HOLLYWOOD AND VILE: SODOMY, RAPE, FELATIO, UROPHILIA, PEDOPHILIA

YESTERDAY I PUT A POST ON THIS BLOG EXTENDING A ‘LEFT-HANDED’ COMPLIMENT TO JESUIT FATHER THOMAS J. REESE.

TODAY I AM PLACING THIS ‘RIGHT-HANDED’ COMPLIMENT TO THE EDITORS OF INVESTORS’ DAILY FOR THEIR EDITORIAL OF TODAY.

The disconnect between the moral values of the elite of the entertainment industry and middle America was never more in evidence than in the reaction of the left-liberal elite of Hollywood and television to the Roman Polanski arrest in Switzerland this week.

No amount of rationalizing about the artistic genius (which some would deny) of Roman Polanski as a writer, producer and director of prize-winning films can obscure the fact that he drugged, raped and sodomized a thirteen year-old girl that he had lured into a photo session for a glamor magazine.  No amount of rationalizing about the flawed judicial process which he underwent back in Hollywood, flawed some have suggested because he was treated with kid gloves because of his celebrity status, can obscure the fact that he fled the United States in order to short-circuit that judicial process.

Roman Polanski is a child rapist and a fugitive from justice.

The editors of The Investors’ Daily have put the whole matter in proper focus.

*************************************************************************

Hollywood And Vile

BY THE EDITORS OF THE INVESTORS’ DAILY

Posted 09/29/2009 07:02 PM ET

Rule Of Law: To Hollywood, a fugitive wanted for sex with an underage girl is “a great artist” pursued by “philistine” authorities. Would they be excusing “Father Roman Polanski” or “Senator Roman Polanski”?

Can the popular film industry descend any deeper into the moral cesspool? Consider the great “artistic frontiers” Hollywood has recently crossed. The 2003 film “The Brown Bunny,” which premiered at Cannes, graphically shows its leads doing what Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky got up to.

“Hounddog” in 2007 premiered at Robert Redford’s Sundance Festival. A preteen Southern farm girl named Lewellen, played by a 12-year-old actress, is raped, but as Time magazine noted, “More uncomfortable to watch than that short scene … are the lingering shots throughout the film in which Lewellen gyrates to Elvis music in her underwear while older men and boys watch hungrily.”

Child actor advocates, such as Alison Arngrim of “Little House on the Prairie” fame and Paul Peterson from “The Donna Reed Show”, protested the sexual exploitation of the young actress.

But guess what? Roman Polanski trail-blazed ahead of both those films. Moviegoers who shelled out good money to see the 1992 flick “Bitter Moon,” starring the director’s current wife, were subjected to a character’s detailed descriptions of urophilia. That’s what you call “a great artist” at work.

Hollywood is circling the trailers around Polanski now that he’s been nabbed in Switzerland after more than three decades on the run. American movie star Debra Winger, president of the Zurich Film Festival, which was giving Polanski an award, told the press, “Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist.”

Philistine? Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in 1978. His 13-year-old victim says he slipped her a champagne and quaalude cocktail, then raped and sodomized her.

Yet mega-producer Harvey Weinstein calls him a “humanist” and is rallying Hollywood. Dozens of movie icons, like Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, signed a petition demanding Polanski’s immediate release.

Whoopi Goldberg on ABC claimed, “I know it wasn’t ‘rape’ rape.” Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum’s argument was little better: “Polanski’s mother died in Auschwitz.”

Neither artistry nor family tragedy excuses heinous crime. What if Polanski were a nobody? Moreover, what if he were a priest? Or a right-leaning politician?

In their depraved defense of this personal and artistic degenerate, the stars of the silver screen continue their fall deeper down the sewer.

********************************************************

WONDERS NEVER CEASE!

Now comes Susan Estrich, not one of my favorite political commentators.  It is not just her scratchy, gravelly voice that gets on my nerves when she appears on Fox News with her commentary; it is her unfailing loyalty to anything and everything proposed by the Democrat Party that I find irritating.  She is a left-liberal member of the Democrat political organization.  All the more surprising therefore that she would have produced the column below which appears in the Rasmussen Newsletter.

*******************************************************

Roman the Rapist
A Commentary By Susan Estrich
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

He had sex with a 13-year-old girl. He got her to go to Jack Nicholson’s house by promising that she would be in a photo shoot. When she got there, he fed her a Quaalude and alcohol — champagne for a 13-year-old, how enticing — and then he raped her.

Roman Polanski was on his way to a film festival in which he was to be honored for his life’s work when he was arrested last weekend. Some 100 European big shots have released a statement in protest: “Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision. It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.”

I’ve got news for the big shots: International cultural events are not safe havens for criminals, nor is there any reason they should be. A criminal is a criminal, even if he is “one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers.” There’s nothing “inadmissible” about it, guys.

His lawyer in France is even more strident: “There is no reason, either in law or in fact, nor on the terrain of the most elementary justice, to keep Roman Polanski in prison for even one day,” Herve Temime told reporters.

Maybe I can help Mr. Temime a little bit here, with some law and some facts, and some elementary justice.

The reason to keep him in prison for far more than one day is that he’s a rapist who fled from justice. Actually, that’s two reasons, and each is sufficient.

Roman the Rapist pleaded guilty. This is not one of those stories where you need to insert an “alleged” or a “purported” before each sentence. This is not a “he said-she said.” He was in his 40s. She was 13. He was a famous director. She was a child. He lied, lured and plied her with drugs and alcohol.

How about those facts, Mr. Temime?

Interviewed not long ago, the girl, now a woman, said she wanted to put the whole thing behind her. The rapist’s “sympathizers” (that’s what the press calls them) think that is enough. Wrong again.

Rape is a crime against the state, as well as a civil wrong against the individual. The victim is free not to pursue damages. That is her decision. Where victims refuse to cooperate, it is often difficult or impossible to secure a conviction, but cooperation is not a legal requirement. The state presses charges, not the victim. Polanski pleaded guilty to a crime against the state. It was “People v. Polanski.” The People — in this case represented by the district attorney of Los Angeles — are not putting the whole thing behind them. Rightly so.

Polanski pleaded guilty assuming he wouldn’t go to prison. I don’t have any idea why a famous director who raped a 13-year-old after plying her with drugs and alcohol would assume that no punishment was in order, but he did. Celebrity justice maybe? Who knows and who cares?

When reality intervened and it became clear that a judge might well sentence him to time in prison, Polanski did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial. He did not await the sentence and then appeal it. Free on bail pending sentencing, he decided to thumb his nose at the American justice system and flee the country. Fleeing from justice violates the “most elementary” principles of our legal system, to quote the misinformed Mr. Temime. It’s every bit as serious as raping a 13-year-old.

For the past 30 years, Roman Polanski has been not just a convicted rapist but a fugitive from justice.

Yes, he’s made some big films in those years. So what?

Yes, he’s traveled freely across Europe during those years, living a very fancy and famous life without being arrested. So what?

There is no statute of limitations on fugitives.

The fact that he got away with it this long is not a reason to declare him innocent. He is a guilty man who fled from justice. It is time, past time, that he was returned.

To view all political commentary published by Rasmussen Reports visit our Political Commentary Page.

See Other Commentaries by Susan Estrich

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports.

******************************************************************************************************

Hollywood’s Shame
By Eugene Robinson
THE WASHINGTON POST
Friday, October 2, 2009

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.
More than 100 movie-business heavyweights — including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Mike Nichols and Pedro Almod?var — have signed a petition calling on Swiss authorities to set Polanski free. Piling chutzpah upon gall, Woody Allen is among the petitioners. You will recall that Allen shocked non-Hollywood sensibilities by acknowledging his romance with Soon-Yi Previn, the daughter of Allen’s longtime companion, Mia Farrow. At the time, Allen was 56 and Previn was 21.
Actress, comedian and “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg has come under well-justified fire for making a jaw-dropping statement about Polanski’s crime: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”
Really? The Web site http://thesmokinggun.com has posted the victim’s grand jury testimony and Polanski’s admission of guilt. Although a plea bargain reduced the charges to unlawful sex with a minor, the documents make clear that what the victim alleged was “rape-rape” of the vilest kind.
She described being lured by Polanski to the home of actor Jack Nicholson, given champagne and half a quaalude, feeling intoxicated and frightened, being groped in a hot tub, telling Polanski to stop, being accosted on a couch, telling Polanski again to stop, being violated in ways I can’t describe in a family newspaper, and finally weeping as she waited for her assailant to take her home.
Was Polanski filled with remorse? Not when the British novelist Martin Amis interviewed him in 1979. “If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see?” Polanski told Amis. “But . . . [having sex], you see, and the young girls. Judges want to [have sex with] young girls. Juries want to [have sex with] young girls. Everyone wants to [have sex with] young girls!”
I’ve had no choice but to bleach the color out of Polanski’s language. For “having sex,” he used an Anglo-Saxon vulgarity that I couldn’t even think about printing in a family newspaper.
Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who has been circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote in an op-ed in the Independent, a London newspaper, that “whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally.”
So the government is to blame? For apprehending an unrepentant sex offender who fled before being sentenced for his reprehensible acts?
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!
The brutalization of one young girl, it seems, leaves Hollywood’s big heart awfully cold.
eugenerobinson@washpost.com

**********************************************************************************************
The Polanski Hypocrisy
By ANTHONY PALETTA
The Wall Street Journal
October 1, 2009
Amid the many reactions to director Roman Polanski’s arrest last weekend in Switzerland more than 30 years after he fled the U.S. after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, none have been as strong as those of the international film community. A petition demanding his release has attracted over 100 film-world signatories, including luminaries from Martin Scorsese and Costa-Gavras to David Lynch and Wong Kar Wai.
Reading the petition, you could be forgiven for thinking that the dispute was over some obscure diplomatic codicil. Its principal focus is on the mechanics of the arrest, namely Switzerland’s detention of Mr. Polanski on a U.S. request as he was traveling to the Zurich Film Festival. It cites Switzerland’s status as a “neutral country” and the “extraterritorial nature” of film festivals. The substance of his guilty plea and the circumstances of the crime receive only glancing mention, in a single line: “His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals.”
One would never know that those easily brushed off “morals”—rape and pedophilia—have actually been a central concern of some of the petition’s signatories.
Pedro Almodóvar, the daring Spanish director, created a fascinating study of a pedophiliac relationship between a priest and an altar boy in “Bad Education.” There’s a frank mutual attraction between the characters, but Mr. Almodóvar never leaves any question that their relationship is exploitative at its core, and he makes clear the scars such manipulation can create. If a petition were being circulated for Father Manolo instead of Mr. Polanski, it’s doubtful we’d see Mr. Almodóvar’s signature on it.
Asia Argento, international cinematic siren, is no stranger to depictions of rape. In her father Dario Argento’s “The Stendahl Syndrome,” she is raped twice, each occasion a source of transformative psychological trauma. If that doesn’t seem experience enough, her own adaptation of the J.T. Leroy novel “The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things” features two of the queasiest rapes of modern cinema, with the adopted son of her character (portrayed by a 7-year-old actor) brutally assaulted by his stepfather and then by another of her boyfriends.
Harmony Korine, a devotedly weird filmmaker, is no stranger to the frequent pairing of strong drugs and assault; the harrowing end of his screenplay for “Kids” features a character raped while under the influence of an unnamed depressant. In “Kids,” the assailant didn’t give her the drug; there’s no question about Mr. Polanski plying a 13-year-old with Quaaludes. Yet Mr. Korine’s name is there on the petition.
That’s far from the extent of the scabrous depictions of rape in the signatories’ work. Monica Bellucci appeared in perhaps the longest single-take rape sequence ever filmed, a nine-minute segment of Gaspar Noe’s stomach-churning “Irreversible.”
In their depictions of these acts, the directors and actors in question seem keenly aware of the extreme violence of rape and the terrible psychological consequences that follow its victims for years afterward. But for them, apparently, life doesn’t imitate art.
Still, some film-world names were notable for their absence from the petition. Director Luc Besson refrained from signing it, noting, in an interview with RTL Soir, “I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”
Perhaps the only group more incoherent than the cinematic community in its reaction has been Polish officials. Mr. Polanski, who was born and raised in Poland, has received much support from his countrymen. In an irony evidently lost on Polish bureaucrats, government ministers of the Civic Platform Party began protesting Mr. Polanski’s arrest on Saturday, one day after their government successfully passed a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in cases involving victims under 15.
Now there’s a thought.
—Mr. Paletta is an editor at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for the American University.

******************************************************************************************

CULTURE
“Just to recap, [Roman] Polanski drugged a child put in his care for the purposes of a photo shoot. He tried to bully her into sex. She said no. He raped her anyway. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse but fled the country before sentencing, allegedly for fear the judge wouldn’t keep his end of the plea bargain. He spent the subsequent three decades living the life of a revered celebrity in Europe. He never returned to America because there was a warrant for his arrest. In a bit of ironic justice, he was apprehended en route to Zurich to receive a lifetime achievement award. That ceremony will apparently go on without him. … It all boils down to the fact that Polanski is famous and talented and an Olympian artist, living above the world of mortals. Indeed, if he didn’t rape that girl — and he did — Polanski would still be considered a pig in most normal communities. This is the man who, after all, started dating Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15 and he was in his 40s. His taste for teenage girls is an established fact. His defenders don’t care. They are above and beyond bourgeois notions of morality, even legality. And that’s the main reason I am grateful for this controversy. It is a dye marker, ‘lighting up’ a whole archipelago of morally wretched people. With their time, their money and their craft, these very people routinely lecture America about what is right and wrong. It’s good to know that at the most fundamental level, they have no idea what they’re talking about.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg, NATIONAL REVIEW,

**************************************************

Polanski’s Polymorphous Perversity

by Adam Baldwin

After more than thirty years Oscar® winning director Roman Polanski, the infamous child rapist and decades-long fugitive from justice, has been captured. He should be extradited back to California as soon as possible for sentencing.

Some of Polanski’s early apologists and defenders are likely now entertaining discomforting second-thoughts about their hasty signing of the petition demanding his immediate release from captivity, as indeed some are also now furiously backpedaling in regret over their indiscretion of speaking out publicly on his behalf.

allen-manhattan-792

It seems an appropriate time to review some origins and history underlying the modern psychological rationales currently attempting to dilute and evade Polanski’s morally deviant nihilism, and the cognitive dissonance (i.e., “it wasn’t ‘rape’ rape”) introjected by countercultural pseudo-intellectual sycophants.

Its members’ values inculcation was, with purposeful destructiveness, initiated early last century by an all-too-often overlooked intellectual vanguard. So, in deconstructing the value of his sexual crimes, Polanski’s sophistic defenders were/are perhaps unwittingly acting out a reflexive cultural pre-conditioning, rather than logic and reason. This is hardly surprising, considering the players, yet the whys and wherefores are important, if only for historical perspective. 

Consider last century’s counter-revolutionary works by postmodern cultural Marxism’s Intellectual Moron gurus:

Such as Alfred C. Kinsey, whose “‘pansexual worldview’ says that all forms of sexual expression are equal and acceptable.”

Or, Herbert Marcuse’s Eros & Civilization that, pace William Lind, ‘condemned all restrictions on sexual behavior. Calling instead for “polymorphous perversity” that, by the way, helped open the door for aspects of the political correctness movement. Its self-congratulatory, narcissistic foundation for Marcuse’s good human society whose liberating tolerance for “non-procreative Eros” was intended, per Roger Kimball, to help society ‘find great enlightenment and great happiness which was supposed to be the key to utopia’.

UC Berkeley professor Martin Jay (2:20 mark…) summarizes that polymorphous perversity “argues that at certain early developmental levels of the human psyche, there was a potential for sexual expression/sexual pleasure which had not yet been organized into the restricted notions of heterosexual sexuality. And that these had some sort of capacity to be reinvigorated.”

Correlation: Leading Polanski petitioner Woody Allen has produced intimate knowledge of this Freudian psychoanalytic term (promoted by Marcuse):  In his Oscar® winning “Annie Hall,” Allen’s character tells his girlfriend he loves her because she is “polymorphic perverse.” Likewise, in Allen’s “Celebrity” a nubile female model claims to be a “polymorphic perverse,” whom the protagonist finds invigorating. In another of Allen’s films, “Manhattan,” he portrays a divorced man dating a high-schooler (Mariel Hemingway).

Elsewhere more recently, in American Splendor, Joyce Brabner informs Harvey Pekar that his friend Robert Crumb is “polymorphously perverse.”Coincidence? Not a chance…–

PJTV’s Bill Whittle neatly condenses this history in “The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness.”

Polanski’s current intolerant defenders’ politically correct instincts to apply empathy and/or glorify the iconic-old-fugitive-child-rapist might afford some comfort while insulated within the closed-circles of elite and fashionable salons and retreats.

However, the practical consequences of such a rash decision — and any subsequent indignant retreats in faux-‘victimhood’ or mountings to self-anointed moral ‘high ground’ should, for those with any common sense of decency remaining, become imminently difficult, if not impossible to ignore from colleagues, audiences and customers whom reside in the real world down here on Olympus’ lower slopes.

The temptation of mercy and patient edification for the clueless (a.k.a., ‘useful idiots’) is strong and perhaps even good. After all, it’s really little more than their ignorant do-gooder idealism that causes them to swoon for perverted totalitarian ideologies.

Intolerant, stubbornly divisive, self-satisfied Polanski-apologist glitterati, continue to receive well-earned rejection and scorn from regular Americans.

As for child-rapist Polanski: it is long past time for the Crimes & Consequences of this perverted ‘progressive’ icon to be administered once and for all… Guilty as charged.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2009/10/07/polanskis-polymorphous-perversity/

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in MORAL RELATIVISM and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.