Was the Los Angeles Times unfairly trying to ruin Schwarzegger?

Clete

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Oct-15-03 03:08 PM
Original message

Was the Los Angeles Times unfairly trying to ruin Schwarzegger?

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger a man behaving badly, *wink*, *wink* or a sexual predator, who should be pressed with charges of sexual assault and battery?

There is a scene in the third part of the first Star Wars where a slug-like creature, called Jabba the Hut has taken Princess Leia, played by actress Carrie Fisher, as his slave. She is dressed in a harem outfit and has a thick collar around her neck with a leash. She has to lie at what would be his feet, like an obedient dog.

This scene came to my mind, when Arnold Schwarzenegger�s brief campaign for Governor of California began. By then, rumors about his sexual groping and worse had appeared on various internet bulletin boards and blogs with links to print publications that had reported his sexual romps over the years. When the rumors were investigated and reported by the Los Angeles Times and other publications, he apologized. He announced that he may have done so, but he meant nothing by it. Jabba the Hut speaks in a guttural language. Arnold speaks with a guttural accent on television.

�I vas bein� playful,� he said.

Yet, the women he has savaged are every much the sex object playthings as the princess Jabba the Hut had on a leash dressed in a harem outfit. Until Luke Skywalker appears to save her and Hans Solo, Princess Leia was helpless to do anything about her situation. Jabba and Arnold are physically overpowering. Jabba, the Lord of his realm, can do as he wishes. Arnold, the star on the movie set can do what he likes too. He and Jabba can abuse the power they have with not a thought to whom they are bullying or hurting in the moment of being �playful�. The women he molested over the years on the set had an invisible leash on them every much as Princess Leia did.

On the October 14, 2003, in Los Angeles Times �Letters to the Times�, comments from some of the readers were critical the Time�s articles reporting the feel-em-up assaults on women who had come forward about Arnold�s sexual assault and battery on their bodies without their consent. Arnold said he was being playful, because isn�t that what you to with playthings and those powerless to fight back without life changing repercussions? So one these women readers said she voted for Arnold because the Times exposed his behavior and she thought it wasn�t true and that was meant to make him look bad. The women should have pressed charges she said when it happened.

Anyone with an IQ above a moron knows how far this would have gone with law enforcement especially against a prominent and wealthy member of the movie establishment who has deep pockets for sharp lawyers and political connections to the Kennedy family. Movie jobs pay very well, are very hard to get established in and one can be blackballed from ever working again if you rub a powerful movie star, director or producer the wrong way. So the women in these cases took their lumps and remained silent, but when the reporters contacted them and they learned they weren�t alone in this, others came forward as well.

Another reader said, if the stories were out there over the years, why didn�t the Times publish those stories then. Years ago Arnold was not running for Governor. He was merely a movie star and movie stars can create sleazy gossip and be sleazy and still be well rewarded by their fans. However, when the man runs for a public office like Governor, the voters demand to know or should demand to know about his CHARACTER and the Times had the duty to report on these rumors. They did careful research and verified the rumors before printing them following accepted journalistic practices. The fact that he announced his candidacy only weeks before the election, and in venues that were not news but entertainment, shows that he was trying to avoid the media scrutiny of a longer campaign.

Some of the men of course say that no one cares. I hope they speak for themselves because women who have been victims of sexual predators certainly do care and don�t think that Governors and other elected officials should be under suspicion as possible felons. Would those same men feel the same if Arnold were gay and had committed sexual assault on the male workers of his movies sets?

I imagine that every woman who has ever been subjected to sexual humiliation by lewd and vulgar men, but particularly those who have been humiliated by Governor elect, Arnold Schwarzenegger, will think of the image of Jabba the Hut, muttering harsh guttural words every time they have to see him on television making a political speech or speaking at a news conference. They will feel the invisible collar around their neck and feeling of helplessness and dirtiness every time they have to relive those moments in the past while they must endure their abuser�s presence in their lives.

I thank the Los Angeles Times for having the courage to expose this man, who will be Governor of the State of California. Law enforcement agencies in Southern California have a duty to be those women's Luke Skywalker and have the courage to investigate these allegations now that they are out in the open. No alleged criminal should get a free pass just because he is famous. We demand that our elected officials answer these charges before they are allowed to govern us. Remember the Governor has the power to commute sentences or pardon condemned prisoners. If he doesn�t have the moral clarity to distinguish between sexual predatory behavior and consensual sex, should he be allowed to govern?