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.
Why is it okay to withhold food and water from a person who has no terminal medical condition, but whose quality of life is presumably so terrible, they wouldn't want to live - Terri Schiavo - and only religious kooks want to keep her alive (so says the media) but it's unconscionable to withhold chemo - which is, by definition, a painful, slow poison that fights cancer but makes people wish they were dead, from a child in your care. Neither of these people can make these sorts of decisions for themselves - one can't communicate, the other a minor.
Either way, keep someone "useless" alive, or willfully neglecting the welfare of a child, blame religion.
Where is a family's "right to privacy" as guaranteed by Roe in the case of this missing child?
Double standard, much?
So, I wanted to know exactly who the Weathermen killed during the years as terrorists.
Wiki doesn't exactly list casualties, unless they were members of the group itself.
I googled: "killed by the weathermen"
First result: Answers.yahoo.com
This question has been deleted
Link on Cached Q&A: http://policelink.com/news/63202-weather-underground-honoring-the-cops-they-killed
Goes to: "Sorry, the requested article is no longer available"
Right about now I was getting the eerie feeling that someone from the Ministry of Truth was messing with me.
It seems the myth that "No one was ever killed by Weathermen except their own members" myth is rife on the internet as it seems to be the talking point of any commentary where the Weathermen leader Bill Ayers intersects with our President. My paranoia is not necessarily unwarranted, as it seems Google is sandbagging for Obama, but chose not to for the "miserable failure" googlebomb that was oh-so-much-fun in '04. Methinks someone in Google wants some say in who gets that promised "Chief Technology Officer of the United States" position.
Comment found on abc:
"Nobody was hurt" by the Weathermen..?
A Brinks truck security guard in Nyack, NY was killed by the Weathermen.
One man was killed and another injured in a March 1970 bombing in the Lower East Side attributed to the Weathermen.
And 3 members of the Weather Underground themselves were killed on West 11th Street in Manhattan on March 9, 1970 when the bomb they were building prematurely exploded. They intended to bomb an Officer's Dance at Ft. Dix, NJ. Dustin Hoffman's townhouse was damaged beyond repair in that explosion.
A judge's son remains to tell the story of his family's home being bombed by the Weathermen, ironically he is about the same age as our President. Not that we should care what Bill Ayers was doing when Obama was 8 - not like another 8-year-old was fearing for his life because of what Ayers was up to...all those long years ago before he was so politely talking about education reform and serving coffee to an grown up politician who would become a president.
But the NYT admits:
Most of the bombs the Weathermen were blamed for had been placed to do only property damage, a fact Mr. Ayers emphasizes in his memoir. But a 1970 pipe bomb in San Francisco attributed to the group killed one police officer and severely hurt another. An accidental 1970 explosion in a Greenwich Village town house basement killed three radicals; survivors later said they had been making nail bombs to detonate at a military dance at Fort Dix in New Jersey. And in 1981, in an armed robbery of a Brinks armored truck in Nanuet, N.Y., that involved Weather Underground members including Kathy Boudin nand David Gilbert, two police officers and a Brinks guard were killed.
Whoever is offering this man a deal on making his life story into a graphic novel, needs to send any and all profit to the victim's surviving relatives.
The blast, which at
the time was described by police officials,
as the “loudest and deadliest”
detonated in San Francisco in recent
memory caused Officers Doherty and
Buckner to suffer hearing impairment
and shock. Sergeant Kotta was
knocked to the floor of the assembly
room unconscious. Officer Fogarty
had suffered multiple severe wounds
on his face, cheek and legs from the
flying fragments and glass. Officers
O’Sullivan and Rath were also injured
by the flying pieces of debris.
Sergeant McDonnell caught the full
force of the flying shrapnel, which
consisted of heavy metal staples and
lead bullets. As other officers tried
rendering aid to the fallen sergeant,
they could see that he sustained a
severed neck artery wound and severe
wounds to his eyes and neck. He was
transported to San Francisco General
Hospital, where doctors attempted
valiantly to save his life. Two days
later, Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell
succumbed to his injuries and died on
February 18, 1970.
Sergeant Edward O'Grady and Officer Waverly Brown were shot and killed by heavily armed members of a domestic terrorist group, the Weather Underground, who had just robbed a bank and were attempting to escape. The suspects had just murdered an armored car guard and wounded two other guards before loading themselves into the back of a rental truck to be driven away by accomplices. The truck was stopped at a roadblock manned by several Nyack officers.
One of the female occupants in the cab of the truck told the officers their guns were making her nervous. Thinking they had stopped the wrong truck, the officers began to holster their weapons. Almost immediately afterwards several of the heavily armed men exited the back of the truck and opened fire with automatic weapons, fatally wounding Officer Brown and Sergeant O'Grady. The suspects fled the scene in different directions but were all eventually apprehended and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. One of the suspects was paroled in August 2003.
Police Officer Waverly Brown- the first black police officer hired by Nyack.
Also - tht Brinks security guard, Peter Paige, who I couldn't find much information on.
Ironically, there is a woman on parole out there who was involved in the crime that took three lives. How did she get out? The race card!
In her parole hearing, Boudin -- a veteran of the terrorist Weather Underground -- claimed that she participated in the robbery because she felt guilty for being white. She told the commissioners she believed the crime would help 'oppressed' black people and advance the cause of 'civil rights'. The two black parole commissioners have not explained their rationale for releasing this self-styled revolutionary terrorist, but the transcript of Boudin' s parole hearing strongly suggests that they believed her sob story, and agreed that Boudin's white guilt and desire to help black people absolved her of her crimes.
According to the August 23rd New York Times, the commissioners kept finishing Boudin's sentences and summarizing her testimony for her. Daizzee Booey sympathetically suggested that Boudin take her experiences and 'write a book'. Booey's other questions revealed more about her than Boudin; for instance, Booey asked the killer whether she got involved in the robbery because "she felt she had not done anything to validate her commitment to civil rights." Given this leading (and ridiculous) question, Boudin only had to reply "yes, I do think that's right" to tell the commissioner what she wanted to hear.
In the end, the commissioners were so impressed by Boudin's eagerness to help blacks by robbing armored cars, they excused her complicity in a crime that left three men dead and nine children without fathers. Would the commissioners have been so sympathetic if Boudin had been aiding a group of white criminals? Not likely. In addition to being credulous fools, the two commissioners were evidently racist as well.
Remember them before you think well of Bill Ayers.
::Note took out the more tag this evening, as I realized folks weren't clicking it::
On March 21 Pastor Bo spoke before a Delaware Senate committee hearing on Senate Bill 5. That bill would provide funding for embryonic stem cell research, including the making of human clones. Here are his comments:
LET US LIVE!
Thank you for the privilege of speaking to you. Thank you for your patience.
This hearing concerns life and death. I'd like to begin with a remark about death. Immediately following death, most of the cells in the body are still alive, and for a time... they continue to function normally. But a collection of living cells does not constitute a living organism.
We define a living organism by its ability to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. Human embryos are human beings precisely because they possess this single defining feature of life - the ability to function as an integrated whole - not by the mere presence of living human cells.
This definition of life does not depend on religious believe or subjective judgement. All of us on both sides of this issue are pleading with you on behalf of human life.
By disposition and experience I cannot hear without emotion the stories of human suffering we have heard in this chamber today. I don't ever want our political passions to blunt the reality of this suffering in my soul.
But who speaks for these two-, four-, or eight-celled human lives whose stem cells SB 5 prizes so highly? For a moment I'd like to try.
They would say to Delaware lawmakers, "Give us a chance at life. We are now what all of you once were. Put us in our mothers' wombs, and watch what we can do. We would delight proud parents. We'd like to play in the surf at Rehoboth Beach. We would graduate from Cape Henlopen or Delcastle or Sallies. Can't you see us cheering Blue Hen football, serving our country in uniform, saying, "I do," farming, teaching, homemaking? A few of us might become state legislators. Let us live. We are not laboratory mice."
Whether they are begotten in the natural course of things or in a Petrie dish, we should welcome these smallest of human beings in life and protect them in law.
Legislation that funds embryonic stem cell research, including somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), enables and supports the destruction of human beings and it is based on a scientifically flawed understanding of what constitutes a human being.
Please do not pass this bill. Thank you.
Saturday, March 31, will mark the two-year anniversary of my sister Terri Schiavo's death by dehydration. Not a day passes that my family does not think of my sister and relive the horrific images of her needless and brutal death at the hands of those who deliberately set out to kill her.
As hideous as it was, the truth is, long before Terri's case made headlines, the removal of basic care – food and water – was becoming commonplace. It continues to happen every day across our country oftentimes in cases, like Terri's, where the patient does not suffer from any life-threatening condition.
Much of the problem that exists stems from a blind acceptance of misinformation that has moved us from a firm belief in the sanctity of life to a "quality of life" mindset, which says that some lives are not worth living.
This shift, what I call lethal bigotry, began with the medical community, has infiltrated our judiciary and is taking over our nation. People are making decisions in place of God, while even many Catholic leaders remain silent despite the Church's teaching and the pope's constant reminders that God alone is the arbiter of life and death.
The sad fact is we have become a nation that spends billions trying to find the perfect body, while ignoring the condition of our collective soul; where altruism seems to be a thing of the past, and moral relativism has become a bona fide religion.
Combined with a popular media selling the notion that killing people in certain conditions is an act of compassion, one can understand why people with disabilities are in danger.
My sister's case is a perfect example. Look how the popular media presented Terri's story, abandoning any attempt at objective or ethical reporting in their rush to justify her death. In an effort to dehumanize Terri, they repeatedly reported she was in a coma, brain dead, a "vegetable" and that the autopsy proved she was in a persistent vegetative state, all of which are patently false.
All one has to do is watch the videos of Terri to see how alive she was. If that's not enough, more than 40 medical affidavits stated Terri wasn't in PVS and/or could have been helped with new medical technology.
The media chose to ignore all of this, instead reporting what Terri wasn't able to do and referencing a doctor who took pride in the moniker, "Dr. Humane Death."
They painted a story of a husband's unconditional love as he carried out his wife's "wish" to die, completely ignoring the fact that there was no evidence of this and that Michael essentially abandoned Terri as soon as he began living with his new wife-to-be.
They framed this as a strictly pro-life issue, ignoring the 30 disability groups publicly supporting Terri's life.
They quoted Catholic priests who agreed with her "husband's" position, despite the fact this was completely contrary to Catholic teaching.
Completely unaware of their own hypocrisy, they commended Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana, and rightly so, for her dedication in caring for her husband, while vilifying my parents for wanting to do the same thing for their daughter.
In the same vein, they repeatedly questioned the intent of our legal team while glossing over the fact that Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, admitted in his book to having violent images of bludgeoning his wife to death.
They chastised former Gov. Jeb Bush for doing his job by trying to stop the two-week dehydration death of an innocent disabled woman, but praised him when he placed a moratorium on death row executions after a lethal injection went 15 minutes too long.
They justify the destruction of embryos to produce stem cells (ignoring both the success of adult stem cells and that embryonic cells have produced no cures), reporting that their use will improve the lives of the disabled, and at the same time they work to convince the public that it is OK to kill the very same people they say this research could cure.
And, finally, they paid more respect to and had more compassion for a racehorse than they did my sister.
To this day, every story in which a person emerges from a condition similar to Terri's, or an advance is found to help the severely brain-injured, is an opportunity for the media to remind us that, of course, "this is nothing like the case of Terri Schiavo."
Should we be surprised with what is happening when we have so easily bought into what our popular media is promoting? Or that even people like Bill O'Reilly, who claim to be both conservative and Catholic, can be so ignorant on this issue as to raise the idea that if someone "costs" taxpayers too much money, it should be OK to kill them?
This is the same propaganda used by the medical community in Nazi Germany immediately prior to the Holocaust when hospitals were used to kill at least 200,000 handicapped, mentally ill and others who were deemed physically or mentally inferior.
Unfortunately, I don't know if people realize how the mainstream media influences their everyday lives, or the scope of what is happening in our hospitals. Perhaps, more accurately, they just don't care.
With tens of thousand in conditions similar to and even worse than Terri's, we should be alarmed. While many would prefer not to educate themselves on this issue, the cold reality is that one day this "quality of life" approach could very well impact their families, as it did ours.
We will never forget Terri.
This is why, in the years since Terri's death, we have worked, through the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to protect the lives of the vulnerable. We are developing a nationwide network of attorneys and physicians to help families in desperate situations, whose loved ones are in danger of being killed � for the simple reason that they don't meet some arbitrary and subjective "quality of life" standard. We will continue fighting against those that threaten the lives of the disabled, until all are protected.
Terri and others like her should be a constant reminder to all of us that caring for the disabled is never a burden, but is instead an act God's unconditional love.
I have and always will believe that human life is intrinsically sacred because it is human, if for no other reason.
I don't think that granting or denying "personhood" is something a judge or court can do as it is truly not within their power to do so. Life and personhood is granted by the Creator.
Upon greater consideration of Mr. Schindler's words, I can't imagine denying humanity or personhood based arbitrarily upon brain function. I can't imagine the adults and children I work with at Special Olympics being denied what doctors determined to be extreme medical treatment, known to the rest of us as food and water, because they cannot feed themselves. I can't imagine stroke victims, Parkinson's patients, ALS sufferers, epileptics, autistic, bi-polar, hemispherectomy patients, or brain-injured veterans being summarily dismissed as non-persons based on an arbitrary quality of life standard due to their brain function.
I realize that Terri Schiavo was a unique case, and a very polarizing one.
What does it say about us as a nation when a human worth is determined arbitrarily by a third party?
Because your family does not see worth in your continued existence, your life has no worth. Because your continued existence is an undue financial burden, you have no worth. Because you cannot feed yourself, you have no worth. Because you are physically imperfect, you have no worth. Because you cause inconvenience or social stigma, you have no worth. Because you are no longer of any use, you have no worth. Because you yourself no longer believe you have worth, it is so. Because the government finds you a burden, you have no worth.
There aren't words to describe how destructive this line of reasoning is when applied to the lives of the innocent.
How many of us or our loved ones would pass if this standard was applied?
“Opinions should be formed with great caution – and changed with greater” – Josh Billings