Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Since when is it OK to be a child rapist?

These are facts that are not in dispute: Roman Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and quaaludes, forcibly had sex with her, then sodomized her for good measure, and pleaded guilty.

But, hey, he's a genius of the arts, so it's OK. So sayeth the Hollywood illuminati. I can't say anything better about this than Allahpundit at Hot Air, in rare form on this topic:
Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently it’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.
Come on, you neanderthals, give Polanski a break. Do it for the children.

No comments: