Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Poor "Hounded" Polanski

Patterico effectively takes down Pulitzer-Prize winning TV critic Tom Shales for his efforts to diminish the charges against Roman Planks (and the memory hole they were shoved down).

Shales tried to wittily slough off the criticism of a reader. The criticism was dead on.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't realize that TV critics were such an exalted source of legal commentary that they needed to be taken down.

You must be really desperate to keep this story alive if you are going after TV critics.

October 7, 2009 at 10:59 AM 
Anonymous jake said...

First, it was Al Gore dumbing down the Nobel prize and now you've got this Shales clown trashing all credibility for a Pulitzer.
Next thing you know Obama will be giving himself the Medal of Honor for all the enemy fire he took at the U.N.

October 7, 2009 at 7:05 PM 
Blogger /mr said...

Pssst. Nobody tell Spence and the rest of the gang that are having vapors about Polanski that 30 Republican Senators, yes, 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus voted yesterday against an amendment that would withhold federal dollars from companies like Haliburton/KBR if they restrict their employees from taking workplace assault, battery and discrimination cases to court. This, of course in response to the brutal gang rape of a KBR employee in Iraq which was covered up by the company.

October 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

To critics of Polanski's defenders, Hey, look over there!

October 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mr-
Good point. Spence is on record here that the Polanski should be brought to court, regardless of the wishes of his alleged victim.

But, he can't even see his own hypocrisy in ignoring a company like Haliburton/KBR getting Federal (taxpayer) dollars while they put up legal barriers that hurt employees that have been raped by other employees.

Hey, Spence, take your head out of "the sand" and look at real problems that are pervasive, systemic and institutionalized with your tax dollars.

October 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

... a squirrel! Wow!

October 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Wouldn't it be better to make this lame argument on a thread about the ACORN scandals?

Or is it that you think Roman Polanski's crimes should be federally funded?

Just trying to help.

October 8, 2009 at 12:35 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did Acorn have a clause in their employee contract restricting employees from taking assailants to court?

The "gotcha" Acorn videos show incompetence by low-level employees, not the deliberate, premeditated decisions by the highest levels of KBR to curtail the rights of victims.

I guess you are "just trying to help" corporate sponsored rape. Good for you!

October 8, 2009 at 1:00 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Two wrongs don't make a right. No reason why one can't rail against Polanski and also be critical of pols who vote against laws to protect workers. But....this is Gils Blog, and if he wants to be one sided when it comes to what stories to post, that's his right.
Gil's a conservative, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that he rarely posts a story that puts conservatives in a bad light.

October 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM 
Anonymous jake said...

It seems to me that our 30 Republican senators quite logically decided to keep the federal government out of a partisan witch hunt and chose to stay focused on the business of running the country.
Understandably, Anon-diano and his posse wish to deflect the Polanski and ACORN embarrassments onto other entities.
It certainly is a despicable reflection on the current administration, the people he surrounds himself with, and the corrupt culture of celebrity that elected Obama.
But to try to extend the unrelenting Democrat animus against all things Bush is a rather childish exercise, and unworthy of the Congress' time and energy.

October 8, 2009 at 8:14 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

I'm telling you, if you want your viewpoints, go waste your time on Will Bunch's blog.

October 9, 2009 at 8:34 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Jake. Here in the United States, we have 40 Republican senator's, not 30.

What country do you live in?

October 9, 2009 at 11:50 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jake, you should say:

30 of our 40 Republican Senators.

October 9, 2009 at 11:53 AM 
Anonymous jake said...

Anon-diano, you are really hard up for talking points.
You should note the earlier post which referenced a vote of 30 Republican Senators.
Rest assured that I will ignore your pompous and inappropriate civics lesson.
You are welcome to continue your usual verbal flatulence for entertainment purposes only.

October 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jake, why aren't whining about the 10 republican Senators that didn't vote with the 30 you liked. Where's your vitriol for them?

Why you are ignoring 25% of them, like they didn't exist?

You seem to have some personal feud going on with somebody here. Stop using it as a distraction and excuse for the weaknesses in your own arguments and lack of logic.

October 10, 2009 at 8:33 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home