BBC4 A Point of View: Teaching to the test

Will Self says it's time for schools to stop "teaching to the test".

He argues that in the contemporary wired world, "it seems obvious that young people need more than ever to know how to think outside the boxes, rather than simply tick them".

There's no reason, he says, to shackle children "to the go-round of memorization and regugitation".

listen to the podcast

The Conversation: Exploring the complexities of forgiveness

I grew up in a community of these remarkable people, but not once did I hear the topic of forgiveness for the Nazis discussed. The Nazis hardly warranted their consideration. Instead, what prevailed was the distinctive Jewish response to the tragedy of the Holocaust of not asking why, but what do we do now. Invariably the answer was a single-minded determination and commitment to rebuilding a new generation of proud and committed Jews. [...]

In the Jewish belief there is a distinction between forgiveness and consequences. Lack of consequences is not synonymous with forgiveness and negative consequences does not equate with lack of forgiveness, as in forgiving one’s child for demonstrating carelessness or inconsideration while still holding her accountable.[...]

But far from being just a necessary but regrettable allowance, Judaism teaches that the practice of forgiveness was divinely designed from the very outset of creation. Thus, the reason why God deliberately created us imperfect is because through the process of sin and reconciliation, both the forgiver and the forgiven can experience tremendous personal and religious growth. [...]

So, since we are human beings who still have a conscience to discern good from evil, the only conclusion we must come to is that we cannot in any way forgive the Nazis. To think otherwise would be to dishonor the victims of the Holocaust and to degrade our own moral compass.

read the article 

FiveThirtyEight: Will Trump’s Refugee Ban Have Public Support?

Donald Trump signed a wide-ranging executive order on Friday that resets the United States’ immigration and refugee programs. The policy bars immigrants from seven heavily Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for 90 days, including people with green cards. It bans all refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days, and indefinitely bans Syrian refugees. And it cuts the number of refugees the U.S. will accept overall in 2017. (For a more detailed rundown, read here.) [...]

Slight differences in framing and question wording can also have big effects on how well immigration, refugee and terrorism policies poll. Whether Trump’s executive order is viewed in humanitarian terms or (as the Trump administration has tried to frame it) in the context of counterterrorism could go a long way towards determining how much the public supports it. [...]

Again, there are so many ways to look at these numbers. Will Americans react more to the fact that the U.S. is temporarily banning all refugees or to the halts on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries? It’s just not clear how it will play out politically. American opinions on immigration, counterterrorism and refugees are complicated and interact with one another, and different opinions can be activated at different times. Furthermore, some aspects of the policy — such as banning U.S. green card holders from re-entering the United States (or only allowing them to re-enter on a case-by-case basis) — have not been polled at all. For the time being, it’s probably safe to say that the policy is neither as unpopular as its detractors might hope for, nor as popular as its supporters might assume. But that could change as the public learns more about it in the days and weeks ahead.

read the article 

The Spectator: Atheist and gay, Frederick the Great was more radical than most leaders today (3 October 2015)

After Frederick’s accession in 1740, he became, in his turn, the tormentor of the family. Although he did not imprison his wife like George I, he repeatedly humiliated ‘this incorrigibly sour subspecies of the female sex’, as he called her. They barely met. His nephew and heir, the future Frederick William II, wrote of him in 1780: ‘That animal is a right scourge of God, spat out of Hell on to earth by God’s wrath.

After his accession, in Blanning’s words Frederick ‘came out’. He spent most of his time far from prying eyes in Potsdam, south- west of Berlin, and enjoyed ‘intimate relations’ with young officers, as well as his first valet Fredersdorf. The king called him ‘du’ and he acted as an unofficial prime minister. Frederick commissioned a fresco of Ganymede and filled his parks with statues of Antinous or pairs of male lovers. His poems ‘The Orgasm’ and ‘Palladion’, the first written for his handsome Italian favourite Count Algarotti, praise ‘glorious heroes, responding both actively and passively to their lithe and obliging friends’.

Blanning emphasises the luxury and grandeur of the court of Prussia. Berlin had one of the largest city palaces in Europe and was surrounded by at least 20 country palaces for the monarch and the ruling family — many more than Vienna. Frederick II extended Charlottenburg, built Sans Souci, and the 638-room Neues Palais in Potsdam and bought a new palace in Breslau, capital of Silesia, in which he installed a throne room. On campaign he shared his troops’ hardships: they loved him. In peacetime, he amassed magnificent collections of pictures, sculptures, jewelled rings and snuff boxes. Frederick’s greenhouses were as luxurious as his gilded rococo bedrooms and music rooms. He built the Berlin opera and founded the Berlin porcelain factory. [...]

Like the recent books of John Röhl on Wilhelm II and Jonathan Steinberg on Bismarck, Blanning shows that Prussia had a court society and culture — a ‘deep state’ not always visible on the surface. If more diaries and memoirs, such as those of Count Lehndorff and Hildegard von Spitzemberg, or the journalism of Alfred Kerr (father of the children’s author Judith Kerr) were translated, they would help us understand the driving force of the country which, before the self-inflicted cataclysm of 1914, was the powerhouse of Europe.

read the article 

Politico: Ukraine and Poland’s History Wars Are a Gift For Putin

After Russian propaganda sought to dismiss the Maidan revolution that ousted former President Viktor Yanukovych as an exclusively far-right protest, Ukrainians began using Bandera as a symbol to troll the Kremlin, and his popularity in the country has continued to rise to new heights. On New Year’s Day, thousands of Ukrainians marched in cities across the country to mark Bandera’s birthday. In the Ukrainian capital alone, over 2,000 people participated in the march, carrying torches through the center of Kiev while chanting, “Bandera is our prophet.”

The problem is that in neighboring Poland, Bandera is reviled on the same level as Adolf Hitler and his inner circle. Poles across political lines mainly remember him for collaborating with the Nazis and for his followers slaughtering Polish civilians. That conviction has heightened in recent years as the country has devoted increased attention to atrocities committed against Poles during World War II. [...]

This changing political landscape has left Warsaw as Kiev’s most reliable advocate within both the EU and NATO and the only guarantor that Ukraine will stay on the international agenda. Poles across all political lines view Russian influence in Eastern Europe as a detriment to their country’s security and stability. Warsaw has long made it a mainstay of its foreign policy, and the EU’s, to pull post-Soviet states out of Moscow’s orbit.

read the article 

The Guardian: Grassroots Labour supporters revolt against Jeremy Corbyn over Brexit

On Saturday night a highly critical open letter to the Labour leader, circulating on Facebook, had been signed by almost 2,000 members in constituency parties across the country, around half of whom are believed to have voted for Corbyn as leader. The letter, organised by a group called Labour Against Brexit, accuses Corbyn of a “betrayal of your socialist values” and of backing a policy that will hurt working people.

One of the organisers, Jonathan Proctor of the North Tyneside constituency Labour party, told the Observer that the motive was not to destabilise Corbyn, but to stand up for Labour principles and values. He said the response from members since its launch on Friday had been overwhelming. [...]

Tulip Siddiq, the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, has left her frontbench post, and two whips, Thangam Debbonaire and Jeff Smith, have said they will not vote for the bill. Another shadow cabinet member, Rachel Maskell, is said by colleagues to be considering resigning, and Clive Lewis, regarded as close to Corbyn early in his leadership, now says he will vote against the bill at third reading unless there are a series of safeguards.

read the article 

Al Jazeera: Why is Russia so happy with Trump?

Both the elites and the ordinary people in Russia greeted the new US president, and even some in the political opposition saw the potential for positive developments under his administration.

The reason for Russia's warm welcome of President Trump had nothing to do with claims in US media that he was "a Kremlin agent" or that "Russian hackers" helped him win the election. It had much more to do with expectations among the elites, the ordinary people, and even the intelligentsia, of a new direction in US-Russian relations that would de-escalate internal and external tensions and favour their self-interests. [...]

The "new Yalta" would redistribute spheres of responsibility to recognised great powers. The Kremlin, of course, sees Russia as one of them (alongside with the US, China, and perhaps Europe).

Among the ruling elite, there is also a much more modest expectation from Trump concerning matters of self-interest. Since at least 2014, after the annexation of Crimea and Russian support to the anti-Kiev rebels in Eastern Ukraine, many members of the ruling class experienced the effects of sanctions targeting them. With Trump in the White House, they expect the sanctions to be lifted, if he indeed wants to start a new chapter in Russian-US relations.

read the article 

The Guardian: Trump banned refugees on Holocaust Remembrance Day. That says everything

In 1939, the German oceanliner St Louis and its 937 passengers, almost all Jewish refugees, were turned away from the port of Miami and sent back to Europe. Of those passengers, 254 were murdered in the Holocaust. The US government turned away those refugees, so heartbreakingly close to safety – and also restricted Jewish immigration and instituted new vetting procedures – because of rampant overblown fears that the Nazis might smuggle spies and saboteurs in among the Jewish refugees.

On Friday, which was Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House put out a statement that failed to mention the 6 million Jews who were exterminated by the Nazis. Hours later, Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending all refugee resettlement for 120 days and indefinitely suspending the resettlement of refugees from Syria. [...]

We have freedom of belief. We do not have religious litmus tests for participation in society. Trump’s order is anathema to those founding principles. It violates the first amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from preferring or disfavoring any religion. Trump’s anti-Muslim policy also violates the equal protection clause, the part of the 14th amendment that guarantees that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law. 

read the article 

Independent: Native American tribe vows to stop Donald Trump building Mexican border wall on their Arizona reservation

The Tohono O’odham Nation, a federally recognised tribe with a reservation that spans 75 miles along the US-Mexico border, said on Thursday that it does not support the proposed wall and will attempt to block construction if it goes ahead.

In a statement it criticised the White House for signing an executive order without consulting the tribe, and hinted at Standing Rock-style mass resistance if necessary. The tribal vice-chairman has previously said the government could build the wall “over my dead body”. [...]

The tribe, which has about 28,000 members, said it has suffered for decades from the "militarisation" of the international border, which cuts across its ancestral lands. Members have said they are frequently assaulted or threatened by border guards and impeded in visiting relatives south of the border.

read the article