I agree with this from furtail's first post:

ANY plan that leaves insurance companies in control is a recipe for continued hemorraghing of the American public spending untold billions on waste, fraud, and criminal activity.

Republicans couldn't care less about balancing the budget, or creeping socialism, or anything else, as long as it doesn't threaten the insurance industry's ability to fleece every American citizen out of every last penny before dumping them in bankruptcy court.

The "public option" debate is a complete hoax. Any bill that opens the insurance industry to REAL competition or regulation will be shot down, whether the excuse is socialism, or death panels, or expense, or the possibility that somewhere, somehow, one illegal immigrant might actually get a flu shot on your dime.

The issue isn't whether or not a program adds to the deficit, the issue is whether it will have half a chance at constraining the anticompetitive conduct of the insurance industry. If it does, be assured the wingnuts will find some excuse to shoot it down.

While it's true the public option is a means to an end, it's equally true that opposition to the public option is opposition, not to the means, but to the end: that the insurance industry should no longer run rampant and unchecked in this country. Those who wring their hands over whether the government will drive the private insurers out of business, must in good faith be prepared to accept rigorously enforced regulation of this industry, and that regulation without question is going to stop the practice of sacrificing the consumer for the benefit of the corporate bottom line. Obama should drive home that the end is going to be served, and those who shoot down the public option proposal must be prepared to accept powerful and meaningful regulation instead.

Has anyone ever noticed how the targets of assassination are so often men who are uniquely capable of crossing over to reach others outside their group: both Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Malcolm X who'd stopped demonizing white people and embraced a multiracial Islam?

Don't forget Mahatma Gandhi -- a Hindu who was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist extremist over a perception that he'd been too conciliatory towards Muslims.

I think the more important question is not whether Obama's Republican critics are, in some part, racist -- but whether they're opportunists who are taking full political advantage of pre-existing racism. They do this while saying and doing just enough to personally distance themselves from the "racist" tag.

And, of course, some of Obama's critics (Limbaugh and Beck) actually ARE racists. But let's address the "respectable" public figures, like Sarah Palin. I have no idea whether Sarah Palin is a racist. I just know that she's fanning the flames of racism for political purposes. Same goes for Michelle Bachman.

If somebody is capable of believing that the President of the United States is going to establish death panels and euthanize seniors, to take one particularly noxious example, there's got to be something in their personality profile that leaves them susceptible to this garbage. I'm open to suggestion, but my theory is racism. Public figures who intentionally demur on the issue of whether or not Obama intends to euthanize the elderly, may or may not be racist, but they're taking advantage of racism. Otherwise they'd say "That's absolutely ridiculous. Nothing could be further from the truth." Instead, we see them throw their hands up in despair and plead "Obviously, there are some very deep concerns about this bill ... but it's a thousand pages long! It could say anything! Who knows what's really in there!"

Something has white suburban "social conservatives" capable of crediting information that the rest of us can see quite plainly is a hoax, pure and simple. If somebody is capable of believing that Obama wasn't really born in Hawaii, despite all the proof that has been out there, it's reasonable to question what kind of person could fall for such an obvious hoax.

We all know most mainstream Republicans in the national news are aware that these stories are hoaxes, but the fact that they're not saying so out loud means that they're enabling ... something. We can argue to death over what that "something" might be, but I think at this point racism would explain a lot.

You are overstating the case, when you claim that nobody is concerned with the victim. Everybody is very concerned with this victim, and with other victims, and with past and future victims. Sometimes, you weigh each concern in the balance and the balance is going to have to tip towards protecting future victims.

So next time, maybe some other rich and powerful film director with a foreign passport will think twice about taking advantage of a helpless and drugged child. Some other putative inmate will think twice about taking advantage of his international contacts to skip out on a sentence, rather than staying and working within the system.

The victim's right to retribution comes in the form of a civil suit. Criminal prosecution is for the protection of all of society, and exists to deter not only this rapist, but any other rapists out there.

The issue of deterrence isn't solely about the crime of child rape (as though that isn't reason enough to prosecute Polanski). There's also the crime of skipping out, rather than staying to challenge a bad call by the judge. The victim of the rape needn't be disturbed in any way, if Polanski is to be prosecuted for fleeing the country.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The judge did not accept the plea deal.