From Politico:

But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

“The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment,” Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.

The fight over the definition of rape threatened to sabotage Republican efforts to highlight their push to end taxpayer subsidies for abortion, and the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.
“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

It’s only “mystifying” if you’re unfamiliar with the contemptuous attitude that many abortion opponents, Republican or Democrat, display toward women who seek to preserve that right to choose. This bill was introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), and co-sponsored by 163 Republicans and 10 Democrats who seem to believe that, absent this “forcible rape” language, women will just go around “crying rape,” a popular myth in American rape culture.

The phrase may be gone, but the contempt is still there, as evidenced by this section:

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section

(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and

(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

That means anyone who has an insurance plan that covers abortions, even a single man who will never have an abortion, will be denied any health care related tax benefits. That would even apply to dudes who work for the RNC, whose health plan covers elective abortions.

This provision will render any private insurance plan that covers abortion poisonous to its customers, particularly group plans. It is possible that health insurance companies could design parallel products that do cover abortion, but the provision is so broad that it’s unclear if that would even pass muster. It’s much more likely that private insurers would drop abortion coverage completely.

Whether you agree with abortion rights or not, this is a clear contravention of the law of the land. The “forcible rape” red herring may have been disposed of, but there’s still plenty of rotten in this pile of fish.

Critics of the bill argue that the “forcible rape” language is ambiguous at best, and could exclude drug-induced rapes, since there is no federal legal definition of “forcible rape.” While this ambiguity is alarming (for reasons that Sady Doyle lays out very effectively), most current legal definitions of “forcible rape” include such rapes. Daring this bill’s authors to define “forcible rape” is the wrong approach.

While the US Criminal Code doesn’t define “forcible rape(the code places all forms of rape, including statutory, under the umbrella of the term “Aggravated Sexual Assault”),” federal crime-reporting standards do, and while they include rapes due to temporary or permanent incapacity, they specifically exclude one particular kind of rape:

Agencies must not classify statutory rape, incest, or other sex offenses, i.e. forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, etc. as Forcible Rape (2a or 2b). The UCR Program applies the following definitions:

Statutory rape-nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent.

Incest-nonforcible sexual intercourse between persons who are related to each other within the degrees wherein marriage is prohibited by law.

This exclusion is also found in most states’ definitions of “forcible rape,” where such definitions exist. So, while HR 3 might exclude drug-induced rapes (but likely would not), it definitely excludes statutory rapes, the type that Whoopi Goldberg also didn’t consider “rape-rape.”

While attempting to narrow the definition of rape is, itself, outrageous, the fact that the only unambiguous exclusion here will be little girls who are impregnated by adults is truly revolting. One of the bill’s Democratic co-sponsors, Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Il), assures TPM that this wasn’t his intent:

“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski said in the statement. “Nonetheless, the legislative process will provide an opportunity to clarify this should such a need exist.”

That’s hard to swallow, given the fact that aside from the “forcible rape” change, this provision is triple-redundant. Rep. Bart Stupak famously spurred President Obama to issue an Executive Order reinforcing a prohibition that already existed in federal law. Stupak, who ironically accepted abortion money for his campaign, was called a “baby-killer” for his trouble.

So, why do 164 Republicans and 10 Democrats hate little girls, unless they’re raped by a close relative? My initial read of this bill is that they don’t, that what they really want to do is promote the notion that , absent this “forcible rape” language, women will just go around “crying rape,” a popular myth in American rape culture. Rape is actually a woefully underreported crime.

This is reinforced by the reductive attitude that abortion rights opponents take toward “health of the mother” exemptions, best exemplified by Sen. John McCain’s air-quoted suggestion, in a 2008 presidential debate, that such concerns are merely pretext to secure taxpayer-funded abortions:

The condescension drips like the back end of a Tijuana air conditioner, and is of a piece with the anti-woman thrust of this bill.

Either way, it’s not a very pretty choice. Time will tell if Smith  & Co. generate as much outrage as Whoopi Goldberg did.

A little over a week ago, Rachel Maddow talked about this bill with Rep. Jan Shakowsky (D-Il), and while they missed the “forcible rape” language, they did talk about the bill’s many overreaches, most importantly this section:

SEC. 303. PROHIBITION ON TAX BENEFITS RELATING TO ABORTION.

For taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this section

(1) no credit shall be allowed under the internal revenue laws with respect to amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or with respect to amounts paid or incurred for a health benefits plan (including premium assistance) that includes coverage of abortion,CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(2) for purposes of determining any deduction for expenses paid for medical care of the taxpayer or the taxpayer’s spouse or dependents, amounts paid or incurred for an abortion or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortion shall not be taken into account, and

(3) in the case of any tax-preferred trust or account the purpose of which is to pay medical expenses of the account beneficiary, any amount paid or distributed from such an account for an abortion shall be included in the gross income of such beneficiary.

That means anyone who has an insurance plan that covers abortions, even a single man who will never have an abortion, will be denied any health care related tax benefits. That would even apply to dudes who work for the RNC, whose health plan covers elective abortions.

The likely result of this will be that group health insurance plans will stop covering abortions altogether.

Here’s the clip from the January 24 edition of The Rachel Maddow Show, from MSNBC”

Here, without further ado, are 2010′s ten worst media disasters:


10. Sarah Palin Scribbles on Her Hand
If you’re a 9-year-old giving a speech to your fourth grade class, it might be adorable to write a few reminders on your hand. If you’re a former Vice Presidential nominee getting paid $100,000 for a high-profile speech, well, not so much. In February, Ms. Palin reinforced the narrative about her lack of heft when she addressed the National Tea Party movement with these words written on her hand: “Energy,” “Tax Cuts,” and “Lift American Spirits.”

9. Christine O’Donnell Disowns Her Wiccan Past
If your campaign needs to put out an ad denying that you’re a witch, you’re probably going to lose.
Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell should have known not to use the language of denial. It didn’t work well for Richard Nixon (“I am not a crook”), Bill Clinton (“I did not have sexual relations with that woman”), or Larry Craig (“I am not gay”), and it sure didn’t work for her.

8. Dr. Steven Duckett, Former CEO, Alberta Health Services
In November, Alberta’s hospitals had run out of beds, and the public was upset about long emergency room wait times. If you were Dr. Stephen Duckett, CEO of the Alberta government agency responsible for the health of more than 3.5 million Canadians, you probably wanted to express your unwavering commitment to improving the health care system for all Albertans.
He didn’t. Instead, he prioritized a baked good. And he got fired for this interview.

7. Vice President Joe Biden’s Big ‘Effin Deal
It took almost a century for an American president to pass sweeping health care reform legislation. In March, President Obama achieved what past presidents couldn’t. And his signing ceremony represented an opportunity to bask in his achievement.
Instead, Vice President Joe Biden leaned in – near a hot microphone – and told the President the passage was a “big fucking deal.” Biden’s comments earned front page coverage, tainting coverage of the actual legislative accomplishment. And the Vice President reinforced the narrative about his lack of discipline.

>>>>NEXT Up: An Spaced-out Arizona Governor and unhinged NY Gubernatorial candidate!<<<<

President Obama

This speech is actually emblematic of the entire Obama presidency, a study in unrealistic expectations that sometimes go unmet. It reminds me of a passage from Jim Bouton‘s iconic baseball diary, Ball Four. Bouton rolls off a list of advice that coaches shout at a pitcher during a single batter, and notes that the combined wisdom would result in a pitch that you couldn’t make with a sniper rifle.

Most ridiculous is the criticism that there wasn’t enough detail in the speech. It seems Keith Olbermann is convinced that the American people are incapable of digesting any information that isn’t delivered to them from the Oval Office. Maybe the President should also read off the Lotto numbers, so we don’t all throw away our winning tickets. Since day one, we  have been inundated with detail on the administration’s response to the disaster, while it took the media weeks to give a crap about it. Presumably, anyone tuning in to the speech has also seen the ad nauseum computer graphics of the “Top Cap” on every TV show from Real Time with Bill Maher to Yo Gabba Gabba.

Maybe Keith wanted the President to rattle off a list of not-yet-invented energy breakthroughs, and why shouldn’t he? He’s Barack Obama! Give him a grease pencil and those big-ass windows in the Oval Office, and he ought to be able to knock out a cold fusion formula midway through paragraph 3.

Chris Matthews hit the nail on the head when it comes to renewable energy investment. “that’s the hardest thing in the world to do!… that broke Jimmy Carter.”

If America had taken renewable energy seriously then, who knows how far along we would be right now? The natural conclusion to be drawn from our failure to act then is, of course, that we should fail to act now. If it’s anger people want, they should be prepared to take their fair share, for enabling the oil and coal industries with their unwillingness to support renewable energy.

But the biggest problem facing President Obama, and the rest of us, is the inconvenient truth that he’s stuck with BP, but unlike Huey Lewis, he’s not happy about it. The Clean Water Act says that the government has to give BP a shot at fixing this, and once this effort was started, it became nearly impossible to switch horses in midstream. Can you imagine the challenge, for example, of pulling BP off of the recovery, and sending in one or more US oil companies? Have you ever tried to get a Big Mac at shift change?

The President needs to stand on BP’s neck, but not so hard that they choke to death. If BP’s stock continues to tank, and the cost of the spill continues to rise, what are they supposed to pay for it with?  This is why the escrow account is a good first step, but the total cost of this thing could easily outstrip BP’s future ability to pay.

What if BP decides that they’re better off pulling up stakes and doing a Roman Polanski, what do we do then? Do we really want to entrust the livelihoods of all those gulf residents, and the non-toxicity of our coastal waters, to the British court system? Right now, BP is manning the oars on this recovery, and we can only beat them so hard before they just jump overboard. They’re not really fighting us now, but heaven help us if they do.

Then, there’s the issue of the sheer enormity of this disaster. The President is trying to reassure us by not pointing out that we don’t even know if the relief wells will work, or if the “Top Cap” will actually capture 90% of the oil in the interim. This is a problem that no one knows how to fix, and we need a little luck, or at least a break in the bad luck. If not, this Oilpocalypse could kill the whole freakin’ ocean.

Finally, the President is not our mommy. I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a leader who’s going to construct some oil spill “cat heaven” so I can sleep better at night. This is a f**ked up situation, worse than anyone is saying right now, and this is as reassuring as it’s gonna get.

So, to review, the President should have made everyone feel better, while simultaneously delivering detailed statistical breakdowns, policy proposals, and Dilithium Crystal Battery schematics, while also leveling with us that the 90% oil capture and the relief wells will happen if we’re lucky, and telling us that he’s going to command BP to set up an escrow account, and if they don’t feel like it, we can sue them, so those shrimpers might get some money during Sarah Palin‘s first term, and what the hell, Ken Salazar probably should have shut down all 128 deep water rigs as soon as he was confirmed so he could instantly fix decades of lax enforcement, because that would have gone over so much better before the oil disaster, finishing by saying “I know we need to get off of oil, but I don’t think now’s the time to think about that, and besides, I don’t think we can do it. The moon landing was totally a fluke.”

Feel better now?

Not sure what conclusions there are to be gleaned from this other than this was (sort of) a first offense for Tiger and infidelity is far different than abuse. Also, by some miracle we may still expect more from our politicians than athletes, though Edwards is a particularly badly behaved politician. That said, Bernie Madoff gets no votes, so perhaps money still trumps all.

All parties can take some relief however in the fact that a whopping 32% felt all of them should be forgiven. All poll results here.

Sure, Polanski must wear a bracelet to track his movement, but other than not leaving the premises, the rules seem to be quite forgiving. He might even receive guests or work on a film project, CNN reports. Cushy, eh?

“It’s a new experience for us,” the town’s tour director tells CNN, as shots of expensive Prada bags and snow-dusted mountains shine. This, my friends, is the life. See for yourself. (On mute, the video looks like a tourism commercial.)

(photo via)

Fortunately, Mediaite has come up with some costume suggestions for you. Pulled straight from the headlines, these are guaranteed to be hits:

For obvious reasons, the current president of the United States is likely to be a popular Halloween costume this year. But beyond form-fitting Hart Schaffner Marx suits, the challenge remains: How is a trick-or-treater supposed to pull off the look?

Fortunately, cable pundit/voice of reason Glenn Beck is on the case. A well-executed Obama according to Glenn Beck’s imagination should wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, a Hitler mustache, and a Soviet-style ushanka, preferably bearing a red hammer-and-sickle. Gasoline can for torching the Average American optional.

Barack Obama, According to Keith Olbermann’s Imagination

Cable pundit/voice of reason Keith Olbermann, on the other hand, might have slightly different ideas about what constitutes a good Obama costume. Olbermann’s Obama should have billowy, flowing wings, a resplendent halo, and, if budget allows, a heavenly host of sanctified Cabinet appointees carrying blazing swords and playing gleaming trumpets, singing the praise of the anointed one, and also mentioning offhandedly that Bush kind of sucked.

Summer of Death

Year-by-year, the Grim Reaper is always a popular Halloween costume, particularly among people who don’t have any costume ideas when they go to Party City on October 30th and kind of just phone it in. But coming off the Summer of Death, the costume has a special resonance this year. A (sexy) black hood, (sexy) black robe, and (sexy) blood-dripping scythe are of course mandatory, but how to work in the contemporary angle? It would probably be in poor taste to carry photos of Michael Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Farrah Fawcett, Walter Cronkite, etc. A safer bet might be to carry around copies of expired mags Gourmet, Trump, Vibe, Nickelodeon Magazine, etc.

Levi Johnston

Last year’s Levi costume would have been an awkward suit and a hockey stick, but this year it’s much different — now that he’s an aspiring male model. Sarah Palin‘s former-almost-son-in-law is promising to reveal “huge” things about the former VP candidate, but the big news is his upcoming spread in Playgirl. For this popular costume, just wear briefs and bask in your 15 minutes of fame (briefs optional).

Next Page: Great newsy group costumes, and a twist on the Andre Agassi look

Politico is taking heat from all over the blogosphere for a story they posted Wednesday that conflated support for convicted rapist Roman Polanski with political donations to President Obama.  The splashy headline read “Roman Polanski Backers Gave $34k to Barack Obama, DNC.”

The story prompted a strong reaction from the DNC, whose spokesman called it “lowbrow…amateur hour…one of the silliest stories that I’ve ever seen.”  Politico is now being ripped by HuffPo, Media Matters, Gawker, and many others for what Salon calls the “Smear of the day.”  Politico, however, stands by their story:

“We will look for the political angle in virtually any story,” responded top Politico editor Jim VandeHei. “This short blog item was done for the Click page — where we run a lot of entertainment and personality items. It was quick item based on FEC data alone.”

Critics of Politico’s story point out that the data offered doesn’t actually support any sort of link between the President and Polanski, and seems designed solely to generate traffic from conservative websites.

I took a look at Politico’s story, then did some checking of my own.

First of all, Politico says that the Polanski arrest “sparked a vigorous national debate about sex, justice and extradition that – thus far – has yet to draw in the Obama administration.”  That’s not entirely accurate.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the case several days after the arrest:

Q Will the President pardon Polanski? Will he, or not?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know of any pending pardon request, Lester.

Q Does he believe pedophiles should not be prosecuted?

MR. GIBBS: The President believes pedophiles should be prosecuted, Lester.

I also did some checking into this “US Government” that sought Polanski’s arrest, and it turns out Barack Obama is in charge of it.

Still, there is the matter of those 6 signatures on the Polanski petition.  The 7th, Harvey Weinstein, didn’t actually give Barack Obama any money at all.  In fact, Politico even points out that Weinstein gave $88,000 to Hillary Clinton.  I wonder why that didn’t make it into the headline?  Maybe he was the only Hillary donor on the list.  It’s still almost 6 times what Obama got, but let’s give Politico the benefit of the doubt and check it out.

Director Michael Mann (who didn’t make Politico’s list) donated $2300 to Hillary Clinton, Brett Ratner has donated $8,800 to Hillary (and $4,600 to John Edwards, tee-hee), Martin Scorsese donated $3,500 to Clinton, and Harvey Weinstein donated that whopping $88,000 to Hillary.  That’s $102,600 to Hillary, versus $15,500 to Barack Obama, almost a 7 to 1 difference.  Does Hillary’s name belong in a headline with a rapist?

I was also able to identify an even stronger link between Polanski and 2004 congressional candidate Nick Clooney.  Adrien Brody donated $2000 to Nick Clooney. and Weinstein gave Clooney $4,000.  Taken as a percentage of total dollars raised, Clooney cleans Obama’s clock by a 348-1 margin.  Is “Obama, DNC Snubbed by Polanski Pals in Favor of Nick Clooney” too long a headline?

Still, you have to give Politico credit for caring so much about women.

Keli Goff, who last week wrote a piece for Mediaite critical of Polanski and his Hollywood supporters called “Why Doesn’t Middle America Trust Hollywood Liberals? Two Words: Roman Polanski,” had posted a similar piece at HuffPo and had posted it to her Facebook page last Wednesday. On Friday, she sent me a confused email asking me if I had tried posting Polanski articles to Facebook. She was trying to post the following and having no luck:

Chris Rock weighs in on Polanski. Hilarity ensues: http://tiny.cc/hdmKr

I tried posting it to my page and it worked fine. I tried posting another Polanski link to my page; it also worked. Keli, meanwhile, tried to post a news article reporting that California governor Arnold Schwarzennegger had refused to pardon Polanski — no dice.

She has since then been unable to post material about Polanski on her Facebook page — legitimate, non-abusive material — and when she tries, she gets the following message:

Keli has no idea who would have reported her to Facebook as abusive; she has received no communication on the matter from Facebook or anyone. In the interim, Keli tells me she has requested an answer from Facebook’s spokesperson Barry Schnitt but has received no response, and is also waiting to hear back from someone in their DC office after friends with contacts there reported her issue. I also tried posting a Polanski page to her wall, and it worked; however, she’s still unable to.

Could this be a fluke? Maybe — but doubtful, since it appears that Polanski-themed spamming is going around. Over at Patterico’s Pontifications, Patrick Frey has numerous posts detailing how he was spammed by an associate producer for the pro-Polanski film, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired. Patterico had identified the associate producer, Michelle Sullivan, through an intricate trail of online breadcrumbs, and she admitted to having left numerous angry anonymous comments in support of Polanski on posts written by Patterico. Patterico also tied her to comments on Polanski-related articles at the Daily Beast.

So: We know that there is at least one, perhaps more pro-Polanski person or persons targeting people who are critical of the embattled director online. And, I guess, we also know that Facebook will suspend your posting privileges without contacting you. Oh, we also know this: Trying to block Facebook articles about Roman Polanski will probably really, really help his public image. Sheesh.

Anyone else out there have similar experiences with Polanski-related material? Let us know in the comments.

UPDATE: Facebook’s Barry Schnitt weighed in here last night at 7:07 p.m. with the following statement:

Try posting just the domain to your Fb profile (http://tiny.cc/). You’ll see that it is also blocked. That means, we were seeing and/or users were reporting a lot of spam hiding behind that URL shortener, so we temporarily blocked all sharing of the entire domain. Ms. Goff’s posts using the same URL shortener would have been blocked regardless of the content to which they were pointing. We’re sorry for the minor inconvenience but it was done to protect users from spam.

I’m also sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists out there but the suggestion that we would be taking sides in the debate about Mr. Polanski or even between two users is absurd.

He sent a similar response to answer Keli’s inquiry yesterday at 7:49 p.m. Our attention was called to both this morning.

So, good! Mystery solved. Keli was not flagged as abusive by any crazy pro-Polanski activist. But Schnitt’s answer does deserve a bit of a response. So here we go:

(1) How long it took to get it. According to Keli, she emailed him Friday evening at his work address and via Facebook on Saturday afternoon. No response. I get that Facebook is a huge company, but, well, Facebook is a huge company. Being on top of this stuff means nipping question marks like this in the bud.

(2) Conspiracy theorists. It did sound ridiculous off the bat — which was why Keli and I watched it over the weekend, and waited to see if there was a response. What is it they say, it’s not paranoid if they’re really after you? Well, Patrick Frey’s experience as detailed on Patterico is pretty indicative of a vociferous response. The other comments are similarly indicative; more generally, online flame wars have broken out over far less.

(3) “The suggestion that we would be taking sides in the debate about Mr. Polanski or even between two users is absurd.” This is a bit rich coming from Facebook. There are regularly controversies over content, over much more hot-button issues (Holocaust denial, Israel-Palestinian issues, breastfeeding photos, photos of mastectomy scars). Facebook controversies do happen. In fact, it was my knowledge of these other issues that made me think the Polanski block was more, not less, likely to have happened — even if it was just one lone nutbar flagging content as abusive, and Facebook auto-erring on the side of caution.

So — that’s why words of caution were used in this post, saying for example that a fluke was possible but doubtful given the totality of circumstances. All information was shared with the reader, including the bit about Facebook having been contacted for comment. But when that comment is not immediately forthcoming, conclusions will be drawn. Friday to Monday is a long time on the Internet. But thanks to Barry Schnitt for clearing up the issue.

Viewers of This Week With George Stephnopolous will be familiar with the ‘Green Room’ spot that is available on the web once the show ends. This week talk turned to Polanski, and Roberts opined on what she felt would be a fair sentence (1:40 mark). Someone should have asked her what to do about Dave!

“He raped and drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I’m concerned, just take him out and shoot him.”

Forget about that whole legal process thing…tell us how you really feel!

But yesterday Behar didn’t stop there. She showed up at 11pmET on The Daily Show and “she” showed up on NBC at 8pmET as well.

“Is there a time of day now that Joy Behar is not on television?” asked Stewart. “I have more exposure than Obama at this point. I’m on constantly it’s ridiculous,” she said.

Behar has a unique way of paying a compliment as well. “You are the news. They go to you instead of, you know, Walter Cronkite,” she said to Stewart at the end of the segment. “Well, he’s dead.”

But Behar also showed up on Weekend Update Thursday – as portrayed by Fred Armisen. The sketch was based around Whoopi Goldberg‘s comments earlier this week (she was there too, portrayed by Kenan Thompson) about “rape rape”. Here’s a sampling of the Behar wisdom: “I swear, up under my boobs it’s like The Rainforest Cafe.”

It’s a good week for Behar’s to get out as much as possible – as her show premiered to solid, but not spectacular, ratings. Still, with the run of controversial guests saying controversial things is sure to help get the word out as well.

Here’s the Daily Show interview, where Behar explains how she and Ann Coulter are like the “lesbian version” of Mary Matalin and James Carville, and below, the SNL clip:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Thanks to Harvey Weinstein, Debra Winger and co., now I know.

While our country is engulfed in two wars, struggling to climb back after falling off of an economic cliff last year and trying to find a way to provide health care for nearly fifty million uninsured Americans, I am glad to see that some of Hollywood’s elite, (including Mr. Weinstein, Ms. Winger and Woody Allen, among others) have found a truly important cause worth fighting for: defending Roman Polanski.

My first thoughts upon learning that Mr. Weinstein was circulating a petition on behalf of Mr. Polanski were:

1) Finally! Hollywood finds a cause the average American can get behind.

2) Shouldn’t Mr. Weinstein be more focused on saving his troubled studio than saving an aging fugitive?

3) When Woody Allen is coming to your defense in a case involving alleged sex with a teenager…well, that’s a punchline that writes itself.

I have been beyond baffled at the bizarre rationale (or lack thereof) used to defend this movement to save Roman Polanski.

His defenders seem to alternate between three primary lines of defense:

1) “He may have done it but it was a really long time ago.”

I’d never really looked at crime that way but Mr. Weinstein and his buddies may be on to something. With that in mind maybe we should stop pestering all those Nazi war criminals we have insisted on harassing for the last half century. I mean, after all, it was a really long time ago.

2) “He is really, really talented.”

Also a good point. Maybe it would be easier if we just created a set of penalties specifically for “really talented” people so we can avoid this kind of confusion in the future. I know some amazing pantomimes and jugglers. Should we give them free rein to sexually assault adults? I’m assuming you actually have to win an Academy Award to be given a free pass on children. It’s just too bad we already executed serial killer Ted Bundy because according to the judge who sentenced him to death, he was a talented attorney.

3) “The victim is ready to move on.”

Having to endure the pain of revisiting an assault of any kind, particularly in a public forum, is something I would not wish on my own worst enemy. I can understand a victim’s desire for privacy and closure, but thankfully in this country that does not trump the public’s right to justice — and protection from potential re-offenders. It is worth noting that a number of states have laws in place that give district attorneys the power to prosecute batterers even when victims of domestic violence refuse to testify, for this very reason. They may have a variety of reasons why they would rather “move on” than face their assailant in court (or perhaps more terrifying, chance facing him outside of court). But thankfully for the greater good and safety of society, it’s not always up to them.

Hollywood hypocrisy is one thing when it takes the form of a celebrity touting their environmental consciousness while globetrotting in a fuel-guzzling private jet (ahem, Madonna.) But when people like Mr. Weinstein, who supports a plethora of liberal candidates, and was the producing arm behind Michael Moore’s iconic, cinematic Bush takedown “Fahrenheit 9/11,” seem content to paint the former president as harmful to Americans but Roman Polanski as merely misunderstood, they are proving Sarah Palin and every other anti-Hollywood conservative’s point for them.

It is not for me to say that Mr. Weinstein and his cohorts have no moral compass but I will venture to say that they are certainly out of touch and maybe out of their minds. Because in the parts of America that so many of us in big cities think of dismissively as “flyover country,” they may not know that Le Cirque is a restaurant, but they do know that pedophiles are a bad thing — regardless of how rich, talented or influential they may be.

Actor, director and Polanski acquaintance Luc Besson provided a welcome measure of clarity on this whole mess in a recent radio interview when he said, “This is a man who I love a lot and know a little bit… Our daughters are good friends. But there is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone. I will let justice happen…I don’t have any opinion on this, but I have a daughter, 13 years-old. And if she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later.”

Even if the violator in question is really, really talented.

Keli Goff is a political writer for TheLoop21.com and the author of “Party Crashing: How the Hip-Hop Generation Declared Political Independence.” See more by Keli at www.keligoff.com. This column is a slightly modified version from one which ran earlier on the Huffington Post.

Because, you know, Glenn Beck’s recent track record for bringing down Obama administration officials is pretty impressive. But also, because the media loves Roman Polanski. Not love as in bedazzled and supportive — so far the media seems fairly split down the middle, actually — but love as in Polanski makes great copy and is enormously polarizing and he’s currently the only thing everyone (but the President) wants to talk about. The Eric Holder angle seems like a great way for Beck to get in on the action (or retaliate to a not-so-happy official White House blog post!). That is, when he’s not — according to the hyperbole-stricken Bette Midler — starting a Rwanda-Like Civil War in the U.S. (below).

Since Roman Polanski was arrested Saturday night in Switzerland for fleeing the U.S. after pleading guilty in 1977 to unlawful sexual intercourse (a plea deal for a rape accusation), you’ve been speaking out in droves to defend the director. CNN describes it as “Hollywood Embraces Polanski“, Fox News calls it “Hollywood Left Bands Together to Fight Polanski Arrest“.

Here’s a tip: stop.

We get it – Polanski is a brilliant director. “Rosemary’s Baby” was fantastic. “Chinatown” is a masterpiece. He finally got an Oscar for best director in 2003 with “The Pianist” a heartbreaking film that opened the door for Adrien Brody to make out with Halle Berry. You even gave him a standing ovation that night – even though he wasn’t there to accept the award (video on next page).

Of course, that’s because he’d be arrested if he set foot in the United States, due to that whole raping a 13-year-old thing. But let’s not dwell on that right now.

Hundreds of you guys and others like you in the film world abroad have signed a petition demanding Polanski’s release. People like Woody Allen, who is a bit of a creepster himself (although, notably, has not had sex with a 13-year-old). People like Monica Bellucci, who was cinematically raped (for art). People like Harvey Weinstein, who says he is “calling on every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation.”

And here’s kind of the problem, Hollywood. You think this whole thing is happening to you (or at the very least, to brilliant people like you). Whoopi Goldberg wanted to make very clear this week that what Polanski did wasn’t “rape rape.” That doesn’t make much sense sense, of course, and doesn’t address the fact that the director never served his sentence because he fled fled. Even Sharon Tate‘s sister, who thinks Polanski is a “good guy” and of course “brilliant”, wanted to draw the very obvious distinction that “there’s rape and then there’s rape.”

NEXT: How Polanski is not Joseph Goebbels.

Meanwhile, Sunday’s arrest took most of the world by surprise and much was made in the American papers about how dearly the French loved and supported Polanski, especially their government!

Culture minister Frederic Mitterrand said he was “dumbfounded” by the arrest and “strongly regrets that a new ordeal is being inflicted on someone who has already experienced so many of them,” President Sarkozy wants him released as quickly as possible. Oh those French and their ideas!

Not so fast! According to the New York Times the French public may not actually be so hot on Polanski’s freedom.

The mood was even more hostile in blogs and e-mails to newspapers and news magazines. Of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by the French daily Le Figaro, more than 70 percent said Mr. Polanski, 76, should face justice. And in the magazine Le Point, more than 400 letter writers were almost universal in their disdain for Mr. Polanski.

Sounds less like the French “desire” Polanski at the moment and more like they are just as split on what should happen to the Oscar-winning director as the rest of the world.

As it turns out, there is: Applebaum is married to a Polish foreign minister who is fighting for the Polanski case to be dismissed, and she failed to disclose it. According to blogger Patterico’s Pontifications (an employee of the L.A. County District Attorney’s office, “which is seeking Polanski’s extradition”), as the WaPo columnist was giving readers “a fact-challenged screed in support of Polanski, she was failing to disclose that her husband was a Polish official who was lobbying for Polanski’s freedom.”

Of course, this isn’t the only journalistic mishap since Polanski’s arrest. Yesterday, AP accidently published a reporter’s notes about the case instead of a full report, but the fallout from blunder was overall pretty minimal. In more ethically questionable territory is Applebaum, whose husband is Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, a man who, along with Poland’s president, “said they would appeal to US authorities to drop proceedings against Polanski.” Interestingly enough, according to Patterico, Applebaum disclosed her marriage only five days ago, in a column about Obama’s diplomacy in Europe.

We’ve put in an email to the Washington Post ombudsman and will post any comment as we receive it.

UPDATE: The Washington Post‘s Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt supplied Mediaite with the following comment: “Anne Applebaum has disclosed her marriage to the Polish foreign minister a number of times in her column, including very recently, so it is no secret. As she has written in a second blog posting today, she did not repeat the disclosure in her original blog because she did not know at the time that her husband had any connection to these events.

One reporter’s notes about the developing news of Roman Polanski‘s arrest were sent out on the wire instead of the text of his article and published online by the New York Times and Forbes, where the notes are still up for now:

Swiss arrest Polanski on US request in sex case
Associated Press, 09.27.09, 10:41 AM EDT

OK, can you do some more probing? New York will want to know
frank’s out today.
i checked already, and so did zurich. they say the question is irrelevant. he answered me with the quote i used, about we knew when he was coming this time. he’s been here many times in the past, we think.
thx brad. aptn is aware, but unfortunately won’t make it in time, but is hoping to catch tail end.
i’m pushing out another writethru with some more background details before press conference.
no surprise, new york is really hot on this.
they particularly want to know why now. (has he never set foot in switzerland before?) sheila, theorizes that’s because they’re under intense pressure over ubs and want to throw the U.S. a bone, but can yo ucheck with justice department sources there?
is frank around too, or are you alone?
u can tell aptn press conf 1700 (15 gmt) in bern at the parliament
i’ll watch it live on internet

All things considered — if the part about throwing “the U.S. a bone” is as bad as it gets — this could have been a lot more embarrassing for the AP.

(h/t Business Insider)