Official Language?

For decades now, duly elected members of Congress have been trying, on almost an annual basis, to pass legislation making English the official language of the United States. I have always been opposed to such a move in the past, but in the last few years I have seen some things that have begun to wear down that resolve. Should my opinion move so far, however, as to place me on the other side of the issue, it would certainly be with the understanding that there would be a generation-long federally-funded transition period, along with continued assistance for those who need Braille or sign language (ASL) support. Here are the points as I see them:

Government
While all major functions of government at every level are conducted either primarily or exclusively in English already, there is no law requiring that they be. The largest expenses for non-English speakers are in translation, voting, and tax services and forms. A non-English speaker or Limited English Speaker (LEP) who must appear in court (as a defendant or otherwise) is guaranteed access to translation services. This has been the case for longer than I have been alive, and it was expanded in 2000 by Executive Order 13166. Ballots and tax forms are also provided in a stunning array of languages. The expenses for the translation services would likely not diminish significantly for some time, but government spending on translated documents would likely decline rapidly after the first decade.

Education
The debate over bilingual education has been raging for as long as I can remember, and it is no closer to a definitive resolution now than at any time in the past. Students educated in our schools need to be prepared to live and conduct business in the United States, and for most that means achieving at least moderate English proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking. I'd like to see that achieved with native speakers, quite honestly, but many things would become simpler, particularly in the field of English education, if we were to have English as the official language. Does this mean we would serve the students better by such a move, though? Here I am not sure. I have no doubt that a student population more capable of using the language upon graduation as today's students would do better, on the whole, but I can't say that such a change in policy would affect such an improvement.

Immigration
Here's the big one, the reason I am writing this (a senator is currently proposing federal immigration legislation that includes an official language component). After an initial transition period (perhaps twenty years), anyone not able to communicate in English could be identified as a possible non-citizen. This assumes, of course, that citizenship requirements come to include stricter English language competence (we have had some measure for almost a decade now), but such a change in the citizenship test seems a no-brainer under such a change. The question, then, is this: What do we do with all of the citizens who are not currently able to use English with any measure of proficiency? While this might make the INS's job easier, it leaves many problems.

My greatest concern is, and has always been, that an English-only environment threatens a return to Jim Crow politics. You want to vote? Prove that you can read and understand the ballot. Hell, most Americans raised on English can't understand a ballot, and I know of no one who reads the supplied full-texts of ballot initiatives (I do this only for those issues about which I find it difficult to decide or on which I wish to hold discussions, though I spent years doing it with every initiative). You want to file your tax return? Great, but if you don't know English, you'll have to pay someone to prepare it for you, and any auditors we send will not be required to communicate in anything except English. Ouch! You're a Navajo? Oh well, nobody really uses your language for anything anymore, right? We can complete our destruction of indiginous cultures rather quickly by having the BIA do a few tweaks to rules for the rez, right?

You see what I mean? For all of the cost savings (and I am a fiscal conservative who belives we need to pay of our debt, not lower taxes and put sparkling pavement into Pennsylvania towns) and possible improvements in immigration policy (including enforcement) and education, I still cannot bring myself to back such legislation.

VFW Speech

Bush, in speaking to the VFW in Salt Lake City, described the foundation of a democratic constitution in Iraq as a "landmark" event in the country's history. Um, no. Iraq (including what is not Kuwait) had a democratic government before the Brits popped in, savaged the land, and split the country. Yay. I wish our leaders would act as if history exists.

Gaza

I have been asked to comment on the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip. I have plenty to say, but I think I can keep it uncommonly brief, at least given the scope of the issue.

The studies I have seen indicate that the relative birth rates of Palestinians and Jews in Israel (including Gaza and the West Bank) would put the Jewish population in the minority no later than 2015. If that is the case, force of law may be even less effective in maintaining even the outward appearance of control than is true at this point. Twice, now, there has been an Intifadah, and as ineffective as the rocks and Molotov cocktails may have been in having a real effect at the time, another one started by a Palestinian majority could be devastating. From this perspective, a Palestinian state seems the best solution, and the Gaza pullout is the first step in establishing such a state.

Such a move also suggest the removal to the territory of the (future) Palestinian state of Palestinians living in the (future) reduced Israel. The question of the Right of Return, which would allow at least those Palestinians dispossessed by the foundation of Israel, and in some cases their descendents, to live in the new Israel, is difficult. However, the same problem of relative population exists. The new Israel would instantly have a Jewish minority, and the foundation of a Palestinian state would leave the population problem. Right of Return cannot be granted. Again, however, a Palestinian state seems the best solution, though one that would, initially anyway, require a division of populations into Palestinian and Jewish.

Finally, the settlers who are resisting—this is, I understand, more prevalent in the south—seem not to recognize that their hardships, brought on by the urging of earlier Israeli governments, are likely to imrove regional stability. I would hate to be driven from my home (we won't get into eminent domain here, though I am tempted to go there when the next ruling kicks in), but provided I received compensation and support that made up for it, I would accept it if it led to a better life for my family. Still, a Palestinian state, begun with this first pullout, seems the best solution.

The settlers are justly upset, but their response is, I think, out of proportion to the long-range benefits such a move promises. If there were a way around this, I would love to hear it, but a Palestinian state is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. The Israelis know this, and the majority of the Israeli population—including a majority of Jews, if the polls I have heard are accurate—support the foundation of such a state. Sadly, like much in that region, it seems, violence must precede any hope.

How Did I Miss This Before?

The latest ads for Windows are not ads for Windows. The latest ads are for "The world of software and devices that run on Windows." Mind you, that is pretty much the same world as for the Mac OS and Linux, but who's counting, right?

Not to long ago, Microsoft used the "Where do you want to go today?" tagline to represent the operating system itself in ads. The idea was that Windows offered something to users. Now, however, the message is that it is third-party things, not the OS, that is great.

Is Windows headed for the trash bin? Oops. Sorry, that would be the recycling bin under Windows.

8/15

Will August 15th become another day associated with destruction, much as December 7th and 9/11? We could say, of course, that the earlier association of August 15th—the unconditional surrender of the Japanese at the end of WWII—is anything but destruction, having ended the war. Then again, we did effectively wipe out many key elements of Japanese culture and tradition with that act.

This year, of course, it is the deadline for the interim Iraqi government to deliver a draft constitution. I don't have a problem with deadlines, though my students sometimes do. I do, however, have a problem with the fact that the U.S. government's primary mouthpiece to the media, when this issue has come up over the last month, has been our Secretary of Defense.

I would have liked it if Bush had been doing this. Heck, even the Press Secretary is a better choice. Or the Veep. We need to ask ourselves, however, why the person who oversees our military as a whole is encouraging an interim government to get its job done on schedule—a schedule, I might add, that was put forth by the United States.

This is why diplomacy has been lacking in more than a few places of late. Then again, Rumsfeld has never served a day in his life, so he's not really a warrrior, is he?

Yeah? So what?

I'm here, and you don't care. Know what? I don't care that you don't care. I was a little too nice on my other blog, so when I lost it there, I was not terribly pleased with myself. Here, however, it's ON.

This is my kingdom. I post what I want. You comment as you wish. It's all about the title, people. Oh yeah, and whatever else I decide it can be about. Ya hear that? Whatever else I decide. Are we clear?