Three interesting articles I read today -

Three interesting articles I read today


Ban the Burqa (National Review)

Is Obama a Socialist? (FrumForum)

Breast Milk Sugars Give Infants a Protective Coat (NYTimes)

Filed under:

Three interesting articles I read today

  1. "Breast Milk Sugars Give Infants a Protective Coat"

    Every now and then I encounter a headline that looks like it came out of a random-word generator. This was today's.

    • What? No rain boots?

  2. If Obama is a socialist, then given that our Prime Minister is arguably to the left of Obama, doesn't that make Stephen Harper a Communist?

    • Family Guy:
      Adam West: Sorry, but according to this map, you're not even part of the United States. Which would make you… …a communist!

  3. I really wish we'd get past this 'ban the burkka' nonsense, and move on to something more useful.

    All the time in history that's been wasted fussing over a woman's clothes….

    • All the time in history that's been wasted fussing over a woman's clothes….

      99.99% of which has been by women.

      • I wondered who'd be the first to make a sexist remark.

        • Yes, I get it, you're so very oppressed. I was making a joke.

          • Ahh yes the 'it was just a joke, haven't you got a sense of humour?' excuse.

            The one I've heard a thousand times.

          • Excuse? Excuse for what, exactly? Did I say something to offend you?

          • No, you're just boring.

          • Well now you've offended me. And if that was your point, might I ask why your comment had nothing to do with that?

  4. David Frum seems to be recovering nicely though. Amazing that having tea tossed in his face accomplished so much.

  5. Thank you for the link to "Ban the Burka". It makes the point very well that the serious issue is not a question of women's dress, but women's subjugation.

    • Subjugating women is a very serious issue, esp. in a country where you can do something about it.

      Attacking perceived symbols of that subjugation isn't.

      • Then we should stop doing it, right?

        Forcing women to wear certain clothes for religious reasons means changing the RCs, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites….

        Wanna rethink?

        • Forcing women to wear certain clothes for religious reasons means changing the RCs, the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites….

          I'm certainly not a fan of the niqab ban, but I feel obliged to point out that all of these religions/cultures also require men to dress up in… interesting outfits, by modern standards. And none of them force/encourage women (or men) to cover their faces entirely.

          • So does Islam….they just have more leeway.

            If you're only referring to a face covering as being bad, then there goes balaclavas, motorcycle helmets, cop helmets….

        • See, Emily, you undermine your points when you start arguing with people who are AGREEING WITH YOU.

          • LOL when I find one, I'll let you know

          • LOL

            Ah, I see. So it's not so much that you didn't understand that Mike T. was making the exact same point as you were, it's just that you assume that EVERYONE is disagreeing with you, always, even if they're making the exact same point that you just made.

            That explains a lot actually.

          • No he wasn't. And enough with the pop psychology.

          • Well, you said the "ban the burqa" thing was nonsense, and Mike says the ban the burqa nonsense shouldn't be treated seriously, so how are your two points at odds exactly?

  6. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.

    I remember reading an article the other day about a neighbourhood (I believe in Montreal) that had a majority of Orthodox Jewish residents, and that number is growing. Someone commented that there are so many Orthodox Jews in the neighbourhood that she gets harassed for wearing anything remotely revealing like a T-shirt. Shall we also ban Jewish dress? If we don't, within a generation will there be many cities in Canada where no un-Jewish looking lady or fellow will walk comfortably or safely?

    • Very true. You get stones tossed at you in Jerusalem if your elbows are showing…and women have to travel at the back of a bus.

  7. I don't know if David Frum knows what socialism is but most of the righties in the US don't. Last ime I went to school it meant that the factors of production were owned mostly or all by the state.

    I think we are described better as mixed economy with the health of the private sector providing tax funds for affordable social programs.

    If the US government gave out a free meal these same people would call it socialism. A libertarian on one of Frum's pages thought they paying enough taxes. But they don't count when the money is used to take Iraq. Very little of his tax money goes for social purposes.

  8. Dear Luiza: This has been making me CRAZY for months. HELP!

    Why in the hell must your byline name include a middle 'thingy' (not a middle name, and not a middle initial, but a middle 'thingy') "Ch."? What the hell does THAT stand for anyway?

    I wait patiently for your explanation of why you persist in going out of your way to look different. Is there something wrong with being just plain old Luiza Savage? … are there TWO Luiza Savages and you insist on being know as the one with the absurd thingy in the middle? Please remove this burden from my soul ….WHY must you include that damn "Ch." thingy?

    David Ro. Sanderson (my middle name is Roy … do see how stupid your thingy makes you look!)