Reply With Quote
So it won't exist anymore?
There are a lot of blogs, essays, etc. on that site that are generally suppportive of Roman Polanski and critical of his recent arrest.
It's been entertaining the read the comments at the end of those blogs. It's obvious that the left is really divided on this issue.
So it won't exist anymore?
Like this:
Unintentionally, however, Polanski's arrest brings world attention to an issue that the Polish government deems rather straight forward: adults having sexual relations with children is not merely wrong in a way that is rather obvious to most people, but steps should be taken to prevent repeat offenses by known individuals.
If the allegations against Polanski are true, as many people -- including many of those who have awarded and lauded him over the years -- would seem to believe, then it is a sad commentary on the double standards of fame and fortune that an individual who allegedly turned his back on the basic decencies of civilized society has managed not only to evade lawful repercussions but has had apparently reputable ins utions uphold him despite this.
Human nature may not be so forgiving, but human ins utions have unfailingly demonstrated time and again that they are. So the question is begged: can the person be separated from the talent, and if so, should they be?
This isn't about a personality issue being associated with a revered talent -- Picasso was a well known misogynist according to many accounts, but it would have been just as strange to condemn him and his art as it would have been to condemn Wittgenstein's writings because he was rude.
What this is about is a criminal act that is cruel, inhumane and damaging to a child, because no matter what anyone says or said about the 13-year-old girl who was involved in this incident, she was a child and by definition an innocent victim of what allegedly was done to her by someone who was well into his adulthood.
This is also about evading justice.
Bernard-Henri Levy posted a pe ion in Polanski's favor.
Jennifer Lehr can't understand why Polanski didn't return to face the consequences.
Joan Shore castigates the Swiss for knuckling under to the US.
This tidbit:
Polanski's long-running legal saga gained new momentum late last year with the release of an HBO do entary, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," which claimed misconduct by the now-deceased judge who handled 1977 case and reneged on a plea deal. With the new evidence presented in the film, Polanski sent a team of lawyers to court in Los Angeles seeking dismissal of the charges.
But despite acknowledging "substantial misconduct," a judge ruled that Polanski would have to appear in person to pursue his motion. Polanski's lawyers said he decided not to risk arrest on a fugitive warrant, and planned instead never to set foot in the United States.
And this:
His victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement. But she has since joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over and at one point offering to come to court in Polanski's place to argue for dismissal.
Ostroy can't believe there's a debate.
Dude broke the law. Plead guilty. Fled the country.
Lock him up.
Dumbass would have been out a long time ago. He might have missed out on directing Tess, Pirates and Frantic, in which case he would have been doing himself a favor.
I agree. He can rot in prison.
The guy drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year-old girl...and plead guilty.
The dead judge is accused of misconduct in the sentencing phase of the trial. I'm all for another judge sitting in for the sentencing phase.
And, the victim only wants it to be over. It's not that she's all of sudden on Polanski's team, she just doesn't want the publicity this is inevitably going to bring.
Polanski can prevent that by waiving extradition and standing before a judge for sentencing on his guilty plea 32 years ago.
The victim joining in to dismiss the charges psshhhh
It's almost as if she got paid off.
o wait.
An entertainment kerfuffle bubbled over into the HuffPo op-ed because it involved sex with an underage person and somebody famous. Darrin tries to turn that into a HuffPo anomachy and characterizes the reasonable smattering of opinion found there as somehow emblematic of a dark night of the soul for leftists in general.
How overblown. How trite and sadly typical.
Michael Wolff's gloss is that this is happening just now because the LA DA felt shown up by the Polanski do entary last year, and saw a chance to cash in on the resultant publicity.
He was/is a US fugitive who has finally been caught (due only to his immense hubris).
Whats the debate?
not sure--but in Darrin's mind this reflects poorly on democrats and, by extension, the President himself!!
he belongs in jail. period.
Just to be clear, I have no problem at all with Polanski's arrest or possible extradition to the US to face the sentencing he fled 35 years ago. Both the underlying crime and being a fugitive are serious crimes.
But it does seem odd that the Swiss would arrest him just now. The Swiss authoroities can hardly have been unaware that Polanski owns a house there and has for some time. I wonder what prompted them to move against him now?
I bet this is tied the UBS/US-tax-evasion/banking secrecy deal.
"Let us Swiss keep hidden the really big US names in our banks evading $Bs in taxes, and we'll give you Polanski"
Hmm. Sounds too cheap to me. I can believe we'd demand Polanski thrown in on top, as a sweetener. But the whole enchilada? No.
Actually, that's not the point at all.
People on the left are divided over child rape.
Bull , Darrin.
It would seem so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
