George Will Is A Tool

George Will, the allegedly intellectual conservative, is a pompous ass. No news to anyone who has heard him speak for five minutes, but it needs to be repeated. Will is a smug bastard who tries way too hard to be an erudite commentator. In a pathetic imitation of witty right-leaning pundits William Safire and William Buckley, Will uses odd word choices and awkward phrases in an attempt to sound sophisticated. His words do not enlighten or convince, however, they only obfuscate. Sophisticated thinkers don't work so hard to sound smart. Will's prose is belabored and intentionally, in my opinion, confusing. If a reader can't understand his sentences, it must be because the reader is too stupid to comprehend Will's genius, right? Surely not because the writing is bad.

Here is an example from his 5/25/06 column in The Washington Post: What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. Note the phrasing: "assimilable" instead of "easily assimilated," "a creedal nation" instead of a "nation based on creed." You have to read the sentence three times to even get the point in the first place. Now is that the fault of the reader or the writer?

The content of that crappy sentence is that the United States welcomes immigrants because our nation is based on certain ideals, not on ethnic identity. This is an obvious point, and it contradicts the thesis of his column, that the English language should be the only allowed language on ballots. If the nation is not bound by ethnic identity as he claims, why should he want the ballot be in only one language? You can have a multi-cultural, multilingual functional democracy. See India, Canada, Switzerland, and Belgium. Canada also welcomes immigrants without being a "creedal nation" as Will so eloquently puts it.

Besides being a pedantic bore, George Will also displays a puerile nitpicking style. For someone who cares so much about the meaning of words, he sure get a lot of mileage out of a misleading definition of "racism." Will wonders why Senator Harry Reid called an English-only bill "racist." Will's dimwitted argument is that Reid can't mean "racist" since Spanish-speakers aren't a race. What a piddling comment. "Racist," in the common definition of everyone I know BUT George Will, applies to ethnic groups too. Obviously, a person who says "I hate Mexicans" would be called a racist. You could also call that person "ethnocentric" but "ethnocentric bastard" isn't as catchy, is it? Weren't Nazis racist? The Jews aren't a race; they're a religious and ethnic identity. According to George Will the Nazis can't be called racists. What, are you stupid?

Whether or not English-only laws are "racist" is another conversation, and not one that Will addresses in his column. Will makes a petty distinction about Reid's word choice, without discussing the validity of Reid's statement. Obviously Will wants to prove how much smarter he is than Reid. Making a rational intelligible argument is of secondary importance.

The Spanish National Anthem: No me gustan gringos.

Recently a British record producer put together a group of famous-ish musicians that release the American national anthem in Spanish. I'm sure this British record producer is passionate about immigrant rights, and was not doing this as a craven publicity stunt. What, do I sound sarcastic? Regardless of his motivations, the Spanish National Anthem sparked a ridiculous controversy. Stupid-White-Guy-In-Chief George W. Bush even chimed in saying that the National Anthem should be in English only.

A few points:

1. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is a crappy song, and there are several better choices for a national anthem of the United States. "America The Beautiful," "This Land Is Your Land," and Whodini's "The Freaks Come Out At Night" would all make a better choice. Our current national anthem is notoriously hard to sing (with a tune based on an old British drinking song to boot).

2. The concept of a "national anthem" is pretty ridiculous to begin with. Do we really need a song? Like the flag, or the bald eagle, or any monument in Washington D.C., the anthem is a symbol, nothing more. The ideas behind the United States (and all other Western democracies) are what count, not a catchy little ditty or a multi-colored piece of cloth. This is the reason that anti-flag-burning crusaders are such a joke to me. Some hippie jerk burning a piece of cloth on the steps of the U.S. Capitol doesn't weaken my country or hurt me personally in any way whatsoever. Illegally tapping my phones sure does though.

3. So I dislike "The Star-Spangled Banner" and the concept of national anthems in general. It probably doesn't surprise you that I don't give a flying fuck if the national anthem is sung in Spanish. Or in Klingon. I cannot comprehend why translating the song into Spanish, in and of itself, is an insult to America. Songs are translated into other languages all the time. Because this one song was declared the national anthem by Congress doesn't mean it is suddenly holy scripture. People like Bush and their ilk are eerily like Muslims who claim the Koran can only be understood in Arabic.

We all know what this is really about. For all I know, the national anthem has already been translated into Spanish, French, Russian, or a hundred other languages. Translating lyrics ain't the issue. What people are pissed off about is the perceived Latinization of the United States. Anti-immigrant activists think this is another example of the steady creep of Latin culture into our supposedly white Anglo culture. Which is preposterous. Please allow me to be the millionth person to make the point that we are a nation of immigrants. EVERYONE in North America descended from immigrants (likewise everyone on Earth descended from immigrants unless you happen to be from eastern Kenya and your family has been there for three million years straight).

American culture is an amalgam of English, Scottish, French, German, Irish, Italian, Spanish, Native Indian, African, Roman, Greek, and Hebrew influences. The dominant Judeo-Christian belief system in the United States certainly wasn't started in America or Western Europe, it was imported, from the Middle East of all places! We already are a multi-ethnic society, and you can't turn the clock back on that. If a Spanish-speaking American (or potential American citizen) wants to sing the national anthem in Spanish and demonstrate his or her patriotism, how on Earth could that be a bad thing? If Latin Americans are good enough to cook our meals, watch our kids, and fight our wars, they can sing the anthem in any language they want.