Seriously New York Times? This is Ridiculous

Seriously New York Times?  This is Ridiculous

Dear New York Times,

I am deeply appreciative your ability to convey complex issues and show all sides of the issues much more that some in the country, but your article, “In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today”, is simply incorrigible.  I get that you want to paint a picture of the society in the day that Polansky was involved with the victim, Samantha Geimer, because that has some relevance, no matter how reprehensible the act of Roman Polansky. But that your logic breaks down on two points:

1st – This is ridiculous:

“The sort of thing that would get guys arrested now was very common back then,” said Michael Walker, who made a study of the Los Angeles sex-and-drugs scene for his 2006 book, “Laurel Canyon: The Inside Story of Rock-and-Roll’s Legendary Neighborhood.”

What kind of logic is that? Just because something was common in another time does not justify it.  How do you think the Jews would like your logic?  Just because Hitler made movies that showed that Jews where a sub race, that should excuse the act of the prison gaurds at Auschwitz?  I shudder to think of all the implications of your logic in this article.

2nd – Samantha Geimer was 13.  Roman Polansky was 43.  He plied her with Champagne and Quaalude, took pictures of her naked in a hot tub (did I mention that she was 13) and took her to the bedroom to perform sodomy on her.  In no culture or time is this excusable.  The fact that the probation officer report said the following does not matter:

“There was some indication that circumstances were provocative, that there was some permissiveness by the mother,” who had allowed Ms. Geimer to spend time with Mr. Polanski. And, in a conclusion that might particularly jar readers today, it pointed toward evidence “that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing.”

I loved “The Pianist” as much as you did, but that should not factor into our reason.

Do not try to excuse this as anything but a deprived man living in a broken world who gave way to his carnal urges.  He knew it was wrong. You know it was wrong.  Everyone knows that it is wrong.

Save your excuses for a better subject.

signature3

After reading this I feel:

(0%) (50%) (0%) (50%)