..
Title: U.S., France agree on new sanctions against Iran: Rice
Date: September 21, 2007
Source: CBC.ca
Link: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/21/rice-iran.html
Article Summary:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner agreed not only to stand together against Iran's attempts to create nuclear weapons, but also to apply new sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. The two countries were even doing groundworks for a new UN Security Council resolution on Iran. This is due to the political shift of the French government towards the George W. Bush Administration, thanks to the establishment of a conservative regime in France. Although the two nations still have some disagreements, the French minister concluded with saying, "but we have excellent relations."
Byun's Opnion:
Frankly, this article came to me as a shock for two reasons: a dramatic shift in France's diplomatic relations with the United States, and in its Middle East policy.
For the last several years, the diplomatic relationship between France and the United States had been poor and frosty. The former French president Chirac, for instance, heavily criticized the Bush administration for declaring a war on Iraq. When the new conservative government under Nicolas Sarkozy came into power in France, however, the ice started to break. Unlike his predecessor Chirac, Sarkozy was pro-USA, pro-Israel, and most importantly, conservative. He even choose New Hampshire for his vacation couple months ago. Naturally, France's diplomatic policy leaned towards the United States, instantly forming a close coalition between the two nations. And, this 'coalition' ultimately led France to estbalish a common front with the Americans against Iran's nuclear program. Thus, this article is a minor representation of the undergoing change in France. This 'common front,' in my opinion, would fuel and give more energy to the United States' attempts to apply sanctions on Iran. As well, it is interesting for me to see that, as soon as Tony Blair resigned as the British Prime Minister, Sarcozy took Blair's former position as an American ally. Fortunately for Bush, this 'synergy effect' would delay the US from becoming a lame duck in the internationally political arena for few more months. Moreover, I'm looking forward to see how the establishment of the second conservative regime in Europe, first being Angela Merkel in Germany, would affect the European diplomatic positions towards the United States' war on terror.
Also, France's Middle Eastern policy has long been pro-Arab. This, however, also began to change with the rise of Sarkozy. Sarkozy, in fact, even vocally favoured Israel over Arab last month. I believe that Sarkozy's anti-Arab spectrum also led France to form a common front with Bush against Iran.
In conclusion, this article is perhaps a representation and prophecy of the new French Revolution. In fact, many French newspapers and media described the rise of Sarkozy as second revolution of France. The advent of Conservatism, pro-US diplomacy, capitalistic market policy, and pro-business decrees are surely new to the French. I do not know how much, but I'm sure this would change and reform France significantly.
And, this'd be a good news for the Bush administration. The leader of anti-Iraqi War suddenly became its principal ally. This would surely weaken pro-Iran sentiments and fuel the US's attempts to apply harsh sanctions on Iran.
I'm looking forward to see the results.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Funding for faith-based schools
..
Title: Funding for faith-based schools
Date: September 11, 2007
Source: TheStar.com
Link: http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/254043
The issue of funding for faith-based schools became a hot debate topic as the Ontario provincial election date approaches.
Article Summary
In an article sent to a group of bright SAC student, Bernie Farber speaks in favour of funding for faith-based schools, claiming that 'it is time to take action.' By mentioning Bill Davis' two pivotal decisions, Dalton McGuinty's response to Jewish parents, and the support the funding issue gets from the three parties, Farber believes that the funding issue has been approved and supported by the authority and the Ontario politics. He ends his argument with claiming that it is "to do otherwise after decades of excusing unfaiurness is unacceptable." The time seems to be ripe to him.
In contrast, Michael Fullan dismisses the pro-funding idea by simply saying that "social inclusion is better than fragmentation." Now that the teachers and schools are ready and in high morale to improve educational standards, Fullan argues, it is not a good idea to waste money and energy to fund the faith-based schools. He firmly maintains his belief that Ontario should have a single educational system. To him, one public school with religious diversity and harmony is much better than numerous segmented schools. As well, he claims that using resources for 2 million students is "vastly better" than using them for 50000 'faithful' students.
Opinion
It is reasonable to fund faith-based schools since our nation values religious diversity and recognizes individuals' rights to choose their own ways of life. I, however, believe that it is still not a good idea to fragment and separate our students. Students who go to faith-based schools might keep their religious virtues; yet, they will grow in different environments and in future it will be hard for them to co-exist with one another. In fact, learning to co-exist with others from different religions is far more important than trying to remain pure and loyal to one's own religion.
Moreover, a single, centralized public system will make it much easier for the Ontario government to carry out reforms and plans to enlighten and improve the quality of education in the province. Fragmented schools, contrastly, only makes it much difficult for the government to help them out.
Therefore, I prefer the idea of "one school, many religions,' over the idea of 'many schools, one religion.' Because we live in a multicultural society where everyone respects others' religions and share their own religion with others, it'll make much more sense to learn to co-exist with others from different religions, than to try to separate themselves from others. As well, trying to fragment the society will only cost in the waste of public money and energy.
Title: Funding for faith-based schools
Date: September 11, 2007
Source: TheStar.com
Link: http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/254043
The issue of funding for faith-based schools became a hot debate topic as the Ontario provincial election date approaches.
Article Summary
In an article sent to a group of bright SAC student, Bernie Farber speaks in favour of funding for faith-based schools, claiming that 'it is time to take action.' By mentioning Bill Davis' two pivotal decisions, Dalton McGuinty's response to Jewish parents, and the support the funding issue gets from the three parties, Farber believes that the funding issue has been approved and supported by the authority and the Ontario politics. He ends his argument with claiming that it is "to do otherwise after decades of excusing unfaiurness is unacceptable." The time seems to be ripe to him.
In contrast, Michael Fullan dismisses the pro-funding idea by simply saying that "social inclusion is better than fragmentation." Now that the teachers and schools are ready and in high morale to improve educational standards, Fullan argues, it is not a good idea to waste money and energy to fund the faith-based schools. He firmly maintains his belief that Ontario should have a single educational system. To him, one public school with religious diversity and harmony is much better than numerous segmented schools. As well, he claims that using resources for 2 million students is "vastly better" than using them for 50000 'faithful' students.
Opinion
It is reasonable to fund faith-based schools since our nation values religious diversity and recognizes individuals' rights to choose their own ways of life. I, however, believe that it is still not a good idea to fragment and separate our students. Students who go to faith-based schools might keep their religious virtues; yet, they will grow in different environments and in future it will be hard for them to co-exist with one another. In fact, learning to co-exist with others from different religions is far more important than trying to remain pure and loyal to one's own religion.
Moreover, a single, centralized public system will make it much easier for the Ontario government to carry out reforms and plans to enlighten and improve the quality of education in the province. Fragmented schools, contrastly, only makes it much difficult for the government to help them out.
Therefore, I prefer the idea of "one school, many religions,' over the idea of 'many schools, one religion.' Because we live in a multicultural society where everyone respects others' religions and share their own religion with others, it'll make much more sense to learn to co-exist with others from different religions, than to try to separate themselves from others. As well, trying to fragment the society will only cost in the waste of public money and energy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)