Katha Pollitt on Polanski in The Nation: "The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.
"No wonder Middle America hates them." Read more: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/479379/roman_polanski_has_a_lot_of_friends http://tinyurl.com/ya4k2p2 Also see "Whitewashing Polanski" by Bill Wyman in Salon; it deals with the legal aspects and the "Wanted and Desired" documentary: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2009/02/19/roman_polanski_documentary http://tinyurl.com/d9nmzn And now let's see an example of that liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst, right here on FairfieldLife: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > ...a reminder that the extradition issue is not really > about the rape case or the victim, nor is your faux > outrage. (The latter is just a Standard American > Holier-Than-Thou Revenge Fantasy.) It's about > legal misconduct, as *admitted* by one of the > prosecutors and by the judge in the case. Barry once again grinds his face into the dirt because he thinks he's so smart he doesn't have to pay any attention to the facts of whatever issue he's arguing. In fact, the very article Barry goes on to quote at length recounts the former prosecutor's admission that he *lied* when he said in a documentary defending Polanski that he had committed legal misconduct by urging the judge to increase Polanski's sentence, and he has offered to testify to that effect. In other words, with regard to the prosecutor, Barry has it precisely backwards. <snip> > Polanski should be -- and reportedly is -- ashamed > of his actions 30 years ago. But not quite ashamed enough to think he deserves any punishment. Who should be *more* > ashamed in my opinion are the media who raped > this girl far more severely and far more often and > for far more years than Polanski did, and continue > to do so. And who would have had *no cause to do so* had Polanski not raped this girl. And who should be even more ashamed > than that are those who sit on their holier-than- > thou hobbyhorses and indulge in moralistic revenge > fantasies for something that didn't happen to them. > If there is a legitimate category labeled "Scum Of > The Earth," they're it in my opinion. This paragraph qualifies Barry for "Scum of the Earth" in my book. On the basis of Barry's logic, we should excuse Bush & Co. for torturing terrorism suspects because, hey, *we* didn't get tortured. Holding people accountable for their crimes, if they weren't committed upon us, is just indulging in "Holier- Than-Thou revenge fantasies." The incredibly twisted, sociopathic thinking here is just beyond belief. Look, even the *title* of the article Barry claims shows prosecutorial misconduct states exactly the opposite: > Former Prosecutor: I Lied In Polanski Documentary The documentary, of course, was intended as a *defense* of Polanski. His defense attorneys, not knowing the prosecutor had lied, used his false stories about having influenced the judge to increase Polanski's sentence to try to get his case dismissed. That's what the story Barry posted says, plain as day. Barry apparently didn't even bother to read it. On HuffPo, a former federal judge disposes of the notion that the judge having "reneged" on the plea deal is grounds for not extraditing Polanski (confirming Shemp's point): "We must start with the fact that he is guilty of a serious crime and is a fugitive. It is alleged that his motive for flight was because the presiding judge "reneged" on the plea bargain respecting his sentence and threatened to impose a longer sentenced than agreed. I do not know what happened here, but judges are not usually parties to plea agreements. I accepted pleas for 15 years, and in each and every instance, the defendant was advised that the court was not bound by any agreement and the sentence was in the sole discretion of the court. Pleas were then entered and accepted on that basis. My guess is that the judge here indicated informally that he was not going to follow the recommendation of the parties, and then Polanski skipped. Certainly this scenario is not a defense to extradition. "There is also a suggestion that there was some misconduct on the part of the judge in respect to the sentencing. That, of course, is a matter that could be presented to the court, although it is difficult to understand how it would affect a sentence that was not imposed or served. Polanski's lawyers attempted to present this claim of misconduct, but it was denied based upon Polanski's refusal to appear. The court concluded that he could not avail himself of the system while defying it. He can raise that claim by presenting himself to the court." Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/the-defenses-to-the-polan_b_304567.html http://tinyurl.com/ydy95r8
