The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Whoopi, Winger, and Woody

Text Size

"No wonder Middle America hates them." So writes Katha Pollitt at The Nation. She's talking about those morally monstrous celebs who have run to defend Roman Polanski. The Pollitt column is great -- thoughtful, fact-filled, well crafted. The mind boggles that ANYbody can defend Polanski. These people are as far removed from decency as Michael Vick was at odds with PETA's principles. They should be shunned from all polite society and shunned from all studio work as well. Not that they would even be aware of the former, mind you, which is of course utterly alien to them. Foul, fetid Hollywood shows its ugly face again.....

View all comments (25) | Leave a comment

ConservativeWanderer| 10.1.09 @ 8:04PM

The Hollyweird lefties live in a fantasy world that is only connected to reality at a very few points.

kingsmill| 10.1.09 @ 8:05PM

Amazing to see such common sense from The Nation!

Liberal Reader| 10.1.09 @ 8:30PM

Roman Polanski should be brought to justice, despite what his friends -- and even the victim -- say. His crime was very serious.

I'm a huge admirer of Polanski's films: Chinatown is probably one of the greatest films ever made. Many of his other films are classics. But there's no "great artist" exception to the law as far as I know.

I would hope a judge would take into account a) Polanski's extraordinary life before he committed this crime; and b) his life lived -- so far as anyone knows -- within the law for more than three decades since the crime.

But taking these into account should only -- perhaps -- soften the punishment, it should not excuse the crime.

Warrior| 10.1.09 @ 9:52PM

Scooter Libby received a 30 month sentence plus large fine for a very questionable perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators where all this occurred during an investigation where no actual crime was committed. CNN stated justice was not served and many of left called for an complete investigation and impeachment of George Bush for making a mockery of the justice system.

Mark Foley sent emails to an underage page and became the left's poster child of corruption. No crime was committed.

Plaxico Burress is serving a two year sentence for firing off a gun accidentally in a nightclub where no one was hurt.

Michael Vick millions of dollars and about 18 months for abusing and killing dogs.

Roman Polanski, let's be soft on him. After all, his next "girlfriend" in France was at least 15 years old.

Liberal Reader| 10.2.09 @ 1:06AM

Warrior --

You're bumping into a classic problem of punishment. Justice demands that the punishment fits the crime, but it's not as easy as it sounds to find that fit.

Part of the reason is that we punish for different reasons that are not always compatible with one another.

We punish for what are called deontological reasons (a man deserves punishment for his crime) and to deter other criminals, and to protect society from further harm. All of these purposes are legitimate, but they are not equally legitimate in every case.

I -- just to clarify -- did NOT say the judge should be "soft" on Polanski. I never understand why distinctions like this are so damn difficult for you reactionaries.

I only said I would hope a judge would take into consideration Polanski's life before and after he committed this terrible crime. As far as I know he has never been implicated in other criminal activity; he's led a life of tremendous accomplishments; he's a Holocaust survivor who lost his mother in the concentration camps. I just think these things ought to weigh in the balance, although they certainly cannot excuse what he did.

Marie| 10.2.09 @ 2:48AM

Roman Polanski's life before and after the crime doesn't matter. He preyed on a 13 year old child; emphasis on "child". Read the grand jury testimony. He needs to be held accountable.

Daisy| 10.2.09 @ 4:07AM

Notice the liberal elitist never mentioned the thirteen year old rape victim--once? I wonder what kind of hell she's lived through since Polanski so cruelly violated her thirty years ago?

Bet you dollars to donuts her life hasn't been as much fun as Roman's. Time to rectify that. Now.

Trurl| 10.2.09 @ 9:05AM

It mat well be that a judge will take those circumstances into account, LR. The problem is that Roman has never faced the justice system at all. If he believes that his life and work constitutes mitigating factors him man up and accept judgment for his actions, which, AFAIK, he freely admits to.

Trurl| 10.2.09 @ 9:06AM

Sorry about the typos. I just got up.

tonypal| 10.1.09 @ 10:21PM

After reading Pollitt's column, I checked with the local coven to find out whether Hell had frozen over. They said they would get back to me.

Victor| 10.2.09 @ 2:35AM

Polanski is a fugitive from justice and should be punished accordingly: He has already forfeited his freedom.

stephanie| 10.2.09 @ 8:41AM

Whoopie's statement leaves me flabergasted.

Oldefarte| 10.2.09 @ 11:40AM

To me, her statement is TYPICAL of not only her, but Bayhar as well. Anyone who watches that Show is a moronic at best, liberal at least!

Barb| 10.2.09 @ 8:49AM

I bet that if you looked up their prior comments regarding the priest sex abuse scandal you will find it chock full of hypocrisy what they are saying now about this guy. Child rape is ok to them as long as it is done by one of "their own".

Fiat Voluntas Tua

Tim| 10.2.09 @ 9:42AM

It's amazing what some stars say when they don't have writers to put the words in their mouths.

Reg| 10.2.09 @ 10:03AM

The underlying reason for the support of Polanski is this: the entertainment industry doesn't think that having sex with children is wrong, and there should be no legal "age of consent". The industry has been working hard for years to get the culture to accept children as sexual beings, using every medium available in the culture to sexualize children from a very early age. Add to that a culture that now believes/teaches that there is NO moral aspect to the act of sex and , voila! What Polanski did is no big deal. This is also why they bring up the "30 years ago, no relevance now" defense. They believe that their efforts have been successful in changing the moral culture. Thankfully, there are lots of us who disagree...vehemently!

J.C.Eaton| 10.2.09 @ 10:15AM

We are told by one of our readers that a man's past acts are a sentencing ingredient that factor into a criminal court disposition. He is correct in that there are three(3) major considerations and past history is a subset of one of them. Those three major considerations are;Character of the convicted,Nature of the crime, and Protection of the public. Here, the so-called character of the convicted is a cowardly diletante who specialized in preying upon little girls, then had no guts to face his own music. Here, the nature of the crime is the preying upon a child after plying her, in preparation for his crimes, with alcohol and other drugs. Protection of the public can often be served with a probatioary term but here, stiff incarceration is the surest way to insure society is not further victimized, others like-minded are deterred, and innocence is respected. Although each of these considerations is weighed, they are rarely weighed equally. Certain situations call for emphasis on different factors. In this case, mitigation is offered because the cowardly child rapist made a popular motion picture and survived a horrible and massive crime inflicted on more than six million other people. That strikes me as a bit strange. Wouldn't it be more likely that such survival would quicken Polanski's appreciation for the sacredness of the human soul? In all events, he's had his allottment of freedom, in sum, he ought perish in prison.

JC.Eaton| 10.2.09 @ 10:26AM

Sorry,"little girls" should be: "a little girl." So far as I know he has only one conviction.

Amor de Cosmos| 10.2.09 @ 10:26AM

"Art is important" said the beautiful Australian actress at the Academy Awards on the cusp of the invasion of Iraq.

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" bleated the barnyard animals on Sunset Boulevard in reply.

Daisy| 10.2.09 @ 3:05PM

Brutally true and hilarious at the same time. Great post.

Oldefarte| 10.2.09 @ 11:36AM

Typical of the liberal Hollywood crowd, and their elitist, equally hedonistic, acedemic crowd! These morons can slobber over Hillary's words of outrage concerning the war-rapes of the Congo, but then turn a blind-eye to this. What stupid fools and hypocrites. Additionally what does this say for the American public and their children who daily buy-in to this garbage via movie attendance and TV viewing, all of which is Hollywood produced?????

Campy| 10.2.09 @ 11:55AM

Oldefarte,
As I posted yesterday (and which appears deleted), Hollywood liberal-liberals trump even regular liberals.... there is a total disconnect with them from their high perch.

BTW, has anyone else noticed post deletions...Margie, I know a few weeks ago you mentioned it too. AS, what's going on?

Hank Archer| 10.2.09 @ 4:31PM

Many are saying that since Polanski's victim has forgiven him and wants the case dropped that it should be. but to me it seems quite probable that the reason Polanski’s victim is now saying this is because making statements like that was part of the civil case settlement.