Fluoride Follies

AUSTIN'S RACIST "GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT"

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:30:11 GMT

Van Os: There at the Birthing Martinez: Current Beneficiary

When Dr. Laura Pressley ran for City Council Place 2 against incumbent Mike Martinez, she broke a long-entrenched taboo that designates two Council seats for individuals of specific racial/ethnic lineage. Originally Places 5 (Hispanic) and 6 (black), the arrangement has not resulted in improved representation of Austin’s minorities, leads back to big money and business as usual, and creates misgivings even in some of its beneficiaries. And it has taken on a life of its own: in 1997, when then-councilmember Gus Garcia attempted to break its stranglehold by switching from Place 5 to Place 2, the “Hispanic seat” simply followed him to Place 2.

Over decades, as the custom’s origin recedes in memory, many people have questioned the beginnings of the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” and whether it even exists. David Van Os, an attorney who was played an early role, has given an excellent account. Here it is, in his own words:

I was the lawyer who represented the NAACP and sometimes LULAC in long-running litigation to invalidate the Austin at-large system under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act.

We dissected the “gentlemen’s agreement” that reserved one seat on the City Council for African-Americans and one seat on the City Council for Hispanics.

The “gentlemen’s agreement” is not just a myth or metaphor. It began with real agreements.

But the communities of color were not parties to the “gentlemen’s agreement”. The “gentlemen’s agreement” was a consensus arrived at among the white business community in the early 1970s that they would not fund any white candidates for Places 5 or 6, in order to set aside those seats for Hispanic and African-American candidates, respectively.

It was for racist purposes.

The specific motivation was to let the “Blacks and Mexicans” have one seat each in order for the City to be able to defend the voting rights lawsuits that everybody knew were coming, and thus preserve the at-large system. It was not for the purpose of ceding representation to the communities of color, it was for the purpose of maintaining the at-large system. That was what the business interests wanted because they believed maintaining the requirement for candidates to campaign city-wide would maintain the need for business money to run campaigns and thus keep promoting the elections of candidates friendly to the business interests.

The result was that one Hispanic and one African-American were able to get elected in each Council election as long as they were the choices of the majority of white anglo voters and the white business community.

This is where the alliances between conservative white business interests and certain elements of the communities of color started to bloom. The white anglo grassroots voters did not contribute campaign dollars to the Hispanic and African-American candidates like they did to the anglo candidates. So Hispanic and African-American candidates learned to look to the business interests to finance their campaigns, and the business interests were pleased at the opportunities to purchase City Council candidates who turned into compliant City
Council Members.

At the same time, ironically, the anglo-dominated grassroots progressive movement was successful in winning the majority of Council seats in several elections in the 1970s and 1980s, and really changed the political climate of Austin overall in a gradual sea change. It was the progressive takeover of Austin-Travis County politics. City Council politics through the series of elections won by the progressive grassroots in the 70s and 80s did in large part forge the rise of liberal Democratic predominance in Travis County, which by the early 1990s became pretty much politically institutionalized.

On behalf of the NAACP I filed a long-anticipated voting rights lawsuit against the City in 1984. MALDEF came into the case a few weeks later, represented by lawyer Jose Garza of San Antonio. The case was hotly litigated back and forth between the trial and appellate courts for the next 5 years. There were also at least two charter referendums during that period of time asking the voters to approve a change to single-member Council districts. The referendums failed because they could not draw the favorable margins out of the white liberal precincts that those precincts gave to the Austin Progressive Coalition slates. Many white progressive voters were fooled by the illusion of equal access to the political process created by the two minority-held Council seats - just as the business moguls who manipulated the “gentlemen’s agreement” into being foresaw. After two trials and two appeals we ultimately lost the lawsuit for the precise reason that the business interests intended - the courts held that since one Hispanic and one African-American were consistently getting elected to the Council, thus occupying 2 out of 7 or 28% of the Council, the communities of color therefore had equal access to the political process so there was no Voting Rights Act violation.

Jose Garza and I argued vigorously that channeling minority political access into two designated Council seats in elections whose outcomes were controlled by the majority white community rather than by the minority communities themselves was NOT equal access to the political process as the Voting Rights Act guaranteed. A few years earlier we would have won the day with that argument. But the federal district court in Austin was now occupied by a new Reagan-appointed Republican judge, James Nowlin, who was not sympathetic to our plea that the Voting Rights Act guaranteed the communities of color self-determination rather than paternalism.

The trial evidence demonstrated overwhelmingly that the candidates who got elected in those two seats were chosen by the white business community, not by the communities of color that they supposedly represented. Former City Council Members who were “beneficiaries” of the “gentlemen’s agreement” testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. Former City Councilman Jimmy Snell, the second African-American to serve on the Austin City Council and later - and at the time of the trial - the first African-American County Commissioner in Travis County history, now deceased, was particularly courageous on the witness stand. He described how the white business interests told him when he ran for the Council that they had made sure there would be no white candidates against him in Place 6, but that he had to tow the line. In a dramatic courtroom moment, Snell described Carole McClellan (she of later more names) as Mayor, warning him when on the Council that he had to vote the way she wanted him to vote on behalf of the interests of the white business community or they would make sure his political funding dried up.

Ed Wendler, now deceased, courageously stepped forward and volunteered to the NAACP to take the witness stand. He put his law practice in jeopardy by describing in detail conversations in which he participated in the 1970s about making sure there would be no credible white candidates for two places on the Council in order to defeat the expected voting rights lawsuits over at-large elections and assure that the “minorities” who got elected would be “safe”. Wendler named names and risked the loss of business clients and friendships in the cause of justice, equality, and truth. He was a real warrior for justice that day in the courtroom.

Meanwhile over the years a few of the “minority” candidates, like Gus Garcia, rejected the business paradigm for Hispanic and African-American candidates and stuck to their progressive political-economic-social roots when they won their elections. Sadly, most did not.

The racist roots of the present Austin system go back much further than the 1970s. Before the charter change of 1953, the City Council was elected on a single plurality ballot that provided a crude form of proportional representation. All candidates ran together on one ballot. The City Council had 5 seats at that time. The top 5 vote-getters were the winners of the election. People did not run in designated places, there was no requirement of a 50%+1 majority, and there were no runoffs. The top five vote-getters by pure plurality were the newly elected Council.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, all across the South there were African-Americans returning to civilian life from service in World War 2. Having fought for their country they were not too excited about returning to Jim Crow segregation. They began to assert themselves. For example in Austin in about 1948, a young African-American veteran by the name of Volma Overton refused to move to the back of a city bus.

Most of the municipal election systems at that time were not majority-place elections. They were plurality election systems. Under the single-ballot plurality systems African-American communities in the South, newly empowered by so many among their communities returning from the war with a new sense of self-esteem, began to experience a political renaissance. African-American citizens were starting to step forward and enter into local elections and assert voting strength and Austin was part of it.

In 1951 the Austin NAACP president, Arthur B. DeWitty, ran a vigorous race for the City Council. He finished sixth, just a few votes out of winning a seat on the Council. Most of the white community went into shock over a Black man coming so close to getting elected to the City Council. The Council proposed a charter revision - to discard the one-ballot plurality election system and institute designated places with a requirement that it took a 50%+1 majority to win, thus necessitating runoffs if no candidate won a majority the first time. This happened across the South for the purpose of thwarting the newly rising Black political consciousness. The point of a designated place-majority system is that Black candidates could never win because at best they would get isolated head-to-head against white candidates in runoffs. This is the origin of the designated-place majority election system in the South. Notice that in most of the North and the Midwest, municipal elections are won by plurality, no majority vote requirement, no runoffs. The charter election was held about a year after the 1951 elections. The day before the charter election day, the front page of the Austin Statesman ran a special editorial column urging citizens to pass the charter change because the proposed new system was needed to prevent minority groups from being able to win elections to the City Council. The charter change passed. Arthur DeWitty didn’t run for the City Council again. The nascent rising Black political consciousness came to a halt. No Black ran for the Austin City Council again until 1967 or 1969.

This history is documented in contemporary newspaper articles of the time and records of white civic leaders’ openly expressed intentions and motivations. It was partly on the basis of this historical evidence that the federal courts ordered Travis County to be divided into single-member state legislative districts beginning with the 1974 primary elections. Previously the 4 state representatives from Travis County represented the whole county in a multi-member district and were all elected county-wide. A young Gonzalo Barrientos got elected to the legislature in 1974 from a new single-member southeast Travis County district. Wilhelmina Delco got elected from a new northeast Travis County single-member district.

The Austin City Council at-large, majority-place system is thus historically rooted in overt, willful racism. It should be sent to the dustbin of history for that reason alone, and should have been sent there 20 years ago. But there are many other good, progressive reasons to go single-member. Having lived in San Antonio for 9 years in a pure single-member system, I can attest that it does indeed facilitate less expensive campaigning, fewer media driven campaigns, and more grassroots candidates and Council members. Certainly it does not bring Utopia. The business interests and lobbyists are still able to buy candidates and Council seats, but to a somewhat lesser extent. Today a majority of the San Antonio City Council are grassroots women. The city staff tries to bamboozle them just like in Austin, lobbyists try to stick to them like velcro just like in Austin, but the election campaigns are highly grassroots, except for the citywide election for Mayor; there are bona fide grassroots progressive social justice activists on the Council; and the Council members clearly endeavor to be responsive to the concerns of neighborhood and community groups in their districts. It is commonsense that such results would arise, and they do in a lot of the district elections, though clearly not all and not all the time.

David Van Os
2008

AUSTINITES! A MESSAGE FROM LAURA PRESSLEY: VOTE SATURDAY MAY 12

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:48:27 GMT

Dear Lovers of Austin.... Your vote FOR Dr Laura Pressley this Sat, May 12th will make a HUGE difference in Our Quality of Life!
Precisely because only 7% turn out to vote in City Elections

From: purerainlaura@aol.com
Subject: Pressley For Austin -- Election Day is Saturday, May 12th
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 10:47:20 -0400

Dear Friends, Family and Colleagues,

Thanks for all your encouragement and support with our campaign for Austin City Council. Only 7% come out to vote in City Elections, I need your help to win and to make a difference.

Final Election Day is this Saturday, May 12th and voting will occur at our precinct locations:

Precinct Look Up by Voter Name: http://www.traviscountytax.org/showVoterNameSearch.do

Election Day Voting Locations by Precinct: http://www.co.travis.tx.us/county_clerk/election/20120512/eday_polls.pdf

This will be a close election, so please vote and send the message we want someone with a business and technology background at City Hall to stop the wasteful spending, stop the subsidies to developers, and protect our environment.

We have an important Call to Action to get the vote out:

Please contact all your friends, family and co-workers in Austin and tell them why you are supporting our campaign. There is a better way to run our City Hall and here are the changes we will make:

a) Cut costs at Austin Energy to prevent the increases in our electric rates,
b) Stop the corporate subsidies to wealthy corporations such as Apple,
c) Protect our health, environment, neighborhoods and schools,
d) Provide real traffic solutions by transferring commercial traffic from I-35 to SH 130,
e) Stop the subsidies to large developers, and
f) Bring lean business practices to city hall and cut waste in our $2.8B budget.

We need you to forward this email, post on Facebook, and post on LinkedIn, that you are supporting us and are getting the vote out. It will help a great deal! Thanks everyone...See you at the polls!

All my best,
Laura

Laura Pressley, Ph.D.
Candidate for Austin City Council, Place 2
www.PressleyForAustin.com
P.O. Box 10102
Austin, TX 78766
Cell: 512-762-3825

THE CAMPAIGN HEATS UP: GREAT NEW VIDEOS FROM GRIFFINCOMM

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:39:38 GMT

Laura Pressley shines; Mayor Leffingwell and Councilman Spelman demonstrate their ignorance about fluoride, mayoral candidate Clay DaFoe makes some good points. Where is Mike Martinez, Pressley's opponent?


                             Libertarian Party Candidates Forum April 21, 2012


                              Mike Martinez Supports Corporate Welfare


                   Mike Martinez' Contribution to Eastside Gentrification

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #52 - FUN QUIZ

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:01:58 GMT

Mayor Leffingwell: What Was He Thinking?

Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. The subject is water fluoridation and today I thought we’d lighten up with a short fun quiz—just a few questions to think about. Each of these questions is valid for at least one of you, though I won’t be providing any answers. Well, maybe one answer. Here we go:

Q.1 Which one of you suffers from a fluoride-related health condition?

Q.2 Which of you has a spouse who suffers from a fluoride-related health condition?

Q.3 Which of you has family with fluorosis-stained teeth due to a natural fluoride source?

Q.4 Which of you told me privately in your office in mid-2009 that you realized the original impetus for water fluoridation rose from a need to dispose of post-WWII industrial waste?

Q.5 Which of you says you don’t need to be educated?

Q.6 Which of you has conceded in print that you know fluoridated water is bad for kids?

Q.7 Which of you has an aide who won’t drink fluoridated water?

Q8. Which of you has close ties to the nation’s largest non-fluoridated city?

And a Bonus Question:

Which of you is self-depicted singing in the shower in a You Tube video watched by thousands?

Oops…I gave it away. Well, that’s not a fluoride question anyway—except that it illustrates a good way to take in fluoride without drinking it.

It also moves me to wonder out loud just what it cost to make the slickly-produced 2 minute 15 second video it comes from. Since it didn’t involve hiring a tanker truck, it was probably comfortably under $186,000. But whatever the cost, Fluoride Free Austin doesn’t have that kind of advertising money to spare. That’s why we’re slow to undertake a petition drive. On a level playing field, we would win. But unfortunately the field is far from level, and funding makes all the difference.

That concludes today’s quiz. I’ll post the questions—minus answers—on the Fluoride Follies blog for our readers to ponder. And they might also ponder why a Council which by now has so much negative information about water fluoridation, is so adamant about keeping it anyway. Thank you.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #51, PTS 1 & 2 - COUNCIL CLUELESS ON WHAT (IF ANYTHING) CITY SPENDS FOR LOW-INCOME KIDS' DENTAL CARE, MAYOR ADMITS 3-22-12

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 19:11:54 GMT

                            Olenicks Deliver a Quick 1-2; Mayor Looks Silly

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. Earlier this month I attended a public forum called “My Health, My Voice” at Reagan High School. It was sponsored by the Austin-Travis County Public Health & Human Services Department and is the first of a series of eight such events to be held—one each month— in various Travis County Title 1 school districts. There were free medical screenings, information tables sponsored by the likes of WIC and Any Baby Can, and presentations. Power points covering issues like diet, exercise, obesity, medical conditions and, of course, the usual self-congratulatory reports on PHHS’s multi-million dollar CDC anti-smoking grants consumed well over an hour.

Of that time, perhaps five minutes were devoted to dental health. We learned that a private charitable organization—the St. David’s Foundation—provides for the dental needs of economically disadvantaged elementary school children in the region through a program which brings mobile dentist offices to their schools. This seemed like one realistic way to address the explosion of oral disease every major national, state, foundation, and dental association report since 2000 has warned is occurring among our nation’s low income children. It certainly makes more sense than wasting the $385k to $1million—depending on who you believe—the city annually pays for useless water fluoridation. I turned to the St. David’s Foundation website, and here’s what I learned. During 2010, volunteer dental personnel operating out of the well-equipped vans:

1. Served 4,700 low-income children ages approximately 5-11 with procedures ranging from routine cleaning and filling to root canals, extractions and urgent care.

2. Taught 28,000 children and their parents how to brush and floss properly.

3. Rendered $4.2 million in free dental services in Central Texas.

From what I can tell, the city pays little out of its own budget toward this exemplary program. Granted it does “partner” with the school districts involved, which are already receiving federal funds, and under that bureaucratic buzzword “partner” lies a murky maze of fiscal relationships with which I can’t claim familiarity. So if anyone on the dais has a figure on how much the city actually pays toward direct dental care for Austin’s neediest children I’d welcome it. Does any one of you?

[at this point, Bill Spelman--an expression of pure perplexity on his face--shook his head no. Mayor Leffingwell then admitted that nobody on the dais was qualified to answer the question. Mike Martinez, chair of the Council's Public Health and Human Services Committee, made no response.]

Van Photo-Opped in Front of City Hall Isn't Paid For by the City

The numbers Rae Just gave you of children served by the St. David's dental van program represent only those of elementary school age, approximately 5 to 11. What about younger children? Tooth decay is a big problem among toddlers, even babies, today. What about those who are older than 11 or living outside of the districts served? Not all these youngsters reside in Austin, so there is overlap. But the upshot is that there's a great dental need out there which the city of Austin's water fluoridation is doing nothing to mitigate.

The last 40 minutes of the Forum were devoted to facilitated small-group discussions. It was better than most such staged Delphi palavers. There were nop parlor games, just a few relatively straightforward questions to toss around. Such as "What would a healthy Austin look like to you?" Fair enough.

Our facilitator, who was none less than the PHHS communications director, seemed startled that fluoride could be on anybody's radar, but she asked for some further information. We sent it to her along with a question about which other school districts would host future forums. She never got back with us. However, the next two events--which will take place in Del Valle and Manor--are now posted on the Public Health and Human Services website.

Last month's forum at Reagan High School was held in our own neighborhood, so we felt right at home. And even though there seemed to be as many PHHS personnel as actual neighborhood participants on hand, it was still a worthwhile occasion. We didn't get near the health screenings to see what they were screening for, but there were plenty of vans around. It was also a chance to educate people about fluoride, both during the discussion sessions and informal milling-around time. Several of the WIC mothers hadn't seen the posted non-warnings about dental fluorosis, so we were able to let them know.

We encourage everyone to attend one or more forums and share their information about fluoride. The next one takes place TONIGHT, March 22, 6-8 p.m. at the Del Valle ISD Opportunity Center, 5301 Ross Road B in Del Valle.

For more information, go to www.austintexas.gov/healthforum or call 512-972-5888.

Six-Year-Old Protests Fluoride. Mayor Says "Great Job." Issue Dismissed.

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 05:47:00 GMT

Plucky Alaina Farley, aged six years and nine months, had a few things to say about the addition of hazardous fluoride waste to Austin's drinking water, and she decided to say them to the City Council. Alaina spoke her piece during citizens communication on March 1, 2012, delighting her audience, including Mayor Leffingwell, who told her, "You did a great job." Let's hope he'll continue to feel that way when she makes a return appearance, as she has offered to do. Go Alaina!

Unfortunately, Alaina's small voice coupled with some audio glitches made parts of her talk hard to hear. We trust this problem will be ironed out at her next performance before the throne of power, which we eagerly await. Meanwhile, you can read the text of her speech, below.

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

NEW FROM CHANNEL FLUORIDE FREE AUSTIN

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:35:31 GMT

January 26, 2012:

Calling water fluoridation "farcical," Linda Greene has some special words for Councilman Chris Riley.




February 2, 2012:

Walt Olenick & Linda Greene on fluoridation; Heather Fazio on government intrusion. Heather is also executive director of Texans for Accountable Government (TAG).

The first sentence of Walt's presentation was chopped off due to a recording flub. The missing part reads "... Last December 15, when you voted to continue the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, you awarded to the victims of that practice a sort of consolation prize:..." The flyers to which he refers can be seen here.



February 9, 2012:

Linda Greene echoes Jimmy LaFave: I Just Want My Country Back. Rae Nadler-Olenick surprises the Council by reading in Spanish.  Darcy Bloom's talk elicits a response. (We've sent Councilman Spelman the information he requested. Now let's see what he does with it.)


                                 Linda Greene                                            Rae Nadler-Olenick



                                                           Darcy Bloom

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #50 - LATIN AMERICA COPIES A BAD IDEA

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:53:13 GMT

Cristina Fernandez

Good afternoon, Mayor and council members. Last month, newspapers headlined Argentine president Cristina Fernandez, who’d been diagnosed with thyroid cancer and was scheduled for surgery to remove the diseased gland. Days later she had the operation and—oops—it wasn’t cancer after all. She did have a real thyroid ailment, however, and now she has no thyroid and will have to take replacement hormones the rest of her life. While parts of Argentina have enough natural fluoride to make whole populations sick, Buenos Aires, the capital city isn’t among them. The water there is artificially fluoridated. Sometimes the elite get caught in their own trap.

It’s probably no coincidence that shortly thereafter, Fluoride Action Network director Dr. Paul Connett received an inquiry from South America, and put out a call for someone to translate it. Here’s what the writer had to say:

SALUDOS PAUL , MUY BUENOS DIAS , ME GUSTARIA SABER SI EL GRUPO DE FLUORIDE ALERT HAY EN PERU O EN CHILE , PAISES DONDE YO RADICO POR EL MOMENTO, SI NO LO HAY , ME GUSTARIA SABER TAMBIEN DE COMO HACER QUE EL GRUPO SE PUEDA EXTENDER EN ESTOS PAICES, POR QUE EL PROBLEMA DE LA CONTAMINACION DEL AGUA ATRAVES DEL FLUOR , ESTA EN MUCHOS PAICES Y EN ESPECIAL PERU Y CHILE , DONDE NO HAY NADIE QUE LE HAGA FRENTEANTE ESTE TREMENDO ACTO CRUEL QUE ESTAMOS SUFRIENDO TODOS NOSOTROS , ESPERANDO SU RESPUESTA ME DESPIDO MUY CORDIALMENTE –BENDICIONES—MARIO OSORIO

And in English:

GREETINGS, PAUL, AND MANY GOOD DAYS TO YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THE GROUP FLUORIDE ALERT EXISTS IN PERU OR CHILE, COUNTRIES WHERE I AM SETTLING FOR THE MOMENT. IF IT DOES NOT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW HOW THE GROUP COULD BE EXTENDED TO THOSE COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM OF CONTAMINATION OF THE WATERS BY FLUORIDE IN MANY COUNTRIES BUT ESPECIALLY PERU AND CHILE, WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NOBODY TO OPPOSE THIS TREMENDOUSLY CRUEL ACT WHICH ALL OF US ARE SUFFERING. AWAITING YOUR REPLY, I SEND MY BEST WISHES.

In Chile, most municipal water supplies are artificially fluoridated. In Peru, they fluoridate milk and salt. Notice he uses the word “cruel”—same in both languages. It’s this same cruel act—which you all support—that we are here to end.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #49 - WIC: BILINGUAL DECEPTION

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:35:30 GMT

Good afternoon, Council members. Last December 15, when you voted to continue the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, you awarded to the victims of that practice a sort of consolation prize: the promise of flyers with information in English and Spanish about dental fluorosis to be posted at WIC centers around town. (WIC stands for Women, Infants & Children - a state-run nourishment program for low-income mothers.) The flyers—which I’ve distributed as a handout—are quite attractive, with bright kid colors and an appealing layout. Unfortunately, they’re also grossly misleading.

The very first sentence is just plain wrong: so-called optimally-fluoridated water poses many health risks for infants, of which you’re all aware. The last paragraph contains an egregious contradiction. After telling mothers how to to minimize an infant’s exposure to fluoride, it then adds that if they do so, “Your baby’s doctor may recommend fluoride supplements beginning at age six months.”

The upshot is to plant doubt in the parent’s mind and to promote the spurious notion of a nutritional requirement for fluoride, theoretically beginning on baby’s six-month birthday. Why six months?—when milk or formula is a baby’s primary sustenance for the first full year, and both the CDC’s and ADA’s 2006 cautions against mixing formula with tap water plainly referenced the first 12 months of life?

Best guess: infants cut their first tooth, on average, at around six months.   Even the fluoride pushers, in their frenzy to sell their product, recognize the absurdity of trying to peddle a supposed cavity fighter for toothless beings. But the moment that first tooth erupts: voila! A new customer is born.

The CDC/ADA’s warnings, however, pertain to dental fluorosis, and babies over six months of age are no less susceptible to that condition than those under six months. Fluorosis develops in teeth as they form beneath the gums—and the 6-to-12-month-old is still living largely on liquids. So why should a doctor want to prescribe any fluoride at all?

The wording has been made deliberately vague. The doctor “may” recommend supplements beginning at 6 months. Then again, they may not. Either way, such a recommendation, would be inappropriate.

We’ve tracked the language of this strange final sentence to the document from which it was cribbed word for word: a February 2010 newsletter written by one Jay Hoecker, MD of the Mayo Clinic. Ironically, Mayo, once a supporter of water fluoridation, has withdrawn its endorsement.

BIZARRO! COUNCILMEMBER MARTINEZ CARES ABOUT CAMPAIGN MANAGER'S CHILD, BUT NOT YOURS

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:41:02 GMT

Last year, after Mike Martinez took over the position of chair of ACC's Public Health and Human Services Committee, he held private discussions with several Fluoride Free Austin members concerning the potential addition of a warning against mixing infant formula with tapwater to the city's utilities bill. During that time, he unexpectedly invited Laura Pressley to become his Facebook "friend." Surprised, Dr. Pressley accepted out of curiosity, and some routine exchanges followed. Routine, that is, until September 23, when she commented on a picture he had posted of his cute honorary nephew:



According to our information, Amy Everhart, Martinez's onetime campaign manager, currently serves as policy director to Mayor Lee Leffingwell.

On December 15, Martinez voted to continue Austin's water fluoridation program indefinitely and to provide a toothless non-warning about dental fluorosis to participants in the state's WIC (women, infants and children) nourishment program for low-income mothers.

IT'S OFFICIAL: LAURA PRESSLEY VS. MIKE MARTINEZ FOR AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL PLACE 2

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:36:08 GMT

                                 Laura Pressley, Ph.D.                                         "For the Health of Austin"

On January 20, following a month of suspense and speculation (and serious worry among all three incumbents), Dr. Laura Pressley announced that she will oppose Mike Martinez for the Place 2 seat on the Austin City Council. In taking on Martinez, who until last May also held the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Pressley will be challenging an antiquated tradition - held together by a "gentlemen's agreement" since the 1970's - that designates Place 2 the "Hispanic seat." There is no legal force behind this custom and in fact, it has been broken before. But the pressure remains strong. Pressley is unfazed. "I don't think he's been doing a very good job of representing the Hispanic population," she told a TV reporter in a recent interview. Many in Austin's Hispanic/Latino community agree: Pressley has the support of numerous prominent leaders there.

Martinez, a former firefighter, has done a good job of supporting the fire and police forces, which is commendable. But the "gentlemen's agreement" doesn't reserve a seat for a fireman or a police officer. Martinez, in theory, is there to represent his ethnic group. There's little sign that he does. Gentrification that leads to flight of less affluent citizens is a problem on Austin's rapidly upscaling east side - the heart of the barrio. Martinez is on the wrong side of that issue. He is in the process of building a McMansion in a far east location, a formerly affordable of neighborhood of small, unassuming houses.  The spot already harbors a cluster of other bloated spanking new McMansions. It's only a matter of time.

Laura Pressley's campaign slogan is "for the health of Austin" - and that includes environmental and economic as well as personal health. She can be expected to fight very hard for these principles - and for everyone. Learn more at her campaign website.


                                                                                  Mike Martinez

Mike Martinez' New East Side House (white strip a left beyond orange Port-O-Potty is roof of house next door)

NEW RELEASES FROM CHANNEL FLUORIDE FREE AUSTIN

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 09:14:56 GMT

The first City Council citizens' communication of 2012 brought out a wealth of 3-minute speakers on a variety of interesting topics - not just fluoridation.  But Fluoride Free Austin was well-represented by four stalwarts at the podium and numerous supporters in the audience as well.



Darcy Bloom explained the importance of the toothbrush in oral hygiene, information apparently lost on the present-day City Council.

John Bush, just back from several months' banishment from City Hall for exercising his free speech rights on a previous occasion, addressed those issues. Bush, a FFA Steering Committee member, is even better known for his leadership role in Texans for Accountable Government.



Rae Nadler-Olenick let the Council know that we've drawn the line and we're not going away. Then she wished them a Happy New Year.

Philip Greene talked about the non-FDA-approved fluorosilicic acid used to mass-medicate Austinites.

It would be great to have a turnout like this for every Citizens Communication. If you're interested in becoming a speaker, contact us at info@fluoridefreeaustin.com or 512-371-3786. Or, just call the City Clerk's office 512-974-2210 to learn the signup procedure.

FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #48 - FLUORIDE MAKES AUSTIN CHRONICLE'S TOP 10 ENVIRONMENTAL STORIES OF THE YEAR

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:50:50 GMT

Good afternoon, Mayor and councilmembers. It’s 2012, and as you can see, we’re back. I think 2012 will be the year that the citizens of Austin finally shake free of the unsafe and ineffective forced medication we call fluoridated water.

The Austin Chronicle just named water fluoridation one of the top 10 environmental stories of the year: they listed it #7. Recognizing fluoride as the legitimate environmental concern it is, Chronicle news department managing editor Amy Smith wrote that “the issue refuses to die.” She also noted that it has risen to the level of a campaign topic in the forthcoming May Council election.

Her words echoed my husband Walt’s observation that “Councils come and go but the fluoride issue endures.” He makes a good point. Councils change regularly, and in fact, we sometimes have a hand in that change. Come June, this Council may very well look different. But whether or not that happens, we’ll keep working toward our goals because, to quote Victor Hugo, “No army can stop an idea whose time has come.” And abandoning the practice of dumping unrefined toxic waste into the city’s drinking water and calling it medicine is definitely an idea whose time has come.

So we have no choice, really, but to be here. Fluoridation is a health issue affecting all of us.

It’s also fundamentally different from most issues the Council wrestles with. The Council, in its day-to-day proceedings is concerned primarily with finance. It takes money to run a government. So most of the matters before you involve collecting and spending our—the taxpayers’—money. But fluoridation isn’t about spending —on the contrary, it would save money—it’s about health, ours and that of future generations.

Average citizens busy with their lives will put up with a lot. But it’s one thing to make us pay for projects most of us don’t want: toll roads, race tracks, unnecessary water plants, the Red Line, the Domain—and quite another to spike our water with a known poison. It’s a natural place to draw the line So we don’t plan to quit until we finish the job that we’ve started. Thank you, and Happy New Year.

READ MY LIPS: IF THEY'RE MOVING...

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:24:10 GMT

        Cole               Spelman               Morrison            Leffingwell                        Tovo                Riley                 Martinez

Now for a few words about some politicians who are NOT lying...

We’ve all heard this old saw:

Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?

A: His (or her) lips are moving.

The entire current Austin City Council can be considered professional or at least semi-professional politicians whatever their particular backgrounds. They’re ambitious. They like to hold high positions in this and that. As Council members, they act largely out of political expediency, and are minimally responsive to the desires of the average Austinite. On the whole, they prefer to dodge personal one-on-one interactions with their constituents. They enjoy making rules for the masses, which they themselves may or may not follow.

Yet on one point they have been unwaveringly forthright.

Never, in the three-plus years of Fluoride Free Austin’s advocacy, have they tried to pretend that Austin’s water fluoridation policy has anything to do with helping children’s teeth. Poor children’s...rich children's...
children’s in-between...Zip. Zilch, Nada. In fact, to my recollection, the word “children” hasn’t once passed the lips of anybody on the dais in response to our dozens and dozens of citizens communication presentations.

Instead, they’ve focused exclusively on precise adherence to scientifically and medically unsound “best practices” developed long ago by self-serving federal bureaucrats. Their motivation is very simple and direct--to please the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control. And they make no bones about it.  Their collective message is: The CDC says it’s OK. The CDC wants us to do it. So we’re doing it. If you don’t like it, take a hike.

No matter that the CDC has no authority to mandate water fluoridation in Austin, or anywhere else, for that matter. Placating the agency, a generous provider of grant monies to the city, comes first, the public’s health a distant second.

Come to think of it, this Council seems relatively uninterested in health issues in general (it devotes three times more funds to water fluoridation than to sickle cell anemia). Unless, that is, they are the CDC's pet health issues.

Then it's a whole different ball game.

Take tobacco. In recent years, the city has reaped the bounty of millions of dollars in anti-smoking money from the CDC: between 2009 and 2011 alone it received $7.5 million* " to decrease tobacco use and exposure to second hand smoke."   A goodly chunk of it went up in smoke, figuratively, for flashy public relations campaigns - including over a quarter of a million dollars for a single 30-second TV spot.

Now Austin has a new CDC handout** good for just over $1 million for each of the next five years. This one spotlights childhood obesity, currently made trendy by the endorsement of Michelle Obama and promoted by the Mayor's wife.  Not that childhood obesity isn't a serious problem. It is. But while money flows freely for such celebrity-backed causes, others equally worthy are left out in the cold.

A year ago, councilwoman Laura Morrison, a cheerleader for the latter cause, hosted a forum. Morrison, who once famously remarked that she didn't have enough "bandwidth" for fluoride has plenty of bandwidth for suchlike well-underwritten exercises. Clearly in her element, she cracked jokes, "reverse-envisioned" ways to make all the city's children fat, and mentioned food last on a list of breakout topics - after physical activity, "the built environment" and health & cultural literacy.



The entire day's program, including the Channel 6 video, is archived here, Even a quick scan of the proceedings makes it pretty clear why the councilmembers aren't attracted to pedestrian matters like low-income children's dental problems.

There's simply not enough funding around such issues to make them interesting. No money for feel-good seminars to generate grand new projects of soaring complexity: visioning sessions; task forces, partnerships, networking opportunities, ad infinitum. The endless merry-go-round of grant-getting and spending aims to keep a thousand balls in the air at once. Anything less is dismissed as unimportant.

And that is exactly how the present Council treats the question of dental health in Austin's lower-income areas. It's largely invisible to them, which is unfortunate. But we appreciate their honesty in not putting on a charade of concern, or forcing us to contend with a bogus social equity scenario. They've done an excellent job of unmasking themselves. Public, are you paying attention?



*CCPW (Communities Putting Prevention to Work) grant
**Community Transformation Grant (CTG)

THE WIZARD BEHIND THE CURTAIN

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:31:59 GMT

Sometimes I feel like I’m living in a scene from the Wizard of Oz. You know, the one in which Dorothy’s little dog Toto pulls aside the curtain to reveal a flustered white-haired old man. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” he pleads, while four sets of eyes bore straight into him.

By way of a refresher: Dorothy and her companions, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman and the Cowardly Lion, have vanquished the Wicked Witch of the West, evaded monsters, and made their perilous way through dark forests to the Emerald City. There dwells the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz—the only one in the kingdom who can grant them their heart’s desire. The Wizard, however, refuses to see them. “Come back tomorrow,” he thunders through loudspeakers.

But the four friends have discovered new strength in themselves along the way. Dorothy, a simple country girl, is unshakable in her determination to get home to Kansas. The Scarecrow is neither as foolish nor the Lion as cowardly as first appeared. And the Tin Woodman had a heart all along.

Then Toto pulls the curtain and they get a glimpse of harsh reality. But they’re ready for it now. “You’re a humbug,” the Scarecrow tells the Wizard, who promptly admits it: “Yes, yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.”

That’s the fictional version.

In the real world, the “Wizards” pulling the levers - the 30 dentist-bureaucrats at the CDC’s Office of Oral Health and their counterparts at other federal, state and local agencies; at dental and medical societies; in academia and industry - will never confess that they are humbugs. Too much is at stake: money, power and prestige. Too many ties, some stretching back over a half-century, would need to be broken.

So they keep telling us (through their megaphone, Dr. Huang): Pay no attention. Pay no attention to all the kids with dental fluorosis, to the endemic hypothyroidism, to the skyrocketing rates of diabetes, and kidney disease, and arthritis, and osteosarcoma, and hip fractures, and the dulling of intellect. . .Don't notice the alarming rise in dental disease among our lower-income population despite 40 years of fluoridation. Don’t look. Don’t look. Don’t look.

But we are looking. The cat is out of the bag: water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective. More and more people realize it all the time. The days of these Wizards' fraud are numbered.

Happy New Year! We’ll be back with more in 2012.

GATEKEEPER: WHO IS PHILIP HUANG?

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:24:03 GMT

                                                         Philip Huang, MD, MPH

When the Austin City Council seeks to justify its policy of ignoring Austin citizens’ anti-water fluoridation input in favor of its own relentlessly pro-fluoride stance it turns for support to a man with no toxicology expertise, no dental background, and strong ties to the federal Centers for Disease Control – promoter-in-chief since Day One of fluoridated water for every man, woman and child in the USA from cradle to grave.

Philip P. Huang (rhymes with "wrong"), MD, MPH, medical director of the Austin Travis County Health and Human Services Department, is the slender reed to whom these so-called public servants cling to validate their increasingly non-tenable position.

It’s best to let Huang’s own CV tell the story. Having received a BA in civil engineering from Rice University in 1982, he decided to become a doctor instead. He then enrolled at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Dallas, graduating with an MD degree in 1986. From 1986-89 he served his internship/residency at Austin’s Brackenridge Hospital, emerging with a specialization in family practice: an area whose subject matter is comparable to that of a general practitioner. Although he held the position of Chief Resident during 1989, it appears he never hung out his own shingle. Instead, he was soon off to Boston for a year of polishing at the Harvard School of Public Health, whose mission is “to advance the public’s health through learning, discovery and communication."

Though that august institution claims to post descriptions of the courses necessary to the Master of Public Health degree,the links all appear to be broken: from their titles, few if any seem to deal with the actual science and art of medicine. At any rate, Huang received his MPH in 1989, then lingered for an additional year as a work/study intern with the Harvard Center for Health Communication.

In 1990, he moved on to the big time at the CDC in Atlanta, where he remained for two very important years in the title of epidemic intelligence service officer. Undoubtedly, he forged important contacts at the agency during that time. It would seem he also discovered the wellspring of federal grant money freely available for anti-tobacco projects. During 1991, the year he gave his first anti-smoking presentations—on tobacco advertisements and children—at professional meetings, he also presented on disease-causing blue-green algae-like bacteria. But from that time forward to today the lion’s share of his professional presentations, as well as his mile-long list of publications, have trod the safe and well-funded terrain of smoking prevention.

1992 brought him to the Texas Department of Health (reorganized as the Texas Department of State Health Services in 2004), where he remained in several positions until his jump, in 2008 to the Austin Travis County Health Department—an agency which itself has since suffered a renaming, to its present Austin Travis County Public Health and Human Services Department.

The title of Huang’s current position: Medical Director/Health Authority is revealing in itself. Health Authority has that perfect ring. A look at his resume over the years suggests a tirelessly active, politically-skilled individual, adept at attracting honors, committee posts and money from early on. The kinds of career-enhancing awards and Who’s Who listings and high level appointments he’s racked rarely come unbidden even to the well-qualified, but require a certain level of self-promotion.

One particularly interesting appointment is his membership between 1992 and 2008 on the Texas Diabetes Council. Diabetes is a chronic medical condition—extremely common in our population—well-known to be aggravated by fluoride.

What emerges, without fanfare, is an outstanding talent for getting major CDC grants for anti-cigarette-related activities.

Huang’s long-cultivated reputation for expertise in tobacco matters (though not the hard-science aspects) begins in the early 1990’s. Of the 17 post-1992 publications his CV lists, 16 pertain to smoking and over a third of those are specifically CDC-sponsored. His papers tend to be of a statistical/ sociological nature. None involve any hands-on biological or toxicological research.

So what qualifies him to be the arbiter of fluoride safety for the masses?

Nothing.

Watching Huang’s recent performances before the City Council and its satellite Public Health and Human Services Committee, as he glowingly reported on his latest multi-million dollar CDC grants before a rapt, appreciative audience, one cannot resist speculating that this is the principal raison d’etre for his placement in his current position. Here, his record is indeed impressive. In 2009, he snagged a 2-year $7.5 million grant exclusively for anti-smoking programs: an achievement which spawned an explosion of flashy public relations campaigns (including a 30-second TV spot that cost a cool $250,000 to make and air) as the grant period drew to a close.


                                      Here's How the City Spends Its Grant Funds. . .


                                                        This Cost $250,000 to Make and Air. . .

Not to disparage the very real importance of smoking-related health issues: imagine what that same amount - $7.5 million - or a half, or a third, or even a quarter of it, could buy in terms of dental care for the economically disadvantaged children the toxic placebo called fluoride is supposed to be “helping.”   Mobile dental clinics…vouchers…toothpaste and toothbrushes…dental hygiene education for parents and children…

But that’s not how things operate in the upside-down world of grant-seeking, where projects are driven by infusions of outside money and priorities based more on available funding than need. The Centers for Disease Control pushes water fluoridation in place of real dental care. The same agency that invests millions to keep us away from the tobacco poison wants us to consume the fluoride poison.

This fall, the expired $7.5 million anti-tobacco grant was superseded by a more modest but longer-running one. The latest CDC funding provides just over $1 million per year over the next five years, to address smoking and other issues, including childhood obesity (an important health problem but dealt with as if in a vacuum). Studies, spawning programs spawning partnerships, spawning endless seminars: it’s a self-perpetuating bureaucracy’s dream come true. One has to wonder then: what would happen if the Prince of Grants, as I think of Huang, were to be undermined in any way? Even on the unrelated subject of water fluoridation?

I suspect the Council members have had this in mind too as they've sat through his several cut-and-paste CDC talking point presentations delivered with smug assurance that his title of authority, however hollow, would always prevail. Is it possible - were he seriously challenged, even opposed - that the CDC’s beneficence might fade along with his authority?

It’s a question worth pondering and I presume the Council has done their share and drawn their own conclusions. I myself can’t answer it. But this I do know: if the Council members wouldn’t turn to family practitioner Huang for open heart surgery or a kidney transplant, they shouldn’t turn to him for advice on toxicology: another specialty in which he lacks the appropriate training. And leave the whole city at his mercy too.

But then, they already know that.

EVER-PREDICTABLE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUES MARCHING TO CDC'S TUNE

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:04:37 GMT

The Austin City Council Addresses Item #11

Well, the big day NOT—December 15—has come and gone, with the City Council predictably following through on its plan to continue fluoridating Austin’s water, and to provide some misleading information about infant formula now posted on the city’s website to a larger audience. All this with the blessing of Dr. Philip Huang, Austin’s Public Health & Human Services Department medical officer and conduit-in-chief to millions of dollars in CDC grant money, behind whose flimsy skirts the Council continues to hide.

Because the outcome was such a foregone conclusion, we made the difficult call not to widely promote this occasion beyond our website, blog and Facebook. Indeed, we feared a strong showing might inspire the Council to postpone the item until late at night, or even to table it. We didn’t want a large cohort of our supporters waiting around, possibly all day, possibly in vain, for the inevitable during this season of cheer.

Things went well enough, however By pre-arrangement, three Fluoride Free Austin members (including Laura Pressley, a strong contender for City Council) signed over their speaking slots to me, allowing me time, for once, to make a decent presentation and to get some of Public Health’s most egregious misrepresentations onto the public record. Because I had ample speaking time, I was able to wing it rather than read from my usual prepared script, which also gave me a rare chance to observe the council members’ expressions. They were not pleased as I exposed the dishonesties and incompetencies of their bureaucratic lords, but were determined to bow down to them anyway. (Dr. Huang, who didn’t speak himself, brought two local dentists with him to make the Atlanta-based CDC’s point). By the time the Council voted - without any discussion - you could have heard a pin drop. Only Mayor Leffingwell’s voice could be heard assuring us that Council member Mike Martinez had made a motion, Laura Morrison had seconded it and the vote in favor was unanimous. It was as though the issue was so toxic, so scary, that council members shrank from any part of it—even approving their own recommendation. Martinez - who recently had his arm twisted by Libby Doggett, an officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which pushes fluoride as well as wife of a powerful Austin-based Congressman - must have felt a shade uncomfortable, though assured in the long run that his vote to continue fluoridating made it all right.

The situation did have its puzzling side. Is a toothless warning (the Council repudiated the actual word “warning”) that bundles false information with a modicum of fact better than no warning at all? Worse? The same? My initial impulse, when signing up at the computer kiosk, was to list myself as against Item #11. But a subsequent conversation with Dr. Pressley—in which she expressed the opinion that even a “warning” that figuratively turns on itself is better than nothing because it will alert people to the fluoride issue—changed my mind. Perhaps it will do some good anyway. Perhaps not. Only time will tell. At the podium, I declared myself neutral. Neutral about fluoride—definitely a first for me!

Mayor Leffingwell was on his best behavior, presumably relieved to have it all done with, if that’s what he thinks. In a sense, last Thursday’s vote was a non-event. It settled nothing. Water fluoridation will continue for now (no surprise), an unsatisfactory warning will be issued with consequences yet to be seen, and Fluoride Free Austin will redouble our efforts in the coming year.

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! RED ALERT! FLUORIDE ON THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR THURSDAY, DEC. 15, 2011

M. Rae Nadler-Olenick — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:51:51 GMT

Now, before we get too excited by this news, let's understand that this is simply the City Council's latest attempt to screw us. Still, it's progress because we've forced them to respond in a way they never imagined they'd have to throughout their three years of sullen rudeness and ignoring us (or trying to) from the dias. Poor things, we're distracting them from their joy: the joys of wheeling and dealing; of social climbing and endless grant getting and lavishly spending the taxpayers' money. What an inconvenience! They all must be gnashing their fluoride-perfect (grin) teeth right now.

Friday, the following item appeared on the draft agenda for next Thursday's City Council meeting:

*****************
RESOLUTION NO.___________________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN:

The City Council supports the City Manager’s recommendation to do the following:

•           to continue to keep Austin water fluoridated because fluoridation of public drinking waters is good, population based public health per the CDC and ATCHHSD

•           to post information on Fluoride and Infants on the City’s website and at ATCHHSD Neighborhood Centers and WIC Stations, in English and Spanish; and

•           to mail information to Austin Water Utility customers highlighting Fluoride and Infant information from the City’s website

ADOPTED: _____________ ,2011
ATTEST: _______________________                                   Shirley A. Brown
            City Clerk

****************

Since it's a draft agenda, it won't be absolutely final until Monday, but we can expect to see something comparable to this at that time. The item is very curious in that it includes a resolution to do what they are already doing - surely a first. Beyond that, they propose to disseminate the spun-out-of-recognition pseudo-information on the City's website to a wider audience. Wouldn't want to miss the large and vulnerable Spanish-speaking population, after all.

The development has several important ramifications. First, we don't know at exactly what time Thursday it will come up. Unlike citizens communication, which always takes place very close to noon, agenda items can be and often are moved around with abandon. As Item #11, it theoretically should come early in the day, and be dealt with in short order. (Since the wording would appear to make it a package deal, I'd expect a unanimous vote in favor - that is, keeping fluoridation and spreading bilingual misinformation about infant formula in a systematic way.)

The fly in their ointment, though, is that we get a chance to talk prior to the vote. And, again unlike citizens communication, there is no limit to the number of speakers, and people can assign their 3-minute slots to others, thus giving some individuals enough time to actually say something. If enough of us show up to annoy them, they could decide to put Item 11 off until 10 p.m. Or next month. There's no overestimating the vindictiveness of this bunch. But hopefully, that won't happen.

Despite its nearness to Christmas and the time investment involved, we'd like a good turnout for this, the last Austin City Council of the year. For those able to take a day off to observe our city government in action, we recommend you arrive at City Hall at 10 a.m. - starting time - and promptly sign up at the computer kiosk to speak on Item #11. (If you don't want to speak yourself, that's OK; you can give away your 3-minute slot to someone else). Come prepared for a long day: bring a book or your knitting or whatever you'll need to amuse yourself during those times when watching the antics of our elected and unelected "civil servants" becomes unbearable and you need to step out for a break. Then settle down to enjoy the show, either within chambers or on the large screens generously provided out in the atrium. With luck, they'll get to it in the morning and then we can all go home.

Although the Council can be expected to rubber-stamp whatever shoddy proposal city staff comes up with, it won’t do them any good. We’ll be back in 2012, energized and ready for the next round.

Merry Christmas, and hope to see you on Thursday.