Roman Polanski caught this weekend!

[fossten]

Let’s do a little laundry list Cal. Look at Michelangelo’s David? Read Arthur C Clarke’s 2001, watch the movie? Avoided Alice in Wonderland?

You always do this. Rather than stand on your own set of principles, you set out to nitpick hypocrisy in others.

It's a staple of the liberal mind.

Nevertheless, your comment does remind me of the humorous song by Henry Phillips:

Standing on the Shoulders of Freaks

Ancient philosophy was framed by prodigies
Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates
And even though their thoughts were deemed
the aristocratic voice,
they also had a thing for little boys

Catherine the Great, so it's been said
needed large animals to be fulfilled in bed

From historic rulers
to the ancient Greeks
We're standing on the shoulders of freaks

"Isn't life pretty?" Ernest Hemingway once said
and then he put a bullet through his head

Salvador Dali's surreal paintings were godsent
You'd never know he ate his own excrement

Then there's da Vinci, for whom it required
dressing in women's underwear to be inspired

From the great romantics
to the ancient Greeks
We're standing on the shoulders of freaks

Truman Capote, needless to say
would be intoxicated 20 hours a day

From the modern authors
to the ancient Greeks

We're standing on the shoulders of freaks

We're standing on the shoulders of freaks

 

[Mick Jagger]

Google "death panels."
And then google Fred T. Slice, you might just find a picture of me and my gerbil collection.

 

[foxpaws]

You always do this. Rather than stand on your own set of principles, you set out to nitpick hypocrisy in others.

It's a staple of the liberal mind.

Nevertheless, your comment does remind me of the humorous song by Henry Phillips:

Well Foss, I guess you didn't see all the posts where I stated, very clearly, I think it is fine that he won the academy award. Art needs to be judged in a vacuum - it doesn't matter who did it, 'is the art worthy of the award' is the only question that needs to be answered.

Obviously I understand that Aristotle's works stand beyond his fondness for boys, or that the Mona Lisa isn't less because of DaVinci's fondness for woman's undergarments. Polanski's work isn't bad because of his past.

 

[Calabrio]

Polanski's work isn't bad because of his past.

Perhaps not.. but no one should have been willing to pay to make it.
No one should have been "honored" to work with him.
And no one should have paid to see it, support him, or honor him.
For example, they shouldn't have been figuring out elaborate ways to avoid extradition laws and legal issues necessary to permit him to accept an award via-satellite.
They could have recognized the film without accommodating the pedophile.

And certainly no one should be defending him or excusing him now, or feeling pity because he's depressed in while in jail. This is a man who not only raped a 13 year old girl, but one who who frequently touted his fondness for young girls during his exile.

You keep making the mistake, intentionally or not, of associating people who have unusual or self-destructive behavior to Polanski who has deviant and CRIMINAL behavior. That's an important distinction.

If an artists likes to dress like a woman, you're absolutely right- his art should be judged in that vacuum. But if he likes to rape little girls, he shouldn't have the opportunity to create art and a society has the RESPONSIBILITY to hold that person accountable, if only through social pressure.

If a brilliant genius dresses like a woman, that doesn't concern me.
If he's a self-destructive drinker, that's his choice.
But if he arse-rapes 13 year old girls after getting them drugged, that man is a predator and an enemy of society.

 

[foxpaws]

Perhaps not.. but no one should have been willing to pay to make it.
No one should have been "honored" to work with.
And no one should have paid to see it and support him.

I don't care how he got money to produce his films, and I don't judge those who gave him money -

And certainly no one should be defending him or excusing him now, or feeling pity because he's depressed in while in jail. This is a man who not only raped a 13 year old girl, but one who who frequently touted his fondness for young girls during his exile.

I certainly don't think anyone should be defending him or feeling sorry for him... I don't care if they castrate him - but, his work will not be the less for it.

You keep making the mistake, intentionally or not, of associating people who have unusual or self-destructive behavior to Polanski who has deviant and CRIMINAL behavior. That's an important distinction.

And I associated him with Arthur C Clarke - who sodomized little boys... criminal behavior cal.

But if he arse-rapes 13 year old girls after getting them drugged, that man is a predator and an enemy of society.

Yes he is. That has never been in question - what has been in question is should his art be judged differently because of his past. No it shouldn't.

 

[Calabrio]

I don't care how he got money to produce his films, and I don't judge those who gave him money -

Why?
Is it o.k. to give money and support a child rapist if you think he's an artistic one?

You have repeatedly tried to draw a line between the pedophile and his art. But you are now clearly demonstrating that you really aren't making that distinction sincerely.

And I associated him with Arthur C Clarke - who sodomized little boys... criminal behavior cal.

Among other people.
And you fail to make the proper distinction-
Arthur C. Clark was accused of pedophilia by a British paper in 1998. He denied the allegation and was never criminally charged. But, even if the charge was true, NO ONE KNEW. The public didn't continue to support him DESPITE his alleged victimization.

But, if the charge were credible, then it would have been proper for the public to stop supporting his work.

The difference here is that Polanksi isn't just a child rapist, he WAS convicted of the crime, we know he continued to have sex with underage girls while in Europe, AND YET PEOPLE LIKE YOU CONTINUED TO SUPPORT HIM and his continued work.

Yes he is. That has never been in question - what has been in question is should his art be judged differently because of his past. No it shouldn't.

Again- a responsible society has the obligation of shunning him. While he may flee the law, GOOD people should consciously decide they want NO association with him.

And if he manages to make a quality film, worthy or praise- then at least just recognize the art WITHOUT honoring the individual. And I gave examples in the previous post.

The man fled justice, he violated a girl, and he continued his lust for teenage girls after hiding in France. Who do you think is responsible for punishing him? Who is responsible for holding him accountable?

Is the law just some kind of technicality? He found a way around it so everything is o.k. otherwise? People who enable him to survive and make art should be rewarded and not condemned? He should be honored DESPITE what he's done? And you... you enjoy his movies so you'll make any excuse that morally absolves you from any kind of human responsibility.

 

[foxpaws]

Why?
Is it o.k. to give money and support a child rapist if you think he's an artistic one?

You have repeatedly tried to draw a line between the pedophile and his art. But you are now clearly demonstrating that you really aren't making that distinction sincerely.

I wouldn't back one of his films. I won't defend or condemn the actions of those who did back his films - I'll leave that for those who feel they can judge people - like you cal

Arthur C. Clark was accused of pedophilia by a British paper in 1998. He denied the allegation and was never criminally charged. But, even if the charge was true, NO ONE KNEW. The public didn't continue to support him DESPITE his alleged victimization.

And I think every serious science fiction fan knew why Clark moved to Sri Lanka - it was because the people in Sri Lanka turned a blind eye to his sodomizing little boys, and would clear him of any charges. It didn't affect his sales... The Sci Fi community certainly continued to support him.

The difference here is that Polanksi isn't just a child rapist, he WAS convicted of the crime, we know he continued to have sex with underage girls while in Europe, AND YET PEOPLE LIKE YOU CONTINUED TO SUPPORT HIM and his continued work.

I saw The Pianist - it was a great movie - I probably added 2 cents to the Polanski coffers.

I saw a work of art - I read Clarke - I supported the work.

Again- a responsible society has the obligation of shunning him. While he may flee the law, GOOD people should consciously decide they want NO association with him.

Label me bad - I don't care - I will stand by my principle of you judge the art apart from the creator.

And if he manages to make a quality film, worthy or praise- then at least just recognize the art WITHOUT honoring the individual. And I gave examples in the previous post.

I don't think you should facilitate the man in actually picking up the award - but, giving it to him, is fine by me.

The man fled justice, he violated a girl, and he continued his lust for teenage girls after hiding in France. Who do you think is responsible for punishing him? Who is responsible for holding him accountable?

Is the law just some kind of technicality? He found a way around it so everything is o.k. otherwise? People who enable him to survive and make art should be rewarded and not condemned? He should be honored DESPITE what he's done? And you... you enjoy his movies so you'll make any excuse that morally absolves you from any kind of human responsibility.

And I will continue to state - I judge the art - I don't judge the man as being good - he is despicable, he should serve his sentence, he should be extradited to the US. But, his art doesn't change because of any of that - it is still good.

Are you judging me a Bad person because I say his work is good, and if he is awarded 'prizes' for it - that is OK by me?

 

[Calabrio]

I'll leave that for those who feel they can judge people - like you cal

You're incapable of judging a man who admits to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl?

And I think every serious science fiction fan knew why Clark moved to Sri Lanka -

You are saying that it was widely known (or alleged) that Clark was a pedophile since the 1950s? If so, then why was is such big news when a newspaper made the allegation in the late 90s? If that was such public knowledge, then why'd the Knight him?

I don't know much about Clarke, so I genuinely don't know. Were there protests at the time?

Regardless, if anyone was aware of what he was doing, they would have been wrong to continue supporting and enabling him.

I saw The Pianist - it was a great movie - I probably added 2 cents to the Polanski coffers.

2 cents more than me.
but more importantly, where's your sense of social responsibility?

It amazes me, the same socially conscious people who will continue to support Roman Polanski are often times the same clowns who wanted to boycott WholeFoods because the guy said he disagreed with Obamacare.

I saw a work of art - I read Clarke - I supported the work

Well, I hope a gifted rapist never touches anyone your family....

Label me bad - I don't care - I will stand by my principle of you judge the art apart from the creator.

To the contrary, it's a definite LACK of principle.
Don't make yourself a martyr when it's just weakness on your part.

You want to enjoy the film. And you don't want to have to make a moral judgment.

I don't think you should facilitate the man in actually picking up the award - but, giving it to him, is fine by me.

I clearly don't agree with that, but - if they gave it a BEST PICTURE award, I could understand that. Many other moral relativists were involved in it's creation. But honoring him.... "the award goes to.... the 5' pedophile rapist for the Pianist" is disgusting.

Are you judging me a Bad person because I say his work is good, and if he is awarded 'prizes' for it - that is OK by me?

Actually that's not what I've said, regardless how many times you restate that. You can recognize his body of work as being good. You can acknowledge his talent as a film maker. But you shouldn't support it. You shouldn't honor HIM. And those who do are enabling a criminal and a predator.

You have embraced a position that absolves you of all social and personal responsibility.

If there was a baseball player gifted with incredible talent and skill, one who was definitely going to make it to the hall of fame.... but he was convicted of drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl.... would you support him?

If he fled the country and sought work abroad, would you still go see him play? Would you still support his bid for a spot in the hall of fame? And would the promoter or team owner who signed the criminal to play for their team be a dirtbag or would you excuse the behavior.

After all, you don't judge the man, just what they create.

 

[foxpaws]

You're incapable of judging a man who admits to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl?

I guess I stated that badly - I do judge him - I do judge, but I don't think that the people who back his films deserve my judgment. You do judge them - I don't. I really don't know why - I guess it isn't that important to me. I know you will rake me for this - but Cal - I am being very honest here - I don't judge them, either way.

You are saying that it was widely known (or alleged) that Clark was a pedophile since the 1950s? If so, then why was is such big news when a newspaper made the allegation in the late 90s? If that was such public knowledge, then why'd the Knight him?

I don't know much about Clarke, so I genuinely don't know. Were there protests at the time?

I certainly knew about it in the late 80s - I don't know about protests or anything along those lines -
He lived in Sri Lanka for many many years - long before those allegations - and he had been sodomizing boys for a long time there as well.

but more importantly, where's your sense of social responsibility?

I think he did a terrible thing, and should be punished - but his art is separate - that is my sense of social responsibility

It amazes me, the same socially conscious people who will continue to support Roman Polanski are often times the same clowns who wanted to boycott WholeFoods because the guy said he disagreed with Obamacare.

So, do you have an example of someone who supports Polanski and has boycotted Whole Foods - or is it just a generalization Cal?

Well, I hope a gifted rapist never touches anyone your family....

I wouldn't judge his art by his actions. I would want him to have his balls chewed off by rabid rats - if he were convicted, but I wouldn't say that the Louvre couldn't hang his art if it was elected to hang there, nor would I judge the people who paid the admission price to look at it, nor would I judge the committees at the Louvre who decided on what art should be purchased and hung in the museum.

Don't make yourself a martyr when it's just weakness on your part.
You want to enjoy the film. And you don't want to have to make a moral judgment.

You got it - I can appreciate the art without the moral judgment. You can't.

I clearly don't agree with that, but - if they gave it a BEST PICTURE award, I could understand that. Many other moral relativists were involved in it's creation. But honoring him.... "the award goes to.... the 5' pedophile rapist for the Pianist" is disgusting.

His direction wasn't any less because of his past.

Actually that's not what I've said, regardless how many times you restate that. You can recognize his body of work as being good. You can acknowledge his talent as a film maker. But you shouldn't support it. You shouldn't honor HIM. And those who do are enabling a criminal and a predator.

And the Academy Award for best direction honored his work for The Pianist, they acknowledged his work as a film maker. You can't do that without saying his name...

If there was a baseball player gifted with incredible talent and skill, one who was definitely going to make it to the hall of fame.... but he was convicted of drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl.... would you support him?

If he fled the country and sought work abroad, would you still go see him play? Would you still support his bid for a spot in the hall of fame? And would the promoter or team owner who signed the criminal to play for their team be a dirtbag or would you excuse the behavior.

After all, you don't judge the man, just what they create.

I don't care what the hall of fame does - if they felt he belonged - that is their decision. Would I watch him play abroad - no. Would I watch a compilation of his achievements on ESPN - yes.

Would I go and see Roman Polanski give a speech on film making - no. I would be supporting the man - not viewing his art.

And I really don't care Cal about the promoter who signed the baseball player or the people who back Polanski's films.

I do judge the man (once again - sorry - I did state that badly before - I meant it to be for a specific instance, obviously I have judged Polanski - I called him despicable many times) You can continue to berate me and label me as bad - I won't change my mind. The art should be judged separately from the person who creates it.

 

[Calabrio]

I guess I stated that badly - I do judge him -

No, you've demonstrated that you don't. You might pay some lip service to the idea that someone else should judge him, but you'll have no part of that.

I don't think that the people who back his films deserve my judgment. You do judge them - I don't. I really don't know why - I guess it isn't that important to me.

Having sex with underage girls?
Drugging a 13 year old girl?
Raping a 13 year old girl?
Sodomizing a 13 year old girl who is semi-conscious?
Which of those aren't "important" enough for you?

I don't judge them, either way.

I certainly believe you on this point. You certainly do not judge these people in anyway. That might be inconvenient for you.

Again, I ask, he fled from the law and found sanctuary.
If not for regular citizens, who is supposed to hold the man accountable for his crime? You seem to think that you can wash your hands of responsibility.

You pretend that his ability to make films is of some critical importance for society so it must be enabled. The guy makes entertainment, artfully.

I think he did a terrible thing, and should be punished - but his art is separate - that is my sense of social responsibility

So, you have no sense of responsibility.
You think he should be punished... BY WHO?
He fled the country and found sanctuary overseas.

You think all of us should support a rapist who can artfully produce entertainment. His arguably cinematic skills have earned him the right to operate outside of the laws of society.

And either through your action, or more importantly your inaction, you think it's appropriate to look the other way and refrain from passing judgment, all so that you can enjoy one of his movies every couple years.

That's extremely selfish and morally bankrupt.
At least recognize it as such.

So, do you have an example of someone who supports Polanski and has boycotted Whole Foods - or is it just a generalization Cal?

Don't try to assign homework for me when you know that these two groups have a considerable amount of overlap. Do you honestly not believe this or are you asking because you know that there no organized list to cross reference?

I wouldn't judge his art by his actions. I would want him to have his balls chewed off by rabid rats - if he were convicted

He was convicted...
but you still want to see his movies.
You still want to pay to see his movies.
You still want other people to pay to make his movies.
And you still want people to help enable him to live his opulent fugitive lifestyle.

but I wouldn't say that the Louvre couldn't hang his art if it was elected to hang there, nor would I judge the people who paid the admission price to look at it, nor would I judge the committees at the Louvre who decided on what art should be purchased and hung in the museum.

You continue to miss this point.
I'm not talking about Chinatown here. Or Rose Mary's Baby. Or Repulsion.

I'm talking about the stuff that has happened after he drugged and arse-raped a little girl. After he fled the United States as a fugitive. After he was interviewed, repeatedly, telling journalists about his fondness for "young girls." After all of this....

You say he should be punished, but you dont' want any of the burden of being associated with it. Someone or something else should punish him, but in the meantime, you'll enjoy his entertainment.

I don't care what the hall of fame does - if they felt he belonged - that is their decision.

...of course... because you're not an otherwise opinionated person......

Would I watch him play abroad - no.

Why? Because you don't really care to watch sports or international sports, because my example here is a weak, or because you've suddenly found some moral back bone?

Because this opinion contradicts your attitude towards Polanski. You still watch him "play."

Would I go and see Roman Polanski give a speech on film making - no. I would be supporting the man - not viewing his art.

What if he were giving the speech for free?

And I really don't care Cal about the promoter who signed the baseball player or the people who back Polanski's films.

Why? They are enabling a criminal to escape justice and enjoy their life consequence free.

I do judge the man (once again - sorry - I did state that badly before - I meant it to be for a specific instance, obviously I have judged Polanski - I called him despicable many times) You can continue to berate me and label me as bad - I won't change my mind. The art should be judged separately from the person who creates it.

Calling you bad is your word, not mine.
You have no judged Polanksi, you have simple called him names, but that rings very hollow.

The art they produce can be judged separately, but you support him and the people who have enabled him to flee justice for the past decades. That's indefensible. Just because he's an entertainer, or you want to hold him up as "an artist", that doesn't him more important than his crime.

Another example, what if the guy was a plumber.
Just a skilled tradesman. A guy who was so skilled, his sweat soldering was like a work of art.. And HE drugged and rape a 13 year old girl. And, like Polanski, he was able to get out of the area and escape extradition.

Should anyone hire him, knowing what he had done?
Would you hire him? Would you condemn the people who knowingly hired a fugitive rapists? What if they looked the other way and applauded him as he brought underage girls back to him apartment?
Would you judge the man on his ability to snake a drain?
To plunge a toilet?

Or is Polanski and his entertainment so damned important to you that you'll look the other way after he rapes children and people around him enable him to escape justice?

 

[foxpaws]

You think all of us should support a rapist who can artfully produce entertainment. His arguably cinematic skills have earned him the right to operate outside of the laws of society.

And either through your action, or more importantly your inaction, you think it's appropriate to look the other way and refrain from passing judgment, all so that you can enjoy one of his movies every couple years.

That's extremely selfish and morally bankrupt.
At least recognize it as such.

You will label it morally bankrupt - that is fine. Once again - I think he should have been punished - he was convicted. He escaped justice and found sanctuary in another country. He made art. I saw the art. I can hate the creator and still appreciate the art.

That is all this started out as Cal - I think his art should be judged separately from the man. I will not change that, I will not apologize for that.

The rest of this is something you wanted to drag into the conversation so you can label me as morally bankrupt - and selfish.

Fine - if my conviction that art is to be judged separately from its creator is immoral, then it is, because you have stated that it is.

Don't try to assign homework for me when you know that these two groups have a considerable amount of overlap. Do you honestly not believe this or are you asking because you know that there no organized list to cross reference?

I have no clue - but you were the one that wanted to put this into the conversation - I just thought it would be interesting to see if you actually had any names, or if you just assume it. Because people are so easy to label.

He was convicted...
but you still want to see his movies.
You still want to pay to see his movies.
You still want other people to pay to make his movies.
And you still want people to help enable him to live his opulent fugitive lifestyle.

I don't care that people enable his lifestyle - I don't want or not want Cal.

You say he should be punished, but you dont' want any of the burden of being associated with it. Someone or something else should punish him, but in the meantime, you'll enjoy his entertainment.

I'll appreciate the art Cal - that is it. I read books by men who have sodomized young boys, I have read Sade, I can separate the work from the creator Cal - if you can't that is fine.

...of course... because you're not an otherwise opinionated person......

I am terribly opinionated - and here I am as well - not having a need to judge someone because of their backing a film is a big opinion Cal.

Why? Because you don't really care to watch sports or international sports, because my example here is a weak, or because you've suddenly found some moral back bone?

Well, the example is weak - but, I just wouldn't watch him - just as I wouldn't watch Polanski. I wouldn't talk to Clark, I wouldn't see Aristotle. I don't need to. That isn't the 'art' that is the creator. But, if the baseball player hit the longest home run ball ever hit - I would watch the replay on TV.

What if he were giving the speech for free?

Nope - I would not be interested in seeing him.

Why? They are enabling a criminal to escape justice and enjoy their life consequence free.

Because that isn't my concern - it really isn't - but I also know I can't explain it well, and i know you don't understand it. Just judge me - once again - I can't change the way I am about this Cal - I will not judge the art because of the actions of the creators.

You have no judged Polanksi, you have simple called him names, but that rings very hollow.

So, what do you want me to say - he was guilty - he was bad - he was awful - he still is - he is all those things and more.

The art they produce can be judged separately, but you support him and the people who have enabled him to flee justice for the past decades. That's indefensible. Just because he's an entertainer, or you want to hold him up as "an artist", that doesn't him more important than his crime.

He fled justice - it didn't matter if no one watched his films, it didn't matter if he never made another movie - he still would have been living in France, and they would have protected him. I didn't enable anything Cal. I thought The Pianist was a great movie. It happens that Polanski made it. Speilberg could have made it, the greatness wouldn't have been more or less.

Another example, what if the guy was a plumber.
Just a skilled tradesman. A guy who was so skilled, his sweat soldering was like a work of art.. And HE drugged and rape a 13 year old girl. And, like Polanski, he was able to get out of the area and escape extradition.

Should anyone hire him, knowing what he had done?
Would you hire him? Would you condemn the people who knowingly hired a fugitive rapists? What if they looked the other way and applauded him as he brought underage girls back to him apartment?
Would you judge the man on his ability to snake a drain?
To plunge a toilet?

Or is Polanski and his entertainment so damned important to you that you'll look the other way after he rapes children and people around him enable him to escape justice?

So - did the people who continued to fund polanski's films also provide girls to him Cal? Do you have proof of that?

 

[Calabrio]

So - did the people who continued to fund polanski's films also provide girls to him Cal? Do you have proof of that?

Why would I prove something that only you have speculated. I didn't say anything of the sort, merely that they looked the other way while he continued his indulgent behavior. And that's confirmed by the numerous television and media interviews that he gave recognizing his affinity for little girls.

Now that we're past that diversion, please address the challenge I presented. You judge the man on his work. He's a film maker. An entertainer.
Because he's respected as an artist, does that entitle him to special treatment of some kind? Would you have the same moral ambivalence if the fugitive were a highly skilled tradesman, like a plumber, and not a "gifted film maker."

I'll repeat myself, but what if old Ray Polanski was just a plumber. A guy who was so skilled, his sweat solders were like a work of art. But he had a thing for young girls. And he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl at a friends house. Ray admits it happened. Fortunately for him, old Ray Polanski had was able to get his van out of town and escape his prison sentence.

Should anyone hire him knowing what he had done?
Would you hire him?
Would you condemn the people who knowingly hired a fugitive rapists like this Ray Polanski? What if they looked the other way and applauded him as he brought underage girls back to him apartment?
Would you judge the man on his ability to snake a drain?
To plunge a toilet?
To plumb a bathroom?
Or would you define him by his actions and his personal life?

Or is Roman Polanski and his entertainment so important to you that you'll look the other way after he rapes children and the elite art community around protects him and enables him to avoid justice?

Is his art, his entertainment, really any more important than the work that "Ray Polanski" does? Is it important enough to look the other way?

 

[foxpaws]

I'll repeat myself, but what if old Ray Polanski was just a plumber. A guy who was so skilled, his sweat solders were like a work of art. But he had a thing for young girls. And he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl at a friends house. Ray admits it happened. Fortunately for him, old Ray Polanski had was able to get his van out of town and escape his prison sentence.

Should anyone hire him knowing what he had done?
Would you hire him?
Would you condemn the people who knowingly hired a fugitive rapists like this Ray Polanski? What if they looked the other way and applauded him as he brought underage girls back to him apartment?
Would you judge the man on his ability to snake a drain?
To plunge a toilet?
To plumb a bathroom?
Or would you define him by his actions and his personal life?

Or is Roman Polanski and his entertainment so important to you that you'll look the other way after he rapes children and the elite art community around protects him and enables him to avoid justice?

Is his art, his entertainment, really any more important than the work that "Ray Polanski" does? Is it important enough to look the other way?

Cal – it is hard for me to equate a plumber and an artist – plumbers can be superb craftsman – but an artist? I don’t really see how I can use your story to compare it to Polanski. Water will flow through Ray’s pipes that he so expertly crafted – but, is that art? No.

We could have Leonardo daPolanski. He was convicted of raping a young girl, and before he served his sentence he left the US for France – and the French authorities refused to release him to US authorities.

While in France some people gave daPolanski canvases, paints and brushes so he could continue his work as a great artist. Should those people have given him the canvases so he could continue to create? In my opinion, it doesn’t matter, they did it. Would have I? No. Are they enabling the artist or the rapist? Or are they so intertwined in your mind that you can’t separate the two sides, so by enabling the artist, they are enabling the rapist. That the art should be sacrificed because of the rape conviction. I personally would have sacrificed the art, (my statement over and over again that I would not have been a financial backer for his films, or here, in this example, I wouldn’t give daPolanski materials to create new art). But I can also understand those that wouldn’t, those who would enable the artist, in spite of the horrors of the rapist. I can’t judge that Cal. I have been very honest about this – that is something I wouldn’t place a judgment on. Should they have turned him over to the authorities? Who would they have turned him over to? He has lunch each Friday with the local police, they won’t arrest him – their superiors aren’t going to send him back to the US, they have no authority to do anything. So, the people who have given him canvases have no way to turn him over to the authorities. So with those donated canvases daPolanski creates a great work of art. Good enough the Louvre takes notices and purchases it for their collection. Is the Louvre wrong for buying the canvas? I don’t think so – they are in the business of showing and preserving great art. They are not in the business of judging the morality of the people who create it. They place the art on exhibition and charge people to see it. Are those people who see his art wrong for paying to view it? No, once again, it is the art they are viewing, not the man who created it.

And Cal, once again – did Polanski continue raping young girls when he lived in France and Poland? I haven’t found any thing regarding that. He boasts that young girls seem to find him ‘bait’, but it doesn’t mean he acted on that while he has been abroad.

Is that just what you ‘think’ happened, or do you have some other insight?

And what do you sacrifice if you don't enable the plumber - a new bathroom? No, there are other plumbers who can do that job, you can hire them, the beads on their solders may not be as superb as Ray's, but the plumbing will still function. What do you sacrifice if you don't enable the artist - perhaps in the case of daPolanski, the Mona Lisa.