US Government Withholding Foreign Aid Payments

These payments were for already-completed work. (Being against foreign aid payments shouldn't mean the government is against basic legal obligations.)
     What happened?
     Did the district court have the authority? 
     Can payment be withheld?
     Legal issues?
     If the leader changes, does the contract?

What Happened?

The Trump administration wanted to withhold invoices* to foreign aid organisations. (*Payment for completed work ordered by the government.)

In early March, the Supreme Court said no, upholding a district court's earlier order. 

Some conservative Justices dissented, claiming a lower court didn't have the authority to make the executive branch pay. These dissenters were stunned that the majority of Justices thought otherwise.

Did the District Court Have the Authority?

Federal courts judicate on federal matters*. 
     The district court is a federal court. 
     Thus that district judge does have the authority to order the federal government to pay.
With this is mind, the dissenting opinion makes neither judicial nor logical sense. The dissenting opinion reads like a subjective, political viewpoint, not an objective, law interpretation. 
*Federals matters are those undertaken by the federal government. Like the Trump administration's decision to refuse invoice payments.

Can Payment be Withheld?

Contractors agree to undergo the work if the government/company/individual agrees to pay for it.
     Payment of services rendered is a legal requirement. If it's already been done, it has to be paid for. (If, of course, payment has been agreed upon.)
     A government can rescind further funding. This happens by terminating the contract. However, this doesn't permit the government to withhold monies owed.
     Essentially, the government can refuse to pay for what could be done but they can't refuse to pay for what has been done already. Once the job as happened, the money has to happen, also. 
     Termination of contract does not equal unpaid invoices.
   
Yes, in some instances payment can be refused (whether by government, company or individual).
     However, this refusal can only come if the contractor hasn't abided by their contractual obligations. This includes things like poor quality, time constraints, not adhering to the project's goals etc. As such, there is nothing to pay for. 
     So when work completed has complied with contractual obligations, there is no legal reason why payment can be withheld. There's no sign the government thinks that contractors failed in their legal duty, so why is the government failing in theirs? 

Legal Issues?

Considering contracts legally must be obeyed, it's obvious that withholding money for services rendered is illegal. 
     The executive branch of government, the institution responsible for enforcing the law, should act lawfully. So this example of the executive wanting to break the law (by willfully ignoring contractual obligations) should stun people.
     The courts have a legal obligation to uphold the law. Just because the government has the audacity to break the law doesn't mean the courts should, too. The fact the dissenting Justices didn't want to uphold the law should stun people.

If the Leader Changes, does the Contract?

     Some claim that the Trump administration doesn't have to pay for this work because it wasn't ordered by the Trump administration. 
     (Claimers of the above would most likely be furious with the reverse: that the next administration doesn't pay for work ordered by the Trump administration. Either that or they'd have to accept their reasoning being used against them.) 

     But if this reasoning was applied to real life, what would the consequences be?
A change of leadership permits non-payment of work already completed?
     If this were the case, companies would just change the boss every time work was completed. The boss would say they legitimately don't have to pay because they weren't the one to sign the contracts.
     This wouldn't just affect a company's contractors but also the company's own staff! Who would anyone be willing to sign any sort of work contract if they knew the agreed-upon payment/wage could be denied?
     Hence economic activity would dry up, from agriculture to education and steelworks to healthcare. The economy wouldn't survive that.

Also, substitute 'company' for 'government'. 
     If the government couldn't get/retain workers, the government couldn't manage the decline of the economy. Nor could they ensure the safety of the public (infrastructure, healthcare, food, power, policing...)
     The stewardship of the country's economy/safety are the government's role and purpose. So for a government to act against its very purpose? That should stun people.

Conclusion

The government thought they could get away with withholding monies owed. The dissenting Justices were stunned that the other Justices wouldn't let the government get away with it.
     The fact that the executive, and the dissenting judicial, decided it was legal leaves one stunned. The fact that the government would be acting against their very purpose (if they got their way) also leaves one stunned.
     Whether someone agrees with foreign aid funding or not, that doesn't mean legal obligations should be ignored. Especially when the law is the purview of the people breaking it.

The Males aren't Mammals Argument

Of all the nonsense I've seen, this is one of my favourites.
The MaM argument goes like this. 
     Premise One: Mammals are animals with mammory glands. 
     Premise Two: Males don't have mammory glands. 
     Conclusion: Therefore, males aren't mammals.
Each premise is based on a misunderstanding. If a conclusion rests on even one faulty premise, the conclusion is likewise faulty. Even altering the premises can't eliminate these barriers.

Problem with Premise One

A mammal is a species with mammory glands, not an individual animal with mammory glands. Hence the first premise of the MaM Argument is inaccurate.
     Animals of the same species are more closely related to each other than to individuals outside their species. So dogs are more related to other dogs than they are to cats or peafowl.
     Mammals belong to the class Mammalia, meaning that mammals are more related to other mammals than to other animal classes. For example, dogs to cats (both Mammalia) than dogs to peafowl (Aves). 
     If two individuals are part of the same species, by necessity they are part of the same order. Thus if the female of the species is a mammal, then their male counterparts are likewise mammals. Male dogs are mammals, just like female dogs.

Problem with Premise Two 

The second premise states males don't have mammory glands. After all, it's female individuals that feed babies with milk, not males.
     However, male mammals do have mammory glands. They're rudimentary, sure, but they're still there. 
     So if males have mammory glands, then saying 'males aren't mammals because they don't have mammory glands' is clearly insufficient. 
     Hence, even if we follow the premises of the MaM argument (that mammory glands equals mammal), the argument's conclusion (that males aren't mammals) is still wrong!

Premise Two with Alterations

To fix the problems with Premise Two, some modify it to 'Males don't have functional mammory glands'.
     However, under specific conditions, male mammory glands are capable of producing milk. This would create a problem, in that males with functioning mammory glands are mammals whereas other males are not.
     In the same way that some male mammory glands are functional, some female mammory glands aren't functional. But this doesn't mean that these female animals aren't mammals.
     Nor does that mean female individuals are only mammals once they reach sexual maturity. (That is, at the point their mammory glands develop into functioning milk-producers.)
     Adjusting the argument to 'don't have functioning mammory glands' creates multiple new issues without solving the initial one! 

Logic

For an argument to be convincing, it needs two factors: truth and logic. 
     So, what is logic? Logic is about the structure of the argument, i.e. relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
     Even hypothetically, if the premises of an argument are correct, then the conclusion would have to be correct by necessity. The conclusion couldn't not be correct.
     The conclusion drawn from the MaM premises is the only one possible. Hence the MaM Argument is logical (despite the initial premises being false).

Conclusion

Is the MaM Argument persuasive?
     As previously stated, considering both premises of the MaM are false, the conclusion is likewise false. However, the MaM is a logical argument. Credit where it's due. 
     Yet as the argument lacks both truth and logic together, it is not a good, sensible or convincing argument. As such, the MaM Argument is not persuasive.

Could the T-rex Roar?

Surprisingly, the reason justifying certain conclusions has nothing to do with t-rex itself.
     The fossilised larynx of a Pinacosaurus grangeri (an ankylosaurid) shares similarities with the syrinx of birds. These dinosaurs thus produced bird-like sounds. 

     So some have decided that t-rex, a fellow dinosaur, would likewise have made bird sounds. This has led a few people to conclude that the t-rex couldn't roar. 
     Even though the larynx fossil wasn't from a close t-rex relative, let alone from t-rex itself. Extrapolation is thus problematic. (Not to mention 'bird vocal organ' and 'can roar' aren"t mutually exclusive, unlike what this viewpoint requires.)

About the Fossil Larynx

How this ankylosaurid larynx functions is fascinating.
     A larynx produces sounds with vocal folds; a syrinx produces sounds without vocal folds. A larynx sits in the neck; a syrinx sits in the chest. A syrinx allows for a complex range of sounds.
     The ankylosaurid had a kinetic larynx: being more flexible, their larynx allows for a complex vocal range. This is what allows for its bird-like vocalisations.
     The ankylosaurid larynx could vibrate in a way that produced bird-like sounds, albeit powerful and explosive. (Words that could describe a roar.)

Basing T-rex on an Ankylosaurid?

Ankylosaurids and t-rex are not closely related. 
     They are members of the two main and primordial classification of dinosaurs: ornithiscian (ankylosaurid) and saurischian (t-rex). Further, they lived nearer the end of the dinosaur era rather than the start, meaning these particular species were seperated by many extra millions of years. 
     Hence extrapolating knowledge from one of these species to the other is problematic. So assuming that t-rex would have a simular voice box to ankylosaurids doesn't initially seem like a sensible conclusion. This would be like assuming gorillas laid eggs just because the platypus, a fellow mammal, did lay eggs. 
     Clearly, it's not a sensible thought to determine what's impossible for t-rex vocal capabilities purely from an ankylosaurid larynx.

T-rex and birds belong to the same group of dinosaurs. 
     One could make the following argument. If birds and ankylosaurus have similar vocal organs, this suggests it's a feature they share with their most recent common ancestor. Hence all the animals that evolved from that ancestor likely have some variation of this vocal organ. Including the t-rex. 
     However, this argument actually means something different. The t-rex vocal organ would be more similar to the syrinx of its closer relative (birds) than the larynx of its distant relative (ankylosaurids).
     Either way, thinking the t-rex makes bird-like sounds is sensible (assumptions on ]ossible capabilities is fine). But it's not sensible to use this to assume t-rex lacks the capacity to roar. Especially when birds themselves do have this capacity.

Roar

A t-rex being able to produce bird-like noises doesn't exclude it from also roaring. 
     A roar, after all, is a loud, prolonged expression of a single note. Many modern day birds are loud, have a single note call, or make noise for prolonged periods. So why the t-rex potentially having a bird-like larynx prevents roaring, I don't know.
     Considering the size of the t-rex, there are two further factors. One: its larynx would have been large, too, meaning the t-rex would've been capable of deep noises. Two: its lungs would likewise be large, allowing both loud notes and prolonged notes. Hence t-rex roars have a higher chance of materialising.
Plenty of birds do roar.
     Initial examples are the Australian bustard, cassowary and kiwi. (Not to mention lyrebirds, parrots and all others that can imitate any sound.) 
     So if t-rex could only make bird sounds, and roars are a bird sound, then t-rex should be able to roar, too. (Hence the bird-sound argument for why t-rex couldn't roar is faulty.)
     Besides, if even tiny kiwis can roar, then massive t-rex definitely should!

Conclusion

So, does an ankylosaurid larynx that produces bird-like sounds prove that t-rex couldn't roar? 
     No. The leap of reasoning involved in this assumption is not sound (pun entirely intended) and thus must be discounted. 
     Yes, it's entirely possible t-rex couldn't roar, but an ankylosaurid larynx isn't proof of this premise.
(Of course, I'm not claiming that real t-rex sounded like their film/documentary counterparts. Rather, this fossilised ankylosaurid larynx can't be used as conclusive evidence that real t-rex couldn't roar.)

Achondroplasia

Achondroplasia is perhaps the most recognisable form of dwarfism. These individuals typically have short limbs and enlarged heads. Midface hypoplasia, whilst not present in all individuals, is another distinguishing feature.
 
 
Midface Hypoplasia
 
Midface hypoplasia results in the upper jaw, cheekbones and eye sockets not growing as much as the rest of the face.
    Visually, it can present with an underbite or with large, prominent eyes. The internal differences midface hypoplasia causes are far more important: the Eustachian tubes and the pharynx are shortened, affecting their functions.
    The Eustachian tubes connect the throat and mouth with the middle ear. When this is short, it predisposes the individual to have recurrent upper airway infections. This includes, but isn’t limited to glue ear or a cold, cough, runny nose, and sore throat.
    The pharynx is a muscle that helps people to breathe and to swallow. Difficulty swallowing means difficulty eating and speaking. Trouble breathing can mean heavy, laboured breathing.     This makes exercise difficult, reducing the individual’s health. Listening to anyone talking whilst they sound out of breath is problematic; difficulty controlling the pharynx means it’s difficult to make the right sounds.
    All-in-all, midface hypoplasia can have serious consequences.
 
 
Glue Ear
 
Glue ear is more properly called a ‘middle ear effusion’. This is when fluid builds up in the middle ear.
    It can cause balance issues, earache, infection, hearing loss, and tinnitus. Although it usually passes after four-to-six months, a three-month recovery period is still considered normal.
    The main treatment is to repeat auto-inflation throughout the day. Swallowing whilst holding the nostrils down is a good method, but the medical world has special balloons that do the trick, too.
    As people with achondroplasia have shortened Eustachian tubes, they can have near-constant glue ear. This means near-constant treatment (which is annoying and frustrating). The more something occurs, the more probable serious consequences occur.
 
 
Of course, not everyone with achondroplasia suffers as greatly. As with any condition, there is great variability. But it’s still important to be aware of all the facts so that those with achondroplasia can live a full and enjoyable life.

Does Babi mean ‘the Bull of Baboons’?

Babi is the underworld god of baboons. People translate his name to mean ‘the Bull of Baboons’, with ‘bull’ meaning chief/leader/ruler. But at closer examination, this clearly isn’t correct.

 

The Ancient Egyptian word for bull was ‘ka’. As there is no ka in Babi, people’s translation to Babi is off to a bad start.

What about Ancient Egyptian words for baboon? In the Middle Kingdom, there were aana, iana (male) and iant (female). The New Kingdom had aan, aaan and aaany. Aani is used in mythology to denote dog-headed apes which are now identified with yellow baboons (despite baboons not being apes).

Babi itself was sometimes used to mean ‘baboon’ (presumably hamadryas baboons, the species to which Babi belongs). Indeed, some people think Babi’s name is where the English word baboon originates. Obviously, Babi can’t mean both ‘baboon’ and ‘the bull of baboons’ at the same time.

Clearly none of the Egyptian words for baboon combine with ka to form Babi. Using the actual translations of ‘the Bull of Baboons’, it would be ‘ka ian’ in Egyptian (or ian ka, depending on Egyptian grammar). That’s nothing like ‘Babi’.

 

So I decided to look at the source material where Babi and ‘the Bull of Baboons’ are conflated: the Pyramid Texts.

Here, the pharaoh identifies himself as ‘Babi, the Bull of Baboons’, reading ‘Babi ka ian’. If Babi and ‘the Bull of Baboon’ were the same thing, it would say ‘Babi Babi’ (which it doesn’t). Clearly, ‘the Bull of Baboons’ is used as a title. It is neither the meaning nor translation of Babi.

So no, Babi does not mean ‘the Bull of Baboons’.