Thursday, October 29, 2009

Gore Vidal - Crazy As A Cut Cat

Gore Vidal has finally lost it.

You remember that 13-year old girl that Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized? Well Vidal has come to Polanski's defence, smearing the victim as a disgruntled whore. From Air America:

"I really don't give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker thinks she's been taken advantage of?"

Vidal went on to dismiss those who condemn Polanski as the usual "anti-Jew ...anti-fag" types.

13 comments:

LeDaro said...

Vidal is a complete jerk.

Roman Polanski must pay for his crime.

The Mound of Sound said...

I hope for his sake that this is just the "crazy old man" syndrome playing out.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm!! Polanski the genius; a man considered by hollywood to be an extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity; a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; a person with a very high IQ; a man who has won superior recognition for his artistic ability and awards for his work; a man who lost his wife to Manson's hand; a man who should be let off the hook for luring a 13year old girl at age 45. What a joke!! You do the wrong, you take the punishment as any other person who breaks the law especially when it involves children....do those people who think Polanski has paid his debt hear that word...children? A. Morris

Anonymous said...

The mob hysteria about Polanski is based on disinformation. The victim's grand jury testimony was in effect repudiated by the probation report which concluded that there was evidence that the victim was "mature and willing".
The "child" was experienced with sex, drugs and alcohol and has consistently maintained that the legal process was far more oppressive than whatever transpired between her and Polanski.

The Mound of Sound said...

Anon 4:31, I don't know what kind of sick piece of garbage you are but he was a middle aged man and she was a 13-year old kid. That's end of story. Your perverse morality may not see that as significant but, fortunately, the balance of society isn't as twisted as you make yourself out to be.

Anonymous said...

It is a sympton of mass hysteria when a simple reporting of the facts invokes a foul mouthed diatribe from an observer who believes reality should always conform to their crude stereotypes. In fact the observer proves our point since we simply stated two facts about the probation report and the victim's experience and attitude as reproted by the victim herself.

The Mound of Sound said...

As reported by a 13-year old child who had just been vaginally, anally and orally raped? You don't get it. There's a line and that sick bastard stampeded right over it. It doesn't make the slightest difference if she solicited him. She was 13. If you can't grasp that fundamental, inescapable fact you need treatment.

Anonymous said...

You are contradicting yourself.
You claim it makes no difference if she was willing but then mention details of the event based on testimony which is false if indeed she was willing. Polanski pled to statutory rape and no one is denying that it took place. However Polanski agreed to the normal punishment for such an offense in the 1970's which was no time in prison as did the victim, her mother, the prosecutor, two State probation officers and two State psychiatrists. Indeed it was reported that the other 40+ statutory rape cases in California prosecuted at the same time all resulted in no jail time. The victim wants what was fair in 1977 . What is wrong with that ?

The Mound of Sound said...

Nice try Anon. Most of these cases involve an underage girl and a boy slightly older. In those circumstances leniency is understandable. The guy you champion so fully was a middle age pervert who raped a 13-year old girl. He admitted in pleading guilty that she did not consent. There's no weasel room in that.

You are obviously desperate to put the kindest blush on this ped's crime. Care to explain why? Been there yourself?

Anonymous said...

I followed the story when it happened. Read the probation report. Polanski only admitted to statutory rape and nothing else.
The State psychologists determined that Polanski was not a pedophile.
That was part of their job. Applying 2009 ideas to 1977 is completely wrong.

Anonymous said...

To understand the Polanski affair read Orwell’s 1984. Polanski is the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of sexual predators. In other words he is an archetype of the public’s fear of child sexual abuse. That social psychosis did not exist in the 1970’s but was the result of pseudo science propaganda promoting a new for profit industry. Similar mass hysteria drove the war on alcohol, war on drugs, and war on communism. Each of these crusades resulted in the loss personal freedoms, expansion of bureaucracy and growth of symbiotic private institutions which benefited from the crusade. A combination of fear and greed drives the crusader mentality with the truth being the main casualty as Mediocracy grows like a cancer. Scapegoats like Polanski are very useful for propaganda but the reality of who is actually the typical target of a crusade is quite different than the archetype people are terrorized by. Thus in regards to statutory rape in California the preferred target for prosecution is family units where an underage girl has a child. It is certainly not sexual predators since they typically do not impregnate their victims. However an occasional high profile case is great for hiding the real agenda. The California crackdown has probably succeeded in reducing the teenage pregnancy rate and thus saving the Government some welfare costs. However that is at the social cost of breaking up families. Of course because everything is about money the State only prosecutes a few percent of the cases in order to scare the vast majority into at least using birth control.

Anonymous said...

Anon: It is just not acceptable even if a thirteen year old girl tried to lure Polanski which she didn't do. He was 45 and all a tingle at having a go at a thirteen year old girl.....if you don't understand that, then there is something wrong. It is NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE for a man to engage in sex with children. Children are not mature enough to understand the consequences...DO YOU GET IT? I read the court documents. She the child, did not entice the perve, 45 year old Polanski. There are far too many men walking around trying to engage their dingle with children.....crude you say? That's what people like you only understand. MOS is correct.

The Mound of Sound said...

Anon 11:33. Let this other Anon go. On reviewing his comments I realized I should have shut him down early on when he started blaming the victim for Polanski's perversity. I'm sure it would be highly informative to know the story behind this commenter.