(And, the function of W. 19th Street should not be just to be a mini-highway, but the main shopping street of the Westside.)
At tonight's Planning Commission meeting there was a presentation of how to improve W. 19th Street.
The CM PRESS was underwhelmed.
Look, folks, the vision that we and many others have of W. 19th Street is that it should be a hip, cafe street sharing the same vibes and customers who go to Mother's Market and the Triangle, as part of a lively, pedestrian friendly, and easy walking, several block area of Downtown Costa Mesa. A destination location. A place where people will come to congregate and spend their money.
We didn't get a sense that this is what was presented tonight. Instead, we saw a presentation of some traffic islands and a couple of round-a-bouts and some palm trees; but nothing that said "pedestrian friendly," "come sit at one of our small tables on the sidewalk outside our cafe on a warm summer evening," "come into our sports bar," "come have dinner in one of our locally owned restaurants that have local character," "come into our boutique shops," "come to W. 19th Street, the main shopping district of the new Westside."
And, as far as the plants on the medians and sidewalks, we'd like to see them be more like what you see at the Camp up on Bristol Street--plants that look like they belong in our semi-arid area.
# # #
TWO MORE BLACKS CHARGED WITH MURDERING WHITE BABIES
Sicko weak seed White mothers put their babies in danger.
# # #
OBAMA'S AMERICA WILL BECOME DETROIT
But few dare tell the truth: When you change the genetic recipe of a nation, you change the nation. Sometimes for good, and sometimes (as is the case with America now) for the bad.
Genes matter.
# # #
A SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT RACE? DON'T LOOK AT THE WART ON THE FACE OF THE OTHER!
(c) 2013 H. Millard
 |
| Darwin's Finches--speciation |
Several years ago, the Los Angeles Times had an editorial “Obama on race,” in which the Times had this subhead: “His speech proved to be that rarity in American politics--a serious discussion of race.”
Nonsense. Barack Obama not only failed to scratch the surface about race, he didn’t even rub it very hard. I watched his speech and also followed along with a hard copy and it was just a shallow political speech. Of course, to give Obama his due, one wouldn't expect a politician to try to offer a serious discussion of race in a political speech. Such discussions are better aimed at people who know a little about the subject, or who have open, reasonably intelligent minds, and who are at least willing to learn something. Such discussions aren't the stuff of TV speeches that require quick sound bites before millions of people who often don’t know the first thing about the subject, and who have often been conditioned to believe that “race doesn’t exist” because, as is so vacuously and stupidly said, we all bleed red blood. If you don’t get it, then just translate Obama’s speech about race into terms of automobiles and you would have had a 37 minute speech telling us no more than that there are different makes and models of automobiles and some have this paint job and some have this other paint job, but underneath--under the hood, where it really matters, don't you know--they are all identical automobiles. That would be hardly a serious discussion of automobiles. It makes a very basic and ham handed error in thinking by focusing on the very broad term "automobile," and uses it to say that since all automobiles have certain features in common, they must be identical--oh, not in the things that you can see with your lying eyes--but, again, under the hood where it really matters. Yes, you must not believe your eyes. You must believe that the things that you can't see are identical. And, those things that you can't see are what's important. But, what if different makes and models of cars perform differently? What if some are faster than others? Well, you must not notice that, because that would point to differences under the hood and noticing differences is bad. "Hey," says the well conditioned and low I.Q. mob as their eyes narrow to slits all at the same time "you're not some kind of automobilist, are you? We don't like that kind of hate around these parts." One might then go on to say that makes and models of automobiles aren't real, they're just social constructs. No serious discussion of the sociological aspects of race--which is what the Times apparently believed Obama was attempting--can even begin unless there is a quick pre-discussion about how life began on Earth and about DNA and how the constant shuffling of just four chemicals abbreviated A,T,C and G make up the blueprints--or recipes, if you prefer--for all animal and plant life of which we are aware, including humans. And a serious discussion would have touched a little on the reality of the twenty thousand or so genes (the most accepted estimate as of this writing) that humans carry and how they’re clustered on 46 chromosomes and how each parent contributes 23 chromosomes and how a new life is begun the moment the 23 chromosomes from the father and the 23 chromosomes from the mother join, and it would have mentioned genotypes (our internal blueprint) and phenotypes (the result of that internal blueprint) and why Obama, with a white mother and a black father, is not really half white and half black, but black (recessive vs. dominant genes) and why Obama is lighter than his father and could not possibly have turned out as dark as his father or as light as his mother (skin tone is one of the few genetic traits that is truly blended). And a serious discussion of race would discuss adaptations, mutations, evolution and even why natural selection favors white skin in northern climes and darker skin in southern climes (Vitamin D absorption) and about how humans are a little like Darwin’s finches in that geographic and reproductive isolation along with other factors mentioned above, caused the formation of races of humans as just a step along the path to eventual speciation. And a serious discussion would have told listeners that race is real, just as genes are real, and that race is to humans what breed is to dogs and variety is to roses and that it is not “racism” (defined as hatred) to actually and honestly discuss race and all of these things. And a serious discussion of race would not try to deny nature, but seek to have people understand it, and it would have discussed why different medicines work in different ways in different races and how enlightened medical science is now taking race into account instead of pretending it doesn’t exist. And that’s just for starters. But, such pedantry is not the proper stuff of political speeches and it would put many to sleep if a politician did try to discuss such things. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear that most people really want a serious discussion about race. Race is the wart on the Other's face that we mustn't stare at and which we must pretend isn't there. Most people today have been conditioned to believe (or at least to pretend they believe) that races don’t exist. That such a false belief is anti-nature seems to allude the most conditioned among us. And, they want to accept the nonsense that they should reject what their eyes--the king of the sense organs in our species, which we have so we can survive--tell them about different races looking different from each other. Indeed, Americans have come to falsely believe that talking about differences is the equivalent of hate. In such an atmosphere, which is the modern equivalent of the once universally held belief that the earth is the center of the solar system, no serious discussion of race can occur. So, we discuss race as though we’re trying not to look at what too many people consider to be a wart on the other person’s face instead of considering race as just part of the constant tinkering that nature does with life as we spin endlessly through the cosmos. Racial differences are not defects. They are not warts. They are just differences, yet we wrongly genuflect before this sacred cow we call race as though it is the holy of holies that we must not look at. Nature is a frugal, minimalist, backyard engineer and tireless and never stopping tinkerer and it tries to design and constantly refine organisms for particular niches that have just enough genetic tools, but no more than necessary, to survive and prosper in such niches. Nature does not put gills on birds or eyes on organisms that live in total darkness. When we can look at human beings as we look at the rest of nature, then we’ll be able to have a serious discussion about race. At that time, we should be mature enough to calmly accept the reality of differences as the adaptations that they truly are. Meanwhile, over at the dog park in Costa Mesa, there are people happily talking about different breeds of dogs and how this breed is smarter or stronger or faster than this other breed; and they're mostly oblivious to the deeper significance and meaning of their happy talk. |
# # #
|
NON-WHITE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PERSECUTING WHITE STUDENTS IN NEW JERSEY AND SOUTH CAROLINA
No expressions of Whiteness allowed. No free speech for Whites.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment