Researchers in the Department of Biomedicine at Aarhus University in Denmark just did something truly amazing: they altered particles of the HIV virus to simultaneously “cut and paste” within our genome. Here’s Jacob Giehm Mikkelsen, associate genetics professor at Aarhus:
“Now we can simultaneously cut out the part of the genome that is broken in sick cells, and patch the gap that arises in the genetic information which we have removed from the genome. The new aspect here is that we can bring the scissors and the patch together in the HIV particles in a fashion that no one else has done before.”
The technology will allow doctors to repair the human genome in a new way, and will also be invaluable in the treatment of hereditary and viral diseases as well.
The cutting and pasting process isn’t actually a new one- we have been able to “cut and paste” parts of the genome using cells for a while now. The problem with this process, however, is that these cells would keep producing more “scissors”. Mikkelson explains,
“In the past, the gene for the scissors has been transferred to the cells, which is dangerous because the cell keeps on producing scissors which can start cutting uncontrollably. But because we make the scissors in the form of a protein, they only cut for a few hours, after which they are broken down. And we ensure that the virus particle also brings along a small piece of genetic material to patch the hole… We call this a ‘hit-and-run’ technique because the process is fast and leaves no traces.”
We have known for years that HIV particles can be turned into transporters of genetic information. However, this new discovery that they can also be altered to carry proteins that can have a direct effect on infected cells, rather than just on the genes, is huge.
Ironically enough, HIV infection is one of the main fields in which the researchers plan to employ this new process. Here’s post-doctoral professor Yujia Cai, who was also part of the research team:
“By altering relevant cells in the immune system (T cells) we can make them resistant to HIV infection and perhaps even at the same time also equip them with genes that help fight HIV. So in this way HIV can in time become a tool in the fight against HIV.”
The first thing I did when I started doing research for this piece was to search “donald sterling racist” on google. However, Ichanged the date range to only find results from before January 1st of this year. Google came up with over 600 results. A sampling of the best:
A Deadspin article from last July about Jeff Pearlman, who is writing a book about the NBA in the 80s. For the book, he talked to former Clippers GM Paul Phipps. Phipps told a story about when Rollie Massimino, who was coaching for Villanova at the time, was being interviewed by Sterling as a replacement for recently-fired Clippers coach Paul Silas. Massimino called Phipps the next morning and angrily informed him why he would be passing on the job:
“Here’s this guy [Sterling]… and he has this blonde bimbo with him, they have a bottle of champagne, they’re tanked. And Don looks at me and he says, ‘I wanna know why you think you can coach these niggers.’”
An ESPN article by Jamele Hill from 2009 in which she started off like this: “Donald Sterling makes Rush Limbaugh look like Martin Luther King Jr.” She discussed the $2.725 million judgment Sterling had just been ordered to pay for his second federal housing discrimination lawsuit. She also quoted one of his property managers from the proceedings of the case- he said Sterling, examining a newly acquired property, explained that it smelled because,
“All the blacks in this building, they smell, they’re not clean. And it’s because of all of the Mexicans that just sit around and smoke and drink all day.”
An ESPN article from all the way back in 2006 when my homie Bomani Jones (who had one of the best responses to this whole thing) broke the original story of the lawsuit which would eventually result in the massive judgment Jamele Hill wrote about in 2009. He also talked more about the first lawsuit, in which Sterling settled with the 19 plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount (he also had to pay $5 million in attorney fees). One of my favorite excerpts from Bomani’s piece (remember this is from 2006):
“It’s not Sterling’s job to bring attention to his ethical transgressions. That’s the job of the media. And as it relates to Sterling, we have dropped the ball. In American sports, issues of race are unavoidable. But when we turn our attention to those issues, we tend to do so in discussion of sensational topics. And we do so with little more than passing interest. We’re more concerned with people saying stupid things, transgressions that even undeniable racists could criticize. People from every walk of life are entitled to slam someone for talking too much. In Sterling’s case, we’re confronted with racism in its most problematic form. And up until now, we’ve said very little.”
This last quote makes my first point perfectly. Nobody cared when a rich old owner of a historically bad team was actively trying to keep minorities out of the apartments he owns, but a 15 minute conversation where he says a few racist things out of anger and jealousy is what brought the ship down.
The rise of social media has expanded our access to information and different viewpoints, but it has also prostituted our media. All major news outlets have detailed data on what types of stories are the most likely to “go viral” on the internet, and they adjust what they cover and how they cover it to try to tap into this virality potential.
This story was big not because Sterling was “caught being racist”, but because the way in which he was caught created a perfect, real-life drama of power, money, sex and scandal: billionaire NBA owner, caught on tape, super racist soundbites, recorded by his mistress who happens to be half black and half hispanic.
There were so many bizarre aspects to the Sterling story that every new piece of information just seemed too ridiculous to be true. We had to click the links to see for ourselves. The media was just drooling all over their keyboards. Updates couldn’t come fast enough.
And THAT is why we put Donald Sterling in the stocks of the Facebook town square and threw digital rotten vegetables at him. Not because we didn’t like that he was a racist, but because the crazy way in which he revealed his racism to all the people who didn’t know about it (or care about it) before the TMZ tape made the scandal a “trending topic” on Facebook and Twitter for a little while.
2. V. Stiviano Is The Most Interesting and The Most Vile Character In This Story
The striking and enigmatic V. Stiviano: the woman with only an initial for a first name who has been skating around with a strange visor on since the scandal broke…Well, actually she does have a first name…she used to at least. Apparently she was Maria Vanessa Perez until 2010, when she changed her name because she hand’t, “been fully accepted because of my race.”
She was getting millions of dollars in gifts ($1.8 million apartment, two Bentleys, a Ferrari, a Range Rover, and bundles of cash, among other things) from her sugar daddy Don Sterling, so why would she want to set him up all of a sudden?
Nobody seems to know. But it’s worth noting that on March 7th, Sterling’s real wife, sick of seeing Stiviano with all of the toys and money that her husband showered upon her, filed a lawsuit which accused Stiviano of, “engaging in conduct designed to target, befriend, seduce, and then entice, cajole, borrow from, cheat, and/or receive as gifts transfers of wealth from wealthy older men whom she targets for such purpose,” (apparently you can’t just call someone a gold digger in a lawsuit).
Now what happened between then and the TMZ tape is pretty hazy. Some people think Stiviano threatened Sterling to do something about his wife’s lawsuit and simply followed through when he refused. Some people think she made the tape as insurance in case she got in over her head. Stiviano’s lawyers have said she was not the one who released the tape to the media, and TMZ has declined to comment on their source or whether they paid for the tape.
This past Friday, Stiviano sat down for an interview with Barbara Walters of 20/20- it was the first real interview she had done since the tape was released. I guess real is the wrong word, though. The interview is an 18-minute audition for Stiviano’s future acting career. She tries her hardest to come off as the sympathetic young woman who is the only one who truly understands this monster with a heart of gold. The only problem is, she’s just a terrible liar and is very obvious when she is reciting scripted soundbites.
The journalism in this whole piece is also awful. Specifically, Walters fails to ask the two most important unanswered questions: if Stiviano is Sterling’s biggest supporter, why would she have recorded the conversation, and if she didn’t give it to the media, who did? Instead, Walters endlessly probes the nature of their relationship, trying to get Stiviano to reveal some sex secrets. Then she asks her a series of basic questions about whether or not she thinks Sterling is a racist and all that jazz. Yet another example of the media caring more about sensationalism than information.
This story is about a clever, silver-tongued young woman who seduced a rich, ignorant and vulnerable old man, a man who spent his whole life doing and saying whatever he wanted. It was only a matter of time before Sterling’s combination of bigotry, infidelity and reprehensible behavior caught up to him. His downfall just happened to take the form of a slender half black half Mexican woman with an exotic look, a pornstar voice and an insatiable appetite for wealth.
To me, Stiviano is the more vile of the two main actors in this drama. Sterling has never cared much about hiding his ignorant views, and has been silent for the most part since this story broke. Meanwhile, Stiviano is trying to take the moral high ground by playing not only the victim but also the merciful, gracious young minority woman who still believes Sterling isn’t truly racist at heart.
This is why she irks me more than Sterling- she’s pretending to be the lone protagonist in the story after compromising the two most fundamental aspects of her identity: her womanhood and her ethnic heritage. She sold both of these things out when she decided to play mistress for a racist old man in exchange for her luxury lifestyle.
(By far my least favorite part of the tape was hearing her tell him she would change her skin color if she could. Finding out why she changed her name didn’t help her case either.)
3. Sterling Didn’t Really Lose
A $2.5 million dollar fine is nothing to Donald Sterling (Forbes put his net worth at just under $2 billion). And even if the NBA succeeds in forcing him to sell his team, he will still be winning for a number of reasons.
First, it’s a good time to sell. In the past year, two sub-par NBA teams in small markets have been purchased above market value: the Sacramento Kings ($534 million) and the Milwaukee Bucks ($550 million).
Not only have the Clippers recently become a title-contender and huge TV attraction (Blake Griffin and Deandre Jordan’s dunk-shows draw in a lot of viewers), but they are located in the second largest city in the country with a population more than three times larger than the cities of Sacramento and Milwaukee combined.
So, despite only being valued at around $600 million, most experts believe the Clippers will sell for closer to a billion dollars, 80 times more than the $12.5 million Sterling paid for the franchise in the early 80s.
If he were voluntarily selling the team, $200 million of that billion would go to federal taxes and another $123 million would go to California state taxes. However, a stipulation in the federal tax code states that money received from a forced sale or other “involuntary conversion” cannot be taxed (the idea being you shouldn’t have to pay taxes on something you didn’t want to sell in the first place). So, Sterling might walk away from the transaction with a fat, tax-free check.
4. The Game Has Changed
Regardless of how racist and ignorant the things that Donald Sterling said were, we also need to be upset that he was illegally recorded in his own home and nobody seems to being doing much to prosecute the person responsible (whoever that may be). If this had been a court case, everything that Sterling said on the tape would have been immediately thrown out as evidence, since taping a private conversation without the other person’s knowledge is a serious crime.
But this case was tried in the court of public opinion, where those things don’t matter. And that’s why I say the game has changed: public figures no longer enjoy the luxury of privacy. You can buy a secluded estate, get encrypted phone numbers and IP addresses and take every precaution to maintain your privacy, but you never know when a random comment you make could be discreetly recorded or a private e-mail message hacked.
And regardless as to how illegally your words were obtained, the court of public opinion is a bloodthirsty mob that cares little for your loss of privacy. No matter how much explaining, contextualizing or apologizing you do, the damage will be done. People don’t remember the truth that emerges after the scandal, they only remember the scandal itself.
Think seriously to yourself: how many times have you said something in a private setting, whether angry or joking or drunk or whatever, that you know would destroy your public image if it suddenly became a trending topic on the internet? If your answer is never, you’re probably lying to yourself. Which brings me to my last point…
5. We Need To Stop All This Moral Relativism
How many people would have cared about the Donald Sterling tape if he wasn’t an NBA owner? Not many. Besides the hollywood scandal allure, people were drawn in by the hypocrisy of a racist man owning a predominantly black team in a predominantly black sport. But the incoherent spoken racism heard on the tape is infinitely less consequential than the institutionalized racism of the housing discrimination issues from Sterling’s past.
We get mad when we think we have to, and then choose to ignore the things that actually should make us mad. Many of the same people who I have seen patting themselves on the back for criticizing Sterling’s racism would be quick to say institutionalized racism is a thing of the past if I started arguing in favor of affirmative action, for example. Do you really think Sterling is the only rich old white man who doesn’t want young minority families in his apartments?
One of the biggest reasons why race still persists as an issue today is because of large-scale issues like housing discrimination or the practice of funding public schools through property taxes (ensuring that the poorest schools get the least funding). But when people try to do things to correct these issues on a large scale, they run into barriers. Why? Because people are only willing to deal with problems if it means they don’t have to sacrifice anything.
Sterling was a perfect example: everybody who wanted to show how un-racist they were could simply jump on Facebook and blast the NBA owner for his phone conversation. Writing a status cost a person to show how “anti-racism” they were without actually costing themselves anything.
But what if they had been one of those people living in Sterling’s apartments? How would they have reacted to the discrimination lawsuits in 2003 and 2006? Would they have been publicly criticizing him for his housing discrimination if it meant more young minority families moved into the complex?
Or take the school funding example. Everybody was all for providing more funds to poor schools until they found out that some of those funds would be coming from the richer schools in upper-class neighborhoods. Then, all of a sudden, it became socialism and “class warfare”.
So my final point is this. Don’t say that you really care about a problem unless you’re willing to sacrifice something of your own to fix it, because all of the rabble-rousing pretenders in the crowd make it much harder for the people who actually do care to be heard.
The video below was recently dropped and quickly went viral encouraging the public to gasp and hope to soon own their very own Hover Board Skateboard. And why would the public be so quick to assume this video was real? Hmm maybe because the most influential skateboarder of all-time endorsed the video!
Check Out the video below featuring the new “anti-gravity” toy and see what all the buzz is about.
At first view I was gullibly amazed, I myself believed that Hover Boards were on their way and that I soon could be an owner of my very own. Unfortunately my dream of ownership quickly ended as a friend informed me that this video was in fact not real and was a hoax!
How could this be I asked. Guys like Mark Cuban,Tony Hawk, and other celebrities clearly endorsed this video and seemed genuinely excited about the new technology and the creation of the first usable Hover Boards…
The video created such a frantic that Tony Hawk recently released an apology video to confirm that this video was in fact just a joke and NOT REAL, but as to why the video was created and released is still somewhat of a mystery.
The most popular rational online is that the video was created to promote an upcoming new Back to the Future 2 movie that’s release date has yet to be announced. Another theory is that Tony Hawk himself may be coming out with a new video game soon and was promoting Hover Boards for a potential Hover Board skate game or something.
Unfortunately we have still not made the necessary technological breakthroughs for creating Hover Boards…