Thursday, October 08, 2009

W. Bush and Polanski

Today is Thursday, 8 October 2009.

Some figures in the arts argue that Roman Polanski should be relieved of further legal jeopardy in the rape of a 13-year-old, on the grounds of his cultural contributions.

Others decry this position as elitist.

The latter public figures are frequently, if not usually, right-wingers of an anti-intellectual, nekulturny bias. Their argument might carry more weight were it not for the fact they almost always oppose the prosecution, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, of those such as W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., on the grounds that the latter were Great Leaders Doing Their Duty.

Elites, anyone?

Everyone knows that an inevitable concomitant of war, since the beginning of time, is the rape of women of all ages. Why should the political elites be issued a free pass, and not cultural elites?

I’m frankly undecided if Polanski should be extradited and jailed. On the one hand, his victim says not, because, for her sake and that of her family, she wants it all put behind her permanently. On the other hand is the question of the example set for other potential child rapists. There is no easy answer which satisfies both needs.

However, certainly, if Polanski is to be put in the dock, he should be joined by W. Bush and company, gleefully and proudly responsible for far more heinous crimes.

1 Comments:

Anonymous nancy said...

HH said - "I’m frankly undecided if Polanski should be extradited and jailed. On the one hand, his victim says not, because, for her sake and that of her family, she wants it all put behind her permanently. On the other hand is the question of the example set for other potential child rapists. There is no easy answer which satisfies both needs."

I think there is an easy answer: Polanski should be EXTRADITED and JAILED. HH, you are looking for an answer that satisfies both needs. There are always multiple/conflicting needs; we must think about what solution does the greater good. I think the greatest "need" is for punishment to be carried out to (hopefully) deter other would-be child rapists.

HH, I cannot believe that you would weigh this crime against the victim's desire to "get it behind her." If she is willing to let this crime go unpunished, I get the feeling she has already put it behind her. And if she has pretty much reached that point, I would hope she would want to think of the bigger picture and do whatever she could to prevent this from happening to other girls.

Next, WHY do you feel you need to bring in W. Bush and Company into this discussion? Yes, we know that you want W. and his buddies to hang by their genitalia for all eternity. We get it. However, why do you insist on creating a mash-up of these two situations? One outrageous situation at a time. Let’s look at these things separately, shall we? There is enough crap in the world where we don't need to mix things together, inflaming discussion of both situations, and thus preventing clear thinking.

9:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home