Bending Over Backwards:
In the past week or two, there has been a good deal of coverage (including television commercials) regarding Springfield, Massachusetts bi-lingual polling and its efforts to make sure that all voters are able to participate in this particular mid-term election.
Well, all Spanish-Speaking Voters. In fact, The advertisements, 30 second spots running on local television stations are touting the fact that help is needed and that there is pay involved (granted not much). Apparently, even with enticements; it is difficult to find bi-lingual support. This could be understood if by bi-lingual, the City meant Vietnamese, Polish, Russian, or any number of the recently immigrated to this particular city. It does not, apparently, bi-lingual means English-Spanish only. Which, considering that most of the previously mentioned nations mandate English as a second language (in order for their populace to compete around the globe). What gives, Vicente Fox?
Being of Spanish decent, It is extraordinarily insulting to belief that anglo's feel most Spanish derivative individuals are incapable of learning English!
So, what gives? Why is Springfield, MA bending over backwards?
apparently due to the filing of a federal lawsuit!
See reporting here:
CBS TV 3
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
More of the same....
It appears that the political party rhetoric has ratcheted up a notch this past week, if that even seems remotely possible. Drudge reports that a new round of attack advertising by the RNC has been "unleashed", while that remains part and parcel of the DNC's strategy.
How does this affect the nation as a whole? That remains the question. What has not been brought to the forefront is the fact that Democrats in both houses are constantly wasting time by calling for investigation after investigation into the current administrations policies on everything from global warming to the Iraq War.
Last week, Bill Clinton exploded during an interview, which has been replayed ad nausea, claiming innocence (where have we heard that before?) when it came to allegations that in eight years; his administration did not take the necessary steps to haul in Osama Ben Laden.
Nancy Pelosi lost a bid to dig into classified intelligence reports on the state of the Iraq War. President Bush responded that he could declassify a good percentage of the report, but refrain from revealing sources and parts of the report that would endanger the ongoing effort in Iraq. Not good enough for Howard Dean and the New York Times.
Had enough?
It is glaringly apparent that once Pelosi and company seize power in November (that, of course, remains to be seen), business will ground to a standstill while the Democrats nitpick, special investigate and otherwise, look under every rock in order to pin anything on the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the country is supposed to just sit by and do what?
Would it not behoove Pelosi to spend her time more judiciously? Perhaps in coming up with a plan for the country that does not involve pointing fingers?
The Dow this week experiences its highest point in the past two years. Prices at the pump have dropped significantly and consumer confidence for the past month was higher than expected.
The Economy does not seem to be broken.
Iraq's President announced that the US presence in Iraq was preventing an invasion from their neighbors, and that our country did not fight in vein. He also added that the civil war was nothing more than insurgent infighting that did not represent the majority of Iraqi's (who were also losing patience with the insurgents.)
It is, of course, without a doubt that Howard and Nancy and Ted will refute claims made by Wall Street and the President of Iraq. After all, what do they know?
The November elections will be a decent indicator of how the American people truly feel. That said, one can recall the absolute shock when a slim majority of American's chose a little known Arkansas governor as President. Not once, but twice!
and the beat goes on..
It appears that the political party rhetoric has ratcheted up a notch this past week, if that even seems remotely possible. Drudge reports that a new round of attack advertising by the RNC has been "unleashed", while that remains part and parcel of the DNC's strategy.
How does this affect the nation as a whole? That remains the question. What has not been brought to the forefront is the fact that Democrats in both houses are constantly wasting time by calling for investigation after investigation into the current administrations policies on everything from global warming to the Iraq War.
Last week, Bill Clinton exploded during an interview, which has been replayed ad nausea, claiming innocence (where have we heard that before?) when it came to allegations that in eight years; his administration did not take the necessary steps to haul in Osama Ben Laden.
Nancy Pelosi lost a bid to dig into classified intelligence reports on the state of the Iraq War. President Bush responded that he could declassify a good percentage of the report, but refrain from revealing sources and parts of the report that would endanger the ongoing effort in Iraq. Not good enough for Howard Dean and the New York Times.
Had enough?
It is glaringly apparent that once Pelosi and company seize power in November (that, of course, remains to be seen), business will ground to a standstill while the Democrats nitpick, special investigate and otherwise, look under every rock in order to pin anything on the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the country is supposed to just sit by and do what?
Would it not behoove Pelosi to spend her time more judiciously? Perhaps in coming up with a plan for the country that does not involve pointing fingers?
The Dow this week experiences its highest point in the past two years. Prices at the pump have dropped significantly and consumer confidence for the past month was higher than expected.
The Economy does not seem to be broken.
Iraq's President announced that the US presence in Iraq was preventing an invasion from their neighbors, and that our country did not fight in vein. He also added that the civil war was nothing more than insurgent infighting that did not represent the majority of Iraqi's (who were also losing patience with the insurgents.)
It is, of course, without a doubt that Howard and Nancy and Ted will refute claims made by Wall Street and the President of Iraq. After all, what do they know?
The November elections will be a decent indicator of how the American people truly feel. That said, one can recall the absolute shock when a slim majority of American's chose a little known Arkansas governor as President. Not once, but twice!
and the beat goes on..
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The 1930's revisited
Apparently, history is bound to repeat itself. The French are, once again, taking a tactic of denial. Chirac is now calling for the UN Security Council to suspend action against Iran's nuclear ambitions. What it is that compels the French to constantly side with those nations that are morally bankrupt or devoid of any humanity? In the 1930's, the French consistently avoided conflict with Germany, which resulted in the eventual invasion and consequent rescue of France by the US and Britain. More recently, the French were adamant that Suddam Hussain and the Iraqi regime of torture and mayhem be left to its own devices. Those pleas were entered due to either French financial ties to the Iraqi regime or fear of its own immigrant population rising in revolt and consuming traditional French culture. Iran, unlike Iraq, is more vigorous in its rhetoric against the west and more likely to use military force against its detractors. It could be said that the French, aided by former president, Jimmy Carter, started this mess. If the French had not harbored the Ayatollah Kohmeni and, with Carter, worked towards his return to Iran and the overthrow of a truly western regime, all of this would have been avoided.
It is history's regret that the French were successful in removing the Bourbon's, ironically in a similar manner (beheading) used by the very regimes they now support. Perhaps it is not fear or financial incentives, but a deep rooted kinship with unrestrained barbarism.
Apparently, history is bound to repeat itself. The French are, once again, taking a tactic of denial. Chirac is now calling for the UN Security Council to suspend action against Iran's nuclear ambitions. What it is that compels the French to constantly side with those nations that are morally bankrupt or devoid of any humanity? In the 1930's, the French consistently avoided conflict with Germany, which resulted in the eventual invasion and consequent rescue of France by the US and Britain. More recently, the French were adamant that Suddam Hussain and the Iraqi regime of torture and mayhem be left to its own devices. Those pleas were entered due to either French financial ties to the Iraqi regime or fear of its own immigrant population rising in revolt and consuming traditional French culture. Iran, unlike Iraq, is more vigorous in its rhetoric against the west and more likely to use military force against its detractors. It could be said that the French, aided by former president, Jimmy Carter, started this mess. If the French had not harbored the Ayatollah Kohmeni and, with Carter, worked towards his return to Iran and the overthrow of a truly western regime, all of this would have been avoided.
It is history's regret that the French were successful in removing the Bourbon's, ironically in a similar manner (beheading) used by the very regimes they now support. Perhaps it is not fear or financial incentives, but a deep rooted kinship with unrestrained barbarism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
