Where I play chess at Lichess.org one of the grandmasters has more trophies than anyone else. His profile is amazing.

The grandmaster's profile: https://lichess.org/@/penguingim1

World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen's profile: https://lichess.org/@/DrDrunkenstein

My profile: https://lichess.org/@/Bob1949

https://lichess.org is the best place in the universe to play chess, watch chess games, study chess, and learn how to play chess. And it's totally free including free computer analysis of your chess games and anyone else's chess games. Zero ads.

GM Magnus Carlsen wins fourth consecutive Lichess Titled Arena

What I wrote at the Wall Street Journal about Muslim scum.

"But no one at my New York mosque knew it would take place until the night before, when the crescent marking the beginning of the new month became visible above the horizon."

According to Islam Mr. Allah magically split the moon in half and then put it back together again. This is the most important and most moronic belief of Islam. Muslims have an insanity problem, not to mention the never ending violence, the brainwashing, and treating women like farm animals.

"Muslims make up hardly more than 1% of the U.S. population."

I wish it was closer to zero percent.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••

Wall Street Journal - How America Makes Ramadan Easier. Fellow citizens of other faiths help Muslim families with the monthlong fast.

Other faiths: Faith is an excuse for cowards to believe any childish bullshit that makes them feel good.

This scientific fact makes Muslim terrorists and bible-thumping Christians cry.

"Today there is no scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships between humans and all other primates. Using the same scientific methods and tools that have been employed to study the evolution of other species, researchers have compiled a large and increasing number of fossil discoveries and compelling new molecular evidence that clearly indicate that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth account for the biological evolution of human characteristics."

-- The National Academy of Sciences

This post is about a young woman's war against the assholes of Iran who suppress women's rights.

Every day I visit Jerry Coyne's website which is many times better than this place.

Mr. Coyne recommended a NPR radio interview: Exiled Journalist Continues To Fight For Women's Rights In Iran. I suggest click the link, then click "Fresh Air" and listen to it while reading the transcript which is what I just did. The young woman is wonderful. The things she talked about are disgusting. She sang two short songs. What a beautiful voice.

She published a book which I added to my Amazon wish list:

Amazon - The Wind in My Hair: My Fight for Freedom in Modern Iran Hardcover – May 29, 2018 by Masih Alinejad (Author)

I'm going to put the transcript from NPR here:

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross. It's not safe for my guest to return to Iran, so she's spent the past nine years in exile, first in London and now in Brooklyn. Masih Alinejad was 2 years old in 1979 when the Islamic Revolution overthrew the shah and took away the rights of women. Her opposition to the regime started when she was young. She was imprisoned when she was 18. After becoming a journalist, she covered the Iranian Parliament, but as a result of her reporting on corrupt officials, she was expelled from the Parliament building and banned from returning, the first reporter to have that distinction. She covered human rights abuses in Iran until she was forced to leave the country.

In exile, she became an activist against the law requiring that all females, starting at age 7, cover their heads and necks with a hijab. She started two opposition campaigns on Facebook. In the first, called My Stealthy Freedom, she asked women to take photos of themselves in secret, not wearing a hijab, and post those photos. Last year, Alinejad's campaign White Wednesdays asked women to wear something white on Wednesdays as symbols of protest against the compulsory hijab and post those photos. Now Alinejad has a new memoir, called "The Wind In My Hair: My Fight For Freedom In Modern Iran."

Masih Alinejad, welcome to FRESH AIR. Why did you make the hijab your issue?

MASIH ALINEJAD: Oh, my God, the first question (laughter). It's about, like, my childhood. You know, when I was 7 years old starting school, I had to wear hijab.

GROSS: That's when the law makes it compulsory.

ALINEJAD: Yeah. I mean, it's about the law and my personal history. It's about my family as well, my father. I had to wear a compulsory hijab inside the house, as well. And if you see my picture, I have too much hair. It was not easy to cover them up. So maybe that was the reason from the beginning when I was a child because I didn't have any, you know, clue about freedom of choice, freedom of expression, nothing. I just wanted to feel the wind in my hair, to be as free as my brother.

GROSS: And you even had to sleep with the hijab.

ALINEJAD: Yeah. It's - in my village and all my family, like my mother, my sister, my sister-in-law, I mean, in fact, all the female in my family, they wear hijab even inside the house. And maybe that is why because the school, social pressure, the law and the family made me do a rebellion.

GROSS: So when you were living in exile in England and then in the U.S., you started a campaign for women to, like, liberate their hair, liberate themselves and take off the hijab and show pictures of themselves doing that. And, you know, this was at great risk to you and to the women who did that. Symbolically, what does the hijab mean to you?

ALINEJAD: Let me tell you the story behind hijab because some people really get me wrong when I say that I am against compulsory hijab. They think that - why you are fighting against that small piece of cloth? We are not fighting against a small piece of cloth. We are fighting against the philosophy behind it, the men behind these compulsory hijab laws telling us what to wear, how to behave, what kind of lifestyle to follow.

So for me and millions of Iranian women, compulsory hijab is just the most visible symbol of oppression. It's just the first step after the revolution that the government started to control our body. So that is why I always say that when you want to understand what compulsory hijab means, just wear it one day in your daily life.

GROSS: You tell me, what does it feel like to wear it?

ALINEJAD: First of all, when you wear it by choice, it's totally different. And I myself, I grew up in a small village. So from the beginning when I was wearing the hijab, I thought it's just my identity. It's like the link between me and my community, my family. So when you wear it every day, it's going to be part of your body. So for me, from the beginning, it was not that difficult, you know. And even when I left Iran, it was not even easy for me to take it off in public in my media appearance because I thought, oh, my God, I'm going to just, you know, lose my family. I'm going to lose emotional support from my friends and my mother and my father. So many pressure behind this small piece of cloth.

And when I started to take it off in Iran in stealth, in secret, when police were not around, when my father was not around, I felt like, oh, my God, this is my true self. This is me. I enjoy everything about me. I started to like my body. I started to like my hair. But before that, I was like ashamed of my body. I was full of guiltiness. You know, from the age of 7, they've been telling us that you're going to be hanged by your hair in the hall if you show your hair in public.

So all this guiltiness was with me I was carrying from my childhood to even like here in the U.K. and in America. And now I just understand that it's not just about me. It's about millions of other women in Iran. They have the same feeling. They don't like their body when they wear it by force.

GROSS: I think there are other reasons you were taught to hate your body. You used to call it when you were going through puberty - you called your breasts orbs of sin because you were told that women's bodies were temptations to men and you had to cover them and that, you know, your body was bad.

ALINEJAD: My body was bad when I was a teenager, the time that I had to like my body, I used to hate my body. I was really ashamed of my body. When I talk about it, it makes me really sad. I always was told by so many men, teachers, you know, my family, like, so many people around me that your body is sin. Men can get provoked by your body. And so it was my responsibility to take care of the men in society. I was told that if somebody rape you, it's your fault because you didn't cover yourself. So that is why actually when I launched my campaign, the government of Iran made a fake news on Iranian state TV saying that Masih Alinejad was raped in London by three men. Why? Because she started to undress herself.

GROSS: They said you started to undress under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs.

ALINEJAD: Yeah. It was beyond sad from the beginning when I heard that news on Iranian state TV saying that Masih used drugs because I've never used drugs. It was a lie. And I knew that my parents are going to listen to the TV. The news channel of my country was really popular in my village as well. And I was like, oh, my God, my parents are going to believe that. How are they going to react? And it was more shameful because I knew that some of the people still think that if you're raped, it's your fault because you're a woman. So I was crying. My son was laughing. My mom called me, she was crying. And I was in the middle. My son was laughing. My mom was crying.

GROSS: Wait. Why was your son laughing?

ALINEJAD: My son was laughing loud and saying, Mom, you won the battle because the government cannot do anything to you. So they made this, you know, fake rape scene to shame you. That means you've won the battle. Just laugh. Just laugh. And then I was like, what I'm going to do with my mom? Because I knew that my mom going to be ashamed.

So I was the symbol of the generation who always was like in the middle, being ashamed of her body, you know, don't know how to explain to the traditional, you know, family. And the future, the people like my son, they never care about this kind of accusation. So I was in the middle, and I had to make a decision how to react. So it was not easy. But I went to that subway that they said that I was raped there, and I started to sing because singing is forbidden for a woman inside Iran.

GROSS: So you started to sing, and then you made a video - YouTube of that and posted it.

ALINEJAD: I love you. You know everything about me, and I love that. Yeah.

GROSS: So that was an act of defiance. It was like, you can't do anything to me. I'm living in England. You can't lock me up. You can't stop me from writing. You can't stop me from posting this YouTube. It was a message of defiance to the authorities and to other women.

ALINEJAD: I was really sad as well. So all the time when I'm sad, I go to bathroom or subway because it makes my sound beautiful when I sing. That was the first reason. But another reason was like singing solo is forbidden in my country. And I had to react to this, you know, horrible news. I didn't know what to do because I knew that my mom was really sad. So I started to sing something about my homeland.

And I wrote this caption that here in the subway, I sing solo. Nobody attacked me. I show my hair, nobody beating me up in the subway. And you think that I was raped here? No. You're always, you know, rape women's thought in Iran. And we never have the same freedom as I do here. So - by the way, I have a good voice. I can sing for you.

GROSS: Yes, I'm going to ask you 'cause you say in your book, I have a beautiful voice. If you want to hear it, just ask me. I'm asking.

ALINEJAD: I can sing the song that I, you know, was a reaction to the...

GROSS: Please.

ALINEJAD: ...state TV, yeah. It was about my homeland. It was a song from Afghanistan. And I knew that, you know, the women from Afghanistan can feel the same pain. (Singing in foreign language).

GROSS: That's really beautiful. You really do have a beautiful voice. You weren't kidding in your book.

ALINEJAD: Thank you so much. Well, I never had the chance to take a singing course, which is my dream (laughter).

GROSS: Because in Iran, it was illegal for women to sing, so singing lessons would've been out of the question?

ALINEJAD: You know, it was not actually the reason. I myself grew up in a really traditional family and poor family. And when you're poor, food and money is important than everything in your life. I remember that I always wanted to have a bicycle. And, you know, it was during the war. And then my father or my mom was saying that, look, all your brothers, they are in the war and you're thinking about having a bicycle and just enjoying yourself?

So any time when I was asking for taking a singing course, having a bicycle, enjoying myself, going to the river, swimming, as, you know, my little brother was just enjoying his freedom, it was not the right time because I was poor, because it was the war. It was the revolution. It was sanctioned. And anytime I was asking about my personal freedom, kept hearing this is not the right time. So that is why actually I was left behind.

GROSS: Well, let me reintroduce you here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Masih Alinejad, and she's the author of a new memoir called "The Wind In My Hair: My Fight For Freedom In Modern Iran." And she has led a movement of women taking off the hijab, the head and neck covering that is compulsory for women in Iran. She's also a journalist who covered Parliament and covered human rights issues in Iran. She was expelled from Parliament, she was forced out of the country.

She lived in exile in England and now lives in exile in Brooklyn. We'll be back after a short break. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. And if you're just joining us, my guest is Masih Alinejad, and she's an Iranian journalist and women's rights activist. She's a feminist, who's now living in exile in Brooklyn. She had covered Iranian Parliament and was expelled from Parliament for exposing corruption there. She was basically forced out of the country. And now she's written a memoir. And her memoir is titled "The Wind In My Hair: My Fight For Freedom In Modern Iran." And it's called "The Wind In My Hair" because she's led a movement for women to oppose the compulsory wearing of the hijab, the head and neck covering that women are legally required to wear or else they will be arrested.

So you've led two campaigns against the compulsory hijab while you've been living in exile. The first was called My Stealthy Freedom and the second was called White Wednesdays. So I'm going to read the post that you wrote when you started the My Stealthy Freedom Campaign. And the idea was to remove your hijab in a place where you were free, where no one would be looking and you could do it and then take a picture of yourself and post it on Facebook.

You wrote, (reading) if you are a woman who doesn't believe in compulsory hijab, no matter where you are, you'll create your own stealthy freedom so you are not ruined by the weight of coercion and compulsion. Coercion is not just from the morality police. Sometimes pressure comes from family, sometimes from the employer and sometimes there is pressure to conform so we are not judged negatively. I have experienced all these forms of coercion, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of Iranian women who don't believe in compulsory hijab have tasted stealthy freedom. I'm willing to make another bet that these women have photos of their stealthy freedom moments that don't hurt anyone.

Shall we publish our photos of driving without headscarves, walking without a veil in the woods or by the sea or on top of a tree or in the desert where we can breathe freely? Here's my stealthy freedom photograph on the Haraz motorway going north. So I think the question that was raised when you started this campaign was if women post photos of themselves without the compulsory hijab, will they get into trouble? Will they be arrested? Were you putting women in danger?

ALINEJAD: It is a punishable crime. I have to admit that. Yes, women put themselves in danger. They risk their lives to protest against compulsory hijab. But let me tell you something. In 2014 when I launched my campaign, police announced that 3.6 million women were stopped in the street, warned and sent to the court just because they were, you know, having inappropriate hijab. And within a year, 40,000 cars were impounded. Why? Because women were unveiled inside the car. So you see, these women were not the ones sending photos to me.

They were just having their normal life in the streets of Iran, but they were already in danger. So that is why actually women have started to join the campaign because they were fed up, you know? They were tired of morality police, being beaten up, being humiliated, being told what to wear, being arrested, being sent to the court. They were fed up by any kind of religious interference in their personal life. That is actually the reason they joined my campaign. So I am not the one putting them in danger.

This is the Islamic Republic of Iran putting women in danger in all our lives.

GROSS: Do you know if any women were arrested because they participated either in the White Wednesday or Stealthy Freedom campaigns?

ALINEJAD: Yes, the Iranian police announced that 29 people got arrested just because of participating on White Wednesdays campaign. One of them called Shopa Zadeh (ph), she was actually the mother of 9-year-old son. She put the headscarf on a stick and she got arrested. I felt guilty because she was one of the main activists of White Wednesdays. But she got released on bail. And in front of the court, she took off her white headscarf. And she said that, you know, I'm still fighting against compulsory hijab. And there was another woman, Shima Bobadi (ph), she got arrested again just because of White Wednesdays campaign.

I got really, you know, panic attacked. I got shocked. I was really scared and getting - feel guilty that, you know, I'm here. I'm safe. And these women getting arrested. But Shima went in front of the court and very - send me a video of herself taking off her headscarf and saying that by arresting me, by threatening me, you cannot keep me silent. I say no to compulsory hijab even louder. So these are the women actually getting arrested.

GROSS: So your activism created a rift in your family, especially with your father. So your father was a strong supporter of the Iranian Revolution when the ayatollah became the leader and it became an Islamic country. And this is also when women started to be required to wear the hijab. Your father was also a member of the Basij, which is a paramilitary group that comes under the Iran Revolutionary Guard. And what did your father do in the Basij?

ALINEJAD: You know, talking about my father is not easy for me because I remember that when he was part of the basiji, I had a really hard time. I had to fight for my rights even inside the house. And he broke my heart several times. I didn't actually want to write about this story in my book because I still love him, you know. And I think - it's not easy for a daughter who hasn't seen his father - her father for nine years to talk about this kind of thing. That first time when I took off my long black chador, my hijab off in the street, he saw me, and he spit on me. And it was not easy. He said that you brought shame in the family. You know, he loves me, but he has stopped talking to me. He doesn't support my campaign. He thinks I'm a traitor. And he actually doesn't want my mother to talk to me. So it's not easy.

GROSS: Does she talk to you in spite of that?

ALINEJAD: Yes, my mom loves me. My mom is a true feminist, although she never went to university. She doesn't have any education. She cannot even read and write. But she's a true feminist, you know. She supports me when I wanted to be my true self.

GROSS: Getting back to your father, when you were growing up and he was in the Basij, the paramilitary group, he was one of the people who used to patrol, stopping cars and confiscating audiotapes and other things that were forbidden.

ALINEJAD: It's so sad. It's beyond sad. I know my father will be upset if he reads the book, but he made so many young people upset that time. And - oh, my God. It's not easy to talk about my father. But I'm still proud of myself, you know, because there are so many - like the son of Ayatollah Khomeini never criticize his father who did the mass executions inside Iran. And those, you know, reformists who are still in power, they never criticize their father. But I criticize my father who is just a farmer, who is not a politician because I strongly believe that if you want to challenge the whole system, the government, the regime, you have to start it from your own house. So as I said in my book, yes, I started my revolution from my kitchen, from my house.

GROSS: My guest is Iranian journalist and feminist Masih Alinejad. Her new memoir is called "The Wind In My Hair." We'll talk more after a break, and we'll hear reviews of a new novel by Stephen McCauley and a new album by saxophonist Jon Irabagon. This is FRESH AIR.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. I'm Terry Gross back with Masih Alinejad, an Iranian journalist and feminist activist now living in exile in Brooklyn. She has a new memoir called "The Wind In My Hair," a reference to her social media campaigns to end the Iranian law requiring all girls and women after age 7 to cover their heads with a hijab. She's been living in exile for nine years. She now reports for Voice of America. In Iran, she covered the Parliament, but after exposing corruption within it, she was expelled from the building and banned from returning. It's now unsafe for her to return to her country. She started protesting when she was a teenager.

So you are arrested when you were 18. You had just gotten married. You had like half of the marriage, you know, because there's like two parts, you say, in Iran. The first part is the legal part, and then there's the family part where there's a big celebration. You're not considered really married until you had the celebration. You hadn't yet had the celebration when you and your husband were arrested. What were you arrested for?

ALINEJAD: I became involved in student activities, and then I got arrested with my ex-husband, my brother, my ex-sister-in-law. We were so young. Yeah. It was before the celebration, the wedding party. And I got arrested just because I got involved in student activities - distributing pamphlets against the government in our town Babol, north of Iran. In that time, it was not easy for us because we were not allowed to have our own lawyer to defend us in the court. Another thing, you know, we didn't have the celebration - the wedding party. And I - inside the solitary confinement, I just found out that I am pregnant.

GROSS: Let me stop you there. The way you describe it in the book, you found out that you were pregnant from one of the prison authorities. I think from...

ALINEJAD: Yeah, yeah.

GROSS: ...Your interrogator who found out from your husband. How did your husband know and you not know that you were pregnant?

ALINEJAD: You know, I was a young girl. And when I didn't have my period, I was so excited. I'm telling my husband that, hey, I don't get periods anymore. I don't know why. I was so excited because I was a naughty (ph) girl. I was climbing the tree and mountain. And I found that, OK, now I'm more relaxed. My husband was, like, telling me, no, but this is a sign. And I didn't want to accept that, and I was fighting. No, this is not the sign of being pregnant. But when he got arrested and I was in my own solitary confinement, he was in his own.

So the interrogator came to me and asked me, did you get your period? And I said no. He said yeah. So you're pregnant. And I said, how do you know that? And he said because the - you know, your husband told us. And I got shocked in that time because they said that when you don't get your period, that means you're pregnant. So in Iranian school, you never get this kind of education. So I didn't know that, and I was only a 19-year-old. At that time, I was - as I told you, I had two battles to fight - with my family and the government because being pregnant before the wedding - it's a scandal in the village.

GROSS: Right. So it's amazing that you didn't know that not menstruating could be a sign that you were pregnant.

ALINEJAD: No, I didn't know. And there are many things about, you know - it's forbidden in Iranian school to teach people about these things. And still just today, actually, I broke the news of a rape in Iran, which a teacher actually raped a student. And people are actually talking about this - that, why in Islamic republic we are not allowed to be educated about sexual relation and this kind of thing about our bodies?

GROSS: So, you know, when you got divorced, that's when you became a journalist, which it turns out was really your calling. You became a journalist and an activist. But when you got divorced, you lost custody of your son. So is it law that the custody of a child always goes to the husband in a divorce?

ALINEJAD: That's the law. Yeah. The custody of the child goes to the husband. As a mother, you have to fight to get the custody of your child back, which is not actually easy in Iran.

GROSS: So you were allowed to see your son, I think, like once a week. Is that right?

ALINEJAD: I was allowed to see my son once a week and - and, you know, I had to fight for my rights and to get the custody of child, to - for so many things, as I told you. That was just one thing in my life.

GROSS: Yeah. So after you basically had to flee Iran - or else you would've been imprisoned, and you lived in exile in England - you managed to get your son out of Iran through Turkey to England where he learned English and studied. And I think - is he studying in Oxford now? Do I have that right?

ALINEJAD: No, he is studying in Brighton.

GROSS: In Brighton. OK. So how did you get him out? Did you have to fight your ex-husband? Did your ex-husband know that you were trying to get him out of Iran for good?

ALINEJAD: You know, my ex-husband has changed like I did. He found out that all the laws are against women's inside - women's right inside Iran. And he shouldn't take benefit - advantage of that. And actually, my son helped us - both of us to - you know, being taught and talk about this. And I have to say that my ex-husband is now fighting for women's rights as well.

GROSS: So your son is living in England. You're living in Brooklyn. Has the travel ban - which has been in the courts for months - has that affected your ability to see him or his ability to come to the U.S. and see you?

ALINEJAD: It was from the beginning. It's complicated again. From the beginning, it was about the green card holders, and we couldn't help it. He couldn't come here. And I was worried if I go back to England - because I have a green card holder, then I can - I won't be able to get back to my husband here in America. And now my green card is stuck in the immigrant office here in the United States of America, and I'm waiting for my green card. So I don't know what's going to happen.

GROSS: OK. So you're married now. You married an Iranian-American who writes for Bloomberg News, Kambiz Foroohar, but you were reluctant to marry again. You still had that image of your mind of marriage as being very constricting of a women's freedom. So have you found a way to be married and not feel like it is limiting your freedom?

ALINEJAD: From the beginning, yeah. I've fought a lot to not get married and - because I hated to, you know, lose my freedom and lose my love because I thought marriage is going to kill the love - the good, you know, emotion and feeling that I had in my heart. But now I have to say that I was totally wrong because Kambiz was an ally for me. In all my life - in all my fight, you know, I have been away from my family for nine years and getting attacked by the government every day, and he was there for me.

I remember that my brother told my husband that, are you sure you want to marry Masih? Because she's like a bomb everyday that - you cannot control her. And (laughter) he told my brother, no, she's more than that. She's more than a, you know, bomb because it's - she's out of control. But the thing is - I remember that when the rape - the fake rape story was on Iranian TV - when I was crying, he called me. And he said the thing exactly my son said. He said that you won the battle and be strong because the government now - you know, they failed.

GROSS: Are you still getting death threats?

ALINEJAD: I'm still getting a lot of death threats. Like, one known Basij, who was actually on New York Times - New York Times made a profile about him. His name is Hamid Reza Ahmadabadi. He threatened me on a live interview on BBC Persian saying that I'm going to butcher you. And I have to say that I really don't have any fear.

The only thing that really, you know, kills me is this - that he has the same freedom, who is going to kill me, to live in my own country, but I am banned from entering the country. That kills me. And I never lose hope because I see a lot of young women, they're still there. They're facing the real threat. And they are still fighting and sending their videos to me. That is why I look at the future, and I never give up.

GROSS: So I would like to end with another song (laughter)...

ALINEJAD: Oh, my God.

GROSS: ...So OK, you've done a lot of reporting on which you've really risked your life to do it. But there's one story you describe in the book where you're talking to the Iranian president, I think it was Khatami. And...

ALINEJAD: Oh, yes.

GROSS: ...And you end - because it's illegal for a woman to sing solo unaccompanied, you sing to him to make a point. And you sang a pop song to him because you said, do you know that a lot of women listen to pop songs? Have you ever listened to a woman singing a pop song? And he's getting - it sounds like he's getting really nervous. So you sing him a pop song (laughter).

ALINEJAD: Yes, I did.

GROSS: Were you face-to-face with him when you did this? Or was this - were you already in England?

ALINEJAD: No. I was face-to-face with him inside Iran. And I told you, when I was in Iran, I was a troublemaker because, you know, when he says that singing solo is forbidden for women, I said, have you ever heard a woman singing? And I started to sing because I wanted him to understand that I'm not committing a crime. And then he got nervous, yeah. But at the end, you know, I published that video on my social media. It went viral.

GROSS: Can you sing for us what you sang for him?

ALINEJAD: Yes. It's a powerful song. It says that God, God, if you make me cry, then I will make you cry (laughter). (Singing in foreign language). That's it.

GROSS: (Laughter) That's great. You really do have a beautiful voice. What was his reaction - the president's reaction - when you sang to him and broke the law?

ALINEJAD: First, he got really nervous. And then, you know, he wanted me to stop, so he started to (clapping).

(LAUGHTER)

GROSS: But he didn't arrest you, right?

ALINEJAD: No, no because I was - I didn't do any...

GROSS: Because you were recording it (laughter).

ALINEJAD: Yeah, yeah. But I couldn't publish it when I was inside Iran because, you know, you're not allowed to ask about this kind of red lines.

GROSS: Oh, so you published that when you were living in exile in England?

ALINEJAD: Yes. In America - when I was in America, I published that.

GROSS: Oh, OK. Masih Alinejad, I want to thank you so much. And I wish you good luck and good health. Thank you.

ALINEJAD: Thank you so much for having me.

GROSS: Masih Alinejad's new memoir is called "The Wind In My Hair: My Fight For Freedom In Modern Iran." After we take a short break, Maureen Corrigan will review Stephen McCauley's new novel. This is FRESH AIR.

We almost wiped out the national bird of the United States of America with DDT. The evolution of human apes was the worst thing that ever happened to this planet.

Adult bald eagle on the Alsek River

Wikipedia - Bald Eagle

Once a common sight in much of the continent, the bald eagle was severely affected in the mid-20th century by a variety of factors, among them the thinning of egg shells attributed to use of the pesticide DDT.[122] Bald eagles, like many birds of prey, were especially affected by DDT due to biomagnification. DDT itself was not lethal to the adult bird, but it interfered with the bird's calcium metabolism, making the bird either sterile or unable to lay healthy eggs. Female eagles laid eggs that were too brittle to withstand the weight of a brooding adult, making it nearly impossible for the eggs to hatch.[28] It is estimated that in the early 18th century, the bald eagle population was 300,000–500,000,[123] but by the 1950s there were only 412 nesting pairs in the 48 contiguous states of the US. Other factors in bald eagle population reductions were a widespread loss of suitable habitat, as well as both legal and illegal shooting. In 1930 a New York City ornithologist wrote that in the state of Alaska in the previous 12 years approximately 70,000 bald eagles had been shot. Many of the hunters killed the bald eagles under the long-held beliefs that bald eagles grabbed young lambs and even children with their talons, yet the birds were innocent of most of these alleged acts of predation (lamb predation is rare, human predation is thought to be non-existent).[124] Later illegal shooting was described as "the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles," according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Technical Bulletin. In 1984, the National Wildlife Federation listed hunting, power-line electrocution, and collisions in flight as the leading causes of eagle deaths. Bald eagles have also been killed by oil, lead, and mercury pollution, and by human and predator intrusion at nests.[125]

The species was first protected in the U.S. and Canada by the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty, later extended to all of North America. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, approved by the U.S. Congress in 1940, protected the bald eagle and the golden eagle, prohibiting commercial trapping and killing of the birds. The bald eagle was declared an endangered species in the U.S. in 1967, and amendments to the 1940 act between 1962 and 1972 further restricted commercial uses and increased penalties for violators. Perhaps most significant in the species' recovery, in 1972, DDT was banned from usage in the United States due to the fact that it inhibited the reproduction of many birds.[126] DDT was completely banned in Canada in 1989, though its use had been highly restricted since the late 1970s.[127]

With regulations in place and DDT banned, the eagle population rebounded. The bald eagle can be found in growing concentrations throughout the United States and Canada, particularly near large bodies of water. In the early 1980s, the estimated total population was 100,000 individuals, with 110,000–115,000 by 1992;[2] the U.S. state with the largest resident population is Alaska, with about 40,000–50,000, with the next highest population the Canadian province of British Columbiawith 20,000–30,000 in 1992.[2] Obtaining a precise count of bald eagles population is extremely difficult. The most recent data submitted by individual states was in 2006, when 9789 breeding pairs were reported.[128] For some time, the stronghold breeding population of bald eagles in the lower 48 states was in Florida, where over a thousand pairs have held on while populations in other states were significantly reduced by DDT use. Today, the contiguous state with the largest number of breeding pairs of eagles is Minnesota with an estimated 1,312 pairs, surpassing Florida's most recent count of 1,166 pairs. 23, or nearly half, of the 48 contiguous states now have at least 100 breeding pairs of bald eagles.[29] In Washington State, there were only 105 occupied nests in 1980. That number increased by about 30 per year, so that by 2005 there were 840 occupied nests. 2005 was the last year that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife counted occupied nests. Further population increases in Washington may be limited by the availability of late winter food, particularly salmon.[129]

The bald eagle was officially removed from the U.S. federal government's list of endangered species on July 12, 1995, by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, when it was reclassified from "Endangered" to "Threatened." On July 6, 1999, a proposal was initiated "To Remove the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife." It was de-listed on June 28, 2007.[130] It has also been assigned a risk level of Least Concern category on the IUCN Red List.[1] In the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill of 1989 an estimated 247 were killed in Prince William Sound, though the local population returned to its pre-spill level by 1995.[4] In some areas, the population has increased such that the eagles are a pest.[131]

THIS GENOCIDE IS BULLSHIT AND IT'S WHY I THINK "WIND ELECTRIC GENERATION" IS A BAD IDEA:

In December 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed quadrupling to 4,200 per year the amount of bald eagles that can be killed by the wind electric generation industry without paying a penalty. If issued, the permits would last 30 years, six times the current 5-year permits.[132][133]

The Christian war against science will never end until every Christian moron drops dead.

A know-nothing Christian fucktard wrote an anti-science book for uneducated morons. His idea was the evolution of sexual reproduction was a magical event. The Magic Man did it. Therefore evolution must be thrown out. I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.

Christian morons refuse to read anything that provides explanations and evidences for evolution. They get all their information about science from science deniers. It's a stupidity problem. There is no cure. Stupid can't be fixed.

Here in the 21st century we have something called "looking things up". Google and Wikipedia make it easy. That's what I did for the evolution of sexual reproduction which began about 1,300,000 years ago. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction

New York Times - Bolivia has a fantastic national park.

Royal flycatcher

Bolivian coral snake

Tiger leg monkey frog.

Amazon kingfisher 

Is This the World’s Most Diverse National Park?

Bringing the numbers to life for the jewel in Bolivia’s conservation crown.

By James Gorman

May 22, 2018

Madidi National Park in Bolivia goes from lowland to mountaintop, from 600 feet to almost 20,000 feet above sea level. It covers more than 7,000 square miles of wildly different habitats. It is, says Rob Wallace, an ecologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society in Bolivia, “a place where the Amazon meets the Andes.”

It has cloud forests, lowland jungle, rivers, streams, wetlands. It even has glaciers.

“Madidi was put together on the hypothesis that it could be the world’s most biologically diverse protected area,” Dr. Wallace said. And, he said, it is — for mammals, birds, plants and butterflies.

In June 2015, a team of scientists, almost all Bolivian, set out on a three-year survey of life in the park, concentrating on 15 sites. The on-the-ground search, supported by the conservation society, was complemented by a less adventurous investigation — of the scientific literature. The goal of the project, Identidad Madidi, was to identify as many species that lived in the park as they could.

The results are in: The total number of species documented for Madidi is now 8,524. The team in the field found about 4,000 species, 1,362 of them never before recorded in Madidi. They estimate, based on other information of how species are distributed, that there are probably 11,395 living in the park, even though some of those have not yet been spotted. That includes all creatures with backbones, all plants and butterflies. Tackling all the insect species was a step too far.

Among the finds were 124 species and eight subspecies believed to be new to science, like the spiny rat, whiptail lizard and orchid below.

They documented 13 new species of butterfly. The Corinna Daggerwing was known before.

Of course, the conclusion of the survey raises a question: Why does it matter which park is most diverse?

Bolivia is not headed for a World Cup-style confrontation with other protected areas, like Manu National Park in Peru, which has been considered the most diverse up to now, or Yasuni National Park in Ecuador, which is still ahead of Madidi in amphibians and reptiles like the Bolivian coral snake, which is highly venomous.

Fish, including the completely harmless pupfish below, are still being counted.

In fact, the conservation society provides support to both those parks and many others. But national pride can be a motivator for conservation and Dr. Wallace said that the survey was initiated largely because “people in Bolivia did not know how special Madidi really was.”

The survey made scientific sense because having a baseline record of diversity in any protected area is important for understanding what happens as climate and development around the area change. For researchers interested in how species interact with one another and their environment, the first step is knowing about the species themselves, like the Madidi titi monkey, discovered in the park in 2000 by Dr. Wallace and Humberto Gómez, and deemed a new species in 2004. The river otter is more well-known.

Species counts are never definitive, however. How many people are counting, what areas they choose to sample, time of year, changes in environment over time — all can affect the final totals. Manu National Park, or Yasuni National Park, or another protected area could conduct new counts and totals could change.

The point, of course, is to protect as many species as possible, in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador or anywhere on the planet. But a little national pride in one’s own preservation efforts can only help protected animals and plants to flourish.

James Gorman is a science writer at large and the host and writer of the video feature “ScienceTake”. He joined The Times in 1993 and is the author of several books, including “How to Build a Dinosaur,” written with the paleontologist Jack Horner.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (originally published in 1859) shares a deplorable fate with many other classics: it is known to everyone, yet rarely read.

Charles Darwin’s working room in Down House, where he wrote On the Origin of Species, Kent, United Kingdom.

Guide to the classics: Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. May 30, 2018.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (originally published in 1859) shares a deplorable fate with many other classics: it is known to everyone, yet rarely read.

This is a shame, not only because there is much more to Darwin’s theory than the familiar principles of mutation, variation, natural selection, and evolution that have entered popular knowledge as Darwinian buzzwords. The book also gives unique insight into the intellectual milieu in which he developed his theory and his struggles to convince his peers of its veracity.

Indeed in this age of the counter-factual and pseudo-factual, acquaintance with the foundations of our scientific tradition — and insights into the struggles of their creation — seems a matter of some urgency.

In the introduction alone, we learn that Darwin first conceived of his theory when travelling the world as a naturalist on board HMS Beagle (1831-6), that he had kept collecting data in support of it ever since, that he even wrote a rough draft (he calls it “a sketch of the conclusions”) many years earlier, and that he was prompted to publish it (20 years later) only because his contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace had recently sent him a “memoir” reaching a similar conclusion.

The core of the theory, as laid out in the first few chapters of the book, is quickly explained. Plants and animals produce more individuals than nature can sustain in each generation. These individuals vary in looks and in physical and behavioural characteristics, and they are able to pass on this variation to the next generation. Those individuals better suited to their environment have an advantage and are in turn more likely to survive to give their features to future generations.

Yet the bare bones of his theory of evolution are only part of what shapes this book. Darwin also communicates the obstacles he had to overcome to ensure its success and to turn it into what it became: a foundational text of the biological sciences that influenced all sorts of other disciplines, including anthropology, religious studies, and the Classics.

Creationism and evolution

At the time Darwin wrote, the prevailing form of explanation of the origins of life was creationism, which held that a divine Creator had generated life in all its variety. To creationists, the theory of evolution offered a rival way of explaining the origin of species – through descent from common ancestors, not a divine agent.

Darwin was well aware that his theory might prove difficult to accept for those believing in a Creator. His obsession with the factual was one way of addressing this problem, direct rebuttals of creationism were another. Throughout the book, he repeatedly addresses creationist views and shows that they are incompatible with the evidence.

Darwin himself was not against the idea of a divine creator. Rather, he sought to situate the scientific reading of the world within a religious worldview. In the book’s conclusion he states: “I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator.”

This is to say that, while life was first created by a God, it later became subject to the laws of mutation, variation, and natural selection – the evolutionary forces described by Darwin.

This really was a congenial move, offering a compromise between religious and scientific explanations of life. As long as divine creation occurred prior to and outside of nature and its laws of cause and effect, both explanations could, at least in principle, stand side by side. And to some extent it worked. Some of Darwin’s contemporaries found that life’s subsequent capacity to evolve brought out the real spark of the original act of creation. Others, however, did not buy it. To them, Darwin’s theory constituted a frontal attack on religion, the idea of a divine creator, and the tenet that God had created man in his own image.

An ominous absence

In this context, it is noticeable that in On the Origin of Species Darwin stays well clear of the problematic issue of human descent. If there is a striking omission in the book, it is man. Darwin originally intended to include a chapter on human evolution but later decided against it. As a result, the descent of Homo sapiens does not really feature in this elaborate discussion of the forces that drive the evolution of species.

Darwin obviously considered the book controversial enough without agitating his readers unnecessarily by touching on human evolution. And his instincts did not betray him: Right from the day of its publication, the book became something of a bestseller. Also right from the start, it elicited mixed responses. Some saw it for the foundational work of the biological sciences it eventually became. Others decried it as a serious threat to the core of humanity.

Darwin eventually came to address human evolution in a separate volume, entitled The Descent of Man. Published in 1871, 12 years after On the Origin of Species, this book offered a detailed discussion of man’s descent from ape-like ancestors as well as the link between sexual selection and human race. Invariably, perhaps, its publication caused a fresh wave of outrage, criticism, and debate. By then, however, Darwin’s theory had already become accepted in certain parts of academe and beyond.

The power of the factual

Throughout his writing, Darwin sought to counter potential adverse responses to his theory with an onslaught of fact. On the Origin of Species is peppered with examples from the natural world illustrating the principles of evolutionary theory in practice.

The struggle for existence, for example, becomes tangible in several seedlings of the mistletoe competing for resources on the same branch of a tree; variation and natural selection has resulted in insects with the astonishing ability to mimic features in their natural environment such as leaves or branches. Correlations between physical characteristics of animals emerge in a whole plethora of minute observations such as these:

Hairless dogs have imperfect teeth; long-haired and coarse haired animals are apt to have … long or many horns; pigeons with feathered feet have skin between their outer toes; pigeons with short beaks have small feet, and those with long beak large feet.

Darwin was well-versed in the zoological and botanical literature of the day. He cites other scholars’ works in support of his theory whenever possible (and yet curiously, repeatedly apologises for not citing enough evidence). The result is a rich exposition of life in all its manifestations, which sometimes veers into the finicky – a problem made worse by Darwin’s notoriously long sentences – but never loses sight of its central argument.

Darwin’s sustained concerns with presenting a convincing case reveal the kind of reception he anticipated his book would have. He was well aware that it had the potential to redefine the foundations of biology. He explicitly says so in the conclusion: “When the views advanced by me in this volume … are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history.”

And Darwin’s views certainly did revolutionize. Yet before they could do so, they had to be accepted as fact. To ensure this he evoked the power of the factual itself.

Ultimately Darwin was successful. Even though these days creationism is witnessing a revival in some circles, no serious student of biology would doubt that the origin of species (including the human species) is grounded in exactly those evolutionary forces Darwin described.

Evolutionism within and beyond Darwin

As is frequently the case with the most powerful ideas, Darwin’s theory of evolution caught on in other areas of thought, too. In particular, during the latter part of the 19th century, all sorts of theories emerged seeking to apply the concept of evolution elsewhere. It became fashionable to speak of the “evolution” of human societies, for example, or of human cultures, religions – even of the cosmos.

A common explanatory pattern used in this context was the idea that phenomena such as culture or religion evolved from simple (“primitive”) forms to more complex ones. And, as one might guess, “more complex’ often equated simply with the present, Western culture and society, and the religion that shaped it: Christianity. The ideological point of this mode of explanation is easily discerned: Evolutionism here fed into ideas of European superiority, domination, and colonialism.

A particular nasty interpretation of Darwin’s theory came to be known as "social Darwinism”. It transferred the ideas of a “struggle for existence” and the “survival of the fittest” to human society, where they were used as an argument against social benefits for the poor and disadvantaged. In the most serious consequence, this lead to racism, eugenics, forced sterilisations, and the euthanasia of “unfit” people.

Yet this was a blatant misuse of Darwin’s theory, which was never meant as a prescription about how to manage a society. Moreover, ideas about racial superiority lacked any scientific basis and were not shared by Darwin. Quite the contrary: his insights into the common biological foundations of all humanity made Darwin a strong supporter of abolitionism (the doctrine advocating for the abolition of slavery). People simply twisted Darwin’s ideas to promote their own notions of superiority and the ideological agendas based on them.

Darwin today

Social Darwinism ultimately came to an end because it was unsupported by science. At the same time, ideas about cultural evolution fell out of fashion, as did ideas about allegedly “primitive” societies. These days, cultures of the past and present are no longer set against each other but appreciated in their own right, without seeking to establish a hierarchy between them.

Yet evolutionary theory is still going strong in disciplines such as computer science, medicine, and agriculture. In computer science, “genetic algorithms” solve optimisation problems by mimicking the process of natural selection. In medicine, the looming catastrophe of widespread antibiotic resistance is fundamentally an evolutionary problem: by overusing antibiotics, we have inadvertently favoured those rare bacteria that can withstand our drugs.

To prevent a decidedly bleak future where antibiotics are useless, researchers are increasingly using evolutionary theory to develop new ways of preventing resistance. Cancer, obesity and autoimmune conditions such as allergies and asthma can be understood (and possibly treated) through the lens of evolutionary science.

About 170 years after its first publication, On the Origin of Species and the theory it has come to represent still define the way in which the biological sciences conceive the dazzling diversity of life. Its continuing legacy consists in laying out a view of life as “one grand system” and in having described the biological mechanisms shaping it.

Yet the book also shows that the ultimate prevalence of the theory of evolution over rival forms of explanation did not come easily. Darwin had to think carefully how to convince his contemporaries of its validity. He had to defend himself against accusations of blasphemy; some of the resulting ridicule targeted him personally.

The traces of this struggle are clearly visible in his work. This alone makes it a must-read for all budding scientists, both real and armchair.

Literature

Evolution - This has 516 articles about Evolution.

Natural selection - This has 31 articles about Natural Selection.

Charles Darwin - This has 48 articles about Charles Darwin.

Guide to the Classics

Everything you always wanted to know about Jumping spiders.

Wikipedia - Jumping spider

Jumping spiders are a group of spiders that constitute the family Salticidae. This family contains over 600 described genera and more than 5800 described species, making it the largest family of spiders with about 13% of all species. Jumping spiders have some of the best vision among arthropods and use it in courtship, hunting, and navigation. Although they normally move unobtrusively and fairly slowly, most species are capable of very agile jumps, notably when hunting, but sometimes in response to sudden threats or crossing long gaps. Both their book lungs and tracheal system are well-developed, and they use both systems (bimodal breathing). Jumping spiders are generally recognized by their eye pattern. All jumping spiders have four pairs of eyes, with the anterior median pair being particularly large.

On May 26, 1647 Alse Young of Windsor, Connecticut was the first recorded instance of execution for witchcraft in the thirteen American colonies.

Wikipedia - Alse Young

Alse Young (ca. 1600 – 26 May 1647) of Windsor, Connecticut — sometimes Achsah Young or Alice Young — was the first recorded instance of execution for witchcraft in the thirteen American colonies.

Very little is recorded of Alice 'Alse' Young; her existence is only known through her reputation as a witch. She is believed to have been the wife of John Young, who bought a small parcel of land in Windsor in 1641, sold it in 1649, and then disappeared from the town records. She had a daughter, Alice Young Beamon, who would be accused of witchcraft in nearby Springfield, Massachusetts, some 30 years later. Even though Alice Young was a woman without a son when the witchcraft accusation was lodged, her husband was still alive during her accusation. This makes it unlikely that she was accused simply for the possibility of inheriting her husband's estate in the future. Other reasons are more probable.

There is no further record of Young's trial or the specifics of the charge, only that Alice Young was a woman. Early historical records indicate that an influenza epidemic took hold of New England including the town of Windsor, Connecticut Colony in early 1647. The mortality rate that year increased dramatically and included many children. It is possible that she was blamed for these deaths. Alice Young was possibly hanged at the Meeting House Square in Hartford, Connecticut, on what is now the site of the Old State House since a jail was also on the edge of the square. A journal of then Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor John Winthrop states that "One... of Windsor arraigned and executed at Hartford for a witch." [1] The second town clerk of Windsor, Matthew Grant also confirms the execution with the May 26, 1647 diary entry, "Alse Young was hanged." However, it was not until December 3, 1904, when Annie Eliot Trumbull, James Hammond Trumbull's daughter, revealed the identity of the first colonial witch hanging victim to the public in an article in the Hartford Courant entitled "One Blank of Windsor".

Efforts to acknowledge Alice Young both artistically and politically have taken place recently. Author Beth M Caruso wrote a novel (historical fiction) based on early Windsor and the life of Alice Young entitled One of Windsor: The Untold Story of America's First Witch Hanging published by Lady Slipper Press, October 29, 2015. The author's note details some of her research. Jason P. Krug, of the band Grimm Generation, wrote a song entitled "Alse Young" in October 2011. The town of Windsor, Connecticut passed a resolution clearing the names of its two witch hanging victims, Alice 'Alse' Young and Lydia Gilbert, on February 6, 2017.

In 1642, witchcraft became punishable by death in the Connecticut Colony. This capital offense was backed by references to the King James version of the Bible: Exodus (22:18) says, Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. And Leviticus (20:27) says, A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood (shall be) upon them. In Connecticut, witchcraft was last listed as a capital crime in 1715. The crime of witchcraft disappeared from the list of capital crimes when the laws were next issued in 1750.

In America we eat cows. Americans love cheeseburgers. In India people worship cows. "In India, the cow is a sacred animal for the Hindu religion and groups of fanatical nationalists justify violence against those who dare even to transport them to the market as 'deserved'."

05/21/2018 INDIA

Madhya Pradesh, a Muslim killed on suspicion of slaughtering sacred cows killed

Riyaz was 45 and was a tailor. He was beaten along with his friend Shakeel, who is hospitalized. Once discharged, the latter will have to respond to charges of cow slaughter.

Satna (AsiaNews / Agencies) - A Muslim from Madhya Pradesh has died as a result of injuries sustained by beatings received by a group of radical Hindus. The man, a 45-year-old tailor named Riyaz, was beaten to death because he was suspected of having slaughtered a cow along with another Muslim, 38-year-old Shakeel, who was seriously injured and hospitalized. In India, the cow is a sacred animal for the Hindu religion and groups of fanatical nationalists justify violence against those who dare even to transport them to the market as "deserved".

Yesterday, the officers arrested four people for murder and assault. The incident occurred last May 18 in the village of Amgara, in the district of Satna. According to police reconstructions, the assailants fought with the Muslims after the news that they were involved in the slaughter of cattle had spread. Rajesh Kumar Hingankar, a police superintendent of Satna, reports to the Hindustan Times that the carcasses of two cows had been found in the village. This is why officers registered the case against the deceased and the wounded, according to the Madhya Pradesh Cow Slaughter Ban Act of 2004 and the Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Cattle Preservation Act of 1959. "Shakeel – whom the police officer knows - will be arrested when discharged from the hospital ".

The murder of Riyaz threatens to reignite the tensions between the Muslim and Hindu communities, after several episodes of violence by "cows protectors". The Supreme Court also had to intervene on the issue, to annul the ban on the slaughter of cattle that some States led by the Hindu nationalist party BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) had approved. Established in an official way to protect the sacredness of the animal, in reality the ban discriminates the Islamic minority in particular.

Somebody was able to figure out religions are bullshit.

"I couldn't stop myself from curiosity, questioning and wanting real answers."

Curiosity is a good thing. Usually religious brainwashing kills curiosity. Fortunately you didn't have this problem and eventually you were able to realize the magic god fairy is just a childish fantasy. Well done!

Everything you always wanted to know about Fianarantsoa, Madagascar.

I just lost a chess game at https://lichess.org. My opponent speaks Persian (I think) and he lives Fianarantsoa, Madagascar. I still have to study the computer analysis to find out how I got killed.

I never heard of Fianarantsoa, Madagascar so I looked it up. Wikipedia and Google Images are my friends.

Wikipedia - Fianarantsoa

Fianarantsoa is a city (commune urbaine) in south central Madagascar, and is the capital of Haute Matsiatra Region.

It was built in the early 19th century by the Merina as the administrative capital for the newly conquered Betsileo kingdoms.

Fianarantsoa means "Good education" in Malagasy. It is a cultural and intellectual center for the whole island. It is home to some of the oldest Protestant and Lutheran cathedrals on the island, the oldest theological seminary (also Lutheran), as well as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Fianarantsoa. The city of "good education" also boasts a university named after it and built in 1972. Fianarantsoa is considered to be the capital of wine in Madagascar, because of the presence of many wine industries in the city.

Fianarantsoa has been known for its political activism and was one of the "hot spots" during the political crisis in 2002. Students of the University of Fianarantsoa have a reputation for sympathizing with radical leftist groups. The mayor of Fianarantsoa comes from the MFM political party whose colors are based on the anarcho-syndicalist flag.

Fianarantsoa was placed by the World Monuments Fund on its 2008 Watch List of the 100 Most Endangered Sites because many of the buildings in the old town are in dire need of repair. Fortunately, most of the repairs are relatively easy, and WMF hopes that the listing will attract attention to fund the necessary repairs to keep the old town looking beautiful.

A migrant from Mali who saved a child from a balcony fall is now famous. The president of France will make him a citizen and give him a job in the Fire Department. He is an excellent athlete. I couldn't do what he did even in my younger days, nor would I want to risk it. This is the video which everyone in the world has already seen.

Wall Street Journal article about Ireland: Vote Suggests a Weakened Church.

What I wrote for the Christian and Catholic assholes who subscribe to the Wall Street Journal:

The pope wears a funny hat and an expensive dress. He has been part of the out-of-control child abuse problem. The pope can take his fake moral values and shove it.

Ireland to Pope: Drop dead.

Virtually all of Europe to Pope: Shove it retard.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Not that anyone cares but I'm 1/2 Irish and 1/2 Luxembourg. My Irish ancestors were pioneers who chose land for their farm in Minnesota in the 1850's. My father was raised on the same farm.

My mother was raised on a farm in South Dakota. Her parents were born in Luxembourg.

I exist because these two farmers met each other at a dance in Minneapolis.

I also exist because during World War Two my father joined the Navy to avoid getting drafted. He got a job repairing warplanes in Bermuda. An important job but it didn't require getting killed.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Vote Suggests a Weakened Church. Some see Irish voters’ move to legalize abortion as pressuring Poland to loosen its laws.

By Drew Hinshaw and Francis X. Rocca May 28, 2018 101 COMMENTS

WARSAW, Poland—Ireland’s vote on Friday to legalize abortion echoed through another Roman Catholic-majority country in Europe, but one where the procedure is broadly illegal and the subject of a continuing battle.

“Ireland could be a pattern for Poland,” said Rozalia Kielmans-Ratynska, a legal analyst at the antiabortion Ordo Iuris Institute. “We think that now there will be pressure on Poland also to go the same direction.”

The Irish referendum—in which 66% of voters chose to allow parliament to legalize abortion—underscored the decadeslong decline of the Catholic church as a political force in that nation.

It also accentuated a mirror image in Poland, the last major nation in Europe whose Catholic Church still dominates politics, society, and culture. The only outstanding question on abortion in Poland is whether its Catholic and conservative government will succeed in tightening already strict laws regulating the procedure. Polish law prohibits abortion except in cases where the pregnancy results from a crime—such as rape or incest—threatens the health of the mother, or where the fetus suffers severe and irreversible impairment.

Bishops have pressed the ruling Law and Justice Party to introduce a law that would remove the allowance for fetuses with severe health problems such as Down syndrome, an exemption that accounts for roughly 96% of Poland’s legal and reported abortions. The party has introduced such proposals several times, but has sent them back for parliamentary review, after facing widespread protests by Poles who favor abortion rights.

“The debate is frozen,” said Liliana Religa, communications coordinator for The Federation for Women and Family Planning, an abortion-rights advocacy group in Warsaw. “The Ireland referendum was a great relief and source of happiness for us. We hope that Poland will follow the same path.”

The divergent paths of Ireland and Poland show the bifurcating direction of the Catholic church in Europe, as its clergy on the continent seek to ride turbulent tides of secularism, nationalism, and the shifting focus of the Church itself.

Under Pope Francis, the Vatican has recentered some of its emphasis on the faster growing populations of the developing world, in Latin America, Asia, or Africa. Although his two immediate predecessors, the Polish Pope John Paul II and German Pope Benedict XVI, called for a secularizing Europe to recover its Christian roots, the Argentine Pope Francis has largely focused on flocks outside Catholicism’s historic heartland.

The pope has also encouraged his clergy to play down culture-war issues of sexual and medical ethics in favor of calls for social and economic justice. He made no public statement in the run-up the Irish referendum.

Countries like Ireland and Poland are left to choose their own paths as they seek to fill pews in countries where populations are stagnating and young people are emigrating to wealthier, but more secular states like the U.K.

In Ireland, church sex-abuse scandals and secular liberalism have chipped away at both the Catholic church and the nationalism it once held arms with. In the run up to Friday’s referendum, clergy conceded that their criticism of the vote was unlikely to change its outcome—and might further inflame opinion against it.

“Ireland is now conforming to a western liberal democracy, especially on issues like abortion, same sex, civil partnership, marriage and divorce,” Archbishop Eamon Martin, president of the Irish Catholic bishops conference, told Irish public radio on Sunday. “This didn’t come out of the blue and it is not something new for us,” he added.

In Poland, however, nationalism is on the upswing. Polish voters sense that Europe is headed down a separate, more secular path, and the ruling Law and Justice party campaigns on this, portraying itself as a defender of threatened moral values.

That has reinforced the political position of the church. The popular state-owned news broadcaster, Telewizja Polska, unambiguously backs the culturally conservative views of local bishops. Its recent coverage of the Irish referendum referred to “the once Catholic Ireland.”

Local clergy and the local government have both rebuffed Pope Francis’s call to accept Muslim refugees. Crucifixes hang in many government offices, often next to the flag of the EU, an organization most Poles wish to stay a member of.

Poland was once among the easiest places in Europe to get access to an abortion. Under Communism, ferries brought pregnant women from Sweden and Denmark for the procedure, which was free of charge. “It was quite simple,” said Ewa Dąbrowska-Szulc, an abortion-rights activist in Poland. “You could go to the doctor or to the gynecologist in a state-owned hospital, and you didn’t pay anything.”

That changed at the end of the Cold War, when the Catholic church emerged as a widely-trusted voice endowed with moral authority. A 1993 law turned Poland into one of the most antiabortion nations in Europe. The number of legal and reported abortions plummeted to about 1,000 last year. Tens of thousands continue to cross the border, to nearby clinics in Germany and Slovakia with Polish staff on hand to manage the exodus, or take pills ordered from the internet.

A poll last week found 56% of Poles would like to keep the current abortion law as it is, 9% wished to tighten it and 29% wanted to loosen it, the Polish opinion polling organization IBRiS found. In January, liberal and centrist parties introduced a proposal to allow abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy.

Thirty-nine liberal and centrist members of parliament helped to vote it down.

—Natalia Ojewska in Warsaw contributed this article.

Write to Drew Hinshaw at drew.hinshaw@wsj.com and Francis X. Rocca at francis.rocca@wsj.com

Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President and the author of our Declaration of Independence, had extreme contempt for the disgusting Christian death cult.

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd President of the United States and the author of our Declaration of Independence.

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
—Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

Jefferson's word for the Bible? Dunghill.

What happened to the UK? This is very strange. Until now I was a big fan of Theresa May. Now I think she's an idiot.

Profound injustice in the police state of Britain

Tommy Robinson was arrested on Friday, May 25, 2018, outside Leeds Crown Court for live-streaming interviews with people who were there to protest the prostitution of underage girls by the Muslim men who were on trial that day in the court. He did nothing wrong, nothing illegal. He had even asked a police officer where he could and couldn’t stand to do his interviews.

He was arrested because Theresa May runs a police state in which any criticism of Muslims is a greater offense than the pimping of underage girls. Within an hour, Tommy was arrested, tried, and sentenced to thirteen months in prison. Some reports say the charge was “disturbance of the peace”, some say “contempt of court”. He is likely to be put among the general population of the prison, where Muslims will beat him – possibly to death.

The court also forbade the reporting of his arrest and sentence.

But the word got out. And this has so incensed the British people – or some of them – at last, that his arrest was followed by riots in Whitehall.

The leader of the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders, made a public protest (see the video here), and raised the matter in the Dutch parliament, asking the Dutch foreign minister to take action on behalf of Tommy Robinson. A member of the German Bundestag offered Tommy political asylum in Germany.

Bruce Bawer writes at Gatestone:

The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying.

Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison.

Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.

In Britain, rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.

Tommy Robinson now belongs among the great national heroes of the British people.

Religious wars never end.

New York Times - Gaza Militants Fire Barrage of Mortars Into Israel

By Isabel Kershner and David M. Halbfinger May 29, 2018

JERUSALEM — Islamic militants in Gaza attacked southern Israel with rockets and mortars on Tuesday and Israel responded instantly with a wave of airstrikes across the Palestinian territory, a sharp escalation of violence after weeks of deadly protests, arson attacks and armed clashes along the border.

The exchanges were the most intense cross-border hostilities in Gaza since the two sides fought a 50-day war in the summer of 2014.

The military wing of Hamas — the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza — claimed responsibility jointly with another faction, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Earlier in the day, it was initially assumed that Islamic Jihad was behind most of the attacks after Israel killed three of its members on Sunday.

“Bombing will be met by bombing and blood for blood,” the two groups said in the joint claim.

Israel responded with airstrikes on 35 targets in Gaza after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel held Hamas responsible for the mortar attacks. Israel’s Iron Dome antimissile system intercepted dozens of incoming projectiles, according to the military.

Three soldiers and one civilian were injured on the Israeli side, but no fatalities were reported.

Tensions have been spiraling along the border in recent weeks during a series of Palestinian protests against the 11-year blockade of the Gaza Strip and to press Palestinian claims to lands in what is now Israel. Israel insisted it was not seeking to escalate, and that it was up to Hamas to decide whether to ratchet things up or stand down.

“Quiet will be met with quiet and violence with an appropriate response,” said Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman. But as he spoke, Israel’s civil defense system was alerting its citizens to a fresh round of incoming rockets and more alerts followed.

The military also said it had discovered and destroyed a U-shaped tunnel dug by Hamas from Gaza heading south into Egypt, then looping back north and extending about 900 yards into Israel. Colonel Conricus said the tunnel was intended for both smuggling and attacks and had been completed but not yet been put into use.

One mortar shell fired Tuesday morning struck in the yard of a kindergarten in an Israeli border community shortly before preschoolers were to arrive. Television images showed the fortified walls of the kindergarten pockmarked with shrapnel and hunks of metal from the mortar shell jutting out of the sand in the playground.

Soon after the initial barrage of 25 mortars, Israeli authorities announced a return to normal and schools and kindergartens in the area opened as usual, suggesting that the military was not expecting, or planning, an immediate escalation into a broader conflict.

Half an hour later, however, sirens blared again as more mortar rounds were launched. That was followed by more sirens and more mortars.

By afternoon, cellphones were buzzing with alerts of incoming rockets a few times an hour, and Colonel Conricus said local residents had been told not to stray more than a 15-second run from the nearest bomb shelter.

“In some cases over the last few hours, we’ve been able to provide 20 seconds of warning. But the current standard of warning is for 15 seconds,” he said.

One of the rockets fired from Gaza hit a major supply line for electricity from Israel to Gaza and Israel’s electric company said repairs would have to wait until it was safe for crews to work on it. That was expected to further reduce the sporadic electricity supply that already leaves Gazans without power for many hours a day.

Suspicion for Tuesday’s attacks initially fell on Islamic Jihad, an extremist group backed by Iran which sometimes rivals Hamas but sometimes works with the group against Israel.

On Sunday, Israel shelled an Islamic Jihad observation post in southern Gaza, killing three members of the group.

The Israeli military said was a response to an explosive being planted the night before along the security fence dividing Gaza from Israel. The bomb, hidden in a pair of wire cutters, exploded as sappers neutralized it remotely. There were no injuries on the Israeli side.

Islamic Jihad vowed to respond. Dawoud Shehab, a spokesman for the group, welcomed the mortar barrage, saying, “Our Palestinian people’s blood is not cheap.”

Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas are heavily funded by Iran, the Israeli military noted, adding that the mortars used Tuesday were standard Iranian munitions. But officials stopped short of accusing Iran of ordering the attack.

Experts said that there was ample room for the two sides to return to a standoff after Tuesday’s fighting, but that a different outcome of the morning’s mortar attack could have tied Israel’s hands.

Amos Harel, the military affairs analyst for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, said if the mortar had struck near the kindergarten half an hour later, it would likely have led to a major Israeli campaign.

“If we had, God forbid, two or three kids dying there, then the public reaction and political reaction would have been much different and we may have been facing a larger Israeli operation, even a ground operation in Gaza right now,” he said.

Mr. Netanyahu met late Tuesday with the defense minister and the army chief of staff.

“Israel views harshly the attacks against it and its communities by Hamas and Islamic Jihad from Gaza,” the prime minister said earlier in the day. “Israel will exact a heavy price from whoever tries to harm it and we view Hamas as bearing the responsibility for preventing such attacks against us.”

The United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Nickolay E. Mladenov, condemned the barrage of fire out of Gaza.

“Such attacks are unacceptable and undermine the serious efforts by the international community to improve the situation in Gaza,” he said. “All parties must exercise restraint, avoid escalation and prevent incidents that jeopardize the lives of Palestinians and Israelis.”

The European Union ambassador to Israel, Emanuele Giaufret, wrote on Twitter, “I know the resilience of communities in southern Israel but indiscriminate attacks are totally unacceptable and to be condemned unreservedly.”

As many as 120 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since March 30, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, mostly by snipers during the protests and half of them in a single day, May 14, the peak of the campaign.

The May 14 protests were timed to coincide with the opening of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem and came on the eve of the 70th anniversary of what Palestinians call the nakba, or catastrophe, referring to the war surrounding Israel’s establishment in 1948.

Israel said it was defending its border and the nearby communities against a mass breach by the protesters, adding that Gaza militants intended to use unarmed civilian protesters as cover to infiltrate Israeli territory and attack Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Palestinians have also sent incendiary kites and balloons over the border fence from Gaza, setting hundreds of fires in the fields and forest on the Israeli side.

Over the weekend, a small group of Palestinians cut through the fence and set fire to an empty Israeli military post. Israeli fighter jets struck a Hamas military compound in response. And late Monday, heavy machine-gun fire from Gaza hit buildings in the Israeli border town of Sderot.

Tuesday’s hostilities extended not just below and above ground, but out to sea. A Hamas boat carrying people needing medical attention attempted to run the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza and head to Cyprus. But it was stopped and the boat was towed to the Israeli port city of Ashdod without any harm to the 17 people aboard, Israel said.

Iyad Abuheweila contributed reporting from Gaza.