Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
The Big Pink @ El Rey Theatre 11/18/09
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
If You've Got the Time: Sunday Brunch @ Casa del Mar
Nearly $10 Million Owed to LAUSD by Teachers Who Were Mistakenly Overpaid
Roman Polanski Drugged And Raped A 13 Year Old Girl.
My apologies if saying this in plain terms offends the delicate feelings of those of you who apparently believe that his career of mostly mediocre films makes him some kind of irreplaceable genius. My further apologies if, by using the accurate terminology to describe what happened, I have caused anyone to run for the fainting couch. I hope you understand how deeply and sincerely sorry I am for my rudeness. By way of apology, let me just say that Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and anyone arguing that he should not see justice, that justice has already been served, that somehow this wasn't a big deal, or that he has already paid some kind of karmic debt, is a creepy rape apologist who ought to be ashamed.
Ha ha, of course I'm joking!
Obviously, the public outcry against Polanski for the "crime" that he "committed", and the expressed desire to see him "punished" for it, are patently wrong on numerous levels. Why? I'm glad you asked! Allow us to explain!
1) Look, it's been what, like 30ish years? That's a long ass time people. Why, the alleged "victim" isn't even 13 anymore! How can you punish Polanski for something he did to a 13 year old who has shamelessly, and I might add, dishonestly transformed herself into a 40-something woman?
2) Let's all stop selfishly obsessing over this wanton slut's accurate, undisputed, and admitted-to-under-oath "accusations", and think for a moment about what poor Polanski has been through since then: over 30 years of horrendous exile in France. FRANCE, PEOPLE! Forced, forced I say, to subsist on nothing but a diet of delicious French food, amazing French wine, surrounded by disgustingly beautiful French women, unable to see except by the light that shines off his Oscar. Why, he's even had to endure the sick, immoral, do-gooder socialism of that sinful nation's free and highly renowned health care system. His only friends are the numerous actors, producers, highly ranked government officials and socialites who adore him and have done everything possible to pretend he didn't drug and rape a 13 year old girl, and have used all their power and influence to shield him from punishment. Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly think that you wouldn't crack under such torture? I think not.
3) As has been pointed out by numerous fiscal scolds, this is simply a waste of taxpayer money. After all, since when has it been the job of our government to make sure that "the law" is equally and fairly applied to all people? That's commie talk. No, wait, that's homosexual commie talk. No, wait, that's homosexual, commie, bigoted against-rapists talk, and anyone even thinking along these lines can go back to Russia. No sir, the job of our government is to funnel millions of dollars into the coffers of major corporations, slash taxes on the wealthy, and make absolutely certain that public universities are unaffordable to anyone but the rich. You know the expression: "Justice delayed is too big of a hassle to follow through with". I think we can all agree it applies here. IN SPADES! Meanwhile, we could use that money to start another illegal war, this time with Iran, right?
4) She's forgiven him! And we all know that the law works just like Facebook: once you decide to re-friend someone, it's all good1. Oh sure, this forgiveness came at the cost of decades of therapy, not to mention a hefty settlement paid to her by Polanski. And sure, most rape victims - sorry, "victims" - typically find themselves subject to completely fair and totally relevant invasions of their private lives (because seriously, once your privates have been invaded, it's only fair and symmetrical for your private life to follow), completely true accusations that they secretly wanted it, and of course the delightfully terrifying harassment from supporters of the so-called rapist. This doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on their desire to have the whole thing to just kind of go away, and you're an art hating, victim-loving asshole for thinking otherwise.
5) How dare you! Don't you know that his wife was killed! By evil Hippies! Sure, many years before, and sure, no one is quite sure how they're related, but you know how they say two wrongs always make a right? Never more true than here.
6) Hitler. Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler Holocaust Hitler. Oh, and Hitler, you anti-Semitic fuck. Hitler. After all, anyone who survived WWII and narrowly avoided the Holocaust is automatically given a blank check to be as terrible a human being as they want. Just ask Magneto!
These are all very excellent reasons for not punishing Polanski for the very forgivable crime of having consensual rape-sex with a 13 year old2. However, the debate over the Polanski situation has revealed some compelling fissures that exist in our legal system, chief among them the issue of figuring out whether or not an artist or particular celebrity can, or should, be forgiven for a given crime they may have committed. This is both a logistic and jurisdictional issue. After all, it's well known that California law stipulates, except in rare circumstances, that celebrity status alone is itself an acceptable alibi3. But the outcries for Polanski's forgiveness are from millions who live outside of the reach of California law4. How then do we accommodate their concerns in this process?
Fortunately, I have consulted professor Greg Saunders, Lucasian Professor of Tauronexcrementus at The Talent Show institute of technology, and we have devised a mathematical algorithm that should, in theory, solve these questions once and for all. I present to you now:
This theorem can be expressed as the following formula: FQ = 1/(KCR = (d*g)/s^v ) * (TI = (10m + 25(6-h))/a)
That is, Forgiveness Quotient equals one divided by the Karmic Credit Rating (the number of decades elapsed since the crime was committed, or [d], multiplied by the greatness of artist's creative put since then, or [g], divided by the severity of the crime [s]), raised to the power of the number of victims [v] of the artist's crime), multiplied by the Tragedy Index (the sum of ten times the number of relatives [m] who have been murdered and 25 times the absolute number of degrees of separation the artist is from Hitler [6-h], divided by current age of the criminal/artist.)
The data for Polanski is as follows:
His crime was committed in 1977. Therefore:
D = 3.1
Polanski has made 9 films since he fled the country. We'll award him 10 out of 10 for the Pianist, and 1 point for everything else. Therefore:
G = 18
To calculate the severity of a crime, you take the rating per crime (on a scale of 1-100). Polanski committed rape. We'll give it the same rating out of 100 that society seems to: 75. However, he also drugged his victim: we'll rate that as 10. Therefore, S = 85. He raped 1 person. V = 1. Therefore:
S^V = 85
This means Polanski's Karmic Credit Rating is 1.54.
Polanski lost his wife and unborn child, but also at least 9 relatives during World War Two. We'll say he lost a total of 11 relatives. Therefore:
11m = 110.
Polanski is a Jewish survivor of WWII, but narrowly evaded the holocaust. Thus, his degree of separation from Hitler is 2. 6 minus 2 = 4 Therefore:
25(4) = 100.
Polanski's Age is 76.
This means Polanski's Tragedy Index is 2.76.
By applying the above formula, Polanski's Forgiveness Quotient is determined to be approximately 4.23. Thus, he is entitled to rape 3.23 more people without fear of any consequences.
The steady application of this extremely accurate formulation will doubtlessly save many innocent celebrities from the indignity of being punished for their crimes. But what about the rest of us? That's why I'm proud to announce the formation of an exciting new business venture: The Tragedy Hedge Fund. Here is, in a nutshell, how it works:
You tell us the crime you wish to commit. We will then calculate the minimum FQ required for someone of your artistic merit and socio-economic status. Once determined, we will use patented time-travel technology to arrange, ex-post-facto, an appropriate personal tragedy guaranteed to offset your relative lack of fame or wealth, which you can then point to as mitigation for your future crime. For example, should you wish to rob a bank, we will need to go back and expose your mother to plutonium, so that she will tragically die of cancer, thus adding the necessary tinge of tragic undertone to your childhood. However, should you wish to rob the US Mint, we'll probably have to arrange for you to be molested by Gary Glitter5. Yes, it might will have hurt you then, but it may will have benefited you later!
Once we've incorporated in Delaware, we'll issue a press release with more information. In the meantime, we strongly suggest that you become an acclaimed, wealthy artist. Based on the outpouring of support for the child-raping genius known as Roman Polanski, it can only help.
1) To be fair, according to biblical law, he only needs to marry her to make this go away. Perhaps he can be tried in the South?
2) We all remember when the AP helpfully referred to the 14 year old victim of rape at the hands of a US soldier who then killed her and her entire family to cover up the crime, as a "14 year old woman", right? And too right! Only white teenagers who are raped by non-celebrity nonwhites are given the courtesy of being accurately described as a 'girl'. Everyone else, they're just a bunch of nasty whores.
3) Though in all fairness this law applies only in cases of DUI, petty larceny, securities fraud, and the spouse-related homicide.
4) NOTE: The concerns of Mormons always fall within California's Jurisdiction. They are also exempt from First Amendment prohibitions against the establishment of a state religion.
5) Sorry Gary, but Rock n Roll Part 2 and Do You Wanna Touch Me? just don't cut it. To be fair, it's more a quantity issue. Polanski wisely limited himself to only one child rape. Oh well.
All photos public domain, via wikipedia. You will of course note that the image of Lolita was cleverly selected because Polanski, deeply misunderstanding the point of Nabokov's book, compared his victim to Lolita. Ross, +1 ironic literary joke? I think so.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Bravo, Ross.
Wow, now that I've heard all these points against Polanski regurgitated as sarcastic points in favor of him, everything has been transformed in our minds.
Yawn, feel like I just read every article from the last 24 hours over again.
Yawn, I feel like I just read every insult ever directed directed against me again.
Oh how clever, you just used what I said as a template for your response.
So by mistaking criticism as an insult, and instead of realizing you could do better and provide some fresh insight or commentary on a topic, you chose to just do the same you did in your article in response to my commentary. Apparently you don't do much else than imitate what is already out there in more than just your op-ed pursuits.
Look, sir, my derivations are highly original, my copies are unique, my homages are entirely devoid of outside context, and my observations are completely imagined. I am, in short, the most original online hack the literary world has ever seen. And I should know because I just tweeted, FB'd and DIGG'd this blog post, as I did for everything I linked to in it. +1, FTW, RTFA and of course, IMHP. Emoticon.
And now you're dodging criticism by acting irreverent? Do you really think this makes your case stronger?
I've given you compliments on your past posts for addressing relevant issues in a novel manner, this one just seemed pretty trite and did not bring anything new to the plate. Yet if my criticism mirrored that of previous "insults" you have received, it is disheartening that you would not take that into account for future writing and instead think it noise. I know it is much easier to dismiss criticism as insults and blather, but it seems to me that you (as well as your blog and your editor) would want to improve upon what you have going here.
Paul, first of all, I'm messing with you. Don't take it personally. Second of all, you seem to not get what is going on here, so let me explain:
There aren't a lot of unknown details surrounding the matter, I opted instead to lay into the disgusting defenses of this deeply disturbed, unrepentant criminal.
Were there something else to say, rest assured I'd say it. And in fact, you may look forward to a post on another topic soon which isn't mere snark. But for this matter, I mean, come on, how else does one react? People are being really fucking stupid about this. That doesn't invite debate, it invites mockery, the only true and honest response to the hatefully absurd.
As for nothing new to the plate? Did you not see the totally fucking awesome fake equations? Did you not see my most excellent fucking footnotes? Excuse me while I toot my own horn.
Doo-doo-doo-do-do-dooo!
I've read my fair share of Polanski articles lately as well, but haven't seen any which seek to quantify, albeit satirically, the method by which someone would project their respect for an artist's work into a blasé attitude towards a heinous crime. It's a joke, dude. Lighten up.
You're so passionate about your insistence that this post is "trite" and lacks "fresh insight", but where are you seeing the same points being made in the same way? Also, if you don't mind, could you please reply in a way that brings something new to the plate? Knee-jerk contrarianism makes me yawn.
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel, Ross. And I wholeheartedly agree with you.
*standing ovation*
He should go to jail sure, but mediocre films? That's going too far.
To be fair I did say "mostly" mediocre. I mean obviously there's some good ones in there.
oh good, i was hoping for an even more sarcastic version of the "Common Roman Polanski Defenses, Refuted" article.
To be fair, I also threw in a heft dosage of fake math. At least give me some credit for that!
Excellent use of phony math Ross! Also good use of sarcasim and irony.
I would like to add that although there was nothing right about what Roman Polansky did, there was also nothing right about the judge renegging on the plea agreement, and if the allegations of prosecutoral misconduct prove to be true Polansky will probably walk.
A plea agreement is between the prosecution and defense. A judge is under no obligation to abide by the terms of a plea agreement.
Maybe, but there's still the pesky matter of spending the last three decades as a fugitive, which can result in a whole host of additional charges if the D.A. is so inclined.
"A judge is under no obligation to abide by the terms of a plea agreement."
That's the official line, yes, but in reality, if judges start renegging on plea bargains, there will be no more easy cases for prosecutors, (which may not be a bad thing), and EVERY case would have to go to jury trial.
i'm sure if he was black/latino/anyone else that isn't white, this would be a different story. he would have been caught, jailed and maybe even out of jail by now.
just saying.
p.s: roman polanski raped a 13 year old girl. honestly i just had to say it. but i do like your post.
What you say is the literal truth. And it's not just perpretators but victims. The reality is that for most crimes, we believe, as a society, in throwing the book at the criminal to the point that we think due process itself ought to be thrown out. EXCEPT in the case of rape, where suddenly exhausting all avenues to defend the rights of the accused, no matter how confessed-to-the-crime they are, is of paramount importance.
Oh, and also except in the case of government officials who authorized torture.
I have nothing to say except yes, what you say is correct.
LAist has really gone downhill. This is practically plagerism.
Seriously? Plagiarism? Where have you ever seen this before:
The Forgiveness Quotient
This theorem can be expressed as the following formula: FQ = 1/(KCR = (d*g)/s^v ) * (TI = (10m + 25(6-h))/a)
I know you Ben - You're the asshole who thinks Wanted and Desired isn't a lying, hagiographic victim-blaming fest. Shoo fly, shoo. Go find some other pervert to defend.
I actually agree with most of your points. They're just not "your" points, asshole.
That's twice now that you've called me a "plagerist". I have no idea what "plagerism" is, but I'm going to assume it means "not having festering, Syphilitic sores on one's penis contracted from one's own mother; antonym; Benbang."
I think you're actually trying to call me a plagiarist, which is "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." When insulting someone, particular when committing libel, it's important to actually get the word right. Otherwise you just look fucking stupid.
This is awesome. Pope Leo X would be proud.
I'm very impressed by your reference, but I'm curious what you mean. Please elaborate because seriously, +1.
You can read about famous others at the Daily Beast, they have a list from Jerry Lee Lewis, Woody Allen, Einstein, Cleopatra, Oedipus to Pope John XII but no Pope Leo X. Even Morgan Freeman is mentioned, who knew!
I've just stumbled across this site so I have no idea who you are or how long I'll be bookmarking this for (I _never_ bookmark anything) but this is absolutely hilarious. Funniest and best thing I've read on this whole shameful episode the past few days and in fact, in some time on just about anything. Pretty awesome, thanks.
Too soon?
this is completely awesome. loved it.
Thank you, Ross
I think too many people romanticize the situation into some kind of Tess d'urbervilles romance with a young Nastassja Kinski sucking sexily on strawberries.
It was a violent rape. Forced anal sex in a jacuzzi? There is no lube in a jacuzzi. Strawberries either.
Ross, I think you're WRONG. Yes, I said it.
(space used to heighten tension)
(heighten-ing)
If Polanski raped another person(s), wouldn't the value V (number of victims) increase, thus altering his KCR? And each time he rapes another person the value V (since it is raised to the V power) means that the FQ increases dramatically (because 1 over a really small decimal=really big number). And if he rapes multiple persons, does S still remain a constant 85, or would it increase due to # of victims or decrease because after you've done it once it kind of cheapens the act?
tl;dr. My thumb got a good work out scrolling all the way down here on my iPhone.
And you're missing the Barbara walters factor. if you go on her show your FQ increases at least 10fold. Five for any other news show.
Dammit samkim, you're right. I'm going to have to get back to the lab and reconfigure the equations. You have probably saved Greg and I from yet another Nobel loss, and for that we thank you.
thank you. THANK.YOU. i love you for this, ross. i'm so fucking sick of the bs coming from all his friends. i'd like to see what their tune would be had it been one of their daughters.
Yikes. This post makes me want to find the Well of Snark and landfill it for the betterment of all humanity. I simply can't take any more yawningly heavy-handed, self-satisfied sarcasm. Is there a Block feature for posts by this guy?
You might like this site instead.
Self satisfied? You know, you could have saved some bandwidth by using the word "smug". All I'm saying is that you ought to open up a thesaurus once in a while. Your pithy disses will improve, greatly.
No one is forcing you to read his posts. Don't like them, don't read them. You can save yourself from the "yawningly heavy-handed, self-satisfied sarcasm". Douche.
Hey Ross,
How does Charlie Manson come out using your model? He did put some records out and some people have rated them pretty well. Neil Young tried to get him a record deal, even.
How many albums as good as After The Gold Rush would he have to make in order to get out of jail?
That's a good question. I think the wild card here is his degree of separation from Hitler.
Well, he probably read Mein Kampf. Does that count?
And Mein Kampf was a best seller at the time. Does Mein Kampf rack up as many G points as Pianist?
(and really Ross, I think Chinatown deserves more than 1 pointer for 'ol Ro.)
He has a freaking swastika carved into his forehead!
3 degrees of separation MAX.
And let's set his current artisitic merit at about a 5. For purposes of my question, raise it up to a 10, like he's made the most universally acclaimed albums of all time and "Garbage Dump" is considered an anthem.
Isn't living in France punishment enought?!
Of course I'm kidding. He should be prosecuted and sent to prison like anyone else who commits such a horrendous crime against a child. And make his jail mates watch all his movies and then maybe at night they can pay a "visit" or two to his cell to thank him. We can only hope.
i keep coming back to see if more's been written. i hope so. i've been telling everyone i know that you're funnier than d f wallace so i don't want to be lacking in munition when one of them (dave, that prick) pulls that know-it-all crap of his as usual.
I know what my mother would say about this (after 28 years I've learned the script); "Where was this girl's mother?". I will co-sign that, and add that her mother allowed a 13-year-old to do a photo shoot with an adult male who she didn't know, unsupervised, and in my opinion should also be before the judge.
Never in a million year would I have been allowed to do that, and with good reason. How come no one talks about that?? Reminds me of second round Michael Jackson molestation accusations. Creepy parents.
There's definitely something to be said for creepy stage parents who push their kids into sketchy situations, or even turn a blind eye to the destructive influences in their kids' lives. However, whatever the victim's mother's faults are in the parental supervision department, it's pretty apparent that, while she thought that letting a famous director take sexyish photos of her daughter might be an opportunity that could lead to acting gigs and so forth (creepy, very much creepy), she certainly didn't send her daughter over there to fuck Polanski. More to the point, she DEFINITELY didn't consent to the rape of her daughter. And it was rape.
But if you don't believe me, the testimony bears this out.
Obviously, we can't overlook the awesome parenting job, but we have to bear in mind that Hollywood in that era, like today, is the land of feudal privilege. She wanted to assume the best of Thine Lord Of Ye Manor who could possibly bestow favor, money, privilege onto her. That doesn't make the decision sound, but it puts it into context.
Polanski did nothing to disabuse her of the notion that he had only artistic intentions - indeed, if you read the testimony, he made a big show of getting her permission to take photos, keep her over later than originally agreed and so on, never once implying his intent was, you know, to drug and rape the woman's daughter.
We have a sickening tendency to assume the best of people who have "made it". We assume they have too much to lose, that they're too famous and scrutinized and so on, to act like sociopaths.
I think the main issue Ross is twofold: Whether it is in the legal and/or moral best interest to pursue this case (which by those standards, I completely agree with your points and think they should bring him back and throw him in jail), and the second.... whether it is in the best interest of the state to pursue the case.
For the latter, I think a key point you miss is that there are hundreds of cases sitting idly on prosecutor and police officer desks right now... they are public officials, they are underfunded, and they simply can't get to it all! (I wish they could) Public prosecutors face this issue everyday when deciding to pursue cases - and they base some of their decisions on whether the outcome is likely to come out in favor of the state... if not, they focus their time and effort on cases they know they can close.
Don't get me wrong, i think this guy should get what he deserves, but if the choice is getting this guy or getting a drug dealer or rapist currently on the street, I'd choose the latter. If we can get both, and deal justice fairly, then Great! But I think you are going to have a hard time proving that there aren't some active cases being put on the back-burner by this prosecutor to pursue this guy.
I believe pursuing this case satisfies on both the moral and state levels. Putting Polanksi in jail is the right thing to do and would help repair the image of LA's legal system as being a system which allows the rich and famous to avoid punishment for their crimes by a) taking the OJ route of hiring the best lawyers money can by to overwhelm our overtaxed legal system or b) receiving the barest minimum punishment for their crimes.
You would rather have a drug dealer off the streets than a child rapist? Give me a bag of heroin and stay out of my kid's pants.
my comment was: "but if the choice is getting this guy or getting a drug dealer or rapist currently on the street"
The comparison was not one crime to another, but rather, current criminality still doing harm versus ancient criminality no longer doing harm.
It's all about reading comprehension Elise. You should work on that.
"but if the choice is getting this guy or getting a drug dealer OR rapist currently on the street"
Polanski is a child rapist. Polanski is currently on the street. Who is having trouble with reading comprehension?
I disagree, Ross, but I like the way you think. Or rather, that you think.
Well done, Ross. This is hilarious.
Oh, and remember-OJ was innocent. You saw the same phenomena back then.
Oh Rossticle.
Let's leave rape aside for a moment and argue about abortion or immigration or the economy or something! I know it's weird, but I just want to talk to somebody who uses reason and logic and empathy when dealing with serious moral and ethical issues. I guess I'm just drunk and crazy to say that, but...there's gotta be somebody out there, you know???