Fun in the Apple

Mel: April 1, 1989 to February 18, 2006

---

Plus je vois l'homme, plus j'aimie mon chien
--- Pascal ---

---

"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."

Will Rogers, 1897-1935

---

A POEM FOR MEL...

Do not stand at my grave and weep.

I am not there, I do not sleep.

I am a thousand winds that blow,

I am the diamond glints on snow.

I am the sunlight on ripened grain,

I am the gentle autumn's rain.

When you awaken in the morning's hush,

I am the swift uplifting rush

of quiet birds in circled flight.

I am the stars that shine at night.

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

I am not there, I did not die...

-Anonymous

---

"it's so funny how much the loss of something so intangible like her spirit can hurt so much, you can't hold it but you can feel how much it's not there anymore"

Younger A.

Mush You Huskies Mush

Disney's 'Eight Below' not just a bunch of mush
By SUE PIERMAN

Special to the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Feb. 16, 2006



Disney's new adventure movie "Eight Below" is inspired by a 1957 Japanese Antarctic expedition and the 1983 Japanese film based on it. It is a story worth telling.

In "Eight Below" - the movie is moved up to 1993 - Paul Walker is an Antarctic guide whose life is about extremes: extreme weather, extreme sports and extreme isolation, with no roots or relationships save with his team of sled dogs.

When a Los Angeles scientist (Bruce Greenwood) begs Walker to lead a treacherous, end-of-season expedition to find a meteorite, Walker reluctantly agrees.

When they learn that a fast-moving storm is descending on them, Walker delays their return to afford the scientist a few more hours to search for his treasure - a decision that ultimately results in eight sled dogs being stranded at the bottom of the world for more than six months.

Although the dogs manage to battle back to base camp, the humans must evacuate.

With scant room on the airplane, the canines are left behind. The pilot promises to immediately return to retrieve them, but the storm abruptly cuts off travel for the rest of the season.

From then on, the story follows two courses: Walker's desperate efforts to save his dogs, and the dogs' uncanny determination to survive.

Stunningly filmed from the air, on the ground, even from underneath the ice, Canada, Greenland and Norway stand in for brutally beautiful Antarctica.

The film's palette is primarily icy whites, grays and blues, a startling contrast to the lush green of the United States, where Walker pleads with the government and Greenwood to fund a rescue attempt.

Kudos to the animal wrangler on the picture. The dogs are extremely well-trained and expressive, giving performances that at times best their human counterparts.

The ways in which the animals communicate is poignant as they display grief, encouragement, bravery and joy, and their loyalty is heart-wrenching as they hunch for days in the cold awaiting their master's return.

Maya, the only female, is the team's acknowledged leader. She has a queenly, compassionate countenance but is a realist when making decisions for the group. She is the one to decide it is time to stop waiting and start fighting to survive hunger, the elements and predators.

A word of caution: Watching the dogs suffer in severe weather may be too much for very young children and animal lovers, but it is a Disney adventure movie that does old Walt himself proud.

Showtimes, ratings, credits, trailers

All Clones Are Not the Same

February 16, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
All Clones Are Not the Same
By MICHAEL GAZZANIGA

Hanover, N.H.

IT has been weeks since President Bush's State of the Union speech, and I have not heard any outcry over his policy statement on cloning: "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms." I can only guess that this means the public doesn't care, or doesn't understand what Mr. Bush means by this, or agrees with his nonsensical concept of what "human" means, or that somehow the stem cell scandal in South Korea has led to widespread agreement that we should just give up on such research. Any of these possibilities would be a mistake, not just for American science, but for the very human life the president seeks to protect.

Calling human cloning in all its forms an "egregious abuse" is a serious mischaracterization. This makes it sound as if the medical community is out there cloning people, which is simply not true. The phrase "in all of its forms" is code, a way of conflating very different things: reproductive cloning and biomedical cloning.

The volatile issue has been debated again and again, and the president's own largely conservative Bioethics Council (of which I am a member) in 2002 made a big distinction between the two forms of cloning. We voted unanimously to ban reproductive cloning — the kind of cloning that seeks to replicate a human being. We cited many reasons, from biomedical risk to religious concerns to the flat-out weirdness of the idea. But in fact human cloning has not been attempted, nor is it in the works; so it's a theoretical ban in the first place, like banning marriage between robots.

At the same time, the council had differing views on biomedical cloning, including stem cell research. Seven of the 17 voting members voted to allow scientists to proceed with the practice, pending regulations, while three more voted for a moratorium until such regulations were written. Thus, the majority, 10 of the 17, did not call for a ban on biomedical cloning — and this was our advice to the president. Obviously, he ignored it.

Why is there a persistent difference of views on the morality of biomedical cloning? The president's view is consistent with the reductive idea that there is an equivalence between a bunch of molecules in a lab and a beautifully nurtured and loved human who has been shaped by a lifetime of experiences and discovery. His view is a form of the "DNA is destiny" story.

Yet all modern research reveals that DNA must undergo thousands if not millions of interactions at both the molecular and experiential level to grow and develop a brain and become a person. It is the journey that makes a human, not the car. Unfortunately, the president rejected the advice of his own counselors and has kept his ban on federal financing of stem cell research for all but a handful of strains of existing lines.

The impact of his intervention with science has been severe. First, it has caused scientists at the forefront of cutting-edge research that may cure diseases and save lives to have to scramble for alternative financing. Second, the political games around stem cell research are sending scientists on wild goose chases, pursuing costly and strange alternative ideas, some of which may work in the distant future but many which probably will not.

This search for alternatives is costly not just in dollar terms but also in time not being spent on the best research possibilities. And it represents a perversion of the scientific process: instead of science proceeding in the best way it knows, it is being used in the service of political goals. Not only will the present generation not get medical relief from stem cell research, it is beginning to look as if our children's generation will not either.

In the scientific community there have obviously been strains. When the sad and pathetic story of the fraud in South Korea came to light, I couldn't help but wonder if the entire process — from the overly ambitious laboratory scientist to the overly eager editors of scientific journals — was compromised by a conscious or unconscious sense that something must keep stem cell research alive in the face of the American administration's unwavering opposition.

There have been whispered accusations in the research world that scientists and editors have become too eager to prove that stem cell research is moving ahead in other countries while America was being left behind. I think such accusations are unfounded, but I do recognize the news of the scandal has probably hurt the stem cell cause.

That is the bad news. The better news is that if our government won't let biomedical science in the front door, it is going to come in through the windows. Ira Black, a leading neuroscientist who died suddenly last month, showed what medical scientists can do when they take the initiative. As the driving force behind Stem Cell Institute of New Jersey, he brought governors and state legislators to their senses by painstakingly lobbying and explaining his vision of laboratory-to-bedside stem cell research all under one roof. As a result, the State of New Jersey is moving ahead while the federal government is sitting still.

California voters, too, have anted up $3 billion for the stem cell effort, and as soon as the legal maneuvering comes to an end, that state will begin a serious program. Harvard and other institutions are also in the hunt for science and cure. At the most recent meeting of our bioethics council, Patricia Churchland, a distinguished philosopher from the University of California at San Diego, observed that through history, medical innovations — from vaccines to anesthesia — have been initially resisted only to later be widely accepted. It will be the same with stem cells.

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to observe that "human life is a gift from our creator — and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale." Putting aside the belief in a "creator," the vast majority of the world's population takes a similar stance on valuing human life. What is at issue, rather, is how we are to define "human life." Look around you. Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else?

Most humans practice a kind of dualism, seeing a distinction between mind and body. We all automatically confer a higher order to a developed biological entity like a human brain. We do not see cells, simple or complex — we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. It doesn't yet have the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years. Until this is understood by our politicians, the gallant efforts of so many biomedical scientists, as good as they are, will remain only stopgap measures.

Michael Gazzaniga, the director of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Dartmouth, is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

TV joke writers take shots at Cheney

---

"Late Show with David Letterman," CBS

"Good news, ladies and gentlemen, we have finally located weapons of mass destruction: It's Dick Cheney."

"But here is the sad part -- before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor."

"We can't get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney."

"The guy who got gunned down, he is a Republican lawyer and a big Republican donor and fortunately the buck shot was deflected by wads of laundered cash. So he's fine. He took a little in the wallet."

"The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," NBC

"Although it is beautiful here in California, the weather back East has been atrocious. There was so much snow in Washington, D.C., Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fat guy thinking it was a polar bear."

"That's the big story over the weekend. ... Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fellow hunter, a 78-year-old lawyer. In fact, when people found out he shot a lawyer, his popularity is now at 92 percent."

"I think Cheney is starting to lose it. After he shot the guy he screamed, 'Anyone else want to call domestic wire tapping illegal?' "

"Dick Cheney is capitalizing on this for Valentine's Day. It's the new Dick Cheney cologne. It's called Duck!"

"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Comedy Central

The show's segment titles included "Cheney's Got a Gun," "No. 2 With a Bullet" and "Dead-Eye Dick."

"Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a man during a quail hunt ... making 78-year-old Harry Whittington the first person shot by a sitting veep since Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, of course, (was) shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington? Mistaken for a bird."

"Now, this story certainly has its humorous aspects. ... But it also raises a serious issue, one which I feel very strongly about. ... Moms, dads, if you're watching right now, I can't emphasize this enough: Do not let your kids go on hunting trips with the vice president. I don't care what kind of lucrative contracts they're trying to land, or energy regulations they're trying to get lifted -- it's just not worth it."

"Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson," CBS

"He is a lawyer and he got shot in the face. But he's a lawyer, he can use his other face. He'll be all right."

"You can understand why this lawyer fellow let his guard down, because if you're out hunting with a politician, you think, 'If I'm going to get it, it's going to be in the back.' "

"The big scandal apparently is that they didn't release the news for 18 hours. I don't think that's a scandal at all. I'm quite pleased about that. Finally there's a secret the vice president's office can keep."

"Apparently the reason they didn't release the information right away is they said we had to get the facts right. That's never stopped them in the past."

NYC Blizzard of the 100

A cross-country skier heading to Central Park is helped by his dog on February 12 as a major storm slammed the mid-Atlantic and northeast states dumping nearly two feet of snow in Central Park by late morning.
A powerful blizzard pounded the US northeast Sunday, leaving thousands of air travelers stranded and dumping a record snowfall on New York

(AFP/Timothy A. Clary)

Sweetest Story

Charles Dana Gibson (1867-1944)
The Sweetest Story Ever Told,
ca. 1910
Ink over graphite on illustration board
Published in Collier's Weekly,
August 13, 1910 (7)

Flicka Ricka and Dicka

Flicka, Ricka, Dicka and the Strawberries
Lindman, Maj
One day Flicka, Ricka, and Dicka went into the woods to pick wild strawberries. They picked until their baskets were full, and then headed home. But after walking for miles they discovered they were lost! The little girls were very tired and thirsty, but at last they saw a cabin over a hill. Inside was a family that didn't have much money. But they had the most important kind of riches--generous hearts. And soon flicka, Ricka, and Dicka had made new friends. Originally published in the United States in 1946, but appealing to today's readers as well. Paperback.

Courage Awards

Monday January 23, 2006, Wisconsin Stem Cell Now, Inc. presented its first ever "Courage Awards" to state senators Alberta Darling and Jeffrey Plale.

The award is in recognition of their attempt to amend the Anti-Cloning Bill passed last fall in a manner that would have allowed stem cell researchers to utilize therapeutic cloning in their search for cures. While the attempted amendment was unsuccessful, their public stand in favor of stem cell research and in the face of considerable opposition from special interests demonstrated true courage.

Toby - Rest in Peace

1996 (approx) paint gelding

Just Phun