Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: Iulie 2010

It’s the soldier, not the reporter who has given us
Freedom of the Press.

It’s the soldier, not the poet, who has given us
Freedom of Speech.

It’s the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the
Freedom to Demonstrate.

It’s the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the
Right to a Fair Trial.

It’s the soldier who salutes the flag,
serves under the flag and
whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who gives the protestor the right to burn the flag.

~Father Dennis Edward O’Brien, USMC

Anunțuri

bobbie gentry – ode to billy joe

It was the third of June, another sleepy, dusty Delta day
I was out choppin’ cotton and my brother was balin’ hay
And at dinner time we stopped and walked back to the house to eat
And Mama hollered out the back door „y’all remember to wipe your feet”
And then she said „I got some news this mornin’ from Choctaw Ridge”
„Today Billy Joe MacAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge”

And Papa said to Mama as he passed around the blackeyed peas
„Well, Billy Joe never had a lick of sense, pass the biscuits, please”
„There’s five more acres in the lower forty I’ve got to plow”
And Mama said it was shame about Billy Joe, anyhow
Seems like nothin’ ever comes to no good up on Choctaw Ridge
And now Billy Joe MacAllister’s jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge

And Brother said he recollected when he and Tom and Billie Joe
Put a frog down my back at the Carroll County picture show
And wasn’t I talkin’ to him after church last Sunday night?
„I’ll have another piece of apple pie, you know it don’t seem right”
„I saw him at the sawmill yesterday on Choctaw Ridge”
„And now you tell me Billie Joe’s jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge”

And Mama said to me „Child, what’s happened to your appetite?”
„I’ve been cookin’ all morning and you haven’t touched a single bite”
„That nice young preacher, Brother Taylor, dropped by today”
„Said he’d be pleased to have dinner on Sunday, oh, by the way”
„He said he saw a girl that looked a lot like you up on Choctaw Ridge”
„And she and Billy Joe was throwing somethin’ off the Tallahatchie Bridge”

A year has come ‘n’ gone since we heard the news ‘bout Billy Joe
And Brother married Becky Thompson, they bought a store in Tupelo
There was a virus going ‘round, Papa caught it and he died last Spring
And now Mama doesn’t seem to wanna do much of anything
And me, I spend a lot of time pickin’ flowers up on Choctaw Ridge

And drop them into the muddy water off the Tallahatchie Bridge

We often read nowadays of the valor or audacity with which some
rebel attacks a hoary tyranny or an antiquated superstition.
There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary
or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight
one’s grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies
tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh
as the first flowers. (G.K.Chesterton)

talking heads – heaven

Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven.
The band in Heaven they play my favorite song.
They play it one more time, they play it all night long.

Oh heaven, heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
When this partys over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly the same.

Heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly the same.
It’s hard to imagine that nothing at all
could be so exciting, could be this much fun.

Oh, heaven, heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.
Oh, heaven, heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens.

talking heads – mind

Time won’t change you
Money won’t change you
I haven’t got the faintest idea
Everything seems to be up in the air at this time

I need something to change your mind

Drugs won’t change you
Religion won’t change you

Science won’t change you
Looks like I can’t change you
I try to talk to you, to make things clear
but you’re not even listening to me…
And it comes directly from my heart to you…

I need something to change your mind.

talking heads – what a day that was

And on the first day, we had everything we could stand
And on the second day, there was nothing else left at all

Well, I’m dressed up so nice
An’ I’m doin’ my best
An’ I’m startin’ over..
I’m startin’ over in another place

Lemme tell you a story
Big chief with a golden crown
He’s got rings on his fingers
And then he walks up, up to the throne

He’s makin’ shapes with his hands
An’ don’t choo dare sit back
Now don’t choo dare sit down
And don’t choo dare speak up!

And on the first day, we had everything we could stand
Ooh who could’ve asked for more?
And on the second day, there was nothing else left to do
Ooh what a day that was.

There are 50,000 beggars
Roaming in the streets
They have lost all their possessions
They have nothing left to eat

Down come a bolt of lightning
Start an electrical storm
Starts a chain reaction
Go pull a fire alarm

I’m dreaming of a city
It was my own invention
I put the wheels in motion
A time for big decisions

And on the first day, we had everything we could stand
Ooh and then we let it fall
And on the second day, there was nothing else at all
Ooh what a day that was.

Oh a day that was
Ooh that’s the way it goes
There’s a million ways- to get things done
There’s a million ways- to make things work out.

Well I’m going right through
And the light came down
Well they’re roundin’ ‘em up
from all over town

They’re movin’ forward and backwards
They’re movin’ backwards and front
And they’re enjoying themselves
Moving in ev’ry direction

And if you feel like you’re in a whirlpool
You feel like going home
You feel like talking to someone
Who know the difference between right and wrong

And on the first day, we had everything we could stand
Ooh and then we let it fall
And on the second day, there was nothing else left at all
Ooh what a day that was.
(We’re go(in’) boom boom boom That’s the way we live
And in a great big room and That’s the way we live.) x3

talking heads – psycho killer

I hate people when they’re not polite

I can’t seem to face up to the facts.
I’m tense and nervous and I… can’t relax.
I can’t sleep, cause my bed’s on fire.
Don’t touch me I’m a real live wire.

Psycho Killer
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run run away
OH OH OH

Psycho Killer
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run run away
OH OH OH
AY AY AY AY AY WOO

You start a conversation you can’t even finish it.
You’re talking a lot, but you’re not saying anything.
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed.
Say something once, why say it again?

Psycho Killer,
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run away
OH OH OH

Psycho Killer
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run away
OH OH OH OH
AY AY AY AY

Ce que j’ai fait, ce soir-là [What I did that night]
Ce qu’elle a dit, ce soir-là [What she said that night]
Réalisant mon espoir [Making my hope come true]
Je me lance vers la gloire … okay [I hurl myself toward glory]
YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA YA
We are vain and we are blind
I hate people when they’re not polite

Psycho Killer,
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run away
OH OH OH

Psycho Killer,
Qu’est-ce que c’est? [What is it?]
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa better
Run run run run run run run away
OH OH OH OH
AY AY AY AY OOOH

Hey hey hey ha

crin antonescu: „sint prost, oricind este posibil si necesar”

o declaratie care descalifica un presedinte de partid; incitarea la actiuni discretionare prin utilizarea oportunitatii unei pozitii de forta sint caracteristice anarhismului

crin antonescu: „Sunt pentru suspendarea preşedintelui Băsescu oricând ea va fi posibilă şi oricând va fi, ca să spun aşa, necesară”

http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/antonescu-sunt-pentru-suspendarea-presedintelui-basescu-cand-este-posibila-si-necesara-6534698/
http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-politic-7563309-crin-antonescu-sunt-pentru-suspendarea-lui-traian-basescu-daca-este-posibila-necesara.htm

Stop your messin’ around
Better think of your future
Time you straightened right out
Creatin’ problems in town

Rudy a message to you
Rudy a message to you

Stop your foolin’ around
Time you straightened right out
Better think of your future
Or else you’ll wind up in jail

Rudy a message to you
Rudy a message to you

SECŢIUNEA a 4-a
Absenţe şi concedii

Art. 212. – (1) Nici un deputat nu poate lipsi de la şedinţele Camerei sau comisiei din care face parte decât în cazul în care a obţinut aprobarea unui concediu.

(2) Deputaţii, cu aprobarea Camerei sau a Biroului permanent, pot participa la desfăşurarea altor acţiuni parlamentare, situaţie în care nu sunt consideraţi absenţi.
[…]
(4) Deputaţii pot obţine concedii plătite pentru rezolvarea unor probleme personale de cel mult 8 zile în cursul unei sesiuni, cu acordul Biroului permanent. Peste această durată se pot solicita Biroului permanent concedii fără plată.

SECŢIUNEA a 5-a
Sancţiuni

Art. 213. – (1) Abaterile de la regulament atrag următoarele sancţiuni:

a) avertismentul;
b) chemarea la ordine;
c) retragerea cuvântului;
d) eliminarea din sala de şedinţe;
e) interzicerea participării la lucrările Camerei pe timp de maximum 15 zile;
f) excluderea temporară.
[…]
Art. 214. – La prima abatere de la regulament preşedintele de şedinţă al Camerei îl avertizează pe deputatul în culpă şi îl invită să respecte regulamentul.

Art. 215. – (1) Deputaţii care vor nesocoti avertismentul şi invitaţia preşedintelui şi vor continua să se abată de la regulament, precum şi cei care, chiar pentru prima dată, încalcă în mod grav dispoziţiile regulamentului vor fi chemaţi la ordine.
[…]
Art. 217. – În cazul în care, după chemarea la ordine, un deputat continuă să se abată de la regulament, preşedintele de şedinţă îi va retrage cuvântul, iar dacă persistă, îl va elimina din sală.

Art. 218. – (1) În cazul unor abateri grave, săvârşite de deputat în mod repetat, sau al unor abateri deosebit de grave, Camera poate aplica sancţiunea interzicerii participării deputatului la lucrările ei pe o perioadă de maximum 15 zile sau poate hotărî, la propunerea Biroului permanent, excluderea temporară a deputatului în culpă.

SCRISOARE DE PROTEST

Domnule Prim-Ministru Emil Boc,
Domnule Presedinte al Romaniei Traian Basescu,
Domnule Avocat al Poporului prof.univ.dr. Ioan Muraru,
Domnule Presedinte al Curtii Constitutionale Augustin Zegrean,

Impunerea CAS pe drepturile de autor, in dispretul Constitutiei Romaniei si al legilor nationale si internationale care apara proprietatea intelectuala, ne obliga pe noi, semnatarii acestei SCRISORI DE PROTEST, creatori si detinatori de drepturi de autor, sa protestam cu fermitate si sa cerem Guvernului Romaniei ori Curtii Constitutionale sa corijeze o decizie neconstitutionala si care ii va fa face pe cei mai multi dintre detinatorii de drepturi de autor sa traiasca la limita de jos a subzistentei. Atragem atentia decidentilor din Executivul Romaniei ca vom folosi, pana la rezolvarea cererii noastre, toate formele legale de protest, atat pe plan national, cat si pe plan international.

Guvernul Romaniei nu trebuie sa puna niciodata biruri sociale pe creatie pentru ca rezultatele acesteia nu sunt produse de serie, sunt produse unicat!, chiar si atunci cand un jurnalist ori un scriitor scrie un text critic la adresa guvernarii sau a clasei politice. Talentul, harul si travaliul interior al fiecaruia dintre creatori nu sunt mediate nici de Fisc, nici de cei de la putere, ci numai si numai de bunul Dumnezeu.

In al doisprezecelea ceas, opriti exodul de creiere din Romania si saracirea celor care apara prin operele lor unice identitatea culturala si spirituala a Romaniei!

semnatari: Mircea Cartarescu, Gabriela Adamesteanu, Serban Foarta, Ana Blandiana, cantareata de jazz Maria Raducanu​​, graficianul Ion Barbu sau regizorul Victor Ioan Frunza

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-esential-7558563-mircea-cartarescu-ana-blandiana-ion-barbu-semneaza-scrisoare-protest-adresata-premierului-presedintelui-romaniei.htm?cfadac=

A.

Lege nr. 8/2006 din 11/01/2006 privind instituirea indemnizatiei pentru pensionarii sistemului public de pensii, membri ai uniunilor de creatori legal constituite si recunoscute ca persoane juridice de utilitate publica

Art. 1. –
(1) Prezenta lege reglementeaza dreptul la o indemnizatie lunara in beneficiul pensionarilor sistemului public de pensii, care sunt membri ai uniunilor de creatori legal constituite si recunoscute ca persoane juridice de utilitate publica, potrivit dispozitiilor Ordonantei Guvernului nr. 26/2000 cu privire la asociatii si fundatii, aprobata cu modificari prin Legea nr. 246/2005.
(2) Cuantumul indemnizatiei reprezinta echivalentul a 50% din pensia cuvenita titularului sau, dupa caz, aflata in plata la data solicitarii.
(3) Indemnizatia nu se acorda persoanelor prevazute la alin. (1) care beneficiaza de indemnizatia acordata potrivit Legii nr. 118/2002 pentru instituirea indemnizatiei de merit, cu modificarile ulterioare.

http://www.juris.ro/legislatie-detaliu/Lege-nr-82006-din-11012006-privind-instituirea-indemnizatiei-pentru-pensionarii-sistemului-public-de-pensii-membri-ai-uniunilor-de-creatori-legal-constituite-si-recunoscute-ca-persoane-juridice-de-utilitate-publica/

B.

DESTINATIILE TAXEI TIMBRULUI LITERAR. Taxele adunate vor fi distribuite in vederea maririi pensiilor scriitorilor care traiesc la limita supravietuirii, asigurarea pentru acestia a unor compensatii suplimentare, sustinerea revistelor culturale reginonale, permisa de lege, renovarea si intretinerea sediilor filialelor, la toate acestea adaugandu-se o suma care sa sustina festivaluri de interes.



C.

LEGE nr. 118 din 15 martie 2002 pentru instituirea indemnizatiei de merit
Art. 1
Pentru realizari deosebite si pentru recompensarea unei activitati de notorietate în domeniul culturii, stiintei si sportului se instituie indemnizatia de merit.

Art. 5
(1)Cuantumul lunar al indemnizatiei de merit este egal cu 3 salarii minime brute pe tara si este neimpozabil.
(2)Numarul total de indemnizatii de merit este de 1.500.

si o bomboana, evident:

Stimate domnule director,

Va scriu bulversat de lectura listei scriitorilor care au primit „indemnizatie de merit“ si pe care ati publicat-o (impreuna cu alte cinci liste: cineasti, artisti plastici, arhitecti, oameni de teatru, compozitori-muzicologi) in Nr. 210 al Observatorului cultural.
Nu sint in masura sa comentez celelalte liste, dar – ca profesor de romana, pensionar – pot sa va spun ca am ramas socat de mediocritatea si penuria contrastanta ce rezulta din parcurgerea celor 100 de nume, intre care citeva sint stralucite, altele (ajungind pina la 20-30%) sint onorabile, dar restul de 60-70% sint pur si simplu inexistente ca prezenta si valoare in esichierul istoriei literare.

M-am intrebat ingrozit ce figura am face daca, intr-un concurs literar universal (utopic, bineinteles), ne-am prezenta cu aceasta echipa, dominata de fosti politruci, de anonimi si veleitari, justificata din pacate doar de acei citiva, pomeniti mai sus, care (din nevoie, banuiesc) s-au lasat amestecati.
Astfel, m-am intrebat ce cauta Gabriel Liiceanu, Gabriela Adamesteanu, Mihai Sora linga Ion Brad, Dinu Sararu sau Mircea Radu Iacoban? Sau vesnici revoltati ca Alexandru George, Ileana Malancioiu, Angela Marinescu alaturi de Mircea Micu, Haidu Gyözö si Ion Hobana (politruci peceristi binecunoscuti)?
Am inteles ca virsta limita ar fi 60 de ani (ceea ce dintr-un condei elimina scriitorii mai tineri). Dar chiar deasupra acestei virste apar omisiuni care te pun pe ginduri.

De ce, bunaoara, D. Tepeneag, dar nu si Paul Goma sau Bujor Nedelcovici (sau chiar Monica Lovinescu si Virgil Ierunca)?
De ce Ioana Postelnicu si Nicolae Balota, dar nu Barbu Brezianu si Adrian Marino?
De ce (in cadrul „generatiei ’60“) Ion Gheorghe si Anghel Dumbraveanu sint preferati Anei Blandiana si lui Ilie Constantin?
Cea mai jignitoare fraza din prezentarea „grupei scriitori“ (nu pot sa nu remarc terminologia cazona a Ministerului Culturii si Cultelor) este nota din subsol: „Mircea Martin, Eugen Negrici si Ion Pop au fost aprobati (s.m.), dar cu conditia iesirii la pensie“ (!).

Asadar, conditia acordarii „meritului“ consta in retragerea din viata activa? Cei trei profesori au facut cerere, care le-a fost aprobata conditionat?
Inseamna, oare, ca toti „indemnizatii“ si-au dat demisia din posturile ocupate? Dar chiar intre cei „aprobati“ (dupa cum se vede chiar din numele razlet citate de mine), unii sint salariati si chiar sefi de institutie. Ca sa nu mai vorbesc de membrii Academiei Romane, care – multi dintre ei – exercita profesii remunerate, au suplimentar indemnizatia de academician (plus alte beneficii) si nu sint exceptati de la „indemnizatia de merit“, ba dimpotriva o primesc in bloc (ce-i drept, cum spuneati, ca „oameni de stiinta“, fie ei si scriitori!).
Pe de alta parte, din cite se stie, virsta limita a primirii in Academia Romana este 60 (sau 65) de ani; daca ai fost primit, esti demn de indemnizatiile de academician, respectiv de merit si iti poti si exercita profesia. Daca n-ai fost primit, primesti indemnizatia de merit doar daca iesi la pensie…

Si nedumeririle pot continua la infinit: pot „merita“, oare, doar 100 de scriitori trecuti de 60 ani? Ce se intimpla in perspectiva cu tinerii valorosi, a caror cariera poate fi intrerupta din cauza mizeriei in care se zbate cultura? Sa astepte ei implinirea a sase decenii si apoi sa se elibereze un loc prin moartea unuia dintre cei premiati? Fiind pe lista atitia oameni carora, probabil, li s-a dat indemnizatia din motive de saracie, ma intreb de ce nu s-a reglementat, cum era normal, problema lor sociala prin sistemul pensiilor de stat, care ar trebui sa respecte profesia de scriitor (din cite stiu, pensiile scriitorilor sint acum cele mai mici din tara, cu exceptia taranilor), iar indemnizatiile de merit sa fie date celor cu adevarat merituosi.
Asa cum arata acum „grupa scriitori“ seamana cu lista datornicilor de la defunctul Fond Literar de pe vremuri, in care cazurile sociale erau amestecate indecent cu nume din clientela politica a epocii, dupa cum s-a aratat in gazetele post-decembriste.

In consecinta, domnule director, pentru ca sint un contribuabil roman si as vrea sa stiu unde se duc banii pe care ii platesc statului, va felicit pentru deschiderea acestei discutii despre una din cele mai flagrante afaceri electorale (nu se aplica o lege votata in 2002 abia in anul 2004?) si v-as fi recunoscator daca ati continua publicind:
– textul Legii 118/2002, numele initiatorilor, precum si textul normelor de aplicare;
– lista academicienilor care vor primi „indemnizatia de merit“;
– (in cazul scriitorilor, de la care am pornit) o ancheta printre cei care nu figureaza pe lista, fie pentru ca n-au fost trecuti, fie pentru ca au refuzat (si in ambele cazuri, cu intrebarea „de ce?“).
Raminindu-va indatorat pentru obiectivitatea cu care urmariti fenomenul cultural, primiti multumirile mele.

Prof. Silviu MANOLIU

Bucuresti, 7 martie 2004

http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Despre-indemnizatiile-de-merit*articleID_10468-articles_details.html

j. viewz, smooth criminal

jk rowling a lucrat citiva ani la primul volum din harry potter, timp in care a trecut printr-un divort, si-a crescut singura fiica, a trait din ajutor de somaj, a lucrat ca profesoara, a scris prin cafenele si a fost diagnosticata cu depresie clinica. a trimis manuscrisul la 12 edituri care l-au respins. dupa un an de cautari a gasit o editura care a acceptat manuscrisul, i-a oferit 2500 lire sterline si a publicat volumul.

2500 lire sterline inseamna aproximativ 12500 lei. din acestia o parte (probabil vreo 15-20%) i-au revenit de fapt agentului literar, iar din restul, vreo 200 lei pe luna pentru cei 3-4 ani in care a scris romanul, statul britanic troglodit a mai retinut si taxe.

de altfel, si editorul i-a recomandat sa isi pastreze slujba pe care o avea in acel moment, deoarece in marea britanie in general nu se prea poate trai doar din scris romane pentru copii. dupa cum stiti jk rowling este acum multimilionara, insa ce poate nu stiti este ca multi alti scriitori englezi se lupta in continuare pentru supravietuire sau isi iau o a doua slujba pentru a se intretine in mod decent.

de aceea, cred ca si dl cartarescu, pentru a se intretine, ar trebui sa isi ia o a doua slujba, spre exemplu de profesor universitar, sa scrie articole in reviste si ziare, sa reprezinte diferite marci comerciale, sa tina conferinte si sa dea interviuri. asa fac si colegii sai din vest si, de altfel, s-a observat ca, daca este vorba de un romancier de succes, sumele primite sint de obicei cel putin cu 50% mai mari fata de un simplu gazetar.

http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/senatul-evz-un-guvern-de-trogloditi-900181.html

shakespeare era servitor

gonzalo: să am eu o plantaţie aici…
antonio: ar semăna urzici…
sebastian: măcriş sau nalbă.
gonzalo: iar dac-aş fi al insulei monarh…
sebastian: ar face-orice, doar de băut n-ar bea, că n-are ce…
gonzalo: aş răsturna a ţării rânduială:
negoţul l-aş opri, de orice fel.
de tribunale n-ar mai fi nici urmă.
de şcoli, nici pomeneală. n-ar mai fi
nici bogăţie şi nici sărăcie,
nici slujbe, învoieli sau moşteniri,
nici pâre pentru ţarini sau podgorii.
metalul, grâul, vinul şi uleiul
nu s-ar mai folosi. Şi nici o muncă —
toţi oamenii ar sta cu mâna-n sân;
femeile, la fel — nevinovate.
n-ar fi nici un stăpân…
sebastian: Şi totuşi vrea să fie rege-al insulei, nerodul.
antonio: un capăt al republicii lui, uită de celălalt.
gonzalo: ar fi-n devălmăşie împărţite
ale naturii daruri, fără muncă.
nemaifiind trădări şi răzvrătiţi,
n-aş mai avea nevoie de cuţite,
de săbii, suliţi, puşti sau alte arme.
natura ar da, singură, un belşug
În stare a-mi hrăni norodul paşnic.
sebastian: supuşii lui se pot căsători?
antonio: nu, nene, au să lenevească toţi — şi târfele, şi golanii…
gonzalo: domnia mea ar fi desăvârşită, chiar epoca de aur ar întrece-o…
sebastian: (tare) trăiască-n veci măria sa

w. shakespeare, furtuna

in piesele lui shakespeare, personajele imi par a fi mai degraba servitori: unii loiali si ascultatori, altii dimpotriva, obraznici si intriganti; unii responsabili cu intretinerea mosiilor, altii cu cea a stapinilor, fie ca e vorba de servicii de catering, de escorta si amuzament sau, de ce nu, chiar sexuale; unii sint in serviciul militar, altii in cel religios; chiar regii se regasesc in serviciul de drept divin de a conduce cu intelepciune un popor; shakespeare insusi se considera un servitor, dator sa-i amuze si sa-i educe pe privitori

am vazut in schimb la televizor o serie de intelectuali, artisti si analisti cu ego-uri supradimensionate, cel putin dupa asteptarile mele; dupa comportament, imi par un soi de aristocrati scapatati, nimeriti printr-un accident intr-o epoca ciudata, ulterioara dezrobirii oamenilor obisnuiti; nu au posturile de decizie care li se cuvin, meritele evidente prin insasi existenta noastra ca popor timp de 2000 de ani nu le sint recunoscute; ar fi fost dictatori binevoitori daca meritocratia nu ar fi fost abolita

nu stiu cum s-a ajuns aici, nu sint lamurit nici asupra semnificatiei acestor schimbari; insa am o problema de natura mai personala: eu, in functie de definitia aleasa sau de grupul care m-ar caracteriza, as putea fi socotit de unii intelectual, iar de altii drept om obisnuit;

si atunci nu inteleg, ar trebui sau nu sa ma implic in judecarea situatiei politice din tara, daca ma implic de o parte, as putea fi considerat drept intelectual, respectiv om obisnuit, al lui basescu? as avea dreptul la scutiri de impozit sau la posturi de decizie? daca nu mi-a oferit nimeni un post de ambasador, este pentru ca nu sint intelectual sau pentru ca nu sint in tabara potrivita? am scrupule ca intelectual, ar trebui sa am daca sint doar om obisnuit? daca sint intelectual, am tradat pe cineva cind nu m-am implicat politic, sau imi iau nasul la purtare acum daca il sustin pe basescu si poate sint doar un om obisnuit?

ca intelectual, cf alinei mungiu, ar trebui sa contribui la dezvoltarea romaniei prin
* pastrarea impartialitatii si a spiritului critic
* sa devin parte a clasei specialiste, nu doar a clasei de atitudine
* sa am o atitudine iluminista si pro-occidentala
* sa nu fiu atins de clientelism, coruptie si nepotism, sa am un stil de comportament diferit de laxitatea morala tipica societatii romanesti (adica clasei oamenilor obisnuiti)

ar mai fi un punct mult mai important, insa acesta nu va aparea decit intr-un episod urmator, asa ca ma voi orienta dupa acestea pina una alta

deja s-a vazut ca nu mi-am pastrat impartialitatea; in privinta spiritului critic nu sint sigur ca ma pot auto-caracteriza; aici probabil ar fi nevoie de o comisie independenta care sa stabileasca masura in care este nevoie sa critic actiunile guvernului pentru a ma incadra

cel de-al doilea punct imi este putin neclar: cit de bine ar trebui sa cosesc pentru a intra in clasa specialistilor, cel putin a celor in cosit? sau ar trebui sa inventez un model nou de coasa pentru asta? inovatiile se iau in considerare?

am o atitudine relativ anti-iluminista, oarecum retrograda, temporal cel putin; adica probabil ceva de soiul medieval-renascentist, daca exista asa ceva; iar legat de occident, ca si de orient, miazanoapte sau miazazi am de obicei pareri impartite si o atitudine deschis-sceptica

incerc sa nu ma las atins de clientelism, coruptie si nepotism, insa am probleme destul de mari cu mindria, complexele, lenea si invidia (acestea sint insa, din cite inteleg, in afara subiectului)

in consecinta, eu sint ori un intelectual care si-a tradat menirea de a contribui la dezvoltarea societatii romanesti, ori un om obisnuit ale carui taxe si impozite nu merg acolo unde ar trebui, adica la adevaratii intelectuali

altfel aici: http://nikuelektriku.blogspot.com/2010/07/doamna-mungiu-face-ordine-si-in-cultura.html
sursa aici: http://www.romanialibera.ro/opinii/comentarii/adevarata-tradare-a-intelectualilor-ii-193024.html

g.k.chesterton, what’s wrong with the world?

1. eroarea medicala
2. avem nevoie de un om lipsit de simt practic

exista o anecdota populara care ilustreaza foarte bine argumentele zadarnice si nesfirsite ale filozofilor; e vorba de intrebarea despre ce a fost primul, oul sau gaina? nu sint convins ca, daca ar fi bine inteleasa, ar fi chiar asa de inutila o examinare mai atenta. nu ma intereseaza aici sa abordez acel soi de profunde dispute metafizice sau teologice pe care le ilustreaza atit de bine povestea cu oul si gaina, ci un aspect mult mai concret. materialistii evolutionisti ar putea fi imaginati satisfacator, intr-o viziune a tuturor lucrurilor, ca fiind proveniti dintr-un ou, dintr-un embrion oval, nebulos, imens care s-a ouat singur printr-un accident cosmic. cealalta scoala de gindire, cea transcendentalista (careia, personal, ii ramin credincios), nu ar fi probabil nedemna sa fie reprezentata ca si cum aceasta frumoasa, rotunda lume in care traim nu ar fi decit oul depus de o pasare sacra, nenascuta; porumbita mistica a profetilor. insa pentru scopuri mult mai modeste am chemat in ajutor puterea acestei neobisnuite delimitari. fie ca pasarea vie este asezata la inceputul firului logic, fie ca nu, este in schimb absolut necesar ca ea sa fie asezata si la sfirsitul acestuia. pasarea vie trebuie tintita – nu cu o pusca de aceasta data, ci cu o bagheta magica, datatoare de viata. esential pentru pastrarea coerentei gindirii noastre este urmatorul lucru: oul si gaina nu trebuie gindite ca aparitii cosmice egale si alternative la infinit. nu trebuie sa le vedem ca un tipar repetitiv ou-gaina; unul dintre ele este un mijloc, iar celalalt este o tinta; sint doua lumi mentale diferite. lasind la o parte complicatiile legate de micul dejun, putem spune ca, principial, oul exista doar pentru a produce o pasare. in schimb pasarea nu exista doar pentru a produce alte oua. o pasare poate exista si pentru a se amuza pe sine, pentru a-l lauda pe dumnezeu, sau, de ce nu, pentru a-i sugera unele idei unui dramaturg francez. fiind o fiinta vie si autonoma, este, sau poate fi, valoroasa in sine. acuma, politica moderna de la noi este foarte neatenta la acest aspect; a uitat ca producerea acestei vieti fericite si autonome este pina la urma tinta tuturor situatiilor complexe si a compromisurilor prin care trecem. nu vorbim decit despre oameni utili sau despre institutii functionale; adica, ne gindim la gaini doar in termeni de producatori de oua. in loc sa cautam sa crestem o pasare ideala, acvila lui zeus sau lebada lui avon, sau orice altceva ne-am putea dori, discutam doar despre procesul de inmultire si embrioni. acest circuit in sine, separat de scopul sau divin, devine dubios si de-a dreptul morbid; otrava se strecoara in embrionii tuturor realizarilor; iar politica noastra ne apare ca un cos de oua clocite.

idealismul reprezinta considerarea fiecarui lucru doar sub aspectul sau practic. idealismul vrea sa discutam mai intii despre vatrai daca este potrivit pentru lovire, si abia apoi daca este potrivit pentru lovirea nevestei; sa vedem daca nu cumva oul este potrivit pentru cresterea pasarilor, inainte de a ne decide ca e destul de stricat pentru a putea fi utilizat in practica politica. ce stiu insa, e ca aceste cautari teoretice (care se ocupa cautarea scopului) il expun pe cel care le practica banalei acuzatii ca se pieptana in timp ce tara arde. o scoala, pentru care lordul rosebery este reprezentativ, si-a asumat sarcina de a inlocui idealurile sociale si morale care au reprezentat pina acum motorul politicii cu o coerenta si completitudine generica a sistemului social, care a primit numele de „eficienta”. nu sint pe deplin lamurit asupra doctrinei secrete a acestei secte. insa, atit cit pot eu sa inteleg, „eficienta” inseamna ca noi ar trebui sa descoperim totul despre o masina in afara de scopul pentru care a fost construita. a aparut mai nou un capriciu de-a dreptul neobisnuit: cel de a considera, cind lucrurile merg prost, ca avem nevoie de un om practic. ar fi cu mult mai adevarat daca am spune ca atunci cind lucrurile merg foarte prost avem nevoie de un om lipsit de spirit practic. sau, cel putin, de un teoretician. un om practic este un om deprins cu rutina zilnica, cu modul in care functioneaza lucrurile in mod normal. cind lucrurile nu merg, avem nevoie de un ginditor, un om care are o teorie asupra motivului pentru care aceste lucruri ar putea functiona. e rau sa te piepteni cind tara arde, insa pare destul de folositor sa fi studiat stiinta hidraulicii.

este astfel necesar sa renuntam la agnosticismul din zilele obisnuite si sa incercam rerum cognoscere causas. daca avionul in care sinteti are o mica toana, un mester ar putea-o rezolva; insa daca are un necaz mai grav, este foarte probabil ca va fi nevoie de un batrin profesor distrat si cu barba alba care sa fie tirit cu greu din laboratorul sau sa analizeze natura raului. cu cit mai grav dezastrul, cu atit mai lunga barba alba, cu atit mai distrat teoreticianul de care este nevoie pentru rezolvarea sa. iar in unele cazuri extreme, nimeni in afara de omul (probabil destul de scrintit) care a inventat o astfel de traznaie zburatoare nu va putea spune care a fost problema.

„eficienta” este inutila pentru aceleasi motive pentru care oamenii puternici, puterea vointei sau supraomul sint inutili. adica, este inutila pentru ca are de-a face cu actiunile doar dupa ce acestea au fost deja efectuate. nu are nici o teorie despre incidente inainte ca acestea sa apara; asa ca nu are nici o putere de decizie. o actiune poate sa fie reusita sau nereusita doar dupa ce s-a desfasurat; inainte de a incepe, trebuie sa fie, in teorie, corecta sau gresita. nu exista ceva de genul sustinerii invingatorului; pentru ca in momentul in care trebuie sustinut nu este invingator. nu exista lupta de partea cistigatoare; lupta se duce pentru a afla care este partea cistigatoare. daca o operatie a avut loc, a fost eficienta. daca un om a fost ucis, uciderea a fost eficienta. soarele tropical este eficient in a-i face pe oameni lenesi si adormiti, in aceeasi masura in care un sef de echipa bataus din lancashire este eficient in a-i face harnici ca niste albine. maeterlinck este la fel de eficient in a-i umple pe oameni de vibratii spirituale stranii ca si domnii crosse & blackwell in a-i umple de dulceata. totul depinde doar cu ce doresti sa fii umplut. lordul rosebery, fiind un sceptic modern, probabil ar prefera vibratiile spirituale. eu insa, ca crestin ortodox, prefer dulceata. insa ambii sint eficienti daca actiunea lor a reusit; si ineficienti pina in momentul incheierii acesteia. un om care se gindeste prea mult la succes va ajunge un sentimentalist stors de vlaga; pentru ca trebuie sa se uite intr-una inapoi. daca apreciaza doar victoria, trebuie sa se prezinte tirziu la lupta. pentru omul de actiune nu exista decit idealul.

acest ideal bine definit este o problema cu mult mai urgenta si mai practica in mijlocul timpurilor tulburi de acum din anglia; mai mult decit orice planuri sau propuneri imediate. pentru ca haosul de astazi se datoreaza unui soi de amnezie generala legata de tinta pe care o urmaream cu totii la inceputuri. nici un om nu mai cere ceea ce isi doreste; fiecare cere ceea ce are impresia ca poate primi. si tot asa, in timp poporul uita ce isi dorea omul la inceput; iar dupa o viata politica viguroasa si plina de succese, uita si el. avem o abundenta extravaganta de ‘varianta a doua’, un pandemoniu de ‘e bine si asa’. ei bine, acest soi de pliere a dorintelor nu numai ca previne aparitia oricarui fel de eroism, dar impiedica si realizarea unor compromisuri reale. se poate gasi mijlocul distantei intre doua puncte doar daca acestea sint fixe. s-ar putea sa putem ajunge la un aranjament intre doua parti care nu pot obtine amindoua ceea ce isi doresc; nu si daca acestia nu iti pot spune ce isi doresc. un chelner ar prefera mai degraba sa primeasca de la fiecare client comenzi clare, chiar daca acestea ar fi ‘ibis gatit in aburi’ sau ‘elefant fiert’, decit sa-i vada cu capul prins in miini pe fiecare, adinciti in calcule aritmetice legate de cantitatea de mincare posibil prezenta in bucataria restaurantului. cei mai multi dintre noi am avut de suferit de pe urma acelui tip de doamne care, dintr-un soi de altruism pervers, reusesc sa faca mai mult rau decit egoistii; care insista aproape in hohote pentru cel mai antipatic fel de mincare si se agata cu disperare de cel mai retras loc de sezut. cei mai multi dintre noi am participat la petreceri sau in excursii in care am asistat la aceasta agitatie efervescenta de auto-depreciere. spre deosebire de aceste admirabile femei, din motive mult mai meschine, practicienii politici tin lucrurile in aceeasi confuzie prin intretinerea dubiului asupra pretentiilor lor reale. nu este nimic care sa impiedice mai mult o rezolvare decit o aglomerare de astfel de mici capitulari. ne uitam uluiti la politicieni din toate aripile care sint pentru o educatie seculara, insa considera ca este inutil sa incerce sa faca ceva in aceasta directie; care doresc prohibitia totala, insa nu cred ca sint indreptatiti sa ceara asta; care regreta introducerea obligativitatii educatiei, insa o continua resemnati; sau care doresc improprietarirea taranilor si, in consecinta, voteaza pentru cu totul altceva. acest soi de oportunism nauc si incurcat este cel de care ne impiedicam la orice pas. daca oamenii nostri de stat ar fi fost vizionari, poate s-ar fi facut si ceva practic. daca le-am cere ceva abstract, poate am primi ceva concret in schimb. dupa cum pare, nu este numai imposibil de obtinut ceea ce isi doresc oamenii, dar este imposibil de obtinut si macar o parte din acestea, deoarece nimeni nu poate sa le puna clar pe hirtie. acea claritate si chiar duritate din negotul clasic pare ca s-a pierdut cu totul. uitam ca in cuvintul ‘compromis’ exista, printre alte lucruri, si particula bine definita si sonora ‘promis’. moderatia nu este vaga; este la fel de bine definita ca si perfectiunea. punctul din mijloc este definit in aceeasi masura in care sint definite punctele extreme.

daca sint pus de un pirat sa merg pe o scindura, e de prisos sa ma ofer, ca un compromis de bun simt, sa merg pina la o distanta rezonabila. pentru ca exact asupra acestei distante rezonabile nu vom fi de acord, eu si piratul. exista un moment deosebit de bine precizat matematic in care scindura se va inclina. bunul meu simt se intinde exact pina la acel moment; in schimb, bunul simt al piratului va incepe de-abia din acel punct incolo. insa acest punct este la fel de consistent definit ca orice alta diagrama geometrica; si la fel de abstract ca orice dogma religioasa.

si o bomboana 🙂

Ain’t got time for doubts or fears
Ain’t got time for shallow tears
Ain’t got time to bare my soul
Because I still got a hard way to go

Said that you got a losing hand
Ain’t no point in you raising sand
Ain’t got time to bare your soul
Because I still got a hard way to go

And it’s a crying shame
That you can’t lay the blame
On anybody else but yourself

Wish that you had my sympathy
You ain’t got no hold on me
And my heart is getting cold
And I still got a hard way to go

And it’s a crying shame
That you can’t lay the blame
On anybody else but yourself

And I still got a hard way to go

WARNING: in high enough doses, anything will cause cancer

DEFENDING THE PROPOSITION 65 BOUNTY-HUNTER CASE

A DIFFERENT APPROACH

AN ADAMS | NYE | SINUNU | BRUNI | BECHT WHITE PAPER
A bounty hunter is an individual who seeks out fugitives (‘Hunting’) for a monetary reward (‘Bounty’), for apprehending by law, if such laws exist. (In lawless areas, bounty hunters still exist, and are, indeed, even more common.) – Definition from Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia

1. INTRODUCTION: The Offer You Can’t Refuse
California’s Proposition 65, and particularly its private party enforcement, or “bounty hunter” provisions, has created a massive, expensive, baffling headache for companies doing business in California in the past twenty years. The law requires meaningless warnings of chemical exposures which often pose no real risk, while simultaneously operating a system for relieving defendants – particularly out-of-state companies – of large amounts of money.

Worse, lawyers who “defend” clients in Proposition 65 litigation often don’t defend anyone – Proposition 65 has become an enormous money machine for the attorneys representing both sides. Cases almost never make it to court, and the lawyers in the “Proposition 65 bar,” who deal with each other every day, routinely and rapidly settle five- and six-figure cases at the expense of businesses all over the country. Welcome to California. Bring your checkbook.

To companies from out of state, the scenario is usually like this: One day, out of nowhere, you get a letter from a law firm you’ve never heard of. The letter informs you that a) A product you either provide parts for or manufacture causes cancer and/or birth defects.; b) You’re going to be sued in 60 days; and c) there’s a number you can call to discuss settlement. Sound familiar? We thought so. A Proposition 65 bounty hunter has just cornered you.

After reviewing your options, consulting with your attorneys, and learning a lot about a law you didn’t even know existed, it looks like you don’t have much choice. One way or another, if you want to keep doing business in this state, it’s going to cost you. […]

2. HOW PROPOSITION 65 WORKS: Weird (and Expensive) Science
California’s Proposition 65, the “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986,” is a textbook example of unintended consequences. The legislation was originally designed to create a market mechanism for minimizing the presence of toxic chemicals in California, particularly in the water supply. It requires the Attorney General to create and regularly update a list of chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive or developmental harm.”

So far, so good. However, the law also encourages and rewards lawsuits by individuals – often known as “bounty hunters” – against businesses, located anywhere, who sell products containing even trace amounts of these chemicals in California.. The result has been the development of a legal cottage industry in California, which usually operates at the expense of out-of-state companies.
As applied by the courts and interpreted in regulations, the statutory scheme of Proposition 65 provides for the following:

• A state agency maintains and updates two lists: one of chemicals “known” to the state to cause cancer, and one of chemicals known to cause developmental or reproductive harm. While some of the listed chemicals are generally accepted as being harmful to humans, many others have reached the list only as a result of animal testing involving extraordinarily sensitive laboratory animals and massive, prolonged exposure to very high doses.

• As one commentator has pointed out, in high enough doses, anything will cause cancer. In many instances, the mechanisms that cause malignancies in animals have no corollary in humans. In others, the lab animals were subjected to doses in the lab that bear no relationship to that which humans would ever encounter.

• Once a chemical is listed, it becomes unlawful for any company to “expose” a person in California to it without first giving “clear and reasonable warning” of the exposure. A violation is actionable even if the company knew nothing of the law and had no idea it was acting illegally. The court may award penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each violation. Since in the absence of a warning, every exposure is a violation, potential penalties can easily reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for companies with significant sales volume.

• For most defendants, say, a dry cleaner, a “warning” means a posted sign or label stating some variation on the following: “Warning: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause. . . cancer, reproductive harm, developmental harm” or some combination of these, depending on the chemical. This is known as the “safe harbor warning,” and the exact language and application are subject to very precise regulations. (In another grimly ironic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, these warning signs are so common in California that residents rarely even notice them. They can be found in, among other places, drycleaners, grocery stores, filling stations, hotels, office buildings and on websites selling products to residents.)

• It matters not at all that a company being prosecuted pursuant to Propositon 65 may never have done business in California. If Manufacturer X in Wisconsin sells a product containing a listed chemical to Distributor Y in Arizona, who sells the product to Subdistributor Z in Oregon, who sells it to a retailer in Los Angeles who sells it to a consumer from San Diego, X can be found liable under Proposition 65 for failing to give a “clear and reasonable warning” to California consumers that the state thinks the chemical may cause cancer. Furthermore, so can Y, Z and the retailer.

• Although the California Attorney General undertakes some enforcement, most Proposition 65 enforcement actions are filed by bounty hunters. These are individuals or environmental organizations who often file enforcement actions against dozens or even hundreds of companies – many of them from outside California – each year. The bounty hunter need not have been personally exposed to the chemical, need not have suffered any damage, and need not have any connection whatsoever with the product, the chemical, or the company.

Then why sue? Because California law provides that a public interest plaintiff’s lawyer – including a Proposition 65 lawyer – can recover, among other things, attorney’s fees. A Proposition 65 plaintiff’s firm can rack up big legal bills, which are paid by the defendant. Because of this, the bounty hunters rarely have anything much to do with the suit itself. Although their names are on hundreds of cases, the real heavy lifting is done by law firms specializing in this litigation. By recent amendment to the statute, bounty hunters receive only 25% of the penalties recovered; however, attorneys’ fees can rapidly mount to six-figure sums. If you file dozens of basically identical lawsuits every year, you become very efficient. Nice work if you can get it.

3. DEFENSE, SETTLEMENT AND THE BAXTER DEFENSE: My Enemy’s Enemy Is My Friend, Unless He’s My Defense Attorney
If you are a Proposition 65 defendant, you have basically three options. You can settle. You can fight, which almost never happens. Or you can use the Baxter defense. We’re going to review each. Again, keep in mind that we’re writing this from the perspective of the real world.

Defense and Settlement
Just as a special segment of the bar prosecutes Proposition 65 enforcement matters on behalf of bounty hunters, there is also a specialized Proposition 65 defense bar. This is a small group of attorneys, some of whom have represented industry in enforcement actions since the proposition was enacted. We’re part of it. While the defense model has evolved over the twenty year history of Proposition 65, there have been three consistent themes:

• First, while Proposition 65 is a difficult statute for companies to deal with, it is not without its defenses. A company may be able to defend an alleged carcinogen by showing that the exposure poses no significant risk of cancer to humans at the levels in question. In the case of an alleged developmental or reproductive toxicant, the company can defend by showing no observable effect assuming exposure at one thousand (1000) times the
level in question. There are statute of limitations defenses, defenses based on the number of employees the company had at the time of exposure, and sometimes issues as to whether the chemicals are sufficiently encapsulated that there is no real exposure.

• That being said, Proposition 65 cases almost never make it to trial. Because of the expense, the time and the headache, for all intents and purposes defense and settlement can be considered the same thing.

• Therefore, after a certain amount of saber-rattling, chest-pounding and heavy breathing, Proposition 65 plaintiffs nearly always settle these cases for a combination of (a) injunctions ordering warnings in the future; (b) penalty payments; and (c) attorney fee payments. The possibility of being liable for attorneys’ fees gives defendants a powerful incentive to settle these cases quickly, before the costs really start to add up. This incentive is strengthened by a unique feature of Proposition 65 – the infamous 60-day warning letter.

In some instances, a settling defendant will negotiate one-on-one with the bounty hunter’s attorney. Increasingly, however, Proposition 65 plaintiffs’ firms target entire industries. When this happens, something equally interesting happens on the defense side. Here’s how it works:

A defense firm will:
• Be retained by one of the larger companies in the industry;
• Assemble an ad hoc “industry group” consisting of as many of the defendant companies as possible, receiving a retainer from each;
• Negotiate a group settlement, perhaps with different penalty payments for companies based on their product volume; and
• Negotiate an “opt-in” provision, so that other companies sued by the same bounty hunter for similar exposures can pay a prenegotiated sum in order to join the settlement. Basically, then, the defense attorneys get hired, recruit a lot of other defendants, settle the case and collect fees from everyone involved. It’s similar to Microsoft developing one program, then selling millions of identical copies, except that Microsoft needs a marketing department to encourage people to buy. Proposition 65 attorneys have the California legal system.

An especially strange version of this “opt-in” type of agreement has appeared recently. One large defense firm recently negotiated a master settlement which not only provided for optins, but included a provision that any defendant seeking to join the settlement would have to pay money not only to the plaintiff/ bounty hunter and his attorneys but also to the defense firm that negotiated the opt-in agreement. Or, to put it another way, the defense firm constructed a settlement that required defendants who wanted to opt in not only to pay the plaintiff, but also to, in effect, retain and pay the defense firm. Thus, defense counsel and plaintiff’s counsel effectively teamed up against the interests of any new defendant.

Baxter Healthcare v. Denton: A Different Approach
Baxter Healthcare Corporation is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of intravenous bags and tubing – essential and ubiquitous life-saving tools of modern healthcare. For more than forty years, the plastics from which these devices are constructed have been made more flexible and pliable by adding 2 di-ethylhexyl pthalate (DEHP) to their forumula. IV bags and tubing are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration as prescription medical devices, which means that their labeling is subject to FDA approval.

Laboratory testing has clearly proven that although DEHP causes liver cancer in laboratory mice and some rats, it is not carcinogenic to larger animals. Nonetheless, because it is carcinogenic to at least some animals, DEHP is on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Baxter and other manufacturers of similar devices began receiving Proposition 65 notices and lawsuits seeking injunctions, penalties and attorneys’ fees for exposing patients to DEHP without “clear and reasonable warning”. After being sued both by a bounty hunter and the Attorney General, Baxter initially joined an ad hoc industry group. However, it soon became clear that the industry group’s approach would be to seek a group settlement, which would probably include a patient warning of a cancer risk.
Based on all available science, there was no human cancer risk. Unwilling to give warnings to patients which (a) were untrue; (b) were likely to disturb, mislead, and potentially harm them; and (c) would be inappropriate interference with physician – patient communications, Baxter decided to defend itself rather than settling.

The first step was to withdraw from the ad hoc industry group. The next step was based on a premise as old as war and athletic competition: the best defense is a good offense. Baxter sued the State of California, seeking a declaration under Proposition 65 that it had no obligation to warn because DEHP poses no significant risk of cancer to humans at the levels of exposure in question, a technical defense permitted by the statute. In fact, Baxter argued, DEHP posed no significant risk of cancer to humans at any level, because the mechanism that caused cancer in laboratory animals didn’t exist in humans.

In a two-week trial against California’s Attorney General’s office, Baxter presented an array of internationally renowned cancer researchers, epidemiologists, clinicians and other scientists who demonstrated the scientific consensus: DEHP simply was not, and could not be, a human carcinogen. The State presented evidence that DEHP carcinogenicity was still an open question. More significantly for other companies in other cases, the State argued that Baxter had no right to come to court seeking declaratory relief at all, instead of simply defending the suit.

Indeed, said the State, only bounty hunters and the Attorney General had the right to pick and choose which products and which exposures would be the subject of Proposition 65 litigation and where and when suits would be filed.

The trial court disagreed. It held that the preponderance of the evidence showed that DEHP posed no significant risk of cancer to humans. Accordingly, Baxter had no obligation to warn patients, or anyone else, that they were being exposed to carcinogens.

Furthermore, the court held that a company need not wait until it was prosecuted by the State or a bounty hunter; instead, the company was well within its rights to sue the State at any time for a declaration that its product, or chemicals in its product, posed no significant risk of cancer in humans. Such a declaration would be binding on the state and on bounty hunters suing on behalf of citizens of the state.

The trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal, in a published opinion. And it is binding on all trial courts in the state. To summarize the key holding in Baxter, the defendants used the mechanism of declaratory judgment to do an end run around a Proposition 65 suit by getting another court to hold that the chemical in question was toxic was, in fact, untrue. Goodbye, lawsuit.

The trial court’s opinion, and the opinion of the Court of Appeal affirming it, are available for viewing at: http://www.ansbb.com/html/news/pdf/Baxter_vs_Denton_Appellate_Decision.pdf

4. CONCLUSION: An Unwanted Education
Most decisions about legal strategy are, in the end, economic decisions. This is true for Proposition 65 defendants, too, particularly those from out of state. The goal, almost always, is to get out of the suit with the minimum expenditure of time, resources and money. Often, that means simply settling on the best terms you can get. However, it often pays to think a little harder about what those terms might cost you in the long run. Often, these costs are unique to the defendant, and are difficult to quantify, but quite real. For example, depending on your product, your market, your customers and your plans, a prominent warning label on your packaging or website, might be a marketing disaster, and justify a full-throttle defense.
And thanks to Baxter v. Denton, a company that is at risk of, or has been sued in, an enforcement action, need not always passively write a check and submit to a commercially damaging warning requirement. Baxter has created an alternative.

In the world of equities investing, the word “capitulation” has a unique meaning. It refers to sellers who are convinced that they should get out of a market as fast as possible, and without much regard for price, because disaster is looming. Capitulating sellers are more than happy to give up any gains they’ve made, or even take losses. They just want out, and fast.

The entire mechanism of Proposition 65 is often manipulated to produce a similar effect, particularly for out-of-state defendants. The risks look huge, the game looks rigged, and disaster looks quite possible. But unlike the market, which offers only “stay in” or “get out” as options, an experienced, tough legal team can do a lot to even your odds in court.

Before concluding that capitulation is the only route, a company should, at minimum, evaluate the potential for going on the offensive – defending the case, which at the very least will strengthen your settlement position, or applying the Baxter approach. Under California law, the best defense really may be a vigorous scientific offense.

sursa: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/282270/Defending-the-Proposition-65-Bounty-Hunter-Case