Please note: this is the letter mentioned in my previous post (the one below this one).
I was an early acquirer of internet technology (1994) and one of the first users I knew of Yahoo. I registered my own websites when Yahoo was a "directory service" instead of a search engine and you submitted your links to a live person who reviewed your site. You had to choose categories in which you wanted your site listed. When Google came along, I refused to switch. When everyone says "just Google blah-blah and you'll see what I'm looking at" I've been telling them that I use Yahoo, and I'll find it just fine. I have been, since I have been looking things up on the internet, a huge Yahoo fan.
I am leaving Yahoo today, and I felt it only fair to tell you why. I may be lost in the background noise, nobody may ever read this comment, but I sincerely hope someone does. I am taking the time to do this only because I have been such a die-hard Yahoo user. Your service is not inferior, in fact I like the way things are laid out on Yahoo and that the home page contains more information. I will miss that every time I have to stomach that stupid word "google" (I mean, what lame, lucky ass thought that name up? It should be a laughing stock but somehow they managed to make it hip with half the world. I don't get it).
However difficult it may be to choke down the silliness that is Google, it will be easier than the anger I have been putting up with due to the so-called "stories" that someone at Yahoo has been not only deciding are factual (when they are at best a lopsided misrepresentation of someone's political agenda) but are crucial for me to read. I can understand Yahoo trying to get more clicks, trying to get more page views, trying to draw attention, but I am here to tell you that I used Yahoo as my home page, my work requires me to be on the Internet more than 8 hours a day, and it was not uncommon for me to have six simultaneous browsers open - all to Yahoo searches or the sites I found by searching on your service. I followed up on advertised links, I listed Yahoo as "how I found you" on websites, and I promoted you to my friends.
I sure hope you're getting huge benefit from parroting the political bile spewed up by acidic propagandists who hate this country, portray the miniscule minority (by that I mean less than one hundredth of one percent) as more important than the massive supermajority, who aren't interested in the facts, only in sensation and manipulation, and who are oblivious to the fact that they themselves are the reason people (and whole cultures), hate this country in turn. Not because of what they're saying about us, but the lifestyles they themselves choose and promote.
If you had chosen to break through "journalistic" lies and portray stories about the truth (by that I mean actual facts, not emotionally-driven feel-good drivel that goes so far away from solving problems that it makes them worse) and highlight the massive stacks of stories trying to find a voice, that site their sources, examine both sides of the issue and settle on the truth based on how things actually work or what numbers are being ignored by the other side, you could have been a champion for the millions and millions of us worldwide who KNOW something is wrong with what we're being told and would flock (as we do in greater numbers than ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN combined) to whatever outlets provide it to us.
I do not know what you can do to get me back. It is highly unlikely I will ever so much as look at your home page again. If you do manage some miraculous, whole-hearted change in your policy away from misrepresentation, my e-mail will not change - you can reach me there (note to readers: my e-mail was included during the process of contacting them). I would love to hear it and would go back to my unending, tireless campaign to get people to "switch back" to the originals.
Until then, look for me at Google.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Political Mixing Colors
I must confess myself confused this morning. Yesterday, across the top of a search engine (alas, I believe I am finally going to make the same switch everyone else has made, for this search engine has almost daily blasted headlines that annoy me - who wants to be annoyed before they even type in their search criteria?) a loud story about troops speaking out against the war seemed to be begging me to assume Bush is the bad guy, I'm wrong about everything, and there are no troops anywhere who like what they're doing.
Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...
Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.
Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).
The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.
I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.
However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.
It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.
I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.
However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.
Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.
Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?
Pardon me while I change my favorite search engine link... be right back...
Okay, that went poorly. I ended up giving them feedback they're never going to read, and blog-length. In order to appease my soul I shall make it an open letter by posting it here next.
Here was my point today, before I got carried away. It is similar to my earlier post about how the polls are completely wrong on Iraq (and there have been recent polls, apparently - though I'm having trouble tracking them down despite hearing about them on national radio - from polling companies not associated or affiliated with major news networks that support my theory completely).
The other side is desperate. They're seeing that their lies aren't working, that we are reading between the lines or getting our news somewhere else. They're doing everything they can to repair their damaged credibility, and they're doing it by changing their "sources". They are now going to the military to find people who are against the war. They've been trying to do this all along, but their sources have been discredited - retired generals who are die-hard liberals, discontented generals who were shunted aside because someone else could do the job better, generals who were denied their own war because they were promoted at the wrong time, etc. Now they've gone after the troops themselves.
I'm not denying that there are troops out there who dislike this war (and some of them any war is worth disliking). I know one of them myself, someone who joined the armed services and was taught Arabic before 9/11 (someone was on the ball) and who sent e-mails around about being against the war. Admittedly, I received ongoing and frequent e-mails from soldiers who were amazed about what good they were doing and begged us not to believe what is said on the news and only two from her, but they were disheartening. I replied every time that I was proud of what she was doing and sorry that it was stressing her out. So, I am not denying that there are legitimate members of our armed forces who actually are stressed out - or outright frightened - and I believe it is only natural to want to speak out from that fear.
However, while this story is running (from notoriously liberal sources) another story is getting grudging headline status, meaning it was on the home pages of news outlets everywhere, but they're not putting it as a "big four" story or something like that - you have to scroll down to the "other things we thing are important" section.
It states clearly that the Democrats in congress are backing off their plan (and campaign promise) to limit the President's wartime authority, or to outright repeal their vote to support the Iraq war. Not only has talk of "de-funding" the war died out, but now they're not even going to try to limit what President Bush can do.
I do think a lot of this has to do with the fact that, while the Democrats are definitely looking for ways (as they logically should) to increase their power and standing in government, they're actually not totally stupid. They can see the glowing symbols on the wall with Iran, and I believe in the back of their mind they'd love to see President Bush take care of that problem for them, or at least get it started, so they don't have to make the unpopular decision to take military action - yet they know it has to be done.
However, the link I am making is that if these stories about disaffected troops were really meaningful - that is, I believe it is heart-wrenching to think of anyone being thrust into a war zone who is terrified of being there, but let's pay attention to what percentage of the troops they really are (not how many they SAY are being them, but the actual, real numbers - how many of us have said "well, all my friends and I, and there are tons of us, agree") and whether or not their opinion is better or easier to support than other people in the same location and situation.
Perhaps put simpler, it is good to hear both sides of the story, but when you do that, keep in mind one side of the story may be told by a 3 to 12,401 ratio, and those three may be speaking without straight facts or any facts at all. I'm suggesting that we can tell which side is right by what the people in power, the decision-makers, are doing. Despite their own rhetoric that clearly supports the concept that the 3 are right, their actual actions are grudgingly in support of the 12,401.
Why is it we must read so hard behind the lines to find this truth?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Elections Matter, Yes. Results Matter More.
I have read an increasing number of articles over the past several weeks and months as Republican pundits and columnists chastise Republican voters for their attitude in the last election. The only good thing about this is that nobody is talking about it being a Democrat victory any more (the arguments for that don’t even rank “pathetic”).
What upsets me is that these columnists are waggling their fingers at the voters. It is true that I also feel the voters have a lesson to learn, that is the old cliché (and as much as I hate them, it is true) that if you don’t vote, that’s the equivalent to voting for the strongest opposition candidate. I voted in the 2006 election. Early. However, I feel the larger lesson is being lost here.
These pundits and columnists should be addressing their admonishments to the politicians who were “voted out of office”. This would be a non-issue if the officials we elected (and I have nothing to complain about with the four national politicians who represent me) actually represented us and our values.
The reason Republicans lost in the 2006 election was because they were dumbasses. They were stupid, spineless, unresponsive dumbasses who did not represent the desires of their constituents. You know, those people who voted for them in the first place?
Yes, it is true that the best place to defeat a poor representative is in your party’s primaries, not to have them lose in the general election and therefore transfer power to the opposition party, but I have two problems with this. First, it should be obvious to even the novice political spectator that it is very difficult to defeat an incumbent (for novices, that means the person who currently holds the office in question). A primary is rarely more than a formality when your party already holds the office being voted upon. If you really need me to reason that out for you, feel free to comment and I’ll expound. Second, the largest infractions against conservative principles were committed after the primaries. Several people have said (and with this I agree) that the two largest issues on the conservative plate are the war on terror and immigration.
Border security came up not in the middle of the primaries, but after the primaries were done and the general election was being contested.
I am not going to exonerate voters who did not go to the polls to support their candidates. I still believe you should vote. I do, however, maintain that the problem started not with these voters, but with the politicians who let them down.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Why the polls are wrong on Iraq
I do believe in our republic system of government. There’s a reason we don’t have a straight democracy. For a quick review, considering many people won’t understand the difference, a democracy is where the citizens (or the people who have a right to vote) actually vote directly on issues. There are cases where this is evident in our own government, such as propositions on a ballot, but for the most part our government is a republic. Instead of going to the people to vote on every issue, the government consists of elected officials (some appointees). We elect people to go to the centers of government in order to run the country for us (locally, regionally, and nationally).
Democracies are evident all through our country. Any club, association, church, or other group of people to which you belong and in which everything (or nearly everything) must be put to a general vote of the members is an actual democracy. However, our government is almost entirely republican (not the political party, but the system) in nature.
We are hearing a lot about congress’ deliberations about a resolution on the war in Iraq.
I hardly know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is a huge issue of our times - in my mind part of the biggest issue we face - however congress seems more than a little ridiculous at the moment. The reason seems obvious to me: they are not debating the issue, they’re debating how to debate the issue. Senators in particular (I believe because there are fewer of them) seem unwilling to take an actual stand against the war. They take a wishy-washy almost stand that says “I would be against this if it were possible to be against this, but I can’t because it isn’t.”
What is said into a microphone almost always requires reading between the lines. By their own admission the very senators who are not taking a stand now have informed us that in their jobs they must speak with nuance. They say it is because there are no right-and-wrong issues (and you can make a linguistic argument for that, though practical reality says otherwise) but the fact is they need to craft their message in such a way that they can (if this sounds familiar) be for an issue with a certain group of people and against an issue with another group of people.
Why? Because they (in particular senators) represent a large body of constituents, and as they are fond of prating through their megaphone (most media outlets) this is a “nation evenly divided”. While they want you to think momentum is swinging their way, the fact is if they are admitting it is a divided nation, they know a vast portion of the voting public is going to be unhappy with any solid stand they take.
So now we come down to it. Why the polls are wrong on Iraq. I have wanted to state this in two ways for a long time, so here they are (and see how this applies to so many issues of our times).
First: if public opinion were actually so clear cut, the politicians would have no problems taking a stand. Who cares what 30% of their constituents think if the other 70% are going to cheer them madly? If such a huge majority of, say, Hillary Clinton’s constituents (present, and the ones she hopes to represent after 2008) were actually against the war, she would take a firm, loud stand and win any election she cared to contest. The fact must be that there is no clear-cut majority against the war in Iraq.
Here we segue neatly into part two. The bridge is simple. Because the party in opposition feels it necessary to, well, ‘oppose’ (and pretty much oppose anything right down the line) they have to find a way to show that the party in power (and by that, they mean the party that was in power to make certain policies, and the party currently holding the presidency) is wrong. Unfortunately the message coming form the people isn’t that clear cut. So they attempt to create a position with enough ‘nuance’ to appeal to the greatest majority of voters. Therefore...
Second: the polls that were taken were not clear cut. The question was never “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of President Bush overall?” The questions were multiple choice, generally in graded format (strong support, slight support, neutral, against, strongly against) and with an “I don’t know” column people who are really screwed up can check. I only pay attention to polls that publish their questions and the statistics on not only whom was polled, but who responded. Therefore, the questions I saw were “do you feel we should ‘stay the course’ in Iraq?” or “do you feel our policy on Iraq should be changed?”
Well, I can tell you right now I support the war in Iraq. I feel it is crucial to our foreign policy, our standing in the world, and even our security at home. I believe success in Iraq will bring us closer to a world-wide solution for the overall war we face, and I believe that failure or even semi-success in Iraq will slow that progress down. However, I would have answered neutrally on ‘stay the course’ because I do not understand the connotation of the question. I believe we should stay there, but I believe the commanders on the ground should have plenty of room to maneuver, to respond and change as our enemy responds and changes. I would have also agreed that our policy in Iraq should change dramatically. I think we should start by taking an IED to the Rules of Engagement that our soldiers must currently face, unchain them, and let them go kick ass. That doesn’t mean they should be exempt from all restraint - I do believe innocents must be protected and soldiers to not have license to run amok, however I believe this is war, and their job is to kill the enemy. Not to rape and pillage, but to kill the enemy. Thoroughly.
So my answers, as a solid conservative and member of the Republican Party who supports President Bush (on this issue), takes amazing pride in our military and the greatness of our country, who - in short - would be considered a warmonger by my opponents, would have answered these polls in a way that the opposition party could construe meant I did not support the war in Iraq. However, if I had been asked direct questions: “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of the job President Bush is doing” I would have landed solidly on the “yes” side.
I believe our politicians are smart enough to know that’s exactly where the country is. They need to rally their own supporters, the people who select which Democrat is going to be elected in the primary, but that they recognize fully that a greater majority of this country supports President Bush and the war in Iraq than is against him or it.
Use your own gut (or nose, if you prefer). You can tell when a series of questions or events in the news does not feel or smell right. The fact is, you are probably more correct than you give yourself credit. I’m not talking about conspiracy theories (which are almost always wrong) but rather in politics and news reporting. It’s too bad the institutions that were designed to give us the greatest weapon against tyranny - information - now require us to become experts in interpretation and how to filter out bias.
Democracies are evident all through our country. Any club, association, church, or other group of people to which you belong and in which everything (or nearly everything) must be put to a general vote of the members is an actual democracy. However, our government is almost entirely republican (not the political party, but the system) in nature.
We are hearing a lot about congress’ deliberations about a resolution on the war in Iraq.
I hardly know where to begin. Yes, Iraq is a huge issue of our times - in my mind part of the biggest issue we face - however congress seems more than a little ridiculous at the moment. The reason seems obvious to me: they are not debating the issue, they’re debating how to debate the issue. Senators in particular (I believe because there are fewer of them) seem unwilling to take an actual stand against the war. They take a wishy-washy almost stand that says “I would be against this if it were possible to be against this, but I can’t because it isn’t.”
What is said into a microphone almost always requires reading between the lines. By their own admission the very senators who are not taking a stand now have informed us that in their jobs they must speak with nuance. They say it is because there are no right-and-wrong issues (and you can make a linguistic argument for that, though practical reality says otherwise) but the fact is they need to craft their message in such a way that they can (if this sounds familiar) be for an issue with a certain group of people and against an issue with another group of people.
Why? Because they (in particular senators) represent a large body of constituents, and as they are fond of prating through their megaphone (most media outlets) this is a “nation evenly divided”. While they want you to think momentum is swinging their way, the fact is if they are admitting it is a divided nation, they know a vast portion of the voting public is going to be unhappy with any solid stand they take.
So now we come down to it. Why the polls are wrong on Iraq. I have wanted to state this in two ways for a long time, so here they are (and see how this applies to so many issues of our times).
First: if public opinion were actually so clear cut, the politicians would have no problems taking a stand. Who cares what 30% of their constituents think if the other 70% are going to cheer them madly? If such a huge majority of, say, Hillary Clinton’s constituents (present, and the ones she hopes to represent after 2008) were actually against the war, she would take a firm, loud stand and win any election she cared to contest. The fact must be that there is no clear-cut majority against the war in Iraq.
Here we segue neatly into part two. The bridge is simple. Because the party in opposition feels it necessary to, well, ‘oppose’ (and pretty much oppose anything right down the line) they have to find a way to show that the party in power (and by that, they mean the party that was in power to make certain policies, and the party currently holding the presidency) is wrong. Unfortunately the message coming form the people isn’t that clear cut. So they attempt to create a position with enough ‘nuance’ to appeal to the greatest majority of voters. Therefore...
Second: the polls that were taken were not clear cut. The question was never “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of President Bush overall?” The questions were multiple choice, generally in graded format (strong support, slight support, neutral, against, strongly against) and with an “I don’t know” column people who are really screwed up can check. I only pay attention to polls that publish their questions and the statistics on not only whom was polled, but who responded. Therefore, the questions I saw were “do you feel we should ‘stay the course’ in Iraq?” or “do you feel our policy on Iraq should be changed?”
Well, I can tell you right now I support the war in Iraq. I feel it is crucial to our foreign policy, our standing in the world, and even our security at home. I believe success in Iraq will bring us closer to a world-wide solution for the overall war we face, and I believe that failure or even semi-success in Iraq will slow that progress down. However, I would have answered neutrally on ‘stay the course’ because I do not understand the connotation of the question. I believe we should stay there, but I believe the commanders on the ground should have plenty of room to maneuver, to respond and change as our enemy responds and changes. I would have also agreed that our policy in Iraq should change dramatically. I think we should start by taking an IED to the Rules of Engagement that our soldiers must currently face, unchain them, and let them go kick ass. That doesn’t mean they should be exempt from all restraint - I do believe innocents must be protected and soldiers to not have license to run amok, however I believe this is war, and their job is to kill the enemy. Not to rape and pillage, but to kill the enemy. Thoroughly.
So my answers, as a solid conservative and member of the Republican Party who supports President Bush (on this issue), takes amazing pride in our military and the greatness of our country, who - in short - would be considered a warmonger by my opponents, would have answered these polls in a way that the opposition party could construe meant I did not support the war in Iraq. However, if I had been asked direct questions: “do you support the war in Iraq” or “do you approve of the job President Bush is doing” I would have landed solidly on the “yes” side.
I believe our politicians are smart enough to know that’s exactly where the country is. They need to rally their own supporters, the people who select which Democrat is going to be elected in the primary, but that they recognize fully that a greater majority of this country supports President Bush and the war in Iraq than is against him or it.
Use your own gut (or nose, if you prefer). You can tell when a series of questions or events in the news does not feel or smell right. The fact is, you are probably more correct than you give yourself credit. I’m not talking about conspiracy theories (which are almost always wrong) but rather in politics and news reporting. It’s too bad the institutions that were designed to give us the greatest weapon against tyranny - information - now require us to become experts in interpretation and how to filter out bias.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Official Language
Okay, you can probably figure out what this rant is about. It builds on my recent post about immigration. Let me set up my frustration before I air it and talk about my solution.
I am a parent who home schools my children. I won’t get into their progress (other than to say it is certainly acceptable - my 10 and 11 year old boys have mastered most Algebra skills and I don’t even know what my daughter is talking about in Trigonometry) or my talent as a teacher (it is difficult to do day in and day out - to keep motivated, when I would rather be doing other things - and I really don’t remember Trig). Suffice it to say I was on the Texas Education Agency website this morning doing preparatory work for the upcoming week (fortunately they don’t read this blog so they don’t know the TAKS test is about to hit them - hee hee hee)
What has me all riled up is that I did this a few years ago (they didn’t do so well on the tests, actually) when I downloaded what I believe are the 2004 tests. This year I went back and was very excited to see that there are now answer keys - which will make my job easier (almost as easy as an overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated teacher with 20-30 kids?) My glee turned to ire as I saw double-listings for many of the tests I wished to download (for reference: the 2006 April tests). The double-listings? The Spanish versions of the test.
Now, I am going to be painted as heartless and cruel by liberals all across the land (and probably some people who claim to be non-liberal) but I do not believe our tests should be administered in Spanish. This country is run in English, and it should remain so. Though it was founded in English, wave upon wave of immigrants moved to this country in droves. We did not change the language to French, or Italian, or Gaelic, nor even did we cave and change the language to British! The immigrants who came here were so thrilled, so honored to be in this country that they took the time and effort to learn the language spoken by its already established inhabitants.
Now, before someone who actually has flames shooting out their eyes and clothing, smoke curling from their Birkenstocks, and an effeminate lisp tries to point out to me that there were other languages spoken here before the pilgrims colonized I will say this: if a group of people who speak, say, Arabic come over here, kick our ass, and conquer us I will either die defending this country or learn to speak Arabic if that becomes the official language.
It actually speaks to the overall point. The question becomes - who is integrating whom? If immigrants are coming here and changing our society, are they immigrating or conquering? How badly do they really want to be here? In my earlier post I pointed out that my impression of previous waves of immigrants is that they so loved this country that they were willing to come here, struggle to learn the language, begin with low-level jobs, work hard, and make something of themselves. They wanted to bring their talents here to make a better United States while the United States made a better them! Coming here, struggling to even communicate, working a low-paying, difficult job was an improvement for them.
If you want to open the borders and let whoever wants to migrate here do so, a stance with which I do not agree anyway, I would make this concession: this kind of stance would stand at least a small chance of working if we preserve that immigrant attitude which suggests it is going to be a possible climb, but it is going to be a tough climb.
You are discarding the sacrifices and struggles made by your own ancestors. Just because you’re not making it - because you were born here and into a society already steps above the struggles those immigrants faced before they got here - doesn’t mean the struggle didn’t happen, and doesn’t make it less important.
You are helping to create an ever-growing segment of our population that cannot understand a speech given by their own politicians. I can just hear the jokes about Americans who can’t understand what President Bush is saying now, but consider this: do you think people taking a TAKS test in Spanish would be better able to understand the smooth semicolons and suave style of President Clinton? Remember: President Bush can actually speak fluent Spanish. Who is going to be in the better position to sway?
I am a parent who home schools my children. I won’t get into their progress (other than to say it is certainly acceptable - my 10 and 11 year old boys have mastered most Algebra skills and I don’t even know what my daughter is talking about in Trigonometry) or my talent as a teacher (it is difficult to do day in and day out - to keep motivated, when I would rather be doing other things - and I really don’t remember Trig). Suffice it to say I was on the Texas Education Agency website this morning doing preparatory work for the upcoming week (fortunately they don’t read this blog so they don’t know the TAKS test is about to hit them - hee hee hee)
What has me all riled up is that I did this a few years ago (they didn’t do so well on the tests, actually) when I downloaded what I believe are the 2004 tests. This year I went back and was very excited to see that there are now answer keys - which will make my job easier (almost as easy as an overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated teacher with 20-30 kids?) My glee turned to ire as I saw double-listings for many of the tests I wished to download (for reference: the 2006 April tests). The double-listings? The Spanish versions of the test.
Now, I am going to be painted as heartless and cruel by liberals all across the land (and probably some people who claim to be non-liberal) but I do not believe our tests should be administered in Spanish. This country is run in English, and it should remain so. Though it was founded in English, wave upon wave of immigrants moved to this country in droves. We did not change the language to French, or Italian, or Gaelic, nor even did we cave and change the language to British! The immigrants who came here were so thrilled, so honored to be in this country that they took the time and effort to learn the language spoken by its already established inhabitants.
Now, before someone who actually has flames shooting out their eyes and clothing, smoke curling from their Birkenstocks, and an effeminate lisp tries to point out to me that there were other languages spoken here before the pilgrims colonized I will say this: if a group of people who speak, say, Arabic come over here, kick our ass, and conquer us I will either die defending this country or learn to speak Arabic if that becomes the official language.
It actually speaks to the overall point. The question becomes - who is integrating whom? If immigrants are coming here and changing our society, are they immigrating or conquering? How badly do they really want to be here? In my earlier post I pointed out that my impression of previous waves of immigrants is that they so loved this country that they were willing to come here, struggle to learn the language, begin with low-level jobs, work hard, and make something of themselves. They wanted to bring their talents here to make a better United States while the United States made a better them! Coming here, struggling to even communicate, working a low-paying, difficult job was an improvement for them.
If you want to open the borders and let whoever wants to migrate here do so, a stance with which I do not agree anyway, I would make this concession: this kind of stance would stand at least a small chance of working if we preserve that immigrant attitude which suggests it is going to be a possible climb, but it is going to be a tough climb.
You are discarding the sacrifices and struggles made by your own ancestors. Just because you’re not making it - because you were born here and into a society already steps above the struggles those immigrants faced before they got here - doesn’t mean the struggle didn’t happen, and doesn’t make it less important.
You are helping to create an ever-growing segment of our population that cannot understand a speech given by their own politicians. I can just hear the jokes about Americans who can’t understand what President Bush is saying now, but consider this: do you think people taking a TAKS test in Spanish would be better able to understand the smooth semicolons and suave style of President Clinton? Remember: President Bush can actually speak fluent Spanish. Who is going to be in the better position to sway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)