Category: Op-ed

PASSING SENATE BILL 14 | SARC

~ dallas00f118bc8d ~ Leave a comment

On Tuesday, May 2nd, the Texas House will vote to decide whether doctors will be allowed to medically “transition” children in Texas. 

SB 14 would illegalize medical procedures, both surgical and hormonal, done for the purpose of altering a child’s sex.

This is, without a doubt, a good and necessary law.

There are few issues that motivate the extremes of America’s politics as the Trans issue does. Both sides on this issue believe that the well-being, indeed, the very lives of children are at stake. Both sides have turned to public protest. 

These protests are regularly becoming scenes of violence, as assaults on “anti-trans” speakers have become normalized. 

We hear regularly about a so-called “trans genocide” as states across the US establish laws limiting the medicalization of American youth. 

SB-14 is one such bill. 

This bill, it must be said, will not legalize or incentivize any acts of violence against trans-identifying people. This law is not an act of violence, despite what many activists will say.

This, we are told, will lead to a mass wave of suicides among trans-identifying youths. Oddly, we are also told that these procedures are NEVER performed on minors. 

Simply put, the arguments against the bill are contradictory. Either the procedures are occurring, and therefore should be banned, or the procedures are not occurring, and therefore this bill will have no impact on trans-identifying youth. 

I believe that the vitriolic response of the far left reveals which argument is more true. The response certainly suggests they are terrified that these procedures will be disallowed. Which means these procedures do occur. And there are people that will lie to keep them going.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Statement on the Passage of Senate Bill 14 – Ending Child Gender Modification

We are told that there are two options for those with gender dysphoria: transition or death. We are told that transitioners are always happier. We are told that gender dysphoria is a medical reality, but not a mental illness.

Yet there is not one shred of evidence for any of these claims. And while these claims are debated, one must ask, how many more children are going under the knife? How many more are beginning to take life-altering, body-modifying drugs that we know will harm them? 

The reality is that an unknown number of young people–overwhelmingly girls–are being told that there is something medically wrong with their bodies and that this can be solved through extensive, irreversible procedures. They are routinely lied to when they are told that puberty blockers “pause” puberty, or that the results of these drugs can be easily undone. 

And there is still not one study to prove that young people who undergo transition are any better off in the long run.

Their bodies are left scarred, and all too often seriously ill. 

Don’t believe me? Listen to the stories of the de-transitioners, several of whom spoke at the Texas Legislature on their horrific experiences. 

But how could so many doctors have it wrong, you ask. 

Or perhaps you’re less charitable and wonder how I could possibly think I know more than doctors.

Firstly, many medical professionals in the United States have spoken out against these procedures. They have also alleged that there is intense political pressure to conform to what a small group of academics wants them to believe. The American College of Pediatricians warns against using puberty blockers.

Secondly, the American medical community has made massive, unspeakable errors in the past. There was the lobotomy craze, which led to the mutilation of at least 50,000 Americans. Today, the practice is essentially unused. Electroshock therapy was used in numerous universities in ill-fated attempts to “cure” homosexuality. This was finally found to be cruel and ineffective. The mentally “unfit” were subject to castration as a way of “improving” the human race. After thousands upon thousands of these barbaric rituals, it was realized that this was a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

Large groups of doctors can be wrong. And when no one questions doctors, enormous numbers of vulnerable people are harmed. And we, as a society, can never cure the harm done.

Do you think that there is a medical consensus favoring “gender-affirming care?” You’d be wrong. The United Kingdom, Finland, and Sweden have largely banned these unsettling practices on children following reviews of the available evidence. There is no consensus; only dogma. A vocal minority has gaslit a nation into allowing thousands of children to be used as guinea pigs in a vast medical experiment. 

Ending experimentation on our children is a moral necessity.

The idea abounds that somehow the amorphous concept of “gender identity” exists almost entirely separately from physical reality. This idea is anchored in a pseudo-scientific conception of humanity. It is telling that many gender ideologues readily embrace mystical concepts such as “two-spirit” from Native American folklore as a part of their supposedly fact-based worldview. 

Ultimately, however, gender theory is an intellectual dead end. It represents an attempt to deny and overcome nature.

Humans exist on a biological binary with extremely minimal deviations from said binary. The cells that make up our very existence are biologically male or female.

And no matter how much we try, we, humans, cannot change our nature.

Movement after movement, cult after cult, has preached the changeability and perfectibility of man.

The Nazis believed they could create supermen through selective breeding. The Soviets believed they were within reach of the New Soviet Man, free of vice and selfishness, through ideological education. The Puritans believed they could be more like God through strict laws and prayerful consideration of all actions.

And all of them failed. Why should our society’s sudden belief that we can unlock the fullness of human potential through radical medical intervention be any different?

We must recognize that those suffering from gender dysphoria are people. In just about any argument regarding gender ideology, or-trans activists will claim that their opponents are denying trans people’s humanity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. SB 14 does not deny anyone’s humanity. Indeed, the only activists I know who deny any person’s humanity are pro-abortion activists. 

Instead, we who support SB 14 recognize those confronting gender dysphoria as people who are suffering and in need of help; not experimental mutilation.

Help doesn’t look like feeding delusions, needlessly removing healthy body parts, and administering drugs designed to castrate adults to children in an attempt to alter a healthy body into a pale imitation of the opposite sex. 

We must acknowledge reality and seek to heal the mind, not damage the body. 

 We must pass SB 14  into law.

PASSING SENATE BILL 14 | SARC

South Austin News | SARC

“This morning, Austin Energy had around 3 dozen homes without power, but around by 5:25 a.m. that number jumped to 7,772.” FOX7 “People were seen fighting over food in the dumpster at an H-E-B store in South Austin on William Cannon and I-35 yesterday.” FOX7 “A residential development containing 375 units and rising up to seven floors at the…

by Thomas McGregor

America the Violent | SARC

An anti-gun violence rally on the steps of New York City Hall in 2019. (William Alatriste/NYC Council)
~ dallas00f118bc8d ~ 1 Comment

An anti-gun violence rally on the steps of New York City Hall in 2019. (William Alatriste/NYC Council)

In the wake of mass shootings, Americans are regularly told that these atrocities do not happen in other developed countries. This, we are to believe, is the damnable result of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Americans are told again and again that the key to solving this problem is to drastically reduce the number of firearms in circulation; specifically, the number of semi-automatic rifles. 

Of course, America isn’t entirely unique. As we’ll examine later, many other developed countries experience mass violence, including France, Norway, and New Zealand.  

Despite the hyperbole, though, there is an element of truth in the idea that America’s violence is unique in the developed world. As a country, we are much more violent, both in mass settings that capture our imaginations and headlines and in individual cases that tend to be accepted as somehow normal.  

For example, when we compare US cities to those of comparable nations—Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia—we find that American murder rates are startlingly high in comparison.  Murder rates may not be a perfect indicator of overall violence but work very well as a way of identifying serious violent tendencies.  

Glasgow, Scotland ranks as perhaps the most dangerous major city in America’s peer nations with a murder rate of around 5.1/per 100,000 residents in 2020. 

That murder rate would make Glasgow, Europe’s deadliest city, the 62nd most deadly city in America in 2020, landing between San Francisco and Anaheim.  

So, does that prove it? Is it true that because Americans have access to so many guns, we are much more likely to murder each other?  

Not exactly.  

As it turns out, Americans do not rely on a single tool to commit murders.  

Indeed, according to the FBI in 2019, the most common murder weapon was the handgun, used in 45.7% of murders. Firearms of unknown type were used in 23.9%.  Knives were the second most common identifiable weapon at 10.6%.  

It is worth mentioning that murders with hands and feet (600) outstrip murders with rifles and shotguns combined (564).  

Now, there’s no doubt looking at those numbers, that the number of firearms almost certainly increases the number of murders—it’s just a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with your hands. 

But when we have gun control debates, lawmakers focus almost exclusively on one type of firearm: the semi-automatic rifle. A weapon so rarely used in murders the FBI does not distinguish its use from that of other rifles. I’ll say that again; rifles are so seldom used that the FBI does not count semi-automatic rifles separately from other, slower-firing rifles.  

To further put this in perspective, in 2019, there were estimated to be 16,425 murders. 10,255 of these were committed with firearms. 364 were committed with rifles—that we can prove. We have to assume some of the unidentified firearms are rifles.  

Even so, this is a tiny fraction of the overall number of murders; about 2.2%.  

To put this further in perspective, there were 36,096 vehicular homicides in 2019.  

There are 271,000,000 cars in the US.  

There are believed to be more than 400,000,000 guns. 

Despite this, a regular point of argument is that if we had the same kind of regulations around cars as we did guns, there would be fewer deaths. The belief is that by requiring training, licensing, registration, and other qualifications, deaths caused by firearms would be reduced. But as we have seen, the numbers don’t really bear this out, as cars—which have numerous, onerous regulations to own and operate, are involved in far more yearly deaths than guns, despite there being far more firearms.   

But even if we were to impose greater regulations on gun ownership, we wouldn’t expect it to have much impact on their use in crimes. Simply put, weapons that are acquired through legal means are very rarely used in crimes. 

In 2019, just about 10% of guns used in crimes were obtained in retail environments according to the Department of Justice. Retail environments include gun stores, sporting goods shops, gun shows, pawn shops, and flea markets. While it is often difficult to prove the provenance of firearms otherwise acquired, very few purchased in this verifiably legal way are ever used in crime.  

About 20% of guns used in crimes fall into a legal gray zone, in which the criminal claims to have acquired the firearm from someone else, either through purchase or as a gift.  

In total, 70% of firearms are acquired in an explicitly illegal fashion.  

What this points to is that criminals generally seek out non-verifiable means to obtain firearms, meaning that adding further regulation to the acquisition of guns would have, if not negligible, very minor effects.  

But again, given Americans’ highly violent nature, even if we were to ban all guns, and remove all firearms immediately, Americans would still attack one another by other means more commonly than our peer societies. 

America, however, is not merely more violent than our peer nations. 

We are much more criminal overall, with 715 per 100,000 people being held as prisoners. Some might say this is because of over-incarceration, with nearly 45% of those in federal prison being held for drug offenses. However, the statistic is still meaningful, as it demonstrates that Americans incur the risk of incarnation at a higher rate than our peer societies.  

This tendency also appears when we look at traffic fatalities. We have nearly three times as many traffic deaths per capita as the European Union—11.7 vs 4.2, suggesting more reckless driving in the US. 

Indeed, social science regularly demonstrates that Americans perceive less risk than those of other developed nations.  

Lack of risk aversion is highly correlated with crime, and those who commit even low-level offenses are much more likely to also commit violent crimes.  

All of this suggests that guns are not the root cause of violence in America.  

American people are.  

A murder committed with a firearm is just as evil and tragic as it would be with a knife.  

Let us turn our attention now to mass shootings, the crimes that most often grab headlines and shake our nation.  

Even looking exclusively at these horrifying crimes, the handgun is the weapon of choice for offenders, not the semiautomatic rifle. Handguns were used in 98 mass shootings since 1982 compared to 52 in which rifles were used.  

Now rifles are disproportionately favored in mass shootings as compared to the more common individual murder—making up about 30% of the weapons chosen in mass murder, but only 2% in individual cases. They are, however, not universally, nor even particularly often used, making up—of the three categories (rifles, shotguns, and handguns)—about one-third of the weapons.  

To sum all of this data up, targeting semi-automatic rifles would have a negligible impact on the overall American murder rate, and would not even prevent the majority of mass shootings. It is worth noting, that once a person has come to the point of deciding to murder a classroom of eleven-year-olds, the choice of which type of firearm is probably not extremely important to the outcome. In the cases of Uvalde, Parkland, and Sandy Hook, it would be foolish to suggest that had the shooters chosen handguns, rather than AR-15 style rifles, there would have been less carnage. The AR-15, firing once every time the trigger is pulled would not kill any more efficiently than a handgun operating in the same manner.  

This makes the proposed ban on semi-automatic rifles—often erroneously called an “assault rifle ban”—window dressing, intended to allow lawmakers to claim to have “done something,” with little regard for the actual results of this policy.  

This might lead one to ask, “why not ban all guns?” This is a topic we will turn to shortly in another post.  

There is basically no support in the US for a handgun ban, despite this being the most commonly used murder weapon.  American support for such an idea is actually shrinking, reaching an all-time low in 2019 according to the latest available data from Gallup. This is likely because Americans understand that the handgun is also an essential self-defense weapon.  

In conclusion, we are a more violent people and a less risk-averse people than our peers. We kill each other at much higher rates than our peers, but rarely with rifles—semi-automatic or otherwise. Simply calling out our differences in gun laws and gun violence is not a strong enough reason to ban an entire class of firearms.  

As we continue, we will examine what such a ban might look like, and what laws would need to be altered to implement it. However, our next piece will examine mass shootings specifically. How are they defined, who commits them, and where do they occur?  

America the Violent | SARC

South Austin News | SARC

“Roughly a dozen families living at a mobile home park in South Austin who received 60-day notices to leave will be able to stay for the time being after a Travis County judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday.” KUT 5 Fun Things in South Austin – DO512 “A 25-year-old man has been arrested for…

by Thomas McGregor

Austin’s Doomed Experiment | SARC

~ dallas00f118bc8d ~ Leave a comment

by Dallas Emerson, Communications Director & Data Analyst

dallas@southaustinrc.org

Austin has decided to launch an experiment with Universal Basic Income (UBI) in partnership with the nonprofit UpTogether. The program, when implemented, will send $1000 per month to 85 low-income individuals in the city.  

This is part of a series of experiments with Universal Basic Income occurring throughout the country.  

And they’re all pointless.  

Let’s set aside the principle and even the theory underlying UBI.  Those are arguments to be taken up when the discussion is whether to implement such a program.  

No, I want to talk about this “experiment,” and its guaranteed unhelpfulness.  

The idea behind running the pilot program is, at first glance, understandable. Rather than unrolling a multi-billion dollar program, we will study a small group of people, and how their lives and behavior is changed by receiving additional income.  

But the results will be easily misunderstood or misinterpreted; indeed, I would go so far as to say that the results will be meaningless. 

Let’s look at the pilot program again: 85 low-income people receiving $1000/month. That’s not chump change. I would certainly not turn my nose up to that kind of money. And certainly, we can expect that their spending habits would change. Their work habits will likely change.  

And that means nothing when only 85 people are receiving this money.  

However, if every single Austinite, all 950,000 of them, were to receive $1000/month—or about $12 billion dollars a year—we can only guess at the rapid, unprecedented rise in inflation as we poured an additional one billion dollars every month into our economy. Keep in mind, that nothing else will have changed—there will not be more goods being produced or more workers contributing. There will not be higher quality goods.  

We can guess what kind of wild effect this will have on the prices of low-income housing, food, fuel, and childcare in the city.  

They will go up. 

As we have seen on a national scale, subsidizing demand, by sending cash out to consumers, leads to price increases. This is not an argued point. The only question is how much of the inflation can be attributed to government disbursement of funds.  

If the Council agrees to this experiment, they will be putting Austin on a path to receiving information that we know will be misleading. We know that the relatively small disbursement will help these few, chosen families. We also know that these families will be the most likely to suffer from inflation—low-income families are always hit hardest by price increases.  

The Council must exercise prudence and take any result of this futile experiment with skeptical eyes. 

Austin’s Doomed Experiment | SARC

Are We Rewarding Failure? | SARC

Austin City Council voted to increase their pay by 40% last week by an overwhelming margin. Out of the eleven members, only three opposed this egregious hike in pay; Paige Ellis (D8), Vanessa Fuentes (D2), and the redoubtable Mackenzie Kelly (D6).

by dallas00f118bc8d

Murders in the Park | SARC

In 2020, the city council removed $150 million from the Austin Police budget. While this author has given special attention in the past to the obscenity of losing our sex crimes unit, there is another element that was eliminated causing all too tragic consequences. 

by dallas00f118bc8d

The Party of Lawless Disorder | SARC

~ dallas00f118bc8d ~ Leave a comment

By Dallas Emerson, SARC Senior Communications Director & Data Analyst

The rule of law is essential in a free society. Law and liberty are not opposed; they go hand in hand. In a lawless world, the powerful do what they wish, regardless of consequences. In a free society, even the rich and powerful can be held accountable.  

In America, there are essentially only two parties—regardless of what my Libertarian friends and Green Party…acquaintances say. Unfortunately, one party is increasingly clear that it opposes the rule of law at every level, from municipalities to the Presidency.  

While neither party is free of malcontents, violent rule-breakers, or outright corrupt leadership, only the Democratic Party, at the moment, seeks to drive the country further away from the rule of law and brags about it.  

Here at home, in Austin, our Mayor imposed lockdowns and asked us all to stay home—while he vacationed in sunny Cabo. Democratic-aligned council-people gutted police funding, sewing the seeds of a heartbreaking spike in murders. These same councilors buried their heads in the sand about the frightening homeless problem until it became so glaring that it couldn’t be ignored. Their solution? Spend tens of millions of dollars on the problem—to no avail. When the citizens of this city put forward a plan to reverse this problem, the Mayor, and his predictably far-left associates, suddenly found they could take a firm stand—against implementing any kind of common sense law. Even while acknowledging their leadership had failed. When the initiative passed, the Mayor, and his predictably far-left associates, dragged their feet, refusing to do much at all to enforce the new law.  

When Save Austin Now PAC worked to get a new initiative on the ballot, the City Council so badly mangled the language of the measure that the Texas Supreme Court ordered a change.  

And this makes no mention of this city’s illegal “sanctuary” status.  

But the lawlessness continues to higher levels than our Council.  

The Texas Democratic House Caucus fled the state—in direct violation of the law—because they were afraid they might not get what they wanted. They were hailed as heroes by their national counterparts.  

 At the same time, this party opposes any kind of anti-majoritarian institution that doesn’t benefit them; the Senate, the filibuster, the Electoral College, and the Supreme Court come time mind. They even abhor it when state legislators flee to avoid losing a vote—so long as they’re Republican.  

The Democrats rightly bemoan the awful riot on January 6th yet have nothing but kind words for those who looted, vandalized, and murdered during the summer of 2020. They also had nothing to say as far-left demonstrators attempted to burn down a courthouse in Portland—while people were inside. Almost nothing was said about the separatist movement that seized several blocks of Seattle until there were enough murders to force the City Government to step in. The Seattle Councilors found it in their hearts to speak against vandalism. Of their own homes. In Minneapolis, the Council has cut police funding, while boosting their own security staff. Safety for me, but not for thee.  

But it doesn’t stop there.  

In California, the Governor gave orders to shut the state down, but exempted his own winery and did not stop dining out with lobbyists at gourmet restaurants. In Michigan, Governor Whitmer’s husband attempted to use her authority to take his boat out (she claims this was a joke—oh if only that defense worked for the rest of us.). In New York, the third straight Governor has left office under a shadow of doubt and a cloud of corruption. This was a man who said there should be zero tolerance for sexual harassment. His brother, allegedly a journalist, violated his professional standards by actively working on communication strategies with him. 

The last governor of New York to leave with honor and dignity? George Pataki—also the last Republican.  

But it doesn’t stop there.  

The Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s eviction moratorium was illegal—a decision I believe is completely correct. The CDC has no jurisdiction over anyone’s lease.  

However, that didn’t stop prominent members of the Democratic party from calling on President Biden to directly refuse to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling and reimpose the moratorium. 

Think about that for a moment. When a judge rules in court, his or her decision is law. Short of the Constitution, there is no higher legal authority in this country than the Supreme Court. Members of the Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution. As is the President. In this instance, members of the House were violating their Oath of Office by demanding the President violate his.  

And he did.  

Even while admitting his decision was unconstitutional, President Joe Biden, reinstated the eviction moratorium.  

Which, again, is illegal. And, again, everyone was clear on this.  

And Joe Biden won plaudits from his chorus in the media and his co-conspirators in government.  

And then he did it again.  

After having professed for months that the federal government cannot instate a vaccine mandate, President Joe Biden unilaterally declared that all companies of 100 or more staff must ensure all staff are vaccinated.  

And more praise followed.  

To repeat, the President has now twice told us that he can’t do something only to turn around and do it.  

In Democratic politics, this is described as a reversal.  

For the rest of us, it’s a called a confession. 

The Democratic party is completely uninterested in enforcing the law. Our largest, most chaotic cities are dominated by Democratic machines. Our own city, once a beacon of safety, is increasingly dangerous, setting a record for the number of murders this year. The second most dangerous year? 2020.  

Yet they are intensely interested in ruling. President Biden even spoke of getting Governors “out of the way.” As though elected officials are mere obstacles to his rule. 

Lawless rule in other countries would be called corrupt or authoritarian. Here, we call it “progressive.”   

It may seem that this is all too big. I’ve written of several states, numerous cities, governors and presidents.  

But reform start at home. Waves start as ripples. Local elections become national landslides.  

Let’s fight here at home, together. Our city is not too far gone, and I do not believe our nation is either.  

America the Violent | SARC

In the wake of mass shootings, Americans are regularly told that these atrocities do not happen in other developed countries. This, we are to believe, is the damnable result of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

by dallas00f118bc8d

Austin’s Doomed Experiment | SARC

Austin has decided to launch an experiment with Universal Basic Income (UBI) in partnership with the nonprofit UpTogether. The program, when implemented, will send $1000 per month to 85 low-income individuals in the city.

by dallas00f118bc8d