Did I miss the “English only” article in the constitution?

I love the debate about the ‘order in English sign’ in the famous Geno’s Steaks restaurant in Philly.

Michelle has a post about the ‘cowards’ that avoided his restaurant, and discusses a debate happening today:

Vento continues to voice his assimilationist message. He’s taking on the Democrat cowards who avoided the issue during the Pennsylvania primary and today he’s debating open-borders zealot Geraldo Rivera during a live debate in Philly to be broadcast on the Dom Giordano show on 1210AM WPHT. It’s a sold-out event.

I think assimilation in the sense that we all share common values, common goals or even a common language is a great thing. On the other hand, I don’t recall where it says that in America you have to speak English. How about Native Americans? Do they also HAVE to order in English? The tourists? In English also?

In a practical sense, it’s obvious that if you place your order in English, the chances the person on the other side understanding is way higher than if you picked any other language. So in that sense, the sign is stating the obvious. But beyond that, I think it’s misleading, since nowhere does it say that in America you can only order in English, plus the fact that some of us can speak more than one language should be encouraged and not frowned upon. When I hear assimilation, I don’t think it also means losing other languages.

The limited free market

Hot Air complimented McCain on his free market view with respect to Ethanol:

It’s an essentially agnostic point of view on ethanol itself, but it’s the proper conservative response. If ethanol can succeed in a level marketplace, then it should continue. If not — and there are plenty of reasons to suspect it won’t — then McCain doesn’t want the government intervening to keep it afloat.

Is the market really what should be deciding? Yes? Well where is my drug market? Or my prostitution market? If there is a demand, and there is an offer, shouldn’t the proper conservative response be to just let the market forces play it out?

I’m not sure ethanol is the right solution. But I do no that sometimes the market isn’t the best judge of what should or should not happen. Sometimes we need bold initiatives that push the market in one direction or another. So for example, we fund NASA. We are not waiting on the market to push boundaries, we are funding that ourselves. Same for other technologies. Sometimes you just can’t wait idle and let the market play itself out. And sometimes you interfere (like in prostitution) because there is more at stake than demand and offer.

Update: it didn’t take very long. From Crooksandliars.com, here is my answer!

That kind of behavior is unacceptable

Two people rushed the stage where Thomas Friedman was about to give a talk from and threw pies at him.

And Michelle is right (at least for me):

I predict we’ll see a blossoming of liberal media pieces decrying the mob atmosphere at American colleges and universities and calling for civility in academic exchanges. Better late than never. I guess.

I don’t recall seeing a similar incident recently. Anyways, I don’t mind people going to talks and by using apparels (clothing, etc.) attempt to send a message to the speaker. I do mind people that prevent a talk from taking place, although if the disruption is reasonable in terms of time I can live with it. Throwing pies I find particularly bad. You don’t know what is coming at you. It could be someone trying to harm you. There is very little message being communicated.

This blog is definitely against that kind of behavior, towards anyone from the right or the left.

If you can’t handle some random interview or debate, you can’t handle the terrorists?

Well then. If you can’t face the North Carolina GOP, how are you going the terrorists, John McCain?

Michelle Malkin qualifies Howard Dean’s call like this:

Dean is now pressing McCain further on the issue–and claiming that if McCain doesn’t succeed in forcing the state party to withdraw its ad, it’s a failure of his “leadership” (read: bullying) skills.

I partially agree with Dean here. He his calling McCain on his bluff. I think, like Rachel Maddow, that McCain is paying lip service to the high road here. He says he doesn’t want that kind of ad yet will happily reap the rewards of such negative campaigning. I think the call by Howard Dean is more to call McCain on that bluff rather than see him succeed or fail at bullying.

Note: Just in case it wasn’t clear, I think all these ‘if you can’t stand up to X then how will you face the terrorists’ are a pure joke. Including the one at the top of this article.

Where does Mary Katharine Ham find her stats?

During her latest appearance on O’Reilly’s show, MKH said that the endorsment of Obama by Michael Moore was a bad thing, because the “credulous super liberal latte drinker that love Michael Moore are the Obama base”, where as the blue collar democrats dislike Michael Moore. Hot air asks…

Does Michael Moore’s endorsement do anything for Obama aside from reminding us what kind of liberal is apt to favor him?

First, where does she and Hot Air get that idea from. Really? Did I miss the survey? Did I not read the article about that? It’s pure speculation. It’s pure speculation using MSM stereotypes that HotAir is happily pushing along.

Let me add at least one reason why I think this is bogus. Michael Moore’s last film was Sicko. Clearly, if Michael could pick, he would pick a mandate system rather than a voluntary one. Hillary supports the first one, and Obama the second. So the funny thing is that on this topic, which Michael is identified with, Michael and Hillary are against Obama. So why believe the Michael and Obama’s base are the same?

Misusing McCain’s POW experience

The LA TIMES had a recent article that had the following title:

John McCain gets tax-free disability pension

The disclosure of the Navy benefit for injuries incurred as a Vietnam POW may raise fitness questions.

I don’t particularly want to discuss the article, but I think there is a point to be made here. Personally, I think that somebody that would vote against McCain because of his disabilities is really terrible. It’s nearly, if not as bad as not voting for a woman or a black candidate. Clearly my analysis would depend on the degree of disability, but here it doesn’t seem like McCain is even close to that threshold.

Having said that, here is the way that Hotair (Ed) start their post on this article:

Go ahead, raise your hands above your head if you object to John McCain’s disability pension. John McCain can’t do the same, thanks to the damage inflicted by Vietnamese torturers in Hanoi.

You know what? Nobody asked that question. Not in the article. Not on the blogosphere (AFAIK). This is an attempt to color the discussion of the article. It’s a misuse of McCain’s POW experience. I think this does a disservice to the debate on the topic.

Disappointed…

But I still have hopes that this primary season will soon be over.

It seems to me yesterday night’s Obama’s Pennsylvania defeat was more a draw than a real loss. He entered with really bad odds and appears to have been able to salvage enough to move forward without losing too many delegates.

Still, this process will drag on some more. At least it will keep our Republican friends entertained.

Why can’t I get access to the same health care as McCain?

Today, McCain was asked the following:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of the points Mrs. Edwards made in the Wall Street Journal, she said that your whole life, you had government health care. You were the son of a Naval officer, a Naval officer, now a member of Congress. And her point is, why shouldn’t every American be able to get the kind of health care that members of Congress get or members of the military get?

MCCAIN: It’s a cheap shot, but I did have a period of time where I didn’t have very good government health care. I had it from another government. (LAUGHTER) So, look, I know what it’s like in America not to have health care. We know that Americans are hurting there as well. We’ve got to make health care affordable and available. The difference, again, between myself and the Democrats, and with all due respect, Mrs. Edwards, I want the families to make the choices. They want the government to make the choices. That’s a fundamental difference, and we will continue to debate that issue. But we can provide incentives. You mentioned that it’s not enough, a $5,000 refundable tax credit for every family in America. It’s a lot better than what they’ve got today. And if we can let them go across state lines, and get these inflationary aspects of health care under control, which we can do, then more Americans will have affordable and available health care.

 So if we want to make the same health care choice, why can’t we?

But let’s ask a even broader question: if I wanted to pay my way into the same plan as McCain has, could I? This means I would be willing to pay the same employee and employer premium. Could I?

The answer from the right will be no. But why? Try to get someone on the right to answer that. I’ve tried and it’s really hard. The only reasons I get are essentially that it’s ‘by design’. But why is it designed that way? I want the same insurance and I am willing to pay for it. Why am I prevented?

Did you see the little tears down their eyes?

Hotair as a clip with David Axelrod of Barack Obama’s campaign going against Hillary Clinton’s new chief strategist Geoff Garin. Ed Morrissey comments:

Both campaigns have conducted negative advertising, and for both strategists to cry about it on national TV would embarrass anyone — except maybe a Democrat.

You know, I watched that clip and didn’t see any tears being shed. I see criticism, but I really fail to see the crying. Some will say the ‘crying’ is not quite for actual crying, but for a figure of speech. Sure — one to push this whining talking point over and over again.

Keep watching, folks. These are the same people who will work at defending this nation from terrorists if either of them beat John McCain. For my money, I’ll take a little temper over a couple of whiny crybabies.

Well it’s good to know what it takes to be a better President according to Ed. Write that down: if you’re operatives have having a bitter (here’s that word again!) primary and are trying to frame the other side in a negative light, you won’t get Ed’s vote. How is that related to defending the nation, who knows!

On the other hand, if you have a temper problem, that seems to be OK in contrast. We can see how that is actually related to the defense on this nation (impulsive responses? losing good people who can’t stand your attitude), but, who cares!

Speaking of distractions, it seems we have found the latest one: whining and crybabies. Should we start counting the number of posts that conclude like that? How many whiny posts will the right produce from now until November?

Too late to whine about USCIS!

I love some of the outrage on the right. Especially after hearing the right whine about the criticism formulated by the left towards the ABC presidential debate.

Michelle Malkin has discovered flash cards on the USCIS site that teach important aspects of the United States to permanent residents that want to become citizens.

Michelle writes:

A Hill source tipped me off to government-funded “civics flash cards” that DHS is distributing to immigrants seeking to gain US citizenship.

One of the cards asks foreigners to name one benefit of being an American citizen. One card’s answer mentions the right to vote. Good so far.

But take a look at this one, which stands JFK’s famous admonition on its head. Ask not what you can do for America, ask what America can do for you. Gimme, gimme, gimme!

She mentions one question:

Name one benefit of being a citizen of the United States

Answer: To obtain Federal Government Jobs, to travel with a US Passport, or to petition for close relatives to come to the U.S. to live.

The questions the cards are based on have been around FOREVER. Here is the current list at about.com. Here is the same page, from 2000 at the same site (through archive.org). You will find that question at 86. This is one question out of many, some that ask who is the current president, or the rights protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, they are currently coming up with an updated test (more on that below).

Anyways, let’s look at what Michelle says. She claims that

 Yeah. That’s right. Your tax dollars are supporting flash cards that coach non-citizens to say that the most cherished benefits of living in the U.S. are government jobs, US passports, and immigration rights for family members.

Funny, because she mentions that vaguely, but question 93 on the cards say that the right to vote is the most important right granted to United States citizens.

Furthermore, the benefits the card mentions are things you can only get if you become a citizen rather than staying a permanent resident. It doesn’t use the word cherished. It’s simply stating a fact, just like ‘how many voting members are in the House of Representatives’ does. So the question she picked, and the matching answer have absolutely nothing to do with the open-borders entitlement.

And you wonder why the open-borders entitlement mentality is so prevalent.

How about printing this on a flash card?

Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right.

Photoshop, anyone? We can print them up and send them to DHS’s Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.

Anyways, the good or bad news for Michelle is that there is a new list of questions coming up on October 2008. So unfortunately, it’s too late to make suggestions I would think, but rejoice, Michelle! Here are some questions I hope will make Michelle happy:

52. What do we show loyalty to when we say the Pledge of Allegiance?

A: the United States
A: the flag

[editor note: what, not God?]

53. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen?

A: give up loyalty to other countries
A: defend the Constitution and laws of the United States
A: obey the laws of the United States
A: serve in the U.S. military (if needed)
A: serve (do important work for) the nation (if needed)
A: be loyal to the United States

83. During the Cold War, what was the main concern of the United States?

A: Communism

Unfortunately, there is still this question (tweaked a bit though):

50. What are two rights only for United States citizens?

A: apply for a federal job
A: vote
A: run for office
A: carry a U.S. passport

And here is the one Michelle will be most furious about (I am joking of course!):

47. What is the name of the Speaker of the House of Representatives now?

A: (Nancy) Pelosi

And my final question. Name 3 benefits/rights that US Citizens have as opposed to permanent residents…