Is indigenous science really science? (and its connection to AI)

November 13, 2026 • 10:36 am

Well, both of the world’s most prestigious science journals have gone off the rails, a fact confirmed again when I read the Science editorial and letter below on AI and indigenous science, which then led me to a Perspective in Nature on “two eyed seeing” in neuroscience. As you know, the two-eyed metaphor refers to the claimed salubrious effects of blending “indigenous science” with “Western science” (the latter is now known as “science”.)

The point of the Science editorial above is simply this: because indigenous knowledge (and I define “knowledge” as “justified true belief”) is not widely represented in publications or writings that can be accessed by AI, so it is not found very often in searches.  Thus, as Running Horse Collin says, there “cannot be an indigenous AI within the current AI framework.”

There are problems of translation, too:

Additionally, AI models would have to be trained in translating Indigenous science vocabulary between languages. This is not impossible, but Indigenous languages reflect multidimensional scientific principles and concepts and how they work together. Language and context would have to be translated into those of the linear world of Western science. That is not presently possible. Moreover, AI is trained to reference Western scientific data and concepts as the “control” for the interpretation of concepts. Thus, it would evaluate Indigenous concepts, data, and frameworks against Western methodologies to determine validity, accuracy, or meaning.

Finally, the biggest problem is one that reflects how modern science’s “ways of knowing” aren’t the same as indigenous “ways of knowing.” This is a problem that I’ve discussed extensively with reference to Mātauranga Māori (henceforth “MM”), the Māori “way of knowing” that is the subject of a battle in New Zealand about what counts as science. From the paper above:

The major, overarching problem is that in Western science, the purpose of research is to obtain and convey information, whereas in Indigenous science, information must come with a purpose. Within the Lakota scientific system, for example, the point of conducting innovation, experiments, or research must align with ethics and the foundational scientific purpose, which is to preserve all life and work within it. This is a very different way to understand the acquisition, protection, and use of knowledge. In its current form and design, AI is effectively the outcome of multiple permutations of statistical calculations conveying statistically weighted output and trained to generate practical outcomes. However, within Indigenous scientific systems, there is no “right answer” without an initial, ethically aligned purpose and process. Therefore, “what is the point” is the point.

There’s more to indigenous “ways of knowing” than just obtaining knowledge under an ethical system, though. As in MM, indigenous “science” nearly always incorporates things that modern science—it’s called “Western science” in the article—doesn’t deal with qua science. These are things like ethics, religious codes, spiritual matters (as in spiritual healing), folklore, tradition, and so on.

I’m not denying that indigenous people can acquire knowledge through trial and error, as they have with navigation in Polynesia or growing mussels in New Zealand.  Nor do I deny that these observations can lead to substantial medical or scientific advances.  Three examples are the use of willow bark to relieve pain (leading to the development of aspirin), the use of cinchona bark to relieve fevers (leading to the development of quinine to mitigate malarial symptoms), and the use of plant-derived curare as arrow poison (leading to advances in anesthesia and muscle relaxants). These all came from knowledge acquired by indigenous (or pre-Caucasion) people.

But it’s not just “colonized” and oppressed people (a theme of all three documents) who have folk wisdom.  Remember that the development of the smallpox vaccine by Jenner was prompted by the observation that English milkmaids who had gotten cowpox were immune to smallpox. This led to Edward Jenner’s development of a smallpox vaccine (the first vaccine ever) and the rise of immunology.  But Jenner was successful because he tested the folk observations using methods now more refined in modern science: hypothesis testing and repeated observations with the subjects being blinded.

The point I want to make here is that folk observations can be a foundation for modern science, or even be incorporated into modern science. But they only become part of modern science when they are tested. Jenner published his repeated tests on the vaccine in 1798, and the use of salicylic acid and quinine were isolated, tested and reported on in the mid-18th century.  That is when the scientific advances occurred, although again, they were derived from folk observations.

But remember that there are many parts of indigenous “ways of knowing” that do not comprise knowledge in the modern scientific sense. There are many herbal cures that don’t work, and don’t forget all the ineffective spiritual cures that are part of MM and other indigenous “systems of knowledge”.  There is a well-funded branch of the NIH, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, that has tested folk and indigenous remedies using modern blind controlled trials. Almost without exception, “folk wisdom” was not substantiated scientifically.  A few examples are given in the linked 2009 article:

Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do.

Echinacea for colds. Ginkgo biloba for memory. Glucosamine and chondroitin for arthritis. Black cohosh for menopausal hot flashes. Saw palmetto for prostate problems. Shark cartilage for cancer. All proved no better than dummy pills in big studies funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The lone exception: ginger capsules may help chemotherapy nausea.

As for therapies, acupuncture has been shown to help certain conditions, and yoga, massage, meditation and other relaxation methods may relieve symptoms like pain, anxiety and fatigue.

However, the government also is funding studies of purported energy fields, distance healing and other approaches that have little if any biological plausibility or scientific evidence.

The point is not to denigrate indigenous knowledge, but to show that any folk “knowledge” not tested with the methods of modern science cannot be regarded as “knowledge.”

And that brings me to the main point: there is not “indigenous science” and “Western science” that stand as separate entities, much less coequal entities. There is scientific knowledge and there are folk assertions, and that is all there is. It is telling that Running Horse Collin,  a member of the Oglala Lakota Nation, does not tell us what indigenous science comprises beyond pointing out its differences from “Western science” (see below)

And that is the second point: indigenous science is said to be different from “Western science” in ways that make the former, in several respects,  a complementary and salubrious way of knowing. That feeds into the metaphor of “two-eyed seeing”: the claim that you find out a lot more things if you simultaneously look at nature from the “Western” perspective and the indigenous perspective. Here is a figure from the Nature paper below implying a coequality (or at least a substantial contribution) of both eyes, even though in reality one eye sees a much wider landscape than the other:

Journey, communities and values through different lenses of priority. Illustration by Rudi Taylor-Bragge.

Another point: examples of major contributions to human knowledge made by indigenous groups are rarely given in papers touting “other ways of knowing”. The paper by Running Horse Collin is a case in point. She cites only one example (my bolding)

Yet, these differences do not mean that Indigenous knowledge is irrelevant to the problems that Western science addresses or immaterial to the development of robust AI models. For example, a recent study that explicitly integrated Indigenous science with Western scientific methods showed that the unhindered mobility of wildlife and ecological connectivity are vital for megafauna survival, a framework that could guide modern conservation.

Developing new, nonpolluting forms of AI with an aligned purpose for sustainability of all life within the relational frameworks of Indigenous knowledge could build a technology that serves the planet. Such a shift would reposition a future form of AI as a critical mechanism for the stewardship of all life on Earth.

What is the example? No citation was given, but I’d like to at least read about the contributions of both “ways of knowing”.

More: indigenous science’s contribution to knowledge rests on claims that it is more holistic, nonlinear, nonreductionist, and multidimensional than is modern science. But these differences are never explained. Here again from Running Horse Collin:

Indigenous science embodies knowledge and problem-solving methods developed over hundreds to thousands of years through experiential learning and long-term implementation. Information is tested and refined over generations, and knowledge is passed down and applied through strict protocol-based transfer processes. This system is also multidimensional in nature in that it acknowledges the existence of all parts of life and manages their interdependence, interrelation, and interconnection. In Lakota science, there are four parts—matter, energy, relationality, and a unifying life force—for which the reductionist approach of Western science, which breaks down complex systems into smaller parts for independent analysis, has limited application.
Today’s AI models are trained on Western scientific datasets and constructs that are consistent with the linearly recorded nature of Western science, mathematics, and technology. Thus, knowledge is framed chronologically within a single dimension, in contrast to knowledge that is framed relationally and multi-dimensionally.

I really don’t know what these claims means, save that the “four parts of Lakota science” sound awfully close to teleology or spirituality than to modern science.  And in what ways is modern science “unidimensional” or “linear” or “not interdependent on other relevant areas”, save that knowledge advances with time, experiment by experiment. Is that the much criticized linearity?

Yes, there is a difference between indigenous science and modern science, but I would claim that the difference rests on the toolkit of modern science that truly has led to development, refinement, and advances in knowledge: things like hypothesis testing, pervasive doubt, designed experiments and blind controlled trials, the use of statistical tests, and so on. Without these tools, folk “knowledge” is limited and stalled, and, indeed, I have seen no examples of a truly indigenous science.  Certainly MM is not one, and I doubt whether Lakota science is anything comparable to modern (“Western”) science.

Before I end, I want to critique two other claims often seen in articles like these:

a. Indigenous people own their “knowledge”, i.e., it is their right to determine what is done with it.  Here’s one quote from the letter of Velarde et al.:

We propose epistemic auditing as a practical step. Indigenous Peoples, exercising their right to self-determination and to maintain, control and protect their traditional knowledge (3), would co-create and audit AI models and outputs. This would retain and return wisdom to the interpretation of large datasets and counter the narrow perspectives of an AI built in a handful of knowledge-production hubs. As active partners in this context, Indigenous Peoples remain guardians of their lands, their knowledge, and data governance principles (4).

This is confusing. Surely the organic material or unpublished data used by non-indigenous people cannot be used without their permission. You can’t take blood from Native Americans for a scientific purpose without getting permission, using it only in the ways agreed on, and, when indigenous people make a substantive contribution to a research effort, make them coauthors on the resulting publications. But once indigenous people have published their data, it sits in the public domain and does not require permission to be used by anybody else. That is the way all science has worked and continues to work.  I am not a guardian of the data on speciation in Drosophila that I’ve produced. Publication is intended to advance science by allowing others to build on your results.

b. Indigenous people are invariably “wise stewards of their land”. This is simply untrue. The Māori, for example, not only caused extinction of every one of New Zealand’s moa species (and the predatory Hast’s eagle), but also burned off much more of the native forest than did British “colonizers”. I’ve given examples from the AI bot Grok below the fold, but here you see the claim from the Iles et al perspective in Nature:

Regardless of nomenclature, the impact of environmental despair for Indigenous people is compounded with historical transgenerational trauma. The harm faced by the anxiety around the helplessness for a situation is conversely at odds with Indigenous practices and ways of being. Indigenous cultures around the world are renowned for their respectful cohabitation with the land, not an exploitative one

That last statement is simply false; see the data below the fold. Of course some groups tied to one place try to conserve and preserve it, but that is not true of all “indigenous cultures around the world.” This is a misguided way to laud indigenous people.

***********

I conclude that these two articles and the letter below represent attempts to sacralize people seen as oppressed or colonized, done by trying to show that they have a form of science that is in any way comparable to modern science.  Yes, the Maori and the Lakota were treated badly by “colonists”, and may be even be due forms of reparation via educational outreach (but not with money). But we shouldn’t give those reparations via performative things like land acknowledgments or, in this case, pretenses about the “science” done by such groups.  We don’t need two-eyed seeing, but clear-eyed seeing.

Here’s the letter that directly follows the article above, and I’ve already quoted from it.

 

Three of the authors on the “eLtter” above are also authors on the Nature Perspective below (click to see an extract). To me it seems a long-winded attempt to show that neuroscience has been greatly enriched by infusions from indigenous cultures. But it seems more like an exercise in scientific anthropology or sociology than of science itself.  I showed it to U of C neuroscientist Peggy Mason. She pronounced it, without any input from me, as “intellectually empty” and “a word salad that has only the patina of neuroscience.”  (I quote her with permission.). But don’t rely on just our take: have a look for yourself if you can plow through it:

 

Click “continue reading” to find examples of indigenous people not being “wise stewards” of their habitat taken from Grok:

Continue reading “Is indigenous science really science? (and its connection to AI)” →

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ sodomy

November 13, 2026 • 8:15 am

Jesus and Mo appear in a “a light-hearted Friday Flashback from 12 years ago” called .”abhor”. It’s not really that light-hearted, though, for it implies that Jesus knows the taste of semen.”

The story about the fundamentalist preacher in Harlem is true, though:

Most infamous, however, were ATLAH Pastor James David Manning’s video sermons on Starbucks. First he claimed that Starbucks coffee shops are “ground zero for spreading Ebola and other diseases” because of the “upscale sodomites” who “exchange a lot of body fluids” there. Then, taking a satirical story seriously, he reported that Starbucks lattes are flavored with semen, and he suspected that “they’re getting their semen from sodomites.” is true, though.

Friday: Hili dialogue

November 13, 2026 • 6:45 am

Welcome to the butt end of the work week: it’s Friday, November 13. 2026 and it’s National Indian Pudding Day—my favorite indigenous American dessert. I have eaten many of these, mostly at the now-extinct Durgin Park Restaurant in Boston, but I’m told that the still extant Union Oyster House still has it. Here’s a description and a photo from Wikipedia (it’s basically a thick slurry of cornmeal, eggs, molasses, and milk with some spices).

Indian pudding is a traditional American dessert, “a cold-weather classic” in the cuisine of New England. It was commonplace in the colonial era and enjoyed a revival as part of Thanksgiving Day celebrations in the late 19th century. It was found in most American cookbooks before 1900. The 20th century’s commercial puddings with their industrially perfect smooth consistency displaced Indian pudding, and its cooking time had little appeal for the modern home cook. It is still associated with autumn holidays and occasionally revived by restaurants. It is usually served warm and sometimes accompanied by vanilla ice cream or whipped cream.

Yes, don’t forget the ice cream. The one below looks weird to me: it should be a uniform dark brown with no raisins or nuts.  You can find a good recipe here along with pmore accurate photos and tips as well as a section called “What makes Indian Pudding so incredible?” It is!.

Lahti213 (talk | contribs)

It’s also National Bread Pudding Day, which is also good, World Kindness Day, and Sadie Hawkins Day. the day in the Li’L Abner comic strip that goes like this (from Wikipedia):

In Li’l Abner, Sadie Hawkins was the daughter of Mayor Hekzebiah Hawkins, one of Dogpatch‘s earliest settlers and the “homeliest gal in all them hills”. She grew frantic waiting for suitors until she reached age 35 and was still a spinster, and her father was worried about her living at home for the rest of her life. In desperation, he called together all the unmarried men of Dogpatch and declared it “Sadie Hawkins Day”. A foot race was decreed with Sadie pursuing the town’s eligible bachelors. If Sadie caught one of them, he would be forced to marry her. She was specifically interested in a handsome boy named Adam who was already in a courtship with Theresa, whose father was the area’s largest potato farmer. Unlike Sadie, Theresa had a number of courtship offers.

As the event became a tradition in the comic strip, Capp added more story elements. Each year, the Sadie Hawkins storyline begins with a prophecy by Old Man Mose, who gives Li’l Abner a cryptic clue about the end of the storyline, which always comes true in a roundabout, surprising way. The storyline sometimes also includes the Sadie Hawkins Eve Dance which is held on the previous evening, when the young women wear hobnailed boots and stomp on their partners’ feet, to make the bachelors run slower during the event.

This storyline would never appear today, but I remember it from when I was a kid. Here’s a cover of the comic from The Pioneer; the original Sadie Hawkins is at the lower right.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the November 13 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*The NYT notes that 11 Democrats were absent during the vote on Pete Hegseth’s impeachment, and had they shown up but not many of the 7 missing Republicans did, then Hegseth would have been impeached (remember “impeachment” just means to bring charges; the trial is in the Senate, where the Democrats would lose.  This is causing recriminations in my party!

Democrats, fresh off their sweeping victories in last week’s elections, faced bitter criticism and recriminations on Wednesday from within their own ranks after 11 of their members missed a vote on the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The absences, which boosted Republicans’ successful effort to block the impeachment on Tuesday, cast a shadow over what was otherwise a triumphant week for Democrats that was supposed to be focused on savoring their electoral wins, welcoming new members and plotting out their agenda for when they take the helm of both chambers of Congress.

Instead, Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the No. 2 Democrat in charge of tracking votes among her members, began a closed-door party meeting on Wednesday morning scolding lawmakers who had been absent for the impeachment vote, as others chastised their colleagues in public.

“Show up and do your job,” Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, Democrat of Michigan, said bluntly on CNN Tuesday evening.

Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Democrat of California, appeared to be seething as she left the Capitol following the vote Tuesday night, telling the MeidasTouch Network that Democrats had squandered the opportunity to push the impeachment charges forward over Republican opposition. “People should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote,” she said.

. . .Eleven Democrats missed the vote, while seven Republicans did. Had all of those lawmakers voted along party lines, the G.O.P. effort to shelve the impeachment effort would still have succeeded.

Still, it was an embarrassing stumble that left many Democrats livid.

The New Republic names the missing Democrats, which include Nancy Pelosi:

  • Melanie Stansbury (New Mexico)
  • Marilyn Strickland (Washington)
  • Julia Brownley (California)
  • Lou Correa (California)
  • Laura Gillen (New York)
  • Steven Horsford (Nevada)
  • Jonathan Jackson (Illinois)
  • Nancy Pelosi (California)
  • Brittany Pettersen (Colorado)
  • Haley Stevens (Michigan)
  • Frederica Wilson (Florida)

So it goes. The Congress will get another chance to impeach Hegseth after January, and they’ll be in the majority. But the Senate will not vote to convict unless some Republicans join the Democrats, for it takes 67 votes (a 2/3 majority) to convict. The entire exercise will be futile.

*I’ve not written about Jensen Huang, the CEO of the chip company Nvidia, who was in trouble because he had two extramarital relationships, one with a Chinese woman accused of being a spy for China (they want our chip technology).  This story seemed a bit sordid, but the fact is that Nvidia is the second company in the world (after Apple). And now Huang has been ousted by Nvidia’s board. Although the headline says he was “ousted”, the text says he “resigned”. You know what that means: he was voted out but told he could save face.

Nvidia NVDA -4.54%decrease; red down pointing triangle Chief Executive Jensen Huang has resigned after two extramarital affairs, including one with a suspected Chinese spy and another with an employee.

The company said Thursday that finance chief Colette Kress had agreed to serve as interim CEO until a permanent successor is named. The board is starting a search for the company’s next CEO and will consider internal and external candidates.

Nvidia’s board also appointed longtime director Harvey C. Jones to become its first ever chair. Jones, a venture investor and chip-design executive, joined Nvidia’s board in 1993, the year the company was founded.

“I recognize that this has been an extraordinarily difficult period,” Kress wrote in an internal email to Nvidia staff seen by The Wall Street Journal. She promised employees more information in coming days about “our future together” and said she would host a company meeting on Nov. 18.

“We play a vital role in building the technology that is powering the AI revolution, and we have important work ahead of us,” Kress added.

. . . The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported that the board was preparing to oust Huang.

His exit brings down the curtain on an era during which he stoked the global artificial-intelligence boom and became a geopolitical star. It leaves one of the world’s most valuable companies in need of a new leader.

. . .The chipmaker’s importance to global customers made Huang a worldwide celebrity. He frequently met with top U.S. and Chinese officials, and was regularly mobbed by adoring fans when he visited Taiwan, his birthplace and the global manufacturing hub of the chip industry.

Then, on Sunday, Huang acknowledged in a letter to staff that he had been unfaithful to his wife and apologized for violating his family’s and his employees’ trust. That affair involved Alice Huang, an executive at the Singapore-based data company Megaspeed, which has been a major Nvidia customer and who U.S. intelligence officials believe is working for China’s intelligence services.

The Nvidia CEO also had an affair with Kimberly Powell, a senior executive at Nvidia who runs the company’s healthcare business, according to a person familiar with the matter. The New York Times earlier reported the second affair. Powell didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Alice Huang and the CEO have the same last names but aren’t related.  And while the company has the right to oust anyone who’s eroding its reputation, I wouldn’t have thought that adultery was a good reason. But it was adultery not only with someone accused of being a spy (there’s no proof of that yet), but also a work subordinate.  The problem is that there’s nobody at Nvidia ready to step into Huang’s shoes, and it will be very hard to find another CEO. So it goes.

*Just a few days ago Trump implied he was still negotiating with Iran over a cease-fire. Now he says that no more diplomacy is needed, but a tightening of the naval blockade and imposition of a land blockade to increase the economic strangulation of the country. But other countries in the Middle East don’t like that.

From the WaPo:

President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that he was dialing back diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict with Iran and ending a dealmaking effort by Vice President JD Vance in favor of leaving a naval blockade in place and continuing to pressure the Iranian economy.

Vance in recent days had started outreach to hard-liners in Tehran to explore the possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and impose limits on Iran’s nuclear program after more than eight months of war.

The war — and the jump in gas and food prices that has come with it — is deeply unpopular among U.S. voters, who delivered a historic defeat to Republicans in the midterm elections last week. The day after the election, Vance made an unusual public break with the president, writing that the war had been one of the causes of the election loss.

Vance’s outreach effort to Iran was one of the ways in which he was trying to resolve the war — and potentially rescue his chances of a successful 2028 presidential run.

“We don’t need a deal with Iran. Those days have long since passed. We’ve got their money, Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we’ve got their Strait!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday.

He said he was asking Vance to focus his attention elsewhere.

Vance isn’t going to like that. Trump’s still trying to financially squeeze Iran into a deal, but many of our “allies” in the Middle East aren’t on board. From the NYT:

The first step in the United States’ campaign to economically strangle Iran was a naval blockade of its ports, cutting off Iranian trade by sea. Next came a raft of new sanctions, grounding much of the country’s air transport network.

Now, the United States is going after Iran’s last economic artery: its land routes. Only there, Washington has hit upon a problem.

For weeks, U.S. officials have tried — and failed — to diplomatically pressure Iran’s neighbors into shuttering their border crossings, according to three Iraqi officials and one U.S. official with knowledge of the talks, who requested anonymity to speak candidly.

Those neighboring states, primarily Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, are increasingly wary and disgruntled by U.S. policies they say could hurt them as much as Tehran.

So, on Saturday, the U.S. military joined the effort, announcing Task Force Iron Gate, which it says will work on “preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials, and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea.”

It is unclear how the task force will operate in practice, and it is unusual for such an economic and security campaign to be run by U.S. Central Command, known as Centcom, which oversees military operations in the Middle East.

To me it looks like Trump has lost interest in the war, and that’s why he’s proclaiming in American victory. But it isn’t, and I still think we should continue going after Iran without committing ground troops. True, most Americans want us to surrender and stop fighting, but down the line I think they’ll regret it. And if Iran gets the bomb, well, they’ll have tremendous leverage and you can say goodbye to Israel.

*Believe it or not, homosexuality and lesbianism were crimes in Trinidad and Tobago—until this week, when a British court struck down that law. But similar laws remain in other Western countries:

A ruling by a British-based court has invalidated laws criminalizing homosexuality in Trinidad and Tobago, setting a precedent for those challenging similar laws in other nations in the Caribbean and possibly beyond.

The ruling was handed down on Tuesday by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which serves as the highest court of appeal for dozens of crown dependencies, overseas territories and former British colonies.

Five British judges unanimously upheld a 2018 decision by a lower court in Trinidad that had found two sections of the Caribbean country’s 1986 law targeting private, consensual same-sex relations to be unconstitutional. An appeals court in Trinidad had reversed the lower-court decision in 2025.

Trinidad’s attorney general had argued that the law preserved traditional family values in the country, and had leaned on a legal mechanism called “savings provisions,” which kept many laws from the British colonial era.

The decision delivered a hard-fought victory to advocates for L.G.B.T.Q. rights in Trinidad. Jason Jones, an L.G.B.T.Q. activist who had been a key plaintiff against the law since 2015, called the ruling a “vindication.” He said it would provide hope to young L.G.B.T.Q. people in his country who are living in fear of legal and societal discrimination.

Still, Mr. Jones noted ruefully, to challenge the colonial-era law, his lawyers had to seek intervention from a court based in Britain — decades after Trinidad gained independence, in 1962.

Why go to a British court if Trinidad was independent? The article explains:

During the colonial period, Britain imposed its system of laws across a global empire spanning nations in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia.

Many laws on the books in Trinidad and Tobago are left over from before the island nation of 1.5 million people left the British monarchy and became a republic in 1976. While laws criminalizing homosexuality in Trinidad stemmed from colonial-era legislation, they were amended to be even stricter in 1986.

One of the vestiges of the British Empire is the Privy Council, which serves as the court of last resort for some of those nations. Caribbean countries have the power to leave the Privy Council system, said Téa Braun, chief executive of Human Dignity Trust, an international legal organization focused on eradicating anti-L.G.B.T.Q. laws. And many have done so, moving to regional bodies like the Caribbean Court of Justice.

Although the Caribbean court is headquartered in Trinidad’s capital, Port of Spain, the country has not made it the final court of appeal. And Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has said she has no imminent plans to do so.

Oy!  One would think that an independent country would have its ultimate laws adjudicated by court within the country. No so here! The Trinidadian laws remain on the books, but are deemed  “void and unenforcable.” But laws like those remain in other Western countries:   the paper names Jamaica, Grenada, Guyana and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines . I doubt the laws are enforced there, either, but for the sake of human rights—the “optics”—they should be nullified as well.

*A newly-elected Congressman from Philadelphia has refused to comment on condemn last weekend’s antisemitic protests in his very district when bicyclists targeted six restaurants because they were Jewish. The Congressman, Chris Rabb, is, of course, a Democratic Socialist.

A bicycle protest in Philadelphia last weekend against several Jewish- and Israeli-owned businesses in the heart of Philadelphia set off a wave of condemnations from elected officials across the Keystone State — with some notable exceptions.

Most prominently, Rep.-elect Chris Rabb (D-PA), the Democratic Socialists of America member and state lawmaker who will represent the Philadelphia district where the protest took place, has not issued a statement or responded to numerous requests for comment from Jewish Insider throughout the week.

State Sen. Nikil Saval (D-PA), another DSA member who represents the district, had not publicly addressed the situation prior to initial publication of this piece but subsequently condemned it. But Rabb’s silence in particular has frustrated and disappointed members of Philadelphia’s Jewish community who had hoped for a better start to his relationship with his Jewish constituents, given that he has long been a vocal critic of Israel, and his candidacy raised concerns with members of the Jewish community.

Organizers of the bike rally are planning to repeat the demonstration on upcoming weekends.

Allan Domb, a former city council member and mayoral candidate and the owner of Schlesinger’s Deli, one of the restaurants targeted by the protesters, told JI, “I wish [Rabb] had spoken out, I’m not sure why he didn’t.”

“He’s going to be my congressman,” Domb continued. “When an owner of a business in his district, who happens to be Jewish, is threatened by a group of people who say they want to shut me down, it seems to me that my congressman should speak up about that.”

Others were sharper in their language.

“He’s a sack of s***, and that’s for the record, and I hope you’ll print it,” said Shanin Specter, a prominent attorney and son of former Sen. Arlen Specter, who began his career as a Democrat and became a Republican before ending his time in the Senate as a Democrat. “His silence speaks volumes, and it’s extremely regrettable that he is going to be representing Philadelphia in the United States Congress.”

Specter called Rabb’s silence a “declaration of war on the Jewish community in Philadelphia.”

As Melissa Steinberg Brodsky said, “Chris Rabb could’ve said one sentence. Jewish businesses in my district shouldn’t be targeted because they’re Jewish. How hard was that?”

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili rests beneath a pear tree. And here’s a recycled Hili dialogue:

Hili: Am I bothering you well enough?
Andrzej: Exceptionally well.

In Polish:

Hili: Czy dobrze ci przeszkadzam?
Ja: Wręcz doskonale.

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

From Bad Spelling or Grammar on Signs and Notices:

From Funny and Strange Signs; a happy roll!

From CinEmma:

Masih’s quiet, but J. K. Rowling is explaining her position once again:

From the Number Ten Cat. No, Hegseth did not apologize, though he should have kept his group quiet (I don’t know who was laughing and talking loud). But he said nothing and let the Pentagon do the talking:

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, issued a statement later Wednesday acknowledging the incident.

“While commemorating this solemn day, a soldier correctly and respectfully reminded everyone to maintain decorum,” the statement read.

But then (see below) Hegseth tweeted and gave a medal to the soldier who reprimanded him.

A tweet from the “Secretary of War”:

Two from my feed. First, what kind of parents would force their children into confronting soldiers and even striking them?  (The filming is a giveaway; it’s almost as if they want their kids to be hurt!).

Cat wins! Cat wins!

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

A Dutch Jewish girl, Liane, was gassecd together with her older sister Eva as soon as they arrived in Auschwitz. Liana was 5 years old.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2026-11-13T11:45:08.444Z

Two from Dr. Cobb. The first is a bit salacious. . .

If it weren't for the fact that my pension is probably tied up with the fate of Nvidia I’d be cackling about how the global economy maybe got borked because some fool couldn’t keep his dick in his pants.

— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2026-11-12T14:02:10.614Z

Monet indeed:

Monet.

— Matthew Cobb (@matthewcobb.bsky.social) 2026-11-12T10:23:30.314Z

.

Chait on the liberal vs. “progressive” Left

November 12, 2026 • 10:30 am

Over at the Atlantic (click on article below or find it archived here), staff writer Jonathan Chait, a self-described mainstream liberal, gives the rest of us mainstream liberals a boost with his latest article. It resemble Jesse Singal’s article that I mentioned yesterday by saying that woke policies—and by that I mean policies that are are designed to flaunt virtue but will be unworkable or un-passable as bills—is not going to help Democrats.  Chait cites data showing that moving towards a more centrist position generally helps candidates, and that the midterms gives evidence for that.

It’s way early to predict what’s going to happen in two years, but since the race for President is starting now, it’s not too early to suggest what Democrats might do, and if there’s evidence that “progressivism” (e.g., Democratic Socialism and the like) are harmful to candidates, then candidates should take that on board.

Chait also argues that the left-wing media, exemplified by the increasingly dubious and biased New York Times, has been promoting the opposite view—that Democrats’ moves towards extremes helps them get elected. This, he argues, is unsupported by evidence.

I’ll give a few quotes:

A few introductory remarks by Chait:

Bernie Sanders and his acolytes have spent the past decade insisting that Democrats would command national majorities if only they embraced his left-wing policies. After last week’s election, the movement claimed vindication. The results proved that “we can win over millions of Republicans and independents who are struggling economically if we focus on the issues that are important,” Sanders told Politico.

In reality, the results point in the opposite direction. Almost every Democratic Senate nominee gained a higher vote share in their state than Kamala Harris did two years earlier, but the five left-wing candidates backed by Sanders accounted for the four smallest swings in contested races. The one candidate who underperformed Harris, Troy Jackson in Maine, was a Sanders-backed progressive. By the same measure, moderate Democrats in the House also outperformed progressives.

Newcomers such as incoming Senators Josh Turek of Iowa and Annie Andrews of South Carolina came out against gender-affirming surgery for minors and allowing transgender female athletes to compete in girls’ sports—positions that did grave damage to Harris. Both of them, along with James Talarico in Texas and Adam Hamilton in Kansas, rejected Medicare for All. Ballot referenda in multiple states—banning the government from giving preferential treatment on the basis of race and other factors, rejecting a wealth tax—confirmed that the public’s rejection of the GOP did not entail a full embrace of the Democratic Party’s left wing.

The party’s most impressive victories, compared with the recent election outcomes in historically purple states, came from mainstream or moderate candidates: Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia (who won by 18 points), Senator-Elect Roy Cooper of North Carolina (19.6), and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (21.5 points). Although every contest has unique circumstances, and no single result can be reduced to a simple test of ideology, the overall pattern is unmistakable.

Because the whole party blew the doors out, many of its left-wing candidates won anyway. But not all of them. In Maine, the moderate Representative Jared Golden retired in the face of a progressive primary challenger. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—the dreaded party establishment—had hoped to retain the seat by nominating a mainstream Democrat. Instead, Matt Dunlap, a progressive supporter of Medicare for All backed by Sanders’s organization Our Revolution, won the nomination. The left-wing American Prospect, in an article headlined “The New Majority Makers,” praised Dunlap as “a working-class northern Mainer” who is “committed to economic populism.” Dunlap lost, turning what had been the reddest district held by a Democrat into the bluest district held by a Republican.

If the election was a test of whether Americans like Sanders’s message more or less than the standard Democratic message, the answer was clear: They like it less.

At this point in the article I asked myself, “Well, where are the data? All I see are cherry-picked anecdotes.” But then Chait proffers the data (or rather links to them), which I haven’t thoroughly checked:

The question of whether individual candidates are helped or harmed by moving toward the center has been studied extensively and has a firm answer.

The data measuring the effect of moderation on winning elections, somewhat like the data confirming anthropogenic global warming, can be noisy and messy but, in the general sweep of things, generally point in one direction: All things being equal, congressional candidates who advocate more ideologically extreme positions tend to do worse. As voters have polarized, penalties for extremism seem to have shrunk, but they haven’t disappeared. Newer models confirm that moderate candidates tend to overperform the partisan composition of their district, but extreme candidates underperform it.

Both parties have a contingent of vocal activists who deny that any such penalty for extremism exists. The arguments used by progressive activists roughly mirror those used by conservative activists: The voters in their hearts agree with our values, and the key to winning is to mobilize this hidden majority by ignoring the elitists in our party who, for their own selfish reasons, are intent on foisting wishy-washy centrists upon the electorate.

Now both references above use data at least fifteen years old, but (at least in the second paper) go in the direction Chait says.  He quotes progressives who maintain otherwise, but invariably they’re making the argument not that more extreme movement to the left confers more advantages than staying moderate, but that extremism carries less penalty than it used to. There’s still a penalty compared to moving in the other direction. Thus, so long as there’s any penalty, such moves are dangerous.  Now of course candidates shouldn’t espouse policies that they don’t believe, but these are politicians, and you simply can’t believe many of them when they suddenly change their public stands (as has AOC) to make themselves more electable. The only way we know what a candidate really believes is what he or she actually does once they get in power.

Chait chastises the media, especially the NYT, for trumpeting the benefits of extremism and “progressivism”:

rogressives have more or less succeeded in shaping news coverage of this debate. The morning after the election, Politico ran one story headlined “Progressive Victories Are Now Too Loud to Dismiss,” followed by another the next day, headlined: “Bernie Sanders Lost the Fight in 2016. A Decade Later, He Won the War.”

The New York Times followed up with an article covering the debate in studiously neutral terms: “For centrists, the results demonstrate that the best way to flip conservative strongholds where their party has long struggled is through embracing moderate candidates and positions that appeal to a broader array of voters. Progressives argue that the victories in Maine and Michigan show that left-wing populists can energize the party’s liberal base and win back some of the working-class voters who had flocked to President Trump.” A reader would not have guessed that the empirical debate is over how much of an advantage moderates have in winning elections, not which posture is more advantageous.

Another Times news story on the subject gives the left-wing interpretation even more credulous treatment. In the article, the arguments put forward by the left provide a revealing specimen of its inability to accept evidence that its ideas can hurt candidates who endorse them.

The story conveys a progressive complaint that “centrists said they would lose in the fall and cost the party control of Congress,” only to move the goalposts. The story does not cite a single example of a centrist having done this. In fact, before the election, moderate Democratic groups such as Third Way were projecting that the entire party would do well, that moderates would overperform baseline partisanship, and that progressive candidates would underperform. That is precisely what happened.

The article asserts that Abdul El-Sayed, the left-wing senator-elect in Michigan, “underperformed Jocelyn Benson, now the Democratic governor-elect in Michigan, by only a small margin.” Oddly, the article omits the gap between Benson’s margin and El-Sayed’s: 3.9 percentage points, which, in a normal election year in a state like Michigan, could easily make the difference between winning and losing.

Most amazing, the story excuses Jackson’s narrow victory by noting that he “was facing Senator Susan Collins, perhaps the most formidable Republican incumbent anywhere on the map.” Of course Collins is the most formidable Republican. The reason is that she has built a reputation as a moderate, the value of which is the entire issue of contention. Defeating a moderate like Susan Collins is hard is a bizarre way to dispute the notion that moderation confers a political advantage.

There is more, but you can read the story for free. All we can conclude at this point is that past data suggests the benefits for a Democrat of moving towards a moderate position outweighs the benefits of moving farther left. Sure, we can point to El-Sayed and Mamdani as winners who were “progressives” (though I’d hardly call antisemitism a “progressive” position), but if you’re throwing anecdotes around, Chait has plenty of counterexamples.

And we have a new anecdote-to-be: a DSA candidate challenging controversial Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania:

Less than a week after Democrats retook the Senate majority, a challenger has thrown his hat in the ring to oust one of the party’s most controversial members.

Ahmed Moor, a Palestinian American writer and businessperson, announced a bid to unseat Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) on Monday, marking the first challenge to Fetterman as questions swirl around his allegiance to the Democratic Party.

A Gaza-born Philadelphia resident and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Moor put forth a progressive agenda as he kicked off his campaign for Senate.

“I’m running to end the war in Iran and to promote the dignity agenda: free healthcare, free childcare, and affordable housing,” Moor wrote on the social platform X. “I’m calling for accountability for genocide, for ICE and for corruption. And finally, for the protection of our civil liberties in America.”

Moor is running to the left of Fetterman, who has been more moderate since taking office, often publicly breaking with his party and drawing the ire of some Democrats. While he has said he won’t become a Republican, the Senator has warned he may leave the party if Democrats officially become anti-Israel. A poll in August showed he was more popular among Pennsylvania Republicans than Democrats.

. . .“A few years ago my birthplace was turned to rubble in a genocide funded by our tax dollars, with the support of politicians on both sides of the aisle who can’t find money for transit or removing asbestos from our schools,” Moor wrote on his website.

“It’s clear the United States funds wars based on corruption and lies and has turned its back on its own people. We must make sure this never happens again. That’s why I’m running for U.S. Senate,” he added.

But it gets worse. Noor has also said this:

In a 2009 article published by Electronic Intifada, he asserted that “‘Zionist Israel’ does not have the right to exist,” describing Zionism as racism and accusing Zionists of holding racist views.

He’s also made the case for a one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine question. Here’s one article, and here’s another. Everything we know about Noor is that he wants the state of Israel to disappear and advocates the phony “one-state solution” that will lead to the extirpation of both Israel and its Jews.  I know I digress here, but Fetterman is surely better than someone whose politics will promote terrorism, and I think Fetterman’s been unduly demonized just because he occasionally votes with Republicans.

Readers’ wildlife photos

November 12, 2026 • 9:00 am

Today I’m stealing (with permission) some photos from Aussie Scott Ritchie, who posted them on his Facebook page.  Scott went to Africa, and we have some lovely bird photos.  His captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.

Everybody, or at least my birdie friends, knows I like a bird in flight (BIF) photo. The BIFmaster, etc. Here are some favourites from my recent Africa trip.

Our guide Njano whistled the Pearl-spotted Owlet call, and the the wee owl flew right over our heads! By great luck I was able to land this speculator.

White-browed Coucal:

White-browed Sparrow Weaver:

Violet-backed Starling:

Squacco Heron:

Rufous-tailed Weaver:

Red-winged Starling:

Little Bee-eater:

Hamerkop:

Greater Flamingo:

Giant Kingfisher:

Common Hoopoe:

African Olive Pigeon:

African Harrier-Hawk:

Martial Eagle immature. Africa’s largest eagle!

Superb Starling:

Red-faced Mousebird:

Silverbird:

Thursday: Hili dialogue

November 12, 2026 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, November 12, 2026, and I can feel December coming on fast. It’s National Pizza with the Works Except Anchovies Day, and that’s good because anchovies are dreadful—especially on pizza. But here’s a pizza with the works (including pineapple: don’t judge me!) that I shared with a friend at Dragon Pizza in Somerville, MA.

It’s also Chicken Soup for the Soul Day, Fancy Rat and Mouse Day, Guinness World Records Day, International Tempranillo Day (it’s a wine grape), and National French Dip Day.

There’s a Guinness World Records YouTube channel, with lots of cool and bizarre achievements, Here’s an nine-minute video of the best records from 2025, and you should definitely watch it:

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the November 12 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*On his Substack site, Jesse Singal has his take on “The midterms, a week later“, and most of it appears to be free to read.  (it’s where I found Lozada’s article that follows this piece). Excerpts

In this case, though, the election was a very clean test of voters’ response to “stuff Trump did.” That’ll get you most of the way to explaining what happened. And it’s hard to overstate how unusual, direct, and obvious this got. Because of a mix of the decades-long expansion of executive power, Trump’s narcissism, and a Congress that offered as much pushback and balance as a single sheet of paper blowing gently in the wind, never before has the connection between a POTUS and his policies been clearer.

These policies, particularly Trump’s tariffs, the immigration crackdown, and the war with Iran, tended to have very obvious effects. As I am the eight zillionth person to point out, in many cases they had a disproportionately negative impact on key parts of Trump’s own coalition — many Latinos who had recently swung toward Trump because they wanted some enforcement at the border hated the mass deportations, and what more even needs to be said about the harm inflicted on a subset of rural Trump voters, in particular, by the tariffs?

. . .Remember when Democrats embraced weird and unpopular views on race and sex and gender and other stuff? Remember when they started talking like robots — insufferable, smarmy robots? The sorts of robots who call your boss to try to get you fired?

The most straightforward explanation for that period was that Dems, awash in the panic inflicted on liberal and leftist America by Trump’s first election, listened to their younger staffers, to social media, to The Groups (overlapping categories). They lost sight of what Americans care about most and got into some pretty weird, esoteric stuff.

I don’t want to overstate the impact of wokeness on recent Democratic travails. In fact, the Dems had a very good 2018 midterm, won the 2020 election, and had a less-bad 2022 midterm than expected, given the fundamentals. But still: No one is even bothering to deny that things got quite weird. Witness Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s annoyingly flip, borrowed “Woke 1 was crazy” comment; witness Zohran Mamdani’s transition toward status-quo positions on policing now that he is running the NYPD instead of yelling into a megaphone about it — a shift that started during his campaign.

Perhaps most importantly, witness how mealymouthed or suddenly quiet the vast majority of Democrats running last Tuesday’s races got about transgender issues, which until recently were touted as the most important civil rights issue of our day, and one where compromise or moderation was morally unthinkable. Witness all the moderate candidates running on pro–law-enforcement platforms. Witness all the backtracking. Not “I was wrong,” in most cases, but rather quiet shifts in tone and framing.

. . .Now Republicans face their own attempt to play the part of Homer backing quietly into the hedges, except it’s going to be much, much harder. Republicans have signaled far more fealty to Trump than most Democrats ever did to woke ideals. Trump is their party — still — even if Tuesday marked the beginning of the end of that era. It’s definitely possible that in the case of figures like AOC, their woke-era comments were so weird that they will permanently hinder their attempts at higher office. I distrust politicians who get batted around by the culture-war winds that easily, especially if they refuse to explain their changes in position.

But politicians flip-flop all the time. Republicans tried desperately to make this election about woke excess, and it just didn’t work. Does that mean anti-woke campaigning won’t ever work? Of course not. In a more favorable climate, it might.

. . .What all this adds up to is a generational opportunity, and I don’t think this party is going to blow it by pulling the kente cloths out of the closet. Forces in the party who want moderation and who want the big tent can point to what just happened and say, “Isn’t this nice? Don’t you like winning? Is dying on the hill of, like, self-ID in high-school sports so important to you that you’ll trade Senate seats in Texas and Mississippi for it?”

Of course they won’t.

And so it goes: back and forth. Since I can’t read the end, I can’t see the conclusion, but the long bit that produced the excerpts above suggest that a. Trump has hurt the Republicans for several election sycles, and b. the Democrats should learn their lesson and get back to non-crazy business, but to Singal that’s unlikely.

*From the NYT in August, we had this op-ed headline. Click to read, or find it archived here. I’ve brought up this issue before, but nobody seems to care whether progressives like AOC who are changing their tune because they want a higher position in politics, really believe the new tune or they’re just singing it while keeping their real beliefs quiet.

An excerpt:

There is a difference between changing your mind and shifting your tactics, between evolving in your views and abandoning them because they’ve become unpopular or politically perilous.

When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quoting a political ally, recently suggested to ABC News, with a laugh and a smile, that “Woke 1 was crazy,” she became the most prominent progressive figure distancing herself, whether subtly or overtly, from what is known as wokeism — from the stringent positions on race, policing, gender, identity, social justice and language that constituted progressive orthodoxy over the past decade or so. Ideas once upheld in doctrinaire terms, with dissenters dismissed as lazy (do the work) or inhumane (you literally don’t want me to exist), are now treated as an embarrassing phase, the gawky formative years of cultural and political progressivism.

. . . . In her interview, Ocasio-Cortez attributes the excesses of the woke era in part to the pressures of pandemic restrictions, saying that “of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.” But that’s just a canny restatement of her shift, not an explanation for it. Would Ocasio-Cortez not use the same rhetoric today because she no longer buys it — or because she can no longer sell it?

. . . . James Talarico, the Texas Democrat running for a U.S. Senate seat, has admitted that “there are some statements that I’ve made that I certainly regret,” and that some of his old comments may now seem “cringey.” (All this when a journalist asked him about his past assertion that God is “nonbinary,” a claim Talarico now says was “intentionally provocative.”) Some commentators on the left have joined in the revisionism, acknowledging, for example, that cancel culture may have occasionally gone too far and that, yes, elements of the woke agenda may appear silly in hindsight.

. . .So, before that time goes farther down the memory hole, discarded as just one of so many vibe shifts, I have one question for the formerly woke:

If you can dismiss it so casually now — all the defunding and abolishing, the BIPOCing and Latinxing, the canceling and decentering and my truthing — how much of it did you truly believe at the time? How much was conviction, how much was a pose, how much was groupthink, how much was fear?

. . .If you did believe it, jettisoning it now should take something more than a sheepish grin. If you didn’t believe it and yet declared it with such passion, with such pretensions to moral clarity, with such disdain for contrary perspectives, then the least you can do now is acknowledge that dissonance. You should explain the shift, not just explain it away.

Some writers and thinkers have admitted that they supported certain progressive verities — or didn’t push back against them — because they felt cowed by their audiences, or because they feared for their careers. My hope is for a modicum of such intellectual accountability from the political class, too, just enough grace to blush.

You won’t get it. Politicians are experts at evading tough questions, but as “formerly woke” candidates emerge in the next two years, the press should be asking them these questions. Yes, much of the MSM are liberal and “progressive,” and might ask softballs, but they should remember their job, and that voters want to know. 

*The Kennedy family is trying to prevent the construction of Trump’s huge “Triumphal Arch,” by the Potomac river in Washington, D.C., claiming that it would overshadow the graves of their family at Arlington National Cemetery and block the line of sight from the eternal flame by JFK’s grave.(Both of my parents are buried near JFK’s tomb as well, as my dad was a veteran.)

The Kennedy family is joining the efforts to block the construction of President Trump’s 250-foot triumphal arch between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

Nine members of the Kennedy family are the latest parties to challenge the development of an arch near Arlington National Cemetery, according to a Tuesday legal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Kennedy family members said the massive arch would “permanently cast shadows” over the graves of their relatives and those of fallen American servicemembers and obstruct the designed sightline from the eternal flame at President John F. Kennedy’s gravesite.

“We believe Donald Trump has violated the laws and procedures established by Congress to protect this most sacred national memorial,” Rory Kennedy and Maxwell Kennedy, children of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Kennedy, said in a joint statement Tuesday.

“A towering arch casting shadows across the graves of our father, mother, and uncles, as well as the graves of so many who have served our country, would also cast a shadow over our democratic principles, undermining the safeguards established by our elected representatives to protect this hallowed ground for generations to come,” they added.

“It is unfortunate to see that some members of the Kennedy family have joined the litigation against the Arch as the project is intended to honor our heroes who rest in Arlington Cemetery,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement.

A federal district judge temporarily blocked construction of the arch last week. The decision came after the National Capital Planning Commission, led by Trump appointees, approved plans for the project. The triumphal arch, as Trump calls it, is being constructed to honor the nation’s 250th anniversary, according to the National Park Service. Trump has said it would also serve as a military complex with snipers and drones.

We all know that the arch was not intended to honor “our heroes,” but rather to honor Donald Trump. Although I guess the White House has scuppered plans to sequester both drones and snipers in the arch, there are still at least four lawsuits against it in the works. I know this area well, as I grew up near it, and the arch at that location (or anywhere, really) would be an abomination.

*The NYT reports a dramatic fall in the number of Ph.D. degrees given in STEM areas in America, concurrent with a fall in research support given by the Trump administration. It’s not archived, so you’ll have to subscribe to read the whole long article. The thesis:

For nearly a century, the United States has been the global leader in cultivating young scientists, training them at the nation’s vast network of universities and harnessing their talents to ensure American dominance in research and innovation.

But now that Ph.D. pipeline is in turmoil.

An analysis by The New York Times of university and federal data found that the Trump administration, in its broader dismantling of the American scientific machinery, has undermined opportunities for young scientists.

Many of the nation’s top research universities, facing uncertainties in federal funding, are offering fewer Ph.D. spots across the sciences. Federal programs created long ago to finance doctoral students are mired in chaos. Widespread grant cancellations and funding delays have made it harder for recent graduates to find jobs and start new labs. Some institutions have managed to adapt by marshaling funds from elsewhere, but the sudden instability of federal support has led many others to scale back their Ph.D. programs.

This is all true; moreover, American scientists are fleeing to other countries, especially in Europe, who have tendered attractive offers.

. . .But interviews with dozens of early-career scientists — Ph.D. applicants, doctoral students and newly minted graduates — revealed deep concern that even two years of disruption could permanently alter the storied success of federally funded science in the United States.

Facing uncertainty in the flow of federal funding, many university departments significantly reduced the size of their incoming Ph.D. student classes last year, even as the number of applications rose.

The Times analyzed data from 27 of the nation’s top research universities. Between 2024 and 2025, new Ph.D. enrollments declined by about 18 percent in engineering programs and by about 10 percent in science and health disciplines. New enrollments in math and computer science programs also dropped by roughly 10 percent.

Overall, these declines are steeper than those seen in other fields, such as economics and anthropology.

Here’s the data:

I’m confident but not certain that American science will recover after Trump is gone. After all, the drop is measured only between 2023 and 2024, but the latest are about the same as in 2021 and 2022.  But the dismantling of American science won’t create a level playing field all over the world just because American scientists go overseas. Only the best ones do, and given everything, there is less opportunity for science to be done here. What that means is that the total quantity of science in the world will decrease.

What the NYT ignores, though, is another important factor reducing the amount of science done in America: the decreasing size of labs because it costs too much to support graduate students. That support is usually via federal grants, but the yearly price of harboring a student, including tuition, is nearly $100,000 in some places.  Since federal grants (used to support students) are waning in both quantity and size, labs are shrinking. And the rise in stipends is often caused by the demands of graduate-student unions, who regard a Ph.D. as a job, not an apprenticeship.  But you won’t find the NYT emphasizing that aspect.

(This article is part of a three-part series on “science under siege.” You can find the other two articles here, and here.)

*George Will, the house conservative columnist at the Washington Post, discusses four problems the Democrat-dominated Congress will run into when it’s seated in January, but what he’s really going after is “progressive” Democrats (column is archived here).

In November, Democrats did well with voters, but beginning on Jan. 3, reality gets a vote. Consider four subjects: climate change, campaign finance, Medicare-for-all and racial gerrymandering.

Democrats’ autumn campaigning featured scant talk about what many of them have called the “existential” crisis of climate change. Fear of the extinction-level threat of global warming was displaced by indignation about … the high prices of fossil fuels (oil, gasoline, diesel).

Lower prices would increase consumption. But a hypothetical climate apocalypse is less disagreeable than a here-and-now $100 fill-up.

. . .Michigan’s Democratic Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed is another progressive vowing to get “money out of politics.” As the late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, was given to saying about progressive promises of government-driven wonders: “That will not happen.”

Regarding their promised government limits on political contributing and spending, progressives exemplify what Moynihan called “the leakage of reality from American life.” Progressives are not going to overturn or evade repeated Supreme Court affirmations of the obvious:

All political spending is for the dissemination of political speech. In a continent-spanning nation, this requires money. When government limits political spending, government enforces its belief about the proper amount of speech, which is incompatible with the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”

. . .Progressives’ promises of “Medicare-for-all” elicit rapturous approval from progressive audiences. There is, however, this intractable reality: A large majority of Americans have private health insurance, and a large majority of this majority like their plans. Medicare-for-all must supplant these, which often are untaxed compensation provided by employers.

During World War II, companies competing for scarce labor evaded congressional limits on wages by offering health insurance as untaxed (the IRS agreed to this in 1943) compensation. Medicare-for-all would vitiate many of organized labor’s subsequent achievements. That will not happen.

What he means here is that organized labor secured health plans as part of the benefits offered by companies, and people (I’m one example) don’t want my health plan supplanted by Medicare for all. Medicare for Some would be okay if people don’t have these benefits or can’t afford health insurance. Finally: gerrymandering, which I’ve always objected to. Will sees it as not only patronizing but unnecessary:

In April, the Supreme Court, in a case from Louisiana, limited racial gerrymandering — the drawing of legislative districts’ lines to produce a high probability of wins by Black candidates. Progressives were indignant. Progressive critics had two underlying assumptions: Black voters necessarily (properly?) prefer to choose Black candidates. And White — especially Southern White — voters are so retrograde that Black candidates cannot be expected to win in White-majority jurisdictions.

Well. Columnist Quin Hillyer, a Louisiana native and resident, notes the following:

Georgia (Black population, 32 percent) now has a Black governor-elect (Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms) as well as a twice-elected Black senator (Democrat Raphael Warnock). Mississippi (Black population, 36.8 percent) probably has a Black senator-elect, Democrat Scott Colom. Florida (Black population, just 16.3 percent) has Black Gov.-elect Byron Donalds, a Republican. And a Black Democrat, who calls herself a democratic socialist, came close (48 percent) to winning a U.S. Senate seat. In Louisiana (Black population, 32 percent), a Black Democratic Senate candidate came even closer (49 percent).

As you see, Will is objecting to “progressive Democratic views,” though some more centrist Democrats also favor these plans. And I think he has a point (the climate-change issue, however I see as more serious than he does), which is why he’s had such a long tenure at the Post. He ends this way:

Climate change as a menace has been exaggerated, and as a political issue has never been salient. Fifty years of Supreme Court rulings have insulated political campaigns from speech-restricting regulations. The popularity of Medicare-for-all varies inversely with the understanding of it. Racial considerations in voting are rapidly receding.

Progressives should acknowledge all this. That will not happen.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili rests beneath a pear tree, but here’s a recycled old one from Andrzej:

Andrzej: According to experts, cat hair in food is unhealthy.
Hili: That’s an argument from authority, you need to test it.

In Polish:

Ja: Zdaniem ekspertów kocia sierść w jedzeniu jest niezdrowa.
Hili: To argument z autorytetu, musisz to przetestować.

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

From Stacy:

From Cheryl’s  Amazingly Positive, No Politics Allowed, Interesting People Group. Actually, when I checked the meme below, I found the story is fake but does have a core of truth. I therefore left up the meme.

Google AI says this:

The viral story of a man named Dylan Raines attempting to rob a liquor store in Pensacola, Florida, using an avocado painted to look like a grenade is fake (“AI slop”). [1]
    • The Rumor: Social media posts and AI-generated memes claimed a 29-year-old man named Dylan Raines tried to rob “Gulf Coast Spirits” in Pensacola and was tackled by a mixed martial artist cashier named Marcus Bell. [1]
  • The Reality: Local authorities and news outlets confirmed the story never happened. There is no “Gulf Coast Spirits” in Escambia County, Florida, and no such arrest record exists. [1]

The Real-Life Inspiration

The viral hoax appears to be inspired by a real, actual event from 2019 in Israel, where a 47-year-old man was arrested after successfully robbing two different bank branches using an avocado painted black to resemble a hand grenade. [1, 2]

From Bad Spelling or Grammar on Signs or Notices:

From Masih. The Jerusalem Post names the committee:

The United Nations General Assembly elected the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN Committee for Programme and Coordination on Wednesday, giving Tehran a seat on a key body responsible for reviewing and coordinating the organization’s programs and priorities, despite its record of human rights abuses and support for terrorist organizations.

From Luana, relevant to grad-student salaries discussed above (the Harvard Crimson article is here; two events were disrupted and canceled):

From Jay: a Tom Jones spoof about women cats:

Once again the Number Ten Cat takes down Trump’s bragging:

From Malcolm: kitten rescue!

One from my feed: a song about sending the Jews to the Moon:

One I reposted from The Auschwitz Memorial:

This German Jewish girl was gassed to death as soon as she arrived in Auschwitz. She was 11 years old.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2026-11-12T12:15:45.138Z

 

And two from Doctor Cobb. First, a bizarre coloring book.  It’s AI for sure, but is it sold as a serious work for kids?

Here’s a real sheet from a colouring book someone tried to sell me.

— The Boooook Shepherd 👻 (@thebookshepherd.bsky.social) 2026-11-11T01:01:21.557Z

How to pick up a duck. Click on the screenshot to go to the original.  I think it’s wrong; the duck could fall, and it won’t work with ducks that can fly:

Music:  Stephen Stills discusses three guitarists who greatly influenced him: Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Neil Young. Stills is quite eloquent and thoughtful about these choices.

.

Readers’ wildlife photos

November 11, 2026 • 9:30 am

One item on my bucket list is represented by this series of photos from Mike Lyvers, taken as the bears plunder the salmon run at Brooks Falls, Katmai National Park, Alaska. They’re.fattening themselves (and their cubs) up for the winter hibernation. I MUST get there some day.  Mike’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking in them.

Here are some wildlife photos taken at Brooks Falls in Katmai National Park during the July salmon run some years ago. The first batch shows an overview of brown bears at Brooks Falls going after the salmon leaping up the falls, an amazing double catch, and a big fat bear with his prize. More to come.

The first one in this batch shows a brown bear mother with her cubs. The second shows a wolf looking for scraps from the bears. The third shows two bears fighting – bears are not social animals so having so many concentrated in a small area inevitably leads to conflict, sometimes bloody. The fourth shows the mother and cubs in the river finding leftovers from the big males who catch the salmon. The last pic of this batch shows a perfect catch.

Here is the last batch – I’ve got literally hundreds of photos like these so these are just a representative selection. The first one in this batch shows a cute fluffy cub. The last three are in sequence: a salmon leaps right between two aggressive bears, leading one to attack the other but he loses his footing and goes over the falls! Humiliated, this bear then emerges from beneath the water at the base of the falls to attack another bear in frustration. It was pretty funny because the bear that went over the falls was the nastiest of the lot – I’m sure the other bears were quite amused to see this.

This one shows three cubs – one of which is watching me while the other two watch their mom fishing for salmon. Cute!