Criminal acts appear to be ok, depending on who commits them.
Both Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin are employed by Rupert Murdoch, whose organisation hacked into thousands of people's phones and possibly into e-mail accounts as well.
O'Reilly and Palin were very clear about how they felt about a young guy managing to access Palin's Yahoo account by guessing the answer to her secret question and then re-setting her password.
Murdoch's News International hired private investigators and bribed police officers to illegally access people's accounts and also paid considerable amounts of money in out-of-court settlements (with confidentiality clauses) to make things go away.
How come David Kernell was deemed a despicable, devious criminal for what amounted to a silly prank, but the multiple, planned, no-holds-barred illegal acts by their employer's organisation received no condemnation from either O'Reilly or Palin?
Organised crime is ok for a corporate media mogul, but a young person's prank is a major felony.
Yes, it's all very fair and decent if the criminal pays your salary...
*****
I can't help myself, so I'll indulge in a bit of frivolity. I thought this was Sarah Palin's worst wig:
But then she sported this item on Greta's show last night:
I find it hard to decide which one looks more ridiculous.
Her latest style is quite similar to Michele Bachmann's, who looks a bit softer. Here she is, talking to Hannity last night, some time before Sarah Palin went on air with Greta:
