New study: women more likely to choose shoes that are bad for their feet. Men more likely to choose more comfortable shoes. [link]

“I think women need to really pay attention to how a shoe fits, and realize that what you’re buying could have potential effects on your feet for the rest of your life,” said the paper’s lead author, Alyssa B. Dufour, a doctoral student in biostatistics at Boston University. “It’s important to pay attention to size and width, and not just buy it because it’s cute.”

Or, y'know, it could be because most comfortable supportive shoes are considered inappropriate for women to wear in many workplaces?

OK, seriously? Someone stole my trashcan. AGAIN.WTFF?!! It was unlocked because today was TRASH DAY.

Jesus christ.

I am disgusted. [link]

Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison.

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago and whose principal plaintiff repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

Seventy-six years old, a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland, Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

"Apprehended like a common terrorist"? Nice use of "common" there. Because clearly, famous artistes shouldn't be subject to the same laws as the common people.

"an episode that happened years ago" -- actually, also for his continuing crime of being a fugitive.

His history -- tragic, and irrelevant. Possibly relevant in psych evaluations or sentencing, not relevant in whether he should face punishment at all.

"martyr" and "honor" -- I have no comment other than rage.

Check out the list of people who signed it. Whole bunch of big names on there.

And that SOL stuff is total rubbish, since it's not applicable after plea/verdict anywhere.

My biggest issue is that they're continuing to make the victim a victim, when she clearly no longer wants to be seen as such.

Did he do something wrong? Yes. Was it reprehensible? Without a doubt. Should he pay? Depends on whether you think he has or not, already.

I'm honestly torn about this, not because of any deep respect for him or anything, but the fact that they're continuing to treat the woman in question like a child still, when she's repeatedly stated her position.

Now, of course, if it's cause for legal precedent being set and then used in other similar cases, then I'd argue you have to prosecute.

In this specific case, with these specific elements and people, I say leave him be. Polanski has no reason to think that the American courts will abide by any deals. The woman has said multiple times that she considers the matter settled. His entire social circle is aware of what kind of man he is. I consider precedent irrelevant unless another case involving a very similar case would arise.

My personal bottom line on this is, will persuing this do any good? Or is only a disturbing taste for revenge in parts of the American psyche that will be served?

If the victim wanted him brought to the courts, it would be different. But she doesn't.

In this specific case, with these specific elements and people, I say leave him be. Polanski has no reason to think that the American courts will abide by any deals. The woman has said multiple times that she considers the matter settled. His entire social circle is aware of what kind of man he is. I consider precedent irrelevant unless another very similar case would arise.

My personal bottom line on this is, will persuing this do any good? Or is only a disturbing taste for revenge in parts of the American psyche that will be served?

If the victim wanted him brought to the courts, it would be different. But she doesn't.

Did he do something wrong? Yes. Was it reprehensible? Without a doubt. Should he pay? Depends on whether you think he has or not, already.

He should pay through the legal system. Criminals don't get to choose their own punishment. And I don't really see 30 years of living in France, making movies, winning awards, and generally being able to do whatever he wants except enter the US as being punishment.

I think I am at least as offended by Polanski's flight from justice as I am by his original crime. If he had accepted sentencing and served whatever sentence there was - from probation to prison time, and it seems like the former was more likely - I would have no trouble with the sentiment that this was all in the past and he could be forgiven. But by placing himself above the justice system - by fleeing - Polanski has made it impossible for me to forgive him. Yeah, it's sad he's had such a hard life, not being able to visit London or New York in 30 years. Of course, he could have avoided the whole trouble by not drugging and raping a 13 year old in the first place, and (presumably) assuming he could get away with it because he was famous.

My personal bottom line on this is, will persuing this do any good? Or is only a disturbing taste for revenge in parts of the American psyche that will be served?

I don't see it as revenge, but justice. The only way the legal system works is if we at least try to have the same system for everyone -- we shouldn't let somebody just walk away from justice just because he's got money and connections. Rich and powerful people getting better treatment from the legal system is bad, but rich and powerful people being able to walk away from the system entirely is just beyond any standards of how it should work.