Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The other day I reported on the death of Marjane Satrapi, comic book creator (she preferred that term to “graphic novel”), film producer, and author. She was only 56, and her family reported that she became depressed and “died of sadness” about a year after her partner, Mattias Ripa, died of cancer. Wikipedia outlines her accomplishments, headed by the comic book Persepolis, which came in two volumes:
The success of Persepolis established Satrapi as one of the most widely read Iranian authors in the world, and her role in co-directing the film adaptation led to her becoming the first woman to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.
Yesterday I finished the first volume of Persepolis, and was greatly moved by the illustrated account of Satrapi’s life in Iran, both under the Shah and thereafter. Her disillusionment with 1979 Iranian Revolution is the centerpiece, and the illustrations are instrumental in conveying her feelings.
Below, the volume I read; click to go to the Amazon link, where it’s only about eight bucks. The publisher’s website is here, where you can buy both volumes in hardback.
Since I started reading this book, which won many awards, I’ve been surprised at how many people also know of it and have read it. Besides Maus, which I thought was a masterpiece, and two volumes of The Rabbi’s Cat, which was also superb, this is the only “graphic novel” I’ve read. I recommend it highly, and have asked Interlibrary Loan at the University of Chicago for the second volume.
Here are two pages from the book as reproduced by Emma Knopik , who gave it a favorable review on Medium. Knopik’s explication of each page is indented:
I found page 43 particularly interesting. After a series of massacres and revolts, the Shah finally fled Iran and sought refuge with Anwar Al-Sadat in Egypt. Satrapi’s parents explain that although the Shah has left, people’s celebration will be ephemeral as long as the Middle East has oil. In this panel, her father’s expression shifts from his regular reassured, pleased look to a more cynical, concerned expression. Satrapi achieves this shift by raising his eyebrows, lowering his eyes and simplifying them, and turning his mustache downward as in a frown. The black background of the panel intensifies the unfortunate realization. Perhaps the most compelling panel on this page is the bottom left panel, that depicts Satrapi and her parents along with a dragon figure. The dragon represents the former Shah, and even though Satrapi’s parents are glad that the “devil” has left, this dragon figure exerts an invisible claw before the family. The dragon’s body acts to outline the panel, suggesting these figures unclenching control over Iranian’s lives.
This page below made a big impression on me. It depicts the death of many Iranian boys, age 14 and up, who were used as cannon fodder and trotted through minefields to find the mines (by being blown up, of course). Some of the boys were given plastic keys to wear around their necks, and assured that if they became “martyrs,” the key would let them into Paradise.
Knopik:
Additionally, page 102 illustrates the complex political situation in Iran that Satrapi was forced to process while also experiencing the staples of adolescence. The two panels on this page break from Satrapi’s smaller, more grid-like panelled pages. The top panel occupies a majority of the page, and it illustrates the young, impoverished children who were convinced to sacrifice their lives for religion. The figures are shown with the keys to paradise around their necks as they are dying in explosions. The figures are blurry and dark, with no distinguishing features, which illustrates the high degree to which they were robbed of their lives. The bottom panel depicts Satrapi going to a party and experimenting with a punk rock style that many teenagers cycle through. Unlike the children in the previous panel, Satrapi and her friends have distinguished facial features. Her friends’ poses while they dance mirror the children who are dying in the panel above.
The book is sad and moving in recounting Satrapi’s disillusionment with both the Shah and the mullahs, and the tales of her friends and relatives she lost who were tortured and executed. It’s a short read, and I recommend it highly.
Here’s Satrapi talking about Persepolis (she could speak six languages).
Although Satrapi was doubtful about whether her work could be made into an animated movie. In 2007 it was, directed and written by Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud, and it’s supposed to be good. It certainly got a lot of awards and acclaim, including the Jury Prize (tied) at the Cannes Film Festival in 2007.
I understood that Trump was going to make public the “Memorandum of Understanding” (MoU) that laid out the framework for a peace deal between the U.S. and Iran, and was even going to read it aloud on television. That apparently didn’t happen, and if you look for the text of the MoU on the Internet, you see several versions. For example, the one I put below—the most comprehensive one I’ve seen—comes from Bloomberg News, but there are different versions at the NY Post and MEMRI.
Here’s from Bloomberg:
Below is the text of the 14-point draft memorandum, as seen by Bloomberg News.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.
Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement.
Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran.
The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days.
The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region.
The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like.
The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis.
The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement.
Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles.
The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.
Note several things about this version:
a) It declares a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon (i.e., Israel and Hezbollah will stop fighting), though Israel did not sign on to this agreement.
b) A “final agreement” is to be signed within 60 days, and that doesn’t mean “final agreement about nuclear weapons,” but final about all stipulations
c) The Strait of Hormuz is to be reopened: “the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume.” It does not say that the movement will be unimpeded by fines or fees that could be charged by Iran
d) The agreement stipulates that Iran will “never produce nuclear weapons”, and the final agreement will address what will be done with enriched uranium.
e) The U.S. agreed that all “frozen or restricted funds and assets” of Iran will be unfrozen, though “in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement”.
f) The final agreement must be ratified as binding by the UN Security Council.
The MoU as given by the NY Post: note that it differs in some respects from what’s above:
The following 12 points were first revealed by Axios reporter Barak Ravid, who also works for the Israeli channel. The document has previously been described as a 14-point agreement.
Iran, the US and their allies would stop fighting across the region — including in Lebanon.
Iran, Oman and Gulf states would negotiate new shipping and maritime security arrangements for the Gulf.
The last stipulation, according to the paper, means that Iran and Oman would charge for transit through the Strait of Hormuz—something that did not exist before the war and gives Iran a source of revenue it did not have.
To me, this is a U.S. loss: our efforts gained us nothing: not the cessation of terrorism, not the drive of Iran to produce a nuclear weapon (we all know they’ll continue trying), nt the freedom of the Iranian people or even a weakening of the hard-line Islamist regime, and we may have even lost the right of free (unpaid) passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Plus we’ll release the Iranian funds frozen by the U.S.
I’ve already noted that this is a terrible deal for the U.S., and, in his latest column, “Iran found Trump’s bone spur” (archived here). I quote from Stephens’s piece, and I’ve put a bit in bold, a bit that makes me both sad and angry:
Iran’s military leaders have greeted the cease-fire agreement with President Trump as a triumph, crowing that “through the imposition of their divine and iron will” they had “humiliated American and Zionist enemies.”
Mostly, they’re right.
Mostly, because it’s worth remembering that the current regime in Iran is far less formidable than it was before the Hamas assault on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Back then, Iran had potent allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. Its nuclear program was intact and steadily accumulating ever larger quantities of highly enriched uranium. It had a powerful military-industrial base, a weak but functional economy and a government that — for all its repressiveness — was internationally recognized as legitimate.
Today, much of that is either gone or diminished. Iran is no longer within sprinting distance of a bomb. Its ally in Syria was deposed. Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have lost much of their fighting strength. The Iranian rial is the world’s most worthless currency. The leadership rules an unhappy population that — outside of die-hard loyalists — would almost certainly overthrow it if given the chance. Its latest ballistic missile salvo against Israel failed to land a serious single blow. Its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz strained, but did not strangle, the world’s energy markets.
Those are real achievements against an evil, ambitious regime. Yet the outcome of war rarely rests on a tally of relative strength. War is a contest of wills. And in that contest, the hard men of Tehran appear to have scored a decisive victory over the vain man of Washington.
I write this as someone who supported the war from the outset and hoped to see Trump carry it through to a decisive result: if not regime change, then at least a deal in which Iran would be forced to relinquish all of its enrichment capabilities and access to the Strait was unfettered. Those goals were well within the president’s reach, particularly if he had continued to attack Iran’s military-industrial infrastructure until it agreed to terms, rather than conducting most of the negotiations after the fighting had mostly stopped.
But Trump got spooked after the regime didn’t instantly crumble and energy prices shot up. He then effectively abandoned the war he had started after less than six weeks of sustained combat — combat in which the United States lost fewer service members than in the 1983 invasion of Grenada. He compounded the error with an almost comical succession of military threats and last-minute climb-downs, each of them signaling indecision and weakness to Iranian adversaries practiced in the study of weakness.
Though the details of the deal remain murky — a telling indicator of its likely shoddiness, since the administration would surely trumpet the terms of a strong agreement — it’s already clear that Trump has betrayed his promise to the Iranian people, after they were massacred in January to quell antigovernment protests, that “help is on its way.” As in Venezuela, to say nothing of China and Russia, this administration’s message to oppressed people everywhere is that their rights come last.
Trump is also on his way to betraying Israel, our principal ally in this fight, by pushing Jerusalem to stand down in its effort to stop Hezbollah’s attacks on its north, in that way handing Tehran the victory of creating a diplomatic linkage between Lebanon and Hormuz. If Iran is now allowed to extract some kind of service fee for permitting ships to transit the Strait, Trump will have also betrayed our allies in the Persian Gulf by giving Iran financial and strategic leverage to which it has no right, and which it didn’t previously have.
. . . There’s a word for this: debacle. Not because the war, for all its costs or errors of execution, was a mistake. It’s because this pretense of a peace is an act of geopolitical self-harm that will haunt our standing in the world for years to come.
It’s very sad. Please weigh in below, giving your thoughts and opinion whether this is a good deal for the U.S., a bad deal, or whether you have no opinion about it.
I don’t know how Trump can claim victory when he’s merely restored a somewhat less favorable status quo, but you can be sure he’ll be crowing himself.
There’s a new Jesus and Mo comic, called “context,” which came with the note, “Another eternal, uncreated Jesus & Mo strip,” as well as this caption:
And it’s eternally important that you don’t hang around after dinner.
As I point out in my foreword to the latest J&M collection (see below), Mo always instantiates the very thing he’s criticizing. In this case, he overturns his own claims. The verse at hand is here (bolding is mine):
O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission ˹and if invited˺ for a meal, do not ˹come too early and˺ linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter ˹on time˺. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behaviour is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave. But Allah is never shy of the truth. And when you ˹believers˺ ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a barrier. This is purer for your hearts and theirs. And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah.
This stuff is added, and you might want to throw some dosh the way of the artist (remember, his strips make fun of religion, and for that he has to be anonymous:
Welcome to a Hump Day (“Dies Gibbosus” in Latin): June 17, 2026, and National Apple Strudel Day. Here’s a great snack: an apple strudel and an Einspänner (coffee) at a famous cafe in Vienna. Eaten and photographed in October, 2012. Lots of Schlag here!
It’s also the Islamic New Year, National Eat Your Vegetables Day (no, thank you), and World Croc Day. Here’s a giant crocodile I photographed in 2016 at a field station in eastern India. We were not allowed to leave our huts at night because these things roamed the grounds.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the June 17 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*Footie News. Argentina defeated Algeria 3-0 in the World Cup, with all three goals scored by perhaps the greatest soccer player ever, Lionel Messi. He also tied the record for goals by an individual in a World Cup: 16.
Lionel Messi made history Tuesday night by tying Miroslav Klose’s record for most men’s World Cup goals at 16 after scoring a hat trick to lead Argentina to a 3-0 win over Algeria.
The hat trick was the 11th of Messi’s international career but first at the World Cup. At 38, he became the oldest player to score three goals in a game at the tournament. He came off late in the second half to a rousing ovation from the partisan Argentina crowd at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium.
“It’s an honor being up there for what it means, being alongside Klose and [Brazil’s] Ronaldo, who is there also. But it doesn’t mean anything,” Messi said after the game. “[Kylian] Mbappé is there, too, he scored twice today. At the end of the day, they are stats and nothing more.
“It’s an honor to compete with them, but it doesn’t mean anything. For me, Ronaldo, who I watched and is one of the greats, is not at the top. So, it’s just stats.”
When Messi took the field for defending champion Argentina’s first group stage match — his 200th with the national team — he also became the first player to feature in six World Cups.
Messi broke the record of five World Cups held by Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal); Antonio Carbajal, Andrés Guardado and Rafael Márquez (all Mexico); and Lothar Matthäus (Germany). (Ronaldo should equal the mark in Portugal’s opener against Congo on Wednesday.)
Messi’s comment about Ronaldo is quite uncivil, and I have no idea what he’s on about. Anyway, here are the highlights with Messi’s three goals. At 38, he’s still got it, and he’ll undoubtedly score at least one more goal to set the record. I note, however, that some observers are saying that Messi should have been given a red card and sent out of the game for stomping on an Algerian player’s calf—a foul for which he didn’t even get a yellow card (see photos here).
Iran said on Tuesday that talks on a permanent peace deal with the United States would begin immediately after the countries signed a preliminary agreement on Friday, as President Trump reiterated his claim that it prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
“Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. It says it loud and clear,” Mr. Trump said on Tuesday at the Group of 7 summit in France.
Under the preliminary agreement, the United States and Iran agreed to a new 60-day cease-fire and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But the text has not been publicly released and the thorniest differences between the two sides, including the future of Iran’s nuclear program, have been deferred to the next round of negotiations.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said on Tuesday that he also expected Israeli forces to immediately withdraw from Lebanon and halt their attacks in the country. Israel has said its military would remain in Lebanon, where they have been targeting the Iran-backed Hezbollah militia, and it has continued to launch strikes since the U.S.-Iran deal was announced over the weekend.
Mr. Trump urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday to “be more responsible with respect to Lebanon,” and suggested that Syria would be more effective at dealing with the threat from Hezbollah. There is no indication that Syria is willing to involve itself militarily in that long-running conflict.
Mr. Trump has said that the Strait of Hormuz would fully reopen starting Friday. But shipping companies have responded cautiously to the preliminary agreement, and traffic through the waterway, a crucial transit route for oil and gas supplies, remained minimal on Tuesday. Some companies have warned that they would need more details and security guarantees before resuming operations there.
It’s Tuesday, June 16, and “what we know is this agreement is going to make Israel safer, it’s going to make the entire region safer,” Vice President JD Vance told NBC News, adding that he “feels confident” Israel will join the U.S.-Iran deal “further down the road.” It is difficult to share Vance’s confidence when the rest of the cabinet has remained entirely silent on the matter.
Though that isn’t entirely true. According to Axios’s Barak Ravid, CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Donald Trump and other senior officials that evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raises serious doubts about Iran’s willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal. He was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, both of whom expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding—while Vance and the White House’s Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, advocated for it.
I’ll try to sprinkle in some optimism and sweeten this bitter pill. But first, we should go through the details as they appear so far. Vance says the deal runs “about a page and a half.” That’s not a lot of room for an American victory—especially once you fit in all those Iranian concessions. Let’s look at what has been conceded so far:
Just a week ago, Trump declared there was absolutely no way he would release frozen assets before a comprehensive peace deal was signed. Yet by Iran’s account, the regime gets a significant signing bonus the moment the ink is dry. “The agreement says they are not getting a single dime of American money,” Vance insisted on Fox—reassuring, I’m sure, for American taxpayers, but a strange thing to stress, since he’s calming a concern no one raised. The money in question was never America’s; it’s Iran’s own frozen assets. The administration insists they’ll be released only as Iran complies with the deal, but given how compliant the U.S. has been to Tehran’s demands so far, I don’t see it holding the line on a few billion the moment Iran threatens to walk.
Trump also stated he would not agree to any arrangement that doesn’t include dismantling Iran’s proxies and halting their terrorism. No such language seems to appear anywhere in the MOU. In place of any written commitment to dismember the Axis of Resistance, the Americans simply claim the funds headed to the regime will be kept strictly out of terrorist hands. After all, the White House assured everyone, the bulk of the money is expected “to go into spending that improves the economy” they are under “intense pressure to deliver results at home”—whoops, that was Obama in 2015. Silly me. But we needn’t reach back that far: this is the oldest trick in the Hamas playbook—insisting Qatari or humanitarian aid serves purely legitimate, benevolent civilian needs, when in reality it just frees up other capital for far more nefarious ends.
Trump also once insisted on the destruction of all Iranian nuclear facilities and zero uranium enrichment. Now he has told The New York Times that Iran would be permitted low-level enrichment—meaning “zero enrichment” won’t even make it to the negotiating table.
The agreement reportedly requires Iran to “open” the strait. Vice President JD Vance asserts this means open and “toll-free” for the long term. Iranian officials and state media, however, claim they will merely pause fees for sixty days, but plan to resume charging “service fees” after that period, and maintain that keeping the strait “open” implies keeping it under Iranian and Omani management.
Israel is far from thrilled with this deal—just ask the markets. On Wall Street, the signs of peace sent the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite up about 795 points, a three percent jump and its best day in months. In Tel Aviv, the mood was the opposite: as global markets rallied, the benchmark TA-35 slid roughly 1.3 percent, with banks and insurers falling harder still—local investors reading the agreement as more likely to bring war than peace.
*And, finally, the NYT editorial board’s op-ed is definitive: “President Trump lost this war.” I agree, but they also said that he never should have started this war, and I’m not so sure I agree there—as that judgement comes from the benefit of hindsight (op-ed archived here).
The preliminary deal ending President Trump’s four-month war with Iran is welcome but brings with it hard truths. Mr. Trump made a terrible mistake starting this war. He prosecuted it recklessly and in open defiance of the law. The United States is emerging weaker — militarily, diplomatically and economically — and will pay strategic costs for years to come.
The details of the deal are unclear, but the announced framework suggests that Mr. Trump has won few of the terms he insisted that he would. It is a humiliating comedown for him and the nation he leads.
Since the war began, he has said the United States would achieve “total and complete victory” and that Iran must agree to “unconditional surrender.” He suggested that regime change would occur. He said that Iran would be permitted “no enrichment” of uranium and that “the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried” near-bomb-grade nuclear material that it already holds.
None of this appears to be true. Iran’s hard-line government remains in place. The specifics of the nuclear agreement will apparently be negotiated over the next two months, but the terms seem likely to resemble those of a 2015 deal that President Barack Obama negotiated and that Mr. Trump canceled in 2018. He described the Obama agreement as the “worst deal ever” and said it put Iran on “a route to a nuclear weapon.” He criticized it for failing to force Iran to stop supporting terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and for loosening economic sanctions. Yet his destructive war seems likely to leave him with a similar deal.
His biggest achievement in the cease-fire framework is the expected reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping traffic, which will eventually reduce the prices of energy and other goods. That, of course, is merely a reversion to the prewar status quo.
Yep, yep, yep, and yep. If you ask me what he could have done differently, well, I wouldn’t accept all of these conditions, and would keep attacking until Iran cries “uncle” about nuclear weapon cessation, getting rid of its enriched uranium, opening the Strait of Hormuz, and leaving Lebanon out of the deal. Of course Iran wouldn’t agree to that now, but perhaps it would had if we’d bombed its oil-delivery facilities on Kharg Island. I don’t think that Obama’s nuclear agreement was so great: how else would Iran have so much uranium enriched to 60%—far above what is needed for peaceful uses? Iran has lied about its goals and amount of enriched uranium, and it will lie again.
When The New York Times announced that columnist Nick Kristof would return following a scuttled 2021 bid for governor of Oregon, the paper made a promise to readers.
In a response to questions about Kristof’s return from Rolling Stone in 2022, the Times said that Kristof would refrain from writing about the financial supporters of his campaign, or would disclose those connections in his journalism.
But in at least a dozen instances since then, Kristof failed to make those disclosures. And after an inquiry from Semafor, the Times is reviewing his work.
“Previous political donations made by some people Nick Kristof mentioned in his columns should have been made more clear to readers,” Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said in an email. “Editors from Times Opinion are reviewing these articles to determine further clarifications for readers.”
In a series of pieces between 2022 and 2025, Kristof wrote favorably about Bill Gates and his nonprofit. In one case, he touted Gates’ plan for fighting global hunger. In others he cited statistics from Gates’ foundation, as well as his predictions on gene editing and his recommendation of an author. Kristof made no mention of the fact that Bill and Melinda French Gates had donated a combined $100,000 to his campaign for governor.
When Kristof mentioned Council on Foreign Relations member Deborah Fikes in a 2024 column about North Korea, he did not say that she had donated $10,000 to his political campaign.
In a 2023 column about India’s economic growth, Kristof quoted McKinsey Global Managing Partner Bob Sternfels without noting that Sternfels and his wife both donated a combined $5,000 to his campaign. And when he quoted the late Harvard professor Joseph Nye in two separate columns, in 2023 and 2024, he failed to note that Nye had donated $1,000.
When he decided to run for governor in 2021, Kristof put the Times in a somewhat unique position. It was uncommon, but not unheard of, for writers to leave mainstream journalism to pursue politics. It was more unusual for someone to try and return to the paper.
But Kristof’s path is an increasingly common one, as news media continues to polarize into political and ideological camps and as modern campaigns favor candidates skilled in capturing and maintaining attention.
But the site, Semafor, which looks pretty good vis-à-vis journalistic rigor, also looked for dissent and has editorial comments after it:
In an email to Semafor, Patrick Lee Plaisance, a professor in ethics at Penn State, told Semafor that Kristof’s quotes of various campaign donors did not necessitate disclosure, noting that there was no quid pro quo for coverage, regardless of the Times’ disclosure promise. He noted that in many of the examples reported here, Kristof was quoting high-profile public figures or subject matter experts who were “simply allowed to comment on the topic that [Kristof] is addressing.”
“While quoting a donor five years after your campaign ended may be grist for the conspiracy-minded, it is hard for me to see the substantive interests that are in conflict here,” Plaisance said. “Unless there is other evidence … that would revive a conflict concern.”
Still, if this was no big deal, why did the NYT spokesperson say that the paper should have admitted the connections and why is it reviewing his other articles? Anyway, I still think they should dump the guy, for his transgressions were far more serious than those of, say, James Bennet.
*Although I have a love/hate relationship with The Free Press (too little news, and a slight right-wing slant), it does seem to be getting better in that it’s covering the important stories more regularly. And it’s improving more now as they’ve just taken on Douglas Murray as a regular columnist (he’s previously published the “Things Worth Remembering” column from time to time. Murray is a conservative, but he’s also smart, well-read, eloquent and pro-Israel (his Munk debate with Natasha Hausdorff is a classic), and one of the few journalists willing to publicly bring up the possibility of high immigration to Europe eroding Western culture. At any rate, I look forward to reading him and here’s some of his self-introduction:
. . . four years ago I was already writing several political columns a week for other publications and wasn’t sure I had another one in me. Bari suggested I write one on topics far afield of politics. She proposed the idea of the Things Worth Remembering column—a series of short essays, each on a single text, that capture eternal values and insights.
Of all the columns I have written in the past 25 years, few have given me greater pleasure to write. The response of Free Press readers moved me deeply and—not for the first time—proved that Bari was onto something. For the two years that I wrote that column, I felt like I was in a wonderful, enthusiastic, deep dialogue with readers.
But then other things—principally wars—got in the way. I remained a very occasional contributor to The Free Press. Yet I remained an avid reader and admirer of this amazing, growing publication. And I never drifted far from the FP family. One of the highlights of my past year was coming onstage in New York at a live event to introduce Coleman Hughes (who was on the trombone) and Justice Amy Coney Barrett (who was not).
Now I find myself in the very happy position of being asked to return to The Free Press as a regular columnist on the broadest possible range of topics. Nothing could excite me more.
That’s because the assault on Western values has become even more withering in the past several years. Internal critics in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and across Europe threaten to dismantle the systems that created mass prosperity, and suppress the teaching of history in favor of new ideological fashions. External enemies in the Middle East, Asia, and around the world seek to wear down opposition to their oppressive social systems, and expand their own influence throughout the free world.
The breadth and depth of issues that The Free Press covers is something that most writers dream of being a part of. And so I am thrilled to rejoin the growing bank of writers who include many—even most—of the writers that I most admire. Back here, I hope to inform readers about world events and stay in the fight for the values we share.
A lot is going to happen in the coming years. I couldn’t be happier to be back at The Free Press and am ready to go through them with all of you.
Yep, he’s a conservative, but where would we be if we read only those writerad and those arguments were already congenial to our views and those of our tribe?
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej are lost in memory, for it was a year ago today that Malgorzata died.
Hili: The roses were blooming a year ago, too.
Andrzej: Yes, I was thinking about that today as well.
In Polish:
Hili: Rok temu też kwitły róże.
Ja: Tak też o tym dziś myślałem.
Masih is quiet; I expect she’s stunned at the U.S. peace deal with Iran, which leaves the Iranian people out in the cold. So here’s one from Luana:
“I’m gonna be the dirtiest doctor ever. I’m gonna poison them slowly.” – Ahmet Kerem Korkaya, a Turkish medical student who researched breast cancer and immunology.
Two from my feed. First, “Beat it” played on medieval instruments. I’ll give the English translation:
🇫🇷🎻🏰 INSOLITE | Ce groupe normand de musique médiévale reprend « Beat It » de Michael Jackson avec des instruments d’époque. Le résultat est bluffant : on a l’impression d’entendre un tube joué dans une taverne du XIVe siècle. 😂
The English translation: “A bird that skillfully strips the main veins from leaves needed for nest-building and stores them in its tail to carry them back.” I love the tail tucking!
And a walk down the mountain (there are three other posts linked to this one):
We got the funicular up to Sunnegga from Zermatt then walked for around 4 hours and eventually descended to Riffelalp railway station. Here are the trains, with pics of walk in linked posts.
Today’s plant photos come from Rik Gern of Austin, Texas. Rik’s captions and IDs are indented and, as always, you can click on the photos to enlarge them.
Here are a few odds and ends from around my neighborhood for you.
When it’s the leaves fill out in the Summertime the Chinaberry Tree (Melia Azedarach) is pretty nondescript, but in the Winter when all that’s visible are the branches and berries, it is interesting and looks like it could have been designed by Dr. Seuss. The Chinaberry Tree is an introduced species, but is quite popular in this area:
The berries look like small wrinkled white grapes, but are hard as stones:
Here is another picture of the full tree, this time in black and white:
Another introduced species, originally from the Mediterranean, Rue (Ruta graveolens) is very popular with home gardeners:
Goldshower (Galphimia Glauca) hails from neighboring Mexico, but does quite well in the region:
This scrappy little plant is indigenous. It’s called a Silverleaf Nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) due to the color of its flower, but I didn’t get to see it in bloom:
Here it looks like a tomato from a tough neighborhood, but it’s apparently more closely related to the potato:
The last image is a distortion of Chinaberry branches and berries. The clusters of berries made me think of the tinker-toy like models of chemical structures that you used to see in chemistry class, and that got me to thinking of DNA and all the plasticity of expression it allows for. Since this ended up with a vaguely Art Nouveau feel, I’m calling it DNA Nouveau:
Welcome to the Cruelest Day, a Tuesday, and June 16 to be exact. It’s also National Cannoli Day, which brings to mind this scene from “The Godfather”. The original script called for Clemenza (Richard Castellano) to say just, “Leave the gun.” But Castellano ad-libbed an addition, “Take the cannoli,” which Coppola decided to keep. It’s one of the most famous lines in the trio of movies.
And it’s Bloomsday, commemorating the day in 1904, when, in Joyce’s novel Ulysses, Leopold Bloom wanders around Dublin, Ireland, emitting his inner monologue. Why this day? As Wikipedia notes, “Joyce chose to set his novel on this date as it was the date of his first sexual encounter with his wife-to-be, Nora Barnacle.” Since October 7 I’ve been surprised at how antisemitic Ireland has become (or, I guess, always was); my impression is that it’s the most antisemitic country in Western Europe. The WSJ, in an op-ed inspired by Bloomsday, “Ireland’s spiral of antisemitism,” calls this to our notice (h/t Bat):
Ireland is preparing for Bloomsday, the annual celebration of James Joyce’s “Ulysses” and the day—June 16, 1904—that the novel’s hero, Leopold Bloom, spends wandering Dublin.
Published in 1922, “Ulysses” is celebrated for its revolutionary stream-of-consciousness style and its portrait of modern alienation. For years I thought Joyce had made an oddly prosaic choice in Bloom: a lower-middle-class Dubliner stalled in his career and trapped in an unhappy marriage.
But Joyce chose perfectly. Bloom is an Irish Jew. As he moves through the city, he endures not only the private pain of his wife’s unfaithfulness but the casual, corrosive antisemitism of his fellow citizens.
Growing up in late-20th-century Ireland, I saw no such prejudice and assumed Joyce had exaggerated the past for dramatic effect. But recent events have shown how well Joyce understood his country—and how prescient he was about its future. The Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, lifted the veil. Ireland, once famed as the land of a thousand welcomes, has become, almost overnight, a cold house for Jews.
. . .Meanwhile Ireland’s political class has grown incandescent at the prospect of the Irish national soccer team playing Israel in Dublin in October. Amid threats of protests and concerns about violence, there were calls to cancel the match—even though it would harm the Irish team’s international standing. Such was the anger about the possibility of Israelis and their fans being in Dublin that the game will be moved to a different country and played without spectators.
Ireland hasn’t progressed since Joyce wrote “Ulysses.” It has regressed. In the conservative deeply Catholic Ireland of 100 years ago, Leopold Bloom was insulted and threatened, but Jews could at least still freely wander the streets of Dublin. In the Ireland of 2026, he would be advised not to try.
I’ve pointed this out several times, got pushback from at least one Irish person, but I think that I (and Irish author Phelim McAleer) am right.
I have a time-consuming podcast today that won’t be broadcast until next year, but that means that my preparations for Hili tomorrow will be thin, as will ancillary posts today. Bear with me; I do my best.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the June 16 Wikipedia page.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a defiant address to Israelis, suggested on Monday that he did not feel bound by the newly reached cease-fire agreement between the United States and Iran.
“The struggle has not ended,” Mr. Netanyahu declared.
Foreshadowing potential trouble for the peace deal, he said he had no intention of withdrawing his forces from neighboring Lebanon — a key demand of the Iranians during negotiations with the United States. Israeli soldiers there are fighting Hezbollah, a militant group allied with Iran.
In March, soon after the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran began, Hezbollah began firing on Israel in a show of solidarity with the Iranians.
Trump cannot force Israel to stop defending itself just so he can have his peace deal. This is an existential crisis for those in Lebanon (Hezbollah’s rockets can hit Tel Aviv), and if there is to be a peace deal involving Israel, it would involve an unbreakable stipulation that Hezbollah disarm and disband. The NYT morning newsletter adds this:
If [the war with Iran] is ending, it will be without any of the results President Trump was looking for when he started it: the destruction of Iran’s ability to wage war; the crushing of its nuclear ambitions; the end of its theocratic leadership; and the liberation of its people.
*Footy: In another upset, the tiny island nation of Cape Verde (population ∼530,000) forced Spain, a favorite (and population about 50 million), to a 0-0 draw in the World Cup. The 40-year-old goalkeeper was terrific, making save after save in a game that was largely defensive for Cape Verde.
Wow, just wow. At 1.57pm Atlanta time, 3,291 miles from home, the final whistle went on Cape Verde’s first game in a World Cup finals tournament – and they had only gone and done it.
What they had done was madness: a tiny nation, a debutant, had held one of the favourites, Spain, the European champions, to a 0-0 draw. Bubista, the coach who had led them here, had said he wanted the world to see who and what they are – and, boy, did they see. Qualification, he had insisted, was more than football, it was music, it was culture, it was everything. So what was this? This was wonderful. What a moment and what a noise greeted the moment when the impossible had become real.
An Atlantic archipelago of 600,000 people. A Shamrock Rovers centre back from Crumlin, Dublin, learning Creole and found on LinkedIn. A 40-year-old goalkeeper from Portugal’s second division, another Josimar leaving his mark on the history of this competition and a million minds, left in tears at the end and to be talked about for generations. All of them, each and every one. They had come to the US, faced Spain, and resisted them, their bodies on the line and their hearts on their sleeves. Even the introduction of Lamine Yamal, the teenaged icon cast as Spain’s saviour, couldn’t defeat them.
The United States and Iran signed a framework agreement for peace on Monday, as oil prices tumbled, fighting in Lebanon appeared to ease and Iranians expressed wary relief that a conflict that has killed thousands could soon end.
The actual text of the agreement was not published by either side. Since the war’s start on Feb. 28, it has not produced the results President Trump vowed to achieve: destroying Iran’s military capabilities, abolishing its nuclear ambitions, toppling its theocratic leadership or liberating its people.
President Trump said the deal would restart safe passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital conduit for world’s energy supplies, solving one problem created by the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. Returning to the prewar status, when the strait was open to shipping, could relieve Americans of soaring gas prices, a political liability for Mr. Trump, but experts say it will take months. A similarly long process could begin of healing for Iran’s economy.
Mr. Trump previously said the deal meant the strait would be “permanently toll-free.” But the Iranian foreign ministry’s spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, suggested on Monday that Iran could charge fees “in exchange for the services that are provided” on ships transiting the strait.
Pakistan, which has been mediating talks between Washington and Tehran, said a ceremonial in-person signing of the agreement would take place in Geneva on Friday. After that, a 60-day period of negotiations toward a more comprehensive peace agreement would begin.
The deal could still come apart, and the talks are likely to be complex.
Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, said on Monday that negotiations will grapple with two issues on which neither side has shown much willingness to compromise: easing American economic sanctions against Iran and limiting Tehran’s nuclear program. And they will be made more difficult, he said, by “a history of broken promises.”
. . .It was also unclear what the deal would mean for Lebanon, where the Israeli military has been attacking the Iran-backed militant group, Hezbollah. Iran and Pakistan, a mediator in the negotiations, said the agreement called for an immediate end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.
Israel and Hezbollah appeared to scale back their fighting in southern Lebanon on Monday. In a statement, Hezbollah congratulated Iran for what it described as the “major achievement” of securing a “comprehensive cease-fire on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Yet Israel’s defense minister, Israel Katz, said in a statement that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed withdrawing Israeli troops from Lebanon. Israel was not directly involved in the U.S.-Iran talks.
I’ve put the key sentence in bold. Can anyone disagree with that? It’s dispiriting (see next item)
*Over at It’s Noon in Israel, Amit Segal calls the agreement between the U.S. and Iran “Total surrender“:
It begins with an immediate, multi-front ceasefire—including Lebanon—and the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports in exchange for Iran “opening” the Strait of Hormuz. Iran is demanding an initial payment of $12 billion before the strait is opened, and is unlikely to be denied, judging by the hunger for a deal in Trump’s eyes.
A significant ambiguity remains over the strait, however. While Trump claims the opening will be “toll-free,” Iranian officials have previously indicated they may still impose fees or retain regulatory control—effectively securing a major Iranian war aim, with American assent lending it legitimacy. The deal also stipulates that within 60 days of its scheduled June 19 signing in Geneva, the two nations will begin follow-on talks addressing the termination of all U.S. sanctions, the nuclear issue and Iran’s economic reconstruction.
The framework appears to diverge significantly from earlier U.S. positions. Trump, who once insisted on the destruction of all Iranian nuclear facilities and zero uranium enrichment, told The New York Times that Iran would now be permitted low-level enrichment—meaning “zero enrichment” will not even be making it to the negotiating table. The IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency, for its part, framed the deal as a “tactical pause in the war rather than a final settlement,” warning that “many more concessions would be needed” for any future agreement and that Iran’s experience with U.S. bad faith makes one “unlikely.” Tehran is giving little ground elsewhere too: against the U.S. demand for a 20-year enrichment ban, it is countering with a mere five-year pause, and it is maneuvering to unlock at least some of its frozen assets early in the MOU process—easing U.S. leverage and securing vital economic relief before the core nuclear negotiations even begin.
Trump has declared that should those negotiations fail, the U.S. would return to war—which deserves to be taken as seriously as every other time he’s said it in the last 68 days.
So, to summarize: Iran gets its ports unblocked, sanctions relief and de facto recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz—in exchange for complying with the original ceasefire, restoring freedom of commerce and ceasing its random acts of violence. In the nuclear negotiations to follow, it will not be required to halt its program completely; only lower its enrichment, and only for somewhere between five years and, at the very most, twenty.
The American position in a word: surrender.
Yep. We’ll see about Hezbollah and Iran later, but now that Trump is proclaiming peace, I can’t see him restarting attacks on Iran. Here’s the Washington Post‘s headline:
*I saw this on Facebook, and, checking it out, found out it’s true (“SJP is the odious organization Students for Justice in Palestine”). Smith College is a tony, high-class women’s college in Massachusetts. (Click screenshot to go to the post if you want, but there’s nothing save comments.)
A monthslong push by Students for Justice in Palestine to persuade Smith College to divest from weapons manufacturers tied to Israel ended last week when a trustee advisory committee voted to reject the proposal.
The proposal, titled “Ethical Investment Policy & Procedure Request,” was put forth by SJP and its sister organization, Alumni for Justice in Palestine (AJP), and called for the college to cut financial ties with weapons companies, military contractors and other corporations that aid in the assault on Gaza.
“I can’t think why a liberal arts institution like Smith College, founded on lofty ideas and now committed to such noble aims as equity, inclusion, diversity and excellence, would want to be invested in weapons or technologies of war, genocide and environmental devastation,” said Katherine Sullivan, a member of the Class of 1975. “Let’s put our money where our mouths are. Let’s invest in green technologies, innovative health and medical initiatives and other activities that benefit humankind. Let’s be a light in this dark world.”
SJP argued that its proposal is meant to align the college’s financial investments with its historic track record for standing with human rights, comparing the proposed divestment from Israel to the college’s 1986 divestment from the South African apartheid. However, the college’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility (ACIR), in its written response to the student activist organizations, cites a misalignment between the proposal and the college’s mission statement as a reason for the proposal’s rejection.
“After careful and exhaustive review, the ACIR concluded that the proposal does not fully satisfy the criteria required to recommend further consideration or action by the Investment Committee,” the committee wrote. “Specifically, the proposal lacks mission alignment, societal impact, and community consensus. There is also concern that it would have a negative financial impact, limiting the ability of the endowment to support the college’s mission and conflicting with the trustees’ fiduciary responsibility.”
The first comment on the post is “A Women’s college with balls.” Note that SJP is also associated with the walkout below. Note, too, that they’re citing the “assault on Gaza,” which was actually a defense of Israel against an assault on Israel by Hamas. But nobody seems to remember that, and they still throw around the word “genocide,” which characterizes not Israel, but Hamas.
A similar proposal, also by SJP, was submitted to Smith in late 2023 and was rejected by Smith for similar reasons in Spring, 2024. Divestment is one of the only weapons remaining for SJP (who I suspect is funded by terrorist-linked organizations), for they surely did not fulfill their from-the-river-to-the-sea mantra.
*The daily antisemitic news (h/t Luana): Stanford students walked out of their graduation when Google’s CEO got up to speak. Why? Because of Google’s ties to Israel, and also to ICE. And again behind the walkout is Students for Justice in Palestine, who have accomplished nothing politically except rile up a bunch of college students.
Numerous Stanford University students reportedly walked out of their graduation ceremony as Google CEO Sundar Pichai took the stage to deliver a keynote address.
Around 200 students walked out as Pichai took the stage during Sunday’s event, SFGate reported.
The walkout was organized by Students for Justice in Palestine and other groups to protest Google’s ties to Israel, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other companies. Videos posted on social media showed some of the students walking out were carrying Palestinian flags, while others displayed banners reading “Genocide Runs on Google” and “ICE spies with Google AI.”
“Pichai was met with the sight of hundreds of students who showed they could not be allured anymore with the talk of a dollar or rapidly expanding AI. We know about the crimes of Google in collaborating with Israel, ICE, and companies like Palantir,” the Stanford chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a pro-Palestinian student organization. said on Instagram, alongside clips of the walkout.
“Nothing that was done today could have been done without the students, faculty, and community members who spread the word and who showed up. We congratulate the graduates as they continue on to their next step beyond Stanford. To the graduates of today who joined us. May your future steps to the future continue to be guided towards doing whats right.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters have criticized the deal Google has with the Israeli government and military, under “Project Nimbus,” to provide cloud computing and AI services.
The $1.2 billion contract was signed in 2021, when Israel first tested out its in-house AI-powered targeting systems.
Google has repeatedly denied that its technology would play a role in Israel’s war in Gaza, saying in a statement that the contract “is not directed at highly sensitive, classified, or military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services.”
That doesn’t matter, for what the students really object to is any partnership with Israel. And did Pichai say anything about Israel? Nope. Again, that doesn’t matter:
Pichai’s remarks drew from his own life experiences as he urged students to focus on optimism, tackling difficult challenges, and pursuing what excites them.
“You have thousands of moments ahead of you. The important thing isn’t to get them all right; it’s to find a way to keep moving forward,” he said.
“You already have the California optimism to see life’s golden hills, and a Stanford diploma proving you can do hard things. Now, go out and set your heart ablaze!”
As you can see above and in the video below (you need only watch the first two minutes), it’s an anodyne rah-rah-go-get-them address. He said nothing about Israel or ICE.
Scientists have unearthed communities of marine life — including jellyfish, tubeworms and brittle stars — thriving on a millions-year-old whale graveyard.
These graveyards form when whale carcasses fall to the sea floor, becoming a sustaining snack for nearby critters. This one, located up to 23,000 feet (7 kilometers) below the surface of the southeastern Indian Ocean, spans the largest area and is so far the deepest and oldest found.
A whale’s sheer size and the unique chemistry of its bones are the keys to forming these unique underwater neighborhoods, said Xikun Song, a biologist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Deep-sea Science and Engineering.
“At the same time, the very nature of the deep ocean makes these sites exceptionally difficult for scientists to locate,” Song, who was involved with the latest find, wrote in an email.
Researchers explored the remains during multiple deep-sea submersible trips in 2023, collecting samples and mapping the extent of the necropolis. They found five carcass sites and fossils, including skulls belonging to beaked and baleen whales. The oldest bones date back 5.3 million years.
Feeding and living on the carcasses were myriad creatures, large and small, including sea cucumbers, squat lobsters and saltwater clams. Many of them are likely species that have never been documented, according to findings published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
“The potential number of specimens is just astounding,” said paleontologist Stephen Godfrey with the Calvert Marine Museum in Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the research.
Many factors likely conspired to preserve the bones for millions of years, according to the study authors. They’re dense enough to outlast attacks from bone-eating worms, and located deep enough in the ocean to avoid getting buried by dust and loose particles. The bones also were coated with a light layer of minerals from the surrounding seawater, which may have prevented them from degrading.
Why did so many whales die here? Maybe they were already living in the area and died of natural causes. A few could have perished from exhaustion or illness caused by deep-sea diving. The area’s shape, akin to the letter V, could also have funneled the remains to their resting spot, the authors wrote.
Here’s a video:
I sometimes wonder about the death of large marine mammals. Does a whale die while swimming, and suddenly sink to the bottom? Or, moribund, does it go to the bottom first, and then die?
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej again evinces wisdom:
Hili: The past doesn’t come back. Andrzej: It returns in our memories, sometimes with pain, sometimes with a smile.
In Polish:
Hili: Przeszłość nie wraca.
Ja: Wraca w pamięci, czasem boli, czasem przywołuje uśmiech.
Julián Quiñones and Raúl Jiménez may have scored the goals, but a duck stole the show.
As Mexico celebrated its World Cup-opening victory over South Africa on Thursday, Merlin, a 2-year-old duck dressed in the national team’s colors, became an unlikely internet sensation and the tournament’s first unofficial mascot.
Images of Merlin parading through Mexico City, wearing a Mexican national team jersey — and socks — as thousands of fans celebrated, quickly went viral, racking up millions of views across social media. Overnight, and as if by the magic of the famous wizard who inspired his name, Merlin had captivated the internet.
Masih is quiet, probably distressed at the so-called peace deal, but we have Emma Hilton talking about SRY, a condition in which a person has a 46 + XY karyotype or somehow has acquired in an XX background the SRY gene that kicks off the male-characteristic determining pathway—but that SRY gene isn’t active. This results in a female appearance but usually an inability to reproduce because of gonadal dysgenesis. Emma is working on developing a quick lab test to detect whether there’s an SRY gene, which is nearly always an indication of biological maleness, and such a test would be useful in, say, the Olympics:
I’m going to unpack some of this.
1. The premise that women are unknowingly carting around a Y (with SRY) is massively over exaggerated. The risk of Surprise SRY is minimal.
2. The risk of Surprise SRY is, however, non-zero. But in reproductively healthy women who have had… https://t.co/SGYIYdClrL
From Luana. As the tweet says, the minimum wage in California was raised; it went up 25% from $16 per hour to $20 per hour.
McDonald’s announced they’re replacing cashiers with kiosks in California just after the $20 minimum wage kicked in. Shocking to absolutely no one who understands basic economics. When you artificially price labor above its market value, employers find substitutes. Machines,… pic.twitter.com/Hia8p8Tzj4
“Fat Studies” is not a pejorative term, but rather an activist branch of academia with an agenda, including the claim that being fat is not unhealthy, and is a sign of oppression by the weight-deprived. Particularly disturbing—and detrimental to health—is the persistent assertion that fatness (or whatever you want to call obesity) is not injurious to health.”Healthy at all sizes” is the mantra.
But a gazillion medical studies show that this is an arrant lie. Now it’s not good to point out to someone that they’re fat, for, as Grania once told me when she was alive, that is a thoughtless, hurtful, and even useless remark. “Fat people,” she said, “know that they’re fat.” There should be no social stigma attached to the condition. But neither should we silently accept assertions that fatness is not harmful to health. For lives can be saved by pointing out the dangers. Stigmas are one thing, empirical distortions another.
There’s a Wikipedia article about the “Fat acceptance movement,” which it also calls “fat pride, fat empowerment, fat liberation, and fat activism.” And Fat Studies even has its own eponymous academic journal. It’s an open-access journal, and you can see the latest issue here. Scanning the articles, you immediately see the field’s ideological bent. These are simply the first five articles I saw, and they’re not just about fatness, but, vis-à-vis intersectionality, also connect fatness to all other purported forms of oppression (note the use of “playful” and non-standard language, a characteristic of postmodernist writing):
Luana Maroja has been fascinated by this field, I suppose because of its plethora of antiscientific assertions. She recently went to two lectures at the school where she teaches, Williams College, and wrote about them in the article below, just published on the Heterodox STEM site. Click the screenshot to read for free, or find the article archived here. It’s written in an objective, reportorial fashion, but what she heard was appalling.
I’ll reproduce a couple of excerpts below (indented):
Public confidence in higher education has dropped sharply in recent years. The main contributors appear to be a lack of ideological diversity in colleges and universities, constraints on open inquiry, and the erosion of empirical standards in parts of the academy. Here I describe two college-sponsored events dealing with “fat studies”—one in late 2024 and another in April 2026—which I attended out of simple curiosity about this academic discipline. Here is an account of the claims made at these events taken from my notes.
Lecture 1:
My biology and pre-med students were particularly intrigued by a Gender Studies talk that promised to “interrogate the false association between fat and unhealthiness” (see workshop description below). Being new to “fat studies,” I was curious to see more about this claim. Two years later, I decided to attend a second event, wondering whether the messaging had shifted in the age of Ozempic and following the 2024 elections. What I encountered may sound satirical, but it was not. The speakers were dead serious. I have kept the speakers’ names private; my aim is not to mock individuals but rather to show the persistence of anti-scientific perspectives in this field at my college. Both cases exemplify the ideological erosion of science that has led Americans to lose confidence in their colleges and universities.
. . .The event opened with identity: the speaker stated that she identified as “fat, white, and used they/them pronouns.” I learned that “obese,” “BMI,” and “weight” are seen as pejorative terms that should never be used. She added that it was bigoted to suggest that obesity is mainly a lower-socioeconomic-class issue tied to the inability to afford healthy food. This view, we were told, wrongly assumes that the foods fat people eat are unhealthy and that being fat is bad. We were then asked to “pair-share” with colleagues in the room, about our emotions and body image and recount when we first developed the idea that being fat is bad.
The speaker next wrote down the roots of “fatphobia” on the board (see figure below). Body mass index (BMI), she said, was invented to discriminate against fat people, and its origins lie in capitalism. White people were blamed for creating the notion that “whites are thin” as a way of oppressing black people. Medicine was described as another culprit: there is no such thing, we were told, as a “healthy diet.” Instead, “a healthy diet is what you like to eat.” Further, children were described as having an innate ability to sense how much food and what kind of food they need. The research on whether processed foods affect health was described as unclear. What ultimately harms fat people, the speaker claimed, is oppression and dieting. Anti-fatness, we learned, goes hand in hand with every other system of oppression: “Whenever we are talking about anti-fatness, we are also talking about white supremacy”.
The medical system was described as actively discriminatory: “When fat people come into the hospital with cancer, they are told to lose weight before being screened,” and waiting-room chairs are too small. These forms of discrimination, rather than physiology itself, were said to explain the observed correlations between fatness and health problems.
Here are some of the lies purveyed by the speaker, and the evasions they use when called out:
At this point people began asking questions. I inquired about animal studies: surely, fat rats do not die at higher rates because of fatphobia? The reply was nonsensical: “everyone knows fat is protective in rats.” A student noted the well-documented correlation between cardiovascular disease and fatness. The speaker asked for references. When he responded that there were thousands, she reminded the room that “correlation is not causation” and that people die from oppression and from being forced into diets.
. . . The speaker proceeded to write the word “Science” on the board under the heading “institutional problems.” She later stated that genetics, not food consumption, explains body weight: “People can be 15 pounds above or below their genetic makeup and no more or less.” This was another nonsensical idea, easily contradicted by looking at the recent past: just a couple generations ago people of every demographic group were skinnier than they are today, and the genetics of those groups could not have changed much in such a short time. The exchange illustrated how data-based questions were repositioned from a legitimate inquiry to an expression of overt bigotry.
A graph from Luana’s article (she made it) showing the rise in obesity over the last 35 years, which may reverse if Ozempic and other such drugs become prevalent. Note, though, that. as you see below, some Fat Studies people object strenuously to weight-loss drugs.
Oy! There’s more, including graphics and photos, but let’s move on to Lecture #2:
My second encounter with “fat-studies,” in April 2026, was a talk sponsored by the Dively Fund (created to support LGBTQ events, although the talk contained almost no LGBTQ content). It was billed as “A conversation on Blackness, Queerness, Gender, Fatness, Disabilities and Their Intersections.” Attendance here was higher—roughly 20 students plus three adults, myself included.
As before, I approached the talk with genuine curiosity; I wondered whether this corner of “studies” would adapt or remain unchanged in the era of Ozempic and recent shifts in public discussions of obesity.
Some of the speaker’s themes overlapped with those of the first event, including the claim that “good and healthy” food is simply whatever you like to eat. There was also a brief and negative reference to Ozempic: “GLP-1s are terrible because they make fat people appear suicidal for not wanting to lose weight.”
The rest of the talk took a very different direction. Because the content was somewhat disjointed, I will share some direct quotes. We were told that “fatness was invented to prepare individuals for war by the Nazis” (though the speaker later added that it was invented by the slave trade). “Body fascism is now practiced in France, USA, Israel and Britain.” “The ideal body is militarized to displace and violate black people.” “Fat fascism is about the subjugation of the slave and slave-adjacent (Palestinians).” “The Jewish body is imposed on Palestinians by starvation and the denial of junk food [which is the kind of food they would like to eat].” “This subjugation did not begin with Trump; it began with democracy and those elected to represent society.” Michelle Obama’s healthy-lunch initiatives were cited as a pre-Trump example. “Fatphobia is the making of the slave.” “Fatness has been projected onto African flesh.” “You are not men or women; you are just fat or thin in a ship hold” (referring to slave ships). “After Nazis, COVID, HIV, [and] slaves, one must prove they are fit and not crippled—this is how ableism started.” “Nationalists don’t believe cripples have the right to exist.” “Freedom requires the death of our desires.” “Our love keeps us in shackles. We need to divest from love to bring the revolution” (though the speaker added that his love for his people was too strong to relinquish).
Double oy!
Luana’s message is at the end:
When college-sponsored events list ‘Science’ itself as an institutional problem, they expose a deep split in how people view knowledge and truth—and in what these events are really selling. The talks confirmed this split: questions were met not with counter-evidence but with accusations of bigotry, rote reminders that ‘correlation is not causation,’ or outright commands to stop speaking—along with preposterous assertions that flouted basic standards of evidence. Such tactics do more than mislead audiences; by violating the very norms of reason and evidence that people have long accepted as good science, they accelerate the erosion of public trust in both science and higher education.
When people like (recently) the AAUP say that faculty should control the college curriculum, stuff like this calls that claim into doubt. “Academic freedom” does not give professors the right to purvey lies to students, especially lies that are harmful to one’s well-being. And believe me, this kind of stuff is not only the subject of academic journals, but has made its way into the classroom. Grok, in a half minute of trawling the internet, came up with at least six universities that have courses on Fat Studies, including Harvard University. Here’s one from Southern Oregon University(click screenshots to enlarge):
The intersectionality and postmodernism that pervade these courses are clear. “Fatness as a social justice issue”, “fat liberation,” and so on. As I said, Fat Studies courses can be useful if they trace historical oppression against obesity, and thereby help dispel social stigmas against fatness. But I’d bet a pile of dosh that these courses do a lot more than that!
Oh, and shame on Williams College and its Gender Studies program for promoting speakers who lie about science.
