Thursday, October 01, 2009

Whoopi Goldberg is a moron

In the above video, Whoopi Goldberg throws her support behind child rapist and fugitive from justice Roman Polanski. To recap, Polanski, in his mid-forties, told a 13 year-old girl that he wanted to photograph her for a magazine. He lured her to Jack Nicholson's house, got her drunk, gave her a Quaalude, and took nude photos of her in a hot tub. Then, over her repeated pleas to stop, he had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her.

The police investigated, and he admitted that he had sex with her, but claimed that she was "experienced" and that somehow made it okay. The district attorney shockingly allowed him to plead to having sex with a minor. They dropped the rape charge. They dropped the sodomy charge. Apparently they never bothered to consider the glaringly obvious child pornography and false imprisonment charges. And then, prior to sentencing, he fled the country, living in luxury for decades throughout Europe.

But this isn't the first time Whoopi displayed her idiocy on television:

What the hell.

I've posted this one before. In this clip, John McCain talks about how he would appoint judges who would be faithful to the Constitution. Whoopi Goldberg asks him if that would mean black people would be slaves, apparently because she thinks slavery was mandated in the Constitution. John McCain thanked Whoopi for bringing up "an excellent point", and said that he understood.

This is not an excellent point. The Constitution never mandated slavery. In fact, it has explicitly banned slavery since 1865.

McCain couldn't explain this. Based on the video, I don't even think he understands the distinction. Even the most strict constructionist judge would not allow slavery to return. The Thirteenth Amendment is one of very few limitations on individual actions in the Constitution.


JB said...

That was baffling. Apparently it doesn't count as "rape, rape" unless you like, hit your victim over the heat with a bat or something. Drugging a 13 year old and then having sex with them without their consent, after they have already "said no" certainly qualifies as "rape, rape" to me.

The more murky situations, which does not seem to be in play at all here, are situations involving statutory rape of two people close in age, or where both parties are intoxicated and consent is questionable or difficult to determine.

This whole case is an odd one, but I can't find a valid argument anywhere that favors this guy not being locked up.

Brad Raple said...

The only significant difference between Polanski and a guy grabbing a jogger and raping her in the bushes is that Polanski's rape victim was only 13 years old.

Krister said...

i was going to attempt some witty comment, but im too upset over the fact that people listen to this woman.

Krister said...

also, does this guy ever drop below $200? If anyone would know, surely you would: