What Would Jesus Cling To?

If Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

You know what? Let's save that for later.

Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.

That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.

To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.

However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."

See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!

Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."

The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.

However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.

I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.

It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.

At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.

You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.

And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?

In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.

What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.

The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").

That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."

I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.

Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.

Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.

So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.

Of Pregnant Teens and Ivy Leagues

"And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."

What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?

That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.

This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.

With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.

Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.

McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?

Still...maybe there is something else at work here.

While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.

Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?

When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).

I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.

Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?

There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:

"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."

Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.

Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?

We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?

You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.