Liriodendron Tulipifera

Why is any of this an issue or a problem? Diana's blog is Diana's property. She has the right to not associate with people who would sanction attacks against her, such as threads entitled: Shamtistics: A Noodly Approach to Supporting Peikoff's Thesis. (Diana's blog is entitled NoodleFood.) This is indeed doing something, i.e. taking action to defend oneself. But it is not doing something to anyone. Big difference. Betsy asks us to provide information that attacks on O'ist intellectuals have taken place on her forum. Yet that was only part of the original accusation back in October. Yes, other forums have allowed comments insulting to O'ist individuals. But there have been no accusations that they carry out biased moderation and silencing of opposition to their own viewpoints by post deletions, nor a double standard of one way-insults. I had a post deleted in the Peikoff election thread on the Forum for Ayn Rand Fans last year. The reason given by the moderator (Stephen Speicher) at that time - somewhere around the end of October - was that I made "insulting personal comments" in the offending post, and that if I was willing to remove the comments, I could attempt a repost. I did express astonishment in this post about how people on The Forum in general could be so ridiculously naive about the nature of religion in this day and age. These comments were not personally directed to anyone, although they were directed at the posters in that thread at large. That was the nature of my "insulting personal comments". So be it. I believe there are many people who ARE blind- willfully or not - to the nature of today's religion. And I am not sorry for saying so. Besides deleting one of my posts, Speicher responded - publicly in that thread - to my preceding posts by dismissing my observations as simply a "scary shopping list of interactions with a few religious nutjobs," and also insinuating that my arugment was concrete bound and not indicative of any important philosophical or cultural change - this despite my vast experience growing up in the movement of the religious right and attending a Christian college at which I took ethics and philosophy classes. Such is the nature of my obviously concrete bound mentality. He also cited in this thread a 2 point drop in a Gallup poll as evidence for his position that America was not becoming more religious - even though we all know that most Gallup polls have up to a 3 point margin of error. I am trying to locate the text for this deleted post via corresponding with people to whom I sent the text (my account does not automatically save sent emails - such a shame, as it would be very revealing). I currently do not have the text for this post (although I am trying to recover it) because my Forum account was suspended without my request after I indicated over here on the oo.net forum in a parallel type of election thread that I would not post on The Forum for Ayn Rand Fans again. I guess Stephen saw fit to make sure that I made good on my promise by suspending my account - with the handy side effect that I would not be able to again gain access to my deleted post, his response, or any of my other personal messages. You see, it's rather difficult to provide evidence for some of these things Betsy is asking for when the evidence has been deleted or made unavailable either by her or her husband. As Atlas (above) has pointed out. It's our word against Betsy's. Betsy's Law #2 is correct. You do, indeed, get the friends and enemies you deserve. But unfortunately, Betsy's Law #1 is not correct, although we may all wish it were. Reality (and reason) is not always on the winning side - at least where history is concerned.

I have not posted or read anything on oo.net in a long time, and do not plan on returning to this thread after I have posted, but happened upon this and simply must comment. I simply cannot agree with this assessment. One assumes "hippie food" is here being equated with organic food due to the new thread title, so I'll simply address that matter. Organic producers are not the only food producers that use manure products - from cows and chickens - to fertilize their crops. Anyone traveling through any agricultural part of the country can determine through nasal sense perception that the use of manure for fertilization is a widespread practice. The nature of E. coli contamination has to do with both the fertilization mechanism and the leafy nature of some vegetables. There has been at least one E. coli recall of non-organic vegetables ( I believe it was spinach) that was fertilized with manure, so opposing organic food on this ground only is ridiculous, unless you know exactly how every non-organic veg product you are buying in a supermarket has been fertilized. The most you can do is hope it wasn't fertilized with manure. I don't oppose genetically modified food, even though at least one person has died from eating that, because I recognize the immense benefits of such food. There are valid and real concerns about allergic reactions in GM foods that would not be found in situations where one creates hybrids of two distinct species. This is why GM foods are extensively tested for allergic reactions before being put on the market. There are also benefits to eating organic foods of various types, the evidence of which would no doubt be highly contested here regardless of facts, so I won't even bother to go into it. I find it offensive and annoying that Inspector would lecture to others he presumably does not even know, as if they are children, about their food choices.People are smart enough to make their own informed choices. I eat some organic foods for reasons that I and others (should) find no need to justify here, and in doing so we would only be buying into the idea that we somehow need to prove we are right. I will list one good reason for eating organic, though. You're sure that if you buy organic you're avoiding the very real danger of dying from eating toxic food from China. I wonder if those eating organic food, such as myself and Ari Armstrong, are all ignorants who have bought into environmentalism? Give me a break!

Perhaps there is a very simple answer to this question of why complex multicellularity is common amongst multicellular organisms - rather than very very simple multicellularity, although I wouldn't want to make too many speculations right now as to numbers of species or sheer numbers of individual living organisms with these body plans. Many organisms are multicellular so that the cells carry out division of labor, right? I can't see a whole lot of division of labor in an organism that has only three cells. In the simple 20 celled organisms I mentioned, two cells are for structural support of the organism, another two for male reproductive function, another couple for female reproductive function, and the rest as a structure to house the spores - which are released to make more adult individuals that develop to form the same 20 celled structure. Also, I just remembered - I don't know this slipped my mind before - that in the simplest genera of fungi that I study, there are male and female individuals that live side by side on the insect. The males are two-celled. The cell on the bottom is for structural support; the one on top is for release of spermatia which fertilizes the female ascogenic cell in the female next door...

Dark Waters, The claim that there are no multicellular eukaryotes that have just a few cells is complete and utter bunk. The creationists simply get away with this crap because they are allowed to. First of all, you are correct - there is no reason to think that multicellularity is a more advanced evolutionary condition. Yes, the trend overall has been from unicellularity to multicellularity - but there have been plenty of reversals in all sorts of eukaryotes: there is an entire phylum of fungi that are unicellular - the Chytridiomycota, and the Glomeromycota are slightly more complex, consisting of arrays of a few hundred cells. (The most advanced sister groups on the evolutionary tree are fungi and animals.) There are also all kinds of protists that are unicellular to simple multicellular - colonial green algae come to mind. Nor is there any reason to believe that intermediate states between unicellularity and very complex multicellularity have to exist in order to provide evidence for evolution. This is analagous to the argument creationists use when they claim that there are no intermediates between fossils in the fossil record. There certainly are documented cases of multicellular organisms with just a few cells, including the group of fungi that I work on, the Laboulbeniales (Ascomycota). These organisms have a very simple body plan. At the simplest, roughly 20 cells at sexual maturity. There are all sorts of obscure organisms out there unknown to most scientists. People making these arbitrary claims of whether certain levels of complexity exist or not are simply willfully ignorant (the creationists), or they are honestly seeking but don't know where to look. Sometimes there are only a handful of experts around the world that work on groups of organisms that number in the tens of thousands - with 1.5 million described species, it can be difficult to know where to look. I suggest tolweb.org (Tree of Life website) to examine current classification systems and characteristics across all known organisms. The molecular phylogenies are updated regularly. P.S. Maarten is quite correct on the insect parasites. There are fungal parasites that live inside and outside of insects - including the Laboulbeniales, which I mentioned above, and the Trichomycetes that live in guts. They range anywhere from around 20 cells up to several hundred. There may be multicellular organisms with even fewer numbers of cells but I'd have to wrack my brain and do some serious literature searches to come up with them.

Thomas, the deletion of your post on THE FORUM is VERY revealing. One of my posts in that thread was deleted also. I see no reason that the post you presented should be deleted. I don't believe I will post there anymore, either. I suggest heading over the Diana Hsieh's blog, which has some excellent recent posts. If you do not see enough evidence from the actual post that the Republican party is M2, I suggest reading through the comments in those threads also, in which individuals have stepped up to the plate on that front. Stephen Speicher dismissed Diana's entry "Why I'm Voting for Democrats" to be simply a bunch of information swept up into one pile, and not offering anything substantial to the debate. !?!! 'Nuff said! Decide for yourself.

Or rather, WHAT told him to do that. Answer? The Bible. These people believe that we are in "the last days," where events from the book of Revelation will actually happen. They believe that natural disasters of all kinds will increase before Jesus returns to Earth. Believing in global warming, for them, is the "logical" step, regardless of the evidence. "Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it." I encourage everyone to visit this website, and watch all three videos: the trailer, and the two interviews. This is the nightmare that was my childhood. I was indoctrinated with attitudes very similar to this, although they were not as militant. This occurred in upstate New York, not somewhere in South Carolina or Nebraska. Christian conservatives have long-term energy and patience despite short-term setbacks. "Moderate" Christians - the Methodists, Presbyterians, and such - are complacent people who really don't want to shove their religion down other peoples' throat. However, they believe strongly enough that there are problems with the “godlessness” of American culture that they are not willing to take a firm stand on the side of secularists. Those that are not willing to side with the secularists are generally a part of the third group: the left that accepts anything. The left has an increasing acceptance of fundamentalism of any stripe (Islam, Christianity, and environmentalism) due to their political correctness. Many of these people mean well and are not dangerous themselves, but their complacency combined with their love of "democracy" could turn out to be fatal. It is this last group that makes it difficult to determine how to cast ones' votes. I believe the debate boils down to this. First, with which group is the Democratic party most aligned? Muslims, Christians, or environmentalists? Second, which of these three groups poses the greatest threat? I.e. how large are their numbers and influence, and how likely are they to use violence to achieve their goals? The next time that you drive by a big octagonal church that just went up, please ask yourself what goes on inside. If you do not know, you should find out. Please do not naievely assume that the people inside are singing the same hymns that they were singing in 1940. If you don’t know what goes on, or have not been to a church like this before (newly built and either charismatic, Pentecostal, or evangelical), I challenge you to attend a Sunday service and see for yourself. You will likely emerge very disturbed; more disturbed that you have been in a very long time. I no longer believe it is true that Christians simply seek to subordinate the rest of the populace to their beliefs through law. They are a different stripe of religious people than the religious people of the 40s and 50s. You can see signs, in these videos above, that they are willing to use violence to achieve their goals and are training their children to do so. I read many reviews of this movie, but have not yet seen it. (I don’t really need to see this movie. Having been raised by these people, I know what is in it already.) One reviewer, describing himself as a “firm atheist,” said that he would allow his child to attend such a camp, if the child chose, because he thinks his child should be exposed to “different ideas.” It is statements like these from the nihilist left that make it very difficult for me to determine how to vote in the coming elections.

I was unclear. I meant that the types of candidates we have to choose from, and the lack of real difference between our two parties, is abysmal. Not the state of the country itself. Inspector, as for the (eventual) merge of environmentalism and religion (i.e. Christianity), I believe that day has already come. In fact, during my undergrad education at a Christian college about 10 years ago, there were many arguments for environmentalism that were biblically based. Some prominent Christian leaders have now come out and spoken publicly about the need to combat global warming. I don't remember their names but I do remember it happening within the past year. The environment, along with issues such as abortion, now top their agenda.

I think the fact that there is no consensus in this thread simply serves to illustrate how awful the situation in this country really is.

See for yourself. Notice the headlines at the top. http://www.cbn.com/

The question is, is the government providing it? The trend in socialist countries recently has been toward privatized medicine. Just take last year's "supreme court" decision in Canada (Quebec) that not allowing individuals to buy private insurance IS a violation of their rights. I have a difficult time believing that universal healthcare will be realized in the United States. If it is, I believe the trend would eventually be reversed as it is now being reversed or collapsing elsewhere. Where on earth do you live? San Francisco? There are incredible numbers of people in this country - I would say at least 70% of the population - that believe that abortion should be outlawed under at least some circumstances. Likely far more people than those who think government is obligated to provide universal healthcare. You can often have a rational argument with someone about universal healthcare. You cannot argue with someone about an issue like abortion when they believe they have a mandate from God. Four out of the five issues listed above would affect me and my household. My life and the lives of those most important to me would be affected a great deal if the first four out of five activities were made illegal. Therefore, I will vote Democrat. I concur with those in this thread who have criticized the big government Republicans. We might as well have big government Democrats who don't want to take away non-economic personal freedoms as well. What makes you think the religious right would stop at outlawing homosexuality or abortion if those goals ever become realized? Having to watch the nonsense of Pat Robertson and his 700 Club on a weekly basis while growing up, and watching how he is still revered by people like my parents, gives me some peculiar insight into just how extreme the religious right actually are. Tune into that show sometime, if you get the chance. The numbers of these people and their influence is growing. Note the large numbers of megachurches sprouting up in the landscape. Also note that Christian religious leaders now openly sympathize with Islamists because their religious puritanism in the Middle East (something the religious right would love to duplicate here in the United States) is becoming diluted with secularism. I have not read Peikoff's DIM hypothesis, but after reading this thread I am certainly very interested.

Mmmmmm Hmmmmmm! When I was in NZ, I loved the wine tasting. At the wineries I went to north of Auckland, they would bring out a tray of 6 or so samples for each person and seat everyone at a table, rather than continually pouring into one glass at a counter like we do in the states. NZ has some of the best whites I ever had. I am not a big white wine fan, but I had the best semillon/chardonnay in NZ that I have ever had.

I love this show, also. It may be geared more for kids, but actually, I think the lack of real violence is simply a product of TV making in the 80s. It wasn't as acceptable as it is now. Little House on the Prairie is loaded with bad guys, but also pretty benign. These shows have a good message but are not very realistic.

Read this!

Even better - the woman a few weeks ago on her way to the shooting range in Harlem. She was on the sidewalk, in her wheelchair. Some guy tried to steal something from her from behind (a necklace, I think) and she shot him in the elbow. Rock on!

Well, it sounds like you need to make him remember. The issue of whether or not strip clubs are appropriate for person A vs. person B are irrelevant, because you are not comfortable with them. I wouldn't want anyone I was in a committed relationship with frequenting one, either. This seems like a pretty simple situation. You decide whether or not this is a deal-breaker for you and act accordingly. If it is, he needs to decide what is more important to him: the strip clubs or you. That is, if you're still willing to trust him at this point despite his back and forth on the issue.

Don't you understand, Moose? Their feelings are hurt. They have every right to riot and kill people and wage jihad. Freedom of speech is terrorism! This is what Muslims are so upset about. (There's a link to the text of the speech at the bottom of the page.) It's always nice to see things in their original context. The speech contains lots of silly ideas (I only skimmed it), and the quote being ascribed to the pope isn't even his own. Are these people throwing grenades over a centuries old quote looking for an excuse or what? I read a funny article from the Turkish Press quoting some Muslim religious leader who said that said the pope's words will only inflame Muslims and make them want to wage jihad - that the time preceding Ramadan was traditionally a time of conquering ones' enemies... hm. Doesn't that prove the point?

Unforunately, this is the same pope that speaks out against "scientific rationalism." The pope likely speaks out against Islam because he sees it as competetive with his own efforts to spread Christianity around the world. Indeed, he just lambasted European churches not doing more evangelism. Consider the following statements: “People in Africa and Asia admire our scientific and technical prowess, but at the same time they are frightened by a form of rationality that totally excludes God from man’s vision,” he said. Why does he mention Africa and Asia?? Because these are areas of the world where Islam is spreading like wildfire, and if Christianity is to succeed, it must forge ahead in those regions. “They do not see the real threat to their identity in the Christian faith,” he said, “but in the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom and that holds up utility as the supreme moral criterion for the future of scientific research.” He's speaking of the West there. Of course, the Pope did not offer what should instead be the criterion for scientific research. The message is: don't pursue any line of research, no matter the potential benefits, if it contradicts church teachings. Pat Robertson also speaks of the evil of Islam. Unfortunately, his comments are counterbalanced by his speeches about the evils of America, too. I would rather live in a world full of modern Christians than modern Muslims, also. But the pope is merely the 'lesser' of two religious evils.

The American Museum of Natural History. And my favorite Chinese restaurant on Bayard St, New Green Bo. Order the 'tiny buns...' Also, if you can get into the new World Trade 7 it's a really cool building. I don't know if tourists can go up to higher floors or not.

I am very much the strong, independent type. The issue of holding the door, for me, depends on context. I very much like it when someone in whom I am romantically interested holds the door for me. At times, I have felt uncomfortable when someone in whom I am not interested, or I am not sure that I am yet interested (when I know that he is interested in me) holds the door. And I almost always like it when men I don't know hold the door for me. I also tend to hold the door for whoever is behind me, man or woman, and I often hold the door open for elderly people or people with children or large loads. Holding open a door for someone doesn't cost a lot of time or energy. It's a nice gesture and makes the world a better place. Why not do it? As for holding chairs and opening car doors, I have to say that whether a given individual likes this is highly dependent on the person. I do not have automatic locks on my car. Whenever I have someone else riding in my car, man or woman, I always unlock the door for them first and then walk around to the driver's side. We're talking about a few extra steps here that burn maybe a half a kilocalorie. What's the big deal? As for the issue of women not being able to open doors, I am a pretty strong person for a woman. I can lift at least 50 pounds and do things like operate a large chainsaw. But the building in which I work has doors that are terribly difficult to open - two hands are usually required! - a real pain in the butt. I really appreciate when someone larger holds those door open behind them or allows me to walk through first. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Unless the employer is an 'Equal Opportunity Employer.' Heh.

http://www.indianchild.com/womens_crime_protection_guide.htm I also heard that if someone manages to get in your car and try to force you to drive somewhere, that you should simply drive into another object at about 5-10 mph in plain view of lots of people - not enough to cause damage to yourself, but enough to startle the attacker and make him simply leave the car and run. Seems logical.

Exactly. While certainly not amonst the worst of the violent crime rates provided by Ed from OC, Syracuse (where I live) is about 4/5 as dangerous as Detroit. Sheesh! I do want to clarify that I have never actually been attacked, just approached by strange men who linger or follow, usually younger and thuggish looking, asking for money, cigarettes, and/or rides. Still, that is bad enough. Anyway, my next door neighbor just got a pit bull to add to her german shepherd mix. Maybe I need to follow suit! Thanks for all the information, everyone. I am going to add another post here that I received as an email. Purportedly, this list was composed by a cop, although I cannot say for sure. But some of the advice seems logical.

Thank you, everyone! Very informative. David, I have considered moving to NZ. Seriously. I will be moving soon, also, but there is a concern pretty much everywhere around campus. A huge problem here. Anyway, I am not opposed to owning a gun at all. In fact, I think I would feel much safer with one. However, I think even carrying it around (whether legal or illegal, I don't really care), it might be difficult to get out in time if someone attacks quickly. Good advice, all, on the judo and jujitsu, thank you. Alfa, I do agree with you that mindset is key. I took Kenpo Karate awhile back and loved it. I felt constantly on guard, but without the constant training you don't maintain that mindset of vigilance all the time. For the references to me being "easy prey" I have to say that I have a very short temper when it comes to these people and have told many people on the street off - probably not a wise choice. In those cases I was not forced to use physical violence. However, even if I was a six foot tall male, it wouldn't stop the gangs around here from attacking. I have had two male friends who were here about four years ago, walking together at night near campus, and attacked by a gang with wooden boards for their wallets. In that type of situation I fail to see how anything but a gun could put one at an advantage. I have found in the past that a dog is definitely an advantage, especially if it has a big metal collar on. When I walked with my last dog, the gangsta types would cross over to the other side of the street. With my current dog, they don't do that: he's too skinny and happy looking. I think I need to get another big mean looking dog to take on walks.

(Split from the thread on "A Gun for Home Defense" - sN) Rational Cop, I've considered buying a gun in recent years and I'd be especially interested if you have any advice for women's self-defense, particularly outside of the house. Of course, I'm welcome to hear advice from others, also. I'm a 31 year old single female living in a dangerous city. I've been approached by strange men many times, often during the day, or on the road when I am traveling on the interstate. The last incident was yesterday, in fact, in broad daylight in a park, and the little punk was not deterred by my dog or a nearby man with a dog, either! Assaults and robberies abound where I live. I carry a cell phone on me at most times but I find it annoying that I feel compelled to carry it for safety reasons. I doubt anyone would be able to get to me in time, anyway, if something happened. Concealed carry is illegal in my state (surprise, surprise), but that doesn't mean I haven't considered buying and learning how to use a gun. My main concern is my safety outside the home and when I am traveling alone. I'm not a paranoid person, and I am confident, walk upright, and am of average size (5'4, 140 pounds). For some reason, though, i seem to be a freak magnet. It just seems like there are some real wackos around these days, and I'm not as fearless or hopeful as I used to be anymore. What I'm getting at is this, for those of you who know something about self-defense - do you advise the same things for men as for women? As for a gun being turned against me, I presume the attacker has ill intent anyway. Are most men that attack women actually armed with a gun or a knife? Or do they just use their own strength to overpower a woman? This would help answer my question, I think. Because I don't see what harm there is in me having a weapon if they probably have one, also. (Perhaps I'm being a little naieve here.) I guess an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but I'm tired of worrying about walking around in broad daylight, not to mention at night, for God's sake. Besides having common sense, taking years of martial arts lessons or buying a pit bull, what's a girl to do? If this needs to be split to a new thread, please do.

I gotta disagree with this one. Ever seen the picture of her on the cover of The Letters of Ayn Rand? Her teeth are beautiful, and she looks radiant and happy. I agree with David, I think she was a beautiful woman in her prime.