John McWhorter: Txtng is killing language. JK!!!

1 . In contrast to what many older generations believe about texting, discuss McWhorter’s views on the subject. What does he think and why?

2. Describe the similarities McWhorter draws between speaking and texting.

3. Explain how “lol” has evolved over the years.

4. Discuss McWhorter’s purpose for drawing a connection between various individuals from various points in time (i.e. the professor, a schoolteacher, the President of Harvard, a superintendent and a poor man, among others).

5. What is the last thing McWhorter says he would want to know if he had the ability to go into the future? What would he do with this knowledge?

Patricia Ryan: Don’t insist on English!

1 . What does Ryan say regarding why the reasons for teaching English have changed?

2. Discuss some of the reasons Ryan explains the TOEFL is unfair.

3. What point dos Ryan make when she tells the story about two English scientists?

4. Toward the end of her talk, Ryan talks about Evan Wadongo, a young boy from Kenya who won the Hero’s Award. What did he invent and why?

5. When Wadongo received his award, he said “The children can lead Africa from…a dark continent, to a light continent.” Why does Ryan find his words to be so significant?

Individual Rights vs. Common Good

The priority of individual rights over the common good is evident to some extent in US law, most

Visibly in the Bill of Rights, where protections of individuals are often described in language that leaves to room for exception. For example the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the coverment..

However. US law also includes plenty of room for those who might use it to promote the common good. The Fourth Amendment, for example, uses less 'absolute rights language and more language meant to protect everyone. By banning only unreasonable searches and seizures it recognizes that there are reasonable ones - those that are in the public interest and will make everyone better off.

Furthermore, US courts have historically recognized the importance of balancing individual rights with the common good. Court interpretations of the law often limit individual liberties in order to safeguard the public interest. For example, searches lacking individualized suspicion have repeatedly been upheld by the courts if there are good reasons for them, whether these reasons are said to fall under a "special needs exception" or a "public safety exception" to the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints that stop all or randomly chosen drivers, rather than only those whose driving shows signs of being intoxicated, are legally permissible, as is the use of metal detectors in airports and public buildings to search the belongings and persons of millions of people each day. Even the First Amendment has been judged by the Supreme Court to allow for a number of restrictions on speech for the sake of the common good, including the barring of incitement, obscenity, threats, slander, and child pornography.

Although the US courts have done much to recognize the value of the common good as well as individual rights, striking the right balance between protecting the public interest and maintaining personal rights can prove difficult.

After reading and discussing, define what is meant by "individual rights" and "common good'

7 Individual Rights

7 Common Good

Here is the ready-to-answer question of Christian theology

January 27: Rigby, Speaking of God (chapter three on Incarnation)

Question: Drawing on Rigby's observations on pp. 86-90 (on Chalcedon), what difference does Jesus being fully divine and fully human make to how you live your everyday life as a person of faith? If you don't identify as Christian, how do you think the identify of Jesus should influence Christian choices?

      In her book Living by Fiction, Annie Dillard points out, along these lines, that most of what we have to say to one another is about "artifacts"-that is, specific things that have already been made by human beings that can be created, managed, examined, known, and mastered. 86  Dillard seems to include, in her understanding of artifacts, not only physical objects we make and use, or make and admire. She includes, also, the systems we develop that frame what is beyond our scope-perhaps the periodic table, the color wheel, or, even, a birdwatchers' guide. What is lacking in our world and our lives is not intriguing discussions of artifacts. What is lacking, she says, are those who are courageous enough to say something immediate about existence itself. "Who will interpret the raw universe?" she asks. "We have a shortage of metaphysicians." 87   This is a problem, Dillard thinks, because "if we confine our interpretive investigations to strictly bounded aspects of culture ... we miss learning what we most want to know."88