The Nuremberg Precedent (III)

This is a continuation of posts from five years ago about our collective responsibility for the actions of the then Bush Administration for the War in Iraq. It is food for thought that the Obama Administration may be continuing some of the same practices such as indefinite detention without trial and extraordinary rendition. Surely these two punitive practices are directly in contradiction to promises made during his campaign.

It is also interesting in retrospect to read the letter from Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to President Clinton in 1998 signed by many of the major players in the Iraq fiasco (see Stanislaw Lem for definition of fiasco). Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other players stated:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

---

The Nazis were masters at propaganda. They had had two decades of observation of the first modern Total-propaganda State, Bolshevik Russia. They learned their lessons well. So it is no wonder that we encounter statements in December, 1945, at the Nuremberg Trials such as the following:

SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): .... Hitler, the leader of the Nazi conspirators who are now on trial before you, is reported as having said, in reference to their warlike plans:

"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war, never mind whether it be true or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether he told the truth or not. In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but (in) victory the strongest has the right."

Recently, many have castigated Senator Boxer for having stated that Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) were the only reason why the Bush Administration took us to war. Unfortunately, as loyopp has pointed out, (January 27, 2005), while this may have been true in the minds of many, including the Senators who voted for the resolution, it may not have been the actual case. This is discussed in great detail by Mad Kane.

However, in reading Rice's comments, one must be struck by the propagandistic tenor of her contentions which she must have known were inflated.

Surely Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. felt that these inflated contentions would disappear in the aftermath of finding even one WMD and their invasion would be "justified." After all, Hitler did have some more or less valid issues with Poland and the rest of Europe (especially the treatment of Germany after WWI).

The only important factor here is the InterNet. In less than 100 years the world has gone from domination by propaganda to the ability to skewer such propaganda in a moment. Unfortunately, the unconnected masses (and I include Senators) have yet to learn.
Now, of course, in retrospect, we know how much these people lied. In particular is the infuriating confession by Paul Wolfowitz (who was a professor for several years at Georgetown University after leaving the Bush Administration):

It was, he says one of many reasons. The magazine quotes Mr Wolfowitz saying "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue – weapons of mass destruction – because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Evil has not become banal, it has become bureaucratic.

---

Addendum: A young couple came in today with their new baby. After the visit I asked what their insurance was and they said "TriCare," the military insurance. I asked the father where he was stationed and he said he was out of Fort Benning in Ga, but was deployed to Iraq (he was only back for a few days to see the baby). He was a tank driver but they "weren't using tanks now." They were "helping Iraq rebuild the country."

The Nuremberg Precedent (II)

I was wrong in a previous post. The Nazi organizations were indicted at Nuremberg. However, it was not possible to convict the subordinates under this indictment and the principal actors (Goering, etc.) were all tried as individuals.

The Indictment of Nazi Organizations
The indictment of Nazi organizations was designed to deal with the problem of what to do about the hundreds of thousands of people who had been members of organizations such as the SS and the Gestapo. The idea was to find them to have been criminal organizations, then hold hearings to determine the extent to which a member was guilty.

At the conclusion of the trial against the 21 individuals, the International Military Tribunal spent a month hearing testimony about the organizations.

The indictment of the organizations, however, raised a fundamental legal question: the legitimacy of creating a system of guilt by association. Although members of the criminal organizations were later tried by German denazification courts set up by the U.S. occupation government, no one was ever punished solely on the basis of the tribunal convictions.
Three of the six indicted organizations were found guilty. They were: the SS, the Gestapo and the Corps of the Political Leaders of the Nazi Party.

Three of the organizations were not convicted. They were: the SA (Hitler's street thugs, known as brownshirts, whose power had dwindled in the 1930s); the Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet) and General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces. The latter two organizations were determined to cover relatively few members so that it was deemed better to deal with them as individuals.

In spite of this, it raises serious questions about what we, as citzens of a democracy and thus responsible for our leaders, may be held accountable for vis a vis the War in Iraq. It is no secret that the German people, to this day, are held to blame for Hitler and his terrorism.

Through the years Germany has been desperate in its desire to be forgiven. To some extent it has a point. No nation has undergone greater self-examination about its direct role and complicity in mass murder than Germany has. There have been endless acknowledgments and meaningful gestures of restitution. Germany has been in an arrested state of moral inquiry, continually examining its character, seeking some clarity about the madness it once mindlessly saluted.

Given their good faith, the Germans are understandably left wondering: Is forgiveness ever forthcoming, or is our guilt eternal?

What we in America have done is to abandon this sense of responsibility that pervaded the world after the horror of WWII.

There was much discussion of the War in Iraq as a "just" war. This has a long history in the Catholic Church and is discussed here. It is my firm belief and that of many others that, at this time, there can be no justification for the War in Iraq under the Just War rubric.

If the War in Iraq is not "justified", then it is a war of aggression. Nuremberg addressed this next:

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
This evidence was presented by the British prosecutors and was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

This charge created problems for the prosecutors. Although Hitler had clearly waged an aggressive war, beginning with the invasion of Poland in 1939, Count Two was based on allegations that the Germans had violated international agreements such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Signatories to that agreement had renounced war as an instrument of national policy (as opposed, say, to defensive war), but the pact did not define "aggressive war" and did not spell out the penalties for its violation.

(The Anschluss and the invasion of Czechoslovakia were not held to be aggressive wars because Hitler had manipulated the political situation in each nation in order to avoid an invasion.)

The Soviet Union also had broken the Kellogg-Briand Pact by invading Finland, Poland and the Baltics, and had schemed with Hitler to sign the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 (which secretly divided Poland).

Robert Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor, wanted the International Military Tribunal to create new international law that would outlaw aggressive war. Clearly, the premise that it is possible to outlaw war is a questionable one

This is potent stuff. The United States was the founding member of the United Nations. The United Nations did not vote to approve the War in Iraq and, in addition to the aforementioned Kellog-Briand pact, it seems to me that we have violated the spirit if not the letter of international law.

The question comes down to "what did George W. Bush know and when did he know it." For months after the invasion, the administration continued to spout the contention that weapons of mass destruction existed. If they now say, as Condelezza Rice did at her confirmation hearings, that they really didn't feel that, one simply has to go to this link at the White House web page to see how disrespectful of the truth that is (link courtesy of loyopp).

What I am trying to do here, and it is an impossible task, is to remove myself from history and look on the current situation as if it had happened 50 years ago and the Bush Administration had been hauled before an International Court for the crime of an aggressive war. And I had been implicated because I was an American Citizen and sat by and did nothing.

Some thoughts from the past

I am going to post some thoughts I had over five years ago about the responsibility that we in America have for the torture and mistreatment of other human beings we have. This was probably incited by the revelations of what transpired at Abu Ghraib.

The Nuremberg Precedent I

(27 January 2005)

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on where we stand, there is a precedent for judging the current actions of the highest officials of the US Government with respect to their decisions in regard to other human beings, namely those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is important to note that Nuremberg, the trials for war crimes, was not against the organization to which the Nazi officials belonged, (in 1945-46, that no longer existed), but against individuals. Perforce, the individuals were judged vis a vis their actions as human beings with the criteria for judgment being the generally assumed laws of humanity. Most of the defendants were hung.

There are a number of web sites devoted to the Nuremberg Trials. I will be perusing these in the coming days to extract relevant information. Let me start with the following quote from here:

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You know what Aktion Kugel was: That escaped officers and noncommissioned officers, other than British and American, were to be handed over to the police and taken to Mauthausen, where they were shot by the device of having a gun concealed in the measuring equipment when they thought they were getting their prison clothes. You know what "Aktion Kugel" is, don't you?

GOERING: I heard of it here

Here the practice of taking prisoners to another facility to suffer a fate which the primary facility would not be responsible for is exposed. Is this not what happens to prisoners which we send to other countries via the "special airplane" which seems to ply its way between Guantanamo and countries that may use torture as a first resort?

Is not Goering here trying to escape responsibility by saying "I first heard of it here?"

Think about this. Is it not possible that some larger force might in the future have US government officials in the docket questioning them in this manner about our own extra legal maneuvers? Certainly the Nazi officials were doing what they felt they needed to do to guarantee their "security." Yet they were held for a personal, not institutional, responsibility.

The responsibility of the German people as a whole was not, to the best of my knowledge, addressed at Nuremberg. But that does not exonerate us. What responsibility do we now hold to confront injustices that may be similar to those existed in 1945?

I will answer that. I, you and the rest of America hold that responsibility and we had best get on with it in any way that we can.

Our Senate did not adequately confront either Condelezza Rice or Alberto Gonzales for the part that they have played in, if reports can be believed, the ongoing torture of captives.

This will not go away. It happened. It has to be addressed. Either now or later.

Friend?

---

Japan Has 'Priority' On Rights To Mine Afghanistan Mineral Deposits, Says friend Hamid Karzai

Seriously, I don't mind the loss of minerals (they aren't ours, after all) as much as all those poor fathers who either fly silently into Dover or, even worse, have scrambled brains for the rest of their life.

"Morally, Afghanistan should give access as a priority to those countries that have helped Afghanistan massively in the past few years," Karzai told the institute.

Sort of begs the definition of "morally" I would say.
(Would you buy a used car from this guy?)

---

Friday Crab Blogging

A (presumably) Jurassic crab found by our intrepid reporter from an underpass in Exmouth (Jurassic Coast themed mural by a local school)

This little guy just got in from rowing a galley for Ben Hur ("Ramming speed, Hortator!".) (Ben Hur was written by Lew Wallace, an incredibly interesting man. He was Governor of the New Mexico territory when Billy the Kid was doing his thing.)

Mid Week Crab Catchup

I'll get back to crabbing on Friday but, if there are any interested readers out there, please travel on over to the post on JSBlog entitled "In search of the ochidore."

In addition to a beautiful picture of a crab (not true blue, mind you, but still quite attractive) you can meander through the lexicographic jungle with our Devonshire guide.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

---

These children of Gaza are looking for food in garbage. In a surprise, and gracious, move Israel has allowed "soda, juice, jam, spices, shaving cream (!), potato chips, cookies and candy" into the blockaded zone. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said his country is committed to ensuring that "the civilian population of Gaza will receive civilian goods" (I assume he is referring to Israeli garbage).

Children are children. From here:

President Obama called for a "new approach" on the blockade (while crossing his fingers and accepting a check from the AIPAC.)

.

Friday Crab Blogging (late)

---

Once again our wide ranging correspondents (from here and here)have uncovered specimens of a both historic and cultural interest.

In the first instance, we have samples from that emporium of renown, Harrods. One sincerely hopes that all the crustaceans on offer there are not quite so crunchy. In particular, since rock crabs "...are aggressive monsters that look like harmless rocks while they are sleeping, and wake up and attack unsuspecting players that pass by," caveat emptor.

(Noted in passing: the English Pound, that funny letter "L," seems to have suffered a rather severe devaluation if one has to fork out 6,000 of them for one measly crab.)

---

Next we have a rather interesting addition also in the rather petrified genre.

One feels a little like Monsieur Holmes (excuse me, Poirot) when trying to dissect, or otherwise disassemble this picture. Firstly, this crab appears to be surrounded by jewelery or similar artifacts. There is, of course, the watch. Close attention shows that whilst the minute hand is on the "nine" the hour hand has just passed the "four." Clearly this is not Switzerland. A clue to the crab's locale, in addition to the funny L, can be found in the wording pasted atop the watch: "Please remove plastic wedge from winder." In this case, "wedge" is the clue. This also indicates that the watch is upside down so, just maybe, it is Switzerland. (Also used with "wood," as in Wedgewood.) The watch is certainly new since it is on a backing in addition to the aforementioned tape. This suggests that this is not someone's upper chest drawer, but in an emporium. We strongly doubt it is Harrod's.

It is unclear what the object above the watch is. Perhaps a bracelet of pewter? (This brings up the question of why more habitues of ale houses didn't get lead poisoning, but we will let that go for now.) The object immediately above the crab appears to be a ornamented metal container, on top of which is a key? with a tag attached. Very interesting.

Finally, the crab. This appears to be of porcelain. This is of interest because the name porcelain derives from the Italian for a cowry shell, another marine animal. Since porcelain was not available in Europe before the 18th century (a good book to read about the European discovery of porcelain is Arcanum: The Extraordinary True Story), this is more evidence of a contemporary venue.

In any case, the crab appears to be of Art Deco design. The claws are attached to the main body and I suspect that it is also some type of jewelry case since it almost appears in relief. This then suggests that these objects are found in the local antique or second hand store.

It is a nice crab.

Here is a contribution from Lindsey:

That black thing is a net (little does she know that crabs are not caught in nets) and the crab is wearing glasses because, of course, so does Dr. C.!

I want out of here but there's no place to go

Say it isn't so, Joe.

Four shots to the head in "self defense." Sort of stops any conversation in its tracks.

Update, 06/04:
Still, he acknowledged that Israel might object to the 500 tons of cement on board, which the army maintains the militants can use to fight it.

Cement? Yes, yes. The perfect nuclear deterrent.

Friday Crab Blogging

I had to include this one because his father is actually a Waterman. Unfortunately, my staff gave him pink paper to draw on so it didn't scan as well as white.

Friday Crab Blogging

---

Rand (as in Atlas Shrugged) Paul seems to think that the oil spill in the Gulf is no big deal. Perhaps he should talk to this fellow.

Sands of Sorrow

If you have a chance, watch this video about the Palestinian Refugees that was made in 1950.

Sands of Sorrow

It is filmed in Gaza. Of note is that there are no veils on the women and they seemed fully integrated into the camp society. Another item that struck me was that only one out of five newborns survived. Little is made of the Muslim religion except to mention that prayer was a part of the culture. By necessity, I suspect, there was no mention of why the refugee problem existed. The commentator does mention that the refugees fully expected to return to their homes, and this was why they brought little with them.

Many of the children in the film will be in their sixties, if they survived. I wonder how they feel watching this film.

Friday Crab Blogging

---

First we have a notable event. A true break with tradition. Namely, never before have we been sent a guest crustacean that is NOT A CRAB. Today it is different. Wat we received was close to a crab, but no cigar. However, in the interest of good will between the U.S. and that place with the funny government across the pond, we publish a guest lobster.

---

---

---

---

The Four Choices

Juan Cole had a post up the other day referencing a speech given at the Palestine Center in Washington, D.C., by Professor John J. Mearsheimer, a commentator on the influence of the Israel Lobby on American politics (see his book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy ). As can be imagined, anyone who focuses attention on the actions of such a group comes under vitriolic criticism. But that is another story. What I wanted to comment on here is the four scenarios that Mearsheimer outlines in his speech as to the possible outcomes in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As a preamble, Mearsheimer defines Greater Israel as all the land from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean. This encompasses the West Bank, current Israel, all of Jerusalem and Gaza.
From here:

1. The first outcome would be that desired by most Palestinians (though he does remark on the lack of agreement amongst the Palestinians themselves both as to what would be acceptable in a settlement and who speaks for them). This outcome would the the much discussed "Two State Solution." In order to accomplish this, Israel would have to withdraw basically to its 1967 borders and Palestine would have its capitol in Jerusalem. Furthermore the new Palestine would have to have governmental autonomy with sovereignty of its land and airspace. I will forego discussion of the ramifications of this possible outcomes but one can imagine that this would not, under any circumstances, be acceptable to the current government (and population) of Israel. In consequence, the probability of this course is minimal.

2. The second outcome would be very odious. It would involve Israel, on some pretext related to terrorism, to remove Arabs from Israel proper and the occupied territories to "somewhere else." Quite frankly, this would be ethnic cleansing. Israel has already made some moves in this direction by passing a law enabling it, in its own eyes, to expel certain Palestinians from the West Bank. However, the tolerance of World opinion (except the United States) would be exceedingly low and it is hard to see how Israel could accomplish this without widespread bloodshed. Interestingly enough, this is the outcome most desired by the American Christian Zionists, a surprisingly influential segment of our population. The reason has nothing to do with the Israeli Jews, who would suffer a not nice outcome, but because this would usher in the "end times" of Revelation.

3. The third outcome is, in my mind, would the the fairest for both Israeli and Palestinians. It would involve Greater Israel to evolve rapidly into a single country composed of both Arabs and Jews. Because of the demographics, politics would be dominated by Arabs and government would, by necessity, be secular. The Palestinians have a history of secular governments, though militant Islam is always a threat. It is almost impossible to conceive of Israeli Jews, particularly the Zionists, accepting this development. Of interest in this scenario is the position of the ultra orthodox Jews in Israel because of their high birth rate. Apparently, a female of this persuasion will have between seven and eight babies in their reproductive years. Mearsheimer states that the first grades of Israeli schools are composed of 50% of a combination of Palestinians and ultra orthodox Jews.

4. The fourth outcome, which Mearsheimer thinks is the most likely, is the evolution of the current situation on the West Bank with settlers taking over increasing territory and forcing Palestinians into isolated enclaves or Bantustans, effectively converting Greater Israel into an Apartheid State. In order to preserve the position of Jews and the vision of Zionism, Palestinians would be relegated to closely controlled areas (as they are now. for an excellent first hand view of this see here) and there would be continued pressure on them to "go elsewhere." While this out might have some short term survival, in the end, it will ultimately break down, as it did in South Africa, though given the history of the Middle East this breakdown is much more likely to be violent. As mentioned above, it is this outcome that Mearsheimer thinks to be the most likely.

I think that this analysis, while individual points might be questioned or disputed, sums up in a general way the situation in that small area of the World is going. Small, but of of incredible importance. Again, my own worry is that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and while it has not used them to date, I am sure it would have no compunction to do so if it felt "threatened." Since there is, at the moment, no other nuclear state in the region, in spite of all of Obama's efforts, it is only a matter of time before Iran produces a bomb to counter Israel's threat. I would assume that Iran's science is far superior to that of North Korea. That it does not at the moment possess enough fissionable Uranium (we think) is of no consequence. If Iran feels sufficiently thwarted, they will produce it. The continued intransigence of the United States and Israel to a reasonable solution to the Israeli/Palestine conflict (not to forget the 8 years of negligence under Bush II) may well be the prime motivator for Iranian nuclear proliferation.

Crab Lovers Everywhere

The results of the 2010 Big Crab Drawing Contest are now up here. Enjoy!

Friday Crab Blogging (late)

We have an excellent collection of crabs today. Also, stay tuned, the second annual Big Crab Drawing Contest is in full swing and I should shortly have the winners on the Big Crab Contest blog.

One should notice that this is one of the true blue crabs that we have seen. Little does he know he is about to turn bright orange.

Wyatt had a little trouble with the second claw (or cheliped), or maybe the crab got in a fight over a she crab. I don't know why two guys ever would, all them gals end up as soup anyway.

In any case: Crabs can also hear and produce a variety of sounds. In courtship some species attract the females attention by banging their cheliped on the ground or vibrating their walking legs. Each species has its own unique sound that can attract a female or intimidate a competing male.

Mikayla has got the anatomy right, except that the antenna seem to have another set of eyes.

You might think that this is just a happy little fellow until you realize those are claws

I had to include this even though there were no crabs. It is something out of Tim Burton. I think those are geese flying in formation in the sky, but who knows. Could be a pirate, too.

This is Madalyn

And this is her sister Anna who does not, in real life, have a crooked smile.

Guest Post

Recently I was contacted by an excellent blogger, Barbara O'Brien of Mahablog, to see if I was interested in posting a guest comment. I find that her observations below are very reasonable on this subject and quite in line with mine. It is one of the hardest things for me as an American to see how a large segment of our citizens can fall for the lies promulgated by the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, particularly as it concerns health reform. We have always considered ourselves exceptional. Now I realize this refers to the exceptionally misguided direction that so many of us take.

Health Care Reform: The Morning After

Many politicians and pundits warned us that the health care reform (HCR) legislation that just became law will destroy America. Government bureaucrats will take over health care decisions, we were told. The old and infirm would be hauled away by death panels. Everything about the way we receive our medical care will change, and change drastically, they said.

Medicare recipients have been frightened by stories that their benefits will be cut. Middle-age people are worried they will lose their jobs when the law’s dreaded regulations, or taxes, or maybe regulations with taxes, would destroy their employers’ businesses.

The truth is, very little will change for most people. If you were insured by employee benefits before HCR, you will be insured by exactly the same policy in exactly the same way after HCR. You will have access to the same doctors on the same terms. “Government bureaucrats” will no more be involved in your health care than they were before.

And the same is true of Medicare, which of course is a government program, although many of the people who opposed the HCR bill don’t seem to know that.

Here are the “cataclysmic” changes to health care that are now in effect, or which will go into effect within the next six months for people who are already in group insurance plans:

The law says you can’t lose your insurance coverage because you get sick. Before, in many states, if you were stricken with a severe illness such as mesothelioma cancer that would be expensive to treat, your insurer could use just about any excuse to cancel your coverage. That is over.

HCR has ended lifetime limits on coverage. As long as you are receiving medical care, your insurer pays the bills.

Your children can be covered on your existing policy until they are 26 years old.

In six months, insurers cannot refuse to insure people under the age of 19 because of “pre-existing conditions.” This provision will go into effect for everyone in 2014.

And if you are on Medicare, you will be asked to struggle with the following:

You get a free annual checkup.

The co-pays and deductibles on many preventive care services are eliminated.

If you are in the Medicare D “doughnut hole,” you will get a $250 rebate check in a few weeks. The hole itself will be closed gradually and will be gone by 2020.

But what about all those terrible regulations and taxes that are about to drive businesses out of business? Um, there really isn’t much to report. Oh, wait, here’s one — a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps will go into effect July 1. That’s about it.

However, beginning this year a tax credit will be available for some small businesses to help provide insurance coverage for employees.

Soon the politicians and pundits will start trying to frighten you about the provisions that will go into effect after this year. I assure you they are about as scary as the provisions that go into effect this year, but I will discuss them in a follow-up post.

— Barbara O’Brien

Friday Crab Blogging (on Sunday)

A dearth of crabs this week due to unforeseen circumstances. However....

This drawing is interesting because when asked what was the brown coloring around the flowers, the artist replied "its the air." I know we've got pollution but I think she was referring to the pollen that has invested our area this past month.

Around here if you ain't crabby, you ain't nuthin:

Crab-Henge

An astute reader has suggested that two drawings by local crab artists are very reminiscent of Stone-Henge.

Here are the two drawings:

The reader is quite right. There is a remarkable resemblance at least in terms of a circle of plinths. In addition to Stone-Henge, this circle can be found in other architectural structures in cluding the Great Stupa of Sanchi.

One question becomes whether the Neolithic builders of Stone-Henge could have visualized being above the structure, thus visualizing the circle. I think we must assume that they did given the existence of the Peruvian geoglyphs, "The Monkey" being the most famous.

These drawing are of truly giant scale with the largest being 600 meters across (two football fields). One of the theories for their purpose is that they were drawn by the Nazca for their gods who were in the sky. The conclusion here is that they could picture themselves as if they were the gods looking down. This is actually quite an accomplishment since I doubt our closest animal relatives have this ability.

Back to Stone-Henge. What should we make of this desire to make an interrupted circle? 

The thinker who came to mind was Carl Jung. As you will recall this was a psychologist who was a student with Freud but then eventually developed his own school. (Carl Jung appears on the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band album cover in the top row between Poe and W.C. Fields.)

While it has been years since I have read Jung (and not much then) I seem to remember his study of archetypes and how it was felt that they were buried in the unconscious. From here:

In Jung's psychology an archetype is an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.

This is an absolutely delicious tidbit of information. It proposes for evolutionary psychology a mode of inheritance that would be Lamarckian in biological evolution. However, for whatever reason, I do think that humans have conceptual archetypes that help us in our understanding of the world. And, I suspect, one of them is a circle (safety, defense, etc.) Why the plinths should appear in the circle I don't know. Kids do tend to draw circles when they scribble.

Friday Crab Blogging (late)

---

A little late with the crabs, got called to a delivery:

No, you are right, this is not a crab. It is, TA DA: A Ferris Wheel!!