The CRIMINAL LAW, Inherit, not the penal system.  Oxford failed us, my friend writing me vacuous drivel which he learned in school to be Educated. So we have to wing it.

The function of criminal law in a civlized society, assuming earthpeople ever evolves one, is to deter crime with a minimum of cost and suffering.

According to Chomsky, California used to budget 20% for Education and 10% for prisons in the 1970’s and now the percentages are exactly reversed.  there is a sstrong prison guard association which has been very successful in getting money for prisons, increasing the prison sentences, and eliminting any rehab.

The judges have enormous discretion in trials to favor the prosecution, which they usually do because prosecurtors tend to be selected to be judges.  They are often corrupt as well as punitive, as Polanski’s judge was, who had a reputation has a prosecurtor’s judge.  the prosecurtors themselves make a political career by prosecuting famous people, as Paul Craig Robert’s book details.

The US, ruled by a barbaric plutocracy, does not deter crime and does it at enourmous cost, suffering and injustice.  It parades the crimes of the powerless as a diversion for the rank injustice and inequality of American society, and the largest prison population in the world is still increasing in the US.  With the population manipulated to sustain it and pay for it.  Polanski is an example of american justice.

My take on this:
Since neither the legal system nor the penal system justifiably serve their purpose, there has to be a different direction to take to solve crime to a better degree and keep the Polanski ways off the street in the first place.
*The legal system manipulates or presents the evidence in such a way to get a conviction(in no way do I say here that all convicted are innocent-but having been part of trials as a witness with the coersion from the prosecutor on my wording of my experience for presentation(?)in trial).There is doubt and injustice more than what is known, proven more and more as we go.
*The penal system has the four basic functions which actually seperate those convicted yet segregate them together where rehab becomes exposure to new criminal life stories which can create new improper bonds to be used possibly at a later time. Retribution becomes costly in many different ways which is deterred for only the length of time the legal system can cope with the financial cost of room & board.
*The answer must be social and basic prior to and from a preferrably younger age. The parents with different sets of rules for their kids then themselves become hypocritical. If you don’t raise kids with the love and time for them, and you break the very rules of life you convey to them, then when does rebellion stop (and with who)? Walk the walk if you talk the talk, better that than what we have, or don’t complain. Just the way I see it.

Folktruther, October 7 at 1:48 pm #

So I asked a lawyer friend who has advanced degrees in legal philosophy for an Answer and am waiting for his Reply.  That ought to clarify the matter.
************************************************

I’m surprised at you FT: It’s really not that difficult. Any student of criminal psychology, criminal sociology, or criminal economics (which I studied at one point) can answer that.

There are four basic functions of a penal system.  These functions can be discrete, at odds with each other, or run in parallel.  They are:
1) Separation
2) Rehabilitation
3) Retribution
4) Deterrence

Obviously, separation means removing them from standard society so they cannot injure others.

Rehabilitation is to teach them new social skills so they don’t commit further crimes. (not super-effective). This is with the intent to reduce “recidivism”.  (If you think it’s working, just enter the labyrinth of defining how to MEASURE recidivism!)

Retribution is our own desire for vengeance—99% of the REAL justification for the death penalty is this and the other 1% is divided between separation and deterrence.

Deterrence is to keep people from doing stuff for fear of the punishment—for the psychotic, sociopathic, and psychopathic, this is meaningless.

***************************************************
Jack, you stopped truthdig just because you got unprovoked insults?  You must be a real dingbat.
***************************************************

As King of the Dingbats, FT KNOWS, and I wouldn’t dream of arguing with his assessment! 

It appears that people have the wrong take on the Polanski matter not merely because their sexual values are perverted, but because they do not understand the purpose of criminal law in a civilized society, not living in one.  I asked my wife, who supervises lawyers, what the purpose of criminal law is, and she said to pay her a good salery so we can go on trips.  She is not a big fan of legal philosophy.

So I asked a lawyer friend who has advanced degrees in legal philosophy for an Answer and am waiting for his Reply.  That ought to clarify the matter.

Jack, you stopped truthdig just because you got unprovoked insults?  You must be a real dingbat.

Inherit the Wind writes:
“I have NO sympathy for [Polanski] and ONLY want to see the victim get her way”

Yes. The victim wants it to be OVER, along with everybody who wants to avoid any more essays beginning
“Could it be that the conservative culture warriors who portray Hollywood as a cesspool of moral bankruptcy have been right all along?”

In the LA Times, a piece which shreds the Obama/Robinson Hollywood-Harvey Weinstein thesis:

“There’s only one problem: All of those filmmakers, along with Harvey Weinstein, live far, far away from Hollywood and, with occasional exceptions, make their movies outside of Hollywood as well.”
Is Hollywood really a hotbed of support for Roman Polanski?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/10/is-hollywood-really-a-hotbed-of-support-for-roman-polanski.html

And besides: just in case Robinson/Obama’s over-the-top Polanski adventure has been about extracting Schwarzenegger’s “support” for the Oblabla medical-insurance flim-flam, THAT’s now in the bag ...

Actually, FT, it was Para-whatever who said Jews were over-sexed, not PH…but he’s got his own ball of crap he’s stinkin’ up the joint with.

Funny, you see JUST what happens when a criminal turns out to be a Jew.  Like no Christian or Moslem ever committed a crime…Yeah, right, like Carlo Ponzi is a Jewish name, right?

Thomas H. Lee, who may be the evilest financial crook since Ken Lay of Enron fame actually hurt more people than Madoff, and he’s walking free, Boston Brahman that he is.  Henry Paulsen, who used his power as SecTreasury to sink rivals to Goldman,Sachs isn’t exactly Jewish, either.

So Roman Polanski is a Jew.  I have NO sympathy for him and ONLY want to see the victim get her way and for justice to be fairly done, even if the sicko gets to walk away.  I don’t give a shit about Polanski, but I DO give a shit about proper enforcement of our laws and protecting this victim.

Jack, you unregistered commenter you, I can forgive that POTUS you refer to due to his battle with Alzheimer condition evidenced by his affiliation with the GOP. As far as “mum”, I know of at least one other person who had the thought you expressed and I’m sure there is a lot left untold. Mum certainly should have and possibly could have. Strikingly absent to me also was Dad was not mentioned at all and you did ask what would be done to “mum” if it was one’s wife. Are you saying it would be your wife’s fault only. Putting you in that spot, where were YOU? This is not a personal attack on you rather than a statement of reality to those who like to just have someone to blame. Police your own thoughts and deeds before casting doubts on the unknown, me included. Those directly involved here have to live with their own actions because those actions affect many more other than themselves. For me, just another head-shaking example of the type of person I wish not to be.

By Folktruther, October 6 at 3:49 am #

To answer your question, no I don’t believe jews are oversexed and I don’t really care if they are.  I am somewhat bemused that you state “that Jews are preying on the White girls of Hollywood? I was always under the impression that most jews were white.  No, unlike alot of jews I don’t see any problems with interfaith and interethnic marriage.

When I was in the Marines I was stationed at at El Toro in California outside of Hollywood and was relatively unimpressed as it is a dirty, polluted and congested place.  Looks good on film, reality is a different subject.

The Weinstein brothers are hollywood moguls.  They defend their monopoly.  When they pass on I’m sure it will be fellow jews who obtain that business, ask Ted Turner about that.

I find your politically correct racism describing Blacks as “African Americans” atypical of those hypocrites who wish to live separate but tout their “friend of the Black man” credentials.

As an expert on all things jewish I’m suprised (really not) that a holocaust survivor such as Polanski and especially him being a film director would get by you.  Of course him being guilty of felony rape and a pedophile, I can see your not wanting to claim him as one of you own, he looks white enough to me too to make me feel ashamed if that is your litnus test.

Alot of innocent people have been lynched, tortured and crucified for no good reason throughout history and I know it continues today.  The brutalization of ones child is an unimaginable thought and it is uncertain what a parent would do, especially given the current state of justice or should I say injustice in this country.

Has anybody thought what they will be thinking about the next time they see old smiling Jack sitting court side at a Laker’s basketball game? What’s his famous line—“Truth, Truth, you can’t handle the truth.” How prophetic in a way. The truth seems plain as a facial expression, yet very tough to deal with because it asks so many questions of ourself. Predators are out there, no matter where you live. How you deal with them before incidents of this sort happen is how to handle the truth.

PatricKHenry, I don’t know how one person can remain so ignorant and bigoted even in the US.  It is quite true that the casting couch has been a proverbial honneypot for Jews.  also for non-Jews.  Do you think like Paracelsus that Jews are over sexed? that Jews are preying on the White girls of Hollywood?  Hell, we lived in Hollywood for a couple of years and let me assure that there was equal oppertunity preying. This is new to me, usually attibuted by bigots like yhurself to African-Americans.

The Weinstein brothers are hollywood moguls.  They defend their talent, if only as a business need.  They defended Michael Moore and his famous documentary when it was turned down by Warners.  they’ve defended and attacked others, for hollywood business reasons.  Many commenters didn’t know Polanski was Jewish, indeed raised for a while as a Caltholic. I didn’t, and it would havve maed no difference.  But since your into racism I’m sure that doesn’t matter to you.

But I am still shocked by your advocating lynching.  I thought we were passed all that. You want to hang people from trees?  You are like sombody coming out of the dark ages, grunting and dragging you knuckles across the rocks.

Don’t tell me, I already know: some of your best friends are black.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct/04/roman-
polanski-sex-case-backlash

It’s called “irony”, Herr Henrik.

Bernard-Henri Lévy:

“We are dealing with people who would step over the victims rather than let go of their prey and renounce the drunken desire to punish. It is shameful.”

On the Polanski Affair http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/on-the-polanski-affair_b_310397.html

On the Polanski Affair
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/on-the-polanski-affair_b_310397.html

By Inherit The Wind, October 3 at 11:35 pm #

PH:

Yeah, and Jews sank the economy and Jews run the MSM and government acting as a 5th Column for Israel zionism.  Yeah. Right. We have magic demonic powers to do this…so how come FT, Sepharad and me can’t use OUR magic powers to move it to doing something else????

Is this some sort of self hypnosis or do you believe everything you read?

Folktruther, October 5 at 2:39 pm #

Good Lord!  First PatrickHenry, now Paracelsus.  Polanski raped the girl because he is Jewish?!  I hadn’t realized bigotry was so close to the surface in the US.  I can imagine what they think of non-White people.
***********************************************

Sorry, guy, but that’s what I’ve been telling you about these two for a long time. They hate Jews, period. PH is STILL trying to cover up and put the blame on Jews in Hollywood at the same time. In their minds, Jews are corrupt from the moment they are born, by definition.  I know that’s not true and you know that’s not true.

By Folktruther, October 5 at 2:39 pm #

Good Lord!  First PatrickHenry, now Paracelsus.  Polanski raped the girl because he is Jewish?!  I hadn’t realized bigotry was so close to the surface in the US.  I can imagine what they think of non-White people.

I see your spreading inaccuracies again. 

I can’t speak for Paracelsus but I find it hard to condone a major jewish player (Weinstein) using his considerable media influence in an attempt to have a a guilty man set free.  I doubt he would do it for a non-jew.

The casting couch has been a notorious place for directors and producers like Weinstein or Woody Allen to pressure for sex for decades, but the matter ends at rape of a minor.

The posts here which attempt to convolute the matter into something it is not is equally reprehensible, if not racist.

FT, BTW I choose to live in P.G. county Maryland which has the highest percentage Black professional majority population in America, some 70%.  They are my neighbors and my friends.  So when you spread your disinformative racist blather, get your facts straight.

In discussing the Polanski matter over BBQ in my back yard my neighbor noted that if a Black man had done what Polanski had done he would have been hanging from a tree.

If it had been my daughter, he would.

Paracelsus writes:
“While you were away, some young men video recorded some more FEMA crypts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoXTQwFD42o “

HOLY SMOKES! What the heck is THAT about? And, as one commenter at youtube asks, why ARE the er coffins cement?

SusanSunflower writes:
“Will California’s impending bankruptcy be used to get EVERYONE off the hook in this case?”

Everyone except the former girl and her family, maybe.

Outraged writes:
“Many of these posts conjure up just about every invention imaginable as to why Polanski was arrested, EXCEPT for that elephant in the room…. the fact that he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl when he was fourty-three.”

Nah. It might be about slowing down “The Ghost”—Iraq, Afghanistan—might be about going after Swiss accounts of moneybags who oppose Oblabla, might be about costuming Obama’s increasingly-creepy organization as the Justice League, might be about ACORN’s child-prostitution problem, but it’s NOT about THAT, whatever “that” was.

In a timely and curious twist of teevee programming, MSNBC—on whose soft-news shows Robinson tiresomely appears as a talking head, and which with CNN went all out for the Obama cult during the election—LAST night showed a feature on the Manson murders: many soft-focus shots of Polanski’s murdered wife, the very pregnant blonde goddess Sharon Tate.

Let’s hope the worm is turning on this charade.

In the meantime, if the Obama bunch is so concerned about “children” of the past, there are hundreds of ACTUAL children murdering each other THIS year—usually with guns, most recently with boards—in Chicago, where the Olympics isn’t gonna be.

Will California’s impending bankruptcy be used to get EVERYONE off the hook in this case? Will they need a Polanski federal bail out to finance this mess?

Is this the secret “why now”?

(joke)

Good Lord!  First PatrickHenry, now Paracelsus.  Polanski raped the girl because he is Jewish?!  I hadn’t realized bigotry was so close to the surface in the US.  I can imagine what they think of non-White people.

Get over yourself. In fact, your mantra illuminates your specific depravity.  Which btw, is every bit as degenerate.  The fact that others including MYSELF acknowledges this specific depravity DOESN’T qualify yours.  GROW UP.

I don’t exactly know what you are saying. But I will say I wish I did not have the father I had. So yeah, I need to get over it, but to what extent and in what way? As to the Mad Men, the character, Pete Campbell, is a WASP. So I was thrown for a loop as he had spoken of wanting a hamburger cooked in butter, which is something I can relate to as the meat I ate as a child was many times dried of any broth. Also the name Campbell is Scottish, and usually Scotts have light features. I’ll just say I have a monkey on my back about my own background.

Re: Paracelsus

Your comment: “Just another oversexed Jewish male, who can’t keep his schwanz in his pants. If you want it so bad see a prostitute,”

Get over yourself. In fact, your mantra illuminates your specific depravity.  Which btw, is every bit as degenerate.  The fact that others including MYSELF acknowledges this specific depravity DOESN’T qualify yours.  GROW UP.

Re: Eugene

“The brutalization of one young girl, it seems, leaves Hollywood’s big heart awfully cold.”

I agree.  Judging by some of the commenters here Hollywood’s big heart is not the only cold one.

Many of these posts conjure up just about every invention imaginable as to why Polanski was arrested, EXCEPT for that elephant in the room…. the fact that he drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl when he was fourty-three.

He admitted he did it and was convicted.  Then he ran.  Later, all but boasting about it!  Most child molesters don’t see their crimes as “a big deal”.  Realistically, Polanski not only re-incriminates himself with the following comment, but shows himself a poster-child of perps.

“when the British novelist Martin Amis interviewed him in 1979. “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see?” Polanski told Amis. “But ... [having sex], you see, and the young girls. Judges want to [have sex with] young girls. Juries want to [have sex with] young girls. Everyone wants to [have sex with] young girls!” For “having sex,” he used an Anglo-Saxon vulgarity.”

oops . . . dropped one

“American taxpayers now have until—> Oct. 15 <—to disclose their accounts.”
UBS Client Enters Guilty Plea in Tax Case
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/ubs-client-enters-guilty-plea-in-tax-case/

Folktruther writes:
“But why would Obama piss off Hollywood, mostly rich Democrats? … it seems we’re missing something.”

Maybe we’re missing something that’s about to fall out of somebody’s closet and land smack-dab in the middle of the Obama organization? Maybe He’s managed to sell Himself to the uber-WASPS? Maybe He’s done with the Democrats, ready to resign to start a church, or another political party?

Meanwhile . . .

Swiss minister promises quick Polanski decision
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hNqoXdU-KUWihNLODFA4U4de92kg

“One interesting part is where an AP staffer theorizes that the Swiss arrested Polanski ‘because they’re under intense pressure over UBS and want to throw the U.S. a bone.’”
Whoops! The AP Publishes Internal Notes About Roman Polanski Arrest As News Story
http://www.businessinsider.com/whoops-the-ap-publishes-internal-notes-about-roman-polanski-arrest-as-news-story-2009-9#

Is Polanski Under Arrest Because of UBS?
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/09/29/is-polanski-under-arrest-because-of-ubs/

“Weingarten advised Holder during the confirmation process, and he represented Holder in congressional hearings that explored the then-Deputy Attorney General’s role in the controversial pardon by President Clinton of fugitive financier Marc Rich.”
Polanski Adds Holder Pal Weingarten To Legal Team
http://www.mainjustice.com/2009/09/30/polanski-adds-weingarten-to-his-legal-team/

I’m not so sanguine that it’s a distraction ... particularly with “indefinite detention” and Gitmo closure front and center.

Where I live there is a lot of anti-“big government” sentiment (which really doesn’t stand scrutiny—it’s bogglingly shallow and appears bumpersticker in depth) and I gather (and have witnessed personally) a real sense that government is broken and can’t get anything accomplished. We can hope democratic losses at mid-terms won’t be too terrible (or not).

If I found out that Karl Rove was advising California rethugs to push this warrant, I’d tip my hat. Sounds as if law enforcement has been seething as the prosecutor’s office (the suits) have been negotiating with Polanski’s law team. Now he’s in “custody” and they’ve “got him”—sort of—kinda—not really—they can sit back and Monday morning quarterback the suits and the politicians.

“The Media”—as with healthcare—has whipped up emotion to a wet froth and people (all over the internet) are post stuff that makes it very clear they don’t care about the law in this case—they know even less about the law or the facts of this case—except Polanski did a bad thing and needs to be imprisoned for a long, long time, preferably with a large sideorder of abuse.

The path to fascism can take any avenue ... this might be an important one. Lynch mobs and vigilantism have been romanticised as part of our “frontier spirit,” competence, take charge and get things done (largely a WASP myth). Honestly, it frightens me to see the “liberal” outlets championing this over the top “law and order” tinged hysteria.

=========================================================

Glad the girl in this case turned out okay—I found the transcripts of her testimony boggling and depressing in her passivity.

I still want to know who involved the police. Did she complain to her father?  Blech.

Well, Virgina, maybe you’re right, that this whole thing is just a vast disraction.  @ct states that it is a sucking up to the right wing, and Susan attributes it to Obama cowardliness.  that certainly partially what it is, and maybe all it is.  But why would Obama piss off Hollywood, mostly rich Democrats?  Maybe it’s the same reason that Clinton lashed at the black female singer for electoral purposens.  Still…  it seems we’re missing something.

Check out Paracelsus’s link on the 3.33 pm post on the horrifying traffic in women in Israel.  Barbaric.

By Folktruther, October 4 at 12:45 pm #

Nice little attempt at a “bite” to distort.

PatrickHenry- “the attitude of Jews toward sex” ???

Actually I wrote “the attitude of jews toward sex in Hollywood”.

Let me see.  All Hollywood studios owned by jews, the majority of actors there are jewish, even Whoopi Goldberg changed her name because of her 2% jewish ancestery?  I guess she thought correctly that it would give her a leg up.  Jews Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen (other paragons of virtue) attempt to get other studio moguls, directors and actors to sign a petition to get Roman Polanski off of a felony sex charge because he’s a holocaust survivor and suffered infamous trajedy in his life. 

If this is what it means to be a “semite”, I’m glad I am not one.

Strange Business

Image 1: http://a.imagehost.org/0336/Strange_business.png

Image 2: http://a.imagehost.org/0453/strange_business_2.png

Folktruther writes:
“Susan Sunflower, @ct and myself feel that there is a political dimension to this episode but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is.”

Whatever it’s REALLY about—maybe something so simple as smoking out who’s where, for future arm-twisting—it looks like California’d pushed a LITTLE bit of paper around on it every few years (NOT, pre-ACORN, Obama’s popularity slide and the “reform” debacle, so seriously), and that nobody paid any attention to it.

Maybe, with Kennedy out of the way, the Obama machine was in a better position to lean on . . . oh, say, Schwarzennegger, about something? (But the ‘WHY push the paper NOW’ question is still outstanding . . . )

L.A. Prosecutors Offer Timeline to Prove They Pursued Polanski (28 September)
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/la-prosecutors-offer-timeline-to-prove-they-pursued-polanski/

Some of what Patrick Henry has brought up can’t be ignored.

Israel’s Sex Trade

The challenge is daunting. Demand for prostitution in Israel is enormous, with an estimated one million visits to brothels every month. Human rights organizations estimate that 3,000 women are brought into the country as sex slaves every year. The women come primarily from Russia, Moldova, and the Ukraine, where the collapse of social safety nets in post-communist economies has created a ready supply of destitute women.

http://tinyurl.com/yczxp6z

SusanSunflower writes:
“Team Obama ... lacked the cajones to squash the request for warrant ... like they lack the cajones to do a lot of things ... “

Hence, one supposes, the DOUBLE helping of warm spit from Obama’s Robinson.

Here’s a funny thing: Anne Applebaum has some interesting “Polanski” posts in the WashPost (links below), of which only the first sentence of the passage below—the pro forma kow-tow to court scribes Robinson and Cohen—is a serious disappointment.

“Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts)—including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi—and not just the salacious bits.”

.

The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html

Reaction to Roman Polanski
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/reaction_to_roman_polanski.html

Applebaum’s been the subject since, according to search engines, of some guff from the right end of the blogosphere, if anybody cares to look THAT up.

my initial reaction was that Team Obama has been truly seriously “rat fucked” here ... not “withing the law” ... or Polanski would have been arrested years ago ...

they lacked the cajones to squash the request for warrant ... like they lack the cajones to do a lot of things, like close gitmo, charge or release the evilest of the evil-doers (or most damaged of the tortured, or both) ...

yeah, I don’t post on sites that get scrubbed ... I have felt the “responsibility” to stand up for what I consider sanity on this topic.

(I’ve read Rittenbauer intended to sentence Polanski to another 45 days “observation” but this time in the very-dangerous-for-child-rapists “general population”—since there was no legitimate rational for this and since “observation” shall not be used punitively, well, if provable ..... we’ll see what happens)

Folktruther writes:
“Susan Sunflower, @ct and myself feel that there is a political dimension to this episode but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is.”

There’s sucking up to the right in general (and not hesitating to venture into covert Jew-baiting to do so).

There’s distracting people from the ACORN videos about brothel-management for underage exotic hooker/sex slaves.

There’s smearing Weinstein—who didn’t support Oblabla—presumably as a step in trying to intimidate deep-pockets Democratic ducks to line up with donations for whatever/whomever—Bill Clinton’s endorsed scandalized pretty-boy Gavin Newsom for the 2010 Governor’s race—is thought to be likely to save Der Won’s ersatz electoral bacon in 2012.

And then there’s the sexual politics of the very creepy Big Daddy gambit: Robinson/Obama (and, G-d help “news” readers, Richard Cohen’s piled on with an offer to do teeny-weeny ole Polanski physical damage) know BETTER than the object of Polanski’s statutory rape whether re-victimizing the former minor’s family, and revving up Interpol and whatever, is worth the sad old candle. (This is where Michelle Obama’s ridiculous public costumes, in contrast to Oprah’s, could shed some psycho-light: why does Oblabla force—it’s simply inconceivable that the mature mother of two girls, with access to unlimited funds and assistance, dresses that way voluntarily—the wife-of-record to dress like a young teenager from the tacky 1950s? Is this merely Obama’s personal fetish, infantilizing the female bio-partner to make the male look more “manly”, and less drifty and swishy—or something more general about women (and what WAS ACORN up to?).

There’s the now-defunct (with the Olympics) assumption that Obama’s crusades-in-Europe are something other than ridiculous.

In any case, ANY speculation on the political underpinnings and intentions of this crap-fest would be welcome, instead of any more phatic excoriation of whoever “Polanski” used to be, and/or of what he did/didn’t do to/with whomever.

Truthdig needs better monitors—or a better scrubber—ridiculous, 12 hours after the fact.

I have found that ridiculous speech tends to bring out people with truthful, corrective responses. I don’t want any minders on truthdig.

there are a lot of questions unanswered and things that don’t make sense ... I can’t find, for example, who called the police.

The victim has said (as recently as 2008) that she had been uncomfortable with the previous day’s “photo shoot” where Polanski had photographed her changing clothes, and had not wanted to return. If so, why did she, why did she return alone, why did she take the half-qualude and champage, why didn’t she call her mother - ever - apparently. Polanski drove her home.

The father was loudly outraged in the first days ... and grumbled about bad parenting and suing for custody.

Mom and daughter did not want to press charges. Then they went ahead.

A “hollywood photographer” on another blog a few years ago impressed me by saying that no kid works without a chaperone and no “legit” photographer would want to (for fear of false charges). (Antonioni fantesy anyone?)

There’s more ... and there are some “excuses” that might be offered but the cops really hated the debauched hollywood crowd and really wanted to nail Polanski. Was the negotiated final charge a “compromise”—a quid pro quo—exchange for keeping the lurid details that would make the mother look bad, compromise custody (which I think the daughter feared also), etc.—needed to keep the mother cooperative?

A chaperone, any chaperone should have avoided this.

Truthdig needs better monitors—or a better scrubber—ridiculous, 12 hours after the fact.

Christ, all this moralizing on Truthdig.

The Neo-cons scored a “hit” with this one, thats for sure.

Open your eyes, its yet another distraction and false lead - not to mention, persecution of an artist.

(and, conveniently, simultaneously an attack on liberal Hollywood)

@ ITW

You can make all the excuses you want for Polanski, that his art after the rape is “beautiful”, but I simply cannot spend my hard-earned money to support such people.

As I said, I read the book by Thomas Hardy. I wonder if Leo Tolstoi had Anna Karenina murder Stephan that would have made for a better story. She would have inherited if primogeniture was not too heavy in Russia. Then again she could have been still screwed if a nearest male relative took guardianship of the estate and then doled out an allowance to her. At least she would not have to worry about getting granted a divorce if she skillfully murdered her husband with poison or such.

As to Tess, I think the crime of passion aspect of stabbing her “lover” Alec mitigates the killing somewhat, though there was some “proof” of premeditation contrived or else the judge would not have had her hanged. I suppose the impertinence of a lower class woman murdering an upperclass gentleman sealed her fate. Too bad she was not more canny. Lucrezia Borgia would have provided a good role model in how to live in a psychopathic system. I thought some of the story was too pretty to be believable, so it had somewhat of a contrived quality to it.

As to Hollywood’s favoring of certain people, I think a lot has to do with family connections. For example, Tori Spelling is a singularly ugly woman and as a child she was merely bulldog cute. She has the physiognomy of some of my grand uncles on my father’s side. I imagine for her husband to kiss her, would not be all that different than French kissing Mr. Aaron Spelling himself! I don’t think the Jews own all of Hollywood. There is a large number of talented Catholic families that also have claim on Hollywood. That movie about that boy booty groper Father Flanagan is a significant contribution. I know that for true because my grandfather who was a 32nd degree Mason angrily cursed Flanagan as a pedophile every time he received a charitable solicitation in the mail. And on that account I believe he spoke the truth. Walt Disney was a congregationalist. So that is one point in favor for the Protestants. Anyway, Robinson, I can do trashy trivia too. I wonder if those FEMA camps are ready for us.

Susan Sunflower, @ct and myself feel that there is a political dimension to this episode but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is.  Why would the NYTimes, Wanshington Post and Truthdig all emphasize it punitively?  Why would the Obama regime go out of their way to initiate an international warrant?  And pressure Europe?  Polanski appears non-political.  Beats the hell out of me.

PatrickHenry- “the attitude of Jews toward sex” ???
Inherit is right in you’re case, you obviously are an anti-Semite.  You’ll probably wind up with the White Christian right as your soul is seriously diseased.

To PatrickHenry:
Your link is to a site which, apparently, blames Jews in specific and in general for pornography in Hollywood, in America, and, well, everywhere. I didn’t get very far but then I didn’t have to in order to see what the site was about. The only thing missing were quotes from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

It’s unfortunate that you feel strangely compelled to use this sad and unfortunate case as a launching pad for your anti-Semitic viewpoints.

ITW, I am not suprised you take the moral high ground against Polanski, how can one defend a child molester?

It is no suprise that Weinstein is trying to get Polanski “off the hook” given the attitude of jews toward sex in Hollywood.  It is best for directors and producers to keep these indiscretions off the headlines, especially when the general public views them as brutal acts against children.

http:  //www.holywar.org/jewishtr/criporn.htm

I just wonder how long Polanski had been getting away with date-rape until he was caught.

To narrow in on Polanski, and Hollywood to blame them soley, is really not helpful in trying to understand what went wrong here.

Although I haven’t read the case file, I do have some questions which I believe go to the heart of how Mr. Polanski was able to elude justice all these years.

First of all why wasn’t the home owner where the assualt was perpetrated charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor, because the victim consumed drugs and alcohol at their residence?

Whether they knowingly or unkowingly provided a place where the assault took place is also pertinent to what happened, and they are materially responsible, as well.

Why didn’t children’s sevices open up a case against the victims parents for failure to protect their daughter, which is sufficient cause, for them to lose custody, and the victim to become a dependent of the court?

What kind of parent lets their 13 year old daughter go off with man many decades her senior? Under what curcumstances did they allow this?

Since, every attorneys from the judge on down are mandated reporters to DCFS, I wonder how many filed child abuse reports?

And I wonder, what the victims view of things would be now, if someone would have taken their responsibilities more seriously.

Dr. Reston writes:
“You know, I’m sorry Mr. Robinson but I just can’t let this one go. I suspect that upon reflection you realized you wrote an insipid and absurd article about John Edwards, so now you’ve decided to attack a subject that’s more substantive.”

Aargh. How Down Low can Robinson/Obama go?

Readers who haven’t kept up should note that this is Robinson’s SECOND attempt to steam up the WashPost windshield around the subject, sort of, of “Polanski”.

(See also “Bring Polanski to Justice”, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090929_bring_polanski_to_justice/ )

Let us pray that the Pulitzer people will now just RETIRE the “Commentary” prize. Dozens—maybe hundreds—of freelance bloggers do better “commentary” than Robinson. (Not to mention Paul Krugman, passed over in favor of Robinson during the manufactured assault by which Obamamania, like a quaalude/champagne cocktail, briefly rendered the entire culture incapable of resistance.

You can make all the excuses you want for Polanski, that his art after the rape is “beautiful”, but I simply cannot spend my hard-earned money to support such people.

We are not talking about simply refusing to go to a Bruce Willis movie because he’s Republican—I don’t demand such “political correctness”.  But there are lines which once crossed, are take certain people out of my sphere of willingness. Polanski is one of those.  He can make his money from people like you, but he won’t make a dime off me if I can help it.

You know, I’m sorry Mr. Robinson but I just can’t let this one go. I suspect that upon reflection you realized you wrote an insipid and absurd article about John Edwards, so now you’ve decided to attack a subject that’s more substantive.

The problem is it’s an adult subject and a complex subject and rules of modern journalism don’t let you write in an adult or complex manner.  You write for a “family” newspaper. Everything you write must be suitable children. You write in an ethnocentric world where all behavior is judged by American standards.

You cannot say, for instance, that Mr. Polanski comes from another country where his crime is not regarded quite so seriously, which is why he’s been able to live in another country for the last 30 some odd years without being prosecuted.

Modern journalists like to pretend that no other communication medium exists besides their own, so you cannot mention that a documentary has been produced during which the victim of this crime states that continually talking about being sodomized to a bunch of police officers was more traumatic than the act itself. 

You can’t even write about the sex act itself.  You cannot write about Sharon Tate being gutted. You cannot mention, because it would be unpatriotic, that there are countries in this world that consider Henry Kissinger a war criminal and yet as recently as a few years ago he had access to The White House.

You cannot mention that America as a country has directly or indirectly slaughtered more civilians, overthrown more governments than any other country in the history of humanity. (No, wait! The Nazis killed more civilians than we have killed. Damn! I hate it when we come in second place to the Nazis.) 

No, you have to focus on the crime of Mr. Polanski, because that’s what’s been beaten in your head to do:  Keep the peasants in line. Stomp them when they’re down and brand them with the scarlet letter.

Yes, I know. You have written about some of these other things in different columns, but that is the conundrum of newspaper journalism, isn’t it?  You can’t make broad connections. You must write in this perverted haiku that takes every issue as if it occurred in a vacuum. History does not exist. Books do not exist. Documentaries do not exist. American war crimes do not exist. Profanity does not exist. And sodomy certainly does not exist. Or if any of the above exist, they only exist one column at a time. 

What next?  I know: The Beatles put out an album in 1968 called The Beatles, commonly known as The White Album.  Sir Paul McCartney penned most of a song named Helter Skelter.  Go after Paul. He certainly hasn’t had enough hell in his life. And on the album called Abby Road, there’s a little chant that sounds suspiciously John Lennon-ish.  It goes like this: “1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all the children go to heaven,” and it was written on the walls of Roman Polanski’s house with the blood of his wife. You no doubt should go after rock-n-roll next. Join Tipper Gore! Join Ms. Cheney! Join Joe Lieberman!

Dig this: There’s this band called Tool. They gotta song called Stinkfist.  You’ll never guess what it’s about!  There’s plenty of fodder for you Mr. Robinson.  You go there now. Keep up the good work.

Was Polanski filled with remorse? Not when the British novelist Martin Amis interviewed him in 1979. “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see?” Polanski told Amis. “But ... [having sex], you see, and the young girls. Judges want to [have sex with] young girls. Juries want to [have sex with] young girls. Everyone wants to [have sex with] young girls!” For “having sex,” he used an Anglo-Saxon vulgarity.”

What a degenerate.  Maybe Polanski needs to UNDERSTAND that that is really not the case.  The man takes a child, gives her a quaalude with alchohol and then rapes her.  At the time he is 43 and she is 13 yrs. old and some find these FACTS, trite….?

Just like the MJ rhetoric this article illuminates the very same twisted reasoning that attempts to qualify criminal actions with ficticious arguments.  The fact that the both of them were talented in some way is IMMATERIAL, that portion of their lives was not on trial.

My brother said, when “Tess” was released, “I don’t want to see Polanski raping this young actress with a camera!”  Well put, Bro!  The last Polanski movie I saw was “Chinatown”—made before he raped the 13 year old.

That was a beautiful story. I read the book. I think of it as a classier story than I Spit on Your Grave. At first it was not too clear whether Alec d’Uberville raped Tess or seduced her. Anyway she died by execution for killing Alec after she felt angered beyond all endurance. I ‘d rather talk about Tess than Polanski. It doesn’t matter to me as justice will be done, and there are greater evils in the world. I wonder what stupid laws are being passed or what ridiculous regulations are being effected without the approval of Congress. I read a story that the EPA will consider CO2 a pollutant, they will push forward with some scheme of fines and fees. There is a hate speech code being considered in Congress but it is not finding a lot of a support. History Channel did a documentary on hate groups with the main point being that freedom of speech allows these groups to spew hate. They tried to burn a hole through my head with that point. There was a a G-20 meeting where weapons that had been used in Iraq were being used on citizens protesting the G-20 conference. The black block anarchists otherwise known as police agent provocateurs were up to their usual mischief painting all anti-globalists as unruly, riotous mobs. Barney Frank is still sitting on the “Audit the Fed” bill. All this and more is happening while Polanski is being debated. I think it won’t be too long before Mackenzie Phillips hits the Truthdig hit parade. In some ways Bob Scheer is like Jerry Springer. They love trivial pap.

PH:

Yeah, and Jews sank the economy and Jews run the MSM and government acting as a 5th Column for Israel zionism.  Yeah. Right. We have magic demonic powers to do this…so how come FT, Sepharad and me can’t use OUR magic powers to move it to doing something else????

Day by day your words strip your pretense of being reasonable, and, as Folktruther says, show you are getting your “information” from the white-supremacist type web sites.

As FT points out (See, FT? You ARE right 5% of the time), it ain’t about Polanski being a Jew (which I didn’t know that until a few days ago) but about people who like his movies and maybe worked in them trying to cover their own selfish tunnel vision.

My brother said, when “Tess” was released, “I don’t want to see Polanski raping this young actress with a camera!”  Well put, Bro!  The last Polanski movie I saw was “Chinatown”—made before he raped the 13 year old.

See, I don’t pay money to people I think are morally repugnant, no matter HOW good people say their art is.  So…no Polanski, no Mel Gibson, no Michael Jackson, no James Levine.  3 child rapists and two anti-semites.

Susansunflower:

“Partisanship has fuck-all to do with it.”

her previous post:

“If that is how they feel and what they believe, why
in god’s name would their speaking out in support of
a peer be “wrong”?

You’ve lost me.  Teachers speak out on behalf of
teachers, politicians in support of politicians,
etc.”

- uh, you lost me there. 

You are distorting an ethical issue because you
resent the right-wing elements of the media getting
to score points off it.  Make no mistake - I agree
that the right-wing media ARE probably scoring points
off it and using it to slander ‘liberals’ in general;
I guess that’s business as usual.  Doesn’t mean I’m
going to treat Polanski as a cause celebre though! 
Jeez!  Please disentangle these two separate issues. 

And I still don’t see how you can assume that the
nature of this article in itself proves that the
author is ‘kissing up to the Right’.  I have no self-
interest or sympathy with ‘the Right’ but I still
think Polanski should pay for crimes anyone else
would have to pay for. 

Yeah, everyone has things in their past they’re not
proud of… but I never raped any fucking kids you
moron, Folktruther.

Congratulations TD, you finally found some red meat your veggie loving lefties
will eat.

Keep it up, and you just might out fox FOX.

at the time Roman Polanski fled, he had fullfilled the conditions of his plea bargain and as I understand was due to be pretty much freed of further penalty/obligation to the court (I have never heard of any further obligations or strings, such as parole).

As such, I really don’t have any burning desire to see him “punished” further. That year I suspect was dreadful, intrusive, humiliating, and he has lived for the last year, and will live for the rest of his life as a world-reknown child rapist and felon.

I have no idea what “the law” allows in punishing him for fleeing or what the ruling on the original plea bargain, Judge Rittenauer, change of venue, etc will be. The law has it’s limits. I don’t believe he is in need of further punishment.

YMMV. 

Partisanship has fuck-all to do with it.

CaptRon, you have an obvious talent for analysis.  Except the part about the “damanged girl”  From her published comments she seems to be the only person healthy and sensible in whole affair.

Patrick you are like Inherit, you both have Jews on the brain, only on different sides.  think money and power, Patrick.

Gordy you’re a dingbat.  don’t you understand?  Anyone can be convicted of a crime if you serach hard enough in their past, which is why there is a statue of limitations.  The proscuting attorney is required by law to pick out the most serious crimes, and not base prosecution on whether someone is a Dem or Gop or Black or White, etc.  this is an egregious violation of this legal principle along with the other legal corruption in the case. If they can do it to Polanski, they can do it to you.

Susan and @cr, I would guess that there is some unexamined politics involved here but what it is beats the hell out me.  Except, as Cockburn says, that Obama was too chicken to quash the complaint.

I have to come back to one thing you said - about
teachers defending teachers - surely you see that
your own example is slightly absurd: if a teacher
molested a pupil and the teachers rallied round
publicly (actually I think in most cases they would
be keen to show their professional disapproval and
moral outrage) - wouldn’t that be equally disgusting? 
Isn’t the way the Catholic church protects paedophile
priests disgusting? 

Right is right; when partisanship makes liars of
partisans it is ugly and it tarnishes the very cause
of the partisan. 

You build a country out of right principle; you don’t
say, “my country right or wrong” otherwise you are
following the way of Genghis Khan.

But Susan… it was a wrong and criminal thing to do
- and I’m not puritanical about teenagers fucking or
even teenagers fucking adults; I take a nuanced view
of these matters and I remember being a physically-
developed and perfectly horny 13 year-old myself; I
may even have leapt at the chance to fuck one or two
of my teachers, for all I can tell in hindsight.  I
don’t think that the age-difference always means that
the younger party is harmed or exploited. 

He drugged and coerced a girl who was there for work,
trying to make the Big Time and all that.  That is
exploitation.  He acted like a fucking sleazy douche
and if she had been any friend or relative of mine I
would have kicked his fucking head in. 

If my brother had done such a thing I would not
defend him.  I would maybe try to see things from his
point of view and understand his frailties but I
would never try to play down the seriousness of his
crime or contrive to protect him from the
consequences of his actions - that ultimately may do
him more harm than good by legitimizing his actions. 

You accept that this partisan mindset is inevitable
and fine - I say it is an impermeable barrier to
justice and good on this Earth.  If everyone fights
tooth and claw not for right but for their own camp -
that is sheer selfishness and violence and nothing
more - it negates any pretence of virtue when virtue
always comes after allegiance and self-interested
alliances.  Virtue becomes something hollow, to be
brandished as a weapon when ‘the enemy’ is caught
with his pants down; forgotten when ‘my side’ commits
the same wrong. 

You are defending amorality - good luck with that, it
must involve some dexterity.

If that is how they feel and what they believe, why in god’s name would their speaking out in support of a peer be “wrong”?

You’ve lost me.  Teachers speak out on behalf of teachers, politicians in support of politicians, etc.

Are you assuming that their petition will influence anything except maybe some public opinion among those who care about their opinion(s)?

Are you going after banning celebrity endorsements next? or maybe a ban on any form of advocacy at all for celebrities—or is it just “recognizable celebrities”?

No, I don’t think it’s wrong.

What a morass of a debate we have here.  I ask simple
questions and get no answers; everyone only wants to
refer to their wider ideas about how Jews/The
Right/Reptilians are manipulating events to further
some agenda.  Presenting these large-scale views does
not prove anything about Eugene Robinson’s intentions
- you are obviously making assumptions about him and
defending those assumptions as articles of faith. 

When you don’t even try to persuade others with
anything concrete you are merely shouting your view
and getting a cheap thrill out of the support of your
sympathizers and the antagonism of your detractors. 
I can’t even be bothered disagreeing with you when
you don’t even understand what debate is; I came for
debate not to hear a load of individuals on their own
private soapboxes trying to out-shout each other. 

Please allow me to try one more time to direct you
all back to the (legitimate) point of the article: a
man committed a crime, and his powerful friends
publicly and hypocritically tried to hold him to
different standards from the rest of us.  This is in
my opinion elitist and wrong. 

We can have a short and straightforward debate about
this (note it is a short article) or we can scream
our opposing media conspiracy-theories at each other
and achieve nothing except to add to the world’s sum
total of animosity. 

There are plenty of other threads where you can rant
about what makes the news and what doesn’t.

Ah, now I get it. End result-make the damaged young lady Governor of California. They won’t have to worry about prior sexual incidents being pulled from the closet, which will make her one of the most honest people in Cauliflornia, and if she so chooses, she can take self-retaliation against Polanski, who can return to the U.S. to the satisfaction of the Hollywood community, making just about everybody happy. Only problem that I see, what party will she represent? Gee, it was all right there in front of me…

no—- it’s NOT the crime—it’s the “why now?” of the arrest that may be political ... however, as I have said before, I’m not sure that Team Obama is going to come out well in the end.

Given that we can’t be sure that we know that we think we “know”—

The LA prosecutors office has refused to budge unless Polanski appeared in Los Angeles ... Polanski’s lawyers have tried to move jurisdiction out of Los Angeles because “can’t get a fair ruling” ...

Negotiations (irrc reported by the NYT) recently had resulted in hearing in the beginning of October to review Rittenbrand’s actions (this was before the arrest). Suddenly Polanski is arrested.

Now, the “mechanics” of this (or any other international warrant) warrent are unknown to me ... specifically who requested it and who all signed off on it.

My guess as to “why not before now?”  is that the case is a rat-hole with no happy public relations ending (or any of the intervening administrations would have lept at the opportunity)—hence, I think this is going to backfire.

Given the lynch mob hysteria of the last week or two ... I feel even less optimistic of a P.R. positive outcome.

Will failure to achieve a “happy ending” reflect badly on Schwarzenegger and Company? I’m doubtful.

Will achieving some sort of “ending” reflect well on anyone? Again, my hunch, only if that “ending” is draconian, which really won’t play well internationally.

Again, it’s not about the crime and it’s not about the guilt—it’s about the ?vacated plea bargain and the punishment for skipping bail (after pleading guilty and being convicted, as opposed to the more common pre-trial/pre-conviction variety.) ...

Obviously, YMMV.  Like they say, “interesting” cases make bad law.

Folktruther writes:
“Your suspicion @ct,that Polanski’s arrest appears political in some way may be justified but I can’t see how exactly.”

Well, neither can I, but ... consider the topic sentence of Robinson’s first paragraph: “Could it be that the conservative culture warriors who portray Hollywood as a cesspool of moral bankruptcy have been right all along?”

Maybe Robinson’s sudden rectitude blitz, and Obama’s tardy move to nab Polanski, aims at—among other things, including the California governor’s election—off-setting those amazing videos in which ACORN reps show not a flicker of surprise at being asked to facilitate brothels featuring imported under-aged girls?

(Trouble is, mobilizing the liberal press-polizei complex to re-rape the former minor in the press, in order to mess up a little old man (Polanski’s only five years younger than Luis Posada Carriles, after all) could, conceivably, turn off the upright-right even MORE. Maybe Robinson could win ‘em over by going all-out after Kanye West ... )

So once again so I get this right. 13 year old girl, alcohol, drugs, all in the hands of a 40 year old man soliciting sexual advances. That makes this a political situation by accusation? HMMM !! And this would be beneficial to either party? What am I missing??

ITW,

Hollywood is de facto jewish monopoly and its not “nazi” or anti-semitic to point it out, just maybe to you.

When studio heads create petitions to intervene in justice because Polanski shares the same ethnicity as they do, it will be pointed out.

Those non-jewish actors and actresses will have to fall in line or else they may be branded anti-semites as well. 

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/10/02/is-hollywood-afraid-to-be-anti-polanski/#comments

Your suspicion @ct,that Polanski’s arrest appears political in some way may be justified but I can’t see how exactly.  The statute of liminitations for felony having sex with a minor is three years, but it doesn’t apply legally, so far, in this case because Polanski pled to a plea bargain.  He foolishly trusted the Amerian legal system when he should have known better.  If he fled before the plea bargain the charges would have long been obsolete.

He should have known better because it turns out he is Jewish and was born to a Polish family in France.  He and his family were put in a concentration camp during the war, his mother died there, his father survived, and he escaped, being raised as a Catholic.  this should have taught him something about governements, especially with the slaughter of his wife Sharon Tate, the Mansons and their White Supremecy not being against the law.

But in the 1970’s the police state aspects of the US plutocracy were not as pronounced as today, so he trusted there was a certain amount of reason and honesty in the legal system.  A big mistake.

PatrickHenry appears to believe that the reason Polanski and Holloywhood is so corupt is becasuse they are all Jews.  His usual anti-Semitism is echoed on the White anti-Semite blogs like the Nazi blog, National Alliance.  As far as I can tell POlanski is non-political and neither for our against Zionism, unless I missed something. 

CHINATOWN assumed that societies were corrupt and there was nothing to be done about it.

On the other hand, Robinson has been attacked because he is black and part of the Obama-  Opreh- Michelle axis.  And Michelle dresses badly which appaently has something to do with it.

I believe I’ll get drunk now.  No, I still have work to do.

1. PatrickHenry writes:
“Polanski was a fugitive, hence the 30 year warrant for his arrest, and no, I don’t think he will be recieving the lifetime achievement award anytime soon. What a mockery that would be.”

Polanski’s lifetime achievement award is arguably less of a mockery than Eugene Robinson having been awarded a Pulitzer for flacking birthday-suit poseur Obama.

In any case, Obama’s “justice” troops did indeed arrest Polanski when he arrived in Switzerland to accept the award at the Zurich Film Festival. (psst: according to the press, Polanski owns a house in Switzerland and has spent time there for years—
in other words, they could have arrested him ANY time.

Obama’s would-be dictatorship over European affairs seems to be slipping, if Copenhagen’s any indication.

2. CaptRon writes:
“Maybe it is political after all.”

Of course it’s “political”—perhaps having to do (along with intimidating the Swiss bankers) with who Obama (who may still be entertaining delusions of a second term) wants to be the next governor of California.

Whatever the uber-aims of Obama-Robinson et al., they’re certainly showing no mercy in exposing the family of the former minor—who has three children—to a hell of salacious publicity.

PatrickHenry, October 2 at 7:59 pm #

The likes of Weinstein and Allen and other Hollywood jews who wish to save one of their own from justice is akin to those wishing to save Jonathan Pollard as well.  No, it couldn’t be because Polanski is jewish but because he is a supposed brillant director so he should get a pass.
*********************************************

You write nazi $#!t like this and then get miffed when you are called anti-semitic (correctly, of course).  You ignore all the NON-Jewish big names who are calling for Polanki’s release, condemning only the Jews.

Polanski is a criminal—he should be treated as one.

Wait, I think I understand now. How much did the mother pimp out the daughter for? Or is that the point? At inflated prices it wasn’t enough? Or did the money discredit the very thought of the casting couch? Nope, I think I still don’t get it. Sorry, let me give it some more thought. Maybe it is political after all.

Foktruther:

“Most progressives were not so duped when this was done to Cinton, but apparantely we have degenerated since then.  Or our prurient interest has increased.  Or we have gotten dumber.  Or, as is likely in your case, all three. “

Clinton did not dally with a 13 year old (she was of age).  Clinton did not drug her, or coerce her when she sobbingly said ‘stop.’ 

The argument that this shouldn’t matter because it’s an ‘old’ crime, or that there are others committing it now is pretty weak. 

I laugh at your continued insistence that I and anyone who believes in decency is not knowledgeable about sex, girls, or the law. 

Those of us who support bringing this moron to justice, are: “glamorizing both the gunmen of the military, intelligence agencie, police and mercenaries.”

You know what, at this point your argument is so pathetic I don’t wish to waste any more time on it with you.  Trust me, the vast majority of progressives and liberals will agree with me on everything I’ve said…

By @CT, October 3 at 2:48 pm #

(As for Polanski, he was no “fugative” (as PatrickHenry puts it) the Obama Justice Department just HAD to nab on the occasion of his lifetime achievement award

Yes, Polanski was a fugitive, hence the 30 year warrant for his arrest, and no, I don’t think he will be recieving the lifetime achievement award anytime soon.  What a mockery that would be.

Any feud between Obama and Weinstein is not gemane to Polanski pleading guilty then taking to flight to avoid sentencing.  Obama was nowhere on the map when this all happened.  It is a shame the wheels of justice move so slow and it took so long to apprehend him, but they finally did regardless of the circumstances.

JUSTICE—Polanski and Manson as cellmates. What would they have to talk about???

PatrickHenry writes:
“I happen to agree with Robinson and his inference that many in hollywood (and many of the jews who run it…read Weinstein) are morally bankrupt.”

Oh, good grief: it is PatrickHenry who makes the “inference”, Robinson who IMPLIES.
This piece might better be titled “Obama Brings Out the Worst in Robinson”, insofar as Robinson’s real message, cloaked in nasty-niceness about this and that, is anti-Weinstein:

“In April 2008, Weinstein, who supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President, allegedly threatened to withhold some of his extensive personal contributions to congressional Democrats unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embraced his plan to finance re-votes in Florida and Michigan. Three officials familiar with the conversation say that Weinstein appeared determined to buy Clinton more time in her battle against Senator Barack Obama by pushing for the re-vote. He tried to convince Pelosi to back off her previous comments that superdelegates should support the candidate who’s leading in pledged delegates in early June.[6]”.
—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein

Robinson mentions Weinstein’s editorial, meanwhile, but doesn’t link to it (as he does to the documents Robinson claims he “couldn’t describe in a family newspaper”). Here ‘tis: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/harvey-weinstein-polanski-has-served-his-time-and-must-be-freed-1794699.html

Meanwhile, Weinstein (who’s a CBE, which must drive Robinson plumb crazy) co-produced “Inglourius Basterds” with Quentin Tarantino: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglorious_Bastards_(2009_film)—in other words, a waaay bigger deal than Robinson.

(As for Polanski, he was no “fugative” (as PatrickHenry puts it) the Obama Justice Department just HAD to nab on the occasion of his lifetime achievement award—his whereabouts were not unknown. Meanwhile, it’s a pity the Danes couldn’t have nabbed Obama, while he was there, for obtaining the Democratic nomination, and the presidency that came with it, under false colors.)

IMHO, everyone—including Robinson, Huffington—who have contributed to making the Polanski arrest some sort of sham “litmus test”, yet another faux round of righteous indignation in endless American Culture War has done wrong and advanced the ever popular lynch mob mentality which, oddly enough, is what led to Rittenauer to reconsider the original plea bargain ... It should be noted that Rittenauer was not concerned that Polanski represented some previously unrecognized or inadequately considered RISK—no, it was Rittenauer’s popularity ratings and political future that were determinant here.  That’s not right. Some believe that constituted actionable misconduct on his part.

I fault Robinson and others also for not—with their resources, connections and background—educating us all on the “what’s next” and “how this works” ... of what happens to fugitives when they are returned, the process of extradition of a non-American citizen of dual citizenry (neither of which being the the country in which he was arrested) ... not to mention plea bargains and how they work ...

Instead it has become a bizarre “referendum” on child rape ... The wrongness of the crime was settled long ago.

Some background along the lines of what tropicgirl gave: 

Mr. Polasnki’s pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was stabbed and disemboweled while screaming for mercy by a deranged follower of Charles Manson. 

I don’t know for sure, but maybe that’s why Mr. Polanski mentions murder, almost as if it were something that would haunt him for the rest of his life. 

Stick with your crusade Mr. Robertson. It’s no doubt doing you good.

Virginia777 writes:
“Robinson is “earning his keep” and stoking the fires of titillation and hypocritical Puritanical condemnation.”

Robinson might rebuild the second-rate gravitas of his Obama-putsch-Pulitzer with a series of morality tales glossing the steamy subtext of the Oprah-Barack-Michelle triangle, in which the wife-of-record seems to be cast as the ingenue child of the other two.

Why, for example, do Winfrey and Obama make their appearances in age-appropriate rich-folk attire, while Michelle always appears in 50s-throwback adolescent costumes?—in Copenhagen, she was decked out in evening AND day dresses that made her look like Tweetie Bird, or an ungainly lemon.

(See the LA Times for illustrative fotos: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/michelle-obama-goes-for-the-gold-in-copenhagen-wearing-golden-clothes-photos-here.html )

By Folktruther, October 3 at 11:17 am #

“Smear Polanski”?  The guy was a fugative and was finally caught.  I question why it wasn’t sooner given the high profile he had.

I happen to agree with Robinson and his inference that many in hollywood (and many of the jews who run it…read Weinstein) are morally bankrupt. 

Remember it is hollywood who makes the movies glamorizing war, intel, mercenaries and the like.  Sort of the PR firm of the new world order.

Its no wonder when a player like Weinstein gets involved the little piece players will get in line or they may get blacklisted.  It’s no secret in hollywood that any criticism against Israel and the jews that support it (read Weinstein, read Polanski) will have all the studios against you.

I agree, FT. All of the attention this issue has received, is reason enough to doubt it, given the state of our contemporary Media. Robinson is “earning his keep” and stoking the fires of titillation and hypocritical Puritanical condemnation.

He (and every single so-called “Liberal” journalist who has jumped on this bandwagon - like Steve Lopez) need and deserve to be called out for this one.

Westbury, the US is becoming a police state to protect Law and Order from the Terrorists. One element of this fetchizing of Law is to dig up some sexual misbehavior of someone in the past and use it against them if they offend the power structure.  the impeachment of Kennedy, is a good example, as is the media using the sexual escapades of the NY governor when he attacked the plutocracy.

American law is corrupt, oppressive and arbitrary; judges and prosecuting attorneys always pile on to attack deviants often for some other criminal charge.  Since Americans are extremely ignorant about sex and law, you are a good example, and punitive about both, glamorizing both the gunmen of the military, intelligence agencie, police and mercenaries. Therefore prosecuters and judges use this ignorance in a vast web of injustice, resulting in the largest prison population in the world. Where prisoners are often raped, to the amusment of the populace.

Someone made a movie detailing the corruption of the LA legal system in this case.  So in retaliation, the US reopened a case long in the dead file to smear Polanski and, not incidentally, the victim, who was ‘collateral damage.’  As the NYTimes stated in an editorial article, this reopening was totally arbitrary and discrimnatorty, and discredited the legitimacy of the law.  This in response to previous vindictive articles in the NYTimes, LA Times, Washinton Post and Truthdig.

the question here is one of a proportunate and just response.  IF someone commits a crime in a country, one does not nuclear bomb that country to kill that many and everyone else around.  The US sponsors state supported rape and sexual humiliation as part of its routine torture procedures, and no leader is punished for it.  They are proud of it, part of Protecting Ameriansw from Terrorists.

But sleazoids like Robinson, and especially the papers they work for, appeal to moralistic idiots like yourself to divert attention from the daily rapes and tortures occurring to thousands of men, women and children, to focus on a crime committed three decades ago by an amoral artist.  Indeed, it was a scummy crime, as everyone agrees, but a diversion in the face of the US’s inhuman murders and brutaliztion that occurs daily.  Which Robinson and the media are knowingly diverting attention from.

It is routine that they do so with the right wing religious dupes whose anger is directed against their own interests by the plutocarcy.  But here Progressives are duped as well to create an international incident over an old crime in revenge for displaying the legal corruption of the US. Most progressives were not so duped when this was done to Cinton, but apparantely we have degenerated since then.  Or our prurient interest has increased.  Or we have gotten dumber.  Or, as is likely in your case, all three.

“PLEASE someone explain to me what’s with this labelling of Robinson as a right-wing pervy creep! “

Gordy, there is no basis for calling him that.  They disagree withy him, so they smear him.

“susan Sunflower, the comment by some progs makes one feel Like throwing up ones hands.  They have no knowledge of sex, no knowledge of teen age girls, no knowledge of legalities, and a perverted sense of human justice.  they jsut want to lynch somebody, they don’t much care who.”

LOLROF…  So, we know NOTHING of sex.  Nothing about our teenaged daughters… and no knowledge of legalities??? 

Such utter bullshit.  You are an idiot.

Kath Cantarella said:

“Even anarchists have ethical standards. Ethical standards are not negotiable in any human society.

Why do so many people here think giving an immature girl a lude and alcohol (a toxic combination, btw) then raping her over protests and tears, is somehow a grey area? What the hell kind of liberalism do you really practice? From the girl’s POV it can be called fascism.”

Amen! 

There is NO grey area here. 

It’s not liberalism at all.  Liberalism is about the protection of children.  In fact, it’s something conservativism and liberalism have in common, though conservatives like to label liberals as ‘anything goes’ because of remarks by nimwits like the ones on here trying to excuse this nonsense. 

What it really is is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimze pedophilia.  I have an uncle that carries on about how ‘in olden times’ girls married at 13 so that is ‘proof’ that it is okay.  He most definately would argue to let Polanski off. 

We all have a pact to keep the kids in the family from being alone with him. 

People may have married younger in ‘olden times’ but usually it was two 13 year olds or two 15 year olds or a 13 and 15 year old.  Not some 13 year old with a 49 year old. 

In those societies where that does happen, such as polygamous cults, the 13 year olds are most assuredly victims.

Why bother? Anyone who defends Polanski is insane.

PLEASE someone explain to me what’s with this labelling
of Robinson as a right-wing pervy creep! 

Seriously, I’m asking - so many here are saying it,
there must be a reason.  I have no prior knowledge of
this guy and I presume you all know something I don’t?

An enormous amount of this smells like astroturf to me—MSNBC reports support “but also” outrage and disgust on the internets wrt David Letterman—yeah, right.

Ever have a “herding” dog?  Yeah, it’s like that. Sheeple beware.

susan Sunflower, the comment by some progs makes one feel Like throwing up ones hands.  They have no knowledge of sex, no knowledge of teen age girls, no knowledge of legalities, and a perverted sense of human justice.  they jsut want to lynch somebody, they don’t much care who.

As to teenage girls, Naomi Wolf wrote a fine book on teenage sexuality PROMISCITIES, as I recall. as to the corruption of the American legal process, it rivals the corruption of the mainstream media.  but they both havve a market in the American people.

These are the Progs, leading Progs; imagine what the Cons are like.  American moral and political values are perverted, not least by american religon.  And sleazoids like limbarger and robinson.

Jeff, Lou - what about this article makes you so sure
that he a) is mistaken about some key point he’s
trying to make and b) is ‘kissing up to the Right’? 

I honestly don’t understand.  A revered director
committed a crime and fled; the French and Polish
governments and the film industry rallied to defend
their own.  Robinson is criticising the way they
abandoned ethical standards in favour of a kind of
partisanship.  I don’t think any reasonable impartial
person could have the balls to come right out and
disagree with that..? 

And this argument that ‘there are more important
things going on in the world’, come on…  Yeah,
there’s a war going on but hey, it’s a big internets;
it has room for all of these different stories. 
Yeah, there’s a war going on, but I just spent two
hours watching a horror movie and eating chocolate -
should I feel guilty about that because there’s a war
going on?  Should I have been busy worrying and
reading about the war instead?  Do you decide what
the world’s biggest issue is at every given moment
and think of nothing else? 

Please, if you HAVE to throw abuse at this guy for
his innocuous article, at least give good reasons
instead of painting him as some kind of sell-out
Right-wing double-agent - you just seem totally
paranoid.  I mean, maybe I’m just not aware that he’s
frequently written right-wing tinged articles?  Is
that it?  Has he?  That’s all I can think of to make
all this vitriolic criticism seem even semi-rational. 

Just because a story comes along that lets Fox get
all righteously angry at liberal actors or whatever,
it doesn’t excuse lefties (I am a leftie) jumping to
Polanski’s defence in a knee-jerk way because they
begrudge Fox their righteousness.  Forget ‘sides’,
right is right. 

I agree however with Geo that it is a great shame
that police attention and resources are so
politicised and image-conscious.  I’m sorry you have
to witness such a circus.

Polanski pled guilty and fled.  End of story.

The likes of Weinstein and Allen and other Hollywood jews who wish to save one of their own from justice is akin to those wishing to save Jonathan Pollard as well.  No, it couldn’t be because Polanski is jewish but because he is a supposed brillant director so he should get a pass.

Anyone out there with daughters or wives who have suffered this kind of abuse?  I’ll bet they don’t wish Polanski free.

I hope Polanski gets the maximum penalty and meets bubba in the general population.

you got it right Super Lou and Jeff,

Eugene Robinson is “kissing up to the Right Wing”

“Polanski Brings Out the Worst in Hollywood”

NOPE. You got it wrong, Eugene Robinson. Polanski brings out the worst in neo-con journalist(m).

Hollywood got it RIGHT.

Remember, Schwarzenegger was elected partly with the support of Southern California neo-con journalists pumping him day and night (like Jill Stewart).

Anything Arnold likes (especially lately, as he has allowed his inner-Nazi to be in full view),

is horrible.

well done folktruther—-

In addition, I notice I have seen no references to our national obsession with jailbait—from kiddy porn and how to trap a predator and L&O-SVU, and Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus as underaged pole dancers ...

Or that fame and power have notoriously brought with it an “expanded menu” including various “favors”—it was alleged immediately 30 years ago that this child was offered up by her mother to advance the career opportunities of one or both ...... hardly unusual, even today.

In 1965, when I was 13 in 7th grade, three of my 7th grade classmates got knocked up and left school (two were from alumni from my elementary school) ... In 8th grade, as I recall it was only 2 girls ... We moved, I changed schools. A few weeks after I turned 14, I had my first encounter with a man who expected to have sex with me. I liked him a lot. I hoped he would be my boyfriend. I wiggled away saying I was not ready. He virtually never spoke to me again. I was heartbroken. He was only 27 years old—as opposed to Polanski’s 43.

I find myself wonder what universe of denial so VERY many people have retreated to ...

None of this condones or excuses Polanski’s selfish, boorish, “entitled” behavior, but, sheesh, get a grip. He’s not the first or the last—and—folks, he PLED GUILTY, he is a CONVICTED FELON for his acts, the injured party and her mother DID NOT want to press charges (mother was coersed, it has been reported, when the police and her exhusband began “asking questions” about exactly where she was and what exactly her part in all this was)—and both were satisfied with the original plea bargain.

Please get a grip. The children and young adults of today are watching. When I had sex for the first time when I was 16-1/2 I was absolutely the last girl in my circle of friends ... and I gather that sexual activity is (has been for decades) starting younger and younger.

What country in which century do you think you live in anyway?