08-24-2005, 12:38 AM
FIRSTLY minor issue:
Ah, verb agreement and English! Never the twain shall meet. :o
Groot Gouda is grammatically correct, but to the native English speaker's eye it looks wrong because of the close proximity of "inhabitants" and "is." Try reading it as "NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion is living below the poverty line" and see how it looks now.
Even the British can't get it straight and they invented the language. It grates everytime I hear things like "Labour are running a good campaign." In North America, the issue usually arises with sports, getting the agreement with team (singular) and team nicknames (with rare exceptions, plural) hopelessly muddled. "The team is doing well. They are great this year."
And don't even talk about whether data and pants are plural! :blink: And lest you think I'm any better, I'm even more confused that usual because I actually think about it rather than just go with what looks right, so whatever I write looks wrong to me. A peculiar Canadianism is the synonomity of "that" and "which" for subordinate and independent clauses, which don't exist in other branches of the English language.
So my suggestion is just change "inhabitants" to "population" (singular) and avoid the whole issue which is not important but may distract from the main event. As I have read more and more of the unapproved UN proposals, I see that a bad presentation (e.g., one on "biodisel feul") can harm an otherwise potentially agreeable proposal.
SECONDLY major issue:
While the goal is laudable, I don't think you can make adequate (or even any housing) an absolute right on either the national or international level. To use the analogy with other human rights: you have the right not to be tortured or murdered by your own government, but you can still be tortured or murdered by your fellow citizens in ordinary street crime. It is impossible for government to absolutely ensure their citizens were not tortured and murdered, but they can take reasonable steps. Similarily, if you stated governments could not interfere with people building adequate shelter and were encouraged to help people in that endeavour, then I think it would pass.
Furthermore, one person's slum is another's palance. In RL Canada, a single person on welfare living in Toronto (an expensive city) gets C$520 a month in total. The average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment, for instance, is C$850. However, that same "poor person" being forced to live in a "slum" in one of the city's less desirable neighbourhood's rooming houses, is better of than a resident of RL Bombay who makes US$400 a year picking rags.
I realize section 1 is voluntary, but it may be perceived as more hectoring or admonishing from the UN. In Sober Thought, we see this issue as part of our defence and international relations portfolio. Helping poor but democratic countries raise their lliving standards -- health, housing, social welfare, education, etc. -- is integral to creating world stability and peace. Overseas development workers are exempt from civil or military conscription because they are already on the job. But that's just me. Other countries are free to do similar, more or less; they may attach similar, more or fewer conditions to the aid. I say leave the pressure to individual nations without urging from the UN.
Section 2 is crucial. Self-government builds self-esteem and self-discipline. Feeling out of control or at the mercy of others is not condusive to getting out of the poverty rut. With the focus on low-cost solutions, this is the way to go. That's why I voted for the Microcredit Bazaar. In RL, my brother did some field research on this sort of thing in Bangladesh, and it proved to be one of the most efficient and sustainable ways to go. It is especially effective for women and groups often excluded from the cash economy, which warms the hearts of humanitarians, and it uses economic discipling which warms the hearts of freemarketeers.
Ah, verb agreement and English! Never the twain shall meet. :o
Groot Gouda is grammatically correct, but to the native English speaker's eye it looks wrong because of the close proximity of "inhabitants" and "is." Try reading it as "NOTING WITH REGRET that a high proportion is living below the poverty line" and see how it looks now.
Even the British can't get it straight and they invented the language. It grates everytime I hear things like "Labour are running a good campaign." In North America, the issue usually arises with sports, getting the agreement with team (singular) and team nicknames (with rare exceptions, plural) hopelessly muddled. "The team is doing well. They are great this year."
And don't even talk about whether data and pants are plural! :blink: And lest you think I'm any better, I'm even more confused that usual because I actually think about it rather than just go with what looks right, so whatever I write looks wrong to me. A peculiar Canadianism is the synonomity of "that" and "which" for subordinate and independent clauses, which don't exist in other branches of the English language.
So my suggestion is just change "inhabitants" to "population" (singular) and avoid the whole issue which is not important but may distract from the main event. As I have read more and more of the unapproved UN proposals, I see that a bad presentation (e.g., one on "biodisel feul") can harm an otherwise potentially agreeable proposal.
SECONDLY major issue:
While the goal is laudable, I don't think you can make adequate (or even any housing) an absolute right on either the national or international level. To use the analogy with other human rights: you have the right not to be tortured or murdered by your own government, but you can still be tortured or murdered by your fellow citizens in ordinary street crime. It is impossible for government to absolutely ensure their citizens were not tortured and murdered, but they can take reasonable steps. Similarily, if you stated governments could not interfere with people building adequate shelter and were encouraged to help people in that endeavour, then I think it would pass.
Furthermore, one person's slum is another's palance. In RL Canada, a single person on welfare living in Toronto (an expensive city) gets C$520 a month in total. The average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment, for instance, is C$850. However, that same "poor person" being forced to live in a "slum" in one of the city's less desirable neighbourhood's rooming houses, is better of than a resident of RL Bombay who makes US$400 a year picking rags.
I realize section 1 is voluntary, but it may be perceived as more hectoring or admonishing from the UN. In Sober Thought, we see this issue as part of our defence and international relations portfolio. Helping poor but democratic countries raise their lliving standards -- health, housing, social welfare, education, etc. -- is integral to creating world stability and peace. Overseas development workers are exempt from civil or military conscription because they are already on the job. But that's just me. Other countries are free to do similar, more or less; they may attach similar, more or fewer conditions to the aid. I say leave the pressure to individual nations without urging from the UN.
Section 2 is crucial. Self-government builds self-esteem and self-discipline. Feeling out of control or at the mercy of others is not condusive to getting out of the poverty rut. With the focus on low-cost solutions, this is the way to go. That's why I voted for the Microcredit Bazaar. In RL, my brother did some field research on this sort of thing in Bangladesh, and it proved to be one of the most efficient and sustainable ways to go. It is especially effective for women and groups often excluded from the cash economy, which warms the hearts of humanitarians, and it uses economic discipling which warms the hearts of freemarketeers.