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.
In the following photos, we have no problem spotting the bird– it sticks out like a sore thumb. Rather, the problem is the bird is not a nightjar– it’s pretty much the opposite in terms of background matching! We’ve recently paid some attention to color variation in squirrels, and reader Jason sent some especially marvelous photos of a multicolored gray squirrel from Toronto. We have here another case of distinctive color variation in a vertebrate. So distinctive, in fact, I’m not sure what kind of bird it is– can readers help me out here?
The pictures were sent by my Wind Point, Wisconsin, correspondent, who is an accomplished photographer, but the above pictures are much enlarged from originals shot through a glass window, hence the resolution is not as crisp as might be hoped for. The bird was in his yard in Wind Point, not far from Lake Michigan, and the pictures were taken on May 11.
I have an idea as to what it is, but I won’t say so as to not influence readers’ identifications. Please weigh in with your identifications below.
*******
JAC: I’m adding on to Greg’s post two pictures that will count, along with the leucistic bird above, as readers’ wildlife photos. They are by Stephen Barnard of Idaho, and show a great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and a great blue heron (Ardea herodias):
We have another trifecta for your delectation, though collecting good Caturday material is hard on the road.
First, we have a compilation of cat alarm clocks: the best way to wake up. If you have a cat, you’ve experienced this (Teddy would jump on my chest and stare at me.) Be sure to check out the adorable Bengal kitten at 2o seconds in:
The most frequent technique seems to be a gentle paw on the nose.
*******
This is like a game of Whack-A-Cat, but thankfully without the whacking. Notice what the cat on the left is doing between 1:22 and 2:00; does anybody understand that behavior?
*******
Here’s another cat video from Japan with what appears to be a Scottish Fold. The Jack-in-the-Bag behavior at 30 seconds cracks me up:
Why do cats love boxes and bags? My theory (which has surely been suggested by others) is that it gives them a feeling of security, and that suggests that the ancestor of the housecat, Felis silvestris lybica may have lived in dens. That is surely known, but I don’t know the answer. Militating against that theory is that big cats who don’t den (like tigers and lions) seem to like boxes, too.
I am home for a few days and my schedule is hectic, with podcasts both days this weekend and little time to rest. Posting again may be light, but I’ll do my best. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili takes a break from her status as the Furry Queen of Poland and watches the wide Vistula River behind her domain.
Hili: I can’t decide: to admire or to be admired?
A: OK, I will take a picture of you, doing some admiring.
In Polish:
Hili: Sama nie wiem, podziwiać, czy być podziwianą?
Ja: O.K., zrobię ci zdjęcie jak podziwiasz.
“Words have power, and one of the things they are able to do is get out of someone’s mouth before the speaker has the chance to stop them.”
Pratchett was right, of course. I don’t think the Vatican can help it much, for Terminal Foot-In-Mouth Disease seems to be afflicting many high-ranking members of the clergy. Hot on the heels of Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin denouncing Ireland’s “Yes” result in its Marriage Equality Referendum as a “disaster for humanity”, we have another senior cardinal, Raymond Burke, pronouncing Ireland as “worse than Pagans and “defying God”.
I’m at risk of appearingobsessive about the subject, so I will try to make my final points and then bow out as gracefully as possible.
First, yes, they really believe this stuff.
These men may represent the Old Guard of the Catholic Church, but as Cardinals they can hardly be called radical outliers. Yet their pronouncements are fairly extreme. Whether the issue is born of a desire to arbitrate morality or to maintain a position of power over peoples’ lives; the result is the same: they are aghast at the notion that anybody – let alone a nation of mostly Catholics – could even contemplate same-sex marriage as an issue of equality. The legal rights aspect of the recent Referendum is something that doesn’t appear to register at all in their counter-arguments.
The vote comprehensively rejected the Church position. That ought to cause concern among the clergy, and it clearly does in the case of Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin as it doesn’t bode well for the future of the religion. But even Martin’s comments didn’t show that he might be reconsidering whether his Church’s position was wrong, merely that it had clearly failed to impress its position on its members.
Its official position, lest we forget, is this:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This quote is not from some hard-line lunatic fringe. It is from the Catholic Catechism on the Vatican’s own website.
This is why weirdly offensive letters were written by Bishops to be read to the faithful of Ireland at Mass during the Sunday Homily. However progressive and liberal the local parish and its priest may be, there is no getting around what the Church actually has to say about homosexuality.
Second, they are so out of touch with people that they have no idea how unintentionally funny and simultaneously insulting they are.
I think I can speak for everybody here when I say being called “worse than a pagan” is not the worst thing one can be called in life, nor is it likely to cause most atheists a moment’s pause. However, one has to remember that the overwhelming majority of people voting Yes in the Irish Referendum were Catholics. Those Catholics presumably do have an opinion about being told that they have defied God for ratifying the idea that people are entitled to equal rights regardless of their sexual orientation. These sorts of pronouncements do the Church’s reputation a great deal of harm, so it’s telling that even now the Vatican permits its leading men to tell the world how they really feel rather than instructing them to maintain a dignified silence on an issue where they cannot fail to look archaic, intolerant and downright offensive. Gay Catholics who were hoping for the Church to start moving towards a more progressive and tolerant position must be profoundly disappointed and wary.
Third, they fear the Internet
This is either because the Internet is the plaything of demons, or because it gives every Catholic access to opinions and ideas that may not coincide with those of the Church. With the Vatican going to enormous trouble to put an exorcist into every parish in the world, it is not impossible that it is the former that worries them the most as if the world were literally an episode of Supernatural, only with slightly less subtext.
Realistically, it is also because ideas have to fight hard for credibility when they are forced to go up against a world of alternative ideas. “Because the book says so” is a pretty useless argument when your opponents also have books that say different things. However, it is pretty hard to exorcise the Internet, so it seems that people will “imbibe this poison that’s out there” and will ask harder questions and make better arguments. Terrible stuff really. Fourth, they have no intention of changing the Church’s position
In spite of recent papal soundbites along the lines of “Who am I to judge?”, the official Church position is going to be difficult to alter or undo—assuming of course that those in power have any intention of changing the status quo. Religions are not democracies, and popular vote is not generally an option. Liberal academic Catholics can point to sound analyses of scriptures that show the original texts are not a particularly good source for justifying the intense homophobia displayed in the official Catholic position. Unfortunately, the usual reaction from the Vatican on this sort of issue is to completely ignore the arguments made, or as last resort to point out: “There seems to be a certain element who think that the Synod has the capacity to create some totally new teaching in the Church, which is simply false.”
I’ve never been so proud of Ireland as when the Yes result came in on Saturday 23rd May; even though I think that equality is something that shouldn’t even have been put to the vote in the first place. Nevertheless, Ireland was wonderful in every possible way. It’s not going to change the Catholic Church’s position. Perhaps that doesn’t matter, because Ireland is already changed in the very best way and the battle about morality and equality has already been won. I’ll leave you with this quote from the heart-warming piece by Irish blogger and journalist Donal O’Keeffe on his experiences canvassing for the Marriage Equality referendum.
Then two young men, walking close together, came toward me from Rory Gallagher Plaza. “Hello,” I said. “Are you voting on Friday?” They gave me the most beautiful smiles and held up their joined hands. I thought that was a really mean thing to do, to make a grown man cry in public like that.
To end the week (is it really Friday?), we have singer Ayleen O’Hanlon singing “Loverless” with the help of her cat, George, who provides fusses and even tries to help on guitar:
Ayleen O’Hanlon is a singer-songwriter from Victoria, Australia. George is her cat. O’Hanlon says that George “gets a little needy” from time to time, which may explain why he’s “helping” her perform her tune “Loverless” by perching on her guitar, shoving his posterior in her face and batting at her guitar strings.
Then again, George’s presence has helped “Loverless” (which O’Hanlon has decided will be the lead single on her upcoming album) climb to nearly 250,000 views on YouTube. Turns out George – like a lot of managers – is as big a help as he is a hindrance.
You can find more of O’Hanlon’s music on her Facebook, website, orSoundCloud. If you like what you hear, be sure to keep an eye out for “Loverless”‘s official release as a single in November and O’Hanlon’s solo album in early 2015.
George Brassens (1921-1981) was a well known French poet, singer and songwriter who, as you can tell from this song about unbelief, was a renegade (he called himself an anarchist). He also loved cats, which are often mentioned in his songs.
The song was sent, and the English translation rendered, by a reader who describes herself as “grenouille à moitié”. If you speak even a bit of French, you’ll know what that means. It’s a lively and catchy tune, but also cerebral. Follow the words along with the song.
Le mécréant (The unbeliever)
Georges Brassens (1960)
Est-il en notre temps rien de plus odieux
De plus désespérant, que de n’pas croire en Dieu ?
Is there in our time nothing more questionable, nothing more devastating than not to believe in God?
J’voudrais avoir la foi, la foi d’mon charbonnier
Qui est heureux comme un pape et con comme un panier
I would like to have faith, the faith of my coalcutter, who is happy like he was the pope and stupid like a paper basket
Mon voisin du dessus, un certain Blais’ Pascal
M’a gentiment donné ce conseil amical
My neighbour from above, a certain Blaise Pascal, gave me this friendly advice:
” Mettez-vous à genoux, priez et implorez
Faites semblant de croire, et bientôt vous croirez “
“Kneel down, pray and implore
Pretend to believe, and soon you will believe.”
J’me mis à débiter, les rotules à terr’
Tous les Ave Maria, tous les Pater Noster
And so I mindlessly recited, kneecaps on the floor, all the Ave Marias, all the Pater Noster
Dans les rues, les cafés, les trains, les autobus
Tous les de profundis, tous les morpionibus
In the streets, in the cafes, the trains, the busses, all the de profundis, all the “morpionibus”
Sur ces entrefait’s-là, trouvant dans les orties
Un’ soutane à ma taill’, je m’en suis travesti
At that moment, in the nettles I stumbled across a cassock that fit me and I dressed up with it.
Et, tonsuré de frais, ma guitare à la main
Vers la foi salvatric’ je me mis en chemin
and, with a freshly shaved tonsure, and with my guitar in my hand, I went on my path towards salvation through belief
J’tombai sur un boisseau d’punais’s de sacristie
Me prenant pour un autre, en ch?ur, elles m’ont dit
I stumbled across a bushel of “sacristy bugs”.
They thought I was someone else and all together said to me:
” Mon pèr’, chantez-nous donc quelque refrain sacré
Quelque sainte chanson dont vous avez l’secret “
“My father, sing some sacred songs to us, some decent songs which are no mystery to you.”
Grattant avec ferveur les cordes sous mes doigts
J’entonnai “le Gorille” avec “Putain de toi”
Scratching my guitar strings fervently with my fingers, I proceeded to sing to them “Le Gorille” and “Putain de toi”
Criant à l’imposteur, au traître, au papelard
Ell’s veul’nt me fair’ subir le supplic’ d’Abélard
The women shouted I was a traitor, an imposter, a papelard
They wanted to make me suffer the torture of d’Abbélard
Je vais grossir les rangs des muets du sérail
Les bell’s ne viendront plus se pendre à mon poitrail
And thus I shall contribute to the ranks of the silent men of the “sérail”.
The beautiful women will not flock to my chest any more.
Grâce à ma voix coupée j’aurai la plac’ de choix
Au milieu des petits chanteurs à la croix d’bois
Thanks to my thus cut voice, I shall have a place of honour amongst the petits chanteurs à la croix d’bois
Attirée par le bruit, un’ dam’ de Charité
Leur dit : ” Que faites-vous ? Malheureus’s arrêtez
But another charitable lady was attracted by the noise
And she tells the others: “What are you doing?
Stop it, you miserables
Y a tant d’homm’s aujourd’hui qui ont un penchant pervers
A prendre obstinément Cupidon à l’envers
There are already enough men nowadays who have pervers tendencies stubbornly taking Cupide the wrong way around
Tant d’hommes dépourvus de leurs virils appas
A ceux qu’en ont encor’ ne les enlevons pas
So many men are destitute of their manly charms
To those who still possess them, let’s not take that away.”
Ces arguments massue firent un’ grosse impression
On me laissa partir avec des ovations
Those convincing arguments left a big impression
I was let loose with big ovations
Mais, su’l’chemin du ciel, je n’ferai plus un pas
La foi viendra d’ell’-même ou ell’ ne viendra pas
But, on the way to heaven, I will not make one more step
Either the belief will come my way on its own, or it won’t.
Je n’ai jamais tué, jamais violé non plus
Y a déjà quelque temps que je ne vole plus
I never killed, I have never raped, and it’s already been a good while that I haven’t stolen anything either
Si l’Eternel existe, en fin de compte, il voit
Qu’je m’conduis guèr’ plus mal que si j’avais la foi
I’m ensconced in Ronald Reagan Airport, better known (in both senses) as Washington National Airport. I noticed on my way in a brass statue of The Gipper standing in front, and it’s simply a travesty to name this airport after such a dreadful President. I hope some day they’ll change the name back again. The good news is that for some unknown reason I got a TSA “Pre-check” status, enabling me to skip the lines and pass through inspection without removing my belt, my computer, my liquids, and even my boots—or having my buttocks groped. I have no idea how the TSA confers this status, which I get sporadically.
At any rate, I spent last night at my sister and brother-in-law’s house, with a fine dinner of fresh strawberry daquiris, grilled chicken, cole slaw (made with my mother’s recipe), potato salad, and a fine 2010 Chateau d’Arche Sauternes for dessert (courtesy of PCC). It was luscious, but needs a few more years.
This morning I was asked to go through my old possessions recovered from my mother’s house after she died, as they want to give what I don’t want to the Salvation Army National Children’s Center, AMVETS, and Purple Heart. I decided to save my childhood copies of the Winnie the Pooh books (bought in England in 1955), letters from old friends, my high school and college yearbooks, and the two precious possessions shown below.
The vinyl copy of Sergeant Pepper, as many of you know, was responsible for converting me into an atheist (see the story here), and I’ve shown it before. I’m also holding one of my other beloved possessions: my high school letter (“H” is for Heidelberg American High School, a US Army school in Germany), which I got for wrestling. Athletic letters, awarded for being on varsity teams, were a Big Deal back then, automatically elevating you above nerd-dom and reputed to help you get girls (it didn’t prove too useful!). Does anyone remember the Beach Boys’ classic “Be True to Your School” song, which had this verse?
I got a letterman’s sweater
With a letter in front
I got for football and track
I’m proud to wear it now
When I cruise around
The other parts of the town
I got a decal in back.
(The “decal” would be a decal with the name of your high school, affixed to the rear window of your car.)
Sure enough, I had my mom sew that onto a white sweater, which I wore proudly. Eventually the garment became moth-eaten, and I recovered the letter.
I wrestled in the 103-pound class—can you imagine?
The vino (a half bottle: ideal for rich dessert wines like Sauternes):
How are Jews like Muslims? Answer: in both cases some sects ban women from driving. We know about that ban in Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, but now one group of Jews—British Jews—have done the same thing. According to the Jewish Chronicle, a group of Orthodox Hasidic Jews has issued a Jewish fatwa against women driving. And the reasons are pretty much the same as those adduced in Saudi Arabia:
The British leaders of a major Chasidic sect have declared that women should not be allowed to drive.
In a letter sent out last week, Belz rabbis said that having female drivers goes against “the traditional rules of modesty in our camp” and against the norms of Chasidic institutions.
Not only that, but it’s now prohibited for mothers of this sect to drive their kids to school. If they do, the kids get kicked out!
. . . from August, children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.
According to the letter — which was signed by leaders from Belz educational institutions and endorsed by the group’s rabbis — there has been an increased incidence of “mothers of pupils who have started to drive” which has led to “great resentment among parents of pupils of our institutions”.
They said that the Belzer Rebbe in Israel, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has advised them to introduce a policy of not allowing pupils to come to their schools if their mothers drive.
As far as I can see, these are not government-supported “faith schools,” but are still monitored by the government:
Compared with some of the most conservative Chasidic sects, Belz are seen as relatively moderate and while some Charedi schools in London have struggled with inspections, both their main boys and girls schools, Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass and Beis Malka, are rated “good” by Ofsted.
Dina Brawer, a member of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (now there’s a group with a tough job!) has correctly analyzed this as “the instinct behind such a draconian ban is one of power and control, of men over women. In this sense it is no different from the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia. That it masquerades as a halachic imperative is shameful and disturbing.” But of course the women themselves, indoctrinated in their faith, defend this as a good thing:
In response to coverage of the story, the local Belz’s women’s organisation Neshei Belz issued a statement to say that they felt “extremely privileged and valued to be part of a community where the highest standards of refinement, morality and dignity are respected. We believe that driving a vehicle is a high pressured activity where our values may be compromised by exposure to selfishness, road-rage, bad language and other inappropriate behaviour.”
They added,”We do, however, understand that there are many who conduct lifestyles that are different to ours, and we do not, in any way, disrespect them or the decisions they make.”
Seriously, “refinement, morality, and dignity”? What age are we living in? This reminds me of Muslim women defending their hijabs, niqabs, and burqas. The worst part is punishing children whose mothers want to drive them to school. What if the men are busy in shul, davening and praying? If you’re indoctrinated in the faith, you’ll internalize its values.
Just think of all the contributions that the men and women of this faith would make if they’d give up their silly superstitions, stop the incessant ritual and prayer, and let women follow their dreams instead of the lives dictated to them from the moment they’re born.
