Tuesday’s Musings
November 20, 2007 on 3:03 pm | In Media, Race for Prez |
Thoughts that crossed my mind as I watched the recent Dems’ debate:
Ever wonder what a Hillary presidency would be like? I’m not looking forward to it, if indeed it ever comes to pass. And it’s not enough to say, as so many have, that at least she’ll be better than GWB. Is that how low the bar has drifted?
So in addition to planted questions, endless triangulating and the vaunted attack machine that rivals anything the Republicans can put together, we have this humorous first-person account of what it’s like to cover her campaign. I’m beginning to wonder if she can beat Mitt Romney, who at this point is best positioned to be the GOP nominee.
The media can’t stand her because she is profoundly cynical and manipulative, many on the left don’t like her because she is unprincipled and we all know the right sees horns on her head (see image above). If Mitt runs as a fiscal conservative (while distancing himself from GWB’s profligate spending) and a tough-on-terror candidate who could act as a counterweight to the Dem Congress, then he just might beat her. Oh, and a secret plan to end the war might help.
As for her positions on the issues, it’s hard to know where she stands on most of them. Hillary proposes new spending but (to my knowledge) has not proposed any new taxes, except possibly on “the wealthy.” Will she be a centrist president, as she appears to be now, or will she turn sharply to the left once she gets in office? Only she knows the answer … well, maybe not.
* * * * * * * * *
I wonder if the Dems can hold on to their fragile majority in Congress. If they keep pulling moves like Nancy Pelosi has recently, they just might be in trouble, as Dem Majority Leader Steny Hoyer himself has complained.
It’s counterintuitive to argue that employers should not be able to require that their employees speak English on the job. Far from being “symbolic of “bigotry and prejudice,” I’d argue that it’s consistent with the spirit of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed segregation. What better way to keep Latinos socially segregated from English-speakers than to be an enabler of those who refuse to learn our language?
As Marshall & Mike observed this morning, when the McDonald’s in Millerton opened several years ago, it was hard to find anyone who spoke English. Even the managers were not fluent. I once remember being so frustrated that I gave up and went someplace else for lunch. Should employers, such as the Salvation Army, be expected to shoulder such a burden just to protect the right of an employee to converse in his native language? I think the answer is obvious.
P.S. Perhaps Congress should allow its own debates to proceed in Spanish, or require “Salvation Army bell-ringers to demonstrate a greater diversity of cultural rhythmic patterns in their ringing.”
14 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
A friend of mine spent a week in Finland recently. He was there for a conference on adult education. People from all over the world were there. My friend never had any trouble communicating with anybody there. He didn’t have to carry foreign language phrase books around with him; everybody spoke English. The conference ended. He flew home. Landed at Logan and was hungry. Walked into a fast food place and tried to order some fast food. It wasn’t easy. Nobody behind the counter spoke English.
In other words, your point is well taken.
Comment by Terrence McCarthy — November 20, 2007 #
Nice you agree that Mitt is the front runner. Hillary may be leading on the other side, which is making a lot of us Republicans happy. As with 2004, we want least to run against Edwards. Looks like we are in good shape there. Personally, I would like to see a Mitt/Obama show down, just for the shear star power of the Big Event. On another subject… Hillary would rule as left as she could, which wouldn’t be very. But the Supreme Court would be lost to the left for a generation - empowering trial lawyers and teacher’s union bureaucrats for years to come.
Comment by Jake — November 20, 2007 #
Why shouldn’t employers make their employees speak the common language? Otherwise, how are they to communicate with each other and with their customers? I believe there should be a national language. As someone who works in the retail sector, there have been many times when customers have walked up to me, asked if I speak Spanish (in English, no less), and then look miffed when I reply no. If I visit a country where the common language is not English, I make it a point to learn basic phrases; I don’t expect everyone to speak my native language. I don’t see why this can’t work both ways.
Comment by Amy — November 20, 2007 #
Amy, if you have enough miffed Spanish-speakers, wouldn’t it make sense to learn Spanish? More sales; more income. As I was reading Terry’s blog, I was imagining the MacDonald’s on the Champs-Elysées - would it be so offensive if some employees were speaking English? The French of course legislate language, as you both seem to desire.
Comment by Peter Halle — November 21, 2007 #
I would like to weigh in on this, and not just because the local McDonalds staff did Terry the favor of encouraging him to seek nutrition elsewhere.
I grew up in a household, in Lakeville, where one generation spoke Italian amongst themselves, first generation and second generation spoke a mix of Italian and English, and third generation spoke, and learned, only English. I am confident that this format will repeat itself with our Spanish-only speakers. They will thrive if they learn English and struggle if they don’t. Granpa struggled and then thrived afterward … with help of course.
I think that legislators are doing no favors to Spanish-only speakers with their wrong-headed proposals. And I think if my grandparents were alive they would agree.
I’ve taught myself conversant Italian and Spanish in order to communicate with the locals when I travel abroad — not to converse with them here. When I encounter someone here who is clearly struggling with English, I use my rudimentary Spanish only as a last resort. I enunciate and speak slowly in hopes of helping him/her as others many years ago helped my mother and my grandparents. I really think it’s counterproductive to post signs such as the “Misa todos los domingos” in Salisbury when “Mass every Sunday” is much of a help.
After all, it’s more important to learn English thand to go to Mass.
Comment by Jim — November 21, 2007 #
Peter,
Au contraire. I don’t want to legislate language. I think that employers should have the right to require their employees to speak English on the job. The amendment, which Pelosi and others tried to kill, would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English.
This doesn’t remove Spanish (or any other language) from the public domain. When I lived in Quebec, I witnessed the whole controversy over Bill 101, which severely limited the right of shopkeepers to put up English signage, for example. Thankfully, this amendment would do no such thing.
Comment by Terry — November 21, 2007 #
Terry, from the anecdote in your blog, as well as Amy’s comment, it seemed that you objected to them speaking Spanish. Is this about MacDonald’s wishing to require their employees speak English, and being so prevented; or is it about objecting to the inexorable Hispanic creep into our Anglo-Saxon culture? I see them as quite different.
Comment by Peter Halle — November 21, 2007 #
The former, although the latter could serve as a motive for the former (at least for some people).
Click on the Pelosi link in the blog to learn more. The specific case has to do with the Salvation Army.
Comment by Terry — November 21, 2007 #
Peter,
I do not object to anyone speaking Spanish, French, Klingon or any other language, just so long as they don’t get upset by my inability to speak their language because of their inability to speak my language. Does that make sense?
And yes, we should legislate language. I’m not proposing that everyone should only speak English, but it should be the language that all official documents are written in. Why should taxpayers pay more so that we can have driver’s license tests in Korean when all the street signs are in English?
Comment by Amy — November 21, 2007 #
Jim Britt wrote an interesting comment on this post but it is higher up since it was just approved. Check it out. It’s 5 up from this one.
Comment by Terry — November 21, 2007 #
Bravo, Jim!
Comment by Amy — November 21, 2007 #
Agree. As an agnostic, I particularly like this line of Jim’s: “After all, it’s more important to learn English than to go to Mass.”
Comment by Terry — November 21, 2007 #
I guess I am taking the unpopular side of this debate. Amy and Jim are right that people should speak English here. But perhaps those immigrants at McDonald’s were that first generation Jim was referring to - the ones struggling to work, who haven’t learned English yet. OK, you don’t like it, and you get your meal elsewhere. I guess you don’t want them to work in a retail setting. As to Amy’s experience where the customer doesn’t speak English, I submit to you that if you want the sale (and we really are not talking about one retailer and one sale; we have to multiply this thousands of times), you have to please the customer. Not to be too syrupy, I think the trick is to try to get along, like that great story of 1621. Happy Thanksgiving!
Comment by Peter Halle — November 21, 2007 #
my computer at the pharmacy has the ability to print Drug information leaflets in practically any imaginable language (except kilngon. i had a roommate in college who could translate that if necessary).
But the most important part, the directions on the bottle, get typed in English.. and no other language unless the pharmacy staff types it in said language by themselves.
for all intents and purposes.. it’s in their best interest (medically, maybe socially, dare i say…financially, etc.) to learn English to the best of their ability.
Comment by fred — November 22, 2007 #