Flamin' Freedom Fighters

Blogger Note: Yes I am aware this is the second blog in a row with such an ostentatious triple-F title, but as the terms brought a smile, I simply couldn't pass it up, so bear with me.

We all know I am never short on words, especially when the discussion takes a turn into equal rights and discriminating laws. Recently the fight to repeal the long-standing Don't Ask Don't Tell law in military service has revved up, and everyone is coming out of the woodworks to voice their opinion, from high ranking officials to dishonorably discharged soldiers, and arguments range from ridiculously twisted to inescapably infallible.

Now it wasn't long ago that DADT was considered "progress" for gays in the military. Previously being completely banned from serving, in 1993, homosexuals were then legally allowed to serve so long as they remained in that dusty closet cloaked in shame. However, had they been found out, the U.S. military was well within their right to discharge the so-called sexual deviants. Now, attempting to make good on his promise, President Obama is strong-arming law-makers to repeal the draconian standard and allow gays to serve openly. Naturally, he is not battling without opposition.

Several senators and military leaders are fervently speaking out against this motion. Former senator Rick Santorum claimed that those in the military supporting the change are simply bound by political correctness and, (pun intended?) "cannot see straight". He believes that somehow allowing gays to openly serve will diminish the effectiveness and readiness of the armed forces. Though such a concept seems clouded by flawed and bigoted rationale, General John Sheehan reiterated the thought when he testified in front of the committee at the DADT hearings last week. He alleged that when the Dutch allowed openly gay soldiers to serve in the military, it weakened the infrastructure of their forces and opened the door for the Srebrenica massacre of 1995, where the Dutch were overwhelmed by Bosnian serbs and 8,000 muslims were killed during an ethnic-cleansing genocide. (The Dutch government is vehemently denying the allegations).

Another statement came from MC-General James Conway, who announced that he would not force his soldiers to bunk with other gay servicemen. Currently soldiers' living quarters consist of double-bunks, though Conway insists that men should either be permitted to refuse a gay roommate or the government will have to provide single bunks for soldiers from now on. While I can appreciate the discomfort of living in close quarters, sleeping with, and essentially having to undress in front of an individual who may find you attractive (this is why women and men do not share bunks), the notion that gays will have to be segregated from heterosexuals simply because we assume they cannot control themselves is preposterous. Overly concerned with the personal comfort of their soldiers, what these people do not seem to understand is that the trend of homophobia is no different from discrimination against any other minority group. Some servicemen may come from the deep south where racism is disturbingly rampant and claim that they are not "comfortable" sharing quarters with an African American. However, undoubtedly, such a complaint would not only be overlooked, it would probably be reprimanded.

On the other hand, those protesting for the repeal are not in short supply either. After years of holding the policy in place, Colin Powell has finally lent his voice of support, claiming perspectives have changed and, contrary to Gen. Sheehan, he believes that other countries' open policies have shown that openly gay servicemen and women will not harm the armed forces. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently passed a modification of the policy stating that hearsay, anonymous tips, confidence of military doctors and confessions to clergy cannot be used to initiate proceedings to discharge GLBT soldiers. Such factors have previously contributed to the 1,300 discharges conducted since the 1993 policy was enacted. Most importantly, it seems obvious Congress is falling into step behind Obama, and the repeal is not only promising, but practically guaranteed.

My own issue with this matter is not only the blatant denial of allowing men and women to serve, protect, and die for their country, in a time of war where enlistment is diminishing. My biggest beef is that these individuals are not fighting for their own freedoms. They have few compared to the general population of America. They can't marry in 45 states. Slightly fewer states ban gay adoption. In most, they can be fired from their jobs if found out, and the federal government has done nothing to provide equal rights or even anti-discrimination laws (gays are not specifically protected from hate crimes in federal laws). And yet, they still wish to fight for us, while we sleep under the security they have afforded us, while we sit at home and vote away their rights, and while we publicly scorn them with dishonorable discharges when their harmless secret slips out.

One can only hope that DADT will soon be a thing of the past, but don't be so sure we won't hear it again...Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is hijacking the phrase in what has been referred to as a paralleled shame, Israel's illegal occupation and continuing construction in Jerusalem. While the U.S. has demanded Israel cease all construction, Netanyahu has asked America to adopt yet another version of DADT, in other words, they won't stop building, but it will be a secret, and we will just look the other way until the rest of the world kicks us in the shin for hiding behind the guise of ignorance, yet again.

Personally I don't think gays should even serve in the military, my viewpoint is the heteros started the wars, let 'em finish them. I can't say with full conviction that I would die for a country that denied me my basic freedoms. But if they want to serve, who are we to question those who have the guts to do what so many of us won't? All I can say is God Bless those Flamin' Freedom Fighters.

Farewell Founding Father

America. Land of the free, home of the brave. The world's melting pot. One of the wealthiest countries in the world. We came, we conquered, we thrived through the years, but not always without violence and rarely without blood. Our country has risen up through slavery, discrimination, and the fight for equal rights. Granted our rap sheet isn't a blank page, but people have been working tirelessly to wash it clean and rewrite a more favorable tale in its place. But how hard are they scrubbing and why?

For years in the U.S., while liberals have been fighting for the future in the White House and Congress, right wing conservatives have been fighting to clean up the past, namely in our children's classrooms. Several popular books have been banned due to what has been deemed inappropriate, though historically correct references, language, and actions. Classics such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Color Purple, and To Kill a Mocking Bird have been banned because they contain the word "nigger". Other books were banned for various offenses: The Scarlet Letter, banned for depicting an affair out of wedlock and an illegitimate pregnancy; and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, banned because Dr. Maya Angelou's description of her rape as a young child was deemed sexually explicit.

While I can appreciate the seriousness of these subjects and the concern of exposing young children to such topics too soon, these books are accurate depictions of historic moments and events that cannot be erased simply because one removes the books that tell their stories. The use of the word "nigger", while crude and inappropriate, is an unfortunate term of the time, describing a group of individuals that were once viewed inferior and enslaved by the white ancestors of this nation. Is it not a backhanded slap to the face of African Americans everywhere to cleanse their history by refusing to acknowledge the foul use of the name? Its as if we're saying, "sorry for that whole slave thing, but let's just pretend it never happened, okay?" Likewise, sex out of wedlock and child sexual abuse has been going on for centuries, who are we to turn a blind eye to it and wipe it away?

Unfortunately, conservatives have generally won these wars, many of these optional reading titles can no longer be found in school libraries, and now they've turned their eyes to new horizons: textbooks. Recently, Texas right wingers have managed to pass a measure that could be the biggest massacre of American history to date. White-washing our past by eliminating what they deemed irrelevant or inconsistent with their viewpoints of our country, they have hand-selected the topics, events, and people they wish to be taught. The changes?

Remember that guy that wrote our country's Declaration of Independence? One of the Founding Fathers? The third President of the United States? Soon, many children won't. Thomas Jefferson has been removed from the required curriculum, namely because they want to eliminate the Enlightenment period of which he was so avidly a part. The Age of Enlightenment focused on science, philosophy, and culture, which at times questioned religious values. It may be speculative, but Jefferson was also a deist and adulterer who had an illicit affair with a slave, producing a handful of illegitimate offspring, which, for Texas, makes for a less than prominent role model, despite his numerous contributions to the nation.

Separation of church and state? Not even a theory, according to Texas. Though I truly believe the separation of church and state is theoretical and very few laws are passed without religious influence, Texas has decided they won't even discuss the idea of such segregation. They will focus only on the influence of Judeo-Christian influences upon the founding of this country. They also refuse to teach the Constitutional amendment of religious equality or that the U.S. government is forbidden from promoting one religion over another.

Other changes include: teaching Republican President Ronald Reagan while leaving out Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy and the first Hispanic of the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor; omitting details of Hispanic heroes dying at the infamous Battle of the Alamo in Texas; refusing to acknowledge Hip Hop as a cultural movement; teaching the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, (with undoubtedly a definite bias of favor toward the Israelis); celebrating the resurgence of conservatism with prominent organizations such as the National Rifle Association; and changing the name of our country's system of government from "Democracy" to "Conservative Republic".

While the teachings in a single state can be a cause for concern, the biggest issue is how far will the conservative influence reach? Texas is a major buyer of textbooks, and it is unknown if textbook publishers will cater to the large Southern state's specifications and print all their books as such or tailor books solely for Texas' use.

Now who's responsible for this uproar? One would think such critical decisions regarding an entire state's educational curriculum would be based on the experience and knowledge of history, government, and sociology specialists, or might at least include their advice. However, the fate of children's understanding of this country's foundation rested in the hands of elected lawyers, a dentist, and a writer for a local newspaper. Granted the right-wingers are pulling the strings of a spectacular puppet show, but its a sad day when common sense has flown so far out the window that one finds it appropriate to toss out a Founding Father with the crystal clear bathwater of Enlightenment. Maybe these gun-toting, bible-thumping, George W. Bush electing, racist rednecks should have read up a bit on that age before taking it upon themselves to cleanse our country of those ethnic and liberal demons that have come to represent what this great land is all about.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it...those who try to rewrite it are just plain doomed.

Oscars: Winner vs Worthy

So past Oscar nights have definitely had their ups and downs, their tight races, those wondrous dark horse runners, and those obvious wins and upsets. And it's no secret that politics and current events play a role on the academy's votes. But what about those slightly obscure points that factor into the voter's bids? The actor's overall likability, tallying up the past nominations, and even pity for losses that should have been wins?

Now, the Oscars are annual awards that focus on the previous year in film-making, and they recognize and reward spectacular achievements in that year's films alone. In other words, these awards are not meant to mark lifetime achievements, overall career successes, or impressive resumes that have been built up over decades. It doesn't matter how great you were in a film made 5 years ago, or that you were great in the last 20 movies you've made. You can still lose. It doesn't even matter that it may be the first film you've ever made, or that your career up until then was blown to bits by box office bombs. If you have one moment in one picture where you were undeniably fantastic, you are eligible to be nominated and even win. At least, that's the way it should be.

No one can fully eliminate the human margin of error in voting. Many of us even make the awards' season mistake of casting our own personal votes for actors we favor, either because we loved all their other films or just because they seem nice. We've also thrown out votes for those actors who irritated us once in that film they made 20 years ago or because they've simply gotten in trouble in their personal lives and have lost our respect. Sometimes we think people should win simply because they've been nominated so many times in the past, we scream "will someone PLEASE just give them one??" We rarely can watch a film objectively and freely hand out accolades for those who truly deserve it. So can we, in all seriousness, expect the academy to be able to vote with 100% objectivity, every year?

The discussion circulating the WWW this year was whether or not Sandra Bullock deserved to win, despite her being the front-runner fave. Now I haven't seen the Blind Side personally, but I will say I've been rooting for Sandra simply because I do love her, she's got that awesome personality that makes you feel like you could be BFFs if you only had the chance to hang out. She's made some great films in the past, and made some flops, for which she won a Razzie and showed up in person to humbly accept her award; which by the way, makes us love her more. But is her performance Oscar-worthy? Meryl is her main competition, whom, having actually seen Julie and Julia, I feel she is, as usual, O-W. Not to mention the fabulous underdog, Gabby from Precious who has virtually been buried and forgotten this year as Sandra and Meryl ping-pong award honors back and forth betwixt themselves. So with the Oscars literally just moments away as I write this, will the favorite or the worthy take home the golden naked man this time?

Favorites who don't necessarily deserve to win take it home all the time. The 2002 Oscars began a minor-chain reaction when Halle Berry won for best actress for Monster's Ball over Nicole Kidman in Moulin Rouge. Despite the obvious favor of drama over musical, at the risk of sounding racist, it was no coincidence that Berry won as the first African American woman alongside Denzel Washington for best actor, during an evening which included an honorary Oscar for Sidney Poitier. However, though many felt Kidman was snubbed, no one was willing to badmouth the first best actress award for a black woman, or mention that Whoopi Goldberg should have been the vessel for that moment years ago in The Color Purple. Since Kidman lost, she got what I like to call the Pity Oscar for her role in The Hours the following year (Goldberg received her Pity Oscar for Ghost). Don't get me wrong, Kidman was fantastic in the film, but Oscar worthy? Technically she didn't even qualify for Best Actress, given she had less on-screen time than her co-stars Streep and Julianne Moore, who were both shoved into the Supporting Actress category. Of course, Kidman's pity win pushed Renee Zellweger out of her deserving win for Chicago. So naturally Renee received her Pity Oscar the following year for Cold Mountain. Again she was fantastic in the film, I love Renee and I loved the movie, but some thought Shohreh Aghdashloo should've won for The House of Sand and Fog. Unfortunately she didn't have a high profile film the following year to receive her Pity Oscar and thus lopped off the chain of Oscar compensation.

Others have obviously won due to those lovely politics or agendas: An Inconvenient Truth thanks to global warming crises, Sean Penn in Milk, thanks to the recent Gay Human Rights Movement, pretty much any movie involving the Holocaust (yes Kate Winslet won partly because it was a Holocaust movie, partly because she has been nominated 6 times in the past, and partly because she was awesome).

Will we ever get to a point where we can vote for those sole performances, despite politics, current events, personal feelings, and providing compensation for screwing actors out of rightful awards because of these issues? I'll be rooting for Sandra tonight, but I will own the fact that I am totally biased, and part of me wants her to lose so I can simply be proven wrong that Oscar is in fact, just and fair. Time will tell.

Out With the Old, In With the New: Disregarding Daily Disasters

Haiti: Another natural disaster, another massive tragedy that strikes the world. More than 50,000 are estimated to be dead thus far, several more survivors are slowly dying in the rubble without food and water, and 300,000 more are left without homes. It brings to mind haunting images of past disasters like Hurricane Katrina, the deadliest U.S. hurricane since 1928, and the tsunami of 2004, the deadliest tsunami of all time. Empathy, compassion, and support are pouring out all over the world as millions of dollars are being shelled out along with medical supplies, doctors, and food and water.

But one question lingers in my mind, as I know it has with others. Why do such tragedies take the forefront and elicit such an emphatic response from the world when similar tragedies are taking place every day, and have been for years without solution? In Darfur, a war has taken the lives of an estimated 300,000 civilians, leaving 2.7m people displaced in refugee camps while the majority of the world has stood by silently. Last year, the U.S. supported an Israeli attack on Gaza that left up to 1,400 dead in less than a month, and we continue to support them as thousands of civilians die in the conflict every year. We sit and watch with mournful eyes as 4,000 people die every hour from starvation even though several studies have shown we have plenty of food to feed the world, right now.

What is it about sudden, fresh tragedies that force us to care as those we've tired of are pushed back into the recesses of our minds? Why is new death so much more compelling? It's almost as if human nature only allows a short attention span to suffering. We need something new and, excuse the term, "exciting" to make us care. $11 million was raised in a matter of days through simple cellphone texting, and millions more has been committed by businesses, politicians, and organizations all over the world, even amidst a massive world-wide recession. So why are people who have been starving for decades still starving? Why are Palestinian children still becoming orphans?

While some are ignorantly blaming this recent disaster on some fabled unholy union with the devil, I believe the moments of utter devastation that follow such events are God's helpless attempts to remind us to care, since we've become so apathetic to the general state of the world. Nothing unites hearts like tragedy, nothing can make us feel closer to our fellow man. But, while most are inspired by the outpouring of love and support, I feel somewhat sickened by the disregard of the every day human suffering we have allowed ourselves to become blinded to. Perhaps its a lack of media coverage that makes problems half a world away so easy to forget, while the massive attention paid to this disaster burns the images into our retina, weighing heavily on our consciences. Perhaps those media outlets that still cover such ongoing problems like the Middle East and world hunger have run those stories so much that we've become desensitized to it, and we just sit back and shake our heads, wondering if such a disaster can ever be resolved, and believing it can't.

Seeing the trend as it occurs over and over again, I predict it will only be a matter of time before Haiti has faded to the back of our minds as well, much like New Orleans has, while people are still without homes and Brad Pitt struggles to get people to give a damn, donating most of his own money to rebuild the community. The question is simply when?

Millions of people have donated to the Haiti cause. I haven't yet. Will I? Probably. But I am unemployed at the moment and I spent a good chunk of my money on buying foods and necessities for shelters during the holidays, and toys for the Toys for Tots drive. Do I feel bad that I haven't donated? Yeah. Should I, knowing my money went to another cause to help one of those daily problems of human suffering? Probably not. Some are donating mere pocket change to help, as every little bit makes a difference. The few dollars I could have contributed went to a homeless man for his dinner last night. Is that shameful? No. I haven't forgotten about him. Why has the rest of the world?

Christmas in the Classroom?

It's that time again, where we're decking the halls and donning our gay apparel, the time of the year where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ and Jews celebrate their festival of lights. It's also probably the busiest time of year for the ACLU, or the American Civil Liberties Union. The more nativity scenes on display and the more school Christmas programs dusting off their Away in a Manger sheet music, the more atheists and holiday-hijackers are up in arms filing complaints. And now it seems they have a doozy on their hands.

The Tea Party movement has been spreading like a wildfire and they have been popping up everywhere. Self-proclaimed protectors of the Constitution, they're organizing protests nationwide fighting big government, Obama, the stimulus package, and health care reform. Now, one of the tea party patriots is ironically pushing big government into our faces and ignoring separation of church and state as declared in the Constitution they claim to protect. Merry Hyatt, a substitute teacher in California is pushing a bill that will make singing religiously based-Christmas carols mandatory in public schools.

Now I respect everyone's rights to practice religion how, when, and where they choose. However, I also respect everyone's rights to not have someone else's religion crammed down their throats, especially in a public school system where no singular religious group foots the bill, but where everyone pays taxes to keep such facilities running. Will I stop a Christian child from reading the bible at school? No. Will I tell a Muslim they can't do a few of their five daily prayers on school grounds? Hell no. Will I tell a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Buddhist, or atheist child they have to sing the holiday praises to the Christian God and his son? Absolutely not.

As previously mentioned, in the US, we have a theoretical standard of separation between religion and state. Theoretical because it's rarely true but standard because it's in the Constitution. This is generally in place to keep major religions (Judaism and Christianity) from overpowering the minority (everyone else). And Christians are not happy about it. They stand firm on their beliefs that this country was founded on Christian roots and that above all else this is a Christian country, everyone else is just along for the ride. Christian activists in Cobb County, GA were able to strong arm their school district into teaching the Christian belief of creationism alongside the scientifically-driven theory of evolution. Many activists have been pushing for specified prayer times in classrooms for years. Now we're pushing for Christian hymns to be sung in school, simply because they embody the holiday of the season.

I am in no way against religion in public schools specifically, but my beef lies in the fact that when we say "allow prayer in school" or "allow holiday songs in school", we are not talking about the mosaic of religions that comprise the US and its public school systems. We are not talking about prayer times for every religion, nor are we talking about holiday programs for every religious holiday of every student. We are simply talking Christianity. Christian prayer, Christian songs. Their recommendation for everyone else? "During prayer time, if your child isn't Christian, they can put their heads down on their desks until we're done praying". Why should their time, time specified for education, be wasted while waiting for others to practice their religions? As for Christmas programs, non-Christians "can leave the classroom while the Christian students rehearse, and stay at home the night of the big show". As if kids needed one more reason to feel different, excluded, separate from their peers. For the majority of Christian parents, this is not a problem to them, because it's their religion being observed. But what if your child's education was placed on hold two or three times a day while Muslim children prayed? Or if holiday and birthday parties were suspended altogether because there's more Jehovah's Witnesses in your child's class than Christians?

Now one could argue that allowances could be made for every religion. Prayer time for all, holiday celebrations for all, teachings of all religious perspectives, etc. Some countries have mastered the art of religious compromise. Jordan's Queen Rania recently posted a photo of her son's Christmas concert via Twitter (above), presumably taking place at school. The royal family of Jordan is a devout Islamic family, but exceptions are made to observe the main holiday of the mere 6% of Christians in the country. However, here in America, this would infringe upon the rights of atheistic children in this country. And school schedules are so tight these days, teachers barely have time to teach the basics, let alone have parties for every holiday or cut time out of the busy day for various prayers.

The only solution? Keep it out altogether. School is for learning, church is for praying and singing religious songs. If you want to mix the two, send your child to a religious school or home-school them. But it's time we stop smearing the line between church and state, because no matter what is done, someone's civil liberties are going to be trampled.

Pulling that Damn Gay Card

So most of us have either caught the Adam Lambert American Music Awards performance or have seen snippets of it plastered on the net. Overflowing with explicit homosexuality, the performance included Lambert groping dancers, kissing one male band member on the lips, and grinding another male dancer's face into his crotch at point-blank range. None of these acts were approved by the show and Lambert claimed they were "spur of the moment" moves. It was over the top, crude, and tasteless. In other words, a pathetic attempt to score a "shock" moment and to gain some undeserved publicity.

Now, he had to have known that such a shockfest would elicit some unpleasant responses from more conservative groups and people. ABC reported they received over 1,500 complaints regarding the incident, which, due to a live broadcast on the east coast, was not censored. Lambert claimed homophobia when ABC opted to censor the AMA performance for the west coast airing, as if he hadn't expected the backlash. We're not stupid here, Glambert. As my psych professor proclaims: Every behavior has a purpose and meets a need. Your purpose was to piss people off, and your need was to get some attention. Why so upset now that your expectations have been met?

However, the event has also garnered some unexpected responses, such as ABC's sudden cancellation of his scheduled Good Morning America concert. Many have jumped to his defense and have quickly pulled that gay card, citing homophobic motives for the television station's decision. A Glambert movement on Twitter has evoked claims of "bigotry" and "double standards" along with calls to "end homophobia", but has homophobia really taken place here?

I have to admit, sometimes I tire of people pulling the race card for whatever reasons, "everything happens because I'm this or because you're that", and its all I can do to bite my tongue when people start pulling the gay card...so instead I blog. Now, I am not in any way a prude, but I do have my limitations, and simulating oral sex on an award show, whether it's male on male or female on male, is far beyond appropriate. Never mind the fact that this is a prime time show, that young children are still up watching, and this is airing on an extremely family friendly network; few situations on live television are appropriate for sexual subtleties, much less in-your-face borderline softcore pornography.

Likewise, in a time where gays are struggling for equal rights all over the country, I've found that those on the fence of the HRM and those just slightly to one side of it don't respond well to such extreme showings of crude homosexuality. It perpetuates the impression of homosexuals being disgusting and immoral and just looks bad for everyone involved. This inevitably hurts the cause as a whole, but those screaming homophobia seem to think if you force the world to sit down and watch a gay porno they'll let you marry. Sorry, Adam, this was not artistic, you are not Heath Ledger, and this is not Brokeback Mountain.

I also find it ironic that ABC, which is owned by Disney Productions, is being labeled as homophobic. Disney is one of the largest gay-friendly corporations in the world, allowing "gay days" at their parks where the facilities are opened exclusively to homosexuals and their families, producing many television shows that supported the gay movement ("Ellen") and even being one of the first companies to provide same-sex benefits to their employees and their partners. One Christian group even accuses Disney of being "too gay friendly"...so how did we make the jump from too gay friendly to homophobic? Anyone else wanting to shove that gay card back into its envelope?

Despite his "take me as I am" attitude, this flaming gay persona Lambert's taken on is a far cry from once refusing to admit he's gay and refusing to take part in a homosexual magazine publication if they made him look "too gay" (I guess he didn't want his obscenely gay CD cover to be outdone). So chill Adam, put out the flame and be a normal gaybug like everyone else.

When Rape Crimes Expire

Oh my Lord Hollywood, what is wrong with you?! Apparently every day American citizens aren't the only ones who want to forgive their favorite celebrities, celebrities are doing it too! And in the worst case scenario possible.

Just a few days ago, Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland after being on the run from the American justice system for over 30 years. Why was he evading? Because he was convicted of intoxicating, sedating, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. Though Polanski served 42 days in a mental institution while awaiting trial, he claims he was led to believe his sentence would be reduced to time served, and he would be released. When he heard that he might actually spend a few years in jail, he fled to France.

It is unknown why US prosecutors have decided to finally track Polanski down and detain him for the 1978 crime. Perhaps someone down at the Los Angeles DA office blew some dust off an old file, perhaps it was because they had a guaranteed location to intercept him, a film festival where he would be honored. Whatever the reason, the sudden vehemence to finally pin a sentence on the convicted rapist elicited demands from all over Hollywood for his immediate release.

Celebrities such as Harrison Ford, Debra Winger, Martin Scorsese, producer Harvey Weinstein, and Woody Allen [insert pedophile joke here] all signed petitions and are leading the march in getting Polanski freed. Weinstein argues that he has contacted "everyone he knows and is not afraid to go to the Governor of California himself to fight for Polanski". Even some tabloids are taking it easy on the old bastard. Senior Editor of In Touch magazine couldn't believe the DA would pursue charges after such a long time, arguing that they had trouble "letting it go" after all these years. Let it go? What the hell? Like it was a fight over the last slice of pizza? And really, what would happen to our country, our criminal system, and justice as a whole if we simply let everyone run away because they thought they were getting an unfair sentence? However, thankfully, the Los Angeles DA has made it very clear that the Hollywood heavyweights hold no influence over their proceedings and intend to close this case once and for all.

While celebrities simply seem to be coming to their friend's defense for no other reason than blind loyalty, some people are arguing for the victim, who has publicly forgiven her rapist and asked that the charges be dropped. Though she claims that she is "over" the incident, in letters and interviews she gave years ago, she seemed to be more adverse to the media attention that the matter will bring to her door rather than a proper sentencing. Granted it's not easy to be in the public eye for such a tragedy, and no one wants to make the victim suffer more than she already has, but why should a rapist be excused from his actions? Why should he be exempt from a horrible crime simply to avoid embarrassment for the victim? What if all victims excused criminals to save themselves the trouble? Someone has to have the courage to face their perpetrators, if only to keep them off the streets for everyone else's sake.

Let us not forget: crimes do not have expiration dates. Nearly three weeks ago, a man was arrested in LA on charges of rape and murder 34 years after the crime was committed. Another man in Arizona was recently arrested for the same crime 32 years later. No one is kicking up dust over these two. Perhaps because they involved murder? Well rape has no expiration date either, and the loss of innocence, security, self-esteem, and overall well-being has no definite end for the victim. No matter how many years have passed, you are still responsible for your crime, you still have to serve your time. No matter what your stupid ass celebrity friends have to say.

Currently, Polanski is detained in Switzerland, awaiting extradition orders, but is attempting to fight the order on the grounds that he is concerned he will "be imprisoned upon return". Yeah...that's kinda what we're going for here.