Necesito información sobre Jackson y Polansky
Estoy confundido. Necesito información sobre Michael Jackson y Roman Polanski, que han sido idolatrados por el jet-set mundial, sin ninguna referencia a acusaciones gravísimas. Todo se perdona.
Complemento, publicado en Telegraph:
Guilty Roman Polanski and innocent Pope Benedict: Lefty luvvies show their hypocrisy
Here’s a maxim for Left-wing luvvies: let’s treat the Pope like a rapist, and treat a rapist like the Pope.
By the Pope, of course, I mean Benedict XVI, who has been at the helm of the Church during its darkest hour, when scandal upon scandal involving priests sexually abusing children has come to light. By the rapist I mean Roman Polanski, the Polish film director who was convicted of raping an underage girl in America back in 1977.
Ah, but there is a difference between the two men, I hear you say: one has been convicted of a crime, while the other is in charge of a global Church at the moment when some of its members are being exposed as criminals.
That may be the difference in your eyes. But in the eyes of Lefty luvvies from Hollywood to Hampstead, the only real difference between the Pope and Polanski is that the latter is an artist. That, you see, erases a multitude of sins – yes, even the rape of a 13-year-old girl. The same people who are viciously denouncing Benedict even though he has not been convicted of any crime defend Polanski despite his conviction because he’s “one of us”. In their eyes, directing The Pianist and Rosemary’s Baby has somehow cleansed the stain of shame from this repulsive little man.
Here is the bad news: the luvvies have won. Their man has been let off – to cries of relief from the arty set, the Swiss authorities have refused the America its request for extradition. The Pope, meanwhile, continues to be publicly reviled by bohemians who think he should be arrested for crimes he neither committed nor concealed. And they dare attack the Church for hypocrisy!
Tags: Pope Benedict XVI, Roman Polanki
By the Pope, of course, I mean Benedict XVI, who has been at the helm of the Church during its darkest hour, when scandal upon scandal involving priests sexually abusing children has come to light. By the rapist I mean Roman Polanski, the Polish film director who was convicted of raping an underage girl in America back in 1977.
Ah, but there is a difference between the two men, I hear you say: one has been convicted of a crime, while the other is in charge of a global Church at the moment when some of its members are being exposed as criminals.
That may be the difference in your eyes. But in the eyes of Lefty luvvies from Hollywood to Hampstead, the only real difference between the Pope and Polanski is that the latter is an artist. That, you see, erases a multitude of sins – yes, even the rape of a 13-year-old girl. The same people who are viciously denouncing Benedict even though he has not been convicted of any crime defend Polanski despite his conviction because he’s “one of us”. In their eyes, directing The Pianist and Rosemary’s Baby has somehow cleansed the stain of shame from this repulsive little man.
Here is the bad news: the luvvies have won. Their man has been let off – to cries of relief from the arty set, the Swiss authorities have refused the America its request for extradition. The Pope, meanwhile, continues to be publicly reviled by bohemians who think he should be arrested for crimes he neither committed nor concealed. And they dare attack the Church for hypocrisy!
Entradas
En cuanto a Polansky toda la razón, pura hipocresía, es lo mismo que con el lobby gay.
ResponderBorrarEn cuanto a Jackson -lo se porque mi mujer es fanática- tengo entendido que las acusaciones eran falsas, es decir, fueron una maquinación para sacarle dinero.
Eso es lo que tengo entendido.
tú te imaginas, Cristóbal, lo que tiene que haber pasado el niño judío Polanski durante su infancia... que se escapó de los nazis y debió ocultarse entre los campesinos polacos... y ucranianos y bielorrusos...
ResponderBorrar(se dice que hay una probabilidad alta de cometer estos abusos cuando abusaron de la persona siendo niño)
y después, de ahí a Occidente... al dorado occidente, después de salir del paraíso comunista polaco... a París y a los EEUU... durante los '70, en plena decadencia! en un mundo de drogas y destape sexual como era el que se vivía entonces...
y luego lo de la muerte de su sra. y de su hijo, en esa forma...
Yo creo que, en Oliver Twist, se ve mucho de lo que él sufrió de niño y de cómo ha cambiado... Gracias a Dios!
Las razones de la justicia suiza para no extraditarlo han sido más bien formales, y reflejan el poco interés de la justicia norteamericana en perseguir el crimen.
Pero claro, todos esos viejos latinoeuropeos que lo defienden, especialmente franceses y espanoles (NO en Alemania, aquí no lo ha defendido nadie) y que argumentan que la "víctima es culpable", ya que se "veía mayor de lo que era", esos viejos sí que son de lo peor... Hace siglos que no veo cine español o francés (salvo Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, que es de un argelino-francés y por eso, distinta), gracias a Dios, a Alemania, apenas llega...
saludos!
mira:
ResponderBorrarhttp://www.welt.de/die-welt/vermischtes/article8438861/Freiheit-fuer-Polanski.html
saludos!
marta, pero en log out
sobre Michel Jackson, me parece que también hay que considerar, por ej., esto que dice mi amigo Taras, desde Kiev,
ResponderBorrarThank You, Michael!
saludos!
El punto es otro: probablemente para todos los casos podemos encontrar atenuantes (es una cosa común que los abusadores fueron abusados, o corrompidos cuando muy jóvenes, o enfermos ...); pero la hipocresía de muchos consiste en que encuentran esas atenuantes para algunos abusadores y no para otros.
ResponderBorrarMe alegro que lo de MJ haya sido falso.