I agree with you that all history textbooks are perspective-based.. you can't get away from that. However, we've got a particular cling to the biblical in regard to our education "factory" here in Texas. Even if I agreed with that, we've got a constitutional right to expect a separation of church and state.VMI77 wrote:
Maybe I should have chosen a better word. But in the context of delusional....I don't want to go over everyone of the 9 reasons....so I'll start with #4, Texas textbooks distort history. While I'm sure it's true, it's delusional because it implies the textbooks of other states don't distort history. Not only do all public school textbooks distort history (and they have since long before I was in public school), I'd venture to say they teach virtually no history at all....just the current political mythology. The only thing that has changed in that regard since I was in school is the current political mythology, which has drifted leftwards. So, what the writer is really saying is that the distortions don't favor his political ideology.
Just because it's impossible to get the perspective perfect from all points of view, I don't see that as permission to go far left or far right, especially when it's not motivated by facts, but is motivated by political spectrum.
I think it speaks to political climate because it's still on the books today. What conservative politician would spend the political capital to remove it? It'd be a slaughter. It's just a mark of conservative disapproval, that's all. I totally agree that it's not very likely to be prosecuted..VMI77 wrote:
Next, #5, anti-sodomy laws. Here my liberalism may show because I don't think it's the government's business what consenting adults do in the bedroom. However, to point at this as somehow indicative of the present culture in the state is absurd. In the first place, the USSC ruled the very same laws Constitutional in 1986 and overruled them in 2003. When I grew up in the state sodomy laws were very very rarely prosecuted. The only real impediment to homosexual behavior was a public expression of sexuality. Even then, way back 40 years ago, when I was in school, I knew of several homosexual relationships in my small town and none of them were prosecuted. It wasn't even considered particularly extraordinary, even by my very conservative parents (who employed one half of a known male homosexual couple). It's delusional to pretend like a legal case that was adjudicated over 10 years ago about a law that was virtually never prosecuted in over 50 years says anything about the state today.
The One "got high" and admitted it, that's pretty bold.. Even Clinton wouldn't admit it. My guess is that he (Obama) is not directing any effort to go after small time recreational users. In fact, I understand he's directed federal prosecutors to stop enforcing federal laws that conflict with state policy. Nancy Regan.. Now those were not good drug policy years. Give me Obama's drug policy any day, at least compared to any other president in the last 30 years or so.VMI77 wrote:
#7, marijuana arrests. I'll show my "liberalism" again and state that I favor decriminalization of drugs....and actually legalization. I told the DA that when questioned on a jury panel. However, I suspect the "statistics" cited distort the reality. In any case, marijuana is illegal under the federal government so beloved by progs under The One. Not only that, the Democrat controlled Congress just overrode the DC voter initiative to legalize recreational use, spitting in the face of the 70% of DC voters who voted in favor. And since marijuana is illegal in, what, 46 states?....and DC (again), it's somewhat delusional to pretend Texas is some horrible state because marijuana is illegal.
It sounds like you're blaming the Democrats for ignoring the will of the DC people, I'm not sure that's the case. Yes, the Congress is a Democrat majority, but that provision, which overrode DC was attached to the spending bill, so it's going to be hard to call out motivations for voting for/against. I couldn't find the vote split, not that it would matter because it's a spending bill. Do note that House Republicans voted down an amendment offered by D.C. Delegate Eleanor Norton (D) to strike that particular rider from the spending bill, which speaks to responsibility. However, I'm offended that Congress got involved at all - either party. It's their job to listen to the people, not ignore them. I'm ready for a do-over.
Texas is just slow to the game. Marijuana legalization is coming. The longer Texas waits the more taxes we'll have. Legalization is voluntary taxation on all those hippies and progressives... Who doesn't want that? Someone needs to campaign it that way.
I don't think Texas is bad either, other than allergy season...VMI77 wrote:
What it comes down to for me is that I care more about being able to defend my family, myself, and my property, and to remain relatively free in the use of my private property, than I care about what lies are in our history books, what legal battles occurred 11 years ago, and the fact that marijuana is illegal. And I like living in a place were a lot of other people feel the same way. However, I do hope that many many people from other states, especially progs, read articles like this one, believe them, and do everything in their power to stay away.