Do You Speak Spanish?

So I was in work the other day, when a lady addressed me in an unusual way. I said "Hello," and introduced myself as I do with all our consumers. She responded in Spanish, and asked "Do you speak Spanish?" I answered in English, "Yes." The conversation was very unusual because I do understand Spanish, but I can not talk eloquently or efficiently in Spanish. During our conversation, I chose to respond to this lady in English while she chose to speak to me in Spanish. When the conversation was near the end, she noticed I had not spoken any Spanish, yet I answered all of her questions. She looked at me quizzically, and then asked in English, "If you speak Spanish, then why you no speak Spanish?" I simply replied that I was sorry, but I could explain things to her easier in English. She nodded then thanked me, in Spanish, then left the store. I couldn't help but smirk knowing that she understood everything I said to her IN ENGLISH!!!

So why did I speak English to her? Two reasons; number one, this is The United States of America, and we speak English. Number two, I do not speak Spanish, I understand Spanish, and so I can not talk to you in Spanish. Did I lie to the lady? Yes, I did because I was not fully honest with her. I told her I spoke Spanish, and I do not. I do understand Spanish, but that's not the same.

Why should I speak a foreign language in my home country? Let's think about this for a minute. In America, you either speak English or you are not a citizen. If you are not a citizen, you are visiting my country. If you are going to visit a country and you do not speak the native tongue, you either learn prior to going or you bring a dictionary that helps you to interpret the language spoken in the land you are traveling to. If I was to go to Germany, I would know German. Sprechen Sie Deutsch (Do you speak German)? Ich spreche nur ein bisschen Deutsch (I only speak a little German). But I do not speak enough to get by unless I have a German to English Dictionary.

So what is my point? Why do I have to learn your language if you are in my country? Why do you expect me to speak your language? This is the USA. We speak English, and if you are here, then so should you. Do not expect us to accommodate you, the world does not revolve around you, and therefore you should not expect accommodations just because you breathe. This goes for Americans too. When you travel abroad, you need to know the language of the land. NEVER expect people to accommodate you. Always be gracious and accommodate those who you visit. Think about it this way; when you visit your friends and they have different rules, you accommodate the rules your friend has for their house out of respect. I have a friend who wants all shoes taken off at the door, so I take my shoes off when I enter their house. I don't care about shoes at my house as long as you're not tracking mud in my house. Another person's country is their house, so follow their rules.

Welcome to American, please speak English.

Happy Thanksgiving

Today, my daughter is playing for the last time in Nashua High North marching band. The 4^th annual Turkey bowl is under way; the local high schools, the Titans of the North and the Panthers of south, compete for the city of Nashua. At the end of the first quarter the Panthers are up 6-0.

My wife left to watch the game, and I am home making a feast watching on Channel 99. Being by myself, I am left with quite a bit of time to stop and think about what this holiday means to me, so I thought it would be nice to say my thanks to everyone in my life who made it possible for me to write my blog..

I want to say thank you to my family, starting with my wife for putting up with my passion for politics and supporting my side project. Thank you to my daughter for challenging my thoughts, and sharing my passion. The two ladies in my life are the major reasons I can bring my thoughts to you. Thank you.

Thank you to my parents for molding me into the adult I have become. It was a long tough road, but you stuck it out and showed me the way to lead proper life. Thank you.

I would like to thank my friend Scott for beating me into submission and making me start my blog. Thank you for convincing me. Thank you for telling me I should write my thoughts for others to share. You are a great editor, web advisor, and friend. Thank you.

Thank you for the United States Military. Jennifer Horn says something to the effect of, "Please say a prayer for the good men and women of the United States military who everyday would give up there life for yours." (Check out Jennifer's Thanksgiving day post) I second that statement, and her Thanksgiving post. Thank you to the troops for the great sacrifice you make for us everyday and today. I can not explain to you how much I am in debt to the Military for the incredible job you have volunteered for. You are all an inspiration to me. Thank you to all of the men and women who are fighting for our country.

Thank you to all my friends for talking with me and debating topics. I know I am very headstrong and passionate, but you have all stuck to your guns and made me rethink my positions. This has lead to a greater understanding of the topics that I write about. You have all balanced my views, and helped me with the empathy I tend to lack. You are all great friends, and I could not wish for a better group of friends. I know that if I need you, you will be there. I will always be here for you. Thank you.

Thank you God for my life. It has been a rollercoaster ride, and is never bland. Thank you God for all those in my life, and all the blessings you have bestowed on my life.

Thank you to everyone for all you have done. I love you all, my family and friends. Thank you for you love, and everything you have added to my life.

Thank you for being a part of my life and reading my thoughts,

God bless.

No Merit for Teachers

Teachers' contracts in Nashua have been a major grip of mine over the past 12 months. I have no problem with sitting down and finding a mutually beneficial contract for the teachers of Nashua and the town of Nashua. The problem I have is with the tactics of the teacher's union and teacher's application of those tactics. For some reason, the union and teachers have decided that the best course of action to take would be to extort the tax payers of Nashua. They are using the quality of our children's education to force a new contract. Many people have been asking me how I can make such bold accusations and I have told them all the same thing; because it is true.

The definition of extortion that best fit the description of the teacher actions is the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority. Though I think this is pretty self explanatory, let's break this down and explore the application of the definition.

Crime; the abject neglect the teachers have for students I consider to be a crime. You will understand this point a bit later as I describe the neglect I have been witness to and have heard from the children I work with from the schools. A quick way to explain my observations would be to say I have to teach the students because the teachers are not taking the time to teach the necessary concepts to the children.

The second part is to obtain money or some other thing of value; In this case, the teachers are trying to get both. The teachers are seeking money in the new contract, and also health care concessions from the city. Granted, health care does fall under the money angle, but I don't want to lose sight of the healthcare piece. Further, I believe the teachers have the right to renegotiate their contract with the city, and have no issue with the renegotiation. The issue is the teachers have decided that they would sacrifice the education of our children to force the city into a contract. The taxpayers and children can not do anything to grant the teachers a contract. We have now become collateral damage in the fight between the city officials and the teachers, further our children have become pawns in the chess game the teachers are playing.

The last part of the definition states; abuse of one's office or authority. Earlier I alluded to neglect, and this is where it fits in. The abuse in this statement is the mannerisms of the teachers toward our children and the neglect of the teacher's responsibilities. The teachers have pulled the "work to rule" card. This does not seem to break any laws, but I see it as a breach of duty or better stated, abuse of the power they have with the future of our children. A teachers' job is to teach subject matter to the children within their classrooms. This does not mean the teacher ONLY teaches in the classroom, but rather teaches those who are part of their classrooms.

Again, I relent to the teachers as they are only obligated to bring forth the approved curriculum and to present it to the students while addressing issues of the students during class. I have never known a teacher who would not make themselves available at another time for the children who need extra help. Should a teacher make themselves available for those who need a more in depth explanation? Every teacher I have ever known or worked with has met with students at times that were mutually agreeable outside of normal classroom hours. I admit the teachers of Nashua are making some effort outside of normal hours; they will only make themselves available on one day and time with no flexibility for the students. If a child is not able to meet with the teacher at the teachers predetermined time, that student will not get extra help from the teacher. The teachers do not seem care about the child's ability to be successful with their academics. The only concern the teachers appear to have with their students is using them in their extortion scheme. We could stop the extortion with two words, "merit pay."

Nashua teachers have no problem with our children slipping between the cracks and falling behind. By their actions, the teachers have proven to me that they do not care if your child gets a full and beneficial education. Why should the teachers care, they get paid either way. It might not be the exact figure they are looking for, but they still get paid. I forgot to add that when a new contract is approved the teachers will get their new pay retroactive. How are these teachers going to give our children a retroactive education? This is why I feel the teachers of Nashua do not care about our children: There is no way to give back the lost time. Time is the largest of the opportunity costs, and the students of Nashua are paying dearly.

So You Think I’m a Bad Parent?

Frequently, we hear people complain about how children are raised. I also complain about this, but my complaints differ with the collective voice that we hear about on a daily basis. People often try to explain away the actions of our youth. They say, "It's just kids being kids … It's not their fault," and the worst one, "They never had a father (or real family)." What happened to accountability? Where is the world I grew up in where kids were responsible for what they did whether it was right or wrong? As a child, I was well aware of what my parents expected of me. I followed the rules or met the consequences for disobedience. My parents taught me how to act and converse from a very young age. I knew that when speaking to adults, we were to call them "Mr." or "Mrs." Using words such as "Please" and "Thank you" were parts of fluid conversation, not a mandatory statement to get something from someone.

So when did we lose focus on parents actually parenting? Why are we trying to be our child's friend and not their parent? As a child, I knew I could play a game with my mom, or fish with Pop (I called my father Pop), but I was never confused with the idea that my parents were my friends. Time with my parents was special, and it was a great opportunity to learn from the best (I thought they were the best, and I was right!). I could trust Mom and Pop, and I could tell them anything without fear. Sure, I could play a game with my friends or go fishing, but it wasn't the same. My friends were the ones who judged me, and turned on me when the chips were down. My parents were always there, even when I wasn't being a "good boy." They were my greatest, most dependable allies in my journey to adulthood. Friends were never reliable, but my parents never faltered.

Commonly, a child's negative actions are blamed on external forces and not on the internal. I will not subscribe to the idea that a video game or a cartoon can cause a child to act irresponsibly. When I was growing up, I watched a cartoon coyote fall off cliffs and get smashed with huge boulders. I never tried to drop large rocks on people, or shoot someone after playing a violent video game. The difference between children of earlier generations and children of today is this; we were brought up with values, morals, and accountability. I was taught right from wrong, and my parents showed me what morality and responsibility are. My actions reflected on my parents, and more specifically my parents' ability to be parents. I bring up my children the same way as my parents raised me. Therefore, I should expect my child to act in the same manner as I would. My children should be respectful toward others, and be accountable for their action. Essentially, if my child was to act in a manner that was not socially acceptable, I have not done my job as a parent. It is my obligation to raise my children so they will grow into proper young adults.

One small disclaimer here, I have a blended household, and my biological child does not live with me. I personally feel that my biological son is not headed down the correct path, but I do my best to instill my values morals in him his mannerisms. I can only influence him in small increments as I only see him on the weekends. I have a responsibility to my son, and therefore I must do everything in my power to ensure my son knows right from wrong. Though I am not the primary parent in his life, I feel it is my obligation to teach my son to grow up with the correct morals, values and accountability. I might not be as influential with him as I am with my two bonus children (Stepchildren for those of you who do not know the term bonus-child), but I am responsible for showing all three children the correct way to live their lives.

Now, if it makes me a bad parent for being strict, having guidelines, expecting manners, and punishing bad behaviors, then you will never understand what it means to guide a child to become successful. I don't care if an "expert psychologist" doesn't agree with my parenting style, they are wrong. My children and I are the proof that they are wrong. Look at the local news and you will see what happens when kids are not raised with positive influences or held accountable for their actions. In a recent story, a minor in Rhode Island was caught transporting alcohol. The parents of one child said, "Kids being kids," and asking for the cops to look the other way. You look at all the kids that have gone wrong and you will notice one of two things; either they have limited guidance from their parents, or they have a "parent/friend." A "Parent/friend" is the parent who let there kids do anything they want, and "talk" about the issue with their child. There is no punishment, and no expectations. So when the child grows up, they believe that all they have to do is talk about what happened, and everything is better. The child never expects to be held accountable.

Let me think about how I might handle one of my kids if they transported alcohol. Um … how would I phrase this … (imagine a raised voice and a firm tone, not yelling) GO TO YOU ROOM! YOU ARE GROUNDED INDEFINITELY!
When I calm down, we can TALK about possible parole. I don't care why you did it, give me your cell phone, the computer is blocked, and I cut the cable to you TV. I took the speakers from your stereo, and your DVD player. Oh, and while I am at it, I'm borrowing the IPod I bought you. I hope you like country music because while you're grounded it will have my music collection! While I am thinking of it, here is your new chore list; clean my house top to bottom. I am going to the state prosecutor to make sure your punishment make you think twice before disobeying me or breaking the law again.

This is my main point: A child's actions are a reflection of a parent's ability to parent. You are the reason your child becomes who they are. By your actions, you are the one who influences who your children become. A parent should be a disciplinarian, a manager, a councilor, a therapist, and a teacher. There are many other things we become when we become parents, and I could not possibly list them all. But as parents, the most important thing we become is accountable for our children.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 3

Personally, I think Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians in the world, though I have never and would never vote for him. Nothing seems to sticks to the "Teflon Clintons", no matter how bad it may be. If we learned anything from Bill, it is that not even a major mistake is enough to topple a Clinton. So effectively, Hillary has the best political adviser at her disposal. This means that by her own actions, name recognition, and Bill's advice, she can lose only if she makes a major mistake. Hillary continues to prove this as she avoids taking a stand or decides to alter her statements with the political tide.

The latest example of Hillary twisting in the wind came forth at the latest debate. When Hillary was asked if she was for or against the Governor of New York giving out driver licenses to illegal immigrants, she said at first she was for it. In case you missed it, by proxy she was for it when she said, "… So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap." She was then rebuked by her colleagues, and in the next breath, she was against such a proposal: "I just want to add that I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize what (why) Governor Spitzer is trying to do it, and we have failed, we have failed." Chris Dodd again jumped at the bit, and interjected with, "no, no, no, you said... you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Hillary challenged Chris with an outright lie, stating, "no… no I didn't, Chris." I am sorry, but yes …yes you did, Hillary. But why are you so upset about being caught in a lie? It is not news when a Clinton lies, but you're acting like someone just said you broke one of the Ten Commandments. Oh, wait, that was your husband… who you're still married to… who you knew cheated on you… numerous times….

Moving on, she was then asked unequivocally if she supported the New York Governor's plan and she responded with, "This is where everyone plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense; what is the governor supposed to do?" Then John Edwards hit one out of the park when he wanted to "add something to what Chris Dodd (said because he) didn't want it to go unnoticed." He pointedly stated that, "Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes." John might not be the most eloquent man on the stage, but his comment really drove home the inconsistency of Hillary's statement. Will this be a negative thing for her? Maybe, but this won't stick to Hillary, nor should this be a complication for her while running for the nomination. Want proof? This 3.5 minute video will show how little people are affected by Hillary and her "two minute flip-flop." Hillary will be representing the democrats for 2008 and we still don't know where she stands.

Rudy may be running as a Republican, but he is not running to the right for the primary. He has been fairly liberal on a number of social issues (immigration, pro-choice, pro-gun control, gay rights). He seems to be running to the center during the primary, and is popular enough with conservatives to get their vote in a general election. Right now, it looks like Republicans will take anyone who qualifies as Republican so long as they think that person can beat Hillary and/or Obama. I can't shake the feeling that Rudy isn't running to the center from the right, rather he is actually left of center. He may be just slightly right on some issues, but the social inconsistencies make me very hesitant. Rudy became America's Mayor in September 2001, and is now a household name. He passes as a Republican, and handles the spotlight well. He may not be the best Republican by his record, but I think he can hold his own against Hillary. As I have said, he is a bit liberal and Republicans just won't vote for Hillary. This is a very attractive combination for a Republican running for election in 2008. Conservative Democrats and independents will vote for Rudy and maybe he can capture the moderate and slightly liberal independents. There are some good points to draw the conservatives closer to him during the general election; he is tough on crime, and that may transpose to a tough military leader. Rudy was about getting the job done when he ran New York City, and that might be an approach that would work well with Iraq and also the war on terror. If Rudy is half as tough running our military, there is a good chance he can end the current conflict we are having with the Islamic jihadists. Then again, he might metaphorically knock down a beehive, stirring up the nest, to remove it from the building.

One other quick point on Rudy; one of his recent commercials personifies my greatest fear. Rudy has stated, "…I want people to look at those and say if I agree with most of them, then this is a person who can bring them about. And if they disagree with it, they should vote against me, because I am going to bring it about." So what Rudy is saying to me is that he wants to do it all his way. So Rudy, are you willing to make concessions to pass legislation? When you are president, how thick will you make the log jam of legislation? Again, I think we need a leader who knows how to make concessions, and works well with others. I do not believe headstrong bullheaded policies are good for the nation, but I do believe that mindset will cause polarization and hyper-partisanship. Rudy might win the nomination, but I still don't think he is the right person for the job.

As you all know, I am having a hard time leaving Mitt Romney out of the mix here. I can't help but think what Mitt could do as President. As I stated in my last post, Mitt can do it all, but I also feel that he can handle the Iraq situation with greater finesse than any other person on either stage. Mitt has the right idea when it comes to immigration, taxes, extremists, and health care. Mitt is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, and would be a great president. Rudy might be a good president, but Mitt would be great. I have heard every candidate, and met many of them. There is no question in my mind that the next leader of the free world should be Mitt Romney. I may not agree with everything Mitt has to say, but I do agree with him on every issue that I find important.

Considering my feelings about the next election, and who will be the nominees, there is one slim silver lining; we will have a Republican in office next. Unless Mitt Romney can overcome Rudy Giuliani in the primary (I am crossing my fingers and praying real hard for Mitt), ladies and gentlemen, your next President of the United States of America is Rudy Giuliani.

The Next President of the United States of America Part 2

In the last post, I decided who I thought would be the Democrats nominee. To get the Republican nominee, I have to remove the dead weight on the Republican side. To do so, I will remove Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul. We also have to remove one who is moving up to viable status, Mike Huckabee. You may argue with my choices for elimination, but let's be serious; none of these guys have a chance to win their respective parties nomination, not even Mike Huckabee.

As for the major candidates on the Republican side, a haggard John McCain has only been marginally significant at the debates until late. McCain has taken a stronger stance on a few key issues. This has made his agenda line up with the conservative party's mentality. Unfortunately, I fear it may be too little too late for him change his mind. To come out and say, (paraphrased) 'yeah I was wrong on immigration and NOW I am listening,' is not good enough for me. I feel that when he addressed his change of heart, McCain forgot to add that he is listening because you are not voting for him. As of late, McCain has been looking livelier on stage. He is now pushing the conservative agenda. Yet when we look back at his recent record and we see that McCain has gone completely in the wrong direction for the heart of the conservative party. McCain has also changed the game plan in his bid for nomination. He has decided to deflect the flip flop allegation by moving the heat to Mitt Romney. McCain has gone to great lengths to show Romney as a foe conservative by Mitts actions as Governor of Massachusetts. Mitt had to work with liberal legislators in Massachusetts, but in the senate you have to push the agenda of your party, not the agenda of the opposition. McCain seems to have forgotten this as evidenced by campaign finance reform, Illegal immigration, and gay marriage (you have to go back to early 2005 to find this one). I am not saying one should not make concessions in the senate, but rather push bills that are aligned with the party mindset.

Fred Thompson landed with a thud. The poor boy hit the ground, but forgot to start running. He was wholly unimpressive with his first debate being fairly vague yet comical. Fred threw out a few comedic one liners without taking any major stands. Thompson was using the January dodge maneuvers of the early primary candidates. At his point in the game, he should be taking the bull by the horns and talking about the specifics that voters are looking. Thompson has been better with specifics, but not with his charisma. I have been reading article that tell about crowds that didn't even know when Thompson was finished with his speeches. I saw Thompson here in Nashua, and was not moved by anything he said. If Fred had not have spoken he would have received a better reaction. To be honest, every time I have heard him speak, or read a transcript, he loses points in my book. If Fred was not on Law and Order, I do not believe he would be any higher in the polls than Tom Tancredo. In another strange twist of events, Thompson seems to think he should be picking apart Giuliani. If I was speculating as to Thompson's game plan, I would say he is going after Giuliani to make headway in his stalled campaign. By attacking Giuliani, he is making himself relevant to the voters and media outlets. His speeches and debates do not seem to resonate with conservatives; therefore attacking Giuliani will get the headlines he can not generate on merit alone. I am not sure if this is the right move, but he is getting more air time, and sound bites.

The man who shows the most promise in the Republican race is Mitt Romney. Romney has been solid from day one with his family values, conservative mindset, and his ability to work with both sides of the aisle. His record shows parts of liberal legislation as he worked together with the heavily Democratic legislature of Massachusetts. Romney used the line item veto to cut out excessive spending and to bring forth a fiscally conservative bill to the populace of his constituents'. The legislature did over-ride many of his vetos, but keep in mind that Massachusetts has a legislature that is 85% liberal. You must also note that when a Governor veto's a bill, you can not count it against the Governor when a veto is overridden. To put this in perspective, if your car is stolen, and involved in an accident, it is not your fault. Sometimes you need to make concessions to get what you want. Hyper partisanship causes a log jam for legislation and Romney knows this. In other words, Romney has the conservative values that conservatives crave, he can work with both sides of the aisle to the elation of the independents, and he also will allow a concession which appeases the liberals. We need Romney now because he can work legislation though, and he would work the hardest to get the job done. Not to say the others would not work their hardest, but the others candidates hardest is Mitts easy pace. The man never breaks a sweat because he thrives on pressure and success. Romney has the record to show he would be effective as president. Unfortunately, I have not predicted Mitt as the nominee, though he would be the best candidate and President. If nothing changes, Mitt only has a 49% chance of becoming the nominee for the Republicans. Even though Mitt can, and would, mop the floor with Hillary Clinton, Rudy has a very good chance of winning the nomination. Though I know Romney should win hands down, in the contest of Romney VS. Rudy, I can't say Romney would win.

… And the Republican nominee is Rudy Giuliani …