Cats in Art: Stone Carving in Libya

Ran across across a photo of this neat stone engraving, that also embodies the theme of the cat in art:

 

Image credit Hakeem Gadi on Wikimedia, here, engraving of Fighting Cats at Mathendous, Libya.

 

I saw a real cat fight once--not a domestic squabble display like many of us see daily in our homes--but rather a full-on, no holds barred heavy duty cat fight in a barnyard.

 

The nearest thing I can compare it to is the standard cartoon depiction of a cat fight, where a writhing ball of fur spins around like a miniature tornado.  The fur flew, literally.  And the sounds: screaming meows, wailing, yelps of pain.  It was a jaw-dropping experience that I've never forgotten, nor would you if see one.

 

The cats in the engraving look like they are ready to rumble, and not for play either.

 

So...I wonder what compelled the unknown stone carver, of all the myriad subjects he could have chosen, to do an engraving of cats?  Also, I wonder about the scale of this engraving--there is no way to tell from the image or from the accompanying data exactly how large the cats are.  To me, they certainly appear to be much larger than life size, but I am speculating.

 

At any rate, they are locked for eternity in their pre-fight posturing, a moment before the fight begins in earnest.

 

 

Shades of Gray

From Pharyngula, always a great read.  This must have been triggered by our involvement in long-distance death in Libya.

PZ Myers doesn't mince words, he's an all-out pacifist:

Sometimes, issues demand nuance. This is a complicated world and there are a great many subjects that simply aren't reducible to binaries - we do a disservice to the subtleties when we discard them in favor of absolutes. And often I can agree that we need depth and breadth of understanding if we're to navigate a difficult situation.

But sometimes the issues are black and white. Sometimes the answers are clear and absolute. And in those cases, attempts to bring out the watercolors and soften the story by blurring the edges do a disservice to reality. There are places where there are no ambiguities, and the only appropriate response is flat condemnation. And we witness them every day.

And PZ goes on to describe what it means to be a party to killing.  I've snipped a lot out, and you should click over to read it all.  He explores the queasy truth, that most of us can't and won't kill....yet we have few qualms about engaging proxies to kill for us, often at a distance. 

PZ Myers forces us to realize that it's still really our finger on the trigger.

I'm an extremist in this debate, I will freely confess. I hold an absolute view that no killing is ever justified, that individuals have the necessity to defend themselves against assailants, but that even that does not grant moral approval to snuffing out the life of another. Don't even try to pull out a scale and toss a copy of the Koran on one side and the life of a single human being on the other - the comparison is obscene. Do not try to tell me that some people are 'moderates' when they tolerate or even support and applaud war and death and murder for any cause, whether it is oil, or getting even, or defending the honor of wood pulp and ink.

The bone is bleached white. The flesh is burnt black. The blood splashes scarlet. You can't render it in grays and pastels without losing sight of the truth.

In the end, you sleep in the most notoriously uncomfortable of all beds, the one you make yourself.  PZ's post made me uncomfortable, and it should you as well.

 

Unilateral Wars

From the never-disappointing blog, Lawyers, Guns & Money, a post called "Death and Taxes,", by Paul Campos. 

This goes along with a previous post of mine, euphemistically called Kinetic Military Action (as though a war by any other name isn't really a war), about how the expenditure of millions of dollars--when we theoretically are BROKE--was scarcely acknowledged, much less vigorously debated:

I suspect James Madison et. al. would be appalled to discover that it would eventually become much harder for presidents to pursue even the most modest aspects of their preferred domestic policies than it would be for them to launch, with no congressional participation of any kind, unilateral wars against nations that hadn't attacked America, and posed no threat to our security.

 

Libya...and the Constitution

I'm not going to get into the pros and the cons, I'm not a Mideastern expert.  But what I would like to explore a bit is the process by which we began to hurl Tomahawk missiles at COL Kaddafi's air defenses.

From Glenn Greenwald:

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country -- especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense -- but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when -- during the campaign -- he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA:  The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, reserves to Congress the power to declare war.  For some reason President Obama did not seek such a declaration from Congress, nor has Congress taken any concrete steps to debate the notion of military enforcement of a Libyan no-fly zone.

Matt Yglesias has more.  He also points out the same disconnect above between Obama's words then, as a senator, and now, as the President.  Matt then goes on to talk about the abdication by Congress of the authority to use our military:

But the one observation I would make about this, is that while the trend toward undeclared military incursions is often described as a kind of presidential "power grab" it's much more accurately described as a congressional abdication of responsibility. Even if you completely leave the declaration of war business aside, congress' control over the purse strings still gives a determined congressional majority ample latitude to restrain presidential foreign policy. The main reason congress tends, in practice, not to use this authority is that congress rarely wants to. Congressional Democrats didn't block the "surge" in Iraq, congressional Republicans didn't block the air war in Kosovo, etc. And for congress, it's quite convenient to be able to duck these issues. Handling Libya this way means that those members of congress who want to go on cable and complain about the president's conduct are free to do so, but those who don't want to talk about Libya can say nothing or stay vague. Nobody's forced to take a vote that may look bad in retrospect, and nobody in congress needs to take responsibility for the success or failure of the mission. If things work out well in Libya, John McCain will say he presciently urged the White House to act. If things work out poorly in Libya, McCain will say he consistently criticized the White House's fecklessness. Nobody needs to face a binary "I endorse what Obama's doing / I oppose what Obama's doing" choice.

Which is all just to say that presidents will go back to accepting congressional authorization for the use of force as a binding constraint when congress starts actually wanting that authority.

Take a stand, Congress, that's why you're there!