Politics and Culture

Jane Velez Mitchell on CNN, interviewing Larry Whitten, Marine and small business owner:

Larry Sanchez replies:

My last name is gē[r]ădō with a rather difficult rolling of the "r." First, I think it would sound ridiculous to say my name the way abuelo did, in the middle of a torrent of Anglicisms: "Good evening. Welcome to the first annual gē[r]ădō turkey shoot and barbacoa." Second, I'd be held liable for the mouth damage caused by inflicting the correct pronunciation (not to mention the inconvenience of driving them to the hospital) on unsuspecting Anglos.

Anglicizing Spanish names to people whose primary language isn't Spanish and who speak English is a very considerate thing to do: It's easier for them to understand and lets people off the hook for pronouncing it.

So, why is Jane Velez Mitchell so angry (I wonder if she tortures the Mitchells this way)? Well, she's a liberal (left-type). Liberals are often very angry because their philosophy is based on Marx. Marx thought of history as forces in opposition, a "dialectic" that spurs progress until the forces are equal, at which time history ends.

The result of this thinking is that progressives are always on the lookout for offense, lest their side give power away to the enemy. Originally, it was economics. Eventually, the race-conscious and feminists began using this model.

Now, Ms. Velez-Mitchell might be too stupid to realize this, but that doesn't mean that Marxism didn't influence her.

Ms. V-M thinking:

"A white man is forcing a brown man to do something. The brown man should resist or the white man, sensing advantage, will press the brown man until he enslaves us- either physically or psychologically."

Now, would anybody care, complain were Americans working in Mexico forced to say "esmith"?

Other dumminess:

It's lost on Ms. V-M that he just asked those who worked on the phone to Anglicize their names. In other words, those for whom changing the pronunciation of their names would help people be more comfortable. I assume that Spanish-speaking customers would still be able to hear the sound of Martin's name in a glorious Mexican accent.

New Mexico (why doesn't she pronounce it [nuevo mehicō]?) was part of Mexico and...what?

The names of all of those cities are religious ("the angels," "Saint Francis," "the sacrament"). What does that mean?

Can anybody think of a more stupid question?

Let's see:

Is paying your full tax bill possible?
Can people really not steal cable?
Is giving up carbs possible?

Better questions: Are people in control of themselves or not? Is the love of your spouse worth the effort? What does monogamy involve that makes it impossible?

Of course it's possible. Monogamy happens every day. Maybe not at CNN or Hollywood (I hope the current or potential spouses of the people who claim its impossibility read this article and decide the future of their relationship accordingly), but it does amongst my friends and family- in my house.

I submit that people who ask the question don't really want it to be possible. I further claim that those same askers don't want you or any large part of society to be faithful.

It makes them feel bad when people are successful at being good. It eases their conscience when they think that everybody else does it.

It's also part of the plan to destabilize society. A society without stable families is easier to manipulate ("go have fun- we'll clean up your mess. Just pay your taxes and do as we say").

Sounds conspiratorial, but it's not. Remember when part of the strategy to bring down Communism was to flood the country with Levis and Rock and Roll. The theory was that people behind the iron curtain would desire Western goods and culture so much that they'd abandon Communism's forced deprivation and artistic rigidness.

Well, the cultural left dangles sex in front of the population in the hopes that people will abandon family mores and traditional religion (another historic barrier to "progress").

Why do you think leftists always claim that teens can't help but have sex (in fact, half don't- an amazing statistic when you think about the pressures teens face from Hollywood and others)? Why are they so dead set against abstinence programs- so much so that they lie to discredit it? Why are they willing to indirectly kill thousands of Africans so that the Church doesn't inhibit the distribution of condoms.

They want you to fail. You should resent that.

Forget Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar- he looks like Charlie Rose compared to these guys.

Related: I'm not comparing Obama to the following men and woman, but it's hard not to notice a similarity between what Obama is trying to do to Fox news and anti-press initiatives by left-wing presidents Hugo Chavez, Cristina Kirchner (right down to bribing friendly media and the "hurry up before people catch on" attitude towards reform), and Daniel Ortega.

Obama's hate crimes legislation also resembles the anti-speech policies of Europe.

No direct comparisons, just interesting parallels.

Which leads me to the root of the rude-ness: self-righteousness. When you're absolutely sure that you're right and the only reason that somebody would oppose the you is because they're ignorant or evil, then any action you take to silent them isn't only justified, but a duty.

Yes, it's similar to religion.

It's interesting to read foreign newspapers. You're going to have to translate this one.

http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/545317/0/esperas/diagnostico/especialistas/

The balloon boy's dad is a disgrace, forcing his son to lie. He should be doing the opposite. Even if parents aren't always completely accurate; to involve their kids in the deception is truly a corrupting act, unless mom and dad have Anne Frank under the floor or something.

If President Obama is planning on entering negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program while also letting video footage of our new bunker-busting bombs seep onto youtube, he'd be doing a very smart thing. Heck, he should just go up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, open up his laptop, play it for him, and smile.

What would Iran do? If they're sane, they'd stop their program. If not, negotiations are a waste of time anyways.