Sep
30
Roman Polanski: Convicted and… Convicted
Filed Under Media | Leave a Comment
Via Hot Air, Patterico reports on the Los Angeles Times confusing “accused” with “convicted”:
Excuse me? He is more than merely “accused” of unlawful sex with a minor. He pled guilty to it. And, moving on the teaser on the right for Patrick Goldstein’s piece, it will not cost the L.A. District Attorney (for whom I work but do not speak) much to “prosecute” Polanski — because we don’t have to “prosecute” him. We need only represent the People at the sentencing for the charge to which Polanski pled guilty.
The online version of the article is here. One can expect the minions of liberal Hollywood types making excuses and apologies for Polanski, as covered by CNN. However, like the L.A. Times, the professional media is also more than happy to gloss over what happened. As the CNN article reported:
The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl
Glossing over the serious and largely accepted charges of drugging and rape by writing “investigators say” is weak. Really weak.
To me, the Reuters article by Jason Rhodes takes the cake:
ZURICH/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Roman Polanski, whose work on films like “Chinatown” has often been overshadowed by his tumultuous life, was arrested in Zurich on a 1978 U.S. warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Again, the serious implications of the case are glossed over. Only once, and briefly at that, is the drugging issue raised, and the word “rape” does not appear once in the article. Disgusting.
Kate Harding at Salon takes the proper tone (also via the Hot Air post), reminding us that Roman Polanski Raped A Child:
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). 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.
Harding pretty much sums it up. A certain documentary may have brought some legitimate concerns to light about the original trial, but Polanski didn’t stay to fight. He ran off to Europe, his career in touch. As the Reuters article states, “But after his plea, Polanski fled the United States because he believed a judge might overrule his agreement and put him in jail for years.” He should have been in jail for years. The fact that someone who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old was free this long is an affront to the victim, society, and the rule of law itself.
Sep
28
Vote-Buying on High Speed Tracks
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
In Sunday’s Tampa Tribune, this Ted Jackovics article harped on High Hopes For High-Speed Rail, hoping for a rail line that would connect the two major cities in central Florida, Tampa and Orlando:
TAMPA - As key political factors fall in place, Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando are leading contenders to launch the nation’s first true high-speed rail corridor, with 150 mph trains running by 2014.
On Friday, 40 states will file detailed high-speed rail project applications with the Federal Railroad Administration. In December, President Barack Obama will announce which will get money from the $787 billion federal stimulus plan to generate jobs.
If Florida gets the $2.5 billion it seeks, it will represent a stunning reversal of political fortunes - after 25 years of promise and setbacks - that will provide thousands of new jobs as early as 2011, when construction on the 95-mile Tampa-Orlando segment could begin.
…
Potential drawbacks - including construction and operations costs and how much demand there might be to pay $30 for a 64-minute ride from Tampa to Orlando International Airport - appear to have been relegated to the background.
Why? The prospects of jobs - at a time when it’s common for hundreds of people to vie for a handful of positions.
“High-speed rail will bring an unprecedented number of new jobs to Florida, with the overriding goal of supporting the federal recovery plan,” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, who has participated in several White House discussions on the topic this year.
The fact that a government boondoggle may employ people does not necessarily mean that it will “create jobs,” a fact that escapes the Obama Administration, Rep. Castor, and those who would prefer the landscape and transportation options of Floridians be planned by their superiors. How many jobs are lost when the government diverts dollars away from productive business and into things like high speed rail? Many proponents of such largess tout what a great “investment” such projects are, yet are inexplicably quiet when asked why private capital has not swarmed on such opportunities.
But perhaps “investments” and “jobs” are not the motivating factor behind the billions of dollars in subsidized trips to Disney World that are on queue:
Construction could begin as early as 2011, providing the Obama administration with potential political gains in an important presidential election swing state.
The I-4 corridor, as the inter Tampa-Orlando area is known, is the swing area of one of the major electoral swing states. The fact that President Obama will be trying to buy off the votes of Lakeland, Bartow, and Kissimmee should be disquieting. Many in Florida, and especially at the Trib, are more than happy to take billions of dollars in transportation welfare. However, one would wonder if such cheerleaders will be so supportive when Florida is sufficiently bought and paid for by the Democrat party, and Floridians’ tax dollars are sent to bribe some other state.
Sep
14
Quote Of The Day
Filed Under Liberalism | Leave a Comment
From Warren Meyer’s Coyoteblog, regarding Van Jones:
Apparently, as one of Obama’s 129 czars, this guy whose job it is to redistribute billions of dollars from one group of individuals to another and issue diktats to be followed by private citizens and businesses, is *gasp* a communist. Well, no sh*t. All of these various czars have communist roles so why is it surprising Obama might have picked a communist to hold one of them. The only surprise was that Van Jones was dumb enough to admit it in print rather than hiding it in leftish double-speak like most of the rest of the administration.
Communism in the Obama administration (and the Democrat Party, for that matter) is not a question of presence, but degree.
Regarding Van Jones’ Truther Pledge issue, I think he was screwed no matter what the case actually was. Either he believed George W. Bush was directly responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th, or he doesn’t read what he signs, content that the cause being pushed has something to do with criticizing Republicans. Both are unacceptable.
Sep
11
September 11th
Filed Under Uncategorized | 2 Comments
Writers more eloquent than I will have plenty to say on the 8th anniversary of that horrible day. I’ll keep my comments brief, and say that we should take the time today to not only remember those we lost on 9-11, but the families and friends left behind.
Sep
10
On Rights
Filed Under Civil Liberties | 2 Comments
In a recent column about Western governments’ treatment of terrorists, the incomparable Thomas Sowell writes:
So many “rights” have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don’t meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn’t protect you. If you are not an American citizen, then the rights guaranteed to American citizens do not apply to you.
First of all, let me say that Dr. Sowell is someone who I greatly admire and with whom I agree a great deal. However, the argument above, while in the context of rightly argued condemnation of the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, is misguided when explaining the nature of rights.
The beauty of the American Revolution and the genius of our founding as a nation was the concept of natural, inalienable rights. These rights exist independent of government and its laws. We institute the government to protect these rights against those who would violate them. Therefore, government exists because of our rights, not the other way around.
To say that rights “derive from explicit laws” is to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed the bill of rights when the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was being debated. Many were worried that if amendments were added guaranteeing our right to free spech or due process, that the bill of rights would be viewed as an exhaustive list, and that rights that were not included on such a list could only be granted at the whim of politicians. To assuage such fears, the 9th Amendment was added, which reads:
The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If we are to concede to the viewpoint that rights can only be valid if endorsed by written laws, then the statists will have the authority to trample individual liberty in countless forms. Constitutions like those of the United States were meant to give explicit rights only to governments; that is governments may only do what is permitted to them by the constitution written by free individuals. Individuals (and state and local governments) hold all other rights.
My right to freedom of speech and worship does not come from the 1st Amendment - it is only codified by it. Likewise for my right to bear arms. However, if we are to operate on the assumption that my rights are only derived from what is explicitly stated in the constitution or by statute, then where is my right to trade and commerce with my fellow citizens? My right to donate to the charity of my choosing? My right to have children? My right to freedom of association and movement?
Nonsense. My right to these things are inherent by virtue of my existent. They are “self-evident.” No law can erase them.
Battles over the right to bear arms have largely focused on the wording and intent of the 2nd Amendment. This too is misguided. The right to personal protection is a natural right given by our creator, and exists regardless of what some law or circuit court says.
That is not to say that Dr. Sowell is incorrect in his assertion that Megrahi’s release was a gross miscariage of justice and an offense to the innocent. Nor that enemy combatants should pay, in many cases harshly and swiftly, for their attacks on our country. However, this is because such individuals, like any petty criminal down the street, did indeed have rights, but that by virtue of their actions they lost them. This is the argument conservatives should use that not only keeps Americans safe and our system of justice intact, but preserves our freedom.
If we fall into the trap that the statist has set that government may do whatever it wants, but that the rights of individuals are restricted to what is spelled out by law, then we have already lost the battle against a leviathan government. Where is the explicit right to property? To dissent? There is none. Nor do we need it to know these rights exist.
Sep
7
The Five Questions of Global Warming
Filed Under Environment | 3 Comments
Cap-and-Trade is just one of the many ways in which the federal government will try to be restricting the freedoms of individuals and businesses in the name of fighting global warming (now being conveniently called climate change). Environmentalism was once a fuzzy feel-good plank of the left, however in recent years many such as Thomas Friedman and Van Jones have realized the possibility of using broad public affinity for things like parks and animals as a tool to have government control the economy, and therefore our daily lives.
When debating any issue, the biggest weapon available to someone is that of framing the debate. Too often Republicans like John McCain allow themselves to be sucked into a discourse about global warming where the only subject up for debate is how the government can save the planet. Not only is this poor debating and weak politics, but it completely ignores and sidesteps some very important considerations. Its very hard for conservatives to win a debate about global warming in a culture where the inevitability of ecological Armageddon is seen as a foregone conclusion and all who dare question the orthodoxy of Henry Waxman are seen as flat-earthers. A set of rational questions must be asked of the proponents of government solutions to global warming, none of them at all inflammatory or ludicrous. I believe before we can say “Yes” to any climate legislation, we must also answer “Yes” to each of the following five questions:
- Is the Earth warming?
- Is this due to human activity?
- Would global warming, on the whole, be bad?
- Is prevention a more effective response than adaptation?
- Should government be the one coordinating humanity’s response?
Make no mistake, I am not a scientist or any kind of climate expert. But I am skeptical by nature, and I find the simplicity in which liberals and environmentalists treat something as complex as the global climate appalling. Here are my thoughts on the five questions above:
- Is the Earth warming? - Is the average temperature of the globe warming, cooling, or staying about the same? Is the way in which we’re measuring this objective and not subject to geographic-bias, such as in urban areas with a lot of asphalt?
- Is this due to human activity? - There are far smarter people than I to answer this question. However, it is an important one. Does any warming trend present on Earth coincide with human industrial activity, or is it in line with long term ecological cycles? Have factors like volcanic or other geo-thermal activity been ruled out as a cause? What about solar activity? Is the Earth alone in warming, or are other planets experiencing similar phenomena? Are we confident enough in our knowledge of the global climate and things like the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, the interaction of solar heat and plant life, and the worldwide system of ocean currents to make policy decisions based on such knowledge?
- Would global warming, on the whole, be bad? - If we are entering a period of global warming, it would not be the first time humanity has been subject to significant climate change. There are marks left on the Sphinx of heavy rainfall in a place that is now an arid desert. The human race survived then, and in fact flourished. Currently, there are many places on earth too barren or cold to support the agriculture and industry necessary for human survival. Would any negative effects (i.e. loss of land due to rising sea levels) be greater than any positive affects (i.e. more arable land) of an increased global temperature?
- Is prevention a more effective response than adaptation? - Let us not forget that we already live in a world of severe natural disasters and climate extremes. Yet the chief human response to things like tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes has been not to prevent such things, but to adapt to them. Advances in human knowledge and technology have made buildings more resistant to such events and societies better prepared. Why not apply the same principles to global warming? Is it better to alter the economic and energy policies of the entire earth to combat rising sea levels, or just build a bunch of levees and call it a day? Trade-offs, costs, and benefits must be considerations made when regarding issues so important to the state of humanity.
- Should government be the one coordinating humanity’s response? - Let us say that we have answered “yes” to the five preceding questions, that yes, the planet is warming, yes, it is due to human activity, yes, it is bad, and yes, it would be better to prevent global warming rather than to simply adapt to yet another climate shift. Is government really the entity that should be in charge of something so important and threatening? Or should we have a system built on property rights and personal responsibility to mitigate the dangers posed by global warming?
Human beings live on every continent, under the ocean’s depths, and in outer space. We have met extremely arduous challenges over the relatively brief time we have been on this planet, and managed to not only survive, but thrive. To see global warming as any different, as environmentalists seem to, is not looking at the situation rationally or with perspective. But to look at it simplistically is even worse.
Sep
7
Hiatus Over
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Hello folks. For any regular readers to Zoominac, you’ll have already noticed that I haven’t posted in quite some time. Besides the regular goings-on in life, over the course of my hiatus I:
- Bought a new vehicle,
- Signed a lease for a new apartment,
- Started a new job and,
- Proposed to my girlfriend. She said yes!
So I’ve been a little busy in the past couple of months, but I should be back to a more regular posting schedule again. (Un)Fortunately, the Obama administration’s repeated attempts at expanding government, especially in the field of health care, will give a blogger such as myself plenty of material.
