Monday, August 30, 2004
Michael Badnarik is coming to Tucson
Anyway, I am planning on going, but it depends upon my homework and work schedule for the week.
Heard it on the Pro-peace, anti-draft, Bring 'Em Home rally at UA this Thursday."
Anyway, I am planning on going, but it depends upon my homework and work schedule for the week.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:36 PM | |
Am I hearing things?
By the way, if John McCain didn't have the jowl thing going on, he would be kind of cute. But until he loses those jowls, he will look like a cute chipmunk with puffy cheeks.
When John McCain was introduced at the RNC, is it just me or did someone else hear one of the Star War songs? I can't figure it out, but I do recall hearing it before.
By the way, if John McCain didn't have the jowl thing going on, he would be kind of cute. But until he loses those jowls, he will look like a cute chipmunk with puffy cheeks.
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:05 PM | |
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Everything there is on race has been discussed in this post
According to this NYT article, immigrants from Africa (black, by the way, not like the white kid (can't find link, sorry) who said he was African American) are less discriminated against than African-Americans who are natively born.
Part of the reason for this is, perhaps, a different mentality between blacks born in the US with ancestors who were slaves and immigrants, which could be causing people to stereotype accordingly.
However, what seems to be the main issue here is how they define discrimination. Discrimination today means not earning the same amount for the same job (look at the wage gap between men and women--that is often called discrimination but how is it when women tend to value flexibility over higher wages?), having a lower average median wage than whites (or for that instance, other races), being "delegated" to certain jobs (like, according to Thomas Sowell in one of his books--read it last year and don't remember title--blacks and women tend to get their PhDs in subject areas that are not necessarily hard sciences but rather humanities, etc), not getting into colleges because their scores are low on the SAT (oh, biased test indeed), etc.
But if this is what discrimination means, then no wonder these immigrants are being less discriminated against than natively born blacks. If people come to the US with higher levels of education and in different areas, of course they will not be "delegated" to a particular low-paying occupation and their children will tend to do better.
This has turned out to be more rambling than anything, but what I meant to get to was that discrimination is relative to the person using the term and that what is considered to be discrimination is not necessarily the result of race, but the result of how hard people work, of their education.
In America, people have a chance to get ahead. But because that chance is there doesn't mean everyone will or can. However, its not impossible.
Is race the reason people discriminate against blacks and otheres of different colors?
According to this NYT article, immigrants from Africa (black, by the way, not like the white kid (can't find link, sorry) who said he was African American) are less discriminated against than African-Americans who are natively born.
Part of the reason for this is, perhaps, a different mentality between blacks born in the US with ancestors who were slaves and immigrants, which could be causing people to stereotype accordingly.
However, what seems to be the main issue here is how they define discrimination. Discrimination today means not earning the same amount for the same job (look at the wage gap between men and women--that is often called discrimination but how is it when women tend to value flexibility over higher wages?), having a lower average median wage than whites (or for that instance, other races), being "delegated" to certain jobs (like, according to Thomas Sowell in one of his books--read it last year and don't remember title--blacks and women tend to get their PhDs in subject areas that are not necessarily hard sciences but rather humanities, etc), not getting into colleges because their scores are low on the SAT (oh, biased test indeed), etc.
But if this is what discrimination means, then no wonder these immigrants are being less discriminated against than natively born blacks. If people come to the US with higher levels of education and in different areas, of course they will not be "delegated" to a particular low-paying occupation and their children will tend to do better.
This has turned out to be more rambling than anything, but what I meant to get to was that discrimination is relative to the person using the term and that what is considered to be discrimination is not necessarily the result of race, but the result of how hard people work, of their education.
In America, people have a chance to get ahead. But because that chance is there doesn't mean everyone will or can. However, its not impossible.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:07 AM | |
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Media Bias
Occassionally you come across a Live Journal that isn't full of teenage angst, and today's prime example is xorus. In his post, he does a nice job of not only refuting John Kerry (which doesn't seem too difficult now-a-days) but also highlighting the biases in news, or, in this case, on Yahoo from the AP.
posted by Laura Keslar at 8:45 AM | |
Friday, August 27, 2004
My first full length published column and my first criticism
But anyway, here is my article. And the letter to the editor, which I haven't read yet. And yes, I know. I look like a dork. At least there. I promise I am not typically that disheveled. Or that red. But thats the result of running from where I live to the PSU where the Wildcat office is.
Oh, and yes, I realize its not exactly as conservative as everyone would like me to be, however, while I like what PAN proposes to do, I think they are using false advertisement to get their point across. And I really don't think it will do much because its a bit vague on certain things like public benefits. And lastly, while I think this is as much of a state responsibility as a federal responsibility, we cannot cut down on the costs associated with illegal immigration if the federal government demands that the state provide healthcare and education. But because I could only go on for so long, eh, I didnt include it. Ah well.
All in all, I do not think Prop 200 will do what its proponents suggest, partly because of federal regulation as well as state feet-dragging. What needs to happen is something totally different.
And part of that is reducing the benefits and raising the costs of illegally immigrating. While PAN will do that in part, it cannot do enough of it to make a real dent into the problem of illegal immigration.
Ok, I have now read the letter to the editor. *sigh*
I do not see how PAN will encourage people to go home. Life here in the United States, even without the benefits that PAN will take away, is still better than that in Mexico. Will someone explain to me why people come to the United States? Partially because its the land of opportunity. Partially because of the benefits. Partially because of the ability to work and make a living. There are greater advantages to living in the United States other than free healthcare and the like.
What most people want is the ability to make sure their children can get ahead in life, to rise above their own places. Are people in Mexico any different? I think not.
I still do not waver from what I have said about PAN. I doubt it will do even what it proposes to do. And for all that money going into it, to make it work. Is it really worth it? Wouldnt it be better spent doing other things that might actually make a difference?
Wow. There was actual letters to the editor written because of what I wrote in the school paper. I am afraid to read what they have to say. Yes. Dork. I hear you. I will get over it.
But anyway, here is my article. And the letter to the editor, which I haven't read yet. And yes, I know. I look like a dork. At least there. I promise I am not typically that disheveled. Or that red. But thats the result of running from where I live to the PSU where the Wildcat office is.
Oh, and yes, I realize its not exactly as conservative as everyone would like me to be, however, while I like what PAN proposes to do, I think they are using false advertisement to get their point across. And I really don't think it will do much because its a bit vague on certain things like public benefits. And lastly, while I think this is as much of a state responsibility as a federal responsibility, we cannot cut down on the costs associated with illegal immigration if the federal government demands that the state provide healthcare and education. But because I could only go on for so long, eh, I didnt include it. Ah well.
All in all, I do not think Prop 200 will do what its proponents suggest, partly because of federal regulation as well as state feet-dragging. What needs to happen is something totally different.
And part of that is reducing the benefits and raising the costs of illegally immigrating. While PAN will do that in part, it cannot do enough of it to make a real dent into the problem of illegal immigration.
Ok, I have now read the letter to the editor. *sigh*
I do not see how PAN will encourage people to go home. Life here in the United States, even without the benefits that PAN will take away, is still better than that in Mexico. Will someone explain to me why people come to the United States? Partially because its the land of opportunity. Partially because of the benefits. Partially because of the ability to work and make a living. There are greater advantages to living in the United States other than free healthcare and the like.
What most people want is the ability to make sure their children can get ahead in life, to rise above their own places. Are people in Mexico any different? I think not.
I still do not waver from what I have said about PAN. I doubt it will do even what it proposes to do. And for all that money going into it, to make it work. Is it really worth it? Wouldnt it be better spent doing other things that might actually make a difference?
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:33 PM | |
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Faculty Political Activism
*Well, politics not relating to class, which includes, but not limited to how horrible Ashcroft is, that Bush is bent on destroying the world, etc.
Someone needs to tell the faculty that teaching class is for teaching the class...which means the subject. If I am in a class for chemistry, you better teach me chemistry not how Ashcroft plans to steal all our rights or that the war on terrorism is just one gigantic farce to steal Iraq's oil supply. Seriously, I have only had two gen-ed classes go overboard on the Bush administration bashing--and this was extreme Bush-bashing--whereas I have had more than four or five (at least one science class professor each semester) talk about the evils of Bush.
And then, when someone censors them telling the faculty not to use school resources to lecture on about politics--of any sort--they get all upset as if they were the one's who were being wronged. They claim that their freedom of speech is being stiffled and that such request by school officials stiffle debate. True, the professors need to play devil's advocates at times, but do they need to be doing that on a lecture about chemical safety? Or how about photoelectic chemistry?
I think not. But hey, who is asking me?
All I ask is that they teach the class.
I have realized one thing. I hear more about politics in my science courses than I do in my fine arts, political science*, and other random gen ed courses I must take.
*Well, politics not relating to class, which includes, but not limited to how horrible Ashcroft is, that Bush is bent on destroying the world, etc.
Someone needs to tell the faculty that teaching class is for teaching the class...which means the subject. If I am in a class for chemistry, you better teach me chemistry not how Ashcroft plans to steal all our rights or that the war on terrorism is just one gigantic farce to steal Iraq's oil supply. Seriously, I have only had two gen-ed classes go overboard on the Bush administration bashing--and this was extreme Bush-bashing--whereas I have had more than four or five (at least one science class professor each semester) talk about the evils of Bush.
And then, when someone censors them telling the faculty not to use school resources to lecture on about politics--of any sort--they get all upset as if they were the one's who were being wronged. They claim that their freedom of speech is being stiffled and that such request by school officials stiffle debate. True, the professors need to play devil's advocates at times, but do they need to be doing that on a lecture about chemical safety? Or how about photoelectic chemistry?
I think not. But hey, who is asking me?
All I ask is that they teach the class.
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:39 PM | |
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Another big surprise, for at least
Interestingly enough, I also applied to the University of Arizona's Wildcat to be a columnist there and after an interview on Thursday, I was accepted. Received the call tonight. Excitement all around.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:31 PM | |
Farewell Windy
It looks as though my dog of nineteen years is finally being put to sleep this Monday. She was a good dog. I love her. She will be missed.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:02 PM | |
Revenge of the Nerds
However, I was never warned about the sexual content of that movie. (Yes, I am such a prude. I still cover my eyes whenever I see anyone kissing on the television.) It was highly embarrassing to watch with my father and my mother (this was over summer; I still need to watch Top Gun as part of my pop culture education). It got to the point that my father got up and left and I had to fastforward throughout certain portions.
Without the sexual content, however, it woud have been a marvelously cute movie.
But with this in mind, as I watched the movie, I kept shouting out that I knew where that building was and which building that one was. I kept pointing at the dorm Cochise and telling my mother that it was the all boys dorm until this year and she kept asking where in the movie the dorm was featured. Oy.
And because I knew where the movie was filmed (other than the Greek affiliated parts), which buildings were used, does that really make me a nerd or just a student who has gone to school way too long and just desires to graduate sometime in the not so distant future?
UPDATE: But you know, I readily stand by my status as a nerd. Just ask the crazy girl next door.
Having never seen the Revenge of the Nerds, I was convinced by friends that it was a must to watch, partly because I attended the school where it was filmed and partly because it was such a, dare I say, classic.
However, I was never warned about the sexual content of that movie. (Yes, I am such a prude. I still cover my eyes whenever I see anyone kissing on the television.) It was highly embarrassing to watch with my father and my mother (this was over summer; I still need to watch Top Gun as part of my pop culture education). It got to the point that my father got up and left and I had to fastforward throughout certain portions.
Without the sexual content, however, it woud have been a marvelously cute movie.
But with this in mind, as I watched the movie, I kept shouting out that I knew where that building was and which building that one was. I kept pointing at the dorm Cochise and telling my mother that it was the all boys dorm until this year and she kept asking where in the movie the dorm was featured. Oy.
And because I knew where the movie was filmed (other than the Greek affiliated parts), which buildings were used, does that really make me a nerd or just a student who has gone to school way too long and just desires to graduate sometime in the not so distant future?
UPDATE: But you know, I readily stand by my status as a nerd. Just ask the crazy girl next door.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:04 AM | |
Friday, August 20, 2004
Somethings about the UA that I must have missed
Specimen #1 and Specimen #2. Here is the original link to the story.
This $10 million grant should come as no surprise for those of us who have known that the University of Arizona has been trying to acheive and maintain its reputation as a Hispanic serving institution.
My only question is, how are the school officials and departments going to change math, of all subjects, so it caters to a different cultural base? Change the word problems so that instead of saying that "Joseph has two apples and Mary has five," it will say "Jose has two apples and Maria has five?" (Or, even better, since this is college age students: "Jose bebe dos cervezas y Maria bebe cinco cervezas.") But honestly, how much change can occur in mathematics so that it becomes culturally sensitive. I was always of the mind that it was one of those few subjects (along with most physical sciences) that was free from cultural biases. Guess I was wrong, because:
Browsing through my daily readings from my blogroll, I found two interesting posts (well, one was linked at Gene Expression) about the University of Arizona and how it is trying to cater to the hispanic population:
Specimen #1 and Specimen #2. Here is the original link to the story.
This $10 million grant should come as no surprise for those of us who have known that the University of Arizona has been trying to acheive and maintain its reputation as a Hispanic serving institution.
My only question is, how are the school officials and departments going to change math, of all subjects, so it caters to a different cultural base? Change the word problems so that instead of saying that "Joseph has two apples and Mary has five," it will say "Jose has two apples and Maria has five?" (Or, even better, since this is college age students: "Jose bebe dos cervezas y Maria bebe cinco cervezas.") But honestly, how much change can occur in mathematics so that it becomes culturally sensitive. I was always of the mind that it was one of those few subjects (along with most physical sciences) that was free from cultural biases. Guess I was wrong, because:
Educators can take advantage of the way Latinos express concepts of the world and the way they interact with parents and the community to build a better math program for them, Marx said.
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:18 AM | |
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Doctrinal error introduced by subtle changes in Bible
But anyway, I think its rather amusing how WND has an article complaining about Bible corruptions and yet it marketed, at least for a while, a bible version that was aimed toward teens dressed up as a magazine (currently, it looks as though they do not have the advertisement anymore...point remains).
It won't be by the obvious that the church and its doctrine is subverted. No, it will be by the subtle. The slight twisting. After all, the serpent tempted Eve by a slight twisting of what God said.
2Co 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
But anyway, I think its rather amusing how WND has an article complaining about Bible corruptions and yet it marketed, at least for a while, a bible version that was aimed toward teens dressed up as a magazine (currently, it looks as though they do not have the advertisement anymore...point remains).
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:59 PM | |
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Why I Don't Like McCain [Part IV]
In the past, he, along with Senator Feingold, proposed what later became a law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. True, President Bush didn't veto it and he signed it even though he had some hesitations on it, but...McCain was actively involved in limiting the rights of Americans.
Reason #4: This time, he is interested in something just as disturbing: a national ID card or some variation thereof.
I started this "Why I don't like (Senator John) McCain" list in response to several people from out of state, especially, why Senator McCain is so bad. At the time, I never had concrete evidence and they were able to lambast me with the response that he wants to "cut pork." Well, he might and has done a satisfactory job trying to do that in the past; and yes, he is a veteran. But when this man proposes or supports certain legislation, actions, or the like from the government, he is a serious threat.
In the past, he, along with Senator Feingold, proposed what later became a law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. True, President Bush didn't veto it and he signed it even though he had some hesitations on it, but...McCain was actively involved in limiting the rights of Americans.
Reason #4: This time, he is interested in something just as disturbing: a national ID card or some variation thereof.
Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., who said he would file bills to implement the commission's recommendations, indicated he was interested in a national ID card.
posted by Laura Keslar at 5:06 PM | |
Oh my, what great hair you have!
But the part that I really love was the last line:
"No, Don't Really Vote for Kerry."
(Via Blue Goldfish | Surface)
There was a time when I thought I should vote for Kerry. No, don't stone me. The way I figured it was that it would postpone another Clinton administration for at least eight years. But that was a long time ago when I was being silly. But I thought this list from The Flying Space Monkey was utterly hilarious and a great reminder of the silliness which is prevalent in this current election, both among the politicians and the constituents:
10 Really nice hair, even if he likes to cover it with his magic hat
9 A Republican President could finally be on the West Wing for balance.
8 His changing stances on everything may make our enemies so confused they suffer mental breakdown.
7 He's already done what many consider the impossible, make Ted Kennedy look conservative. What else can he do? Melt terrorists with his heat vision?
6 He honestly agrees with everyone even if its only half of the time.
5 His running mate can contact those who've 'crossed over'
4 As a cost cutting effort, we won't need translators to meet with the French or citizens of Hamsterland
3 Plummeting stock prices will give lots of people the opportunity to 'buy low.'
2 His victory would keep Hillary out of the White House for 8 full years, minimum.
And the number one reason to Vote for John Kerry,
1 You gotta admit, the man knows how to get out of a warzone with barely a scratch on him
But the part that I really love was the last line:
"No, Don't Really Vote for Kerry."
(Via Blue Goldfish | Surface)
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:43 PM | |
What is with everyone all of a sudden talking about wealth and various subsets and causes and whatnot of it:
AnarCapLib - Population and Propserity
Cafe Hayek - Causes of Poverty
Common Knowedge - Balancing Hard and Soft Power
I realize that this isn't technically everyone, but it seems that a good portion of those blogs which I identify as economic in nature have deemed this an appropriate subject matter on which to blog.
posted by Laura Keslar at 9:49 AM | |
Monday, August 16, 2004
I am back in Tucson, thank goodness. And to celebrate the goodness, I will post some of the random things people have searched for to get here:
1. too big to spank keslar - Um. Ok. (Only later did I discover that it was a book.) Disturbing.
2. disappearing magic - No, we do not have any disappearing magic here, but we do have a magically disappearing blogroll that has since been fixed
3. mudwrestling jason lover feminist - What the...no...I really don't want to know
4. blog "going to spank me" - I am *so* not into BDSM and even if I were, this is not the place where I would document those escapades.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:02 PM | |
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Pretty name, pretty face
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.
Not only is my name a pretty name to sign (oh, I love the way the L makes when you sign it in cursive. Very pretty.) but it also can make me more attractive.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.
posted by Laura Keslar at 7:42 PM | |
English...everywhere you want to be
What did I tell you? English is the common tongue in Europe. While it might be a good thing in order to spread the use of the KJV throughout Europe and hopefully other non-European countries as well, the article does point to the...bad side of such usage:
One big question now is whether the generalised use of English as a first or second language will accelerate the political integration of the EU. The spread of English will lower the language barrier which has, arguably, obstructed pan-European political debate. It will open the way to the formation of pan-European public opinion, and to politicians with pan-European appeal. But there have been empires, like the Soviet one, which had common languages and still fell apart. A language can help a good political system work better, but it cannot rescue a bad one.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:15 PM | |
A First Lady Contest: Not just limited to mudwrestling
I am not sure. I think the mudwrestling contest would have been great...if they werent so old.
I am finally glad someone else realized it might be quite interesting testing the skills of the potential first ladies for the next presidential term. While I have suggested a mudwrestling contest in the past, other suggestions have been made at Cafe Hayek like a heptathlon:
The faceoff is held in a studio created to look like the White House. Each contestant would have to host a brunch for the DAR, meet with school children visiting from Ohio, lead a task force on education policy, film a public service announcement about some social problem, defend her husband at an impromptu press conference, sit next to a drunken Prime Minister of a foreign nation at a three hour state dinner and finally, waltz with her husband wearing a dress designed in the nineteenth century. The hard part is waltzing while you're holding the javelin.
I am not sure. I think the mudwrestling contest would have been great...if they werent so old.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:08 PM | |
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Not alone at 2 AM
I am so glad to find out that I am not the only one hoping someone posts in the early hours. All I ask is that someone, anyone, stays up and posts for my blogging amusements.
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:30 PM | |
The Mechisto Candidate w/ Raul Grijalva
Due to the lovely red x I just made, I am going to suggest checking out Garrett's fun with Photoshop (or, in his case, GIMP). Sort of makes me wish I could make the best of my pirated copy of Photoshop.
posted by Laura Keslar at 1:13 AM | |
I am so there
It looks as though the US' former ambassador to Uruguay will be speaking at the University of Arizona's Rogers College of Law on Thursday, September 23 from 4-5 pm. Anyone interested or with the time ought to show up. Might be interesting, considering that he will be speaking about international law.
Well, if I didnt have to work at the time, I would have been so there.
It looks as though the US' former ambassador to Uruguay will be speaking at the University of Arizona's Rogers College of Law on Thursday, September 23 from 4-5 pm. Anyone interested or with the time ought to show up. Might be interesting, considering that he will be speaking about international law.
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:32 AM | |
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Left or right, there is a little dictator inside each of us
Godless' response to the study was
While I tend to agree, mostly, I believe that there are other factors involved.
For instance, the way the paper was written gives some indication as to why liberals are opposed to giving their money to someone else to redistribute:
What it seems like is that if people want a program instituted, they don't want just anyone's government program instituted--they want theirs. They want to be the one who controls it. Ultimately, anytime someone wants further taxation or further government intrusion, its not to accomplish the ends of some other party--but a means to accomplish their own ends.
In other words, they want to control how it will be spent, what it goes for--to be, at least, a mini-dictator.
So you wonder why people are less likely to give their money to someone else. It relinquishes control not only over themselves but does not allow for them to establish their own little dictatorship.
Godless at Gene Expression posted the results of an interesting study concerning the giving of people of different political persuasions.
"Some would argue that liberals are indeed generous, albeit with others' money," the researchers noted wryly in a just-published working paper provocatively titled "Do Liberals Play Nice?"
Godless' response to the study was
But in a nutshell, this is the difference between expressed preference and actual preference. Economic leftists may talk about how they want to live in a "caring society", but mainly because they forecast themselves as potential net recipients. When presented with a bill for (say) some anonymous individual's hospital costs (which is what socialized medicine is about), people will choose to opt out if they can...and as the paper shows, they are even more likely to do so in the absence of public shaming.
While I tend to agree, mostly, I believe that there are other factors involved.
For instance, the way the paper was written gives some indication as to why liberals are opposed to giving their money to someone else to redistribute:
Self-described liberals were more likely to support increased public spending and redistributive programs. But when asked to put their faith in others or contribute money to the larger good, lefties were no more munificent or trusting than right-thinkers.
What it seems like is that if people want a program instituted, they don't want just anyone's government program instituted--they want theirs. They want to be the one who controls it. Ultimately, anytime someone wants further taxation or further government intrusion, its not to accomplish the ends of some other party--but a means to accomplish their own ends.
In other words, they want to control how it will be spent, what it goes for--to be, at least, a mini-dictator.
So you wonder why people are less likely to give their money to someone else. It relinquishes control not only over themselves but does not allow for them to establish their own little dictatorship.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:48 PM | |
The magic disappearing blogroll
Ok, is it just me or did my blogroll disappear? Well, this might mean I need to be a little bit more innovative with my blogroll...or just stop being downright lazy in regards to my blogroll. Gr. I'll give it a day. I noticed this yesterday.
posted by Laura Keslar at 11:06 PM | |
Same Ol' Solution to Teen Vices
So it seems that the US and the UK are suffering from similar problems.
But nothing in this article is new. There are the same old problems and the same old solutions:
True, increasing prices of cigarettes would discourage teenagers, who notoriously have little money of their own, from purchasing cigarettes, how is it that the tobacco companies are going to maintain, or want to maintain the high prices?
This can be accomplished through two manners that I can think of: taxation or forcing the companies to raise prices.
In either case, the solution doesnt allow the free market to work and puts into practice a form of government where the government controls the prices and ultimately the production and consumption of goods.
Surely, there are other ways to prevent teens from smoking besides government intervention.
Perusing New Scientist, I came across an article about teen health in the UK.
"It seems that adolescents are the only group whose health is getting worse," says Russell Viner, consultant in adolescent medicine at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.
So it seems that the US and the UK are suffering from similar problems.
But nothing in this article is new. There are the same old problems and the same old solutions:
The BMA is calling for a comprehensive plan to tackle the root causes of deteriorating teenage health. It recommends a ban on alcohol advertising and an increase in the price of cigarettes to reduce their affordability to teenagers.
True, increasing prices of cigarettes would discourage teenagers, who notoriously have little money of their own, from purchasing cigarettes, how is it that the tobacco companies are going to maintain, or want to maintain the high prices?
This can be accomplished through two manners that I can think of: taxation or forcing the companies to raise prices.
In either case, the solution doesnt allow the free market to work and puts into practice a form of government where the government controls the prices and ultimately the production and consumption of goods.
Surely, there are other ways to prevent teens from smoking besides government intervention.
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:46 AM | |
America, the tolerant
(Thanks to QueerDay)
America is no longer the small-minded place it was? Well, two Scottish lesbians think its quite the open-minded place:
We had thought of moving to America because of small-minded attitudes but thought we needed to make a stand.
(Thanks to QueerDay)
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:13 AM | |
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Can't find link
This has become ultimately frustrating.
Yesterday I read a post concerning how the federal government was suing a particular drug company because the company sold its products to a particular group of people for less than what it offered to Medicare. If anyone has the link, or at least knows where I can find it quickly (I am sure I read it on a blog...but I could be wrong), I would greatly appreciate knowing where it is at (if you can, post the link here. I will forever be in your debt).
This has become ultimately frustrating.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:18 PM | |
