God Save Johnny Rotten

By Kevin D. Williamson

Friday, September 09, 2022

 

Johnny Rotten is all alone.

 

He must be, in his way, mourning Queen Elizabeth II, who performed the great unintended service of giving the Sex Pistols a symbol worth sneering at — something the United Kingdom did not have a great store of in 1977. Johnny — he’s been just John Lydon for many years now — lives a quiet life in his comfortable, respectable retirement in California, caring for Nora, his wife of almost 50 years, who has Alzheimer’s. The most famous of his bandmates, Sid Vicious, has been dead for 43 years. Some of the others are still making music, but they could walk into a record store (there are still some) and stand in front of a case of Sex Pistols records without anybody’s noticing them — they are just a few of the remaining children of the 1950s in a world that has moved on.

 

The Sex Pistols recorded “God Save the Queen” in 1977, and Jamie Reid’s famous cover has been praised as the greatest rock-’n’-roll record cover of all times. The song, the art, and the sneer have been endlessly imitated, but never quite equaled.

 

And they rarely have been understood.

 

The received imagery of “God Save the Queen” — the angry radicals denouncing the stodgy embodiment of the establishment as the figurehead of a “fascist regime” — could not be more obvious, and it could not be more false. Punk rock, for all of its outrageous histrionics, is and always has been fundamentally (if not obviously) conservative, whereas Queen Elizabeth was the symbol of what those conservatives, unselfconscious reactionaries though they generally were, abhorred: the post-war era in British public life.

 

That punk has generally been musically conservative would be difficult to dispute, in that it represented a return to a prior form (the relatively straightforward rock-’n’-roll of the 1950s and early 1960s) and a rejection of the excesses of the late 1960s and 1970s (all those 20-minute guitar solos and “Stairway to Heaven” pretensions). Chuck Berry would have recognized the double-stops in the playing of Sex Pistols’ guitarist Steve Jones — he had been the one to translate them to guitar from his bandmate Johnnie Johnson’s piano — while in the United States, the Ramones were basically reworking Beach Boys songs and playing 1950s rock, just louder and faster. (As everybody knows, there are only four chords in pop music.) The Sex Pistols were a lot closer musically to Buck Owens and Tennessee Ernie Ford than they were to Rush and King Crimson.

 

But the conservatism doesn’t stop with the music. Because American conservatives are inheritors of the English liberal tradition, we sometimes forget that there is another kind of conservatism, one that has been at times very prominent in the United Kingdom. That conservatism is agrarian, localist, anti-industrial, opposed to the power of concentrated urban wealth, and gradually hostile to capitalism as the scale of enterprise increases — a conservatism that says “Yes” to free enterprise when it means farmers’ markets and “maybe, but, possibly not” when it means SoftBank or Google or Hyundai. You can find that kind of conservatism in the anti-industrialism of J. R. R. Tolkien’s novels or in the poems of T. S. Eliot, which are modernist in form and anti-modernist in sentiment.

 

You can find a less literate version of it in punk rock. The post-war era was exceedingly grim in the United Kingdom — deprived, dysfunctional, and depressed, with a landscape of physically ugly slums and degraded countryside. Reaction against that grimy degradation was not only nihilism: Punk rock’s perpetually offended moral sensibility and its lamentations for frustrated national and communal aspirations, so evident and urgent in the United Kingdom in the 1970s, implied, though rarely articulated, something to aspire toward as well as something to turn away from in revulsion.

 

The lyrics of “God Save the Queen” are not exactly coherent (the lyrics to good rock songs rarely are), but the denunciations come through: the royals as the center of a tawdry tourism scheme, the “human machine,” the advertising that sustains that machine, the industrial urban life that abandons people as “flowers in the dustbin.” “There is no future / and England’s dreaming” is a lyric from that famous song, but it could have fit into The Waste-Land with little alteration. Queen Elizabeth II, crowned in 1953 and forever associated with the war and its ghastly aftermath, wasn’t the symbol of the ancient order at all, but the symbol of a new order — in some quarters, a detested one. From that point of view, the desecration of Queen Elizabeth as a symbol was not what it seemed.

 

Of course, the performative outrage would not have worked if Queen Elizabeth II had been something more like her son Charles, or like the nasty creatures of Sussex who are bent on inflicting themselves on American public life, for some reason. There would have been no “God Save the Queen” if Queen Elizabeth had not been serious, patriotic, dutiful, and all those other things. To attack her as a symbol was to confess the power of the symbol and the virtue that produced that power; one sees much the same thing in so-called Satanists who can produce nothing of their own, their imagination being limited to inverting the Cross, the symbolic power of which is undisputed. The old joke about Unitarians notwithstanding, nobody actually burns a giant question mark on your lawn. I am sure that somebody will mention Meghan Markle in a few songs (or that somebody already has), but we won’t be talking about those songs in 50 years, because Meghan Markle is not worth sneering at. Queen Elizabeth was.

 

If you have ever seen him talk at any length, what comes through from John Lydon is not outrage or nihilism but disappointment and frustration based in a very English sense of fair play and right conduct. “God Save the Queen” was the work of people who understood the power of symbols and who cared about their value — as, of course, Queen Elizabeth herself did. That was the whole point of it.

 

It’s a funny old world. Ozzy Osbourne, another rock-’n’-roll rebel now foundering in decadent respectability, began his career in musical theatrics with Black Sabbath, treating Christian imagery much the way the Sex Pistols treated royal imagery and patriotic imagery. He has announced that he is leaving behind sunny California and going home to die in England. “I don’t want to be buried in f***ing Forest Lawn,” he says, referencing the Hollywood Hills resting place of the stars. “I’m English.” America, he says, is too “crazy” for his taste. And it must take something special to offend the taste of a man who made himself a star by biting the heads off bats. But, he is right: He’s English, and he is old enough for that still to mean something.

 

Queen Elizabeth was born before World War II, whereas the Sex Pistols, Ozzy Osbourne, and the rest of that generation were born in the years after it. (Osbourne, born in 1948, practically landed in the rubble.) But they are much more part of the same world — the same civilization — than they are part of the world of anyone who is 20 years old today. Queen Elizabeth’s death does not definitively mark the end of that world. The death of Johnny Rotten just might.

English for Immigrants

By Linda Chavez
Friday, May 13, 2011

President Obama invoked immigrant assimilation this week in a speech in El Paso, Texas, praising the notion embodied in the motto E pluribus unum: out of many, one. But it wasn't all that long ago when many liberals eschewed the idea of America as having one language, one culture, and one people. Ironically, it has taken an anti-immigrant backlash to awaken at least some liberals to the dangers of multiculturalism, which they pushed aggressively for decades.

It was liberals -- not conservatives -- who originally claimed that today's immigrants couldn't assimilate, or, in their view, shouldn't even try. Liberals insisted that Hispanic kids, even those who were born here, be taught in Spanish and learn to revere their ancestral culture rather than to take pride in being Americans. The bilingual, multicultural approach became deeply imbedded in the public school curriculum, thanks to the efforts mostly of white liberals, with help from some college-educated, fully assimilated Hispanic activists.

The consequences were disastrous, especially for Hispanic children consigned to a second-class education in Spanish, which would not lead to college or economic success. It also caused resentment among those who rightly felt that other immigrants had willingly adopted English and that Hispanics should as well. But there were a few valiant voices arguing against bilingual and multicultural education, and none was more effective than Dr. Rosalie Pedalino Porter.

Porter's memoir, "American Immigrant: My Life in Three Languages" (Transaction Publishers) chronicles her struggle to end programs that segregated Hispanic students by language and ethnicity. Porter came to America from Italy as a child of 5, speaking not a word of English. She arrived when the United States was in the middle of the Great Depression, but her parents had relatives living in New Jersey who helped them find jobs.

Even the poverty of the Depression era was nothing compared to the bleak life they left behind in Italy. Like many immigrants of that era, Porter found school a welcome departure from the grinding duties of caring for younger siblings, preparing meals, and cleaning house that fell on the oldest child. She excelled in school and decided to devote her life to education.

Eventually, Porter would earn a Ph.D. in education and become director of a bilingual education programs in the Newton, Mass., public schools. It was her experience in the classroom that helped change her mind about what works -- and what doesn't -- when it comes to teaching new immigrants to speak English.

Porter quickly found that teaching youngsters in their native language actually slowed down their academic progress and eventually abandoned the approach. When she became a school administrator, she put her experience to action and transformed the school system's bilingual program, which drew the ire of state officials. She became a thorn in the side of bilingual educators around the country. At conferences, she spoke up whenever bilingual advocates made the ridiculous claim that the best way to learn English was to make sure students spent most of their day being taught in Spanish.

In 1990, Porter's first book, "Forked Tongue: The Politics of Bilingual Education," became the authoritative text on the subject. Since then, she has served as an expert witness in countless court battles on bilingual education, and the U.S. Supreme Court cited her work in its decision on Flores v. Arizona, which upheld English immersion as an acceptable method to teach non-English speakers.

She also became an activist, assisting immigrant parents in California, Arizona, and Massachusetts to get rid of failing bilingual programs in favor of more effective English immersion programs, all of which she details in her memoir.

It's no surprise that an immigrant would be the perfect foil for bilingual educators. Who better to understand that English is the gateway to opportunity in America? President Obama was singing the praises of English and assimilation for America's newcomers in Texas this week. But Rosalie Porter has been the choir leader on the subject for years.

Deep Thoughts in Plain White English

Mike Adams
Monday, February 22, 2010

Dr. Adams,

My name is Claire. I am working on a story for the school newspaper, The (UNCW) Seahawk, about Dr. Maurice Martinez and his philosophy regarding Black English in his classroom. I would appreciate the opportunity to ask you a few questions on your views about this issue. I have read your column for Townhall.com and I am very interested in hearing your side of the debate about Black English. Please take some time to think about these questions and get back to me as soon as you have time. Thank you for your time.

Hello Claire. I have some bad news and some good news. The bad news is that I do not do interviews with the school newspaper because it has a 100% rate of error in representing my opinions. This is not because the reporters tend to be stupid. It is because they tend to be liberal and, therefore, tend to suffer from severe moral rather than intellectual hernia. For example, the last time your paper ran a story on one of my opinion pieces it was insinuated that I wished to bomb gay bath houses in San Francisco although there actually aren’t any gay bath houses in San Francisco. Thankfully, the paper stopped short of accusing me of attempting to rape a unicorn.

But there is good news. I am going to respond to all five questions you have submitted by making them the subject of my Monday column on TownHall.com. That way, the paper will not be able to misrepresent my views as they have in the past. TownHall.com is the premier conservative political website in America. So when university administrators try to attack my views it is sort of like Michael Jackson trying to attack Mike Tyson. It also keeps the university newspaper honest.

1. What is your response to Black English being taught in a UNCW classroom? What purpose does it serve to you?

My response is that I am developing a new course proposal to be submitted directly to UNC Wilmington Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo. It will be called EDN 201 “White English.” I’m going to spend an entire semester differentiating White English from Black English and see how long it takes for me to be removed from the classroom.

While I am on leave I will write a book about my experiences. I plan to call it Redneck Jihad: The Art of Sacred Cow Tipping. So my response to your question about “what purpose” this is serving me is simple. I plan to make money off the stupidity of far left professors just as I’ve been doing for years. I plan to use the profits from their stupidity to buy more firearms and go on more hunting trips.

2. Dr. Martinez teaches that one reason for implementing this philosophy is so children who speak this dialect won't be "condemned" for the way the [sic] speak; are his teaching methods an appropriate way to address "No Child Left Behind"?

No, absolutely not. The best way to address “No Child Left Behind” is to repeal it. The Republican Party leaders had it right in the 1980s when they considered eliminating the Department of Education. The federal government has had no business interfering with local schools since we had to send in the National Guard in the 1950s to stop racist Democrats from keeping little black kids from attending the public schools in Arkansas. I think we should get rid of the Department of Education after we first repeal “No Child Left Behind.” That program just proves that George W. Bush was really a big-spending liberal posing as a conservative.

3. Black English is a social dialect that has been defined by sociolinguists, and many claim that more knowledge could be learned to bridge the gap between social dialects and Standard English to help students in school; does this bring validity to Dr. Martinez and his claims, or is his "street talk" best left to the streets?

No, it does not bring validity to Dr. Martinez and his claims. Dr. Martinez was asked to defend his teaching of Black English in the wake of my column last week. This was done at a Black Faculty meeting. Afterwards, a black faculty member who was clearly angry with Martinez called my office. He claimed that Martinez had told them that in his class there were only a few pages of notes on Black English. I sent him the entire 75 page power point presentation. Now, that black faculty member is even angrier with Dr. Martinez.

Dr. Martinez has suffered a very severe and self-inflicted blow to his credibility.

4. Controversy has stemmed from the naming of this dialect: is it racist to label Black English as "Black"?

It is not really racist but it is offensive. But I find the United Negro College Fund to be more offensive. Not to mention the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Oh yes, and the Black Faculty meetings at UNCW are offensive, too. Maybe Chancellor DePaolo could reinstate the “white” and “colored” restrooms in the name of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.

5. In your column, you stated that many parents should request their tuition money back. Why do you feel that Black English is a waste of funds?

Well, thanks for asking about my feelings. I like talking about my feelings. But my feelings about Black English require little elaboration. Black English just makes me feel filthy when I repeat it. Kind of like when the feminists chant the c-word in The Vagina Monologues. In White Redneck English we say “At (not “dat”) just ain’t right.”

By way of analogy, imagine that you see a large pile of dog manure in your front yard. There’s no need to walk over to the pile and pick it up to know it is manure. There’s no need to rub it on your face or take a bite out of it to know it is manure. You do not have to “immerse” yourself in it or in any way analyze it to know it is manure. You just need to scoop it off your lawn before someone steps on it and tracks it into your hizzie.

It’s the same way with Black English. It is self-evident that it is simply pseudo-intellectual manure. It has no place in higher education.

Thank you again for your time, I appreciate your responses.

No, thank you! I enjoy talking about this. It’s fun to make coins while girding your loins. It’s even better than making scrilla while keeping it rilla!

Wigger Please!

Mike Adams
Monday, February 15, 2010

Some people call them “wiggers” but I just call them “idiots”. I used to wonder where they learned to be so racially condescending - presuming that dressing and “talking black” was a cool thing to do. But now I suspect that many of them have taken a course under Maurice Martinez, an education professor at UNC-Wilmington.

The class “Teacher, School, and Society” (EDN 200) is required of all education majors. When students take Maurice Martinez for the class they get a special treat. Maurice teaches them “Black English.” In 2003, he even copyrighted course materials to make white future teachers fluent in “Black English.”

To think I used to call ebonics the “new black death.” In retrospect, that was mighty Caucasian of me – and that isn’t a good thing. If only I had taken Professor Martinez for “Teacher, School, and Society” I would know better.

In his class, students are taught that “many African Americans speak and use a form of English that is somewhat different from Standard English.” They also learn that “the rules of Black American English are functional to those who use them.”

Professor Martinez states that “Many teachers are unaware of the rules of Black American English.” But he does not blame white teachers. In fact, he says the blame “should not be placed upon the student or the teacher, but upon ‘unawareness.’”

Maurice believes that if we wish to succeed in our “No child left behind” efforts we can begin by “trying to understand the language spoken by African American children.” Maurice cautions that “not all 36 million African Americans choose to speak Black English, especially the educated middle and upper income blacks.”

I wasn’t surprised to hear that many “educated middle and upper income blacks” refrain from the use of Black English. But, then again, I wasn’t surprised the first time I heard that “more people are in prison despite the fact that crime is down.”

Maurice devotes dozens of pages of class notes to teaching white future teachers the specifics of Black English. It isn’t rocket science but it’s darned close. For example, Maurice teaches his students that while whites use terms like “This, that, them, these, and those” blacks often say “Dis, dat, dem, dese, and dose.” His notes say “There is a ‘duh’ sound substituted for the ‘th’ sound in the beginning of the word.

Actually, the “duh” sound was the student reaction to Professor Martinez’ lecture. There are some things so obvious that even education majors can learn them on their own.

Of course, if a white teacher is going to teach black kids, she needs to learn how to curse like they do. Here, Professor Martinez is brilliant. He informs us that while whites use the terms “mother” and “brother,” blacks often prefer to say “muvah” and “bruvah.” Maurice even gives a sample sentence: “My muvah cook grits.” But he cautions that when using profanity in conjunction with the “F-word” it is best to pronounce “mother” properly.

Well, I’ll be a muvah f----r! I mean, I’ll be a mother f-----r!

Maurice, the tenured education professor, also informs students that when using plurals it is not necessary to add an “s” in Black English. That’s why a paper costs “50 cent,” not “50 cents.” Is this making sense? Or do we say “making cent”?

All of this is getting so confusing I’m thinking about taking a trip to the public library to confirm the existence of a thing called “Black English.” But Maurice cautions that “library” is a white way of saying things. Blacks say “liberry” – that is, those who speak Black English.

I already knew many words in Black English before I perused Professor Martinez’ class notes. For example, I knew “before” was “fo” and “fifty” was “fitty.” But I have to admit that I never knew that “corner” was “cornda.” Now I can say “Look at that ho on the cornda. I never seen that ho ‘fo.” The possibilities are endless in the world of multiculturalism and diversity!

But Black English can be used to avoid conflicts, according to Professor Martinez. Specifically, one can help avoid fights if one is aware of certain “fighting words” in Black English. For example, the white teacher should be on guard if she hears “why you trippin’?” or “shut up ‘fo I spaz on you.” Apparently, that’s even worse than when a redneck says “you ain’t no count.”

But not everything that seems like a clue to a fight really is a clue to a fight. For example, “yeah, he packin’” would seem to mean “he has a gun.” But in Black English, according to Professor Martinez’ notes, it could just mean “yes, he’s well endowed.”

When white students are done with their homework, Professor Martinez may decide to ask them “Did you do your homework?” In response, he has taught them the correct Black English answer: “Teacher, I been done did dat.”

After sending their kids to study education at UNC-Wilmington, many parents may decide they want their tuition money back. Thankfully, Maurice teaches 18 ways to say “money” in Black English: Book, bread, cake, cash, cheddar, cheese, chump change, coins, crumbs, dough, eagle, fitty, green, jingle, loot, moola, scrilla, and Benjamin.

I recommend that parents, black or white, call UNC-Wilmington and say “I want my chump back, ‘cause Professor Martinez is whack!” Or, to make it less personal, they could say “I want my scrilla, ‘fo rilla!”

I’ve always said that within higher education the idiots have taken over the asylum. But, now that I know Black English, I guess I’ll just say the dizzy have taken over the hizzie.

Black Opportunity Destruction

Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, February 10, 2010

"Do you mean he is taller than me am?" sarcastically barked Dr. Martin Rosenberg, my high school English teacher, to one of the students in our class. The student actually said, "He is taller than me," but Rosenberg was ridiculing the student's grammar. The subject of the elliptical (or understood) verb "am" must be in the subjective case. Thus, the correct form of the sentence is: He is taller than I.

This correction/dressing down of a student, that occasionally included me, occurred during my attendance at North Philadelphia's Benjamin Franklin High School in the early '50s. Franklin was predominantly black; its students were poor or low middle class. On top of that, Franklin had just about the lowest academic standing in the city. All of our teachers, except two or three, were white. Despite the fact that we were poor, most of Franklin's teachers held fairly high standards and expectations.

Today, high standards and expectations, at some schools, would mean trouble for a teacher. Teachers, as pointed out in one teaching program, are encouraged to "Recognize and understand the cultural differences among students from diverse backgrounds, and treat such differences with respect. Intervene immediately, should a fellow student disparage a Black student's culture or language." That means if a black student says, "I be wiff him" or "He axed me a question," teachers shouldn't bother to correct the student's language. What's more, should anyone disparage or laugh at the way the student speaks, the teacher should intervene in his defense. Correcting the student's speech might be deemed as insensitive to diversity at best and racism at worst, leading possibly to a teacher's reprimand, termination and possibly assault.

A teacher's job is to teach and failure to correct a student's speech, just as failure to correct a math error, is a dereliction of duty. You might say, "Williams, Ebonics or black English is part of the cultural roots of black people and to disparage it is racism." That's utter nonsense. During the 1940s and 1950s, I lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project, along with its most famous resident, Bill Cosby. We all were poor or low middle class but no one spoke black English. My wife was the youngest of 10 children. Listening to her brothers and sisters speak, compared to many of her nieces and nephews, you wouldn't believe they were in the same family. The difference has nothing to do with cultural roots of black people. The difference is that parents, teachers and others in authority over youngsters have become less judgmental, politically correct and lazy; therefore, speaking poorly is accepted.

Language is our tool of communication. If a person has poor oral language skills, he's likely to have poor writing, reading and comprehension skills. To my knowledge, there are no books in any field of study written in Ebonics or black English. It is very likely that a person with poor language skills will suffer significant deficits in other areas of academic competence such as mathematics and the sciences. It doesn't mean that the person is unintelligent; it means that he doesn't have all the tools of intelligence. That is what's so insidious about the state of black education today; so many blacks do not have a chance to develop the tools of intelligence. Many might have high native intelligence but come off sounding like a moron.

Black Americans should thank God that non-judgmental, politically correct people weren't around during the early civil rights movement when blacks began breaking discriminatory barriers. Discriminatory employers would have had ready-made excuses not to hire a black as a trolley car motorman, cashier or department store sales clerk.

There are some significant challenges to being judgmental and politically incorrect and insisting on proper language. A professor or teacher can get cursed out by students or parents. A black student who speaks well, carries books and studies can be accused of "acting white" and find himself shunned and assaulted by other students.

I would be interested in hearing the teaching establishment's defense of permitting poor language.

If Obama Cares about the Poor, He Should Endorse English

Bruce Bialosky
Sunday, May 31, 2009

One of the baffling issues to me has been the argument by Democrats against making English the official language of the United States. President Obama displayed his commitment to Hispanic Americans by appointing Justice Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. If he really cares about immigrants and the poor, he would make English our official language and assure that all people learn to speak it in the United States.

I have had the good fortune of travelling to a vast part of the world. The people we encounter almost everywhere we have traveled speak English. I’m not referring only to hotel and restaurant personnel. When you stop people on the street, they also have a working knowledge of English. With the exception of two locations, we have had little or no difficulty speaking English only.

The first place was Japan, which was actually surprising. All Japanese are required to learn English in school. It was quite surprising to experience so little ability from the populace to speak even a modicum of English.

The other place is France. The French are still under the delusion that France is a significant country in the world, thus making their language important. Other than in France, the only other people speaking French are some in Belgium, some in Quebec and some in certain parts of Africa. English transitioned to the world’s official language with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. While the treaty was issued in both English and French, it was nevertheless the end of the French era on the world stage.

Since the Elizabethan era and the defeat of the Spanish Armada, English has spread throughout the world. The English created their empire; including winning control of what would become the United States. Up until World War I, the “empire that never sleeps” spread the English language to all corners of the globe. After World War I, the United States was on the ascension. The climb was completed with the Second World War, and the United States has remained the dominant country in the world.

It is worth noting that in addition to the English language dominating since that time, so too has our culture. American movies and television are shown in all parts of the world. Most countries broadcast these shows just like we see them here in the United States – in English. Except of course in France, where you will see Jack McCoy speaking French. Most of the world can sit in their living rooms around the globe and learn to communicate in English.

We were recently in Copenhagen at The Jazzhouse. The artists came on stage and spoke Danish to the crowd. We figured that it was jazz and that is a universal language so we would not miss a beat -- so to speak. Yet, this was a vocal group and they started to sing in English. Not just classic songs, but their own compositions. At the end of the set we chatted with the people next to us, in English, and asked why all the songs were sung in English. They told us all the groups sing in English because they find it a more expressive language. Also, they probably find it to be more commercially viable. To our joy the next group came on and sang all their songs in English also.

Yet here in the United States, we have had a discussion about whether we should force our immigrants to learn English. In California, as in some other states, we have created English as a Second Language (ESL) which did nothing but cripple the chances for students to learn effective English. Radical groups fought for the right against forcing people to learn English for the purpose of maintaining “their culture.”

I have never understood this. As someone who is linguistically challenged, I am thankful daily for the fact that I was born in a country that speaks the dominant language of the world. If French or German or Russian were the dominant language, I would be at a great disadvantage in both my travels and my business. Fortunately for me, the language into which I was born is the one shared by the rest of the world.

The question then becomes: Why would anyone who cares about people coming to the United States fight against those immigrants learning English in the fastest and best way possible? If you want those people to succeed, why would you stop them from improving their communications skills? Whatever the arguments are pale in comparison to the clear benefits to anyone anywhere who learns English, especially those coming to America. Does anyone believe that Justice Sotomayor would be where she is today if she would have grown up in this era where Hispanics are coddled regarding their adapting to the language of America and the world? Her success has been based on her mastering the English language at an early age and moving on to a successful collegiate career.

If Obama really cares about the little guy, and if he really wants empathy from the government, then he should put this issue to rest. This is not cultural chauvinism, but rather the reality in the world. You cannot be either an airplane pilot or an international businessperson without English. Presidents have always made their mark going against the grain of elements of their party. If President Obama wants a real victory, he should have the United States recognize what the rest of the world already knows -- English is the language of commerce and the world.