Robinson: Maybe Hollywood’s critics have a point
posted at 8:47 am on October 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Yesterday, I wrote that Hollywood’s rush to defend a child rapist who happens to make good movies might finally give the Left the same view of Tinseltown mores as the Right has had for decades. Today, Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post connects those dots. Well, almost:
Could it be that the conservative culture warriors who portray Hollywood as a cesspool of moral bankruptcy have been right all along? Not really. But in the case of Roman Polanski, the puritan scolds definitely have a point.
Even the French government has backed off its defense of the fugitive director. Polanski, who has dual French-Polish citizenship, fled the United States in 1978 before he could be sentenced on a charge of unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl in Los Angeles. He spent the past three decades mostly in France, and officials in Paris reacted angrily when he was nabbed in Switzerland at the Zurich airport. In more recent statements, however, French leaders have taken a much more measured position, saying that justice should run its course.
But some of Hollywood’s most prominent luminaries contend that Polanski’s crime — which he acknowledged in a guilty plea — really wasn’t so awful. Or that maybe it was a big deal at the time, but now we should let bygones be bygones. Or that maybe it’s still a big deal, but whatever sins Polanski may have committed are outweighed by the brilliance of his art.
Robinson revisits his outrage, well-vented in his column last week, and simply can’t believe that Hollywood can take itself seriously as moral arbiters while defending a man who sodomized a child:
The Los Angeles Times quoted Weinstein as saying in an interview that he doesn’t believe public opinion is running against Polanski — or that Hollywood is out of step. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said, according to the newspaper. “We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”
Hollywood was there, all right, whenever the tragedy was distant, the victims were anonymous and the “compassionate” concert or telethon had acceptable production values that made all the stars look their best. How heroically they rearranged their busy schedules!
Robinson may start off saying “not really” in regards to whether conservatives had Hollywood pegged right all along, but that passage sounds like he’s about ready to concede it. And people throughout this nation are not nearly as wedded to the Hollywood Left’s power as the liberal commentariat.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
puritan scolds
cause being angry about this makes one a puritan scolds
blatantblue on October 2, 2009 at 8:47 AM
oops
my pluralization was wrong
blatantblue on October 2, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Eugene is doing the same thing that he did when he wrote about his problems with the Obamacare. He first had to bash Sarah Palin so he could maintain his credibility with the hive while stating his opposition to a hive position. Cut him some slack.
jerryofva on October 2, 2009 at 8:50 AM
after this episode, I would be terrified to let my children go near anyone who works in the entertainment industry. Bunch of disgusting beasts they are.
CambellBrown on October 2, 2009 at 8:50 AM
Is it really that big a shock that female celebrities who put out to get their fame and male celebrities who use their fame to get laid are the ones who support Polanski?
Speedwagon82 on October 2, 2009 at 8:51 AM
People don’t get sentenced on a “charge”, they get sentenced on convictions. Polanski did plead guilty to the lesser charge or “unlawful sex with a minor”, right?
forest on October 2, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Jeebus, I have no problem with women removing their tops in movies, would be happy to vote for gay marriage (as long as it goes through the correct political process & not via judicial fiat), and want drug decriminalization. But yet because I think that Hollywood turns out crappy movies (as opposed to fun B-movies) that do nothing and think Polanski should face justice, I am a puritan scold?
Is it really that hard to be against child rape?
rbj on October 2, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Every time Polanski’s apologists call it a “charge”, they have to be corrected. It is not just a charge. It is a conviction.
-Language Martinet Monster
The Monster on October 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
From now on, when some Celebrity is being interviewed because the yellow snail may cause the end of the world, ask them about what they said about this issue.
Let’s get a bead on your moral compass, Should Roman Pulanski be in Jail?
If the answer is NO, then we should disregard everything else they say.
barnone on October 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
The value here is finally Hollywood and its immoral residents are shown for they are… rare is the opportunity for the evil in Hollywood to be so pronounced and so open for view. If there is any benefit to be realized in this tragic case that is it.
IntheNet on October 2, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Carpet bombed. Great quote. Reminds me of a lunch they did for the homeless. The stars were asked to eat what the homeless dug out of Dipsy Dumpters. Of course the food wasn’t actually dug out of a Dispy Dumpster and any one of the attending stars could have fed hundreds of homeless with the designer clothes pricetag they were wearing.
Moral compass my a$$.
hawkdriver on October 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM
A bit off topic, but what is it with the left and compassion for distant tragedies? Whether it’s Darfur, Guatemala, East Timor … it’s as if the farther away something is, the greater the feeling of compassion for that thing. What about the idea that charity (read “compassion”) begins at home?
Paul-Cincy on October 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM
And don’t forget all the moral compassy insights about people like GWB and Sarah Palin that Hollywood has pronounced for our enlightenment. By coincidence, I find that when my moral compass is out by about 180 degrees from Hollywood’s, it feels just about right.
drunyan8315 on October 2, 2009 at 8:57 AM
The grand jury transcript showed how Polanski and his pals have been lying about what happened for over 30 years. The plea transcript also shows that they are lying about that, too.
Blake on October 2, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Ed: Eugene Robinson is a rhetorical contradiction. He can no more be qualified to evaluate moral outrage (or the lack thereof) than he could be qualified to judge honesty as expressed by his One’s historic administration. I saw this column on RCP today and had to stop after his first two sentences.
“Puritan Scolds”–how is that for a strawman argument? Does it take puritannical worldview to see the criminality in the raping of a teenage girl? No, it does not.
Eugene Robinson attempts to mind the middle while his bias is so clearly visible toward the one and leftist issues. Either he can call Polanski’s act an outrageous moral act, or he can’t. But, the tangential swipe at the right in his opening statement does nothing to further his argument that he is anywhere near qualified to judge the morality of this act.
Fallacious.
ted c on October 2, 2009 at 9:02 AM
During prohibition, in the late 1920s and throughout the 30s there was a murderer named Al Capone, from CHICAGO. He was a despicable human being but he did have the good sense to run his own PR campaign, free soup kitchens for the poor & hungry. It may of made him better in those peoples eyes, and I’m sure his own, but history still judged him as a despicable murderer.
That’s about the same as Hollywood and their victim “telethons/concerts.”
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Because this is a Polanski thread, you know our pedophile defending troll (ThackerAgency) will be along soon.
So, to preempt his whining and crying about how awful we are to ask for justice for this poor, poor fellow who is in “exile” and who has already “suffered” enough…
…let me repost his defense of Polanski in which he shares Polanski’s views of little girls:
Compare and contrast:
and
(I don’t see any difference here, do you?)
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 9:04 AM
That line about Hollywood being there when the tragedy is distant and the victims anonymous is a real zinger. Perfect summation of the limousine liberal approach to compassion.
jwolf on October 2, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Just in: Letterman signs on to class action lawsuit against the makers of the Hollywood Moral Compass.™
saint kansas on October 2, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Robinson’s moral outrage and inner conflict about whether or not conservatives are right about Hollywood’s morals will sadly last only as long as it takes for the Democrats to need Hollywood’s fundraising power for the 2010 election. Then he might not change his hidden disdain for them, but he’ll justify their usefulness to The Cause as overshadowing whatever other failings they have.
jon1979 on October 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM
It’s always entertaining when someone on the Left discovers their inner conservative. They go into uncontrollable convulsions, and try to pass it off like they are dancing to the same old tune.
Saltysam on October 2, 2009 at 9:08 AM
The Hollywood elite as far as I’m concerned, did a lot less than your average joe, who gave a larger percentage of their income to charity and who performed hands on volunteer work for many many months. So, enough with this obnoxious undeserved praise of elitists. They are not all that.
Blake on October 2, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Between Polanski and Letterman, I think Hollyweird has lost their final one inch square of “moral high ground”. Reflecting upon the piety of this crowd in endorsing Obama, ,methinks when you make up your own standards of morality, you have a fool for an arbiter.
kingsjester on October 2, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Many of these actors are basically idiot savants- good actors but uneducated and incapable of organized thought.
Since liberalism is in vogue in their community, they stand ever at the ready to jump on any liberal bandwagon that drifts past- so much the better if the bandwagon du jour subliminally justifies their own depravity.
justltl on October 2, 2009 at 9:11 AM
It seems we’re becoming a culture of criminal celebrities. Depending on who they are, what crimes, monstrosities, and perversions they commit it seems should be overlooked. As long as they’re “remorseful”, clever, cute, and funny about their crimes, hey there’s a book deal in there somewhere and probably a hollywood movie, too. Football celebrities get slapped on the hand and get endorsements after they’re convicted of rape or animal cruelty – rich, hollywood celebrities/directors can hide out in Europe, Letterman gets lauded and praised no matter what garbage comes out of his mouth or elsewhere, liberal democrats get promoted and assigned leadership positions to camouflage their corruption. We are living in very ugly, perverted, and permissive times where murder and sexual deviancy are shrugged off.
mozalf on October 2, 2009 at 9:12 AM
E.R. starts out by taking a swimp at those telling the truth, but then goes on to support the truth. Even when confronted with reality, this guy can’t help but bash those with whom he disagrees. There’s no bigger Obama shill/Obamapologist than Eugene Robinson. He’s been up Obama’s hiney so long that his eyes and ears are no longer functional. No credibility for this tool, even when he happens to stumble upon the truth.
WordsMatter on October 2, 2009 at 9:13 AM
“Puritan scolds”? “PURITAN SCOLDS”??
So, if someone doesn’t absolutely worship a vile degenerate who RAPED AND SODOMIZED A CHILD is a “Puritan scold”?
And these Hollywood perverted maggots like Harvey Weinstein, Martin Scorsese, Whoopie Goldberg, Joy Behar, Bette Midler, David Lynch, el al along with the cheese-eating surrender monkey Frenchies and even members of the Polish government can all go straight to bloody Hell. And I’m sure that their reservations have already been booked…
Fuzzlenutter on October 2, 2009 at 9:14 AM
(About a dozen members of our church went down to N.O. and Miss. to help rebuild. Some spent their 2 weeks vacation, some took unpaid leave and spent a couple of months. Hollywood people sang a song, or went on TV to ask for $)
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:15 AM
WaPo is actually starting to understand Obama and Robert Gibbs too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/01/AR2009100104303.html
dtestard on October 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM
“Puritans colds?”
Is that like the first colonial swine flu epidemic back in the 1600′s?
We have a system of laws, and not only equal protection under the law, but also equal responsibility to that law. It works. But, Hollywood believes they are a lot more equal than everybody else…so why submit to common laws for common people?
The Hollywood crowd is trying to absolve Polanski from his youthful “mistake” by saying he has made up for it through his wonderful work in cinema.
But, his “mistakes” include the original crime, then his fleeing the jurisdiction of the court because he thought he might get convicted, then he agrees to return to LA to face the court [just this past summer] and is given a 90-day window to appear. He fails to appear. A warrant is served. He is arrested and headed back to court. This is how the legal system works.
Polanski’s view of law is right up there with the Hollywood crowd as expressed by Whoopi…it wasn’t really rape rape…just a misunderstanding…and facing the court is a distraction.
So what? They do great work in cinema. A lot of men and women do a great job at their chosen careers, too, but they also commit heinous crimes, too, every once in a while.
Is the new Hollywood meme that if one has a good job and is earning mega-bucks for that job, then they cannot be held liable for any crime they might commit?
No wonder folks like former-President Clinton, and now Obama, are in awe of Hollywood…it is all about getting around the law.
coldwarrior on October 2, 2009 at 9:19 AM
Eugene who? I’m confused as to why his views about this is supposed to make any difference to me, to Hollywood, or to Polanski for that matter. So he has an opinion. So what? So do most other people.
MikeA on October 2, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Soooo the message is….do crime, get caught on crime, admit guilt of crime…then leave the country for X number of years to get off from going to jail/fined for doing crime.
Bet Polanski wished he had OJ´s lawyers…
albill on October 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Hollywood has made moral Americans feel like Lot in Sodom. Bombarded on every side by immorality and filth, pushed slowly but surely into a godless, hedonistic world that is self-deprecating and self-destructive. Even family shows on TV are interrupted by crude ads or trailers for more of their garbage. Pushing the envelope has been their cry since their inception. Polanski and Letterman are just representatives of the junk they’ve been pushing on the American people for years. I have no sympathy for them (although in my heart I pray that their fallout would push them to Christ), and I pray that God will continue to expose these people for who they really are. Wake up America!
Christian Conservative on October 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The typical lib Hollywood celeb will take a limo to a fund raiser, donate his precious hour of personal time, and plead for the AUDIENCE TO GIVE THEIR OWN MONEY to the cause.
They seldom write their own check and stay home, avoiding the limelight and carbon footprint.
As Bono does, traveling the world in a private jet, begging (and getting!) governments to ‘donate’ TAXPAYERS’s money for causes, while he flees from paying taxes in his home country.
fred5678 on October 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM
From an I’m OK, You’re OK commentator with guts?
Robinson’s got to cover his @ss, hedge bets. Knowing he’ll get snubbed by the liberally perverted people he’s criticizing now, he’s feigning an olive branch to the others he’s criticized on previous accounts. He needs to sell to someone when the others won’t buy. And there is a market on the right to be had.
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM
My question regarding Hollywood/Big Business:
How does someone who’s been a filthy mouthed stand up comic, and a huge promoter of abortion, and a now famous defender of childhood rape, become the spokesperson for special needs children, for perhaps the largest toy retailer in the United States?
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:25 AM
I need to know Sean Penn’s position on this before I can form an opinion.
GnuBreed on October 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
It simply amazes me that there are still people who think that child rape is a philosophical, ideological, political and/or theological issue.
It’s not.
It’s a HUMAN issue and all humans should find themselves on the same side of this issue – it is wrong, reprehensible, vile and evil.
In a civil and moral society the ONLY discussion we would be having about child rapists is whether they should be executed or spend the rest of their miserable evil lives rotting behind bars.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Bet Polanski wished he had OJ´s lawyers…
albill on October 2, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Just wait for Polanski to return to the US so that he can find the real rapist.
jwolf on October 2, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Will he look on the golf courses like OJ did?
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Nah, he’ll go with the Marion Barry defense – b**** set him up!
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 9:38 AM
The idiots in Hollywood live in their own bubble, much like the idiots in Congress do. The often overrated Martin Scorcese can’t understand why we don’t deify “filmmaker” the way he does. Hey, Marty, the term filmmaker also encompasses pornographers, snuff film makers, and jihadi head choppers.
Hollywood should focus on making good movies; otherwise, the decline of American cinema will follow the decline of the auto industry. In the not-too-distant future, all the great movies will be coming from Bollywood and elsewhere.
Wherever the Left parks its fat, entitlement-ready ass, quality and common sense are usually the first casualties.
EMD on October 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I think its interesting that anyone mentions how French government officials reacted to this, either initially or post-backlash….I mean, he’s been there (mostly living in Paris) for 30 years. We already know what those a-holes think about him, his crimes and his ‘art’. Useless.
Texas74 on October 2, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Mind if I paraphrase for myself?
Blacksmith8 on October 2, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Please boycott Toys “R” Us for having that deviant Whoopie Goldberg as their special needs children spokesperson.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM
The 100 who signed also spread, another means and ways of spreading the wealth, they gave it up to the lord of fame and wealth. They sold themselves so many times, they don’t even recall what innocence ever was. They’ve always taken sexual activity for granted, even during childhood. They enjoyed being exploited, and they still enjoy exploiting youngsters sexually. There’s no other way to rationalize a middle-aged man raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old as a forgettable normal behavior.
To hell with them now. They are perverting our entire judicial system further than it is already, further than where Eric Holder is corrupting it with his established prior conflicts of interest.
Polanski was not only guilty of his crimes, he pled guilty, he was found guilty by the jury in the court of law. And he fled from justice to evade sentence and penance. AT LEAST since the day he raped the girl, he has led a criminal life.
I hope the law enacted to prevent such will prevent Polanski from profiting by his crimes via book/movie of his criminal life.
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Literally 10s of thousands of volunteers from all over the country came to the Gulf Coast to help after Katrina, paying their own way & staying in tents. We thank you all!
GnuBreed on October 2, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I’m disappointed that Toys “R” Us is taking so long to dump Whoopie. Are they cowards, afraid of being called racists by the black feminazi who lusts after 13-year-olds? Or are they in with Polanski, willing to sell a Roman doll that’s anatomically correct?
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Isn’t there some INvoluntary pharmaceutical testing they could help humanity with?
Blacksmith8 on October 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Chris Rock on Jay Leno last night couldn’t scream down Polanski enough. When Jay asked Chris about Kanye West, Chris said he wouldn’t say anything bad about Kanye for fear of being put down in a rap song.
Kanye, want atonement? Rap against Polanski.
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Usually I’m not much of a boycotter, and I salute Toy “R” Us for their work with special needs (I’m probably not using the correct PC term) children, but I’m shocked she was picked to begin with considering her very strong pro-abortion views and the unfortunate usual final outcome of a pre-born potentially special needs child. The additional fact of her life as a very crude stand up comic, and now her ridiculous defense of a child rapist, makes it unfathomable to me of her being picked as that companies spokesperson and the fact that they haven’t dropped her, by press conference, immediately.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I understand that child molesters are at the bottom of the prison food chain.
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:53 AM
‘puritan scolds’
Please excuse me. I need to wash my bonnets, churn some butter and make some yarn on my spinning wheel. What a jerk!
pjean on October 2, 2009 at 9:54 AM
People here were glad to help, and we know you would of done the same for us.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:52 AM
The Board knows well enough what they paid for, and are counting on the Whoopies of the world for their profits.
maverick muse on October 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Funny, for a ‘religious zealot’ I didn’t see you post anything on the thread concerning creation/evolution. But I do see you talking about pedophiles. You just want him to have a trial so that you can hear the salacious details of that event. You know it would get ratings, and I’d bet you’d TIVO it to get yourself off at night.
I recognize women and their beauty. I recognize the fascination humans have with youth. I also recognize the horrible crime of child rape and would not support such a person in any way shape or form (such as watching their movies).
I also recognize the facts that he paid a fine, he couldn’t violate any Americans since that time (for which I am grateful and see the government providing a safe environment for its citizens), and – most importantly – that the victim does not want this issue to be brought up again.
I understand that it is probably going to be difficult for the victim to go over that event AGAIN in court to dredge up old wounds for American sensationalism consumption. What he did was awful. I’m glad he isn’t in America.
But ‘religious zealot’, I do wonder what your obsession with me is other than the fact that I appropriately called you a jerk before.
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Waiting hopefully for leftards to finally acknowledge that maybe conservative “puritans” have a point is a fool’s errand. At best, they’ll concede a “just this once” when the Lefty position is so putrid that to defend it makes them a laughingstock or worse, as happened with Polanski. Conservatives gobble up these rare validations like a starving man turned loose on a crust of bread, as if our ideas have no value until the “elites” of the Left are finally convinced and converted.
Get over it. It will never happen. We should care no more about what some smug scribbler at he Washington Post thinks than they care about what Sarah Palin says. Conservatism has value because when applied, its principles work. We don’t need confirmation by a pompous horse’s ass from the Left who’s not smart enough to understand that basic truth in the first place.
Cicero43 on October 2, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Put thy child fornicator into the stocks where we will mock thee until the end of thy’s days.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:58 AM
A nice boycott, with the Christmas buying season before us, might change their minds.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Excellent point.
They have exhausted the Bollywood shtick. The problem with Hollywood is nepotism. There is too much group think. There are too many relatives and too few new ideas. Everything is carefully calculated to make money in the tried and proven ways, with very little risk-taking. The things that Hollywood considers risk are usually just risque.
It’s sad. They really see themselves as our modern pantheon. “The stars never die and never change.” I see them more as serial killers than artists anymore.
alliebobbitt on October 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
That phrase really stuck out to me too: “puritan scolds.”
Screw Communised Medicine. PEDOPHELIA is going to be the liberal’s Waterloo. First Obamacorn, and now Pulanski. Do they really think pushing two of these things into the same news cycle will help their case?
logis on October 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM
This defending child rape is the dumbest thing the left has done in a long time, and I’m loving it. Keep pushing it in the news cycle. Nothing grabs the public’s imagination like a good old-fashioned sex scandal. The left might concede its long-supposed winning of the culture wars.
alliebobbitt on October 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM
What’s the matter, TA, you hate your words coming back to haunt you?
Hey, when you and a child rapist share views on little girls, I think you have bigger problems to worry about.
Just stay away from the schools, will you?
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 9:56 AM
That is one of the great differences between Hollywood compassion and real compassion. We are willing to get our hands dirty and get in there and really help people. Hollywood only does it if there are cameras, kudos or awards involved.
ZeeMI on October 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Exactly. I wonder in fact, just how long Jimmy Carter spent on each construction site for Habitat. I’m betting he’s was there mostly for photo op reasons.
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM
How sacrificial for Hollywood notables to have to prep for their charitable act. You know the manicure/facial/make-up/star treatment/photo op/national face time.
I hope that life’s victims get a fraction of the feel goodness the stars get every time the “help”. Seems to me it still turns into being about them doesn’t it?
caygeon on October 2, 2009 at 10:06 AM
She was asking for it.
– 343
angryed on October 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM
No doubt about that.
ZeeMI on October 2, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Is there any wonder why Hollywood stood behind David Letterman with his off color joke regarding Sarah Palin’s daughter and ARod having some kind of sexual relationship during the 7th inning stretch? These people live in a bubble, their own little world, and are completely out of touch with the American people… I think we should contact the president and begin distributing some of their wealth to the rest of the country. They are extremely overpaid and there should be an investigation and perhaps a cap on their salaries. The rest should be given to charities of Obama’s choosing. I mean seriously, could the American people really name their children after fruit and get away with it? These Hollywood people need to put in 5 million dollars of their own money and donate it to the state of CA to get them out of bankruptcy. They cannot continue to keep all of their money… It just isn’t fair….
shar61 on October 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM
It isn’t surprising that the hollyweirdos would attempt to excuse the degenerate criminal acts of a fellow hollyweirdo!
CDM on October 2, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Hollywood is dying. Thanks to union production costs, and environmental rules, (that the lefties love to endorse), it’s getting too expensive to make a film in the US. Add in the amount of computer graphics work being done overseas, and you won’t need but a handful of actors.
As far as hit movies…Bruce Willis, Arnold, Sly and Eastwood are getting VERY long in the tooth and there’s nothing but BETA MALE pansies coming up
Jeff from WI on October 2, 2009 at 10:32 AM
“I also recognize the facts that he paid a fine”
-
Thacker – you’ve creeped out and continue to creep the hell out of an awful lot of people. For the sake of your business, I’d suggest you stop digging.
Simona on October 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM
puritan scolds? So sodomizing 13 year old girls is normal behavior for every other kind of people?
Morals -Values, you need to have an idea what they are before you call people Puritan Scolds. They can’t refer to anyone who doesn’t live on the left fringe as anything but ultra socially conservative -if they criticize child rape? This behavior doesn’t go over with a lot of people. This is a twisted mental journey to end up at the same destination – mainstream. So no compass here folks.
This person who wrote this article, can’t write anything unless it is through a political ideology, that’s sad. He could just write “It’s Wrong” and it’s wrong to support a child rapist. How hard is that?
Dr Evil on October 2, 2009 at 10:35 AM
When the putrid lack of morals in hollywood finally makes America collectively throw up and reject them out loud it will be a sign that we’re finally recovering from the drunk binge of leftist half this country has been on for so long.
There is hope. If you have patience. Meanwhile we have to deal with the culmination of that drunken binge in the form of cretins like obama, pelosi, reid, and others actively and publicly trying to destroy the country from the roots up.
America needs to get pissed FASTER.
Spiritk9 on October 2, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Yes, he paid a small amount due to a civil suit (not a “fine”). How “burdensome” and “penalizing” for a man who has a chateau in Switzerland (among many other homes he has).
Yes, how the poor man has “suffered”, he…
…has been feted, supported and defended by the so-called and self-proclaimed cultural “elite” around the world…
…has continued to work in his chosen field unabated…
…has continued to “play with” underage girls…
…is a multi-millionaire…
…and even won an “Oscar”.
Most of our lives don’t measure up to the “suffering” (heh) this man went through.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I have to ask – what luminaries of Hollywood? Other than Woody Allen (yuck) and Scorcese (dammit) – who of any notable repute has backed Polanski?
A Axe on October 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM
A Axe on October 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I’m not sure how much repute one would ascribe to her, but no less a moral arbiter than Whoopi Goldberg publicly supported Polanski.
jwolf on October 2, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Between all these degenerates out in Hollywood, there’s hardly a movie I can watch anymore because I boycott them. They are all too quick to pass judgment on those of us out here who actually have morals.
silvernana on October 2, 2009 at 11:10 AM
OK Hollywood its time to line up YOUR 13YR olds……
Now let the pervs at them………see Hollywood SREAM!!!!!
1luckydogg on October 2, 2009 at 11:11 AM
“conservative culture warriors” and “puritan scolds”
Call me whatever little name you want; but I stand up for the little children. Polanski is a rapist (and a coward for running from facing his crime).
If we do not stand up and protect the innocent children from monsters like Polanski, Judges who give child rapist probation over prison, and the Media/Hollywood elite who rush to the defense of money/influence, we are doomed.
TN Mom on October 2, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Polanski’s view of sexuality is the same as Hollywood’s: Everything is okay (as long as it’s done by artsy people)! Let’s not be Puritans!
Think of all the movies from Pretty Baby on that have excused or “understood” the sexuality of children. Even on TV, in Glee, a music and comedy show, we have a pedophile teacher who is portrayed as being kind of a good guy.
PattyJ on October 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Roman Polanski, after his fortune bought some legal beagles that did some wrangling on his behalf, managed to get the charges drastically reduced, and then of his own free will, he plead guilty.
He is already adjudicated as being guilty. He openly and of his own volition claimed he is, in fact, guilty of drugging a child and raping her, vaginally and anally.
He was long ago already a convicted sex crime rapist pedophile criminal.
He fled his sentencing. He didn’t flee an investigation, or a trial, or prosecution, or anything more than the announcement of punishment he was to receive. His riches made it possible for him to hire the best legal beagles he could find to get his charges greatly reduced which hand-in-hand, naturally, greatly reduces his potential jail sentence… and then he still fled the country.
How anyone can stand up in support of this already convicted lowest of the low, scummiest of the scummy, child drugging, child raping, pedophile piece of garbage, and do it with a clear conscience, is unforgivable.
Let anyone who defends that monster have their children be drugged and viciously raped, and see how vehemently defensive of the predatory adult pedophile who physically injured their child and destroyed their child’s innocence they are then.
SilverStar830 on October 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Aaaaand into the black hole of purgatory goes my post, sans cuss words or any link whatsoever, awaiting the blessing of his/her revered holiness, the Hot Air Pope.
Can’t offensive posts simply be deleted? Are we not adults here? What is with the childish post purgatory? Censorship?
So aggravating.
SilverStar830 on October 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM
You make sound like the left has defended people like OJ, Michael Jackson, Castro, Lenin, Che, Hugo Chavez, Manuel Zelaya, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Yasser Arafat, Ahmadinejad, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Bill Ayers, Joseph McCarthy…….Joseph McCarthy, how the heck did he get in there?
Johan Klaus on October 2, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Thack, you’re just digging a deeper hole for yourself.
a) You are supporting Polanski; everyone here sees that.
b) It doesn’t matter what the victim thinks. That only matters in civil cases, not criminal ones. This is a criminal case — the State of California has brought Mr. Polanski into the dock, Mr. Polanski has admitted guilt, Mr. Polanski has been convicted of a crime still on the books in this state.
A criminal charge alleges that the defendant harmed the people of the State, not just the victim. Our society provides such a mechanism to prevent lynchings, feuds, and all of the other underpinnings of private or outrageous community judgment.
Mr. Polanski has not done his penance to the People of the State of California. By fleeing justice, he has done yet more harm.
The maximum sentence is California is 8 years in prison for his crime; the maximum sentence in Poland is castration. Mr. Polanski should be lucky that it’s the People of the State of California he’s harmed, not the People of Poland.
unclesmrgol on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I was thinking on this yesterday. Remember back in the 80′s, and early 90′s, when the witch hunts were going on, at day care centers throughout the country? Children were being coerced, or directed in what to say, and a lot of innocent people were going to prison for child molestation. It went to far, and for all those wrongfully accused, and punished, nothing can make up for that…but the bottom line was, people were looking out for children.
What’s happened, between now, and then? A few weeks ago, a story was told about a couple who had taken pictures of their children, wrapped in towels, after having a bath. A perhaps over zealous, if not concerned Walmart worker turned the pictures in. Now the parents are suing Walmart, for their ordeal. I don’t blame the parents anger, but I do understand the employees concern. However, most pedophiles, would never have pictures done, that would ever be seen by the general public, or sent to a lab where others might see.
That being said….Hollywood is morally bankrupt. They make movies about pedophiles, yet hail one of their own, as if it were nothing. Shame on them. If we don’t know the most basic, and simplicities of what’s right, and wrong…..our country is doomed.
capejasmine on October 2, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Um, wow.
What you obviously do not recognize, for all your bloviating self-righteous indignance and putrid ad hominem, is that Roman Polanski is already convicted of his pedophilia and the crime of child rape. He plead guilty to it decades ago.
He fled the country to avoid the sentencing.
Get a grip.
SilverStar830 on October 2, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Elizabeth Smart is available for comment.
profitsbeard on October 2, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Hollywood has the best moral compass? Hollywood doesn’t know what the term “moral” means. Protesting against people who work for a living doesn’t count as “moral” (i.e. Michael Moore).
And bragging that Hollywood did the fundraising telethon for Katrina victims? I suppose that’s something, but those of us who actually gave of our own money were the one’s who made a real difference. “Hollywood people” rode around in boats full of PR guys (i.e. Sean Penn) acting like they would’ve rescued people if their boats weren’t overloaded already. What a load of self-righteous scum.
Squiggy on October 2, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Eugene is doing the same thing that he did when he wrote about his problems with the Obamacare. He first had to bash Sarah Palin so he could maintain his credibility with the hive while stating his opposition to a hive position. Cut him some slack.
jerryofva on October 2, 2009
Credit for half a gonad?
SKYFOX on October 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Skyfox:
Yes, he gets credit. A liberal with half a gonad is better hen a liberal with out any.
I forgot to add this disclaimer in my first post: I know Gene Robinson. Ours sons went to school together.
jerryofva on October 2, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Robinson gets no credit. He has his own bigoted reasons for not supporting Polanski
georgealbert on October 2, 2009 at 2:18 PM
If Hollowood had any kind of compass, moral or otherwise, they wouldn’t be walking around with their heads permanently up their liposuctioned derrieres.
.
Roman Polanski is a pig. He belongs in prison with the rest of the kiddie-rapers, playing Lolita in his very personal jailhouse documentary. Suggested titles:
“Tossing Big Hank’s Salad, a Love Story by Roman Polanski”
“Roman’s
Wedding ShowerShower-Wedding”“Roman Holiday Meets Rosemary’s Baby”
Feel free to add your own…
NightmareOnKStreet on October 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM
And I recognize child rape apoligia when I see it. Whenever some child rapist (and in this case it was “rape-rape”) gets blogged about the roaches come out of the sewer to argue that children, children are in some way responsible for their own victimization and exploitation. Where there’s a story of vile crimes against children there will be a commenter looking to recruit more people into his little club.
For years crime blogs (like my awesome one for instance) have pointed out that there is pervert’s “JounoList” where a variety of degenerates organize to attack those who are disgusted by them, recently they even began spreading the false rumor that Mark Lundsford, Jessica Lundsford’s father, had child porn on his computer even though investigators said that never happened.
The worst aspect about the Internet is this kind of depravity, the idea that children want and should be sexually exploited, is passed around the Libertarian and Liberal echo chambers and they’re so eager to prove they aren’t “scolds” like Conservatives they never challenge statements that, on their face, promote or defend adults raping children. Hollywood is only reflecting the attitudes of these people and while we’re right to fight against their indoctrination attempts and to point out their moral bankruptcy we’re mistaken to think that Hollywood is the wellspring of filth in America.
Rob Taylor on October 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Hollywood can’t see the crime because although Polanski raped her he eventually paid her off.
In Hollywood that is called a job search, not a crime.
The age of the victim problem was resolved long ago in Hollywood when they gave Michael Jackson a free pass for the good works he did for world happiness.
To that crowd the girl was not an underage child victim, she was a soon to be old hag lucky enough to still have some temporary youth to barter
entagor on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM
FIFH
I have a problem with him writing this. It’s bullsh-t. Ropie didn’t acknowledge jack squat. They had to drag the truth out of his traumatized 13-year-old victim. The plea of “unlawful sex with a minor” — which has more the ring of a 3-minute act with an 18-year-old “veteran” prostitute on Hollywood Boulevard (“sorry Mr. Grant, it’s against city ordinance to do it on the sidewalk”) — doesn’t even begin to convey what he did, or how young and helpless the victim was.
And maybe he’ll figure this one out too, eventually. But how long are we expected to wait? (Rhetorical question.)
RD on October 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM