I think this perfectly captures the complexity of Lou Dobbs...

"... and the international [Islamic] conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Polanski did what he agreed to do. But then the judge renigged. And, as I understand it, the actions by the judge in the case bordered on judicial misconduct (beyond renigging on the plea agreement).

Fine, appeal and sue the judge. That's what the legal system is for. Running the country is not part of the legal process. I'm sure Polanski could have afforded an appeal.

I'm also sure he's had plenty of time to come back and face another judge, and yet he has not done so. If it's so clear he should be free on "time served", what stopped him from returning.

I think it's not as simple as you imply. Even if it is, there is process here. Process that you or would have to suffer through if we were in a similar situation.

I don't understand why so many people care that Polanski gets off? What's in it for you? You wouldn't feel the same way if it was some pot smoking creep from down the street?

"The judge agreed to the deal but later planned to renege largely because he was pretty well known to be a media whore."

Fine, then he could appeal his conviction like the rest of those convicted. There is a legal process for this that does not include fleeing the country.

Why do so many people want to see Polanski protected? What's in it for them "psyche"-wise? Why so much love for what is ostensibly just some rich asshole? Granted he makes great movies but...

Maybe he is a "nice guy" outside of raping an innocent child. Then again, maybe James Earl Ray was good to everyone but one poor preacher too.

It's bad enough to hear the B.S. about Iran these days, without throwing Polanski in as well. Just the perfect touch of snark to point out the obvious - he's a rapist, no matter how much we like his movies.

BTW - she sure doesn't look "over 13" here, in this 1977 photo:

http://www.zimbio.com/Samantha+Geimer/articles/6/Samantha+Geimer+Pictures+Photos

I'm not sure Grayson's shtick was ultimately constructive, but I think Salon is trying too hard to be a "serious" newspaper and subsequently being slowly absorbed into the Borg of "he said, she said" reporting.

Alex, you don't need to be "fair and balanced" here. The guy said it like we all want to say it. Screw Congressional decorum - didn't we kick the British asses to get away from that stuff.

Let's all be "shrill". We've been mamby-pambying around this stuff for the last 12 or so years and if you haven't noticed, they've been winning the battle.

Let's here it for someone with a pair on our side, not put them down.

That Krugman read your column!

Somehow when it comes to killing people, there's always a significant portion of the so-called "left" that comes around saying there are "extenuating circumstances". I guess everyone has the instinct to want to exercise our power and kill, just some of us are smart enough to see it's wrong.

Just as Iran doesn't recognize Isreal's right to existence (which, is their, Iran's, right, even if stupid), Israel doesn't recognize Iran's right to a peaceful nuclear program. Iran has not threatened to "wipe out" Israel, but Israel has threatened to destroy Iran's nuclear program.

Even that said, as much as I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes, I find it hard to suggest that they don't have the right to do that either. Frankly no one should have the right, but as long as some do, under what logical consistent legal/moral grounds can we deny it to Iran?

Frankly I wouldn't mind if we just said, "You can't have nuclear weapons because we're bigger and say you can't." It'd be wrong, but it would at least be honest. However to couch it in quasi-legalistic and moralistic terms only furthers double-speak and increases the rift between sides. After all only the huge brainwashed population of the U.S. and some western countries is buying this crap.

Wow, that's pretty on the edge, even for Salon. In this incident, certainly I'd call it rape. In another, provided it's consensual and the daughter is over 18, it's a lot less clear, but it certainly is messed.

Will be interesting to see the comments that follow!

It's just so PC to hate Moore isn't it?

I'm not saying it's a good movie, I haven't seen it, but we show we're "serious" liberals if we denounce Moore don't we?

Moore certainly isn't perfect, but at least he's trying, which is a lot more than most of us (including myself). You can debate his tactics, his ego, and his hubris, but you can't debate that he actually cares.

Maybe the movie wasn't aimed at the converted? Maybe it was aimed at the ones with their heads in the sand?

Focus on health care and getting the base motivated!

This stuff is fun, but I want to see less "fluff" as front page items. Right now we're about to lose the health care debate!

Not sure I can say more. Danged if these aren't looking like scary times...

I ask that because as far I can tell, the vast majority of us have been programmed to reject any solution that doesn't involve "free markets".

It really is a religion complete with dogma and charges of heresy.

You need to get Salon on the "Save the Public Option" bandwagon. Your front page has zero, zip, zilch about the travesty that is coming in the so called "compromise"(d) bill coming out of the Senate.

That's real news, and real politics.

Yep, I'm interested like everyone else about the shared drinks, but time to move on to more important topics!

See nothing in this hand and if you would kindly look this way for a moment...