Shouldn't the judicial system decide this, not celebrities?

I had heard a little bit about this story recently but today I finally read the whole thing and frankly, it ticks me off that this guy expects to get away with what he did.

According to the article, in March of 1977, film director Roman Polanski (age 44 at the time) fed a 13 year old girl champagne and sedatives. According to the girl's grand jury testimony, Polanski then raped her. He agreed to plead guilty and was convicted of statutory rape, a lesser charge. He spent 42 days in a mental facility and apparently was led to believe that it would be considered "time served" and he would be put on probation. When he discovered that the judge intended to put him in jail, he jumped bail and went to France.

He's been living comfortably in France for the last three decades until last Saturday. He flew to Zurich to attend a film festival and was picked up by Swiss authorities who had a longstanding agreement with the U.S.

He's being held awaiting extradition back to the U.S.

In the middle of all of this, it seems half of Hollywood has come together to protest the extradition attempt, criticizing authoritities for pursuing Polanski after such a long time. many celebrities such as Debra Winger, Harrison Ford and Whoopi Goldberg are writing letters and speaking out. Whoopi went as far as making a statement on "The View," where she is a cohost.

"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left.
"So that's why I wanted to be really clear," Goldberg said, "cause I want to know exactly what I'm talking about."



First off, I've never been much of a fan of Whoopi Goldberg. She's okay, but I've never found her as funny as some do. After that comment, I'm never watching anything with her in it ever again.
If I had the chance, I'd like to ask her just what her definition of rape is versus "rape rape." Obviously she's never been taken advantage of by a man or she'd realize that rape is rape is rape.

Whoopi aside, I don't understand why all of these celebrities are banding together to defend the guy. He raped a 13 year old girl and ran away from the consequences. He's been living a cushy life for over 30 years when he should have served time in prison for such a heinous act.

Just because it happened a long time ago and some celeb says it's a "gross miscarriage of justice" and Polanski is a "humanist" he's supposed to get away with this?
I don't think so.

Reading this article, I started to wonder how Harrison Ford or Harvey Weinstein, supporters of Polanski, would feel if that girl from 1977 had been their daughter. If either of them are anything like a lot of the fathers I know, life in prison wouldn't be enough to make up for what that monster did to their little girl.

It baffles me that so many people think Polanski should get away with this. It shouldn't matter if it happened 30 years or 3 days ago. He still raped a girl. The only reason this is an issue now is because he ran away! What right does he have to decide that he's not going to pay the price for what was done to that girl?

As for the "gross micarriage of justice" that these celebs think is playing out, I think it's merely justice that's been a long time coming. It's certainly not any kind of miscarriage. He deserves to serve time in prison. He should not get to go back to his easy life in France simply because he's managed to string this situation along for so many years.

I have read a few more articles about this situation and apparently the victim has joined the bid for dismissal of the case. At some point, she sued Polanski and recieved an undisclosed settlement and now just wants the case to be over. I can understand her feelings in the matter but I still think he needs to own up and take responsibility for what he did. It doesn't seem right that he can pay a sum of money and not serve the jail time because he had the resources to run away from the problem.

Should the President be assasinated? Who are we to decide that?

When will people learn that Facebook is not a free for all? Posts are monitered for goodness sakes!

In an article from Fox News, I read that someone created a Facebook poll that asks "Should Obama be killed?" The possible choices were no, maybe, yes and yes if he cuts my healthcare.

The poll was created by an idividual using a third party application on Facebook on Saturday. It was immediately removed when Facebook learned of its existence.

Says Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt,

"The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content."

The discovery of the poll has prompted an investigation by the Secret Service. It's unclear if they have any lead as to who created the poll but a spokesman says the investigation is ongoing.
Facebook is in total cooperation with the Secret Service.


I am in complete agreement that the person or persons resposible for this poll whould be found and have to face the consequences of such a stupid move. I don't agree with some of the policies of our president but that is absolutely no reason to contemplate assasinating him!

Really, think about it. If President Obama were assasinated who does that leave us with as president? Scary. I think I'd rather the administration stay just the way it is.

What seems really strange to me is that someone would think it's okay to post this poll. The internet is open to everyone. Facebook is a social networking site. This kind of thing is not going to go unnoticed by the Secret Service.
The President has a crazy amount of protection around himself and his family as well he should. According to the article, before the election last year, he recieved more death threats than any other candidate during the campaign. I'm sure many of those making the threats have not changed their opinions. Obviously one still feels the same way.

While I'm not exactly fond of President Obama, I would never entertain even a thought of him being assasinated. What right do I have to decide whether someone lives or dies based on my political opinion? The idea is just ridiculous to me.

One thing about this article that really struck me as ignorant was a comment made by Bob Beckel, Democratic Party strategist and Fox News correspondent. This is directly from the article:

"This is the kind of garbage that's generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it's going way over the line," Beckel told FOXNews.com. "It's got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail."

I do agree with Mr. Beckel that this person should be found and prosecuted, but that's about all I agree with. He automatically assumes, with no evidence, that this poll must have been created by someone from the "extreme right," generators of all things garbage.
How ironic is it that the same type of comment probably would not be published had this situation happened a few years ago with former President Bush as the focus.
Heaven forbid anyone reveal anything less than golden where the Democrats are concerned.

I don't think it's only the extreme right continually propagating this kind of tension. I think extreme leftists and the liberal media are just as much to blame.

Sickening

I've already done my 3 posts for this week but I really wanted to post a link to this article. It made me sick to my stomach when I read it.

Especially the part about "Jesus Loves the Little Children."

The Stockpiling Continues

After reading this article, I'd say that ammunition manufacturers have some of the safest jobs in the country. Right now anyway.

In the U.S., ammo sales continue to spike almost a year after the election of our new president. According to the story in Fox News, bullet makers are working around the clock, seven days a week and still fall short of the demand presented by Americans.
The reason for the demand? Many consumers are afraid that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled congress will pass antigun legislature, making it next to impossible to buy firearms and ammunition.

So far nothing has been presented to this effect. The president has even signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

According the the NRA (National Rifle Association) Americans usually purchase around 7 billion rounds of ammo per year. In the last year, that number jumped to around 9 billion.
Says Al Russo, spokesman for the Remington Arms company out of North Carolina, "We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand. We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."

To help cope with the huge demand, many retailers are placing limits on quantities that customers can purchase at a time. With some types, the limit is as small as one box, depending on the demand for that product.

Many of these customers aren't running right out to the range though. They're stockpiling everything they can get their hands on in preparation for the antigun laws they're sure are coming someday.



When I read this article, it really came as no surprise to me that the demand is still so high and that companies are struggling to cope with shortages. I think part of that just comes from living in the Midwest.
In this part of the country especially, there are so many Americans who are really not in favor of the president and are positive that's he's going to take away their guns eventually.

It was news to me to hear that many companies have taken to working 24-7 to keep up with demand. I knew that some ammo was harder to find, but I just assumed that was because the production wasn't rising along with demand. It's interesting to me that companies have increased production significantly and still can't match the demand.

I have experienced this personally since my husband is a cop. I'll admit he's one of those who started stockpiling after the election. The closet at the top of our stairs used to be reserved just for towels and sheets. I've had to make room for a bunch of ammo in the last year. He's gotten better in recent months though. Thank goodness! Now he just gets excited if he finds something particularly scarce and he'll snatch up a few boxes.

There for a while I thought we were well on our way to being ready for World War III.

He did also purchase another gun and that was an ordeal. The demand for firearms has increased along with ammo. We ordered this gun in February of this year and it was on backorder. He finally recieved it in July.

I used to work at Academy Sports here in Joplin and I saw the change there too. When I started the job, the store always had a pretty good supply of guns and ammo and had no problem meeting customer demands. Now if you visit the gun counter, there isn't much to see. They have a very limited supply of firearms and have placed pretty strict quantity limits on certain types of ammo, if they're even in stock to begin with.

I understand the reason for all of this fuss over guns and ammo. I realize why so many people, my husband included, have stockpiles of ammo stashed away at home. I even had some of the same thoughts for months after the election. Now though, I'm rethinking some things. I didn't vote for President Obama and am not that crazy about the guy, but I don't think we're in much danger of having all gun rights taken away. I think he plays the fence a little bit and wants to keep both parties happy and that won't happen if strict gun laws are passed.

I think for now, our gun rights are pretty safe. I don't see any change in the near future.

Once again, it's those crazy Christians making everybody else uncomfortable...

A grocery store in St. Louis has stirred up some controversy over one store manager's public expression of faith.

Tom Collora, manager of Cullinaria in downtown St. Louis, put up a crucifix behind the customer service counter in view of the checkout registers. Collora has worked for the chain for 40 years and has displayed a crucifix at 2 other Schnucks (name of the parent company) stores with no complaints from customers.

This time, though, someone is upset. Lori Weinstock,who is Jewish, said that the crucifix in the St. Louis store upset her enough to write a letter to the Jewish Light newspaper. Weinstock says, "It would have been equally startling if it had been a Star of David or an emblem of another religion. It's grocery shopping, and it should be welcoming to all and exclude none."

Collora says that the crucifix is not meant to promote his faith over another. He says, "It's just an opportunity to share a part of my faith with people I work hard to serve every day."

Lori Willis, communications director for Schnucks, says that Collora is the only manager to request to display such an object and that company leaders granted the request out of respect for Tom and his faith.

One reason for the controversy is that the crucifix, which shows Jesus nailed to a cross, is an ambiguous symbol that can mean something good to one religion and something entirely different to another. To the Jewish people, like Lori Weinstock, it can mean, "You're a Christ killer."

Whatever the opinions about Tom's display may be, it continues to hang in the store. The Anti-Defamation League of St. Louis has decided not to lodge an official complaint with Schnucks, despite recieving individual complaints. Says a company spokesperson, " After some significant discussion within the Jewish and interfaith communities, we felt this was not a battle that should be pressed right now."



The first line of the article simply says that a manager of a grocery store is causing some concern after hanging a crucifix behind the customer service counter of his store. My initial reaction is of course it's going to cause concern! A religious symbol hanging in a public business? Not the best idea if you don't like to attract negative attention.

I read a little farther and discovered that this is a chain of stores, not just one store belonging solely to this guy. That's when I started to wonder how on earth he was getting away with with a stunt like this. Isn't there someone at the corporate level who wouldn't allow such a blatant display of faith in one of their chain of stores? I wasn't upset with Collora though. Far from it, in fact. I was already admiring the guy for having the guts to do something like this. But I still wondered how he managed to pull it off.

So I read the rest of the article and was pleasantly surprised to read that the company leaders had already approved this display of faith in at least 2 other stores. I had been worried about this guy losing his job over his beliefs, but the company is backing him! I think that's pretty awesome, myself. I'm happy for him that he has a job where he can express his beliefs without fear of being reprimanded or fired.

As for those who complained about the crucifix, I say shop somewhere else. If it makes you uncomfortable to see such displays, don't leave your house. What's next? Telling churches that every cross or other symbol has to be moved to the inside of the building just so no one has to feel uncomfortable while walking down the sidewalk? Sadly, ideas like that don't seem so far-fetched anymore.

We are a country that prides itself on being accepting of everyone, no matter what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. That is, unless that faith happens to be the Christian one. In that case, you'll most likely be labeled a fanatical, overbearing faith-pusher if anyone hears a peep from you.

Anyway...time to come down from soap box now. One last thing though-

I have to wonder if Ms. Weinstock really would feel the same way about any other religious symbol that didn't remind her that the Jewish people killed Jesus?

The Other Biggest Losers

Imagine what shape our economy could be in if everyone thought like this family. We might not be facing a housing crisis or massive unemployment, among other things.

Just 5 years ago, the Hildebrants of New Richmond, Wisconsin, were carrying more than $100,000 in credit card and personal debt. In those 5 years they have paid off everything by sheer determination along with hard work and a little frugality. These days the only debt they carry is a mortgage (it wasn't among the $106, 000 in debt that they've paid off).

Five years ago, Russell and Kelly Hildebrant had credit cards totalling about $89,000 and owed $17,000 to a family member. They were keeping current on all their payments, but their interest rates were climbing and they began to really struggle with the monthly payments.

The Hildebrant's mounting debt was not really the product of a lavish lifestyle. They just weren't as careful as they could have been. Russell worked as a chemist and Kelly stayed at home to homeschool the children. Family vacations were usually just visits to extended family and they rented a small townhome.

What contibuted to the slow decline were small things, such as always purchasing new clothes for the kids and name brand groceries over store brands. They also had some medical expenses related to Russell's diabetes and several miscarraiges that Kelly had experienced.

They knew that they had to do something but bankruptcy, the suggestion of several friends and family members, wasn't an option for Russell and Kelly. They contacted the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) and came up with a 5 year plan to pay off their debt. To make the intense payment schedule work, they began purchasing generic grocery brands and clothing from thrift stores. They also stopped exchanging birthday and Christmas presents with family and friends and made due with one car for a long time. They still couldn't quite make the $2,000 per month payment so Russell took a second job cleaning a local grocery store at nights.

The schedule was grueling for the whole family, but it began to get better the closer they got to the end. Everything was eventually paid off and the family was able to purchase a home and Russell quit the second job. They have learned some valuable lessons and formed some good habits, such as bargain shopping. They remain debt free other than the mortgage.


Before I started reading this article, I was just expecting another story about a family living above and beyond their means because they just had to have this car or that house. I was certainly surprised when I read a little bit farther. This isn't a family who spent lavishly. I realized that a significant part of the debt were medical bills and they weren't living in a house that was too expensive for them. This family was even continuing to set aside ten percent of their income to go to their church as a tithe.

I read a little farther and discovered that it was really a slow decline and the mistakes that they did make, such as purchasing name brand groceries and brand new clothes, are mistakes any of us could make. I guess the little things really do catch up with you eventually.

I was very impressed that they decided to take the debts on and pay everything instead of declaring bankruptcy. That would have been the easy way out. I'm also impressed at the lengths they went to in order to pay $106, 000 in just five years. According to the article, when Russell took the second job his schedule went something like this: Wake up, go to job #1, work a full day, go home and catch a few hours of sleep, wake up and head to job #2, work from midnight to 4:30 a.m., head home, sleep a couple hours then head back to job #1 and start all over again. Talk about stressful! I don't know if I could handle it.

I also think it's amazing that this family was able to stick together during this process. Many couples end up divorced over money troubles that are really trivial. So, it really does make me wonder...what kind of shape would our country be in if more people had this kind of determination and willingness to take responsibility for their finances?

10 Marriage Truths

This is an opinion piece from Fox News and I just really like what this guy has to say about marriage. It's refreshing to hear the ideas of someone who doesn't seem totally jaded by this world and its lackluster view on marriage.

Reverend Bill Shuler is the pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, VA. He's compiled a list of 10 things that are absolutes where marriage is concerned, even though we've forgotten many of them, it seems. Reverend Shuler put this list together among rising divorce rates and ongoing attempts to redifine what marriage is in our country. Here's the actual list if you don't get a chance to read his piece:

1. Marriage is a covenant not simply a contract.
2. One must not redefine original intent without the permission of the author.
3. All indicators point toward the emotional, social and economic benefits of marriage.
4. The virtues of commitment and faithfulness must be reclaimed in America.
5. The state of the union is no stronger than the union of our marriages.
6. The marriage penalty tax is contrary to the values we claim to embrace.
7. There is no greater weapon against child poverty and crime than healthy marriages.
8. Strengthen marriage and you strengthen the family.
9. Strengthen families and you strengthen a nation.
10. The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either.

I love this article. Thes things are so true. A couple that really stick out to me are 1, 2 and 10.

Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I think we tend to forget this one for sure. Marriage is intended to be for life. We shouldn't enter into a covenant without absolute certainty that we do not intend to break it at a later date. Now, I do realize that every situation is different and there are definitely some very valid reasons for divorce, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about. I;m really onlytalking about those of us who never really had forever in mind at the altar.

One must not redefine the original intent without consulting the author. This really says it all. God is the author of everthing, marriage included. Who are we to rewrite perfection?

The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either. This seems to me to go hand in hand with God being the author of marriage. God didn't consult us when he created the world and everything in it, nor should he have had to. What right do we have to redefine the will of God with our often petty and trivial manmade laws?


Sorry, I'm ranting a little I guess. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is what I believe and I was pretty excited to find this little article. It's reassuring to remember that I'm not just old-fashioned in the way I think or in the values I hold. I'm just part of a dwindling number I suppose.