Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Conspiracies and Rape

Okay, today I have two things to comment on that don't deserve their own whole post, so let's bookend them. And no, Bill Clinton is not the common subject despite the title....

There is no Vast Right-wing Conspiracy...

And Obama isn't plotting to kill babies and old people.

Bill Clinton rolled out the ol' "vast right wing conspiracy" crap again this weekend. This got me to thinking, because it's a theme that both sides of the aisle tend to use to weaken the arguments of the other side. So I'm going to explain this for the former POTUS in a way he can understand:

A man goes out early in the evening and gets laid (yeah, I'm going there). Then he goes back out, bags another chick. Then a third. Then wakes up with the fat chick in the morning, escaping without having to knaw off his arm. This does not mean he was in a gangbang.

(Damn, that was a tasteless paragraph with little added value.)

However, there was a point. There are a multitude of voices that play off each other. When one person mentions something, then a few others mention it. Then Rush mentions it, and everybody talks about it. But here's why this isn't a conspiracy: As I often do with my blog, I hear things that piss me off, but I only start writing after I verify it from a more reliable source (not just Fox News if it's hyper-partisan). The fact is that while people may get ginned up by marginal stuff out there, and there's always going to be morons that , it's facts that really get the opposition motivated for any sustained period.

And that includes the so-called astroturf campaigns. Here's how you can tell if it's astroturf. If the people are being paid to show up, it's astroturf. Otherwise, the information age makes it really easy to network and build up organizations.

Similarly, for those of you who are imagining a unified plan with "Czar Obama" at the top, give it up. You're almost half as delusional as asshats claiming there's some group of Illuminati out there controlling EVERYTHING. The reason that government does what it does the way it does is called groupthink. They all think the same, and therefore appear to act unified. Thankfully, most politicians do care more about getting their asses reelected, so that tends to cancel out the craziness.

In short, treat political conspiracies like conspiracy theories unless some credible evidence comes up.

Ask any sane victim: Rape is Rape...
And Roman Polanski should have been de-nutted.

I really had to look up the whole details of the case, as I was not to familiar with the Polanski case. So I started with Wikipedia. I learned a few things about him, including that he was the husband of Sharon Tate, one of the victim of the Manson family murders. Then I got to the rape. Based on what the victim described, and the fact that he admitted guilty, the world would have been better had he been home with his wife when the Mansons came a'callin'.

Let me be blunt: I don't give a fuck who the person is. Rape is rape. And raping a 13-year-old is unforgivable in my world.

However, in Hollywood, they forgive artists. While I generally ignore politics so I can enjoy movies (Rocking the Blade trilogy, staring tax evader Wesley Snipes right now), sometimes I really have to call out the insanity when the stars turn out for scum I wouldn't be bothered to see ass-raped by a propane tank while smoking.

I'll just link to Heritage for the guts of the story:
The details of Roman Polanski’s rape of 13 year old Samantha Gailey are available for public consumption and repeating them is hard to stomach. The basics are that young Samantha was fed champagne, and slipped Quaaludes and sedatives by a 44 year old man and then forced against her will into a repeated assortment of sexual acts. In 2003, Samantha said: “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’” So why is it so hard for liberals to feel genuine outrage, or at least feign the moral outrage that they are famous for faking in other instances? Why must they defend a child rapist just because he has the talent to sit in a chair and yell ‘cut’?
However, credit to Montel Williams for being one of the people in Holly-la-la land who actually got it right in this discussion:
It’s called rape. This man drugged a 13 year old girl. Drugged her. Fed her alcohol. Then raped her. R-A-P-E-D. Raped her, okay? Let’s get this very clear.”
I really don't have to add to that, do I?

8 comments:

Satyavati devi dasi said...

The only thing I have to say about the Roman Polanski thing is this, and I have some pretty personal feelings on rape.

What I've been listening to is the girl herself. She's 45, and she's had a whole lifetime, and basically all this is doing for her is unpacking shit she spent a lot of time and energy packing away. Now, I can really appreciate that. Because there have been some things that might be considered injustices in my life, and I'd be mighty pissed with you if you came my way with a Righteous Indignation about those things and wanted to Set It Straight And Let Justice Be Done.. because that would mean I'd have to take that box I spent years packing up and unpack it again, just so you could satisfy your need to See Justice Done.

I am absolutely in no way, shape, or form condoning what he did. I'm also not saying that he ought to never have had any punishment or anything like that. I am saying that if I was her, I'd be screaming to let the sleeping dog lie.

Because for me, that'd be more merciful than making me deal with all of it all over again.

Just another viewpoint for you to ponder.

rockync said...

I was outraged when it first happened. I was outraged when they allowed him to leave the country and I'm outraged now that there are people who would defend his behavior.
I admit after so many years, I had to go back and look at it again myself. I had a vague memory of the victim saying it was consensual or something - but my memory was faulty - what she did was come out years later as an adult and plead with everyone to forget about it because she wanted to move on with her life.
Like Saty, I understand that and sympathize. But he should not be able to get away with a crime just because of who he is.
If he were arrested and charged with being a fugitive from justice instead of dragging the rape back into the public eye and victimizing this woman all over again, it would ave been a better scenario but I don't see how it is possible to separate the two.

Patrick M said...

Saty: I'll let him fight his own battle. But if the state has an unresolved case and an arrest warrant, it should be honored. No vengeance (unless I was an interested party). My anger is primarily at those who want to justify the shit.

Rocky: Ultimately, you're probably right in that he needs to be nailed to the wall for his fleeing, especially since the victim doesn't want it dragged up.

Shaw Kenawe said...

FOUND ON HUFFINGTON POST: "Sharon Tate's Sister: Sex Was 'Consensual,' Polanski A 'Good Guy'"

There is no such thing as a 13-year old giving "consent" to having sex with an adult male.

We do not allow 13-year old children to vote, drive, buy alcohol, enter into contracts and other activities reserved for people who have reached a level of maturity. Just because the 13-year old said she wanted sex with Polanski doesn't make it legal.

There are children who defend parents and kidnappers who abuse them, tie them up, keep them prisoners and who don't report their tormentors or even try to escape from them. Those adults who abuse these children, are, nevertheless, criminals, no matter how the children deal with them.

Adults who rape children should be punished.

Name: Soapboxgod said...

What if we merely just didn't prosecute criminals because well...the victims didn't want to cause a big fuss or whatever.

You know what would happen. Criminals would have no reason to reconsider their actions and a whole flurry of innocent people would beome victims at the hands of repeat offenders.

You do the crime you do the time.

dmarks said...

"And raping a -year-old is unforgivable in my world."

You left out the age. I think it was a slip, but when you think of it, it's fine with out the age. Nothing excuses rape of a victim at any age.

rockync said...

For once, dmarks I agree with you completely!

Patrick M said...

Dmarks: You're right about it being unforgivable no matter the age, but when it's someone who is young, it damages someone who has not yet had a chance to live life. An adult generally has more tools in their mental inventory to deal with it. Underage rape is also a murder of innocence.

Typo is fixteded.