Wednesday round-up *UPDATED*

Original thoughts have fled my brain.  Still, with others thinking for me, I still perform a public service by passing their writings on to you.  In no particular order, and with more reliance on some sources than on others:

Robert Harris is a talented writer.  I have on my bedside table right now his most recent book, The Ghost, about a ghost writer, which I was able to pick up for $1.29 at Goodwill.  Right now, I don’t think I want to read it.  Why not?  Because Harris proves (again) that talent and morals are often utterly unrelated.  He likes Roman Polanski.  Others like Roman Polanski.  Roman Polanski is really talented.  So it’s just really unfair to pick on him for the fact that, a long time ago, Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old.  Let me repeat that last bit:  he drugged and raped a 13 year old.  We know he did because he’s said he did.  By the way, doesn’t this remind you of Obama’s defense of his own ghost writer, which is that Ayers admitted to crimes that happened so long ago, who really cares?  If your politics are good, all is forgiven.

By the way, on the same subject, when you read this list of Hollywood machers demanding Polanski’s release because it’s so unfair that he thought he could travel abroad safely, only to get himself arersted, ask yourself this question:  How many would be delighted to see Bush or Cheney arrested should they set foot on foreign soil?

Jake Tapper’s one of the good guys — an honest reporter.  Here, he has a very funny report about the reports on Obama’s deviations from truth in his press for ObamaCare.

These two interesting stories are completely unrelated, except that the both use the word “police”:  one is about a suspicious (to say the least) private police force takeover in Montana; the other about the complete collapse of the British constabulary, once one of the finest in the world.

Obama might be more effective in the Middle East peace process if he actually listened to the Palestinians.  Doing so, he’d learn that their number one concern isn’t settlements, it’s the horrors visited upon them by their own government.

More to follow.


See Steve Schippert on the dangerous (and, in a way, lazy) thinking now emerging from Biden’s mouth on the administration’s behalf with regard to Afghanistan.

John Stossel on lies, damn lies and Obama’s statistics.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • binadaat

    Rape is a crime against the state, as well as a civil wrong against the individual. The victim is free not to pursue damages. That is her decision. Where victims refuse to cooperate, it is often difficult or impossible to secure a conviction, but cooperation is not a legal requirement. The state presses charges, not the victim. Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime against the state. It was “People v. Polanski.” The People — in this case represented by the district attorney of Los Angeles — are not putting the whole thing behind them. Rightly so.

    Polanski pleaded guilty assuming he wouldn’t go to prison. I don’t have any idea why a famous director who raped a 13-year-old after plying her with drugs and alcohol would assume that no punishment was in order, but he did. Celebrity justice maybe? Who knows and who cares?

    When reality intervened and it became clear that a judge might well sentence him to time in prison, Polanski did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. He did not await the sentence and then appeal it. Free on bail pending sentencing, he decided to thumb his nose at the American justice system and flee the country. Fleeing from justice violates the “most elementary” principles of our legal system, to quote the misinformed Mr. Temime. It’s every bit as serious as raping a 13-year-old.

  • Ymarsakar

    The thing about Polanski is that this isn’t a done deal until his body cools to room temperature here in the States.

    So long as he remains in somebody else’s custody, overseas, Polansky has not yet been brought to justice.

    Which, I suppose, is why the international pressure. They know they still have a chance, and that this chance would go to near zero if Roman went to a derivation of the Roman Empire.

    Any crime is a crime against the state, for it violates the laws of the state, such laws which protect all of us. Thus the state, in enforcing its laws, must prosecute and seek to ascern the guilt or innocence of accused law breakers. Otherwise, one might as well break the law and never have to worry about it, so long as you kill all the people that might care on way or another.

    The state cannot obtain a guilty sentence, however, if there remains a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Thus this is why if rape victims don’t take the stand and testify, the prosecution may not have a case. In cases of murder, obviously the murdered victim can’t take the stand to defend herself.

    Polansky doesn’t have to care about a guilty sentence or appeals. He pled guilty to lesser charges and then fled the country.

    No government can allow the total contempt for law as shown by Polansky.

  • David Foster

    In confirming the death sentence passed on a writer who had been convicted of being a Nazi collaborator, Charles DeGaulle overrode the pleas of the many Frenchmen who said the man should be spared because of his talent.

    “Talent is a responsibility,” wrote Gen DeGaulle in his decision.

  • Ymarsakar

    The collapse of the British police force is why now more than ever British people need to learn how to defend their own space.

    I wish people weren’t taught to rely upon a police force, which literally can’t be anywhere even if they wanted to. And in britain’s case, they Do Not Want To.

    So there you go. Those are your choices. Let yourself be terrorized. or go do what is necessary to protect yourself, by yourself.

    It is completely pathetic, in more ways than one, that a person would rather kill herself and her child than to take the fight to the enemy. But it isn’t unexpected. The sheep are so well indoctrinated in social controls that they never get this idea of fighting back. They don’t know how to fight back, because even if they did know, they would refuse to think about it.

    It’s verboten. It’s a societal crimson mark and a taboo.

    Breaking taboos is fun and very empowering. Or at least, that’s what Leftist revolutionaries would tell me.

    Don’t rely upon the police, rely upon yourself. You have what it takes to be your own man or woman, the decider of your own fate, and the guarantee of the same.

    When the Left says “we need police to protect ourselves”. Well, yes, pacifists need a violence using power. But I’m not a pacifist. I don’t need the police. Or rather, I only need the police to come in after I’m done, to clean up all these bloodstains and human biological remnants. It’d be bothersome, and perhaps suspicious, if I started cleaning up a crime scene, after all.

  • Ymarsakar

    That should be everywhere, not anywhere.

  • Ymarsakar

    The elitist fantasy and hierarchy which they use to control you is based upon a few things.

    For example, in their view, only ‘proper’ individuals are superior enough to be able to use force and power well. So they invest authority in the police and in politicians, and so forth. You don’t get jack, however. You’re too unstable to be trusted to have a firearm. You’re not part of the right clique, you didn’t go to ther ight schools, and you don’t speak with the proper Blue Blooded accent to be worthy of such power. You are not of the elite, so if you get killed in a fight where your didn’t have the tools you needed for an even chance, well tough nougies on you. As the elites may say, “sucks to be you”.

    Now, besides the elitist manufacture of genetics, eugenics, blood, money, status, “talent”, and so forth, they also have some more physical attributes to utilize to put you in your place. They have something called “smartness”.

    You see, Obama is smart, so what he does is right. The people that oppose him are dumb, so they aren’t right. Of course, you know the logic really works backwards. They aren’t right, therefore they are dumb, and Obama is right, therefore he is smart.

    This is based upon a derivation of blood and genetics. If you have the right genetics, you are an aristocrat, or at least that is how they saw it in olden days. If you didn’t have the right blood, you were a commoner. As simple as that.

    Now in Leftist cant, they value “smartness” rather than strength or speed, but it’s all the same thing. Something you are born with, or a talent that you were born with.

    In a meritocracy, in a Constitutional Republic that is egalitarian, we don’t care about any of that stuff. We don’t care about where you came from, what your genetics are, what your bloodline is or is not, nor do we care about how smart you are as measured by anything but real world performance.

    The ability to defend yourself is not based upon your genes, your citizenship papers, your strength, your size, your speed, your intellect, nor any of these things, including physical handicaps such as blindness, amputation, or lack of the right political and educational credentials.

    It is very egalitarian. Violence doesn’t care who you are. It applies to all equally, just like death, though not taxes. Sure, death comes to some people sooner than others, but it’ll come, eventually. Nobody is immune. That’s the point. Nobody is above another simply because they have money. THey can’t stall off death forever, not even close. Same with violence. With money, you can put up layers of bodyguards, but when violence is really determined to get you, it’ll get you.

    When taken in the criminal context, the least you should expect is 50/50 odds. If your poilticans refuse to give you this, if the police don’t want to give you this, then you need to decide who you are going to obey. The real world of egalitarian physical principles, or the manufactured world of human hierarchy and manipulation, where they keep you in the dark and feed you sh*t, like a mushroom.

  • Charles

    On the Polanski “issue.”

    I wonder where those liberals (and others) asking for his release would be if he were not a famous film director; but, instead were a Roman Catholic (or other denomination) Priest?

    Also, would those who “defend” him by saying that the 13-year old “looked” much older would still have the same attitude if she were an adult woman who was drugged and raped?

    I think we all know the answer to the first one. I am surprised (not really – that’s just an expression nowadays) that Feminists are not outraged that Polanski went free so long.