Blog of law articles

Talk about phoning it in, Glenn Garvin's column this morning appears to be recycled solely from parts of his prior columns.

Guess what -- Garvin thinks Hollywood is filled with rich arrogant lefty pot-smokin' atheistic amoralists who believe the rules that "salt of the earth" people must live by don't apply to them.

In other words, Bill Maher.

He's right, of course, but why is this newsworthy?

Because Roman Polanski has some Hollywood defenders. Thus, Polanski is a stand-in for everything Garvin hates, most notably the people he covers as a TV critic (and also Barbra Streisand).

As usual, Garvin misleads his readers.

You'd never know this from Garvin's column, but in addition to Chris Rock there have been vocal condemnation and indeed a backlash of sorts against Polanski from virtually all corners of Hollywood as well as most opinion media.

Indeed, the Herald alone published two very critical pieces by WP's Eugene Robinson, AP writer Jocelyn Novek, and of course Garvin's tardy pile-on. There have been no favorable opinion pieces published about Polanski in the Herald.

Let's see --- Cokie Roberts wants to take Polanski out and have him shot, SNL already made fun of the Whoopie comments Garvin wrote about, and tough-guy Richard Cohen wants to punch Polanski in the mouth.

Even the HuffPost, the standard-bearer for all Garvin despises, has published numerous articles condemning Polanski.

See, Glenn? It's not so simple.

And your tired talking point about Theo van Gogh happens to be wrong too.

Polanski pled guilty to a reduced charge and fled because he feared the judge would impose an excessive sentence. He should return and face the music, without Garvin and others making him a symbol for everything they hated about the 60s.