.
October 2, 2009
What century is this?
Gonna party like it's 1909!
First, we had Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) not wanting insurers to have to cover basic maternity care because *he* doesn't need that. Of course the default should be male. Being male should always be considered the norm. (Besides Lady Bits are both icky and mysterious.)
Then we have National Review's John Derbyshire calling for the repeal of female suffrage. (To be fair, he also would like the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be repealed.)
We round this out with half of Hollywood defending the time honored practice of granting sanctuary to criminals on the hallowed ground of film festivals and defending the right of the Lord of the Manor to have his way with (rape) any woman -- or middle school girl -- that he so desires.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Democrats have their share of nuts too, and trouble with policing them. But the Republicans seem to have a bumper crop at the moment. What amuses me is that all Republicans, but particularly any who run in states like Pennsylvania, will have to defend or repudiate the more extreme statements of their brethren (and/or sisteren). Pat Toomey will be flat unable to campaign inside the City limits of Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, and he will have to be furiously winking at the suburban audiences of both cities if he hopes to get their votes. Toomey and other Republicans who run on either coast will also have to address whether Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and this John Derbyshire, speak for them. Perhaps the Democrats should start a national campaign asking Republican women to voluntarily stop voting.
As for the Roman Polanski thing (a non-political issue in so far as I have not seen anything that Republicans have said about it, and liberal pundits seem split), I think the case does have complications and in one description I read the judge sounds pretty bad. But no one, not even Polanski himself, disputes he committed the crime, and he did simply run away from justice. Polanski would still have the ability to appeal his original trial, although by running he has lost a lot of sympathy. The letter of the law needs to be applied to Polanski (although as I say he should also have all legal routes for appeal). If it isn’t, the next time a celebrity of color commits a crime, (s)he will demand the same media and legal leniency shown for Polanski, and will play the race card if (s)he doesn’t get it. In other words, besides justice for the woman involved, and the citizens of the United States as a whole, the Polanski case as a practical matter needs to be resolved in the judicial system for the deterrent value. We need to see that all celebrities, whatever their background, will get the same treatment in the judicial system as everyone else (let me know when you stop laughing).
Smoking Gun has the court testimony.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
In the event you agree with Whoopi Goldberg when she said it wasn't "rape-rape" check out the details.
He's 43, she's 13. He gives her Champagne and a Quaalude. During vaginal intercourse he discovers she's not on the pill. His solution? He goes anal.
And she's 13. And she doesn't fight back because she's scared of him.
Yea, it wasn't "rape-rape."
I love Whoopi with all my heart, but she's completely wrong on this.
Completely.
In my previous comment the "you" was intended in the general sense and NOT to anyone in particular.
Ed was composing his comment as I was composing mine, so I didn't see it until mine got posted.
After reading both I realized it might look like I am addressing him specifically.
I am not.
Just for the record.
Thanks, Dayvoe. I don't know if you (Dayvoe, and generically) saw the SNL Weekend Update thing last night, but they pretty well addressed Whoopi and her defense of Polanski.
My understanding, from a Salon.com comment, is that back in 1978 Polanski, his lawyers and the L.A. D.A. had reached a plea bargain, and that in exchange for admitting at least some guilt, Polanski would receive a nominal sentence. However, the letter said, Polanski thought the judge had decided to give Polanski the maximum sentence instead, to increase the judge's celebrity status.
All that provides an explanation but not a justification for Polanski to run. I am pretty sure that if both the L.A. D.A. and Polanski's lawyers petitioned an appeals court, the original agreement would have been reinstated. Perhaps even now a judge would show mercy and release Polanski, after Polanski shows up in court. Celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg, but also people like Pedro Almodovar and Wim Wenders have called for his outright release, but I think they have not thought these things through. The American and perhaps particularly the L.A. justice system are far from perfect, but unless you go through it and are the example of bad results, no one will see the problems. If you just run away, nothing is proven and the system stays bad for everyone else.
There is no defense of rape, nor should anyone in their right mind be defending Polanski's actions. I wonder how Whoopi would have felt if she was the girl, or if the girl were her daughter? Other than murder, I can't think of a much more heinous or despicable act than what this man did.
And all this hand-wringing about "Hollywood being out of touch with the rest of America?" You bet, but no one should be surprised for a moment. Nor should we be surprised that CEOs and politicians are equally "out of touch." People with that much power, money and influence are almost defined by their distance from the average person.
But what is particularly galling in this is the idea that we would actually give a damn what Whoopi Goldberg or some other actor of actress "thinks" about the issue. In our celebrity-drenched culture we are all drowning in meaningless palaver.
Finally, a note on the "he's a creative genius" excuse. This is the most complete load of crap ever invented. While I'm a big fan of "Chinatown," the truth is that the world would have gone on spinning without it. Indeed, if Polanski had never been born, not one person on this planet would have noticed. Ditto Woody Allen. Being nominally "creative," (which I think is a trait shared by people of all stripes, from scientists to teachers to carpenters) is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Post a Comment