So, I’m sitting at my computer diligently earning money on a Friday when the sun is out, and there’s a heavy “thump” on the roof.  Shelley looks at me with alarm, and goes outside to see what’s up.  Nothing obvious; we go back to what we were doing. Then Shelley fires up the mower and goes to mow the lawn.  Disturbs a few frogs, finds a birds nest, clears twigs and … she finds a dead fish.  On the lawn.

IMG_20180427_111205

Theory is: one of our resident raptors was fishing the lake, and dropped it from a great height onto our roof, where it bounced off into the grass.

Irony and synergy

Two stories back to back on the news tonight: a piece about public caning in Indonesia, ending with a note that the UN Commission on Human Rights regards public caning as torture and calls for it to be banned.

Followed with unintended irony (maybe) by a piece on an octogenarian put to death by some state here in the US. No mention of the UN calling for banning capital punishment as inhumane, which of course they do.

Good thing we are so much more enlightened than those theocratic third world states.

Fantastic show

Listen to We, the Liberators on TuneIn http://tun.in/tiovM8

A painful review of Amercian intervention in the middle east on the 15 th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. With deep analysis of the mechanisms we use to deflect from our responsibility for the damage we have caused.

An interesting confluence of the discussion around self-delusion in this and another show I listened to lately, also “On the Media”, about racism.  One of the commentators suggested that the traditional narrative, that racist ideology caused racist policy, was backward: that in a more realistic reading of history, the ideology was a post-facto justification for the policy, which directly benefited those who made the policy.

In “We, the Liberators”, there’s a suggestion of something similar at work in the invasion of Iraq.  The neocon ideological case, making the world safe for democracy, liberating the people from their oppressors, etc, was used to justify the action.  But maybe it was the invasion that was primary, with the ideology conveniently at hand to justify the action.

I think this is called rationalization when we apply it to individuals.  Perhaps “imperialism” when we apply it to cultures, or countries?  Wasn’t the Victorian Englishman convinced that, by dominating the foreigner, he was “civilizing” him, imparting a superior way of life?  And incidentally making himself rich and powerful in the process?