The rape charge was dismissed.

the facts are, however, dispositive, and not in dispute among the parties:

1. he got a 13 year-old girl drunk.

2. he then proceeded to rape her.

3. he plead guilty to a lesser charge (as many people do), to avoid trial and the possibility of spending a fair chunk of time in jail.

4. he then fled the country, without actually having served any sentence (or actually being sentenced), making himself a fugitive from justice.

5. he, and you (among others), claim that nefarious acts were committed, by the local prosecuters and the (since deceased) judge in the case. these asserted acts have never been proven in a court of law, none of the claimants have ever been subjected to adversarial cross-examination, making them hearsay, worth less than the paper or celluloid they're printed on.

6. these accusations may or may not be true, i have no idea. however, it was the flight of mr. polanski himself, that kept them from being investigated by the US justice system, and proved or refuted officially.

7. you (jeralyn) seem alone among your blogging peers, in thinking mr. polanski is somehow getting a raw deal, by being forced to accept responsibility for the agreement he entered into of his own free (and well represented) will. see: lawyers, guns and money and pandagon, for examples.

8. this is especially surprising, given the nature of the offense he admitted to committing. perhaps, your role as a defense attorney (nothing at all wrong with that, i applaud your zealousness), and personal admiration of mr. polanski's professional work have clouded your view of this situation. just speculation mind you.

Note to elected officials: Start doing your f**king jobs

Is this something that would cause TL to be blocked by some filters?

The White House measure appears designed to entice moderate Democrats and perhaps even Republicans into supporting a health care overhaul if legislative efforts in Congress fail or if they move too far to the left. Sources said one possibility would be to invoke the measure if the Senate cannot rally 60 votes to break a filibuster. Another option may be to present details of what the White House wants during a conference between the House and the Senate.

The sweeping health care bill drafted by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana would expand Medicaid to cover families of four with an income of roughly $29,000 per year and people with an income less than 133 percent of the poverty level.

When Baucus first floated the bill in mid-September, Reid strongly criticized it because the federal government would pick up just 87 percent of the new costs, leaving the rest to the states. But Baucus later modified the language to ensure that the federal government paid 100 percent of the costs in Nevada. Reid's state -- along with Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island -- has been given the added protections because it has been hit especially hard by the recession.

Over the weekend, Arlington Police arrested a man -- who turned out to be a U.S. Capitol Police officer -- who was apparently 'sleeping it off' in a woman's bed. Police say the woman didn't know him and didn't know how he got into her apartment.

Police say it was about 1:00 a.m. Sunday, when Arlington police officers were called to the 1000 block of North Randolph Street - for what was reported as an unknown person inside the residence.

Police say the woman came home to find an strange man asleep in her bed -- and he was not someone that the woman or her roommate knew. Police say the man was intoxicated.

Thomas Patrick McMahon, 34, of Reston. was charged with unlawful entry.

A spokeswoman with the U.S. Capitol Police told 9NEWS NOW that he had been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the criminal investigation in Arlington, and that the incident would also be the subject of a U.S. Capitol police internal affairs investigation.

For most of the last two decades, a clear majority of Americans has supported the right to abortion. A new poll, though, shows that support for abortion appears to have declined, with the public almost evenly divided over the issue.

The apparent shift has occurred in just the last year. In 2008, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that those in favor of keeping abortion legal outnumbered opponents by 54 to 40 percent. The new poll, also conducted by Pew researchers, and released on Thursday, showed that the gap had narrowed considerably: 47 percent of those surveyed said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 45 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases -- a difference within the poll's margin of sampling error.

The new survey did not find the reasons for the shift in opinion. But Pew researchers pointed out that it has occurred since the election of President Obama, a Democrat who supports abortion rights but has often spoken about the need to reduce the number of abortions.

The change happened among many demographic groups, to varying degrees -- among women and men; Republicans, Democrats and independents; Protestants, Catholics and Jews; whites and Hispanics. There was no change among blacks and people who have no religious affiliation.

"The size of the shift is modest, but the consistency with which we see it occurring and the implications it has for the overall dynamics of the debate make it significant," said Gregory Smith, a senior researcher at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, who worked on the poll.