English, the official language of the U.S.?

One of the more hotly debated topics in the country these days is whether or not legislation should be passed, making English the official language of the United States. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 47 million people age 5 and over, or 18% of our entire population, spoke a language other than English at home (1). With almost 1 out of every 5 Americans speaking another language at home, some are concerned with the long-term consequences if our country keeps heading in its current direction. For the sake of each individual, as well as the benefit of the nation as a whole, it is imperative that we make English the official language of the United States.
Those who are against English becoming the official language of the U.S. have many reasons for believing so. In a letter written regarding making English the official language in Brown County, Wisconsin, Micabil Diaz-Martinez of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states that passing this legislation would violate the rights of non-English speaking Americans. In his words:
The ACLU opposes proposed Constitutional amendments or legislation which will characterize English as the official language of the United States or any state or local jurisdiction therein to the extent that such amendments or legislation would mandate or encourage the erosion of or have the effect of eroding the rights of language minority persons. The ACLU believes English-only laws that make English the "official" language of government and particularly those which broadly restrict the government's ability to use languages other than English in communicating and delivering services to non-English speaking Americans, violate civil rights and liberties. (2)

How does it violate civil rights and liberties? First, Diaz-Martinez writes that “by restricting the government's ability to communicate with and provide services to non-English speaking Americans, many of whom are children and elderly citizens, English-only laws deny fair and equal access to government.” Diaz-Martinez also states that “English-only laws are based on assumptions predicated on false and disparaging stereotypes about today's immigrants. Thus, they foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions” (2).
While I understand the concern regarding government communicating with its citizens, sometimes we just need to use common sense. According to some estimates, there are as many as 300 different languages being spoken in the United States (3). There is no way we can expect our government to print legal documents or just be able to readily communicate with all these people. While this may be an extreme example, we can even look at some of the more common languages spoken. The 2000 U.S. Census asked respondents if they spoke a language other than English at home and, if so, which one. There were twelve non-English languages that had over 500,000 people claim that was the language they spoke at home (including over 28 million Spanish) (1). Is it realistic that our government must cater to all of these people who speak another language? Should our government be responsible for printing legal documents in Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Vietnamese, etc.?
I believe the answer is simple. There is no way our government can appease every individual. We can’t pick and choose some languages, like Spanish, that will get preferential treatment. It’s a slippery slope. Passing legislation to make English the official language would actually solve the problem. Only then will everyone be clear as to what is expected, English. And in order to function in society and be able to communicate with government, everyone should speak it. It is then, and only then, that no one would be denied “fair and equal access to government.”
As for Diaz-Martinez’s assertion that English-only laws “foster anti-immigrant bigotry and intolerance and exacerbate ethnic tensions,” I think nothing could be further from the truth. Just like his last argument, I believe the exact opposite is true. The truth is bigotry and intolerance does exist. Yet I would argue that it is because they are not speaking English.
Let’s look at history as our example. Most people look at all “white” people as the same. But that was not always the case. When the Irish, Polish, and Germans came to the United States, they were seen as lazy, dirty, and basically classless by the “native” English and French. Over time, that went away. Why? All were unified by their language. And all were considered American. A law encouraging all citizens to speak English would speed up the process, and make all people in our country feel united as Americans.
Passing legislation to make English the official language of the U.S. would not be an unprecedented move by our country. Most countries have an official language (4). And many that have different languages, especially in if they’re spoken in different areas of the country, run into problems with communication and elitism by one or more of the groups (see: Africa).
Another thing to consider is if the role was reversed. Sometimes it’s easy to be hypocritical and have expectations for others, yet have different rules if it applies to you. But here that is definitely not the case. I put myself in those shoes. What if I moved to France for work? Would I be so egotistical that I demand that everyone speak to me in English? That signs and papers be written in English so it would be convenient for me? No. I would expect to learn French, and I’d try to do it rather quickly to make it easier on myself. And I would do it because I would be there for a reason. I would be grateful for the opportunity the country was offering, and my goal would be to try to blend in to their society.
One last thing to consider is the sectionalism that is happening in this country. For the first 100 or so years of this country, our country was divided, while not literally the whole time, between North and South. Even before the Civil War, it was divided because they had different needs and ideals. Manufacturing in the North, farming in the South. Slavery in the South, not in the North. At this time, people’s loyalties lied more with their region than their country. And frankly I am concerned that at some point down the road the Southwest United States will decide that they have a different language, a different society, and different needs than the rest of the country. This is not a section of New York City, or Dearborn, MI. It’s an entire chunk of our country. Will it end up in secession and war? I can’t claim I know, but I believe it’s a real concern.
In the end, the idea that we shouldn’t pass legislation to make English the official language is about being politically correct. It’s about people making you believe that if you want English as the official language, you are anti-immigrant and/or racist. This couldn’t be further from reality. Encouraging all to become fluent in English is to their benefit. It will be easier to find a job, communicate with others, and altogether assimilate into society. But more importantly, it’s better for the country. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greater good. And learning the language that most people in the country speak, is not too much to ask.

Is the GOP listening?

Click title to link to article:

"ALBANY, N.Y. – Fighting plunging support, Republican Dierdre Scozzafava abruptly suspended her campaign Saturday in the 23rd Congressional District special election that has exposed a rift among national factions of the party."

"The announcement comes after a Siena College poll found she was in third place with 20 percent of the vote in the heavily Republican district that has been safe ground for the party for more than 100 years. Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens were too close to call with 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively."

Scozzafava was a Republican In Name Only (RINO). Her voting record says she's more liberal than most Democrats. And the people could see through that.

Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava, saying:

“I just think it is a mistake for the conservative movement to think splitting in the special election is a smart idea,” Gingrich said. “If we give that seat to the Democrats, shame on us.”

Well I say shame on you Gingrich. The people want a conservative, and the GOP are not listening to their base. Didn't they figure it out when we didn't come out and vote for McCain?
This is great news for the conservatives. Maybe they're listening now.

Liberals and our School System

Recently there's been discussion on how to increase education and scores in the U.S. (again...). Obama and other liberals think the answer is more school. Longer hours. Clearly, more government involvement.

But when you look at the top countries in the world, like Japan and South Korea, there's one thing the libs are ignoring.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/2…

They still are CONSERVATIVE in their values. They value hard work and education.

They understand the importance of having two parents in the home, evidence by their low divorce rate. They actually SACRIFICE for the sake of their children. Noble thought, huh?

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/sta…

Teenage pregnancy (births and abortions) are low because they value life and marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pre…

The answer is simple. Two parents in the home. Morals. Values.
So are liberals blind to this, or they don't care because their selfish agenda is more important?

I wonder if this has anything to do with health care costs?

Researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston compared the results of two large-scale surveys of the U.S. population regarding adherence to five healthy lifestyle habits.

According to their findings (click title to link to article), between 1988 and 2006:

The percentage of obese adults between 40 and 74 (determined by body mass index of 30 or higher) increased from 28% to 36%, reinforcing findings of many studies indicating Americans are getting fatter.
Physical activity 12 times or more per month among people in that age group declined from 53% to 43%.
Smoking rates remained essentially flat, going from 26.9% to 26.1%.
Those people eating five or more fruits and vegetables daily dropped from 42% to 26%.
Moderate alcohol use increased from 40% to 51%. Moderate use was defined as having up to one drink daily for women and two for men.

I keep hearing about our life expectancy compared to other countries. That if our health care was so great, we'd be the healthiest country in the world. It's very easy to blame "the big bad insurance companies" or the "wealthy doctors," but isn't the real problem us? Aren't insurance prices soaring because, not only do we cover all the uninsured ER visits, but the rise in costs to take care of the "smoke, drink, and eat bacon double cheeseburgers" society we live in?

Anger in Politics

The first thing I'll say is that it definitely seems as if it's gone too far. There really seems to be no middle ground.
What I don't get are the Democrats who "can't believe" the conservative Right would use rhetoric like "Hitler" and "Fascist" and "Socialism."
Politics has always been divisive. But it was in fact the Democrats who took it to a whole new level during the Bush Administration. As a matter of fact, these were the first times the "Fascist" and "Hitler" terms started being tossed around.
They mocked his speeches. They booed at the State of the Union. They sang "nana nana, hey hey, goodbye" at the Obama inauguration.
So while of course it doesn't make it right to do, isn't it the Democrats that took classlessness to a whole new level in politics, and Republicans are just giving it back? The Democrats created the current political climate that they're suddenly shocked by.

What is the real Health Care Crisis?

We've heard the numbers thrown around. 50 million. 47 million. Last time Obama talked, he said 30 million.
I found a good article that breaks down the actual numbers (click on title to link to full article).

"A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million."
"Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance."
"But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326."

"So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million."

So ultimately we're talking about roughly 10 million. And how many of those are uninsured for 6 months, say between jobs?
That being said, I have no problem coming up with a solution to help those in need. But do we need over 1,000 pages of bureaucracy? And do we need to continue to lie about how many are uninsured and can't afford it? Let's put away the "guilt" that the democrats love and try to solve a problem that leaves roughly 10 million Americans uninsured.

Change and Transparency

How often did we hear about "change" and "transparency" from Obama leading up to the 2008 election? And while he promised both, and many sorry saps fell for it, it looks like he will deliver on neither.

Despite his promise that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, it appears that once again special interests and lobbying groups will be the ones who benefit. According to this AP article (click link to read):

•A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators persuaded the administration to make it happen.

• A border station in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's home state of Arizona is getting $199 million, five times more than any other border station. The busy Nogales checkpoint has required repairs for years but was not rated among the neediest projects on the master list reviewed by the AP. Napolitano credited her lobbying as Arizona governor for getting the project near the front of the line for funding under the Bush administration. All it needed was money, which the stimulus provided.

• A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.

• The Westhope, N.D., checkpoint, which serves about 73 people a day and is among the lowest-priority projects, is set to get nearly $15 million for renovations.

• Whitetail project, which involves building a border station the size and cost of a Hollywood mansion, benefited from two key allies, Montana Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Both pressed Napolitano to finance projects in their state. Tester's office boasted of that effort in an April news release, crediting Baucus and his seat at the head of the "powerful Senate Finance Committee."


Unfortunately the only response any Democrat would have for this is the old "Bush did it too." My pointing this out has nothing to do with Democrat v. Republican. It's that all politicians are more interested in the rich lobbying groups than those who vote them in. Yes, even your precious Democrats who are "for the people." And even your precious Obama, who many believed was different, and that he would bring "change." Looks like politics as usual, in the White House. Except this time it's gonna triple the debt.