That's what I said, FOR, not AGAINST.
I don't care how long ago it was. I don't care if the perpetrator is an Oscar Winner, a Nobel Prize Winner, a Medal of Honor recipient, a Medal of Freedom recipient, a Supreme Court Justice, a Senator, a Congressman, a CEO, a janitor.
You rape a 13-year-old-child, you go to jail.
Wait, I'm not being technically correct here - unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor - per the Guardian's technical footnote.
What did Roman Polanski do?
He has admitted he had sex with 13-year-old Samantha Geimer in 1977 after plying her with champagne and Quaaludes at the home of actor Jack Nicholson.
Graphic detail from the transcripts:
A. Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. He put his penis in my butt.
. . . .
Q. Do you know whether he had a climax?
Q. And how do you know that?
A. Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my butt and stuff.
Q. When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your anus?
Q. What does climax mean?
A. That his semen came out.
Q. Do you know what semen is?
Q. Did you see some semen or feel some semen?
A. I felt it.
Q. Where did you feel it?
A. I felt it on the back of my behind and in my underwear when I put them on.
Where was this guy arrested?
Mr. Polanski was taken into custody Saturday evening upon his arrival in Zurich for a film festival, where he was to have received a lifetime-achievement award. Swiss police arrested him at the request of U.S. authorities on a 1978 warrant issued after he became a fugitive.
And a French Foreign minister has the gall to say in USA Today:
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner called the apprehension a "bit sinister. A man of such talent, recognized in the entire world … all this just isn't nice."
French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand told French news media, "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."
Actors have weighed in:
The festival has been “unfairly exploited” to secure Polanski’s arrest over a case that is “all but dead,” said U.S. actress Debra Winger, president of the film event’s jury.
“Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist,” Winger said in a statement read to reporters.
“We hope today this latest order will be dropped,” Winger said. “It is based on a three-decade-old case that is all but dead except for a minor technicality.”
And important people have weighed in on it:
philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who suggested that perhaps the Swiss had more serious criminal matters to attend to than Mr. Polanski, who, he said, “perhaps had committed a youthful error.”
The bureaucrats are hustling on his behalf:
Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, sent a joint letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging U.S. authorities to allow Polanski’s release, she said.
Oh and Harvey Weinstein is all indignant and stuff:
“Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has got behind a campaign by French film-makers calling on US authorities not to extradite the Oscar-winning Polish director in connection with a charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor dating back more than three decades.
“Weinstein entered the fray at the personal behest of Cannes film festival director Thierry Fremaux and will now use his considerable influence and campaigning heft to enlist the support of Hollywood.
“”We’re calling on every film-maker we can to help fix this terrible situation,” Weinstein said, reviving a theme he adopted earlier in the year after he bought international distribution rights at Sundance to the HBO documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.
“The film uncovered flaws in the legal case against the director, prompting Weinstein to allude to a possible campaign to get the charges against Polanski dropped. At a hearing this year a Los Angeles superior court judge agreed there was “substantial misconduct” in the original hearing.
Yes, the now-adult victim wants to drop the charges. It's not her choice, the crime against her was one that the state brought against him.
Dang, I guess 42 days in jail is enough for the drugging, sodomy and rape of a minor - if you're an Oscar winning Director.
What parent in any country would find 42 days an acceptable punishment for the rape of their daughter? What fair and honorable justice system would find this excusable?
Or, are there just two sets of laws, one for those of means, those that are famous, and another for the rest of us?
I guess social justice is only a cause worth fighting for when you're payrolling films like Michael Moore's "Capitalism, a love story."
Bloomberg Link that my php software hates: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aH0td1Cl2qgw
Oh, and feel free to pay attention to this while the story about ACORN workers telling a pair posing as a pimp and whore how they can buy a house, report her occupation as performance art, and list the purported imported child prostitutes as dependants gets shoved under a rock.
So, who's up for making sure that the AP gets no business ever again?
To the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, they AP owes you, and every member of the armed service an apology.
He served honorably and gave his life for his country, and that is how he should be remembered, rather than as a photo op to sell papers.
And all those outlets that had the nerve to reprint including Huffpo - should be ashamed, too.
I was going to title this "Why the Mainstream Media shouldn't be trusted - part 9998"...part 9997 just points to the BBC's malfeasance by making up details based on an old AP stock photo...part 9996 points to Orson Scott Card's clear delineation of good and bad reporting for the election.
Below is the full text of today's editorial - one you won't find on the front page of ANYTHING. Thank you, Baltimore Examiner:
In discussing last week’s fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, many mainstream media journalists were quick to tout a new Pentagon report supposedly proving there was “no connection” between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda. Those journalists were dead wrong. The report actually shows many links between the two, plus abundant other examples of direct support from Saddam for a wide variety of international terrorists.
Credit for correcting the false media stories goes to Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, who noted that the exhaustive review actually showed Saddam’s direct support — funding, training, equipping, arming — for a group called Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was led by bin Laden’s powerful and now-infamous deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
At other times, Saddam directly supported other terrorist organizations that “would work together [with al Qaeda] in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence.” And an official Iraqi document from 1993 reports years of “good relations” with the Afghan Islamic Party of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, for whom Saddam provided financial support. Who is Hekmatyar? He’s the man described by terrorism analyst Peter Bergen as bin Laden’s “alter ego,” who hosted al Qaeda’s terrorist training camps in the eastern part of Afghanistan.
And Hayes reports that one of the two main co-authors of the Pentagon study, a completely independent investigator named James Lacey, himself complained in writing to the Pentagon press office that “the document is being misrepresented” by the media.To judge for yourself, the report can be viewed at
. After the Executive Summary, note the very first sentence of the full report: “Under Saddam, the Iraqi regime used its paramilitary Fedayeen Saddam training camps to train terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq.” Page after page, all taken from internal Iraqi documents, detail direct support from Saddam to terrorist organizations and leaders. One set of documents shows high-level approval for providing support for The Army of Muhammad, which was identified by an Iraqi agent as “an offshoot of bin Laden” and “under the wings of bin Laden.”
In short, the only thing the media reports got right was that the Pentagon study showed no “smoking gun” of Saddam sitting down to dinner with bin Laden to plan 9/11. But there are numerous bull’s-eyes showing Saddam was an energetic supporter of terrorism, including terrorism he knew was carried out by bin Laden’s accomplices. And that was reason enough to sideline Saddam Hussein for good.
I always liked Matt Drudge - but the entire blowing-the-whistle on Prince Harry in combat left a terrible taste in my mouth.
It's almost to the level of leaking security details the way the NYT has done so flippantly over the last several years.
If Drudge is willing to put any unit or regimen engaging in combat duties in greater danger than they already are - regardless of whose nation it is - for a few website hits - he just became a member of the MSM, drive-by media, or tabloid rags.
Yes, Harry's a Royal - but when he serves he places himself in as much danger as the guy next to him.
It's not about conspiracy or censorship - it's about common sense - this is the stuff that puts people's lives - not mere reputations - at risk.
Unless he does something to redeem himself - I'm de-linking Drudge.
I'm not linking to any spoilers and I haven't read them but I always knew Lord Voldemort had death eaters at the New York Times an the Baltimore Sun.
NYTimes printed their book review and so did the Baltimore Sun WITH spoilers or at least lists of who survives which is just as bad in my opinion.
The New York Times said its copy was bought at a store in the city on Wednesday.
The paper's books and theatre editor Rick Lyman said: "It's our policy that once a book has been offered up for sale, it's fair game to be reviewed.
"It's not our business to help book publishers market their books. We tried very, very hard to give away the absolute bare minimum of the plot."
Who instituted this "policy"? Jayson Blair?
On Wednesday, the Baltimore Sun printed a review of the book, saying it had obtained a copy from a relative of one of its reporters who had received it prematurely.
“Opinions should be formed with great caution – and changed with greater” – Josh Billings