Most media trying to censor.
# # #
From the CMPD press release that we just received.
On Saturday morning, a female college student was using the ATM at the Chase Bank at Baker/Harbor and was confronted by a Black male with a gun who demanded money. The victim was able to drive away and called the police. The CMPD found the Black male and his Black female accomplice nearby and arrested them. They are being held on $100,000 bail each.
How's that diversity working for you Costa Mesa?
# # #
BLOGGER SHOWS CONFUSION IN HIS COLUMN IN THE DAILY PILOT
 |
| Geoff West |
Attention seeking Geoff West has a column appearing in the Daily Pilot [HERE] in which West seems to exhibit some confusion as he once again tries to justify a stupid comment he made about Mayor Righeimer.
The heart of the comment in question is this: "75 years ago this is what another strutting dictator did in Germany." *
Now, who do you suppose that "strutting dictator" was? Let's see, 75 years ago would be 1939, and West says he lived in Germany? The only person who fits that description is Adolf Hitler. And, few people of average intelligence who read West's comment would have any doubt about who he meant.
But, in his Daily Pilot column [HERE IT IS AGAIN], West tries to make cute as he writes in his third paragraph, "For the record, that name [Hitler] was not used in the comment in question specifically because it is inflammatory." [Emphasis added]
Okay, so there's an admission that using the name "Hitler," is "inflammatory," but simply identifying Hitler by other words such as "75 years ago this is what another strutting dictator did in Germany," is not inflammatory? Huh?
Folks, we use words to convey meanings to others. If I write "that big yellow orb in the sky that comes out every morning and goes down every night is hot," but I don't use the word "sun." Do you have any doubt what I meant? Of course not. Would you then accept a wiggle explanation that I didn't actually use the word "sun"?
But, let's not belabor the above and instead focus on what it is that Mayor Righeimer has supposedly done or is doing that makes him like a "strutting dictator" who lived "75 years ago...in Germany."
Remember, as you read this list of "horribles" that I pulled from West's column in the Daily Pilot, that part of the mayor's job is to run efficient city council meetings--it's part of his job description, and the mayor has discretion to change things around for efficiency. Remember also, that the mayor also has free speech rights and he doesn't have to simply sit like a potted plant and listen to crap.
So, here's the list of complaints that West seems to have that caused West to compare the mayor to a strutting dictator who lived 75 years ago in Germany:
According to West, the dictatorial acts of the mayor are...
1. The mayor formed a task force to address problems with group homes [And, it was formed completely in accord with our laws and rules. Nothing at all unusual about this.]
2. The mayor "shouted down" Wendy Leece [Nope. Go HERE to view the tape.]
3. The mayor tried to shout down a speaker from the public. [Nope. Go HERE to view the tape.]
4. The mayor has bifurcated public comments [So what? This was necessary so that those who truly want to address the council--which is the purpose of public comments--aren't delayed by a parade of clowns and political opponents who really don't want to address the council but who have created a circus atmosphere for the TV cameras, which includes singing and constantly insulting members of the council, instead of bringing up real problems they want the council to address. Again, it is the mayor's job to run the meetings efficiently. He has the gavel, the responsibility, the authority and the duty. This is how it works in our system of government. We don't just let kooks turn meetings into a circus.]
Read West's goofy column for yourself and also go to the links I provide above so you can see for yourself how over the top West is when he writes that the mayor "shouted down," Leece and a member of the public and also how out of line West is in writing: "75 years ago this is what another strutting dictator did in Germany."
*Here's West's full comment: "This is how they roll. Create a "task force" - no open meeting law compliance required-then meet in secret and hatch (pun intended) plans to focus "enforcement" on specific types of groups. 75 years ago this is what another strutting dictator did in Germany. "transparency" seems to be a one-way mirror fro these guys!"
# # #
OC REGISTER EDITORIAL PRAISING SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO NOT OVERTURN MICHIGAN'S BAN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION
NEEDS FIXING
In the above linked editorial you will read how there has been a move by a Latino legislator to overturn California's Prop 209 which is virtually identical to the law passed in Michigan that banned racial preferences in college admissions.
However, there are a couple of things in the editorial that need more understanding and/or tweaking.
First, the editorial correctly points out that the attempt to overturn Prop. 209 in California was thwarted by Asians.
Now, why do you think it was Asians--a minority--instead of Whites who thwarted this attempt by Latinos to overturn Prop. 209?
The answer lies largely in the fact that Asians in the legislature have a caucus--the Asian and Pacific Islander Caucus--and this caucus gives them a powerful voice.
However, there is no White caucus. Whites are disorganized and no one speaks for Whites as Whites. No one is protecting White interests or the ability of Whites to get into college based on merit and not be excluded because of the color of their skin.
Second, the editorial points out that White enrollment has dropped while Black and Latino enrollment in colleges in California has increased post Prop. 209.
From the Register editorial: "White enrollment in the UC system has fallen from 35.7 percent when Prop. 209 took effect to 27.9 percent last fall. Latino enrollment over the same span has risen from 12.1 percent to 26.8 percent, while black enrollment has increased from 2.8 percent to 4.1 percent."
Then, the editorial joyfully calls the above statistics an "improvement." An improvement? Not for Whites.
The editorial is a nice example of a false cause fallacy as it argues that the statistics (shown above) indicate that a color blind admission policy works and actually brings in more Blacks and Latinos. This is nonsense, and the Register's own numbers are a strong indication that what is going on in California is that Whites are being denied college seats because colleges--and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this is what is really going on--are admitting less qualified Blacks and Latinos and are turning away more qualified Whites, but they're doing it in a sneakier fashion and aren't calling it affirmative action.
So, how might the colleges be circumventing Prop. 209? In many ways. One is to simply admit applicants with names such as Rasheed or Lopez while not admitting people with names such as Sean Smith. Another way is to admit people based on their zip codes. If they have a South Central LA or East LA zip code, admit them, if they have a Newport Beach zip code, don't admit them. And, there are many other ways to bar more qualified Whites.
However, the larger issue here is that Whites need a White Legislative Caucus to represent White interests. It should have been Whites who thwarted the attempt by Latinos to overturn Prop. 209, but Whites were voiceless and lacked representation--as Whites--in the legislature.
So, here again is my column that the Pilot and the Register didn't run about establishing a White Legislative Caucus (you will note that I even changed "Whites" to "European-Americans" in the headline so timid weak-seed Whites who run from being called White might feel more comfortable:
EUROPEAN-AMERICANS NEED A CAUCUS IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
by H. Millard
It was recently announced that State Senator Marty Block, (D-San Diego), started the Legislative Jewish Caucus and that this caucus will also form a political action committee to raise money for Israel-friendly candidates. Block told the press that the Legislative Jewish Caucus "isn't a religious based organization. We see this as an ethnic organization." This statement was presumably made to both forestall Muslims from starting a Muslim Legislative Caucus and also to head off complaints that the Legislative Jewish Caucus is breaching the wall between religion and state.
At any rate, the Legislative Jewish Caucus, as an ethnic/racial organization, now joins the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus and the Latino Legislative Caucus.
These caucuses work, sometimes behind the scenes and out of public view, to represent the interests of their ethnic/racial groups. They write legislation and take other actions on behalf of their particular ethnic/racial groups even though the people they are acting on behalf of may not live in their districts. In other words, unlike the traditional American political notion that people elected to public office represent a specific geographic area, these ethnic caucus members represent "their people," no matter where they live in the state.
An example of what the members of these ethnic/racial caucuses do was presented in the Daily Pilot recently in a story about State Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, a member of the Latino Legislative Caucus, who has authored a bill that would force cities such as Costa Mesa to end city wide voting and replace it with district voting. District voting is a scheme that will lead to gerrymandered districts in Costa Mesa, in an attempt to include Latino voters in certain districts and exclude White voters from the districts.
On the welcome page of the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus we read this: "[T]he Caucus was founded in 2001 and serves to represent and advocate for the interests of the APIA community...."
On the Website of the Latino Legislative Caucus we read: "The Mission of the California Latino Legislative Caucus is to identify, promote and advocate on behalf of the professional, educational, social, political and cultural interests of the Latino Community."
And, on the Website of the Legislative Black Caucus we read: "The continuing mission of the CLBC is to provide our unwavering commitment and support to our goal of achieving full inclusion of our state’s Africans American residents in every aspect of California life – from education and employment to housing and health to commerce and government services."
So, there you have it. Four ethnic/racial organizations all advocating for the interests of their people. Who advocates for White people? No one.
Now, some who haven't kept up with the news may say that a White Legislative Caucus isn't needed because Whites are in the majority in the state. Actually, we're not. Latinos have ether reached numbers parity or have exceeded the size of the White population. Some others may argue that Whites are not an ethnicity, but a race, and that we shouldn't lump the various White ethnicities (or people who originated in many different European nations) together under one rubric such as White. Well, the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus lumps various Asian and Pacific Islander populations together, and the Legislative Black Caucus is based on race.
I'll ask and answer this question once again: Who represents Whites and White interests? No one.
It's time to change that. Will we now see some White legislators start a White Legislative Caucus? Probably not. Why? Because Whites have been so brow beaten about race that it seems many are even afraid to order a gallon of white paint at the hardware store lest they be called racist. The result of this racial intimidation that Whites have undergone for years is that Whites are left without any real representation for their particular interests (and we have many) in the state legislature.
Those timid souls who are so brow beaten that they run from the word "white," can simply use the term European-American if it makes them feel more comfortable.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment