Cross-posted from Rational Resistance:

LOS ANGELES — In a surprising move arranged by prosecutors in Los Angeles and Washington, the authorities in Switzerland arrested the film director Roman Polanski late Saturday as he arrived at the Zurich airport, paving the way for his possible extradition to the United States in connection with a 32-year-old sex case.

You've heard the news, right? Thirty-two years after he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl, pleaded guilty to the crime, and then skipped out rather than face sentencing, Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland where he faces possible extradition to the United States.

The remarkable thing is how many people seem sympathetic to Polanski and willing to blame his 13-year-old victim.

Here is a summary of 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.

This testimony was the basis of the indictment, and the basis of the plea of guilty that Polanski agreed to, and of the conviction that the court then entered based on the guilty plea.

Polanski's defense seems to be that he didn't think he was going to be treated fairly by the trial judge, so he was apparently justified in fleeing the jurisdiction and spending the next three decades enjoying his career as a film director and the great wealth and acclaim that career bought him.

No. There is no doubt that there was misconduct involving the trial judge, but the defendant has options in such a case. If the court issues a sentence beyond the range of the plea agreement, the defendant can withdraw the plea and go to trial. It's not unusual. Or, if the defendant believes the judge has engaged in misconduct, the defendant can seek to have the judge removed and go before an impartial judge. What he doesn't get to do is decide that since he doesn't think he's going to like the sentence he will just exempt himself from the legal process.

We know the victim wants this dropped, but it's not her call. A criminal charge is brought by the state on behalf of the people, not the victim. The people are entitled to see that the laws are not violated, that crimes do not go unpunished. This would seem to be especially true in the case of child rape.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance:

You know what we learned from The Wire, right? Among other things, we learned a lesson that we seem to need to repeat endlessly: that our cities are neglected, that people are suffering, and that a system that offers them no hope condemns them and their children to poverty, violence, and death.

It is telling that The Wire, the best show in the history of television, never won an Emmy. Maybe it's a little to real for people who prefer to watch undertakers or suburban Mafiosi, or maybe it's just part of the phenomenon it reported on.

Now we have a new series that has been compared to The Wire, but it's a documentary. In five consecutive nights, Brick City documents the struggles of people trying to make Newark, N.J., a better place. The star is undoubtedly Mayor Cory Booker, but the heroes are in every scene, including gang members, ex-felons who have taken to the streets to save Newark's youth, to guys who get out of prison and decide they need to serve their families by making the hard choice to look for a straight job.

 The entire series ran this past week, but it's still playing on the Sundance Channel. You need to watch it.

UPDATE: Dan Barlow is all over this story like white on rice in today’s Times Argus.

Money quotes include:

“That is not what we would recommend,” Moulton-Powden said, when asked about Salmon’s idea. “We think that is too deep of a cut.”

AND:

When asked if he believes that an average Vermonter could live off of $300 a week, Salmon said “no.” But he quickly added that unemployment checks should not be seen as a form of income, but a “lifeline to the next job.”

If you’ve ever been unemployed, you know it’s no picnic. You lose your health insurance, you lose a reason to get up and get out in the morning, and, most of all, you lose most of your income. In Vermont, unemployment benefits, to oversimplify just a little, are 50% of your previous wages, up to a maximum of $425.00 a week. Obviously you can see that if you lost a job that paid you $850, $900, or even $1,000 a week, and suddenly you have to survive on $425, you’re in big trouble. Like trying to figure out whether to pay the house payment or the car payment trouble.

This afternoon Tom Salmon, who, at a minimum, has internalized the values of his new party masters, attended the summer study committee meeting  to evaluate mechanisms to improve the stability of Vermont’s unemployment trust fund, and he talked about benefit levels.

Although he didn’t testify, on his way out he said that not right now, but maybe in a year or so, it might be a good idea to save money by cutting the maximum unemployment benefit from $425 a week down to, oh, $300 a week.*

$300 a week to pay your rent, buy all your groceries, keep your utilities on, keep your car on the road, buy clothes for the kids. $300 a week.

I wasn’t there, but I’m told this didn’t go over that well even among the Republicans on the committee.

Is this the new convert, holier than the Pope phenomenon we’re seeing, or has he just lost it?

It’s almost getting to the point where we have to hope he does run for statewide office, isn’t it?

Oh yeah, one other thing. When every other state employee paid more than  $60,000 was taking a pay cut, Salmon was the only one who didn’t, right?  

*CORRECTION: GMD had earlier heard that Salmon had testified at the hearing. The diary has been corrected to reflect that his statement was not in the context of formal testimony to the committee.

Of the birthers, that is.

She keeps trying, and she keeps getting shot down again and again. This week she got hit twice.

First was the substantive decision on one of her bogus cases challenging Obama’s qualifications to be president. She had filed a complaint in federal court and a request for a preliminary injunction to protect a military doctor from going to Iraq, and the court not only denied the injunction, the court dismissed the case. In a fourteen page decision the judge eviscerates her and her client:

He goes further, and this is very unusual, ordering that

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

I was first admitted to practice in federal court almost thirty years ago, and I know that I would take it seriously if I got an order like this. What does Orly do?

First, she goes out and attacks the judge, his judicial integrity, and his independence. “Somebody should consider trying [the judge] for treason and aiding and abetting this massive fraud known as Barack Hussein Obama.”

“Judge Land is a typical puppet of the regime — just like in the Soviet Union,” she said.

Then, she goes back to the same judge and asks him, pretty please, to change his mind:

Plaintiff avers that there is increasing evidence that the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and, mostly likely, subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested in this case, except that the de facto President is not even nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Article III Judiciary.

Smart litigation tactic? Maybe not.

“It was deja vu all over again.”

Simply, put the motion is frivolous. Moreover, the Court further finds that Plaintiff’s motion is being presented for the improper purpose of using the federal judiciary as a platform to espouse controversial political beliefs rather than as

a legitimate forum for hearing legal claims. Counsel’s conduct violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and sanctions are warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied, and counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the Court should not impose a monetary

penalty of $10,000.00 upon Plaintiff’s counsel for her misconduct.

So what’s the point here? Well, I guess there are a couple.

First is the utter pointlessness of this argument. Nobody with a brain takes this argument seriously. Every judge the claim has been presented to has rejected it in one way or another.

The second may be even more important. Orly Taitz really is the best and the brightest. She is absolutely the smartest thing they’ve got going over in Birther-Land.

I know, reading the Taitz dispatches is like susbsisting on a diet of M&M’s. Not nutritious, they won’t sustain you over the long haul, but it’s hard to not grab that one next M, isn’t it?

From Thursday's Times Argus:

 MONTPELIER – The executive committee of the U-32 school district recently wrote to the Montpelier school board chairman asking to jumpstart consolidation talks and is open to the study of merging the two high schools and perhaps even sharing a superintendent.

This whole argument predates my residence in Montpelier by many years, but as I understand it, when U-32 was being developed the U-32 district towns approached Montpelier to see if they were interested in joining the regional district and Montpelier said no.

Since then, given the physical plant problems in the Montpelier district, there have been proposals floated in Montpelier to approach U-32, but, smarting from the memory of 1967, sternly rebuffed Montpelier's overtures.

The new approach is different. First, it comes from the U-32 board. Second, it comes at a time when the finances of the state education department and the two districts is more constrained than it has been in years. Third, it comes at a time when there is a vacancy in the office of superintendent for Montpelier, following the recent death of Steve Metcalf.

Both my sons went straight through Montpelier's public schools, and graduated from the high school, but the economies of scale and scope that this proposal offers make this an attractive idea.

I hope the two districts can find a way to make this happen.

Now that we’ve had overnight to think about it, what are your reactions to Obama’s speech?

A couple of initial thoughts:

1. Good for him calling the death panel lie exactly what it is.

2. I was glad to see him hold onto the public option. We’ll see how long that lasts, but it’s safe to say he needs pressure.

3. Anyone want to call Republican thug Joe Wilson to tell him he should resign after disrespecting the President, the Congress, and the American people? His number is (202) 225-2452.

4. I’m concerned about his signal that he might be willing to cave in to the insurance companies on tort “reform”. Hint: just because it’s change doesn’t mean it’s reform, especially when the point of that change is to protect wealthy insurance companies from having to compensate horribly injured victims of medical malpractice.

5. On tort liability. Why isn’t anyone but me calling defensive medicine what it is:

the unethical prescribing of unnecessary medical procedures and the fraudulent billing of insurance carriers and the government?

6. Does anyone get what the hell these “insurance exchanges” are?

7. Does anyone see how he’s going to significantly bring down health care costs without getting rid of the parasites–I mean insurance companies?

What are your thoughts?

Can't someone stop this dangerous fanatic?

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Being a member of the reality-based community, I admit that sometimes I don’t cotton onto some of the more bizarre currents of what passes for the intellectual life of the country. This time, however, now that I have caught up with it, really just has to leave you shaking your head in wonder.

Take a look at some of these quotes:

“As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology,”

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

‘This is Marxist propaganda.’

And what’s the socialist message Obama is selling?

During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

But what are the wingers calling it? How about Obama’s ‘Dear Leader’ speech to students

I don’t think this is all about race. Of course, the birther controversy was. There is no chance that the idea would have gotten any traction if his name were O’Hara instead of Obama. Still, it goes beyond Obama’s race, and we know that because we saw it with Clinton, too. We have come to the point where the right wing in America simply denies the legitimacy of any election in which the Democratic candidate wins. When Clinton was elected, Limbaugh started his broadcasts with “America held hostage”, and when Clinton was going to speak at an Army base the wingers speculated about whether he could be protected against the real Americans who did not recognize him as their commander-in-chief. Now, extremists show up at presidential speeches carrying guns and making veiled threats to kill the president.

In short, the American right has decided that constitutional government is not for them, and that they will use any means necessary to ensure that we will have a permanent conservative government.

And they’re the ones who impugn our patriotism?

If you're not already a regular reader of Vermont Newsguy, which we've had in our blogroll for some time now,  you should hop over and read today's post on how Verizon Wireless is cozying up to the climate change deniers.

You may have read about it on Facebook, but VNG has the whole story right here, along with some pointed, and very well-founded, criticism of news bias over at WCAX.

 Good work,, Jon!

PZ Myers refers us to a new report evaluating the states on their approach to teaching evolution in the schools.

Obviously this is important, since you can't understand the rest of biology if you don't understand evolution. 

Vermont does pretty well. If you look at the map you'll see that we're doing way better than  a lot of other states, and those states are mostly no surprise. It shouldn't take more than the experience of the last eight years to tell you that you don't want your kids to be educated in Texas, for instance. In addition, I can't ever remember a big fight over teaching evolution in any Vermont school boards.

But still, we only rank a B. Why not an A? Here's what the report says:

And:

  Column 4: “Human evolution treated?”

 It's true. Here's what the Vermont Frameworks have to say about evolution education at the high school level:

Students demonstrate their understanding of Evolution/Natural
Selection by…
·  Using evidence to apply the theory of natural Selection to a scenario depicting
change within a given population over time/through many generations (e.g.,
bacterial resistance to antibiotics, neck length of the giraffe, animal camouflage).

What do you think? Is it time for Vermont to score an “A” in science education?