Why Evolution is True Feed

Regular Mark Sturtevant (as opposed to Irregular Mark Sturtevant) has sent in some lovely insect photos to fill the nearly-empty reserve of pictures. Please send any good wildlife photos you have. Thanks!

Mark’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them. Be sure to check out the female Tussock Moth caterpillar with vestigial wings (it’s the eighth photo).

Here is another dispatch of local insects and spiders, all photographed either in area parks near where I live in eastern Michigan, or as staged shots at home. Let’s start with a couple of dragonflies. First up is a Green Darner (Anax junius), which ranks pretty large among the dragonflies found here. As is almost always the case, this individual is a female, since they perch frequently and are much easier to approach than males, which I only rarely manage to photograph. Do you see the tiny yellow critter on the dragonfly? That is a Globular Springtail, and it must have walked or jumped onto the dragonfly from nearby foliage. There may be a few more of them in the picture as well, though I’m not certain. Springtails are tiny soil arthropods, and they are extremely abundant. When seen up close, Globular Springtails are arguably adorable, as you can see in the linked image. I’ve searched for them for some time but have only rarely encountered them, despite claims that they are exceedingly common. Perhaps our local species spends more time up on foliage rather than in the soil, meaning I’ve been looking in the wrong places!:

The next dragonfly is a male Skillet Clubtail (Gomphurus ventricosus), named for the large, pan-like club on the end of its abdomen. I have to drive a few hours south to a particular park to see them, and of course this one is perching on poison ivy which covers much of the area there. That park hosts 8 or 9 species of clubtails according to a dragonfly documentation site called Odonata Central. I’ve photographed most of those species with only two left to find:

A field near my workplace has a ridiculously high population of Chinese Praying Mantids (Tenodera sinensis). I suspect this is the lingering result of someone having released a large number of egg cases several years ago, combined with a robust population of grasshopper prey. Shown here is a young June nymph. I can return later in the summer to find several large adults in no time at all:

Next up are some lepidopterans. First is a Hackberry Emperor butterfly (Asterocampa celtis). They are often common along forest margins where their host Hackberry trees [Celtis occidentalis] are concentrated. Their caterpillars, however, seem to be quite secretive, as I’ve seen only a few of them:

Next is an inchworm caterpillar, though I don’t have an identification for it. Do you see the tiny mites?:

The insect shown next is a moth, although it makes a very convincing wasp mimic. This is the Eupatorium Borer Moth (Carmenta bassiformis). The larvae feed on the roots of Ironweed and Joe Pye Weed, both of which are highly valued native wildflowers because they are very much favored by butterflies:

The flamboyant caterpillar in the next image is a White-marked Tussock Caterpillar (Orgyia leucostigma). I’ve tried several times to get an acceptable focus-stacked image of one of these. What makes them difficult is the combination of all those oddly angled sticky-out bits, which challenge the shallow depth of field inherent in this kind of photography, along with the fact that these caterpillars absolutely will Not Hold Still. As a result, the stacking is done on the fly, followed later by long hours of manual reassembly of the jumbled focus stack. This image is by far my most successful attempt:

I kept this caterpillar in hopes that the moth emerging from the cocoon would be a female. Why? Well—check out what came out! It was a female! Females have barely visible vestigial wings, and I had never seen one before. She will sit here, unmoving, until a male finds her. This strategy saves a great deal of energy that can instead be used for laying eggs. The winged males are unremarkable, and while I’ve probably seen them, I don’t think I’ve ever photographed one:

Finally, here are three images of jumping spiders I’ve been wanting to share together for quite some time. The Dimorphic Jumping Spider (Maevia inclemens) is a species I regularly see around the outside of our house. The name refers to the males having two distinct color morphs. The images below are manual focus stacks, photographed in staged settings on the ‘ol dining room table. First is a female with long-legged fly prey, which conveniently provides a sense of scale since the fly is about the size of a mosquito:

Next are the two male color morphs. The first somewhat resembles the females, while the other is very different and comes with distinctive hair decorations. This is an older image, but I’m bringing it back so all three forms can finally be shown together. It’s surprising that they are all the same species!

I recently learned that the two male forms use different courtship displays for females, yet are considered equally successful in the mating game. I’m sure Jerry can steer things in the right direction if I am in error here, but having different male forms with different mating strategies does not seem unusual in the animal kingdom. Examples I’m familiar with include lizards, crustaceans, and fish, although in those cases the different males include those that are aggressive and territorial, and others that win by being sneaky. But here, I don’t see how either male is territorial, and apparently both have courtship displays for females.

One of my goals for next season will be to try to document their different courtship behaviors. That seems do-able, since I can expect to find several of them again next summer.

I’ve often pointed out that the mainstream media seems curiously soft on religion, taking the stance that religion is good for America and can heal it in these troubled times. But they never ask—and don’t seem to care—whether religion is true.  Instead, they insist that filling the “God-shaped hole”—a spiritual lacuna that supposedly exists in all of us—is what we need to be complete and happy human beings.

The New York Times is particularly guilty of pushing superstition as a nostrum. For two years, until 2023, they had a regular column and newsletter called “On Faith,” by Tish Harrison Warren, an Anglican priest who relentlessly pushed religion. (You can see my many posts criticizing her here.)  There were, of course, no atheists writing to point out that the God that Warren extolled weekly didn’t seem to exist.

Now Lauren Jackson, who professes nonbelief but is a spiritual “seeker”, has replaced Warren with a weekly newsletter and column called “Believing”. You can see the list of her columns here, and my post about the column here. Here’s one example below (click to read, or find it (archived here)

Jackson mourns her inability to fully believe:

I recognize, though, that my spiritual longing persists — and it hasn’t been sated by secularism. I want a god. I live an ocean away from that small Arkansas chapel, but I still remember the bliss of finding the sublime in the mundane. I still want it all to be true: miracles, souls, some sort of cosmic alchemy that makes sense of the chaos.

For years, I haven’t been able to say that publicly. But it feels like something is changing. That maybe the culture is shifting. That maybe we’re starting to recognize that it’s possible to be both believing and discerning after all.

I don’t think so—not without evidence for God.  Can you be discerning and believe in the Loch Ness Monster? That would be easier than believing in God, for at least there used to be some (now discredited) evidence for Nessie.

Here’s another more recent one (click to read), a column that proves that God is made in the image of humans and not the other way around:

A quote:

Reverend Albert Cleage, a leader in the Detroit civil rights movement, wanted to counter what he saw as white dominance of Christianity. He was also trying to make the church into an important center for Black political power. So he and his team commissioned an artist, Glanton Dowdell, to replace the old church building’s iconography, which at the time depicted a white pilgrim. Dowdell scouted a young Black mother and her 3-year-old son at a laundromat and told her she had a memorable face — a crisp jawline and sharp cheekbones. Would she allow him to paint her as a Black Mary?

She said yes. The resulting mural was radical for the time, but it served to both illustrate and venerate an emerging doctrine of Black liberation theology. Cleage was developing a gospel of Black nationalism, one that claimed Jesus was a Black revolutionary whose identity as such had been obscured by white people.

“The basic problem facing Black people is their powerlessness,” he once said.

Look, I don’t care what color God is, because I’m fully convinced that God is a man-made fiction. He’s a coloring book in the mind, and you can make God whatever sex or ethnicity you want. But none of that makes God’s existence more probable.

It’s curious that Jackson, who professes nonbelief, only writes positively about it, and doesn’t allow an atheistic point of view in her column. Though she herself is an unbeliever, you won’t see her discuss the problems with religion, nor will you see her write about Islam, save for tiny mentions. That’s because her brief is to console NYT readers by allowing them to think that religion is compatible with a modern, scientific outlook. Jackson, I believe, replaced Warren because Warren’s take on faith was too strong and was alienating readers. So the paper got themselves a “none” who writes good things about faith.

This also applies to the Free Press, whose softness on religion I’ve often mentioned. This piece, for example, came out just last week:

Here’s an excerpt:

There’s something simple yet profound about mingling with people who are different. At its very best, religion can tamp down feelings of distrust, disenchantment, and disconnection. At their very best, religious institutions are places where people from every economic background and political affiliation can set aside their differences and worship together. Instead of churches being engines of social capital generation and catalysts for building trust and tolerance, the growing polarization of American religion has left us lonelier, angrier, sicker, and more divided than ever before.

. . . . I am under no illusion that American religion is the greatest panacea for all that ails the United States. But people gathering under one roof to sing together, pray together, and work in common cause to create a better community and a better society will certainly move us closer to the ideals that were set forth by the Founding Fathers of our country. There’s nothing simpler and more consequential than people getting up on a Sunday morning, getting dressed, and making their way to a local house of worship.

For religion to effect these changes, isn’t it true that worshipers must share common beliefs about what’s true, and foremost among them must be the existence of God?  Well, no, because I have friends who are atheists and nevertheless go to church for the social aspects: the singing, the fellowship, the comity based on a false premise that Kurt Vonnegut called a “granfaloon.” Oh, that we could have a latter-day Mencken, who made his name in journalism even though he wrote stuff like this!:

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.

The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.

Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration – courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth.

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. Mencken regularly railed against religion, and with good reason.  But the idea of a modern Mencken publishing this kind of stuff is inconceivable. Though more people than ever have given up belief or are “nones,” the curious respect for religion remains.

The University of Austin (UATX), not to be confused with the University of Texas at Austin, was founded in October, 2021 as a sort of heterodox university, one where all viewpoints could be represented and debated. In this sense it was a counter to “elite” universities like Harvard and Princeton, whose faculty are almost entirely liberal and where free speech policies are sometimes abrogated. Wikipedia says this about the founders:

The University of Austin was conceived in May 2021 when venture capitalist Joe Lonsdale, St. John’s College president Pano Kanelos, British–American historian Niall Ferguson, and journalist Bari Weiss met in Austin. The proposal was publicized six months later in an article by Kanelos in Weiss’s newsletter Common Sense (which has since evolved into The Free Press).

Founding faculty fellows included Peter Boghossian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Kathleen Stock. Other advisors included former Harvard President Lawrence Summers, former ACLU President Nadine Strossen, and former president of the American Enterprise Institute Arthur Brooks.

In November 2021, the university’s website listed Robert Zimmer, Larry Summers, John Nunes, Gordon Gee, Steven Pinker, Deirdre McCloskey, Leon Kass, Jonathan Haidt, Glenn Loury, Joshua Katz, Vickie Sullivan, Geoffrey Stone, Bill McClay, and Tyler Cowen as advisors to the university.

On November 11, 2021, Robert Zimmer announced his resignation from the university board, saying that UATX had made statements about higher education that “diverged very significantly from my own views”.[26] Shortly thereafter, Pinker followed suit. UATX apologized for creating “”unnecessary complications” for Pinker and Zimmer by not clarifying [sooner] what their advisory roles entailed.[28]

The founders and founding faculty are indeed a mixture of left- and right-wing people, and, with proper guidance and care, as well as a judicious selection of faculty, UATX had the possibility of turning into a decent alternative to other high-class but left-oriented schools.  That was the original aim. Sadly, it did not happen.

I sensed trouble with Steve Pinker and our President, the late Bob Zimmer, resigned in November. There must have been something about the ideological leaning of the university—the feeling that it was founded to follow an antiwoke ideology rather than just allow all viewpoints to be erred—that turned off Steve and Bob. Here’s a FB post by Steve in response to a new article in Politico about UATX:

I don’t know why Bob Zimmer resigned, as he wasn’t explicit about it except to say, as the article notes, ““The new university made a number of statements about higher education in general, largely quite critical, that diverged very significantly from my own views.”

According to this new article in Politico by author and criminal justice professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice Evan Mandery,  UATX entered the drain in the spring of 2025 when the right-wing nature of the school became explicit. And now more advisors and faculty have resigned, and it looks as if the school (which is unaccredited, but might be in two years) is doomed. But the trouble started almost immediately when the school was founded. Read about this mess by clicking the screenshot below:

Here are some of the people involved in UATX (indented quotes are from the article):

Kanelos identified 32 people as trustees, faculty members and advisers to the new university including Jonathan Haidt, the NYU professor whose work Kanelos evoked in proclaiming that UATX would produce an “antifragile” cohort with the capacity to think “fearlessly, nimbly, and inventively”; Summers; Pinker; the playwright David Mamet; Glenn Loury, an economist at Brown University; computer scientist and podcaster Lex Fridman; authors Andrew Sullivan and Rob Henderson; the journalists Caitlin Flanagan, Sohrab Ahmari and Jonathan Rauch; Stacy Hock, an investor and philanthropist; and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a conservative, Dutch politician-turned-writer known for criticizing Islam’s treatment of women, and who is married to Ferguson.

The list leaned right, to be sure. Loury, who is Black, zealously opposes affirmative action. Mamet had called Trump “the best president since Abraham Lincoln.” Hock served as chairwoman of an organization called Texas GOP 2020 Victory. Several of the academics had experienced backlash for taking conservative positions. These included Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist who’d had a planned lecture at MIT on extraterrestrial life canceled over his views on DEI; Peter Boghossian, who’d resigned from Portland State University in part because of the institution’s response to his sending hoax articles to academic journals; and University of Sussex professor Kathleen Stock, who’d faced protests over her allegedly transphobic views, which she disputed.

I’m not sure if Boghossian and Stock can be said to “lean right”, but never mind. But also on the list were Pinker, Strossen, and Haidt, all of whom see themselves as classical liberals.

Resignations began early, as the school’s ideological antiwoke agenda was manifest from the outset.  Others who resigned were Geoffrey Stone, Vickie Sullivan, Andrew Sullivan, Heather Heying, Nadine Strossen (former head of the ACLU), Jon Haidt, and Jonathan Rauch. This gutted the advisory board of most of its well-known liberals. Heying said she resigned because she didn’t think the university’s vission was “sufficiently revolutionary,” and Pinker emailed Mandery with further explanation:

“Dissociation was the only choice,” Pinker told me in an email. “I bristled at their Trump-Musk-style of trolling, taunting, and demonizing, without the maturity and dignity that ought to accompany a major rethinking of higher education.” Furthermore, Pinker added, “UATX had no coherent vision of what higher education in the 21st century ought to be. Instead, they created UnWoke U led by a Faculty of the Canceled.”

That was pretty much my view as well. If you look at the curriculum page of UATX, you’ll see that science is pretty much limited to math and data analysis.  As Mandery notes, the curriculum was in places bizarre. He reproduces the syllabus below, saying”

Indeed, the syllabus I reviewed for a class called “Intellectual Foundations of Science II” covered a range of topics unusual for a science class including “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” A student who’d taken the course shared a slide with me on “ensoulment” — the principally religious question of when a soul enters the human body — and said that the class had been told that IVF but not abortion could be consistent with the Catholic belief about ensoulment.

Enlarge this if you want to see part of the science curriculum, best described as a “dog’s breakfast”. Francis Collins on God? People from Colossal Biosciences on “de-extinction”? There is apparently no introduction to basic biology, but just a bunch of topics of current popular interest. This is no way to get a biology education.

Here is what’s represented as a slide from the class above. This does not belong in a biology class; it’s theology:

(from Politico): A slide on “ensoulment” — the principally religious question of when a soul enters the human body — was shown in the class. | Obtained by POLITICO

Another quote from the article:

The poor quality of the science offerings had bothered Heying and Pinker. “Others thought I was the token liberal,” Heying told me, “but I came to understand myself as the token scientist.” In an email, Pinker wrote, “They should have hired a widely esteemed scientist and proven program builder to set up their science division.”

As far as I can see from looking at the curriculum, they don’t have a decent one that could undergird a quality liberal-arts education.  The goals of UATX at the outset were admirable, but the ideological motives of the founders eventually warped the school:

Over the past three months, I had more than 100 conversations with 25 current and former students, faculty and staffers at UATX. Each had their own perspective on the tumultuous events they shared with me, and some had personal grievances. But they were nearly unanimous in reporting that at its inception, UATX constituted a sincere effort to establish a transformative institution, uncompromisingly committed to the fundamental values of open inquiry and free expression.

They were nearly unanimous, too, in lamenting that it had failed to achieve this lofty goal and instead become something more conventional — an institution dominated by politics and ideology that was in many ways the conservative mirror image of the liberal academy it deplored. Almost everyone attributed significant weight to President Donald Trump’s return to power in emboldening right-leaning hardliners to aggressively assert their vision and reduce UATX from something potentially profound to something decidedly mundane.

There are a lot of other issues discussed in this long article, issues like how it dealt with a sexual harassment violation, abrogating the school’s own rules for how to adjudicate violations.  This all culminated in a meeting on April 2 of last year when conservative founder Joe Lonsdale laid down a right-wing law for UATX:

. . . in the afternoon, all of the professors and staff were summoned, quite unusually and mysteriously, to a closed-door meeting. It had been called by Joe Lonsdale, a billionaire entrepreneur who’d co-founded the data analytics company Palantir Technologies with Thiel. Together with Ferguson and the journalist Bari Weiss, Lonsdale had been a driving force behind the creation of UATX and was a member of the board of trustees. But he wasn’t often present on campus, and it was almost unheard of for a member of the board to summon the staff, as Lonsdale had.

. . . . . “Let’s get right into it,” he said. Then, with heightened affect, Lonsdale explained his vision for UATX — a jingoistic vision with shades of America First rhetoric that contrasted rather sharply with the image UATX had cultivated as a bastion of free speech and open inquiry.

. . . “It was like a speech version of the ‘America love it or leave it’ bumper sticker,” one former staffer told me, and if you didn’t share the vision, the message was “there’s the door, you don’t belong here.” Like many of the people I spoke with for this story, the staffer was granted anonymity for fear of reprisal. “It was the most uncomfortable 35-to-40ish minutes I’ve ever experienced. People were shifting uncomfortably in their seats.”

. . .In an email I obtained that was sent to [President] Kanelos, the provost Jake Howland, the university dean Ben Crocker and a fellow professor, Morgan Marietta, Lind related what Ferguson had told him:

“According to Niall, under the constitution of UATX Joe Lonsdale, as chair of the board, had no authority to tell those of us at the meeting:

“That all staff and faculty of UATX must subscribe to the four principles of anti-communism, anti-socialism, identity politics, and anti-Islamism (this is the first time I heard of these four principles);

“That ‘communists’ have taken over many other universities and that he, Joe Lonsdale, would stay on the board for fifty years to make sure that no ‘communists’ took over UATX (the identity politics crowd and some Islamists are a threat, but the Marxist-Leninist menace in 2025?)”

Lind said when he asked for definitions of “communists” and “socialists,” he’d been told they included anybody who didn’t “believe in private property” and “hate the rich.” This, he wrote, struck him “as a libertarian political test excluding anyone to the left of Ayn Rand.” Lonsdale had said that the board would make a case-by-case determination on whether “New Deal liberals” would be allowed to work at UATX. Lind said that he considered himself “an heir to the New Deal liberal tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ.” He was “in favor of dynamic capitalism in a mixed economy, moderately social democratic and pro-labor, and anti-progressive, anti-communist, and anti-identity politics.”

According to Lind, Londsdale repeatedly said that if the faculty weren’t comfortable with what he was saying they should quit.

“So I quit and I walked out,” Lind wrote.

A lot of the other resignations, including from notables like Strossen, Rauch, and Haidt, followed. There were emendations of the schools’ constitution, giving the President more power, and the Provost resigned, presumably after told he’d be fired.

Now things are in a mess. I sure as hell wouldn’t send a student to UATX to get a good education, for what they’ll get is a spotty but an anti-woke education. Yes, I am by and large anti-woke myself, but I am also pro-liberal-education, and by “liberal” I don’t mean “Left-wing’ but “liberating the mind”—through free inquiry.

At the end Mandery has two questions:

The first: Where was Bari Weiss? Many of the people I interviewed told me about internal conversations and shared internal emails. Weiss, who remains on the board of trustees, was almost never present in the conversations as they were related to me, and while I saw many emails on which Kanelos and Ferguson were copied, I never saw any including Weiss.

Weiss, one of the founders, was the person whose presence brought in many donations, but she seems to have absented herself from UATX. This may be because she’s burdened with running both The Free Press and CBS News, but she did not respond to a request for a comment.  But wait! There’s more!:

The second question: Was UATX a hard-right project from the start? Based on my reporting, I don’t think it was. I was struck by the sincerity of the commitment to free speech and open inquiry from so many of the people with whom I spoke. A few were Trump supporters, but many more were best identified as anti-woke moderates or liberals. The university’s saga has a strong sense of historical contingency — that it could have gone quite differently had some high-leverage moments gone otherwise. A notable example is the episode surrounding Dan’s alleged violation [the sexual harassment charge] and expulsion, which several former staffers and faculty suggested was exploited by the Straussians as evidence of dysfunction in their successful second coup attempt.

So UATX, in its very first full year, was eroded by the very thing it tried to avoid: pervasive ideology in the curriculum:

When students returned for UATX’s second year, it was difficult not to notice the drift. The Tuesday night speaker series, at which attendance is mandatory, leaned unmistakably rightward — guests included Patrick Deneen, originalist judge Amul Thapar and Catherine Pakaluk, a Catholic University business school professor who’d written Hannah’s Children, about the 5 percent of American women who have five or more children.

As Mandery says, “The pluralists had lost.” Indeed.  Nobody took care to forge a proper curriculum, and the right-wing bent of those who didn’t resign is forcing the school into a conservative version of Harvard—except it’s not nearly as good as any of the “elite” colleges that UATX aped.

My prediction is that the whole enterprise will fail. And if it doesn’t, it will never be a good place to send students, even though admission is based purely on meritocracy and tuition is free.  Other schools may be full of left-wingers, but most of them don’t impose their views on the students in class, and it’s still possible to get a good education.

Mommas, don’t let your babies grow up to be UATX students.

Today we have a photo-and-text submission from Athayde Tonhasca Júnior on fly migration. It’s a subject dear to my heart as I used to work on it, publishing three papers on migration in Drosophila.  Athayde’s subject, though, is hoverflies, not fruit flies. His captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them. Note: I changed Athayde’s words “hover flies” to the more common usage “hoverflies,” but Athayde notes that most entomologists use the two-word rather than one-word description.

On the road again, goin’ places that I’ve never been

Sometime between 1400 and 1200 BC, Yahweh (aka God) decided it was time to nudge the Egyptians to let their captive Israelites go. Yahweh could have tried diplomacy, but in his infinite wisdom he concluded that “The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD”. And there was no better way to let the Pharaoh and his people know who the bigwig was around there than by punishing them with a series of plagues. Of the ten celestial disasters inflicted upon the Egyptians, two involved mosquitoes (or midges) and flies, which probably were also the agents behind another two plagues manifested as infectious diseases of people and livestock. Yahweh understood very well the efficacy of some flies (order Diptera) and pathogens to wreck revenge – after all, he created them.

Fig 1. The Third Plague of Egypt, by William de Brailes, circa 1250. Aaron strikes his rod on the ground, transforming dust into gnats (kinnim in Hebrew). In the King James version of the Bible, lice are the culprits, but today most scholars accept that kinnim should be translated as ‘gnats’ or ‘mosquitoes’ © Jan Luyken, 1712, Wikimedia Commons:

The tales of pestilent flies depicted in the book of Exodus could have been inspired by real events, as pest infestations and epidemics were recurrent in the ancient world. Fly outbreaks are facilitated by these insects’ capability to disperse for long distances and arrive at new locations suddenly and in massive numbers. There are no better examples of these efficient colonisers than hoverflies or syrphid flies (family Syrphidae) such as the marmalade (Episyrphus balteatus) and the migrant (Eupeodes corollae) hoverflies. Each autumn, they leave Britain and head south to spend the winter in southern Europe and the Mediterranean. Their offspring move northwards in the spring, lay eggs, and the new generation sets out on the cycle again. Researchers have estimated that up to four billion marmalade and migrant hoverflies cross the English Channel to and from Great Britain every year. This represents 80 tons of biomass. If you are impressed by these figures, you should know that hoverflies account for a fraction of insects’ latitudinal migrations known as ‘bioflows’: about 3.5 trillion insects, or 3200 tons of biomass, migrate into southern Britain annually (Wotton et al., 2019). Insect bioflows pour vast amounts of nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) and countless prey, predators, parasites and herbivores into ecosystems, but we have only a vague understanding of their impact on food webs and local species.

Fig 2. A female marmalade hoverfly, a long distance frequent flier © Guido Gerding, Wikimedia Commons:

These hardy wanderers have another particularity of significant ecological importance: they transport pollen grains.

Most flies have no pollen-collecting structures and have few ‘hairs’ (setae), which are important pollen gatherers. These are negative marks for candidates to the pollinators’ club, but some flies compensate their shortcomings by their massive numbers. Each marmalade and migrant hoverfly carries an average of 10 pollen grains from up to three plant species on their journey into Britain. That’s paltry compared to a bee, but altogether, those flies bring in 3 to 8 billion pollen grains on each inward journey.

Pollen importation via flies is a recurrent phenomenon. In Cyprus, warm temperatures and favourable winds bring millions of insect migrants from the Middle East region, more than 100 km to the east. Flies make up nearly 90% of these bioflows, and many of them are loaded with pollen (Hawkes et al., 2022).

Fig 3. A common drone fly (Eristalis tenax) (A) and a blowfly (Calliphora sp.) (B) with orchid pollinia attached to their heads after a > 100-km sea crossing to Cyprus © Hawkes et al., 2022:

Pollen-loaded flies can turn up anywhere the wind takes them, even to specks of dry ground in the middle of nowhere. Over a two-month period, 121 marmaladehover flies reached a North Sea oil rig approximately 200 km from Aberdeen, UK. Over 90% of these flies had pollen attached to them, sometimes from eight plant species. Based on pollen barcoding and wind trajectory modelling, it was estimated that these flies traversed from 265 to 500 km of open water in a single journey, probably from the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark (Doyle et al., 2025).

Fig 4. (a) Location of an oil rig visited by hoverflies (b), and its aerial view © Doyle et al., 2025:

Flies’ long-distance pollen transfers may help connect isolated plant populations, such as in fragmented habitats, but we don’t know much about the ecological implications. However we do know that their contribution can be important. In continental Europe, wild carrot (Daucus carota) depends on a range of insects for pollinators, especially bees. But bees are absent from La Foradada, a 1,6 ha Mediterranean islet about 50 km off the Spanish coast. In this solitary spot of land, D. carota subsp. commutatus relies on the accidental arrival of common drone flies for its pollination (Pérez-Bañón et al., 2007).

Fi 5. La Foradada, devoid of bees and humans, is visited by pollinating drone flies © JavierValencia2005  Wikimedia Commons:

Butterflies, bumble bees, moths and dragonflies are known travellers, but we know much less about migrant flies, which may have significant roles in pollination ecology. We just have to pay more attention to these unpretentious pilgrims.

References

Doyle, T.D. et al. 2025. Long-range pollen transport across the North Sea: Insights from migratory hoverflies landing on a remote oil rig. Journal of Animal Ecology 94: 2267–2281.
Hawkes, W.S.L. et al. 2022. Huge spring migrations of insects from the Middle East to Europe: quantifying the migratory assemblage and ecosystem services. Ecography e06288.
Pérez-Bañón, C. et al., 2007. Pollination in small islands by occasional visitors: The case of Daucus carota subsp. commutatus (Apiaceae) in the Columbretes archipelago, Spain. Plant Ecology 192: 133-151.
Wotton, K.R. et al. 2019. Mass seasonal migrations of hoverflies provide extensive pollination and crop protection services. Current Biology 29: 2167–2173.

Here we have an 83-minute interview of Matthew Crick by Michael Shermer; the topic is Francis Crick as described in Matthew’s new book Crick: A Mind in Motion. Talking to a friend last night, I realized that the two best biographies of scientists I’ve read are Matthew’s book and Janet Browne’s magisterial two-volume biography of Darwin (the two-book set is a must-read, and I recommend both, though Princeton will issue in June a one-volume condensation).

At any rate, if you want to get an 83-minute summary of Matthew’s book, or see if you want to read the book, as you should, have a listen to Matthew’s exposition at the link below.  I have recommended his and Browne’s books because they’re not only comprehensive, but eminently readable, and you can get a sense of Matthew’s eloquence by his off-the-cuff discussion with Shermer.

Click below to listen.

I’ve put the cover below because Shermer mentions it at the outset of the discussion:

I now have two sets of photos after this one, but I’m still nervous. If you have good wildlife photos, please sent them in. Thanks!

It’s been a cold week in Chicago (right now it’s 9°F or -13°C), and it’s going to be cold this coming week as well. I hope the turtles at the bottom of Botany Pond are okay. But given the weather it’s appropriate that today we have photographs of Antarctica from reader Paul Turpin.  Paul’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

My brother Mark recently returned from a cruise to the Antarctic on the Scenic Eclipse. I told him you loved penguins and he gave me permission to send you these photos.  I believe these are all gentoo penguins [Pygoscelis papua] except for one which included a chinstrap friend [Pygoscelis antarcticus].  The open water photo is when they were at the Antarctic Circle. 

“When a regime turns off the Internet during mass killings, and at the same time the leaders of the same regime [use] the privilege of freedom of speech on social media to mislead the rest of the world, it is not about restoring order. It is about destroying the evidence.”  —from Masih’s speech below

In a comment this morning, Norman Gilinsky linked to the speech below given to the UN Security Council by anti-Iranian-regime activist Masih Alinejad. Norman called it amazing, forceful, unrelenting, and powerful. As a huge fan of Masih, I of course had to listen to it, and yes, it’s forceful, passionate, and ineffably sad given the UN’s inaction. I’ve put it below for your edification: it’s 15½ minutes long.

So far the UN hasn’t issued any statements criticizing the behavior of the Iranian regime in massacring thousands of protestors.

Masih calls out the UN for failing to respond to the massacres, sending a message to Iran that what it’s doing is pretty much okay. She argues that “it will get much worse if the world does not take serious action”, and that all Iranians are united in calling for the freeing of Iran from the present regime. (This is in sharp contrast with the UN’s repeated criticisms of Israel during the war with Gaza, apparently sending the message that massacres are okay with the UN so long as they don’t involve Jews)

Masih probably knows more about what’s going on in the streets of Iran than anybody else, as she has lines of communication with the protestors that others don’t have. (Iranians are using Starlink satellite phones.)

A representative of Iran was among the listeners, but I wonder if any of them really took to heart what Masih says. Particularly moving is her description of some of the young protestors who were killed, which she does to personalize and drive home the regime’s brutality, and she breaks down in tears at 11:35, unable to give more names of the slaughtered.

What is she asking the UN to do? She’s not explicit, but something to stop the killing—perhaps to stop treating Iran as a “legitimate government”.  The UN of course cannot do that, though it can help.  I hope that after hearing the list of murders and murderers, the listeners absorb the same lesson George Patton imparted to his soldiers from his real speech of June 5, 1944 (not the movie speech):

“When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt from your face and you realize that it’s not dirt, it’s the blood and guts of what was once your best friend, you’ll know what to do.”

I’m not sure that the readers here, though savvier than those on most Internet sites, fully realize how dire the free-speech situation is in Europe. Germany, France, and, especially the UK are rife with “hate speech” laws that would not be be passed in the U.S. because they violate the First Amendment.  And yet there are still calls in America to limit free speech.  One example includes those people who argue that we should ban statements like “Globalize the intifada” because, somewhere down the line, such statements may contribute to someone’s harming of Jews.  But of course all hate speech is of that nature: it may, by demonizing a group or even questioning their principles, lead some loon to go after people (it’s usually minorities at issue, but no group is immune, nor is any religion).

In the post below on his site The Eternally Radical Idea, Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), calls attention to the growing suppression of speech in Europe, giving lots of examples. He does this to warn Americans that we cannot allow ourselves go down that route, and to remind us why “hate speech” banned in Europe should never be banned in America.

I remind you that Lukianoff is a liberal and an atheist, so when he defends the promulgation of religious and conservative ideas that most of us find odious, he’s only adhering to the First Amendment. FIRE, because it promotes free speech, is sometimes demonized by blockheads as a “right-wing organization”. It’s far from it. Promoting freedom of speech is a liberal, humanistic, and democratic idea.

The article is long, but I recommend reading it (it’s free if you click on the link below) to buttress your commitment to free speech and to learn how Europe is convincing itself to punish people who wouldn’t be punished in America. I’ll give extensive quotes in case you’re too busy to read. (But if that’s the situation, you need to chill!)

Lukianoff begins by giving kudos to Kristen Waggoner, president of the conservative religious group Alliance Defending Freedom. Despite their political differences, Waggoner and Lukianoff share a commitment to free speech, and Waggoner won (as did Lukianoff last year) the Richard D. McLellan Prize for Advancing Free Speech and Expression.  Although Lukianoff and Waggoner differ on many isssues, her acceptance speech apparently prompted Greg to write this article.

In what follows, my own headings and comments are flush left, while quotes from the article (or other sources) are indented.

Why America should not crack down on ‘hate speech” and maintain our present construal of free speech

Here’s the thing: censors always think their motives are pure. From inquisitors to commissars to modern “hate speech” units, they all believe they’re preventing some existential harm. That has never made it okay to strip people of their basic rights, and it doesn’t change the fact that this is precisely what they’re doing.

In the United States, we (still) recognize that. In the EU and the UK, they increasingly do not. And that’s more dangerous to how we treat speech in the US than the abuses that happen in places like China or Iran, because we aren’t likely to turn into China or Iran. But we may turn into the UK, or Germany, or Finland, where they purport to maintain their belief in free expression but have rationalized it into a corner where it can do very little good. So while we’re never shocked at horrifying censorship in China or Russia, we should continue to be shocked by the retreat from liberalism that we’re seeing in the Anglosphere and in Europe. We also need to be vocal in opposing it, because it really could happen here.

If the forces arrayed on the left have their way, we will look a lot more like the UK. And if the forces on the right have their way, we will look a lot more like Hungary. Either way, we won’t be recognizably American.

. . . .Equal citizens in a free society have a right to:

• Object to immigration policy.
• Quote their religious texts on sexuality.
• Say “there are two sexes.”
• Insult a rapist or abuser in a private text or message without becoming the one the state prosecutes.
• Quote the Bible.

If you can be arrested, prosecuted, fined, or professionally shattered for any of that, you are not living under free speech in the sense the First Amendment enshrines.

The Supreme Court has a blunt way of putting this: Speech on matters of public concern is “at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection,” because speech about public affairs is “the essence of self-government.” In other words, we don’t protect speech because it’s polite. We protect it because we are supposed to be citizens — voters — whose judgments matter. And voters can’t do their job if the state trains them to speak in euphemism, or only in whispers, or not at all.

And if we, in the United States, start to lose faith in that — if we decide that the European model is more “civilized,” that being spared offensive opinions is more important than retaining equal rights — then the strongest bulwark for free expression left in the world will have fallen.

A decent way to measure whether you’re actually free is to ask what you’re allowed to say about the subjects that matter most: rape, child rape scandals, violent crime, immigration policy, religious doctrine, war, and even basic claims about sex and the human body. If you have to watch your language on questions that cut to the very heart — because the wrong phrasing can bring the police, a prosecutor, or a professional tribunal — then you’re not a free and equal citizen in the ordinary sense. You’re a subject being managed.

And, once again (we can’t hear this too often), we learn why free speech was instituted by the Founders:

Here’s another radical idea: you are an equal citizen, not a subject. You get to hear ideas, weigh evidence, change your mind, or not, without the government protecting you from other people’s thoughts. If your rights end where someone’s feelings begin, you don’t have free speech of any kind. China is just as willing to let you say things that don’t offend anyone; it’s just more honest about whose feelings are really determining when the cops show up at your door.

Probably the most important point to make here is that, if you have even one example of someone being arrested, getting a visit from the cops, or being charged for taking an unpopular position on one of the biggest political hot-button issues in a society — immigration, crime, religious fundamentalism, religious expression — they will not trust what they hear in the media, or even what they hear in society, as being genuine or authentic.

This leads to a genuine epistemic crisis, where people cannot tell what their countrymen honestly think, or what the world actually looks like in terms of public opinion and perception — and that is a disaster. People in control, or at the top of society, can be such fools in thinking that if they could just better control the opinions people express, popular opinion will go right along assuming the preferred ruling class’ position is correct. But that relies on a model in which people are even stupider than ruling class people often assume they are.

What happens instead is people conclude that no one is saying what they really think, and that the media, politicians, and even their fellow citizens cannot be counted on to show what they really think — because if there’s even the slightest risk of being arrested or punished for it, who would?

That’s what a chilling effect is, and it is poison to any society — particularly a democratic one, or at least nominally democratic one.

Lukianoff concludes that Europe, with its bans on hate speech, is going down the wrong road, for those bans chill you from speaking up, and, by quashing what we know about other people’s views, put democracy in a vise.  I agree. The examples that he gives are telling.

What’s happening in Europe.

Professor and philosopher Peter Singer talks about the “expanding circle”: the way moral concern spreads over time to include more groups — slaves, women, racial minorities, LGBTQ people, and so on. That’s real, and often good.

But there’s a dark twist. In much of Europe and the UK, we’ve now used that expanding circle logic to shrink the circle of free speech. We say, “To show compassion for vulnerable groups, we must criminalize speech that offends them. It’s not really censorship if we do it to protect people.”

From the UK:

If you want to see what speech policing looks like in a country that still considers itself a liberal democracy, look at the UK.

Between the Communications Act of 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, British police have broad power to arrest people for messages that are “grossly offensive,” “annoying,” or likely to cause “distress” or “anxiety.” Recent statistics show more than 12,000 arrests in 2023 for online speech — over 30 people a day. (For a sense of scope, If the US were to arrest people at the same rate per capita, it would be 60,000 a year.)

Behind that number are real people in real handcuffs.

A 51-year-old army veteran named Darren Brady shared a meme that arranged pride flags into a swastika to make a heavy-handed point about authoritarian tendencies in parts of the LGBT movement. Hampshire Police turned up at his house, arrested him, and, in a bodycam clip, an officer calmly explains that someone has “been caused … anxiety” by his post, and that’s why he’s being taken away. He was offered a “hate awareness” course in lieu of prosecution — ideological homework as punishment. Only after national outrage did the police back down and scrap the course.

Catholic commentator Caroline Farrow was making dinner for her kids when Surrey officers came through her front door in 2022, arrested her on suspicion of “malicious communications” and harassment over a feud with a trans activist, and seized phones and laptops — including her children’s devices. She was taken into custody, questioned for hours, then released without charge.

Here’s one of the most surreal cases I’ve seen: a 34-year-old mother of four, Elizabeth Kinney, who says she was beaten badly enough by a man to require hospital treatment. In private text messages to a friend afterwards, she called him a “faggot.” The friend reported her, and prosecutors charged her under the Malicious Communications Act. She pled guilty and was convicted of a homophobic offense, receiving an enhanced community order, unpaid work, and rehabilitation days. As of the last reporting, no one had been charged for the assault.

Note that being able to call someone a “faggot” is legal in America, yet also outs the person who says it.  One could argue, I suppose, that letting people use names like that could, in the future, promote violence against gays. But that’s not a good enough reason to prevent this kind of name-calling, odious as it is.  Lukianoff also argues against the tendency in the UK to “avoid recording or analyzing ethnicity in organized child-abuse cases,” for such recording could presumably promote demonisation of ethnic groups.  But he claims this is misguided, since suppressing that information not only fails to deter predators in a group, but conveys information that could be essential to the safety of young girls. Frankly, I don’t see why recording ethnicity (which also occurs in the U.S.) should be formally or informally banned, as it’s useful not only for “grooming gangs”, but for compiling statistics important to society. I believe John McWhorter recently discussed how Americans tend to drastically overestimate the number of African-American shot by white police officers. One example:

This media fixation on identity politics, alongside pre-existing misperceptions, ultimately skews the public’s sense of reality. The number of unarmed black men killed by police in the Washington Post’s own database in 2019 was between 13 and, using a very broad definition of “unarmed”, 27. Yet nearly half of “very liberal” Americans think the number is between 1,000 and 10,000. There were over twice as many unarmed whites killed by police as blacks but, as John McWhorter, author of the new book Woke Racism notes, this never makes the news because it doesn’t fit the narrative of white racial violence against African-Americans.

By withholding information from the public so as note to pollute a favored narrative, the press promotes misinformation that exacerbates racial tensions.

From Germany:

Germany, because it may have learned some of the wrong lessons from its history, has long had strict speech laws — among them, bans on Nazi symbols and Holocaust denial. But the logic has spread.

In Berlin, police raided the apartment of American novelist and political satirist C.J. Hopkins in November, seizing his computer and interrogating him on suspicion of spreading pro-Nazi propaganda. The basis for the accusation was a book critical of COVID-19 policies, its cover using a swastika-and-facemask image as political satire.

That’s it. That’s the “Nazi material.” Never mind that its use is to make an unflattering comparison between modern health policy and national socialism. Nobody who can read is going to look at the book cover and say, “Well, I was just in favor of mandatory masking, but now that I see this book cover, maybe death camps are a good idea.” Hopkins had already been prosecuted in 2023 for tweeting the image of the book cover.

Another case that deserves more international attention involves a group of nine young men who gang-raped a 15-year-old girl in Hamburg. They were convicted but because they were underage, all but one avoided jail time. Later, a woman in Hamburg sent furious WhatsApp messages to one of the perpetrators, calling him things like a “disgusting rapist pig.” The convicted rapist complained and the woman who sent the messages was prosecuted for insult and defamation, convicted, and ordered to spend a weekend in jail.

Yet another German case: politician Marie-Thérèse Kaiser, from the right-wing AfD, posted about gang rapes involving Afghan men and suggested that welcoming more Afghan refugees risked more such crimes. She referenced real statistics about Afghan suspects. Courts convicted her of Volksverhetzung, “incitement to hatred,” and an appeals court upheld the conviction, saying her post violated the “human dignity” of Afghans by presenting them as dangerous sex criminals.

From Finland (!):

Kristen’s speech in November started with a case from Finland, and once you know the facts, it’s hard to shake.

Päivi Räsänen is not some anonymous troll. She’s a physician, a mother, a grandmother, a long-serving member of Parliament, and a former interior minister. She’s also a conservative Lutheran.

In 2019, she posted a tweet criticizing her church leadership for officially supporting Helsinki Pride. Attached was a photo of Romans 1:24-27 — the standard “traditionalist” passage condemning same-sex relations. Years before, in 2004, she had written a short church pamphlet explaining the Lutheran view of sex and marriage. She also did a radio debate along the same lines.

For that, Finland’s Prosecutor General charged her with “agitation against a minority group” — essentially “hate speech” — under a section of the criminal code that sits next to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola was charged too, for publishing her pamphlet.

Police interrogated Räsänen for hours about her beliefs. Prosecutors pored over her pamphlet and sermons line by line, asking which parts of the Bible she intends to believe. She faced the possibility of fines and a criminal record.

She won. In 2022, a district court acquitted her unanimously. In 2023, the Court of Appeal acquitted her unanimously again.

That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t, but before we finish, I want to point out that being visited by police and interrogated, even if you’re not convicted are jailed, are still things that will chill your speech.  Räsänen’s ordeal, in fact, continues:

Instead, prosecutors appealed again. In 2025, the Supreme Court of Finland agreed to hear the case. The state is still arguing that quoting Romans 1 and defending historic Christian doctrine about sexuality can be a criminal offense.

Switzerland (!):

It is not an especially controversial idea that sex can be usually determined by examining skeletal remains, even if there are exceptions. Not so in Switzerland, where Emanuel Brünisholz, a musical instrument repairman, was sentenced to ten days in jail for an anti-trans Facebook comment. In a 2022 reply to a member of the Swiss National Council (sort of their House of Representatives), Brünisholz wrote: “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.”

Brünisholz was arrested in 2023 and convicted in December 2024, where he was fined 500 Swiss francs. After exhausting his appeals, he refused to pay on principle, announcing in September of 2025 that he would be serving his alternative punishment — ten days in jail — last month.

I’ve discussed the Swiss case before. If you have a whole skeleton, biological sex can be determined with 96%-98% accuracy, which falls to 90% if you have a skull with lower jaw. The diagnosis is not complete, of course, but if you look at skeletons 200 years old, the guy is pretty much right—the exceptions whose sex can’t be determined are rare. Note as well that there were no drug or surgical interventions back then that would modify skeletons, and even today this is something that should be investigated only in trans people, as LGBQ people undergo no modification of their bones.

The point is that jailing somebody for saying this is heinous, even if the guy were wrong about bones. (I’m not dealing with the “mental illness” comment, which, though odious, should not be illegal.) Because if he were wrong about skeltons, the proper remedy is counterspeech and criticism, not fines and jail time.

Wikipedia gives a long list of other countries with hate-speech laws—laws that can get you prosecuted, fined, or jailed for criticizing religion, ethnicity, gender identity, and even class.  Note that the “United States” entry says this:

The United States does not have hate speech laws, because the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.There are categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as speech that calls for imminent violence upon a person or group.

Let’s keep it that way.

Well, folks, we’re plumb out of readers’ contributions, and it makes me weep bitterly that we get so few contributions.  If you have good photos, you know what to do.

Fortunately, I am able to plunder the photos of Scott Ritchie from Cairns, Australia, whose Facebook page is here. (Thanks to Scott for his kind permission to repost.) I’m adding the second installment of Scott’s favorite photos of 2025; his first installment is here. His captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Here are some of my favourite pics from 2025. It was a big year, with trips to Florida, Costa Rica, Western Australia and Victoria/NSW. And I had a publication in Australia Birdlife showcasing the lovely Rainbow Bee-eaters at a local cemetery https://www.calameo.com/read/004107895fe9d41dc697d…. I hope you enjoy them.  Have a happy New Year all!

 

Latin America is a home of hummingbirds. Hear a Green-breasted Mango [Anthracothorax prevostii] feeds on a torch ginger. I just love the bright colors that do remind me of a mango:

Another lovely hummer, the fiery throated hummingbird [Panterpe insignis]:

Not all hummingbirds are colorful. But I just love the pose of this Long-billed Hermit [Phaethornis longirostris] as it came in to feed the torch ginger:

Costa Rica has many colorful songbirds. People think tanagers and warblers. This bird is a Golden-browed Chlorophonia [Chlorophonia callophrys],  You gotta love bird names:

This Ornate Hawk-eagle [Spizaetus ornatus] caused quite a stir among the twitchers at our lodge. You can see why, it’s quite an amazing bird:

Another truly magnificent bird was the King Vulture [Sarcoramphus papa], coming into land and feed on your corpse:

Back to far north Queensland. I got this Gray Plover [Pluvialis squatarola] in flight as he shook himself off after a refreshing bath: [JAC: Do enlarge this one!]

Double-eyed Fig-parrots [Cyclopsitta diophthalma] are one of my favorite birds. And green ants are one of my most despised insects. I think the fig parrot would agree:

Here’s a stampede of Chestnut-breasted Mannikins [Lonchura castaneothorax]. I call this a WTF moment, as a bird in the middle got caught a bit off guard:

A Great Egret [Ardea alba], enjoying a prawn for breakie. Cairns Esplanade:

We get many shorebirds to the Cairns Esplanade foreshore in our summer. Before they head back to Russia, China, Japan, even Alaska, they color up into their breeding plumage, and hope to attract a mate. These two Bar-tailed Godwits [Limosa lapponica] are coloring up very nicely:

“Will you play ball with me?” Nordmann’s Greenshank [Tringa guttifer], a.k.a. Nordy, is a very rare bird that has visited Cairns for six years running. He’s the only one of his kind here. I often wonder if he’s a bit lonely:

Welcome to the end of the a frigid week in Chicago: it’s Friday, January 16, 2026, and National Fig Newton Day. Called “fig rolls” in the UK, the most famous U.S. version is from Nabisco, which has trademarked the name. Here’s some Fig Newton Trivia from Wikipedia:

In the 1939 promotional short Mickey’s Surprise Party, produced by Walt Disney for Nabisco’s exhibit at that year’s World’s Fair, Mickey Mouse proclaims the Fig Newton to be his favorite cookie.

And here’s the cartoon (“produced for the National Biscuit Company”).  The Fig Newton bit appears at 4:52, saving the day after Minnie burns her homemade cookies, which are accidentally mixed with popcorn.

It’s also International Hot and Spicy Food Day, National Quinoa Day, and Religious Freedom Day.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the January 16 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*If Trump continues to go after Greenland, he’ll be called a Nazi even more often, as he seems to be seeking Lebensraum.  And yes, Trump appears to be serious about acquiring Greenland. But the Greenlanders and Denmark aren’t having it. (Article is archived here.)n First from the NYT:

But if President Trump gets his way and, as he has insisted, takes over Greenland “whether they like it or not,” it would be bigger than any of those [California, the Louisana Purchase and other territories acquired by conquest or purchase], according to the National Archives, the U.S. census and the C.I.A. World Factbook. At 836,000 square miles, Greenland is bigger than France, Britain, Spain, Italy and Germany — combined. It would be the largest territory the United States ever added, if the United States were to acquire it.

Mr. Trump has based his fixation on Greenland, which has been part of the Danish Kingdom for more than 300 years, on reasons of “national security,” citing threats from Russia and China. But he made a past remark about Greenland’s size, and scholars say the territorial grandeur itself is at least part of what appeals to him.

“Trump’s a real estate guy,” David Silbey, a historian at Cornell University, said in an email, “and the idea of grabbing that much land seems to me his particular guiding force: THE MOST LAND EVER.”

He added that Mr. Trump “likes to pick on targets that are too weak to fight back, which certainly describes Denmark,” he added.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is meeting to discuss the future of Greenland with Danish and Greenlandic officials, both of whom say that the island, the world’s largest, is not for sale.

But that has not deterred Mr. Trump and his team so far.

In an interview last week with The New York Times, Mr. Trump said the best way for the United States to handle Greenland would be to own it because ownership is “psychologically needed for success.”

But, from the WaPo:

Denmark’s foreign minister said there had been a “frank but also constructive” conversation with the Trump administration during a high-stakes White House meeting about the fate of Greenland on Wednesday, but that the two sides had come to no agreement about President Donald Trump’s demands to “own” the Arctic territor

“We still have a fundamental disagreement,” said Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the top Danish diplomat, speaking alongside his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, outside the Danish Embassy in Washington. “We didn’t manage to change the American position.”

The White House meeting, which was hosted by Vice President JD Vance, did see the two sides agree to form a “high-level working group” to discuss Trump’s concerns about Greenland, Rasmussen said. The White House and State Department did not immediately provide their own readout of the meeting, which was also attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Trump told reporters after the meeting that he had not yet been briefed on the talks, but said that the United States had a good relationship with Denmark and he thought something would work out. “The problem is there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do,” he said in the Oval Office.

This is the craziest thing that Trump’s tried to do, and that’s saying a lot. We already have a base in northern Greenland, and perhaps they’d let us build another one. But the hubris of trying to take over what is essentially part of Denmark, the EU, and NATO is breathtaking. It sound like some nutty idea that Trump had in the middle of the night, but he’s trying to make it come true. I’m betting he won’t.

*David Plouffe argues in today’s NYT that “To win everywhere, Democrats must change everything” (op-ed archived here).

. . . to win races in politically unforgiving, even hostile, territory will require the party to overhaul its broken brand and stale agenda by elevating new faces and new leaders who promise to chart a course enough voters believe in.

Why? Because to have any hope of fixing the root problems that plague our democracy and our economy, Democrats need a majority that lasts, like the New Deal coalition. At least three, maybe more, Supreme Court justices could retire over the coming decade. Without sustained Democratic political power and control during that period, a conservative 8-to-1 court is not out of the question.

That possibility should focus the mind. Right now, Democrats have no credible path to sustained control of the Senate and the White House. After the adjustments to the Electoral College map that look likely to come with the next census, the Democratic presidential nominee could win all states won by Kamala Harris plus the blue wall of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and still fall short of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. An already unforgiving map gets more so, equally so in the Senate.

His solutions? (condensed):

The existential question now is: How do Democrats get back to playing and winning in more places?

First, make our unpopular president and his vassals own everything — higher energy and health care costs, higher food bills, war. The Republicans in Congress stood by meekly as Mr. Trump took a wrecking ball to our economy. They deserve the blame for it.

That is Task 1. As important as it is, it’s far easier than Task 2. James Baldwin wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it’s faced.” Democrats must face, honestly, where we are and how we are perceived.

That starts with offering a fresh agenda that voters believe can make a difference in their lives, not the same stuff they heard from Democratic candidates in recent years.

Each candidate is different. That said, the ideas below should find a home almost anywhere.

Here’s a list (bolding is theirs):

A plan to bring down costs. ‘

A plan to create the jobs America needs.

A plan for A.I.  [Plouffe thinks it will play a big role in the next elections]

A plan for reform.

Hold your own leaders to account.

You can see all the details in the archived account. That’s a lot of plans, and yes, if most of that stuff can be conveyed to the people (Plouffe uses Mamdani as an example), the Dems’ chances will improve. But as you know, Mamdani was short on details, and can you imagine a Democratic candidate trying to explain to Americans how they would reduce any pernicious effects of A. I.? Well, as someone said, “All this is as plausible as anything else.” There is no shortage of people telling the Democratic Party what to do, but is anyone listening?

*The WSJ reports that the protests in Iran may have quieted down, which of course will impede Trump from carrying out his threat to attack with the aim of toppling the regime.

A fierce crackdown by Iranian security forces that has killed thousands of people protesting against the country’s autocratic leaders has forced demonstrators off the streets in some cities, with residents reporting an eerie quiet after days of escalating violence.

Iran’s government has blocked the internet and deployed large numbers of police and troops in an effort to quell the biggest threat to the regime since a 1979 revolution that established theocratic rule overseen by Shiite clergy. Iranians said they were afraid to leave their homes.

President Trump on Wednesday said Iran had stopped killing people, after days of threatening to take action against the regime if it killed protesters. Asked if military action was off the table, he said, “We’re going to watch it and see what the process is, but we were given a very good statement by people that are aware of what’s going on.”

The number of new protests verified by Human Rights Activists in Iran dropped to zero for the first time on Tuesday and continued at zero on Wednesday, the rights group said. It acknowledged that this could be because of the severe communications restrictions, which include disruptions to phone service.

The group said it confirmed the deaths of more than 2,600 people and more than 18,000 arrests. European and Middle Eastern officials also said they were seeing a drop in protest activity.

“The reason is very clear: The regime has created a bloodbath. They brought down the iron fist without precedent,” said Ali Vaez, an Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group. “That creates a chilling effect among protesters.”

Iran signaled Wednesday it was preparing to conduct swift trials and the execution of antigovernment protesters. In a video released by Iranian state television, Iran’s judiciary chief said on Wednesday the courts should act quickly against protesters.

The quiet is likely temporary, analysts said, since the underlying anger against the state remains high and the government has few ways to resolve the economic problems at the root of widespread discontent.

“Even if the first round is done, the next round is around the corner, because the regime is unable and incapable of addressing legitimate grievances,” Vaez said.

Some rumors say that cops with rifles are stationed on every street corner in Tehran, ready to shoot anybody who even vaguely looks like a protestor. We can’t expect people to keep protesting if they’re going to be shot willy nilly.  I am torn about this, as I do want the regime gone, but not necessarily with American military intervention. On the other hand, nonmilitary intervention doesn’t seem to be working. I fully expected an American attack, but without one, things will go back to the way they were, though I’m hoping, as the piece says above, that “the quiet is likely temporary.” For the moment it looks like the score is Regime 1, Protestors 0.

*More Trump-o-centric news: the “President’ has threatened to quash the protests in Minnesota not only by sending in more troops, but by invoking the Insurrection Act.

 President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke an 1807 law and deploy troops to quell persistent protests against the federal officers sent to Minneapolis to enforce his administration’s massive immigration crackdown.

The threat comes a day after a man was shot and wounded by an immigration officer who had been attacked with a shovel and broom handle. That shooting further heightened the fear and anger that has radiated across the city since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good in the head.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used federal law, to deploy the U.S. military or federalize the National Guard for domestic law enforcement, over the objections of state governors.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump said in social media post.

Presidents have indeed invoked the law more than two dozen times, most recently in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to end unrest in Los Angeles. In that instance, local authorities had asked for the assistance.

The Insurrection Act is old (from 1807), and says this:

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.’

Normally the military, including the National Guard, is not empowered to enforce civil laws, but the Act allows them to. And the Act allows them to do this even against the wishes of the state.  ICE, however, is not the military, so once again we see Trump trying to use the military to quash civilian dissent, calling it an “insurrection”. It’s been used about 30 times, most notably to enforce civil rights laws in the Sixties. But if it’s used now to supplement ICE with the military (who of course aren’t trained in law enforcement), it will only exacerbate tensions. It may quell protests, but at a steep price.

The NYT is all about the ICE attack, the shooting, and immigration. Here’s this morning’s front page:

*And things are so bad that I’m adding the last Nooz post as the equivalent of the “there’s good news tonight” segment of NBC’s Evening News. Here’s the good news from the UPI:

 Police responded to a retirement home in Washington on a report of a goat attempting to break into the facility.

The Auburn Police Department said on social media that officers arrived at Wesley Homes to find “a goat was attempting to gain entry into the building.”

The officers “safely ‘detained’ the suspect until a friend of the owner arrived to pick her up,” the post said.

The goat, named Ruby, posed for a photo with the officers before being taken home.

“Charges were dropped due to extreme adorableness,” police wrote.

Here’s Ruby the perp and the cops:

View this post on Instagram

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili invokes the “a pessimist is never disappointed” trope:

Hili: You’re doing fine.
Andrzej: Why do you think so?
Hili: Because you’re a pessimist, and every time you’re wrong, it’s something to celebrate.

In Polish:

Hili: Tobie jest dobrze.
Ja: Dlaczego tak sądzisz?
Hili: Jesteś pesymistą, więc ile razy okazuje się, że byłeś w błędzie masz powód do radości.

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

 

From Meanwhile in Canada:

From Cats, Coffee, & Chaos:

From Give Me a Sign:

This tweet from Masih suggests why the protersts may have cooled in Iran (sound up):

Received video with this description: “Martial law atmosphere in #Mashhad, #Iran, Tuesday, January 13, 2026.”#مشهد pic.twitter.com/y7TQZeIHKc

— Vahid Online (@Vahid) January 15, 2026

From Luana; progressives try to defund all immigration enforcement:

Ilhan Omar announces that the Democrat Congressional Progressive Caucus “has adopted an official position” to defund ICE.

OMAR: “Our caucus members will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement.”⁩ pic.twitter.com/bhBSTwYC1p

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 13, 2026

From Malcolm; fixing pipe leaks without digging them up. Pretty cool:

Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining is a structural “No-Dig” repair that creates a new pipe within a damaged sewer or drain.pic.twitter.com/yGuIRNAop8

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) January 2, 2026

One from my feed. How did they do this?

A Japanese restaurant in NYC has an interior designed to resemble a hand-drawn black and white sketchbook.pic.twitter.com/KY9cQbkFTg

— Interesting things (@awkwardgoogle) January 15, 2026

The Number Ten Cat argues that he did not trip a photographer:

Watch the video and judge for yourself if I “tripped” the photographer or if he stumbled and nearly squashed me https://t.co/cffwMpeL3H

— Larry the Cat (@Number10cat) January 15, 2026

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

This Dutch Jewish boy was gassed to death along with his mother as soon as they arrived in Auchwitz. He was four years old and would be 87 today if he had lived. https://t.co/I09S5cuZw9

— Jerry Coyne (@Evolutionistrue) January 16, 2026

Two posts from Dr. Cobb: Here they are talking about autocratic tephritids and not Drosophila (Drosophila are not the “fruit fly” that worries California):

I don’t think we should have ceded control quite so quickly and without so much as a fight.

— Paul Brislen (@brislen.nz) 2026-01-10T02:52:23.109Z

This tweeter wrote an article criticizing panpsychism, the intellectually depauperate theory that everything has a form of consciousness. Both Matthew and I think the “theory” (for which there’s no evidence) is bogus.

Wrote a new essay: open.substack.com/pub/walterve…

— Dr. Walter Veit (@walterveit.bsky.social) 2026-01-14T08:11:15.922Z

We’re saved again, for one day, as reader Rodney Graetz from Canberra has sent in some lovely photos from a remote corner of Australia. Rodney’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them. The three borrowed images are, I’m told, in the public domain.

Here is a series of landscape photos from a tourist boat journey along the Kimberley coastline from Darwin (Northern Territory) to Broome (Western Australia).  The distance, as the crow flies, was 1110 km (690 mi) but by hugging the coastline, the unrecorded distance was likely doubled.  We made land visits on 10 of the 12-day journey:

Our starting point, the Darwin coastline, is lapped by the Timor Sea.  It is shallow and muddy, in contrast to our Broome destination.  Like Broome, Darwin was targeted and bombed by the Japanese in February 1942.  Today, among the lush Darwin city coastline gardens, is a simple memorial honouring the 91 crew of the USS Peary, the United States Navy’s greatest loss in Australian waters.

Departing Darwin, we slowly merged with the mighty Indian Ocean whose colour and cloud streets suggested warmth, productivity and excitement.  We travelled in early June, too early to encounter the estimated 40,000 Humpback Whales travelling up from the Antarctic (June – November) to calve, nurse and then mate in these warm and safe waters  Next time!

At last, an edge of the NW corner of the Australian continent, revealing a flat and layered landscape.  The cliffs are massive, and the rock type is obviously hard because there is little sandy beach.

The Edge close up, and as predicted.  Note the tiny figures in the lower left corner.  The massive rocks are a hard Paleoproterozoic sandstone aged 1-1.9 billion years.  They are ever varied and spectacular:

Being drone-deficient, I’ve borrowed this image to illustrate this monsoonal landscape functioning.  During ‘The Wet’ (Nov–Mar), sufficient rainfall accumulates on the background plateau for a flow to eventually reach the edge and fall as spectacular waterfalls early in ‘The Dry’ ( Mar-Nov).

Downstream from the waterfalls, slow moving water combined with the incursion of plants, result in species-rich landscapes, such as this small idyllic wetland:

‘Salties’, aka Saltwater crocodile, were common neighbours at our landings.  Maneaters?  Yes, but only of the deserving at a rate of fewer than one person per year.  The ‘gaping’ is not a threat display but thermoregulation, of cooling.  Looking past the teeth, they are handsomely ornamented and coloured animals.  In the water, they are sleek!:

For geographic and celestial reasons, the tidal ranges along this coast are among the highest globally (± 10 metres).  A consequence of this, and a rocky, indented coastline, is the creation of Horizontal Waterfalls, where six times a day, huge volumes of water are forced through constricting narrows, as shown here.  Spectacular and hazardous:

The edge of a vast inshore reef (400 km², 154 sq mi) rapidly shedding water as the tide drops about 10 metres.  It is a visual and turbulent spectacle – the reef appears to rise up – and shed streams of water containing stranded fish eagerly sought by waiting birds, fish and sharks.  This one image could not capture the turbulence and action.  Details are here and an overview here:

Contemplative natural beauty of the coast was commonplace, such as here, Raft Point.  With the Dawn behind us, the red rocks and lush vegetation (including iconic Boab trees) are in contrast with the ocean, and on its horizon, small red rocky islands urge a visit:

Nearby Steep Island is another view that repays contemplation.  Why is it so?:

Journey’s end and Broome colouring contrasts with that of the previous days.  Here the rock and sands are red with an aquamarine ocean.  Tidal variation remains high.  The biological focal point is the adjacent Roebuck Bay, the background in this image:

To avoid lethal winters, some 100, 000 migratory birds fly from the Pacific low latitude coastal areas of China etc. to Australia along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.  Roebuck Bay, a primary destination, is nationally protected as one RAMSAR wetland.  Bird lovers closely watch their comings and goings:

Finally, in the 1940s, both Darwin and Broome experienced the destructive impacts of war.  Now, in both locations, the stark remnants of those impacts remain submerged, slowly disappearing, accelerated by the living world.  That is a good thing:

I’m still afflicted with Weltschmerz, but also heartened that readers had a lot to say in yesterday’s discussion, so I’m glad that when I’m low, my presence isn’t needed on every post (I did read all the comments).

Today I want to kick-start another discussion if I can, this time about what’s going on in Minnesota. I’m referring not to the welfare-fraud scandal that brought down governor Tim Walz, but the big fight between ICE agents and local residents, spurred not just by Trump sending more lawmen into the state, but by the killing of Renée Good by an ICE agent.  This has led to big and ongoing protests in which Minnesotans gather in big crowds whenever ICE shows up, trying to prevent them from apprehending suspects.  These are not peaceful on either side: ICE agents fire pepper spray and tear gas, while some demonstrators physically assault lawmen and block the cars of ICE agents. (To see how well the citizens are organized, read Olivia Reingold’s piece “I joined ICE watch” at the Free Press.)

Since I am not and haven’t been there, I’m not sure whether the protestors are trying to incite violence as part of their protests, hoping, as did Martin Luther King, Jr. did in the Sixties, that brutality on the party of the law will promote one’s cause.  The difference is that King’s cause was to get rights for black people, while the cause of the protestors seems to be to keep Trump from using heavyhanded tactics to deport undocumented immigrants.  This difference is why, I think, we don’t see many black people speaking out about the demonstrations.

I have still not decided whether Good’s killing was illegal: a deliberate act of manslaughter or even murder.  Because someone was killed, though, and there is some question that bullets were fired gratuitously, I think there needs to be an investigation of the officer and, if things look illegal, a trial. We need to preserve our system of law and accountability. But I am not willing to pronounce the officer guilty, as so many are doing (my Facebook page is full of those pronouncements). That would take a trial. All I can say is that, since we haven’t yet had a trial or an investigation the incident looks like an unfortunate concatenation of a woman who should not have been doing what she did (blocking ICE access with her car, and refuse refusing orders to exit her car), and an ICE officer who may have been overly retributive because he had been through a similar experience (dragged by a car for many yards) in recent weeks.

So, please discuss this issue. What do you think should be done about the officer who killed Good? Does Good herself bear any responsibility for what happened? Are the protestors completely peaceful, or are they hoping to provoke violence? Are they trying to keep officers from enforcing the law? (My view is that all undocumented immigrants deserve a hearing before an immigration judge before they are deported, but also that that ICE is being heavy-handed in law enforcement. Further, in the end there should be a procedure to expel people who entered the country illegally, giving priority to those with a criminal record.) Sometimes it seems to me that the protestors all want open borders and no deportations, which is not in line with what most Americans want.

I have written too much already, and am still rethinking the events in Minnesota, but I thank Ceiling Cat that I don’t have to adjudicate them.

By the way, the Minnesota state legislature has just brought up Tim Walz on four articles of impeachment, all involving the corruption scandal in his state. He’s already said he won’t be running again.

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “absolutely,” came with a terse comment from the artist: “Thanks for clearing that up, Mo.”

In the last readers’ wildlife photo feature I have, James Blilie has appeared with some black and white photos. His captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Here are another set of landscape photos that I have converted to black and white for posting to a black and white Facebook group.  I am having a lot of fun having another “go” at older images in B&W.  Over the last 15 years or so, my software skills for editing photos have improved dramatically.  Since I “came from” the perspective of shooting Kodachrome slides (everything was fully captured when I pressed the shutter button), I at first resisted the idea of using photo-editing software after I switched to digital.  That was a mistake.  Editing images is critical (like editing most other works).

These are from all over and many are scanned 35mm slides or negatives.

Three images for Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Provincial Park in Canada, September 1981.  All scanned B&W negatives.

Beaver Lake on the Jacques Lake trail in Jasper National Park:

Summit Lake with figure, on the Jacques Lake trail in Jasper National Park:

Mount Robson from Berg Lake at dawn.  One of the great mountain views of the world.  I lugged the Rolleiflex and a tripod up to Berg Lake.  To be young and strong again!:

Next a photo from September 1982, also scanned B&W negative:  Taking a break from long canoeing days in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in far northern Minnesota:

Next, a few from my days of mountaineering in my youth, all scans from film originals:

An image I call The Thinker, taken at a camp at around 8200 feet elevation (2500m) on the south side of Mount Stuart in Washington state en  route to the summit.  1984,

Climbers on the north  ridge of Mount Adams, Washington state, with Mount Rainier in the background.  1987.  I have climbed Mount Adams, now visible outside my office window, three times, always by the more remote, less-frequented North Ridge:

Climbers on the Easton Glacier on Mount Baker, Washington state, 1989:

Next, a photo taken in Kathmandu, Nepal, 1991, scanned Kodachrome 64:

A  photo taken while backcountry skiing in Gairbaldi Provincial Park, north of Vancouver, BC, 1988:

A photo of skating tracks on the frozen pond behind our former home in Minnesota, 2013:

A photo from the Mission San Juan Capistrano, California, February 2023:

Finally, a photo taken in Seattle, in the vicinity of the Ballard Locks, March 2023:

 

Equipment:

Pentax K-1000, ME Super, and LX cameras and various Pentax M-series and A-series lenses
Rolleiflex 6cm roll film camera with Schneider 75mm f/3.5 lens that my Dad bought in Germany in 1950 and passed on to me in the 1980s
Olympus  OM-D E-M5 micro-4/3 camera and various Olympus Zuiko and Leica lenses for that system
Software:  Lightroom 5
Scanner:  Epson V500 Perfection (current model is V600, I think.  An excellent scanner.

I have put most of the news in the Hili dialogues, and, frankly, am afflicted with a bad case of Weltschmerz (I believe Dr. Cobb shares my ailment).  So today I’m proffering space for you to talk about anything you want, and it need not be limited to the news. I expect many people will want to give their opinions on the ICE killing in Minnesota, but remember that there are huge protests, and thousands of deaths, in Iran, with the possibility of regime change.  A government blackout is preventing us from hearing much about what’s happening, but video and messages have been smuggled out. That’s the news I’ll concentrate on in Hili Nooz until things are resolved one way or the other. The Iranian protestors, knowing that they could be shot, are still congregating en masse in the streets of many cities.

Finally, astronauts are coming back to Earth early because one of them has an undisclosed illness.

So talk about what you want, but please adhere to Da Roolz. For this one post I’ll relax the frequency restrictions, so you can make up to 15% of the total comments (about one comment in six).  Please try to avoid one-on-one arguments, and be civil, and, if I can add one more thing, don’t keep emphasizing the same point over and over again.

Okay, that’s it. Ready, set, go. . . .   and if I get fewer than 50 comments, I’ll be even more depressed.

Well, folks, this is it, the last batch of wildlife photos I have. As for more, there is nada, zip, zilch, and bupkes in the queue.  It is very sad, isn’t it.

But today we have photos of otters from reader Christopher Moss. Christopher’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them. The first batch was sent on December 29:

Just after the sun went down this evening I spotted a pair of otters on the other side of the pond. I assume they are Lontra canadensis, the North American river otter. They are about 80m away, and the photos were taken through a window. But when you’re desperate for readers’ wildlife photos, maybe they will do. The otters played in a small area of open water for a while and then I lost sight of them in the gloom. This is the third or fourth time I have seen otters in our pond (which is in northwest Nova Scotia, near the border with New Brunswick).

Eventually one otter came back up, and was then joined by a second:

One of the otters came back for a trout:

We’re arguing over whether there are three or four pups. I do have a still of five otters at once:

Here’s a video showing all five at once:

A few minutes later my son called out that they were all standing up looking at something, and – guess what? – this fellow was a few feet from them:

Reader Gingerbaker called my attention to a Substack post by Elder of Ziyon (henceforth “EoZ”), who also has an extensive and useful pro-Israel website I’ve cited several times. The post, which you can access by clicking the screenshot below, advocates for restrictions on the kind of freedom of speech presently allowed by America’s First Amendment.  The Elder’s view that the courts’ construal of our First Amendment needs to be modified is in fact shared by many, though the restrictions demanded are varied. All, however, try to restrict varieties of “hate speech.”

There are already well-known exceptions to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment.  These, adjudicated by courts over the years, include speech that is defamatory, constitutes harassment, poses the thread of imminent and predictable violence, “fighting words,” false advertising, and so on (Wikipedia has a list of more exceptions).

The EoZ uses as his example the fundamentalist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahir, which is active in Western countries. Several of them have banned it for its Islamist views, but it’s banned even more widely. As Wikipedia notes,

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in Bangladesh, China, Russia, Pakistan,India, Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Kazakhstan and “across Central Asia”, Indonesia, and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen and the UAE. In July 2017, the Indonesian government revoked Hizb ut-Tahrir’s legal status, citing incompatibility with government regulations on extremism and national ideology.

Why the banning in paces like America?  EoZ explains:

The justification for these bans usually begins with the group’s stated aims. Hizb ut-Tahrir rejects liberal democracy and advocates replacing it with a global Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law. It presents Islam not merely as a religion but as a political system destined to supersede Western civilization. Its rhetoric is frequently antisemitic, dismissive of pluralism, and grounded in a vision of Muslim supremacy.

It is no stretch to say that the group’s ideas are hostile to Jews, to women, to dissenters, and to the moral assumptions that underlie liberal societies. If Hizb ut-Tahrir ever held power, its worldview would translate into repression.

There is a problem, though. Hizb ut-Tahrir is explicitly non-violent. It does not carry out attacks. It does not issue operational instructions for terrorism in Western countries. Its leaders insist, consistently and publicly, that their method is ideological persuasion rather than armed struggle. Their ideas are corrosive, but they remain ideas.

It appears to have used socialist concepts to build itself this way specifically to take advantage of Western freedoms and inoculate it from being banned legally in the West.

This brings up the question of where free speech ends and where limiting speech is better.

The EoZ gives this photo in his article, widely published without attribution, but it’s not clear that the people pictured are from Hizb ut-Tahi. Still, the issue under discussion is instantiated by that poster.

The EoZ notes that banning peaceful organizations for what they believe is not only a very slippery slope, but one that’s been descended many times.  And, for example, calling for the destruction of America or replacement of democracy with ideologies like Communism still counts as free speech in America. So why ban this particular group?  According to EoZ, it’s because the “violence” that may be produced by such organizations is delayed,  so that minds can be changed by gradually contemplating a group’s message, eventually leading—in the case of Hizb ut-Tahir—to the replacement of democracy with Islamist autocracy.

At the same time, pretending that Hizb ut-Tahrir is merely another set of opinions that should be ignored is willfully naive. Its ideology does not sit in a vacuum. It is a sustained narrative that delegitimizes Western society, portrays Jews and non-Muslims as exploiters, and presents the destruction of the existing order as morally necessary. It may not tell followers to commit violence, but it devotes considerable energy to explaining why violence committed by others is understandable, justified, or admirable. Over time, that difference becomes less sharp than Western legal categories would like it to be.

The problem, as I see it, is that the West’s concept of free speech is unnecessarily expansive and out definition of incitement is needlessly and extraordinarily narrow. We tend to locate responsibility almost entirely at the moment of explicit instruction, as though speech and action are cleanly separable until a specific verbal threshold is crossed. That approach forces societies to wait until violence is imminent before acting, while treating years of ideological conditioning as irrelevant. It assumes that moral preparation is harmless so long as it avoids certain words.

Hizb ut-Tahrir operates comfortably within that space.

But this case can also be made for many organizations, including the Communist Party and the many Islamist groups of young people who adhere to Islamism and want to see the end of “Turtle Island”.  Groups like antifa and sundry anarchists feel likewise.  Should they be banned, too? But the EoZ somehow sees Hizb ut-Tahrir as an exception, probably because it’s a threat to Jews, and the EoZ is ardently pro-Jewish (he mention that threat several times.)

 . . . . the problem posed by Hizb ut-Tahrir is not that it holds extreme beliefs, but that it functions as a preparatory environment. It habituates listeners to a worldview in which violence by others becomes morally intelligible. That places it in a different category from ordinary dissent or even radical critique, and it justifies a different kind of response.

This does not require banning ideas. It requires acknowledging that speech operates within systems. A society can restrict organizational activity, funding, coordination, and amplification when those structures predictably serve as pathways toward violence, without criminalizing theology or private belief. That approach is narrower, more defensible, and far less likely to metastasize than ideological prohibition.

Free speech in the West has gradually ceased to be treated as an instrument and has come to resemble an article of faith. . .

. . . The question, then, is not whether Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned. It is whether Western societies are capable of developing a more mature understanding of incitement, one that accounts for moral enablement and foreseeable harm without granting the state a license to police belief.

I find this unconvincing, and I see no distinction between Hizb ut-Tahrir and the many other groups that want to replace democracy (in this case American democracy) with various forms of autocracy or theocracy, including groups that cry, “Globalize the intifada”—an explicit call for Islamic theocracy and violence. But note that this group doesn’t even call for violence, so how is it possible to blame future violence on its pronouncements?

The reasons I’m unconvinced are several, and not new.  First, it’s probably impossible to determine when a group’s beliefs or utterances promote eventual violence rather than imminent or predictable violence.  There’s a difference between a lone moron on the Quad crying “Gas the Jews”, and a person saying the same thing in front of a synagogue or group of Jewish people (who in America aren’t violent anyway). If someone eventually torches a synagogue, even citing certain groups in a written manifesto for the actions, those groups cannot be retrospectively indicted for violating the First Amendment, as we cannot be sure how much they contributed to the violence. “Imminent” is far easier to prove than “much later”. After all, many people who commit acts of violence are deranged, and have a mixture of motives that may be mixed up with mental illness. Thus, although P. Z. Myers, contemplating Joe Lonsdale, has said “maybe it’s time to hang a few billionaires to teach a lesson to those greedy parasites“, I don’t think Myers should be arrested even if someone who reads his site hangs or kills a billionaire after citing Myers’ posts.

Just think of all the manifestos written by violent criminals who have cited a variety of influences! We can’t simply go back and arrest them all because they contributed to violence, for contributions are fuzzy, unpredictable, and often mixed up with mental illness or a propensity to be violent per se.

Second, the remedy for “hate speech” like the nonviolent calls for Islamism by Hizb ut-Tahrir is, as we all know, counterspeech. And that involves pointing out how Islamism is a repressive, theocratic form of government that is inimical to the well being of its believers—and of any country that adopts Islamic tenets. Women and gays are oppressed, people of other faiths (or of no faith) are endangered, and free speech itself is usually outlawed or greatly restricted.  That alone guarantees the failure of Islamism to replace American democracy, but in fact there is no way, given our Constitution, that a democracy would vote itself out of power in favor of Islamism or any government that violates the Constitution. (I’m not speaking of Trump’s probable violations of the Constitution to buttress his own power, as they will eventually be sorted out by the courts.) Even despite Trump, America remains a democracy, though a currently dysfunctional one.

Third, as John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty, allowing people to say odious things has a number of beneficial effects, including “outing” those people who believe such stuff and would otherwise remain underground. Such odious views also help us us to sharpen our arguments against them, and their utterance also gives us the chance to correct the misapprehensions of their opponents (see this blog post on “Mills’s trident”).

Now I understand where EoZ is coming from. The Elder is certainly Jewish and is appalled by hearing things like “globalize the intifada”. Jews are being attacked throughout the world, and the EoZ holds antisemitic speech responsible. Indeed, many countries, like Germany and Canada do ban antisemitic speech or “hate speech” that demonizes identifiable groups.

Why shouldn’t we follow them? In my view, the reasons for banning “hate speech” are weaker than for allowing it, so long as that speech doesn’t lead to imminent and predictable violence or violates other restrictions the courts have put on the First Amendment. People can differ on this, just as I differ with the good Elder of Zion. But Mill laid out the reasons against speech bans in 1859, and in my view his reasons are still good.

Anna Krylov called my attention to this articl at the site The Gadfly, which appears to be run by Frederick Alexander—someone I’ve never run across before. His article gives ten phrases associated with wokeness, four of which I really detest. I’ll put them all below the screenshot (click it to read the article), and perhaps you can guess which four curl the soles of my shoes.

Alexander’s phrases are in bold, and all of his words are indented. My few comments are flush left. He begins with an introduction about how the burgeoning of DEI after George Floyd’s death in 2020 has led to embedding certain phrases in woke language. Some of them are well familiar to me, while others are not.

Part of the intro:

It’s tempting to look back on those events as if they were a curious aberration, a moment of hysteria brought about by lockdown cabin fever. Today, it’s common to hear that “woke is dead” – and it’s true that many DEI programmes have been shut down or rebranded. The finger-wagging sanctimony has been toned down a few notches, too.

But what remains is the language: a distinct and unmistakable lexicon with a long half-life. This is the fallout from a blast we thought was long behind us. DEI no longer marches through institutions with a fanfare, but it operates as background radiation. Wave the Geiger counter over policy small print or the latest HR initiative, and you’ll hear the familiar crackling of progressive orthodoxy.

The language has insinuated itself into corporations and public bodies across the Western world, becoming almost invisible through constant repetition. Phrases that sound benign on the surface mask a cold system of enforcement that continues to reward fluency in Newspeak while punishing dissent. Taken together, they form a closed moral system – one that begins with empathy and ends with coercion.

Here are a few phrases you’ve probably heard before.

You can read Alexander’s full explication at the site; I’ll give just a sentence or three that he says about each one. And I’ll add my own short take:

1.) “We’re on a journey.”  The world’s most overused corporate metaphor is also a favourite of institutions haemorrhaging money on failed DEI initiatives. Bud Light went on a journey with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney in April 2023 and ended up in corporate hell. The brand lost its spot as America’s top-selling beer, two marketing executives were put on leave, and the whole debacle cost a billion dollars in lost sales

That one I’m not familiar with, nor am I familiar with #2:

2.)  “Bringing your whole self to work”. Silicon Valley invented this one. The idea was that workers would bring their creativity and passion to the job. Instead, they brought their politics and personal grievances.

It turns out there’s only really a problem if your “whole self” doesn’t align with “correct thinking”. Don’t bring your whole Christian self to work – the one who opposes abortion or thinks polygamy is a bad idea. That won’t go down too well. Think national borders might be a good thing? That whole self had better stay away, too. A gender-critical whole self? Don’t be silly. Best put all those whole selves back in their box, or wave your career goodbye.

3.) “Brave conversations. . . We’re talking about “courageous dialogue” with your line manager following an apparent “microaggression”. Turns out you need more training in how to think and when to declare your pronouns.

These conversations tend to begin with an admission of privilege, followed by an acknowledgement of harm, and conclude with a commitment to growth. Actual conversation – the kind where people disagree and minds change – never happens. That’s the wrong sort of bravery. The proper kind is where you confess to thought crimes you didn’t know existed.

I haven’t heard that one, either. Where have I been? After all, I’ve been on campus for decades.

4.) “Educate yourself”.  This is a phrase professional activists and scolds deploy when they can’t defend their position. It’s the go-to for transforming intellectual laziness into moral superiority.

What “educate yourself” really means is this: read the approved texts so as to arrive at the conclusions I agree with – what we used to call indoctrination. Any other outcome is seen as proof of moral and intellectual deficiency.

I’ve used #4 myself, but only when faced with obtuse commenters who make arrant misstatements, usually about evolution. And I don’t use it too often, though of course all of us in academia have heard it used in exactly the sense that Alexander means.

5.) “Psychological safety.” Today, it means an environment where nobody can disagree with progressive orthodoxy without being invited to an HR struggle session. The safest spaces, it turns out, are wherever difficult questions are never asked. Feeling “unsafe” is now what happens when we challenge someone’s views on immigration or question whether men can become pregnant. JK Rowling has spent years being told her defence of women’s spaces makes trans people “unsafe”.

Of course we’ve all heard of “safe spaces,” which is apparently what “psychological safety” means. I’ve never heard that term used, though.

6.) “Lived experience.”  This one refuses to die, which is a tragedy because few ideas on this list have wrought so much chaos and misery as the idea of “lived experience”. A phrase that transforms subjective feelings into unassailable truth, lived experience is invoked again and again to shut down “problematic” questions like “why are you trialling experimental puberty blockers on children as young as 10?”

This is how clinicians at Tavistock were silenced when they raised concerns about rushing children into medical transition. They were told they were “invalidating young people’s lived experience” of gender identity. Evidence-based medicine lost to feelings-based ideology. The Cass Review finally reintroduced rigour, but only after a decade of children used as test subjects.

Or consider Iranian women protesting forced veiling. Western feminists have dismissed them while deferring to the “lived experience” of those women who defend the hijab as empowerment. When evidence becomes inconvenient, personal testimony is invoked as epistemological authority, leaving empirical reasoning nowhere to go.

Several times this one has appeared on my “words and phrases I detest” posts (I need to make more of these). First of all, it’s redundant, since all experience is lived. (Is there such a thing as “unlived experience”?) But, more important, it suggests an alternative form of personal truth, a form that is fundamental to wokeness, is derived from postmodernism, and is explicitly antiempirical.

7.) “Equity, not equality”. Equity used to refer to the value of shares issued by a company. Now it refers to equalising outcomes rather than opportunities. The switch transformed Martin Luther King’s dream into its nightmare opposite.

That’s a terse entry but a true one.  One has to be careful not to mistake the terms.  The problem with ensuring equity is that different groups may have different preferences, which will create inequities despite equal opportunities. Therefore, if you see uneqaual representation of groups, you have to suss out the causes before you start mentioning bigotry, misogyny, and other causes based on prejudice.

8.) “Decolonizing the curriculum.” “Decolonising the curriculum” is largely about treating Western knowledge as inherently suspect because it’s Western. Ideas are judged not by whether they’re true but in terms of their provenance. Plato or Locke are “problematised” rather than argued with. Rejecting classical liberal principles in favour of progressive ones is “challenging power”.

In short, “decolonising the curriculum” is a licence to swap scholarship for grievance. It tells students what they’re meant to feel about the civilisation that built the university they’re attending.

That’s a strong statement, but again largely true.  Certainly non-Western material is unduly neglected in some courses, more often in the humanities than the sciences, but beware of calls to “decolonize” an entire curriculum, particularly in STEMM.

9.) “Be an ally.” Allyship used to mean supporting a cause. Now it means performing endless penance for demographic characteristics you can’t change. The progressive ally must publicly confess privilege, declare solidarity, and accept instruction from activists without question.

It’s the “without question” part that bothers me. I am in agreement with the aims of many “progressive” causes, but don’t necessarily buy into the whole ideology or bag of tactics that go along with them. I prefer just to state where I agree or disagree rather than saying, “I’m an ally” or telling someone else to be one.

10.) “Impact over intent.” A lesser-known phrase, these words ensure your guilt is inescapable. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are; only how others feel about your actions. What’s that you say? You meant no harm? Irrelevant. Someone felt harmed, and that’s all that counts.

I’ve not heard that exact phrase before, but I’m well familiar with what it means and how it would be used. Two examples are the suspension of Professor Greg Patton for saying a Chinese word that sounded superficially like a racial slur, and the firing of an art-history professor at Hamline University who showed her students (with warnings) two famous Muslim paintings that depicted the visage of Muhammad.

I don’t have much to add to what Alexander and I have said above, but wanted to add Alexander’s pessimistic ending, noting first Alexander’s arguable claim that the phrases are the provenance mostly of the privileged.

. . . . much of the language persists because the people who use it pay no price for the harm it causes. HR directors still have jobs and diversity consultants still bill by the hour. The costs are absorbed by those with the least ability to navigate the new moral codes.

A decade from now, these phrases will sound dated, and eventually they’ll fade away. But others will take their place – a vocabulary already incubating in universities and carrying the same assumptions.

This is how ideology colonises institutions in a post-religious age: through a moral language that redefines virtue, reshapes norms, and renders dissent unspeakable long before it becomes the object of cancellation.

Note the emphasis on the moral certainty of the progressive ideologues, something we’ve talked about recently.

Years ago I was a big fan of Doctors Without Borders (originally MSF for “Médecins Sans Frontières”, since the group’s origin is French). Supposedly apolitical, MSF, provides medical care to people in regions where it’s scarce—a mission I like. I gave them a fair amount of dosh, including all of the $12,000 or so I got for auctioning off a copy of WEIT signed by many notables and illuminated by Kelly Houle.

Then I began hearing rumors that MSF was anti-Israel, which disturbed me because it’s not supposed to favor one country over another.  The rumors were not unfounded, and MSF’s dissing of Israel increased during the war with Hamas, when it not only bought into the “genocide” narrative spread by antisemites, but also promulgated false rumors about Hamas, Israel, and hospitals in Gaza.  Eventually I took MSF out of my will, diverting those funds to other humanitarian organizations. Yes, MSF is still doing good work in other places, but it will no longer have my support.

This 11-minute Quillette video, narrated by Zoe Booth, summarizes the reasons why I have cooled on MSF. (It’s largely taken from a Qullette essay on MSF called “The humanitarian mask: How activists at Médecins Sans Frontières shape disinformation“.)

I consider the “genocide” canard, the dumbest of all the Big Lies about Israel, as a manifestation of antisemitism. If you want to see why, read Maarten Boudry’s Substack article, “They don’t believe it either,” arguing that even those groups like MSF that accuse Israel of genocide are completely wrong: there’s no evidence that the aim of the IDF is to kill Gazan noncombatants or wipe out Palestinians. An excerpt:

Why then did this war have such a terrible toll on civilians, despite Israel’s efforts? There are two major reasons, both consistently ignored by all the genocide reports: Hamas’ cult of martyrdom, and the perverse incentives created by its unwitting enablers. Hamas is not just indifferent to civilian casualties; it actively solicits them as part of its military strategy. It has constructed hundreds of kilometers of tunnels for its fighters, while failing to build a single shelter for its own women and children. It deliberately fires rockets from hospitals, schools, UN buildings, mosques, and in the vicinity of humanitarian zones. Fully aware that it is no match for the Israeli army on the battlefield, it possesses one secret weapon to bring Israel to its knees: the moral conscience of the international community. If they sacrifice enough innocent women and children and then broadcast the harrowing images and casualty figures all across the international media, they can push Western nations to ostracize, delegitimize, and boycott Israel.

In fact, to any reasonable observer, it is undeniable that the Israeli army cares more about the lives of Palestinian civilians than Hamas. While Hamas invites civilian deaths as part of its strategy, Israel attempts to avoid them. Whereas the Israeli government urges Gazan civilians to evacuate combat zones, Hamas prevents them from escaping or from seeking shelter in their tunnel network. When Israel set up its own system of humanitarian aid, Hamas threatened anyone who dared to collaborate, killed multiple humanitarian workers, and punished Gazans who collected GHF food packages.

Note that those who promulgate the “genocide” myth, including MSF, never accuse Hamas of genocide, despite the fact that the terrorist organization is overtly genocidal, bent on destroying Israel by wiping out all Jews, not merely ones with guns. This Big Lie comes from willful ignorance, and, for MSF, makes their claim of ideological neutrality worthless.  Yes, a few members of IDF may have aimed at civilians, but that is vanishingly rare. The majority of Gazan civilian deaths came from Hamas’s strategy of hiding behind civilians, including their tunnel system (built at huge expense with money diverted from Gaza) and embedding themselves within schools and hospitals. As Maarten notes, the death of Palestinian civilians is part of Hamas’s plan, and the more who are killed the more the world blames Israel.

Further, those who cry “Israeli genocide” never seem to mention the kidnapping of Israeli civilians on October 7, a war crime that was followed by shooting or even strangling some of the hostages. What does MSF say about this?  Nothing. They have, as the video shows, “never issued a single condemnation of Hamas.” That is reprehensible but shows MSF’s own bigotry.

As far as buying into Hamas propaganda goes, MSF has, as the video shows, accused Israel of deliberately striking the Al-Ahli Hospital, despite subsequent investigation having convinced all rational observers (and yes, even the New York Times) that the “strike” was an explosion of a rocket misfired AT Israel by Palestinian Islamic Jihad—a rocket that landed in the hospital’s parking lot. There is in fact video showing the path of the misfired rocket, as well as photos of the damaged parking lot itself. As the Quillette article notes (and I’ve appended a tweet):

On 17 October, Abu-Sittah was working at al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza City when a major explosion rocked the compound. MSF immediately quoted him in a press release: “We were operating in the hospital; there was a strong explosion, and the ceiling fell on the operating room. This is a massacre.” Abu-Sittah was one of six Palestinian doctors who held a grotesque press conference from the hospital parking lot surrounded by the bodies of those allegedly killed in the blast. His testimony was broadcast globally, and presented as the objective account of a medical professional who bore witness to a devastating Israeli air strike. With the added credibility bestowed by MSF’s endorsement, his words were used to support international condemnations of Israel for the alleged perpetration of systematic war crimes.

Shortly afterwards, Israel and the US produced evidence showing that the explosion occurred in the hospital parking lot and that it was caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket, not an Israeli airstrike. The New York Times and a number of other major news platforms admitted that their initial coverage had relied on unverified claims and amended their reporting as new information became available. Even Human Rights Watch—hardly an impartial observer of Israeli combat operations—conceded that “the possibility of a large air-dropped bomb, such as those Israel has used extensively in Gaza, [is] highly unlikely.” MSF, on the other hand, refused to correct the record. More than two years later, it has still not retracted or corrected Abu-Sittah’s false testimony.

English translation of doctors from the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza hold a press conference among the bodies of those slaughtered by Israel in an airstrike. pic.twitter.com/GJB17tQoA2

— Mahmoud Al-Qudsi (@mqudsi) October 17, 2023

Did MSF retract its accusations?  Of course not, even though Human Rights Watch—itself anti-Israel—did.

As the video above shows, MSF has distanced itself from some of the more extremist people it once endorsed, but it has not publicly retracted or even modified its claims. That too is reprehensible.

I found a 2016 article in the Forward, an Israeli newspaper, that is telling. Already stung then by accusations of antisemitism, the executive director of MSF USA denied “institutional antisemitism.”. The bolding is mine:

We are perceived by some as taking sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when communicating about the West Bank and Gaza, where MSF has been operating medical programs for more than 20 years.

. . .MSF does not work in Israel — not because of any bias, but because Israel can cover its medical needs. While MSF has offered medical support at various times, including during the 2006 Lebanon war, these offers were respectfully declined, given Israel’s strong emergency medical capabilities. We are therefore not in a position to make medically based observations regarding Israeli suffering. To be clear, Palestinians are by no means the sole victims in this conflict. Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, other factions and so-called lone-wolf attackers are in no uncertain terms responsible for crimes and violations of the laws of war, such as indiscriminate attacks.

Palestinian leaders bear direct responsibility for their actions, including firing into civilian areas rockets that have killed and wounded Israelis and perpetuated fear and psychological trauma among so many.

While not witnessed directly by MSF teams, allegations of Hamas and other fighters placing weapons or command centers near or inside health facilities and other civilian structures would amount to grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. Such tactics directly endanger noncombatants, including medical personnel and patients, and are explicitly forbidden under international law. Responsibility for other obstacles to health care must also be forthrightly assigned.

How that tune has changed! The same “crimes” of Hamas given in bold somehow were neglected by MSF after October 7, 2023.  Hamas is apparently seen as the innocent victim of Israeli genocidal aims. In an undated statement after the current war began, MSF tries to exculpate itself again. An excerpt (bolding is theirs):

Why are your statements so critical of Israel? Why are you not talking about Hamas?

As humanitarians, we grieve for all civilian lives lost [JAC: except for Israeli ones], and the vast majority of the victims of this conflict are civilians, including many elderly people, women, and children. Violence against civilians is never justified, and all civilians deserve protection. [JAC: what about the Israeli hostages?]

Our statements and reporting are rooted in the experiences of our patients and staff on the ground, and the actions we directly witness in the areas where we work. In Gaza, Israeli armed forces’ activities are central to the challenges civilians face, particularly in terms of access to medical care and the safety of health workers and facilities. We report on these realities because they directly impact our ability to provide care.

That is about as weaselly as it comes.  By placing tunnels and combatants in and under hospitals, Hamas itself is impeding “access to medical care and the safety of health workers and facilities.” That’s not to mention their theft of food and supplies intended for Gazan civilians.

As Hamas refuses to lay down its arms, and MSF refuses to condemn their terrorism, I am closing my wallet to MSF and directing considerable resources to alternative groups like Helen Keller International, the Malaria Consortium, and Peter Singer’s organization the Maximize Your Impact Fund.

I haven’t told MSF how much money they’re going to lose because of their ideological position.  They wouldn’t care anyway.  I believe I told them, after they kept begging me for more after our initial donation, that they could expect no more donations from me.  As for others reading this site, where you donate is of course up to you, but be sure to check out whether recipients are politically and ideologically neutral.

Today’s photos of one of my favorite birds comes from Neil Dawe. Neil’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Skomer Island Puffins – Neil K Dawe

We visited a second seabird colony on our UK trip in 2025: Skomer Island off the Pembrokshire, Wales coast. Skomer Island has around 40 bird species that nest on the island but the seabirds are the big draw and the primary reason it is preserved as a National Nature Reserve. Just over a kilometre (0.67 miles) from the mainland and a 20 minute boat trip from Martin’s Haven, Skomer Island is accessible to visitors for 5 hour stays on the island where you can wander the trails and see some of the over 40,000 Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica) that nest there. There are a number of other nesting seabirds there as well, most notably 350,000 Manx Shearwaters (Puffinus puffinus; Skomer Island holds the largest Manx Shearwater colony in the world), 10,000 Razorbills (Alca torda), 29,000 Common Murres or Guillemots (Uria aalge), 5,000 Lesser Black-backed Gulls (Larus fuscus), and a smaller number of other species including shorebirds, songbirds, and owls. But it’s the puffins that most people come to see.

Unlike the Bempton Cliffs, where you have to patiently search the cliffs to find a puffin, this is the scene that greets you as you walk up the trail from the boat. Scores of birds standing near their burrows, flying out to sea, or returning from the sea:

A number of trails lead past the colonies allowing excellent viewing of the birds. Perhaps the best area to view the puffins is a place called the Wick. Here, scores of puffins have honeycombed the grassy slope with their burrows, the ground sloping gently to the sea making it easy for the puffins to get airborne:

Puffins prefer burrows in the extensive open grass-herb slopes; they use the bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) areas (foreground) to a lesser extent. If they find an empty European Hare (Lepus europaeus) burrow they will readily make use of it, sometimes even sharing the burrow with the hare. Note the hare in this image. (Photo: Renate Sutherland):

Puffins nest up to and beyond the visitor footpath at the Wick, and visitors can find themselves on the path along with the puffins (Photo: Renate Sutherland):

 Standing guard amongst the bracken:

 The area around the Wick is busy with puffins flying to or returning from the sea:

Puffins practice nest maintenance throughout the nesting period; here one is bringing more nesting material to the burrow:

Puffin burrows average a metre in length and contain side chambers they use in which to defecate. Puffins at the Wick can often be seen close up at burrows near the trail:

Lesser Black-backed Gulls (Larus fuscus) station themselves near the puffin burrows and attempt to steal the puffin’s catch upon their return from the sea:

During our visit, puffin eggs were just beginning to hatch so not many adults were seen bringing food to the nest. When they do return they usually run to the burrow to avoid having any nearby gulls steal their catch. Fortunately, this bird tended to take its time. While foraging, puffins are able to catch several fish at a time that are then held against the roof of the mouth by their tongue.