Call Me Benedict Arnold - Public Education

Did you know that if Benedict Arnold had not committed treason, there would probably be as many statues of him on the East Coast as any other American hero? Schools across the country would be named Benedict Arnold Elementary.

Here goes. I was a public school teacher for 29 years, and proud of it. Loved teaching, working with kids, fellow teachers, administrators and parents. But what I’m about to say will most likely ostracize me from most of my peers, as well as one of my daughters, who is also a public school teacher.

The union mentality, spearheaded by the NEA, has successfully detached the corporate body of educators, and placed them behind a sense of entitlement. Whoa! I can hear the gnashing of teeth. If you will, please allow me to explain.

When I first began my career in 1979, I was ”RIFed” my first three years in a row. That term means “Reduction In Force.” This was during the wonderful Jimmy Carter years which witnessed home interest loans of 18%, and international terrorists began to see America as a really soft target. (How does that guy still gain an audience going around as some kind of a soothsayer?) Anyway, back to teaching. Money was tight, and schools were not provided with enough tax money to pay the bills. The choices were to cut costs, cut salaries, or cut staffing. Teachers are not above eating their own, so they cut costs and and staffing. After all, salaries had already been negotiated, people had financial commitments – not to mention seniority. The fledglings would have to be kicked out of the nest. And were. At my departure, I received a lot of well-wishes, but the veterans weren’t about to take a pay cut to save my job. Business was business. Surviving teachers would have to deal with larger class sizes, and it was time to move on.

Having worked in public education for almost three decades and a couple of recessions, I can’t remember ever taking a pay cut. There were many years when I didn’t get a pay raise, higher costs cut into my earnings, and I never, ever got a bonus for doing a great job. I will not say that teachers are overpaid. On the other hand, as a group (not all individuals) I always felt that we were out of touch with the reality a private entity had to face; that is, money doesn’t grow on the government tree, it is earned through profit. In tough times, a corporation has to make cuts, and that often means personnel and salary – not just materials.

The smaller a business is, the more obvious this reality. Most of us can verbalize the understanding that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Fewer realize that an unbelievable number of small business owners do not take a salary for many, many years, and pour all earnings back into expenses – trying to keep the entity afloat. As companies become larger corporations, things tend to get less personal – people in some departments get cut, and somebody knows somebody who was affected.

In the case of government agencies, public employees are pretty much out-of-touch with the reality of making a profit. Funding is totally sanitized – money is provided through funded mandates; you know – taxation. There is very little sense of realization among my brethren in public education that their paycheck is really coming from their neighbors, many of whom have received pay cuts, or lost their job altogether. While teachers are a highly educated lot of dedicated people (most), I witnessed very few putting 2 and 2 together making the heart-felt connection that we were paid by our community, and had signed up to be public servants – dependent on the well-being of those who stimulated the economy through productivity and profit. On the contrary, we belonged to the most liberal union, the National Education Association, which tends to vilify the concept of capitalism while it religiously endorses candidates who promote more and more taxation.

(Aside: In most states, it is MANDATORY for educators to belong to the union, and pay the dues which are used to continue the cycle. While one can opt out for religious and conscientious objections, your vote in the organization is sacrificed, in the State of Washington you lose your professional liability insurance –which you paid for – and you still pay ALL the operating cost of the organization. That’ll teach you. How ironic that the institution our Founders thought was essential in maintaining a Republic is represented by a union that muzzles and oppresses those who voice dissent.)

Why am I picking on public education? Look at a pie graph of any state budget – who gets the biggest slice of the pie? Typically that goes to health care, e.g. Medicaid. In California, Oregon, and Washington, health costs consume 25% of their budget. After that, it’s education, with California at 15%, Oregon at 16%, and Washington at 23%. Following that, it’s pensions for state employees. In paying for the cost of education, the vast majority of which goes to salaries and pensions for state employees, educators are de facto, the golden boys and girls of our budgets.

Having been on the receiving end of this, I don’t resent it. Education is extremely important, and not everyone has the gifts, aptitude, patience, training, and stamina to face the challenge day in and day out. What I do resent is the detached attitude that public education has toward the goose that lays the golden egg. There is a disconnect. Most public educators are concerned with academic freedom more than community accountability. A rumor that floated around in the State of Washington was that no teacher had ever been terminated for incompetence. Encouraged to leave? Yes. Forced out for misconduct? Yes. Given a schedule that sent a message? Yes. Fired for failing to be able to productively teach? Not that I ever witnessed, nor heard. Why? The administrators were forced to deal with the Union; the Union defended the teacher – regardless. What does this have to do with helping kids? Nothing.

On the positive side, I would say 80-90% of the teachers I worked with in 4 different school districts, in both Washington and California, were dedicated to serving and teaching children. Most were dyed-in-the-wool idealists who put in far more hours than the contract required. They worried over their students, strove to build better mousetraps, and rarely got thanked for their efforts. Truly, I was proud of the effort and professionalism that most of my colleagues exhibited. The other 10-20%? An embarrassment to the profession which should have been drummed out. A black eye to the whole body which created anger among the parents whose children had to suffer through their class.

This notwithstanding, public education needs a revelation in the area of economics. The entity clearly understands accountability of test scores, due to No Child Left Behind (a truly unrealistic policy which has resulted in both good and bad). But most in public education, and the public sector in general, does not appreciate the fact that money does not grow on government trees; it is the result of private businesses which actually produce revenue – not consume it. In a time of economic calamity, such as now, public entities may be asked to make cuts, and not just in materials and maintenance. With so many people being without jobs and people facing pay cuts, is it out-of-line to expect the public’s biggest expense – public workers – to also experience financial sacrifice?

Further, I would challenge all educators – teachers and administrators alike, to send a message to your unions. The government doesn’t pay your salary, it just signs the check. Citizens pay your salary. It comes out of the pockets of your neighbors. If your neighbor is out of work, and more and more people are brainwashed into thinking that the government should continue growing bigger and bigger and bigger, and more and more jobs are outsourced due to crippling business taxation in America – who will produce the income?

Education is essential to the survival of our country. I applaud the efforts of the millions of teachers, administrators, and support personnel who “fight the good fight.” But public schools have drifted from seeing themselves as accountable to a community’s financial contribution, as well as their values and beliefs. Initially, public schools were created to teach children to read – yes, the Bible. Why? It provided the glue which cemented the culture. History and civics were taught to help children know their legacy and responsibilities to society. Schoolmasters were paid directly from the community which hired them. Today? No Bible. For the last 50 years, our legacy has been slammed as university professors convince aspiring teachers that the world hates America and for good reason. Taxes are paid to the federal government and then redistributed back to states for allocation with the all sense of hard earned income being removed from the revenue.

Public schools need to resume the role of being public servants. It time to feed the goose.

Haiti: Another Instance of the Ugly American?

Haiti – A devastating earthquake resulting in early news report saying the number of deaths may go well over 100,000 and the damage will probably take years to correct. Who does the world look to? Al Qaeda? Hugo Chavez? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? China? France? Canada? Mexico? Russia? Who?

Oh, that’s right, it’s America. Let’s see who’s first on the scene from America? PBS? Greenpeace? PETA? Obama? SEIU? Hollywood actors? NOW? The Gay Straight Alliance?

On the news, with humanitarian efforts already in place in Haiti – they’re asking for help from whom? The government or government agencies? Think again. Their exact wording is “NGOs – Non-governmental organizations.” Why? Because from experience, they’ve learned that the money disappears when it gets donated to their government. That if you really want something done, give it to, brace yourself... faith based charity organizations.

At church last night, while acknowledging that we are struggling within our lives to deal with our own, perhaps personal, financial collapse, our pastor informed us a collection would be taken for relief in Haiti. No apologies. No vote. No referendum. No opportunities for questions. We were going to give, not from our surplus, but out of a sense of compassion to those who experienced disaster.

By the way, that money won’t be going to build Christian churches; it will go to help provide relief – in whatever form it is needed. Estimates of Haitians who practice voodoo? Some sources say 50%, others 90%. Will they get help from Americans who think that witchcraft is wrong? Uh, that would be a yes.

I’m glad we’re helping Haiti; it is the right thing to do. At the same time, I wonder how long it will take before we get blamed for doing it wrong, or with strings attached, or with selfish motives. Will our soldiers, sent to help with the relief and security, be blamed for excessive force? Will Chavez claim it’s just another example of colonialism or nation building? Will we not do enough, fast enough? Will we be asked to set up refugee camps and then blamed for the conditions? Are these reasons not to help? Absolutely not.

But the next time you are in the presence of a college professor (or any other person) who starts down the road of how America has a long history of imperialism, selfish motives, and “... it’s no wonder the world hates us,” ask them how our humanitarian efforts in Haiti fit in to that equation. Once they address that, ask them about the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 (Mostly Muslim and Hindu victims), the 1985 earthquake of Mexico City (you know, those Mexicans we’re so racist toward), AIDS relief on the continent of Africa, Hurricane Mitch in Central America – 1998, several earthquakes in India (Hindu) ... oh, just tell them to look up natural disasters on a Google search and pick a few (primarily non-Anglo, non-Christian people). Then ask them why we didn’t just take over the country when they were on their knees.

If Michelle Obama can’t think of anything she has been proud of America for, then I’d wonder if she ever lifted a finger to help or opened her Gucci purse to give out of her want. Jesus said, “To whom much is given, much is expected,” (Luke 12:48). America has been blessed, and faith based organizations have been faithful to heed those words. Our Christian heritage has ingrained a sense of civic responsibility to help those in need, irrespective of their race, creed, color, religion, or politics.

What motivates Americans to help? Money? If that were the case, then these 10 people should be the most generous: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helu, Lawrence Ellison, Ingvar Kamprad, Karl Albrecht, Mukesh Ambani, Lakshmi Mittal, Theo Albrecht, and Amancio Ortega. It wasn’t that long ago, that Gates finally made the plunge to become philanthropic due to the pressure of his wife, Melinda. Buffet has parted with a lot of money to help with population control, including abortion. As for the other 8 richest people in the world, you hear their names all the time on the news in connection to charity, right? Anyway, money doesn’t seem to be the prime motivator for humanitarian aid and relief.

President Obama stated that we are no longer a Christian nation. If that’s the case, and disaster-stricken countries do not want your donations to go to government agencies due to a monetary disappearing act but rather to faith based organizations, I wonder what this means for future acts of charity that have traditionally been based on a Judeo-Christian belief system.

The Societal Cost of Doing Your Own Thing

For those of us who experienced the 1960s and early 70s during our teen and young adult years, the mantra of tolerance and acceptance was part and parcel of our existence. I remember a poster hanging in my then girlfriend’s (now wife) room which read, “You go your way and I’ll go mine. And if we find each other, then it’s beautiful.” How poetic. John Lennon wrote “Live and Let Live.” The saying of the day was “Do Your Own Thing.”

Insidiously, we were being brainwashed into believing that nobody had the right to question the actions of another. People who chose to destroy their brains and bodies with mind altering drugs claimed that it was their choice. Young adults who decided to abandon the uptight Puritanical attitudes toward sex and turn their backs on the concept of sexual intercourse within the context of marriage, proclaimed that they didn’t want morality preached at them. Men who fathered children out of wedlock and women who decided to abort the unborn child shouted that the government had no right to legislate morality. As did the homosexuals grasping the opportunity to come out of the closet. There was, what seemed to be, a universal chorus, of angry and fighting mad activists demanding tolerance, acceptance, and acquiescence of their behaviors. Those who either didn’t agree, or were too slow in doing so, were shouted down as narrow-minded bigots who bred hatred and prejudice within society.

The next 30 years of including tolerance in the curricula of public schools, along with Hollywood spitting out a steady stream of amoral shows, provided the necessary generational attitude shift that brings us to our “high” standards of today. Health classes include anatomically correct models of vaginas, erect penis, and demonstrations for utilizing birth control. A guest speaker from Planned Parenthood presents the means for obtaining an abortion without ever explaining what the mechanics are, such as showing a fetus growing in the womb, or perhaps explaining how the unborn is burned, dissected, or has its head crushed. At break, students can walk down to the health center for pregnancy tests, condoms, etc. After school, the gay and lesbian club will meet. (I don’t think a heterosexual club would be allowed - too hateful.)

Oh, we have become so open-minded and tolerant. But it’s kind of screwy how selective our thought processes have become. We want an “anything goes” society, but can’t understand why health care is expensive.

When people overdose on drugs and don’t want anyone interferring with their choice, who is paying for the ambulance, the emergency room, the hospital staff, and their rehabilitation; do those druggies really have the health plans which pay for that cost? And if they do, does that person’s premium cover it, or do the other subscribers have to pony up more money to cover the irresponsible behavior of the druggy? If they don’t have insurance, and yet all the services are rendered anyway, do the doctors, nurses, clerical staff, maintenance people, etc just forego that portion of their paycheck, or does that cost get passed on to those who pay? And when the druggy gets fired and goes on unemployment, where is that money coming from? Or, if they opt for welfare and government subsidized health care, who pays for that?

When the drug users’ children have learning problems due to genetic problems from the parents drug use, and the schools are mandated to meet their needs, is the parent footing the bill for their choices? And if the children need pharmaceutical intervention for the learning problems, that money is coming from where?

For a long time, nobody was really allowed to bring up the fact that the rampant spread of HIV in this country was due to three main populations: homosexuals who had sexual heydays with multiple partners, IV drug users, and prostitutes. Nope, schools handled the epidemic as if married partners were just as at-risk as everybody else. Since HIV was a political bombshell, our country had to make sure that we didn’t “hate” those who had the disease. We had to go so far as to protect their privacy to the extent that most people in society are not allowed to know if another person has the disease or not - it’s confidential. But we do get to pay for the treatments. In 2006, a WebMD article stated that an average cost of treating HIV for 24 years (the increased life expectancy due to treatment) places the cost at $618,900. In that same year, the Center for Disease Control estimated that, in the United States, we have 1,106,400 HIV positive persons. That puts the cost at $684,750,960,000. (By the way, the LA Times reported, in April 2009, that by year the War in Iraq carried a price tag $694 billion.) Who’s paying for the cost of HIV treatment? Even if every single HIV patient paid for their health insurance (they don’t), they’d be paying only a fraction of the cost. (Right now, I sense some of you slipping back in to thinking that I must be a really hateful person, suggesting that perhaps treatment be withheld.)

No. I see a big difference between someone who is born with, or develops a disease they have absolutely no control over - like cancer, and a person who smokes their whole life, gets cancer, and then gets cadillac health care (not to mention, is allowed to sue the tobacco company). A person who participates in risky behaviors is taking a risk. From the 1960s on, we were taught or indoctrinated into believing that we had no right, as a society, to question the morality or choices of others. Results? Children born out of wedlock, abortions (and the right to public funding thereof), widespread drug abuse, drug babies, HIV, Hepatitis scares, drug wars on the borders and in the cities, television shows that are immoral or amoral, a medical system that has to treat everything under the sun or get sued, and an attitude that health care and insurance is expensive because of corporate greed.

Follow this: A man named Paul smokes marijuana because it is his life and nobody is going to tell him what’s right or wrong. Paul had a job, but it was boring, he showed up stoned, was inefficient and apathetic, and got fired. Paul now gets an unemployment check. Paul wants to have sex but not get married, because marriage is an outdated societal hang-up. One of Paul’s partners, a teenager who’s favorite television show is “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” gets pregnant. The teenage mother has to decide whether to have an abortion or carry the baby to term - both of which cost money. She carries the baby to term and keeps the infant. Paul and the girl get into a legal dispute over child support. The child grows up fatherless and the mother doesn’t have the energy or understanding to really discipline Paul’s son or the other children she has. The kid goes to school and is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder, and put on some drugs. The school writes up an individual learning plan for the child and hires an learning disability assistant to track the kid around and help with the learning difficulties. About ten years later, Paul is having chest pains. His doctor misses a spot on his lungs - cancer. A personal injury lawyer hears about Paul and convinces Paul that the doctor should have caught this. They sue for malpractice, asking for $2 million - knowing the doctor’s insurer will want to settle this out of court, rather than have the clever lawyer trot the unemployed, cancer stricken father who has a son with learning problems, cough up blood in front of a jury. They settle for $1,000,000. Paul gets state assistance for cancer surgery and treatment.

Where is all this money coming from? Paul? His girlfriend? From what source is the school getting money? How about the hospital, and doctor? Where is the public health program getting their money for Paul’s “free” care? How does the insurance company come up with the $1,000,000 for the lawsuit? Why didn’t they just refuse to pay when the doctor wasn’t really involved in malpractice?

If you think this scenario is a stretch, ask people who work in the above mentioned fields - it’s not only common, it’s epidemic.

We don’t need public health care. If there is one thing that should be obvious to everybody, but isn’t, is this: nothing is free. There is no free health care. The more social programs we offer that appear to be free, the more people feel entitled to have it, with absolutely no strings attached. Look at the welfare program. Do you see that system as being a motivator to get back to work? Do food stamps encourage recipients to feel like they have received charity and should buy the absolute cheapest suitable nourishment?

Here’s an observation I’ve made that you may or may not agree with: The more a person has to pay out of their own pocket for something, the more careful they will be with the purchase. Conversely, the more the person sees the benefit or resource as being free and unattached to their own wallet, the more careless they will be with the resource. In my youth, when having medical insurance meant having major medical, we didn’t run to the doctor at the drop of a hat. Now, that a doctor’s visit means a minimal co-payment, frequency is up. And what of the people who don’t have to pay anything and still get public health? Well, ask the people in the profession. That group tends to be “frequent flyers”.

It’s easy to jump on large businesses, such as insurance companies, thinking they are the villain. I wonder how many people understand the theory of insurance. By design, insurance was not intended to cover all out-of-pocket costs. The concept of insurance was to provide protection from catastrophic loss. A sample group of 1000 pay premiums into a pool of money managed by an insurance company. If each insured contributes $1000 per year, the insurance company has $1,000,000 to pay for catastrophic losses for some of the insureds, minus the expenses incurred by the company. It is considered a REALLY good year, if an insurance company makes 2-3% profit after expenses. Profit does NOT go into the pockets of the employees or management; it is re-invested into the company’s investment portfolio, allowing them to diversify and provide more stability for their insureds. Insurance is NOT a savings plan. I’ve heard countless complaints of people saying, “I’ve paid insurance every year and never had a claim! Did I ever get any money back? No!” That money went to people who had catastrophic accidents, their home burned down, or they had an infant born with life threatening conditions. If you and I didn’t get the money back - that’s a good thing - it means we did not have to deal with tragedy that year. More and more, insurance companies are being told by the government that they may not use underwriting standards that “discriminate”. Where will this lead eventually? Higher insurance costs. If an insurance company cannot reward insureds who practice safety, good health practices, prudence, and instead is required to insure everyone, no questions asked, then it will be illegal to offer lower premiums to some. If insurers are forced to offer coverage to people who drive drunk, or smoke, or have swimming pools with no fenced yard, or sign up for life insurance while dying from brain cancer, they will have to get the money from somewhere; guess where.

Is our present health care system perfect? Absolutely not. There are a lot of people, such as myself, out of work, and with no insurance. On the other hand, our present grief over the high cost health coverage and insurance is largely the result of our making, and tolerance for irresponsible behavior from individuals who do not want to be accountable to any moral code.

It may seem that I strayed off-topic - beginning with “doing your own thing” and ending with a discussion on insurance. However, the point is that life has risks and costs. As a society, we have become increasingly tolerant of self-indulgent activities that have led to a very high price tag. The payment, however, is not borne by those who are taking all the risks; the payments come from the pockets of those who have been told to keep their sense of morality to themselves.

For English, Press 1, para español, dos

Having taught in public education for 29 years, I was forced to be a part of the bilingual movement. Although for the last 15 years I worked closely with struggling language learners, the approach public education took in addressing the growing population of Mexican immigrants struck me as backwards, insulting, and counterproductive.

Let’s start with two basic statements and work from there: the first is “United We Stand, Divided We Fall;” the second is a basic military strategy – “Divide and Conquer.” These understandings are so basic, I don’t see the need to explain. Yet, the attempt to make our society bilingual is the antithesis of these.

Addressing the needs of the an “English as Second Language” learner should focus on bringing the student up to speed as quickly and thoroughly as possible in English. For the vast majority of those students, their educational experience in Mexico usually amounted to somewhere around a second or third grade equivalency, and yet chronologically they were placed in an 8^th grade classroom. Not only was their English very poor, but they were reading and writing in their own language at a third grade level. How then, were they supposed to integrate with their American counterparts who had received grade level instruction in math, reading, writing, speaking, geography, history, science, health and more? It just wasn’t going to happen.

(Let me pause for a moment to clarify that I didn’t believe full immersion was going to work either. If I had a second to third grade learning equivalency in America and then moved to Russia, entered college, and hoped to catch up based on being immersed, I wouldn’t stand a chance. So what is the answer?)

Whether dealing with Spanish, Russian, or any other language, immigrants to America, need to become literate in English first. There needs to be intense English instruction for at least two years with standards that are tested for exiting the program. Within that framework, concepts in different subjects can be presented, but the focus is English, English, English and more English.

Instead, we “mainstream” these kids, kidding ourselves that they will catch up. It’s not going to happen. Meanwhile, money is poured into the bilingual education system, wherein candidates are hired based on their ability to be bilingual. Most of those hired into these positions are marginal employees (in my experience) – their main attribute being that they speak Spanish. The Spanish speaking students then have a safety net. The bilingual assistant will be available to a select group of students in order to translate instructions from the English speaking teacher into Spanish. Usually, because of the wide gap in abilities, the teacher has to offer a 3^rd grade version of the 8^th grade expectations in order to allow the Spanish speaking student an opportunity to perform at his or her ability.

Two observations: Can you see why President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” plan was doomed from the start? (And I was a Bush supporter.) What it really meant was No Child Gets Ahead. How can no one be left behind if someone is making progress at a faster pace? If I go to the Olympic trials and the rules are that Brigleb cannot be left behind, the sprinters will be prevented from improving, but worse, be forced to allow me to run the first 50 meters before they can leave the blocks. But wait a minute – for a brief time, I left them behind. Crap! How do we do this? The second observation concerns human nature. If I move to Russia, and have an assistant who will give me all my instructions in English, what motive is there for me to learn Russian? I mean, I’m struggling anyway. Why would I bother? Mr. Smith from America, the RSL assistant, is going to tell me the information in English as soon as Mr. Yevniskov, the teacher, finishes rattling off everything in Russia. I can wait.

Some schools in districts I’ve taught in decided to take the approach that all teachers be bilingual and deliver all instructions in both languages. The gurus argued that they could cover just as much ground, Mexicans would feel truly embraced, plus the cross cultural benefits would be worth it. Tell me, how can you possibly cover the same amount of content by having to present it twice? What demand does this put on the resources available for the taxpayers’ dollars? What happens for the kids whose native language is Russian, Korean, or Farsi? How does this bring us any closer to a society that does not have communication problems? What end does this bring to all social service providers as well as private businesses? It’s a house of cards.

The dirty little secret in education is that the lack of educational progress for Spanish speaking students is not limited to recent immigrants. The reality is that even for kids who were born in the United States, if English isn’t spoken in the home, more often than not, those students will perform behind their English speaking counterparts. At home, they speak in Spanish or Spanglish (a bastardization combining both languages), listen to Spanish music, and watch Spanish sitcoms. At school, they get both. There is an ongoing resistance to embrace English, and that resistance has been fostered by the American public school system.

In turn, services for the adult society follows suit. “For English, press 1, para Espanol, dos.” Driving down the avenue, how many businesses boast “Se habla espanol.”? Do a job search and find out how many jobs say “Spanish speakers preferred.” With a business funded with taxes, or a private business, more and more jobs are rewarding applicants, even marginal applicants, for their ability to speak Spanish. If a business place takes that tact to remain competitive, what motivation is there for the Spanish speaking customers to learn English? And the level of competency we can expect from employees wherein the main requirement was that of speaking Spanish? I’m betting you’ve observed that for yourself.

Nobody, I’ve heard, is addressing this in terms of health care cost. But it’s real. At hospitals and clinics, patients can pretty much insist on having someone help who speaks Spanish. The Spanish speaking employee may or may not be required to competently do other tasks. Schedules for employees are then built around the availability of the Spanish speaking employee. While not necessarily the rule, the Spanish speaking employee may have sentiments concerning illegal immigrants, and under the cover of Spanish, provide loopholes for gaining access to taxpayer provided services. Communications concerning billings must go out in Spanish. Bill inquiries must be handled in Spanish. Etc, etc, etc. In many cases, a person who can communicate adequately in English will use Spanish as a ruse for not being held accountable and the case is discarded, meaning benefits are given, or debt forgiven as the Spanish speaker leads English speakers down a path of deadends. Gee, I wonder – does this raise health care costs?

The insulting part of this? The side of our culture which is pushing for bilingualism believes they are doing this for humane reasons. But what they are doing is nothing short of enabling. It is essentially saying that Mexicans are incapable of learning English to the same level as people from Germany, France, Japan, China, Russia and others. It’s the same tact that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take with the Blacks – turn them into victims. It is bigotry in sheep’s clothing.

Spanish is marginalizing our education system and well as our business environment. Additionally, it runs counter to building bridges within our culture. In my opinion, Spanish is dividing and conquering our nation. It’s one more instance of dismantling the basic “melting pot” concept of bringing people from diverse backgrounds together. How can we proclaim, “United We Stand” if 16% of the population can’t and has not interest in learning the native language, and is projected to be 30% by 2050?