No Plastics, Please!

In a city of such active and open-minded people, you’d think it’d be a no brainer for the people of Austin to keep around the plastic bag ban. This new restriction is a milestone in keeping the city’s beautiful streets clear and our ecosystem clean. What Austinite wants to be in the middle of an afternoon job around Lady Bird Lake only to keep trekking over dirty H-E-B bags? What could be more of a day downer than floating into a patch of ducks strangled in cheap plastic while swimming in Barton Springs?

Local stores can also bring in some money by banning plastic bags. Everyone loves an economy boost! Instead of giving away the plastic ones for free, stores can start charging to sell their customers reusable bags. It doesn’t have to be much;  a couple dollars per bag can add up fast. Reusable bags can be stylish, bright, fun, and they can represent the city of the Austin. I wouldn’t doubt that such a trendy population would deny themselves a hip “Jeremiah the Innocent” bag, would you? These bags can act as both a trend for the buyer and advertising space for local stores, bands, attractions, events, etc.

The ban is a great step toward healing the environment and preventing further damage to it. Plastic bags litter both urban and rural areas. Most of them go to waste and aren’t recycled. I can’t tell you how many bags my family throws away every week after we’ve gone grocery shopping. Not only do they dirty our towns, but they continue to dirty the planet even after people are done using them. They contribute to landfills, aren’t made from renewable resources, and can kill harmless animals all over the country.

While it may be tough to replace the “bag in tree” game on family road trips, this ban is vital to the progress of not only our lovely city of Austin but also to the world as a whole. We’re setting examples of efficiency, style, and health without sacrificing much ourselves. Is this even really a debate?

Pedal to the Metal Jail Cell Bars

On March 6th, the Austin-American Statesman published an editorial about the texting and driving ban which soon may become a law in Texas. It was published by the editorial board, whose credentials I critiqued in my previous post. No one on the board seems to have significant experience in politics, but their arguments seem valid and well researched nonetheless.

This article weighed the pros and cons of the ban. While it did cite an incidence in which texting-while-driving bans actually increased car accidents, the board scorned Rick Perry for calling the law a "micromanagement" tactic. I do see Perry's point and understand that's a common opinion, especially among conservatives. However, I have to disagree and say I believe the ban is a vital step toward safer roads in America.

It is true that laws are managing techniques. They aim to change behaviors when the people have proven that they can't be deterred simply by the obvious consequences of an action, like taking illegal drugs or driving without a seatbelt. Some may feel these laws are too constricting and that we should be given the choice to take part in dangerous activities if we so choose. I agree with this to a small extent, but I mostly find it wrong for two reasons. One: many people do not have the education or common sense to forgo risky decisions. For those people, there are laws that strive to prevent these poor decisions by invoking fear of punishment. Two: laws are created for the good of everybody.  Billy Bob may be entirely confident that he can safely drive his Ford F250 down I-35 while texting his girlfriend, but that young girl in the smart car next to him might think otherwise. Then she ends up in a hospital bed from a collision, thinking 'what if'?

What if Billy Bob had passed a cop on the highway? What if there was a texting and driving ban and he'd have been pulled over before little Sally Smart Car even got on the road? Prevention is not the enemy; ignorance is. Laws are created to protect the preventative, cautious drivers from the reckless and ignorant ones. It may not deter all perpetrators, but it's a start.

Treatment vs. Prevention

On February 11, the editorial board of the Austin-American Statesman published an editorial critiquing the state government's choices on spending for state prisons.

The paper's staff is made up of several columnists who've had previous work writing editorials about fitness, art, food, and entertainment. However, I didn't come across any whose descriptions listed any significant experience in politics or even economics. I still, however, found this article both well-written and convincing. I believe its target audience is criminals, plus their family and friends, and prison employees. However, it also is applicable to Texas' population as a whole due to its comments on state spendin, a topic we all should be concerned about.

The columnists argue that the state government is wasting its $123 million dollar investment in prison bed leases since there are just not enough inmates to fill them anymore. This is a hard statement to refute when you look at the facts; crime rates have been steadily falling over the years, therefore fewer and fewer people are being locked behind bars. Why, then, is our government continuing to fund the "brick and mortar" parts of crime treatment rather than following the road of criminal reform that lower incarceration rates have paved for it?

The columnists say this action stems from a reliance on prisons to fuel the job market. Sure, prisons require employees, but so does drug-dealing and child trafficking; a need for jobs does not justify the morality of the work. By no means am I comparing illegal activity to the hard work of the people with prison jobs; I'm merely attesting to the double-standard view that governments seem to have that "a job is a job". The work is admirable, but the job quality is poor, with low wages and little benefits, and the spots may not be needed with the lower inmate rate. While cooks and janitors are hired out the wazoo, security guards are few and far between. Yet, the Texas government refuses to make changes. It insists upon paying for  workers we don't need and beds that aren't slept in instead of joining the forces of citizens and organizations working on preventional and correctional programs within local communities. Is it conspiring to wonder whether the governments actually wants more incarcerations? Prepping the prisons instead of preventing the crimes is like shopping for a liver transplant instead of tossing out the booze.

I think the lack of reform is just another example of government stubbornness, and it may not even be backed by a good enough reason, like job creation (this is my liberal side speaking). Prisons will always be necessary, but, as the article states, the staff should be shrunk and funds redirected. I absolutely agree that the government needs to pull its money out of private company investments and work on the homefront: on our streets, in our schools, homeless shelters, and local businesses. These are the places where criminality is halted by awareness and education.

The State of Austin

Texas Monthly recently published an article about the history of racial segregation in Austin, entitled What Nobody Says About Austin. Reporter Cecilia Balli recounts feelings of being outcasted for her Latina heritage and delves in Austin's cultural and political history to uncover an explanation for why Texas' most confidently liberal city may also be its most segregated.

I couldn't empathize with Balli on a racial level, but her commentary on the whacky and unpredictable social behaviors of Austinties is something I found humorously true. Though it's a place I feel very at home, I find it hard to ever feel like I really fit in socially. Walking down Guadualupe is as much a people-watching paradise as it is a retail one; the locals choice of attire, hair style, and demeanor never cease to amaze and perplex me.

This article is almost a spin-off on our last participation question about Texas exceptionalism. While it's impossible to deny Texas' sense of being "it's own country", I think the same goes for Austin as far as being it's own little state. No where else, from San Antonio to Llano to San Marcos, is the demographic atmosphere quite as particular as it is in Austin. No doubt does this atmosphere play off of a segregational tendancy, and Balli really opened my eyes to see it. Anyone who knows Austin decently well can admit that a divide exists between classes and, subsequently, races.

Austin does indeed exemplify a unique spirit, but just how accurately does its culture represent the entire state of Texas? Based on this article, I'd say not very well. Will Austin ever redefine its reputation for the sake of a desegregated city?