Reply
Mon 17 Nov, 2003 10:21 am
I really hate to show off my ignorance. I'm sure there's a real "D'oh" element to this but I'm going to ask anyway:
I've been reading a lot of editorial and opinion lateley faulting the media for failing to focus on the positive changes in Iraq since the war began. Typically these writers cite the reopening of schools and hospitals as a sign that things are on the right track.
My question is - weren't these schools and hospitals only closed in the first place BECAUSE we invaded? Is the reopening of these facilities really a sign of progress?
I hope to avoid a big "Bush is a moron" v. "Bush is brilliant" arguement here but I do thank you for sharing your thoughts.
The real question is more along the lines of, with schools "open," why is security so poor that most students, especially women can't attend?
That is a good question, hobitbob.
Re: This is probably a stupid question
boomerang wrote: My question is - weren't these schools and hospitals only closed in the first place BECAUSE we invaded?
No. Most of the schools were shut down long before and those that were open were in extremely bad shape and were only open for limited hours.
"Even before the war, the United Nations Children's Fund estimated that
Iraq was short of 5,000 primary schools, and 8,000 existing ones were in
desperate need of repair. Because of overcrowding, many children attended school for only two to three hours a day instead of six, and more than 25 percent of children did not go to school at all."
http://www.cidi.org/humanitarian/hsr/iraq/03a/ixl52.html
Quote:Is the reopening of these facilities really a sign of progress?
I guess that would depend on one's view on the value of education within the function of society. During the period of the UN sanctions textbooks were not allowed to be brought into the country and the educational system crumbled. Bringing the system back up to a level that is at least near the Internatioanl average is a sign of things "getting back to normal" for the average Iraqi.
Quote:Bringing the system back up to a level that is at least near the Internatioanl average is a sign of things "getting back to normal" for the average Iraqi.
Things will be "normal" when girls are not terrorized or subject to rape and abduction when attempting to attend these institutions.
That's one of the "D'oh" moments I was talking about. I really didn't know what was going on with schools and hospitals before. Thank you fishin'!
It is kind of scary though that if you replaced "Iraq" with "America" in that quote about the schools that I would have believed it true. I doubt our schools fare much better.
hobitbob wrote:Things will be "normal" when girls are not terrorized or subject to rape and abduction when attempting to attend these institutions.
Perhaps. But you'll note that I never said that things were normal. I said it's an indication that things are returning to normal.
And, says the cynic, that depends on just what you think is "normal" human behaviour. (Oooh, I like that British spelling.)
Speaking of British spellings, am I the only who's noticed that the word "glamour" is everywhere these days? What's up with that? Why not go the whole nine yards and write "colour" and so forth.
Seems to me "glamour" is a hifalutin way to spell the word. Though I have no quarrel with patiodog's use of "behaviour." Wouldn't want to start a row over such a trifle, would I?
No. Save your energy for the quarrel over Aluminium.
I've never seen glamour spelled any other way. What other way are you talking about D'artagnan?
I've been thinking about this a bit more and I'm still not convinced that this is a legitimate argument for progress being made in Iraq.
Is (maybe) less crappy but more dangerous - though open - a sign of progress?
It seems strange to me that people keep beating this drum as "proof" of anything.
"Glamor" was how it used to be spelled in the US. Same as "color" and so forth. The magazine by that name always did use the British spelling, but I'm sure that was to seem more sophisticated.
Oh. Okay. I've never seen it spelled that way. An art history teacher once took me to task for spelling "colour" and I've never done that again!
Well, I think I'm behind the curve in belaboring this point. I just checked in my American Heritage dictionary, and it states that "glamour" is the preferred spelling, even though other words (e.g., "vapor" and "labor") lack the "u" in American English. So, I surrender on this point.
I do believe it used to be spelled without the "u", but I don't have access to an old dictionary. OK, call me a pedant--I wear that badge with pride!
I just checked in my Dictionary of Modern American Usage (Oxford University Press 1998):
glamour. So spelled, even in AmE. But the related words glamorize and glamorous change the -our- to -or-.
Hmmm..those of us who grew up speaking and writing the Queen's English (I always assumed she wasn't using it!
) have had a hard time adapting to "merrcun" English. Got yelled at a great deal about it in High School, so of course I have continued with this usage up to the present!
Now if I could just learn to type!
Just so long as it's not the slurred, gin-soaked queen-mum's English...
Well, I did say I didn't think she was using it!
I know I said that I hoped this didn't become some big moron/brilliant debate about George Bush but I never really expected it to become a big debate on the proper spelling of glamour either.
I feel like I'm running a digression thread here!
Sorry. Mea culpa. My fault entirely...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace