Patriots: Only Free-market Capitalists?

     This year's tax day was a monumental occasion, resulting in several hundred tea parties, and several thousand jokes involving protesters and interesting sexual techniques. My colleague Erich Stremel writes about how he appreciates and agrees with these oh-so-American methods of civic participation and how he understands Governor Perry's recent statements endorsing the Tea Party movement. He focuses on America's history of protesting taxes and and Perry's reference to today's protesters as "patriots" carrying on the spirit of our ancestors. According to Stremel, President Obama has started his administration with good intentions and ideas but is overstepping his constituents' wishes in passing this stimulus package.

     I understand Stremel's point of view; he articulates it well and, I have to say, in a much more even-tempered manner than some of the activists recently protesting. He takes time to examine Mr. Obama's perspective, one of earnest concern for his voters, but respectfully disagrees with his course of action. When weighed against the angry and bombastic tactics of other tea party participants, Stremel's calm assessment of the problem is a much more effective voice for the movement.

     Apart from the fact that Stremel and I disagree ideologically, he presents his opinions logically for the most part. However, I do have an issue with the underlying implication of his article, which seems to be that Americans who do not push for low taxes are somehow less patriotic than fiscally conservative Americans. This is probably not Stremel's intention, but this is the message I hear from Perry and other zealous governors when they use the term "patriot." Is it so unpatriotic and treasonous to suggest that our government should spend money to provide us with essential services? I know how Texas is: mentioning raising taxes is equivalent to suggesting reviving Hitler and placing him in charge. But we've been paying taxes since America was founded, regardless of the party in office. The most recent objection to this basic governmental function seems suspiciously like a power play by a party that has lost its influence, a party desperate to regain its hold over the public. Republicans are quick to accuse their rivals, but it's an exercise in futility to exclusively blame ANY party in office for ANY economic crisis, because they all contributed to it because they are all the same: before they are Republicans or Democrats, they are capitalists.

     This tangent goes beyond the scope of Stremel's article. His only intentions are to applaud the "patriots" for their courage in standing up to a (so far) popular administration and to remind those of us dubious of the tea partiers' actions that dissent is in our cultural makeup. As for the rest of the conservatives trying to figure out their new place in politics, I would recommend taking a page out of Stremel's book. Make an effort to consider the other side of the issue and use what you learn to craft a solid argument. And think before you speak!

Civic duty, and old people.

     And I forgot to pick up my sticker... It's OK, I'll only be voting for THE REST OF MY LIFE, so there will be plenty of opportunities to get that stupid little sticker in the future. (BTW, I've never understood the purpose of that announcement: "I Voted!" Do we need to shame everyone else with our civic participation so much that we must proudly display it on our lapels and then refuse to talk about our choice of candidates if asked? Oh, Americans!)

     I left the polls today feeling pumped, very inappropriately laughing and talking in the Shriners' Temple/funeral home that housed the early voting. My husband said as we left, "Do only old people vote?" I had to think about that for a minute. Granted, we're probably not going to see ANY young people on a Monday afternoon in Allandale, much less at an early voting location. But he makes a valid point. When questioning all of our peers, we both got the same answers. "Oh, that's coming up, isn't it? I really should do that this year, but I don't know who to vote for."

     And therein lies the problem. The actual voting process today took a total of 5 minutes, 4 of which were occupied by all the old people there--both voters and election officials--trying to figure out what was going on. Even on election day, council elections garner such little turnout that lines are rarely long, so clearly there's little time involved in this part of voting. So why are people (and young people especially) so indifferent about voting in local elections? It must be because of the difficulty involved in choosing the candidates. As much as everybody likes to claim otherwise, voting is very hard.

     While researching the candidates in order to vote in this (my first) council election, I began to realize how little information there is circulating before the election. Austinites have few significant sources of "unbiased" information on the candidates; the Statesman and the Chronicle, primarily, and more recently, a corps of bloggers putting their opinions out in cyberspace. When compared to the fine-toothed comb raked over national elections, the coverage of local elections can leave voters a little bewildered. Some of this lack of information can be attributed to campaign finance restrictions, which limit the candidates' exposure around Austin, especially to people that are not already looking for the information.

     Another obstacle to easy choice is the similarities between candidates. All those running for mayor/council seats have a nasty habit of sounding exactly like their opponent(s), going so far as to have debates full of complete agreements. Of course, this isn't exclusive to local government, but without party identification, voters are left with news clips, sound bites, and website campaign promises to wade through. Even once I had cast my vote, I went home and continued to research the candidates, partly out of confidence and partly out of buyer's remorse. In the end, I am confident with my choices, and I sincerely hope that those I pick will win.

     But though this election might not have been the most thrilling, I'm proud that I trudged through the information and made my choice. All corniness and patriotism aside, voting is an important way to have your voice heard on the issues that affect you most. And these council elections are the most important because, after all, all politics is local, and these decisions will directly affect my most immediate environment. If that's not something to get excited about, I don't know what is.


GO VOTE!

The Dreaded Abortion Debate

     "I know this is a very touchy subject with many Americans..." This is how my colleague introduces the topic of his article, and he is certainly right; the issue of abortion provokes extreme emotional responses in almost everyone one way or the other. In his blog, Chase Stewart analyzes the recently reintroduced bill that would require women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion and gives his voice of support to the controversial bill. Stewart, a conservative by his own description, says that "he likes this bill" because it places additional requirements on women seeking an abortion, and he comments that the bill will have fulfilled its purpose if one woman changes her mind. Later in his article, Stewart says that he is fair-minded and proceeds to look at both sides of the story, claiming that the opposition's only argument is the negative effects on women's health, which, according to Stewart, invalidates the opposition argument in its flimsiness.

     Putting aside my knee-jerk reaction to Stewart's opinion on abortion itself, which--though opposite to mine and hard for me to understand--is valid and a common opinion in America, there are several flaws in the reasoning behind his arguments concerning this bill. Surprisingly, I do not disagree with his wanting "another hoop [for women] to jump through." I actually agree with some restrictions being placed on abortion, but only in a situation where women are given easy/free access to and held accountable for taking some other form of birth control, and abortion is used as a last-resort. (A fatal flaw in the logic of conservatives is that they want to reduce the number of abortions, yet they cannot seem to support the very thing that would cut these numbers: i.e. sex education and preventative birth control. They would rather deny human nature and continue to blindly assume that everyone believes in their religion's system of morality and will abstain from sex purely out of guilt a desire to be free from sin.)

     No, my objection to his article lies in his self-professed "fairness" in examining all sides of the argument. Stewart seems to have done little research on the bill if the health aspect is the only counter-argument he sees coming from the pro-choice camp. In actuality, the pro-choice argument has little to do with women's health issues, unless you count indignity and patronization as blows to a woman's health; on the other hand, the pro-life movement has changed tactics in recent years to focus on the (supposed) impact that abortion has on women, using questionable scientific research to back up its claims. But objections to SB 182 are based on the bill's inference about the nature of women. The bill and its patronizing (MALE) authors are implying that women are emotional children who have not fully contemplated the difficult decision to have an abortion, and they rely on guilt and shame to turn women away from this choice. Clearly, this is a heavy decision to make, and I believe that very few women are ignorant of the result of an abortion.

     I don't think Stewart has considered this side of the argument because he is male and might not have attempted to see the issue from a woman's perspective. But women everywhere are offended by this bill, and if it were to pass, women's rights would take a significant step backwards into the past. No one has argued this perspective more eloquently than Laurie Felker Jones, a women's rights advocate and lobbyist for NARAL, who testified before the Senate when this bill was introduced recently. Ms. Felker Jones beautifully and hilariously points out the flaws of the bill and gives the "Top Five reasons why this bill is a bad idea," and few people can hear her statement without understanding a little more about a woman's view on this issue. So to Stewart, I say (as a strong, liberal woman who tries to make a concerted effort to consider ALL arguments from ALL sides of the issue) please take the time to hear our objections. If you still disagree, or if you consider a woman's voice to be irrelevant, I would ask you to put off forming an opinion on the matter until you yourself are pregnant and considering an abortion; then you can tell us if an ultrasound would change your final decision. Until that time, let women handle women's issues in the best way we see fit.

Getting back to our roots

     You've gotta love Southern politicians these days, in particular our own fearless leader. Gearing up for the next election, Governor Perry is in fine form, loudly declaring his disdain for the federal stimulus package, and most recently, throwing in his hat with other conservative leaders in the growing state-sovereignty movement. Texan voters seem to have some sort of fondness for dear Gov. Good Hair, but I'm hoping that this latest shenanigan is the straw that breaks the voters' backs.

     It's not that I have anything against the idea of states' rights; in fact, I think it's a very necessary check of power in our finely-balanced system that seems to be working for the time being. But the merits or shortcomings of federalism aside, it does seem pretty interesting that a search of "Perry" in the Statesman's archives brings up the wire of Perry telling the Feds to mind their own business, immediately followed by a story covering his call for FEMA help with the recent wildfires. Both stories were published on the same day, and the two side by side show Perry's nauseating practice of picking and choosing which parts of the stimulus package suit his and his cronies best interests.

     The endorsement of Rep. Creighton's H.C.R. 50 only highlights his blockheaded-ness and renews my (and my fellow low tax-bracket dwellers') frustration and annoyance, held over from his desire to reject the unemployment aspect of the stimulus package. He is ignoring the fact of rising unemployment in order to seal the deal with far-right-wing voters. Putting politics before people, he is only rejecting assistance for something that we will pay for in the long run anyway. Rep. Jim Dunnam states the problem eloquently: "So the question is, who's gonna have to pay? Is it going to be the federal government helping us pay for it, or are we going to double the tax on employers to pay for it? And that's the choice he's making."

     Furthermore, his insistence that he is protecting voter interest is extremely insulting to our intelligence in light of Texas's dismal social statistics. Refusing stimulus money to avoid future entanglements is one thing; but telling the federal government to stay out of Texas politics because the state knows better is just denying the obvious. Texas has the distinction of ranking among the lowest of the states in areas like money spent on services and percentage of households with checking or savings accounts; yet we hold the top, or near top, spots in categories like percentage of population without health insurance, worst conditions for homeless kids, most teen pregnancies and highest birth rate in general, and highest percentage of population working for minimum wage. If you're thinking that is an overwhelming list, you're exactly right. But Perry chooses to overlook this evidence and actually believes that Texas only has the kind of problems that can "fall through the cracks." (P.S. Pay special attention to the end of the story in that last link. It's a hoot.) If he really thinks that our social problems are that small, he's more deluded than I thought.

     I'd like to think that a majority of Texas voters will agree with me; in reality, I'm not so naive. But we Texans are just as guilty of blissful ignorance as Gov. Perry if we continue to (re)elect politicians of his ilk. If Perry is going to use this recession to play politics and prove how conservative he is while people are struggling, we should put him on the unemployment list in November 2010. Maybe then he'll appreciate the merits of all that stimulus money he so blithely rejected the year before.

Strengths and Weaknesses-

     -every aspect of life has them, in varying proportions. Usually we think our own opinions have more of the former and less of the latter. That's the nature of opinion--or in other words, a system of beliefs, or faith--we are each convinced that we alone know the truth. I'm familiar with this country's history; how its faith (yes, singular) has overlapped into politics. But it continues to amaze me how, even in the 21st century, the religious factor in the government still tries to impose its views onto politics and science--as recently evidenced by our Board of Education chairman Dr. McLeroy and his cronies.

     It most certainly was an interesting, drawn-out battle; any intelligent design/evolution debate always seems to end somewhat inconclusively. But a decision was finally reached, and Christopher Hitchens writes in Newsweek about the triumph for scientists: the BOE decision to keep the curriculum of "strengths and weakness" out of classrooms and out of textbooks written in the state. Hitchens throws his opinion into the mix and, though obviously happy for any victory of science, he stops to appreciate the possibilities if the creationists--excuse me, believers of "intelligent design"--had prevailed.

     In his typical skeptical fashion, he muses about the potential backlash if the Religious Right had won. "The last times that evangelical Protestantism won cultural/ political victories—by banning the sale of alcohol, prohibiting the teaching of evolution and restricting immigration from Catholic countries—the triumphs all turned out to be Pyrrhic... There are days when I almost wish the fundamentalists could get their own way, just so that they would find out what would happen to them." With his famous wit (the one that keeps even polar opposites like Rush Limbaugh reading his work), he points out that he would love to have "all sides" of all theories taught. "Let time also be set aside...for children to be taught the huge variety of creation stories... This is always interesting (and it can't be, can it, that the Texas board holdouts think that only Genesis ought to be so honored?)."

     Hitchens, a semi-regular writer for Newsweek, honors the magazine's fairly liberal audience with his outspoken anti-religious stance, and makes no secret of his views. He is the first to admit background is not biological science but antitheism and polemicism; unlike some of his counterparts in the evolution debate, he does not claim to be an expert or to have all the answers. Indeed, he is not above a changing ideology, as he notably did early in his career and more recently in his position on the issue of waterboarding as torture. His literary and intellectual background colors his conclusion, that open debate will lead to a windfall of followers for his side of the debate. He touts no broader outcome than this, and his evidence is his observations about the state of American cultural climate.

     The significance of this decision is an obvious victory for science, although I'm not sure that the subject won't be visited again. Each time, though, the religious influence seems less and less persuasive, and this ruling to teach the evolutionary version of our origins means that many young minds will be trained to think critically and scientifically and, more than likely, vote against further dilutions of science in schools once they reach the voting age. For one such as Hitchens, who holds religion in such high regard, this decision is clearly a step in the right direction, but he (logical and scientific creature that he is) calls for and encourages debate from all sides, knowing that it will only bring more followers to his camp. His closing words are especially eloquent and sum up the point of his article with particular grace. "This is America. Let a hundred flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend. We may one day have cause to be grateful to the Texas Board of Education for lighting a candle that cannot be put out."

Big-box Shenanigans

     It's been really hard lately for me to reconcile my principles with my finances. Everyone has been looking for savings lately, as reflected in the defiant profits of Walmart, but it's times like these when we hyper-socially-conscious people must decide if we can afford to buy the recycled paper towels or the organic cotton shirt made by local workers. But even if I have to buy the bargain brand, made-from-the-tears-of-sweatshop-children hand soap or whatever, I will definitely not be buying this guilt-inducing product from Walmart.

     Yes, maybe I'm a yuppie, and maybe my non-car-owning ass rides around on a bike powered by my own sense of self-satisfaction. I'm sure all of those stereotypical traits about the Walmart boycotter are true about me. But that still doesn't make Walmart ideologically redeemable in any scenario. So it's really a kick in the teeth when my hometown--Austin, with its famous mantra of weirdness--welcomes Walmart with open arms.

     I suppose the Walmart controversy is old news, but it's really hitting home now that the bulldozers have eradicated the last traces of good ol' Northcross. And now Forrest Wilder, speaking to The Observer's mainly liberal audience, reports on a recent study by Texans for Public Justice that reveals how the communities welcoming Walmart with subsidies and goodies rarely follow up on promises and compliances made by the mega-corporation in contracts with the local governments. It seems that these governments fought for the benefits (i.e. new jobs, community investments) of a new Walmart upfront, but when asked to provide proof that the benefits came through, the governments side-stepped the issue.

     Mr. Wilder and I are of the same mind on the subject, though he's not quite so rabid in the delivery of his opinion. He doesn't come to a conclusion so much as throw his hands up at the slash-and-burn business model of Walmart, but he does seem to allude to the impending doom on its way to neighborhoods like Allandale. He and I do agree on the implications of Walmart's mischief--the destruction of local business and healthy neighborhoods, which is maybe more devastating in small towns than in Austin where local business can fight back. But I would like to take the conclusion to the next level and fight against the negative effects that Walmart, the quintessential big box, brings to our communities. I believe the continued subsidies of outsider, irresponsible and unethical corporations like Walmart and Simon Mall's Domain will have consequences greater than we can imagine at the moment, and we should join the movement to overhaul our consumerist society, starting with Walmart.

Just say no to "Why kNOw"

    I had a very sheltered upbringing. My parents were leaders in our outgoing and near-zealous church, and they sent me to a private Christian school where I received my indoctrination. As such, abstinence-only sex education is very familiar to me. In health class we learned the powers of deodorant and the basics (stress: BASICS) of anatomy. And I learned more about sex itself from my extremely precocious best friend.

    Luckily, I was a late bloomer, and I was mature and knowledgeable enough to avoid the sort of mistakes that Texas teenagers are making these days. Texas has a dismal track record in teen pregnancies as far as national numbers are concerned (it ranked third), and most of the other states with the highest rates also boast a conservative slant. With such evidence against this program of denial, is it any wonder then that the debate surrounding ab-only sex education rages on?

    Smith's article introduces a study undertaken by the Texas Freedom Network to expose some of the inadequacies of Texas's current programs with names like "WAIT Training" and "Why kNOw." The study shows the misstatements and lies, the religious scare tactics, and messages of shame being presented to young Texans, and it expresses TFN's hopes for a better system. The article shows that these are the reasons why this legislative session is questioning the current curriculum, and why citizens should pay close attention. For those of us that escaped the horrors of an AISD education, the article is a wake-up call to the ignorance being propagated and the lies being taught to our children.