North Korea Missile Test

[yasuo200365]

North Korea joins in with the 4th July celebrations - large fireworks spotted.

Regards
John

[JohnP]

John,
Claims made by people who MAY have been on a U.S. sponsored flight to various locations in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, that they have been tortured by CIA operatives, are suspect at best. Were such supposed horrors actually happening, as a national policy, I think it far more likely that such individuals would still be locked in a cell, NOT getting their buddies (or whoever) to beat them up so they could talk to the press. I submit that even if the CIA is as evil as you claim, that they are not that stupid. Were they REALLY torturing people (and I don't mean sleep deprivation or loud music...) I find it unlikely that any actual victims would be free and able to talk to the media about it. After all, I thought Americans were supposed to be the ruthless sort, you know, that shoot people dead over being offered the wrong kind of sandwich at lunch? yet these "victims" are able to speak to the media, and aren't in a cell in Gitmo or haven't.....disappeared. I guess it is possible, but in an age where it is popular to lay shame on the United States, or somehow discredit us....I am not buying it. Both of our countries have policies against torture, and both know that information gained by torture is basically useless. However, if one hated America and wanted to cause harm, it is MUCH more useful to claim horrors happened to you at the hands of Americans, as this would do damage to America and her reputation, worldwide... I also think it interesting, that the majority of those actually covered by the Geneva conventions...Iraqi army combatants and others....have for the most part already been freed, and some are no doubt now serving in the new Iraqi army...yet nobody seems to interview THEM, because there is no scandal in it....

I think the US public will believe it a little more than 'unfortunate' that these things are being done. At the very least the media should be asking the difficult questions about the existance of such a policy?, its aim?, is it legal? is it moral? is it counter-productive?

John, if you were here you would know such questions ARE being asked, but I submit that perhaps the next question is...did it really happen? If you hear an awful rumor about someone, do you routinely go ask their worst enemies to seek confirmation? or perhaps....do you search for someone who is neutral, and basically could care less? Exactly. I think it is a shame, but many Americans simply believe anything on the news, and I am sure many believe we routinely torture people on planes, or beat prisoners with rubber hoses. Our news would have one believe this. Apparently yours would also. I think the vast majority either do not have a clue, or do not care . They simply want to know what happens on tonight's installment of "Desperate Housewives" or whichever the favorite show is for that particular day.

So is your media serving the American people well? Would we be where we are now if they did (IMV) a better job?

John...I have more than amply stated my opinion about our media, and my frustration with them. This has little bearing on your point, I think. Of COURSE they have harangued about these same supposed torture flights, but I have also seen little in the way of proof, only loud accusations.

I noticed you did'nt mention anything about the first half of my posting - maybe you now agree with me?

Actually, John, I was away using a shared computer, and it is difficult at best to compose a response worth your time to read, with a teenage girl standing right behind you popping her gum, reading your email, hoping you will leave...so she can get back onto myspace or whatever...so I wasn't going to write much of anything in that short 5 minute span I was logged in...

That said, it isn't so much that I agree with you, but the article does not say anything supporting your view that the BBC aired the story first. There was mention that CBS was asked to wait 2 weeks to blow the story open, which they did, but no mention of them sharing the story with other networks, not even BBC...and no mention was made of the British media being given the story or running it before the US media did. I still believe that they did not. The story was originally sent to CBS, by a concerned American, as were the photos-NOT the BBC; CBS went to the administration knowing the devastating damage it could cause. That CBS was asked to hold 2 weeks does not in the least mean that BBC had it before then, rather that they felt it worth reporting that the story was delayed....CBS was not "scooped" by BBC. CBS was given the story first, and to their credit, gave the government the 2 weeks to prepare (during which time the various implicated persons were questioned and or placed into custody) without the various suspects knowing they should make themselves scarce. CBS aired the storyfirst, AFTER which the rest of the world's networks were made aware of the story. So far, that is what I believe. In the article BBC is simply superciliously looking down their collective noses at CBS for agreeing to wait the 2 weeks.
SO, is it true that Princess Diana was murdered by British intelligence operatives? There are people here that believe it. There are even people supposedly "in the KNOW" who apparently back up this hypothesis. Just goes to show, just because something horrible is more fun to believe, doesn't make it true. Often, the truth is simply much duller and not too interesting to report. More likely had something to do with the obscene blood alcohol content of the driver....

John P.

[Livingston]

Livingstone,

As long as that 'should' doesn't turn into a 'must' I would agree with you...., otherwise it is not practical or fair.

Regards
John

LIVINGSTON...no "e"

[Livingston]

I'm not sure how you could consider requiring citizens of the United States to speak English to be unfair.

You'll probably droll on and on about how it will disjoint our society, how it will in someway deprive those of their heritage, etc... Please, shower me with the wisdom of Canada.

Livinston - no "e".

[yasuo200365]

Livinston - no "e" or "g" it seems either,

Your position has changed from "Everyone here in America should speak English" to "Citizens of the U.S."

While I agree it is beneficial for US citizens to speak English it just isn't practical or fair to make it a legal requirement.

First what standard of English will be acceptable for Writing, Speaking & Reading? Set the test too high and you limit US citizenship to native English speakers & linguists, but set it too low and what is the point of the test?

A lot of older people in particular find it difficult to master a second language - is it acceptable to split-up families?

How about US born citizens who marry someone who is not a native English speaker ..., will it mean that their spouse can't become a US citizen? What about if children are involved?

How about the the deaf, the dumb and people with learning difficulties? The genuine refugee do we send them back to be abused or even possibly murdered in their country of birth?

What about if other countries started to do the same to English speakers from the US. All the above will apply, but this time it will be to US citizens. France insists on a French language test, The Brazil requires a Portugese language test, The Japanese want their language test, The Germans, Italians, Mexicans etc also insist on testing parity.

Regards
John

[JohnP]

For what it is worth, it is already a legal requirement that one be functional in English to become a U.S. citizen, and it also takes a grievously long time to become one...years not months. During this time most can learn a basic grasp of English, and usually, full fluency.
No one is required to know English to be a visitor or perhaps a non-resident alien, but citizenship is a larger matter. My opinion is that in a country whose laws are all written in English, founded by former British colonists, a requirement for speaking English to become a citizen makes sense. As far as visitors, and those still working on citizenship, or even legal immigrants, I feel whatever they wish to speak amongst themselves is fine, but to have no knowledge of English here would be just as crippling as moving to France and refusing to learn any French, and expecting them to bestow citizenship upon you. It isn't going to happen in any country in the world that I know of, and America is no different. Speak what you will at home, but when mingling with others I feel it is best to learn as much as possible of the host language, not to expect them to learn yours. I am sure part of the reason some American tourists give us a bad name overseas is their insistence that everyone speak to them in English... For crying out loud, I wish these people would be polite enough to at least learn one or two phrases of the host language...to show the EFFORT not to be rude...then if someone rescues you in your own language, you did not DEMAND they speak your language, but politely asked. Which is a different situation altogether.
John P.

[Livingston]

Livinston - no "e" or "g" it seems either,

Your position has changed from "Everyone here in America should speak English" to "Citizens of the U.S."

While I agree it is beneficial for US citizens to speak English it just isn't practical or fair to make it a legal requirement.

First what standard of English will be acceptable for Writing, Speaking & Reading? Set the test too high and you limit US citizenship to native English speakers & linguists, but set it too low and what is the point of the test?

A lot of older people in particular find it difficult to master a second language - is it acceptable to split-up families?

How about US born citizens who marry someone who is not a native English speaker ..., will it mean that their spouse can't become a US citizen? What about if children are involved?

How about the the deaf, the dumb and people with learning difficulties? The genuine refugee do we send them back to be abused or even possibly murdered in their country of birth?

What about if other countries started to do the same to English speakers from the US. All the above will apply, but this time it will be to US citizens. France insists on a French language test, The Brazil requires a Portugese language test, The Japanese want their language test, The Germans, Italians, Mexicans etc also insist on testing parity.

Regards
John

John,

First let me apologize for my rather rude reference to Canada...inappropriate and uncalled for.

I am not interested in what you have to say about requiring illegal aliens to speak English. I admit, it was rather confusing to say first that everyone here should speak English, to then referring to citizens.

Those who live here (not visitors) whether they are "citizens" or not in my opinion should ALL speak English. John P. brought up a good point and I mirror it: if you are Arabic, and you wish to speak only Arabic at home - that is your "right". If you're out in public, I'm a little more hardcore than most I still believe you should speak English, but I'll concede that one and say it's o.k. However, if you don't have a working knowledge of English what the hell is the point of living here?

You say learning to speak English is not practical for many of these "illegals" living here. Well, I say it is most unpractical for them to be in the dark about understanding the very language that rules this nation. Every aspect of living here requires a knowledge of the language. If I am a builder and the company I deal with speaks only Spanish - why would I deal with them? Why would I worry myself with trying to get an interpreter or make sure all the documents I sign are read and approved by an attorney who can make sense of it and ensure I'm not getting screwed. What you propose (a nation that is seperated by a language barrier) is utterly preposterous.

Now, let's deal with the spirit of the issue. In the old days (pre-mid 50's) immigrants coming here were fleeing dictatorships, corrupt goverment officials, and third-world poverty. The immigrants of today are flocking to this country for the very same reason. So we have a situation where the reason people risk life and limb to get here have not changed. But I propose something else has changed.

Pre late 50's overall (actually overwhelmingly) the people coming here from Italy, Ireland, and elsewhere were so happy to get to America and become citizens they couldn't hardly stand it. Finally! A free country where they didn't have to worry about the police coming in and whacking their heads from their neck for speaking out against tyranny. Finally! A society that was thriving and through freedoms laid the world at their feet if only they would work for it. There was an overwhelming sense of national pride. An overwhelming pride that swelled in them...they were Americans. Not African-Americans, not Mexican-Americans, or Indian-Americans. They were just Americans. They were always free to observe and preserve their heritage as America was a free country both socially and religously. However a sense of community and a - and listen to this - DUTY to the very society that supplied that freedom. That's right, I said DUTY. They realized that if they wanted a chunk of the American Dream - THEY had to reach out and grab it. For 99.999% this was wonderful because in their previous country it didn't matter what they did, they'd never have that freedom. All they had to do here was work for, abide by the laws, give back to society by working hard, starting businesses, strengthening the economy.

Now, we have a society that is all about "get, get, get". Forget the duty to our community and society - no, I want my welfare. Forget the national pride we once boasted - no, I want to be able to fly my Mexican or Jamaican flag and regard it in higher respect than the American Flag. I mean, after all...I'm Mexican-American, I'm African-American. Unfortunately, once a nation is divided in this way - and make no mistake about it, having no national pride, no debt to society or community DOES have a crippling effect. Where do we draw the line?

{Edited for content. - Nick }

Having said all this John, after reading your posts, I must say I'm impressed. You argue effectly and eloquently. You're obviously well educated and well read, so I'll be looking forward to your well-thought-out response to which I will give equal thought in my response.

P.S. Again, apologies for my comment on Canada.

All the Best,
Livin"g"ston ;)

[yasuo200365]

Livingston,

Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans - not proud of their culture & historical land of birth! ...., hmmm somehow that's not how I see it on St.Patricks day etc.

Time will solve the English language problem ..., the first generation may be poor at communication, but their offspring will be fluent, probably bilingual. By the time of the third generation it usually happens that they're fluent in English and can't speak their grandparents mother tongue.

That poke at the Canadians is OK ..., smug ba*$ards!

Regards
John

[Livingston]

Livingston,

Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans - not proud of their culture & historical land of birth! ...., hmmm somehow that's not how I see it on St.Patricks day etc.

Time will solve the English language problem ..., the first generation may be poor at communication, but their offspring will be fluent, probably bilingual. By the time of the third generation it usually happens that they're fluent in English and can't speak their grandparents mother tongue.

That poke at the Canadians is OK ..., smug ba*$ards!

Regards
John

John,

I meant to convey they are proud of their heritage and culture but recognized they had a responsibility to their country (USA). But yeah, St. Patrick's day always gets out of control ;)

I realize the language problem will work it's way out, and it's good that people like you can step back and see the overall picture. Sometimes getting muddled down in all the fine print and facts can cloud the issue and blind you to the bigger picture. I suppose my main point is that there should be an excitement in these immigrants (no matter where they come from) to speak English, to be American etc... It'd be nice to see some national pride and unity for once.

P.S. Another apology coming - for those of you who saw my comment on black teenagers speaking ebonics and something else I won't write here - Randy pointed out to me that it could be conceived as racially motivated...it wasn't in anyway shape or form, but thank you Randy for mentioning it because as I was in an extreme hurry when I wrote that reply, I didn't get a chance to proof read it. That's no excuse, but after he mentioned it to me I took another look, and it's quite clear I never should have written it. So, if any were offended - sincere apologies.

All the Best,
Livingston

[JohnP]

Livingston,
Time will solve the English language problem ..., the first generation may be poor at communication, but their offspring will be fluent, probably bilingual. By the time of the third generation it usually happens that they're fluent in English and can't speak their grandparents mother tongue.

John,
You bring up an interesting and valid point. While attending elementary school I used to wonder why Europeans commonly know as many as 5 languages, while most Americans only know one. I imagined Europeans sitting in a class, enduring hour upon hour of grueling language lessons.... Now I realize, of course, this wasn't the case, and that most people simply learn the languages spoken by those around them... I took 2 years of Spanish while I was in school, but in those days there simply was no one available who spoke the language, and so I was functional for awhile but that quickly slipped away. Counter this with someone growing up on the border of a country where it is spoken daily...this person is often bilingual, simply because they are able to use the language daily and converse with native speakers. I know many of our troops stationed overseas for any length of time (2 years plus) often come back functional or even fluent in the host nation's language....
v/r
John P.

[yasuo200365]

Everyone agreeing - what a nice way to end

Regards
John