Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Usted Debe Hablar inglés Para Ser Un miembro de Consejo

Woman fights to run for city council despite not speaking English proficiently

Read the article

This is happening now in San Luis, Arizona. A woman is trying to run for city council even though she does not speak English proficiently. This is in violation of an Arizona law requiring elected officials to know English.

Alejandrina Cabrera has needed an interpreter and has been deemed, based on testing by a sociolinguistics expert, to not be proficient in English.

The case is being referred to the Arizona Supreme Court. In a previous hearing she was unable to answer questions posed to her in English.

I'm a little confused as to the issue here. How could anyone reasonably think it is okay for an elected official be unable to speak, read, and understand English?

This case is telling in that it is even being brought at all. The reality is that we are losing the American southwest to Mexico. We need to win cases like this to draw a line in the sand.

One interesting aspect of this to watch for is that the main allegation by her lawyers is that the law does not define what "proficiency" means. If they are true than this is a fair assertion and a major flaw by the officials that enacted it. This could lead to the law being overturned and elected officials then not being required to speak English.

With the population of Arizona trending Hispanic, will the state legislature and Governor be able to pass another law requiring English?

Elected officials not needing to speak English very easily could become the law of the land in Arizona.

Monday, January 23, 2012

What Do You Think About This?

Joe Paterno died over the weekend. I offer my condolences to his family and hope they find peace.

Politicians, coaches, and others from across the country have been offering words of praise for the coach.

What are your thoughts on this?

Obviously I do not think anyone should attack him. Quite frankly, I think that since he's dead we need to stop talking about his role in the case except as it is pertinent in any future lawsuits which are certain to arise. No one is served by dragging a dead man's name through the mud.

What about all of the platitudes though?

We are hearing people say he was a good man. He had integrity. He was a leader of young men.

Was he?

The current scandal is enough to make a person question his integrity.

Beyond that, it has become apparent he was a controlling person who placed his football program above all else. Stories coming out of Happy Valley since the scandal broke paint a picture of a coach who turned a blind eye to transgressions by his players to preserve the team. It seems as if the man not only did not care what he players did at times but didn't understand why others did. It seemed as if was the ultimate 'boys will be boys' attitude.

So the question is, was he a good man? Should he be remembered as such? Should he get to keep his reputation because he died before the trials, along with all of the tawdry details and his involvement in them, started?

This is not to speak ill of the dead but it also is not the first time we have seen this phenomenon.

What are your thoughts?

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Quote Of The Week

“The Park Slope church housing occupiers was desecrated when an occupier peed inside the building and the pee came into contact with a cross.”

Rabbi Chaim Gruber

Read the article

I don't know about you but I'm shocked. I thought occupiers crapped on police cars instead of peeing on the cross.

What was this church thinking? Did they get what they deserved letting these animals in?

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Who Does The NAACP Represent?

I have a definite opinion on this. I'm just curious as to what everyone else thinks.

App That Would Guide Users Away From High-Crime Areas Proves Controversial

Read the article

This is getting push-back from the NAACP.

I find this interesting. What are they saying? High crime areas are only in black communities?

Does anyone really believe that is true?

I think it is clear that crime rates are higher in inner cities. It is also typical that there are a higher proportion of minorities in the inner city. But is it a given that the minority-heavy areas are the only high crime areas?

Or, is it true? Does the leadership of the NAACP believe that it is a general rule that minority communities have a higher crime rate?

If this is so, what are they doing about it? Why don't they "lead" and try to get the people they purport to represent out of this?

I think if there is one truism, it is that not all minorities want to live in a crime ridden area. By and large, most people regardless of race, nationality, culture, etc want the same thing. They want to raise their kids in a safe clean environment. They want to have a job and provide for their family. They want their kids to do better than they do.

There are obviously people in the minority community that do not want this. Guess what - there are whites that feel the same way. Dead beats, criminals, those who want entitlements come in all colors.

So, why does the NAACP pull the race card whenever something like this comes out? Race is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form here. As a matter of fact, this app will likely be used by monitories themselves. Maybe more. Why would a decent honest minority want to find themselves in a high crime area at 11:00 at night?

The real question here is - who does the NAACP actually represent? Do they represent all blacks, including the prosperous, hard-working blacks, people often called "Uncle Toms" or "race traitors"? Or do they represent the criminals, the welfare queens, the dead beats? Outrages like this by the NAACP, the Rev Jesse Jackson Jr, Al Sharpton, etc makes one wonder. I just find it interesting that we never hear a similar outcry from the above mentioned when a fellow black is called an Uncle Tom or race traitor...

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

If Only These People Would Keep Their Promises

“I'm afraid for our country that people like this (current Republican candidates) could even be thought of as the president. I live in a country where I believe all men are created equal, not just wealthy white guys. I believe all men, all women, regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic background, you deserve the same rights. If that's not where our country is going, then I'll leave. I don't need to live here. I'm out! I'll go to Canada, peace! See you later.”

Sophia Bush

Source

I have to admit, I did not even know who this chick was until I saw this article. I will further admit that this could be for a couple of reasons, I have a tendency to be oblivious and I do not live my life for these Hollywood types so I often do not know who many actors/actresses are.

With that said, let's look at this quote. We have, yet again, an empty headed far-left star/starlet rant on and on about the racism and sexism of the Republican Party. The GOP stands united against rights for women and minorities, blah, blah, blah. You've all heard the routine.

Hmm, let's look at some of the candidates for the GOP nomination this election cycle.

First, let's meet this gentleman - a favorite of many of the conservatives of the GOP:



This guy is still being courted by some on the right to run for the nomination:




Of course you can't get any whiter than this guy, a favorite of many in the racist Tea Party movement:



Finally to prove her point about the racism of the GOP, let's look at who is one of the favorites of Republicans for Vice Presidential candidate:



I know she's an idiot, it's a requirement for the left. When do these people finally stop this nonsense though? This 'GOP as racist/sexist/homophobic/(insert favorite -ist here)' is long ago played out.

The part I liked the best though is this

If that's not where our country is going, then I'll leave. I don't need to live here. I'm out! I'll go to Canada, peace! See you later.

Good-bye.

Adios.

Sayonora.

Good day.

Later.

Arrivederci.

Aloha.

Take Alec Baldwin with you (he promised to go if George Bush was re-elected and never did).

You won't be missed.

Or, as they would say down home, don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Quote Of The Week

"Each tree had 56 oranges. If eight slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"

"If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in one week?"

Source

These are math problems from a quiz for 3rd graders at an elementary school in Georgia.

Parents are of course outraged at the blatant racial insensitivity, as they should be.

Obviously using slavery as word problems is idiotic and, I even believe racist. I am not one to pull the race card, ever, and I think PC has run amok in this country. But these problems go beyond the pale.

I think the parents should be outraged for a different reason though.

The anger should be at just how far our public schools, and some of the people we hire to teach in them, have gone completely to hell.

What thinking adult would write a problem like one of those above and believe it is okay for an elementary class? Are they this thoroughly incompetent that it did not occur to them that it was wrong? Are they brain-damaged?

Punish them for the racism in the problems, I'm okay with that. But, for God's sake, start thinking about replacing them with someone with a little bit of intelligence while they're at it.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Think You Will Ever See This Headline?

Fox New's Sean Hannity: 'Too Black' New Yorkers Abandoning Romney

So, think you will ever see that headline? Think Hannity would ask this question? Think he would have Hell to pay if he ever did?

It is quite likely the answer to the above questions are, respectively, No. No. and Yes.

So, why is this real headline okay?

NBC's Mitchell: 'Too White' Iowans Abandoning Obama

Read the article


Monday, January 2, 2012

Is There A Bottom To Stupidity?

EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act

Read the article

This is not an official ruling, yet. It's an opinion by the EEOC that a companies' requirement of a high school diploma for a job could be discriminatory if it “ ‘screens out’ an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of ‘disability,’ ”

In their opinion, the high school diploma should only be a requirement if it is “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

I am not even sure where to start with this.

-Can anyone reading this think of a job in which a high school diploma would not be required to do the job satisfactorily?

Today's world is not as simple as when your parents or grandparents were looking for a job. A high school diploma was not as big of a requirement 50+ years ago. Today's employees need skills.

Take a housekeeper. Simple job, right? What about reading the warning labels on the bottles of cleaner? How would you like the housekeeper in your hotel mixing a quaternary cleaner (ammonia type) with bleach and producing a deadly gas?

Restaurant worker. Cooking requires reading recipes or other instructions. Some of the equipment is dangerous, what about warning labels? Instructions on how to clean your expensive equipment properly?

People do these jobs all of the time without high school diplomas, that's not a point worth arguing. The real question is, do they do them properly? Should a company be allowed to require a high school diploma so that they get the best employee?

-Lawsuits. Like I said, as of now this is not the rule of law. Does that matter in court? Especially if it is a far-left activist judge? We now have a whole new class of people that can sue if they did not get a job. Bet the body part you are now sitting on that there are plenty of judges that will rule for a job applicant that was discriminated against for not having a diploma.

Myself, I see advocates for the disabled crawling out from under their rocks on this one. Companies will get sued out of existence.

-Finally, as the article pointed out, this takes away one of the incentives for getting a high school diploma. If a kid is destined for a low-level minimum wage job and they know they will no longer be required to have a high school diploma to get the job, will they stay in school?

This is basically just a continuing effort of the left to dumb down America. They have destroyed our schools so badly that the reality is that the high school diploma companies have required, up till now, aren't worth a damn as it is. Now they are going to work to eliminate the diploma altogether.

Right now the US struggles to make the top 15 of any list for education (such as reading skills, science knowledge, math, etc) of countries in the world. Want to check back and see where we rank in 10 - 15 years?