CBS Early Show: ‘Friends Defend Polanski’
by John Nolte
–
Wow. That is quite a moment in the “60 Minutes” interview when director Roman Polanski says of the 13 year-old girl he drugged, raped and sodomized:
“She wasn’t unschooled in sexual matters. She was consenting and willing…”
First off, the victim disagrees. Secondly, if she was so willing, why the Quaalude?
Polanski may be a monster, but he’s Hollywood’s Monster, and they are the rich and powerful elite in this town and that matters. And what does it say about Polanski’s defenders in both the entertainment industry and media that they consider his living luxuriously in Europe as ”a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions“?
No one can see into Polanski’s wrenching soul, so maybe that’s true. But to those of us who are not morally illiterate, child rapists are supposed to wrench their souls behind bars, not while being the toast of Europe.
I’m guessing Polanski’s next move will be to make a statement supporting universal health care for all Americans. That should pretty well cover his left flank.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
106 Comments
I'm keen on the term "moral imbecile"
Oh, come on, it wasn't rape-rape. I mean, if it was rape-rape, then maybe I wouldn't defend him and call this a witch hunt. You know the little girl (my daughter's age) was asking for it.
In what kind of bizarro world do liberal feminists sound like the Good Ole Boys? It's sickening.
Oh, come on, it wasn't rape-rape. I mean, if it was rape-rape, then maybe I wouldn't defend him and call this a witch hunt. You know the little girl (my daughter's age, btw) was asking for it.
In what kind of bizarro world do liberal feminists sound like the Good Ole Boys? It's sickening.
This "person" is a criminal and should be behind bars. Those that defend him because they say he's an "artist" should be tared, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
I don't care if she "consented" or not… he should still be castrated…. What kind of morals does a person have to have sex with a girl…. I bet she hasn't even had her period yet… :/ I don't care what happened in your family life… you have NO excuse to act in such a way… :/
This man isn't even a moron… he is a coward.
How can anyone lend credence to a rapist's statement that his victim "consented" to being drugged, raped and sodomized. Just ask yourself how many 13 year old girls you know personally who would be just fine with anal sex with an old man. There's your answer.
Unbelievable, that is a good move to tell the world your 13 year old rape victim was not 'unschooled in sexual matters'. She has forgiven you and you insult her at this stage of the game. She can't consent to sex even if she had a gun to your head. What Hollywood will never understand was she was 13. The more he opens his mouth the deeper the hole he gets into. He needs to be thrown in LA County jail so he gets a taste of the real world and not this land of Oz crap he lives in.
Yes, she had in fact had her period, according to her court testimony. Polanski had the presence of mind to ask her while he was raping her. Then, apparently out of concern for producing a baby, his bright solution was to finish the job "the back way" to paraphrase his words.
What a great guy! No really! Why aren't we lining up to protest his treatment? Where are the Che Polanski shirts?
How strange, all these people coming to Polanski's defense who was clearly guilty and no one in the mainstream media, and 90% of the conservative media for that matter, will come to Michael Savage's defense who is clearly not guilty of any of the statements made about him by Great Britain; interesting.
yeah it was rape singular not plural. So it's cool right?
if this were a factory worker would they spew this? the mental contortions are awe inspiring
i bet if he had slipped a 'lude to a gernam shepherd, they would be freaking out.
yeah it was rape singular not plural. So it's cool right?
if this were a factory worker would they spew this? the mental contortions are awe inspiring
i bet if he had slipped a 'lude to a german shepherd, they would be freaking out.
That should pretty well cover his left flank
We need to cover all our 'flanks' against this excretion. "Polanski" is now a verb:
Pronunciation:
IPA: /poʊ.lən.ski/
Rhymes: -vermin
Etymology
Old English abominacioun, -cion, Latin abominatio.
(plural: Hollywood liberals)
Verb: To drug, rape, and sodomize children
Synonym: rape-rape
"but she was kinda sl^tty so it doesn't really count. and besides she practically asked for it
I mean she wanted a career and I'm famous and stuff"
CBS Early Show? People still watch that crap?
I just watched the video above, and am so friggin spitting mad I could pop a vein.
Just in case any one else like to join me in letting CBS know exactly what I think of their "report," you can do so here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_fo...
LOOOOL—Thank you for illustrating so well how the left continues to change the definition for every word in the English language!
Wow, seeing that description put into words again infuriates me beyond belief. These people that defend this guy are bastards too.
What if it was Mel Gibson or a Catholic priest. Do you think they would be as understanding?
What is it that leftists don't get about living in and maintaining a civilized society?
Moral Compasses are free, the media should obtain one.
Just a question, but has NOW weighed in?
I'm sure they will…right?
wouldn't be surprised to learn that polnaski works for ACORN too! or have we forgotten what they did with those prostiteuts? when hussein said he wanted to bring in some change who knew that he meant sex crimes with underage girls? INPEACH HIM!
He should swing from the tallest of trees………………….with the shortest of ropes.
I think fathers with daughters ( like Me) will disagree.
It doesn't matter if he cured cancer. He's still a child rapist.
This doesn't seem real. A child molester who both ran from the law and admitted his guilt is being defended? I don't get it. This is truly outrageous.
This criminal should be punished. It's not complicated.
Ace nails it:
http://minx.cc/?post=292962
I didn't see anyone on here playing the rich vs. poor angle. I'm certainly not. It's clearly an ideological thing. Liberals will pay any price to keep like minded individuals out there spreading the good word of their faith. Polanski could be completely broke and if he was still a popular, left wing director who did a good job of promoting liberal values, he'd still be defended by these morons. The Catholic Church has plenty of money and they clearly don't get a pass by Hollywood for their molestation of little boys. I'm sure even some of the priests who did the molesting would claim it was consensual too.
And talent isn't a factor either. Mike Vick was a famous black man, a liberals dream prop, but when he tortured animals, a liberal bugaboo, he was skewered by the left. Only if you turn against their ideology do they end up against you.
Liberals defend this stuff because thinking of themselves as "liberal" boosts their self esteem. They think it proves they hang out with the cool clique. And if this is what it takes to hang out with the cool clique, so be it.
And they would have an entirely different perspective if it happened to their family, I can guarantee that. But because they aren't directly impacted by it, its fine to consult their liberal play book, under the section on dealing with famous people.
I never could figure out why it had its own section because its only one sentence long. "If they are liberal, and more famous than you, defer to them on all subjects."
Couldn't agree more
I have a 16 year old daughter, and yes, I agree with you.
I am taking orders for T shirts to be available at the airport arrival of his ugliness .
"Pedophiles Unite, Free Polanski"
The T shirts are free. they have been financed by Nambla, ACLU and the Hollywood'ers and etts for the elimination of X ratings. ( should the checks arrive in the mail)
____
He bought her silence in the form of an undisclosed amount of money in a civil suit. Funny how that hollywood justice system works. Its not a matter of guilt or innocence, but of dollars and cents.
I disagree vehemently with you. He's a child rapist, a predator, and should be locked up and the key tossed down the garbage disposal. There's a reason why there are special rules for convicted pedophiles, because they almost always do it again.
Just because he was never picked up for another child rape in Europe doesn't mean it didn't happen. You know how any European will gladly tell you how much more sophisticated they are when it comes to sex.
Liberals are all for strict rules for us little people, the unwashed masses, but they never intend to be held responsible, they're different, they're liberal.
Morals are for the unwashed of society StlDan. Hollywood, The MSM, and Political Royalty have no use for this antiquated custom of the little folk……………
Well, MB, since he admitted to it, and fled to avoid justice, its just too bad for him if he thought the world forgot about it…
Tough to be Polanski…
Exactamundo Cal!!
Harry Smith referred to the heinous crime Polanski committed as "this 'incident' that happened some thirty years ago." I guess rape is just some incident. "Your honor, I didn't rape her, an incident happened."
Polanski has not payed his debt regardless of how long ago he raped her. He has lived a life of luxury and freedom. Directing motion pictures is not doing hard time. He shows no remorse and, thus, is not redeemed. He is a rapist and rapists belong in jail.
I don't get it either. If this 13 year-old was related to me, or any friends of mine being extradited would be the least of his worries.
Personally, I don't care if she slept with ten or fifteen guys before she got to him – that just means he won't be alone in his cell. Even if a 13-year-old girl undresses and throws herself on you and begs to be had – a man runs from that.
A pervert, on the other hand, does not. What I fail to understand is how anyone of any sort of intelligence or a modicum of integrity even comes close to allowing that to be a defense for what this is – rape.
I guess this was what gave Michael Jackson the idea, to pay off a true victim. It worked for him. Polanski, on the otherhand has already pleaded guilty, and fled before sentence passed. I find it odd that anyone would stick up for this pervert.
Free, I mean, Fry Polanski. No means No!
You are missing the issue. This has nothing to do with the rich man, poor man mentality. The point is that this man admits to rhaving sex with a 13 year-old girl. Whether she consented is not the issue either. Under the law this man is guilty of statuatory rape. How do you know he is no longer a "public danger"? According to what I have read, once a child molester, always a child molester. The fact that he is a "talented artist" doesn't give him license to rape children. Polanski is a degenerate.
So artistic value out-weighs drugging and then raping a 13 year old…..
Got it….
And it's not revenge, it's paying for the crime he commited, you know, the one he fled the country to avoid? Good thing you're not a judge, because you clearly don't know how to uphold the law….
The Merriam well include your definition in the next addition.
I hope somewhere it is noted he is French, Polish being incidental for these purposes.
French somehow is so appropriate tho Its a shame he isn't Greek.
Playing the devil´s advocate, I think there are two answers to that challenge.
1. Polanksi slept with Klaus Kinski´s daughter when she was 15, and Kinski was ok with it. Because we are all artists, and we are among ourselves, and we´re free spirits and it´s the 1970s and the old rules don´t apply. Also, Kinski always was a headcase and would have been locked up if he had been a bricklayer instead of an actor.
2. It´s different when it happens to your own daughter. This girl clearly was not one of us, she was of the lower orders whose existences are not even real to us, except if they enable our artistic inspiration.
Playing the devil´s advocate, I think there are two answers to that challenge.
1. Polanski slept with Klaus Kinski´s daughter when she was 15, and Kinski was ok with it. Because we are all artists, and we are among ourselves, and we´re free spirits and it´s the 1970s and the old rules don´t apply. Also, Kinski always was a headcase and would have been locked up if he had been a bricklayer instead of an actor.
2. It´s different when it happens to your own daughter. This girl clearly was not one of us, she was of the lower orders whose existences are not even real to us in the community, except if they enable our artistic inspiration.
In Michael Savage's case, you can't really expect all the people you insult to come to your aid, no matter how right the cause. What was done to him was pretty bad, however nobody helps the guy because he spends half his radio show calling fellow conservatives fakes or sellouts, just about tears the heads off of anybody that's stupid enough to call in (even those that agree with him) then proceeds to say that he was the first to discover whatever the topic of discussion is. How can he expect any help when he acts like that?
Your definition is incomplete. It means "to drug, rape, and sodomize a young girl and still remain a hero to the caring and compassionate Hollywood elite."
As to Repeat offender, Polanski had a Romantic Relationship with Nasstassja Kinski when she was 15. It was downplayed when "Tess" came out and they tried very hard to fudge on dates and her age as to when they started dating/sleeping together. Do you think a financial agreement was reached on that as well?
Thanks EdSki, I did join you in the complaint but since I don't watch anything but sports on that network
I don't care if they harm themselves or not by their stupidity.
This has nothing to do with class warfare. But then judging from your previous posts on this site, you have a hard time spotting the obvious.
To actually believe in morality would force them to examine themselves – therefore, that'll never happen.
You know, I had 2 teachers in high school that got in a s**t-ton of trouble for some minors that they had messed around with some 15 years earlier, and nobody cared that it was so long ago, they still lost their jobs and teaching licenses and all that. Why should this guy get off so easily?
You know, when I was a kid, I grew up in a town filled with immigrants of all persuasions. Lots of polocks like me around. By the time I reached high school being Polish was about as cool in this town as a third eye.
Then came Pope John Paul II, Lech Walensa, and Solidarity. I agrewed 100% with Dan Rostentowski, that following Walensa's speech before a joint session of congress, I vowed I could never be ashamed to be Polish again.
Then this piece of filth comes along, and I feel almost like I'm back where I started.
You´re right! The President is to blame! Oh dear.
For once, I do not see where Barack Obama comes into this. Unless you can prove that he sold the quaaludes to Polanski. I have no love for Obama but this is just a bridge too far.
Perhaps Harry should spend a month or so at Attica and then see how he feels about the "incident" 30 years from now.
Couldn't agree more!
Couldn't agree more!
There are some things in life that just plain wrong, no matter how you cut it. Just plain wrong. And this is clearly one of them.
He should not.
They wouldn't know how to operate it….
Yeah right… NOW doesn't weigh in unless it's abortion rights….
What gives you the right to claim "he's not a public danger"? How dare you be so righteous in your claim? Have you had the man investigated or filmed his daily activities for the past 30 or so years to verify he hasn't done this again? Or are you just deciding that since he hasn't been arrested for rape again he hasn't done it.
And that is only the small insignificant part of this whole disgusting "rant". Like others have posted already, you have no understanding of the role of the judiciary system in our country. I guess to you, if it can be proved that "there's no public danger" ANYONE shouldn't be "locked up". So let's apply that to someone special in your life (although you are probably just a lonely leftist blogger spending hours every day posting crap like this) – what if someone came in to your residence, murdered your significant other (or child) by mistake while trying to rob you and then renounced their actions and 'guaranteed' they would never do it again? and, just for good measure, took a lie detector test which came back positive that he was telling the truth. Would you then adopt the same stance and say "ok I believe you…it's not "the function of the U.S. courts" to punish you any more, you seem to be truly apologetic and should be allowed to live your life. My God, how far have we sunk as a nation? Is there any moral hope left? Or are we all just pawns for liberal interpretations from now on?
Polanski is a RAPIST, I have a 13 year old daughter and I couldn't even begin to image the horror if that happened to my little girl and then I had to live the next 30 years knowing this monster got away with it and lives so lasciviously overseas – not to mention the horrific consequences my precious angel would have to live with the rest of HER life.
Your are an idiot almost beyond saving, do us all a favor and think about your beliefs and what you stand for in this world and maybe, as you grow older, some of this will begin to make sense. I will pray that you find this knowledge one day.
I'm glad MovieBob posted what he did. His argument is: A. Polanski's talent should give him a pass, separate and unequal systems of justice based on "artistic merit." And B. that having evaded justice for so long, Polanski should be given a pass, because what the heck, laws are for bourgeoisie slobs. Not the special people, the elite.
Is this a class angle? Most assuredly, since Polanski's "Talent" affords him great wealth and power. Polanski is a powerful man, with more defenders including the French and Polish foreign ministers, plenty of women, in and out of Hollywood, mondo celebrities and directors and particularly, actresses, defending him.
More than Burmese, Libyan, Egyptian, Venezuelan, and Cuban democracy advocates have ever had in their corner. COMBINED.
So, Polanski IS about power, who has it, who can flaunt the laws, who can bend the law of the land based on their power and influence. While the "little people" get another set of laws.
Yes, Conservatism IS quite populist. Obama and the Wealthy Hollywood, Wall Street, and Academic elite, with connected and often hereditary political insiders (Pelosi, the Bidens, the Kennedys) arguing one law and standard for them, another separate and unequal to the average White Middle Class person. Who is expected to get it in the neck every time and like it.
Hollywood is cutting its own throat.
Hell no.
*MissQuinn*
Mr. Nolte, I predict, if he beats the rap, that he will come back to Hollywood to make another film on the horror of the blacklist. And it will win an Oscar and be called courageous.
what's your point? that farmers with daughters can't understand basic utility theory? or that you think polanski is going to rape your daughter?
"once a child molester, always a child molester" is a baseless statement
LIBERAL!
My point, you imbecile , is that a rapist is a rapist is a rapist.
Doesn't matter what good deeds may have been done after.
The man committed a heinous crime and should be punished.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just lacking a moral compass?
How about a list? What other sort of professions get a free pass on a rape charge. Doctors save lives, is that equivalent to being an award winning director. Policemen save lives as well. If you save one life, does that earn you one, "Oops I raped your underage daughter. Sorry! My Bad!" card. Is a Nobel prize on the same level as an Academy award? Al Gore might like to know.
So, perhaps you could give us all a list of those professions that earn you a pass on a rape charge. Might clear up some of the cases bogging down our courts.
I guess it matters most what the law is and if it will be followed… Do we follow the law only if we agree with it or because it is the law? Why was it written to begin with? This seems to be a different type of rape than many of you are thinking about. It is one of influence and the social development of children. It is different than the violent crimes of those subdued on the street or tied in their home, yet the potential for long lasting harm is there. Think about it…
In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. SEE CA PENAL CODE SEC 261-269 where in this case it is a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by Imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
Really? Because he fled to Europe and immediately did it again.
Just the drugs alone is hideous but add the sexual assault is doubling down on sleeze.
WHERE WERE HER PARENTS?
This Polanski rape is splitting the world in half. On one side of the world are the Leftist elites of the media, Hollywood, etc. On the other side of the world are the rest of us – humans. The two are not meeting. And that's not the fault of the humans.
You know, this is going to be one of those defining moments, just like that moment in Wittenburg when an obscure monk nailed his 95 thesis to the church door to protest the Church's indulgence of sin. When that moral corruption was revealed, the people were outraged, they sided with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation began. Well, this outrage is going to spawn another worldwide protest. And trust me, it is NOT going to come down on the side of a man who drugs and sodomizes a 13 year old girl.
I'm really rather perversely delighted to see just how many people seem to be mistaking my explaining the conclusions of others for my endorsement of the same. Don't ever change, guys, I enjoy this show too much
"It's clearly an ideological thing. Liberals will pay any price to keep like minded individuals out there spreading the good word of their faith. Polanski could be completely broke and if he was still a popular, left wing director who did a good job of promoting liberal values, he'd still be defended by these morons."
Interesting, since Polanski's films don't generally have much of a "liberal" bent to them, particularly the best-known ones. If anything, I should think "conservatives" would find more favorable ideology to "read into" Chinatown or Rosemary's Baby, in particular. Not that it matters one way or the other, but it's interesting how this just HAS to be a left vs. right, snobs vs. slobs thing becuase otherwise it wouldn't be "useful."
Last I checked, what one MIGHT have done can't be considered in a court case.
"what if someone came in to your residence, murdered your significant other (or child) by mistake while blah blah etc etc Dukakis Gotcha etc"
Well, I imagine that I'd be overwhelmed by emotion and would likely NOT care much for the fineries of law, procedure or extenuating circumstances. As I recall, that is the precise reason WHY people with a personal connection to a crime aren't allowed to participate in the judging or enforcing of said crime.
CINEMATIC IMMUNITY. Wow.
I don't know what is more disgusting. Polanskis crime or the freaks in Hollyweird defending him.
[...] of the, “horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions”, as the L.A. Times recently wrote. In 1979, he told one interviewer: “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have [...]
"but she was kinda sl^tty so it doesn't really count. and besides she practically asked for it
I mean she wanted a career and I'm famous and stuff"
practically makes me sick just trying to imagine his thinking.
I have to wonder if the liberals who defend this garbage because he's left wing enough for them would still defend him if this happened to their daughter. Any other type of human, I would say no way, but with liberals, I'm not certain. I guess that's why I'm a conservative, it's just natural for me to hold people accountable for what they do. In liberals worldview, politics trumps everything.
If Europe is so "soul wrenching" why are so many celebrities so eager to live there.
I mean those europeans force them to say such terrible things about their country. Oh wait, they only said those things when Bush was in office.
Maybe Europe is uncool again.
I'll preface this by laying it out: I think he ought to be extradited and stand before a U.S. judge. The law is the law. If *I* were the judge, I'd "let him go" in whatever legal sense you want to put it, because whatever he did or didn't do, he's not a public danger and there's no purpose served by locking him up NOW other than grandstanding and/or "revenge," neither of which are the function of U.S. courts.
That said, I'm enjoying the hell out of watching "conservatives" dive head-first into the Class Warfare pool in trying to turn this into a political "get" by playing it up as a rich vs. poor thing. It's not about his wealth, it's about his talent. I'm not making a moral case, just pointing out fact: Polanski's defenders seem to calculate that his artistic contributions are worth enough to make him worth "saving." Rest assured, if someone catches Michael Bay with a teenaged girl tommorow, less than 1% of Polanski's defeneders will be coming to HIS aid.
I can't say I don't sympathize with that last part
I'm no lawyer, but isn't statutory rape still rape whether the victim consented or not?
Also, another leftist argument here is that it happened 30 years ago, and prosecutors should just let it go. Well, when Elia Kazan named names during the big commie hunt, he was made and continues to be a pariah in Hollywood, and that was 50 years ago, not 30. Who should let what go?!
The Merriam well include your definition in the next addition.
I hope somewhere it is noted he is a French citizen, Polish being incidental for these purposes.
French somehow is so appropriate.
That´s a misconception there. Justice doesn´t only look at the danger to society. Justice also requires punishment. The protection of society from further crimes is not and must never be the only element. The necessity of punishment is acknowledged everywhere in western law. There is always an element of "setting it right" – what you derisively call "revenge" – but without that, justice isn´t done.
It is true of many perpetrators that they will not do it again, right up to deposed genocidal warlords (once you´re out of power – no more genocide, right?). But neither can they unmake what they did to their victims. That is why 80 year old concentration camp murderers are locked up even though they are no danger to anyone. But if they had been caught 40 years earlier, they arguably wouldn´t have been a danger either – the camps being gone – and we would have locked them up (or hanged them) just the same, rightly so. "Don´t do it again" isn´t justice.
[...] enough, it is, but not reasons that the average L.A. Timesman might think: like little else recently, it’s exposed the planetary-sized gap between [...]
Correct. And pleading guilty to sex with an underage child and skipping bail to avoid sentencing are exactly what he did do. And you stated "If *I* were the judge, I'd 'let him go'"
And that's my point. You couldn't care less about justice. So don't preach to me. Explain it to people who's lives have been ruined by people like Polanski. Oh that's right. They don't matter. They're not the "beautiful people" like Polansky.
This guy pleads out and then skips out.
What is the issue here. He skipped out.
In most countries, this gets you jail time.
I guess if we found Hitler alive, the libs would decide that he had "suffered enough?"
"another separate and unequal to the average White Middle Class person"
Grazi. I was wondering how long it'd take the "W word" to show up.
"Explain it to people who's lives have been ruined by people like Polanski."
HON. JUDGE BOB: "Being that the original case is massively tainted by three decades of misconduct allegations, being that the original witness refuses to participate in any proceedings, being that the accused has not demonstrated himself a further danger to society or to himself, it is the opinion of this court that society has nothing to gain from imposing harsh penalty here other than an illusion of vengeance which is not the function of the U.S. legal system, I am inclined to show leniency and sentence Mr. Polanski to time-served per the original plea agreement."
That about cover it?
No, because that would totally kill any future ww2 movies they decide to crap out.
I guess its a good thing that "Bob" ain't an "hon. Judge." Because it appears you don't know squat about the case.
How ever that does qualify you as a modern liberal. Shoot off mouth, ignore inconvenient facts later.
Polanski was never sentenced, because he skipped town before sentencing. And I'm so glad you feel qualified to determine what is and is not a danger to society. Very big of you with other people's lives. Which again, qualifies you for modern liberalism. Does Natasha Kinski ring any bells, or is that okay because she was 15.
You see, pedophiles have a nasty habit of recidivism. Here in NY, the legislature is trying to figure out if they can legally declare them insane and lock them away in mental hospitals to keep them away from kids.
Vengeance would be castrating him publicly. Locking him up is for the safety of children.
summary: "I'm a farmer with a daughter, so a rapist is a rapist." I'm clearly lacking a moral compass, because that statement doesn't seem to me to be pointing in any direction whatsoever
Do YOU know what you're talking about?
A piece of advice: Stay away from the brown acid.
Nice, "just sayin'" , defense.
Didn't work. But nice try
MovieBob concurs
DOUCHEBAG!
(yeah, I know he´s a lefty provocateur but given how they blamed Bush for literally everything, you never know whether they´re joking or just their usual selves)
Not so much a matter of rich vs. poor, but it is a class thing. You see, for certain people traditional morality – all of it – is just for the unenlightened rubes. Once you are in a position (say, of a French King or a famous movie director in Hollywood in the 1970s) where you can have pretty much anything in an anything goes atmosphere, things begin to look relative. Everyone is doing it. Drugs are cool. Sex – any kind – is cool. Hitting your servants is cool. Taking bribes is cool. Slavery is cool. Drunk driving is cool.
And many arrivistes in the "creative community" sympathize with that because they sure as hell could be in the same place as Polanski. You look at a child rapist and think "That could be me" (though perhaps with a different crime). And then you think "why the hell not!" You don´t see the rules applying to you – that´s all in your head anyway! – and you hate those spoilsports who don´t. And that is a class thing.
Who knows. Maybe I would be the same if born under different circumstances, but that doesn´t make it ok.
[...] Whoopi Goldberg says it wasn’t “rape-rape”. Then some of his friends come on the CBS early show to defend him. And then you have a “free Roman Polanski” petition being signed by morally challenged in [...]
“She wasn’t unschooled in sexual matters. She was consenting and willing…”
Asshole, a thirteen year old can't "consent"! Legally, morally or psychologically.
Roman should grow a pair of balls and take his punishment like a man. He raped a little girl.
You must be logged in to post a comment.