Skip navigation

Category Archives: istorii

Stanislav Secrieru:

newsweek russia prezinta integral proiect de document intitulat ”program pt utilizare sistematica eficienta a factorilor externi pt dezvoltarea durabila a rusiei”. la prima lectura se pare ca este un draft pt uz intern, pe linga aspecte stiute in cercuri academice, unele pasaje pe china, germania si alte sunt f sincere si directe.

proiectul elaborat de mid-ul la indicatiile presedintelui, acopera relatiile bilaterale si multilaterale si expune succint cam ce doreste rusia sa atinga in fiecare caz. la capitolul romania sunt urmatoarele obiective:
– To promote the consolidation of Russian business in strategic sectors of the Romanian economy, especially in the energy sector, ferrous and nonferrous metals, including through participation in the ongoing privatization of state enterprises in Romania.
– Enhance cooperation in gas sector, including Russian gas transit through the territory of Romania, the construction and use of underground gas storage facilities on Romanian territory.
– Promote the implementation of joint projects in energy, including: the participation of Russian companies in the reconstruction and modernization of the Romanian electricity generation capacity, operating on the Russian (Soviet) equipment, the construction of gas turbine CHP plant in Romania, a new generation, followed by sharing; connection Russian Companies to participation in the construction of a second nuclear power plant in Romania, the establishment of transit of electricity supply through Romania in third countries.
– To facilitate the conclusion of a bilateral agreement on protection of intellectual property, parallel to seeking an early solution to the problem of production in the Romanian military products under license from the former USSR.

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

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

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

Din Valea Secetei pe Valea Inundaţiilor

Ioan Rotundu, 01.07.2010
[…]
Ne-am grăbit să ajungem la Primăria Blândeşti, să aflăm dacă Burla le-a provocat vreun necaz. Primarul Eugen Ciobanu tocmai terminase de inaugurat un pod, ţinuse o şedinţă şi trecuse la cunoscutul „punct 5” mult aşteptat după fiecare şedinţă în regimul comunist. De inundaţii nici vorbă, aşa că primarul a considerat mai nimerită o inundaţie stomacală cu vin şi ceva tărie. A desfăcut dopul la sticle cu o asemenea dexteritate că l-ar fi invidiat orice ospătar cu pretenţie în meserie. L-am lăsat să-i tihnească şi ne-am dus la iazul Dracşani, punctul cheie de pe întreaga vale a Sitnei.
[…]

http://www.jurnalulbtd.ro/1-Iulie-2010-arhivat-2134

Haos şi incompetenţă în conducerea judeţului

Ioan Rotundu, 02.07.2010
Stihiile naturii s-au dezlănţuit cu o furie greu de anticipat, au luat pe nepregătite atât autorităţile judeţului, pe cele locale dar şi populaţia.

Spre exemplu, la Dorohoi, imediat ce baierele cerului s-au dezlegat deasupra oraşului, nimeni din primăria oraşului n-a prevăzut că după aşa o ploaie torenţială vor urma inundaţii. Nimeni nu s-a gândit să dea alarma celor aflaţi în zonele joase ale oraşului, pentru a se salva şi a-şi salva agoniseala.

Dar nu mă mir de cum s-au derulat evenimentele la Dorohoi, de vreme ce de la nivelul judeţului s-a manifestat o dezorganizare totală. Prefectul fiind plecat în concediu, subprefectul Daniel Moruzi, total lipsit de experienţă în munca de administraţie, a fost copleşit de evenimente. Preşedintele Consiliului Judeţean Botoşani, Mihai Ţâbuleac, a considerat că nu este de datoria sa să se afle în miezul evenimentelor, lăsând totul în seama Prefecturii.

Singurii care au acţionat organizat şi cu o anumită rapiditate au fost pompierii.Dar abundenţa evenimentelor, aria geografică largă în care s-au produs inundaţiile, nu le-a permis nici lor să facă faţă tuturor problemelor din teren. Drama acestor inundaţii a evidenţiat faptul că avem o conducere administrativă incompetentă şi incapabilă să gestioneze astfel de evenimente.

Marea dramă este că incompetenţa lor are drept consecinţă pierderea de vieţi omeneşti, aşa cum s-a întâmplat şi de această dată. În momentul în care au năvălit puhoaiele de apă, oamenii s-au panicat şi n-au ştiut cum să reacţioneze. La Dorohoi au murit înecaţi în casă, la ceas de noapte. Din momentul în care ploaia a trecut şi primele semne ale inundaţiilor au apărut, trebuia să fie prezenţi în zonele fierbinţi oameni instruiţi care să explice populaţiei cum trebuie procedat. Nimic din toate acestea. Abia după ce morţii au devenit cifre statistice s-au alarmat şi autorităţile locale şi judeţene.

Cheltuim bani pe tot felul de şedinţe, de programe de instruire, pe cursuri de specializare atât cu primarii cât şi cu viceprimarii de comune. Numai că cei doi sunt acolo vremelnic, ajunşi pe căi politice. Când ei nu mai sunt aleşi, toată cheltuiala cu instruirea lor devine inutilă. Trebuie instruiţi şi acei funcţionari de la primării care au atribuţiuni pe linie de incendii, inundaţii şi alte calamităţi naturale. Ei trebuie să fie firul roşu al unor astfel de evenimente şi tot ei trebuie să fie cei care să ţină legătura cu omologii lor de la judeţ
S-a mai constatat că populaţia nu este instruită şi pentru situaţii de inundaţii imprevizibile, greu sau imposibil de anticipat. Dacă erau cât de cât informaţi, nu rămâneau peste noapte în casă, când apa venea şuvoaie. Îşi luau buletinul, banii dacă aveau şi eventualele lucruri de preţ, fugind din calea pericolului. Nimeni n-a procedat aşa. Nici măcar informarea primitivă, medievală, cu trasul clopotului în dungă nu s-a folosit.

Recomand autorităţilor judeţului să ia lecţii de organizare de la primarii de pe valea Jijiei. Primarii comunelor Corlăteni, Ungureni, Dângen, Truşeşti, Albeşti au fost tot timpul în legătură telefonică şi s-au informat reciproc asupra nivelului apei şi ce mai trebuie de făcut.. Aceşti primari n-au dormit câteva nopţi, dar şi-au informat sătenii cu ce măsuri trebuie luate, s-au implicat direct în evacuări, au luat măsuri de ajutorare a sinistraţilor. Totul fără ajutor de la „deştepţii” de la judeţ.

Dar şi pe baricada populaţiei s-au petrecut lucruri nefireşti. Marţi, de-a lungul Siretului, multă lume beată privea la apele râului ca la o curiozitate, fără a se gândi cum vor acţiona dacă apele cresc brusc. La Dorohoi, în timp ce pompierii trăgeau la greu de furtunurilor motopompelor, mutându-le de la o casă la alta, liota de oameni inundaţi priveau pasiv la ei, fără a pune mâna. Mai mult, cei cu o ţuică la cap mai dădeau şi ordine unde anume să fie scoasă apa. Nici aşa nu este corect. Nu pompierii şi jandarmii trebuie să ducă greul unor astfel de nenorociri. În primul rând noi trebuie să ne apărăm munca, ei doar să ne ajute.
Neajunsurile semnalate sunt multe. Mai ales în curtea administraţiei judeţului. Măcar de ne-ar fi de învăţătură pentru viitor. Dar nu cred! Părerea mea!

http://www.jurnalulbtd.ro/articol-Editorial-Haos-si-incompetenta-in-conducerea-judetului-15-2135.html

Cei din Dorohoi îşi merită soarta!

Ioan Rotundu, 06.07.2010
[…]
Societatea noastră este încă roabă a mentalităţilor regimului comunist, gândim stângist şi bazat pe ajutorul public, fără să ne întrebăm ai cui bani îi cerem atunci când suntem loviţi de vitregiile naturii. Acei care au comentat plângând pe umărul dorohoienilor inundaţi n-au deloc memorie socială. Cine îi despăgubeşte pe cei cărora le ard casele? Cine plăteşte ratele la bancă pentru soţii care mor în accidentele auto generate de şoselele proaste? Cine ajută familiile care-şi pierd unul dintre soţi în accidente de muncă mortale prin ţările Europei? Dar să exemplificăm cu ce s-a întâmplat la noi. Am văzut dezastrul produs de inundaţiile din judeţul Hunedoara. Mult mai grave decât la Dorohoi. Numai că Antenele lui Voiculescu n-au mediatizat evenimentul pentru că oamenii de acolo nu plâng, pun mâna şi repară ce apele au stricat.

În opinia mea dorohoienii îşi merită soarta. Plătesc acum tributul pentru cei douăzeci de ani postdecembrişti când şi-au ales numai primari social-democraţi, relicve ale comunismului, primari incapabili să ia decizii după mintea şi capul lor şi să scoată municipiul Dorohoi din mocirla în care l-a băgat social-democraţia. Dorohoienii au uitat prea repede că vreme de 12 ani l-au ales primar pe activistul sindical şi comunist totodată Vasile Gherasim, cel care a distrus coloana vertebrală a industriei oraşului, blocând venirea investitorilor străini.

Vreme de 12 ani Gherasim a consumat bugetul Dorohoiului pe ajutoare sociale la aşa-zişii necăjiţi, fără a-i trimite mai întâi la muncă. În 1998 am fost oprit de portarul primăriei să intru la Gherasim pe motiv că-i foarte ocupat. Peste o jumătate de oră a ieşit de la el cinci ţigănci îmbrăcate înflorat, proaspăt întoarse de prin Europa, pline cu bijuterii din aur, gălăgioase şi care veniseră la primar să le înscrie la ajutorul social.
Împărţind bugetul la săraci, Gherasim şi-a asigurat trei mandate consecutive de primar. Când dorohoienii n-au mai putut răbda, l-au schimbat pe Gherasim cu un alt social-democrat, Sergiu Lungu. Iar noul primar s-a apucat de afaceri prospere familiei sale, aşa că a ajuns să fie anchetat de DNA. Ca să scape de dosare s-au refugiat în PDL. N-a făcut nimic pentru oraş, doar a sporit zestrea necazurilor moştenită de la Gherasim. Pe Lungu dorohoienii l-au schimbat tot cu un social-democrat, fost şef în industria socialistă, respectiv la IMUGDP. Dorin Alexandrescu n-a demonstrat veleităţi de bun manager. A contribuit la falimentarea fabricii unde a fost în conducere, n-a excelat un mandat ca viceprimar al oraşului, dar dorohoienii l-au votat pentru că, aşa cum numai social-democraţii ştiu s-o facă, le-a făcut promisiuni tentante.

Are doi ani ca primar şi n-a fost în stare să termine măcar lucrările de pe bulevardul central, o carte de vizită ruşinoasă pentru oraş. Să mai adaug că de pe urma lucrărilor neterminate sau terminate în ani şi ani au profitat mulţi. Şi iar prea repede au uitat dorohoienii că firma Codin a încasat multe miliarde de lei de pe urma lucrărilor la „Bulevardul Gherasim”, lucrare finalizată prost. Unde erau cei de la Serviciul urbanism din Primăria Dorohoi când s-a executat lucrarea? N-au văzut că strada şi trotuarul sunt mai sus decât pragul caselor şi că orice ploaie mai bogată poate provoca inundaţii? Iată că dezastrul s-a produs, dar dorohoienii dau vina pe alţii, nu pe cei pe care ei i-au votat cu o majoritate zdrobitoare.

Cum se poate ca un primar de municipiu să-i spună şefului de stat că el n-a priceput diferenţa dintre Codul galben şi cel roşu şi că n-a ştiut ce are de făcut? Nici o reacţie a dorohoienilor la o astfel de declaraţie extrem de ruşinoasă pentru primarul lor. Aşa că îşi merită soarta pentru că este consecinţa prostiei lor de a vota. Au votat promisiunile şi nu competenţa candidatului. Iată de ce nu pot să le plâng de milă!

http://www.jurnalulbtd.ro/articol-Editorial-Cei-din-Dorohoi-isi-merita-soarta-1-2138.html

asociatia umanista britanica a inregistrat o victorie importanta in numele progresului prin instalarea citorva sute de postere cu mesaj ateist pe autobuze in marea britanie. membrii asociatiei au scapat de arderea pe rug folosindu-se de un paragraf de lege care garanteaza libertatea de expresie in aceasta tara. fapte similare au avut loc in ultimul an in washington si chiar in barcelona.

in schimb, saptamina trecuta in londra au avut loc tentative repetate de tulburare a linistii sufletesti a unor cetateni musulmani; o domnisoara retrograda a fost oprita in ultima clipa in timp ce incerca sa urce intr-un autobuz insotita fiind de un catel care este, dupa cum se stie, un animal necurat. o varianta acceptabila ar fi fost poate, domnisoara fiind catolica, daca ar fi cerut sa fie date jos din autobuz persoanele divortate sau cele care au utilizat anticonceptionale. richard dawkins nu a fost disponibil pentru un comentariu, fiind deja in autobuz.

detalii: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7847571/Is-a-religious-bus-ban-on-my-dog-right.html

José María Aznar – If Israel goes down, we all go down

articolul a aparut in the times (17.06.2010) si a fost preluat de majoritatea mass-media pro-israel; am pus mai jos deschiderea si concluziile articolului, insa merita citit in intregime
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/9401

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel.
[…]
The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

ion iliescu acorda toata atentia problemelor reale ale cetatenilor

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/15/world/evolution-in-europe-romanian-miners-invade-bucharest.html?scp=5&sq=romania&st=nyt

[…]
Although the miners said that they came to Bucharest spontaneously after Mr. Iliescu’s summons, the Government has clearly taken responsibility for them. This afternoon buses arrived at University Square to take the miners to an exhibition hall where they watched the World Cup soccer match before being bused back to the square and then to some location in the city where they were spending the night.
[…]

grupa A: 21:00 americanii au mincat bataie cu 1-0  de la italia (gol giannini, min 11)
grupa B: 17:00 camerun-romania 2-1 (de la noi a inscris balint)
grupa D: 17:00 iugoslavia-columbia 1-0

norocul lui coposu a fost maxim in acea zi: meciul putea fi programat de la 21:00; sau, si mai rau, infringerea se putea sa fi fost programata in seara precedenta, pe 13

reluarea originala aici: https://ddsr.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/14-iunie-1990-o-zi-neagra-pentru-fotbalul-romanesc/

wafa sultan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan) intr-o dezbatere aprinsa pe al-jazeera

este pusa la punct, ea si conducerea postului care a permis o astfel de blasfemie, de catre un cleric, om de televiziune, proprietar de site si intelectual de frunte egiptean, popular in vest pentru vederile sale largi si deosebit de complexe (spre exemplu, este de acord cu reeducarea nevestelor prin bataie, insa recomanda ca bataia sa fie „usoara” si nu peste fata, sustine atacurile sinucigase in israel, insa isi indeamna fratii sa doneze singe pentru victimele de la wtc, etc)

raspunsul wafei sultan, gazduit de aceasta data de o televiziune israeliana; daca ar fi sa dea foc la ceva, palestinienii, ca si conationalii sai, sirienii, ar trebui sa dea foc palatelor si conturilor liderilor lor

david bowie, heroes, concert in berlin

poveste foarte simpla: un barbat si o femeie aflati in berlin, de o parte si de alta a zidului; cintata de aceasta data in fata berlinezilor reuniti, emotia publicului devine coplesitoare

I
I will be king
And you
You will be queen
Though nothing will
Drive them away
We can beat them
Just for one day
We can be Heroes
Just for one day

And you
You can be mean
And I
I’ll drink all the time
‘Cause we’re lovers
And that is a fact
Yes we’re lovers
And that is that

Though nothing
Will keep us together
We could steal time
Just for one day
We can be Heroes
For ever and ever
What d’you say

I
I wish you could swim
Like the dolphins
Like dolphins can swim
Though nothing
Will keep us together
We can beat them
For ever and ever
Oh we can be Heroes
Just for one day

I
I will be king
And you
You will be queen
Though nothing
Will drive them away
We can be Heroes
Just for one day
We can be us
Just for one day

I
I can remember
Standing
By the wall
And the guns
Shot above our heads
And we kissed
As though nothing could fall
And the shame
Was on the other side
Oh we can beat them
For ever and ever
Then we can be Heroes
Just for one day

We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
We can be Heroes
Just for one day
We can be Heroes
We’re nothing
And nothing will help us
Maybe we’re lying
Then you better not stay
But we could be safer
Just for one day