[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The Smearing of Jim Peron

Over on RoR, Joe Rowlands just made a post that contains incorrect information. Since I cannot post on that thread, I will make the correction here. The pertinent part of his post is given below:

Rowlands said:

A few years ago, a prominent libertarian (Jim Peron) in Objectivist circles was outed as a supporter of pedophilia. Some investigators in New Zealand found copies of a magazine he published on the topic, including an article in his own name.

The responses at the time were very curious. I would have expected libertarians and Objectivists to try to distance themselves from his viewpoint, or to condemn that ideas he had promoted, or to distance themselves from him. Instead, their was an outpouring of sympathy for him. He has a right to free speech, they said. This is just a witch-hunt, they said. He claims no knowledge of any of it, despite the article penned in his name, they said. That was decades ago, they offered. Age of consent laws are arbitrary(!) they began to argue...

On and on, people who had already supported him found ways to dismiss this significant information about him. They determined that there was no significant loss with having libertarian or Objectivist ideas falsely connected to child-rape.

It was shocking to me at the time for a few reasons. One, because the hatred and disgust that most people felt was for those who brought out the facts. Two, because while the issue should have been about someone promoting pedophilia, people tried to ignore that and hide behind the freedom of speech principle. And three, because when these didn't seem enough, people actually started making arguments to try to make it seem more respectable, starting with age of consent laws being arbitrary.

Here are the incorrect parts:

1. Peron was not "outed as a supporter of pedophilia." He was formally accused of being one and set up, with his reputation trashed and renewal of his visa refused by the New Zealand government as punishment.

2. I have examined most all of the documentation that has been available online (and some not so available, like the single copy—not "copies"—of the magazine Unbound), and I have concluded that Peron indeed was set up for political reasons by some really nasty people playing power games. Much of the online stuff has been taken down, but I have copies of most of what had been available . Also, The Wayback Machine still records a lot of it.

3. If anyone follows the thread Rowlands linked to (Rumors About Linz started by Jeff Riggenbach), he will see that there was not only the outpouring of hatred he mentioned against the accusers, but there was a similar outpouring of hatred by the accusers (and their sympathizers) against Peron supporting the smear that he was a pedophile. (I am ashamed to admit that I was a sympathizer in the second category. I have since apologized to Jim Peron for that. I have not done so in public out of respect for his wishes, but since Rowlands has made this a public issue again, I want it on record that I deeply regret supporting the disgusting lynching that took place.)

Just as it is shocking that Objectivists would seemingly tolerate "child-rape" under the guise of "age of consent," so it is equally shocking that a person can be so easily smeared on such flimsy evidence in the name of Objectivism. Those who practice this pervert Objectivism and all it stands for.

4. Briefly, what happened was that over 20 years ago, Peron owned a libertarian bookstore in San Francisco that was a hotbed of radical ideas. Lots of people flowed through there and he supported anything subversive that smelled like pro-freedom. Back then, he allowed a pedophilic organization to hold some meetings on the premises. Age of consent was a hot topic at the time and they, obviously, did not advertise themselves as a group of pedophiles. They talked the talk of the times in their negotiations. Peron's printing press published at least one issue of that organization's magazine. He was asked to contribute an article and he did, relating his personal problems growing up with beatings from his father and kindness from strangers. It had nothing at all to do with pedophilia per se. But this article was touted as the smoking gun because it appeared in that magazine. The fact that, shortly after that time, he asked the group to move on, etc., was not taken into account.

5. Nothing at all of substance from recent times was presented about Peron. It was all old stuff from two decades ago and totally inconclusive, even taken at face value.

6. The so-called "investigators" were a group of Christian conservatives who formed an ad hoc organization at the time called the Locke Foundation. Its sole purpose was to dig up dirt on Peron and present it to the New Zealand government, although it purported to have some kind of intellectual mission. Shortly after the splash and the ensuing government action, the foundation was disbanded. It only existed actively for a very short time.

7. For the record, I do not adhere to a low age of consent threshold, and I don't know hardly anyone who does (including Jim Peron himself, who emphatically does not adhere). I agree with Rowlands only on the following point: Objectivist ideas should not be used to endorse child-rape. But then, that is a no-brainer.

What took place in New Zealand and reiterated on SoloHQ was an orchestrated smear job. It worked, too, especially with people who do not look at facts, but prefer to repeat what they are told (like what just occurred in Rowlands's recent post). Well I have seen the facts up close and in detail. What they did to Jim Peron stinks.

I stake my name on it.

To keep this issue to a low public noise level so the smear cannot grow further qua smear, I will be glad to present the information I have by email to anyone asking for it (in good faith, meaning so they can look at the facts and see for themselves, too).

Michael

[Brendan Hutching]

dan_edge, on 23 September 2009 - 09:02 PM, said:

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?

Dan Edge: “Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?”

It’s a while since I read this story, but the excerpts on Dan Edge’s site reminded me why I, too, find this story disturbing.

The story contrasts a violent, abusive father with kindly, gentle “boylovers”. By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground.

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

The reality is that both protagonists are abusers. The only issue is which one is worse: the violent father who drives his son into the arms of deviants, or the “boylovers” who prey on the damaged son.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan Hutching, on 28 September 2009 - 03:09 AM, said:

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

Brendan,

Do you mean like Night of January 16th, where the audience could even vote on it?

Michael

[Ninth Doctor]

I’m being called a patsy on SOLOP, even my very mortal existence is in question. In the midst of a typical rant, Perigo notes: "Funny how the cockroaches say this stuff on Lying, but not here."

I don’t post there, it’s “Linz’s house”, no thanks. Character assassination? No, identification.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ND,

The idea of Perigo whining about any kind of "character assassination" is comical, being that this is his career.

The problem that rankled him is that there is a game that should be played first and you didn't play it. You are supposed to be charmed by him at the start and interact with him. Then he can lie to himself in good conscious that you are evil scum when you disagree with him.



I sense that he's miffed and perplexed because he's starting to see evidence of the true reputation he has earned—how the general public (someone new like you) sees him from looking over his site and reading about him. He's not used to seeing that ugly reflection in the bubble he lives in.

It's a bitch when you blank out reality for most of your life, then suddenly see it.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Brendan Hutching, on 28 September 2009 - 03:09 AM, said:

dan_edge, on 23 September 2009 - 09:02 PM, said:

Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?

Dan Edge: “Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing?”

It’s a while since I read this story, but the excerpts on Dan Edge’s site reminded me why I, too, find this story disturbing.

The story contrasts a violent, abusive father with kindly, gentle “boylovers”. By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground.

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

The reality is that both protagonists are abusers. The only issue is which one is worse: the violent father who drives his son into the arms of deviants, or the “boylovers” who prey on the damaged son.

The story is disturbing, and there is some evidence--not a lot, and fairly circumstantial--that Mr. Peron's statements about his connection to Unbound and NAMBLA--were, to put it mildly, inaccurate.
On the other side of the balance, are considerations of this sort:
1) that Mr. Peron has given a version of his connection to Unbound and NAMBLA that is internally consistent and probable, and contradicted only by the evidence mentioned above. Further, according to Mr. Peron's version, the article was heavily rewritten and published without his prior knowledge, much less permission, and that the rewritten parts apparently included the most disturbing portions of the article. (Of course, this raises the question why Mr. Peron did not take any action against Unbound as a result of the article.)
2) that there is no evidence (the assertions of the Locke Foundation report having no real evidence to back them up on this point) that he was editor or publisher of Unbound, and not even any allegations that he was himself a member of NAMBLA.
3) similarly, there is no evidence that Mr. Peron was in contact with any pedophiles during his residence in New Zealand (the Locke Foundation report having to resort to asserting a rather trivial and circumstantial piece of evidence on that point)
4) there are no allegations, even from the Locke Foundation, that Mr. Peron himself has ever engaged in acts of pedophilia.
5) The fact that Mr. Peron allowed NAMBLA to hold meetings on his premises should be judged in the light of the fact that NAMBLA afterwards was allowed to hold meetings in a branch of the San Francisco public library, where presumably there are many more children on the premises than were ever on the premises of Mr. Peron's store.
6) He had as employees one man who was later convicted of child molestation, and one unidentified man who may have been a member of NAMBLA. Extremely circumstantial evidence of what? That Mr. Peron felt that membership in NAMBLA did not automatically disqualify a person from being a gainfully employed member of society?
7) The actual evidence against Mr. Peron contained in the Locke Foundation report could actually be confined to no more than three pages, and is limited to contradicting his statements about why and when he allowed Unbound to be sold in his store, and why and when he allowed NAMBLA to meet there. The rest of the "31 of 29" pages (as the PDF somehow gives for the page count) contains only repetitions of the evidence, unsupported allegations which mostly refer to matters that are irrelevant, and long stretches of innuendo, most importantly a long string of news articles on the prosecution of a pedophile ring in Hawyard--although on close inspection there is no evidence that the ring had any connection to Mr. Peron. (The only connection being that the articles also mention as contemporaneous the sentencing of the employee referred to be above as being convicted of child molestation.)
The very fact that ninety percent of the report should be thrown away should indicate how much value might be placed on the report.)

Based on all that, the treatment given to Mr. Peron by the New Zealand government and certain Objectivists, Lindsay Perigo among them, seems to be unreasonable and unbalanced, even if you judge all questions of fact against Mr. Peron.

This post has been edited by jeffrey smith: 28 September 2009 - 07:10 PM

[Brendan Hutching]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 28 September 2009 - 06:42 AM, said:

Brendan Hutching, on 28 September 2009 - 03:09 AM, said:

But this presents a false alternative, akin to comparing a violent, brutal Mafia enforcer to a gentle, placid embezzler, and claiming that the embezzler is therefore morally OK. However mild and non-coercive the embezzler may be, he can still cause immense harm.

Brendan,

Do you mean like Night of January 16th, where the audience could even vote on it?

Michael

Sorry, Michael. I don't get the allusion.

[Brendan Hutching]

jeffrey smith, on 28 September 2009 - 07:08 PM, said:

Further, according to Mr. Peron's version, the article was heavily rewritten and published without his prior knowledge, much less permission, and that the rewritten parts apparently included the most disturbing portions of the article.

That’s always possible, although it doesn’t explain the framing, which doesn’t depend on any particular details. But if the author rejects the message that I was getting from the story, all well and good.

As for Peron’s treatment by the New Zealand Government, all governments stipulate conditions for potential migrants. Peron probably failed to meet one or more conditions. I can’t say whether he’s a victim of injustice because I don’t know enough about the case. My comments were directed only at the story.

[Robert Campbell]

Brendan,

Jim Peron was kicked out of New Zealand for being "of unfit character." As I understand it, no explanation is required and none was given; all it takes is the right person in the Immigration ministry to say the words. Such a judgment is appealable—to the same official who made it in the first place.

Kind of what Ayn Rand had in mind when she talked about non-ojbjective law.

Meanwhile, Lindsay Perigo has helpfully volunteered that Jim Peron talked to him too long on the phone, and was a major kvetch in person. Do people get deported for kvetching?

In Night of January 16th, the audience is being probed for its sympathy toward Bjorn Faulkner, who was a crook—but a crook with pizzazz and flair. There is some evidence against each of the suspects in his murder, and each is shady in a different way.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan,

You wrote, "By framing the narrative in this way, the story attempts to persuade the reader that the boylovers occupy the high moral ground."

In Night of January 16th, there is Bjorn Falukner (swindler) and Guts Regan (thug) as opposed to John Graham Whitfield (lying banker) and other allegedly respectable people.

Let me paraphrase your words. "By framing the narrative in this way, Rand's story attempts to persuade the reader that the thugs and swindlers occupy the high moral ground."

This is what happens when you eliminate the standard and use blanket evaluations.

In relation to physical violence and "seeing" some of the emotional needs of an problematic boy (the standard), the "boylovers" in Jim's story actually do "occupy the high moral ground." They gave a severaly abused child protection and emotional nurturing. Do you find that evil or a "low moral ground"?

This does not mean that they "occupy the high moral ground" according to other standards, though. I believe the contrast was part of Jim's point, which is exactly what Rand did. Obviously, performing sex with underaged children is evil, just like swindling and murder and so forth are evil.

A blanket evaluation without citing the standard tends to blank-out huge chunks of reality and promote bias. The next step for an emotionally charged issue using this manner of rhetoric goes straight to bigotry. And when a person starts using bigotry as his epistemology on one issue, he will use it on others. That's my real beef.

Clarity of thinking demands keeping the standards present and using them. Otherwise you get fuzzy thinking and the door for emotioanally manipulating others bangs wide open.

btw - On another point, the idea that parts of Jim's story were rewritten by another persopn is plausible to me, although I cannot claim this as fact. I do sense a definite stylistic difference when "boylovers" are focused on in his story.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Some people seem to be of the opinion that if a person reveals that he was sexually attracted to adults when he was a child, or that he was not traumatized by being caressed by them, why, then he must be "promoting" or "sanctioning" adult-child relationships. Well, if, as a child, a person had a sexual relationship with an adult, and he reports that it was not traumatic, but that it was an enjoyable, loving experience, it doesn't follow that he's "sanctioning" such relationships and trying to encourage more of them. Although as a child I would have loved to have engaged in sexual activity with certain beautiful adult women, as an adult I find the idea of adults being sexually attracted to children disturbing.

If a person had an enjoyable, loving experience, then it was an enjoyable, loving experience to him, and identifying it at such is simply identifying his experience of reality. I mean, what's a person to do? Should he lie and try to convince others, as well as himself, that the experience was traumatic because that's what others want to hear? If someone like Barbara Eden had made my dreams come true when I was 6 or 10 or 14, should I have made myself feel shame and victimhood? Should I have made myself believe that she was a vicious monster who made me do things against my will and that she severely damaged me, because if I believe otherwise, then frantic Objectivists are going to try to shame me and make me a victim of their public smear campaigns?

Btw, another thing that I find to be disturbing (in addition to adults who are attracted to children) is alleged Objectivists who fantasize about finding themselves in situations where they'd have an excuse to get physically violent with people who have disagreed with them online, or teased them about their emotionalism and their lack of reading, writing and thinking skills. It's very disturbing to me that a person would proudly admit that he would be "pleased" if he had technical justification to physically beat someone else.

J

[Brendan Hutching]

Robert Campbell, on 29 September 2009 - 06:23 AM, said:

Brendan,
Such a judgment is appealable—to the same official who made it in the first place.

I would be very surprised if an appeal of an immigration decision was considered by the same official who made the initial decision. Here's some information about NZ immigration appeals. I'm not sure whether this would have applied to the Peron case, but in the cases in question an independent tribunal hears appeals.

http://www.immigrati...manual/9226.htm

[Brendan Hutching]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 29 September 2009 - 07:04 AM, said:

They gave a severaly abused child protection and emotional nurturing. Do you find that evil or a "low moral ground"?

Is that all they gave him, though? Check out the text: “At no time did they force themselves on any of the boys.” You could drive a truck through the loophole provided by the word “force”. You don’t have to force yourself on a child to abuse them.

And: “As a boy I personally experienced both kinds of “abuse” and I can only thank God that I met these boylovers.”

The writer as good as admits some sort of sexual relationship with the “boylovers”.

You are seeing the story as one where the men provide selfless protection and nurturing. In my book that means non-sexual activity. And that’s the issue. The writer is trying to persuade us that “man/boy love” is not abuse. I don’t buy it.

In regard to Rand’s play, I have no problem exploring nuanced moral contrasts between characters. However, I see the boy’s story as primarily a polemic on behalf of “boylovers”, and not a mutual exploration of the issue with the reader. There’s a major difference between the intentions of the two forms.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan,

You are correct in that we don't see the story in the same light. I personally believe that if Jim wanted to write about sex, he would have written about sex. Lack of clarity in saying what he means has not been a characteristic of his writing, at least not the writing I have read. On the contrary, his general approach and style have been in-your-face confrontational, even when the veracity of what he is saying is in doubt.

So I see this story as an autobiographical account of what happened to a person. You see it as propaganda for pedophilia. (I presume that you use man/boy love" to mean "man/boy sex." Let's keep our meanings clear.)

Admittedly, this is not Jim's finest writing. I only defend it because I don't believe it is preaching the propaganda you claim. Let's not forget that the truck you can drive through a word is your truck. Not the text. So if you are condemning this story as propaganda, you are condemning your interpretation of it, not the explicit message it presents.

In other words, here is an example of our different views. Let's append an unwritten message to one of the lines you cited.

"As a boy I personally experienced both kinds of "abuse" and I can only thank God that I met these boylovers. This proves that man/boy sex is a good thing." (This is how you are presenting it.)

"As a boy I personally experienced both kinds of "abuse" and I can only thank God that I met these boylovers in that terrible situation I found myself in when I was hurting so badly. In other circumstances, my emotional reaction might be different." (This is how I see it, with the word "abuse" not having the present-day exclusively sexual connotation outside of violence.*)

Objectively speaking, I will admit that it does push the envelope, though. People of goodwill do interpret things differently. Jim's story does not deny sex happened. He also did not present any. I think, given his writing style, he would have had his intent been propaganda. You think otherwise. At any rate, it's a horrible theme to write about and explosively sensitive. It was a sensitive issue back when it was written. In today's world, it's akin to intellectual suicide.

One clarification. I don't see it as "selfless" anything. I looked my words over and I don't see them as conveying a message that the military instructors had no personal interest. Don't forget that you are on an Objectivist forum.

Michael


EDIT: *It's difficult to go back in time and try to recapture the nuances of meaning of a term used, say, 22 years ago, like when Jim's article was published. I believe that "child abuse" is one of those terms with reference to sex. Today, it has a heavy-handed explicit meaning of completion of the sex act (or at least getting it underway). It is what predators do and so on.

Back then it had an implication of sex among other connotations. I doubt anyone today would consider a child being hugged warmly, even by a pedophile, as child abuse. Warning bells might go off and they would say that this could lead to child abuse, but it is not child abuse per se. Back then, one could call it child abuse if one were using fuzzy thinking to attack the reputation of another. Sort of like the current claim espoused by many that all Muslims are—or sanction—violent jihadists because that's just the way Islam is. This meaning is easier to rebut, which is what I think Jim was doing and one of the reasons why he put scare quotes around it.

Today abuse = evil fact in public perception. Before abuse = accusation of who knows what horrors in public perception. Thus if an author today says he had been "abused" as a child, scare quotes and all, people would automatically assume that he had been tortured or raped by an adult. Period. No mental image ambiguity at all. Back then, the same statement would need further elaboration for the communication of meaning to get the same image clarity.

I believe it is correct to judge a work, especially an obscure work in sensitive issues like this, using the meanings of the time. Not what the meanings have evolved to become today.

[Brendan Hutching]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 30 September 2009 - 06:51 AM, said:

(This is how I see it, with the word "abuse" not having the present-day exclusively sexual connotation outside of violence.*)

Except that the writer refers to “both kinds” of “abuse”. We know one kind – the fist in the face. The other kind is clearly some sort of activity that is generally frowned on, given that the writer encloses “abuse” in scare quotes.

So what was that other kind of man-boy activity? Manly hugs? Wrestling matches? People don’t generally disapprove of that sort of activity between men and boys. This suggests that the term “abuse” refers to some other sort of generally disapproved activity.

The men in question are described as “boylovers”. What do boylovers do when they get together with boys?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan Hutching, on 01 October 2009 - 03:21 AM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 30 September 2009 - 06:51 AM, said:

(This is how I see it, with the word "abuse" not having the present-day exclusively sexual connotation outside of violence.*)

Except that the writer refers to "both kinds" of "abuse". We know one kind – the fist in the face. The other kind is clearly some sort of activity that is generally frowned on, given that the writer encloses "abuse" in scare quotes.

So what was that other kind of man-boy activity? Manly hugs? Wrestling matches? People don't generally disapprove of that sort of activity between men and boys. This suggests that the term "abuse" refers to some other sort of generally disapproved activity.

The men in question are described as "boylovers". What do boylovers do when they get together with boys?

Brendan,

Did you read what I wrote in my last post? Despite quoting a line from it, your post totally ignored the substance.

You are still presenting your interpretation. Other interpretations are valid irrespective of any sarcasm you may load on.

And you are insisting on the present meaning of "abuse" in all its stereotyped glory. It's an effort when a strong bias is involved, I know, but try to go back 20 years in your mind, imagine how people thought and spoke back then, and judge through that filter. That was when the story was written, not now. You might see what I am getting at.

Then again your bias may be too strong for that intellectual effort.

I make the effort because I want to be as correct as possible in my judgments.

As to your last question, what do boylovers do when they get together with boys? Within the confines of Jim's story, some specific boylovers treated a damaged boy nicely. Outside of Jim's story, we all know what they do.

Once again, I refer to Rand's use of gangsters, swindlers, murderers, terrorists, rapists, alcoholics, etc. Within the confines of her stories, we know what they did. Outside of her stories, we all know what they do.

That's as objective as I can get.

Michael

[Brendan Hutching]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 01 October 2009 - 06:03 AM, said:

You are still presenting your interpretation.

Well, I didn’t sign up to present someone else’s interpretation.

If you think the other kind of “abuse” that the writer refers to is nothing more than treating a damaged boy nicely, fine. It’s not what I would refer to as abuse, scare quotes or not, and nor do I think people 20 years ago would have, either.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brendan,

We will just have to agree to disagree since this has gone to the level of opinion only.

I do appreciate your civility. You obviously feel strongly about this and stated your opinions clearly, but you have managed to remain civil when the online discussion norm in the history of this specific topic has been hysteria.

As the saying goes, good show.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see indications that some bigoted hate-mongers are trying to insinuate dark things about me because of my insistence on correct identification in Peron's case, so I want to comment on a couple of recent events that are in the mainstream media. This should give an indication of how and what I think about adult-child sex.

As a preface, let me say that I call it as I see it and I don't like bullies, especially bigoted bullies.


1. The Roman Polanski mess. To me, the essential fact is very simple. He had unlawful sex with a minor and pleaded guilty to it. He should be punished. Period.

Surrounding this issue, though, is a level of dirt and nastiness from others that turns my stomach. Like the Peron case, I get the feeling that many of the main actors are not really interested in the welfare of children (does anyone really believe that Perigo, for instance, gives a damn about children in his hate-speech rants?), but interested in using the suffering of children to bludgeon their own enemies or gain the spotlight.

Here is a good example. It has been years since I read a book called "Roman by Polanski," (his autobiography) which gives his side of the story. If I remember correctly, the girl's parents had been pushing their daughter off on him in hopes of fame for her and investment money from Polanski in some kind of magazine venture (the magazine dealt with promoting marijuana). I am going on memory for this since I don't have the time to look it up, but I am pretty sure it can be checked and will be found to be as I say.

I do not excuse Polanski for having sex with a 13 year old girl. He did it and he knew better. He knew he was doing evil at the time. But what about the parents in this case? Didn't they know better? Of course they did. I think they knew exactly what they were doing. According to Polanski's autobiography, the charges were filed only after it became clear that he was not going to invest in the magazine. If this doesn't ring true to anyone, then they should ask themselves what kind of parents would let their 13 year old daughter be alone, unchaperoned, with 43 year old man for hours under the guise of "topless photo shoot."

Twice.

The conduct of the legal people involved in this case is equally stomach-turning as different individuals have sought out their moment in the limelight. One guy, a retired Los Angeles County prosecutor, David Wells, is even flip-flopping on his role, saying he lied about advising the judge in a documentary in order to "look better" to the media. Well, his flip-flopping is getting even more media attention. To me, this means his word, both for and against, is worthless. If anyone reads about this in more depth, they will uncover one jerk after another seeking media attention, even the original trial judge, Judge Laurence J. Rittenband.

One of the things I find interesting is that some people defending Polanski are using the same argument I do regarding the different perception of the time. But here's the difference. In Polanski's case, he pleaded guilty under oath to a sex act with a minor and he has even owned up to it in his autobiography. There is a fact we can judge without risk of error. So judgment is easy.

Still, a sign of the modern times is easily shown by a website known for objectivity, The Smoking Gun. It presents a copy of the recently unsealed LA grand jury minutes giving the testimony of Samantha Gailey—now Samantha Geimer (the teen he had sex with) two weeks after the event. The title of the report is Polanski The Predator. Had this been made public back then, I doubt the title would have the same. Maybe in the gossip rags and publications like National Enquirer, but not in a more respectable publication. Just look at the reports of the time.

The bottom line, however, is that what Polanski did was evil. Actions have consequences. He should return or be returned and face punishment for what he pleaded guilty to. Let the authorities and lawyers unravel the plea-bargain mess.


2. Fox News has been on quite a crusade against Kevin Jennings, President Obama's new "Safe School Czar." This one is a no-brainer for me. We shouldn't have a "Safe School Czar" in the first place, but since we do, the kind of person to occupy that position needs to have a much better record than Jennings.

In a book written by Jennings, One Teacher in Ten, he admitted to giving advice while teaching at Concord Academy to a sophomore he calls "Brewster" regarding sex Brewster had with an older man. He later gave a speech where he admitted Brewster was 15 and had met the older man at a bus stop. His comment to Brewster was that he hoped the youngster had used a condom. Quotes from both the book and a transcript of the talk (including some rather strong commentary) are here: Remembering Brewster.

Jennings did not report the crime. He obviously had no problem with man-boy sex. He should not be in charge of overseeing "safe school" policies on this fact alone (although there is plenty more in this dude's history to object to for such an office). There's really not too much to analyze. Like I said, it's a no-brainer.


These two issues deal with government action regarding sex between an adult and a minor. The sex is a fact in both cases. It was wrong for the adults to do it. The respective people either participating or condoning this should receive the consequences of their actions. In the case of Peron, there is no such sex, but there was government action. Admittedly, there was man-boy sex presented by other authors in the magazine where his story appeared. But he was and is being condemned by the bigoted hate-mongers based on guilt by association.

I don't do that.

It's not rational to do that.

Bigots do guilt by association.

For the record, I do not believe that all the people who are uneasy with Peron or this issue are bigots, and I certainly understand their uneasiness. But the more vocal people presenting bigoted hate-speech in an inflammatory manner are bigots. There is no other word for it, either.

Bigotry is bigotry.

A is A.

Michael

[Chris Baker]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on 02 October 2009 - 10:52 AM, said:

Surrounding this issue, though, is a level of dirt and nastiness from others that turns my stomach. Like the Peron case, I get the feeling that many of the main actors are not really interested in the welfare of children (does anyone really believe that Perigo, for instance, gives a damn about children in his hate-speech rants?), but interested in using the suffering of children to bludgeon their own enemies or gain the spotlight.

Here is a good example. It has been years since I read a book called "Roman by Polanski," (his autobiography) which gives his side of the story. If I remember correctly, the girl's parents had been pushing their daughter off on him in hopes of fame for her and investment money from Polanski in some kind of magazine venture (the magazine dealt with promoting marijuana). I am going on memory for this since I don't have the time to look it up, but I am pretty sure it can be checked and will be found to be as I say.

Gore Vidal had a very interesting take on this. Go here:

http://www.theatlant...910u/gore-vidal

"I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?"