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.
‘Tis the tail end of the week: Friday, September 19, 2025, and it’s National Butterscotch Pudding Day. I always think of the disgraced Bill Cosby, who used to be all over television advertising Jell-O pudding, like here:
Here’s a video showing how to talk like a pirate. Why did they talk that way, anyway?
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the September 19 Wikipedia page. ARRRRRRR, Matey!
Da Nooz:
*I didn’t think that Trump would appeal the court decision that overturned his attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook—a firing ostensibly based on her claiming two different houses in two different places as her “principal residences” (she denies it). But appeal he did, and so it goes to the Supreme Court.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to let it remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board while a lawsuit challenging the president’s effort to fire her proceeds.
The emergency request comes after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., rejected the administration’s bid to remove Cook ahead of the Fed’s meeting earlier this week. The 2-1 decision was handed down the night before the meeting began.
Federal law protects Fed governors from arbitrary removal, but the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General John Sauer, told the court in his filing that allegations that Cook committed mortgage fraud, made by a Trump political appointee, provide the president sufficient cause to fire the Senate-confirmed Biden appointee.
Sauer asked the court to allow the administration to immediately remove Cook from the board even before the justices issue a decision on the emergency request.
“That the Federal Reserve Board plays a uniquely important role in the American economy only heightens the government’s and the public’s interest in ensuring that an ethically compromised member does not continue wielding its vast powers,” Sauer wrote.
Cook has denied wrongdoing and argues that unproven allegations related to personal conduct before her appointment to the Fed can’t be grounds for her removal.
This should be an interesting case as the evidence should be fairly clean-cut. Either she committed fraud, and that should be on paper, or she didn’t. If she didn’t, the court should just toss the case, but if she did, well, then they can either take the case or remand it for re-inspection. I have no idea what the evidence is, but it’s pretty clear that, for Trump, this isn’t really about fraud but about trying to make the Fed just another one of his servants.
*On her Substack site, Karen Hunt (aka KH Mezek) mourns the apparent purchase of The Free Press by Paramount for $100-200 million; the post is called “Say good-bye to The Free Press.”
Just as left and right have come together over the demonization of Israel, left and right have come together over support for Israel. (I have found this to be the case with my own Substack.) Ultra conservative evangelical Christians subscribe to TFP, even though they might frown on Bari Weiss being a lesbian. MAGA subscribe, even though TFP has a bias against President Trump. There are probably hundreds of thousands of Jewish subscribers, liberal and conservative, simply because it’s hard to find support for Israel anywhere in the news these days.
Expressing diverse points of view is what I have always liked about The Free Press. This makes for healthy, and generally respectful, debates in the comment sections, not these echo chambers where everyone pats each other on the back with a false sense that their opinion is the only one that matters.
However, as an independent news outlet grows in popularity, pressure to placate the powerful players who promote it is inevitable. Nobody who is popular on the right is going to criticize Elon Musk, for example. When it came to his controversial Nazi salute, Weiss played it down by assigning and promoting a piece by Richard Hanania, “I Can Explain Why the Nazi Salute Is Back,” which claims it isn’t “sincere Nazism” but blamed it all on “an oppositional culture.”
Like so many independent ventures that start with noble core values and become successful precisely because of those noble core values, powerful media and tech giants come calling and the independent little guy can’t resist the money offered and they sell out to the big guy.
Less that three years after launching TFP, it looks like Bari Weiss is selling it.
In this case, the big guy is Skydance Media CEO David Ellison, son of tech giant Larry Ellison. David Ellison and Bari Weiss were both spotted attending the Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. The annual “summer camp for billionaires” has historically been a deal-making hotbed.
To his credit, David Ellison stands with Israel and has committed over $1 million in relief to “victims of this tragic act of terrorism and prays for the safe release of innocent hostages.”
This was probably an important factor in Bari Weiss’s decision to sell.
. . .We admire the brave souls who break away from the powerful. It gives us hope that we can do it too. But then, they go right back again, wooed by the same old temptations, money and the promise that they will be able to do “greater good” because of the powerful forces behind them.
But this never happens. They just fall back again under the power of those who once again control them. Free voices with platforms that get too big are a threat to the powerful because they are not controlled. If those free voices can’t be bought by gaining more power and wealth of their own, they will be brought down by the destruction of their credibility, ensuring that no one ever listens to them again.
Well, no, I doubt that the Free Press will be the same, and at present I’m not reading it as much as I thought I would. However, what happens to my subscription if they sell? Do I get a refund? And most important, what will happen to Nellie Bowles’s “TGIF” column, which alone is worth the price of the subscription. Isn’t the present site lucrative enough for Bari Weiss? Isn’t it doing exactly what Bari wants? I doubt that, if TFP is sold, its values and content will be anything close to what they are now, or were envisioned.
Israel’s high-powered laser interception system, dubbed “Iron Beam,” has been declared operational after completing development and final tests, and is set to be delivered to the military by the end of the year, the Defense Ministry and manufacturer Rafael said on Wednesday.
The Iron Beam has been in development for over a decade; it was first unveiled in 2014. During the current war, a lower-powered version of the system was used by the Israel Defense Forces to shoot down Hezbollah drones launched from Lebanon.
The ministry said its Directorate of Defense Research & Development (DDR&D), the Israeli Air Force, and the Rafael defense firm “successfully completed an advanced series of operational tests, which lasted several weeks, to demonstrate the capabilities of the high-power laser system.”
It said the test involved the interception of rockets, mortars, and drones by the Iron Beam.
“The series of tests, conducted at a testing ground in southern Israel, concludes the development process and constitutes the final stage before delivering the system for operational use in the IDF,” the ministry said.
. . . The Iron Beam is not meant to replace the Iron Dome or Israel’s other air defense systems, but to supplement and complement them, shooting down smaller projectiles and leaving larger ones for the more robust missile-based batteries such as the David’s Sling and Arrow systems.
As long as there is a constant source of energy for the laser, there is no risk of it ever running out of ammunition. Officials have hailed it as a potential “game-changer” in the battle against projectile attacks.
And here’s a tweet with a short video of a test. It’s an awesome system that can destroy incoming missiles or drones instantly.
Israel’s high-powered laser interception system, dubbed “Iron Beam,” has been declared operational after completing development and final tests, and is set to be delivered to the military by the end of the year, the Defense Ministry and manufacturer Rafael say.
I can hear people kvetching now that Israel has these weapons, as they allow more Israelis to live. But remember that this is a purely defensive weapon, designed to protect Israeli civilians from rockets fired by its enemies like Iran or Hamas. It’s telling that some people don’t even like an increased defensive capability, which leads me to conclude that they don’t like Israeli lives being saved.
*The Jimmy Kimmel Live! show was removed indefinitely from the ABC network (owned by Disney); they didn’t give a reason but it was certainly because Kimmel said on his show that Trumpites were desperate to show that the killer of Charlie Kirk was not one of them (he wasn’t; accused killer Tyler Robinson was on the Left and had a romantic relationship with a trans-identified man). But Hollywood is up in arms.
The right-wing campaign to shut down perceived detractors of the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk reverberated through the entertainment industry on Thursday after ABC announced it would indefinitely suspend late night host Jimmy Kimmel. The news, announced late Wednesday, rocked Hollywood, prompting many to accuse ABC of buckling to a censorship campaign targeting one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal critics.
ABC did not give an explanation for suspending “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after the host delivered a monologue accusing “the president and his henchmen” of trying to capitalize on Kirk’s fatal shooting in Utah last week. In the aftermath of Kirk’s death, Trump and his allies have urged people to drum the activist’s perceived detractors out of their jobs.
Kimmel’s suspension was announced hours after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr criticized the comedian and implied that the FCC could retaliate against those who aired him.
“Jimmy Kimmel has been muzzled and taken off the air,” comedian Marc Maron said in an Instagram video posted early Thursday morning. “This is what authoritarianism looks like right now in this country … This is government censorship.”
Trump “didn’t end the Ukraine war or solve Gaza within his first week, but he did end freedom of speech within his first year,” comedian Wanda Sykes said on Instagram. “Hey, for those of you who pray, now’s the time to do it. Love you, Jimmy.”
Kimmel has called Kirk’s killing “senseless” and said he had seen “extraordinarily vile responses to this from both sides of the political spectrum,” including those he said were “cheering” Kirk’s death. But the hostangered some on the right in his opening monologue Monday night, when he said the “MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.” He was referring to 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, the Utah man accused of shooting Kirk. Robinson grew up in a Republican household but had apparently become sympathetic to LGBTQ+ causes, according to Utah Gov. Spenc
Yes, Kimmel’s response to the killing and the cheering is fine, and I have no objection to him using his show to air his political views. After all, isn’t that what people like Trevor Noah and Jon Stewart did? But this is ABC, and “freeedom of speech” does not obtain in a private corporation. If ABC worries about Kimmel turning away viewers, they can have a word with him, but cancelling his show over something like this is simply more chilling of speech engendered by fear of Trump and his retribution. And this is one way that Trump is curtailing real free speech: by pressuring broadcasters not to put on content that criticizes him or the Administration.
Here’s the video of Kimmel’s remarks; it should start at the controversial part:
When Ukrainian immigrant Alex Babich stands in his Indiana backyard craning his neck to look 35 feet (11 meters) into the sky, he isn’t just staring at a sunflower. He is looking at his roots — and his future legacy.
The flower, nicknamed “Clover” and confirmed Wednesday by Guinness World Records as the tallest sunflower ever measured, stretches as high as a telephone pole.
Achieving the feat holds special significance for the 47-year-old Babich since sunflowers are the national flower of Ukraine.
Born and raised in Ukraine, he immigrated to the U.S. at age 14 in 1991 after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Seven years ago, he started growing sunflowers as a symbol of his love for his home country. Babich’s first sunflower was 13 feet (4 meters) tall, then 15 (4.5), then 19 (5.8). Quickly, he began asking himself, “How far can we take this?” Babich said the record-breaking flower was the result of “trial and error over years.”
. . . . When measuring day came on Sept. 3, Babich was nervous.
About 85 people had gathered to watch, including several master gardeners from a local university and representatives from the Allen County Department of Weights and Measures. Babich was on a WhatsApp call with a representative from Guinness World Records. A camera crew was filming, and a drone flew overhead. Even Icy D. Eagle, the mascot of the Fort Wayne Komets minor league ice hockey team, was there, according to Guinness.
AD
They used a 40-foot cherry picker to measure the flower. Clover was 35 feet (11 meters) and 9 inches (22.9 centimeters), 5 feet (1.5 meters) taller than the previous world record holder in Germany.
AD
“It’s very emotional,” Babich said. “It’s as good as it gets for someone who grows giants.”
Here’s a short video news clip about the giant flower:
And look at this tweet; that’s a brave woman!
Ukrainian woman confronts Russian soldiers in Henychesk, Kherson region. Asks them why they came to our land and urges to put sunflower seeds in their pockets [so that flowers would grow when they die on the Ukrainian land] pic.twitter.com/ztTx2qK7kB
Masih points out that Iranian women are increasingly not wearing the hijab at all, so at least in this respect they’re winning. But they’re still oppressed in many ways: true second-class citizens:
She was killed for “inappropriate hijab.” By Morality Police. 3 years later, you can barely find women with “inappropriate hijab” in Iran, They’ve basically removed the whole hijab in public. That’s not reform. That’s the brave women giving the middle finger to @khamenei_ir ! pic.twitter.com/la2lbB83LV
J. K. Rowling, who’s posting quite a bit about the oppression of women in Afghanistan, reposted this video about the lack of education allowed for Afghani women. Will the UN at least pass a resolution? Don’t bet on it.
Hanifa Girwal, a brave human rights activist, addressed the UN Security Council today, speaking for Afghan women and girls and warning of the deep crises endangering Afghans and global stability. She called on the UN and the international community to act. #LetAfghanGirlsLearnhttps://t.co/NF64oR1H1apic.twitter.com/CtewEMsiNe
Maarten Boudry, ever brave, made this post after the rector at his university (Ghent) said that faculty weren’t allowed to question the “fact” that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza:
I’ll co-author a paper with political scientist @ShMMor dismantling the “genocide” libel against Israel. What are you going to do about that, @pdsutter? Banning research on an open academic question is a blatant betrayal of academic freedom—and of @UGent‘s motto “Dare to think.” https://t.co/1OByh4oEeLpic.twitter.com/I61JVwpWBS
From Malcolm; live and learn: Leonard invented a bridge structure:
Leonardo da Vinci may be best known for the Mona Lisa or his flying machine sketches.
But among his innovative designs is another remarkable structure: a sturdy bridge that can be assembled and disassembled quickly with wooden logs. pic.twitter.com/oXY2tUmvFT
Starved larvae of a beetle actually regress, reverting to an earlier instar (developmental stage) when deprived of food and water:
Beck and Bharadwaj 1972 baby, the larvae moult into a smaller instar then just start growing from that stage as usual. Only thing that got weird was their fat cells, which tended to show nuclear fusion (not that kind) http://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1…
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
This is what power really is: the privilege of ignoring anything you might find distasteful. -Oksana Zabuzhko, writer (b. 19 Sep 1960)
I’d rather think it’s the privilege of silencing anything you might find distasteful…
People with power like Putin, Orban, Kim Jung Un, or Trump don’t do much ignoring (Trump can’t even ignore comedians). I wish “ignoring anything…distasteful” was a part of their privilege, that would be nice.
+1
“Here’s a video showing how to talk like a pirate. Why did they talk that way, anyway?”
I am not so sure they did, at least not all of them, no doubt some originated in the West Country. The main reason I suspect is the influence of Robert Newton’s portrayal of Long John Silver. Things that are enshrined in motion pictures tend to become cliches, just like every frog in US picures being one specific variety of frog that was used long, long ago (though I have noticed some variety in recent years, maybe an up and coming Foley artist had a new recording).
I was recently looking at an actor’s credits on IMDB, which led me to the 1950 Disney production of Treasure Island, starring Robert Newton as Long John Silver. The trivia there suggests that it was Newton’s performance that introduced “Arrr!” into pirate argot. I haven’t see the movie since I was a kid, but it has a lot of actors that I like, so I am going to soon.
At the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), we “in the know” shout out “Arrr” whenever the anti-pirating message is projected😹
Indeed, I’m quite sure that “they” did not talk that way, since pirates came from a great multitude of linguistic backgrounds.
Hollywood did get a few things right. In the days of Errol Flynn and his swashbuckler silents, the new film’s costume designers, at a loss to come up with what the actors should wear, consulted a real historian who gave them contemporary images of pirates, which included women. The filmakers based their costumes on real pirates, right down to the eye patches* and a parrot on the shoulder. One pirate (whose name escapes me) was known for his bizarre outfits and his practice of tying strands of his long beard into knots, lighting the strands so that they smoldered, then using his lit beard as a touch-fuse for muskets and cannon. So the flamboyent, colorful, sometime bizarre dress of Hollywood pirates reflect how some pirates actually comported themselves.
*Eyepatches were common among sailors; when going below deck, they would move the patch off the dark-adapted eye so that there was less time spent adapting from the bright deck above.
I believe that the fellow with the incendiary beard was Blackbeard (Edward Teach).
I did my preclinical physiology practicals in the Haldane Room at UCL. Including one where we used a rebreather whilst copying some paragraphs from a book. When I regained consciousness, I had fallen off my stool and was lying on the floor. It seems I had been writing nonsense for a couple of minutes before passing out, and with no awareness at all of anything being wrong. A good illustration of the insidiousness of hypoxia, but one I doubt they use any more!
When I took my flight surgeon course in 2009, the class was put into a hypobaric chamber and “flown” up to the equivalent of 10,000 feet. We then breathed a 10% oxygen mixture to induce hypoxia while performing various arithmetic tasks to demonstrate the effects. This was all closely supervised. Military pilots undergo this training so that they can recognize their own individual symptoms. Many people become euphoric when hypoxic, which is why it is so dangerous for pilots as they think nothing is wrong!
That sounds brilliant – the good old days when practicals were both practical and memorable (and a lot of fun). Anyone participating in that is unlikely to forget the effects of hypoxia in a hurry – unless they bang their head on the way down, that is!
These days, merely mentioning hypoxia will probably need a risk assessment. Followed by a trigger warning and pre-emptive apology.
The Wapo story on Kimmel appears to leave out the fact that two major affiliate groups, Nextstar and Sinclair, both said they were going to suspend showing the Kimmel show because of what he said. One of them even insisted on an apology (which Kimmel said he would not do) and suggested donations to Turning Point USA and Kirk’s family. (I’m guessing that won’t happen, either.) The affiliate actions preceded ABC action. From a free speech perspective this seems to be a case of, ‘Say whatever you want, just not on our stage.’ I doubt Kimmel will lack for public venues until his fifteen minutes are up.
Is the Kimmel situation really very different from what happened with Roseanne Barr?
Well, I can’t remember all the circumstances of Barr’s firing, but I do recall that what she said wasn’t on her show and she did apologize.
I could be mistaken, but as I recall, Barr was fired by her network for comments that were offensive. We have always upheld the general right of a private company to fire its employees.
The difference in the Kimmel case was the pressure from the FCC — both Trump and Carr made it clear long before the Kirk killing that Kimmel had to go, and that kind of government interference strikes many people as a violation of First Amendment protections, especially since there are issues of mergers and licenses that the feds control, and which were threatened if ABC did not fire Kimmel….
You are correct, and of course certain Trump-supporters in the comment section have neglected to mention the pressure from the FCC, which makes this a case of government interference and free speech violation. Turns out right-wingers love cancel culture when it suits their own ends, just as they want free speech, but for themselves only. Kimmel’s speech was at worst inaccurate, but hardly the sort of grossly offensive utterance that might earn such actions from Nextstar and Sinclair…until you factor in that Sinclair is right-wing and Nextstar wants its merger to go through.
Kimmel was outright lying and I’m sure he knew it as by then the facts of the case were clear. I found it quite offensive, as I’m sure many others did. There has been way too much lying to win political points by all sides of the political spectrum lately, Trump of course included. Perhaps if Kimmel had corrected himself on air and apologized, he would’ve kept his job.
Almost couldn’t be any more different. Although I opposed both actions, there is a massive difference between corporate discretion (which consumers can counter through market mechanisms like boycotts) and government coercion (which undermines the whole framework of voluntary free expression, and which essentially leaves consumers with no meaningful recourse).
Bold added :
“We have a lot to talk about tonight. Let’s start with Roseanne Barr, who, as you probably heard, tweeted something disgusting about Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Obama. She compared her to an ape, which is not just offensive, It’s racist. And ABC, to their credit, didn’t waste any time-they canceled her show today. I’m not a fan of censorship, but this wasn’t about free speech-it was about consequences for saying something vile.
You can say what you want, but networks don’t have to pay you to say it. Roseanne’s been a friend of mine for a long time, and I know she’s not a racist in her heart, but what she tweeted was indefensible. You can’t just blame Ambien for that. Actions have consequences, and ABC made the right call.”
-Jimmy Kimmel
May 29, 2018
Make of it what one will. I understand the FCC vs. ABC distinction, so, that remains serious.
The rest illustrates the thought processes behind the show-biz gossip…?
Red alert :
I no longer can verify this quote on YouTube. Reports say this is fake. I could have sworn I heard it.
Apologies.
Your story on Kimmel leaves out the fact that Nexstar needs Trump administration approval for its acquisition of Tegna, and it is not surprising that Nexstar was quick to cancel Kimmel’s show. Any network going forward has Trump’s caution:
“Speaking to reporters on Thursday afternoon, President Trump floated the idea that the federal government may put the squeeze on any TV networks he saw as standing “against” him: “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”
Re Hollywood being up in arms about this: “Squirrel !!”.
I didn’t see the whole Kimmel episode but I’ve seen it suggested that he spent far more time on the Epstein files, and that’s what it was really about.
Just like Colbert, it’s simply Trump going after critics. Another sign of his narcissistic and authoritarian nature. Pretty simple explanation and very unAmerican to punish people whose speech you don’t like. No surprise there.
Considering the history of the U.S., is it really all that “un-American”?
I would reasonably grant that it is reasonably, relatively un-American if we restrict ourselves to the period of history starting perhaps in the mid-70s until the onset of “political correctness” (whenever that was) or at the longest the onset of Wokeness at universities.
Yes, I’d say it’s un-American to ignore the 1A, whether done by “cancel culture” or Trump or anyone else. It sure isn’t pro-American. I don’t know when going against the 1A was ever pro-American in our history and I can’t think of any examples.
Anyway, I’ve commented too much on this post after this.
I realize there is a raft of important American jurisprudence extending the reach of the First Amendment in truly praiseworthy scope and is, or should be, a light unto the world. However, what the amendment actually says is only that “Congress shall make no law . . .” Even though this is construed to bind the state legislatures and the Executive agencies and other creatures of government like public universities and school boards that can’t make law as such, nonetheless the major focus is on preventing the passage of laws restricting speech that you can be fined or imprisoned for violating. Medical licensing boards disciplined doctors during the Covid pandemic with licence suspensions, but not jail, for spreading what was at the time deemed to be — and much of it really was — misinformation. I don’t think they were wrong to do that.
If the Administration says to a broadcasting corporation, “Fire this comedian or your proposed merger with an erstwhile competitor will run into trouble with the regulators (FTC or FCC)”, is this threat a violation of the First Amendment? If it is, what is the remedy? There is no “law made” by Congress to strike down. Can the Courts compel the regulators to approve the merger (even if the merger was not in the public interest on its merits even before the comedian’s remarks set off the President), just because the President abridged the corporation’s First Amendment Rights in demanding the comedian’s firing? And the comedian has no case against the Administration. It didn’t fire him. His employer, a private-sector corporation did. (And some commenters are uncomfortable with the idea that a corporation, as a person, has First-Amendment rights in the first place.)
There are two orthogonal issues here. One is the content of speech that can be suppressed. The U.S. leads the way here in forbidding laws to suppress any speech except the well-known exceptions involving violence, or lying when one is obligated to tell the truth. These shouldn’t be augmented. The “hate” slope is too slippery. The other question is Who (other than Congress, which mustn’t) can regulate or circumscribe speech in the name of exercising power, an Executive function. The scenario I referenced does sound corrupt and un-American but I would appreciate being told exactly how (if) it is an actionable First Amendment issue. Does 1A mean that no one who has the power to shut someone up must not use it?
(This was really meant for Mark R. but he says he’s commented enough already.)
“If the Administration says to a broadcasting corporation, “Fire this comedian or your proposed merger with an erstwhile competitor will run into trouble with the regulators (FTC or FCC)”, is this threat a violation of the First Amendment? If it is, what is the remedy?”
It’s just crazy, man! Simple as that. Maybe it’s an American thing. And the remedy is: Vote the fuckers out!
“And the comedian has no case against the Administration. It didn’t fire him. His employer, a private-sector corporation did.”
The administration’s FCC director Carr, without precedent I’d like to add, threatened ABC with revoking licensing agreements, etc, in the middle of a multi-billion$ merger. Jawboning (ubiquitous in this Admin). Plus the Communication’s Act is supposed to curtail FCC censoring bs. Laws? Precedent? What are those say the Trump sycophants. Break them until told otherwise, nothing will happen anyway. Trump pardons his sycophants if there’s any serious harm like prosecution.
“The other question is Who (other than Congress, which mustn’t) can regulate or circumscribe speech in the name of exercising power, an Executive function. The scenario I referenced does sound corrupt and un-American but I would appreciate being told exactly how (if) it is an actionable First Amendment issue. Does 1A mean that no one who has the power to shut someone up must not use it?”
You confuse me for a constitutional lawyer with a question like that, but SCOTUS is the only arbiter I can think of…not to say they’ll get it right with the 6 religious originalist hacks groomed from the Federalist Society, 3 of whom were picked by Trump, who brags “they’re his.” Me, personally, I’d say it’s a slippery slope when you give someone the power to silence speech, so yes, one shouldn’t be permitted to use said power. Let the KKK march on! and the trans-folk and Antisemites and Antifa (who is that btw, is there even a leader’s name someone can point to?)…it goes on and on, so it goes. Let speakers speak, condemn those who fear speech. Or change the channel.
The Sociopath Song
They are sociopaths, they’re not OK
They chew you up then spit you away
They have no shame, no empathy
You matter not at all
‘Cept as a means to their ends
You’re heading for a fall
Israeli Space Laser: Excellent! Now the Israelis actually can place microchips into our bodies at the same time they inject their scary vaccines!
And that sunflower. I saw the picture the other day, and thought that it was an impressive feat indeed to nurture a sunflower to that height. Of course, it needs an oil derrick to hold it up, as it doesn’t have a woody stem. (So, while tall, it isn’t actually beautiful.) I find it amazing that it can pull water from the ground up to that great height!
Yeah. I recently read that tall trees evaporate 90% or more of their roots’ water intake to provide the lift necessary to get water at all up to the top. (Even a perfect vacuum pump can’t lift more than 34 feet.)
Petra De Sutter is a trans woman. Here we have yet another case of misguided identity politics activism, i.e. “Queers for Palestine.” Incidentally, she already called for sanctions against the Israel in November 2023.
Don’t we now say properly that Petra de Sumter is a trans-identified man, and that he called for sanctions against Israel? I thought respecting the wrong pronouns was now something one does only to avoid punishment by someone who has power over one.
Such a someone, or some busybody who has it in for you, might search the internet for your ungoodspeak.
My understanding of the Free Press deal was not that Bari Weiss was selling out and moving on, but rather than she was getting an executive position at CBS News (which would then include the FP).
“(he wasn’t; accused killer Tyler Robinson was on the Left and had a romantic relationship with a trans-identified man)” Not sure why you’re suddenly so confident in that conclusion — especially when we’re only hearing from the MAGA Utah Governor and Trump’s Justice Dept. Why has no one else talked to this mysterious trans roommate? Why don’t the text messages in the charging doc sound at all like they were written by a 22 year old? Why is Robinson “not cooperating” when he supposedly already confessed and knows he’s facing the death penalty? Frankly, I’m not sure we can trust anything coming from this administration. They’ve lied in court before. People are complicated and I think it’s quite premature to be so sure that this guy was on “the Left”. Even if it’s true that his kid fell in love with a man who was transitioning, that hardly puts him automatically on “the Left”. There are plenty of bi and gay people who hold right-wing or conservative views.
You’re right there may be lots of lying going on. But the texts about the killing specifically say Robinson was trying to protect Twiggs (the “trans” boyfriend). An ABC news reporter thought the texts between Robinson and Twiggs were real and that their interpretation as love letters was correct. Called the exchange “touching” and “an intimate portrait”.
Doesn’t seem ambiguous. Robinson may not have only leftist views; one can just say that he supported genderism and murdered someone for it.
“Even if it’s true that his kid fell in love with a man who was transitioning, that hardly puts him automatically on ‘the Left'”
“His kid”? He, the shooter, is the one with the trans-identified boyfriend.
Lady Mondegreen: Typo. I meant “this kid”. Being in a relationship with a trans person doesn’t automatically make someone part of “the Left”.
It is telling that many on the left appear far more exercised about Jimmy Kimmel losing his job than they do about Charlie Kirk losing his life.
I am not on the left (and never paid any attention to either), yet I am more exercised. And Kirk himself said he felt that some gun deaths were worth the cost of protecting our rights, so perhaps the better question is why more people aren’t exercised about this? The killing of Kirk was a horrifying and senseless act committed by an unstable individual. The suspension of Kimmel is the result of government pressure against protected speech – and that sets a precedent that threatens everyone. Not the same at all, and the latter is much more dangerous to the functioning of a free (or formerly free) society.
I pay attention to both and belong to neither. I will trust you were similarly exercised during the Biden Administration when it waged its war on “misinformation” and coerced tech companies to silence speech.
Yes, I was. When government leans on intermediaries to suppress or punish speech, it’s not a free choice anymore. It’s censorship by proxy. Perhaps instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to find where I am not consistent, you should turn your gaze towards yourself.
As I said, I will trust that you were and give you the benefit of the doubt. (I don’t assume that for self-described members of the left; perhaps I erred and injected some ambiguity in trying to address both you and them in one short post.) It’s a pity that the online world encourages people to assume snark and flippancy where none is intended. It’s an even greater pity that people fire a shot without knowledge of their target or surety of their aim.
So, I am quite comfortable with my gaze. Thank you.
Sorry, but I think murdering speakers who disagree with you is far more dangerous to the functioning of a free society. Unlike Kirk, whose voice is silenced forever, Kimmel will easily find work elsewhere.
Hitchens understood that the reason why he needed to support free speech as aggressively as he did is because he knew 99% of those who claimed to support free speech would actually support the government suppression of speech whenever it suited them.
He also experienced many death threats from Muslims for his criticisms of Islam, which that religion mandates the death penalty for.
Replying here because we’d passed “max indentedness” on the relevant thread. Thanks Doug for that tweet from Geoffrey Miller. It addresses exactly what I was asking.
Pirate speak looks, eh… hears ??? nevermind, like fun, just ask Keith Richards.
Are there any comedic personalities on the “right” in the US? Didn’t seem like much lampooning of Harris/Biden on Youtube etc., a lot of left gnashing of teeth though… arrr!!!
Laser technology. A local lad directed a laser at a passing aircraft. 2, 3 weeks later the police were at the doorstep giving him a bollocking, he was lucky.
A neighbour had a powerful handheld laser and suggested you could use it to blind an intruder. Blimey! dont give THAT to the kids.
The use of lasers in science, industry, entertainment, military, has been quite a thing to behold… light sabers, pirate swords for that matter be damned! just burn a hole right through the scurvy dog!
How effective is reflective coating at deflecting the lasers? The new look in combat uniforms.
A THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
This is what power really is: the privilege of ignoring anything you might find distasteful. -Oksana Zabuzhko, writer (b. 19 Sep 1960)
I’d rather think it’s the privilege of silencing anything you might find distasteful…
People with power like Putin, Orban, Kim Jung Un, or Trump don’t do much ignoring (Trump can’t even ignore comedians). I wish “ignoring anything…distasteful” was a part of their privilege, that would be nice.
+1
“Here’s a video showing how to talk like a pirate. Why did they talk that way, anyway?”
I am not so sure they did, at least not all of them, no doubt some originated in the West Country. The main reason I suspect is the influence of Robert Newton’s portrayal of Long John Silver. Things that are enshrined in motion pictures tend to become cliches, just like every frog in US picures being one specific variety of frog that was used long, long ago (though I have noticed some variety in recent years, maybe an up and coming Foley artist had a new recording).
I was recently looking at an actor’s credits on IMDB, which led me to the 1950 Disney production of Treasure Island, starring Robert Newton as Long John Silver. The trivia there suggests that it was Newton’s performance that introduced “Arrr!” into pirate argot. I haven’t see the movie since I was a kid, but it has a lot of actors that I like, so I am going to soon.
At the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), we “in the know” shout out “Arrr” whenever the anti-pirating message is projected😹
Indeed, I’m quite sure that “they” did not talk that way, since pirates came from a great multitude of linguistic backgrounds.
Some years ago I read a book called “Under the Black Flag” (https://www.amazon.com/Under-Black-Flag-Romance-Reality/dp/0156005492). It is an interesting history of the pirates. It’s true our modern idea of wha the pirates were like was shaped by Hollywood.
Hollywood did get a few things right. In the days of Errol Flynn and his swashbuckler silents, the new film’s costume designers, at a loss to come up with what the actors should wear, consulted a real historian who gave them contemporary images of pirates, which included women. The filmakers based their costumes on real pirates, right down to the eye patches* and a parrot on the shoulder. One pirate (whose name escapes me) was known for his bizarre outfits and his practice of tying strands of his long beard into knots, lighting the strands so that they smoldered, then using his lit beard as a touch-fuse for muskets and cannon. So the flamboyent, colorful, sometime bizarre dress of Hollywood pirates reflect how some pirates actually comported themselves.
*Eyepatches were common among sailors; when going below deck, they would move the patch off the dark-adapted eye so that there was less time spent adapting from the bright deck above.
I believe that the fellow with the incendiary beard was Blackbeard (Edward Teach).
I did my preclinical physiology practicals in the Haldane Room at UCL. Including one where we used a rebreather whilst copying some paragraphs from a book. When I regained consciousness, I had fallen off my stool and was lying on the floor. It seems I had been writing nonsense for a couple of minutes before passing out, and with no awareness at all of anything being wrong. A good illustration of the insidiousness of hypoxia, but one I doubt they use any more!
When I took my flight surgeon course in 2009, the class was put into a hypobaric chamber and “flown” up to the equivalent of 10,000 feet. We then breathed a 10% oxygen mixture to induce hypoxia while performing various arithmetic tasks to demonstrate the effects. This was all closely supervised. Military pilots undergo this training so that they can recognize their own individual symptoms. Many people become euphoric when hypoxic, which is why it is so dangerous for pilots as they think nothing is wrong!
That sounds brilliant – the good old days when practicals were both practical and memorable (and a lot of fun). Anyone participating in that is unlikely to forget the effects of hypoxia in a hurry – unless they bang their head on the way down, that is!
These days, merely mentioning hypoxia will probably need a risk assessment. Followed by a trigger warning and pre-emptive apology.
The Wapo story on Kimmel appears to leave out the fact that two major affiliate groups, Nextstar and Sinclair, both said they were going to suspend showing the Kimmel show because of what he said. One of them even insisted on an apology (which Kimmel said he would not do) and suggested donations to Turning Point USA and Kirk’s family. (I’m guessing that won’t happen, either.) The affiliate actions preceded ABC action. From a free speech perspective this seems to be a case of, ‘Say whatever you want, just not on our stage.’ I doubt Kimmel will lack for public venues until his fifteen minutes are up.
Is the Kimmel situation really very different from what happened with Roseanne Barr?
Well, I can’t remember all the circumstances of Barr’s firing, but I do recall that what she said wasn’t on her show and she did apologize.
I could be mistaken, but as I recall, Barr was fired by her network for comments that were offensive. We have always upheld the general right of a private company to fire its employees.
The difference in the Kimmel case was the pressure from the FCC — both Trump and Carr made it clear long before the Kirk killing that Kimmel had to go, and that kind of government interference strikes many people as a violation of First Amendment protections, especially since there are issues of mergers and licenses that the feds control, and which were threatened if ABC did not fire Kimmel….
You are correct, and of course certain Trump-supporters in the comment section have neglected to mention the pressure from the FCC, which makes this a case of government interference and free speech violation. Turns out right-wingers love cancel culture when it suits their own ends, just as they want free speech, but for themselves only. Kimmel’s speech was at worst inaccurate, but hardly the sort of grossly offensive utterance that might earn such actions from Nextstar and Sinclair…until you factor in that Sinclair is right-wing and Nextstar wants its merger to go through.
Kimmel was outright lying and I’m sure he knew it as by then the facts of the case were clear. I found it quite offensive, as I’m sure many others did. There has been way too much lying to win political points by all sides of the political spectrum lately, Trump of course included. Perhaps if Kimmel had corrected himself on air and apologized, he would’ve kept his job.
Almost couldn’t be any more different. Although I opposed both actions, there is a massive difference between corporate discretion (which consumers can counter through market mechanisms like boycotts) and government coercion (which undermines the whole framework of voluntary free expression, and which essentially leaves consumers with no meaningful recourse).
Bold added :
“We have a lot to talk about tonight. Let’s start with Roseanne Barr, who, as you probably heard, tweeted something disgusting about Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to President Obama. She compared her to an ape, which is not just offensive, It’s racist. And ABC, to their credit, didn’t waste any time-they canceled her show today. I’m not a fan of censorship, but this wasn’t about free speech-it was about consequences for saying something vile.
You can say what you want, but networks don’t have to pay you to say it. Roseanne’s been a friend of mine for a long time, and I know she’s not a racist in her heart, but what she tweeted was indefensible. You can’t just blame Ambien for that. Actions have consequences, and ABC made the right call.”
-Jimmy Kimmel
May 29, 2018
https://youtu.be/12m1rG0Tj7U?si=BPy56peG57aGt6RH
Make of it what one will. I understand the FCC vs. ABC distinction, so, that remains serious.
The rest illustrates the thought processes behind the show-biz gossip…?
Red alert :
I no longer can verify this quote on YouTube. Reports say this is fake. I could have sworn I heard it.
Apologies.
Your story on Kimmel leaves out the fact that Nexstar needs Trump administration approval for its acquisition of Tegna, and it is not surprising that Nexstar was quick to cancel Kimmel’s show. Any network going forward has Trump’s caution:
“Speaking to reporters on Thursday afternoon, President Trump floated the idea that the federal government may put the squeeze on any TV networks he saw as standing “against” him: “I would think maybe their license should be taken away.”
Is this really the story, or more noise?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOvVUUsEsq1/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
It sounds about right.
Re Hollywood being up in arms about this: “Squirrel !!”.
I didn’t see the whole Kimmel episode but I’ve seen it suggested that he spent far more time on the Epstein files, and that’s what it was really about.
Just like Colbert, it’s simply Trump going after critics. Another sign of his narcissistic and authoritarian nature. Pretty simple explanation and very unAmerican to punish people whose speech you don’t like. No surprise there.
Considering the history of the U.S., is it really all that “un-American”?
I would reasonably grant that it is reasonably, relatively un-American if we restrict ourselves to the period of history starting perhaps in the mid-70s until the onset of “political correctness” (whenever that was) or at the longest the onset of Wokeness at universities.
Yes, I’d say it’s un-American to ignore the 1A, whether done by “cancel culture” or Trump or anyone else. It sure isn’t pro-American. I don’t know when going against the 1A was ever pro-American in our history and I can’t think of any examples.
Anyway, I’ve commented too much on this post after this.
I realize there is a raft of important American jurisprudence extending the reach of the First Amendment in truly praiseworthy scope and is, or should be, a light unto the world. However, what the amendment actually says is only that “Congress shall make no law . . .” Even though this is construed to bind the state legislatures and the Executive agencies and other creatures of government like public universities and school boards that can’t make law as such, nonetheless the major focus is on preventing the passage of laws restricting speech that you can be fined or imprisoned for violating. Medical licensing boards disciplined doctors during the Covid pandemic with licence suspensions, but not jail, for spreading what was at the time deemed to be — and much of it really was — misinformation. I don’t think they were wrong to do that.
If the Administration says to a broadcasting corporation, “Fire this comedian or your proposed merger with an erstwhile competitor will run into trouble with the regulators (FTC or FCC)”, is this threat a violation of the First Amendment? If it is, what is the remedy? There is no “law made” by Congress to strike down. Can the Courts compel the regulators to approve the merger (even if the merger was not in the public interest on its merits even before the comedian’s remarks set off the President), just because the President abridged the corporation’s First Amendment Rights in demanding the comedian’s firing? And the comedian has no case against the Administration. It didn’t fire him. His employer, a private-sector corporation did. (And some commenters are uncomfortable with the idea that a corporation, as a person, has First-Amendment rights in the first place.)
There are two orthogonal issues here. One is the content of speech that can be suppressed. The U.S. leads the way here in forbidding laws to suppress any speech except the well-known exceptions involving violence, or lying when one is obligated to tell the truth. These shouldn’t be augmented. The “hate” slope is too slippery. The other question is Who (other than Congress, which mustn’t) can regulate or circumscribe speech in the name of exercising power, an Executive function. The scenario I referenced does sound corrupt and un-American but I would appreciate being told exactly how (if) it is an actionable First Amendment issue. Does 1A mean that no one who has the power to shut someone up must not use it?
(This was really meant for Mark R. but he says he’s commented enough already.)
Leslie, you might appreciate the below post on X:
https://x.com/primalpoly/status/1968705811003359711
“If the Administration says to a broadcasting corporation, “Fire this comedian or your proposed merger with an erstwhile competitor will run into trouble with the regulators (FTC or FCC)”, is this threat a violation of the First Amendment? If it is, what is the remedy?”
It’s just crazy, man! Simple as that. Maybe it’s an American thing. And the remedy is: Vote the fuckers out!
“And the comedian has no case against the Administration. It didn’t fire him. His employer, a private-sector corporation did.”
The administration’s FCC director Carr, without precedent I’d like to add, threatened ABC with revoking licensing agreements, etc, in the middle of a multi-billion$ merger. Jawboning (ubiquitous in this Admin). Plus the Communication’s Act is supposed to curtail FCC censoring bs. Laws? Precedent? What are those say the Trump sycophants. Break them until told otherwise, nothing will happen anyway. Trump pardons his sycophants if there’s any serious harm like prosecution.
“The other question is Who (other than Congress, which mustn’t) can regulate or circumscribe speech in the name of exercising power, an Executive function. The scenario I referenced does sound corrupt and un-American but I would appreciate being told exactly how (if) it is an actionable First Amendment issue. Does 1A mean that no one who has the power to shut someone up must not use it?”
You confuse me for a constitutional lawyer with a question like that, but SCOTUS is the only arbiter I can think of…not to say they’ll get it right with the 6 religious originalist hacks groomed from the Federalist Society, 3 of whom were picked by Trump, who brags “they’re his.” Me, personally, I’d say it’s a slippery slope when you give someone the power to silence speech, so yes, one shouldn’t be permitted to use said power. Let the KKK march on! and the trans-folk and Antisemites and Antifa (who is that btw, is there even a leader’s name someone can point to?)…it goes on and on, so it goes. Let speakers speak, condemn those who fear speech. Or change the channel.
The Sociopath Song
They are sociopaths, they’re not OK
They chew you up then spit you away
They have no shame, no empathy
You matter not at all
‘Cept as a means to their ends
You’re heading for a fall
© 2025, no charge for noncommercial use, all other rights reserved.
Israeli Space Laser: Excellent! Now the Israelis actually can place microchips into our bodies at the same time they inject their scary vaccines!
And that sunflower. I saw the picture the other day, and thought that it was an impressive feat indeed to nurture a sunflower to that height. Of course, it needs an oil derrick to hold it up, as it doesn’t have a woody stem. (So, while tall, it isn’t actually beautiful.) I find it amazing that it can pull water from the ground up to that great height!
Yeah. I recently read that tall trees evaporate 90% or more of their roots’ water intake to provide the lift necessary to get water at all up to the top. (Even a perfect vacuum pump can’t lift more than 34 feet.)
Petra De Sutter is a trans woman. Here we have yet another case of misguided identity politics activism, i.e. “Queers for Palestine.” Incidentally, she already called for sanctions against the Israel in November 2023.
Don’t we now say properly that Petra de Sumter is a trans-identified man, and that he called for sanctions against Israel? I thought respecting the wrong pronouns was now something one does only to avoid punishment by someone who has power over one.
Such a someone, or some busybody who has it in for you, might search the internet for your ungoodspeak.
My understanding of the Free Press deal was not that Bari Weiss was selling out and moving on, but rather than she was getting an executive position at CBS News (which would then include the FP).
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/business/media/cbs-news-bari-weiss-free-press.html
“(he wasn’t; accused killer Tyler Robinson was on the Left and had a romantic relationship with a trans-identified man)” Not sure why you’re suddenly so confident in that conclusion — especially when we’re only hearing from the MAGA Utah Governor and Trump’s Justice Dept. Why has no one else talked to this mysterious trans roommate? Why don’t the text messages in the charging doc sound at all like they were written by a 22 year old? Why is Robinson “not cooperating” when he supposedly already confessed and knows he’s facing the death penalty? Frankly, I’m not sure we can trust anything coming from this administration. They’ve lied in court before. People are complicated and I think it’s quite premature to be so sure that this guy was on “the Left”. Even if it’s true that his kid fell in love with a man who was transitioning, that hardly puts him automatically on “the Left”. There are plenty of bi and gay people who hold right-wing or conservative views.
You’re right there may be lots of lying going on. But the texts about the killing specifically say Robinson was trying to protect Twiggs (the “trans” boyfriend). An ABC news reporter thought the texts between Robinson and Twiggs were real and that their interpretation as love letters was correct. Called the exchange “touching” and “an intimate portrait”.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1968081088221163652
Here’s the reporter himself apologizing for seeming to sympathize with the accused murderer.
https://x.com/mattgutmanABC/status/1968261725943472448
Doesn’t seem ambiguous. Robinson may not have only leftist views; one can just say that he supported genderism and murdered someone for it.
“Even if it’s true that his kid fell in love with a man who was transitioning, that hardly puts him automatically on ‘the Left'”
“His kid”? He, the shooter, is the one with the trans-identified boyfriend.
Lady Mondegreen: Typo. I meant “this kid”. Being in a relationship with a trans person doesn’t automatically make someone part of “the Left”.
It is telling that many on the left appear far more exercised about Jimmy Kimmel losing his job than they do about Charlie Kirk losing his life.
I am not on the left (and never paid any attention to either), yet I am more exercised. And Kirk himself said he felt that some gun deaths were worth the cost of protecting our rights, so perhaps the better question is why more people aren’t exercised about this? The killing of Kirk was a horrifying and senseless act committed by an unstable individual. The suspension of Kimmel is the result of government pressure against protected speech – and that sets a precedent that threatens everyone. Not the same at all, and the latter is much more dangerous to the functioning of a free (or formerly free) society.
I pay attention to both and belong to neither. I will trust you were similarly exercised during the Biden Administration when it waged its war on “misinformation” and coerced tech companies to silence speech.
Yes, I was. When government leans on intermediaries to suppress or punish speech, it’s not a free choice anymore. It’s censorship by proxy. Perhaps instead of trying (unsuccessfully) to find where I am not consistent, you should turn your gaze towards yourself.
As I said, I will trust that you were and give you the benefit of the doubt. (I don’t assume that for self-described members of the left; perhaps I erred and injected some ambiguity in trying to address both you and them in one short post.) It’s a pity that the online world encourages people to assume snark and flippancy where none is intended. It’s an even greater pity that people fire a shot without knowledge of their target or surety of their aim.
So, I am quite comfortable with my gaze. Thank you.
Sorry, but I think murdering speakers who disagree with you is far more dangerous to the functioning of a free society. Unlike Kirk, whose voice is silenced forever, Kimmel will easily find work elsewhere.
Hitchens understood that the reason why he needed to support free speech as aggressively as he did is because he knew 99% of those who claimed to support free speech would actually support the government suppression of speech whenever it suited them.
He also experienced many death threats from Muslims for his criticisms of Islam, which that religion mandates the death penalty for.
Replying here because we’d passed “max indentedness” on the relevant thread. Thanks Doug for that tweet from Geoffrey Miller. It addresses exactly what I was asking.
Pirate speak looks, eh… hears ??? nevermind, like fun, just ask Keith Richards.
Are there any comedic personalities on the “right” in the US? Didn’t seem like much lampooning of Harris/Biden on Youtube etc., a lot of left gnashing of teeth though… arrr!!!
Laser technology. A local lad directed a laser at a passing aircraft. 2, 3 weeks later the police were at the doorstep giving him a bollocking, he was lucky.
A neighbour had a powerful handheld laser and suggested you could use it to blind an intruder. Blimey! dont give THAT to the kids.
The use of lasers in science, industry, entertainment, military, has been quite a thing to behold… light sabers, pirate swords for that matter be damned! just burn a hole right through the scurvy dog!
How effective is reflective coating at deflecting the lasers? The new look in combat uniforms.