Amanda Knox and the new guilty verdict

Amanda Knox was found guilty in a do over by the second highest Italian court.

In the earlier RedBlue blog, I had a good go round on this case with others, particularly with a blogger who believed Knox was guilty.

I have not changed my position on this.
I understand the new guilty verdict was garnered without going into all the evidence from the previous trial.

Knox can appeal to the Italian appeals court, which can take months or years.
This court may simply affirm yesterday's guilty decision.

After that Knox could appeal to the European Court of Justice, which can overturn the guilty verdict.

In any case, Knox should never return to Italy.
And our State Dept. should deny Italy's request for extradition in the future.
Knox has been tried 3 times, and this latest do over would constitute a violation of US double jeopardy guidelines.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/amanda-knox-afraid-of-today-s-court-verdict.html

The buzz among the politico cognoscenti, and talking heads, is the current New York mag. interview with Hillary.

(..In the world of the Clintons, of course, what constitutes

ordinary


and everyday has never been either. So the question was inevitable:
Given who he is, and who she is, does Bill, among their guffaws over the
dogs and stupid movies, harangue her daily about running for president?
….To this, Hillary Rodham Clinton lets loose one of her loud, head-tilted-back laughs. “I don’t think even he
is, you know, focused on that right now,” she says. “Right now, we’re
trying to just have the best time we can have doin’ what we’re doin’.?”

There’s a weightlessness about Hillary Clinton these days.
She’s in midair, launched from the State Department toward … what? For
the first time since 1992, unencumbered by the demands of a national
political campaign or public office, she is saddled only with
expectations about what she’s going to do next. And she is clearly
enjoying it….”
http://nymag.com/news/features/hillary-clinton-2013-9/
***************

The buzz among the politico cognoscenti, and talking heads, is the current New York mag. interview with Hillary.

Her comments are being interpreted as being open to running for POTUS in 2106.

Sure, such comments make good fodder for our 24/7 news media.
But no ambiguous politico plans beyond the next electoral cycle..in this case, 2014.

Will 2016 be a good year for a Dem. POTUS candidate?
How will the stupid party, now morphed into the crazy party (GOP) evolve? Will it become embers in the tea party bonfire? or will it shed its’ extremism, and move toward the middle?

If Obama burns up, and is as unpopular as Bush 2 in 2008, the Dem. POTUS nomination will not be worth it.

And HIllary’s potential candidacy really depends on her, and Bill’s health, and other personal factors.

Should Hillary run, her polarizing role in Bill’s White House years; and her somewhat mediocre tenure as Sec. of State will be major issues.

 

(Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, is leadings the country's delegation at the annual U.N. General Assembly in New York.) **************

3. (Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, is leadings the country's delegation at the annual U.N. General Assembly in New York.)
   **************
   
   And that cuddly curmudgeon Newt Gingrich says the POTUS, any US Pres., should only meet with a head of state if there is an agreement to sign, or a treaty to ok. A extemporaneous meet-up would not meet that standard.
   
   Newt, the historian, surely recalls the JFK and Khrushchev meeting in Vienna in Summer 1961.
   There was little to originally agree to, except a possible Laos neutrality agreement.
   Otherwise, Kh. ranted to the young new POTUS , giving a long tirade on how communism would "bury" capitalism; and how he would sign a separate agreement with East Germany/East Berlin that would block the West from access to W. Berlin.
   
   After a day of the rambling tirade, JFK had to get a shot from Dr. Feelgood; a concoction of speed and vitamins.
   
   After two days, JFK put a hat on over his face, sat down, and told James Reston,NYT, how it was the worse two days of his life.
   
   Well, that wouldn't happen with Obama and Rouhani....different time, different personalities.
   
   So what would be wrong with meeting informally?
   It would not require a duel press meet after the meeting, but would signal a potential break threw in bringing Iran back into the international community.
   
   Iran is hurting, economically, with the hard-hitting sanctions.
   Rouhani, with the apparent concurrence of the Allotaha, seems to want a new beginning in relationships.
   
   Israel is opposed; and the Israeli lobby in DC is very influential.
   
   Is Rouhani lying in saying Iran does not want a nuke military weapon?
   
   Can Israel, alone, conduct a quick strike on Iran's nuke facilities, as it did in Syria a couple of years ago?
   
   It would not be the same walk in the park for Israel.
   
   Diplomacy is the path to follow; peace is the goal that is necessary.
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/iran-un-talks_n_3981107.html

   
   

    

Is there no sense of decency anywhere nowadays?

(MIAMI — Diana Nyad's 110-mile swim from Cuba to Florida has generated positive publicity and adoration for the 64-year-old endurance athlete — along with skepticism from some members of the small community of marathon swimmers who are questioning whether she accomplished the feat honestly.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/diana-nyad-swim-cuba-florida-questioned-article-1.1449150#ixzz2eV4fxtoP)
**********

Is there no sense of decency anywhere nowadays?

Is the level of competition in sports at a level that a 64-yr. old lady can't get the plaudits she apparently deserves.

I don't hear that Cuban exiles in Miami are challenging her bona fides.

How many of these exiles would have gladly swam from Castro's Cuba to Miami, without jellyfish protection

A second senior official, who has seen the most recent planning, offered this metaphor to describe such a strike: If Assad is eating Cheerios, we're going to take away his spoon and give him a fork. Will that degrade his ability to eat Cheerios? Yes. Will it deter him? Maybe. But he'll still be able to eat Cheerios..."

(..The strike, as envisioned, would be limited in the number of targets and done within a day or two. It could be completed in one fell swoop with missiles, said one senior official familiar with the weapons involved. A smaller, follow-on strike could be launched if targets aren't sufficiently damaged.

A second senior official, who has seen the most recent planning, offered this metaphor to describe such a strike: If Assad is eating Cheerios, we're going to take away his spoon and give him a fork. Will that degrade his ability to eat Cheerios? Yes. Will it deter him? Maybe. But he'll still be able to eat Cheerios..."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/08/syria-tomahawk-missiles-chemical-weapons/2770949/
**********

I'm a supporter of small, locally owned businesses.
A capitalist who can think globally, but buy locally.

So I'm always skeptical of the large, primary sector corporations; and their 24/7 marketing imprints.

Are Cheerios still owned by Kellogg? and is Kellogg owned by General Mills?
CherriOats was the original name for Cheerios, according to the wikipedia.
And who wasn't imprinted with the Cheerio breakfast brand?
Not eating Cheerios was like missing Howdy Doody.

Now, the issue here seems to be that the US military spokesperson assumes Assad eats Cheerios.
Now isn't that the height of consumer , multinational corporate imperialism?
**********
On a more serious note, the Charlie Rose interview with Assad was informative; and useful.
As of this morning, there is talk, movement to see if Assad, Syria, will agree to give up its' chemical wmds.
I would like to see this.

We are all Martians..

"We are all Martians.

That’s the astonishing claim from a biochemist who says he has evidence that essential ingredients for life originated on Mars and made the journey to Earth aboard a meteor.

“The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock,” said Steven Benner of The Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in Gainesville, Fla...."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/says_blood_runs_red_earth_life_was_YfOcqv4iJbTCSqSC4sB5gO
**************

Are you kidding me?
We left the red planet; settled on Earth; and made civilization.
Our descendents came here from Mars on a rock?
Well, that may explain why we have unending wars everywhere;climate change; the sectarian blood feuds between the Shiites and Sunnis; private cars that dominate our lives, and destroy everything in its' path; floods; wild fires; and Miley Cyrus.

Perhaps there can be a reverse trip. Perhaps our Miley Cyruses can be put inside a rock-like meteorite and sent to the Red Planet, one way of course.

What would be our goal in attacking Syria? Retribution for the immoral chemical attack? Overthrow of Assad" Just what is our goal when we do this?

“..Now there’s an unholy alliance pushing for attacks on Syria. We have liberal zealots, such as our UN ambassador, Samantha Power, who believe that our military’s primary purpose is to protect people who hate America. We have a few Republican senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who support any war, any time. We have a president who thinks that, “Gee, maybe, well, gosh, I said I’d do something, so maybe I should...” And we have elements in the defense industry who long for a return to our free-spending years in Iraq and Afghanistan and view a war in Syria as a great way to beat the sequester.
And the one thing every member of that bomb-Syria-now coalition has in common? Not one will have to fight….”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_third_war_wouSScjkNB1FutCDpAU2cN?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=OpedColumnists
I seldom agree with the NY Post’s editorial and op.ed. pages, but Ralph Peters’ column this morning is a good read, and an important statement on the impending air strikes by the US, and Britain.
Chemical weapon use against civilians is barbaric; and it is a moral issue. It should be condemned by all civilized countries and its’ leaders.
It should be condemned by the UN, in spite of the expected opposition of the Russians and likely Chinese to higher level sanctions against Syria.
But Peters opposition to the coming strikes is based on real politick.
The strikes will toughen Assad’s resistence. They will be opposed by Iran, Iraq, and Russia. Russia has a warm water port in Damascus, the only one available to the Russians.
Assad is a despicable tyrant; and should be replaced. But he has military superiority in the civil war.
He is also the current head of a nation. The bombing of Syrian military sites by us is an act of war. While it is a quaint notion, our Constitution requires a Congressional declaration of war or approval of executive war actions within a short period of weeks after military action is commenced.