We ride. We roar. We raise that flag. ???

July 3, 2025 — Today's Conservative Cartoon

Judge Smith's Requiem Mass to receive its world premiere in Holborn in July

In 2016, then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said during an MSNBC town hall that there should be “some form of punishment” for women who chose to abort their unborn children. His comments erupted a firestorm of controversy among both pro-abortion and pro-life advocates, prompting a rapid backtrack. March For Life President Jeanne Mancini said Trump’s comments were “out of touch” and that “no pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion,” while National Right to Life released an equally critical statement. Though Trump quickly softened his position, some Republicans and conservative activists, increasingly emboldened by the end of Roe v. Wade and the rise of so-called “self-managed” abortions, are looking to criminalize abortion for anyone involved — including the woman.  They believe that criminalizing abortion will be an effective deterrent to the onslaught of illegal abortion pills being mailed across the country into states where medication abortion is supposed to be illegal. And despite some efforts by a few Republican attorneys general to target those sending abortion pills across the country, abortion pill activists continue to receive glowing profiles in legacy outlets like The New York Times and The Guardian. While this position is still a minority among elected Republicans, it is gaining increasing national attention from left-leaning media outlets, who portray those who support criminalization as extreme. Advocates of criminalization often clash with traditional pro-life groups, who say that criminalization will drive more women to underground abortions and lead them to stop turning to crisis pregnancy centers for help. This year, the debate has played out across the country — from North Dakota to Georgia, from Texas to Missouri — where Republican lawmakers have proposed “equal protection” bills that would criminalize abortion. According to the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, 16 criminalization bills have been introduced across 14 states so far this year, with support from 122 Republican lawmakers.  Those bills received four committee hearings, three committee votes, and one floor vote. In February, a North Dakota proposal that would have expanded the current homicide law to encompass anyone who ends the life of an unborn child was voted down on the Republican-dominated House floor. The bill, HB 1373, would have amended the definition of “human being” in the homicide code to include an “individual living human child before birth from the beginning of biological development at the moment of fertilization upon the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum.”  As could be expected, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU vigorously lobbied against the bill. But it also divided pro-life groups.  During a committee hearing, Republican Rep. Lori Van Winkle, the author of the legislation, said that it would have made it clear in North Dakota law that unborn children are human and would “close a loophole that has allowed murder of innocent lives to continue in this state at will and on demand by any woman who desires to take a pill and kill her preborn child.” Ultimately, the bill failed as the House Human Services Committee gave the legislation an 11-1 do not pass recommendation, and the full House voted 77-16 against advancing the proposal.  That came after an organization called North Dakota Can circulated a letter signed by a variety of conservative leaders. Amber Vibeto, the executive director of North Dakota Can, told The Daily Wire that the legislation was needed to crack down on the dramatic increase in so-called “self-managed abortions.” “Abortion remains legal in all 50 states because even in pro-life states, pro-life legislation carves out special legal immunity for women to self-induce their own abortions,” she said. “And so women are self-inducing their own abortions and they have complete legal freedom to do so. And so there are no abortion bans in the United States.”  Vibeto said that the intent was not just to round up women and put them in prison, but to extend protections to the unborn.  “We just need to include the preborn in the homicide laws that we already have on the books. We just believe that the same laws that protect you and me from murder and homicide should protect the preborn as well,” she said. “Our constitution demands equal protection under the law to all persons, and it doesn’t have a qualifier that says ‘well, unless you live in a culture of lies that makes you a victim.’”  On the other side, a number of pro-life groups opposed the bill, saying that it would have done more harm than good. Both the North Dakota Catholic Conference and the North Dakota Family Alliance gave testimony urging lawmakers not to support the bill. Mark Jorritsma, the executive director of the North Dakota Family Alliance, told The Daily Wire that while he believed the bill was “well-intentioned,” it was “not the right way to end abortion” in North Dakota.  “Fundamentally, you’re punishing the wrong person,” he said. “We do claim and agree that the mother is the second victim here. There is often undo pressure put on her, she’s in a state of mind where she’s not capable of making the right decisions given fear, or whatever else she may be dealing with.”  Jorritsma also said he had practical problems with the bill, saying that it would have led to a dramatic increase in prison population that wouldn’t be possible to maintain.  “Regardless of your ethical, moral, religious, philosophical bent on the issue, it’s just untenable. You cannot do it even if you wanted to,” he said. “You’re going to have law enforcement going out and arresting 18-year-old girls instead of stopping drunk drivers.” David Tamisiea, the executive director of the North Dakota Catholic Conference, told The Daily Wire that he believed that pro-life lawmakers should focus on building a culture of life in the state instead of making women felons. “Rather than going after women, supporting women in difficult circumstances so that abortion becomes unthinkable to them,” he said.  He also said that HB 1373 would have been immediately struck down because of a recent North Dakota Supreme Court decision that ruled that women have a “fundamental right” to abortion in certain circumstances.  A similar debate played out in Georgia, where lawmakers considered a similar bill, HB 441. That fight pitted groups like the Georgia Life Alliance against Georgia Right to Life.  The legislation, known as the Georgia Prenatal Equal Protection Act, was introduced by Rep. Emory Dunahoo. The proposal would have added protections for unborn babies under state homicide laws. “Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year, all within the bounds of the current law. That must be changed,”  Dunahoo said during a March hearing on his legislation.  His proposal was supported by Georgia Right to Life, a Christian organization that doesn’t support any exceptions for abortion.  “Our homicide code in Georgia does not criminalize people, it criminalizes an act. Just as homicide is an act that is born out under a criminal law, abortion being murder should carry that same punishment,” Georgia Right to Life Executive Director Zemmie Fleck told The Daily Wire. “Our homicide code should apply to both of those because, for Georgia Right to Life, we recognize that a preborn child is a person at its very earliest beginnings, whether that be in the petri dish or whether that is natural conception.” Fleck added that she understood the enormous impact of abortion on American culture, noting that an estimated 65 million babies have been aborted since 1973. “Our hearts go out, our prayers go out to men and women who have been impacted by this abortion issue. The numbers are just staggering,” she said. “This has impacted our society to incredible levels.”  On the other side, the Georgia Life Alliance, which describes itself as the largest pro-life group in the state, sent a letter to lawmakers asking them to oppose the legislation. In their letter, they said that they had “grave concerns with the impact, consequences, and outcomes of the bill which conflicts with our organizational mission.” These concerns included their belief that deterring abortion “requires compassionate support, not punitive measures,” that the bill could deter women from seeking medical care, and that criminalizing abortion could lead to more “unregulated abortions.” “Regardless of one’s beliefs on access to abortion, women and girls should not be further traumatized from their abortion by the fear of criminal prosecution,” the group wrote. “We can love them both by pursuing ways to help women and children in desperate situations and take care not to pass laws that unintentionally encourage their further harm and additional trauma to women which is incentivized by HB 441.” Ultimately, the bill did not get a committee vote. But it could be brought up again by the chair at a later time.  Similar battles have played out this year in states like Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, delegates to the state’s Republican Party convention recently voted to censor Republican lawmakers who opposed a proposal criminalizing abortion in the state.  Most national pro-life organizations oppose bills that would criminalize abortion, arguing that they harm the cause. In the lead up to the overturning of Roe, a coalition of top pro-life groups sent an open letter to state legislatures making clear their opposition to criminalizing abortion.  “Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion,” the leaders wrote in the letter. “As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.” Signatories included the leaders of National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, March for Life Action, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and many more. Kelsey Pritchard, the political affairs communication director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, pointed out that none of the criminalization bills have been approved affirmatively by any GOP-led committees. “SBA Pro-Life America does not support legislation to criminalize women and qualify them for the death penalty,” she said. “No state pro-life law criminalizes women, and that’s not changing as not a single one of these bills has passed out of committee.” Pritchard also pointed to a study that said over 60% of women who had abortions reported experiencing some form of pressure or coercion.  “In a world where a predatory abortion industry embeds lies about the humanity of unborn children into our culture and enables abortion coercion, women with unplanned pregnancies need more support,” she said. One prominent national leader who has changed her perspective on the issue is Abby Johnson. A former Planned Parenthood employee, Johnson runs And Then There Were None, an organization that supports people who want to leave the abortion industry, and ProLove Ministries, a group that aids expectant moms in crisis pregnancies. She told The Daily Wire that she is skeptical of the position that women are victims of abortion, saying that she often sees women boasting and laughing about ending the life of their unborn child outside of abortion facilities. “Holding people accountable for their actions is the right thing to do. It’s the conservative thing to do. It’s the lawful thing to do. It’s the biblical thing to do,” she said.  She believes that criminalizing abortion would deter women from seeking to terminate their pregnancies. Personally, she said that she would not have had two abortions or worked for Planned Parenthood if she had faced the threat of criminalization. “What is actually going to effectively reduce the number of abortions?” she said. “It’s not the regulation. It’s not going after the abortion doctors. It’s going after the people who are ordering, who are taking the pills, who are flushing the babies down the toilet, it’s going after the consumer.” Johnson said that while she disagrees with the approach many of her national pro-life counterparts have taken, she is still able to work well with them on specific issues and causes. Pro-life leaders in North Dakota who opposed the criminalizing bill there echoed that sentiment. Mark Jorritsma of the North Dakota Family Alliance told The Daily Wire that he would be “more than happy” to talk to the other side, adding that “they’re on our side, they are not the enemy.”

When God appeared to Moses at the burning bush, Moses asked God for his name. He wanted to tell the enslaved Israelites who had sent him to deliver them. God told Moses to tell them “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex. 3:14) and also “the LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you” (v. 15). The name “the LORD” (yhwh) God says “is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (v. 15). These texts from Exodus have prompted questions surrounding God’s name, not all of which can be answered with certainty. However, we mustn’t get lost in the scholarly weeds but remember why God revealed his name. The dominant theme throughout Exodus, and a prominent theme throughout all of Scripture, is God’s self-revelation that we might know him. God has revealed himself to us by his name yhwh and has revealed his character through his mighty acts of salvation and judgment so that “all the peoples of the earth may know that [yhwh] is God; there is no other” (1 Kings 8:60). Meaning of God’s Name Names can have meanings based on their etymology. My name, Jonathan, means, based on its Hebrew origin, “The LORD has given.” Similarly, scholars have tried to determine the meaning of God’s name based on its root. God actually reveals two names to Moses. The name “I AM” in Exodus 3:14 is the expected translation coming from the Hebrew “to be” verb (hyh). The apparent similarity between the name “I AM” and the name “LORD” (v. 15) can be somewhat seen when we transliterate the Hebrew words into their respective English forms, namely yhwh and ʾhyh. The normal spelling of the “to be” verb in Hebrew is hyh; the alternate spelling, hwh, occurs but is rare (e.g., Gen. 27:29). Thus, it’s often argued that the names yhwh (“LORD”) and ʾhyh (“I AM”) both come from the same word, the Hebrew “to be” verb, though in different forms. If this analysis is correct, yhwh would then be translated “he is.” To be clear, we ought to understand the translation of yhwh “he is” not as an incomplete sentence (“he is what?”) but as “he exists.” While “he is” or “he exists” is the possible translation of yhwh, some theologians have argued that the name yhwh is a statement of God’s aseity. This term is used in theology to describe the biblical truth of God’s self-sufficiency and complete independence and autonomy. God isn’t dependent on or influenced by anything external to himself. It’s possible that the meaning of yhwh as “he exists” may contribute to the comprehensive biblical evidence for this attribute of God. However, given the narrative context of Exodus, God’s primary purpose in providing the name yhwh may not be to establish a theological principle of his self-existence at that juncture in the story. Others argue for a “providential” or “redemptive-historical” understanding of the name yhwh. Within the Exodus narrative, Moses needs a name to give to the Israelites for who will deliver them from Egypt. God provides his name, yhwh and the name “I AM,” to communicate to Israel that he’ll be present with them to deliver them. Such an understanding seems to fit Exodus’s context, in which God leads Israel out of Egypt by his presence in a pillar of smoke and fire (13:22) and Moses requests God’s presence to lead them into the promised land (33:14–15). Such an understanding views the name yhwh not as a statement of God’s aseity but as a statement of his redemptive presence with his people. While this understanding derives the meaning of yhwh from the narrative context, it must be pointed out that such an understanding of the name isn’t derived etymologically. Pronouncing God’s Name We don’t know the original pronunciation of the name yhwh in Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew was originally written with only consonants, and it wasn’t until centuries later that Jewish scholars added the vowels to preserve the ancient pronunciation. The vowels of the Masoretic tradition—one tradition among a few—became the standard pronunciation, particularly among Western scholars. God provides his name, yhwh and the name ‘I AM,’ to communicate to Israel that he’ll be present with them to deliver them. In this Masoretic tradition, however, vowels were never added to the consonants yhwh to preserve its ancient pronunciation. Instead, these Jewish scholars took the vowels of the Hebrew word for “Lord” (ʾǎdōnāy) and added them to the consonants yhwh. This mismatch of consonants and vowels was to prompt the reader to not pronounce the name yhwh out of reverence but the word “Lord” (ʾǎdōnāy) in its place. Thus, each time the reader came across the name yhwh, he or she would pronounce the name ʾǎdōnāy. As a result, the original pronunciation of the name hasn’t been preserved. In the 19th century, the German scholar Wilhelm Gesenius popularized the vocalization of the Hebrew consonants yhwh as “Yahweh” by studying the Greek transliterations of the name yhwh. The pronunciation as “Yahweh” is now typical, though it can’t be conclusively verified. In English Bibles, when the words ʾǎdōnāy or yhwh appear, both are translated with the English word “Lord.” However, to mark the distinction between the underlying Hebrew words, whenʾǎdōnāy occurs it is simply translated “Lord” (e.g., Gen. 15:8), whereas when yhwh occurs it is translated with “LORD” in small caps (e.g., v. 13). Occasionally, one finds in the Hebrew Bible ʾǎdōnāy yhwh. To avoid the redundant reading of ʾǎdōnāy ʾǎdōnāy in Hebrew (or “Lord LORD” in English), in such instances, the Masoretes added the vowels from ʾělōhīm (“God”) to yhwh to prompt the reading of ʾělōhīm (“God”) instead of ʾǎdōnāy. When this occurs—when the word yhwh appears with the vowels from ʾělōhīm—English Bibles read “GOD” in small caps (e.g., v. 2). As already noted, yhwh possibly means “he is,” but it doesn’t mean “I AM,” nor does it mean “LORD” any more than it means “GOD.” The renderings “LORD” and “GOD” in English simply reflect the ancient tradition of reading ʾǎdōnāy or ʾělōhīm instead of yhwh. Where Did the Word ‘Jehovah’ Come From? The word “Jehovah” is neither English nor Hebrew, nor is it a name for God. It’s a misnomer from combining the vowels of one word with the consonants of another. As noted above, the Jews added the vowels from ʾǎdōnāy (“Lord”) to the consonants of yhwh to indicate that the reader should read “Lord.” So if the consonants from yhwh are read with the vowels from ʾǎdōnāy, the result is the mistaken word yǎhōvāh. This “word” anglicized becomes Jehovah. To illustrate this mistaken result, it would be like taking the vowels from “porcupine” and adding them to “elephant” to produce the word oluphinte; a “word” that is neither English nor a name for any animal. Know the Lord What then can we know? Pharoah asked, “Who is [yhwh]?” (Ex. 5:2) and was given 10 plagues that he might “know that there is no one like [yhwh], our God” (8:10). Israel was delivered from Egypt by God so they would “know that I am [yhwh] your God” (6:7), and as a result, God’s fame spread to the Canaanites who heard “how [yhwh] dried up the water of the Red Sea” (Josh. 2:10). While we may not know the exact origin, meaning, and pronunciation of the name yhwh, far more importantly we can know him—we can know yhwh. God’s revelation of his name was ultimately for us to know him.

Imagine a world in which more people believe in aliens than in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Where belief in telekinesis is more common than trust in the government. Where more people think ancient aliens visited Earth than think the local news is reliable. We don’t have to imagine, because that world is called New Hampshire, and the rest of the United States isn’t far behind. In his new book The Ghost Lab: How Bigfoot Hunters, Mediums, and Alien Enthusiasts Are Wrecking Science, freelance journalist Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling explores the connection between the implosion of institutional trust and the growing interest in the paranormal. His earlier book, A Libertarian Walks into a Bear, follows the disorder caused by the rejection of institutions in one small New Hampshire town. The Ghost Lab is an extended case study on the Kitt Research Initiative (KRI), one of dozens of paranormal investigation groups that operated in New Hampshire in the 2010s. Hongoltz-Hetling intersperses accounts of séances, ghost hunts, and alien abductions with historical vignettes, commentary from scientists, and stories about the everyday triumphs and struggles of KRI members. The result is an alternately fascinating and disturbing portrait of a fraying, post-Christian culture, a portrait that nonetheless illustrates how the church can be a bulwark of truth and an incubator of social trust. Crisis of Faith Traditional institutions are crumbling, along with the trust we once had in them. But people haven’t ceased to trust. Rather, they’ve transferred their trust to an eclectic mix of noninstitutional teachers, gurus, spiritual guides, and healers. People like the members of the KRI. Traditional institutions are crumbling, along with the trust we once had in them. Although his frustration with what he clearly regards as pseudo-scientific nonsense occasionally emerges, Hongoltz-Hetling is largely impartial as he chronicles the exploits of the KRI. He truly wants to understand the lives of “believers.” He explores how they think, how they feel, and how they reconcile their worldview with the disenchantment of modernity. He seems to like them. Yet Hongoltz-Hetling makes it clear that the battle between science and the paranormal is “a zero-sum game.” He writes, “In order to believe that ghosts, aliens, and cryptids are real, one must believe that the lack of acknowledgement by science, government, and other institutions represents a massive failure of competence or corruption” (157). And that is exactly what organizations like the KRI and those that gather in them believe. At the heart of the book is a question of epistemology: How do we know truth? Hongoltz-Hetling’s answer is that science is the sole repository of universal, objective truth. He also laments the loss of trust in institutions, like the University of New Hampshire, which he believes represent the pursuit of pure science. To his credit, Hongoltz-Hetling admits that “institutions themselves bear much of the responsibility” for declining public trust (143). In his view, their main problem is a failure of communication. Institutions have the truth, but they’ve done a poor job of conveying it to the public in a compelling, memorable way. He also grudgingly concedes that “institutional failures” have eroded public trust and names a handful of vague examples like rising income inequality and declining life expectancy. At the same time, he ignores far more specific and egregious examples. Most notably, anyone concerned with institutional credibility has to reckon with the inestimable damage done by transgender ideology. When a 5-year-old can answer the question “What is a woman?” and the ACLU, the AMA, and a Supreme Court justice cannot, the problem doesn’t lie with the 5-year-old. With so much confusion about observable reality, it’s little wonder that many are seeking meaning in the paranormal. Reckoning with the Paranormal Though Jesus promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18), Satan is still prowling around seeking to devour (1 Pet. 5:8). Therefore, Christians shouldn’t overlook the rising tide of spiritualism and paranormal belief that’s at the heart of this book. Hongoltz-Hetling reports on the misadventures of the KRI with affable indulgence, like a favorite uncle playing make-believe with his nephews and nieces. Indeed, for the first half of the book, I was shocked by how few of the phenomena appeared to be demonic. Almost all of the team’s experiences could be chalked up to overactive imaginations or transparent charlatanism. And then in chapter 21, without warning, a tarot-card reader who’d visited the KRI brutally tortures, rapes, and murders a UNH college student. This incident is disturbing, but Hongoltz-Hetling takes it in his stride. Yes, “Lex” believed he was possessed by four different interdimensional beings and was deeply involved in the occult. But the lesson drawn is that we need to “build a world in which such murders are less likely to happen” (186). Hongoltz-Hetling never considers that a spiritual realm might actually exist and that contact with it might be far less benign than Touched by an Angel reruns suggest. I was reminded of C. S. Lewis’s warning in The Screwtape Letters, where a demon says, “Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick.” Satan isn’t as much interested in spectacular sins as in our slow, unremarkable, lifelong descent into hell. He doesn’t need to employ overt spiritual terrorism if he can snare human souls with a few healing crystals, a blurry picture of Bigfoot, and the whispered assurance that we can forge our own spiritual path. Christians need to be aware that Satan is very real and very dangerous. And he’s no less dangerous because he’s sometimes subtle. Ecclesiocentric Trust Regardless of what happens to our broader cultural institutions, Christians are uniquely positioned to build an “alternative trust economy.” Social media tends to sort people into ideological bubbles that amplify mistrust of other tribes. In contrast, the church is united around a common confession rather than a common cultural background or political goal. Consequently, it organically exposes us to different perspectives. This creates healthy epistemic friction and makes it much harder for us to simply dismiss those with whom we disagree. Satan isn’t as much interested in spectacular sins as in our slow, unremarkable, lifelong descent into hell. The local church can be an incubator for relational trust. When a stranger on the internet gives me advice I don’t like, I can always reject it on the grounds that he must have some ulterior motive. But when I speak to a doctor or a lawyer or a scientist from my church, I don’t have that excuse. I know the person cares about me and wants what’s best for me. He or she might still be mistaken, but I have no reason to doubt the underlying motives. In this way, churches can build up local trust networks that operate independently of institutional failure. Pastors can encourage this kind of trust by resisting the temptation to issue authoritative proclamations on empirical questions. Public policy, scientific studies, and sociological trends may be upended or reversed in a few months. Biblical truths are unchanging. Therefore, extrabiblical topics should be addressed with an epistemic humility that resists overconfidence. Additionally, it’s important that Christians on both sides of policy discussions feel represented, respected, and heard. There’s no doubt that Hongoltz-Hetling, a Pulitzer finalist, is an excellent writer. He ties together the problem of institutional distrust, which is familiar to many of us, and the growth of paranormal subculture, which is unfamiliar to many of us. This book is off the beaten path for many Christians, but it shows how valuable the church is for fostering trust and establishing truth. The Ghost Lab can help church leaders understand how to meet real spiritual needs in an uncertain, confusing, and demon-haunted world.

Jellyfish Galaxy ESO 137-001. Credit: NASAScientists have discovered an unusual galaxy in the early universe using the Webb Space Telescope. It is the most distant jellyfish galaxy known so far. Astronomers have discovered a galaxy that may be the most distant jellyfish galaxy ever discovered. It is 12 billion light years away and could help improve our understanding of how galaxies open up and new stars form. Astronomers want to conduct additional observations to confirm that this object does indeed belong to the class of unusual galaxies. The study was published on the preprint server arXiv. Astronomers using the Webb Space Telescope have discovered a unique galaxy that has tentacles of gas and stars, and therefore most likely belongs to the class of jellyfish galaxies. So far, everything points to this. Jellyfish galaxies are thought to be former spiral galaxies like the Milky Way that were deformed as they moved through the dense medium of a galaxy cluster. As a result, they release gas that resembles the tentacles of a jellyfish. This is what the new jellyfish galaxy looks like. The numbers indicate its tentacles of gas and stars. Photo: NASA Interestingly, new stars are formed in these tentacles, but scientists do not understand how this can happen. The fact is that the ejected gas must be very hot, and cold gas is needed to create stars. Astronomers say that jellyfish galaxies are not very rare in the local universe, but the galaxies exist in this stage for a relatively short time in cosmic terms, and therefore finding a jellyfish galaxy that has not yet merged with other galaxies is considered very lucky. Given that the new jellyfish galaxy was discovered 12 billion light years away, this object is currently considered the most distant representative of the unusual class of galaxies known. Although all signs point to the new object being a jellyfish galaxy, astronomers want to conduct further observations to confirm this fact. The study’s authors say no one yet knows how common jellyfish galaxies were in the early universe, so studying the new galaxy is important. Jellyfish galaxies can be used to study the evolution of galaxies and the process by which new stars form. Some galaxies in the dense environment of galaxy clusters create fewer new stars than others, and understanding why this happens is critical to understanding how galaxies change over time. Astronomers say there may be other reasons why the new galaxy has an odd appearance. It is not to be ruled out that the so-called tentacles may be an optical illusion. The post Astronomers Discover a Jellyfish Galaxy with ‘Tentacles’ in Deep Space appeared first on Anomalien.com.