Species: Mesodinium chamaeleon

Habitat: seawater around Scandinavia and North America, chowing down on a new generation of slaves

Many animals transform themselves almost beyond recognition in the course of their lives. Caterpillars become butterflies and tadpoles become frogs, and if we couldn’t watch them do so we might not even suspect that the two stages were the same creature.

Spectacular as these shifts are, they are only shape-shifting. A tadpole and a frog are both animals, so both must take in food from their surroundings.

Not so Mesodinium chamaeleon. This newly discovered single-celled organism is a unique mixture of animal and plant.

M. chamaeleon is a ciliate – a kind of single-celled animal covered in hundreds of tiny “hairs” called cilia. It was discovered in Nivå bay in Denmark by Øjvind Moestrup of the University of Copenhagen, also in Denmark, and his team. Other specimens have since been found off the coasts of Finland and Rhode Island.

Ciliates using their hair-like cilia to motor around rapidly in water. Most get their food by eating other organisms, rather than by synthesising the nutrients themselves. This marks them as quite animal-like.

Some Mesodinium species are different, though. They engulf other microorganisms, generally algae called cryptomonads. The two then form a partnership: the algae produce sugars by photosynthesis, while the Mesodinium protects them and carries them around.

Such hybrid organisms are animals and plants at the same time. One such species, M. rubrum, only eats red algae and is often found in the algal blooms that form the famous red tides.

These hybrids play merry hell with our attempts to classify organisms into neat groups. “The division between plants and animals is collapsing completely,” Moestrup says. Instead, many microorganisms may be animal and plant at once, or switch between the two, like M. rubrum.

The new M. chamaeleon breaks yet another barrier. It is halfway between a pure animal and a hybrid.

M. chamaeleon takes in algal cells, just like M. rubrum, but it doesn’t keep them permanently. Nor does it digest them immediately, as a hungry animal-like organism might. Instead, the cells remain intact for several weeks before being broken down, during which time they keep producing sugar by photosynthesis. M. chamaeleon also changes colour depending on whether it is hosting red or green algae or both.

“It is quite unusual,” says Moestrup. Other Mesodinium species either retain their captured cells for ages or digest them immediately.

The ability to take in other cells and put them to work is called endosymbiosis, and is one of the most important inventions in the history of life. Some 2 billion years ago, a single cell swallowed a bacterium and used it as an energy source. The descendants of the enslaved bacterium eventually became the mitochondria that now power all complex cells, including ours. Without endosymbiosis, there wouldn’t be any multicellular life.

While the first endosymbiosis may have been a lucky chance, the process now seems to be common, at least among the more complex single-celled organisms. Some are so good at taking in cells that over the years they have switched symbionts. “It happens quite regularly,” Moestrup says.

M. chamaeleon may offer a snapshot of how endosymbiosis developed: the organism is still on the road from simply eating other cells to keeping them alive within itself.

Source: New Scientist.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

This debate was by far the most unique one yet. Unique doesn’t mean good however as it was also by far the worst debate. In reality, it wasn’t even a debate it was practically a dick sucking contest between the candidates. I don’t mean that to sound completely disrespectful to them but to have the unique format of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate and to select the two candidates who are nearly identical on policy is just fucking stupid.

Now to be fair, I’m not sure how this came to be and why only Gingrich and Cain were a part of this debate but for the sake of not boring the audience to death, the participants should of at least been at odds with each other somewhat. This just came across like two buddies agreeing with each other’s points and then adding their own two cents on top of it to help sell the idea to the public. I almost feel as if these two are in cahoots and plan on being running mates regardless of which of these two could get the nomination (assuming it won’t be Romney, Perry or Paul).

To start, this debate was poorly put together and it came off like an extremely bad public access talk show. The technical problems were horrendous and inexcusable. The microphones echoed for the first five-to-ten minutes and it took them forever to get that taken care of and when they did, Newt’s mic was then fucked up and spewing white noise which just pissed me off as it reminded me of that super shitty Michael Keaton movie where he got chased by CGI shadows.

They had to actually hand Gingrich a regular mic as they couldn’t get his shirt mic fixed and the replacement one had problems too! Jesus George Jetson Christ C-SPAN, just fire your fucking sound engineer already! Well, maybe it was the sound guy for the Texas Tea Party, I don’t know. Either way, that guy shouldn’t even be working a toll booth on the NAFTA Superhighway! Truth be told, I believe Herman Cain sabotaged Newt’s mic before the debate by sexually harassing it.

This debate was moderated but the moderators sucked ass. One of them was a congressman named Steven King. His name was spelled differently than the legendary writer but he did bring just as much horror. The other moderator’s name wasn’t even worth remembering as he was pretty much non-existent the entire night. Steven King however, forced us to sit through 8 minutes of his boring pro-Paul Ryan speech where he went through a bunch of Paul Ryan-esque slides that made me feel like I was in some shitty middle school economics class. Fuck that dude, just get to the debate.

So after the shitty economics presentation and the mic issues, we FINALLY get into the meat of the debate. Then again, I find myself distracted because now the sound coming out of the television is filled with a loud buzzing noise! Newt’s talking and I can’t pay attention because a thousand invisible bees are swarming around my head trying to turn it into a goddamned hive! Wait.. what did you say Newt? Well, I don’t know but Herman Cain responds to it with, “I completely agree but let me add this..” Fuck that man! That was exactly how the entire night went. It was like the world’s nicest rap battle!

In a nutshell, one guy would answer a question and the other would agree 95% of the time and just add in their talking points to help solidify their opponents argument. I swear to Jesus that these two guys have more mutual man love for one another than Antoine and Blaine from “In Living Color”. It’s as if they have already decided to run together and they are just using this facade of a “debate” to get their platform over to the public on this 90 minute forum that was essentially created by the Texas Tea Party to allow them to do so. This is all a ruse! Albeit a clever clever ruse.

I didn’t learn anything new from this debate because all they did is rehash the exact same talking points they’ve been pounding over our heads throughout all the previous debates. I was a bit disappointed that the subject of the Federal Reserve did not come up because that is one issue where their stances differ.

Newt wants to audit the fucker and Cain is a Fed insider that continually protects and defends the most tyrannical institution this country has ever done business with. I was secretly hoping Newt would call out Cain on it and the debate would’ve evolved into something with more substance. Nope, didn’t happen because it would’ve created a rift between the two debaters that are seemingly unified on the issues. I really want to see a Lincoln-Douglas styled debate featuring Cain and Ron Paul. Lets air some shit out! Fuck this 90 minute Cain-Gingrich 2012 infomercial!

Just for shits and giggles I’ll give you a brief rundown of what these guys were pimping out. Cain is for a loser pays law to help eliminate the high cost of health care. Both men support the Paul Ryan plan. Newt served Bill Gates’ dad. Both men are for optional personal retirement plans for youngsters who are being raped by Social Security, which they will never get. Cain mentions the 999 Plan, Newt says he won’t acknowledge it this debate. Newt supports the Green Bay Packers. Newt also just nails it every time he’s got the mic. It is worth noting that towards the end Newt got a pretty big standing O. The crowd was digging Gingrich.

The most memorable thing though, was when Cain asked Gingrich a question which basically implied that Newt was going to be the VP under POTUS Cain. The crowd laughed and Cain proved that he was the funnier of the two but America needs the best leader, not the funniest candidate.

I wish I could give you more analysis but as I said, they just recycled everything we’ve all already heard a dozen times. The moderation sucked because these three-to-five minute answers were just drawn out, boring and wasted too much time. We spent a half hour on an issue that should’ve only taken five-to-ten minutes. This debate style kind of sucks and I understand why it is archaic and no longer used. Then again, maybe it would’ve worked better if the candidates featured weren’t butt buddies. Who knows? In the end, I wasted 90 minutes of my life. At this point, I should’ve just known that it was going to be an ass parade.

I can only pray that if they ever do another 1-on-1 debate that they pick Rick Perry and Mitt Romney and shove those two hair models into the octagon. Wishful thinking I guess but damn it this is America and I want to see some blood!

Grading Scale:
Grade C: Newt Gingrich
Grade D: Herman Cain
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Jon Huntsman
Grade I: Gary Johnson

Here’s my favorite clip from the debate:

My Two Cents: There is a difference between being odd, unique or artistic and being completely fucking ridiculous. “Half motorcycle, half woman”.. WTF? That’s goddamned stupid. I’m half dragon, half cyborg so go fuck yourself. I’m all for tolerance and not bullying and all that jazz, but when you purposely try to make yourself stick out for attention, be prepared for the fact that most people WILL react to that, whether it’s good reactions or bad reactions. If my kid walked outof the house dressed Gagaish, I’d be like “Yo dude, you’re going to get your ass kicked.” If my kid still wanted to be a moron, sorry homie.. shit happens. Maybe next time you won’t be a complete fucking idiot when trying to express your uniqueness. Now look at this idiot giraffe’s heels? C’mon.. Gaga walks in those goddamned things like my little cousin when she’s playing grown up. Also, people that take her music seriously are idiots who can’t decipher true art from garbage. If you like it, that’s fine and cool but if you worship it like it’s greatest goddamned songs you’ve ever heard, you know nothing of music. The scariest thing is that Lady Gaga was voted the most powerful celebrity in the world. Yes, a group of people actually thinks this is true! Shit man, this country is doing just fine. At least it is full of people who can recognize what is important without becoming distracted. Oh, and what gives me the right to pass judgment on Lady Gaga? I run a blog assholes, it’s my fucking job. End rant. End Two Cents.

*Written by Tho Bishop.

Like many on the right, I have been exposed to, and intrigued by, Objectivism – the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand’s goal of a reasoned, consistent, ego-driven philosophy was a noble one and served to inspire a great many in the cause of liberty. It is often attacked, however, for its perceived ruthlessness, mainly rooted in its hostility to altruism. Objectivism vehemently rejects self-sacrifice as a primary virtue and chooses to celebrate self-service; an objectivist seeks to dedicate his life for his/her own happiness, not sacrifice theirs for the happiness of others. What place is there, then, for charity in a truly objectivist society?

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”

Though I agree with the objectivist stance that any form of mandated charity is immoral, I oppose Ayn’s view of charity as lacking primary virtue. And I can do so on her own terms.

First, we must establish that society exists because it’s beneficial to man. I shall begin with the hypothetical isolated man Alpha. Alpha is responsible for all the tasks necessary to sustain human life. Alpha must hunt, Alpha must find water to drink, Alpha must build shelter, Alpha must build tools, Alpha may wish to create clothes or other forms of protection. Alpha may be forced to go days without food if he cannot find and catch his dinner, or may find himself constantly having to move as he uses up the resources around him. If Alpha suffers from a hurt foot or a debilitating illness, it will be very difficult to survive.

One day, however, Alpha stumbles upon Bravo. As our daily exposure to people would indicate, each individual possesses his own unique talents and interests. Alpha, in this case, is really skilled at creating stone tools and producing shelter. Bravo is the better hunter. So now, where Alpha would have to spend time hunting, gathering and crafting – he can now focus simply on crafting and gathering. Bravo can focus on hunting. The two exchange goods by whatever exchange they agree with (after all, if the agreement is not seen as beneficial to each member, they can easily leave.) As the two become more skilled at their chosen specialties, a miraculous phenomenon occurs. Free time – primitive profit. Before there is coined currency, time is money.*

What else can we learn from this? Society is an inherent good. If the purpose of life is to seek one’s own happiness (an objective principal), than society is essential to allow man to live not simply to exist, but to enjoy free time.

If one views charity as an investment into society, then one can see the self-serving nature of the institution. If, for example, Bravo falls ill – it is in the interest of Alpha to provide for Bravo. If Bravo dies, so does Alpha’s ability to benefit from his utility.

But does the same remain true in a larger, more complex society? Yes. If Alpha and Bravo where living in a society with 300 other individuals, and have no personal relationship, the utility of Bravo as a hunter (even if he is no longer the only one) is beneficial to Alpha. If society loses one of the specialized hunters, someone else – maybe Alpha – will be required to pick up the slack. Ceteris paribus, a society of 300 functioning individuals will always be more productive than a society of 299 functioning individuals.

This approach only focuses on individual utility, the Objectivist case for charity becomes even more pronounced when one takes into consideration factors like reputation. Who is respected more in society today? A billionaire who spends no money in charity, or a billionaire who spends a great deal on charity? In the NFL, if one is looking to live as prestigious career as possible, if two wide receivers have identical stats, the same number of championships, identical Pro Bowl appearances and the same skill-based awards, how can one separate himself from the other? Charity. There are awards in the league to recognize charity and none to recognize a lack of it. If there is only one spot open for the Hall of Fame and all other things are equal, the more charitable and socially motivated player will get the spot.

Charity, I contend, should not be seen as an act of altruistic self-sacrifice, but as a self-driven investment in society. Altruists would contend that a selfless act of charity should be more respected than a self-driven one, but I would question the premise of that notion. Not only does it require the belief that acting for yourself is less valid than acting for others, but it raises this hypothetical: A man donates five thousand dollars to charity selfishly (i.e. to improve his standing in society). Another man donates four thousand dollars to charity selflessly. Is the five thousand not always more beneficial to the whole than the four thousand? How about if the money totals are equal, is the five thousand selfishly given not equally as beneficial to society as the five thousand selflessly given?

Ayn Rand may not have been the most delightful individual to have walked the Earth, but the failings of Rand, the person, does not represent a valid criticism of her philosophy as a whole. Furthermore, too often those who oppose government mandated social functions are often described as social Darwinists and painted with a barbarous brush of ruthlessness. I hope by understanding the inherent good of voluntary society and the utility of every individual in it, these misunderstandings can be resolved. Charity is not only an altruistic virtue, but also an objective one.

*Adam Smith’s realization of this principal led to the creation of the Labor Theory of Value further developed by David Ricardo and Karl Marx. Though Smith rejected this value theory in terms of a 18th Century (or contemporary) economy, he did believe it was valid for a primitive economy as hypothesized above. In reality even this economy has a Subjective Theory of Value due to the fact that Alpha and Bravo may not value an hours worth of hunting and an hours worth of crafting as equal. Price, even in this setting, is determined only by the reasoning of those involved in the transaction.