Don Muerto wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:There's lots of mexican people who favor their kids being taught english too so they can get ahead in the US business world, but they don't get any press. In fact, opposition to this typically comes from those who have entrenched interest in mexicans staying illiterate and poor-Bustamante and the owner of Univision (Spanish language TV channel) are two who spring to mind.
US English was not about encouraging immigrants to learn English, it was about disenfranchising those that didn't. English only ballots and school curriculum is a great way to keep non-English speakers illiterate and poor. It's totally ridiculous of you to portray US English as a populist Mexican movement being subverted by a cabal of Mexican elites keeping their countrymen monolingual.
It may seem ridiculous to you that someone would seek to repress their "fellow man", but unfortunately, it's true. Those who benefit from keeping immigrants weak don't have altruism in their hearts, they don't see people as people, they just see a wallet and a vote.
Ask yourself this; what benefit is there to having multilingualism? or is it just a way for these people to be enabled
to not have to expend the effort to learn english? I'm sure you're aware of how destructive an ENABLER is to an alcoholic. Without someone to support them, call in sick for them, etc., they might not sink so low into their destructive disease. Why people can't see the same thing happening with multilingualism is beyond me.
Don Muerto wrote:
aforceforgood wrote:I think your definition is self-serving and flawed. But to answer your question, I think Arnold will press for environmentally sound policies, yes, especially if he's pressed to by people.
I disagree that it is self-serving, just as I disagree that Arnold is an environmentalist because he will be forced to respond when "pressed to by people." Arnold will make choices in office, and only if he chooses environmentally sound policies when he *isn't* forced to will he be an environmentalist. By your definition any company or political bent can be considered environmentalist.
So you think the answer is to elect a representative who agrees with you, what, 99.999245563% of the time? Or is 95% percent good enough? 83%? Good luck with that viewpoint, you're well down the road to mad science and feeding your own skin shavings/DNA to your sea monkeys to try and grow a politician you can feel good about.
Isn't it good enough if he passes legislation that we want? Or does he have to personally agree with it? What does that matter? So we don't have to keep talking to him, letting him know what kind of leadership we want to see? Sorry, all people in leadership will go astray without the active voice of the governed giving them feedback.
In other words, I don't believe a damned word he said during the election race, I'm waiting to see what he DOES, even while I give him credit for being smart enough to run a race in the way he could win. I expect he will govern the same way, doing what works. And I also suspect he has little interest in governing the way we've seen it done in the past- namely, bureaucratic station keeping/babysitting/pandering/least offensive decision tree leadership- I sense an ambition to make a serious improvement in the way California's government handles it's affairs, and to make major changes in the very structure of the way we see politics and government.
Ok, I know that last bit's wildly optimistic, but I can dream, can't I?
Counterpoint- either that, or Arnold's the hand-picked replacement to continue giving us bread and circuses while bleeding us for tax dollars...