Posts
by Smitty
As Ed Driscoll notes, "Hollywood Unites To Defend Polanski". Forget the "What if that was a conservative" question. The more interesting question is "How does this resemble Ted Kennedy?"
On the one hand, we're asked to justify statutory rape. On the other, some sort of murder. We'll let the legal beagles split those hairs.
In either case, the left enjoins us to reject standard interpretations of the law, and pursue instead some hand-wavy sort of justice: "He's an artisté", or "He's done so much good legislative penance".
So I differ slightly with Ed on this one. It's not so much a dark Kafka moment of the Law attacking an individual, but a bifurcation of the idea of equality under the law into a common and elite branch of law.
Term limits now! Texas 81 year old RINO Kay Granger, missing for six months
found in a nursing home
-
How many more of these geriatric geezers are around in the House and
Senate? Now we have Kay Granger, a
The post Term limits now! Texas 81 year old RINO ...
3 hours ago
It just shows what Hollywood values: If it feels good, do it. If you're popular and well-liked enough then you will be supported. If not you will be condemned.
ReplyDeleteThe talking heads defending Polanski yesterday were interesting - it was a long time ago, the victim has forgiven him... well, what if he hadn't managed to delay it all these years? What if it was just last week? Should he pay the price? Or not, because he is a big-wig?
ReplyDeleteAnd, if that's is the argument then why prosecute Phillip Garrido, after all, he kidnapped Jaycee Lee Dugard 18 years ago, and he is the father of her children... let him off the hook, too.
Are you sure it was statutory rape? I have read a description of the crime, and it indicated that it was outright rape.
ReplyDeletePatterico has some good posts demolishing the so-called "facts" being used by Polanski apologists. As one commenter noted, the rape victim's testimony is clear: she told Polanski "no" repeatedly. And he ignored her. Gee, and all these years I thought no meant no.
ReplyDeleteSo the question is, all you Polanskiites out there, does "no" now really mean "yes"? If so, better start going to bat for a lot of guys rotting in jail at the moment.
As a hardcore leftist anarchist (Chomsky style, not anarchy is the colloquial sense) who reads this lone conservative blog along with the left ones, I must say that most lefties are very much for bringing Polanski to justice. See shakesville, broadsheet, etc.
ReplyDeleteHollywood may not be, but it is not because they are democrats, but because Polanski is their personal friend. Wanting special justice for your friends is a human trait, not a political one
Statutory rape? No, this is "rape-rape", whatever Whoopi says. Drugging a 13 year old girl and forcibly penetrating her vagina and anus over her objections goes far beyond "statutory" rape.
ReplyDeleteA more obvious link is to the ACORN scandal. What is it with liberals defending sex with 13 year olds?
ReplyDeleteFrom the victim's testimony this was not statutory rape but full on rape. Though drugged on quaaludes washed down with champagne, she tried to resist his "advances". But somehow to Whoopie Goldburg this does not constitute "rape, rape".
ReplyDeleteEven in the twisted world of liberal legal thinking they are going to have a tough time splitting this hair ...
ReplyDeleteTo start with, when Kennedy murdered that young woman he had no legislative record to speak of. He was not even the "cub of the Senate" much less a lion (which he never was) ...
There was nothing to put on the other side of the scale ... nothing other than his name ...
Polanki had a body of work ... not that being an artist should ever be part of the scales of justice but I digress, I am speaking of the liberal sense of justice here ...
2 sick sad men who should have been punished years ago ... one is finally in the hell he richly deserved, the other soon to go to hell on earth it is hoped ...
And note, that is the exact definition of privilege, the roots of which mean "private" and "law." That is, at one time the "privileged" could literally get away with murder.
ReplyDeleteAmericans should know all about it, since they have something called the Constitution that specifically forbids it. And of course, "progressives," every day of the year, proclaim equality their highest goal (somewhere ahead of liberty).
So it makes perfect sense that Wealthy American Hollywood Progressives (WAHPs) would argue that a different standard applies to Polanski and Kennedy--if you live in some kind of evil mirror-image universe...
Technically, Smitty, it's not "some form of murder," but some form of homicide, of which murder is a species but almost certainly inapplicable to Ted Kennedy's despicable conduct that evening.
ReplyDeleteCruising around some of the hard core lefty sites, it was surpisingly pleasant to see so many left commenters taking the Polanski supporters to task.
ReplyDeleteOthers, though. I have a feeling they would pull a Dukakis if it was their child.
I think we need to start bringing up the fact that the first movie he made after jumping bail was Tess, staring a 15 year old Nastassja Kinski, who he had a "romantic relationship" with.
ReplyDeletePredating teenage girls was not a one time thing for that perv.