Birding at Meiji and Tama
I got up early yesterday morning so I could get a bit of birding on, and the day proved a fine one to do it–clear and warm. I figured that the river is always a good bet, so I stopped there on the way in, and sure enough, there were the cormorants–this time resting on the banks with an egret. I also figured out that good lighting helps with the long-range photography, at least with my camera, and got the best views of the cormorants yet. And that they are Japanese Cormorants, not Greats as I though–they have white chin and breast feathers, while the Great Cormorants are all black.
And in this last one, I even caught a Little Grebe passing through–this being a 3-bird combination that’s probably not too common…
After the river, I headed on into Tokyo proper, and went to Meiji Shrine before going to work. I did spot one new bird–a Siskin, I think–but I didn’t get a photo or even a very good look. But all the rest were birds that I’d seen before. I didn’t catch the Great Tits (I’m still getting used to saying that) that I saw in the brush–they moved too quickly. But I did get great shots of Tree Sparrows and a Wagtail:
But the big surprise was in the ducks. After I spotted a relatively ordinary Mallard…
…I spied a pair of Mandarin Ducks by the lakeside, and got some great shots of one, and of the pair:
Amazing-looking creatures, those. I still have yet to figure out what those tan flaps are on their sides, how they work… you have to wonder at how this duck developed, it’s so ornate. But then I got a surprise. I followed one into the brush beside the lake… and happened into a whole flock of them resting on the shore. The following is just a part of the flock, more than a dozen males and some females.
Quite a sight if you’re not expecting it.
Everyone has an opinion. So you surely may have yours on the Schievo murder. No matter what you say, it is wrong to starve a human being to death. If any of us here in the US were to starve our pets, we would be arrested for animal cruelty.
There is no written proof Terrie said any of the things her husband or her friends say she did. No written word. In any small claims court, you must have proof of the problem to win a case. There is no proof here. None.
Michael Schievo has alterior motives for his wanting his wife dead. He has book options once Terri is dead.
He has a mistress. Two illegitimate babies. He is an adultier. He is not the loving husband. He abandoned his marriage vows by taking a mistriss. Can you not see this?
I am amazed at the ignorance of the world. It is full of it. So sad.
Suni:
First, it would be best to post a comment in an appropriate topic–this post is on birdwatching, where no one will be looking for or reading Schiavo comments.
Re: your comments:
The analogy of starving pets and starving a human being is only pertinent if you believe that Terri is still alive in the real sense. How can you see someone as being alive and functioning without a cerebral cortex? If someone is in a PVS, then there is no person. If I believed that Terri Schiavo was still alive, then “murder” and “starvation” would be relevant terms, ergo our disagreement. But if you also read my most recent post, you’ll see that I do not agree with the starvation method of granting Terri’s wishes on the matter–just as it would be not socially acceptable to starve a pet, even if it were as lifeless as Terri’s body is now. We would put the animal “to sleep,” which would carry the same responsibility as “allowing starvation.” No one would object to putting an animal in that state to sleep. Why should we be any less humane to a human being?
As for any “written word,” there is none stating proof either way–and leaving someone’s body to continue in that state after the person is gone is considered by many a fate worse than death, so the default cannot be simply to let Terri’s body waste away with no real life for decades on end. That’s worse than starvation in the eyes of many. You clearly do not understand that.
But there is proof of her wishes, though not written: three witnesses testified as to her clear wishes on the matter. Do you believe that there is a conspiracy to murder her that goes beyond Michael Schiavo?
As for book options: possible, but you know that he has not stated any plans for doing so, nor has he made any deals. You are speculating, pure and simple, and are probably wrong: were he to suddenly announce a book deal after Terri’s body passes, for any amount, he would immediately vilified far more than he is today, making his public life unbearable–and it is more than likely that publishers would not be enthusiastic about making any such deals.
Either way, it is intellectually dishonest to blame the man for something you think he might be capable of doing in the future.
As for his “mistress and illegitimate children,” that is purely a legal distinction, and could be seen as a point of honor rather than a mark of shame: that in order to carry out Terri’s wishes–which he can only do if he is her husband–he has sacrificed the normal status of marriage and (again) has been vilified by many, for the sole purpose of honoring Terri’s memory and doing what she asked. Terri died in truth years before Michael Schiavo met his new wife; and if your wife is dead, then remarrying and having children is not a sin. It is only legally “adultery” because Schiavo has sacrificed that legal status for the sake of Terri.
As you said, everyone has an opinion. And the difference between yours and mine is chiefly based upon the assumption that Terri is dead or that she is still alive.
Have you really researched the matter? I mean, really looked at all the data, not just the right-to-life propaganda? Have you read doctor’s reports–not just the one from the discredited quack Hammesfahr? Have you looked at *all* the facts? I highly doubt it. You should.