To-may-toe, To-mah-toe?

I hadn’t intended to write anything else about “Brokeback Mountain”… and yet I must. As was widely reported, well-known film critic Gene Shalit wrote a negative (and many perceive, hateful) review of the film. He drew sharp criticism from GLAAD for calling one of the characters a “sexual predator” who tracked down the other for trysts. It seems that Mr. Shalit has now apologized for his statements. In his letter of apology to GLAAD, he says: "In describing the behavior of Jack, I used words ('sexual predator') that I now discover have angered, agitated and hurt many people… I did not intend to use a word that many in the gay community consider incendiary...I certainly had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself…" Back the hell up. In what community and in what conceivable context is the term “sexual predator” NOT INCENDIARY?! If Mr. Shalit called your father, your brother, your son, a “sexual predator,” would you politely ask him not to “cast aspersions”? Not bloody likely. Mr. Shalit’s gay son, in his own letter to GLAAD, wrote: "Agreed, he didn't particularly seem to like Brokeback Mountain, and he found the character of Jack unsympathetic. But his negative response to a particular character is not 'defamation' and had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the character." I disagree. He didn't call the character of Jack uncaring, unconcerned, detrimental, or any other polite terms that could be construed as "unsympathetic" -- he clearly and succinctly chose "sexual predator." Infer what you will. GLAAD is pleased with the apology. Me, I’d make one last suggestion – recommend that the elder Mr. Shalit trim a whole lot of weight off that damn moustache of his. It’s apparently gotten so heavy that it’s dragging down his eyelids to the point that he can’t see the forest for the trees. Now I’m done.