Response to jt's texas state stuff

On my fellow classmate's blog, she wrote an article on the "strengths and weaknesses" debate on evolution in Texas public school curriculum. You can find the original article here. This is my response:

While the position may have merits, the way in which the point was argued made it seem weak and bigoted. A short three paragraph blog post initially dismisses intelligent design, and then the bible, and then religion itself. The issue at hand is whether or not the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory, specifically the theory of evolution, should be taught in Texas public schools. What is not being discussed is whether intelligent design should be taught in schools, which is something your post completely misses. 
Of course evolution should be taught in public schools. Much of modern biology is built on the framework of natural selection and evolution. But there are strengths and weaknesses to the theory and a well reasoned debate about whether or not to include these in school curriculum is not extreme. 
Belittling a legitimate issue facing our state is much less effective than presenting a well reasoned argument for why the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught in our schools.

Single-Member Districts

Currently, the seven-member Austin City Council is composed of the Mayor and six Council members. All seven are elected on a citywide basis, meaning that each city voter selects their choice for mayor, Council member 1, Council member 2, Council member 3, etc. This method of selecting our city council creates a body that does not adequately represent the city it presides over. A new electoral system is needed for selecting the Austin city council that provides a more equal representation system better suited for our growing and diverse city.

 

Instituting single-member districts is the best way for Austin to create a more accountable and representative city council. By dividing the city into several smaller districts from which one councilperson is elected, the council would be better able to represent areas and neighborhoods that now feel excluded. Under the current system, as mentioned in an April 10, 2009 Austin American-Statesman article entitled Council to discuss single-member districts Monday, city council elections are now disproportionately affected by central Austin voters who historically have higher turnout. Creating single-member districts or a hybrid system incorporating single-member districts into the current at-large framework would create a council more in-tune with all Austin residents, not just those in central Austin.

 

Some proponents of the current city council election framework may point to the disproportionately high voter turnout in central Austin and argue that it is evidence that central Austin residents are simply more knowledgeable about city issues and care more about city politics. Thus, the current system is very representative because it caters to those residents who actually care about city issues. This argument, however, avoids the possibility that voters outside of central Austin vote less because they aren’t presented with candidates that they feel represent their interests. Creating a system that includes single-member districts would allow the diverse neighborhoods of Austin to select candidates from their own communities that represents their interests. Today’s city council is not accountable to the voters in this way since it is selected in large part by a portion of the city and not the city as a whole.

 

Single-member districts have been rejected by Austin voters six times. If city council elections are an indicator, the voters in those elections were probably central Austinites. The city is growing and diversifying at a rapid pace may finally be ready to transition into a city council system that incorporates single-member districts or adopts them exclusively. Doing so would create a council that is more sensitive to the wide range of community opinions and may ultimately result in a city that is stronger and better equipped to manage Austin’s future.

Other article used: Council votes to oppose bill on single-member districts

The Mueller Development of Austin

         A recent developer wrote an editorial in the Austin American Statesman entitled “Wendler: Was the Mueller project a mistake,” in which he argues that the way in which the city recently handled the development in east Austin of the Mueller neighborhood at the site of Austin’s old airport was a poor decision for the city of Austin that will bring in no money. Jim Walker responds in an editorial that presents a counter argument that I personally, as an East Austinite who lives minutes away from the development, support. His editorial can be found here. It is directed at Wendler and those who read the initial editorial as well as other citizens of Austin, especially taxpayers. 

         Walker himself is an Austin citizen and a taxpayer who supports what his city is doing. His credibility as an author is increased by the apparent knowledge he displays through his writing and understanding of the Mueller development. His occupation is not cited and this detracts from his credibility, especially since his editorial is a rebuttal of a developer and a former Planning Commission member.

         Walker lays out his argument as though it is an academic paper. He claims that the Mueller project was not a mistake. The city chose to make a long-term investment by giving the land to the developer for free and having the developer pay for park, utilities, roads, etc. Walker acknowledges Wendler’s idea that this move obviously did not bring in the amount of money to the city of Austin  as it could have if they sold the land to the developer. He goes on to claim that this was not stupidity nor a fantastical dream of the city of Austin leading to nowhere,  instead it was an ambitious vision for the city that encapsulates Austin’s own personality.

         Walker cites the Statesman story he is responding to in the beginning of his editorial. Other types of evidence Walker incorporates into his piece include numbers, such as the reference to Mueller as a “700 acre city-wide asset,” quotations, as well as knowledge of community organizations/groups that are involved in the project and nation-wide information. For example, he shares that even though two-thirds of the Mueller development is not yet complete, it has received awards nationally and other recognition. He names lists of actual places that are linked together and benefit because of the nature of this development such as The Dell Children’s Hospital, Austin Film Studios, and UT academic health facilities. He also lists entities that the project helps, such as Austin ISD, Travis County and even ACC!

         As I mentioned previously, the logic used by walker to support his argument is professional and academic in style. His piece works up to his ultimate conclusion that the city of Austin will be debt free and have billions of dollars of taxable land in the future. What captivated my attention, is the emotional appeal to Austin citizens that he initially incorporates into his editorial. He claims that the city of Austin’s decision to develop the Mueller area in this way is an example of the “spirits of Austinites working together,” because it plans for future gain while holistically sustaining meeting community goals.