Jim

Tend to agree with the general assessment. Interesting article in, of all places, The Nation. Just the facts, please

And just for clarity, in case the next post is a character assassination - typically the second defense, is that I'm not saying the assertion is not true. You just can't cite such a statistic, particularly in the complex world of social science analysis, cross your arms, and declare an end of the discussion. Well, you can, but.....

Having been seeped in non-parametric analysis the last couple weeks, here's a couple considerations: 1) the basic tenet that correlation does not necessarily infer causation. The production of teflon over the past decade correlates with a significant reduction in death by colon cancer; string cheese consumption parallels an increase in sunspot activity over the past 2 years; or arrests for herion use indicates its preference over all other drugs (the last one, no - more due to the clamp down on oxycontin). 2) The first defense of weak writing is - "you are too stupid to grasp this complicated subject".

Chokehold guy was not indited That one does not seem proper - especially that it was a procedure that was not allowed. Fugerson, however, is not as clear due to the attack by Mr. Brown and the forensic evidence, w hich backed up the cop's story.

Well, this dialog is a pretty good example of the cross-talking evident on almost any website discussing the topic. Likely a by-product of the media - but I've found more realistic discussions among the races in person. To not recognize that the young adult attacked a police officer --- or that there could have been options for the police officer once he exited the vehicle is just continuing down the same trench. I worked with a guy from west Texas for a bit. He said there was a desolate stretch of dirt road where he lived with a sign that said -- Choose your rut wisely -- you'll be in it for the next 30 miles. But please continue.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. My point is that the media isn't now (maybe never was) subtle. Under the 24 hr news cycle there had to be someone else to interview, to speculate upon, or non-experts to analyze minutia. I bring up the Williams example for comparison only because this one is in Seattle and familiar to me. How could a cop not be brought to trial after shooting a old, limping guy with a whittling penknife? I'm sure there are plenty of examples of cops shooting a black man in less threatening circumstances - a lot. The Brown shooting is worth dissecting - just not the way it was played in a sensational manner by the media from day one.

Well, I think you're inferring quite a bit here - but I'll bite. And I'll preface it that - yes, I'm just some while guy with limited experience with police harassment and zero experience as being targeted for my race. So -- if this were not the case maybe I would be looking at this differently. I agree that there is a very long list of racial bias by cops and deadly consequences to especially young black males. Never-the-less this was not one of those cases. I guess it's just part of our culture now but there was a full-throated media blitz of speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated opinions by anyone and everyone, and few facts. Until - oh, wait a minute. The legal process ran it course and the facts and evidence came out. It was not a murder nor even met the criteria for manslaughter. Seriously? Beat on a cop and try and take his gun - that just is not going to pass muster by any Grand Jury or even a trial jury. I also should point out that John Williams was not white, but a person of color - he was First Nations member of the Ditidaht Tribe.

True - but given the high threshold even for manslaughter it this situation it would have went nowhere. Frankly, the media beat this one to a frenzy. I think some local incidents warranted much more attention - the killing of John Williams the wood carver by a SPD cop and the King County officer who paralyzed that innocent guy by slamming him into a brick wall. Why didn't anyone march for those folks? I guess if it made the CNN broadcast......

No, if in America you will either start a blog, continuously post inane comments on the internets, or start a reality show. Better yet - all three.

Oh jesus. Again? Inevitably it's about ME.

Well I was at the gathering yesterday, more by happenstance than planning - and I would say the SPD was more than reasonable, particularly given the few unstable clowns in the group and several others just egging them on. That said - I also was at the WTO way back and that was one cluster - the SPD didn't know what to do so fell back on the ol' standard of pepper spay and nightsticks. And THAT was when things went south. While I've spent time with the peacenik marches, I also have some relationships with a few cops - and I would not want their job. The social issues of black trust, poverty, crime, discrimination, and racism goes a long way out of the purview of law enforcement.

Maybe not consciously. Still, a soldier's mission is different than that of a police officer. Citizens should be able to tell the two apart--and the hardware and tactics employed by the latter is making this more and more difficult. Agreed. Think we can stop producing and dispersing military candy as if ISIS is going to march into Wallmart tomorrow? I would like to use a grenade on the 24 hr media, however. While unjustified shootings occur, this was not one of them and was hyped to the max by the media from the get go. Oh - nevermind. Facts played out differently.

Too old that I didn't know there was a choice! Old skool

isn't that what the whole platonic philosopher-king thang was all about? Even I don't want this. We'd have to wear uniforms as if on the Enterprise, but then again there was Lt. Uhura........

Actually I think it is quite accurate. Remember - this has to with the review of scientific data - not a partisan policy debate. And this is a typical GOP, cleverly written law. It allows "stakeholder" review by the states - which translates to appointments by the GOP wackos in TX to review the science - when they can't even allow teaching of evolution in their public school science books. And clearly it is meant to quash the dissemination of science among scientists by blocking peer review (which is a basic principal of good science) by blocking "advisory" work. Really 'gimme a break here. If you don't understand it then I'd suggest deferring to the Union of Concerned Scientists - who know a thing or two about science - and they say: HR 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, sponsored by vocal EPA adversary Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, would similarly erect pointless roadblocks for the agency. The Science Advisory Board, composed of some of our nation’s best independent scientists, exists not to advocate any particular policy, but to evaluate whether the best science was used in agency decisions. This bill would make it easier for experts with ties to corporations affected by new rules to serve on the SAB while excluding independent scientists from talking about their own research. In other words, academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.

Same old from the party of No Ideas. Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science. H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice. But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Great book I assume you have read: http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-at-Gettysburg-Garry-Wills/dp/1416565736

Oh, that subject. My first reaction is yes - net neutrality all the way. But there is a sticky issue here. The firms that built the fiber optic network (as much as we hate Comcast and its ilk) are now seeing traffic escalate and need to keep improving the infrastructure. They look at it as "hey, we built the highway and you guys (providers) are using it to make a bundle - so we need to put in tolls" Seems that some type of compromise is needed - or else the conduit will be filled by those frustrated teachers at the end of each day playing Call of Duty and paying the needed premium. What are the Euros doing about this?

Mark Rubio told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientist are portraying it,” . Ron Paul can say of evolution, “I think it’s a theory and I don’t accept it as a theory.” Rick Perry can call evolution “it’s a theory that’s out there, but one that’s got some gaps in it.” And it’s on that same basis, that same rejection of science, that Perry can say, “I’m not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.” Then there’s Michele Bachmann, who has embraced the idea that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation, although not a single piece of medical evidence backs up her claim. How, then, did she come to that conclusion? That’s simple: A woman came up to her at a debate and told her so. Lamar Alexander is demanding oversight of the National Science Foundation decisions on grants as chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology – an unprecedented move by someone who has voiced the opinion that we don’t need the NSF. Bobby Jinal, though a biology major – can’t say if he believes in evolution. James Inhofe (R-OK) will be taking over the Environment and Public Works Committee says this about climate change: “[T]he Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.’ My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” Bush officials repeatedly ignored or altered reports by the National Academy of Sciences, the E.P.A. and other groups tying global warming to fossil fuel emissions. Senator Daniel Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, who once said human-induced global warming might be "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Ted Cruz will take over the Science and Space panel (stop laughing). Joni Ernst – newly elected to the Senate, vows to dismantle the EPA. Opposition to stem-cell research, teaching of sex education, teaching of evolution, teaching of climate change – others? Ronald Reagan was pushing for a space-based defense against nuclear missiles, called Star Wars, that a chorus of scientists dismissed as technically unfeasible. Reagan stalled on acknowledging the dangers of acid rain and the buildup of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Warming the hearts of his religious fans, Reagan voiced doubts about the theory of evolution, and he urged C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general, to investigate whether abortion harms women physically and emotionally – he refused. And in 2002 the administration appointed the Kentucky gynecologist and obstetrician W. David Hager to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration. Hager has advocated treating premenstrual syndrome with Bible readings and has denounced the birth control pill. In 2003 the World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization (W.H.O./F.A.O.), citing concerns about rising levels of obesity-related disease, released a report that recommended limits on the intake of fat and sugar. The recommendations reflected the consensus of an international coalition of experts. The Sugar Association, the Grocery Manufacturers of America and other food industry groups attacked the recommendations. William R. Steiger, an official in the Department of Health and Human Services, then wrote to W.H.O.'s director general to complain about the dietary report. Echoing the criticism of the industry groups, Steiger questioned the W.H.O. report's linkage of obesity and other disorders to foods containing high levels of sugar and fat, and he suggested that the report should have placed more emphasis on "personal responsibility." Steiger later informed the W.H.O. that henceforth only scientists approved by his office would be allowed to serve on the organization's committees. Then there are the political hacks the GOP puts in to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, National Parks, NOAA, Agriculture, and others – usually picked for industry ties - such as mining leads for Interior. Really, there isn’t a comparison.

Wel, we obviously disagree on this one. And from a science standpoint there is no such thing as climate sceptic - more accurate would be science denier. Now differences on policy reaction to the facts IS up to debate. Plus- you're killing me here. Gull counting?!

Great, thanks L

The nuances of two bad choices isn't lost on me. But FW - without going into a dissertation, I'll take up one item, the GOP war on Science. You can pick almost any issue - evolution, endangered species management, climate change, regulation of environmental standards --- the typical GOP play is to try and squash the science in favor of a policy that ignore findings and supports some business or religious agenda. Generally this is because they don't have the balls to say what they stand for - if they said -- "Look - yes we understand that not enforcing this air quality law will lead to higher particulate matter - but we don't think the environmental standard is more important than the jobs it will affect". Rather - they will attack the science with bullshit. Here's just one of many examples. I worked on an regional assessment of an endangered species four the USFWS as part of a technical science team. It was a very broad study looking a demographics, habitat, genetics, predators, and a threat assessment. The data were clear - keeping the species listed under the Endangered Species Act was warranted. So the report goes up to the Bushie (Idiot) Administration and some political hack starts redlining the science conclusions. Only because of a FOIA by an NGO that got it in the press was the report left unedited. They didn't have the balls to say "yea, yea, but this affects timber harvest and we think that this policy decision over-rides the science" I would absolutely disagree - but would give them points for an honest policy choice. This is a very typical method for the GOP - that and ignoring environmental standards that are on the books, hiring industry hacks to run agencies such as EPA, Interior, and NOAA; and always favoring industry over environmental regulation. BUT - they have to be slimy about it an attack the science instead of just coming out for what they stand for. Speaking of which -- I gotta get back to those seabird surveys. Friggin' chilly. Cheers.

Good question - but I think you're simplifying it and make some assumptions of my intent - though justifiable based on limited knowledge. I don't thing in necessarily applies to a Dem vs GOP breakdown, but for many issues it does. I apologize - I'm still searching for an interesting article I read recently that looked at a broad spectrum of what people wanted out of government and then how they voted, and how their representatives then voted. Maybe it's just that they forget their aspirations once the check the box. Even from a conservative perspective - balanced budgets, foreign adventures, and over-bloated military budget, increased surveillance, and a war on science all don't seem to be in line with traditional conservative values. Flag waving, terrorists, ebola, negative ads -- targeted attach ads work and generally the pol with the most money wins. As far as the rust belt cities and their (so far) inability to make a transitions - I'm not seeing a collective vision from either side on that one. But I'll bet that shifting some minor amount of pentagon contractors off the federal teat to some investment and business partnerships in those cities would make a decent difference. IMO>

And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. Unfortunately with SCOTUS recent decisions on money=speech it's getting even easier to pump more and more money into the system. Given the relatively small percentage of folks who vote it's becoming more and more of a bargain to influence an election. Though you do allude to the primary problem - folks generally vote against their best interest and are not well-informed, at least those outside the upper 1%.

Seems like this involves free speech and free enterprise - therefore it should be up to the highest bidder - ya know, kinda like our political system.