A final follow-up to my earlier piece: the Jackson town board on Wednesday approved its English-only law... though not without embarrassing itself one final time. The Post-Star's Nick Reisman reported that, you couldn't make this stuff up, the original text of the proposed law contained two grammar errors:
"The purpose of this law is to provide for the language to be used by the elected officials and its appointees."
and later the law "designates English as the official written and spoken language of the Town Board and its appointees to be used in all official meetings and business conducted by the elected officials and its appointees."
As any teenager with an A in 9th grade English could tell you, it should have been "the elected officials and THEIR appointees."
Fortunately, citizens in the audience informed the elected officials of "its" errors.
Regardless of what one things about the English-only law in a town that's 97.3 percent white and 1.1 percent Hispanic, it is more than a little galling that use of the language is being mandated by a group of people with such a pathetic grasp of it.
The final kicker: yesterday was National Grammar Day.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Hatemongering is the real cancer in America
There's a great line in the movie The American President that goes something like, "Why is it that people who claim to love America spend so much time hating Americans?"
I noticed that the boobs in Congress are trying to ban al-Jazeera from satellite providers for "anti-Americanism." Al-Jazeera, or at least its English service, is an excellent news organization that truly does fulfill a mission to broadcast and reflect a wide variety of viewpoints. It's a refreshing change from the elitist US model of primarily airing "slightly left of center" establishment insider views and "slightly right of center" establishment insider views.
The BBC (World TV and World Service radio) is much better than American broadcasters and does excellent in-depth reporting. But the BBC is heavily centered on the US and Western Europe and on addressing governmental issues and politics. Al-Jazeera's breadth is much better, as it often delves deeper into broader social issues, rather than having a heavy focus on presidents, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders. Al-Jazeera also goes into more depth in covering the Arab world and Africa . But the two are both good and compliment each other.
The "anti-Americanism" Congress refers to is just another way of saying al-Jazeera sometimes airs views critical of US foreign policy and sometimes shows the actual effects of said policy on real human beings. Or perhaps more to the point, al-Jazeera's crime is that it treats non-Americans as full-fledged human beings.
This is completely unacceptable to American broadcasters who treat war as merely a video game. The only people portrayed sympathetically are American soldiers and their families. The only people that matter are these well-armed and -protected members of the occupation force.
People indigenous to the countries US soldiers are fighting in are mere background noise; you'd have no idea that it's, you know, THEIR COUNTRY. You'd have no idea that exponentially more Afghans and Iraqi nationals have been killed that American or coalition soldiers. They've lost relatives, friends, property, livelihood. Of course, it's "blame America first" or "political correctness" if you mention any of this.
Was all this caused by US troops? Of course not. But the US invasions unleashed a series of chaotic and entirely foreseeable consequences that Iraqis and Afghans, not Americans, are bearing the brunt of. Al-Jazeera's "anti-Americanism" is that its reporting reflects this broader human truth, rather than just the very narrow American nationalistic truth.
And yet Glenn Beck's call for the "eradication" of progressivism or Rush Limbaugh's calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a terrorist are not at all anti-American... because in their eyes progressives and Pelosi aren't real Americans. Yeah, a good foreign news organization is the real threat to a civilized America. (wink)
Although this is a stark reversal of their contention of only a few years ago that criticism of the president constituted treason.
Does that mean airing "anti-American" views of others will be illegal, but hating Americans yourself is okay? Or does it mean it's okay wish ill on Americans who disagree with you politically, just so long as you don't hate all Americans?
Part of me wants to move to Canada to get away from this filth but that would mean Glenn Beck and the other American-haters would win. And I guess I love America too much to let that happen.
I noticed that the boobs in Congress are trying to ban al-Jazeera from satellite providers for "anti-Americanism." Al-Jazeera, or at least its English service, is an excellent news organization that truly does fulfill a mission to broadcast and reflect a wide variety of viewpoints. It's a refreshing change from the elitist US model of primarily airing "slightly left of center" establishment insider views and "slightly right of center" establishment insider views.
The BBC (World TV and World Service radio) is much better than American broadcasters and does excellent in-depth reporting. But the BBC is heavily centered on the US and Western Europe and on addressing governmental issues and politics. Al-Jazeera's breadth is much better, as it often delves deeper into broader social issues, rather than having a heavy focus on presidents, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders. Al-Jazeera also goes into more depth in covering the Arab world and Africa . But the two are both good and compliment each other.
The "anti-Americanism" Congress refers to is just another way of saying al-Jazeera sometimes airs views critical of US foreign policy and sometimes shows the actual effects of said policy on real human beings. Or perhaps more to the point, al-Jazeera's crime is that it treats non-Americans as full-fledged human beings.
This is completely unacceptable to American broadcasters who treat war as merely a video game. The only people portrayed sympathetically are American soldiers and their families. The only people that matter are these well-armed and -protected members of the occupation force.
People indigenous to the countries US soldiers are fighting in are mere background noise; you'd have no idea that it's, you know, THEIR COUNTRY. You'd have no idea that exponentially more Afghans and Iraqi nationals have been killed that American or coalition soldiers. They've lost relatives, friends, property, livelihood. Of course, it's "blame America first" or "political correctness" if you mention any of this.
Was all this caused by US troops? Of course not. But the US invasions unleashed a series of chaotic and entirely foreseeable consequences that Iraqis and Afghans, not Americans, are bearing the brunt of. Al-Jazeera's "anti-Americanism" is that its reporting reflects this broader human truth, rather than just the very narrow American nationalistic truth.
And yet Glenn Beck's call for the "eradication" of progressivism or Rush Limbaugh's calling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a terrorist are not at all anti-American... because in their eyes progressives and Pelosi aren't real Americans. Yeah, a good foreign news organization is the real threat to a civilized America. (wink)
Although this is a stark reversal of their contention of only a few years ago that criticism of the president constituted treason.
Does that mean airing "anti-American" views of others will be illegal, but hating Americans yourself is okay? Or does it mean it's okay wish ill on Americans who disagree with you politically, just so long as you don't hate all Americans?
Part of me wants to move to Canada to get away from this filth but that would mean Glenn Beck and the other American-haters would win. And I guess I love America too much to let that happen.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Discrimination is not discriminatory
A follow-up to my earlier piece on a posturing Jackson (NY) official who proposed an English-only law for his town even though he conceded local circumstances didn't really necessitate one.
In a Post-Star article, he denied that the law was discriminatory. "That is so far from the intent of this law, it's ludicrous," he said.
An English-only law is BY DEFINITION discriminatory against non-English speakers. The description -only is inherently discriminatory. If he wants to argue that it's justified discrimination, even if it's much ado about nothing, so be it. But don't deny what it is.
If this official has such a poor understanding of the meaning of basic English words, perhaps he's not the best person to dictate how and when others use the language. Maybe he should learn English before he demands others do so.
In a Post-Star article, he denied that the law was discriminatory. "That is so far from the intent of this law, it's ludicrous," he said.
An English-only law is BY DEFINITION discriminatory against non-English speakers. The description -only is inherently discriminatory. If he wants to argue that it's justified discrimination, even if it's much ado about nothing, so be it. But don't deny what it is.
If this official has such a poor understanding of the meaning of basic English words, perhaps he's not the best person to dictate how and when others use the language. Maybe he should learn English before he demands others do so.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
National Peace Corps Day (after)
Yesterday was national Peace Corps Day. In 2004, I wrote this essay (slightly modified since) in honor of Peace Corps Day. It's become a bit of a tradition for me to re-post it every March 1 (or 2, if I forget).
Moms and dads have their day. Old presidents have their day. So do labor unions and medieval saints. Soldiers have two official days plus numerous 'support our troops' rallies. Even bosses and secretaries have days, according to Hallmark. So why not Peace Corps volunteers?
Today is Peace Corps Day. It's the [48th] anniversary of the day President Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Peace Corps.
Some people think the Peace Corps is a military organization. In fact, it's the antithesis. It's an organization which sends volunteers to developing countries to engage in such activities as teaching, public health, environmental management and small business development.
Volunteers receive a living allowance to cover their basic expenses and are provided housing, but are otherwise not paid. They received a modest readjustment allowance following completion of their service and a small (10 percent when I left) reduction in federal student loans. But they otherwise receive further medical care or educational benefits. There is a small movement to obtain for departing volunteers benefits more similar to those received by those leaving the military, but it hasn't gotten anywhere.
The goals of the Peace Corps, according to the organization's website, are three:
1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.
Suffice it to say, all three goals have been important since the organization was created but #2 seems particularly crucial in the era of post-9/11 random invasions. Though increasingly, it feels like a "one step forward, three steps back" routine.
There have been many books on "the Peace Corps experience" (which is about as broad a generalization as "the American mentality"). Nevertheless, some themes tend to be pretty common among them.
-Go to God-foresaken country with the expectation to save the noble savages.
-Learn that they are not savages and that they are noble/ignoble in more or less the same proportion as Americans.
-Sense of loneliness in a totally alien culture.
-Learn that life without TV/computer is not the apocalypse.
-Leave with the realization that you learned more than they did.
-Sadness when they have to leave their village/city.
-Transmit these themes interspersed with a lot of humorous anecdotes.
-Commentary on the impact of American foreign policy, French foreign policy and the IMF/World Bank may be included.
Common themes for volunteers who served in sub-Saharan Africa, as I did, are as follows:
-Annoyance at people who call you 'toubabou' (or whatever the local language word for 'white person' is); "My name isn't 'toubabou'," fumes the author. "My name is John!"
-Agitation that everyone wanted you to marry their sister/brother/son/daughter or get them a visa to go to America.
-Rage at the dichotomy between the fabulous wealth of the political elite and the overwhelming poverty of the masses.
-Observation to the effect that "[nationality] are so poor monetarily but so rich in spirit/culture/community."
-Elegies about how welcoming [nationality] are to strangers.
-A brief history of the country and the legacy of European colonialism.
-Maddening anecdotes about dealing with corrupt officials, musings on heat, mosquitoes and hygeine and comical (or frightening) travel stories.
-General commentary about "the African condition" may be included.
(And just so I don't sound like a snob, I included every one of these themes in my journal and letters home)
The best book I've ever read about "the Peace Corps experience" was George Packer's The Village of Waiting. It was a wonderfully written book in its own right. But I enjoyed it even more because, even though it was set in Togo and I served in Guinea, it was pretty much the story of my experience. Reading The Village of Waiting is why I decided not to write a strictly autobiographical account of my experience: it had already been done.
Moms and dads have their day. Old presidents have their day. So do labor unions and medieval saints. Soldiers have two official days plus numerous 'support our troops' rallies. Even bosses and secretaries have days, according to Hallmark. So why not Peace Corps volunteers?
Today is Peace Corps Day. It's the [48th] anniversary of the day President Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Peace Corps.
Some people think the Peace Corps is a military organization. In fact, it's the antithesis. It's an organization which sends volunteers to developing countries to engage in such activities as teaching, public health, environmental management and small business development.
Volunteers receive a living allowance to cover their basic expenses and are provided housing, but are otherwise not paid. They received a modest readjustment allowance following completion of their service and a small (10 percent when I left) reduction in federal student loans. But they otherwise receive further medical care or educational benefits. There is a small movement to obtain for departing volunteers benefits more similar to those received by those leaving the military, but it hasn't gotten anywhere.
The goals of the Peace Corps, according to the organization's website, are three:
1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.
Suffice it to say, all three goals have been important since the organization was created but #2 seems particularly crucial in the era of post-9/11 random invasions. Though increasingly, it feels like a "one step forward, three steps back" routine.
There have been many books on "the Peace Corps experience" (which is about as broad a generalization as "the American mentality"). Nevertheless, some themes tend to be pretty common among them.
-Go to God-foresaken country with the expectation to save the noble savages.
-Learn that they are not savages and that they are noble/ignoble in more or less the same proportion as Americans.
-Sense of loneliness in a totally alien culture.
-Learn that life without TV/computer is not the apocalypse.
-Leave with the realization that you learned more than they did.
-Sadness when they have to leave their village/city.
-Transmit these themes interspersed with a lot of humorous anecdotes.
-Commentary on the impact of American foreign policy, French foreign policy and the IMF/World Bank may be included.
Common themes for volunteers who served in sub-Saharan Africa, as I did, are as follows:
-Annoyance at people who call you 'toubabou' (or whatever the local language word for 'white person' is); "My name isn't 'toubabou'," fumes the author. "My name is John!"
-Agitation that everyone wanted you to marry their sister/brother/son/daughter or get them a visa to go to America.
-Rage at the dichotomy between the fabulous wealth of the political elite and the overwhelming poverty of the masses.
-Observation to the effect that "[nationality] are so poor monetarily but so rich in spirit/culture/community."
-Elegies about how welcoming [nationality] are to strangers.
-A brief history of the country and the legacy of European colonialism.
-Maddening anecdotes about dealing with corrupt officials, musings on heat, mosquitoes and hygeine and comical (or frightening) travel stories.
-General commentary about "the African condition" may be included.
(And just so I don't sound like a snob, I included every one of these themes in my journal and letters home)
The best book I've ever read about "the Peace Corps experience" was George Packer's The Village of Waiting. It was a wonderfully written book in its own right. But I enjoyed it even more because, even though it was set in Togo and I served in Guinea, it was pretty much the story of my experience. Reading The Village of Waiting is why I decided not to write a strictly autobiographical account of my experience: it had already been done.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Paterson reportedly to not seek election
Several news outlets, including The Times-Union's Capitol Confidential blog, are reporting that Gov. Paterson will end his campaign for governor.
The decision comes in the wake of a devastating piece by The New York Times on the case of a top Paterson aide who was accused of 'violently assaulting' a woman. She claimed that a member of the governor's security detail pressured her to drop the claim. The State Police superintendent admitted a trooper visited the woman but claims there was no pressuring involved; the Times notes that the State Police had n jurisdiction in the matter.
Then, the Times reports, just before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.
The deputy commissioner for public safety then resigned after claiming she'd been lied to by the affair by the State Police superintendent.
I've long been an admirer of the governor but his saga is a tragic case. He is quite clearly the only person in Albany with the fortitude to address the state's fiscal crisis and generally take on powerful vested interests. And he's taken courageous stands on important issues like equal rights for gays and ethics reform. But few seemingly good men have shot themselves in the foot more often than Paterson.
Further, any moral high ground on ending the culture of corruption in Albany has completely evaporated because of this affair. The politicization of law enforcement, which also undermined his predecessor's credibility, has to be one of the most unacceptable things in a state governed by the rule of law.
Additionally, in the wake of the different but related scandals involving Sens. Hiram Monserrate and Kevin Parker, the last thing Albany needs is more tolerance of disgusting domestic abusers and bullies.
Maybe, this organization should start giving seminars at the Capitol.
The decision comes in the wake of a devastating piece by The New York Times on the case of a top Paterson aide who was accused of 'violently assaulting' a woman. She claimed that a member of the governor's security detail pressured her to drop the claim. The State Police superintendent admitted a trooper visited the woman but claims there was no pressuring involved; the Times notes that the State Police had n jurisdiction in the matter.
Then, the Times reports, just before she was due to return to court to seek a final protective order, the woman got a phone call from the governor, according to her lawyer. She failed to appear for her next hearing on Feb. 8, and as a result her case was dismissed.
The deputy commissioner for public safety then resigned after claiming she'd been lied to by the affair by the State Police superintendent.
I've long been an admirer of the governor but his saga is a tragic case. He is quite clearly the only person in Albany with the fortitude to address the state's fiscal crisis and generally take on powerful vested interests. And he's taken courageous stands on important issues like equal rights for gays and ethics reform. But few seemingly good men have shot themselves in the foot more often than Paterson.
Further, any moral high ground on ending the culture of corruption in Albany has completely evaporated because of this affair. The politicization of law enforcement, which also undermined his predecessor's credibility, has to be one of the most unacceptable things in a state governed by the rule of law.
Additionally, in the wake of the different but related scandals involving Sens. Hiram Monserrate and Kevin Parker, the last thing Albany needs is more tolerance of disgusting domestic abusers and bullies.
Maybe, this organization should start giving seminars at the Capitol.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
An interview with the "Most Dangerous Man in America"
The Bob Edwards Show has a great interview with former Marine Daniel Ellsberg, who's more well-known for leaking the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1970. The Papers revealed the secret history of US involvement in Vietnam and the pathological government lying to cover up that history. Ellsberg stated his certainty that at some point, the Afghanistan Papers would reveal the similarly sordid history of the more intractable of our two current imperial morasses. What's interesting, the former Marine noted, is that most of the crimes committed by the Nixon administration against him (mostly related to warrantless domestic spying) would now be legal under the so-called Patriot Act.
Ellsberg was appearing in conjunction with the recently released documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America.
Ellsberg was appearing in conjunction with the recently released documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Why I won't take The Pledge
The electricity monopoly National Grid has launched a new PR campaign designed to get people to pledge to reduce energy consumption by 3 percent.
They tout the initiative on their main website with the pithy phrase, "The less energy you use, the less you pay for."
The problem is that due to National Greed's billing practices*, the phrase is patently untrue. The monopoly has consistently offset any reduction in revenues received from actual power usage by jacking up the nebulous "delivery charge" portion of their bill... which can be as much as three and a half times the cost of actual power usage.
Reduce energy usage because it's the right thing to do for the planet. But don't act under any delusion that you will see any difference on your National Greed bill.
(*-Note: I've documented these practices several times including most expansively here but also here and here)
They tout the initiative on their main website with the pithy phrase, "The less energy you use, the less you pay for."
The problem is that due to National Greed's billing practices*, the phrase is patently untrue. The monopoly has consistently offset any reduction in revenues received from actual power usage by jacking up the nebulous "delivery charge" portion of their bill... which can be as much as three and a half times the cost of actual power usage.
Reduce energy usage because it's the right thing to do for the planet. But don't act under any delusion that you will see any difference on your National Greed bill.
(*-Note: I've documented these practices several times including most expansively here but also here and here)
For once, the far right is silent on terrorism
For some reason, this link is not able to be posted on Facebook because supposedly it's been flagged as "offensive" by some users, dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it crybabies do doubt, but NCPR's Brian Mann has good piece calling out deafening conservative and Republican silence on terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)