Emperor Fuckshit

MPH-- The thing is, I guess, that if you try to describe what "Moneyball" is really about, then you're basically left with just the theory of "sign good players wot other teams think are crap." That sounds much too obvious to either be revolutionary or interesting to read about. But apparently it was enough of a useful guiding principle to net Oakland repeated division titles with a tiny payroll. One interesting criticism of the book, though, is that concurrently with Beane, the Minnesota GM Terry Ryan was doing equally-fantastic things on a comparable budget. No-one is making a movie about Terry Ryan. Perhaps Ryan's methodology just wasn't as exciting or as received-wisdom-busting or as easy to describe as a coherent "theory", and so was harder to make into a "story". But the dude got results. TRB-- That sounds awesome. I love reading the Wikipedia articles on tactical philosophies and formations and the history behind those things. Catenaccio in particular I find fascinating for some reason. A book written by a person who actually know what he's talking about might be EVEN BETTER.

Nah, I think your take on Nirvana is pretty much spot on. Cobain was a twat, ultimately -- although it might've been closer than some people make out nowadays. And the way that the band has been absorbed into canon by people who couldn't give a fuck about (guitar) music (in that free-CD-of-rock-music-legunds-in-this-week's-Sunday-Times sort of way) is very annoying. If people want to hate Nirvana, then I guess I can't hold it against them, since I agree with Steve Albini's awesome comment that, "when a band is pushed down my throat then it makes me, as a consumer, just hate them." But Nirvana reflect a unique case in that the band can't benefit from (and aren't even in control of) the pushing any more. And if people do decide to hate Nirvana, then that can no longer be presented as an original or interesting opinion. I'm trying to come up with some more examples for this thread, but I know fuck all about most famous bands. And you have to be well-known to be worth deriding.

MM -- I hate you for forgetting "What Didn't Happen Next". MPH -- I agree that a lot of people have misunderstood "Moneyball". Certain people have taken it to be a book which advocates cultish idolatory of Billy Beane. Other people -- and this is more common, I think -- have seen it as a book which advocates acquiring players of a certain type (college pitchers, low-velocity nibblers, fat guys, short guys, guys who get on base, slow guys, home-run hitters etc.). I don't really think that that makes the book over-rated, though. If anything, it means that certain people have under-rated the book, because they think that -- say -- Jeremy Brown never having been a successful Major Leaguer "gives lie" to its theories. Possibly that has created a reaction in which other people feel the need still to venerate "Moneyball" as a way of sounding out the haters, thereby over-rating it. So I'd say it's more just "misunderstood" than "over-rated" -- although as I say, I haven't read it, and am basing this opinion from secondary sources that I have been exposed to since its writing.

I think my favourite sports book is still "The Historical Baseball Abstract." I guess it's rather easier for a book to be "so many things at once" when it's a thousand pages long. But nevertheless, the HBA is as good an introduction to the game as one could possibly want. It also nicely gives lie to the idea that baseball writers are placed in two opposing camps -- the "traditionalist" stat-haters who focus on the human interest angles, and the "new school" of SABR-influenced robot-lovers. The book also contains some of Bill James' shit-headed right-wing political commentary. But only about two articles worth in a book of, as mentioned, A THOUSAND CUNTING PAGES. Some of the theory behind Win Shares -- and particularly its defensive component -- has been criticised convincingly since the publication of James' works on the subject. But I think that HBA is a great place to start with the statistical side of baseball, and a decent place to start with the game in general. I'd recommend to any Red Sox fans the volume "Impossible Dreams", which is edited by Glenn Stout. It contains a collection of newspaper pieces from Boston writers, spanning the entirety of the twentieth century. There are some fantastic pieces, including the incredibly moving "A Postcard from My Brother" by Steve Buckley, an amusingly disdainful piss-take of clueless fans by Ring Lardner (yes, that Ring Lardner) from 1911, and Roger Angell's gorgeously zeitgeisty piece about the 1967 run. There's also a short "it was better in my day" grumble from Cy Young. Which is awesome on so many levels -- i) it's CY YOUNG, ii) he's writing a newspaper article for some reason, iii) a guy is getting pissed off about the pampered young professionals in 1945!!!!! Oddly, John Updike's "Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu" is absent -- Williams' retirement is chronicled by Ed Linn, and the Updike piece featured is a picturesque little nugget about listening to baseball on the radio. One of the best things about the collection is just observing the evolution of the journalistic form. The early pieces tend simply to be detailed game reports, their writers apparently unaware that these events exist within a larger narrative. Even the reports of the three championship-clinching games from the deadball era feature no sense that the incidents being described are Historic Moments. Pieces dealing with the later pennants -- 1967, 1975 and 1986 -- seem constantly to be grappling with not only the games in question but their place in canon. And that's before you consider the extensive stylistic differences observable over time. For other baseball stuff, I love the volumes of Roger Angell's writing. He's just a lot of a fun to read. His "Game Time" collection features the excellent Spring Training report "Put Me in, Skip!" as well as a nice piece on the Angels-Giants world series (2002, was that?) I have never read "Moneyball". I probably should. That and "Ball Four." As far as cricket goes, Simon Hughes' first two autobiographies are both tremendous fun -- he seems like a nice guy. "A Lot of Hard Yakka" is a fairly standard account of his career with Middlesex and Durham; "Yakking Around the World" deals with the life of an English cricketer during winter, playing club cricket in various Test nations. And for anyone who has an interest in both cricket and far-Left politics, there's always "Beyond a Boundary" of course. I've read fewer football books. But my Dad recently lent me his copy of "Behind the Curtain", which is a nice account of football in Eastern Europe since the USSR's dissolution. And Nick Hancock's "What Didn't Happen Next" is one of the funniest books written about anything ever.

Yeah, the same mixture of "right on" attitudes but practical absence exhibits itself as regards ethnic minorities. A lot of bands paid lip service to reggae and felt a (no doubt sincere) kinship with the music's motivations. A number of bands even did obligatory reggae covers. But it wasn't until Bad Brains, who belong to a different milieu in every sense, that a really successful and artistically excellent Black punk band came along (or am I wrong about that? I can't think of one.) More generally, British Asians didn't even have that theoretical involvement -- the idea that Black culture is cool, vibrant and worth appropriating but Asian culture is conservative, religion-centred, and boring was allowed to stand despite Punk's determined anti-racism. Musicians themselves can't really be blamed for that, but the situation we're discussing kind of cuts across the idea that Punk was a unifying and national youth culture movement. I'm not sure how many immigrant communities -- not a huge element of the population at this point, but a growing and young sub-population -- would really have been touched by Rotten, Strummer, or Burns. There was indeed a much more significant involvement of women in what is broadly called "Post-Punk" -- the Fall, the Slits, Delta 5, Lilliput, The Au Pairs, etc. In many ways, Post-Punk had its ideological shit together much better than Punk -- it was just a far less populist movement. It's a shame, since that re-enforces the (I think incorrect) notion that one's hands necessarily have to become bloodied in the process of gaining popularity. Wikipedia has a "List of all-female bands". That depresses me. Sorry for the hijack, by the way.] e: Speaking of Wikipedia, the page for PiL has this (it is cited, by the way): What the twat? Is this a well-known thing? Good lord...

Very good post re: The Clash, Skummy. I think you're right that "youthful exuberance" is the best way to explain the Clash's "all talk, no trousers" approach to political songwriting. Coupled with that is the fact that Punk frequently expressed itself in negative terms. Few bands -- certainly very few who are now seen as being a 'canonical' punk band -- really laid out prescriptions, but there did seem to broad agreement about "the enemies." In this matter, I generally work from the principle laid down by Trotskyist and music journalist Benjamin Watson: "attack whatever you like, but always shoot from the Left." The Clash, the Pistols, Stiff Little Fingers etc. were clearly "sounder"/"better" than the things that they opposed. A bigger problem with TC is brought out by your comment re: machoness, I think. One of punk's problems was that it failed to cut out the fetishisation of "hardness" which is quintessentially part of Rock and Roll. The Clash's cowboy hats are a part of it -- so are Henry Rollins' bare-chest, and the general absence of any female musicians from the main wave of Punk. I guess it's not much of a surprise that politicised female music either attached itself to different movements (Riot Grrrrrl) or have been pushed to the Punk margins (The Slits). I'm sure that there were plenty of female Punks in the 70s and after, but the "no enemies amongst the kids" ethos of the movement must have been hurt considerably by the lack of female faces in prominent bands. One of the ideological thrusts of indie was, after all, to place some of the music industry's power into the hands of women. The other problem with The Clash's masculinity is that they didn't even do anything interesting with it artistically. I mean, Big Black are another band who wade almost knee deep in unconvincing images of violence. But the "masculinity" of Albini could also be frustrated and self-defeating ("Pavement Saw"), and was often expressed through characters rather than direct-from-artist.

I'm not sure if you're joking as relates to Oasis, MM... but they're surely too popular and shit for a list of this sort, aren't they? The music is all just plodding, uninspired dad-rock -- like a combination of The Beatles without the joyfulness and The Jam without the politics. And although I agree that there has been a fairly considerable reaction against them, I still find people who consider themselves to be musically discerning defending the band. Note also that the NME gave both "Dig Out Your Soul" and "Heathen Chemistry" very positive reviews. If there's a strong anti-Oasis sentiment within the music press, then I think it emanates from places like Pitchfork, rather than the 'E. I don't get what makes people think that Sting is a pompous git. He looks like a poncy git a lot of the time, but he seems unafraid to take the piss out of himself (see especially his "The Smell of Reeves and Mortimer" appearances, but also his "Simpsons" appearance and fantastic delivery of the line, "this isn't about us... it's about a kid trapped down a well or something."). I've already written about two bands that I think fit this category in other threads. About Nirvana, from the old Contrarion Musical Opinions thread: I've also mentioned The Clash in this regard before, too. I hear a lot of criticism of their being "unmelodic" and/or possessing an aesthetic that's (insincerely/unsupportably) macho or violent. I think that both of these criticisms can be addressed together by pointing out that those observations only come close to holding for the debut album. London Calling features a number of fantastic pop songs ("Rudie Can't Fail", "London Calling" itself, and "Train in Vain" -- a song so bubblegum-y that the band disowned it). And, fuck me, the follow up LC ("Sandinista!") is a double CD of world music! There is a lot of violent/revolutionary imagery woven into the songs from the self-titled album, and one might reasonably point out that this sits poorly with Joe Strummer's middle class upbringing in Surrey. But "Give 'em Enough Rope" contains a song which straight-up criticises political violence ("Tommy Gun"). And I don't buy the argument that just because a person is middle-class, (s)he can't be worried about rising British nationalism ("English Civil War"), empathise with kids who have it less easy ("Career Opportunities"), or support revolutionary/radical Leftism ("Washington Bullets"). And, hey, these were young kids who were musicians. They grew up in a time when radical Leftist ideas spoke to a lot of people about their situation, regardless of how closely one's immediate circumstances resembled those of Chilean copper miners. I think that Strummer was mostly sincere and, in any case, he wasn't a Professor of Political Science.

Their career trajectory at this point reminds me of that of Million Dead. Both released excellent first albums which had been many years in the making, and which brought together songs which had been endlessly and diligently re-worked over the course of the band's life. Both released slightly ropier second albums which had been written whilst the band was on tour and over a much shorter period. The analogy breaks down somewhat in that "Harmony No Harmony" felt like a "tribute to our fave bands" album with no internal coherence; whereas "Grace..." feels just as composite as "WUTIWL", only weaker. And I'm sure that this process occurs for a lot of bands (bands that release second albums shortly after debuts, anyway). It's just that JF and MD are really the only two post-millenial bands that I've followed closely and in "real time". And I know that Alexei is a fan of MD, and was disappointed by "HNH".

Shitter, too, unfortunately. Nah, I've only given it one listen thus far. They've really ramped up the "noise" aspect this time, and the intentionally shambolic register in which everything is couched is really noticeable. Some of the album just sounds like studio outtakes ("Kingston Called..."). "Custom Scenes..." is getting "next singulllll"-type hype on the official (sycophantic as fuck) forums. It sounds like it wasn't quite good enough to make the cut for the first album to me. And contains a really self-consciously "anfummm" bit at the end. Yuck. (Although so did "The Hidden Track...", but then that was never going to be a single and mostly just felt like a hat-tip to older fans of the band.) The version of "Criminals" that is up on their MySpace had me really worried, but I swear that the production on the album versh is much better. Even though the takes are the same length, which suggests that they're identical. One of history's mysteries, I guess. "Feels Like Summer" is still very nice, and resembles the WUTIWL stuff closely. "I'llchoosemyside..." represents their first real attempt to marry up plonky acoustica with hacking electrified riffs. It don't work -- it's basically just like listening to Aimee Mann and then listening to someone say with their mouth "THUMP THUMP THUMP!" "Every Cloakroom Ever" is the best song ever, though. (It was leaked as "Rapsidy" [sic] and live'd as "This Trapeze Thought Out", incidentally). Kelly's vocals are at their most tender and child-like; the sliding high-pitched riff is accentuated by some buzzy production; the shuddering rim-shots sound like they should be in a public information film about dying from a drugs. Maybe it's not that bad. Not enough songs about Birmingham. For my licking [sic]. e: Also, I know that the opening to "More Heart..." is supposed to sound 'mature', but I just can't help thinking SHANE MCGOWAN SHANE MCGOWAN SHANE MCGOWAN when I hear it. A drunk man and a piano -- very sophis'. It is a good song, though. But not for any pianistical reasons.

I'll have to dig out my old VCD of "Seven Samurai". I think I have "Ran" somewhere about as well. I always have a problem when viewing Japanese films, in that I constantly think I might be missing the cultural significance of images or plot elements. It happened with "Audition", too, though I did enjoy that rather a lot. The whole stream of gynophobia that runs through the film is kind of interesting -- is it ironic? Is it "personal" rather than cultural? I've heard that Miike is quite reluctant to talk about the "ideological" aspects of his films, which is annoying. I guess sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, or I suppose the film might be read as a kind of Japanese "Fatal Attraction" or something. But I'd like to be able to make that judgement for myself, which I don't feel capable of doing at this point. I was semi-kidding about "Amelie". I think I've been turned off that film more by its fans than its content -- they all seem to be "kooky" (sc. "dull") Europhilic girls who go frolicking in No Frolicking Zones. But when I offer that observation, most people just tend to tell me that I have a heart of stone. Which is bollocks -- I CRIED DURING "PARIS, TEXAS"!!!!!!

CSAMH -- can you explain the appeal of "Seven Samurai" to me? I started watching it several years ago and only made it about an hour in. I've always felt like it was my fault, though, considering the reputation of the film and the fact that I was both sixteen and really sleepy. Since then, I've seen "Rashomon" and enjoyed it tremendously -- it's a fantastic nugget of murky minimalism visually, and packs in some tremendous images of atonement, solidarity, humiliation, etc.. All this has kind of piqued my interest in Kurosawa generally. I'm just not sure whether I'd enjoy three hours of the bloke. So can you talk up TSS for me? Oh, and a man who likes "Amelie"? Now I've seen everything... Does anyone know anyone who doesn't like "Back to the Future", incidentally? I can't imagine what someone could hold against that film -- it's probably the most likeable thing I've ever seen. It has a human plot-driven aspect for people who find stuff like "Airplane!" too relentless or "show-me-the-funny"-ish. It deals with fairly comfy themes (unlike, say, "The Producers"). It's very PG all around; but still thumpingly amusing. "Toy Story" might go in this category too, but I'm sure there is probably a quite significant rump of people who are opposed to "kids' films" on principle. I probably should've listed "Parenthood" in my 'honourable mentions'. If I were a person who believed in such things as 'guilty pleasures', then that would be one. I mean, I don't think it's any more or less flawed than various films we're allowed to like ("Memento", say). But its 'sin' -- shlocky American "all cosy at home in the family house"-ness -- is one that 'should be' fatal. (Yeah, that's right. "Memento" and "Parenthood" -- very related and comparable films...)

So you need directions to a thread you're already posting in? You daft twat. I think that we're pretty much done here. Or at least I am. Quom's was the last useful contribution to the thread; everything since has just been re-hashing. If anyone is really interested in continuing the discussion in a way that doesn't involve going relentlessly over old ground or bitching about me in the Donators' forum because you're too much of a slack-jawed dullard to post something constructive in here, then there's always PMs.

I'll be back to say more substantive things, but I think my films "pantheon" consists of "The Rules of the Game", "Wild Strawberries", "Persona", "Shame", "Scenes from a Marriage", "I Stand Alone", "Gummo", "The Producers", "Back to the Future", "Airplane!", "Funny Games", "The Third Man", "Double Indemnity", "Mulholland Dr.", and "Magnolia". There a fuckload of honourable mentions. A lot of Hitchcock films into that category -- "North by Northwest", "Vertigo", "Rear Window", "The Lady Vanishes", "Saboteur", "Frenzy". Some excellent-but-not-quite-unique-enough thrillers and noires like "The Conversation", "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep". The whole ocean of comedy full-lengths that just aren't as gleeful as "Airplane!", as heart-warming as "Back to the Future", or as straight-up balls-out funny as "The Producers" (the whole "Naked Gun" series, "Silver Streak", "Stir Crazy", "Three Amigos", "Blazing Saddles", "Young Frankenstein"). Some 'secondary' works by some of my favourite directors ("Irreversible", "Cries and Whispers", "Boogie Nights", "The Apartment", "Lost Highway"). And then just... some other stuff.

I didn't say that you did say he should be let off. If you had said that, then we'd be ultimately agreed. Why? Like... what the hell would be the point of that? D'you wanna frighten this young tearaway with a night in the cells?

Oh, man, I just LOVE repeating myself. Straight up can't get enough of that shit. Total like <3 for assailing the same arguments with the same arguments over and over. There are factors other than Polanski's age to consider here. As I said myself, "[a]llied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor." But not, like, because he poses absolutely no danger to society or because he has gone thirty years without being involved in any criminal activity of any kind or because his victim wants him to go unpunished? None of those reasons do anything for you? Isn't jail in the US (the only country I know where that institution is materially distinct from prison) used either for people serving short prison terms or in the same way that custody is in the UK? So you want either to give him a really short (~12 months or under) "prison" sentence (and, if so, then refer to all the arguments already tendered against that in this thread), or to put him in custody? If the latter -- to what ends? Would it really kill people to read the thread and try to make some kind of original contribution before posting in here? Without wanting to get too precious, I've put some reasonable amount of effort into my posts here (particularly the one that heads this page). It's absolutely mind-numbing to be met with constant re-hashings of the same arguments in response. e: Removed stuff about Nazi war criminals, because I can't be arsed with that discussion right now.

Look, man, this is crushingly dumb on a number of levels: i) So you admit that inelastic consent laws misrepresent the reality (i.e. that there is no "epiphany" moment when one suddenly becomes fully aware of what it means to consent to sexual activity). ii) Yet you think that this bad law should be upheld because, hey, it's the law! iii) You apparently think that Polanski is going to be tried for sex with a minor ("it's an open and shut case"), despite the fact that he was already tried for and found guilty of that. There's an is/ought issue here. I know how consent laws are enforced and why they are enforced that way. What I, and some other people, are arguing is that these laws aren't much good from an ideal perspective. Saying "but... THEY AM THE LAWSSSS!!!!" doesn't act as a counter-argument to this -- without wanting to get hyperbolic, Jim Crow laws were the laws; anti-sodomy laws were the laws; etc.. Fucking hell. I dealt with this. I'll just copy and paste. WHO is going to see this as a "green light"? "People" can't just "behave in a similar manner" to Polanski -- the mitigating circumstances in part rely upon factors outside of the defendant's control. e: Steve Martin opened one of his stand-up shows some years ago with the line, "I'm really happy to be here. Because nothing makes me happier than doing the exact same thing every night for a period of several weeks." That's kind of how I feel about this thread.

The above made me lol, but I accidentally clicked "-" rather than "+". Or maybe I just subconsciously HATE FUN???? Either way, sorry for the dent in your rep, Sdum.

As far as I'm aware, ugliness doesn't play much of a part in determining consent. Again, this hasn't been proven in a court of law. But it may very well have happened. But those are marginal issues. Your central argument, I guess, is that Polanki's fame and influence acted as a kind of coercive means of gaining sex that otherwise would have been with-held. I think that that's very possibly true. But in order to be meaningful and determinable/measurable for legal purposes, "coercion" has to be in some way substantive/material, doesn't it? There are a lot of "grey" ways of obtaining sex that aren't materially coercive (in the way that, say, drugging or using violence are). For example, I'm sure that many feminists would (reasonably) argue that marriage frequently constitutes a way of obtaining sex coercively -- in that situation, sex is the "right" of the husband and the "obligation" of the wife. Furthermore, in some marriages it may be difficult for a woman to seek outside assistance, and so the vague suggestion of "material" coercion might linger. The idea that "all sex is rape" might sound like a wacky straw-man advanced by Second Wave Feminists, but there's an element of truth in it, in that there's no easy binary between "coercion" and "consent". But the type of "coercion" that you describe does ultimately require the complicity of the "victim", and is also incredibly hard to prove. (Or, more specifically, its precise effects are hard to prove -- it would be difficult to argue that Polanski's influences/status have no bearing on the matter at all.) And, even at 14, I think that a great many people would be able to weigh those factors. Not all; but many.

1. The Fall 2. Big Black 3. Half Man Half Biscuit 4. Rapeman 5. My Bloody Valentine 6. Sunny Day Real Estate 7. Million Dead 8. Husker Du 9. Dead Kennedys 10. Minor Threat None of those bands will make the list. NOT BOTHERED.

I've posted about my opinion regarding the function of prison before -- it's not very exciting or controversial, so I won't do so again. But I think we're agreed that the three functions of prison are to i) rehabilitate offenders, ii) provide a deterrent against crime, and iii) remove dangerous individuals from society. I think it should also be uncontroversial that i) and iii) do not apply to Polanski. The first idea doesn't apply because Polanski is functioning well (exceedingly well, by some measures) in society at present. He doesn't need to be "re-skilled"... anyone who has seen "Chinatown" should agree that he's a pretty skillzy fellow as it is. I don't think he is having any problems making a living for himself. The third idea -- that he might be dangerous to society -- seems difficult to support. His victim doesn't think that he is dangerous, and thinks in fact that he is regretful about past wrongdoings. Polanski was accused of rape and convicted of unlawful sex thirty years ago. The former crime is one of the most serious in existence -- in most situations a rapist would rightfully be considered as a potential threat to society. But Polanski (through nefarious means, sure) has lived freely for three decades now without being implicated in any other crimes of any kind. In most cases, determining whether or not someone is a "threatening" individual is a difficult and unscientific business unlikely to render an objective conclusion. This is precisely because the one test of a person's "threat" status (i.e. their ability to reintegrate successfully into society without re-offending) is impossible to set for a person deemed potentially "threatening". But, quite accidentally, this test has been applied to Polanski -- and he has "passed" it. The proof, to use a shit cliché, is in the pudding. Allied to the above is the fact that, as SDM says, Polanski is now 76 years old and would appear to be physically frail. Obviously this on its own cannot be allowed to serve as "proof" that Polanski is not in some way a "threat", since many crimes (and, significantly, the crime of which he is accused) do not require a physically strong aggressor. But I think that considerations relating to RP's physical condition deserve some weight in this discussion. So, we're left with the idea that Polanski must be imprisoned (if found guilty, natch) so that other individuals who may be disposed towards committing rape are dissuaded in some sense from committing rape. This is the most difficult of the three justifications for prison to "pin down" in a rigorous fashion, but let's have a go. The "deterrent" argument rests on the assumption that criminal behaviour is materially inhibited by the existence of channels to sanction that behaviour. This seems to me to be a valid assumption to some extent. If there were no laws against, say, shoplifting or benefit fraud, then those crimes might well be expected to rise exponentially. Those crimes are easy to construct as "victimless", since the victim of the crime is faceless and/or seen as significantly "stronger" than the perpetrator and so able to absorb (what are, after all, only monetary) losses. In the case of crimes like rape or murder, however, which require a significant act of (often brutal) violence and violate what are for most us "consensus" principles, it seems clear that there are inhibitions on the perpetration of those crimes other than fear of punishment. Particular brands of psychological thought might even suggest that there are significant cerebral inhibitions, rendered by the evolution of the human species, upon those crimes. Nevertheless, the absence of strong punishments for such crimes is likely to lead to some amount of increase in their frequency. For evidence of this, one may look to the uncontrollable outburst of political violence in late Republican Rome -- a society which for a long time employed no sanction against murder, and thereafter introduced a fine. Alternatively, and in the perhaps more relevant context of a strong and modern state, one may look into the frequent use of murder by American organised crime syndicates confident that they could "buy" freedom (or in some other way escape punishment thereafter). It therefore seems difficult to me to accept either extremes of argument (not saying that anyone in this thread is advancing them, incidentally): i.e. that it is necessary, because of the "deterrent" principle, that any transgression must be punished regardless of other considerations, or, on the other hand, that the presence of sanctions is irrelevant in determining the rates at which crimes are committed. Relating this back to Polanski, one might point to the extreme specificities in this case that are being used to justify his non-imprisonment: the long period between charge and trial; the (seemingly entirely genuine) desire of the accuser that he not be punished; the 'clean' record that Polanski possesses in the intervening period; and Polanski's age and frailty. In a sense, Polanski's case reflects a very unique "perfect storm" of mitigating conditions. For that reason, I find it hard to accept that his non-imprisonment would "send a message" of any sort to the general population -- or, at least, that it will suggest that the state is suddenly deciding not to enforce punishments against rape. And I don't think society needs to be too concerned with "sending a message" of conciliation to its legions of old, frail, non-recidivist accused rapists who have managed to evade capture for thirty years and have been forgiven by their accusers. Are we not agreed per the issue that I mentioned at the outset of this post? (And if we aren't, then why didn't you mention it when I sat down to start typing? Cuh, of all the cheek, etc., etc.,) Or is there any other non-bullshity application of the "deterrent" argument I'm missing? Or something? e: It's kind of amusing to me that one of the main justifications for the plea bargain system, which was used to attain Polanski's "guilty" plea on the unlawful sex charge, is that there isn't enough punishment to go around. Now, apparenty, there's a surplus of the stuff to be (potentially) used on Polanski.

Thanks for the kind words, machine. I'm on board with all of the points you make in your post. In particular, I think the flipside of the idea that "ahhh, but the sympathy for Polanski is only result of his fame" which you bring out is important. This case has not been prosecuted in a way that is entirely above board. That's why the responses from the acting community about the "corruption of the law" or whatever can't be brushed off entirely -- there may be an element of 'persecution complex' about them, but that's not all there is to it. I think it's the squawking moralism and desire to cheerlead for law enforcement that turns me off about this case, too. People seem to lose their heads completely when "sex" and "children" are mentioned in the same breath.

Jeez, Z, you can do better than that. "If you can't see that universal healthcare provision is a Nazi policy, no argument I make is going to change your mind!!!!!!!!" I think most eighteen year olds would know this also. And some 44 year olds might not know this, if they were particularly ignorant or were big dum-dums. But you didn't say "this is worse, because Polanski knew about age of consent laws". You are consistently mentioning his age as though it carries a sledgehammer significance. I don't understand why. And your above explanation doesn't really help me to understand why, because it just makes "age" a proxy for "knowledge about consent laws". Comments made by me in this thread: "There's an unpleasant element of "dumb bitch crying rape" to the idea that that aspect of the case can just be left alone. I see no reason why Geimer would need to lie -- at least not repeatedly over a course of thirty years." "Polanski has not been convicted of getting Geimer drunk, plastered, fucked, wankered, shitfaced, ratarsed, or exhilarated. Obviously that doesn't mean that he didn't do so. It's significant that she has (as far as I can tell) persistently accused him of doing so for thirty years now." "I'd say there's a good chance of wrongdoing [on Polanski's part, beyond "unlawful sex"]." "For the record, I'm not "supporting" Polanski in the sense that i) if someone put a gun to my head, I would guess that some form of coercion (however prosaic) was involved here." "Again, I have no idea what he is or isn't guilty of beyond engaging in sex with a minor. If forced, I'd guess that some coercion occurred; whether it was sufficient or not to constitute rape -- I have no idea." COMPLETELY IGNORED!!!!!! Seriously, your above comment can fuck right the fuck off -- it not only misrepresents an element of my argument that I've made overandover a-fucking-gain, but it accuses me of appropriating a misogynistic and chauvinistic attitude that I have criticised and repudiated explicitly. The above quote manages to be lazy, offensive and too-late-to-the-party all at once. Thx. People who admired and respected Polowski would have shed tears. But there would have been fewer of them, that's all, and they would not have had access to public fora (to such a degree). The situation of Polanski's case isn't changed by any counterfactuals such as the above. I'd still have the same analysis, personally. The arrest of prominent people generates more debate than the arrest of non-prominent people when all else is equal -- big deal. I like that this supremely irrelevant consideration is the "bottom line", though. Anal sex is somewhat more risky and more likely to be painful than is vaginal sex in most instances. But I'd argue that anal sex only carries with it "horrific" overtones due to its status as a social taboo and due to its associations with homosexuality -- an illegal practice until very recently (and a practice still greeted with opposition and sneery responses from a significant proportion of the media and population at large). I have no idea how you get from "consensual sex" to "rape" by switching orifices. To argue this in a slightly different way: vaginal sex is quite significantly more "risky" than is oral sex (in a number of different senses). But no-one would, when describing a rape case, constantly stress vaginal sex or vaginal rape. Both vaginal and oral sex are taken to be "normative" expressions of sexuality. Anal sex is still marked specifically as a "deviant" activity -- I believe that this is inextricably related to its association with homosexuality, despite weak ex post facto justifications relating to how dan-ger-uzzzz anal sex is. Throughout much of the Europe, the age of consent is 14. And the legislatures in those countries don't seem to see as much significance in the age differential of the sexers as you apparently do. But obviously thirteen is BEYOND THE PALE!!!!!! e: Oh, wait, a.o.c. is 13 in Spain. So there's your answer I guess. We all know that the Spaniards are filthy as fuck, though, obviously.

This is a weird assume-what-you-set-out-to-prove argument that I don't agree with at all. I believe that I, personally, would have been in a position to understand the implication of agreeing to sexual activity when I was thirteen. I knew what sex involved, and would've been able to know whether or not it was something I felt comfortable doing in a particular circumstance. Geimer may have. She may not have. But that is what the usage of the term "rape" hinges on. Your above post and the article you quote within it is very very very disingenuous in that it makes no clear semantic distinction between rape (as defined by criminal law) and "rape" (as you yourself define it based upon a highly contentious ethical judgement). By saying that Polanski is a "rapist" and that he "plead guilty to rape", you are knowingly encouraging inference of something unsubstantiated by established evidence (in the first case) and simply factually inaccurate (in the second). If you wish to make the argument that "unlawful sex with a minor" always involves an element of "rape" (i.e. coercion), then that's fine -- I will strongly disagree with that, but at least the terms of the (now quite different) debate are clear. But by making references to "drugging" and Polanski "pleading guilty to rape", you were engaging in some pretty Unspeak-y rhetoric. Why does the age of the accused have any bearing on your judgement here? Also, does the insistence on "anal sex" have resonance of ugly conservative argumentation against equalising the age of homosexual consent to anyone else?

I've always vaguely liked the look of the ATP line-ups (particularly TNBC, I seem to remember). I was going to go whichever year Liars were playing; but that fell through. I'd seriously consider going solely for MBV. Seeing them in Manchester last summer was without exaggeration one of the best experiences of my life. The rest of the line-up is mostly bands I'm lukewarm about (Sonic Youth), or would see as a kind of vicarious long-after-the-fact thing (Buzzcocks, Bob Mould).