Why Evolution is True Feed

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is the boss cat, of course:

A: Hili, you are not helping me when you lie here.
Hili: I’m supervising. Find somebody else to help you.

Ja: Hili, nie pomagasz mi jak tu leżysz.
Hili: Ja nadzoruję, do pomagania znajdź sobie innych.

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is being zen:

Hili: Sometimes you just have to stop thinking.
A: It’s not always possible.
Hili: You have to train more.

Hili: Czasem trzeba po prostu przestać myśleć.
Ja Nie zawsze się daje.
Hili: Musisz więcej ćwiczyć.

Here is Philomena Cunk (Diane Morgan) with a clip from her new show “Cunk on Life” in an interview with Stephen Colbert. Cunk admits that 99% of her Cunk character is actually really her own personality (“we’re the same person, she says), with the other 1% involving her having to develop social skills to get along with others. She seems to be somewhat of a hermit and doesn’t mind being rude!

By now most people interviewed by Cunk know that it’s comedy, but that wasn’t the case when she began her interview career talking to academics and intellectuals. Those were the days! But it’s still great to hear her talk here about her relationship with Philomena. And that Bolton accent. . . .

Oh, and listen to her reveal the name of the person she most wants to interview!

h/t: Barry, Ursula

by Greg Mayer

A traveling exhibit from the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (Paris) is now on display at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. Entitled “Cats: Predators to Pets“, it is sure to be of interest to WEIT’s many ailurophiles, not least of all PCC(E). The entrance shows a large scale phylogenetic tree of the living cats

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

including Jerry’s favorite species of wild cat, Pallas’s cat,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

and then opens into a broad hall with representatives of all the living species. (The whole exhibit is very dark, making photography difficult.)

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

Interestingly, they’re arranged geographically, which as someone very interested in zoogeography, I rather liked. Here are some of the Asian cats (some American cats are in the background to the left). How many can you identify? (Put answers in the comments.)

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

Here are some African cats. In this and the preceding photo, you’ll notice that some species are represented by life size photos, rather than specimens.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

A closeup of the male lion.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

If you think those canines are large, have a look at the saber-tooth!

Smilodon, “Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

Throughout the exhibit, an ordinary moggy is often inconspicuously lurking,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

in this case demonstrating the stealthy approach used by his wild cousins.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

“Predators” is not just part of the name of the exhibit: predation is shown in both several videos and mounted specimen groupings.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

A caracal gets its dinner,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

as does our cartoon moggy,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

apparently because he’s been authorized by His Majesty’s Government.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

I liked this demonstration, sort of from the inside, of how cats land on their feet.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

These margay kittens won my vote for the cuteness award.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

There was an explanation of how domestic cats evolved.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

The following bit, however, was curiously equivocal as to how domestic cats got to the Americas– there’s no doubt they were brought here by man; it’s not just what “some historians believe”! Perhaps something was lost in the translation from French.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

The latter part of the exhibit emphasizes cats in culture, including Bastet from Egypt,

Bastet, “Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

guardian lions from China,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

and maneki neko from everywhere!

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

The biggest question posed by the exhibit is perhaps . . .

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

The popularity of Pusheen,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

cat videos,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

and cat stars of all sorts are explored.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

Some of my favorites were Professor Cat

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

the original meme cat,

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

and, of course, Larry, from No. 10.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

At the end of the exhibit, there’s a set of people-sized cat accessories– a scratching post, a mouse on a stick, a carpeted cat house. Here, a Field Museum colleague demonstrates how to remain alert for flying cat toys!

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

There’s a special “cat shop” just outside the exhibit. If you don’t already have your copy, you’ll want to get my friend and colleague Jon Losos’ book, The Cat’s Meow. Jerry reviewed it for the Washington Post, and also noticed it here at WEIT.

“Cats: Predators to Pets”, Field Museum of Natural History.

The exhibit is open till April 27. The exhibit has already been to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto; I don’t know if it will continue its North American tour. So, to be safe, plan your visit to Chicago now!

I’ve been ssaving these, which were tendered by one “Cerry Joyne” on two different and random threads, the first on the ideological capture of scientists in New Zealand and the second on, of all things, a readers’ wildlife photo post.

Comment #1:

have you considered just fellating a shotgun instead of being a disgusting, transphobic cunt?

Comment #2:

hey jerry merry christmas, just wondering, along with all the other “new atheist” guys when it was that you became a delusional right-wing racist fuckwit?

Judging from the IP number, 60.234.105.217, it appears that this delightful person is a Kiwi:

Country:New Zealand
State/Region:Taranaki
City:Hawera

Needless to say, this Kiwi will post no more.  This is only a sample of the (unposted and nasty) comments I have gotten since the KerFFRFle began. For some reason I cannot understand–and I invite readers to speculate—gender issues engender (pardon the pun) more hateful comments than any controversial topic I have ever discussed here.  Suggestions?

Here’s some quick morning news before I hightail it to the ideology-in-science meeting:

*The meeting yesterday was good, highlighted by a superb opening talk given by Jonathan Rauch, echoing the themes of his equally great book, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.  The quality of the talks was in general high, with just a few clunkers. Props to Anna Krylov, who was the uber-organizer of it all.

Lee Jussim gave a passel of examples of censorship in science, as did Lawrence Krauss (via Zoom), the latter concentrating on physics.  Krauss also excoriated the National Academy of Sciences for political correctness, especially its explicit attempts to equalize membership equity, bypassing merit and apportioning extra new membership slots to sections of the Academy that have more ethnic and gender diversity, as well as geographic diversity.  (He explicitly quoted the NAS’s policy which you can see here; it’s also quoted by Krauss in his WSJ piece here.)

But Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academies, was also at the meeting. When it was the turn of her panel (she talked about the geology of western North America), she briefly struck back at Krauss in an addendum, saying that she was talking about her own area of geological expertise and that Krauss, who “wasn’t a member of the NAS,” shouldn’t speak outside of his area of expertise. That was an unfair remark on her part, especially since Krauss quoted her own organization.  Since when are you disqualified from criticizing how an organization based on merit places merit in second (or third) place when selecting members–just because you don’t belong to that organization? It may not be pleasant for the NAS to hear this, but people have every right to call out such a policy.

*Back in the real world, the LA wildfires are slowly coming “under control” as they say, but not all of them (article archived here):

The mammoth Palisades fire was roaring closer to residential areas of Los Angeles early Saturday, forcing a new round of evacuation orders and dimming hopes that a brief drop in wind speeds would help firefighters tame Southern California’s devastating blazes.

The desert winds that have stoked the fires are expected to pick up again Saturday afternoon. But even without high winds, the most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles’s history expanded overnight across the region’s bone-dry terrain.

The Palisades fire, the largest of them, tore east, chewing up parched vegetation as it raced up the ridges of Mandeville Canyon. The authorities issued mandatory evacuation orders for an area including parts of the Brentwood and Encino neighborhoods, as well as the Getty Center, one of Southern California’s cultural jewels.

The blaze, which has burned through 21,600 acres and razed stretches between Santa Monica and Malibu since it broke out on Tuesday, was only 8 percent contained, according to Cal Fire. To the east, firefighters had contained 3 percent of the 14,000-acre Eaton fire, near Altadena and Pasadena. The blazes, which have killed at least 11 people and destroyed thousands of structures, now rank among the five most damaging in California’s history.

With many people still unaccounted for, officials have said the death toll could rise.

Los Angeles announced a curfew from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. for areas under mandatory evacuation orders. National Guard units have been deployed to secure evacuation zones.

Here’s what we’re covering:

• Water shortage: After reports emerged that a critical reservoir was offline when the fires started, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, said he was ordering an independent review to determine why firefighters ran out of water early on, calling the situation “deeply troubling.”

• The victims: Those who have died include a man in his 60s who lived in his childhood home and drove a bloodmobile; a retired aerospace engineer and an active church deacon; and a retired pharmacy technician whom neighbors called “an angel.” Read more about the fires’ victims.

• Scale of destruction: The combined area burned by this week’s fires is larger than the city limits of San Francisco, Pittsburgh, Boston or Miami. As of Saturday morning, more than 100,000 people were under evacuation orders, and some 160,000 electricity customers were without power.

That is a huge area. I can’t see the destruction from USC, but after the meeting is over I’ll venture out for a couple of days, coming near the burned area.  I’m not a gawker and have no desire to see people’s destroyed homes, but two friends live close to the burned area and I’m visiting them. Another friend lost his beloved home and studio in the woods.

If you’re a celebrity-follower, or one of those who are delighted when the rich get a comeuppance (I’m not one of those, either), here’s a WSJ map of celebrity homes destroyed in the Palisades fire:

*Reader Norm sent this headline (click to read). Wouldn’t you know that those pnefarious Jews were responsible for the California wildfires? Oy! The article is by Vered Weiss from the World Israel News (h/t Norm):

A quote:

Code Pink: ‘When US taxes go to burning people alive in Gaza, we can’t be surprised when those fires come home.’

Anti-Israel groups took to social media to blame Israel for Los Angeles wildfires.

The fires have destroyed hundreds of buildings and prompted the evacuation of tens of thousands of California residents.

On Instagram, Code Pink created a tenuous connection between the fires and Israel’s war in Gaza.

Code Pink wrote, “When US taxes go to burning people alive in Gaza, we can’t be surprised when those fires come home.”

The Anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace wrote, “Instead of putting resources toward making our country livable, our government is putting billions toward Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.”

Fatima Mohammed, head of anti-Israel group Within Our Lifetime posted, “The flames of Gaza will not stop there.”

“Dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on Gaza, turning it into a blazing inferno, has consequences,” she said. “There are climate consequences that will find us all.”

Commentator Mehdi Hasan asserted that aid to Israel was interfering with funding LA’s fire department.

However, Hasan failed to recognize that Israeli military aid is federal and funding for the fire department is from the City of Los Angeles.

I mean, is that so hard to believe? After all, wasn’t it Marjorie Taylor Greene who, four years ago, blamed California wildfires on Jewish space lasers? Meanwhile, the Palestinians are celebrating the devastation (h/t Malgorzata):

Palestinians celebrate and gloat as the Los Angeles fires rage in the Hollywood hills, while their fans in the UK try to identify which of the victims in California deserve it because they are “Zionists.” pic.twitter.com/fMFTQHbgO8

— Saul Sadka (@Saul_Sadka) January 9, 2025

*Two pair of lynx have been captured in Scotland—in Cairngorms National Park in Scotland.  Lynx do not exist in the wild in Scotland, and it’s not clear if these are Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx; h/t Jez)

A second pair of lynx have been captured after being found near Kingussie in the Cairngorms National Park.

Two other lynx, released illegally, were caught in the same area on Thursday.

Staff from the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland caught all the animals by baiting a series of humane traps in the area to entice them.

The RZSS confirmed that the latest pair had been captured at about 18:30 near the Dell of Killiehuntly, where the two other lynx were also successfully caught.

The latest lynx, believed to be larger than the other two cats, were first spotted at about 07:10 on Friday.

Dr Helen Senn, head of conservation at RZSS, said: “I’m sure that everyone in the community will be happy and relieved to know that the second pair of lynx have been safely captured.

“Early reports are that they appear to be in good health, which is the most important thing.

“It’s been a rollercoaster 48 hours, with people working throughout the day and night, in some extremely challenging conditions, but I’ve been so impressed by the efforts of our own staff as well as partners, and members of the local community to ensure that the outcome is a positive one.”

She added that the lynx would be taken to the Highland Wildlife Park before being moved to Edinburgh Zoo to quarantine for 30 days – as has happened with the first pair found on Thursday.

It’s not clear if they will be released if they are given a clean bill of health, for Scottish naturalists would dearly love to have the species back where it once roamed.

*Today I’ll post four instead of the usual three items stolen from Nellie Bowles’s weekly news summary in the Free Press, called this week, “TGIF: Hellfire.”

→ The Gulf of America: Trump announced that he’ll be renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Now it’ll be the Gulf of America. Here was Trump on Tuesday:

We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which has a beautiful ring, that covers a lot of territory. The Gulf of America, what a beautiful name, and it’s appropriate.

I love that Trump is framing this as the normal way countries negotiate with each other. Tariffs? Yes. Sanctions? Sure. Change the name of a universally agreed-upon ocean? Absolutely. That is how real statesmen operate: Force your adversaries to relabel their maps. It’s also an incredible PR tactic. Shipwreck in the “Gulf of Mexico”? Don’t know what you’re talking about. New oil field discovered in the Gulf of America? Cha-ching!

Trump is going to release a whole new world map by the end of the year. Canada will be labeled “Area 51.” China renamed CHY-na. Ukraine? You’re thinking of “Little Russia.” New Mexico will, of course, become New America, Florida is D.C., and we’re throwing Connecticut to Elon Musk, who has decided to rename it X!12-ZZ Infiniti.

→ News for the Jews: In more news relevant to Jews (other than world domination), the head of Within Our Lifetime explained that there’s obviously no two-state solution: “As long as Israel exists, it is a genocide against the Palestinian people.” Remember when the whole thing was ceasefire and #peace? Funny how that shifts.

→ Funeral side-eyeing: At President Jimmy Carter’s state funeral yesterday, Kamala, who was seated in front of the formers (Trump, Obama, Clinton, my sweet little George), turned around as Trump and Obama chatted. She quickly looked away, took a deep breath, and pursed her lips. She pretended to read the bulletin like there were secrets in there. And for a moment, I felt her pain. George W. even gave Obama a little tap on the stomach. My favorite part of presidential funerals—yes, I have a favorite part—is getting to watch all these characters interact with each other. It’s like watching the most awkward reunion of The Real Househusbands of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

→ Sex is back: I don’t mean sex-sex. I mean males and females existing. That’s what a federal Kentucky judge decided when this week he struck down one of Biden’s signature policies: remaking Title IX to say that students can self-ID as whatever sex or gender they feel, play on any sport team they identify with, and enter any locker room. If schools didn’t go along with it, they would face the full force of the federal government. Now it’s over. What a strange journey we’ve gone on. Did that really happen?

Yes, indeed, Nellie, yes indeed it did.

After a break, Andrew Sullivan is back with The Weekly Dish. His column this week is called “The Price of Orthodoxies“. The theme is how orthodox opinion can blind us to not only the truth, but to horrible truths. His example are the Pakistani/Bangladeshi “rape gangs” (also called “grooming gangs”) in the UK. (And yes, I know there were some white rape gangs, too.) Excerpts:

The more intense the horror, the more powerful the instinct to doubt when you first hear of it. The sex-abuse scandal in my own church first numbed and incapacitated me. It took some time for me to see the totality of what had happened, and how deeply it had destroyed Catholic moral authority. Again, when I first read about, say, the Catholic school for deaf children where a priest had picked his victims among those whose parents did not know sign language, the feeling of horror was almost too much to process at all. And as with the Bush administration’s torture policy, it took even more time to grasp how this moral rot had been enabled by the very top.

This is why, I think, the scandal of Britain’s Pakistani rape-gangs, and the institutional negligence toward tens of thousands of underage victims over several years, has had a second burst of life. A serious national inquiry on the scandal was conducted years ago (its recommendations not yet implemented). But several towns with the worst records were omitted from that inquiry; and the sheer scale and depravity of what happened has finally begun to sink in. The precipitant was Elon Musk pontificating about the scandal on X, as part of his campaign to bring down Keir Starmer.

The details are hard to absorb. Think of the hideous abuse suffered by that extraordinary French woman, Gisèle Pelicot, sedated and raped by dozens of French men, organized by her husband. Now think of that kind of organized gang-bang — but make it close to ubiquitous in some towns and the victims under-age girls: raped, brutalized, mutilated, beaten, their lives destroyed. Yes, it was that bad. Tens of thousands of rape victims across the country. . .

Why was this allowed to go on for so long? For the same reason the Catholic Church covered up child rape for decades, and Dick Cheney covered up torture. Because the orthodoxies of Catholicism, of the American military, and, in this case, the multicultural experiment were respectively involved. These orthodoxies were sacred, their cultural power extreme. Catholic Boston, conservative America, and elite liberal Britain therefore defended their own orthodoxies for a very long time. And with every successful deflection of responsibility, the number of victims increased.

The truth damns the multicultural project in Britain. Rather than integrating these men of Pakistani heritage, insisting that they adopt the laws and mores of the native population, and treating them like everyone else, the UK elites celebrated cultural difference, enabled the siloing of these populations, bemoaned their own white working-class populations, and forbade any criticism of Islam. So if you called out this stuff, you were instantly called racist. After all, to accuse a non-white minority of raping white girls was a trope right out of white-supremacist fever dreams. And yes, it is a hideous racist trope — from the depths of the American South. But sometimes the trope is the truth.

In all the major cases, I’ve found no reported evidence of Pakistani or Muslim girls being groomed and raped — only poor, white natives.The justification among the rapists, moreover, was that these non-Muslims were sluts who were asking for it and beneath contempt. Racist insults were common as these girls were brutally abused. These were not just rapes, but hate crimes of a grisly sort.

It’s not true that the Brit media ignored the scandal. But it is also true that the space they gave it was trivial compared with, say, coverage of the George Floyd murder, thousands of miles away. And ask yourself: if it had been discovered that there were gangs of white nationalists singling out Pakistani-heritage girls for rape and abuse, with racist and Islamophobic slurs added for good measure, what would the media response have been? The question answers itself.

And if a white Brit had been found guilty of organizing the brutal gang-rape of a Pakistani 12-year-old girl, it’s hard to imagine him receiving a sentence of just three years. To get a sense of why the British public is pissed, it’s worth noting that last year, a white Brit was sentenced to a longer 38-month sentence for writing a social media post. More punishment for a white man’s inflammatory speech than for a non-white man’s gang-rape of a child: a near definition of wokeness. And you wonder why they call him Two-Tier Keir.

Yes, some readers think this is a confected scandal by conservatives aiming to depose the Labour Party and its Prime Minister.  I do not agree with them in the sense that it is not made up, and it is a scandal involving disproportionate numbers of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

Finally, a few of us went to Anna Krylov’s (conference organizer) and her partner Jay’s lovely house for dinner the other night. They had been given an evacuation warning, and packed their car, but fortunately the warning was rescinded. I forgot to take photos of the food which was delicious (grilled chicken and a variety of Russian-style sides), but I did get one of the dessert. Also, I was promised that I would get to pet one of their two cats: Mishka (“bear” in Russian), a beautiful gray English shorthair. Here they are:

Mishka (he is somewhat standoffish):

Dessert:

I’ll try to get more photos today, but I doubt the picture of the venue (a large auditorium) or of the box lunches (delicious but unphotogenic) will thrill you.

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is getting some self-care:

A: What are you doing?
Hili: I’m getting depressed.
A: And now, what?
Hili: As a part of the therapy I will turn to the wall.

In Polish:

Ja: Co ty robisz?
Hili: Wpadam w depresję.
Ja: I co teraz?
Hili: W ramach terapii odwrócę się od ściany.

As the article by Matt Taibbi below notes, Mark Zuckerberg is moving his Meta platform–notably Facebook and Instagram–away from censorship and more towards free speech (click the link to read):

The video in this post has vanished from YouTube, but I found it on Facebook and put it below.  Do watch it.

Taibbi quotes a bit of it:

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in a video promising a shift toward free speech:

The US has the strongest constitutional protections for free expression in the world. Europe has an ever increasing number of laws institutionalizing censorship, and making it difficult to build anything innovative there. Latin American countries have secret courts that can order companies to quietly take things down. China has censored our apps from even working in the country. The only way that we can push back on this global trend is with the support of the US government, and that’s why it’s been so difficult over the past four years, when even the US government has pushed for censorship by going after us and other American companies.

The NYT adds a bit more:

Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.

. . . Eight years later, Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said.

Now there is still an opportunity for counterspeech; fact-checkers will be replaced with “Community Notes,” similar to those used on X. There will be a policy to reduce “mistakes”, tackling “illegal and high severity violations” that are reported by others. People, rather than filters, will look for these violations and remove the ones deemed “not free speech.”

As I’ve said before, I would prefer large social-media platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) to adhere as strongly as possible to the First Amendment of the Constitution. That Amendment, of course, has carve-outs: truly prohibited speech. This includes defamation, harassment, false advertising, child pornography, obscenity, and speech liable to incite predictable and lawless violence.

So long as Facebook and X adhere to this policy, I think it’s a step in the right direction. The “Community Notes” will allow the counter-speech that advocates of free speech see as essential to promote the clash of ideas that, according to John Stuart Mill, will promote the emergence of truth. So I think this is a good step, regardless of what you think of Zuckerberg (or Elon Musk, who is running X this way).

I will be at meetings all day today, so I ask readers to discuss this new policy of Zuckerberg (and Musk).  Yes, I know people say that Musk and Zuckerberg are pandering to Trump,  and perhaps that is one motivation, but I do not want readers to concentrate on the people involved, but on the speech policy itself.

Please discuss below.  Do you think places like Facebook and X should prohibit speech that is actually allowed by the First Amendment? If so, which speech?

Or you can discuss Trump’s sentencing as a felon:

After months of delay, President-elect Donald J. Trump on Friday became the first American president to be criminally sentenced.

He avoided jail or any other substantive punishment, but the proceeding carried symbolic importance: It formalized Mr. Trump’s status as a felon, making him the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency.

“Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances,” said the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan. “This has been truly an extraordinary case.”

The judge then imposed a so-called unconditional discharge of Mr. Trump’s sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to jail or probation. Explaining the leniency, Justice Merchan acknowledged Mr. Trump’s inauguration 10 days hence.

“Donald Trump the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant” would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency, Justice Merchan asserted, explaining that only the office shields him from the verdict’s gravity.

The judge then wished Mr. Trump “godspeed” and departed the bench.

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is optimistic, I suppose:

Szaron: We live in times when books are more important for cats than for humans.
Hili: Not for all of them, dear Szaron, not for all.

Szaron: Dożyliśmy czasów, w których książki są ważniejsze dla kotów niż dla ludzi.
Hili: Nie dla wszystkich, drogi Szaronie, nie dla wszystkich.

Those were the words with which Christopher Hitchens began his best speech on video, but it also applies to the three fires raging around Los Angeles. They aren’t bad enough to endanger USC or our conference, but people are cancelling anyway. The sky is hazy and there’s a slight whiff of burning wood at USC, but no sign of smoke.

However, Luana flew into Burbank yesterday, which is closer to the conflagrations, and she took this photo, which she let me put up.

It’s very sad: 100,000 people have evacuated, and many people have lost their homes and everything in them.  My heart goes out to them.

This piece, by a pseudonymous researcher with a Substack, is another example of scientists decrying the journals and editors who make political statements in public. By so doing, the author points out, they simply decrease public confidence in science and scientists (down 10% in just five years, though still high). In other words, violating institutional neutrality in science is counterproductive. When Nature endorsed Biden four years ago, all it did was to erode confidence in the journal, and in U.S. scientists, while not moving any voters toward the Democrats.

Click the headline below to read the article for free:

The author speaks specifically about Holden Thorp, the editor of Science, certainly the most prestigious science journal in America. Thorp said this after the Democrats lost the election:

Holden Thorp, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, another preeminent science journal—the kind publishing in which makes or breaks careers of aspiring academics and the kind that defines funding and research strategies the world over, wrote a response, of sorts, to the voters “…who feel alienated America’s governmental, social, and economic institutions [that] include science and higher education”. His claim is simple: Trump’s message of “…xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth…” resonates with them. It’s the people’s fault: the people voted wrong. Well… to borrow his own words, “Make no mistake.” Holden Thorp does not speak for me.

You can find Thorp’s op-ed here.

It’s not that the author is a Trump fan, for, like me, he despises the man:

. . . Harris’ legacy is tainted by her support for the diversity and social justice activism responsible for the damage that has been done to Western academic and social institutions in its name. She lost to Donald Trump, a conman and a charlatan of historic proportions who went as far as inciting a coup to remain in power the last time he was president, and a persona as anti-science as one could imagine after Lysenko’s death, second possibly only to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In many ways, 2024 was the year the Democrats handed the election to Trump

About the Pew surveys, with links in the article:

What these surveys and studies show is that people continue to trust scientists more, than they do politicians. It follows from this that the more scientists act like politicians, the less the public will trust us. Yet, in recent decades, scientific institutions and individual scientists have been acting more and more like the politicians by engaging in activism and social engineering.

I do not know who the author is, but he/she rejects being spoken for by Thorp simply because of Thorp’s dismissal of Americans as a “basket of deplorables” and declaring that his journal adheres to “progressive” politics:

Surveys and studies on public trust in science suggest that what people question is not the science, but “… the extent to which scientists’ values align with their own”, and how this alignment—or misalignment—affects the integrity of their findings. What are the values that people expect scientists to align with? According to Holden Thorps of academia, those values are xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth. This disparaging message is nothing new. In fact, this has been the message communicated by individual academics and academic institutions to people on the outside for at least two decades, the message that can be found everywhere, from land acknowledgements to course syllabi. Academics are telling people that they stole “indigenous land”, that they are oppressors, colonizers, racists, misogynists, -phobes of all sorts, fascists, racists, nationalists. It is furthermore alleged that it is up to the enlightened academic elite to show the unwashed masses the path to salvation that lies through admitting one’s sins, accepting one’s guilt, and correcting the way one thinks, speaks, and behaves. Notably, the sins in question, as well as the alleged enlightenment of the accusers, are both imaginary.

It is not only that Holden Thorp and those like him have for decades been dripping disdain for the very people who pay their salaries, travel allowances, and research costs from their taxes; It is not only that his brand of academics have for decades been demonizing those regular voters he is talking about—bus drivers and fast food employees, teachers and policemen, servicemen and businessmen—as some sort of Nazi-adjacent monsters, accusing them of all sorts of imaginary sins. It is that those same people, while being demonized for their desire to live and enjoy normal, safe, and productive lives under the conditions afforded by the freedom and safety of Western civilization, the civilization built on the blood of the brave defenders of its values—those same people have at the same time witnessed the full-throttled support academia threw behind the black lives matter riots and Islamic terrorists—those real, living and breathing Nazis who behead children, rape women, burn entire families alive, and shoot their pet dogs; Hamas supporters were allowed to roam free on academic campuses, attacking people, vandalizing buildings, leaving a mess for the janitors to clean up, and, in general, destroying things built over generations by the very people the academics demonize.

In other words, those voters Holden Thorp is so disdainful of were witnessing the hypocrisy of the academic community, the members of which compromised the truth for political gain—exactly the sin Thorp is accusing his political rivals (Trump supporters) of. Against this backdrop, the surprising part is that trust in science and scientists remains as high as it does.

The article gives several more examples of the institutional capture and lack of institutional neutrality of science editors and journals, including the sad tale of Laura Helmuth and Scientific American (I note that the new, Helmuth-less journal seems to have retracted its wokeness). But the article ends on a note of hope. I have added the links from the original article.

As I was finishing this piece, there were several positive developments. As I have already mentioned, Laura Helmuth resigned from Scientific American, offering the journal a chance to reclaim its former scientific rigor. Marcia McNutt, the president of the United States National Academy of Sciences, wrote a powerful editorial Science is neither red nor blue, published in Science. The University of Michigan, formerly one of the hubs of diversity, equity, and inclusion ideology squandering some US$15M/year, resolved to no longer solicit diversity statements in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. A UofM physics professor offered a relatively mild testimony of the damage done by the DEI initiatives and the black lives matter grift, a testimony that was unthinkable only a few years ago. More generally, in the wake of October 7th, multiple institutions adopted political neutrality. These are important first steps in reversing and repairing the damage that was done to scholarship, research, innovation, and teaching over the decades of woke/DEI insanity.

As they say, “One can hope. . . .”

The next link gives FIRE’s list of schools that have adopted institutional neutrality à la the University of Chicago’s Kalven Principles. There are now 29 of them: a good start, but still a drop in the bucket given that there are about 6,000 colleges in the U.S.

A while back Luana debated Holden Thorp about the ideological takeover of science. Here’s a video of that debate, and I don’t think Thorp came out on top

I am leaving for a week. The bad news is that I am going to Los Angeles, where wildfires are running rampant.

The wildfire that raced across the Hollywood Hills early Thursday, threatening a wealthy area indelibly tied to the American film industry, put additional strain on millions of Los Angeles residents already stressed by catastrophic blazes that have erased entire neighborhoods and streaked the sky with smoke and embers.

The fires have killed at least five people and burned more than 27,000 acres, equivalent to nearly 20,000 football fields. The largest ones, the Palisades and Eaton fires, have destroyed at least 2,000 structures and are already the two most destructive to ever hit Los Angeles.

Tens of thousands of Los Angeles residents were under mandatory evacuation orders or warnings on Thursday. Overnight, there was a palpable sense of anxiety as firefighting helicopters swept across a dark sky where orange embers were floating like lightning bugs.

There were traffic jams after a wildfire broke out in the Hollywood Hills near streets — Mulholland Drive, Sunset Boulevard — whose names evoke the grandeur of Hollywood movies. An evacuation order for that area was mostly lifted just before midnight.

A fire also reared up in the nearby Studio City neighborhood, burning several homes and prompting warnings of a potential evacuation. But it was quickly extinguished and no injuries were reported.

Residents feel vulnerable partly because strong desert winds and dangerously dry conditions — it hasn’t rained much in Los Angeles for months — are making it easier for more fires to start and spread. A shortage of water in local reservoirs makes it harder for crews to put fires out.

More than 16 million people in Southern California, from Malibu down to San Diego County, were under a red flag warning early Thursday morning. Forecasters warned that extreme fire danger would continue for at least another day.

There are three big ones.

From the Free Press newsletter:

Southern California is burning. Thousands have been forced to evacuate as wildfires rip through the area. There are five so far and not enough firefighters to deal with them, L.A. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone said yesterday, telling reporters his department was “prepared for one or two major fires… This is not a normal red flag alert.”

So far, five people have been killed. Over 130,000 residents have been told to evacuate. Hundreds of schools have been closed, as tens of thousands of acres go up in smoke. Not even the rich and famous have been spared. Actor James Woods lost his home. The Malibu mansion of hotel heiress Paris Hilton went up in flames. Palisades Charter High School, among the most iconic public secondary schools in America and which educated J.J. Abrams, will.i.am, and Katey Sagal, has turned to ash.

Late yesterday morning, on Truth Social, our president-elect railed against California’s “Governor Gavin Newscum,” blaming him for the wildfires currently ravaging the state. According to Donald Trump, Newsom blocked a water restoration project because “he wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt,” and that’s why California is burning. It’s not entirely clear what Trump’s trying to claim here—and believe me, I spent some time trying to figure it out. But the basic elements seem to be fire=bad, water=good, fish=tangentially related and controversial.

I am told that my conference, at the University of Southern California, is out of the fire zone and will go on. But I am also told that one friend whom I was going to visit has lost his home and everything in the fire. That is ineffably sad; the person was an artist and lost his studio as well. I cannot imagine losing everything you own, all at once.

I will report on the meeting and post when I can (I do my best). I am off to Midway Airport, where I hope to procure a giant coffee and a couple of sinkers at Dunkin Donuts.

 

Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili has specific reading choices:

Hili: Are you looking for a detective novel on the shelf?
A: You guessed it.
Hili: Take the one I haven’t read yet.

In Polish:

Hili: Szukasz jakiegoś kryminału na półce?
Ja: Zgadłaś.
Hili: Weź taki, którego ja jeszcze nie czytałam.

Well, I’m not sure that most American comedians working now are Jews, but surely they are still way overrepresented compared to the proportion of Jews in America, which is only 2.4%.

In fact, the first two comedians I thought of still working were Jerry Seinfeld and Sarah Silverman, both of course of the Hebrew persuasion.  But think of the great comedians of the past 50 years, and then of their religion.  As one site reports, “In 1978, 80 percent of American standup comedians were Jewish.”  But it’s not just the standups!

Here are are just a few well-known Jewish comedians (I’m leaving out ones that few people know, like Fanny Brice).

Groucho Marx
Mel Brooks
Rodney Dangerfield
Mort Sahl
Don Rickles
Henny Youngman
Jerry Seinfeld
George Burns
Lenny Bruce
Joan Rivers
Jackie Mason
Gilda Radner
Milton Berle
Curly, Moe, and Shemp Howard of The Three Stooges
Carl Reiner
Bill Maher
Jerry Lewis

I won’t go on; there are too many!  In fact, Wikipedia has three full pages of Jewish comedians, listed alphabetically (start here and continue by clicking at the bottom of each page).

There must be reasons for this inequity in comedy, and I’m also sure that many people have discussed this. But I don’t know of the speculations, so I asked three Jewish friends (one of them is ME) to give their theories.

1.) Malgorzata, my surrogate Polish mother:

Malgorzata lightheartedly suggested that the tendency of Jews to offer humor is the result of natural selection: since Jews have experienced dark times and pogroms throughout much of their history, those Jews who could laugh at themselves and the world were less likely to be depressed and to kill themselves, or more likely to tolerate intolerable situations. If there is genetic variation for humor, those with more “humor” genes would survive and reproduce. Other groups haven’t had such a history, ergo Jews tend to be comedians. (I am paraphrasing what she told me.) natural selection for people who could laugh and have a sense of humor because they would commit suicide.

2.) Me (PCC[E]):

I have a variant based on the impression of many Jews that the whole world of non-Jews hates them, something that is not far from the truth.  Jews, then, suffer from a lack of love from others.  To compensate for this, they become comedians, for what better way is there to get love and approbation than to have an audience laugh at your jokes? And they are not laughing at you, but laughing with you. That is s a form of love. This is a cultural explanation for the surfeit of Jewish comedians.

3.) Steve Pinker.  I asked him for his explanation, and this is his response (quoted with permission). Part of his theory jibes with Malgorzata’s, but he is looking for an explanation that itself is funny:

This has been a puzzle that others have (humorlessly) considered, including Ruth Wisse (former Harvard colleague and fellow Montrealer, grew up with my mother), and Howard Jacobson (British novelist, unlike most Brits proud of being Jewish). Something about humor being a subversive tactic, or a coping mechanism of the powerless and oppressed. The analyses were neither convincing nor funny.

But they may be consistent with the fact that many African Americans have been great comedians – Moms Mabley, Pigmeat Markham, Nipsey Russell, Flip Wilson, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and the greatest of all, Bill Cosby. (“Noah!”)

Of course this is a lighthearted post, but there is a real phenomenon to be explained, and I invite readers to offer their own theory, which is theirs.

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “cheers,” isn’t particularly religious, but surely expresses the feelings of many people. (I for one will make no resolutions!) I don’t think the “booze is always bad for you” issue is yet settled, anyway.

Ecologist Susan Harrison of UC Davis has return with a fresh batch of photos. Susan’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge her photos by clicking on them.

Miscellaneous birds of late 2024

The only theme of this post is “birds I saw in late 2024 and haven’t used in a WEIT post yet.”  The first ones are from Shoreline Park in Mountain View, California.  Less than a mile from the Googleplex, 5 miles from Stanford University and 10 miles from Apple’s campus, this park lies on a stretch of southern San Francisco Bay that hosts many thousands of overwintering waterfowl and shorebirds.   Every year I get to enjoy its sights the day after Thanksgiving, when my siblings and their families gather for a meal and a birdwatching stroll.

American White Pelicans, Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, foraging along the shore in their majestically unhurried style:

Greater Yellowlegs, Tringa melanoleuca, staring into a very small abyss:

Snowy Egret, Egretta thula, looking like a movie star annoyed by paparazzi:

American Coot, Fulica americana, flaunting oversized webbed feet:

The next ones are from the vicinity of Davis, California.

Vermilion Flycatcher, Pyrocephalus rubinus, an immature male that excited the local birders since it’s a rare species in northern California:

Green Heron, Butorides virescens, casting a long shadow in an irrigation ditch:

Common Goldeneyes, Bucephala clangula, a group of females accompanied by one male lurking just out of sight:

Barrow’s Goldeneyes, Bucephala islandica, a more northerly species than the Common Goldeneye, distinguished by the female’s oranger beak and the male’s facial upside-down comma:

Osprey, Pandion haliaetus, watching for fish while also eyeing the humans watching it:

These two pictures are from Ashland, Oregon.

Oak Titmouse, Baeolophus inornatus, resembling Zippy the Pinhead:

Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus, showing off a tessellated backside:

And the last is from Bodega Bay, California.

Belted Kingfisher, Megaceryle alcyon, my nearest thing to success at photographing this bold yet notoriously camera-averse bird:

UPDATE:  A UK government report from 2020 suggests that there are conflicting data on the ethnicity of the offending “grooming gangs”. Click below to see the study and I quote from page 10 of the Executive Summary (bolding is mine):

17. A number of high-profile cases – including the offending in Rotherham investigated by Professor Alexis Jay,3 the Rochdale group convicted as a result of Operation Span, and convictions in Telford – have mainly involved men of Pakistani ethnicity. Beyond specific high-profile cases, the academic literature highlights significant limitations to what can be said about links between ethnicity and this form of offending. Research has found that group-based CSE offenders are most commonly White.4 Some studies suggest an over-representation of Black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations.5 However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. This is due to issues such as data quality problems, the way the samples were selected in studies, and the potential for bias and inaccuracies in the way that ethnicity data is collected.6 During our conversations with police forces, we have found that in the operations reflected, offender groups come from diverse backgrounds, with each group being broadly ethnically homogenous. However, there are cases where offenders within groups come from different backgrounds.7

Stay tuned, and if you know of more dispositive data, place it in the comments. If this be true,  then even bringing in the element of race is misguided. But as I say below, it doesn’t matter what color or ethnicity the pedophiles were, for nearly everyone agrees that the whole issue of grooming gangs has been grossly mishandled by the UK authorities, and largely swept under the rug.

UPDATE 2: A reader calls attention to this NYT article claiming that Musk’s tactics in exposing the grooming gangs are dishonest and politically motivated.

 

The Free Press headline below may be exaggerated, but it comes close to the truth.  For it’s about the “grooming gangs” that have plagued England for several decades.  They involve groups of men—most often of Pakistani or Bangladesi ancestry—whose goal is to subjugate and rape young children of both sexes. Some children have been killed.  But because the perps are usually people of color, the government, the police, and the public have largely ignored the issue.  This is a huge scandal involving, once again, a clash of ideologies that came down the wrong way. The warring ideologies are to avoid denigrating immigrants of color versus protecting children against pedophiles.

Yes, some of these gangs have been broken up and the perps sent to prison, but only now, with the prompting of Elon Musk, is it being publicized as the heinous crime it is. (The fact that Musk is widely hated makes it hard for people to accept the situation, but his actions in this case are right.) For the grooming is still going on, and not just in the UK but in other places in Europe.  Unfortunately, calling attention to these gangs is seen not only as racist, but as anti-immigrant, both characterizations being horrible to liberals.

I’m not going to describe these crimes in detail, as they makes me sick, but you need to know about them, and the UK needs to start taking the issue VERY seriously.

First, a piece from the Free Press, which you can access by clicking on the headline.

There’s a thread of incidents tweeted by Elon Musk you can find at the link, and of course everybody is festooning them with community notes because Musk. This first one, for example, happened five years ago, and the perps are in jail. But it tells you the kind of things that can happen. Here are the first two tweets, apparently both from 2013.  But as the article above notes, this is still going on,

pic.twitter.com/mt1csIreQd

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 5, 2025

A quote from the Free Press piece:

The grooming and serial rape of thousands of English girls by men of mostly Pakistani Muslim background over several decades is the biggest peacetime crime in the history of modern Europe. It went on for many years. It is still going on. And there has been no justice for the vast majority of the victims.

British governments, both Conservative and Labour, hoped that they had buried the story after a few symbolic prosecutions in the 2010s. And it looked like they had succeeded—until Elon Musk read some of the court papers and tweeted his disgust and bafflement on X over the new year.

Britain now stands shamed before the world. The public’s suppressed wrath is bubbling to the surface in petitions, calls for a public inquiry, and demands for accountability.

The scandal is already reshaping British politics. It’s not just about the heinous nature of the crimes. It’s that every level of the British system is implicated in the cover-up.

Social workers were intimidated into silence. Local police ignored, excused, and even abetted pedophile rapists across dozens of cities. Senior police and Home Office officials deliberately avoided action in the name of maintaining what they called “community relations.” Local councilors and Members of Parliament rejected pleas for help from the parents of raped children. Charities, NGOs, and Labour MPs accused those who discussed the scandal of racism and Islamophobia. The media mostly ignored or downplayed the biggest story of their lifetimes. Zealous in their incuriosity, much of Britain’s media elite remained barnacled to the bubble of Westminster politics and its self-serving priorities.

They did this to defend a failed model of multiculturalism, and to avoid asking hard questions about failures of immigration policy and assimilation. They did this because they were afraid of being called racist or Islamophobic. They did this because Britain’s traditional class snobbery had fused with the new snobbery of political correctness.

All of which is why no one knows precisely how many thousands of young girls were raped in how many towns across Britain since the 1970s.

Although some have said that this is no longer a problem, and the perps are all in jail, that’s simply not true. The first link above goes to a UK government site about the Grooming Gangs Taskforce, and was published in May of last year:

In the last 12 months the crack team of expert investigators and analysts has helped police forces arrest over 550 suspects, identify and protect over 4,000 victims, and build up robust cases to get justice for these appalling crimes.

Established by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in April 2023, the Grooming Gangs Taskforce of specialist officers has worked with all 43 police forces in England and Wales to support child sexual exploitation and grooming investigations.

Led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and supported by the National Crime Agency, the taskforce is a full time, operational police unit funded by the Home Office to improve how the police investigate grooming gangs and identify and protect children from abuse. It is staffed by experienced and qualified officers and data analysts who have long-term, practical on-the-ground experience of undertaking investigations into grooming gangs.

Finally, from Unherd, an article about how the cops are complicit in not going after grooming gangs. It’s written by a former detective :

The answer is pretty much what you would expect: going after grooming gangs that largely comprise people of color is seen as racist, and you know how the British cops are with “hate speech”:

The statistics behind the rape gang scandal — let’s banish the wholly inadequate word “grooming” — are staggering. For over 25 years, networks of men, predominantly from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds, abused young white girls from Yeovil to London to Glasgow. The victims’ accounts are beyond depravity, unthinkable in a supposedly advanced Western democracy.

That, of course, immediately raises a simple, shocking question: why did British police services turn a blind eye to the gang rape of tens of thousands of young girls? I should have a fair idea. I was a police officer for 25 years, including five as a detective in the Met’s anticorruption command. Working on sensitive investigations into police wrongdoing, I saw first-hand how law enforcement responds to scandals and crises. I’ve watched senior officers, faced with uncomfortable truths, wriggle like greased piglets. I’ve witnessed logic-defying decisions for nakedly political reasons. I am firmly of the view, then, that the whole scandal has unambiguously revealed rank cowardice by constabularies across the UK, where the most senior whistleblower in the entire country was a lowly detective constable.

The answer, in the end, is simple. Racism, for police services from Chester to Penzance, remains the original sin. From the Scarman Report to the Macpherson Inquiry, the police have long served as Britain’s sin-eaters, devouring social problems on our behalf. As former Met Commissioner Sir Robert Mark famously wrote: “The police are the anvil on which society beats out the problems and abrasions of social inequality, racial prejudice, weak laws and ineffective legislation.” That was over 40 years ago, and little has changed since. This institutional reticence over race goes beyond the police themselves: even the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) review of the rape gang scandal tiptoed around the heritage and religion of offenders.

The second reason why race is a third rail issue for police? Public order. The raison d’etre of British policing, imprinted into its DNA, is Keeping the King’s Peace. And as we saw in Southport and elsewhere last summer, austerity-ravaged services are ill-equipped to deal with large-scale disorder. Riots, especially those with a racial element, are the ultimate manifestation of police failure, even as forces like Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire are petrified of seeing a repeat of the 2001 disturbances in Oldham. I suspect, then, that chief constables were inclined to see the rape gang scandal as another intractable problem, confined to a marginalised section of the white underclass. To pick at that particular scab might risk public disorder. Better to speak to “community leaders” — to keep the peace, even at the price of allowing organised paedophile networks to operate in plain sight.

It is incomprehensible to me how the police, government, and general public prefer to brush this issue under the rug: it’s pedophilia, for crying out loud, and the abuse is both horrible and pervasive. But I’ll close with the observation that again we see a clash of two opposing views: one in which people of color should be treated fairly, which is good, and the other in which children should not be sexually abused, completely incontestable.  But when people of color begin mass sexual abuse of children, and those children appear to be mostly white, you can see how it poses a conflict for the woke. Yet it should not be a conflict, for no matter what color the abusers and rapists are, they are violating the law big time and should be taken off the streets. That has happened to some extent, but not nearly to the extent that should be the case.

h/t: Luana

There are two items of interest in the Big KerFFRFle, the dispute in which the Freedom from Religion Foundation appears to be melting down over an episode in which they removed my post on gender from their website.

The first is an account of the fracas by Yontat Shimron in the Religion News Service (RNS). The piece is pretty objective but has a few glitches. Click below to read it, or find it archived here. The most interesting part is its confirmatio—heretofore only a rumor—that the FFRF has dissolved its entire Honorary Board, the board of 18 honorees from which Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, and I resigned.

I’d heard rumors that the other 15 members of the Honorary Board were also vanished, even though you can still see them at this link, (archived here) found by Googling “FFRF honorary board”. Curiously, you get two links when you Google those words, with the other one, here,  showing only one name, Jeremiah Camara.  But the reporter of the piece below verified that the entire Honorary Board is gone—defunct, sleeping with the fishes and singing with the Choir Invisible.

Click to read or, if the article disappears or changes, the version posted this morning is archived here.

The part that I found most bizarre, but conforming to rumors I’ve heard, is this (also noted in the headline):

The nation’s largest freethought organization has dissolved its honorary board after three of its prominent members resigned in an ideological battle over transgender issues.

And that’s all it said, but if a reporter noted it, she must have had information. I contacted Yonat Shimron, who verified that yes, the honorary board of the FFRF has been dissolved, that this was confirmed to her by one of the co-Presidents of the FFRF, and that it was done at the behest of the FFRF’s governing board.

The conclusion, of course, is that the FFRF does not WANT an honorary board at all. Why? The only conclusion I can reach is that other honorary-board members could, in the future, cause “trouble” in the way that the three of us did, publicly criticizing the organization for its mission creep and adherence to woke gender ideology.  Ditching the other 15 (I hope they’ve been told!) is an often-seen aspect of wokeness: any index of merit that conflicts with “progressive” ideology must be effaced. (Similarly, many American colleges have dropped requirements for applicants to submit standardized test scores, like those from the SAT and ACT.)  It seems that the FFRF doesn’t want to take a chance with people on the honorary board publicly espousing the “wrong ideology.”

A tweet from Colin Wright:

I have internal confirmation that the @FFRF has indeed dissolved their Honorary Board following the public resignations of Dawkins, Pinker, and Coyne.

When your organization has abandoned its core principled, maintaining a Board of principled intellectuals becomes a liability. https://t.co/E1P0OtIoLX

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) January 6, 2025

There are a couple of things I am not keen on about the piece, but in general it’s objective and accurate. I do think the sub-headline overly dramatizes my claim that transwomen are more sexually predatory than “other women” (I of course meant biological women). That was certainly not the main point of my piece, which was the definition of “woman”.   But the data certainly support that claim, which shows beyond doubt that, with respect to criminal sexual behavior, trans women are not women. Anyway, this is a quibble; authors and editors have the right to emphasize what they want.

My other beef, however, is more important, as it’s a matter of accuracy. The RNS article says this. I’ve put the contentious bits in bold:

The post, which drew intense backlash, was taken down on Dec. 28, one day after it was published, prompting Coyne, Dawkins and Pinker to resign from the foundation. That led the foundation to dissolve the 14- member honorary board.

The flap offers a peek at a roiling controversy among a select group of New Atheists who have expressed views that are anti-transgender and more generally “anti-woke.” It is a position taken by another atheist group, the Center for Inquiry. But it is also hotly contested by most in the nonbeliever community. In 2021, the American Humanist Association withdrew its “Humanist of the Year” award from Dawkins over his anti-trans comments.

In an interview with RNS, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, took responsibility for publishing and then removing Coyne’s article.

First, I don’t know any New atheist who has expressed views that are “anti-transgender”, only discussing that the rights of transgender people might rarely conflict with the rights of other groups (viz., sports) and need to be adjudicated.  The article makes New Atheists look like people who want to erase trans folks. That ain’t true. (Yes, I suppose you can find a handful of “New Atheist” who are truly bent on curtailing all the rights of transgender people, but they are surely in the minority.)

But the bit about Dawkins is grossly distorted. Below are the purported “anti-trans” comments that Richard tweeted, comments made the AHA withdraw its award, committing a reprehensible act.  As Richard has explained, he was merely posing a question for discussion, a question first raised in 2017 by philosopher Rebecca Tuvel in a published paper (“In defense of transracialism“) that concluded that there was no substantive ethical difference between asking people to accept your non-natal gender and asking them to accept your non-natal “race.”

Tuvel’s paper caused a huge controversy because some people didn’t like the race aspect, though I read Tuvel’s paper and agree with her. Still, the editor of the journal resigned, the journal (Hypatia) apologized, and many scholars called for the paper’s removal. Tuvel, a brave soul, stuck to her guns and the paper is still up. And the question is still worth debating, as Richard noted. Why is there a difference between transgenderism and transracialism?  Isn’t that something to chew on?

Richard noted that he was simply framing the question as one to ponder, as he would with questions posed to his Oxford students to discuss in their weekly essay. You can see his tweet below, and it is certainly not “anti-trans”!  The RNS really should change that, as it borders on defamation.

In another piece, secularist, humanist, and writer Ed Buckner wrote a piece on the kerFFRFle on his Substack site. You can access it by clicking below. It is generally favorable toward the views of Richard, Steve, and I, as well as toward our resignations, but makes one point that I want to emphasize:

Buckner refers to an online essay criticizing my now-defunct essay on the FFRF site (archived here), and to an essay by Aaron Rabinowitz on the Unfriendly Atheist site, to which I’ve added the link:

To turn now more specifically to Aaron Rabinowitz’s essay on Friendly Atheist (link below if you missed it), he criticized Jerry Coyne for allegedly pretending to expertise as an ethicist, for overstepping his status as a pre-eminent biologist. But I reread Coyne’s essay with care and nowhere did he state or imply that he’s an ethicist, expert or otherwise.

And Buckner has rewritten part of what I wrote to make it conform with his own ethical beliefs. In fact I agree with Buckner’s writing, which expresses my real views, views I should expanded on in the original FFRF piece:

Coyne does offer some opinions that are related to ethics, of course.

For example,

Transgender women, for example, should not compete athletically against biological women; should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters; or, if convicted of a crime, should not be placed in a women’s prison.

My own “ethical” opinion is close to Coyne’s. I would probably—but only after I studied the matter more carefully, including discussions with rape counselors and probably even with women who’ve been victims of rape or of women-batterers, modify some of what Coyne wrote slightly to say:

Neither men or women, cis- or trans-gendered, should serve as rape counselors and as workers in battered women’s shelters, unless the counselors or others working there pass a background check; even then, no one should so serve unless the clients are aware of and accept the status of the counselors/workers.

I can imagine circumstances where there might be an advantage to victims of having a man or a trans woman on hand, but the rights, needs, and wants of the victims, even if sometimes irrational, should be paramount.

I think the second version, expressing Buckner’s views, is better than what I wrote, and it does summarize views I already held (but failed to express). While I still think that at present tranwomen should not compete against biological women in sports, and shouldn’t really be running battered women’s shelters, they should not be completely barred from that job nor from acting as rape counselors—so long as (as Buckner writes), they undergo a background check and the women residents of shelters or women being counseled for rape or sexual assault are made aware that the counselor is a trans woman (a biological man) and are okay with that. This view will, of course still be seen as “transphobic” by some extremists, but there’s a very good case for holding this view in light of the rights of biological women. This involves a conflict between two groups’ “rights”, and in the interests of fairness and the needs of biological women, I come down against sports participation of transwomen and cast a very cold eye on the other two issues.

Buckner’s conclusion (bolding is Buckner’s)

Serious freethinking, requires, in my view, expressing views and understanding and accepting that your views may not be accepted as correct by everyone. Real disagreement can occur, and this should not lead FFRF or anyone else to declare, as it did in (unwisely) removing Coyne’s reply to [Kat] Grant,

We regret any distress caused by this post and are committed to ensuring it doesn’t happen again.

That’s a terrible outcome. Of course FFRF should not publish a hateful, bigoted essay (Coyne’s wasn’t) and then remove it—it should instead post essays that disagree with other essays and promise to keep posting words from people who think freely enough to not always toe anyone’s dogmatic party line—and to say so.

I posted a comment agreeing with Buckner’s rewriting of my views on shelters and counselors, but Richard also posted an excellent related comment (click to enlarge if you’re myopic or reading on a phone):

The fallout from this affair is not quite over, but I think it does constitute a twofold lesson. First, the ideology of Leftist humanists and atheists such as Richard, Steve, and I will sometimes conflict with the ideology of other Leftist humanists and atheists, particularly when it comes to wokeness. We are not a homogenous group.

Second, it is not right for organizations that promote freethought and discussion to censor people whose ideology conflicts with their own, and by “censoring” I mean first allowing the heterodox person to publish material on the organization’s website but subsequently removing it because the publication was “a mistake” that caused “distress”. That is nonsensical behavior, and it does the FFRF no credit. (I hasten to add that I always admired, and still admire, the FFRF’s initiatives to keep religion out of government and educate people about nontheism.)

Anyway, read Buckner’s piece; there’s a lot more in it than I’ve described above.

I’ve often said that if I could have been any rock star, it would have been Stephen Stills. Well, make that any American rock star, for if I could chose one musician from around the world, it would be Paul McCartney. Both men were incredibly handsome, a prerequisite for my fantasy, but more important, both were immensely talented, able to write great songs, sing wonderfully, and play a number of instruments with dexterity. It’s just that McCartney produce a greater variety of music, and overall better music, than did Stills.

But Stills, who celebrated his 80th birthday on January 3, remains underrated. His greatest years were with Buffalo Springfield, as well as with Crosby, Nash (and somtimes Neil Young), but I will put up a few songs that he wrote and played on his own or with other groups.

First comes one of my favorite Stills songs, “4 + 20,” which did appear on a CS&N album, but is solely the work of Stills. He was indeed 24 when he wrote it, a remarkable achievement for someone that young. I loved it so much that I taught myself to play it back when I played acoustic guitar and did three-finger picking. Wikipedia says this:

Stills stated: “It’s about an 84-year-old poverty stricken man who started and finished with nothing.” However, the lyrics state that the narrator was born 24 years ago, making him about a year younger than Stills was when the song was recorded.

. . . . Stills recorded the song in one take and planned to use it on his upcoming debut solo album, but when his bandmates heard it, they implored him to use it on the Déjà Vu album. He planned to have bandmates David Crosby and Graham Nash sing harmony parts, but they refused. “They told me they wouldn’t touch it,” said Stills. “So it always stood alone.” On the highly-collaborative Déjà Vu album, “4 + 20” stands out as the only song which was both written and performed solo by one member of the band, justified by Crosby who recalled “We just said, ‘It’s too damn good, we’re not touching it.”)

Here he sings and plays it on the Dick Cavett show, and you might recognize Joni Mitchell beside him as well as David Crosby sitting nearby.  The lyrics are slightly different from the recorded version (here), as Stills seems to forget the one line: “And he wasn’t into selling door to door.”

In this part of his life, Stills was also into wearing ponchos.

“Do for the others” is remarkable in that the entire song—all the vocals and instrumentation—was performed by Stills. (he also wrote it). It’s from his first solo album, the 1970 Stephen Stills. All that Wikipedia says about it is this:

“Do For the Others” was written for David Crosby about the death of his girlfriend Christine Hinton.

Below we have the song “It doesn’t matter” from the 1972 Manassas album, by a group in which he shared guitar leads with former Byrd Chris Hillman.  I wanted to put up a live version of another great song from that album, “So begins the task,” but I couldn’t find a live version. You can hear the recorded version here.

The song is clearly about a lost love, and that love is apparently Judy Collins, with whom Stills had a torrid relationship. One site says this:

[Stills] wrote the song about his breakup with Judy Collins; that same lost romance was fodder for “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes” and “You Don’t Have to Cry.” “So Begins the Task” is believed the first song Stills wrote about/for Collins.

“Suite: Judy Blue Eyes” is one of Stills’s best songs, sung on the 1969 album “Crosby, Stills & Nash” (original recording here). But here are CS&N doing it live, and it’s a very good version, showing the harmony that made the group famous (they first sang together at a party at Joni Mitchell’s home in 1968).

Here’s a translation of the Spanish lyrics at the song’s end:

How happy it makes me to think of Cuba,
the smiles of the Caribbean Sea,
Sunny sky has no blood, and how sad that
I’m not able to go
Oh go, oh go go

What a great tribute to Judy!

Finally, Blonde in the Bleachers,” an underrated song by Joni Mitchell from her great 1972 album “For the Roses.” On this song Stills plays the bass and drums.  The two never had a romance, but did work together a few times.  My theory (which is mine) is that Mitchell wrote the song about Stills and his groupies.

The Atlantic has waded into perilous waters by publishing what turns out to be quite a good article about transgender women competing in athletics against biological women. The fact that this liberal and prestigious magazine even writes about the issue is, to me, a good sign: a sign that the issue needs discussing.  And I’m glad to see that the author, staff writer Helen Lewis, concludes with a solution that is virtually identical to mine.

To read her piece, click below, or find it archived here.

Lewis begins by citing recent controversies involving transgender women competing—and winning—against biological women. They include the now well-known story of Lia Thomas, who will swim no more against women, as well as the San Jose State women’s volleyball team, which included what seemed to be a trans woman (they won’t publicly admit it, but most team members do). This story isn’t as well known:

In September, the San Jose State co-captain Brooke Slusser and the associate coach Melissa Batie-Smoose went public with their concerns about their own team’s trans player. “Safety is being taken away from women,” Batie-Smoose later told Fox News. “Fair play is taken away from women.” Both women told Quillette that they believed players and coaches were being pressured not to make a fuss. The next month, Liilii told me, she and her Nevada teammates voted, 16–1, to boycott their next match against San Jose State. The Nevada players were not alone: Teams from Boise State, the University of Wyoming, Southern Utah, and Utah State also forfeited games rather than face the trans player.

 

San Jose State kept competing despite all that—and despite a lawsuit aimed at barring the school from the Mountain West Conference postseason tournament in Las Vegas in November. (The lawsuit failed, and the team finished second in the finals.) The season ended in acrimony. “I will not sugarcoat our reality for the last two months,” San Jose State’s head coach, Todd Kress, said in a statement after the tournament. “Each forfeiture announcement unleashed appalling, hateful messages individuals chose to send directly to our student-athletes, our coaching staff, and many associated with our program.” Afterward, seven of the team’s athletes requested to enter the transfer portal. The disputed player, who is a senior, will not compete again.

 

The problem is, as the references below show, trans women who go through male puberty retain substantial athletic advantages over biological women, even if testosterone suppressors are used to try to equalize the categories.  But the suppressors don’t do that, for somebody who goes through male puberty develops the musculature, bone density, grip strength, and other indices of athletic success that give them pronounced advantages over natal women (equestrian sports may be an exception).  And this advantage appears to last for years—perhaps forever.

Well, why not allow trans women to compete who have transitioned before puberty? The problem is that there are almost none of these, for male puberty occurs some time between ages 9 and 14, and that is simply too young for adolescent males to decide to take hormones and/or have surgery to develop something closer to a woman’s body. If future research shows that transitioning at a very young age makes females athletically equal on average to natal females, then we can reassess. But existing data show that trans women, or some with disorders of sex determination, have an innate athletic advantage over women, and thus shouldn’t be competing in women’s sports.

Republicans have made hay of this, of course, and if you polled Democrats versus Republicans over whether trans women should compete against natal women in sports, Republicans would say “no” at a higher rate. But just because this view is more pervasive in the GOP doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact, Democrats themselves are starting to realize that such competition is unfair:

Greater awareness of Thomas and other trans athletes in women’s sports did not translate into greater approval. If anything, the opposite occurred: In 2021, 55 percent of Democrats supported transgender athletes competing in the team of their chosen gender, according to Gallup. Two years later, however, that number had fallen to 47 percent. Overall, nearly seven out of 10 Americans now think athletes should compete in the category of their birth sex.

Nevertheless, the Biden Administration’s early executive order prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity implied that this would also hold for sports participation. Now, as Lewis notes, Biden has backed off on this construal of the order, perhaps because the wokeness of Harris and Biden (the subject of GOP attack ads) may have played a role in their November defeat.

Regardless, as I’ve learned in the past week or so, those who say that “trans women are women” will accept no exceptions to that mantra: trans women are to have every perquisite of natal women, including sports participation.  But, unlike gay rights, trans rights conflict with the rights of other groups far more often (I can’t think of any case in which gay rights conflict with other people’s rights, except for those cases of religious people asked to make cakes for gay weddings). The last sentence in Lewis’s paragraph below is telling (I’ve bolded it):

“People like to say that it’s a complicated issue, and I don’t actually think it is … It all boils down to: Do you actually think that trans women and intersex women are real women—and are really female or not?” the transgender cyclist Veronica Ivy told The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah in 2022. “It’s an extreme indignity to say, ‘I believe you’re a woman, except for sport.’” She added that the enforcement of traditional categories was about “protecting the fragile, weak cis white woman from the rest of us.” Noah’s studio audience in New York heartily applauded Ivy’s words. Sports was only one part of a seamless whole: If you believed, as good liberals did, that trans women were women, no carve-outs were justifiable.

Many women and men think otherwise, as do I. But the carve-outs, as I see them, are very few. Still, if you’re a extremist gender ideologue, they are impermissible.

Democrat Seth Moulton’s breaking ranks from the Biden-ish gender ideology may have been a telling moment, as it made it acceptable for Democrats to discuss the issue in public, though many, including the FFRF, appear to still think the issue shouldn’t be discussed, much less raised. Moulton still got savaged, of course, which reflects poorly on his fellow Democrats:

After the 2024 election, a handful of Democrats broke ranks. “I have two little girls,” Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts told The New York Times. “I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” His campaign manager subsequently resigned, protesters gathered outside one of his offices, and he was rebuked by the state’s Democratic governor. But many of Moulton’s fellow Democrats were notably silent. “Asked for comment on Mr. Moulton’s remarks, each of the 10 other members of the state’s congressional delegation, all Democrats, declined to comment or did not immediately respond,” the Times reported. Further evidence that a taboo had been broken came on the Friday before Christmas. The White House abandoned its proposed rule change forbidding blanket bans on trans athletes after 150,000 public responses, acknowledging that the incoming Trump administration will set its own rules.

Lewis is too good a writer not to give her own opinion after weighing the controversy. At the end, she suggests the “empathic compromise” given below, and I must say that I agree with almost every word of it:

In my view, the way forward lies in an empathetic compromise, one that broadly respects transgender Americans’ sense of their own identity—for example, in the use of chosen names and pronouns—while acknowledging that in some areas, biology really matters. Many sports organizations have established a protected female category, reserved for those who have not experienced the advantages conferred by male puberty, alongside an open one available to men, trans women, trans men taking testosterone supplements, and nonbinary athletes of either sex. Unlike Veronica Ivy, many voters who support laws protecting trans people from housing and employment discrimination don’t see trans rights as an all-or-nothing deal; in fact, a few limited carve-outs on the basis of biological sex might increase acceptance of gender-nonconforming people overall.

Not everything has to be an entrenched battle of red versus blue: As more and more Democrats realize that they shouldn’t have built their defense of trans people on the sand of sex denialism, Republicans should have the grace to take the win on sports and disown the inflammatory rhetoric of agitators such as Representative Nancy Mace, who responded to the election of the first trans member of Congress by deploying anti-trans slurs. As the second Trump administration begins, the lesson from the college-volleyball rebellion is that institutions cannot impose progressive values by fiat. Attempts at social change will not survive without the underlying work of persuasion.

My only beef with the above is that it may be dangerous to trans men or “nonbinary athletes of either sex” to compete against biological men, as the greater strength of the latter could be dangerous. This is probably why World Rugby, as well as the International Rugby League, have banned the participation of transgender women in international competitions, presumably because although they are biological men, suppressing testosterone could reduce their ability to withstand injury in this heavy-contact sport.

The athletic effects of testosterone suppression in males:

An opinion piece by Robyn Blumner in Skeptical Inquirer cites references I’ve mentioned before, showing that testosterone suppression isn’t a way to equalize the athletic performance of transgender women and natal women. As she writes:

If we eliminated sex categories for most sports, there would rarely be female winners. For natal women to be able to compete in a way that gives them a fair chance at victories, there have to be sex segregated sports.

The question then becomes whether that advantage can be mitigated through testosterone suppression. That is a matter of scientific inquiry, and the longitudinal biomedical findings to date suggest that “the effects of testosterone suppression in male adulthood have very little impact” on physiological outcomes such as muscle strength, muscle mass, or lean body mass, according to a paper titled “When Ideology Trumps Science” by six international leading researchers (Devine et al. 2022). They cite a cross-sectional study from 2022 that measured the performance of transgender women and found the “advantage may be maintained after 14 years of testosterone suppression.” (For a thorough vetting of the subject, read “Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage” by researchers Emma Hilton and Tommy Lundberg, published in the journal Sports Medicine [Hilton and Lundberg 2021].)

References:

Devine, Cathy, Emma Hilton, Leslie Howe, et al. 2022. When ideology trumps science: A response to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s Review on Transwomen Athletes in the Female Category. idrottsforum.org (November 29).

Hilton, Emma N., and Tommy R. Lundberg. 2021. Transgender women in the female category of sport: Perspectives on testosterone suppression and performance advantage. Sports Medicine 51(2): 199–214.