Wednesday: Hili dialogue

May 17, 2017 • 6:30 am

Good morning on Wednesday, May 17, 2017: exactly one week till I engage Le Dawkins in conversation in Washington, D.C. Be there or be square! Also, today the Certified Hand Therapist will inspect my finger to see if the tendon has healed enough that I can discard the damn plastic cast I’ve been wearing for six week. It’s been a real pain, and typing while splinted has produced many errors on this site.

And it’s National Cherry Cobbler Day, a dessert not to be sniffed at. It’s also International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

On this day in 1536, Henry VIII has his marriage with Anne Boleyn’s annulled. She was beheaded two days later. On May 17, 1875, the horse Aristides won the first Kentucky Derby. In 1954, a landmark case was decided on this day: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to have separate schools for black and white children. On this day in 1973, the U.S. Senate began its televised hearings of the Watergate affair; if you watched you’ll remember them well. Finally, on May 17, 2004, the first legal same-sex marriages were performed in the U.S.—in Massachusetts.

Notables born on this day include Edward Jenner (1749), Erik Satie (1866), Dennis Hopper (1936), and Andrea Corr (1974). Here are the Corrs performing their best-known song, “Breathless”:

Those who died on this day include John Jay (1829), Lawrence Welk (1992), baseball great Harmon Killebrew (I have his autograph on a copy of the journal Genetics, surely a unique item), Donna Summer (2012), and Gerald Edelman (2014). Here is my Killebrew-autographed copy of Genetics; this post describes how I got it:

I met both Killebrew and Edelman when they were in their prime; they are both gone now and I realize that I am soon to follow. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is not quite ready for her closeup:

Hili: I suspect that you will have to take this picture again.
A: Now?
Hili: No, when wisteria is in bloom.
In Polish:
Hili: Podejrzewam, że to zdjęcie będziesz musiał powtórzyć.
Ja: Teraz?
Hili: Nie, jak zakwitnie wisteria
Here is Ali, the beautiful cat belonging to a friend of reader Anne-Marie in Montreal:
Lagniappe: A tw**t featuring illusions, spotted and sent to me by Matthew Cobb:

And one found by Grania:

https://twitter.com/EmrgencyKittens/status/864703279204364288

Winners: WaPo 2017 Squirrel Week photo contest winners

May 16, 2017 • 3:15 pm

Here are three winners of the 2017 Washington Post Squirrel Week Photo Contest, held annually by reporter John Kelly. First, the winner:

 

The winner this year is Kristy Casto of Ashburn, Va., twice a runner-up in earlier contests. She titled her photo of a juvenile squirrel looking up at its mother “Just One Bite.”

Kristy is in the Army and works in military medicine. Squirrels visit her deck often, so often that she’s come to know individual animals. “That’s Scrattie Sue and one of her babies,” Kristy said of her winning entry.

Said Kristy: “I have a bazillion squirrel photos. I have kids too, but I don’t have as many pictures of them. My kids will remind me of that.”

Why such affection for an oft-maligned rodent?

“They are super intelligent little creatures,” Kristy said. “Their athleticism and agility is amazing to watch. They have distinct personalities. I’m a student of squirrels now.”

And an award-winning squirrel photographer.  What does Kristy look for when composing a picture?

“It’s easy to get a picture of a squirrel eating or sitting in the tree,” she said. “I try to look for something unusual or different. Any time there’s more than one squirrel, that’s interesting.”

Food of a different sort attracted this squirrel, photographed by Matt Evans of Austin, Texas. “One day while I was on my lunch break, this squirrel came over, climbed up on my table, and stole an entire (large) cookie,” Matt wrote. “He then walked over to a nearby tree, climbed up to a comfortable spot, and ate the cookie while he stared at me.”

Miranda Hovemeyer of Silver Spring, Md., managed to capture just about every version of the Eastern gray squirrel — gray, black (or melanistic) and what looks like an albino. She calls it “A Diverse Squirrel Neighborhood.” [JAC: Where’s the conservative squirrel?]

h/t: Nicole Reggia

Dan Arel: Mainstream atheists are white nationalist bigots

May 16, 2017 • 1:19 pm

Dan Arel, an atheist who advocates punching Nazis, and who has accused me of “normalizing white nationalism” (see here and here). is becoming a C. J. W*rl*m*n clone, constantly excoriating atheists for our supposed bigotry. This is how far people will go when they’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of Regressive Leftism:

https://twitter.com/danarel/status/864205621482012674

You can see more in his Twi**er feed, but it’s not worth my time to show more. Pity: the man has sunk to uttering the craziest canards about “mainstream atheism”. I can’t even think of ONE “mainstream atheist” who could be accused of white nationalist bigotry.

When in doubt, it’s always safe to call those you don’t like “white supremacists.”

“Muslims are the true feminists”: HuffPo lies to itself and its readers

May 16, 2017 • 11:00 am

UPDATE: This article appeared on the new HuffPo, and after writing this piece I realized I’d criticized the identical article a year ago, here. Well, so I’ve done it twice. My takes aren’t the same, so if you haven’t read the other one, read this one instead. Better yet, read both, as the earlier piece, which is shorter, has other information about the “feminism” of sharia law.  The piece shows that PuffHo is brain-dead, killed by Toxic Regressive Leftism.

________

Well, I’m sorry folks, but, like a dog returning to its own vomit, I keep returning to the HuffPo, breaking my vow that I was done with them. The laws of physics dictated otherwise: I could not have done other than write this post. And my also-determined justification for returning to that odious site is that HuffPo may be the premier “clicky” source of news for Lefties, since it is puffier and takes less work to read than, say, the New York Times. Also, the Times is more objective, and even has conservative columnists, so if you’re a Trump-hater or Regressive Leftist who wants confirmation of your biases rather than exercise for your brain, you can reliably find that confirmation at HuffPo.

And here’s their latest, one of the most egregious pieces of doublespeak that I’ve seen, even on that site (click on screenshot to go to the article):

Doesn’t that remind you of headlines like “Assad is the true peacemaker” or “Trump is the true progressive”?

Author Gabby Aossey’s claim is that Muslims are the True Feminists because they choose to respect their bodies by covering them, while Western Feminists disrespect their own bodies by showing their skin. Why, there’s even a Free the Nipple campaign in the West, which according to Aoussey exemplifies the goals of Western Feminists: to show skin. As she says:

As American women, many of us have an idea of what feminists are; freelancing women with all the sexual freedom in the world. But this is exactly the problem with American feminism; it is all about sex and the liberation of our bodies. Certainly, things like abortion and contraception is a part of that freedom, but in today’s society the fight has taken on a much different tone.

Hip Feminist campaigns like Free the Nipple only encourage a gullible behavior of disrespect for our own bodies, leading to everyone else around us disrespecting our bodies as well. If we want to be respected as women and taken seriously in all our endeavors we should look to a new source; Muslim women. Muslim women, as well as Muslim men, see every body as a sacred temple, especially the female body. Opposed to exposing themselves, it is through modesty. When we think of modern feminists we should stray away from the new American trends and start looking to what we have always thought as a contradiction; Muslim feminists.

That’s a gross distortion of feminism in the West, whose goal is, for most, simple equality. While that equality includes the freedom to dress as one will in public, it also includes legal and moral equality: the right to be treated with as much respect as men, and to enjoy the same legal rights.

Now Aossey is willfully ignorant of several things. One, of course, is the fact that Muslim-majority countries, many of them governed by versions of sharia law—which DICTATES that women cover themselves—oppress women. But don’t take my word for it. Observe that in Saudi Arabia, a woman can’t go out with a man who is not her relative, or go out unaccompanied, must wear full covering (not just a hijab) when she does to out, and can’t even drive. In Iran and Afghanistan, women MUST cover themselves, and under sharia law have much more restricted legal rights than men (for one thing, their testimony in court is worth only half of a man’s).

And it’s not limited to those countries. Check out the 2013 Pew Survey of Muslim-majority countries (which didn’t even survey more repressive ones like Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia). Here are some statistics showing the “achievements” of Muslim feminism in the Muslim world:

Even the notion that wearing a veil should be a woman’s choice (in principle, of course!) is universally accepted only in a few Muslim-majority countries, and is widely rejected in Africa and the Middle East (note the absence of Iran and Saudi Arabia):


Here’s true equality!:

Women’s oppression is codified in most instantiations of sharia law. Here are the data on those who favor such a law for everyone in Muslim-majority lands. Feminism my tuchas!

To buttress her flawed argument, Aossey calls up the image of Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife, by all accounts a powerful and independent woman. But that was fourteen hundred years ago! Are women in Saudi Arabia and Iran allowed to have such power now? Are they allowed to say whatever they want? You know the answer. Pointing to historical figures whose personalities may be largely fictional is no way to justify Muslim women as feminists today. That much is obvious.

And what happens to Muslim women who become liberals, leave the faith, or speak out against Islam’s oppression of women: liberals like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Asra Nomani, or Sarah Haider? Are they heroes, like Khadija? You know the answer. They’re vilified—vilified for opposing the legal and cultural inferiority of women under Islam. People like Aossey ignore this in their mush-brained desire to claim that Muslim women are feminists.

And then there’s the small matter of the hijab. Here’s Aossey’s take:

. . . it’s no surprise to see Muslim woman today modeling themselves after these prominent female figures. Muslim girls look towards these instances of strength for guidance in this scary, patriarchal society. These modern women are not afraid to go against the grain in the name of their belief like wearing the hijab to covey their religious devotion. Hijab is the headscarf that is worn by Muslim woman and no; it is not supposed to be forced on them by their fathers and husbands. Wearing or not wearing the Hijab reflects a Muslim woman’s own a personal choice.

What nonsense! In several countries wearing the hijab (or more covering) is the law, not personal choice, and if you refuse, the morality police will beat some sense into you. In other places, including the U.S. and Europe, social pressure by family and peers ensures that veiling is far from a personal “choice”. I’ve written before about what women’s dress was like in places like Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iran before veiling was either common or mandatory. Answer: women didn’t veil as much, and showed a lot more skin. See my posts here, herehere, and here. These days, women must go on websites like My Stealthy Freedom to covertly doff their veils, for they don’t want to wear them!

And remember why veiling exists: it’s based on the presumption that women have to cover themselves to avoid exciting the uncontrollable lust of men, men who would rape them if they saw a knee or even a stray wisp of hair. It puts the onus on women, not men, to prevent sexual assault, and that’s not feminism. In fact, feminists always make the point, correctly, that it’s not women’s responsibility to quash male lust, and they’re right. “Feminist” Aossey, however, has bought into the oppression side:

With all of the pressures in our American society to have a certain physical allure; to have long, luscious hair, a skinny yet curvy body, flawless facial beauty, woman go through hell. With this, we succumb to the pressures that we generally think we are free of; we oppress our natural womanhood with constant worry about how we look to others around us. We do not have the courage to stand up to this societal critique and say ‘my body is not to be ogled at’.

For many Muslim women however, they strive to achieve just that. In this way, they liberate themselves from these everyday pressures. They actually have the courage to say hey, I am not an object of pleasure, I am a woman that commands only respect for who I am and not how I look. They have the power to self-liberate as well as the courage to diverge from the American norms. And they do not get attention from showing off their figure, but they get attention by how they present themselves. Muslim woman get respect and are looked at beyond aesthetics; they are actually taken seriously in their communities.

Isn’t this what feminism should be? Don’t women deserve consistent respect and to actually be listened to without drools or criticisms over our bodies and looks?

That is what the results of feminism should be, but veiling doesn’t achieve that result. Read two articles (this and this) to see how covering a woman does not prevent sexual assault. As Grania said when she saw Aossey’s piece (which, by the way, doesn’t allow readers’ comments):

It’s the woman’s responsibility to protect her temple from the assault of the eyes of evil men who are such dogs that they cannot be trusted. What I want to know is why these candidates for a brain donation aren’t arguing for the full-on niqab? Surely that is the logical next step.

Indeed! Aossey finishes her piece with more nonsense, as if repeating lies makes them more credible:

I realized we have been conditioned to think that American women are the free and that Muslim women are the suppressed, but this is twisted to me. I finally understood who is really oppressed by a patriarchal society and it is us. Woman who wear hijab have freed themselves from a man’s and a society’s judgmental gaze; the Free the Nipplers have not. They have fallen deep into the man’s world, believing that this trend will garner respect.

So I urge my Free the Nipple gal pals to take a look at your Muslim sisters and collaborate with them to create a feminism that treats the female body as a temple and not as a toy. Let us see feminism in a different light—through modesty and the courage to savor our sugar. Let us call on the Muslim feminists of the world.

The female body is not a temple, nor is the male’s. It’s the product of natural selection—the same selection that made us desire members of the other sex.

And can Aossey go out alone, or have an unchaperoned date, or drive? I think so, for she lives in America, not Saudi Arabia. Can she wear anything she wants in public? I think so, for she lives in America, not Iran or Afghanistan. Is her testimony equal in value to a man’s in a court of law? Yes, because she lives in America, not the Middle East. By equating feminism with “modesty”—a modesty forced on women by MEN, often against women’s will—Aossey manages to at once misconstrue and devalue the kind of feminism that calls for simple freedom and equality for women.

I wonder why Aossey doesn’t move to Saudi Arabia, where she must wear a sack so she isn’t oppressed by the “patriarchy.” She’s made the HuffPo look even more stupid and regressive than it already is, and that’s a feat!

h/t: Patrick, Grania

Researcher: Human sense of smell better than everyone thinks; may rival that of dogs!

May 16, 2017 • 8:30 am

John P. McGann of the Department of Psychology at Rutgers University has spent fourteen years looking at the olfactory (smelling) system of mammals, and has published a new paper in Science suggesting that what we think we know about our own sniffing ability, compared to the reputed Super Sniffers of dogs and rodents, is wrong. McGann suggests, to a fanfare of publicity in various venues, that we’re not that bad: in fact, he notes that humans may be just as good as dogs and mice at detecting odors.

His paper is referenced below, and access is free if you have the free and legal Unpaywall extension (get it!).

McGann suggests that the presumed olfactory inferiority of humans is based on observations of the relatively small size of human olfactory lobes in the brain—observations made by Broca and other early neuroanatomists, and promulgated by Freud, who said that the absence of an acute sense of smell in humans led to sexual repression, since sex was partly based on odors.  After reviewing the historical evidence, McGann gives his biological evidence. Here are his main points:

  • Although the relative size of olfactory lobes compared to brain size as a whole is smaller in humans than in rodents, the absolute size if the lobes is much larger.

This shows the relative sizes of human and mouse olfactory lobes; the mouse lobe is much larger relative to its whole brain:

(From paper): Gross anatomy of the olfactory bulbs of human and mouse. (A) Ventral aspect of human brain, with meninges removed from the cortex. Area indicated by dotted rectangle is enlarged in (B). (B) View of left and right olfactory bulbs and olfactory tracts from (A). (C) Ventral aspect of mouse brain, with olfactory bulbs visible at the top. Up is anterior in all three panels. Dashed lines denote the approximate border between bulb and tract.

But the absolute size of the human bulb, which McGann sees as one key to good olfaction, is much larger than that of the mouse:

(From paper): Comparison of the mouse and human olfactory bulb. View is of the ventral aspect of the left olfactory bulb. Both bulbs are at the same scale.
  • Further, the absolute number of neurons in mammalian olfactory bulbs is relatively constant (McGann sees that as an indicator of smelling ability as well).

This graph shows that the number of neurons in the olfactory regions varies among mammal species by less than a factor of ten, regardless of the much larger variation in body size—and humans aren’t particularly low:

(From paper): ig. 3 Comparison of olfactory bulb neuronal numbers across mammalian species. The number of putative neurons per olfactory bulb for each species, as measured by isotropic fractionation. Numbers are drawn from Ribeiro et al. (48) and Oliveira-Pinto et al.
  • Data showing a larger number of inactivated olfactory genes in humans compared to dogs and mice is questionable. 

In Why Evolution is True, I noted that many human “olfactory receptor genes”, each binding to a separate molecule and allowing us to smell it, have been inactivated by mutations: they’re dead “pseudogenes”. As McGann reports, humans have 1000 such genes, but “only” (his quotes) 390 of them code for receptor proteins. In contrast, mice have 1300 such genes, of which 1000 code for proteins. This has been taken as evidence that mice can smell a lot more acutely than can humans. But McGann points out that 60% of the human pseudogenes are transcribed into messenger RNA in the nose.

But that’s weak evidence, as we already know that many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA but not translated into proteins, so this says nothing about the number of OR proteins made in humans versus mice. Besides, even if every transcribed pseudogene in humans was made into an active, odor-receptive protein, there would still be 1000 active genes in mice versus about 750 in humans.  Further, McGann didn’t do the comparison for pseudogenes in dogs or mice.

Here’s a table from a 2007 PLoS paper by Nimura and Nei showing those three species. If McGann wants to make the pseudiogene argument for human sniffing, he has to take into account the data below, and the possibility that many dog, mouse, and rat pseudogenes may also produce receptor proteins. Thus, I’m not convinced by his pseudogene evidence. (Note that every olfactory gene in cetaceans like whales is a pseudogene, suggesting they really aren’t used to smell, as those genes aren’t functional underwater.)

  • The structure of the olfactory system differs between humans and other mammals. 

These difference include a larger number of glomeruli (cluster of nerve receptors) in the human olfactory bulb compared to rodents, and the observation that the bits of human cortex used for processing olfaction is more “elaborate” (i.e., has more neural connections) than in other species. To me, this says little about the relative abilities of humans vs. other mammals to detect odors.

The most crucial question, however, involves not just neurons or pseudogenes but is this: “How many different odors can humans detect compared to, say, dogs and mice, and do we detect them at different thresholds?” It’s classically assumed that dogs and mice are better sniffers than are humans, but McGann said the data are not convincing, are based on anecdotes, and also rely on tests of molecules that humans wouldn’t have been selected during their evolution to smell anyway. Here are a few quotes (my emphasis if you want just the high spots):

Human olfaction is excellent and impactful

Historical and anatomical expectations aside, is the human olfactory sense actually impoverished? No, the human olfactory system is excellent, although it depends on the criteria employed. For instance, dogs may be better than humans at discriminating the urines on a fire hydrant and humans may be better than dogs at discriminating the odors of fine wine, but few such comparisons have actual experimental support. When properly tested, the primate olfactory system is highly sensitive to many odors and can exert strong influences on behavior, physiology, and emotions.

Humans with intact olfactory systems can detect virtually all volatile chemicals larger than an atom or two, to the point that it has been a matter of scientific interest to document the few odorants that some people cannot smell (i.e., specific anosmias). A prominent recent study calculated that we could also tell virtually all odors apart, with an estimated ability to discriminate more than 1 trillion potential compounds . Although this exact number is highly sensitive to the assumptions made, it is clear that the human olfactory system is excellent at odor discrimination, far better even than the putative 10,000 odors claimed by folk wisdom and poorly sourced introductory psychology textbooks.

One key insight in comparing the olfactory system of primates and other animals has been that different species have different sensitivities to different odorants. . . . A recent experiment tested olfactory thresholds for six sulfur-containing odors in mice, spider monkeys, and humans. Relative olfactory sensitivity varied with odorant : Humans were three orders of magnitude more sensitive than mice or monkeys to 3-mercapto-3-methylbuytl-formate, with all 12 human subjects outperforming all of the individual animals, yet all 12 humans were worse than all of the mice (and comparable to the spider monkeys) on 3-mercapto-3-methylbutan-3-ol. Overall, the humans were most sensitive to two of the six odorants, whereas the mice were most sensitive to four of the odorants. This finding complements older literature. . .

Human behavior is strongly influenced by olfaction. Environmental odors can prime specific memories and emotions, influence autonomic nervous system activation, shape perceptions of stress and affect, and prompt approach and avoidance behavior . Humans can follow outdoor scent trails and even exhibit dog-like casting behavior when trails change direction . The human olfactory system also plays a major, sometimes unconscious, role in communication between individuals. Each person produces a distinct odor that reflects not only dietary and environmental factors but also interacts with the immune system’s “self/non-self” histocompatibility markers to incorporate genetic information that permits the discrimination of kin from non-kin . The contents of this “body odor cocktail” are interpreted in parallel with environmental odors in the brain and can drive mate and food choice, as well as communicating information about anxiety and aggression in other people. We even appear to unconsciously smell our hands after shaking hands with strangers [JAC: Not me!], suggesting an unexpected olfactory component to this common social interaction. Although many of these olfactory experiences do not recruit attentional resources, they can be exceptionally salient in traumatic circumstances . When such circumstances result in posttraumatic stress disorder, olfactory hallucinations frequently become part of the symptomology.

Well. it’s clear from this (assuming McGann is right) that we need good comparative tests involving a variety of different molecules—not just molecules that would have been important in species’ evolutionary past—before we can say that the bloodhound is a better tracker by odor than is a human. But statements like “human behavior is strongly influenced by olfaction” says nothing about our relative sniffability compared to other species. This kind of writing is, I think, a bit tendentious.

The Guardian has a summary article about this paper, and shows that our own Matthew Cobb, who studies olfaction in flies for a living, thought the paper was great:

Matthew Cobb, professor of zoology at Manchester University, said the review had altered his own perspective on a study that he has focused on for much of his career. “We have this myth that humans can’t smell very much,” he said. “McGann’s exploring the actual evidence for that, which it turns out is fairly poor. It’s going to change my teaching next year.”

But others disagree:

Alexandra Horowitz, a scientist at Barnard College in New York, whose work focusses on canine olfaction, notes that while dogs track scents, find drugs and detect ovarian cancer in plasma samples, humans merely “notice if there is a bad smell on the train or someone has been cooking when we come home.”

“That there are olfactory specialists, such as perfumers or animal trackers indicates that with attention, we can get much better,” she added. “But not dog-level.”

While I’m not an expert like Matthew or Alexandra, my own take is that this paper is provocative and convinces me that more experiments need to be done, especially involving the ability of different species to detect different odors. Perhaps we’ve been too cavalier in our claims that humans are an auditory and visual species while dogs and mice depend more on olfaction. Old assumptions may be wrong, and McGann’s paper is useful for re-examining a famous set of such assumptions. He may be right, but I’m not convinced that his data show that. At best they show that we need to provisionally withdraw the common claim that we can’t smell as well as mice and dogs. (One thing I can say, though, is that humans smell better than dogs, especially wet dogs! I’ll be here all week, folks.)

__________

McGann, J. P. 2017. Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth. Science Vol. 356, Issue 6338,DOI: 10.1126/science.aam7263

Readers’ wildlife photographs

May 16, 2017 • 7:30 am

We have a melange of photos today (don’t forget to send yours in!).  The first shows a lovely bird, and is contributed by reader Don Breden:

Here’s a rose-breasted grosbeak [Pheucticus ludovicianus] visiting the deck on a rainy Mother’s Day . . .
Such a beautiful bird and a fine songster, too.  The ornithologist at the Fairbanks Museum in nearby St. Johnsbury, Ruth Crane, used to say that the rose-breasted sounds like a robin who’s had singing lessons.
You can listen to several songs of this species here.
From Roger Latour:
This larva is of the species Papilio cresphontes, the giant swallowtail. It is a new species in Southern Quebec, having found its way north recently from the USA.
Having seen an adult lazily flying above a trail and noticing the prickly ash, I decided to have a look around and found a larva. In natural light the beast is not easily spotted, and when you do it looks like a fat bird dropping. The forest was dark, even by the path where the common prickly-ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) is usually found. I had to use the flash to get these close-up pictures.
The female will pretty much lay its eggs only on these bushes (over here, anyway). We are lucky to have this small tree species and that the swallowtail has found it!
Parc Île Bizard Grand porte-queue Parc-nature du Bois-de-l’Île-Bizard

When I asked Roger if these might not also be snake mimics (a case of double mimicry), he replied:

Yes it has been suggested, to vipers specifically: “Does defensive posture increase mimetic fidelity of caterpillars with eyespots to their putative snake models?” (free PDF)

And from Stephen Barnard in Idaho (this is Matthew Cobb’s favorite bird):

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica). This bird was extremely trusting: my dogs were running around right by the pole it was perched on.

Tuesday: Hili dialogue (and Leon monologue)

May 16, 2017 • 6:30 am

Hello on a lovely (so far) Tuesday, May 16, 2017.  It’s National Barbecue Day, celebrating one of America’s great contributions to world cuisine (yes, I know other lands have simulacra of BBQ, but I’ve never had better examples of the genre than a good BBQ Texas brisket or Chicago-style rib tips).  In Iraq, it’s Mass Graves Day, a sad occasion.

On this day in 1770, Marie Antoinette, only 14, married Louis-Auguste, just a year older, and who later became King Louis XVI. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial ended, with Johnson narrowly escaping conviction (by one vote) in the Senate. On this day in 1929, the first Academy Awards ceremony took place, with Wings (featuring Gary Cooper and Clara Bow) winning best picture. Here’s the trailer:

On May 16, 1943, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising ended, with nearly ever Jew captured or killed (13,000 of the latter); most of the survivors died in concentration camps. Here are some of the doomed survivors:

Notables born on this day include Henry Fonda (1905), Studs Terkel (1912), Liberace (1919), and Adrienne Rich (1929). Those who died on this day include Django Reinhardt (1953), James Agee (1955), Andy Kaufman (1984), and both Sammy Davis, Jr, and Jim Henson (1990). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili shows her obsessive interests in birds as she goes for walkies with Cyrus and Malgorzata:

Hili: Do you hear birds singing?
Malgorzata: Yes, I do.
Hili: Interesting.
In Polish:
Hili: Słyszysz ten śpiew ptaków?
Małgorzata: Słyszę.
Hili: Interesujący.

 

In Wloclawek, Leon and staff have gone for a hike; apparently there are beavers near!

Leon: Let’s go and see how our beavers are.
And in Winnipeg, here’s Gus in the Garden with Flowers:

Richard Dawkins writes to the Irish Times, offering himself for arrest

May 15, 2017 • 2:50 pm

Okay, Ireland, you nation with your stupid blasphemy laws: here’s a good test case for you. Arrest Richard Dawkins!

Here’s a week-old letter from Dawkins to the Irish Times:

Sir, – As a gesture of solidarity with Stephen Fry, I quote a sentence from my book, The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Every one of these adjectives is amply documented, with full biblical citations, in Dan Barker’s book, God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction.

I shall be giving a public lecture in the National Concert Hall, Dublin, on June 12th, and I shall therefore be available for arrest on a charge of blasphemy.

– Yours, etc,

RICHARD DAWKINS,

New College,

Oxford.

Unlike Stephen Fry, Dawkins will actually be in Ireland when he blasphemes. Now surely he’ll be protected by a loophole in the 2009 Defamation Act, which states, as pointed out by Grania:

It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates. (Art. 36.3)

 If Dawkins can’t get himself taken in charge of the Gardaí (the Irish cops), then the law is worthless. But we knew that already.