A Rapist By Any Other Name
What do Whoopi Goldberg, Jon Landis, and Martin Scorsese all have in common? They're all idiots that I won't be paying any attention to ever again.
They are just three of the many Hollywood celebrities jumping on the Roman Polanski bandwagon, falling all over each other to gush out praise and charity for a man who raped a child. HE RAPED A CHILD. Okay? The child was thirteen years old and Roman Polanksi raped her. What part of that don't these people get?
I discounted Woody Allen's opinion because I forgot him when he decided to screw his own stepdaughter. Of course, HE'D stick up for Polanski. Perverts Unanimous.
It's astounding that people would defend this sonuvabitch. I'm becoming more and more convinced the planet is doomed.
They are just three of the many Hollywood celebrities jumping on the Roman Polanski bandwagon, falling all over each other to gush out praise and charity for a man who raped a child. HE RAPED A CHILD. Okay? The child was thirteen years old and Roman Polanksi raped her. What part of that don't these people get?
I discounted Woody Allen's opinion because I forgot him when he decided to screw his own stepdaughter. Of course, HE'D stick up for Polanski. Perverts Unanimous.
It's astounding that people would defend this sonuvabitch. I'm becoming more and more convinced the planet is doomed.
Advertisement
This is the morally equivalent to the priests who covered up for their pals in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandals.
October 2, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that the age of consent in Vatican City is 12.
October 2, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Italy 13 (depending)
October 3, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mexico 12 (depending)
October 3, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a pattern here?
October 3, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y es, the Catholic Church and some of its adherents are not interested in protecting children.
October 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately all of the Popes (since enactment of the law) are in this class. Speaks to the character of the institution and by extension its adherents. No good Nazis.
October 3, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly is a weird situation from start to finish.
It appears to me to be a high profile case of how the rich and powerful not only expect, but demand a whole different set of rules from the rest of us. Whether it is the lawbreakers in the government who conceive and implement a program of torture in violation of the law, who plot and carry out illegal wars, who cover up the crimes of other wrongdoers or if it the con artists and other criminals who run Wall Street or a well known Director of films in Hollywood it's all the same demand by the elite for either a free pass when breaking the law or a slap on the wrist. IMHO, it is this mindset and this arrogance on the part of the rich and powerful that drives the fundamental corruption of our society.
Can anyone even imagine anyone at all (let alone any powerful Hollywood types) taking up the cause of say, a clerk or a truck driver who plead guilty to the very same crime then absconded for 30+ years? I sure can't.
October 2, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost makes you wonder...
If John Wayne Gacy had polished his clown act into high art and then skipped the country for a number of years, would these same elites be arguing now to let "bygones be bygones?"
I'm being only a bit facetious in making this argument. I think everyone would agree that Gacy's crimes were considerably more serious than Polanski's. But where would we draw the line in a "time heals all" system of justice for egregious crimes?
Polanski knew he was culpable for this crime. The fact that he has avoided any accountability for it for so many years as a fugitive from justice does not diminish the fact that he is responsible for his actions. The jig is up. It's time to face the music.
October 2, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
SJ: this isn't a case of "bygone be bygones". This is a case of an abusive legal system... where even the prosecution believes that Polanski didn't get a fair shake.
That's something else entirely.
I could turn oleeb's hypothetical question around: how many people here would be more willing to accept that the legal system didn't provide justice and was rigged if Polanksi were a blue collar worker with black skin?
October 2, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you feel it was "an abusive legal system" if it were YOUR 13 year old daughter?
October 2, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Luc Besson is one Frenchman that did not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/movies/30polanski.html
October 2, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't ask CT about "his own children." He can't relate. He thinks people who have children are killing the earth, and he can't quite get around that boulder.
October 2, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would do many things differently if I were the parent in question. I wouldn't be a stage parent, I wouldn't introduce my daughter to a guy who was known to have had affairs with young girls (indeed the mother hoped that Samantha would be a star like Natsia Kinski), I wouldn't try to live vicariously through my child, I wouldn't send my child off unsupervised for a photoshoot (of any kind), the list goes on and on. Here are a few more descriptions of the mother involved.
Other things I wouldn't do:
I wouldn't send my 14 year old daughter to play a prostitute in her first movie (Jodie Foster)
I wouldn't put my 14 year old daughter on the cover of a major magazine with the caption "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing." (Brooke Shields)
I wouldn't allow my 9 year old daughter to go to Studio 54 to hang and smoke cigarettes (Drew Barrymore)
The list goes on and on...
However, your comment isn't relevant to the discussion.
October 2, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
and jodie foster has what, exactly to do with this? Except that you get to say negative things about stage-mothers, and so infer that this person's mother is guilty?
October 2, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was specifically asked what I would do if I had a 13 year old daughter.
I answered a question.
Learn to read, please.
October 2, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and that had NOTHING to do with Jodie Foster!
If someone asks you what you would do with your 13 year-old daughter, why would you immediately think of Jodie Foster?
I realize you have no way to answer the question, so why not just admit it? Or at least relate it to the person in question (about whom you know nothing, so just admit that).
Fact is, CT, you hate the very thought of people having children at all, so why are you here?
October 2, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. It is you who needs to learn to read
October 2, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! and drew barrymore -- and your list goes on and on...
Stick to the facts in this case, CT, instead of your usual crap of extrapolating and blaming. See, since you hate the very idea of having children you should really recuse yourself from any discussion about other peoples' children.
You are, as usual:
JUDGEMENTAL
IGNORANT
AND
CHILDISH -- yes, you. You really remind me of a 14 year-old.
October 2, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many different ways are you going to spell Ms Kinski's name?
October 2, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I guess that if the mother had accepted payment in advance for her daughter's maidenhead, Polanski would have been perfectly justified in raping her. If the mothers "are just begging for it," their daughters are legitimate rape bait - right?
Your comments have much to say about the age of consent and statutory rape - much of which I tend to agree with.
Drugging an individual - of any age - and screwing them six ways from Sunday is just rape. Period. All the fact that she was only 13 at the time has to do with the issue is that that it prevented a spurious claim of consent from being part of this discussion.
October 2, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, then...explain to me why the child is culpable for the sins of adults? Don't bother posting on my site again, asshole...I'll just have you removed.
October 4, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um... you can't remove someone here. Perhaps you are new?
If you don't want other viewpoints on your cite, set up your own blogsite and have fun by yourself.
And for what it's worth: I know you think that your boycotting will have an effect of sorts, but frankly, you are out of the demographics of interest and already aren't being targeted by Hollywood.
October 4, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest here, I do not know the particulars of the experience Polanski had in seeking justice within the justice system. But I do know that we don't try people for crimes in the press or in blogs or in Hollywood salons.
If Polanski has a grievance with the justice system, he has the same access to redress that the rest of us do. But it includes working within the system of appeals and whatnot to ensure justice prevails - not only for Polanski but for others who might follow who have not the resources to escape as a fugitive.
Polanski is charged with a serious crime for which he has shown little interest in providing an adequate response. Polanski deserves his day in court. But justice requires he have his day in court as well. The jig's up. Time to face the music.
October 2, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the problem, SJ. Polanski wasn't getting his day in court. Even the prosecuting attorney admits that. Were the judge to be a known racist and the defendant black, I doubt we'd see the same tenor of the argument here about simply "working within the system".
Again, there seems to be a high degree of emphasis on the "fled" part -- in particular in your post. I wonder how many people were that concerned about "fled" when it came to draft dodging. Perhaps I misread you.
October 2, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was in the last group of people to be drafted and thus did not personally have to deal with any notions of avoiding military service. We were drafted, but the draft was ending.
As one who supported my older brother's effort to declare as a Conscientious Objector, however, I find a consistency in assuming that one should take responsibility for one's actions and decisions. He gained CO status, and served well his time in alternative service.
This is not to be construed as a slam against those who "fled," however. Those who fled to Canada and elsewhere to avoid the draft were willing to suffer the consequences of THAT decision. Polanski fled the country to avoid assuming the consequences of his own poor choices. There is a significant and substantial difference, and I'm certain you are smart enough to understand the distinction.
October 2, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were so damned reasonable until your little snipe in the last sentence, but I'll ignore that.
What's the difference of living in Canada to living in Europe? Draft dodgers did so to evade the law. Conscientious objectors? Please. Some exist. Most people claiming that status that fled were simply saving their own butts -- which is not an unreasonable response, but no need to state it's something it's not.
Polanski had the same type of restrictions for the last 30 years placed on him. He had to be careful of travel, he trashed his career, etc.
So, no, I don't get it. Please explain it to me.
After all, Polanski left and returned to the United States during his legal issues. He only left for good once it was clear that the legal system was "out to get him". Like the draft dodgers, he was saving his butt.
October 2, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Day late and dollar short; prosecution does not believe that, the story was false.
October 3, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find most interesting about this case is that it once again illustrates the burden placed on the victim in sexual assault cases. Far too many rape victims will still not report the crimes or accept a plea bargain that amounts to little more than a slap on the wrist rather than be tried in the press or go through the public scandal of testifying and a long trial.
What rape victim, especially in such an extreme case as this one, would accept a plea bargain amounted to 42 days in psychiatric institution? What rape victim would feel this was a fair punishment for the crime? If this was the normal penalty I have no doubt that many rapists would weigh the costs against the desire and there would be a vast increase in rape and child molestation. Judges have the right to refuse plea bargains and I'm glad this one did.
October 2, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The burden *should* be placed on the accuser as in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty.
As usual people forget what happens when "the well intentioned" people get out of control:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
Yes, people on the left are just as guilty of raising hysteria as people on the right - and being wrong about it.
October 2, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how that has anything to do with what I posted. Not a bit of clear thinking at all, which is pretty typical for you. Of course a person is legally innocent until proven guilty and I wouldn't want him jailed without a trial. Nor do I want him strung up on the nearest tree. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss it and state our opinions in that discussion based on the information available.
As for the sex case hysteria, I don't see that as a left wing hysteria. The unreasonable fear crossed all political lines.
October 2, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you see nothing wrong with assuming that simply pointing a finger and say "J'accuse" and having people assume that only a wronged party would do it.
And, of course, you are reduced to ad hominem attacks on my name.
You are quite correct in agreeing with me that raising hysteria crosses political lines (that was my point) and the Polanski case is more proof that some people at TPM are hysterical about this case because -- they just are with no knowledge of the facts.
Plea bargains aren't accepted when there is clear evidence of something. They are accepted when the waters are muddy and a trial might be lost. In fact, plea bargains are an indication that the case for the specific charges isn't as strong as the prosecuting attorney would like.
October 2, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never did or implied any such thing in my post. You lie.
And you're still a pompous condescending asshole. I'm quite confident I have as much knowledge of the facts as you do.
Bullshit, anyone who's spent anytime at all looking at rape in America quickly finds that often rape victims move towards accepting plea bargains because testifying about a rape can be a horrible experience.
October 2, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I don't lie, you wrote:
Burdens should be placed on the alleged victims. You would prefer to make it a "j'accuse" situation. (See Arthur Miller, etc.)
You talk about knowing the facts, but you never argued from them.
Why are people who claim to be rape victims any different that people who claim to be assault victims? I'll tell you: many people who want to claim to be "raped" weren't raped at all -- they may have simply done something (willingly) against their better judgment. That's the reason why don't want to go to court to testify. You don't find people who are assault victims worrying about testify, do you?
But hurl more invectives if you must, oceankat. I sort of missed this version of you; the one that should just wash her mouth out with soap.
October 2, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yah, according to you the thirteen year old involved chose the wrong mother.
Until I hear other evidence presented I will believe the account of the thirteen year old and the confession of Polanski to the extent that it does not contradict her. She's got far more credibility.
October 3, 2009 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's because you made an arbitrary decision. It's your choice, of course, but it's arbitrary.
Being so very sure about something when you have no hard evidence except your "gut" is simply another version of teabagging.
By the way, all those kids who were accusing their day care workers of sexually abusing them seemed very convincing too -- except it turned out to be made up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_care_sex_abuse_hysteria
October 4, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although the "victim" is the child, unlike in lawsuit, the CRIME was against the STATE. That is why dead people don't have to be alive in order for their murderers to be brought to justice. Rape is a crime against the state, and so even if the victim is dead, or prefers to forget about it (which is completely understandable) a crime is a crime.
October 2, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I aint defending him Jan. I have not read the file, so to speak. I do not know the facts.
THAT IS WHAT A TRIAL IS FOR.
I think it is important that you bring this to Cafe.I really do.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE SEX WITH A LITTLE GIRL DAMNIT.
October 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD:
I am prety sure that ol roamin' Roman pleaded guilty and skipped sentencing.
We too have an old saying around here:
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE SEX WITH A LITTLE GIRL DAMNIT.
Send him here.
We will take good care of him.
October 2, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the balm of time heals all wounds, then maybe Glen Ridgeway should have been left alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_river_killer
October 2, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an example of how insane the apologists are. I'm not condoning his being left to live in society in any way, shape or form.
October 2, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear from these comments that, once again, people at TPM like to voice opinions on topics they know nothing about.
First, the word "rape" is misused -- as usual.
Second, Polanski was subject to a brutally and inherently unfair judicial system where even the prosecuting attorney admits he wasn't given a fair shake.
I suggest people actual learn something about the case rather than bleat like the sheep Orwell wrote about in Animal Farm.
HBO ran a special on this (coincidentally) a few months back and is now available on Amazon/Netflix. It is a very well researched piece with interviews from all parties (except the judge who died prior to the making of the film). After watching this documentary, it's pretty clear that, at best, it's a he said/she said situation -- and at worst, it was someone with "day after" regret whose parents suddenly decided they could make a buck.
Many facts need to be considered:
a) differing attitudes in Europe vs America about minors
b) Polanski was known to have relationships with very young girls
c) the accuser's mother knew this but was hoping that the girl would be "discovered" like Natasia Kinski was
d) extensive psychiatric evidence that there was nothing predatory nor deviant about Polanski
e) MSM distorting things for a great sensational story (which, by the way, is where most of you have received your information)
I'm sure some of you believe you know all these facts (and more) already and won't go bother to watch this documentary which would make you the moral equivalent to the birthers who "just know" what they know.
By the way, note how differently the European community treats him over the prudish Americans. The French have embraced him wholehearted, Jan. So I assume you won't be supporting anything French?
That will put you in the good company of Bill OReilly and FNC. Freedom fries anyone?
As you can see, stupid, ignorant reactions are not limited to the right.
October 2, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
the word "rape" is misused .
In what respect, Charlie?
October 2, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The prosecution didn't think they could build a strong enough case to prove a rape did happen.
But it's a nice sensationalistic word to use to grab someone's emotions and help sell a blog, isn't it?
Reminds me of what people at TPM complain about the MSM.
October 2, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you mean you think they didn't have sex or that the state couldn't prove that the girl was thirteen?
In this country a girl of 13 who has sex was raped.
In this case, her description of the situation indicates that it would also have been designated rape if she were adult -- she was drugged and struggling. This form of sex is okay by you?
October 3, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's okay by him.
October 4, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that the girl's parents should not have left her unchaperoned with Polanski. But that does not absolve him of drugging and raping her.
Here's a review of your well-researched documentary:
Whitewashing Roman Polanski
More than 30 years after he raped a 13-year-old girl, the fugitive director hoped a skewed documentary would reopen his case. Thankfully, a judge said no dice.
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary/
I am sure that Polanski, and a lot of other rich and powerful folk, are used to having their way, and buying people off when necessary. Polanski had been having an affair with 15 yo Nastassja Kinski, Klaus' daughter, when this happened. But that doesn't make it prudish to hold them to account when they go too far.
October 2, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no evidence that he drugged her short of he said/she said. This is important. Roman's testimony on that issue has just the same "ring of truth" about it as Samantha Geimer's did. Samantha was definitely hoping for a career boost by working (and possibly playing) with Polanski. (Her mother was a stage mom -- and that is a strange breed altogether.)
Raping? Sorry, no. You'd be better off calling it "statutory rape" which is really the discussion. By saying "rape" it implies forcing against someone's will. And again, there is no evidence that this happened.
I remember how much people were upset when Kobe Bryant's accuser's name (Katelyn Faber) hit the news -- only to have her back down to the point where prosecutors dropped the case.
That's the problem with many "rape" or "date rape" charges -- they don't stick (or can't be made to stick) -- because quite often there is a huge gray area. LA attorney's love high profile trials - as well they should: they can be career boosters. That the prosecuting attorney (a) accepted the plea bargain and (b) doesn't think that Polanski was treated fairly speaks volumes.
I suggest you watch the documentary. The prosecuting attorney is Mormon and a really sensible fellow. He comes off as wanting to serve justice rather than grand standing. Indeed, he sided with Polanski's attorney - in writing - to get the judge tossed off the case for reasons of the judge's personal bias issues.
Of course, none of these facts is in the Salon review you quote so I understand why you wrote what you wrote. That Salon piece isn't really a fair review of the film. For example, you know from the Salon piece the name of Polanski's attorney (mentioned multiple times) -- but where in the piece is the prosecuting attorney's name?
October 2, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One clarification: why drugs were clearly involved in the incident, there is no evidence that she was "drugged" (e.g. non-consensual).
October 2, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her testimony is evidence. Testimony can be challenged, disallowed or proven wrong but it is evidence.
October 2, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And his testimony is evidence also.
Yes, you are correct, legally recalled stories are evidence. But you know that's not what I meant. There is no physical evidence of an assault.
Hope that clears this up.
October 2, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And beyond that, I read another review of the film noting that the presentation of physical evidence, the girl's underwear, to the judge was treated as a light moment. Additionally it suggested that a lab report influenced Polanski's decision to plead guilty. So I'd say there was physical evidence.
October 2, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is the underwear physical evidence of violent rape?
At this point, no one is questioning that sex as involved.
And the "humor" was that both teams had to divide the panties and were arguing about where to make the cut. You can afford to be more specific in your comments rather than risk a misleading impression.
October 2, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see the film, so I can only be as specific as the reviewers. As far as the evidence, one would have to have seen it to know what it implied or didn't imply.
October 2, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then please do see the film and it's interviews, especially those of the prosecuting attorney.
Then we can talk some more.
October 2, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I can afford to miss it. BTW a prosecuting attorney now claims he lied in the film.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8284452.stm
October 2, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the same attorney as was trying the case. In fact, that's the attorney from the DA's office that you would be siding with. In other words, you just made your own case worse.
Seriously, Donal, you are usually well-read on things that you comment on.
Your willful ignorance explicitly stated here is simply because you can get away with it.
October 2, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ad hominem time already? I'm finding this film less well-researched all the time, and if you read the article, his admission seems to weaken Polanski's claims of prosecutorial misconduct.
October 2, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are confusing the people from the DA's office.
David F. Wells is the one who lied.
That has nothing to do with the statements by the prosecuting attorney: Roger Gunson
My attacks aren't ad hominem. You are bragging about being ignorant on the facts. I'm merely pointing out that your intentional ignorance makes meaningful discussion impossible.
October 2, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote, "a prosecuting attorney" and quoted an article that clearly said:
So tell me again who is confused?
October 2, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are. You keep bringing up Wells...and he has nothing, not one thing to do with the arguments I espouse.
So, just to be clear Donal: You are very confused. Go learn something about this case beyond a Google search and get back to me.
October 2, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the BBC article. You keep quoting that slanted self-serving documentary as if it were the Gospels.
October 2, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hear Robert Gunson claim he was quoted out of context. He has extensive interviews in the documentary.
It's one thing not to have watched it, it's quite another for you to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the conclusions you might draw. That's equivalent to FNC and Bill OReilly techniques: Ignore things you don't want to hear about.
October 2, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wells is the subject of the BBC article. Refute the article if you can. I am unlikely to spend any money on the flick, but if it plays somewhere for free I'd watch it.
October 2, 2009 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
October 2, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least it was statutory rape so I don't think the term is at all inappropriate. The child's grand jury testimony makes a clear and unequivocal charge of rape. While it was never determined in court that the child said no repeatedly you seem to assume she did not.
This is the biggest crap argument I've seen on this issue. If true its irrelevant. Mothers don't get to give permission for a 44 year old man to fuck their daughter. Whether the mother said it was ok or not it still was at least statutory rape. If the child said no it was rape even if the mother gave her permission.
October 2, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, thanks for recognizing there is a difference between statutory rape and rape. So already, we agree on something else.
See my comments to Donal about whether there is any evidence proving anything one way or another.
I do know this: in a he said/she said situation, there is far more gray area than most people want to admit. I don't have to assume anything about either of their testimonies to say that no forcible rape took place. Unless there was physical violence involved, the situation simply isn't that clear.
Yes, I know that in some feminist fantasy there is the claim that if a woman and a guy are naked, in bed, already kissing and petting, and she whispers "no" just once -- the deal is off. But that's an artifice to be sure and one very, very difficult to prove which is why you get so much plea bargaining. Because, after the fact, it's so very easy to make an accusation like that even if it's a lie. (In our sick, prudish society today, many women still have to blame their powerful sex urges on alcohol -- "we were drinking and giggle, giggle, one thing led to another. If we would own up to the fact that women aren't pure virgins, they are just as sexual as men, much of the meaning about sexual relations can be restored -- but I digress.)
We agree on it being illegal to have sex with minors under American law. In fact, that is the only thing Polanski was ultimately charged with as part of the plea bargain. Why? It was the only thing that the prosecution knew he had real evidence for.
So, guess what? You, me, and Polanski are all in agreement here.
Now, what happened under that charge? Well, again, I comment on that elsewhere on this page.
As for mothers not giving permission for older men to be with their minor daughters? It's time to grow up and have an adult view on the world. This has been going on for centuries as a means for social/fiscal advancement.
As you can see, when discussing the actual facts there is much to be agreed upon.
October 2, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no he said she said that sex occurred. That is a crime if the victim is 13. Only the extent of the crime is in question.
Absolutely, that's why so many men get away with rape.
What a condescending little prick you are. I'm quite grown up and aware. About 15 years ago in the poor neighborhood of the town I lived in a mother and child hit me up for sex. Mom was pimping and the child made it clear she wanted it. I knew that no child wants to be fucked by some stranger for 20 bucks. Yes, 20 bucks, cheap for a little girl. I knew the child must have been coached by her mother on how to behave.
Grown ups don't consider that permission from both child and mother makes it ok to ass fuck 13 year old girls. Grown ups walk away or do something to protect the child if they can. Users and abusers like Polanski should go to jail.
Lots of things happened for centuries and still happen in other countries. Selling children into marriage, honor killings, even slavery. They are illegal here now. Child molestation needs to stop and strict enforcement of statutory rape laws is one way to do it.
After reading the grand jury testimony and other evidence I tend to lean towards believing the child said no and resisted in the only way a 13 year old could. You seem to believe Polanski's version. But that's only relevant in determining the extent of the crime. Our law states that a minor cannot give consent. Polanski therefore raped a 13 year old child and should go to jail.
October 2, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ignoring your unfortunate invectives, I'll respond to where you behave in a more appropriate manner:
In the United States, it's not clear what the definition of statutory rape is and worldwide there is clearly a varying degree of ideas on the topic.
As I said, we agreed that a crime was involved because Samantha was 13. So did the state.
I've already commented elsewhere about how things proceed from there.
You do want to make everything black/white etc. and really have a man-hating attitude by assuming that the accusation of rape means men "get away" with things.
Perhaps you are arguing from being involved in a child abuse case? I don't know. But I do know that the legal system is not a place to work out personal demons and/or personal moral issues.
(By the way, please use terms correctly -- if you continue to blur the issue of statutory rape with rape, I will be unable to have an intelligent, meaningful conversation with you. Thanks!)
October 2, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Equating statutory rape with rape is not blurring the issue. The issue is does any one have the right to have sex with you without your consent? A thirteen year old does not have the capacity to consent. That makes it rape.
As for evidence, do you have any physical proof that the child consented? Written consent, video of happiness, etc? You are quite willing to assume consent in the complete absence of any such evidence.
October 3, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming nothing.
But in the US it still is "innocent until proven guilty."
To protect people against agenda-seeking people like you.
October 4, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I'm on your side clearthinker, but your "differing attitudes in Europe vs America about minors" is irrelevant since the crime was committed here not in Europe. He admitted what he did in his plea transcripts. Whether the mother was trying to set him up or not, he is an educated man and I'm sure he was aware of our laws yet felt they didn't apply to someone in his rarified air.
October 2, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that you impugn the MSM as a faulty source of news (which I agree with) after having cited wikipedia to back up one of your points. It's wikipedia, as in the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit'. It is also not allowed to be cited as a source of information by schools across the nation. Credibility issues or some such thing. Whodathunkit?
October 2, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wikipedia is routinely used as a source on TPM and is only challenged when someone doesn't like the argument it supports.
Wikipedia is, in fact, a reasonable first place to go for most items (as any encyclopedia is misses some nuanced discussion).
However, if you have anything specifically upsetting to your notions, I welcome you to bring them up and we can discuss them.
October 2, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will note that I didn't challenge your argument, simply your choice of sources for information. And thank you for the offer to discuss my upset notions. As much as I appreciate that, I think any discussion with someone who takes the stance that sex with a child may not be wrong is so fundamentally flawed I'll have to pass on anymore of your wise counsel.
October 2, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't challenge because you used a FNC technique of simply saying "I don't believe you" so you could move on.
Nice teabagging, Butcher.
October 2, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
The girl was thirteen.
I don't care how "mature" she looked;
I don't care if her mother was a freaky stage mom looking for the main chance;
I don't care, in this instance, whether or not Polanski was traumatized by the murder of his wife;
I certainly don't care if Polanski had a habit (how is that a legal precedent?) of establishing "relationships" with underage girls;
I don't even care that the girl said she said "no," and others dispute that assertion;
All of the above is irrelevant, your honor.
The girl was thirteen.
She was, in fact, legally below the age of consent. That's rape.
Now, consider the social context:
Yes, we were still living in an era in which women, and certainly girls, were regarded with prejudice in sexual terms: it was not about a man's lack of impulse control; rather, it was about how the girl was dressed, how prematurely physically mature she was, blah, blah, blah.
Nonetheless, the girl was thirteen.
NO GIRL, at thirteen, or fourteen , or fifteen, or eighteen, thought being raped was a good trade-off for "career" opportunity;
NO GIRL, at thirteen, in that era --no matter what other considerations or influences -- had a clue, much less comprehended, much less actively wanted to be sodomized.
Christ Almighty, said the agnostic/atheist.
GET REAL.
The only thing that can be said in Polanski's favor is that he did admit what he had done: he had raped and sodomized a child.
But rather than facing the responsibility for that crime, he fled.
THAT, CT, is (pardon the pun) THE BOTTOM LINE.
October 2, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Wendy, it's statutory rape. Not rape. That means age of consent is a significant issue here.
I've been pretty clear that Polanski committed statutory rape in the State of California. We all agree on that. Even Polasnki's defense.
However, were this event to have taken place in Spain (where the age of consent is 13), then no crime would have been committed, right? Would your argument above hold? No, it wouldn't.
You have a moral indignation because you assume all 13 year olds aren't old enough to consent (via the social contract). But that's not the case considering other cultures/countries.
Now, once we've established that legally a crime has been committed, then the question is: how did the court treat the case? And the fact is that Polanski's prosecutor who was no nudge-nudge wink-wink guy and thought Polanski wasn't treated fairly by the US legal system.
If you knew anything about the case, you would know that Polanski left and returned to the country once during this process. He only left the night before sentencing when it was clear that the legal system was screwing him (via a personally biased judge).
I wonder: how many of those I am debating with viewed the "and fled" part of the argument so passionately when we talked about draft dodgers in the 1960/70s?
I've yet to see one single argument on this thread based on more than even a superficial "understanding" of the case. There is no rational discussion at all.
October 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You said it Wendy, and CT (who is definitely NOT a clearthinker in any way), who calls it Statutory Rape, which is defined as consensual sex with a person too young to give consent.
Well. That certainly clears the air, doesn't it?
I refuse to join in with CT's obnoxious rants, where he says TPM is full of dolts (wonder why he keeps coming back after he had such a hizzy-fit about a month ago).
You summarized everything well. I can't think of another point to bring up!
BTW, coming to C'Ville?
October 2, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'Ville -- O/T :so good to see and hear you. I'll email tomorrow.
In the meantime, thank you so much, for not only seeing but also pointing out the straight, clear line between point A and point B, without obfuscation and distraction.
October 2, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
(laughs)You'll respond where you think you can win the argument and ignore anything you can't spin some response to fit. That's always been your modus operandi
In every state its statutory rape when a 44 year old man has intercourse and sodomizes a 13 year old child. That definition is very clear.
No never. Its pretty typical for you to make these types of unsupported accusations. And pretty slimy. You don't have a clue as to who I am or what I've done with my life. Don't guess because I'm sure you would be wrong.
Whatever, I've never said any such thing. You have a long history of misogyny here so I'm not surprised you see any defense of women as man hating.
Statutory rape is a type of rape. Its not called statutory sexual contact its called rape.
October 2, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are showing a high degree of what you would have referred to as Jasonitis here, oceankat. You keep repeating yourself incessantly despite my showing you were we agree and how much we agree.
1) We agree that in California, a statutory rape was committed. My point in bringing up the US is that age varies even within our own culture and therefor your highly righteous notion of right/wrong is not even backed culturally.
2) You are correct, I have no clue who you are. I only point out that when someone continues to argue emotionally, and not able to hold an adult conversation, there are usually reasons for it. It's clear you have a horse in this race for whatever reason particularly since you've not brought up any facts and keep confusing things more.
3) I have no history of misogyny. What I do have is a history of taking people spouting dogmatic and unprovable nonsense to task. Some of those include self-identified feminists. I understand that it's easy to blame one's lack of position, power, whatever, on the basis of their gender and decide that the world is so unfair, etc. But those are a case by case basis. And most feminists I've met in person are usually reduced to rubble very quickly when it's clear that they simply want to be feminist when convenient and traditional otherwise.
I note you continue to try to attack by impugning me personally rather than the logic I use. That makes you equally as dangerous as any birther or teabagger.
4) I quote from you:
That's pure speculation on your part and that's a quote from you. Perhaps I missed something your clearly declarative statement?
5) And unlike Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, you don't get to choose words' meanings personally.
There is a clear difference between "rape" and "statutory rape."
October 2, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, you're clueless so shut up with your stupid speculations and unsupported allegations.
You've been told over and over and time after time by numerous people here exactly how you're consistently unable to hold an adult conversation here. So spare me your asinine analysis of me. I don't much like you and I'm not going to pretend I do.
October 2, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat writes:
Yes, keep discussing your feelings which neither I nor anyone else care about. And matter little here.
It's all about feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings....
Nothing more than feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings...
Da da da dah.... feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings....
Quite revealing, Oceankat.
October 2, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT: This is not the fight I would have chosen to confront you on your mindless bias, but never mind.
The girl was thirteen; she was a child.
Don't tell me what European attitudes were, or are; tell me, with the links that are so important to you, what we (not you) consider, legally, to be child rape.
Step up to the plate, this time.
Because children are not negotiable.
October 2, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice sloganeering. I have linked above showing the definition of "child" differs not only country to country, but state to state!
Now it's true that in California, statutory rape was committed. But no one is arguing that fact.
Instead the blog framed everything in terms of "forgive and forget" which is not what the situation is about (except at watercoolers). I've tried to inject numerous facts, but only it seems that only Donal made an effort to have a real discussion.
Of course, so far, we've seen both you and oceankat through around invectives. My "mindless bias"? Based on what?
I've always stepped up to the plate, Wendy. I've taken the hard difficult stands time and again. When you agreed with me (population control) you decided I was cool. When you don't, you throw invectives.
But, hey, bumper sticker slogans are very fun and, when surrounded by the harmonious bleating of like minded individuals, even a means to make a point I suppose.
October 2, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, ww. The only issue here should be the crime committed against a child, 13 years old, who resisted Polanski's advances and asked him to call her mother. He then drugged, raped and sodmomized her.
Was Polanski treated unfairly by the Los Angeles Superior Court? Yes. Was his crime heinous and does he deserve imprisonment for it? Yes.
As it stands, only the victim paid a penalty - for the crime of being young, fresh and physically beautiful. Polanski is a cinematic genius and disgusting pedophile - truly, a renaissance man.
October 2, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
'You have a moral indignation because you assume all 13 year olds aren't old enough to consent (via the social contract). But that's not the case considering other cultures/countries.'
I know absolutely nothing about this case or its history except what I've read on this blog. So I was convinced I would never weigh in, but those two sentences have caused me to change my mind. I will gladly admit to moral indignation about a man of Polanski's age having sex with a thirteen-year-old. There is absolutely no way he had her welfare at heart.
October 2, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, Wendy, most of the other people on this blog didn't know much about the case either.
October 2, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is pretty much your standard argument anytime someone disagrees with you. Its a crappy argument every time you use it.
October 2, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Wendy D.
All our arguments -- whether about the definition of child rape or the goal of health care reform -- are based, fundamentally, on WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a footnote loyalist, to KNOW when we go way, way off-base.
CT: you want sodomizing 13 year old kids to be OK -- male or female????? I don't care whether the rapist was 44, 33, 22 or younger -- the power was his, not hers in this instance, or in the instance in which the victim is a young boy.
We must cherish our children, CT. Because they deserve nothing less. And, from the viewpoint of the detached, because the future depends on a relatively sane, non-traumatized population base.
Raping a child does not establish that base, period end/
October 2, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy asks:
I disagree. Like Jonathan Swift, I want to have them stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled... and then eat them.
As always: the bumper sticker slogan. It's a great way to stay off topic.
October 2, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a slow thinker, not a clear one, so it takes awhile for things to rattle around in my head, and figure out what sticks there.
Right now what sticks was something you said about Polanski having sctupped plenty of young people before. If that was meant to excuse something because that had become a reality, I am really creeped out. I really can't get the pictures of some lech out of my mind.
I think he should piss up a rope; like that for a bumper sticker?
October 2, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on your definition of "young".
For example, you may be perfectly repulsed by the fact the Polanski had a relationship wit Natasia Kinski at age 15, but it's quite legal in many countries, including much of Europe.
Moreover, you must not be familiar with the fashion industry where young girls are routinely recruited. Do you believe they have the maturity to make any decisions when they are traveling abroad to photoshoots, etc.?
These things aren't excuses -- they are pointing out that "morality" is culturally based and not as specific as some people here would have it be. Moreover, Polanski is of European extract. This does not excuse his not playing by American rules when he is in America... but one is well advised to look at the differing coverage that the Polanski case got in Europe vs America.
I say this because so many here often talk about how "civilized" Europeans are with respect to their attitudes about healthcare, etc. but are immediately repulsed by their social conventions. The two behaviors spring from the same cultural impulses.
There are always strong religious overtones in discussions in America. The ancient Greeks, for example had differing views of gender orientation, pedophilia, and nudity than Americans. And yet, one is hard pressed to argue that they were "less advanced" then we were when their culture essentially set Western civilization rolling onward and still inspires us today.
October 2, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
SCHTUPPED.
October 2, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, CT: this is not Europe. Nor is it ancient Greece. Nor is it any society other than that of America in the late 20th century, for the purposes of this case..
We have many, many flaws as a culture. We have many, many political sins. Our economic advisors are asshats.
Yet, CT --- we really do understand that our children are not pawns in the game of corruption. (so long as they are not the children of illegal immigrants, but that is another story) Maybe our children will be corrupt themselves, later, depending on what experience they have and which belief system they espouse.
Tell me that you can look a 13 year old in the eye, and talk to him or to her about the cultural values of Europe.
And, btw, how about giving Europe its due? Does Europe espouse pedophilia? I think not.
October 2, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, Wendy, I'd appreciate it if you actually respond to my comment rather than repost down below; that's just basic etiquette.
Secondly, I did specifically say that in America, American rules come into play... multiple times. And yet you continue to try to lecture me on a point I didn't make.
Third, pedophilia is by definition tied to age of consent. My point is that you can preach about "our lovely precious children" all you like, but it comes down to the definition of child.
You never did answer me if you would be outraged if this event took place in Spain. This is a key question. It means if you believe something is "wrong" or if you believe in a legal system.
For the second time:
Would you be equally upset if this happened in Spain? If yes, why? It's legal in Spain. If not, then we are talking specifically about legal issues -- in which case Polanski was denied due process.
Lastly, your notion about "corruption of our children" is again, elegant, pointless prose. Meaningless words that are meant to evoke an emotional response. You are from the south -- how about the corruption of our children there with racism?
How about corruption of our children with meaningless jingoism?
How about corruption of our children with ... dare I say it? ... religion?
As far as talking to 13 year olds, I think you haven't talked to many yourself lately. In this age of the Internet, they are for more savvy than you can imagine -- with the emotional maturity of a child. A very bad combination to be sure, but still one that would probably shock you personally given some of your comments here. Many at age 13 already know how to duck parental punishment by threatening to call child services... just as a for example.
October 2, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My last words to you, CT:
You are a sad, pathetic case enclosed in a desperate membrane of desire to be smarter than all the others, but you're not. Not by a long shot. Your thin bouts of bravado are examples of your tiny ego, and I used to feel sorry for you because of your sad lacking of ability. Your pathologic bullshit has crossed the line, once again. I don't plan to reduce my credibility by responding to you again.
I hope you recover some day. There are many medications that could help you.
October 2, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The basic problem is that some obey the penal code, and others obey the penile code.
October 2, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the last words? I haven't had a conversation with you at all. Are you the type to follow someone around the room talking and talking despite no response? And then claim you are ending the conversation?
Too funny.
October 2, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The victim doesn't want him prosecuted, that's enough for me.
October 2, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Destor, but so many people here know better. ;-)
October 2, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not enough for me. One question is why doesn't she want him prosecuted. At the time there were long range cameras taking pictures of her at her school. Just outside legal range. There were stories in the press attacking her and her family. Famous hollywood names closed ranks to protect him and attack her.
Everyone in the school knew she was Polanski's victim. There is still a stigma attached to women who are raped. In that media intensive environment the family agreed to a plea bargain of 42 days in a psychiatric institution, timed served, just to end the attention.
The judge wasn't going to accept that plea bargain as is a judge's right. I support that decision. Ct thinks its because the judge was biased. That's one explanation. The other is that the judge refused to grant the usual free rides and escape hatches the rich and elite so often get in this country. When Polanski left none of the issues were adjudicated so no one can be 100% sure. Except ct who is always right cause none of us know jack shit about anything.
One thing everyone agrees on, including Polanski. A 44 year old man had vaginal and anal intercourse with a 13 year old child. That is enough for me to decide that Polanski should serve more than 42 days. How much more would depend on a trial to determine the extent of that crime when the conflicting stories are adjudicated.
Its not just what the victim wants. There is also a societal interest. Punishment is meted out not just to do justice to the victim and punish the perpetrator. Its also meted out as a deterrent to other potential perpetrators. Its not a deterrent to crime to let some people who are clearly guilty go free. Its especially not a deterrent to the rich and powerful when they see one of their group get away with raping a 13 year old child.
October 2, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat gets it wrong again:
WRONG!
The plea bargain was based on 90 days -- as was standard, and a way of placing with certainty Polanski in jail -- and Polanski was released after 42 days because, again by standard procedure, the psychiatric reports (confirming earlier court directed ones) showed that there was nothing wrong with Polanski.
By the way, one of the reasons why Samantha Grailey didn't want to testify is because she was not a model child having already taken drugs and having had sex (when she was 12). Therefore, the types of doe-eyed arguments that people like WW want to invoke, certainly don't hold true here. And this was a 12 year old back in the 70's. That's pretty hard core.
Again: there is much gray area in this case, far more than people here seem to know about or, worse, care about.
And just to be clear: would I want to have sex with a 13 year old? No. Would I let my 13 year old child be left unsupervised with a person who was taking photos of her (and who was known at the time to have had an affair with a 15 year old)? No. But none of this is relevant here.
Statutory rape occurred (it's still unclear where there was consent or not, we simply don't know either way), the justice system was doing it's thing... and then went awry because a particular judge had a bug up his ass. That's not justice. Were Polanski black and the judge were known to lean racist, we'd see a completely different discussion here.
October 2, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is still a stigma attached to women who are raped. In that media intensive environment the family agreed to a plea bargain of 42 days in a psychiatric institution, *timed served*, just to end the attention.
WRONG!
Not wrong you ignorant moron. The plea bargain was agreed to after he was freed in 42 days from his 90 day conviction. It stipulated timed served not 90 days. He was not going to be sent back to prison to serve out the rest of the 90 day conviction. You do understand what time served means don't you?
That she wasn't a virgin is irrelevant. That she had sex once before with another teenager doesn't mean its either legal or ok for a 44 year old man to have sex with her. There's nothing grey about it. What are you saying, used, soiled, now open for all comers? Even if she had had sex with several other 40ish year old men it still wouldn't be legal for Polanski to screw her. He would just then be one of several men who should be jailed for raping a 13 year old child.
October 2, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT -- apparently you missed the fact that I taught at a secondary and middle school last year, in which many of the children were thirteen. I think I know whether a 13 year old is an adult or a child, even without a legal context.
But this is a legal context. So do, please, get this:
Europe has nothing to do with this question. We are not governed by European laws or mores; (although I, for one, would be surprised if their views of pedophilia are substantially different than our own).
Whether they are, or are not is IRRELEVANT to this case.
In America, a thirteen year old girl was drugged, raped and sodomized...by a 44 year old man.
In this country, under our rule of law, that is not acceptable.
He, himself, recognized that, and, though showing no remorse, did admit what he did, thereafter fleeing our jurisdiction.
So. WHAT's YOUR POINT????
Other than to be oppositional?
October 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't answered my question, because the answer is too painful for you to think about, too much cognitive dissonance.
That's cheap shooting, Wendy. You are better than that.
You can press all your credentials that you like but the fact is that your discussion here does not reveal the basics of the typical 13 year old.
And lastly, I'm glad to hear you say we aren't ruled by European rules or thoughts. I guess that includes healthcare. Which means that you can't bring up Europe any longer in healthcare debates. Who cares about Europe? America is America right?
For the record, there is no evidence (except conflicting testimony) that the girl was drugged vs willing took drugs. You show no concern for even learning the details of the topic you are discussing.
Pretty poor example for any of your students.
October 2, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, pooh, Clearthinker. Talk about a hoolow argument. Wendy, or any of us, can agree with you or a European model, or a Kenyan model, without accepting a nation's laws or cultural mores wholecloth. Now you are just being a fut. You sound like the folks who were pissed at France, and had French Fries banned from the Capitol cafeteria. YOU'RE better than that.
In the end, what I get from you is that you are making this enormous attempt to distance yourself from any emotional argument whatsoever, and most of the arguments you seem to put in that category. Now I can see that the law tries to be blind, but it seldom is. Laws are often made on emotional bases; attorneys argue with emotional arguments to either cite the law, or tweak it. Isn't that what trials are about? And closing arguments?
I have to conclude that many of us in this thread have ethical standards that have emotional components. I don't think that's a bad thing. You laugh at Lefties for not getting into the street the way the teabaggers do; sadly, anger is a great motivator for activism. Even, like their anger, that is often based on misinformation that only resonates with them because they are holding so much OTHER anger: at Obama, at being left behind in a burgeoning multi-cultural nation, anger at Wall Street bailouts, whatever.
I don't know but what you hold a reservoir of feeling that you have organized your life around hiding from yourself, and instead becomin a Clearthinker. To me, even that name you call yourself is fraught with meaning. If so, you have my true sympathy; we all suffer from Old Stuff to some degree; God knows I am full of unresolved garbage in my past. And I'm trying to piss you off here. It also may be that you really and truly don't have the amount of feelings that directed you toward the same conclusions and moral imperatives some of have.
I don't know how to conclude here; I am struggling to come up with images of what it is like to be you. It's impossible. It is part of what flips me out regularly here: all we have is these typed words representing each other, and we get attitudes based on those incomplete pictures.
I spent my day canning tomatoes because they were free, and there are more hard times coming, though how silly of me to talk to you about some goddam tomatoes!
October 2, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lawyers argue passionately in jury trials to sway the jurors -- because the average person doesn't proceed rationally.
That's how innocent people end up in jail. You appeal to people's prejudices and the like.
I can ask you the same question that Wendy WW didn't answer:
If this incident happened in Spain would you feel the same way? There the age of consent is 15.
I'm on the side of justice and most crap in this world is made by people "only trying to help" -- on both the left and the right. Ignorant people ignorantly arguing without facts or understanding. But sincerely "trying to help".
It should be very disconcerting to you that most people on this thread now admit to not knowing many of the details of the case -- but that didn't stop them from voicing an opinion. Now that is something to think about.
October 2, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the age of consent there is 15, he still broke the law of man and conscience. I don't know that i would have heard about it at all. One thing that bothers me is the absolute imbalance of power: he is rich, powerful, and as you said, adept at convincing young women (did i understand from the comments, boys, too?).
I think Americans are as messed up about sex as we are about race and class. I think parents often whore their daughters out in this country, for beauty pageants geared for tiny girls, for pop singing careers, etc. I hate it all.
I wonder if in Polynesia, where they at used to live their sexual lives more freely, if they would have had standards with big age differences. Or outsiders, the Bounty sailors notwithstanding.
You, i might add, didn't answer my questions about your emotional life or lack thereof, though it might not be answerable. I am going to try to go watch the teevee; I am almost too pooped to participate.
October 2, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You write:
There is no such thing of "law of man and conscience". In particular, you don't get to personally interpret what is right and wrong. Or more succinctly, who are you to say that Spain has it wrong? Isn't that how we decided that the Native American's were "primitives" and therefore need to become "Christian"?
And here is the crux of the issue.
Your question of my emotional state has nothing to do with the discussion any more than the color of my skin does.
October 2, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what did your ignorant bleat about Wendy's knowing or not knowing 13 year olds have to do with anything?
Pot---> Kettle.
As it happens, as everyone here is aware of, Wendy knows a lot more about 13 year olds than you do. So, why is it you plow on, digging yourself a deeper hole when it is quite obvious that you don't know your ass from your elbow here? Why do you persist?
Have you had any run ins with kids in a sexual manner? I mean, what other conclusion is reasonable to assume here? Ick! Otherwise, your defense is illogical and callous. You sound like some low life trying to justify his own actions.
Frankly.
October 2, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's also how guilty people go free. Two sides of the same coin but you seemed to have trouble when I said that.
Absolutely. I don't necessarily agree with every law. If I lived in Spain I'd be working to raise the age of consent just as many people have worked to raise the age of consent here. There was a time when the age of consent was 13 in some states. It changed and I don't look back wistfully to the good old days when 44 year old men could legally fuck 13 year old girls. Just as I don't look back wistfully to the days when slave owners like Jefferson could lay down their 13 year old slaves. That's changed too.
If I lived in Afghanistan I'd be working to make forced arranged marriages of children illegal. I wouldn't be trying to say since they can force children to marry older men in Afghanistan we should not be upset if it happens in America.
October 2, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat writes:
That's because in the United States we have chosen to err on the side of letting guilty go free rather than punish innocent people.
By the way, you are arguing for the conservative/Republican viewpoint. I do have a problem with that.
October 2, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say that like you think I give a crap what you care about. (laughing)
October 2, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could care less what *you* believe, I have a problem with the value you expressed.
Please learn to read a bit more carefully before hitting the "reply" button. Thanks.
October 4, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh people, it's playing you.
Just... talk around it.
Love,
Chicken obvious
October 2, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Celery stalks
October 2, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say my stomach churns in reading parts of this discussion. Rape or statutory rape, consent or not consent, child or not child, international differences in the definition of "child."
I don't get the argument. Roman Polanski was wrong, and he engaged in rape of a minor child. Consent? She was drugged. Consent? She was pushed by her mother to go with Polanski for the future of her child's career. Consent? I seriously doubt that either the girl (now woman) or her mother ever considered that Polanski would rape the girl - or even sexually approach her. Further, even if the mother had known what Polanski was going to do, then the mother would be in jail and the girl would not have been considered as "consenting" to sexual activity.
If the girl had been a woman and the same thing had happened - drugged and sexually assaulted - it still would have been rape. (Anybody heard anything about date rape drugs?) Even if there HAD been "consent," it is not consent when there is coercion. There was definite coercive forces here - namely an aspiring child actress who got a meeting with a big time director who could hold the key to her future. Even if she had been an adult, knowingly agreeing to be sexually engaged with Polanski to advance her career would be a quid pro quo harassment case if she had been on one of this films.
Someone said that the woman had forgiven Polanski and that was enough. When did forgive mean absolve? And when did a victim's willingness to forgive change the fact that a crime was committed? The law is not personal - it is for the society. This plays out in the arguments of the deterrent effects of various punishments.
Polanski was wrong seven ways from Sunday.
October 2, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The girl had been known to previously had sex, take quaaludes, etc. She was also excited to have the possibilities of a Hollywood career. Add to this brew, a mother with ambitions, the fact that drugs were available and Polanski found her attractive.
Oh, yes, what exactly is an "adult"? (Age of consent *is* important.)
It's people like you who want to enforce no-tolerance policies where things go awry very quickly.
There's a reason why there is a difference between statutory rape and rape. It's not to obfuscate -- it's to really show how violent rape can be. To this day, we have no evidence of any assault or coercion. Only two sets of stories.
Bottom line: you personally don't like what Polanski did and you have blood lust to make him fry.
Sounds like teabagging to me.
October 2, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like decency to me. Try it, it might suit you.
I have a lot of sympathy for Polanski after what he no doubt suffered at the hands of a lunatic band of decrepit monsters. I object to the many reports in which this isn't noted.
13 is not 15 is not 17.
13 is a child. Period.
There is no wiggle room.
October 2, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can say this:
Then I can leap to the assumption that your rabid defense of Polanski and your willingness to paint the victim as a child slut who'd put out for anyone, indicates that you find such children "fair game." Therefore, you must find such behavior acceptable - perhaps even what the girl "deserved." Do you have any idea how deeply disturbed that is?
October 2, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy fucking shit.
October 3, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: Blame the victim.
Translation: If she's old enough to be abused at the hands of other people, she's old enough to be raped by Roman Polanski.
Translation: If clearthinker truly believes the girl's past behavior is remotely relevant in proving Polanski's guilt or innocence, he's a sociopath.
If clearthinker does not believe it's a relevant point and is simply fucking with TPM readers, he's a sociopath.
October 3, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket. Tsk tsk. Clearthinker? A sociopath? Why, all you need do is go back and reread his comments -
At best, it's a he said/she said situation, and at worst, it was someone with "day after" regret....
And the word rape is misused - as usual.....
And Polanski was subjected to a brutally and inherently unfair judicial system...
And European attitudes... versus man-hating attitudes....
And grow up and have an adult view of the world, mothers have been giving permission for older men to be with their minor daughters for centuries...
And why are people who claim to be rape victims any different than people who claim to be assault victims... I'll tell you - many people who want to claim to be "raped" weren't at all... that's why they don't want to testify...
And I'm on the side of justice and most crap in this world is made by people "only trying to help"...
OR PERHAPS YOU ARE ARGUING FROM BEING INVOLVED IN A CHILD ABUSE CASE?
There are a dozen sociopathic comments in his stream down this post... though I really appreciated that last one.
October 3, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good thing you are safe in Canada then, right, quinn?
October 4, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now why would I be at all unsafe, Clearthinker?
And from whom?
October 4, 2009 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't answered why I should feel "unsafe," Clearthinker.
It's interesting you'd explicitly connect a discussion about YOU to my safety - or lack of safety. Kind of an interesting thing to do.
This whole thread reflects on you in "interesting" ways. Some pretty iffy things said, hinted at. Though I'm not sure you're even aware of how it looks. Something about this topic just threw you I think, you got engaged in a slightly uncontrolled manner, and now... it looks bad. Awful.
Now, any more comments about my safety?
October 4, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect an answer. CT has some major problems, and idle (hopefully) threats are only one aspect of them. The concept of having sex with children seems to have brought out the worst in him, and he wants to defend it in the most fake intellectual of terms, so he will not respond to your specific challenge.
Since he hates the thought of having children at all, the thought of protecting a 13 year-old child is way beyond his pay-grade. Funny, since even someone at the bottom rung of McDonalds wouldn't consider it so.
October 4, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, blown gasket. I'm not blaming the victim. But it makes a good headline to take something out of context like that, doesn't it? I'm stating why it would be difficult for the prosecution to put her on the stand. She wasn't an angel.
If you knew anything about how trials work, you'd know that's part of the issues. She was a really poor witness for the prosecution precisely because she had a rather involved past with both sex and drugs.
Poor reading comprehension. Not surprising.
October 4, 2009 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can read perfectly, clearthinker. In fact, the more you write, the deeper you wallow in your pathology. So, keep talking, moron!
See? Blame the victim. You can't let it go.
I suspect you have some personal experience in this area.
You are always illogical, clearthinker, but your comments in this particular thread are so consistently skewed that I can't give you credit for faking it.
Scary.
October 4, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I blame no one. You still can't read, apparently. Try again.
We know you aren't a writer. But apparently you don't even make a good editor. Read slower, maybe that will help.
October 4, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that officials in Poland condemned Polanski's arrest and extradition, because their law mandates the chemical castration of rapists.
If Polanski escaped to Poland, would they welcome him with open arms or chemically castrate him?
October 2, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Wendy WW your point is moot because it doesn't matter what the Europeans think. ;-)
October 2, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It matters what the Swiss do.
October 2, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, since castration is considered a suitable punishment for rape in at least some European countries, we would be uncouth not to see that there may be no moral problem with that idea. If countries differ in their standards, as a matter of cultural relativity, we should go with the lowest common denominator -- at least, that appears to be your argument with respect to the age of consent.
October 3, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cutting off body parts is gruesome.
October 3, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is rape. In the future for the victim, what should be a celebration of love is accompanied by memories of terror.
October 3, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what was written in the court documents the girl was evidently not traumatized. The family stated that all they wanted was an apology.
October 3, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the family you have in mind?
"I would do many things differently if I were the parent in question. I wouldn't be a stage parent, I wouldn't introduce my daughter to a guy who was known to have had affairs with young girls (indeed the mother hoped that Samantha would be a star like Natsia Kinski), I wouldn't try to live vicariously through my child, I wouldn't send my child off unsupervised for a photoshoot (of any kind), the list goes on and on. " (from ClearThinker)
This is the family whose word on what's good for their child I'm supposed to respect?
What this child learned from her family,Polansky, the press, the courts and much of the public is that nobody gave a damn about her.
And now you want to tell me she wasn't traumatized?
What she learned was the sex was about taking, not about loving. That nobody cared what she thought, let alone cared about what was good for her.
October 3, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I won't adopt CTs' ideas. I am pointing to the documents I have read. What is written there is clear. They wanted an apology.
October 3, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biologically speaking, the age of consent corresponds with puberty. Anybody got a relevant thought?
October 3, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Pubescent girls and boys don't write laws. Adults do.
October 3, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Justification by reference to the law is I think relatively weak. The law is subject to all of the perverse and dark impulses of human nature. If statutory rape laws were based on a self evident truth then they would be uniform.
Polanski is clearly a shit. I read in the morning news that he may have not paid an agreed financial settlement with the girl and her family.
Polanski is a fugitive from justice, but is the justice just?
I am sure that many here would be outraged to be subject to Sharia law but does that make Sharia unjust?
October 3, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that I find some of the comments here, apparently attempting to justify or otherwise rationalize a serious crime against a little girl, profoundly disturbing and bordering on the genuinely sick.
Some things are beyond dispute. One such thing is that any adult who engages in sexual activities with a child has committed a serious crime. The law in our country draws very distinct, clear and universally understood lines in this regard. All mitigating circumstnces notwithstanding, Polanski is, at best, guilty of criminal pedophilia and rape. It really does not get a whole lot more depraved than that. Any attempt to distinguish between statutory rape and rape when one participant was 44 years old and the other 13 is to argue a technicality in the most morally repugnant way imaginable.
There is no justification whatsoever for any adult to ever prey on any child: period. To prey on a child sexually is especially abhorrent. This sort of sexual predator and exploiter is among the lowliest of behaviors.
It does not matter one bit that standards regarding the age of consent differ over time and between socieities with respect to this case. To argue that differing standards over time and between societies has any relevance regarding this case is again morally repugnant at best. The incident in question is not a hypothetical one. A crime occured. A serious crime against a child ocurred. The crime took place in a specific time and place and thus the only standards that apply are those that apply in that time and place.
Was Polanski being treated unfairly by the justice system? Well, if he was, he certainly was not being treated as badly by our justice system as he treated that little girl who, by virtue of her age could not possibly have given any form of consent to engage in sex of any kind, let alone with a man in his mid forties.
In the end, the man entered a plea of guilty of his own free will. Nobody who enters a plea is ever guaranteed that the judge in the case will honor the agreement (if any) between defendant and prosecutor. Polanski didn't think he was going to get the agreed upon sentence and so he fled. For any normal defendant, under normal circumstances, fleeing the jurisdiction would seriously compound the case and automatically extend, perhaps significantly, the time the defendant would have to spend in jail.
October 3, 2009 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well stated oleeb. There are few details in dispute here. The incredible arguments arise over the degree to which we consider reprehensible such activities as those to which Polanski pleaded guilty.
I am equally disgusted by much of the chatter here that would strain so mightily to avoid the call for justice in holding a 45 year old man accountable for the rape of a 13 year old girl. The jig is up, Mr. Polanski. Time to face the music.
October 3, 2009 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I could be convinced that the planet is doomed, I don't think it is doomed over this case.
I do think
a) the case is upsetting on many levels,
b) the justice system is imperfect and cases like this often codify further injustices,
and
c) Polanski won.
October 3, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Strange thread. The guy may be innocent, but the usual way of finding out is the justice system. No one was preventing him from appealing a possibly unfair sentence. What I'm wondering now is, what is the punishment for being a fugitive from justice for 30 some years? Or are we all free to run before sentencing, on condition one forfeit the amount put up in bail? Just wondering...
October 3, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that the example set by the US in its dealings with the prisoners at Guantanamo should increase our faith in the US system of 'justice'.
Having read the case file it is clear that everyone but the judge agreed with the original 42 day plea bargain - the girl and her family, the probation department, the psychologists/psychiatrists and the prosecutor. Judges have wide latitude in sentencing. What were his thoughts and motivations? Why did he decide to ignore the deal? Was it because Polanski was and is famous? Probably had something to do with it. Was it because the judge was using the case to some personal advantage? Could be.
October 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the judge consulted a prosecutor not directly involved in the case who had evidence of other possible paedophile conduct on the part of the accused. That is what motivated him to put aside the prosecutor's recommended sentence and more broadly ignore the plea bargain between the defence and the prosecution.
Consulting that outside state attorney was an ethics violation - because defence counsel wasn't present. I don't think you need to reach much further into the judge's motivations to understand his reasoning.
October 3, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, judges do have wide latitude, but the motivation of the judge was not and is not the issue before the court. Trying to insist that it ought to be is an unseemly diversionary PR tactic. The only legitimate means of challenging the ruling of a judge is on appeal. Instead of dealing with the system and the judge properly and legally, Polanski chose to flee and avoid the consequences of his admitted crime. That he and those who would support his decision to flee disagreed with the judge is really beside the point.
The issues here are really quite narrow and clear cut. A serious crime against a little girl took place. Polanski was guilty as charged of that crime. Polanski absconded in violation of the law and, no doubt, in violation of his plea agreement. Any and all other issues exist outside of the law regarding this case and should have no bearing on how Polanski is treated for absconding to avoid sentencing.
Seems to me Polanski's objection boils down to a rich man whining that it wasn't fair that he should have to serve any further time for a crime he committed. Such an objection, in light of how little time he served to begin with for his shocking and morally indefensible behavior, doesn't merit a great deal of empathetic consideration for him IMHO. Instead, if he really hoped for leniency he should have long ago demonstrated contrition for his criminal conduct. Polanski's failure to recognize or acknowledge the depravity of his criminal behavior as a fully grown man preying on a little girl is perhaps the most shocking element in all this and also the best argument for the harshest possible punishment upon his return to court despite or perhaps because of the many intervening years between then and now.
Polanski's ongoing, defiant insistence that somehow he would have ended up the injured party had he remained in the US indicates to me, and I think many others, that this man is no different than other unrepentant, child molesting pedophiles (other than being very rich and famous of course). Catholic priests and the Catholic hierarchy have rightly met with universal revulsion and condemnation for such moral blindness when it comes to the crimes of child sexual predators. I fail to see what makes Polanski's argument any different. Further, he should be treated like his fellow, abeit less well known and monied pedophiles and fugitives (no better or worse), have to serve his time and be classified and supervised like any other predatory sex offender would be.
Had Polanski faced up to his crime and taken his punishment at the appropriate time, this all would have been over and done with long, long ago. But when he chose to flee, Polanski chose to keep this matter alive by avoiding the consequences of his crime.
October 3, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since it was a plea bargain, Polanski should have withdrawn the plea and gone to trial. Plea bargains typically state however that the actions of the judge are not guaranteed. Had he chosen to fight the charge he would have been convicted and he knew that so he fled and thus compounded his problems.
I think what he did was wrong, and it was illegal, but what I think does not constitute justice.
If what the judge did showed evidence of bias or conflict of interest there should have been a mistrial.
October 3, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
But there was no trial because Polanski absconded obviating any possible complaint regarding the judge.
October 3, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, as I said he should have withdrawn the plea and gone to trial. If he was aware at the time of the questionable actions of the judge he should have had his lawyers make a motion to have the judge recuse himself.
October 3, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Obey, not even Polanski claims Polanski is innocent. He didn't want to do any further time for the crime and so fled the country to avoid that eventuality. And yes, now the issue of his absconding for thirty years comes into play.
October 3, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. I think the theory is that Polanski was lying when he pled guilty. It's a possibility. I saw a roundtable program on French TV last night where some author - who by the by was waxing poetic about his own love affairs with underage girls - defended Polanski by appealing to the ancient Pyrrhonian school of philosophy which argued for questioning all beliefs about the external world - "we can't know anything, therefore withhold judgment, everyone". Interesting defence, looking forward to how it will hold up in court...
I find this whole Polanski pity party very strange.
October 3, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, but even if he his plea was a lie it was entered into freely and he could have chosen to withdraw the plea right up to the time the judge pronounced sentence.
I agree. It's all very strange.
October 3, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Obey, I've read a lot of comments you've made, for quite some time, and I agree with you on many occasions, so I know you'll probably concede that's about the dumbest theory to pop us since "hollow earth".
October 3, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy shit, the earth is hollow...?!
(If I wasn't being clear, I don't know if this whole 'save the paedophile' campaign shows we're all doomed, but it is pretty damn depressing)
October 3, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rereading my first comment, it really wasn't clear. My remark was intended as follows: it's 'possible' in the sense that the crazy philosophical school of Pyrrhonism thought it was possible that time and space, truth and causality, don't really exist and that the world is but a figment of our imagination. And that hence we should withhold judgment.
I.e. You need a crazy theory of possibility to make sense of Polanski's defenders' disingenious doubts. That was my reference to the French intellectuals I saw spout this stuff on TV.
October 3, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in the olden days, girls were often married off as soon as they were biologically able to have children. My paternal grandmother was one of them. She was married at 13 and had 3 children by the time she was 16, 6 by the time she was 21. My grandfather was 28 when they married. This was back in the 1920s. By that time the age of consent (as best as I can tell from a bit of quick research) was 16, but this was in the south, and as y'all know, things are a little different down there.
Life was simpler then, and I think when marriage was involved, age was often overlooked when families consented to the unions.
Anyone who has raised children knows that 13 year olds are not emotionally equipped to handle the responsibilities of sexual activity as it relates to the potential for becoming a parent at that age. And I suspect that is true emotionally, as well. I was 16, and I wish I had waited until I knew myself better. But, you can't tell a horny 16 old anything!
The adults in this situation should be ashamed of themselves...The parents abdicated their responsibility to protect their child, and the predator? Well, I just have problems w/ old men and children...
October 3, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to continue the fire here, but doesn't it sometimes strike you as strange that so many hold that we are now better than we were in the 1920?
October 4, 2009 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks that sex with a child under ANY circumstances or for ANY reason is okay should be banned from ever using this site again. I am asking that anyone who has excused Polanski on this blog be removed. I don't wish to share blog space with evil.
October 4, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your attempts at censorship, on a public website, are disgusting. If you don't want to "share space" then don't post here. Because, Jan, this isn't even your space. Perhaps you don't understand how the Internet works?
Or... you can be consistent.
TPM had a celebration of Ted Kennedy here just a few weeks back.
Many of the posters on this particular thread, celebrated Kennedy. Kennedy of course, was involved with the death of a woman, charged, given a minimum sentence (60 days) -- and suspended.
There are many Kennedy apologists (just like the Polanski apologists that you cite in this blog). Are you against them as well?
When mindlessly following a flock, it's so hard to keep the righteous indignation consistent, isn't it?
October 4, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an utter load of nonsense. Following the law is for sheep? In what universe?
Protecting children from abusive adults isn't sheeplike in the least. Neither is calling out and punishing their predators.
Ted Kennedy got drunk and acted irresponsibly. The victim wasn't 13 and he didn't drug her or sodomize her first. That you dragged that in here shows that you have no coherent argument, and are here to provoke. Even those that normally tolerate your rude, overbearing behavior won't forget this.
You really are one creepy little bastard.
October 4, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wrong, Clearthinker. Kennedy has nothing to do with this topic.
Righteous indignation is EASY in this case -- Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. 13 year old kids are in 7th grade. He raped a 7th grader. Gave her a quaalude (or half of one), and champagne and had anal sex with her. He was 44 years old. She was in 7th grade. 44 years old. Sex. 7th grader.
October 4, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have asked TPM to remove the person calling themselves "clearthinker" for it's submissions excusing child rape. I ask that others do likewise. I don't give a shit if it's offended by it, either.
October 5, 2009 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest you read the Terms of Service, Jan.
First, no one is excusing child rape.
Second, you are welcome to your opinions. As I am to mine.
Apparently you come from some other culture than America.
October 5, 2009 3:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The creature calling itself "clearthinker" hasn't read the terms of use.
"# Bring harm to minors.
# "stalk" or otherwise harass another;
The creature has committed both violations of the TPM terms of use. I have asked it be removed.
October 5, 2009 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink