Jeffrey Sachs' extensive and detailed discussion of the Israel - U.S. relationship. Please listen.

In this interview, Tucker Carlson is interviewing Jeffrey Sachs.

Jeffrey David Sachs is an American economist and public policy analyst who is a professor at Columbia University, where he was formerly director of The Earth Institute. He worked on sustainable development and economic development...

Sachs is co-founder and chief strategist of Millennium Promise Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ending extreme poverty and hunger. From 2002 to 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project's work on the MDGs. In 2010, he became a commissioner for the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, whose stated aim is to boost the importance of broadband internet in international policy.[12] Sachs has written several books and received several awards. His views on economics, on the origin of COVID-19, and on the Russian invasion of Ukraine have garnered attention and criticism.

I don't personally like or follow Tucker Carlson, but in this case he is interviewing someone whose views on the Israel/U.S. relationship parallel my own.  Jeffrey Sachs knows the issues, speaks well, and doesn't pull any punches.  Please give this a listen.

The final two minutes are a commercial presentation by the host.  I've closed comments for this post, because I don't have time to curate a firestorm of comments.

Magic tricks are fun to watch

Minnesotans volunteer to rescue loons

Nobody has to do this.  Nobody is paid to do this.  People do this because they are basically nice.

This notice was posted on Facebook by the Longville Campground Residents group.  I am sure there are similar volunteer organizations around the country. 

Jane Goodall was an expert on alpha males

In a lifetime studying the behavior of chimpanzees, Jane Goodall became something of an authority on the aggressiveness of alpha male adults. Now, in an interview released just days after her death, the famed primatologist reveals what she would do with Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other human beings she saw as showing similar traits: launch them on a one-way trip into space...

“There are people I don’t like, and I would like to put them on one of Musk’s spaceships and send them all off to the planet he’s sure he’s going to discover,” Goodall tells interviewer Brad Falchuk during the revelatory 55-minute special discussing her life, work and legacy...

[Musk would] be the host. You can imagine who I’d put on that spaceship. Along with Musk would be Trump and some of Trump’s real supporters,” she said.  “And then I would put [Russian president Vladimir] Putin in there, and I would put [China’s] President Xi. I’d certainly put [Israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu in there and his far-right government. Put them all on that spaceship and send them off.”...

In a 2022 interview with MSNBC she said [Trump] exhibited “the same sort of behavior as a male chimpanzee will show when he’s competing for dominance with another. They’re upright, they swagger, they project themselves as really more large and aggressive than they may actually be in order to intimidate their rivals.”...

“We get, interestingly, two types of alpha. One does it all by aggression, and because they’re strong and they fight, they don’t last very long. Others do it by using their brains, like a young male will only challenge a higher-ranking one if his friend, often his brother, is with him. And you know, they last much, much longer,” she said.

She also examined the “politicization” of behavior, and what her studies had taught her about aggressive behaviors shown by groups of humans and chimpanzees when confronted with something they perceived as hostile, even if no threat existed.

“Chimps see a stranger from a neighboring community, and they get all excited, and the hair stands out, and they reach out and touch another, and they’ve got these faces of anger and fear, and it catches, and the others catch that feeling that this one male has had, and they all become aggressive,” she said.

“It’s contagious,” she added. “Some of these demonstrations that turn aggressive, it sweeps through them. They all want to become and join in and become aggressive. They’re protecting their territory or fighting for dominance.”

Falchuk asked if she believed it was the same for humans. “Probably, sometimes yes. But I truly believe that most people are decent,” she said.

I quite agree with her that most people are decent.  See adjacent post about loon rescues.

Photo and text excerpted from The Guardian.

Today (10/6) is Mad Hatter Day

Explained here:

Mad Hatter Day is 10/6. The date was chosen from the illustrations by John Tenniel in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, wherein the Mad Hatter is always seen wearing a hat bearing a slip of paper with the notation "In this style 10/6". We take this as inspiration to behave in the style of the Mad Hatter on 10/6 (which is October 6 here, although in Britain Mad  Hatter Day occurs on June 10...but I digress...)

Mad Hatter Day began in Boulder, CO, in 1986, among some computer folk who had nothing better to do. It was immediately recognized as valuable because they caused less damage than if they'd been doing their jobs.

As I searched this topic on the 'net today, it was interesting to see how many observers misinterpret the 10/6 on his hat as being either a style number ("The Mad Hatter’s top hat, according to Lewis Carroll, was of the 10/6 style") or worse ("my birthdate (10/6) is on his hat although I think that is his hat size!"). The correct interpretation, of course, is that "the paper in the Mad Hatter's Hat was really an order to make a hat in the style shown, to cost ten shillings sixpence."

Reposted every several years.

Introducing Claire McCardell

Some readers may be quite familiar with this lady, but a recent article in The Atlantic was my introduction to her.

Claire McCardell hated being uncomfortable. This was true long before she became one of America’s most famous fashion designers in the 1950s, her influence felt in every woman’s wardrobe, her face on the cover of Time magazine.

As a young girl growing up in Maryland, she hated wearing a dress when climbing trees, and didn’t understand why she couldn’t wear pants with pockets like her brothers—she had nowhere to put the apples she picked. At summer camp, she loathed swimming in the cumbersome full-length stockings women were expected to wear, so she ditched hers and went bare-legged in the lake, even though she knew she’d get in trouble. When she was just starting out as a fashion designer, in the 1930s, she went on a ski trip to New Hampshire and one evening saw a woman shivering in a thin satin dress. Why, McCardell wondered, couldn’t an evening gown be made out of something warmer, so a woman could actually enjoy herself?

McCardell made a career out of asking such questions, and helped transform American fashion in the process, as Elizabeth Evitts Dickinson details in her lively and psychologically astute biography, Claire McCardell: The Designer Who Set Women Free. The young designer who came home from New Hampshire and devised a blue wool evening dress was often dismissed by her bosses for her “crazy” ideas—wool was for coats, not parties! She was told to keep copying the latest looks from Paris, as was customary in the American garment trade at the time. In those early years, McCardell didn’t have the clout to design apparel her way. But she had a core conviction, and she never abandoned it: Women deserve to be comfortable—in their clothes, and in the world...

McCardell insisted on putting pockets in women’s clothing; previously, pockets were reserved almost exclusively for men... She put fasteners on the side of her clothes rather than the back, so women could get dressed without a husband or a maid. She partnered with Capezio to popularize the ballet flat—and the idea that women didn’t always have to wear heels. When air travel became possible, and steamer trunks were replaced with slim suitcases, McCardell developed separates: tops and bottoms you could mix and match so that you didn’t have to bring a bulky parade of dresses for every occasion. She patented the wrap dress, mainstreamed the leotard, stripped linings out of swimsuits so that women didn’t have to sit sodden and cold on the beach. Ever worn denim? McCardell is the one who ignored its provenance as a humble workingman’s textile and brought it to women’s wear.

More at the link.  I don't plan to read the book and won't be reviewing it here, but I'm introducing her and the book because I'm sure this is the type of fashion designer my pragmatic mother would have loved.

If you received a check from the "National Cancer Research Center"...

... do some research before deciding how to proceed.

Our check (for $2.50) arrived yesterday inside a fundraising appeal, and I was immediately suspicious.  Unsolicited checks can be used as vehicles for scams in which your endorsement of the check commits you to obligations in the fine print.  That did not appear to be the case with this check.

The accompanying letter from Steven L. Blumenthal states -

"The $2.50 check is real.  You could put this letter aside, cassh the check, and forget all about our important laboratory research and national cancer education programs.  But what I really hope you will do is return the $2.50 check along with your own gift of $10.00 or more to help in our fight against cancer."

My wife immediately logged on to access the Charity Navigator website (I would encourage everyone to bookmark this worthwhile site for future reference).  The "National Cancer Research Institute" is, as indicated on their checks, a project of the Walker Cancer Research Institute, which is rated by Charity Navigator with one star (out of a possible four) for accountability and transparency, and 2/4 for finances.  They note that over 50% of the funds raised are used for additional fundraising.  So if you send them $10, about $5 of that will be used to send mailings to more people.

"Program expenses" receive 47% of the funds.  Regarding that "program," Wikipedia states:

The public education portion of the solicitation consists of an approximately 1/8 page list of "risk factors for breast cancer" on the back side of the solicitation. Overall, 52.11% + 43.14% (95.25%) of all donations go to either direct or indirect fundraising costs. The card states that 3.81% of funds go directly to research program services (38 cents out of a $10.00 donation). Thus, of the $12,568,927 raised by WCRI, $478,876.11 went directly to research. As a comparison, an NIH grant awarded to a single Investigator for a specific research study typically ranges from $25,000 to $250,000.

If you read the comments at Charity Navigator, you will see that some people say they cash the check and donate the money to "real" charities.  Or you can keep the money.  But note this - your name and address are on the check (with a scannable barcode), and...

Numerous complaints have been made by individuals who are receiving dozens of letters soliciting funds and are unable to persuade the charity to remove their names from the mailing list. The Center then sells those names to other charities, and people throughout the country have complained of being inundated by requests for money that they can not stop.

The choice is yours.  My check went into the shredder.

Reposted from 2012, because after five years this organization is still sending out these checks, and the public continues to find this old post (over 10,000 views so far...) via Google.  Perhaps it will be even easier to find if I make the date more recent.

Re-reposted from 2017, because people are still getting these checks in the mail.

Reposted again because I received a comment today that these checks are still being mailed (although the size of the checks has declined to $1.95).  Also of note, when I went back to Charity Navigator to confirm the evaluation of this organization, I note they have changed their name to the Walker Cancer Research Institute, and their evaluation places them as a "Zero-Star Charity."  They pay their top four employees over $450K from a revenue of about $2M.

Advice to a time-traveler

I think this is the first New Yorker cartoon I've laughed at in years.

Beard

"Participant Andreas Pelowski from Germany poses during the European Beard Championship in Leogang, Austria, on September 20, 2025"  Credit Johann Groder / APA / EXPA / AFP / Getty.

I thought it was a mustache until I looked more closely.  One of the Photos of the Week at The Atlantic.

The complexities of the Russia-Ukraine war

An article in last month's issue of Harper's Magazine reviewed two newly-published books examining the history of the current war between Russia and Ukraine.

Jonathan Haslam, a historian of Soviet foreign policy and the author of the new book Hubris: The American Origins of Russia’s War Against Ukraine, has a rather different analysis. He starts his story a quarter century earlier, in 1989—two years before Ukraine achieved independence. As for who started it: as the title of the book suggests, Ukraine has less of a role to play in his account than the United States does.

Some tens of thousands of Ukrainians have perished over the past three years, including more than ten thousand civilians; their country lies in ruins. At least one hundred thousand Russian soldiers have died, too. Yet an honest reckoning with the root causes of this death and destruction has largely eluded political leaders, who have instead been guided by demands for moral clarity—the expectation that they oppose the illegal act of invading another country without either U.N. authority or any credible argument for self-defense. In this sense, Putin’s invasion has been treated in much the way many liberals have treated Trump’s rise—as an unprovoked aberration, an alien force from nowhere.

A lone gunman theory has its comforts: if Putin is just an evil man, nothing needs to change except opposing his crimes and follies. If the truth is even a little more complex, however—and Hubris proves that it is complex indeed—focusing blame on Putin alone launders the complicity of a far wider range of participants, and of the long-term policy they helped make. At stake is not only the path to peace in Eastern Europe but the future and purpose of American power in the world...

Like his fellow realist John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, Haslam identifies NATO’s expansion eastward as a wound to Russia’s pride. This isn’t to say that he accepts Russia’s nonsensical rationale for the invasion as “self-defense.” But, as he argues, Russia’s leaders and population had been humiliated, and the country found itself increasingly isolated—things American politicians did nothing to counteract and occasionally celebrated. This didn’t guarantee, let alone justify, a war. But it did set up the conditions for one...

Bush continued NATO’s expansion, pushing the alliance into seven new nations, including the Baltic countries sharing a border with Russia, thus raising Russian hackles further. After all, the arrival of NATO in places that had been part of the Soviet Union itself was far less a response to Russian military threats than it was a ratification and recognition of the West’s superior economic and political power. But America’s support for the “color revolutions” in Georgia in 2003–04 as well as Ukraine in 2004–05—coinciding with Bush’s Iraq War—pushed things too far. “The United States,” Haslam explains, “had become accustomed to looking down on Russia as a defeated power of little or no account,” asserting the power to occupy other countries while highlighting the diminution of Russian power. The double standard was glaring, even as the consequence of the Bush years was to normalize illegal invasions—and to destabilize the Middle East, awakening Putin’s interest in the great game of European imperial designs there.

More at the link, which I won't try to summarize or excerpt further.  I will, however, express my dismay at the choices of the color palette for the embedded map of NATO encroachment on Russia.  

"Of Oz The Wizard"

This appears to be a full-length video of the original Wizard of Oz movie rearranged alphabetically according to spoken dialogue (and credits).  It's probably TL;DW but is surprisingy engaging to explore.

Via Kottke, where there is embedded a similarly adapted Star Wars movie.  Creator comments here.

Why facts don't change some people's minds

Via Laughing Squid

Troglodyte's home

This is a relatively long video.  A speeded-up compressed version is here.

This post has been cancelled

So to speak.  I originally posted the image above as a contest to guess what it is:

It's certainly a representation of a skull.  For what purpose?  A functional item, or an objet d'art?  If it's art, of what era/style?  Jewelry - from when?  Toy/game - which one?  European, American, Asian, Incan?  Your grade will be based 1/3 on era (century), 1/3 on geography (continent) and 1/3 on use/purpose.

Answer tomorrow, with source credits.

But it turned out to be too easy.  Ponder the photo for a moment to see what you would have guessed, then look beneath the fold for the answer...

An Instance of the Fingerpost

"This is the best book I've read this year [2010].

Most reviews describe An Instance of the Fingerpost as a "historical mystery," but the mystery component is in my view a minor part of the book.  Granted, the plot does revolve around the question of who put poison in the wine bottle, but as a whodunit it would pale next to the works of classic mystery writers.  The value for me was to step right into the 17th century and get a sense of people's lives and attitudes and beliefs.

The story is told by four narrators (which, as my wife reminded me, is basically the format for Rashomon), and, as in that movie, the narrations differ on key points.  By the time I was on the third narrative, I started going back to read the first one again to compare salient points.  Doing so was not  onerous, because Pears writes in a style that's very easy to read, and despite writing about the 17th century he seems to avoid the temptation to litter the text with archaic words.

The most difficult aspect (for me, perhaps not for you) was that much of the action and motivation of the characters center on the Restoration of the English monarch in the 1660s, which I have never much understood, or frankly cared about.  But I did learn a lot about ordinary people's lives and the role of women and the birth pangs of medical science and the conflicts of religious dogma and the ethics of the time.

This is not a quick read; you're looking at some 600+ pages even if you don't flip back and forth to compare stories.  But it won't take long to figure out if you like it or not; I should think in an hour's time, after reading a chapter or two, you'll know whether or not you're going to enjoy it.

After finishing this book, I checked out another novel by this author (The Dream of Scipio), but found that one too cumbersome to follow as it shuttled between three people in different centuries; Pears is an art historian by profession and has written some mysteries about that field of study, so perhaps I should try one of those.

Those who have read the book, please feel free to chime in with your own thoughts."

Reposted from 2010 to add additional commentary:

For as long as I can remember I've been recording the titles of books I've read and given them a "grade" from 1-4+.  Those rated 3+ were worth the time and the 4+ are ones I might like to read again in the future.  Last year I posted in TYWKIWDBI a list of my 4+ rated books.

As I noted at that time in a comment, I'm reaching such an advanced age that common sense suggests that if I'm ever going to re-read the best stuff, I'd better get started.  So this summer I picked from my list this book, which I had read in 2010.  As I started the re-read I realized that there were important plot points I had forgotten, including the identity of the person who poisoned the wine bottle, and the ultimate fate of several key characters.  Which was good.

Once again I was in awe over the scholarship of the author, whose breadth and depth of knowledge about 17th century history, science, medicine,  law, ethics etc is extensive.  And again I was pleased by the style of the narration.  But once again I quickly tired of the details of 17th century royal politics and intrigue.  By the time I finished the first three sections by the "unreliable narrators" I was tempted to demote the book to a 3+.  But then I encountered the wonderful fourth section by the "truth-teller" (Oxford antiquarian Anthony Wood, if you want to keep track of him in the first 3 sections).  That final section sorted out all of the mysteries and puzzlements and discrepancies among the first three narrations, and I was delighted to discover anew the identity of the poisoner and the surprising fate of the principal characters.

I need to avoid any comments that might serve as spoilers, but I will append some notes I made during the second read...

Several references to the "elaboratory" of scientist Robert Boyle.  The word is now obsolete, but hints at the relation of "laboratory" and "elaborate."

A comment re a planned public dissection of a human cadaver elicits the comment that "All that will happen is that you will furnish a rarity show for any spoitty undergraduate who cares to come along and watch."  Perhaps related to the modern term "raree show" as cheap entertainment.

One character has an inflamed eye which he has been treating with ingredients he prepared himself... "What ingredients were they?"  "Dried dog excrement," he said.  "What?"  "I had it from my doctor... the king's physician... and a man of good family.  It is an infallible cure, tested through the ages.  A pedigree dog, as well.  It belongs to the warden." (p. 97)  The status of medical diagnosis and care of this period are recurrently cringeworthy.

After three characters eat at a tavern, they call for the shared pipe:  "... Wood took a sip of his drink, and called over to the serving hatch for a pipe to be brought.  Lower added his call for one as well, but I declined.  Not that I object to a little tobacco in the evening, especially when my bowels are tight, but sometimes pipes which have been overused by the general clientele of taverns do have a taste of sour spittle..." (p. 196)

"It had been a complicated case and the town was by no means convinced of her guilt.  She had killed a man whom she said had raped her, but the jury judged this a lie because she had fallen pregnant, which cannot occur without the woman taking pleasure in the act.  Normally her condition would have spared her the gallows, but she had lost the child and also any defense against the hangman.  An unfortunate outcome, which those who believed in her guilt considered divine providence." (204)  

"The old couple in charge of the house had promised us a hot bath when we introduced ourselves at midday and I was eager to take up the offer: I had not immersed since the previous autumn and felt that not only could my constitution stand it, my morale would be immeasurably lifted..." (207)

"... he knew nothing of the law and believed it to have something to do with justice.  As I had once done myself, until I studied it..." (293)                

"To gain a post worth £50 a year, a friend of mine had to lay out near £750 in bribes, all borrowed at interest, and consequently must defraud the government of more than £200 per year to live decently and pay his debts..." (318)

When asked why marriage does not appeal to her, a woman replies "To hand over my hard-earned fortune to my husband?  Be unable to do anything without his permission?  Risk being disinherited of my own money when he dies?  Oh, yes.  A wonderful dream..." (430)

"Euripides talks of Tithonus, whom Eos loved so well she begged Zeus to give him eternal life.  But mistakenly she asked not for youth as well and he suffered an eternity of decrepitude until even the cruel gods took pity on him."  The legend goes on to say that Tithonus was transformed into a cicada.

"In each generation the Messiah would be reborn, would be betrayed, would die, and be resurrected, until mankind turns away from evil, and sins no more." (845)  This is an ancient belief that is carried on in part in modern Hasidic traditions.

Here is the Wikipedia page describing and illustrating fingerposts.  The reference in the book title is to an aphorism from Francis Bacon: "When in a Search of any Nature the Understanding stands suspended, then Instances of the Fingerpost shew the true and inviolable Way in which the Question is to be decided.  These Instances afford great Light, so that the Course of the Investigation will sometimes be terminated by them.  Sometimes, indeed these Instances are found amongst that Evidence already set down."

Enough.  But in closing I will add this photo of the large-print edition I received from our library.  I should think some graphic designer or copyeditor caught hell for the design mistake...