andrewducker | Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-1-2009

Entry tags:

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-1-2009

No, I Will Not Molest Your Kids

A reaction to the extreme care some people now take.

(tags: children Child_abuse society)
Marmaduke meets Cthulhu!

(tags: comics funny cthulhu)
An Artificial Heart That Doesn't Beat

"You put this in cattle and they stand up and moo and eat and wonder why everyone is looking at them so weird," says William Cohn, a collaborator on the research and director of minimally invasive surgical technology at the Texas Heart Institute. "You see a cow wagging his tail and you say, wow, this is the future of the artificial heart."

(tags: future technology science biology heart)
French drop Polanski release call

A drop of common sense.

(tags: rape politics France)
Comics Review: Alan Moore & Bill Sienkiewicz, Big Numbers 3

Oh, what I'd pay for a completed Big Numbers.

(tags: comics alan_moore BillSienkiewicz review)
RAF leaflet box kills Afghan girl

Now _that_'s not going to be winning any hearts or minds

(tags: Irony EpicFail afghanistan)
A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies.

(tags: polanski rape EpicFail)
PC tune-up software: less effective than spending the cash on RAM

(tags: software windows memory)
Online advertising overtakes TV advertising in the UK

Now that was unexpected.

(tags: internet advertising tv)

"A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies."

Cute, but no it isn't.

To be slightly less pithy - it's a list of people that object to the arrest of pedophiles, if the arrest happens at a film festival. Or can you see some other way to read the text?

Minor semantic point and I'm not condoning anything, but according to the evidence Roman Polanski is neither legally not clinically a paedophile.

Good point. But then they don't actually mention the crime, they merely say that they object to people being arrested when travelling to film festivals. One wonders if there are any crimes they would want attendees to be arrested for.

Well, I was really just calling foul on your wording, not theirs. I'm not sure what to say about theirs.

I honestly think the whole thing was political maneuvering on Switzerland's part.

I also think that putting a 76 year old man who, as far as we know (and let's be honest, we'd probably at least have heard rumours) has done nothing suspect in the 30 years since the original case, and whose victim has precious little animosity towards him, is bordering on the pointless. But that's because I believe in imprisoning people (a) to keep them from doing harm and (b) to discourage them from reoffending, and neither points really apply here.

That being said, he should never have skipped bail.

That being said, his judge shouldn't have reneged on his plea bargain.

That being said, he should never have been given a bargain that let him off jail time in the first place.

And of course we don't want to encourage child molesters to skip the country, filmmakers or not. Which maybe satisfies point (a) above.

...So I guess what I'm saying is that whatever happens now, to my mind, is a bit pointless and doesn't make anyone involved look good, and as such all the to-ing and fro-ing more bores me than anything else.

Nicely put.

To be honest, the idea of Roman Polanski not ever having been arrested and never facing a court wouldn't bother me.

What bothers me is people saying that he should be set free, having been arrested. I can think of no conceivable reason why he deserves special treatment. Pretty much any emotion is feel is aimed at them, not him.

I know exactly why people want him freed. It's because they expect an example to made if he gets back into a courtroom, and for him to spend the last years of his life in prison, and they his release as the only way out. And I don't know about you, but I think they may well be right.

It wouldn't bother me if they were right. Or, on the other hand, if they were wrong and the original plea bargain was carried out. I have neither sympathy nor malice towards him.

I simply wonder how many of the signatories would be coming out on his side if he wasn't a famous film maker, but a normal fugitive...

I know that I personally would feel the same about any 76 year old man who I reckoned not to be a thread to society who faced jail. But yeah, I doubt there'd be a celebrity petition.

Then again, you weren't particularly up-in-arms about the rash of people who petitioned to have Alan Turing receive an official apology from the UK Gov rather than the thousands of faceless, nameless men who suffered the same tortures and iniquities, were you? Stop press, celebrities get more attention.

*Edit* Although I realise that you're also suggesting that they might have the opposite opinion if it was a normal fugitive, not that they simply wouldn't give it their attention. I'm not even sure on that one - I'd imagine few could say.

Edited 2009-10-01 13:01 (UTC)

I don't have terribly strong feelings about apologies given decades after the fact. I _was_ happy that the apology mentioned that he wasn't alone in being treated terribly, because I don't think that special treatment is great. But I wasn't up in arms on either side in that case. On the othyer hand, having him as a symbol probably helped a lot for publicity, so who knows?

Also:

One wonders if there are any crimes they would want attendees to be arrested for.

...Watching Uwe Boll films?

Punishment enough, one feels :->

I actually got a chance to look this up (didn't want to from work)- and the definitions pretty much all say "One who has sex with children", which he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia#Diagnosis

I was referring to the DSM diagnostic criteria.

My remembering was actually that it was under 13 (ie: 12 and younger) which is apparently slightly wrong (although now that I think about it I think maybe in the UK it's 12 and 13 in the US), so theoretically Polanski could qualify (although these things are by no means cut and dried of course). But there you go anyway.

Edited 2009-10-01 16:38 (UTC)

It's not pithy, it's blithely diminishing an already complex issue. Tilda Swinton doesn't have Eyes Wide Shut rape orgies, nor is Terry Gilliam sitting down to wonder which teenage girls he can rape this week.

As you say, it's a list of people who object to the manner of his arrest. I do too. That's separate from the crime he confessed to.

And where did you get the idea he was a paedophile?

Tilda Swinton doesn't have Eyes Wide Shut rape orgies, nor is Terry Gilliam sitting down to wonder which teenage girls he can rape this week.

Did anyone say they did?

As you say, it's a list of people who object to the manner of his arrest.
Which strikes me as barking mad. Film festivals are suddenly law-free zones???

And sorry, yes - I'd replace "paedophile" with "rapist", but sadly I can't.

"A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies."

I do not think Tilda Swinton and Terry Gilliam are in favor of the rape of 13 year old girls, single or en masse. You do. Right?

I think they're standing up in defense of someone who raped a 13 year old girl, yes. If that's not tacit defense of the act then what is it?

I've already seen Whoopi Goldberg offer the incredibly dumb response that "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape." - which is simply incoherent to me, and does seem to be defending the drugging and rape of a 13 year old as not being sufficiently rape-ish for her to be upset by it. Goodness knows what these other people are thinking.

For some people, rape and responsibility is more complex than either/or.

Furthermore, if I felt there was injustice in the arrest of someone, then pointing out that injustice does not mean I condone the alleged or actual crime.

I opposed the extradition of that hacker last month for similar reasons.

For some people, rape and responsibility is more complex than either/or.

Absolutely. And this is why juries and judges exist, to weigh things up.

I can't understand how his arrest was at all injust, to be honest.

So he lives in Switzerland. Owns property there. But they arrest him at a film festival? Someone is trying to score political points with this.

He mostly lives in France, so far as I can tell, although he was intermittently in Switzerland. Possibly this was the first occasion when they knew when exactly he'd be in Switzerland. Or possibly this is the first time that the US authorities knew exactly when he'd be in Switzerland and so could demand that the Swiss could carry out their side of the extradition treaty. Doesn't really matter to me, to be honest.

Fair enough, but it matters to me for the reason above. And Tilda Swinton, looks like.

Which reason? That it looks like they're doing it for publicity reasons? I can't see who actually wants the publicity out of this, and who benefits from it.

I believe there's an interesting relationship between the Swiss and IRS at the moment and some commenters feel the Swiss has been taking one in the ass from the US government on a number of issues. Even if it's not something so murky, having the filmmaker arrested at a glitzy show is interesting.

I believe there's an interesting relationship between the Swiss and IRS at the moment

Ooooh - that's interesting. Got link?

Here we go:

"It ends a three-year investigation that brought Europe's most powerful bank to its knees, opening up a deep diplomatic rift between the United States and Switzerland."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/19/tax-avoidance-ubs-us-economy

Wow. That's fantastic. Glad the blanket secrecy is finally being broken.

...

Yes, thank goodness for those heroic IRS agents.

You're coming out in favour of the multimillionaires avoiding paying tax?

I'm in favour of tax - and in favour of people who make sure that it gets paid.

Why are you also reducing this to a binary either/or? It makes conversation difficult.

You started off by indicating you were against IRS agents, in a sarcastic tone. Is that not taking a binary position?

And I don't see my (generally) being against secrecy and tax evasion as an immovable position. Having an opinion doesn't mean I can't discuss things or have my mind changed.

I'm not in favor of tax avoidance. But reducing that article to 'fantastic' seems naive. It's a political tool. It's for political reasons. Google up 'swiss' and 'irs' for more commentary if you're interested.

I think that the banks having to be open is fantastic. I'm generally against secrecy. Is there politics at work? Of course! Will there undoubtedly be negative effects? Of course! Is it still fantastic that one of the major bastions of secrecy is now forced to open up its books? Yes!

(All IMHO, of course).

This reminds me a little of the Fred Goodwin 16m pension affair. Everybody (including the PM) was all "Give it back, that's not fair!" and he was all "Life's not fair. This was legal," and everyone was all "Give it back anyway!" and he was all "Can't make me, nyah nyah nyah!"

I can certainly picture the US CJS going "Nyah nyah nyah," can't you?

As opposed to France refusing to hand him over for the last 30 years, and going "Nyah, nyah, nyah" while America said "That's not fair, hand him over!" ?

Well, quite. Although I think the French go something more like "Ne ne ne."

LOL!

You didn't answer this one.

Let's be entirely clear: You're saying I condone child rape, right?

Wrong.

I haven't heard you speak either way about whether child rapists should face trial.

Got an opinion on the matter?

One set of goalposts at a time, please. ;)

I would be happy to have my name on that petition. You're saying that means I condone child rape. Yep?

No, I'm saying that you object to the arrest of a child rapist.

Edit: Actually, he's not been sentenced yet - so he's an alleged child rapist, legally. From the witness reports he seems to be an actual one, provided she wasn't lying, which he's never accused her of.

Edited 2009-10-01 14:07 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely object to this arrest. Colors, mast, nailed.

"A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies."

"I think they're standing up in defense of someone who raped a 13 year old girl, yes. If that's not tacit defense of the act then what is it?"

So does this mean I condone child rape, or is that reserved for celebrities?

The first one wasn't meant seriously.

The second is. But "tacit defense" is not the same as "condone". The first can happen accidentally - it's a side-effect. It was also a question, which I'm still waiting for an answer to...

Apologies! I didn't realise that was a question, rather than rhetorical.

I can oppose the invasion of Iraq without being in favor of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, no? Or be in favor of some pictures of naked 10 year old girls and not child porn, right?

I don't see what those two have to do with this situation - are you saying that this particular case of drugging a 13 year old and then having anal and vaginal sex with her while she said no isn't rape? I'd like to assume that you're not - but I'm not sure what you are saying.

My position on one thing does not affect my position on another. Nuance, dude. Nuance.

My stance on the invasion does not mean I'm happy with Kurds being gassed. Your position on nudes of children in the Tate does not mean you're in favor of child porn. My position on his arrest, which I feel to be wrong, doesn't mean I think he's innocent, or that I'm in favour of child rape.

But if your only defence is "It happened while he was on his way to a film convention" - which was what the petition said, then you're arguing for exceptionalism, which I am against.

Annoyingly the petition now seems to have vanished.

Aha! Found a copy:
It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
...
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

So, because he was on his way to a film festival, and ignorant of the extradition treaty, he shouldn't be arrested? If that's not a feeble argument I don't know what is.

Irrelevant. You're saying if I have a feeble argument, I'm in favor of child rape.

Show me where I said that.

Actually, if you want someone to not be charged for child rape, and your reason for doing so is feeble, then I am very much saying that you are suggesting that we overlook it, or that we excuse it. Which is the very definition of condoning.

And they are saying we should overlook his child rape, with a feeble argument for doing so. So I stand by that.

Hmm.

I'm having a hard time arguing this, partially because it feels like you've started with a position of 'All those who disagree with my position tactitly support child rape'.

So I'm afraid I'll have to bow out. Cool?

One last thing, if that's ok? I think I got caught up in thinking that "condone" meant "support", which it doesn't. I'm clearly a subliterate idiot :-> So I was never saying that people _supported_ child rape, just that in this case they wanted to avoid dealing with the fact that someone was a child rapist. The Whoopi Goldberg example is clearly (to me)one of someone who is trying to defend someone who is a friend, and of good moral character, and is thus tying themselves in knots trying to find a way to be on their side. The other movie people signing the petition felt (again, to me) like a lesser version of that. I don't think they support child rape - I just think that they're wanting to sweep it under the carpet and finding excuses for doing so. Your reason (politics and lack of likelihood of a fair trial) strikes me as much better.

And I'd just like to make it clear that I never thought you had anything but goodwill behind your side of things. And I apologise for some of my tone (not all of it mind you) - I'm not going to back and read things now, but I'm sure some of my stress came out inappropriately.

Ok?

Oh, hey, I know you don't think of me as a child rapist (and there's a sentence I hope isn't easily Googled), any more than I think of you as someone who isn't fair, passionate or decent. Y'fascist. ;)

It *is* hard when someone you like does something you really can't countenance. Wossname from The Thick Of It - but he was on The Muppets!

I'd not really thought about the meaning of 'condone', so I dunno if that was confusing us.

I still, also, don't understand why you object to his arrest. Even if there's politics in the background, does that make him innocent?

His guilt or innocence have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings about his arrest. His crimes or alleged crimes have nothing to do with it either.

I don't believe there were politics in the background. I believe there were politics in the foreground, and so I don't feel justice is being done.

I'm not convinced that justice is being done by not returning him for trial either. In any case I believe that having him stand trial, in the full spotlight so as to ensure transparency, is the correct thing to do.

The petition also doesn't say "There is politics afoot, he will not get a fair trial!", it says "He was going to a film convention, if you start arresting people on their way to film conventions who knows where it will end?" - the first is defensible, the second doesn't seem defensible at all.

Edit: Actually, he's not been sentenced yet - so he's an alleged child rapist, legally.

No, he's not. He pled guilty. That makes him more than "alleged." It's the judgement (Guilty) that confirms guilt, not the sentencing.

Except he didn't plead guilty to rape:

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Also, I don't find it to be a terribly complex issue.
Man commits crime.
Man flees country for one with no extradition agreement.
Man enters country which has extradition agreement.
Man is arrested so that he can be extradited to face trial.

I don't see where the complication lies.

"Paedophile" strikes me as exactly the right word for someone who likes having sex with thirteen-year-olds. She was a child; people who have sex with children are paedophiles. This particular paedophile is also a rapist. Rapists should be jailed, and age does not entitle them to special treatment, particularly when the reason they are being arrested at an advance age is that they fled from justice. The issues are not at all complex, and everyone who signed that petition or is defending those who did should be ashamed of themselves.

Mm, no, not exactly. I find myself, perhaps not surprisingly, disliking people on both sides of this debate.

There do seem to be the usual idiots calling for mob justice.

I can't think of any reason not to return him to actually face sentencing (or trial) and deal with things legally.

No, I Will Not Molest Your Kids

Not a bad article for the most part, but that blog is disgusting. "Nice Guy"? Really. Dear God...

Couldn't agree more. He displays all the hallmarks of a frothing 'feminazi'-basher.

I dunno, May 2003 is pretty hilarious

MY EYE IS LITERALLY TURNING PURPLE WITH RAGE!!!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-1-2009

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject