Day: November 20, 2002

New Animal Model for Epilepsy

In September biomedical firm Bionomics announced the creation of a new animal model for epilepsy. Researchers at Bionomics have developed a mouse that contains a genetic mutation which causes the animal to experience seizures analogous to epileptic seizures in human beings.

In fact, this is a ‘knock-in’ mouse — the researchers added a mutation to the mice that is believed to be the cause of inherited epilepsy in human beings.

Bionomics Managing Director Deborah Rathjen said in a press release,

The new mouse model contains a genetic mutation representative of human epilepsy and we will now be able to assess more closely the neurological and physiological mechanisms causing epilepsy. We can move to identify fourth generation anti-epileptic drugs that will be more effective and with fewer side effects.

As many as 30 percent of people diagnose with epilepsy don’t respond to existing drugs.

Source:

Bionomics breakthrough world’s first animal model of inherited human epilepsy. Bionomics, Press Release, September 8, 2002.

Bionomics Touts New Mouse Model, Posts Loss. Melissa Trudinger, Australian Biotechnology News, September 9, 2002.

George Clooney Apparently Believes 9/11 Was an Accident, Not Terrorism

Henry Hanks, digs up this particularly bizarre quote from a Guardian interview,

The longer into the night we talk, the more serious he becomes. It’s 1am and a conversation about Three Kings and its comedic take on the ridiculousness of America’s involvement in the Gulf War segues into a discussion about America post 11 September. His view on his country is refreshing. ‘We live on an island. A giant big fucking island. We don’t understand that people actually get mad at us. We still think of ourselves in terms of WW2. It’s not uncommon for us to say to France, “Hey, you’d still be speaking German if it wasn’t for us.” The problem is the world has changed and our involvement in these tiny little places is different than it was in 1941. It was a lot clearer then. We were attacked.’

Apparently the 9/11 attacks were simply accidents. You know, crazy extremist Islamic terrorists out on a joy ride crash Dad’s hijacked passenger jet into the World Trade Center Towers.

Salon.Com’s Status — It’s All a Matter of Perspective

Yesterday I happened to run across this rather positive assessment of Salon.Com’s financial position by Dot.Com big spender David Talbot in which he pokes fun at the pundits who have been predicting Salon.Com’s impending doom,

In fact, our impending non-existence has been predicted in the press for so long, and with such conviction, that we considered adopting “Die another day” as a marketing slogan until the Bond franchise beat us to it.

More overeager obituaries are certain to follow. But perversely, Salon still has a pulse. We’re still going strong because our investors understand that Salon has established the fundamentals of a solid business — including over 3.4 million monthly readers and more than 500 advertisers — and that profitability will follow, just as it did with successful cable channels as that medium established itself. And we’re still in business because more and more Salon readers are signing up as subscribers, after coming to the realization that the independent press — on and off the Web — can thrive only if readers (not global media giants or the government) help pay the bills.

Just before we launched our subscription service last year, one of the prophets of Salon doom, something called eMarketer, informed its readers that this was a last-gasp strategy: “Some analysts view this as a last resort that won’t last long.” But Salon still stands, in large part because of the nearly 50,000 readers who now subscribe — over 44,000 for Salon Premium and over 5,000 for the Well and Table Talk. In fact, more readers signed up for subscriptions in October than in any other month since we launched the Premium service — and November is shaping up as another record month.

So I was impressed. After all, Salon.Com’s revenue is now at about $4 million/year. At that rate, it will only take it 20 years for new revenues to total the almost $80 million its lost over the past few years.

But it turns out that not only was the subscription offering a last gasp after all, it didn’t work. According to a Wall Street Journal report,

The Wednesday filing said that until Salon reaches break-even cash flow, it will continue to use its cash on hand of $266,000, as well as $200,000 from a promissory note.

That’s right — a company that has spent tens and tens of millions of dollars has less than $300,000 in cash on hand and had to rely on a loan from one of its directors in order to avoid ceasing operations in October.

In fact, in its 10-q report, Salon.Com issued a warning that if it can’t obtain new funding or financing it may have to cease operations.

I’m certain given how thoroughly Salon.Com has covered the lies of companies like Enron, WorldCom, etc. as well as circled like sharks around mistakes, exaggerations and lies from people in the Bush administration, that some good folks at Salon.Com will take Talbot to task for publicly exagerrating Salon.Com’s financial position.

Sure, and pigs might fly.

Source:

Salon.com Launches Ad Program Michael Liedtkeday, November 19, 2002, Associated Press.

Salon Media Repeats ‘Going Concern’ Doubt. Dow Jones Newswires, November 14, 2002.

Salon celebrates its seventh birthday. David Talbo, Salon.Com, November 13, 2002.

More Zimbabwean Ministers to Travel to Europe Despite Ban

Despite a travel ban which is supposed to keep all members of Zimbabwe’s government from entering Europe, two Zimbabwean ministers have once again proved the ban is a sham by obtaining visas to visit the European Union headquarters in Belgium. The two are traveling there via Germany, which also is supposedly covered by the travel ban.

The officials will be in town for an African, Caribbean and Pacific-European Union (ACP/EU) Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

Is there any major government official left in Zimbabwe who hasn’t traveled to Europe since the ban was enacted?

Source:

Two Slip Through EU Travel Ban. AllAfrica.Com, November 20, 2002.

Why Do People Own Guns?

My local newspaper, The Kalamazoo Gazette, ran a story about gun ownership this week where they essentially added some local quotes to a larger story written by The Newhouse News Service (the Gazette is a Newhouse paper) about why people own guns.

If you believe the story, people own guns for only two reasons:

1. They like to hunt.
2. They gain psychological pleasure from owning a gun in and of itself.

Yes, those are really the only two reasons that are offered to explain why people own guns. The possibility that people might buy a gun for self-defense is apparently so absurd as to not merit even a passing mention.

Wading through the story did yield an astonishing quote by Stephen P. Teret, a John Hopkins University professor who has been at the center of trying to treat guns as a public health problem. Teret apparently has an irrational fear of guns based on an incident that happened when he fired a gun as part of a school rifle club when he was in the ninth grade. According to Teret,

I was scared, actually. I thought it was loud. I remember thinking, ‘I ought not be able to create that much energy.’ I knew something was wrong. Here I am, just a little dorky, kid, but I’m pulling the trigger and releasing deadly force. Sure, I was just shooting this piece of paper. But somehow it seemed odd and improper.

I wonder if Teret also quakes in fear that the enormous amount of energy under he is capable of releasing while driving down a freeway or if the thought of a 3 gigahertz P4 inspires fears of “things man was not meant to know”?

Source:

Owners say guns are fun. Mercedes Varasteh and Bruce Taylor Seemna, Kalamazoo Gazette, November 18, 2002.

Pro-Fox Hunting Group to Seek Review of Ban on Human Rights Grounds

A group that represents fox hunters and gamekeepers is planning to sue to overturn Scotland’s ban on fox hunting with dogs on the grounds that it constitutes cultural discriminate which is outlawed by treaties to which Scotland is a party to.

The lawsuit argues that Jews, Muslims, anglers and pheasant hunters are allowed to engage in activities that are at least as cruel — if not more cruel — to animals than fox hunting. As such, they argue, the ban on fox hunting is simply discrimination against a cultural minority and constitutes illegal persecution under the Human Rights Act.

Brian Friend, who represents the group, told The Times (London),

It is discrimination against us because we are told that we what we do is cruel when the ritual slaughter of meat is totally unnecessary, and is based on a custom that goes back to the time before they had refrigeration.

According to The Times, Jews and Muslims are granted exemptions from laws governing human slaughter of animals in the UK. Specifically, they are allowed to slaughter animals without stunning them first. Although most animals killed to meet Jewish and Muslim dietary customs are in fact stunned, about 600,000 animals are killed every year without first being stunned. Additionally, an estimated 36 million pheasants are bred each year specifically to be hunted.

Compare that to the estimated 15,000 foxes killed as a result of hunting every year.

Source:

Rural workers mount human rights challenge. Anthony Browne, The Times (London), November 13, 2002.