Telly

So, Qristyl left us last week with a dress the judges deemed boring and aging.  I agree with the former, but not the latter.  That model already kind of  looked ‘old’ and I really didn’t think the dress added to her age in any way.  Sometimes I think the judges are too in love with short short.   Also, as you know, I don’t mind boring.  Though I realize it’s a competition and being innovative is a huge part of the undertaking.  It’s hard for me to see — until the cameras really zoom in — some of the flaws in sewing the judges point out.  I wish Lifetime (and, previously, Bravo) would do something to give the viewers greater understanding of what the clothes REALLY look like.  For example, I actually thought Logan’s dress was kinda cool until the cameras zoomed in during judging to reveal the lace craptastical.  Eeks! 

And this week Johnny bit it on the probably-dreaded crazy ‘fabric’ project, which required designers to make a piece out of newspaper.  I really love these nutty projects because I think it especially highlights the innovation, creativity and general genius-ness of the designers.  I was so far from disappointed.  I thought the trenchcoat was damn amazing, the feather-y ball gown was stunning, and Althea’s brilliant and meticulate shift was awe-inspiring.  I loved this episode.  And, again, Johnny needed to go.  I don’t even really care about whether he was lying (probably the only time you’ll ever hear me say that), but he bugged because he just really bored me.  I really just didn’t want to hear anything else from his mouth, or see any of the things he produced. 

Moving on…I’ve developed an annoying habit of waking up between the hours of 3 a.m to 5 a.m. to watch ‘Without a Trace’ on TNT.  I can’t really articulate why I like this show so much, but I clearly do.  There was a problem with the episode I watched tonight, though.  Well, actually, the episode kinda grated on me from the beginning — it seemed forced.  But the articulable super bug was when Agent Johnson (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) said to Agent Malone (Anthony LaPaglia) that so-and-so had been ‘exonerated’ from a charge of child kidnapping because the police had failed to Miranda-ize him before getting some sort of (presumable inculpatory) statement.  Johnson went on to characterize these events as the defendant being released on a ‘technicality.’  There are so many things wrong with these things that they really — even at 4 a.m. — irked me.  I know that I am some sort of prosecutor, but I don’t think even the most zealous among us would call failing to Miranda-ize someone a ‘technicality.’  Truthfully, I don’t even know what anyone means by a ‘technicality.’  Generally, I think folks mean anything that prevents the defendant from getting the death penalty but also fails to demonstrate conclusively the defendant’s absolute innocence.  And this brings me to part two of the bug-ster with Johnson’s narrative.  Exonerated?  On a Miranda violation?  WHAT?  Exonerated does not mean ‘let go’ or ‘released.’  It means that it has been demonstrated that the person did not commit the crime.  It means that physical evidence concludes that the person could not have done it, it means someone else has confessed that he was the lone gun man, it means that the accused was not in the country at the time of the offense.  It does not mean that the person was released because of a Miranda violation.  And any federal agent with the experience of Johnson would never, ever confuse the term.  And this bugged me so much, I suspect, because I feel that the show is usually well-written and smart.  And this was just dumb.

I want to post about all of the loss that we have — collectively and individually — suffered as of late, but I think I need more time.

Happy Rosh Hashannah, all!

Dominoes

Here we go! 

Now don’t get me wrong here, peeps, because I’m all for courts that weigh in and tell governments that they need to start recognizing rights and not stomping all over them, but I think it lends so much more legitimacy to gay marriage when it comes from the legislature and the governor.  It’s like saying, “Hey, we’re all on board with this, let’s go!”  Instead of, “You must do this because it’s the right thing to do.” 

Wednesday in May

Not exactly a shocking expose, but an interesting article nevertheless.  And one written by Gretchen’s old classmate, Dahlia Lithwick, along with Hanna Rosin, whose book, ‘God’s Harvard,’ I just finished this week. [Note: 'God's Harvard' is a truly interesting piece of journalism about Patrick Henry College in Purceville, VA.  I thought the book could have used an editor with a closer eye, but if you want to read about the young, smart, dedicated religious right and their struggles and devotion (and sometimes their struggles with devotion), this is the book for you.]  Back to the Court.  It seems a foregone conclusion that Obama’s going to appoint a woman, eh?

Alright, Real Housewives NYC. I gotta say, last night was a bit of a disappointment. As much as I was dreading seeing Jill & Bethenny fight, and as sweet as I thought it was that Bethenny instantly rose to the occasion to be the better person, it was short-lived drama and unsatisfying. I hope Jill sincerely apologizes in the next episode, because she was so far out of line.

Also, I keep forgetting to mention this: my aunt, Terry, was recently given one of the best gifts a person could ask for. She was seated next to Robert Redford on a plane from Madison to Chicago (Redford had been in town to speak at an event celebrating the esteemed Progressive’s 100th birthday). Um, awesome? He even gave her his Madison Magazine (for whatever that’s worth), but apparently he hogged the armrest. And a cart came to pick him up at O’Hare, which I think is odd.

Sunshine in the Supreme Court

Kristin sent me this and it’s just what I needed. I love the images. Especially nice to look at on such a beautiful day when it should be illegal to work in a windowless office.

Hmm

I have to admit, I find it more than a little disturbing that a sitting Supreme Court justice is voicing his discomfort with “rights.” I think what he’s trying to express is his perception that we’re a litigious society and his frustration with that. And that’s a fair frustration, though I think it’s often overstated. But, our government’s most important role is to protect our inherent rights. So, WTF, Justice Thomas? If you’re uncomfortable with that, then I suggest you get your ass off of the bench and find a different path.

This one sounds nice to me.

Different rules for the rich & famous? Nah!

Like many, I’ve always been intrigued by Roman Polanski’s story.  Born in France, but raised in Poland, Polanski survived the Holocaust by hiding in a barn in Poland’s countryside.  His father survived the Austrian concentration camp he was forced into, but his mother died at Auschwitz.  Polanski went on to become a famous and successful director of Polish films.  After conquering the Polish film industry, Polanski moved west to France and England.  It was in England that he meant and married the American actress Sharon Tate.  They married in January 1968, but in August 1969 Tate – along with their unborn child and several others – was brutally murdered in a house in Hollywood by members of the Manson family.  Polanski was in London at the time and was, originally, considered a suspect depsite the improbability of it.    

So, wow, quite a story, right?  Well, then we all know what comes next.  In 1977, he rapes a 13-year-old girl he is supposedly photographing for some version of Vogue. 

When I was at Sundance in January 2008, the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired was being screened.  I dutifully lined up to see it, but was turned away as were many others.  It was an incredibly popular film there.  The good news, I was told, was that it had already been picked up by a distributor so that meant I would be able to see it at a later date.  That date was last night.

The documentary contains interviews with Polanski’s defense attorney, the assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, the victim, the victim’s attorney, Polanski’s friends (including Mia Farrow), a gossip columnist at the time of the rape case, and even Polanski himself.  The film is more than sympathetic to the rapist.

Polanski was charged with several crimes, including rape by the use of drugs and sodomy.  The victim, through her lawyer, expressed her desire for a plea agreement.  After all, she was 13 years old and folks were figuring out who she was; she was being harrassed and wanted to put the incident behind her.  The ADA stated he was not interested in plea bargaining, so the victim’s lawyer went to Polanski’s lawyer who also said he had no interest in it.  That was before the girl’s underwear was found and analyzed.  After that, Polanski was very open to a plea.  The ADA acqueisced in the victim and her family’s wishes, and Polanski pleaded guilty to the least serious of the sex charges: unlawful sex with a minor.  Apparently, the sentence he faced for this crime was “indeterminate,” which seems to me that it could range from probation to fifty years’ imprisonment.  This is where things go even more awry.  I won’t go into too many details, but will say this: the judge may have been a little wacky, a little corrupt, a little unreliable and a little susceptible to public pressures, but Roman Polanski spent 42 days in a state prison for psychiatric evaluation before being sentenced and that is all the time he has ever served.  The judge sentenced him to 90 days in the facility, but he was released early, presumably because he was not actually crazy.  Apparently, this really pissed the judge off.  According to the film, the judge had been prepared to give him the 90 days and then sentence him to probation, but because 90 days turned into 42, all bets were off.  Now Polanski may have faced some time in county jail or something more serious.  Though the judge still seemed all over the place in what he wanted.  Putting aside the oddness of this (90 days is perfect, but 42 is outrageous!), it still seems to me to have been a &^%#$#* great deal for a rapist.  Polanski’s lawyer tells him that he can’t trust the judge and that they can appeal whatever sentence he is ultimately given, but that appeals take time and he will have to be in prison during the appeal.  Now, I know nothing, really, of California law, but I do know that’s it’s not terribly uncommon for a defendant to be free on bond pending an appeal when the sentence he received was small, like the one Roman would probably have gotten (had he gotten any time at all).  I’m also not sure why Polanski’s lawyer waited so long to move for substitution of judge when, by all accounts in the film, the judge was not to be trusted by either party (when the defense attorney finally did move for substitution – after Polanski had fled – the ADA did not dispute the motion).  In any event, hearing the news from his lawyer, Polanski gets on a plane to France and has never returned to the States.  He can’t.  He’s a fugitive and were he to do so, he would be arrested.

So, here we have a man who, at 44, with an incredibly successful film career, chose to rape, drug and sodomize a 13-year-old girl and then flee from the country when it came time for him to face his sentence.  Now, all these years later, he is requesting to be forgiven by the American justice system from which he ran.  And people are lining up to help him.  The victim, it is said, now wants the case to be dropped because she is sick to death of it.  I understand this position and I sympathize with it.  But I’m fundamentally disgusted by the actions of this pig of a man.  He is unapologetic about the rape (having flounted his relationship with a 15-year-old in the years prior to the rape, no one should really be surprised) and frank in his admiration for young women and girls.  He was famously unfaithful to Tate and seems to continue to do just as he pleases.  His career was certainly not harmed by his criminality (having  won a best director Oscar for The Pianist in 2002).  All that has happened to him, really, is that he is not allowed into the United States — a country not his own — without risk that he will be rearrested, taken to court and forgiven in front of a camera.  Yup, that’s right.  The film ends stating that the latest negotiations broke down because — despite California’s readiness to close the case — Polanski wouldn’t agree to appear if there was a camera in the courtroom.  Yeah, because this guy is so afraid of publicity.