Transgender Rights

This post is a response to "Texas may strip away transgender marriage rights" from "The BBB: Blue Blogger Brittany"

Brittany,

Thanks for your comments. I too share your concerns about conservative politicians making yet another grab for minority rights.  In this particular situation, I can't help but feel they are being motivated by a strong prejudice, but also by a lack of education concerning modern scientific views on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Conservatives seem to think that sexual orientation and gender identity is a matter of conscious choice, one which there is an obviously right answer too. Modern science, on the other hand tends to strongly show that this is NOT the case and that these traits are established early on in the developmental process and quite possibly have strong genetic components which are set in stone at conception.

It seems like this would be a simple issue to discuss: there aren't any fundamental ideological differences and convincing someone to support transgender rights should only require them to understand basics facts of modern day psychology. Unfortunately, this task is not a simple as it should be, but at the same time I think there is still hope.

It's becoming demonstrably difficult for the previous generations to convince new generations of their logically flawed and bigoted beliefs. Every new generation, there is a sizable group of individuals that casts a skeptic glance to the collective wisdom of their elders. Acceptance of homosexuality and transgender rights is on the rise, even in some conservative circles. While the LGBT community may not be thrilled with the slow pace of human rights reform, they should take a sense of comfort knowing that there it is a matter of time until social attitudes in America are drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Austin's Water Treatment Plant 4

At a time when government at every level is looking for easy spending cuts, there is a unique opportunity for a double win. Austin is looking to build a new water treatment plan to respond to what is seen as an increase in peak water demand. Unfortunately, water is not produced out of a vacuum; it has to be taken from a source, in this case Lake Travis, which is fed by the Colorado River.

Water sources like the Colorado are not inexhaustible sources. Like everything else in the world, they are a finite resource and must be treated with care if we want to be able to reap benefits from them for decades to come.

According to Clean Water Action, Austenites can expect to save $124 million dollars by putting in a “ramped up” water conservation plan over the next decade. Clean Water Action also goes on to detail that in the past when Austinites have been called to conserve water during the 2009 drought, the response was overwhelmingly positive and water use has dropped significantly during summer months. Conservation CAN work in this city.

I think Austin as a whole is well known for having the somewhat liberal ethic of being environmentally conscious and conservation minded—something that makes me immensely proud to live in Austin. I think that saying no to a water treatment plant and giving up a few day to day conveniences in the name of being environmentally conscious is something that has Austin written all over it. We need to be a shining example for the rest of Texas of how conservation can work and how citizens can collectively come together and decide to be responsible about using natural resources.

Build it and they will come...

 

[This is a response to "METRO RAIL PICKING UP STEAM" from A GREAT CITIZEN]

...is what I told a staunch libertarian not too far back when we were discussing the plans for the MetroRail, which at the time was still in its planning stage. He had insisted that this was just another example of wasteful government spending and cited polls showing that rider ship would not be anywhere near a reasonable level-- people would rather ride in their cars.

Naturally, I was thrilled to read your blog and realize that the statement I made to my libertarian friend was more than just a tongue-in-cheek movie reference. Despite polls showing that people had only a lukewarm interest in riding the MetroRail, once it was put right in front of their faces it was too good to resist. I think the MetroRail is an excellent step towards planning for the future infrastructure of an incredibly fast growing city. In 10 years, when gas prices are $10 a gallon and the population of Austin is far greater than I-35 can sustain, we will be glad that we started expanding a network of rails before we hit a crisis point in public transportation.

You made a compelling argument for the growing popularity of the MetroRail. The only thing that I would add to your blog is that this issue can be tied in with a larger ideological dilemma facing both Texas and the US. There is something we can learn from this situation.

Investments in our society aren't just lavish, nice things to have; investments are practical NESCITIES that will yield a GREAT return in the future. Conservatives are always calling for fiscal responsibility, but I think fiscal responsibility means more than just limiting spending. Fiscal responsibility means that sometimes we have to SPEND money on our future in a way that will either SAVE us money down the line or GENERATE economic potential. The MetroRail represents both. Greater access to downtown Austin is great for local businesses (especially during SxSW, as you already mentioned) and establishing an infrastructure of rails before demand goes through the roof will allow for better planning and more efficient spending.

Taxes: an investment in our future

As the Texas legislature is pushing through major budget cuts, I think it's important to understand why we need tax funded social services in our society and what we stand to loose by cutting these services. I personally admire the effort on the part of the GOP to move towards a balanced budget. While I think increased spending is necessary during times of crisis and economic downturn, I think the default state of the budget needs to be sustainably balanced. However, I disagree with the GOP on how this should be done. While there is certainly room for making cuts and streamlining a certain amount of bureaucracy, I tend to think that a major component of balancing the budget needs to come in the form of increased revenue, namely taxes.

In Texas, it's no secret that a politician mentioning a tax hike is committing political suicide. This is understandable; people want to hold on their money! We want to buy things to enrich our lives and be able to provide for our families. In my mind though, there is no greater way to enrich our lives or provide for our families future than to ensure a better tomorrow for the society we live in. If I have a family, I want them to be raised in an affluent society with low crime rates and high graduation rates. Living in a healthier society will yield benefits for everyone.

I think quite often, the value of education, social programs, and even entitlements are overlooked for the immediacy of saving a buck. Like any other investment, the taxes we pay to improve our society do not always provide immediate returns. However, in the long run, serious social change is going to cost money. If we want the society around us to be a nicer place, it will come at a price.

But I don't think we look at taxes in that way-- at least not in Texas. Instead of looking at taxes as an investment, many people see it as an unnecessary burden. As the Texas legislature moves to close a $27 billion deficit by making huge cuts to education, healthcare, and environmental protection, we need to be asking ourselves how these cuts will affect the future of our society. Will that extra bit of income we save on taxes really matter if the society we live in is poorly educated, sick, and polluted?

Teacher and the economy

A recent blog, "Teachers and the economy," by Charles Kuffner published on the liberal blog "Off the Kuff" is shedding some light on the seemingly hypocritical actions of Governor Rick Perry. The blog quotes an editorial from another publication which informs readers that Rick Perry plans to cut 100,000 teaching jobs in Texas, about one third of current teaching jobs.

This is a pretty extreme proposition by any standard. I must admit that I almost threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read it. The thought of 100,000 Texans losing their jobs troubles me greatly, especially since both my parents are high school teachers. Furthermore, at a time when Texas is at a record low in the education rankings, I can hardly imagine that dramatically increasing the student to teacher ration will improve this.

I can understand a certain amount of disgust, but this blog post makes a a statements that I see as imprudent:

"That would be because he doesn’t care about public sector jobs, and if anyone were ever able to get him to answer a question about it he’d likely say that losing these jobs is a good thing that will be good for the economy."

To me, this is quite presumptuous. It bothers me when conservative bloggers pretend to have an omniscient view into the minds of liberal politicians, and they use this vantage point to demonize the left. People say that Obama has no respect for America, that Obama is insincere in his spiritual beliefs, and that Obama generally would like to in some way or another harm America. I would like it if these conservative bloggers would quit pretending that they can read Obama's mind, and I would be a hypocrite if I wasn't equally displeased with reading this same sort of rhetoric on a liberal blog.

I don't believe that Rick Perry has no concern for 100,000 Texans loosing their jobs. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that this would be a very difficult choice for him to make. I also wouldn't assume that he thinks this will have a net positive impact on the state's economy, at least not in the short term.

I understand Perry's beliefs, and I understand that a balanced budget is high on his list of priories for building a better Texas. I don't think that firing 1/3 of our teaching force is a good way to do this and would have much preferred a blog post that surveyed the negative consequences of Perry's proposed budget cuts and possibly offered a better solution.

I think this blog will appeal to some liberals, although many people like myself will be left wanting a more intellectually palatable conversation.

Proposed legislation may result in friendlier professors... but what about a safer campus?

 

A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News is in no short supply of ammunition against the recent proposal in the legislature that would allow licensed students to carry concealed weapons on a college campus. Puns aside, the author makes several great points that will resonate with liberal readers and challenge the perceptions of constitutional fundamentalists. College students should be especially interested in this debate, as they have the greatest stake in this legislation.

The editorial is quick to point out that we are generally speaking about a higher-risk age group which is prone to showing a lack of judgment. Case in point.

More importantly though, the author notes that campus shootings, especially those on par with the Virginia Tech Massacre, are quite rare and do not warrant a solution so drastic. I think that conservative politicians tend to present school shootings as an epidemic that is growing out of control, when infact the statistical support for this is lacking. The editorial equates the idea that a student could successfully quell a shooting rampage without excessive collateral damage as being "theoretical," which is not a unreasonable assertion. Police officers receive extensive training in order to deal with a crisis like a campus shooting, training which the vast majority of students would have never received.

The author notes that there is a silver lining to this legislation. The proposed bill contains a clause that will allow private schools, with the support of students, faculty, and staff, to adopt rules banning firearms on campus.

The editorial ends with a call to action:

"Lawmakers can improve it a hair more by extending the “out” clause to every campus in Texas, public school or private, professional or community college. It’s called local control, something lawmakers say they honor. This legislation would be a good place to bend to that principle."

No, Seriously, They’re Serious

An article called "No, Seriously, They’re Serious" from Juanita Jean's blog sheds light on the reoccurring phenomena of media dishonesty and the promotion of out right insanity to gain ratings.

The article examines a clip from Fox news in which a panel of citizens take part in a focus group discussing Obama's recent interview with Bill O'Reilly. As I watch this short clip, I'm torn on how I should react. Should I be getting angry or if I should simply be weeping for humanity?

The president made a somewhat tame and reasonable comment that he wanted a representative government in Egypt that is determined by the people who have just fought for their freedom. Although certain strains of radical factions exist in Egypt (namely the Muslim Brotherhood), Obama does not want the American government to step in and babysit the process of nation building. Instead of marginalizing the well deserved reward of self-governance by laying down ground rules for who can have a political voice in Egypt, Obama would like the people of Egypt to decide for themselves. Denying a radical minority faction control of the country should be a victory that belongs to those who have stood up against oppression and not a precondition forced by an over barring world police.

Is it possible that a nation which just rose up to overthrow a dictatorship would have enough sense to not welcome an authoritarian theocracy without the divine guidance of the American government?

A difficult question. Let's turn to a panel of republican caucus voters for the answer, courtesy of Fox news.

What follows is utterly incomprehensible and I won't bother trying to analyze it. The panel concludes that he must be a Muslim Nazi.

No, Seriously, They're Serious.

But how does this relate to Texas government? The host of the panel in the video clip is none other than Bobby Eberle, State Chairman for the Texas Young Republican Federation. I think as Texans, we should be very concerned when someone who is leading a major political organization in our state is inviting ridiculous rhetoric on a a show that is broadcast to millions.