http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/28/anthem.inspanish.ap/index.html

Did anyone else see this on www.cnn.com this AM? I am gonna go out on a limb, probably get anhililated for this, but WTF??? Who's bright idea is this? Sorry for another internet link post, but the news is full of :eek: crap lately.

I think the idea is a bit ridiculous too. But, our wonderful country wouldn't even be here if it were not for the expeditions of, wouldn't you know it, Spanish and/or Portugese speaking people. I think the USA is a bit different than France, for example, because it was formed for the very reason of being a melting pot for people of all different cultures. Let them have their anthem, as long as they precede it with the English version before hand ;)

I am a left leaning Dem - and this news INFURIATED me. INFURIATED. The national anthem is a source of pride representing the fact that Americans may have diverse individual histories, but share a common future together as AMERICANS (note, there is no hyphen in front of Americans here). How dare any group of Americans change the lyrics to our anthem, and sing it in a foreign language?

:mad: :mad:

Perhaps this could be the latest unimportant but emotion-grabbing wedge issue that could save the Republicans from losing control of the House this November. Might work almost as well as gay marriage did in 2004 to divert Middle America's attention from the real problems plaguing the country. :D

Perhaps this could be the latest unimportant but emotion-grabbing wedge issue that could save the Republicans from losing control of the House this November. Might work almost as well as gay marriage did in 2004 to divert Middle America's attention from the real problems plaguing the country. :D

Sad but true.

I for one am not bothered at all by this. I'd like to listen to the finished piece. Perhaps I'm just a pinko-commie, but I don't mind modification of my national anthem (or flag, or map, or seal, or motto, etc) for artistic or expressionist purposes. To me the translation of the American anthem to Spanish is a rather powerful metaphor. And i truly doubt the singers would mean any disrespect by it. Heck, they are singing the (modified) anthem, eh?

I'm also cool with flag burning, but that probably will get me on some FBI watch list. It also seems much more directly offensive. I understand why some people are very upset by it. The national anthem in spanish... it seems like translating french poetry to english to me. But we Americans, as a whole, are rather sensitive to our patriotism.

Yo quero nuestro himno en espanol por favore!

Seriously you guys better just accept it and learn Spanish. They aren't going to close down the border, and there's no serious motivation for these guys to learn English.

Our ED is clogged with people who have lived here 5, 10, 20 years without learning English. It makes things difficult, since most of the time I can't find a translator.

[QUOTE=Janders]Sad but true.

I for one am not bothered at all by this.

I so agree. In fact, I don't really see why someone would have a problem with the SSB sung in a language the singer understands? Isn't that a good thing?

Although I certainly don't, I guess I could see why someone would have a problem with inserting new text, but that is not what most folks seem to be talking about here....

Sing on!

How dare any group of Americans change the lyrics to our anthem, and sing it in a foreign language?


Constitution-thumping "patriots" love citing the First Amendment until someone else actually exercises their right to freedom of expression, and then these patriots realize they wish the First Amendment only applied to themselves.

If the lyrics have been changed, then by definition that isn't the national anthem.

As for singing in a "foreign language" the last time I checked there is no official national language. And unless you live under a rock somewhere north of the Arctic circle, then you live amongst at least some AMERICANS (citizens) who speak spanish first, english second (by choice, not by force of ignorance). So how "foreign" is this language then?

English is a foreign language.

Sad but true.

I for one am not bothered at all by this. I'd like to listen to the finished piece. Perhaps I'm just a pinko-commie, but I don't mind modification of my national anthem (or flag, or map, or seal, or motto, etc) for artistic or expressionist purposes. To me the translation of the American anthem to Spanish is a rather powerful metaphor. And i truly doubt the singers would mean any disrespect by it. Heck, they are singing the (modified) anthem, eh?

I'm also cool with flag burning, but that probably will get me on some FBI watch list. It also seems much more directly offensive. I understand why some people are very upset by it. The national anthem in spanish... it seems like translating french poetry to english to me. But we Americans, as a whole, are rather sensitive to our patriotism.

Since symbolism isnt your thing how about cartoons of muhammad and allah? Im seriously curious....

My stance...Burn the flag... thats cool.. I wouldnt do it because an a legal immigrant to this country I have seen what my life would have been in my birth country. I think those who have been here too long have it too good and have no idea what else is out there.

This is america and the truth is our language is what unites us.. Other countries are united by religion, some monarch or a dictatorship... We need our language thats my opinion.

But really whats your opinion on the muhammad thing..

Constitution-thumping "patriots" love citing the First Amendment until someone else actually exercises their right to freedom of expression, and then these patriots realize they wish the First Amendment only applied to themselves.

If the lyrics have been changed, then by definition that isn't the national anthem.

As for singing in a "foreign language" the last time I checked there is no official national language. And unless you live under a rock somewhere north of the Arctic circle, then you live amongst at least some AMERICANS (citizens) who speak spanish first, english second (by choice, not by force of ignorance). So how "foreign" is this language then?

There might not be an "official" language per se but english is what is used in our courts, our laws are written in english, and most other things are written in english..

I grew up in miami aka north havana and I thought it was great, I love the city but why even come here if you are gonna assimilate? Just to live like a parasite and suck our resources? No thanks...

FWIW I dont care if they bring in Hugo Chavez for the first spanish rendition of the SBB but I dont want an official or unofficial 2nd language... no matter what it is...

Yo quero nuestro himno en espanol por favore!

. . . and there's no serious motivation for these guys to learn English.

Our ED is clogged with people who have lived here 5, 10, 20 years without learning English.

"These guys" are your patients and consequently your teachers. I can definetly see the frustration created by a language barrier; however, having such a detached persepctive toward your patients is muy malo.

"These guys" are your patients and consequently your teachers. I can definetly see the frustration created by a language barrier; however, having such a detached persepctive toward your patients is muy malo.


To paraphrase PandaBear, you sound like someone from the Specialty That Dare Not Speak Its Name. :rolleyes:

To paraphrase PandaBear, you sound like someone from the Specialty That Dare Not Speak Its Name. :rolleyes:


I don't get the inside joke but in either case, what's wrong with respecting and being empathetic toward your patients? in the post above, "these people" was referring to a very large contingency of hardworking immigrants who have no where to go for healthcare. I would hope that when they walk in to your ED, they are not treated as "these people" or be a source of hidden annimosity because they haven't learned English.

I don't get the inside joke but in either case, what's wrong with respecting and being empathetic toward your patients? in the post above, "these people" was referring to a very large contingency of hardworking immigrants who have no where to go for healthcare. I would hope that when they walk in to your ED, they are not treated as "these people" or be a source of hidden annimosity because they haven't learned English.

There's nothing wrong with respect or empathy. And in my ED everyone gets treated the same by me.

What I don't care for is the assumption that the "wrong" attitude means that the physician is a) incompetent, b) unprofessional, or c) a bad person. There is no "right" or "wrong" attitude (unless it changes outcomes). Being "detached" from your patients is not "muy malo" unless the detachment plays a role in sub-optimal care.

One of the more annoying aspects of medical education is this attitude that the physican must spend every moment basking in the warm glow of love, empathy, respect, etc. of and for their patients. That's a fine ideal, but let's just be honest and recognize that it isn't reality now, or ever.

There's nothing wrong with respect or empathy. And in my ED everyone gets treated the same by me.

What I don't care for is the assumption that the "wrong" attitude means that the physician is a) incompetent, b) unprofessional, or c) a bad person. There is no "right" or "wrong" attitude (unless it changes outcomes). Being "detached" from your patients is not "muy malo" unless the detachment plays a role in sub-optimal care.

One of the more annoying aspects of medical education is this attitude that the physican must spend every moment basking in the warm glow of love, empathy, respect, etc. of and for their patients. That's a fine ideal, but let's just be honest and recognize that it isn't reality now, or ever.

yeah. you get'em telemachus!11 :thumbup:

There's nothing wrong with respect or empathy. And in my ED everyone gets treated the same by me.

What I don't care for is the assumption that the "wrong" attitude means that the physician is a) incompetent, b) unprofessional, or c) a bad person. There is no "right" or "wrong" attitude (unless it changes outcomes). Being "detached" from your patients is not "muy malo" unless the detachment plays a role in sub-optimal care.

One of the more annoying aspects of medical education is this attitude that the physican must spend every moment basking in the warm glow of love, empathy, respect, etc. of and for their patients. That's a fine ideal, but let's just be honest and recognize that it isn't reality now, or ever.

It's not about " . . . basking in the warm glow of love . . ." with your patient, it's about treating the person that walks into the ED like you would like yourself and you mother to be treated. When you refer to your patient's in a condescending way because they don't know English, I find it hard to believe you would render the best care.

It's not about " . . . basking in the warm glow of love . . ." with your patient, it's about treating the person that walks into the ED like you would like yourself and you mother to be treated. When you refer to your patient's in a condescending way because they don't know English, I find it hard to believe you would render the best care.
Gotta disagree... I had a pt who was a convicted child rapist.. my ideal would have been to treat them like I would a member of my family... but.... thats a little tough.. he turned out to be "nice" but clearly lets cut the bs and state the fact that some patients dont treat you well and some people just arent deserving of my empathy..

All that being said I did what was right i just didnt get that warm happy feeling inside when I was treating them.. protocol was followed and all required and as always non required tests were also ordered..he got the same medical treatment as anyone in my family would have...

the genius here is a F&^%# british as^%$#. i have lots of latin freinds and all of them (the ones i know) think that the a spanish version national anthem is extremely disrespecful. people who agree with that crap should be shipped out to their country of origin ASAP.

the genious F$#@% British AS%$#^@ name is Adam Kidron, he is not even latin american. blame him he is the one that came up with the spanish national anthem.

When you refer to your patient's in a condescending way because they don't know English, I find it hard to believe you would render the best care.

Again, I think you are connecting two things that aren't connected. I don't doubt you have a hard time beliveing there isn't a connection. I have an equally hard time believing there is a significant one.

Warm fuzzy feelings are NOT an useful factor in making medical decisions.

I certainly have less strong opinions about the whole english thing than whomever made that initial comment. Nevertheless, I don't waste much time on emotional reactions to any given patient -- I don't see how that's relevant to my job to provide competent, quality medical care. Like EF said, a child molester and your mother would get the same work-up.... so how is it bad or wrong to say you don't like the child molestor?

Again, I think you are connecting two things that aren't connected. I don't doubt you have a hard time beliveing there isn't a connection. I have an equally hard time believing there is a significant one.

Warm fuzzy feelings are NOT an useful factor in making medical decisions.

I certainly have less strong opinions about the whole english thing than whomever made that initial comment. Nevertheless, I don't waste much time on emotional reactions to any given patient -- I don't see how that's relevant to my job to provide competent, quality medical care. Like EF said, a child molester and your mother would get the same work-up.... so how is it bad or wrong to say you don't like the child molestor?
:thumbup:

Hey my dad came from Greece in the fifties, spent one day in NYC and was sent by Greyhound bus to Moscow, Idaho where his uncle, (Also know as Chris, the Only Greek Guy In Idaho) lived.

He didn't speak a word of English, nobody kissed his ass and translated everything into Greek for him, and forty years later he retired as an Admiral in the United States Navy. He would have been appalled at anybody translating the anthem of his beloved country into Greek and we were never raised as anything other than Americans.

And not Greek-Americans either.

To paraphrase PandaBear, you sound like someone from the Specialty That Dare Not Speak Its Name. :rolleyes:

There's a lot of that going around.

I don't get the inside joke but in either case, what's wrong with respecting and being empathetic toward your patients? in the post above, "these people" was referring to a very large contingency of hardworking immigrants who have no where to go for healthcare. I would hope that when they walk in to your ED, they are not treated as "these people" or be a source of hidden annimosity because they haven't learned English.


Hey, I confess that it does wear me out a little having to speak Spanish in my own country. My Spanish is rudimentary (but improving). And then you give 'em the discharge instructions about a low salt, low fat eating and you see the wheels spinning trying to figure out where menuedo figures into this kind of diet.

(No, not the boy band, the offal stew which is actually quite tasty once you get over the fact that yer' eating pig innards.)

Shoot my grandma and grandpa came from the Ukraine in their early 60's didnt speak a lick of english.. You know what, as disturbing as it is my grandma reads Danielle Steele and other romance novels in english.. Puhleeze people.. This is america.. our constitution was written in english..... etc etc etc.. I have no problem with people wanting to sing in whatever language but english is where it is at...

Perhaps this could be the latest unimportant but emotion-grabbing wedge issue that could save the Republicans from losing control of the House this November. Might work almost as well as gay marriage did in 2004 to divert Middle America's attention from the real problems plaguing the country. :D

this is an extremely insightful comment, so i think it deserved to be posted again. :thumbup:

it's some stupid prank song...it will be in the media for a few days and then nobody will remember it next month. if people could stay emotionally detached and objective, and focus on the important issues in the world (nuclear wars, poverty, energy consumption, education, and the like), we would be in a much different place.

but, alas. sex, scandal, and emotional controversy is what sells and gets the masses all riled up. like puppets that don't know they are on a string...

this is an extremely insightful comment, so i think it deserved to be posted again. :thumbup:

it's some stupid prank song...it will be in the media for a few days and then nobody will remember it next month. if people could stay emotionally detached and objective, and focus on the important issues in the world (nuclear wars, poverty, energy consumption, education, and the like), we would be in a much different place.

but, alas. sex, scandal, and emotional controversy is what sells and gets the masses all riled up. like puppets that don't know they are on a string...
Oh yes- Please 'divert middle America.' As we all know, not living in proximity to a large body of water equates to a misinformed and ignorant political viewpoint. :rolleyes:

Oh yes- Please 'divert middle America.' As we all know, not living in proximity to a large body of water equates to a misinformed and ignorant political viewpoint. :rolleyes:

I interpreted that as "middle CLASS America" - slightly more abstract than a geographic reference.

Bottom line is people in big cities (like chicago, NY, Boston, LA, San Fran, etc) lean to the left. When they had the presidential election in 2004 chicago turned blue and the rest of the state was red.. kind of funny..

My $0.02 Liberals tend to think that conservs are dumb hicks and conservs think liberals are too dumb to realize they are being played by silly causes..

Both lose in my book..

Proud registered independent...Following some party line is not for this fetus..

I agree with apollyon on middle america being middle class america.. but bottom line is what DocCm said is true.. The thing is different parts of the country face different problems..

I interpreted that as "middle CLASS America" - slightly more abstract than a geographic reference.

Middle America relates to geography in this case because of the reference to gay marriage- a highly religous topic that was focused on by the bible belt in the 04 elections. Make no mistake, when a politician says middle America-especially on this topic, he means the red states.

I have met intelligent and not-so-intelligent people everywhere and in all stations in life. Irrespective of location or class, I hope that people in this country will begin to focus on the really important issues facing the world right now. Sometimes it's hard to not have knee-jerk reactions to minor emotionally triggering controversies.

cnn.com is a pretty good media source.

also check out bbc.com and the huffington post. bbc is a personal favorite...the depth of their international coverage surpasses any american media outlet i know of, and highlights what a global society we really live in.

Irrespective of location or class, I hope that people in this country will begin to focus on the really important issues facing the world right now. Sometimes it's hard to not have knee-jerk reactions to minor emotionally triggering controversies.


This is my entire point! The term 'important issue' is entirely subjective and the fact that gay marriage is not an important issue to you does not make it a mere distraction for the ignorant masses of landlocked America.

Oh yes- Please 'divert middle America.' As we all know, not living in proximity to a large body of water equates to a misinformed and ignorant political viewpoint. :rolleyes:

I've always lived in red states, so I guess I'm living proof that one doesn't have to live next to a large body of water to recognize an ignorant political viewpoint.

I can still remember a time when a significant faction of the Republican party (myself included) still believed in limited government, a concept that included limited intrusion with respect to social issues. Over the years, the party found that certain social issues (e.g., gay marriage in 2004) are effective at getting rural voters to the polls, and the "limited government" crowd lost standing within the party. The problem is that these "wedge issues" divide people along religious, socioeconomic, and racial lines and also divert attention from more important but also more complex issues facing the country. In my original post I was pointing out the fact that the national-anthem-in-Spanish issue seems like another one of these wedge issues.

I've always lived in red states, so I guess I'm living proof that one doesn't have to live next to a large body of water to recognize an ignorant political viewpoint..
Thanks for further proving my point...

This is my entire point! The term 'important issue' is entirely subjective and the fact that gay marriage is not an important issue to you does not make it a mere distraction for the ignorant masses of landlocked America.

While you're absolutely correct that the relative importance of political issues is subjective, surely informed citizens should be able to arrive at a consensus that some issues are, in fact, more important than others. Here's a partial list:

- Our country's dependence on foreign oil, which leads to entanglements with unsavory regimes and wars in the Middle East

- Our failing education system, which results in a low literacy rate compared to other industrialized nations and ultimately threatens our competiveness in the global marketplace

- The fact that many people in our country lack access to good basic health care (present company excluded, of course ;) ). Our country doesn't fare well in terms of such important public health measures as infant mortality and life expectancy.

- Genocide in Darfur

- AIDS throughout the world, especially in Africa

- Lobbyists for corporations and other interest groups exert undue influence on the political process through campaign contributions

- 2/3 of the Axis of Evil want to destroy our country with nuclear weapons. We seem unable to do much about this, as we are busy sacrificing American lives and spending billions of dollars fighting an insurgency in the other 1/3.

Those are just a few issues off the top of my head that we should be able to agree are more important than wedge issues such as gay marriage. I'm sure there are others. For each issue, there are many different viewpoints and potential solutions (from Democrats, Republicans, and others). The more we argue about wedge issues, the less we do to address other, more crucial issues.

I'm not saying that I believe people who oppose gay marriage or who bristle at the thought of the national anthem in Spanish are ignorant. I'm just saying that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these are mainly just distractions and that other important things also merit attention, especially in November.

Even these issues you point out are subjective.. While I agree we live in a global society but there is only so much $$$ to go around. FWIW Im a firm believer of fixing things here first.

Top of my list is education.

As far as the whole life expectancy issue in the US and how that shows how crappy our health care system is you have to look at it realistically. No other country is as fat and sedentary as we are. Simply put our health care system is doing an amazing job considering how fat and sedentary we are in the US. As far as infant mortality if you have a kid born at 24 weeks in zimbabwe that doesnt affect infant mortality, meanwhile in the US that kid is born goes to the NICU for a few months and then if he dies 6 months later.. well score one vs us..

You have to make sure you are counting apples to apples and a ton of these health stats arent..

While you're absolutely correct that the relative importance of political issues is subjective, surely informed citizens should be able to arrive at a consensus that some issues are, in fact, more important than others. Here's a partial list:

- Our country's dependence on foreign oil, which leads to entanglements with unsavory regimes and wars in the Middle East

- Our failing education system, which results in a low literacy rate compared to other industrialized nations and ultimately threatens our competiveness in the global marketplace

- The fact that many people in our country lack access to good basic health care (present company excluded, of course ;) ). Our country doesn't fare well in terms of such important public health measures as infant mortality and life expectancy.

- Genocide in Darfur

- AIDS throughout the world, especially in Africa

- Lobbyists for corporations and other interest groups exert undue influence on the political process through campaign contributions

- 2/3 of the Axis of Evil want to destroy our country with nuclear weapons. We seem unable to do much about this, as we are busy sacrificing American lives and spending billions of dollars fighting an insurgency in the other 1/3.

Those are just a few issues off the top of my head that we should be able to agree are more important than wedge issues such as gay marriage. I'm sure there are others. For each issue, there are many different viewpoints and potential solutions (from Democrats, Republicans, and others). The more we argue about wedge issues, the less we do to address other, more crucial issues.

I'm not saying that I believe people who oppose gay marriage or who bristle at the thought of the national anthem in Spanish are ignorant. I'm just saying that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these are mainly just distractions and that other important things also merit attention, especially in November.
I read this post a few times, looking for something to disagree with, but overall I think you're right. While the I may argue with the order of importance of these issues to America, they are all issues that need to be addressed. That being said, the most important issue to someone in rural Kansas may not be anywhere on that list- it doesn't make that issue unimportant or ignorant.
EDIT: I still don't like referring to these issues as 'distractions'- they are important domestic policies to a large portion of our population.

The National Anthem thing is unimportant except that it serves as a reference for the problem of illegal immigration which is an important issue.

I read this post a few times, looking for something to disagree with, but overall I think you're right. While the I may argue with the order of importance of these issues to America, they are all issues that need to be addressed. That being said, the most important issue to someone in rural Kansas may not be anywhere on that list- it doesn't make that issue unimportant or ignorant.
EDIT: I still don't like referring to these issues as 'distractions'- they are important domestic policies to a large portion of our population.

True. Issues like gay marriage are more than mere distractions, especially to people in places like rural Kansas and to those who are, in fact, gay. Still, I regret the tendency of politicians to exploit such issues for political gain. I do believe that fear lies at the heart of many divisive social issues. I'd rather see politicians, rather than pandering to people's fear, appealing to what Lincoln referred to as the "better angels of our nature."

That's enough debate for me. I don't want to make any more enemies here in heartland, where I'm set to start residency in a couple of months. I happen to know that some of the higher-ups in my department lie at the other end of the political spectrum from me, and I don't want to dig myself any deeper. :eek:

"True. Issues like gay marriage are more than mere distractions, especially to people in places like rural Kansas and to those who are, in fact, gay. Still, I regret the tendency of politicians to exploit such issues for political gain. I do believe that fear lies at the heart of many divisive social issues. I'd rather see politicians, rather than pandering to people's fear, appealing to what Lincoln referred to as the "better angels of our nature." "

:) Hopefully, we can get to the point one day where people can get over their fear-based anxiety and hatred of someone else because of their sexuality/ethnicity/whatever, and then this will not be an issue at all.

"That's enough debate for me. I don't want to make any more enemies here in heartland, where I'm set to start residency in a couple of months. I happen to know that some of the higher-ups in my department lie at the other end of the political spectrum from me, and I don't want to dig myself any deeper."

I understand how you feel. I think (at least for me) these posts are not about taking a political side or aligning with a certain part of the country, but rather creating an intelligent dialogue of awareness, open-mindedness, and inclusivity. With a more peaceful, emotionally detached state of mind, issues like gay marriage and the anthem sung in spanish tend to self-resolve. Unburdened from anger/hate/anxiety, we are then free to face some of the other issues which have been brought up. :thumbup:

Good luck to everyone starting residency in a month or two (near a body of water or not :) ). Let's enjoy every minute off till then!

Gotta disagree... I had a pt who was a convicted child rapist.. my ideal would have been to treat them like I would a member of my family... but.... thats a little tough.. he turned out to be "nice" but clearly lets cut the bs and state the fact that some patients dont treat you well and some people just arent deserving of my empathy..

batching a child rapist with a Spanish-speaking immigrant? you're clueless and don't get the point.

batching a child rapist with a Spanish-speaking immigrant? you're clueless and don't get the point.
You need some help with your reading comprehension..

the point is everyone can agree on not liking the child rapist and some people dont like immigrants who dont speak english.

The point isnt that immigrants who dont speak english = child rapists but rather the point is you dont have to love all your patients to treat them appropriately..

Reading comprehension...Calling me clueless only shows you need some help.. :laugh:

While you're absolutely correct that the relative importance of political issues is subjective, surely informed citizens should be able to arrive at a consensus that some issues are, in fact, more important than others. Here's a partial list:

- 2/3 of the Axis of Evil want to destroy our country with nuclear weapons. .

Wait, who wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons? I guess only we're allowed to have nukes (and use them) but if others want the same rights we have, such as the right to defend themselves, they're automatically part of some "Axis of Evil" and have to be destroyed.

I've heard many - and I do mean many - of my fellow Americans say that we should just "nuke them all", and explain that they mean we should kill every last woman, child, and man in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and every other country "over there". In fact, popular radio talk shows regularly say such things.

Sounds like we Americans are the ones who would like to practice genocide on other peoples. Oh, wait - already did! (Look up "Native Americans" under "extinct species".)


HORNET

Wait, who wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons? I guess only we're allowed to have nukes (and use them) but if others want the same rights we have, such as the right to defend themselves, they're automatically part of some "Axis of Evil" and have to be destroyed.

I've heard many - and I do mean many - of my fellow Americans say that we should just "nuke them all", and explain that they mean we should kill every last woman, child, and man in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and every other country "over there". In fact, popular radio talk shows regularly say such things.

Sounds like we Americans are the ones who would like to practice genocide on other peoples. Oh, wait - already did! (Look up "Native Americans" under "extinct species".)


HORNET

Jesus Christ. Did I log onto the community and underserved forum by mistake?

Wait, who wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons? I guess only we're allowed to have nukes (and use them) but if others want the same rights we have, such as the right to defend themselves, they're automatically part of some "Axis of Evil" and have to be destroyed.

I've heard many - and I do mean many - of my fellow Americans say that we should just "nuke them all", and explain that they mean we should kill every last woman, child, and man in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and every other country "over there". In fact, popular radio talk shows regularly say such things.

Sounds like we Americans are the ones who would like to practice genocide on other peoples. Oh, wait - already did! (Look up "Native Americans" under "extinct species".)


HORNET

In response to your questions/statements:

- North Korea wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons. At least they've made some serious threats in that direction. So does Iran, but they don't have the bomb - yet.

- No, I don't want Iran to have have nuclear weapons, because unlike most of the countries in the world with nukes, I'm afraid that they might actually use them.

- When I used the term "Axis of Evil," I was being kind of sarcastic. These countries do pose a threat to us, but I think it was counterproductive from a strategic and diplomatic standpoint for Bush to group them together.

- People who say we should "nuke them all" in various Middle Eastern countries are ignorant. I don't think any country should ever use nuclear weapons, and I think we should do everything we can to prevent more countries from joining the nuclear club.

- Our country has done some bad things in the past, e.g., our treatment of Native Americans. I have a major problem with more recent activities by our government with respect to human rights, e.g., Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and apparently at a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe. However, to equate these recent activities with "genocide" of the sort that is taking place in Africa is a big stretch.

Wait, who wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons? I guess only we're allowed to have nukes (and use them) but if others want the same rights we have, such as the right to defend themselves, they're automatically part of some "Axis of Evil" and have to be destroyed.


Umm where is this right given? The right to have a nuclear weapon? Heck even the right to defend oneself cryptically means have the US cover your butt. Please... Nukes arent used for defense. Most countries that have them now are stable. Iran and almost every other country in the middle east is NOT stable..

Hornet just usually comes on here stirs things up and leaves for 3 months.. whatever..

sounds like my kind of guy

I suggest you change yor Avatar and quote. This is VERY offensive, and I reported you to the administrators. I will delete every post you make on my EM forum until you change these.

Clearly the guy just set up a profile to do that. I think it was his 1st post..Thanx for booting him..

Clearly the guy just set up a profile to do that. I think it was his 1st post..Thanx for booting him..

Yeah, I almost never interfere with the posts, but this clearly is an exception.

I guess Hornet thinks it's cool for Iran to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth as well (their stated goal along with the Palenstinians). Genocide huh. Well, I don't have any clue to what you're talking about, and I pretty sure you don't either.

Anyway, I'll leave this debate alone as well. The last time I got into this, it turned into a 10+ page thread and accomplished really nothing other than some entertainment.

Good luck to everyone starting residencies soon.
CM

DocCM the point is to +pad+ or at least thats my point. The great thing about this country is we dont have to see eye to eye.. We can discuss these topics and not worry about the government hunting us down.

DocCM the point is to +pad+ or at least thats my point. The great thing about this country is we dont have to see eye to eye.. We can discuss these topics and not worry about the government hunting us down.
You're right EF. I tend to get invested in these threads and they turn out to be a huge time investement as well! :)
CM

Ehh its not like you are gonna change anyones opinion on here but rather it is an opportunity to present various opinions. IMO it is extremely important to listen to people who disagree with your position. We should always be evaluating why we believe what we do and if our position makes sense to us. Well Im gonna run out with the wife and "enjoy" a cold rainy nasty day in Chicago. Im ready for the sun and heat of Tucson... of course there is that whole sub-i thing i need to finish.. yuck..

In response to your questions/statements:

- North Korea wants to destroy our country with nuclear weapons. At least they've made some serious threats in that direction. So does Iran, but they don't have the bomb - yet.

- No, I don't want Iran to have have nuclear weapons, because unlike most of the countries in the world with nukes, I'm afraid that they might actually use them.

- When I used the term "Axis of Evil," I was being kind of sarcastic. These countries do pose a threat to us, but I think it was counterproductive from a strategic and diplomatic standpoint for Bush to group them together.

- People who say we should "nuke them all" in various Middle Eastern countries are ignorant. I don't think any country should ever use nuclear weapons, and I think we should do everything we can to prevent more countries from joining the nuclear club.

- Our country has done some bad things in the past, e.g., our treatment of Native Americans. I have a major problem with more recent activities by our government with respect to human rights, e.g., Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and apparently at a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe. However, to equate these recent activities with "genocide" of the sort that is taking place in Africa is a big stretch.

-When has North Korea said that they want to destroy our country? I might have missed it.

-You're afraid that "unlike most countries in the world", Iran might actually use nukes if they had them. Um, excuse me, which is the only country in the world to use nuclear weapons (and on civilian population centers, no less)? Oh yeah, that would be US!

-Iran is not stupid. If they used nukes against the United States they would face massive retaliation and be exterminated as a nation. They want to get nukes because the U.S., Russia, Israel, and all the other big players in the world have them.

-Nuclear weapons are a deterrent and a stabilizing force in the world. The reason we haven't invaded North Korea (besides their lacking oil) and will NEVER invade North Korea is because they have nukes. We knew Saddam Hussein didn't have nukes or chemical weapons, and that's why we illegally invaded his country and decided to let our boys have at it murdering kids and raping women.

-It's not just "counterproductive from a diplomatic and strategic standpoint" for Bush to use the term "Axis of Evil". (What you're saying is, "I agree with the content of what he said, but I wish he hadn't said it in public." Kind of like how some people think blacks are lazy and criminal-minded, but they don't think it wise to say it publicly.) It just makes no sense from a rational standpoint. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea never formed an "axis" because they were never allied around any common cause in any meaningful way. They were not a team of bad guys working together to screw the U.S.

-Yes, I only come on this board like once every three months and then suddenly disappear. Guilty as charged. I wish I had more time to devote to this forum, but I haven't.

-Let me get this straight: we, the United States, have nuclear missiles capable of reaching any country on this earth, but we're so innocent and sweet and we don't want to hurt anyone - it's all about self-defense! - but if someone else wants to acquire even 1/40 of our nuclear capability they're somehow evil. You pretty much have to be a blind racist *****hole to see things that way.

-"People who say that we should 'nuke them all' in various Middle Eastern countries are ignorant." You're right. And, of course, they don't represent most of America, right? They're some kind of rare exception. And yet it's odd that I've heard this sentiment repeatedly in my adult life. I remember reading in the letters section of TIME magazine in 1998 that "in countries like Afghanistan, there is no such thing as an innocent civilian."

When my grandfather came to this country during the first Gulf War, he was stunned to hear a Presbyterian minister, who should be among the moral leaders of our nation, give such violent speeches endorsing wholesale massacre and destruction of Iraq that he couldn't bear to attend church anymore.

-Whoever said that Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel should examine reality. Israel has ALREADY destroyed Palestine. They stole the land, uprooted the native inhabitants, and oppress and murder the ones who have remained. I should know, because Israel is my country.

Trust me, when I did my required military service in Israel, we were never told to take great pains to "respect human rights" and all that other bull crap you hear Israeli military officials say on TV all the time. We were openly encouraged to wreak havoc in the Territories, to terrorize the Palestinian population.

Do you remember Yitzhak Rabin's publicly stated "break their bones" policy in the 1980s? Did you know that we were given orders to shoot any Palestinian child who sang folk songs or did patriotic folk dances, or who raised a Palestinian flag or wore any combination of colors on his person that could be construed as a Palestinian flag?

My country is founded on erasing the national existence of another people. When they try to assert their existence, such as by participating in the Olympics or submitting a film to the Academy Awards, we attempt to crush them. Israel lodged a formal protest with the International Olympic Committee in 1996, saying that Palestinian athletes should not be allowed to compete since Palestine does not exist as a country. Odd, because Puerto Rico is a not a country, either, and they send teams to the Olympic Games, but Israel never protested their participation.

This winter the Israeli government and several (rabidly) pro-Israeli American groups lobbied the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences not to allow "Paradise Now" as a Foreign Film entry from "Palestine".

I guess our famous former prime minister Golda Meir's thoughts sum up our national attitude best: "Who are the Palestinians? They don't exist."

-So please, don't talk to me about who wants to destroy whom. Talk to me about who HAS destroyed and is destroying whom, and then we can have a real conversation.


HORNET

"I may indeed be a lefty-commie-pinko, but I'm smarter than the rest of you combined."
-Noam Chomsky

[QUOTE=Hornet871]-Whoever said that Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel should examine reality. Israel has ALREADY destroyed Palestine. They stole the land, uprooted the native inhabitants, and oppress and murder the ones who have remained. I should know, because Israel is my country.

Obviously you know that Israel was there inhabited by jews prior to 1948.

Trust me, when I did my required military service in Israel, we were never told to take great pains to "respect human rights" and all that other bull crap you hear Israeli military officials say on TV all the time. We were openly encouraged to wreak havoc in the Territories, to terrorize the Palestinian population. People are aware that whatever bs is on the news is not reality. If palestinians dont care about the lives of jews why should the jews care about the lives of the palestinians?

Do you remember Yitzhak Rabin's publicly stated "break their bones" policy in the 1980s? Did you know that we were given orders to shoot any Palestinian child who sang folk songs or did patriotic folk dances, or who raised a Palestinian flag or wore any combination of colors on his person that could be construed as a Palestinian flag? Do you remember the palestinians celebrating in the streets after 9/11? Do you remember how Arafat turned down the chance to have his own country thinking he would get more?

My country is founded on erasing the national existence of another people. When they try to assert their existence, such as by participating in the Olympics or submitting a film to the Academy Awards, we attempt to crush them. Israel lodged a formal protest with the International Olympic Committee in 1996, saying that Palestinian athletes should not be allowed to compete since Palestine does not exist as a country. Odd, because Puerto Rico is a not a country, either, and they send teams to the Olympic Games, but Israel never protested their participation.
Uhh Puerto Rico is its own territory with well defined borders and not a state in the US. They want it this way, they had a vote to become an independent country but the majority of people rejected this because they have it pretty good. Also wasnt america founded after we basically erased the native americans off the planet? Well of course we got them those cute little reservations and gave them enough etoh so that they would never bother us again.

This winter the Israeli government and several (rabidly) pro-Israeli American groups lobbied the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences not to allow "Paradise Now" as a Foreign Film entry from "Palestine".
Uhh ok, why is this relevant? Muslims (palestinians included (though I know not all palestinians are muslim)) protested when a drawing of Muhammad was published.

I guess our famous former prime minister Golda Meir's thoughts sum up our national attitude best: "Who are the Palestinians? They don't exist." Interesting thought..

-So please, don't talk to me about who wants to destroy whom. Talk to me about who HAS destroyed and is destroying whom, and then we can have a real conversation. ok.... Who? The palestinians arent destroyed, neither is anyone else...

"I may indeed be a lefty-commie-pinko, but I'm smarter than the rest of you combined."
-Noam Chomsky

Just because chomsky said it doesnt mean it is true. Communism is all fun and games until you have been subjected to it. It is a form of govt that just doesnt work and rewards the lazy and the cheaters.

To anyone who actually reads these long-ass posts...... I salute you.

Mr. Jean shorts inventor man... We salute you...

There'a actually a web site with the lyrics to those ads: http://budlight.whipnet.com/. Good stuff! :)

MR. JEAN SHORTS INVENTOR

Bud Light Presents Real Men of Genius
(Real Men of Genius)

Today we salute you Mr. Jean Shorts Inventor
(Mr. Jean Shorts Inventor)
People insisted that jeans were just pants, apparently those people underestimated your out-of-the-box thinking
(A fashion trail blazer)
Casual enough for a BBQ, formal enough for a family reunion, your multi-dimensional creation handles both duties with ease
(You just said DOODY)
And what should we call your ground breaking achievement? How about Jorts?
(We really love your jorts)
So crack open an ice cold Bud Light Mr. Jorts Inventor, if fashion's a war, you're fighting dirty.
(Mr. Jorts Inventor)

You need some help with your reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension..... :laugh:

You will need to attenuate your level of arrogance especially in the field of medicine, because being pretensious will only make you many enemies. i know your type--and narcissistic personality disorder isn't a pretty thing.

You will need to attenuate your level of arrogance especially in the field of medicine, because being pretensious will only make you many enemies. i know your type--and narcissistic personality disorder isn't a pretty thing.

Wow sweet you got me figured out. Clearly I should wear your assessment of me around so no one will confuse who I really am.. Thanks.

Simply put you either didnt read what or wrote or you were unable to properly understand it. Either way nothing I said or did was incorrect or improper.

You will need to attenuate your level of arrogance especially in the field of medicine, because being pretensious will only make you many enemies. i know your type--and narcissistic personality disorder isn't a pretty thing.

Where does this medicine powder character come from?

original reason for posting:

I would just like to support 95% of the Hornet's post.
Esp. the part about the US being the only country to USE nuclear weapons.

...and there is no arguement that I have heard yet about why a country like Iran should not be able to pursue nuclear weapons (which, by the way, no one is CERTAIN they are doing) when a superpower (USA) that has unilaterally attacked a neighbor (Iraq) is continually threatening said country.

I esp. love how the US claims it is wants to limit nuclear proliferation (often said when criticizing the potential pursuit in countries like Iran) yet invests in and pursues even more nuclear technology (ie the Bush admin's plan to develop smaller weapons that can be delivered "more accurately").

It is likely that someone will pull out the "stable" or "sane" US versus Iran arguement. Go ahead, just consider perspective (I promise there are Iranians who believe their government is the sane one and that the US is nuts) and history (as above, the US is the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons and is one of the few that is unilaterally attacking other countries).

One last comment before stepping down from the soapbox: I love it how the Bush admin claims that Iran should yield to international pressure and opinion! Where were these types of comments before the Iraq debacle?

Peace out.

While I cant disagree with much you said. I will point out one small thing. You mentioned...
the US is the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons and is one of the few that is unilaterally attacking other countries).


2 Issues here.
1) When the US used Nukes it was in a war which was not unilateral
2) Iraq did unilaterally invade Kuwait, also there are numerous other unilateral wars (Or genocides) raging in places like Africa.

Just to pretend to return to the original topic for a moment...

(courtesy of Drudge)

http://memory.loc.gov/cocoon/ihas/loc.natlib.ihas.100000007/pageturner.html?page=1&section=

http://usinfo.state.gov/esp/home/topics/us_society_values/national_symbols/anthem_spanish.html


I'm not sure what to conclude with the State Dept. website publishing multiple versions of our national anthem in Spanish, except for the apparent truth to the adage that history repeats itself.

(oh and on the repeated question on how I feel about cartoons of god, or someone's god... I have no problem with them. I certainly see how someone who believes in said god might be a bit pissy about them. I can even see how they are in rather poor taste. However, I think they are obviously protected speech. I'd like something a bit wittier than a turban-bomb though.)

I'd like something a bit wittier than a turban-bomb though.)
Practice makes perfect...Right? They have to start somewhere.

Practice makes perfect...Right? They have to start somewhere.

*pokes embers with stick*

Bush sang Star Spangled Banner en español during 2000 campaign
Wed May 03 2006 09:35:20 ET

"When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, George W. Bush would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bush” mariachi band flown in from Texas."

So writes author Kevin Phillips in his book AMERICAN DYNASTY.

Last week, at the height of the illegal immigrant's boycott build up, Bush told reporters: "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English."

I am a left leaning Dem - and this news INFURIATED me. INFURIATED. The national anthem is a source of pride representing the fact that Americans may have diverse individual histories, but share a common future together as AMERICANS (note, there is no hyphen in front of Americans here). How dare any group of Americans change the lyrics to our anthem, and sing it in a foreign language?

:mad: :mad:
So what they say must be true bout the United States being a melting pot and not a country that prides itself on multiculturalism?

Personally I think it's great that they want to sing the US anthem in their language. Would you rather they show absolutely no patriotism at all by not singing anything? I might be treading in hot waters here, but I'm just surprised that people are offended by this.

Yo quero nuestro himno en espanol por favore!

Seriously you guys better just accept it and learn Spanish. They aren't going to close down the border, and there's no serious motivation for these guys to learn English.

Our ED is clogged with people who have lived here 5, 10, 20 years without learning English. It makes things difficult, since most of the time I can't find a translator.

Why do we need to learn spanish on an english speaking country? I feel in my honest opinion that if people wants to sing songs about the country should do it in english so that we all can understand it.

*pokes embers with stick*

Bush sang Star Spangled Banner en español during 2000 campaign
Wed May 03 2006 09:35:20 ET

"When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, George W. Bush would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bush” mariachi band flown in from Texas."

So writes author Kevin Phillips in his book AMERICAN DYNASTY.

Last week, at the height of the illegal immigrant's boycott build up, Bush told reporters: "I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English."
Osama Bin Laden could sing it in farsi or whatever other language he wants it wont offend me..

Bush is clearly not someone to use for an example in any area requiring thinking.

The US has tried to be a melting pot...where cultures blend and mix, but a great number of these immigrants are blending or mixing with our culture, and I see their actions as trying to make the US more like Mexico.

Also, about the oil, about one third of our oil is imported from the Middle East, which by using reserves and other sources, can be done without for short term (~10 years)...which the Middle East economy is supported by the US buying oil. How much do they depend on us? About 95% of all exports of Afganistan, Iran and Iraq is oil going to the US. As much as we are dependent on their oil, they rely on the US as a steady buyer even more.