"As Boyd points out, the process of natural selection is supposed to gradually weed out any traits in a species that don't contribute to its survival and its ability to pass on its genes to offspring who will do the same."

No. No. No. This sentence is too broad. Natural selection would weed out traits that negatively impact the ability to pass on genes to offspring, but it would have no effect on genes that neither contribute nor take away from that ability.

Contrary to the way evolutionary theory gets used - to explain all things about everybody in any context - you can have traits that do not need to be justified by survival and reproduction, but merely exist for no purpose and don't go away because they are not selected against.

Can't fiction be wonderfully, joyfully superfluous? Please?

As a poster above pointed out, the decision to renew Dollhouse had a lot to do with the fact that Fox produces it, while another studio (WB?) produced T:SCC. It's sad to see a Whedon fans vs. T:SCC fans rivalry springing up. T:SCC was competing with the entire field of shows Fox could have gone with, including current shows and pilot shows, not just with Dollhouse.

And I'm talking about the t.v. shows because I really don't see much potential for the type of involved, philosophical storytelling in most of the film SF franchises out there, with the possible exception of Star Trek. That film had some seeds of deeper things (mostly because the show and movies that preceded it had already planted those seeds). Whether those seeds will grow remains to be seen.

Khengsta, would that also be the poll in which %27 of respondents said they had no opinion on the election and %15 refused to answer the question at all? The one where a full %52 of respondents are not accounted for in that 2:1 statistic? That's the poll co-sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow (at least according to the Washington Post blog I cite below it is). TFT is not really the source I would go to for reliable data on Iran, given that friggin John McCain is on their advisory board.

Some people repeating that 2:1 stat are just repeating the oversimplified info they've been given. I suspect that when journalists do it they are purposely distorting the issue.

From Behind the Numbers at The Washington Post:

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/)

"...the poll that appears in today's op-ed shows a 2 to 1 lead in the thinnest sense: 34 percent of those polled said they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Eight percent said they'd vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates."

I could take the same data and say that Iranians in a poll taken in May reported 2:1 that they did not plan to vote for Ahmadinejad in the upcoming election.

Only a week before, Shepard had expressed fears about being killed. Given that apprehension, it is still inexplicable -- if the case is examined only through a political lens -- why Shepard would leave a public place in the company of such blatant thugs.

With all due respect, I think you need a new lens because that one reflects pretty poorly on you.

I have never before posted on a Paglia thread before. I simply don't care about her opinion on most things. Her ideas in these Salon columns tend not to be very well thought out or defended, so I don't feel I learn much from her. I am very disappointed, since I would love to read a persuasive dissenting voice here at Salon.

I'm posting, though, because I find Paglia's blame-the-victim tangent here to be deeply creepy. It has nothing to do with the validity of hate crimes legislation. I disagree with Paglia on the nature and value of hate crimes laws, but I can understand the principle behind why she opposes them. Why she decided to weave in her opinion on Shepherd's personal safety decisions is beyond me, and it comes across as a deep-seated resentment of Shepherd for having the temerity to try to have a social life while gay.

It's a weak argument, a bigoted argument, an argument that is fundamentally flawed on every level - ethically, logically, rhetorically. It is, frankly, beneath her and beneath this publication.

Counseling on living wills is already mandatory in some states And mass euthanasia has not resulted. Of fucking course.

I work as an intern in the social services dept. at a cancer center in CA, and social workers in my workplace are required by the state to bring up Advance Health Care Directives (=Living Wills) to all of our patients, regardless of age or severity. I talk about these with dozens of people every week. No one has ever responded with a "holy god you're trying to kill me!!1"; usually people who have never thought of these issues are relieved to have help thinking things through for the sake of their families in the event that - god forbid - they should be incapacitated and unable to make decisions for themselves. Get that? These things are not about people losing control over medical decisions, they are about extending individual choice so that you have some control over what happens to you even when you are no longer conscious.

There is nothing in the Advance Health Care Directive that mentions euthanasia. There is nothing - nothing nothing nothing - encouraging clients to choose one way or another to answer any of the questions involved.

And it is working class people who have not had access to this information before and who are the most relieved to have a structured and supportive way to go about making such choices with their families.

Dear God, how reprehensible can health care opponents get?