A man, Gregory Lanier, was driving his truck with his bulldog in the passenger seat. He had a .380 pistol that he thought was unloaded on the floor between the driver and passenger's seat. His bulldog was jumping around and hit the gun which was loaded. The bullet went through Lanier's leg and hit the door on the other side. I think that driving with a gun that your not even sure if it's loaded or not and a jumpy little dog is stupid and shouldn't be done. http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets/bulldog-accidentally-shoots-owner-130228.htm
As the country begins to turn to the general election next November, immigration remains a difficult issue for both political parties. During the early Republican primary debates, candidates talked enthusiastically about mass deportations and expanding, doubling, and even electrifying the U.S. southern border fence to keep people out. As the field has narrowed, the leading contenders have continued with a hard-line. Romney in particular, though widely seen as a centrist candidate, has taken an unyielding stance on immigration, supporting Arizona’s and Alabama’s restrictive laws and aligning himself with their architect - well-known anti-immigrant official Kris Kobach.
The tone got so strident in the lead up to the Florida primary on January 31 that Florida Senator Marco Rubio (who many say is a potential candidate for Vice President) chastised the Republican candidates for “harsh and intolerable and inexcusable” anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The Democratic Party’s discourse has been more measured. Though all condemn illegal immigration, most speak of immigrants as “folks ... just trying to earn a living and provide for their families,” no different from so many forebearers. But in concrete terms, President Obama has little to show immigrants - and more importantly Hispanic voters - from his three plus years in office.
During his time in the White House he failed to pass the Dream Act (which would give undocumented individuals that came here as children the chance to come clean by enrolling in a college or enlisting in the military), much less a more comprehensive immigration reform. What the administration has done is increase deportation to record levels, though now it is working to remove otherwise law-abiding, unauthorized individuals from the deportation queue.
These conflicting positions and heated debates show that the politics of immigration has changed little since the failed 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, championed at the time by Senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain. Yet immigration itself has changed dramatically.
For over a decade, Mexicans have represented roughly a third of all U.S.-bound migrants. In the mid-2000s roughly half a million Mexicans joined the U.S. population each year (fairly evenly divided between legal and illegal entries). But since then, migration from our southern neighbor has declined greatly, to the point that in 2011 net inflows neared zero. The change isn’t only happening with Mexican migrants. Inflows from other countries such as China, and the Philipines show declines as well.
Many factors are behind this shift. One is economic - the downturn in the U.S. economy and economic resilience in other places has altered the cost-benefit analysis of leaving home. Particularly in countries such as China, India, Korea, and Brazil, anecdotal evidence suggests that economic growth is luring back migrants, who bring with them new skills and resources.
The decline in migration also comes in part from increased border enforcement. Since 2004, the border patrol has doubled to some 20,000 strong, with annual budget outlays reaching nearly $3.5 billion. The increased manpower have made at least some immigrants think twice about facing the mortal danger of crossing through the desert.
But perhaps the most important shift, at least for Mexican immigration, is demographic. Forty years ago, the average Mexican family had six children. This number dropped steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990s, until by the turn of the 21st century they averaged just over two per family (similar to the United States). This means that going forward, each year fewer Mexicans will be coming of age and looking for jobs. Combined with rising high school and college enrolments, fewer Mexicans need or want to come to the United States - a trend likely to continue for the forseeable future.
This doesn’t mean that U.S.-bound migration will end, as economic opportunities and family ties will still draw many north. It also doesn’t apply to every country. Flows from Central America, Africa, and from other places around the world continue unabated. But it does fundamentally change the nature of U.S.-bound immigration, likely permanently. This has yet to feed into U.S. political debates.
Politicians today are looking for ways to attract the now over twenty million potential Hispanic voters, roughly 10 percent of electorate. Both Republicans and Democrats face challenges in rallying this growing demographic. Republicans need to cut into Obama’s wide margin (more than two-thirds) among Latino voters, finding some way to gain their trust and backing. Democrats need to get out this favorable Hispanic vote, as they are still the least likely of the main ethnic groups to go to the polls.
Latinos have the potential to swing a close election. In fact, some analysts suggest that Obama will likely win or lose a second term based on the turnout and electoral support he gets from this constituency in the battlegrounds of Florida, Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. And though surveys show that Hispanics care most about the economy, education, and healthcare, immigration matters to them as well - particularly when it stirs worries of broader discrimination.
Whoever wins, the real challenge for tomorrow’s President will be how to deal with the fundamental shifts within the U.S. migrant population. Changing the rhetoric is a necessary start. Some politicians do see this.
During a CNN debate on national security, Newt Gingrich said "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter of a century." But others don’t.
Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” solution to illegal immigration ignores the underlying reality - that millions of America’s undocumented immigrants have deep roots in American society that go far beyond employment. They won’t voluntarily leave behind their families and their lives, even if they lose their jobs. Only by reframing the debate can America hope to find a sustainable solution that balances economic needs, family and community ties, and respect for the law.
A newly discovered owl species lives on just one Indonesian island and whistles a one-note “song” that rhymes with the name of its island. The Rinjani Scops owl is found on the island of Lombok, according to a paper published in the latest PLoS ONE. Its song sounds like “pok.” (Although sometimes it makes a “pooook” sound too.) Its scientific name is Otus jolandae, after the wife of a researcher. The new species was long confused with a more widespread Indonesian owl because they share similar plumage. Two members of a research team, however, have independently discovered that the vocalizations of the owls on Lombok are unique and different from all other Indonesian owls. “It was quite a coincidence that two of us identified this new bird species on different parts of the same island, within a few days of being on the island,” George Sangster, who led the study, was quoted as saying in a press release. “That is quite a coincidence, especially considering that no-one had noticed anything special about these owls in the previous 100 years.” Sangster, a researcher at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, and his colleagues surveyed neighboring islands and could find no evidence for the owl. They therefore believe that it is unique to Lombok. In terms of its unique song, this owl whistles the “pok” note. Locals on the island refer to the bird now as “burung pok,” an onomatopoeic name reflecting the song note of the wide-eyed bird.
Lots of people use 3-D printers to sculpt plastic. But some are using them to shape cells. A team of researchers at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, led by Will Shu, has built a printer that can lay down human stem cells in tiny spheres. Printing human cells has been done before, with bone marrow or skin. Those types of cells, however, are resilient compared to the more delicate embryonic stem cells. “The technique will allow us to create more accurate human tissue models which are essential to in vitro drug development and toxicity-testing. Since the majority of drug discovery is targeting human disease, it makes sense to use human tissues.” Shu said in a press release. The scientists used a printer that has specialized valves, which are adjustable and control the rate at which the cells are released. That allowed them to put the stem cells where they are needed and keep them intact. Stem cells are the building blocks of organs and tissues; they are “generic” cells that can become specific kinds when exposed to the right conditions. But one of the difficulties with them is that they are delicate; if the printer doesn’t treat them gently they will lose their ability to differentiate into various cell types. Shu and his team built a printer that forms the cells into tiny spheres, while keeping them alive. In the longer term, the printer could help build organs for transplants or repair. Since the printer can put stem cells in a three-dimensional pattern, it could build a small “patch” for a heart or kidney that would be made from stem cells cloned from the patient. Shu’s team worked in partnership with Roslin Cellab, a company that plans to commercialize the technology.
Evidence is growing that dogs were once valued for their meat and regularly were consumed in California and likely other places throughout the world.“Dogs are reared (or were) largely for the flesh which they supply ... like the farmer’s yellow-legged chicken, when other meat is scarce,” wrote Stephen Powers of the U.S. Department of the Interior, referring to the practices of Yokut Native Americans in his 1877 “Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.” In 1991, Lynn Snyder in a University of Tennessee publication, noted that dogs often have a high fat content compared to other food sources and, unlike wild animals, their fat content varies little between seasons. Dogs then would have been an attractive food source, particularly during the winter and early spring, when wild food sources were lean. The latest evidence comes from a recent study of multiple 2,000-year-old canine burials in California, with a focus on what are now the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento Delta regions. The study, accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, represents the first to employ DNA analysis on canines from archaeological sites in the golden state. Some of the California canine remains previously had been attributed to coyotes and wolves, but DNA determined the bones belonged to dogs. Certain burials showed that the dogs had their hindquarters removed before internment. Dog bones were also found buried with a wide range of associated offerings, such as red ochre, quartz crystals, pipes, abalone shells and baskets still containing seeds. Native American tribes, such as the Ohlone, Coast Miwok and Patwin, dominated the territories at the time. Differences in the dog burials could therefore reflect differences in how dogs were valued and treated by the diverse groups. In some cases, it appears that dogs were ritually killed, with two lines of evidence supporting that theory, according to lead author Brian Byrd of the Far Western Anthropological Research Group. “These include occasional removal of a portion of the individual and the inclusion of rare, esoteric objects within the internment,” Byrd told Discovery News. “If the dogs were just pets or companions that died of natural causes, then we would not expect to find this pattern. Similarly, double internments are unlikely to represent natural deaths, given the odds of two dogs dying at the same time.” Byrd and his team conducted isotopic analysis of the dog remains and found that the animals, when alive, “had a diet similar to humans.” The dogs therefore either scavenged food near human settlements, or were fed scraps and leftovers. Dogs may have been sacrificed as food for the dead or for other rituals. An initiation ceremony among the Patwin, for example, involved wounding the person and then covering that initiation wound with a bandage. “This bandage has been dipped in the blood of a dog previously killed,” wrote A.L. Kroeber in a 1932 University of California-published ethnography. Ann Gayton, in another ethnography published by the University of California, described what happened among Yokuts when upland groups congregated at the foothill village of Chischas. “The men arrived making skirmishes with their bows and arrows, killing dogs and chickens with permission from the Chischas, and afterward paid the latter with beads,” Gayton recorded. “Then they commenced to eat them with great pleasure.” Dogs fulfilled other roles too, including helping with hunting, guarding villages, serving as beasts of burden and -- more in keeping with today’s view -- serving as companions.“I think what is clear is that dogs were valued, and that their roles in these societies were varied and complicated,” Byrd said.
|