Patterico's Pontifications

12/2/2008

Polanski Wants Case Dismissed

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General,Scum — Patterico @ 11:56 pm

Poor guy:

Thirty years after he fled the U.S. to avoid sentencing on child molestation charges, Academy Award-winning director Roman Polanski has filed a formal request to have the case dismissed.

He pled guilty. Let’s remember what the girl said he did:

The teenager’s troubling–and contemporaneous–account of her abuse at Polanski’s hands begins with her posing twice for topless photos that the director said were for French Vogue. The girl then told prosecutors how Polanski directed her to, “Take off your underwear” and enter the Jacuzzi, where he photographed her naked. Soon, the director, who was then 43, joined her in the hot tub. He also wasn’t wearing any clothes and, according to Gailey’s testimony, wrapped his hands around the child’s waist.

The girl testified that she left the Jacuzzi and entered a bedroom in Nicholson’s home, where Polanski sat down beside her and kissed the teen, despite her demands that he “keep away.” According to Gailey, Polanski then performed a sex act on her and later “started to have intercourse with me.” At one point, according to Gailey’s testimony, Polanski asked the 13-year-old if she was “on the pill,” and “When did you last have your period?” Polanski then asked her, Gailey recalled, “Would you want me to go in through your back?” before he “put his penis in my butt.” Asked why she did not more forcefully resist Polanski, the teenager told Deputy D.A. Roger Gunson, “Because I was afraid of him.”

Yes, he pled only to unlawful intercourse with a minor. But according to the documentary referred to in the blog post linked above, the plea deal was given to avoid putting the girl through the awful publicity that would have accompanied a trial — meaning Polanski almost assuredly got a better deal because he was famous.

And he never served his time.

As far as I’m concerned, he can stay in France.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times‘s front-page story on Polanski’s request does not mention the sodomy allegation. That allegation further chips away at the already ridiculous notion that sex with a 13-year-old girl under the influence of alcohol and Quaaludes can be “consensual.”

50 Comments

  1. You know, Patterico, this kind of thing is frustrating.

    I know many intellectuals who insist that Polanski’s case is trumped up, or overstated. That he is a true ar-teest, as if that is relevant.

    Yet those same people lose their minds talking about politicans with whom they disagree.

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Didn’t Gloria Steinem explain that Clinton should have one free grope?

    As for me, I think that an abusive pig is an abusive pig. It doesn’t matter to me what politics they espouse…or what movies they once made.

    Polanski should stay in France, I agree.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/3/2008 @ 12:22 am

  2. That France hasn’t extradited this monster is proof they are no longer among the civilized.

    He confessed and got a plum deal because he is another OJ… someone whose power and fame enable him to short circuit the justice system’s protections meant for those without the resources of the government.

    Comment by Juan (4cdfb7) — 12/3/2008 @ 1:51 am

  3. As far as I’m concerned, I would be glad to push the button that ends his life.

    Rape used to be a capital offense. Back when rape meant that there was a very good chance the girl would become a mother. Back when rape was treated like a serious crime.
    http://www.lifenews.com/state3674.html

    In 1977, the Court ruled that the rape of an adult woman is not a capital offense punishable by death.
    http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/capital-offense.html

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 12/3/2008 @ 5:28 am

  4. I have a better Idea. Offer Polanski a deal. The deal being that Polanski serve one year in prison. Just don’t tell him that he’d be cell mates with Charles Manson.

    Comment by PCD (7fe637) — 12/3/2008 @ 5:32 am

  5. As far as I’m concerned, he can stay in France.

    I have a better suggestion…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/3/2008 @ 6:12 am

  6. The fact that he is a “darling arrrrrteeeest” to the Hollywood crowd speaks volumes about them.

    But if you mentioned that you voted for Bush, well then……….

    Comment by Techie (07c8ee) — 12/3/2008 @ 6:43 am

  7. Eric Blair wrote: Didn’t Gloria Steinem explain that Clinton should have one free grope?

    Indeed she did, but in a roundabout, intellectually dishonest fashion. Faced with the reality that Clinton — a champion of abortion rights — might fall victim to the trap the radical feminists unsuccessfully laid for perceived Roe foe Clarence Thomas years before, Steinem did her best to change the public perception of what sexual harassment is so that it wouldn’t endanger a Democrat POTUS. Here’s what she wrote in an editorial published in the New York Times March 23, 1998, referring first to the allegations made by then-recent widow Kathleen Willey (bold mine):

    The truth is that even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took “no” for an answer.

    Steinem conveniently omitted the vital detail that the “gross, dumb, and reckless pass” at Ms. Willey occurred when the two of them were alone in the Oval Office. She continued:

    In her original story, Paula Jones essentially said the same thing. She went to then-Governor Clinton’s hotel room, where she said he asked her to perform oral sex and even dropped his trousers. She refused, and even she claims that he said something like, “Well, I don’t want to make you do anything you don’t want to do.”

    Her lawyers now allege that as a result of the incident Ms. Jones described, she was slighted in her job as a state clerical employee and even suffered long-lasting psychological damage. But there appears to be little evidence to support those accusations. As with the allegations in Ms. Willey’s case, Mr. Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.

    She continued, comparing Willey and Jones’ accusations against then-President Slick Willie unfavorably with those against Republican Senator Robert Packwood (yeah, I know) and conservative SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas. But while Packwood hung himself by detailing his inappropriate behavior with female underlings in his own diary (which was made public record by prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the same person she argued was framing Clinton), Anita Hill, in all her statements and Senate Judicial Committee testimony, NEVER alleged that Thomas ever laid a finger on her.

    So, to Steinem, if Hill’s stories were true and Thomas actually had made a remark about someone putting a pubic hair on his Coke can and talked about porn actor “Long Dong Silver” in the office, THAT was sexual harassment. OTOH, if after a nervous plea for financial assistance after the suicide of your husband, Clinton kissed you on the mouth and groped you in his office, or invited you to his hotel room and invited you to give him a Lewinsky before it became known as a Lewinsky, those are “gross, dumb, reckless … clumsy sexual pass[es],” but NOT sexual harassment because “[he] took “no” for an answer.”

    Thus, ‘One free grope.’

    BTW, this Op-ed piece CANNOT be found in the NYTimes.com archives going back to 1981. That can’t be an accident. Thankfully, it was posted on an Educrat USENET group by an apparent sympathetic participant two weeks after its initial publication (link above). Methinks Ms. Steinem regrets the fact her own words place her on record as being OK with horny bosses trawling their worksites for tail, and asked the Times to flush it down the memory hole. (In later years, we’ll see if her vicious remarks in her September op-ed about Governor Sarah Palin are scrubbed from the L.A. Times site as well).

    There’s a message in this history lesson for all those starry-eyed women who want to work alongside Barack Obama, but draw the line at being underneath him: In the however unlikely event that he sexually harasses YOU, you’re on your own, girl. Heaven help you, because you can’t count on it from the Feminazis.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:06 am

  8. According to the latest, invariable sketchy, news reports, this new legal turn came as a result of information gleaned from the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. It’s a fascinating and thankfully unhysterical film about the case which is filled with far too many things to easily summarize. But in the last analysis the showboat Judge, Rittenband, blew what could have been a far more easily dispensed with case by demanding that he be the center of attention.

    Roman Polanski is a very complex man whose life was haunted by both the holocaust (he lost both parents to the death camps and escaped the Warsaw ghetto with his life) and the Manson family (who famously murdered his pregnant wife Sharon Tate and several friends of his. This neither excuses nor explains what he did to Samantaha Guimar. But in the documentary it’s clear she’s a level-headed adult who has managed to to put this awfulness pretty much behind her.

    What the documentary doesn’t make clear is the role played by her mother. She says she’ll talk about everything except her mother. But her mother’s complicity in leaving her alone with Polanski remains a sore point in all of this. (Again this doesn’t excuse him at all.)

    Why he would want to come back here is the real mystery. Hollywood doesn’t make films like Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown anymore. I can’t see him directing a cartoon with “celebrity” voices — which is the chief cinematic form these days.

    Comment by David Ehrenstein (15795c) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:20 am

  9. I have no problem with Mr. Polanski returning to the United States. Just as long as it is in a box, say about 6 ft. long, 3 ft. wide and 2 ft. high.

    It may take a few years before he’s ready for the box. It will be worth it.

    Comment by David in San Diego (23f226) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:29 am

  10. Everybody who wants to give Polanski a pass should be required to read EVERY SINGLE WORD of the grand jury testimony of the young woman he raped.

    Out loud.

    Pay special attention to the details about alcohol, Quaaludes, and “cuddliness.”

    Then tell me about how this man shouldn’t serve any jail time.

    And quit with the false canard that being a free man out of the United States for almost thirty years is punishment enough. You sound like idiots.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:33 am

  11. The thing I find especially annoying about the reflexive support this swine gets from the “Intellectual Left” is that I’ve seen a film or two by the man. As an “artist” he ranks somewhere around the level of the guys who used to write for “Spicy Detective”, and similar second class Pulps. In short, he seems to be getting respect as an Artist BECAUSE he is a child molester and general purpose jerk.

    The intellectual dishonesty of the Left is a match for ay idiocy the French Aristocracy even committed. One can only hope it won’t have the same end result.

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (2f879a) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:38 am

  12. If france won’t help, he should be extradited with prejudice. Send in Blackwater.

    Comment by quasimodo (edc74e) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:38 am

  13. Of course he should have served jail time. Lost of it. But Rittenband’s antics destroyed the case and Polanski got out of Dodge. See the movie. It’s an eye-opener for reasons that have to do with a lot more than Roman Polanski.

    Comment by David Ehrenstein (15795c) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:52 am

  14. Send in Blackwater? Great. That means not only that you kill Polanski but 30 to 40 innocent bystanders on the Champs-Elysee as well.

    Comment by David Ehrenstein (15795c) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:55 am

  15. If we need help funding that, I’m willing to help pass the plate around…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:56 am

  16. Steinem did not appear to care about Hillary’s claim on Bill’s affections that was completely violated by a clumsy sexual pass at someone else. The bonds of marriage do not appear to be applied by women to Mr. Clinton. But maybe that is somewhere else in the editorial?

    Men don’t get a pass. Powerful men who say what women like get a pass. And yes this is about Polanski.

    Comment by Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:59 am

  17. Its Bush’s fault.
    In 1977, Polanski was tormented that a young Texas Air National Guard pilot had gone AWOL and would one day defeat the Hero of Cambodia in a Presidential election. The only thing he could do was turn to drugs, alcohol and children. I telling you, the man suffers for his art!

    Comment by Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 12/3/2008 @ 8:04 am

  18. Come on. It isn’t like he waggled his fingers under a toilet stall or anything. And he isn’t Mormon, so he probably didn’t give any money toward passing Prop 8. So it isn’t like he’s bad bad.

    Comment by MayBee (613232) — 12/3/2008 @ 8:31 am

  19. Next year if Eric Holder is confirmed as AG, Polanski will have an expert to talk to in this kind of thing.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/3/2008 @ 9:21 am

  20. Polanski in a cell with Manson? If Polanski had any balls at all he would welcome it and kill Manson for the butchering of Sharon Tate and unborn child by Manson’s minions.

    Last time I saw this snake was in the crappy Rush Hour III flick playing a French gendarme. Just what is the Frogs’ fascination with scoundrels? Did they finally extradite stone killer Eichorn? As I recall RINO Arlen Specter had a role in the Eichorn farce many years ago when Ira was given bail and flew the coop.

    In my fantasy world some Charlie Bronson Death Wish type would go about his business icing evil pricks like OJ and other luminaries. Kind of similar to the Eastwood flick Magnum Force whereby rogue cops ice the mobsters of SF set free by the courts. Perhaps one could include a few idiot judges who kiss criminal asses. mccreeps of SF.

    Comment by madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 12/3/2008 @ 9:23 am

  21. Forget it, Jake…

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 12/3/2008 @ 9:33 am

  22. Um, Patterico, is a post like #17 OK by you?

    Juss checking.

    Comment by Da'Shiznit (089453) — 12/3/2008 @ 9:58 am

  23. L.N. Smithee #9 – Wow, I just read the grand jury testimony you linked. That really brings home what a beast this guy was/is.

    Anyone who would do these things to a young girl, under the circumstances she describes, should have an appointment with a pair of scissors.

    Without benefit of Quaaludes.

    Comment by Pious Agnostic (291f9a) — 12/3/2008 @ 10:07 am

  24. max – yes the French finally extradited Ira Einhorn only when Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham agreed not to pursue the death penalty. I believe Paris made Wesley Cook aka Mumia abu Jamal an honorary citizenship.
    I still love Rosemary’s Baby though.

    Comment by Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/3/2008 @ 10:08 am

  25. “I believe Paris made Wesley Cook aka Mumia abu Jamal an honorary citizenship.”

    That is correct. In fact, according to Wikipedia over 25 cities have done so, including Montreal, reminding us that there are a lot of thug-loving “progressive” fascists in this world.

    Comment by pst314 (672ba2) — 12/3/2008 @ 11:10 am

  26. As for Polanski, well, what can you say about the French? And many of today’s “intellectuals” have a secret (or sometimes not so secret) attraction to criminals.

    Comment by pst314 (672ba2) — 12/3/2008 @ 11:12 am

  27. only when Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham agreed not to pursue the death penalty.

    I would make that agreement, and then once I had my hand on him, file a motion to seek the death penalty.

    Cause really, fuck the French…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 12/3/2008 @ 11:13 am

  28. I remember when MAJ killed Faulkner. It was one of the most open and shut cases of murder in Philadelphia history. Even as a ten year old I saw right in front of my face, “Oh they caught the guy right there at the scene.” The fact that that miscreant still breathes and garners the fandom he does is so beyond maddening.

    Comment by Jack Klompus (cf3660) — 12/3/2008 @ 11:13 am

  29. “As for Polanski, well, what can you say about the French?”

    They think Jerry Lewis is a “graaaayte aaahhhrr-teeeeste.” Need I say more?

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/3/2008 @ 11:19 am

  30. 17, Max! You finally recognized the twist of putting Polanski in with Manson. Give the man a cookie!

    Comment by PCD (7fe637) — 12/3/2008 @ 12:14 pm

  31. I am reading the 30-year-old L.A. County Superior Court probation report filed after Polanski’s guilty plea on unlawful intercourse, and found an astonishing detail on page 21. Among character witnesses pleading for leniency for Polanski are Paramount Pictures chief Richard Sylbert (“a very sensitive human being who has had more than his share of tragedy in his life…”) megaproducer Howard W. Koch (“…a man of tremendous integrity…[it could have] happen[ed] to anyone of us…given the chance to redeem himself he will live an exemplary life in the future…”) and this statement from the eye of a coming storm:

    …Roman Polanski and his wife-to-be, Sharon Tate, became important to me as friends. During this period, when my own life was on shaky ground, I turned to them because they were strong and kind. I will always be grateful to them both for their generosity to me during this time…a loyal friend to me, a distinguished director, important to the motion picture industry, a brave and brilliant man, important to all people…

    Those are the words of … “Mia Farrow Previn,” star of Polanski’s classic thriller Rosemary’s Baby, then-wife of symphony conductor Andre Previn, and mother of three children by Previn. About a year after Polanski flew the coop, the Previns adopted an orphaned girl from Korea, 8-year-old Soon-Yi.

    S’what, you say? Fast forward from 1978 to 1992; Mia Farrow has long since divorced Previn, but not before adopting two more daughters from Vietnam. At this time, she is raising a son fathered by her boyfriend, director Woody Allen. Farrow also adopted two more children with Allen, who, by mutual agreement, comes and goes to Farrow’s home from his other Manhattan residence. However, Allen was NOT the father of children adopted by Farrow with Previn, including Soon-Yi, who is by this time a 22-year-old college student still living in Farrow’s home. In that home, Farrow discovered … nude pictures of Soon-Yi taken by … distinguished director Woody Allen. Soon-Yi admitted that she did more than just pose for Allen, and Allen admitted the truth as well.

    Seeing that Allen could at least say in his own defense that Soon-Yi was a legal adult and that the sex was consensual, you might expect someone willing to give Polanski a pass to be moderated in her response to the situation. Well, Farrow’s reaction was more reasonable this time around. She not only threw Soon-Yi out on her raspberries (understandably), she also alleged that Allen had been inappropriate with their adoptive daughter. A court hearing found Farrow’s charges “inconclusive,” but nonetheless found Allen’s conduct with his adoptive daughter “grossly inappropriate,” whatever that means.

    Since we’re discussing the world of celluloid fantasy, I wonder what Mia Farrow circa 1992 would have told Mia Farrow Previn about defending Polanski if she went back to 1977 in Dr. Emmett Brown’s DeLorean time machine from Back To The Future.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 1:30 pm

  32. L.N. Smithee: Very nice job in #28. Kudos.

    Comment by Old Coot (a8acc7) — 12/3/2008 @ 2:23 pm

  33. Woody Allen is just fucked up. Soon Yi was not that hot.

    I denounce myself.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/3/2008 @ 2:57 pm

  34. 30. Figure Allen is rich old geezer and could get hotter chicks. I never thought Farrow was a babe. I guess Previn, Allen and Sinatra disagreed. Soon Yi is not a Mira Sorvino, who I think won an Oscar working for Allen. Of course Tarantino was doing her and I don’t see him as a great hunk either. And Lennon adored his own homely Asian Yoko.

    Thought Polanski was somewhat amusing in Fearless Vampire Killers comedy with Tate. Don’t know why the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would idolize him other than to stick it to US. Jerry Lewis? Who can account for tastes. Deneuve still looks good, but Bardot is butt ugly. Actually I thought Lewis was quite good in one Wiseguy arc as a baddie.
    So why do the krauts worship David Hasseldork?

    Comment by madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 12/3/2008 @ 3:23 pm

  35. Thanks, Old Coot.

    I finished Polanski’s probation officer’s report, and was astonished, because in the end, his recommendations were essentially a heavy fine, cooperation with his probation officer; he could even leave the state on business (i.e. filmmaking). But he had to agree to psychiatric treatment and to never be alone with a minor.

    Which of these conditions was untenable to Polanski?

    If one believes what one Polanski biographer wrote about his relationship with then 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski, the star of his 1979 film Tess and world-famous for this Richard Avedon photograph (probably NSFW), I think you can make a pretty good guess.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 3:24 pm

  36. daleyrocks wrote: Woody Allen is just f*cked up. Soon Yi was not that hot.

    There was always something about Allen that gave me the willies. He’s a short, sad-looking runt with bad hair and a whiny voice, but always wrote himself into stories in which he’s getting boinked by chicks out of his class, like he was Burt Reynolds or something.

    To me, the most disgusting thing about the Woody-Soon-Yi situation is that after all the well-publicized facts about Allen’s dalliance with the adoptive daughter of the mother of his only biological child and the subsequent accusation about his own adopted daughter, the state of New York allowed Allen and Soon-Yi to adopt two girls of their own.

    How sick is that?!

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 3:34 pm

  37. madmax333 wrote: Did they finally extradite stone killer Eichorn? As I recall RINO Arlen Specter had a role in the Eichorn farce many years ago when Ira was given bail and flew the coop.

    You are correct. Details here.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 3:42 pm

  38. You guys are being too hard on Mr Polanski.I recall him complaining of the publicity about a “13 yo girl” when she was only 3 weeks away from her 14 th birthday.You can’t make stuff like this up

    Comment by corwin (f4764c) — 12/3/2008 @ 5:01 pm

  39. Rape is an ugly vile word which causes in most people an immediate visceral reaction. Unlawful intercourse, not so much. No sense of moral outrage attached to it, far less consideration of the egregious violation involved. Neuter some words and the impact of meaning becomes less. Polanski raped a minor female. And that will never change, no matter in France or in America.

    Comment by Dana (79a78b) — 12/3/2008 @ 5:25 pm

  40. “How sick is that?!”

    LN – The liberal illuminati move in strange and mysterious ways. Notice they do not try to campaign on platforms of family values. The sustained laughter would drown out the speeches.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/3/2008 @ 5:34 pm

  41. The Woody Allen and Roman Polanski cases are not equivalent. Let me elucidate.

    Polanski was sexually aggressive, ignored his victim’s wishes, and used his age and position of authority to get his way. Classic rape. The girl had no real say in the matter. Even had she been sober, she would have had no say in the matter.

    Soon-yi was of legal age. Older men and younger women fall in love all the time. As do older women and younger men. It was all consensual. The most important difference? Allen respected Soon-yi’s wishes. To him Soon-yi was a person, with feelings that had to be considered. For Roman Polanski his victim was an object to be used. That is the mark of a sexual predator, regardless of the age of his victim.

    Mia Farrow’s problem was never with Woody Allen’s relationship with Soon-yi, it was with her husband’s betrayal of her. Woody Allen cheated on his wife, and women in such situations get vicious. Mia got vicious, and fought dirty. Accusing a philandering husband of child molestation is par for the course in divorce proceeding.

    I’m listening to a local morning radio show today. Today they replayed a listener call from a regular bit known as Lash Wednesday. Listeners call up and confess to various ‘misdeeds’. In this ‘repeat’ from years ago the caller, a married man, told of his sexual encounter with his wife’s mother before their marriage. The wife was a fan of the show. The wife was listening that day. The husband was given 5 minutes to vacate their house, or forfeit his life. Yes, the ladies go nuclear over cheating.

    When you get right down to it, Woody Allen cheated on his then wife. Roman Polanski raped a child. Woody’s behavior was ill considered and impulsive. Roman’s behavior was also ill considered and impulsive. It was also criminal. That, when you get down to it, is what makes Roman Polanski’s behavior so much worse, and so much more deserving of lifetime condemnation.

    Comment by Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/3/2008 @ 6:36 pm

  42. Alan Kellogg wrote: The Woody Allen and Roman Polanski cases are not equivalent. Let me elucidate.

    You don’t need to. I never said they were equivalent.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee (18f3fd) — 12/3/2008 @ 7:05 pm

  43. Alan Kellogg….

    Is there some way to show us that Woody Allen did not have a relationship with Soon Yi earlier in their existance together???

    If Mia had questions about the other adopted children and Allen, she may have been vindictive, or she may have been right….

    Comment by reff (556669) — 12/3/2008 @ 8:05 pm

  44. Alan, the way you explained it makes sex with an adopted daughter just so much more acceptable. Thanks for that!

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/3/2008 @ 8:55 pm

  45. With all due respect to Mr. Kellogg, I used to live in San Diego, and listened regularly to the long running “Dave, Shelly, and the Chainsaw” radio program which featured “Lash Wednesday.”

    I knew the producers. They would often encourage people to make up juicy and outrageous stories for “Lash Wednesday.”

    Trust me—if the described event had actually occurred, what radio station would put themselves at legal risk for repeating it, let alone running it the first place? After all, the wife “threatened” the life of the husband on the air.

    It was a schtick.

    It’s like people who think that the way to understand history or politics is by watching movies. A profoundly silly idea—and the past election has made this point very clear, by showing that the MSM has absolutely no compunctions about hiding the defects of one candidate while exaggerating (or even making up vile stories about) another candidate.

    Why would movies be any more reliable than the LA TIMES when it comes to fact?

    Or perhaps I could rely on American International Pictures’ movies about sociology (The Wild Angels), palentology (Monster From a Prehistoric Planet), opthamology (The Man With X-Ray Eyes), or even pre-Civil war history (The Terror). I mean, if I can rely on movies.

    Note: I actually enjoy Roger Corman films. But I don’t think that they expand my knowledge of reality, nor are they a source of historical accuracy. Films are meant to be…dramatic. Not factual.

    No, it is the usual pattern: do the politics matter more than the facts? Feelings more than facts? For many voters, the answer is yes. Yet those same voters deplore it when the “other side” votes from their gut!

    It would be different if we actually taught history in school. But we don’t, sadly. “History…is bunk,” as Our Ford is reputed to have stated in Huxley’s “Brave New World.”

    Sad.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/3/2008 @ 9:59 pm

  46. Eric, #45

    I listened to the bit yesterday morning. The woman was pissed. People do stupid things. Not everybody needs encouragement to relate outrageous stories. You relate how DSC producers supposedly push for wild stories, but give no evidence any one at KGB FM did so in this case. As a matter of fact your conclusion that callers have been urged to by producers to lie in order to win a prize. If you can prove that, you can put KGB and Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw in a ton of trouble.

    BTW, have you considered the possibility those unnamed producers lied to you?

    Comment by Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/4/2008 @ 7:23 pm

  47. Reff, #43

    Do you have any evidence showing that Woody Allen had relations with Soon-yi earlier in their lives together?

    Comment by Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/4/2008 @ 7:25 pm

  48. daleyrocks, #44

    Was Soon-yi ever an adopted daughter of Woody Allen, instead of a step daughter?

    Comment by Alan Kellogg (e4d258) — 12/4/2008 @ 7:27 pm

  49. “Was Soon-yi ever an adopted daughter of Woody Allen, instead of a step daughter?”

    Alan – Actually neither, since Mia and Woody never married. They did, however adopt two children together and have one biological child together. Woody and Mia had been an item for 12 years before his relationship with Soon Yi was outed. That she was of legal age at that point and it was consenual really makes just fine, doesn’t Alan? I wonder if she called him daddy, you sick fuck.

    Comment by daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 12/4/2008 @ 9:35 pm

  50. Alan….I know you are just trying to troll around.

    Many years ago, when they were on KGB and called “The Dawn Patrol,” I was a acquaintance of Dave Rickards and Shelly Dunn. You? One of their producers at the time, Blair Shultz, was a good friend of mine.

    I used to visit the KGB studio pretty often. You? Rickards used to joke about “Lash Wednesday” (and I quote) “…bringing out the sickest actors around.” It was great for ratings, he said. And it was interesting to hear what happened in the studio while commercials were on the air.

    Since I know that many of their bits were faked, and intentionally so (you also knew that they did April Fools Hoaxes every year, including a well publicized one claiming that the space shuttle was landing at a local airfriend in Kearney Mesa?), please forgive me for not buying into the outrage.

    DSC are shock jocks, and do quite well at it.

    But I guess your own expertise on telephone voices is….well….expert? After all, to you, the woman sounded like she was so angry.

    I suppose you think all the Jerry Springer acts are real, too? Howard Stern’s?

    Oh, my.

    Comment by Eric Blair (8f93a0) — 12/4/2008 @ 10:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2833 secs.