A new week has begun: welcome to Monday, February 10, 2025, and Oatmeal Monday. Here’s a lovely bowl of oatmeal I had at the inn where I was staying for the Kent Presents meetings in August of 2018: Look at all the nuts, fresh and dried fruits, maple syrup, and a pitcher of cream.

Superb Owl News: (h/t Barry). First, Google “Superbowl” and see what you get.

It was indeed a rout: The Philadelphia Eagles stopped the Kansas City Chiefs cold in the Superbowl, crushing the Chiefs 40-22:

A more fragile team would have folded. It wouldn’t have made it back here, because it wouldn’t have been able to weather the series of storms this Philadelphia Eagles franchise faced along the way.

And it wouldn’t have halted history on the sport’s biggest stage.

Certainly not like that.

But these Eagles were different — defiant, even. And on Sunday night in Super Bowl LIX, they were utterly dominant. Their reward is the franchise’s second Super Bowl win, a stunning 40-22 rout of the two-time defending champion Kansas City Chiefs at Caesars Superdome in New Orleans, a resounding victory that avenges a gutting, last-second Super Bowl loss two years ago to these same Chiefs and returns the city of Brotherly Love to the top of the football world.

This time, the Philly Special wasn’t needed.

This time, the Eagles’ defense was so devastating that Patrick Mahomes — already a three-time Super Bowl MVP before the age of 30 — staggered through one of the worst games of his seven-year NFL career.

This time, Jalen Hurts left no doubt.

Mahomes, under heavy duress throughout, was sacked six times and hit 11 times. He finished 21-for-32 for 257 yards, three touchdowns, two interceptions and a lost fumble, though most of Mahomes’ production came well after the game had been decided. The Eagles led 34-0 before the Chiefs even crossed midfield.

You can see the game highlights (turn off ad blockers) here; Philadelphia did some great passing and field-goal kicking. Taylor Swift will be sad and may write a song about the debacle.

From Cats Without Gods:

 

It’s also National “Have a Brownie” Day (why the scare quotes? are we supposed to only pretend we had a brownie?), National Cream Cheese Brownie Day, National Poop Day (the day you excrete the remains of the food you ate during yesterday’s Superbowl), National Flannel Day, International Cribbage Day, and Teddy Day, the day you give your beloved a teddy bear (it’s part of Valentine’s Day Week).  My parents gave me my Teddy, who is named Toasty and still resides in my office. Here he shows his age and his severe depilation:

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the February 10 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*It looks like Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr., both of whose nominations were endangered (for Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Health and Human Services, respectively), now look as if they’ll squeak through Congress. That depends on Republicans voting as a bloc, of course:

Republican skepticism in the Senate of President Donald Trump’sCabinet nominees has been worn down, putting his unconventional choices for some of the most powerful positions in the federal government on the verge of confirmation.

Floor votes are expected this week on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in line to be the nation’s health secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard, the choice for director of national intelligence. Both are from outside traditional Republican circles and espoused views in the confirmation process that alarmed GOP senators at times. Still, their nominations have advanced to the full Senate after crucial committee votes.

One by one, Republicans have acquiesced to Trump’s picks, even those whose personal history, lack of experience and unorthodox views would have once made them hardly imaginable for a Cabinet.

It’s a striking demonstration of how GOP lawmakers are standing by as Trump, in a show of force, disrupts the federal government and installs loyalists to lead key departments. Republican leaders in the Senate, eager to show Trump their worth, have chalked up confirmations at a rapid clip.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, just a month into the role, has lined up a vote on Gabbard as the first order of business, followed by Kennedy later in the week. Already on the job is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who faced allegations over drinking and aggressive behavior toward women. And Republicans appear ready to soon install Kash Patel as FBI director.

. . . . The collapse of resistance has set a new tone in the Republican-controlled government and shown how even the most independent-minded lawmaker would rather work with Trump than risk crossing him. Trump himself has refrained from the threats to GOP skeptics that defined his first term and relied on Vance, a former Ohio senator, to quietly walk some of his former colleagues through their concerns.

“You can’t think of this just as a normal president coming into office for the first time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., who was involved in the effort to get Trump’s nominees across the finish line. “Everybody I was dealing with was truly undecided trying to get to yes, and so it was just a process.”

Ceiling Cat help us, everyone!  RFK Jr. scares me the most because of his potential to actually kill people through stupidity.

*This WSJ article may explain why black and Hispanic voters, who went more for Republicans than expected in the last election,

Some of President Trump’s Black and Latino supporters say they are pleased with his immediate efforts to dismantle federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs, according to interviews conducted by The Wall Street Journal, though they were uneasy about the way he talked about race and some worried he might spark a rise in discrimination.

Ending so-called DEI programs—which include efforts to foster a more diverse workforce—was a frequent promise by Trump during the campaign, during which he broadly picked up a higher share of support from nonwhite voters than in his 2020 and 2016 bids.

Since taking office, Trump has made slashing DEI programs a priority, signing executive orders to eliminate programs within the federal government and ordering up lists of federal employees involved in those efforts. He also revoked a six-decade-old executive order that requires government contractors to proactively root out discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

While Democrats Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won nonwhite voters in both the 2020 and 2024 elections, Trump in 2024 saw an 8 percentage point increase with Black and Latino voters, as well as a 5 percentage point jump in support from Asian voters, according to the election survey AP VoteCast.

Nonwhite voters made up nearly a quarter of the national electorate during last year’s election, according to AP VoteCast, and more in some battleground states.

While Trump cannot run for re-election in 2028, Republicans are eager to keep these voters to hold their majorities in the House and Senate during the 2026 midterm elections and the White House two years later.

Here’s a graph from the AP showing the increase in minority voters who supported Trump in the last two elections (he lost in 2020, of course).  And it shows how wokeness helps the Democrats lose elections.

*The NYT “Trilobites” column, this time by Sara Novak, reports on a remarkable fossil finding: fossilized bones and soft tissue of plesiosaurs (large marine reptiles), all described in an article in Current Biology. 

With serpentine necks, flippers and a mouth full of needle-sharp teeth, plesiosaurs have captured imaginations since paleontologists uncovered the first specimen more than two centuries ago. Their skeletal anatomy is well documented, but their external appearance has largely remained a mystery.

Now researchers have conducted the first detailed analysis of plesiosaur soft tissue, offering a more complete look at what these real-life sea monsters might have looked like when they lived from 215 million to 66 million years ago.

Published Thursday in Current Biology, the findings suggest that some plesiosaurs had humanlike skin on their tail regions and fishy scales on their flippers, similar to the features of some living sea turtle species. The research highlights an evolutionary detour that runs counter to other ancient marine reptiles like ichthyosaurs and mosasaurs, which evolved away from scales in favor of skin, or much smaller scales, to allow them to move more efficiently through their marine habitats.

“These are iconic animals, and the way we reconstruct them hasn’t changed for nearly 200 years, so this is a big update,” said Miguel Marx, a doctoral student at Lund University in Sweden and lead author of the paper. “It changes our perspective on their evolutionary history and how they adapted to life in the ocean.”

Mr. Marx and colleagues analyzed three soft-tissue skin samples, each about the size of a fingernail, from a flipper and the tail of a 183 million-year-old long-necked plesiosaur specimen. The species is to be named in a future peer-reviewed paper. But the samples came from the Posidonia Shale in Germany, where the ocean chemistry preserved soft tissues. That left it frozen in time. Some of the tissue remains were so flawlessly fossilized that researchers could see skin cell nuclei under the microscope.

. . .While it’s difficult to know for sure how extinct animals would have maneuvered through their environments, Mr. Marx said that the scales observed on the plesiosaur had probably stiffened the trailing edge of the flipper, allowing for enhanced propulsion through the water, another feature shared with today’s sea turtles.

Plesiosaurs may also have used scales on their flippers for traction and protection as they sifted through sand and vegetation on the ocean floor for food. Previous research suggests that preserved marine trackways found near Ancona, Italy, came from plesiosaurs, another indication that they might have spent time feeding at the bottom of the ocean.

Here are some fossilized scales from a flipper (caption from paper):

*We have the first pro-Palestinian encampment of the season, this time at Bowdoin College, a prestigious private liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine.

Student protestors with Bowdoin Students For Justice in Palestine have set up an encampment inside the college’s student union building and are now facing disciplinary action from the school.

The organization announced the protest Thursday as the college’s board of trustees was meeting. According to the release, the event was planned as a response to the administration’s lack of action on the Bowdoin Solidarity Referendum, a student initiative that passed with broad support in May that called on Bowdoin to, among other things, disclose investments in arms manufacturing and commit to not investing in defense industry funds in the future.

“Today, we launch this encampment, demanding that Bowdoin immediately commit to fully realizing all four demands of our referendum,” the announcement read.

“Trump has vowed his unequivocal support for Israel’s genocide, most recently calling for the United States to ethnically cleanse and ‘take over’ Gaza,” the Bowdin SJP announcement read. “Today, we act for our peers in Gaza and the West Bank, heeding the calls of Birzeit University professors and staff: “Gaza is not for sale. Palestine is not a real estate project.’”

Around midnight, Senior Associate Dean for Student Affairs Katie Toro-Ferrari told students they had to leave the encampment before 1 a.m. or face consequences.

“I want to make sure students understand that this could put them on the path where they are jeopardizing their ability to remain as Bowdoin students,” she told the Orient.

The paper reported that around 1 a.m., college security staff began collecting student IDs, but at least 50 protestors remained. On Friday morning, college security officers blocked access to the building wadsfjkith protestors still inside. Vice President of Student Affairs Jim Hoppe addressed the encampment in an 8 a.m. email to students.

Students began receiving notices about disciplinary hearings, according to posts on the Bowdoin Students For Justice in Palestine Instagram account. At around noon on Friday, the Orient reported that about 20 additional students broke past a line of security officers to enter the building.

In a Friday afternoon statement to the Press Herald, organizers of Bowdoin SJP said they would stay encamped for “as long as it takes” to convince the college to divest from weapons industries.

What do you think will happen to the students? Do you think any will suffer disciplinary sanctions? I’m guessing a big NO here, but stay tuned. Wait! There’s an update from the Bowdoin Orient:

Late on Sunday evening, a crowd gathered in front of the south entrance of Smith Union after receiving notice from protesters inside that the College would potentially act to remove the encampment. Protesters expected this removal after reportedly rejecting an ultimatum from the administration to clear out of Smith Union by 10 p.m. or face harsher consequences.

Around 11:15 p.m., students in the SJP encampment addressed the crowd from the second-floor window of Smith, saying that they received word from the administration that they will face immediate suspension if they do not leave the building by 8:30 a.m. on Monday, February 10. According to the same announcement, administrators also informed students that they must leave Smith by 5 p.m. the same day, with SJP organizers noting the potential for forcible removal or arrests. Many students remain in the encampment for a fourth consecutive night.

They could be suspended in less than two hours!

*Below is an ad that you saw yesterday if you watch the Superbowl. And people are objecting to it, rightly.

 

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili resembles a hungry bird:

A: You look like an owl.

Hili: I look like somebody who is waiting too long to be served at the table.

Ja: Wyglądasz jak sowa.

Hili: Wyglądam jak ktoś, kto zbyt długo czeka na podanie do stołu.

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

From Stacy:

From: 2025 Darwin Awards!!/Epic Fails!!

From: Meow,  a demonstration of cat genetics:

Masih retweeted a personal experience from Gad Saad that he recounts here for the first time:

I’ve never shared this story publicly but let me do so now. When my parents were kidnapped by Fatah, they separated my parents. When they were mistreating them and forcing them to confess to insane things, my mother said to her torturers: “Go ask my husband if you don’t… https://t.co/WX5PTc0EXf

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) February 9, 2025

From Malgorzata. It never ends. . .

The only Jewish school in New Zealand has been graffitied with “Genocide High School” and “God Hates You”. pic.twitter.com/IkeEjvu7PO

— Jane (@DrJaneNorton) February 6, 2025

Another from Malgorzata. If you thought Hamas was evil, well, this will buttress that view:

Hamas forced Eli Sharabi to announce that he was excited to be reunited with his wife and daughters this morning, fully aware that they had murdered his family on October 7th.

The Jewish people will never forget or forgive Hamas’ utter depravity and crimes. pic.twitter.com/OFS5obtvJA

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) February 8, 2025

This is from a Republican member of the New York City Council who resigned from the Women’s Caucus:

🚨 On Friday I OFFICIALLY left @WomensCaucusNYC because I can’t reasonably stay part of a body that purports to stand up for women, but refuses to condemn the RAPE, MURDER, and CAPTIVITY of Jewish women by jihadi terrorists without adding “context”.

This makes them as useless… pic.twitter.com/Jf4CeFPOs0

— Councilwoman Inna Vernikov (@InnaVernikov) February 9, 2025

From Malcolm; beautifully athletic cats:

Gotcha!
📹First cat of volcano pic.twitter.com/0ARcXuWKBL

— Mulan Chun-Li (@chunlimulan) January 23, 2025

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I reposted:

A 12-year-old German Jewish girl gassed to death upon arriving at Auschwitz.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-02-10T11:12:29.970Z

Two posts from Doctor Cobb. First, Jack Lemmon’s amusing gravestone:

How did this gator get the hat, and how did it put it on its head?

In a sentence never before uttered by humans, I am delighted to share that an alligator stole my conservation instructor’s hat by jauntily walking into the water while wearing it 🐊

— Samantha Maich (@samanthamaich.bsky.social) 2025-02-08T00:20:36.536Z

 

All of us who have taken heterodox positions on even a single issue are liable to be tarred using accusations of guilt by association. Because I think that trans-identifying men should not be allowed to compete in sports against (biological) women, and that such trans people therefore don’t have exactly the same unlimited “rights” as  biological women, I am therefore often called a “transphobe”, allied with those nutjobs who don’t want trans people to have any rights—or even allied with Nazis. This of course is not an argument, but a simple slur that avoids the ethical issues, and it’s thoughtless, though such arguments do convince some of the witless. (If you want to see a site whose whole method is to go after people—especially Steve Pinker—by showing who they’ve met or are otherwise associated with, go here. The author of that site appears to know nothing of science, but uses association with hereditarians as a sign of being an overall horrible person: a “ghoul” or a “grifter.” LOL.)

Alan Sokal has pointed out the stupidity of guilt-by-association arguments in a short piece in The Critic (click below, or find it archived here):

Sokal’s introductory story is about a 12-year-old boy demonized by his teacher because he made a comment that reminded her of Margaret Thatcher. And that’s how it goes: back then, being like Thatcher in even one misconstrued way was enough to damn you to hell. Sokal then segues, unsurprisingly, into the demonizing regularly practiced by sex and gender extremists:

I’m no fan of Margaret Thatcher — to put it mildly — but should it really be a surprise that on some issues she might have the same ideas as pinko me? Is it truly so difficult for us lefties to concede that the conservatives might occasionally — OK, very occasionally — be right? (And of course vice versa.) Have we all now become so politically tribal that we are unable — or simply unwilling — to evaluate ideas on their merits?

[Philosopher Arianne] Shahvisi’s recounting of this story did not, of course, come out of the blue. The context was an essay of hers in which she accused “gender critical feminists” (the scare quotes are hers) of “fairy-tale fear-mongering that puts them in league with the far right”. One reader objected to “yet another article belittling gender critical feminists in your pages”:

Many who consider themselves left-leaning progressives are branded as being ‘in league with the far right’ for their opposition to an ideology which they regard as a dangerously regressive move by patriarchal capitalism to seize control of, and profit from, the bodies of children (increasingly young girls) and women.

— adding, astutely, that “it is telling that trans men are relatively invisible in all this: no one is chanting ‘Trans men are men’”. Unfazed by this exposure of her conflation of two radically different ideologies, Shahvisi doubled down on guilt-by-association, using her childhood story as “evidence”.

Sokal shouldn’t need to point out the obvious, but this tactic is ubiquitous these days, and we shouldn’t even engage in argument with people who judge people’s views solely by who those people associate with, or what magazines they sometimes read:

There is, in reality, nothing surprising or objectionable about the fact that people who disagree on issues X, Y and Z might nevertheless find themselves in agreement on issue W. Indeed, it is the contrary — unanimity of views within each tribe, with no overlap between them — that ought to be surprising and disconcerting.

But serious ethical and pragmatic questions nevertheless arise whenever one finds that people with whom one is ordinarily in disagreement — and whose ultimate goals differ radically from one’s own — may be on the same side as oneself on one or more discrete questions of public policy. Should one cooperate with “the other side” on those particular issues? And if so, to what extent?

Well, I regularly find myself tucked in bed with extreme conservatives, but that, to me, is not a problem, I just give my own views, and work on my own, not really “cooperating” with anybody. That’s one way to at least mitigate the tarring by association. I’ll quote Sokal at length when he extends Shahvisi’s argument:

So let’s follow Shahvisi’s example, but first set the facts straight by specifying more accurately what each tribe believes. Gender-critical feminists want to abolish, or at least to weaken, prescriptive gender norms: they want to liberate people of both sexes to pursue their own interests and talents and to follow their predilections, without regard to sex-based stereotypes or statistics. Social conservatives want to strengthen prescriptive gender norms: to reestablish a world in which men are masculine and women are feminine, in the traditional senses of the words, and everyone is at least publicly heterosexual. (These are, it goes without saying, broad-strokes generalizations; there are of course many differences of emphasis and detail within each camp.) The two philosophies are thus diametrically opposed[1].

But, despite this deep overall conflict, can there sometimes exist small points of agreement between the two tribes? Yes, there can; and this gives rise to serious dilemmas.

Should gender-critical feminists cooperate with social conservatives to ensure that post-pubescent people engaged in competitive sports should play in the category of their biological sex, not their self-declared “gender identity”? Or to ensure that puberty blockers should not ordinarily be prescribed to minors as a treatment for gender dysphoria outside of registered clinical trials?

To me the answer is obvious, at least for myself: you cannot cooperate with extreme social conservatives without giving at least some credibility to their other views—views with which you don’t agree (I would note my pro-choice stands and lifelong affiliation as a Democrat).  I will say what I think about puberty blockers (they shouldn’t be used till age 18 or so), and if conservatives want to quote me, fine. But I am not a member of any conservative organization that takes this stand, though I am friends with a group of like-minded liberals who have some gender-critical views.

Sokal winds up with the right conclusion, though: argue about policies and facts, not about associations.  Since I’m somewhat hermitic by nature, I don’t really cooperate with many organizations, and those I cooperate with, like Heterodox Academy or FIRE, have views I largely agree with.

The answer to these questions is far from obvious. But worrying about guilt by association — and worrying, above all, about the opprobrium emanating from those who, like Shahvisi and Judith Butler[2], wield it as a political weapon — mislocates the problem. Instead, what is needed is level-headed political analysis. The first and primary question is: What are the merits and demerits of the proposed policy? And if it appears that the merits outweigh the demerits, then the second question is: Do the short-term gains from tactical cooperation with “the opposition” outweigh the potential long-term liabilities? The pros and cons need to be assessed and argued carefully, not assumed a priori. People who conclude in good faith that the balance falls on the “pro” side (or, for that matter, on the “con” side) may of course be wrong — and it is perfectly fair to criticise their conclusion and their reasoning — but they should not be tarred as traitors, sell-outs or worse.

By contrast, the whole point of invoking guilt by association is precisely to circumvent this discussion — not only to circumvent the second step, but above all to circumvent the first: to denigrate the proposed policy, and render it anathema to all fair-minded people, without having to address its merits and demerits. That approach — need this really be said? — ought to be repugnant to anyone who advocates a thoughtful politics.

h/t: Jez

Welcome to Sunday, February 2, 2025, and it’s Groundhog Day! The livestream video is below; Punxsutawney Phil will be dragged out at 7:26 Eastern time to determine if he sees his shadow.  If he does, we will have six more weeks of winter weather; if he doesn’t, Spring will come early.

UPDATE: The rodent saw his shadow, so we have six more weeks of cold weather. Keep your coats handy!

It’s also Hedgehog Day, World Ukulele Day, California Kiwifruit Day (a friend calls them “gorilla balls”), Sled Dog Day, World Wetlands Day, Candlemas (celebrating the fictional presentation of young Jesus at the Temple), Marmot Day, Tater Tot Day (they make an awesome casserole), Crêpe Day, Heavenly Hash Day, and World Leprosy Day (the preferred name is now “Hansen’s Disease“).

To honor World Ukulele Day, here’s a fantastic rendition of “Something,” a George Harrison Beatles song, played live at the Royal Albert Hall at the “The Concert for George”. This was the first anniversary of George Harrison’s death (November 29, 2002). Paul McCartney begins by playing the ukulele, Harrison’s favorite instrument.  Clapton makes an appearance, along with other stars you’ll recognize if you know rock.  I love this version, and George would have loved it too. It begins simply, with Paul playing George’s ukulele, and transitions to the full Monty.

One of the readers’ comments says this, “Paul is playing a 1920’s Gibson Tenor Ukulele that was gifted to him by George. George Harrison had a very impressive ukulele collection, including two of George Formby’s banjo ukuleles.”

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this day by consulting the February 1 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*Trump began taking revenge on the FBI by firing six of its top officials because they were involved in the January 6 prosecutions,  And there are many more to come:

The Trump administration plans to scrutinize thousands of F.B.I. agents involved in Jan. 6 investigations, setting the stage for a possible purge that goes far beyond the bureau’s leaders to target rank-and-file agents, according to internal documents and people familiar with the matter.

The proposal came on a day that more than a dozen prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington who had worked on cases involving the Jan. 6 riot were told that they were being terminated.

The moves were a powerful indication that Mr. Trump has few qualms deploying the colossal might of federal law enforcement to punish perceived political enemies, even as his cabinet nominees offered sober assurances they would abide by the rule of law. Forcing out both agents and prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases would amount to a wide-scale assault on the Justice Department.

On Friday, interim leaders at the department instructed the F.B.I. to notify more than a half-dozen high-ranking career officials that they faced termination, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The New York Times.

The acting deputy attorney general, Emil Bove, also told the acting leadership of the F.B.I. to compile a list of all agents and F.B.I. staff “assigned at any time to investigations and/or prosecutions” relating to the events at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — the day a mob of Trump supporters stormed through the halls of Congress.

In issuing his directive, Mr. Bove, who has overseen an opening volley of threats, firings and forced transfers since the inauguration, cited Mr. Trump’s executive order vowing to end “the weaponization of the federal government.”

Under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the government waged a “systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents,” including by deploying law enforcement to pursue its rivals, he said,’

It is expected that a narcissist with a personality disorder would indeed take revenge on those whom he sees as enemies. But in doing this, Trump himself has weaponized the federal government, using it as a club to beat anybody who did something he didn’t like. There is no doubt that many of those who engaged in the January 6 insurrection, and many of those who were pardoned or had their sentences commuted, were guilty as hell, and instead of judiciously pardoning those who did virtually nothing, Trump is aiming at the FBI agents engaged in the prosecution. As they say, this is not good optics.

*And he’s also taking revenge on Mexico, Canada, and China by threatening to impose stiff tariffs on products coming into the U.S. from those countries, and even imposing tariffs on products from the EU!

The U.S. will impose tariffs on computer chips, pharmaceuticals, steel, aluminum, copper, oil and gas imports as soon as mid-February, President Trump said Friday, opening a new front in his looming second-term trade wars.

“That’ll happen fairly soon,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, adding that he also wants to hike tariffs on the European Union, which has “treated us so horribly,” though he didn’t specify when or how high the duties would be. A representative for the European Union didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

*Over at The Weekly Dish, Andrew Sullivan has”Some thoughts about how to grapple with Trump 2.o” in his latest column,  “Keep calm, carry on. . . and wait ”  He argues that the Democrats, but digging in on issues like immigration and DEI, are simply digging themselves into a hole. (Remember that Sullivan, like many of us, voted for Harris while holding his nose.)

For ten years now, the resistance has echoed Madonna, and opposed Trump as a fascist, racist, un-American harbinger of democratic collapse. That ended up as Kamala Harris’ final argument in 2024. And in 2025 … it’s exactly the same! The DNC tweets that Trump is “Rolling back 60 years of progress on civil rights.” Top Dems are bringing in psychologists to cope with Trump’s “authoritarian behavior.” Turn on MSNBC — and it is forever 2017. Nicolle Wallace and Joy Reid are still trotting out Hitler comparisons — though this time, on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Trump is still putting non-whites in cages — though this time, it’s federal workers.

And new polling shows that Kamala is still the front-runner for the nomination next time around. If she balks, why not Dukakis? He’s only 91. A spring chicken by Dem standards. Meanwhile, the DNC hopefuls are backing a truly vital reform: a pledge “to appoint more than one transgender person to an at-large seat, and that the pick reflects the diversity of the trans community.” Not just trans but BIPOC trans! And a host at the DNC forum, Jonathan Capehart, is blaming racism and misogyny for Kamala’s loss — and everyone on stage agrees.

All I can say is that this is undeniably good news for Trump. He knows how to beat Democrats at this game, and he will continue to do so. By opposing him furiously on everything — especially immigration and DEI — the Democrats will deepen the ditch they are already flailing about in. This week, New York Magazine published a cover-story about a party hosted by a black Trumpite, neglected to mention him, cropped the cover-photo to exclude several black faces, and then ran a headline about the “cruelty” of white Trump supporters. It’s an exhausted, racist trope — but Brooklyn hipsters love it. And who doesn’t want a national party that primarily appeals to Brooklyn hipsters? It’s worked so well so far!

Here’s the Big Crop for uber-woke New York Magazine:

New York Magazine literally cropped all the black people out of this cover photo and then complained that “the entire room is white” https://t.co/gCatY1lZzG pic.twitter.com/VhoaiJhqg1

— Christopher Barnard (@ChrisBarnardDL) January 27, 2025

Sullivan’s advice for Democrats, which is eminently sound but is being largely ignored by the party:

But if I were the Dems, I’d be less interested in the views of urban, Gaza-obsessed nonbinaries than those of your average American voter of any race. And the polling thus far suggests they like Trump’s immigration policies, still hate hiring on the basis of identity, and want less intervention abroad. In a NYT poll, 71 percent of Americans (including 54 percent of Dems) align with Trump on pushing back against sex reassignment for children; and 79 percent (including 67 percent of Dems) support him on preventing biological men competing with women in sports. That’s a mandate of sorts.

But Americans also strongly oppose pardoning violent J6 criminals, deporting those who came here as children, and prosecuting political opponents (73 percent oppose this, including 58 percent of Republicans). Americans want a leaner government, but if Trump brings chaos, they’ll rebel. They’re nervous about tariffs, and entitlements. In other words, if you calm down, support him on those issues where he is popular, and oppose him on those issues he isn’t, you might regain some traction by 2026.

Above all: do not make this a binary choice. If you do, Trump wins. Make it multiple choice, and he loses half the time. Focus on where Trump is vulnerable. Yes, on egregious violations of the law, or incompetence, call him out immediately. That’s how the spending freeze was unfrozen; that’s why Grassley and Durbin are already telling Trump to obey the law on his firing of Inspectors General. Judges are mobilizing. And this is how it is supposed to work. The Founders understood that the energetic executive they wanted could also over-reach. The Congress and courts were their solution. This is not the end of democracy. It’s just a testing period.

Yes, the last two sentences are right. This is NOT the end of democracy, and we will have more elections.  If anybody wants to bet me that there will not be a Presidential election in 2028, I’ll bet against you–big time.

*Using the University of Çhicago as an example, the National Review discussed the issues posed when grad students are forced to pay dues to a union that espouses political positions they find repugnant.

s Jay Kaplan walked through the Gaza solidarity encampment at the University of Chicago wearing a “Bring Them Home Now” dog tag supporting the Hamas-held hostages, protesters followed and filmed him. “Antisemitism abounded” at the encampment, said Kaplan, a doctoral candidate in molecular engineering. But his graduate student union championed the cause in emails and on social media, offering to help members facing university discipline. The union also committed itself to the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, whose co-founder Omar Barghouti rejects the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in Israel, their ancestral home. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the BDS movement doesn’t seek a two-state solution; it aims to dismantle the Jewish state.”

Kaplan was required to join the graduate union, with its $648 yearly dues, or forgo membership but pay it an equivalent amount as an “agency fee.” That’s because of an Obama-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that in 2016 turned graduate students like Kaplan into employees. It makes them subject to unionization and payment of dues as a condition of their academic positions in private-sector institutions, except in 26 states with right-to-work laws that make union membership or payments voluntary.

If he bucked the requirement at UChicago, Kaplan would be terminated from his program. “The thought of paying money to a union that actively trashes my homeland and my beliefs made me sick,” Kaplan, who is Jewish, told me. His religious identity is tied to the land of Israel, which is deeply embedded in Jewish text, prayer, and ritual practice. He requested and eventually received a religious exemption under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, which allows private-sector employees to divert their union dues or agency fees to charities, as it protects “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief.”

With the number of graduate student unions across the U.S. increasing dramatically following the NLRB decision, more who are dedicated to their faith have turned to Title VII. Like Kaplan, they view the religious-objector route as a way of limiting their association amid a surge in union activism for ideologies that are irreconcilable with their deeply held beliefs.

But despite Title VII’s broad view of religion — lack of ritual observance is not necessarily a disqualifier, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations stipulate — exemption-seekers are hitting hurdles as the urgency to disengage from their unions intensifies.

Christians are objecting too, with one arguing that ““We really value the relationship that God, as described in the Bible, has with the people of Israel, and the belief in the one true God, that’s what we base our whole faith on.”

As one of my colleagues said, “Unions clearly don’t follow Kalven principles [of institutional neutrality]. Indeed, one of the most important roles that unions play is as political lobbyists.  They are not a University of Chicago affiliate, so they have that right. And, if students choose to be members of the union, they are accepting that reality.  What’s offensive is that all graduate students have to pay the agency fee to fund a union that some see as anti-Semitic, even if they do not join the union.”  And the National Review agrees:

Just as unions are free to agitate for positions that stray from core concerns of wages and work conditions, it stands to reason that employees whose faith conflicts with those ideologies likewise should be free: from funding, and in any way associating with, unions promulgating them.

Here is a link to the lawsuit brought by a group Graduate Students for Academic Freedom against the union and its local representing students at the University of Chicago. It looks like a winner to me.

*Finally, remember when Kamala Harris was interviewed on CBS’s widely-watched show “60 Minutes,” and people pointed out that the interview looked as if it had been edited to pare down Harris’s word salad? At the time, CBS refused to hand over the tape or a transcript, which seems to violate journalistic standards (see the last item in the Nooz here). Trump of course made a loud noise, but so did the Free Press, while of course the MSM largely ignored this, though it’s their bailiwick. Trump sued CBS for $10 million, and the station has just agreed to release the transcript:

CBS says it will turn over an unedited transcript of its October interview with Kamala Harris to the Federal Communications Commission, part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing fight with the network over how it handled a story about his opponent.

Trump sued CBS for $10 million over the “60 Minutes” interview, claiming it was deceptively edited to make Harris look good. Published reports said that CBS’ parent company, Paramount, has been talking to Trump’s lawyers about a settlement.

The network said Friday that it was compelled by Brendan Carr, Trump’s appointee as FCC chairman, to turn over the transcripts and camera feeds of the interview for a parallel investigation by the commission. “60 Minutes” has resisted releasing transcripts for this and all of its interviews, to avoid second-guessing of its editing process.

The case, particularly a potential settlement, is being closely watched by advocates for press freedom and by journalists within CBS, whose lawyers called Trump’s lawsuit “completely without merit” and promised to vigorously fight it after it was filed.

The Harris interview initially drew attention because CBS News showed Harris giving completely different responses to a question posed by correspondent Bill Whitaker in clips that were aired on “Face the Nation” on Oct. 6 and the next night on “60 Minutes.” The network said each clip came from a lengthy response by Harris to Whitaker’s question, but they were edited to fit time constraints on both broadcasts.

One might even think that CBS supported Harris’s candidacy by judicious editing, though they did invite Trump for an interview (he refused). But I always thought that Harris didn’t have her neurons together enough to be a good President (though a better one than Trump), and I’m appalled that even now people are vetting her as a candidate in 2028.  At any rate, it will be big fun to see her words in black and white.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s discovered the iPhone but missed the chance to take a good selfie:

Andrzej; What are you doing?

Hili: I’m learning to take selfies.

Ja: Co ty robisz?

Hili: Uczę się robienia selfie.

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

Here is my friend Natalies’ cat in Berlin; her name is Stupsi, and she says this

Stupsi sagt: „Ich liebe Sonntag morgen.“ [“Stupsi says, ‘I love Sunday morning]:

 

From Things With Faces:

From Cat Memes:

From Strange, Stupid or Silly Signs. Some curmudgeon made cards to chastise bad parkers!

On Thursday Swedish authorities announced that Salwan Momika, an Iraqi immigrant, was killed near Stockholm for having burned a Qur’an in public in 2023.  Five men have been arrested.

Salwan Momika was an Assyrian Christian from Iraq. He knew better than anyone the truth of radical Islam and how non-Muslims are treated under Sharia.

He sacrificed his life trying to warn the West about it.

RIP, hero. https://t.co/ZmhXntCMyk pic.twitter.com/XshcsISlPT

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) January 30, 2025

From Jez; there’s a whole thread of funny school-related things. Here are two:

9. That is so sweet pic.twitter.com/WhpbFRglSH

— Wolf of X (@tradingMaxiSL) January 31, 2025

From Simon. Larry the Cat, the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, wishes you a belated Caturday.  Here is a BAD CAT!

Happy #Caturday

— Larry the Cat (@number10cat.bsky.social) 2025-02-01T15:13:10.832Z

From Malcolm: more BAD CATS acting up at becdtime!

cats when you’re trying to sleep 😹 pic.twitter.com/ik5Ddf2leZ

— Posts Of Cats (@PostsOfCats) January 13, 2025

From Luana, demonstrating Andrew Sullivan’s dictum, “We’re all on campus now”:

My take is that the walls of a federal law enforcement agency shouldn’t look like the walls of a middle school. https://t.co/bXOwcrPaQj

— i/o (@eyeslasho) January 31, 2025

From the Auschwitz Memorial, one that I reposted:

A 12-year-old French girl was killed with cyanide gas upon arriving at Auschwitz.

— Jerry Coyne (@evolutionistrue.bsky.social) 2025-02-02T11:22:29.355Z

Two posts from Dr. Professor Cobb. First, he enjoyed seeing the maloha yesterday and told Amar so. Amar respo0nded with more photos. It does look at if its beak is green, and if that’s a female at upper right, the species is sexually dimorphic:

Many of our Malkohas have these striking feature Matthew. Here is collage of a few.

— Amar (@amarhss.bsky.social) 2025-01-31T06:00:08.314Z

A brittle star (an echinoderm) catching a squid, obviously from a video taken by a submersible. Watch the video! If you look at the Wikipedia article, it doesn’t mention any such behavior, though they’ll catch small crustaceans.

Since I mentioned the brittle star catching a squid in prior post, might as well share! @echinoblog.bsky.social was even calling in when it happened! That's a predation event I'll never forget. #MarineLife youtu.be/oHN4sWAuBVc?…

— Lisa (@tuexplorer1.bsky.social) 2025-01-30T23:50:36.604Z

Here! I’ve been dealing with trivial stuff all day involving billing and the post office (the Black Hole of government agencies) and have had no time to write. Enjoy Stephen Fry’s hourlong talk on Triggernometry on why the American Left promoted the rise of the American Right. I’ve been saying that for a long time, but perhaps those who deny my claim will listen to Stephen Fry, who is a much Bigger Fish than I! And he’s way smarter and more eloquent. I recommend that you not neglect this video.

I think people can use the links below to access the Oxford English Dictionary, which is also on our University of Chicago Library site.  I looked up definitions of “woman” and “female” to see what the OED says, as I regard it as the authoritative source of definitions used in everyday parlance.  So here we go, and I’ve put the links so you can check for yourselves.

“woman”

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/woman_n?tab=meaning_and_use#14234972

 

“female” which gives a bit of a tautological definition for the noun usage:

But in the adjectival form, the OED gives a pretty accurate biological definition of “female”, though it adds “the gender identity associated with this sex”.

 

If you don’t like these (and feel free to browse around for definitions that you like better; I’ve given the first ones), complain to the OED, not me!

And, of course, things may change next year.