I haven’t been doing any deep thinking of late, just trying to survive a nasty winter season. But here are a few random, petty thoughts and observations that I wanted to share:<\/p>\n
Why we call Chickens “chicken”<\/strong><\/p>\n I was reading a recent article in Scientific American about chicken intelligence. Scientists are interested in animal intelligence, and some recent studies by Carolynn L. Smith<\/a> indicate that the common chicken, which most people are familiar with as the white stuff inside their crispy KFC delights or sandwich spread or Sunday roast, isn’t as ‘bird-brained’ as we once thought. Despite their reputation as really stupid creatures, these ungamely game birds are showing some real thinking and problem solving abilities in scientific tests and observations (I had never been a fan of chickens myself, beyond what they could put on my dinner plate; nevertheless, as a vegetarian for the past 25 years, I’ve given them a break despite my low impression of them). <\/p>\n One thing that the SciAm authors note is that male chickens can be very wily in their use of vocalizations. Chickens don’t exactly use a symbolic language like we do, but they do have a variety of different noises (beyond the usual cluck-cluck and rooster crow) that mean something to other chickens. They have a peculiar noise that most of us aren’t familiar with, which they use when they see danger approaching — e.g. a hungry hawk circling above them. Mostly these noises are made by males (roosters) to warn a hen and her brood to find cover or shelter ASAP (especially if the hen is part of the cock’s harem; he\u2019s not quite as interested if his own progeny aren’t at stake). Of course we are talking about chickens in their natural element here, out in the forests or grasslands, and not in some poultry factory or barnyard. Perhaps their reputation for stupid behavior is because of the fact that we mostly see chickens in the prisons that we humans create for them, and not in their home environment. Put a human being in an imprisoned, unnatural and exploitative environment, and she or he will probably act pretty stupidly too.<\/p>\n So back to that warning noise: there is another interesting context where competitive male chickens use this noise to get a leg up on a rival rooster, so as to gain pecking-order rights in the chicken community. If a rooster is out in the bushes alone, he won’t make a peep when a hawk appears; he just runs toward whatever he can find for shelter. Ditto if he’s with another male or female who has a good shot at hiding. But, suppose we have a rooster already under a bush or in a patch of thick weeds, and suddenly he spies a predator in the sky. At the same time, another male is out in the open, pecking away at something, oblivious to the threat. Chicken researchers have observed instances where the hidden rooster waits for the right moment, and then emits a warning scream — and the effect of this scream will be more to help the hawk lunge his talons upon the fellow chicken, and not to help him get out of the way. Some feathers scatter, there’s a bit of a ruckus, the hawk has his Sunday dinner, and it’s “thanks, hawk, for moving me up on the pecking order”. If anyone suspects the hidden roster’s true motivations, he could say “well hey, I was just trying to help the poor schlub, right? Talk about \u201cfrenemies\u201d!!<\/p>\n [OK, once again, chickens can’t really talk. But if they are so smart, they can give each other dirty looks. And in response, the crafty rooster could put on that look that says “what? I was trying to help him!”]<\/p>\n I find this somewhat craven. These roosters use dirty tricks instead of facing their rivals head-on. And thus, chickens are a cowardly creature that really deserve to be called . . . chicken! In sum, chickens may be smart, but they aren’t one of nature’s more noble creations. (But then again, maybe that’s because they’re a bit too much like us . . . )<\/p>\n Pudding-Like Oatmeal<\/strong><\/p>\n My culinary discovery for the week: how to make really creamy oatmeal that goes down almost as nicely as a rich pudding dessert. Just put a 1\/3 cup of whole oats into a blender or coffee bean grinder, then mix the resulting powder with a spoon or two of oat bran. Then add water and cook as normal, stirring to keep the pot surface from burning the stuff. The results have a smooth pudding-like mouth feel, even though the taste is still plain old oatmeal. If you want it to be more like pudding, mix in some milk and honey or maple syrup. Then you really do have oat pudding! And I\u2019m sure it\u2019s delicious.<\/p>\n Predicting the weather <\/strong><\/p>\n This is one of those snowy winters where pessimism is rewarded. When the weather people start talking about snow, you can bet that it\u2019s going to be worse than they predict, especially if the forecast is for more than a day away. That\u2019s been our pattern all winter. If they at first say 1 to 3 then it will be 6; 3 to 6 will be at least 8; and over 6 and you get pretty quickly over 10 inches, maybe more than a foot. So, think negative — unless you are a kid who enjoys this stuff (as I once did), or a skier. Then I guess this cold and snowy trend is a matter of positive thinking.<\/p>\n Good news from the uber skeptic – back to Scientific American:<\/strong><\/p>\n I’m not much of a fan of Michael Shermer, but I still gaze thru his monthly column in SciAm. This month, he actually posted some good news about humankind. A recent study and book<\/a> by political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan conclude that non-violent mass movements or campaigns historically have a higher success rate than violent actions such as war, police state oppression, and terrorism. And the trend allegedly is getting better with time. <\/p>\n Interesting, however, that Mr. Shermer, skeptic that he is, didn’t ask why there still seem to be so many wars, oppressive governments and terrorism incidents in modern times. And why the non-violent Arab Spring movement seems to have collapsed back into armed conflict.<\/p>\n Back to culinary topics:<\/strong><\/p>\n I had a shot of Chartreuse green liquor after dinner yesterday, a little treat to celebrate my getting thru a nasty, snowy week. They call this stuff “green fire” because of its 100 proof alcohol kick. But remember, Chartreuse was invented and is still made by the monks of the semi-hermitic Carthusian religious order in France. “Chartreuse” is a French twist on “charter house”, which is what the Carthusians call their monasteries, in honor of the Chartreuse mountains<\/a> in France. <\/p>\n The great thing about Chartreuse (especially the hi-test green version) is that you can almost taste the mountain forests when you sip it. You sense mint, grass, pine, and all kinds of other wild herbs and spices mixed in. You can almost imagine yourself alone except for your fellow (silent) brothers or sisters out in that forest. If you sip it slowly and appreciatively, it’s a five-second taste of the monastic life — without actually having to get up at 3 am in the freezing cold and then work your butt off all day, breaking only to attend prayer offices and do nothing much else, except try to hold in your consternation about trying to get along with a bunch of other people who aren’t always on your wavelength, but who you are stuck with for the rest of your life. Or as long as you can take it, all for the sake of prayer and contemplation. And providing the world with a great liquor!<\/p>\n And finally \u2013 a computer tip for Windows 8.1 users who like old software:<\/strong><\/p>\n So OK, I now have a desktop with Windows 8.1 (and might get a Windows tablet later on this year). As an old geezer, I’m going thru lots of consternation in getting used to it. BUT, 8.1 is pretty good about running old software . . . so don\u2019t throw out all those old CD disks with your favorite applications from the past. The biggest problem I had was getting an old MS application called \u201cWorks 2000\u201d to work on 8.1. My initial installation attempt went pretty badly; some components worked, other stuff didn’t, and various functions were MIA from the 8.1 apps page and the Works 2000 intro screen. <\/p>\n To be honest, the only components from Works that I really wanted were the map program (“Streets and Trips”) and encyclopedia (Encarta); the other stuff on Works (like the calendar, the money manager, and the cheezy “creative image” maker) really is outmoded. As to maps and reference information, sure, you can get up-to-date maps and encyclopedia articles on-line at the touch of a key or two; by comparison, my Works maps and encyclopedia articles are over 10 years old. Nonetheless, maps and encyclopedias still have lots of good info that doesn\u2019t change all that quickly. E.g. if you need a short summary on Kant or John Stuart Mills, or to find a street a few towns away, 10 year old software can still do the job. And I still find these applications more user-friendly than most map or information web sites (e.g. the map application has a handy and flexible way to measure distances within the map).<\/p>\n