Anthony Comstock is synonymous with the Gilded Age crusade against vice. The 1873 “Act of the Suppression of the Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use” – better known, then and now, as the “Comstock Act” – secured its namesake’s enduring notoriety. Most federal laws with an appellation honor a congressional sponsor, or, in more recent years, a victim of the issue that the law aims to address. Only the Comstock Act memorializes a man who was both the chief civilian proponent of its passage and the government bureaucrat tasked with its enforcement.1

The four books suggested for review in this article are very disparate; so what shall be attempted here is to bring them into conversation with each other, but also to explore what they reflect about recent scholarship and how they contribute to current debate.

Philosophers have attempted to explain humour in various ways over the years. Drawing on the main philosophical theories of humour – the superiority theory, the relief theory, and the incongruity theory – along with the psychological theory of benign violation, I elucidate what makes swearing (sometimes) funny. I argue that each of these theories has something to contribute to understanding swearing's funniness and that, in addition, its funniness also likely derives from two other factors. One of these factors is the glee that many of us came to attach to uttering naughty words when we were children. The other factor is the emotion-intensifying unpredictability (‘Whatever will happen next?’) introduced by the breaking of norms that occurs when someone swears inappropriately, which – provided that the norm-breaking does not introduce a threat – provokes amusement.

The radical right has become a central political force in most Western democracies. This process has been the result of the normalization and mainstreaming of its political leaders, discourses, and visions of society, notably involving the scapegoating of immigration and the use of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. However, the normalization and mainstreaming of radical right actors competing for the leadership of their overall political family remain an under-researched topic. The scope of the current article is to explore this phenomenon by considering the case of France, which after the United States, is the largest Western state that could potentially be ruled by a radical right president with extensive executive powers. The analysis shows that actors competing for the leadership of the radical right in a given country can generate diverging strategies of normalization and mainstreaming to secure their political distinction. Immigration and the Great Replacement constitute, respectively, a topic and a conspiracy theory that are emphasized and/or downplayed by opportunistic stakeholders weaving a web of interactions to define their comparative legitimacy and supremacy in the public sphere.

I thank Bentley and O'Brien (2024) for their cogent review of issues associated with inheritance and intention in cultural evolution. Intent is, of course, present in cultural process and that begs the question as to when and how we concern ourselves with it as a factor in cultural evolution (Rosenberg 2022). Intent underlies our understanding of both micro- and macro-scale processes of cultural evolution. Lamarckian microevolutionary process depends on decision-makers choosing whether or not to accept and sometimes alter cultural traits (Boyd & Richerson 1985). Zeder (2009, 2018) points out that even long-term change may be affected by conscious infrastructural investments that alter capacity for socioeconomic production and, subsequently, canalise later developments.

In recent years, there has been an upsurge in the number of civilian resistance movements (CRMs) within states to counter government repression and coups d’états through which civilians are on the frontlines of state brutality and mass atrocities. This article considers the implications of CRMs for atrocity prevention and the associated responsibility to protect norm by asking, Should the international community support CRMs as part of its wider commitment to ending mass atrocities? In this article, we evaluate both military and nonmilitary support to CRMs. We argue that in the context of coups and government repression, providing lethal military support to CRMs will often make things worse in terms of atrocity prevention. We however explain that the provision by the international community of nonlethal and nonmilitary support through political recognition, technical assistance, and accountability can yield positive results. We illustrate this argument with the case of Myanmar.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Great Britain had become a home to many immigrant communities from across Europe and the wider world. The outbreak of the Great War of 1914-18 however, saw this multi-cultural society fracture. Those from the enemy nations suffered what Panikos Panayi described as efforts ‘aimed at eradicating the German community from Britain’, including persecution, internment, and repatriation, while the State struggled to deal with the threat of espionage and sabotage. Meanwhile, other immigrants from allied countries, such as Italy and Belgium, faced forced conscription from their home governments. Both these situations would impact the many Roman Catholic clergy and members of religious communities1 resident in the United Kingdom, affecting their ability to undertake their ministry, and sometimes resulting in incarceration.

The early establishment of the gut microbiome during the first 1000 days of life is crucial for health and development during childhood and beyond(1,2). The composition of the microbiome is influenced by various factors including mode of delivery, gestational age, feeding method, medication use, and other early life experiences(1). Disruptions to optimal early microbial colonisation, as presented with preterm infants, and infants delivered via caesarean section, can compromise microbial diversity which in turn may manifest in health problems(2,3). This study aims to investigate parental awareness around infantile gut health to establish potential gaps in the education provided by healthcare professionals (HCPs).

This study involved the distribution of a 15-item questionnaire to parents of infants aged 0-12 months, via a parenting platform, ‘everymum.ie’. Descriptive statistics were conducted using IBM SPSS V29. Frequencies, Cross-tabulations and Pearson Chi-Squares were performed to analyse categorical variables (significance at p≤0.05).

A total of 933 valid responses were collected. The majority of respondents were female (98%), aged between 25 and 44 years (95%) and had received third level education (85%). Of the sample, 76% did not receive any information from a HCP on the importance of their infant having a healthy gut. Only 15% of parents received this information before their infant’s birth and 22% received this information after. Furthermore, 89% of respondents did not receive any information from a HCP about the role of pre- or probiotics for their infant’s gut health.

Of the 364 parents (39%) who gave birth via caesarean section, 70% were not aware that mode of delivery was linked to their infant’s gut health and 73% did not receive information on the importance of their infant having a healthy gut. Almost 7% of the sample (n=64) had a premature infant. Of this subgroup, only 22% received information after their infant was born on the importance of gut health in infants. Furthermore, 86% of parents with a preterm infant did not receive information about the role of prebiotics or probiotics in relation to their infant’s gut health. There was no significant difference in the information provided to those with or without a preterm infant, and those who gave birth vaginally or via caesarean section, where p=0.950 and p=0.824, respectively.

This study highlights gaps in parental knowledge around infantile gut health and in the education provided by HCPs. Preterm infants and those born via caesarean section are particularly at risk of disruptions to optimal early microbial colonisation and these parents may potentially benefit from information on the importance of supporting their infant’s gut microbiome for long term health and development. Further support and education for HCPs appears necessary to help deliver this message to parents to reduce the burden of health problems during infancy.