Prosecuting Polanski may be the right thing to do by the letter of the law, but is it the right thing to do for the victim.

He's already been prosecuted, convicted, found guilty, all that jazz. That ship has sailed. It's the penalty that he hasn't paid--and any extra penalty for fleeing, which has nothing to do with the victim.

Separate post to say: Congrats, Dana! Hand me some jobma, will you?

NorCal Tsunami Advisory after Somoa [sic] Earthquake

I thought that the [sic] meant that it was a Sonoma earthquake, not a Samoa earthquake.

From JZ's link:

I understand the victim’s feelings on this. And I sympathize, I do. But for good or ill, the justice system doesn’t work on behalf of victims; it works on behalf of justice. And while the victim is no doubt hurt by Polanski’s drawing this out for decades, ultimately more women would be hurt by a justice system that allowed convicted rapists to avoid punishment simply because they were rich and could afford to flee jail. Ultimately, the victim’s feelings must be considered, but they can not be the determining factor in whether a prosecution goes forward.

Okay, I give. I get it and y'all were right and I was blinded by empathy on the victim's part. The good of the whole has to outweigh the good of the individual and I can see that and I suppose, make an uneasy peace with it.

I just got an offer to extend my current coverage by another month for $400+ and I have to answer by tomorrow. I'm thinking I might be better off looking for part-time work at Starbucks.

I am really glad I'm moving to MA with no job -- my COBRA payment for my crappy NY insurance would be $600+ per month, but in MA I can get a crappy plan for like $200 or something.

Edit: I mean to say, as far as having no job goes, I'd rather be in MA.

Does anybody know anything about Golden Rule Insurance Co? Or the Freelancers Union?

My feelings on the Roman Polanski issue are represented fairly well by a post at Shakesville: Her Reasons Are Not Yours

That sums up my feelings pretty well, too, shrift. There's a lot more I could say, and have written, even, but I think I'll bite my tongue.

Dana! Job! Yay! You sound like you got what you wanted; I'm glad.

Congrats Dana!

Oh, Barb, I didn't mean to make you feel piled-on. But, yeah, I can't get around the fact that honoring the victim's desire to let it all be over and letting it go would mean (a) opening the door to letting a horrific number of domestic violence and child abuse cases go, and (b) sending a loud, clear signal that you can dodge the law forever with zero consequences if you're only rich and important enough.

He was convicted. He was facing sentencing. He fled the country because he was afraid the judge wasn't going to accept the plea bargain agreed upon between the prosecution and defense (which is a judge's prerogative) and he was too chickenshit to man up and go through the sentencing and then appeal if he felt the sentence was too harsh. He brought all of this on himself--and every second of the lack of closure the victim has had to go through, or will have to go through from now on, is his fault and no one else's.

Bleah. I just look at Matilda sitting on the floor all absorbed in her toddler TV and the mama bear brain goes pure HULK SMASH.

My feelings on the Roman Polanski issue are represented fairly well by a post at Shakesville: Her Reasons Are Not Yours

I liked this piece by Kate Harding in Salon's Broadsheet as well: [link]

et's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to 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.

No. There is no way that I will ever give ground on this. Rape is rape is rape is CHILD RAPE for fuck's sake and I'm sorry, but the excuses bound up in our RAPE CULTURE are just fucking disgusting. It's not just Polanski, but it is an incredibly truthful way about how WE (as a culture) view rape.