Too bad the “You Must Learn English” coup failed. Wake up America! They are taking over this country. And we are doing nothing to stop them. At least this is one RIGHT thing Carolyn tried to do. Soon the USA will be no different than any other 3rd world country.

Who are "they"? Aren't we all "they" somewhere? It seems to be human nature for some members of our race to "take over." Just ask the American natives and other former occupants of land. Hopefully this will be a bloodless take-over, if it ever happens. Keep commenting, John. I like your perspective.

"pants crap at Wegmans"

Is this really necessary when writing about anyone? There is no need to use this type of verbiage on this or any blog.

John D is correct. Ron Mon, yes, we are all "they" from somewhere, and this fact is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Since, thankfully, you understand that it's human nature for people to try to "take over" other lands, you have the capacity to understand how imperiled our way of life is.

A culture is like a muscle: use it or lose it. If you don't protect your culture, it will pass into the mists of time. The "they" in question here are an assortment of third worlders, mainly Mexicans, aided and abetted by perfidious leftists (forgive the redundancy). Do you really think America will be a better place when Third World standards begin to hold sway even more than they already have? If so, you're in for a very, very rude awakening.

If what I believe will happen comes to pass, and if our culture war turns hot, the left may be brought to heel with extreme prejudice. And it won't be bloodless.

Choose your sides carefully.

Joe R...I'm an edgy guy, so "pants crap" is within the realm of the possible in my idiolect.

Smails...long time, no comment. What exactly is our culture? What are our traditions? Are there any intrinsically unitedstatesan activities, celebrations, etc.? I don't believe that I encouraged third-world standards to hold sway. Where would you rank in "world" terms the established Asian countries?

Ron Mon

You may be an "edgy guy" in your own mind but everything in your idiolect may not be suitable to write in print. It is no wonder there are so few comment to your post. I will refrain in the future.

Joe R.
How can you take that as a personal refuting of your comments? Just because we don't agree, don't be frightened off. Instead of a criticism of word choice, how about an insightful (or inciting) commentary on the topic? By the way, many non-political blogs receive little to no commentary, yet we keep writing. That's the way of the industry.

Ron Mon,

You wrote, "What exactly is our culture? What are our traditions? Are there any intrinsically unitedstatesan activities, celebrations, etc.?"

Yes, that is precisely the question all in our nation should ask — with an eye toward actually finding an answer. A nation forever in a state of flux is not a nation at all but an ever-morphing collection of people, who really have no idea where they're going or even where they've been. Change is supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Progress should mean that we are are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." He also said, "We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end."

Ron Mon, I have thought thoroughly and to a definite end. Thus, I asked myself questions such as those you posed a long time ago, and I have answered them. Yet I won't provide you with specifics. This is for two reasons.

First, I cannot explain a comprehensive vision for the world within the space of a few paragraphs. Second, it wouldn't help anyway. You would simply take issue with elements of the vision instead of tackling those questions that beg to be answered by you: why don't I have a clearly conceived vision for man? How can I advocate that comparative called progress when I have not settled its superlative? And, if I haven't settled the latter, how can I know that I'm achieving the former?

I can't force you to address these questions seriously. It is up to every person to search for truth and to try to determine what that immutable agent of liberty truly is. This search is a moral obligation, but it is also the real road less traveled.

How can we preserve without making stale? Consider the negro clause in professional sport...should we have preserved the "white-only" makeup of the professional baseball leagues? By adding black, hispanic and asian players, we added more accomplished players. Did we also accelerate the business curve to ultimately result in what we have today...a league corrupted by the pursuit of records and tainted by the use of illegal means to achieve such? When the non-white clauses were lifted from professional golf, did the same number of non-white players enter the fray? No. Not until the 2000s did a country (South Korea) begin to dominate one of the leagues across the board. And that is with the game being completely slanted in favor of the USA players! 3 of 4 major championships on each tour are played in the USA and the majority of important events are contested on this soil. The playing field is not leveled in any shape.

Can a similar model be applied to USA the country? Are there elements of culture a la pro baseball that will change very quickly due to the addition of non-traditional, non-USA peoples? Are there other elements that will change with very few exceptions, until one day a wholesale change takes place.

At what point can we no longer change the world? At what point has the world's hair been dyed so many times that it shows a dull gray hue? Telling people "no" too often can incite both sloth and violence. Finding the balance of "yes" and "no" is the most difficult crusade we have as humans.

Ron Mon,

Your first sentence is a question that you yourself answer, to an extent, in your last paragraph. Moreover, that answer is found in my post. I will e-repeat:

"Change is supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. As G.K. Chesterton said, 'Progress should mean that we are are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision.'"

My quibble with the modern man (and this includes all liberals and many conservatives) is not that he inspires or allows change; as you indicated, change is sometimes desirable and necessary. The problem is that he doesn't really know where the change is taking us. This is because he has no concrete vision of what the world should be.

How could he? He doesn't believe in truth. Without an absolute standard to refer to, to use as a guide, there is no way to know what you should be changing into. Who is to say? Hey, those are your values; someone else's might be different. You simply cannot be sure you're doing good without knowing what the good (truth) is. A vision is a comprehensive conception of how things ought to be, of what is good, of what the truth prescribes. Thus, without knowing truth, you cannot have a vision. Without a vision, you cannot know where you ought to be heading. And without knowing where you ought to be heading, you cannot really know if your actions are moving you in the right direction. You cannot know if what you fancy progress really is progress.

I will again quote Chesterton, who addressed these issues as well as anyone. In his 1905 book Heretics he wrote:

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about "liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "education"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

Lastly, Ron Mon, your first question can be answered very succinctly. It is the preservatives in a loaf of bread that prevent it from going stale.

1st - Our forefathers set up a constitution and rules to become a citizen of this country. Now, somehow, we got a bunch of idiots who are allowing these rules to be circumvented. This is not what our predecessors intended. To become a citizen, you must pass a US history exam, demonstrate that you have basic proficiency in the English language, and take an Oath of Allegiance. Now that in itself should be grounds to make English the official language of the United States of America...AND Carolyn should have every right to demand English spoken at LPGA events. An Oath of Allegiance would prohibit flying ANY country's flag above the US Flag and prohibits flying the US Flag upside down. These people should be stripped of citizenship and deported.

NOW 2nd: Looks like Wie- Wee's chances to get in the LPGA US Open is very slim, since she fell to 22nd place, 9 shots off the pace.

1. Wie struggles on moving day...that is her next step up the ladder of success.

2. Bivens has the right to demand English capability of all players.

3. The PGA and LPGA tours are 80% or more contested in USA, explaining the need for English. Contrast with the European Tour, where events are in a different country on a weekly basis and a single-language awareness clause would be folly.

4. Smails, who is to pull the plug on progress? Who is to say, we've progressed enough? Who is to decide, we have enough liberty? Who is to determine, enough education?

Ron Mon,

Actually, I am a bit surprised. I expected more from you. Instead, you completely failed to grasp and rather simple and well-explained point. No one is proposing that we ever pull the plug on progress. The point is that talking about progress is silly unless you're absolutely clear on what you're progressing toward. As soon as we become at all unsure about the destination, we are then to the exact same degree unsure about the progress.

I won't accuse you of being completely lacking in philosophical depth just yet. I will assume that, like so many people, you assumed you understood the point I was making and just perused my post. However, if you want to grasp a fairly deep philosophical point, you have to apply yourself to comprehending it.

I'm not surprised. I expected your response to be one of denigration. I've yet to encounter one of your rebuttals that is in the slightest bit complimentary, be it of the writer or another contributor.

That established, "good" is the most banal, easily misinterpreted adjective of the English language. It is so tasteless that it has descended into adverbial status in the USA. As a result, I cannot begin to argue nor debate any point involving goodness, as it is so arbitrary a bit of nomenclature that nearly any interpretation or application holds water.

You might call it philosophy, but I call it practicality. Philosophy is for those on the sidelines, while application/practicality is for those in the game. All who have played the game learn that application and practicality involve risk and failure. The suggestion that one knows what is "good", what will work, what is bad, what will fail, is a guessing game.

There was no denigration at all, and the fact that you felt there was is a reflection of your own insecurity about not being able to grasp the point the first time. In reality, I was remarkably restrained and was simply registering my honest feeling of surprise. I did not think you would completely misconstrue what was being said.

As for your views on philosophy, they are shaped by having grown up in a time in which philosophy has been degraded by modernists. In reality, philosophy lies at the heart of everything, as the ancient Greeks understood. Good philosophy is the most practical thing of all.

As for knowing the good, my point is airtight. If you don't believe in good (truth), it's impossible to make the case that there can be such a thing as beneficial progress. If you believe in truth but don't know what it is, you can't be sure that your "progress" is beneficial. There's no way around it.

If you can't define what is good, how can you define a brand of progress as good?

Kerr - Creamer #1 & #2 ! ! !

WAY TO GO GIRLS ! ! ! !

Keep it up ! ! !