The Two America's And The WTC Mosque Debate

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by rdret1

I agree with you. I have no problem at all with someone who wishes to immigrate here, but if they do, I expect them to live by our rules. It aggravates me to see anyone refer to themselves as (put name here) - American. They are either American or they are not. I have no problem with anyone celebrating their own unique heritage, but if they have decided to become citizens here, they need to observe our customs as well.

Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.

[akv]

Originally Posted by Alright4u

This bunch at the NY Times has helped our enemies, not our military men and women.

Sir,

For my own edification is there a major newspaper/publication military folks consider consistently fair, accurate and objective? It would seem with changing editors etc, the face of most papers changes often?

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.

As old as the hills, plebians and patricians redux? Sigaba I would hope the above analysis is a bit strong, Instead is it possible intra-national xenophobia is exacerbated in times of crisis, war and economic crisis cause us to turn on our own.

[SF-TX]

Something to consider.

GALLUP

August 13, 2010
In U.S., Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Remains a Rarity
No more than 25% say they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either
by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news -- with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.



The findings are from Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions survey, which found the military faring best and Congress faring worst of 16 institutions tested. Americans' confidence in newspapers and television news is on par with Americans' lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business.

The decline in trust since 2003 is also evident in a 2009 Gallup poll that asked about confidence and trust in the "mass media" more broadly. While perceptions of media bias present a viable hypothesis, Americans have not over the same period grown any more likely to say the news media are too conservative or too liberal.

No matter the cause, it is clear the media as a whole are not gaining new fans as they struggle to serve and compete with growing demand for online news, social media, and mobile platforms. The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual report on the State of the News Media, released in March, found for a third straight year, only digital and cable news sources growing in popularity, while network news, local news, and newspaper audiences shrink. These findings align with a similar 2008 Gallup poll that found cable and Internet news sources growing in popularity while all others held steady or declined.

While it is unclear how much respondents factored in the online and cable offshoots of "newspapers" and "television news" when assessing their confidence in these institutions, their responses do not provide much encouragement for the media more broadly. Confidence is hard to find, even among Democrats and liberals, who have historically been the most trusting of the news media. While 18- to 29-year-olds express more trust in newspapers than most older Americans, Gallup polling has found they read national newspapers the least. Younger Americans also expressed more confidence than older Americans in several other institutions tested, including Congress, the medical system, and the criminal justice system, suggesting younger Americans are more confident in institutions in general.

Implications

With nearly all news organizations struggling to keep up with the up-to-the-minute news cycle and to remain profitable in the process, Americans' low trust in newspapers and television news presents a critical barrier to success. The Pew report asserts that 80% of new media links are to legacy newspapers and broadcast networks, making clear that traditional news sources remain the backbone of the media. But so long as roughly three in four Americans remain distrustful, it will be difficult to attract the large and loyal audiences necessary to boost revenues.
Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 8-11, 2010, with a random sample of 1,020 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/Co...ns-Rarity.aspx

[Richard]

One should beware of using an 'upper-crust' politician like Teddy Roosevelt - a friend and endorser of Madison Grant's 'scientific racism' (whose book, The Passing of the Great Race, argued for a strong eugenics program in order to save the waning "Nordic race" from inundation by other racial types and suggested the state had a moral obligation to put certain immigrant types to death) - when arguing the idea of 'Americanism.'

Grant's book was praised by his friend, former president Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: "The book is a capital book: in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts that our people must need to realize.... It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman, and all Americans should be grateful to you for writing it." Much depends, obviously, on how one interprets words like "elimination" and "worthless race types". The Passing of the Great Race was translated into German in 1925, and Grant received a fan letter from aspiring politician Adolf Hitler as well: "The book is my Bible," wrote Hitler to Grant.

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

Richard

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.

Class Warfare. Unreal.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by alright4u

Class Warfare. Unreal.

Sir, you may be reading my post too narrowly. I did say "rights and privileges."

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Richard

American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Once again Richard, you read write past what I typed, go off in a different direction and reply to something I was not even taking about.

You don't have to speak English to be an American.

If you come to America for what it stands for and want to be one fine.

The people I'm talking about are the ones who don't want to "be American". They come here to change it into what they left behind.

People have come from all over the world to "Be American".

I can think of only one group that wants to change it into something else.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Richard

American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

According to A Guide to Naturalization, page 26, you do, with a few exceptions.

Pat

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by alright4u

No SOG man I know would buy the NY Times unles out of toilet paper. Not a single SF old timer I know would welcome the folks who fail to assimilate. Yes, I grew up with Italians who spoke that language, but; they learned English. They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.

I absolutely concur.................

Big Teddy

[alright4u]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Sir, you may be reading my post too narrowly. I did say "rights and privileges."

This Mosque is not about that. This mosque, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to more dead then Pearl Harbor.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Richard
......... - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.......

Originally Posted by Pete

Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.

Originally Posted by Richard

American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.

Originally Posted by Pete

Once again Richard, you read write past what I typed, go off in a different direction and reply to something I was not even ta{l}king about.

FWIW - my remarks were a reply to your response regarding the subject (language) you referenced in your response to my original post.

As such, I did misread your post in thinking we were discussing that subject - language.

We are now on the same sheet of music.

Richard

[Peregrino]

Richard - Why do you feel the need to discredit the message by attacking the messenger? Awfully progressive of you. I don't have to agree with everything someone says/does to find value in some of it - I even agree with you occasionally. I can think of a myriad of other, to my mind more important, reasons to denigrate Teddy R (or at least his politics later in his career). His progressive political rhetoric had far more impact on the growth of American liberalism than his "glowing endorsement of a friend's book". To what degree are you condemning eugenics when most modern "progressives" (again TR's self description, strongly supported by his politics) adamantly defend abortion? Is that not a form of eugenics too?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by PSM

According to A Guide to Naturalization, page 26, you do, with a few exceptions.

Pat

Interesting - and it is 'waiverable' under the exceptions listed on pp. 26-27. Thanks.

Richard

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

Richard - Why do you feel the need to discredit the message by attacking the messenger? Awfully progressive of you. I don't have to agree with everything someone says/does to find value in some of it - I even agree with you occasionally. I can think of a myriad of other, to my mind more important, reasons to denigrate Teddy R (or at least his politics later in his career). His progressive political rhetoric had far more impact on the growth of American liberalism than his "glowing endorsement of a friend's book". To what degree are you condemning eugenics when most modern "progressives" (again TR's self description, strongly supported by his politics) adamantly defend abortion? Is that not a form of eugenics too?

I don't know Richard,sometimes you get into more "hot water" than Dozer!..........

Big Teddy

[Irishsquid]

Originally Posted by alright4u

They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.

I don't know anything about SOG or the NYT, so this is the only part of your post I have a reply for. I don't think most immigrants "demand," press 1 or 2.(I know some do, particularly some of my neighbors to the south, but MOST don't.) That said, if I start a business, you can bet I'll make damn sure my secretary or admin assistant or whatever is AT LEAST bilingual. Why? Better profit margins for me. Press 1 or 2 is not about a group demanding concessions...it's about a business trying to expand their customer base and profit margins.