Monday, January 10, 2011

Double Rainbow @ 529 ATL

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Human Sperm Gene Is 600 Million Years Old - Science Daily

Updated: Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 11:04 PM

Thanks to TheRationalizer for the link.
original link

Just as styles in sexy clothes or fashion change from year to year and culture to culture, "sexy" genes, or genes specific to sex, also change rapidly. But there is one sex-specific gene so vital, its function has remained unaltered throughout evolution and is found in almost all animals, according to new research from Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

The gene, called Boule, is responsible for sperm production. Northwestern scientists also discovered in their research that Boule appears to be the only gene known to be exclusively required for sperm production from an insect to a mammal.

"This is the first clear evidence that suggests our ability to produce sperm is very ancient, probably originating at the dawn of animal evolution 600 million years ago," said Eugene Xu, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Feinberg. "This finding suggests that all animal sperm production likely comes from a common prototype."

Xu is senior author of a paper on the study that will be published July 15 in PLoS Genetics.

The discovery of Boule's key role in perpetuating animal species offers a better understanding of male infertility, a potential target for a male contraceptive drug and a new direction for future development of pesticides or medicine against infectious parasites or carriers of germs.

continue reading...


More support for evolution!

Posted via email from All Evolve

At the risk of drawing attention to a hateful organization... - Lady Gaga

Saturday, July 17, 2010 
I would like to make my little monster fans aware of a protest being held outside the Monsterball in St.Louis tonight. Although we have had protesters before, as well as fundamentalists at the show, this group of protesters are hate criminals and preach using lewd and violent language and imagery that I wish I protect you all from. Their message is of hatred and divisiveness, but inside at the Monsterball we preach love and unity. 

My request to all little monsters and public authorites is to pay these hate criminals no mind. Do not interact with them, or try to fight, Do not respond to any of their provocation. Don't waste your words, or feelings, no matter what you hear or see you are more fortunate and blessed than they are, and in your heart just pray for them. Although I respect and do not judge anyone for their personal views on any politics or religion, this group in particular to me, is violent and dangerous I wanted to make my fans aware of my views on how to approach, or rather not approach, these kinds of hate activists. 

Be inspired to ignore their ignorant message, and feel gratitude in your heart that you are not burdened or addicted to hate, as they are. X

How can you not love this woman?

Posted via email from All Evolve

The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Viral "Double Rainbow" Video Inspires Legions of Spin-offs

Just when I thought I had laughed all I could at the Double Rainbow Mashable goes and posts this!

Posted via email from All Evolve

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Too many holes.

I build an emptiness toward whores that need smoke and skin to reflect
emptiness into a sky that devoids itself of sun & moon, and I shake
stars into nihilistic crypts built by failed gladiators waiting for
the rain to pour...On my left shoulder is the god-loving cunt begging
for sluts and fags to build golden shit-storms of the mind that out
politic the senator from Asia and out-dance the man from
And I eat it up like a queen that can butch it up to the point that I
deny my cock when it suits me right so that I can still make my rent
as opposed to destroying your mind while still holding my ground amid
a Jeffersonian bore.

Posted via email from All Evolve

Friday, October 16, 2009

U.S. Must End Spying to Better Relationship with China

According to yesterday's Washington Post,

[Obama] aims to improve the U.S. relationship with China's military.
The once-insular nation is broadening its international interests and investing around the globe, and its military is rapidly modernizing. So there is concern that U.S. and Chinese forces may find themselves bumping into each other without formal mechanisms in place for the two militaries to iron out disagreements.

The article goes on to mention instances where the two nations have already bumped into each other. The interesting thing about these examples is they happened during U.S. espionage/reconnaissance missions in or near China. The most memorable of these examples is of the 2001 incident where a Chinese fighter jet brought down a U.S. Navy plane in China, where the crew was held for 11 days.

Some may brush this off as the inept foreign policy of the Bush White House, but at least five times since Obama has been in office, Chinese vessels have cornered U.S. ships conducting reconnaissance missions in Chinese economic maritime zones. While most countries view these areas of the South China Sea and the Yellow Sea as international waters, China has explicitly claimed waters upwards of 230 miles off its coasts.

One thing the Obama administration is going to have to do in order to better relations with China is to cease reconnaissance/espionage missions. It is unlikely that Washington would be complacent if China started reconnaissance missions 75 miles off the coast of California.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The International System: Realist or Liberal?

This is based on an assignment for my International Conflict class. The assignment was to choose from our selected articles on realism and liberalism, and decide which most accurately describes the international system, and which least accurately describes the international system. First and foremost, I find that realist nor liberals accurately describe the international system. My theoretical grounding is in constructivism. However, in comparing the two schools of theoretical thought, I will look at Thucydides, as the "father of realism," and compare his view of the international system to that of Doyle and other liberals.

In “The Peloponnesian War,” Thucydides discusses how Athens wants to take over the Melians, mainly to prove her power to her own people. Thucydides implies that those with power do not deserve power if they are unwilling to exercise it. The international system of today is one that is typically less likely to exercise its power. This is evident in most of Europe’s hesitance to use force to solve conflicts (i.e. Iraq).

Thucydides also expresses ideas of classic realism, when he shares the idea that all states, including weaker ones, have interest in using force to either sustain or obtain power. He shares the idea that submission equals despair, even for weaker states, because even weaker states have the chance of beating the strong. Not only this, but fighting also preserves the hope of winning. I may grant some leeway to Thucydides here, because even today, weaker states are not likely to submit to larger ones (i.e. Cuba, Iran, Iraq, or Venezuela to United State’s pressure). However, Thucydides goes on to state that the law of nature is to rule, and that neutral, yet independent people, are a danger to those in power—or at least a threat to the power structure. One reason for WWI and WWII, was to grant independence to states such as Poland and Serbia, partly to prevent the spread of empire. The international system has shifted to being more accepting of independent peoples. Even neutrality is more accepted by the system, with the tolerance of states such as Switzerland and Sweden, which were neutral during both of these and subsequent wars.

Doyle seems to come closest to accurately describing the international system with his theory on liberal internationalism. Doyle points out that while liberals have not avoided wars, there has been a “separate peace” among liberals. It is true that modern democracies have not gone to war with other democracies. Doyle proceeds to invoke Kant when he says that after one state adopts liberalism in the name of peace (as has already happened), gradually, an un-ending chain of alliances will form leading to perpetual peace. Doyle points out that backsliding and wars will happen, but over time this process will educate nations as to why peace is so important. This has come to fruition in various ways, via the proliferation of trade agreements and customs unions, including the prime example: the European Union. It is important to note Cobden’s suggestion of arbitration pacts, which have also become a reality under this “separate peace.”

Again, I must state that there are flaws in realist, and even liberal ideology, such as the devaluation or complete exclusion of non-state actors. Non-state actors are primary actors in the international system. It can be argued that not only are non-state actors prevalent now, but that they were also prevalent a century ago. Some call what happened in Sarajevo, in 1914, a terrorist act by a non-state actor. This exclusion, as well as the basic assumption that there is structured chaos and anarchy within the system (as opposed to Wendt: "Anarchy is what States Make of It"), are the main problems with realist thought. Liberals, on the other hand, fail to account for the negative consequences of assuming that what is good at the aggregate is also good at the unit level (i.e. the invisible hand benefits the system as a whole—when it has historically been shown to disproportionately benefit those already in power). To pick one of only these two theories (ignoring constructivism and other critical theories), I would have to narrow my choice to interventionist liberalism as the most accurate theory of the international system—one that accepts the notions of a "separate peace," but realizes and confronts the disproportionate and negative consequences of orthodox liberalism.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Internationalism vs. Nationalism

This is in response to a discussion my advisor Dr. Petersen and I were having. The topic of internationalism (communitarian or collective governing) vs. nationalism (sovereignty) came up. I am totally seeing a thesis project develop out of this:

Mearsheimer is right that creating a space for a new international order cannot guarantee it to be better—and, yes, it might be worse. However, I am seeing sovereignty as a barrier against the progress toward peace. Regardless of what Rousseau actually thought of sovereignty, I think he said it best when he said that men were naive to accept the declaration from the first man that declared he owned a particular plot of land; that wars erupted as part of the perpetuation of this naivety. In actuality the earth belongs to us all. In agreeing with this line of thinking, I do not see sovereignty as naturally derived, but an ego-driven construct of man. Therefore, I also see the relinquishing of sovereignty tied to a relinquishing of some ego. So, while an international government, or some form of collective or cooperative government, may not be completely benign, its constitution of diminished ego creates an arena for the opportunity of more shared understanding. This, I believe, creates a space for something more benign—though not guaranteed (link to original).