Jim

Oh boy. Well, at risk of simplification, it's not new - there have been previous waves of fundamentalism. People feel alienated when basic changes in the society make the world a strange and unrecognizable place. They feel that they are battling against forces that threaten their most sacred values. It may be that the super speed of technology has accelerated a conflict with scientific rationalism - pushing some to attempt to turn the mythos of their faith into a logos. In a vague nutshell.

Of Scientists and Salamanders. Victor Twitty, 1966. This is an odd book of the arc of a scientist’s career studying salamanders, first in some very odd embryonic and systems development studies (besides graphing different blastosphere parts together they advanced to swamping limbs of embryos of different species) to his field studies on Taricha in California. Who knew that this little newt would climb ridges and travel several miles to get to its breeding stream. Very old skool but entertaining. Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Michael Sandel, 2014. A philosophical look at a number of political issues – Affirmative action, same-sex marriage, physician-assisted suicide, abortion, the moral of markets, etc. Very well written and engaging. The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong, 2001. A dense, but enlightening look at the reasons why fundamentalism is having resurgence in world religions in opposition to reason and technology. Armstrong is an amazing researcher with a varied background (former nun, rabbinical scholar, Muslim teacher). Tough read though – it’s pretty dense and I kept having to go back and re-read sections and decipher my page notes. The Disappearing Spoon – mentioned above, good read for anyone in the sciences or just curious. The Snow Leopard, 1973, Peter Matthiessen. – Given Matthiessen’s passing I picked this one back up. Dang, this guy is a great writer of nonfiction and fiction. Simple, sparse, and clean writing about his trip to the (then very remote) mountains of Nepal with biologist George Schaller. Mathiessen covers a lot of ground – the recent death of his wife, the Sherpas he travels with, and Buddhist understanding of reality, suffering, and beauty. Break, Blow, Burn; Camille Paglia 2006. I pick this one up occasionally and go through a couple chapters. Paglia analyzes 43 of what she considers the “World’s Best Poems” with a keen eye that opens up the context, setting, and (to me) what the heck are they talking about. Very well written.

Oh, don't sell yourself short. Using a random numbers generator anyone is guaranteed to come across the continuous monolog here. This is like the kid who burnt down his parents' house, killing them, and then pleads for mercy before the judge because he's an orphan.

I'm not sure what's worse. That you found this gem or that I watched the whole 2.5 minutes this early in the morning.

Good idea! He could send NCNP rangers there from Marblemount to manage the area. Nobody would get in. (Except guide services who paid a franchising fee, of course) Better yet would be those from MRNP, since they would never get the gate open.

Oh, I'm a fan of mild chest beating as the next guy. But Ho-le-crap. It's like sitting at a bar scarfing beer nuts and the guy next to says "...this reminds me of the time we were on the south face...blah, blah, blah". Next it's the TV commercial, or the beer foam, or the coaster (!!!???) that fires the apparently low threshold synapse to seize the opportunity to launch into another unrelated chance for soothing whatever-the-fuck insecurities are driving this train. After a while the repetition is quite tiresome. Even amongst the more restrained chest-beating of CLIMBERS.

I agree it's overdue. The embargo was mainly kept in place to satisfy the very vocal block in Florida - as evidenced by Mark Rubio's strong opposition. Hopefully the place doesn't get steamrolled by the new cash flow.

Somehow the topic always ends up on the same soliloquy - no matter how tangential. Same ol' Woody Allen said that masturbation was having sex with one of his favorite people.

I think it's just a matter of scale - and potential money that can be brought in by the US capital market - more hotels and a hella lot more people - with lots of cash. Some of the best remaining forests, wetlands, and reefs in the Caribbean are in Cuba. And a host of endemic critters. There is substantially less development pressure in Cuba thanks to the embargo - we'll see how it shakes out. Heritage Sites Endemics

I'm actually mixed about this. One of the reasons Cuba has such amazing natural heritage sites is because the flood of US tourists have been kept at bay. I'm off to work down there this spring under a grant-funded project with CCT - maybe just getting there under the wire. Man, I hope they spend their new found tourist money on some wise eco-tourism parameters.

I'm hoping for a Burr-Hamilton reenactment.

Hmm. This is interesting. Though how it applies to the above discussion of racial injustice is, well, who the heck knows? I can't tell which it is. Either you're using a random numbers generator to develop an argument or cutting and pasting from the first Google hit of "victory against injustice in Wa" - no matter the topic. In any event, the result is a narrative that bounces around the room more than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rockers.

You seem to be confused here on how to construct a logic thread or develop a didactic construct regarding social science. That's ok. But more surprising for the wannabe lawyer is the abandonment of the legal construct once it doesn't fit the prescribed narrative. If there's some fact-based omission in the Brown discussion that you're just waiting to spring as a climax, I'm all eyes and ears. No? But I digress. One of us actually needs to work in the area of his profession. But please, don't let my absence stop you. I know it won't cheers.

Well. Like I said -- one can postulate on an extraordinary number of outcomes of the physical evidence -- but here on earth, we have set up a legal system that defines guidelines under which a jury of peers needs to consider the evidence - be it a Grand Jury or Trial Jury. Given the physical evidence, the result of 3 forensic specialists, and a range of testimony -- the Grand Jury in this case, acting under the defined legal guidelines, found that the evidence did not meet the relatively low threshold for an indictment. And given the all the information - I'd say they were correct in doing so. Now when others seem to have some difficulty with this decision they start filling in the gaps with a lot of "what ifs". Is it entirely possible that Wilson started things by dragging the big guy into his window and Brown was "defending" himself? Sure -- anything is possible-- you may also want to go with the Spaghetti Monster defense as an alternative as well. But here's the point -- it don't mean shite -- least not to anyone with a clear eye to rely on facts and understand their responsibilities under such a legal process. So, while you've proposed some very interesting scenarios lacking any credibility, and some perfectly adorable strawmen, I think I'll stick to a colder assessment of the facts. As a scientist I am more reality based than some.

We know. You're not a lawyer but just play one on TV.

Well, one can speculate endlessly and continue to play junior lawyer. I suppose there is a multitude of scenarios that could match the physical evidence including the intervention of the Spaghetti Monster, who was the real culprit who punched Wilson and tried to steal his gun. But given the physical evidence, the cumulative testimony of witnesses, and the officer’s testimony it seems the Grand Jury came to the only fact-based decision they could within the jurisprudence guidelines set up for this process. The bar is not too high here to indict – you don’t need a unanimous decision and only have to have probable cause that a crime occurred. As opposed to a trial where it is a unanimous decision and reasonable doubt. The narrative hyped by the media just wasn’t so. And typically Grand Jury testimony is sealed, for some good reasons – but the prosecutor decided to make all the information public that was under his control. Now one could argue that the prosecutor should have stepped aside for an outside attorney to take hold of the process. And I would agree. But it would not have changed the outcome or the cries for mob justice. But please feel free to speculate and arm wave some more.

Kinda tough this time of year but if you can squeak in a weather window up Icicle Creek near Leavenworth there is Twin Cracks on Mountaineer's Dome (5.3 or so), a crack I can't remember the name of (5.6) at Barney's Rubble that you can lap on top-rope then give it a lead, or over at Roto Wall further up the road are some easy ones. R&D on Icicle Buttress is a lot of folk's first muti-pitch lead (5.7) and well protected - but has a slab section, which can be odd if you're not used to that.

Oh, I think it's pretty fair to say that there's no way Wilson would have been convicted in a jury trial where the standard of "reasonable doubt" is even more of a hurdle than the grand jury process. This just isn't the poster case it was made out to be once the facts came out. The NYC choking incident (and others) are worth putting up there as true examples of police over-reach.

Hmmm. Interesting. As I said, the state has some incentive to fix the tax thing -- hopefully they will jump on it soon. Out of curiosity - is there any concern that the feds will not turn a blind eye to these experiments if the Republicans get hold of the White House? I would think there is just way too much momentum now for them to interfere with the states on this one.

WTF? This seems pretty simple. Why wasn't this clown, at the very least, suspended w/o pay for a couple weeks? That would send a message. Really? You can't control a skinny belligerent woman any other way than punch her in the face? While handcuffed?

Well here's just one more data point- https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/25/poll-results-drug-penalties/ ...which shows that preference of legalizing heroin is pretty low. The future? Who the heck knows? Not me. I think the pot thing was a pretty good idea and the public is on board because it does have some medicinal uses, has a pretty low risk of addiction, and certainly is no worse (likely better?) than use of alcohol (ones choice I suppose). In contrast the public right now doesn't see a parallel in legalizing harder drugs that have a higher risk of harm. What they do seem to prefer is less of a crackdown on petty use and an increase in treatment of these cases, which seems a sensible thing. And WTF about the 501 legislation - didn't anyone consider the tax implications? There is some incentive here for our legislators to pass the easy fix -- and that is to keep the tax revenue rolling in. So hopefully our dysfunctional office holders will move along on this in 2015. But too bad for the 2014 tax filing for these businesses.

Speaking of legalization - seems the pot business in WA has an issue of sustainability. Didn't anyone think of tax implications BEFORE this became law? Pot is one thing - but the underground market for cocaine, heroin, and prescription drugs will remain - I don't see that changing anytime soon unlike pot - the public isn't going to bite on these more significant drugs.

Well, the three forensic experts don't agree with this statement, and the changing stories and conflicting eye witness testimony doesn't match your speculations either. I'll pass on commenting further on hyperbole. What I don't get -- is why these constructions don't provide the cop the same legal process of say, the Innocents Project, where it's been shown over and over that eyewitness testimony can often be fuzzy at best and reliance on forensics is more important. Several eyewitness in this case were discredited as there stories did not match the physical evidence, they admitted they did not see the things they claimed, or that they changed their story. Not very credible. One is left with some indisputable facts - facial bruising, powder burns on Brown's hands, discharged rounds in the car, distance of Brown to Wilson. Could Wilson have handled it differently -- maybe. Could Brown have -- yep. Given we're left with the physical evidence that matches the cop's story, and some conflicting eye witnesses -- our legal system doesn't indict on innuendo. There's a lot of racial issues in policing. This is just not one of them.

Oh, I'd say your being quite selective here - as much so as the other side on this one. Let's see after getting punched a few times and having this guy try and take his gun (forensic evidence) the cop has no reason to expect this guy is going to try the same on advancing on him and ignoring his commands to stop? No, I wasn't there. Nor were you - so your speculations are no better than the other fill-in-the blanks. The forensic evidence (3 independent reviewers) generally backed up the cop's story - and several witnesses. That is a pretty uphill battle - and quite frankly, the wrong one to attempt to make in to a poster.

When I first read the news coming out about this incident I thought - man, if this cop doesn't go to jail then something is wrong. My mistake, of course, was paying attention to the media blitz on this one. Holy crap. Lo and behold, it ain't what it was purported to be. The NYC one, however is a different deal. That cop is going to be indicted on federal civil right charges and rightly so.