I can sometimes see the appeal of conspiracy theories.
Think about it. He’s called Captain Hook, but there’s no way he was born with the name Hook. He was born with hands. And what character 21 years earlier and was about 21 years younger? Long John Silver’s coxswain: Mr Israel Hands.
There’s something compelling about connecting the dots and seeing the pattern, even if it is deeply stupid.
There they go!
We all know that the one thing that Donald Trump is most sensitive about is the size of the crowds at his rallies — don’t you dare impugn his popularity! Kamala Harris derailed him at their debate by mentioning that lots of people leave his rallies early, and he had to deny that. Well, the Washington Post had reporters investigate, going to his rallies and asking the people trickling out early why they were leaving.
The Republican presidential nominee consistently draws large, enthusiastic and rowdy crowds to his rallies and other campaign events, and at nearly all of them, another trend is clear: Scores of people leave early.
Most stay. But Trump often runs late and goes long, prompting many to bow out because of other responsibilities, priorities or, sometimes, waning patience and interest, according to Washington Post interviews and observations across dozens of events. Some said they wanted to beat traffic or had work the next day. Others complained about sound quality. One man wanted to go home to his French bulldog. Another needed to get home to his daughter. A third had a Yorkie with him that started acting out. A fourth man said his phone died.
Trump is in denial.
“Honestly nobody” leaves the rallies, Trump said at a recent town hall in Flint, Mich. At an event in Walker, Mich., Trump insisted “nobody ever leaves,” before adding, “and when they do, I finish up quick, believe me.” Trump then suggested that it looks like people are leaving their seats because they want to come up and take photos with him.
He thinks the people just love to hear him ramble on for hours.
Trump repeatedly has resisted entreaties from advisers and allies to cut down on his speeches. “They want a show. They want two hours,” Trump said this year to an ally who suggested shorter speeches. Like others, the ally spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation.
The former president has told advisers that after people stand for so long and wait for so long, he needs to give them something more than a “boring policy speech,” one person who has spoken to him said. The speechwriters craft remarks that are usually designed to go for 60 to 90 minutes, a campaign adviser said, but they know Trump will veer repeatedly off the script.
I’ve only heard short excerpts from Trump speeches — I think two hours of an old man babbling off topic would drive me insane, and I’m never attending one of these rallies. However, I encourage him to continue them, because the repetitive nonsense about sharks and batteries and windmills and eating cats and dogs are the only soundbites that are going to make the news, and they do make him look demented.
I am continuously astonished by how bad Republicans can be. It’s not just that I disagree with their policies, but that they themselves paint their policies in such a ludicrously stupid manner. Take, for example, this incident at a candidate forum in Idaho.
2. The Democratic candidate, a native American woman, politely “highlighted our weak hate crime laws and mentioned the presence of the Aryan Nations in northern Idaho as undeniable evidence of this reality.” Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, we all knew there was a gradient of bigotry that ascended from the coast to the potato brains of Idaho (partly to avoid confronting the reality of racism in Seattle), so this was already making Foreman look foolish.
3. The Republican then tells the Nez Perce woman to “go back where you came from.” Unbelievable. It’s like a bad joke on a bottom-of-the-barrel sitcom.
Trish Carter-Goodheart has written about the incident.
Last night, I entered what should have been a respectful and constructive public candidate forum. Instead, I was met with hateful, racist remarks from State Senator Dan Foreman, who screamed at me to “go back where you came from.” The question on the floor was about a state bill addressing discrimination. One of the candidates responded, claiming that “discrimination doesn’t exist in Idaho.” When it was my turn to speak, I calmly pointed out that just because someone hasn’t personally experienced discrimination doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Racism and discrimination are real issues here in Idaho, as anyone familiar with our state’s history knows. I highlighted our weak hate crime laws and mentioned the presence of the Aryan Nations in northern Idaho as undeniable evidence of this reality. That’s when Sen. Foreman lost all control. His words to me: “I’m so sick and tired of this liberal b*lish*t! Why don’t you go back to where you came from?!” I stayed. I stayed because I wanted to show our community that I can, and will, handle difficult, unpleasant situations. After the forum, several members of the crowd came up to me and offered their support, apologizing for Sen. Foreman’s behavior. But it’s not the people in the crowd who need to apologize. I need to thank the women who stood with me against this hate: Representative Lori McCann, Kathy Dawes, and Moscow City Councilwoman Julia Parker. You had my back when it mattered, and I appreciate your strength and solidarity. What happened last night was a reminder of why this election matters. I am a proud member of the Nez Perce tribe, fighting to represent the land my family has lived on for generations. People like Dan Foreman do not represent our diverse community, and I will continue to stand against the hatred and racism they spread. Our state deserves better. Our community deserves better. We deserve better.
The last time I was in Idaho, my talk was attended by a bunch of people from Doug Wilson’s church (but not Wilson himself). Doug Wilson was an Idaho preacher who got a boost in popularity because Christopher Hitchens toured with him for a while, something I don’t forgive Hitchens for. Doug Wilson co-wrote a notorious pamphlet titled Southern Slavery
, where he said
Slavery as it existed in the South … was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence,the excerpts read in part.There has never been a multiracial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world. …
Slave life was to them [slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.
But oh no, racism and discrimination don’t exist in Idaho.
Consider this:
Swish those facts around in my head, and then put this before my eyes.
There is a reason my wife does all the shopping for gifts, I guess.
Oh well, there’s still my grandson’s birthday in November. He’d love this.
Back in my childhood, Crayola made a crayon labeled “flesh”. I found them slightly disturbing, because I thought that wasn’t the color of my skin, or of my friends’ skins, so what was I supposed to use them for? Today, I am enlightened.
There’s a controversy roiling the taxonomic world. They are trying to rename a particular bird, the Flesh-Footed Shearwater, because a) it’s a good idea to root out names based on historical prejudices, and b) speaking for myself, it’s kind of a creepy name. This proposal has stirred up many objections, because there are always people who think it’s just fine that we assume the color of our should be the default, so when they renamed it to Sable Shearwater, after it’s feather color, the ridiculous outrage of course bubbled up to the top.
But I learned something in the multitude of excuses that the conservative reactionaries offered. This is delightful reasoning.
Skin is the membrane that contains and protects flesh and it varies in colour. Flesh is the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human and it tends to be uniform in colour.
No one explained this to me as a child! We were apparently supposed to use those Flesh crayons to color in our drawings of flayed people. I could have done that. I would have brought home lots of art of my parents and brothers and sisters to tack up on the refrigerator, and I could have helpfully explained that that is my family with their skin peeled off.
Crayola canceled/renamed their Flesh crayons years ago. Maybe they should bring them back for Clive Barker fans and Catholics who want to illustrate the way they treated heretics historically.
Jason Allen won a prize for this digital ‘painting,’ which I am flagrantly ripping off and posting here without paying any licensing fees.
He was triumphant and a bit cocky about his win.
Much consternation spread throughout the artistic community two years ago when Jason M. Allen, an executive at a tabletop gaming startup, submitted an AI-generated “painting” to a Colorado digital art competition and won. Critics claimed that Allen had cheated, but the prize winner didn’t have much sympathy for his detractors: “I’m not going to apologize for it,” Allen said. “I won, and I didn’t break any rules.” He also didn’t seem to care much for the complaint that AI companies like Midjourney—the one he used to create his “painting”— were poised to destroy the art market. “This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
Except that now he is dismayed to discover that he isn’t getting the rewards he thinks he deserves.
Now, in an ironic twist, Allen is upset that his work—which was created via a platform that’s been accused of ripping off countless copyrighted works—cannot, itself, be copyrighted, and is thus getting ripped off. In March of last year, the U.S. Copyright Office ruled that work derived from AI platforms “contained no human authorship” and therefore could not be extended copyright protections. Allen has been trying, since late 2022, to register his painting as a copyrighted work.
Last week, Allen filed an appeal in federal court in Colorado, arguing that the U.S. Copyright Office was wrong to deny copyright registration to his work, dubbed “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.” Allen’s primary concern is that he’s not making enough money from the work. “I have experienced price erosion in the sense that there is a perceived lower value of my work, which has impacted my ability to charge industry-standard licensing fees,” he told Colorado Public Radio.
It’s so unfair. He worked so haaaaard on his picture, as if people should be compensated for how much effort they put into something.
Allen’s lawyer, recently claimed that Allen had worked hard on his digital illustration. “In our case, Jason had an extensive dialogue with the AI tool, Midjourney, to create his work, and we listed him as the author,” Pester said.
Sorry, dude. It’s over. Capitalism won. Humans lost.
Joe is the one on the right.
Joe Gow was a successful academic, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, and he had an unusual hobby: he and his wife made porn. This is a case where we can even say it’s harmless stuff that isn’t exploitive at all, since it’s just the partners (they called themselves “@SexyHappyCouple”) and a few friends making home videos about the value of intimacy.
The university Board of Regents freaked out.
Regents are weird people selected for being staid and wealthy, and they tend to be far more conservative than the universities they manage. They forced Gow to step down from his position and threatened to strip him of his tenure.
The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents unanimously voted to revoke the tenure of University of Wisconsin-La Crosse’s former Chancellor Joe Gow.
The decision followed the recommendation to remove Gow by the UWL faculty committee in June and a hearing in front of the Regents on Sept. 20, the final step in a drawn-out faculty disciplinary process after discovering Gow’s involvement in pornographic content in Dec of 2023.
On Sept. 27. the Regents discussed Gow’s case in a closed-door session at UW-Parkside. They voted 17-0 to “dismiss with cause” and adopted a dismissal order in an open session with no discussion. Under Wisconsin state law to dismiss a tenured position there must be “just cause and only after due notice and hearing.”
Because of the termination, Gow will lose his faculty salary of $91,915 and over $310,000 in unused sick leave.
They called him “abhorrent” and “disgusting” who did “reputational harm” to the university. I actually looked at some of the videos. They weren’t to my taste, but sure, fine, they are optimistic and enthusiastic, and have a good message, even if I personally prefer privacy as part of my intimate life. These videos are examples of free speech that do absolutely no harm. And they fired him over them?
Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, Amy Wax has been saying…
- Telling a Black student “that she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action.’”
- “Stating in class that Mexican men are more likely to assault women and remarking such a stereotype was accurate in the same way as ‘Germans are punctual.’”
- Telling a student “invited to her home, that ‘Hispanic people don’t seem to mind…liv[ing] somewhere where people are loud.’”
- “Stating in class that people of color needed to stop acting entitled to remedies, to stop getting pregnant, to get better jobs, and to be more focused on reciprocity.”
- “Commenting after a series of students with foreign-sounding names introduced themselves that one student was ‘finally, an American’ adding, ‘it’s a good thing, trust me.’”
Wax was suspended with pay for a year. She did not lose her tenure.
Who is doing the most harm to their university?
Because I knew our media would give me a short, objective, non-judgmental response this morning.
That is accurate. No pinocchios. It is true, if the Republicans deport 12 million people, that will make more housing units available for purchase or rental. That actually is a kind of housing proposal.
Wells was one of the worst liars at the Discovery Institute, which is saying a lot. His pals out there in Seattle are writing his praises, of course; you won’t be surprised that they don’t understand why Wells’ books were loathed. Here’s Casey Luskin, who inevitably gets everything wrong.
A lot of people hated Jonathan, not because he was a hateworthy person, but because of the bad news he delivered about their scientific arguments. His ideas threatened their paradigm, and he wasn’t afraid to say so. But he didn’t hate back. He was a kind and caring person who used his gifts to make an immense impact, helping to reform junk science that had bloated evolution education worldwide. For all these reasons, Dr. Jonathan Wells will not be forgotten anytime soon. By his many friends, readers, and others who have benefited from his research, and of course by his loving family, he will be greatly missed.
He did not deliver bad news about scientific arguments; he didn’t understand, or pretended not to understand, the science he was criticizing. Everything he wrote was a misrepresentation. He didn’t reform junk science
, he vomited up books that were nothing but junk science. I am confident that he wasn’t just ignorant, but that he intentionally, willfully, and maliciously lied about the science.
He was an intelligent man who got a Ph.D. in religious studies from Yale, and then got a second Ph.D. in cellular and developmental biology from the University of California Berkeley. There’s rarely ever a good reason to get a second Ph.D., and Wells had the worst reason ever: he had become a Moonie, and he got the second degree at the behest of his church so that he would be better equipped to destroy Darwinism.
Father’s [Rev. Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.
Yeah, he was one of those misguided people who went through a research program not to learn anything, but to get a few letters after his name so he could pretend to be an authority. He also dishonored Berkeley with a badge of shame; it is appalling that someone so dishonest and so committed to distorting the science could fool the research scientists at that prestigious university.
He distorted every idea he touched. Larry Moran thoroughly debunked his treatment of junk DNA, for my part, I wrote about how he constantly botched and misinformed people about developmental biology. Here’s an example of one of my posts in which I wasted my time dissecting the glurge of garbage pouring out of his Moonie brain.
The next person–apparently a professor of developmental biology–objected that the film ignored facts showing the unity of life, especially the universality of the genetic code, the remarkable similarity of about 500 housekeeping genes in all living things, the role of HOX genes in building animal body plans, and the similarity of HOX genes in all animal phyla, including sponges. 1Steve began by pointing out that the genetic code is not universal, but the questioner loudly complained that 2he was not answering her questions. I stepped up and pointed out that housekeeping genes are similar in all living things because without them life is not possible. I acknowledged that HOX gene mutations can be quite dramatic (causing a fly to sprout legs from its head in place of antennae, for example), but 3HOX genes become active midway through development, 4long after the body plan is already established. 5They are also remarkably non-specific; for example, if a fly lacks a particular HOX gene and a comparable mouse HOX gene is inserted in its place, the fly develops normal fly parts, not mouse parts. Furthermore, 6the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: 7If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse? Finally, 8the presence of HOX genes in sponges (which, everyone agrees, appeared in the pre-Cambrian) still leaves unanswered the question of how such complex specified genes evolved in the first place.
The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. 9I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content. She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the moderator took the microphone to someone else.
It blows my mind, man, it blows my freakin’ mind. How can this guy really be this stupid? He has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in developmental biology, and he either really doesn’t understand basic ideas in the field, or he’s maliciously misrepresenting them…he’s lying to the audience. He’s describing how he so adroitly fielded questions from the audience, including this one from a professor of developmental biology, who was no doubt agitated by the fact that Wells was feeding the audience steaming balls of rancid horseshit. I can’t blame her. That was an awesomely dishonest/ignorant performance, and Wells is proud of himself. People should be angry at that fraud.
I’ve just pulled out this small, two-paragraph fragment from his longer post, because it’s about all I can bear. I’ve flagged a few things that I’ll explain — the Meyer/Wells tag team really is a pair of smug incompetents.
1The genetic code is universal, and is one of the pieces of evidence for common descent. There are a few variants in the natural world, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule: they are slightly modified versions of the original code that are derived by evolutionary processes. For instance, we can find examples of stop codons in mitochondria that have acquired an amino acid translation. You can read more about natural variation in the genetic code here.
2That’s right, he wasn’t answering her questions. Meyer was apparently bidding for time until the big fat liar next to him could get up a good head of steam.
3This implication that Hox gene expression is irrelevant because it is “late” was a staple of Wells’ book, Icons of Evolution and the Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. It’s a sham. The phylotypic stage, when the Hox genes are exhibiting their standard patterns of expression, of humans is at 4-5 weeks (out of 40 weeks), and in zebrafish it’s at 18-24 hours. These are relatively early events. The major landmarks before this period are gastrulation, when major tissue layers are established, and neurulation, when the neural tube forms. Embryos are like elongate slugs with the beginnings of a few tissues before this time.
4What? Patterned Hox gene expression is associated with the establishment of the body plan. Prior to this time, all the embryonic chordate has of a body plan is a couple of specified axes, a notochord, and a dorsal nerve tube. The pharyngula stage/phylotypic stage is the time when Hox gene expression is ordered and active, when organogenesis is ongoing, and when the hallmarks of chordate embryology, like segmental myotomes, a tailbud, and branchial arches are forming.
5Hox genes are not non-specific. They have very specific patterning roles; you can’t substitute abdominal-B for labial, for instance. They can be artificially swapped between individuals of different phyla and still function, which ought, to a rational person, be regarded as evidence of common origin, but they definitely do instigate the assembly of different structures in different species, which is not at all surprising. When you put a mouse gene in a fly, you are transplanting one gene out of the many hundreds of developmental genes needed to build an eye; the eye that is assembled is built of 99% fly genes and 1% (and a very early, general 1%) mouse genes. If it did build a mouse eye in a fly, we’d have to throw out a lot of our understanding of molecular genetics and become Intelligent Design creationists.
Hox genes are initiators or selectors; they are not the embryonic structure itself. Think of it this way: the Hox genes just mark a region of the embryo and tell other genes to get to work. It’s as if you are contracting out the building of a house, and you stand before your subcontractors and tell them to build a wall at some particular place. If you’ve got a team of carpenters, they’ll build one kind of wall; masons will build a different kind.
6No, the similarity of Hox genes is not a problem. It’s an indicator of common descent. It’s evidence for evolution.
7Good god.
Why is a fly not a horse? Because Hox genes are not the blueprint, they are not the totality of developmental events that lead to the development of an organism. You might as well complain that the people building a tarpaper shack down by the railroad tracks are using hammers and nails, while the people building a MacMansion on the lakefront are also using hammers and nails, so shouldn’t their buildings come out the same? Somebody who said that would be universally regarded as a clueless moron. Ditto for a supposed developmental biologist who thinks horses and flies should come out the same because they both have Hox genes.
8You can find homeobox-containing genes in plants. All that sequence is is a common motif that has the property of binding DNA at particular nucleotide sequences. What makes for a Hox gene, specifically, is its organization into a regulated cluster. How such genes and gene clusters could arise is simply trivial in principle, although working out the specific historical details of how it happened is more complex and interesting.
The case of sponges is enlightening, because they show us an early step in the formation of the Hox cluster. Current thinking is that sponges don’t actually have a Hox cluster (the first true Hox genes evolved in cnidarians), they have a Hox-like cluster of what are called NK genes. Apparently, grouping a set of transcription factors into a complex isn’t that uncommon in evolution.
9If you photocopy a paper, the paper doesn’t acquire more information. But if you’ve got two identical twins, A who is holding one copy of the paper, and B who is holding two copies of the same paper, B has somewhat more information. Wells’ analogy is a patent red herring.
The ancestral cnidarian proto-Hox cluster is thought to have contained four Hox genes. Humans have 39 Hox genes organized into four clusters. Which taxon contains more information in its Hox clusters? This is a trick question for Wells; people with normal intelligence, like most of you readers, would have no problem recognizing that 39 is a bigger number than 4. Jonathan Wells seems to have missed that day in his first grade arithmetic class.
It still infuriates me that a guy with a Ph.D. in developmental biology from Berkely would ask, if flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse?
Because the Hox genes only trigger the deployment of downstream genes of the animal, ya idjit.
Casey Luskin is wrong. I didn’t hate Wells personally — I never met him — but I did hate his lies, of which there were many, whole books worth of ’em. Good riddance to lying scum.
If you see this face coming, kick him or spit on him or otherwise scorn him. He’s terrible.
I’m having a bad semester. I’m teaching my intro biology course, which is small and ideally sized with 10 students, and every day is a trial. I go in prepared; I’m cheerful and friendly, I think; I’m working on the shaggy Santa Claus look; I’ve got lectures with frequent pauses and breaks where I encourage discussion; I think it’s an interesting topic. I’m talking amiably, and I ask the class a question — it can be as simple as “what are the results of crossing two heterozygotes?” or more open-ended, like “what is your opinion of IVF?” and it’s always the same result: dead silence, stony faces, everyone avoiding my eyes. It’s killing me. Am I intimidating? Boring? Hideous? Should I wear a bag on my head? I keep trying to get them engaged, and all I’m getting for my troubles is flop sweat.
These are not stupid students, either. I gave them a quiz last week, the mean was somewhere in the low 80s, so I know they’re understanding the material. They just don’t want to talk to me.
I’m thinking that maybe I should try some in-class ice breakers next week, and see if I can get them more active. Anyone got any good suggestions? I’m getting desperate.
Alternatively, I pick up a fifth of vodka and numb myself before walking into the classroom, because the strain is getting to me.*
*Not actually an option. I gave up all alcohol during the pandemic.
