Jeffrey Tayler calls out David Brooks for telling atheists how to behave

March 17, 2015 • 2:45 pm

Jeffrey Tayler, a corresponding editor for The Atlantic stationed in Moscow, is really on a roll, publishing one “strident” atheist article after another—and in Salon, of all places. And he’s developing quite a nice style—sort of a hybrid between Hitchens and Mencken—in which his overt scorn for religion is combined with a delicious sarcasm.

Tayler’s latest piece, published two days ago, has the lovely title of “David Brooks, religious clown: Debunking phony Godsplaining from the New York Times’s laziest columnist“. Believe me, it will do your heart good to read it. I love the “Godsplaining” neologism, which could equally apply to those Sophisticated Theologists™ who try to tell the rest of us what God is really like.

On February 3, Brooks wrote a column for the Times called “Building better secularists.” It was a smarmy, goddycoddling, and patronizing attempt to instruct nonbelievers about what lessons we need to take from religion. It’s the usual tripe: we have to work hard at building our own morality (because, you know, without God it’s really hard!), we have to form communities, we have to have Sabbath-equivalents (maybe lighting candles for Camus?), and so on. Anyway, I was too dispirited to analyze Brooks’s lame effort in detail, but did a short dissection on this site (I also reproduced some letters to the Times by Dan Dennett and others who groused about Brooks’s piece).

But Tayler has done the hard work of really taking Brooks to the woodshed. I’m not going to repeat what you can read on Salon, but I want to reproduce three paragraphs of his article, just so you can see Tayler’s emerging style, which, to me, presages the birth of a powerful new voice of atheism. Now if Tayler could get this stuff into The Atlantic, or other places besides the normal goddycoddling Salon, it would be wonderful.

Voilà:

One might deem it almost shameful to publish one’s musings on the New York Times’ opinion page, the same page that continues to print, and quite shamelessly, the unapologetic scribbles of Iraq War cheerleader Thomas Friedman or the earnest yet befuddled lucubrations of useful Islamist idiot Nicholas Kristof. The first of these two columnists will probably never be called to account for the bloodshed and mayhem he has sanctioned in the Middle East. The second, I believe, means well, but by denouncing “Islamophobia” he shows he has accepted as sound a nonsense term that conflates faith and race and equates (well-founded) objections to Islam with prejudice against Muslims as people. And we should never forget that he, like Friedman, supported the Iraq War.

But what to make of Friedman and Kristof’s seemingly milquetoast colleague, David Brooks? No shame attaches to him, though by publishing his pro-faith columns, he validates a stupendously (if surreptitiously) baleful Weltanschauung that should long ago have disappeared from our world. Brooks, in the face of mounting evidence, has striven tirelessly to bequeath credence to the dangerous notion, ever more antiquated and morally untenable, that believing in something asserted without evidence – religion — constitutes a virtue. That valuing faith above reason makes one a better person. That those who have shrugged off – or laughed away – the comically outlandish claims advanced by the Abrahamic creeds about our world and origins as a species are the ones with the explaining to do. Should he not be called to account?

I believe so. Moreover, Brooks’ recent Op-Ed, “Building Better Secularists,” leaves me no choice, or, better said, offers me an opportunity I cannot pass up for commentary. “Building Better Secularists” is nothing less than an anti-religion writer’s dream come true, an essay remarkable for its utter and complete susceptibility to refutation and repudiation. The title hints that Brooks intends to teach us godless folks a thing or two. The result? He succeeds only in beclowning himself by authoring a sanctimoniously gaseous tract that befits not America’s august Paper of Record, but a highbrow version of Watchtower, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ End-is-Nigh rag once handed out for free by blue-haired little old ladies in tennis shoes in front of speakeasies and liquor shops (and is now available online).

One can hear echoes of Mencken in there. There are no punches pulled, and useful idiots are called useful idiots. What a pity that the New York Times has so many of these UIs (Tanya Luhrmann is another)!

This is less than 20% of Tayler’s piece. Go read it, even if you’re already in the choir, for it’s lovely to see the sanctimonious Brooks taken down several pegs by one of his journalist colleagues.

The silent flight of the owl

March 17, 2015 • 12:45 pm

I can think of no better demonstration of this adaptation than this video and microphones used to listen to bird flight. Two birds—a pigeon and falcon—make a ton of noise while flying, while the barn owl’s flight is inaudible. The pigeon makes more noise than the falcon, for there’s no advantage to a pigeon flying silently, while there’s probably a marginal advantage for the falcon to tone down its approach. But owls hunt at night, when prey are keenly attuned to the sounds of danger, and so owls have developed a new weapon in the arms race.

How do owls do it? The key is their uniquely serrated wing feathers, which you can read about here.

From the BBC show Super Powered Owls (sadly, you can watch it at the site only if you’re in the UK).

UCLA anti-semitism: the backstory (and a spread to the University of Chicago)

March 17, 2015 • 11:10 am

Not long ago I posted (here and here) about an unsavory episode of anti-semitism at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Rachel Beyda, a Jewish sophomore student who was a candidate for the student council’s judicial board, was interrogated and initially rejected by fellow students solely because she was a member of Jewish organizations—something that supposedly gave her a “lack of objectivity” as well as “divided loyalties.” After a faculty advisor admonished the council for their foolish “conflict of interest” objection, she was then voted in.

The students who voted against her tendered a notapology, and Gene Block, the UCLA chancellor, offered lukewarm sympathies, praising the tepid apologies of the “no-voting” students and avoiding a mention of the religious discrimination. Block also called the incident a “teaching moment,” a phrase I don’t think he would have used had Beyda been black, gay, or Muslim.

To wind up this tale, Steve Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern here in Chicago, did some further digging, and found that Beyda’s initial rejection was part of a wider pattern of anti-Jewish discrimination at UCLA. This is part of what Lubet posted at The Faculty Lounge (I’ve bolded a bit that shows the hypocrisy of students singling out Beyda for her religion):

The votes against Beyda were not cast in a vacuum. Rather, they were the predictable upshot of a political situation at UCLA that has become increasingly hostile for many Jewish students.

For the past year, there has been a concerted effort at UCLA to rid the student government of anyone who might be insufficiently antagonistic toward Israel, which was seen as necessary to the passage of a BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) resolution. And as it turns out, at least three of the four anti-Beyda voters have been closely connected to that campaign. It is often said that the BDS movement is aimed only at Israel and not at Jews, but this incident shows just how easily anti-Zionism can give rise to what might be called Judeophobia – the assumption that Jews are politically suspect until proven otherwise.

In April 2014, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) brought a Judicial Board complaint against two USAC representatives, seeking to disqualify their votes on a divestment resolution because they had taken sponsored trips to Israel. According to the SJP complaint, such travel to Israel constituted an improper “conflict of interest” that should have prohibited the two representatives from voting on a divestment resolution (which had failed to pass). The Judicial Board, however, voted to reject the SJP petition, referring to it as “dangerously volatile” and holding, without dissent, that trips to Israel did not evidence a conflict of interest and that the two representatives’ votes against divestment had thus been “valid and legitimate.”

Notwithstanding that rebuff by the Judicial Board, SJP demanded that candidates in the next election to the USAC sign a pledge that they would not accept sponsored trips to Israel. At least two of the anti-Beyda voters signed that pledge, which also accused several Jewish organizations of Islamophobia and efforts to “marginalize multiple communities on campus.”

Moreover, three of the four USAC representatives who voted against Beyda had run for office on the “Let’s Act” slate, which was endorsed in full by SJP. Following their election, two of them sponsored an ultimately successful BDS resolution that was supported by an array of ethnic and religious student organizations. Yet it was only when Beyda sought a position on the Judicial Council that “conflicts of interest” due solely to group membership suddenly became a burning issue.

. . .The conflation of Beyda’s Jewishness with “divided loyalty” is especially appalling, given that at least three of the four no-voters had campaigned for office on the basis of their own affiliations with religious or ethnic organizations. (I could not find campaign materials for the fourth.) Two of them produced a joint campaign video in which they touted their leadership in the Muslim Students Association and the Iranian Student Group. Another of the objectors circulated a flyer identifying himself as the president of the Sikh Students Association. All of this would be unexceptional – indeed, quite admirable – if the same three students had not expressed such deep concern about Rachael Beyda’s membership in Hillel and a Jewish sorority. In the world of the SJP endorsees, there is no impediment to campus office-holding by a Muslim, Iranian, or Sikh activist (nor should there ever be, of course), but the nomination of a self-identified Jewish student rang very loud alarm bells. What is the difference?

This Judeophobia has apparently arrived here, too. I wasn’t that surprised to learn, from an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, that anti-semitism is around on my own campus—the University of Chicago. There are highly touted pro-Palestinian lectures, anti-Israel slogans scribbled on the sidewalk in chalk, and repeated letters in the student newspaper about “hate speech”, all referring to criticisms of Islam. As Haaretz reports:

What began with a post about Northwestern University passing a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions motion against Israel turned into a discussion about Palestinian death tolls and those who “support slaughter of innocents on the basis that the killers have the same race/religion.” It wasn’t long before jabs were made at individual Jewish students. A social media intifada had erupted.

The assaults spilled into posts on the moderated, anonymous UChicago Secrets Facebook page: “As a person of Palestinian descent, I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to hate Jews;” ”People are hypocrites. This is Fact. One example? The Jews at UChicago. Why? They all have grandparents who survived the Holocaust. This doesn’t stop them from denying the Holocaust in Palestine right now;” and “There is no more backwards and conservative community at UChicago than the genocide apologists in hillel and other jewish organizations.”

It is shocking that students at one of the top universities in America – where liberal values are enshrined and Plato is a rite of passage – could hold such parochial views and express them behind the cowardly mask of anonymous social media. I wonder if the timing of these attacks – just a week after the BDS motion passed at Northwestern and days before “Israeli Apartheid Week”– had anything to do with the assaults.

Here are some of those posts. Now I don’t claim that anti-semitism is rampant here, but the presence of these posts (and they may all be by one person, though I doubt it), suggests a hidden Judeophobia among at least some students.

Screen Shot 2015-03-12 at 6.22.03 AM

Finally, Breitbart reports that Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave a sold-out talk in Boston while promoting the film Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus (I’ve put it up before, but you can see the whole thing on YouTube here). Hirsi denounced the current wave of anti-semitism on campuses and the BDS movement. From her talk:

It is appalling that only seventy years from the Holocaust, crowds in Europe chant, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” It is even more appalling that 10,000 soldiers in Paris are needed to protect Jewish sites. That is the continent that promised never again. The men and women who were in the concentration camps, who are tattooed, some are still here. And it is happening again.

. . . I have a different acronym for BDS. They call themselves Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. I call them Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage. Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage the only society that is free in the Middle East. BDS. On campus, if you care about issues like justice and injustice, we really need to show it. You need to do it. Where is the BDS movement against the Islamic State? Where on campuses is the BDS movement against Saudi Arabia? The Iranian regime, who for decades have promised to wipe Israel off the map, who are developing a bomb. And there’s no BDS movement against them on campus. Why? Last year in Nigeria, 200 girls were kidnapped. They were sold into slavery. There was no BDS movement against Boko Haram.

Sadly, Hirsi Ali, who is surely the best candidate to replace Hitchens as one of the “Four Horsemen” (which would then be called “The Four Horsepersons”) has been repeatedly attacked by the “social justice warrior” faction of atheism because she works for a conservative think tank (the only people who would hire her!) and because she’s made some rather extreme statements about Islam. Perhaps those statements can be understood in light of her horrible oppression, forced marriage, and genital mutilation at the hands of, and in the name of, Islam.

Regardless, Hirsi Ali also been a tireless activist for women’s rights and the perfidies of Islam. She’s written two wonderful books, Infidel and Nomad, recounting her dysfunctional upbringing, her rise to renown (and infamy) through her own diligence, and her subsequent hounding and threats by Muslims. For that she has been so demonized by Muslims that she requires round-the-clock bodyguards. And now she’s demonized by atheists as well: she was named one of the “Five most awful atheists” (along with Sam Harris and others) by Ian Murphy at Alternet. (Hemant Mehta, to his credit, disagrees.)

A Christian nation?

March 17, 2015 • 9:30 am

by Greg Mayer

In an op-ed piece in Sunday’s New York Times, the historian Kevin Kruse asks, Is the United States a Christian nation? It is a common claim among Christian theocrats (those whom Andrew Sullivan has aptly called ‘Christianists’) that America is a Christian nation—that somehow the basic structures of the American government are founded upon Christianity. But this claim is just plain false. (A majority of Americans were and are Christians, but that’s not what theocrats mean by a Christian nation). The daftness of their historical claims are sometimes comical in their absurdity. The Founding Fathers had diverse religious views (though tending toward deism and Unitarianism), but it was not their religious diversity that led them to erect a secular state: it was their too-intimate familiarity with the horror of centuries of bloody religious disputation in Europe, especially in the British Isles. America was not to have a religiously founded government; rather, the governments of the United States were, as John Adams wrote in the Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, “founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery”.

Kruse, the author of One Nation Under God, of course knows this, and quickly dispenses with the theocrats’ historical fantasy. Instead he situates the infusion of Christianity into the forms of American government to the middle of the 20th century:

But the founding fathers didn’t create the ceremonies and slogans that come to mind when we consider whether this is a Christian nation. Our grandfathers did.

He attributes this infusion to conservative, anti-New Deal businessmen using Christianity as a cloak to cover their economic goals:

Back in the 1930s, business leaders found themselves on the defensive. Their public prestige had plummeted with the Great Crash; their private businesses were under attack by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal from above and labor from below. To regain the upper hand, corporate leaders fought back on all fronts. They waged a figurative war in statehouses and, occasionally, a literal one in the streets; their campaigns extended from courts of law to the court of public opinion. But nothing worked particularly well until they began an inspired public relations offensive that cast capitalism as the handmaiden of Christianity….

Accordingly, throughout the 1930s and ’40s, corporate leaders marketed a new ideology that combined elements of Christianity with an anti-federal libertarianism. Powerful business lobbies like the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers led the way, promoting this ideology’s appeal in conferences and P.R. campaigns.

They succeeded, they thought, when they elected Dwight Eisenhower; but Eisenhower, once elected, abandoned their economic goals as well as their narrow sectarianism:

Although Eisenhower relied on Christian libertarian groups in the campaign, he parted ways with their agenda once elected. The movement’s corporate sponsors had seen religious rhetoric as a way to dismantle the New Deal state. But the newly elected president thought that a fool’s errand. “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,” he noted privately, “you would not hear of that party again in our political history.” Unlike those who held public spirituality as a means to an end, Eisenhower embraced it as an end unto itself.

Uncoupling the language of “freedom under God” from its Christian libertarian roots, Eisenhower erected a bigger revival tent, welcoming Jews and Catholics alongside Protestants, and Democrats as well as Republicans. Rallying the country, he advanced a revolutionary array of new religious ceremonies and slogans.

He’s certainly right that “under God” and other such phrases were established—in pretty clear violation of the Constitution—during the 50’s, although he doesn’t, at least in this piece, sufficiently credit the fear of “godless Communism”. However, I don’t fully accept his main thesis: where I think he’s off is in ascribing to the public Christianity of the middle of the 20th century a Chamber-of-Commerce, pro-business, and Republican, character.

Speaking from of my own experience, it was not until considerably later, around 1980 and the rise of Ronald Reagan, that Christianity became a partisan political ideology. Reagan and his ilk redefined Christianity as a particular set of right-wing beliefs. Prior to this time, the word “Christian” had a rather different, non-sectarian, meaning: the “Christian” thing to do was the just, merciful, compassionate thing to do. Reagan made it mean essentially the opposite: judgmental, unforgiving, self righteous. Before Reagan, Christian values were more associated with liberal than with conservative causes.

This was a considerable change in the meaning of the word “Christianity”, and also marked the start of the now decades-long decline of the Republican party. The meaning of Christian became narrow not just politically, but also theologically. I was surprised to learn in the early 1990’s that Catholics were no longer “Christians” in common parlance (although there may be a regional dialectical difference at work here too). This narrowness of religious meaning of course reinforces the restriction of “Christian” to particular political doctrines.

Christianity is not a thing with an essence, but rather whatever it is that Christians do, and that has often been viciously reactionary. But its conversion to becoming the handmaiden of the right wing in America is a more recent event (ca. 1980) than Kruse allows, and is associated with a particular political movement, Reaganism, which though ideologically related to the efforts Kruse identifies, occupies its own distinct place and time in American history.

Readers’ wildlife photos

March 17, 2015 • 8:15 am

Today we’ll see the last of Bruce Lyon’s lovely hummingbird pictures (with two miscellaneous photos). Here’s a bit of background taken from the last set (March 8):

On my annual family trip to Costa Rica I spent a couple of days at Monteverde, a cloud forest site well known to both biologists and tourists. Cloud forest and the wet montane habitat just downslope of cloud forest have a very high diversity of hummingbirds. The single hummingbird feeder at the place we stayed at attracted seven species, often at the same time. At times up to thirty individual birds were visiting the feeder or were perched very close by waiting for their turn. All of the photos here were taken with a Canon 6D body and a F4 500 Canon lens with a 1/4 X teleconverter.

I recommend enlarging the photos so you can see every colorful detail.

Violet Sabrewings (Campylopterus hemileucurus) were the largest species to visit the feeder and they were also very feisty. Unlike the other hummingbird species that are happy to perch in the open, the sabrewings typically retreated back into the woods in between feeding bouts:

A Violet Sabrewing coming in for a landing:

IMG_4807adj

A sabrewing landing in the rain:

A male Striped-tailed Hummingbird (Eupherusa eximia). This species is a ‘nectar robber’ that can get nectar from plants whose floral corollas are too long for the hummingbird to get nectar in the usual way. Instead, the hummingbird punctures the base of the corolla and gets nectar without pollinating the plant:

This plant, Razisea spicata, is a common victim of Stripe-tailed Hummingbird nectar robbing:

IMG_4338adj

Another stripe-tailed hummingbird:

IMG_5384adj

A male Purple-throated Mountain-gem (Lampornis calolaemus). Hummingbirds often have wonderful names:

Another male Purple-throated Mountain-gem at sunset:

Female Purple-throated Mountain-gem:

IMG_4022adj

A Green-crowned Brilliant (Heliodoxa jacula):

One non-hummingbird species came to the feeder—the nectar specialist Bananaquit (Coereba flaveola) which is a passerine songbird. Apparently, its classification is still unclear:

Bring out your felids: ‘Tis the feast of St. Gertrude of Nivelles, patron saint of cats

March 17, 2015 • 7:30 am

UPDATE: The time is up for submitting your cat photos. Thanks to all for doing so!

_______

The occasion was announced in a tw**t by Rev. Richard Coles (via Matthew Cobb):

Let’s make that wave a tsunami. Readers, send in one picture of your favorite cat, along with its name and perhaps one sentence about it (as well as what name you want to use). If I get more than five photos I’ll add them to this post. Now’s the chance to make your moggie a star. Cutoff time for sending pix is noon Chicago time.

And indeed, the tw**t about the feast day is true: St. Gertrude (162s-1659) is the patron saint of cats (also gardeners, travelers, widows, the poor, and the mentally ill). She will protect you against mice, rats, and insanity. Catster gives a bit of the story as well as some nice photos:

St-Gertrude-cats-statue — A cat petitions St. Gertrude in this statue located in the saint’s hometown of Nivelles, Belgium. Photo by Jean-Pol Grandmont.

From Catster:

There’s no single story that links St. Gertrude to her patronage of cats. However, writings confirm that she and her nuns kept cats to control the rodent population. Some people believe her patronage most likely originated from the claim that water from her well and bread baked in her oven were thought to repel mice and rats. (And I thought I was a bad cook!)

Other accounts say she prayed for the mice to go away and they did. Because of the great mouse exodus, people referred to her as the patroness of cat lovers. She is often depicted with a cat near her or with mice running up her staff. The mice in her icons are said to represent souls trapped in Purgatory, whom she diligently prayed for. And we ailurophiles know that cats and mice go together like saints and Heaven.

St-Gertrude-cats-Console-Oudegracht-321 — St. Gertrude is depicted in a stone relief on a canal known as Oudegracht in the Dutch city of Utrecht. Photo by Kattenkruid.

*******

Here we go. From reader Chris:

This is Stimpy (named after another famous feline without a tail) and her hobbies include sleeping, eating, exposing herself and lap warming.

From Dorsa Amir, “Emerson chasing the sunlight.”

From Mark Emerson:

Here’s our cat Mooch, up a tree, stalking birds. Maybe she thinks she blends in.

From John Williamson:

You often hear of Kings and Queens, but this is Jacks. He looks pretty regal basking in the sun in the garage after some string-play.

From reader Denise:

Willow, nonchalant, after delivering post-dawn present of dead juvenile rat this morning to my front door step. I live in a converted barn next to a working farm (UK) – Willow heaven.

From Phil:

Attached is a picture of my cat Zoey. She has a serious attitude and takes sass from no one. Despite what the picture indicates she hates to travel but loves to bite fingers (especially if you’re asleep) and electric blankets.

Reader Lauren sent two pictures, but I’ll allow the N = 1 rule to be violated this one time (one cat per person, please!):

Here are two photos of my cats. One is Foxbat practicing to be an Art Institute lion. The other is the late Smaug in one of my favorite poses.

Our own Matthew Cobb sent a photo of his new kitten, Harry, whose peskiness drove one of the older cats, Pepper, into the wastebasket:

From reader Diana MacPherson:

Fred is the only cat I’ve ever had because after I had him I became allergic to cats. He was a feral cat and he preferred it that way as he took off one day and didn’t come back. Look how cute he was though!

From Ken Elliott:

In an attempt to get something fun despite the off season flavor, here is Gunner plahying Santa’s helper back in Christmas of 2013. He is, of course, lying on his Gunners blanket.

From Mary Bierbaum:

This is Ajax. He came to us one cold, snowy January night two years ago. He was skinny and had a badly healed broken hip. He invited himself in and never left.

From Lori Way:

Here is Sophie in all her glory.

Reader serendipitydawg sent a photo of poor George:

The attached is one of the only images I have at my office; it shows George in a sad state after having pins inserted into all of the bones in his foot, having broken them all somehow. After 12 weeks being in plaster and being unable to roam far and wide he recovered and 2 years on you would never know his leg was broken.

From reader HaggisForBrains:

Here are Monte Carlo (Monte to his friends, and everyone was his friend) and Morgan (named after a vintage three-wheeler car, because he was somewhat unstable on his feet), as kittens, both now sadly deceased.

From Reader Maria:

Salem is 14 years old, spoiled rotten, and very much loved (not to mention, gorgeous!). As you can see, she “decorates” the house.

From Palaeo Sam:

This is Kitty, she is crazy and adept at opening closed doors (do you suppose the two are connected?):

From Michael Day:

Attached is a picture of two of our cats, Bowmen (L) and Sam (R). They are neutered males who love snuggling together in our garage. This is rare photo, since they both usually leap up out of the box, utterly embarrassed, if caught in the act, so to speak.

Ben Goren sends his iconic cat:

This is Baihu. “It ain’t easy living with a god.”

Reader ManOutOfTime sent his cat:

This is Mini Me, so named because he is fluffy and opinionated, like his human mama (my wife). He is a lean 14-lb cat who looks fat but it is all fur. Here he is having a rest on mama’s boot, cruelly exposing the furry underbelly that I want to rub but am NOT ALLOWED TO RUB.

From reader John:

Here is (rather, are) mine. Benny is watching over Babette as she prepares for a bath. (She did not take one.)

Reader Susan sent a pair of cats named after a Strident Atheist:

Ingy and Sol, brothers named in honour of Robert G. Ingersoll, sleeping the sleep of the just.

Reader Merilee sent a photo of her cat Booker. She has apparently done something I used to do to my cats to efface their dignity: turn their ears inside out:

From reader Kathy:

Both Lily and Tiger would like to sit in my lap, but they will not share. Whose will is stronger?

Louis and Andrea sent a photo of a cat named after a state:

Here’s a picture of our cat Texas. She’s one and a half years old and very gentle. She loves climbing, purring, and looking out the window.

From our own Greg Mayer:

Peyton, the philosopickal cat, on Gertrude’s Eve, helping to unpack a newly arrived laptop.

From reader Art:

Here is a picture of our cat Princess. She adopted us 15 years ago and occasionally will help with the ironing if she’s awake.

Reader Jennifer Apple sends a photo of her pal:

This is Danny, my best buddy of 13 years, enjoying the fireplace and his personal rug from the Snow Leopard Trust.

Danny

From Linda Grilli:

Pewter playing with his favorite toy, water, with Billy the Kit looking on and learning how to do it.

From reader Rachel:

This is my boy, Lloyd. I’d hoped he’d climb into the pumpkin since he’s obsessed with being *in* things, but I guess that’s where he draws the line.

From reader Abnormal Wrench:

This is Artemis doing her best impression of Maru. She was 5 months old then. She is one year old now but this was all I had on my phone to post in short notice. She loves playing fetch with bottle caps; we play every night.

From Peter Nothnagle:

Gus, enjoying a quiet moment in a sunbeam (this photo was taken this very morning).

Reader John Mitchell sends a three-legged cat:

Leela lost her front leg (and almost her life) to a possum when she was nine months old. She showed amazing resilience in the months of operations and other complications afterwards, and has grown into an incredibly friendly and charming companion. Most mornings she’s out greeting the many fans she has in the neighborhood – she knows more of them than I do!

Reader Cliff sent two Persians:

I am attaching pictures of two of my favorite cats, even though I know you are not particularly fond of Persians. The first is Black Cherry (who we called “Cricket”, because that’s what he reminded us of when first born, and the second is a little cream Persian named Miss American Pie, whose weight never exceeded 6 lbs., so I called her my “pocket Persian”. Both deceased; both still loved.

Reader Todd sent a lovely little moggie:

Here’s one of my (5) rescue kitties as a youngster. His name is Copper and he was born with a bobtail (a one inch stub that wiggles before he pounces).

From reader Brad Day:

Spicy J, reviewing a map of the plotted GPS data from the tracking device she had implanted on me.

Reader Nicole sends a funny cat portrait:

Ginger Bravo poses for a portrait of Madonna and Child.

From reader Amy:

This is “kitten” on his perch, a much better vantage point to see the birds and chipmunks. Turns out Leon is not the only cat that likes a leash! However, I would not be able to fit this felid in a backpack. Now 16 years old he weighs in at 20 pounds.

From reader Taskin:

I noticed you already have a Gus in the sun this morning, so I thought I’d send another. You can’t have too many sun cats!

Reader Stepha sent a black cat (we have many!):

This is Schrödinger (not a great pic, but the best one on my phone). He showed up on my doorstep, frightened & starving, several years ago, & I adopted him despite my allergies. It was one of the best decisions of my life.

Reader anonypuss sends a photo of the lovely Oskar:

… Iz true, I do have many different faces….

Reader Simon Hayward, new to Chicago sent two cats (we’ve seen the ten-legged Titan before):

Cheating – it’s both cats.
Titan says “meh – atheist cat haz no needs of saint”
Pachecca says “does saint haz can opener?”

Reader Charlie Jones sent one in the closing minutes:

Attached is Grover yawning. A bit out of focus, but an impressive maw nonetheless. Feel free to post; photographer is Hannah Jones, age 13.

And one slipped under the wire, sent by reader Erin Coldrick:

An uncomfortable looking position but it seemed to work for him nonetheless. My always photogenic cat’s name is Yarn. He’s put up with his staff (Erin-me) snapping photos of him for 4 years now. He’s my snuggly little baby!! 🙂 All around great cat, although my husband gives a different story. Yarn tends to be quite vocal. Maybe some Siamese in his family lineage?? 🙂

And. . . .time is UP! Hold onto your kitteh photos for the next time. Thanks to all for their lovely photos. I for one was glad to see what my readers’ cats looked like.

Tuesday: Hili dialogue

March 17, 2015 • 4:59 am

It’s Tuesday and, just awake, I hear the wind howling outside. Our temperatures yesterday were in the 70s (Fahrenheit), and it was lovely. Today it will be cold again, and rain is predicted. (That’s okay, as my car needs a “natural” wash to purge it of winter’s salt. It is also the Feast of St. Gertrude, the patron saint of cats, so prepare to send me a photo of your cat (see next post). The first cat photo of the day is, of course, of the Furry Princess of Poland, Navel of the World: Ms. Hili, who is apparently usurping Andrzej’s chair in the guise of helping him.

A: You are making it difficult for me to work.

Hili: On the contrary, when a human lounges comfortably in an armchair, he loses the ability to concentrate.

In Polish:

Ja: Utrudniasz mi pracę.
Hili: Przeciwnie, kiedy człowiek rozsiada się wygodnie w fotelu traci zdolność koncentracji.

	Lady Mondegreen on Savannah: Day 6
	Leslie MacMillan on Friday: Hili dialogue
	Sola Raynor on Our brood of ducks has vanishe…
	Jim batterson on Friday: Hili dialogue
	Glenda Palmer on Jesus ‘n’ Mo…