I generally view anything that Sarkozy says or does with suspicion. I'm not even sure why he's spouting off in this way: I have to read his entire statement and consider the full context of what he was saying and why. E.g., was his appearance planned in advance? What prompted his statement? Was he answering a question from a reporter or participant or was this part of his planned remarks?

Those caveats out of the way, it's a stupid thing to say. How will he enforce it? Fines? And how do you welcome a garment or not? Will officials snatch it off and hand women Hermes scarves to replace them? It seems he's being deliberately provocative for his own sake. Heat, not light.  

But my view on covering is that it is a huge double standard for women. I'd defend the right to wear it, but I'd never believe it was a true "choice."

I understand modesty, but men aren't required to cover and they wear Western garb and seem to meet the modesty requirement just fine. The "protection" against lascivious males doesn't hold water with me, either. Besides, who are these "males" who, just by the sight of a bared arm, just lose all dick control...AND why is HIS lack of dick control a woman's problem? It's like the notion of "protecting" women in this society--if we had equality (in this instance, enforcing the same moral behavior among men that is expected of women) and justice then women wouldn't have to worry about protection. Problem solved.

It seems like if you're covered, you're trying to erase a woman--it's as if she doesn't exist. I find it interesting that you mention how women and girls are "exposed" because I rather find covered women and nearly naked women opposite sides of the same coin. With a woman wearing next to nothing, you see only tits and ass. You don't see the person. You don't see her; only body parts. She doesn't exist.

You can say my view doesn't matter, and it's fine. I fully recognize that the reason lots of folks latch on to covering has nothing to do with women being truly free to live their lives as they see fit. I don't have to be offended seeing a woman wearing next to nothing, because there's nothing making me dress that way. I don't have to be offended seeing baggy jeans hanging off someone's backside, either--there's nothing making me do it.

But there is something driving why others would present themselves either completely covered or nearly naked, and it's not merely because a style is in or out of season. To pretend otherwise is folly.

Can't hear ya, Peach!

Are women really free to wear the burqa? That's the real question. In many cases, the burqa is imposed by abusive husbands and fathers to powerless women. I certainly don't see this garnment as a symbol of emancipation.

"I agree wholeheartedly, the Burka is a manner of subjugation nothing more nothing less."

Oh, really! And you know this exactly how? You have discussed it with how many women who actually wear them? You have done what psychological or sociological or anthropological studies that led you to this conclusion?

if you're even wearing pants, you're doing fine, bob.  

Communication is a two-way street, Hurria. And there are often problems with blind people communicating to sighted people. The difference is that most blind people aren't intentionally blind. Or made to be invisible.

No need to be hostile.  I simply said it would alter communication not make it impossible or ineffective.  It us undeniable that being unable to see people's faces, arms and hands, etc. would alter communication.

How about paraphrasing it this way - if you don't like burqas then don't wear one. That's why the French impression of it is irrelevant - Americans weren't too fond of the afro a few years ago, and some on the left are still referred to as "dirty hippies." Those perspectives don't matter either. The problem is in trying to make people conform to their own standards, the very thing that the French are supposedly opposing.

This is why the 1st Amendment is so important over here...

The Underground Railroad

Well said.

I don't recall any time that you've held back from slamming US and Western ways..."

You bet I have slammed U.S. policy and practice, especially as it pertains to the way the U.S. views and treats the rest of the world and the people in it. But I challenge you to show me one instance in which I have criticizing "Western ways". Show me where I have ever slammed western culture or social practices? Show me where I have slammed Western styles of dress, or ever suggested that I had the right to tell women western women how to dress or behave in public or private. Show me  

"you want to put a wall around anything Islam and Middle East culture to shield it from any critical eye."

You don't tell me what I want, I tell YOU what I want. :o}

And not at all. What I want to do is challenge people's prejudices and misconceptions and misunderstandings, and their tendency to generalize the most extreme negative cases to an entire, extremely varied population of more than one billion people. What I want to do is encourage people to get past the knee-jerk negative judgments they have been encouraged to make and look at the actual reality. What I also want to do is encourage people to consider the possibility that they don't have an exclusive claim on the right way to do things and that everyone else must become like them, and that different is not necessarily wrong, it is simply different.

Criticizing a religion - any religion - is a questionable thing to do, and if you want to do it you had better make sure your criticism is grounded in real knowledge and not prejudice and fear or some nonsense you have read on the web or heard from the ever-growing ranks of self-appointed "experts" who are cashing in on the Islamophobia band wagon. A better practice when discussing with someone more knowledgeable than you are about a religion would be to ask about things rather than to try to tell them how it really is.

It is very risky to criticize other cultures, particularly when in place of real knowledge and experience you have often-questionable generalizations about an entire, very diverse region based often on the most extreme, non-representative cases. A better practice would be to ask questions about the things that concern you. You are far less likely to offend, and you are far less likely to get a defensive reaction that way. And by the way, it is very off-putting to be told things about something you are well educated on and intimately familiar with.

"Westerners are supposed to tiptoe around the cultures you favor, but accept every attack from members of that culture."

I have not asked anyone to tiptoe, I have asked people to show a bit of respect, and not insist upon labeling a very large and diverse population based on prejudice and generalization of the most extreme and non-representative cases. And again, I suggest you find at least one instance of me criticizing western culture or any religion at all before you accuse me of attacking it.

"You are obviously well informed about the Middle East, so I have to think you're simply being disingenuous when you claim that the burqa is simply an individual choice."

First you acknowledge that I am well informed on this subject - presumably far more informed than you are, and then you imply that you are more qualified than I am to know what is real and what is not. And you follow it up by attributing to me a claim I have not made. I have not said that the burqa is "simply an individual choice".  As with almost everything to do with human behaviour it is not that simple and clear cut. What I have objected to is the denial of personal choice based on assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Believe it or not, most Muslim women choose to dress in one way or another for a variety of reasons of their own. Muslim women, including those who cover partially or completely, are not all weak, submissive creatures who meekly submit to the demands of males. Many dress as they do - one way or another - against the express wishes of their male (and female) family members. No one, including the State of France, has a right to deny them this choice on any basis, especially cultural ignorance and prejudice.

"We all know of Muslim women for whom the forced wearing of that garment represents the very core of cultural repression of women."

Of course there are Muslim women who are compelled in one way or another to dress in a manner they would not independently choose to dress in. I have known a few myself. That does not justify denying other Muslim women the right to dress as they wish.

"French suspicion of the burqa is not so much a matter of imposing their own cultural values but of choosing sides in the cultural wars raging among Muslims."

Cultural wars? Oh, my!

And yes it is a matter of imposing their own values. By the very act of taking sides they are imposing something, and given the side they are taking it is indeed their cultural values that they are imposing. And what on earth gives them or anyone else the standing to insert themselves into this matter and impose a "solution"?

The correct way to deal with this issue for a society that prides itself on its freedom is to support Muslim women's freedom of choice either way, not to take away freedom of choice from the women whose choice makes you feel uncomfortable. Support the right of those women who are being compelled against their will to wear a covering to choose for themselves, and support the same right for women who choose to cover.

"Your claim that the issue is "a woman's choice of clothing" simply ignores much more difficult realities around the treatment of women in the culture."

There you go again, grossly generalizing to an extremely diverse group of more than one billion people based on your prejudices founded on very limited, highly selective information.

"You can argue that the Muslim way is better, but to pretend this is just a fashion issue is simply not honest."

Please do not invent arguments in order to make your point. I have never argued that the Muslim way or any other way is better, nor have I ever pretended it is "just a fashion issue".

"If I were visiting/moving to Kabul, I wouldn't be wearing a Hooters tshirt or trying to convert the populace to atheism or going out on a public drunk."

Good for you. And how does this equate in any way to a woman covering herself in public for religious or cultural reasons? Is wearing a hooters tee shirt, converting the populace to atheism, and going out on a public drunk something you are compelled to do by religious conviction, or social comfort?

"I'd respect the culture of my host place whether I agreed with all of it or not."

Would you respect it if it forced you to act or dress against your own religious convictions or forced you to abandon your culture or to do things that you considered socially wrong?

"Why should a different standard apply to people from the Middle East?"

It shouldn't and it doesn't. Or do you suggest that people from the Middle East must conform to your culture by wearing hooters tee shirts, and getting drunk in public?

"I don't think there's a good answer to the cultural clashes as the world's borders become more porous."

You think that the answer to "cultural clashes" is to force people to abandon their own cultural and religious practices and conform to your idea of correct culture?

"But your constant use of the double standard, the predictable resort to the victimization card (an eerie echo of the Zionist Holocaust-excuses-everything line), does nothing to shed light."

I have not used a double standard whatsoever here. Of course, I do not equate wearing sexually explicit tee shirts, or public drunkenness or picking up random "young ladies" in bars for casual sex with being faithful to one's religious convictions and dressing according to the norms of one's culture. If you do, then we need to have a different discussion.

What I find sad is how clearly this argument points to the unwillingness of some western progressives to accept the differences among human beings. What ever happened to the idea of embracing diversity? Very disturbing indeed.

DaveW,
My take on this subject, apart from anyone else`s, is that why should a person not be able to wear the clothing of their choice.
I remember reading a rant on bikers & their black leather wearing choice.
Called "black leather wearing outlaws with no morals etc, etc", they decided to wear pink leathers, a seemingly non-confrontational color, but pretty soon, the "others" started recognizing their fears & calling the bikers "those pink leather wearing outlaws with no morals etc,etc.
I don`t think it`s the garb so much as it is the difference of choice of dress, & the fear it evokes in the people set in their comfort zone of sameness.
The difference in color of the bikers garb had nothing to do with being different from anyone else, it was the safest material to wear, regardless of the color.
At the same time many bikers might ridicule a tourist from Anytown USA, for wearing a Hawaiian shirt with Bermuda shorts black knee socks & sandals.
It does not make it OK, and it would be no different if his knee socks were pink.
Now cover both people, a black leather wearing  biker, & a tourist with knee socks, under a burqa, & the problem is solved.
Except for those who decide that burqa`s should be outlawed.
Being all in lockstep removes individual choice & subject to those who would advocate conformity.

I`ve prepaid my order for a black leather burqa that I`ll be wearing to a reunion of knee sock aficionados. I`m riding to it on my Harley.


The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

I referred to it as awkward-looking, not awkward. Having never worn one I can only say how it appears to me, not how it is to wear one. Having worn an `abayya on occasion, and based on the consistent complaints of women in my family when they wore them, I can with considerable confidence tell you that THEY are awkward, although women who wear them daily are astonishingly adept with them and seem to find them no impediment at all. :o}

I am not familiar with burqa as an Arabic word, and it is difficult to relate it to the consonantal root it would have to be derived from. It might be a Farsi word.

I have never been to Yemen and don't know a lot about it, although right-next-door `Oman is one of my favourite places on earth, and I have never seen anything resembling a "burqa" in the Afghan sense there.

Hurria,
This is why I love reading your comments.


The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

Hurria, I'm not going to go point by point.

But here's your response to the most "offensive" thing I wrote: "I simply cannot believe you said that. Tell me you don't mean it. That has to be one of the most appalling, offensive - and revealing - things I have ever heard from a western supposed "progressive"."

Tell me what group of people, when relocated into another dominant culture, doesn't have members who convert to local customs, practices and religion. All people do. The nature of humans is to go along to get along. You will probably find plenty of non-practicing and former Muslims around the world just like you find non-practicing and former Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus who once they are away from the culture and influence they their old religions. To that Islam alone can hold onto its believers is a bit centric. And false.

So again the question is what happens to the friction between a minority religion and a majority in France? The friction resolves. You may believe that all of the world will eventually learn to accept Islam as their belief system, but even within Islam there is friction between factions and sects.

Hurria writes: "What complete nonsense. And by the way, who says the West has the only or even the most valid definition of equality for women? Your position is based on a combination of blinkered, western-supremacist thinking, and ignorance. It is also very sexist since it implies that Muslim women need someone else to decide for them how to achieve equality and manage even their mode of dress."

We are talking about the burqa in France. I don't say France has the most valid definition of equality for women. They just have a French definition, which, in France, is valid. Or are you saying that the French definition isn't valid in France?

I haven't said that all western thinking is supreme. If you've read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I'm talking about dominant cultures versus immigrant minorities and their religious beliefs and cultures. When cultures clash there is friction and eventually that friction resolves.

Regarding how Muslim women "manage their mode of dress", I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. No one comes to a decision to wear a burqa completely independently. A Muslim woman has plenty of help managing her mode of dress, from other Muslim women who want her to follow the rules, to men who love them and protect them from the wrath of the divinity against bad behavior, to the voice within that is cultivated over the course of a life.

You continue the "rural" argument when I have explained it already:

"But the centers of Islam were always the most advanced urban centers, and they were THE centers of knowledge in the world...

"Oh, come on. They had the most advanced technology of the time. They invented a lot of it, in fact. And one day people will talk about how primitive we all were in 2009 using Twitter, so don't be too smug."

The key word here is "were". And the dollar WAS the strongest currency in the world.

My point was that the world was simpler more ignorant world in the 7th Century. Would you go to war with the most advanced technology of the 7th Century against today's technology? I'm not being smug about Twitter (I don't tweet myself).

Of course, a vaster percentage of population throughout the world was more rural, so you're not debating that. Are you arguing my point that people knew less, were more controlled by local customs, and that those beliefs and customs are not under greater attack now by access to more information and different cultures? Why would the regime of Iran want to shut down the internet, ban films and broadcasts? They threaten the old order of things.

When a group immigrates into another society at least a segment of them will adopt the local customs and religion. Why? Because it's easier to get along that way.

You can find the children of Vietnamese Buddhists who are Christian all over America. Some are Buddhists, some aren't much of anything. It's human nature. Since religion in France is not as predominant as in the US I'd suspect that there Muslims who abandon their faith will just become more secular, like the French around them.

Yes, I stand corrected. But go to Syria, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and I don't know where else - yes, even France - and see who's covering up. Yes, the men generally dress quite decorously. And I don't think it makes sense to ban the burqa. What a pointless, futile exercise. Sarkozy knows how to get attention.

In some regions Muslim fishermen often don't cover their chests, or men in work crews, depending on where you are. As far as Muslim men who DON't cover their faces, that's pretty much universal. Even in your picture you see... FACES!

Besides, the topic is about the burqa. We are not talking about Muslim men having to go to state buildings in France shirtless. What is the difference in modestly dressed men versus modestly dressed women? There is a symbolism to the burqa which, when viewed in Western culture and in France specifically, connotes an inferiority.

I know, I know. In the Koran we are all equal in Allah's eyes. Just unequal application of the rules. And in the Bible you can find justification for slavery and unequal roles for the sexes but we're all equal in God's eyes. "God loves you. Just go get me my dinner and shut up."

And yet men show their faces all the time. So even as you promote a general rule we see that the rule is unequally enforced. How many men in France will be banned from school for wearing a burqa?

I won't debate theology. Quite frankly, the covering of women differs throughout Islam so even Muslims disagree on how a burqa relates to theology.

And yet, as others have pointed out, there are limits to religious freedom. Female circumcision is against the law in the U.S. but it is justified by religious rationale.

Are you saying that if I was granted immigrant status to, say, a Muslim country that I should be allowed to practice whatever my religious beliefs are? Or are you saying that Muslims countries don't have religious freedom?

I should not have to worry about rights that are inherently mine, nor should I have to claim them.
The question should be, why would anyone deny me them, & by what right.

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

Quentin, there are certain, specific rights that are considered to be the entitlement of all human beings. You don't get to choose, nor do I, nor does anyone else. These rights are codified into laws and agreements that have been accepted and signed by all but a tiny few of the countries of the world. You can agree or not as you like, but that does not change the fact that human rights are universal and belong to all human beings no matter what.

It's amusing how often the very same people who scream the loudest and longest when Islamic regimes deny freedom of - or from - religious practice to their citizens are the first to want to deny observant Muslims that same right when they come to the West.

Yes, reactionary "rules" made after the fact and intended specifically to target the burqa. How convenient. And according to Sarkozy - and you - the reason for those "rules" is a set of ignorance-based  assumptions about what the burqa "symbolizes" combined with a large dose of western-supremacist thinking.

Oh, and something I have not mentioned is the rampant anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry in France that is equally directed at assimilated, entirely secular, highly educated and productive citizens from Arab and Muslim backgrounds. It is so bad, in fact, that a number of them have chosen to emigrate. I am sure that racism and bigotry have nothing at all to do with the denial to Muslims of their right to freedom of religious practice, or remarks such as the one quoted at the top of this page.

...where people are not supposed to take off their shoes...

It's getting late.

Of what possible relevance is what the "burqa" symbolizes to the average Frechman or Frenchwoman? It is none of their damned business.

"is not allowing burqas in French schools worse than, say, stoning an immodest woman fifty miles outside of Kabul?"

Oh, come on! Get some sleep, then in reread this bit of incoherence after your morning coffee and blush for shame. :o}
 

So, Bob, bottom line, what you are doing here is demanding that Muslim women dress not in a way that makes them comfortable but in a way that does not make you, a western male, uncomfortable. Or, to put it another way, that they dress to avoid displeasing you.

On how many different levels is that sexist? Let me count the ways.

1. Demanding that a woman dress to avoid making you uncomfortable the flip side of the coin that you are condemning. It is no less sexist to demand that a woman not cover than it is to demand that she does cover.

2. Also sexist because you are assuming that Muslim women, left to their own devices, are incapable of making life choices based on their own pleasure, interest, and benefit, therefore you, a western male have to make their choices for them based on what different modes of dress symbolize to you. She, poor thing, can't make the right choices for herself, so what a mode of dress means to her is not worthy of consideration.

And so on.

I don't think you mean to suggest that people would be justified in killing you for getting drunk and hitting on local girls in Kabul or any other place.  

But that is what you are suggesting.  

In truth, the Koran says that there should be no compulsion in religion.  No doubt, the Koran also suggests that there should be compulsion in religion in other Suras.  But the truth is that no religion is worth much if it must use coercion to make people believe and follow its rituals.  

Here is something that you might consider.  In all the major religions you have something equivalent to a monk.  This is a person who leads an ascetic life to help them better separate the mundane from the spiritual.  So, they often forego sexual relations, they eat sparingly and plainly, they often seek silent places, and these things bring them a better environment for contemplation.    

A woman who is caught up in her physical appearance and is spending a lot of time concentrating on how men react to her clothing and gestures and mannerisms, is caught up in the mundane.  In going behind the veil, they shut all of that out, which gives them more time to concentrate on God.  

This is why it is simplistic to think the burqa is an automatic 'kick-me' sign that indicates second-class citizenship.

Maybe if men didn't treat women the way they do and if women didn't react to that they way they often do, it would be a simple double standard.   But, men wouldn't gain the same benefits from covering as women.  

It isn't sexist when a woman joins a convent.  It isn't sexist when a woman wears a burqa, either.  

Unless, of course, the choice is taken away from them and all women are compelled to wear it.  That would be like forcing all women into a convent.  

"So if I drink my Jameson's and try to pick up local girls in Kabul, the locals should consider what I am thinking and feeling and what my beliefs are before they kill me?"

I see. So, you are equating a woman walking down a street in your town in a burqa with some guy picking up your daughter in a bar and having his way with her? Interesting logic.

"As someone pointed out above, burqas tend to cut down on interpersonal communication, which is precisely their purpose."

And that is your business exactly how? Are you saying you have the right to demand that everyone make themselves available for interpersonal communication at all times?

"To some the burqa proclaims a second-class citizenship based on one's sexual organs and the threat to society that femininity poses to men."

And to some wearing any clothes at all represents a refusal to accept oneself as god (or nature) made one, so I guess they should be able to dictate that others go without clothes?  

"I suppose women can walk around with "Kick me, I'm a woman" sign around their necks if they like, but surely you can understand how the message received by others might be offensive."

Your prejudice and sense of western Christian superiority are on full display today, Bob. Sorry to see it.

Why would you mention Kabul.
If you have a little of the Jameson`s & are in a bar in Anytown USA, & try & pick up on a "local" girl, you might be in more trouble from the locals than those in Kabul.
On the other hand, as in the movie "The Accused" with Jodie Foster, the way she was dressed was to some Jameson addled punks, an invitation to molest her.
Where`s the context?
I am not saying you overindulged the whiskey you mentioned, (I love Seagrams) but you brought up that context, & locals are, & should be protective of the ladies in their community, regardless if they are wearing a veil on their head or simply a veil.
Why can`t women walk around in the clothing they wish to wear, without someone considering it to be debasing or, as you say, "kick me, I`m a woman" sign.

It is a little strange that some men who wish to wear their clothing of choice have also been targeted for violence, or abuse, often by those who`ve "Jamesoned" a little too much, or at other times St. James`bibled too much.
Context?

The difference between theists and atheists is that the atheists don't set the theists on fire for refusing to agree with them.

Own-group exceptionalism is human nature. It is also toxic and destructive.

Different societies have different norms for behaviour, including dress, even within the same country. In Florida beach communities it is considered quite normal for women to go about their daily business dressed in little more than a couple of postage stamps and a handkerchief. That is extremely unlikely to go over very well in certain parts of the deep South, or in Middle America. It is a good idea to know the difference and adjust accordingly unless, of course, you thrive on negative attention.

"making the female half of all Muslims invisible"

As you consistently have done here, you are talking off the top of your head, and speaking out of prejudice and lack of full or accurate knowledge. In this case your premise has no basis in reality. Only a very small minority of the "female half of all Muslims" wear a burqa or cover their faces even partially. A large percentage of Muslim women don't even wear head coverings. Why, the wife of the President of Syria, considered one of the most stylish women in the world, has been known to wear skinny jeans.  

Your assumption that women who wear burqas or other face coverings are all being kept invisible is based on a complete lack of knowledge of reality. Wearing a face covering is by no means an indication that a woman will be either invisible or silent, or the least bit meek or submissive, as a friend of mine discovered recently when he taught a seminar at a university in the Gulf, and as I have observed in the Middle East.

The fact that Sarkozy says something does not make it even a little bit connected to reality. It is his opinion, and in this case his opinion is based mainly on ignorance and prejudice.

"And again, this is not about me or my acceptance.  I personally don't care who does or doesn't wear a burqa."

Maybe not, but whether you intended to or not, you certainly have very clearly and repeatedly revealed your general attitude about Islam and Muslims, their (alleged) practices and culture (as if all 1.2 billion Muslims have the same practices and culture), and their place in the West. According to you, Muslims in the West are a problem that must be resolved by eliminating Islam (they will give up their religion or convert - to Christianity, of course), or having Muslims learn to keep their religion invisible so as not to annoy their "hosts", and those who insist upon sticking with their religion and practice their customs openly will be isolated from the rest of society so as not to annoy anyone. That pretty much says it all.

"I find your inability to justify the burqa (except by ancient religious texts addressing an alleged social problem over a thousand years ago) laughable."

What on earth are you going on about? I have not tried to justify the burqa on any basis because it is not and has never been my argument that the burqa is justified. My argument has been and remains that forbidding the wearing of the burqa to those women who freely choose to do so is a violation of their right to freedom of religious practice, which is a fundamental human right codified in several international instruments, every single one of which has been signed by France. I further argue that no one has the right to never be annoyed, and no one has the right to deny a basic right to anyone in order not to be annoyed.

"I find your inability to acknowledge that local customs and philosophy in France have relevance to the French..."

Bob, will you PLEASE stop making stuff up to argue with and argue with what I have actually said? I never said that they didn't have relevance to the French - that would be an absurd statement. What I said was that they are not relevant to the question of whether women who freely choose to wear the burqa should have their right to freedom of religious practice violated by being forbidden to do so. No one has the right to deny a fundamental human right to anyone in order to avoid being annoyed by the practice of that right. Different people have different customs. Deal with it.

"...when compared with how you can wax eloquently about the social customs within Islam (you had quite a post about weddings once)"

Good grief, Bob! What on earth does my describing a wedding in Pakistan have to do with your trying to justify the denial of the basic human right of freedom of religious practice? Have I ever "waxed eloquently" (sic) about social customs within Islam in an effort to justify denying anyone any right whatsoever? Have I ever attempted in any way to justify the denial of rights of any kind by anyone in any place at any time?

And for your information, the wedding customs I described are not Islamic at all. They are Panjabi regional customs, and are practiced in the Indian and Pakistani Panjab by Hindus, Muslims, and (probably, though I don't know for sure) Sikhs and others in just about the same form.

"...to show a moral smugness that's, well, quite inpenetrable."

LOOOOOOL! Who ever could have predicted that somehow, at some time, by simply sharing information about Panjabi wedding customs I would open myself up to accusations of moral smugness? My goodness!

Certs is a breath mint... or is it a candy mint?