“Capitalism is not wicked or cruel when the commodity is the whore; profit is not wicked or cruel when the alienated worker is a female piece of meat; corporate bloodsucking is not wicked or cruel when the corporations in question, sell cunt; racism is not wicked or cruel when the black cunt or yellow cunt or red cunt or Hispanic cunt or Jewish cunt has her legs splayed for any man’s pleasure; poverty is not wicked or cruel when it is the poverty of dispossessed women who have only themselves to sell; violence by the powerful against the powerless is not wicked or cruel when it is called sex; slavery is not wicked or cruel when it is sexual slavery; torture is not wicked or cruel when the tormented are women, whores, cunts. The new pornography is left-wing; and the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.”
Here is the new ‘joke’ –
What did Watson & Crick discover?
Rosalind Franklin’s notes.
Rosalind Franklin’s Legacy
When it comes to her place in the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, Rosalind Franklin has not received fair treatment. Or so maintains Lynne Osman Elkin, a professor of biological sciences at California State University, Hayward, who spends much of her time these days trying to clarify Franklin’s significant role in one of the 20th century’s greatest scientific achievements. In March 2003, Elkin published a lengthy article on Franklin in Physics Today, and she’s hard at work on a biography. In this interview, hear what Elkin has to say about exactly where Franklin stands in her mind—and where Photo 51’s creator ought to stand in the history books. Click on highlighted words or phrases for a glossary.With all she did to make Watson and Crick’s discovery possible, Rosalind Franklin was essentially “a de facto collaborator,” says Lynne Osman Elkin. EnlargePhoto credit: © Novartis Foundation
NOVA: How close did Franklin actually come to deciphering the structure of DNA?
Elkin: She was very close. She had all the parameters of the helical backbone. She was the one who figured out that there were two forms of DNA, which made solving the whole structure possible. She had figured out that backbone of the A form is antiparallel. It wouldn’t have been very long before she figured out that the B form backbone was antiparallel as well.
The other thing was base-pairing, which was Watson‘s brilliant idea, made possible by chemical information supplied by Jerry Donohue. But if you look at her notebooks, she was very, very aware of hydrogen bonding. She was very, very aware of the difference between enol and keto forms, which were the key to base-pairing. She was aware of Chargaff’s ratios. She was aware of Donohue’s work. All the stuff that circled around base-pairing.
How soon might she have worked it out if Watson and Crick hadn’t gotten her data?
Well, at one time Crick estimated that it would have taken her three months. I don’t know how long it would have taken her, but I think the critical thing with the timing is that she was about to publish her paper on the B form. That’s the March 17th draft that Aaron Klug discovered. And that paper was written well before March 17th, and then after the Watson-Crick structure was figured out, she modified it very minimally, and it became the third Nature paper.
“After Watson saw Photo 51, he went out to dinner with Maurice Wilkins and pressed him for the interpretation of it.”There is no way without her data that Watson and Crick could have figured out the structure before [her March 17th draft] got published. Now, if that had gotten published first and then they figured it out—remember, she talked about the double helix in that paper—then even though they had figured out the actual structure, they would have had to incorporate her information and credit her properly, and she would not have been written out of history.Franklin’s famous Photo 51, which led to Watson and Crick’s breakthrough insight into the double-helical structure of DNA Enlarge Photo credit: © Franklin, R. and Gosling, R.G./Nature
What did Watson actually get out of Photo 51 beyond the idea that the “X” signified a helix?
After Watson saw Photo 51, he went out to dinner with Wilkins and pressed him for the interpretation of it—the 34-angstrom measurements and so on. At that early date Watson didn’t know how to interpret a diffraction photo, other than that an “X” meant helix. In terms of getting measurements out of it, he hadn’t the foggiest—at that point. It was Wilkins who told him how to interpret it. [For a closer look at the image, see Anatomy of Photo 51.]
What about the idea that the sugar-phosphate groups were on the outside? Did Watson get that from Photo 51?
No. That was from the MRC report. Watson and Crick got a tremendous amount of information from that MRC report. Now, they persisted in wanting to put the bases on the outside. And it’s absurd—you don’t put a hydrophobic thing on the outside of a structure in a cell. You put the hydrophobic stuff on the inside where it’s protected, and the hydrophilic phosphates and sugars on the outside.
As a chemist Franklin knew that automatically, and so did even a graduate student at King’s, Bruce Fraser, when he tried building a model. But Watson and Crick, being weak in their knowledge of chemistry, kept putting it on the outside. And Wilkins said, “You know, Rosalind said it should be on the inside.” So Wilkins once again was telling them information that he knew from Rosalind. They kept resisting, however, because to put it on the inside, it seemed very difficult to know how to pack things.
But when Crick saw the MRC report—in which Franklin had not only said that the phosphates are on the outside but had offered measurements of the interphosphate distances—even he couldn’t argue with that anymore. So when Watson once again was trying to build a model and it wasn’t working, Crick said, “Why don’t you put the phosphates on the outside, like Rosalind said?”
We’ll quietly file this under things that I won’t be able to play anytime soon. :)
Chopin’s Fantaisie Impromptu in c sharp minor is a technically difficult but also very fun piece to play, and it’s easy to see why it’s among Chopin’s most famous and popular works. It is interesting to note that the middle section was used in the song I’m Always Chasing Rainbows, which was a very popular song in 1918.
Fantasie Impromptu was composed around 1834 but published only after the composer’s death, contrary to his express wish that all unpublished works and sketches should be burned. The version that is heard most often was prepared from Chopin’s sketches by his friend Julian Fontana.
It is a relatively short piece in ABA form. The A section has a sweeping melody of sixteenth notes running up and down the keyboard, accompanied by triplet arpeggios in the left hand. It’s very fast and almost a little chaotic, while the softer middle section with its wonderful cantilena provides a good overall balance to the piece. The coda begins passionately, but calms down little by little, reintroducing the theme from the middle section in the left hand. The work ends peacefully.
“Women aren’t hated for being feminine, femininity is forced on us because we are hated. we don’t naturally apply make up, wear constricting clothing, shave our natural body hair and stay quiet even when we are upset with something. we are conditioned to do this because women are supposed to take up as little space as possible and erase traces of our growth both physically and mentally. women who refuse to perform femininity demand their space and they demand to be heard. they cannot be neutral in a highly gendered society; they are punished for not conforming.”
Femininity literally is weakness forced upon us. Being quiet, serving and submissive is not anything that can be reformed into some good, new kind of gender. We literally modify our bodies. We are trained to serve and be available. We are trained to hate ourselves and not strive too far, lest our oppressors may be displeased.
Femininity is the socialization of the oppressed class.
Well the grinding millstone of female misery that is Patriarchy claimed another victim as the CBC reports:
“Qandeel Baloch, a social media star whose exploits divided opinion in conservative Pakistan, was strangled, allegedly by her brother, in what appears to be a so-called “honour killing,” police and her family said on Saturday.
Baloch’s racy social media photos challenged social norms in Pakistan, a deeply traditional Muslim country where women are often repressed by their family or the community. Her killing shocked the South Asian country.
Baloch received multiple death threats and suffered frequent misogynist abuse, but continued posting provocative pictures and videos.”
Yeah. This happened.
“Baloch’s body was discovered on Saturday and her father Muhammad Azeem told the police that his son Waseem had strangled her, Ghazanfar said.
“Apparently, it is an honour killing, but further investigations will reveal the real motives behind this murder,” Ghazanfar said.
“Honour killings” are normally murders committed because of patriarchal concepts of honour and shame. They’re considered gender-based crimes, since girls and women are usually the victims.”
Let’s break down this Honour Killing malarky.
- Conservative Dude gets angry because she isn’t following the rules that make her a virtual slave.
- Dude cajoles and threatens woman, to no effect.
C. To preserve the families honour (read male strictures to keep females subservient) Dude kills her.
That, ladies and gentlemen is some pretty fucked up shit. This is the same patriarchal overlay that women face the world over. In places like Pakistan though, ‘uppity’ women are murdered by men for daring to demand full human being status.
“Oh but Arbourist,” my liberal dude commenters say, “That is a cultural practice and it certainly can’t happen here!”
Liberal friends – the Feminists organized and demanded that domestic violence be recognized and dealt with legally – beating your wife till the late 60’s and was pretty much swept under the rug. It is 2016 and Women continue to struggle against male violence in marriage to this day with societal norms that silence them, police that do not listen, and a legal/court system that is rigged against them.
When one of the pillars of your society is the Patriarchy – these sorts of horrible behaviours (honour killing, domestic violence, rape et cetera) are the implicit norm.
So take heed and listen to women when they say that society is still in need of serious reform, because men (and dudes) just because it works for you, doesn’t mean it works for women.