One year ago, I ran away from Texas to Connecticut, to start a new life.
Today, I went to a Texas lake at sunset, to mourn the failure of that new life, and to fortify my hopes for the future.
Things are looking up now. Hopefully I won't have to run away this time.
We're expecting a high of 33°C this Monday. That's 92°F. It's February; this should still be winter here in Texas. I'm alarmed that it feels more like late spring. Everyone should be.
One of the main roads in the Fields development, Legacy Drive, has a speed limit of 45 mph. Traveling at 45 mph, you can go over 10 miles in 15 minutes. Even going 20 mph, much slower than most residential speed limits, you can go 5 miles in 15 minutes.
Going 3 mph—average human walking speed—you can't even go 1 mile in 15 minutes. I cannot emphasize this enough; adding car journeys to the definition of a 15 minute city defeats the point.
One of the main purposes of 15 minute cities is to reduce car dependency because of how bad cars are for air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, and community atomization. Being able to get to everything you need on a daily basis within 15 minutes of your home without a car would make it so that we don't have to rely on cars so much, so we can avoid those negative effects. That's the point.
By including cars in the definition, you turn a style of urban planning that could dramatically improve the health of our communities into a style of urban planning that most suburban and urban communities in USAmerica already use. Even my grandparents out in semi-rural Texas live less than 15 minutes from everything they need by car. That is nothing special, nothing new.
The Fields development in Frisco, Texas, is being called a "15 minute city". As someone interested in urbanism, this was very exciting for me—that is, until I saw that "15 minute city" was being defined as "a design where most daily necessities can be reached by a 15-minute walk, bike, or car ride." The inclusion of cars in that definition defeats the purpose of a 15 minute city.
North Texas is so amazingly beautiful. I can't believe I ever thought it was boring here. You just gotta learn to look past the mcmansions and stroads
As they say, if one side says it's sunny, and the other says it's raining, it is not your job as a journalist to report them both, it is your job to look out the window and see who's telling the truth.
Yes, ads are not reporting from the station, but is it okay for a news source to spread misinformation in any capacity? I would say no.
Come on, y'all. Showing political ads spreading misinformation on news channels is irresponsible and dangerous. If one side is demonizing a part of your community and calling for their eradication, showing their ads is not bipartisanship, it is cowardice at best.
https://theconversation.com/saving-the-news-media-means-moving-beyond-the-benevolence-of-billionaires-222677This article is very interesting overall, but one line especially stood out to me:
"It’s worth noting that U.S. investment in public media is a smaller percentage of GDP than in virtually any other major democracy in the world."
Saving the news media means moving beyond the benevolence of billionaires
How can an industry experiencing systemic failure get back on its feet?
moss