Rudy's 12-Step Program

Stephanie,
Here is Giuliani's 12 Step Program - I have helpfully decoded each step by adding a more accurate description of each of Rudy's points in highlighted text.
Cheers,
Faye

Rudy Giuliani’s 12 Commitments
by James Joyner

Rudy Giuliani gave a speech this afternoon announcing his “Twelve Commitments to the American people, a bold vision aimed at moving America forward through change and reform, overcoming new challenges and increasing accountability in Washington.”

Let’s take them one at a time, shall we?
1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
In other words – I will continue to poke Muslims in the Middle East with a sharp stick.
What the hell does that mean, exactly?
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
Read – I will institute a national ID card and invade every Americans’ privacy.
No, you won’t. And, frankly, I wouldn’t want to give you (or anyone else) enough power to “identify every non-citizen in our nation.” There are over 300 million people living here, stretched across a continental landmass. How on earth would you do that?
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
I will only fund projects that support my political backers, and I will continue to fund the military-industrial complex.
I’m for that. How would you define wasteful spending? How much would you cut it? How would you persuade Congress?
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
I will continue to reward the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans, while the middle-class will continue to get screwed.
Which taxes? By how much? Reform how?
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
I will run Washington like I ran NYC, shoving all the unsightly stuff under the rug (will Georgie be leaving his yellow ruggie behind?).
How so? We’ve got elections, separation of powers, and checks and balances. What would you add? Is it Constitutional?
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
I will drill in ANWR and reward the American auto industry while ignoring sensible solutions like the cultivation of industrial hemp.
I’m for that. How would you achieve it? What will it cost?
7. I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
I will privatize Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and eliminate virtually all safety nets for needy citizens.
I’m confused. Is this going to be done by the government or the free market? Anyway, I’ve already got plenty of control and access.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
I will slash publicly-funded pre-natal care, and continue to pander to the religious right by funding more unsuccessful abstinence-only education.
From the White House? How? You’re already going to be chasing terrorists, illegal aliens, and looking for oil.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
I will continue, in the tradition of George W. Bush, to appoint judges who are only activists on issues that I believe that they should inject themselves (privacy issues, death penalty, wire-tapping under the guise of national security, etc…)
Reform in what manner? Will these judges be confirmable?
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I will ensure that homeland security funds are spent to line the pockets of corporations by awarding no-bid contracts to said corporations, and will ignore the needs of communities devasted by hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and earthquakes.
Have you ever heard of Federalism? Anyway, 99.9% of the communities in America are in essentially no danger from terrorism, so why would you expend federal resources on protecting them?
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
I will continue to promote the demise of America’s public education system, by redirecting education funds away from public schools to vouchers that support private, exclusive, often religious schools.
No, you won’t. You’d never get it through Congress, for starters, and the courts would likely strike down any law that sent government money to religious schools.
12. I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
I will continue to bomb the bejesus out of any country who looks at us cross-eyed.
How could we be more involved in the global economy? And how are you going to do this while shutting down our borders, chasing illegal aliens, and stopping the import of energy from abroad
If any of the highlighted text sounds familiar, well it's all sloppy seconds from the current administration. So if you like what we've got now then Giuliani is your man. However, if you are sick to death of the current policies, then you have eight fine Democrats from which to chose.

The Xenophobia Behind "English Only" Laws

This morning I caught the award ceremony at the French Open Tennis Championship, and I, along with the commentators, was struck by the multi-lingual skills of Roger Federer. In his wikipedia entry it says this about Federer's linguistic abilities: "He considers his main language German, but he also speaks French and English fluently." Not a particularly remarkable skill for a citizen of Switzerland or many other European countries, but one that apparently many Americans find terrifying.

The web site U.S. English, Inc. presents a case for making English the official language of this country, one that panders to some right-wing Americans' most base attitudes. Besides reporting on the passage of the S.I. Hayakawa National Language Amendment Act of 2007, offered by Senator James Inhofe (R - OK), the web site goes on to list a few of the reasons why English must be preserved as the national language of the United States. None of the reasons hold up under scrutiny, but they provide the basis for remarks such as the one offered by Rep. Tom Tancredo (R - CO) last week at the GOP Debate:

"Believe me when I tell you this, English — the preservation of the English language is important for us for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is because it is what holds us together. It is the glue that keeps a country together, any country. Bilingual countries don’t work, and we should not encourage it."

Not only is the fallacy of this argument painfully clear to anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of other countries - Canada, for example. Although Afghanistan, India and China may not be beacons of democracy or freedom, it is not multilingualism that is creating the problems that each one is facing. But it is also an insult to the rest of the world to announce that we won't bother to learn how to communicate with others, however, we do expect that others will learn our language so that should we ever need anything from them, they'll be able to understand us and serve our wishes. Not every American shares Tancredo's or Inhofe's arrogance and limited vision - thank goodness.

One of my sister's spent time in the Peace Corps and is fluent in at least three languages. I'll never forget her remark to me when I told her that I planned to major in English in college. "That's the best you can do, a language you already speak!" We both had a good laugh, and I did go on to study English and American literature, but I've never forgotten my sister's remark and the truth that hides not too deep in those words.

There is something inherently insular and narcissistic about Americans' worldview, something that makes us as a people think that learning another language would somehow diminish us as a society when just the opposite is true. If I were the Secretary of Education, we would be teaching Arabic, Hindi and Mandarin Chinese in HeadStart classes across the country. Every study done on language acquisition shows that the earlier another language is introduced, the easier it is not only for the learner to acquire a second language, but also to later learn a third and even fourth language. Of what are we so afraid?

"English Only" laws reflect a stubborn view and an unfounded fear on the part of those lawmakers who propose these inane pieces of legislation. English is the universal language of commerce. It is far and away the language most people from other countries are likely to speak if they speak a second language. There is little danger that English (or American as the Brits might suggest) will cease to be the primary language of this country. Tancredo's ridiculous vision of a country in which he isn't inconvenienced by having to press "1" for English is just that - a selfish claim to an inconvenience with which he would rather not be bothered. Nada mas, nada menos (nothing more, nothing less).

Another point against "English Only" laws is that they often sweep up Native American languages in their wake. Native languages have been spoken across this land long before English was even introduced by Europeans. It is just a fluke of history and warfare that we are not speaking French or German or Spanish today, nevermind Cherokee or Chahta or Navajo. These languages are playing an important part in keeping cultures and traditional ways alive. Every so often we read about a Native elder who passed away taking a world of knowledge with her/him and some of us recognize what we have lost.

We must cultivate a sensible foreign policy that recognizes that no single country need be dominate on this planet in the next millenium. In fact, our very survival (unlike the survival that Mr. Tancredo mentioned in the debate) will depend on our ability to work together on problems that we all are facing - problems such as global warming, and the finite amount of oil and fresh water, and the ever-shrinking rainforests. In order to accomplish these tasks we must be able to communicate with each other, beyond threatening each other with guns and bombs.

Here are a few more good reason why we don't need and would actually be harmed by instituting an "English Only" law (From the ACLU's web site)

"The Inhofe English-Only amendment would punish citizens who need access to medical care and disaster relief, and it would raise new barriers to learning English. This country needs better access to English education for limited speakers, not a mute button on government access for millions of Americans."
--Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office

The Inhofe amendment would deny limited-English proficient (LEP) Americans access to basic government information such as instructions on how to pay taxes, which would inadvertently promote tax evasion. It would limit information about federal policies and government services in languages other than English. It would bar instructions about workplace safety, natural disasters and vaccinations in a form that all Americans can understand. It would also prevent LEP patients, particularly the elderly, from communicating with their doctors. It is a dangerous amendment that places every American at risk.

"The Inhofe Amendment does nothing to promote the use of English. It does not reduce the long waiting lists for English classes or educational discrimination against Americans with limited English. Instead, it keeps people who want to learn English from speaking it. It panders to English-only groups seeking to exclude millions of language minorities from American society."
--James Thomas Tucker, ACLU Policy Counsel and Author of a 2006 study of ESL waiting times

Another Summer of Love

"No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody."
--Rita Mae BrownForty years ago the world celebrated the summer of love in San Fransisco and Monterey and Los Angeles, fifteen summers later Tulsa, Oklahoma celebrated its first Gay Pride event in Mohawk Park. Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the Gay Pride Parade and Diversity Festival here in Tulsa. The Parade displayed and honored Tulsa's Native heritage as the Grand Marshall was John Hawk Cocke, former Director of Tulsa's Two Spirits Society. Cocke rode in the first vehicle and the Tulsa Two Spirits Society followed as second in the parade lineup. Following the parade, somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 people came out to Veterans Park in downtown Tulsa to celebrate love, lust, and fun. There was the Logcabin Republicans booth that seemed forlorn compared to the Lambda Legal Defense Fund booth where they were giving away a nifty canvas tote bag if a person signed a petition to promote workplace equality. I brought my boyz who were remarkably well-behaved (that is until Dylan relieved himself on his mom's leg - eeeew!). We even paraded across the stage where I introduced both Tulsey and Dylan to the crowd and received a roar of applause when I mentioned that they were both SPCA rescue pups. We ran into old friends and politicians and other folks that we were happy to see at the Pride event. We were also glad that several of the booths provided water bowls for the many, many doggies that attended the event with their humans. Dylan, of course, decided to take a bath in one of the larger bowls and splashed most of the water out of the bowl - but the good-natured folks who were staffing that particular booth just laughed and refilled the bowl as I was dragging the boyz away. I took photos of the parade and of friends at the festival, and although there was nothing as flamboyant or as massive as the Pride festivities in other cities, Tulsa has come a long way in the past 25 years. Yet those of us who live here in this still very red state understand that we still have a long way to go. Just wanted to report on the beginning of another summer of love.

Tulsa Pride and Diversity Festival 2007

Dennis R. Neill Equality Center, Tulsa, OK


Two-Spirit Friends at Pride 2007

NativeOUT (a Native LGBT site)