There's a discussion going on on AFU that's reached the topic of what animals see when they look in a mirror.

Personally, my theory is that most animals see... their reflections, because while they might not have cognitive powers to the degrees humans have, they aren't THAT stupid. After all, it's always been intuitively obvious to us what's on the other side of that reflective surface - even if it's just a puddle. Sure, you'll see your bird doing displays at it as if to impress or intimidate the other bird - or maybe the bird's just going "Wow, I look COOL doing this!"

This would be why Spike's reaction to a mirror, the first time I showed him one, was to look, evince body language which suggested the notion "Oh. Right. Well, whatever," and wander away. And yes, I realise cats are one of the most self-aware animal types out there, but most people seem to assume that cats think the mirror shows another cat.

This would not be how Spike reacts to other cats.

Argh. It's such a superiority complex thing, and it's all on a continuum with the ridiculous paternalism you end up with people feeling towards "inferior" people, be they inferior by virtue of social class or race. Yes, applying to to people is a different scale of unworthy assumption, but it's just scale, not concept!

I feel strongly about some very odd things.

This is very wrong, on so many levels, many of which the linked article covers. (In case you're wondering why I link to so many New York Times articles - partly, they have good stuff, partly, it's that I get e-mails of the day's headlines from them.)

I've been reading a book about Urban Legends in South Africa around the time of the 1994 elections. It's interesting reading. (Ink in the Porridge, by Arthur Goldstuck.)

One of the things that a substantial section of the book is about is the fear of what the author terms the "White Apocalypse" - all the rumours and fears and panics that were parodied in Madam and Eve but which genuinely frightened people. Most of them seemed to be based on the idea that once the blacks had power, they'd "retaliate" - a telling choice of word. Goldstuck doesn't quite say it, but he implies heavily that a big part of why, beyond all possibility of reason, logic or sanity, so many whites were in terror of retribution and chaos was that they knew they deserved it.

Which doesn't mean I'm anything but against Mugabe, mind you. And I still hate Mandela.

Goldstuck mentions Zimbabwe in a positive light for post-black-empowerment equality, quoting Robert Mugabe stating his position that Zimbabwe would be a place of welcome for all races, and that no-one would have their property taken away...

... of course, that was in 1980.

Project Summer: Acquire new l33t skillz in the area, most especially, of web design and suchlike. Apply creativity also, and design kickass new website, whether or not I have somewhere to put it. (Existing website does not, alas, kick any ass at all. Fortunately it also avoids sucking overmuch.)

I'm also wanting to ramp up the content factor on my website - finish old half-done things like NRT (assuming, of course, I can remember what that was supposed to be) and get my Hyperlink writing project under way and get a proper photo gallery going and and and.

So much to do, so much creative block to overcome first.

Web-log time.

This article isn't particularly interesting for the most part, unless you're American, which let us face it most people who read this aren't, but it has one interesting bit - describes Jean-Marie le Pen as a "nativist" politician, which is fascinating for reasons that you probably won't get or care about unless you're as much into the variegated political and historical everythings I've taken to noticing and grooving on since I got into modern history.

(It's a shame blogger can't do cut-texts like LiveJournal can.)

Essentially, it's an intriguing word for the specific kind of radical nationalism le Pen preaches - especially since the politics of ethnicity he's taken on hearken intriguingly back to pre-war and inter-war fascist and protofascist politics (which, let's face it, the whole world has noticed) and so on. Of course, the rapid slide towards totalitarianism is all about the US right now (which Kit documents quite nicely, poor thing).

More fun is this article from the New York Times about, of all things, The Sims. Worth a read. (And worth the free and relatively painless registration process at the NY Times. Yes, I know registration is annoying and lame.)