Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03

[SlaveNoMore]

Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
Personally I about threw up when all the celebs were fawning over Polanski at the Oscars.

I second that. It was revolting.

Pretty disgusting that they seem to save all their scorn and indignation for political targets (Bush, Elia Kazan, etc.) and then award an Oscar to a man who admittedly is a fine director,

Tess? Pirates? Frantic? Hell, I think the Piano sucked. I do own "The Ninth Gate" though

but who is also a fugitive from a sex crime charge...

And that several Hollywood types keep platforming for his amnesty. Reminds of all the Free Mumia bulffoons in the Hollywood set.

[fufu]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Michael trivia ?, was shortening to Jacko, after he turned wierd to provide the "wacko" joke, or was the shortening pre-turning wierd?

Hank, the term was originally coined by either the London Sun or Daily Mirror in ?1989 when Michael was photographed in a hyperbaric chamber, about the same time it was announced that he was trying to purchase the Elephant Man skeleton.

btw - love the chapeau.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
On CNN the other night, Johnnie Cochran, without saying what he advised Michael, seemed to express frustration that he wasn't able to convince Michael in 1993 to change his behavior to avoid exposure (no pun intended) like this...

To wit, he should only molest boys aged 14 and over.

[Pinky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The parents are fans like PJ that never went through that realization that cute Michael Jackson from the Jackson 5 or even the Thriller version is a crazy man living in a fantasy world that isn't particularily friendly to children. They read the press releases from his camp and believe them. They see the interview from last year and nod enthusiastically when the rebuttal comes out two weeks later. They find no wrong in this freak and there are probably some out there who think that this whole thing is a misunderstanding and a ploy by an evil psychiatrist (who under state law has a duty to report child abuse) and/or bad little boy who is taking advantage of Michael's love for children who wants money.

I suppose. Like I said, I've always given him the benefit of the doubt. I used to love him. I still think he's a musical genius who influenced almost every artist out today. But I can believe all this and still be cautious. I don't understand why parents would risk the emotional and mental well-being of their kids. Just seems like common sense to me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Roman was decent enough to become a fugitive and remain one without whining about it. Michael tried to expatriate the victim's family to make it impossible to prosecute him.

The people who have some idea who Roman Polanski is also read Nabokov and knew at the time that it was something that happened when foreigners and Californians were around.

Roman was an odd little intellectual guy with a funny name who represented what middle-America feared all of California and Europe were like. Maybe even NY and Massachusetts. So Roman just did what was expected, and what we suspect the rest of them do, too. But it was far away.

Michael is everyone's worst nightmare, the talented kid down the block who was always hanging out at our house, and now he's attacking our children. It is much more personal and up-close.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Pinky
I've been thinking the same thing. I don't understand why parents would have their kids sleeping over or even spending any extended period of time alone with him.

The parents should be charged with child neglect/endangerment.

Re Polanski, I think another mitigating factor (although I don't buy it) is that he married her.

[fufu]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
To wit, he should only molest boys aged 14 and over.

I am not a parent but it boggles my mind that, given all the publicity about Michael and his penchant for young boys, why parents willing allow their children to associate with Michael unchaperoned. I don't care how famous or rich he he is I would not allow my child(ren) out of my sight if Michael was close by.

It's like the parents are pimping out their offspring.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Re Polanski, I think another mitigating factor (although I don't buy it) is that he married her.

Is that right, Less? I thought that was Jerry Lee Lewis...

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Re Polanski, I think another mitigating factor (although I don't buy it) is that he married her.

I could be whiffing (sorry Slave) but I thought he married Sharon Tate, not that girl (and is now married to that girl with the really big ass)

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by dtb
I have asked this very question -- and his response was that libraries are not-for-profit enterprises, and B&N is a business -- a BUSINESS, dammit!

He ain't buying the Coffee Justificaion, eh? Drat. What about if I switch to a mocha ($3.50)?

Originally posted by dtb
(Although, sometimes to spice it up, he'll say libraries are just another example of his tax dollars going to waste on all those bums without jobs.) (He's very compassionate.)

Exactly! Things were much better when the jobless bums spent their time earning money with squeegees (sigh -- however it's spelled) at intersections instead of sleeping in the periodicals section.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by fufu
I am not a parent but it boggles my mind that, given all the publicity about Michael and his penchant for young boys, why parents willing allow their children to associate with Michael unchaperoned. I don't care how famous or rich he he is I would not allow my child(ren) out of my sight if Michael was close by.

It's like the parents are pimping out their offspring.

Because they are either stupid enough to think that a celebrity can't be a piece of shit, or they tolerate behavior in a celebrity that they would never tolerate from an everyday schmoe, because they think wealth and fame will touch their lives by association.

In other words, they're stupid starfuckers who never got a chance to fuck a celebrity themselves and haven't got the brains, decency, and sense of self sacrifice that every parent should have to keep their kids away from the risk. (Like you said: pimping.) That makes them reprehensible rather than pitiable versions of your garden variety bimbos who date or marry abusive celebrities.

Executive summary: because people suck.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I could be whiffing (sorry Slave) but I thought he married Sharon Tate, not that girl (and is now married to that girl with the really big ass)

That's the mitigator. Sharon Tate's murder brought Polanski a lot of sympathy, or maybe not.

Who's the girl with the really big ass?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I could be whiffing (sorry Slave) but I thought he married Sharon Tate, not that girl (and is now married to that girl with the really big ass)

Yes. He has actually had a trully hellish life - he is a Holocaust survivor, and his mother died in Aushwitz. His first wife, 8 months pregnant, murdered by Manson. Strangely, I don't think sympathy for what he has been through has ever played much of a role in the Hollywood shrugs over his statutory rape.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Strangely, I don't think sympathy for what he has been through has ever played much of a role in the Hollywood shrugs over his statutory rape.

They ignore it and claim that it's all about Polanski's "art" out of one side of their mouths but condemn what a better director, Elia Kazan did (an admittedly despicable thing in naming names during the Red Scare) out of the other side...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
That's the mitigator. Sharon Tate's murder brought Polanski a lot of sympathy, or maybe not.

Who's the girl with the really big ass?

I must be wrong on the sympathy bit.

Love your new by-line. You've really done a lot with that dog in the basket.