Goodman

“ "For all intensive purposes"  ? ”

 

idioms are often repeated without people really understanding what they mean

someone hears people saying a word or phrase, and then they start using it.. or so they think

later on, they get into a situation where they use that word or phrase in writing rather than just verbally

 

...and you get emails or reports with little gems such as:

For all intensive purposes

never lick a gift horse in the mouth

supposably

irregardless

scanless

lip singing

 

 

 

I'm an editor, this stuff makes me laugh.

Cookiemonster

“The people who force their women to be covered don't have any idea of real Islam.They are as norrow minded as the ones who see the headscarf as a sign of underdevelopment and ignorence.”

Hi Cm.  This is a significant idea. As I said way way back in this thread, as an American grade school student in the 40's and 50's I was taught that the world was "modernizing," which at that time seemed to mean "Westernizing," or learning about and acquiring "modern conveniences and technology."  Perhaps unfortunately, this process seemed to carry a bit of western culture along with it.  We read about countries where people wanted to dress like westerners and listen to western music and copy western dating and mating habits.  How strange!  Why?

The Shah of Iran was our buddy.  A Christian, Anwar Sadat, became president of Egypt.  Then came the backlash, with a murderous vengence.  We were seen as the great devil, turning good people away from Allah.  It seemed to us that the faithful of Islam chose to employ great cruelty in returning the strays to the fold.

Before the Twin Towers incident, the average American Knew practically nothing about Islam.  Then suddenly we hear about Bin Laden and the Taliban, claiming to be exercising the will of Allah.  I must say, it really got our attention.  At the same time we hear about the abusive treatment of women by these people.  Most of us don't have the means to learn about "real Islam," as you say.  We don't really know who is oppressed and who is not.

The thing that's really significant to me is that many in the new generation are choosing to return to the old practices where their parents have (to a certain extent) abandoned them.  It seems very sad that parents should encourage their children to westernize because they want them to succeed in a changing world.  But it seems like the pendulum has really begun it's swing away from westernization.  We Americans had better wake up and realize this.  The wasps are a dying breed.

Best regards,  - A.

Avangi

“
The Shah of Iran was our buddy.

”

 

Hi Avangi

Indeed he was. He was one of the dictators the USA cozied up to in  an effort to guarantee cheap Iranian oil for the West. The complete lack of human rights in Iran was of absolutely no importance in this courtship. Like much of what has been said in this thread, the following quotation from Time Magazine may be off topic but it is a good example of well disguised American ingratiation:

Certainly no other oil power has a leader quite as visionary and energetic in his planning. Even though the Shah's ambitious plans for Iran are barely under way, the country has already achieved such a pre-eminent place in the Middle East that businessmen and diplomats alike are beating a jet-pattern path to the Shah's door. Important visitors, naturally, are granted audiences with the man who makes the decisions. The Shah was educated in Switzerland and has traveled widely abroad; he converses with his visitors as fluently in French or English as in Farsi, the principal Iranian language. In any of the three tongues, he can evangelistically describe his goals for Iran's "Great Civilization"  -  a phrase redolent of the American "New Frontier" and "Great Society" of the '60's.

When the civilization matures, the Shah believes, it will turn Iran into the "Japan of  West Asia"  -  a third world miracle the like of which has not been witnessed since West Germany's Wirtschaftswunder. On the record so far, the future favors the Shah.  -  TIME MAGAZINE, November 4, 1974

 The Shah had indeed made lots of promises of social improvements in Iran. Maybe Time really believed in some of them, who knows. After the ruthless dictator was overthrown, the USA had to revise its thinking and statements about Iran.

Cheers, CB

Cool Breeze

“one of the dictators the USA cozied up to ”

And there have been SO many: Batista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua (When Americans donated blood to Nicaragua for earthquake relief, he sold it.), Noriega in Panama, Saddam in Iraq (these last two made the mistake of thinking they could act without asking the US government for permission.), the Apartheid government in South Africa-- the list is very long. And when the people resist, who can they turn to? When the most powerful country in the world is supporting your oppressors, you have nowhere to turn except to their enemies. The US has become a government that supports freedom to practice capitalism and liberty of ownership.

Yes, I have the right to vote for my representatives in the government, but the government can choose not to count it (as in Florida in 2000) or hijack it (In my home state of North Carolina, it's "winner takes all" in Presidential elections. All NC electoral college votes go to the candidate who received the majority of the votes for the state.)

I think it's possible to have the kind of US government that I grew up believing in, but that would cause problems for the rich and powerful, who make decisions based on economic interests instead of what is morally right.

And I need to get off this topic; I have too much else to do .