Today's biology lesson - Part 2

There's been a show running on SBS on a Sunday night called Inside Nature's Giants, which involves dead animal dissection to learn about their odd biological features. 

Last night, it was the kangaroo's turn (even though I would hardly think they count as "giants"), but in any event I was reminded about the odd feature of how female kangaroos can keep an embryo in stasis in their uterus (of which they have two, as well as three vaginas) while they have a joey in the pouch. 

I was wondering how much is known about how the biology of that works, but Googling is not showing up all that much information on the topic.  Embryonic diapause has its own Wikipedia entry, but it's pretty brief.  It does show, though, that quite a lot of mammals can do this trick.

The whole topic reminded me of a later Heinlein novel, in which the heroine turns out to have been secretly carrying an embryo, at body temperature of course, in a small genetically engineered "pouch" in her navel.  I think it must have been Friday, but even that has little information on the Web.  Anyhow, I remember thinking at the time that body temperature stasis of a human embryo seemed a bit unlikely, but I don't recall if at the time I realised that there were local mammals doing this trick. 

I wonder how much biological study this has ever received.  It would be a good trick if it could be applied to human embryos, in lieu of freezing them.

Today's biology lesson - Part 1

My seminal link with manga god Osamu Tezuka | The Japan Times Online

Well, here's a strange column about the famous creator of Astroboy (there's a photo of him looking natty in a beret) and his background in science.  Previously thought to have studied medicine, it seems he might only have done a PhD in ... snail sperm.

Which leads the writer to then note his own experience in studying silkworm sperm.  It's odd:

I was looking at another species with unusual sperm: the silkworm, an insect that has been bred for more than 5,000 years in China.

They are amazing animals. They have been bred for so long by humans that they have lost the ability to reproduce on their own: They require humans to bring them together. They have also lost the ability to fly. But they still beat their wings, and when they crawl over your hand, you feel tiny gusts of wind from their wings, like mini fans directed at your skin....

And here's why I briefly studied them: Like all butterflies and moths, silkworms have two types of sperm, produced in a roughly 50:50 ratio of ones with cell nuclei containing the DNA needed to fertilize the egg, and ones containing no DNA that are therefore unable to fertilize eggs. A sperm that can't fertilize an egg! What good is that?

That's the mystery, and while there are lots of ideas — the best among them being that the dud sperm are used as some kind of soldiers to fight off the sperm from other males in order to give their DNA-carrying brothers a chance — there is no consensus on their function.

 Yes, when you raise silkworms at home, as I have done a couple of times with the kids (involving a drive every second day to a mulberry tree in a neighbouring suburb on a vacant block of land to fetch leaves), the moths that emerge look weak and pathetic as they merely flutter a bit and don't move much.   But, in fact, this is normal.  

As you were....

You say "pomodoro", I say "tomato"

For some reason, this article from May was showing as special report on the SMH site this morning.  It's actually an interesting look at why Italian canned tomatoes are so cheap in Australia, and way outsell the home grown product.

I do sometimes buy Australian cans out of sympathy for a struggling industry, and I think it is true that their quality is now equivalent to the overseas ones.

Update:  here's a review of a book all about the history of the tomato in Italy.

Hard to disagree

Two conventions, two Americas. Seldom has the divide been greater | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | The Observer

This column begins with this:

Over the past two weeks, both major American political parties held their nominating conventions – and that's pretty much where the similarities end. After interminable speeches, cloying videos and occasional moments of rhetorical eloquence, the philosophical and tonal divide between them has never felt broader. Quite simply, Democrats and Republicans operate in two completely distinct realms, one that is defined by an attachment to reality and one that is increasingly detached from it.

If their three-day convention in Tampa is any indication, Republicans reside in a fantasy world where government plays no role but that of malevolence, where the free market is the salvation to all that ails this nation and where the country is locked in a Manichaean struggle between the forces of freedom and a failed, socialist interloper named Barack Obama.

It was a point driven home to me in Tampa when I overheard a Republican delegate declare in a sweet voice, reflecting more pity than anger: "There's a communist living in the White House."

 I find it hard to disagree (with Cohen, not the nutty Republican).

The bits of the conferences that I saw are reflected pretty accurately in this part of Cohen's piece:

Moreover, a party once derided for playing interest-group politics showed no hesitancy about going down that road in Charlotte. The convention was full of obvious appeals to women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, young people and, in the constant references to the successful bailout of the US car industry, organised labour. These are the groups that form the backbone of the Democratic coalition and are essential to the party's long-term success. Democrats far better than Republicans appreciate the destiny of demographics and they have done a far more effective job of cultivating these voters. Indeed, the contrast between the hues in Charlotte and Tampa was remarkable. The Democratic party is a party that looks like the palette of the American experience, not just in skin colour, but in class level. The Republican party (the one in the Tampa convention hall) is one that looks like Sunday brunch at a country club.

 And yet, you have right wing commentators like John Hinderaker scratching their heads over why the polling between Obama and Romney is close.  It should, according to JH, be an obvious walkover for Romney.

Funny, isn't it, how it doesn't seem to occur to those currently to the forefront of the Right in America that, you know, voters might actually be smart enough to realise that Republican policies such as:

a.   at a time of serious government budget deficits, the first step should be to reduce taxes, especially for the rich;

b.  at a time when both sides of politics agree that America is right to get out of Afghanistan, and defence spending should accordingly be able to be reduced,  a permanent and substantial increase in the defence budget is the right thing to do

don't make any sense at all.

Honestly, I can't recall the Right of politics in the US ever looking as stupidly ideologically driven as it does now. 

It surely cannot go on this way.

More HH amusement

On this week's episode of Horrible Histories, the kids and I were most taken by this segment:



And that was even before I Googled it to find what it was parodying:




All very amusing...

In further defence of Obama

I see that Charles Johnson has had a series of posts called "The Myth of Obama the Socialist", which argue that he is not the "big spending socialist" that Republicans claim.

Part III, which summarise his argument, and looks specifically at the debt he inherited, is here.   Interestingly, it's full of graphs and figures, some from what people would say are "suspect" sites (such as Think Progress), but also the Cato Institute (!) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (!!).  

Johnson,  now loathed by the Right for his abandonment of them, seems to me to make a pretty good looking case.

Googling around, I also found this column by Ezra Klein in February this year, looking at the question of the Obama deficits.  He starts:

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

 It turns out to be a bit of a complicated question as to who to assign responsibility to for various things that affect the deficit, but the conclusion he reaches is this (my bold):

In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit.

 My feeling that Obama has been relatively competent, as far as Presidents go, seems better justified than I realised.  

Mary and the Romans

I've been meaning to note that I quite enjoyed the 3 part doco series "Meet the Romans" on SBS the last 3 weeks.

Mary Beard wrote and hosted the series, and as I liked reading her Times columns, at least until they went behind a paywall, I was looking forward to seeing this.

That said, she did take a bit of getting used to as a host.  She was a bit repetitive, particularly in the first episode, and a bit, um, over enthusiastic at times; but by the last episode tonight I had become  accustomed to her style.

The theme of the series was to look at ancient Rome from the point of view of the day to day life of the ordinary folk:  the goings on in politics and emperors was definitely not the subject of the show.   Given that the Romans had a habit of writing their life story on their tombs, many of which are recorded or still standing, their stories are still very readily accessible.

Episodes 2 and 3 can still be viewed on line at SBS (for now), and I think large chunks of it may also be permanently on Youtube.  (This clip from tonight's episode showing a baby's cradle was touching.)

UPDATE:  soon after posting this last night, I checked my email account via which I get notice of comments left on posts, and found this:

 I'm not behind the paywall... easiest way to access is through the TLS website, totally free (glad you got to like the series) 

But it hasn't (at time of writing this) appeared in comments on the post, and I can't see why.    

In any event, thanks Mary.   Yes, her blog is here.  Silly me.

Taking plastic seriously

Catalyst: Plastic Oceans - ABC TV Science

I was quite surprised by this story on Catalyst earlier this week.  The link contains the video and transcript.

The first surprise:  that the shearwater birds that live on Lord Howe Island appear to frequently die of stomachs absolutely loaded with plastic - which they apparently mistake for fish in the ocean. 

Lord Howe Island is in the middle of the South Pacific and has a tiny population - it's about the last place you would expect serious problems from marine plastic rubbish to arise.

The second surprise:  this part of the story, where they start talking about plastics that eventually break up into tiny pieces are still a major concern for their toxic effect:

Dr Jennifer Lavers
They have what I call the invisible toxic effect. It, it's less easy to detect but equally as scary.
The plastic itself inherently contains a wide array of chemicals that are used during the manufacturing and processes. When the plastic is put out into the marine environment and it floats around in the ocean for let's say ten or forty years it really does last forever, it basically acts like a little magnet or a sponge and it takes all the contaminates that are out there in the ocean environment that are really diluted in the ocean water and it concentrates it up, onto the surface.
Plastic itself has up to a thousand times a higher concentration of containments on its surface than the surrounding seawater from which it came. And when the animal, whether it's a turtle or a seabird takes that into their body those contaminants leach out into the blood stream and is incorporated into the tissues.

NARRATION
Jennifer Lavers collects and weighs plastic from dead birds and sends the feathers off for lab analysis. They reveal what contaminants are in the body.

Dr Jennifer Lavers
The flesh footed shearwater on Lord Howe Island is officially the world's most heavily contaminated seabird just from mercury alone. So the toxic threshold that's widely regarded around the world for birds is four point three parts per million. Anything above that four point three PPM is considered toxic to the birds. Well flesh footed shearwaters on Lord Howe Island are between one thousand and three thousand parts per million.

 The story indicates that the problems with broken down plastics getting into the food chain (right from the plankton level!) is just starting to be widely recognized in research.

It's a cause for concern, by the sounds... 

Things you learn

I've just found something useful.

When you use a pc to try to watch Colbert or the Daily Show from their Comedy Central websites, you get blocked from watching the videos in Australia. You can use an overseas proxy server to get around this, I suppose, but I haven't bothered trying.

Mediate sometimes puts up some of the videos from those shows on their site, and they aren't region blocked, but they don't put up much.

I have just now learned that if you use an iPad, even just via a browser (ie, without loading the shows' apps), you can get an iPad digest version of the shows which contains videos you can watch from Australia.

It's a lot less content than from the normal website, but it's a lot more than I have been able to watch over the last year or so.

Fellow iPad users of Australia who did not realize this, you can thank me later....

A bad, bad look

Twitter Reveals an Ugly Underbelly of Misogyny | The Moderate Voice

Is it any wonder that women are leery of voting Republican?

The Clinton speech

The Bill Clinton speech at the Democrat convention is getting some rave reviews, and rightly so.

I have never thought Clinton a particularly gifted speaker, and I have quite neutral feelings about his presidency, but this speech really was something. He was articulate; gave detail where it was needed to counter Republican memes (and in particular, to summarise perfectly the problem with the Romney tax plan); and made several well deserved calls for the Right to come back to the centre for the good of the nation.

Former Bush aide Matt Latimer, clearly no fan of Clinton's style, still reached this conclusion, with which I thoroughly agree:

Here’s why I think Bill Clinton’s speech was successful. For all of his tortured arguments and wonky, ponderous asides, Bill Clinton made a substantive case. He dealt with facts and statistics. He made points and then explained why he made them. He had details. Boy, did he have details. In short, he did what almost no one at the Republican convention tried to do, what few conventions bother to do anymore. He treated the American people like thinking human beings.

The only problem I see with the speech was that it was so effective, where does it leave Obama to go in his acceptance?  I guess a nomination acceptance speech is not the place to be doing the sort of detail that Clinton managed anyway, but I think there is still a bit of danger in Obama sounding too full of mere "hope and change-y" rhetoric again.   In fact, I wouldn't think it a bad idea if Obama appeared somewhat contrite about not being able to live up to expectations that people had built up around him.   

One other point:  while I guess there are still ways for this convention to go sour for the Democrats, who can credibly argue that in both appearance and content it is not putting the Republican one to shame?  And this is driving the Right wing bloggers nuts, I reckon.   Unbelievably, Andrew Bolt  thought the Clint Eastwood empty chair routine was devastating (well it was, but not in the way Andrew thought):

Clint Eastwood didn’t just hit the ball out of the park at the Republican convention. He smashed it through the White House windows.

One of the most effective political speeches I’ve ever heard, although most of its power came simply from the man who delivered it.

Bolt hasn't commented on the Clinton speech yet, and as I say, it remains possible that the Democrats could try something that backfires on the last day as well.  But from this point in time, it's looking like the lingering impressions from the conventions are going to be from Clint and Clinton.

Andrew, if there is any faint glimmer of objectivity left in your head, which do you think is going to play well in history?

Update:  for some pretty funny stuff from Jon Stewart on the convention, you can see a 10 minutes clip here at Mediaite.

Significant biology news

Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome | Science | The Guardian

Seems a decent explanation is given in this quite long report.

Unexpected goings on in the tea plantation

Deadly witch hunts targeted by grassroots women's groups

An odd story from India, where (apparently) life amongst the poor village tea pickers can be dangerous:

In 2003, at a tea plantation in Jalpaiguri, five women were tied up, tortured and killed after being falsely accused of witchcraft in the death of a male villager who had suffered from a stomach illness. Chaudhuri interviewed the villagers at length and found that such attacks are often impulsive and that the "witch" is often killed immediately. Widespread alcoholism is also a factor, she found.

But the study also documents examples of the women's groups stopping potential attacks. In one case, a woman was accused of causing disease in livestock and an attack was planned. Members of the self-help groups gathered in a vigil around the woman's home and surrounded the accuser's home as well, stating their case to the accuser's wife. Eventually the wife intervened and her husband recanted and "begged for forgiveness." 

Through the loan program, each woman is issued a low-interest, collateral-free "microcredit" loan of about 750 rupees ($18) to start her own business such as basket weaving, tailoring or selling chicken eggs. Participants meet in groups of about eight to 10 to support one another.

That's an odd side benefit of microfinance...

The melt in history

Climate change skeptics are deploying the old "this [record] Arctic melt is not so unusual when you go back in history" ploy, so Skeptical Science has a long and detailed look at studies that show this is not true. Good job.

Jet stream is on the move

 Measurements of the movement of the jet streams at mid-latitudes, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, 1979 to 2010

Interesting paper which says the jet streams, and weather systems, have been on the move  for the last 30 years, and the predominant reason appears to be the direct radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Stewart on the empty chair

I am not his biggest fan, but Jon Stewart's take on the Eastwood empty chair routine is pretty much exactly what I expected: pretty funny, and insightful about the politics of it too. Here it is:

What a melt

It hasn't bottomed out yet either:

Something to note as a matter of caution, though.  Andy Revkin has taken a very careful approach on this, and reminds us that one paper found that modelling indicates that (suprisingly) intermittent positive trends in Arctic ice are still possible on 2 -20 timescales until the middle of the 21st century.   This must be remembered; as any temporary recovery in the next decade will be claimed by the climate change denialists as proof positive that AGW predictions were wrong.  (Just as they love to falsely claim that the 2011 Australian floods were inconsistent with climate change predictions.)

However, I would have to guess that this "reversal in trend" possibility is looking a bit improbable given the dramatic loss of volume in sea ice.

Modelling sea ice behaviour does seem to be a particularly complicated thing, though.

American Politics

I was rather critical of the lack of qualifications and unrealistic and over-inflated rhetoric of "hope and change" through which Obama got the Democrat nomination and the presidency. And to be honest, so much of American domestic politics is so complicated, with the way their party allegiances in Congress don't work in the same way they do here, that I'm not the most comprehensive reader there is about arcane Washington fights over budgets and legislation. 

So, with that qualification, what's my feelings about the Obama presidency from this point in time?   My general impression is that it has been, more-or-less, competent enough.  Not earth shatteringly brilliant, of course.  I don't think anyone argues that.     Quite a few mistakes and embarrassments, but all Presidents have those.  But not terrible.  Or, if you like, no where near as bad as his lack of qualifications would have indicated was possible.  The general impression is one of a pretty cautious man of reasonable character* who hasn't stuffed things up to a significant degree.  But then again, nor has he been able to take action on certain matters as he should.

My general impression is bolstered by an article in The Economist  which argues that he deserves more credit than he is being given on economic policy.   This feels about right to me.

But of course, a significant part of my feelings about Obama is derived not so much from seeing that he especially deserves credit for leadership and smarts, but from seeing how the Right in the US has run off some ideological cliffs in the last three years, and simply does not appear credible in so many ways now.

Everyone knows I think climate change is important, and really despise the way a handful of unconvinced climate scientist's opinions have been inflated by virtue of the internet into a powerful public and political influence against taking action on CO2.  This quintessentially unscientific enterprise has had its greatest effect on the Right in the US, no doubt because small government and libertarian inclinations are strongest there and these ideologies are always inclined to be hostile to government action of any kind which interfere with how businesses operate.   It's a major embarrassment for those who think the Right is usually the side which is the most pragmatic and accepts evidence as to what works and what doesn't, and is not stuck on ideologically fixated non solutions as the Left can be.

I worry now that readers may think that I put attitude to climate change as my number one priority for assessing politicians.  But, honestly, is it my fault that this does indeed seem to be the bellwether for common sense and reliability in most matters now?  I mean, even if the Tea Party was not effectively forcing Republican candidates to become overtly dismissive of global warming, I  am sure I would still be dismissive of their economic ideas which are, essentially, a triumph of ideology over practicality.

For example, have a look at this article in The Atlantic about Romney's ill formed and "impossible" tax plan.   I don't trust Krugman on absolutely every point, but I find most of what he complains about in the Republicans to be credible and biting.   His recent column on health costs, for example, or his long standing assessment that Paul Ryan has an undeserved reputation for being serious on fiscal policy. 

I don't have a problem with the proposal that the US economy needs some major tax overhaul, and that spreading the tax base is a good idea, and removing some silly deductions is badly needed.   But it seems that you do not get serious and fair plans being put by the Right anymore - in fact Krugman argues the Republicans are stuck on stupid from way back.   Instead, you get things like Herman Cain with a 999 plan that is so extreme in its effects that even the Wall Street Journal was cool about it.  And you get a fetish about returning to a gold standard (from Cain and sympathetic sounds from Ryan - who, for God's sake, is quoted as saying he finds Ayn Rand influential on the topic.)

It's hard not to conclude that the problem is simply that, while all politicians hate the idea of selling increased taxes to the public,  the part of the Right which is absolutely ideologically committed to the idea that increases in taxes are universally Evil and Bad, and decreases in taxes always and in every circumstance a Good Thing, is currently in control of the Republicans.  Along with this goes the idea that small government is always better government, and (now) that Keynesian spending is always bad.  And gold.  Going back to gold is always good.**

These are, frankly, matters where ideologiy is triumphing over pragmatism, and either ignoring evidence, or interpreting evidence with this predetermined conclusion in mind.   It is no wonder that those who hold these views are nearly always also disbelievers in climate change.

And look at how separated from reality Right wing commentary is becoming.   Large slabs of it in the US, and some of the equivalent wingnuts in Australia, thought that Clint Eastwood's performance at the Republican convention was unalloyed brilliance that was somehow all the more effective for being rambling and looking like it was being "winged" (as indeed it was.)  Ann Althouse:

AND: Here's the whole Eastwood performance. Is it really that hard to get? No, they're merely playing dumb (and humorless), even though they want the other party to be known as "the stupid party."

UPDATE: I just rewatched the performance. It was great! Hilarious... subtle... well-paced.... The haters are totally bullshitting and playing dumb (assuming they are not actually dumb). And what they are trying to do is scare other celebrities: Toe the line or we will destroy you. That crushing repression is the opposite of what the performing arts should be about.

I can handle people saying something like "it wasn't so bad, it played well enough to the crowd" (even though I personally think the fact the crowd found some of the ill considered jokes hilarious made them look pretty stupid).  What I can't get (to the point of doubting people's sanity) is the assessment that it was a brilliant bit of "jazz improvisation" or (to paraphrase someone at Catallaxy) that it was culturally important as giving Americans permission to finally be dismissive of Obama.   The crazed Obama and Gillard hating mind that wrote that knows completely about the rabid wingnut blogs in the States (he links to them frequently), and endorsed Limbaugh slut-calling of Sarah Fluke; yet he thinks the nation was waiting for permission to be crude, rude and ugly towards Obama and anyone who supports him?

As I say, the Right, in large part, has gone stupid;  I'm just sitting here waiting for it to return towards me.


*  I tend to sympathise with most Presidents of either persuasion, although I always felt very cool towards Reagan -  I just never got the "Great Communicator" tag and was not convinced that there was much in the way of natural intellect there.  I have always been persuaded by Christopher Hitchen's take on the man.  But it's arguably the most important job in the world, constantly involving complicated decisions of life and death with  regard to military and foreign affairs in particular.  I don't really see why anyone wants the responsibility and takes it on.

**  The linkage between climate change denialism and a fixation on gold is remarkable. Australia's Jonova and her husband David Evans are gold bugs from way back.

Last week's good health news noted

Chocolate reduces stroke risk for men, research claims

Yes, this is cheering, even if the effect is not huge:

Larsson writes in the latest edition of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology: "High chocolate consumption was associated with a lower risk of stroke."

Men who ate the most chocolate, a weekly average of 63 grams, had a 17% lower risk of stroke compared with men who ate none. The correlation did not seem to differ depending on different types of stroke.

Larsson corroborated her findings by conducting a meta-analysis of five other studies, containing a total of 4,260 cases of stroke across Europe and the United States. She found the risk of stroke for individuals in the highest category of chocolate consumption was 19% lower compared with non-chocolate eaters. Every increase in chocolate consumption of 50g per week, reduced the risk of stroke by about 14%, Larsson found.

Also, it's odd that this result from Sweden was not all based on dark chocolate:

  Larsson said: "Interestingly, dark chocolate has previously been associated with heart health benefits, but about 90% of the chocolate intake in Sweden, including what was consumed during our study, is milk chocolate."

Still, they recommend dark chocolate, but obviously in modest quantities.

The other good news was that it appears starving yourself for long life seems not to be worth the effort.  There's a very good article at Slate about the recent monkey study about this, but it explains a lot more about the background to the calorie restriction idea, which goes back to the 1930's.  I also didn't know this:

The history of calorie restriction research is strewn with odd results that have been left unexplained (at best) or outright ignored (at worst). When Steven Austad of the University of Texas–San Antonio tested wild-caught mice, for instance, he found no caloric-restriction-induced increase in lifespan. In another study, researchers created 42 different cross-bred mouse strains and found that in a third of the strains, caloric restriction actually seemed to shorten lifespan. And even Clive McCay, the father of caloric restriction, found weird results: In his 1935 experiment, caloric restriction worked only in the males.

In fact, caloric restriction really seemed to work best in standard laboratory mice. This may be because they are predisposed to eat a lot, gain weight, and reproduce early—and thus are more sensitive to reduced food intake. (Slate’s Daniel Engber has written about how overfed lab mice have distorted scientific research.)

Even better, the article notes this:

 Several studies have shown that excessive leanness—seen often in calorie-restricting humans—can be as risky as obesity. Taken together, these studies suggest that the optimal body-mass index is about 25, which is on the verge of being overweight

Given that I'm only about  2 or 3 kg over BMI 25, I'm somewhat encouraged.

Small brains recognize trouble...larger brains, not so much

BBC Nature - Birds hold 'funerals' for dead

Paul Ryan Is a Climate Change Denialist