Lady_E

6 posts
I'm a thirty odd years old American who hasn't quite decided what I'm going to do with my life when I grow up. My personality can be summed up in one word: Scorpio.

How Libya Is (And Is Not) Another Iraq

For the second time in less than a decade, the United States is engaged in military actions against a Middle Eastern country.  Since the passage of Resolution 1973 and the subsequent military actions, reported yesterday by Ken, a number of people have expressed uneasiness at the idea that Libya could “turn into another Iraq.” That’s understandable.  I don’t think anyone, except possibly Tony Blair, wants another Iraq.  But, this is a serious concern.  So, in a two part series, I’m going to consider how the situation in Libya is similar and different from the Iraq invasion and, finally, whether, notwithstanding current distinctions, Libya could become another Iraq.  Part I of the series will deal with how the situation in Libya is similar to Iraq.

How Libya Is Another Iraq

Libyan rebel waves the Libyan flag atop a destroyed government tank.

The Region- The most obvious similarity between Libya and Iraq is one of geography and religion- both countries are in the Middle East and have majority Arab Muslim populations.  It’s easy to dismiss this as glossing over a number of important differences, but I would caution against such an approach.  The fact is that it does matter to many people that the US and our Western allies seem selectively focused on the Middle East while ignoring human rights abuses and humanitarian crises in other parts of the world (Burma, for example).

This criticism is similar to that levied against the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s selective prosecutions of only African conflicts.  Skepticism on this issue can undermine how the world, and more importantly Arab populations, view the legitimacy of the UN and US actions and potentially re-raise a number of the neo-colonialism charges that so damaged America’s reputation from the handling of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation.

No Fly Zone Again– The US and her allies established and enforced two separate NFZs over Iraq from 1992 until the “conclusion” of the Iraq invasion in 2003 (once the US officially occupied Iraq under our “rebuilding” rationale, the NFZ was quickly lifted).  Like the Libyan NFZ, the Iraq NFZs were premised on humanitarian grounds, specifically to protect civilians, the Kurdish populations in the North and the Shiite Muslims in the South.

The Usual Suspects Advocating Military Force in the Middle East- Just as with Security Council Resolution 1441 (declaring Iraq to be in material breach of WMD disarmament and the pre-text for the US/UK unilateral invasion), Resolution 1973 was co-sponsored and heavily supported by the UK and US.  The Iraq NFZs were also jointly operated by the US and UK (with Turkish participation).  There are non-nefarious explanations for this, mainly the reality of which countries have the military resources to actually enforce anything the UN authorizes and whose support is therefore critical.

The recent history of the US and UK in Iraq is also the reason you may be hearing people refer to fears of “mission creep”- the steady expansion of a military mission beyond its original mandate and purpose.  Resolution 1973 is limited in its scope and mission and expressly bars any ground occupation.  But, Resolution 1441 expressly did not authorize invading Iraq, yet that didn’t prevent the US and UK from dishonestly using it for that purpose.  The UN, like any organization, is only as effective, disciplined and honest as the nation states that make up its membership.  For this reason, many view any US/UK advocacy for military involvement in the Middle East with a great deal of alarm and question the “real” motivations of these two countries’ constant warmongering positions.

Middle Eastern Countries’ Participation- The Arab League’s endorsement of the Libyan NFZ has been hailed as a remarkable step and a move that inoculates Western powers from neo-colonialism claims in attacking Libya.

The Arab League never endorsed, as a group, the Iraq NFZs or the Iraq invasion, but these events did have Middle Eastern nations’ participation.  Turkey officially participated in the Iraq NFZ enforcement, twice passing legislation extending Turkey’s military involvement.  And, while technically no Middle Eastern country was included in the “Coalition of the Willing,” Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar all allowed the US and UK military to launch the Iraq invasion from their countries and provided air and ground access into Iraq.   While Arab League members’ involvement in the NFZ is substantially greater (Qatar and UAE jets are involved in enforcement actions over Libya), their involvement, in itself, does not particularly distinguish Libya from Iraq.

Western Accountability Lacking Again– Saddam Hussein was prosecuted for crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Provisional government.  However, his conviction and death sentence was based solely on the murder of 148 Shiites following a failed assassination attempt in 1982.  Left out of the trials was any evidence related to crimes against humanity that were carried out with American provided weaponry and, in some cases, with US knowledge that the arms and weaponry would be used against civilian populations.  Documents declassified by the National Security Archive spell out US involvement in installing and arming Hussein and, as reported by the Washington Post, “Americans drafted many of the statutes under which Hussein and his associates [were] tried.”

The US and UK, like with Iraq, have provided Gaddafi with many of the arms his military is using in committing potential crimes against humanity.  Resolution 1970 gives the ICC jurisdiction to investigate these crimes, but is limited, some would say specifically to avoid US and UK accountability, to actions after February 15, 2011.

Will we one day say Libya intervention, 2011: Another Iraq?

For the reasons listed above and many others, many people watching the situation in Libya feel a creeping sense of déjà vu as these similarities revive unpleasant memories and serve as a powerful reminder that the noblest intentions (I’m being charitable here!) can lead to great, potentially irreparable harm.  With that in mind, the second and final installment in this series will focus on why the situation in Libya is not like Iraq, but also acknowledge how it could become, in the future, the next Iraq.

Read More

For an excellent interactive feature on the Iraq NFZs, see here.

For an overview of the Iraq NFZs enforcement, questionable legality and a list of US/UK military strikes in Iraq based on NFZ breaches, see here.

 

Dinner Conversation Starters- Fun with Bookshelves Contest!

1 comment

I’m sure you are all familiar with the advice of  “three things not to talk about at a dinner party: religion, politics and race.”  Well, I have something of a perverse sense of humor, I admit.  So, here is a current picture of my bookshelf, completely visible to any unsuspecting guest who may come to visit (I don’t really cook, so they wouldn’t be coming for dinner.  But, maybe drinks!):

 

From right to left, the titles are:

  • Words of Fire, An Anthology of African-American Feminist Thought
  • Women Filmmakers of the African and Asian Diaspora
  • When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost: A Hip-hop Feminist Breaks It Down
  • The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality
  • Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement
  • Child Abuse Industry
  • The Holy Bible
  • The Communist Manifesto
  • Marx and Engels on Religion

Are you like me?  Do you take perverse joy in placing provocative (or scandalous!) reading material in plain view?  Ever forgotten about them until poor Grandma came to visit?  If so, submit your photo (re-arranging for purposes of this contest is allowed) or, if you don’t have the books anymore, your best story about your inappropriate reading habits and the hilarity and/or awkward moments that ensued!  Best submission will win the honor of declaring yourself “Most Inappropriate Crasstalk Book Owner Of 2011” (trophy and certificate not included in award).

Your Thoughts Wanted: Sen. Evan Bayh, Glenn Beck and FOX News

Yesterday it was announced that former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) was joining Fox News as a “political commentator and analyst.”  My initial reaction to this news was to frown and shake my head.  I am, to say the least, not a fan of Fox News.  For the record, I am also not a fan of MSNBC.  But, I’ll get to that in a moment.  I don’t watch Fox News, so this isn’t a criticism of their news coverage or political commentary.  My objection to Fox can really be summed up in two words: Glenn Beck. My problems with this hatemonger are manifold, but I’ll just mention one.  As a Jew, and, ahem, specifically a Reform Jew, I strongly object to Mr. Beck being given a national, mainstream platform to spew his barely cloaked Elders of Zion Jewish world control conspiracy theories.

Because “ratings matters,” I would prefer that my fellow Americans choose to express their disapproval of Mr. Beck by not watching Fox News so long as he is on the network.  By joining Fox, Sen. Bayh, a centrist well-spoken and intelligent man, is not helping in this cause.   This is particularly disappointing to me given the Senator’s involvement in No Labels, an organization founded by a bipartisan group of current and former elected officials, including Independent Mayor Bloomberg, former Republican Congressman Scarborough and former Sen. Bayh, who are “frustrated and concerned about the tone of politics” and believe “hyper-partisanship is destroying our politics and paralyzing our ability to govern.”  Hmmm.

In thinking about this yesterday, I tried to understand how sharing a network with Mr. Beck furthers the goals of No Labels.  When the Bayh news broke, my Facebook page exploded with comments- many echoing this sentiment.  However, there were opposing views. Here is a comment from a friend and political activist:  “But even No Labels has to have a conduit for promoting its message. Mass media is media for the masses, and influencing those masses is how we change the system.”

Ok.  This is a valid point and it got me thinking.  Now, let me move at this point, to why I dislike MSNBC, because it’s relevant here.  First, I find MSNBC and Fox much too partisan and slanted in their reporting to be a news source for my tastes.  I hate surprises.  I’d prefer to have all the facts, mitigating and otherwise, on an issue before I start forwarding around while jumping on my high horse about it.  But, the bigger issue I have with MSNBC is their role in mainstreaming and rehabilitating the noxious racist, Pat Buchanan.

For those used to seeing Pat joshing around with our favorite liberal lesbian, Rachel Maddow, here’s just a sampling of Mr. Buchanan’s less adorable beliefs in his own words:

After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was “putting on an act” by associating the Confederacy with slavery: “The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance.”

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: “There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours.

But, as I thought about my friend’s comment, it occurred to me that Mr. Buchanan does not say these things on MSNBC and doesn’t seem to say them much anymore at all.  Hmmm again.  So, now I’m asking myself: should Mr. Buchanan be shunned for his past horrid behavior or is it better that because of his appearances on MSNBC he seems to actually have moderated his statements, if not his beliefs?  Is it better that, even if he secretly still believes them, he doesn’t say them anymore?

All of which brings me back to Senator Bayh, Glenn Beck and Fox News.  So, now I’m conflicted and not sure where I stand.  Is it possible that, simply by having individuals of Mr. Bayh’s caliber, Fox News may move away from commentators like Glenn Beck?  Is it possible that Sen. Bayh’s participation may temper Mr. Beck’s more unacceptable statements, at least on his Fox News show?  Is it better to take a principled stand against Beck and Fox News or to engage to try to change them?

Hmmm for a third time.  What do you think?

Read More:

Evan Bayh joining Fox News

Glenn Beck’s “monstrous” Soros accusations rile Holocaust survivors, Jewish groups

Southern Poverty Law Center Report, The Second Wave: Return of the Militias, documenting Fox News and Glenn Beck’s race-based conspiracy theories

No Labels

Pat Buchanan in his own words

Senator Bayh on the issues

 

Revisionist History: The Civil War, Slavery and States’ Rights

Words are powerful things. Simply changing one word in a sentence can completely change its meaning and how listeners understand what is being discussed. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recounting of history. As collective memory fades and ultimately disappears with the passage of time, it becomes all the more important to challenge (and correct) modern day retellings of historic events that have been shaded and reframed over time to the point that today’s narrative could, and should, be labeled a lie of omission, if not commission. What am I talking about?  This. “The Civil War was about State’s rights, not about slavery.”

Of course the Civil War was about states’ rights. That statement, in and of itself, is true.  Or rather, true, but incomplete and, in its incompleteness, substantively false in its modern presentation. The incompleteness rests in the obvious question this statement raises: the seceding states’ right to do what?

To answer this question, I am not going to give my view or that of historians and commentators, but rather, am going to present the actual statements and justifications of the seceding states and the subsequently formed Confederate States of America. This information seems particularly timely given that yesterday, March 11th, was the 150th anniversary of the adoption of the Confederate Constitution by the Confederate Congress. The Confederate Constitution was very similar to the original US Constitution.  However, as explained by Professor of History, Stephanie McCurry: “there were, however, a few significant changes. They purged the text of all of the ambivalences, compromises and hedges about slavery, representation and the power of the federal government that had plagued the republic since the founding.”

If the actual Confederate Constitution does not settle the question of how important maintaining the institution of slavery was to the seceding states, let’s look at a couple of the Declarations of the Causes of Seceding States that preceded the drafting of the Confederate Constitution.

Mississippi (Adopted January 9, 1861): In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Georgia (Adopted January 29, 1861): The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property …

The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquility.

Texas (Adopted Feb. 2, 1861): We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.…

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons– We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof…

In presenting these statements, I do not want to suggest that northern Yankees should assert any claim to moral superiority. Indeed, the current mistruths about the North and Slavery are just as problematic and dishonest. But, let’s all be clear about one thing. The next time you hear someone claim that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not about slavery, please correct those to two little words: It was about the states’ rights to continue slavery.

Read more:

The Confederate Constitution (with highlighted changes and explanations by Prof. McCurry)

Exclusive: Interview with Boycotting Indiana Rep. Terri Austin

Today, Crasstalk is thrilled to present a conversation with Indiana Democratic Representative Terri Austin (IN-37).  Rep. Austin was one of two Democratic legislators who remained at the Statehouse to object to any legislative business occurring without a quorum.  A leading voice in education, mass transit and transportation, Rep. Austin has spent the last two weeks traveling back and forth from the Indiana Statehouse to Urbana, Illinois, where the remaining Democratic caucus members have been since the standoff began.

As they enter their third week of boycotting the Indiana House of Representatives, Indiana Democratic legislators are facing enormous pressure from all sides.  On one side, there are calls for them to come to the Legislature and go back to work.  On the other, countless Hoosier workers and teachers who have rallied day after day, numbering in the thousands each time, to show their support for the Democrats’ stand.  What is happening in Indiana is different than what is occurring in Ohio and Wisconsin. However, there are also common themes threaded through each states’ stand off.  For many, the events in Indiana and across the country represent no less than a battle for the future of the American working class.  Are unions a thing of the past?  Do public employees deserve collective bargaining?  These are just a few of the questions raised by this situation.

Indiana Democrats released the following statement about the boycott.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2011, House Democrats used their constitutional obligation to prevent quorum on the House floor to stop a radical agenda that was a direct attack on working Hoosiers and our public schools. We left for Illinois to give the thousands of Hoosier workers, teachers, and families a real voice at the State House. Our decision was to send a message to Republicans that we were serious about our concerns. Some say we should come back and do our job. We believe that fighting on behalf of thousands of Hoosier students, workers, and families is our job. To sit in the chamber and simply vote no was not enough.

Source: Indiana State Legislature

Before focusing on the substance of why Democratic legislators left the state, I want to ask you about the tactic of walking out or boycotting the legislature.  Some have suggested that this is not an appropriate way for a minority party to block legislation.  How do you respond to this criticism?

Rep. Austin:

I have great respect for our legislative institution and its rules.  The tactic of quorum-busting—causing a quorum to be prevented from meeting—has been used in legislative bodies by minorities seeking to block the adoption of some measure they oppose. Quorum-busting has been used for centuries. For instance, during his time in the state legislature, Abraham Lincoln, leapt out of a first story window (the doors of the Capitol had been locked to prevent legislators from fleeing) in a failed attempt to prevent a quorum from being present.
To remain out of the House chamber should be used rarely and done only after careful consideration.  We know that Speaker Bosma and other House Republicans understand this, because when in the minority, they used this Constitutionally-granted ability in 2001 and 2004.

Both Republican and Democratic members have participated in walkouts that have stopped legislative action.  However, in the recent past, members have not left the state.  Why did the Democrats feel they needed to leave the state?

Rep. Austin:

The decision to leave the state was made after careful deliberation.  There was significant concern that the Speaker of the House or the Governor would use the powers of arrest to compel attendance.  The only way to ensure that this would not happen was to relocate to a region where the powers of arrest were not recognized.  It also gave us uninterrupted time to review, discuss and debate the various pieces of legislation we were concerned about and to develop proposed amendments to the bills.  We believe that the legislature works best when a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise is present.

Indiana House members initially left the state to stop Right to Work legislation from passing.  Why is the Democratic Caucus opposed to RtW?

Rep. Austin:

The decision to break a quorum was not just about Right To Work.  Over the last couple of weeks the barrage of controversial and critical bills, put on the calendar at the last minute, hampered the ability of legislators and the public to understand the details of these bills much less consider their long-term consequences.   Let me give you an example of what I mean.

The RTW bill was scheduled on the very last morning for committee hearings.  The hearing was held in less than ideal conditions.  There were hundreds of people who traveled to the statehouse to testify regarding the bill.  Many could not even hear the testimony because the hearing room only held about 50 people.  Others were forced to stand outside in the hallway or throughout the building.  92 people who signed up to testify were not given an opportunity to testify.

It is important to note that there was conflicting testimony on the positive impact of RtW legislation in other states.  Dr. Gordon Lafer, an Associate Professor at the University of Oregon indicated that all of the most recent scientific studies show that RTW has zero impact on job growth.  In fact, only one state, Oklahoma, has adopted Right To Work over the past 25 years.  One problem with basing public policy decisions on what happened in 1970 and 1980 is that we live in a fundamentally different economy today.

Something this important should not be determined in a 90 minute committee hearing where Hoosiers were denied an opportunity to hear the testimony or offer their thoughts and opinions as citizens.

I think you can see from this example and news reports of the session that legislators and the public were not fully educated on several bills that were moving like a runaway freight train.  Although the “Right to Work” (RTW) bill has been depicted as the primary reason for the “time out”, it was a whole list of concerns.  This time out has given the public and legislators the time to learn about the content of these bills.  As can be noted by the thousands of citizens who have demonstrated at the statehouse and rallied in their communities, the public is becoming more aware of these issues, and they are speaking up.  The focus of this time-out should not be the absence of the House members but the potentially damaging impact of these bills.

Almost immediately after the Democrats left, Republican leaders pledged not to advance the RTW legislation. But, the Democrats did not come back. Why?

Indiana State Democrats

 

 

Rep. Austin:

As explained above, there were other pieces of legislation that would have had a drastic impact on Hoosier families and children attending public schools.  Democrats’ decision to remain out of the statehouse allows time for the bills to be fully examined, amendments developed, the public to be informed and their voices to be heard.  The Democrats have consistently expressed a desire to work in a spirit of compromise and negotiation.  Efforts to do just that have been rebuked and refused by the House leadership.  Republicans have said there is no negotiating, their agenda will pass.  Their rhetoric and unwillingness to compromise have forced us to fight from Illinois – our only means left to defend the jobs of working people in Indiana and the education of Hoosier children.

This session began with a great hope of working with our colleagues across the aisle to develop a plan for job creation, move our public schools to the front of the class and draft a fiscally responsible state budget.  Speaker Bosma started this session saying it was a “new day” in the House chamber, and he was going to seek a new level of bi-partisanship.   Unfortunately, we’ve seen the complete opposite.  This session has seen only 29 percent of the votes be cast in a bipartisan manner.  Normally, 80-90 percent of the votes in a session are bipartisan.

Please understand that House Democrats did not cross our arms and say “no” to everything that was proposed by our Republican colleagues.  Even if we disagreed on a bill, positive and compromising alternatives were offered to improve and/or moderate the consequences if we felt they were harmful to our districts and our constituents.   Most times those ideas, offered in good faith, were summarily dismissed   Our kids’ education and our families’ wages shouldn’t be the victim of partisanship.  Hoosier families deserve better than that.

Source: Indiana House Democrats Fighting for Families

Do Democrats have a list of specific bills that they want to negotiate on before agreeing to come back?  If so, can you briefly explain what they are?

Rep. Austin:

There is no list of “demands” as has been suggested.  However, several bills impacting public education and the future of the middle class in Indiana are of great concern.  HB 1003 creates a voucher program that sends public tax dollars to private schools for a select number of children.  HB 1479 allows for the immediate state takeover of 212 schools and gives the State Board of Education the authority to appoint a for-profit management company to run the school.  Other legislation impacts individuals’ rights to voluntarily have association dues or fees paid from their paycheck.  Others greatly restrict employees’ ability to work with management regarding areas of mutual concern.  Many of the bills will drive down Hoosier wages and benefits.  Hoosiers already earn only 85 cents on the dollar as compared to the U.S. average.  The Republican proposals have been proven in other states to lower wages by $5,500 a year on average.

These are just some of the bills that many legislators feel will be harmful to their communities.

Are the Democrats asking for specific legislative changes to be agreed to before you will come back or are you asking for an opportunity through open debate and proposed amendments to change them once you do come back?

Rep. Austin:

The Democrats are willing to work with everyone in a spirit of compromise.  Negotiations are never successful when one party or the other draws a line in the sand.  It is important to keep the lines of communication open and for both parties to come to the table with respect and a willingness to listen.

The Crasstalk community includes people from all 50 states.  It seems that the same legislation Indiana Democrats are objecting to is also being proposed in other states, notably Wisconsin and Ohio.  Are Democratic legislators talking across states and coming up with a larger strategy to counteract what seems to be a nationwide Republican effort?

Rep. Austin:

I am not aware that talks with other Democratic legislators are going on to develop a strategy.  I do know that the communications that have taken place are more about supporting each other’s efforts and comparing different pieces of legislation across state lines.

Are you personally concerned about any political fallout from the Democrats’ boycott? Why or why not?

Source: Indiana House Democrats Fighting for Families

Rep. Austin:

At some point, you have to stand up for what you believe in, regardless of the consequences.  I was elected by the people of the district to try and make their lives better and to be their voice in state government.  Many of the pieces of legislation would not have a positive impact on the families and children that I represent.  I believe that Hoosier families are worth fighting for.

Last question. Many people who will read this are not Hoosiers and may have never been to Indiana. As an elected representative of Hoosier residents, what is the one thing you would most like them to know about Indiana?

Rep. Austin:

It’s a wonderful place to grow up and to work.  Yes, we face some challenges but also we have many positives that make us attractive to young people, families and entrepreneurs.  I had the opportunity to travel to Taiwan and Japan several years ago as a part of a state delegation.  When we met with business leaders who talked about why they brought their companies to Indiana, they indicated two things that set us apart: our Hoosier work ethic and the excellent education their children received.  Unfortunately, some leaders forget to tell people the things they are doing well before they tell them why we need to do things differently.

For More Information

Indiana House Democrats Fighting for Hoosier Families Facebook page.

The Hoosier Stand.

Just SIT (Support Indiana Teachers) Facebook page.