Language and Freedom

RE: [spiers] Language and Freedom

Since when did the Senate vote to forbid ALL other languages? How does one
get from "voting to make English the official language" to "no one may speak
any other", as the letter to the editor insinuates?

***Indeed, people are getting out of hand. But the fact that there was a vote
for a change, means they wanted change. From what, to what? I agree no one
wants any real change, and personally I think this gratuitious insult to a group
that is tightly integrated into our economy (simply to change the topic from
Iraq, something both parties are ashamed of) is very risky business.***

As for John Spiers' claim of "Head on down the list and the freer the
country, the more languages commonly spoken", name me a country that has
more languages spoken than the U.S., where immigrants from every corner have
come in and made communities. I live in the same corner of America as John,
and I know the Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Thai, Chinese and Somali
languages are spoken.

***Yes, but... mustn't change what i said... "commonly spoken" is key, and I
happen to think USA is one of the freer countries. My objection is to change
from what we have, which is an idea our government is toying with, with emphasis
on 'toy".***

Hysteria over setting English as the default language is ridiculous. I hear
no similar concern over Canada's insistence on English and French as the
national languages. People don't avoid Canada because they think "well, I
must speak French there as well as English, right?"

***d'accord!***

And John, "govt-controlled press"? Please shut the talk radio OFF. I don't
care what the broadcaster's political persuasion was, that Kool-Aid did NOT
do you any good.

Andrew Ittner

***Andrew,

you are kind to caution me on my pop-radio input, but I assure you, I have cut
back my media intake substantially after I figured out that all media is govt
controlled. Since you are in my neck of the woods, I give the example of the
Seattle Times, under the Blethens. When Blethen was campaigning against the
inheritence tax in Washington state as part of the state's war on small
business, wherein the state takes roughly 1/2 of anything over $1.5 million left
by the dead. Well, as Blethen learned the hard way, this tax kills small
businesses, whose advertising was the last profitable area for newspapers. Most
local newspapers around USA simply sold out and took the money, but Blethen
wants to keep the newspaper in the family, but cannot keep it viable if
government workers keep destroying small businesses.

The tax was about to disappear, giving Blethen some hope, but the Gates family
got behind the tax and it is back. I pointed out to Blethen the irony of the
Gates family promoting a tax that takes 1/2 of anything over 1.5 million that
someone may leave behind to heirs, and at the same time the Gates family has an
army of lawyers to assure the Gates assets are untouchable. (I think it was
Wilde who said it is not enough to succeed, everyone else has to fail...).

Well, my comment precipitated a comment by Blethen... Blethen had hired Gates,
Sr, the lawyer, to do the exact same thing for the Blethen's, that is make the
Blethen fortune untouchable. So we have the funny situation of superwealthy vs
super wealthy in the debate, although both will be immune to the harm of the
tax.

What does this have to do with govt control of press? Well, down to dwindling
small biz ads to stay in biz, newspapers are dependent on govt subsidized paper
and ink to stay profitable; newspapers get exemptions from EPA hazardous
material rules, they get exemptions from child-labor laws, exemptions from
vehicle safety equipment laws, exemptions from sidewalk vending laws (I could go
on with exemptions), govt is a huge buyer of ad space. Newspapers are allowed
to forgo the obligation to run the ads if the newspaper will contain govt policy
promotion in the editorial pages. (If you do not have to use ink, paper and
distribute the ads, you save money). We know that pundit columnists take money
from govt to write opinions.

Now, this can have a demoralizing effect, to the point newspapers print stories
writers simply make up. And according to the govt TV show NOVA, sometimes they
print stories apparently no one wrote. The example given was the Times of
London printed a by-lined story on the fate of the fellow who stood in front of
the tank at Tien An Men before the disaster there in 1989. Following up on the
story, NOVA interviewed the reporter who said he did not write the story, did
not know anything about any of the content, was not on the story anyway... and
confided sometimes stories appear under by-lines simply to give them
credibility. Could it be total fabrications are concocted and then planted
under reporter's names? Yes! Well, who, why...when?

In one sordid instance I am familiar with, a high-school girl working as an
intern was given a few by-lined articles in the Seattle Times. She hoped to be
a writer, and what a wicked introduction to the world of the press! Now, to be
sure, the articles were engrossing and germaine, but a by-line for a cub
reporter? And further, being an intern she was not paid. Well, someone ratted
out the Times to the union, who forced a payment out of management.

But after that sketch of the subsidies and the exemptions, plus the pressure to
sell out under the government imperative "get big or get out!" do you really
believe our political masters take no advantage of the leverage they carefully
constructed for themselves? I judge the press govt-controlled in USA. As to
radio and TV, well, one must get a license for those, a highly politicized
process, not to mention the fact that "radio" and "television" are inventions,
and the conceit that there is a limited supply of spectrum is sheer nonsense
enforced to limit free speech in USA.

And on a fine point, we do not have censorship in USA, per se, the particular
method is merely to control distribution. The ideas are out there, it is just
unlikley you'll ever come across them. Good enough for govt work.

Now who am I to complain? The fact that the govt controls the press in USA
means I can charge superpremium prices on information that would otherwise be
relatively inexpensive. Further, I can bet that I can make money on my money by
buying into presses oveseas that the govt does not control, and make a good
profit on the unfair advantage that big govt leverages on the people.

If I am wrong, I lose my money. I am pretty sure the press is govt-contolled in
USA.

John



> -----Original Message-----
> From: spiers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spiers@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> Aaron Van Arsdale
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:25 AM
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [spiers] Language and Freedom
>
>
> I couldn't agree with you more on this. This is one of those
> recycled non-issues that seems to reappear in the spotlight every
> several years. You may recall that California, among other
> states, voted to make English its official language a while back.
> To what end? Nada! It doesn't change anything.
>
> Here are a couple items plucked from the SF Chronicle that add
> to the point.
> First is a Letter to the Editor, followed by a link to an article:
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
> Tuesday, May 23, 2006
> Our native tongues
> Editor -- Hearing the news that the Senate has voted 63-34 to
> make English our official language, I can only reply, "Bravo!"
> This is no time to be blasé. Speaking English needs to become a
> cause celebre. English should become de rigueur in every U.S.
> school. The Senate deserves our kudos for going mano-a-mano with
> this bete noire. The best way to address the angst of
> non-assimilation is to deliver a legislative coup de grace that
> renders every foreign language absolutely verboten. Now that
> singing our national anthem in a foreign tongue has become a
> criminal faux pas, shall we address that other great threat to
> American unity -- the Catholic Church, which persists in the use
> of Latin. I'm sure the senators would agree that, henceforth,
> Mass should be celebrated in English -- God's language -- and we
> should crack down on such linguistic fellow-travelers as
> pharmacists, doctors and scholars. If they don't like it, let
> them move to Latin America. GAR SMITH Berkeley
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Loving the mother tongue
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/
> 2006/05/23/EDGDOIJL2H1.DTL
>
>
> John Spiers wrote:
> Folks,
>
> As the govt-controlled press presents "Mexicans" as USA's main
> problem, to change the topic
> from Iraq before the election. I heard a radio personality
> talking about some movement to
> make English mandatory in USA, or whatever.
>
> It occurs to me there is a correlation between polyglot and
> freedom. The freer the country,
> the more languages are spoken. For example, Hong Kong is
> probably the freest place on
> earth, and it has two official languages, Chinese and English,
> although they speak Cantonese,
> not Chinese. After that, just about every other language from
> around the world is spoken by
> residents of hong kong, collectively.
>
> The oldest free country, Switzerland has three official
> languages: German, French and Italian,
> and just about everyone everyone also speaks English. Canada has
> a couple of official
> languages. Singapore has several generally spoken languages, and
> of course the Vatican has
> probably the most languages spoken, although the official
> language, Latin, is a dead
> language!
>
> Head on down the list and the freer the country, the more
> languages commonly spoken. I
> see no real threat that English will become the official language
> in USA, because as soon as
> the elections are over the topic will be Iraq again, and
> "Mexicans" will disappear as a topic as
> fast as "homelessness" disappeared when Clinton became president.
>
> John

Bookmark this post --- Email this post