By Contributing Writer, Smileys Pundit

The excuses for Roman Polanski's behavior advanced by the Hollywood glitterati are remarkable for their number and their lameness.  However, in this moral quagmire, one person's defense, Whoopi Goldberg's, stands out for its vacuity.

On one episode of "The View," Polanski's plight (being held by the Swiss government pending resolution of the extradition proceeding brought by those vindictive law enforcement types in the State of California who just don't understand Polanski's greatness) became the subject of conversation.  In the course of the discussion, Whoopi Goldberg demonstrated why her forte is comedy, not moral analysis.  Her first, and most quoted statement in defense of Polanski, is that, "It wasn't rape rape."  If "rape rape" means violent rape, Whoopi is right.  The victim wasn't killed, and she didn't have any of the typical rape rape victims' black eyes, broken bones, knife wounds or welts from punches and kicks to bear witness to what happened.  Polanski was way too smooth and experienced to get violent; drugs are much more civilized. That's not to say that the acts were consensual. Before each of the three sexual acts, the 14 year-old victim protested (at least as much as she was capable of protesting, drugged as she was with champagne and Quaaludes) that she didn't want to do it.  

Whoopi's second statement was that, "When we're talking about what someone did and what they were charged with, we have to say what it actually was, not what we think it was."  Good idea!  Polanski, as part of a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor, what we normally call statutory rape.  That charge can cover the less predatory situation of the high school senior who engages in consensual sex with his freshman girlfriend.  But Polanski was a high school senior 25 years before his encounter with the 14 year-old girl. His plea agreement was almost as good a deal as allowing a person accused of stabbing someone in the back to plead to a charge of following too close.  According to the victim's grand jury testimony (the veracity of which has never been challenged), after drugging her, Polanski performed oral sex on her, then had vaginal and anal intercourse with her.  She objected to all three, but Polanski ignored her protests.  Either Whoopi didn't know "what it actually was" that Polanski did or her attitudes set a new low for moral laxity.  I presume the former is the case, although her third comment lessens that presumption.

Whoopi's final comment addresses the question most people would like to ask Polanski's defenders: what would you say if the victim were your 14 year-old daughter?  Whoopi asked, "Would I want my 14 year-old having sex with somebody? Not necessarily."  Not necessarily?!  Are there any circumstances in which anybody of sound mind would want their 14 year-old daughter having sex with anyone, let alone a 43 year-old man who has a thing about young girls?

I like Whoopi as a comedian.  But she's more effective when the laughs she gets are intentional and not the result of foolishly advertised ignorance. 

Harvey Weinstein, the originator of a petition on behalf of Polanski, said that, "Hollywood has the best moral compass because it has compassion."  If this situation is illustrative, Hollywood's moral compass has all the steadiness of a ride on the Tilt-a-Whirl.