Time's Halperin uncritically reported false claim by "[c]ritics" that Obama "encourag[ed] Americans to learn Spanish over immigrants learning English"
SUMMARY: On his website, The Page, Mark Halperin uncritically reported the false accusation, which he attributed to "[c]ritics" of Sen. Barack Obama, that Obama "encourag[ed] Americans to learn Spanish over immigrants learning English." In fact, Obama said: "I agree that immigrants should learn English. ... But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."
In a July 11 entry on his website, The Page, Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin uncritically reported the false accusation, which he attributed to "[c]ritics" of Sen. Barack Obama, that Obama "encourag[ed] Americans to learn Spanish over immigrants learning English." In fact, as the very article Halperin linked to makes clear, in the remarks in question, Obama said: "I agree that immigrants should learn English. ... But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."
From the July 11 Associated Press article to which Halperin linked:
At issue was a remark the Illinois senator made Monday in Powder Springs, Ga., that drew laughter from the crowd -- but disdain from conservatives and groups advocating English as the official U.S. language. His remark has caused buzz on the Internet and talk radio.
The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said in a statement, "Barack Obama has stepped on a political land mine by stating Americans should be forced to learn to speak Spanish." But that's not what Obama said.
Obama was answering a question on education when he said he doesn't understand people who say "we need English only."
"I agree that immigrants should learn English," Obama said. "But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language."
He argued that the country should be emphasizing foreign language study in classrooms.
"You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup!'" Obama said, laughing.
Halperin's July 11 entry in its entirety:
Speaking in Dayton, the Senator stands by his call for American children to learn Spanish, which has prompted disagreement from the right.
"I said something the other day down in Georgia, and the Republicans jumped on this... This is an example of some of the problems we get into when somebody attacks you for saying the truth."
Adds: "I don't speak a foreign language. It's embarrassing!"
Critics have accused Obama of encouraging Americans to learn Spanish over immigrants learning English.
It means exactly what I said. How typical of a politican to say "you should" even though they do not.
How many languages do you speak? I speak two and I'm learning a third. (And I've been able to muddle by in at least three other countries that don't speak english.)
I'm sick and tired of people who never bothered to learn another language getting on people to learn english. They should, but it's hypocritical unless you've ever bothered to broaden your own abilities.
-- But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- Obama
Yeah, that's right Obama...we shouldn't worry...it's just a legal requirement for citizenship. Pushing for our children to become better educated is a universal truth...but to emphasize the point that we should be bilingual...yep, that's a land mine.
Hillary, with nearly 2000 delegates and millions of supporters, is still parked on the tarmac...ready to launch at a moments notice.
I think I heard a cable news guest whisper off air..."Talkin down to Americans...I'll cut his nuts off".
Cmon Wesley - How does a comment like "whining Americans" even come close to anything Jesse could say about Obama? It doesn't get much more "talking down" than that.
But who's keepin' score?:)
Wes - There are exceptions to the requirement to speak english, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.
Just like Gramm says, we're just in a "mental" recession. There's no actual impact on the average family who is now paying over $4 for a gallon of gas or whose food bill has probably doubled. It's all just mental. And, this is from the guy advising McCain on economic issues? Wow!
Of course there are...if you've lived her 15-20 years legally and are 50-55 years old or have a physical or mental impairment which prohibits learning English...if you are currently trying to immigrate here and become a citizen...you must learn English.
I don't know of anyone who "likes" paying $4/gal for gasoline or higher food costs...that, however, was not the point made by Graham. Most economists agree on the universal definition of 2 quarters of negative growth in GDP...of which we are not anywhere near.
There are lots of tough economic situations going on today...you touched on a couple...but it's silly to attribute to Graham the position that it's "all" just mental. His larger point was the media's sad attempt to produce mostly gloom and doom reports.
About that $4 gasoline. When Pres.Bush took office the price was $1.47. When democrats took control of congress the price was $2.25. After 2 years of democrat control the price has soared to $4.11.
-- Americans can no longer afford George W. Bush as President and his Rubber Stamp Republican Congress -- Pelosi 4-06
So the new sheriff rolled into town with the bold statement that the democrats had a commonsense plan to lower the price of the fuel...laying the problem at the feet of Pres.Bush and the republican congress. Well, it has been nearly 2 years and the price has increased nearly $2/gal.
Don't even start with the horse chestnut about republicans in congress blocking her legislation. Not only has she not passed any bragged about legislation...she hasn't proposed any.
"what the hell are you talking, errr rambling, about ?"
Apparently, he's talking about undisputable facts. Is that why liberals aren't "rambling"... because they don't use facts?
"When Pres.Bush took office the price was $1.47. When democrats took control of congress the price was $2.25. After 2 years of democrat control the price has soared to $4.11."
I didn't see any blame placed on anyone. What I do see are facts about the price of gas. Are you saying gas prices have not risen to over $4 since the democrats took control of congress? Or, is that your way of deflecting facts as they are? Do you work for mmfa?
Loonz, what you fail to realize is that everything is Clintons' fault. You see, when our great VP had his oil people get together, they solved all problems concerning energy. Only problem is that they didn't tell anybody. But if you had the Lovely Ken Enron on your side, would you broadcast that info? Philib, would like to believe that this Congress is a failure. He seems to be a little gleeful about it. Wait until November, Plib will be the happiest person in the world. But when Obama appoints all crazy libruls to the Supreme Court, it will be too much happiness for Plib to bear.
"When Pres.Bush took office the price was $1.47. When democrats took control of congress the price was $2.25. After 2 years of democrat control the price has soared to $4.11."
That pretty blatantly suggests a Post Hoc fallacy.
just as liberals take credit for what the Repubs crammed down Clintons' throat (over his whing and crying that it would ruin America) you now HAVE to take 'credit ' for what your saviours Nancy and Harry have Not wrought! I gas has risen over $2 AGALLON SINCE THEY TOOK OVER, and they have done not 1 thing to alleviate the problem, then they Are the problem!!! And, their reasons for not voting to drill or even permitting a summer tax holiday, are simply typical short sighted Dem. politics. The gas tax holiday "wouldn't help significantly (I would appreciate it!), and drilling wouldn't reap any benefits for 8 to 10, or even 14 years, BUT it would show the people that Congress is listening, and that alone gives HOPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!! Not simply a phoney political slogan!!!!
Petroleum is a finite resource, it will be gone someday. It's short term thinking to depend on oil at the expense of developing renewable, long term sources of energy.
Get off your dumbass status quo thinking and get ready for the future, or be left behind.
agreed...
And for years and years democrats have been against producing more energy domestically... had we been working on that years ago, we could have been producing a couple million barrels of oil a day more...and more nuclear power...and more nat. gas energy.
I guess horse chestnuts are cheap today.
"Carter implemented an energy policy that would have reduced our dependence on oil "
You mean the one where he would have doubled the coal usage within the US? Do you know how much pollution (global warming) is caused by coal burning? Well, thank you Reagan for stopping that program.
That would have been just great, huh? Our global warming problem could have been taking the front row to ecology worries so much earlier because of Carter. Thank God there were forward thinking minds that took over for that moron.
You mean the one where he would have doubled the coal usage within the US? Do you know how much pollution (global warming) is caused by coal burning? Well, thank you Reagan for stopping that program.
It was actually to increase it by two-thirds. The core of his energy policy was conservation followed by an increase in coal production and the use and investment in alternative energy. He promoted the use of coal because of the benefits of using it versus oil: coal was abundant in supply and readily available; the emissions were easier to contain because the facilities were stationary; it would have decreased our dependence on energy from the Middle East; and it would have created jobs. When Reagan entered office, he dismantled the whole program when all it needed was minor changes. Your hero/corporate whore really screwed us over and put us in the position we are in today.
"He promoted the use of coal because of the benefits of using it versus oil: coal was abundant in supply and readily available;"
However, like oil, it is a 'finite' fuel source. What are our 'national reserves' of coal?
"the emissions were easier to contain because the facilities were stationary;"
Oh, yeah. I remember those clean coal powered trains. Of course not mentioning that he had no plan to "contain" those emissions is brilliant. Or that ideas to contain those emissions would have ruined the industry at that time.
"it would have decreased our dependence on energy from the Middle East; and it would have created jobs."
I bought the 1977 coal powered Camaro. I hear the factory is still pumping them out. Oh, btw, there are plenty of jobs in the coal mines. Good thing O'bama is planning on national health care to treat all the black lung cases that will pop up.
Coal; such a good power source. The dust kills people while digging it up, the emissions kill people while using it. Great idea Carter, I see why it went so well.
However, like oil, it is a 'finite' fuel source. What are our 'national reserves' of coal?
Did you read my post at all? It's more abundant than oil and it would have quickly decreased our dependence on foriegn oil until advancements in alternative energy panned out.
Oh, yeah. I remember those clean coal powered trains. Of course not mentioning that he had no plan to "contain" those emissions is brilliant. Or that ideas to contain those emissions would have ruined the industry at that time.
So in your mind, you thought he meant going back to coal power trains?
I bought the 1977 coal powered Camaro.
I doubt that.
I hear the factory is still pumping them out. Oh, btw, there are plenty of jobs in the coal mines. Good thing O'bama is planning on national health care to treat all the black lung cases that will pop up.
You do know we get most of our energy from coal?
Coal; such a good power source. The dust kills people while digging it up, the emissions kill people while using it. Great idea Carter, I see why it went so well.
There are huge benefits to using coal over oil but both are crap sources of energy.
"There are huge benefits to using coal over oil but both are crap sources of energy."
I agree neither should be used as main sources. However, I still haven't seen anyone propose advancing alternative sources, such as solar or magnetic power. With both of those systems completely free, abundant, clean and unending, my opinion is that is the direction needed to go. However, those who don't will say technology is too stupid to produce power that way and coal or oil is the only way to go. Of course they will say that while complaining about oil prices and global warming caused by all emissions produced by every carbon based power source in use today.
"you don't see anyone advocating solar as an alternate energy source?"
No, I don't. Tell me, where can I buy a solar powered car or truck? Tell me, where can I get solar panels that cost less than the 5% of electricity I'll save. Electricity that's produced by nuclear power, not oil. Not much oil savings there. Tell me, what other solar usages do they have offered at this moment?
in the first place, the question was whether anyone was advocating it. if you haven't noticed anyone advocating it, you're completely out of touch. and second, it's not only being advocated, but put in use. as in this new solar powered plant.
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto.shtml
I stated: "I still haven't seen anyone propose advancing alternative sources, such as solar or magnetic power.", not whether anyone was "advocating" solar power. That's ok, though I understand your lack of ability to understand simple statements, you are a liberal after all.
Your link took me to a web site that showed a giant solar heated steam engine. Is that your proof of 'proposing advancing alternative sources'? Well, since you can't read or comprehend questions, I searched and found that BUSH is advancing alternative sources with his Solar America Initiative. Here's the web site (in case you are interested in some good that BUSH is achieving); http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/
A solar powered steam generator is your idea of solar powered? I'm not the one "out of it".
I have purchased a small hydrogen generator that I have installed on my car. It produces a seperate fuel source of hydrogen that is linked to the regular fuel system and to this point has saves me 21% on my weekly gas bill. What have you done to save gas and slow using foreign bought oil? I'm not the one who's out of it. You're probably just like the liberals in the house and senate... all talk and NO action. You probably haven't done diddly squat to help slow down our countries dependance on foreign bought oil. How about the rest of you liberals, do any of you do anything besides whine and complain?
"it's nice to know you can draw conclusions about me based on what you think i "probably" do."
Well, your lack of explanation concludes you have done nothing to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. Typical liberal...all talk no action. Do you even know what a hydrogen generator is? I didn't think so. It's a 'liberal' idea, and this conservative is using it. What have you done?
This has been an interesting discussion to watch. For decades I've seen conservatives fume about those evil liberal environmentalists not allowing us to use our coal reserves to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. The liberals argue about air pollution and environmental damage from extraction while the conservatives spoke about new technologies, improved scrubbers and the like.
It's been amusing to see the roles reversed in this case.
We do need to find other energy sources besides gas.
But the one thing that so many on the right fail to recognize is that we don't need to maximize our use of a finite resource. There is no doubt that oil is a finite resource. It's incredibly short-sighted to try to rush to use every drop as quickly as we can.
Saying that we need to drill every possible place we can, as quickly as possible, is very disrespectful of our descendents. There are lots of things made with oil besides gasoline and heating oil, and some of those other things are going to be much harder to replace than that fuel for warming our homes and power plants and making our vehicles move.
We need to do everything we can to stop the efforts to drill everyplace we can as soon as we can. A little inconvenience to our pocketbook today is nothing compared to what's coming soon if we don't stop this headlong dash to use up a finite supply of oil.
"And for years and years democrats have been against producing more energy domestically... had we been working on that years ago, we could have been producing a couple million barrels of oil a day more...and more nuclear power...and more nat. gas energy."
To lay the blame entirely at the feet of Democrats is merely a testament to YOUR COMPLETE AND TOTAL IGNORANCE OF AMERICAN HISTORY. But as other members of the WITH Patrol have attempted to instill, history is always conveniently irrelevant or inapplicable when it's at odds with the WITH'ers hair-brained philosophies over who is to blame for anything.
Jimmy Carter, 1980 State of the Union:
"The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States."
Bill Clinton, September 2000:
To ease reliance on imported oil, the Administration has invested in new technologies that have significantly enhanced recovery of domestic oil reserves.
[...]
CONGRESS SHOULD IMMEDIATELY PASS THE FOLLOWING KEY COMPONENTS OF CLINTON/GORE ENERGY POLICY:
I. Tax Incentives to Encourage Greater Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Domestic Oil Production
[...]
II. Investments in R&D to Improve Energy Efficiency, Make Renewable Energy Affordable, and Promote the Clean Use of Fossil Energy
[...]
III. Preparation for Energy Supply Emergencies
<subtext of each heading can be found here>
"and more nuclear power"
Let us know when you find a private insurer willing to write up a policy for the next American nuclear power plant. I won't hold my breath.
By the way, how's that flagship next-generation reactor coming along in Olkiluoto? Aside from the fact that it's two years behind schedule and 1.5 billion Euros over budget?
Wes
Be careful, common and sense and logic are usually not appreciated here.
Thanks PV...
I know what you mean...I've tromped across this barnyard before.
Common sense, logic, and facts are highly treasured here.
You never try to trade in those commodities. Wesley isn't either.
I don't know of anyone who "likes" paying $4/gal for gasoline or higher food costs...that, however, was not the point made by Graham. Most economists agree on the universal definition of 2 quarters of negative growth in GDP...of which we are not anywhere near.
This is the technical definition but it really needs some refining. The way we determine the state economy needs some refining. Americans all over the U.S. are struggling and yet these current [phony] indicators tell a different story. Gramm had the argument completely reversed.
So the new sheriff rolled into town with the bold statement that the democrats had a commonsense plan to lower the price of the fuel...laying the problem at the feet of Pres.Bush and the republican congress. Well, it has been nearly 2 years and the price has increased nearly $2/gal.
This is a crappy argument because the price of gas traditionally increases in the summer time. And the Democrats still have to contend with republicans in the Senate and Bush in the White House.
"This is a crappy argument because the price of gas traditionally increases in the summer time."
Why did the price go up during the winter, then? Talk about your crappy arguement! Face the facts, dems are screwing our economy and you're trying to lay blame on anyone else. Typical liberal--take no responsibility, blame others constantly.
"And the Democrats still have to contend with republicans in the Senate and Bush in the White House."
How many filibusters have occured since the dems took control? You make so many promises, then produce nothing but excuses. You'll be better off listening to O'bama's orders...learn spanish! There are a lot of crops to be picked.
Why did the price go up during the winter, then? Talk about your crappy arguement! Face the facts, dems are screwing our economy and you're trying to lay blame on anyone else. Typical liberal--take no responsibility, blame others constantly.
Go look at any graph from the past ten years are so. The oil companies raise gas prices in the summer because they can make huge profits from the increased traveling done during that time. Likewise, in the winter, they increase prices on heating oil because they can make huge profits from people staying home. That said, the prices are still too high. Speculation, turmoil in Middle East (mostly instigated by the Bush administration), price gouging and an administration and a political party in bed with the oil companies are contributing to that.
How many filibusters have occured since the dems took control? You make so many promises, then produce nothing but excuses. You'll be better off listening to O'bama's orders...learn spanish! There are a lot of crops to be picked.
Last year there were over 80+ filibusters so it's probobly well over 100 since the Dems took over. It is projected that there will be over 150+ filibusters before this section is over.
So, your statement leaving out the price rises year-round would be considered "misinformation"? That's one way of trying to make the non-productive democratically controlled house/senate look good, at least in your own mind.
"Last year there were over 80+ filibusters so it's probobly well over 100 since the Dems took over. It is projected that there will be over 150+ filibusters before this section is over."
Quick question. When the democrats filibustered bill after bill after bill of republican ideas, why was that? Would you say it was because the republicans kept offering ideas that were stupid and/or irresponsible and the dems were protecting our nation from idiocy?
So, your statement leaving out the price rises year-round would be considered "misinformation"? That's one way of trying to make the non-productive democratically controlled house/senate look good, at least in your own mind.
A better comparison would be the gas prices in the summers '04, '05, '06 to gas prices in summer '08.
And I don't think the Dems congress looks good at all. Frankly, I think they're a bunch of pussies.
Quick question. When the democrats filibustered bill after bill after bill of republican ideas, why was that? Would you say it was because the republicans kept offering ideas that were stupid and/or irresponsible and the dems were protecting our nation from idiocy?
The Democrats didn't filibuster much legislation during the first six years of the Bush administration. Most of the time they just rolled over. They don't have the balls of republicans.
WES:
Cheney set today's government-to-energy policy IN SECRET early on in the Bush Administration. This policy which gives all advantage to energy "producers" and high costs to all Americans, many of whom find the additional costs unaffordable, is either a success or a failure.
If successful, Cheney's policy was intended to set up this greatest transfer of funds in history, FROM the American People and INTO the hands of the already very wealthy energy moguls.
If a FAILURE, then we'll never know what Cheney intended -- he won't tell us.
As for the Democratic "majority" in Congress, as you know or SHOULD know before making sweeping statements about what Congress can and cannot do, it is not a great enough of a majority to change Administration policy set when the GOP had Congressional Majority AND the Presidency of GW Bush. The GOP has been blocking new legislation at a record amount, compared to historic standards. The GOP can, and HAS, prevented Democratic proposed legislation, and has successfully allowed Bush's vision to continue to dominate how this nation operates.
Those are the facts.
Duuhhh. Don't bother even trying to offer any form of connection or rationale to support your crap. Just keep being the thick headed, talking point troll you have become. You used to not be so dim. I think you're showing your desperation and resentment.
Part of the subject matter in this thread was clear...if one bothered to read the background material provided by mmfa.
-- Barack Obama has stepped on a political land mine -- Time.com
That means that he may have negatively impacted his chances against McCain in the general election...or just as importantly his chances of clearing Denver with the nomination.
My point about Hillary is not a prediction...but that Obama needs to watch his step because no one has driven the wooden stake into the heart of Hillary's ambition to be the nominee in 2008.
You are hearindg all these little trees talking away, you are losing sight of what the forest is saying. You need to sit down in a quiet place and really critically examine what the republican leadership has done to the constitutional powers of this nation. If you think you are a free man go check out what all the camera's and satelite surveyance systems, , along with GPS chips in your license plates and work badges, are going to do to those freedoms you want so desperately hang on to. If you are going to quote gas prices when Bush took office, you should use the same yardstick thru the Bush years, not shift your argument to " democratic led congress ".
,
it's just a legal requirement for citizenship.
That's a lie, and you know it. If you don't know it, that's even more pathetic.
Wesley, what part of Obama's statement "I agree that immigrants should learn English," did you not understand?
-- I agree that immigrants should learn English," Obama said. "But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish --
What bothers me is the part you left out...the not to worry part. When a politician tells me not to worry...I worry...a lot.
Let me recap. You popped in a tiny bit of what Obama said, " -- But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English" which, by itself, completely misrepresents what he said in total. You then rambled on about English speaking requirements for immigrants which had no relationship to anything Obama said.
Then, in your reply you ignored both of my points. Obama DOES believe immigrants should learn English. I assume you agree with that. Obama also believes that all students would benefit from learning a second language. That is not an unusual position to take. It's been a recommended concept for many, many decades. It's been supported by conservatives and liberals that whole time, it's not some far-out new age flight of fancy.
I simply can't see anything controversial in what Obama said. Do you at least agree that Halperin did not accurately describe what Obama said?
Obama said that he believes immigrants should speak english...Obama said that students would benefit from learning a second language...I agree with you, that is what he said.
He also was very plain that he feels it is more important that our children learn spanish...than immigrants learning english. He said "don't worry, they'll learn to speak english"...what a crock.
Since Obama is such a proponent of speaking a foreign language...while professing that he doesn't...I'm wondering about his own children and his zeal for kids learning a second language. I wonder what second language they're learning.
"But instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual."
So that means he cares more about one than the other? A more reasonable reading of that would be that since nobody in the general population can do anything about immigrants learning English, we're better off concentrating on something we can do, becoming bilingual ourselves. That's time better spent, since it can actually lead to results.
No, he did not rank one as being more important than the other. He simply pointed out where a parent's time and efforts are better spent.
Is my child better off if I concern myself with the language skills of immigrants than if I look at their own education?
How much concern has Obama taken that his own children learn a second language?
I don't know the answer...but if he has not taken steps to educate his own children in second language...his talk is all fluff as usual. If his own children are learning a second language you'll have my apologies.
I"ll take your avoidance of my main points as indicating you agree with me.
As for his daughters, if I recall correctly, they are only 7 and 10 years old right now. While many children do start learning a new language by that age, most start a little older. My daughter took Spanish, my older son took Japanese and my younger son took German, but none of them did so until high school.
It's not really rational to suggest Obama is hypocritial simply because his daughters haven't taken a foreign language yet.
You can take any indication that you want.
Obama doesn't speak any second language and there is no evidence of Michele speaking a second language. There is no evidence of them stressing the importance of a second language to their kids. If any of that is untrue...you be sure and let me know.
Until then, Obama got caught speaking out of his tailpipe...like he does often when he doesn't have the luxury of a prepared speech or a teleprompter...he's long on prose and woefully short on substance.
Obama supports amnesty for illegal aliens...a major reason why he doesn't want to devote any effort to making them learn english...he's going to let them stay anyway...just like McCain.
Immigrants and their children will learn English. They always have, and there's no evidence that recent immigrants will be any different than previous generations of immigrants. The first generation doesn't speak English much, and by the 3rd generation, they don't speak the native tongue hardly at all.
It's nothing to worry about. It's something that the Republicans have tried to make Americans fear, because the right is all about fear, and scaring the public, but it's an unwarranted fear.
You're a scaredy cat, Wesley, and you're scared of something no one should fear. Because you're scared, you are distorting what Obama said in order to try to make your fears justified. They aren't. Get a grip, and lose that unwarranted fear. Immigrants are not going to fail to learn to speak and use English.
One doesn't have to practice a virtue in order to recognize in order to recognize it as such. Whether or not Obama or his wife can speak another language doesn't mean they can't recognize the benefits of being able to do so. It's perfectly idiotic to believe that they shouldn't be able to comment on those benefits. And if you think it's hypocritical you don't know what that word means.
At least we've established the fact that he wasn't saying learning a second language for Americans is more important than for immigrants to learn Spanish. I don't know how anyone got that stupid idea to begin.
Obama very plainly ordered you and me to just pack up our troubles in the old kit bag...do not worry about immigrants learning english. He very plainly said we should worry about teaching our kids spanish.
The foolishness is in the statement about immigrants learning english. Of course those coming here legally have and will learn english...it's the law. But what about those 15-20 million already here...illegally...that he is going to offer amnesty?
Sure, come out of the shadows, pay a little fine, some taxes, promise to be good boys and girls...and oh...that english thing, don't worry we'll give you plenty of time. Hell democrats are against voter ID's...what a joke to suggest that Obama would enforce learning english as a condition to remain in the U.S.
The language problem is not about legal immigrants...it's about the millions and millions of illegal border jumpers. It's idiotic to think that after being given amnesty we're going to round them up at some later date and give them literacy tests.
Secure the borders now...enforce the existing employment laws by prosecuting the employers hiring illegal aliens...implement and enforce a guest worker program...fix the broken immigration process...and deport all illegals when they are discovered...
The didn't get here overnight...and we can't deport them all overnight...but we can sure as hell get started.
Now back to that thing about learning english...when we can control immigration the problem of learning english goes away...because to immigrate legally you must be able to speak english...it's the law...problem solved.
"Obama very plainly ordered you and me to just pack up our troubles in an old kit bag...do not worry about immigrants learning english." - Wesley
Obama ordered us"
He ORDERED us?
Wow. What a bizarre interpretation of his words. It sounded to me more like he expressed an opinion that hispanic immigrants... like every single immigrant group that has preceded them... including other hispanics... will learn English in due time. He further seemed to be advancing the idea that American parents should encourage their children to learn a second language.
I guess education is a suspect thing with right wingers.
You then proceeded to morph into Derek Vinyard, and serenaded us with a tone-deaf rant about "border jumpers", and how we need to undertake some sort of massive Third Reichian mobilization of our national resources to round up and expel these people that you clearly see as subhuman.
I'll say this much, Wesley... you gave us all a fascinating... if somewhat disconcerting... glimpse into the hate-fueled mindset of a right winger.
That's an incredible ability you have to find so much meaning in what Obama said when none of his actual words were anywhere close to that meaning. With that ability to interpret I'll bet you thought Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was plugging the latest slicer-dicer for the kitchen.
You're planning to hear what you want to hear with no regard to the actual words spoken, aren't you?
-- One doesn't have to practice a virtue in order to recognize...it as such. -- billj
I'll agree...and hope you stay consistent with that philosophy...regardless of which foot the shoe is on.
I wouldn't expect Obama to have the time to learn spanish...but it would be refreshing...not required...but refreshing...to hear him say something along the lines of..."To emphasize my strong belief that we should all learn spanish, I'm encouraging Michele and our daughters to lead by example and start learning spanish".
OK...so what should he do concerning his statement "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish"? Should he ignore it, refine it, defend it?
Is it just campaign rhetoric that we blow off or does he really believe strongly in that position? The statement to-date is clear...he believes that your children...my children...heck, everyone's children should learn spanish.
With that I strongly disagree. I don't find anything wrong with learning a second language...but it's particularly silly for Obama to aver that we should.
OK...so what should he do concerning his statement "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish"? Should he ignore it, refine it, defend it?
It's more like "worry about your own home instead of worrying about someone else's home." If immigrants want a chance at acheiving any meaningful sucess here (I'm sure that's what all of them want), they will learn English so don't worry about them.
OK...so what should he do concerning his statement "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish"? Should he ignore it, refine it, defend it? - Wesley
It's a non-issue because he immediately, within seconds, expanded on and refined it.
You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language. ... You know, it's embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup! - Obama
You see, he immediately made it clear to all but the most close-minded among us that he wasn't singling out Spanish as a language we should all learn. He was making a point that we as a nation will benefit from learning foreign languages in general.
This is a classic case of cherry-picking a fraction of a broad statement in order to misrepresent its meaning. And, as always, there are plenty of those willing to defend the misrepresentation in spite of what the facts clearly show.
"Obama doesn't speak any second language"--wesley
False. Obama speaks "passable" Bahasa (Indonesian) according to reports.
"Obama doesn't speak any second language"--wes
Here is a commercial of Obama speaking Spanish. The pronunciation is almost as bad as Bush's, but he is speaking Spanish all right.
http://www.citizensugar.com/1670468
'He also was very plain that he feels it is more important that our children learn spanish...than immigrants learning english. He said "don't worry, they'll learn to speak english"...what a crock.'
I understood " don't worry, they'll learn to speak english" to mean that it is a given, about immigrants, and that we (American Citizens) could go further and learn Spanish. What is wrong with that?
What worries WESLEY ... a LOT ... is that the Rightwing must rely on making non-controversial issues like this into HUGE BLUNDERS which will COST OBAMA THE NOMINATION, if not just the Presidency. Holy Crap, what a terrible ERROR Obama has made!
Will it work? Will firing up all cylinders of the Rightwing Echo chamber do to Obama what the Swift Boat "controversy" (FACT-FREE) did to Kerry?
Not this time.
TEX, the heads of the Con/Repubs are starting to explode. None of the FEAR mongering is working this time. Sen. Obama is well aware of the con game played every election by the CONS, find a "wedge issue" and use that as the only reason to vote against someone. Too bad but this time around, many Repubs are even seeing through the smoke-screen. And to combat their own selection of a Presidential nominee, they must dig really deep into the bowels of the Con mind to throw out anything and everything, except the issues, to try to berate the competition.
Am I wrong but didn't the Repubs have both house and the White House under their control? And now they talk about nothing getting done. They are simple laughable at this point, in any language.
Everyone seems to forget that, thanks to the Norman conquest, English is itself a product of a bi-lingual system combining a West Germanic dialect and French. Thus we still speak, for example, of a "last will and testament"-- the Germanic word followed by the French equivalent. If the Normans had had the attitude of conservative Americans, we'd all be calling French fries "pommes frites" or else be facing a law suit.
Dominant languages will always win out over weaker competitors. That is in the nature of linguistics. But forced supression of minority languages leads to secessionist tendencies and even civil war. Canada's problems with Quebec came about not because people there spoke French but because, for many decades, the Anglophone rulers of the country forced the Quebequois to use English.
Why did Spain end up with problems with Basque separatists? Because Franco outlawed their language for forty years. Most dialects once spoken in Spain had already faded into oblivion before Franco took power. Only the dialects Franco supressed have survived.
So if you really want to have problems with hispanic minorities in this country, try suppressing Spanish. You might just end up with a movement to give Texas and California back to Mexico, from whence, after all, they came.
I think I heard a cable news guest whisper off air..."Talkin down to Americans...I'll cut his nuts off".
You're quoting Jesse Jackson now? Get a life. And besides: it's was 'blacks' not 'americans' in the quote.
I guess that's why Barack said, "I agree that immigrants should learn English....they'll learn English -- "
I really don't get your whining here. It's pretty clear that Obama intends for immigrants to learn English.
There's no evidence that the current crop of recent immigrants aren't going to learn English just like previous generations of immigrants have done.
The first generation doesn't learn English very well. They rely upon their children who become very good at being bilingual. Their grandchildren speak a little of the foreign language and speak English fluently, and their great-grandchildren never learn the foreign language besides the name they call their great-grandparents.
Since there's no evidence that this pattern will change, and no evidence that first generation immigrants not becoming fluent English speakers has ever caused our nation any harm, this is a non-story.
Keep that in mind the next time you hear this argument. There's no evidence that failure of first generation immigrants from any country to learn English has ever hurt our nation.
Excellent post, BB.
History is our best predictor of how our current situation is likely to play out.
"You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language"
And as a matter of Education, and of improving the Language skills of Students, the Language that they should be Studying in the Middle and High Schools, is French, not Spanish: the ability to speak write and understand the English Language, is improved greatly by studying and speaking French... the ability to speak write and understand better the English Language, is not helped in the least by studying and speaking Spanish. This is one of the strange and backward policies of the Public Schools in the last forty years, to offer more and more Spanish classes in the Curriculum of the Middle and High Schools, at the expense of French classes. The English Language skills of students are not improved by studying Spanish, but are improved by studying French (generations of Americans and the English and Europeans have known this: it is only the last few generations of Americans who have wandered from and forgotten this truth, and strangely find some value in studying and speaking Spanish).
The English Language skills of students are not improved by studying Spanish, but are improved by studying French
That is an excellent point. Studying french would help anglophiles speak and read better but that is a small problem compared to the large divide between English and Spanish speakers in the USA. Surley the percentage of French speakers in USA (that don't speak English) is NOT rising.
Even Walmart stores in the Midwest have signs in Spanish. The language barrier is not just a problem in Florida or the southwest. I studied German in college because I was in the sciences. That was a waste of time.
My point was purely one of Education, and not at all about communication, or about any language (or even cultural) divide in America.
It was Mr. Obama's comment about children, and about what they should be taught, that made me want to point out, that the formal study of a second language has always been a good and valuable part of a formal Education: and that a lot of parents of Middle and High School students might be unaware, that this value of studying a second language is not unconditional and indiscriminate: that there are languages that when studied, contribute to improved (even expert) English language skills... French is one of those languages (Latin less so), but Spanish is not: and it's an important distinction to make, when those parents decide at about the 7th grade of their children's formal Education, what foreign language (if any) they should study: French was by far the most common choice for many generations of Americans (and Latin also to some degree)... and it's only in the last forty years or so, that this bizarre emphasis on Spanish is being made in the Public Schools (as I said): if the reason for teaching kids Spanish, is simply so that they can speak Spanish, then OK... I don't get it though, as the study of Spanish contributes nothing to improving their understanding and skills in the English language, as the study of French does.
As far as Spanish and simple communication in America, and of what place that language and others have, in our business and our Law: the English language is already the official language of the United States, and not by reason of any opinion of mine, but by the fact that U.S. Law is written exclusively in English (there being no Authorized foreign language version of U.S. Law that I know of)... and as far as the courtesy and consideration that American businesses and the Courts (and Police Departments) extend to people in America who are unable to speak (but often can understand to some degree) the English language: I find businesses and the Courts (and the cops) in America to be exceptionally courteous and considerate in these matters, and to provide signs and instructions in Spanish (as you cited) and in other languages, when in fact they don't have to do that, if they don't care to... but they do, a lot more often than they don't: a lot more often.
With all due respect, I find it outrageous that you (seemingly) believe that there is no "educational" value or point in learning in Spanish. As a native Spanish speaker, I think your opinion is wrong. Spanish is a highly beautiful language and the tongue of millions of people in two different continents, a far broader group of people than those who speak French.
Furthermore, your statement that learning French enhances once English's skills, while Spanish does not, is beyond ludicrous. Spanish and English share a lot of words together and I have many English speaking friends who love Spanish and find it a great language to learn.
Frankly, I don't understand this weird attitude some people have towards Spanish as a language to learn. People like GG Liddy think German and French are OK, but Spanish is bad. Why? I don't know. Such are the mysteries of life, I guess.
May I share this with those who cannot understand the value of communicating skills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4roXEY8hk
The failure of Americans to understand and comprehend is appalling. Obama's problem is that he's speaking to us like we are adults, sadly he's mistaken. Too many Americans are mental midgets who want information spoonfed to them in the most elementary terms like "good vs evil" and "black vs white". Obama is clearly making the point that those who are clamoring for immigrants to learn English will wind up losing out in a global economy BECAUSE those same immigrants will end up being bi-lingual, while the clamorers won't. What is the problem with teaching our kids a second language?? I speak 5 languages - English, Ibo, German, Portuguese and Spanish, thanks to a Nigerian father and Brazilian mother. Whenever I'm outside the US, my ability to speak other languages has been VERY useful, and I use my language skills pretty frequently these in my corporate job when communicating with clients/vendors in Germany, South America and West Africa.
-- The failure of Americans to understand and comprehend is appalling -- romario
And one needs look no further than the dust-up in Dallas concerning the "black hole" comment. John Wiley Price, who also is black, said that type of language is unacceptable.
-- "So if it's 'angel food cake,' it's white. If it's 'devil's food cake,' it's black. If you're the 'black sheep of the family,' then you gotta be bad, you know. 'White sheep,' you're okay. You know?" -- John Wylie Price
-- you hate the Cintons so much, that everytime you invoke their name in the discussion, you render your arguments useless -- wolf kotenberg
Nope...just calling a spade a spade...uh-oh...I hope John Wylie Price isn't listening.
-- Maybe, just maybe, a bunch of delegates to the Democratic Convention in Denver will change their minds at the last minute. Maybe there is an outside chance that between now and the last week of August a critical mass will decide that Barack Obama is not their guy -- that, to the surprise of one and all, Hillary Rodham Clinton is to be the 2008 nominee after all...it is entirely conceivable that an open vote could produce a Clinton victory. -- The Denver Group, Keeping the Democratic party democratic.
Obama needs to avoid as many land mines as possible between now and Denver...or get his hands on that wooden stake.
"Nope...just calling a spade a spade...uh-oh...I hope John Wylie Price isn't listening."
Yeah, a little racist non sequitur is just the thing to really drive home your point. You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?
Land mines? What land mines?
-- Will Howard Dean and the DNC turn the democratic party into the Boston Tea Party? -- Huffpo
According to MMFA Obama is wrongfully accused of:
"encouraging Americans to learn Spanish over immigrants learning English."
Not wrong at all since that is EXACLTY what St. Barack said/did. I wondered how long it might take MMFA to twist themsleves up in a pretzel over this one.
It is misinformation.
Immigrants will learn English. That's always happened and will continue to happen.
There's no evidence that having first generation immigrants speak mostly their home language and not speak much English has ever hurt the USA.
Obama acknowledged that reality, that immigrants will learn the language, and said that it'd be really great if Americans could be bilingual.
That statement was twisted to mean something he didn't mean, and you've cropped Obama's comments to try to make him say something he didn't say.
Wes
Once again, MMFA says in its mission statment that anything that is mis-info OR promotes the conserative agends. They do not care if it is true or false....if it does not attack conseratives, they atack it.
Just look at their hit piece from yesterday attacking Halperin. What was his crime? Get ready for this...he dared to say the conseratives had a better week than the libs. I mean really.....the nerve of that guy. He must be stoped at all cost. Enter MMFA.
"...conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda..."
Barb
And because they never bother to define what it accurate, reliable, or credible, and because they want to stop anything that forwards the conserative agenda, any story could meet their criteria. Take the example from yesterday. They attacked a story that said the conseratives had a beter week than the libs. Yet MMFA decides that can not be accurate, reliable, or credible. Based on what? Yep......you guessed it. It cant be accurate, reliable, or credible because ot makes conseratives look good. So yes, in this case, and/or have the same meaning.
One final note barb.......if your definition were correct, if MMFA really did what you claim, there would never ever be a story featuring KO and worst person in the world. He is NOT a conserative commentator in any way shape or form. He does not fir your definition.
They attacked a story that said the conseratives had a beter week than the libs. Yet MMFA decides that can not be accurate, reliable, or credible. Based on what?
Because overall the Dems had a slightly better week.
"And because they never bother to define what it accurate, reliable, or credible, and because they want to stop anything that forwards the conserative agenda, any story could meet their criteria. Take the example from yesterday. They attacked a story that said the conseratives had a beter week than the libs. Yet MMFA decides that can not be accurate, reliable, or credible. Based on what? Yep......you guessed it. It cant be accurate, reliable, or credible because ot makes conseratives look good. So yes, in this case, and/or have the same meaning."
That was based on a number of notable instances that were ignored in order to make that conclusion. You can disagree with their point, but don't pretend that they didn't explain what made it less than credible. You weren't talking about "this case", anyway. You claimed the mission statement said "or". You even put it in capital letters for emphasis. That was false. If you want to claim that occasional items are unworthy for mention, that's fine. I do that as well. But that doesn't change what you said earlier.
"One final note barb.......if your definition were correct, if MMFA really did what you claim, there would never ever be a story featuring KO and worst person in the world. He is NOT a conserative commentator in any way shape or form. He does not fir your definition."
It's not my "definition" or my "claim". It's verbatim from the mission statement. I agree that the Olbermann posts are redundant and unnecessary, but that doesn't prove anything about your point whatsoever. It has no effect on the nature of other items.
One final note barb.......if your definition were correct, if MMFA really did what you claim, there would never ever be a story featuring KO and worst person in the world. He is NOT a conserative commentator in any way shape or form. He does not fir your definition.
MMFA typically highlights a story in the MSM that has been featured on their website. I think KO gets a lot of his info from here.
Exactly. They cover stories by others that they already covered. They cover major corrections and they cover the lack of corrections too sometimes.
When their point is amplified by another source, they show that. When their point is minimized by another source, they cover that. When their coverage of something seems to have led to a correction, they cover that.
And, Or, means the same thing.
A computer running that software would crash and burn. Your brain is a sort of computer. The conclusion is left as an exercise to the reader, but it does show why POV has no clue what he is talking about.
Maybe Halperin took a peek at Times magazine:
-- A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent. -- Times
Wes
That does not count count. Newsweek is a symbol of corporate greed that has to somehow be tied to Haliburton and only want to make money from oil and keep old people from getting their food and paying their bills.
I just love reading the informational posting of PointofView. I finally agree with some others here that POV is only here to argue. Damn any facts, POV justs wants to play. Well, Obama did not say what you claim. Very simple. Now go cling to your "mental regression", I mean, "recession" sorry, and brush up on that reading comprehension.
And Wesley, the Clintons are not the ones waiting in the wings to replace a candidate...it is the Cons gearing up to hijack the Republican nominee to get the pretty boy and his 5 cowardly sons to run for them. Poor sleeping Republicans.
Sorry Prince
You must have read another post. I did not claim Obama said anything, and I took no issue with any post on what Obama said. You must have me confused here.
As for wanting to play, I am sure that is true at times. For all the attacks about conseratives being so locked into a postion that they can not even begin to see the other side, I see a lot of that with many, not all, but many of the hardcore dems that post here.
POV, apologies extended...I had the wrong post.
Mea culpa.
Prince
Thats ok. You were wrong about one, but right about the wanting to play on ocassion charge. And anyway, a .500 batting average would get you into the hall of fame anytime.
POV:
By choosing "sarcasm", you speak the TRUTH. It is a Rightwing Media, which feeds on itself and quotes its members as "SOURCES", even when it has to originate from Drudge.
Newsweek, the New York Times, and other "most-quoted" media sources have been promoting Rightwing causes for decades, and often find THEIR sources in Rightwing "Think tanks", Rightwing blogs, and/or quoting Republicans exclusively.
From downplaying the theft of the 2000 election, to selling the Iraq war, the MEDIA overall has been ill-serving the American People, while doing the bidding of Rightwing goals. This same MEDIA, stem to stern, is busy trying to force McCain into the White House, to serve their (corporate) masters.
Will it work? Not this time.
-- he dared to say the conseratives had a better week than the libs. I mean really.....the nerve of that guy. He must be stoped at all cost. Enter MMFA. -- pointofview
Your "point of view" about mmfa's attack on Halperin's article that said republicans had a better week is right on again. Following reports by Time and Newsweek that McCain had closed the gap on Obama comes this from Rasmussen:
-- The race for the White House is tied. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 43% of the vote...Today is the first time that McCain’s support has moved above 45% since Obama clinched the nomination on June 3. It’s also the first time the candidates have been tied since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. -- Rasmussen Reports
Once again, mmfa elects to call positive information on republicans misinformation...even when the positive news is true.
You nailed it.
He did nothing of the sort. He said quite clearly that immigrants should learn English and that it was a good thing for Americans to learn a second language. He didn't rank the two things as one being better than the other. He pointed out the clear fact that both are good things.
Anyone who reads it differently is either ignorant or dishonest.
The word "over" is key. He didn't encourage Americans to learn Spanish instead of having immigrants learn English. He said we should be bilingual and immigrants should learn English.
I did not take Obama's comments as prioritizing the importance of learning Spanish as a second language over Immigrants learning English . To me it seems that he expects that Immigrants are going to learn English anyways so he expressed thae importance of learning another language .
Liberals want the cat and dog to get along. Conservatives want the dog to be a dog and the cat to be a cat.
tja
I have a great idea. Instead of focusing on foreign languages, how about we teach public school kids English???? I know, not inclusive enough.
The fact is Obama is ashamed and embarassed of his country. He is effete, haughty, and a snob.
I have lived in Europe for a few years and I never felt I had anything to apologize for as an American.
This man is just plain arrogant. Without a telepromter or an earpiece he can not express a single coherent idea or thought. How is it that the most brilliant man in the world speaks only one language. Perhaps Mr. Brie/Arugula is more of a troglodyte than he leads us to believe.
In addition to clinging to my gun and Bible, this bitter American speaks four languages fluently. I do not need a lecture on cultural sophistication from a dullard like Barack Obama.
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and Bobby Jindal have more intelligence in their pinky than the Obamanation does in his entire head.
I am tired of dialing 1 for English. If an American wishes to learn Spanish that's fine. But do not mandate it as BHO will.
He is a loser in my estimation. A talking head with no brains.
LATE BREAKING NEWS BERNIE MAC GET BOOED AT A OBAMA FUNDRAISER!!! I LOVE IT. I SEE THE MCCAIN PRESS GOES TO HUFFINTON POST AGAIN TO GET A STORY THAT MAKE OBAMA LOOK BAD AND PUT IT ON THERE WEB SITE. DIDN'T SEE THE STORY ABOUT MCCAIN CALLING THE POLICE ON A OLD WOMEN WHO HAD A SIGH THAT CALLED MCCAIN MACBUSH, MCCAIN STILL BEING MARRIED TO HIS FIRST WIFE WHEN HE MARRIED CINDY AND MCCAIN SCREENING REPORTERS CALLES. NOW LET THE STORY ABOUT MCCAIN STILL BEING MARRIED TO HIS FIRST WIFE WHEN HE MARRIED CINDY HAD BEEN A OBAMA STROY THE MEDIA WOULD BE ALL OVER THAT STORY.
" I am tired of dialing 1 for English "
You poor baby ! That must be very stressful for you .
" But do not mandate it as BHO will. "
Where do you get the ideal that he is going to mandate Spanish lessons for everyone ? Do you have a reading comprehension problem or what ?
" He is a loser in my estimation. A talking head with no brains. "
A looser with no brains . I think you just described yourself .