Alarming News

September 29, 2009

Yes, he did make Chinatown

If you’re not sure of the details of the Roman Polanski story, this provides an excellent overview.

Posted by Karol at 12:09 PM |
Technorati Tags:
Comments

I am completely shocked and disturbed by all the support this piece of shit is getting.

Posted by: VinNay at September 29, 2009 at 2:31 pm

It’s crazy! I admit to having some sympathy for him; his parents were both killed in the Holocaust and his pregnant wife was murdered by the Manson family, but how does any of that excuse his raping a child!? And he pled guilty!

Posted by: Karol at September 29, 2009 at 2:37 pm

I seem to get some sort of body rash when I agree with the conservatives over at Salon. But in this case, oh how I do. {scratch, scratch}

Posted by: Rebecca at September 29, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I’m not aware that Salon has any conservative writers.

Posted by: Karol at September 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm

It’s a pity, Karol, that you don’t read Russian p or I’d give you links to mind-blowing conversations which I (regretfully) participated yesterday and half into last night.
And these people consider themselves on the Right!
On the second thought – no, it’s a blessing. The baby wouldn’t approve you reading all that crap.

Posted by: Tatyana at September 29, 2009 at 5:56 pm

I just generally don’t like Salon, find them a tad right leaning for my Canadian sensibilities. Truth be told, yours is the only conservative website I ever go to.
Just trying to understand ‘the other side’, because if I’m going to get it from Fox News, I’m gonna puke.
Do you watch Fox? Do you respect it? I’m just trying to get a grasp on how intelligent, non-Christian conservatives actually think, the whole thing alludes me.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 29, 2009 at 8:36 pm

The Smoking Gun had the transcripts of the original court testimony — I have no idea how anyone could read them (regarding conduct to which he admitted) and still support the guy.

Posted by: Alceste at September 30, 2009 at 10:16 am

Rebecca finds Salon to be too right wing.
That’s classic.
By the way, Rebecca, the word you wanted to use is “elude”—not “allude.”
Is properly using words one of those “Canadian sensibilities” you were alluding to ?
Don’t be elusive…tell us !
Ha, ha, ha. :)

Posted by: IamTheWalrus at September 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Ouch.
Never meant for this to get personal.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 1, 2009 at 9:52 am

Walrus, I thought I was nit-picky. :)

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 1, 2009 at 10:33 am

Ha, ha, ha, Rebecca, you chose to make it personal when you wrote disparaging remarks about conservatives, questioning our “intelligence.”
You signed the check, and I cashed it. :)
It’s amusing when lefties play the “stupid” card against conservatives…especially when they goof on word definitions when they’re telling us we’re the stupid ones.
(Jon Stewart roll of the eyes.)
If you’d rather debate policies or ideas, I’m game.

Posted by: IamTheWalrus at October 1, 2009 at 2:36 pm

From where I sit, conservatives are bringing shotguns into townhall meetings and suggesting that a federally regulated health care system would include death panels. I am also assuming that this does not represent what intelligent, rational right leaning people believe, so I was asking.
If the concept of actually asking when you don’t understand something ELUDES you then I pity you. It was never personal, reread my entry, and pretty please excuse my EGREGIOUS gramatical error.

Posted by: Rebecca at October 1, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Perry and Walrus; two of the reasons why this site is so quiet.

Posted by: Norm Deplume at October 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Rebecca, I re-read your initial comments, and you didn’t ask us to assert or defend a particular policy or an idea—you merely asked how we can actually watch Fox News (which makes you “puke,”) and you took a jab at our general intelligence.
So, I merely pushed back.
If you believe Salon is a little right of center, then perhaps your political equilibrium is different from most people.
If you genuinely wish to have a dialogue about ObamaCare, I’m game.
Please assert the case for a federal take-over of health care, and I’ll respond to your points. :)

Posted by: IamTheWalrus at October 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Fair enough, I wasn’t specific in my initial post, but I certainly did not intend to be hurtful.
We move on, Canada-US relations return to their previous peaceful state.
Ok, so here we go on that bag-o-worms called healthcare.
So here in Canuckistan we pay higher income taxes than you, and in return we have Universal Healthcare. Meaning, there is no fee whatsoever when you go to the family doctor, there may be incidental fees for hospital stays (covered in your private extended health benefits from your employer, should you be lucky enough to have this), but all treatment and care is covered.
There are definite problems with wait times, an issue openly discussed in politics/media etc and they are improving. ie. if you need an MRI for a non-emergency (example knee injury from sports etc) then you may wait up to 8 weeks, if you need an MRI emergency (head injury type thing) then it is done immediately.
Our care for children is impeccable.
You can pick your doctor, no rules on that, so long as they are taking patients.
The system is far from perfect, but you are never denied treatment or coverage, doctors never prescribe treatment to make a buck (they all bill at the max annually)and there is no fancy pants CEO making a buck off my illness.
So, with all of that, why is your system better?

Posted by: Rebecca at October 1, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Haven’t checked into this thread in a few days but, Rebecca, Salon is considered very left-leaning in the US.
I’ll leave it to someone else to argue the fine points of the healthcare debate.

Posted by: Karol at October 1, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Norm:

Perry and Walrus; two of the reasons why this site is so quiet.

If you’re going to make a point, make one that’s strong enough to be defended.
After all, if you’ve already reasoned through your beliefs, it should be no problem to defend them, would you not agree?
Rebecca:

So here in Canuckistan we pay higher income taxes than you, and in return we have Universal Healthcare.

We’ve already been through health care. I ask you this: if your system is so great, why do so many of you come down here rather than wait months in line? (Oops, I seem to have given you the answer. Can you find it?)

there may be incidental fees for hospital stays

Oh? I had never heard about this. I thought your system was perfect and COMPLETELY FREE!

if you need an MRI for a non-emergency (example knee injury from sports etc)

So I should be especially glad to live in the U.S., having blown out my knee last year?

you are never denied treatment or coverage,

As I said in the other thread, and I’ll find the link later so you can peruse what we’ve already covered, in your system it’s “free” if you can wait long enough.
In our system, it’s whether you can afford to pay.
Guess what: I prefer it here, because at least I have influence over how much I earn. I don’t have influence over bureaucracy that tells me when I can come in.
The other system is preferred by others who, by definition, are not paying for the services they receive. They want health care at others’ expense.

doctors never prescribe treatment to make a buck (they all bill at the max annually)

Actually, this is primarily because of all the malpractice lawsuits, not “profit.” You should stop listening to Obama’s lies. Doctors recommend treatments that are unnecessary so that they can cover all possibilities, lest they be sued later for “missing something.”
Another portion is that we Americans can overall afford to pay for extra tests, to exhaust all those possibilities. I mentioned before that I was once taken to an emergency room, after an auto accident. I was very dazed, and the paramedics were afraid I had a fracture in my neck. At the hospital, they put my neck in a brace and did two CT scans, because the first wasn’t conclusive.
I had just been a tenth of a second away from getting killed, so the second test didn’t even rise to the level of minor inconvenience. Was it not worth making sure my neck was ok?

and there is no fancy pants CEO making a buck off my illness.

Here’s a free clue about something called “real life”: everyone who provides goods and services makes a buck off others. If people find it immoral that there’s some “millionaire CEO” at the head of their insurer, then they are perfectly free to drop their policy.
Did you ever consider that other people (I’m one) like the freedom to buy that product, and don’t care about the “millionaire CEO” so long as they’re getting a good product for the money?
If you find it immoral that someone’s getting paid a lot, perhaps you’d like to move here and start up your own competing insurance company. See what it takes to run it, and limit yourself to the median American wage. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 1, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Perry, your answer is just too simple for the nuanced intelligence of our clearly superior Canadian guest to understand.
You see, she’s so far advanced that she doesn’t even recognize insults for what they are.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country where being a fucking douchebag would be considered normal?
You can’t understand this, Perry, because you don’t understand how NICE Canadians are.
I’m so sad for you, there are some things you just can’t understand.

Posted by: Oschisms at October 2, 2009 at 4:39 am

Thanks for making the point for me with your latest comments. Soon there will be as few comments as your own blogsite.

Posted by: Norm Deplume at October 2, 2009 at 8:33 am

“we Americans can overall afford to pay for extra tests, to exhaust all those possibilities.”
Do you include the millions of working poor in that statement?
As I work closely with auto accident victims, I can assure you that if you needed a 2nd CT scan of your neck, you would get one here no problem, no co-pay, no wait.
I am not ‘working poor’, i am comfortably middle class and could afford to pay for private healthcare if I had to, so its not like I’m looking for any handouts, but without a doubt, I prefer our system.
As for the CEO part, I’d rather my health care dollars go into research, improving hospitals, increasing staffing etc. then to private jets.
I am not trying to force our system onto you, I am just wondering what people are so afraid of, and how they defend the costly current system that excludes so much of the population.
What is your ideal?

Posted by: Rebecca at October 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

Only 10% of the American population doesn’t have healthcare. That’s not excluding “so much” of the population.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 2, 2009 at 10:56 am

To Oschisms:

Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country where being a fucking douchebag would be considered normal?

Well, one of my grandmothers and her family left France and…never looked back. :)
To Norm:

Thanks for making the point for me with your latest comments. Soon there will be as few comments as your own blogsite.

I’m making what “point,” that leftist commenters are hesitant to comment here because, golly gee, they might have to defend their words in contrast to HuffPo trolling? Yeah, I’m just all broken up inside over that.
If someone’s going to make an inaccurate statement, even one of Karol’s guest bloggers, I’m going to comment. If my demand for honest, factual discussion is too much for you to handle, tough.
And in any case, I don’t expect too many comments on my own blog. My blog isn’t as widely read as Karol’s, and I tend to post more on economic insight that isn’t really questionable.
To Rebecca:

Do you include the millions of working poor in that statement?

Notice that I said “overall.” By your same standard, it’s a true statement that “overall” all Canadians have to wait longer than Americans. Do you see?
But if you want to talk about a particular demographic, “working poor” is often confused with the millions of Americans who (1) could afford insurance but choose not to have it, and (2) could afford insurance if the government didn’t rape them one way with all the taxes, and rape them again by making insurance policies artificially expensive. I can’t buy an insurance policy from outside my home state, and New York (the state) mandates minimum levels of coverage for things I’d never want.
I was in the first group, deliberately going without insurance, because the money was better saved than spent on an insurance policy I would rarely use. Now I’m in the second.

As I work closely with auto accident victims, I can assure you that if you needed a 2nd CT scan of your neck, you would get one here no problem, no co-pay, no wait.

You’re confusing two separate points. I was not talking about the second CT scan in terms of waiting time, but that it was hardly considered unnecessary.
Some years ago, my mother had an unexplainable condition. The doctors ordered a battery of tests that, considering she had only one observable symptom, would have been considered “unnecessary” by a Canadian or Medicare/Medicaid bureaucrat. Fortunately we happened to get some test that on the surface was a real stretch, but it happened to discover her completely unrelated cancer.
In your system, I fully expect she would have died, waiting too long to get all these “unnecessary” tests for a symptom that was not life-threatening.

I am not ‘working poor’, i am comfortably middle class and could afford to pay for private healthcare if I had to, so its not like I’m looking for any handouts, but without a doubt, I prefer our system.

Good for you, but I was not talking specifically about you. What I said was, “The other system is preferred by others who, by definition, are not paying for the services they receive. They want health care at others’ expense.” It was a general statement that a socialized system is loved by the people who get services that others pay for. This is not the same as saying that everyone in your system is therefore receiving services at others’ expense — clearly some people are bearing the burden.
Putting it another way: do you understand the mathematical concept that though all of A is part of B, that does not mean that all of B is part of A?
The problem with your system is that you force others into it. My system does not force participation in any wise. In my system, Peter pays for himself, so his health care does not depend on Paul’s payment. In your system, Paul gets his health care by making Peter pay for it.

As for the CEO part, I’d rather my health care dollars go into research, improving hospitals, increasing staffing etc. then to private jets.

Nothing is preventing you from rejecting private insurance and donating an equal portion of your money to research foundations and hospitals, or from purchasing an insurance policy from a company that does that.
On the other hand, socialized medicine means that I am forced to fund research and wasteful hospitals against my will, when I’d rather buy a private policy and don’t mind at all that an executive at the top makes some money of me.
Do I mind that my investments help turn portfolio managers into multi-millionaires? Of course not. I willingly pay the fees because they get me better returns than my own attempts.
As I said, why don’t you try running one of your own? See what it’s like to manage a big business, with all the costs and time involved, and not get paid a lot. No matter what you’d like to think, in the real world, people respond to incentives. Supply and demand work no matter how much governments try to monkey with them.

I am not trying to force our system onto you, I am just wondering what people are so afraid of, and how they defend the costly current system that excludes so much of the population.

As the unnamed person said, how can you claim “so much” when it’s actually about 5% of Americans who can’t pay for health insurance? And that’s insurance, which is a totally different animal than health care. That’s why the 5% aren’t exactly dying all the time because of “lack of health insurance.”

What is your ideal?

That you keep what you earn and pay for what you consume, and I do the same, without anyone dipping into someone else’s pockets.
Nice job skipping over everything else. Congratulations, you’ve now been fisked by me. (At least I think this is the first time.)

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 2, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Thanks for the response, ignoring the little personal slights, its nice to hear a well thought out response.
Ok, now on to gun control…
KIDDING!
(does anyone else need a cigarette right now?)

Posted by: Rebecca at October 2, 2009 at 1:55 pm

You’ll find that thought-out responses is what I’m about, and what I demand from the other side. Norm may not like my tenacious style, but I don’t let anyone off lightly. At worst, I’m helping you think your beliefs through, no?
Gun control: hitting what yer aimin’ at.
God made men. Smith & Wesson, Samuel Colt and John Browning made ‘em equal.

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at October 2, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Posted by: Norm Deplume at October 5, 2009 at 11:12 am
Post a comment