anyone for that matter), I’m sorry, but I see it as pretty much THEIR problem. Being offended is always a matter of perception, and with the advent of social media it’s become a cottage industry in this politically correct society. I would hope, instead, that if I smiled at a young lady as she walked by, (unless I was doing so with my hand down my pants), she would take it as a show of my appreciation for her attractiveness as a member of the female species. As a male, I would think that seeing herself through my old eyes, and realizing she absolutely still “had it,” our meeting would be the highlight of her day. And rather than be offended, why not think of it as her having “made” some pathetic old guy’s day, as well?
Finally, why should society be offended when an older man shows sexual interest in younger women, anyway? Everyone knows it’s almost always a mental exercise on his part, a reverie of the days when he was truly efficient in the skill of pursuing and capturing the hearts and attention of the opposite sex. After all, what does an old man have if not the dreams of who he WAS at a time when he was really GOOD at it? Discounting the few among us who truly are perverts, then, older gents are getting a bad rap for simply trying to recapture their youth. And that’s much of what we do to fill the time while we’re waiting to die.
