Two adversaries agree on one topic of discussion

Ihave never met frequent letter writer Art Sholty, nor would I know him if he was standing next to me at a checkout line, but we have often been adversaries expressing opposing positions on local issues in letters to the editor.

This time, however, I support Mr. Sholty's views expressed in a letter that appeared in the Feb 12 issue of the Bulletin concerning the use of English.

I, too, resent that we are becoming a bilingual nation and that government and businesses are catering to a particular segment of our population. When my Italian ancestors came to this country, no one went out of their way to cater to their language. They had to learn English, and they assimilated into theAmerican culture yet still retaining their own ethnicity at home.

Sure, stores in the local Italian neighborhoods in Newark two or three generations ago favored the native tongue of their kinfolk, but one would never find signs in any of the major department stores written in Italian, or German, or Polish or any other language — not even Spanish.

Everything was written in English and there was no choice of languagewhen using the phone. It was English or nothing. As Mr. Sholty aptly points out, why aren't there buttons to choose any other languages besides Spanish?

In my opinion, the quickest way to divide a nation is to have two separate languages. Look what almost happened in Canada, where there was an effort to split that country between English- and Frenchspeaking peoples. Is that what America is destined to see?

What I don't understand is why our two supposedly intelligent U.S. senators, [Frank] Lautenberg and [Robert] Menendez, refuse to supportmaking English the official language of the country. Could it be that looking for the Latino vote is more important to them than the long-range future of the country?

So, Art, while we may continue to disagree on many other issues, here's one on which I will stand by your side.
Sal Petoia
Brick