I thought if I went away for a long enough time, folks would stop coming here. Then, I would reclaim my blog. So I come back, and the Gina/Hartal/Qua circle jerk is still in full swing. Seriously, you guys must have better things to do than to continually flog your own and each other's metaphorical meat. This can't be fun for you. It certainly isn't for me. If just one of you would go away, I would be happy to start posting again.
Gina, you get my vote. You've threatened/promised to leave before, but you never have. If you truly don't like to go where you're not wanted, why do you keep coming back here? You add nothing but lemon juice to the paper cut of life...
Anyway, flame away. I don't read the comments anymore - it's just toxic sludge in there nowadays. (Where do I get my application to become a Superfund site?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
495 comments:
1 – 200 of 495 Newer› Newest»I had gone away, quite happily, too I might add.
Hartal drew me back in. Blame him you old bag.
Besides, I don't need any of you anyway.
I took dsg with me when I left. He's the only one I ever had any meaningful conversations with. And, we are quite civil to each other despite our differences and heated exchanges. He is a man of superior intellect and it shows that he's not petty enough to hold my opinions against me as a person.
You oughtta try it sometime, being open-minded-- you might expand your narrow horizons.
You're actually a real person. And here I thought you were a fake this whole time! How novel.
I'm curious, why do you hate me so much?
Cause I'm a conservative? You invited us, and I was the only one to show up.
Perhaps the reason I kept coming back is because your whole premise for a political debate between opposite party members goes away when I do. I must have felt sorry for your attempts to create a platform of civil discourse. The tone was always determined by you, dear hostess, and as a guest, I must say I give you failing marks. You're lack of training in being gracious shows. Probably genetics...who knows, and I don't really care.
Considering how you've allowed your other guests to insult me,you're rather incompetent when it comes to having a soiree, aren't you?
Can't we all please be civil?
Seriously, we all ought to be able to be civil even if we disagree. I know nobody's perfect, and I've offended as much as anyone, but we can still try.
Civil would not include trying to laugh at people due to the low income that you presume they may make? One of the anon's--I presume xootsuit--wondered whether I am making minimum wage. Should I let on to my income and wealth to fend off the insult? Now wouldn't that be complicity in class contempt disguised as humor. Again the humorous is not always a benign or liberating force.
This kind of humor is common among the precariously situated middle classes which fear slipping into the ranks of the increasingly insecure working class. This fear and anxiety that manifest themselves as superiority and smugness make this middle class the most unlovely of all.
Look at xootsuit--he brags about having bought a home in an upscale neighborhood but then lets us know that he has been insulting fat pedestrians from his apartment near a busy intersection somewhere in the East Bay--the Piedmont Ave or Grand Lake areas of Oakland, it seems.
I'm not pointing fingers. I am just making a request.
hartal
Leave me out of this. Your memory of what I've written is always flawed. Your obsession with trying to draw me into argument is what drove me away from this blog. I don't like you or your arguments; I refuse to engage with you. Get over it.
I think it's ridiculous that FH can't enjoy her own blog without exercising censorship. But there it is. Goodbye.
Lionesses have no manes. How do they know when they've grown up?
This question isn't "random," it's flat out stupid.
What the HELL is this supposed to mean, Xoot?
Why don't you come on over to facebook? We can have social intercourse over there.
WV: metatie. I think it's what I'm drinkin'............
I think I've grown up.
Do you agree?
Fine so you deny that you have posted as one of the 'anonymous'. Don't believe that but still my criticism of anon's class contemptuous retorts holds. And I am glad that you have stopped insulting fat, slow-walking pedestrians from your apartment window.
no, you look like you're waiting unsuccessfully for an idea to breeze through your head.
Hey airhead what comment did you erase?
Leave me alone, Hartal.
I'm no longer welcome here. Go find someplace else to play like I did.
Do you know what LaSalle's problem is, Hartal?
That some things are just none of his damn business.I mean, where the hell is he at night and what's he doing with his life that's so effin' wonderful? He loses his precious job, and then what?
Oh my goodness, I just checked LaSalle's blog. It's just so nice to see that others see clearly how vile xootsuit and LaSalle can actually be. They write as if it never occurred to them that a victim of statutory rape or any kind of rape may be reading the discussion. I of course have known how vile they can be for a long time, and dsgonzale6 you don't come across too well. But FH and SG do. It'll be interesting to see if FH and SG reconsider their favorable opinions of xootsuit and LaSalle. The Clintonista feminists! Gimme a break.
Well to no one's surprise Yogi is on the right side of things, too. The alignment was so easy to predict (twinfan being on the right side is a bit of a surprise). Also hilarious is xootsuit's assumption that anyone with an Indian name who does not agree with him or LaSalle must be me. What are there? Something like 40 or 50K South Asians in the greater Bay Area. He's just so hilarious. I am loving this. LaSalle seems to have gone into hiding. Sometimes I wish I could still participate on SF Gate.
Hartal. I don't get it, either. Laxim has it all right.
Maybe xoot and MLS are one and the same.
I'm really beginning to think MLS is seriously mentally impaired.
This last blog entry of his is off the wall.
Oh, they can't be the same. But I hope that it is clear to you all what the character of the guy is--aggressive, irrational, insensitive and blowhardish! I have said so since March of last year. It's amazing to me that LaSalle and xootsuit never even recognized the strongest points for their side --the arbitrary way in which the request for extradition was filed after thirty years and, as laxmi points out, the possible psychological damage that the murder of his wife and mother had on him as a cause of his preying on girls.
The greatness of his art--and it is truly great--does not exculpate. The desire to move on by the defendant does not remove the social responsibility of the Court to uphold our laws, as Ferrethead has argued persuasively against TedSpe. The passage of time means nothing with crimes for which society does not wisely have statute of limitations.
Oh well these are things I would have said had LaSalle not had me kicked off SF Gate.
You're such a clever fox, Hartal. I couldn't agree with you more on this one.
That was my thought, too, about the so-called wishes of the victim. And,since when does the victim get to decide whether or not laws are upheld? Talk about illogical thinking...and from a "lawyer". No lawyer thinks like that. At least the ones I'm familiar with.
He's such an ass...just digging himself in deeper.
I suppose he relates to the celebrity thing. What over-blown ego. What notoriety, huh? Ask 1o people who MLS is and they'll give you a blank stare. What a legend in his own mind...
He's such an ass...just digging himself in deeper.
I suppose he relates to the celebrity thing. What over-blown ego. What notoriety, huh? Ask 1o people who MLS is and they'll give you a blank stare. What a legend in his own mind...
Hartal, with all due respect, I'll stick with what I said, notwithstanding anyone else's opinion of it.
I should have been clearer, however; as I said, while I understand Polanski's impulse to run, in view of the judge's waffling on the deal, I don't condone it. He should have stayed and dealt with it through the system (e.g., innocent until proven guilty, trial of one's peers, etc.), which would have been the honest thing to do.
I think my condemnation of Polanski's flight was implicit in the rest of my comment, as I said that, after he ran, Polanski should not have just remained at large but should have dealt with the matter. Still, I should have been clearer that I did not condone Polanski's fleeing even as I understood the impulse.
But I think reasonable people can disagree on the issues raised by the Polanski case. For example, if we consider victim impact to be relevant to the legal process, why shouldn't victim disinterest be? While I understand that there are differences between the two concepts, it is also clear to me that arguments can be made for their similar treatment as well.
For the record, I am not in favor of either victim impact statements or letting the victim's disinterest control the prosecution. Crimes are crimes because they are supposed to reflect a social consensus. Whether the victim is a beloved member of the community or a homeless person, the punishment for committing a crime that harms them should be the same.
All that you were willing to say about what Polanski did was that it was sleazy. No, dsg, it was rape. You minimize the crime and make yourself look sleazy.
I said "sleazy, at the least," so it was an open ended comment. And again, we have a legal system that says he's innocent until proven guilty. If the judge was going to back out of the deal, he could have gone to trial and defended his innocence. Just because he was willing to enter into a plea deal doesn't mean that he couldn't have established that he was innocent of the more serious charges. As I said, I stand by my remark, though I could have been clearer.
Holy Smokes! I thought the FHPD put this fire out already.
I'm going to click on and off this page until I get a word verification that will be my comment on the Polanski thing.
WV- inatessa...wasn't the victim's name, Tessa?
Sure he may not have been acquitted of additional charges. But he pled guilty to, and is thus guilty, of statutory rape. I think he conceded that he passed the Quualude and served champagne too. To say sleazy at the very least about this is to come across as sleazy. It seems that the thumbs down you received is indication of that.
Hartal, you're entitled to your opinion, and so is anyone else who disagrees with what I said, but I still have no problem with what I said, other than as I have clarified here. I certainly am not going to be swayed just by how many thumbs up or down I get; I hope you can see what a solipsistic argument that is. Nonetheless, I've already said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the issues raised by the Polansky matter. But let me give you something to chew on: Since there was never a trial, there are no proven facts, so any conclusions that one might reach are speculative. Without a trial, all one has are surmises and assumptions. I can certainly imagine a scenario where Polansky would be acquitted of statutory rape as well, can't you? Just because a result doesn't fit our preconceived notions about a matter doesn't mean it's not the correct result.
For example: You say that you think he conceded that he gave her the Quaalude and the champagne. Did he concede that he knew she was underage as well? Did he make these concessions under oath? If not, why isn't it possible that she provided the Quaalude and the champagne? Rape cases are extremely difficult in terms of the questions you are forced to address in evaluating the veracity of what is being said. And this is only scratching the surface of all of the factual disputes that would be implicated in a trial of the matter.
No I cannot imagine a scenario in which he would not have been found guilty of statutory rape. He is guilty by his own admission under the best counsel. He is guilty.
Being misled about age does or did not get you off the hook, I don't believe, and he was not misled about her age. He knew, for sure, that she was not 16,
He admitted his guilt. It's not in doubt by anyone. He committed statutory rape, and he plied the girl with drugs. Of course the Judge would not honor the plea bargain. Especially when you remember the age differential and the professional dependence of the victim. These are also not in doubt.
At the very least you're coming across as sleazy.
Wow. you're losing it. Say she provided the quualude and champagne. So what? She's high as a kite, and an adult should know that she can't make any kind of decision. To proceed then is rape. And if this thirteen year old wanted to be that high to deliver her anus to him, perhaps that's all the evidence we need that she did not want to be raped.
As I said you're coming across as sleazy.
Seriously FH and Suzagood, how are xootsuit and dsg coming across to you?
Hartal, as I said, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it vehemently, but you can think what you like. I also think, however, that you're oversimplifying the situation. I've previously made the point to you that when facts are established at trial, it is irresponsible to deny them without extremely compelling evidence (not just assumptions) to the contrary. The corollary of this notion is that any legal question not proven in a court of law is open and always subject to question.
hartal, with all due respect to Suza and FH, I would stand by my opinion even if they shared yours. But I really doubt they would answer here. And unless you want to admit that you were not being truthful when you denied that you were laxmi, I don't think you're going to get an answer from them anywhere else.
And as I read what he has said, I think xootsuit and I are not saying the exact same thing, though I haven't been reading his posts closely.
So you're saying that someone who accepts a plea bargain to admit to a lesser or reduced charge gets some presumption that he may have been innocent of what he actually pled to?
it's as clear as day that the deal was struck to save the child from court by taking Polanski down on a reduced charges. His accepting the plea makes him guilty. Note Michael Jackson never entered into a plea bargain. He has the presumption of innocence, not Polanski.
You really are not making any sense to me at all.
If the judge reneged on the deal, he could have sought to set aside his plea on the grounds that he was induced into making it based on the sentence that he had been promised. It's not common, but it happens. This is different from Larry Craig's case in that Craig got the deal he was promised.
He was induced to accept the plea by a reduced sentence. He was not coerced into admitting that he raped a girl. He is guilty.
Even if someone is found guilty in Court, we can't be certain that he is guilty. But he is guilty by our legal standards. So is someone who accepts a plea bargain. Polanski was able to get a reduced charge to spare the child.
We have every moral right to treat him as a criminal; we did not have the moral right with Michael Jackson who refused to accept a plea.
Read the transcript:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea1.html
First of all, there are no admissions here about the champagne or the Quaalude, only the sex. Further, in the colloquy, when asked about his knowledge of the girl's age (as a good faith belief that she was over 18 is a defense to statutory rape), Polansky paused long enough that he had to be asked a second time for an answer, and when he did answer, he admitted her age but had to be prompted to specifically admit that he knew she was underage. His answer to the question whether any other promises had been made to him in exchange for his plea was also suspect. Clearly he was not fully comfortable with those answers. Lastly, the transcript recites the fact that if the judge backs out, he can withdraw his plea.
We have the moral right to treat him as a criminal because he ran. That's the only crime he has unquestionably committed. His plea could be withdrawn, and would have no legal effect.
In fact, he could still withdraw the plea.
gotta go, but no denials that she was high, right? All that pausing means nothing. He admits her age. Does not deny that he knew it. He's guilty. He accepted the plea. The Judge already withdrew it not because there was any doubt of his guilt but because it was too lenient in a case like this (he may have had other motives, but that was a good reason not to honor it). It would be foolish to wonder whether he really committed statutory rape.
And it was creepy and sleazy that you thought the girl's introducing of the drugs somehow made him less a rapist. He had sex with a minor who was out of her mind.
brutal act.
gone for the day
To clarify, the act of fleeing during a pending trial is a crime. That's what I meant when I said we had a moral right to treat him as a criminal because he ran; his running away was unquestionably a crime.
Hartal, the reason I brought up the issue of whether she brought the drugs was that it could be evidence of Polansky's good faith belief that she was over 18. It's a shame you think I'm creepy or sleazy, but all I'm doing is showing you what a lawyer would do with the facts of this situation.
I leave this question to anyone else who reads the above exchange: Why must Hartal blow up minor disagreements into federal cases? I said he had the right to his opinion, I said that reasonable people could disagree. Why did he keep pushing his arguments against me to more and more implausible lengths? I never asked him to change his mind, I only suggested that he hadn't thought of everything.
He's a butthead, dsg. I think we can all agree upon that. Even he acknowledges that fact.
Hartal, lay off dsg...he's just being lawyerly.
laxmi nailed xoot. I don't think he's really a lawyer. I'll bet he's MLS. MLS has stated that he wanted to go into law. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he was pretending to be one. Those two are using the same kind of logic.
dsg, you did not say why you raised the possibility of the victim introducing the drugs. You certainly did not say that it may have led to Polanski's presumption that she was 18. You are saying that now. But he clearly knew she was not 16, and barely pubescent.
Now, cmon, get the point. I am not being an asshole by calling you sleazy. By saying that your posts are sleazy, I am reminding us that Polanski's actions are something altogether different and evil. That is, I am criticizing your description of his acts as sleazy. That was inappropriate understatement, given the gravity of the crime. Which was my initial point.
And it's true xootsuit writes as if he were defending LaSalle's posts. So perhaps...I don't think so. But who knows?
And I am simply reminding you that, without a trial and a verdict, you don't really know the facts; at least, you don't know the ones that would show Polansky to be evil. Since I have never seen the alleged victim, I have no idea whether she appeared to be barely pubescent or not; unless you have seen the alleged victim, neither do you. Doubtless the trial would have focused on her appearance, one way or another, since a good-faith belief that she was over 18 is a defense. But let's get back to the effect of the plea. None of the admissions contained in the plea may be used if the plea were tossed out. If those purported facts are eliminated, the picture becomes very different, because now the prosecution has to prove all of those allegations.
Because of all of these uncertainties, I am not comfortable in concluding that Polansky was guilty of rape, statutory or otherwise. However, the mere fact that Polansky put himself in such a compromising position is, to my view, sleazy. That is why I say his actions relative to the alleged victim were sleazy, at the least. To say anything more with certainty would require a trial.
I know that he pled guilty to reduced charges.
I know that the plea was tossed not because there was doubt about his guilt but because a judge claimed it was too lenient.
I know that Polanaki does not, to this day, deny that he committed what is legally considered to be statutory rape.
I don't know why anybody would say his guilt remains in question.
I am almost positive that he does not deny that she was high during the rape.
There are pictures of the victim around her age of victimization. She was barely pubescent.
Polanski is a rapist.
You are a tendentious lawyer.
Xootsuit is just a fool.
http://www.davidduke.com/images/Polanski_victim.jpg
I thought I was just being my usual middle-of-the-road self based on only the proven facts, rather than espousing either of the other conflicting views about Polansky, which I consider to be tendentious. I'm open to be convinced, but the only facts I've seen that can even barely qualify as proven, from the transcript, leave a lot of room for argument on each side, without anything definitive. Only those who are tendentious themselves could conclude that the transcript proves anything conclusively.
And don't forget the standard of proof for criminal guilt.
The following is a million times more interesting than anything you have had to say on the topic, hartal:
xootsuit10/7/2009 9:55:54 AM
People "on this list," hartal, understand the horrors of child abuse and the importance of laws aimed to protect children from abuse. But bringing Polanski to justice won't end up being much of a coup for society in general. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Let the DAs do their job. But there are plenty of monsters out there whose detection, arrest and prosecution would seem to be more urgent law enforcement matters. (Final note, and I don't see this as a mitigating factor, just an interesting point: One of the most moving artistic uses of child abuse, statutory rape and incest as tragic theme appears, in my opinion, in the movie Chinatown.)
There seems to have been some response to that post on LaSalle's blog, but it seems that Polanski was more critical of incest than statutory rape. It also seems that Chinatown may have overemphasized state and federal subsidies of huge agricultural projects as the catalyst of agrarian dynamism. The problem is one of timing: those projects trailed dynamic growth of agriculture. Its explanation must be sought elsewhere.
Of course still a great, great movie.
No time today.
I was not talking about the transcripts. I was talking about the plea into which RP willingly entered. As it was tossed not due to doubts about his own guilt but concern about its leniency, I take his admission as establishment of his guilt of statutory rape. That plea may not stand in the court of law--it does not matter he'll serve time for being a fugitive, which is in its own another informal admission of guilt; citizens are morally free to treat him as guilty due to his own admission. The Judge thought he was guilty of more than to which he would admit, but I am not attacking Polanski for crimes to which he has not admitted guilt. I am staying within the bounds of the reasonably provable and believable.
For someone to say that there are factual doubts about his guilt--due to the uncertain legal status of the plea--is to confuse ordinary empirical and moral thinking with the language reserved for the courts.
Just like xootsuit, I am not a lawyer. So you can reserve your lawyerese for the Courts. But it's also bad lawyering, for it is obvious that Polanski's best defense is a complaint about the arbitrary request for extradition after 30 years of silence; and his request for leniency should be based on his life history.
Denying that he raped a girl--or claiming that he thought she was underage--will not wash. Only a bad or tendentious lawyer would go on as you are doing.
It's absolutely hilarious how hated LaSalle and his bulldog xootsuit are on the Maximum Strength blog.
Again this conversation is tiresome. Where are FH, Suzagoob or, for that matter, the Airhead?
And look at what they posted--where is the evidence that LaSalle and xootsuit understand the horrors of child abuse? Laxmi and others had some eloquent things to say. And what do you think of xootsuit calling someone by the name of laxmi ex-lax. First it shows no concern for how he or she says her own name. The two words don't sound alike. It's a form of prejudice. Second, it's abusive against someone who is trying to fight abuse.
What do you all think of xootsuit and LaSalle?
Aren't they what I always told you they were?
Hartal, the problem I have with your views on this issue is that you are mistaken about a number of matters upon which you build your conclusions and principles.
First, you seem to think that there are no statutes of limitation for the crimes of statutory rape and rape. That is untrue. The reason Polanski is still subject to prosecution is that he was charged in a timely manner and then fled; the time that has elapsed since then does not count against the running of the statute.
Second, you seem to be under the impression that the judge actually set aside Polanski's plea before Polanski ran. The best information out there indicates that the judge only suggested to Polanski's attorneys that he would send him to prison and deport him. It was then that he fled, before any action was ever taken with regard to his plea.
Third, your opinion of the arbitrariness of the prosecution’s decision to seek Polanski’s extradition, based on Sokol’s NYT editorial, misses the weaknesses in Sokol’s ideas. For example, (a) he states that Polanski's guilt is undoubted, apparently assuming that the guilty plea cannot be rescinded notwithstanding the statements in the transcript of the colloquy to the contrary, (b) he cavalierly dismisses the prosecutors’ claim that they did not have an earlier opportunity to extradite him (given the lead time needed to process this type of paperwork, it’s easy for me to believe that the prosecutors never had enough advance notice of his specific whereabouts to make a timely request for extradition), (c) he overstates the limits of arbitrariness under U.S. law, etc. A critical read of Sokol’s editorial, informed by actual knowledge of how the law works, reveals his arguments to be quite thin indeed.
Your biggest problem here is that, lacking a background in the workings of the law, you completely misunderstand the serious legal implications of a number of facts of this case, and as such, the conclusions you reach based on those misunderstandings are equally mistaken. This is true with regard to your reading of the transcript of Polanski’s colloquy and your misunderstanding of the effect of the judge’s threat to renege on the plea deal on the admissibility of the factual predicates of the guilty plea given by Polanski, namely, that those admissions can no longer be considered. They must be treated as if they had never been made. You also seem to base your conclusion about Polanski’s guilt on statements that were made in the interim outside of the legal process during his flight from prosecution. In general, those kinds of statements carry little weight at trial, as they have not been made under oath. The bottom line is that Polanski had and continues to have a number of options to deal with his situation.
Lastly, you say, “For someone to say that there are factual doubts about his guilt--due to the uncertain legal status of the plea--is to confuse ordinary empirical and moral thinking with the language reserved for the courts.” I’m sorry, but that’s just completely wrong and wrongheaded. The courts are the only forum that matters in questions like this, and their rigorous processes and standards are paramount here, not the loosey-goosey court of public opinion. The issue of the judge’s preemptive suggestion to imprison and deport Polanski has to be resolved, because it impacts whether Polanski withdraws his plea or not, and if he does withdraw it, it will have no probative effect on his guilt. Fundamentally, this is an issue for the criminal courts, and they ought to have the final word. Until proven guilty in the courts, Polanski is still presumed innocent.
You can't overwhelm with legal volume.
I am not relying on the transcripts as you falsely alleged. I am relying on the admission of guilt in the plea bargain. He admitted to and thus established his own guilt. That is what entitles me to say that he is guilty of statutory rape. Yes the Courts may have to proceed as if he never made that plea.
But I am not the Court. I now presume him guilty due to his own admission of guilt. A zealous Judge may have done something to compromise the legal integrity of that admission but in the eyes of reasonable public there is no factual question that Polanski had sex with a girl whom he was a minor, whom he knew to be a minor and whom he knew to be drunk on champagne (there are pictures of her drinking champagne from that night).
On top of this Polanski has never shown an inclination to challenge that this is in fact what happened.
I did not say Sokol's case was great. I said that it was better than your tendentious and laughable attempt to create some doubt as to whether Polanski was guilty of statutory rape. There is no doubt here. Polanski is not going to deny it. He'll probably beg for another plea bargain. He has already told you what his insidious defense was--she was not an innocent in sexual matters, to use more or less his words. Not that he thought she was not a minor, not that he did not have sex with her, not that he wasn't as high as a kite.
Only dsg is raising questions here. But you don't mind playing the stereotype of a lawyer. It's your reputation.
It matters not to what I am saying what the statute of limitations is in this case or what the Judge exactly did.
What damns him happened before the Judge got involved--he entered into a plea bargain in which he admitted to and thus established his own guilt.
This unbelievable. dsg is harnessing a flea circus (details, tiny, tiny details). (Trying to find intonation in a flat transcript?) And hartal is using thick pre-school crayons in an attempt to trace a Pollock. (David Duke repros of undated publicity photos as evidence? You're an idiot.) You're both missing the essential elements: LA, mid 70s, quaaludes; pool behind a mansion in the hills. My guess is both of you guys would end up in jail for a long time if you took a big does of quaaludes.
dose dose dose dose
No seriously anon and dsg are both making fools of themselves.
1. David Duke put on his website a photo of the 13 year old that is everywhere on the web. She was obviously barely pubescent. David Duke has nothing to do with this. You truly are an idiot, anon, and it's a good that you remain behind a veil so as to let everyone know just how stupid you really are.
2. No one except circus clown dsg (It's not a flea circus) is denying that Polanski committed statutory rape or that he knew the girl was underage or that she was high at the time of the rape. Polanski only contests her claim that she explicitly told him to back off. But no one needs to establish that to say that Polanski committed a horrible crime.
3. He would have known how impaired quaaludes would made him and her. This only makes the rape more planned and cunning.
not only have you never spent time by a pool in LA, you've never received a courtesy PR photo from an aspiring actor. You're an idiot, hartal. The photo link you posted was a publicity photo, taken some time (possibly, possibly a very long time) before the events that you are so concerned with. You have no idea what what you're dealing with.
Just shocked that Ferrethead, Suzagoob and even Airhead have not told dsg and anon to stuff it here. I am sure that they are just shocked that men like you have ever been important parts of their lives. But it's good for me to see how little moral sense men such as dsg and anon have and to see how much they'll type to create presumption and tolerance for a rapist, for now I have a better sense of the challenges that face me as a father of two stunningly beautiful girls.
So you don't think she is 13 in the photo? It says that it's her publicity shot when she was 13.
If you look at a different version of that photo, she's at least thirteen. She looks like she has already started to physically mature.
Hartal, you make valid points, but the minute you lapse into below-the -belt insults, you destroy your credibility. You arguments would carry more weight if you'd refrain from doing so.
You don't have credibility with me. Try to figure out whether this is a bigger problem for you than my not having credibility with you is for me.
Hartal, I have one question for you: Where does your knowledge about Polanski's plea bargain and its terms, upon which you place so much reliance in forming your opinion, come from?
Going by the Steve Lopez article in the LA Times and the editorial by my good friend Katha Pollitt There were several charges against Polanski. The girl's family wanted her to be spared the lifelong trauma associated with the testifying, so the DA got Polanski to admit to one of the charges (unlawful sexual intercourse), which he freely did. He did not admit to supplying her the drugs, but there is no reasonable doubt that she was high and/or drunk. And all the available evidence establishes that he knew she was only 13. Polanski should have been forced to admit rape by drugs and of course he should have had to spend more then 42 days in Court. He was offered unbelievable lenience and that is what has created all the problems.
There was never any doubt by anyone, except you, of unlawful sexual intercourse. Polanski's rationalization for that has been that the victim was not an innocent in sexual matters. And that makes even more despicable.
The Judge did not do what he did because he had any suspicions that Polanski had admitted to a crime that he did commit.
Again only you are suggesting that possibility.
Hartal, it was constructive criticism. You come across as far more believable and intelligent that way. Your post this morning was how should keep your tone. It's just a suggestion...you're under no obligation to take it.
While spouting off like a jackass may make you feel better, it just makes you look and sound like a stupid, boorish jackass...and that doesn't help your argument.
Highlights from dsg
"Because of all of these uncertainties, I am not comfortable in concluding that Polansky was guilty of rape, statutory or otherwise."
Standing alone in his willingness to create presumption of innocence for Polanski, dsg also asked us to consider the implications of the possibility that the girl brought the champagne and quaalude with her. Yeah right! At any rate, later, dsg tells us that he wants to consider this possibility because it may reveal that Polanski thought she was not a minor. Of course Polanski would still be admitting to having had sex with an intoxicated minor, but that is not enough for dsg.
And don't forget that dsg thinks Polanski having paused before he says in his plea that he knew she was 13 (not just under 16 or 18) at the time of the rape creates some doubt as to whether he really knew she was 13.
Polanski has not retained dsg, but look how far he is willing to go to create some presumption of innocence and tolerance for a self-admitted rapist.
Now that is sleazy.
quick correction
At any rate, later, dsg tells us that he wants to consider this possibility because it may reveal that Polanski thought she OLDER THAN HE THOUGHT.
late for work, bye.
oh well can't type in this haste. will clarify later.
Hartal, you stated:
"The Judge did not do what he did because he had any suspicions that Polanski had admitted to a crime that he did [not] commit.
"Again only you are suggesting that possibility."
That's not what I have suggested. What I said was that the judge did not set aside Polanski's plea, he suggested to Polanski's counsel that he might send him to prison and deport him, after having been contacted by persons from the D.A.'s office. The important legal issue here is not what the judge may have thought about Polanski's culpability, it's what he actually did. He spoke directly with the D.A.'s office outside of the presence of Polanski's counsel, and he spoke with Polanski's counsel outside of the presence of the D.A.'s office. This is called ex parte contact, and it is rightly discouraged except under very limited circumstances because it is ripe for corruption and abuse.
I'm sorry you think that my lawyerly tendencies are bad, but I have to disagree here. First, lawyers are trained to think this way because of the nature of the legal system. Second, while I have sometimes been accused of "lawyering" inappropriate matters (e.g., negotiations over household chores), what we are talking about here is, in fact, a legal proceeding for establishing guilt and punishment. Any analysis of these events that does not at least try to account for them based on their legal ramifications is not likely to be very good.
Thus, on a micro level, my issues with blithely making judgments about Polanski based on information in the media alone without reference to actual legal conclusions are based on the poor analysis that goes into them. On a macro level, the issues of rape and statutory rape are full of ambiguities, subjectivity, and out and out falsehoods on the part of all parties involved, which makes any mere observer's claim to know the truth deeply suspect. One need only recall the cases of Gary Dotson, the Duke lacrosse team, and Cheryl Araujo to realize the thorniness of the task of finding the truth in these matters. And, as you should recall, I am not saying that I think Polanski is an angel or a victim here, only that the legal charges are not cut and dried. When I said "sleazy, at the very least," I did not use my words idly.
You write a lot dsg. Most of it is irrelevant.
He admitted that he knew she was 13. The Court asked him twice. He did not say only that he knew she under 16 or 18; he admitted that he knew she was 13. Twice.
He admitted that he had sex with her.
The Duke Lacrosse players never admitted to anything.
For you not to see the difference is laughable.
Polanski is guilty of statutory rape; he was not misled to her actual age.
Perhaps he thought 14 was the age of consent as it may be in Spain or Japan. What is it in France? I doubt it was 14 in Poland, though! At the very least then he knew the age of consent varies cross nationally and across states, so he should have checked.
And definitely should have checked before having her pose while drinking champagne.
Again you think the ethics of lawyering is forcing you to create these doubts about his actual innocence of any kind of rape (!!!) to which he had already admitted. Not even his closest friends are doubting that he committed statutory rape.
That is how you see yourself. As an ethical lawyer.
I see something much more sleazy at work.
"the editorial by my good friend Katha Pollitt"
right
and you came in second in the voting for the NPP
Hartal, I'm sorry you think what I write is irrelevant, I am simply trying to address the most significant legal issues involved in this matter. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why this effort is eliciting so much hostility from you. Name-calling, anger that apparently causes you to make typing errors, mistakes in reasoning that you wouldn't otherwise make--it paints a picture of loss of control. I really don't understand why. I know we've had reasonable discussions in the past, what is different now?
Hartal, you write:
"Again you think the ethics of lawyering is forcing you to create these doubts about his actual innocence of any kind of rape (!!!) to which he had already admitted. Not even his closest friends are doubting that he committed statutory rape.
"That is how you see yourself. As an ethical lawyer.
"I see something much more sleazy at work."
What we are talking about here, in its essence, is the meaning of the terms rape and statutory rape. As these are terms that are defined under the criminal law, it is simply not possible to discuss them without reference to the legal issues involved in the use of those terms. You can say, "Joe raped Jane," but unless Joe had been convicted of the crime, that statement is not really true, it's just an opinion.
At the heart of all this discussion is what Polanski did or didn't do, but unless you deal with the legalities in a rigorous way, all you have is opinion. You have an opinion about Polansky, and so do I, but those opinions don't have any impact on the legal question of whether he's guilty of a crime. What I have been doing here is simply pointing out the thorny issues that are involved in proving his guilt.
For the record, once again, I am not defending Polanski. I am just showing you that the legalities of his situation aren't as cut and dried as you seem to think. Because I have nothing to do with the case, I don't have an ethical duty as a lawyer to vigorously defend him. I think I do have a duty to the integrity of the legal system to explain as best I can the way the system works in this situation. That's all I have been trying to do, and if you can't see the difference between what I am doing and actually defending Polanski, it'll be a long time before we can have a meaningful discussion about these issues.
I always make typing errors in blog discussion. It's my signature. The errors I made were due to my typing out work notes, having to leave for work and the toddler screaming at my wife all at the same time. That you are at a loss as to why I am harsh in my criticism of you only speaks to the operation of a repression mechanism. That is the real 'error' in this conversation--your inability to recognize what motivates me in such a discussion.
Gotta go again.
Hartal, I've been explicit about why I'm making the points I'm making. Your motivations have not been explicit, however. Since I'm not a mindreader, maybe if you explained yourself, your positions might make more sense.
Hartal, I could have sworn that it was just early this year or late last year that you claimed to have been working on number two and had a four-year old.
That is one fast-growing baby you have.
Check your memory. You should never trust your memory or analytical powers, anon. You should know that about yourself by now. That's why you must hide your mistakes behind the anonymous handle.
dsg, this discussion is hopeless. Show the exchange to your girlfriend or third wife. She won't be happy with you. That's my guess.
Gotta love Ted Spe also overlooking Polanski's plea to say that we don't know what happened. How reluctant so many loser men are to hold other loser men accountable.
Polanski's a "loser"?
right
and Katha Pollitt is your good friend
what a tool
As for KP, all I have to say is Randy, Paul and Steven. Apt in NYC and summer home in CT. Lots of nights in both places.
You're just lucky that I give you the time of day, anon. But I have sociological interest in the idiocracy of which you are a shining example.
wait a minute
I'm anon
and nobody's lucky you're doing anything, hartal
although it is pretty weird that you're here in this corner of an abandoned blog bragging about your connections
S did not need to be babysat, loser. I wasn't bragging, just said that KP had it right on this case, and having cited that piece, I just noted that she is my friend.
I did not say you are lucky to have me around. You are too dense to appreciate what i am saying. You all here are a sociological interest of mine.
And this discussion has illuminated for me how deep seated the social problems of child abuse remain in this society.
Yeah, you and Katha, feminist left-wing public intellectuals to the end. I remember you now, publishing your pieces in, what was that magazine? asswipe. that's it.
I am not a public intellectual. Nor am I as left wing as KP. For example, she dated for years The Last Marxist. I am not a Marxist. Think of the problems with Marxism--Marx thought that gold had to be a commodity but money today is fiat money. So what does Marx have to say about the nature of money in an age of radical Fed policies, including quantitative easing. But why did Marx think money ultimately had to be a commodity and gold that commodity? Perhaps he could argue that the abandonment of the dollar for gold as a store of wealth shows that a commodity still has the fetishistic powers of money. And what does Marx's theory of decling rates of return in the industrial sector on which he focused have anything to do with the implosion of the financial sector with all its effects on the real sector?
At any rate, thank you for giving me sociological insight into the irrationalism and sexism of American culture.
This is amazing. I thought I was anon.
Anyway, Pollitt wrote about "the last marxist" from time to time in the Nation, in her regular column. So what? She dated "him," so that makes you less left wing than she was? Brilliant!
You're a pathetic fraud, hartal. Way I see it, you flipped out. Maybe you were an ivy league student once, but you lost it. You married a woman with a job and now you work for her. We'll probably be hearing about you on sfgate etc., soon. "Bipolar Ex-Scholar [does something bad]."
Meanwhile, please regale us here, in this corner of an abandoned blog we visit about once per monty, with anecdotes about your experience with Katha Pollitt.
So funny being called a fraud by someone who has to post anonymously so he can't be associated with the stupid things he has to say. As I was saying, you're too dense to understand that what I am saying about Polanski, Marx's monetary theory or his theory of crisis is anything but flipped out.
Remember what your role is--to give sociological insight into a segment of our people with whom I would otherwise have little connection. And you're doing a good job.
KP is way more left than I am. I have nice to things to say about capitalism. I am much more skeptical of how successful left Keynesian policies will be, given its possible effects on business confidence.
Katha is way too left, if not Marxist, to be caught worrying about such thngs.
Worried about someone who is going to do something bad? Look at all the people who have been writing apologetic things or minimizing things about Polanski's horrific acts. They should be your concern. Quite likely you should be your own concern.
Hartal, you and Laxmi or whatever his name is are right on on this one. Lasalle's defense of such heinous behavior is illogical and makes me wonder if the man is morally bankrupt. Or suffers from a guilty conscience. Or is insane.
There are two anon's on here, btw.
two?
Possibly three or more...we all use the surname name Sybill...
Hey, Two...wanna have sex?
Hartal, dammit. You shoulda listened to me.
I think maybe LaSalle is being told to write this crap. There can be no other explanation for his moral depravity.
three-way?
So is LaSalle not what I always told you he is? He is an intellectual light weight who cannot handle rational criticisms of his positions that leave him feeling at less than Maximum Strength. Now he has had many other posts flushed down the toilet (the ones by West Berkeley flats and laxmi were good) as he once had mine all deleted and me blocked from SF Gate.
But you have all defended him and his approach to open public debate.
He has made a lot of enemies in this last round. His only hope is that people won't see or understand what he deleted in his attempt to silence a debate about what should and should not be said about the history of minors who have been raped and what punishments of rapists are justified.
I am wondering whether SG, FH, DSG and XS are going to forgive him for his censoring of important posts on such an important topic.
It does not seem that West Berkeley Flats and Verite will.
So he has earned himself some very long-term enemies. He will then try to have them blocked from SF Gate soon enough unless of course they are themselves employed at SF Gate.
Let's see if xootsuit will cry any longer than MLS does not get to enjoy his own blog.
If he takes up matters this sensitive and acts like a complete insensitive jerk, he does not deserve to enjoy his blog.
In fact he does not deserve a blog featured at the major newspaper of record.
Perhaps one of you should copy this and post it to SF Gate from which I have been blocked.
Hartal, blogs are like TV, if you don't like what's on, change the channel.
My serious recommendation to you is that you write a letter to the editor of the Chronicle under your actual name, detailing the issues you have with what's been going on.
The real problem with blogs, from the point of view of anyone with true personal integrity, is anonymity. If one feels one can say things anonymously that one couldn't say if people knew who one was, that's cowardly, and that includes whistleblowing and voicing unpopular political opinions; one must be willing to face the consequences of one's actions if one has personal integrity. If one doesn't have the courage of one's convictions to stand personally behind one's statements, those statements are worthless. Too much blogging is worthless posturing, hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
For all his faults, and there appear to be quite a few of them, at least Mick La Salle stands behind what he says. You may disagree with him, you may despise him, but he isn't hiding his opinions behind a phony shield of anonymity.
Unless, of course, he posts under different names. Or has in the past...one can never really know, though, can they?
People post anonymously all over SFGate. It's obviously an accepted practice with the Hearse Corpse.
Why, we can only surmise. Unless it has to do with staying in business and ad rates. But we know all about the Ethics of Hearse and their history of what they're willing to do for a Yellow journalistic Buck.. Cough, cough
Ad rates, dsg, are determined by viewer count....
Again you write a lot, but it's irrelevant. He clearly deleted rational and valid criticism of his position and left alone personal attacks and ad hominem criticism that favored his side.
There is nothing courageous about such a censor.
As already said, the Hearse Corp won't do away with cute handles and all that, so that is a condition of blogging. If LaSalle wants a Heart blog he must accept that.
He can't; he must lose his blog..
Just because a practice is accepted doesn't mean it's best. That principle is so obvious it shouldn't need repeating, but apparently it does. Reading any blog proves my point. People untethered by any sense of personal responsibility for the things they say will say just about anything, regardless of its merit, because they will never have to stand behind the statement. I'm sorry you think my point is irrelevant, but the fact that this blog has been virtually abandoned proves my point. What irks me is that you ignore what I state about La Salle's faults to assert that I am calling him some sort of saint because he stands behind his statements. That sort of bald mischaracterization is rare outside of anonymous blogs, where one's reputation is on the line; the only folks I see regularly practicing that sort of foolishness in real life are the Tea Party health care insurance reform opponents.
Again dsg LaSalle is clearly not deleting just untethered criticism, so I don't understand your point.
And for him to delete thoughtful criticism on such a sensitive topic shows that he should not have a blog featured by the paper of record.
I didn't say that you called him a saint. You clearly implied that he's a courageous, stand up kind of guy. And he is clearly not that.
"Standing behind his statements" is not equal to "stand up guy."
He can't stand by his statements in the face of criticism if he deletes the criticism that exposes his statement as untrue, unsound and uncivil. Moreover, people here suspect that he defends his own positions under pseudonyms. So he may be making it seem as if someone else is assenting to his statements when only he is disturbed enough to think that what he says is reasonable.
MLS' dirty character is revealed by his flushing West Berkeley flats' detailed replies to protect his friend Cowie who evidently thinks Puritanism motivates the criticism of Polanski here and abroad.
I by the way think Palin's abstinence movement is crazy. I am all for thorough sex education. To think people like me are motivated by Puritanism or Reagan's family values or by hatred of artists is self serving bullshit
hartal, thinly disguised as laxmi, has died and gone to nirvana: Mick LaSalle actually responded to him! And he's not being deleted (very much) yet! Oh, joy. I haven't read any of the many comments. I just saw the vast array and LS's comments. Looks like a passionate waste of time to me.
But congrats, hartal. You've really made it now.
I'll tell you again: LaSalle had all my posts deleted and had me removed from SF Gate. I can't post there. Why do you assume, though, that I am laxmi rather than WB Flats, verite, anon or mds? Second, you must be drunk already if you think I care about LaSalle responding to me. I was happy making him look like a fool and having xootsuit and twinfan defend him during the nomination run. Loved twinfan's evidence on Che too. And what could be better than xootsuit on Conrad!
anon...I believe Sybill is a French name. You know how the French feel about threesomes...
wv:copmars. Now I know that's French for something. I think I'll leave it up to my imagination.
I am sure some you work for or know big players who work for SF Gate. You should urge that LaSalle be fired. He has now taken down an important discussion on a sensitive and important topic.
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
I am laughing my ass off.
Score, Hatal!
You gotta know I'm laughing. I meant to write "score Hartal!"
He claims he doesn't. But perhaps he's lying. He is an attorney.
Well, dsg? Truthiness, please?
You've lost me. Who or what are we talking about now?
Don't be coy.
"I am sure some you work for or know big players who work for SF Gate."
yeah, I know a really big player who delivers the chronicle. He drives a little car that lists to the driver's side as he rolls along the street, flipping papers toward driveways. I would be glad to tell him about your complaint, hartal, but I don't leave my house at 5 am to work out anymore (long story). I actually haven't seen the guy in ages. Sorry.
I wanna hear you LONG story. Maybe we can work it in our session...
wv: ravou. Hmmm.
fellow anons, I am here to tell you LaSalle re-posted the majority of the Polanski discussion. Crisis averted!
He did not repost some excellent critical comments and he never replied to the good ones that he left. The crisis has hardly been averted. By his cavalier attitude and flippant replies on this sensitive and heart-breaking matter, he has earned himself so many permanent intellectual enemies that his SF Gate career may be over.
It should be over. He is a much worse person than I thought.
"his SF Gate career may be over"
my hunch is he hates having to do the blog. I think the chronicle forced a bunch of its writers to blog. LaSalle probably would love the chance to abandon MSM for everything except the podcast. Maybe he's angling?
wv: hercul
you betcha!
Hartal. Most people do not make enemies over an opinion. Get real. It's. just. his. opinion.
I think he does the blog as an outlet to talk about his other interests.
But he has revealed such professional incompetence and insensitivity that he may not and should not have a career at SF Gate. To the extent that he remains employed he is a black eye for SF Gate. At least Saunders tries to make an honest argument. LaSalle ignored serious criticism and cherry picked the most foolish ones to reply to. That is obvious to a lot of people That is so unprofessional that I don't see how he survives or why his colleagues would want to be associated with him. The battle from inside and outside SF Gate for his ouster has probably begun--there are women who work there, right?
I'll bet Stanford University Press' Pope will find a way to get out of the book contract too. Maybe this is why he is acting as such an ass. He knew that he could not write at an academically accceptable leve. At any rate, he was probably not going to get through the anonymous reader reports.
Once again, I'm nonplussed.
"he was probably not going to get through the anonymous reader reports"
Oh oh oh. the failed academic speaks! Don't tell me you didn't get tenure? I don't believe it. You never got a real job. You just knew people who published (or tried to publish) at academic houses. Right?
Hartal. Maybe when you've lived in this country long enough, you'll understand the First Amendment.
That's the beauty of a democracy. People can voice their opinions without fear of recrimination. Learn it, live it.
One more thought for you, Hartal.
Do you understand the role of opinion pieces? Part of the idea behind them is to stimulate thought on relevant issues. Think in terms of devil's advocate.
Think what you want about me, but LaSalle does not write in the professional mode required to be a featured blogger at SF Gate or to be a writer published by a major academic press. I am betting that Pope at SUP will sabotage his manuscript by soliciting hostile outside reviews.He just does not understand what he has done to his professional reputation which could have been enhanced by arguing against the extradition in a rigorous, coherent and truthful way. And please no one is talking about LaSalle's free speech rights. He can write comments but he should not have editorial power. That is obvious to a lot of people, including many of his former supporters.
I am just making the reasonable guess that he's made enough enemies (inside and outside SF Gate) to make his ouster somewhat likely at this point.
If you honestly think his opinion on this issue will be what gets him fired, you haven't the first clue about the state of journalism or how newspapers operate.
I mean, so what? He pissed some people off. It happens all the time in the business. It generates interest and reader hits, which mean more money for the big guys. You think Hearse Corpse is gonna fire him for being controversial and making them more money? LOL!!!! Right now, dumbo, they're hemorrhaging a cool mil a week!
They probably told him to do it!
Sure make money defending Clinton over Obama or saying Michael Jackson's post Off The Wall music and dance moves sucked. But it's another thing to talk about rape of a minor without sensitivity. Even if the Hearse corp wants to make money by provoking people that way, his colleagues may like to see him pushed to margin, anyway.
LaSalle is still saying that the authorities don't extradite statutory rapists as if such criminals are of a more benign sort. Of course he wants to argue not that (but why not make that clear?) but that only P's celebrity status has made authorities extradite him for a crime that is usually overlooked (but should it be?).
At any rate, LaSalle does not respond to the point that due to "P's celebrity status P's minimizing comments and his attorneys' charge of corruption as a justification for flight are likely to circulate and create a real danger to the public.
And now that Cowie and LaSalle have said the things in his defense that they have, the public is now more interested than ever in a tough sentence for Polanski.
And it has become more necessary than it was before.
Polanski is surrounded by horrible advocates.
And, what makes you such an expert on knowing what kind of writer it takes to be considered a professional? Are you a professional writer? What are you--half his age?
Don't you think by now that LaSalle has honed his skill well enough to be considered one? He's sure getting an emotional reaction out of a lot of people--maybe that's what he's really angling for. That sorta makes him an artist by definition.
Is there even a remote possibility in your mind that he's doing this to make people think about the issue? An exercise in judgment? It's kinda manipulative and risky on his part, but look at the effect.
No I am not half his age. Writing about rape requires greater sensitivity. It's not something people should write about just to generate hits. He has trampled professional and human ethics.
If he wanted people to think about the real issues, he would address them honestly rather than cherry pick loony comments to lampoon. If he enjoys collegiality I'd be surprised.
Hartal, don't get me wrong. I have agreed with you. I am simply wondering where this man may be getting his (ill)logic from.
I seriously doubt, though, that he'd lose his job over this matter. For just the reasons I told you about. They're (the Hearse Corpse)a desperate, jaded bunch these days... Fighting for survival, literally and figuratively.
Oh many of the men who are headline writers and paid commentators and retired sports writers may forgive him, but some will not. And many of the women writers will not if they in fact saw how he conducted himself and what he featured, viz. Cowie's mother-bashing defense of Polanski.
He can only ply them with good whiskey and hope that they forgive him. But certainly many SF Gate commentators will not (verite, Norahollywood, Anon, laxmi, WBerkeleyflats, and others--jeez, even the record setting SF Gate poster dsg is put off by MLS accusing the Polanski critics of all wanting blood vengeance).
He has no idea how much respect he has lost. He's an nastier guy than I had thought, but it's good to know that so many people--clearly even some of his former supporters--now see him basically the way I always had.
"He has trampled professional and human ethics"
What's the breathing into a paper bag equivalent cure for hyperbolic ventilating?
And we all know you're laxmi, hartal. Cut the crap.
Professional ethics because he only responded to the weakest criticism. Several people said that. No one is breathing heavy, just describing his modus operandi. It's now crystal clear for many people.
Human ethics because he approved of Cowie's victim and mother blaming piece of idiocy and still has not written a word about why statutory rape is rape.
Stop calling me laxmi. I have told you a million times I have been blocked from SF Gate. There are 50K South Asians in the Bay Area. Laxmi sometimes spelled Lakshmi is a very common name.
And I also made it clear that I identify more with West Berkeley Flat's angry posts than anyone else's. But please don't get him banned on the suspicion that he is me. He's not; and neither is laxmi. Nobody posting at SF Gate is me.
You're such a Drama Queen, Hartal.
FU, I am THE drama queen. Do you think MLS has taken time to read any of the relevant transcripts and interviews? It does not seem that way (also pointed out by norahollywood), yet he has an opinion. He's not the journalist here; he's just another ill-informed commentator. Fire him, strip him of his editorial powers; and then watch Norris reject the manuscript.
However, how many South Asians are commenters on SFGate? And how many of them use Hindi words for their handles? And how many of them have a hard-on for Mick La Salle? The mask is slipping, Dr. Bill.
Probably several hundred. Laxmi is a very common name, not a Hindi word. LaSalle has offended good people of all ethnicities; one was bound to be another South Asian, though laxmi may be acting out in solidarity with me. As is well known, South Asians all get along very well with one another
Too funny that LaSalle lackeys Ted Spe and Truffault have gone silent--sort of cowardly I would say. They should just say that he is an unprofessional jerk. Phylloflix and Suzagoob are not rushing to his defense. Xootsuit refuses to see what's right in front of him in the LAT piece. T calls for celebrity justice which LaSalle is criticizing were not a sufficient and probably not even necessary cause of the extradition order; it was Polanski's attorneys saying loudly that the unwillingness to extradite was a tacit admission of corruption and that therefore the charges should be dropped. The DA was forced to act. Not a word from LaSalle on that. What a journalist!
And Ferrethead why have you not written that LaSalle is an unprofessional jerk at his blog?
Join the growing chorus.
It's also quite clear that the people left at LaSalle's blog don't understand why statutory rape is rape and that adult sex with a minor even without direct physical violence can be as injurious as any form of rape.
This is a horrendous situation, and I don't say this as a drama queen but as a father of two girls.
Don't let this situation go uncorrected, those of who who have not been blocked from SF Gate.
Wonder who among the posters has daughters...
In remarkable research, the sociologist Rebecca Warner and the economist Ebonya Washington have shown that the gender of a person's children seems to influence the attitudes and actions of the parent.
Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel (1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers. The authors' key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents. . . The authors demonstrate that people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action).
hey, write to sfgate and the chronicle under your real name and tell them what you think. Then post the text of your letters here. We all enjoy a good laugh!
Uh, you could take Drama Queen in more than one way. None of which are very good.
Mick is a movie critic. You gotta obsessive hard-on for him. Maybe that's your problem. You're a repressed homosexual who wants acknowledgment from the man. And when he doesn't give it to you, you go ballistic.
That would explain your hysterics about rape and your hostlity and anger towards him.
wv: gongs
Wow. "Hysterics about rape", you say?
Are you human?
And to state the obvious: I just don't want MLS to have the right to remove arbitrarily posts that are critical of the positions that he takes up.
Second obvious point: hartal is not the one going ballistic on MLS. There are a lot of people hating on him for the same reasons that I have always hated on him--dishonest and unprofessional style of argumenation. I have always said this about him. Now there is a at least a score of people who see it as clearly as I do.
He's free not to respond to me; he should not be free to edit a blog, or have had me kicked off.
by the way your 'hysterics" comment revealed for all to see that anon is a disturbed and ugly person.
hey, this anon is a really kind and attractive person. watch yourself there, you're starting to sound hysterical (in more than one way)
I think you have projected your own feelings towards La Salle upon the other posters who simply share your view of Polanski. The thoughtful ones like anon and wberkelelyflats have said that they disagree with him and are surprised and disappointed that he's so insistent on his view of Polanski, but they have not said anything at all like you (or Dr. Bill) have said. The reason is that they, like most people, can disagree with someone else without it becoming a personal vendetta (a word with Italian roots, btw). For example, I can say that La Salle's "blood lust" remark was uncalled for without it being a sign of anything more than my disapproval of that word. It doesn't have to turn into my own private crusade.
Anonymous, you stole my suggestion!
I repeated it, because it is a very good idea.
Oh no dsg you are clearly misreading what W Berkeley Flats, verite and norahollywood have come to understand about LaSalle. LaSalle already threatened to delete WBF's posts--you must have missed the really angry ones, much angrier than mine have ever been. Verite lashed out. Norahollywood was frustrated on the MJ treatment but is clearly fed up at this point.
Anon is a new handle, but I am betting that anon is actually incensed about how LaSalle manages his blog. LaSalle won't appear the same to them after this, but we'll see.
It was always convenient to think that my criticism was idiosyncratic. It's not.
And call me hysteric for responding to that comment on rape. It was terrible, and the person who wrote it needs help.
Here's a comment from anon815522 or something; he's one of LaSalle more gentle but relentless critics (he's not nearly as mad as WBF, verite and a whole lot of other people). Anon815522 sees what I have always seen about LaSalle.
View comment on: Celebrity Justice at 10/12/2009 3:27 PM PDT
MickLaSalle wrote: "or if it's the same people saying the exact same things over and over"
Here are some "thumbs up or thumbs down" for some of the "same people":
WBerkeleyFlats 10/11/2009 10:59:02 AM: 122 up, 7 down
WBerkeleyFlats 10/11/2009 11:04:30 AM: 96 up, 7 down
WBerkeleyFlats 10/11/2009 11:07:18 AM: 119 up, 4 down
laxmi 10/11/2009 12:31:11 PM: 18 up, 1 down
anon81552 10/11/2009 5:40:20 PM: 48 up, 1 down
anon81552 10/11/2009 8:36:01 PM: 44 up, 1 down
As opposed to:
MickLaSalle 10/11/2009 11:06:24 AM: 17 up, 74 down
MickLaSalle 10/11/2009 11:08:12 AM: 16 up, 74 down
So, I can see why you don't want to see posts from "the same people".
And, laxmi just posted a very reasonable set of questions that seem to have been flagged as "a violation of terms & conditions".
From the comments that I've seen, I've seen very little in response to reasonable questions or comments.
What I have seen is complaints about "bile-spewing and venting", while legitimate questions and comments are entirely ignored.
As many other posters have pointed out, someone seems to be deleting posts that run counter to Mick LaSalle's point of view, whether or not they're in violation of terms & conditions.
In addition, as pointed out by others, Mick seems to respond only to comments that are irrational, emotional, and trivial to refute, and chooses not to respond to any substantive comments or questions.
It's really a joke when a professional journalist presents a point of view in a forum, and then deletes reasoned arguments that don't agree with his point of view.
I've read some of the posts that have been deleted, and there was nothing offensive about them. Many of the deleted posts were well thought out, reasoned, and balanced comments.
I have no idea why someone would choose to be so inflexible in the face of such popular opposition, without offering any sort of legitimate defense for his position.
If Mick chooses to delete reasonable posts that don't agree with him, he should disable comments entirely.
If you can't stand the heat...
mick, we've got the blog data in for October, and, frankly mick, we gotta talk
hey, i try to keep it civil. since you laid off what's his name nobody has time to monitor the place.
it's not the commenters we're worried about, mick. it's you. all those thumbs down you got when you argued with the posters over polanski. that's ugly stuff, mick.
thumbs down? thumbs down? you're warning me because some blood lusty bloggers gave me thumbs down?
no, mick, we're terminating you. clean out your mailbox. you're through here, mick. sorry.
Oh no it's the thumbs down that reveal him to be an unprofessional. Here's what matters: not only the refusal to take seriously good arguments and important counter-evidence but also the penchant for deleting any trace of them. It's one thing to do that over the quality of MJ's dance moves; it's another thing when the topic is statutory rape. And now he has a lot of enemies.
He's an embarrassment to the journalists at SF Gate.
Sorry, Hartal, but it's you who are misreading what thoughtful people are posting, and the reason is that you've completely lost all objectivity on these matters. For example, lots of people have made digs at La Salle, but you are in a very tiny minority of folks whose specific behavior towards La Salle has gotten them banned from SFGate as a result. For whatever reason, you are simply unable to treat differences about certain issues as ones where reasonable people can disagree, and you then demonize the other person to the extreme. When this trait led you to get down and dirty against La Salle, the result was inevitable. That's my opinion, FWIW.
And I'll tell you once more, saying that the merits of an argument can be ascertained by whether it's popular, as evidenced by the pointing thumbs, is solipsistic in the extreme.
Hartal, you said: "As is well known, South Asians all get along very well with one another." Now that was funny.
LaSalle is alone deciding what to delete and whom to unsub. Or perhaps he has one friend on it. As verite said, I believe, no objective and independent editor would have allowed all that. What I have said is not different from what anon said, and it's less harsh than what several people are saying about him. He's unprofessional, and he has terribly mishandled the discussion of statutory rape. His replies have been way too uninformed, cavalier and flippant for a discussion of this issue. If you think that's a minority position, then you simply won't allow yourself to read.
Do note that anon basically told him that he should get out of the blogging business due to his manifest unfairness and intellectual incapability of dealing with serious counter-argument.
I did not say that, and I'll bet you that anon wll say this more and more loudly.
You do know that WBF's line by line refutation of Cowie's outrageous comment was deleted by LaSalle? Ask WBF what he thinks of LaSalle if he has not already had him unsubbed.
Hartal: we're you raped by a guy that reminds you of MLS? In prison, maybe?
You've got such an abusive temper that it tells me there is some deep-seated anger and rage at men with more power than you. It's almost female in similarity.
You're taking this personally. That's not a normal response.
I'm a kind and attractive anon, too.
IT'S A BLOG.
It's a blog about statutory rape. No time to say more, just note that many people are reaching similar conclusions about MLS that I long ago did. Of course perhaps we are all badly paid, powerless, whiny females. Pathetic sexism.
OK it seems that West Berkeley Flats has been blocked from SF Gate by LaSalle. Or at least a ton of his posts have been deleted.
No one sane would have agreed to that.
Here's what happened.
WBF wrote a careful line by line response to Cowie's comment.
MLS deleted it.
WBF got angry and told MLS that he is the coward that he is.
Then because he was angry MLS unsubbed him.
And still on his blog is Cowie making false and unverified claims about what the mother did as a way of minimizing Polanski's crime.
Yes this is going to make people angry, because it is not ethical and professional.
Of course MLS as any sexist defender of male privilege will have his defenders.
But he now has a lot of people who disrespect him to his core. And I am not talking about me. I am talking about WBF, Verite, Norahollwyood, Laxmi, and others.
But I see that people who get angry about lax discourse over rape are called whiny females here.
Where's Suzagoob, Ferrethead or even Airhead? Or were there never really any women here? How about people who have actually raised (as opposed to just having--talking about you twinfan given your admission of having not been a good father) daughters?
Ya, but you're the only one going ballistic and calling for his head.
It's his blog, he can say whatever in the hell he wants. If his editors don't like it, they can EDIT it...they won't fire him for things that run by them FIRST! Duh!
Maybe you're really a woman, Hartal, or wish you were one...
I am not calling for his head--I can't post on SF Gate. I use his initials here. Several people have called for his head at SF Gate. Most of those comments have been deleted, but they were made. This is not about hartal--don't you see; and no I am taking no steps to get anyone fired. But I do think he should be fired. He's not professional.
OK I am a woman. So what?
He's already admitted that he's deleting comments on his own. And we'll see what the editors make of his treatment of statutory rape in the face of the anger that he has created.
Well, I think he should lose his job, too. But not for expressing his opinion.
How's your sociology research going, hartal? found any wackos yet? oh, wait, you ARE the wacko.
It was not his opinion. It was how he tried to justify it in the face of reasonable criticism. And it's that he never did the work to check his opinion against the facts. What motivated the extradition? What can we confidently say that we know happened between RP and the girl, given the transcripts, pleas and interviews? No use of that evidence at all. Why do we have laws against statutory rape? What exactly would have been the normal sentence for someone who did what RP did even back in those old sexist days?
Given the sensitivity of the topic, he should have been more careful.
And yes I know someone who has been raped. You probably don't know that you probably do too.
Sorry to have overestimated you. Sixth grade?
I am so pretty that it would make you cry. It was already too much that I am so much sharper than you. If you knew how much cuter I am as well, you wouldn't recover.
From what I have observed with regard to people who have attacked me personally, the status, "this person's account is under review," means that they were being abusive in some way.
Prove it, then.
What are you afraid of? Recrimination?
And, you're nowhere near as sharp--you can't even understand a simple concept like freedom of speech. It's funny, you object to being silenced and havingto suffer the consequences of your words, yet you want to silence LaSalle--just because he thinks differently than you. And, you still fail to understand that when you own the blog, you get to call the shots--whether pisstoads like it or not.
What Ivy league college did you say you attended?
"Pisstoads." Nice visual. :)
I thought it was perfect.
hartal's calming down, I see. hey, what happened to laxmi over there on the movie blog? vanished all a sudden
Sure, I am not as sharp or cute as you must be. And of course I am trying to restrict free speech rights, too. But above all else I love that you are asking me to show things, anon. That's so tough.
"a simple concept like freedom of speech"
well, you and I may have to part ways there, anon. nothing simple about freedom
wv: explice that's me
I didn't say freedom was simple, anon two. I said understanding a concept like freedom of speech was simple. And it is.
Explice? Now that's complicated. My first thought was ex police. I mixed feelings about cops. Some of them are just crooked dicks.
Leave you to your madness.
But let dsg speak to this. I am sure an attorney could state this in the appropriate language, and more succinctly.
Polanski's being famous was not a sufficient condition for the actual arrest, as MLS suggests in a barely coherent way.
He was probably arrested because his lawyers have been saying since the HBO video that the previous failure to extradite proves that the LA DA office did not want to face its own corruption and should thus drop the charges.
This sets a dangerous precedent in part because Polanski is a celebrity and his defense will be well publicized. So what the DA office now faces is that anyone who has become a fugitive whom the DA office does not have the time or resources to track down can say that such reticence proves corruption and justifies ex post facto what was initially illegal flight. No well functioning judicial system can live with such a well publicized taunt. Polanski's attorneys forced the arrest; they are to blame for this, not the philistine and resentful public as LaSalle claims.
Polanski had to be arrested not for the purposes of celebrity justice but for the purpose of destroying Polanski's attorneys' very public claims.
In other words, his attorneys' claims were almost a call to flight for anyone who thinks they have been handled badly by a corrupt judicial system.
For what they were saying is that you can run away and if they don't catch you after some time, you must have been innocent and they shouldn't be able to touch. You can then return as if nothing ever happened.
Why isn't MLS angry at Polanski's attorneys and Polanski himself for making the taxpayers pay for Polanski's address
Why isn't MLS angry at Polanski for the statements that he made to Martin Amis and for defending himself by saying the girl was not a sexual innocent.
Why don't people realize that an adult having even non physically coerced sex (though this was doubtless very painful anal sex) with a drunk girl one third his age can be just as harmful and injurious to a not yet emotionally and cognitively developed child as a physically violent act of rape against an adult woman.
Why would people accept MLS saying that this just couldn't have been as brutal an act as one committed by a violent rapist in the bushes?
What does he know about children or rape?
Why would a major paper allow this crap?
At the very beginning of these discussions, back when I described Polanski's actions as "sleazy, at the least," I also said that, while I understood Polanski's impulse to run, I couldn't condone his running. The rule of law presumes respect for the law and requires that everyone be equal before it; fleeing from justice flouts those principles, and corrodes public respect and obedience of the law.
On the other hand, I would not have a hard time believing that the LAPD and D.A.'s offices were corrupt.
Well dsg you did not speak to my points--what role did Polanski's attorneys play in his arrest? why would MLS imply that statutory rape is less injurious than rape by physical violence of an adult woman? And it seems that you still do not think it offensive to describe statutory rape as merely sleazy.
Of course Polanski's problem was not that the system was corrupt but that it was not corrupt enough for his celebrity status to buy him a ridiculously lenient sentence for the horrible crimes that he clearly committed.
It's almost as if you are justifying his flight.
Really that you men friends of MLS--dsg, twinfan, xootsuit, TedSpe--are not telling MLS how wrong he is about this does not make you look good (well twinfan is to some extent but he is not nearly as critical of MLS and Cowie as he could be). Do the responsible thing. Call him out on his blog. Let him know that his friends and admirers want him to at the least nuance his position on this very sensitive issue.
wv: prester--perhaps still in the East
Hartal. You're assuming that people actually care beyond the entry about MLS's opinion on this matter and that his opinion actually counts in the Grande Scheme of Things...
wv:sklyth. Ppphh.
It wasn't clear from what you wrote what exactly your question was, so I addressed the issue that seemed to most call out for a legal point of view.
As for the question you actually wanted me to address, I'd say that the motives of the D.A.'s office and the police may not have been pristine, as I would agree that Polanski's actions, through his attorneys, to get rid of the case pissed them off and made them angry at him. However, as long as the law still allowed the D.A.'s office and the police to take the action they did, and as long as their motives didn't involve illegal considerations like race, gender or religion, their anger is irrelevant to whether their actions were valid.
Further, I said "sleazy, at the least," which in no way can be construed as "merely sleazy," as you assert. What part of the difference between those two statements don't you understand?
And when I said "sleazy, at the least," it was before I had done any reading into the actual facts of the case as reflected in the transcripts. When I made my initial statements, I qualified them on that basis; after reading the transcripts in light of my understanding of these sorts of proceedings (i.e., accepting nothing at face value, instead examining the statements in the context of all of the objective facts and subjective motivations), I would have to conclude that the odds are great that Polanski's actions were well beyond sleazy. Even so, the statement "sleazy, at the least" would encompass the extent of that likely depravity. You should be more careful in reading what other people say, especially when those people choose their words carefully.
Also, when I said that, while I understood the impulse to run, I could not condone his fleeing, how could that reasonably be construed to be "almost as if [I] were justifying his flight"? Sure I can understand why--he was afraid! Understanding that fact does not in any way come close to justifying what he did. You state that, "Polanski's problem was not that the system was corrupt but that it was not corrupt enough for his celebrity status to buy him a ridiculously lenient sentence...." I would disagree with your formulation of this problem; as I noted several days ago, the problem with corruption in general is that you can never be sure that the officials you have bought will stay bought if a better offer comes around. Polanski bought his deal, but it didn't stay bought because the judge was concerned more about his image and was embarrassed by Polanski's actions.
Lastly, you misconstrue my relationship with La Salle. We are not friends. I like his writing and some of his ideas. He seems to like my commentary and some of my ideas. Beyond that, there is no relationship, so there is no friendship. On a subject such as attitudes towards rape, I would not presume to try to tell him what to think. What I've said on the blog is the extent of what I think would be appropriate to say. As to whether my not pursuing your vendetta against La Salle makes me look bad, I disagree with your assessment, and the proof, as it were, is in the pudding.
Post a Comment