We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, March 27. 2015
Nutrients Are Pesticides: The Dose Makes The Poison
Will Amanda Knox Be Dragged Back to Italy in Murder Case?
Law in Italy is not like Anglo-American law
"I played rugby for several years (for Harvard Business School, of all
We don’t expect a biologist to love bacteria in the way we expect an English professor to love Jane Austen.
This person is against space colonialism
To me it signifies a rebellious attitude. If it signifies something else to you, that's not really my problem.
Four (Black) Cops Killed in Seven Days -- Where´s the Outrage?
Cartoonists convicted for insulting Turkey's Erdogan
Law in the middle east is not like Anglo-American law
Tracked: Mar 29, 10:35
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Law in Italy is not like Anglo-American law "
No, but campus law and the law pushed by the federal govenment's department of education is increasingly more like Italian law.
More like law by Kafka with a dash of Dada Surrealism, best appreciated after a bowl or three of the finest product of the Hindu Kush.
No, they are working to implement Roman-like law and law similar to the Napoleonic Code before it was force to incorporate at least some equality before the law to compete with the culture of the English-speaking Peoples.
Almost all legal systems in history, including Roman Law, are based on the assumption that people are born unequal and remain so. Nobles and commoners, men and women, parents and children, free and slaves, all are permanently unequal. It is one of the central features of modern legal systems that this premise of legal inequality is rejected. Many believe that the premise of equal rights and duties was a product of the American or French revolutions. It is quite clear, however, that the idea of legal equality was fully established in England by the thirteenth century and that it was taken first to America, then to France and Europe. It has now come to dominate much of the world.
See if this sounds familiar for the current campus environment:
In the Roman law system of the examining magistrate, a State appointed official is both the interrogator and the judge. He could in the past use torture, he could use informers, he could threaten and lie, he could use all and any means to try to extract ‘the truth’ and when he was satisfied of guilt, he must force a confession – again under torture if necessary. After the confession, in serious cases the person who confessed was burnt, hung drawn and quartered, broken on the wheel or whatever the often extremely harsh punishment was.
And here I was thinking I was commenting about college/DoEd.
BTW, when you get a chance look up the Althing of Iceland and the Serene Republic of San Marino founded in 1650 or thereabouts and still in existence.
How and why England remained what John Baker calls ‘an island of law’ is a large subject. Baker himself gives one of the most succinct accounts of how England resisted status-based Roman Law which swept across the rest of Europe from the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Tocqueville gives an even more concise account. ‘Aided by Roman law and by its interpreters, the kings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries succeeded in founding absolute monarchy on the ruins of the free institutions of the middle ages. The English alone refused to adopt it, and they alone have preserved their independence’.
Why would 15th century law have any bearing here? The big issue is the double jeopardy clause in the extradition treaty with Italy. If there's double jeopardy, extradition would not be allowed, if its not double jeopardy, she'd be extradited.
Given that Italy has a modern judiciary, albeit one with a different procedure than the US where a "final decision" means something different, I think a US court would defer to the Italians.
I don't know what the Italians will decide. Common sense would say to end this mess and never talk about it again. The Italian prosecutor was corrupt, lied about evidence, hid evidence and only prosecuted Amanda for the headlines and because she was American and it made him seem strong to his countrymen. There never was any evidence that Amanda commited the murder, there was never a motive and considering the blatant attempt to railroad her and mistreat her and her family I would think the Italians woud be very wise to end this quietly. Being Italians I assume they will do the opposite.
As for the Americans I think popular opinion will favor Amanda and I also think there would be plenty of legal reasons to not extradite her back to Italy. I think politics will play the big cards in this and that could go either way.
I wasn't there in court, and neither were you, and it is a fact that US courts will give deference to the judiciary of western European countries, notwithstanding the mob mentality of the internet.
Amanda Knox was acquitted. Now how do you spin the "Italian courts are corrupt" claim? Don't get tied in knots.
"Now how do you spin the "Italian courts are corrupt" claim?"
I can only assume that you do not know what you do not know. Yes indeed the Italian prosecutor was corrupt and the police aided him in his corruptness in this case. The police used torture on Amanda and when her family complained the police and prosecutor brought charges against them. Amanda and her family was treated to classic Italian prosecutorial corruptness.
Perhaps it bothers you that I was dissing the Italian judicial system. I could say exactly the same thing about how George Zimmerman was treated by the police, the prosecutor and the state and federal government. Judicial corruptness is not unique to Italy.
right, got it. they're corrupt if they overturn the judgment, they're corrupt if they don't. because, somehow, that makes sense.
this is like warmal colding advocacy, one label, always a way to shorehorn everything into it.
You apparently don't "got it". I said the prosecutor was corrupt. The Italian Supreme court agrees with me.
That 'original' Confederate flag is one of many. I will display it as often as I desire. It is part of my heritage. Since 'THEY" want to flaunt their heritage, I dont think they can complain when we do the same. Why is it ok for them to celebrate their heritage but we cant?
They should learn history before they complain about slaves. The Africans enslaved other Africans and sold them to Dutch ship captains The first African slaves in America were bought by a black guy. The resident of Louisiana who owned the most slaves was a black man.
And the ones who were sold to the traders sailing West were the lucky slaves. Of those sent to the New World, those who landed on the North American Continent were the lucky ones.
Those sold to Arabic/Muslim, who survived the trip to the Northern coast of Africa had short lives and were denied procreation, either by castration (males) or the killing of the outcome of their rapes by the Muslim men.
Those who landed on the islands run by the European powers had short, brutal lives although many did have progeny through being mated with Irish slave women.
Few from Africa were landed on the South American continent or Central America because the large indigenous population enslaved by the Continental European powers meant not needing imports. But the Continentals did ensure that the institutions built into the new culture replicated the feudal institutions of Continental Europe and inequality based on birth, race, religion, sex, etc. And also that no unregulated commerce would be permitted even among the privileged. Thus all roads in Mexico ran to Mexico city and precluded independent trade among cities and provinces.
Re: Raunchy Rugby songs
I played rugby in college for a few years and as the author notes, all rugby teams are proud of their incredibly raunchy song repertoire that they sing around a beer keg chugging beers after the game (the one exception might be a team that was sponsored by Jack Daniels - you just can't chug whiskey so why bother, I guess). If you haven't played rugby, you probably can't imagine how grotesquely crude, vulgar, and offensive the songs are. We loved them! The girlfriends who came to the games would not sing the songs with us, of course, but none ever voiced an objection looking at it as a "boys being boys" thing. Somehow we all survived. I guess people are more "delicate" now...
having not played rugby, but having been in a military barracks, I can tell you that barracks and cadence songs are probably the equal, and I even assume a good deal of overlap in subject matter if not actual songs.
For instance, one of the local favorites included list of amusing ways one might be sent home to parents, ranging from decapitation by rotor blade to being caught inflagrento with a colonel's daughter.
I was never in the military (thank you for your service!), so I can't say with any authority who has the raunchier songs. I don't want to turn this into a contest, but from the little I've heard and from what you've posted, I'd have to say that the rugby songs (always sexual) can be a lot cruder. I won't even repeat here what some are about.
The amateur psychoanalyst in me wants to know why this entire spectrum of PC equine excrement, the trigger warnings, the micro aggression, the listing of totally unrelated words and calling them sexist, racist or homophobic is taken seriously?
These are the tactics of spoiled whining babies. Why aren't they treated accordingly? Why instead are people who are accused of imaginary offenses reduced to abject quivering apology lest they lose their jobs? Or worse, they actually do lose their jobs.
It's outrageous, frustrating an infuriating. Perhaps one day we will collectively grow up?
My feeble mind just does not understand it.
I'd like to see that Texas license plate law drafted to exclude nazi and neo-nazi, white supremacist, KKK and related trash kept off license plates.
But that's content regulation by the government, and that's even worse than any wannabe nazi. So maybe the best solution is to disallow all symbols.