Anne Applebaum: Patterico Is “Not Quite As Offensive” As Reader Who Expressed a Wish to Rape Anne Applebaum’s Daughter
Almost as offensive, you see. Just not quite as offensive.
Anne Applebaum today responds to my post noting that she failed to disclose her husband’s official governmental actions on behalf of Roman Polanski. She prefaces her response to me by nutpicking a comment from some random guy who suggests that he would like to rape her daughter. Applebaum then falsely claims that I implied that she is a “spokesman for [her] husband” and says that implication (which I didn’t make)
while not quite as offensive as the implication that my daughter should be raped — is offensive nevertheless.
Get that? I’m “not quite as offensive” as someone who talked about raping her daughter! Thank goodness for small favors.
Applebaum explains why she claimed ignorance of her husband’s actions in a post that linked a story about her husband’s actions — she says an editor added the link later. OK. I’ll take her at her word on that. Chalk up another victory for self-publishing bloggers: we know what we’re linking.
Well, well, it turns out that the person who wrote that works for the Los Angeles County district attorney, as he points out in an “update.”
By mentioning the wrong post, and failing to link it, Applebaum accomplishes several goals:
- She refers readers to a post that merely mentions her omission, rather than one that shows in detail why the omission is so egregious.
- She manages to draw a false moral equivalence between myself and her. Had she linked the proper post, she would have seen my disclosure in the body of my post.
- By characterizing her disclosure as part of an “update” but not linking it, she manages to obscure the fact that the observation I made about her omission in that post was also part of an update. You see, the whole issue was an afterthought to that post, because it was not the relevant post about her omission.
But you know, I’m glad she showed me that she read that post, because that is the post where I took her to task for falsely stating that Polanski had a trial. Applebaum has nowhere corrected that error. And now we know beyond all doubt that she is aware of the error, because she quoted my post where I pointed it out.
Having failed to correct one error, incredibly, Applebaum goes on to tell readers yet another falsehood about the Polanski affair:
Of course, there were some very legitimate disagreements, including two excellent ones from my colleagues Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen, and I take some of their points. But to them, and to all who imagine that the original incident at the heart of this story was a straightforward and simple criminal case, I recommend reading the transcript of the victim’s testimony (here in two parts) — including her descriptions of the telephone conversation she had with her mother from Polanski’s house, asking permission to be photographed in Jack Nicholson’s jacuzzi — and not just the salacious bits.
Uh, I read the transcript, Ms. Applebaum, and the portion regarding the telephone call with the mother does not say what you claim (and so what if it did???):
Q. What happened out there after he indicated he wished to take pictures of you in the jacuzzi?
A. We went inside and called my mother.
Q. When you say “we called,” did you call or did Mr. Polanski call?
A. He told me to and I talked and then he talked and then I talked again.
Q. What did you tell your mother?
A. She goes, “Are you all right?
I went, “Uh-huh.”
And she says, “Do you want me to come pick you up?”
And I went, “No.”
And he said that we’d be home kind of late because it had already gotten dark out.
Q. When you said “he said,” did he tell you or did you hear him tell your mother on the phone?
A. He told my mother.
Q, Did he tell your mother any other things?
A. Not that I was listening to.
Q. After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?
A. We went out and I got in the jacuzzi.
There is nothing in there about asking the victim’s mom for permission to have pictures taken in the jacuzzi. Applebaum made that part up. [UPDATE: Not that it matters. The suggestion that the mother’s consent to jacuzzi photographs would amount to consent to her daughter’s anal rape is perhaps Applebaum’s most amazing and offensive contention yet.]
It is amusing to read her commenters. They are having none of it.
For a different take on my criticisms of Applebaum, you’ll have to look to another Washington Post writer named Howard Kurtz, who writes today in his Media Notes column:
[Anne Applebaum’s] column draws this rebuke from Patterico’s Pontifications:
“Applebaum failed to mention that her husband is a Polish foreign minister who is lobbying for Polanski’s case to be dismissed:
“In Polanski’s native Poland, President Lech Kaczynski and Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said they would appeal to US authorities to drop proceedings against Polanski. The PAP news agency said Sikorski was consideri[ng] a direct appeal to US President Barack Obama to end ‘once and for all’ the proceedings against the filmmaker. Radoslaw Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum . . .
“So at the same time that she was giving readers a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.
“I work for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, which is seeking Polanski’s extradition; that is no secret to anyone who reads this blog.”
Thanks, Howard. It’s nice to see that someone at your paper thinks so.