Friday: Hili dialogue

April 10, 2015 • 4:53 am

It’s Friday, and we must all decide what seats we’ll take.  I have a week’s respite before I travel to South Carolina to go some talks, but the lagniappe is Southern noms and a chance to visit with Snowball the Dancing Cockatoo, the only single animal in the history of the world demonstrated to dance to a beat (see also here). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is blackmailing people into giving her fusses!

A: You often sit on this corner of the desk.
Hili: Yes, because when people walk past they can pat me, and if they don’t I can bat them with my paw.

P1020480 (1)

In Polish:
Ja: Często siadasz na tym rogu biurka…
Hili: Tak, bo jak ktoś przechodzi to może mnie pogłaskać, a jak tego nie robi, to ja go mogę pacnąć łapą.

 

Sexist ultra-Orthodox Jews continue to make trouble on planes

April 9, 2015 • 3:25 pm

Well, the New York Times has finally caught up to the prescient reporting of Professor Ceiling Cat, who has reported several times about the bad behavior of ultra-Orthodox Jews on airplanes (see here, for instance).  In their new piece, “Aboard flights, conflicts over seat assignments and religion,” the Times recounts what readers here have long known: in the past few months, those Orthodox religionists have delayed flights by refusing to sit next to women, which they claim is against their faith (they may, G*d forbid, actually touch a woman!). Flights have been delayed, passengers peeved at what is a sexist request, and there’s even been the spectacle of these Jews offering money to passengers to switch seats.

Several flights from New York to Israel over the last year have been delayed or disrupted over the issue, and with social media spreading outrage and debate, the disputes have spawned a protest initiative, an online petition and a spoof safety video from a Jewish magazine suggesting a full-body safety vest (“Yes, it’s kosher!”) to protect ultra-Orthodox men from women seated next to them on airplanes.

(Note: I’m looking forward to seeing that video!)

As the piece notes, it’s getting worse:

“The ultra-Orthodox have increasingly seen gender separation as a kind of litmus test of Orthodoxy — it wasn’t always that way, but it has become that way,” said Samuel Heilman, a professor of sociology at Queens College. “There is an ongoing culture war between these people and the rest of the modern world, and because the modern world has increasingly sought to become gender neutral, that has added to the desire to say, ‘We’re not like that.’”

Apparently in some cases the fear is not just “pollution” by accidentally touching a woman, but fear of temptation, the same fear that drives many Muslims to insist that women be covered.

Rabbi Shafran noted that despite religious laws that prohibit physical contact between Jewish men and women who are not their wives, many ultra-Orthodox men follow the guidance of an eminent Orthodox scholar, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who counseled that it was acceptable for a Jewish man to sit next to a woman on a subway or bus so long as there was no intention to seek sexual pleasure from any incidental contact.

. . . Mr. Roffe [a writer from Los Angeles] described his experience on a United Airlines flight to Chicago. When they started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats.

“My buddy who is Orthodox was saying this is a traditional thing — he doesn’t want to be tempted when his wife wasn’t there. And I said, ‘Are you kidding?’ This was just some woman flying to work or home and minding her own business.”

While many passengers refuse this requests—and I especially applaud the women who stand their ground—some people feel that they should move as a nice gesture to accommodate people’s faith:

Some passengers are sympathetic. Hamilton Morris, a 27-year-old journalist from Brooklyn, said he agreed to give up his seat on a US Airways flight from Los Angeles to Newark via Chicago because it seemed like the considerate thing to do.

“There was a Hasidic Jew sitting across the aisle, between two women, and a stewardess approached me and quietly asked if I would be willing to exchange seats because the Hasidic Jew was uncomfortable sitting between two women,” he said. “I was fine with that. Everyone was trying to be accommodating because on airplanes everyone is anxious about offending anyone for religious reasons.”

My own opinion is that it’s odious to go out of your way to afford respect to any beliefs that are sexist or misogynist, as these are. But others may feel differently. So here’s the question to readers: You’re on a plane, and an ultra-Orthodox Jew asks you to move so he doesn’t have to sit next to a women. (This could be asked to either men or women.)  Would you do it?

h/t: Greg Mayer

The lonely life of the reclusive okapi

April 9, 2015 • 10:56 am

By Matthew Cobb

Okapis (Okapia johnstoni) are the closest living relative of the giraffe (their lineages separated about 16 million years ago). They live in the rainforest of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in central Africa. Although their bodies are brown, their legs are striped like a zebra’s. They first became known to science at the end of the 19th century.

An okapi mother and her calf in the Okapi Wildlife Reserve in DRC. Taken from here.

These animals browse on plants growing in gaps in the forest caused by tree fall – this means that their food is relatively sparsely and randomly distributed around the forest. The precise number of okapis in the wild is unknown (figures vary between 10-50,000), but the overall trend is downwards (an estimated 50% decline in the last three generations). They are already extinct in neighbouring Uganda. As a result, the IUCN to have put the animal on its Red List of Endangered Animals.

The major problems for the okapi are, predictably, associated with humans – logging is destroying its habitat, and contact with humans is leading to hunting for bushmeat. Furthermore, illegal armed groups involved in elephant poaching, bushmeat hunting, illegal mining (gold, coltan and diamonds), illegal logging, charcoal production and agricultural encroachment, all make it difficult for conservationists to operate in the area.

Little is known about the ecology of the okapi because it lives in such difficult terrain. In the 1980s radiotracking of eight individuals suggested that they were solitary, with home ranges that were about 10.5 km2 for males, and 5.1 km2 for females. However, there is little solid evidence for how they live their lives, and how the sexes interact.

That has recently changed, with a new study by researchers in the UK and in DRC that looked at DNA extracted from 208 faecal samples collected in an okapi reserve (see map below). (In passing, hats off to the team for succeeding in this – a while back a student of mine tried extracting DNA from fresh howler monkey turds; we failed dismally.) Once the DNA had been extracted, they then looked at a short parts of the genome that they knew would show variability (these are known as ‘microsatellites’ in the trade). A total of 105 samples provided valid DNA.

jzo12205-fig-0001

The team then did some fancy population genetics to draw a number of conclusions about the social system, the mating system and the dispersal of the okapis they were studying. (Another note in passing: many zoology students dislike both DNA extraction and population genetics – this study shows why both these techniques are important if you want to understand animals.)

Social system: the lack of overlap in genotypes found at the different dung sites suggests that okapi do not form social units, apart from mother-offspring and adult male-female pairings. There was no evidence of large social groups. This was expected, both from previous research, and from the behaviour of other animals that can be heavily predated (in the case of the okapi, by leopards). Because there was no indication of what is called ‘genetic structure’ to the population they sampled – that is, certain genotypes were not found more often in one area than another – the authors conclude that there are no physical obstacles to okapi moving around the region (see also below).

Mating system: The frequency with which the study picked up full and half siblings sugstes that okapi are genetically polygamous (each male will mate with more than one female) and promiscuous (this situation is typical of most mammalian species). However, varying population densities in different regions may mean that it is possible that in some areas males may defend a territory containing several females, although the team found no direct evidence of this.

Dispersal: evidence of dispersal/movement was hard to estimate because they found so few genotypes more than once (in other words, they did not sample the same animal very often – only 13 individuals provided two data points). One male was recorded twice, 25.5 km apart, but the average distance between samples, if this individual was excluded, was 0.337 km.

The conclusion is that the okapi is indeed a solitary beast. They are isolated for most of their lives, having social interactions only while a calf, or during mating. These beautiful animals, which always appear timid and slightly sad in zoos, are solitary and secretive. If we are not careful, the only place they may be safe is in a zoo.

 

Reference: D. W. G. Stanton et al. (2015) ‘Enhancing knowledge of an endangered and elusive species, the okapi, using non-invasive genetic techniques’ Journal of Zoology 295:233–242

 

 

University of Michigan cancels showing of “American Sniper” after accusations of Islamophobia and triggering, substitutes showing of “Paddington Bear”

April 9, 2015 • 10:00 am

Today we have more identity politics, with the emphasis on “identity” rather than “politics.” This involves another college campus, the prestigious University of Michigan, which cancelled a showing of “American Sniper” after Muslim students—and probably many non-Muslim students—complained that the movie made them feel unsafe, was “triggering”, and perpetuated anti-Muslim stereotypes. As The College Fix reports (and it’s been substantiated by several other sources):

A scheduled movie screening of “American Sniper” at the University of Michigan was abruptly cancelled Tuesday after nearly 300 students and others complained the film perpetuates “negative and misleading stereotypes” against Muslims.

“The movie American Sniper not only tolerates but promotes anti-Muslim … rhetoric and sympathizes with a mass killer,” according to an online letter circulated among the campus community via Google Docs that garnered the signatures.

The signers were mostly students, but also some staff, as well as the Muslim Students’ Association and the president of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, a Palestinian solidarity group at UMich.

The online memo, titled a “collective letter from Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students on campus,” accused the public university of “tolerating dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-MENA propaganda” by showing the movie, the highest grossing film of 2014.

Here’s the collective letter, which you can see at the first link (I wasn’t able to access the “online memo” link):

*******

CollectiveLetter*******

The University caved:

“While our intent was to show a film, the impact of the content was harmful, and made students feel unsafe and unwelcomed at our program,” stated The Center for Campus Involvement, which oversees student activities and is run by university employees, as it announced its decision Tuesday on its various social media accounts, including Twitter and Facebook.

“We deeply regret causing harm to members of our community, and appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided to us by students and staff alike.”

University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald confirmed to The College Fix on Tuesday the movie was cancelled.

. . . “We in the Center for Campus Involvement and the UMix Late Night program did not intend to exclude any students or communities on campus through showing this film,” the center’s announcement stated.

“… UMix should always be a safe space for students to engage, unwind, and create community with others, and we commit to listening to and learning from our community in the interest of fostering that environment. … We will take time to deeper understand and screen for content that can negatively stereotype a group.”

The Center for Campus Involvement’s Facebook page indicated that the film would be replaced by, appropriately, “Paddington Bear“: the equivalent of showing triggered students videos of puppies and kittens.

The sad thing is that the students who objected didn’t have to go to the movie. In fact, everyone can find out what American Sniper is about from simply Googling. What they objected to was not seeing the movie, but having the movie actually shown on campus.  And they succeeded, thanks to a compliant group of administrators and students who don’t give a damn about free speech, for if anyone says that speech is “offensive”, we must by all means ban it.

American Sniper is a true story, and, though I haven’t seen it, I know it sparked a lively conversation about whether or not Kyle was admirable, about the ethics of his actions, and so on. That conversation will not take place at The University of Michigan. Should we also ban “Schindler’s List” or “Band of Brothers” because they show Germans engaged in mass killings, which could trigger both Germans and Jews? Should we ban “Triumph of the Will” by Leni Riefenstahl because it glorifies the Nazis, which it does in a very clear way?

There are in fact many movies showing bad people doing bad things. That’s what happens in this world. Regardless of what you think about Chris Kyle, students should have the opportunity to see the movie for themselves. If they think it will grossly offend or “trigger” them, then they shouldn’t go. But they have no right to control what other students will see.  I, for one, would welcome seeing Nazi propaganda movies, including those that demonize Jews, (in fact I’ve seen many of those movies) as a way of creating a conversation and learning about history.

These students should grow up; they have no right to not be offended. And the University of Michigan and those who cancelled the movie should be ashamed of themselves. They have abrogated the very mission of a good university: to challenge students’ views and make them think.

I look forward to the universities of 2040, in which all movies shown will be about bears, penguins, and puppies, and everyone always feels “safe.”

Readers’ wildlife photographs

April 9, 2015 • 7:45 am

Reader Joe Dickinson sent some heron, and one herring-loving heron:

I had a nice look yesterday at a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) at Neary Lagoon, a wetland/wildlife preserve in the middle of Santa Cruz, CA.  Back in January, I had a closer look in better (softer) light at the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor.

These reminded me of a recent posting on the European grey heron by your reader, Pyers, from the UK .  I had always assumed it was the same species (just a different common name), but I find that the European species is Ardea cinerea.  For comparison, I’ve included a couple of my best shots of that species from 2008, one from Kinderdijk and another I call “the herring heron of Hoorn” (because he hung out by a shop in Hoorn that sold herring and begged/pilfered samples).  Both, of course, are in the Netherlands.  Finally, I learned that there is a distinct subspecies (A. hernias cognata ) in the Galapagos Islands, for which I have a photo from 2006.

As the photos were unlabeled, readers will have to sort them out, but I suspect that the herring heron of Hoorn is the next to last photo and the Galapagos subspecies is the last one.

herons1

herons2

herons3

herons4

herons5