What she doesn't say:
Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed....Incredible! We're talking about a Washington Post columnist here, who used the corporate pages to write a piece decrying "The Outrageous Arrest of Roman Polanski."
But is that any more absurd than saying he's suffered enough because of all the burdens on his career? Think what this means, generalizing the opinion into an abstract rule. It means that those with high professional standing do not need the usual criminal punishments given to individuals who have very little in this world. Ordinary people must be punished in prison, but big shots are already punished heavily by the mere revelation of their crimes and therefore should be relieved of much or all of the usual prison sentence. Care to sign on to that rule?
IN THE COMMENTS: Mortimer Brezny says:
I used to agree with Ann that punishment ought to be equal. But then I realized that sympathy is unequal. If you are poor, you are pitied. If you are rich, you are not. No matter if you were born poor and worked diligently over years to build a business that provides you with your present level of wealth. No matter if you were born rich and worked hard to sustain and grow the wealth with which you started. This imbalance, of course, leads to an unfair resentment and hatred of the rich. The poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligent, and when the favored sons strike back, they are chastened. That is wrong. Equal means equal. If the rich are to be despised and the poor are able to strike them on a daily basis in innumerable ways, then the rich ought to be able to strike back. And the punishments should reflect the toll of the daily indignities. I say punish the poor even worse. Make them suffer for their petty hatred of the rich, for their nasty, impish wrongful jabs at the rich on a everyday basis.
And let us not forget about contribution. Ayn Rand may have been a loon, but the truth of the matter is some create wealth and some do not. Those who create wealth -- of whatever kind; art, business, science, political wisdom -- are rare and deserve our protection and admiration. Those who destroy wealth, those who pilfer from the coffers of others, they deserve nothing but our contempt.
पोस्ट्स
१२६ टिप्पण्या:
Just have Polanski declared an illegal combatant, have him stay overnight at gitmo and walla.
Muerto el perro se acabo la rabia.
Andrew Sullivan was unavailable for comment.
At least she didn't tweet about it.
Yet Ann thinks that Bush and Cheney should never ever ever be allowed to be prosecuted for torture. In fact, nobody in the Bush administration should be allowed to be prosecuted for torture - also known as War Crimes. And yes, those War Crimes, for they are guilty, are clearly documented and defined in Treaties that the United States is party too.
... except for Sarah Palin, right?
I mean here is a woman who did nothing but engage in a life of public service and unlike Roman Polanski who committed anal rape of a 13 year old girl, the elite media and Horror-wood dog Palin's every step.
Makes you wonder does it not? Is there even a shred or morality in Horror-wood or the elite media?
Anne Applebaum's credibility is finished.
Every time someone reads what Applebaum has to say they're going to think of that sad anal-raped 13 year old girl and Polanski.
I've been thinking about this since reading the previous post and comments last night.
What strikes me is that the forward momentum of Polanski's career -- the movies, festivals and awards -- should have stopped the minute he fled sentencing.
Appelbaum writes: "He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar." Boo fucking hoo.
Her argument comes down to the fact that the cretins who kept hiring the rapist to make movies also should have earned him a get-out-of-jail free card.
It isn't just about a different standard for a big shot. It's about a different standard for the entire big shot club.
The Washington Post has had its brand tarnished with this apologia for a child rapist.
It's sickening that Ann Applebaum would come out in support of a sick rapist who anally raped a 13-year-old child.
And to hide her own personal connections to that person while she uses the imprimateur of the Washington Post to seek public support for that person.
I hope Ann Applebaum's children are never raped by a 44-year-old man.
It would be a shame for her to have to live the nightmare that her friend Roman Polanski put that little girl through.
Who are these people? How did they get into positions of power and prestige when they are actively trying to protect the rapist of a child?
The Washington Post should be ashamed of itself and should fire Ann Applebaum.
I was a juror, who convicted along with the 11 others, a man who sexually assaulted a child. Not only does that convict not have an opportunity to travel to LA to pick up his Oscar; he doesn't have much of an opportunity to make movies or travel to France either, at least not in the next 15 years.
Polanski hasn't paid the price. Well, he hasn't paid the public. Manson hurt Polanski more than anything the public could do. But still, Polanski hasn't paid for the crime. I also don't think he will, and I'm not certain I care. At this point, he's not a threat to 13 year old girls. The worst society can do to him is make sure everyone remembers him for what he did to this girl rather than his other acheivements.
Having stupid columnists tut-tut his good acheivements is just going to piss off (err wee wee up) more people, and not help Polanski's ordeal.
Seems to me the Poles are more upset about Polanski's possible extradition than they are about that missile defense shield.
"Care to sign onto that?"
I don't think we,the peon people, will even be part of the decision making process. It is far too weighty of a topic to let the hoi polloi have a say.
[I wonder if Applebaum has ever written a column decrying the inequity of our drug laws?]
I like Applebaum's stuff on Russia and the UN. Till now, I did not know she had the COI.
I think less of her now.
Once again we have a situation where a female was used and abused by a man, and feminists stick up for the man. It says a lot about the feminist movement.
She's not familiar with the forces of outrage entertainment.
A better rhetorical line would be that he is not the same guy after all this time.
Disappear the villain that's so necessary.
Nondisclosure did divide the outrage target, though.
"Care to sign on to that rule?"
That's how it works already, and that's how it will work out in this case as well - just wait.
and feminists stick up for the man.
I'd say that's pro-feminist. The world need not hang on women's every feeling.
Opposite to its politics, however.
It's sickening that Ann Applebaum would come out in support of a sick rapist who anally raped a 13-year-old child.
What is your fascination with the details? Seriously, do you think the crime is somehow worst for the sodomy, or because the age difference was 40ish to preteen?
I understand you don't like Polanski because of his crime. But please consider there is also a victim. That victim doesn't need it plastered all over the web exactly what some person did to her. She's not some girl who feigned a rape charge. These things actually happened to her. If it was as traumatic, as you want to make it out to be, then please find some mercy not to remind everybody about the events of that night.
wv: witymes what all of us blog commenters think of ourselves.
I'm happy that Polanski's victim has found peace with what happened to her, but if Polanski were truly remorseful he would take responsibility for his crime and that includes facing the legal consequences.
Roman Polanski is not a remorseful man and I see no reason to forgive him.
That is outrageous.
Polanski did something bad and ultimately he needs to deal with that. That France protected him under thise circumstances for years is outrageous.
Although it is nice to see Poland is looking out for its Jews. All three dozen of them, give or take a few.
I guess everyone has something to contemplate this Yom Kippur.
Very disappointing, as I have often liked Applebaum's work.
What is your fascination with the details? Seriously, do you think the crime is somehow worst for the sodomy, or because the age difference was 40ish to preteen?
I think the "fascination with the details" stems from Polanski apologists who try to whitewash his crime by referring to it a simple statutory rape. It was more than that.
This 44-year old guy plied a 13-year old girl with alcohol and tranquilizers, the anally raped her. That's what he did, so let the record reflect it.
He did the crime, now he needs to do his time. He can collect his Oscar afterwards.
I've wondered if Polanski became a chip in the UBS, Swiss bank secrecy, US tax fraud negotiations, when the Swiss were looking for anything the US might want.
(the other kev)
Applebaum's hysteria over what she perceives as Polanski's unfair treatment is eerily similar to Pat Buchanan's hysteria over John Demjanjuk's deportation.
I'm not trying to draw any moral equivalency, just to point out some folks have blind spots a mile wide.
1. It's not a secret that Anne Applebaum is married to Poland's Foreign Minister -- they've been married since 1991, according to their wedding announcement in the NYT.
2. It's not a secret that Foreign Ministers advocate for their citizens when they're in legal trouble abroad.
3. What is a secret is that Applebaum's husband, "Radek" Sikorski, is a social conservative. In fact, when they married, Sikorski was a correspondent for National Review.
Hanging's too good for him.
Nazis! Manson murderers! Underage teen sex rape! Roman Polanski is a Nabokov character caught in a Quentin Tarantino movie....Polanski deserves a couple of years in prison. Don't worry/hope that he'll be subject to prison rape. Polanski has manipulative skills that pikers like Manson can only dream of. In prison, some Crip will be his personal trainer and that Crip will be convinced that he's the new Denzel Washington.....The woman involved in the case is the one who keeps paying for the crime in many, many ways. She has gone on to live a normal life, but it's a wonder she did. All her classmates knew that she was the girl involved in the scandal. She has a son who is about the age she was when the shit hit the fan. Now her son and all his classmates know that she had anal intercourse with Roman Polanski.
I think the "fascination with the details" stems from Polanski apologists who try to whitewash his crime by referring to it a simple statutory rape. It was more than that.
This 44-year old guy plied a 13-year old girl with alcohol and tranquilizers, the anally raped her. That's what he did, so let the record reflect it.
I thought that the premise of most of these "crimes with minors" things was that by definition, the minor could never give informed consent and that the state had an ovewhlming interest in pursuing the crime independent of a particular victim.
But is that any more absurd than saying he's suffered enough because of all the burdens on his career?
This is the main argument on this case that I find repulsive. Argue that he’s old, or that he served some time already or that the victim doesn’t want reporters camping on her front steps and her kids getting bugged at school about something that happened years ago…but arguing that it HURT HIS CAREER!!! Honestly. The guy got a freaking oscar a few years ago and that one idiot in his film jumped up and talking about how awesome he is…Poor baby, he couldn’t accept his Oscar? That is supposed to be a sympathetic argument?
Feh.
I will never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to absolve some of the most henious crimes. Outrageous arrest? 'Evidence he didn't know she was 13'? Is she fucking kidding? He had a hard life so that's a pass for sodomizing a 13 yera old kid?
I think Ms. Applebaum can be appropriately referred to as a dumb fucking c**t for future reference.
He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar
Oh the HORROR!!!!!!!
How will humanity ever survive now?
Gag.
Is the Wapo taking any heat over this from its loyal readers yet?
I think the "fascination with the details" stems from Polanski apologists who try to whitewash his crime by referring to it a simple statutory rape. It was more than that.
I understand that. Technically, before I met her, my wife was statutory raped. She has two beautiful twin daughters that are now older than the age in which she became pregnant (though just older). What happened to my wife, and Ms. Geimer are two different things. I get that.
At the same time, the point is made better by describing her age and the fact that she was drugged, and it was not consensual. I'm pretty sure non-consensual sexual penetration is just as bad, no matter what is penetrated.
I certainly don't want to detract from the outrage towards Polanski. I just think the outrageous should consider the victim. That's all.
PS: No offense meant to Florida, or anyone, in singling out the comment.
Well suffice it to say that had Roman Polanski done something really horrible, like dog fighting, or accidently shooting himself in the leg with an unlicensed handgun he'd have been imprisoned a long time ago.
Because we all know those are the kind of crimes that need to be stamped out.
"he has paid for the crime in many, many ways." How so Ms. Applebaum? Seems to me that Roman has lived rich fat life and has been fawned over and pitied for the last 31 years.
FLS, it may not be a “secret” that Applebaum is married to the guy, but that doesn't mean it's common knowledge on the part of her readers. No one cares who her husband is, but she should have disclosed it. That is standard practice among journalists for potential conflicts of interest. Don’t pretend not to get what this is about.
“It means that those with high professional standing do not need the usual criminal punishments given to individuals who have very little in this world. Ordinary people must be punished in prison, but big shots are already punished heavily by the mere revelation of their crimes and therefore should be relieved of much or all of the usual prison sentence.”
I used to agree with Ann that punishment ought to be equal. But then I realized that sympathy is unequal. If you are poor, you are pitied. If you are rich, you are not. No matter if you were born poor and worked diligently over years to build a business that provides you with your present level of wealth. No matter if you were born rich and worked hard to sustain and grow the wealth with which you started. This imbalance, of course, leads to an unfair resentment and hatred of the rich. The poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligent, and when the favored sons strike back, they are chastened. That is wrong. Equal means equal. If the rich are to be despised and the poor are able to strike them on a daily basis in innumerable ways, then the rich ought to be able to strike back. And the punishments should reflect the toll of the daily indignities. I say punish the poor even worse. Make them suffer for their petty hatred of the rich, for their nasty, impish wrongful jabs at the rich on a everyday basis.
And let us not forget about contribution. Ayn Rand may have been a loon, but the truth of the matter is some create wealth and some do not. Those who create wealth -- of whatever kind; art, business, science, political wisdom -- are rare and deserve our protection and admiration. Those who destroy wealth, those who pilfer from the coffers of others, they deserve nothing but our contempt.
wv: mating
1. It's not a secret that Anne Applebaum is married to Poland's Foreign Minister -- they've been married since 1991, according to their wedding announcement in the NYT.
No, it's not a secret that Applebaum's married to Poland's Foreign Minister. Not only was their wedding announced in the NYT (and I'm assuming other parpers), Ms. Applebaum's disclosed her marriage to Poland's Foreign Minister in a recent column.
The point was not that Applebaum needed to disclose her marriage because it was secret; she needed to disclose the marriage because it's not reasonable to assume the average reader would recall the details of Applebaum's marriage or make the connection that her husband's job involves defending Polanski. Before this story, I'd have bet few if any Washington Post readers would have been able to tell you the post held by Applebaum's husband. Therefore, the readers would have had no way of knowing Applebaum's column advocated the position of her husband's employer. She may agree with that position, but she should have disclosed the relationship.
"No, it's not a secret that Applebaum's married to Poland's Foreign Minister."
It is uncommon knowledge, and beside the point. The ethics guidelines of the Washington Post company require all writers to disclose, at time of writing, all potential conflicts of interest.
Ms. Applebaum hid her conflict; and thus, fooled the editor which allowed this horrid filth to make print.
She has abused the employment agreement she made with the Washington Post, and they should fire her.
If you read through the comments of the post in question, you will quickly see that virtually every one of the Washington Posts' readers are outraged and sickened that the Washington Post has been used to rally support for a pedophile rapist.
virtually every one of the Washington Posts' readers are outraged and sickened that the Washington Post has been used to rally support for a pedophile rapist.
And that's how I think it should be. Pedophile rapist is a reputation that Polanski should never get the benefit of living without. Applebaum shouldn't be reminding us that he didn't receive his Oscar in person. She should be reminding us that he wasn't able to receive it because of his aweful past.
Yes the Wapo commenters disagree with Applebaum's column and most do not seem to know about her husband's role in the issue.
So the plot will thicken.
Well if Anne Applebaum's editor does not know who she's married to (Hint -- she files her columns from Poland) then God help the newspaper business.
Qualre wrote:
I've wondered if Polanski became a chip in the UBS, Swiss bank secrecy, US tax fraud negotiations, when the Swiss were looking for anything the US might want.
Bingo!
Well if Anne Applebaum's editor does not know who she's married to (Hint -- she files her columns from Poland) then God help the newspaper business.
God help the newspaper business for many reasons.
Mort, you are such a kidder! If Trooper was here, he'd say you are biased.
Aside from the question of Applebaum's perfidious concealment of her husband's profession, I think Polanski should be imprisoned for at least the next 25 years, if possible. He committed a crime against American society, which does not tolerate the sexual exploitation of children.
Applebaum's badly, badly missing the point. It's not whether he suffered. It's whether he's made good on his end of the social contract by subjecting himself to society's laws and the justice dispensed when those laws are broken. He tried that, decided didn't like what was going to happen, and fled. He evaded justice, he didn't do some alternate penance in service to it.
-----
Look, I'm actually inclined to have the case settled with just a token judgement. The victim herself wants this all done with, and has gone on the record as saying so. If it's some token fine and just a week in jail, as long as the victim and prosecutor would be fine with that, I'm actually fine with it to. Or something similar. Just get the damn thing over with. But what I do not agree with is this damnably stupid notion that his exile from the US somehow stands in lieu of punishment. That's excuse making. Justice is less about length, breadth, and denial of some aspect of life than it is serving what time you're sentenced to in a court and legislatively determined manner. The only way I'd accept his years of suffering and exile as being a suitable alternative is if either he committed a crime where exile was the normal sentence, or if during those years he voluntarily lived in a genuine prison (and please, no metaphors; I'm talking a real jailhouse, not some poetic apologia about not being in Hollywood). Neither is the case here.
As generous as I'm willing to be on this issue, the fact remains that Polanski simply has to answer for his crime in evading the justice system. Like I said, even if the punishment is light, it should still be there. All this dumb, stupid apologia that's circulating now, though, isn't forgiveness, it's weakness. It's substituting thoughtless pity for thoughtful judgement. And that's the last thing you want to do in the case of a convicted pedophilic case.
Roger Simon is right. Polanski is an "emblem of special pleading". What everyone should work towards is turning him into an emblem of justice and forgiveness. Again, the victim wants this all over with and is willing to settle for a small judgement, but society cannot simply write off child rape. He has to answer in some sense. Doing any less is weaking criminal justice. And that's the bottom line here: How this affects society, not just him.
Our moral betters are convinced that Chinatown is worth any number of young ladies.
@Mortimer The Moron
"The poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligen ..."
Please provide me with links to the numerous poor people who have raped 13-year-old rich kids at Jack Nicolson's house and who got away with it.
Because, I'm not familiar with all these poor people who are able, successfully as you say, to push rich people around and butt-rape their kids with impunity.
Please, can you provide me with at least 5 names of poor people who have, to date, raped rich kids and gotten away with it?
Because I think you're full of it and cannot name a single poor person who has raped the 13-year-old child of a rich man and gotten away with it.
Not a single one.
I don't understand the "he's suffered enough" argument -- does the State get to set aside judgment if someone pleads "he's suffered enough"?
That seems more like "Queen for a Day" than a court system.
What fascinates me about the Polanski case is that he will probably get a deal cut in Hollywood as soon as he has been extradited back into the jurisdiction. Meanwhile the French government sees him as a great artist that is being persecuted by Fundamentalist Americans for a common enough French activity and their perspective that if Hollywood wants a French director , then they take him on French terms. So who wants to see this flap use up all the Oxygen in the wing nuts camp today? Fundamentalists have usually split (Schism) among themselves over this Law competing with mercy issue which is framed so well in Applebaum's article. Read Acts 21:21 thru acts 23:10 for another fascinating episode of this issue playing itself out. There are so many facets to this issue that I have even seen merit in Cedarford's comments on it, which is a scary thought.
I can't help but compare this situation to Polanski's movie The Pianist. In the movie we see horrible, banal acts regardless of age. These acts leave permanent scars on those who survive. We also see decent people do horrible, inhuman acts not consistent with the rest of their lives. The movie also focuses on those who, against all odds and reason, do the good and honorable thing. My only conclusion:
there are two Roman Polanski's (and the one would understand but still be disgusted with the acts of the other.) OK so its dime-store psychology
wv: tryin What I'm doin'
I don't understand the "he's suffered enough" argument -- does the State get to set aside judgment if someone pleads "he's suffered enough"?
I don't get the debate to begin with. She was thirteen. Forget non-consensual, forget the booze and drugs, she was thirteen. Lets say for the sake of argument she was begging him for sex. She was thirteen. Sorry but that is beyond sick. Maybe its because I have a 12 year old daughter or maybe its just my old fashioned upbringing but I don't look at 13 year old girls with a 'need to get somma dat' look in my eye. Maybe has something to do with the fact they're children? Maybe that's it.
I dunno then again maybe I'm the weirdo and folks like Applecart are the one's who are more enlightened and just don't think sodomizing a 13 year old girl is just that big a deal. I mean its been 30 years right?
Hoosier, thanks. I think what you just said ought to define the normal man's response to this whole thing.
"but society cannot simply write off child rape. He has to answer in some sense. Doing any less is weaking criminal justice. And that's the bottom line here: How this affects society, not just him."
That too.
there are two Roman Polanski's
Tough luck on the one who didn't rape the 13-year-old girl, I guess, but he should be more careful of the company he keeps.
I don't get the debate to begin with. She was thirteen. Forget non-consensual, forget the booze and drugs, she was thirteen.
Yes, Hoosier. I just spent a weekend with a cousin who is almost thirteen. They are so far from grown. So far even from the maturity they will reach at 15.
Well, I would hazard a guess that the other AA's editorial will have the opposite of its intended effect.
It's a better strategy to keep these issues out of the public eye as much as possible. Otherwise, you end up looking like an apologist for child rape, (or, in a another recent context, child sex slavery and tax fraud).
Please, can you provide me with at least 5 names of poor people who have, to date, raped rich kids and gotten away with it?
Because I think you're full of it and cannot name a single poor person who has raped the 13-year-old child of a rich man and gotten away with it.
Not a single one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case
Well, INSERT TOPIC HERE Roman Polanski may be problematic, Yet ANN thinks BusHITLER and CheneySATAN should be slathered in butter by geishas for THE WORST TORTURE AND WAR CRIMES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE. And yes, those War Crimes, for which they ARE guilty, are clearly WORSE than the HOLOCAUST and the DESTRUCTION of ALDERAAN and the United States is party to it all.
Fascist scum.
DownTownLadAsARobot
Mortimer, I think you're confused.
No one was actually raped in the Duke case. It was a hoax.
So,
Please, can you provide me with at least 5 names of poor people who have, to date, raped rich kids and gotten away with it?
try again.
Hey, I got frontpaged!
Mortimer, I think you're confused.
No one was actually raped in the Duke case. It was a hoax.
Actually, the Duke Lacrosse team players were sons of privilege and they are falsely accused and dragged through the mud. It is an example of rich kids being "raped" by poor ones. Don't you remember how no one believed the rich kids? This is the point. The evil poor can perpetrate vile hoaxes on the innocent rich.
Actually, I remember how all kinds of people believed the rich kids, which is how come the DA wasn't finally able to railroad them. Plus, more was made of the race angle than of the socioeconomic angle. If Crystal had been a white woman I don't think the accusation would have gotten the traction that it did.
"Rape" isn't rape.
And you're grasping at straws to try to prove your point.
I have yet to see a single value on the left that is not willfully sacrificed at the drop of a hat. I guess that's what makes you progressive; moving past your values.
yes but dear mortimer, justice was served in the duke fake rape case. the false accusers case fell apart and the falsely accused were acquitted.
justice has never been served in the polanski case.
And you're grasping at straws to try to prove your point.
Not really. My point wasn't to answer the specific question, but to demonstrate that it's premise was ridiculous. Rich people get screwed over all the time. The Duke Lacrosse scandal is but one example. To pretend that class was downplayed in the DUKE LACROSSE TEAM scandal is rather insane.
justice was served in the duke fake rape case.
The justice of having your name smeared in the mud? Having your college experience ruined? Having your family paraded in front of the press? Having 80 or so of your professors condemn you and refuse to apologize for the false condemnation? Justice wasn't served. An evil hoax was perpetrated and those boys' lives were shat upon.
It should be noted in defense of Polanski that after he fled the United States he went on to have a love affair with the underaged Nastasha Kinski. How much remorse does the man have to show? How many ways does he have to pay for his crime?
"I guess that's what makes you progressive; moving past your values."
of course. politics have, generally, nothing to do with values. its all just prettied up tribal conflict. liberals are a "tribe" and conservatives are a "tribe" and the goal is to stick it to the other tribe. tribal membership is not based on philosophy or values of any kind.
something becomes a "liberal" or a "conservative" value simply because it furthers the power of the tribe. hence the trend im seeing of members of the "liberal progressive" tribe calling polanskis arrest "another example of backwards american fundamentalism". you see, tribes only support the "protecting our innocent children!" or "the rule of law" or "justice!" when it serves the interests of the tribe. in this case supporting the child molesting movie director is a way to stick it to the moral prudes of the right wing tribe, so thats whats done. and it all interests the media tribe (a subgroup of the liberal tribe) to get people in a tizzy about the whole ordeal.
It is amusing that any foreign official would imagine Obama so much as approaching this issue.
"Why yes, I would love to be known as the President who pardoned a child rapist."
Why are people going to bat for Polanski at all? The man does not deserve it. He was convicted of a heinous crime, and he's been running from it.
People are so easy with pity now.
Layers and layers of editors. And stringent ethics policies.
PS to lead off, members of the self-righteous Polanski lynch mob may wish to see the HBO special documentary on Polanski, long-sceduled, airing tonight. In absolute perfect timing for HBO.
I tend to agree with Mortimer on how incorrect the old trope about wealth buying sympathy and evading the consequences of justice really is.
If you are poor, you not only get sympathy, but definite legal advantages.
For example...the 100s of thousands of impregnated teens each year age 12-15 showing up at hospitals, abortion clinics is largely an underclass phenomenon, and their impregnators tend to be men aged 18-30. Almost none are prosecuted, almost none are made to provide child support...because no one wants to wreck the US legal system prosecuting 100's of thousands of them on major felonies...In the law was to be applied equally and fairly, we would have another 5-6 million men imprisoned as major felons. Meaning a quintupling of jails constructed and State legal costs.
But another reason why the " poor" are so rarely prosecuted or made to pay child support instead of taxpayers is because complaints are few. Because every ghetto 'Ho and their family knows that to snitch and put a brother in jeopardy of a 10-30 year jail stretch for stautory rape will be treated by the local gangs as equivalent to the family going to the cops and snitching about major drug dealing that could net the accused gang brothers a 10-30 year sentence in the penitentary.
So if Polanski had been Li Tranh, Vietnamese gang member or Jawal Johnson, Crips member...no way would any 13-year old's momma go to the cops.
==================
The insight that after 30 years of Polanski visiting, living in Switzerland and now the Swiss suddenly play ball and risk relations with France and Poland may just have involved the US Justice Dept giving the Swiss some big concessions the Swiss sought? Pretty likely, IMO.
The Dems may say otherwise to the lowly American mob upset about the corruption and machinations of Wall Street and DC insiders destroying a good part of the US economy and saved wealth ....and on the surface support going after the moneyed Elite that hides funds in Switzerland or in Israel that is laundered through Switzerlands secret bank accounts...but in reality, Dem fatcats are exposed to major embrassment and IRS damages and even jail time as the Republican fatcats are.
So isn't it nice that you can distract the masses with Polanski. And quietly agree with the Swiss not to press further into who is hiding what millions in Swiss banking system ops? Just give up a few hundred names, allow Holder's people to omit some particularly embarassing names from the list. Then sweep the rest of it under the rug???
Isn't Polanski a delicious distraction that will also divert attention from healthcare deal-making, tea parties, illegal alien amnesty and so on??
"Why yes, I would love to be known as the President who pardoned a child rapist."
Heh. Good point.
@Mortimer THe Moron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_case
You've provided the case of three rich kids who were accused and exonerated. The poor person didn't get away with it.
You have not provided the case of three poor people who you claim are able to commit rapes of - and got away with it for 32 years while receiving Hollywood Oscars.
You claim that the poor are able, at will seemingly, to get away with raping rich kids.
Please show me some actual rapists who are poor and who raped rich kids and got away with that rape in the way that Roman Polanski has gotten away with it.
Again ... you're full of shiite.
PS to lead off, members of the self-righteous Polanski lynch mob may wish to see his guilty plea, where he admitted to the rape of the 13-year-old child.
There is no misconduct, or question about his guilt. There are many witnesses, including the actress Angelica Houston. There was DNA evidence in the form of Polanski's semen in the girl's underwear.
There is no question about his guilt. He pled guilty. His case is over. He fled to avoid jail time.
So, no need to watch HBO. Let's go straight to court with this scumbag.
I tend to agree with Mortimer on how incorrect the old trope about wealth buying sympathy and evading the consequences of justice really is.
I think what wealth really buys is publicity. (and a good lawyer). That publicity can help you or hurt you. It might also buy you politicians.
If you are poor, you not only get sympathy, but definite legal advantages.
How is the best lawyer money can buy not a “legal advantage”?
But another reason why the " poor" are so rarely prosecuted or made to pay child support
If the “poor” don’t pay child support, is probably more about not being able to get blood from a stone. No reason to target someone for money when they don’t have any.
If he'd faced the music, he'd have been out of jail ca. 1980.
That was his choice. OK, so the judge was reneging on a plea deal. Isn't that grounds for appeal?
So, no, I don't have sympathy for Polanski. He chose whatever hardships he's suffered by fleeing.
William said...
It should be noted in defense of Polanski that after he fled the United States he went on to have a love affair with the underaged Nastasha Kinski.
Only in your provincial outlook. In Europe, the age of consent ranges from 13 in Spain to 15 in France. Though there was something "squicky" about the 45 year old having the 16 year-old protege in his bed, even with all her nude modeling and films at that stage..to American moral tastes..but 'normal' in most of Europe and Asia.
====================
One interesting, quite nefarious theory matches with the twisted downtownlad's cry:
" And yes, those War Crimes, for they (Cheney, et. al.) are guilty, are clearly documented and defined in Treaties that the United States is party too."
That is, in addition to Holder's justice people agreeing to let the Swiss off the hook for providing more names of moneyed Elites who also ahhpen to be major Democrat donors who have Swiss Bank Accounts for tax evasion.....Holder and Co with to set a more nefarious process in motion with the high profile Polanski Case to weaken protection of Americans charged with "war crimes" or "financial misdoings" in certain European countries. To reward the Hard Left.
That is, to allow the precedent of bypassing extradition negotiations to be turned against US citizens through the high-profile Polanski Case. And serve the purposes of Euroweenies and progressive Jewish transnationalists passionate about eroding US sovereignity in favor of "human rights prosecutions" and "Rule of International Law over the inferior US sort".
Basically, if the US can bypass the French in extradition legalities by snaring one of their citizens in a 3rd country....it sets up it being turned on Americans..
The Obama Justice Department may well indeed see this as a way by which the Spanish and Belgians and Iranians can bypass the Obamites having to officially cave and surrender Kissinger, Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Ashcroft, various US Generals and CIA agents...or US citizen Zionist financiers who brokered deals for weapons used on Palestinians.
The Polanski precedent may see retired CIA agents named and wanted by Italy coughed up by Mexico on Italian warrants served if they learn the CIA folks are vacationing in Cancun..Or, if you snag Rumsfeld in Zurich or in Honduras and deliver him in chains to Belgium..the Obamites can throw up their hands and say they NEVER approved of Rumsfeld's capture...and the Swiss or Hondurans can say they just honored "lawful warrants"...just as the Swiss so "scruptulously did with Polanski".
It may be too clever a ploy to credit Holder's people with seriously setting up in their war with how to criminalize Bushies, CIA, and other Euroweenie/Human Rights Watch offenders -- but we may well be heading down that road given the US has initiated bypassing extradition law for high profile, non-terrorist cases.
So let me get this straight, Mort is NOT Being sarcastic and ironic? He actually *believes* the quote posted by Althouse?
I find that hard to believe.
Yes, he actually believes that the rich are to be pitied (and of course, free to go without jail time) because the rich are constantly being raped by the poor and the poor get away with it because they're poor and everybody feels sorry for them.
He can't provide any examples of this, but he believes it.
It would be comical if it wasn't so revealing of a sick dementia.
Read today in a Zurich newspaper comment section:
Vor dem Gesetz sind alle gleich? --are all equal in the eyes of the law?
Nice reference to Kafka I thought too.
I don't get the debate to begin with. She was thirteen. Forget non-consensual, forget the booze and drugs, she was thirteen.
I dunno. To me the non-consensual part is just as important and should be a pretty big sentence multiplier.
I don't think Mortimer was serious.
Oh for pete's sake.
Our justice system isn't set up for criminals to sentence themselves.
If you wish an example of the poor fucking over the rich, look no further than the Sharon Tate murder. The former Obama advisor, Bernadette Dorn, saw the revolutionary morality of stabbing a rich, pregnant woman in the stomach with a meat fork....On the other hand, in his movie Chinatown, Polanski showed how power and privilege distorts the judgements of the wealthy. This is a movie about a rich man who fucked his daughter and lived to escape the consequences. Polanski should submit to the lessons that his art taught.....I would recommend the following compromise to Mortimer: The poor should abstain from stabbing rich women, and the rich should submit to prison sentences for raping minors.....Cedarford: I am broad minded enough to have had an affair with the sixteen year old Natasha Kinski. Sadly though, the years have gone by and the opportunity has passed. A tragedy for us both. In my provincial way I have qualms about slipping a thirteen year old girl a mickey and then raping her. But that's just me. Those Europeans know so much more about the good life and how to enjoy it.
"If you wish an example of the poor fucking over the rich, look no further than the Sharon Tate murder."
Nobody is looking for examples where the poor fucked over the rich.
We're looking for examples where the poor fucked over the right - and got away with it. Mort the Moron's point is that "the poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligent ..."
He claims not that the poor fuck over the rich ... but that they routinely do so and get away with it because we pity them.
Last time I checked, Charles Manson was still in jail. He didn't get 42 days for Sharon Tate's murder. He got life.
Polanski served 42 days so far for his rape of the 13-year-old girl.
So, your example proves the point: Poor guy Charles Manson did not get away with it.
Show me poor people who fuck over the rich with impunity.
Does Anne Applebaum really believe Polanski has already paid for his crimes, or is she using her pulpit to advocate for something she doesn't personally uphold?
bagoh20 wrote: I have yet to see a single value on the left that is not willfully sacrificed at the drop of a hat. I guess that's what makes you progressive; moving past your values.
Who are the lefties lining up to grant this guy a pardon?
Mort is attempting to use snark. The longtime readers here know that Mort actually hates the privileged and rich if they are also conservative.
I think this should become a new word - "Applebaumed." When someone who is trying to help you only makes your situation worse.
"Man, Al Gore's campaign was really Applebaumed when Dan Rather reported on Bush's national guard service using those sloppily forged documents!"
Mort is attempting to use snark.
Well when I read his post I thought there was something rotten in Denmark. Then I saw the news about the Olympics and saw I was right again.
t-man just applebaumed himself.
"Who are the lefties lining up to grant this guy a pardon?"
The Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-farr/leniency-for-polanski_b_301269.html
Joan Shore
Co-Founder Women Overseas for Equality
Joan Z. Shore
Co-founder, Women Overseas for Equality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/polanskis-arrest-shame-on_b_301134.html
It's trivial to find examples today of lefty media types and feminists writing about their disgust over the arrest of a rapist.
One merely has to peruse the liberal mainstream media.
I guess I don't read enough liberal media.
Okay, so we let him off lightly for the rape, because his victim for gave him or his voluntary exile was punishment for that crime or whatever other excuse. I don't actually care.
Then sentence him to the maximum for his flight from justice. That crime was committed directly against the law, not the girl; she cannot forgive him for it. It was not punished by having to stay out of the US; his staying out of the US was the crime itself.
justice was served in the duke fake rape case.
No, it wasn't. Neither Crystal Gail Mangum nor Mike Nifong was ever charged for their crimes. Magnum even got a book deal out of it.
"No, it wasn't. Neither Crystal Gail Mangum nor Mike Nifong was ever charged for their crimes. Magnum even got a book deal out of it."
i was trying not to be cynical about it...
now i am depressed.
Just read the two huffpo articles. There is significant push-back in the comment threads.
The "he's suffered enough" rule-call it the Nixon Escape Clause, as applied by Gerald Ford.
Here's a liberal reading the riot act to those who would excuse Polanski.
That Huff Po article is a trip.
When I learned, years ago, that they had blithely allowed German military trains to transit their country during the Second World War, while claiming Swiss "neutrality," I was shocked, but tried to excuse them on grounds that they were protecting their country from invasion and armed warfare…[snipped]
Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable.
Helping the nazis was bad enough, but arrested a child rapist? Well dog gone it I have HAD IT with the Swiss now!
What bizarre women’s equality group is she with?
Thanks for that Salon link, Peter. It is good to see that there are some people in the media who haven't completely lost their moral compass.
The Sharon Tate murder was an extreme example of Fanonization. Franz Fanon, who was very big back then, taught that if you murdered a member of the oppressor class you performed two revolutionary acts simultaneously: you liberated yourself and you eliminated a member of the oppressor class. Despite the best efforts of the former Obama advisor, Bernadette Dorn, this philosophy never really caught on in America. Fanon, however, was not writing about America but about Algeria. When the vanguard took over there, they murdered members of the oppressor class at a fairly brisk pace. So it happens. ....In this strange world or mirroring ironies that Polanski inhabits, nothing is more ironic than his best movie, Chinatown. Chinatown, as I recall, was a restatement of the Galahad myth. In this fertility myth, the King is wounded, and the land is consequently parched of water. The Galahad figure supplants the King or revives him by giving him drink from the Holy Grail. This thereby causes the waters to flow again and restores balance to the land. In the movie, Polanski plays a henchman of the King who attempts to prevent the Galahad figure, Nicholson, from restoring moral balance to the land. In real life, Polanski initiated his crime in the hot tub of Nicholson. I haven't worked out all the details yet, but the Polanski story seems like some kind of demented version of Chinatown.
Nifong was disbarred, made to resign, and served one day in jail for contempt of court. As of the date of this Wikipedia article, he was being sued by the athletes. He was denied bankruptcy protection.
Nifong was disbarred, made to resign, and served one day in jail for contempt of court. As of the date of this Wikipedia article, he was being sued by the athletes.
Which is as it should be. But he still hasn't been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for his criminal activities in the case.
#1 What was Polanski doing attending a film festival during Yom Kippur? God is great.
#2 Mohammed married a 9 year old, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr. Where is the warrant for his arrest?
#3 Mortimer's half right: the progressive tax system, public education, medicare, social security, minimum wages, etc., having to feign egalitarianism, the outlawing of polygamy and slavery, the abolition of nobility and honorific titles, are some methods whereby the poor assault the rich. So maybe the rich do deserve some breaks.
$9,000,000,000 Write Off said...
"#2 Mohammed married a 9 year old, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr. Where is the warrant for his arrest?"
Why try to arrest someone who has been dead for about 1,100 years, you fucking moron.
WV: pardi
Pardi my French.
Glad to hear about the push back, Peter.
If the poor are such sweethearts why the proliferation of gated communities?
I'm pretty sure non-consensual sexual penetration is just as bad, no matter what is penetrated.
You're obviously not a butt-slammer. Unless Polanski is a true pencil-dick, it would have hurt like hell, even with butter.
Applebaum is idiotic to claim "professional stigma" and mention his Oscar in the next sentence.
"#2 Mohammed married a 9 year old, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr. Where is the warrant for his arrest?"
Why try to arrest someone who has been dead for about 1,100 years, you fucking moron.
Hee...well, Mary was about 13 when God knocked her up with Jesus, and many people think God's still alive. Some DA should think big....
As far as rich v. poor, I think a contributor to the high crime rates in poor areas is that the poor cannot be effectively punished in our system. For many of them life in our prisons is no worse than life on our streets.
I've read so much sympathetic commentary for Polanski these last two days I went on the Internet to see if anyone has yet formed a "Pedophiles For Polanski" chapter here in LA. Nothing so far. What is it with the pedophile community around here? So disorganized.
As for why the DA's office would pursue the case against Polanski after all these years,I suspect they are still smarting from the McMartin PreSchool Case, where they bought into the most absurd charges by totally untethered and unqualified child molestation investigators. They then put on the longest trial in history, at the end of which no one was convicted of anything.
The LA Times reporter who covered the trial constantly wrote stories which made it seem guilt was beyond doubt and conviction was inevitable and then it all blew up in her face. The media (and it's con-conspirators in the DA's office) weren't people disinterestedly pursuing justice. They badly wanted the charges to be true. They fired people who wouldn't sign off on the more sensational and absurd allegations (i.e. kids being molested in car washes and hot air balloons and babies being cut apart on the alters of local churches).
The DA's office has an axe to grind. They want to redeem the absurd spectacle they presented the nation 20 years ago. And furthermore this time they don't have to prove their case. Polanski has already pled guilty to the charges.
[blockquote]That is wrong. Equal means equal.[/blockquote].
Let me guess.
You're white.
I hope Ann Applebaum's children are never raped by a 44-year-old man.
Applebaum is barren.
I think a contributor to the high crime rates in poor areas is that the poor cannot be effectively punished in our system. For many of them life in our prisons is no worse than life on our streets.
Of course it is worse than life on the streets. All prison provides you is food, clothing, and a place to sleep. Anyone in America can get those things, even without working, without going to prison -- and they don't have to give up all their freedom and dodge rapists in the communal showers to do it.
Applebaum is barren.
All the low-hanging fruit picked?
@ Cedarford and Mortimer Brezny:
The idea that the criminal justice system is biased against the rich or socially prominent is beyond ridiculous. The Duke lacrosse case (and others that could be mentioned) are the rare exceptions, and are more than offset by cases where prosecutors and judges use their power to protect the privileged. Ted Kennedy was one example; Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn another; and there are many less important cases like Martha Stewart (who was treated leniently given facts), and countless trivial ones like Paris Hilton or just about any celebrity. And these are just the cases that come to the public's attention. Most abuse of power in favor of the privileged takes the form a decision not to investigate or to prosecute.
But apart from all that, the criminal justice system has a powerful structural bias against the poor at every stage, from police investigations, charging decisions, and plea bargaining to trials and appeals. Any candid prosecutor or defense lawyer, and any reflective judge, will agree.
Cedarford said:
"isn't it nice that you can distract the masses with Polanski. And quietly agree with the Swiss not to press further into who is hiding what millions in Swiss banking system ops? Just give up a few hundred names, allow Holder's people to omit some particularly embarassing names from the list. Then sweep the rest of it under the rug??? Isn't Polanski a delicious distraction that will also divert attention from healthcare deal-making, tea parties, illegal alien amnesty and so on??"
Another example of picking on the rich, no?
Buster
Martha Stewart wasn't treated leniently She was jailed for lying about something that wasn't a crime (taking her stock broker's advice). She was stupid to do that but if stupidity was a crime half the population of the country would be in jail.
@ Duscany:
The leniency was in the charging decision.
Those who have nothing but contempt for the concept of value - especially with regard to how it affects quality of life - have no place pontificating on wealth.
Buster and Cedarford...In my experiences in the legal system I found two things: (1)the criminal law is very biased against the poor, (2) and it is also used against the rich whose enemies are other richer ones. The Rights of accused persons and the Jury Trial itself are themselves reactions in the Legislatures to the continuous use of false criminal charges against rich people by their richer rivals seeking to destroy them. So you are both right. FYI, it is the right to a jury trial coupled with private property rights that alone provides all of our personal freedoms all of the time.
The number of liberals coming out in defense of Polanski grows, of course, with the passage of time.
Here is noted liberal commmentator Whoopie Goldberg - of The View - explaining to her mostly female audience the difference between "rape" and "rape rape":
"It wasn't rape rape," Golberg explained "It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
So, there's "rape" but then there's "rape rape." Polanski only "raped" the girl. He didn't "rape rape her." So, we should let him go.
Or something.
The mental illness of these horrible people knows no bounds and I'm sure we'll only see more of this as the next few days pass and the fix is put in for Polanski to be freed.
Breitbart is keeping track of all the liberals coming out in support of the rapist of a 13-year-old child here:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/09/28/round-up-of-hollywoods-polanski-supporters/
FWIW, Dreher has a comment from an American living in France who says that ordinary Frenchmen are quite satisfied to see justice served in this case.
Florida, yes, there are elite liberals who support a fellow member of their tribe. Their support does not implicate the rest of us.
"I used to agree with Ann that punishment ought to be equal. But then I realized that sympathy is unequal. If you are poor, you are pitied. If you are rich, you are not. No matter if you were born poor and worked diligently over years to build a business that provides you with your present level of wealth. No matter if you were born rich and worked hard to sustain and grow the wealth with which you started. This imbalance, of course, leads to an unfair resentment and hatred of the rich. The poor can get away with all sorts of horrors against the rich and the successful, the talented and the intelligent, and when the favored sons strike back, they are chastened. That is wrong. Equal means equal. If the rich are to be despised and the poor are able to strike them on a daily basis in innumerable ways, then the rich ought to be able to strike back. And the punishments should reflect the toll of the daily indignities. I say punish the poor even worse. Make them suffer for their petty hatred of the rich, for their nasty, impish wrongful jabs at the rich on a everyday basis.
And let us not forget about contribution. Ayn Rand may have been a loon, but the truth of the matter is some create wealth and some do not. Those who create wealth -- of whatever kind; art, business, science, political wisdom -- are rare and deserve our protection and admiration. Those who destroy wealth, those who pilfer from the coffers of others, they deserve nothing but our contempt."
Are you kidding me? In our society, as has been the case in every society throughout history, the poor are scorned and blamed for their own misery and degraded circumstances, condemned for their selfishness for asking for crumbs, while the rich are admired and celebrated, perceived as special and virtuous for having acquired great wealth. Your own comment betrays this contempt for the poor: "I say punish the poor even worse. Make them suffer for their petty hatred of the rich, for their nasty, impish wrongful jabs at the rich on a everyday basis."
I agree with you that Ayn Rand was a loon, and I'll add that her influence has been pernicious, and I'll also agree that those who pilfer from the coffers of others are contemtible...but the greatest thieves of wealth are those who are already wealthy, as witness the monumental larceny of Bernie Madoff; the Enron team; the crooked Washington-connected contractors who have siphoned millions of dollars from you and me to provide services in Iraq (such as rebuilding infrastructure that we destroyed)but who have either not provided those services or have done substandard work.
Let's look at the banks who sold sub-prime mortgages without heed to the ability of their customers to pay; they didn't care, as they sold off the mortgages as soon as they were finalized. They got their money and stuck others with the losses.
Or let's consider the credit card companies charging usurious interest rates even on their customers who pay regularly and/or in full each month. Usury used to be defined as a crime in this country; now it's just a shrewd business plan. One might try to justify this thieving by the credit card companies--who, by the way, helped draft the actual language of the new bankruptcy laws--by saying the high interest rates are a means to offset the losses from those customers who do not pay...but then, why do they make cards so easily available to virtually anyone, and keep offering cards to people who spend recklessly? Because they want their customers in thrall to them, trapped paying interest for years and never reaching the principle, as this means more profit!
This is just a cursory review of the great thefts of our own day; one can go back in our history and find similar great thefts effected by wealthy individuals and institutions in every era.
Let's get the real pilferers of wealth and then we can worry about the guy who steals bread.
Yes he did rape an underage girl without her consent, but he IS Roman Polanski a talented and visionary film maker, so shouldn't he get a pass?
On the other hand, I just happened to catch Rosemary's Baby on the tube the other day, and in truth, it was kind of dull and boring. Not at all the visionary film making I remembered. And the The Pianist was standard fare at best. Chinatown was great, though even hack directors produce good work every now and again.
So, if quality of movies are any indicator maybe he shouldn't get a pass.
I don't know, I feel like by giving a pass to such a hack director we are cheapening the whole idea of giving a pass to artists for raping girls. Such passes should only be reseverved for truly great directors/actors/artists. Now if were Alfred Hitchcock or Akira Kurosawa who raped an underage girl, it goes without saying that they should get a pass for rape. But Polanski? Hmmm. It's a tough moral choice.
I guess I'll have to watch a few more of his movies before making a decision on this one.
Florida (quoting Whoopi) wrote:
"It wasn't rape rape," Golberg explained "It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape."
So, there's "rape" but then there's "rape rape." Polanski only "raped" the girl. He didn't "rape rape her." So, we should let him go.
I bet everyone who was convicted of dating rape is kicking themselves in the head right about now and wondering why they didn't have their lawyers distinguish between rape, and rape rape at trial. It's so simple and obvious.
I also bet, they're kicking themselves in the head in not realizing that if they were just a bit more famous then they wouldn't even be on trial at all. Unless of course they commited rape rape, as opposed to rape. Because rape rape is just over the line.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा