Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Cultural Reactivism?
Reactive culturalism is defined as a "response [that] entails a strict adherence to a group's traditional laws, norms, and practicies as part of an identity group's active resistance to external forces of change [....] In all, these amount to attempts to more clearly demarcate the group's boundaries by walling it off from the outside world."
And that is what will happen as a result of these marches by the students, with the upside down American flags topped by a flying Mexican flag. The only thing is, that it will be the average voting American (yes, I understand that that concept is "changing") is gonig to be the one to "more clearly demarcate the group's boundaries" by literally "walling it" (think America) "off from the outside world" (think Mexico).
Michelle Malkin had it right: "I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington."
(BTW, thanks Garrett, for the MM link)
Currently reading Multicultural Jurisdictions:Cultural Differences and Women's Rights by Ayelet Shachar. He describes three types of responses toward "assimilation pressures" from the state: full assimilation, limited particularism, and reactive culturalism.
Reactive culturalism is defined as a "response [that] entails a strict adherence to a group's traditional laws, norms, and practicies as part of an identity group's active resistance to external forces of change [....] In all, these amount to attempts to more clearly demarcate the group's boundaries by walling it off from the outside world."
And that is what will happen as a result of these marches by the students, with the upside down American flags topped by a flying Mexican flag. The only thing is, that it will be the average voting American (yes, I understand that that concept is "changing") is gonig to be the one to "more clearly demarcate the group's boundaries" by literally "walling it" (think America) "off from the outside world" (think Mexico).
Michelle Malkin had it right: "I predict this stunt will be the nail in the coffin of any guest-worker/amnesty plan on the table in Washington."
(BTW, thanks Garrett, for the MM link)
posted by Laura Keslar at 12:58 PM | |
Monday, March 27, 2006
For my Aunt Sal
I am too lazy to make myself a wedding website and, as a result, I will continue using my lovely blog to post all the mundane things, information, etc for those who care but mostly on the sidebar.
All I know so far is that we have a chapel picked out (cheesy website, I know. The place is better than the site); a reception site picked out; like the colors purple and gold (hard to imagine, I know--I promise, no pimp weddings); have my gown picked out; have Giovanna, Apryl, Ashley, and Carerra as my bridesmaids; know where we are going for our honeymoon (January 5-January 13, 2007 to Malaga, Spain with a day in London); have registered (at both Target and Bed, Bath, and Beyond with both of us wanting to register at Sears as well); and obviously know the date of our wedding.
I promise, when I have more time, to actually post this stuff in more detail.
...who I know is looking me up from Atlanta using the search string "Laura Keslar."
I am too lazy to make myself a wedding website and, as a result, I will continue using my lovely blog to post all the mundane things, information, etc for those who care but mostly on the sidebar.
All I know so far is that we have a chapel picked out (cheesy website, I know. The place is better than the site); a reception site picked out; like the colors purple and gold (hard to imagine, I know--I promise, no pimp weddings); have my gown picked out; have Giovanna, Apryl, Ashley, and Carerra as my bridesmaids; know where we are going for our honeymoon (January 5-January 13, 2007 to Malaga, Spain with a day in London); have registered (at both Target and Bed, Bath, and Beyond with both of us wanting to register at Sears as well); and obviously know the date of our wedding.
I promise, when I have more time, to actually post this stuff in more detail.
posted by Laura Keslar at 3:19 PM | |
Let's make a political statement!
On another immigration note: we have all heard about homeless dumping by hospitals, but illegal dumping?
Ok. Maybe not the right word. But I heard from one of my fellow pharmacy students who works at a local Tucson hospital a weird story. If someone can verify it or correct me, please do.
Anyway, he said that when an illegal immigrant is injured and requires hospital attention, the border patrol will actually leave the immigrant there and not pick them up. If they did pick them up, then the Border Patrol would be responsible for that illegal's health care (which is a big sum of money). So instead, the hospital just gives the illegal immigrant's friend or family member located elsewhere in the state a call to pick him up.
"At least 11 million illegal immigrants, most of them from neighbouring Mexico, live in the United States and are responsible for keeping the human machinery of US cities humming." - BREITBART
On another immigration note: we have all heard about homeless dumping by hospitals, but illegal dumping?
Ok. Maybe not the right word. But I heard from one of my fellow pharmacy students who works at a local Tucson hospital a weird story. If someone can verify it or correct me, please do.
Anyway, he said that when an illegal immigrant is injured and requires hospital attention, the border patrol will actually leave the immigrant there and not pick them up. If they did pick them up, then the Border Patrol would be responsible for that illegal's health care (which is a big sum of money). So instead, the hospital just gives the illegal immigrant's friend or family member located elsewhere in the state a call to pick him up.
posted by Laura Keslar at 2:58 PM | |
Thursday, March 23, 2006
So if whiny babies turn out to be conservative
...do self-reliant babies turn out to be bad lovers?
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:20 PM | |
Oh the things we learn in class
Today, in a class that introduces first year students to the top 200 drugs, we learned that less and less antibiotics are being produced. According to the article in class, the drug manufacturers were reluctant to conduct reasearch and develop the less profitable antibiotics and more likely to do research for drugs that treat chronic illnesses like arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes. The article then indicated that the government keeps funneling moneys and funds to research attached to a big scare disease--like cancer--instead of the little scares of drug resistant germs.
Though this sounds like part of the problem, what other reasons exist as to why companies have forshook new antibiotic research and development. In other words, what has the government done with restrictions, etc to make companies rather produce other meds.
Some of the recommendations that have been made have requested for a relaxation of government regulation (some of which include "reducing the costs of clinical trials (i.e., regulatory flexibility concerning the evidence necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy; NIAID-sponsored research to develop rapid diagnostic tests, etc.)" as well as having "Congress [...] implement administrative recommendations at FDA and NIAID to facilitate the approval processes for manufacturers of new antibiotics").
Part of the problem simply sounds like overprotection from the government. Yes they want to prevent that one death, that one Thalidomide baby, from appearing on the front page of a newspaper. And so would I. But what of those individuals who merely want a chance to way their risks and their benefits, those people who think getting rid of their rheumatoid arthritis pain at the risk of developing a stroke. Or maybe, what about those thousands of death that occur because a drug was not approved this year that could have helped save those people's lives.
I guess as Stalin (or was it Lenin) said: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
Economics and politics pop up in class, even when you are just studying drugs like antibiotics.
Today, in a class that introduces first year students to the top 200 drugs, we learned that less and less antibiotics are being produced. According to the article in class, the drug manufacturers were reluctant to conduct reasearch and develop the less profitable antibiotics and more likely to do research for drugs that treat chronic illnesses like arthritis, hypertension, and diabetes. The article then indicated that the government keeps funneling moneys and funds to research attached to a big scare disease--like cancer--instead of the little scares of drug resistant germs.
Though this sounds like part of the problem, what other reasons exist as to why companies have forshook new antibiotic research and development. In other words, what has the government done with restrictions, etc to make companies rather produce other meds.
Some of the recommendations that have been made have requested for a relaxation of government regulation (some of which include "reducing the costs of clinical trials (i.e., regulatory flexibility concerning the evidence necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy; NIAID-sponsored research to develop rapid diagnostic tests, etc.)" as well as having "Congress [...] implement administrative recommendations at FDA and NIAID to facilitate the approval processes for manufacturers of new antibiotics").
Part of the problem simply sounds like overprotection from the government. Yes they want to prevent that one death, that one Thalidomide baby, from appearing on the front page of a newspaper. And so would I. But what of those individuals who merely want a chance to way their risks and their benefits, those people who think getting rid of their rheumatoid arthritis pain at the risk of developing a stroke. Or maybe, what about those thousands of death that occur because a drug was not approved this year that could have helped save those people's lives.
I guess as Stalin (or was it Lenin) said: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic."
posted by Laura Keslar at 10:02 PM | |
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Not much of a surprise, is it?
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which denominations stand behind this letter.
The Wildcat published this letter to editor from a group of pastors:
With due respect to our UA campus colleagues in the Christian faith, especially our friends at the St. Thomas More Catholic Newman Center at the University of Arizona, we offer an alternative view to the one expressed in Friday's "Campus clergy support stance on gay marriage." While the students in the ministries we serve hold a variety of views on this subject, we are pastors who affirm and welcome LGBT couples, individuals and their families. We do this because our reading of the whole and heart of the Christian Scriptures, especially as seen in context and through the lens of God's gospel and justice in Christ, compels us to this view. This leads us to pray and work for the day when LGBT persons will finally be able to enjoy fullness of life, including marriage and/or civil unions, with all the joys and responsibilities therein. We personally believe that the so-called "Protect Marriage Arizona" initiative is a bad idea.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out which denominations stand behind this letter.
Rev. Dee Dee Azhikakath,
United Methodist Campus Ministry
Rev. Ben Larson-Wolbrink,
Presbyterian Campus Ministry
Rev. Seth Polley,
Episcopal Campus Ministry
Rev. Ron Rude,
Lutheran Campus Ministry
posted by Laura Keslar at 4:26 PM | |
