Solución: Aprenda el inglés

"La lengua es la fuente de malentendidos." ~ Antonio de Santo-Exupery

Quizá it's porque I'm viejo y determinado de mis maneras, pero I don't entiende porqué todo nosotros leyó, si sea muestras, documentos, menús, etc, tiene que tener una traducción española agregada a ellos. Bien, that' mal de s. Lo entiendo, pero creo there' manera menos costosa del S.A. de hacer que los inmigrantes entienden qué we' el re intentar decirles:

Lecciones de lengua.

Déjelas aprender inglés.

Finalmente, un candidato gubernativo que dice lo que están pensando la mayoría de los americanos:



Tim James está correcto.

La eliminación las idiomas españolas (y otras) de las traducciones en exámenes del carné de conducir (y, franco, todo) ahorraría el estado de los mil millones de Alabama de dólares. Toma mucho dinero para agregar el texto español a todos estas muestras y documentos.

Más, si los inmigrantes podrían entender señales de peligro, como James dice, allí estarían lejos menos accidentes, y una miríada de otros problemas causados por una falta de leer y de entender inglés podría ser solucionada.

Sería mucho más barata y tendría más sentido de ofrecer simplemente lecciones de lengua a las que los necesitan. Y si no creen que los necesitan, deben apenas volver a sus propios países en donde pueden comunicar con otros que hablen y entiendan su lengua.

Dios sabe que iría una manera larga hacia solucionar el problema del inmigrante ilegal.

Note: If either of my readers have difficulty reading this post because you don't read or understand Spanish, you can copy up to 150 words at a time and paste them into the box provided on this site and click on "Spanish to English" in the drop down list, then click on "translate".

And, if you translate this post, you will find it doesn't translate accurately, which is another good reason why immigrants who want to become American citizens should learn to properly speak and understand English if they truly want to assimilate into our country.

An Entitlement Mentality

"Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?" ~ Timothy Pawlenty

Offered here, an unapologetic rambling response to a partial comment made in the comments section of my previous blog entry:

A commenter made the following (unsubstantiated) statement:

"Before the implementation of Medicare 75% of seniors died in poverty."

My response: Yeah? Who says?

Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question.

You'll just run to some Liberal web site and quote some so-called scholarly finding which doesn't prove a thing, except in your own Liberally indoctrinated mind.

Listen: I was in marketing management for the majority of my life and I've learned one can prove or disprove anything with numbers, so, before we get into a pissing contest trading statistics, know this:

I grew up in a large city with a median income level below the national poverty line. I've lived in and around ghettos all my life.

I've been poor. I've been homeless. I'm not rich by anyone's definition now. And I've never accepted hand-outs from the Government except for one time. Once (in 1979), I allowed the Government to give me $300.00 to pay my bills and feed my children when I was flat broke and unemployed and my wife had just had a baby. It was a temporary help and as soon as I got a job (within a week), I got off welfare.

And, I paid back the money.

That, Moron, is what welfare was intended to do. Be a hand up, not a hand-out.

I've also lived in public housing next door to two single women with children each who lived on either side of me. The one who lived directly to the south of me worked her butt off, and saved her pennies, and eventually bought a house and moved out of the projects. Her two children were polite and respectful.

I have respect for her.

The one who lived directly to the north of me spent her waking hours sitting in a chair in her front yard, chain smoking, and complaining constantly that the government wouldn't give her even more money than she was already receiving. Her 2 children stole and consorted with gang-bangers.

I have no respect for her.

I've also made the mistake (when I was a Liberal) of voluntarily donating money, time, and resources to some of these irresponsible, entitlement minded welfare brats, only to watch them ask for more and more, and no expressions whatsoever of gratitude.

So, don't give me statistics ad nauseum that supposedly disprove what I've witnessed with my own eyes and experienced in my own life. You won't convince me there's any validity to them.

The fact is, most poverty is caused by bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. And the Liberal policies of Liberal government only make it worse by instilling in the irresponsible an entitlement mentality.

Do this simple experiment sometime: Go down to your local WalMart parking lot and count the number of welfare recipients who are parked illegally in the fire lane in front of the store. Why do they park there?

Because they think they're entitled to park there.

That's the mind set Liberal Governmental entitlement programs have spawned.

If 75% truly died in poverty before Medicare and not after Medicare (which is disputable), it was a result of their own bad choices and irresponsible behavior.

And, here's a news flash for you:

People in this country still die in poverty.

Every day. Do you know why? Because Liberal governmental policies have not rescued any entitlement-minded individual from poverty. They've only succeeded in creating more poverty and less personal responsibility.

And more criminals.

If you don't believe that, you are either brainwashed or willfully ignorant.

And, by the way, Obama's policies are going to create even more poverty. And more. And more. Before he's done, the number of people who will die in poverty may be as high as 90%.

Medicare is a failure, and it's nearly bankrupt.

Listen. If you want to mount a personal campaign to eliminate poverty by throwing money at the irresponsible, go for it. That's what you're allowed to do voluntarily.

No one's stopping you from throwing your money away.

But, as you've no doubt heard, it's better to teach a man to fish than to simply give him a fish dinner every day.

It isn't the Government's business or responsibility to wet nurse these babies.

Who made the U.S. government the world's babysitter?

Useful idiots like you.

Social Justice

"It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered." ~ Aristotle

Social Justice. How often have we heard this term, and what does it mean?

I googled the term and found an interesting article that attempts to define it, although the author failed to establish, at least in my mind, a satisfactory definition.

Perhaps if I break it down to raw definitions we can better understand what social justice means.

First, the word "social" as defined by Webster's dictionary, offers twelve definitions of the word as an adjective, of which only the first nine have pertinent relevance to the topic of social justice:

1. pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations: a social club.
2. seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable; gregarious.
3. of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite or fashionable society: a social event.
4. living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation: People are social beings.
5. of or pertaining to human society, esp. as a body divided into classes according to status: social rank.
6. involved in many social activities: We're so busy working, we have to be a little less social now.
7. of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community: social problems.
8 noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.
9. pertaining to or advocating socialism.

When placed in conjunction with the word, "justice" it would seem to me to apply only to numbers 4,5,7,8, and 9.

The dictionary has 12 definitions of the word "justice", but only the first 5 to 7 would seem to apply to the term "social justice". For purposes of brevity, I will focus on the first 5:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

So, to encapsulate the term, it would possibly be fair to say "Social Justice" is defined thus:

Fair and equitable treatment to all members of a society by all other members of that society, according to previously agreed upon moral principles, resulting in administered deserved punishment or reward.

Now that we've defined it, the problem is, how to achieve social justice in our country, assuming our country is the society of which we speak.

The way I see it, the only true equitable fair treatment for all depends on the acceptance of moral guidelines of personal responsibility.

For instance, should we grant fair and equitable treatment to those who would not treat others fairly and equitably?

Should the irresponsible be granted fair and equitable treatment by the responsible, and if so, just how much should he be given before he is deemed no longer deserving of the rewards?

How do we distribute equal treatment when members of society contribute on different societal levels?

And, who is qualified to decide what is fair and equitable to those members of society who return either too little or too much fair treatment to the society?

Is this treatment incumbent on the governing body or on society itself to administrate?

I think social justice can not be administered by legislation. If there can be any semblance of social justice at all, it must be left up to the individual members of society to decide how he should treat the other members of society, in accordance with his own sense of morality.

Naturally, and inevitably, since each person has different concepts of what is just and moral, this would result in conflict between members of the society.

And that leads us back to inequality.

No matter how we define and/or administer it, social justice can never be either social or just.

And, in my opinion, it should never be attempted to be administered by the government.

That way leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

Seriously Evil Villains

"Often an entire city has suffered because of an evil man." ~ Hesiod

Did you ever notice the villains in cartoons have a sadistic sense of humor?

It seems the prospect of eventual world domination has a euphoric effect on cartoon super villains.

I can remember watching Saturday morning cartoons with my children such as He-Man, Power Rangers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Underdog, etc, and the villains would always laugh maniacally every time they revealed their plans to bring the world to it's knees in their quest to gain world power.

Even in popular movies evil power mad super villains always seem to have an odd sense of humor. Take Dr. Evil, from the Austin Powers series, for instance.

So, I wonder, do true evil villains with grandiose plans for world domination really enjoy inflicting pain and misery on people?



Apparently, the answer is yes.

Bad Mannered Conservatives? Shocking!

"To have respect for ourselves guides our morals; and to have a deference for others governs our manners." ~ Lawrence Sterne

I know this is old news. I understand that I'm very late with my commentary on this spitting on Congressman Emanuel Cleaver incident.

But I've read several points of view about this, and I have yet to see anyone address it from my perspective. So here goes:

Below is the video of the aforementioned incident:



Notice, in the video, Rep. Cleaver reacts to something that caused him to draw back and turn his head in the direction of one particular protester. He then addresses a police officer directly behind him and points at the man. Shortly afterward, he appears to be wiping something off his face. A few seconds after this, he returns to where the incident supposedly took place with another police officer, and appears to be searching for the culprit in an apparent effort to point him out to the policeman.

Obviously, something happened!

I might add, at this point, in the video, nobody can be heard shouting any racial epithets at all, although the volume is high and very clear.

I know Conservatives have been defending the tea party protesters by insisting the charges of racism and spitting are fabricated, and did not, could not, happen at all.

I say, Representative Cleaver probably did get spit on. And, I believe it was intentional.

There were thousands (or as MSNBC would say, dozens) of protesters on the scene. Why would it be difficult to believe there wouldn't be one or two jerks in the crowd?

Look, Personally, I think anyone who spits in public displays little or no class at all, even if he only spits on the sidewalk. I find that particular behavior disgusting. It is my position that one who spits in public wasn't brought up well.

But that's just me. I am funny that way.

The fact that one or two people attending these tea parties might be classless hicks is not a logic-defying deduction. People of all stripes attend these protests. It isn't shocking that there may be people with no manners there.

I do not condone spitting on any one for any reason.

And, Obama's health care reform is an extremely volatile issue. It would not be the least bit surprising that many of the people attending the protest could let their passions overrule their common sense.

So, could it happen? Absolutely.

Did it happen? Very likely.

I also don't doubt that there may have been one or two racial epithets hurled at the protest. Of course, that accusation would be more believable if it were a Democrat rally.

Although, if MSNBC really wanted to convince people that there actually were (without proof) racial epithets, they would be more convincing if they simply reported the numbers more accurately.

More people, more chance that incidents such as this could happen.

All that said, wouldn't the tea partiers use a better defense if they were to focus on the thousands of people who didn't spit or shout racial epithets, rather than to deny it could have happened at all?

Incidentally, I could use the old, "Well, if you think that's bad look what your side does regularly" type of defense, but that is disingenuous.

As my father would say(and often did), "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Let's be honest. More than likely, a few bad mannered people were numbered among the thousands of protesters at the tea party protesting Obama's America killing health care reform bill. There are a few Democrats that don't like the health reform bill, too, you know.

And, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising or even shocking, that one or two out of the thousands in attendance exhibited some ill advised behavior.

But, look at the thousands that behaved themselves.

Now, that's the real story.

Stop Smearing Christians

"The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Listen: Any group that plans to kill police officers or anybody else is not a Christian group.

True Christians don't murder people.

The very fact that these so-called journalists don't understand this simple fact is proof that the left wing media in this country are atheists.

I get so tired of hearing these leftist media outlets refer to these Godless cults as "Christian". There is nothing Christian about them.

I don't care if they say they're Christian. I don't care if they have the word "Christian" in their name. I don't care if they go to church every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

If they make plans to murder anyone, they are definitely not Christians.

Got that, Media?