Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:52 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Yeah, but Enoch's point was that Rhodes is a minor, marginal, unknown figure. His not knowing she was female actually reinforces his point.
Doh! My bad. Sorry guys.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:56 AM
PuffTentacle PuffTentacle is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Contrary to what Mickey says the arrow of opposition to healthcare reform is not heading upwards, in fact it's just the opposite:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

And there's this poll from Kaiser showing overwhelming support for some aspects of reform: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_hea...iser_91118.php

Not sure why Mickey would misread these polls this way except his usual conservative bias.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:57 AM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

I gather that you didn't read this response to BJKeefe.

Last edited by Bobby G; 09-30-2009 at 01:46 AM.. Reason: Bad mood
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:23 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Mickey, regarding the Polanski apologists argument that the judge reneged after telling Polanski he would not have to serve more jail time:

From an L.A. prosecutor:

"Paragraph 16 of the declaration of Polanski’s lawyer says: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison . . .” The other conditions were that there would be no further hearing, and that Polanski “deport himself.”

Polanski had been sent to prison for a “90-day diagnostic” and had served only 42 days; the 48 days was meant to complete the 90 days.
This allegedly went against a previous in-chambers promise by the judge that the initial 42 days would be all Polanski would serve; however, Polanski did not plead based on the previous promise, which was made after the plea. That previous promise did not induce the plea, and when commentators say the judge “reneged” on a deal they are adopting the language of Polanski’s lawyers, who argue that the judge said he would make his decision after reading the probation department report and listening to the lawyers’ arguments. Instead, Polanski’s lawyers claim, the judge made up his mind before listening to the lawyers. Which, truth be told, judges always do; they just usually put on a better show of listening to us."


It's one thing for idiots like Whoopi Goldberg, Anne Applebaum, Patrick Goldstein (the last two btw are getting slaughtered by their own readers) etc make excuses for Polanski, But the gap between true great thinkers and the faux set exemplified by B-H Levy is breathtaking.

"It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of benefit of clergy. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word “Art,” and everything is O.K.: kicking little girls in the head is O.K. . . . It is also O.K. that Dali should batten on France for years and then scuttle off like rat as soon as France is in danger. So long as you can paint well enough to pass the test, all shall be forgiven you.

One can see how false this is if one extends it to cover ordinary crime. In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear."


George Orwell - Notes On Dali (1944)

hat tip to Volokh
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:26 AM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quoting AEM: You go Salt! I really hope you shout those names as loudly and as often as possible. I don't expect to convince you; but that's about the most tepid (not to say lame) list of scandals as I've ever seen. Bring it on.

Glad you think so. Maybe Americans will just go along with all of it and not even bat an eye. Maybe they'll throw the bums out. Or maybe the USA will disaggregate into a group of independent countries.

Quoting AEM: I think he was confusing categories of evidence in his haste to pwn me with the obvious superiority of his position. He slipped from examples of Obama scandals we should be horrified by to stupid slanders against my side by stupid leftists without really noticing he'd made the transition.

Sorry, didn't realize that I needed to explain that slandering a large portion of the voting public is just as big a scandal as appointing a marxist to restructure the economy or abetting corruption.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:38 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Mickey, regarding the Polanski apologists argument that the judge reneged after telling Polanski he would not have to serve more jail time:

From an L.A. prosecutor:

"Paragraph 16 of the declaration of Polanski’s lawyer says: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: (1) that he serve 48 additional days in prison . . .” The other conditions were that there would be no further hearing, and that Polanski “deport himself.”

Polanski had been sent to prison for a “90-day diagnostic” and had served only 42 days; the 48 days was meant to complete the 90 days.
This allegedly went against a previous in-chambers promise by the judge that the initial 42 days would be all Polanski would serve; however, Polanski did not plead based on the previous promise, which was made after the plea. That previous promise did not induce the plea, and when commentators say the judge “reneged” on a deal they are adopting the language of Polanski’s lawyers, who argue that the judge said he would make his decision after reading the probation department report and listening to the lawyers’ arguments. Instead, Polanski’s lawyers claim, the judge made up his mind before listening to the lawyers. Which, truth be told, judges always do; they just usually put on a better show of listening to us."


It's one thing for idiots like Whoopi Goldberg, Anne Applebaum, Patrick Goldstein (the last two btw are getting slaughtered by their own readers) etc make excuses for Polanski, But the gap between true great thinkers and the faux set exemplified by B-H Levy is breathtaking.

"It will be seen that what the defenders of Dali are claiming is a kind of benefit of clergy. The artist is to be exempt from the moral laws that are binding on ordinary people. Just pronounce the magic word “Art,” and everything is O.K.: kicking little girls in the head is O.K. . . . It is also O.K. that Dali should batten on France for years and then scuttle off like rat as soon as France is in danger. So long as you can paint well enough to pass the test, all shall be forgiven you.

One can see how false this is if one extends it to cover ordinary crime. In an age like our own, when the artist is an altogether exceptional person, he must be allowed a certain amount of irresponsibility, just as a pregnant woman is. Still, no one would say that a pregnant woman should be allowed to commit murder, nor would anyone make such a claim for the artist, however gifted. If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear."


George Orwell - Notes On Dali (1944)

hat tip to Volokh
Disagreeing with you is not, I assure you, a sign of idiocy. I'm ambivalent about the point of doing this now, but Polanski and his supporters expressing shock that a rape charge has resulted in an arrest is over-the-top.

Orwell's palpable dislike for Dali and his work blunts the usefulness of this particular criticism, I think.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:49 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default poor little kidley

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
brendan writes...[...]

President Daddy comes in a new shade but the bots still think ...
Doesn't saying "bots" "think" pretty much undermine your intent? Isn't the image of "bots" supposed to convey a sense of mindlessness and lack of autonomous assessment capability?

Well, no matter. We'll have more to say about your lack of coherence momentarily, I'm sure.

No, wait, before we move on ... What's up with this new "President Daddy" thing of yours? Is this all part of some sort of Oedipal thing with you? I mean, given your well-known fantasies about Sarah Palin, this would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

Anyway, what were you babbling about now?

Quote:
... he's going to ride in to rescue health-care reform, make Iran love Israel and generally punish all those big, bad American corporations and churches that are the root of all evil.
I'm not sure who you're pretending to paraphrase here, but I don't think all of those things and I don't know of any other grownup who does.

I think there's a good chance he'll get something accomplished in the HCR arena. It'll take more spine from the Congressional Dems than they usually show, but I think despite the best efforts of FUD-mongers like you and Glenn Beck, President Obama's enormous personal appeal will carry the day with the public, and enough of them will push enough of their representatives into doing the right thing. And then it will become accepted, and then you'll have to find some other thing besides "death panels" to howl about.

As for "mak[ing] Iran love Israel," I don't share your delusion on this. I don't think Obama has much of a chance of doing anything but keeping things from blowing up in the Middle East, since there are too many people over there committed to avoiding peace. I have reasonable hopes he'll nudge things measurably in the right direction. I'm pretty sure, however, that even in the worst case, he won't fuck things up anywhere near as bad as your hero, George W. Bush, did, or as bad as your other hero, Sarah Palin, would have.

Finally, I am unaware that Obama has any desire to punish corporations and churches, let alone plans to do these things. This sounds like another one of your kitchen sink moments, where you hurl every random thing that winks into your sadly hate-twisted mind. (Kind of like your flailing about with meaningless references to unrelated threads, and sniping at commenters who haven't weighed in on this one.) You're so determined to say bad things about the man that you can't even maintain a glancing relationship with reality, isn't that right?

Why don't you go for one of your little walks that you love to brag about so much? It's clear you're unable stick with a coherent argument right now, even when measured against your usual appallingly low standard.

Quote:
I hope Bob feels better soon.
I think we all know what your supposed good wishes for Bob and this site are worth ...

Quote:
(I thought he was weeping when Mickey told the chopped-up body story) ...
... but thanks for making the paucity crystal clear. I'm not sure what you have against Bob -- is this another daddy thing for you? -- but I guess it's all part of the larger mystery of why you spend so much time on this site when you can't find anything about it to make you happy.

I mean, you've twice deleted all of your posts since the new forum software was installed. I think you should realize that's one half of you telling the other half something fairly significant. Probably you should stop and think about the fact that erasing evidence of past unhappiness is not even curing the symptoms, you know what I mean?

Quote:
... and that you and Jeff find some measure of peace and success that doesn't involve bhtv.
See above for what I think of your good wishes. They're irrelevant in this case, however, since I already have and I'm pretty sure Jeff has, too.

Perhaps someday you will find some peace of your own. (Success seems like a long shot, but who knows.) I think you ought to look elsewhere, though, because you sure don't seem to be achieving it here, unless you want to count fawning from one other misanthrope more heavily than I'd think healthy.

On other hand, I usually suspect that you just slither onto this site to vent your spleen, because you're stuck in some situation elsewhere in your life where you can't find the courage to say what's bothering you. And, probably, because you're so miserable and your coping skills so undeveloped that the only thing you can think to do is try to make others feel as badly as you do.

About that latter: Since you evidently haven't been able to figure this out for yourself, I should tell you that it's not working. Your futile bitterness and impotent rage do, I admit, provide me (and the few others who still bother to read your comments) with an endless source of amusement, but unless you've got a hidden masochistic streak, I don't see how you're ever going to be happy serving as little else besides the equivalent of a cat's chew toy.

Sorry to be so blunt. Take the above for what you're able to. Probably not a lot at the moment, given the sorry state you're in, but if you ever acknowledge your problems and find it within yourself to get some professional help, it may be something worth exploring. As much as I don't like hate-driven bigots such as yourself, I always hate to see a dumb animal suffer, so ... good luck.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 09-30-2009 at 01:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:56 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

I wish I was as all knowing as some of the left here proport to be. Life would have no worries, it would be wine women and song. But then again that can't be true or they would not be here whining and crying foul.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-30-2009, 02:12 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

I was just curious which of the 1,040,000 associated with bush marshal law would you accept?
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-30-2009, 02:55 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
I was just curious which of the 1,040,000 associated with bush marshal law would you accept?
Oh, I do so like when you take on that oily tone, pisc. It's almost as delightful as your metaphors. Happy to see that you still "don't really see discussion as competition," though.

Anyway, to your "question:"

As I've told you before, the first step in your new quest to become "as all knowing as some of the left" is this: don't mistake the number of results Google gives you for a search as much in the way of meaningful evidence, especially when your search terms are not enclosed in quotes and contain very common words. And especially when one of them is misspelled. You might also consider the possibility that some of these entries refer, in effect, to the negative of what you think you're searching for; e.g., posts with the theme, "Don't worry. Bush isn't going to declare martial law." Or "marshal," as you prefer.

Or, to put it another way, searching for elvis presley alive returns 1,530,000 hits, paul mccartney dead returns 2,260,000 hits, and for that matter, how to enlarge penis returns 2,310,000 hits. Any of those numbers make you want to open your wallet? What's that? You already did on number 3? Sorry to hear that, but, as they say, wisdom comes from experience.

Anyway ...

Second, if you want to at least appear "all knowing," you've got to do a little work for yourself. I asked for specific links to major media outlets or prominent, respected blogs, as liberal as you like, that would in any way compare with the right-wing sources I listed for you. Dumping a link to a Google search and expecting someone else to do your research for you won't cut it.

Third, you have to learn how to apply some critical thinking, and not just cop the attitude that "if the computer says so, it must be true." Have a look at page one of your big list o' "results." That the second one (of 1,040,000!!!1!) points to crazyuncleintheattic.blogspot.com pretty much proves my point, doesn't it? If not, consider that other front page -- I say again, front page, as in among the top 10 -- results point to, for example, one of Alex Jones's websites, dailypaul.com, answers.yahoo.com, and a forum entry on Democratic Underground. Let me know if you need details on why a bit of skepticism is in order when considering what's posted at any of these links.

Hope this helps.

Doubt it will.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 09-30-2009 at 03:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-30-2009, 06:17 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Mickey unplugged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Too bad because I was interested in what Bob would say about Polanski.

I loved this quote in the NYT today:

.

Polanski was 44 at the time of the rape.
Wonderment, as much as I respect your opinion and generally agree with you, I have to say that I am more in agreement with B.H. Lévy and other French intellectuals on this issue. Forget about the "youthful" age of Polanski, at the time of his "crime," have you read anything about the circumstances of the case and the trial?

I admit that I knew nothing about it before the arrest of Polanski in Zurich, but if this is an example of American justice at work, I (once again) thank my lucky stars that I live in France.

If you understand French, here is BHL:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xan...ur-de-jeu_news

Last edited by Francoamerican; 09-30-2009 at 07:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-30-2009, 06:32 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I gather that you didn't read this response to BJKeefe.
Bobby,
Please accept my apology for my sarcastic comment. Although we disagree on some things, I do have a very high opinion of you and appreciate your contributions to the forum. As it happens, I have not yet jumped back into that thread since I left it last Thursday. I will try to do so tonight.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-30-2009, 06:37 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffTentacle View Post
Contrary to what Mickey says the arrow of opposition to healthcare reform is not heading upwards, in fact it's just the opposite:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

And there's this poll from Kaiser showing overwhelming support for some aspects of reform: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/us_hea...iser_91118.php

Not sure why Mickey would misread these polls this way except his usual conservative bias.
Thanks for supplying some facts to go with Mickey's rhetoric.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-30-2009, 07:21 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Why the Right is going after ACORN

Rachel Maddow lays it out:

Last week
This week

I'm glad there are still a few voices speaking in defense of an organization that exists to help the most disadvantaged and downtrodden elements of our society. No wonder ACORN is a target: they help poor people.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-30-2009, 07:57 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Disagreeing with you is not, I assure you, a sign of idiocy.
You tripped over your bad logic again.

They are idiots because they wish to issue a pass to man who drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. Not because he didn't do it, but because he's a brilliant artist (I'm a huge fan of his films btw but that is meaningless in regards to his crime.....for me anyways).

Whoppi says it might be rape but it wasn't "rape rape"

Anne Applebaum wrote a defense so ludicrous and error-ridden that her own WaPo readers are flattening her with ridicule.

Patrick Goldstein said that the Polanski case was "full of echoes of Les Miserables" - - he really wrote that - he really compared drugging and raping a 13 year old girl to stealing bread to avoid starvation.

B-H Levy said he was "Apprehended like a common terrorist". (thankfully even the Huffington Post readers are having none of it and are telling Levy he's an (excuse the term) 'idiot'. One reader sums it up about as well as any I've seen:

"Your petition is a roster of hopelessly pathetic elitist apologists sputtering their outrage that one of their own could actually be held accountable like the least among us."

Sorry tobreak it to you Aem, but these people are not only idiots but Grade-A Idiotas.

At least you see a bit of 'over the top' here, there's hope yet!
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:17 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Fact check: French public opinion is running strongly against Polanski. New York Times today:
Merci.

This is not a simple case of American prudishness versus French decadence. (Both are ridiculous cliches to begin with.)

The Polanski Affair is more a transnational dispute between an internationalist coeterie of artistic elites and the great majority of actual, thinking people. That is to say: BHL = Whoopi Goldberg.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:24 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
This is not a simple case of American prudishness versus French decadence. (Both are ridiculous cliches to begin with.)

The Polanski Affair is more a transnational dispute between an internationalist coeterie of artistic elites and the great majority of actual, thinking people. That is to say: BHL = Whoopi Goldberg.
This whole episode where 'actual, thinking people' are standing up to the elites who spit on honest, decent people is a breath of fresh air.......its happening not only in politics but also in Hollywood and HuffPoLand.

And add Harvey Weinstein to the clown car, he said Polanski's offense was a 'so-called crime'.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:25 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
RE: B H Lévy...... "Your petition is a roster of hopelessly pathetic elitist apologists sputtering their outrage that one of their own could actually be held accountable like the least among us."

Sorry tobreak it to you Aem, but these people are not only idiots but Grade-A Idiotas.

At least you see a bit of 'over the top' here, there's hope yet!
The argument of BH Lévy was not that Polanski's status as an artist should exempt him from the law. Some people have made that silly argument, not BHL. His argument was that (1) Polanski's offense occurred over 30 years ago and that in France as in most civilized countries (though not apparently the US...) there is a statute of limitations for all but the most serious crimes. Polanski, being a French citizen should not be handed over to the caprices of a California prosecutor in search of publicity; (2) American justice is, by European standards, excessively punitive and vindictive; (3) the original trial was a travesty of justice conducted by a mentally unbalanced judge; (4) the victim has forgiven Polanski and has called for an end to this Kafkaesque nightmare.

All valid points in my view. But lynch mobs in the US and France are always eager to punish the idols they otherwise adore.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:36 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
His argument was that (1) Polanski's offense occurred over 30 years ago and that in France as in most civilized countries (though not apparently the US...) there is a statute of limitations for all but the most serious crimes. Polanski, being a French citizen should not be handed over to the caprices of a California prosecutor in search of publicity;
A statute of limitations occurs between the time a crime is committed and charges are filed. Polanski had already been charged, and pleaded guilty to rape. Further, there is no statute of limitations on arresting a fugitive from justice! You can't just run away and run out the clock! I would also add that even if the statute of limitations were an issue, the rape of a child would certainly constitute one of the "most serious crimes."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
(2) American justice is, by European standards, excessively punitive and vindictive;
This may be the case as a general rule, but I suggest you actually review what Polanski did. No European country is forgiving to men who rape children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
(3) the original trial was a travesty of justice conducted by a mentally unbalanced judge;
Again, this may be the case, but Polanski admitted his crime and, rather than appeal, FLED THE COUNTY.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
(4) the victim has forgiven Polanski and has called for an end to this Kafkaesque nightmare.
Irrelevant. The criminal justice system does not grind to a halt because the victim (who received a nice settlement) demands it. Laws exists as a basis for civil society, not settling petitions or grudges.

Considering that I live in a country where millions are incarcerated for non-violent offenses, and the state of Texas executed a man who was most likely innocent , the fact that the elites chose to rally around Roman Polanski is more than a little disturbing.

Jeez . . . if only all of those non violent drug users doing 20 years had made Rosemary's Baby, first!

Last edited by nikkibong; 09-30-2009 at 08:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-30-2009, 08:45 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
A statute of limitations occurs between the time a crime is committed and charges are filed. Polanski had already been charged, and pleaded guilty to rape. Further, there is no statute of limitations on arresting a fugitive from justice! You can't just run away and run out the clock! I would also add that even if the statute of limitations were an issue, the rape of a child would certainly constitute one of the "most serious crimes."



This may be the case as a general rule, but I suggest you actually review what Polanski did. No European country is forgiving to men who rape children.



Again, this may be the case, but Polanski admitted his crime and, rather than appeal, FLED THE COUNTY.




Irrelevant. The criminal justice system does not grind to a halt because the victim (who received a nice settlement) demands it. Laws exists as a basis for civil society, not settling petitions or grudges.

Considering that I live in a country where millions are incarcerated for non-violent offenses, and the state of Texas executed a man who was most likely innocent , the fact that the elites chose to rally around Roman Polanski is more than a little disturbing.

Jeez . . . if only all of those non violent drug users doing 20 years had made Rosemary's Baby, first!
French law on the statute of limitations is different. I don't think you know anything about the circumstances of the case, or the trial. And I have no desire to carry on a discussion with you.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 09-30-2009, 09:30 AM
kidneystones
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default LA Times Unpacks President Flip-Flop's Prevarications

LA Times is paying attention:

Quote:
Here's the entire Obama transcript. But notice anything missing here? No more mention of the original 9/11 bad guys, the Taliban. No mention either of defeating them. And no more mention of making it safe for democracy to flourish in Afghanistan.

Through such overlooked omissions are the political goals and measures of American victory in Afghanistan being subtly shifted without any notice or announcement by the Obama administration
President Acorn and his minions don't seem to have much in the way of solutions when it comes to, you know, actually governing. Despite control of the WH and majorities in Congress, he can't do more than shovel tax-dollars to Wall Street buddies while throwing former allies under the bus.

McChrystal curtailed the drone strikes and calls for engaging the Afghans in their own community. Turning the prosecution of a ME war over to the VP instead of the Pentagon didn't work out so well last time round. Bob's the one who should be screaming loudest about the shifting goalposts.

If attacking a potentially nuclear Iran is a bad idea; how smart is it to fire US missiles into a rogue state like Pakistan already armed with nukes?

Sarkozy thinks President Acorn is egotistical and naive.

Last edited by kidneystones; 09-30-2009 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-30-2009, 09:39 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francoamerican View Post
French law on the statute of limitations is different. I don't think you know anything about the circumstances of the case, or the trial. And I have no desire to carry on a discussion with you.
That's your rebuttal?

"You don't know what you are talking about because you don't agree with me, and THAT'S THE LAST WORD"
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-30-2009, 09:48 AM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
That's your rebuttal?

"You don't know what you are talking about because you don't agree with me, and THAT'S THE LAST WORD"
What did you say that I should rebut? I gave my version of what BHL said, which I endorse.

As for the legal question, under the French law of "prescription" (statute of limitations), Polanski could not be punished for an offense committed 30 years ago, even a sexual offense against a minor.

You are free to believe whatever you like about Polanski. I do not condone his actions 30 years ago, but I would suggest that you read something about the case and the trial before assuming that justice will be served by sending a 76-year-old-man, who has in the meantime led an exemplary life, to prison for the rest of his life for something he did in a moment of "égarement."

Last edited by Francoamerican; 09-30-2009 at 09:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
... rule of law in a democratic society means companies abide by the law/policy in place.... they're no justification for a company that actively encourages its customers to find holes in the law....
I don't really have an axe to grind here (not being a multi-millionaire) but your logic is just flawed. What is the difference between "abiding" by the law and "finding holes" in the law? A lawyer would say there is no difference. Who's to judge that the holes aren't there for a reason? The courts can make that judgment, but there is no expectation that citizens or corporations must interpret the intent of the law.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 09-30-2009 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:34 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Point of information: so a French person can commit a crime, be convicted and sentenced, and then flee the country until "prescription" runs out, and then return and live in peace?

Really?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:37 AM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PreppyMcPrepperson View Post
This is basically the same argument made by Reaganites in the '80s--they said it the opposite way, that having lenient taxation for the wealthy would prevent them from taking their money to tax-havens and therefore actually increase total IRS revenues. It didn't work then; it wouldn't work now.
Just like that? You say it didn't work, so it didn't work? I would have a hard time determining what worked and what didn't work during the Reagan years. What I know is that Reagan might have been a tax-cutter but he was also a big-spender and didn't shy away from slapping tariffs on foreign goods.

Also be careful what you wish for: the US is considered by many as a tax-haven and is one of the reasons we have a capital surplus.

Quote:
Moreover this has nothing to do with UBS--you might be able to make a case for lenient tax policy, and I might be able to counter it (see above), but regardless of what policies we like, rule of law in a democratic society means companies abide by the law/policy in place. If they don't like, they make arguments (ie lobby, openly) against it, but they're no justification for a company that actively encourages its customers to find holes in the law to undermine a policy from the margins.
Ah yes the "rule of law", how's that working right now!? GM anyone? The financial bailouts? The rule of law is being violated left and right by govt first and foremost. Maybe a foreign bank that makes it easier for its customers to do business with them is violating some "spirit" of understood law somewhere, I don't know. But this is an old govt trick: if you don't like something make it illegal. That's the great advantage of having a monopoly on the law-making process.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:37 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.
-- http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...lanski_arrest/
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-30-2009, 10:56 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
I disagree with Bob about the world "socialist". So newsmagazines can write "we're all socialists now" but if you do use the word then you're a McCarthy-ist?
I think the word has a pretty precise meaning: someone who favors top-down political solutions.
At times like this, I like to consult the dictionary. I mean, if we can't use the dictionary, what's the point of trying to communicate anything to anyone?
Quote:
Socialism: Theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
I have to agree with you, Unit. It's entirely fair, proper and civilized to characterize someone as promoting, or at least leaning toward, socialism.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-30-2009, 11:05 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: LA Times Unpacks President Flip-Flop's Prevarications

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Quote:
"We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth," President Obama said. What infuriated President Sarkozy was that at the time Mr. Obama said those words, Mr. Obama knew the mullahs in Iran had a secret nuclear weapons development site, and he didn't call them on it.
I can't help pointing out, however, that on the list of countries that shouldn't have nuclear weapons, France ranks pretty high.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-30-2009, 11:06 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
At times like this, I like to consult the dictionary. I mean, if we can't use the dictionary, what's the point of trying to communicate anything to anyone?

I have to agree with you, Unit. It's entirely fair, proper and civilized to characterize someone as promoting, or at least leaning toward, socialism.
While you're at it you might as well call it creeping Stalinism.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-30-2009, 11:48 AM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
What is the difference between "abiding" by the law and "finding holes" in the law? ...there is no expectation that citizens or corporations must interpret the intent of the law.
Of course there's no expectation that citizens or companies should interpret the law. They must follow (abide by) the law as written, but when and if they happen to make an independent judgment that a policy sucks, they have every right to lobby to see that policy changed. What UBS does is actively encourage its clients to find ways to get around (find holes in) the law, in other words to evade laws deemed unsavory rather than openly challenge them. That may not be strictly illegal, but it does violate international norms of corporate responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-30-2009, 11:55 AM
PreppyMcPrepperson PreppyMcPrepperson is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 714
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
Just like that? You say it didn't work, so it didn't work? I would have a hard time determining what worked and what didn't work during the Reagan years...

...Maybe a foreign bank that makes it easier for its customers to do business with them is violating some "spirit" of understood law somewhere, I don't know. But this is an old govt trick: if you don't like something make it illegal. That's the great advantage of having a monopoly on the law-making process.
A couple of things: for some insights on the IRS during the Reagan years, look up Emmanuel Saez, Berkeley economist who works on tax policy.

Secondly, a 'monopoly on the law making process.' What the hell does that mean? Like, we should have competition between different governments to govern the same territory? Competition between different laws within our government? Government is not an economic market--that monopoly language doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:05 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Why the Right is going after ACORN

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Rachel Maddow lays it out:

Last week
This week

I'm glad there are still a few voices speaking in defense of an organization that exists to help the most disadvantaged and downtrodden elements of our society. No wonder ACORN is a target: they help poor people.
Couldn't agree more -- kudos to Rachel for her guts, and thanks to you for the links.

I strongly second the recommendation to everyone else to watch both of these, especially in you're interested in how the right coordinates their campaign of attacks, and how they choose their successive targets. The parallels to the words from some of the conservative commenters in this thread will make you shake your head.

Bonus note: Also in the second video, Rachel interviews Prof. Peter Dreier of Occidental College. Dreier is one of the authors of the study that I mentioned above -- the one that looked at the atrocious job the MSM did in covering the ACORN nontroversy. He gets it right when he says about this coordinated effort by the right to smear ACORN and SEIU: "... it's not about public policy, it's not about misuse of federal funds. It's about destroying the power of ordinary people to have a voice in their society."

Sure, Maddow and Dreier come from an obvious political leaning. But you're not going to hear these perspectives in too many other places, that's for sure, so if you've got an open mind, investing a few minutes in watching these two videos should be well worth your while.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 09-30-2009 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:15 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
You seem to have forgotten to mention Patrick Gaspard the White House Director of Political Affairs. It just keeps getting better and better.
In addition to my earlier response to this, I'll also direct everyone's attention to the second video that Twin linked to, down below.

Both vids are well worth watching but if you're interested in the smear attempts on Gaspard, the second is the place to start.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:31 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default bjkeefe Unpacks kidneystones's Prevarications

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
To be more honest, you should have said that your blockquote comes from a blog post by Andrew Malcolm, which, as low as the LAT has sunk in recent years, is still kind of an inaccurate way to portray this. Malcolm is fairly well known for his leanings and more to the point, for his willingness to play fast and loose with the facts to bolster the views he's pushing. See some critiques of his work, for example, here and here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
President Acorn and his minions ...
What happened to "President Daddy" and his "bots?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/sarkozy-thinks-obama-is-incredibly.htm
If you've sunk to the level of linking with approval to Gateway Pundit, you're really beyond help.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-30-2009, 12:49 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
At times like this, I like to consult the dictionary. I mean, if we can't use the dictionary, what's the point of trying to communicate anything to anyone?
This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so I'll try to keep this short.

To begin, dictionaries these days are, as the saying goes, descriptive, not prescriptive. That means that people who put dictionaries together pride themselves in listing all the ways people have used words, without regard to considerations of accuracy in usage, and should therefore not be considered a source of authority for the correctness of a definition. Especially with a politically loaded term like socialism, you can find pretty much any definition you want. As I have said elsewhere, the OED is like the Bible -- anyone can use it to support his or her argument, no matter where he or she is coming from.

To illustrate with an (admittedly somewhat extreme) example, consider the definition for another term often bandied about for political purpose, given by "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia:"

Quote:
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist, and in Europe even socialistic.
I'm sure there are a few readers cackling approvingly at the above, and I'm also sure you are not one of them.

Point is, it is meaningless at best to say, "THIS IS WHAT SOCIALISM MEANS BECAUSE I FOUND THIS DEFINITION ON DICTIONARY.COM" or whatever.

Besides, just slapping a label on something doesn't really say much of substance, does it? Sure, one often needs a convenient term for purposes of brevity, but really, what is gained by just calling something "socialism?"

As with "liberal," this is almost invariably a tactic used by extreme conservatives and rigid libertarians to demonize some policy idea without having to make any sort of substantive argument. So, use the term socialism if you like, but don't make the mistake in thinking just using it ends the argument.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:10 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
This is kind of a pet peeve of mine, so I'll try to keep this short. To begin, dictionaries these days are, as the saying goes, descriptive, not prescriptive. That means that people who put dictionaries together pride themselves in listing all the ways people have used words, without regard to considerations of accuracy in usage, and should therefore not be considered a source of authority for the correctness of a definition.
That's a serious pet peeve, and I don't dispute your example involving someone's bizarre politically-motivated rewrite of the dictionary. I'm assuming that there are more stable reference sources than that. I'm a bit alarmed that anyone could write "dictionaries these days", as if they were weekly magazines. I sure hope you are wrong about that, even going forward without Safire.

But what if you're right? Go back to my original post -- how is it possible to communicate at all? Where do I go to find your authority for the correctness of a definition?

I say: force people to use words as defined in a standard reference (meaning long-lived) dictionary. It's our only hope. If they misunderstand, or become overheated, too bad for them. There must be pressure to come together on word meanings.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 09-30-2009 at 01:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:13 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Are there really international norms of doing business. Only in a fantasy world somewhere in a different universe.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:17 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

I was going to drop the debate, but thanks, Pisc.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-30-2009, 01:21 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Atonement (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
...

I say: force people to use words as defined in a standard reference (meaning long-lived) dictionary. It's our only hope. If they misunderstand, or become overheated, too bad for them. There must be pressure to come together on word meanings.
How do you do that? And considering the fact that language is conventional and fluid - a system of norms evolving over time with no lasting regard for specific rules or fixed definitions - even if you could find a useful mechanism for enforcement, how helpful would that really be?

(I'm pretty sure you're not making an earnest recommendation; but, still...)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.