Posts Tagged ‘roman polanski’

Roman Polanski Free

Posted: July 12, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: ,

…as the swiss reject extradition:

The stunning decision could end the United States’ three-decade pursuit of Polanski, unless he travels to another country that would be willing to apprehend him and weigh sending him to Los Angeles. France, where he has spent much of his time, does not extradite its own citizens, and the public scrutiny over Switzerland’s deliberations may dissuade other nations from making such a spectacular arrest.

it will be interesting to see who in the glitterati associate with him and take NEW photos with him.

A: Because he knows we won’t kill him for it.

In fact there is only upside professionally for him among the people who call Roman Polanski the victim of a “young hooker“.

He has the right to do what he wants but if anyone tries to tell you it is “courageous” then they are either fools or liars.

Via the AP and headlines at HotAir yet another twist to the Polanski saga:

Mitterrand’s 2005 book, “La mauvaise vie” or “The Bad Life,” describes painful periods in his childhood and his homosexuality. One passage describes his “bad habit of paying for boys” in Thailand. Mitterrand later denied he was a pedophile, saying on France-3 television that he uses the term “boys” loosely.

Mitterrand was a television personality when the book came out but not in the government. President Nicolas Sarkozy named Mitterrand culture minister in June this year.

Concern about the book resurfaced in French political circles after Mitterrand’s impassioned defense of Roman Polanski last week. The director was arrested in Switzerland on U.S. charges of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977 in Los Angeles.

Oh it’s a bad habit well that’s different, that certainly drops the Ick Factor, I’m Sure Tom Shales will think so too.

Then again if we could only get Hollywood to treat this bad habit like smoking then we might see change.

I’m with John Noltie it’s all about moving the ick goalposts:

And this is how cinematic propaganda works. Whether the filmmaker’s motivations are good or evil, the idea is to get decent and thoughtful people to start second guessing themselves as they’re enveloped in the dark and held captive by the powerful sound and fury of the moving picture. First we’re led to identify and sympathize with a particular character, then that character does something designed to challenge our belief structure. This can range from, “If John Wayne opposes racism, maybe I should,” to, “Well, if a loving mother is okay with it, maybe I need to get a little more nuanced and tolerant about this whole child-rape thing.”

On its face, that may sound laughable, and maybe it is, but that doesn’t mean our eyes are lying to us. Last year merely topped off a campaign targeted at our children that began some time ago.

It is my opinion that the culture wars in general and the war on Christianity in particular is all about legitimizing sin and removing guilt from it. Once it becomes unacceptable to call sin “sin” then everything changes. That way this case matters; it exposes in sharp relief the contradictions that this involves, and we will as a culture have a choice to make. Is this unacceptable or a bad habit?

Update: Of course some uses of the Ick factor are simply brilliant.

Update 2: Don Surber notices

Hey, maybe there is an opening in the Obama administration. Consider the safe schools czar.

…regarding libel law:

While I am not litigious by nature — my views being rather Jacksonian in that regard — perhaps Governor Palin, Mrs. Vincent and their publishers have different views. It is my understanding that British libel law is far more inclined toward the plaintiffs than is true here in the United States, especially for “public figures” as covered under the U.S. Sullivan precedent.

Should Mrs. Vincent retain the services of a British attorney, I suspect that your publisher would be advised to settle the suit at any sum asked, as it would be quite impossible to prove that Mrs. Vincent is “closely associated with a well-known white supremacist,” which I most assuredly am not, no matter what any particular idiot has published to that effect or how often it has been repeated.

Think of the cost to your publisher, Felix Dennis, of flying Charles Johnson, Michelangelo Signorile, Rachel Maddow, et al., to London for a libel trial, sir. Ask yourself how such witnesses might stand up under cross-examination,

How do I know this is good advice? As Chris Hitchens reminds us Polanski won such a case in England :

In July 2005, Polanski took advantage of the notorious British libel laws to sue my colleagues at Vanity Fair and collect damages for his hurt feelings. It doesn’t matter much what the supposed complaint was—he had allegedly propositioned a Scandinavian model while purring about making her the next Sharon Tate—so much as it mattered that Polanski would dare to sue on a question of his own moral standing and reputation. “I don’t think,” he was quoted as saying of the allegation, “you could find a man who could behave in such a way.” Say what? Anxious for his thin skin, the British courts did not even put Polanski to the trouble of appearing in a country where he has never lived. They allowed him to pout his outraged susceptibilities by video link before heaping him with fresh money.

That being the case a certain Little Green Flake should be happy Mr. McCain is Jacksonian by nature. I’d say the same about Maddow but she doesn’t have to worry as Robert Stacy somehow thinks she is a handsomer woman than Mika. I beg to differ.

Frankly I think he should be more worried about Todd Palin. He has a lot more free time to avenge his wife’s honor.