Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
September 29, 2009
LAW/POLITICS: Whoopi Goldberg, Moral Monster

Arguing that drugging and forcibly penetrating a non-consenting 13-year-old girl isn't one of the bad kinds of rape.

I knew Whoopi was rude, an ignoramus (she told John McCain last year that the Constitution doesn't prohibit slavery) and a walking crime against comedy, but even I was startled to discover her cavalier attitude towards the violation of a young girl.

Oh, and also following the same story with what only tries to be parody: the Onion.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:36 PM | Law 2009-13 • | Politics 2009 • | Pop Culture | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Consider Whoopi's stupid and awful statement and then ask yourself how the "ladies" on the View would react if a male talking about drunken, changed her mind in the middle, date rape said "It isn't really rape-rape." They would go ape-$#it if someone suggested that date rape could ever be trivialized as just a case of mixed signals or a woman changing her mind.

Posted by: largebill at September 29, 2009 1:12 PM

You would think that rape has a less ambiguous definition than, say, torture, which people like Whoopi claim to have great moral clarity about.

Posted by: Jerry at September 29, 2009 3:14 PM

The Hollywood Left is incapable of parody.

Posted by: dch at September 29, 2009 3:46 PM

I understand Whoopi is black, too.
How soon before the "liberal media" asks Obama his views on this all-important subject?

BTW, why the hate for Hollywood, dch? Are you some kind of commie pinko who thinks private business can't do anything they want to make profit?

Posted by: Berto at September 29, 2009 5:52 PM

BTW Crank, are you upset that Whoopi is stealing your "no accountability" schtick?

Posted by: Berto at September 29, 2009 6:05 PM

The sad thing is, Berto probably thinks he's being persuasive.

Posted by: Crank at September 29, 2009 6:28 PM

5 hours of painting and wallpapering ,plus Yoga class, plus red wine = no energy to really argue tonight

Posted by: dch at September 29, 2009 8:46 PM

What is going on here is "Hollywood" circling the wagons around one of their own. Understandable even if morally bankrupt (so there is no misunderstanding, Polanski is slime and if he had doen that to my daughter, I'd have punched his lights out).

But, it is eerily similar to the wing nuts rallying around the war criminals like Cheney in the same morally bankrupt fashion.

Posted by: Magrooder at September 29, 2009 10:31 PM

Jerry,

The definition of torture is ambiguous only to those who seek to excuse it.

dch,

You don't strike me as a yoga person. Go figure.

Posted by: Magrooder at September 29, 2009 10:32 PM

Magrooder - As is the definition of rape.

Posted by: Jerry at September 29, 2009 10:50 PM

Yeah, the yoga is the thing no one suspects. No back problems from office work since I started-recommend it to everyone.

Posted by: dch at September 29, 2009 11:25 PM

Typical nonsense from Hollywood.

Posted by: MVH at September 30, 2009 7:07 AM


A Yoga selling point to my fellow males: it added 35 yards to my drives from the tee box. Not a joke.

What is going on here is "Hollywood" circling the wagons around one of their own.
You know, like they did with Ronald Reagan (former president of the screen actor's guild, at that). Posted by: RW at September 30, 2009 9:40 AM

No Crank. Just because I'm pointing out how much of a complete and total hypocrite you are, I've learned enough to know I won't persuade you to realize that the torture and murder of innocents is actually a bad thing.*
Like dch and spongeworthy, you have been blessed with the awesome talent to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and repeat the mantra "nah, nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" when facts are presented which don't mesh with the fantasy world you and Rush Limbaugh et al have built for yourselves.

Posted by: Berto at September 30, 2009 11:14 AM

Jerry,

I agree. He raped her and gets no sympathy from me.

35 yards? Really? I'll have to try it. (With my limp left wrist and all, I need all the help I can get.)

Posted by: Magrooder at September 30, 2009 12:15 PM

Berto, what evidence you have, exactly, that the Bush/Cheney administration tortured and murdered innocents? I know we went a few rounds a while back regarding enhanced interrogation, but I'm pretty sure it has been established that those techniques were used on the highest value terrorist targets...or are you arguing that KSM is an innocent?

In any event, isn't this the sort of story that everybody should be able to agree on, regardless of political beliefs? The guy forcibly raped a 13 year-old, pleaded guilty to a lesser offense, and then skipped the country prior to sentencing. Why is this a partisan political issue?

Posted by: Paul H. at September 30, 2009 3:14 PM

I'm arguing that those enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e. torture) were used on "accused terrorists", not terrorists.
You may have heard of this concept about "innocent until proven guilty". We used to have that right here in the USA at one time. I think that's what the teabaggers have been going on about when they say they are losing their country.

Why is this a partisan political issue?
Not so sure it is. I think what's dragged it up here is Crank, who feels (potential) war crimes shouldn't be investigated, is all Mr. Accountability (for some) today.

Posted by: Berto at September 30, 2009 5:31 PM

I agree that Polanski should be held to account but your "outrage" is selective Crank. You'll castigate Whoopi but not look into the mirror at the depraved legacy of molestations and coverups within the Catholic Church.

Posted by: robert at October 1, 2009 2:05 PM

Robert, how exactly does the Catholic Church molestation scandal apply here? Did Crank suggest that what happened to those victims was not a big deal? I don't think so, so this is a complete non-sequitar.

Berto, your use of the pejorative "teabaggers" says more about you than it does about them.

Posted by: Paul H. at October 2, 2009 8:50 AM

Berto, what evidence you have, exactly, that the Bush/Cheney administration tortured and murdered innocents?

Confessions given by tortured prisoners aren't worth the paper their scrawled on. Ask John McCain.

As far as I'm concerned Bush/Cheney need to produce proof anyone was GUILTY.

Posted by: Mr Furious at October 7, 2009 1:39 PM

Whoopi is a complete asshole. Full stop.

"Not RAPE rape?" That is perhaps the single stupidest legal opinion of all time.

What? Dark alleys and knives need to be present for official rape status? Polanki's actions were rape on multiple levels and in every possible sense of the word.

--

As for the rest of the Hollywood luminaries rushing to his defense, it's overwhelmingly fellow directors, and some art-house caliber actors. The directors are a who's who in great cinema, but no real movie stars have come to his side.

Posted by: Mr Furious at October 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Mr. Furious, you seem to confuse why the Bush Administration was using torture/enhanced interrogation (depending on your point of view). It was not to obtain confessions for law enforcement purposes, it was to obtain intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks. I'm much more concerned about preventing future terrorist attacks than obtaining terrorism convictions.

Posted by: Paul H. at October 13, 2009 11:24 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg