Directional asymmetry: how does it develop and how did it evolve? Part 3. Artificial selection for handedness

February 9, 2017 • 1:04 pm

In the first part of this series, I discussed examples of asymmetry—both directional asymmetry (right-versus left-handedness) and  anti-symmetry (differences between sides, but in a random direction)—and raised the problem of how directional asymmetry, like the enlarged left tusk of the male narwhal or the higher left ear of the barn owl, could evolve. In other words, how would a gene know whether it was on the left side of an organism or the right?

In yesterday’s installment, I discussed two recent pieces of research, based on the directional movement of cilia and the asymmetrical operation of proteins, that could produce a directional gradient in a bilaterally symmetrical organism and thus lead to the evolution of handedness in a trait.

The potential difficulty of a gene somehow “knowing” it was on the right versus left side of an organism that’s bilaterally symmetrical led me to this question:

One question that occupied me when I was younger was this: if you take an organism that is, by and large, bilaterally symmetrical, like Drosophila (though there is a bit of handedness in a couple of its traits), could you impose artificial selection on it to produce handedness? That is, could you select for a line of flies whose right eyes were bigger than their left, or who had more bristles on their left side than on their right (and vice versa in both cases)? How hard would that be? Given the absence of marked bilateral asymmetries in species like Drosophila that could act as developmental cues for the successful selection of directional asymmetry, you might think it would be hard—even though virtually every other trait in Drosophila can be successfully changed by artificial selection. Tomorrow we’ll learn the answer to my question.

Today I’ll give the answer, which is that yes, it’s very hard to select for directional asymmetry in organisms. Drosophila, for example, are pretty bilaterally symmetrical, though there are some slight differences in morphology on the right versus left sides that are directional. I’d predict, then, that it would be hard to select for a line of flies that would be directionally different: say, one that had the right eye always bigger than the left, or had more bristles on the left side than on the right.  Or, at least harder to do that than to select for other traits that are obviously variable in populations, like a simple increase in the number of bristles, or the ability to move more toward the light than the dark.

In fact, of all the artificial selection experiments I know about in Drosophila, the only ones that have ever failed are those selecting for directional asymmetry. You can increase antisymmetry by selection fairly easily: that is, you can make flies more asymmetrical for traits like eye size and bristle number, but not directionally so.

The paper by Ashley Carter et al. given at the bottom gives a history of selection experiments in Drosophila for directional asymmetry, and then adds a new experiment (this was published in 2009).  Here are the experiments preceding that of Carter et al.; they are a dismal history of failures:

  • In 1960,  Maynard Smith and Sondhi published an experiment in which they tried to select for directional difference in the number of ocellar bristles (there are usually three, one anterior and two posterior, both on top of the head). They showed no significant increase in the directionality.
  • In 1965, Beardmore selected for directional asymmetry in the number of sternopleural bristles, which are located on the sides of the fly (below).  The two lines that were selected in opposite directions (more bristles on right vs. more bristles on left) diverged very slightly but significantly over 50 generations (a long time for selection). The selection response, however, was tiny compared to other experiments that selected simply for an increase or decrease in total bristle number regardless of the side.
tl_sternopleura
Sternopleural bristles (in the red segment)
  • In 1973, Purnell and Thompson selected for directional asymmetry of wing folding. A given fly always folds its left wing over its right, or vice versa. But different flies have different folding directions, so this is a case of antisymmetry. These workers selected for a line of flies in which left folded over right consistently, and vice versa. While the authors claimed a modest directional response, Carter et al. say that there was in fact no difference achieved in either line.
  • In 1987, I published a paper in which I placed the eyeless mutant of Drosophila into a genetically variable line. This mutant makes the eyes very small, and often asymmetrical. I then selected for lines having the left eye bigger than the right and vice versa. As a check on the general presence of genetic variation, I also selected for reduced eyes on both sides of the head. The last experiment succeeded greatly, showing there was genetic variation for eye size, but both experiments selecting for directionality failed: there was no sign, after 30 generations, that I had produced a line with eyes consistently bigger on one versus the other side of the head.  Here’s some of the variation in the expression of the eyeless mutation:
65_thumb
Variation in the expression of the eyeless mutation in Drosophila
  • Finally, in 1990 Tuinstra et al. selected for a directional difference between left and right bristle numbers on the scutellum in a line containing a mutation that destabilizes bristle number. (There are usually four scutellar bristles, as shown below). After 12 generations they saw no response to selection for directionality, but the line was also depauperate in general genetic variation.
3301_1071_794-scutellar-bristles-drosophila
The normal phenotype: four scutellar bristles.

In the experiment of Carter et al., the authors selected for directionality in the distance between the posterior crossvein of each wing from the tip, trying to create lines in which the distance was larger on the left than on the right—and vice versa. Here’s a diagram of the trait they selected for: the average of the distances from the intersection of the posterior crossvein with the longitudinal veins on either side to the tip of the wing; in other words, the average of two distances shown in the dark black lines in the bottom figure.

screen-shot-2017-02-09-at-12-35-34-pm

Carter et al. practiced 15 generations of selection for right wing distances bigger than left, and in the opposite direction as well. There was no significant response. Again, selection for directional asymmetry (which could have reflected either a difference in either the vein configuration or the general size of the wing) failed.

So out of these six experiments for directional asymmetry in Drosophila, only one succeeded, and that was a very modest success.

Why the failure? The authors suggest three possibilities:

1). There is no left-right axis of asymmetry that could allow genes to cue on whether they’re on the left or right; therefore there could be no variant genes that could produce directional asymmetry. The authors reject this hypothesis because flies do show some directional asymmetry in their guts, genitals, and a very small amount in wing size.

2). The amount of genetic variation that exists for directional asymmetry—that is, genes that can recognize what side of the body they’re on given that some slight directional asymmetry already exists—is small. Given this lack of available genetic variation, selection would often be unsuccessful. This would be my favored hypothesis given the pervasive bilateral symmetry in Drosophila. There just aren’t many asymmetries for genes to cue in on.

3). It’s easier to evolve directional asymmetry if the trait is initially antisymmetrical, with one side different from the other, though in a random direction. This would already show that the trait is sensitive to developmental differences on the sides (though not directionally)—and perhaps that sensitivity could be leveraged into a directional response. This seems unlikely to me (and the authors) because at least two experiments (mine and Tuinstra’s) created big antisymmetry by destabilizing a trait via mutation. Despite that increase in antisymmetry, selection for directional asymmetry was unsuccessful in both cases.

This lack of success is in stark contrast to the pervasive success of other selection experiments in flies. I know of no failures of selection for other traits that don’t involve directional asymmetry, though of course some unsuccessful selection experiments might not have been published.

To conclude, then, we do see directional asymmetries in some organisms, so selection has, in some species, picked out genes that distinguish right from left. But in organisms like Drosophila that are bilaterally symmetrical on the whole, it’s hard to produce flies that are right-handed or left-handed for some traits. Carter et al., and I, suggest that this is because there are very few genetic variants that can take advantage of the very slight directional asymmetries that pre-exist in Drosophila.  This, in turn, would suggest that such selection might be more successful in species having more pronounced directional asymmetries to begin with—organisms like humans. But of course we can’t select on our own species, and even in mammals the long generation time (and lack of interest in directional asymmetry!) makes such experiments impractical. Nevertheless, I still find directional asymmetry fascinating, simply because I want to know how a gene can tell whether it’s on the right versus left side of the body.

______________

Carter, A. J. R., E. Osborne, and D. Houle. 2009. Heritability of directional asymmetry in Drosophila melanogaster . International Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2009:7.

Berkeley students defend violent protests over Milo Yiannopoulos talk

February 9, 2017 • 9:45 am

Prepare to be disheartened, at least if you’re in favor of peaceful protests against speakers you don’t like. As you may recall, last week Milo Yiannopoulos spoke—or rather, was scheduled to speak—at the University of California at Berkeley.  The University and the sponsoring organization (the Berkeley College Republicans) provided ample police protection, but a number of demonstrators showed up, and things got out of hand. Milo wasn’t permitted to appear (for his own safety) and some of the demonstrators went on the rampage, burning cars, smashing windows, hitting people, and destroying ATMs. The violence was not of course the fault of the University, which not only had provided lots of security, but whose Chancellor had spoken out in favor of Milo’s right to appear and warned protestors against violence.  Nevertheless, there were also peaceful protestors who dispersed when the destruction began.

All this did was call attention to Milo. If people want his influence to diminish, the worst way to do it is to riot and “shut him down” when he appears, for that just gives him a more prominent profile and makes people more eager to hear him. If the protestors simply ignored him, or at least didn’t try to interrupt him and damage property, he wouldn’t have the fame (or infamy) he does. The Authoritarian Left simply doesn’t know how to deal with someone like him, and their tactics are not only disruptive and illegal, but counterproductive.

That was amply demonstrated in Tuesday’s issue of the Daily Californian, the Berkeley student newspaper, in which several alumni and students wrote long justifications for the violence. Here we see the defining characteristic of the Authoritarian Left on full display: free speech is only for people who espouse the right views. “Hate speech”, meaning “speech that offends you” cannot be seen as free speech that deserves protection. Indeed, it deserves to be met with violence.

Take, for instance, the appealingly titled op-ed “Check your privilege when speaking of protests” by Nisa Dang, a Berkeley alumnus (she’s black, which I mention because of the “privilege” issue).  Here’s her proud tweet over a very misguided article (all emphases in the op-eds are mine):

https://twitter.com/nisadang/status/829038101951574017

Get that: “Trying to force nonviolence”!

Dang’s claim, which we see in the other editorials, is that Yiannopoulos himself perpetrates violence through “hate speech”, which included outing a transgender student in Wisconsin (something I deplored) and his “consistent abuse of individuals”. That, to Dang, justifies the use of violence:

From the outset, marginalized student communities have been extremely vocal about the violent impact of Yiannopoulos’ appearances and his consistent abuse of platforms. He was banned from Twitter for “participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” He outed a trans woman during an appearance at UW Milwaukee, an act that placed this individual’s life in danger. And he had plans to name undocumented students in our community as part of his appearance at UC Berkeley, an act that, in the time of Donald Trump, places our classmates at an even greater risk of being attacked. This is violence. If I know that you are planning to attack me, I’ll do all I can to throw the first punch.

Plus, she says, the presence of police also perpetuates violence. Apparently, the people who actually did the violence bear no responsibility for it:

I don’t care what Breitbart article or liberal bullshit listicle you’ve read, or what your experiences in white suburbia might have taught you — police are violent agents of the state. They carry weapons, enforce laws that place our communities in danger and use excessive force in order to subdue and “protect.” Often, the people protesting are the same people who are at most risk for being violated by the police. Thus, the presence of police officers in riot gear — armed with less-than-lethal weapons they are more than happy to use on protesters — creates an atmosphere that perpetuates violence on community members.

And here’s the telling bit: hate speech can’t be free speech, and of course Ms. Dang is the Decider of Hate Speech.

To Milo: I’m sorry that you were too scared to stand your ground during a routine Berkeley protest. Hopefully, you’ll think twice now about recruiting at my alma mater, where hate speech may be allowed a platform by the administration but will never be tolerated by the student body. Here’s a big fuck you from the descendants of people who survived genocides by killing Nazis and people just like them.

As far as I know, Milo never hurt anybody, and hasn’t called for any genocides.

*********

Here’s another op-ed on Milo, this time by Neil Lawrence, a former columnist for the newspaper. Called “Black bloc did what campus should have.”  (“Black bloc” is anarchist group supposedly behind the protests.) According to Lawrence, he was censored when he criticized Milo (what probably happened is that people simply gave him verbal pushback), and since he and others failed to get Berkeley to rescind Milo’s invitation, the violence was justified:

To those who defend free speech: I spent a semester in this very newspaper yelling about Grindr hookups and advocating rioting. My constitutional right to be outrageous and offensive in the press is very precious to me. But when I exercised my freedom of speech and called Yiannopoulos a pathetic motherfucker with ugly roots, many liberals told me I should be quiet and ignore him, and all his fans told me they were going to kill me. I expect this will happen again.

If Lawrence received credible death threats, he should have reported them to the police. Oh, I forgot, the police are instruments of violence. Anyway, given that Lawrence didn’t succeed in shutting Milo down, this whiny brat said that violence was the only recourse they had:

To those who hate Yiannopoulos and the alt-right but have a hard time condoning black bloc tactics and property damage, I understand that these tactics are extreme. But when you consider everything that activists already tried — when mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left?

Of all the objections and cancellation requests presented to the administration, local government and local police, the only one that was listened to was the sound of shattering glass.

. . . Antifa was there to protect UC Berkeley students when the administration was not. Within 15 minutes of the bloc’s arrival on Sproul Plaza, Yiannopoulos was being rushed from the building. These were not acts of violence.

They were acts of self defense. 

And to Yiannopoulos and all your friends who invited you and hosted you and defended your “right” to speak: I recommend you learn your lesson.

Yeah, the lesson being: shut up or we’ll get violent. People like Lawrence have learned their lesson well from extremist Muslims.

*********

But wait! There’s still another editorial, this one by Desmond Meagley (“a reporter and illustrator for Youth Radio”), called “Condemning protestors same as condoning hate speech.” Really?? Well, he doesn’t mean condemning all the protestors, which I don’t do, for I condemn only the violent ones. But Meagley means “condemning the violent protestors”, which he sees as equivalent to condoning hate speech. And even if speech really is hateful, like calling for individuals to be oppressed or for ethnic groups to be marginalized, free speech means that it must be “condoned” in the sense of “allowing it to occur.” That doesn’t mean “agreeing with it”, something that Meagley apparently doesn’t realize.

Meagley’s aim was the same as Lawrences: to shut Milo up. And violence was the only way to do it: a simultaneous denigration of free speech and a call for its suppression by destruction of bodies and property:

There was no easy way to shut down the event and keep Yiannopoulos and his fans from inciting violence. The UC administration and Berkeley College Republicans made that clear by refusing to hear the concerns of their community — not just at Cal, but throughout the Bay Area.

. . . The black bloc is not an organization with an agenda. It’s a strategic approach to protest that, in the case of the entire “Dangerous Faggot” tour, was highly effective. The violence that forms the foundation of Yiannopoulos’ ideology is far worse than any tactic the black bloc uses. You don’t have to like property damage, but understand that without it, Yiannopoulos would have released private and sensitive information about innocent students and encouraged assault against them.

. . . If you condemn the actions that shut down Yiannopoulos’ literal hate speech, you condone his presence, his actions and his ideas; you care more about broken windows than broken bodies.

Let us be clear. Milo Yiannopoulos did not encourage violence towards students. Releasing public information about students that isn’t intended to incite such violence is not against the law. And condemning violence is not condoning Milo’s views; it’s condoning his right to speak.

The recurring theme throughout all these letters, which I abhor, is that “hate speech” (defined as “speech you don’t like”) is identical to hurting someone physically, or damaging their property, and therefore it’s okay to preempt that speech by using violence.

The problem, as always, is that one person’s hate speech is another person’s justifiable criticism (viz., criticism of some of the tenets of Islam), and who is to be the arbiter of what speech is okay? Free speech doesn’t need defense when the speaker says something everyone likes; when we must defend it is at the very moment it causes offense. I’d be curious to know whether people like Meagley and Lawrence think the murders of the Charlo Hebdo writers and artists were justified to forestall future “hate speech” against Islam. For it’s certain that many Muslims are even more angry about Charlie Hebdo than Meagley and Lawrence are about Milo.

*******

Finally, we have Josh Hardman, a Berkeley student, saying again that violence was necessary to shut up Milo; his op-ed is “Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yainnopoulos event.” Hardman echoes the others in saying that hate speech isn’t free speech:

Yiannopoulos and his supporters have a track record of actively targeting people in their hate speech, and the ideology they peddle perpetuates ideas that urgently endanger members of our community. In short: The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences. Dirks [the Chancellor of Berkeley] acknowledged the virulent nature of the language and ideas the speaker espoused and the ability for this to incite harm, but ultimately failed to take action.

. . . The key question now remains: Was the “violence” Wednesday night justified? I am of the opinion that it was the plurality of tactics employed Wednesday evening that contributed to the success of the cancellation of the talk. I merely wish to offer some thoughts in hope of reframing the dominant narrative. I urge you to consider whether damaging the windows of places like banks and the Amazon student store constitutes “violence” — and, if so, what weight this “violence” carries in the context of the symbolic, structural and actual violence that is proposed, condoned and actioned by the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos and his supporters.

These people have no fricking idea what violence really is. Hurting people’s feelings is not the same as hurting people’s bodies, or damaging their property. If you think it is, then tell me how much offense to one’s feelings constitutes “violence”. That’s a judgment call, and nobody has the right to make that judgement. In contrast, laying hands on someone is illegal no matter whether you push them or kill them (the penalties of course will differ). And property damage is property damage, and illegal.

What’s telling about Hardman’s piece is that he cites Martin Luther King, Jr. as a justification for this violence, despite the fact that King always called for nonviolent protest. He realized, unlike these benighted juveniles, that you effect moral change more readily by protesting peacefully, even if you have to break the law to do so.

It is patronising and privileged for UC Berkeley students to claim ownership over UC Berkeley and its affairs. We have no right to exclude others from this process. Poignantly — given that the locus of the resistance was the Martin Luther King Jr. building — King himself was a critic of this smear, arguing that we cannot “afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea,” adding that “anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.” King’s comments attest to the longevity of the term and also highlights the need for our movements to be inclusive of a plurality of experiences and tactics.

Translation: Because Martin Luther King considered all US citizens responsible for ending segregation, then all people offended by Milo have a right to riot (i.e., practice the euphemistic “plurality of tactics”).

If Hardman wants some real education beyond his kneejerk and ill-considered views, perhaps he should remember that Martin Luther King’s activist organization is called “The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change,” and should have a look at their online document, “Six principles of nonviolence.“

Classy POTUS attacks Nordstrom for dropping daughter’s fashion line

February 9, 2017 • 8:15 am

I’m going to try to limit Trump posts to about 2 every 3 days, but really, the Administration is such a clown car, with a new laugh appearing every day. The latest is Trump’s tweeting in defense of his daughter Ivanka, whose clothing line has apparently been dropped by both Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus.  Sales were down, and the remaining shoes and jewelry won’t reappear when they’re gone.

Nordstrom, according to the link above, refused to stop selling the line when a customer complained on political grounds, so there’s no firm reason to believe that there’s a political reason to discontinue the sales. (The Washington Post, however, has suggested that sales could be a consideration.) Regardless, Nordstrom has every right to decide whether or not to sell a given line, and for any reason it wants.

Nevertheless, the irascible Trump issued a tweet. Remember, this is by THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, defending his daughter’s business interests. Stay classy, Donald!

Of course, the ever-reliable toady Sean Spicer said discontinuing the line was a political decision, based on the Trump name, and defended her father’s Twitter rage.  What a lousy job Spicer has: Professional Liar and Sycophant.

Readers’ wildlife photos

February 9, 2017 • 7:30 am

Reader Tony Eales from Australia sent some nice photos of a trip to the desert. His notes are indented:

I don’t think I sent in any photos from my trip to the Australian deserts in June-July last year. I had been out to the Strzelecki and Simpson Deserts for work in May 2015 and found it amazing. So I wanted to show my partner this landscape, however between then and our trip there has been a rarely experienced amount of rain in the dry interior and instead of the stark stony landscape I’d seen we were greeted with horizon to horizon wildflowers.

1may-2015

2july-2016

There were huge flocks of Little Corellas (Cacatua sanguinea) feeding on the seeds produced by all of the greenery.

3corellas

One of the things you notice from the road kill is how few large mammals there are in the desert compared to the huge numbers in the semi-arid mulga on the desert fringe. This Big Red (Macropus rufus) looks at home in the red sunset.

5big-red

I went out spotlighting at night in the sand dunes. The eye-shine from wolf spiders (Lycosidae) is remarkable and makes them easy to find. I’ve never seen one this colour on the coast.

6huntsman

This Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) was (a little bit disturbingly) unconcerned with my presence. I was taking these shots over my shoulder as I backed up to the car. We’re warned to avoid interactions with these wild dogs if you’re alone, as I was.

7dingo

8dingo

Thursday: Hili dialogue

February 9, 2017 • 6:30 am

Good morning, all: it’s Thursday, February 9, 2017, and it’s Bagels and Lox Day, one of the best food days of the year. For what can be better than a chewy New York bagel (spurn the torus-shaped Wonder Bread that passes for bagels these days), a nice piece lox, and a big schmear of cream cheese. This is one of the great (and few) contributions of Jews to world cuisine.

bottega%20bagel
Gustatory paradise, though I usually eschew the onions.

On this day in 1895, William G. Morgan created a game called “Mintonette,” which was actually volleyball. In 1942, Daylight Savings Time was reinstated in America as a way to conserve energy during the war. I think it’s time to get rid of it again, though. On February 9, 1964, the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show (American t.v.), and I watched it live! Finally, on this day in 1971, the great Satchel Paige became the first Negro League player to be voted into America’s Baseball Hall of Fame. How many great black players never got to test their mettle in the “big leagues” because of segregation? He’s one who would have excelled.

Notables born on this day include Amy Lowell (1874), Carmen Miranda and Dean Rusk (both 1909; I love this congruent but odd joint birthdays), Jacques Monod (1910), Ernest Tubb (1914), Garner Ted Armstrong (1930), Carole King (1942), and Alice Walker (1944). Those who died on this day include Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1881), Bill Haley (1981), and J. William Fulbright (1995). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Cyrus is pondering, but of course, as a d*g, pondering without an object is all he’s able to do.

Cyrus: I often wonder.
Hili: Me too.
dsc00008
In Polish:
Cyrus: Często się zastanawiam.
Hili: Ja też.

This was the animal track!

February 8, 2017 • 3:30 pm

by Matthew Cobb

Earlier today we reproduced a tw**t by Lisa Buckley (@Lisavipes), which showed a picture of a track she found in British Columbia. We asked you to work out what animal made it.

Many people (like me initially) thought it might be an otter, but the size of the thing – it’s 10 centimetres (= 4″) across – excludes that, as does the simpler fact that otters have five toes… The presence claws show it isn’t a cat, the lack of central pads (and the shape) show it isn’t a bear, and the number of toes (plus the size) show it isn’t a racoon.

So the only answer left is…

Lisa went on to describe a number of times she’d actually encountered wolves, rather than their tracks, doing fieldwork (check out her timeline). She also tw**ted this handy cut-out-and-keep guide to canid footprints, showing why it was deffo a wolf!

Next week Lisa will be curating the @biotweeps account (this rotates between biologists) where, I believe, she’ll be posing some more #NameThatTrack quizzes.

John Gray reviews a book on cats

February 8, 2017 • 2:00 pm

Unless there are two British writers named John Gray, the one to which I’m referring has been problematic: an atheist who loves to attack other atheists and osculate religion (see my posts here). However, you can’t fully dislike a man who likes cats, and Gray clearly does. Gray, the head book reviewer for the New Statesman, has just reviewed in that venue a book that I’ve heard quite a bit about (and one I wish I’d written). Click on the screenshot to go to the book; Gray calls his review “What cats can teach us about how to live.”

screen-shot-2017-02-08-at-12-03-50-pm

Despite his malfeasance elsewhere, Gray’s written a great paean to cats in his review, which is very positive. I wanted to put down a few paragraphs of what he says, which nicely expresses what many of us feel about our moggies:

One of the most attractive features of cats is that contentment is their default state. Unlike human beings – particularly of the modern variety – they do not spend their days in laborious pursuit of a fantasy of happiness. They are comfortable with themselves and their lives, and remain in that condition for as long as they are not threatened. When they are not eating or sleeping, they pass the time exploring and playing, never asking for reasons to live. Life itself is enough for them.

If there are people who can’t stand cats – and it seems there are many – one reason may be envy. As Jeffrey Masson, whose The Nine Emotional Lives of Cats is the best book on cats ever published, has written:

In English, if not in “cat”, the word contentment conveys something of a feeling of being at peace with the world or with yourself. It is more of a state than a fleeting emotion. A person can be happy (momentarily) without being content. Contentment cannot be purchased; happiness, on the other hand, has a price. For us, happiness is a serious business.

Whereas human beings search for happiness in an ever-increasing plethora of religions and therapies, cats enjoy contentment as their birthright. Why this is so is worth exploring. Cats show no sign of regretting the past or fretting about the future. They live, absorbed in the present moment. It will be said that this is because they cannot envision the past or future. Perhaps so, though their habit of demanding their breakfast at the accustomed hour shows they do have a sense of the passage of time. But cats, unlike people, are not haunted by an anxious sense that time is slipping away. Not thinking of their lives as stories in which they are moving towards some better state, they meet each day as it comes. They do not waste their lives dreading the time when their lives must end. Not fearing death, they enjoy a kind of immortality. All animals have these qualities but they seem particularly pronounced in cats. Of all the animals that have lived closely with human beings, cats must surely be the least influenced by them.

“When I play with my cat,” Montaigne wrote, “how do I know she is not playing with me?” With creatures that can be understood only partly by us, one can only speculate about their inner life. Yet it is tempting to suppose that the secret of feline contentment is that cats have no need to defer to a picture of themselves as they imagine they should be. Certainly they have a sense of dignity: they avoid people who treat them disrespectfully, for instance. Yet cats do not struggle to remake themselves according to any ideal self-image. Not inwardly divided, they are happy to be themselves.

Again, it will be said that this is because they have no moral sense. There are many cases of heroic devotion in which cats have risked pain and death to protect their kittens. But it is true that they cannot be taught moral emotions in the way dogs have been taught to feel shame. Cats are certainly not virtue signallers. Nor – except when it concerns their offspring – are they at all inclined to self-sacrifice. But given that cats, consequently, do not kill other cats or anything else in order to become martyrs to some absurd belief system, that may be no bad thing. There are no feline suicide-warriors.

I think that about sums it up. Now, if you love cats, and you live in or near Sydney, Australia, I’ll ask you to adopt Champas, who’s been at the Sydney Animal Welfare League for 433 days looking for a forever home. He’s 5 years old, and adorable, and the adoption fee has been cut to $50.

If any reader adopts Champas, or gets someone to adopt him, I’ll send them autographed copies of both WEIT and Faith Versus Fact.

sub-buzz-18093-1486525962-1
Isn’t he cute?
sub-buzz-26876-1486525714-1
Don’t make him live any longer in the shelter!

h/t: Ivan

Kellyanne Conway babbles and dissimulates about Trump’s lies

February 8, 2017 • 12:00 pm

We met Tom Nichols, an anti-Trump conservative, in a recent post on nuclear war. Here’s something he tw**ted:

So here’s Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s “counselor”, being grilled by Jake Tapper of CNN. Here’s a brief excerpt of The Hill‘s summary:

CNN anchor Jake Tapper and President Trump’s counselor, Kellyanne Conway, went toe-to-toe in a 25-minute-long interview on Tuesday that was punctuated by several heated exchanges over the accuracy of statements the president has made and the media’s treatment of Trump.

The tense interview comes after CNN says it declined to have Conway on Tapper’s Sunday show, “State of the Union,” because of concerns over her credibility.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday that CNN had retracted its statement, but the network fired back, saying it stood by its concerns about Conway.

Tapper and Conway did not broach that conflict but touched on several other dustups between the media and the Trump administration that have colored the first few weeks of Trump’s presidency.

One of the points of conflicts here is Trump’s claim that the America media doesn’t cover terrorism “for obvious reasons.” At about 5:10, she tries to respond, but just produces gibberish. Conway is a master at the blabbering deflection. She continues her blabbering at 6:34 in response to Tapper’s claim that Trump’s claim of no-terrorism-coverage was simply unfair. He also asks Conway why Trump hasn’t himself mention about the attack of the mosque in Quebec; Conway’s nonanswer is at 8:27.  Finally, at 11:35 Tapper accuses Trump of undermining the credibility of nearly the entire media, for example claiming that the press lies about the very high murder rate, which isn’t nearly as high as Trump claimed. Conway again dissimulates, ignoring Tapper’s claim and touting her own credentials.

At 22:29, Tapper asks Conway about the lies that President Tr*mp is telling, which are indisputably more important than “fake news” disseminated by some blogger with a website. Conway’s response, “‘Are they [Trump’s lies] more important than the many things he says that are true that make a difference in other people’s lives?” What an answer!

Have a look at Tapper’s expression during the interview. It’s like “Can you believe what she’s saying?“.  But he does a great job holding her feet to the fire.

Does this woman have any credibility with ANYONE? To borrow a book title, this administration is a confederacy of dunces.