Mitchell Trachtenberg 
Member since Apr 4, 2019


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Yes, Yes We Do

I'm wondering who mocked Eric Cortez and called him names for his simply saying that there are two biological sexes according to science. Eric, they were being mean to you! Of course there are.

I'm wondering, though, is it the presence of a Y chromosome or the presence of a penis that defines bona fide males? What happens when there's one but not the other? And perhaps you can help by reviewing this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_h… ... and coming up with a good term to use when there is a transition going on? It seems to be a matter of concern to you.

0 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 02/15/2020 at 2:13 PM

Re: “About 55

Kit Mann has nailed it. A legal and enforced countywide speed limit of 55 would have replaced the savings from the canned Terra-Gen project. If the climate scientists are correct, saving the web of life on the planet will take far more. A speed limit of 55, while a non-negligible step in the right direction, is a canary in the coal mine -- if things as easily done as that won't happen (for whatever reason), we can be fairly confident that no more inconvenient changes will happen.

Individual changes are critical, as many have pointed out. They're just not nearly enough, and are unlikely to occur at anything like the necessary rate.

Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 01/23/2020 at 11:56 AM

Re: “Terra-Gone

Chuck,

Trick question, I guess. But let's say the five of us had each saved that ton of jet fuel you assume we used, an assumption as thoroughly grounded in fact as a typical white house announcement. Looking at estimates online, I'd say it's more like two or three tons of CO2 equivalent to fly from here to Spain. OK, fifteen tons. So how long would the wind farm have needed to operate to save fifteen tons of emissions? Using the Final EIR estimate, the 2020 reduction would have been 35,000 tons, or 100 tons per day. So the wind farm would have had equivalent impact by operating for about three hours.

About 8% of Americans travel to Western Europe each year; if Humboldt County residents' travel patterns are similar, that would be about 12,000 trips, for 36,000 tons. So, if ALL travel of Humboldt County residents to Western Europe were eliminated, that would have almost the same impact on GHG as the wind farm, assuming they didn't go to Hawaii instead. But, of course, that would mean everyone would voluntarily agree to not go on flights they would otherwise have taken, or flying would have to be made illegal (and not just to Western Europe, because people would change to alternative holiday destinations). If you want to pass a law making flying illegal, OK, you have my support and I wish you the best of luck.

Individual changes are required, but the way to get changes at-scale is by doing things at-scale. The wind farm would have been at-scale.

Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 01/01/2020 at 9:38 AM

Re: “Terra-Gone

This wind farm would have replaced something between 1/3 and 1/2 of Humboldt's present electricity. Yes, more is needed, but this was that rare time when a simple yes/no decision on one project had a large scale effect on Humboldt's emission.... no matter how many links you can paste :)

Individual action is needed; this would have been collective action at large scale, which is also needed

1 like, 2 dislikes
Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 12/27/2019 at 3:28 PM

Re: “Terra-Gone

In other words, Dan B, not our problem. No need to contribute proportionately to the resolution of the problem. Let magical others do it, because we have forests. You could move to absolutely any place on the planet and come up with great reasons to let others deal with the problem. Perhaps you will.

5 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 12/26/2019 at 12:08 PM

Re: “If Prosecutors Can Get a Grand Jury to Indict a Sandwich, Why Couldn't They Get One to Indict Kyle Zoellner?

I don't doubt that the North Coast Journal accurately quoted Arcata's interim police chief. Given that, it would appear that what a police chief described as "unequivocal physical evidence" "linking" "a suspect" to the killing of Josiah Lawson was insufficient to get 12 of 19 criminal jury members to find probable cause that Kyle Zoellner committed a crime.

As someone who's been observing this but has no inside information, I can think of various ways in which something like this could happen. First, Zoellner's DNA and/or fingerprints may have been present on the weapon that killed Lawson, but since Zoellner was bloodied at the scene, the presence of his blood may not have been deemed enough to provide probable cause to 12 jury members. Even a fingerprint might mean only that he touched the knife at some point in a struggle or before, not that he was the person who stabbed Lawson.

Or, certainly not for the first time, a police officer's view of what a piece of evidence proved might not have aligned with the views of the majority of community members on a jury. Or, it's conceivable -- though I don't think it's likely -- that the district attorney somehow failed to make a case despite having good evidence.

There's no question that this is a difficult situation for all involved. Personally, although I believe there is substantial racism in this community (especially among those who don't think there is) I don't believe racism alone would be enough to explain the failure to indict.

One of the protections Americans, especially white middle-class Americans, take for granted is that we can't just be charged with a crime by public acclamation. I'm sure many persons of color have been charged with crimes based on very shaky evidence, and there has been an increasing amount of proof that many people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. The just solution to that is to provide better protections for all, not to try to do an end-run around those protections.

No matter how many rallies take place, if 12 of 19 citizens on a grand jury don't find probable cause to indict a person, I'm satisfied that there is insufficient evidence to charge that person with a crime. If there are people who believe it is impossible to get a Humboldt County grand jury to indict despite sufficient valid evidence, they should take their case to the state. To try to sway the district attorney to indict after that result is, in my opinion, dangerous. We don't need to make it easier to indict people, and I'd hate to live in a place where the police version of events was deemed sufficient to indict.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Mitchell Trachtenberg on 04/04/2019 at 4:10 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Update (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend - Thursday Edition (Thursday)
  • Events This Weekend - Friday Edition (Friday)

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2020 North Coast Journal

Website powered by Foundation