The Round Up - 9/5/06

I haven't done a good news round-up post in a little bit, so here you go

Latin America / Latinos

(Mexico) Electoral Court declares Calderon (PAN) winner of the election

MEXICO CITY, Mexico (AP) -- Felipe Calderon was declared president-elect Tuesday after two months of uncertainty, but his ability to rule effectively remained in doubt with rival Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador vowing to lead a parallel leftist government from the streets. (...)

Lopez Obrador, whose support is dwindling but becoming more radical, has said he won't recognize the new government and vows to block Calderon from taking power December 1. Protesters outside the tribunal wept as the decision was announced and set off firecrackers that shook the building.

"We aren't going to let him govern!" Thomas Jimenez, a 30-year-old law student, screamed as hundreds of protesters threw eggs and trash at the courthouse. (...)

The decision was unlikely to end the demonstrations that have crippled Mexico City's center or to heal the nation's growing political divide.

In the Zocalo plaza, thousands in a month-old protest camp chanted: "If there is no solution, there will be revolution!"

"Taking up arms is the only way," said Angel Sinsun, 80. "They'll never give us power with peaceful resistance or with negotiations."

Supporters dwindling, but radicalism increasing. You have a large segment of Mexicans who will make it their job "not to let him govern" and some who might soon turn to violence and force of arms. I don't know if it will come to that and hope that these Mexicans will see that such action will seriously hurt the Mexican nation and all Mexicans.

I didn't like Lopez Obrador before, I like him a lot less now that I've seen his actions the past few weeks, as he shows his anti-republican, anti-rule of law authoritarian tendencies. That and the growing radicalism of his movement and the potential violence that his followers may bring should bring it home that this person should not ever be the head of a government.

Immigrants eager to learn English : Duh, anyone with common sense knows that immigrants -- for the most part -- are interested in learning English. A frequent argument I hear is that immigrants simply don't want to and don't see a need to learn English, to which I say: OK, whatever dude. Of course there will be some but the majority do want to learn.

"New to the United States? Want to learn English?

Get in line.

Across the country from California to Pennsylvania to Massachusetts are full and have waiting lists up to 18,000 people long.

The demand for English-language instruction is evident on Spanish-language television, with an array of commercials for English-learning products, including the top seller, "Inglés Sin Barreras," or "English without Barriers," a video and audio program that reportedly sells 60,000 copies a year.

Immigrant advocates say the full classes and booming business in language products demonstrate that many immigrants are eager to learn English and assimilate.

"People assume that if you don't speak English it's because you are not trying or don't want to, when in fact, a lot of people are struggling to learn," said Holly Patrick, manager of language programs at Atlanta's Latin American Association, where about 500 adults are learning English.

But critics say too many immigrants are still not learning the language or integrating into American culture and that the English is under attack as government agencies increasingly try to to accommodate foreigners. For example, many states offer driver's license tests in various languages, and electoral ballots in some areas are printed in Spanish.

"The problem is that multilingual government has created for some an English-optional society," said Rob Toonkel, communications director for U.S. English Inc., a group that advocates making English the official language of the federal government.

I find the arguments and fears that immigrants don't learn and don't want to learn English stupid and ignorant for the "duh" reasons I gave earlier. As for the argument that accommodating other languages encourages them not to learn english...lets just day that most immigrants know that it benefits them more to learn the language than not.

But, why should government forms, vote forms, banks accommodateate other languages?

Simply, because it is pragmatic to allow immigrants to do their business in a language they acomfortableble with, and face it, banks want customers and this increases the number of potential customers.

Even for those who do know English well among immigrants, things are much easier, there is much less chance of confusion and error when forms accommodate languages other than english.

My father talks and speaks english well, but when given the opportunity to fill a government or bank form in Spanish, he will take it because although good in english he is even more proficient and comfortable with Spanish.

It doesn't breed a English-optional society as tbenefitsits to learning English are way to high compared to not learning as to make that argument seem simply idiotic. What it does do is ensure that immigrants are able to go about their lives with as little difficultylty as possible, allows them to function as members of US society a lot better than they would otherwise.

9/11 ABC Docudrama

People please beware, the coming 9/11 Docudrama on ABC will include many outright falsehoods and the authors are known conservatives who it seems is trying to lay the blame totally on the Clinton Administration and totally away from the Bush Admin.

Read the blog post about it at Daily Kos

And Go to Think Progress to see exactly what Richard Clarke -- one of the people with actual knowledge of the given event (the supposed Bin Laden Raid that never actualoccurredred) who calls this scene a bunch of crock. If you see this "documentary" on ABC, don't buy the BS. A lot of this is straight propaganda from right-wing directors. Its worth noting that the Democrats in the 9/11 commission where not used to advise for this film and "interestingly" enough, the film has been shown in advance for viewings for right-wing pundits and conservative bloggers, but not for Democrats or left-wing pundits and bloggers. Interesting indeed.

----[Excerpt]----

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military
involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Tell ABC to tell the truth about 9/11.