Search Immortality Topics:

Page 10,580«..1020..10,57910,58010,58110,582..10,59010,600..»


Sons of Anarchy Round Table: Season 5 Finale

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm

Jax got this on the Sons of Anarchy Season 5 finale... or so he thought, at least, as the SAMCRO President put his plan for Pope's demise and Clay's incarceration into motion.

But the final scene of "J'ai Obtenu Cette" didn't exactly go as this biker planned.

In the latest edition of the TV Fanatic Round Table, staffers Carla Day, Chris O'Hara and Christine Orlando are joined by Lisa Warren of Sons-of-Anarchy.net to break down the most disgusting and most shocking scenes of a stellar episode...

-------------------------------------------

What was your favorite scene from the episode?

Carla: When Eli came to arrest Clay, the look of resignation on Clay's face when he realized that he was played by Gemma and set up by Jax. He didn't fight it or run, he just accepted that it was his fate.

Chris: I loved the whole scene when Jax and the Sons helped Nero take out the rival crew at the dog fights. Chibs has been there for Jax all season long, so it was great to see him return the favor and "nail" that guy. The best moment though was Nero running down Dante. He was grinning and laughing like a kid let out of school for recess. Then he just let the dog take care of business while he held the door closed and mused with the guys about how it must really hurt.

Christine: The dog fighting scenes. I used to run an animal shelter and as horrible as this was to watch, it wasn't nearly as bad as what happens in reality. I liked that the show spotlighted something that happens all too frequently around the country. More should be done to stop it.

Lisa: Jax giving Tig some retribution against Pope. I wiped away a few tears when the gun was handed over. It was a moving brotherly gesture on one hand. Like Pope taught Jax recently, different players but the same outcome. 

Sons of Anarchy Round Table Logo

Grossest scene: the dog fight, the nails to the face or Otto's tongue-gnawing?

Carla: Since Otto's tongue-gnawing invoked my stomach to rebel literally, I have to go with that. It was not only grotesque, but unexpected and that combination did me in.

Chris: The dog fight was the hardest for me to take. I also thought it reminded Tig of watching Opie fight to the death in prison so I had all kinds of emotions running through me.

Christine: Got to go with Otto here. Like the man said, Way to commit.

Lisa: Definitely poor Otto. Once again losing more for the good of the club. I think he had an epiphany, followed through with it and will hopefully have some compassion for Tara as she did for him. This was the most gruesome thing to date on the series, but also among the most noble. FREE OTTO!

Biggest surprise: Tara going to jail, Juice and Gemma helping to set up Clay or Bobby resigning as VP?

Carla: Tara going to jail and how that played out was tragic, but I was more surprised with how Clay's arrest was set up. There were so many moving pieces that had to fall into place for it to work, but it did. Juice cracked at the end, but by then it was too late to save Clay. Gemma's involvement was payback for all that Clay did to her, so her help was not a surprise, but how it happened was.

Chris: Tara going to jail for me was the most disturbing of the three, so I guess it had the highest shock value for me. Clay got what he deserved and Bobby needs to check the whole high and mighty routine. Gemma is evil, perhaps the most morally depraved person on the show. She conspired to kill her husband, then put the man she once loved in jail. She nearly killed her grandkids and then rats out their mother. How can she contend she is nothing without her boys yet have so little concern about what is best for them? She is selfish to no end.

Christine: Tara going to jail, although it shouldn' t have been. Tara was an idiot to tell Gemma she was going to Portland anyway.  It was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.  It wasn't going to end well.

Lisa: Juice and Gemma for sure. At least the former tried to warn Clay at the last moment. Jax used them both as pawns in his quest to take down Clay and I doubt he's done doing so. Like Bobby said: Once you start, it is hard to quit.

Can Jax redeem himself as President?

Carla: Does he need redemption? He did what needed to be done for the club and cleaned up the mess left by Clay. From a club perspective, he should be golden. It's from a personal standpoint that he has issues. His brutality during his quest for revenge may not be easily turned off as shown by his poor judgment regarding Wendy. Can Jax now become the man of his journals? That would be his personal redemption.

Chris: I don’t think there is any redeeming needed. Jax took over the gavel in the middle of a crisis. He did admirably to get the club clear of everything he did and steered them into some new and promising business. The gavel corrupts but the difference is Jax is aware of it. He knows what decisions he makes toe the line of credibility, but they are necessary evils.

Christine: As President, yes. Bobby may not be happy with him but in the end he did what he thought was best for the club and proved himself to be a masterful strategist in the process.  As a person...that's another story. Whatever his motives, he's become as much of a savage as Clay ever was. Turning in the gavel and walking away may be the only way to soul but his almost non-reaction to Tara's arrest makes me wonder if it's already too late.

Lisa: I think not, unless he were to somehow resign. He has shown that almost everyone in the club is expendable. I see him only worrying about saving one relationship and that is the one with his wife. He will do everything in his power to give Tara the fairy tale she asked for, but I don't think he even sees himself in it anymore. The club is his life.

Give Season 5 a grade.

Carla: A. This season transformed SAMCRO through tragedy and Jax's strategic plotting in a brilliant way. Each of the 13 episodes was unexpected and full of intense emotion and turmoil. They came together to show the growth of the characters and the club. It's yet to be determined if the sacrifices will be worth it.

Chris: I give the season an A+. It was a time where the club was threatened and members were turning on one another, but that is nothing new to the Sons. Though it all though, I still felt some of the strongest moments of brotherhood in the show’s history as Jax learned who he could count on.

* On a side note. We saw the homeless woman again, petting the dog in the dumpster. That makes five times throughout the show’s history. What is your take on her? Sutter has never really given a clear answer.

Christine: A+. This season went in directions I never saw coming. It was insane and raw and brutal and yet I couldn't stop watching. Season two had always been my favorite but this season may have topped it.

Lisa: A+. Not only for the cast, crew and efforts, but for Kurt Sutter knowing how to grab us and take us on a journey we shall not soon forget. Amazing stuff all around.

Source:
http://www.tvfanatic.com/2012/12/sons-of-anarchy-round-table-season-5-finale/

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

IOM Proposals for Overhaul at CIRM Win High Marks

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm

The Institute of Medicine's
recommendations for major changes at the California stem cell agency
today received generally high marks from independent observers and
critics.

Many of the proposals echoed
suggestions from California's Little Hoover Commission, the
state's good government agency. Asked for comment, Stuart Drown, the
commission's executive director, said,

“The institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009."

He continued,

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

The California Stem Cell Report also
asked the agency's first president, Zach Hall, for his thoughts. Here
is the full text of what Hall, who was one of the peer reviewers on
the IOM study, had to say,

“The IOM Committee and its staff have
done an impressive job.  The report recognizes the scientific
value and achievements of the CIRM and, at the same time, makes
cogent recommendations that, if taken seriously, will further improve
the quality and the public credibility of the Institute. The
committee and staff deserve the thanks of the scientific community
and all California citizens for their careful and thoughtful work.” 

John M. Simpson, stem cell project
director for Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca., said,

“It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,” 

Marcy Darnovsky, associate executive
director of the Center for Genetics and Society of Berkeley, Ca.,
welcomed the recommendations. But she said,

“Given the agency’s shortcomings
and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong to ask
Californians to give it more public money. If the agency acquires new
funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must recognize that
it has ongoing obligations to the people of California.” 

She continued,

 “CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2009 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.” 

The California Stem Cell Report also
queried most of the 10 patient advocates on the agency's governing
board for comment. Their roles could be altered in a major way by the
IOM recommendations. None of the advocates have yet responded.
(The full text or nearly
full text of all the above comments is available here.)  

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yyZ0TAisMZQ/iom-proposals-for-overhaul-at-cirm-win.html

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Text of Comments Reacting to IOM Report on California Stem Cell Agency

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Here is the full text or the essential
elements of comments sought by the California Stem Cell Report on the
Institute of Medicine report that recommended sweeping changes at the
California stem cell agency. Consumer Watchdog and the Center for
Genetics and Society put their comments in the form of news releases,
which contained redundant material.

From Stuart Drown, executive director
of California's Little Hoover Commission:

“CIRM initiated the Institute of
Medicine review, which is to its credit.  The Institute of
Medicine took a scrupulous and rigorous approach to its review of the
California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and in its report,
notes CIRM’s many achievements and accomplishments.

“The Institute’s recommendations
for much-needed changes to CIRM’s governance structure to provide
greater efficiency, clarity and accountability reinforce the
recommendations the Little Hoover Commission made in 2009. The
institute graciously acknowledged the commission’s work, which
clearly is as relevant now as it was in 2009.

“Then and now, the Commission’s
recommendations are aimed at improving CIRM’s ability to meet its
goals for the good of all who can benefit from stem cell research,
and to ensure that California taxpayers’ dollars are put to their
most efficient use to that end.”

From John M. Simpson, stem cell project
director at Consumer Watchdog of Santa Monica, Ca.(full press release here):

“Consumer Watchdog Thursday welcomed
a report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) calling for
sweeping reforms in governance at California’s stem cell agency and
an end to the board’s built-in conflicts of interest. 

“The report said that 'far too many
board members represent organizations' that receive funding or
benefit from the stem cell agency. The IOM said that the board’s
oversight function should be separated from the day-to-day management
of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). 

“'The IOM's critical report echoes
what every independent evaluator has said in the past,' said John
M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Stem Cell Project director.
'As we have repeated from the beginning, CIRM suffers from built-in
conflicts of interest and needs to separate the board's oversight
function from day-to-day management.'

“'It's long past time to make the
changes the report calls for, but given the spin the agency put on
its response -- saying the report praises the 'agency as a bold
innovation' -- shows it's business as usual. This sort of behavior
will only ensure that CIRM doesn't get another round of public
funding,' Simpson said.”

From Marcy Darnovsky, associate
executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in
Berkeley, Ca.(full press release here):

“The Center for Genetics and Society,
a nonprofit policy research and advocacy organization, welcomed the
report on the California stem cell agency released today by the
Institute of Medicine and called for stronger protections for  the interests of Californians as
the agency continues its disbursement of public funds.

“CIRM is nearing the end of the
billions of dollars of public funding allocated to it in
2004. The agency is currently considering how to extend
its operations after the money runs out. CGS Associate Executive
Director Marcy Darnovskysaid, “Given the agency’s
shortcomings and the state’s budgetary problems, it would be wrong
to ask Californians to give it more public money. If the agency
acquires new funds from industry sources or venture firms, it must
recognize that it has ongoing obligations to the people of
California.”

“She continued, 'CIRM has not
responded in a meaningful way to many previous public interest
suggestions or to independent reviews, including the one in 2008 by
the state’s Little Hoover Commission. We hope the agency will not
continue that pattern.' 

“'Today’s report from the IOM
reaffirms the significance of the conflicts of interest and
structural flaws that were built into the stem cell program from the
beginning, and that continue to threaten its credibility and
effectiveness. These are serious problems that the Center for
Genetics and Society and other public interest voices pointed out
even before the agency was approved by the 2004 ballot measure on
which backers spent some $35 million. 

“'Many aspects of these early
concerns remain directly relevant,' Darnovsky said. 'There is
still no way for elected officials to provide oversight because the
measure that created CIRM requires a 70% vote by both houses – more
than a supermajority. The agency’s governing board is still tainted
by its built-in conflicts of interest, and still includes no
representation of the public beyond disease advocates. Members of the
agency’s powerful Working Groups, including the one that reviews
grant applications, are still not required to publicly disclose their
individual financial interests.'”

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/iu4DrhoewYo/text-of-comments-reacting-to-iom-report.html

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

More IOM-CIRM Coverage: One Story Notes Major 2007 Conflict Flaps at Stem Cell Agency

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 2:35 pm

Additional coverage emerged this morning,
including stories in the Los Angeles Times, the Nature web site and
Businessweek. on a blue-ribbon report that recommended sweeping changes
at the the $3 billion California stem cell agency

In the Times, California's largest
circulation newspaper, Eryn Brown's story was headlined,

"Stem cell
agency board criticized for conflicts of interest."

The article began,

"The board of California's stem cell
funding agency is rife with conflicts of interest and should be
restructured to improve the integrity of its grant-making process,
according to a new report from independent experts convened by the
national Institute of Medicine."“

In the San Diego U-T, reporter Bradley
Fikes' article was the only piece in all the coverage to mention two major conflict-of-interest flaps at the agency in 2007.
One involved then CIRM board member
John Reed, head of Sanford-Burnham in La Jolla, who tried to influence CIRM staff
in connection with a grant to his organization, triggering
an investigation by the state's political ethics commission. (Reed's
actions were first disclosed by the California Stem Cell Report.) The
other case involved inappropriate actions by four members of the
29-member board in an $85 million round. Ten applications were dumped
from the round because of the directors' actions. The conflict
issues were so rampant that only eight of the directors present at a
December 2007 meeting could discuss the issues.
(See here, here and here.)
On the Nature news blog, Monya Baker
had a thorough piece that said the agency “received a mixture of
praise and hard-to-enact recommendations from an august scientific
body.” She also wrote,

“It’s unclear what effect the
report will have. Many of these recommendations run counter to
requirements enshrined in the legislation that created CIRM, and the
board of CIRM has heard similar recommendations before and failed to
act on them.”

On the web site of the journal Science,
Greg Miller wrote that IOM report "praises the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) as a 'bold social innovation' that
provided a creative new source of funding that has turned the state
into an international hub of stem cell research. But the IOM panel
authoring the report also concluded that the funding agency’s
organization and governance is not optimal."
Businessweek carried the AP story by
Alicia Chang mentioned yesterday. The AP story also appeared on the San
Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee web sites and was also carried internationally on other web sites.  The Chronicle also had a staff story by Erin Allday.  
(An earlier version of this item did not contain the last sentence regarding the Allday story.)

Source:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/uqpFc/~3/yk8zuHF6IKA/more-iom-cirm-coverage-one-story-notes.html

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Morbid Anatomy Anthology: Only Four Days of Fundraising Left to Go!

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 12:44 pm

We here at Morbid Anatomy have been hard at work raising money on Kickstarter for the produciton of The Morbid Anatomy Anthology Volume 1--a lavishly-llustrated book comprising a collection of articles based on some of the best of the Morbid Anatomy Presents lectures and presentation series. You can find out more about this project by watching the video above, or clicking here.

This fundraising campaign will end in only 4 days; although co-editor Colin Dickey and I have already well surpassed our $8,000 goal, we are trying to raise as much money as we can with the goal of making this the most lavishly beautiful book it can be; of paying our 30+ contributors a decent honorarium; and, in the unlikely case of any left over funds, launching additional titles under the rubric of The Morbid Anatomy Press.

A mere $25  acts as a pre-order, and will secure you a copy of this lavishly illustrated book; higher pledges will get you the book plus additional books from our contributors, Morbid Anatomy tote bags, and/or limited edition prints from Morbid Anatomy's Anatomical Theatre and Secret Museum exhibitions.

I promise you that this will be a a fantastic book--beautiful and fascinating, and unlike anything else on the market; if you have not already done so, please consider supporting this project and securing a copy of The Morbid Anatomy Anthology Volume 1 of your very own by clicking here.

Also, please note, since originally announcing this book, we have added three wonderful new contributors to our roster: David Pescovitz of Boing Boing fame; Simon Chaplin, head of The Wellcome Library; and Mike Johns, Former Professor  of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

The book will cover such topics as anthropodermic bibliopegy (ie. books bound in human skin), 19th Century "Diableries," Henry Wellcome's collections of preserved human tattoos, 19th century death-themed Parisian cabarets, extreme taxidermy, popular wax anatomical models, "collecting death," the uncanny allure of the Anatomical Venus, Santa Muerte and Death in Mexico, L'Inconnue de la Seine, Terror Management Theory, "artist of death" Frederik Ruysch, macabre collections, and "human zoos."

Contributors to the volume range from TV stars to collectors; rogue scholars to university professors; artists to museum curators; morticians to auto-autodidacts; scientists to cultural critics. A list, in no particular order:

Again, this will be a very special, very different, and very beautiful book. Please, consider supporting this project, and helping actualize a world in which this kind of niche, high-quality publication can afford to exist; you can do so--by ordering a copy of your very own for only $25!--by clicking here.

Source:
http://morbidanatomy.blogspot.com/2012/12/morbid-anatomy-anthology-ony-four-days.html

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith

Chemistry World Christmas quiz, day 5

Posted: December 7, 2012 at 9:09 am

And the fifth day of Christmas is already upon us… well by the reckoning of Chemistry World‘s Christmas quiz anyway. If you want to check out yesterday’s quiz questions then you can find them here.

On with the quiz and today’s questions.

A Southampton University chemistry lab was shut after a PhD student had to be treated for poisoning. Which two elements were they poisoned with?

Multiple papers came out this year casting more and more doubt on the claim that the bacterium GFAJ-1 can take up arsenic and incorporate it into its DNA backbone. What does GFAJ-1 stand for?  

On to the answers from yesterday’s quiz.

This year’s chemistry Nobel laureates were Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka for their work on G-coupled protein receptors. You can read all about their work on these important drug targets in our feature, A signal honour.

India was the country that claimed a domestic drug discovery first with Synriam made by pharmaceutical firm Ranbaxy. However, the active ingredient of Synriam was actually discovered in a drug screen by the Swiss charity Medicines for Malaria Venture. Read our story on the drug here.

That’s it for this week, but we’ll be back on Monday with more brain teasers.

Digg This  Reddit This  Stumble Now!  Share on Facebook  Bookmark this on Delicious  Share on LinkedIn  Bookmark this on Technorati  Post on Twitter  Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)  

Source:
http://prospect.rsc.org/blogs/cw/2012/12/07/chemistry-world-christmas-quiz-day-5/

Recommendation and review posted by G. Smith


Page 10,580«..1020..10,57910,58010,58110,582..10,59010,600..»