Threats linked to health votes prompt security

Since the assignment was to write a critique of an editorial or commentary from one of the blogs listed in the suggested sources, I thought the easiest thing to do would be to go to check on TexasFred. From the links and articles I’ve read from his blog, I assumed it would be pretty easy to find something to critique, since I’ve disagreed with most of the points I’ve heard him make. Imagine my surprise when I actually agreed with what he was saying in his latest entry.

(TexasFred - Threats linked to health votes prompt security - 3/25/10)

In the article, TexasFred admonishes the threats, violence and vandalism directed towards Democrats who voted for the Health Care Bill. His defensive tone implies this posting is directed at liberals as he states “this was NOT the work of PATRIOTS, it is the ill-conceived efforts of uncouth louts suffering from a strain of violence that they feel must be carried out. Or, perhaps it’s that of pure trouble makers that seek to incite radical violence in this nation.” I completely agree with that statement. Democracy is supposed to be what holds this country together. Being a patriot isn’t about violence or revenge. But if you truly believe in this country, I think it is about fighting the good fight, while treating your opponent the way you’d expect to be treated.

As he continues, he seems to direct his words more towards his fellow TEA Party members in saying “I can’t speak for ALL TEA Party members, but as for me, it is MY opinion that if there is ANY proof that this was an act perpetrated by TEA Party members, of any affiliation, be they Executive Board, General Board or rank and file, those individuals need to be removed from The TEA Party and disavowed, never to be allowed back into the organization again.” Again, I agree that it would be in the TEA Party’s best interest to disassociate itself from these or any other kind of illegal activities. I am not a TEA Party member, nor do I agree with most of their arguments. Having said that, I feel they will never get a serious discourse on the issues they want addressed if they allow thugs to take over. This will only serve to discredit the movement.

I certainly understand the frustration that many who are opposed to the Health Care Reform Bill are feeling. I felt the exact same way regarding the invasion of Iraq. Just like the Tea Baggers, citizens held rallies, wrote their congressmen, did everything in their power as citizens to try to stop the war. It left people feeling frustrated, disenfranchised, and powerless in stopping what they felt was a huge mistake. And here we are, almost 10 years later. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama was elected because he promised change and the people who put him in office are the same ones who felt powerless 10 years ago. We do not live in a totalitarian state and our presidents are not dictators. Sometimes change happens more slowly than we would like, but that is the price of peace. We don’t live in a country of coups and bloody overthrows, where change happens quickly and violently. Tea Baggers aren’t shot in the streets of Washington like protesters in Iran. Neither were those who protested the war. If you sincerely compare the President to Hitler or Stalin it only shows how fortunate you really are never to have actually experienced living under such a regime. If you resort to threats or violence to push your agenda, you are no better than the dictators you are comparing your opponents to.

Having said this, I do take issue with some of the things Fred has to say. He continues “I am NOT going to sit here and say that the American people will never have to rise and take back this nation, that will remain an open and viable possibility, and an option in the future. We are, after all, a nation built on rebellion and revolution against an oppressive government. But this is NOT the right time, not yet. All legal and peaceful means of resolution will have to be fully exhausted before radical actions take place.” I’m concerned whenever I hear of people advocating overthrowing the government, however reservedly. I think it could be argued that the people who are issuing the threats and violence disagree with Fred and feel that time for radical action has come. If you want to reserve your right to “rise up and take back the nation” when “all legal and peaceful means have been exhausted”, that COULD be interpreted as pretty much any time you don’t get what you want. We have seen recently in Texas with the Fort Hood shootings and IRS plane attack what happens when people think it is OK to use violence when they feel all their options have run out. Clearly, these are examples from a fringe of society, but who is most likely to act on such beliefs? In a democracy, things aren't always going to be the way you want them to be. If you feel you need to take the nation back, who would you taking it from? A totalitarian government or your fellow citizens? Yes, our nation was built on rebellion and revolution, but it was against a foreign country. The TEA party likes to remind us of the cries of “Taxation without Representation”, but I think there is definitely a difference between no representation at all and duly elected representation you happen to disagree with.

I will close with a slight rewrite of TexasFred’s closing statement -
Always speak the truth. Speak intelligently. DO NOT make threats of violence or death against the President or any members of the Congress or the Senate. Assemble LEGALLY, and peacefully. NEVER utter threats against any that oppose you. Be an American PATRIOT in every sense of the word! Be proud of this USA and all that it should stand for.

U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

Interesting article

Yahoo! News - U.S. history textbooks could soon be flavored heavily with Texas conservatism

Editorial: Americans' murders in Juarez finally get our attention

The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial on 3/18/2010 regarding American response to the slayings of American employee working at the consulate in Ciudad Juárez. Lesley Enriquez and her husband, Arthur Redfels were killed in broad daylight on Saturday, March 13 as they left a consulate social event. The article goes on to comment that the U.S. has been virtually ignoring the violence in Juárez as the numbers of victims has continued to swell over the last three years. It goes on to state that 2,600 people were murdered in Juárez in 2009 and "if that many civilians were killed in one year in Baghdad or Kabul, Washington's foreign-policy community – those smart folks who attend think-tank luncheons, write insightful articles and analyze world affairs on cable TV – would be having nonstop arguments about a grave world problem." The article concludes by urging the U.S. to make the violence in Mexico a "top-tier foreign-policy matter" before the violence spills across the border or risks the $51 billion in annual trade between El Paso and Juárez.

I completely agree that bringing down Mexican drug cartels needs to be a top priority of the U.S. government. My argument with this editorial is that it fails to mention that we have a moral responsibility to bring these cartels under control, as the violence they are bringing to Mexico is fueled with American money and is incited by our demand for illegal drugs. I certainly agree that it is important that we protect our citizens and that billions of dollars in trade between El Paso and Juárez are important. However, even if these things were not at stake, we still have a responsibility to the people of Mexico to stand beside them and fight what is essentially our drug war. The violence that is happening in Mexico right now is not because of a religious or political fight. It's not a civil war. It's about money pure and simple. Billions of dollars of American money. Because of that, the blood of the thousands of innocent people being slaughtered over that money is also on the nation who supplies it. I agree 100% with this article, but in my opinion, the idea that we need to address this problem before it spills over into Texas or affects our economy completely misses the point. We need to acknowledge our part in this situation. I'm sure it is clear to the people of Mexico and the rest of the international community, even if we would prefer not to see it.

Editorial: Americans' murders in Juarez finally get our attention | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Editorials

Nueces Bike Boulevard Proposal

Recently, a plan was introduced to the city to turn Nueces Boulevard into a Bike Boulevard.This plan is being promoted by the League of Bicycling Voters. A group has been created opposing this plan, Keep Austin Moving. In a nutshell, the plan proposes to make Nueces Boulevard more bike friendly without closing it to car traffic. The plan would use methods such as speed bumps, medians, and various tools to restrict auto traffic flow to accomplish this. The bike boulevard will connect MLK to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, approximately 15 blocks away. Proponents claim this will promote bicycle traffic , improve bicycling conditions, and help with building and maintaining a comprehensive bicycle system for the city. Opponents are concerned that it will add to further traffic problems and congestion within the city, as well as negatively affect existing businesses along Nueces Boulevard. I think both arguments have merit. However, I think it's important to consider that in the last decade, the number of people who live in downtown Austin has doubled to 8,000 people. We've all seen the recent explosion of condo buildings and it is expected that the demand for housing will continue. With these numbers, congestion can not be avoided and the city needs to look at ways to provide better public transportation, as well as promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic as an alternative. This will also go very far in promoting the "Green" image Austin has been working hard to project. I don't personally do much cycling, not in a small part due to not feeling comfortable sharing Austin's busy streets with motor traffic. Whether or not you agree with this proposal, I think Austin needs to rethink how people are moving around the city and I think the creation of safer and faster bike friendly or bike only routes around the city is a good idea and would benefit everyone, motorists and cyclists alike.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:951292

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/nueces-bicycle-plan-not-on-easy-street-183748.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:951290

http://lobv.org/

http://keepaustinmoving.org/

Disgruntled Americans are the New Terrorists

I have to agree with this.

The Smirking Chimp - Disgruntled Americans are the New Terrorists