jump to navigation

Adding Insult to Injury May 12, 2010

Posted by Dwight Furrow in Current Events, Dwight Furrow's Posts, politics.

It is hard to imagine a policy more Un-American that Arizona’s new policy of mandating police to stop anyone who looks “illegal”.

But Arizona is trying desperately to double down on the racism

Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that “promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

As ThinkProgress notes, the Tucson Unified School District’s popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits “ethnic chauvinism.”

So teaching brown students about their history is equivalent to treason? Who knew?

Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with “heavy” or “ungrammatical” accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.

I’m not sure what an “ungrammatical accent” is. But for kids trying to learn English so they can, you know, assimilate into society, you wouldn’t want them learning from someone they can actually understand.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com



1. Asur - May 13, 2010

If you bother to read the WSJ article, you’ll notice that you’re poking fun at a non-existent quote; reference to “ungrammatical accents” never appears, rather it’s “whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical”.

In any event, we’d be doing a disservice to these kids to teach them English at anything other than a native level; otherwise, you’re setting them up to need speech therapy down the road. Why would you advocate that?

2. culturecrusader - May 13, 2010

“It is hard to imagine a policy more Un-American that (sic) Arizona’s new policy…”

How about enacting an unconstitutional healthcare law that will bankrupt the country?

3. Asur - May 13, 2010

I don’t see anything ‘un-american’ relative the aims and means of Obama’s healthcare reform.

I think it’s commendable movement in the right direction.

If it’s part of the government’s role to protect its citizenry — which I can’t imagine anyone successfully controverting — then access to proper healthcare surely falls within it. Crime and Terrorism may be the most high profile things we need to be protected against, however disease and accidental injury are far, far more dangerous to each of us individually and thus also as a nation composed of individuals.

Healthcare is, quite simply, of more practical import than the ‘war on terror’ or most anything else, for that matter. It’s right up there with access to education and running water.

culturecrusader - May 13, 2010

It’s commendable and right up there with water and education? So I suppose you believe healthcare is a right?

Asur - May 13, 2010

Not in itself, since ‘rights’ properly pertain to ends rather than means, and healthcare is a means to an end.

The only time one can have a right to a specific means is when it is a necessary (rather than sufficient) means to an end possessed as a right.

4. culturecrusader - May 13, 2010

Ah, so the ends justify the means! Spoken like a true Marxist. No wonder. I suppose by that standard you are all in favor of the new Arizona immigration law as the means to the end of government’s role to protect its citizenry and ensure that foreigners are not in this country illegally, yes?

Asur - May 13, 2010

The phrase “the ends justify the means” is a loaded statement, implying that a worthy end justifies any means to its attainment.
This is not the case, as it implicitly disregards collateral effects that may be significant.

In any event, the illegal presence of a foreign national is not necessarily a threat, hence it cannot serve to engage the government’s responsibility to protect its citizenry.

5. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

Who says the presence of an illegal alien is not a threat? Weren’t the 9-11 terrorists a threat? I know, you’ll say that doesn’t mean that all illegals are necessarily a threat, but isn’t it enough of a threat if even only a handful are? And so with government-runn healthcare, how does the implementation of that necessarily protect the citizenry in every case? I can provide more arguments as to how the net outcome will actually greatly harm the citizenry not to mention plunge us into spiraling debt.
Do you see the quagmire you get yourself into when you start naming what is and what is not a right and what the government should or should not be doing in furtherance of these supposedly commendable ends?
I suggest you read the following very well-written post on why healthcare in America is not a right, or for that matter, even a means to a right:


Asur - May 14, 2010

No, it’s not “enough of a threat” if only a handful are, since that makes it only a possible rather than a necessary threat.

The only responsibility this would place on the government would be to determine if that possibility were actualized — this is parallel to how the government treats the potential of its citizens to threaten each other, if you need an example.

Do you truly suggest holding innocent people accountable for the actions of others? Either you haven’t thought your position through or are simply attempting to bait me.

6. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

The problem with your thought process is you assume that I (and everyone else) agree with your arbitrary pronouncements as to what is “enough of” “necessary” “commendable” “good” etc. What may qualify as those things to you, may not to me (and vice versa). And when you then bestow upon government (or a small cabal within government) the power to make these decisions you get into the dangerous territory of statism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism; obviously not what the framers of the Constitution would have ever envisioned or wanted.

As for baiting? Always.

7. Asur - May 14, 2010

Though many may have opinions on it, the good itself is not a matter of opinion, as you suggest it to be. If it were, it would not even be important enough to talk about, let alone attempt to obtain on a global, national, or even individual scale.

The entire point of conversations like these is to identify and validate what is good rather than what is merely opined to be good. As such, if you would actually like to challenge any statement I’ve made, I would welcome your attempt.

Regardless, the government is not an entity separate from the people, but rather a pooling of resource between them and an extension of their will. As such, it is not something to be regarded with distrust and fear, but rather something to be embraced, directed from within through cooperation and dialogue.

8. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

Your self-serving decree that “the good” is not a matter of opinion is your opinion, as are the rest of your assertions and I challenge all of them.
I’ll start with your ridiculous assertion that “the government is not an entity separate from the people.” If you are referring to America, we live in a Federal Republic, not a democracy: big difference. Sure, our leaders are elected to represent but they need not, and often are not, a mere extension of the people’s “will,” whatever that is. If that were true, then the healthcare bill –opposed by the vast majority of Americans– would never have been passed into law, would it? If that were true, then officials in the government would actually read the laws before voting or opining on them.

And government is not to be distrusted or feared but embraced? Nyet Comrade, Nyet!! Big Brother is always to be distrusted. But don’t take my word for it, take Thomas Jefferson’s:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
— Thomas Jefferson

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
—Thomas Jefferson

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
—Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
— Thomas Jefferson

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
—Thomas Jefferson (attributed)

Asur - May 14, 2010

If the government were an entity separate from the people, it would not — could not — be composed of and directed by them, which it is.

If every citizen has the opportunity to participate in government, and the government is entirely comprised of participating citizens, then whose will can it be expressing if not that of the citizenry?

There is no rational alternative.

Likewise, distrust and fear towards such an entity is tantamount to distrust and fear of ourselves — and if we cannot trust ourselves, then truly there is no one we can trust and we ought simply give up the pretense, as in order to trust anyone else we would first have to trust ourselves to make that decision.

So yes, trust the government, embrace it, participate in it, contribute to it.

9. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

Wow, have you always believed that BS? Or did Obama brainwash you?

10. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

Do you think government is the solution to our present problems? Or is government the problem? Nevermind, I know your answer.

Asur - May 14, 2010


Asur - May 14, 2010

A very general question, so I’ll paint a reply in similarly broad strokes: We are the solution to our present problems. Government is only one — albeit large — aspect of our society; real solutions require complete engagement, from government, to community, to individual.

11. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

This goes to the fundamental core of our disagreement. In my view, the only real solutions come from individuals, acting and thinking alone. The rest is just conversation.

12. culturecrusader - May 14, 2010

I always find this video clip instructive. It is from the movie, The Fountainhead, based on the Ayn Rand novel of the same name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: