Bias + Texas Republicans

I am sent this article attacking the Texas Republicans:

In addition to [the very aggressive anti-gay position that this article mostly covers], the Texas GOP seeks to end the state's lottery, which provides millions in funding to public education; restrict citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are citizens; end federal sponsorship of pre-kindergarten schools; impose a jail sentence on any illegal immigrant in the state; shut down all day-labor centers; cut off all bilingual education after a student's fourth year in a U.S. public school; legalize corporal punishment in public schools; mandate that evolution and global warming be "taught as challengeable scientific theory"; and demand that Congress evict the United Nations from U.S. soil and end American membership in the global body.

My response:

Gosh that's a biased article. 

Are you pro-lottery?  Which usually gives a tiny portion of the $ to education, and a slush fund for legislators besides.  I think it should be abolished too.  Not the business of the state to pass a bad-at-math tax which pretends that it's good for education.

My understanding is that most Hispanic-American CITIZENS support the anti-immigration laws in Arizona (by at least a 2:1 ratio).

Citizenship by blood or soil + welfare state is thoroughly unstable.  Pick no more than one.  I think the Texas republicans picked the wrong one.  But it's at least the same one that all the European states picked.  Are the Europeans evil for doing that?

Anti-gay platform is between stupid and evil, and works by demonizing opponents just as liberals now do with Sarah Palin.

Anthropogenic global warming is not only challengeable but probably wrong.  Evolution is as established as Gravity...but all science is challengeable theory.  However, we all know that they don't actually want to teach scientific method any more than the liberals do. 

I like the anti-UN position.  The UN is dominated by thugs, and any pretense it had of being a moral force ended a long time ago.  Also, the fact that we fund a locust-swarm of bureaucrats endeavoring to make the world a safer place for dictators is unwise (according to me). 

I don't think it's unreasonable to pursue the position that if you come to our country, you should speak our language...or at least that you cannot expect us to spend our money to make life easier for you to NOT speak our language.  Certainly no other country I've visited has assumed that visitors to their country should go out of their way to spend their citizens' funds to make my life as a English speaker easier. 

However, it's also true that in general, fluency in English is one of the most important skills that a worker in this country can have.  Hence, teaching in English is perhaps (I don't have figures) a BETTER long-term deal for the foreign student than teaching in Spanish (or Yiddish, for that matter). 

Federal involvement in education is an abomination, and the evidence suggests that pre-K schooling is bad for children socially and emotionally.   Also, AFAIK, that there has never been a long-lasting effect found (more than 3-ish years) for ANY pre-K education program (including Head Start).  Rather, kids revert to the mean rather quickly. 

Corporal punishment...I oppose all state expansions of power, and therefore I oppose state-owned schools having that power.  OTOH, I think that corporal punishment is better than prison for 9/10 crimes.  Also, I think that it ought to be legal in a private school, IF the parent delegates said authority. 

HOWEVER, I also take Sheldon Richman's position on Civil Rights law and apply it to Corporal Punishment:  The proper answer to Corporal Punishment is community organizing, (not stupid European anti-spanking laws).