在medical career版上看到了老刀家版聚的消息，作为这个大家庭中最年轻的成员，真想去拜见一下那几位热心的大师兄和大师姐。可惜没在美国，明年一定报名参加。presentation list上惊喜地看到了哈佛大学附属医院陈杰教授的名字。遥想去年他来北医时跟大家推心置腹的座谈，还是亲切如初。他从大陆转战东京，从东京到加州，竟然单枪匹马闯荡美国外科界，后又容升哈佛大学医学院教授，真是佩服！他目光精锐却儒雅涵婉，老练稳健又不失热情真诚。我喜欢的男人味道……

 

真得很喜欢medical career版，因为大家都是那么坚强，在为着一个梦想而拼搏，不分老幼。版上的成员也相互提携和安慰，那“USMLE煎熬的求救”下总有无数回帖在支援，在鼓励继续前行……美国医学界的华人圈本来就已经势单力薄了，但相信每一个拼在其中的人都是足够的优秀。我们要团结起来，也必须团结起来！medical career版的氛围，让我看到了华人的希望。

Most of the work in Dr. Korc's laboratory explores aberrant signaling pathways in cancer cells. Studies include signaling by the epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor, fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptors, transforming growth factor beta (TGF-b) receptors and vascular endothelial cell growth factor (VEGF) receptors. The potential role of co-receptors such as glypican-1 and neuropilins are also being actively investigated. The model system that is most often studied is pancreatic cancer. The overall hypothesis guiding the studies of pancreatic cancer is that superimposed on alterations in oncogene and tumor suppressor gene functions, there is evidence for excessive mitogenic signaling, loss of negative growth constraints, and abnormal gain of function through negative signaling pathways, through suppression of differentiation, through excessive resistance to apoptosis, and through aberrant angiogenesis. Knowledge gained from these studies is being used to devise novel therapeutic strategies for this deadly disease.

在北大的两年，是最开心的两年，无论你对哪个领域感兴趣，总可以找到志趣相投的对话者。同时，“少年不知愁滋味，为赋新词强说愁”最恰当地形容了那两年的象牙塔生活。

 

初到北医，食堂里吃饭的弟兄在讨论“尸体的解剖构造”，电梯里赶时间的MM在抱怨“妇产科的非人生活”，密密麻麻的教学楼间的莘莘学子在匆忙穿梭，总是眉宇凝重，通宵自习室里熟悉的面庞或许从未有机会搭讪……北医，就是这样一个没有什么修饰和阳光的地方。

 

到了医院，实习医就是bottom of the food chain。当你笨手笨脚地出现在上级医师或是护士或是刁钻的病人面前，什么北大，什么长学制，全是扯淡。学会眼疾手快，学会八面玲珑，学会survive。曾经有人说过“不是因为在象牙塔中，才说出我爱世界这样的话。是知道外面的黑、脏、丑陋之后，还要说出这样的话。”同样，是否热爱医生这个行当，只有在经历了住院医的磨砺之后，才有资格下结论。在积水潭的两年，一直处于深深的孤独中，它的强项我并无兴趣，我的兴趣所在又无大师，渴盼求学，渴盼大师的指导，渴盼dynamic, friendly,cooperative的环境，让我最终决定告别北医。希望在40岁之前做出些成绩，有足够的影响力来改变这里的管理体制。

爱情，战争，离别……继《英国病人》《冷山》等影片之后，《赎罪》同样继承着这样一个永恒的悲剧主题。

电影以一个叫Briony的女孩为主线，这样一个才华横溢、勇敢、有主见、高傲略显偏执的女孩，正在亲手酿造着一场悲剧。

11岁，Briony还是一个懵懂的少女，朦朦胧胧地爱着帅气而勇敢的Robbin

13岁，Briony发现了Robbin与姐姐Cecilia相恋，在她还不懂什么是爱的时候，妒嫉让她浑浑噩噩地把无辜的Robbin送进了监狱。

18岁，时光荏苒，Briony渐渐在自己的谎言中醒来，但Robbin与姐姐Cecilia的遭遇留给她毕生难以承受之痛……

生命如一条单行线，我们是不是应该放低傲慢的姿态，不要总以自己的好恶来评判黑白，因为有些事实我们并不了解，有些感情我们并没体悟。

生命如一条单行线，Robbin因为Briony的指控而锒铛入狱，失去了体面的生活。看似残酷和荒诞，但少年轻狂的Robbin，身为寄人篱下的仆役，在Cecilia春光乍泻时毫无回避，在主人的书房与Cecilia倾诉衷肠……招致祸事，其实是早晚的事。生命如一条单行线，迷失的，错过的，永远都不会回来。。“谨慎地生存”，战战兢兢，如履薄冰，看来不无道理。

看了很多有关救赎的影评，有人认为它“包装过度流于华美内在空虚、企图借助大背景却没法铺展开来对宏大叙事缺乏掌控力”，“爱情小品诗史化式的拔苗助长”，但我仍然觉得它的剪辑、音乐、美工、化妆，让人拍案叫绝！

精致的布景，干净漂亮的镜头，紧凑而妙趣横生的英式家庭“庄园的一个下午”，闹别扭的小情侣、早熟的女孩、谈论遥远战争的绅士和青春萌动的淑女，古典、唯美、流畅，整个开篇非常的漂亮，非常的享受。那不断敲击的打字机声，构成了影片的背景音乐，紧张，压抑而沉重，与情节发展仅仅相扣。Briony简洁的发式，Cecilia优雅的长裙，恰恰符合我慕求精致的口味。

 

孩子
快抓紧妈妈的手
去天堂的路
太黑了
妈妈怕你
碰了头
快
抓紧妈妈的手
让妈妈陪你走

妈妈
怕
天堂的路
太黑
我看不见你的手
自从
倒塌的墙
把阳光夺走
我再也看不见
你慈祥的眸

孩子
你走吧
前面的路
再也没有忧愁
没有读不完的课本
和爸爸的拳头
你要记住
我和爸爸的摸样
来生还要一起走

妈妈
别担忧
天堂的路有些挤
有很多同学朋友
我们说
不哭
哪一个人的妈妈都是我们的妈妈
哪一个孩子都是妈妈的娃娃
没有我的日子
你把爱给活的孩子吧

妈妈
你别哭
泪光照亮不了
我们的路
让我们自己
慢慢的走
妈妈
我会记住你和爸爸的模样
记住我们的约定
来生一起走

 

ZZ了这首小诗，献给遇难的孩子们。逝者已去，生者节哀

有些人一直没机会见，等有机会见了，却又犹豫了，相见不如不见。

有些事有很多机会做的，却一天一天推迟，想做的时候却发现没机会了。
有些话埋藏在心中好久，没机会说，等有机会说的时候，却说不出口了。 
有些爱给了你很多机会，却不在意没在乎，想重视的时候已经没机会爱了。
人生有时候，总是很讽刺。
一转身可能就是一世。
说好永远的，不知怎么就散了。感情原来是这么脆弱的。经得起风雨，却经不起平凡；风雨同船，天晴便各自散了。也许只是赌气，也许只是因为小小的事。幻想着和好的甜蜜，或重逢时的拥抱，那个时候会是边流泪边捶打对方，还傻笑着。该是多美的画面。
没想到的是，一别竟是一辈子了。
于是，各有各的生活，各自爱着别的人。曾经相爱，现在已互不相干。
即使在同一个城市，也不曾再相逢。某一天某一刻，走在同一条街，也看不见对方。先是感叹，后来是无奈。
也许你很幸福，因为找到另一个适合自己的人。
也许你不幸福，因为可能你这一生就只有那个人曾真正用心在你身上。

I've watched "the Queen" time and again. What surprises me is that Princess Diana, her historic significance and contribution to England have far transcended her superficial beauty.

 

The British have always been good at silence — at family meals spent wordlessly; intense emotions expressed through a hand on the shoulder — but on Sept. 6, 1997, they surpassed themselves. London, the big, braying capital, was stilled as over a million mourners of Diana, Princess of Wales, kept vigil along the route to Westminster Abbey. Britain's customary stoicism had been overwhelmed by raw, unbridled grief. We can say that the festival of mourning which culminated in her extraordinary funeral marked a transformation — the moment when the old British virtues of reserve and silent suffering gave way to publicly expressed catharsis. The People's Princess had unlocked hearts, reordered values, presided at the triumph of emotional intelligence over cold intellect, of compassion over tradition.

Ten years on, Diana is still the world's most famous Briton, but many of her own compatriots don't seem sure if she did much more than wear designer dresses and shift a lot of tabloids. So here are a few incontrovertible facts. Diana shook up the British monarchy and speeded its modernization. She helped to tear down prejudices about AIDS. She raised awareness of eating disorders. She coalesced opposition to land mines. These are pretty hefty achievements for a woman of little education who mocked herself for being "thick as a plank." Add to these a more dubious accomplishment — her skillful manipulation of media images — and it's clear why, a decade after her death, Diana remains an inescapable presence in British life: mostly, but not always, benign; a restless and seductive ghost. It's time to peer into the many corners she still haunts.

Modernizing the Monarchy
The quiet affection of the British people for Queen Elizabeth II has barely wavered during her 54-year reign. There was a low ebb early in 1998 — Diana's legacy — but even then the monarch's popularity rating dipped no lower than 66%. It's now 85%.

The Queen never gives interviews — a wise policy that has helped to preserve the fraying mystique of royalty. Dickie Arbiter, a former press secretary to the Queen, Charles and Diana, who was responsible for the media arrangements for Diana's funeral, says "The Queen was always going to pay tribute to Diana, she planned from the outset to make her broadcast shortly before the funeral. There was a furor because she was at Balmoral and not down with the sniveling mobs in London. But William and Harry needed her more than hundreds and thousands of people keeping Kleenex in business."

Yet while the Queen and her immediate family kept their grief to themselves, there was a whiff of revolution beyond the palace gates. The U.S. academic Camille Paglia, speaking two days after the Paris car crash, foretold the fall of the house of Windsor. "With its acquisition of Diana, the monarchy had restored its modernity, while its mistreatment of her may mean the end of the monarchy." Not so. As soon as the Queen walked among the mourners, support for ditching her plunged to historic lows. The royals had learned a lesson too, "The monarchy realized that it stands or falls on public opinion."

In her charitable work, Diana set a standard that's hard to equal. She ignored the prevailing prejudices and fears about AIDS to clasp the hands of sufferers, and embraced leprosy patients in Indonesia. Arbiter remembers a visit to a home for the blind where Diana noticed that an old resident was crying: "She asked what was the matter and he said, 'I can't see you.' So she took his hand and put it on her face." Charles still doesn't wear his heart on his sleeve, but it's increasingly evident that it's in the right place. His Prince's Trust organization raises a good deal of money for charities helping young people, and he's gaining respect for his stance on environmental issues, as mainstream thought catches up with views he's propagated for years.

Unbuttoning Britain
Diana had been brought up in about as old-fashioned an environment as was possible in the last quarter of the 20th century, but nothing could have prepared her for the antiquity of palace life. Britain had been postimperial for more than a generation, which meant that the values associated with empire (or with its rulers) had long lost their edge. By the time she married it was already — and especially in London — a place less homogeneous, more multicolored than it had ever been, and far less deferential to the Victorian virtues that the royal family represented. Yet in the royal household, those virtues — and that deference — held sway. The new Princess could not fit in. Her rebellion, inchoate and self-destructive at first, reverberated far beyond the palace walls. Tina Brown, the latest of Diana's biographers, relates asking former Prime Minister Tony Blair if Diana had found a new way to be royal. "No," Blair replied. "Diana taught us a new way to be British."

Diana led the charge for emotion and the unembarrassed displays that now routinely go with it: from hugs and kisses to public tears. Unlike her remote royal in-laws, she touched the people she met, literally touched them, and bought their trust with a coinage she had in endless supply: her most personal thoughts and feelings. That's partly because her unhappiness drove her humanitarian impulses. Arbiter says, "She always championed the downtrodden" because she was attracted to their suffering.

After her separation and divorce, Diana's efforts to redefine herself took on an edge of urgency. She had given up her patronage of most of the charities she once represented. She fantasized about becoming the wife of one of her boyfriends, a heart surgeon called Hasnat Khan, and living in anonymity. Yet she could never hope to become normal. Instead she became a celebrity.

Though friends say he was just a distraction, her choice of two Muslim boyfriends looked set to test how deep the tolerance of New Labour's Britain would go. This much is plain: she had long since escaped or shed the attitudes of many white Britons. After her death, Trevor Phillips, a black Labour politician who now chairs Britain's Commission for Equality and Human Rights, told Newsweek Diana "embraced the modern, multicultural, multi-ethnic Britain without reservation." Unlike most Europeans, she had "no flinch, no anxiety about race ... for nonwhite Britons, she was like a beacon in the darkness."

In her final years, Diana mingled less and less with her own class, preferring instead the company of the self-made aristocracy of entertainment and fashion. The members of this élite were from different countries and cultures — gay, straight, black, white and united by fame. Diana fitted into this new world perfectly. She wasn't seen as posh. She was one of the people.

From Fairy Tale to PostFeminist
Imagine this: Diana is still alive. She's a well-preserved 46, with a new boyfriend and an apartment in Manhattan. Is she popular? Maybe. A legend? No way. By dying young, Diana ensured her immortality. Better dead than wrinkled.

Celebrity culture is cruel, but especially to women. "One of the characteristics of celebrity culture is that you first build someone up and then you write about their downfall," says German writer Tom Levine, the author of a book on Britain's first family. "If Diana had lived she would have been going on that up-and-down train." Her last summer was already something of a downward ride. A slight weight gain set the press speculating she might be pregnant. She wasn't, and such close attention could not have been easy for a bulimic. But her public admission of her eating disorder in a 1995 interview with Martin Bashir for the BBC had encouraged hidden sufferers to seek help. Her life reflected many of the concerns of ordinary women — their weight, their relationship troubles — and by talking openly she also eroded the stigma attached to failure. Even a Princess battled the bulge, even a beauty lost her husband. Diana was criticized for her "American style of emotionalism," says feminist writer Naomi Wolf, but her approach actually represented a liberation theology in hidebound Britain. "It was very radical. She didn't just talk the talk, she walked the walk."

That was not the fate feminists predicted when the news of her engagement to Charles broke. The feminist magazine Spare Rib ran an article headed "DON'T DO IT DI". This slogan, rendered as a lapel button, became a fashionable accessory for the thinking woman. "On 29 July 1981," wrote the British journalist Beatrix Campbell of the fairy-tale wedding in St. Paul's Cathedral, "the deceitful and depressed engagement ended when this thin, wan, whiter-than-white woman walked down the aisle, propping up the aged patriarch who had got her into all this ... Her ivory silk wedding dress was a shroud."

By the time Diana died, however, many feminists had read her struggle against a sclerotic system as a parable of empowerment. Paglia dubbed her an "incredible superstar." That she was, but she would never have located herself in the feminist firmament. She wasn't interested in gender equality. She fought against a patriarchy because it was old-fashioned and restrictive, not because she repudiated its male values. The Princess was one of the first and most potent symbols of the "girl power" celebrated by the Spice Girls with their mildly predatory allure and celebration of girly friendship. It was a neat fit for Diana, with her close women friends and her troubled search for a mate. What Royal Spice really, really wanted was not at all radical: to love and be loved.

The Political Princess
The royal wedding in 1981 — with Diana's endless train, the pages and flower girls, the choirs and coaches — was widely seen at the time as a reaffirmation of tradition in Britain, a throwback to an age when nobility and pomp held the nation in thrall. That it should have taken place during Margaret Thatcher's first term only added to the idea that Britain was becoming a more conservative society, and that Diana, the girl from the old aristocracy who had married into royalty, epitomized it.

Yet the Princess was never in tune with the Iron Lady. "Who is society? There is no such thing," Thatcher told Woman's Own magazine in 1987. "There are individual men and women and there are families." Thatcher's bracing doctrine of personal responsibility was always at odds with Diana's faith in the power of redemptive understanding, of allowing the weak to be weak. Her belief system very much included an entity called society, which rejected and marginalized people. "Someone has got to go out there and love people and show it," she said in her BBC interview.

By the time the Princess died, Thatcher was long gone, her pallid successor John Major was vanquished and Blair was in 10 Downing Street, with a huge popular mandate to build a more inclusive, caring Britain. That agenda echoed Diana's. The Princess had two secret meetings with Blair before his election. According to Alastair Campbell's recently published diaries, she told the intermediary who set up the meetings that "she would like to help [Labour] if she could." Diana had certainly made her mark on Campbell, who recorded that the Princess "had perfect skin and her whole face lit up when she spoke and there were moments when I had to fight to hear the words because I'm just lost in the beauty." Today Campbell has a more sober assessment: "She was very small-p political. I have no idea if she would have ended up taking some kind of unofficial role with a Labour government, but I am sure she would have found a way of harnessing her own skills and popularity to the sense of Britain as a more modern and compassionate country."

We will never know if she would have achieved such a dispensation. But the fact that she was — undeniably — on occasion manipulative, deceitful and self-centered should not blind us to the fact that, during her 17 years in the limelight, she had grown as Britain had grown, changed as Britain had changed, and that by the time she died she had something increasingly vital to offer. Arbiter recalls a strange, muted, mournful night after the Princess died when he encountered a group of wheelchair users on their way to lay flowers at Kensington Palace. "They were saying, 'Who's going to speak for us, now?' They had a point. The disabled: who's going to speak for them? The AIDS patients: who's going to speak for them? The drug addicts, the down-and-outs, the homeless, the elderly? She was their voice and drew attention to their plight." Arbiter pauses. "She'd have made a good Queen, you know. But that's it. She's gone." Gone? As anyone who knows anything about the strains that make up modern Britain will tell you, that is very far from true.

Diana, is always there...

 

It is OK to have a problem. as long as you have a family, since family would tolerate our sickness and obsession unconditionally.

It is OK to be a loser, as long as you used to have a dream, and fight hard for it. After you lose yourself, you can finally open your eyes to your true self.

 

 

xdjm们都下乡去了，独自踱步于静静的楼道，突然意识到毕业近在咫尺……

 

两年多前，大家一起往楼上扛行李的情景总在脑海闪现。就是从那时起，自己倔强地跟北医诀别。大学生们谈起自己的母校，大多怀着留恋和伤感，即便是调侃，也总带着感恩。但我很讨厌，也很鄙视北医。在北医，关系和后门横行于市，呼唤公平和公开的人总会受到嘲笑，如果说“不公平是北医的传统”，那么这个陋习为什么就不能改？在北医，只有善于逢迎的人才会受到亲睐和赏识，如果能多些伯乐，能多些透明公平的体制，北医莘莘学子花在苦心经营人际关系上的精力就可以用来“专供术业”，那样会产生多少创就。北医的师资贫乏（有些良师，我是相当敬重的），对外相对封闭，招生良莠不齐最终将导致自砸招牌，当然那帮腐败的管理蛀虫纯属蠢驴，根本不屑于评论他们什么了。

 

还清楚地记得北医教办怒斥大家“北医不缺你们20个人！”

 

还清楚地记得当时的班主任到我们宿舍里说“到了积水潭可能很好，也可能不好，如果不好，也只能这样了”。请问，一个有良知的教育者该如何面对自己所肩负的责任？启一个“可能”或“如果”了得？

 

曾经跟几位即将离开北医的朋友长谈，大家无不觉得“北医的沉闷与压抑，想出去透透风”。作为母校，如果没有教给自己的孩子什么是理想和追求，什么是智慧和善良，什么是正义和责任，她只能是一个失败的母亲。

 

俗话说“穷人的孩子早当家”。早一天步入真实的世界，见识世间百态，人情冷暖，就早一天长大和坚强起来。真的感谢这几年的坎坷，没有了罩在头上的“北大光环”，没有了丰富的学习资源和博学善诱的教授，没有了男朋友的支持和保护，我学会了有泪往肚子里吞，学会了主动地寻找资源和争取机会，学会了冷静和果断，学会了在艰难中自得其乐，享受孤独。也是那段最脆弱的时间，让我感受到了很多关怀和真情。那些滴水之恩，足以让我铭刻心底。

 

鄙视该受到鄙视的人，珍爱值得去珍爱的人。我，就是这样一个unyielding的家伙。谢谢大家这么多年来对我的包容和关爱。我爱你们！

你必须找到除了爱情之外，能够使你用双脚坚强站在大地上的东西。你要找到谋生的方式，最重要是能让自己开心的方式。你必须把那些浮如飘絮的思绪，渐渐转化为清晰的思路和简单的文字。华丽和漂浮都不易长久。不要琐碎，无病呻吟。不要流于小感伤和小感动。我要你相信温暖、美好、信任、尊严、坚强这些老掉牙的字眼。我不要你颓废、空虚、迷茫、糟践自己、伤害别人。我不要你把自己处理得一团糟。

节制自己的感情。不是任何人都能要。体验生活，是另外一回事，并不意味着堕落和放纵。千万不要认同那些伪装的酷和另类。他们是无事可做的人找出来放任自己无事
可做的借口。真正的酷是在内心。你要有强大的内心。要有任凭时间流逝，不会磨折和屈服的信念。不是因为在象牙塔中，才说出我爱世界这样的话。是知道外面的黑、脏、丑陋之后，还要说出这样的话。好好去爱，去生活。

伤心和委屈的时候，要嚎啕大哭，哭完洗洗脸，拍一拍，挤出一个微笑给自己看。
 
给自己一个远大的前程和目标。记得常常仰望天空，尤其是晚上清澈的星空。记住仰望天空的时候也看看脚下。

不要相信在恋爱上用手段的人。分手时不要口出恶言。吸取教训，但不要后悔。后悔没有用。别干撕照片、烧信、撕日记这样三流爱情电视剧中才有人干的事。如果真的有什么想要忘记的话就随它去吧。不在乎自然就会遗忘。

相信爱情，相信好男人在茫茫人海中终会寻觅到你。 

爱物质，适当地。永远知道精神更重要。比那些名表、名牌、时装，更加美丽的是你自己。 再精致的妆容也比不上健康纯真的微笑。

别瞧不起劳动人民，不要为劳动羞耻。土地不脏，汗味也不难闻。请尊重那些似乎生活状况不如你的人，因为这样才是尊重自己。永远体恤那些生活在底层的人们，因为
我们的亲人就是在这些人群中。我们不娇贵。

不要小看一分钱。不妨自己去挣挣看。

被朋友伤害了的时候，别怀疑友情，但提防背叛你的人。原谅，但并不遗忘。做人存几分天真童心，对朋友保持一些侠义之情。

有小心机的女生是可爱的，但别把这种心计用在勾心斗角上，那样会很累。  
　　
做人不要太高调，高调容易招惹是非。但也不能太低调，该强悍时则强悍，但切不可咄咄逼人。

同情那些比你可怜弱小的人，乐于助人，永远心存善念，怜悯，会使你高贵。

宽待自己，也宽待别人。当你不会因为小小的不如意小小的事而生气或难过的时候，你会轻松很多。

要原谅这世界和自己。要告诉自己，我值得拥有最好的一切。

要快乐，要开朗，要坚韧，要温暖，这和性格无关。

I can’t imagine a more important movie being released this year. I can’t imagine another movie making me feel so ashamed for America as a whole, or doing so with more justification. Damn you, Michael Moore, and bless you, for having the temerity and the guts and the balls to do what hardly anyone else is doing these days: yelling from the rafters that we are supremely fucked up as a nation, hollering about the very viable options we have to fix the mess if only we grew some backbone, and screaming with sincere conviction that it’s long past time to revolt.

Make no mistake: Sicko is an explicit call for revolution, and it is a profound and horrifying one. I’m ready to take up arms -- I’m just not sure what that means at this particular crisis point. Among the many, many shocking and disheartening hard truths laid bare here, the most difficult one to parse is the one that wonders where and how to fire an effective first shot. But Sicko is, nevertheless, deeply satisfying in its own way, as if someone, finally, pointed out the 800-pound gorilla in the room, dared to laugh at the emperor’s nakedness, at long last said, “Fuck this shit.” Not that lots of folks haven’t been saying and doing these things for a long time, but here it is in one wonderfully brazen, wonderfully eloquent package.

The thing is this: the health-care system in American is sick. Truly, madly, deeply sick, because it is geared toward ensuring obscene profits for the corporations in the health-insurance racket and not toward ensuring that people are hale and hearty. Moore starts off by demonstrating that it is indeed a racket, with horrific tales of the crimes of HMOs, of all sorts of people being told they are “not eligible for insurance” because -- get this -- they’re sick. How evil is that? That insurance companies can deny coverage to people merely because those people would cut into the corporations’ profits? (Without ever using the phrase that “conservatives” seem to think justifies any and all corporate perniciousness, Moore points out that the “free hand of the market” is usually a slap in the face to most of us ordinary schmoes.)

The testimony from former HMO employees, who quit their jobs because they were so disgusted by what they had to do to keep people from the health care they needed, is absolutely ruinous to all the filthy CEOs who have allowed their fellow Americans -- their fellow human beings -- to wallow in unwell misery and to die miserably over mere dollars. Is there anyone more despicable? Why, yes, there is: the politicians who enable this demented system. Some of those obscene profits, Moore shows us, go to into the pockets of members of our Congress and Senate; it’s all a matter of public record, but Moore plays it up with his usual satirical flair... and he goes hard on both sides of the political aisle, lashing out particularly at Hillary Clinton, that once-champion of universal, government-run, noncorporate health care; apparently even she can be bought. Moore isn’t afraid to call it what it is: corruption at the most powerful inner sanctums of our national “leadership.” These people do not serve us: they serve their corporate overlords. Why do we stand for this?

But Moore is just beginning: we’ve all dealt with the horror that is our health-care system, and he doesn’t need to waste a lot of time telling us what we already know. So he heads to Canada, to Britain, to France, for Christ’s sake, to show us the alternative: systems in which wellness is a priority, everyone is looked after as needed, and doctors are free to actually care for their patients instead of wondering what services they are limited in providing because of some blood-on-his-hands CEO wants a new yacht. With wit that is as devastating a takedown as any angry rant could be, Moore makes fun of the image of “socialized” medicine that has been sold to us by, yup, those corporations with their obscene profits. And in the far larger context, he shows us how the American character has faltered under our system of “health care”; the inevitable next question he leaves us to ask is, How do we find the energy for a revolution when we’ve come to such a frail and feeble state in both body and soul? That’s the depressing crux of Sicko.

I laughed till I cried, sitting through Sicko, and I don’t mean that as a metaphor -- I was taken down by wracking sobs of shame and pity for we Americans by the end of the film, when Moore takes a handful of 9/11 emergency responders who cannot get the medical help they need after their selfless work in lower Manhattan to Cuba, where they are treated with such kindness by Cuban doctors in the free hospital that it is heartbreaking, and mortifying. How have we Americans let such things come to pass, that the best and bravest and most altruistic among us are treated as disposable garbage? (And how we treat our weakest and most vulnerable is even worse, Moore has no hesitation in showing us, too.) How can we live with ourselves?

And that is Moore’s question. Though he tweaks his own notoriety more than once here, he doesn’t shy from being as aggressive as necessary in asking it: How can we live with ourselves?

Director---Luc Besson

Actors---Jean Reno (Leon)

             Natolie Portman (Methida)

             Gary Oldman (Corrupted Cop)

 

What's it about---A twelve year old girl's (Portman) life is turned on its head when her white trash family is murdered by a psychotic DEA Agent  (Oldman) and his crew. She eventually finds refuge in her neighbor's apartment, a loner hitman, named Leon (Reno). He trains her to become an assassin, they fall in love and as they bond, she seeks revenge against the scum who terminated her kin.

 

Leon is French director Luc Besson's first American flick. He disregarded what constitutes good taste. Maybe it's a French thing. There are so many elements within "Leon" that could be construed as perverse or even downright dirty, which is very honest and thus striking and beautiful, in my opinion.

 

Police is always perceived as the guard for justice and safty, although they are more often than not very stupid. But in "Leon", cop has become brutal assassin, even more cruel and cold-blooded than professional hitman, who would always respect the rule and never hurt women and children. Because of this, "" Leon" has made me feel really scared and freaked out, when thinking about the power that could be abused by  police against disarmed and innocent citizens.

 

In New York City, there lived a hitman, named Leon. He is a loner, who slept sitting in chair, who cared nothing but a potted plant, who had no friend but his broker. When such a man met the 12-year-old girl, Methida, who accidentally came under his wing for protection, he was awakened from deep in his sole, and his love which was in dormancy was revived.

 

There are a lot of inherent problems with making a movie that has such a drastic age difference between its two main characters, especially when one is a man and the other is a girl, and they’re not father and daughter. The heart of this tale is that very courtiship which constantly switched back back and forth from Father/Daughter to Mother/Son to lovers. One problem is the risk of making the audience uncomfortable. But, both of them, when together, are incrditibly endearing. Methida is a 12-year-old girl and I can see how, at times, her desire for the childlike Leon would offend some, but for me, apart from a couple of specific minor monents, I always perceive their relationship as a pure and loving one. (In case you are wondering, there are no sexually explicit scenes between the two — or any sexual scenes for that matter. The whole “love” thing exists in a cerebral manner, except for one hug.)

The substitute ingredients are (1) Catherine Zeta-Jones as Kate, a great chef (she's single and lives in a fabulous brownstone in New York City) who happens to like life very orderly, controlled, and finely minced; (2) Aaron Eckhart as Nick, a great chef (he's single and lives in a fabulous loft in New York City) who happens to like life very loose, spontaneous, and stirred up; and (3) Little Miss Sunshine's Abigail Breslin as Kate's 9-year-old niece, Zoe, who unexpectedly comes under Kate's wing for nurturing and protection. Kate runs the kitchen at an upscale West Village restaurant (a soignée Patricia Clarkson plays owner and manager) with precision and intensity of purpose. Nick, who shows up to fill in as sous-chef, likes to crack jokes, sing along to opera while he sautés, and wave an uncooked quail in the air for musical emphasis. Zoe looks sad when her aunt serves her fancy dishes at home for dinner, since all the kid wants is a hug and a fish stick.

If you don't instantly recognize that bickering Kate and Nick are eventually going to want to fork each other — and that Nick will teach Kate how to become a warmer, softer woman capable of relating to others who are not, say, fishmongers — then you have never read a recipe book or a romance novel.

A familiar dish doesn't have to be a bland one, but No Reservations, which has been Americanized from the 2002 German romantic comedy Mostly Martha with a script by first-timer Carol Fuchs and impersonal direction from Scott Hicks (Shine), doesn't allow for the slightest grain of salt. Or pepper, beginning with Zeta-Jones' tense performance as a '' regular'' New York woman who dresses in a palette of gloom and wears a hat borrowed from Mary Tyler Moore. It's fun to see the glamorous actress turn down her movie-star flame, but it's a pity she's stuck with so many trite gestures on Kate's journey to fulfillment. The all-work, no-play professionally successful female character who comes home to her empty apartment, presses the button on her answering machine, and hears the accusatory refrain '' No messages'' is the creation of moviemakers with no new ideas about what to make for dinner.

This film is definitely a masterpiece. The story is simply but have a profound meaning, and be told properly—all the unnecessary plot is omitted; montage goes along, shifting the two lines (Edward’s memory of the past and his adventure in new world) naturally and fluently. Both the director and actors have done a good job. And also the composer--Danny Elfman, whose visional and even unearthly music fits the picture perfectly.
　　
It’s a story full of contrasts. The charnel castle and the quite lovely town; the castle’s apparent horror and its actual downfall; Edward’s terrifying appearance and his tender, and even timid heart; his kind and generous behaviors and the crowd’s tart and inconsiderable manners; the poetic cinematography and its cruel ending—prince and princess separated from each other forever.
　　
This movie is also about how people dealing with the “outsider”. Edward was an outsider because he was different from common people. He was thrown into the world, incomplete and all alone. When he had a chance to go out, he was so excited and curious. He wanted to embrace the new world. But what he faced is people’s cruelty and misunderstanding. Yes, he was welcomed by them and even once considered as a “star” to show on the TV. But do they really like him, or just want to have fun? The fact is people watched him like he was a strange animal, and they preferred to enjail him into the unreal world rather than accept him as a member of them. And of course people could not forgive him, or gave him any chance, even his mistake was unintentional. But as pure and sincere as a little boy, Edward just simply wanted to make up and fit in, which unfortunately led more serious consequences. People and the world didn’t trust him anymore and then they shut the door.
　　
Can’t you see that, by some sense, we are all like Edward? We also try hard to fit in, but occasionally, we just can’t get accepted. We face all kinds of misunderstandings and under lots of pressure by the others. Sometimes I wonder which choice one should make. If he devotes himself into the world, he may lose something within him. But remember, Edward never regrets. He did what he really wanted to. He was exiled, but he was true to his own heart. Can we do that? I believe most of us can’t. Because we don’t want to be an outsider. So actually we are restricted by the others or a certain circumstance that we can not choose. Maybe it’s the basic puzzledom of our existence. And interesting enough, we sometimes act as one of the “crowd”. We show despite and laugh at those who are freak and different. Is there anything more sorrowful than this?
　　
And at last, let me add some words to the authors. You know, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp usually work in ideally, as someone ever said, “truly dedicated people set out to create something beautiful, some chemistry occurs and ... a miracle happens.” Though I only watched two of their works—one is this piece and the other is last year’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I can see it clearly. Burton has an amazing gift as a fabulist. His films have nothing to do with history—they always happen in Xanadu, just far from reality—but have much to do with our living surroundings, and in this way, they are more real than those “realistic” films. And his gothic, quirky and funny style is really enchanting (just think about that cookies factory). Johnny Depp is also a genius. Edward actually is very hard to perform, for he is a sensitive and complicated role with only few lines (less than 100). But Depp used his features and gestures properly and they're just perfect.

1. Pursuit of Happiness

 

"Be good with numbers, and be good with people, you will make a good broker." This is what a broker at Deal Vilers told Christ about the job. Actually, not only for broking industry, for all walks of life, intelligence and a good personality are both indispensible for success.

 

When Chirst and Chrisopher are travelling in the subway late at night, when they are running like crazy after the bus, when they are eating at the restarant, looking at a family sitting beside them talking and laughing...such scenes really touch my soles, and reminds me of the numerous times when I was feeling the same loneliness, tiredness, and helplessness, while fighting for a dream. "Happiness is something we have to pursue." "Do not ever let somebody tell you that you cannot do something. People they cannot do it themselves, so they would like to tell you that you can neither."

 

I like Christ, not only because of his stamina, perseverance, and smartness, more importantly, he is a good dad, and a man  who knows about love and responsibility. There's another movie I like, called "Homeless to Harvard", which tells the story of a girl born to a poor family and trys to change her life through education. Although her mother is crazy with szhezophenere, indicted to drugs, and got AIDS, she loved her so much that she would rather give up everything just for her. Without love, without family, it makes no sense for success. I think that's the point of these two movies.

2. Georgia Rule

This is a movie about the mom and the daughter. There is an old saying "daughter is the extension of mon's life". However, most daughters see in their mom so many things they hate, and want to be everything anti- mom. In the movie, the grandma Georgia is a woman of high maintenance, who sticks to her family value, exalts hard working, and forbits her husband and daughter from drinking and smoking. Her daughter Lily doesn't undertand her or even hates her. But Lily's lack of discinplinarian and self-centered living style finally paid price with her own daughter-Rachel, who could not differentiate right from wrong, and could not tell lying from truth and trust. The following dialogue is between Georgia and Lily

Lily: Whenever dad and I have some fun together, you would take that away from me, because you fear he want you so little and need me so much. Anyway, I blaim you for his drinking.

Georgia:  I took it away, because your study was slipping. I don't want you to run away and marry an idiot, miss all the good things you have a chance at, just like me.

Lily: Do you love me? I can never remember you ever saying that.

Georgia: Of course I love you. Why should I waste so much time on someone I don't care about.

 

3. The Sixth Sense

Dr. Malcolm tells such a story:

      A doctor could and should make a difference to every of his patient, if he falis any one of his patients, he would feel regret and shame everyday through the rest of his life.

      The well-being of his patients should be put before his own life and happiness.

      If you want to help a patient, first make friends with him and make him trust you.

      As a doctor, you might probably be the last one your suffering patient resorts for help. If you are unable to help, he or she has nothing left but despair.

I think every doctor in China should see this movie. Besides making money and gaining  prestigious reputation, there is something more important for a doctor, which has been largely forgotten.

 

4. Monalisa Smile

Look beyond the image.

Don't judge people or things just because the public or authority say something about them. Don't judge people or things before you really get to know them.

I have buried myself in the library these days. Tons of medical literatures and publications have truely excited a brain storm in me. What am I going go do? Which social slot am I going to fit myself in? Bench or bedside? Such a question has always haunted me whenever I try to step out of the hole, but it graduately seems to me that this is not a "yes or no" question with only two extreme answers. Quite the opposite, maybe the potential success lies in the "grey area".

 

The story of Daniel Vasella, Chief Executive of Novartis, the man standing behind the discovery and marketing of Glivec, has made a point. Nowadays, biomedical research, clinical practice, and drug industry are no longer seperate enterprises. Daniel is a hero who acts as the glue to hold the team together. On one hand, he is M.D. and used to be in clincial practice, no wonder he could bring sympathy, passion, and compassion into his career, he could speak directly with patient organizations. On the other hand, he is expeienced at drug development and marketing. Even at the initial stage with Glivec, he smelt its potential efficacy and financial success, so that he bet with the stake of all his career, and invested in the mass production of such an unapproved drug without any financial secure. Any one who could perceive such an integrated project from an overall perspective would make the leader and winner in the future.

 

Blood cancer? Why am I intereted in it? Unlike patients with coronary heart disease or other categories of diseases, whom are mostly old people, who have savored what life taste like, and whom are kind of paying the price for their own unhealthy lifestyle, such as over-eating, less of exercise, smoking, in other words, they deserve it in some way,(only joking, maybe this is quite inappropriate from an ethical view), the victims with hematologic malignancies are more often than not much younger, whom might be the bread-earner in his family, or whom might be a little child with a long life journey ahead. When I saw the scene in Patch Adams that dozens of children with ALL who were bald due to aggressive chemotherapy, when I saw the mom who cried just out of my office after hearing about her 14-year-old daughter's final diagnosis of AML, when I saw innumerable blood cancer patients torn apart from their family and friends, I felt heartbreak. I know this is the arena for a fight, which I want to join.

 

The relative easiness of the access to malignant cells, and its dismal and wretched clinical features, have made hematologic malignancies the forefront of cancer research. The concept of "targeted therapy" and "individually tailord treatment" is no longer a dream for hematologic malignancies, thanks to the intensive research on their pathogenesis from the cellular and molecular level. Knowing the critical step in neoplastic transformation is like being granted the key to unlock a door, which also provides "potential drugable targets". Actually, after the success of Glivec, numerous novel drugs are in their pre-clinic development or various stages of clinical trials, such as bortezomib for multiple myeloma, tipifarnib for acute myeloblastic leukemia and myelodystropic syndrome, rituximab for lymphoma, etc. I try picturing the future trend of treatment for hematologic malignancies--a patient being admitted, after clinical examination and histological diagnosis, CT scanning or PET facilitates staging the patient, blood test helps to evaluate his or her renal and liver function, then there follows immunophenotypic and cytogenetic examination, maybe there could be a direct gene profiling in the future, so that the key pathogenetic gene defect could be identified, and drugs targeted at the specific defect are given. In contrast to the systemic and general chemotherapy and radiotherapy, such new adapted medication would gain exciting efficacy while avoid damage to normal tissues. Such a medical miracle is not an illusion of science fiction, I believe that its realization is just around the corner.