Child sexual abuse is in the news yet again, along with some surprising reactions to it. Two stories come to mind, the new Safe Schools Czar and Roman Polanski. First the former:
I don't remember the name of the first Czar to be appointed by President George H. W. Bush (the first to appoint one) but he was the Drug Czar and the only one for a time. I recall hearing some congressmen voice concern over someone being appointed without congressional vetting, hearing, or consent. It seemed a bit of an overreaction a the time (being that there was only one), but they were reassured by the president that he wouldn't start appointing them willy-nilly.
Enter President Obama... There are simply too many Czars to keep track of. But this latest flap is going down over a man, Kevin Jennings, who was recently appointed as the Safe School Czar and who had a history of illegal drug use. There was in immediate attempt to justify such a history as to make it appear to be an experience from which much useful wisdom had been acquired, even though he has yet to proclaim his behavior as wrong, stupid, or dangerous.
Now we hear that as a young, gay(?!?) teacher he was confided to by a student who was a victim of forced homosexual sex by an adult pedophile. But Mr. Jennings failed to make any attempt to protect the young boy from future sexual attacks. He did not report it, nor did he try to stop it. Read the full story at Michelle Malkin's blog.
President Obama's Czar appointees seem to be suffering from some perverted version of the Peter Principle. Rather than being promoted to the level of their incompetence, they are promoted BECAUSE (or in spite of) it. It brings to mind Chicago's Mayor Richard J. Daley (the first Daley and King Maker) and all the incompetent fools appointed by him to oversee various city services which continued to be colossal failures. Mike Royko wrote an illuminating book about this several years ago called BOSS. It's still a good read, and Royko's humor is still funny today.
Movie Director Roman Polanski was caught in Switzerland by American authorities for an incident that occurred 30 years ago in which he forced 13 year old Samantha Geimer to have anal sex after filling her with quaaludes and alcohol. He has been dodging American authorities ever since, but now sits in jail having been convicted years ago after a guilty plea (then released, then told to return to jail, at which time he fled).
Ala from Blonde Sagacity brings to light three Puff Ho (Huffington Post) pieces defending Polanski in spite of his behavior. And liberals are supposed to be pro-women???
Geimer wants the incident behind her and calls for Polanski's freedom. The crime occurred 30 years ago. BUT... what precedent would that set to let him go? And what if he decides to attack another 13 year old? He did it once before and no conversion of any kind has been documented. So why not again? Did he not have sex with a then-underage Nastasia Kinski, though voluntary? It's still statutory rape. As sorry as I am for Polanski's wife (Sharon Tate) being butchered by the Manson "family," I just don't think Polanski should be walking free.
The Main Stream Media seems to have little outrage over either of these stories. Yet it seems like just yesterday they were spitting mad over pedophile priests in the Catholic Church, calling for their heads and the heads of the Bishops above them. I guess it depends on whose ox is gored. Media bias? Or media complicity?!? You be the judge.