What the hell is wrong with you?
Don't you find highly offensive, as I do, the recent efforts of The Left to not only ignore the actions of those who would prey on barely pubescent teenage girls but to openly defend such predators in public. We're not even talking about 18 or 19 year old nominal adults. We're not even talking about "almost adult" 16 or 17 year old girls.
We're talking about girls just past menarche -- 13 to 15 years of age -- whom the Left repeatedly has overlooked with regards to possible or even actual sexual abuse and mistreatment, and minimized the actions of those who have conspired with those who would prey upon them, and even minimized the actions of those who have actually preyed upon such young teens.
Let's start with the Washington Post ombudsman, who described the ACORN videos as "not appearing newsworthy" because (emphasis added):
With ACORN, The Post wrote about it two days after the first of several explosive hidden-camera videos were aired showing the group's employees giving tax advice to young conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp.Ah, so it was all about the "tax advice"? Even our host, Carl, doesn't really call the WaPo on it.
The New York Times had its own excuse for spiking the ACORN videos (again, emphasis added):
[Reporter Scott] Shane said he thought it was correct to approach the Acorn sting as a political story. Absent that aspect, he said, the discussion of prostitution by low-level employees was not compelling news.Ah, so it was all about victimless crime of prostitution, then?
It's not as if the Times was unaware of this issue; rather, the paper downplayed it elsewhere in the same statement (emphasis added once more):
An Acorn worker in Baltimore was shown telling the "prostitute" that she could describe herself to tax authorities as an "independent artist" and claim the 15-year-old prostitutes, supposedly illegal immigrants, as dependents.Again, the leftist mainstream media tries blithely to bury criminality via "scare quotes" and "supposedly."
Law prof/blogger Ann Althouse rightly scolds the media's sloth, with sharp wit and welcome clarity. Still, she bypasses the MSM's bogus construction limiting the controversy only to tax fraud in the service of consensual prostitution, arguably minor offenses to morality.
This elides the most damning part of the videos, something which both the WaPo and the NYT should have reported immediately. In particular, the supposed pimp and madame in each ACORN video openly proposes to staff their brothels with underage girls -- from 13 to 15, not 15 as the Times reports -- imported from Central America.
Again, if the idea of this being mostly ignored by ACORN personnel and the media fails to outrage you. . .
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
This is no "Heidi Fleiss" situation. The plan would have involved actual victims, girls too young to form meaningful, mature consent, imported into America to be de facto sex slaves for the financial remuneration of their "captors". Put differently, it would have been blatant sexual predation on a minor. But, rather than being appalled, rather than contacting the authorities, most of the ACORN activists volunteered "helpful" advice--the San Diego ACORN representative even offered assistance in transporting the girls across the Mexican border! This is an organization rotten to the core.
And where's the condemnation from middle-America and the media? The blase reaction by progressives and the press almost suggests this is the sole sort of capitalism they favor. If so . . .
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
In the unlikely event you haven't seen the videos, or perhaps want to review them, here is a set of links to them:
ACORN #1 -- Baltimore, MDNot just "one bad apple" -- this is a sign of a barrel full of rotten apples, folks. And, for the heck of it, the "Pimp & Pro" on Hannity
ACORN #2 -- Washington, DC
ACORN #3 -- New York City, NY
ACORN #4 -- San Bernardino, CA (yeah, she's probably a whackjob. But she still works for ACORN)
ACORN #5 -- San Diego, CA
Alas, only a week after the ACORN videos, the left upped the ante--by championing film director Roman Polanski. In 1977 then aged 44, he plead guilty to unlawful intercourse and sodomy with a 13 year old girl (who he had drugged with a Quaalude), then bolted on bail. Polanski recently was arrested in Switzerland (on the basis of the 28 year old U.S. warrant), and may be extradited back to the U.S.
The idiot famous rushed to Polanski's defense:
Whoopi Goldberg: I know it wasn't rape-rape.How is a guilty plea from an admitted child predator like being thrown to the lions? And, because there's no statute of limitations on jumping bail, how is his conviction an ancient affair? Does the Left ever think of any of these facts?
Harvey Weinstein: Polanski is a "humanist" who has been the victim of a "miscarriage of justice." (this is the guy who says "Hollywood has the best moral compass". Just in case you wanted a belly laugh in the middle of this cesspool)
Debra Winger: It is a "three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece."
Francois Mitterrand (former French President): Polanski has been "thrown to the lions over an ancient affair that doesn't make any sense."
A widely circulated petition seeking Polanski's release is drawing hundreds of signatures from Hollywood and Euro elites, including:
Woody AllenMany signatories are the same hypocrites who howled when Communist-turned-patriot Elia Kazan received an honorary Oscar in 1999, as John Nolte expertly amplifies.
Capping the hysteria, France's Society of Film Directors warns: The arrest "could have disastrous consequences for freedom of expression across the world." Huh? What does sex with a minor have to do with free speech? It's not like America's banned showings of Rosemary's Baby or Chinatown.
Patterico gets into a public discussion with Anne Applebaum. Her position is "telling the whole truth now would be too confusing" and "I dislike the reduction of complicated stories to simple facts." Got that? Here, let me translate that from Libspeak: "You're too stupid and ignorant to be able to judge." Interesting how that seems to be The Left's view of anyone who disagrees with them on any subject, isn't it? Very convenient to be the Only Ones Who Can Really Understand The Truth, innit?
Among Applebaum's comments is the following:
Yes, there is "evidence" that Polanski did not know the girls age -- or that he was told but did not believe it: He has told people since that, anyway. Pictures of her from the time show a girl who could be anywhere from 12-25.Here are contemporaneous pics (likely taken by Polanski himself), which put the blatant lie to that:
If so, I have to ask. . .
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Thankfully, a few stars stumble towards the truth:
Jewel: "Polanski-admitted raping a 13 yr old-whys every1 in the arts upset hes facing jail? cause hes a gifted director? what am i missing?"They are right, as any review of the grand jury testimony of his thirteen year old female victim reveals (warning: graphic language):
Luc Besson: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
Chris Rock: People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies? Are you kidding me? He made good movies 30 years ago! Even Johnny Cochran don't have the nerve to go, "Well, did you see OJ play against New England?"
Q: What happened after that?To summarize, Polanski's victim:
A: He started to have intercourse with me.
Q: What do you mean by intercourse?
A: He placed his p*** in my v***.
Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?
A: I was mostly just on and off saying, "No, stop." But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.
Q: What did he say, if anything?
A: He didn't answer me when I said, "No." . . .
A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, "Oh, I won't come inside of you then." And I just went--and he goes--and then he put me--wait. Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my an*s.
Q: When you say he went in your an*s, what do you mean by that?
A: He put his p*** in my b**t.
Q: Did he say anything at that time?
Q: Did you resist at that time?
A: A little bit, but not really because--(pause.)
Q: Because what?
A: Because I was afraid of him. . .
Q: Do you know what a climax is?
Q: Do you know whether he had a climax?
Q: And how do you know that?
A: Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my b**t and stuff.
Q: When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your an*s?
1) Was way underage -- not just "a little."Do these sound like minor technicalities? Or a miscarriage of justice? Where happened to NO means NO!" feminists? The mind just boggles at the tortured equivalences and twisted excuses seemingly endemic to leftist cultural elites.
2) Said NO -- more than once.
3) Was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, that Polanski unlawfully provided.
4) Plausibly was too afraid to resist.
True, Polanski didn't plead to rape, but was convicted of "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse." But that's scant mitigation: the plea was designed to spare the child from testifying before a media horde and having her identity publicly disclosed. "Whatever harm has come to her as a victim would be exacerbated in the extreme if this case went to trial," wrote attorney Lawrence Silver. "This is not the place for a recovering young girl."
And, if there is any question remaining in your mind regarding Polanski's subjective intent, read his statement in a 1979 interview:
If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But. . . f***ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f*** young girls. Juries want to f*** young girls. Everyone wants to f*** young girls.Ah, the deep, heartfelt remorse of a towering, ambulatory sculpture of humaniform excrement.
As usual, The Right has it. . . well, right:
Jonah Goldberg asks: What is the controversy?To the silent ones, to the supportive ones -- I ask again. . .
Tabitha Hale concludes: Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.
Gerard Vanderleun wonders: Jean Valjean comparisons? What the hell is wrong with you? [ok, ok, I translated that last part.]
Even Kate Harding says on Salon: Can we take a moment to think about all that, and about the fact that Polanski pled guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, before we start talking about what a victim he is? Because that would be great, and not nearly enough people seem to be doing it.
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Conclusion: With its resounding, open, and near unequivocal defense of Polanski, Hollywood and the Left, both American and European, show the true depth of their moral depravity, where they defend and provide open support for a blatant pedophile and fugitive. Together with the ACORN embarrassment and media cover-up, there seems to be no limit to the profound lawlessness and practical indifference of progressives. And no end to the willingness of feminists to barter their principles for "beautiful people" or Democrat politics. As Glenn Reynolds warns, the backlash may not be pretty.