Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Here’s an email not from a believer, but from an antitheist. However, this person may be one of the Lizard Illuminati. Name redacted to protected the reptilian.
Dear Dr Coyne,
I would very much value your opinion and feedback.
I aim to specialize in psychological and neurocognitive warfare. The weaponization of religion has been evolving over millenia [sic] (like When South America was invaded, they sent conquistadores and missionaries in step; one to break the body and the other to enslave the mind). Today Religion is a schizophrenia induced by governments across the world for power and social control.
I am afraid that all the science in the world cannot help us. The masses are largely uneducated (not to mention heavily indoctrinated) and religions have been shown to be insanely resilient; adapting or mutating to survive.
I believe history is our greatest weapon:
1. Many of these religions are patriarchal. They deny women power and so much more.
2. The Latinos and the blacks were converted over centuries of invasion, genocide, slavery, torture and indoctrination.
We need to start a race and gender war that can bring down the Catholic Church. All else will fall like dominoes.
As for my “opinion and feedback”, I was tempted to say that this person needs help—or at least anger management—but I didn’t engage. It’s never a good idea to engage with stuff like this. The thing is, I agree with a lot of what this person said, but he/she/zir lost me at “we need to start a race and gender war.” I’m a conscientious objector!
Here’s a corker, but what would you expect in a soupy climate of Intersectionality? It was inevitable that someone would eventually see Nazis as a marginalized and oppressed group, and rush to their defense. And so, as this BuzzFeed story reports, a residence counselor at the Very Woke School of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst went to bat for Hitler (click on screenshot).
Third-year student Nicole Parsons, fed up with hate crimes occurring on her campus, put up this sign in her dormitory window:
And the inevitable result in a school like that:
Parsons, a junior at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told BuzzFeed News on Sunday that she decided to put up the sign after a swastika was drawn over a “Happy Hanukkah” sign on a resident assistant’s door the first week of December.
“I thought maybe if I hang the sign up, maybe the person who drew the swastika will see it and see someone condemning their actions, even if the administration doesn’t do it,” she said.
Parsons said she didn’t expect the university to take any issue with the sign.
But a week after posting the sign in her dorm window, she received an email from a Residence Director asking her to remove the sign over “issues of inclusion.”
Here’s that email, given to BuzzFeed by Parsons:
Inclusion? You might object to a public display of profanity, but of course the school is a public university and even profanity qualifies as free speech. But Mr. Papazoni, full of eagerness to deal with “hate speech”, informed Ms. Parsons that she was in fact practicing it: her sign wasn’t inclusive for Nazis! That’s hilarious.
After some outcry, the University apologized on its Facebook page:
As for Parsons, she took the sign down because her roommate objected to the attention they were getting. But Parsons is moving off campus next year, and will definitely put the sign up again.
While I think this Nazi business is way over the top (seriously, how many Nazis are there at her school?), she has the right to display it, and the reaction of her Residence Director is a hoot. But what else can we expect in these Pecksniffian days?
My piece on The Conversation about the incompatibility of religion and science continues to be the most-read piece of the week on that site, having reached nearly 100,000 views and 655 comments. I can’t say I’m not chuffed, but of course most of the comments take issue with what I said. Well, that’s okay by me: at least they heard me.
And I continue to get a lot of private emails from believers and loons (there is substantial overlap). I’ll show two of them today. This one came from someone called “Nobody special”, who was anonymous but apparently a scientist. I didn’t realize that my piece had been republished in Newsweek, but sure enough it was, just yesterday.
Here you go. “Nobody Special”‘s comments are indented, and my responses are flush left:
War between Religion and Science?
Nobody Special
Dear Dr. Coyne,
I read your opinion piece in the Conversation and in Newsweek about whether there is a war between science and religion.
I believe you are correct when both disciplines are incorporating the “philosophies of men”. And not open to new ideas or other vantage points.
Truth is universal, whether found in science or religion it is the same. The key is what basic principles you accept at the starting point. In science we accept basic truths about our external world, then we learn and test externally to see what hypothesis are true. Do you accept basic truths about the spiritual world, then learn and test internally to see what creeds of religion are true? No you do not.
Science accepts that this existence is real and what you see, touch, smell, and hear are real. There are truths in science that can’t be proved, but are accepted by faith (without proof), because we need a starting point. Yet many people experience dreams that are so real that they don’t know they are dreams until the wake up. This questions existence. You think, therefore you are. But you cannot prove to me that you think, you can only prove it to yourself. Sounds like religion. You can prove that you have brain waves that appear similar to mine when we each think of green, but there are still differences and you cannot prove that your experience of green is the same as mine.
No, those are philosophical questions, not religious ones, and they don’t go any distance towards proving the existence of God. And, of course, someday we may be able to see what other people’s subjective experiences are like, though we already have some clues from their behavior. It is, after all, empirical study and not the Bible that revealed that color blind people see differently from the rest of us.
Thus faith is required by you that your perception of green is correct. Yet we know this is not true for everyone. Color blind people do not see what you see, and vice versa. This experience we call life is very subjective, not objective. Science tries to remove much of the subjectivity, which is good, but it is never fully successful at the task.
I’m not sure that you can say “my perception of green is correct”. If 95% the world were blue-green color blind, it would be abnormal, but given that our perceptions are evolved, I’m not sure you can say that my perception of green is “correct” any more than you can say that a gay person’s romantic feelings towards of a person of their own sex is “incorrect”.
Does this make a color blind person’s experience of the world untrue? No, he has a different vantage point.
There are spirituality blind people also. And we know for a fact that what I experience when I seek the divine is not what you experience when you seek the divine.
Does this make one of our experiences untrue? No, we have a different vantage points.
Like the color blind person can’t see green normally. You, a spiritually blind person, cannot see the divine normally.
Okay, so HOW do you see the divine “normally”? Do Muslims see it normally? How about Scientologists, or Hindus? This person somehow is deluded into thinking that there are ways to judge the divine that are objectively “true.” The impossibility of that was my whole point.
So how did you get to your vantage point on Evolution? (Which by the way I believe is one of God’s methods of eternal progression.)
Thanks. Is that a truth?
You got there with much study, learned from masters, and tested the hypothesis for yourself. If I an unlearned evolutionist were to try to explain and criticize evolution, I would likely make many grave errors in my explanation and criticism. We scientists see this all the time in the “Divine Design” movement.
Is it not true that you an unlearned spiritualist will make grave errors and false understandings about faith and religion as you did in your hatchet piece?
It has taken me my life studying science to get to my current level of proficiency in my chosen field. It has also taken a lifetime of study, testing faith, seeking, and questioning God to get to my current level of spiritual proficiency.
Yet you, a spiritual nube, are criticizing that which you don’t know and haven’t studied or experienced. I have deeply studied many religions and found truth in all as well as error in all. This is exactly the same as science. All published papers have errors and truths in them. I would be castigated in science circles if I did the same thing with evolution that you are doing with religion.
Umm. . . I’ve studied religion and theology a lot more than the average person, but of course none of it gives even remotely convincing evidence for gods, much less religious “truth”. What this dude is doing is arguing from authority. He, apparently, has studied religion his whole life and is proficient in discerning “truth”.
But what IS that truth. Wait for it—it’s MORMONISM! He goes on (I’m assuming it’s male):
An interesting read, I recommend you pay close attention to the paragraphs after the heading “Teachings of Joseph Smith”.
Note, I am anonymous as there is a contingent of scientists who will make great effort to submarine my career if I were not. This is the worst kind of censorship and definitely not scientific. Shades of Copernicus.
Sincerely,
Nobody Special
Well, here are the paragraphs of “truth” that he pointed me to:
The gospel of Jesus Christ embraces all truth; the faithful accept the truths God has revealed and put aside false traditions.
“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …
“… Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters. Mormonism is TRUE! Other religions, by implication, are false. This self-styled Copernicus has embraces one of the craziest religions in the U.S. (but it’s crazy only because we knew how it arose), and he says it’s rock-solid truth. Such a view deserves mockery and contempt, which I would summon up if I thought it was worth it.
I will let this person know that I posted the email (without identifying information), and you can feel free to respond in the comments.
The “big” Women’s March, run by the Women’s March Inc. (a trademark now contested by other branches), will take place in Washington, D.C. on January 19, as well as in several other cities. But some cities won’t be having them, while others, like New York City, will have two marches, one for women of color and the other including Jewish women, who see the Women’s March, Inc. as led by anti-Semites.
One of the cities that won’t be having a Women’s March this year is my town, Chicago, as reported by the Chicago Tribune (click on screenshot below):
The new headline gives the reason adduced by the organizers—finances:
As controversy swells around national Women’s March organizers, the local group has decided not to host a march in January — an event that for the past two years drew hundreds of thousands of supporters to Grant Park in concert with similar marches across the globe.
While Women’s March Chicago organizers cited high costs and limited volunteer hours as the main reasons for nixing the annual rally and march, the break comes amid splintering within the national Women’s March leadership following accusations of anti-Semitism and scrutiny of its ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
Spokesperson Harlene Ellin of the Chicago Women’s March told Townhall that The Tribune’s headline and reporting were “inaccurate and inflammatory.” While also stating that since “The Tribune has apologized and updated the headline.”
Ellin continued by stating to Townhall, “I’m sorry but the reality is not as ‘sexy.’ The march was not ‘nixed’ as the original Tribune headline stated. Women’s March Chicago decided to hold our march early to have an impact on the midterm elections.”
Yet the Tribune’s report still implies that maybe there was a wee role of the kerfuffle over anti-Semitism:
The announcement elicited a range of reactions on the Women’s March Chicago Facebook page.
“This is disappointing,” one member wrote. “Women continue fighting to be heard in this patronizing patriarchal society. We are not done.”
Some made plans to join marches in other cities instead.
“Going back to D.C.!” another member wrote. “There’s too much to march for!”
Others expressed support for the choice to forgo a January march.
“A lot has come to light about national in the last year,” one member wrote. “I support not marching with them.”
And this (my emphasis):
Women’s March Chicago organizers say they are a grassroots group not directly affiliated with Women’s March Inc., though past local marches have been held in sync with the national group and other similar marches across the country. While the decision to forgo a January march wasn’t based on recent controversy, Kurensky said the opportunity to further distance the Chicago organization from national Women’s March leaders was a “side benefit.”
“That sort of infighting within the movement is very painful. It’s very painful to watch,” she said. “When a handful of leaders … say something, they are not speaking for an entire movement.”
Women’s March Chicago leaders also denounced anti-Semitism and Farrakhan’s February comments.
The report at Townhall (click on screenshot below) gives links to responses from the co-leaders of the Women’s March, Inc.: Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour, and Carmen Perez:
Do watch the video mentioned below.
Given the prominence of the Women’s March in US politics — Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York called the organization’s leadership “the suffragists of our time” in a blurb for Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of 2017 — the muted response to the Tablet article is puzzling. But what’s even stranger has been the Women’s March’s response.
. . . In a video posted to Tamika Mallory’s Facebook page, Mallory — flanked by Sarsour and Perez — said that instead of wasting time by responding to reporters’ queries, they want to have a “public conversation” with Wruble, Harmon, and Morganfield.
“These three women have lied on us,” Mallory said. “We want to have these conversations in public, not behind closed doors, but in public. So we challenge the three of” — at which point the video abruptly cuts off.
Sarsour wrote a long post to her Facebook page, which read, in part: “The headlines, the character assassination, the undermining of leadership, discreditation campaigns are nothing new but in fact a bedrock of American society when the status quo is challenged.” Sarsour added: “A million newspapers can write and for those of us who are Black and Brown and from communities under attack — we cannot let hurtful and unvetted words by those who have the luxury of speaking but not fighting to take us off our tracks.”
Click on the video screenshot to go to its page, and the abrupt cutoff when the challenge was, for some reason, deleted:
You can read Sarsour’s response at the link above. But be warned: it’s solipsistic, full of hubris, whiny, and goes more or less like this: “I didn’t choose this life. This life chose me. . ” (direct quote), and I can’t quit it [shades of Brokeback Mountain], as I am in it too deep and I am too caring and it’s hurt my life. And people like me who want progress are always defamed and vilified by the haters who simply don’t like Black and Brown women, and so on. She ends by saying, “My question to all of you is what side do you want to be on?”. My response is: “Not the side of Jew haters, sister!”
In the past few months Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez have tried to emphasize, by issuing statements in the name of the Women’s March, that they decry Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism and really do love their Jewish sisters. I don’t believe them for a minute—not in view of what Tablet reported about their statements about Jews at the first Women’s March meeting—statements verified by the March’s communication’s director. The statements issued recently by the March decrying anti-Semitism are simply damage control by a triumverate of women who would love nothing more than the extirpation of Israel as a country. I don’t believe what people say when they’re trying to save their organization and keep their reputations intact, especially when they’re said opposite things in the past. And I’ve decided it’s okay to say you don’t believe someone if you have good reasons to think them liars.
By the way, the statement below is pinned at the top of Linda Sarsour’s Twitter feed. (Curiously—perhaps because of the Women’s March fracas—she hasn’t posted there since October 27.)
"We can disagree & still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression & denial of my humanity and right to exist."
On Sunday I wrote a short post about “What’s the world’s prettiest bird?“. I gave my own choice, the Resplendent Quetzal, and then invited readers to submit their own choice of bird and a few words of appreciation. Here are the selections. There is a Super Secret judge who will adjudicate the entries based on the bird’s appearance, the photograph submitted, and the words of appreciation. The winner (no prizes, sadly) will be announced around noon.
Entries are of course closed now, but feel free to mention (and give a photo link to) your own choice in the comments, or choose one of them shown below.
From Michael Fisher:
I look at beauty in animals in a more functional way rather than the razzle dazzle of colours. I have chosen the Atlantic Puffin [Fratercula arctica] because of the sharply defined B&W colour scheme suited to a monochrome environment – topped off by the delineated ‘makeup of the face & the proud seasonal beak [or beacon?]
If this bird were an airplane it would be a tough, stubby USN carrier piston engined USMC fighter bomber – capable of recovering from the harshest of deck landings.
Here’s a pic of a puffin loaded with fish coming in on its final approach – webbed feet acting as air brake stabilisers. Now that’s ‘beautiful’!
From reader Amy Tovar:
I lived in Australia for 3 years. IMO the rainbow lorikeet [Trichoglossus moluccanus] is hard to match. They are very common so that one doesn’t need to travel to remote places.
From Rick Longworth:
This is my favorite. The black chinned hummingbird (Archilochus alexandri) I’ve been filming it this past summer and it is now my soul mate.
Debra Coplan like the clean design of a mankin:
The wire-tailed manakin (Pipra filicauda). I love this little bird. The colors are so vibrant. As a former graphic designer, I love simplicity and this bird has it with the three distinct sections of strong colors. The thin and curled tail is a good contrast to that pudgy body. This is a male as it is a sexually dimorphic species.
From reader Paul:
The Tricolored Heron: Egretta tricolor; Order: Pelecaniformes; Family: Ardeidae
Found in coastal estuaries, this small heron generally hunts alone by dancing with quick turns and starts in search of small fish. I am lucky to encounter these beauties every time I explore the T.M. Goodwin Broadmoor Marshes for Cornell Ornithology’s eBird citizen science program.
From Mark Richardson:
One of my hobbies growing up was tying flies. One year, a great uncle gave my dad (which meant me) all of his fly-tying materials that he’d been collecting since the early 1920’s. There were true treasures in there: real jungle cock capes, polar bear hair, and my favorite, the entire dried carcass of a male Chinese golden pheasant (Chrysolophus pictusd). I’d never seen a bird with such a variety of feathers and colors. So I choose the bird for its beauty and personal sentiment.
From Georgiana Hoffman:
The peacock [Pavo cristatus] is undoubtably the most beautiful bird, from the poms on his head to the eyes that swim on his vibrating tail. If he were only seen in his natural habitat, he would be the most sought after subject of photographs and film.
If you look up “elegance” in the dictionary, there is a picture of a male pintail. It is beautifully proportioned with a chocolate head atop a long slender white neck at the front and a sassy black and yellow vent with eponymous tail bringing up the rear. Its body is delicately vermiculated in silver and white with black, white and silver feathers artfully draped over the sides. A bi-coloured baby-blue and black beak is the finishing touch to a wonderful bird.
Here in Scotland pintails are mainly winter visitors; seen on visits to the local loch on ice-cold mornings with a backdrop of frosty pine trees and snow-covered hills. They gladden my heart.
Another golden pheasant, this time from reader Keith:
The Golden Pheasant, male (Chrysolophus pictus). All I can say is: well done girls, nice sexual selecting!
From ornithologist Bruce Lyon, who should know:
Quetzal is pretty hard to beat but when people ask me about prettiest or favorites, I always weasel and say I cannot pick one. Instead I go for top ten.
Here is my vote for a an extremely beautiful bird, the cedar waxwing [Bombycilla cedrorum]. They have such soft plumage with subtle colors and silkiness and then those gorgeous waxlike bead modified feathers, no doubt signals to show off carotenoid pigments, which birds (and other vertebrates cannot synthesize but have to get from their diet).
Since I am a bio nerd, some of the beauty of a bird has to do with its natural history. Quetzals are extra stunning because one sees them in the cloud forest. Waxwings are frugivores that feast on pretty berries and are interesting in terms of seed dispersal and species interactions. To me, that adds to their beauty.
[JAC: the photo below was taken by Bruce—from inside his house!]
From Linda Calhoun, who likes Australia’s Eastern Rosella (Platycercus eximius):
I love the colors. And parrots usually have the personality to go with the colors.
From reader Vierotchka:
Birds of Paradise are in a class of their own, but with regard to “ordinary” birds, I would say that the Nicobar Pigeon [Caloenas nicobarica] comes in a close second. (A wild male peacock with full tail feathers taking flight at dawn in a misty jungle in India is a sight unparalleled, too.)
From reader summonzeus:
I am restricting my choice to birds that I have seen in the wild and my all time favorite is the Wallcreeper [Tichodroma muraria] seen in the Tatry Mountains of Slovakia:
The bird is a single-island endemic, from Numfor island in Geelvink Bay, in Indonesian New Guinea. The bird is of three strongly contrasting colors: coral red bill, cobalt blue body, and pure white tail, with two racket feathers each with a black rachis and pure white paddle.
While the coral red and pure white are essentially unvarying, the cobalt blue varies over different parts of the body and depending on the angle of the light, through shadings of blue to black. Adding to the bird’s interest (but not to the prettiness of a single bird) is that all related forms have pure white chests and bellies, while this island alone has the underside dark blue.
Reader (and biologist/naturalist) Lou Jost chose the Himalayan Monal (Lophophorus impejanus) as the prettiest bird after the quetzal (his favorite). I have to admit that this is one gorgeous bird, and I actually saw one, but at a distance and not in good light, when hiking in the Khumbu Valley of Nepal in about 1974.
Himalayan Monal: I love the riot of iridescence on this bird, shining simultaneously in almost every color of the spectrum; it is hard to imagine a greater contrast with the bleak monochrome snowscape of its
habitat in winter. I’ve only seen these in captivity, but even then it stands out like a torch.
From Charles Jones:
I don’t know how I could pick the most beautiful species of bird (although the golden pheasant is quite lovely), but attached is the most beautiful individual bird. I believe it is a goldfinch, but I’m not sure why he looks so derpy. My daughter says he looks like three cups of coffee wasn’t enough.
From reader P. Nash, who mentioned two birds but sent a photo of the painted bunting. I’ve linked to a photo of her other choice.
The mature male Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) has a most gorgeous royal blue colour while the juvenile male has a very interesting and sometimes exquisite shading of blue hues. I’m torn simply because I spotted a shy one in my garden many years ago, and the thrill was unforgettable; however, in researching this little bird, I discovered the Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) which I must submit as my entry. Its colour palette and pattern remind me of a painterly Japanese silk kimono! I love its little sweet song which gladdens my heart.
Reader Stuart MacLeod sent two photos, one chosen by him, the other by his spouse:
My wife (Sandré) and my contributions to your prettiest bird competition. Both are African birds.
Stuart: Knysna Lourie (Tauraco corythaix) [JAC: I’ve put three photos sent by Stuart, one from a newspaper, to fully show this bird, which I’ve never seen either in the wild or in photos]:
Start thinking about what you’d choose as the ugliest bird—indeed, the ugliest animal. We may have another contest soon.
It’s Thursday, December 27, 2018: the third day of the Six Days of Coynezaa. (It’s also the third day of the Christian “Twelve Days of Christmas,” a vastly inferior holiday). It’s National Fruitcake Day, celebrating the current U.S. President, and St. Stephen’s Day for the Eastern Orthodox Church—a public holiday in Romania.
I am leaving for Hawaii for three weeks tomorrow, and posting will be light, though I fully intend to document my travels, including the reportedly great Hawaiian food. (I’ll even try spam sushi!) As I mentioned before, please don’t send wildlife photos during my absence, as they may get lost. Aloha!
History was a bit thin on this day. In 537, this was the day on which the construction of the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (now Istanbul) was completed. On December 27, 1657, the freedom of religion was declared a fundamental right in the U.S. via the The Flushing Remonstrance, this document is considered a precursor of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
And it’s BEAGLE DAY: on December 27, 1831, Darwin set out on HMS Beagle, returning 5 years later with a boat full of specimens and a head full of ideas. Fourteen years later, Dr. Crawford Long of Georgia was the first to use ether anesthetic for childbirth, obviating the Bible’s stricture (John 16:21 was used to justify withholding anesthesia) that “a woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.” Screw that!
It was on this day in 1911 that “Jana Gana Mana,” the national anthem of India composed by Rabindranath Tagore, was first performed at the Indian National Congress in Calcutta. At about 50 seconds long, it’s surely one of the world’s shortest national anthems. Here it is sung by Indian women actors, and a lovely tune it is (Tagore was, of course, a consummate artist who won the Nobel Prize for Literature):
In Hindi:
जन-गण-मन अधिनायक जय हे भारत भाग्य विधाता ।
पंजाब-सिन्धु-गुजरात-मराठा, द्राविड़-उत्कल-बंग
विंध्य[a] हिमाचल यमुना गंगा, उच्छल जलधि तरंग
तब[b] शुभ नामे जागे, तब[c] शुभ आशिष मांगे गाहे तब[d] जय गाथा ।
जन-गण-मंगलदायक जय हे, भारत भाग्य विधाता ।
जय हे, जय हे, जय हे, जय जय जय जय हे ।
English translation (by Tagore himself):
Thou art, the ruler of our minds, of all people
The dispenser of India’s destiny!
Thy name rouses the heart of Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat
and Maratha, of the Dravida and Odisha
and Bengal; It echoes in the hills of Vindhya and the
Himalayas, and mingles in the music of Ganga and Yamuna
and is chanted by the waves of the Indian sea.
They pray for thy blessings and sing thy praise.
The saving of all people waits in thy hands,
Thou dispenser of India’s destiny.
Victory, Victory, Victory to thee
On this day in 1927, “Show Boat”, by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein II, was first performed at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York. Wikipedia says it’s “considered to be the first true American musical play.” 41 years later, Apollo 8 splashed down in the Pacific after completing the first manned mission that orbited the Moon. And, after the death of Franco (he’s still dead), Spain became a democracy on this day in 1978. Finally, it was on December 27, 2007, that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan while campaigning to regain her position as Prime Minister.
Here’s Paul Robeson in the 1936 movie version of “Showboat”, singing “Ol’ Man River.” This song always moves me to tears, and I used it in my Ph.D. defense along with a slide montage of my work in the lab. Robeson’s voice was simply stunning. Although it was written by two white Jews, I can’t see it in any way as offensive: it’s about the horrible plight of slaves. Well, there was this one thing. . . (from Wikipedia):
Beginning about 1938, and continuing on to the end of his career, Paul Robeson changed a few of the lyrics of “Ol’ Man River” when singing it at recitals, though never in actual stage performances of Show Boat, and not in the 1936 film version. (In addition to the 1928 and 1932 stage productions as well as the 1936 film version, he appeared in a Los Angeles stage revival in 1940). Except for the change of the word “niggers” to “darkies,” the lyrics of the song as Robeson performed it in the 1936 film version of the show remain exactly as Oscar Hammerstein II originally wrote them in 1927. However, after 1938, Robeson would record the song only with the lyrics that he used in his post-1936 concert recitals.
Notables born on this day include Louis Pasteur (1822), Marlene Dietrich (1901), Oscar Levant (1906), William Masters (1915), Gérard Depardieu (1948), and Savannah Guthrie (1971).
Those who croaked on December 27 include many frogs, as well as Hyacinthe Rigaud (1743), Charles Lamb (1834), Drosophila geneticist Calvin Bridges and Osip Mandelstam (1938), Hoagy Carmichael (1981), Meadowlark Lemon (2015; I saw him play with the Harlem Globetrotters), and Carrie Fisher (2016). Here’s Rigaud’s painting of Louis XV as a child:
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is worried because there’s nothing to worry about (she’s a Jewish cat). That reminds me of a story. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was working at the bench one day when a fellow apostate Jew, another grad student in the lab, walked in rubbing his hands and saying, “Oh boy, oh boy, oh BOY!” I said, “What’s up, Fred?” He replied, “I have three things to worry about today.” He was happy about it!
A: What do you see there?
Hili: A lack of reasons to be anxious.
In Polish:
Ja: Co tam widzisz?
Hili: Brak powodu do obaw.
In nearby Wloclawek, Leon observes, or rather hears, the holidays. (He and his staff will soon go hiking in the mountains of southern Poland):
Leon: This observing of Christmas is definitely too noisy!
In Polish: To całe świętowanie jest zdecydowanie zbyt hałaśliwe!
A tweet from reader Nilou: a cat with a human face. Is this one of those wolf cats?
More cats. When I saw this and realized how soothing it was, I suggested to Grania that someone should make an 8-hour YouTube recording of cats purring to help insomniacs sleep. Sure enough, I found one! There’s nothing you can’t find online!
Tweets from Matthew. If I’m correct, that water is millions of years old.
Occasionally I find large enhydros (pocket of water) in Amber, in this case with a large moving air bubble. Amber from the Dominican Republic pic.twitter.com/d5u6SoKwVE
What you order: gourmet Vegemite on toast. What you get: a chopping board, cold toast, a leaf stuck on some butter and a reminder to take your dog to the vet.
I can’t get enough mallard photos, as they fill the bill—pardon the pun—in the absence of my beloved hen Honey. Today reader Dan Morrison from Canada, whose duck picture appeared in this morning’s “Readers’ Wildlife” photo, sent another picture from the same place in British Columbia. But it shows even more mallards and a woman feeding them. His explanation:
Attached the first photo from the other day showing women feeding the ducks. Rithet’s Bog, originally part of a farm in the early 1900s, was later donated to the city of Saanich (a Victoria suburb) in the 1950s by the Guinness family of Great Britain. Its now a conservation area and preserves (to some extent) all the primal ecological plants and animals of a raised bog. I’m a meteorologist and not a plant of animal person so my comments are suspect. The ducks live in a good sized pond next to the path around the bog at the west side. In the attached pic, the first I took, are two women feeding the flock and that’s the reason the ducks are out of the water and all across the path. Not sure what the women are feeding the ducks but doubt it’s the proper stuff like you were feeding Honey and family.
Those people are in PARADISE, and the picture reminds me of Seurat’s “A Sunday on the Grand Jatte“, but with ducks.
I feed my ducks this stuff, which is good for adults and growing ducklings, although laying hens should get this stuff, which has extra calcium for eggshells. If you feed ducks, this is good food and a healthy diet. Remember, don’t give bread to ducks. They’ll eat it but it’s not good for them. I hope that woman doesn’t have bread in the bag!
