When the Olympics arrive in Rio de Janeiro in 2016, perhaps they ought to add a new sport in honor of Hollywood and its hangers-on: mental gymnastics.
You may not believe the contortions some of those folks are twisting themselves into in order to defend and explain away Roman Polanski's sexual assault of a 13-year-old now that he's finally in custody for it.
Thankfully, Swiss authorities aren't cowed by star power: They refused to release him pending extradition to the U.S., fearing he's a flight risk. You think? He's only been on the lam for 30 years or so.
But now that the famed international film director might be brought back to face the consequences of drugging and raping a 13-year-old during a nude photo shoot of her, the arguments being made on his behalf are sometimes so twisted as to be incomprehensible.
Washington Post media critic Tom Shales actually said this: "It may sound like a hollow defense, but in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old."
Wow! Make a note to yourself: If the girl is mature beyond her years, the law doesn't apply!
He may be right. It is a hollow defense.
And our favorite comes from actress and comedienne Whoopi Goldberg: Of the assault on a 13-year-old girl whose parents entrusted her to Polanski, Goldberg said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape."
What in the world?
Even if Goldberg were trying to argue that it was "only" statutory rape, that still flies in the face of the facts: The girl testified that she was drugged and that she tried to resist.
Sounds like "rape-rape" to us.
When we get that mental gymnastics team ready for the Olympics, we know whom to get to coach!
The Augusta Chronicle ©2010 Morris Communications, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The DA from that California County is running for higher office and will benefit from a high visibility prosecution, by using that platform to appear tough on criminals. It is a common approach to getting more name reconition, and according to history, it probably will get him elected. How much money is being spent or will be spent on this case? Isn't that state broke? Yeah, Yeah, the moral issues, but the Orangeburg, S.C. massacre in 1969 goes unsolved, along with thousands of other murders, so where is the moral judgements in those cases? Are they not important too? Rational people can disagree about the Polansky case, but where's the efforts to bring to justice those living among us right here in the states.
Yawn.......@justus.....................
While justus makes some good points (albeit off-topic), I have to admit that I agree 100% with ACES on this one...possibly, a first.
Justus misses the point, as usual. The difference between unsolved crimes and this one is that it was solved and even the criminal himself admitted guilt. The only thing he was waiting on was the length of the sentence. Once he got wind that it was going to be longer then a few weeks already served he fled. Excellent editorial ACES. This clown, Polanski, needs to do hard time, which at his age means life. What Justus should be commenting on is that if someone like Charles Walker gets a decade for his crimes, then Polanski deserves 25 to life for his.
How about the Franklin Amendment that both Georgia senators voted against. It would be nice to see and editorial on that since it pertains to both our senators and rape of women working for private companies in Iraq and is current.
HotFoot, after all of the explanations about how low your standards are (for whatever justifiable reason), it's good to see you aren't able to find a "reason" to justify rape of a 13 year old.
concernednative, did our less than stellar senators vote for the rape of women in Iraq, or against other parts of the amendment not relevant to the primary subject?
concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 5:58 AM It is the FRANKEN amendment. This allows ANY worker to sue his employer even if the contract they sign states they go to arbitration. FRANKEN brought up the rape case to strenthen his positon. The person he was arguing with had statistics that supported arbitration.
Polanski did not have vaginal sex with the girl, Polanski found out she was not on birth control pills so he sodomized her. There is absolutly no defense for what Polanski did to this girl.
Read Leonard Pitts' "Being famous has nothing to do with it".
Did those repubs offer any amendment to limit it to violent crimes. No they just what the contractors to have free reign and make their own laws and not give is employees their day in court. I think they left Franken outsmart them and set a trap for them with women voters for the midterms. It is a good law but the politics of it could cause problems for some of those opposed to it.
Gee CONCERNED, looks like you forgot your statement the other day, claiming you never attacked Republicans. Typical liberal hypocrite. And please tell me one Republican who has ever defended the rape of women or the defense of violent criminals. Your party bias is sickening. Roman Polanski raped a girl, then fled the country. The Hollywood pukes defending him should show you you're on the wrong side of this issue.
Hollywood pukes are a long way from Senators. Until I see a dem senator try to pass legislation defending Polanski I will say you are comparing apples to oranges. That is the problem with the republican party they have allowed the cooks into the mainstream of the party (birther bill, Michelle Bachman on the house floor talking about "sex clinics" in schools, the list goes on). The dems have their cooks and they can have their websites but when I don't see mainstream dems introducing legislation to appease those fools. I will be waiting on that dem sponsered Polanski bill but Isaakson and Chambliss have already cast their votes against the Franklin amendment.
concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 6:50 AM There is a lot of conflict about what happened in the Jamie Jones case. She has changed her story etc. Inital story was that she was raped by one person, now it is gang rape. Contractors don't have free reign, it goes to arbitration per the contract. It was a Republican that got her out of Iraq and back to the US. Please tell me how this involves Polanski's leaving America to avoid jail time?
carcraft, concernednative isn't about staying on subject.
see southernguy's 6:59am post he brought up Polanski and this article is about Polanski. So I would say I am pretty much on subject. See the title of the article and his post. Again please think before you spew your posts.
concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 7:13 AM You brought up the FRANKLIN amendment see your post, concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 5:58 AM, So how did this involve the left and Hollwierd defending Polanski as per the editorial?
carcraft, are you serious. You are trying to make yourself right even though my 7:13am post showed how off base you were. Move on. We talk about all types of these on these boards that are off topic. They both involve rape so that is more closely aligned than most. Plus, the main point of my Franklin post was that two GA senators involved in a current rape/legal debate is more relevant to the Augusta area.
You bashed Whoopi, now you're a racist
Hollywood has always been full of nut cases, nothing surprising there. Rape is rape, no matter how it is carried out.
concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 7:26 AM You started in on the Republicans, Haliburton etc that had absolutely nothing to do with Polanski. So how are you right? And the name is FRANKEN!
The Franken issue involves contracts that require arbitration instead of law suits! How is that tied in to to Polanski fleeing the US and the idiots on the left defending him?
Carcraft you should know by now that Concerned, R2, Rose, Ispy, Perfect Poster, JackFruit, Hello Hello Jack are simple TROLLS.....In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Call it what you like. But, my original point was an AUGUSTA, GA paper is writing an editorial on Polanski. When our two senators are involved in a controversy that a Senate amendment was just passed on that has rape and federal funding involved. I just think that rather you agree with their vote or not is more pertenant in a Augusta newspaper. I mean all these posters on here spew hate about Hollywood and how they don't matter but it is okay for the lead editorial to score political points. Again Senate bill, rape, Georgian sentators, FEDERAL DOLLARS all more relevant than Polanksi.
Gee CONCERNED, I'm glad my 6:59 post was something you agreed with. It's a shame you ignored the point I made. Again, that's typical liberal hypocrisy...blame Republicans for everything in the world and ignore those hard questions. Are you going to address the question I asked then?
I guess no means more qualudes and wine. This is typical behavior from hollywood. I have money so I am right no matter what the courts say. I wonder if Whoopi would feel the same if it was her daughter that this happened to. He belongs in jail....end of story.
It is not so much the fact that Roman Polanski raped an underaged girl, the fact is that he pleaded guilty to this crime and fled the country before sentencing. He never paid the band for his party. So all this gobbledygook about someone trying to make a name for themselves, or making reference to two senators vote on a bill, is nothing but waste in trhe cow pasture. Until this man pays for his crime, there will never be justice.
concernednative on Fri Oct 9, 2009 8:34 AM The Franken amendment was only tangential to rape. The issue of the amendment was that abitration clauses can not prevent law suits. Jamie Jones claim rape by one then gang rape. The case has not been tried. She is suing KBR and Halliburton. Halliburton is not even responsible as her contract was with KBR.
Once again Justus shows his bias. But then you have to remember he says Charlie Walker was framed....way to go champ (chump)
carcraft, I get it if only one person raped her and they locked her in a container for weeks to cover it up then she doesn't deserve a day in court. If it was a gang rape then she deserves a day in court. She is trying to get them to release her from arbitration so these guys can be tried in criminal court. Saxby and Isaakson voted against that.