Monday is a school day.

Monday is also (apparently) a proposed walkout, strike, slowdown and demonstration in support of not cracking down on illegal immigration. Loftily titled, “A Day Without Immigrants”, the general principle seems to be a complete withdrawal of illegal immigrants from the workforce in order to demonstrate the vital contribution illegal immigrants make to the American economy.

Now, granted, I’ve been as sick as a yak can be since last Friday, battling a case of the flu that still (as of Sunday night’s writing) hasn’t surrendered the upper hand, but somehow I’d missed the news until Saturday night - when we received a telephone call from the automated message system at Yak the Younger’s elementary school reminding us that “Monday is a school day” and that the school district “strongly discouraged parents from permitting students to skip school in order to participate in protests and organized activities relating to illegal immigration.”

The message indicated that the district had reason for believing a large number of kids would be missing school Monday, and that the administration would consider this a “non-excused absence.”

I should hope so. In fact, I should hope they’d do more than that.

These are elementary school kids. Kids who’ve already had not one but two district-approved “read and relax” days this year and most of whom (from what I can tell reading the sample work on the classroom wall) would have done better with two “learn to spell” days. And it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re related to legal immigrants, illegal immigrants or seventh-generation Californians - these kids go to school to learn.

Any parent who would pull his or her ten year-old child out of school to protest a crackdown on illegal immigration (or anything else, for that matter) needs his or her head examined and his or her priorities reorganized. No elementary school student understands the issue of illegal immigration well enough to take an intelligent stand. Yes, they can understand what their parents teach them. Yes, they can understand the scare-tactics of political organizers trying to frighten them into defending “the children who will lose their parents to deportation” if illegal immigrants are sent home. Yes, they can parrot the words partisan adults put into their heads.

But let’s get this straight once and for all.

Elementary school children are not part of the political process. Using them to further their parents’ political motives is both wrong and completely inappropriate. Suggesting that they have either the responsibility or the capacity to “take a stand” for illegal immigration or any other cause is disgusting and beyond reproach.

When I was a child, I thought as a child. I reasoned as a child. I understood my role as a child. And that role was to look up to the parents, teachers and friends who showed me the difference between right and wrong. To learn the lessons they taught, in the hope that I would one day grow up capable of making appropriate, reasoned decisions of my own.

Part of that learning process involved watching the adults around me make choices. Choices to respect God, our country and the law. Choices I didn’t always appreciate or understand - and choices that weren’t always right - but fortunately for me, choices that always taught me I was more than just a pawn in their political debate.

Removing a child from school tomorrow in order to participate in the debate on illegal immigration is also a choice. It is not a choice the child has the power or the right to make - and one the parent should make very, very carefully because it has meaning far beyond a single day’s missed class work. It tells the administration that the child’s education is less important than the parents’ political agenda. It tells law-abiding citizens that the rule of law should answer to the rule of the mob, and that rules and regulations shouldn’t apply to advocates of illegal immigration.

Perhaps most importantly, it tells the child that knowledge, wisdom and respect for authority are not as important as getting what you want.

And I don’t care which side of the issue you’re on. That’s a dangerous lesson to teach.

Note: This is The second in the “Mending Walls” series, and is being crossposted from third world county. Some of the following may depart a bit from Rick’s personal views. I know we have a few differences on the practical limits of immigration enforcement/deportation, for example. But this post is not about a border fence or wall, but walls and fences of a different kind. And yes, this does devolve into something of a rant.

You figure out from what follows where the walls need to be erected, where old walls need to be repaired and who needs to be shown the door and have a swift boot up their ass on the way out. The only way, now, I fear, to repair the walls, build up proper protections for American culture and even simply provide protection for our nation is to start simply, plainly and bluntly throwing the stupidity and the insults back in the faces of the invaders, the corrupters, the destroyers. Never back down. No compromises. Hard lines.

Yeh, it’s all over the place. Even CNN and Fox have taken note! *heh* Seems some reconquistadores think rewriting our National Anthem is just hunky dory. No, not just translating it into Spanish. Uh-uh. That isn’t enough of an insult for them. They have to change the words and still claim it’s our national Anthem… only in kinda hip-hop-reggae-mariachi-rap drag.

But it’s not just insulting.

Here’s the real thing. Click on the mp3 file and sing along, if you want. (You’ll need to restart the mp3 file for each verse you want to sing with, though.)

First Verse

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Second Verse

On the shore, dimly seen thro’ the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream;
‘Tis the Star-Spangled Banner, O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Third Verse

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Fourth Verse

Oh, thus be it ever when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto, “In God is our trust”
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Not so the “Pachuco Hymn”… witness the dazzling wonder of its departure from translation to insulting parody:

(more…)

****Update****
Just got back from watching the film. It was everything I hoped and expected it to be. Lots of tears and lots of anger. It was very well done in communicating the surprise, confusion, shock, and ultimate realiztion that we were at war that day.

No doubt you will be asking yourself what would I have done. The front line responders in the military (with the exception of one guy) and the FAA flight controllers come off very well in this movie as they should.
It was definitely not a political movie. If you feel compelled to change your political views one way or the other then I would credit it to just how real this movie feels. It may just remind you that we are at war with deadly serious people.

There are several moments that will bring back September 11th 2001 like it was yesterday.
At the end of the film the theatre was dead silent. No one was moving. I am sure most were trying to collect themselves as I was before attempting to get up and return to the post 9/11 world. Someone started clapping, then a few more folks joined in, then they all seemed to realize at the same time it wasn’t appropriate and stopped. Be sure to see United 93 film as soon as you can.

Hot Air has a round up of reviews

I particularly liked the reviews from Brainster:

Positives: The first half the film is unemotional. This part of the film mostly takes place in various air traffic control centers, and while the controllers are upset and angry we are able to keep some distance. This is important because the emotions once the plane is hijacked are overpowering. You feel as though you are there, on the jet as the terrorists herd the passengers to the back.

and Right Wing Nut House:

Having committed themselves to their heroic effort to take back the cockpit, the passengers are in position in the back of the plane, the larger, stronger men occupying the first three rows closest to the terrorists. Then, it hits you. The look on their faces as they steel themselves to make the attempt mirrors exactly the looks on the faces of the hijackers just prior to their attack as the terrorists also had to summon up the courage to carry out their dastardly deed.

Whether intended or not, Greengrass reveals the faces of men at war. And even though there are no grand, overarching truths about humanity, or good and evil, or the superiority of one set of beliefs over another in U-93 (there is a short scene toward the end of the film that shows both passengers and terrorists praying), the singular fact that “they” attacked us and “we” fought back cannot be denied, cannot be hidden despite the desperate attempt by some over the last 5 years to do so. We are at war.

Now I am off to catch another flight.
*********

Just checking the blogosphere before heading out again and came across a post by Chris Bowers at MyDD titled United Flight 93. Chris asks this question:

This is why I have a question for the marketers for United Flight 93. Why are you only marketing this film to conservatives?

and the second comment on the post by Rowena answers his question:

My guess would be that the basic story line of the movie is more popular with Republicans and Bush supporters because its the “American hero” story that can’t be exposed as a lie, unlike Jessica Lynch’s Rambo exploits and the first version of Pat Tillman’s death. Everybody who could contradict it is dead.

The truth is, this movie is speculation and fiction. The official record contains very little to base a story of “American heroes saved Washington, DC” on and thats just a fact, whether acknowledging that fact hurts Democrats in the 2006 elections or not. Read the transcript of the Flight Recorder: it does not help the heroes story and 9/11 Commission was only willing to speculate what “must have” happened to posit a “heroes” story. Heroes and glory and war, war, war.

We’ve already paid a very heavy price for Democrats going along with dishonesty because they didn’t want to look churlish and apparently, thats not going to stop any time soon.

The truth is Chris many on the left don’t believe the passengers ever fought back. Many on the left are clammoring that the movie was ever made.

As Antidoto says further down in the comments:

As a New Yorker, I’m not sure I want to see more advertising for the film. Frankly, I wish it had never been made. I went to see a different movie a few weeks ago and they played the trailer, which as you may know includes footage of the planes striking the World Trade Center. The entire theater was aghast. I don’t know if people who didn’t live here at the time understand how viscerally disgusting the idea of using that footage in an advertisement is to New Yorkers. Obviously the people at Universal just don’t get it.

Of course Antidoto is wrong and he/she is the one who doesn’t get it. These people were heroes and their sacrifice, courage, and achievement deserves to be recognized and glorified as one of the great moments in American history set against the most horrific attack this country has ever endured.

Chris updated the post later and reports that Universal has now decided to advertise on lefty blogs. I think that’s great. I hope everyone who reads those blogs goes and sees the movie particularly Antidoto and Rowena.

Confederate Yankee puts it this way:

The marketers of this film simply spent their cash where they though they could find an emotional hook, an accord that would work the best for them. Greys attract Greys, and anyone who reads blogs know that most of the Greys have pitched their tents to the right of center, even if in a temporary state. Good marketers market where the bulk of their target demographic lies.

It really is an simple as that.

Hyscience highly recomends the movie:

This movie is amazing and I highly recommend it to everyone.

I expected the movie to be slanted, as most Hollywood movies are. But I was wrong. It was amazing. It was factual. There was not a sound in the theater and at the end people just sat there for a few seconds (although it seemed much longer) in silence.

Taylor Marsh tells us:

There is an old saying. Arlington National Cemetary doesn’t have headstones engraved with Democratic or Republican. On 9/11, it wasn’t members of the Republican or Democratic parties who died in those planes and in the buildings. It was Americans and people of many other countries, as well as the patriots on United Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists and chose to die rather than let those bastards win.
I agree completely Taylor. I hope Chris’s commenters read it and agree.

Linking Posts

First, the poem by Robert Frost, then some comments in the extended portion of the post. Hang on, folks, cos this one takes a few twists and turns, ‘K?

Mending Wall

He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

(more…)

Many of you may have heard the name Andrea Clark.  Many more probably have not, but whether you have or not, bear with me.

Andrea Clark isn’t famous.  She isn’t an actor or a politician, and she may not even be a conservative.  I’ve no idea whether she prays to God or doesn’t pray at all.  Given that her sister posts at Democratic Underground, it’s likely most of us would never have heard her name.

And yet, there but for the grace of God go I and every one of you

Which is why you should know her name.  It’s also why you should care what happens to her, and appreciate the people out there who’ve taken steps that may (as of this evening) have saved her life.

Those who don’t already know the backstory can find it at Right Wing News or directly from the Democratic Underground (Yes, I linked there.  Some stories cross all boundaries).  In a nutshell, Andrea is (possibly was) a patient at St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital in Houston, Texas.  When not sedated, Andrea was conscious and coherent (enough to request a Big Mac over hospital food, which says something) and had made the decision to accept - and request - all available life-saving measures.

Despite this request, the hospital administration decided to anaesthetize her into unconsciousness and cut off her life support under the Texas “Futile Care Law” which apparently gives physicians the right to cut off life-saving measures over the protests of patients and family members. (Apparently it’s actually the “Futile TO REQUEST Care Law.”)

Andrea’s sister requested help at DU, and the story was quickly picked up by a number of liberal and conservative blogs, all of whom understand the underlying principle: A matter of life and death has no political borders. 

No hospital should have the right to terminate care for a conscious, insured patient (Yes, Andrea apparently has insurance) with the mental capacity to make decisions and who has stated that she wants to live.  No lawmaker has the right to tell us whose care - and life - is “Futile” and whose is not. 

It doesn’t matter which side you’re on in the “right to die” debate - no rational being can reasonably support a position which gives the hospital administration the power to decide that a person in Andrea’s situation has no right to live. 

But there is good news out of Texas tonight.  An Illinois facility has offered to accept Andrea and give her the care she needs - and St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital has apparently offered to pay the entire $17,000 cost of moving Andrea to Illinois - IF the family agrees to move Andrea today. (The offer decreases to 50% if they agree tomorrow, and will potentially be withdrawn altogether if the family delays the decision beyond Friday - Tip of the Horns to Lone Star Times for the update). 

We may never know the reason for this offer, but Right Wing News quotes Melanie Childers (Andrea’s sister and the woman who posted the original story at DU) as saying

“the “right wing people” are responsible for the deal St. Luke’s is offering and the Illinois facility that agreed to take [Andrea].”

The family isn’t happy that Andrea must go so far away to get the care she requires, but they seem to agree that the benefits of escaping the Futile Care Law outweigh the inconveniences of distance.  Andrea isn’t out of the woods yet, but at least she’s going to have the chance to try.

So to all the “right wing people” out there who responded to the call - and to all the “left wing people” and “middle of the roaders” too - nice job.  Thanks for being willing to stand up and say “Not on our watch.”

And don’t give up the fight just yet.  This story bears watching until Andrea’s safely in Illinois - and it may still be worth a call to St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital to encourage the administration to continue doing the right thing and pay for the transfer even if the family can’t make an immediate decision.  Just please be sure you continue to speak calmly, rationally and *cough* appropriately.  A logical, rational and uncompromising stance on Andrea’s right to live has made a difference.  Let’s keep it up until the victory is secure.

Because it’s not just about the Terri Schiavos anymore.  It’s not just about the ones who are too sick or too badly injured to make the request to live.  The cliche is real.  Standing up for her rights is standing up for your rights, and mine, and those of the person sitting beside you on the couch watching television (even though it’s TV Turnoff Week and you should, by rights, know better…)

Today it was Andrea.  Tomorrow it could be you. 

Apparently nothing of note happened today.

Why do I say this?

Because the cover story at CNN.com screams, “Rove Testifies Again in CIA Leak Case” - and when you click the link you learn three things:

1. Rove did, indeed testify this afternoon at the request of the special prosecutor.

2.  Rove’s testimony took approximately three hours to complete.

3.  Neither Rove nor Patrick Fitzgerald would speak publicly about the substance of Rove’s testimony.

Personally, I’m greatly encouraged.

Why?

Because if the best CNN can do for a cover story at 8pm on a Wednesday night is: “Rove says something. Nobody knows What.  But we’re sure it’s bad.  Like everything else.  Bad.  And Bush talked about uranium in 2003.” 

Then the underlying Truth is: business as usual.

Cross-posted at The Random Yak.

While Rick’s away, he’s graciously offered me the opportunity to blog at TRUA. Fortunately, he’s also asked TRY to blog here, too. Meanwhile, a short post with a couple of significant links…

Seen the article, “Meeting Doctor Doom,” in The Citizen Scientist? It’s no real surprise that radical greens hold the views described there, but that the person described recieved an award as 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist from the Texas Academy of Science at the meeting where he gave the speech reminded me of the vast chasm that sometimes seems to lie between the current crop of “Academia Nuts” and most other folks…

“…But there was a gravely disturbing side to that otherwise scientifically significant meeting, for I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka, the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist….”

You really must read DL’s post about this at TMH’s Bacon Bits, if you have not already.

X-posted @ third world county

Just for a lil while You aren’t getting rid of me that easily. First its off to Vegas for a couple meetings. Then to Maui for a conference (this is where the pina coladas come in) I know is a rough gig but someone has to do it.

 While I am gone my friends David from Third World County, and Random Yak from the blog of the same name will be keeping you folks informed and entertained.

 Now these are great bloggers (I don’t know how the Yak does it with hooves) and I am sure they will be raising the bar for me while I am gone but I wont worry about that until I get back. Mahalo guys.   

Tiberius may drop in a post or two as well but he has been a lil busy himself lately.

Not sure if you can actually blog while sitting on the beach while sipping one of  those drinks with the umbrella in it but if its possible I might throw up a post or two but no promises.
Aloha and Blog on! 

That could easily be the headline of Glenn’s latest post. He of course chose:

Administration accusations are not the same as guilt

If one circumstance could be identified as the most destructive for our country right now, it might be that so many people have purposely ignored this most basic and fundamental principle: just because Glenn Greenwald accuses someone of being guilty of something does not mean that they are actually guilty. 

But they do seem pretty interchangable to me. In fact many of Glenns recent Polemics could go either way couldn’t they?

For instance:

A political movement built on rage

The most striking and disturbing aspect of the reaction by Glenn Greenwald’s followers to the Mary McCarthy story is that it reveals, yet again, how much intense anger, hatred, and an insatiable desire for destruction lies at the heart of this movement. So many of them - including many of their most prominent spokesmen and pundits - desperately seek out, and usually find, new enemies on an almost daily basis who are decreed to be deserving of scorn, hatred, imprisonment or worse.

See what I mean? lets try another one:

Selectively punishing politically damaging leaks

The Indictment of Scooter Libby who allegedly leaked the Identity of Valerie Plame to Judy Miller of The New York Times has prompted an orgy of celebration among Glenn Greenwald’s followers, who apparently believe that the dreams they harbor — whereby anyone who discloses information which results in political harm to Glenn Greenwald’s causes will be imprisoned — are about to be realized.

Gee this is fun! I like this one the most you don’t even have to substitue Glenns name to turn it around. Just imagine it was written by Mark Steyn instead of Glenn. (yes I know Mark is a much better writer just induldge me for a moment will ya)

Proven wisdom

One of the most bizarre aspects of our current political debates is that the very people who were most glaringly and incessantly wrong about virtually everything prior to the invasion of Iraq are still held out as some sort of wise foreign policy experts. The converse of that distorted principle is that those who were most right about Iraq-related issues are still treated as right wing fascists who are unfit for decent company, as well as unfit to be heard in mainstream media outlets and television talk shows. 

I could go on but I think you get the point.