Sean Spicer out as White House Press Secretary

July 21, 2017 • 11:30 am

It was only a matter of time; after all, Spicer holds the Worst Job in the World. He has to stand up there before an affronted press day after day, lying his tuchas off and evading questions.

Now, according to The New York Times, Spicer quit. And he’ll be happier for it. The report is brief:

WASHINGTON — Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned on Friday morning, telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with the appointment of the New York financier Anthony Scaramucci as communications director.

Mr. Trump offered Mr. Scaramucci the job at 10 a.m. The president requested that Mr. Spicer stay on, but Mr. Spicer told Mr. Trump that he believed the appointment was a major mistake, according to a person with direct knowledge of the exchange.

Lying for Jesus Trump

h/t: Grania

Lindy West, New York Times’s Pecksniff, finds something new to be outraged about

July 21, 2017 • 10:30 am

I am absolutely fine with minorities getting acting roles that have traditionally been given to men or white people. If qualified minorities have been overlooked, well, bring ’em in!

What I’m not to keen on is the brigade of Pecksniffs who monitor every casting decision to make sure it corresponds to their own preconceptions of what ethnicity or gender a character must be. For instance, as the Independent reports, Walt Disney’s new live action “Aladdin” film is now starring Naomi Scott as Jasmine. Scott, half Indian (her mother’s of Indian descent from Uganda) and half-British, is viewed by the Pecksniffs as not “authentic” enough, for they insist that Jasmine must be played by an Arab. Never mind that the co-stars include Mena Massoud, an Egyptian now living in Canada, and Will Smith, who is black.

These people are all considered minorities and certainly “people of color”, but they don’t have Arab genes. Here’s one of the Offended whose tweets were reproduced in the Independent:

https://twitter.com/harleivy/status/886304887264481280

I guess you need a DNA test to cast minorities properly. For example, surely it should be pure West Africans cast as slaves rather than American blacks, who have on average 20% of their genes from whites (Obama, of course, would be out). But if Jasmine isn’t a role model for Arabs, isn’t it good enough to be a role model for Indians, or any East Asian?

When the BBC announced that the next Dr. Who was to be a woman, I thought it was fine. They’ve all been men, and why not a woman–in this case British actor Jodie Whittaker? And I haven’t seen anybody objecting on the Internet (though there are of course some disgruntled sexists about), though some have said the quality of the show has been declining for years.

In fact, I wouldn’t even know of any objections if there weren’t Pecksniffs like Lindy West around, who obsessively trolled the Internet (reddit is a good source) looking for any objections to casting a woman, and then highlighted them as examples of rampant sexism in her New York Times column (below). As I’ve said, West is a bad choice for the Times, and perhaps a harbinger of their move toward the Authoritarian Left. Her first column, poorly written and argued, appeared to be about banning the speech of “harassers” (she was apparently to be The Decider). Her second column, below, is a criticism of those who objected to a woman playing Dr. Who. (Click on the screenshot to read it.)

Sadly, to show the misogynistic outrage of the Internet, West reproduces only three snarky comments from reddit. I could find more than three pro-Nazi comments, or comments expressing any odious point of view! Three comments doesn’t show any trend, much less rampant sexism or general male objection to a female Dr. Who.

But somehow I suspect that West would actually have been disappointed had there been no criticism of the casting decision. What would she have been offended about, and what could she have written about? Offense is her schtick.

After using three brief reddit comments as the basis for her column, West ran out of stuff to say, so she turned to “The Handmaids Tale” and then to Donald Trump to fill out her piece:

I’ve been rereading “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood this week. The last time I read it I was in high school, and my visceral sense of my own autonomy was still underdeveloped. I still felt, to a certain extent, like a thing that my parents owned, and some of the book’s deepest horrors were only intellectual to me.

That moment, for instance, when the narrator stops to buy cigarettes and finds her account is frozen, that perfectly mundane, perfectly terrifying turn — I couldn’t feel it at 16 the way I feel it at 35. But the thing that really knocked the wind out of me this time around is her little suspicion, dark and furtive, that her husband isn’t quite as horrified as he should be by the government stripping women of property and self-determination. That maybe, deep down, some part of him feels a relief, a return to the natural order of things, of men as leaders and women as followers, passengers, companions.

This is a personal reaction to fictional sexism, and has no relevance to Dr. Who. Neither does the last paragraph:

I was going to say that as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to revive the war on drugs, strip abortion rights, make the tropics uninhabitable, destroy public education and wreak countless other havocs on marginalized groups, white men are the last people who need a hero. But maybe, on the other hand, she’s exactly what they need.

Yes, the Trump administration is not going to be good for women’s rights, but what does that have to do with white men not needing a hero? (Trump certainly isn’t a hero for many white men like me, but I’m not sure even West know what she was trying to say here.) As for a female Dr. Who, it’s great; but I don’t need one to improve my life.

Readers’ wildlife photos

July 21, 2017 • 8:30 am

We have another contribution from Karen Bartelt; her notes are indented:

Finishing up my Big Bend photos with some non-avian fauna.  [JAC: earlier installments here, here, and here.] First, a couple of mammals.
Javelina, aka collared peccary (Tayassu tajacu).  We saw a herd of about 15 of these near the RV park.
Gray fox  (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). This fox hung around our Chisos Mountain Lodge cabin.  I hope he doesn’t get too habituated.
 

Four lined skink.Plestiodon tetragrammus), I think. Seen along the Window Trail.

Look what just swam over from Mexico…a plain-bellied water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster).  Again, a tentative ID.  Santa Elena Canyon.
Two shots of a greater earless lizard (Cophosaurus texanus) along the Lower Burro Mesa Pouroff Trail.
I also included a photo my husband recently took on our driveway.  This red fox (Vulpes vulpes) hunts almost daily in our yard, usually between 5 and 6pm.  On many days, he gets an Eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).  Neighbors have said they’ve seen a vixen with kits, but we only see the hunter.  One would think we’d be down to zero squirrels, but I really don’t see any decrease.

Richard Dawkins deplatformed at a book talk in Berkeley for “abusive speech” about Islam on Twitter

July 21, 2017 • 7:15 am

Richard Dawkins was supposed to speak at this event in Berkeley on August 9: a talk about his new book, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Atheist. As you see, the talk has been canceled.

But why? You can guess. The talk was to be sponsored by a Berkeley radio station, KPFA, and they made this announcement—but didn’t even inform Richard before deep-sixing the event. Through the ticketing agency, Brown Paper Tickets, KPFA sent out this email with the “reasons”:

From: Brown Paper Tickets 
Date: July 20, 2017 at 2:04:53 PM PDT
To: [NAME REDACTED]
Subject: Notification for Richard Dawkins: Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,
We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t 
know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people. 
KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.  We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.

Sincerely,
KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: the termites have spread to Berkeley, and have dined well on the wooden heads of the Deciders. Although there are undoubtedly a few authoritarian Dawkins-bashing atheists who will be pleased at this, it’s a terrible blow for free speech, and likely a big disappointment for those who hoped to see Richard. I’m sure that some of the Perpetually Offended, with perhaps Muslims among them, complained to the radio station, and KPFA caved.

I asked Richard about what happened, and what KPFA was. He emailed his response, which I reproduce with permission:

KPFA is a liberal radio station in Berkeley. When I lived there, they were the good guys and I listened to their station almost every day. They were scrupulous in their fact-checking in those days – how sad that they have come to this: if they had done any fact-checking at all, they couldn’t possibly have come to the conclusion that I used “abusive speech” against Islam. The only only one of my tweets I can find this year, which could possibly be called abusive, is nothing to do with Islam. As follows:
 
“Ashamed to be American?” Don’t be. The majority of you voted against this narcissistic, xenophobic, vainglorious, ignorant 2-year-old. [JAC: This was of course about Trump.]
Not only did KPFA fail to fact-check.  They didn’t even tell me before cancelling the event and refunding tickets.

KPFA, like so many, is guilty of confusing free speech with “abusive speech”, banning a talk, and thus depriving people of the chance to hear Richard–and probably ask him questions or even criticize him. Here’s the station’s inevitable “but”:

While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech.

Give me a break! Criticism of ideas is not criticism of people, nor is it “abuse.” Shame on KPFA for not realizing this, and for their craven behavior in canceling the talk.

If you wish to write to KPFA, their website is here, and their contact information is here. I’ll be writing them for sure.

Dawkins is not Milo Yianopoulos; his “abusive speech” is simply criticism of religion in general, including Islam. I guess believers can’t bear to hear that criticism, and they didn’t have to go to that talk. But what right do they have to prevent others from hearing it?

Berkeley was, you’ll recall, the home of the Free Speech Movement. How low the city has fallen!

_________

UPDATE: Here’s an email I sent to the station:

Dear KPFA,

Your cancellation of Dawkins’s talk was unconscionable. His speech has not been abusive towards Islam, but has involved criticism of religious dogma–and of all faiths. That is free speech, not “abusive” speech. All meaningful speech hurts some people’s feelings, but in this case there was no “abuse.” Can you point to any?

Your craven behavior towards this talk, and caving in to those who want to prevent others from hearing it, is unconscionable. How dare a radio station commit such a blatant violation of the First Amendment?

Shame on you.

Jerry Coyne

Friday: Hili dialogue (and Leon monologue)

July 21, 2017 • 6:37 am

Good morning! It’s Friday again, July 21, 2017, and I’ve survived my cortisone shot (it wasn’t too bad). If the pain in my shoulder doesn’t abate in a week, it’s physical therapy for Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus). Still, it’s curable and I’ll live. It’s National Crème Brûlée Day, a dessert I find tasty but insubstantial.

News today: Richard Dawkins was de-platformed in Berkeley for a scheduled book talk. I’ll post in detail about this soon.

On July 21, 1861, at the First Battle of Bull Run in Manassas, Virginia, the Confederates and Union engaged in the first major battle of the Civil War. When it was over, the Confederates had won.

On this day in 1865 in Springfield, Missouri, Wild Bill Hickok shot and killed Davis Tutt in a duel about poker and the theft of Hickock’s watch. Wikipedia notes that this “is regarded as the first western showdown”. Hickock himself was shot in the head (from behind) while playing poker in 1876, supposedly holding the “dead man’s hand“, shown below:

An anniversary for evolutionary biology: on July 21, 1925, John Scopes, a high-school biology teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, was convicted of violating the state’s Butler act for teaching human evolution as a substitute teacher in a biology class. The judge fined him $100, but the verdict was set aside on appeal because juries and not judges were supposed to levy fines over $50.

And a banner day in space exploration: on this day in 1969, at 02:56 UTC (GMT), Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on the Moon. I watched this live on television, and I’ll never forget the excitement and awe we all felt. The video below shows some highlights of the Apollo 11 mission, including Armstrong’s famous quote. It was a brave crew that undertook this landing, for they didn’t really know if the module would take off again.

Finally, on this day in 1983, thermometers recorded the world’s lowest temperature in an inhabited location. On that day at Vostok Station, Antarctica, the mercury hit a low of −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F).

Notables born on this day were Ernest Hemingway (1899, committed suicide in 1961), Garry Trudeau and Cat Stevens (Yusaf Islam; both born in 1948), and Robin Williams (1951, also a suicide—in 2014). Those who died on July 21 include Robert Burns (1796), the Great Agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll (1899; he was of course really an atheist), Basil Rathbone (1967; I didn’t know he was from South Africa), astronaut Alan Shepherd (1998), and E. L. Doctorow (2015). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is being petulant:

A: Aren’t you going with us to the river?
Hili: I will wait for you here, under the acacia.
A: Why?
Hili: Because I decided to.
In Polish:
Ja: Nie idziesz z nami nad rzekę?
Hili: Poczekam tu na was pod akacją.
Ja: Dlaczego?
Hili: Bo tak postanowiłam.

And, roaming the grounds of his future home, Leon’s beginning to have doubts about his move.

Leon: I’m not sure Whether I want to become a country cat. The species “couch cat” seems more agreeable.
Finally, in Winnipeg, where the weather is sunny and mild, Gus enjoys an al fresco nap. Staff member Taskin reports:
A Gus picture from this afternoon. He is snoozing in the shade while I have my tea. He’s such nice company.

Open thread: The fetishization of suffering

July 20, 2017 • 1:39 pm

by Grania

Jerry wrote a post years ago on Mother Teresa that has proved to be the most popular post ever on this website (even more popular than the one on penis sizes, which is quite remarkable given that this is humanity we are talking about). Jerry pointed out, as did Christopher Hitchens before him and Aroup Chatterjee before that, that the sainted nun had a bizarre and twisted taste for suffering. Only the religiously convicted or a sadist could spin terminal illness and pain as something to be valued.

When I see people suffer, I feel so helpless! It’s difficult, but the only way I find is to say, “God loves you.”
I always connect this by saying to them, “It’s a sign He can kiss you.”
I remember I told this to a woman who was dying of cancer with her small children surrounding her. I didn’t know which was the greater agony: the agony of leaving the children, or the agony of her body.
I told her, “This is a sign that you have got so close to Jesus on the Cross that He can share His Passion with you, He can kiss you.”
She joined her hands and said, “Mother, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.” She understood so beautifully! My Life for the Poor

Mother Teresa was by no means alone in her idealization of physical and mental anguish. Many religions have rituals that are abusive and damaging  ranging from the relatively benign whirling Dervishes (Mevlevi) whose ritual spinning creates a giddy “spiritual” euphoria, to self-flagellation and slashing practiced by several religions.

I was raised as a Catholic, and while I can say that Mother Teresa’s views are not representative of all Catholics’; she was not an outlier either. Some people still actually think like this. There are times I wish that I had done Psychology 101 at university just to make sense of all the masochism that goes into this kind of thought.

On top of this, as John Hamill points out, the organisation that these people belong to controls thousands of schools and hospitals around the world. Wrap your head around this and you can start to see why their anti-Choice, anti-contraception, anti-euthanasia and anti same-sex equality activists are utterly unmoved by the extreme suffering that their positions create.

PS: Thank you Jerry for giving me zero hours warning about writing a post.