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 we have Kevin Richardson, the famous “lion whisperer,” playing with both a mother lion and her offspring. I can think of no greater honor, and no greater trust evinced by these cats, than to be allowed to play with their cubs. This is surely the best job in the world! (I’ve posted about Richardson, who works in South Africa, here, here and here.)
I still think he’s gonna get nommed someday, but I hope not. Until then, I’d love to be in his shoes—especially at the moments shown below.
Since I’ve had a lick at Catholics and Muslims this week, it’s only fair to go after the religion of my ancestors—the Jews. Or at least one branch of Orthodox Jews, the Hasidim, a sect that started in Eastern Europe in the 18th century.
It’s a scandal among Jews— traditionally reputed to put such an emphasis on education—that some Orthodox sects often discourage any but religious education for men, and any education for women. The results: undereducated women, unsuited for many jobs, and families forced to rely on welfare since men spend their time in religious studies while women, who are largely breeding stock among Hasidim, have to stay home with the children. You can read more about the dire consequences of these practices, which of course come directly from religious tradition, in a recent New York Times article by Gina Bellafante, “In Brooklyn, stifling higher learning among Hasidic women.”
In Brooklyn, one sect of Hasidim, the Satmar, have recently made their little-education policy toward women even more regressive:
Among the Satmar in Brooklyn, use of the internet is condemned and secular education is considered of little use. In recent years, though, it became the fashion among some Satmar women to pursue special-education degrees after high school, typically online or through religious colleges. The women often go to work not in philosophically suspect places like Greenwich Village, but in schools within their community. Now, even that minor advance has been rolled back; some Satmar leaders issued a decree proclaiming that the practice would no longer be tolerated. A letter from the United Talmudical Academy, the governing body for a consortium of schools, meant for girls entering the 12th grade and their parents, stated that they “shouldn’t God forbid take a degree which is according to our sages, dangerous and damaging.”
The letter went on to say that girls shouldn’t learn college subjects and that those who refused to obey would be denied positions as teachers. Leaders, they said, had a responsibility to protect the religious educational system from outside influences. The notion is not an invention of the Hasidim, Allan Nadler, the director of Jewish studies at Drew University and a scholar of Hasidic practice, explained. The Mishna, a multivolume compilation of Jewish law that predates the Talmud, contains a prohibition against “external books.” Still, Mr. Nadler maintained, the recent decree reflects what he has observed over the years as a deepening fear of wider society.
The Talmudical Academy did not return calls seeking comment. [Surprise!]
That’s ridiculous, and they should be embarrassed that their “sages” stifle women’s ambitions in this way. It’s even worse because New York politicians cater to this enforced ignorance because they need the support of the powerful and numerous Jewish voting bloc. Here’s just one of thousands of stories in the Naked City (my emphasis in the following):
Many of [the Hasadim on welfare], Libelle Polaki, an exile from the ultra-Orthodox community in Brooklyn, told me, will resort to selling things online, which must be regarded as its own kind of sacrilege given the prohibitions against certain technologies. At 28, Ms. Polaki expects to graduate from the Borough of Manhattan Community College in December. This semester she is taking six classes and auditing two others. At a cafe in Williamsburg psychographically distant from the Williamsburg in which she spent part of her life, she spoke of the hard work it took to get where she is.
Having suffered through an arranged marriage, she said, she was forced to pay off her husband, with a sum of approximately $18,000, to get divorced; a philanthropist helped her come up with the money. She held several menial jobs after high school that made her miserable, one working for Satmar leaders doing secretarial work; one in a matzo factory; and another in a group home for adults with developmental disabilities, where she was fired, she told me, after reporting abuses by the staff.
“They didn’t teach us anything in high school so I didn’t know anything, no Shakespeare or anything like that, no science,” she said. “I felt like a loser and I felt I wanted more out of life.” Growing up she was told not to go to libraries but she sneaked away to them anyway and at home read anything she could, including cereal boxes and junk mail because there was little else. At 26, she got her high school equivalency diploma and began her college studies. Over the summer, she studied philosophy in Greece. Two of her grandparents speak to her; two don’t. The friends she left behind, she said, are jealous of her freedom.
Ms. Polaki plans to apply to four-year colleges and hopes to attend an Ivy League school.
Libelle Polaki, 28. Credit Nicole Craine for The New York Times
Polaki, at enormous financial and psychological expense, managed to free herself from this repressive community. But most other women are trapped, shackled by religious dogma and the passel of children mandated by that dogma. The story of Polaki reading cereal boxes and junk mail because she was denied education almost brings me to tears.
All the Abrahamic religions repress women’s ambitions to some degree, but we usually think of Islam as being the most repressive. Don’t forget, however, about some sects of Orthodox Jews, whose denial of education to women is ignored to nearly the same extent as are the restrictions imposed by Islam. I can think of few worse things in life than to have your ambition smothered by blankets of scripture.
I have to say that I’m getting tired of people telling me to keep mum about Hillary and Bill’s “scandals” during election season. Well, I barely post about Bill’s issues, for Hillary is the candidate; and I see her as far from an ideal candidate. But I’ve been constant in my asseveration that I’ll vote for her, for the alternative—a racist, unthinking, xenophobic, misogynistic, and out-of-control President Donald Trump (I don’t use those adjectives lightly)—is unthinkable. I don’t whale on Trump simply because everybody else does, and because his sins are so clear and palpable.
Yet still I’m told either that Hillary Clinton is pure and untouchable, without a whiff of scandal to her name, or that I should simply shut up about the rumors of scandal and appearances of conflict of interest (note that I’ve never said she’s been convicted of anything, just that she puts herself in problematic situations that could have been avoided). I’m told to keep quiet about her “forgetfulness” about her emails, about her lies about having been under “sniper fire” in Bosnia, about her huge personal emoluments from giving speeches to Wall Street, and so on.
“They all do it,” say my liberal friends—though Obama didn’t. “They never pinned anything on her,” they say, ignoring the fact that Clinton’s behavior both with respect to her Foundation and her emails and her speeches led to the appearance of conflicts, and we’re supposed to avoid this. And since when is the probity of a candidate supposed to be judged by whether she was indicted or not? After all, even the director of the FBI gave her a stern rebuke, saying that Hillary and her team were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” I guess we’re supposed to ignore that; after all, she is Saint Hillary.
When I echoed somebody else’s post on Facebook about how Hillary went silent the last two weeks while courting big donors, I got special pushback. Here are a few comments from “friends”
“I hope, for your sake and the sake of your country, that the money she is raising will help elect her and a Democratic senate majority. Like you say, suck it up and ponder the alternative.”
When a FB friend said “We’ve got to suck it up”, referring to Hillary’s behavior, I responded, “As I said, we’re not allowed to criticize her if we’re Democrats. Sorry, but I’m not sucking it up. I’ll hold my nose and vote for St Hillary, but not happily.” I then was the victim of a finger-wagging, corrective comment:
“Seems counter-productive at this point.”
And then I got this comment: “What puzzles me is why you are so angry at Hillary that you call her names. Do you really think she’s dishonest? Do you really think she lied about her email? Do you really think there’s something sleezy [sic] about raising money from rich people? Do you really think there’s something sleazy about the Clinton Foundation?”
Well, I don’t recall calling Hillary names, though I have said I consider her behavior unethical and her statements verging on dishonesty. She’s also lied about the Bosnia incident, conveniently forgot stuff about her emails, blamed her concussion on her failure to turn over emails when she left her position as Secretary of State, and said she was unfamiliar with how emails were given “classified” status and how they were marked.
So in answer to that last comment, yes, I think Hillary has been dishonest, and yes, I think she lied about her emails. (When other politicians “forget” all kinds of potentially incriminating stuff, nobody believes them. Hillary gets a pass). Yes, I think there’s something sleazy about her behavior including her failing to avoid the appearance of preferential access to her granted to donors to the Clinton Foundation. And yes, I think the Clinton Foundation, for all the good it does, is, if not sleazy in its behavior, “forgetful” in a way that happens to benefit it (failing, for example, to turn over lists of foreign donors.)
If you want more, read the Atlantic‘s new piece, “From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer,” by David Graham. Graham lists all the scandals that have dogged both Hillary and Bill, and rates them as to how serious they are. Several are in fact “quite serious” and other problematic.
But what bothers me most of all is liberals telling me to shut up with my criticisms about Hillary Clinton because that hurts her and could help Donald Trump win the Presidency. In other words, the ends (Clinton as President) justify the means (Professor Ceiling Cat, Emeritus stifling himself).
Sorry, but I won’t do that, for it’s fundamentally anti-liberal to censor yourself about problematic aspects of a cause that is generally good—or in this case, the best of a bad lot. The tactic of “Stifle, Edith” can in fact be used for any election: “don’t criticize our candidate or a Republican might win.” But criticism has its good sides, too. For one thing, it calls attention to a candidate’s flaws, enabling them to correct the issues. The rearrangement of the Clinton Foundation, so that Bill will leave the Board if Hillary wins the Presidency (but not before then!) came directly from criticism in the press.
And the “stifle, Edith” criticism can be used not just for elections, but for public policy. When Obama pushed his healthcare policy, it had flaws. I didn’t point them out, not being deeply familiar with the issues, but others did. Still, I remember calls that we shouldn’t criticize the problematic aspects of that policy, but simply shut up and favor it because, after all, the ends were good.
So, liberals, examine your own conscience when you ask people to stop criticizing Democratic candidates lest it help the other side. What will be the ultimate result of your calling for self censorship? And how far should that go?
As for me, I’m not going to stifle myself. I am voting for Hillary and I despise what Trump stands for, but Clinton is far from a perfect candidate. She’s the lesser of two weevils.
NOTE: The point of this post is mostly about repeated calls for Democrats to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton. I’d appreciate it if the discussion would be mostly about that rather than rehashing the actual accusations leveled at her. But of course I’m not going to ban comments about the latter stuff.
The Times (Irish edition) has an article and a video of an undercover reporter visiting a place that “advertises itself as an impartial source of advice for women who want to travel to the UK to access an abortion but has direct links to a Catholic anti-abortion group.” It’s The Women’s Center on Berkeley Street in Dublin.
It’s appalling—but perfectly legal—for a group like this to purvey lies, trying to scare women out of having an abortion. Have a listen to the undercover video below; if this doesn’t make you mad, you haven’t woken up yet:
Here are 6 lies that you can catch from the video and the article:
Abortion can cause breast cancer.
Abortion leads to the woman abusing her future children.
It’s too late at six weeks of pregnancy to use miscarriage-inducing pills like mifepristone.
Abortion often leads to the death of the women who have the procedure.
If the reporter, who wasn’t pregnant, went to the UK, she should go to the Women’s Center there (another branch of this group), for other UK abortion clinics could give her an infection.
Every one of these is wrong.
Now you’d think that any woman seeking advice about abortions might have done some preliminary investigation, so why would they fall for this duplicitous advice? One possible answer is that the Dublin Women’s Centre is used by many migrant women, who might be not only terrified and ignorant about medications, but also under pressure from their husbands to have a child. And, of course, many women are confused and distressed in these situations, and thus might be more credulous about ludicrous “advice” like this.
Finally, the paper notes that the reporter, before leaving—she came back for an ultrasound that of course showed she wasn’t pregnant—was given literature touting the ineffectiveness of abortion pills, and claiming that abortion could cause “suicidal impulses, an intense interest in babies, constant sighing, guilt, crying, swallowing, a preoccupation with death, a loss of interest in sex, a coma [!], loss of organs, a desire to end relationships, a loss of maternal instincts and lower self esteem.”
One wonder why these “clinics” aren’t regulated, or at least prevented from telling blatant lies. Well, Ireland is a Catholic country that forbids regular abortions, so it’s in the Church’s interest to keep this scam going. Nevertheless, these “women’s centres” are dispensing medical advice, and one would hope that the government would ensure that that advice was based on facts. Saying stuff like abortion leads to “loss of organs” is simply reprehensible.
This “counselor” surely knows she’s telling lies. But, like creationists, she thinks that the Greater Good of Producing Babies for Jesus outweighs those lies. It is, after all, Lying for Jesus. It’s more perfidy from our friend The Vatican, who just ensainted another abortion opponent, Mother Teresa.
Reader Joe Dickinson sent some photographs from a trip to Canada; this is actually the second batch, as I’m pressed for time this morning and can’t prepare the first lot. We’ll see them soon. Joe’s notes are indented:
Here is addendum to my previous contribution. Emerald lake is a beautiful glacial lake about 25 miles west of Lake Louise in Yoho National Park (in British Columbia, just across the continental divide from Banff). We watched a mature adult common loon (Gavia immer) in breeding plumage (can’t tell whether male or female) catch a small fish, do a little wing flapping display and then present the fish to a juvenile, presumably its offspring.
And we have three photos of backyard wildlife from Diana MacPherson in Ontario:
Female ruby-throated humming bird (Archilochus colubris) Coming In for Nectar. The lighting makes this photo look weird.
Startled American Red Squirrel Clinging to Tree Trunk. I think this is a juvenile. It’s fairly small for a red squirrel and appears not much bigger than the chipmunks!
Female ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) Resting on Steel Guide Wires Over Nectar Sources. The guide wires hold up my sun sail. Another female chased her repeatedly. I believe these are the same two that have been hanging around. The boys are long gone.
It’s Tuesday, September 6, 2016, and it’s Coffee Ice Cream Day. (What I have at home is Breyer’s Salted Caramel ice cream, which I’d recommend.) And get ready, for tomorrow is National Beer Lover’s Day; the apostrophe’s position apparently means that we’re celebrating only a single beer lover. Who is that?
On this day in 1522, Magellan’s ship The Victoria returned to Spain, becoming the first ship to have sailed around the world. In 1901, the anarchist Leon Czolgosz shot U.S. President William McKinley in New York; McKinley died of an infection eight days later (Czolgosz was convicted and electrocuted). And on September 6, 1972, 9 Israeli athletes were killed by Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Olympics. Two others had been killed the previous day. Notables born on this day include Jane Addams (1860) and Jane Curtin (1947). Those who died on this day include, besides the 9 Israeli athletes, Sully Prudhomme (1907) and Ernest Tubb (1984). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is impatient to go home after her walkies (note that Cyrus, who can’t get through the gate, is carrying his ball).
Hili: I’ve been waiting and waiting for you.
A: I know, you’ve been there for five seconds already.
In Polish:
Hili: Czekam na was i czekam.
Ja: Wiem, jesteś tu już od pięciu sekund.
As lagniappe, here are two pictures of Robin Cornwell’s black cat Jerry; in the second photo he’s playing with his BFF, the d*g Kali:
And why is Facebook putting this at the top of my page?
Canadians are acting badly again, and here I’m referring to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, who should know better. From the CBC, we have a story about a Holy Potato. The text is indented, and the figure captions are from the website.
A cook was cutting potatoes at a Quebec seniors’ residence when he decided to slice one lengthwise instead of across, as he usually did.
What he saw inside is being called a sign of a divine presence in the building.
“He saw it was a cross and he said, ‘It’s a sign,'” said Émilien Morin, president of the residents’ committee at Le Mieux Vivre Residence in Grande-Rivière.
“He thought it meant ‘I’m here’ — a religious sign.”
The sacred spud was discovered Aug. 22 at the Gaspé Peninsula residence by cook Alain Lévesque.
“He couldn’t believe it,” Morin said.
The potato will be on display in the dining room where all residents at the seniors’ home in Grande-Rivière, Que., can enjoy being near it. (Submitted by Gaston Lebreux)
I love the figure caption above (my emphasis). But wait—there’s more!
Morin said the residents are devout Catholics and sought a way to preserve the potato.
Jeannette Moreau, a residents’ committee member, is currently housing the potato in her apartment as it dries.
Morin says the potato-drying process could take up to a month, adding that the spud has started to darken but the sign of the cross at its centre is still highly visible.
He doesn’t want people to visit the vegetable until it’s fully dried and ready to be displayed in a custom-made display case.
Morin said the potato will be on display in the dining room where all residents can enjoy being near it.
“It makes them feel safe,” Morin said.
Alain Lévesque and Émilien Morin have been instrumental in preserving the potato. (Submitted by Gaston Lebreux)
Now here’s the bad part in an otherwise amusing article (amusing for nonbelievers, that is): the ending of the article:
Seriously, CBC? “Might be a sign from above?” “Divine?” Given that they have a naturalistic explanation, why on earth would they raise the possibility that God made these markings? Who’s in charge of this article?
I sent this to friends in Montreal, who said the only thing to be done with this spud is make Holy Poutine, which could be offered to Québécois as a kind of communion.
Here’s another Jesus potato, along with 21 other images of Jesus in food from BuzzFeed, including my favorite, a Jesus banana:
Someone call Ray Comfort: his apology for the banana video was premature!
And here’s the detail of the area I circled; this and the top picture come from Rosetta Blog via reader coel:
Close-up of the Philae lander, imaged by Rosetta’s OSIRIS narrow-angle camera on 2 September 2016 from a distance of 2.7 km. The image scale is about 5 cm/pixel. Philae’s 1 m-wide body and two of its three legs can be seen extended from the body. The images also provide proof of Philae’s orientation. The image is a zoom from a wider-scene, and has been interpolated. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA
I think that at least one reader guess it correctly. The interesting blog post (read it) notes this:
The images were taken on 2 September by the OSIRIS narrow-angle camera as the orbiter came within 2.7 km of the surface and clearly show the main body of the lander, along with two of its three legs.
The images also provide proof of Philae’s orientation, making it clear why establishing communications was so difficult following its landing on 12 November 2014.
Yep, Philae bounced into a crack! No sun to power its batteries, and not much line of communication with Earth. Rosetta, however, is set to land on the comet as well, and we can expect more pictures soon:
The discovery comes less than a month before Rosetta descends to the comet’s surface. On 30 September, the orbiter will be sent on a final one-way mission to investigate the comet from close up, including the open pits in the Ma’at region, where it is hoped that critical observations will help to reveal secrets of the body’s interior structure.
