C2Comics Blog

In 1943, Lourens G.M. Baas-Becking, Dutch microbiologist, coined the phrase “Everything is everywhere, the environment selects”.   This was used to describe the ability of microbes to travel everywhere, and flourish in suitable environments, provided they are able to adapt the necessary mechanisms to survive these new habitats.  However, this accepted idea did not adequately prepare scientists for the remarkable discovery made nearly forty years later, causing scientists to remodel accepted dogmas and theories.

A temperature anomaly recorded in the Pacific Ocean showed higher than expected temperatures, triggering geologists to launch an exploration project in 1977 (28).  This led to the accidental discovery of the first hydrothermal vent, and its unique community of organisms seeming to disregard scientific expectations.  Due to seafloor spreading, there are some areas of the ocean floor that are very close to the hot magma beneath the earth’s crust.  This heat is transferred to ocean water seeping down into cracks, super-heating the fluid, and allowing it to accumulate minerals.  This fluid is then funneled back up through the crust to meet the ocean.  When this super-heated fluid meets the near-freezing ocean water, the minerals will precipitate out of the fluid, providing a mineral-rich environment, but also one that has extremes of cold water and hot water (sometimes nearing 400°C).

These extreme temperatures aren’t the only factors that would be thought to hinder biological growth.  Hydrothermal vents are found around 2.5km below the ocean’s surface, where pressures can reach over 250atm.  Even the longest reaching wavelengths given off by the sun cannot reach these depths, and any dying or decaying organisms or organic matter falling through the water from upper depths would have already been consumed.  These harsh conditions have been thought to make the ocean floor uninhabitable.

However, keeping with Baas-Becking’s theory, we can find microorganisms at these sites – quite a large amount, in fact.  Many species of bacteria grow in these environments, in thick mats visible to the naked eye.  The bacteria at hydrothermal vents are so prolific, they are able to sustain the growth of many multicellular species, including a species of worm that can grow over six feet long.  One organism responsible for sustaining this ecosystem is a prokaryote less than one micrometer in diameter, the archaeabacteria Methanococcus jannaschii.

This organism was first collected during a 1982 Alvin submersible dive led by Holger Jannasch (11).  The first specimens were retrieved near a white smoker – a vent where the water coming up is relatively cool (200 – 300°C), and the majority of the minerals precipitating are Zinc, giving the water a whitish appearance.  Quite apart from not being able to survive in this habitat, with a few adaptations, M. jannaschii has been able to thrive and take advantage of resources available to it.  The mineral-rich environment makes this a prime place for chemoautotrophs, and M. jannaschii is one such organism, harnessing chemical energy to fix carbon dioxide into methane as follows:

4H₂ + CO₂ à CH₄ + 2H₂O

This carbon fixation is most likely accomplished by the employment of a RubisCO–like enzyme.  This enzyme has similar binding sites to normal RubisCO and catalyzes the same essential Carbon fixation, but differences in the actual amino acid sequence and specific functionality require further analysis to determine whether it can truly be considered a form of RubisCO.  This enzyme is heat-stable, able to function at temperatures up to 85°C, however, displays some of the lowest activity recorded when exposed to oxygen, forcing M. jannaschii to live as a strict anaerobe (20).  Another factor forcing M. jannaschii to live as a strict anaerobe it its ability to fix nitrogen, and the enzyme accomplishing this is also sensitive to oxygen.

Methanogenesis ability and round shape are two primary factors in determining genus, and its current taxonomic breakdown is Superkingdom Archaea, Phylum Euryarchaeota, Family Methanococcales, Genus Methanococcus.  However, it can more recently be found referred to as Methanocaldococcus jannaschii, in the Family Methanocaldococcaceae.  The Methanocaldococcaceae are separated from the Methancoccales by their heat tolerance, the latter holding the mesophilic organisms, and Methanocaldococcaceae containing the thermophiles and hyperthermophiles (23).  Able to survive in temperatures between 60°C and 90°C, M. jannaschii has an optimum temperature of 85°C, which requires the possession of several adaptations, but an ability to function in these high temperatures provides these microbes with an advantage besides a lack of much competition.

Due to the lack of ready-made nutrients, M. jannaschii must have pathways to make everything it needs, from lipids to proteins to nucleic acids.  On the surface, the synthesis of all amino acids involve endergonic reactions.  However, in these hot environments, M. jannaschii does not lose any energy when synthesizing most amino acids.  In fact, the synthesis of Methionine from H2, NH3, CO2, and H2S results in an energy profit of 175kJ/mol.  An exergonic reaction is evidenced in the production of at least ten other amino acids as well, resulting in an energy profit for most proteins (1).

This is one of the advantages to living in an extremely hot environment, however, M. jannaschii must also develop adaptations to protect its life functions against the extreme heat and pressure.  Problems facing all thermophiles and hyperthermophiles include having to prevent membrane hyperfluidity, keeping macromolecules from denaturing, and obtaining usable water.  M. jannaschii can control membrane fluidity in a variety of ways – like many archaea, membrane lipids are almost completely saturated, preventing too much movement.  In addition to this, tetraether linkages may be formed, resulting in a lipid monolayer, providing a more rigid membrane structure.  A novel way of decreasing membrane fluidity, so far only seen in M. jannaschii and Methanococcus igneus, is to join the ends of the two fatty acid chains, forming a macrocyclic lipid(6).

Proteins seen in M. jannaschii are heat-stabilized due to changes in non-essential amino acid sequences.  Contrasted with homologous proteins in their mesophilic counterparts, proteins in these microbes are likely to be smaller, decreasing the amount of wobbling and flexibility, as well as maintaining secondary and tertiary structures by increasing the amount of polar and charged amino acids, as well as disulfide bonds.  To prevent nucleic acids from denaturing, one might expect an increase in the number of hydrogen bonds normally seen in mesophilic archaea, meaning a higher G-C content.  This is not the case, however, there are other methods hyperthermophiles can use to prevent denaturation.  On notable characteristic that may be used to protect DNA is the presence of a reverse gyrase, which can work to reseal denatured DNA.  In addition to this, DNA in archaea is usually found associated with histones, which are usually absent in true bacteria, but present in eukaryotic cells.

The presence of histones is a major factor in the classification of prokaryotic organisms, which, until recently, were all lumped into the Kingdom Monera.  Some biologists believed that it would be better to have two groups to separate true bacteria from archaeabacteria, but it wasn’t until the first archaea’s genome was sequenced that strong evidence supported this case.  M. jannaschii is probably most famous for being the first archaea to have its genome sequence, and only the fourth organism to be sequenced (2, 11).

Prior to this organism, two bacteria – Haemophilus influenza and Mycoplasma genitalium – had their complete genomes sequenced, as well as the eukaryote Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The genomic material in M. jannaschii is found in three pieces, a larger chromosome containing most of the genetic information, with additional information being contained on two smaller extrachromosomal elements (ECEs).  At 1.66 Mb, the size of M. jannaschii’s genome was found to be one of the smallest in nature, excluding viruses and strict symbionts.  In this there are 1738 genes, 44 of which are on the larger ECE, and 12 on the smaller ECE. It was thought that the archaea would be very similar to bacteria, but on closer inspection, only 11% and 17% of the genes were homologous to genes found in H. influenza and M. genitalium, respectively.  This lent much evidence that archaea should not be grouped with bacteria, and while gene homologues were found in eukarya, 56% of its genome was completely new, giving strong proof to Carl Woese’s hypothesis that archaea are a distinct group, similar to both bacteria and eukarya, but not enough to be considered either (2,11).

The split between bacteria and eukarya does not seem random, either, as most genes found in M. jannaschii that share a homology with bacteria are involved in metabolism and structural characteristics.  For example, MJ0577, an ATP-binding protein found in the archaeon shares much of its sequence with YnaF, a protein found in E. coli (15). Other similarities between bacteria and archaea are mechanosensitive ion channels (Msc), with MscMJ (MJ0170) showing striking homology with YggB, an E. coli Msc, enough so that when inserted into E. coli, normal Msc activity is observed (7). The genes shared with eukarya seem to be involved in transcription and translation.  For example, the introns included in tRNA in bacteria are small and self-splicing, while eukaryotes require the use of a separate endonuclease to cleave these introns.  It was found that M. jannaschii and other archaea also utilize a separate endonuclease to cleave these fragments (3).

The most interesting thing found in the study of M. jannaschii’s genome is what it lacks.  Not only does it thrive in areas thought to be uninhabitable, it can also live without molecules thought to be necessary for survival.  In other organisms, three DNA polymerases are needed, even in the simplest of bacteria, but only one can be found in M. jannaschii (11).  The question next is why more of these cannot be found.  Do they simply not exist, or are the unidentified genes coding for unknown molecules doing the same function?  One of the many things lacking in M. jannaschii was a cysteinyl-tRNA synthetase, necessary for translation, but translation, and activity resembling that of cysteinyl-tRNA synthetase were observed.  Further investigation showed that a single enzyme was responsible for the function of two aminoacyl-tRNA’s – prolyl-tRNA synthetase is able to not only make prolyl-tRNA, but cysteinyl-tRNA as well.  Interestingly enough, the sequence of prolyl-tRNA synthetase in M. jannaschii does not differ much from other prolyl-tRNA synthetases, which makes it hard to track phylogenetically (17).  This could be indicative of the high rate of mutations expected to be seen during life’s origins – few enzymes working to create many proteins could increase variety.  Or over the course of several billions years has this organism lost an enzyme, and adapted an old one to continue surviving?

This could be one of the reasons why M. jannaschii’s genome is so small – it’s able to utilize a single enzyme for multiple reactions, where other organisms need to synthesize unique enzymes for each reaction.  This is seen again in efforts to reduce mutations in the genome.  CTP deaminases can deaminate cytosine to uracil, which when incorporated into DNA can lead to incorrect base pairing in replication, and mutation.  To prevent the incorporation of uracil into DNA, organisms possess UTPases which convert UTP to UMP.  Once again a “two for one” enzyme has been discovered – DCD-DUT is a single enzyme that performs both of these functions (4).  The comparative instability of cytosine in high temperature environments may be one of the reasons for this – having an enzyme which makes the deaminated CTP “safe” in the immediate vicinity would help to reduce the amount of UTP incorporated into the DNA (4, 10).  At these high temperatures, rapid molecular movement and interactions like these could be disastrous if there wasn’t a mechanism to control it.

Another reason why its genome is so small could be due to the sizes of the proteins it needs to create in extreme temperatures.  By eliminating nonessential amino acid sequences from proteins, they are made more compact, and not easily moved.  This would help to maintain stability within this organism.  Evidence to support could be demonstrated in the sequencing of the psychrophile Colwellia psychroerthraea, whose genome is over twice the size of M. jannaschii’s at 5.3Mb (24).  Most thermophiles have small genomes, and once more psychrophiles have their genomes sequenced, it could be looked at to determine if they have more genes, or are simply making larger proteins, or if simply the size of the main chromosome can lend some stability to the nucleic acid.

The isolation and culture of M. jannaschii was not a simple task to accomplish.  It’s well-suited for its environment of over 200atm, and attempts to remove it from its environment resulted in cells rupturing as they were brought to the surface.  This was thought to be due to the high vacuole content, as it’s producing a gaseous product from gaseous substrates.  Further investigation showed that the amount of time given to decompression can affect the amount of cells that lyse, and unlike some other deep-sea barophiles, like MT-41, if the cells are decompressed slowly, they are capable of growing normally at 1atm (14).  Another obstacle in the harvesting and culturing of these bacteria was the energy requirement.  In environments lacking H2, the cultures cannot survive, and cocultures with organisms, such as Thermotoga martina, which produce molecular hydrogen, allows M. jannaschii to thrive without adding external H2 or CO2.  This also provides an energy source for the heterotrophic organism, creating a healthy consortium. Using this technique, cocultures have been very successful, allowing T. maritima to thrive wherein previous, isolated cultures, it was inhibited by its own H2 production, and as long as the two organisms were touching, M. jannaschii could utilize that H2, removing it from the environment (12). These experiments and techniques performed with M. jannaschii lends some insight on how microbial communities really function around hydrothermal vents, and provides new ideas on how to culture “unculturable” microbes obtained from these sites.  In the environment, probing for signature enzymes, such as methyl reductase or nitrogenase, could identify M. jannaschii.  Of course, these enzymes are only indicative of most methanogens, and more testing would be needed to make sure it was M. jannaschii.  If one just wants to study it in the lab, a culture of it can be obtained from Braunschweig, Germany’s Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen(12).

These organisms are cultured and studied for a variety of reasons, spanning several disciplines.  As previously mentioned, understanding their genetic code may help to trace back the origins of life, and identify the common ancestor of all domains.  Further studies may help to clarify whether eubacteria and archaea came together to form eukaryotes, or if archaea split into these two groups.  Phylogenetically, the sequencing of this organism has provided a lot of insight to questions, and has spurred even more to be asked.  The ability of M. jannaschii to live in these harsh conditions, deprived of sunlight and oxygen, making its own macromolecules has made scientists reevaluate the origin of life.  Perhaps here in these dark depths M. jannaschii, and other archaea like it, took the relatively simple inorganic molecules found there, and began synthesizing them into more complex organic molecules, enriching the seas and allowing other organisms to take advantage of this and flourish.  Nutrients would have been provided not only for other prokaryotes, but for eukaryotes and multicellular organisms as well.  Sheets of M. jannaschii and other archaea found at these hydrothermal vents can be used as a source of nutrition for various organisms, such as shrimp and crabs only found at these vent sites.  This has made scientists wonder – if these archaea are responsible for the beginnings of life under the ocean here, why not elsewhere?  While Mars is closer, and easier to explore, the recent discovery of these hydrothermal vents perhaps being the origin of life here on Earth has caused people to turn to another celestial body in the search of extraterrestrial life.  While not the largest or most impressive body in the heavens, Jupiter’s moon, Europa, is distinct in that underneath an icy exterior is a vast ocean, larger in volume than all our oceans put together.  Its ocean contains enough salt and minerals it can conduct electricity, and has liquid water.  Perhaps at the bottom of this vast ocean is Europa’s own hydrothermal vents, bustling with bacterial activity, and maybe even life that’s evolved from bacteria.  NASA has already developed a project to study Europa, along with two other of Jupiter’s moons, for the possibility of life (22).

But there are other reasons for studying M. jannaschii, reasons closer to home.  For a while now, thermophiles have been studied in the effort of developing heat-stable enzymes used for industrial and agricultural means.  By using a thermostable form of amylase derived from M. jannaschii, new ways of processing starch have been developed which require much less energy than previously used (9).  But not only has M. jannaschii been studied to reduce the amount of energy used, but it can also be utilized to create energy.  Projects to study this organism, along with other methanogens have been approved by the United States Department of Energy.  The methane these organisms produce is a large constituent of natural gas, and the alcohol methanol can be used in gasoline, which makes most of American’s energy usage (25).  By studying methods of culturing these methane-producers, and refining the methane so it can be used as a fuel-source, an unlimited supply of fuel could be created.  Unfortunately, using methane as a fuel is not that easy, requiring higher than normal temperatures to keep it going, as well as producing byproducts that can lead to acid rain, and so studies of using different kinds of catalysts for combustion of the fuel are being pursued (5,8,21).  Another advantage of using methanogens like M. jannaschii to produce methane is the requirement of CO2, one of the more prevalent greenhouse gases.  Intelligent utilization of this organism could potentially provide a clean fuel source, as well as reversing the affects of not-so clean fuel sources used in the past.

This is truly an interesting organism, to be the basis of study for so many branches of biology.  Using it for industry, whether agricultural or as an energy source, its products have many uses.  But far from just what it can be used for, the simple fact of its existence is groundbreaking.  It has made us question the boundaries of life, and what’s necessary for an organism to survive, which has made most people believe that life outside the Earth is not just a piece of science-fiction anymore.  Further investigation has been given to other environments on our own Earth we previously thought uninhabitable to see if life exists there.

One of the most significant discoveries, regarding M. jannaschii, is its symbiosis with other organisms, and methods of getting to the surface.  This organism has been around for millions of years, dwelling in relatively obscurity at the bottom of the sea.  This also seems to be the case with the giant lizard, Gojira tokyalis (30). When Gojira tokyalis awoke from its slumber, and headed towards land, doubtless it was covered with this bacteria.

Recently, it has been theorized that this archaeabacterium is also responsible for the destruction Gojira tokyalis was able to bring to the fair city of Tokyo.  By producing methane gas, this organism was lending fuel to the fire – literally.  The pyrorespiration, once thought to be simply another of G. tokyalis’s unique traits (29), may not be its own at all.  Much like angler fish, who harbor bioluminescing bacteria, which are kept in a special organ which is used to lure prey, this giant lizard may be doing the same thing (31).

Preliminary investigations have lent supporting evidence to this theory.  Rather than a parasitic symbiosis, this looks to be more of a mutualistic one, with both organisms benefiting.  Through careful investigation, it has been found there’s a higher M. jannaschii cell density around the nostrils and mouth of this great beast – which would provide the archaeon with the carbon dioxide needed for methanogenesis.  Extra methane would be released, and, if ignited, would allow Gojira to pyro-respire in the outflow, thus allowing the lizard a novel attacking ability to use against its prey.

Of course, this begs the question of how this gas is ignited.  Once again, furthur investigation must be done, but some of the following possibilities have been theorized.  Most likely it is not from the archaeon at all, but an ability of Gojira, which may include specialized teeth or organs in its mouth capable of ignition.  Others believe that it is not an innate ability of the great beast, but rather, an influence of its diet.  G. tokyalis has never been witnessed pyro-respiring, except for in the middle of an attack on Tokyo.  This high automobile/train diet may cause excess bits of metal to become lodged in its teeth, and, when struck together, may cause sparks, and ignition of the methane (32).

Further studies must be done of course to determine the full extent of this symbiosis.  To what lengths does it extend?  It’s proved that the methanogen can life freely, but what about the beast?  During its long sleeps at the bottom of the ocean, is the extra methane produced by M. jannaschii sustaining G. tokyalis?  Or does its food come from other energy stores?  More research must be done on this topic before it can be decided.

In summary, Methonococcus jannaschii, the deep sea thermophilic archaeon, is a novel organism, not in just its ability to synthesize enzymes and products used for technology, but also all the questions it allows us to ask, and study.  How did life as we know it, including our own existence, evolve?  What conditions are “too harsh” to sustain life?  Are conditions on other planets able to sustain life, and, if so, do they?  All these questions stem from, and could be answered by, a tiny microbe, invisible to the naked eye.

References:

1. Amend, J. P., and E. L. Shock.  1998.  Energetics of Amino Acid Synthesis in

Hydrothermal Ecosystems.  Science.  281:1659-1662.

2. Bult, C. J., O. White, G. J. Olsen, L. Zhou, R. D. Fleischmann, Granger G. Sutton,

et. al. 1996.  Complete Genome Sequence of the Methanogenic Archaeon, Methanococcus jannaschii. Science. 273:1058-1073

3. Hong, L., T. R. Christopher, and J. Abelson.  1998. Crystal Structure and Evolution of

a Transfer RNA Splicing Enzyme.  Science.  280:279-284.

4. Huffman, J. L., H. Li, R. H. White, and J. A. Tainer. 2003. Structural Basis for

Recognition and Catalysis by the Bifunctional dCTP Deaminase and dUTPase from Methanococcus jannaschii.  Journal of Molecular Biology.  332(4):885-896.

5. Jon, G. M. 2000. Methane Combustion: Durable Catalysts for Cleaner Air.  Nature.

403:35-36
6.  Kaneshiro, S. M., and D. Clark. 1995.  Pressure Effects on Composition and Thermal

Behavior of Lipids from the Deep-Sea Thermophile, Methanococcus jannaschii. Journal of Bacteriology.  177(13):3668-3672.

7.  Kloda A., and B. Martinac. 2002. Mechanosensitive Channels of Bacteria and

Archaea Share a Common Ancestral Origin.  Eur. Biophys. J.  31(1):14-25.

8. Koide, H., and Y. Kenichi.  2001. Subsurface CO[sub 2] Disposal with Enhanced Gas

Recovery and Biogeochemical Carbon Recycling.  Environmental Geosciences.  8(3):218-224.
9. Li, M., J. Kim, and T. Peeples. 2003. Energy-Cost Reduction in Starch Processing

Using Aqueous Two Phase Reactor Systems.  Separation Science & Technology. 38(12/13):2709-2724.

10. Lindahl, T., and B. Nyberg.  1974. Heat-induced Deamination of Cytosine Residues

in Deoxyribonucleic Acid.  Biochemistry. 13(16):3405-3410.

11. Morell, V.  1996. Life’s Last Domain.  Science. 273:1043-1045.

12. Muralidharan, V., K. D. Rinker, I.S, Hirsh, E.J. Bouwer, and R.M. Kelly.  1997.

Hydrogen Transfer Between Methanogens and Fermentative Heterotrophs in    Hyperthermophilic Cocultures.  Biotechnology and Bioengineering. 56(3):268-278.

13. Olsen, G.J. 1999.  What’s Eating the Free Lunch?  Nature.  400:403-405.
14. Park, C. B., and D. S. Clark.  2002.  Rupture of the Cell Envelope by Decompression

of  the Deep-Sea Methanogen Methanococcus jannaschii.  Applied and Environmental Microbiology.  68(3):1458-1463.

15. Saveanu, C., S. Miron, T. Borza, C. T. Craescu, G. Labesse, C. Gagyi, et. al.  2002                              Structural and Nucleotide-binding Properties of YajQ and YnaF, two Escherichia coli Proteins of Unknown Function.  Protein Science.  11:2551-2560.

16. Sprott, G. D., I. Ekiel, and G. B. Patel.  1993. Metabolic Pathways in Methanococcus

jannaschii and Other Methanogenic Bacteria.  Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 59(4):1092-1098.

17. Stathopoulos, C., T. Li, R. Longman, U. C. Vothknecht, H. D. Becker, M. Ibba, and

D. Söll.  2000. One Polypeptide with Two Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetase Activities.  Science.  287:479-482.

18. Uotsu-Tomita, R., T. Tonozuka, H. Sakai, and Y. Sakano.  2001.  Novel

Glucoamylase-type Enzymes from Thermoactinomyces vulgaris and Methanococcus jannaschii Whose Genes are Found in the Flanking Region of the  α-amylase Genes.  Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.  56:465-473.

19. Wang, G.,  G. Rong, M. Bartlam, H. Xue, H. Yang, Y. Liu, L. Huang, and Zihe Rao.

2002. Expression, Purification, Crystallization and Preliminary X-ray Analysis of a

DNA-binding Protein from Methanococcus jannaschii. Biological Crystallography. 58(7):1240-1242.

20.  Watson, G. M. F., J. Yu, and F. R. Tabita. 1999.  Unusual Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate

Carboxylase/Oxygenase of Anoxic Archaea.  Journal of Bacteriology.

181(5): 1569-1575.

21. Zarur, A. J., and J. Y. Ying.  2000. Reverse Microemulsion Synthesis of

Nanostructured Complex Oxides for Catalytic Combustion.  Nature.  403:65-67.

Online sources:
22. NASA.  1998. Detailed Images From Europa Point To Slush Below Surface.

www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/news8.html
23. NCBI Taxonomy Browser.  www.ncbi.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/www.tax.cgi

24. The Institute for Genome Research.  www.tigr.org.

25. United States Department of Energy.  2001.  National Energy Policy.
www.energy.gov

26. University of California.  Electron Microscope Lab.
www.biology.berkeley.edu/EML/sem.html.

27. University of Illinois.  1999. Methanococcus jannaschii Functions Database.

www.ebi.ac.uk/research/cgg/projects/annotation/MJannotations.html

28.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 2002.  The Discovery of Hydrothermal Vents.

www.divediscover.whoi.edu/vent_cd/vent_discovery/scientificrevolution/print/

majordisc-earth-p.html.

29.  Fisher, J. K.  2002.  Gojira tokyalis:  Biological Functions.  Japanese Invaders Weekly.  30: 15-48.

30.  Fisher, J. K.  2003.  Gojira tokyalis: Habitat and Environment.  Japanese Invaders Monster-sized Special.  1: 99-207.

31.  Interview with Niels Bohr, conducted by self.  2003.

32.  Letter correspondence between Copernicus and self.  2002.

So prop 8, people!  Now, neither planning on getting gay-married myself anytime soon nor living in California, I have to admit I’ve been on the fringes of the issue.  I mean, sure, I’ll listen to Bernadette Peters any day!

But that aside there’s an issue that always drives me crazy when it comes to gay rights – and that is those gays who insist they were born that way, and that’s why they’re entitled to these rights.  First of all there is no definitive evidence that this is the case – there have been some studies that support this and others that oppose it.  Second of all whether someone is born to act a certain way should not guarantee them the right to go against the law.  Some individuals are “born killers” and have brains hard-wired for sociopathy – does that mean murder should be acceptable in their cases because they were born to be killers?  That’s utterly ridiculous.

Now I’m not saying that an individual cannot be born to an exclusively homosexual orientation or an exclusively heterosexual orientation (in all honesty it probably is in most cases), simply that it hasn’t been proven and that it shouldn’t matter.

Here in America, the best part of America, the part we all praise, is the freedom.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from having to quarter soldiers in your home….

So why is there such an insistence on proving homosexuality to be a pre-determined state before allowing equal rights?  We don’t require the same in other situations.  Preferring chocolate is genetically predetermined in some people – should people buying chocolate have to prove that before their purchase goes through?  Some couples – heterosexual couples – are attracted to each other on a genetic level, while others simply choose logically who would be good for them.  Are we to deny marriage to the second group because they are making a “choice”?

Even if being homosexual is genetically determined, what about the bisexuals (or anyone else not a perfect 6 on the Kinsey scale)?  Which marriage do they get?  Considering they could potentially “help” their homosexual urges are they confined to “opposite-marriage”?

The issue with gay marriage seems to be it will dissolve the sanctity of marriage.  What sanctity, though?  Heterosexual individuals can get married to their partner before they’ve even met – arranged marriages and mail-order brides occurring in America – yet gay couples cannot marry the partner they’ve been with for years.  It is argued they will not be able to produce children – but what of sterile hetero couples or couples who simply choose not to reproduce?  Does the lack of reproduction nullify those marriages?  It is worried that some same-sex individuals who are not actually a couple will take advantage of marriage benefits by posing as a married couple.  Well, I won’t even start on the inequality of those benefits (maybe a little – someone who is married is entitled to more money than someone who is single, why?  The single person is likely to need the money more!) but is their anything in place to stop heterosexual friends from doing the same thing (I’ve been asked multiple times to enter such a partnership)?

Whether an individual is born gay or not shouldn’t be an issue – and I wish the gays would stop focusing on that anytime there’s a debate involving gay rights.  The pure and simple truth is that homosexual activity is only a problem when it comes to religion – there is absolutely no call to politically ban it.  America is supposed to pride itself on freedom of religion – when we start making policy people’s private lives solely because they are doing something wrong based on our religion we can no longer say our country demonstrates that freedom.

And now an excerpt from Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America, and So Can You!”

I chose the urges that made my father stop talking to me; I selected the longings that led a group of morally stronger men to beat me up in a parking lot; I even picked the sense of contentment I felt during a three-year live-in relationship with an older man.

Okay, not to harp on this but after a super-fun trip to NYC for the Colbert Report Jon Stewart’s comments last night on John Oliver’s being “not quite feminine….but inferior” are driving me mad…. Not because I’m a huge fan of Oliver (he’s “meh” at best for me) but because he is basically saying women are inferior to men.  And okay, okay, dudes rib on each other for being girlie all the time – I’m not so idiotic to not know this is the norm in our society….but I just think Stewart would take a LITTLE more care in choosing his words after the whole Jezebel fiasco….

Then again, since most people who questioned the hiring practices were dismissed as jealous feminazis I suppose that’s given Stewart carte blanch to be more outrightly sexist.

All I can wonder now is Jon…. whatever happened to Th-hers-day?

Went to Michael’s to buy some stuff for class.  While I was there I decided to grab some colored canson paper and ink!  So now I have this:

Lots of flaws, but I’m still pretty happy with it, especially as it was done in the last 8 hours of my 45 hours without sleep.  It was my first time seriously working with ink and brush (contemplated doing it in charcoal, but figured I wouldn’t get what I wanted) so I learned a lot of what I shouldn’t do in the process….also picked up some yellow paper…maybe Faye will come out better.

Couple of in-progress photos from this under the cut.

Read more �

I remember a time when I could understand enough HTML to write a simple blog post.  In those days, goils were goils and men were men.

MESSAGE REDACTED

Okays, so I temporarily unpublished yesterday’s pissy post. ….I will put it back up, but after I’ve had the meeting and everything is settled one way or another. I don’t want the student finding this site and being all, “look – the teacher hated me and that is why I got an F!” So.

Thanks for your comment M – it did brighten my day, and you are right – all schools have their issues. My concerns with community colleges though is that they are much more of a community – not just with their physical locale but with other cc’s. When one does poorly it tends to reflect on the entire cc establishment in a way that, say, Harvard acting badly would not reflect on UCLA.

As a dual user and Google-lover I’ve noticed that Google tends to imitate Apple.  Sometimes it’s good, like the formating of g-chat to appear like the intuitive ichat, but sometimes it’s bad, like releasing a product that is innovative but contains multiple flaws and then not actually listening to the people who want those flaws fixed.  Unfortunately, unlike Apple, Google does not have a rabid fan-base that will use and defend its products against accusations of the minorest of flaws to those that will burn your house down.

And thus Google Wave is no more.  Well, it’s still here, but it soon…. won’t be ….no more…. Anyway!  I’m not a tech geek but when I first saw Google wave (as I say, gWave….pronounced “guh-wave”….okay, no I don’t) my jaw dropped.  I needed it!  I had to have it!  It seemed perfect for someone like me who wants to be able to consolidate more of the things I do into one application.  Honestly, not to give away how un-geeky I am, it seemed like it could be a more mature version of Facebook.  Not sure if that makes sense, but…. anyway.  Since I am always about a year behind on these things I lucked out and probably less than a month after I saw the initial presentation, it went on limited release to the public  and I finagled myself an invite.  I spent most of my invites shortly after on friends who hopped on to try it….and promptly hopped off again.

I have to admit, so did I.  I played around on it a little bit but didn’t find myself checking it regularly.  The list of problems I found with the interface were minor (what the hell was up with that scroll-bar?!) but numerous.  I tried to do my part and added my comments to the feedback site and checked out others’ ideas (hey – as minor as it was at least I know I wasn’t alone on the scroll-bar issue).  About once a month I’d go back and check Google Wave, wondering what improvements they’d made.  As months rolled by I saw zero improvements to the app.  Maybe there were things going on behind the scenes but personally I couldn’t see it.  So where’s the incentive to stay?  Not only does the interface kind of suck it appears they aren’t addressing the hundreds of concerns that people are writing in about.

Additionally, why such a limited release?  Sure, it was the way they handled g-mail at first, but e-mail is different – you could exchange e-mail with someone with a yahoo account even if you had a g-mail account – there was no limitations in communications.  With something like this, however, how many people have a Wave application that’s not by Google?  The initial individuals who received their accounts had few people to interact with, and likely had become bored with sitting in front of an empty window by the time the public release came out.  Even when I invited my friends it wasn’t as though I could say, “hey, join me on Google Wave RIGHT NOW!” and then have crazy zany chatjinks.  Nope, it was, “hey, I’m on Google Wave and I’m going to send an invite for you but then it needs to be approved which could take a day or two and then maybe we’ll both be on!  ….but it is unlikely….WOO!!!!!”

Okay, so I’m a little pissy.  I liked Google Wave.  I wanted it to catch on – but I don’t think Google handled its release very well.

Or maybe it’s because they named it after a Joss Whedon concept.  Now THAT is a recipe for an untimely cancellation.

Let’s play pretend for a few moments.  Let’s pretend you own a business.  People in general like your business and you like those people.  Some people, however, have noticed something about your business.  Let’s say it’s that you don’t seem to employ many individuals of color.  There are lots of white people making money from your business, you employ some nonwhite individuals but really it’s mostly whites – let’s say a 5:1 ratio of white:nonwhite.  Well, okay, maybe that’s not your fault – maybe your business is just situated in an area where there are just more whites than not!  I totally understand that diversity for diversity’s sake is bullshit and you should reflect your consumers…. So we could assume that they’re all mostly white, too, right? Oh….crap.  It’s a 3:2 ratio of white:non-white?  That’s…not really reflective of what you employ.  Maybe someone brings up the idea of getting the numbers of whites:nonwhites you employ closer to your consumer target?  In addition, a few nonwhites have mentioned that working for you was pretty awkward – they never felt comfortable.  How would you handle that?

To me, there are three options:

a. acknowledge the disparity, maybe make some claims that you’d never noticed it until now, and assure people you will take whatever steps necessary to bridge the gap as long as they don’t jeapordize quality.  Maybe you decide to take steps to make as many people as possible welcome in the workplace.

b. acknowledge the disparity, but realize you don’t care.  In fact, why is the ratio of whites:nonwhites working for you 5:1 – it should be 5:0!

c. refuse to acknowledge the disparity.  Despite the concrete numbers to the contrary deny there is any gap at all.  Ooh, also, grab a couple nonwhites whose paychecks still depend on your opinion of them and ask them to talk about how much they love working for you!

…Which one did you choose?  Well, if you chose b you’re probably a conservative asshole, and proud of it.  What are you doing here in the first place?!  If you chose c, well you’re still an asshole but either you don’t know it or are more concerned with convincing people you’re not an asshole than actually trying to become less of an asshole.

Oh, and if we replace “nonwhites” with “women” you’re also The Daily Show.  Wow.  I can’t believe TDS is reading MY blog!  …and….and that it’s a singular entity…

Anyway, a few weeks ago I flipped on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  Interestingly enough, I idly wondered if I was going to see any females on that night…I say it was interesting because during that show Jon mentioned how Jezebel thought he was a sexist prick.  Although a nightly viewer of TDS (the 11pm and 1am showings…) and a rare reader of Jezebel I couldn’t help but think that maybe Jon had it wrong.  I went to the original article and found that pointing out flaws in how things are currently working is an insult.  Seriously.  ”The Daily Show has not hired a new female correspondent in seven years” =/= “You, Jon Stewart, are a sexist prick.”

The irony of the situation has to be TDS’s ability to call bull on everyone else.  It is why I love the show so.  I love logic and TDS takes those swings at logic that other news shows seem to miss.  And yes, I will call them a news show – they report on the news.  It just so happens the news that’s presented is given a sharp, intelligent, and often humorous critique.

So imagine my surprise when they decided to turn a single Jezebel article into news but it lacks that sharp, intelligent, and humorous critique.  TDS, Jezebel called you on your bullshit. You rarely have female guests on (this year it’s been about 67:15 male:female, I believe -roughly 5:1 – and the majority of the female guests are actresses….nothing against actresses, but can we please get on a woman of substance?), you have only just hired another female correspondent (bringing the male:female ratio up to a whopping 7:2 – although if history has taught us anything, TDS hiring a new female correspondent means the old one’s on her way out!) after seven years.  Onstage it is clearly a boys’ club, and the only way for something to be so clearly a boys’ club onstage is for it to be a boys’ club offstage.  No “secret loalty oath” you have your current female workers can disuage that concept.

Seriously.  The old “we aren’t sexist because we had all the females whose paychecks depend on us sign an oath saying we’re not” is just ridiculous.

It’s the actions we’re looking for, TDS.  For example, tonight’s episode with no female correspondents and no female guests was the first step in….um….  well, okay, see that, there?  THAT’S what you want to change!  And no, I’m not looking for diversity for diversity’s sake, but I do think that you should at least TRY to match your audience.  The viewership is 3:2 male:female but the guests and correspondents are about (or over) 5:1.  It is a disparity that should not be ignored (which is what TDS seems to be doing).

Interestingly enough Jon Stewart was really the one to open this can of worms by mentioning it on his show.  It is unlikely the general public would have known about this without his “Jezebel thinks I’m a sexist prick!” remark as soon after that was mentioned news articles went up all over the web.  …note, these reposts were all made after the airing of the Daily Show that mentioned it, not within the WEEK between the original post and TDS’s mention of it.

So what is there to assume?  That TDS actually played a role in its own downfall and controversy….or that the ugly bitches at Jezebel (so, so jealous of Olivia Munn!) used TDS to boost their page count?  Seriously, I shit you not – Emily Gould is accusing Jezebel of trumping up charges against TDS to get publicity, because there is obviously no sexism or disparity at TDS!  Those numbers that clearly indicate disparity?  Well, um, let’s pretend they don’t exist, shall we?  And, oh!  Those women who said that while they worked at TDS they felt they were treated unfairly – well, let’s not count that because we’ve got a couple of chick’s over here who will say the opposite (according to the secret loyalty oath they signed, anyway).  Did we mention that any woman who doesn’t like TDS is ugly and jealous of Olivia Munn?

A point that was also made was that not liking the women that did appear on the Daily Show (for example, being skeptical of Olivia Munn’s comedic chops) is somewhat cat-fighty.  Which raises an interesting point – this must be about women backstabbing the women who did make it (see above: “jealous”).  It’s totally not about opening up more spaces for women so they don’t HAVE to fight and backstab for the one “female correspondent” role (because there would be a roughly 3:2 ratio of male:female correspondents).  Oh wait, you idiots, it IS.  And that brings us back to “catfights”.  One woman, Ann Begler, replying to the Slate article writes:

“Robin Morgan refused to debate Lucy Goldberg stating she would not participate in a public setting that fostered the old stereotype of women always being in ‘cat fights.’”

Yes, a simple female-female debate must be a cat-fight.  Shying away from any such debates must be the only way to dispel such myths!  ….Seriously.  Women must always present a united front of womanhood and never disagrees with one another – even is one is doing something incredibly stupid. Anyway, if such is ever the case then their menfolk will ridicule the woman and the other women can just agree with their man.  Which is not the same as disagreeing with another woman.  Because that would be “cat-fighty” and involve taking off the White Gloves*.

This article was fantastic…

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/05/06/the-racial-politics-of-regressive-storytelling/
I used to be a Marvel fan then got into DC a little after zero hour occurred.  Big Flash fan, enjoyed Young Justice….

The Johns started writing Flash and it lost its pizazz (I was especially sad to see Linda sidelined).  YJ was reformed into the Teen Titans which was interesting for the first three episodes until Johns had the characters undergo drastic, unreasonable character changes in order for it to fit the TT of his youth.

I stopped buying any DC-proper comics around that time.  I wanted something new.  If I wanted to see the old adventures of the old TT, that’s what back-issues are for.  I still occasionally buy Vertigo titles because they are new.  Comics really need to get with the times, and move forward.

So any time I watch the History channel and they go on about human origins, they invariable take the same track. It is something like:

“One of our forefathers developed the unique ability to (use tools, make fire, explore, etc.) which he then passed to his offspring.”

Now I wasn’t around five millions years ago, so I do not scream “it was a woman!” but usually the mere concept of women even existing and contributing in any way, shape, or form to current society, is almost completely ignored, even in the most basic of biological terms (“it is thought that Australia was first colonized by about 7 different men with their unique ability and thirst for exploration.  Oh, and a couple chicks.”), so I usually do get annoyed.  It could have been a female.  That’s all I want acknowledged.

Now as a biologist I did think there would be more of a push for a male to develop these traits over females. As humans are mammals it could be assumed that before the birth of religion human reproduction occurred similarly to other mammals – males competing for females.  Usually the biggest, best few males of the year have access to most the females that year.  The following year those males are usually replace by younger, fitter male who then have access to the females.  So pretty much all the females would reproduce but only the biggest and best males would be able to reproduce, thus creating a pressure for new advantageous mutations.

But apparently I totally overlooked another pressure.  Since male mammals tend to be larger than females (to allow for better competition between other males) it turns out they hog the best food spots and so females have to becomes more clever.

Turns out that the use of tools, once thought to be a solely human adaptation has been seen in other animals – birds, dolphins, monkeys, and apes.  That isn’t news.  What’s becoming news is that it is mainly females in these groups that are using the tools.

Dolphins?

Chimps?

Weird, but makes sense.

So all this time when I make stuff by hand I used to feel all masculine.  Turns out I should be feeling feminine.