Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Polanski agonistes

By Carl

First off, by no stretch of the imagination should this be construed as a defense of what
Roman Polanski pled guilty of doing: raping a 13-year-old girl.

As a victim of sexual abuse as a far younger child, I can tell you that the scars this now-43-year-old woman feels run very deep: mistrust, uncertainty, and social ineffectuality are only the tip of the iceberg.

Polanski should be held accountable, to be sure. A 30-year exile is inadequate, full stop. That he pled guilty tells me he has spent at least some of this time regretting and remorseful over his actions.

And it's important to keep in mind that this all occurs with the dramatic backdrop of the murder of his wife 40 years ago, Sharon Tate (as we were reminded last week with
the death of Susan Atkins).

None of us can wrap our minds around how a tragedy like that would affect us, what behaviors we'd indulge in that would ultimately have a bad effect on our lives.

Personally, I'd just as soon forget the bastard. I hadn't given much thought to him over these past years, except when he'd appear in the society pages from the Cannes festival, or if one of his movies would pop up on the TV, most notably
Rosemary's Baby.

Too, the victim, who has been named elsewhere but whose name I can't bring myself to repeat, has said she has forgiven him and thinks he should not be jailed. Her grand jury testimony was damning, to be sure, and exposed Polanski's deeply troubled mind.

Not that the sex was sadistic or anything, but we're reminded of this girl's youth.

Which brings me to the
poutrage the right wing blogs have shown over even the meekest defense of Polanski.

For example:

Hollywood, meanwhile, rushes to defend a child rapist. And they like to lecture us about morality.

"Lecture us about morality" -- huh? When?

Ironically, this tight-pantied little man had
nothing to say about the Mark Foley scandal when it broke in 2006, except in the aftermath when the House declined to bring charges against Foley, as did federal prosecutors.

Apparently, The Fool is not against fucking little boys in the ass, but little girls? Whoa, Nelly! I'm guessing The Fool and
Dan Riehl go out chickenhawking together.

Just a joke, Fool! Right? ;-)

This "black or white, no middle ground" attitude of the right wing has so poisoned the justice system of America and the political climate that anyone who proposes even modest compromises on any issue is automatically painted by one side or the other as either a sell-out, or a crackpot. After all, a blowjob warranted an impeachment trial, but letting 3,000 Americans die because of a president's negligent behavior, followed by another 4,000 dead Americans because of poor judgement in which fight to pick?

Hey, presnidetting is hard werk!

Polanski should pay. As a Christian, I know he will pay when my Lord sits in his judgement. But thirty years after the fact? On this plane of existence?

I really couldn't care less.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • The world is watching to see if a child is only a child if their family is wealthy and powerful, and if not, then just an object to use.

    It does matter and it matters a great deal.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:22 AM  

  • What a facinating article. I’m looking for a marketing expert to help with a project, could you help? Please come visit my site Corpus Christi City Directory when you got time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:09 AM  

  • You share valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you post!! Thumbs up. Please come visit my site Corpus Christi Business Directory when you got time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home