Influenza virus: Virions are usually roughly spherical and about 200nm in diameter.
The envelope contains rigid "spikes" of haemagglutinin and neuraminidase which form a characteristic halo of projections around negatively stained virus particles.




Papillomavirus: Many types of papillomavirus cause benign skin tumours (warts) in their natural hosts. These warts often regress spontaneously, but human genital warts (tumours caused by specific types of papillomavirus, particularly types 16 and 18) regularly become malignant if they persist for a sufficiently long time.




Even viruses do something Steve Jobs has not: gained an appreciation for less-is-more:

Design of the protein shell

quote:

The complex arrangements of macromolecules in the virus shell are minute marvels of molecular architecture. Specific requirements of each type of virus have resulted in a fascinating apparent diversity of organization and geometrical design. Nevertheless, there are certain common features and general principles of architecture that apply to all viruses.

In 1956, Crick and Watson proposed on theoretical considerations and on the basis of rather flimsy experimental evidence then available, principles of virus structure that have been amply confirmed and universally accepted.

They first pointed out that the nucleic acid in small virions was probably insufficient to code for more than a few sorts of protein molecules of limited size. The only reasonable way to build a protein shell, therefore, was to use the same type of molecule over and over again, hence their theory of identical subunits.

The second part of their proposal concerned the way in which the subunits must be packed in the protein shell or capsid. On general grounds it was expected that subunits would be packed so as to provide each with an identical environment. This is possible only if they are packed symmetrically. Crick and Watson pointed out that the only way to provide each subunit with an identical environment was by packing them to fit some form of CUBIC SYMMETRY. A body with cubic symmetry possesses a number of axes about which it may be rotated to give a number of identical appearances. These predictions were soon confirmed and it became evident that the occurrence of icosahedral features in quite unrelated viruses was not a matter of chance selection but that icosahedral symmetry is preferred in virus structure.

Now we move on to protists.




No, I said protists, who bear, now that you mention it, more than a passing resemblance to that other kind because they are a diverse group of almost unclassifiable grab-bag individuals. But together, they make noise.

Leptomitus lacteus.



And here's a nice detail of ol' lepto. And this next protist is protesting global warming. You can tell by its agitated demeanor.




Myzocytium looks cute and harmless:




And anisolpidium looks like some alien plant thingie:




Something profoundly interesting seems to be happening here to Glaucocystis, I'm just not sure what:




I read that there are more bacteria living inside your mouth right now than all the number of humans who have ever existed, inside your mouth or otherwise.

Some insect electron micrographs. Sit down before looking at some of these. And makes sure all the lights are turned on. They're rather spooky.

---

Imagine if microorganisms had religion. The eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus) might be at war with the prokaryotes (free-floating DNA with no cell nucleus). The prokaryotes would have to be the fundamentalists, because they came first. They are more ancient. The eukaryotes, on the other hand, might well be expected to don the smug and often heavy hand of supposed reformers, who often do little but usher in more of the same under a different name.

But in the little world of the microcosm, everything is at war with everything else all the time. Even the truces, when they do come about, might happen by accident. They might happen, for example, because of digestion-gone-wrong, as is the likely case for the existence of prokaryotic bacterial mitochondria (the cell's energy engines) inside each and every one of our cells. These free-agent bacteria were likely once-upon-a-time eaten by some larger eukaryotic single-celled organism that was unable to digest it. And for its own part, the little single-celled prokaryotic bacteria were still able to make a living and survive inside the larger cell. And a partnership was born that is quite ancient and absolutely vital to us multi-celled organisms.

In life, in nature, we look out at all these marvels of genetic engineering and evolution (like rabbits, snakes, insects, birds, etc.) and perhaps see them as being produced because nature likes bunnies or because we see the larger animals as fulfilling some progressive direction that leads to us. And certainly some of these perspectives have some truth and utility to them. But probably few people look out and see a cooperative of cells – cells which came together in the first place by accident, or more likely, because two is better than one. Cells, like kids on the playground, know that belonging to a group can be advantageous and that being on one's own can leave one vulnerable to exploitation, especially by those who may have banded together into groups in the first place for their own protection. And that's us; bags of cells who are grouped together because two is better than one. If there is progress involved (or the appearance of progress), it is because this arms race never stops.

Whatever advantage we had over rivals, predators, or our own food sources when we were mere shrew-like Triassic mammals, this advantage was eventually lost as rivals, predators, and/or our own food sources evolved via natural selection to outwit us. Humans are not the pinnacle mammal (other, more powerful mammals could theoretically evolve, and we're certainly no match individually against a grizzly bear), but we are indeed an advanced one. We are the result of an arm's race between different races of cells (species) to devise cleverer and more capable packages ("package" = animal); packages whose one and only purpose is to aid the survival of much tinier things riding inside: DNA. This is analogous to that little alien guy from "Men In Black" who used a humanoid robotic shell as his vehicle. He rode inside the head and steered and manipulated the body via remote control.

On the human level, we've advanced to such a strange and mysterious existential stage. Whatever it might be to live the life of an individual cell, we're able to look down inside from our position as the cluster and discover (much to our surprise) that we are made up of little cells that do indeed cluster. And these cells are loaded with DNA, each containing the same DNA (apart from the sex cells). And the DNA itself is like a little M.I.B. alien using the cell as its vehicle; and then these vehicles (cells) use larger vehicles (like us, cats, dogs, mice, grasshoppers, etc.) to advance the cause of both the cells and DNA (although Dawkins might say that only DNA can have a "cause," because it's the only thing in that chain-of-things that contains information that is actually reproduced with fidelity, fecundity and longevity). And you might even see larger groupings of things, especially in regards to us. You might see Republicans, Democrats, religionists, atheists, Christians, Muslims, individualists, socialists, as further extensions of that entire grouping process. Why does race matter? Why do people get all hot and bothered over it instinctively? Well, you can't talk about this darn near anywhere else, but it likely matters because it's just another genetic arms race being played out. Of course, we don't think of it in those terms any more than we think about turning the door knob as being a collective action of cells to get a newspaper. But it's there. Those other realities are there. One could say that at the cellular level, it's not as if we're seeing an odd thing or a distorted picture. Seeing the universe in miniature is not an alien environment. It's our environment. It's more like looking into the real world, a world that is almost completely wallpapered over and forgotten because we must function in a world of bags-of-cells interacting with other bags-of-cells. We speak another language at this level, although science shows us readily enough that the language of chemistry (and other dialects of cells and DNA) allow cells to communicate with each other readily enough. But if you speak cell talk on the human level (analogous to speaking Darwin talk on the human time scale), you'll likely get blank stares, if not hostile stares. And I find it all very interesting.

quote:

Now we move on to protists.

Ha! I've always felt that people who get so riled up on the subject that they actually spend their time demonstrating and acting against it, must have some deep-seated fears about their own orientation in that area.
.

Oh man, I laughed so hard at the "Fag enablers" sign. Where does it say that in the bible again? Come on, everyone drops the soap in the shower sooner or later, lol. If I were a fag, I'd make a sign: "God hates people who put words in his mouth" or "Tell me more about this god of hate."

I wish people would just come clean and simply hate fags themselves, instead of pretending that God hates them too.

Everyone knows, what God really hates is eukaryotes and prokaryotes, diatoms and Glaucocystises. He only LOVES Myzocytiums, thank heavens.

Ha! I've always felt that people who get so riled up on the subject that they actually spend their time demonstrating and acting against it, must have some deep-seated fears about their own orientation in that area.

Markle, when I Googled for a random protest photo, this one immediately caught my eye. It completed the joke, such as it was. And the photo struck me as being in stark contrast to these little bugs that I've been looking at lately. Maybe these little rotifers and such don't do so much, but they do it very elegantly. Maybe they're not all that smart, but they've found a way to survive under trying conditions for hundreds of millions of years now, if not billions. And so it makes you ponder, What, dare one might ask, would you get if you put a whole bunch of these little protists or bacteria or diatoms together into one bunch? If you took all that miniature elegance, and small intelligence, and combined it together into one big thing consisting, not of just one or a dozens cells, but ten trillion cells (which is a conservative estimate for the human body), what wonders it should produce!

And then contrast that with the card-carrying (sign-carrying, really) idiots in that photo. Granted, the issue of homosexuality is a complex one. And there are causes. It is a thing that can be explained, if not exactly yet. It might be a desirable or undesirable thing to be gay, and honest people can have honest disagreements about that. But "God hates fag enablers" is not one of those honest disagreements. Can't you just see at least 4 or 5 trillion of those little bodily cells (if not more) in each of those sign holders doing an eye roll and desperately trying to pass word to the brain about how stupid this is all helping to make them look?

I wish people would just come clean and simply hate fags themselves, instead of pretending that God hates them too.

Yep. But you can kind of see one of the reasons people tend to believe in religion at all, and especially notions of a quite specific god in particular...a god specific enough where they know his stand on various social issues which, surprise, seems to be in alignment with what some king, chieftain, or money-making organization wants. This kind of god adds the air of authority and respectability to ideas that otherwise would have to stand on their own merits. It's the same thing people use to sell toothpaste. Who's going to convince you to buy more, someone who says, "Use it because I think it's really good" or "Four out of five dentists recommend Aqua Gel"? It will usually be the latter message, of course, that people find more persuasive. Now, it could well be that four out of five dentists actually do prefer Aqua Gel. It could be the damned best toothpaste on the market. But the point is that people are moved by pleas to authority, whether there is substance behind them or not. That's called the fallacy of authority, and con men of all types would be instantly put out of business if we humans didn't have this innate characteristic of being attracted to authority for authority's sake. But we do, so we must "Trust, but verify" and do it often.

Everyone knows, what God really hates is eukaryotes and prokaryotes, diatoms and Glaucocystises. He only LOVES Myzocytiums, thank heavens.

You blaspheming son-of-a-bitch. I'm not talking to you anymore. May you spend eternity with a hungry lysosome. That would be cell hell, I suppose.

Take a look at this page when you have a chance. Study it. It's absolutely mind boggling that DNA can roll up into such amazing and tight strands of strands of strands without getting tangled. Christ, I can't put away a simple extension chord without it being a tangled mess the next time I go to use it.

One thing about studying the micro world is that it puts you in intimate touch with the reality of life and this universe. Down there, things are simple: eat or be eaten. Every piece and part of these organisms' bodies and behavior are sculpted to serve survival and reproduction. But we humans spend a great deal of our time playing and creating things not directly related to survival or reproduction. We (thankfully) become disconnected from those harsh realities. But an amoeba does not play (as far as we know). It eats, and if you go to page 2 of this page, you'll see they have a very fascinating and sci-fi-movie way of eating.

Up here, in the macro world, we have a mind that can imagine protective, fatherly gods. We can imagine exigencies (such as good and evil) that are supposedly responsible for the "eat or be eaten" scenario we live in. Bad things happen because of evil forces. But does an amoeba know of any such thing? Would it make sense if it did? We humans, with our ability to immaterially imagine, can easily become disconnected from reality. And we are so adept at using symbols, analogies, and at just generally dealing easily with abstractions, that the nitty gritty reality of existence – of this being a world of forces, not phantoms – is often lost on us. We can, do, and have woven stupendously complex stories about what life is all about. But none of them ever took into account what life is built about, about what shapes it, about what constructs it, or even about what the actual building blocks are.



You can't come away from an appreciation for nature without thinking of god as being a quite mad and brilliant scientist. And one hell of an engineer. Of course, I speak figuratively, for although god may exist, the things that shape our world are the trustworthy, constant, and imperturbable forces, in all their mathematical precision. And they're not forces that talk to us except through what they create. Take one look at a fly's leg, and if anything at all strikes you it should be the amount of information inherent in the form of those structures. There's an obvious history contained in such wonderful complexity. And it is impossible for us humans (maybe logically impossible in and of itself) to imagine truth or reality that is separate from information. Therefore, as spooky as it may be sometimes, to quite literally "know the mind of god" (figuratively or literally), one must know and acknowledge the informational parts of our own world, big and small, wonderful or harsh. It's a truly horrible thought that, as elegant and wondrous as the primal physical laws and attributes (including consciousness) of nature are, that it's all just dumped into a sort of big vat (the big bang…our universe) to develop as it will according to pre-set laws. But that's what we've got. And every leg of every single insect is evidence of this. They, like us, are sculpted according to the pressures, needs, or forces of survival and reproduction.

And when looking at cell structures and DNA, it might also make you realize that we are cousins to even the most bizarre life forms on our planet, for at the cellular level, the mechanics and functioning of the cells themselves tends to highlight our similarities rather than differences. This is especially so at the level of DNA where, whether we're talking humans or flees, we share the exact same factory, mint, and distribution systems – DNA and its means of reproducing itself and creating cells. Our differences on the macro level aren't minor, but you could think of the various creatures as just different arrangements of the same thing. You can build many things out of Legos, but the building blocks themselves, whether you've made a house or a wall out of them, are the same.

Of course, the most remarkable and mysterious thing of all is that we humans have (or should have) a deep appreciate for something being more than the sum of its parts. Everything is just Legos (atoms, and energy), but how they are arranged has remarkable consequences. As humans, we think. We're aware. We feel. (As do many other creatures, of course.) But we humans are intelligent enough and aware enough to ponder how assemblages of things can make such remarkable new things, such as us. Either the basic components of existence (matter and energy) are far richer than we have imagined, or there is some other type of magic going on. Ahh, but then back to the god question. Well, with the body of knowledge we have built up, we have a right to expect information to be a component of any type of knowledge such as god, even up to and including feelings (which surely are information-rich, or can be). I still think it is to punt to simply kneel to priests. That bent leg of the fly seems like the surer path to understanding what is.

That's a lovely single-celled amoeba encircling its prey with appendages you might think incredible if you saw them in a sci-fi thriller. I think that when you look at individual cells (or small clusters of conglomerate cells), you see, in all their glory, the realities of matter, energy, life and how everything operates. There are no social niceties involved when an amoeba encircles and then eats its prey. In fact, its own body has been shaped by the completely merciless processes of natural selection. We humans have many layers of insulation between our comprehension of these realities and the realities themselves. But set aside your delusions and comforting thoughts for just a moment and see the wondrous -- and monstrous -- processes of life.

But the other reality at this level is that you see like combine with like. We do that on our human level as well, although rarely are people conscious of it. But we humans act like quite mindless cells which combine together for defense in a hostile world -- or just because we share the same interests. Cells combine into organs. Organs are part of larger combinations, such as our bodies. And it's a legitimate question as to whether or not to think of human culture as a super-organ or a super-mind. The only difference between brain cells in a single brain and the conglomeration of human brains in the world is one of time lag. But it could all be seen as a vast neural net. And if you look at the way ideas and fads sweep through whole communities of minds, quite separate from reason, it gives evidence for this.

But there's nothing quite like the raw simplicity and immediacy of these itty bitty creatures.

.
PETA and ELF are probably saying that antibiotics are murder.
.

PETA and ELF are probably saying that antibiotics are murder.

Oh, yeah. No doubt. I think we probably all draw the preservation line a little differently. I, for one, am not for putting grizzly bears back into the Cascades. Nor would I be for reintroducing rattlesnakes into some child's playground because they were once native to some play lot. Nope. It's a war out there, and sometimes we humans just have to win it, including the killing of certain species who are a danger to us, including various viruses and bacteria.

And this whole "nature's balance" thing is another environment myth that needs to be dispelled. Michael Crichton writes (pp. 484-46 in "State of Fear") about how Yellowstone National Park was once royally screwed up by this environmental attitude and the insistence that some kind of static balance be kept. Such policies created vast environmental devastation to the park. Species are always waxing and waning. You can't take a snapshot of a specific environment and expect to keep it in that exact state. You'll just ruin it in the process.

That doesn't mean we can't stop wanton destruction of an environment. But it does mean that we have to have an appreciation for the reality that environments change and that it is normal for any species (including us) to be a part of changing them. Many are shocked to learn that elephants, instead of being a warm, fuzzy natural and balanced part of the eco-system, actually wreak havoc on it. It is this species that is responsible for keeping the savannahs open and for large areas being grasslands instead of forests. They have made an art (and a good living) out of knocking down trees. The only "balance" that happens is the species that rush in and take advantage of what some other species has done.

I'm not for killing grizzly bears wherever we may find them, but I think its truly insane to reintroduce them to areas where they are no longer and where hikers and other nature lovers abound. They're just too damn dangerous. We won. They lost. That's sometimes how it is. I consider that a mature environmental position as opposed to the anti-human, extreme, and often hysterical policies of many environmentalists. But some policies (such as a ban on killing bald eagles) has worked well. A live eagle is much more enjoyable than a dead one that is stuffed and displayed on a wall. But the downside is that your pets are now much more at risk. Cougars? Well, if there's a hunting ban, there certainly must be penalties for doing so. But the law ought to be extremely liberal about killing them if one feels threatened by them. It wouldn't hurt at all if cougars who were less fearful of man were picked off.

I couldn't find a global warming or environment thread, so I'll throw this here:

Big corn and ethanol hoax
by Walter Williams

quote:

One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.


Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.


Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel — oil and natural gas — to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers — all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.


Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax — one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.


There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.


Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

Global Warming can be found in the Hurricane thread.

.
In Tibet you now need to get permission from the Chinese government to reincarnate. I don't think they say exactly what the penalties are for not getting the permit before being born.

The government of China is now officially insane.


http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19189/buddhism-6

China Wants Control of Reincarnation of Tibetan Living Buddhas


As of September 1, China is tightening control over Tibetan Buddhism with a new law requiring government permission for the reincarnation of lamas.

Tibetan activists say this is another attempt by communist Chinese leaders to undermine Tibetan culture and even absurdly to control the religious afterlife. VOA’s Heda Bayron has more on the story from our Asia News Center in Hong Kong.

The new law bans Tibetan lamas, or monks, from reincarnating without Chinese government approval.

China, which has ruled Tibet for more than half a century, says anyone outside China cannot influence the reincarnation process and only monasteries in China can apply for permission.

Experts and activists say the law is clearly aimed at excluding the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, from selecting reincarnated lamas or Living Buddhas - which form the core of Tibetan Buddhism’s leadership.

And, they say, the law effectively paves the way for China to interfere in the future reincarnation of the 72 year-old Dalai Lama, who China regards as a “splittist”.
.......................
___________________________

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2332333.cms

China bans reincarnation of living Buddhas without nod

3 Sep 2007, Indrani Bagchi ,TNN
  
NEW DELHI: In an extraordinary move that has long-term implications particularly for India, China has banned the reincarnation of living Buddhas without state permission.

In an order by the state administration of religious affairs, which comes into effect from September 1, China has said Buddhas cannot be reincarnated outside China. Instead, they would have to take permission from the state, which would oversee the selection of the "soul-boy" (or the reincarnated Buddha).

Grading the importance of the living Buddhas, the Chinese government has laid down that "for reincarnate living Buddhas with relatively high degree of influence, the provincial people's government will issue approval; for those with major influence, the state administration for religious affairs will approve while for those with extraordinary degree of influence, the state council will approve." Unauthorised reincarnations would be penalised by the Chinese government.

The law also stipulates that reincarnations of living Buddhas cannot be influenced by persons or organisations outside China. This means that the Dalai Lama will be barred from the process.

..................................
________________________________________

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23096265-23109,00.html


No reincarnations without approval

From correspondents in Beijing
January 23, 2008 02:12pm


A SENIOR Tibetan lama and Chinese government advisers have defended contentious rules banning reincarnations of "living Buddhas" without approval.

The rules are apparently aimed at empowering China to name the next Dalai Lama when the 14th and current Dalai Lama dies.
Last July, China's State Administration of Religious Affairs issued regulations banning reincarnations of living Buddhas, or holy monks, who failed to seek government approval, ostensibly to manipulate the centuries-old practice and legitimise future appointments by the atheist Communist Party.
Tibetan lama Tubdain Kaizhub, himself a living Buddha and vice-chairman of Tibet's Political Consultative Conference - an advisory body to the regional parliament - affirmed the regulations on Monday, China's official Xinhua news agency reported.
Xinhua quoted Soi'ham Rinzin, a member of the advisory body, as saying the 14th Dalai Lama ignored religious ritual and historical convention to unilaterally decide reincarnations, disturbing religious order.
The Dalai Lama, 72, fled into exile in India in 1959 after an abortive uprising against Communist rule, but remains the single most important influence in Tibetan life.
Critics say China continues to repress Tibetans' religious aspirations, especially their veneration for the Dalai Lama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner whom China denounces as a "separatist".
The rules, which came into force on September 1, bar any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation for himself or recognising a "living Buddha".
Reincarnations of about 1000 living Buddhas have been approved in Tibet and Tibetan populated areas of Sichuan, Qinghai, Gansu and Yunnan since 1991, according to a government website.
In 1995, the Dalai Lama and China's Communist authorities chose rival reincarnations of the 10th Panchen Lama, who died in 1989. The Panchen Lama is the second-highest figure in Tibet's spiritual hierarchy.
The boy anointed by the Dalai Lama, then aged six, swiftly disappeared from public view, prompting international rights groups to call him the "world's youngest political prisoner".
.

Oh mercy me. If you ever wondered why the separation of church and state is so important, read this nonsense.

Oh mercy me. If you ever wondered why the separation of church and state is so important, read this nonsense.

I think the real story here is the necessity for the separation of fanaticism from government and, short of achieving that, the necessity for the separation of government from one-party rule, no matter how benevolent that party purports to be. To frame it as the separation of church and state is to miss the central point. Atheists can be as fanatical and fascist as anyone. Part of that fanaticism that is so dangerous is the desire to remove or control religion. When everyone must think, act, and look just like everyone else -- I can't think of a better definition of fascism or a better recipe for tyranny.

But it's difficult to maintain non-fascism because moderation is not built into many people. And many of those who are moderate are moderate like sheep and easily led and manipulated by the hot-heads and those with visions of utopia in their eyes. And that highlights the fundamental advantage of democracy over other styles of governments. It doesn't ask or expect people to be perfect, or even moderate. But it creates a moderate political and social climate because it pits all the immoderate elements against each other and has them vying for power. Those today who call for bipartisanship and the end to the political squabbling are either seriously uninformed about our system of government or are just demagoguing. What we want is a constant political battle, never settling into a potentially dangerous and fascist homogeneity.

These words are anethama to Communists, leftists, and religious fundamentalists, as well as to many normal, everyday people who are just immoderate by nature (which is pretty normal and common) and want their way instituted for everyone because they so obviously (at least to themselves) see it as best.

I watched part of the documentary on Pol Pot that the History Channel ran last night. The Communists brutally (and that is not an understatement) killed about 1.7 of its citizens. Documentaries like this ought to be required watching, at least at the high school level. When hatred of corporations, businesses, freedom (under many sneaky disguises), democracy (under many sneaky disguises), or diversity (under many sneaky disguises) is being taught, people should be reminded what the end game always is for leftist ideology. And Communism is the purest expression of the stuff that leftists base their ideology upon.

Those who get obsessive over the display of the Ten Commandments in or around some government building are just as dangerous, if not more so, then those who demand we all pledge allegiance to god in state schools. There's no perfect solution to all this, and opinions will vary. But it is very easy to fall prey to the idea that all our problems stem from religion when the reality is that our most serious problems stem, and have always stemmed, from the intolerant, arrogant, fascist-like impulse to bury true diversity and equanimity under a veneer of moral righteousness, whether that righteousness stems from a religious, atheist, or other influences.

Religion is an enemy to Communists because Communists, like all leftists, are about controlling people and creating a perfect society based on supposedly rational principles. And in their minds, nothing could be more irrational than religion. But all troublemakers play the same disingenuous and manipulative games. They take an inch of truth and try to build a mile with it. Of course much of religion is irrational, but that doesn't mean anyone should have a free hand instituting policies that eradicate religion. Of course there is some racism against blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean that spreading racism, hatred, delusion, and paranoia is justified. Of course there are some poor people in this country, but that doesn't justify hatred of the rich. But that fascist impulse is always there and it's what the left makes a living on. And if you step just a bit further left, you're then in the territory of Communist China where you have this kind of horrible garbage going on. And a major part of that step left is eradicating the competition. It's not necessarily that leftist-Marxism is less innocuous in our own country. It's that it's not yet unopposed, but they're working on it. We're getting there step by step. Hate speech and hate crime laws are one of those steps. Irrational, loony environmental extremism is another one of those steps. The Kyoto Accords would be another example of the extremism of the state control being foisted on people under the supposed moral righteousness of environmentalism. And on and on it goes, and one should hope that the battle in America over ideas continues and that no one is able to outlaw or otherwise squelch it, whether under the guise of the separation of church and state or anything else, although that separation, of course, is a real and important element of our democracy.

And that's the inch that the extremists try to go the extra mile (or 1000 miles) with. And if everyone goes up in arms and all whacko because someone (like me) wants to pull the other way and give the other side of the argument, then perhaps you can see how easily and readily the immoderate fascist impulses of the left can become mainstream. Separation of church and state in no way means the eradication of religion. That immoderate impulse should be resisted. Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Of course, that can and has been interpreted a number of ways. But never was it meant to be used to eradicate religion. And that desire resides behind a lot of people who reach for the "separation of church and state" idea. They sometimes need to be reminded about the "free exercise thereof" part of it. Hey, many forms of religious expression may not be my cup of tea either, but when the left starts instituting "Winter Festivals" and banning nativity scenes, that's taking one more immoderate, intolerant step towards Chinese Communism. And Chinese Communism didn't happen by accident. It didn't happen because Asians are stupid or have a fascist gene in them. It happens because people make pleasing-sounding arguments for why some thing or other (like religions) should be completely marginalized. They do that today on many college campuses where speech and ideas that would threaten to muss the homogeneity in these insulated conclaves (conservative ideas, for instance) are often banned outright, or sometimes violently resisted. That's another step toward China. Like I said, I would never want conservative or any other ideas taught at the expense of others, but that's not what is happening in many places. China is a terrific warning for where we don't want to go.

But we're getting there, step by step. When a major presidential candidate like Obama associates closely with America-haters like Pastor Wright (who gave an award to Farrakhan and went on a fawning visit to see Ghadafi), we're slowly getting there. Marxist ideas are becoming mainstream, and that's no stream anyone should want to swim in. That Pol Pot documentary is a reminder of the ocean of despair that this stream too often leads to. The Chinese are another example. Castro. The Soviet Union. Wherever leftist Marxist ideas have come to their culmination, disaster has struck. Basically, to denounce China (which we should) is also to denounce the direct cousin of Communism, and that is the Marxist-leftism that many Democrats espouse in this country.

.
Of course no one on the far right would ever think of trying to control people, would they?

"Some weather we're having, eh, Brad?"

"Yeah, the lefties and their cronies in the media are trying to control everything. They don't believe in letting people choose their own weather. The lefty elite thinks they know more about what weather people need than the common people they look down on. It's all right there in Marx for anyone to see. They're more dangerous than alien invaders because they don't have obvious tentacles....."

"What time is it, Brad?"

"It's 3:00, but if we were in Venezuela it'd be 3:30, because lefties like Hugo Chavez think they know more about what time it is than the sun does. They think they can just issue decrees that the great unwashed masses have to follow, instead of letting people choose their own time...."

"What topping do you want on your pizza, Brad?"

"I like meatballs, but the lefty elite would try to force me to get something vegetarian, because they think that raising cattle produces methane that they can falsely claim contributes to the myth of global warming--a sneaky lefty plot to stifle business and create an excuse to give government more power. They're more dangerous than people who just burn coal and strip-mine the earth because they come disguised as impartial scientists, even though so called 'science' is just another religious belief system......"

"What's your favorite color, Br..... Oh, never mind."
.