FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from

Amused Muse

Inspiring dissent and debate and the love of dissonance

My Photo
Location: Surreality, Have Fun Will Travel, Past Midnight before a Workday

Master's Degree holder, telecommuting from the hot tub, proud Darwinian Dawkobot, and pirate librarian belly-dancer bohemian secret agent scribe on a mission to rescue bloggers from the wholesome clutches of the pious backstabbing girl fridays of the world.

Monday, September 28, 2009

How About A Compromise on Roman Polanski?

UPDATED: More reaction: nuance, schmuance! But how come no one ever prosecuted Ted Nugent, then?
Hey, I just had an idea: how about Polanski agreeing to come to the United States and face this charge, on one condition. And that condition is...

That the members of the press (if you can call them that) any anyone else who publicly blamed Sharon Tate for her own murder in 1969, calling her a "drug fiend," a "Satanist," a cannibal, a wild party girl, and a promiscuous whore while she was carrying her child (according to all witnesses, she wouldn't even drink wine while pregnant), apologize publicly to her memory and to her surviving family, something that these vulgar ambulance chasers never did before they went panting after exclusive interviews with that loser Charles Manson.

Since we're talking about a crime that happened thirty-two years ago, why not face the injustice that happened after another famous crime, forty years ago?

Arguably, those so-called journalists who spat out headlines attacking Sharon without any evidence whatsoever profited more from her death than anyone in the Manson family, despite all their born-again blather in books.

How about it? Let's hear an apology from those smug, self-righteous hacks who coined the blame-the-victim phrase, "Live freaky, die freaky." You know who you are.

Let's hear them express sorrow for heaping pain upon pain at the expense of the Tate family.

Let's hear them apologize for dissing not only poor, generous, beautiful Sharon, but Abigail Folger, who spent her fortune working as an amateur social worker; Steven Parent, a teen-aged hi fi enthusiast who was merely visiting the caretaker at the Tate residence; Jay Sebring, an internationally-known hair stylist and Sharon's ex-boyfriend who kept an eye on her while Roman was gone (oh, there was plenty of yellow journalism surrounding that--"what was he doing there, they must have had an affair, was it even Polanski's kid," etc., when Jay was a friend of Polanski's, too); and Woyciech Frykowski, who yes, did have a drug problem.

None of these people were cannibals or Satanists, but I'm not so sure about the press. Their sad charges -- screaming "It's her fault! All her fault!" as if they were rejects from an audition for The Handmaid's Tale--forced Roman Polanski to deny them (!) at a press conference.

Here is the link. Unfortunately, embedding has been disabled. A clip from the press conference begins at 1:08; however, the beginning gives background.

It just blows my mind. They called her a bimbo and said that she had no acting talent. (Sharon had wonderful comic timing.) They accused her of carrying someone else's child, or of taking drugs while pregnant. They called her a Satanist (and ironically, it was the thankfully deceased Susan Atkins, Sharon's killer, who briefly flirted with that), and they backed it up with "a photograph showing Sharon in a devil cult" that was in fact taken from one of her films. Come on, that was deliberate.

And then, to add insult to injury, the phony "psychic" Peter Hurkos visited the crime scene, "borrowed" some polaroids taken by a Life photographer to spew more slander about "three men who killed Sharon" and LSD and black magic at the house, and then pocketed the polaroids so that he could sell them later to the press. What a slime bucket!

Well, since we're already talking about something that happened thirty-two years ago, why not talk about something else that happened forty years ago?

(Unlike O.J. Simpson, Roman Polanski did search for the real killers--to the point of confronting someone he was sure had committed the crime.)

How about it, surviving paparazzi? How about it, Hollywood? How about it, newspaper and new agencies that were involved? If we're so concerned about one victim, how about your actions toward another?

Since we're so concerned about crime and morality in this country, why don't you do the right thing?

Shimmies to Swallowing the Camel

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Free Roman

I can hardly believe the news that Roman Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland "at the request of the United States." Three decades ago, he pleaded guilty to raping a 13-year-old girl who had passed herself off as a legal adult in order to become a model. The judge in the case (now deceased) reneged on the agreed-upon plea agreement, instead imposing more jail time and deportation. Polanski fled the United States.

The victim won a settlement against Polanski and wants the case dropped. Nevertheless, the Justice Department renewed its efforts to pursue Polanski in 2005 (why?) and finally got its man - incarcerating a 76-year-old survivor of the Krakow ghetto for a thirty-year-old statutory rape. If he fights extradition - and I think he has every right to do so - he could sit in jail for months.

(Come on, people, this "girl" was and is my age. I don't take rape lightly. But why the hysteria? Do people think that she's still thirteen? Is this a case of "always a child" in the minds of those who are fanatical about "pedophiles"? Has Polanski really left a trail of raped children across Europe? I don't think so. This smells like a witch hunt.)

Why did the judge change his mind? And why has the U.S. pursued Polanski for so long, while allowing murderous former dictators to live in luxury in the United States (in Hawaii, yet)?

This is absurd. This smacks of the smear campaign against Fatty Arbuckle - who, despite being acquitted after three bogus trials was personally and financially ruined by a bunch of anti-Hollywood moralistic prudes who ultimately instituted the Hayes Office. (And we know what a boon that was for the aesthetic quality of films.) Someone is out to make an example of Roman Polanski.

It's also reminiscent of the chasing and cornering of Jack Johnson, the first black world heavyweight champion who was twice arrested for violating the Mann Act, because he crossed the state line with his white girlfriend (later his second wife). It didn't matter that this woman was an adult; she was white, he was black, and therefore he was committing the crime of "white slavery." However, what really motivated the vendetta against Johnson was the fact that he had just kicked the tar out of the undefeated (and white) James Jeffries, who had come out of retirement "for the sole purpose of proving that a white man is better than a Negro."*

What really motivates the vendetta against Polanski remains to be seen. (Head on over to YouTube to see the hideously racist, anti-Semitic, repugnant comments regarding Polanski, equating him with O.J. Simpson and the like.) Ironically, the message to rape victims in this case seems to be: once a victim, always a victim. Get "raped" by a celebrity, and you don't have the right to move on, not as long as someone can milk the story or use the perpetrator for political ends. You're going to still be that "thirteen-year-old" the rest of your life.

Well, that does not make me feel safe.
*Incidentally, was "Darwinism" or creationism the standard curriculum for public schools in 1910?
UPDATED: Oh my, now the California prison system is facing budget cuts and releasing as many as 40,000 inmates. What a great time to go after Roman Polanski. What a wonderful use of California's tax funds, second only to keeping that asshole Charles Manson, and his harem of born-again gooney birds, alive. It's nice to see that the state of California and our Justice Department has its priorities straight.

(On the other hand, maybe they'll end up releasing all the harmless potheads that they locked up in this bogus War on Drugs. Holy crap, this country is mixed up.)

SECOND UPDATE: More of the story of the original plea bargain is coming out: it seems that Polanski objected to having his trial televised. For pity's sake, this wasn't even a jury trial! Televised? People certainly wanted to make a name for themselves at Polanski's expense.

The case is now an international incident (no surprise there). And this is all for the good of the victim, right?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 06, 2009

This Says it All

Labels: , ,

Saturday, September 05, 2009

So Now PZ Was Never Expelled from "Expelled"?

This is what I received in reply to a comment I made about PZ being expelled from the preview of Expelled last year. It from some nutjob in Sweden called talitha00cumi.

Amused Child [my YouTube moniker], you're lying through your false teeth, bro. NO ONE was thrown out. Not PZ, not anyone!

Do you need to lie to get attention? Were you neglected as a child and now crave any sort of attention you can get?

PZ was one of the childish, irresponsible ones, and he was warned that he'd be throw out if he didn't behave, but he was never thrown out.

Stop lying.

WTF? I told this creepy piece of work that I considered these comments defamation and that I wanted an apology. Holy shit, I'm totally going to hire a lawyer if that's what it takes! This person does seem to be confused between the preview of Expelled and the visit to the Creation Museum - except that this ding-dong has been corrected on that account several times! Nevertheless this person wrote back:

Not false [his/her statements]; true. Totally.

Offensive, perhaps, but true. This silliness NEVER HAPPENED! One person who filmed a private conversation was asked to stop. He wouldn't. He was asked to leave. PZ was warned many times for his bad behavior, and spread the rumor that he was "expelled." He wasn't.

The truth hurts - but only if you prefer lies.

Again, WTF? No one can be this confused. It seems to be the work of a Lone Stranger rather than any coordinated effort, but it certainly sets a new standard for revisionism. It's really surprising because this person is all over the internet and while s/he is religiously fanatical ("Catholics aren't Christians" and all that - I hate that shit), s/he doesn't get vicious, until s/he replied to me. And it pisses me off! I've called twice for an apology - I think that's the least I should get for being called a liar.

UPDATED: In your face, Talith00cumi. You've been caught.

"wow. Funny. The guy must be a total jerk and was expected to disrupt the film. Dickie Dawkins can be a total jerk, but he's dignified enough to keep silent during a film, I'm sure.

Did anyone find out why the guy wasn't allowed in? Or are you all just guessing based on... knee-jerk reactions and empty heads?

Just a lil question."

I have a lil question, too. Where's my apology, you hypocritical wonder?

Labels: , , ,