Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Trouble. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Trouble. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 5, 2013

T. Rex trouble: last dinosaur battle continues

  • sue-trex-skeleton

    Two decades ago, a fight over the Tyrannosaurus rex named Sue made headlines. Sue now resides at The Field Museum in Chicago.© The Field Museum

Almost a year ago, headlines proclaiming the sale of a largely complete T. rex-like dinosaur sparked an international custody battle that featured a confrontation at a public auction, a federal seizure of the fossils, charges related to smuggling against Eric Prokopi, the man who attempted to sell them and, finally, his guilty plea.

This case appears to be winding down. Prokopi is awaiting sentencing, and during a ceremony in New York City on Monday, Mongolia the country from which Prokopi admitted he took the ill-gotten fossils will take formal possession of the finds.

This is not the first time a fight over a prize dinosaur grabbed national attention and was followed by a criminal case.

More than 20 years ago, a team led by Peter Larson of the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research discovered and excavated what was at the time the largest and most complete Tyrannosaurus rex specimen ever found. The dinosaur, named Sue after the woman who first spotted its fossils, became the focus of an ownership dispute, which caught the attention of federal prosecutors. [Image Gallery: The Life of Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Sue's story ended at an auction in 1997, where the dinosaur sold for a landmark $8.36 million.

While the two cases share some obvious similarities, Larson expresses no sympathy for Prokopi, the fossil hunter and dealer at the center of the current case, describing it as "something very different from the Sue case."

Tyrannosaurus Sue's saga
Sue and Larson's story began in South Dakota in August 1990, when fossil hunter Sue Hendrickson discovered the T. rex in a cliff on a ranch on the Cheyenne River Sioux reservation.

'People need to make a living. [But] they need to do it legally, whether they agree with the law or not.'

- Peter Larson of the Black Hills Institute of Geological Research

An ownership dispute involving the institute, the rancher and the tribe arose. This caught the attention of the U.S. Attorney's office in South Dakota, which was already investigating allegations the institute had taken fossils from public lands. The National Guard carted Sue away from the Black Hills Institute in Hill City, S.D., prompting an outcry from residents of the town, where the institute planned to establish a museum displaying the dinosaur, according to an account in Steve Fiffer's "Tyrannosaurus Sue" (W.H. Freeman and Company, 2000).

The feds later slapped Larson, his colleagues and the institute with an array of charges related to collecting and selling fossils. None of the charges concerned Sue, and only a handful resulted in convictions. [Image Gallery: Amazing Dinosaur Fossils]

Larson pleaded not guilty, but was convicted of two felonies for customs' violations for failing to report cash and traveler's checks, as well as two misdemeanors, for which he received a two-year prison term. He has since returned to paleontology and the helm of the Black Hills Institute. Larson discusses the legal case and the discovery of Sue and other T. rex specimens in the book "Rex Appeal" (Invisible Cities Press, 2004), co-authored with Kristin Donnan.

In 1997, the auction house Sotheby's sold Sue at a public auction. The sale was unprecedented, and an article in The New York Times contained speculation the specimen would fetch "upward of $1 million." In fact, the dinosaur sold for a total of $8.36 million to The Field Museum in Chicago.

A Mongolian dinosaur in America
Two decades later, Prokopi hoped to capitalize on the high prices that a prehistoric predator could attract. He imported rough, fossilized remains of a Tarbosaurus bataar from a dealer in England, prepared and mounted them. He placed the finished, 8-foot-tall and 24-foot-long Tarbosaurus bataar with Heritage Auctions for an auction scheduled to occur on May 20 last year. (Tarbosaurus was an Asian relative of the North American T. rex.)

News of the sale sparked protest from the Mongolian President, Elbegdorj Tsakhia,who said the specimen had likely been taken illegally from his country, whose laws designate all fossils as state property. Paleontologists supported this claim, saying that all nearly complete Tarbosaurus specimens have been recovered from a rock formation in Mongolia's share of the Gobi Desert. Federal prosecutors seized the Tarbosaurus, Prokopi fought to keep the dinosaur, and prosecutors charged him with crimes related to smuggling the Tarbosaurus and other fossils into the country.

"If you are exporting from a certain country, you should know the laws," Larson said. "It is just a standard thing everybody should do."

Although Mongolian regulations do not allow for the export of fossils excavated within the country's borders, fossils known to come from Mongolia began appearing on the market in the United States at least 10 years ago, Larson said.

In December, Prokopi pleaded guilty to charges related to fossil smuggling. The plea should help stop the plundering of Mongolian fossil sites, Larson said. "And that's a good thing."

Hurting science
These smuggled fossils arrive without crucial information about where they were found, creating problems if paleontologists want to study the remains. For example, researchers, including Larson, disagree on the identity of a small dinosaur sold to an American collector without a known origin.

If excavated in China, the dinosaur may be a miniature ancestor to T. rex and Tarbosaurus, one side argues. Meanwhile, Larson and others say these fossils are more likely to represent a young Tarbosaurus from Mongolia.

"The scientific conclusions are completely different depending on where it is from," Larson said.

Paleontology & capitalism
In a statement Prokopi released in June, he described federal prosecutors' involvement as an effort "to please a foreign government out for a political trophy." Later, in an interview for The New Yorker magazine conducted after his plea, Prokopi emphasized how common Tarbosaurus fossils are and suggested that the finds were exported from Mongolia with the sanction of that country's officials, in spite of its law.

Regardless of Prokopi's defense, both this case and Sue's call attention to the divide between academic and commercial paleontology. Some academics believe the sale of fossils harms science, although museums often acquire specimens from commercial paleontologists.

Prokopi addresses the hostile response that he said news of the Tarbosaurus' sale provoked, writing in his statement: "Do people really think everything they see in a museum was found and prepared by the people that work there? The truth is many spectacular finds in paleontology have been privately funded."

Although he works in the fossil business, Larson straddles the divide to some degree, collaborating with academic paleontologists on research and authoring scientific publications.

"I am a capitalist, too," he said. "I think it's very important. People need to make a living. [But] they need to do it legally, whether they agree with the law or not. If not, it hurts everybody. It hurts the science, it hurts the public who are cheated from not being able to see the specimen.

"[The fossils] deserve respect. They are part of the history of life on the planet, and they are not just something to tear apart because you can," he said.

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

The trouble with presidential libraries

Congratulations to President George W. Bush!

His new presidential library is a tribute to his leadership. But that does lead to a question.

As the fight gets underway to claim the Obama Presidential Library – the University of Hawaii versus the University of Chicago – is the original intent of presidential libraries as archives of an administration’s papers is being lost?

The new reality is that the libraries are a tourist hot spot for a president’s political fans. The original goal was to allow the federal government to keep control of presidential records and as a matter of public trust holding former presidents accountable for their actions.

The libraries are built entirely with private money. And an endowment of private money is also required to help with operational costs. But the bill for managing all of the libraries goes to taxpayers. It is part of the budget of the National Archives and Records Administration. And the libraries’ budgets are the responsibility of the NARA.

As a frequent visitor to presidential libraries to do research for books I can tell you that these sites rarely highlight stories about questionable actions by any president.

In December of 2010 the Congressional Research Service reported that the public-private partnership behind presidential libraries opens the government’s checkbook to being used to glorify ex-presidents. The CRS said it is “unclear” which part of a presidential library and its exhibits are the work of private funders and which part has the imprimatur of the federal government.

As a frequent visitor to presidential libraries to do research for books I can tell you that these sites rarely highlight stories about questionable actions by any president.

And several critics have noted that when the former president or any of his family remains alive they are given tremendous power over controlling the content of the library even as taxpayers pay the bills.

Former presidents can bar documents and even information about controversial incidents from public access for up to 12 years after their presidency. And too many documents remain classified by government agencies, often under pressure from former presidents and their friends.

The result is that presidential libraries are now often “a huge, glitzy, glamorous museum of spin – a giant campaign commercial in museum form,” as Benjamin Hufbauer, the author of ‘Presidential Temples: How Memorial and Libraries Shape Public Memory,’ told the Los Angeles Times this week.

The Bush Library’s curators are sensitive to the growing problem with presidential libraries. They have made a point of letting the public make up their own minds as they offer a fairly straight presentation of the facts of controversial episodes from the decision to go to war in Iraq to the government’s role in Hurricane Katrina.

And then there is the smell of corruption.

President Clinton’s library in Arkansas was built with donations from several foreign governments and corporations, including the government of Saudi Arabia. Some of those donations arrived while he was still in office.

On his last day in the White House President Clinton issued a pardon for a billionaire commodities trader, Marc Rich. Rich’s former wife, Denise, donated $450,000 to the Clinton library. That aroused suspicion that it is possible to buy a presidential pardon.

Rep. John Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) was prompted by the Rich pardon to propose legislation requiring any donation of more than $200 to a presidential library be publicly reported. And Duncan’s bill has punch. 

It makes it a crime for “contributors or fundraising organizations to knowingly and willfully submit false information or omit material information.” Duncan was also concerned about donations from foreign leaders and the potential effect those donations could have on a president’s decisions at a time when the president is least accountable – the end of his or her term.

Rep. Duncan denies that he introduced the bill to embarrass President Clinton. The complete list of donors to the Clinton Library was made public voluntarily but only during Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearings to become secretary of state.

The Duncan bill, a similar version of which was first introduced in 1999, as the Clinton library was being built, has been up for a vote in ’02, ’07, and ’09.

But it has not passed.

The Senate almost approved in 2008 but former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) blocked it because he felt it targeted George W. Bush’s presidential library in Texas.

“I introduced and have supported this legislation under both Democratic and Republican Presidents,” Duncan wrote in a press release last month before the opening of the new Bush library.

The Bush library foundation has promised to release the names of all its donors – unless they requested anonymity.

But the time has come for Congress, the archives and the presidents to take a look at the growth and use of presidential libraries that began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s library in Hyde Park, N.Y.

Juan Williams is a Fox News political analyst. He is the author of several books including "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It" and "Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate."


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 4, 2013

ObamaCare in Trouble? Exchange provision delayed, as lawmakers push to repeal another

Parts of ObamaCare are starting to fray, even before full implementation. 

The Obama administration now says a special system of exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses to provide insurance will be delayed an entire year -- to 2015. 

"Lots of small businesses struggle with providing insurance for their workers so this was supposed to facilitate it and make it easier for small business to do this," said Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "It was a huge portion of the sale job. When they passed the law in 2010 there were many senators and members of Congress who were saying 'I am doing this because it's going to help small businesses.'" 

The exchanges were designed to give workers a range of choices supported by dollars from their employers. But now they will have only one choice until 2015, which could mean they can't shop for insurance that includes their current providers. Capretta said the administration is "way" behind schedule. 

Since insurance is more expensive for small businesses, many of which have no obligation under the law to provide coverage, analysts now fear many might just stop trying and let workers go on the soon-to-be-launched state exchanges. 

Sara Teppema of the Society of Actuaries -- which did an exhaustive study of ObamaCare -- said that "even if it's just a small change of people who are leaving the employment-based insurance and coming into the individual insurance market, their costs and their numbers will overwhelm those who are currently uninsured." 

That means costs would increase. 

Meanwhile, 79 senators including several liberal lawmakers recently voted to repeal a new tax on medical devices contained in the health care law following a similar vote in the House. 

"The House and the Senate agreeing? This is a harmonic convergence, it doesn't happen," said former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh. "But on this it's happened because the adverse consequences to our economy and the quality of health care are so apparent." 

The two separate votes have not become law but show widespread opposition to the 2.3 percent sales tax on medical devices. Critics say the law is unfair to the industry since it's a tax on gross sales -- meaning it adds up to a much bigger percentage of a company's profits. 

But supporters such as Paul Van de Water of the Center for American Progress oppose any repeal. 

"I think that repealing the device tax would be irresponsible. We need the revenue and it's not going to be a job killer," he said. 

The theory was that ObamaCare would insure 30 million more people and that device makers, like pharmaceutical companies, would get lots of new customers and a steady stream of new revenue to make up for the tax. Van de Water predicted that would still happen. 

"These device manufacturers are for the most part going to be getting a large increase in business thanks to health reform, thanks to ObamaCare," he said.  

But the CEO of one company said that's not true for the 7,000 small companies with 400,000 employees who make a wide range of devices. 

Christine Jacobs of Theragenics said: "We make widgets -- hips, knees, stents, pacemakers, and implants, even, for prostate cancer. Those widgets tend to be used by people that are elderly. As the body parts wear out, we're needed." 

But Jacobs notes that most people whose body parts wear out are already on Medicare, so ObamaCare does not provide a new revenue stream for her company -- only financial pain. 

"In the case of a small company, that medical device tax is equal to our R-and-D budget for this year," Jacobs said. 

Bayh said in his own state of Indiana, one company planned to open up to five facilities over the next five years but had to scrap those plans because of the "uncertainty created by this tax." 

Jacobs said the huge multinational device makers might be able to handle the burden but not the small companies. 

"It's just such a disproportionate burden for little guys," she said. "Because we're all being told that it's the little companies that create the jobs. And that's not message that we're getting." 

The tax will even be applied to sutures used on pets that Theragenics developed for the veterinary market. 

She sought FDA approval to demonstrate the quality of her products. But now she said "it's hard for me not to get frosted on this one" -- she explained that whoever wrote the regulations said "if you have FDA approval, you will be taxed."   

President Obama has vowed to veto any repeal of the tax, but Bayh notes that 79 votes in the Senate would be more than enough to override any veto.


View the original article here