Oh look, it's yet another Washington Post editorial coming to the defense of poor Roman Polanski. This time it's written by Richard Cohen and it's called:

Thank you, Switzerland, for freeing Polanski

And see, right off the bat things get weird. Thanking a foreign country for freeing a child rapist is a little strange. It's akin to saying, "Thank you, North Korea, for crushing those dissidents" or "Thank you, China, for undermining our export sector." In other words, you don't normally pat countries on the head for doing things like this. Anyway, let's see where he's headed with this:

The Swiss got it right. Their refusal to extradite film director Roman Polanski to the United States on a 33-year-old sex charge is the proper dénouement for this mess of a case. There is no doubt that Polanski did what he did, which is have sex with a 13-year-old after plying her with booze. There is no doubt also that after all these years there is something stale about the case, not to mention a “victim,” Samantha Geimer, who has long ago forgiven her assailant and dearly wishes the whole thing would go away. So do I.

The scare quotes around the word "victim" are truly a sight to behold. Under Cohen's calculus, we should just free people who commit crimes if they've managed to escape the law for long enough. After all, getting an underage girl drunk and then raping her can totally be forgiven if it happened a long time ago.

There are only bad reasons to proceed with the prosecution.

Really? I can think of a good one right off the bat: He drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. That's a pretty good reason in and of itself, even if "Chinatown" was a pretty sweet movie.

The first is to rebut the argument that some sort of legal or moral exception ought to be made for Polanski on account of his talent. Having just seen his film “The Pianist” for the second time, I salute his genius as, if I knew something about poetry, I might that of Ezra Pound.

Wait, I don't get the logic here. Per Cohen, one of the bad reasons to prosecute Polanski is because it will refute the morons who think we shouldn't prosecute people who make good movies? Does that make a lick of sense to you? And look, the movies aren't relevant to anything. He should go to jail because he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

The only argument in favor of Polanski’s continued freedom is that he is the victim of judicial misconduct. He had good reason to believe that the trial judge in his case was going to break the plea agreement and throw the book at him. He had already pleaded guilty to a reduced charge; he had already spent 42 days in Chino State Prison under psychiatric examination. [...] He ran from the prospect of a judge who was going to make his reputation at Polanski’s expense and send him to jail for a very long time. I would have done the same.

Well that's good to know, Rich! We'll keep that in mind if you ever get arrested for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl!

But seriously, can anyone make sense of Cohen's moral reasoning here? His argument is that if you drug and rape a 13-year-old girl and you suspect that a mean and nasty judge might have it in for you then you have the right to... flee the country?!

Look, dude, we have an appeals process in this country for people who feel that they've been wrongfully imprisoned. And Roman wouldn't have been wrongfully imprisoned since he, you know, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

(I know I keep mentioning this pesky little fact over and over again, but it's a pretty horrible crime that Polanski's defenders don't like to bring up. They should be reminded on a regular basis the sort of thing they're defending.)

OK, so where was I? Oh yeah: Even if poor, poor Roman Polanski had received a super-mean sentence from that nasty little judge, he could have easily appealed it. And given the fact that he's rich and can afford good legal help, his appeal probably would have been successful. Having a judge who doesn't like you doesn't give you a carte blanche to run off to France to escape justice, no matter how many times "The Pianist" made Richard Cohen cry.

It was this alleged -- but virtually proven -- miscarriage of justice that impressed the Swiss authorities and why they rejected the American requests for extradition. That was good. It would have been better, though, if at the same time they denounced the many artists and intellectuals who haughtily dismissed what Polanski had done on the basis of his talent and achievements. They thought of his films; they should have thought of their own daughters.

Wait, so now he's back to trashing people who defend Polanski on the basis of his artistic talents. Did Cohen write this column while sampling whatever vile concoction Polanski uses to ply his victims (or "victims," in Cohen's version)? I have no idea. I do know that it looks like Cohen vomited alphabet soup onto his computer screen and decided to file it as an opinion piece.

But on the other hand, "Rosemary's Baby" was a pretty sweet movie.

You know, the Villagers are so uniformly self-centered and oblivious to larger reality that it's too much like shooting fish in a barrel to go after them -- too easy and not quite sporting.

But the bed-wetting Richard Cohen takes it to higher levels than almost anyone else:

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer.

Because it's all about you, isn't it, Richard?

Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America's critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

What, you mean the concept that we all have equal rights under the law? Yes, I can see where that idea might cause some problems.

[...] No doubt George Bush soiled America's image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney's hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than America's image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 -- his watch, his responsibility -- and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties.

As one of those who have been watching as Obama rubberstamps numerous Bush terrorism policies, I can only shake my head. Can it be that Cohen simply doesn't know how to read?

But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama. Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab's silence is a scream that something is wrong.

Really? Really, "the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security"? Your sense of security? I'm sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights and yeah, they do talk about security, all right - but not the way you mean:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Maybe you should go back and read the rest, you pathetic excuse for an American. Or remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The Baseline Scenario: Bankster loving Dems sneak loophole language into Barney Frank's financial regulation bill

The Progressive Puppy: Anti-Gay Music: Pepsi's "mistake," Grammy's deadly homophobia

The KC Blue Blog: In a major turn of events, a newly released police report states that the woman was not only allegedly beaten by Republican Speaker turned powerful consultant Rod Jetton, but was allegedly forced against her will, drugged, tied with a belt and raped.

AlterNet: Meet the billionaire brothers funding the Right-Wing war on Obama

The Sideshow: Assorted Stuff

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: How a Crock of Sh*t gets to your breakfast table...Why journalist Gary Webb died...New rightie media mogul...Gretchen Carlson dumbs down...Bumper sticker analysis...Pro-War corporate media...Worse than useless...They even wanted Dobbs...Dana Milbank still an assh*le... I rest my case...It's how they roll...The further adventures of Peggy Noonan

DOWNLOADS: (1203)

PLAYS: (2194)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly seems to have a little trouble understanding how the First Amendment works.

Free-speech rights mean the government can't stop citizens from saying things it doesn't like. Every citizen has that right.

But having a radio show or a network anchor's job is not a right. It's a privilege, one that people work very hard to achieve, and only a relative handful actually get. Who gets the privilege is decided by people holding the media pursestrings.

Nonetheless, O'Reilly seemed to think last night on his Fox News show that the Southern Poverty Law Center not only was "overreacting" to Lou Dobbs' promotion of the "Birther" conspiracy theories, but that they were attacking Dobbs' First Amendment rights in demanding that CNN remove him. He had on the SPLC's Richard Cohen to discuss it:

O'Reilly: Look, I still disagree with you calling for his head. I don't mind you coming out and saying you disagree with him, that it's totally absurd, it's wrong to exploit it, he's playing upon fears, there might be a racial component, although I don't think Lou Dobbs is a racist at all -- ah --

Cohen: When's enough, Bill? When's enough, enough? I mean, Lou's been doing this for years.

O'Reilly: It's never enough, enough. And in a free-speech society, Mr. Cohen, it's never enough's enough. Freedom of speech allows you to go up to the line without -- if Lou Dobbs was causing danger to someone, then you would be legitimate in calling for his firing. But he is not. All he's doing is bloviating. It's just bloviating.

O'Reilly's confused. If Lou Dobbs were indeed endangering someone -- one of several points at which the First Amendment does not protect speech -- then the authorities would be justified in shutting him down.

We citizens, however, have the right to demand that CNN take Dobbs off the air at any time, given that his position as an anchor there is purely at the pleasure of CNN executives and is not a matter of his right to free speech. No one is saying Dobbs can't go stand on a street corner and hand out pamphlets like the rest of his Birther friends do. They're just saying he hasn't the right to abuse his position as a major anchor at one of the cable networks by spreading false information and right-wing hatemongering.

Though certainly, one can see why O'Reilly might be touchy about that subject.

Obsidian Wings: Here are a series of excerpts concerning the use of torture. See if you can guess the speakers.

Attytood: Philadelphia Inquirer is defending the the indefensible.  They've hired John Yoo to do a monthly column.

Suicide Girls: This will be the first time we are going to have a justice picked by a non-asshole since the 90’s. Let's Go Gay

Matthew Yglesias: Richard Posner throws in the towel on the conservative movement

naked capitalism: Links!

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Big Bank ltd, thump and whip, Conceptual Guerilla, Night Bird's Fountain

I don't have a Blackberry, but it's not because I think it will destroy the world...I haven't checked in on Cohen's wanking lately, but it seems to me that Richard hates Obama's Blackberry.

Let's call it the Blackberry Bubble....

All Spin Zone: John "Doubletalk" McCain fails the political courage test.

Collateral News: Remote controlled bugs are the Pentagon's latest attempt to spy on terrorists. Wait a few years and this new technology called 'Hybrid Insect Mems' or 'Hi-Mems' will be in the hands of domestic law enforcement flying around your living room.

The Strange Death of Liberal America: In March the Pentagon released a report that included some alarming findings on the rate of suicide among American troops in Iraq.

Elizabeth de la Vega: Bush's OSHA: No laws, no crimes

TBogg: Put your hand in the puppet head

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Six Pulitzers for WaPo, two for ex-LATers and a triumph for investigations...Richard Cohen has a race problem...Mad Kane's advice for biased journos and bloggers...Russert plays Altoona...Greenspan and our business media ignored reality...The Seattle Times discovers poor people ...Get ready for Round 2 in the Internet's Battle Royale of 2008...Reporter Eric Lichtblau on the WH efforts to kill the NYT's '04 warrantless wiretapping story...Chris Matthews Sucks!...New media: a lot like the old media...As Gitmo trials near, the Pentagon limits what can be reported...

Can you imagine if the roles were reversed and Harry Reid's office acted in the same disgusting fashion as Mitch McConnell's staff did to Graeme Frost? It would be plastered all over Drudge, FOX and Limbaugh--all day and night. Hannity would be having candlelight vigils outside the Frosts' home. The outrage would be deafening and the NRO would be calling for Reid to resign.

Update: Remember the outrage over John Kerry's botched joke? McCain attacked him ferociously. The RNC released their own ad attacking Kerry and demanding an apology. The right wing bloggers spread vile lies about him. (nothing changed there) Yet, the media has gone AWOL over the smearing of a sick, 12 year old boy. Oh, how times have changed.

Greg Sargent explains:

Here's a question: When are the cable nets and the Capitol Hill press and the pundits going to dig into the role that GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell played in pushing the smear of the Frost family?

Lefty bloggers wouldn't have taken this route, of course, but if this had happened and Reid had done this, I think the cable networks would be all over it. CNN's internet reporter would do a segment on it, Wolf Blitzer would grunt with disapproval, Chris Matthews would drench the Hardball camera with spittle flecks, Richard Cohen would question Reid's character, David Broder would shake his head and mutter darkly about "incivility" and Reid's incompetence, Howie Kurtz would write a story about the coverage of the story, and the rest would be history. That Reid staffer would end up resigning.

Dems are now out there attacking McConnell. Yet we're hearing nothing about this key twist in the story. At the very least you'd think this would be fodder for the cable nets. Bizarre....read on

The DCCC has put out a press release: McConnell Refuses To Explain Why He Misled Kentucky

John Bolton's biggest fan needs a trip to the rubber room:

Pam Atlas, spawn of Little Green Footballs, personal blogger to Bush nominee/U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, hard-core Lieberman supporter, and general good friend to the right-wing blogosphere, yesterday called for the State Department to be bombed and for American diplomats to be murdered.

As I have said before, the ugly bile and extremism that fuels much of the right-wing blogosphere is a story waiting to be written. This week, for instance, it was revealed that the individual who sent white powder to Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi and others was an active Free Republic poster and an avid fan of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. The intense hate-mongering which is offered up in much of the right-wing blogosphere on a daily basis is the primary or even exclusive information diet for many people, and that is going to have consequences. Shouldn't they be examined?...read on

Right wing conservatives are never held accountable for anything they say no matter how outrageous or violent so this behavior will only grow. It would be nice for a Mark Halperin, Joe Klein or Richard Cohen to address this problem, but they have better things to do obviously.

Greenwald on Richard Cohen

The Washington Post's Richard Cohen, 2/6/2003, on Colin Powell's speech to the UN:

This is where Colin Powell brought us all yesterday. The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.

Keep reading...