Freedom of speech: Salman Rushdie on American students, and the latest list of “banned” books

April 12, 2016 • 1:30 pm

The columnist Clarence Page had a chat with Salman Rushdie, who taught at Emory University, about freedom of speech. (Remember that it was Emory students who got so upset when they saw pro-Trump slogans written in chalk on their campus.) Rushdie was in Washington D.C. to discuss the question, “Should or must art be politically correct?”, an event organized by Page’s wife, and Clarence took the opportunity to ask Rushdie about several issues.

“When people say, ‘I believe in free speech, but …,’ then they don’t believe in free speech,” [Rushdie] said. “The whole point about free speech is that it upsets people.

“It’s very easy to defend the right of people whom you agree with — or that you are indifferent to. The defense (of free speech) begins when someone says something that you don’t like.”

And that is a simple point. The rebuttal by the Regressive Left is that “hate speech” is not “free speech,” and therefore it’s okay to ban the former. The appropriate response to that was tendered by Christopher Hitchens: “Who would you want to decide what speech is allowable?”

And Rushdie not only talks the talk, but walks the walk.

“Donald Trump is what happens when you forget what America is,” Rushdie said. Yet, as much as he disagrees with what Trump says, he argues that it would be more dangerous to block him from saying it. Indeed, in a regime of free speech, bad ideas should be confronted with better ideas.

Admirably, Rushdie has consistently defended freedom of expression even when his own life would appear to be at stake. For example, he campaigned successfully to prevent the British government from banning a libelous Pakistani film about him because a ban would have made it “the hottest video in town.” Instead, the film went virtually unnoticed outside of Pakistan.

Apropos of free expression, the American Library Association has just released its list of “most challenged books,” that is, the books that people most often request be banned from libraries. There’s an article about this on the NPR site (yes, they do have some good stuff), and a video that I’ve put below. Curiously, one of the books is the Bible.

The ALA [American Library Association, a staunch defender of free expression] defines a challenge as a “formal, written complaint filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.”

Stone says 275 such challenges were made last year — lower than previous years — and while that’s something the association views as a positive, Stone says not all challenges make it to the Office for Intellectual Freedom database.

Here, from an ALA site, is a list and the subjects of the ten most censured books:

  1. Looking for Alaska, by John Green
    Reasons: Offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group.
  2. Fifty Shades of Grey, by E. L. James
    Reasons: Sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, and other (“poorly written,” “concerns that a group of teenagers will want to try it”).
  3. I Am Jazz, by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings
    Reasons: Inaccurate, homosexuality, sex education, religious viewpoint, and unsuited for age group.
  4. Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out, by Susan Kuklin
    Reasons: Anti-family, offensive language, homosexuality, sex education, political viewpoint, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, and other (“wants to remove from collection to ward off complaints”).
  5. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon
    Reasons: Offensive language, religious viewpoint, unsuited for age group, and other (“profanity and atheism”).
  6. The Holy Bible
    Reasons: Religious viewpoint.
  7. Fun Home, by Alison Bechdel
    Reasons: Violence and other (“graphic images”).
  8. Habibi, by Craig Thompson
    Reasons: Nudity, sexually explicit, and unsuited for age group.
  9. Nasreen’s Secret School: A True Story from Afghanistan, by Jeanette Winter
    Reasons: Religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group, and violence.
  10. Two Boys Kissing, by David Levithan
    Reasons: Homosexuality and other (“condones public displays of affection”).

And the video:

h/t: Christopher, Ken

Talks: Portland next week, Chicago later

April 12, 2016 • 1:00 pm

Just a note to those who live around Portland, Oregon: I’ll be there next week to speak for the Center for Inquiry, talking about free will (or rather, its absence) on Friday, April 22 at 7 p.m.  The announcement is here, and the venue appears to be the Lucky Labrador Beer Hall (!). It’ll cost you $5 if you’re a member, or a sawbuck if you’re not, but be aware that all the money goes to CfI, as I don’t have a speaking fee for groups like this.

I’m not sure, either, if they’ll sell my books, but I’ll inquire. If so, you can get a cat drawn in one if you give the Latin name of a wild felid native to Oregon.

I’ve been traveling a lot, and it’ll be time to settle down when I return to Portland. I do have a gig as the keynote speaker for the American Humanist Association’s annual meeting May 26-29 (I speak on the 29th), but that’s in downtown Chicago and won’t involve much travel.

Krista Tippett talks for an hour, says nothing

April 12, 2016 • 11:45 am

In case there aren’t enough self-help books on the market, the unctuous Krista Tippett has decided to contribute her own. Out April 5, it bears the portentous title Becoming Wise: An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living. This was brought to my attention by reader Jane, who heard Tippett interviewed by Michael Krasny on KQED radio in the San Francisco Bay area, and added that Tippett’s “sanctimonious bloviations triggered my gag reflex.”

I’m not sure why I immediately had to listen to this 51-minute interview, but I suppose it’s for the same reason that you sniff the milk carton when you already know it’s gone bad. You seek confirmation of your fears.

I could ignore Tippett, I suppose, but to me she’s a case study in the popularity of “sprituality.” Her “On Being” show is wildly popular, her new book is already heading for Best Seller Land (soon to be on sale in fine airport bookstores everywhere), and yet I find her repugnant and fluffy. She hasn’t met a religion she doesn’t love, is infatuated with “spirituality,” uses a lot of words to say nothing in particular, and always seems on the verge of bursting into tears at the depth of her own insights. You can hear all of the above on the interview, which you can listen to by clicking on the screenshot:

Screen Shot 2016-04-12 at 10.45.27 AM

Now I know that most of you will shy away from this fluff, but listen to at least a bit of it. Perhaps then you can explain to me why NPR listeners, who are supposed to be liberal and pretty intelligent, are so drawn to this spiritual bloviation. Do their Audis and big flat-screen t.v.s leave them spiritually empty, so they stuff the half-full crate of their lives with the styrofoam peanuts proffered by Tippett? What does her popularity (she got the National Medal of Freedom from Obama) say about America?

At any rate, some of the Big Questions she considers are these: What it is to be human? How do we love (“not meant in a fluffy way”, but as a “muscular practice”)? What makes for a good life? What makes for a good death? You know, the questions that people consider when they’re not busy living their lives, taking care of their families, and doing their jobs.

One part well worth hearing starts at about 14:30, when the question of Islamic terrorism arises. Tippett is clearly discomfited, and for once is at a temporary loss for words. She concludes that “Terrorism is just a huge existential crisis within Islam”, and that “Islam’s internal crisis is all of our crisis. ” She offers her cure for that terrorism, which seems to be some nebulous concoction of love, empathy, and the “right vocabulary” (which she doesn’t specify):

“What I attend to when I’m looking at about global terrorism. . . the common denominator I see is a huge amount of raw human pain and fear.” . . We don’t have good vocabularies; we don’t have the patience to take that pain and fear directly and address it head on, and so we see a lot of dynamics that just replicate themselves over and over again. . . . We have to start grappling with that directly if we’re going to advance.”

Two other LOLzy moments.  At 27:45 a caller asks her, “Is there really any difference between faith and superstition?” She gets a bit huffy, saying that that is a demeaning question for billions of faithful around the world. But in reality the question is a very good one, and the answer is “not really.”

And, at 25:44, Tippett tipptoes into accommodationist territory, trying to claim that scientists are like religious people. Her gambit: scientists like Einstein love “mystery”, and, claims Tippett, “mystery is at the orthodox core of our religious traditions.” Move over, Elaine Ecklund.

I won’t go on, but I defy you to listen to the entire 51 minutes and then answer this question: did Tippett say anything new, meaningful, or substantive during her interview? If her life on the air has given her wisdom, it’s not evident from her gaseous lucubrations.

42292d61_krista_tippett_event

Is there “a meaning to life” for nonbelievers?

April 12, 2016 • 10:00 am

When I was talking about FvF with Dan Barker on Saturday, someone stood up during the Q&A session and asked a question that I’ve often heard: “If you don’t believe in God, how can you possibly find meaning in life?”

This is perhaps the most common criticism of atheism, though of course it doesn’t bear at all on the existence of God. Rather, it goes after atheism by arguing that its psychological consequences are unpalatable. Often the question also mentions “the purpose of life”, which to the religious questioner is identical to “meaning”—and carries the implicit notion that both purpose and meaning can be found only by believing in a god and fulfilling its dictates.

Well, that’s a preliminary response to the question: whether God exists is independent of whether it makes us feel good. To echo a nice but largely unknown quotation from Voltaire, “The interest I have in believing in a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.” We should first find out what is true, and then our brains will process that truth to adjust our lives. And there’s simply no evidence for any god who could possibly give meaning to one’s life.

But the stock answer of nearly all atheists and humanists is this: “Of course we don’t need God to have meaning in our life. We make our own meanings.” Then you just cite some of the things that people consider meaningful: your family, your friends and loved ones, your work, your job, your avocations, good books, a good bottle of wine, and so on. QED.

After our discussion, though, I wondered if the question is even meaningful. Does anyone really ponder the issue of “the meaning of their life”? Yes, of course, some religious extremists do structure their lives around God (I’m thinking of Orthodox Jews, many Muslims, and Mormons), but what about moderate religionists or the rest of us? Do we really have a good answer to the question, “What is the meaning of our lives?”

I’d maintain that, based on my casual observation, very few people conceive of a “meaning” to their lives, but simply, when asked the question, confect one post facto.  That is, if asked that question, I would blather on about science, my friends, teaching evolution, traveling and seeing the world to enlarge my experience, and so on. But what I am doing is simply articulating the things that I like to do. I never think of these as the “meaning” of my life. In fact, I never think about that at all.  Nor do I think about the “purpose” of my life. I just do what brings me satisfaction.

I would claim that this is true of most nonbelievers, even if they argue that, as secularists, their lives still have purpose and/or meaning. In reality, we do what our constitutions—and the laws of physics—compel us to do: the things that bring us pleasure, that constitute our “duties”, and so on. A lot of that comes from evolution, and a lot from culture, and a lot from the nexus of both. We may, for instance, have evolved in small groups to behave altruistically, for reciprocity might have been the result of genetic evolution in our ancestors. And there’s cultural input: we learn, or figure out, that being nice to people gives us more rewards than being selfish and mean. Ergo, being charitable and nice to people becomes a “meaning.” Or we have a constitution, based on genes and environments, that makes us enjoy reading. Ergo, reading good books becomes a “meaning”.

Is taking care of your kids the “purpose” of your life? In what sense? You can indeed find it meaningful in that it gives you satisfaction, but it’s in no sense a “purpose.” And we don’t really decide what gives our lives meaning, and then go ahead and do those things. Rather, based on our genes and environment, we stumble onto the things that give us satisfaction and pleasure, do those things, and then call it “meaning.”

I’m sure religionists will seize on these thoughts with glee, arguing, “See, atheists have no meaning in their lives.” But that claim is misconceived. We have satisfaction in our lives, or can strive for it, and that’s no different from the non-goddy satisfaction that believers have in their own lives. Further, knowing that our lives are finite, our brains can adjust our behaviors in a salubrious way—a way not open to many religionists. If this life is all we have, we’d damn well make the best of it, for we get no sequel in Heaven.

The notion of “purpose” (and to a lesser extent, “meaning”) almost requires that something outside yourself give direction to your existence. At the very least, it implies that we can choose freely among alternative ways of living, and decide on a way that gives us the most “meaning” or “purpose”.  But of course if you’re a determinist that’s not the case. If your “purpose” is to raise your family, well, we don’t choose to do that any more than a robin chooses to raise its brood. These are simply the results of kin selection, an aspect of evolution, which itself is just an esoteric manifestation of the laws of physics. We have no more “purpose” or “meaning” in our lives than do squirrels or hedgehogs. All of us do the things that our genes, in combination with our environments, compel us to do.

Granted, in humans the working-out of the nexus of genes and environments can result in esoteric satisfactions, like reading and playing chess. But in the end, these satisfactions are no more “meaningful” than the satisfaction of a squirrel who finds a big walnut.

I’m sure some readers will disagree, and I’m thinking about this issue as I’m typing these very words, so my thoughts are somewhat nebulous and inchoate. But I still wonder if we’re being honest when we tell religionists that, as atheists, we make our own meanings and purposes. Rather, just like those religionists, we simply do what the laws of physics have ordained. But perhaps only Alex Rosenberg would agree with me!

If the lives of nonbelievers have a meaning and a purpose, so do the lives of foxes, earthworms, and hedgehogs. And since there’s no evidence for any gods, the religiously based meaning and purpose for believers is identical to drawing your life’s meaning from The Lord of the Rings.

Spot the cottonmouth

April 12, 2016 • 9:00 am

 by Greg Mayer

Last month I took a trip, and posted a “spot the _____” post for an animal I’d seen and photographed, but without giving any geographic location clues, so as to make identification more challenging. Despite this, many readers were not only able to spot it (not very hard), but also identify it: a cottonmouth. It is, more specifically a western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma), and I photographed it in the Cache River State Natural Area in southern Illinois. Here she is again, in a slightly different view. You can see she’s right in the middle of the footpath, and blends in fairly well with her background. By the time this photo was taken, she was pretty agitated and had reared up, so she stood out more.

A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.
A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.

Southern Illinois is very interesting from a natural history point of view, both geologically and biologically. The southern part of the state narrows to a point where the Mississippi and Ohio rivers join. A bit north of their confluence you find a set of hills crossing the state from west to east, called the Shawnee Hills or “Illinois Ozarks“. Illinois is otherwise exceedingly flat (in Wisconsin, Illinoians are know as “flatlanders”, and considering how flat Wisconsin is, that’s saying something), so the Hills are a distinctive landscape feature. Composed of Carboniferous sandstones and limestones from the mid-Paleozoic epicontinental sea that covered what is now the middle of the U.S., differential erosion has created many interesting land forms, including Camel Rock and Giant City.

Biologically, many southern species reach the northern limit of their range in southern Illinois. (Culturally, too– having driven several times from Chicago to the Gulf coast in Mississippi, I can attest that you enter the Bible Belt somewhere in southern Illinois, and leave it about ten miles north of the Gulf of Mexico.) In the Hills you get a high diversity of oaks (my favorite trees), but just south of the Hills you enter the flat Cache River country full of cypress and tupelo swamps, two species at the northernmost edge of their ranges. The Cache River itself is a remnant of an old bed of the Ohio River.

A large, old, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) at the Big Cypress Access Area, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.
A large, old, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) at the Big Cypress Access Area, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.

The giant old cypress above is said to be 1000 years old, with a basal circumference of 43 feet (13 m). A couple of buttresses from a second very large cypress can be seen at the right; that tree is known as the “Winnie the Pooh Tree“. Cypresses are known for having upward projections from their roots that stick above the water, known as “knees”; their function is unclear.

A cypress "knee", Big Cypress Access Area, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.
A cypress “knee”, Big Cypress Access Area, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.

My wife and I spent one day hiking in these swampy areas in a few different places, and were well rewarded by our hike along the edge of Little Black Slough, a tupelo/cypress swamp.

Bald cypress and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) in Little Black Slough, alongside Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016
Bald cypress and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) in Little Black Slough, alongside Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016

We saw and photographed a bald eagle– it looked much better through binoculars!

Bald Eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) perched on top of bare tree across Little Black Slough from Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016. If Stephen Barnard had taken this photo, you would be able to read the number on the eagle's leg band.
Bald Eagle (Haliaetus leucocephalus) perched on top of bare tree across Little Black Slough from Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016. If Stephen Barnard had taken this photo, you would be able to read the number on the eagle’s leg band.

After 3 days of hiking, our herpetological findings had been limited, just a few true frogs and painted turtles. Southern Illinois is the northern edge of the range for cottonmouths and copperheads, but I had begun to think the season was not far enough advanced to have a chance to see them. At 3:30 in the afternoon, when basking was likely to be done for the day even if the snakes were active, I thought our snake chances were over.

Hiking along Tupelo Trail, Little Black Slough to the right, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016
Hiking along Tupelo Trail, Little Black Slough to the right, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016

Just moments after the photograph above was taken, the photograph below was taken. My wife had stepped over or next to the snake. A pace behind her, I saw it—a thick bodied, banded snake, right next to the water—and I immediately thought “water snake or cottonmouth?” I changed my step in mid-stride, awkwardly hopping over the snake and turning to face it– no doubt, it was a  cottonmouth!

A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.
A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.

It too had turned to face me, and raised and pulled back its head, opening its mouth and exposing its “cotton” mouth. In the picture below, you can see several neat feature of the snake’s biology. First, is the aforementioned open-mouthed threat display, enhanced by the mouth color. Second, note the eye, divided into dark and light halves, that break up its identifiable shape, helping to camouflage the snake. Between the eye and the lip, note the white pit, which is an infrared sensitive structure which enables the snake to get a “thermal picture” of its environment, and the thing from which “pit vipers” get their name. Pit vipers can strike a warm object accurately using only their pits to locate the object. And finally, the fangs are in the long folds of the buccal mucosa alongside the lips on each side of the mouth. The fangs can pivot, and would swing forward out of the surrounding tissue when the snake actually tried to bite, either for predation or defense. (Click on these photos to enlarge them and see more details.)

A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.
A western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) on Tupelo Trail, Cache River State Natural Area, Illinois, USA, March 23, 2016.

I took these pictures with a Nikon camera I had gotten for Christmas, and was pleased to find you could actually see the blood vessels in the snake’s mouth, but I was too unfamiliar with it yet to figure out in the moment how to take video. So, my wife used her cell phone.

Note the vigorous “rattling” of the tail– many snakes do this, not just rattlesnakes. Against the substrate and dry leaves, this can be quite noisy, and in a cottonmouth acts as another threat beyond the white, open mouth display. Rattlesnakes have taken this further, with the loose fitting, keratinous, rattle scales at the tip of the tail capable of making a loud buzzing sound. In the video I mention the “quite long” tail to note the smooth tapering of the tail from the cloaca, indicating this is a female. Having said that, I immediately realized that to most people it would seem that the tail is shorter than they expected, so I then say it is a “fairly short” tail. The two statements are not contradictory– just pointing out different aspects of the snake’s tail: the tail shape showing its sex, but also that, as in most snakes, the tail is relatively short compared to the body length.

A natural history tour of this area of Illinois is well worthwhile, with many state and federal protected lands. The one criticism I would make is that in most areas the interpretive materials (i.e. signage) are sparse to lacking. There is, however, a fine, small museum run by the state of Illinois, the Barkhausen Cache River Wetlands Center, and I would recommend beginning a hiking tour with a couple or more hours there first.


Greene, H.W. 1997. Snakes: The Evolution of Mystery in Nature. University of California Press, Berkeley. (excellent general natural history of snakes that we’ve had occasion to recommend here before)

Smith, P.H. 1961. The amphibians and reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 28:1-298. (details on Illinois herpetofauna)

 

Readers’ wildlife photographs

April 12, 2016 • 7:30 am

Reader Mariliee Lovit sent a crab spider and some notes:

Female crab spider (Misumena vatia). The spider can change color from white to yellow, and is often seen on goldenrod matching its bright yellow late in summer. Here it is on Rosa nitida. Rather than spin a web, this spider waits in ambush on flowers or other vegetation. It clings to the substrate with its two pairs of small rear legs while waiting with its two powerful pairs of front legs spread wide, ready to pounce.

Rosa nitida Grand Manan July 20 2015 MLovit 312

Here’s a video showing that crab spiders can use both crypsis and contrast with their substrate as a way of getting prey:

And from Idaho, Stephen Barnard sent some photos of his bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus; have you learned the binomial yet?), as well as a picture of his new digiscoping setup, which gives remarkable magnification.

The first shot is my digiscoping setup. You can barely see the eagle nest. (Find the birds.) The next shot is at the greatest digiscope magnification, extracted from a 4K video. The focus gets a little softer as you zoom out, but still not bad.

RT9A6968

eagle video

And. . .  chicks are born!!

I got the first clear photo of an eagle chick today. There are at least two.

Chick

And another photo that arrived this weekend:

Proud parent. From the eyes, I’m pretty sure this is Lucy and the adult in the previous shot was Desi.

proud parent

And another lovely picture of parent and chicks:

I watched (on digiscoped video) the adults bringing two fish to the nest within ten minutes. The chicks grow fast and they need a lot of food. Iset up the camera and leave it for hours until the 128GB card fills up with 4K video. 99% of the footage is boring, but there are moments. My 2TB SSD is getting tight!

eagles

And two other species:

I’ve been trying to get a sharp BIF (bird-in-flight) of a Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) for years. Finally. They’re very difficult.

RT9A7220

The Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) have recently arrived from Argentina.

RT9A7454

Tuesday: Hili dialogue

April 12, 2016 • 6:30 am

In case you forgot, and if you’re in the right time zones, it’s Tuesday, April 12. And on this day in 1861, the American Civil War began when Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in the Charleston, South Carolina harbor. In  1945, Franklin Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia. His mistress Lucy Mercer Rutherford was with Roosevelt since his wife Eleanor was in Washington, but was quickly hustled off the premises. In 1955, the head of the trials of Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine declared it “safe and effective.” On  this day in 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first human being launched into space and the first human in orbit. Notables born on this day include Henry Clay (1777), Imogen Cunningham (1883), Benjamin “No Free Will” Libet (1917), Tiny Tim (1932), and Tom Clancy (1947). Those who died on this day include Joe Louis (1981), Alan Paton (1988), and Abbie Hoffman (1989).

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is marveling at Andrzej’s computer:

Hili: Astonishing.
A: What’s astonishing?
Hili: If not for a mouse I wouldn’t know it’s an intelligent design.
P1040021
In Polish:
Hili: Zdumiewające.
Ja; Co jest zdumiewające?
Hili: Gdyby nie mysz, nie pomyślałabym, że to jest inteligentny projekt.

Out in Winnipeg, Mr. Gus has finally chewed his box into submission. It’s time for a new one!
IMG_4543

And Gus is happy in the sun:

IMG_4553