The Education Wonks
Thanks so much, Ed. I agree with every word you said. I was a bit surprised (which is a polite way to say I was shocked) that President Bush agreed with my sentiments about this, until I considered that his advisors realize that the backlash on the Spanish "version" of our national anthem could damage his attempts to flood our economy with cheap workers.
Let's also remember that Mexico does not welcome ITS immigrants with open arms, and even naturalized citizens are not full citizens.
I also indict the corruption of the Mexican government. I completely understand why many of its people want to come here. But it must be done legally.
Ms. Cornelius, you're displaying a classic case of BDS. You can't even give the President credit for being sincere. No, the only possible way you and he could agree is if he is a calculating, conniving individual who gets something out of the deal.
This speaks about *you*, not the President, and it doesn't speak well.
I was surprised to find myself agreeing with the President on this matter, as an English teacher/Spanish teacher. I think English speaking should come with citizenship--the ability, if not the every-waking-minute practice of it. I'm less sure in regard to residents and other non-citizens.
I would like to say, however, that most of us remember how hard learning Spanish, French, Latin, German, Japanese, etc. was in high school. Imagine starting as an adult with less formal instruction.
And in defense of Mexico, when I lived there, Americans were given preference in just about everything. Sure, my neighbor liked me better when he found out I didn't approve of invading Iraq, but being gringa opened a lot of doors. I student taught at the American School Foundation, for heavens' sakes!
Gee, Darren, the last time you said something to me, you impugned my patriotism. Based on assumption.
Mr. Bush is a public figure, and his words and actions speak for themselves. We can disagree about that-- and we will. That's fine with me. But, instead of devolving to your typical namecalling, when I have been nothing BUT polite to you, how about you give me some evidence that this stance does not serve political purposes? Let's remember that Mr. Bush's top political advisor has been, up until about three days ago, also his chief policy advisor.
I expect better of you than "nanny-nanny-boo-boos" and intolerance of anyone's ability to express an opinion but your own. Maybe that's MY mistaken assumption. What was that about Fascism and the suppression of opposition?
Peace to you.
National anthems, like school songs, are often poorly crafted and difficult to sing, but they are intended to evoke patriotic feelings and help in the process of assimilation. In some countries, the national anthem is--for the residents of those countries--a reminder of oppression, brutality, and all that the country claims to be but is not.
In America, The Star Spangled Banner reminds all (with the exception of self-hating Americans) that tens of millions of people around the world still vote with their feet--or would if their governments would not imprison, torture or shoot them for trying--and come here for the honor of being able to sing that difficult to sing tune--in English--and to think of themselve as Americans.
If I go to another country, it would not occur to me, ugly American that I must be, to try to sing their anthem in English. As a composer, there is a word for one who rewrites another's music. There is an even less polite word for one who would steal an anthem that has given hope and comfort to millions and use it in a cheap political ploy (fill in your own appropriately derogatory word here).
Yes. We should sing the national anthem properly, and in English, and with the words as written by Francis Scott Key. That anyone would think that it would be appropriate to do otherwise shows how little civic understanding and virtue they possess, and how little we possess for even entertaining such foolish and destructive ideas.
Ms. Cornelius:
The onus should be on you to prove that the President agrees with you *because* of some political calculation, as you've asserted, not on me to prove that he agrees with you because of some other reason. You made the assertion, I merely challenged it.
No, about my "suppression of opposition". I've never tried to suppress your remarks--for example, I've not lobbied the EdWonks to delete your traitorous, libelous, seditious comments. No, I've *challenged* them. See, the antidote to free speech you don't like (and no, I don't really think your comments above were traitorous, etc) is *more* speech, not less. I haven't suppressed your free speech, I've exercised my own. That, apparently, is a view lost on liberals =) I'm intolerant because I challenge you to support your statements? Wow. That's a new definition of "intolerant" for me.
For me, "toleration" doesn't include liking or agreeing with someone. It means "live and let live". I "tolerate" libs and various and sundry other socialists, I just don't agree with them very much. I don't see how I wrote above was intolerant--or even name-calling.
Peace--through superior firepower 
I addressed your question in my previous post, if you had actually bothered to read it. But you're not really interested in that, are you?
Apparently it's "treasonous" to criticize the American president. How very John Adams of you. Not just treasonous, but libelous, and seditious. The Federalist party of 1798 would have signed you up in a heartbeat. And you have determined that I am a socialist, too. Talk about your ad hominems-- and in little bitty words for you, that means that you engage in irrational, namecalling attacks on anyone you disagree with rather than actually engage the debate. You must disagree with my stance that our borders must be protected and our laws enforced, and apparently you characterize this belief as socialist. That's a fascinating leap.
Apparently then, you take it all back after shooting your mouth off in yet another eruption of verbal flatulence ("and no, I don't really think your comments above were traitorous, etc.") How disingenuous of you.
Apparently your "better firepower" is sophomoric namecalling, insult, insinuation, dissembling, and the instinctual braying of a hound. Instead of actually engaging the question-- if you are capable of it-- you simply start equating criticising the policies of this administration with treason. One wonders if your intense fealty to the point of worship extends to all presidents, or just this ones who claim to be conservative and yet encourage the de facto opening of our borders to anyone, even if they evade our laws?
If my criticism against this administration's attempts at illegal alien policy is a socialist stance, then apparently more than half the members of the Republican-controlled Senate, as well as over 60% of the American people, including legal immigrants, have joined the Revolution-- and right before May Day!
And yes! I am all for free speech. When are you actually going to start speaking to the issue?
When you quit whining and name-calling?
And *where* did I call you a socialist? You're reading way too much into what I'm writing. In fact, I'd say you're now in the realm of hysterics. Take a breather, calm down, then try again.
"I "tolerate" libs and various and sundry other socialists, I just don't agree with them very much. I don't see how I wrote above was intolerant--or even name-calling."
Hmm. And now we're to sexism. Good for you. It's good to have a well-rounded tone to your bile.
And the only name I called YOU was a hound. Still barking too.
I am completely calm. I'm merely unwilling to accept your argument for arguments' sake malarkey. Is that hysterical? And you still haven't addressed the topic-- not surprising from you, again, given the paucity of vocabulary you'd be left with if you removed "pinko," "lib," "socialist," or whatever else I don't want to give you ideas about from your vocabulary.
But before you go off on another tangent again, can't you please admit that you just posted a criticism of the illegal immigrant problem very similar to my criticisms of the same topic? So one wonders, why the hostility?
Is anyone going to talk about the issue?
No, Ms. Cornelius, all I said was, and I quote:
You can't even give the President credit for being sincere. No, the only possible way you and he could agree is if he is a calculating, conniving individual who gets something out of the deal.
I criticized your unnecessary attack on the President, and nothing more.
As for my comment about socialists, I wasn't calling you a socialist. I was listing people I merely tolerate. I apologize if that wasn't clear enough to you through your anger.
"You can't even give the President credit for being sincere. No, the only possible way you and he could agree is if he is a calculating, conniving individual who gets something out of the deal."
Given Bush's track record, it's hard to give him credit for being sincere about anything save the usurpation of all governmental power by the executive branch.
He's obviously doing that by thwarting the will of the people through use of the veto.
Darren, you might try reading the news.
I read as far as the so-called illegal wiretaps and determined that the author doesn't know what he's talking about. In 2002 the FISA court itself ruled that the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of certain people. I've linked to the citation at http://
rightontheleftcoast.blogs...rveillance.html
Point of order: name calling by itself is not an ad hominem fallacy. it has to serve as proof of some statement to be ad hominem.
If I say Person X is stupid/socialist/funny-looking, that's just name-calling.
If, however, I say Person X is stupid/socialist/funny-looking THEREFORE his argument is false, then that's ad hominem.
/the more you know.
Ok, what happened to the actual topic, which is changing the national anthem?
Okay, Darren, how about the Cato Institute?
Given the refusal of certain individuals to even address the topic, let's get this back on track. There is no point to speak to someone who is only interested in the sound of his two lips flapping, and who starts off in dittohead attack mode and then decries OTHER people as angry.
Nuestra Hymno-- I misspelled it on my title, sorry-- uses the tune of our national anthem to put forth the pro-illegal immigrant manifesto. It is fine if the illegal immigrants and their supporters want a song of their own-- but use some other tune, please, and don't mislead people to believe you're simply translating the national anthem of the United States.
Let's remember that the Star Spangled Banner was written during the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. Washington had been put to the torch by the British, who then moved to Baltimore. Mr. Key had negotiated the release of an acquaintance from the custody of the British but had been refused permission to return to Baltimore due to the knowledge he and his party had of British strength and its upcoming attack on Baltimore. His fears were assuaged after the more than twenty-four hour battle when he saw the flag still flying over Fort McHenry. His poem, entitled "The Defense of Fort McHenry" was later renamed "The Star Spangled Banner," set to music -- yes, a drinking song-- and adopted as the national anthem under Woodrow Wilson's administration.
All of this context makes no sense when reading the words of Nuestro Himno.
Cripey, it's Nuestro HIMNO-- sorry!
Back to the Valium, Ms. Cornelius. I've addressed the topic that I set out to address--and have addressed it several times.
"Lips flapping"? Is that a racist comment?
Darren, you are a vicious little ass whose students are to be pitied.
It's good that you know something about my students, Michael. Perhaps you even know what's best for them. Perhaps you think I'm not an effective teacher, that I should be fired.
Or perhaps you don't think at all.
I'm going with Option B.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
