The second song, “Boys of Summer“, was released by Henley on a solo album in 1984. He’s not in great voice during this live performance, which is the only one I could find on YouTube. Lyrics are by Henley; music by Mike Campbell. It’s hard to believe this song is nearly thirty years old. It’s one of several in which Henley mourns his lost youth, which he’s been doing since he was in his thirties.

Wikipedia explains the song’s origin:

Henley’s song has a haunting rhythm and timbre, cemented by Campbell’s 1-7-5 repetitive riff over a vi-IV-V-IV chord pattern. Superficially, the song appears to be about the passing of youth and entering middle age, with the theme of ‘summer love’ apparent in the choruses, and of reminiscence of a past relationship. [JAC: Superficially? I can't detect any deeper meaning, but that's okay.]

In a 1987 interview with Rolling Stone, Henley explained that the song is more about aging and questioning the past—a recurring theme in Henley’s lyrics (cf. “The End of the Innocence”, and “Taking You Home”.)

In an interview with NME in 1985, Henley explained the ‘Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac’ lyrics as an example of his generation selling out:

“I was driving down the San Diego freeway and got passed by a $21,000 Cadillac Seville, the status symbol of the Right-wing upper-middle-class American bourgeoisie – all the guys with the blue blazers with the crests and the grey pants – and there was this Grateful Dead ’Deadhead’ bumper sticker on it!”

In an interview with Knoxville.com, Neil Giraldo, Pat Benatar’s guitarist and husband, says that Henley came in the studio while he was in the process of recording the song “Love Is a Battlefield” using an up tempo beat, and asked Giraldo if he could steal the sound for use in his song, “The Boys of Summer”, to which Giraldo gave his permission.

The recorded version of the song, without the strained voice, is here.

According to Business Insider, the python’s name was Julius and, sadly, he died of an infection last year.  The owners are quoted as saying this:

Bored of being in a dark room, she flips on the light, opens the door and bails.

This particular episode takes place at 1am.

This is why we keep doors locked with her around. We don’t need her harassing the neighbors.

I’m pretty sure this was a real question, but, as always, caveat emptor.

via I Fucking Love Science

Wild foxes aren’t known to hang around humans too often, but that changed for one little fox that turned to two men for help after getting stuck in a jar.

Two men walking along a dirt road in Russia came upon a red fox with its head stuck in a glass jar. The fox walked toward them, and one of the men bent down to help. He grabbed the jar, pulled the scruff of the animal’s neck and freed it.

As the kit scampered away, the man joked, “Where’s my thank you?” according to a Huffington Post translation.

Well, I’m not so sure. It’s entirely possible that the animal was simply disoriented, which effaced its fear of humans. It’s hard for me to believe that a wild animal that has either an evolved or learned fear of humans would suddenly find itself in a pickle and, overcoming those fears, ask for help—or even know what “asking for help” means.

Anyway, HuffPo mentions a few other stuck-animal rescues:

On Saturday, Pennsylvania police rescued a young bear whose head was stuck in a plastic jar for at least 11 days, according to the Associated Press. Likewise, officers in Florida’s Big Pine Key saved a deer that got its head stuck in a bag of Doritos chips.

Here’s the fox video; judge for yourself:

h/t: Barry

Here are a few of the student’s comments on the thread (the pseudonym is Kettyr). There are some inquiries, and the debate turns at times to philosophy and ethics, but the interesting part is what, according to Kettyr, Hedin said to his class (Kettyr’s comments are indented):

***

Dr. Hedin taught a science class designed to challenge the “limits” of science. He is now under fire by the FFRF for his course. Here is a good summary. And THIS article has the reading list.

I took the course in the Spring of 2011 and clashed with Hedin, both in assignments, out-of-class communication, and in-class discussion. Ask me anything.

***

Hedin is a scientist. He has a Ph.D. in physics. He believes that the big bang happened, but he also believes that there is a “limit” to science. To me, this makes him an apologist, desperately clinging to a belief system that is becoming exponentially more irrelevant as humans adopt reason. He believes in the Cambrian Explosion, another that we just don’t understand yet. I asked him one day, “Why is it that the limit of science is god, and not just ignorance?” and he had a lot of reasons why it must be God and there are things we will never know, though I think that his argument is self-defeating.

***

His biggest example was “what came before the Big Bang?” He believes the Big Bang happened, but he also believes it is a divinely triggered event. That is, in his words, a limit to scientific knowledge. When, in reality, it’s substituting lack of knowledge with a fabricated reality.

***

Another commenter, “Islamdunkbrunch,” asks this:

Do you think he went over the line promoting Christianity? What was the tone like in the class? As an atheist, were you challenged on your beliefs?

***

Kettyr replies (my emphasis), showing the immense pedagogical stupidity of Hedin:

1. I do think he occasionally went over the line. As soon as I realized how firm his beliefs were, I knew what I was getting into. The biggest thing I remember was when I asked him why it is HIS god (the Christian god) that must be the “answer” to what science cannot explain. He said “it’s not like it’s some sort of Hindu monkey god.” That was very over the line.
2. The class was half-and-half between small-group discussion (most of the questions were reasonable–like “What was before the Big Bang?”–though some were very leading) and his lectures. His lectures were very one-sided, extremely so, and he would have us do readings or watch clips from anti-evolution programs or movies, like Ben Stein’s documentary.
3. I was the only atheist in a class of about 25 students, and found that my challenges (which were many) came from the class as a whole. He was not very confrontational and did allow for an open forum of ideas, but the other students agreed with him and often ganged up on me with some pretty harsh words. His biggest challenges came in the form of critiques on writings for the class, which were a more unopposed soap box than the class discussions.

and adds this:

The biggest was when I asked him why the Christian god is the answer to whatever science cannot explain. He said that it was not just his beliefs, it was a simple fact that it must be the Christian god. He then said, and this is a direct quote, “It’s not like it was some Hindu monkey god.” I blew up, and in hindsight I wish I had been more level-headed. I said that was not just hypocritical but a damnation of an entire population whose beliefs are just as valid as his. We argued for about five or ten minutes, and it was one of those situations where the other students got uncomfortable and quiet. He was not mean or hurtful, but I think he wished he hadn’t said it, and I wish I had been calmer. I ended saying something along the lines of “It takes a lot of ignorance to put your own beliefs on a pedestal above reason and evidence.” He got very calm then (he is an EXTREMELY calm, soft-spoken person; the monkey god comment was very out-of-character for him) and said that it was obvious our debate wasn’t going to change anyone’s minds and that we should revisit the topic in the future. We did revisit it over e-mail correspondence, but it felt forced and awkward.

****

About the reading list:

. . . The reading list is essentially a who’s-who of Christian apologists and scientists. For instance, he spent a long time discussing the Cambrian Explosion, a time in which life on earth evolved “too quickly” to be realistic, and had to have had some sort of divine intervention. This is a perfect example of “Science can’t explain it? It must be God”

. . . The only notable atheist he brought up was Dawkins, and that was only in one lecture, and he tore him to shreds.

The questions were all over the place. Sometimes, they were very open, like “Is there a universal theory of everything?” or “What is a theory?” or “What if our physical laws were ever-so-slightly different?”. However, these questions often followed a lecture (sermon?) about his views and, more often than not, students would just regurgitate what he said.

I remember one student essentially quoting Hedin, five minutes after the lecture (sermon) while discussing our “perfect” physical laws, and I asked the student, “Wouldn’t you agree that we can only be in awe of the universe’s physical laws because they are the only set of laws that we know?” which sort of stumped my small discussion group.

***

Another commenter asks if “Kettyr” complained to the administration.  The answer is “yes”:

Absolutely. Extensively. It was, by a long shot, the longest professor evaluation I ever wrote. I spoke in detail, using multiple specific dates and direct quotes. The administration (or at least, his supervisor or dean) knew what was going on at least two years before this story broke out, as I took the class in Spring 2011.

Remember that Ball State has claimed that there were no negative evaluations, and so far has refused to make any student evaluations available to the Muncie Star-Times reporter on the case, Seth Slabaugh, even though those evaluations are anonymous.

***

As to what should be done with the course, here’s Kettyr’s opinion, which also confirms that Hedin made his students watch the odious movie “Expelled”:

Which is the essence of my opinion on the matter: move the class the religious studies department, get it away from physics department. I should not have gotten physics credit for a course where we watched Ben Stein’s “Expelled”

***

No monkey gods, no Dawkins, God as the cause of the Cambrian Explosion? This is absolutely outrageous. What is equally outrageous is that Ball State University knew about these issues at least as early as 2006, when complaints about Hedin’s proselytizing for Christ were posted on ratemyprofessors.com, and had a long and critical evaluation in hand two years ago. Yet they did nothing, even when I added my voice to the list.

It took a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation to get Ball State to even investigate the content of Hedin’s course.  If this student is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt what he/she says, that course should be deep-sixed. It’s not even suitable for a “religion” course because there are no other views offered to counter Hedin’s religious interpretation of science.

In the meantime, a reader has written to The Daily, the Ball State University student newspaper:

Dear Editor:

Unfortunately, I greatly fear that Dr. Eric Hedin will not be treated fairly by Ball State University and panel of four professors charged with investigating his teaching of the honors symposium titled “The Boundaries of Science.”

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and avowed atheist Dr. Jerry Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, whose complaints spurred the investigation, are ideological bullies with plenty of influence and financial clout. They have threatened legal action if their objections to Dr. Hedin’s teaching are not validated.

Across our land, we’ve seen variations of this “movie” before and it does not bode well for Dr. Hedin. Let’s be realistic and honest. Faced with the threat of an long-running and expensive lawsuit, the quiet but primary aim of the panel and the university will be “how do we make this go away?” It will not be “let’s do what is right and principled.”

The right and principled answer is simple. Dr. Coyne and the FFRF are wrong and are bringing a frivolous charge against Dr. Hedin. Dr. Hedin should be exonerated from all charges of wrongdoing.

The claim against Dr. Hedin is that he is in violation of the First Amendment for teaching religion.

They should be rebuffed because nowhere is Dr. Hedin charged with talking about the Bible or Jesus. That would be discussion of religion.  Through his class, he has simply raised the possibility of intelligent design of life and our cosmos. That is not teaching religion.

This matter is not complicated — but resolving it fairly would require a tremendous amount of courage on the part of the university.

Dr. Hedin has done nothing wrong and deserves support. Fair-mined people need rise up and apply the pressure needed for the university to muster the courage to stand up to Dr. Coyne and the FFRF and tell them to “get lost.”

Eric A. Ether
BSU Class of 1972
University Place    WA     98467

Mr. Ether is deeply ignorant, not only about what went on in this class (really—Hedin showed “Expelled”!), but about how academic teaching should proceed. Ether is also dead wrong about Hedin’s not talking about the Bible or Jesus. He did, and his “textbooks” are full of Christianity.

Hedin has done something wrong and his course should be put in the circular file.  It is Ball State’s abysmal failure to enforce decent standards of instruction that has forced us “ideological bullies” to get involved.  And what “financial clout” do I have to resolve this issue?

The results, taken from a new paper in Nature  (reference below) are about how cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) run when pursuing prey.  There’s not much new save for the quantitative data, but the paper’s publication (and the ensuing publicity in places like The New York Times) appears to derive largely from its use of gadgetry: special collars fitted on cheetahs that give data on their location (within 0.2 m), their speed, and their acceleration.

Here’s an example of the publicity in the journal itself (read the “speed test in wild cheetah” box).  As Matthew commented to me:

BTW you might want to poke fun at the splash that Nature had on its front page (see attachment). Talk about
the bleedin’ obvious. As a pal responded on Twitter, “I knew that when I was 8 years old”. They’ve changed it since.

Matthew adds this: “Even the opening two paras of the accompanying news item are really stupid.”  Here they are, and yes, we sort of knew this already:

The cheetah crouches in the undergrowth. When a young antelope strays a little too far from the herd, the cheetah explodes out of the bush — and, with a burst of speed unrivalled in the natural world, brings down its next meal.

Or so we have assumed. But the first study to collect data on the animal’s movements in the wild reveals that, contrary to popular opinion, a cheetah’s sheer speed is not its only weapon when it comes to hunting. Its success as a predator also hinges on its lightning reflexes and its ability to accelerate faster than a Ferrari.

Well, the Ferrari part is interesting, I suppose, but what’s new here? I’ll distill it down to a few points.

First, the methodology.  The authors attached special, solar-powered collars to five wild cheetahs in Botswana, and monitored 367 runs at prey over a period of 17 months.  For each run they tracked the animal using GPS technology, and measured its speed and acceleration.  Here are the highlights:

• 94 of the hunts, or 26%, were successful.  Most of the prey were impalas (75% of prey items), but cheetahs also took warthogs and Thompson’s gazelle.

• Cheetahs hunt by stalking.  Starting from either a slow walk or a stationary position, they accelerate rapidly. This much we already knew.

• The average run length was 173 meters, and the average frequency of a run after prey was 1.3 times per day. That means that they have a successful hunt about once every three days.

• They can run fast: the already-published top speed is 29 meters/ sec (104.4 km per hour or 64.8 mph), substantially faster than racing speeds for greyhounds (18 m/sec), horses (19 m/sec) and humans (12 m/sec; Usain Bolt’s 100 m record).  The collar data substantiate this, showing a top speed of 25.9 m/sec (58 m/hr or 93 km/hr). That’s important because it’s hard to measure running speed in captive cheetahs (they’re trained to follow a bait over a predetermined distance), so we didn’t know how close the “captive” speed was to speeds attained in nature.  The mean top running speed during a chase, though, was about half that: 14.9 m/sec (53.6 kph or 33.3 mph).

• The rates of acceleration and decleration are extreme. The acceleration rates aren’t expressed in any terms I really understand: the highest was 100 W/kg (can some reader translate that in to m/sec/sec?). That rate is about four times that of Usain Bolt’s acceleration in his world-record 100m dash.  But they can speed up by 3 meters/sec and slow down by 4 m/sec (6.7 mph and 8.9 mph respectively) in a single stride.  They can accelerate, then, faster than a Ferrari (at least according to the New York Times), and decelerate from their average chase speed to a standstill in less than four strides.  That’s pretty amazing.

• The deceleration often occurs right before turning, enabling them to maneuver with great dexterity, something you’ll know if you’ve seen videos of cheetahs hunting. (I’ve put one below.)

• Finally, their ability to speed up and slow down rapidly, as well as to corner tightly, comes, according to the authors, from their “ridged footpads,” nonretractable claws (see picture below), their flexible spines, and their tremendous muscle mass. According to the authors, “the locomotor (limb and back) muscle accounts for 45 ± 4% of body mass in captive cheetahs. . . major propulsive muscles such as the hamstrings. . at the hip and gastrocnemius at the tarsus have 64% and 60% longer movement arms, respectively, than in the greyhound.  . “

The photos below show the collars, the forces impinging on hunting cheetahs, their nonretractable claws, and the posture they assume during deceleration.

After rereading the article and writing this, I guess the findings aren’t so humdrum after all!

Figure 1 | Cheetah with collar and anatomical features contributing toperformance. a, Cheetah with a mark 2 collar is shown. b, Gravitational andcentripetal accelerations acting on a turning cheetah; g denotes acceleration dueto gravity, v2 r21 denotes centripetal acceleration, and a is the resultantacceleration (effective gravity). c, Non-retractable cheetah claws that enhance grip. d, Low posture used in deceleration, which prevents pitching and engageshind limb musculature to absorb kinetic energy.

Finally, you can see it all in action in this National Geographic video of a hunt:

___________

Wilson, A. M., J. C. Lowe, K. Roskilly, P. E. Hudson, K. A. Golabek, and J. W. McNutt. 2013. Locomotion dynamics of hunting in wild cheetahs. 498:185-189.

Sunset to the west with bird:

I’m glad, though, that the readers have been washed by the theory of evolution.

But it’s dead in another world!

Thanks to several readers for sending this.

Since other writers and I also receive private emails, I want to make clear that I will never publish the contents of private emails, or identify their authors, without without explicit permission.  You can be sure, when emailing me—and my work email is readily available—that your communications are confidential.

There is one minor and (I think) harmless exception. If you email me animal or plant pictures, hoping they’ll be posted, I sometimes put up the authors’ comments as a caption.  I almost always try to contact authors first, but sometimes I don’t hear back, and then I go ahead and post.

Even in those cases, though, I will not identify the person who sent me the picture without permission. If you do send me photos or something you think I might want to post, then, please include some information that could be published, as well as how you’d like to be identified. This is not a guarantee that I’ll post what I’m sent—I get far more material than I can use—but a guarantee that you won’t be “outed.”

And, as always, I urge readers to send me photos or other things they think might interest our community.  But please don’t be disappointed if I don’t use it.

kthxbye.