It's all a bunch of codswallop...dontcha think?

Boy, with all these news items popping up, it has become even *more* abundantly clear that "Republican" means "Republican't"...as in, can't tell dumb from dumber!  Hell, even Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels could do that, and they were several french fries short of a Happy Meal.  It's all sixes and sevens now, folks.  But this one really takes the biscuit.



So, here's the latest: Republican Governor Tim James has created an ad (paid for by -- wait for it -- Tim James 2010, Inc.) in which he says, "Why do our politicians make us give drivers license exams in 12 languages? This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it! We're only giving that test in English....we'll save money and it makes sense.  Does it to you?" He also has the words "Common Sense" that pop up at the end of the ad.  Why would *Common Sense* be at all affiliated with this rubbish?  Do people in Alabama even use the word "rubbish" or is that too English for them?  If that's what they speak (other than the language of dumbarse...(sorry, friends of mine from Alabama -- no offense to you..this just means you're bilingual!)), then those dammin' 'Bamans must say things like [GAR-aj] and [SHED-yule] right before they go to the water closet to use the loo.  I mean, *really* -- MATE -- what's all this bloody talk about?  It sounds like bollocks to me.

Mr. Tim "Daft is my middle name" James seems to have also forgotten that just because people have native languages other than English does not mean that they are not American citizens.  Perhaps they live in communities where they only need their native language to get by.  While, of course, it would be ideal for everyone to be at least proficient in English -- to thus give them the choice to pursue opportunities for which English is a necessity -- there is no official language of the United States.  Sure, people have tried to make it happen, but no one has ever been so off their trolley to deem English anything "official."  Besides, Mr. James...are you sure you even mean English?  Or perhaps you believe that drivers license exams should be given in Amur'kin?

Ta.  Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's all go get pissed....and, by the way, Bob's your uncle.

*Note: in case you aren't fluent in English, here's an online guide in case you want to take a dekko.*

New Arizona law? Big problemo!

So let's talk about this Arizona immigration nonsense. And I say "nonsense" because it makes about as much sense as, well, NON. A country that is founded on the principle of equality, one that -- constitutionally -- supports life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Well, how constitutional is it for one of the fifty states to institute a statewide policy that so drastically and so negatively affects one's life, restricts one's liberty, and separates one from the pursuit of happiness (we're not even talking about achievement of happiness here) based on arbitrary measures, left up to the discretion of local police officers?  Since when do police officers occupy a civil service position that challenges the U.S. Constitution?  What kind of civility actually lies therein?According to a New York Times article from April 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer (of Arizona) "acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law."  Let me ask you, Ms. Brewer: how do you define "proper" training?  How does one teach someone how to "properly" engage in racial profiling? Doesn't that go against the very principles upon which our melting pot country was founded?

In the same article, the author mentions that Senator John McCain -- the former presidential candidate who stressed his desire to help immigrants -- was under pressure to support this bill (SB 1070) and only mere hours before its signing came out in favor of it.  Let's take a quick glance at the track record of a few of our nation's recent supposed "leaders."  George W. Bush: had unsatisfactory grades throughout his undergraduate career and was, let's face it, a cokehead.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney: has an openly gay daughter, but somehow the press doesn't let that affect his "Republicanism" or his platforms.  Don't personal opinions about these issues comprise the essence of platforms?  John McCain: says he'll help immigrants, but then turns his stance to supporting legislation that targets illegal immigrants and people who look like illegal immigrants.  Right there, you have three quick examples of people in power who have less than stellar histories of demonstrating their upstanding citizenship.  And now these people are going to be responsible for ensuring the "proper training" of police officers, so they are "better" equipped to execute racist practices?  We are trusting THEM to make judgment calls?  What even makes their judgment trustworthy?  It's like we're back to pre-Brown v. BOE times.  Pre-Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even pre-Abraham Lincoln!  What's wrong with this picture?  Oh, right, and maybe I should also mention since people may not know....the President of the United States of America is a biracial man with roots in Kenya and in the U.S.  We live in a country led by someone who, under the newly-enacted Arizona law, could be approached and arrested for looking the way he does and acting in ways deemed illegal immigrant-like....whatever that means. What is our world coming to?! Or, since it seems like our world is already "there," what has our world become?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is Austrian-born, ardently opposes illegal immigrants and their being in the U.S.  But, it seems that, once again, an elected official boasts a notable disparity between his theory and practice.  After all, he may have violated the terms of his own visa more than three decades ago.  I realize that laws are laws and it is important to be mindful citizens who abide by the law.  However, when the law itself goes against the well-being of all people [what ever happened to equal opportunity?], it makes me wonder why we should have to abide by the decisions that these elected leaders make...especially when they are elected without disclosing important information that would undoubtedly affect the voters' choice.  It hardly seems fair.

I think I might be belaboring my point, so I'll try to wrap this up...just after I point out a couple of fallacies in Ms. Brewer's (lack of) logic.  After reviewing the complete text of the governor's statement regarding SB1070, it seems that a game of "She says/She means" is in order.

She says:   This bill, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid -- stable and steadfast.
She means: Constitution Shmonstitution.

She says: There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.
She means: All Americans [which, clearly, only include the North Americans from the U.S.] are good.  Americans don't participate in drug cartels or take drugs at all. All immigrants are bad.  They are responsible for all the drop houses, kidnappings and violence in the U.S.  So, if we kick them out, life will be perfect...but wait? Who will mow my lawn?  Hmm...
She says: Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling. 
She means: So what if I didn't declare the three cases of Jose Cuervo I bought on my last Mexican getaway? That doesn't make it illegal...[um, lady, that's exactly what it means.]

She says: I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. 
She means:...unless people start running out the back door of Chipotle before they finish making my burrito.

She says: Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.
She means: If you order a taco with extra hot sauce, you better watch out. If you breathe while undocumented, you better think twice.

Ms. Brewer, you contradict yourself. You tell people one thing and you do another. You say you've thought long and hard about what you signed into law, but can you discuss what you actually considered? It seems like you have created a much bigger problem than there actually was beforehand.  Can we knock a little sense into you?  Can we actually treat the immigrants -- illegal and legal alike -- *not* as aliens?  Just as Stephen Colbert says, the answer should be, "No problemo."

Making sense out of cents

As of today (April 18, 2010), the estimated number of humans in the world is 6,815,500,000, according to the United States Census Bureau.  Among them are academics, doctors, lawyers, farmers, teachers, business owners, parents, researchers, beggars, sweatshop workers, idealists, realists, etc.  And, yet, no matter how many different professions are represented among those 6,815,500,000 people, no one person has been able to come up with a way for everyone to just get along. Of course, it's hard to get a classroom of kids to get along on any given day, so why should we expect nearly 7 *billion* people to get along? I have a theory.  It's all in the education.

It's not in the learning of 1+1 or of how DNA works. It's not in the learning of how to diagram sentences.  It's in the learning of human interaction. It's in learning about the past to make more informed decisions in the present in order to better the future. It's in the learning of how to communicate with each other, both within and across groups -- cultural, ideological, political, linguistic, etc.  In studying and learning another language, one not only learns the words to express his thoughts (vocabulary), but the thoughts that are conveyed by his words.  In other words, one learns the way a set of people belonging to a particular linguistic group collects their thoughts; one learns how to "think" in that language.  For example, there are words that, in one language, require only one word to articulate a particular thought whereas, in another language, a longer explanation is necessary.

The question then becomes not how to save the world or how to achieve world peace but, rather, how to enable everyone to have access to education -- both academic and social.  If everyone had the capacity to understand where their perceived enemies (as well as allies) come from, both literally and figuratively, then I think numerous gaps would be bridged and would yield more understanding than undermining.

So, then, how do we enable access? It's not like you can go online and just Google "buy access to education for everyone" [which I actually did, the first result of which yielded a House of Representatives-sponsored bill related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)], so we must all do a little bit of research to figure out how to level the playing fields, how to make a globalized world truly be, in fact, global.  If $1 per person could buy access to education for everyone (and subsequently lead to world peace), would you look for the 100 cents? Even if you already had a degree and an extensive professional background (and, therefore, didn't technically *need* any more formal education), would you donate 100 cents of your maybe/maybe-not hard-earned money to contribute to the well-being of the rest of the world?

Wikipedia defines world peace in various ways, including as an "ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness" and as something that is "theoretically possible" but is inherently prevented by human nature. It also states that, "This belief stems from the idea that humans are naturally violent, or that rational agents will choose to commit violent acts in certain circumstances."  How does one measure a universal idea (such as the aforementioned) that asserts that it is human nature to be violent?

Farther down in this Wikipedia entry, we learn that, "Some proponents of Cobdenism claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars."  Now, I'm not the most well-versed person in the world's economic goings-on, but if this theory has been voiced to the point that it actually has a name (Cobdenism) and a proposed method (international free trade), then I wonder why people don't work harder to test out the theory.  What's to lose?

I thus ask all of you what you think. Is access to education for everyone just an unachievable "ideal"? Does Cobdenism seem like a worthwhile "ism" that could actually create world peace and eliminate wars? Does humankind need wars in order to exist?  Could the same goals sought by war be achieved by other means?  As this goal could never be met by one person, I, too, need your input.  So, go ahead -- put in your two cents...and 98 more if you so choose.

I guess it's "la vista, baby" because I'm back

I wasn't expecting to take a two-month hiatus from blogging. In fact, if you were to see the Post-Its on my wall, you would see that I haven't, in fact, taken any break whatsoever from brainstorming. But, when I blog, if I don't have time to do justice to my post, I'd rather not post at all. Then, the post-its stay on the wall until their time comes around. Now that I have finished the capstone project for my two-year Master's program, I am slowly getting back into the groove of taking care of all the things that have fallen to the backburner. But, hey, now as you read the posts, you should consider them with even higher esteem than before.  Why, you ask? Well, because their author is a master.