Texas House Bill: No Gay Foster Parents

 

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

 

 

AUSTIN, Texas ? Texas (search) could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

 

The ban is part of a bill to revamp the state's Child Protective Services (search) agency. It passed 135-6 with two abstentions and now heads to the Senate.

 

The foster parent amendment is not included in the Senate version of the legislation, but that body could accept the House bill.

 

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual," said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

 

If the House version of the bill becomes law, Texas would be the only state to prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (search) Lesbian and Gay Rights project.

 

Arkansas had barred gays from becoming foster parents, but a judge said the law was unconstitutional in December.

 

Under the Texas House bill, anyone who applies to be a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated must say whether he or she is homosexual or bisexual. Anyone who answers yes would be barred from serving as a foster parent. If the person is already a foster parent, the child would be removed from the home.

 

Talton wouldn't comment Wednesday, but during debate on the bill the day before he said, "I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent."

 

Eva Thibaudeau, a social worker, said she and her partner of eight years have adopted four children and have served as foster parents to 75.

 

"I am just so hurt and surprised, especially now (when) we are facing an ongoing crisis of not having enough resources to take care of foster children," she said.

 

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 children could be affected.

 

"The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in those homes," he said.

 

Republican Gov. Rick Perry does not want the child protection bill to get bogged down with a "side issue," though he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

 

The bill to overhaul the system follows recent child slayings that occurred after caseworkers investigated suspicions of neglect or abuse and decided the children were safe to remain with their parents.

 

It would give all of Child Protective Services' foster care and case management duties to private companies, which already manage 75 percent of foster homes in Texas.

The part of this that baffles me more than anything is that children that have been in the same household for years are being taken out of that home, or at least that's how I interpret this. This is, in many ways, a new level of cruelty.

Reason number #97897 why I think religion is bad. This is what happens when you teach that gays are evil sinners who want to recruit children.

 

Placing homophobia above the welfare of kids is just mind bendingly ignorant, even by Texas standards.

A 135-6 count for this decision? That's rather depressing, on many levels.

Part of me thinks something decisive at least is happening when gay rights issues are at the forefront of current events, regardless of what's happening, but this, to me, is far worse than banning marriage or civil unions. The reason is that because now, you're fucking with the lives of kids who very well may finally feel like they belong because they've been living with the same gay foster family for years.

 

Sad that it happens at the same time that Connecticut lawmakers legalize civil unions.

They were talking about this on Howard Stern's show this morning and Robin made the point that gay couples probably make the best foster parents since they know everyone's watching them anyway.

 

Hell I'm sure we all know some heterosexual couples we wouldn't let within 50 miles of a foster kid, should they be allowed to have them just because there's no mansex involved?

Davy Crockett has a lot to answer for.

 

Do the people behind this nonsense not realise how insanely bigoted it makes them look ?

I live in Texas and Talton, that bigot in the article, stated after the quote in the article that he does not believe that people are born gay, that it is a choice and that people can say they are born that way but he knows it is not true. I guess he's a doctor (sarcasm) because he knows what most researchers don't. Yet, social service spending has been cut drastically in the last few years.

 

The goal of the bill was supposed to be to improve social services and increase funding and pay for social services since we have had a large amount of infant deaths lately due to hostile guardians. Adding the ban on gay foster parents is clearly a political move to appease the far right. There is no other reason it would be included in the bill since it has nothing... absolutely nothing... to do with the issue at hand... whuch was the safety of children at risk.

I'd rather have responsible caring gay parents raise children than irresponsible uncaring and abusive straight couples drag up their own offspring.

Do the people behind this nonsense not realise how insanely bigoted it makes them look ?

That's what bothers me the most about this, actually. That the morons responsible for this are so blind to just how much straight parents nowadays completely suck at parenting. You would think that they'd recognize that since gays parenting isn't very common, that by default they'd pay more attention to their kid(s) and do the right things to show they can be successful parents and be proud. But no, we couldn't burden our own authorities with anything resembling reason... so let's just leave it at "gays are immoral even if their behavior is better than the average straight person almost all the time". Though I could see them spoiling their kids more =P

I have nothing to add except to echo the comments of those above.

I can't believe this shit. It's absolutely insane how the current administration has decided to crack down so much on gays and porn, and it's only spreading throughout the rest of the country. I'm taking a Communication and Gender class right now, and a lot of the stuff we're reading is about gays and lesbians. Quite honestly, they are proven to make better foster parents than heterosexual foster parents. Not to mention that the children they raise are NOT any more likely to "become" gay.

 

I've seen a whole lot of different types of foster parents, and if I had my pick, I'd choose a gay couple over a straight one any damned day.

It's not very wise to associate gay foster parenting and porn in the same argument. While I agree with you, that is the last thing gay foster parents need to be associated with.

That's what bothers me the most about this, actually. That the morons responsible for this are so blind to just how much straight parents nowadays completely suck at parenting.

I don't think that gay people should be banned from adopting kids, I don't really care one way or the other, frankly and I'm equally ambivilant about gay marriage. We have gay marriage here and not much has changed for better or worse. So please note that before anybody starts attacking me.

 

Re: What I quoted

 

I think that it would be more acurate to state that many straight parents suck at it. My parents, last I checked were bpth straight and some how managed to raise two pretty decent human beings. Society is general is what sucks and that waht's leads to shitty parenting. That and the incredible amount of single parents and children with no fathers leads to poor parenting. Many parents feel that the TV is a great babysitting tool and prefer sitting their kids in front of it to reading them books and teaching them to speak properly and such as my parents did when I was little.

 

You would think that they'd recognize that since gays parenting isn't very common, that by default they'd pay more attention to their kid(s) and do the right things to show they can be successful parents and be proud. But no, we couldn't burden our own authorities with anything resembling reason... so let's just leave it at "gays are immoral even if their behavior is better than the average straight person almost all the time". Though I could see them spoiling their kids more =P

I don't think it's at all a reasonable conclusion that gay parents would be better than straight parents symply because they're gay. That's insane. That would be like saying that because there are more white parents in America that they are better than Chinese parents or something. It's a specious point. People are people, some are white, some are Chinese, some are gay, some are straight. And most importantly some are responible and some are not. Being responible is a main key to good parenting in my opinion, being straight or gay has nothing to do with it.

 

The only argument I could really see against gay adoption is that the kids would be ridiculed at school, but the same could be said about any number of other things, including giving your child a goofy name so it doesn't really matter.

I think that it would be more acurate to state that many straight parents suck at it. My parents, last I checked were bpth straight and some how managed to raise two pretty decent human beings. Society is general is what sucks and that waht's leads to shitty parenting.

Agreed

 

That and the incredible amount of single parents and children with no fathers leads to poor parenting. Many parents feel that the TV is a great babysitting tool and prefer sitting their kids in front of it to reading them books and teaching them to speak properly and such as my parents did when I was little.

 

Yes and no. Yes, single-parenting can be a detriment in effectively raising your child. Problem is that this isn't a debate on the merits of single parents. I agree that having the TV raise your kid is a detriment. This is partially caused by the burden that married parents feel when it is necessary for both parents to work more hours at their job than the time they spend at home with the kids. There are economic strains that sometimes necessitate this.

 

I don't think it's at all a reasonable conclusion that gay parents would be better than straight parents symply because they're gay. That's insane. That would be like saying that because there are more white parents in America that they are better than Chinese parents or something. It's a specious point. People are people, some are white, some are Chinese, some are gay, some are straight. And most importantly some are responible and some are not. Being responible is a main key to good parenting in my opinion, being straight or gay has nothing to do with it.

I agree with that as a blanket statement. There are shitty parents of all race, color and religion. Here is the difference. Being gay, and wanting children, almost dictates that a gay couple must be proven to be the perfect parents in order to be granted the right to adopt or foster or whatever. Because of the discrimination gays receive, it is as if they have to try ten times harder than straight couple in order for society to validate their claims that they would be worthy parents.

 

Your last phrase nailed it... it doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, it matters to the religious right, and they are cashing thier checks. I haven't posted the link but it is in full force here in Texas. First the banning of gay foster parents and now the proposal to ban gay marriages here as well by passing a state amendment to the Texas Constitution.

I agree with that as a blanket statement. There are shitty parents of all race, color and religion. Here is the difference. Being gay, and wanting children, almost dictates that a gay couple must be proven to be the perfect parents in order to be granted the right to adopt or foster or whatever. Because of the discrimination gays receive, it is as if they have to try ten times harder than straight couple in order for society to validate their claims that they would be worthy parents.

I agree in theory, but practice and threory don't always match up. Theoretically gay would be better because they would feel the have something to prove, I would suggest that straight foster parents have something to prove as well. And that on a percentage that gays and straights are just as likely to be irresponsible, abusive, or whatever.

 

I realize that this isn't exactly what you are saying but when I hear arguments along these lines it irritates me. Just being a minority of any kind doesn't automatically make you better at anything than the majority and the reverse is true as well.

 

The way I would sort this shit out is not through the legislature (the legislature in MA held up the gay marriage decision and defeated a death penalty bill contrary to what the people of the state wanted) or the Supreme Court, I would let the people vote on it. As I mentioned in another thread my main beef with Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage decisions is who made them. In the former 9 people made a choice for 200 million (or whatever the population of America was in 73) and in the latter 7 people made the choice for 6 million. I failed to see either of these topics mentioned in the Constitution and as such they are not ones to be made by a court who only has that document to use as a barometer. The people should be the ones making the decisions as to what is socially acceptable, seeing as though they are the ones who make up society, not 7 or 9 judicial oligarchs.

 

Bringing a bill to amend the constitution is probably the best way to see where the public stands because an amendment has to be voted on by the people. Last I checked we lived in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Here comes the Bush bashing....

I was in foster care for the majority of my teenage years and I spent time in a number of different foster homes, group homes, etc. All of my friends were in foster care as well, since that's how I met them.

 

My best friend Adam's foster father was a gay man and I don't think I ever met someone who cared as much about his kids as much as he did. He certainly did care more than any of the foster parents I had.

 

I really don't understand why people would want to ban gay people from being foster parents.

I agree in theory, but practice and threory don't always match up. Theoretically gay would be better because they would feel the have something to prove, I would suggest that straight foster parents have something to prove as well. And that on a percentage that gays and straights are just as likely to be irresponsible, abusive, or whatever.

 

I realize that this isn't exactly what you are saying but when I hear arguments along these lines it irritates me. Just being a minority of any kind doesn't automatically make you better at anything than the majority and the reverse is true as well.

You missed the point completely.

 

Show me any instance in any state of abusive gay foster parents. I am sure I could pull up several examples of "straight" abuses.

 

 

The way I would sort this shit out is not through the legislature (the legislature in MA held up the gay marriage decision and defeated a death penalty bill contrary to what the people of the state wanted) or the Supreme Court, I would let the people vote on it. As I mentioned in another thread my main beef with Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage decisions is who made them. In the former 9 people made a choice for 200 million (or whatever the population of America was in 73) and in the latter 7 people made the choice for 6 million. I failed to see either of these topics mentioned in the Constitution and as such they are not ones to be made by a court who only has that document to use as a barometer. The people should be the ones making the decisions as to what is socially acceptable, seeing as though they are the ones who make up society, not 7 or 9 judicial oligarchs.

And if we would have let the Southern states vote on slavery, what would there decision be? Segregation? Civil rights?

 

Just because the majority feel something is right, doesn't make it so. Sometimes right is right and wrong is wrong. Banning gay parents from being foster parents is wrong.

I agree in theory, but practice and threory don't always match up. Theoretically gay would be better because they would feel the have something to prove, I would suggest that straight foster parents have something to prove as well. And that on a percentage that gays and straights are just as likely to be irresponsible, abusive, or whatever.

 

I realize that this isn't exactly what you are saying but when I hear arguments along these lines it irritates me. Just being a minority of any kind doesn't automatically make you better at anything than the majority and the reverse is true as well.

You missed the point completely.

 

Show me any instance in any state of abusive gay foster parents. I am sure I could pull up several examples of "straight" abuses.

 

 

 

I didn't miss any point, read the post again. I bolded the part I think you may have missed. My point was that on a percentage basis (comparing hard numbers would be unfair consering how many more straight foster parents there are) that gays and straights alike would probably be just as likely to be shitty parents.

 

Furthermore I commented that similar types of arguements where people tend to go overboard in their defense of minorities by convincing themselves that minorties are superior symply because they are minorties is stupid. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) to suggest that one group of people is inherantly better or worse than any other. I find these arguments to a form of "reverse" discrimination. I quoted "Reverse" because I hate that term, discrimination is discrimination no matter who does the discriminating, there is no "reverse" needed except to take a pot shot at whitey.

 

The way I would sort this shit out is not through the legislature (the legislature in MA held up the gay marriage decision and defeated a death penalty bill contrary to what the people of the state wanted) or the Supreme Court, I would let the people vote on it. As I mentioned in another thread my main beef with Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage decisions is who made them. In the former 9 people made a choice for 200 million (or whatever the population of America was in 73) and in the latter 7 people made the choice for 6 million. I failed to see either of these topics mentioned in the Constitution and as such they are not ones to be made by a court who only has that document to use as a barometer. The people should be the ones making the decisions as to what is socially acceptable, seeing as though they are the ones who make up society, not 7 or 9 judicial oligarchs.

And if we would have let the Southern states vote on slavery, what would there decision be? Segregation? Civil rights?

 

Just because the majority feel something is right, doesn't make it so. Sometimes right is right and wrong is wrong. Banning gay parents from being foster parents is wrong.

I agree that right is right and wrong is wrong, however I think that 280 million people voting might be a better barometer than 9 people who answer to no one, basically cannot be fired, and as such have no reason to enforce the document which they swore they would. So we get horseshit decisions that have no basis on the Constitution.

 

I think that if a national election were held that segregation would have ended and that afirmative action never would have been started. The country would be better off it.

 

The South knew that with their population being smaller that they didn't have the power to impose their backward will on the North, they decided that they wanted their slaves, who they treated as animals to be counted as people, the North, rightfully baulked at this show of hypocracy and the 3/5 deal came about. The South, for a variety of other reasons, including Abraham Lincoln's "oft expressed wish that all men, everywhere be free" and their issue with the decision that the new teritories would be free. They seceded and then were defeated in the Civil War. By this point the North, was either opposed to slavery or ambivilant to it and the practice was dead in the water. In fact many states in the North had already done away with it prior to the War and the one's who hadn't yet didn't practice it in any great numbers. I'll readily cede that a large part of it was because of geography and that the North was more industrialized than the agriculturally based South, however I don't judge all things based on intentions. The North would have voted slavery away. ::Awaits corrections::

 

As far as segregation, in a national election it would have been abolished, the entire North and West did not practice this shit and would have voted it away. My dad, who grew up in Terre Haute, Indiana (the home of ISU, Larry Bird's college) told me that he and his family went to DC once and he was stopped by someone from trying to drink out of a "colored" water fountain, he was amazed that people couldn't drink out of the same fountain. Even a backwater place (my Dad's description, not mine) place like Indiana in the 50s realized how stupid this shit was.

 

I don't know why I get into this shit anymore, I really don't enjoy it anymore.

I didn't miss any point, read the post again. I bolded the part I think you may have missed. My point was that on a percentage basis (comparing hard numbers would be unfair consering how many more straight foster parents there are) that gays and straights alike would probably be just as likely to be shitty parents.

Even percentage wise, I am still waiting to see the cases made against gat foster parents.

 

Furthermore I commented that similar types of arguements where people tend to go overboard in their defense of minorities by convincing themselves that minorties are superior symply because they are minorties is stupid.

No one here has said any such thing. You are comparing sexual orientation to race. I wasn't.

 

There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) to suggest that one group of people is inherantly better or worse than any other.

Ageed, although white male "intellects" of the late 1800s tried their damndest to prove otherwise.

 

I find these arguments to a form of "reverse" discrimination. I quoted "Reverse" because I hate that term, discrimination is discrimination no matter who does the discriminating, there is no "reverse" needed except to take a pot shot at whitey.

History has shown that "whitey" as an institution deserves plenty of criticism.

 

History lesson

Here is where a clear form of miscommunication has come into play.

 

The original topic at hand... Texas banning gay foster parents... or another topic that is being visited (ban on gay marriages)... is being played out at the state level. Not the national level. At the state level, there ar eno doubts that several states in the Union would still prefer segreegation... maybe still prefer slavery and any other abuse on the human condition.

 

At the national level, I tend to agree with you on most of what you said except affirmative action. As a white male, you automatically have an advantage in this society that minorities don't.. in the hiring process, in salary earnings, in promotion. You can delude yourself into thinking that big business would do the right thing but they never do. I am a white male who was hired by my school over about a dozen other applicants. If I had lost the position to a black female because we were both equally qualified but they needed a more diverse staff, i would have no problem with that because I know I am still have more of an advantage than any other racial group (or women for that matter) in finding another job. Affirmative action, in theory, is horrible but it is absolutely necessary because history has proven that if business is allowed to discriminate, they will.

 

I don't know why I get into this shit anymore, I really don't enjoy it anymore.

You do it because someone is challenging your core beliefs. It is the same reason I do it. It just happens our beliefs are natuarally opposed to each other. If we continue to talk politics and political and moral ideology, we will continue to bump heads. I still love the WWF comps though

I didn't miss any point, read the post again. I bolded the part I think you may have missed. My point was that on a percentage basis (comparing hard numbers would be unfair consering how many more straight foster parents there are) that gays and straights alike would probably be just as likely to be shitty parents.

Even percentage wise, I am still waiting to see the cases made against gay foster parents.

I can't think of any, but to think that gay people would be any less likely to abuse their foster kids than straight people is insulting to straight people. It's on the same level as saying that blacks are more likely than whites to drop out of school because they are black.

 

Furthermore I commented that similar types of arguements where people tend to go overboard in their defense of minorities by convincing themselves that minorties are superior symply because they are minorties is stupid.

No one here has said any such thing. You are comparing sexual orientation to race. I wasn't.

I realize that it isn't the same thing but the arguments made one way or another are very similar. I don't make statements like "whites are superior to blacks beacuse they are white" because it's incorrect. Implying that gays are better parents than straight people is equally incorrect.

 

There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) to suggest that one group of people is inherantly better or worse than any other.

Ageed, although white male "intellects" of the late 1800s tried their damndest to prove otherwise.

OK, a bunch of retards 100 years ago said it.

 

I find these arguments to a form of "reverse" discrimination. I quoted "Reverse" because I hate that term, discrimination is discrimination no matter who does the discriminating, there is no "reverse" needed except to take a pot shot at whitey.

History has shown that "whitey" as an institution deserves plenty of criticism.

Sure, however to lump me, someone who has done nothing to discriminate against anyone based on race, gender, or sexual orientation is not fair. Just because certain people of my race did something wrong does not make me culpable. If your uncle killed someone I wouldn't call you a killer. I guess I just don't have that "white guilt" deal that a fair amount of peope seem to have. I only feel guilty if I have done something wrong.

 

History lesson

Here is where a clear form of miscommunication has come into play.

 

The original topic at hand... Texas banning gay foster parents... or another topic that is being visited (ban on gay marriages)... is being played out at the state level. Not the national level. At the state level, there ar eno doubts that several states in the Union would still prefer segreegation... maybe still prefer slavery and any other abuse on the human condition.

I know its a state level, but Texas is not banning gay marriage, gay marriage is already banned. I went to a national level on slavery because that is really where it was decided, had the public revolted against the aboltition of slavery the institution would probably still exist. The next president would have overruled the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment never would have been ratified.

 

At the national level, I tend to agree with you on most of what you said except affirmative action. As a white male, you automatically have an advantage in this society that minorities don't.. in the hiring process, in salary earnings, in promotion. You can delude yourself into thinking that big business would do the right thing but they never do. I am a white male who was hired by my school over about a dozen other applicants. If I had lost the position to a black female because we were both equally qualified but they needed a more diverse staff, i would have no problem with that because I know I am still have more of an advantage than any other racial group (or women for that matter) in finding another job. Affirmative action, in theory, is horrible but it is absolutely necessary because history has proven that if business is allowed to discriminate, they will.

Affirmative action is governmentally enforced discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. If I lost out on a job to an equally qualified person because I didn't have the proper skin tone I would be livid and if weren't white and male I would be able to sue and win a ton of money. Once again, what have I done to deserve being discriminated for? Not a fucking thing! What has the average minority done to deserve special treatment? Because they were born a certain color? I have this crazy notion that people should be judged on their merits, not their color and I think the government might be best set to set that example by abolishing their discriminatory laws.

 

As a white male I have no advantage over anybody, as a person of reasonable intellect and education I have an advantage over all those who have less. My dad had nothing when he was a kid, he was white and he busted his ass to give more to my sister and I. He worked hard and succeeded.

 

I don't know why I get into this shit anymore, I really don't enjoy it anymore.

You do it because someone is challenging your core beliefs. It is the same reason I do it. It just happens our beliefs are natuarally opposed to each other. If we continue to talk politics and political and moral ideology, we will continue to bump heads. I still love the WWF comps though

Yeah probably, I love the ROH and other stuff you sent me. Who'd have think that wrestling was all it takes to unite the political divide.

average minority

Oxymoron.

The irony is that laws like Affirmative Action exist because of the history of discrimination against anyone, well, not a white male. For white guys to claim that somehow leveling the playing field is unfair is hilarious.

 

If you've never heard of anyone not a white male being discriminated against, congratulations. You managed to find a Pleasantville type Utopia to live in.

By complaint with affirmative action is that it usually helps the segment of minorities that do not need help.

The irony is that laws like Affirmative Action exist because of the history of discrimination against anyone, well, not a white male.  For white guys to claim that somehow leveling the playing field is unfair is hilarious.

 

No, it's not hillarious it's discrimination. Why should the playing field be "leveled" at my expense? I never did, nor supported any type of discrimination, I live in one of the first, if not the first state in the union to abolish slavery, I live in a state that didn't have "colored" water fountains. I've done nothing to deserve being discriminated against and as such I oppose any attempts to do so.

 

If you've never heard of anyone not a white male being discriminated against, congratulations. You managed to find a Pleasantville type Utopia to live in.

Huh? I've heard cases of every single race being discriminated against and nobe of them are right. However the Left's undying hatred for white men has gone way overboard and probably slowed the disapearance of racism from our country. Left wingers are supposed to be "progressive", yet affirmative action is possibly the most reactive and regressive piece of legislation that they've ever managed to foist on the American people. I think the Left needs to realize that most white people don't share in their guilt over what their ancestors may or may not have done and as such don't feel that they should be punished for it. White people who still discriminate because of race are a tiny minority of the race as a whole in this country, yet the Left still wants to carry on as though we are still living in the 1960s.

 

Come to think of it the Left really has never left the 60s. Every war that happens is compared to Vietnam, a war unjustifiably blamed on a Republican who ended it after it was started by JFK and fucked up by his successor, the worst President this country has ever had. They still play the race sacrd as though racism is still a major issue in the country. They still have their strange split personality disorder when it comes to claiming to not trust the government yet wanting to use it as a means to run people's lifes and steal their money so they can try to recreate the failures of Cuba, China, and the USSR's socialist policies, only this time "it will be done right, we promise." The fact that the backwards system cannot be done right is apparently of no concern to the those who hate the "rich" symply because they are, yet worship Bill Clinton and Bono who are both incredibly wealthy. A system based on punishing the successful to prop up the unsuccessful is doomed to fail and can only be implemented by totalitarian rule. I generally can at least see where people are coming from no matter how nutty their beliefs but the Left baffles me a lot with some of the shit they come up with and the lies they perpectuate and try to pass off as fact. I;m sure I'll see a ton of examples of the Right doing shitty and stupid things, listed in defense of the Left, rather than an actual defense of the positions.

 

I used to really like debating politics, until it became apparant that I was dealing in reality and the here and now and those on the other side were living in a fantasy world and refused to back up what they said with anything other than insults and catchphrases.

 

In college, a kid I knew started a conservative newsletter called the "Common Man" it was not very well written and he was an isolationist so I disagreed with him much of the time, but he was attempting to get another opinion out there. He would put the newsletter in front of the main Poly Sci room at school and invariably someone would pick up the stack and throw it away "in protest." He also put a few "ads" (as it were) on the Poly Sci bulletin board as well as a few Thamas Sowell essays that he printed off www.Jewishworldreview.com. They were taken down by a professor, who was just slightly to the left of Lenin on the the grounds that they were not stamped with the approval of the college, but not befoer they were vandalized with such witty sayings as "Haliburton" and "Naxi" and "racist." I would assume the person who wrote the latter didn't bother to even look at the essay because if they had they would clearly have seen that Thomas Sowell is black. These were vadalized and then removed, while all types of wacky left wing shit stayed up there until the paper turned yellow and was unmarked by anyone.

 

The left likes to portray the right as boorish, stupid, bigoted, and close minded, yet some how the Right wingers at my college managed to avoid vandalism and censorship, while the "nuanced, intelligent, and open minded" Left wing just couldn't help themselves. It's a pretty typical response of those with the maturaity level of a four year old to tear down something they disagree with. An adult would have no trouble with opposing views being expressed and would have less trouble defending their own against them.

 

In school it waa always 15 against one and I always ended up getting shouted down and having the language I used picked apart, rather than what I said. God forbid I ever refer to a black person as black, for the sake of saving a precious few syllables so that I could actually finish a sentance before being insulted. It was during that time that I came to the realization that the left as a general rule tends to be the most boorish and close minded people I've ever come across. 15 people couldn't pool their brains to come up with a single fact to disporve what I said so they shouted me down and called me names. Almost none of them bothered to listen to what I said, prefering to listen to how I said it. I tend to be very straight forward and that turns a lot of the hypersensative Left off. They would listen for me to use whatever the buss word of the day and collectively pounce on me for that. I think it was MLK who said that he had a dream that "one day all men would be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin." I agree and I havea dream when all men would be judged on the content of their speech, not the tone or verbiage they use to express it. I realized long ago that it will never happen.

 

I enjoy an intellectual debate but wasn't even able to get into one with a fucking PHD from the other side of the political sprectrum. That's why I don't find it fun anymore. It's like agruing with a Klansman about race relations. I say something and then get a bunch of perjoritives spewed back at me that have no relation to what I actually said.

 

I had to take an "American Presidents" course, taught by a French Canadian who hated America, btw. The first day we were asked who we thought was the greatest President the country ever had. After all the JFK and FDR nonsense, a black girl claimed LBJ was the bets President because of AA, I asked her what she thought about his Vietnam policies and said that he was probably the worst President we've ever had and she gave me a blank look and then cahllenged me to name better Pres. Without hesitation I said Lincoln and then defended my position. She shot back with some absurd claim that Lincoln didn't free the salves, that he was in fact a slave owner, and that he was a proponent of the practice. All of those are patently false, yet it was left up to me, not the Professor, who knew better to teach this girl American history. The last day of class we were to give a 15 minute speech about the President of our choosing. She chose LBJ, and the was nary a mention of Vietnam and I obviously chose Lincoln. I derected the entire speech at her as I disproved every single claim she had made 3 months prior. She, being a mature young women, didn't say a thing, shot me a dirty look and stormed out of the classroom in a huff. Rather than open her mind to the truth she prefeed to live in her fantasy land where whites never did a postive thing ever in this country. That was the turning point for me, that was when I realized that there was no point to it, she was confronted with the truth, there was not a factual error or a single editorial statment in my speech, yet she chose to continue believing lies and no doubt told her friends about the "racist white guy" who dared question and then *GASP* disprove her bullshit.

I'm a white man, and a Democrat on social issues, but I think Affirmative Action is a complete pile of shit. I think that policy has to go, but if a black man feels that a less qualified white guy got a job that should have been his, then let him sue the company and see what happens. Buy I don't see why *I* should get fucked over if I'm the most qualified for a job, and only not get it because I'm white and the policy says that there needs to be a fair balance. Currently, businesses and colleges accept some people of all races, all religions, etc. regardless of their skills mostly because they are afraid of being sued for discrimination. How long until a white guy gets smart and sues somebody? I don't understand why in the year 2005 we can't look past skin color and just give the most qualified people the jobs and the spots in college. I just don't see how forcing companies to hire a diverse group of people, simply because they are diverse and for no other reason, helps anybody.