A controversy is growing in France over whether to “ban the burqa.” This question really troubles me; it pulls me both ways. Do citizens have the right to dress themselves as they please even if it may really be limiting their own liberty? I’d say yes normally but in many cases it seems like these women may not actually be truly choosing for themselves. If they are forced by dominating Islamists that poses real problems for secular and free societies.
For Mr. Sarkozy, who defends participation in the Afghan war as a matter of women’s rights, “the problem of the burqa is not a religious problem,” he said. “It is a problem of liberty and the dignity of women. It is a sign of servitude and degradation.”
The Economist issues a warning to Rick and Sean.
Belief in conspiracy theories can be comforting. If everything that goes wrong is the fault of a secret cabal, that relieves you of the tedious necessity of trying to understand how a complex world really works. And you can feel smug that you are smart enough to “see through” the official version of events. But widespread paranoia has drawbacks. For a start, it makes calm, rational debate rather tricky. How can you discuss the trade-offs of health-care reform, for example, with someone who thinks the government is plotting to kill grandma? It does not help, either, that politicians on both sides are willing to fan the flames. Sarah Palin calls Mr Obama’s health-care proposals “evil”. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, calls the protesters who loudly oppose them “evil-mongers”. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, calls them “un-American”.
A British MEP give a libertarian critique of British policies. He could easily be speaking to American politicians.
Every time Stanley Fish ventures into the god topic he fails miserably and he aggravates me beyond belief. But to show I’m not a bigot regarding him I have to applaud his latest piece in the New York Times. He often writes on educational policy and I often find myself agreeing with him. Here he argues that writing courses should teach students how to write. I know it seems obvious but if only more colleges thought so.
A few years ago, when I was grading papers for a graduate literature course, I became alarmed at the inability of my students to write a clean English sentence. They could manage for about six words and then, almost invariably, the syntax (and everything else) fell apart. I became even more alarmed when I remembered that these same students were instructors in the college’s composition program. What, I wondered, could possibly be going on in their courses?
I decided to find out, and asked to see the lesson plans of the 104 sections. I read them and found that only four emphasized training in the craft of writing. Although the other 100 sections fulfilled the composition requirement, instruction in composition was not their focus. Instead, the students spent much of their time discussing novels, movies, TV shows and essays on a variety of hot-button issues — racism, sexism, immigration, globalization. These artifacts and topics are surely worthy of serious study, but they should have received it in courses that bore their name, if only as a matter of truth-in-advertising.
I just going to encourage you to read this short blog post from Andrew Sullivan’s blog page. Does anyone have any reason to be against gay marriage? Is anyone willing to take up Steve Chapman’s challenge and predict measurable social indicators that will negatively change because of gay marriage?