Monday, September 18, 2006
We enjoy watching the birds in our yard. We don’t feed them, since we don’t want them becoming dependent upon us for food. There’s plenty of food for them from the trees, shrubs, weeds, and grasses in our yard. But water can be problematic, so we do keep a bowl of water filled on our back deck. It attracts them to drink and to bathe.
It surprised us how quickly the birds incorporated this source of water into their daily routine. Having found that it was a fairly reliable source, in short order they began visiting daily.
We’ve noticed that different species come at different times of the day. Blue jays seem to be the earliest visitors, followed by groups of sparrows. Later come purple finches, followed by cardinals, then robins. Grackles also visit periodically, but they’re not really welcome since they bully the smaller birds. We’ve seen very little of them during the middle of the summer heat.
The cardinals, sparrows, and finches seem to tolerate each others presence for the most part. Lately, a male cardinal has taken to bathing, and the finches and sparrows show up to harrass him when he does. They stand on the side of the bowl, waiting impatiently for him to finish. Sometimes, their impatience gets the better of them, and they lunge at him. He generally stands his ground, but leaves shortly thereafter. At other times, we’ve seen the cardinals and sparrows share the bath.
We’ve also seen occasional birds, such as red-headed woodpeckers, goldfinches, doves, and flickers come for water. We’ve seen orioles, goldfinches, starlings, and wrens in the yard, but rarely at the water bowl. The starlings are fewer this year since the nearby air base undertook an aggressive campaign to reduce their numbers. It doesn’t seem to have affected the birds we like.
Most of the birds approach by landing on the handrail of our deck, or flying over the handrail and landing directly on the deck. Only the sparrows routinely fly between the balusters on their way to and from the water bowl.
The container we’ve used for several years was the water tray for a large plant pot that had broken. It was plastic, and colored to match a terra cotta pot. Over time, it became bleached by the sun and became harder to keep clean. Green algae began to grow in it despite our efforts to keep it cleaned out. The birds didn’t seem to mind it, but we did.
This year when we returned from vacation, the bowl was bone dry, and the temperatures were approaching triple digits. We decided to replace the bowl with a new clean new one, another terra cotta colored plastic pot tray of the same size and shape as the old one.
Within minutes a sparrow appeared, and then later a purple finch. But their reaction surprised us! They each landed on the porch, but kept their distance from the bowl. They hopped around it, but they wouldn’t approach it. Finally, each of them flew off without drinking.
It hadn’t occurred to us that wild birds, who drink from constantly changing sources of water such as puddles, would react so cautiously and negatively if merely the color or pehaps the odor of a fairly constant water source changed. But they knew something was different.
Later on, a dove appeared and mimicked the reaction of the first two birds. However, after circling the bowl several times with its odd head-bobbing walk, it cautiously approached, checked the water from several different angles, and finally took a drink. And another drink. And another drink. Satisfied that it was water, it hopped in and took a bath, after which it preened for a long time.
I’ve never appreciated doves with their boring call, wheezing flight sound, or odd head-bobbing walk. But in this case, the dove was the leader. Either the other birds took their cue from the world’s dumbest bird, or their thirst became too great. But by the next day, they were all coming back as if nothing had changed.
Welcome back, little friends!
It surprised us how quickly the birds incorporated this source of water into their daily routine. Having found that it was a fairly reliable source, in short order they began visiting daily.
We’ve noticed that different species come at different times of the day. Blue jays seem to be the earliest visitors, followed by groups of sparrows. Later come purple finches, followed by cardinals, then robins. Grackles also visit periodically, but they’re not really welcome since they bully the smaller birds. We’ve seen very little of them during the middle of the summer heat.
The cardinals, sparrows, and finches seem to tolerate each others presence for the most part. Lately, a male cardinal has taken to bathing, and the finches and sparrows show up to harrass him when he does. They stand on the side of the bowl, waiting impatiently for him to finish. Sometimes, their impatience gets the better of them, and they lunge at him. He generally stands his ground, but leaves shortly thereafter. At other times, we’ve seen the cardinals and sparrows share the bath.
We’ve also seen occasional birds, such as red-headed woodpeckers, goldfinches, doves, and flickers come for water. We’ve seen orioles, goldfinches, starlings, and wrens in the yard, but rarely at the water bowl. The starlings are fewer this year since the nearby air base undertook an aggressive campaign to reduce their numbers. It doesn’t seem to have affected the birds we like.
Most of the birds approach by landing on the handrail of our deck, or flying over the handrail and landing directly on the deck. Only the sparrows routinely fly between the balusters on their way to and from the water bowl.
The container we’ve used for several years was the water tray for a large plant pot that had broken. It was plastic, and colored to match a terra cotta pot. Over time, it became bleached by the sun and became harder to keep clean. Green algae began to grow in it despite our efforts to keep it cleaned out. The birds didn’t seem to mind it, but we did.
This year when we returned from vacation, the bowl was bone dry, and the temperatures were approaching triple digits. We decided to replace the bowl with a new clean new one, another terra cotta colored plastic pot tray of the same size and shape as the old one.
Within minutes a sparrow appeared, and then later a purple finch. But their reaction surprised us! They each landed on the porch, but kept their distance from the bowl. They hopped around it, but they wouldn’t approach it. Finally, each of them flew off without drinking.
It hadn’t occurred to us that wild birds, who drink from constantly changing sources of water such as puddles, would react so cautiously and negatively if merely the color or pehaps the odor of a fairly constant water source changed. But they knew something was different.
Later on, a dove appeared and mimicked the reaction of the first two birds. However, after circling the bowl several times with its odd head-bobbing walk, it cautiously approached, checked the water from several different angles, and finally took a drink. And another drink. And another drink. Satisfied that it was water, it hopped in and took a bath, after which it preened for a long time.
I’ve never appreciated doves with their boring call, wheezing flight sound, or odd head-bobbing walk. But in this case, the dove was the leader. Either the other birds took their cue from the world’s dumbest bird, or their thirst became too great. But by the next day, they were all coming back as if nothing had changed.
Welcome back, little friends!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
One of the big stories being reported about Iraq this week is that, over the last two days, some one hundred thirty bodies have been discovered in Baghdad. It’s been reported that at least eight of them had been beheaded, and that nearly all showed signs of having been tortured, then bound and gagged before being shot in the head. Pretty gruesome stuff.
But, in a way, it’s also intriguing. It gives a hint of how far the investigative science of forensics has evolved in recent times.
It’s fascinating to think that within a few hours of discovery, scientists can determine whether or not a body had been subjected to “water-boarding” when it was still alive. It’s interesting to find out that being exposed to loud rock music leaves physical effects (something our parents have always suspected) that can be discovered post-mortem. It’s remarkable that, despite what must be the stresses of being nabbed by one’s enemies, the effects of “stress positions” are still discoverable, even after one has been shot in the head. And who would have thought that the effects of sleep deprivation would be so evident after death! I wouldn’t be surprised to hear any day now that even humiliation may leave physical post-mortem signs. But maybe the ones who were forced to wear female panties on their heads were the ones who were beheaded in order to cover up the horrific practices of their tormentors.
That is torture, right? That’s what Amnesty International and the International Red Cross called it when they claimed that our troops and CIA agents were doing it to the terrorists detained at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Torturing them! That’s what some Americans and even some members of Congress have called it. That’s what American journalists, with straight faces, reported. That’s the new standard set by the Left and their anti-American cronies. That’s what little George Stephanopolous was describing as torture as recently as this morning on ABC News Sunday. So when the international press reports that the dead victims of the secular insurgents had been tortured, that’s what they must mean.
Wow! That pales in comparison to what the sectarian insurgents, al-qaeda operatives, and all the other jihadists used to do to their captives. They used to merely commit sadistic acts of barbaric inhumanity upon their victims, such as hacking their limbs off, pulling out their fingernails, breaking all their bones, feeding them alive into shredders, sending large electrical charges through their genitalia, gouging their eyes out, or burning them, or stoning them, or disemboweling them, or beheading them with a dull knife. They even used to televise it and broadcast it. Now they’re just torturing them! Does this mean that they’re achieving a new level of sophistication?
As I pondered this turn of events and its implications, I began to wonder. Since these reportedly sectarian death squads were going to kill their victims anyway, why bother to torture them? What’s the point of taking time out from killing with this distraction? It doesn’t seem very efficient. And they’re no longer televising it for dramatic value. But, for all I know, perhaps it gets them more virgins in their after-life.
Maybe part of their jihadist creed commands them to, before murdering them, torture members of their own religion with whom they disagree, in order to be admitted to Heaven. But if they’re merely torturing their captives now, what does that foretell for the after-life prospects of all the old-school sadistic elements who used to take the time to inflict much pain before killing their victims?
The new policy also seems to be at odds with the jihadists' routine practice of placing powerful bombs in public places. Bombs which randomly and indiscriminately kill and maim anybody who happens to be there at the time, including women and children. Perhaps they receive some form of strange absolution because, even though they just accidently blew up their brother’s family who happened to be in the area, they’ll be rewarded in their after-life because the odds were fairly good that they took out a bunch of people their local mullah didn’t much like. But since their icon, Osama Bin Laden, is reported to have said that it is better to be dead than to be alive in this world (why don’t they ever take their own advice?), maybe they just look upon it as merely helping the rest of us out.
Like in the marketplaces of Baghdad and Kabul. Like in the subways of Barcelona and London. Like in the World Trade Center towers.
But then it occurred to me that perhaps the reporters were either just being pathetically ignorant of their subject, or "culturally sensitive" -- or that they were just making it up.
Most news agencies can’t figure out the distinction between innocent and not guilty. They routinely interchange the terms "murder" and "execution" and "assassination." They think all rights are relative and transient except their absolute First Amendment press freedom right, which was once described to me as “including the right to lie” by a well-known newspaper editor. Domestic reporters routinely write that a SUV killed a person or caused an accident, or that somebody was killed by an assault rifle. Pilots, while deploring any aviation accident, chuckle when reading or hearing the breathlessly inept reports of the technical aspects ("I looked at the wing and saw the rudders were down"). The federal government’s program of electronically eavesdropping on international phone calls is routinely referred to by media members as domestic wiretapping (I’m still trying to visualize how one can “wiretap” a wireless phone).
Reuters news agency, whose editorial policy prohibits the use of the descriptive term “terrorist” when reporting on al-qaeda jihadists or Palestinian suidide bombers, was caught passing off doctored photographs of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict last month. The photos attempted to show that the Israeli forces were using excessive force against innocent civilian populations, causing collateral damage, while ignoring the fact that Hezbollah was using them as human shields.
In delicious irony, the following week Reuters unveiled their new slogan for advertising how quickly they report what's going on in the world. In fact, I heard it on public radio the other morning. They claimed, "Before it's news, it's Reuters!"
I think that, in large part, that explains a lot of things!
But, in a way, it’s also intriguing. It gives a hint of how far the investigative science of forensics has evolved in recent times.
It’s fascinating to think that within a few hours of discovery, scientists can determine whether or not a body had been subjected to “water-boarding” when it was still alive. It’s interesting to find out that being exposed to loud rock music leaves physical effects (something our parents have always suspected) that can be discovered post-mortem. It’s remarkable that, despite what must be the stresses of being nabbed by one’s enemies, the effects of “stress positions” are still discoverable, even after one has been shot in the head. And who would have thought that the effects of sleep deprivation would be so evident after death! I wouldn’t be surprised to hear any day now that even humiliation may leave physical post-mortem signs. But maybe the ones who were forced to wear female panties on their heads were the ones who were beheaded in order to cover up the horrific practices of their tormentors.
That is torture, right? That’s what Amnesty International and the International Red Cross called it when they claimed that our troops and CIA agents were doing it to the terrorists detained at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Torturing them! That’s what some Americans and even some members of Congress have called it. That’s what American journalists, with straight faces, reported. That’s the new standard set by the Left and their anti-American cronies. That’s what little George Stephanopolous was describing as torture as recently as this morning on ABC News Sunday. So when the international press reports that the dead victims of the secular insurgents had been tortured, that’s what they must mean.
Wow! That pales in comparison to what the sectarian insurgents, al-qaeda operatives, and all the other jihadists used to do to their captives. They used to merely commit sadistic acts of barbaric inhumanity upon their victims, such as hacking their limbs off, pulling out their fingernails, breaking all their bones, feeding them alive into shredders, sending large electrical charges through their genitalia, gouging their eyes out, or burning them, or stoning them, or disemboweling them, or beheading them with a dull knife. They even used to televise it and broadcast it. Now they’re just torturing them! Does this mean that they’re achieving a new level of sophistication?
As I pondered this turn of events and its implications, I began to wonder. Since these reportedly sectarian death squads were going to kill their victims anyway, why bother to torture them? What’s the point of taking time out from killing with this distraction? It doesn’t seem very efficient. And they’re no longer televising it for dramatic value. But, for all I know, perhaps it gets them more virgins in their after-life.
Maybe part of their jihadist creed commands them to, before murdering them, torture members of their own religion with whom they disagree, in order to be admitted to Heaven. But if they’re merely torturing their captives now, what does that foretell for the after-life prospects of all the old-school sadistic elements who used to take the time to inflict much pain before killing their victims?
The new policy also seems to be at odds with the jihadists' routine practice of placing powerful bombs in public places. Bombs which randomly and indiscriminately kill and maim anybody who happens to be there at the time, including women and children. Perhaps they receive some form of strange absolution because, even though they just accidently blew up their brother’s family who happened to be in the area, they’ll be rewarded in their after-life because the odds were fairly good that they took out a bunch of people their local mullah didn’t much like. But since their icon, Osama Bin Laden, is reported to have said that it is better to be dead than to be alive in this world (why don’t they ever take their own advice?), maybe they just look upon it as merely helping the rest of us out.
Like in the marketplaces of Baghdad and Kabul. Like in the subways of Barcelona and London. Like in the World Trade Center towers.
But then it occurred to me that perhaps the reporters were either just being pathetically ignorant of their subject, or "culturally sensitive" -- or that they were just making it up.
Most news agencies can’t figure out the distinction between innocent and not guilty. They routinely interchange the terms "murder" and "execution" and "assassination." They think all rights are relative and transient except their absolute First Amendment press freedom right, which was once described to me as “including the right to lie” by a well-known newspaper editor. Domestic reporters routinely write that a SUV killed a person or caused an accident, or that somebody was killed by an assault rifle. Pilots, while deploring any aviation accident, chuckle when reading or hearing the breathlessly inept reports of the technical aspects ("I looked at the wing and saw the rudders were down"). The federal government’s program of electronically eavesdropping on international phone calls is routinely referred to by media members as domestic wiretapping (I’m still trying to visualize how one can “wiretap” a wireless phone).
Reuters news agency, whose editorial policy prohibits the use of the descriptive term “terrorist” when reporting on al-qaeda jihadists or Palestinian suidide bombers, was caught passing off doctored photographs of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict last month. The photos attempted to show that the Israeli forces were using excessive force against innocent civilian populations, causing collateral damage, while ignoring the fact that Hezbollah was using them as human shields.
In delicious irony, the following week Reuters unveiled their new slogan for advertising how quickly they report what's going on in the world. In fact, I heard it on public radio the other morning. They claimed, "Before it's news, it's Reuters!"
I think that, in large part, that explains a lot of things!
