Also, learned a new term today: Anchor Baby. It's the baby that some teen illegal immigrants are convinced to have to anchor them to the US so they won't be deported. Sick.
IME, the usage is more the baby that some teen illegal immigrants anti-immigration ranters are convinced to that all illegal immigrants come here specifically to have to anchor them to the US so they won't be deported. That's certainly where I keep hearing it come up.
But it's not like I'm tied in to the immigrant community like I was when I used to work with refugees, so I can't say on that. I guess I can see the term being used on both sides, actually.
Ugh, either way, for the formers' attitudes and the latters' situation.
ETA: Sorry! Forgot to close a tag.
Brenda, I had never heard it before. It came up in a convo at a school site (not the one I'm at) about the fact that the pregnancy rate at the school had gone from 2 last year (and 3 I think the year before) to 8 or 9 this year. They were discussing the clinic they've had on campus etc. etc.
And I was thinking about how it compares to parachute kids (kids who are dumped in a multimillion dollar house in a good neighborhood with a maid and lots of money whose parents go back to a home country to live while the kid attends high school here).
..parachute kids...
which I was thinking about because I had read an article about Korean mothers and children moving to live in English speaking countries so their kids could attend english speaking schools (while dad stays in Korea).
I had to do a parent night at a Korean after school Kumon-math-esque place last night and it got me thinking about all of this.
Brenda, I had never heard it before.
You probably don't waste nearly as much time in blogland as I do, and are therefore less versed in wingnuttia.
It came up in a convo at a school site (not the one I'm at) about the fact that the pregnancy rate at the school had gone from 2 last year (and 3 I think the year before) to 8 or 9 this year. They were discussing the clinic they've had on campus etc. etc.
I would be interested in knowing, actually, if it's a term that has any use among the people involved. My experience though is that it's usually come up when people are making assumptions about other people's lives and so it sets me off a little. [I don't mean to imply that you or they are doing this., and hope I didn't.] But it does seem like the kind of thing that is more assumed than known, if that makes any sense.
Don't even know what to think about the parachute thing. Really?
Don't even know what to think about the parachute thing. Really?
Yep. Not a large issue in the district I'm in. But in one of the wealthier school districts south of Pasadena, it's a known problem. It's kind of amazing and sad. A 15 year old often not equipped to live on his or her own, even in a giant beautiful well maintained house.
I don't mean to imply that you or they are doing this., and hope I didn't.] But it does seem like the kind of thing that is more assumed than known, if that makes any sense.
No that makes perfect sense. I hadn't heard the term before and just found it sort of an interesting one and a sick one at the same time.
I'm confused, Kat--why is it inappropriate to tell the girl "You're not fat, you're just pregnant"?
In case anyone's bored, PZ has a creationist that he just can't make sense of. When I try to make sense of it, my brain hurts....
Translation, please
This is the guy's letter:
Evolution explains designer
Evolution versus creation is a false dichotomy. Evolution as a viable mechanism causing the ascent of man also explains the existence of the creator.
If man could evolve to his present status physically, culturally and technologically within the age of this planet (approximately 4.5 billion years), then obviously the technology required to build species entirely of one's own choosing could be developed within the age of the universe.
Considering the amount of time that has elapsed, which is endless, and the quantity of appropriate locations for life to evolve, also endless, a coincidence of impossible magnitude would be required for us to be the first intelligent designers.
The dichotomy is stubbornly maintained by those who fight for freedom from the morality of Christians. It is also stubbornly maintained by those who fight for freedom from the result of the immorality of the atheists, who believe they will have to answer to no one.
Uninterrupted evolution reaches a climax when an intelligent designer evolves. At that point the designer easily outpaces random natural selection because of the deliberate nature of intelligent design. The Christian has more confidence in evolution and technology than atheists have.
