A B.C. teenager accused of taking a stone from the Acropolis will be allowed to return home to Canada pending her trial in Greece. Translation: Will be found guilty in absentia.
Madelaine Gierc, 16, of Duncan, was arrested Sunday after a security guard alleged she removed a stone from the 2,500-year-old Parthenon. She was charged with illegally possessing antiquities. "It's just a small stone for my rock collection, Officer."
On Tuesday, Investigating Magistrate Melpomeni Chiotou ruled Gierc wouldn't be held until the trial, for which a date hasn't been set. "If she leaves, we are in no rush."
If convicted, she faces a maximum of 10 years in prison, but such harsh sentences are rarely imposed.
Madelaine's mother, Lael Gierc, said she's elated and relieved that her daughter will be coming home.
She told Canadian Press that Madelaine picked up the rock to use as a prop in a photo and was whisked away by a security guard.
The girl's father, Tom Gierc, was travelling to Athens to pick up his daughter. Round trip at full fare -- she's got more to fear from him than the Greeks!
Under Greece's protection laws, it is illegal to own, buy, sell or excavate antiquities without a special permit.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/26/2005 2:27:24 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Greeks don't much care for people removing stones from the Acropolis. At least, not since Lord Elgin pocketed a couple of bits for souvenirs.
#2
I know this sounds like it's absurd, but it isn't really. The problem is that given time, ants can disassemble the Great Pyramid.
The Plymouth Rock is only about half the size now that it originally was. The rest was taken away, one small piece at a time, as souvenirs. Eventually the local authorities had to crack down on the practice.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste ||
03/26/2005 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yep, I volunteer at a Spanish Missin site (yes in Florida) it's amazing what little kids can find and remove. I figure we reclaim about 10 percent of the stuff.
#5
A book that I like (that I really ought to re-read) is Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad. It is his autobiographical look at the beginning of the Golden Age of European travel, when the wealthiest Americans would board steamships (with their steamer trunks, of course) bound for 18-24 month "Grand Tours" of the Old Country. Twain went on one of those tours, and documented the highs and lows of American culture clashing with Europe's. My favorite detail in the book is his discussion of the trophy hunters...they all brought little rock hammers and happily chipped away little bits of the Acropolis, the Great Pyramids, the Tower of London. By the end of the journey they were lugging around great sacks of unidentifiable rubble.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2005 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I have seen the Plymouth Rock and find that difficult to believe -- it's a pretty serious-sized chunk of granite (two actually -- a 1774 "oops"), and most tourists would be unequipped to remove any of it. It has also been somewhat enshrined and protected since 1835. But most of all, it is, well, uh, rock shaped.
Here is a picture of the Plymouth Rock:
http://nanosft.com/plymouth/rock3.html
History:
http://www.pilgrimhall.org/Rock.htm
The most-recent shrine:
http://nanosft.com/plymouth/rock1.html
Posted by: Tom ||
03/26/2005 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
When I was working as a tour guide in the Flinders Ranges in South Australia, I took people into the Bunyeroo valley and showed them a layer of meteorite ejecta in the rock strata from the Lake Acraman impact site (590 million years ago) and many hundreds of km away. Fascinating site and only about 4 inches wide, 10 yards long. You can guess the the rest- as I am giving my talk, this German guy picks up a creek stone and starts bashing away at the layer. He didn't get in a second blow! I reorganised my talk after that.
Yesterday, I posted comments to Ralph Nader supporting Terri Schiavo tothe effect that Judge Greer received a contribution from Felos, attorney for Michael Schiavo. Newsmax has information which makes it more ominous...
Friday, March 25, 2005 10:57 p.m. EST
Greer Got Donation From Mike Schiavo's Lawyer
Reclaiming America, an organization backed by Rev. D. James Kennedy, reported that a serious conflict of interest may exist for the Fla. State Judge who is ruling on the Terri Schiavo case.
The report from Reclaiming America follows:
Story Continues Below
As if the circumstances surrounding Terri Schiavo could not get any more suspicious, the Center for Reclaiming America has uncovered evidence that Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Judge George W. Greer accepted a campaign contribution from the law firm of Michael Schiavo's attorney only one day after "Terri's Law" was declared unconstitutional by a Pinellas county court.
This appears to establish a clear conflict of interest between Judge Greer and the best interests of Terri Schiavo.
Judge Greer has been responsible for establishing "the facts" in the case of Terri Schiavo. Sadly, he has dismissed or ignored testimony from 33 physicians (15 neurologists) who are willing to testify that Terri is not in a persistent vegetative state and can improve, he has refused to allow the Florida Department of Children and Families to conduct a criminal investigation of Michael Schiavo, he has refused to honor a subpoena from the U.S. Congress, and he has blocked virtually all efforts from the Schindler family to save the life of their daughter.
According to public records available from the Florida Department of State: Division of Elections, Judge George W. Greer received a campaign contribution from the law firm of Felos & Felos during his re-election efforts in the spring of 2004.
Of course, no direct evidence suggests collusion between the two parties, but the timing of the campaign contribution is highly suspect.
On May 6, 2004, a Pinellas county court struck down legislation ("Terri's Law") passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush, which was designed to halt a previous attempt to starve Terri Schiavo to death.
On May 7, 2004 — only one day after the ruling — Judge Greer received a campaign gift from the law firm of Michael Schiavo's attorney.
This was not due to a fundraising effort, as this was the only contribution made to the Greer campaign fund on that particular day.
Posted by: BigEd ||
03/26/2005 12:52:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ed- This whole situation is a legal nightmare
and a personal, emotional disaster for the family memeber's and Terri husband----HE could CARE LESS!
This has really created a slippery slope in the arena of Medical Ethics and Law class.
After Terri passes on- there will be criminal charges filed against many parties!!!
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
03/26/2005 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Andrea - I hope the florida starts with an investigation of this, and files impeachment proceedings against the "Judge".
#3
There is ânothing new under the sun.â I see this kind of judicial arrogance and sleaziness all the time -- rarely (but not never) does it end up costing someone their life. Given that this kind of judicial excess goes on so often, I seriously doubt that the Founders of this nation were unaware of the potential for rule by judicial tyranny. The Founders certainly knew about the potential for judicial arrogance and abuse (e.g., recall the star chambers that were part of the reason the colonies sought independence in the first place).
The answers about how to stop what is going on in Florida could not be more clear, and the power to stop what is going on in Florida does not reside in the Executive Branch (e.g., Governor Bush).
WHAT GOVERNOR BUSH COULD DO IS TO CONVENE THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE IN EMERGENCY SESSION TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.
The check on the Judiciary by the Executive Branch is only: (1) to use the âbully pulpit,â (2) to convene the Legislature to address an emergency, and (3) to appoint judges (with the advice and consent of the Legislature). It is the Legislature that has the power to rein in the Judiciary by passing new laws and/or amending a constitution in response to judicial rulings. Further, the Legislature can impeach a judge who has crossed the line or is otherwise failing to show the proper judicial temperament.
THE LEGISLATURE OF FLORIDA COULD STOP THE SUFFERING OF TERRI SCHIAVO TODAY!
#4
After appeal No. 7734 was denied today, only extraordinary steps of intervention will save Terri Schaivo's life. Like I said on earlier posts, the deliberate starvation and denial of water to Terri would be a felony cruelty to animals charge if you did it to a dog. It would be also cruel and unusual punishment if it was done to a criminal on death row. After Terri dies, IMHO this case should be viewed as a denial of civil rights of Terri. In that case, Federal Marshalls should descend upon sh*thole county, Florida and seize all court records and evidence. Then it should be turned over to the Justice Dept Civil Rights division and the judge and his cohorts be prosecuted for denying this helpless victim her civil rights.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/26/2005 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
BIG ED, CINGOLD, ALASKA PAUL Yes, who is protecting Terri's Civil Rights?? Can you imagine what the case sets as legal presidence?
WHAT A SLIPPERY SLOPE.***
What do you think about the so called husband?
Is that Saten or what?
Happy Easter**
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: andrea Jackson ||
03/26/2005 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
In case ther are any doubters, like "Wierd Al", e.g.
I do not want to see violence. I hope not many folks outside the hospice are aware of this...
But If we all mail/FAX the Florida Legislature with the printout of the results. They can hopefully be encouraged to begin impeachment proceedings against Bozo Greer...
#8
After Terri dies, IMHO this case should be viewed as a denial of civil rights of Terri.
After all that has gone on, it seems pretty evident that the inevitable is going to come to pass. That having been said, IMO people should drop the legal efforts to reattach the feeding tube and concentrate on what to do after she dies. An autopsy should definitely be on that list. Grieve for her when the time comes, then take care of what needs taking care of afterward.
#9
according to his atty, who just visited her, she's looking beautiful, just glowing. Riiggghhhhtt.....I wonder if the atty would choose this way to die?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2005 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let's just say for argument's sake that Michael Schiavo is correct and Terri would have taken a "do not resuscitate" position. Would she have said "I'd prefer a slow, lingering death by dehydration and starvation", or would she have preferred to be put out of her misery with painkillers and lethal injection? Not likely the slow, lingering death by dehydration and starvation.
So the judges are treating innocent Terri in a way that they would never treat a condemned serial killer. They are choosing cruel and unusual punishment. And the doctors involved are choosing to violate their Hippocratic Oaths and commit murder and malpractice. Those judges and doctors are murderers and the police involved in securing the crime site are accomplices. Nazi concentration camp behavior. What a disgusting, shameful mess. They may as well just drive a few spikes through her wrists.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/26/2005 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
according to his atty, who just visited her, she's looking beautiful, just glowing.
And, he never realized a mere $250.00 campaign thank you money contribution would go so far!
#12
Im my opinion this whole affair has been a power strugle between the judiciary branch and the legislative branch. This judge ignored a law passed by both houses of Congress. He has , it seems to me, placed himself as the supreme "law of the land". This sets a very dangerous precedent. I think euthanasia of is not far off.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/26/2005 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Realistically, its too late for Terri.
I pray for her soul and her family. And I pray for Judge Greer, the willing executioner.
The big problem here is this judge has a judicial record of "stubborness" - i.e. when ne feels he has enough facts, he makes a judgement and NEVER changes it.
The problem is that he did NOT have all the facts - the deck was stacked and he REFUSED to see any information to the contrary of the death-advocates hired by Michael Schiavo. This screams ouut to anyone that looks at the case with ALL the opinions in from the top brian injusry neuroscientists, including a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her and disagreed with the PVS diagnosis but whose testimony was disallowed. No MRI, no PET scan - which are considered basic tools in diagnosis of PVS - as one neuroscientist said "its criminal" that these were not done. Judge Greer never even visited her, and he was supposed to be in the role of her guardian. Never visited her in the hospital. Not once! What kind of guardian is that?
Mr Shciavo refused for her to have ANY treatment, to hasten her decay. They even had to get a court order to force Greer and Mr Schiavo to allow treatment of a bladder infection with antibiotics. And now they endanger her soul by denying her a priest and last rites, final viaticum. These 2 men are evil in their acts.
Terri's story is one of abuse and neglect at the hands of a man who left her for another woman long ago, and a judge who was to arrogant to accept that hey might have erred and might not have had all the facts - and refused to reconsider.
Judicial arrogance, in its most primal form, is what killed Terri Chiavo, in cooperation with an abusive ex-husband who wanted her to die.
For "Judge" Greer if I could talk to him:
Surley you must realize that the great JUDGE will judge us all for the final time, and you as a (alleged) Christian know this. He will judge you. Are you prepared to face Him with this mark on your soul?
You will die the eternal death, if you goes to your earthly death unrepentant for your prideful and arrogant murder of Terri Schiavo, using the court to enforce your & Michael Schiavo's brutal sentence from your misguided will. You are no more innocent than were the camp commanders in Dachau. After all, they were "just following the law", and refused to listen to conscience and see the contrary evidence before their eyes. Hell has a special place for you Judge Greer, right next to the SS unless you change.
Come clean Judge Greer - admit you were wrong, confess your sin to God, ask for forgivness for the wrong you know you have done: God's capacity to forgive exceeds even your capability to sin.
Its your choice. Ask God to help you make the right decision. You've made far too many of the wrong decisions to get yourself to the point where you are ordering the state to starve and dehydrate to death a human who would otherwise live.
As a Baptist, you shoudl know your know your Bible: how will you respond to God when he asks you (as is said in the Book of Saint Matthew):
Then He will also say to those on His left,
'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for
I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Its all anyone needs to do: be gennuinely sorry, confess to God, ask forgiveness, do a true penance and make restitution as best you can - then you will be cleansed of this death mark on your soul.
#14
Old Spook, one allegation I heard that both Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer are affiliated with Scientology. Any truth to this?
That would explain a lot. It's not my reading though that the husband didn't do anything to better her state BEFORE the financial settlement.
This might also explain a lot.
But I must confess there is so much hearsay and allegations flying around that it's hard to make up your mind. And Judge Greer isn't the only one who ruled over the case. With everything we heard these days you should expect the US Supreme Court to pay a bit more attention to the case?
They HAVE overruled Florida judges before now haven't they?
I don't know about M.Schiavo or Greer, but I understand that Felos -- the death loving atty -- is a scientologist and believes he can telepathically divine whether unconscious people want to die . . .
As for the U.S. Supreme Court, they took on the 2000 election issue because of it's broad impact on numerous people's voting rights. They tend to stay out of state police power/public welfare issues that only impact one person, regardless of federal rights issues. THE TRUE BODY THAT REINS IN THE JUDGES IS THE LEGISLATURE. In particular, the Florida legislature is the one governmental body best situated to act, and it is not doing what it can and should right now.
#16
cingold, since Congress ordered a de novo trial at a federal court, shouldn't Supreme Court hear an appeal when this law Congress just made is flatly ignored by the respective Florida court (refusing a TRO equals ignoring)?
I'm amazed that Greer, in his arrogance, has gone to the lengths he's gone in violating this woman's rights. His latest interference in the exercise of Terri's religious rights violates the First Admendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If Congress cannot make a law which interferes with religion--then, sure as shootin,' "Hangin' Judge" Greer can't.
The fact that he and Michael Schiavo are not letting Terri, a Roman Catholic, partcipate in the exercise of her avowed religion, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States. He should be impeached. (And I have to wonder what they're so afraid of--c'mon--a drop of wine and a crumb of bread?)
As for him being a "Baptist." Whatever. Jesus said just as we know trees by their fruit, we know people by their actions (Matthew 7). It doesn't matter what label he totes.
#18
shouldn't Supreme Court hear an appeal when this law Congress just made is flatly ignored
They certainly could, and many would argue that they should. However, the law passed by Congress did not address the rights of citizens in general, and the Supreme court traditionally avoids getting involved in matters that will affect just one person, no matter how badly the case was handled. In this case, the law passed by Congress was confined to the rights of just one person. Some pertinent excerpts of Terriâs Law are as follows:
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
* * *
[T]he District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings.
* * *
Upon the filing of a suit or claim under this Act, the District Court may issue a stay of any State court order . . .
A number of people believe that if the Congress had made the law affect the rights of all citizens, instead of just Terri, that the U.S. Supreme Court would have heard the case and might have issued a stay. Here, as pointless as it will be after Terriâs death, the case can still proceed to see if her rights were violated. Hence, although the clear purpose of the law is being ignored, the letter of the law is not being violated.
Terriâs Law, passed by the Congress does not overstep the separation of powers because it does not specify any rules of decision that the U.S. District Court judge must follow. That is at once both why the law is constitutional, and why the judge was free to not provide a TRO or any other injunctive relief. Having drawn a different judge in the federal case probably would have made all the difference in terms of the outcome of a TRO being issued. However, once a lower court judge issues a ruling (especially on an interlocutory matter like injunctive relief), the higher courts only rarely reverse those rulings -- and they virtually never upset findings of fact.
Getting a TRO or injunctive relief granted is difficult because four factors generally have to be met to qualify for the relief. In this case, the federal judge agreed that the first three factors were easily met, but he felt that the fourth (substantial likelihood of eventually prevailing on the merits) was not met. That is why he denied the relief. I think the federal judgeâs ruling is awful because the four factor test is supposed to be evaluated as each factor being balanced against the others. In this case, where the certainty of irreparable injury from death is so clear, the chance of prevailing on the merits should not have been weighed so heavily.
The only effective check on this mess would be for the Florida legislature to impeach the state court judge, Greer, and pass legislation allowing Governor Bush to take custody and care of Terri. The U.S. Congress could also get back into the fray to deal with the federal judge, but they already went pretty far out to extend federal jurisdiction in this case.
One of the goals of the deconstructionist lefties in the Schiavo case is to get people to accept lethal injection as an end of life "opportunity," and to set a legal precedent to accept hearsay evidence for end of life decisions on the part of incapacitated people. They're chomping at the bit, as a matter of fact, (and, as a side note, one can only imagine how many people would like to have legal precedent to do away with their unpopular relatives through this avenue).
There is no doubt that George Felos, Judge Greer, Michael Schiavo, (and everyone else operating behind the scenes), KNEW IN ADVANCE that Terri's death would be painful and generally unacceptable to the American people. Instead of allowing the public to focus on the violation of Terri's constitutional rights, they've framed the argument in a "right to die" context, with the aim of gaining acceptance for their political plans. Instead of asking: "Should Terri have died?" They want people to skip that question and ask, "HOW should Terri have died?"
Basically, they want to create a cultural shift that encompasses a utilitarian, materialist view of human life--which they and their representatives can then control. It's all about power.
I would not be at all surprised if the insurance industry is also behind this push for death. Follow the money.
Next, the eugenicists also are playing on people's fears. Generally, people are quite terrified of being in Terri's situation, and think of themselves as not wanting to be in that situation under any circumstances. The real questions and issues are circumvented as people become entangled with their own personal drive for self-determination--which is why people tend to say "I'd rather be dead than live like that." It's no longer about Terri. The particulars become generalized.
Which is just dandy, in the opinion of the deconstructionists, since their aim is to move society toward accepting a "quality of life" argument in order to (eventually) elminate the following types of persons:
preborn infants
the terminally ill
the severely disabled
retarded persons
the mentally ill
the disabled
the elderly
Perhaps TGA could comment on how this differs from Nazi Germany a half a century ago.
#20
TGA - A big reason that the federal courts ruled against Terri is that Congress left them wiggle room to interpret the new law very narrowly. The federal district court judge seized on a single statement in the legislative history, that on Sen. Levin, to decide that the law required only a de novo review of the FL state court's actions and whether those constituted adequate due process under the US Constitution. In doing so they ignored a far larger body of evidence in the legislative history that indicates Congress actual intent was to order an entire new trial de novo.
The distinction is critical. If the federal district court was asked to act as an appellate court typically no new claims can be raised nor can any new evidence be introduced (in other words they would act as a true appellate court). IIRC the FL court received and chose not to consider a great deal of evidence that supports the parent's position. That's well within the purview of a trail court and the fact that the issue was litigated through the FL appellate courts for many years is a strong indication of adequate due process.
Thus when the federal district court judge found that Congress had merely mandated a review of the adequacy of due process in the FL courts Terri was already as good as dead because that's a nearly impossible standard to meet given the scope of the previous litigation. Had the federal district court determined that Congress' intent was to order an whole new trial de novo, new evidence would have been accepted, new witnesses called, new medical experts brought in, new diagnoses considered, and the outcome would have been far from certain so the court would have had to preserve Terriâs life long enough to conduct the trial. In theory, should Terri live long enough, there will still be a trial on the adequacy of the due process she received in the FL courts but the federal judiciary just doesnât believe that she has any reasonable chance of winning so theyâre not willing to keep her around long enough for it to actually happen.
Problem is that an order from Congress removing a specific case to the federal courts and calling for a new trial de novo is, as far as I know, unprecedented in our history and the judiciary is loath to allow such a challenge to their power as the implications are likely to be broad. So the federal courts didnât ignore the new law, they merely found a mildly plausible interpretation supported by a bare minimum of evidence in the legislative history that will have the effect of making the whole issue go away. Typically such an interpretation spurs new Congressional legislation to explicitly correct the fault and spurs a new round of litigation but that, of course, wonât be the case here as the issue will be moot in at most a few days.
The Supreme Court of the US is more concerned with homogenizing the differing interpretations of federal law among the various federal circuit courts than anything else. It would have been extraordinary for a number of reasons for them to have stepped in and ruled in Terriâs favor here because doing so might well have: attenuated the power of the judiciary, thrown out long-standing lines of demarcation between the powers of the various branches of government, essentially rendered all state court decisions subject to federal review, etc. When one considers the potential for mischief to be introduced into the system by their weighing in here, the fact that there are no differing opinions to consider from other federal circuits, and the fact that Congress acted w/o precedent itâs not at all surprising that the S.Ct. didnât intervene.
cingold - There will be no trial after Terri dies. If the parents attempt to litigate the issue the court will rule it moot and throw the case out.
I think the fundamental issue with this case is, that science (in this case medecine) has evolved much faster than ethics. We are still not fully prepared to deal with medical progress, that has blurred the line between life and death.
In the old days several generations lived under one roof. The old folks were cared for at home and usually died there, too. You wouldn't send them to hospital to prolong their fading lives for a little more time. A dignified death was the best they could hope for, with the family standing at their bedside whenever this was possible.
Today the traditional, three (or even four) generation extentended family living under one roof hardly exists anymore. Old folks are usually given into the respoinsibility of hospitals and hospices. Modern medecine facilitates keeping them alive even after their "natural terms" have run out. We haven't caught up with that situation ethically.
With a young woman, the issue becomes more dramatic and tragic of course. The problem will become more pressing as medecine advances. In 30 years medecine might be able to keep you alive for decades.
The Nazis have forever poisoned the euthanasia issue. We rather avoid the problem. Terri reminds us that we can't.
Living wills can only do so much. It doesn't matter what leaning we have, we will need to face the issue. We're living in a grey zone.
It becomes especially thorny when money plays into it. To put it in brutal terms: PVS of a family member can ruin you completely. Your beloved one spends 15 or 20 years in limbo between life and death, and you might lose everything you have, until you are reduced to basic welfare. It happens in Germany, too. All that for a person who might "no longer be there". The moral conflicts can be terrifying.
Let's face it. Who has more chance of getting his plug pulled by the hospital: He who can still pay the bills or he who can't?
A can of worms if there ever was one. The Florida law Michael Schiavo is using does seem a little too easy imho.
But what will we do if there is no will at all? As we all grow older, when will society start groaning about the costs a 20 year long maintaining of a person in PVS entails, when these costs are higher than treating ten "regular" ill patients who have a chance to recover?
The issue will increasingly haunt us. And we won't be able to condemn one opinion over the other too quickly.
The Inuit left their old folks behind, because their harsh living conditions didn't allow the caring for fragile old people. Our powerful, rich society, based on humanistic, Christian values, can, and wants to. But how far will it be able to go in the future? What will happen when modern medecine cannot cure you, but keep you alive for 50 years... a century?
#22
Good points ex-lib but hearsay evidence is already available where the person who originally made the statement is unavailable to testify (e.g., dead, incapacitated, hiding in a foreign jurisdiction, etc.) It's a coin-flip whether a trial court will admit such evidence but the fact that it took M.Schiavo's attorney 7 years to discover a very basic exception to the hearsay rule with which every law student is familiar speaks volumes as to the quality of the lawyering in this case.
But when, in a death penalty case, new evidence comes up that could exonerate the defendant, wouldn't an execution be stayed to examine them? I don't say that the nurses are right but sworn affidavits are not made lightly. And the case rests on the husband's hearsay. Put that in doubt and the whole case crumbles.
Now, if in a death penalty case the only witness suddenly becomes very dubious, would you not reconsider the matter?
No harm done with a TRO. Should the new evidence be without merit, you can still execute. But you cannot reverse the execution.
#24
TGA - Ethically, morally and logically I agree with you but many protections in our system accrue specifically to "the accused" or to persons already convicted and aren't readily transferable to this situation. E.g., even the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply because in the eyes of the courts T.Schiavo is not being punished. Hence the dichotomy that she can suffer a fate we would be Constitutionally prohibited from inflicting upon the worst criminal among us.
Your post above is dead-on. Science has far outstripped the ability of our courts and legislators. The legal implication is interesting but often goes unnoticed: common law is far superior to civil law in rapidly changing circumstances. Where a maze of legislation exists (civil law) and many formalities must be followed we can easily find ourselves arriving at unhappy conclusions such as the current situation with T.Schiavo because the letter of the law is wholly incapable of dealing in advance with every potential situation. Where legislators empower the courts to act with broad equitable powers and provide only a few general guidelines (common law) the courts can act quickly and exercise discretion to ensure equitable outcomes. There are pitfalls with both systems, we're witnessing one of them right now.
During the 20th century we saddled ourselves with a mountain of legislation and undermined our common law traditions by attempting to legislate for every circumstance. In effect the legislature has been chipping away at the extent of judicial authority for a century and has now reached the point where so many laws have been enacted that the courts are able to reach any conclusion because of the often-conflicting and always highly complex nature of the law. It's ironic that this lack of certainty is the strongest criticism of the common law and yet we've traveled full circle and now have the worst of both worlds. Call it âtyranny of the judiciaryâ but itâs equally accurate to call it âtyranny of the legislatureâ.
I pray for her soul and her family. And I pray for Judge Greer, the willing executioner.
The big problem here is this judge has a judicial record of "stubborness" - i.e. when ne feels he has enough facts, he makes a judgement and NEVER changes it.
The problem is that he did NOT have all the facts - the deck was stacked and he REFUSED to see any information to the contrary of the death-advocates hired by Michael Schiavo. This screams ouut to anyone that looks at the case with ALL the opinions in from the top brian injusry neuroscientists, including a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her and disagreed with the PVS diagnosis but whose testimony was disallowed. No MRI, no PET scan - which are considered basic tools in diagnosis of PVS - as one neuroscientist said "its criminal" that these were not done. Judge Greer never even visited her, and he was supposed to be in the role of her guardian. Never visited her in the hospital. Not once! What kind of guardian is that?
Mr Shciavo refused for her to have ANY treatment, to hasten her decay. They even had to get a court order to force Greer and Mr Schiavo to allow treatment of a bladder infection with antibiotics. And now they endanger her soul by denying her a priest and last rites, final viaticum. These 2 men are evil in their acts.
Terri's story is one of abuse and neglect at the hands of a man who left her for another woman long ago, and a judge who was to arrogant to accept that hey might have erred and might not have had all the facts - and refused to reconsider.
Judicial arrogance, in its most primal form, is what killed Terri Chiavo, in cooperation with an abusive ex-husband who wanted her to die.
For "Judge" Greer if I could talk to him:
Surley you must realize that the great JUDGE will judge us all for the final time, and you as a (alleged) Christian know this. He will judge you. Are you prepared to face Him with this mark on your soul?
You will die the eternal death, if you goes to your earthly death unrepentant for your prideful and arrogant murder of Terri Schiavo, using the court to enforce your & Michael Schiavo's brutal sentence from your misguided will. You are no more innocent than were the camp commanders in Dachau. After all, they were "just following the law", and refused to listen to conscience and see the contrary evidence before their eyes. Hell has a special place for you Judge Greer, right next to the SS unless you change.
Come clean Judge Greer - admit you were wrong, confess your sin to God, ask for forgivness for the wrong you know you have done: God's capacity to forgive exceeds even your capability to sin.
Its your choice. Ask God to help you make the right decision. You've made far too many of the wrong decisions to get yourself to the point where you are ordering the state to starve and dehydrate to death a human who would otherwise live.
As a Baptist, you shoudl know your know your Bible: how will you respond to God when he asks you (as is said in the Book of Saint Matthew):
Then He will also say to those on His left,
'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for
I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Its all anyone needs to do: be gennuinely sorry, confess to God, ask forgiveness, do a true penance and make restitution as best you can - then you will be cleansed of this death mark on your soul.
I pray for her soul and her family. And I pray for Judge Greer, the willing executioner.
The big problem here is this judge has a judicial record of "stubborness" - i.e. when ne feels he has enough facts, he makes a judgement and NEVER changes it.
The problem is that he did NOT have all the facts - the deck was stacked and he REFUSED to see any information to the contrary of the death-advocates hired by Michael Schiavo. This screams ouut to anyone that looks at the case with ALL the opinions in from the top brian injusry neuroscientists, including a Nobel Prize nominee who examined her and disagreed with the PVS diagnosis but whose testimony was disallowed. No MRI, no PET scan - which are considered basic tools in diagnosis of PVS - as one neuroscientist said "its criminal" that these were not done. Judge Greer never even visited her, and he was supposed to be in the role of her guardian. Never visited her in the hospital. Not once! What kind of guardian is that?
Mr Shciavo refused for her to have ANY treatment, to hasten her decay. They even had to get a court order to force Greer and Mr Schiavo to allow treatment of a bladder infection with antibiotics. And now they endanger her soul by denying her a priest and last rites, final viaticum. These 2 men are evil in their acts.
Terri's story is one of abuse and neglect at the hands of a man who left her for another woman long ago, and a judge who was to arrogant to accept that hey might have erred and might not have had all the facts - and refused to reconsider.
Judicial arrogance, in its most primal form, is what killed Terri Chiavo, in cooperation with an abusive ex-husband who wanted her to die.
For "Judge" Greer if I could talk to him:
Surley you must realize that the great JUDGE will judge us all for the final time, and you as a (alleged) Christian know this. He will judge you. Are you prepared to face Him with this mark on your soul?
You will die the eternal death, if you goes to your earthly death unrepentant for your prideful and arrogant murder of Terri Schiavo, using the court to enforce your & Michael Schiavo's brutal sentence from your misguided will. You are no more innocent than were the camp commanders in Dachau. After all, they were "just following the law", and refused to listen to conscience and see the contrary evidence before their eyes. Hell has a special place for you Judge Greer, right next to the SS unless you change.
Come clean Judge Greer - admit you were wrong, confess your sin to God, ask for forgivness for the wrong you know you have done: God's capacity to forgive exceeds even your capability to sin.
Its your choice. Ask God to help you make the right decision. You've made far too many of the wrong decisions to get yourself to the point where you are ordering the state to starve and dehydrate to death a human who would otherwise live.
As a Baptist, you shoudl know your know your Bible: how will you respond to God when he asks you (as is said in the Book of Saint Matthew):
Then He will also say to those on His left,
'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for
I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat;
I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Its all anyone needs to do: be gennuinely sorry, confess to God, ask forgiveness, do a true penance and make restitution as best you can - then you will be cleansed of this death mark on your soul.
An Italian woman whose angry husband refused for seven years to have sex with her was awarded divorce damages by Italy's high court this week. Francesco launched his "sex strike" in the early 1990s to punish his wife, Piera, for taking sides against him in a family dispute over money. They bitterly separated in 2000 and Francesco, still convinced that she was responsible for the broken marriage, refused to make support payments demanded by Italian courts and repeatedly appealed against them. But the highest court ruled that Francesco's sexual punishment did not fit the crime, and doomed Piera to perpetual frustration. Beyond support payments, Francesco must pay court costs of several thousand euros.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess the big RAGU had to pay one way or the other! Will there be an appeal? May the Italian stallion have better luck next time!
Happy Easter~~
Happy Cannoli
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
03/26/2005 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He doesn't seem like much of a stallion to me, Andrea.
No reading on the ol' sympathy meter for Francesco over here. I just wondered what the hell she saw in that putz in the first place.
Manning this vessel would have been a job for a crack crew. "Lower the schnortel! We're headed for the high C's, me hearties!"
Police in Colombia have uncovered a submarine, which they believe was built by drug smugglers to transport cocaine. The nearly complete eight-metre fibreglass vessel, capable of carrying 10 tonnes of the drug, worth $200m, was found in the Pacific port of Tumaco. Police had been monitoring its construction for six months. They believe the Norte del Valle cartel, the last surviving Colombian drug trafficking organisation, planned to use it to smuggle drugs to the US.
Colombia's Department of Administrative Security says the submarine would have been used to evade radar and naval patrol ships, taking drugs out to sea where they could be transferred to high-speed motorboats for the journey to Central America and on to the United States. "The ingenuity of drug traffickers is amazing. They will seek any way to avoid the coast guard," Eduardo Fernandez, head of Colombia's secret police in Valle del Cauca state, told the Associated Press.
The submarine was apparently designed to be ready for Easter, when the smugglers believed police would be less vigilant. "On the contrary, security in the area has been boosted," said Mr Fernandez. No arrests were made in Friday's operation. In 2000, police found a 30-metre steel submarine under construction far inland, near the capital Bogota It would have been capable of carrying up to 200 tonnes of cocaine.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
03/26/2005 6:22:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Their ingenuity may be amazing but their state of mind is somewhere between Scarface and however much of their dope they're snorting. That scrapheap would've never made it to the United States. We're pretty good at sighting, you know, f**kin' submarines popping up and dropping off coke. Why don't they try a spaceship and drop off the cocaine from orbit?
#2
If we're so good at spotting stuff, how come so much dope gets into the country? I'd bet the Chinese read this and start supplying subs. Or maybe the Germans, or Dutch or French, or some of our other "alies" hard up for a buck.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/26/2005 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
Environmental lobbyists are voicing strong opposition over the European Commission's summit conclusions, claiming that EU leaders have failed to set long-term deadlines to meet target objectives after the Kyoto Protocol expires.
While the commission agreed Wednesday to control rises in the earth's surface temperature under the Kyoto pact and backed ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, EU leaders dropped its long-term target for 2050, despite agreements by environmental ministers earlier this month. Germany, Austria and Italy opposed setting the long-term targets citing economic reasons. Apparently France is not allowed to vote "non" on the EU Constitution and administer Germany, Austria and Italy at the same time. That's a good sign.
Environmental minister agreed during the March 10th summit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 and to further reduce emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050 in developed countries.
The decision by the commission to drop the 2050 long-term target has caused much dissent by environmental business organizations, which claim that without a long-term target date the European economy will suffer while making it even more difficult to reduce emissions in the future. If history is any guide, by 2020 the Greens will have a whole new set of priority issues.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/26/2005 3:25:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I have a strong hunch that the EU will start ignoring the noisy environmentalists and utterly blow off any efforts to comply with Kyoto. And they will probably lie about it while doing it. The end result will be like the infamous British unemployment statistic: revised downward a dozen times by changing the way the statistic was compiled, but always presented as the same statistic. "We used to call that 'smog', but we are now tracking smoke and fog differently, and since fog is harmless, that means we automatically have 50% less air pollution."
BERLIN (Reuters) - Nearly a quarter of western Germans and 12 percent of easterners want the Berlin Wall back -- more than 15 years after the fall of the barrier that split Germany during the Cold War, according to a new survey. The results of the poll, published Saturday, reflected die-hard animosities over high reunification costs lowering western standards of living and economic turmoil in the east.
The survey of 2,000 Germans by Berlin's Free University and pollsters Forsa found 24 percent of those living in western Germany want the Wall back -- double the eastern level. In Berlin itself, 11 percent of westerners and 8 percent of easterners said "yes" when asked: "Would it be better if the Wall between East and West were still standing?."
The poll also found that 47 percent of the easterners agree with the statement that the West "acquired the east like a colony," while 58 percent of the westerners back the statement that "easterners tend to wallow in self-pity."
TGA, have they taken leave of their senses? Reunification was botched, to be sure. But to put the wall back up? Yikes.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/26/2005 12:28:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this. But let's turn the figures around. 76% of West Germans do not want the wall back, and 88% of East Germans do not want it back. Considering the massive transfer of wealth paid by Westerners -- recall that each Eastern D-Mark was traded for 1 Western D-Mark, despite vast differences in the value of those currencies -- one might expect the polls to reflect mixed feelings.
Posted by: Curt Simon ||
03/26/2005 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Some polls are not worth the paper they're written on. Sure, people crack a few jokes, some indeed prefer the wall to be back, some beliefe that Elvis is alive and that the Easter Bunnie lays colored eggs.
Move on, nothing to see here. Of course the reunification was botched, the influx of Easter Europeans has created all sorts of headaches. But frankly, those polls mean nothing.
Ask the question: Do you want the wall back AND a thousand Russian missiles pointing at you that can explode if some computer makes an error or someone blinks...
#5
Good comment about polls. We have had some good one over here in the past week. Any one who wants the wall back should also give a reason why. I bet the no votes dwindle quickly when faced with justifying the rhetoric.
This week's meeting of EU heads of state and government turned out to be a good one for some, a bad one for others. Here's a quick overview of the summit's main winners and losers:
Winners
1. Jacques Chirac
JC got almost everything he wanted out of this week's summit. The Stability and Growth Pact has been reduced to just The Pact (no more Stability or Growth please, we're Europeans!), the Liberalization of Services Directive to just The Directive. The only minor setback was over selling arms to the world's largest dictatorship.
2. Gerhard Schröder
His finest hour came when the Council ratified the German-inspired proposal to dismantle the Stability and Growth Pact. The Berlin-based newspaper Die Zeit called it "A License to Borrow." More accurately would be to say that it's a license for all European governments to spend as much as they want on anything they like. No wonder Italian finance minister Domenico Siniscalco called it "an excellent European solution to a European problem." Make-believe budgets are the new norm. It's another great triumph for German fiscal rectitude - Weimar Style.
3. George W. Bush
Basing his diplomatic approach on the old Texas saying "You can always count on the Europeans to blink first," the American president went into rhetorical overdrive last weekend in his attacks on European plans to supply arms to China in time for its planned invasion of Taiwan. The New York Times quoted an anonymous Eurocrat stating "Europe wants to move forward on the embargo, but the recent actions by China have made things a lot more complex." In Euro speak, "complex" means no decision is likely any time soon. The Brits have already indicated they will not return to the issue during their six-month presidency in the second half of this year. Looks like that invasion will have to wait another year, then.
4. George W. Bush
Or rather: Bush's nominee for the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz. In spite of the best efforts of the Washington Post to whip up an anti-Wolfowitz frenzy on the Old Continent, Europe's finance ministers indicated that as far as they were concerned, his appointment was a "done deal." It seems Europe's heads of government see this appointment as a good opportunity to mend fences with the White House. In typical European style, however, they did insist on "more discussions" before finally rubberstamping his candidacy. To that end, they have invited Wolfowitz to attend a European talkathon at which he can explain what his plans are for reforming the world's second most useless international institution.
In a firm statement earlier this week, the Commission President pledged that he would not be held ransom by national governments' concerns about referendums or elections. He was referring, of course, to French attempts to water down the Liberalization of Services Directive. It was all nonsense, there was no link between this Directive and the outcome of the French referendum, and anyway, he had already made several important concessions on the content of the directive. Nice words, of course, but unfortunately they weren't matched by actions. In an attempt to win the 'Flip-Flopper of the Week' award, Barroso swallowed every single Franco-German demand and accepted a complete gutting of the directive. He then went on to call the end-product the result of "an important consensus." Barroso hasn't been on the job long yet, but he's starting to sound like a real European leader: spineless, that is.
2. European treaties
The good news is that all member states fully intend to keep their word on this week's agreement. The bad news is that this week's agreement is essentially an attempt to cancel all previous agreements. The death and burial of the Lisbon Agenda and the stripping of the Stability and Growth Pact of its Stability and Growth elements made it a bad week for European treaties. The antics on the liberalization of services made it a truly terrible one. Once upon a time, a greater generation of Europeans considered freedom of movement to be the core of the European project. The original European Treaty of Rome (1957) was drafted especially for the creation of a single market in which people could enjoy the Four Freedoms of movement of goods, capital, workers, and services. After this week's summit, we're down to just Three Freedoms. Well, Two-And-A-Half, really, if you consider that Eastern European workers won't have any real freedom of movement for years to come.
3. European taxpayers
The abolition (I'm sorry: reform) of the Stability and Growth Pact will prove a double whammy to Europe's taxpayers. First of all, the newly won freedom for governments to increase spending through deficit-financing means higher tax bills in the years to come. That's the way it works with increases in government spending: it's pay now or pay later - but pay you must. Taxpayers throughout Europe better prepare for tax increases in the medium term to pay for debt repayments and interest charges. In the short term, they will be hit by interest rate increases which will increase the costs of mortgages and personal loans. As one of the governors of the European Central Bank, Yves Mersch, explained, "A loosening of fiscal policy will inevitably have consequences for monetary policy." In plain English: as budget discipline goes out the window, interest rates will inevitable go up.
4. Illegal workers in Eurocrat households
Finally, spare a thought for what the Wall Street Journal called "The elephant in the room" at this week's summit, namely the army of illegal Eastern European workers currently employed by European civil servants as cleaners, carpenters and care-assistants. Until Belgium decides (or rather: is finally forced) to lift the restrictions on workers from the new member states living and working in Brussels, they will continue to live in fear of arrest and deportation. Their crime: providing a service at a competitive rate. Yes, it was another fine week in European summit history.
Posted by: tipper ||
03/26/2005 9:05:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I see Schroeder and Chiraq as losers from this. By backing out of the Stability and Growth Pact and the Services Directive they have revealed themselves and the EU to be Emperors without Clothes. While they may have achieved some short term objectives, the French people still look increasingly likely to reject the EU "constitution" thingy. The result could be that the rest of Europe finally throws them out of the driver's seat and sends the EU in a sensible direction. If not, it's Toto time.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/26/2005 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Europe wants to move forward on the embargo, but the recent actions by China have made things a lot more complex." In Euro speak, "complex" means no decision is likely any time soon.
I don't even see it as a matter of making a decision. The Euros are determined to sell weaponry to China, the only question is when they're going to start doing it. Saying that things are more "complex" only means that they're looking for a way to make it sooner rather than later.
Krysia Diver in Stuttgart
Wednesday March 23, 2005
He meant it as a piece of religious satire, a playful look at the life of Jesus. But Gerhard Haderer's depiction of Christ as a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis has caused a furore that could potentially land the cartoonist in jail.
Haderer did not even know that his book, The Life of Jesus, had been published in Greece until he received a summons to appear in court in Athens in January charged with blasphemy.
He was given a six-month suspended sentence in absentia, but if he loses his appeal next month his sentence could be increased to two years. Haderer's book is the first to be banned in Greece for more than 20 years, and he is the first artist to fall prey of the European arrest warrant system since it was introduced in June 2002.
Yesterday in Vienna, a group of prominent writers and poets called a press conference to draw attention to the plight of Haderer, an Austrian, whose case they claim is crucial to the freedom of international artists. "It is unbelievable that a person can write a book in his home country and be condemned and threatened with imprisonment by another," said Nikki Conrad, a human rights expert who organised yesterday's press conference. "But he is not going to just sit back and accept this injustice. He is prepared to take this to the European court of human rights. When Gerhard first got the summons he thought it was a joke. But now he is starting to get a bit nervous."
Mr Conrad added that a 1,000-signature petition of international artists, signed by people including the Nobel prize winner Elfriede Jelinek, would be delivered to the EU within the next two weeks. "This campaign is crucial for the future freedom of international artists. Haderer is unique and situations like this will inhibit his artistic style," said the poet Gerhard Ruiss. The Austrian comedian Hubert Kramar, who is next week due to star in a new satirical play about Christ, turned up to the press conference dressed as Jesus. "We are supposed to be living in a democratic society. Greece is in Europe and the whole idea of the European Union is that everything is supposed to be more open. But what happened to Haderer is scaring artists like me," he said.
Haderer's 40-page book has been already published in seven countries, including Germany, where 100,000 copies have been sold. Well known in Germany for his weekly illustrations in the news magazine Stern, he is to appeal against his six-month sentence in Athens on April 13.
Here's one reason why many Americans wonder just what the hell Europeans are getting themselves into. Official attempts to curtail the expression of ideas are about the only thing that will piss off Americans of almost any political stripe. Looking forward to Aris' commentary on this one...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
03/26/2005 2:29:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
LOL! If they think this is "unbelievable", they'll have even more fun when Turkey gets in. Methinks some people haven't been keeping their eyes on the integration ball.
"You don't have to read it to know that it's good"
#5
Sheesh!
Blasphemy is against the law in Europe but Euros are convinced that America is a land of Talibanish Bible-thumpers bent on world domination.
As for Hadererer, he is just another courageous iconoclast challenging the all-powerful Christian church and daring to question the universal notions of the conformist masses. NOT!
(at least not since about 1920)
Pop-culture has been stuck in this rut for 80 years. If they have to torch a strawman, they might at least have the imagination to fabricate an up-to-date one.
#6
Irony: Americans, the most religious people in the developed world, have a government that allows PissC%**t while Europeans, heathens about to become Muslims by the sword, have a government that puts people in jail for writing a book. Three strikes and they're irredeemable and out.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/26/2005 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yeah... the Comic Book Defense Fund exists for incidents like this in the US, with "Alabama" or "Utah" search-and-replaced for "Greece". The bookburners are a consistent fact of life, especially now that technologies have made it possible for San Francisco sensibilities to be put on trial under the "community standards" of Salt Lake City or Birmingham.
Welcome to federalism, Europa.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/26/2005 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
How can you write a book, have 100K copies of it sold, and not know it was published? What's up with royalty system there? That's what would "inhibit my artistic style." Even Ward Churchill was paid, wasn't he?
Posted by: Armchair in Sin ||
03/26/2005 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think he didn't know it was translated/published in Greece.....and yes, Ward Churchill was paid - for writing words someone else had already written..
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2005 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
A few days I commented on the inconstitutionality of the European Arrest Warrant by showing an "absurd example".
#12
Freedom of speech is not a European right, you might offend some protected class. That should come as no surprise at all. Here you are free to speak or not to speak. Unless you incite actual violence or slander and libel, little is likely to happen to you. So please tell us again how much more Europe and the EU are champions of human right and actual freedom.
#13
I guess I should be a little more clear, Frank: the man is published in 7 countries (including Greece, I assume), so one would figure there is some level of communication between the author and his publisher: "Gerhard, Baby, we're going big-time. Can you see the lights? That's Greece!"
Obviously, who would miss that?
And, I was referring to Chutch's Digi-Draw "renditions."
Posted by: Armchair in Sin ||
03/26/2005 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#14
clear nuff. :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2005 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#15
It used to be that some countries were a little, uh, "lax" in enforcing copyright laws for foreign authors. Isaac Asimov frequently bitched about how some of his works had been published in other countries and he never saw a nickel. (Of course, if you're Asimov, it's probably hard to keep up with which book has been published where.) I don't know whether that's still true now that there's one big happy Eurofamily.
#16
Whether he knew or just ignored his Greek success is besides the point. Posting a few cartoons on the web would be enough since they could be viewed in Greece.
.com stock market? This is what I ask every broker who has the sure advice:
#17
So True, TGA. I wish they'd quit spamming me, the losers, lol!
I had a distant uncle who had a nice portfolio of nothing but blue chips, which he bought in small lots out of his hard-earned pay. He once told me that behind every financial genius was an insider deal and a prison term. The only luck involved was whether anybody talked, lol.
#19
What's the definition of blasphemy in Greece? Is it only WRT Christian defamation?
Say, for example, Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet; not the Son of G-d, G-d himself, or even a divine messenger on par with Muhammed ---which is fact, they do believe this, and make it known in many books---can Xtians prosecute Muslims for this kind of blasphemy, or vice versa with Muslims?
#4
If the GOP sues Milwaukee County for election fraud, Wisconsin may turn red on the map. Evidence shows Milwaukee Co. really farbled up the election returns and they weren't properly certified. Looks like Milwaukee Co. got its voting protocols from the first Daley Regime in Chicago (TGA and other faraway friends: Chicago has been a hissing and a byword for vote fraud for decades; the turnout from the cemeteries is particularly strong. Mayor Richard J. Daley, father of the present mayor Richard M. Daley, was dubbed King Richard, or Hizzoner, or Boss).
Posted by: Sobiesky ||
03/26/2005 00:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting and encouraging with one caution, the poll is from an Alabama news outlet, from a bright red state.
Posted by: Dennis Kucinich ||
03/26/2005 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
the only way I see her having a shot is if WJC kicks the bucket, preferably a la Rockefeller, that way she'll get the sympathy vote (again) from women, and it won't be like Bill will actually be back in the WH
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2005 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've said it before, there is no way Hillary can win. The democrats I know here who voted for Kerry won't vote for Hillary. She can "become middle America" all she wants but people just aren't that stupid. They heared what she said and what she is saying now and don't belive what she is saying now. It's very hard for a leopard to change her spots. If she runs, she will not cary the South.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/26/2005 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
One would think that saving a billion lives in developing countries, winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and being regarded in many parts of the world as among the leading Americans of this age would be enough to make someone a household name within America.
And yet, very few Americans would be able to say who Norman Borlaug is, leave alone list any of his groundbreaking accomplishments in solving the problems of world hunger.
Borlaug, now in his late eighties dated article, is a plant breeder who was born in Iowa, in 1914. The vast majority of his professional life has been spent living and working in the developing countries of the world--Mexico, Pakistan, India, China, and most recently, regions of Africa.
Seemingly indefatigable, he still holds a position at Texas A&M, where he is Distinguished Professor in the Soil and Crop Sciences Department and teaches classes on occasion. He received the Nobel in 1970, primarily in recognition for his work in reversing the chronic food shortages suffered by India and Pakistan in the 1960s.
Snip. Full biography follows. After the past week, we need some good news. If you donââ¬t know about this man you should read the whole thing, as they say. Borlaug may be argued to have been more important to the future of mankind than any human being of the 20th century, certainly more than Sam Walton or Bill Gates. Happy Birthday and many happy returns. HT Chicago Boyz
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/26/2005 9:39:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is one of the guys that kicked Bobby Mathus butt.
#2
And, of course, the Greenies probably consider him just slightly better than BushHitler. How dare he tamper with Holy Gaea just to prevent a bunch of black and brown people from starving.
Stuff we already knew, with some numbers.
As Zimbabwe heads for key parliamentary elections on Thursday, Mugabe has sought to pin the blame for his country's economic woes on "colonialist" powers like Britain and the United States who he says have undermined his policies.
#2
Pay no attention to the thugocracy and their growing Swiss accounts... gotta be white mans fault somehow. Nevermind the systematic looting of the country by Mugabe and his tribesmen.
Posted by: Charley Wilson ||
03/26/2005 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In the paper today was a column by NYT Kristof about his secret tour of Zimbabwe (he had to sneak in since Bob now arrests reporters). Kristof said that a lot of the locals were longing for the days of the "racist" white govt just so they can eat. Like the Norks, everyone is starving. Kristof was sorely vexed that it had come to this. His conclusion: It's all the West's (read as USA's) fault and that we should do something. As long as its not unilateral, I suppose.
#6
Pay no attention to the thugocracy and their growing Swiss accounts... gotta be white mans fault somehow. Nevermind the systematic looting of the country by Mugabe and his tribesmen.
#7
Pay no attention to the thugocracy and their growing Swiss accounts... gotta be white mans fault somehow. Nevermind the systematic looting of the country by Mugabe and his tribesmen.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
An Italian woman whose angry husband refused for seven years to have sex with her was awarded divorce damages by Italy's high court this week. Francesco launched his "sex strike" in the early 1990s to punish his wife, Piera, for taking sides against him in a family dispute over money. They bitterly separated in 2000 and Francesco, still convinced that she was responsible for the broken marriage, refused to make support payments demanded by Italian courts and repeatedly appealed against them. But the highest court ruled that Francesco's sexual punishment did not fit the crime, and doomed Piera to perpetual frustration. Beyond support payments, Francesco must pay court costs of several thousand euros.
