WHY THE WAR ON WOMEN WILL FAIL

This is a very tough moment in the struggle that's been full-on since Wendy Davis made her courageous filibuster standing up to the bullies.

Let's put the disappointment over the 5th Circuit's ruling in context. The self-seeking political power play by the Far Right is on the wrong side of history. The Republican's War on Women will fail. The legislators that wage it will be removed.

But that is in the long run. Now, there's the harm women will suffer - bad outcomes from the Texas GOP's failure to follow the medical profession's URGENT recommendations. 

And for what? To gratify the state's aging Far Right radicals. 

Again, it may be small solace to know that time and tide will set this right. 

So, for what it's worth, here's the demographics that cannot be denied. This was my testimony AGAINST HB2 on July 2.

***

Chairman Cook, Vice Chair Giddings and the other members of the State Affairs Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify AGAINST this bill.

Who does it directly affect?

Your constituents under 40 years of age, 58% of Texans. 

This is a group that is consistently underrepresented in the legislature.

Who are the under 40?

Most belong to what is known as the Millennial Generation - those born approximately between 1983 and 2003. Millennials are 100+ million

strong. That's more than the Baby Boomers.

What can we say about them? First, they like to vote. With each passing election cycle, millions more of them can and do go to the polls. According to the Center for American Progress, Millennials counted for 20% of the ballots cast in 2008, some 25 million nationwide. In 2016, that should grow to 33%, 46 million ballots.

Millennials are ethnically diverse and politically progressive. That means there is fundamental change in the makeup of the people you represent. In 1988, Conservatives outnumbered Progressives here by 14% among 18- to- 29-year-olds. In 2008, that shifted drastically with Progressives leading by 9% - a 23-point swing.

They also have a very different overall outlook.

64% of Millennials agree that:

“Religious faith should focus more on promoting tolerance, social justice, and peace in society, and less on opposing abortion or gay rights.”

Just 19% disagree.

54% of Millennials agree that:

“Our country has gone too far in mixing politics and religion and forcing religious values on people.”

Only 29% disagree.

I bring this to your attention because of what is, perhaps, the most germane point in your consideration of this bill:

How can you best represent you constituents when voting on it?

It boils down to this:

Will you vote for this bill on behalf of the aging members of your district not directly affected by it? Or will you represent the Millenials who will have to live with it?

And, to put this in the broadest terms -

Will you represent the future of Texas - or the past?

***

Tea Partiers, Williamson County 2009

Protesters against anti-abortion legislation, 2013

 ###

DRAMATIC PROOF FOR THE INANITY OF SANITY - COLLEGIATE DIVISION

There's nothing like having a look at another's pissing match to appreciate the inanity of sanity.

First, let me preface this by disclosing that I have NO connection to my case-in-point. It simply popped out at me from the front page of the Austin American Statesman this morning:

Sorting this out is besides my point. For the morbidly curious, AAS staff reporter Benjamin Wermund does an admirable job mucking through the miasma in detail, intimating many fetid tidbits untold. In brief, it is what I term a "stinkus" - a stink-circus or, if you prefer, a malodorous parade accented with unsavory goobers. 

I will, however, sketch this in broad strokes.

The Khabele School had a pretty good thing going.  It was a good school with a whole lot of good teachers, good parents, good students, good will plus money enough to go around. Add in celebrity appeal, and you have a very happening little school!

Then, as happens time-and-again, there was a budget shortfall. This raised pressure and issues.

From there on out, here's the generic pattern that such conflicts typically follow:

There was a disagreement. The disagreement was not agreeably resolved immediately. It festered. The disagreement expanded as people peripheral to the initial disputants were drawn in. All parties agreed that this was an important dispute - important enough not to let go of.  Lines were drawn, then crossed. Escalation ensued with appeals to moral and legal reasoning. Accusations and aspersions began to fly. Opponents had apparently violated assorted sundry moral and legal codes. Regardless of how easily it may have been to resolve at some early juncture, this became intractable. In the end, someone had to win and someone had to lose. 

The only specific I'd like to point out here is the appeal to social media. Check the "Transparency for Khabele" Facebook page. Imagine the effort it took to draw together this detailed chronology and "documented evidence." 

This is HEAVY. I can feel the unhappiness, leavened with a heartfelt desire to confront injustice, driving this. 

Taking a great, big step back - which is only possible for disinterested observers such as myself - it seems that having this end up on the front page of the hometown newspaper is, er, somewhat less-than-desirable.  It would seem that almost ANY outcome that DID NOT end up there would be preferable.  Is that reasonable to say?

Now assuming that we're all reasonable....

The ONLY reasonable explanation for this outcome is the INANITY OF SANITY. 

Sanity is banal, boring. We like to get worked up about things, then they work us. We go insane, and feel the better for it even if it is for the worse. That's why crazy things like war and lesser conflicts are "a force that gives us meaning" as Chris Hedges so astutely observed. 

Crazy as it is, this just makes sense to us. 

###