Texas' GOP Reveals 2012 Election Platform, Puts Onion Writers Out Of Work

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Foreword:
For those who lack the ability to parse the English language properly and will get pissy over the topic title due to it, the part of the title following the comma is a joke based upon how absurd the things in the following document that the writers of The Onion, a satirical website, couldn't make this crap up. The vast majority of my comments on this are going to be relatively

The platform

Almost all of this can be quoted and mocked but in the interest of time I won't and shall allow you the pleasure of the laughs and the pain of your palm slapping your face while you read it for yourself.

Let's kick this shindig off with a few easy targets from PRESERVING AMERICAN FREEDOM

Affirmative Action- Inasmuch as the Civil Rights Movement argued against using race as a factor in American life, affirmative action reintroduces race as a divisive force in American life. The Republican Party of Texas believes in equal opportunity for all citizens without regard to race or gender. To that end, we oppose affirmative action.

We believe everyone should have an "equal" chance so we'll get rid of the thing that tries to make it so black and brown people are as equal as us.

Protection from Extreme Environmentalists - We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

We don't need no environment. Trying to ensure that we don't do stupid shit like poison our water supply with methane or heavy metals and making sure our air is breathable... FML these people.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) - We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior.

Freedom people! Can you smell it yet? I do and it smells like steaming bullshit.

Voting Rights- We support equal suffrage for all U.S. Citizens of voting age who are not felons. We oppose any identification of citizens by race, origin, or creed and oppose use of any such identification for purposes of creating voting districts.
Voter Rights Act- We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

Equal suffrage for all! But not actually having it in law because then we'd have to actually do it, that would be silly.

After that it devolves back into creepy religious based nationalism to round out that section. The next starts with a glorious little diatribe about the evils of abortion and other nonsensical things but this really catches the eye

Morning After Pill- We oppose sale and use of the dangerous "Morning After Pill."

/holds up citation needed sign the size of the moon

UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child ― We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Foster Care ― We support eliminating bureaucratic prohibitions on corporal discipline and home schooling in foster homes.

These two are taken together because it's mindbogglingly fucking stupid. I can't even come up with something witty to put here.

EDUCATING OUR CHILDREN

American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty - We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups. Students should pledge allegiance to the American and Texas flags daily to instill patriotism.

See what I mean about putting Onion writers out of a job? It's hilarious and saddening/scary at the same time.

Controversial Theories - We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable (--ed: sic) scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

Evolution and climate change are controversial? Well I guess this is deep in the heart of Texas.

This next one is a doozy.

Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

They oppose critical thinking. Let that sink in a moment. The Republican party of Texas opposes critical thinking... Hitting children A-ok, critical thinking bad. I cannot fathom the thought process behind this though I'm sure our resident Texan Republican (Seekster) can explain how they came to it.

There's just so much in this that I can't deal with it all tonight. So my fellow escapists have at it and laugh, weep, argue amongst yourselves but most of all think of the poor writers who have their material stolen by these people.

...........
Captcha: Topsy Turvy
The captcha has a sense of humour today.

But...did you expect anything else?

Oh, don't forget making it more difficult to get divorced.

You know, we have a party in Sweden that we consider extreme rightwing because of their nationalistic ideas, conservative ideals and almost xenophobic ideals. Yet the republican party in Texas manages to make these guys look like they are moderate and reasonable nationalist conservatives... And that scares me, a lot.

I can only thank god that I live in Sweden and my employer doesn't have the right (or feel the need) to ask me about my sexual orientation or that I had to stand up and heil... I mean salute the swedish flag every morning.

I'm all for getting rid of affirmative action, it's a racist policy that gives certain races preference over others. I also agree "multicultural curriculum is divisive" because it treats people differently based on culture. If we all merged into the same culture it'd be one less thing to fight about.

It was bad until the end, then it was terribad. No critical thinking? I may have to vote Democrat...

This is what you get when you insist on both a purity in party ideology and letting psychos and corporate sociopaths join your party.

Xan Krieger:
I'm all for getting rid of affirmative action, it's a racist policy that gives certain races preference over others.

The trouble is that a lot of people of non-white race don't have equal opportunity to whites. You want to get rid of affirmative action? Fix that first.

I also agree "multicultural curriculum is divisive" because it treats people differently based on culture. If we all merged into the same culture it'd be one less thing to fight about.

I have a feeling you wouldn't be saying that if you were being asked to merge into someone else's culture, so it's a hollow sentiment.

And what is the problem with multiculturalism? If you try to come between me and my poczkis, there's going to be a fight. And how exactly does teaching people that there are other cultures and we should be nice to them entail "treating them differently?" It sounds to me like your opinions on the subject were given to you by someone else. So who was it?

Take it away, Ilya.

image

So much WTF, even Osaka notices!

image

I mean, seriously. Opposed to critical thinking? I have no words!

I'd say I don't want to live in this state anymore, but then I'd lose my chance to at least try and put people with functioning brains in office. Wait, Yotsuba? What are you doing with that--

image

--gun....

The critical thinking probably has something to do with "Secular thought." And the supposed "liberal indocrination" of our kids in schools. The key two words at the end at Parental Authority. Basically they're appealing to Christian Mom and Dads who are getting pissed that they're kids are starting to grow up and say "Hey, this Church thing is kinda bullshit."

Can't be having kids thinking for themselves, they might not wanna go to Church anymore.

There is all kinds of crazy in that pdf. then there is all kinds of stupid.

Transportation corridors. "oh please mr. fed, dont pay for and build a highway through Texas that will bring money through our state from all who use it. We dont want a free highway that will bring us business so small business owners can sprout up along it and make money!" All kinds of stupid there.

free speach to the clergy. Ummm what happened to upholding the constitution part at the begining of the pdf? Oh wait thats 3/4 of the pdf and merging church and state.

Supporting motherhood. "Get in the kitchen and make me a sammich woman!" Dunno about you but thats what i read there.

I could go on but too much fun is bad for people according to the message I am reading there...

Luke Gomez:
The critical thinking probably has something to do with "Secular thought." And the supposed "liberal indocrination" of our kids in schools. The key two words at the end at Parental Authority. Basically they're appealing to Christian Mom and Dads who are getting pissed that they're kids are starting to grow up and say "Hey, this Church thing is kinda bullshit."

Can't be having kids thinking for themselves, they might not wanna go to Church anymore.

As Bill Maher once joked, "For most people, the scariest three words in the world are something like, 'Look out, bees!' or 'Angry pit bull!' For conservatives, the scariest three words in the world are, 'Here's an idea.'"

The opposition to critical thinking bit is probably the worst because it lies at the basis of the other problems, doesn't it? It also, in their own words even, denotes their very authoritarian mode of thinking.

EDIT:

DrVornoff:
For conservatives, the scariest three words in the world are, 'Here's an idea.'"

Aren't those four words? Or do contractions not count?

To be fair it's not all Christians that are pulling this shit, it just seems to be this one-two combo of Christian and Conservative that just seems to lap up this institutionalized ignorance. Are all Republicans like this? Of course not. Are too many like this? Absolutely.

Honestly I'm not entirely sure it's crazy to want Affirmative Action to removed.. I personally think its wrong to discriminate against/for people doesn't matter if its "positive" or "negative" discriminating

For people who oppose critical thinking, they sure seem critical of quite a few things currently in place.

The affirmative action one is right though, as affirmative action discriminates those individuals who aren't in a situation where their "majority status" can benefit them[1] have the same needs as the favoured minority individuals, yet don't get the same help.

[1] Either due to being "minority" in some other way that ostracise them - openly dendrophiliac or whatever - or being in a subcultural environment that doesn't reward or perhaps even punish what is majority status in society at large.

Xan Krieger:
I'm all for getting rid of affirmative action, it's a racist policy that gives certain races preference over others.

Yes, I'd agree... so long as it was replaced by a non-rascist policy to aid all those who are in need of financial support and not only just the very worst off group.

-----------------

Insane Party is insane.

The Onion will now merely need to step up to completely abserd comments... like building a network of giant space lazers...... oh fuck, that was actually considered... Or banning all sex? I mean... no sex at all... would that be a serious consideration for the Republican party???

................................. my cynical brain said "give 'em 10 years".

This just in: tea-party-heavy state republican party is fucking insane. More news at 11.

You know, I wish I knew of a better response to this. Surprise is kinda... Wrong. We know what republican legislatures are in favor of, and we know that people will support it. We know that there are some real morons out there; people who see critical thinking as the work of the devil (or worse, use that belief to further their own goals). We know that the average republican either doesn't believe in climate change, or doesn't believe that we should actually do anything about it. So why are we still surprised?

Well, I think it's because surprise is the only response that's really decent. We can be shocked and outraged, or we can be jaded and accepting. Jaded at our fellow human beings for being so misguided, jaded at the political party they vote for for being manipulative and evil, and jaded at the world for sitting by and watching us self-destruct.

"We want lots of babies! Babies everywhere!"

"But uh...what if they don't have parents? Or their parents aren't well off and need government assistance?"

"SCREW THOSE BABIES, WE WERN'T TALKING ABOUT THEM!"

Is it just me, or does is this starting to sound almost disturbingly like "Ingsoc" from 1984? Granted these are insane free market conservatives rather than socialists, but the opposition to critical thinking and stuff is all still there.

crimson5pheonix:
It was bad until the end, then it was terribad. No critical thinking? I may have to vote Democrat...

Except nothing currently taught in American public high schools can remotely be categorized as critical thinking. It is merely labeled such.

I like how they're freely admitting they hate critical thinking because it undermines religion.

Also

Controversial Theories - We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable (--ed: sic) scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

They've been too accurate in their wording here, this probably wouldn't cover ID like they think it would. The key is that they said "scientific theories" and "as new data is produced".

They'll probably just ignore that though, since by writing that they're already encouraging critical thinking.

Affirmative action, to the best of my knowledge, hurts the issue of race more than it helps at this point in time. We already have laws against racial discrimination as it is, and employers that would choose to, much less be willing to risk the public backlash of, discriminate based on race are extremely few and far between.

And then there are extreme environmentalists who would quite literally prefer to send us all back to the stone age, dooming 90% or more of humanity to die in the process. Opposing them is just as important as opposing the oil tycoon that doesn't give a damn. I for some odd reason doubt that the Texan GOP intends to stop there, but still.

I was prepared to defend a few more than just those two points, but then I finished reading the rest of the OP and thought "fuck em, they deserve what's coming"

Discussion value?

I found this more interesting -

Patriot Act - We urge review and revision of those portions of the USA Patriot Act, and related executive and military orders and directives that erode constitutional rights and essential liberties of citizens.

If you dig through enough platforms you will find stupid shit in them. 99% of that platform is uninteresting. Of the other 1% most of it someone has taken out of context (who would support taking away farmers land so that foreign interests can own a road in Texas) or is basic political disagreement (getting rid of Affirmative Action).

TheGuy(wantstobe):
We believe everyone should have an "equal" chance so we'll get rid of the thing that tries to make it so black and brown people are as equal as us.

Actually it does not make people equal. It imposes an artificial "equality" that does nothing of consequence.

We don't need no environment. Trying to ensure that we don't do stupid shit like poison our water supply with methane or heavy metals and making sure our air is breathable... FML these people.

I suppose you did not read the word EXTREME in that sentence did you?

Equal suffrage for all! But not actually having it in law because then we'd have to actually do it, that would be silly.

The Voting Rights Act is redundant with the 15th Amendment in place.

These two are taken together because it's mindbogglingly fucking stupid. I can't even come up with something witty to put here.

On the UN act there are significant questions about sovereignty

As for the other home schooling is good and corporal punishment is not necessarily stupid if, as in all things, moderation is observed.

See what I mean about putting Onion writers out of a job? It's hilarious and saddening/scary at the same time.

It is stupid but it is not weird. Most countries do something to that effect.

As for multiculturalism, it is nationalistic but it is not Onion material. It is simply an opinion.

Evolution and climate change are controversial? Well I guess this is deep in the heart of Texas.

There are lots of holes in the theory of evolution. Why exactly do animals that are so utterly useless survive while others do not? Basically evolution theory, as is, is too simplistic. There is more to it and that is why it is still a THEORY and not a LAW.

As for climate change, yeah, why it is happening is controversial. You can read about how the collapse of Harappa and the Indus Valley Civilization was due to environmental change several thousand years before the first combustion engine. And of course archeological samples prove that climate change has been happening for as long as we can date it.

They oppose critical thinking. Let that sink in a moment. The Republican party of Texas opposes critical thinking... Hitting children A-ok, critical thinking bad. I cannot fathom the thought process behind this though I'm sure our resident Texan Republican (Seekster) can explain how they came to it.

Fancy language aside they are basically saying that we need to stick with current educational models. That is it. What you are reading is just a fancy way of saying we need to maintain our current educational doctrines (which might I add are in use all over the world) and stay away from "newer models".

There's just so much in this that I can't deal with it all tonight. So my fellow escapists have at it and laugh, weep, argue amongst yourselves but most of all think of the poor writers who have their material stolen by these people.

Why don't you try actually reading what they said instead of just demeaning them?

farson135:
Fancy language aside they are basically saying that we need to stick with current educational models. That is it. What you are reading is just a fancy way of saying we need to maintain our current educational doctrines (which might I add are in use all over the world) and stay away from "newer models".

Let's look again at that passage:

Knowledge-Based Education - We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

I highlighted the important part there. "Have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs." This isn't just about educational models. This is about schools teaching abstract thinking which, as these people see it, could cause students to question their religious beliefs and the things their parents tell them about how they should see the world (because, as we all know, school should never prepare children for becoming adults responsible for their own thinking and actions). It has nothing to do with education and has everything to do with them trying to assert their religious dominance on the education system.

farson135:

Evolution and climate change are controversial? Well I guess this is deep in the heart of Texas.

There are lots of holes in the theory of evolution. Why exactly do animals that are so utterly useless survive while others do not? Basically evolution theory, as is, is too simplistic. There is more to it and that is why it is still a THEORY and not a LAW.

You're not really about to go down this road, are you? Fine.

1. The words "theory" and "law" have precise and specific meanings in scientific nomenclature. A law is a description of a phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of the mechanisms by which that phenomenon is brought about. Evolution will never become a scientific law because it's a completely different thing.

2. Evolution is one of the most well-researched and confirmed theories in all of science. It's more well-understood than gravity. The amount of evidence for it is staggering, from fossils to genetics to actually observing it in the lab. Why do "useless" things stay behind? Because evolution is a blind process. It doesn't care what's optimal - it cares what works.[1] Mutations are mostly random, but they tend to stay around if they are either beneficial or (in the case of any number of vestigial organs such as the appendix) not a hindrance.

Please, try to do some research before you go spouting uninformed opinions.

[1] To be more accurate, natural selection is the name for this process, but the two are heavily intertwined.

farson135:
There is more to it and that is why it is still a THEORY and not a LAW.

No it's a theory because to put it simply you cannot express it in a simple terse mathematical terms (i.e. 2nd law of motion 'F = ma') Likewise whereas a law explains something that happens a theory often explains why.

There's a disconnect among what theory, law, and hypothesis mean among the general public in regards to science. Don't perpetuate it, even if you wish to delude yourself that disbelief of the theory is a reasonable position it's uncalled for.

Godavari:
Please, try to do some research before you go spouting uninformed opinions.

Bohemian Waltz:
There's a disconnect among what theory, law, and hypothesis mean among the general public in regards to science. Don't perpetuate it.

Beat me to the punch. The English language does have words that can adequately describe how much it pisses me off when people who know fuck all about science shoot their mouths off about science.

Lilani:
"Have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs." This isn't just about educational models. This is about schools teaching abstract thinking which, as these people see it, could cause students to question their religious beliefs and the things their parents tell them about how they should see the world (because, as we all know, school should never prepare children for becoming adults responsible for their own thinking and actions).

Yes it is about educational models. Most forms of education follow their line. Fixed ideas has to do with the fact that we expect education to be a certain way and OBE screws with that expectation.

OBE has generally been a failure unless properly implemented and I am unaware of any large scale, successful, use of it.

Have fun- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education#Criticism

It has nothing to do with education and has everything to do with them trying to assert their religious dominance on the education system.

You may say that that is their overall goal but that is not what they said.

The form of education they are criticizing has been put through the ringer for being ineffective. They colored in fancy language but then again, the person who wrote it was probably a teacher of some sort.

Bohemian Waltz:
No it's a theory because to put it simply you cannot express it in a simple terse mathematical terms (i.e. 2nd law of motion 'F = ma') Likewise whereas a law explains something that happens a theory often explains why.

Godavari:
1. The words "theory" and "law" have precise and specific meanings in scientific nomenclature. A law is a description of a phenomenon. A theory is an explanation of the mechanisms by which that phenomenon is brought about. Evolution will never become a scientific law because it's a completely different thing.

DrVornoff:
Beat me to the punch. The English language does have words that can adequately describe how much it pisses me off when people who know fuck all about science shoot their mouths off about science.

I know. If you had stopped for a minute and thought about what I said you would have realized it as well. Evolution is an idea. It is not concrete and absolute fact like say a physical law is. It has variables and it changes based on observations. Are y'all honestly going to tell me that the theory of evolution has not changed one iota since it was first proposed? The theory of evolution will probably look very different in a few hundred years once we actually figure some things out. The study of biology is not so static that the knowledge of a century ago is 100% viable today.

2. Evolution is one of the most well-researched and confirmed theories in all of science. It's more well-understood than gravity. The amount of evidence for it is staggering, from fossils to genetics to actually observing it in the lab. Why do "useless" things stay behind? Because evolution is a blind process. It doesn't care what's optimal - it cares what works. Mutations are mostly random, but they tend to stay around if they are either beneficial or (in the case of any number of vestigial organs such as the appendix) not a hindrance.

And some animals have elements that are a hindrance. Species go extinct all the time and some others do not. Why? There are more than enough theories. Biology has not explained to us what some of our own organs even do. Why exactly do some traits get passed on in this particular way why do others mutate? And on and on and on.

I know enough about evolution to tell you that there are lots of holes in the theory. Holes that, barring the extinction of man, will be explained at some level at a later date.

Please, try to do some research before you go spouting uninformed opinions.

Please, try not to deride someone who expresses a perfectly reasoned fact.

farson135:
You may say that that is their overall goal but that is not what they said.

The form of education they are criticizing has been put through the ringer for being ineffective. They colored in fancy language but then again, the person who wrote it was probably a teacher of some sort.

But they didn't criticize it for being ineffective. They specifically stated their reason for opposing it was because it had "the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

ravenshrike:

crimson5pheonix:
It was bad until the end, then it was terribad. No critical thinking? I may have to vote Democrat...

Except nothing currently taught in American public high schools can remotely be categorized as critical thinking. It is merely labeled such.

Citation needed. I'd also like to know where you've installed the cameras that you feel comfortable making a claim that something is categorically not taught in even once in an entire country's high school system.

ravenshrike:

crimson5pheonix:
It was bad until the end, then it was terribad. No critical thinking? I may have to vote Democrat...

Except nothing currently taught in American public high schools can remotely be categorized as critical thinking. It is merely labeled such.

No, it is. But they treat it like the good stuff and keep it from most students. You need to be in the GT programs to get that particular curriculum.

Of course, this does nothing to help.

Lilani:

farson135:
You may say that that is their overall goal but that is not what they said.

The form of education they are criticizing has been put through the ringer for being ineffective. They colored in fancy language but then again, the person who wrote it was probably a teacher of some sort.

But they didn't criticize it for being ineffective. They specifically stated their reason for opposing it was because it had "the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Which is a fancy way of saying it affects child development by removing structure from their environment. Read up a bit on OBE. In one of my classes (why did I take that boring ass class) the professor effectively said the same thing about OBE. She used different words but the gist was the same. She is also NOT religious.

I am sure there is someone on this forum with an education degree that can actually talk about this in detail. Do you know someone?

farson135:
Which is a fancy way of saying it affects child development by removing structure from their environment. Read up a bit on OBE. In one of my classes (why did I take that boring ass class) the professor effectively said the same thing about OBE. She used different words but the gist was the same. She is also NOT religious.

I am sure there is someone on this forum with an education degree that can actually talk about this in detail. Do you know someone?

All I know about this is what I see here. And what I see here is the Texas GOP making the case that the problem with OBE isn't how effective or ineffective it is, but rather how it makes students challenge their beliefs. I don't care what a professor says about it. That isn't what we're talking about here. What we're talking about is what the Texas GOP says about it, and they say the problem is it makes students challenge their beliefs. If that happens to oppose what that professor says about it, then that only proves they were never interested in how effective or ineffective it is.

I'm a moderate, I'm between the two parties and I tend to like some of what both do. That being said,

image

Im just.....wat.

farson135:

Lilani:

farson135:
You may say that that is their overall goal but that is not what they said.

The form of education they are criticizing has been put through the ringer for being ineffective. They colored in fancy language but then again, the person who wrote it was probably a teacher of some sort.

But they didn't criticize it for being ineffective. They specifically stated their reason for opposing it was because it had "the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Which is a fancy way of saying it affects child development by removing structure from their environment. Read up a bit on OBE. In one of my classes (why did I take that boring ass class) the professor effectively said the same thing about OBE. She used different words but the gist was the same. She is also NOT religious.

I am sure there is someone on this forum with an education degree that can actually talk about this in detail. Do you know someone?

No, that is what you are reading in to it. What they said is that it challenges the children's fixed beliefs, nothing else. My fiancée is a teacher and she, and most of her collegues here in Sweden, regard OBE as a highly effective method of learning, especially in a modern, highly complex society where all necessary skills can't be taught in school. OBE is a way to give them the tools to acquire these skills themselves as opposed to making the students rely on authority (the teachers, parents etc.) to provide them with answers and life skills.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked