Iowa Aviation Weather...en Espanol

Jay Honeck wrote:
But you don't mind using tax dollars to post your Hispanic-bashing, eh?
Because, make no mistake, Usenet was created with tax dollars.


Now I'm "Hispanic bashing" because I don't want my tax dollars
squandered translating the *weather reports* into Spanish?

Check your temperature, CJ. You may have picked up an unusual strain
of malaria, as you seem to be feverish....

He may be infected with a variant (or mutant) strain of 'political
correctness virus' that's been going around the whole country.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:52:34 -0800, ktbr wrote
(in article ):

Jay Honeck wrote:
But you don't mind using tax dollars to post your Hispanic-bashing, eh?
Because, make no mistake, Usenet was created with tax dollars.


Now I'm "Hispanic bashing" because I don't want my tax dollars
squandered translating the *weather reports* into Spanish?

Check your temperature, CJ. You may have picked up an unusual strain
of malaria, as you seem to be feverish....

He may be infected with a variant (or mutant) strain of 'political
correctness virus' that's been going around the whole country.

No, just the dengue. :-)

Seriously, one of the last things I ever expected to be called was
"politically correct." Next thing you know someone will call me a Democrat
and them's fightin' words.

No, I'm in it for the money. I had my heart surgically removed 30 years ago
when I started being a landlord. Didn't need it anymore. I think having signs
and other government services in Spanish is good for business, good for
trade, and good for freedom.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:
I think having signs
and other government services in Spanish is good for business, good for
trade, and good for freedom.


It may be good for business, but in the long term it is not good for
societal cohesion. This country struggles harder every year to find
things to bind together its many factions... a pretty much impossible task.

I don't believe it is any good for freedom either. It makes things more
complicated and increases the requirements for more government. An why
stop at just Spanish? Why print signs in ALL the languages that are
spoken in the United States? That would now include everything from
Arabic to Polynesian.

ktbr wrote:

I don't believe it is any good for freedom either. It makes things more
complicated and increases the requirements for more government.

you probably think this way for having grown up in a mostly
unilingual society and cannot comprehend that things can work
just fine otherwise; I grew up in a country of fewer than 6 million
people; yet manages to have 4 national languages (3 of which have
official status, i.e., used for all official documents -- the
fourth, spoken by fewer than a few tens of thousands counts five
main dialects, and the main official language counts more dialects
than one might care to count, but I digress :-) -- and this, without
counting broken-english has its fifth neither national nor official
yet widely used language. Furthermore, it is one of the most cosmopolitan
country there is, with a very high proportion of (exotic languages
speaking) foreigners. And you know what? it has been working just fine
this way for longer than USA has been in existence. And there are quite
a few other countries like that with more than one official languages
actually. Surely if tiny countries can pull this off, USA might
have a shot at it too?

--Sylvain

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:54:36 -0800, Sylvain wrote:

ktbr wrote:

I don't believe it is any good for freedom either. It makes things more
complicated and increases the requirements for more government.

you probably think this way for having grown up in a mostly
unilingual society and cannot comprehend that things can work
just fine otherwise; I grew up in a country of fewer than 6 million
people; yet manages to have 4 national languages (3 of which have
official status, i.e., used for all official documents -- the
fourth, spoken by fewer than a few tens of thousands counts five
main dialects, and the main official language counts more dialects
than one might care to count, but I digress :-) -- and this, without
counting broken-english has its fifth neither national nor official
yet widely used language. Furthermore, it is one of the most cosmopolitan
country there is, with a very high proportion of (exotic languages
speaking) foreigners. And you know what? it has been working just fine
this way for longer than USA has been in existence. And there are quite
a few other countries like that with more than one official languages
actually. Surely if tiny countries can pull this off, USA might
have a shot at it too?

With a little tension, no? My primary flying instructor, from
Lausanne, had a few amusing anecdotes about having to speak German at
engineering school in Zurich. "Cracking Coke" (as in distilled coal)
was how he translated the francophone students' description of
conversing in German.

(His Karma was to spend most of his career working for Swissair, in
Zurich and to be married to a Dane.)

Don

Recently, Sylvain posted:

ktbr wrote:

I don't believe it is any good for freedom either. It makes things
more complicated and increases the requirements for more government.

you probably think this way for having grown up in a mostly
unilingual society and cannot comprehend that things can work
just fine otherwise; I grew up in a country of fewer than 6 million
people; yet manages to have 4 national languages (3 of which have
official status, i.e., used for all official documents -- the
fourth, spoken by fewer than a few tens of thousands counts five
main dialects, and the main official language counts more dialects
than one might care to count, but I digress :-) -- and this, without
counting broken-english has its fifth neither national nor official
yet widely used language. Furthermore, it is one of the most
cosmopolitan country there is, with a very high proportion of
(exotic languages speaking) foreigners. And you know what? it has
been working just fine this way for longer than USA has been in
existence. And there are quite a few other countries like that with
more than one official languages actually. Surely if tiny countries
can pull this off, USA might
have a shot at it too?

One might dream that such might be true, but it is highly unlikely. One
can't have an attitude of priveledge if one wants to meaningfully
communicate with others. Unfortunately, I think it may take generations
for most U.S. citizens to understand this.

Neil

It may be good for business, but in the long term it is not good for societal cohesion. This country struggles harder every year to find things to bind together its many factions... a pretty much impossible task.

It wouldn't be impossible if all of us were the same... followed the
same religion, had the same values, and spoke the same language. But
that's not what freedom is about, is it? It is not =necessary= to be
different in order to be free, but it has to be possible.

That doesn't mean that the government should pick up the tab for every
whim. However, the government is there to serve =us=. =All= of us.
That's what we pay taxes for in the first place.

As pilots, we expect accomodation (by the government) for our pastime.
We make noise about how it is an economic benefit for the rest of the
country that GA is supported and unimpeded, and it may well be true.
Much benefit is under the radar. But that's sort of besides the point.
There are many things I do =not= do, that my taxes go to support. I
do not have children, for example, but my taxes support the education
and entertainment of other people's children. I accept that as the
nature of things, as the government is not here =just= for me.

There are many people for whom a Spanish language version of the
government supported weather operation =is= a service. There are
probably many more such people than there are pilots. It is probably
dirt cheap to provide this service, and I certainly do not begrudge it
to them.

Were we to advocate hacking away at non-mainstream services, we may well
find ourselves without airspace to fly in, so that the leaf blower
brigade doesn't have to listen to the occasional 172 overhead.

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

It wouldn't be impossible if all of us were the same... followed the
same religion, had the same values, and spoke the same language. But
that's not what freedom is about, is it? It is not =necessary= to be
different in order to be free, but it has to be possible.

Well there ya go... the word 'freedom'. If in fact we actually had real
freedom in the countyr and LESS government regulation, micromanaging
and forcing rules of so called 'fairness' and political correctness
down our throats then the natural course of freedom WOULD bind us closer.

But that is not what happens... politicians play one socio-conomic
group against another, one income strata against another (remeber the
"two Americas" John Edwards is always talking about?). If you don't
recognize this as a problem you are part of it.

That doesn't mean that the government should pick up the tab for every
whim. However, the government is there to serve =us=. =All= of us.
That's what we pay taxes for in the first place.


The word sir is freedom... freedom from government trying to "serve" us.
The job of government is not to "serve" us.. its job is to provide
national security so that our citizens can thrive using their own hard
work and get to keep as much of their OWN money as possible. Thats it.

As pilots, we expect accomodation (by the government) for our pastime.

Why should I have to have a government "accomodate" my pastime?

We make noise about how it is an economic benefit for the rest of the
country that GA is supported and unimpeded, and it may well be true.
Much benefit is under the radar. But that's sort of besides the point.
There are many things I do =not= do, that my taxes go to support. I do
not have children, for example, but my taxes support the education and
entertainment of other people's children. I accept that as the nature
of things, as the government is not here =just= for me.

Maybe you accept the fact that your taxes should support the education
and 'entertainment' of other people's children but I don't. It is the
responsibility of the parents... a concept that requires self reliance
and belief in the concept of personal responsibility. Publically
requiring people to accept personal responsibility is politically
IN-correct today and you know it.

There are many people for whom a Spanish language version of the
government supported weather operation =is= a service. There are
probably many more such people than there are pilots. It is probably
dirt cheap to provide this service, and I certainly do not begrudge it
to them.

Sure and I'm sure you can find all kinds of people that would LOVE
to have to government (AKA other taxpayers) provide for and support
additional services that benefit them. But that is not real freedom.

Benjamin Franklin stated that "those willing to trade some freedom
for the promise of security deserve neither freedom nor security".

Were we to advocate hacking away at non-mainstream services, we may well
find ourselves without airspace to fly in, so that the leaf blower
brigade doesn't have to listen to the occasional 172 overhead.


You are just wrong Jose... the more responsibilities for so called
"mainstream services" you want to hand over to the government
simply translates into less freedoms you as an individual will have
to chart your own destiny.

"Those willing to trade freedom for the promise of security deserve
neither freedom nor security".

Benjamin Franklin stated that "those willing to trade some freedom
for the promise of security deserve neither freedom nor security".

1: I wasn't talking about security.

2: The quote does not really refer to government excess, which is what
we are discussing. It refers to the impossibility of providing security
without sacrificing so much freedom it's too much.

3: You said, in the same post:

The job of government is not to "serve" us.. its job is to provide
national security so that our citizens can thrive...

So, maybe =you= should read Franklin's quote.

Maybe you accept the fact that your taxes should support the education
and 'entertainment' of other people's children but I don't. It is the
responsibility of the parents...

Well, yes. But it is important to me that future voters, who =will=
decide the future of this country, be educated. You may not like the
state of public schools here, but there are quite a few parents who
would choose not to educate their children were it to cost them. Some
can't afford it, some don't see the value of education, and some want or
need helping hands at home. All of those children will vote one day.

There are some things that are tailor-made for government - among them
law enforcement and national defense. There are other things for which
government is a reasonable venue. Pure scientific research is such a
thing. It helps make our nation strong, even if there are no economic
benefits (which would attract the profit sector), because it makes this
country attractive to brainpower. Then, there are the ancillary things.
It makes little sense =not= to spend a little extra tax money to take
services that the government needs for its own uses and make them
available to the public who paid for them. Weather forecasting is such
a thing. And making that forecast available in the language of a
significant segment of the populace is (IMHO) included in this.

Yes, one must be alert for bloat and corruption. But this is not where
it is.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
Benjamin Franklin stated that "those willing to trade some freedom
for the promise of security deserve neither freedom nor security".


1: I wasn't talking about security.


Yes you are, but you just don't realize it. You advocate the government
providing for the various 'needs' of certain groups thus providing the
security that those needs will be met for them, over an above 'national'
security from attack from an enemy.

There is the security of 'universal' health care, education, housing,
Social [sic] Security, free prescriptions and yes, even translations of
various information services into their native language etc. etc. These
are all forms of security people come to _expect_ to be provided for
them with littel or no effort on their part.

I'll take freedom ... the freedom to stop participating in the Social
Security system and get all the money I have paid in back so I could be
allowed to invest the way I want to. I assure you I'd be much better off
in the long run. But alas, I have no such freedom to do that.

I can see this entire concept of freedom is alien to you so there
is no use discussing further.