improvisatory celinka: March 2013

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Good Reads: dogs with PTSD, children in the news, unwed mothers, waking up the Ice Age

This week's round-up of Good Reads includes helping dogs who come home from war zones, the dilemma behind telling Malala Yousafzai's story, why more mothers aren't choosing marriage, and a quest to bring back the wooly mammoth.

By Jenna Fisher,?Staff writer / March 29, 2013

Gina, a US military bomb-sniffing dog, suffered from stress after serving in Iraq.

Ed Andrieski/AP/File

Enlarge

It has been said that war has no winners. That statement could easily include not just soldiers and civilians, but also the hundreds of stray animals that are caught in the crossfire.

Skip to next paragraph Jenna Fisher

Asia editor

Jenna Fisher is the Monitor's Asia editor, overseeing regional coverage for CSMonitor.com and the weekly magazine.

Children on camera

By the time a 15-year-old schoolgirl named Malala Yousafzai was shot point-blank by the Taliban six months ago in Pakistan, her activism and story had captured interest around the world. She exemplified a rare courage, spunk, and determination that made her a powerful symbol of the fight for female education amid extremism.

It was the media that handed this young girl the soapbox ? and possibly made her a target, worries Syed Irfan Ashraf, who first put Malala on camera when she was just 11 years old.

Disclosing the guilt he felt for doing so, he told Marie Brenner of Vanity Fair, ?No one was paying attention to what was happening in Mingora. We took a very brave 11-year-old and created her to get the attention of the world. We made her a commodity.?

The economy of unwed mothers

Good news: Over the past two decades, teen birthrates have fallen. The other news? By the time American women turn 30, about two-thirds have had their first child ? usually outside of marriage, according to a recent report highlighted in The Atlantic Monthly.

Take note of ?usually outside of marriage,? writes Derek Thompson, asking, ?Why so few marriages?? The answer, he writes, is best seen through the lens of three factors:

?(1) The changing meaning of marriage in America; (2) declining wages for low-skill men; and (3) the declining costs of being a single person.?

It used to be that the marriage contract was entered into in the US with specific roles in mind. The wife would stay home and take care of the kids, and the husband would go to work and put food on the table. That model has been upended.

?Think of marriage like any other contract or investment. It?s most likely to happen when the gains are big. So we should expect marriages among low-income Americans to decline if women perceive declining gains from hitching themselves to the men around them.?

Back to life, back to reality

Right now scientists in South Korea are combing the frozen remains of woolly mammoths looking for the scientific version of a needle in a haystack: a live cell. Any live cell. If they find one, they?ll try to use it to bring the mammoth back from centuries of extinction. (Don?t worry, they?ve got a Plan B.)

Roll your eyes if you must, but, writes Carl Zimmer in National Geographic, the idea of bringing vanished species back to life has percolated in popular culture and in science labs at least since ?Jurassic Park,? and that technology is close ? really close.

Indeed, advances in manipulating stem cells, in recovering ancient DNA, and in reconstructing lost genomes has pushed science closer to reviving that which was once thought to be lost for good. Remember Dolly, the first sheep to be cloned in 1996? Amateur. Scientists now offer up the hopeful example of Celia the bucardo (an extinct type of mountain goat).

?Celia?s clone is the closest that anyone has gotten to true de-
extinction. Since witnessing those fleeting minutes of the clone?s life, [Alberto] Fern?ndez-Arias, now the head of the government of Aragon?s Hunting, Fishing and Wetlands department, has been waiting for the moment when science would finally catch up, and humans might gain the ability to bring back an animal they had driven extinct.?

The question now is, Should it be done?

? ?The history of putting species back after they?ve gone extinct in the wild is fraught with difficulty,? says conservation biologist Stuart Pimm of Duke University. A huge effort went into restoring the Arabian oryx to the wild, for example. But after the animals were returned to a refuge in central Oman in 1982, almost all were wiped out by poachers. ?We had the animals, and we put them back, and the world wasn?t ready,? says Pimm. ?Having the species solves only a tiny, tiny part of the problem.? ?

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/csmonitor/globalnews/~3/4ar0XcjYUSA/Good-Reads-dogs-with-PTSD-children-in-the-news-unwed-mothers-waking-up-the-Ice-Age

ground hog day 2012 aaron carter black history month did groundhog see his shadow soul train don cornelius rod parsley barry sanders jr

India's top court to deliver Novartis judgment

FILE ? In this Jan. 29, 2007 file photo, Indian police officers block demonstrators protesting against Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG's case against the Indian government on drug patents in New Delhi, India. India's Supreme Court is to rule Monday, April 1, 2013, whether to deny a patent to Novartis AG for its cancer treatment in a landmark case that would allow Indian companies to continue producing cheaper versions of many lifesaving medicines. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das, File)

FILE - In this Dec. 21, 2012 file photo, an Indian activist from a health group holds a placard while participating in a protest against Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG outside their office in Mumbai, India. India's Supreme Court is to rule Monday, April 1, 2013, whether to deny a patent to Novartis AG for its cancer treatment in a landmark case that would allow Indian companies to continue producing cheaper versions of many lifesaving medicines. (AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade, File)

NEW DELHI (AP) ? India's Supreme Court is to rule Monday on a landmark patent case involving Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG that focuses on demands by major companies that their investments be protected, against Indian companies that say they should be allowed to continue producing cheaper generic versions of many lifesaving medicines.

A decision in the seven-year legal battle is keenly awaited by the two most interested parties? big pharma companies and health aid groups ? with both sides saying the outcome will set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for the future availability of the drugs.

"Across the world, people rely on India for supplies of affordable versions of expensive patented medicines," said Leena Menghaney of Doctors Without Borders. "This case will have fundamental consequences."

The case goes back to 2006 when Novartis' application for a fresh patent in India for its cancer drug imatinib mesylate was rejected by the Indian patent office.

The patent authority cited a legal provision in India's 2005 patent law aimed at preventing companies from getting fresh patents for making only minor changes to existing medicines ? a practice known as "evergreening."

The drugmaker has argued that its leukemia drug Gleevec, known in Europe and India as Glivec, was a newer, more easily absorbed version that qualified for a fresh patent.

The company filed an appeal, but India's patent appeals office turned it down in 2009 on the grounds the company was unable to show significant increase in efficacy of the drug.

Novartis then approached the Supreme Court in August 2009, which heard arguments seeking to challenge the interpretation and application of India's patent law in the case.

Gleevec, used in treating chronic myeloid leukemia and some other cancers, costs a patient about $2,600 a month. Its generic version was available in India for around $175 per month.

"The difference in price was huge. The generic version makes it affordable to so many more poor people, not just in India, but across the world," said Y.K. Sapru, of the Mumbai-based Cancer Patients Aid Association.

The case once again pits big pharmaceutical companies against health activists and aid groups with both sections arguing that the judgment would be an important milestone for the future of the pharmaceutical industry worldwide.

"The Novartis verdict is important because it will determine whether India gets to limit patents to genuine new drugs, or whether drug companies get to "evergreen" their patents until eternity, simply by re-patenting a slightly modified version of a known substance," said Ellen 't Hoen, a pharmaceutical law and policy consultant.

Western pharmaceutical companies have warned that a rejection of Novartis' application would discourage investment in research and innovation, and would hobble drugmakers' efforts to refine and improve their products.

The international drug majors have been pushing for stronger patent protection in India to regulate the country's $26 billion generic drug industry, which they say often flouts intellectual property rights.

In a statement sent to The Associated Press late last year, Novartis said patent protection was important to ensure effective protection for innovation.

"Knowing we can rely on patents in India benefits government, industry and patients because research-based organizations will know if investing in the development of better medicines for India is a viable long-term option," the company said.

Groups such as Doctors Without Borders say cheaply made Indian generics are a lifesaver for millions of patients in poor countries who cannot afford to pay Western prices to treat diseases such as cancer, malaria and HIV.

India, which has emerged as the world's pharmacy for the poor, has come under intense scrutiny from pharmaceutical giants who say India's 2005 Patent Act fails to guarantee the rights of investors who finance drug research and development.

The country's recent decision to allow a local manufacturer to produce a generic version of Bayer's patented cancer drug Nexavar, to make the drug available to the public at a reasonably affordable price, has also not gone down well with Western pharmaceutical companies.

Health and aid groups were clearly nervous before the top court rules on the Novartis case.

"Generic companies depend on the freedom to operate. If there are too many intellectual property-related challenges, then the companies very quickly withdraw from making that drug," said Menghaney.

The groups fear that a ruling in favor of Novartis would lead to a proliferation of patents ? some based on a minor tweaking of formulation and dosages ?on dozens of other generic medicines that Indian companies have been producing and supplying to needy nations at far lower costs than those charged by Western drug manufacturers.

And the fallout of the judgment will be felt across the world, says Menghaney. "It's not just about India."

"If generic competition on many crucial medicines ends, then prices for these medicines will increase, both in India and across the developing world. This would be devastating for millions who rely on India for affordable medicines."

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2013-03-31-India-Patent%20Battle/id-9299251350894549ac0c2d134052ebb5

Comcast Pokemon X and Y Rob Ryan bethenny frankel sacramento kings alex jones Google Docs

Two fifth-graders face trial in alleged Washington murder plot

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Two Washington state fifth-grade boys, accused in a foiled plot to rape and kill a girl and kill or harm six other classmates, will stand trial as juveniles, a prosecutor said on Friday.

Stevens County Prosecutor Tim Rasmussen said the boys, 11 and 10, pleaded not guilty during an arraignment on Friday over the alleged murder-rape plot that also targeted other children in Colville, Washington, about 215 miles east of Seattle.

One of the boys wanted the girl dead because "she's rude and always made fun of me and my friends," according to court documents.

"There are very few prosecutions of a crime of this magnitude with boys of this age," Rasmussen told Reuters.

Stevens County Superior Court Judge Allen Nielson determined during the hearing that the boys had the capacity to understand right and wrong, Rasmussen said.

Under Washington state law, children ages 8 to 12 are presumed not to have the mental capacity to form an intention to commit a crime. Juvenile court is typically reserved for defendants between ages 12 and 18.

The 10-year-old suspect was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, juvenile firearm possession and witness tampering, Rasmussen said.

The younger boy had taken a gun that originally belonged to his grandfather from his older brother's room, according to a declaration of probable cause.

The 11-year-old was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, possession of a dangerous weapon, a knife, at school and tampering with a witness, Rasmussen said.

The boys planned to lure the girl away from school in Colville, a town of 4,600 people in eastern Washington, according to court documents.

A teacher found a list of six more targeted classmates, prosecutors said.

The fifth-graders had boarded a school bus on February 7 with a knife, a semi-automatic pistol and ammunition in a backpack on their way to Fort Colville Elementary School, prosecutors said.

A fourth-grader on the bus saw the knife and reported it to a teacher's aide, prosecutors said. One of the suspects later said he would kill the student who told school officials about the weapons, they said.

If convicted of all charges, the boys could each be sentenced to 103 to 127 weeks unless a judge finds "manifest injustice" and orders a longer sentence, Rasmussen said.

The boys have been expelled from the school district indefinitely. A status hearing is set for April 8.

(Reporting by Laura Myers; Editing by Ian Simpson and Eric Beech)

Source: http://feeds.nbcnews.com/c/35002/f/653381/s/2a25f309/l/0L0Snbcnews0N0Cid0C513780A90A/story01.htm

the pitch brandon inge freedom tower freedom tower eric church quick silver where have you been rihanna

Judge: Jolie didn't plagiarize 'Blood and Honey'

LOS ANGELES (AP) ? A federal judge says actress Angelina Jolie didn't steal the story for her movie "In the Land of Blood and Honey" from a Croatian author.

City News Service reports Friday's tentative ruling in Los Angeles will throw out the suit accusing Jolie of copyright infringement.

In 2011, author James Braddock sued Jolie and the film company that made the film, saying it was partly based on his book "The Soul Shattering."

U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee wrote in a tentative ruling that the plots, characters and themes in the two works were not "substantially" similar, though both centered on war romances.

Jolie wrote, directed and co-produced the film.

Braddock has been ordered to tell the court why his complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-jolie-didnt-plagiarize-blood-honey-010625344.html

country music awards autism awareness angelman syndrome total recall troy tulowitzki katie couric good morning america the rock vs john cena

Congratulations, America: Congress Has Finally Outsourced Itself (Atlantic Politics Channel)

Share With Friends:

| Politics - Top Stories Stories, RSS and RSS Feed via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/295510558?client_source=feed&format=rss

no child left behind neurofibromatosis steve jobs fbi file suge knight obama birth control mortgage settlement macauly culkin

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Cash shortage stretches to sea bed

29 March 2013 Last updated at 20:00 ET

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst

The government has admitted moving slowly to protect wildlife in the seas because of the cost.

The environment minister Richard Benyon said that in the current financial squeeze he cannot designate as many areas for protection as he would like.

He said he was hoping to confirm the designation of the current tranche of 31 Marine Protected Zones under a consultation that ends on Sunday.

Environmentalists have accused the government of dragging its feet.

This is because 127 zones were originally nominated for protection after a compromise deal agreed with other users of the sea.

Jolyon Chesworth from the Wildlife Trusts said: "We are disappointed at the rate of progress. The government has an international obligation to protect wildlife in the seas.

Continue reading the main story

I want to do as many zones as we can for as little as we can?

End Quote Richard Benyon Environment minister

"The marine environment is not as obvious to people as it is when they see wildlife walking through a woodland or downland but it's just as important and equally worthy of protection.

"The 127 zones were only nominated after very long discussions with anglers, sailors and the fishing industry. We are now being asked to compromise on a compromise."

But Mr Benyon told the BBC that with cuts to the Defra budget, the cost of making scientific assessments and then developing rules for the use of different areas could not be dismissed.

"We are constrained by a hugely expensive process at a time when we have little money in government", he said.

"I want to do as many zones as we can for as little as we can. People have waited many years for this; we will designate the first tranche in September and will announce the next lot for consultation then."

Environmentalists are worried that the UK might slither back from its international commitment to create an ecologically coherent network of sites.

They are angry that several key sites have been left out of the first tranche on the grounds that insufficient evidence was supplied to justify them.

Sailors' fears

Mr Chesworth said that in his south of England region there was a cast-iron case for designating, among others, Bembridge Levels on the Isle of Wight - home of the stalked jellyfish and Poole Harbour - a key breeding ground for sea horses.

But both of these zones have been contested by sailors who fear that new rules will prevent them anchoring on sensitive sites. One boat owner on the Isle of Wight told Mr Benyon that the designations were "bonkers".

Boaters are the mainstay of the local economy and have lived in harmony with wildlife for decades, he said.

John Pockett from the Royal Yachting Association told the BBC: "We fear we won't be able to anchor our yachts; we fear we won't be able to train our next Ben Ainslie (the Olympian) because we won't be able to anchor marker boats."

Sailors are not the only ones protesting. In some areas fishing crews object to MPZs, even though they are supposed to provide a breeding ground for fish stocks to recover.

Conservationists warn that recently revealed chalk arches off the North Norfolk coast could be destroyed by one careless pass of a trawl net.

A further complication is the fact that UK jurisdiction ends six nautical miles from the shore, even though its responsibility for wildlife stretches further.

"It would be terrible to stop our own fishermen from exploiting a sensitive areas then allow boats of other nationalities to come in", Mr Benyon said. "We are trying to negotiate this with Brussels."

The proposals stem from the 2009 UK Marine Bill. If all the sites had been approved, just over a quarter of English waters would end up under some kind of protection. Currently, the total is way under 1%.

Globally just 0.6% of the world's oceans have been protected, compared to almost 13% of our planet's land area.

Marine author Callum Roberts told the BBC: "There's no way you'll have an effective network of marine-protected areas the way we are going. It's undermining trust."

But public sector cutbacks are a reality. And the government insists that the state of the economy will inevitably be felt on the sea bed, like everywhere else.

Follow Roger on Twitter

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21967189#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

bryce harper may day dan savage new world trade center kellen moore octomom stoudemire

Foster Parents Anywhere?: There is an Intruder at my House

There is someone extra living at my house. ?I am embarrassed to say that I did not notice this fact until several days after she moved in. ?When she arrived, she was hidden among a group of four other teenagers. ?Some of those left and she spent the night here. ?At my house, teenagers tend to come and go often. ?Most of them know that they are welcome to grab a bite to eat and hang out for awhile. ?As a result, I am never quite sure who is staying and who is just visiting. ?When this young lady showed up in my kitchen on Tuesday morning when no one else was home, I started asking questions. ?By this time, I was pretty sure that she had spent the night on Sunday and Monday.

It is now Friday (and she is still here) and I have gotten the full story. ?According to her, she is taking a break from her family. ?According to her mother, she has run away from home. ?According to the parents at the bus stop this morning, I should stop feeding teenagers and they may stop hanging out! ?So here I am wondering how I got dragged into this situation that I do not really want to be in. ?I have known this girl's family for many years and I count them as good friends. ?This puts me in a very sticky situation. ?I do not want to interfere with or judge my friend's parenting style. ?I do not want to enable this girl to hide from her issues. ?I absolutely to do not want another child to support and take care of. ?The five children of my own keep me busy enough.

I asked the parents at the bus stop this morning why teenagers in trouble always land at my house. ?One Mom pointed out that my own teenagers are the ones bringing them home. ?I thought that was very interesting and also true. ?My kids do this a lot. ?It is not unusual for one of them to ask if someone can spend the night or join us for dinner for concerning reasons. ?I am always surprised that my children are compassionate people. ?As I look back, I believe it is because they have learned so much from having foster children in our home. ?Foster children come with horrific stories from their pasts and I guess my children were listening and learning. ?I did not go into foster care planning on turning my biological kids into better people but it is a very nice side effect.

The other reason teenagers end up at my house is because of the food. ?I will sheepishly admit that I an extreme couponer and have been for years. ?As a result, my cupboards are very will stocked with teenager food. ?The only requirement I ask of someone sampling my stockpile is a guess on how much I paid for a particular item. ?I live for the moment that I can say, "it was free!!!!" ?The kids love this and it often turns into a mini episode of the Price is Right. ?Again I have experienced an unexpected side effect to my coupon habit. ?My children's friends like to be at my home because of the food. ?This allows me to get to know them and understand who my children choose as friends. ?As most parents will tell you, I would rather have my kids and their friends at my house than somewhere where I have to worry about them.

I am not sure what I am going to do about the fugitive living in my house yet beyond encouraging this young lady to talk about her situation. ?Sometimes a friend can offer advice that a child will listen to when they won't listen to a parent. ?That is all I have at the moment. ?In the meantime, she is doing a little housework and some laundry to earn her keep. ?I will keep you posted.

Source: http://fosterparentsanywhere.blogspot.com/2013/03/there-is-intruder-at-my-house.html

kanye west Univision josh hamilton Susan Rice American Airlines the Who jon bon jovi