Delusions of Grammar » Crime

Right and Wrong on Roman

Scott L. — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:07:33 +0000

I’ve been formulating my thoughts on the whole Roman Polanski thing. It has been on my mind after all, it does intersect between two of my favourite subjects: film and the law. Hell, if we could somehow work delicious cookies into the mix, we’d have ourselves a trifecta.

I know there area lot of big egos in Hollywood, but I was honestly surprised that Harvey Weinstien had the gall to come out with an argument in Polanski’s favour that basically boiled down to “drugging and raping a 13-year-old, whatevs.”

I mean, talk about jumping headfirst without looking. He says that Polanski has already suffered for his “so-called crime.” (Child rape, Harv. If you’re going to try and convince people that that’s not immoral/illegal, I’d recommend using a stronger argument than just a smug hyphenate. )

Yes, while Roman might have suffered by not being able to pick up his Oscar (probably stings a bit) and having to live in France for 30 years (that one, not so much), I sincerely doubt most legal minds would consider that a sentence. Unless the US has switched from an incarceration model of justice to the less popular “exile to a beautiful and vibrant country” approach. (If that’s the case, I’m driving to the border tonight, knocking off a liquor store and hoping for Italy.)

Harvey doesn’t come out and say it, but everyone who wants the US to drop the case again Roman is doing it for one reason: he’s a good filmmaker. Really. I love his work, I’m not going to deny that. But at the same time, no matter how you and “Marty” Scoreses may wish otherwise, artistic minds are subject to the same laws as everyone else. Society as a right to punish those that harm other people. And to punish those who flee the law to avoid their sentence.

Even if, as a society, we agree that Chinatown was pretty sweet. The artist’s bad deeds should never be excused by the quality of their work.

Now, on the flip side of that, you’ve got Rex Murphy arguing in the Globe and Mail that Polanski’s child-raping ass should be stripped of the term artist. Murphy’s argument is just as misguided (though not as morally-reprehensible.) While the artist’s morals shouldn’t be judged on the quality of his work, it’s also not fair to assume the opposite: quality work can only come from the morally sound.

Murphy argues that the word artist has lost it’s meaning when applied to a “ill-co-ordinated puppet on stilts or the latest pop tart ululating her dream to be the next Madonna.” I don’t disagree with him there, but no objective observer would argue that Polanski falls into those categories. I’m sure that if Rex was asked if Polonski’s films were art BEFORE the crime was committed, there would be no disagreement. But he’s letting his knowledge of Polanski’s horrible, criminal deed colour his perception of the man’s work.

In pointing to “real artists,” Murphy mentions Beethoven and da Vinci. But Beethoven was a man who believed in the monarchist system, where the common person had no voice. And I doubt very strongly that Murphy would agree with da Vinci’s views on race relations, or women’s rights. The modern, sophisticated person would think them outdated, possibly barbaric. But we separate the person, and their flaws, to judge their work on the merits alone.

It’s a clarity that only comes when one looks at things objectively. The Mona Lisa is art. So is The Pianist. The latter was made by a criminal. And he should go to jail.

EDIT: Edited for some HTML errors that kept popping up. Also, my first go around, committed the faux pas of not linking to either Weinstien or Murphy. My bad.

Canada: The Remedial Class

Scott L. — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:56:35 +0000

It pains me that this is a discussion we even need to be having.

Honestly. Out comes another report from another committee that puts forth the ‘controversial’ position that “hey, maybe if the RCMP is accused of doing something wrong, we shouldn’t let the RCMP investigate it.

From the report:

“Can the current process of the RCMP investigating itself legitimately engender confidence in the transparency and integrity of the criminal investigation and its outcome?

“Based on the results of our research and analysis, the informed commission answer is that it cannot.”

Canada, this is Responsible Government 101, and we’re failing it badly.

When a police force is accused of wrongdoing, it should be investigated by an independent body. Not because the RCMP is inherently bad, or it’s members untrustworthy. Because RCMP officers are human beings and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. (Unless Harper has one hell of an election platform up his sleeve.)

Human beings with their own biases and loyalties and preconceptions and all sort of other baggage.This isn’t even an academic question: the RCMP have shown many times that their internal investigation policies, at the very least, suspect.

That’s why we have police forces, courts and the justice system in the first place – because we figured out long ago that is when it comes to criminal misconduct, you need to have an impartial investigator.

That’s the only answer that will be accepted. No partial marks.

Gutfeld’s ‘apology’, not ‘comedy’, the real black eye.

Scott L. — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:11:08 +0000

I’m a bit flummoxed, to be honest. Friday night, I cam back from a friend’s place to find my RSS reader full and a ton of e-mails in my inbox – most of them filled with capital letters, a lot of profanity, and a link to this Youtube video:

Right, everyone as seen it by now, but it’s always nice to have a refresher.

Anyway, what has me so perplexed is the fact that, unlike seemingly everyone else north of the 49^th, I really wasn’t all that outraged. BlogWorld was on fire. It was all anyone on Twitter could talk about. Even after watching the video a few times, I couldn’t get my finely-tuned sense of indignation to fire. I was Outrage Impotent – a serious and embarrassing condition.

I simply couldn’t bring myself to care too much. Disturbing, because I’m usually the first one out there with the pitchfork when I pick up on a slight, real or perceived. But here…not so much.

Sure, it was ignorant. Sure, it was cheap. Sure, it was extraordinarily insensitive.

But, it’s just that it comes as absolutely no surprise. Red Eye plays on Fox News, after all. I don’t have a great opinion of most news organizations, especially in the US. But Fox is at the bottom of the barrel. Not only that, but Greg Gutfeld’s little comedy show plays at 3am. Three o’clock in the morning. How good can the guy be? They put him up against Law & Order re-runs and extended Snuggie infomercials.

So no, I wasn’t all that outraged. Gutfeld isn’t funny, he isn’t original. He’s got a show that plays like a fratboy trying to impress his friends – he has to try and be edgy. (What’s sad is that he thinks making fun of the Canadian military is ‘edgy.’ It’s not. We do it here all the time. It’s low-hanging fruit.)

Just like you can’t be outraged when an poorly-trained dog takes a shit on your front step, you can’t get mad when a second-rate funnyman tells hack-eyed jokes to get attention. It’s just his nature. We should all be proud of Greg Gutfeld for having the restraint not to have a diaper on his head when he said his little Gregalogue. (Case in point – he actually calls it that. It’s not even a pun, it’s just….hard to say.)

No. I wasn’t mad at Greg Gutfeld before. But then this happened.

“The March 17th episode of Red Eye included a segment discussing Canada’s plan for a ’synchronized break,’ which was in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts,” host Greg Gutfeld said in a statement issued Monday.

“However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood. It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. (emphasis mine)

Fuck you, Greg Gutfeld.

Comedy is about taking down sacred cows, by making people think by poking and prodding at convention and common sense. Comedy does it better than any other form of art.

That’s the one thing you had going for you – you weren’t funny, but at least you gave it a shot. But now you come back with this non-apology. Your “words may have been misunderstood”? Bullshit. You meant every single on of those words. When you did, maybe you thought that clips from your waste of airtime wouldn’t get back to us up here. Or maybe you didn’t think that the backlash would be as strong as it was. (Either way, you were dead wrong.) But you meant to say what you did, and now you’re too much of a coward to stand behind your own words.

That’s what outrages me – public figures that think an insincere statement is enough to fix any situation. “I’m sorry if some were offended…”, “If anyone took my words to mean…”, “I was misunderstood…” We hear it all the time from politicians, from the media, and from washed-up comedians. Those are not apologies, they are conditional statements. A real apology admits error.

A real apology comes with actual regret. A real apology doesn’t just happen to quell outrage.

A real apology isn’t followed by this:

So, Greg Gutfeld, I wasn’t outraged when you poked fun at Canada. Sometimes, I think we’re a bit to sensitive about criticism from the States, so I would welcome more of it. (Although if you could try and make your comedy monologue funny next time, extra points!)

But I’m insulted by your insincere attempts to wiggle out of things, to try and be the provocateur one night and the misunderstood everyman the next. I was okay with you when you were the loud, obnoxious, perfectly-ignorable late-night host. I’m much less down with the cowardly insult to satire.

Of course, guess there is a reason you’re on at 3am, isn’t there?

Happy New Year, Western Canada

Scott L. — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:47:20 +0000

E.P.S. launches murder investigation minutes before midnight

Three dead at the scene of restaurant shooting

Syncrude worker dies on site

Two Canadians shot in Mexico

Two dead after separate avalanches at B.C.’s Whistler Blackcomb

A great start to 2009.

Live Blogging the Federal Election

Scott L. — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:46:50 +0000

Final Standings – 76 LIB – 143 CON – 37 NDP – 0 GREEN - 50 BLOC - 2 OTHER

The Leaders: Harper Re-elected – Dion Re-elected – Layton Re-elected – May Defeated- Duceppe Re-elected

6:51 – The blog lives! And less than ten minutes before CBC’s election coverage starts. I think that shows the lack of preparation and forethought that will become the hallmark of this Internet adventure. Fitting.

And now, the search for themes begins.

6:59 – WE HAVE AN A ELECTION! Peter Mansbridge didn’t even get through his little introduction rhyme without making fun of Harper’s sweatervests. It sounded like Dr Seuss wrote it.

Also, Mansbridge’s head is like a shining beacon of democracy.

7:04 – 22 Minutes was interviewing Dion, and he was wearing aviators! He looked like professor fighter pilot! I would like to change my vote.

7:13 – I was elated when they said that George Stroumboulopoulos had the night off. They actually just meant that The Hour had it off, and old Stroumby is handing out “Darts and Laurels” to the individual candidates. It’s like thumbs up/thumbs down, but far more awkward to say. Still painful.

Although saying that Australia’s Prime Minister ripped off Harper’s speech three days before he made it. I’ll give you that one, Stroumboulopoulos.

7:19 – NEWSFLASH: Young people use Facebook and Twitter! Thanks CBC.

I need a drink.

7:20 – I got a drink.

7:23 – Airfarce takes the stage. Mike Otto :” Bring back Dave Broadfoot.” I concur.

7:30 – Results! Here it comes from Atlantic Canada!

17 LIB – 10 CON – 5 NDP – 1 BLOC – 1 OTHER

The Liberals were the big losers in Atlantic Canada, it looks like. Lost three seats, which left the Conservatives, the NDP and an Indy to pick up one more each over last year.

Elizabeth May didn’t even come close to kicking Peter McKay out. Not even a contest in Central Nova. Ouch.

7:37 – CBC’s commercial buffers are really dark, panning night shots with a very foreboding music. I think Christopher Nolan directed this election.

7:40 – Mike Kendrick: “McGarvey looks likes that guy from the Full Monty.”

7:42 – The CBC definitely wins the contest of the graphics. CTV’s Global’s vote total counter looks like it was designed for a freeware program.

7:47: Conservatives and Liberals are now in a dead heat. Predicted at 41 seats a piece.

7:48: That was out-of-date before I even saved it. Conservatives are ahead now.

7:49: Liberals down almost EIGHT points in Ontario. Jesus.

Thanks to the technology on loan from the CFL broadcasts, they can now draw on their charts with big, thick yellow lines.

Thanks Peter. Without those little yellow lines, I would have NO IDEA where the Liberal votes went. I know that the Cons, NDP and Green all gained, but no way I could make the connection.

7:55 – It’s an early poll, and therefore meaningless, but right now Edmonton – Leduc is leaning NDP with a slim lead. That’s surprising to say the least.

7:57 – Jim Prentice is coasting into an easy win in Calgary-North. Not at all surprising, but it is still disappointing.

8:00 – Polls closed in BC. Now comes the counting. The endless counting.

8:04 – The Edmonton – Leduc anomaly is fixed – solid Conservative win predicted. But right now, Con Jaffer and NDP Duncan are in a DEAD HEAT in my personal riding, Edmonton- Strathcona.

8:06 – CBC has officially predicted a Conservative minority. No surprise. Guest Reporter Brittany LeBlanc confirms the Canadian Press is saying the same thing. At this time of writing, Cons have 118 projected seats.

8:12: More from Brittany Brittney – Harper and Dion both re-elected.

8:27: Layton re-lected easily. Also, I’m quickly losing steaming.

8:28: Wendy Mesley just lost in on air when talking about the Bloc. She sounded like Micheal Geist for a bit there.

8:30: Fortier is owned by the Bloc. Looks like Harper will be sending him back to the Senate.

8:33: Fixed the name of this post. “Living Blogging the Election?” Good job, Scott. Good job.

8:34: Update on Edmonton-Strathcona: Con – 3945 NDP – 3180

Also, close, close race in Sherwood Park between Acceptable Right Wing Uppal – 1384 vs Crazy Right Wing Ford – 1410.

8:42: As the Conservatives gain more seats, I find that my drinks contain more rye and less Coke. Further study into this phenomenon is needed.

8:46: CBC is predicting a minority government for Harper. I’m predicting that Rick Mercer wears out his Blackberry keyboard before the game is done. He is intense into that shit.

8:52: Up until this point, CBC’s election coverage didn’t have close to enough shots of the back of Jim Flaherty’s neck. Thanks for rectifying that one, cameraman. I’m glad that my tax dollars paid for your on-the-job training.

8:59: Baird’s back. Idiot.

9:04: Strathcona update: Looks like it’s going to be Jaffer. He’s up 10,874 to Duncan’s 9,576. Le sigh.

9:10: CBC finally gets around to talking about the Uppal/Ford battle. Must have run out of ridings to discuss in Ontario.

9:12: I’ve decided to follow Dan Rather’s lead. Scott +4. Look it up.

9:13: CBC is talking about Twitter. An indepth analysis of TWITTER STATISTICS! This is intense. Also, best headline ever – “Tweets Dump on Dion.”

9:26- Results aren’t shifting too much, so updates are going to slow down a little bit. I’ve got a midterm tomorrow that I need to study for, and I’m already +5. Will update with any big developments, or if CBC tries to understand the Internet again.

9:31: Mike Otto is taking over as guest live blogger for a bit. He’s emotionally fragile, so be gentle with him.

9:33: Yes while Lilwall is “studying” I’ll keep you updated. By you I mean Brittney, because honestly who else is reading this. SHOUT OUT! Peter has a phone call. It’s for some senator. Also Linda Duncan is narrowing the gap and I remain optimistic.

9:35: Scott: I haven’t even closed the window, and I’m already regretting the Mike Otto Experiment.

9:39: Mike: Jaffer’s lead has been consistently narrowing. 1200, 1100, 1000, 900. Now down to 700. I’m at half mast.

9:41: Mike: Jaffer’s party is at the Ranch? What the hell? Who is this guy? Is he catering to the douchebag-motherfucker demographic?

9:43: Scott: Hope remains. Duncan is closing the gap in Edmonton- Strathcona, and she’s now within 550 votes. May the floors of The Ranch run slick with tears. (The Ranch, seriously?)

9:49: Mike: Quebec’s language is French? THATS UNPOSSIBLE. (Thanks Gilles)

9:53: Mike: CBC is pretty much ignoring the fact that the NDP is owning shit. I am told they had 29 seats last time around, +9 is an impressive gain.

10:01: Mike: The NDP speech cliché cache ’stache: ordinary families check, kitchen table check, boardroom table check, ordinary working families again, ordinary working canadians, real economy, blah blah mwah mwah. UN LEADER SOLIDE!

10:07: Mike: Okay we’re going to play Diplomacy and kill each other. Conclusion: Liberals shit pants, Conservatives/NDP pick up the slack. Green shift? More like blue/orange shift.

10:10: Mike: Super reportress Jen Huygen says Duncan and Jaffer are one vote apart. If she is lying we are no longer friends.

10:20: Mike: Elections Canada reports Duncan on top by 400. I am now fully erect.

11:10: Peter Mansbridge doesn’t understand melancholy?

11:12: Linda Duncan is now up after the Journal reports Jaffer giving his victory speech. Only three polls remain, she leads by 430. Thanks for mentioning it CBC.

Sober thoughts the morning after (Mike): In conclusion, Liberals fail, NDP/Conservatives succeed. Greens sadly still irrelevant. Linda Duncan defeats Jaffer by 442 votes. Congratulations Linda, you get the job of representing all the Liberals, Greens, and NDP folk in the province. CBC fails in spectacular fashion by calling a Jaffer victory, then completely ignoring the biggest upset in the election for a solid hour. Conservatives still have a minority, so thanks Harper, thanks for wasting our time. We’ll see you again in six months.