Like Voting For Obama, Only Not At All

15 Responses to “Like Voting For Obama, Only Not At All”

1. sbk writes
   January 15th, 2009 2:13 pm

   Has it occurred to anybody campaigning against this thing that calling people stupid, idiot, bigoted, racist, Stalinist, crazy, narrow minded, unintelligent redneck low life scum is probably isn’t a great strategy to winning their vote? I’m trying to figure out how it is that their hate on voting Tenneseans who disagree with them is any better than the hate they accuse those same Tennesseans as having on immigrants. Makes my head hurt and I don’t even give a flip about the issue…

2. Jon writes
   January 15th, 2009 5:18 pm

   Intolerance is just like physical force — only inappropriate when initiated. Being intolerant of intolerance is the sociological equivalent of using force in self defense.

   Bigots are going to support this thing, people who aren’t bigots are going to oppose it. There is very little middle ground. So why sugar coat it? Why go out of our way to pretend bigots aren’t bigots so that bigots can feel ok with themselves for being bigots?

3. benintn writes
   January 15th, 2009 5:29 pm

   as someone pretty strongly opposed to this English Only idea, i want to respond to sbk. First of all, it’s a great point. Demonizing your opponents is not a good thing - it is, however, what both sides in this debate are doing. And as the old African proverb goes, “When the elephants fight, the grass suffers.”

   Let’s talk about what this English Only thing is NOT about. 1) It’s not about illegal immigration. English Only won’t stop illegal immigration, and those of us opposed to English Only are concerned about stopping illegal immigration. 2) It’s not about teaching English. English Only will actually make it HARDER, not easier, for us to ensure that everyone in Nashville learns English. Metro Gov’t employees could do a lot of good helping to teach and encourage use of English. But English Only would make that more difficult. 3) It’s not about “white supremacy” or “the Aztlan conspiracy” or any other cockamamie garbage.

   The fact is, however, that there are racists, and bigots, and xenophobes out there who are voting for E.O. because they’re racists and bigots and xenophobes. Some of them are very nice little old ladies who go to church faithfully. But they’re still bigots, racists, and xenophobes. And it’s still wrong, no matter how much they attend church.

   The injustice in this whole thing is that the people who will be hurt by E.O. are the ones who CANNOT vote in this election, because they’re not yet citizens. The people who will be hurt are the LEGAL immigrants, tourists, visitors, refugees, and international students who are not able to make their voices heard.

   That’s why it’s so important to vote AGAINST this amendment. Because some racist is going to be able to vote in favor of their racism and xenophobia, while the person who is the victim of the hate will be unable to vote in their own interests to defend themselves.

   I agree that English is the official language in the state of Tennessee. (That vote already passed in the 1980s.) But I don’t think we should punish people who are trying to assimilate and learn the language. We should build bridges, not walls. English Only builds a wall.

4. Sally smarty pants writes
   January 15th, 2009 5:51 pm

   benintn may have just made the single most intelligent post I have seen on this blog. Thanks for thinking and sharing.

5. sbk writes
   January 15th, 2009 6:05 pm

   So your thinking is that name calling works?

   Because the truth is you don’t about what anybody else thinks or what their experiences are just that they don’t agree with you. You don’t see middle ground so therefore it must not exist. And anyone who is not you or doesn’t have the life experiences so that they think like you must be evil. Sorry, I don’t see the difference between you and a bigot.

   Having labored (literally) beside individuals who don’t speak English and having helped bail them out when things go wrong because they don’t speak the language, I’m not convinced it is in anybody best interest to put forth any agenda that in anyway shape or form makes it more viable for someone to live here and not to learn the language. I hate seeing the abuse and the only way it stops and they improve their quality of life is when they learn English. That is what I have witnessed first hand in my life–my very own personal experiences with people I know and care about.

   I see reasonable points on both sides of this issue and it doesn’t make me a racist pig. Shame on you if you think it does. Yes, I have problems with the amendment, but I don’t kowtow to playground bullies who call me ugly names. So if I get fired up and go vote and I haven’t yet heard an argument that manages to hold together without the use of name calling…well…what do I care I’m moving out of here before the end of the year.

6. Donna Locke writes
   January 15th, 2009 6:39 pm

   I posted the following comment on Nathan Moore’s blog, and I am finished with commenting on Nathan’s blog, as he is intent on twisting the truth and refraining from telling all of the known facts related to aspects of this English First/Only issue. Nathan is playing games.

   Speaking for myself, and not for Crafton or others: One of the objectives of the immigration-control movement is to hit as many accommodations/magnets to illegal immigration and loose legal immigration as possible. We know that the federally imposed magnets are crucial and are tying up Americans with their own dress sash, negating to great degree our efforts at the state and local levels, but it is foolish, shortsighted, and gutless to sit back and do nothing when some things are in our power to change and/or preserve. If Americans do this in every community and state, it will have powerful effect.

   And it is wrong to hold Americans fiscally responsible for the consequences of corrupt foreign and domestic government policies that most of us oppose to begin with, according to polls. We have a right to rebel against this in every way we can. As for the people caught in the middle, I have no sympathy for the people who are here in violation of our laws — they are thieves. As for the legal immigrants, we are not supposed to be fiscally responsible for or burdened by these people, as our immigration laws are or were written. Read the mention I made in a comment to another post, about the affidavit of support for legal immigrants.

   As for refugees and asylees, let private charities (many of which get our tax dollars under faith-based-initiative and other programs many of us oppose) and some educational programs that we shouldn’t allow to grow exponentially year by year take care of these folks’ assimilation problems. If we are changing our country to suit these folks — and we are — then it means we are taking in too many.

7. sbk writes
   January 15th, 2009 6:40 pm

   benintin my last post was in response to Jon.

   However, thank you for making my point. Even in your less than foaming at the mouth commentary you still can’t help but to call some little old ladies who go to church racist pigs. I don’t care about little old ladies. How and why little old ladies vote is their business, not mine and not yours either. It is why we have a secret ballot. From what I’ve seen there are plenty of hip progressive who go to church who will vote against it and they are racist pigs. Maybe not racist pigs toward immigrants, but obviously racist pigs against little old ladies they assume they know and don’t. See the problem?

8. sbk writes
   January 15th, 2009 6:46 pm

   On re-read I must say I actually DO care about LOL’s just not how they vote as it is not a reflection on me and how I vote.

9. benintn writes
   January 15th, 2009 10:49 pm

   I didn’t call them pigs, sbk. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that’s appropriate. Calling someone who is racist “racist” isn’t a smear, it’s just calling someone what they are. For more on racism (institutional and personal), I suggest the great Bill Quigley presentation at the Loyola University Law School. Quigley understands that structural racism (bad laws that discriminate) is often more powerful than personal racism. http://www.slideshare.net/jadymitchell/katrina-racism-catholic-social-teaching

10. benintn writes
    January 15th, 2009 10:56 pm

    Note to Donna … Donna, an “amendmment” is a change. The “English Only” people are the ones trying to change our country. Up until now, we’ve accommodated our immigrants from all over the world (Ireland, England, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Africa, Japan, Mexico, etc.) as they’ve assimilated. The process takes time. The process works.

    And now, because of the fear and ignorance of a few misguided people, we’re on the verge of making a change that is likely to make things worse, not better. English Only will tie Metro government’s hands. It will create barriers to government and discourage immigrants from getting involved in our civic life.

    That’s the wrong approach.

    Unity does not mean uniformity. E pluribus unum.

11. Glen Harness writes
    January 15th, 2009 11:10 pm

    What opponents of this English Only bill have yet to address is:

    1: Just exactly what language should Metro Government business be conducted in? (Note: if you say English, then according to your own logic, you’re a racist).

    2: How is it “divisive” when you ask that people speak a common language?

    Actually, #2 above is a response to one of the many anti-English straw men they’ve put forth. “This will divide us” they say. That doesn’t even make sense.

    “It means you hate foreigners”. That doesn’t make sense either.

    “It will discourage immigrants from getting involved in our civic life.” Again, this doesn’t make any sense. People are free to speak whatever language they want where ever they want. That’s not going to change…. unless they get elected to Metro Council, and last I heard, that’s only open to legal citizens of the US who live in Nashville (who by the way, are supposed to have a working knowledge of English before being granted citizenship).

    Voting for this amendment doesn’t mean you hate foreigners; it means that Metro business must be conducted in English. If anyone says it means more than that, they’re being disingenuous (at best).

12. John Lamb writes
    January 16th, 2009 6:12 am

    The proposed language of the English Only charter amendment is as follows:

    English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.

13. Nathan Moore writes
    January 16th, 2009 7:54 am

    Games? I didn’t realize quoting people, citing budgetary statistics, and accurately portraying current law is considered “playing games”.

    For anyone else who reads on this post, feel free to click through to MooreThoughts on my link above. Yes, English is a good idea. That’s not what the argument is about. However, there is in fact a reasonable, rational and conservative argument as to why the English Only amendment is a bad idea.

    N

14. Jon writes
    January 16th, 2009 8:55 am

    Next time I see someone flailing about in the water I’m going to make sure I take away all the life jackets. Since apparently that won’t mean I’m a sadistic killer, it means I want to teach them to swim.

15. Jon writes
    January 16th, 2009 10:42 am

    >Voting for this amendment doesn’t mean you hate foreigners

    Yeah, you don’t hate them, you’re just willing to spend a half million dollars of taxpayer money to make sure things suck for them. I feel the love.