News Feeds

It’s one of those weeks when I don’t really have a lot to say based on what’s happening, nor any juicy articles to analyze or criticize. Instead, I’d like to start a discussion.

Here’s the question, which could be phrased in several ways: “Does America want Israel to lose the war with Hamas?” Or, “Does the U.S. care much if Israel loses the war?” or, perhaps the least debatable question: “Is the U.S. doing things that will help Hamas win the war?”  (I think the answer to the last question is “of course,” though the U.S. may not be doing it with that intention.)

One thing is for sure: if Israel is to win, Hamas must be eliminated and there can be no cease-fire long enough to enable them to resume power.  You don’t win a war with terrorists without destroying their organization,

Yet here’s what we see (or rather, what I see)::

• Chuck Schumer is calling for elections to depose Netanyahu, right in the middle of a war. This is us interfering with a democracy, and is inappropriate. I believe Netanyahu, now that the war has begun, is doing a pretty good job. I’m pretty sure he’ll be deposed when the war is over, and I’m not a big fan of his. But to call for his replacement now?
• Israel is allowing as much humanitarian aid into Gaza as arrives; it’s certainly not stopping humanitarian aid. But of course the world thinks otherwise. I’ve never seen a country act this way; certainly during Vietnam the public didn’t demand that we provide humanitarian aid to the North Vietnamese or South Vietnamese civilians fighting us.  And in that case the U.S. did very little to avoid killing civilians; indeed, they wiped out whole villages of civilians indiscriminately.
• Biden and many others are demanding that the IDF do not take Rafah (remember, Israel does have a plan to evacuate civilians there). But if Israel doesn’t take Rafah, then Hamas will stay in power for sure.
• During last night in Gaza, the IDF attacked Al-Shifa hospital. Hamas had returned there to resume its occupancy, and fired on Israelis approaching the hospital.  During the ensuing fight, many terrorists were killed as well as one IDF soldier, but no civilians were killed. The IDF even brought doctors in case patients needed extra care. Yet the world is baying at what Israel did.  How dare they go back into a hospital. Apparently the IDF should have let Hamas take over the hospital, but of course Hamas, in doing so, was committing a war crime. Nobody worries about Hamas’s war crimes, though; once again Israel is held accountable.
• Blinken has proclaimed that it should be Israel’s highest priority to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians.  That’s not what you say to an ally prosecuting a war and already trying to kill as few civilians as possible.
• The death tolls provided all come from Hamas, which doesn’t distinguish between terrorists and real civilians. And “children”, to Hamas, are anybody under 18, which can and does include many members of Hamas. Yet these figures are all taken to represent “civilians.”  I suspect, but don’t know, that they include many more terrorists than the media implies.
• The U.S. has blown hot and cold on a ceasefire. If there is a permanent ceasefire now, Israel has lost, for Hamas will regroup, recoup, and take up power in Gaza again, as well as continuing to steal aid sent for humanitarian reasons
• The U.S. has floated the idea that postwar Gaza should be governed by the Palestinian Authority, one of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard. The P.A. is a corrupt, Jew-hating, and terrorist-promoting organization, still handing out money to terrorists who kill Jews—the “pay for slay” program.
• Americans are touting the two-state idea as a “solution.” It is not a solution—at least not right now. It is a recipe for more enmity and killing. Palestine never wanted it (it wants one state run by Arabs), and now Israel doesn’t want it, either. Only the addle-brained thinks that this will bring peace.

And, of course, we hear little from anybody about the war crimes or perfidies of Hamas.  Americans seem willing to exchange 1,000 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails for what must be now only about 100 hostages. Does anybody think about whether that’s a fair deal? Further, all the news about casualties we read in the news comes from Hamas, but is presented as “the facts.”

These matters make me wonder what the deuce the U.S. intends by behaving this way. What does it want? You may respond that Israel, on its side, has no plan for how to deal with postwar Gaza, and perhaps that’s true, though I’m pretty sure this is an object of serious discussion in the war cabinet. But Job One is for Israel to win the war, and it can do that only by taking Rafah and, as it does so, kill as few civilians as possible. (Of course we see little in the media about the Hamas strategy of trying to get Palestinians killed to sway world opinion. People who think that Hamas is desperate to prevent the killing of Palestinian civilians are simply wrong. Part of Hamas’s strategy is to gain the world’s sympathy by getting its own civilians killed and then calling attention to that.)

In the end, does the U.S. not want Israel to win this war, or achieve only a partial victory, if that’s even possible?  Sure, Biden, conscious of the votes he needs from young pro-Palestinian Americans as well as Muslim-Americans, is constantly hedging his bets, but all the points above have not only baffled me, but, as someone on Israel’s side, produced a real emotional and political roller-coaster ride.

Discuss!

No matter what mode of transportation you take for a long trip, at some point, you’ll have to refuel. For cars, this could be a simple trip to a gas station, while planes, trains, and ships have more specialized refueling services at their depots or ports. However, for spacecraft, there is currently no refueling infrastructure whatsoever. And since the fuel spacecraft use must be stored cryogenically, and the tanks the fuel is stored in are constantly subjected to the thermal radiation from the Sun, keeping enough fuel in a tank for a trip to Mars with astronauts is currently infeasible. Luckily, NASA is currently working on it and recently released a detailed look at some of that work on a blog on their website.

The problem definition is very clear – cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen are used as fuel on most spacecraft missions. Once in space, the tanks the fuel is stored in heat up due to the constant solar radiation they’re subjected to. Since there’s no air, there’s no way to radiate out that heat, so eventually, it can get through even the most sophisticated passive thermal insulation system. When it does, the fuel starts to boil, and mission planners typically have chosen to eject the vaporous fuel out into space rather than leaving it as a potential medium to heat the rest of the fuel faster.

This resultant fuel lost to this sublimation can cost as much as half of the cryogenic fuel needed for a 3-year mission to Mars – in just a single year. In short, crewed trips to Mars are impossible using the current fuel storage technology in space. However, there are alternatives, known as Zero Boil-Off (ZBO) or Reduced Boil-Off (RBO) systems. These advanced tanks use a combination of “active” processes to maintain tank pressure and not allow too much loss of fuel during long space flights.

Fraser makes an argument for why refueling is so critical.

An “active” process must be actively controlled and typically requires some sort of power input. In particular, ZBO systems rely on two technology ideas – a jet mixing of the propellant and a droplet injection technology. Let’s take a look at the mixing technology first.

In this example, part of the fuel would be forcibly mixed back into the vapor space in a particular way that would allow it to control the phase changes of the vapor/fuel interface. In essence, it would stop the fuel from sublimating into a vapor in the first place. Similarly, a droplet injection system would use a novel type of spray bar to inject fuel droplets into the vapor area, causing it to condense and remove some of the pressure from the system.

To add another layer of complexity to these already complicated fluid dynamics systems, this all must be done in microgravity, where things like droplet formation and liquid mixing don’t always happen the same way as they do on Earth. So, NASA decided to do what it does best and run some experiments – in this case on the ISS.

Image of the ZBOT-1 experiment being installed on the ISS by astronaut Joseph Acaba.
Credit – NASA

Back in 2017, NASA started the ZBOT-1 Experiment on the ISS. It was intended to quantify how the jet mixing would behave in microgravity, and the result of some 30+ tests was that we still understand very little about how these systems work in microgravity. While how they were is different than what most fluid engineers are used to, they are still acting according to physical laws, so more experiments would help narrow down the models that tank designers can use to understand how these ZBO systems might best be used.

Two other experiments are focused on furthering that understanding – one called the ZBOT-NC Experiment, is due to be launched to the ISS in 2025. It will study the effects of microgravity on “non-condensable gases,” which can be used to control the pressure inside the fuel tank. Data from its observations can also be fed into the CFD models, allowing scientists to understand better how the model differs from reality in microgravity.

The final test in the series will focus on droplet phase changes. Known as the ZBOT-DP test, this is the most ambitious of the three, as it tests a technology that has never been used in microgravity at all before. It will focus on understanding how droplets interact with their surroundings, including superheated tank walls, in microgravity environments. They could eventually lead to a fully functional droplet system and an active control system to ensure no tank boil-off happens.

The idea of in-space refueling has been around for a long time, as this VideoFromSpace feature shows.
Credit – VideosFromSpace YouTube Channel / NASA Technology

That’s still a long way off those, with no planned date for the ZBOT-DP test. Given the importance of this technology to missions like the crewed Artemis mission planned in the next few years, it seems that the successful completion of these experiments and the design and testing of a fully ZBO fuel tank should be very high on NASA’s priority list. While the agency’s already supporting it, let’s hope that the researchers involved can prove their ideas before they’re needed for a real human mission.

Learn More:
NASA – Zero-Boil-Off Tank Experiments to Enable Long-Duration Space Exploration
UT – Why Build Big Rockets at All? It’s Time for Orbital Refueling
UT – There’s Now a Gas Station… In Space!
UT – Robotics Refueling Research Scores Huge Leap at Space Station

Lead Image:
The Gateway space station—humanity’s first space station around the Moon—will be capable of being refueled in space.
Credits: NASA

The post NASA is Working on Zero-Boil Off Tanks for Space Exploration appeared first on Universe Today.

A southern mammoth skeleton found in Spain bears cut marks from stone tools and bite marks from carnivore teeth, suggesting that both hominins and felids feasted on its meat

Efforts to extend our lifespan continue and many look promising, but success will have unintended consequences, says Nobel prizewinner Venki Ramakrishnan

A quick note today about developments here at the website. The Reader Resources section of the site is slowly coming into being. These resources will supplement the book Waves in an Impossible Sea, providing answers to questions, opportunities to explore topics more deeply, access to endnotes (convenient for the upcoming audiobook and for readers who hate flipping back and forth between main text and endnotes), and access to figures (also convenient for the audiobook.)

First and foremost, though: readers’ questions!

• If you’re confused about something in the book, ask about it here.
• If you have a question that is related to the book but goes somewhat beyond its topics, consider asking about it here. (That will help me keep things better organized.)

I’ll be collecting questions and answering the most common in the reader resource materials. Those materials will be organized by book chapter. As an example, the post from last week on standing waves, which focuses on a central ingredient in the book, is already linked from the Chapter 17 section of the Reader Resources.

It’s going to take the better part of a year to fill out this new section of the website. I’ll be posting about it here on the blog as stuff comes available, so that you can check it out when it arrives.

For the last two decades electricity demand in the US has been fairly flat. While it has been increasing overall, the increase has been very low. This has been largely attributed to the fact that as the use of electrical devices has increased, the efficiency of those devices has also increased. The introduction of LED bulbs, increased building insulation, more energy efficient appliances has largely offset increased demand. However, the most recent reports show that US energy demand is turning up, and there is real fear that this recent spike is not a short term anomaly but the beginning of a long term trend. For example, the projection of increase in energy demand by 2028 has nearly doubled from the 2022 estimate to the 2023 estimate – ” from 2.6% to 4.7% growth over the next five years.”

First, I have to state my usual skeptical caveat – these are projections, and we have to be wary of projecting short term trends indefinitely into the future. The numbers look like a blip on the graph, and it seems weird to take that blip and extrapolate it out. But these forecasts are not just based on looking at such graphs and then extending the line of current trends. These are based on an industry analysis which includes projects that are already under way. So there is some meat behind these forecasts.

What are the factors that seem to be driving this current and projected increase in electricity demand? They are all the obvious ones you might think. First, something which I and other technology-watchers predicted, is the increase in the use of electrical vehicles. In the US there are more than 2.4 million registered electric vehicles. While this is only about 1% of the US fleet, EVs represent about 9% of new car sales, and growing. If we are successful in somewhat rapidly (it will still take 20-30 years) changing our fleet of cars from gasoline engine to electric or hybrid, that represents a lot of demand on the electricity grid. Some have argued that EV charging is mostly at night (off peak), so this will not necessarily require increased electricity production capacity, but that is only partly true. Many people will still need to charge up on the road, or will charge up at work during the day, for example. It’s hard to avoid the fact that EVs represent a potential massive increase in electricity demand. We need to factor this in when planning future electricity production.

Another factor is data centers. The world’s demand for computer cycles is increasing, and there are already plans for many new data centers, which are a lot faster to build than the plants to power them. Recent advances in AI only increase this demand. Again we may mitigate this somewhat by prioritizing computer advances that make computers more energy efficient, but this will only be a partial offset. We do also have to think about applications, and if they are worth it. The one that gets the most attention is crypto – by one estimate Bitcoin mining alone used 121 terra-watt hours of electricity in 2023, the same as the Netherlands (with a population of 17 million people).

Other factors increasing US energy demand include recent investments in industry, through the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, and the Chips and Science Act. Part of the goal of these bills was to bring manufacturing back to the US, and to the extent that they are working this comes with an increased demand for electricity. And fourth, another factor that was predicted and we are now starting to feel, as the Earth warms the demand for air conditioning increases.

All of these factors are likely to increase going forward. Also, in general there is a move to electrify as many processes as possible, as an approach to decarbonize our civilization – moving from gas stoves and heating to electric, for example. Even in industry, reducing the carbon footprint of steel making involves using a lot more electricity.

What all this means is that as we plan to decarbonize over the next 25 years, we need to expect that electricity demand will dramatically increase. This is true even in a country like the US, and even if our population remains stable over this time. Worldwide the situation is even worse, as many populations are trying to industrialize and world population is projected to grow (probably peaking at around 10 billion). The problem is that the rate at which we are building renewable low carbon energy is just treading water – we are essentially building enough to meet the increase in demand, but not enough to replace existing demand. This means that fossil fuel use worldwide is not dropping, in fact it is still increasing. These new energy demand projections may mean that we fall further behind.

Most concerning about these recent reports is that we currently are unable to meet this new projected increase in demand with renewables. Keep in mind, this is still far better than relying entirely on fossil fuel. Wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear capacity all replaces fossil fuel capacity, and is helping to mitigate CO2 release and climate change. But it has not been enough so far to actually reduce fossil fuel demand, and it’s going to get more challenging. The problem we are facing is bottlenecks in building new infrastructure. The primary limiting factor is the grid. It takes too long to build new grid projects. They are slowed by the patchwork of regulations and bickering among states over who is paying for what. New renewable energy projects are therefore delayed by years.

What needs to happen to fix the situation? First, we need more massive investment in electric grid infrastructure. There is some of this in the bills I mentioned, but not enough. We need perhaps a standalone bill investing billions in new grid projects. But also, this legislation should probably include new Federal authority to approve and enact such projects, to reduce local bottlenecks. We need Federal legislation to essentially enact eminent domain to rush through new grid projects. The report estimates that we will need to triple our existing grid capacity by 2035 to meet growing demand.

This analysis also reinforces the belief by many that wind and solar, while great sources of energy, are not going to get us to our goals. The problem is simply that they require a lot of new grid infrastructure and new connections to the grid. We will simply not be able to build them out in time. Residential solar is probably the best option, because it can use existing connections to the grid and is distributed to where it is used. This is especially true if you plan to switch to an electric vehicle – pair that with some solar panels. But still, this is not going to get us to our goals.

What we need is the big centralized power plants that can replace coal, oil, and natural gas plants – and this means nuclear, geothermal, and hydroelectric. The latter two are limited geographically, as there is limited potential to expand them, at least for now. Perhaps we may top out at 15% or so (that is of existing demand). This leaves nuclear. I know I have beat this drum for a while, but the most compelling and logical analyses I read all indicate that we will not get to our decarbonization goals without nuclear. Nuclear can generate the amount of electricity we need, and be plugged into existing connections to the grid, and can go anywhere. The main limitation with nuclear is the regulations make building new plants really slow – but this is fixable with the stroke of a pen. We need to streamline the regulation process for all zero carbon power plants – a project warp speed for energy. The bottom line really is coming down to – do you want a coal-fired plant or a nuclear plant? That is the real practical choice we face.  To some extend the choice is also between nuclear and natural gas, which is a lot better than coal but is still fossil fuel with the pollution and CO2 that comes with.

As the report indicates, many states are keeping coal-fired plants open longer to meet the increased demand. Or they are building natural gas fired plants, because the technology is proven, they are the fastest to build, and they are the most profitable. This has to change. It needs to be feasible to build nuclear plants instead. Some of this is happening, but not nearly enough.

We are dealing with hard numbers here, and the numbers are telling a very consistent and compelling story.

The post Energy Demand Increasing first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

The sand dunes that splay across the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan may be made of the ground-up remains of ancient irregular moons, rather than atmospheric particles

Fermat's last theorem puzzled mathematicians for centuries until it was finally proven in 1993. Now, researchers want to create a version of the proof that can be formally checked by a computer for any errors in logic

It's hard to believe that in the 21st century there are still those who deny that viruses exist. However, virus denial and antivax go together and always have. Denis Rancourt, while far from the first or more vociferous virus denier, is an excellent example.

The post Denis Rancourt and “no virus”: COVID-19 symptoms were due psychological stress from the pandemic response! first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

A twinset of icy asteroids called Mors-Somnus is giving planetary scientists some clues about the origin and evolution of objects in the Kuiper Belt. JWST studied them during its first cycle of observations and revealed details about their surfaces, which gives hints at their origins. That information may also end up explaining how Neptune got to be the way it is today.

The Mors-Somnus binary is part of a collection of objects beyond Neptune. They’re called, aptly enough, “Trans-Neptunian Objects” or TNOs, for short. About 3,000 are numbered and known, and many more aren’t yet surveyed. They all lie beyond the orbit of Neptune and are divided into various classes. There are the classical Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) and scattered disc objects. Within those two classes, there are resonant TNOs—which move in resonance with Neptune and extreme TNOs, which orbit far beyond Neptune (around 30 AU). Then there are objects in orbits similar to Pluto’s, called “plutinos”. Mors-Somnus is also a Plutino.

The orbit of Mors-Somnus with respect to Neptune in the outer Solar System. Courtesy JPL. Neptune and Beyond

Why is there such a varied bunch of objects “out there”? Where did they originate and how have they changed over time? One way to answer those questions is to study the surface properties of Kuiper Belt Objects and, in particular, icy rocks like Mors-Somnus. One way to do that is to take spectra of their surfaces. The data reveals information about the surface compositions of these objects. That, in turn, tells scientists something about the environments in which they formed and those they’ve experienced over time.

Neptune itself likely formed closer to the Sun but then migrated to the outer Solar System (along with Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus). At the same time, a huge dense disk of rocky and icy planetesimals and asteroids populated space out to about 35 AU. As the giant planets migrated to more distant orbits, they preferentially scattered those smaller bodies. These icy asteroids and cometary bodies settled into the Kuiper Belt, scattered disk, and the Oort Cloud. How that activity progressed and where those icy bodies came from in the first place are questions planetary scientists are working to answer.

More About Mors-Somnus and Neptune

This is where Mors-Somnus comes in handy. The pair is a good example of a “cold classical” TNO. It was studied by JWST as part of a program called Discovering the Surface Compositions of Trans-Neptunian Objects (DiSCO-TNOs) led by Ana Carolina de Souza Feliciano and Noemí Pinilla-Alonso at the University of Central Florida. The project identifies the unique spectral properties of these small celestial bodies beyond Neptune, something that hasn’t been done before now.

An artist’s conception of Mors-Somnus, a binary duo — a pair of icy asteroids bound by gravity, is shown. These lie just beyond the orbit of Neptune. JWST was used to analyze their surface compositions for the first time. Image credit: Angela Ramirez, UCF

The Mors-Somnus is a member of the same dynamical group as other nearby TNOs and they share spectroscopic characteristics with other cold-classical group objects. This means they probably all formed at about the same time. They probably originated beyond 30 astronomical units from the Sun. Trans-Neptunian binaries such as Mors-Somnus provide a unique way to look at the formation and evolution of planetesimals in that region of space.

Studying the composition of small celestial bodies such as Mors-Somnus gives us precious information about where we came from, Pinilla-Alonso said. “We are studying how the actual chemistry and physics of the TNOs reflect the distribution of molecules based on carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen in the cloud that gave birth to the planets, their moons, and the small bodies,” she says. “These molecules were also the origin of life and water on Earth.”

The Importance of Objects Beyond Neptune

The chemical and physical properties of TNOs offer a treasure trove of information about what conditions were like in the early Solar System. They likely contain pristine materials that existed in the protoplanetary disk from which our Solar System formed, including primitive ices. Those ices don’t change due to solar heating (since the Sun is so far away), but they can be darkened by ultraviolet radiation over time, as planetary scientists have seen at Pluto and other icy worlds. And, those bodies can get transported from their birth regions to other parts of the solar system. If their surfaces don’t change much, then scientists can used spectral studies to trace where groups of objects originated.

The TNO region also contains what scientists call a “dynamical structure”. That is, its distribution of objects by various characteristics, including their orbits and motions over time. Objects and events can change the dynamical structure. For example, the dynamical structure of the trans-Neptunian region bears the traces of planetary migration that occurred in the first billion years of the Solar System’s existence. The TNOs, and in particular, binaries like Mors-Somnus were affected by such migrations.

Migration and Neptune

It’s very likely that this binary pair originally formed well beyond the orbit of Neptune. The researchers found similar spectroscopic characteristics between Mors and Somnus and the cold-classical group. It’s compositional evidence that this binary pair formed well beyond 30 astronomical units (nearly 2.7 billion miles away). Then, they moved to their present positions under the gravitational influence of other planetary migrations.

A model of possible migration paths in the outer solar system due to giant planet migrations. Model: R. Gomes, image by Morbidelli and Levison.

Thanks to gravitational perturbations from Neptune, Mors-Somnus and its neighbors moved closer to the planet. They now orbit in resonance with the planet. All these objects are potential tracers for Neptune’s migration path before it settled into its final orbit, the researchers say.

Binaries separated by distance, as Mors-Somnus is, rarely survive outside of areas bound by gravity, where they are sheltered by other KBOs. To survive migration, they require a slow transportation process toward their destination. The migration of Neptune to its final orbit offered such a leisurely opportunity.

Using JWST to study the surface characteristics of smaller distant worlds is a great accomplishment, according to co-author Pinilla-Alonso. The telescope has studied larger worlds out there, but this is the first time it’s focused on such tiny members of the outer Solar System. “For the first time, we can not only resolve images of systems with multiple components like the Hubble Space Telescope did, but we can also study their composition with a level of detail that only Webb can provide. We can now investigate the formation process of these binaries like never before.”

For More Information

UCF Scientists Use James Webb Space Telescope to Uncover Clues About Neptune’s Evolution
Spectroscopy of the Binary TNO Mors–Somnus with the JWST and Its Relationship to the Cold Classical and Plutino Subpopulations Observed in the DiSCo-TNO Project

The post Webb Reveals Secrets of Neptune’s Evolution appeared first on Universe Today.

Here’s the entire Real Time show for last week, but watch before it’s taken down. It starts 30 seconds in, and has a rather salacious introduction with jokes about Lauren Boebert and Fani Willis.

The intro monologue ends at 6:15; the guests are two congresspeople, Nancy Mace and Ro Khanna, as well as Eric Holder.  The main monologue, “New Rules,” starts at 41:15 and ends at 50:45.  The rest is afterglowshow.

UPDATE:  It’s gone now, but here’s the second monologue:

This is one of the big objections to Israel defending itself: if Hamas is taken out, who will run Gaza after the war.  The U.S., of course, wants the Palestinian Authority to run it, which is one of the dumbest ideas advanced by Biden and Blinken. The PA is terminally corrupt and, more, still engages in the “slay for pay” program, in which jailed Palestinians who have killed or attacked Jews get a special stipend, which is larger in proportion to how many Jews you’ve killed.  Do you want such an organization to run Gaza? Do you want such an organization right next door to Israel?

Unless you’re addlepated, I don’t think so.  Other suggestions have been made, like turning Gaza into one of the United Arab Emirates, but that probably couldn’t fly, though it has possibilities. This article in the Free Press makes a suggestion that is at least tenable, as it allows Palestinians to run Palestine. Click to read:

Here’s the proposal (excerpts are indented):

The Gaza war is a chance for Palestinians, with outside help, to make a quantum-leap improvement in their politics and society. And that starts with leadership.

Western countries and perhaps Arab states will inevitably send large sums of reconstruction aid to Gaza after the conflict.

They should use that money to empower a new elite in the territory.

The United States can help arrange to channel the aid through some kind of body whose governors would include Palestinians committed to conditions set by the donors. The main conditions should be radical but hard to argue against:

(1) don’t steal the funds,

(2) fund only civilian projects, and

(3) don’t promote hatred of Israel or the donor countries.

(1) will be tough given the history of both the PA and Hamas, and (3) will be the toughest of all; it will take a generation at least—IF UNRWA, which promotes hatred, is out of the picture.

More:

Palestinians agreeing to administer the reconstruction would need security for themselves and their families, who might have to be removed to safe places abroad, as the current Palestinian leaders would see them as enemies.

Can you run a country if you’re not there?

But I can agree on this:

t would be wasteful (at best) to put reconstruction aid into the hands of the PA or UNRWA, let alone Hamas. The existing political institutions are the problem, not the solution. A random set of Palestinian businesspeople would do a better job than the leaders now in power.

The aid donors can draw on the talents of Palestinian engineers, medical doctors, and lawyers, especially Palestinians who have lived in the West and know firsthand the benefits of living under the rule of law. What is crucial is that the new administrators do not come from the ranks of the PLO (which runs the PA), Hamas, or other terrorist or extremist groups.

There are capable Palestinians who are not ideologically extreme. The aid donors’ challenge is to recruit those who might have the courage, integrity, and ability to spend aid money properly. It bears repeating that this means using the funds to buy not explosives, rockets, and tunnels for terrorist attacks, but apartment buildings, sanitation systems, power plants, and financial support for farms and factories. It should finance schools that teach useful skills rather than indoctrinatin

UNRWA absolutely cannot play a role, and if it doesn’t, then it must be disbanded, for its only mission is to help Palestinian “refugees”. And of course the PA and Hamas must not play a role in governance. Since they both want to, this will be tough.

Finally, some caveats:

Would the newly empowered Palestinians have legitimacy? Not at first, but no Palestinian leader now has a democratic mandate. The issue is not democracy but effective, relatively humane administration. And once in place, new leaders may garner support if they use the aid to improve their people’s lives, without enriching themselves or provoking war with Israel.

Actually, although this sounds good at first glance, the problems seem insurmountable. You have to push UNRWA, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority out of the picture, find some honest and well-intentioned Palestinians who don’t want Israel eliminated put in charge, make sure they and their families don’t live in Palestine, make sure that Jew hatred isn’t taught, and that nobody interferes with the (overseas government). As Rosanne Rosanadanna would say, “Never mind.”

Or do you think this is possible?

In a scientific journal, especially one as prestigious as Cell, publication of a paper is a kind of endorsement of its content, for the paper has to be vetted for accuracy and cogency. This is why I say Cell “endorses” the view of the paper below, which maintains that sex isn’t binary, and in fact that the very concept of “sex” is incoherent, harmful, and should be jettisoned. This is clearly an invited paper, but the standards of accuracy and rigor should still apply. They don’t.

What makes me even more sure that Cell endorses this message is that the journal itself is woke and rejects the sex binary in instructing authors (see below). Plus the article is part of a series of five papers in the journal under “Focus on sex and gender” (May 14), all of which reflect gender activism. In rejecting the sex binary, both via this article and in its own behavior, Cell is rejecting science in favor of ideology. That’s very sad, but it’s what’s happening—and not just in biology. The ideological camel is sticking its nose into the tent of science—and actually, the whole head is now inside.

This article was written by Beans Velocci, assistant professor of History and Sociology of Science and Core Faculty in Gender, Women’s, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. There’s little doubt that its motivation is ideological because Beans goes by “they/them” and specializes in research that buttresses the thesis below. You can see Velocci’s c.v. here.

You may read this short (3.5-page) paper by clicking on the headline below, or reading the pdf here. 

First, here’s how Velocci tells us that the journal itself doesn’t agree on a scientific definition of sex:

 Some scientists are already contending with this problem. Cell itself has taken steps in that direction: the author guidelines for submission include a note addressing the multiplicity of sex. “[T]here is no single, universally agreed-upon set of guidelines for defining sex,” the guidelines point out. “‘[S]ex’ carries multiple definitions” including genetic, endocrinological, and anatomical features.

 Contributors should therefore reduce ambiguity by specifying their methods for collecting and recording sex-related data to “enhance the research’s precision, rigor, and reproducibility.” The Cell guidelines are aligned with a broader conversation that names increased precision when talking about sex as a solution to these problems.

Yes, but one definition is far more universally agreed on than others, at least among biologists (last time I looked, Cell was a biology journal).  But of course if researchers don’t mean natal sex when specifying “males” and “females”, then they are obliged to tell us how they recognize people. After all, if it’s solely via “self-designation”, then we have to be careful. Even so, Cell could have said this the way I just did.

Here are the main problems with Velocci’s paper:

1. It conflates sex differentiation, sex determination, and the definition of sex
2. It argues, wrongly, that no progress has been made in understanding the nature and definition of biological sex
3. Its argument is ideological rather than scientific, yet is given the trappings of science
4. It argues that the binary nature of sex, which the author rejects, somehow erases transgender and nonbinary people
5. And, as usual, its supposed examples that make sex nonbinary, like the long clitoris of the hyena, are wrong.  But where are the clownfish? Send in the clownfish!

Since the whole paper is motivated by ideology (and by now you should know what that ideology is), here are a few quotes to demonstrate the gender-activist underpinnings. Binary sex is a tool of white supremacy, for one thing!

 In the present, this means that sex—a key research variable in the life sciences, not to mention its role in structuring our everyday lives—is not a singular and stable entity. This has real, practical ramifications. On one hand, it introduces a tremendous lack of specificity and rampant imprecision to scientific research; on the other, it fuels ongoing arguments about the purportedly biological reasons that transgender (and especially nonbinary) people are not deserving of rights or do not even exist.

This of course is nonsense. The argument that sex is binary, and defined by whether you produce small mobile gametes (sperm in males) or large immobile gametes (eggs in females) has no bearing at all on whether people who are transgender or nonbinary deserve equal rights. Of course they do. (There are a very few exceptions for trangender people involving things like athletics, incarceration, or rape counseling.) Further, both transsexual and nonbinary people are, biologically, either male or female, even if they feel like they’re a mixture of both, a member of their non-natal sex, or something else.

But wait! There’s more:

Binary sex, too, continued to structure day-to-day life throughout the United States and Europe, with science serving as justification for a whole array of patriarchal and white-supremacist social arrangements. The point is this: even as scientific inquiry produced endless evidence that sex was neither straightforward to identify nor binary, sex continued to function as a foundational classification system for science and everyday life.

But the facts are the fact, even if they’re misused by bigots to denigrate people. As Steve Pinker has pointed out, we don’t say that architecture itself (or chemistry, for that matter) are bad and should be ditched because Nazis used them to construct gas chambers. But wait! There’s more:

We live in a social world that is fundamentally structured around the idea that sex is a binary, biological truth. Scientists are therefore constantly conditioned to ignore anomalies that do not fit into that scheme. Precision and rigor are incredibly important. They’re also not enough to counter hegemonic social forces.

Here Velocci argues that scientists ignore anomalies in sex (e.g., intersex or other conditions that affect secondary sexual traits) because we’re conditioned by the sex binary.  But Velocci has spent the whole paper before this arguing that there is no agreement on the definition of sex, so how can Velocci claim that the world is structured around the sex binary? At any rate, I don’t understand what Velocci means by saying that the world “ignores anomalies”. They are the subject of a huge activist literature as well as an extensive medical literature.

One more:

Questioning fundamental truths is, in its most aspirational form, the point of any knowledge-producing enterprise. Imagine what we might find out if we were to let go of a category that hundreds of years of history demonstrates to be more useful for maintaining social hierarchies than for generating scientific knowledge.

This last point not only argues that we hold onto the false sex binary because it helps reinforce the social hierarchy (e.g. “transphobia”, white supremacy, and so on), but also that it impedes the acquisition of scientific knowledge. That’s a lie, of course: we wouldn’t know about sexual selection, parental care, etc. without the binary sex definition. Finally, Velocci tells us that we should just deep-six the entire category of sex.

Here’s another of Velocci’s arguments for dumping the category (but then what do we replace it with? Nothing?):

 The answer to the question “What is sex?” is, in both theory and practice, just about everything, and therefore also nearly nothing. This exercise demonstrates that sex is an incoherent category, one that has perhaps outlived its use.

Another:

Paisley Currah noted in his recent book on government sex classification, “is what a particular state actor says it means.”

So, too, for scientific approaches to sex—because it is so many things at once, all we can say for sure about what sex is is what a given scientist does with it. This is not merely a historical quirk but a use of sex that persists into the present. The term “sex” has collapsed entire constellations of traits and processes into one point. As a result, it functions as a nearly universally accepted research variable with little consistency in its conceptual definition, and less in its usage.

I’m not really going into the argument for why sex is binary in all animals and plants, with exceptions being only in groups like algae and fungi. You can read or hear the arguments for it by Colin Wright, for example here and here, or read Alex Byrne’s new book Trouble With Gender. But if you’ve been reading this website, you’ll already know the arguments. In humans, only one person in 5600 (.018%) is intersex and doesn’t fit the binary. Even so, such people are not considered members of a third sex (see Alex Byrne on this issue here).  All I’ll say are two things:

First, Velocci maintains that sex is a gemisch of different things: hormones, chromosomes, secondary sexual traits like genitals or breasts, physiological phenomena like menstruation, and differential behavior like parenting and psychology.  To prove that, Velocci asks the students in class, “What is sex?”, and their answers, written on the board, look like this.

Figure 1. Diagram of student-provided responses to the question, “What is sex?”

But so what?  Velocci hasn’t given them the reason why most biologists define sex by gamete type, which is not a simple argument that can be grasped instantly. The figure shows only that sex determination and differentiation involve a lot of stuff, both upstream (incubating temperature affects sex in some turtles, and of course there is the societal determination of sex in those fricking clownfish) and downstream (most of the other traits on the chart). Like all aspects of an organism, the genetics, morphology, and physiology of traits are complicated. The figure above, as I’ve noted, conflates the definition of sex, the determination of sex, and the differentiation of organisms based on sex.

Second, Velocci implies repeatedly that all the work of scientists over the centuries has not led to any increased understanding of sex. Apparently biologists have vacillated among chromosomes, gametes, hormones, and genitals, and other stuff but in the end. . . no new understanding. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing that this sweating professor is trying to say. After going through how sex was regarded for the last two centuries or so, Velocci says this (note the ideological slant as well):

So, too, for scientific approaches to sex—because it is so many things at once, all we can say for sure about what sex is is what a given scientist does with it. This is not merely a historical quirk but a use of sex that persists into the present. The term “sex” has collapsed entire constellations of traits and processes into one point. As a result, it functions as a nearly universally accepted research variable with little consistency in its conceptual definition, and less in its usage. This does not make for accurate or reproducible science. As several scientists have pointed out, these contemporary uses of sex—simultaneously attached to an oversimplified binary, yet in practice depending on a vast, rarely analyzed multiplicity—actually make it harder to understand biological variation. There are also human costs: a broader cultural idea of “biological sex” as binary, imagined to be backed by science, is routinely deployed to exclude trans and intersex people and indeed anyone with bodily characteristics that do not fit neatly into male and female norms. The status quo, built on the history sketched above, therefore generates unsound research results that falsely uphold cis- and heteronormative assumptions.

But just because ideas, concepts, and knowledge change over time doesn’t mean that the object of study is elusive, ambiguous, or incohent. As Alex Byrne said in the link above (which uses the same diversion of historical change):

Naturally one must distinguish the claim that dinosaurs are changing (they used to be covered only in scales, now they have feathers) from the claim that our ideas of dinosaurs are changing (we used to think that dinosaurs only have scales, now we think they have feathers). It would be fallacious to move from the premise that dinosaurs are culturally constructed (in Clancy et al.’s sense) to the conclusion that dinosaurs themselves have changed, or that there are no “static, universal truths” about dinosaurs. It would be equally fallacious to move from the premise that sex is culturally constructed to the claim that there are no “static, universal truths” about sex. (One such truth, for example, is that there are two sexes.) Nonetheless, Clancy et al. seem to commit exactly this fallacy, in denying (as they put it) that “sex is…a static, universal truth.”

Here, for example, are some of the things that we now know from using a definitional binary for “biological sex”

1. The binary is useful in all animals and vascular plants. No other definition of sex holds for almost the entirety of the species we know. The binary is thus, except for a few groups. universal.
2. Why natural selection has resulted in a sex binary rather than a single self-reproducing sex or in three or more sexes. No matter what produces sex, be it environment, genes, or chromosomes, the end result is always two of them
3. The binary has utility. Without it, we cannot begin to understand how sexual selection works. And sexual selection has resulted in the following phenomena, which we pretty much understand

• Sexual dimorphism in appearance (why males are most often the aggressive and ornamented sex
• Sexual dimorphism in behavior (why, in humans, are males more often the risk-takers, why females are more interested in people than things,  and why males compete for females (seahorses are the exception that proves the rule
• Why organisms care more for their relatives than for unrelated conspecifics
• Why females are more often the caregivers of their children

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

In the end, as we wade through all Velocci’s unsound but familiar arguments, we have only casuistry motivated by ideology. Velocci’s intent is to show that because some humans feel as if they’re not male or female, or feel that they’re members of the sex other than their natal sex, then sex in nature must reflect these human feelings. This is what I call the “reverse naturalistic fallacy”, which can be defined as the view that “whatever we see as moral or good in humans must be seen in nature as well.”

There’s even a section of the paper called “other ways of knowing”, which argues that scientists should partner with those in the humanities, including queer studies, and this partnership is the way forward:

Many of the scientists currently pushing for critical thinking about sex are engaged with STS [science and technology studies] scholars—many of us humanists and social scientists coming from disciplines like history, anthropology, and sociology, and fields like Indigenous studies, Black studies, and queer studies. We in STS are poised to offer life scientists additional conceptual and practical ways forward. Knowing the history of science is, of course, part of this equation: it shows us that knowledge production of all kinds (including the history of science!) is an iterative process, where what we know is always changing.

Well, make of that what you will, but I’d maintain that, like the definition of “species”, the definition of ” biological sex” is the purview of biologists. Yes, philosophers can help us think more clearly, and historians can tell us about the history of studies of sex, but I don’t know how indigenous studies, Black studies, or queer studies can contribute much to a concept that, in the end, is about biology. The fact that biology is thrown into a gemisch with “studies” disciplines only serves to show how ideological Velocci’s argument is.  As Alex Byrne (a philosopher who knows his biology) said of the American Scientist paper he reviewed, this Cell paper is “rubbish”, and shame on the journal for publishing it. There is no place for catering to ideological currents in a serious scientific journal, for reports about empirical discoveries should remain “institutionally” neutral.

Now, do I have to go through the other papers in Cell‘s Panoply of Horrors? If not, who will? Or should we just ignore them? That doesn’t seem wise since gender activism is infecting science in a big way, and few people criticize it.  If dumb arguments keep being made over and over again, then it seems wise to refute them over and over again.

_____________

Velocci, B. 2024 The history of sex research: Is “sex” a useful category?  Cell, online, May 14,2024.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.02.001

Doctors portrayed those who tried to avoid the virus as pathetic, disordered weaklings, afflicted by irrational panic, fear, and anxiety. It only makes sense if you remember one thing, they wanted you infected.

The post Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, April 2021: “The Central Problem Right Now I Think Is The Fear That People Still Feel About COVID.” first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

In its first year of operation, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) made some profound discoveries. These included providing the sharpest views of iconic cosmic structures (like the Pillars of Creation), transmission spectra from exoplanet atmospheres, and breathtaking views of Jupiter, its largest moons, Saturn’s rings, its largest moon Titan, and Enceladus’ plumes. But Webb also made an unexpected find during its first year of observation that may prove to be a breakthrough: a series of little red dots in a tiny region of the night sky.

These little red dots were observed as part of Webb’s Emission-line galaxies and Intergalactic Gas in the Epoch of Reionization (EIGER) and the First Reionization Epoch Spectroscopically Complete Observations (FRESCO) surveys. According to a new analysis by an international team of astrophysicists, these dots are galactic nuclei containing the precursors of Supermassive Black Holes (SMBHs) that existed during the early Universe. The existence of these black holes shortly after the Big Bang could change our understanding of how the first SMBHs in our Universe formed.

The research was led by Jorryt Matthee, an Assistant Professor in astrophysics at the Institute of Science and Technology Austria (ISTA) and ETH Zürich. He was joined by researchers from the MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, the Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN), the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ), the Niels Bohr Institute, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), and multiple universities and observatories. Their findings were published in a study recently published in The Astrophysical Journal.

This image shows the region of the sky in which the record-breaking quasar J0529-4351 was observed by the ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile. Credit: ESO

Scientists have known for some time that Supermassive Black Holes reside at the center of most massive galaxies. And whereas some are relatively dormant, like the SMBH located in the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*), others are extremely active and are growing at the rate of several Solar masses a year. These fast-growing black holes power particularly luminous Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) – or quasars – which become so bright they temporarily outshine all the stars in their disk, the brightest of which are known as quasars.

Quasars are among the brightest objects known to astronomers and can be seen at the very edge of our expanding Universe. In recent years, though, astronomers have spotted several quasars and SMBHs in the early Universe that are larger than cosmological models predict. As Matthee explained in a recent ISTA press release:

“One issue with quasars is that some of them seem to be overly massive, too massive given the age of the Universe at which the quasars are observed. We call them the ‘problematic quasars.’ If we consider that quasars originate from the explosions of massive stars–and that we know their maximum growth rate from the general laws of physics, some of them look like they have grown faster than is possible. It’s like looking at a five-year-old child that is two meters tall. Something doesn’t add up.”

Mathee and his team identified the population of little red dots while studying images taken during the EIGER and FRESCO surveys, a large and medium first-year JWST campaign in which Mathee was involved. The EIGER campaign was specifically designed to search for rare blue supermassive quasars and their environments, and not for quasars in the early Universe. However, Webb‘s Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) can acquire emissions spectra from all objects in the known Universe. These objects had been previously observed by Hubble and mistaken for regular galaxies.

JWST’s near-infrared view of the star-forming region NGC 604 in the Triangulum galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI

But thanks to the NIRCam’s resolution, the ISTA-led team identified them as SMBHs almost by accident. According to Mathee, this accidental discovery could have profound implications for astronomy and cosmology:

“Without having been developed for this specific purpose, the JWST helped us determine that faint little red dots–found very far away in the Universe’s distant past–are small versions of extremely massive black holes. These special objects could change the way we think about the genesis of black holes. The present findings could bring us one step closer to answering one of the greatest dilemmas in astronomy: According to the current models, some supermassive black holes in the early Universe have simply grown ‘too fast’. Then how did they form?”

The team was able to make the distinction between galaxies and small quasars thanks to NIRCam’s detection of deep-red emission lines (aka. H? spectral lines) that are produced when hydrogen atoms are heated. They also found that the lines they observed had a wide-line profile, which they used to trace the motion of the hot hydrogen gas. “The wider the base of the H? lines, the higher the gas velocity,” said Mathee. “Thus, these spectra tell us that we are looking at a very small gas cloud that moves extremely rapidly and orbits something very massive like an SMBH.”

Just as important were the redshift values they obtained for these SMBGs (Z= 4.2-5.5), which indicate these objects existed more than 12 billion years ago – roughly 1 billion years after the Big Bang. Furthermore, they observed that these SMBHs were not overly massive like those visible in nearby galaxies today. As Mathee indicated:

“While the ‘problematic quasars’ are blue, extremely bright, and reach billions of times the mass of the Sun, the little red dots are more like ‘baby quasars.’ Their masses lie between ten and a hundred million solar masses. Also, they appear red because they are dusty. The dust obscures the black holes and reddens the colors.”

Long exposures made with the Hubble Space Telescope show brilliant quasars flaring in the hearts of six distant galaxies. Credit: NASA/ESA

Eventually, the outflow of hydrogen gas will puncture the clouds of dust and gas that surround and obscure massive black holes (“dust cocoon”), and these smaller SMBHs will evolve into much larger ones. Thus, Mathee and his team hypothesized that the little red dots are small, red versions of giant blue SMBHs in the phase that predates the “problematic quasars.” Through follow-up observations, astronomers can conduct detailed studies of these baby SMBHs, which could lead to a better understanding of how problematic quasars come to exist.

“Black holes and SMBHs are possibly the most interesting things in the Universe. It’s hard to explain why they are there, but they are there,” Mathee concluded. “We hope that this work will help us lift one of the biggest veils of mystery about the Universe.”

Further Reading: ISTA, The Astrophysical Journal

The post Little Red Dots in Webb Photos Turned Out to Be Quasars appeared first on Universe Today.

I slept like a rock, no dreams that I could remember, and upon awakening, the ball of anxiety that had been my constant companion was gone. I tried to get it back by thinking of all the unpleasant things that might happen in the next few days. Nothing. I felt good. Acceptance is the final stage of dying, so I must, at […]

The post Skeptics in the Pub. Cholera. Chapter 12a first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Here from World Data and Info, which seems to specialize in lists, is a list of the world’s ten most beautiful birds. Here they are in order and at the video times they appear:

Chapters :
00:00 Highlight
00:38 Golden Pheasant
01:28 Macaw Parrots
02:21 Mandarin Duck
03:29 Peacock
04:41 Blue Jay
05:49 Atlantic Puffin
07:00  Flamingo
08:12 Keel-billed Toucan
09:24 Victoria Crowned Pigeon
10:46 Turaco

I can’t quarrel too much with the list (but seriously, the blue jay?); however, they left off the one bird I consider the world’s most beautiful: the male Resplendent Quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno),. I’ve had the luck to see several of these in the wild in Central America. The metallic green color, combined with the bright red breast and that long, dangling tail, make for a fantastic sight. Here’s one:

Sidney Bragg, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

and a video:

There’s also the lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudatus):

Adam John Bourke, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Feel free to beef about the video selection and to suggest your own most beautiful birds.

Tax Scams; News Items: Pentagon UFO Report, Microplastic Risks, Parasite Cleanse, Gut Microbe Communication, Interstellar Meteorite; Who's That Noisy; Your Questions and E-mails: Thou, Mach Effect Drive; Science or Fiction

Is your cat’s birthday coming up? Here are two articles on how to make your moggy a cat-friendly birthday cake. The first is from The Spruce (click to read):

And this one is from PetsRadar (also click), whichs gives eight different recipes of varying degree of laboriousness. I’ve put an easier one below, which is similar to the one from the link above.

From the Spruce, an easy tuna-cake recipe that takes only 5 minutes and costs $10 (but you’ll need a piping bag):

What you’ll need:

Equipment / Tools

• 1 1/4 Measuring cup
• 1 Plate
• 1 Piping bag
• 1 Knife
• 1 Birthday candle (optional)

Materials

• 1 cup Canned albacore tuna

• 1 cup Cooked, unseasoned chicken

• 1 cup Pureed sweet potato

• 1 cup Mashed potatoes

• 1 Catnip

It comes out looking like this (there’s catnip sprinkled on the top):

Screenshot from video, cake by Heddy Hunt, One Things Producer

And here’s another one from the second site, a salmon and sweet potato cake. But they left out the salmon and gave a tuna recipe. So I went to the Daily Paws and got their recipe, which this site supposedly copied. But they screwed up. Here’s the good recipe; I think any cat would like it so long as they like sweet potato:

Ingredients 

• ½ 5-ounce can chunk-style skinless, boneless salmon in water, drained well
• ¼ cup finely chopped cooked chicken or turkey breast
• ¼ cup mashed sweet potato
• 1 teaspoon rice flour
• 2 tablespoons plain yogurt*
• 1 teaspoon natural creamy peanut butter* (optional)

Directions:

Step One
Line a small baking pan with wax paper.

Step Two
Place salmon in a medium bowl. Flake chunks into very small bits. Add chopped chicken and mashed sweet potato and mix well. Stir in rice flour.

Step Three
Place a lightly greased 3-inch round cutter on the baking pan and spoon 1/3 cup salmon mixture into the ring. Using fingers, firmly pat mixture out into an even layer. Carefully remove ring and repeat with remaining salmon mixture. Place pan in freezer for 15 minutes to firm up the patties.

Step Four
To assemble cake, place one patty on a small plate. Spread with the peanut butter and top with another patty. Decorate top of cake with the yogurt, letting it run down the sides of the cake to create the drip cake effect.

Recipe courtesy of Daily Paws

And the Daily Paws video showing you how to make it:

 

I hope at least one reader will make a cake for their cat’s birthday (doesn’t every cat have a birthday?). Weigh in if you’ve made one.

****************

Archived from the Times of London, we hear about a law to ban “coaxing of cats.” It’s bizarre but probably of marginal value.

Click to read:

 

Some excerpts:

Listen, cat people are a bit shady. Not very, just a bit. I know this because I’m a cat person and in the right circumstances, I can be a bit shady. Most cat people are consciously or unconsciously aware of their shadiness and don’t do things like coax random cats off the street with dishes of cream and teaspoons of tuna. Because although we quite want to (because we are shady), we know that it is wrong.

 

But there are always deviants who spoil things for everyone. Every area has a local catnapper, who doesn’t think what they are doing — coaxing random cats off the street with cream and tuna — is bad.

And this is why the new Pet Abduction Bill is important. The bill, which is supported by the government and making its way through parliament, would make abducting a cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine — or both.

But there are always deviants who spoil things for everyone. Every area has a local catnapper, who doesn’t think what they are doing — coaxing random cats off the street with cream and tuna — is bad. And this is why the new Pet Abduction Bill is important. The bill, which is supported by the government and making its way through parliament, would make abducting a cat or dog punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine — or both.

Pet abduction with regards to felines is defined in the bill as “causing or inducing the cat to accompany the person or anyone else” or “causing the cat to be taken”.

Due to the evidence required to convict, the crime of pet abduction as it relates to cats will be difficult to enforce and many will be wondering why the government has bothered.

Max Hardy is a criminal barrister. He says: “As a general rule offences that are effectively unenforceable make for unhelpful additions to the statute book. Some take the view that the existing Theft Act legislation sufficiently encompasses any situation in which a pet is stolen or an attempt is made to steal.”

OK, but we the public think of “stealing” as a sudden snatching or taking permanently. Most cats are “stolen” by non-permitted feeding or, in other words, “inducing”.

“It may be that the new offence will be considered to be sending a message that taking or trying to take a pet is a worse crime than taking an inanimate object,” Hardy says. “One assumes the message will go out that food should never be provided to or left out for a pet that is not your own. That does have the potential to mitigate neighbour disputes, if nothing else.”

Oy, I’ve been guilty in days of yore of feeding a neighbor’s cat.  Good thing I’m not in Britain!  And here’s some stuff about British cat law:

This is one reason cat people appreciate cats so much: because they have free choice, if they choose you it’s a sort of blessing. This is also why, historically, cats were not seen in the eyes of the law as “property” in the same way dogs were — because who can keep tabs on a cat?

This changed in 1968 with the Theft Act and now cats enjoy the same “property” status as dogs. In 2021 the government announced plans to make microchipping mandatory — all cats must be chipped by the time they are 20 weeks old.

The Theft Act, the mandatory chipping and this new abduction law are all important to any cat owner who has an outdoor cat. Indoor cat owners wag their fingers and say, “This is why I keep my cat indoors,” but a) this isn’t always practical, and b) being trapped in a house is the personal nightmare of outdoor cat owners and it is why they can’t inflict it on their pet. No one is right or wrong in this debate and if you choose to have an outdoor cat, you can still object to others seducing it away from your home.

The lesson: don’t feed a friendly moggy, even if it lives next door:

“I steals your food” by MacJewell is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit here.

*********************

This is probably not a great thing to do to your cat, but somebody went to a great deal of trouble to make a costume fitting a human but looking like the cat. There are even paw-like slippers and gloves.  What do you think the cat will do when it sees its staff as a huge doppelgänger?

Watch that tail bush out in fright! But then the cat shows some ambitendency and winds up aggressive—and then even friendly! I think it smells its staff inside the costume.

**************

Lagniappe: synchronized kitties:

h/t: Ginger K., Merilee

Once again I beg, implore, beseech, and plead readers for more wildlife photos. I know some of you have them sequestered away! Send ’em along if they’re good. Thanks!

Today’s selection of photos is from Uwe Mueller.  His notes and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

These photos were taken on the East Frisian island of Spiekeroog, Germany.

A slightly worried looking Greylag goose (Anser anser) passing by. Maybe it mistook my camera for a gun:

A pair of Barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis) flying over in the evening sun:

A flock of Brants (Branta bernicla) taking off:

This House sparrow (Passer domesticus) sat in a bush only 4 feet away from me and didn’t care at all about my presence as its focus was clearly on delivering its morning melody:

A Common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) searching for food in the dunes:

This Western jackdaw (Corvus monedula) came closer and closer while searching for food in the grass of a levee. So I laid down with my camera and took pictures. Finally it was only a few feet away and took an interested look at the weird guy laying on the ground with that thingy in his hand making clicking noises:

A fly-over of a Grey heron (Ardea cinerea):

A Carrion crow (Corvus corone) that was nesting near our vacation apartment and collecting material for it:

A Eurasian magpie (Pica pica) in the dunes:

Most photos were taken with a Sony Alpha 7R III with a Sony 200 – 600mm lens, apart from the House sparrow which was shot with a Panasonic FZ-83.