GeorgiaDon

Would you stay in your office if it meant that the only thing you could report was a word-for-word copy of the official press releases? No interviewing anyone, no reporting anything that isn't specifically authorized by Hegseth or his ass-kissers? Walking away is a protest, and then they aren't committed to Hegseth's terms, although journalists will have a harder time as they won't have inside-the-Pentagon access to people or information.

I'm pretty much in agreement, with only a couple of quibbles. I think it's a little harsh to say Franklin "wasn't able to figure it out", rather she was focused on solving the A form of crystalized DNA and the photo was of the B (hydrated) form. She wouldn't be the first or the last scientist to be unlucky in choosing where to direct their immediate attention when confronted with competing experimental directions. Hindsight is always 20/20 as we all know. I appreciate that you edited your comment about Crick; it was actually Alex Stokes who predicted the X-ray diffraction pattern generated by a helical structure. Stokes was also a coauthor on one of the three Nature articles that described the structure of DNA, and he is probably the person who is today least recognized for their contribution. There are certainly numerous problems with the way the Nobel Prizes are awarded, but I think a big one that persists to today is that there can only be up to three winners. Any major discovery (at least these days) involves a lot of people collaborating, yet credit is only given to a very few. Often this is the head of the lab, who is sometimes intimately involved in the discovery but often is more a facilitator, providing the environment (lab, funding, organization) in which the discovery is made. Not a trivial role (at least I hope not, as the head of a research lab myself). Still, limiting the award to three people guarantees that equally or even more deserving people are left out. Expanding the number of people who can share the award would be a more honest reflection of how science is done. Also people who are unlucky enough to have passed away (relatively recently at least) shouldn't be stripped of recognition I think, although there probably has to be some limit there. Thanks for the link to the info about Jocelyn Bell. She's a great example of the systematic barriers women used to have to overcome to get credit for their work. I do think it's a lot better these days, at least in my field(s), but it's not perfect by any means.

I moderate a forum for fossil collectors (!!!) that is a lot more active than this one now.

Most of us have a part of the brain we use to empathize with or feel concern for other people. In Trump's brain that part is a mass of worms. He is unable to feel concern for anyone except himself and possibly his children (who are an extension of himself). Born into extreme wealth, and never having had to worry for a second about money, he is incapable of imaginig himself in the position of being unable to afford food or anything else. That also explains why he is so uncaring about military personnel he rips from their families and jobs to carry out his political theater. To Trump people are just tools to be used and discarded when they are no longer useful, or obstacles to be destroyed. But nevertheless to some people he's still better than Harris, or Biden, or Obama. For "reasons".

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if he orders a return to hunting whales for their oil. Also an order to remove all those " communist" warnings on tobacco products, along with banning doctors and scientists from using the word "carcinogenic". Why do they hate freedom loving American farmers and tobacco companies so much?

What about "Trump is a nitwit". Does that count as an N word?

Well, that and reversing everything first Obama and then Biden accomplished, and imprisoning every person who has ever tried to hold him to account for his numerous crimes, and destroying every institution that might try to limit his dictatorial ambitions.

Serious question: if the DOJ charges Comey (or any of several other people who have been threatened by Trump), wouldn't that open the door for all of the actual evidence against Trump to be presented in court as part of the defense? Can Trump be so stupid, and/or so consumed by his need for retribution, that he doesn't understand that he will be the one who is most hurt by a trial? (That last part is a rhetorical question BTW).

Some people can watch the Handmaid's Tale and find it dystopian. Others find it inspirational. Choose wisely going forward.

Happy birthday! Don

One of the things I really like about the parliamentary system is that they have something called "question period", where the prime minister has to appear in Parliament and take questions. Can you imagine Trump having to respond to questions from opposition members in front of the whole Congress? Years ago I used to imagine Bush (the shrub Bush) in that predicament, contrasted to Clinton or Obama or even a younger Biden.

I don't recall feeling afraid to voice an opinion in public after George Floyd was killed. I do feel that way now.

Social media is a tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. Like some other tools (firearms come to mind), it can change us by making some actions easier, more efficient, or even possible at all. Parachutes don't force us to skydive, but they make skydiving (at least more than once, as they say) possible if you choose to do that, and that can change your life as we all know. Some tools have more risk than others, but none are a cancer unless we allow them to have that effect.

Attributing this action to "a fit if rage" understates the risk to us all at play here. The types of contraceptives destroyed (birth control pills, IUDs) are regularly labeled "abortifacents" by the "pro-life" movement, which is shifting from just anti-abortion to more of an anti-contraception stance. I believe these types of contraceptives are suggested to be banned in Project 2025. Destroying this stockpile of contraceptives was not an act of rage, it was part of a plan that leads to eliminating them in the US as well.

So if I understand this correctly, the best way to reduce the number of people getting killed is by killing more people? Sounds about...not right. State sanctioned killing is still killing.