Patterico's Pontifications

9/30/2009

Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:28 pm

The man who is organizing a petition for a guy who anally raped a 13-year-old weighs in on the astounding morals of Hollywood:

[Movie Mogul Harvey] Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said.

“Hollywood has the best moral compass.” Folks, I couldn’t make that up if you paid me.

Jack Dunphy nails it at NRO:

So it has come to this: Drugging and raping a 13-year-old is now a “so-called crime,” for which artistic talent, the approbation of peers, and the passage of time can coalesce to earn the rapist immunity from official sanction, if indeed any was called for in the first place.

“Whatever you think about the so-called crime, [Roman] Polanski has served his time,” says film producer Harvey Weinstein in The Independent. His piece is notable not only for its moral obtuseness but also for its sickeningly unctuous tone. “I was with him the day he won the Legion of Honour in France,” writes Weinstein, “which was a spectacular day. I remember the incredible love and affection that people have for him.”

He makes great movies, so why not let him drug and sodomize a scared child? After all, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs . . . or make mediocre movies without anally raping drunk and drugged 13-year-olds.

Here’s Allahpundit at Twitter:

Word on the street: Polanski’s next film is so good, Europe’s going to let him bang an eight-year-old. It’s THAT GOOD.

Heh.

I think it’s time for the disclaimer.

96 Responses to “Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass”

  1. I just wish Hollywood would stop legislating its morality.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  2. Allahpundit has been uneven in recent months, to the point that I can’t figure out where he thinks he’s coming from.

    But that’s is the old Allahpundit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said.

    Ha! That just about sums up why the left is so damn idiotic, because, as the saying goes, the road to hell — which liberals just love traveling on over and over again — is paved with good intentions. Those intentions being in the form of self-described, self-aware compassion (or “compassion”), albeit hollow, deluded, narcissistic and just plain phony.

    Mark (411533)

  4. Wow. Weinstein actually using the word “compassion” and he doesn’t burst into sulfur-smelling flames?

    The family of Sydney Pollock might be a good source to discuss Mr. Weinstein’s sense of compassion:

    http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/harvey-weinsteins-offer-i-cant-refuse/

    I’m no fan of Nikki Fink (long story), but her article is but one example of Weinstein’s “what I say is more important than what I do” mentality.

    To be sure, the older fellow has married a young fashion model, which might be unseemly, given his defense of Polanski. But she was in her twenties when she married him—not 13, drugged, and raped by definition.

    Again, the words “Weinstein” and “compassion” being together are like (to quote Orson Scott Card) “bicycle sex” or “vegetable athletics.” They do not belong together.

    But why am I not surprised?

    Eric Blair (184ac1)

  5. Ah, yes, that moral compass that has marriage contracts with seemingly built-in expiration dates. That moral compass that has 8 marriages and 8 divorces. That moral compass that is well-known for “casting couches.” That moral compass that is well-known for intentionally casting Christians in a bad light (ever seen a Christian-type person in a 1970s or later movie that wasn’t pathological?) That moral compass that makes movies advocating the assassination of a sitting President.

    That moral compass is oh-so-much-better than the moral compass of us rubes in Sticksville, Ohio.

    Quite frankly, sir, your moral compass has long ago stopped pointing to the immovable true North. It has been more of a flywheel than a compass for likely 40 years. And, sir, your crowd was well-known for being social deviants for decades prior. You, sir, have no idea what it means to be moral, so step off your soap-box, get some soap out of it, and take the first shower you’ve ever had in your moral life.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  6. That moral compass that is well-known for intentionally casting Christians in a bad light (ever seen a Christian-type person in a 1970s or later movie that wasn’t pathological?)
    Comment by John Hitchcock — 10/1/2009 @ 12:04 am

    “Facing the Giants” and “Fireproof”

    Stashiu3 (8cadeb)

  7. Weinstein better start worrying about his financial compass, because without that in hollywood, nobody cares about the moral one.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  8. If a compass always points at compassion, it’s not a compass, it’s a habit.

    Sometimes it’s hard to blame people. Always being compassionate might be one lazy way around lacking a moral compass. Always feeling sorry for the bad guy.

    Do you blame the hoodlum in Compton who sells drugs? Or the cop killer who didn’t have parents and grew up poor? Or the man who kills his cheating wife?

    If you can’t find them personally responsible because of your compassion, then you are confused about morality.

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  9. […] original post here: Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass Posted in Hollywood Movies | Tags: a-petition-for, a-scared-child, astounding, best-moral, […]

    Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass | HOLLYWOOD (cd5c83)

  10. Stash, I have to admit I have never even heard of those movies.

    I have repeatedly watched “Juno” and have enjoyed that movie. There is a brief reference to “one of our kind” that may or may not have had an issue with a thing or two, but it is otherwise non-religious. That is, until you get to the part of the DVD that has the deleted scenes. And, boy, I’m glad they deleted the extremely racist, horribly non-Christian devout Christian scene. Had they kept that scene, I would have watched the movie to that (extremely early) point and turned it off, never to watch it again.

    That deleted scene, and the remake of “Cape Fear” or “Fear” or somesuch thing, where the villian is recast into a fanatical evil Christian (complete with a full-back fake christian (lower-case on purpose) tattoo) are permanent visions in my mind’s eye of treatment of Christians.

    From the modern-day movies I’ve seen where people are actually depicted as Christians, they are either fully evil or fully psychologically castrated. A couple Christian movies of note are the two ChronNarn movies, but the Christianity is not actually shown, and I don’t think the Director actually took CS Lewis’ Christian theme into account.

    I will (legal term escapes me at this time) accept your cites as accurate. But I consider them outliers. Or, as exceptions that prove the rule. 😉

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  11. John, Fireproof is a movie made by an evangelical church to evangelize Christianity. They specifically are trying to fight against the way Christians are portrayed in film, btw.

    It sure as hell ain’t from Hollywood.

    Facing the Giants is made by the same group, but the actors were not professional… actually they were all members of the church, with the leading man being the preacher of that church. They are ministries… not money makers.

    They are also not examples of cinematic excellence. I don’t advise watching them unless you’re specifically looking for a Christian movie.

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  12. Dustin,

    I disagree… strongly. Loved both movies and I’m not an evangelical by any means. One is an underdog movie and the other a love story. Both have strong Christian themes, but the stories are good. Granted, the acting is not as “polished” as your typical Hollywood film. That’s a feature to me, not a bug. Regular folks telling a story they believe in.

    Of course, I liked “High School Musical” and the first sequel, so…. 😉

    Stashiu3 (8cadeb)

  13. “A Thief In The Night” was definitely not Hollyweird, and definitely not a cinematic masterpiece, but I would definitely challenge everyone to watch it. Sure could learn a thing or three about moral compasses (and Christianity, of course).

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  14. “High School Musical” was definitely good. But that isn’t persacktically Hollyweird.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  15. Stash, there’s no accounting for taste.

    If you enjoyed those films, it wasn’t because it was expertly directed or acted or written. Sure, you can still enjoy it if you don’t mind that. It’s certainly a change of pace from traditional films.

    I think they are really hard to watch, but I’m glad they were successful.

    Anyway, my point wasn’t to diss the humble movies, but to point out that these are not examples of Hollywood.

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  16. Wait a minute. Is “Facing the Giants” a football movie where there’s a scene with some kid carrying another kid on his back while blindfolded (or somesuch thing) down the length of the football field? If that’s the same movie, I’ve seen it. It was definitely good. And it definitely was not a Hollyweird movie.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  17. Dustin,

    No worries, and I revel in not having taste. We were discussing the idea of a moral compass and both movies are good examples. They don’t deserve Oscars. They do make me feel good and want to be a better person. I would submit they succeeded at what they aimed to achieve.

    Stashiu3 (8cadeb)

  18. Yes John, that’s the one. :)

    Stashiu3 (8cadeb)

  19. Ah yes, the that-piece-of-shit-is-a-human-too defense.

    Icy Texan (43c637)

  20. I would submit they succeeded at what they aimed to achieve.

    Well, what was that? I would snark about the soft bigotry of low expectations, but I don’t see how a movie like those two could have gotten the funding they needed to compete with The Pianist. Fireproof really wasn’t bad or anything… it’s better than most of the SyFy movies, for example.

    It amazing to me that this country is so overwhemlingly Christian and we don’t see highly funded movies preying on this market. Anyway, I am a snob about it.

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  21. John, Fireproof is definitely better, or less bad (j/k), than the football movie. It has Kirk Cameron in it. Seek it out, because it’s probably unusual.

    I also was unable to finish the Left Behind book. I found it so badly written and inconsistent. The characters were just plain wrong. I would love to give these products a pass because Hollywood is full of losers, but man… throw me a bone!

    Dustin (0bdb72)

  22. I never read any of the “Left Behind” books but my daughter loved them. “A Thief In The Night” is very 1960s and very not Hollyweird. But I strongly suggest everyone watch that movie. The Fishmarket Ensemble song is scary-good. But then, I’m an evangelical-type Christian (read “true” Christian with (no sense of decorum)).

    As far as Hollyweird and moral compass goes, there’s a reason so many have heard and agree with the name change…

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  23. bleh, secondary parenthetical opened a word late

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  24. Ah yes, the that-piece-of-shit-is-a-human-too defense.

    Comment by Icy Texan — 10/1/2009 @ 1:24 am

    If someone actually wants to use that defense, it might help if the person actually behaved like, you know, a human.

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  25. Please remove this offensive, horrible joke from this post (the one Allahpundit wrote).

    You’ve done wonderful reporting on this issue Patterico; don’t blow it by making crude jokes about the rape of 8 year old girls.

    Your site is not Ace of Spades, where one can expect that sort of crude rape humor.

    You undercut your credibility by allowing such jokes to appear on your page.

    someguy (79ea5f)

  26. someguy, Patterico in no way undercuts his credibility by adding that piece of satire, and I don’t read it as a joke, but a pointed statement of the disgusting position any who want Polanski released and held unpunishable for his actions hold.

    So, no, I wholeheartedly reject your position that Patterico should stop shining the light on the moral depravity of the child-rape-supporters in a big way. And that’s what your position is, when boiled down.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  27. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, perhaps we should refer to Harvey Weinstein and all the other Roman Polanski supporters as:

    “The noted child rape enabler harvey Weinstein”.

    Roman himself could be:

    “Oscar winning driector and noted child rapist Roman Polanski”.

    I would ask what the hell is wrong with these people to excuse shuch behavior, but what’s the point?

    Dr. K (eca563)

  28. “… Patterico in no way undercuts his credibility by adding that piece of satire, and I don’t read it as a joke …”

    How could you read it as anything other than a joke when Patterico himself adds his commentary:

    “Heh.”

    He clearly thought it was a funny joke, this comment about “banging” 8-year-olds.

    It’s demeaning and doesn’t belong on this website. It’s quite too soon for kiddie rape jokes, don’t you think?

    It undercuts his credibility and lowers what has been here a sensible and reasoned debate into the gutter.

    He should remove it.
    It’s offensive.

    someguy (79ea5f)

  29. someguy – Learn the difference between laughing at a joke and acknowledging that satire has a bite because of a “ring of truth that hits too close to the bone”. I guess that’s too nuanced for you.

    And, it’s not as offensive as the premise that the noted child rape enabler harvey Weinstein et. al. think that Oscar winning driector and noted child rapist Roman Polanski should “let bygones be bygones”.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  30. Maybe Weinstein would get it if somebody made a snuff movie where Polanski was killed by an angry father of a 12 year old girl he drugged and raped.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  31. “Learn the difference between laughing at a joke and acknowledging that satire has a bite because of a “ring of truth that hits too close to the bone”. I guess that’s too nuanced for you.”

    Really? Appeals to “nuance”? Claims of “satire?” What is this the DailyKos?

    You sound a lot like like John Kerry defending Nancy Pelosi.

    The crack about banging an 8-year-old is a thinly disguised joke based on a running gag at Ace of Spades (ace.mu.nu) where AllahPundit also posts.

    It’s in extremely poor taste that Patterico laughs at in his aside comment. It’s not “satire” and it’s not “nuanced.”

    It’s pathetic and offensive and has no place here and it demeans this fine blog and cheapens the author.

    It’s a mistake that Patterico’s philosophical opponents are likely going to seize on and it should be removed post haste.

    First rule of holes, dude: Stop digging.

    someguy (79ea5f)

  32. So “a thinly disguised joke” is now equivalent to “shamlessly endorsing the exact same behavior”?

    Yes, please take your own advice. Stop digging.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  33. Have any of these Hollywood liberals ever given a pass to a Catholic priest who has had anal sex with a 13 year old alter boy? After all the priest has done good.

    Polanski not only did good in the years he was on the lam, he did well!

    Corky Boyd (4e8f68)

  34. someguy – I am not sure it is possible to miss the point of that more completely than you have.

    Patterico’s quote from allahpundit perfectly encapsulates the amorality exemplified by the likes of Weinstein.

    JD (b5a4c1)

  35. Told ya. It was too nuanced.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  36. A long time ago, Thaddeus Stevens said something pretty close to this, “there is a strange sentiment, some call it mercy, … that has more sympathy for the murderer on the gallows than for his victim.” And bear in mind, Stevens himself was opposed to the death penalty, but he had enough moral clarity to recognize where his primary sympathy should lie.

    I think that view he was denouncing is alive and well today, particularly among the left. Its sort of a shallow sympathy, a myopic kind of sympathy, where the only suffering they can think of is the suffering right in front of them. Oh poor Roman, he couldn’t pick up his Oscar. Oh, poor Roman! He is in jail now. He’s there in the front of their mind and they can’t get it through their minds that there was a 13 year old girl that he abused, or that there are a lot of rumors that he had other girls.

    For instance, you know what would change this debate 100%? If there was footage of the act, and it was shoved in their faces. But because it was a long time ago, because it is “sordid” and so they turn away from the act itself, because all of it is in that boring “text” format and not alive in color before them, they don’t see the crime. They just see the criminal being punished, and somehow they can’t remember that there is a reason why this is happening.

    And they can’t see the other victims that are being saved, either by keeping Mr. Pulanski specifically away from little girls, or simply by deterring others.

    And to the extent the victim exists in their minds, she is there forgiving him. And that creates the narrative that the left wants to tell of rehabilitation without all that messy prison time, and so on. Really bluntly, however awfully he treated her, at 40-something I think most people would have found some kind of forgiveness in their heart.

    And bluntly I think that myopic view afflicts the left on a lot of issues these days. On smoking, they see the guy with lung cancer, but not the young smoker declaring that yeah, he knows it will shorten his life, but he just likes how cigs makes him feel. On gun control, they see the victim of a shooting and think “if only their shooter didn’t have a gun” but they don’t see the abused woman who could never win in hand-to-hand combat buying a gun and defending herself—often without even firing a shot. on immigration, they see the poor migrant who just wants to feed his family, and become an American. They don’t see the Americans displaced by them, or the way that their “compassion” is actually contributing to their misery.

    And in the particular case of a celebrity, the many sides of this person are front and center. In the case of actors and the like, you feel like you know this person, that they almost like friends with you. So when they are accused of the crime, you feel like its your friend accused. And when you talk about someone behind the scenes, all the good feelings you have associated with his work becomes associated with him.

    So that is my big insight, fwiw.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  37. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion,” Weinstein said.

    Is that the Harvey Weinstein whose movie (executive director) “Youth in Revolt” is about 14yo’s trying to lose their virginity, or at least the boy is. Maybe the girl needs to get drunk and drugged up to do so. We’ll have to wait until it’s released in January 2009 to find out for sure.

    Dusty (7bba43)

  38. Just as I want nothing to do with scum who rape 13 year old girls, I want nothing to do with those who defend the scum who rape 13 year old girls.

    And I’m not a big fan of those who say they’re condemning the scum who defend the scum who rape 13 year old girls but still go see the movies the scum produce, the TV shows they’re on, buy their records and so on.

    The only reason the Weinsteins and the Whoopi Goldbergs say the things they do is because they know the public won’t hold them accountable. They know you all will come up with some rationalization to justify your going to see their movies. Every person who goes to see A Weinstein movie puts money in the pocket of someone who defends the scum who rapes 13 year old girls. And every person who went to see ‘The Pianist’… “Daddy, what did you do last night? Oh, I put money in the pocket of someone who raped a girl just like you, dear“.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  39. January 2009 to find out for sure.

    Comment by Dusty — 10/1/2009 @ 6:06 am

    D’oh. It’s getting to that time of the year for me … the movie is to be released in Jan 2010 according to BoxOfficeMojo.

    Dusty (7bba43)

  40. it’s a sick, sad world.
    i don’t believe justice can be served, because i don’t think my idea of “justice” in this instance is deemed legal. but i do hope that in some small way, polanski has to face some consequences (even if they are not truly adequate) for being the criminal he is.

    editor (ab0f13)

  41. I would suggest letting him go on the original sentence (it was only 48 days after all). Just have him serve the time for fleeing the country (which is itself a crime) to avoid serving the time for which he was sentenced as a result of his guilty plea (actually the plea bargain). I have read that the law in California is 5 – 10 years for that crime. I suppose that 10 years is acceptable, though I would prefer that he have to serve 1 day for every day that he was a fugitive (32 years).

    sabbahillel (e496c0)

  42. Dennis Miller claimed (last night on O’Reilly, which I only watch occ. as a diversion) that he thinks there is so much support of Polanski because people don’t realize the facts, that “if they only read the testimony they wouldn’t be sticking up for him”.

    Might be true in part, but if they were interested in “doing the right thing” they would make it a point to find out the truth before throwing their weight in on it.

    Hard to read, but shows the rationale for our host making available the facts.

    MD in Philly (d4f9fa)

  43. @JD and Dr. K

    No nuance is required. It’s a gag in poor taste. Clearly, you folks cannot discern that and so you resort to excuses (satire, nuance) and name-calling (“too stupid to understand nuance”). Which is typical lefty Alinsky demonizing better left to Kos and the DemocratUnderground where children play grownup.

    Here’s the thread at Ace of Spades where all the rest of AllahPundit’s running gag is. Commenters there think it’s a hoot!

    Notice the last line of the post where Ace terms the jokes a “gag.” Just a gag.

    “So that’s the gag.” – Ace

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/292988.php

    I think its sick and inappropriate at this website, but of course you’re free to claim its all nuanced and funny and all satirical if that’s what gets you to sleep at night.

    I’m sure readers here are smart enough to judge for themselves.

    someguy (79ea5f)

  44. Never claimed it was funny. Only claimed that it was nuanced. And it’s true, you are too dumb to understand it.

    People who claim “moral clarity” are sticking up for Oscar winning driector and noted child rapist Roman Polanski. They would reward his next boffo film by allowing him a greater perversion (allowing him to rape an 8 year old).

    That is no joke. That simply questions at what point are the people with the “superior moral compass” willing to say: Enopugh is enough?

    It’s not humor; it’s not funny. It was not meant to be. It’s an indictment of the prevailing attitude of “Those who are smarter than you ™”.

    Dr. K (eca563)

  45. In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing.

    Didn’t Polanski flee before sentencing?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  46. “I’m sure readers here are smart enough to judge for themselves.”

    [Comment by someguy — 10/1/2009 @ 6:50 am]

    Thank you for that. It’s sarcasm, fully loaded with invective. I think it is entirely appropriate given the motive and province.

    Dusty (7bba43)

  47. Not only is that quote an exemplar of the corroded thinking, it does have a bit of dark humor to it. Heh. We may need to upgrade the old saying of dummerer than a sack of andrews …

    JD (b537f4)

  48. Let’s take a poll of the reaqders that you sneer at, someguy. How many here think someguy is a pompous condescending arrogant person lacking the ability to discern both humor and biting commentary? A simple show of hands will suffice. Or, how many of you think that you are evil and depraved and this “joke” will be the downfall of humanity, if not the universe itself?

    JD (b537f4)

  49. I think someguy is a Polanski defender trying to mess up the thread. It’s a big internet, someguy. Go click to a site more sensitive to your sensibilities. After you’ve done crying to your mommy what a big meanie Patterico is and she has given you a big hug and a cookie.

    nk (df76d4)

  50. Apparently I’m evil and depraved because I understood the “joke” to be not a joke but a sarcastic comment on those in Hollywood who think someome who is artistic should be forgiven just about anything. So, I guess, if his next film is better than before, we can excuse more nefarious behavior on Polanski’s part. This time, it’s not for the children, as most liberals maintain, it’s for the art.

    Rochf (ae9c58)

  51. Show of hands, please!

    If we were to nuke Hollywood from orbit (with a little conventional cruise missile for Miramax’s offices in New York,) how many of you would be sad?

    OK, just raise your hands … anyone? … Bueller?

    Thought not.

    BJTexs (a2cb5a)

  52. Perhaps if Hollywood shared its ‘accrued deviancy credit system’ with the rest of us the Polanski thing would make more sense.

    For example, I don’t know Jim Carrey, but after the Ace Ventura movies he could be framed for jaywalking and it would be OK. But then he did The Truman Show. Now, he should be able to murder as many hobos as he wants.

    It’s that simple.

    Travis D (b48e94)

  53. Wow, Can’t wait till they make Sleeping Beauty 2, and the dwarfs drug her and violate her. Ought to be a big box office seller since Hollywood is so in tune with the moral compass of America. Hey maybe the evil Stepmother was drugged and violated as a child, so maybe we can now understand her compassionately and approve of her evilness. These guys in Hollywood are nuts.

    daddy (df3d62)

  54. The gag at Ace of Spades was a satire on Hollywood’s defense of Polanski. They were coming up with various crimes that actors and artists should be allowed to get away with based on their body of work:

    Vince Vaughan: murder
    Matthew McConaughey: shoplifting a Mars bar
    Tom Cruise: jaywalking on a suburban street
    Vin Diesel: transporting live plants across state lines.

    Etc. I thought it was pretty funny.

    rsrobinson (dee21b)

  55. Wait, is “compassion” defined these days as using the apparatus of the State to take money from Jones to give to Smith? By the same logic, I could see a hobo on the sidewalk and, in a fit of compassionate fervor, pull out my six-shooter and demand that a passerby give him ten bucks. The virtuous deed done, I could then proceed on my way, knowing I was among the morally superior.

    Jeffersonian (5363b6)

  56. Black humor is most certainly not the same as condoning an act, especially when it mocks the position that supports the act. The “gag” may be a little more course than some people want to deal with, but that line, dripping in sarcasm, does more to condemn and highlight the depravity of Hollywood than any outragey outrage I’ve seen spouted yet.

    Chris (b61982)

  57. Weinstein forgot to mention that Hollywood “compassion” is selective. Of course the preening members of Hollywood’s artistic elite will be making those selections.

    Compassion for a successful director who violated a 13 year old girl, jumped bail, and lived in abject misery in a villa in the South of France for 37 years?

    DING!

    Compassion for a 13 year old girl horribly violated and traumatized and her mother who has probably lived with serial regret for many years?

    BZZZT!

    It’s all about the selection criteria, people, especially when your artistic betters make ’em.

    Now STFU!

    BJTexs (a2cb5a)

  58. The funny thing is , the judge and current prosecutor were prepared to let time served be all. But he still refused to come to the US.

    Maybe he has served his time, but that’s for the justice system to decide. He refuses to submit to it.

    plutosdad (f6ea2f)

  59. Why all the emphasis on anal rape? This aspect continues to be raised as if Polanski didn’t rape her through regular intercourse as well. Is that why Whoopi didn’t think it was “rape rape?”

    However, Polanski did rape her with regular intercourse. I would consider this more serious than anal rape as it could impregnate the victim. Am I in a minority with this belief?

    George (d57b1d)

  60. I am so so sure that Hollywood and the media would use the same excuse, great actor/director excuses rape that happened x years ago, if that actor/director were, say Charlton Heston or Mel Gibson. Yeah, right.

    Roman Polanski may have had a hard upbringing, but so did Pope John Paul II, and many others who didn’t assuage their memories by blotting out the memory of a thirteen year old girl before sodomizing her after she had protested numerous times to the pervert. If he cannot be imprisoned for a long time on the sodomy charge, he should certainly receive a long sentence on absconding from justice. And for a hollywood ending these 100 petitioners could make a MOVIE about it! Art imitating life. What a concept.

    As for Hollywood’s great moral compass, it sure it, but somehow it always points to the sewer. Why is that?

    eaglewingz08 (1e4d33)

  61. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion.”…

    You couldn’t make it up if you wanted to.

    Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein: “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion.”

    And I am a tall, blue-eyed blond of Nordic descent who fills my days with aimless shopping, knitt…

    The New Editor (ae9f0a)

  62. “Hollywood has the best moral compass.”

    To paraphrase Mark Twain, why does God let people like this exist, with lightning so cheap?

    Occam's Beard (63c941)

  63. There is one line in the Times story that nailed the actual reason behind most of the Hollywood reaction to this issue. Melissa Silverstein says that “I think people are afraid to talk in Hollywood. They are afraid about their next job.” Do you think the actor or writer who speaks up honestly about this matter is going to get to work on the next Allen or Weinstein or Polansky film?

    Roscoe (c63744)

  64. The gag at Ace of Spades was a satire on Hollywood’s defense of Polanski. They were coming up with various crimes that actors and artists should be allowed to get away with based on their body of work:

    Vince Vaughan: murder
    Matthew McConaughey: shoplifting a Mars bar
    Tom Cruise: jaywalking on a suburban street
    Vin Diesel: transporting live plants across state lines.

    Etc. I thought it was pretty funny.

    Comment by rsrobinson — 10/1/2009 @ 8:48 am

    I do recommend that one – and yes, it was satire satire, not just satire.

    Matthew Broderick: Statute of limitations over for “Ferris Beuller’s Day Off”. May tear tag off mattress.

    That was my fave from the thread (at the point I read it). LOL

    no one you know (7a9144)

  65. There is a term for this:

    Self-righteousness.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  66. If Hollywood is the nation’s moral compass, it finally explains the mess we’re in. These people literally have no concept of right and wrong. Every one of the people who signed the petition to free Roman Polanski are despicable human beings, including some of my heretofore favorite actors and actresses.

    Come to think of it, that’s probably why I almost never watch TV or see a movie these days. They make me want to throw up.

    nancy (3fa26e)

  67. “There is a term for this:

    Self-righteousness.

    Comment by Amphipoli”

    Lord. Be specific. term for WHAT?

    And yes, the joke is a wicked shot at those who ignore the rape and want the Great Director set free. Devastating really. Take’s a weird mind to think it is a joke about raping a 8 year old.

    buzz (06033c)

  68. […] as Patterico puts it, “He makes great movies, so why not let him drug and sodomize a scared child? After all, you […]

    Hollywood Pouts Because We Won’t Applaud It (9cf8b6)

  69. George — 10/1/2009 @ 9:19 am

    Because the perversion on top of all the other perversions, plus it can cause permanent damage. Same way that raping someone with a large object would be worth emphasizing.

    The pervert violated her in every way possible without her cooperation– and a lot of Hollywierd SOBs want to act like it was “only” a matter of under-aged sex.

    Foxfier (97deae)

  70. eaglewingz08 — 10/1/2009 @ 9:24 am
    -The Anchoress did a compare/contrast between the pervert and the Pope.

    someguy-
    you better avoid more subtle writing, like the classic “A Modest Proposal”, or your outrage may destroy you.

    Foxfier (97deae)

  71. Maybe she would have objected more if he hadn’t already fed her a quaalude. For that alone he should get his head whacked with a sledgehammer.

    bandit (36701c)

  72. Bandit, lower your aim on Polanski. Say about 5 inches below the belt where it will hurt for a very long time.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  73. Speaking of disclaimers, how about: “No children were raped in the making of this film.”

    Sterling (b3a297)

  74. Hey Mr Whinestein:
    Celebrities only do what they can get credit for! They do things in public that they would never do if someone wasn’t watching! This is not a ‘moral compass’, it is self-promotion. All of the wealthy celebretards could have just given sacrificial amounts of money to those causes, but noooooo, you do a ‘telethon’ and WE send in the money like good little sheep. Compassion is not a indicator of morality, it is a weak attempt to paint yourself in a positive light as if to say “Hey look! We don’t judge anyone (with the exception of those we disagree with or happen to actually have morals) so we are compassionate” Huh? This is the height of stupidity! These greedy, evil people are sickening to the rest of us and yet, we keep putting our money in their pockets!! I will no longer see any movie that isn’t put out by someone I can support. Someone mentioned “Fireproof” and “Facing the Giants”…..Yep! That’s the kind of entertainment I am going to pay for from now on! I’m so done with Hollyfreaks and their corrupt political buddies!!!! Stick the fork in….yep! I’m done!

    flyright (426dca)

  75. The only HOllywood TYPES who came here after Katrina, did it so they could pose with a crying and devastated person, in front of their home, which had been destroyed. They put on a sad face, took the pic, got in their limousine and left. I don’t recall one single celebrity and I was smack dab in Ms where the Hurricane hit, getting dirty. I lost my home. NO “star” offered to help us. Photo ops that is all they wanted. Oprah went to New Orleans for the same thing and might have given a few dollars, not much to her, and never visited right next door here in MS, where she was born, where the Hurricane actually struck. They used us for thier own purpose but offered no money and no help to MS. Most of the help went to New Orleans, which as not hit by the Hurricane. They were flooded from broken levies. They went to New Orleans because that is where the Media went. WE didn’t see much media here either. Oh yeah, they cared all right. Give me a break.

    eveh (eb5991)

  76. Harvey Weinstein: “Hollywood Has The Best Moral Compass”…

    Your quote of the day, from the co-founder of Mirimax:
    [Movie Mogul Harvey] Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He’s not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the…

    Ed Driscoll (a3d746)

  77. The Hollywood liberal’s moral compass always points at himself.

    Neal Scroggs (a6f2c0)

  78. The hollywood crowd do not even come close to dealing with reality and their lack of ethics and morals are legendary. Mr. Weinstein needs to meet some non perverts to understand just how out of touch he is, but I do thank Mr. Polanski for being such a pervert, he has allowed the pervert and lunitic crowd to be identified at least the less intelligent of them. The ones that actully have a brain are laying low, and waiting to see if admitting their problems will have a backlash on their careers.

    John (feb155)

  79. That moral compass that is well-known for intentionally casting Christians in a bad light (ever seen a Christian-type person in a 1970s or later movie that wasn’t pathological?

    How about The Omen? Or maybe The Exorcist? I’m just casting about for anything I can think of at the moment, that’s probably the sum total. .

    Dmac (5ddc52)

  80. I thought Hollywood’s moral compass was represented nicely in the Disney Pirates of the Carribean movies. It’s rare, held only by big stars like Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp, and most importantly only points at your biggest desire.

    bonhomme (1f7ba7)

  81. Don’t think that this isn’t the exact same sort of evil rationalizations for evil – a complete contempt for the sanctity of the individual – that goes through a liberal’s mind whenever you hear him prattle about the nobility of making physicians slaves to their patients.

    Grant (5a744b)

  82. “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion”
    – Harvey Weinstein

    Whoever is compassionate to the cruel will end up being cruel to the compassionate.
    – Talmud

    Perhaps if Harvey knew even a smidgen of his own Jewish heritage, he might not be such an ass.

    Bozoer Rebbe (6e42d2)

  83. […] you can stand reading any more about Roman Polanski and Hollywood Elitists, you can start with Patterico, wend your way through the pontifications of our betters and then pause to read this thoughtful […]

    Evil & Formation » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog (f2568a)

  84. […] you can stand reading any more about Roman Polanski and Hollywood Elitists, you can start with Patterico, wend your way through the pontifications of our betters and then pause to read this thoughtful […]

    Evil & Formation » The Anchoress | A First Things Blog (f2568a)

  85. At least one Hollywood chick isn’t afraid to push back against the amoral insanity of her peers:

    Kirstie Alley: “When U wrote “for the record,Polanski copped to unlawful intercourse with a minor (as opposed to rape)…” did u mean we should think that it’s LESSER than RAPE? sorta like asking Jeffrey Daumer if he MURDERED his victims or was just trying to make ZOMBIES out of them as he “copped” to doing..let’s see..43 year old Director Roman Polanski put his ***** in a 13 year old girls ****** and then her ANUS after he gave her drugs and alcohol, while she was telling him to STOP..hmmm that’s a tough one..”as (opposed to rape)..” Have we really gotten so STUPID and TWISTED that we care what the CRIMINAL says he was doing? and do we REALLY think a 45 day stay in jail makes up for RAPING a child? Polanski was afraid he wouldn’t get a FAIR TRIAL? hmmm ISN’T THAT WHAT ALL CRIMINALS SAY? I’m going to go bang my head on the floor..makes more sense than defending a RAPIST.”

    Dana (863a65)

  86. Weinstein’s completely out to lunch on this issue. Polanski was a fugitive, and now he’s caught. Anyone who considers what he did acceptable is depraved.

    -jcr

    John C. Randolph (ab2a89)

  87. Think “Chinatown”:

    I guess Polanksi got to wondering what it was like to push the envelope and have sex with an underage girl – wanting to know, wanting to know……he was nosey, and we know what happens to nosey fellas

    Californio (ca1d97)

  88. I learned more than I wanted to know about Polanski in these discussions, and at this point I’m thinking that maybe we don’t want Switzerland to send him back unless they castrate him first.

    nk (df76d4)

  89. I, for one, want Switzerland to send him back, in the luggage compartments of four jetliners, so he can finish out his jail time.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  90. Chris Rock tells the truth about Hollywood’s moral compass:

    http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/chris-rock/1162633/

    Senso-ring (2a0ad5)

  91. Weinstein keeps getting away with Anti Christian/Catholic films. When will he make an film that attacks his own religion?

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  92. buzz 67:

    What I meant was that Weinstein saying Hollywood has the best moral compass is a great example of self-righteousness.

    Amphipolis (b120ce)

  93. 91, what is Weinstein’s religion? Certainly not Judaism. I think Weinstein is one of these lefties that worship themselves.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  94. Fred Allen once said, “You can take all the sincerity in Hollywood, place it in the navel of a fruit fly and still have room enough for three caraway seeds and a producer’s heart.” I have a suspicion that if he were around today, Allen would have altered the last two words to “Polanski’s heart.”

    Loki1 (88cf88)

  95. Weinstein is on another planet. If he thinks that most ordinary people are behind him on this one he’s obviously totally lost it.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Sarah (712cf5)

  96. […] provoked a rare moment of agreement between conservative and liberal pundits: Polanski’s defenders in the artistic community are a bunch of moral […]

    » Ghost Writer: A Brief Review (710aab)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3464 secs.