editorial 3

arm debate raises issues of race, class

   In the now-closed Austin dialogue about whether slaughterhouses should be allowed to operate in single-family neighborhoods, there was a rush to find refuge in euphemisms.    That particular conversation closed with a common-sense City Council vote to ban slaughtering in single-family neighborhoods — among other restrictions. The tenor and tone of the discussion did not comport well with the city’s carefully cultivated and cherished image of itself as one that fiercely protects its neighborhoods and embraces tolerance.    There was an unmistakable undercurrent of race and class issues that the city has trouble confronting directly; thus the search for semantic refuge.    Saying that animals are “processed” sounds a lot better than saying the city would allow animals to be slaughtered commercially in a residential neighborhood. Growing “sustainable food” sounds downright noble — much better than saying urban farmers engage in commerce. They grow products in order to sell them. Commerce is the lifeblood of any community, but restrictions on where that commerce is conducted usually apply.    It should not be lost on anyone that the urban farms seeking city approval to expand their activities were all located east of the interstate and in low-income neighborhoods. An ordinance passed in 2000 allows urban farms. And an interpretation of the ordinance by the city staff technically allowed slaughterhouses in any city neighborhood.    Only a fool would believe that residents in Tarrytown, Bouldin Creek or Allandale would allow a commercial slaughterhouse operation and the composting of animal remains anywhere in their neighborhoods.    It was a point opponents raised, but advocates countered that the soil was better — and thus more conducive to home-scale agribusiness — to the east. It was a counterpoint that conveniently used geography to tiptoe around demographic reality. People in poorer neighborhoods don’t have the economic and political resources enjoyed by those who reside in more affluent areas.    So, watching this debate unfold was Austin political theater at its best. Much sound and fury, righteous indignation and only an occasional concession to the struggle to determine which of two competing factions has the political muscle to influence a council outcome.    Had the urban farm interests not tried to push their envelope so aggressively in seeking to operate slaughtering and composting, the peaceful co-existence with their neighbors might have continued. We noted in previous editorials that we get the desire for locally produced fresh food. However, we shared the neighborhood’s objection to allowing commercial slaughterhouse operations in neighborhoods zoned for single-family residences.    The council’s vote last week was a vote to protect not only those low-income neighborhoods east of the interstate but a reaffirmation of its stated commitment to protect neighborhood integrity.    The process that led to the proposed ordinance recommended by the city’s planning commission was flawed and, despite protestations to the contrary, not inclusive.    Frankly, the council’s concurrence with the neighborhoods was something of a surprise. The city offered mediation to the two sides, and they agreed but failed to reach a compromise, raising the stakes for the Thursday vote.    The urban farm interests rallied an impressive show of support at the council meeting on Thursday, but in the end the council sided with the neighborhoods.    The vote ended this chapter, but there will be other disputes as demands for property for housing and businesses continues to turn east, where the land is not only tillable but cheap. Gentrification disputes have been an ongoing source of friction for longtime residents of Hispanic and African-American neighborhoods for the past 20 years. That tension raises the price of growth.    The city is growing, and we should all hope it matures as it grows. Growing up means confronting issues associated with growth squarely and talking about them directly.    Next time maybe we will, but don’t put a big bet on it. Austin has found a comfortable refuge in its euphemisms.

The Austin City Council voted not to allow chickens and other animals to be slaughtered commercially in residential neighborhoods. 

 

the statement of evidence is explain

editorial 2

thanksgiving transcends generations and cultures

   One extended family. Four generations. Four nationalities. Two friends. One disability, and an age range of 3 to 88 characterized those assembled to celebrate Thanksgiving at the Sanchez house last year.    In short, we were the quintessential embodiment of the traditional celebration of the centuries-old American holiday.    My husband, Hector, hails from Puerto Rico (of course I know he’s American, but hey, according to the rules of international sports, Puerto Rico is a country), my cousin-in-law from South Africa, one friend from Mexico, and the rest of us from various parts of the U.S. My oldest daughter has Down syndrome.    The jobs those assembled have held include full-time mother, business owner, college professor, executive director of the Dallas Bar Association, teacher, sales representative, construction worker, fast-food employee, attorney, librarian and engineer. In short, we were a diverse group.    Case in point, we had both delicious cornbread giblet stuffing to appeal to the Southerners as well as yucky (exposure to other traditions does not always translate into acquiring a taste for their food) sausage stuffing to appeal to the Northerners.    In defiance of my-side-of-the-family’s convention of artful turkey carving, Hector demonstrated his family’s preference for efficiency over form and hacked the bird to bits. As he began his assault, the spectacle began to draw a crowd who witnessed it with varying levels of horror and hilarity. My grandmother still laughs about it.    Although family gatherings generate a good amount of stress and earn their fair share of scorn in popular culture, they also convey great benefit. They offer an opportunity to practice tact and diplomacy, as well as to overlook human idiosyncrasies.    They offer the opportunity to network—to learn about Australia from the aunt who just visited or to figure out what to do about a misbehaving car from the auto enthusiast.    They offer youngsters the opportunity to see history come alive. I certainly took a greater interest in World War II in high school because my grandfather told the stories of his close calls while being a pilot and wing commander of a B-17 bombing squadron flying missions over Germany (such as the time he turned the radio back on because of a gut feeling— even though they were supposed to be silent— just in time to hear his tail gunner shouting “Dive, dive.” Because he did, he and his crew survived that mission.)    But holidays not only give us a connection to world history but also give us a connection to family history, and consequently, a better understanding of who we are. They cement our identity, creating a web of interconnected people with whom we share a story.    At Thanksgiving, young children hear stories from grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts and uncles that add the color commentary to their family history.    The news, however, flows both ways. The octogenarian gets to learn about Taylor Swift and the newest smartphone app, while the teenager gets to learn about Big Band music and party-line phones.    Counterintuitively, by interacting with the micro group that is family, we broaden our experience of the larger world.    The glass-half-empty side of Thanksgiving is the long lines at the airport, the congested interstate highways and the jacked-up prices for plane tickets. What fills the glass is millions of Americans, jumping through hoops, exerting time, energy and money to be with family. And for that we should be grateful.    Family remains the touchstone for millions of us. We might be pulled far from our family the rest of the year, either through geographic distance or the busy pace of daily life, but the fact remains that we will go to great lengths to reconnect with them.    Each gathering in turn contributes to the family lore. Although children might enjoy hearing about something nutty their mom did when she was little, they might also like to tell their own story of Thanksgivings past, such as the year Papi hacked the turkey to pieces.    A day dedicated to gratitude befits a country with so much for which to be thankful.    The effort millions of Americans make to be with their loved ones reflects the fact that for many of us, our family is the root of those blessings. 

the statement of evidence is entertainment :the spectacle began to draw a crowd who witnessed it with varying levels of horror and hilarity

i dont really agree with this statement. its more of just telling a story. it doesnt really fit into anything.

editorial-Warn

Hey, kids: Drop the pie. Get moving.

   Now that the last of the Thanksgiving leftovers are being finished off and attention has turned toward Christmas and its own form of holiday gluttony, let’s pause for a moment to consider our physical fitness, or specifically our children’s physical fitness.    Our kids might be able to do many things we could never do as a child, and they definitely have entertainment options we couldn’t imagine back in the day, but one thing they probably can’t do is run a mile faster than we could run one when we were their age. On average, our increasingly sedentary little angels are much less fit than we were.    That’s the troubling word out of the American Heart Association’s annual conference, held in Dallas last week. An analysis of 50 studies conducted over 46 years found that it takes today’s kids 90 seconds longer to run a mile than their counterparts 30 years ago.    It’s not surprising to hear that American children are less fit than American kids once were, given the rise in childhood obesity rates in the United States. It is harder to run when one is overweight or to do another endurance-building, aerobic exercise like cycling or swimming. Researchers who conducted the analysis said kids’ increased weight and body fat explains up to 60 percent or more of the declines seen in children’s fitness over the past few decades.    The new analysis was led by Grant Tomkinson, an exercise physiologist at the University of South Australia. He and his team looked at data collected from 1964 to 2010 on 25 million children ages 9 to 17 in 28 countries. The studies focused on children’s running times and endurance, which are good measures of cardiovascular health. It’s no comfort knowing that it’s not just the fitness of American kids that has declined over the decades, but the fitness of kids worldwide: 20 million of the 25 million children in the studies were from Asia, and particularly sharp drops in fitness were noted in China.    In addition to rising obesity rates, the reasons that explain why children worldwide are slower and less fit than an earlier generation of children are familiar to Americans. Too much time is spent watching television, using electronic devices and playing video games. Suburbanization encourages the use of cars rather than encouraging people to walk or bike. And schools are placing less emphasis on physical education.    In the United States, health experts say children 6 and older should get 60 minutes of moderately vigorous exercise or active play a day, something only about a third of American kids currently get. Children used to get a good chunk of their much-needed exercise time at school, but not so much anymore. The Austin school district, for example, requires its students to take physical education, but the requirement is not a daily one.    Children who are aerobically fit are more likely to score higher on standardized tests, studies show, and to be fit as adults. Being unfit as an adult leads to serious health problems like heart attacks or diabetes and contributes to rising health care costs for everyone.    How much more schools could do to encourage fitness is limited by budget cuts and an always tightening focus on testing and academic achievement. The fact is, there is no more sedentary a role model for kids than their parents. Children may have been more fit 30 years ago, but many of those children have grown up to be physically unfit adults.    Granted, the modern world demands sedentary people who sit for eight to 10 hours a day staring at a computer screen. Several studies have pointed out the health risks associated with sitting for hours at a time, even for the very fit.    These studies offer no solution, only a conundrum: Sit and endanger your health; don’t sit and endanger your job and bank account.    There are societal and educational solutions to be found for achieving a more fit world, but the simplest solution always will be an individual one. There is more time to exercise than many of us think. Turn off the electronics and television. Lace up the shoes. And encourage the kids to do the same.

Participants in the Marathon Kids physical fitness program in 2012 celebrate the final mile at the Burger Center. Today’s children are substantially less fit than their counterparts were 30 years ago, according to a major new study of 25 million children in 28 countries. 

statement of evidence:50 studies conducted over 46 years found that it takes today’s kids 90 seconds longer to run a mile than their counterparts 30 years ago.

i agree with this statement. kids should get some exercise instead of sitting around all day.
sheltering yourself can lead to psycological damage as well