President Bush State of the Union Update

George W. Bush: Great president, or the greatest president?

If it brings you some perverse pleasure to mock the man I helped get elected ... well ... thank you sir, may I have another.

Once Again, I have wasted an hour of my life.

They didn't broadcast the democrats scheduled rebuttal in spanish, wonder what happened?

I think he said that carbon emmissions contribute to global warmning. Isn't that what he said?

Puft, Yes and I think that proves me correct all along, no? You and Bush - I'll straighten youze guys out one of these days.

H.E., my condolences. He got rave reviews in some quarters, obviously by people with rose colored glasses on.

Enough, It was broadcast on the spanish channels.

By the way, I just read the other day that bilingualism has shown to delay age related dementia by 4 years. . .

This is so awesome!!_______
_________________

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/20070123_STATEOFUNION.html

go to that link! ..you'll see that last night was the first time Bush ever used the phrase "Global Climate Change" in a SOTUA.

Do you think this is Bush reaching across the isle, or trying to help the Republicans get ahead start on the issue ahead of '08?

I've created a Yahoo discussion group for folks in our great commonwealth interested in supporting Tom Tancredo for el Presidente of these Estado Unidos.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VirginiansForTancredo2008

Sorry, I believe it's EstadoS Unidos.

Lo siento.

Kevin, for the record I'm hugely in favor of bilingualism ... Alzheimer's aside.

Puft, that is mighty cool. You liberals come up with some neat stuff sometimes, I have to hand you that.

RE: Global Climate Change, I think it is GW Bush reminding me why this third party idea should not be ignored.

I happen to think the notion that carbon emissions have anything to do with global climate change is a crock of sh-t, and will be revealed as such in time. Global climate change happens regardless of what we do.

But you already know what I think about that ...

Wow, Ted, that's amazing. I just typed and posted that message as you were writing yours.

We will be posting BIG Tancredo support here, and yes I will join your group.

hmmm, I'm not sure how electable this tenkwando guy is.

Joe, I've been arguing so much at work lately that I barely have the stomach to argue how making English the official language and championing the passing of English Only cities/counties does not make you a strong advocate of bilingualism. FYI, they just did a raid up here off Broadway St. and caught a bunch of illegal immigrants who were in line waiting to work, so the story goes. People are talking, if you go looking for it.

Also I meant to post this link last night before things got started_____www.drinkinggame.us/

Puft, yes that is the knock on him, he needs to kick it up a notch in terms of charisma and knowledge on topics other than immigration. Also maybe kick up the height.

Kevin, when your stomach is recovered stop back by and let me know what the disconnect is between "bilingualism" and English-only rules. The latter don't mean you can't speak or learn other languages. They mean - generally speaking - that English is the official language of government and all those who want to be citizens must learn it.

On boards all over the internet people are saying that due to disgust and the neglect of the government they have become a one issue voter for 2008 and Tancredo is their man.

It may be delightful to have a man in the white house that is sick and tired of politically correct, pandering to mexico and the klan with a tan.

It doesn't matter what state, city, county, etc that I read a paper and the comments the feeling seems to be the same in regards to illegals. People are fed up.

People who are not vocal for one reason or another are silently letting their feelings be known everywhere on the net.

Considering that Tancredo is open, honest and has lived the problem and knows what he is talking about he may have a good chance. He was a school teacher.

You can believe that he is doing this so the issue is not swept under the rug and it will force it to the forefront.

I'd be surprised if any of the bigwigs are going to take this guy seriously. The GOP is feeling like it's on the ropes right now, and they're going to nominate the most electable person they can find, not a hard liner monomaniac. That's what I think.

Puft, of course you are correct. They will do everything they can to marginalize him and call his supporters xenophobes to endear themselves with the MSM who will be saying the same thing.

BTW, what is a monomaniac? A one issue candidate perhaps?

It seems to me that the "hard liner monomaniac" may be the most electable.

hmmm, is there really that much national support for a hard line immigration policy? Seems like if there was, the Republicans would have pushed something through before the midterm.

here's some opinion polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

are you sure there's no such thing as an anti-immigration blogosphere bubble?

The Republicans did not push something through before mid term because they are divided, and Bush is pro-amnesty anyway.

The poll is a bit skewed by the way the question is phrased, I think, but in any case it shows that the issue ain't exactly chopped liver.

More importantly, the GOP is history if they become pro-amnesty.

No value judgment in that statement (though you know where I stand) - it's more of a demographic observation.

The constituency that will abandon the party - that is in the process of abandoning the party already in fact - if the amnesty bill is passed or if McCain is the nominee, for instance, will leave the GOP a permanent minority.

Numbers-wise, the immigration issue could easily be Karl Rove's undoing. Heh.

I hear Romney has said many of the right things on the issue of immigration, and his slip ups have come early enough that they may not matter by next year. He would be a much more electable candidate than Tancredo.

But events could change things. Some high profile crime or such, maybe another march in the streets, could make the "monomaniacal" the most electable.

"'bilingualism' and English-only rules"

Before you go gettin' all Crazy Joe on me, let me say that I'm not AS familiar with the "rules" of the particular English-only of which you speak.

And just to be inflammatory, there must be an invisibly fine line between requiring individuals to learn the English language (which I'm not opposed to) and holding anyone who doesn't powerless, as far as government goes. For real, instead of blocking people's access to government why don't you be proactive and encourage government funded ESL classes? Legalized "keeping a man down" is different than legalized "helping a brother up". I'm just sayin'.

Well, what I meant was that if there was enough anti-immigration sentiment out there that a one-issue candidate stood a real chance, the GOP wouldn't be divided on the issue.

also, wouldn't english-only rules be a fairly literal violation of freedom of speech?

Puft, I gather your familiarity with Republicans could best be described as at a "do androids dream of electric sheep" sort of level?

Like, "I don't know any personally, but I've seen Harrison Ford shoot them in the movies"?

I can't make any sense out of that first sentence.

And - stop me if I'm wrong, but would it be a fair guess that some establishment in Ann Arbor hosts a nice happy hour on Thursdays? - did you really think "English only" meant other languages were forbidden?

If that's really what you thought it meant, then I guess I can forgive you thinking I'm an extremist. That would be pretty extreme.

"English only" as I've seen it used means English is the language of government, which means citizens are not having to pay for non-citizens' document translation and interpretation for government functions. It also means aliens MUST learn English. Apart from that, people can walk around speaking pig Latin all the time if they want.

Kevin, good, now we are getting somewhere.

"why don't you be proactive and encourage government funded ESL classes"

That's the question that needs to be asked. And here's the answer that needs to be responded with:

And why the farook should WE have to pay for them to learn English??!!

You think if you go to any other country in the world they pay for you to learn their language? How do we end up having to pay for everyone else's defense and also pay their expenses to come live here?

Also: ESL is not all that successful, at least at the school level, at turning non-English speakers into English speakers.

In any case, I think the whole scenario of people sneaking into the U.S. and going on the public dole is a scam, a major farce. English only rules put the burden on them to learn our language. Since the vast majority of them are not even being threatened with enforcement of current immigration laws, the least they can do is not have their palms out as well.

Government expenses incurred for translation and interpretation are significant and only serve to insulate aliens from the need to learn English.

All,
The govenrment does fund ESL classes.

The questoin is should the government have to do business in more than one language? In DC I beleive forms are availabe in over ten languages. That is chaotic, expensive and wrong. When someone comes here and refuses to learn the language, become part of the melting pot it is not immigration, it is migration.

"The govenrment does fund ESL classes." Thanks Jacob!

English-only laws are designed to be exclusive in nature, true? To deny government access to all but one group of people (in this instance the one group is those that understand English)?

Kevin,
The idea that any form of exclusiveness is it be avoided is a bad one. This country is not based on blood(race) like germany, ireland korea or Japan. it is based on a common set of cultural mores. These mores do not mearly abide in the constitution, they also abide in the common cultural fabric that brought about that precious document. I grew celebrating the melting pot. Multi-culti-think balkanizes our culture. We must be American first. Otherwise we will disappear as a nation.

I disagree.

What defines a nation?

Borders, Language, and Culture.

In August 1980 a few months before clinton left office he ordered the multi-language on all government documents with a signing order.

This was in addition to his motor-voter which non-citizens have taken advantage of to register to vote, and many have been voting.

He also leased a military base that he ordered closed in california to the chinese. It turns out the chinese were using the port at the base to smuggle weapons into the country to sell to gang members and other criminals.

Go clintons!!!

May I add that I am not very comfortable with the thought of hillary in the white house again shredding documents in the oval office.

I'm sorry I put the wrong year, clinton signed the order on August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166 "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency."

Also since this signing order people can be exempt from the English language requirement when they take the citizenship test if they have been here, I believe it is 20 years. If they can't learn English in 20 years something else is really wrong.

Orders such as this only put us backwards, not ahead and we are experiencing the results, in our schools and everywhere.

I'm sorry I put the wrong year, clinton signed the order on August 11, 2000, Executive Order 13166 "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency."

Also since this signing order people can be exempt from the English language requirement when they take the citizenship test if they have been here, I believe it is 20 years. If they can't learn English in 20 years something else is really wrong.

Orders such as this only put us backwards, not ahead and we are experiencing the results, in our schools and everywhere.

"I disagree" OK. Why? Name a nation in the past that was not defined by its launguage, and culture? How can a nation be defined?

The constitution is a symbol of an agreed upon framework that was the result of Englishmen rebellion against their kings for over 400 years, starting with the magna carta, resting on anglo saxon common law and running it all through the Cromwellian Republic.

That piece of paper is the embodiment of a culture. Take away that culture and the paper loses its meaning. So when you say "I disagree" I am very curious as to the why. For I think you are deadly wrong here Kevin. Ya here?

Had Enough,
Glad you caught that yourself. I was about to ask if you forgot to take your medication.

"I disagree." Let me clarify, you are right, "The idea that any form of exclusiveness is it be avoided is a bad one." I'm sure there are examples of good exclusive law. THIS nation is absolutely defined by it's language/culture which has always been one of openness and inclusiveness, at least superficially or in theory. That's partly why everyone wants to come here, no?

Enough, do you know how the executive order came about? In it it states it was created, at least in part, to ensure "activities they normally provide in English are accessible to LEP
persons and thus do not discriminate on the basis of national origin
in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
and its implementing regulations."

I'm curious to know if there was some Supreme Court decision you're aware of that prompted an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or prompted the Fed. Gov't to have to implement the order?

members of my own family are republicans, thank you very much!

"What defines a nation?" is the question of the day, isn't it? ...along with "Who defines a nation?"

I would say the CITIZENS define the nation.

Kevin,
Your last comment is difficult to decipher, especially the second half.

I will start with ...
""The idea that any form of exclusiveness is it be avoided is a bad one." I'm sure there are examples of good exclusive law."
Try the following four examples of exclusive law:
1. You have to be CITIZEN of this country to vote.
2. You have to be BORN in this country to run for president.
3. You have to be of a given age to run for office.
4. You cannot be blind and drive.
ALL four are exclusionary and the first three are part of the constitution. So the whole exclusive=bad is not holding water.

Now let us move on to ...
"THIS nation is absolutely defined by it's language/culture which has always been one of openness and inclusiveness, at least superficially or in theory."
I will answer what I can because I am sorry Kevin the statement is a non-sequitor.
First of all a language is not open or inclusive.

Secondly all are welcome to come Kevin. BUT all who came in the past learned the language. Entered the melting pot, and became chauvinistically American. I grew up in an immigrant's neighbor hood. We had Irish, Italians, Poles, Greeks, Germans, South Americans, Koreans, etc. Our parents spoke heavily accented English. Us kids spoke English with a NY accent. All became citizens in 7 years and threw parties when they did. No one flew flags on their front porches other than the Stars and Stripes. We ALL were Americans and damn proud of it. I could imagine what would happen if some loser showed up demanding we respect his non-American history, say we celebrate oh lets say "the October Revolution", the "Queens B-day" or "Cinco de Mayo". We'd have sent him home with his teeth in a paper bag. The message always was come to America and be American; not some hyphenated mess

"That's partly why everyone wants to come here, no?"
I think we are in agreement but let me put it another way if you don't mind ...
People came here because we are and were a just society especially when compared to the rest of the world. You got a fair shake. As a legal immigrant or a citizen you were protected by the law. Also your accumulated property could not be confiscated capriciously; Life Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Multi Culti think on the other hand is predicated on the assumption that all cultures are equally good, which means it is as good anywhere else.

As for ...
"do you know how the executive order came about? In it it states it was created, at least in part, to ensure "activities they normally provide in English are accessible to LEP"
1. I have no idea what is a LEP.
2. An executive order for what, ESL?
3. I am at a loss here. Sorry. If you can flesh it out with respect to context, I will try to give it an honest answer.

Jacob,

I appreciate the amount of time and effort you took to respond to my baffling comment. To clarify further, the following should be read without any intonation of sarcasm or disuputatiousness. . .

1. "'The idea that any form of exclusiveness is it be avoided is a bad one.' I'm sure there are examples of good exclusive law."

This was a sincere statement. Initially I was going to include lots of laws about criminal activity but then I figured you could come up with your own examples, which you did, and they're good examples. You are absolutely right and my statement was intended to clarify that I do not hold the belief that "any form of exclusiveness is a bad one". We agree and always have on this.

2. "First of all a language is not open or inclusive." Absolutely agree with ya here. My statement was sloppily made and without thought. I do think that one of the things which makes a culture is it's language. And a culture is part of what makes a nation, I assume we agree or we wouldn't be having this discussion to begin with. I sometimes make the mistake, in my mind, of putting too much emphasis on the language. Your point about multi-culti-think is well taken. Let's agree that there are no absolutes when talking about cultures (or many other things for that matter) and go from there. No culture is necessarily "as good, just different". That said, our culture has been, traditionally and in law, more inclusive than many others. I think you and I agree on more points than not and at some point we should get back to English-only legislation, which I disagree with but I'm not gonna write a manifesto on it.

3. "As for ...
'do you know how the executive order came about?'" I was addressing H.E. on this topic and I appreciate your confusion when I've addressed her (presumably) as "Enough". That said "LEP" is defined as such in the order: "persons who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their
English proficiency (LEP)". Since H.E. was the one who caused me to learn about the order I assumed she would understand the abbreviations. You ought to look up the order, I bet it drives you nuts! www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/Pubs/eolep.htm

At any rate it almost reads as though it was begrudgingly written out of necessity; sort of a CYA which is why I was interested in the history of it and any legal decisions that may have led to it.

Thanks for your prior thoughtful response, by the way. . .

Kevin,
As for your points 1 and 3 I see am happy to let matters rest. Within your point 2 I will take exception.

You write "Let's agree that there are no absolutes when talking about cultures (or many other things for that matter) and go from there." No culture is necessarily "as good, just different".

Sorry I cannot agree here for I do believe there are absolutes. I am not a relativist. So I could not disagree with you more. "Just different" is a founding tenant upon which Multi-Culti-Think is based upon. No culture is perfect. But I contend that some are far less perfect than others.

All cultures are not equal; and the worse they are to begin with, the more rapidly they will degenerate. To pretend that all cultures are equal is to ignore the obvious. For example in many parts of Africa the practice of female circumcision is widespread. In India, the use of sonograms to determine the sex of the baby so that a female unborn child can be aborted is also widespread. In China female children are routinely left on a hill to die. Western culture does not devalue women's lives so ruthlessly on so large a scale.

Our culture invented the concept of democratic governance. Our culture invented the concept that slavery is evil. Women's suffrage in the Muslim, or, Hindu world's was a non starter. India has, to its credit adopted the concept, while the culture still practices female infanticide on a large scale. Positive change is seldom consistent across a cultural waterfront.

You say "That said, our culture has been, traditionally and in law, more inclusive than many others. I think you and I agree on more points than not ..." I agree.

And then write "and at some point we should get back to English-only legislation, which I disagree with but I'm not gonna write a manifesto on it." But Kevin I actually want you to write a few paragraphs on the matter. I look forward to your missive, or manifesto. For it is very likely I will rise up in opposition to it.