That FR10 Thing You Do

1. Patricia Barber - All or Nothing At All
   
2. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 'Once More, with Feeling' soundtrack - Suite from Restless
   
3. Chumbawamba - Home With Me
   
4. Rolling Stones - Paint It Black
   
5. Bloodhound Gang - Three Point One Four
   
6. Franz Schubert - Fantaisie pour violon et piano
   
7. Franz Ferdinand - Take Me Out
   
8. Astrobotnia - Lightworks
   
9. Ani DiFranco - Shameless
   
10. Miles Davis - Moon Dreams

Fruit flies, innatism, and oversimplification

The NYT reports:

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

'We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior,' said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. 'It's very surprising.

'What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose.'

This isn't really a surprise: as I understand it, the reason geneticists study fruit flies is because their genome is fairly simple, so fiddling with a single gene will have significant phenotypic consequences. Also, no-one really believes fruit flies learn that much, or have free will: these animals really are complex organic machines. What's surprising is that a SINGLE gene acts as a switch between aggressive and receptive mating behaviours.

So, naturally, this tells us something about gay people.

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. 'The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work,' said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. 'Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science.'

He added: 'I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior.'

The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human brains, a product of genetic heritage.

Note the double layer of sexism going on here. First, we have the identification of aggressive with male and passive or receptive with female. Then, secondly, homosexuality is defined merely in terms of going against these norms: a 'gay' male fruit fly is sexually passive, and a 'gay' female fruit fly is sexually aggressive. What about female fruit flies who aggressively court males, and the males who are sexually receptive, but respond only to these aggressive females?

We get a token nod at the rarely-mentioned thesis that's neither genetic determinism nor 'choosing to be gay', that one's attractions are a complicated mix of environmental (social) and genetic elements ...

All the researchers cautioned that any of these wired behaviors set by master genes will probably be modified by experience. Though male fruit flies are programmed to pursue females, Dr. Dickson said, those that are frequently rejected over time become less aggressive in their mating behavior.

When a normal male fruit fly is introduced to a virgin female, they almost immediately begin foreplay and then copulate for 20 minutes. In fact, Dr. Dickson and his co-author, Dr. Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, specifically chose to look for the genetic basis of fly sexual behavior precisely because it seemed so strong and instinctive and, therefore, predictable.

but enough of that hippie crap, back to biology.

Scientists have known for several years that the master sexual gene, known as fru, was central to mating, coordinating a network of neurons that were involved in the male fly's courtship ritual. Last year, Dr. Bruce Baker of Stanford University discovered that the mating circuit controlled by the gene involved 60 nerve cells and that if any of these were damaged or destroyed by the scientists, the animal could not mate properly. Both male and female flies have the same genetic material as well as the neural circuitry required for the mating ritual, but different parts of the genes are turned on in the two sexes. But no one dreamed that simply activating the normally dormant male portion of the gene in a female fly could cause a genetic female to display the whole elaborate panoply of male fruit fly foreplay.

I'm sure neurologists will discover any day now that all of human sexual behavior is controlled by a few dozen nerve cells, and this complex in turn takes one of two different forms, depending on a single gene.

Not Awful At All

The Comedy Goldmine over at SA is pretty decent this week. Just, you know, thought you might be interested.

David Brooks expands his milieu

Fear and Rejection

Not content with clearly false pronouncements about the motivations of his fellow Americans, Brooks has decided to start making clearly false pronouncements about the motivations of Europeans. Somehow I have the feeling he knows even less about Europe than he does about the United States (and that's saying something).

What She Said!: Let's talk about SEX...

Heh. What She Said!: Let's talk about SEX...:

Men and women both have the same hormones in their bodies. The balance of these hormones, specifically estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, are different in each gender, with testosterone being dominant in males and the other two being dominant in females. We all need all three in proper balance to be healthy. While male levels tend to be continual, women experience a monthly fluctuation that allows ovulation and then menstruation. We all know the stereotype of the hysterical, pre-menstrual bitch made famous in Midol commercials. What most people don't know is that when a woman is menstruating is when her hormonal balance most closely resembles that of a man. Think about that. Men are 'menstrual' in their hormonal balance all the time. Funny, how nobody talks about that. If women are irrational, moody, irritable and even violent when their body chemistry mirrors that of men, would it be fair to say that men are always 'on the rag' emotionally and behaviorally?

To draft or not to draft

Jon Carroll makes a lefty case for the draft:

So what about the draft? What about reconnecting the Army with the nation it serves? I know, easy for me to say -- ain't no one gonna draft me -- but, seriously, what about it? Already there is serious inequity -- the president, knowing that the draft is unpopular, instead uses reservists in ways never contemplated by military planners, bringing untold hardship to innocent families.

Also, the Vietnam experience suggests that a universal draft would focus attention on our continuing problems in Iraq and the woeful way they are being managed. It would invest the rest of the nation in the plight of the military, and it would make the Bush administration's 'move along nothing to see here how about those Ten Commandments?' position untenable.

I don't want anyone to die pursuing this hubristic dream of exported democracy. On the other hand, since people are still dying, I'd love to focus the attention of the nation on the dying. The draft would be an excellent way to do that, and it would be equitable public policy.

and I respond by email:

Dear Jon Carroll,

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the burden of the Iraq war has fallen unfairly on the poorer and more naively patriotic members of our society, and I think your suspicions that most Americans are rather detached from the realities of war might be entirely accurate. But I do not feel the draft is a way to really address these problems.

The thing is, it is far too easy for someone like me -- 25, from an upper middle class family, master's degree, working on a Ph.D -- to avoid the draft, whether legally (educational exemption) or otherwise (my dad buys me a plane ticket to Germany). Many of today's chickenhawks, such as Rush Limbaugh, avoided the draft in Viet Nam by reporting medical problems. Should there be a draft, it is certainly the case that many more young Americans will see war. But it is also certainly the case that many of those young Americans will be the sisters, brothers, and neighbors of those who already serve, not scions of the wealthy and powerful.

They Call Me The Working Man, I Guess That's What I Am...

I just officially finished my first day at my first real law job ever. I'm tired, so this isn't going to be long. Not tired so much from the work, which thus far is pretty mundane, but from the hour long walk home I decided to do instead of waiting for the bus. If you think the hour walk is impressive, I was also in a suit and dress shoes. I suggest you all don't do this, it is a bad idea. Anyway, I have to break out the cold ones, or something, because I guess that's what workin' men do. Or sleep.

College Students - Great Job, Money and Hours

I found this posting on Craigslist Chicago:

A Massage Relaxation and Recreation service based in the city is in dire need of help

Looking for help in the City, West and Northwest suburbs.

Money is GREAT, paid for your travel to the client. On average our staff earns over $500 week for part time work. Set your own hours, to a certain extent.

Our hours are from 11AM to 11PM Monday through Saturday. Great job for students.

Please send: short bio about yourself, contact info, and photo

This sounded legit until they asked for a photo instead of massage therapist certs. Do escort services usually recruit through classified ads?!

What a lazyass

He's been on the NYT op-ed page for like six weeks, and already John Tierney is ripping off columns. Ripping off his OWN columns, from a WEEK ago. What fucking tool.

Memorial day

Most everyone I've shown this to hasn't been able to read it, so I'll copy it out:

Joseph R. Scott, Col. 19th Rect. Ill. Volunteer Infantry, February 2 1838 - July 8 1863, from wounds received at battle of Stone River

"Who will save the left"

The nineteenth Illinois

This man was just a few months past 25 when he died, my age. This marker is in Graceland Cemetery, a few blocks from my apartment.

I think our generation often thinks of veterans as veterans of Viet Nam, Korea, and World War II: old men in nursing homes or middle-age men begging for change on the sidewalk. But veterans are veterans because of who they were as young women and men, people our age who went through hell for their country, their people, and their values. The twenty-year-old just coming back from a tour of duty in Iraq, this day is for her, too, along with those old men and the young men they once were.

Pardon me while I don't talk electoral strategy

Amp, of Alas, a blog, sums things up pretty well, but I bet I can do it even more briefly: Dems in RI put up Langevin, an anti-abortion fellow, as a potential to run against pro-choice moderate incumbent Repub Licoln Chafee. NARAL says they're going to support Langevin's pro-choice opponents in the Dem primary, Langevin drops out. Kos and Ezra and others make a lot of noise about how NARAL should fall in line behind Langevin, to make a Dem majority in Congress a primary goal, and preserving reproductive autonomy a secondary one. As Kos puts it, "Didn't we know ... that choice was a core principle of the Democratic Party? To which I have a simple answer: The hell it is."

Amp has a good response, which is basically that NARAL is not a front for the Democratic party, nor should it be: it's a pro-choice advocacy group, and NARAL endorsing an anti-choice candidate of any party would be as hypocritical as Kos endorsing a Republican of any ideological bent. And this response (at least, my reading of it) helped me get a good understanding of the reason I've never been as comfortable at Kos as I am at the smaller feminist blogs I tool around in. Go read Amp, then come back.

Pretty much everyone with some political sensibilities has one or two pet issues, topics they get really worked up over. My friend Annie cares a lot about global poverty and living conditions; my friend Mal about the environment; while my friend Manda gets really upset over racism and homophobia. I, like a lot of the bloggers I read, care about sexism. And the pet issue of a lot of the people at dKos is the Democratic Party itself. This certainly isn't a bad thing, because it means people like Kos can coordinate the rest of us, get us to work together behind some common goals. But this is how the party bigwigs lose touch with the grassroots in the first place and start taking the support of groups like NARAL for granted. People like Kos need to realize that, for a lot of us, the things the Democratic party nominally stands for, that tangled web of 'special interests', is why we support the party at all. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I didn't think Gore really represented my political point of view; and I only support the Democratic party when I can do so and be consistent with my politics.

There was an excellent illustration of this in France over the weekend, when the people overwhelmingly rejected ratification of the EU Constitution. Both the left and the extreme right disapproved, and according to the BBC, a lot of the leftists voted against ratification as a vote against Jacques Chirac, the conservative President of France. In the last Presidential election, Chirac ran against Dominique de Villpin (sp), a far-right xenophobe, and the left was forced to vote for a conservative incumbent who took their support for granted. As he refused to reward their support by moving to the middle, the left responded in kind this weekend.

The latest generation of leaders of the Democratic party -- people like Dean and Kos, focussed on bringing the grassroots together -- can do a lot of good work, getting us lefty/liberal types to work together on common goals. But insisting that we put party loyalty above our political commitments gets things entirely backwards: we need to recognize the overlap in our political commitments, and use that common ground as a reason to work together. I write quite a bit here about the ethical grounds for my political positions. I want to say that, while people like Kos can unify lefties and liberals, they cannot provide these ethical grounds. The single-interest groups can provide the requisite ethical grounds, but not unify without some higher level of coordination. So we need to work together, yet still realize that sometimes the single-interest groups are going to be led away from the Democratic party. If the party leadership can recognize that, then the small groups will come back.

Why I hate Evolutionary Psychologists

PandaManda, quoting some asshole justifying rape as 'natural': "Basically, the boys were designed to ‘hit’ as many females in the shortest period of time, whether the women want to mate or not. Through out human history this has been the ‘natural order.’"

FR10!

1. Moby - Honey
   
2. Bloodhoung Gang - Three Point One Four
   
3. Rachmaninov - Vespers - Blessed is the Man
   
4. Duke Ellington - Are You Sticking
   
5. Yo-Yo Ma - Inspired by Bach, Suite No. 1 - Prelude
   
6. Adelphians - Fantasia on Christmas Carols
   
7. Chumbawamba - Home With Me
   
8. Yo-Yo Ma, Bobby McFerrin - Hoedown!
   
9. Rent - Finale
   
10. Ani DiFranco - Adam and Eve

It's a crazy rant link post!

I should probably be horrified, but this is just so amazingly crappy I'm sitting here laughing my ass off. It was the hit below SoR on a google search for "insane feminists". Here's today's game: find a substantive paragraph anywhere in this website that doesn't involve a logical fallacy. 300 Ra points for every one you find!

This is a list of some of the google searches that have lead people here recently. I used a picture instead of text to avoid getting more hits from some of them.  

The Coolest Game Ever

If you have a spare hour, you *all* need to check this video out. It's Will Wright's (The Sims, Sim City, et. al.) GDC speech from a few weeks ago and is based around the philosphy behind his upcoming game Spore. It also includes quite a bit of video from Spore, which is facinating. Trust me, this is cool. You have to register, but it really only takes a second.

All Anal Nerds, Look Here

Here's an interesting link if you ever wanted to know if the Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer. The answer is probably no, and if you're talking Super Star Destroyer, well, that's just rediculous!

Another Short Post

Hey there, my good friend and Moot Court pahtnah Maureen sent me this link to some very amusing telephone conversations. Click on through!

A Post For Its Own Sake

I just wanted to post something, so here's a somewhat funny video. It's no Banana Phone, but it's decent.

Flash: NYT puts actual feminist on Op-Ed page

Maureen Dowd's substitute turns out to actually be kinda coherent and kinda a feminist.

Here's the deal: this isn't a 'women's' problem; it's a human problem. Yet for 30 years women have tried to crack this largely on their own, and one thing is clear: if the fight isn't joined by men (like me) who want a life, too, any solutions become 'women's' solutions. A broader drive to redesign work will take a union-style consciousness that makes it safe for men who secretly want balance to say so.

This is a vast improvement over Dowd's tendency to ramble (albeit from a left-of-center POV) as incoherently as Brooks or Tierney. But was the only way they could do this tapping another white, male pundit? I think it's great to see an upper-middle-class white male whose wife probably handles most of the domestic chores calling on other upper-middle-class white males whose wives probably handle most of the domestic chores to do away with this system. But, while he's doing that, the Times will have no women writing for the Op-Ed page, which is precisely the sort of thing this Matt Miller is arguing against.

Something similar (well, kind of) here