[Grovenet] ear mark this!

[Walt Wentz]

D'you mean that any person who cannot puzzle out the psychobabble, 
doublespeak, disingenuous drivel and erudite verbal haze of the "Pro" 
and "Con" arguments in the voter's manual, should not be allowed to 
vote? If that were the case, there would be  even fewer of us 
true-blue Amurricans voting! Yes, new citizens must demonstrate a 
basic competence in English, but I doubt they could spell their way 
through that sort of gibberish, unless it were provided in a language 
they were comfortable with.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the American-born children of 
immigrants are naturally bilingual, and their children will lose 
their ancestral language, unless they make a deliberate attempt to 
learn it. The dominant language of a country will become the common 
language, even when it is not "official".
Walt

>How could they be informed if our default standard (not official) is English
>but they don't understand it?
>I am not for every person having a vote. My mother was a dementia patient.
>She got ballots. Didn't make sense either. Citizenship requirements are that
>the person understands some English. So why a ballot in other languages?
>Makes no sense. If they aren't citizens, they shouldn't be voting. If they
>are, they'd understand a ballot with names on it. They are the same in any
>language.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>Behalf Of Walt Wentz
>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:41 PM
>To: Forest Grove local interests list
>Subject: Re: [Grovenet] ear mark this!
>
>
>What waste? If a citizen is fluent in Spanish but has difficulty with
>English, should we deny him the right to make an informed vote?
>(Note, I said "citizen--" I can't conceive of an illegal alien trying
>to vote, and thus risk identifying himself to authorities).
>If we made English our "official" language, could we then legally
>refuse to make ballots understandable to citizens who were not fluent
>in English? If the city issues newsletters containing essential
>information in English, should we withhold that information from
>people who could understand it best in Spanish?
>In short, would making English our "official language" legally enable
>us to de facto create a disenfranchised, helpless  subclass?
>Or (ahem) is this, perhaps, the true intent of this whole "official
>English" movement?
>Walt
>
>>Wrong. You can vote in other languages. Forest grove puts out newsletters
>in
>>english and spanish. It isn't a form of bigotry to look upon that as a
>>waste.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>>Behalf Of Walt Wentz
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:15 PM
>>To: Forest Grove local interests list
>>Subject: Re: [Grovenet] ear mark this!
>>
>>
>>
>>Steve:
>>We already have a "common language!" It is, by default, English. What
>>people are objecting to is the meaningless and xenophobic rigamarole
>>of proclaiming it our "official" language. We don't use Latin for
>>writing "official" documents anymore, yet that used to be the
>>"official" language of our European ancestors. Latin served the
>>purpose of excluding the common people from "official" business--
>>but, instead of excluding merely one small class of unwelcome
>>immigrants, it excluded the entire populace, except for churchmen and
>>lawyers. I don't notice anyone wailing and pleading to return to
>>Latin as the only language for official documents. Why should we
>>enshrine English in that position?.
>>Walt
>>
>>>Just an example of what happens without a common language. Who can
>>>understand it all. So lets have an official language that government
>uses
>>>for elections, drivers licenses and all that.
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com]On
>>>Behalf Of Katie Allnutt
>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:50 PM
>>>To: Forest Grove local interests list
>>>Subject: Re: [Grovenet] ear mark this!
>>>
>>>
>  >>Using Babel fish to translate from Portugese to English gives this:
>>>Is enough to say it that I can agree to the David and Walter with
>>>this edicao. However I disagreed in many topicos. But if voce nao
>>>could understand that this voce never would know that one, voce? Thus
>>>nao proving its proprio point
>>>
>>>     Italian starts out with pack saddles agreeing with David about
>>>something. French has landlords proving points. And Spanish isn't
>>>much better.  So I'll guess it is supposed to be Portugese, but the
>>>post loses something in translation.
>>>
>>>Katie
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>GroveNet mailing list
>>>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>GroveNet mailing list
>>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>GroveNet mailing list
>>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>
>_______________________________________________
>GroveNet mailing list
>GroveNet at rdrop.com
>http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet