Odd jobs
Looking at an LA Times story, I was struck by some of the oddest sentences I've read recently. But that's nothing compared to my perplexity when considering the mechanics of needing "a keeper's guiding hand to get their groove on." Other than that, the story seems nearly human.
Sumatran rhinos also need long, regular wallows in gooey mud unsullied by their own waste to feel good, a pleasure they don't often get at zoos, Riyanto said. Most of those locked up for captive breeding live close to each other, "separated only by bars."
"And they don't like it," he said. "They don't like to see each other. They get bored. They don't even have any desire to reproduce, no sex drive."
TO be in shape to mate, a male rhino also needs satisfying meals, something more to his taste than bales of zoo hay. Even with the right diet, young males often need a keeper's guiding hand to get their groove on. The odds of a successful union improve if the female doesn't inflict serious wounds with her long, razor-sharp canines, Riyanto said.
In the forest, a Sumatran male rhino goes looking for a female when he senses she is in heat, which occurs roughly every three weeks. Zoo rhinos often suffered serious injuries until experts figured out when it was safe to nudge them toward mating, Riyanto said.
"If the timing is bad, they fight when they meet. They might even kill each other," said Riyanto, who has seen a female chomp a deep gash 8 inches long in a pushy male. "Even if the timing is right, they still have rituals. The female is always looking for a good male. She will persuade the male to fight. If the male is strong enough, he will chase her." And only then does she give in to his advances.
Presumptive Reasoning
I read Dick Cavett’s entertaining blog/column about the presumption of innocence this morning, and when I got home from class tonight I found a ruling (via MNSpeak) that echoed it. It quotes a passage from Minnesota law that no one among the 130 commenters at the NYT mentioned or cited any variation therof.
I am puzzled by the idea of presumption as a “rule of evidence” (as in we only admit evidence with presumption?). Cavett asserted this as the true source. Commenters at the NYT localized presumption of innocence as a part of due process, but that seems suspect as well. Presumption of innocence need not be a part of any process, due or otherwise. It’s a presumption, not a process; informing the procedure of prosecution (locating the burden of proof). What the heck does all this mean anyway? Well, in Minnesota it means that they can’t automate giving out tickets for running a red light based on the evidence of a traffic camera. The ruling puts it this way:
Regardless of whether petty misdemeanors are considered to be “crimes” under the criminal code, the rules of criminal procedure specifically apply to petty misdemeanors. Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.01. And those rules require that a defendant be “presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 23.05, subd. 3. Thus, in any prosecution under the Act, the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving at the time of the red-light offense, and the owner has no obligation to prove anything.
On the other hand, section 474.660 of the ordinance requires the owner to rebut the presumption that he or she was the driver, or face liability as the owner. Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid.
The “act” in question is the general state law applicable to running red lights. The “ordinance” is a city one, authorizing the use of traffic cameras. It seems that the supreme court of Minnesota, contrary to Dick Cavett’s playful and entertaining assertion, has a firm handle on this whole “presumption of innocence” thing. I’m glad.
The Experience
In an effort to stem my bloodlust of late, I should report that Calvert DeForest's version of Tequila is bothersome on many levels. “Adios Suckers” indeed.
A Big Mess
Everybody knew [ Bob] Stinson drank and drugged too much, but toward the end of of his life, it was becoming apparent that this problems ran deeper. Friends say he had episodes of delusional thinking. Sometimes they were free-associative; he could switch in mid-sentence from the song he was working on to the tree outside the window and back again.
Into the Black
Last December, I was driving down Stinson Blvd (no relation to the Stinson brothers, although Bob named an album after it) and I spotted a sign at the corner of Summer and Stinson for Techne R&D. This interested me in two respects: first, I’m a big fan of the Replacements—I truly believe that Bastards of Young was the greatest music video ever made and that Let it Be is one of the top ten rock and roll records. Second, techné (for the non-rhetoricians out there) describes the general class of activities which rhetoric is a part of. Sometimes translated as “art,” it isn’t really that at all. Carl Mitcham (paraphrasing Aristotle) perhaps described it best: techné is the ability to make with an awareness of the thing being made.
I vowed to return and make a photograph of the building with the thought of writing something about it. Sometimes, things don’t work out the way you plan. Your level of awareness can change in an instant.
