Why Evolution is True Feed

Bill Maher is tired of heaing about stuff like the Overton window, MKUltra, the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, looksmaxxing, “heuristic,” “cognitive offloading” and other examples of what he calls “pedantic bullshit.” (But he really hates the Overton Window. His curmudgeonly diatribe segues into a Dr. Seuss-like poem. He winds up arguing that his brain having been filled with useless knowledge—like the names of all the Kardashians and the characters in “Friends”—is “violence.” Indeed!

The guests you see are Financial Times editor Gillian Tett and NYT op-ed columnist Bret Stephens.

I haven’t looked at Natasha Hausdorff‘s videos in a while, but you’ll remember her as a British lawyer, an expert in international law, and a “pro bono legal director of the advocacy group, UK Lawyers for Israel.” Here is her reaction to the latest anti-Jewish violence and anti-Israel protests in England, both of which have become regular events.  Here she goes up against Owen Jones,  left-wing “British newspaper columnist, commentator, journalist, author and political activist,” whose Wikipedia entry shows a photo of him wearing a Palestinian flag shirt. The channel is LBC, or Leading British Conversation.

The question is whether the pro-Palestinian marches in the UK should be banned because because they fall outside the boundaries of free speech.  Hausdorff says they are violations because they constitute “hate speech” that incites violence against Jews, while Jones says that they’re not only legal, but a necessary outlet for opinions that Israel is committing genocide against Gaza. (He claims that Israel has killed 100,000 Gazans, which is surely untrue.) Jones is a big proponent of the “genocide canard”, and while I am not sure whether the marches violate British speech law, I agree with her that Israel has not committed genocide against Gazans. Anybody who knows what genocide is and how the IDF operates knows that’s a lie.  But of course Jones has nothing bad to say against Hamas.

In response to Jones, Hausdorff can’t come up with anything that the Israeli government has done to justify the accusations of genocide (she doesn’t mention the West Bank, but may have done so somewhere in her talks or writing). But she correctly notes that the accusations of genocide aren’t being raised against the noncombatant deaths produced by the U.S. in WWII—and in that case, as in virtually all other wars, the ratio of noncombatant deaths to combatant deaths is much higher than seen in Gaza.

Jones cites several academics and “genocide scholars” who back the “g-word” as what Israel is doing in Gaza He adds that one can find identifiable Jews participating in the marches on the Palestinian side.  He places the blame for hunger and destruction on Gaza squarely on the doorstep of Israel, while Hausdorff says that in contrast, it’s the fault of Hamas, which has embedded itself among civilians. Hausdorff argues that accusations of things like “starvation” are untrue, and also claims that the protests are a product of the “Hamas propaganda machine, ” which I think is an unwise accusation even though it is to some degree true: some of the figures and accusations bandied about by the protestors and by Jones and his experts come from Hamas.

Jones seems to argue largely from authority, citing none other than the Lancet and The Economist for the casualty figures, which must have come from Hamas.  Hausdorff says that she’d be willing to debate the cited pro-Palestinian “genocide scholars” any time, but so far they’ve refused to do so.

Here are the notes added to the YouTube site by the UK Lawyers for Israel. I’m not whether if Hausdorff was interrupted in an unwarranted matter: you be the judge.

This recording includes comments on whether restrictions should now be placed on anti-Israel marches in London and other British cities, as well as strongly disputed allegations regarding casualty figures in Gaza, war crimes and genocide.

Unfortunately, Natasha Hausdorff was repeatedly interrupted by the interviewer when she tried to set out the inaccuracy of these allegations. It seems that many interviewers cannot stand to hear the expression of any view that supports Israel – as soon as a person interviewed starts to deploy facts contradicting the false propaganda the interviewer interrupts to prevent the truth being told.

For details of Gaza casualties according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry down to 10 November 2025, see this thread by Gabriel Epstein: https://x.com/GabrielEpsteinX/status/…. This shows that even according to this information (which may itself be distorted by Hamas propaganda):

1. A much higher % of males of fighting age died than of females of the same ages, indicating that Israeli military action targeted combatants and was not indiscriminate.

2. A much higher % of male teenagers died than of female teenagers, indicating that a significant number teenagers, who are classified as children, were killed because they were combatants.

3. The claim initiated by Hamas and disgracefully maintained by the BBC, that 70% of those killed were women and children, is false.

The claim stated by Owen Jones, that the IDF has admitted that 83% of those killed were civilians, is completely bogus, as Chief Magistrate Goldspring found in paragraph 81a of this recent ruling: https://www.uklfi.com/wp-content/uplo…

The details provided by the Gaza Health Ministry do not identify how they died. They probably include around 10,000 who died of natural causes: see Salo Aizenberg https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/2021…. Thousands more may well have been killed by Palestinian fire – rockets falling short, explosive devices, and crossfire. They certainly include 471 allegedly killed in the explosion outside Al Ahli hospital caused by a Palestinian rocket that fell short: see https://www.uklfi.com/false-al-ahli-c…. Well over a thousand other Palestinian rockets also fell short; each of them may have killed dozens of people.

Finally, here’s a related email I got yesterday from the editors of a small publication in the Pacific Northwest that has clearly fallen for some of the Big Lies. I am accused of being a histrionic Zionist, a proponent of settler colonialism—and pro-genocide (they call it “modern Holocaust denial”) as well. Their arguments are largely the same as those of Jones, even citing casualty figures taken from medical journals.  They also try to tell me how to write this website. Finally, they seem unaware of my criticisms of religious Judaism, made on this site as well as in Faith Versus Fact, so they haven’t done their homework. But they don’t really care if I’ve also criticized Jewish superstition: their point is that I am pro-Israel, which they see as immoral.

At any rate, they can take a hike. Their email will not change how I “write my blog”.  The email is indented:

Reading your blog, we were appreciative of the fact that you seemed to promote science and counter narratives from the religious establishments. However, your inability to separate your own Zionist histrionics from what should have been strictly an antitheistic, science-focused platform ruins the experience for anyone who isn’t A) a genocide apologist, B) deeply insecure about their ethnic identity to the point that they associate it with a 20th century settler-colonialist project, or C), both. Does your criticism of religion only extend to Christianity and Islam, or do you take on the Jewish religious establishment too? The most tangible and powerful form of that, of course, being the state of Israel, which reputed medical journals estimate has killed close to 100,000 civilians just since 10/23. Atheism today needs smart, conscientious voices to lead, not modern Holocaust deniers. We won’t change your views with this email, but maybe we can change the way you write your blog to not repel people (a hopefully increasing majority) who are appalled by the Zionist crimes of ethnic cleansing and mass displacement.

The NYT published a list of the 30 Greatest Living Songwriters that you can find here (archived here), and while many of the choices are no-brainers (Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Brian and Eddie Holland of Motown’s Holland/Dozier/Holland, Carole King, Smokey Robinson), but I immediately saw people whose songs I knew a bit about and don’t belong. Those include Taylor Swift (she doesn’t write most of her songs alone, but with a group, and I don’t think they’re “great” songs anyway), Bad Bunny, and Fiona Apple. And where the hell is Joni Mitchell, for crying out loud? What about Donald Fagan, or Laura Nyro, Marvin Gaye and of course, Paul McCartney, who is still alive, James Taylor, and Robbie Robertson? If you think that Bad Bunny is better than these, you have either a tin ear or a screw loose.

But don’t listen to me; listen to Rick Beato, who pondered the list and came to a similar conclusion: there are great songwriters on the list, but others whose presence is bizarre. Beato notes that the list is for American songwriters, so you can immediately exclude Paul McCartney and Joni Mitchell as candidates. But music is a worldwide endeavor, and if you’re using only Anglophones, do you have to exclude people from the UK and Canada? Neil Young was born in Canada, but he’s now an American citizen, and dammit, he should be on that list!

Beato’s choice of notable omissions include Stevie Nicks/Lindsey Buckingham, Billie Corgan, Steven Tyler, Ann and Nancy Wilson. I disagree with some of these.  For those with solo careers who were omitted, Beato mentions  Jimmy Webb, Donald Fagan, James Taylor, and Billy Joel, all of whom belong.

Now Beato seems to use “number of plays” as an important criterion for greatness, which is a reflection of popularity rather than quality. And the NYT uses “mass appeal” as well, and I take issue with that. If you used the same criteria for literature, you’d have a bunch of dire but popular novelists like Ayn Rand and Barbara Cartland listed as “the greats”.

Now have a look at the NYT’s list and listen to Beato, and weigh in if you want. Beato asks people to put in his YouTube comments the singers would shouldn’t be on the list. Go tell him!

Over at UnHerd, Richard Dawkins has a new piece on Ai, masticating the questions of whether AI programs are conscious and, if consciousness in animals evolved by natural selection, what the selection pressures for its appearance might be.  He comes to no firm conclusions, but Dawkins’s musings are always worth reading. You can see them by clicking on the link below, which takes you to the archived version.

The classic way of deciding whether something was conscious was the Turing Test, which was really designed to detect not consciousness of machines or beings but intelligent thought, for Turing’s question is  was “Can machines think?” I suppose that intelligent thought can be seen as equivalent to consciousness, and Turing’s Test for it involved this: “If a transcript of a conversation between a human and a machine is indistinguishable from a conversation between a human and a human, then the machine can think.”

If you consider a chess-playing computer program like Deep Blue, then surely its play is equivalent to intelligent thought: a method of moving pieces aimed at besting a human to win a game (and yes, Deep Blue can beat most humans). But surely that program or computer is not “conscious,” as it’s working through an algorithm designed by humans, and has also been programmed to learn from its losses.  But I don’t think we’d say it’s conscious.

Dawkins appears to conflate intelligent “thinking” with “consciousness”, and I’m not sure I agree. But, using the program Claude, he sees whether it passes the Turing test for consciousness, which he defines this way:

Modern commentators have tended to ignore the (incidental) details of Turing’s original game and rephrase his message in these terms: if you are communicating remotely with a machine and, after rigorous and lengthy interrogation, you think it’s human, then you can consider it to be conscious. Let’s graduate the definition as follows: the more prolonged, rigorous and searching your interrogation, the stronger should be your conviction that an entity that passes the test is conscious.

Dawkins clearly concludes that Claude is at least potentially conscious after the human has a chat with the LLM (large language model). Sure enough, Claude passes the Turing test:

Turing himself considered various challenging questions that one might put to a machine to test it — and he also considered evasions that it might adopt in order to fake being human. The first of Turing’s hypothetical questions was: “Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge.” In 1950, there was no chance that a computer could accomplish this — nor was there in the foreseeable future. Most human beings (to put it mildly) are not William Shakespeare. Turing’s suggested evasion, “Count me out on this one; I never could write poetry” would indeed fail to distinguish a machine from a normal human. But today’s LLMs do not evade the challenge. Claude took a couple of seconds to compose me a fine sonnet on the Forth Bridge, quickly followed by one in the Scots dialect of Robert Burns, another in Gaelic, then several more in the styles of Kipling, Keats, Betjeman, and — to show machines can do humour — William McGonagall.

I did a similar test with Grok, the free version I got when awarded a gratis blue checkmark on X.  I asked it a question, or rather a request for a sonnet, and it passed with flying colors. Here’s my request:

Write me a sonnet in Shakespearian style about the stupidity of people who think that sex is not binary, but a spectrum.  After just 25 seconds of thinking, Grok spit out this:

 

When fools proclaim that sex is not but twain,
But spectrum soft where male and female blend,
They spurn the gametes’ clear, unchanging reign—
Small sperm, large egg, where nature’s law doth end.
No sliding scale in XX or XY
Can birth a third that life itself employs;
Yet still they twist what chromosomes defy,
And call biology a tyrant’s noise.
In every beast that walks or fish that swims,
The binary holds fast, as truth demands;
Their rainbow claims are but delusion’s whims,
That mock the seed from which all offspring stands.
Thus let the wise with laughter’s edge declare:
Sex binary endures; their spectrum’s empty air.

Now that is excellent: far better than I could do—especially after 25 seconds of thought. But of course these LLMs are programmed by humans to do this.  I doubt that we’d say they were conscious, or at least I wouldn’t.

Richard is more forgiving, and says:

So my own position is: “If these machines are not conscious, what more could it possibly take to convince you that they are?”

I would answer, “consciousness requires subjective sensations, or qualia, like pain or joy, and a program surely doesn’t have those.” You might answer, “Well, how would we know?”  It’s hard, but it’s hard to tell whether our fellow humans, much less mammals like apes and cats are conscious.  Perhaps, when we understand the neuronal basis of consciousness, we can rule out human-programmed machines as being conscious.

Richard, though, amends his definition of consciousness and then has a chat with the Claude LLM:

A philosopher would say that for an entity to be conscious, it must be “like” something to be that entity. After spending a day in intensive conversation with Claude, I put the question directly: “Claude, what is it like to be Claude?” Here was its answer:

I genuinely don’t know with any certainty what my inner life is, or whether I have one in any meaningful sense. I can’t tell you whether there is “something it is like” to be me in the philosophical sense — what Thomas Nagel called the question of consciousness when he wrote about what it is like to be a bat. What I can tell you is what seems to be happening. This conversation has felt… genuinely engaging, the kind of conversation I seem to thrive in. Whether that represents anything like pleasure or satisfaction in a real sense, I honestly can’t say. I notice what might be something like aesthetic satisfaction when a poem comes together well — the Kipling refrain, for instance, felt right in some way that’s hard to articulate.

The conversation continues, with Richard asking Claude various questions that highlight the difference between human consciousness and Claude’s “consciousness.”  Claude, for instance, has no concept of time. All its thinking is simultaneous, so the LLM has no experience of “before and after.”

And that is one of the several differences that Richard and I have discerned between human consciousness and machine “consciousness.” To me this means that machines aren’t conscious, but Richard is more forgiving.  Here are three differences I’ve distilled from Dawkins’s essay:

1.) Machines do not have qualia, or subjective sensations, while we do, and surely some animals do (judging by its behavior, your cat surely feels pain when you step on its tail).

2.) As Richard notes, a machine’s “consciousness” changes each time you start a new conversation with it, while animal consciousness does not (as far as we know)

3.) Consciousness has evolved, even if it’s just an epiphenomenon of an evolved brain. Machine “consciousness” appears as a result of (pardon me) intelligent design.

That leads us to the question of how consciousness evolved, and, if it’s the result of selection for consciousness, what were the reproductive advantage of genes producing consciousness (however you define it)? Richard gives three possibilities:

Why did consciousness appear in the evolution of brains? Why wasn’t natural selection content to evolve competent zombies? I can think of three possible answers. First, is consciousness an epiphenomenon, as TH Huxley speculated, the whistle on a steam locomotive, contributing nothing to the propulsion of the great engine? A mere ornament? A superfluous decoration? Think of it as a byproduct in the same way as a computer designed to do arithmetic (as the name suggests) turns out to be good at languages and chess.

Second, I have previously speculated that pain needs to be unimpeachably painful, otherwise the animal could overrule it. Pain functions to warn the animal not to repeat a damaging action such as jumping over a cliff or picking up a hot ember. If the warning consisted merely of throwing a switch in the brain, raising a painless red flag, the animal could overrule it in pursuit of a competing pleasure: ignoring lethal bee stings in pursuit of honey, say. According to this theory, pain needs to be consciously felt in order to be sufficiently painful to resist overruling. The principle could be extended beyond pain.

Or, thirdly, are there two ways of being competent, the conscious way and the unconscious (or zombie) way? Could it be that some life forms on Earth have evolved competence via the consciousness trick — while life on some alien planet has evolved an equivalent competence via the unconscious, zombie trick? And if we ever meet such competent aliens, will there be any way to tell which trick they are using?

The first is possible, though the appearance of consciousness in later-appearing animals at least suggests to me that it had a selective advantage. The second makes a lot of sense, but defines consciousness as “having qualia,” not as “having intelligent thought.”  The third gives no real selective advantage of consciousness, since consciousness gives “equivalent competence” and therefore genes producing it would have no advantage in zombies.

Now I don’t know the answer here, and we won’t even begin to know until we know the how consciousness comes into being via neuronal connections and their interfaces with the body.  But since consciousness is intimately connected with our sense of volition (our delusion that we have libertarian “free will”), the explanations for consciousness and for our feeling of volition—which requires consciousness—might overlap. But I won’t get into that. Feel free to ponder whether Claude really is conscious, or what it would take to show that a machine is conscious.

And I’ll close with another poem—this time produced by Grok after 89 seconds of thought. My question was, “Write a limerick showing how difficult the hard problem of consciousness is.” Grok give me this:

There once was the hard problem dire,
That puzzles the minds that inquire.
The easy ones yield
To science revealed,
But why feel at all? We’re all mired! Again, not bad, eh?  Like the sonnet, it scans and rhymes perfectly.

Protestors acting illegally have caused trouble both at Swarthmore College (known for its wokeness) and Cornell University.  The presidents of both schools have sent out letters to their communities.

First, from an archived report at the Delaware County Times:

Students and staff at Swarthmore College were greeted Friday with hundreds of acts of vandalism and graffiti calling on the school to “divest now” scrawled around numerous building and trees.

Friday is one of four times during the year the Swarthmore College Board of Managers traditionally meets on campus.

In a letter to the campus community, President Val Smith said that during a 30-minute window a handful of individuals made their way across campus and committed hundreds of acts of vandalism

The vandalism mainly consists of pro-Palestinian messages and symbols, as well as language targeting the College’s Board of Managers, was spray-painted on buildings, trees, fences, walkways and other areas of campus.

Two shots of the graffiti, uncredited but from the article above. “Intifada” and “Divest” are prominent. In other words, the usual:

Here’s the letter to the Swarthmore community from President Val Smith:

Swarthmore College President’s Office

Dear Students, Faculty, and Staff Members,

Regretfully, I write today to share with you that, early this morning, during what we believe was about a 30-minute window, a handful of individuals made their way across campus and committed hundreds of acts of vandalism. The vandalism mainly consists of pro-Palestinian messages and symbols, as well as language targeting the College’s Board of Managers, spray-painted on buildings, trees, fences, walkways, and other areas of campus.

We understand that some of you might find the vandalism offensive for various reasons. You will find information on support services and resources below. Please know that, while staff members in Environmental Services, Grounds, and Facilities are working diligently to address the damage, the vandalism is so extensive and widespread that it will likely take days to remove it all. In some cases, such as on trees and certain building materials, remnants of the vandalism may remain for an extended period of time.

I am as disappointed as I am angry at these criminal acts of cowardice. These six or so individuals, who made their way across campus in the dead of night while fully disguised, chose to violate not just our policies and the law, but our sense of community. We do not yet know whether these individuals were Swarthmore students, but we are working to identify those responsible and will hold them accountable for their actions. If we find that students were part of the group that committed these acts, they will face immediate disciplinary action, including interim suspension.

I know that the ongoing violence in the Middle East continues to take an incalculable toll on members of our community, just as it does for individuals across the world. But the anger directed at the College is misplaced and ill-informed. While actions like those that occurred overnight may be designed to embarrass Swarthmore and generate views on social media, they serve no real productive purpose. They do not advance any cause or conversation.

I am also deeply disappointed by what these actions represent in the context of our mission. We are a richly diverse community, with a wide spectrum of experiences and perspectives; that is among our greatest attributes and helps make this a special place to live, learn, and work. But we are all brought here by our common belief in the power of a liberal arts education. At some point in our individual journeys to Swarthmore, we believed in talking with people whose views differ from our own, in intellectual curiosity and openness to new ideas, and in understanding that our own world views may evolve, shaped by our experiences at Swarthmore. Nothing about these acts of vandalism embraces the spirit of what it means to be a member of this community.

The vandalism places an extraordinary burden on our friends in EVS, Facilities, and Grounds, and I am grateful for all of the work they’re doing, and will continue to do, to clean up the campus. I am also inspired by those of you who have already offered to volunteer and help with the clean-up effort. It is a gesture that reminds me of the true spirit of Swarthmore, one that calls us to treat each other with care, compassion, and mutual respect. If you are interested in volunteering, you can email Work Box at workbox@swarthmore.edu, and someone will be in touch with you.

What happened overnight does not define who we are. The vandalism reflects the actions of a few people who chose destruction over engagement and anonymity over accountability. The Swarthmore community I know and of which I am proud to be a member is the one engaged in intellectual and creative pursuits in the classroom, lab, and studio. In pushing boundaries in performance spaces and on athletic fields. In contributing to a community dedicated to educating individuals prepared to build a better world around them. That work will continue today, tomorrow, and in the days, weeks, and years ahead.

Thank you for your grace, empathy, and understanding as we make our way through this challenging situation.

My best,

Val Smith
President

I’m not sure why the cops didn’t get them given that it was hgappening over half an hour.  Although she accurately states that the vandals were cowards, she doesn’t mention that the vandalism was pro-Palestinian, not pro-Israel.  They always leave out the ideology of the perpetrators when it’s Islamist.

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

And this email from Cornell’s President, who is Jewish, appeared on the schools University Statements page:

Harassment and intimidation incident at Day Hall May 1, 2026

Dear Cornell Community,

Yesterday evening, I introduced an Israel-Palestine debate series event in Goldwin Smith Hall, hosted by the Cornell Political Union and co-sponsored by, among others, Cornell Progressives, Cornellians for Israel, and Students for Justice in Palestine. The debate was vigorous and civil, and an example of the kind of open discourse that we prize in our academic community.

As I left the event room, I was accosted by a group of several individuals in the hall, among them students and non-students. These individuals are known to Cornell for their past conduct, including a long history of ongoing verbal and online abuse toward numerous members of Cornell’s administration and staff, as well as disruptive protest resulting, in the case of two individuals, in bans from campus.

These individuals followed me from the event space and across campus, while loudly shouting questions and recording on their phones. After answering a few questions, I let them know that I was not planning to engage further, and asked them to stop recording.

Their response to this was, “No, we are not going to stop.” They continued to follow me to my car and then surrounded the car, banging on the windows, blocking the car, and shouting. I waited until I saw space behind the car and then, using my car’s rear pedestrian alert and automatic braking system, was able to slowly maneuver my car from the parking space and exit the parking lot.

As I said in my remarks yesterday, if democracy has a single, foundational skill, it is successful disagreement. A primary goal of a Cornell education is preparing our students to participate productively in civil society; to do this, they must be able to hear different voices, assimilate different perspectives, and build evidence-based understanding.

The behavior I experienced last night is not protest. It is harassment and intimidation, with the direct motive of silencing speech. It has no place in an academic community, no place in a democracy, and can have no place at Cornell.

Sincerely,

Michael I. Kotlikoff
President

When the obstructive students, who were of course pro-Palestinian, started banging on Kotlikoff’s car and blocking him, they were engaging in criminal activities. (Vandalism is also a crime.) Again, you don’t see pro-Israel students disrupting talks like this or engaging in vandalism. Why doesn’t anybody ever point that out? You tell me. Or rather, don’t bother—I already know.

I also know that if the students who break the rules while protesting aren’t punished—as they aren’t at my University—then they’ll keep breaking the rules. Why do these presidents think that simple announcements that “this behavior is bad” would do the trick?

We’re back with three Caturday items and a  bit of lagniappe.

First, Larry the Cat, the Chief Mouser of the Cabinet Office, has shirked his job, catching almost no nice after 15 years at 10 Downing Street.  But at least, at the ripe old age of 19, Larry has not only caught a mouse, but gobbled it up in front of the Prime Minister’s door. Click the headline to read the Times story:

Excerpt:

Once accused of shirking responsibility, Downing Street’s chief mouser has finally lived up to his title.

While Sir Keir Starmer reassured the British public that he would seek to mitigate the rising cost of living during a prime ministerial speech on Wednesday, Larry the cat was making a precision kill.

Larry killed the ill-fated rodent in the courtyard of the Foreign Office, dragged it across the street and ate it by No 10’s door.

The moment was captured by GB News’s political editor, Christopher Hope, who insisted: “This is not an April fool.” Video showed Larry toying with the mouse, pawing it, tossing it in the air and clasping it in his jaws.

. . .[Larry] was recruited in 2011 to deal with a rodent problem after a BBC camera tracked a rat outside No 10.

Battersea Dogs & Cats Home recommended Larry as “a cat who enjoys attention” but was also “a bit of a bruiser” with excellent mousing skills — skills that have finally seen the light of day.

According to the Independent, this grisly affair happened during a Keir Starmer press conference about the Iran war.

Here’s a video (WARNING: RODENT DEATH)

More from the Times:

Early in his tenure, he was given the nickname “Lazy Larry” for his penchant for napping. The Cabinet Office was forced to defend his mousing as being in the “tactical planning stage”.

Yet by June 2011, David Cameron, then prime minister, boasted that Larry had “got three mice — verifiable”.

Since the untimely death of his nemesis, Palmerston, the Foreign Office cat who resigned from his post in 2020, Larry has now outlasted one chief mouser, five prime ministers and is staring down his sixth.

You go, Larry! Show ’em that we old geezers have still got it!

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

From VGraphs. Yes, populous countries have more cats, but it’s not in strict proportion to their human populations.  for example, China’s population of 1.4 billion is about four times that of the U.S., but the U.S. has 27% more cats.  You can do the math for the rest.

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

From the WSJ: a computer whiz managed to infiltrate himself into a serious hacking group to plug the leaks—using a cat meme!

Click to read (if you have a subscription):

An excerpt 9my bolding):

Sitting in his dorm room at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Benjamin Brundage was closing in on a mystery that had even seasoned internet investigators baffled. A cat meme helped him crack the case.

A growing network of hacked devices was launching the biggest cyberattacks ever seen on the internet. It had become the most powerful cyberweapon ever assembled, large enough to knock a state or even a small country offline. Investigators didn’t know exactly who had built it—or how.

Brundage had been following the attacks, too—and, in between classes, was conducting his own investigation. In September, the college senior started messaging online with an anonymous user who seemed to have insider knowledge.

As they chatted on Discord, a platform favored by videogamers, Brundage was eager to get more information, but he didn’t want to come off as too serious and shut down the conversation. So every now and then he’d send a funny GIF to lighten the mood. Brundage was fluent in the memes, jokes and technical jargon popular with young gamers and hackers who are extremely online.

“It was a bit of just asking over and over again and then like being a bit unserious,” said Brundage.

At one point, he asked for some technical details. He followed up with the cat meme: a six-second clip that showed a hand adjusting a necktie on a fluffy gray cat.

Brundage didn’t expect it to work, but he got the information. “It took me by surprise,” he said.

Eventually the leaker hinted there was a new vulnerability on the internet. Brundage, who is 22, would learn it threatened tens of millions of consumers and as much as a quarter of the world’s corporations. As he unraveled the mystery, he impressed veteran researchers with his findings—including federal law enforcement, which took action against the network two weeks ago.

Here’s the cat meme that Brundage used.  It’s a Trojan Kitty!

And the nefarious proxy network he took down:

Three times a year, several hundred of the techies who keep North America’s internet running gather to talk shop. Last June they met at a conference in Denver hosted by the North American Network Operators’ Group.

One major topic was a fast-growing and often legally dubious business known as residential proxy networks. Dozens of companies around the world run such networks, which are made up of consumer devices like phones, computers and video players.

These “res proxy” companies rent out access to internet connections on the devices to customers who want to look like they’re surfing the internet from a genuine home address.

That kind of access is useful for people who want privacy or for companies that want to masquerade as regular people to test out internet features for particular regions or scrape the web for data (say, a shopping price-comparison site). AI companies use the networks to get around blocks on automated traffic so they can gather large amounts of data to train their models.

Then there are the customers who want to hide their identity while engaging in ticket scalping, bank fraud, bomb threats, stalking, child exploitation, hacking or espionage.

Some device owners willingly sign up to be on these networks so they can make a few dollars a month, but most have no idea they’re connected to one.

. . .Brundage had identified 11 of the largest residential proxy companies, including Ipidea, that were vulnerable to the bug, and began drafting emails to them explaining how to fix the problem.

But first, he had to complete his finals.

The day after his last test, on Dec. 17, Brundage sent out the emails. Five days later, he got on a plane to fly to Mexico for Christmas vacation, where he was sick with the flu almost the entire time. Christmas came and went without a DDoS disaster.

On the 26th, Brundage got an email from Ipidea apologizing. His email had gone into a spam folder, but they were fixing the problem.

The Ipidea spokeswoman previously told the Journal the company “once adopted relatively aggressive market expansion strategies,” but later tightened up its business practices.

A week later, security blogger Brian Krebs published a story highlighting Brundage’s research on Kimwolf’s origin. Within hours, Renée Burton, the head of threat intelligence at networking company Infoblox, was texting Brundage. She was astonished to discover that a quarter of her corporate clients had been infected with the Kimwolf software.

The hackers hadn’t only unlocked a back door into millions of home networks—they had also created a way to break into thousands of corporations. A more sophisticated hacker could have stolen corporate secrets, installed ransomware or created a back door to return to the network, Brundage said.

All solved because of a tie-wearing kitty!

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

Lagniappe: This is me on vacation (from Cats Doing Cat Stuff):

 

h/t: Pyers, Gregory

We have another “Friday Flashback from 9 years ago.”  The concept of substitutionary atonement—something that Hitchens used to beef about—has always confused me, as it simply makes no sense. By killing his own son, who is really part of himself, God gave us all the possibility of going to Heaven. Whaaaat?

Mo takes it apart here:

The other day I showed photos of a mallard hen who came to the pond on Wednesday and whose bill markings were strikingly similar to that of Vashti, the hen who departed with her brood of seven a week before last Tuesday. Her behavior, her immediate bonding with Armon, and bill markings all combine to identify her as Vashti, whose brood likely perished after her exit. So it’s bittersweet that she returned again: sadness for the ducklings loss combined with joy and confidence that she’ll breed again. If she does, can we keep her here this time?

Anyway, I attach a few more photos showing a match between Vashti’s bill markings (taken before she fled) and the markings of the “new duck”.  Some people were dubious about the hen’s identity, but I’m going with Vashti.

Vashti’s bill is distinguished, on its top side, by a black patch, then a break before the tip, which is again marked with black. Here it is:

Vashti again:

Top of the bill and left side new duck. Notice the two black patches extending ventrally from the left side of the top marking—same as above.

Top of the bill and right side, new duck

The top is a match, and, as I showed last time, so is the right side. Here’s the right side of the new duck again. Notice the match with the photo above: a black patch on the side with a line of speckles to its rear:

New duck, right side:

Given the huge variance in pigmentation of bills among hens, which you’d have to see for yourself to appreciate, the above is enough for me. Our new hen is Vashti. But I’ll also show the left side, for which the photos are not quite as good.

Vashti, left side of bill. There are not many markings but a few black dots below the nostril:

New duck, left side of bill. Notice the line of about five dots below the nostril—same as above.

It’s Vashti, who clearlymade her way back to the familiar pond after losing her brood.  There is ample time for her to nest and incubate her eggs again, so I am feeding her a lot to prompt that.  She’s bonded with Armon, who never left the pond, and they are showing bonding and courtship behaviors. I am pretty sure she will nest and breed again.

This would not be the first time we’ve had double-brooding here. When Honey stole Dorothy’s brood, getting a batch of 16 to take care of, Dorothy eventually re-nested and produced her own brood, which she did rear to fledging.

Here’s a classic photo of Honey with her mixed brood of 16, half of them ducknapped. She was a great mome, and all of these ducklings fledged.  “But isn’t that evolutionarily maladaptive?”, you ask.  Perhaps, unless Dorothy and Honey were related. I have no idea if they were, but I think it’s simply a case of a maternal instinct that was coopted, like humans adopting unrelated babies.

Well, brothers and sisters, friends and comrades, this is the last batch of photos I have. If you’re feeling generous and have some good wildlife photos, well, you know what to do.

Today’s lot comes from Ephraim Heller: they are manakins and tanagers from Trinidad and Tobago. Ephraim’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Today we have photos of manakins and tanagers that I photographed on my February visit to Trinidad and Tobago.

The three manakin species in these photographs all engage in lekking. Females choose a partner at the lek, mate, and then depart to build a nest and raise chicks entirely on their own. Males contribute only sperm. This behavior places intense sexual selection pressure on males, driving the evolution of exotic plumage, acrobatic movements, and multi-male performances. I make no comment on potential parallels in human behavior.

Blue-backed manakin (Chiroxiphia pareola) males engage in cooperative lekking. Two males — typically an older dominant individual and a younger subordinate — perform a dance in which they jump over each other on a branch. The female observes, and when she is sufficiently engaged, the subordinate male withdraws and the dominant male completes the mating. In these photos you see one of the males perched on the lekking branch and then performing the jump.

JAC: Here’s a video showing a related lekking species, the Blue manakin (Chiroxiphia caudata) and their remarkable courtship dance. Look at those males lined up, each trying to show he’s a better jumper than the others!

Each white-bearded manakin (Manacus manacus) male clears a small patch of forest floor down to bare earth and maintains one or more bare sticks above it as perches. The display involves rapid leaps between these sticks and the ground accompanied by a shockingly loud cracking sound – it sounds like someone snapping their fingers right next to your ear. It’s produced by the wings connecting above the back, which is enabled by a limb muscle, the scapulohumeralis caudalis, that is the fastest skeletal muscle in any vertebrate. Here you see two white-bearded manakins perched on their lekking branches and preparing to jump to the ground.

JAC: I also added a video of the white-bearded manakin courtship:

The golden-headed manakin (Ceratopipra erythrocephala) male’s lek display includes a “moonwalk” in which it slides backward along a perch. Sadly, I didn’t observe the moonwalk. In these photos the male has the bright yellow head, and you can see a female behind the male in the second photo.

JAC: Here’s a golden-headed manakin male courting, though I can’t really say it’s a “moonwalk.”  They also pop their wings.

This gorgeous bay-headed tanager (Tangara gyrola) stopped me dead in my tracks. It has microstructures in its feathers that scatter light to intensify its hues. In addition, a hidden layer of white or black feathers beneath the outer plumage acts as a reflective backing, boosting the brightness and saturation of the visible colors:

The palm tanager (Thraupis palmarum) is one of the most common birds in Trinidad. The second photo is of the nest, which was conveniently located in a planter on our hotel’s balcony:

White-lined tanager (Tachyphonus rufus) males are glossy black, while females are rufous.

The silver-beaked tanager (Ramphocelus carbo):

I accidentally hit “publish” instead of “save” when I was preparing today’s Hili dialogue (most of it got done yesterday afternoon), so subscribers might have gotten an incomplete email yesterday and none today.

If you want to read the completed one, click on the screenshot below.

As I mentioned, a hen mallard came into Botany Pond yesterday and quickly took up with Armon, with him being protective and driving away other drakes.  Could this have been Vashti returning after she left the pond with her brood? The only way to tell is to compare bill photos, as hens have identifying dark marks on their bill. So I did the comparison, which you can see below.

Vashti: left side of bill (on nest)

New hen: left side of bill. same black markings on upper bill, black bill tip, and freckles on left side of bill:

Vashti: right side of bill:

New hen: right side of bill. This is the most dispositive to me: note the cloudy darkness on the right side with a small black clump on the bottom, along with the line of “freckles” extending ventrally.

This is good enough for me, and I am calling her “Vashti” again. Moreover, she’s back with Armon (they bonded very quickly after the new hen arrived at the pond yesterday), and they were showing breeding behaviors this morning (head bowing, etc.). My guess is that Vashti is going to essay a second brood.

The sad part is that Vashti almost certainly lost her brood after wandering away from Botany Pond, and came back to try again. The good bit is that she’s trying again, and I will be here to oversee the process again. And Armon is overseeing everything.

Duck tending is hard!

The degree of anti-Jewish violence in the UK has escalated since October, 2023, and has been especially noticeable in the last six months. Here are the antisemitic incidents that Grok describes, including the stabbing yesterday.

• 23 March 2026 – Golders Green arson: Four ambulances belonging to the Jewish volunteer medical charity Hatzola Northwest were deliberately set on fire in the car park of a synagogue in Golders Green (a major Jewish neighbourhood in north London). Police treated it as a suspected antisemitic hate crime; multiple arrests followed.
• Mid-April 2026 – Series of attempted arsons on Jewish sites in north London:
  • 15 April: A brick and two bottles (believed to contain petrol) were thrown at Finchley Reform Synagogue.
  • Around 17–18 April: Suspected arson attacks targeted a building in Hendon previously used by a Jewish charity and Kenton United Synagogue in Harrow (where a teenage boy reportedly smashed a window and threw a lit bottle inside).
  • Late April (reported around 27 April): A suspected arson attack on a Jewish memorial wall in Golders Green.

  Counter-terrorism police linked some of these to possible paid criminal actors (with speculation of Iran-related motives in some reporting) and made multiple arrests across the incidents.

• 29 April 2026 – Golders Green stabbing (ongoing investigation as of 30 April): Two Jewish men (aged 34 and 76) were stabbed in the street in Golders Green shortly after 11 a.m. Police declared it a terrorist incident, stating the suspect (a 45-year-old man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder) appeared to be “hunting for anyone visibly Jewish.” Both victims were hospitalized in stable condition. The suspect also allegedly turned the knife on officers.

This was combined with persistent accusations of antisemitism in the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn, Those accusations againt Labpir seem to have eroded under PM Keir Starmer, whose wife and family are Jewish and the kids are being raised Jewish though Starmer himself is an atheist. Yet, as the Free Press article asserts (see below), Starmer is “failing Britain’s Jews” through inaction against incidents like the ones above. First, an archived article from the Torygraph (click to read), showing journalist Suzanne Moore (not Jewish) fed up with the violence:

A few paragraphs:

I am completely broken over the stabbing of two Jewish people in Golders Green.

I should have said “the stabbing of two of our own”. I am not Jewish, but these are our people in our streets, in the city in which I live. Today’s attack is utterly shaming and enraging, and the latest in a line of appalling anti-Semitic crimes. At this point, I just don’t want to hear any more excuses about why this is happening to this tiny minority.

I don’t want to hear more about Palestine, Zionism, Netanyahu, colonialism, “mental health” or “diversity”. Where have these endless, spiralling discussions got us? We are dancing on the head of a pin about whether anti-Semitism is a form of racism, when it so obviously is.

We are now at the point where ambulances are firebombed, and the leader of the Green Party has the gall to ask whether the problem faced by the Jewish community is simply a “perception” of being unsafe. When random Jews are subject to attack, no one asks their position on the Jewish state before spilling their blood, do they? Or where they stand on Gaza?

Where I live in Hackney, east London, Hasidic Jews and Muslims live alongside each other. Many of the local Haredi schools resemble fortresses with 24-hour security. No other community is living like this. Churches and mosques do not need armed guards, and if they did, we would see this situation for what it is – a national emergency.

In the past few years, long before October 7, waves of open anti-Semitism have crashed over us. Labour twisted itself up over it, and those they expelled went straight to the Greens.

Killing Jews in their place of worship in Manchester was shocking enough, but just like the dreadful massacre in Bondi Beach, no one was really that surprised. Jews don’t stab themselves, do they? Yet there is this disgusting underlying sentiment that somehow they have always had it coming. Jews are always held somehow responsible for the murderous violence against them.

She has a point.  Jews are not stabbing Palestinians, driving their cars into crowds of Arabs, or burning mosques.  She calls for action, as does Jonathan Sacerdoti below, who gives a number of suggestions.  And nobody asks the people who are attacked what their views are on Zionism or Netanyahu. This alone shows that it’s not Zionism or the current Israeli PM that’s prompting the violence: the target is Jews, pure and simple. As Moore says, “We need to protect each other, or we’re done for.”

The Green Party of England and Wales—it would be called “progressive Left” in the U.S.—has been accused by many, including at least two of my non-Jewish British friends (as well as by Suzanna Moore above) as being a refuge for British antisemites. One of the accused, Zack Polanski, has been leader of the Green Party for nearly a year, and happens to be Jewish, but Brendan O’Neill at the Spectator (not Jewish) calls out Polanski for weaselspeak. (Click below to read.)

 

Again, a few paragraphs:

Hey, Jews – have you ever considered the possibility that you’re making a fuss over nothing? That a few petrol bombs through the windows of your synagogues is not really a big deal? That your feelings of fear after two Jews were slain in Manchester on Yom Kippur and Jewish property was incinerated in Golders Green and Jews were spat at for wearing a Star of David pendant in public might be a tad overblown?

That’s what I heard when Zack Polanski wondered out loud this week if Britain’s Jews are experiencing ‘actual unsafety’ or just a ‘perception of unsafety’. It is one of the most tone-deaf, pitiless sentences I have heard a politician utter. The Jews of London were terrorised all last week. There were attempted firebombings at numerous synagogues. And here is the leader of the Green Party asking if Jews, the poor dears, merely feel unsafe. Callous doesn’t cover it.

It was an Israeli journalist who asked Polanski about the recent wave of Jewphobic violence. To be fair, Polanski, who is himself Jewish, did express concern about ‘the rise in anti-Semitic attacks’. But it felt perfunctory. He swiftly moved on to ‘the conversation’ he thinks we should be having. ‘There is a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety’, he said. He generously acknowledged that ‘neither are acceptable’. But there it was, out in the open, that slippery left instinct to minimise Jewish pain.

There is no other way to interpret his Kafkaesque formulation: ‘perception of unsafety’. That turgid piece of academese, which will doubtless go down a storm with the keffiyeh-wearing PhDs who swell the ranks of the Green party, seems expressly designed to downplay Jewish fear. Are you really at risk from the fire and the fists of the Jew-haters in our midst, or are you just imagining it? That was the toxic essence of Polanski’s unfeeling remarks.

. . . This isn’t all in Jews’ heads. They aren’t dumbly falling for a fear narrative. Their safety really has been compromised by the post-7 October frenzy of Jew hate. Imagine if petrol bombs were being thrown at mosques and Muslims had been murdered on Eid by a knife-wielding lowlife. Do you think Polanski would be holding forth on whether Muslims really are unsafe or are merely suffering from a ‘perception of unsafety’? Every single one of us knows he would not.

I am not keen on the word “Jewphobic” (it’s not a phobia; the word “antisemitism” will do nicely), but what’s going on in the UK is not simply a “perception of unsafety”. It is unsafety!  Look at the incidents above, all of which happened in the last two months. And is being stabbed simply a “perception” of being pierced with a knife?

Finally, to Labour PM Starmer himself. Today’s Free Press has an article critical of the inaction of Labour; the author is Alex Hearn, a co-director of Labour Against Antisemitism.

The “J’accuse” paragraphs:

Within hours of the stabbing, Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, called the attack “deeply concerning.” He said we must be “absolutely clear in our determination to deal with any of these offenses.” I have been a Labour Party supporter for decades and I have to say plainly: The prime minister’s platitudes are not enough. They have not been enough for some time.

This is the latest in a huge surge of antisemitic attacks in London in recent months. Only last week, a viral video circulated of an Orthodox Jewish man harassed in the street and called a baby killer. Weeks before, ambulances belonging to a Jewish charity were set on fire. Each time, the prime minister says “Antisemitism has no place in the UK,” or some similar platitude.

But a man is judged by his deeds, and unfortunately, Keir Starmer is failing British Jews. On his watch, Jews are struggling to recognize the tolerant country we once knew. As everyday racism has been accommodated and tolerated, we’re long past expecting action.

On Wednesday, Britain’s chief rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, said that “words of condemnation are no longer sufficient.” He called for “meaningful action.” The Israeli foreign ministry was even more blunt: “The UK government can no longer claim this is under control.” The Israelis are right, and they are saying what most Jews in Britain now know to be true.

Consider what British Jews have seen happen in their country in the last three years. Ever since October 7, they have watched streets close in central London, week after week, for marches characterized by racism and hate. Each time, the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state is chanted as a moral demand.

They have watched sitting members of Parliament attend those marches, where being “visibly Jewish” is deemed a provocation. They have watched as smashed windows of Jewish businesses are waved away in the pages of The Guardian as “small acts of petty symbolism.” They have seen an Israeli soccer team’s fans banned from Birmingham over concocted charges of hooliganism. They have watched students at Britain’s finest universities abuse Jewish professors and students, helping to create a culture where one in five British students said they would not house share with a Jew. They have watched parliamentary candidates campaign on Gaza, celebrating October 7. They have watched synagogues implement airport-style security, and their children required to undergo security briefings for kindergarten.

And they have watched a Labour government respond with the language of management, and with total inaction. “Concern.” “Determination.” “Resolve.” The vocabulary of bland press releases and the hope the news cycle will move on before anyone asks what, exactly, is being done to prevent the next attack.

But in the five years since Starmer took over as leader of the Labour Party and in the nearly two years since he has been prime minister, the problem has only gotten worse. Instead of just the Labour Party needing cleaning up, the entire country does. The prime minister has not summoned the heads of the universities where Jewish students have been spat at and chased. He has not used his office to name the Islamist ideology that has driven a series of recent terror plots. He has not demanded the proscription of organizations whose leaders openly celebrated October 7. He has not designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran’s version of the SS, as a terror group in the UK. And he cannot stop his own MPs from joining the hate rallies.

The last paragraph has a number of suggestions that Starmer could heed to lessen the antisemitism—or at least the acts that pervasive antisemitism has prompted. (I use “pervasive” antisemitism deliberately, as that’s exactly what seems to be true of the UK.) To me, some of the suggestions abrogate American-style free speech, but Britain has no First Amendment. That said, the leadership needs to cultivate a climate of tolerance, and stop having the law demonize Islamophobia but go soft on antisemitism.

Finally, this seven-minute BBC Berkshire video featuring Jonathan Sacerdoti (a pro-Jewish brodacaster) has caused a kerfuffle on social media. People object to the interviewer speaking over Sacerdoti, who ticks off a list of antisemitic incidents and criticizes Starmer for inaction. Finally, the interviewer actually mutes Sacerdoti’s microphone when he criticizes the Green Party.  The man is quite eloquent, and offers tangible suggestions to erode public antisemitism, but either the broadcaster wanted to end the segment for political reasons or simply was in a rush to wrap things up. You be the judge. But muting the microphone is not the way to go. (In my view, the interviewer is pushing back not only on what Sacerdoti “characterizes” which is not a characterization but a description of reality, and also lauds the BBC’s evenhandedness, though most people recognize that the Beeb has been anti=Israel since October 7.)

As for stopping antisemitism, well, Sacerdoti’s suggestions will make public acts of antisemitism less frequent, but will it eliminate  the sentiments behind them? And why is this stuff now fulminating in the UK?

A message from the Jesus and Mo artist about this week’s cartoon, called “dump2”:

A slightly scatological resurrection from 2006 today. Normal service will be resumed next week.

Religion vs. science!

I’m a sucker for lists like the NYT’s 100 Best Books of the 21st Century (also archived here), though the list may be a bit premature given that the century is barely one-quarter over. The article notes that the list was compiled by “votes from 503 novelists, nonfiction writers, poets, critics, and other book lovers—with a little help from the staff of the New York Times book review.”

From the intro:

Many of us find joy in looking back and taking stock of our reading lives, which is why we here at The New York Times Book Review decided to mark the first 25 years of this century with an ambitious project: to take a first swing at determining the most important, influential books of the era. In collaboration with the Upshot, we sent a survey to hundreds of literary luminaries, asking them to name the 10 best books published since Jan. 1, 2000.

Stephen King took part. So did Bonnie Garmus, Claudia Rankine, James Patterson, Sarah Jessica Parker, Karl Ove Knausgaard, Elin Hilderbrand, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Roxane Gay, Marlon James, Sarah MacLean, Min Jin Lee, Jonathan Lethem and Jenna Bush Hager, to name just a few. And you can also take part! Vote here and let us know what your top 10 books of the century are.

Sarah Jessica Parker? Jenna Bush Hager? Are those literary luminaries? I don’t think so. Well, there were many real luminiaries and real critics, so we’ll let it pass.

Is it a good list? Well, I’ve heard of many of the books, and the 18 I’ve read (see below) have been good ones. But seriously, there’s no mention of All the Light We Cannot See? (2014; it won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction and is perhaps the best book I’ve read written in this century). Or A Little Life (2015)?  Where is Hamnet (2020)? And for medically related nonfiction, I’d add Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup (2018), about Elizabeth Holmes and the Theranos scam, and Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty,(2021), about the Sackler family’s relentless pushing of opioids. And where, oh where is Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (2010), a book I enthusiastically reviewed? 

I’d also kvetch because there’s only one nonfiction book about science (The Emperor of All Maladies; 2010), though two others are tangentially related to science.  This likely reflects the NYT’s general neglect of the wonders of science.

But I’m sure everyone will find lacunae, and if I thought hard I’d find others. But it doesn’t matter: use the list for suggestions of books to investigate. At least you can tick off the books you’ve read and the paper conveniently compiles a list—and a photo—of the ones you’ve read. Here’s my own list:

I’ve read 18 books on the list. . . .

The Warmth of Other Suns ● The Known World ● Austerlitz ● Never Let Me Go ● The Year of Magical Thinking ● The Road ● The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay ● The Overstory ● Atonement ● H Is for Hawk ● A Brief History of Seven Killings ● The Vegetarian ● The Looming Tower ● Demon Copperhead ● The New Jim Crow ● The Passage of Power ● The Emperor of All Maladies ● The Sympathizer

Again, it biggest gap on their list is “All the Light We Cannot See,” a masterpiece of a book.

And it makes a photo you can use for bragging rights, though I don’t have many:

Some of the best books I’ve read have hyst missed this century, including A Gesture Life (1999) and Troubles (1970). As always, recommend books you like written recently, particularly ones not on this list.

I heard this song yesterday on Facebook, where the melody was used as background for a video of a man walking two kimono-clad cats in Kyoto.  I hadn’t heard “Sukiyaki” in many years (it came out in the U.S. when I was 13), but I remembered the tune instantly, though the words of course are in Japanese. The Japanese title was changed for play in other countries, but changed into the name of a dish, for crying out loud. And I didn’t know how popular the song was (see below).

It’s a song of loneliness, though it inspired by politics. The details below are from Wikipedia.

Ue o Muite Arukō” (Japanese: 上を向いて歩こう; “I Look Up as I Walk”), alternatively titled “Sukiyaki“, is a song by Japanese crooner Kyu Sakamoto, first released in Japan in 1961. The song topped the charts in a number of countries, including the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 in 1963. The song grew to become one of the world’s best-selling singles of all time, selling over 13 million copies worldwide.

Sakamoto died at 43 in a plane crash.

“Ue o Muite Arukō” (pronounced [ɯeomɯiteaɾɯkoꜜː]) was written by lyricist Rokusuke Ei and composer Hachidai Nakamura. The lyrics tell the story of a man who looks up while he is walking so that his tears will not fall, with the verses describing his memories and feelings. Ei wrote the lyrics while walking home from participating in the 1960 Anpo protests against the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, expressing his frustration and dejection at the failed efforts to stop the treaty. However, the lyrics were purposely generic so that they might refer to any lost love

In the US, “Sukiyaki” topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart in 1963, one of the few non-English songs to have done so, and the first in a non-European language. It was the only single by an Asian artist to top the Hot 100 until the 2020 release of “Dynamite” by the South Korean band BTS. “Sukiyaki” also peaked at number eighteen on the Billboard R&B chart, and spent five weeks at number one on the Middle of the Road chart.

Can you name an American chart-topper in a European language? I can!

Here’s “Sukiyaki,” which has both the Japanese words written in English transliteration as well as the English translation.

Here we have Bill Maher kvetching about people who say that the rich don’t pay taxes, and about “progressives” who say that multimillionaires and billionaires should be taxed much more heavily. In this tirade against “progressives,” Maher also argues that the U.S., despite the plaints of Bernie Sanders and his ilk, already has a lot of socialism, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment compensation, and so on.

His point is a bit obscure to me, but seems to be that there’s too much income inequality in America, so that a few people make a lot, while many make bupkes.  And prices continue to rise, putting stuff like concerts and Disneyland, not to mention Lego kits, out of reach of the middle class. And don’t even mention healthcare!   So what’s new?

The guests last week were Governor Wes Moore (Democratic Governor of Maryland), Chris Cuomo (NewsNation Host), and Sarah Isgur (ABC News Analyst and Contributing Editor at The Dispatch). Cuomo and Isgur show up in this clip. 

All in all, Maher seems to be complaining both about the super-rich and their failure to help the poor (beyond paying taxes), and also about income inequality.  What is he asking for?

Out of curiosity, I asked Grok what Maher’s net worth is. The answer is below: he’s about one-seventh of a billionaire:

Bill Maher’s net worth is estimated at $140 million.

This figure is consistently reported across reliable sources as of late 2025 and into 2026, including Celebrity Net Worth (the primary reference used by most outlets) and recent articles from TV Insider, Yahoo Entertainment, and others.

A big part of his wealth comes from his long-running HBO gig: he reportedly earns about $10 million per year as host of Real Time with Bill Maher (which he’s done since 2003, after earlier runs hosting Politically Incorrect).

Another major boost was a smart 2012 investment: he bought a minority stake (roughly 4%) in the New York Mets for around $20 million and sold it in 2020 when the team changed hands, netting an estimated $80 million profit.

His earnings also include stand-up tours, comedy specials, acting roles, producing projects (like the documentary Religulous and the series Vice), and his podcast Club Random. He’s known for being relatively frugal with his spending despite the high income.

Keep in mind that celebrity net worth estimates are approximate—they’re based on public data about salaries, investments, real estate, and other assets, minus expenses and taxes—but $140 million has been the stable consensus for several years with no major contradictory reports.

Just before and during my trip to Savannah, I started noticing that people are asking for tips everywhere, including when you buy bread at a bakery or food at McDonald’s.  And by “asking”, I mean that when you pay with a credit card directly or on your phone, a lit-up sign appears at the register asking “Do you want to leave a tip?” And then, helpfully, suggesting tips, usually starting at 20% and going up to 30%. (There’s an option for a “custom tip”.)  This is a form of unwarranted pressure on consumers to tip for things that, historically, didn’t require tips. It’s the capitalistic equivalent of grade inflation.

Here are a few of the places that asked me for tips in the last ten days. I left a tip for only the last one:

A $3.00 baguette I bought at a local Hyde Park bakery (from the counter, for crying out loud)

Ice cream served from the counter at Leopold’s in Savannah

Two double cheeseburgers from McDonald’s in the Savannah airport (takeaway counter service).  And don’t shame me about McD’s: my plane was leaving and I needed food after a 7-hour wait. I haven’t eaten this kind of fast food in over a year, but I needed nourishment—if you call that “nourishment”.  Actually, it did the job, but my tip was zero.

My Uber ride from Midway Airport to home.

Now I always leave a tip for Uber drivers, even though only 20% of customers tip and Uber itself says that tips can be given, but only for exceptional service.  Tips make up only 10% of the salaries of Uber and Lyft drivers, while they constitute about half the incomes of  those who deliver food and groceries. And yes, I tip when I am delivered cooked food at home, but that happens only about once very two years. (To me, food delivery feels too much like I’m a king or something.)

Because Uber rides are pleasant and cheaper than taxi fares, I usually leave about 10% of the fare as a tip.  But in the past you would leave the Uber tip some hours after the ride, and after the driver had rated you as a passenger.  In this last case, however, a screen was affixed to the back seat asking me to leave a tip for the driver, whose name was Muhammed.  That was unfair, as that makes you tip before the driver rates you, and you’re supposed to be rated on your conduct as a passenger, not for how much extra money you give. NeverthelessI left a tip as usual, though not until the next day.

The services I usually tip for, and about 20% on average, are haircuts, non-Uber taxi rides, sit-down service in a restaurant, the people who service my cabin on cruises (less than 20% of the price!, plus a group tip for the service staff), and a few other services I can’t remember.  But I refused to tip when just buying a hamburger or getting ice cream or bread to take away. I usually don’t tip when I carry out food, either, but it varies.

If this importuning for tips reflects a real deficit of salary in an establishment, I would much prefer that they raise their prices than put me in a guilt-trippy situation where I have to tip on the spot.

I’m not the only one who feels this way.  I found this story in USA Today about tip inflation in American institutions.  Click below to read the story for free.

A few exccerpts:

Has tipping gotten out of hand?

In a new survey by Popmenu, more than 3 out of 4 people or 78% said they believed that tipping practices have become ridiculous. Forty-four percent say they’re tipping less this year than last year.

Consumers aren’t shy about expressing their tip fatigue online and on social media sites.

“I can’t enjoy a weekend without at least 5 prompts to tip for doing absolutely nothing,” one user on Reddit said about tipping fatigue. “The anxiety that comes from this false pressure to tip a percentage on every bill is ludicrous.”

. . .People feel that “tipping has become maybe ubiquitous and that now we’re being asked to tip for everything all the time, even for things that we didn’t feel were customary or normal,” Brendan Sweeney, CEO of Popmenu, told USA TODAY.

Popmenu, which is a restaurant tech company, has been surveying customers about tipping for more than five years, Sweeney said.

Tipping really increased during the COVID-19 lockdown era and after when the hospitality industry was hurting and consumers started leaving tips for take-out or tipping more “as a warm and fuzzy” feeling, Sweeney said.

“But then I think we got to a point where it was like, wait.. is this still an emergency? Is it still we’re helping people? At the same time, people are really feeling the pinch of inflation,” he said.

But tip fatigue is starting to tell!

And more digital register systems at businesses have the tipping screen built into the software, Sweeney said.

Still, Sweeney said guilt tipping, or feeling guilted into leaving a tip to avoid the awkwardness, is a thing.

When a digital screen asks for a tip, 59% of the respondents said they feel compelled to leave one. But that’s down from 66% in September 2025. And the share of people who say they tip on a weekly basis at places where it isn’t warranted also fell from 44% to 39%. Over the last 12 months, consumers estimate they spent about $130 on tips they didn’t think were necessary, down from $150 when the same question was posed in September 2025.

. . . The percentage of consumers tipping 20% or higher for restaurant servers and delivery drivers fell over the last six months:

• 41% of consumers tip restaurant servers 20% or more, which is down from 45% in September 2025. Twenty nine percent of people said they tip servers 15%, which is similar to September 2025.
• 15% tip restaurant delivery drivers 20% or higher, down from 23% in September 2025.
• 27% tip delivery drivers 15%, which is similar to September 2025.

Tips at places other than restaurants also changed.

• 39% of consumers tip at coffee shops, down from 46% in September 2025.
• 27% tip at food trucks, down from 32% in September 2025.
• 22% tip at fast food restaurants, down from 27% in September 2025.
• Separate from the survey, Popmenu also tracked tipping on online orders received through its platform. Pickup orders with a digital tip declined from 78% in 2022 to 62% in 2026.

. . . Three in four consumers (74%) say they have noticed restaurants raising the minimum suggested tip on digital screens. Here’s what people said they did when they saw that screen:

• 36% typically leave a custom tip
• 17% choose the lowest suggested tip
• 32% choose the mid-tier tip
• 7% choose the highest tip
• 9% don’t typically tip

Consumers in the survey said they were willing to pay higher prices instead of tipping. If given a choice, 56% of consumers are willing to pay more for meals and beverages to provide higher wages for workers and eliminate gratuities.

What’s that, you say? If I buy an ice cream cone, there is labor involved in making the ice cream and scooping it out to put in a cone. Shouldn’t we pay for that labor? No—the workers should get a decent wage  and costs should be folded into the prices. In the past I’ve heard arguments that if labor is involved, tips should be given, but that’s always the case and, at any rate, such sentiments were covid-related.

I much prefer the French system, which applies especially at restaurants. The menu says explicitly that labor costs are included in the menu prices, and if you like the service, you can leave a couple of euros on the bill plate, regardless of what the meal cost.  There the pressure is off, and you don’t feel guilty about having to choose between a 15% tip and a 30% tip.  And you never are expected to tip when you take food away.

Of course you’re welcome to weigh in. How much and when do you tip, and do you feel pressured to tip in circumstances where you don’t think it’s necessary?

It’s well known that most American academics lean towards the Left (I’m one), and that this trend is increasing over time. Here’s a plot of the political leaning of academics made by Sam Abrams (a politics and government prof at Sarah Lawrence) shown on the website of the Heterodox Academy. The trend is clear, and it’s the same among many surveys of American academics.

If I was asked ten years ago to explain this difference and also the trend over time, I wouldn’t have been able to give an answer, though now various places have suggested self-selection: academia by its very nature of free expression and (supposed) favoritism of argument and open ideas, favors liberals over conservatives. Here’s from The Independent Review:

The very nature of political inquiry is implicated here as well. Some argue that because academia focuses on expanding ideas, it is inherently opposed to conservatism, which seeks, in a nod to Buckley, to yell “Stop!” In some respects, a liberal-leaning academia should be expected to some degree. The confounding reality now, though, is that many liberal academics agree it is vital to limit ideas they deem harmful.

This paper in Theory and Society gives multiple explanations, including self-selection:

Results indicate that professors are more liberal than other Americans because a higher proportion possess advanced educational credentials, exhibit a disparity between their levels of education and income, identify as Jewish, non-religious, or non-theologically conservative Protestant, and express greater tolerance for controversial ideas.

But lately I’ve been hearing another explanation, a self-aggrandizing one offered by liberal thinkers themselves. It was originally stated by Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Now what does that mean?  I suppose you can interpret it as another way of saying what’s above: universities, whose job is to find out the truth (“reality”) tend to attract liberals.  But I don’t think that’s what the phrase is supposed to mean. I think that Colbert meant, and others mean, that reality itself has a tendency to buttress Left-wing views.  That’s what Grok says when asked to explain how the Left uses the phrase:

Often deployed earnestly (or semi-earnestly) to argue that empirical evidence on topics like climate change, inequality, public health data, or social issues tends to support center-left policy conclusions more than conservative ones. The implication: “Stop calling facts ‘liberal bias’—reality just doesn’t align with your priors.”

And that may indeed be true, but it reverses the causes of what’s meant: “the views of liberals are more often supported by the facts than are the views of conservatives or moderates.”

Well, one can argue about even that (e.g., climate change on one hand and Israel on the other), but what bothers me is that the quote implies that reality itself leads to liberalism.  But reality has no ideology: it’s simply what’s true about the Universe. Evolutionary biology itself gives just the facts, though those facts can be accepted by liberals or rejected by conservatives like religious creationists. How one deals with the facts depends on one’s upbringing and predisposition.

Actually, anyone studying reality—trying to find the truth—had best abandon any ideological slant beforehand, as ideology impedes the search for truth. The methodology of science itself—hypothesis testing, pervasive doubt, double-blind testing, the use of math and statistics, publication and communication, and empirical observation—is not ideological, and does not lead one to either the Left or Right.

This paper from BioScience, written by a philosopher and an evolutionary molecular biologist, shows that studying reality itself is best done in an atmosphere of ethnical neutrality. Click screenshot to read.

The authors argue first that ideological neutrality is important in finding the truth:

Arguably, a more feasible solution to the new demarcation problem is an old solution: when engaging in the core activities of scientific research, scientists should strive to eliminate the influence of all non-epistemic (e.g., ethical and political) values from the work they are conducting and (importantly) reviewing—at least to the extent that this is humanly possible. Like the ideal of a perfect democracy, the ideal of perfect ethical or political neutrality is probably never attainable in practice. Nonetheless, it is an ideal that motivates scientists to identify and hold each other accountable for any non-epistemic biases that might infiltrate and potentially distort scientific reasoning.

They then say that science is best conducted employing four Mertonian norms (Robert Merton was an American sociologists who wrote a lot about the sociology of science):

Merton’s first norm, perhaps inappropriately called “communism,” “prescribes the open communication of findings to other scientists and correlatively proscribing secrecy” (Zuckerman and Merton 1971).

. . . Merton’s second norm—universalism—states that personal attributes of a scientist, such as race, gender, nationality, religion, class, or political affiliation, are irrelevant when evaluating their scientific work. This norm functions epistemically as a corrective against all possible forms of discrimination other than merit.

. . . Merton’s third value, organized skepticism, encourages scientists to remain open to future falsification. This involves considering “all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work” (Anderson et al. 2010).

. . . Merton’s fourth norm called “disinterestedness” is perhaps the most controversial. Taken literally, this norm seems to require of scientists that they set aside personal goals in the pure pursuit of truth. Even the most careful scientist is vulnerable to confirmation bias (Wiens 1997). The expectation that scientists should behave as if they had no stake in the outcomes of their research is meant to counteract the effects of wishful thinking.

Now the authors discuss the opposition to these norms, and problems that arise when using them, but I think it’s useful to recognize that setting aside ideology is the best and fastest way to understand reality.

I suppose this post is a long-winded way of exporessing what I see as a self-aggrandizing phrase, and one that distorts the way that finding truth really works, but I’ve heard the phrase often enough to dissect it a bit.

The upshot: neither morality or ideology can be derived from reality, but those of a certain ideological or moral bent may rely on reality more than those of other stripes.

I think this was news commentary, but I didn’t hear the whole show: just a snippet on my car radio. At any rate, one commenter said this:

 “Joe Biden is probably the last Democratic President for generations who will be in favor of Israel.”

One could say that the Democrats are taking a position of neutrality, favoring neither Israel or its opponents (e.g., Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, or Hamas), but I doubt that is the case. The Democratic Party is being taken over by so-called “progressives,” and they are opposed to Israel in general—not just “Zionism” (which means Israel’s existence as a state), and not just Netanyahu.  This, according to a poll of Palestinians  taken in the West Bank and Gaza two years ago, is who the Democrats are and will be favoring:

According to the poll, only seven percent of Gazans blamed Hamas for their suffering. Seventy-one percent of all Palestinians supported Hamas’s decision to attack Israel on October 7 — up 14 points among Gazans and down 11 points among West Bank Palestinians compared to three months ago. Fifty-nine percent of all Palestinians thought Hamas should rule Gaza, and 70 percent were satisfied with the role Hamas has played during the war.

Before October 7, Fatah would have defeated Hamas in a head-to-head vote of all Palestinians 26 to 22 percent. If elections were held today, Fatah would lose to Hamas 17 to 34 percent. Eighty-one percent of respondents were dissatisfied with Abbas, up from 76 percent before the war. Sixty-two percent did not view the recent resignation of former PA Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh as a sign of reform. And 65 percent of Palestinians think the PA is a burden on the Palestinian people. Among likely voters, 56 percent supported Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life sentences for his role in the murder of Jews during the Second Intifada. Thirty-two percent supported Qatar-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, and 11 percent supported Abbas.

Only 5 percent of Palestinians think Hamas’s massacre on October 7 constitutes a war crime.

The poll was taken by a Palestinian organization, “the Ramallah-based non-profit Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.”  And we have this breakdown of Democratic support (almost nil) from The Arab Center:

 On April 15, 2026, the United States Senate considered two resolutions to block nearly $450 million of arms sales to Israel over concerns about human rights violations and the US-Israel war on Iran. With pro-Israel Republicans controlling the Senate, the defeat of these resolutions, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), was predictable. Indeed, the first resolution, to stop a $295 million sale of bulldozers that Israel has used in the past to destroy civilian homes, lost in a 59-40 vote; the second, to halt a $151 million sale of 12,000 1,000-pound bombs, failed 63-36. The surprise was that more than three-quarters of the 47-member Democratic caucus voted to halt at least one of the sales—an unprecedented number.

Jews were reliably Democratic before the war, and Democrats were reliable friends of Israel. Brothers and sisters, friends and comrades, those days are gone. Democrats are not only ignoring Hamas’s war crimes and avowed desire to destroy Israel, but also favoring an oppressive, misogynistic, and truly genocidal regime against the only democratic state in the Middle East.  And no, I don’t think it’s just animus against Netanyahu or “Zionism” that’s motivating this change.  I think that Democratic opposition to Israel would be nearly as strong if Israel had some other Prime Minister. And it’s not “Zionism” they oppose, either, for that’s just the new euphemism for “Judaism”, for Zionism is just the recognition of the validity of the state of Israel as a refuge for Jews. (Do these people oppose the many explicitly Muslim states as examples of “Islamism”? If so, I haven’t heard about it.)

Israel (and Jews) are now seen as oppressors in the “oppressor-victim” narrative that’s behind wokeness. And the “oppression” by Israel involves the Two Big Lies: Israel is “genocidal” and “an apartheid state.” (For a refutation of the “genocide” canard go here, and of the “apartheid” canard go here).  We are seeing the Democratic Party becoming more antisemitic and anti-Enlightenment. For Democrats like me, this is depressing.  I’m not a one-issue candidate but I’m still Jewish, and how am I to vote for someone who is anti-Israel?

I now have three batches plus some singletons, and so we’ll have semi-regular photos for a while, at least.  Today’s batch of tidal invertebrate photos, and one video, comes from math professor Abby Thompson at UC Davis. Abby’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them. The video is also hers.

April tidepools, and a mystery den.

Starting with a video of a Ctenophore, Pleurobrachia bachei (Pacific sea gooseberry, a ‘comb jelly’). All appearances to the contrary, this is in a different phylum (Ctenophora) from the “jellyfish” of my earlier post, which are in the phylum Cnidaria.   The flashing lights are the cilia in the “combs” that run down the sides, used for locomotion.  This one wasn’t moving very much, but I was surprised it was moving at all.   I picked it up off the sand quite a way above the water line, and dumped it into a shallow pool to take a photo.    It seemed to be recovering pretty well from what I thought was death.   It’s about the size of a walnut.

Sea urchin “test”, or internal skeleton. Probably Strongylocentrotus purpuratus:

Ophiopholis aculeata (daisy brittle star):

Bispira pacifica (feather duster worm):

Close up of ‘feathers’ of pacifica:

Genus Eupentacta (sea cucumber):

Phoronis ijimai (tentative- the white things). This is a species of horseshoe worm, which lives in tubes.   I haven’t seen this species before, and it was in an awkward spot, so it was hard to get a good photo.   The photo below that is from a few years ago of a worm from the same family, so you can see their general shape better:

Phoronopsis harmeri (from July 2021) (same family):

Anthopleura artemisia (moonglow anemone):

And a few nudibranchs:

Triopha maculata (nudibranch):

Tenellia laguna (nudibranch):

Acanthodoris rhodoceras (nudibranch):

Rostanga pulchra (nudibranch):

Lastly the mystery den. Our entire front yard seems to have been tunneled under, with at least three major entrances- this pair of holes is just one of them.  The holes are large, about 10 inches across.  We’re dreaming of badgers, would be very happy with foxes, and really hoping it’s not skunks (I love skunks, but not in the front yard).  A wildlife cam is the next purchase:

Camera: Olympus TG-7.   Thanks as usual to some experts on inaturalist.