I can’t not say something.
The Cape’s Dam argument is absolute bullshit. There–I said it– B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!
I can’t say things like that at city hall where they have rules about how I can talk about things. And I can’t say it in the paper, where they have rules about how I can talk about this ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.
Honestly, you guys, right now, I feel ‘so white girl, I can’t even.
The letters and the arguments presented in today’s local paper are shit arguments.
And they know that.
And they state that through their terribly irresponsible thesis statements.
Here’s the thing:
I genuinely can’t figure out if this one is actually written by an 8th grader or not. (And WHO IS POLLING THEM AT THEIR SCHOOL?) So, I want to go a little easier on this author, operating under the assumption that they are, indeed, an 8th grader. An 8th grader who is parroting. And 8th grader who is coached. It seems explained in the letter. Well sorta. It’s just not a good letter or argument. It’s def a “B minus” letter versus an “A plus”, and yes, I’m totally saying that from my teacher perspective. So, let’s move on to the adult we know in this other letter, shall we?
I really want to find my notes from a Mainstreet retreat where I wrote a line that said “#LindaCokerDGAF”.
It was really funny because she’s a brazen, strong woman with a lot of incredibly entertaining (and shocking) stories. I served with her for 3 years on the Mainstreet Advisory Board (to much of their chagrin). #RIPCorndogDay
But she states that she clearly doesn’t GAF about the science. Then she begins to frame her argument by stating that “the role of the river changed”! I’ll repeat that. “THE ROLE OF THE RIVER CHANGED.”
To whom did the “role of the river change”?
Did the role of the river change for the Fountain Darters?
Did it change for the Blind Salamander?
The Texas Wild Rice?
The Riffle Beetles?
Did the “role of the river change” for people?
Oh, wait… Okay, so you’re saying “the role of the river changed”…because human intervention changed the environment. And we should keep it the changed way, not the natural way. Ah.
That’s the argument. She starts by explaining that indigenous people made their way here and used the river FOR SURVIVAL. Then yadda yadda yadda…it’s more important to preserve the dam-thing that, thousands of years later, WHITE PEOPLE changed to control the river FOR INDUSTRY AND PROFIT. Then yadda yadda folks still need to keep control it the same way FOR RECREATION!
She already opened her argument by stating that she is ignoring the science, so of course, it makes sense for her to call it a “no-brainer” to “save the dam”. (Psst…*please read this in my whisper voice*…it takes no brains at all when you’re ignoring science.)
There’s no mention at all of how “the left channel” mentioned in the other carefully-timed-puppeted-opinion piece is actually the way that “the role of the river changed” as they decided, right or wrong, to divert ONE-THIRD of the river from itself for the purpose of making money, supported through slave labor. There’s no mention of how methane gases are emitted due to rotting vegetation in places unnaturally submerged by water, caused by the man-made dam. Nor is there any mention of how detrimental those excessive methane emissions are in the wake of our current climate crisis.
You know, history since the 1800’s.
THAT’S the history we apparently need to preserve. Not the history of the actual freaking river. You know, the river that was created and sustained by the Edward’s Aquifer
(where 1.5 million people get their drinking water in Central Texas) when, thousands of years ago, the continental shift occurred, tectonic plates shifted, and the Balcones Fault Line separated the Texas Hill Country from the Great Coastal Plains. No. She argues on behalf of 1800’s industry as though it’s a relevant argument in today’s (quite literal) climate. I’m so white girl, I can’t even. #FreeTheRiver