William K. Wolfrum is a great blogger, so laws should not apply to him
Now, being this good is a burden. Namely because it gives me so many chances to commit crimes. And here's the thing - I should be able to commit these crimes. The only thing holding me back is the law. This must change.
So here's the thing, I have started a petition titled "William K. Wolfrum is a great blogger, let him commit crimes." Now, if you're reading this, I can safely assume that my blog has made you a more reflective person. In fact, because of me, you are just a better person, period. So go sign the petition.
My friends, the desire to commit a wide variety of crimes grows in me daily*. Without your help, I have to choose between committing these crimes or blogging. This is not a choice I want to have to make. So give me proactive immunity now, and I'll stay here cranking out those blog posts you love so much, rather than rotting in a jail cell with criminals who aren't anywhere near as good at blogging as I am.
It's your choice. Make me above the law.
* I promise to not commit any violent crimes. I mean, it would just be fucking sick and inhuman for you to support me if I did something like, say, drug, rape and sodomize a child, for instance. I mean, exactly how fucked up in the head do you have to be to plead for the freedom of a serial child rapist?
-WKW
Burn in hell, Polanski.
You, however, I like.
Burn in Brazil, Wolfrum.
September 30, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right back atcha. Just know that if you ever commit armed robbery or something, I'll defend your right to freedom due to your overall prolificness.
October 1, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, you might add, if we don't sign the petition, it will make America less safe.
September 30, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The wealthy, powerful, famous, and elite... always exercising their 'rights' to be above the law.
It was a momentary crisis of conscience for me Wolfrum but I refrained myself from signing your petition.
You will be missed...
September 30, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can make the case below then yes you have my support:
(1) In the case of a "ticking time blog" that the preservation of America and Humanity Itself may be at stake unless you blog.
(2) you have gotten an ill hospitalized lawyer under medication to sign off on whatever law you need to break as being allowed under the United States Constitution.
then you have my full support. God Bless.
September 30, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anne Applebaum would definitely sign your petition.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
September 30, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if she is sleeping with his ambassador.
October 1, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Wolf, I just can't sign your petition. You're great, its true, but that isn't enough. I'd have to see some evidence that you really suffered in the years before you broke the law. Now say if you lived through Nazi Germany and your mother died in Auschwitz well then it would be perfectly understandable if you then went out and raped and sodomized a 13 year old child.
September 30, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I've suffered! I lived on the streets! In Alaska! Ok, it was just one night. In August. And I was pretty drunk. But it was awful. Just awful. Also, I have been denied awards from all organizations since I won an Alaska Press Club Award in 1998.
I've suffered. Oh, how I've suffered. And again, remember, I promise not to drug and rape children. So there's that, as well.
October 1, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you moved to London, and attacked the very thing you lust for, every full moon. That is reform, Dude!
October 1, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other wise I smell punkinpie
October 1, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Roman Polanski is a holocaust survivor. He is persecuted by the US judge because he is Jewish.
The people who defend him, Anne Applebaum, Bernard Henri-levy, Claude Lanzmann, are Jews who support Israel.
You must be an Antisemite. Why else would you deny the right of a holocaust survivor to commit crimes?
What next? will you mock with your inane "satire" the right of Israelis to kill 1400 defenseless people in Gaza because it helps them understand Auschwitz?
Today it is Polanski. Tomorrow it is Ehud Barak. Once you demand justice and the rule of law, it is a slippery slope that leads directly to the destruction of Israel. Is that what you really want? Why can't you stop being full of hate? Let the poor sob be!
October 1, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby cordially invite you to Switzerland to receive the annual Wolfram Award for Web Excellence for this blog. We'll organize the police escort from our side...
October 1, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Errr, I'm sort of wanted for a variety of crimes there. I can go in 28 more years, when statute of limitations expires. Get back to me then, K?
October 1, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Roman Polanski, Quinn esq, and Woody Allen have signed your blog! Nice!
October 1, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, Esq is by far the most prominent of the bunch, says I
October 1, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep-You're really nailing down the best of our morally ambiguous.
For myself I think I will wait till you go on Dancing with the stars.
October 1, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if we gave Polanski the free ride on the child-rape charge since the victim is loathe to prosecute him, he should still be in jail because he jumped bail and fled the country.
Maybe he is the example Tom DeLay is following shaking his ass in front of the American people.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/gregorzap/2009/09/tom-delay-shakes-his-butt-in-t.php
They should be begging for leniency in front of a judge, preferably an activist judge, rather then flaunting themselves on stage and film.
October 1, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Polanski skipped out on his sentencing because the judge threatened to renege on a plea bargain that he had previously agreed to. There will be no trial. Polanski has already pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse.
As for skipping out, the most common penalty for that is bail forfeiture, which happened 30 years ago. Actually, Polanski might have a colorable argument, based on the judge's extravagantly unethical behavior, that his bail should be returned to him.
October 1, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tedious irony is really worse than tedious sincerity. These hyperventilating Polanski lynching parties wouldn't bother me if they didn't ignore the actual facts, and if they weren't quite so self-righteous. After all, everybody needs SOMEONE to feel superior to. I guess.
Must it be pointed out that neither Polanski nor his attorneys (nor, of course, his "supporters", by which I guess is meant people who would rather he weren't executed) have ever asserted his "right" to commit crimes? Since that's the premise of this blog, I guess it must.
And speaking of facts, let's not lose sight of the fact that everybody involved in the case 30 years ago--the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the judge, the defendant, the victim, and her mother--agreed to the plea bargain. Which the judge then publicly threatened to renege on in order to "send the little Jew up for life."
I guess since I'm not a morally superior, pitchfork wielding blogger, I'm not allowed to be ironic. Oh, well!
October 1, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. And he raped a child. There's that, too.
October 1, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did Jerry Lee Lewis. Are you burning a torch for him, too?
But I like your style. You only play one note of one song. Over and over. And, moreover, since Polanski pleaded guilty to illegal sexual intercourse, and not rape, you're playing that one note off key.
Enjoy your simple-minded self-congratulation.
October 1, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To hell with that. If anyone has the right to simple-minded self-congratulation around here, it's me.
Wolfrum can find something else to enjoy.
P.S. You're right. You're tedious.
October 1, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As "a morally superior, pitchfork wielding blogger" you have my permission to be ironic. You may also be stupid.
October 1, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a difficult question. What puzzles me is why they waited till now to nab him, it isn't as if he was in hiding.
What to do?
In many countries, the judges would just file this case away, but America is a punitive society where they put kids in jail with hardened criminals for smoking pot.
What to do with a major artist, who is a bit of a creep?
I admire Polanski's work and I don't want to see him at 76 spending the rest of his life in jail for something that happened before many of TPMers were born. As I remember, the victim's own mother was pimping her around and it all happened in Jack Nicholson's house... very, very sleazy. The child in question is now a matron with a husband and kids and Polanski paid her off years ago.
Hollywood passed judgment when Polanski was awarded an Oscar for "The Pianist". Common sense would be to just file the thing away and if you think Polanski is creepy pervert (which he probably is) nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket and see his films.
October 1, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A sensible post, for which you'll undoubtedly be branded as pro-rape, misogynist, an apologist for molesters, and indifferent to the rule of law.
It amazes me the vituperation and vengefulness emerging from the woodwork here. It's downright pathological. It's always a red flag when when people unrelated to the case are more bent on revenge than the actual victim. The idea that the victim's sentiments should be ignored for the good of society is just one of the psychological curiousities evident here.
October 1, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't you agree though, that it's a bit dicey to be relying on the victim's wishes when punishing crimes? IMO, the interest of a society in discouraging this sort of criminal behaviour outweighs the woman's opinion on what should be done.
Of course that's a totally separate discussion from the issue of the facts here, which are not being reported clearly at all. It's not as if this guy drugged and raped a kid, and then spent the next 30 years on the lam avoiding prosecution. Of course his being in Europe all these years wasn't a coincidence, either.
I think he needs to stand in front of a judge. We can't continue to perpetuate a two tiered justice system, one for rich and famous who can use money and influence to avoid punishment, and one for the rest of us poor slobs.
October 1, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely that it's "dicey" to be "relying on the victim's wishes when punishing crimes." However, that's a long way from ignoring the victim's wishes completely, which is what the torch-burners like Wolfrum want to do.
And the "two-tiered justice system" isn't as simple as you make it sound. Lots of times, the rich and famous get screwed BECAUSE they're rich and famous. That certainly happened to Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley, to name a couple. Jack Johnson and Muhammad Ali, too. Polanski didn't demonstrably benefit from being a famous director. If he were a nobody, the publicity hound judge might not have given a shit about giving him the agreed-upon sentence, instead of bragging about how he was going to lock the guy up for life. For most criminal defendants, publicity is an enemy. It always helps to be connected, but Polanski wasn't Charlton Heston or John Wayne.
Polanski had enough money to flee, but so do a lot of people. You want him to stand before a judge...for what? What's the judge gonna say? "You shouldn't have left?" Nobody with a grain of sense would have stayed around waiting for that trial judge to fuck them.
October 1, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saving us the trouble of being all vituperative and vengeful. It is utter madness that at a site like this we'd discuss things like current events. Again, I thank you.
October 1, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who brought it up, chump? Just because your mendacity is fatiguing you, you have to blame ME for calling you out. Sad.
October 1, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
his status as a "major artist" has ZERO to do withj anything. Or it shouldn't, anyway.
October 1, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood didn't write the law, though. What they do and condone isn't the issue, even in California where the governor is an actor.
October 1, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A. that has nothing to hisart
b. I think your points are well made but you totally miss the way support for him has been dismissive of the severity of what he did.
if people were writing op-eds, "what he did was awful and he should have been serving a jail time 30 years ago, but...." that would be fine with me. I do think this prosecution now is over-the-top.
But that is not what they are saying. See my longer comment on my blog http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/10/perpetrators-league-does-polanski.html
October 1, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the judge, prosecutors, attorneys, and victim dealt with the severity of what he did 30 years ago. It was done. It really doesn't need to be revisited, especially if the principals in the case don't want it to be. He pleaded guilty and they all agreed on his penalty. He did NOT "avoid prosecution;" he avoided subjecting himself to the caprice of an unstable, unprofessional judge, who voiced every intention of reneging on the agreed upon terms and locking Polanski away for decades.
October 1, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUt that doe snot give him license to flee, waving his midle finger at the courts.
October 2, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"License to flee?" Just what is your problem? Anybody with a grain of sense, and some cash, would have fled. That judge was going to fuck him, and please don't make some stupid comment about "that's what he did to the victim." Anybody who would have stayed to be sentenced by that psycho judge is a fool.
You're almost perfectly ignorant of the facts of this situation, and you're not thinking at all. You're just telling us how you FEEL. It's not much of a contribution.
October 2, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect ignorance. Indeed.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/hey-heres-something-that-isnt.html
October 2, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
LongTom, how is it that you can assume you have any say in how I reply? It is very appropriate to say that is what he did to the 13 year old girl. He drugged her, and then he f^cked her in many different ways. I will say it, I have said it. Now go f^ck your self.
What is MY problem? Look, dude, I'm not the one here making a case for jumping bail and forgetting about the brutal behavior of a child rapist. I have a problem because I find it abhorrent to do so?
I have a problem for not failing to understand he did what he did to save himself? I do not. I totally understand he did what he did to save himself. He did what he did to please himself. The problem is not thinking about someone else. The problem is suggesting if we do something for our own gratification no one has any say in what was done.
October 2, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I really appreciate about Long Tom, is that he's dedicated himself to fighting for Polanski's honor on the same post of mine twice. Here and at DKos (I see other people when you guys aren't around)
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/10/1/8844/12396/86#c86
October 1, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, you're just a talentless, mendacious creep.
October 1, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone be simple-minded, vituperative and mendacious? It seems like a lot of work. Normally after a little vituperating I'm exhausted, but I'm doing OK. Must have been that little nap after lunch.
October 1, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink