What's the Opposite of Small?

A recent post on the blog, Texas Politics Student Project, author W. R. Clements addresses the Republican Party ideology that government should exist in a small form. To quote the GOP directly, they state that:

The Republican Party, like our nation's founders,believes that government must belimited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on therights of individuals.

Well, as Clements also points out, they continually attempt to do just the opposite. I absolutely couldn’t agree with Clements more! We have seen the GOP in Texas contradicting that official statement above with such things as the Sonogram Bill. That interference from the government does indeed “infringe on the rights of individuals.” As it stands now, we will probably never see any progress in legalizing same-sex marriages in the state. The continued cuts in funding to education and health care…. that’s not helping out either.  

I’ve said this before (probably in my blog too) and I wholeheartedly believe that a collusive relationship between government and business serves no great purpose. It definitely does not reduce the power of the government by keeping this relationship alive. Money is the driver behind the GOP’s motivations. They are not willing to risk asking for corporations to cough up a little more money. Corporations are given tax breaks while low-income families suffer through the oppressive regressive tax system in Texas. I suppose the politicians do not want to hurt the feeling of potential campaign contributors.  Instead, they are actually expanding, not limiting, their power by taking extra away from the poor. 

I disagree with Clements that it is very difficult to hear a discernable message in the recent Republican Party presidential debates. Yes, the candidates are taking a lot of craziness, so it can be quite tricky to filter through the words they are speaking. The message is quite clear to me. They are paranoid. Terrorism, immigration, spending money, abortion, homosexuality, civil rights in general and so on. They are scared! You can see that in the bills they create and the programs they cut. 

But, W. R. Clements, you are right. In the hands of the Republican Party, government has done nothing but get bigger. 

Take a moment and check out the GOP's platform right here.

Redistricting Revisited...AGAIN!

Oh, Redistricting! You are so highly-charged and controversial. We are once again facing a contentious debate in Texas politics in regards to redistricting. Remember the scandal in 2002/2003? As you may already know, the state has the ability to redraw congressional district lines every 10 years after the national census is conducted. Texas has experienced a boom in population over the past decade. That means that we also gained greater congressional representation with the addition of 4 new districts.

A large part of the population boom is due to the increase of minorities now residing in the state. Minorities have long been underrepresented in a state that already has a huge number of Hispanic, Asian and African-Americans making up the population. The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature’s newest map of congressional districts is receiving much criticism and accusations of both partisan and racial gerrymandering. Critics claim that the Legislature’s map intentionally continues their mission to squash the power of both the Democratic Party as well as minority voters. In the 2012 election, for example, Lloyd Doggett, a 9-term member of the US House and a Democrat, would either be faced with running in a new more Republican district or move to a district that would cover an area from South Austin to San Antonio. That doesn’t make any sense in the way it would represent the population nor does it make sense politically and geographically.

With so many details making this issue all the more complicated, this post could go on for pages and pages. The Texas Tribune has a handy little page devoted to this fiasco right here. I have barely scratched the surface on the matter. However, those Texas Legislature proposed maps have been stopped. A panel of 3 federal judges has intervened in the meantime and placed revised maps into place for now. The matter is far from settled as there are multiple lawsuits in the works (on both political sides) and an appeal to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Greg Abbott. But, the question remains…how do we redistrict Texas in a way that is both logical and properly represents the constituents of the district while being non-partisan?

The best thing to do, in my humble opinion, is to ensure that district lines are drawn in a way that makes sense geographically and accurately represents the constituency of the area. Take the politicians out of the scenario completely and remember the PEOPLE. Wasn’t government created “by the people” and “for the people” in the first place? Politics has become so much about, well, politics. We have large minority base in Texas. Let's make sure they have a voice. We have a large Democratic base in Austin. Let's make sure they have a voice too. Splitting up Austin/Travis County to inject more Republican votes doesn't represent the constituents in a logical geographic area either. It has been suggested that a committee of non-partisan citizens contribute to the creation of district lines. I think that's a pretty fine idea. Get citizens involved in a matter that very greatly affects them directly.

Take a look and see how and if your district has changed here.

That CRAZY Sonogram Bill!!

Since the introduction of House Bill 15, or what we commonly refer to as the "Sonogram Bill", I have been absolutely appalled at the Texas Legislature. If unfamiliar with the details of the bill, which passed both chambers, a woman would be required to receive a sonogram and a detailed explanation of the fetus by a physician before they are able to have an abortion. The government would be interfering in a situation that is already extremely painful. I thought the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature was all about smaller government and less interference...This sounds like quite the opposite to me.


I had wanted to write about this topic for an earlier posts, but decided on something else instead. I was happy to see that a recent post on the blog It's Complicated:  Texas Politics and Government tackled that very subject. The author, Tori T., feels much the same way as I do about the bill. It's ridiculous that the "Texas Lege" and Governor Perry feel that there's a need to inform women of the "devastating impact of such a life-changing decision." We women don't need your help! The devastating decision was already gut-wrenching enough anyway. The last thing a 15-year-old girl, who may have been raped, needs to hear is about the description of the fetus that was created through a violent act that is inside her. That's cruel and unusual punishment. And, like Tori states, sometimes adoption just isn't an option. She gives some shocking numbers concerning how many kids are lost in the system of foster care with nearly 30,000 in Texas alone. I don't understand why or how we could allow this to happen.

There is one matter that I disagree ever-so-slightly with. She writes:

I’m not one to condone abortion as a form of birth control, because I think if you can bring a baby into this world you should. Yet if you can’t take care of the baby, you were raped, have AIDS, or have a child who tested positive for a life altering disease you should be able to make that VERY personal and hard decision on your own without the government forcing their way into that decision.


I absolutely detest when I hear of women using abortion as birth control. I don't think that was the purpose of legalizing abortion in the first place. But, despite my dislike, I am happy there is a choice available. I do agree that there should never be a question if there was a rape/incest or other horrible circumstances involved. No child should every be born out of violence or be forced to knowingly suffer from illness. I am happy there is a choice available again. From the above statement, my understanding is that these are the circumstances where government shouldn't interfere. I don't think that government should really ever interfere with abortion. No matter what. 


Thankfully, the US Supreme Court has refused to allow Texas to enforce this law after it passed this summer. What a relief! If I am ever in a situation where I have to consider an abortion, I am so thankful and relieved to know that under any circumstance, what I do with my body is MY choice, not the Texas government or anyone else. I think that any woman in that situation would be thankful. So, yes, Tori T.! You are so right to think that the government should stay the heck out of the decisions we make with our bodies, especially when the decisions can be so traumatic. 

Let's Talk About Sex...in Our Schools

I'm about to age myself. Yikes! But, here goes...

I went to high school in the early/mid 1990's. So, back in MY day, our high school curriculum included one semester of Health Education in our 10th grade year. I'm not sure if this is how it stands today. But, my Health Ed. class was laughable at best. There was a short section on sex education. It made all the boys and girls giggle when we had talked about reproductive organs. Worst part of it was that the COACH, who most likely was required to teach the class, could not have been more uncomfortable talking about it. However, I at least feel fortunate that sex education was included at the time. Though vague as it was, we all left the class slightly more informed about our own bodies. This is definitely not how it stands today. S-C-A-R-Y!!

Now, kids do not get an all-inclusive sex education. Texas lawmakers encourage an abstinence-only based curriculum. In fact, by 2009, 94% of Texas public schools were using this form of sex ed. They are being taught nothing more than if they don't have sex, they won't get pregnant. I don't disagree that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent teen pregnancy. But, let's face the truth here. Teenagers are going to have sex. Since this form of sex education has been in place, the statistics aren't improving. The unfortunate teenagers are so uninformed now, we wonder why the teen pregnancy rate in Texas is amongst the highest in the nation. We are currently number 5.

Since teens are going to have sex, why not educate them in the process instead of sweeping it under the rug? In addition, why not teach kids the truth as well? Everyone needs to know the basics of human anatomy. Everyone needs to know how to protect themselves. Kids are not being taught accurate information and are being scared into abstaining or not protecting themselves. Some are being taught that condoms do not prevent HIV  and HPV transmission. In turn, these teens that are having sex end up not using condoms.

Abstinence-only sex education means money. For school districts, it means more funding for including this into the curriculum. In the bigger picture, however, this means more money being spent. That's more money being spent on, for example, health care for the new babies as well as for teens who may be spreading sexually transmitted diseases. A little bit of knowledge could have gone a long way in saving money for many families.

This shouldn't not be an issue about politics, but for some reason it is. So, to those on the right, all-inclusive sex education isn't about Planned Parenthood's pro-abortion propaganda. It's about the health and education of the future of this state. They need the right information. Lawmakers and politicians should not be the ones to make the decision as to what is right and proper to teach. Education should be fact based with no political agenda.

Occupy Austin, y'all!

So, for this round, I decided to take a look at how the other half lives. That is, I took a look around at some of the more conservative, right-leaning blogs around the state. There's very interesting stuff out there (both on the left and the right). Unsurprisingly, I disagreed with much and that's alright by me. I didn't expect to agree and appreciate the other side's opinions. But, I found this little lovely on UrbanGrounds.com and found myself feeling a bit perturbed.

The article pretty much lambastes the Occupy Austin movement's activists as "slackers, professional protesters, and brainwashed Liberal college kids." They amount to nothing more than whiners who are "coveting that which [they] did not earn nor deserve." A picture of a young man is featured in this piece. He is tattooed, lip-pierced and bearded while holding a sign asking to be able to work for an education. The writer finds him "mockable" and "unemployable" based only on his appearance. So much for individualism...

I cannot disagree with this article more. The young man in the picture should be respected. Political activism is always a good thing. Being motivated to attempt change in government, whether big or small, is always a good thing. Even if stand on the other side of the line than me, it's a good thing to get politically active. He and his community of "slackers" are out there doing something. I find the author's write-off of this movement based on surface judgements offensive, even deplorable. It would be wise to know what the movement is about before being so quick to judge. The participants are not looking for freebies and hand-outs. Ending corporate corruption, environmental protection, equality, fair work practices are some of the goals of the movement. Now that doesn't sound too bad to me.

Occupy Wall Street was the starter of the movement and has prompted many across the globe to join in. I had the good fortune to be in New York City last weekend. I was able to see the gathering in Zuccotti Park first hand. What I saw was a large group of every race, age, gender and social class gathered together in a non-disruptive, peaceful fashion. It was inspiring to see so many gathered together trying to make a change in the government. There's was definite solidarity within this community. It's awesome to see it happening at our own City Hall. I hope to see this affect politicians on every level of government to listen to what the 99% out there have to say.

Austin=(mostly) No-Kill

It is amazing to see moments when government, local in this instance, really comes through for its citizens. In March of 2010, the Austin City Council voted unanimously to move the city towards becoming no-kill.  For animal advocates and animal lovers, like myself, that day was pretty monumental. The city's goal was to reach this within two years. Since the vote, I have been curious as to how the city has been progressing. A recent article in the editorial section from the Austin American Statesman shed some very promising light on the topic.

The goal has actually been to make the Town Lake Animal Center (TLAC) 90% no-kill, meaning animals could still be faced with the possibility of euthanization. These instances would be if the animal came to the shelter with a serious medical illness/condition or if the animal exhibited dangerous/agressive behavior. But, the numbers are looking extremely promising. By June of this year, the shelter was 91% no-kill and had been at that status for about 6 months. That is no small feat considering close to 23,000 animals come through the shelter doors each year. In addition, KXAN reported that prior to the vote in 2010, TLAC was euthanizing 32% of the animals coming through each year.

The progress is due in no small part to those in the local community who have been consistently speaking up at City Hall. These animal advocates have done so much to save so many animals' lives in the community. There influence in creating this change in the city is beyond commendable. But, to continue this progress, I agree that the city will have to expand its programs. Educating animal owners is key. Owners need to be aware of ways to properly care for their pets and have affordable resources for spaying/neutering, vaccinations, identification, etc.

Animal welfare may seem like a strange political issue. But, when you consider that $12 million of the city's budget will go towards funding the new TLAC facility in East Austin, you can see some reason for the debate, especially since there has been so much talk of late concerning the city and state's budget shortfalls. Sure. This isn't immigration, health care reforms or capital punishment here. This is the important stuff that we face everyday. I, like so many of the thousands of Austin residents who have adopted from the TLAC, are ecstatic over what some might consider a small success. To many, our animals are a vital members of our families. So, if that means I may have to pay an additional city fee here and there, I am willing to contribute, as small as the contribution may be. I would gladly spend a little extra on, for example, parking downtown if that meant I could help throw in a tiny bit more into the pool.

Like the author of this article, I, along with the animal-loving community in Austin, applaud the City Council, TLAC's efforts, Austin Pets Alive, Austin Humane Society and all of the vocal advocates for the progress that has been made in moving towards a no-kill goal. There are still some big steps to take. But, the advances are immense. I hope that the city continues to move in this direction and Austin residents continue to adopt and save the lives of the animals in the shelter. These animals really do contribute so much to our lives.

My dog, Stella, was adopted from the TLAC in 2007.

"Perry the Executioner"

It's certainly an extremely exciting and interesting time to be watching the happenings of the Texas government. The actions of our very own governor, Rick Perry, have been shining an even brighter spotlight on our state while he campaigns for a spot on the presidential ballot in the 2012 election. One particular action has come under scrutiny many times during his 11+ years in office and now, during his campaign....executions.

An article in the latest issue of the Austin Chronicle breaks down some of the ways he's become known as an executioner. He's had more executions occur during his terms, 235 actually, and there are no signs of slowing (there are 5 more scheduled executions through the end of the year). Perry has only once granted a commutation of a death penalty. This happened in 2007 when Kenneth Foster was set to die. Foster was driving when his passenger, Maurecio Brown, shot and killed Michael LaHood. Though Foster did not pull the trigger, he was sentenced to death. The state argued that Foster's responsibility in this crime was the same as that of the shooter. The Board of Pardons and Paroles recommended his sentence be reduced to a life sentence. Perry agreed. This was a rare incident.

As far as legislation is concerned, Perry has intervened in disturbing ways. In 2001, he vetoed a bill that would ban the execution of the "mentally retarded". Though Perry did admit he felt that executing these individuals was wrong, the bill would "strip juries of their final decision-making power". It is also of interesting note that all the members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles were appointed by Governor Perry.

There has been a lack of transparency with Perry and the way he has handled the incredibly high number of executions. Criminal justice practitioners feel that this fact is rather unsettling. During Bush's administration, the decision making process was a bit clearer. Bush's clemency notes, prepared by Alberto Gonzalez, his general counsel, were released when then Attorney General, John Cornyn, ruled they were open records. Though embarrassing for Bush, there was the ability to see how recklessly Bush made his decisions based on the minimal information he was given on each case. In 2002, newly elected Attorney General, Greg Abbott, decided to change this and said this information was "privileged".  Kristin Houle, executive director of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, feels that this lack of transparency shows Perry's "unrepentant unwillingness to admit that mistakes are made".

On a positive note, Perry has made strides where criminal justice reform is concerned. For instance, there is now access for prisoners, post conviction, to DNA testing. Perry made the life-without-parole option for sentencing possible as well. However, for me, these efforts pale in comparison to the reality of what is actually happening. There is no doubt that Rick Perry is tough on criminals. But, it seems as though he has taken Bush's legacy of carelessness and compounded it exponentially. Take a look at how the case of Cameron Todd Willingham was handled (also mentioned in this article). It is important to know what the nation's possible future president's history and track record are, especially when the number of executions are declining in the rest of the country.