You don't need to be a citizen in any state to do the things you list. Even foreigners who don't live in the U.S. can buy property or go to the hospitals. Some states restrict driver's licenses, but no state requires citizenship or even a valid visa to get insurance or go to public schools. Besides voting, citizenship's most important benefit is that it generally can't be taken away from you. The government can refuse to renew a visa or green card. Also, a citizen can sponsor someone else's visa (for example, a fiancée or parent) but a green card holder can't. That's really important for a lot of folks.

But generally, I suppose I just lack the linguistic pride for English. I simply don't understand what it really accomplishes to officially mandate a language that is already the standard. In communities where it is not, the majority of members aren't citizens either with the exception of Puerto Rico and its diaspora. Would you sport a Spanish fluency requirement for Puerto Rican residency? A lot of English-speaking Americans establish Puerto Rican residency for tax purposes.

No, it's not about me. But you made a blanket statement. I'm telling you that your comment may be true about whatever environment you work in but it's not universal. Your attitude and response to being called out on it makes it sound like you are part of the problem.

Economics provides a very strong incentive for English to become standard without any external coercison. Historically, languages other than English have been used primarily to serve first generation immigrant communities. It's not that anybody isn't "hopping to", it's that language acquisition is extremely difficult for most later in life. It's no different from Italian and German communities in the 19th century who continued to speak those language even as their children adopted English wholesale. Even in Europe, English is fast becoming the continental standard language because there is a strong economic incentive to have a unified language for business. In the Netherlands or much of Germany (and Switzerland that matter) it can be difficult to find someone who does NOT speak English.

You are confusing two different issues regarding the "racism" charge. Nobody thinks it's racist for English to become the standard language of communication (and required in schools). What is racist (or at least bigoted) is actively discriminating against people because of the language they speak. If you accost strangers speaking a language other than English to each other with a demand that they speak English, you damn well better expect to be accused of racism. That is hardly a new thing. I note that most of the "This is America, Speak English" types tend to demand that foreigners speak English to them when they are abroad, or even that Puerto Ricans speak English.

English is the de-facto national language. But language in the U.S. has always been evolving. In 1776, the land mass that is now the U.S. would have spoken English, French, Spanish, and myriad languages of the Native American tribes. To this day, there are French and Spanish speakers who are direct descendants of people who lived in the landmass that is the U.S. today and spoke those languages and continued to pass those languages to their children. There are communities in the Southwest that have primarily spoken Spanish going back to the 17th century. That's not even getting into Puerto Rico which has primarily spoken Spanish since the 16th century and has a significant portion of the population that is not fluent in English.

What exactly is a law enforcing English supposed to accomplish other than recognizing an already extant homogeny? As for businesses (like a mall), they will advertise in Swahili if that's how they think they can maximize their customers. Not every business should feel the need to advertise to every customer. However, most businesses in the U.S. will advertise in English to reach the most possible customers. There is very little risk that monolingual English speakers are ever going to be left out in any meaningful way as long as the vast majority speaks it as the primary language. That would be the case even if we literally declared "open borders."

People who talk like this seem to think that national "identity" is a fixed thing. But no nation has a ever had static population with fixed traditions that never evolved upon contact with different cultures. Allowing immigrants in does not mean losing Swiss-ness, but it may mean a change to what Swiss-ness means. However, that has always been changing in ways big and small over decades and centuries. I would expect that anybody from any nation would experience serious culture shock if they went back in time 100 years in their home country. Plus, Switzerland has always been multicultural and multi-lingual. French speaking Switzerland is very distinct from German-speaking, which in turn distinct from Italian speaking.

My kids are in classes of 20-30 in the local public school. I'm not sure where they are doing 40-50, but that's not sustainable.

The underlying idea of a high-speed connector between SF and LA wasn't a bad idea. The distance is just right for such a project and could help bridge the divide between Northern and Southern California. Likewise, the engineering and construction doesn't seem to be an issue. Plenty of companies with experience in high-speed rail projects like this that can build for a reasonable price.

The problem is regulatory paralysis. When every mile of track needs 23 environmental review hearings and 11 eminent domain lawsuits, you have a recipe for cost overruns and delays. Before they even started, they should have worked on permitting and regulatory reform if they wanted any hope of completing the project at a reasonable cost.

There are a few things like multiplication tables that require rote memorization, but most things shouldn't. This is especially true now that basic facts are available instantly anywhere.

History classes shouldn't waste time making kids memorize long lists of dates or names. Memorizing the extract dates of the battle of Gettysburg is pointless if you don't understand the broader context of the Civil War and the battle's role in shaping it.

"Schools are nothing but babysitting dens until the kids turn 18"

If this is your attitude, I'd suggest another career path. My public-school education was more rigorous than college and the graduate degrees I later received from famous name schools. I could not have excelled later without that foundation. They were far from "babysitting dens". If they are, then the educators should not expect parents, students, or state policies to fix it. The problem is in the mirror.

That seems like it makes sense for older kids (high school) who can be more self-directed. But for elementary or middle-school age kids, having a teacher to interact with as they are learning seems far more likely to have a good result.

My Algebra teacher in Middle School did it this way, and it was not a good fit for me at the time. I didn't have the discipline to learn the material independently, so when class practice happened I was often not far along enough to ask meaningful questions. Somone needed to walk me through it.

When my kids were babies, they had no interest in screens. If a screen was on in the background, they might glance at it but it wouldn't hold their interest. It wasn't until ~age 2 that they would actually watch a screen and age 4-5 that it would hold their interest for more than a few minutes.

Is that not typical?

OPEC has just been a front for the Saudis for a very long time. Only they really have the ability to meaningfully meter output.

Algeria, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela all basically produce as much as they can regardless of OPEC. Their output is mostly determined by ability to attract investment, security (or lack thereof) and geopolitical obstacles (as in Iran). Kuwait and UAE have the ability to meter, but they are too small in total output to matter. Russia has informally worked with OPEC on quotas, but they have likely lost the ability to meter output now that Ukraine is attacking its export faculties.

They were presumably paid for that work. Their parent was free to give them equity if they earned it.

I think more directly obsevable factors are more important. An old building is likely to smell musty and have visible signs of decay. Humans are evolutionarily programmed to be wary of anything exhibiting signs of death or decay, as it can be a sign of danger.

What's weird in this case is he's paying off Total, which makes most of its money from OIL. They WANTED to build a wind farm.