This piece from HuffPost is part of a series of backlashes against defenders of Roman Polanski, the child rapist. It is a particularly scathing (appropriate) criticism of Polanski and the people kissing his ass.
Maybe [Polanski’s supporters] believed the child rapist was a worthy cause to rally around. But a child rapist is not a political prisoner. Political prisoners tend to be brave and selfless. A middle-aged man who treats a 13-year-old girl like an inflatable sex doll, and who then flees justice, is a degenerate and a coward.
Where's Jack Ruby when you need him?
I only update about this because the defense of Roman Polanski– the belief that somehow he’s exempt from justice because he’s an artist or had a hard life (who cares?)– is something that feels like a shotgun blast to my brain. I’m not a bloodthirsty, death-penalty-for-pedophiles kind of guy– the rights of the accused, in particular the presumption of innocence, are what makes democracy work, and I love democracy– but the rights of the convicted do not include a pass to escape to Europe and keep working on movies until you’re an old man, when your arrest will be framed as a “sabotage” or a “political stunt” by the people who worship you. I don’t know how to argue when the argument itself is so obvious that it should be useless to even talk about it. Something misfires in my brain when the other side (why is there even another side to this?) has thrown out all the assumptions that I thought humans took for granted.
Christopher Hitchens, and a man so atheist that he’s devoted his life to the cause, wrote a short op-ed for Slate today and proved more than anything that the English have a God-given talent for making prose sound like poetry. Hitchens, who kind of looks like Tim Curry, comments on Roman Polanski’s evasion of the law after committing child-rape, the inexplicable support Polanski is receiving from Hollywood, and some of the other sick doctrines (besides celebrity exceptionalism) that allow sick things to be done to children around the world.
It is, rather, quite astonishing that Polanski has been able to caper about on the run for so long, thumbing his nose, even collecting damages, flourishing a “Get Out of Jail Free” and a lucrative “Pass Go” card, and constantly reminding the law of its impotence.
For another excellent opinion piece written by someone who has a vague idea of what the rule of law means, read this piece from Salon.com:
Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.).
This Polanski story makes my head hurt. I cannot understand what is going on in the world when people who I assumed weren’t justice-hating rape apologists are dying for a chance to show support for Polanski because, well… that’s just it— I don’t know why the hell anyone is complaining that he was arrested! The best these people can come up with is that he’s a Holocaust survivor; he’s a genius filmmaker; it happened so long ago; the victim doesn’t want to press the issue; they arrested him on the way to a lifetime achievement award; blah blah blah this SUCKS!!! I can’t believe it but my head actually hurts to think about it. My head doesn’t hurt like this when I think about the people who buy seasons of crappy sitcoms like “Two and a Half Men” on DVD; or when I hear someone saying that maybe old black people were discriminated against but younger black people don’t really face discrimination; or even when I see that Nickelback went triple-platinum: nothing sucks as much as people making excuses for themselves and their friends based on nothing, especially when the rule of law or common decency is being subverted.
Posted in Hollywood scum, Law and justice, Scandal, Sex
Tagged Celebrity exceptionalism, Child-rape, Christopher Hitchens, Excuses, Headaches, Hollywood, Justice, Roman Polanski, Rule of law
I heard the news before watching tonight’s show, but it was hard to watch Dave admit to having several sexual affairs (he called “sick, sick things”) with staffers at the show. He spoke about the man (who it turns out is the producer of “48 Hours”) who tried to blackmail him for $2 million for most of the segment, but finally admitted that these “sick things” he was accused of were true. There was laughing throughout, especially near the beginning of the story when he was in “Uncle Dave” mode, but as the story went on he became more contrite and spent the remainder of the show– including the guest interviews and the Top Ten list– looking bothered and distracted.
Philandering Boys Club!
Letterman’s personal crisis bothers me because it means that a hero of mine is just another philandering drop in a sea of wealthy, powerful, adulterous men, helping to prove that there is no such thing as a wealthy, powerful man who can control his every sexual whim. I don’t care to be wealthy or powerful but I started wondering, should I become brilliant like Letterman and accrue wealth and power in the meantime, would I be susceptible to this kind of behavior, or– and this might be a stretch– does my intense desire to be a trustworthy, non-philandering man preclude my being brilliant and successful? Are these traits mutually exclusive? Is there an intervening variable here that might explain why so many wealthy or powerful men are adulterers? Does this mean wealthy and powerful men are nearly irresistible to women, and that it’s a given that any man will sleep with a woman who finds him irresistible? Should it be okay for a man to have affairs or mistresses or the occasional night with a prostitute if it allows him to keep being brilliant? If that’s how we are by nature, then why does it seem so messed up? Why are people always hurt by these “sick things” if it appears they have some natural reason to accept or even embrace them?
Most of all, why are people sticking up for Roman Polanski, the child rapist?
I never liked John Edwards, but now I have reasons to back up my prejudices against this pretty, weaselly, self-confessed narcissist. In a New York Times article that came out this weekend, his alleged offenses are particularly sick. I’ll let the article speak for itself, but here’s one thing that stuck out as particularly gut-wrenching:
[Andrew Young, the one who falsely claimed paternity to what is likely John’s lovechild with Rielle Hunter, says that] Mr. Edwards once calmed an anxious Ms. Hunter by promising her that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.
Ugh. Dave Matthews Band?!? Offensive!
Decent human Elizabeth Edwards, and husband
I usually could not care less about a celebrity’s personal affairs, and maybe I shouldn’t care much more about this one, but I do anyway, and here’s why: Elizabeth Edwards is terminally ill and now it appears that John was not only acknowledging that he was running around on his wife while she was probably dying, but used her impending death as part of a delayed promise to another woman that “someday we’ll be even happier”. But I also care a little more about this story because I knew his family for a couple years through that all-time sports juggernaut, the Broughton High School softball team. Elizabeth was at every game and assumed the role of lead cheerleader of that pitiful, unskilled, and apathetic team that was never fun to watch and never gave any reason to cheer. But there she was, often with a bag full of dollar-store kazoos to pass around, getting the crowd excited and turning the train wreck into a circus. Back then, she sported a style that was almost hippie; she wore loose clothing but no makeup, had hair down to her waist, and accessorized with items made by artisans from around the world, that kind of thing. She has had to abandon all comfort and sell out for the guy who was almost never at any game (I understand that he was a busy hot-shot lawyer, but so were half of the committed Broughton dads in the stands), just so he could stroke his own ego and go national with his political ambitions and enjoy the company of all the worthless people that also thought he was a real sexy, classy, charming, yet genuine, guy. And now all this comes out and the guy who, when he actually showed up at those softball games, spent the majority of the time on his cell phone behind the stands seemingly had everything his crooked heart desired while the woman who poured her heart out for the team with a seasons-long losing streak had lost her husband, her private life, and her health. You have to wonder if John Edwards will ever consider anyone other than himself, or if he is even sorry that he ruined his wife’s life or that he destroyed his own family and in doing so started a dysfunctional one.