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.
Welcome to the final CatSaturday of the month: Saturday, May 30, 2026, shabbos for Jewish cats, and National Mint Julep Day, an excellent drink when you use good bourbon and plenty of crushed mint. From Wikipedia (note the reference to Williamsburg, Virginia):
The mint julep originated in the southern United States, probably during the eighteenth century. The earliest known mentions come from 1770 and include a satirical play by Robert Munford, The Candidate (where a drunkard character “Mr. Julip” appears); and “A Short Poem on Hunting” (which describes julep as a concoction “Which doctors storm at, and which some adore”), published in the WilliamsburgVirginia Gazette. Further evidence of mint julep as a prescription drink can be found in 1784 Medical communications: “sickness at the stomach, with frequent retching, and, at times, difficulty of swallowing. I then prescribed her an emetic, some opening powders, and a mint julep.”
Here’s one with the caption, “A mint julep made with Henry Clay’s original recipe at the Round Robin Bar. According to bartender and historian Jim Hewes, the cocktail was originally served in a crystal glass because it represented a more upper-class beverage.”
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the May 30 Wikipedia page.
A faculty member ordered cookies for the undergraduates at their research symposium, and some of them were meant to display Botany Pond, which the undergrads apparently love. They saved one cookie for me, and here it is. I ate it this morning with coffee, but I hated to ingest such a work of art:
Da Nooz:
*Well, it looks as if the war with Iran isn’t over yet. The news yesterday was all abuzz that a deal had been reached, and Trump was set to approve it. But, as always, that was wrong. Nothing was announced. From the BBC:
US President Donald Trump had a meeting with top aides on Friday to make a “final determination” about a framework for extending the ceasefire with Iran, but it concluded without clarity on the next steps.
He said Iran must agree to never have a nuclear weapon or bomb, that the Strait of Hormuz be reopened for “unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions”, and that any mines in the waterway are “destroyed”.
The meeting was held in the White House’s Situation Room, used for dealing with major crises. Iran earlier said it was not negotiating on its nuclear programme – which it insists is wholly for civilian purposes.
On Thursday, the two countries had agreed a framework of a deal – known as a memorandum of understanding – pending the approval of Trump and Iran’s leadership, according to US officials.
The deal would reportedly extend the ceasefire for 60 days and launch talks on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.
“President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines. Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” a White House official told CBS News, the BBC’s US news partner.
Since the ceasefire came into effect on 8 April, Trump has repeatedly suggested the US and Iran are close to a deal and negotiations are progressing, but so far there have been no substantive results.
In a social media post earlier on Friday, Trump said he was prepared to lift the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, allowing ships caught in the waterway to “start the process of ‘heading home!'”
He also insisted that Iran allow the US to remove and destroy its enriched uranium.
“No money will be exchanged, until further notice,” he said. “Other items, of far less importance, have been agreed to.”
Later, a White House official confirmed to the BBC that the meeting in the Situation Room had concluded. The official provided no further details.
Of course the “Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon” stipulation holds only for Trump’s presidency. And even now who can trust Iran to keep that pledge? Their whole history of evasion and cheating says otherwise.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), who has been widely viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate,said Thursday that she won’t be seeking her party’s nomination in 2028.
Hours later, she said otherwise.
Whitmer is term-limited next year after winning two gubernatorial elections in her key battleground state, and pundits have regularly identified her as part of Democrats’ crowded potential presidential field.
In an interview with Fox 2 Detroit on Thursday morning, she said: “There will be a robust group of people running for president. … I will not be one of them in 2028. I can tell you that.”
But later in the day, at an annual gathering of Michigan’s top civic and business leaders, she said she had spoken too soon.
“I never thought I would run for governor, so I guess I should know better,” she said during a panel discussion, later adding: “Never say never.”
Whitmer rose to the national spotlight during the coronavirus pandemic, when she pushed back on President Donald Trump’s efforts to antagonize her as “that woman from Michigan.”
She led a push to codify abortion rights in the state constitution in 2022, when Michigan Democrats won control of all three branches of state government and then used that “trifecta” to repeal a law that makes it harder for workers to unionize.
Whitmer drew some criticism for a 2025 speech in which she found some common ground with Trump but continued to stoke speculation that she could be preparing a run.
This year, she was one of several potential candidates who traveled to the Munich Security Conference, which does not typically attract U.S. governors, to lay out alternatives to Trump’s foreign policy.
I would vote for Whitmer in a heartbeat against any Republican candidate I know of, though I know some readers aren’t fond of her. But she’d be better than “progeressives” like Harris and Newsom, though these two are now are trying to “de-progressivize” themselves. I’m pretty sure that Harris won’t be the Democratic candidate because of both her election loss and her inability to speak coherently, but everything is still up for grabs.
The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a Mississippi man’s conviction and death sentence. By a vote of 5-4, the court in Pitchford v. Cain agreed with Terry Pitchford that the judge at his 2006 trial had not properly analyzed whether the prosecutor in Pitchford’s case violated the Constitution’s ban on racial discrimination in jury selection.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, in a nine-page opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Quoting a 2019 opinion in which the court threw out the conviction of Mississippi inmate Curtis Flowers in a case that involved the same prosecutor, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “‘America’s trial judges operate at the front lines of American justice’ and ‘the job of enforcing’” the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky, holding that the use of peremptory challenges (that is, challenges for any reason) to remove potential jurors based on race violates the Constitution, “‘rests first and foremost with trial judges.’” But in Pitchford’s case, Kavanaugh wrote, “the Mississippi trial court erroneously omitted” a key part of the Batson inquiry.
Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, in a 10-page opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett. In his view, Kavanaugh’s “opinion errs on the law and the factual record alike.”
Pitchford, who was 18 at the time, was charged with murder for his role in the 2004 shooting death of a shopkeeper. A 16-year-old, Eric Bullins, fired the shots that actually killed Reuben Britt; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Notice that two conservatives joined with the three liberal judges in this decision, which makes it unusual. But I think it’s a good decision because they are following the Constitution, which is their job. You can see the decision here. In the NYT, Yale Law School graduate Avital Fried agreed with the decision in an op-ed called, “College admissions are race blind. Jury selection is not.” Two bits (you won’t like the op-ed if you think affirmative action is essential to ensure “equity”):
The court recently ruled out the consideration of race in other contexts, like college admissions (as decided in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) and voting rights (as decided in Louisiana v. Callais). The court has explained the shift toward a race-blind approach in those contexts as a way to reduce discrimination. To be sure, there are reasons to question this new approach in a racialized society like ours. But if that is the court’s stance, it should be applied to jury selection, too, where the stakes can be much higher and the consideration of race can be even more clearly linked to discrimination.
. . . The court’s decision on Thursday took a step in the right direction, upholding the current jury selection standard. But more needs to be done to align discrimination protections in this area with those in college admissions — both governed by the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law. The court has read that promise to protect high schoolers applying to elite colleges, and the very same promise serves as the bedrock of criminal trial rights. No one has a right to be admitted to Harvard, just as no one has a right to be seated on a jury. Still, every person has a right not to be denied a spot at Harvard or a seat on a jury because of his or her race.
If anything, the stakes are higher in a criminal trial than in college admissions. Discrimination in jury selection undermines people’s right to a fair trial when their life or liberty is on the line. Surely, high schoolers applying to elite universities should not get moreprotection than those facing the deprivation of life or liberty. Mr. Pitchford’s legal saga began when he was the same age as students around the country applying to college. Furthermore, racially biased strikes prevent members of the public from participating in an important civic duty. Just as the right to vote is carefully guarded, the right to be considered to serve on a jury is worthy of extra protection.
I have no beef with this decision, and am happy that two conservatives voted with three liberal.
*As always, I’ll steal a few items from Nellie Bowles weekly snark-and-humor column at the Free Press, called this week, “TGIF: The Donald Trump $250 bill.” Sadly, the real author is Nick Gillespie, a Free Press editor and libertarian.
Speaking of assisted dying:
→ Tim Hortons with a side of death: A Canadian doctor, James MacLean, approved medical aid in dying (MAID) for a 45-year-old man after briefly assessing him outside the popular coffee-and-donuts chain Tim Hortons, named for a beloved hockey player whose death in a car crash shocked fans. After determining that the man had inflammatory bowel disease and depression, Dr. MacLean then personally drove the man to a morgue where the MAID was administered in an industrial unit filled with other human cadavers. In another case, reports The National Post, “MacLean failed to administer one of three drugs used in assisted deaths—one that paralyzes the body’s muscles, including the muscles involved in breathing. The patient resumed spontaneously breathing again after initially being pronounced dead, and after MacLean had already left the home.”
Even—or especially—for supporters of MAID (I’m one), this sort of malpractice must be thoroughly investigated and punished.
If that’s the way MAID is actually practiced in Canada, it needs much more severe scrutiny, and the doctor needs his license pulled.
→ When you see only one set of footprints in the sand, that’s when Israel carried you:
→ Let’s check in on RFK Jr.: “Cheryl cheerleads the removal of a pair of Black Racers from Dr Oz’s patio.” Of course she does! I’m fond of saying we’re living in a Philip K. Dick novel as “shorthand for just how fucking weird our world is, and how much weirder it continues to get on a daily basis. What writer could have created Hunter Biden, or Lauren Boebert, or Elon Musk? The idea that Arnold [Schwarzenegger] would emerge as a major political player is strange—until you get to Trump.” Or RFK Jr.
Nobody but nobody is as good as Nellie at writing TGIF!
Like many on Thursday’s stage for theScripps National Spelling Bee finals, Shrey Parikh was a returning competitor. But his appearance this year wasn’t guaranteed.
He ranked 89th in 2022 and third in 2024. He seemed poised to take yet another flight from his hometown of Rancho Cucamonga, California,to the nation’s capital to contend for the Scripps Cup. Then he misspelled a word in his middle school’s bee last year. He was disqualified before nationals — or regionals — even began.
The word was calipers.
“Last year, I was really dejected and just very upset,” Shrey said. “It didn’t even sink in until the next day. I had a really tough time.”
Now, he’s got it down: “C-A-L-I-P-E-R-S,” he said for good measure on Thursday evening from the Scripps stage at DAR Constitution Hall after the competition ended.
In his last year of eligibility, the 14-year-old finally earned what he has coveted for years: the towering floral Scripps cup and a $50,000 cash prize. He beat out 246 other contenders. From the stage where he had just claimed his title as national champion, Shrey compared his feelings with his loss early last year.
“It’s like two ends of a spectrum,” he said. “Right now, I’m probably the happiest I’ve ever been.”
Shrey had a buzzworthy run in this year’s bee, which knocked out four of nine finalists in one round and ended in the competition’s third-ever spell-off tiebreaker. In several intense rounds of spelling during the finals, Shrey bested words like Bhubaneswar, Pluchea, hwyl, Metohija and Philepitta, before moving to the spell-off, where he spelled a record 32 words correctly in 90 seconds.
Shrey’s championship word — the last word he spelled correctly in the spell-off — was bromocriptine.
Ishaan Gupta, the runner up, spelled 25 words correctly.
*If you look at Wikipedia’s list of national spelling bee winners, you’ll see that Indians or Indian Americans have had a lock in the championship for about 18 years. (They do allow international competitors, so I can’t tell if the winners are citizens, but who cares?: it’s still amazing.) Shrey, who practices spelling for five hours a day, was in his last year of eligibility. His prize was a big trophy and $50,000.
Here’s a video of the competition and the winner (they can’t write down anything); note that it is mostly minority students of Asian origin who reached the top. The spelling part ends at 4:38, so you can stop there.
Here are the finalists in a screenshot from the video above:
You can take your own spelling bee quiz here (I haven’t yet done it).
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Editor Hili is keeping Andrzej in line:
Andrzej: What are we running in “Letters” tomorrow?
Hili: Something short, because yesterday the readers complained that you’re making them read too much.
In Polish:
Ja: Co dajemy jutro w „Listach”
Hili: Coś krótkiego, bo wczoraj czytelnicy narzekali, że każesz im za dużo czytać.
. . . and Andrzej posted this photo on his public FB page:
From Masih, who’s down on AOC for the Congresswoman’s apparent glorification of oppression:
“My body, my choice.” Except when a Muslim mayor says cover up. Then it’s “my body for votes.”
Since yesterday, when I criticized AOC, I have been under attack by her fellow feminists and colleagues calling me Islamophobic. Really? I have no fear of my beautiful mother, who… pic.twitter.com/Y4rC5PtsJP
Here’s the speech and appearance of AOC that Masih criticized. I have to say that here AOC makes me cringe. Donning a hijab, indeed! It’s either hypocrisy, pandering, or AOC is a covert Islamist.
Hello @AOC, while you smiled in a hijab at a New York event, I was in Federal Court facing the 4th hitman hired by the Islamic Republic to assassinate me, for campaigning for Iranian women to have the same freedom you performed for a photo op. Will you come to court with me in… pic.twitter.com/25mEGcdQ9d
One from my feed; the English translation of the Japanese is this: “A performance titled ‘Stairway to Success’… It steals your gaze without you realizing it.” Ah, life!
These three Dutch Jewish girls, with the youngest only three years old, were gassed as soon as they arrived in Auschwitz. Their mother was also gassed.
In the dim light of a late fly-out, to the tune of cicadas, Nayang’s wrinkle-lipped bats leave their cave…just as they have probably done every night for thousands of years…🦇#bats #Thailand #wildlife
