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.
Well, it’s CaturSaturday again, this time on January 18, 2025. I just remembered that in two days we will have a new President, and I’m trying to accept this with equanimity, since I can’t change it. It’s also National Peking Duck Day, an arrant cultural appropriation, but a great dish. The best one I had was in fact in Beijing, when a few geneticists and I went to the restaurant known as “sick duck” because it’s across the street from a hospital. Here’s what it’s like to eat in a high-class duck restaurant:
It’s also Thesaurus Day, National Gourmet Coffee Day (for me that is every day), and Winnie the Pooh Day, occurring on the birthday of author A. A. Milne in 1882. Here is the original Winnie-the-Pooh set of animals owned by Christopher Robin (Milne’s son), labeled “Christopher Robin’s original Winnie-the-Pooh stuffed toys, on display at the Main Branch of the New York Public Library (clockwise from bottom left: Tigger, Kanga, Edward Bear (“Winnie-the-Pooh”), Eeyore, and Piglet) Roo was also one of the original toys, but was lost during the 1930s.”
Spictacular (talk · contribs), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
. . . and Milne with Christopher Robin and Pooh Bear:
Milne with his son Christopher Robin and Pooh Bear, at Cotchford Farm, their home in Sussex. Photo by Howard Coster, 1926.
According to a leaked copy of the agreement, over 1,700 Palestinian prisoners are to be freed in return for 33 Israeli hostages in the first phase of the deal: 700 terrorists, 250-300 of whom are serving life terms; 1,000 Gazans captured since October 8 in fighting in the Strip; and 47 rearrested prisoners from the 2011 Gilad Shalit deal
You don’t see the world press talking about this disproportionality. Given the agreement, many of those terrorist will just join Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad and aim to kill more Israelis.
It’s a bad deal for Israel; in my view, if Hamas stays in power, they’ll have not only lost the war, but the terrorism will continue, supplemented with thousands of new Palestinian terrorists released from jail. In net, I think that more Israeli civilian lives will be lost with this deal than if the IDF just fought on. The details from the NYT (archived here):
The full Israeli cabinet began meeting Friday night to vote on an agreement for a cease-fire and the release of hostages in Gaza, according to two Israeli officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to publicly discuss it. The deal is seen as the best chance to end the devastating 15-month war in the enclave.
The meeting comes after Israel’s security cabinet — a small forum of senior ministers — approved the cease-fire agreement earlier in the day, overcoming a key hurdle after Israeli and Hamas negotiators resolved remaining disputes.
The gathering is taking place during the Jewish Sabbath (which began at sundown Friday), when religious Jews are not permitted to work. But Jewish religious authorities have long held that lifesaving actions can nullify the Sabbath’s prohibitions.
Hamas said on Friday that there were no longer any barriers to the agreement.
Qatar and Egypt mediated the cease-fire deal alongside the Biden and incoming Trump administrations. Mediators hope the provisional cease-fire will ultimately end the war that has devastated the Gaza Strip, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians. Hamas-led militants began the fighting with a surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking about 250 others hostage.
Under the agreement, both sides will begin the cease-fire with a six-week truce, during which Israeli forces will withdraw eastward, away from populated areas. Hamas will free 33 of the hostages still in captivity, mostly women and older people.
Israel will also release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including some serving long sentences for attacks on Israelis. On Friday evening, the Israeli government released a list of 95 prisoners it said would be part of the first group of Palestinians to be released on Sunday. More names will be published after the deal is formally approved, the Israeli justice ministry said.
I don’t have to say why this is a lousy deal, as here are two people to say it for me:
Here’s Einat Wilf, a whip-smart politician who’s starting her own party in the Knesset. She proposes the only peace plan that I think is reasonable, but she was blindsided by Trump’s agreement with the present deal:
And Jonathan Conricus, who used to be the IDF’s spokesperson as well as a career IDF member. He doesn’t like the deal, either.
‘As the deal is now, I struggle to understand why Israel agreed to it’
The hostage-ceasefire deal may well have additional aspects that would become apparent only with the passage of time, but what we know of it today is not good, @jconricus tells @benitalevinpic.twitter.com/15GonbigMk
The fact is that Israel has lost this war, and even if there is some big secret upside to having made this deal (promises by Trump or the like), Hamas is still in power and thousands of Palestinian terrorists will be set free in Gaza. Like Conricus, I have no idea why Israel agreed to this ceasefire.
*Unless Tik Tok gets new non-Chinese owners, it is doomed by this weekend. It will become an ex-app, pining for the fjords and singing with the Choir Invisible. (Article archived here.)
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States on Sunday unless the wildly popular video-sharing app pulls off an unlikely, last-minute divestiture from Chinese ownership.
The unanimous decision was a major blow for TikTok, injecting deep uncertainty into the app’s future with the deadline to sell the platform just two days away. President-elect Donald Trump, who has vowed to use his power to “save” the app, will be sworn in to office a day later.
Trump had asked the Supreme Court to delay implementation of the law to give himan opportunity to act once he returns to the White House. With the court declining that option and no sale of the app seemingly imminent, the ban is now poised to take effect the day before Trump’s inauguration.
The court’s unsigned, 20-page decision said the ban-or-sale law does not violate the free speech rights of millions of TikTok users in the United States. The law was passed in April with bipartisan support and signed by President Joe Biden in response to national security concerns about the Chinese government’s potential influence over the platform.
The justices said the U.S. government was justified in targeting TikTok and its China-based parent company, ByteDance, writing that the app’s “scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment.”
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the opinion says. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
No U.S. law has ever shut down a popular social media platform before, let alone one with more than 170 million users in the United States who rely on the app for news, entertainment and self-expression.
Note that this was a unanimous decision. Now I know very little about TikTok, and never look at it, but readers are welcome to give their opinions below.
*As usual, I’m going to steal three items from Nellie Bowles’s weekly news summary at the Free Press, called this week “TGIF: Hard pivot.”
→ Karen Bass promised to stay in her lame small town, Los Angeles: The embattled mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, made a funny promise before taking office. She promised that, as mayor of Los Angeles, she wouldn’t travel to Africa at all. She even made that promise on the record.
“I went to Africa every couple of months, all the time,” she told TheNew York Times in 2021. “The idea of leaving that, especially the international work and the Africa work, I was like, ‘Mmm, I don’t think I want to do that.’ ” But she decided: “Not only would I of course live here, but I also would not travel internationally—the only places I would go would be D.C., Sacramento, San Francisco, and New York, in relation to L.A.” Not only would she live there? Thank you for promising to fulfill the literal bare minimum requirement of your position, Karen.
Los Angeles is a city of 3.8 million people and a budget of $13 billion, and the mayor is talking about living there like it’s a major sacrifice. She’s talking about living in Los Angeles as the mayor in a fabulous house like I talk about visiting Pittsburgh to see my in-laws. Yes, I promise: Not only will I hang out with my in-laws, but I will eat the pizza everyone says is so special and I will say that it’s the best even though it is so cold and chewy. Mayor Bass is talking about living in Los Angeles like Pete Buttigieg probably talked about moving to wherever he had to move to get the nickname “Mayor Pete” (South Bend, Indiana—for eight years, my god, Peter). And Karen Bass couldn’t even stick the landing! When the fire alerts blared and the wind whipped, Karen Bass literally got on a plane to Ghana for a party. I’m not saying that the mayor needs to be perfect, but the bar can be higher than stays in town. It really can be. I’m a homebody, guys. I never leave. I’ll take the Hancock Park house. Yes, Los Angeles, I’ll be your mayor. I will drink your local green juices and say it’s delicious.
→ Chicago, on the other hand: Tens of thousands of devices (laptops, iPads, cellphone hot spots) purchased by Chicago Public Schools just within the 2023–2024 school year have been lost or stolen, with thousands of them ending up overseas. Last year alone, the district lost $23 million worth of devices, according to the CPS Office of the Inspector General (pro tip: when your school district is so top-heavy that it has an Office of the Inspector General, it’s too top-heavy). They also didn’t use the device-tracking tool: “Although CPS had been paying a vendor for geo-tracking services, the OIG found that it barely used this service but should be doing so.”
To lose that many devices and to ignore the device tracking service you also paid for—well, to me it indicates that basically someone within the system is selling these things off and pocketing the cash. A theft ring. A grimy, depressing little theft ring, but at more than $20 million in revenue, we’re talking a pretty nice one (call me guys, I’m in).
Meanwhile, the city’s credit rating dropped from a BBB+ to a paltry BBB, meaning the credit agency believes the city is more likely to default. I can’t pretend to know what this means (debt and credit are things I choose not to engage with; when you’re a debutante, everywhere you go has valet), but it doesn’t sound good.
And the kicker:
→ Biden’s money for Jewish institutions went to pro-Hamas groups: The Biden administration’s fund to protect institutions that are at risk of terrorist attacks—and which Biden touted as one of his big Jewish safety measures—has actually been funding mosques that preach pro-terrorist attacks. Mosques receiving the funding have leaders who call October 7 “a miracle” and such (you can imagine). Curious how that cash got rerouted specifically to the most antisemitic mosques I’ve ever read about.
*The conservative and religious press seems to be delighted at the fact that Richard Dawkins, Steve Pinker, and I have left the FFRF because of a kerfuffle about sex. The theme that most of these venues draw from this is that the atheist community is fragmenting (partly true), that atheists are themselves religious (partly true in the case of the non-supernatural quasi-religiosity of the FFRF), but also that atheism of all stripes are simply filling the “go0d-shape hole” that runs through all humanity.
See this from The American Thinker, a conservative venue, Click to read this piece by Dr. Mack Random, a Christian:
An excerpt:
Coyne expressed his concern that the FFRF was drifting outside its original mission, such that an organization that ostensibly exists to promote freedom from religion has begun to embrace a religion-like ideology, complete with its own dogma, heretics, and excommunication process. Rather than accept being silenced within his community, Coyne rightly resigned and aired his dissatisfaction with the issues infiltrating the FFRF.
Irony in the Mission
The irony here is profound. Coyne’s and FFRF’s shared mission, to “educate the public about non-theism and keep religion out of government and social policies,” suffers from the same issues Coyne criticizes. But here the problem isn’t mission drift. The problem is the original mission. Their ideal world would remove religious contexts, doctrines, and moral arguments from schools and government, which also favors the establishment of atheism (or non-theism) as a de facto state religion. Although FFRF-supporters may not view atheism as a religion, I and many others do. I imagine that Kat Grant does not identify her transsexual ideology as a religion, but Coyne is making that analogy, if not that actual argument.
Coyne’s critique of Grant’s “transsexual ideology” as a religion-like framework is apt. However, he fails to see the parallel between this critique and the broader implications of FFRF’s mission. The term “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution. The establishment clause of the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By seeking to exclude religious voices from public service, FFRF violates the principles it claims to uphold.
The Fallout
Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins — all prominent voices in the atheist community — resigned from FFRF’s Honorary Board in protest of this censorship. Their departure underscores a deeper issue: the suppression of free thought within a community that ostensibly champions it. I pray they will also appreciate the irony that their mission results in the silencing of religious individuals in their own communities, just as the FFRF silenced Coyne in his.
It appears as if Dr. Ransom thinks that atheism is a religion, which is bonkers. Atheism is the absence of any religious belief, and, in the U.S., that means the absence of any belief in supernatural beings who take an interest in our lives. By arguing that the First Amendment doesn’t really separate church from state, and that it “excludes religious voices from public service” (it’s not clear what that means), Ransom goes against everything the founders said they intended when the wrote the Constitution. And of course people can tout their faith in Congress, and in the Presidency, but no religion can be the basis of government policy. As for the atheist “suppression of free thought,” what do atheists do but consider the counterarguments for faith in their writings (think of the Four Horsemen’s books!). I wrote a whole book on science versus religion that continuously quotes religious people, so they are not at all silenced. Although they don’t come off well, that is not my fault!
A much better article is in the Deseret News, which, though owned by the Mormon Church, isn’t all goddy in its news. Here’s a piece I mentioned before by Valerie Hudson, a distinguished professor at Texas A&M University.
An excerpt:
Some celebrated the departure of the three board members, with one atheist noting, “The trash has taken itself out.” Other atheists took the opposite tack: “It amazes me that a group that understands the vital importance of falsifiability to the scientific method is now so keen to agree to gender ideology. If you think something ‘is’ because a person says it is, you are not respecting science, logic or truth itself. You’re doing what the religious nuts do, by saying it’s ‘their truth’, like material reality is open to interpretation. The FFRF should be embarrassed by the nonsense they’ve bowed down to.”
There have been a number of interesting analyses that identify religious elements in gender ideology, such as sacred castes, holy days, intolerance of dissent, belief in that which cannot be falsified on the basis of empirical evidence, ceremonial religious processions, belief in reincarnation and transubstantiation, moral prescriptions and proscriptions, revered texts, shunning and excommunication. Maybe Freedom From Religion Foundation apostates like Dawkins, Pinker and Coyne are right in sensing that a new religion is seeping into the atheist community.
The organization’s website describes the group’s purpose in these terms: “The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.” Perhaps, like charity, that principle of separation begins at home.
The first quote, calling us “trash” is by The Hateful Atheist, who deserves no attention. The second is a comment by reader Luisa on the post about Richard Dawkin’s resignation from the FFRF.
*Andrew Sullivan’s new column is called “Regime change of another shit-show?” He’s betting on the latter when Trump takes office. An excerpt:
My feelings will be, well, complex. There is a wave of relief that the decrepit Biden has finally gone, that the muggy political air has been cleared for a bit, and that the insistent Kulturkampf of the woke left may finally relent a little. We may even move out of our post-neocon paralysis in foreign policy.
At the same time, of course, I have what can only be called intermittent waves of nausea and panic triggered by the memory of the last, long four years of being tethered to a mercurial, malevolent bully who wouldn’t ever shut up or leave us alone.
But attached to that nausea is something else: boredom. He just doesn’t get to me the way he used to. When I read about his provocations toward Canada and the Panama Canal, for example, I merely found my eyes rolling gently backward. Good one, Donnie. But you’re not gonna trigger my amygdala this time. You busted it already.
Same with the Bobby Kennedy nonsense and the Elon Musk madness — a man whose political judgment seems as finely honed as an autistic 14-year-old who just discovered TikTok. Musk is an American genius in some things. No question about that. But so, so fragile and immature, as Sam Harris gently dissects here.
. . .What would I hope for in Trump 2.0? I’d say a coherent evolution of the GOP into a classically conservative party: leery of big government and foreign interventionism, culturally conservative and pro-family, champion of Medicare and Social Security, restrictive of immigration, defender of color-blindness and merit. I would be thrilled if they really got rid of DEI throughout the federal government and made federal college funding conditional on ending DEI initiatives in higher education. Vance gets it, I think, and he remains the best hope for a serious new right. But if Trump were the necessary reagent to bring this about, he’s also an obstacle to it. He doesn’t have the message discipline, legislative skills, and strategic cunning to pull it off.
What do I fear? Among the possible horribles: some kind of dumb-ass Trump overreach on immigration, prompting far-left street protests/riots, followed by some leap into the draconian dark with the US military on the streets, its reputation in the toilet; a spike in inflation caused by tariffs and an economic downturn as cheap immigrant labor disappears; a crisis over Taiwan that we bungle. Or yet another criminal move by Trump precipitating another crisis in the rule of law.
What do I expect? Not much. Trump has two years with a razor-thin margin in the Congress before he becomes a lame duck. His team currently has no agreed-upon legislative strategy — one big bill via reconciliation? two bills with immigration control first? tariffs before tax cuts? — and this never bodes well. The Speaker himself hangs by a thread. When I think of Reagan and Thatcher, I recall shrewd legislative outreach, a plan for economic pain and then relief, and a strategy designed not to get too far over the skis (Thatcher took her own sweet time to take on union power, as Andrew Neil remembers in the Dishcast this week; Reagan was always aware of going too far). No such foresight is currently visible to me in Trump world.
I don’t expect much, either, and never thought that Trump was going to do even a quarter of the stuff he promised (threatened) to do. And no, I don’t hope that Trump 2.0 will produce a coherent evolution of the GOP.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili has insomnia:
A: What are you doing?
Hili: I’m lying down as a sign of solidarity.
A: Solidarity with whom?
Hili: With those who are standing.
In Polish:
Ja: Co robisz?
Hili: Leżę na znak solidarności.
Ja: Z kim?
Hili: Z tymi, którzy stoją.
From Stacy: radium suppositories! Perfectly harmless!
From Masih, a video showing how global Iranian youth really are, even though the regime prevents them from learning about other countries.
From BTS to Billie Eilish; Iranian youth know global icons, but have no idea who Khamenei is. This is the real Iran the West never shows.
Hey @khamenei_ir, you and your outdated clerics may think you control the narrative, but these young rebels are proving you can’t even… pic.twitter.com/1daaSJ0KQD
Since everyone is talking about LSAT questions, here’s one of the “170 breaker questions.” There are ~12 on each test and they are meant to be the hardest questions on the LSAT. Getting them right tends to predict scoring very highly (above 170) pic.twitter.com/tGpUeOU9de
From Bryan; I think the definition is pretty good.
Wokeness is a hyper-vigilance toward any real or imagined transgressions against identity-based human dignity, resulting in exaggerated perceptions of harm, rigid systems of thinking, a need for purification, and a desire to disengage from and punish transgressors. https://t.co/wvERhRzysj
From Jez: A cat rescue story with a happy ending (you’ll never see any other kind on this site):
“So I’m driving down the road this morning and the cars in front of me are driving over a black thing in the road. It’s going between their tires so I’m guessing it’s a box. It’s a kitten just sitting upright shaking like a leaf. And some asshole had spread glue on its paws and… pic.twitter.com/b4bJXkHSbY
It's at least once per week that I think about the time Ash called me into the bathroom because there was a large spider in his litterbox, and that he wouldn't use the litterbox without company for a week after.
I submitted the LSAT question – I think “Simon” was swapped with “Bryan” …
I’d have to work on that question again. Intrigued to hear the answer or reasoning that readers give.
As for “Woke” it is Critical Consciousness of any strain.
It originates in Leftism – and the Right reaction to it is accounted for by this. Consider the German Erwacht and which political party pushed it as propaganda. Or e.g. Tucker Carlson (if he can be listened to for very long).
“It’s also Thesaurus Day” – our annual reminder that there is no synonym for thesaurus.
That is an extreme claim. — Does the straightforward term synonym dictionary not count?
Steven Wright has a good joke about the topic you raise, “What’s another word for thesaurus?”
I think the article on Mayor Karen Bass is unfair. According to Wikipedia, she wasn’t going to Africa on vacation, but working to improve trade relations and alleviate poverty.
That doesn’t sound like the job of a mayor, and certainly not a primary responsibility. It also sounds like an excuse for someone who wanted to travel on a boondoggle.
There are a lot of LSAT questions going around online. What the tweets don’t include is the fact these questions – however difficult or easy – are time sensitive. You have about 1:30 sec. to do each, then move to the next one and another minute and a half. It is the time crunch that’s the torment.
Taking it in 1998 was a horrible experience – worse than law school which can be fun. The bar exam is similar to LSAT: yuck. Even when you do OK in them.
D.A., J.D.
NYC
I am waiting for the other shoe to drop on this ceasefire. I don’t think after all this time that Netanyahu agreed without getting something substantial in return, like a strong promise of support going forward or a free hand against Iranian nuclear facilities. At the same time, it’s not clear that Israel really had a way to finish the war.
Keep in mind this is a ceasefire, not a peace agreement. Fighting will stop, hostages be recovered, etc… and one or both sides will break the ceasefire and the war will continue like after all the other cease fires.
Trump has “hinted” he thinks Israel should have free rein.
I don’t like the idea of releasing hundreds of terrorists to return to Gaza. But that was always one of Hamas’s big motives.
Regarding the definition for woke, it occurs to me that while the supposed aim of wokesters is to eliminate the mistreatment of others, they are all about mistreating others themselves (you bigot!). I realize the definition was supposed to be concise but shouldn’t there be something about their “oppressors and victims” worldview?
PS I got the LSAT question right. It’s E. (Had to look it up since I’m not on X)
I’ll take your word for it on the answer to the LSAT question since I couldn’t figure it out. I took the LSAT in 1968 or 1969. If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t.
Well, I come up with E also.
The first sentence in the givens says “Most of… ” so we need to be strict and look for a place where “more than half” will matter.
The second given is an ALL statement (written as an “each”), with an if-then: “IF received lower than B-minus, THEN missed at least one class.” Flip this to the contrapositive:
“If NOT missed at least one class, THEN NOT received lower than B-minus”.
Now rephrase “not missed at least one class” as “attended every class.” And rephrase “not received lower than B-minus” as “did receive B-minus or higher.”
So now from the second given we have “IF attended every class THEN received B-minus or higher”. The first given says that most (more than half) students attended every class. That’s the IF of the converted second given — so we can say the THEN part holds for them: “Most (more than half) received B-minus or higher”.
And that is choice E!
We could in test-taking situation stop there and mark E as our answer, since there should be just one correct choice. But in calm analysis we ought to examine each of the other choices and note why they cannot be firmly drawn conclusions of the givens. (But no, I’m not going to try to do that compactly now!)
We’ll see what happens with the Israeli deal. It’s a deal with the Devil, but I think I can understand it. The Israeli public is demanding the hostages come home. That weighs heavily on the administration. Each death means the loss of an entire world (Jews value life dearly), and the hostages are dying. The deal is terribly disproportionate, but it’s not the first time that Israel has released a disproportionate number of terrorists for one or a few of its own citizens. Again, Israelis place high value on its citizens and are willing to pay this price. This is why it’s a deal with the Devil. The other side does not value life, so can take advantage.
Has Israel lost? I think that it remains to be determined. At the moment, Hamas is still the power of record in Gaza. (Obviously, if you’re negotiating with Hamas, you’re negotiating with the people in power.) But Israel’s stated position for ending the war is that Hamas needs to be removed from power, never to return. The removal of Hamas from power needs to happen during the next phases of the “deal.” If Hamas does not give up power in these later phases, Israel will need to re-start the fighting.
The Israeli leadership—as I understand it—has reserved the right (in the agreement) to resume the war if that objective is not met. My guess is that Israel will need to restart the war, as Hamas will not leave power voluntarily. But in the meantime, Israel will have at least repatriated 33 hostages and reduced Hamas’s leverage. So, I don’t think that this deal ends the war. A significant concern is that the relative calm of a short-term ceasefire, coupled with war weariness, will make it difficult for Israel to restart the war when Hamas fails to give up power. If that happens, Israel has lost. The leadership—and the Israeli people—need to stand strong.
What is now absolutely infuriating is the calls to give lots of aid to Palestine?!! Some countries are pledging money to help. As Gad Sadd says it’s suicidal empathy.
Will the money go to:
More tunnels?
More weapons?
Better luxurious accommodation for the Hamas leaders?
I don’t imagine for a minute the money will go to rebuilding for the people. I hope I am wrong.
Completely agree.
It took five and a half long bloody years of war to get rid of Hitler. Stand strong, Israel. Never again.
Mr. Ransom, in his American Thinker article, repeats the tired platitude: “The term ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the Constitution.” He’s apparently ignorant of the fact that neither is the phrase “freedom of religion” found in the Constitution. The relevant language is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” Thus, the phrase “separation of church and state” is simply a paraphrasing of the language before the comma, in precisely the same way that “freedom of religion” paraphrases the language after the comma. It’s also significant to note that the language prohibiting the state sponsorship of religion comes BEFORE the language guarantying the free exercise of religion, such that one could credibly argue that the state sponsorship of religion was actually the greater concern of the founders — particularly given the extensive writings by both Madison (the primary draftsman of the Bill of Rights) and Jefferson regarding the problems of government entanglement with religion.
I’ve also heard it often said that “separation of church and state” was something that Jefferson alone came up with. In fact, James Madison used exactly the same phrase, as well as other language expressing precisely the same sentiment:
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.”
-James Madison, March 2, 1819 letter to Robert Walsh
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
-James Madison, undated Memorandum circa 1823
Madison was a firm believer of separation of church and state. One of the blessings he thanked God for was “a political Constitution” guaranteeing “those sacred rights of conscience”. He felt everyone has the right to their own religion, or none at all, if that was their belief. He was against any form of coercing any ones beliefs. Any religion not believed in freely was worthless and harmful. Read “Founding Faith” by Steven Waldman.
And reading in Ayaan Hirsi Ali substack today Islam is ONLY about coercing everyone’s beliefs. Madison was a religious believer yet he felt it was vital to allow for individual freedom. Islam needs its own Madison.
Absolute best duck I ever had in a restaurant was the Tea-smoked Duck at a place in San Francisco while at a meeting there decades ago. It was so good that we ordered a second one.
“Go ahead. I’ll wait. If you can’t or won’t do it, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re just a bigot.”
There is more than one potential definition of woke, Laurie Penny does a pretty good one herself:)
Middle East “ceasefire”. An unnecessary suck up to the international “community”. Too early while a single building still stands in Gaza and a single member of Hamas is alive. Sloppy IDF, sloppy.
It is the Middle East, the Islamosphere – their rules (see Koran for instructions on ethics of war).
Read it for some excellent moral squalor – or turn on the TV to see it in real life.
They constantly say they want Sharia – I say make their wishes come true as per the Koran. Islam never had an Enlightenment like us where the idiocy of religion was castrated and defanged … soooo… every jot and tittle in the Koran is 100% valid today. To even suggest otherwise is a capital offense.
I submitted the LSAT question – I think “Simon” was swapped with “Bryan” …
I’d have to work on that question again. Intrigued to hear the answer or reasoning that readers give.
As for “Woke” it is Critical Consciousness of any strain.
It originates in Leftism – and the Right reaction to it is accounted for by this. Consider the German Erwacht and which political party pushed it as propaganda. Or e.g. Tucker Carlson (if he can be listened to for very long).
“It’s also Thesaurus Day” – our annual reminder that there is no synonym for thesaurus.
That is an extreme claim. — Does the straightforward term synonym dictionary not count?
Steven Wright has a good joke about the topic you raise, “What’s another word for thesaurus?”
I think the article on Mayor Karen Bass is unfair. According to Wikipedia, she wasn’t going to Africa on vacation, but working to improve trade relations and alleviate poverty.
That doesn’t sound like the job of a mayor, and certainly not a primary responsibility. It also sounds like an excuse for someone who wanted to travel on a boondoggle.
There are a lot of LSAT questions going around online. What the tweets don’t include is the fact these questions – however difficult or easy – are time sensitive. You have about 1:30 sec. to do each, then move to the next one and another minute and a half. It is the time crunch that’s the torment.
Taking it in 1998 was a horrible experience – worse than law school which can be fun. The bar exam is similar to LSAT: yuck. Even when you do OK in them.
D.A., J.D.
NYC
I am waiting for the other shoe to drop on this ceasefire. I don’t think after all this time that Netanyahu agreed without getting something substantial in return, like a strong promise of support going forward or a free hand against Iranian nuclear facilities. At the same time, it’s not clear that Israel really had a way to finish the war.
Keep in mind this is a ceasefire, not a peace agreement. Fighting will stop, hostages be recovered, etc… and one or both sides will break the ceasefire and the war will continue like after all the other cease fires.
Trump has “hinted” he thinks Israel should have free rein.
I don’t like the idea of releasing hundreds of terrorists to return to Gaza. But that was always one of Hamas’s big motives.
Regarding the definition for woke, it occurs to me that while the supposed aim of wokesters is to eliminate the mistreatment of others, they are all about mistreating others themselves (you bigot!). I realize the definition was supposed to be concise but shouldn’t there be something about their “oppressors and victims” worldview?
PS I got the LSAT question right. It’s E. (Had to look it up since I’m not on X)
I’ll take your word for it on the answer to the LSAT question since I couldn’t figure it out. I took the LSAT in 1968 or 1969. If I had to do it again, I wouldn’t.
Well, I come up with E also.
The first sentence in the givens says “Most of… ” so we need to be strict and look for a place where “more than half” will matter.
The second given is an ALL statement (written as an “each”), with an if-then: “IF received lower than B-minus, THEN missed at least one class.” Flip this to the contrapositive:
“If NOT missed at least one class, THEN NOT received lower than B-minus”.
Now rephrase “not missed at least one class” as “attended every class.” And rephrase “not received lower than B-minus” as “did receive B-minus or higher.”
So now from the second given we have “IF attended every class THEN received B-minus or higher”. The first given says that most (more than half) students attended every class. That’s the IF of the converted second given — so we can say the THEN part holds for them: “Most (more than half) received B-minus or higher”.
And that is choice E!
We could in test-taking situation stop there and mark E as our answer, since there should be just one correct choice. But in calm analysis we ought to examine each of the other choices and note why they cannot be firmly drawn conclusions of the givens. (But no, I’m not going to try to do that compactly now!)
We’ll see what happens with the Israeli deal. It’s a deal with the Devil, but I think I can understand it. The Israeli public is demanding the hostages come home. That weighs heavily on the administration. Each death means the loss of an entire world (Jews value life dearly), and the hostages are dying. The deal is terribly disproportionate, but it’s not the first time that Israel has released a disproportionate number of terrorists for one or a few of its own citizens. Again, Israelis place high value on its citizens and are willing to pay this price. This is why it’s a deal with the Devil. The other side does not value life, so can take advantage.
Has Israel lost? I think that it remains to be determined. At the moment, Hamas is still the power of record in Gaza. (Obviously, if you’re negotiating with Hamas, you’re negotiating with the people in power.) But Israel’s stated position for ending the war is that Hamas needs to be removed from power, never to return. The removal of Hamas from power needs to happen during the next phases of the “deal.” If Hamas does not give up power in these later phases, Israel will need to re-start the fighting.
The Israeli leadership—as I understand it—has reserved the right (in the agreement) to resume the war if that objective is not met. My guess is that Israel will need to restart the war, as Hamas will not leave power voluntarily. But in the meantime, Israel will have at least repatriated 33 hostages and reduced Hamas’s leverage. So, I don’t think that this deal ends the war. A significant concern is that the relative calm of a short-term ceasefire, coupled with war weariness, will make it difficult for Israel to restart the war when Hamas fails to give up power. If that happens, Israel has lost. The leadership—and the Israeli people—need to stand strong.
Sorry for the length of my commentary.
Naftali Bennett has a good (brief) analysis on YouTube: https://youtu.be/DNNUaNfW8ho?si=MkPUPb3XLv1kcMFx
What is now absolutely infuriating is the calls to give lots of aid to Palestine?!! Some countries are pledging money to help. As Gad Sadd says it’s suicidal empathy.
Will the money go to:
More tunnels?
More weapons?
Better luxurious accommodation for the Hamas leaders?
I don’t imagine for a minute the money will go to rebuilding for the people. I hope I am wrong.
Completely agree.
It took five and a half long bloody years of war to get rid of Hitler. Stand strong, Israel. Never again.
Mr. Ransom, in his American Thinker article, repeats the tired platitude: “The term ‘separation of church and state’ is not found in the Constitution.” He’s apparently ignorant of the fact that neither is the phrase “freedom of religion” found in the Constitution. The relevant language is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” Thus, the phrase “separation of church and state” is simply a paraphrasing of the language before the comma, in precisely the same way that “freedom of religion” paraphrases the language after the comma. It’s also significant to note that the language prohibiting the state sponsorship of religion comes BEFORE the language guarantying the free exercise of religion, such that one could credibly argue that the state sponsorship of religion was actually the greater concern of the founders — particularly given the extensive writings by both Madison (the primary draftsman of the Bill of Rights) and Jefferson regarding the problems of government entanglement with religion.
I’ve also heard it often said that “separation of church and state” was something that Jefferson alone came up with. In fact, James Madison used exactly the same phrase, as well as other language expressing precisely the same sentiment:
“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.”
-James Madison, March 2, 1819 letter to Robert Walsh
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”
-James Madison, undated Memorandum circa 1823
Madison was a firm believer of separation of church and state. One of the blessings he thanked God for was “a political Constitution” guaranteeing “those sacred rights of conscience”. He felt everyone has the right to their own religion, or none at all, if that was their belief. He was against any form of coercing any ones beliefs. Any religion not believed in freely was worthless and harmful. Read “Founding Faith” by Steven Waldman.
And reading in Ayaan Hirsi Ali substack today Islam is ONLY about coercing everyone’s beliefs. Madison was a religious believer yet he felt it was vital to allow for individual freedom. Islam needs its own Madison.
Perhaps at least partly the reason why 60% of states have a town/city named Madison.
Absolute best duck I ever had in a restaurant was the Tea-smoked Duck at a place in San Francisco while at a meeting there decades ago. It was so good that we ordered a second one.
“Go ahead. I’ll wait. If you can’t or won’t do it, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re just a bigot.”
There is more than one potential definition of woke, Laurie Penny does a pretty good one herself:)
Middle East “ceasefire”. An unnecessary suck up to the international “community”. Too early while a single building still stands in Gaza and a single member of Hamas is alive. Sloppy IDF, sloppy.
It is the Middle East, the Islamosphere – their rules (see Koran for instructions on ethics of war).
Read it for some excellent moral squalor – or turn on the TV to see it in real life.
They constantly say they want Sharia – I say make their wishes come true as per the Koran. Islam never had an Enlightenment like us where the idiocy of religion was castrated and defanged … soooo… every jot and tittle in the Koran is 100% valid today. To even suggest otherwise is a capital offense.
D.A.
NYC
I’m right there with you, Ash.
Poor kitteh.