Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (76465)	1/7/2010 10:27:01 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

WaPo TV Critic: Brit Hume is 'ridiculous,' but Roman Polanski's rape is defensible By: Mark Hemingway Commentary Staff Writer beltway-confidential 01/06/10 12:50 PM EST In my column in this morning's examiner, "Freedom of religion includes freedom to discuss it," I share my thoughts on the Brit Hume/Tiger Woods kerfuffle. Please read the whole thing, but suffice to say I discussed the reactions of many aghast critics to Hume's profession of faith on air. Due to the timing, I didn't a chance to discuss Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales reaction to the Hume incident. Needless to say it's not favorable: <<< Whatever his motivations, and however his statement regarding Woods reflected Hume's own emotional turmoil, the remark will probably rank, even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year. It tends at the least to banish any wayward hopes that the looniness of the Bawdy Aughties is over; we're not out of the woods, or the Woods, yet. Oh no, the madness will go on and on and on, at least until some sanctimonious busybody takes it upon himself to go even roguer than Hume. >>> Well, I'm certainly glad Shales feels confident passing judgment on Hume for his desire to spread his Christianity. But speaking of ridiculous statements, here's Shales on Roman Polanski: <<< There is, apparently, more to this crime than it would seem, and it may sound like a hollow defense, but in Hollywood I am not sure a 13-year-old is really a 13-year-old. >>> You have to love that "may sound like a hollow defense" caveat before shrugging off the rape of a child. In any event, it's rather telling that Hume's proselytizing gets unambiguously condemned by Shales, but the rape of a 13-year-old by a celebrated Hollywood director is defensible. washingtonexaminer.com