What a fucking asshole

[Jules]

They don't know how doomed they are......from Andrew Sullivan......http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

"By this selfish action, [Mary] Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child ... Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney's action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child," - Paul Cameron, of the Family research Institute, on the Christian Newswire.

This kind of crap pisses me off more than anything. Mostly cause it shows how entirely fucked up the FRI and their ilk is. They are like rabid dogs attacking whatever even appears to threaten their stance, never mind their Borg in Chief, Dick Cheney is her dad.

Its ridiculous. I have to say though, she's reaping what she's sowed.
But. god.
My godparents, two lovely gentlemen from San Fran, have been together longer than most heteros can ever claim.
Ugh.

If two people in love having a kid is disrupting society? Have at.

[Mo Daviau]

Imagine how confused that kid is going to be, growing up around all those conservatives. Will he/she be snubbed or accepted by the Cheneys and their community of fascists? I guess ol' Dick won't be running for office ever again, with everyone wondering if he'd be posing on the dais with Mary's kid.

Shall we field sperm donor predictions?
1) David Crosby
2) Dan Savage
3) Ken Mehlmann
4) George H.W. Bush

[ratliff]

Sullivan also recently pointed out that if the religious right were really that concerned about a child having a mom and a dad, they'd be trying to make divorce illegal for couples with children . . . but that might not be as popular as gay-bashing, so it never gets brought up.

[Mike]

"By this selfish action, [Mary] Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child ... Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney's action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child," - Paul Cameron, of the Family research Institute, on the Christian Newswire.

Whoah. OK, so all the single hereto unwed mothers giving birth are ok in the eyes of this group?

Parenting is not about sexual orientation, it's about love and ability. Homosexuals probably make better parents not only because they're under the microscope held by every radical government and religious group, but because they know how hard they had to fight to become parents and they don't take the job lightly. I've seen enough "Hetero" parents who don't give a damn about their kids, or who let their demonic offspring run amok with no rules. Go to any WalMart this season and you'll see what I mean.

Parenting should be about the ability and maturity of the parents. Who cares about sexual orientation?

And doesn't it disturb you that it's harder to get a federal job or a medical license than it is to become a parent?

[ratliff]

All I know is that I'm so happy to receive emails that say

Hello,

You are receiving this email because you are watching the topic, "What a fucking asshole" at Austin Improv.

Thanks Jules.

[Pendark]

"By this selfish action, [Mary] Cheney is not merely disrupting society, she is being cruel to her child ... Her pregnancy is further evidence that participation in homosexual activity distorts value systems, inducing practitioners to harm the commonweal. Our society already has too many children born without the benefits of marriage; Cheney's action is not only a bad example, but poor treatment of an innocent child," - Paul Cameron, of the Family research Institute, on the Christian Newswire.

Whoah. OK, so all the single hereto unwed mothers giving birth are ok in the eyes of this group?

Parenting is not about sexual orientation, it's about love and ability. Homosexuals probably make better parents not only because they're under the microscope held by every radical government and religious group, but because they know how hard they had to fight to become parents and they don't take the job lightly. I've seen enough "Hetero" parents who don't give a damn about their kids, or who let their demonic offspring run amok with no rules. Go to any WalMart this season and you'll see what I mean.

Parenting should be about the ability and maturity of the parents. Who cares about sexual orientation?

And doesn't it disturb you that it's harder to get a federal job or a medical license than it is to become a parent?

I tend to agree with you in general. But I think it goes much deeper.

To me, the choice to mate for the sole purpose of bringing a large number of children into a world that is already crowded and full of crime and disease holds greater potential for destruction and harm to society than any personal lifestyle.

When you have individuals who are utterly bereft of parenting skills and common sense, it seems hypocritical to condemn those who choose to use sex as more than a means for propagation of the species.

Nobody has any business having children if they routinely abuse, neglect or ignore them, or rely on an outside source, like the government, daycare or television to raise their children.

And no relationship that refuses to accept and practice the basic moral and ethical codes of society, or is formed for the purpose of snubbing said codes, has any business whatsoever even thinking about raising children. A relationship formed of a political or social commentary has no business at all trying to nurture the minds and spirits of the next generation.

However, I am also of the opinion that any relationship that is formed out of love, honesty, and true desire to grow and nurture, should be allowed the right and privelage of having children. Lifestyle is not what makes you a good or bad parent. It is what lies in your heart, mind, and soul that makes you worthy or unworthy of rearing the next generation.

[Jules]

[
Ior rely on an outside source, like the government, daycare or television to raise their children.

And no relationship that refuses to accept and practice the basic moral and ethical codes of society, or is formed for the purpose of snubbing said codes, has any business whatsoever even thinking about raising children. A relationship formed of a political or social commentary has no business at all trying to nurture the minds and spirits of the next generation.

However, I am also of the opinion that any relationship that is formed out of love, honesty, and true desire to grow and nurture, should be allowed the right and privelage of having children. Lifestyle is not what makes you a good or bad parent. It is what lies in your heart, mind, and soul that makes you worthy or unworthy of rearing the next generation.

I would like a scooch of clarification on this. Especially the first sentance.
Thanks,

[Pendark]

[
Ior rely on an outside source, like the government, daycare or television to raise their children.

And no relationship that refuses to accept and practice the basic moral and ethical codes of society, or is formed for the purpose of snubbing said codes, has any business whatsoever even thinking about raising children. A relationship formed of a political or social commentary has no business at all trying to nurture the minds and spirits of the next generation.

However, I am also of the opinion that any relationship that is formed out of love, honesty, and true desire to grow and nurture, should be allowed the right and privelage of having children. Lifestyle is not what makes you a good or bad parent. It is what lies in your heart, mind, and soul that makes you worthy or unworthy of rearing the next generation.

I would like a scooch of clarification on this. Especially the first sentance.
Thanks,

Ok. Too many parents today, rely on other people to raise their kids. We put them in daycares, government thought mills, and sit them in front of video games and tv's instead of taking the time to be involved. yes. it is a gneralization. But, it is my opinion, that anyone incapable of taking the time to raise a child themselves, IE hollywood parents, or parents who are both always out of the house, shouldn't even bother to try. Harsh? Yeah. But it is how i feel.

In my personal situation, I made certain to get a graveyard shift, so that my boy didn't have to go to daycare. We each spend quality time with him and on weekends and my days off, we both spend good time with him together.

You can't have a child that is raised with love, respect, and good values, unless you are there to take the time to instill them. Without you, your child gets all of his ideas on life from peers, video games, tv, and the government thought mill called public school.

These are just my opinions from a personal perspective.

[Jules]

Government thought mills........do you think public school as it stands is teaching thought?
Or do you mean they are teaching them not to think. I guess it depends on the school district. Do you home or un school?

I have two children and we've done quite a bit of finagling to have as much time with them as possible. Our situation hasn't been ideal nor were we ever working in such situations (or earning quite enough money) to avoid childcare altogether.
This has long been a favorite topic of mine as it is one that draws deep passion from both sides.
I found this study to be very interesting
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/p ... 051206.pdf
as well as census information noting that in 2002 (I think) out of 18 million children under 5, at least 11 million were in some kind of childcare situation.
Ideal? I don't know. Its not ideal to me for certain reasons but they are mostly economic ones.
We have built a economic system that runs on people working. I work, you work, we all work.
My dad worked and my mother stayed at home and they could afford to buy a house and two cars and all kinds of things.
We earn more than he did, yet cannot afford those things or to have only one of us work.
Sure some of that might be our fault, but the economic climate is far different than it used to be.
Also, I personally think no one should be expected to work over 40 hours a week, heck I'd prefer to see all of us work 25-30 and rest and spend time at home with family and friends and create. Grow food and stuff. Relax.
Few of us get that option.
Then there's the old women in the work force deal. I like working. I always have, I'm good at what I do. If I quit for 5 -7 years my earning potential will drop as will my retirement etc. Given our system, I want money put away for my retirement. I like having insurance to cover my family cause individually bought insurance is fucking expensive and risky.

So don't have kids I guess? I guess the parents of 11million kids shouldn't have had them?
Other countries have far better child care systems than we do and far better supports for parents who work.
I'm a liberal though. I think if we pay taxes we should get something for it besides war.

I can't say that people should have children until they have X in the bank and one person at home. I think we'd wind up with no kids quick in this country. Perhaps that would be better for the environment long term.

We have a country that runs on people working. all the time. People are in more debt and poverty in 2007 than in years.


BUT I understand that kids need parents. And the need connected loving present parents. And the caregivers that parents work with should be top notch.

My kids are stable, secure, engaged and loving. My husband had child care I did not. We are both productive people.

We do well I think and the kids loved their schools, the long term friends they still have from the child care and such.

Anyway, I'm going to quit posting and play with my kids.

You sound like a very interesting addition to the AIC. I'll look forward to meeting you.

[York99]

I think y'all need to have your kids fight this one out... or did you forget why you had children in the first place?

[Jules]

I'll have some minions make some popcorn.

[Pendark]

Sorry..been without a computer for an entire day. I hate computers nearly as much as I hate the public school system.

I'll take each part of your response a piece at a time. Bear with me.

First, it is really hard to argue that a drastic change has not taken place in the public school system. First off, there are the lowering standards of the S.A.T. system and the lowering of the bar on the requirements for passing tests.

Second, there is the fact that history, civics, and citizenship are not taught in a complete or balanced fashion. Teachers select the subjects that suits them and fail kids for not presenting the exact answer they want to hear from that topic. It happens often. I could get you a slew of examples, but that would take up huge bandwidth and bore you to death.

Then, there is the fact that many schools have begun catering to the faction of people that want to ban Christianity from society. Now, I am a right-leaning Libertarian, not a Republican and not a Christian. But, I am troubled by the idea that Christmas songs, private prayer, and "under god" are placed under seige, while Muslims are allowed to skip class to pray, etc. It seems that there is a biass there. Why is one allowed, but not the other?

There is the forced acceptance of spanish speaking classes and the importing of teachers from Mexico to teach classes in Texas schools, while there is such a terrible problem with illegal immigration, gangs, and schoolyard violence in those same schools. (Yes, in my twisted brain, it all connects.)

My list of complaints is long and not without at least some justification. But I won't bore you with the rest of it.

While economic and lifestyle issues are circumstances that affect on our ability to be at home and take the full time we would like with our children, I am speaking more directly to the idea that we tend to rely on outside sources to raise them.

Yes, providing for the future of family requires that we work. It requires that we make choices that either create wealth, or preserve income. I have had a hard struggle at both. I know that many parents are just doing what they think is best. But how many people really need $90,000-180,000 to live? Could we ajust the level of our expectation of comfort and abundance to have more time with our children? Many could but won't.

Caregivers are not the target of my complaint. Many of them are good, loving, caring parents themselves. My complaint is against the idea that it is absolutely necessary to hand kids over to outside care. Many people do it, because it would be too inconvenient for them to change jobs, or stay home, or have to hock a few things, or give up cable tv, or drive a lesser vehicle in order to be home more often. (long story there...would take to many paragraphs here. But my opinion is based on some experience.)

While children can adapt to whatever they must, I wonder what things we could avoid making them have to ajust to and "deal with", if we took more time to be parents. Sure, they can make friends in school, but they can also be molested by teachers, shot by gang members, targetted for violence, and made to absorb whatever agenda is shoved at them for regurgitation. They can wind up pregnant, they can wind up taking drugs.

But see, none of that is about the school itself, it is about parenting, it is about society, and it is about who has the most influence on them.


I hope to be an interesting addition to AIC. While I am a heavily opinionated person, I am also diplomatic and friendly. So it all balances out in the end. I look forward to meeting you and the others as well.

[Jastroch]

Lest we forget that there is an active conspiracy among liberals to destroy Christmas...

[kbadr]

Then, there is the fact that many schools have begun catering to the faction of people that want to ban Christianity from society. Now, I am a right-leaning Libertarian, not a Republican and not a Christian. But, I am troubled by the idea that Christmas songs, private prayer, and "under god" are placed under seige, while Muslims are allowed to skip class to pray, etc. It seems that there is a biass there. Why is one allowed, but not the other?

Seriously?
We got major Jewish holidays off in NY.
Every school year has a Christmas and Easter break.
The school year, in part, caters to Christianity.

How is being religion-neutral (through not singing Christmas songs to the entire class) comparable to allowing a Muslim student to leave class to privately practice their religion? And how can you claim both that private prayer is "under siege", and that there exists a bias that allows Muslim students to pray privately. I'm confused by what exactly you're opposed to.

Of course, I do agree that arguing over the phrase "under god" seems a bit much. I grew up agnostic, at best, and the phrase didn't make me feel like anything was being thrust upon me. There are countless reminders in our society that you're an outsider if you're not Christian, let alone an atheist.

[Jastroch]

Also, I'd be curious about "private prayer" being put under siege. Who is denying students the right to pray privately? Where is this happening, outside of manufactured controversies on Fox News? Seriously. Give me some examples.

Now, school sponsored prayer. That's a different story. Public schools using public funds have no business endorsing religion or using public funds to support religion.