Very refreshing. Thanks for passing it on.

Case vs. Arafat even stronger than one against Saddam

Israel has at least as much justification to oust Yasser Arafat as the United States did to oust Saddam Hussein. Saddam was understood, even by France, to be attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. Those who supported the ouster of Saddam knew he was a corrupt despot and mass murderer (of Iraqis and Kuwaitis) who had initiated two bloody wars.

How does Arafat compare with Saddam? On Sept. 9, 1993, Arafat delivered to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn a letter stating: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." On Sept. 11, 2000, Al-Sabah, official publication of the Palestinian Authority, declared: "The time for Intifada has arrived; the time for Jihad has arrived." Seventeen days later, the Palestinians initiated their latest war. The result: almost 900 murdered Israeli civilians and more than 5,000 seriously injured.

The world failed to heed what Arafat told Palestinians. In a 1996 speech, he said: "We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!" He reiterated that Oslo was a temporary truce, like Muhammad's treaty with Koreish, so he could amass strength.

Continued incitement by the Palestinian Authority is integral to the "suicide factory" that produces suicide bombers. It is a measure of the kind of law established by Arafat that the latest suicide bomber was a lawyer.

SFA Politics, Religion & Other Stuff

I'm glad he apologized. Although I'm tempted to harp on the fact that he apparently has an antisemitic bone in his body, even if it came as a surprise to him, apologies that don't say "I'm sorry but" are rare and refreshing when they come.

"One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism."

Interesting.

and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition,

The perils of blogging.

OT,but relevant.In Brussels,the EU leaders were preparing a text condemning PM Mahathir's speech,when...

Fox:"At their own summit in Brussels, Belgium, European Union leaders had drafted a harshly worded statement condemning Mahathir's remarks, but French President Jacques Chirac blocked the wording from becoming a part of a final declaration."

What a class act,the French.

6

Too bad the roles are not reversed. I mean a blog was not part of the Dreyfuss Affair nor did it collaborate with the Nazis and hand over Jews to save its precious architecture.

Paul

Can't we just cut Easterbrook some slack? There's no doubt that the original paragraph was poorly written. He has presented a plausible explanation, and we have no other reason to suspect that he has an antisemitic bone in his body. Unless we want to be seen as the Jewish Jesse Jacksons, we should accept a forthright and apparently heartfelt apology at face value.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology for this:

Palestinian children burn Jewish holy site

8

I think everyone is cutting him slack. However, why is it some movie reviewer apologizes while a national government with a much worse record than talking about Jews and money is at this very moment aiding and abetting the oil tick despots?

Long ago French megalomania/anti-semitism boiled over into a series of wars, nasty domestic affairs, and so on that the government right now seems to look back on with nostalgia not shame, at least judging from their current policies.

de Villipen seems to RELISH his role in it as well.

Paul

Can't we just cut Easterbrook some slack?

That's precisely what Charles and the commenters that preceded you are doing. What are you talking about?

#8 warmonger

Can't we just cut Easterbrook some slack?...we should accept a forthright and apparently heartfelt apology at face value.

I get the impression that that is exactly what this thread is about.

9

"Some of the children said they set the tomb on fire because the army had placed a curfew on the surrounding area and blocked them from getting to school so that Jewish settlers could pray at the holy site."

Is it extra credit when you burn a Jewish holy site on the way to your UNRWA sponsored hate indoctrination?

Paul

Apology accepted, on my part (FWIW). Now I can go back to reading Tues Morning Quarterback with a clean conscience.

He raises an important point: the "old media", even if slow, narrow, and addicted to groupthink, at least have the merit that whatever's printed or broadcast has usually been seen by one or more pairs of eyes besides the reporter's. Where editors are stupid and biased, as we learned about the NY Times, it doesn't help. But at least that's a slightly more reliable system than the blog format, which really just comes down to one guy/gal posting whatever he/she feels like. Where that person is scrupulous about facts (like you, oh lizard master!) it's OK. But let's be careful out there, and make sure we fact-check everyone's tush!

OT: VDH Alert. Typically outstanding.

#6 JH

Actually that's very relevant. While we try to parse the possible anti-Semitism of a few liines dashed off by a careless blogger, the serious anti-Semites are out there in force.

Somebody should mint this apology and start manufacturing them as coins so you donate money to ship them to people that are completely unaware of what an apology conveys.

#6
So Chirac caved in to Mahathir's antisemitism. Is there any country or bad idea (theory, comic) France would NOT surrender to? How long would it take Liechtenstein's cops, in an old Panzerwagen, to reach Paris and accept the white flag? Could anyone make a list of ten, five or three countries France might defend itself against?

#16 BC

While we try to parse the possible anti-Semitism of a few lines dashed off by a careless blogger, the serious anti-Semites are out there in force.

We take on both. Small time antisemites don't deserve to escape scrutiny just because they're not heads of state.

#18 carlyle

So Chirac caved in to Mahathir's antisemitism. Is there any country or bad idea (theory, comic) France would NOT surrender to?

I think you're being too generous to Chirac. He didn't "cave". He agrees with Mahathir.

Precisely, BC.

There were bigger fish to fry than Easterbrook. The first post on this subject got over 300 comments and the last 150 were between regular posters here who ended up calling each other names, and those folks are probably still torked off at each other.

It should never have gotten to that point. Most posters (religion notwithstanding) agree on a lot of the issues here. We all want the same basic things. It really was a shame seeing these folks go off on each other like that.

In the immortal words of Chancellor Gorkon (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country),

"I guess we have a long way to go."

TV (Harry)

#20 James

If you're right, shouldn't some one tell Jerry Lewis? He could stop distribution of his films in France and they'd have nothing to laught at.

While it's true that a sincere apology deserves forgiveness, there is an old story about evil speech.

Evil speech is like throwing feathers off of a mountain. It's tough to clean them all up. Some go far away and the damage is done.

This type of speech can be more damaging than a bullet. A bullet goes only so far. But evil words can be spoken in Los Angeles and destroy or hurt someone in New York or anywhere. We're all guilty sometimes.

After saying this, I do believe it was a good thing that he apologized.

#15

I'll take Victor Davis Hanson over Al Franken and Jonathan Alter any day.

I don't know, call me paranoid, but this movie reviewer is an adult with, I assume, some knowledge of European or world history. Am I to believe it didn't occur to him that saying Jewish movie producers are enthralled with money was not going to touch a nerve, or did he assume there's enough anti-Jewish sentiment out there, that it would be acceptable.

The issue is the climate of the times that makes it not outrageous to say these things. Thank G-d there are still people out there demanding apologies, however, I am not so sure how long this will last. Let's face it, a president of a country says the Jews control the world, or they get their proxies to do so, ie the US, and half the world yawns. Wouldn't it be safe to say that folks should be on guard about anti-Semitic canards, even those seemingly made unwittingly, given world history and the tendency to scapegoat Jews. And, are any of them truly made unwittingly?

Any feedback?

Gregg Easterbrook - 'nuf said.

Islamofascists, Indymedianazis, LLL's, CNN, NPR,... - take note.

He's still a dick!

So. We are to take Easterbrook's word that there are a lot of Christian movie executives that love money excessively? Has he interviewed them? Asked them that very question?
Or does he just assume that anyone without a Jewish name is, by default a Christian? Without making the distinction between observant and ethnic Jews, it seems that he does the same with Christians. Smear everyone and don't bother with the evidence. Some journalist indeed.

The issue is the climate of the times that makes it not outrageous to say these things.

Precisely.

He echoes me again

In contrast, allowing Tehran to violate international accords and obtain a bomb — accompanied by threats from government officials to use it — is apparently the saner or at least the less bothersome course. --- VDH

And what I said...

And that, on the left, is something that must never happen. The point of having problems is to talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them ... over and over... paying legions of academics to study them and legions of diplomats to argue over "What to do? What to do?"

But to actually take action and solve a problem. No, that must never be done. It would put too many academics, diplomats, pundits, bureaucrats and other social parasites out of work.

Esteban, try the lithium.....

Concerning the burning tires ( American for tyres ) in Joseph's Tomb. Now, I admit I don't know my Koran very well, but I got the impression Mohammad lifted most of it from what we Christians refer to as the "Old Testament". I know Mohammad put Abraham (Ibrahim) and Moses (Musa) in the Koran, so you'd figure they'd have some respect. Considering Yusuf is a popular Islamic name, I'd say there is a good chance of it. ( I doubt the Islamic name Yusuf honors Mary's husband).

Of course, the [bigoted word]s claim to respect Jesus as a prophet, but that didn't stop them from desecrating the Church of the Nativity.

On the tire/tyre thing, when I was in Australia back when I was defending all y'all from the Russkies and Iranians, I picked up a newspaper and had to read deep into a story until I figured out their word "gaol" referred to what we Americans call a "jail".

Smear everyone and don't bother with the evidence. Some journalist indeed

Here we go again.

Esteban, read post 8, then read 10, 11, 12.

Cut him a break. He apologized.

You see folks, this is what happens in a politically correct society. You can't say a damn thing - even apologize - without pissing someone off. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And you wonder why there are speech codes in the college campuses. Everyone's so frigging hyper-sensitive.

TV (Harry)

It is quite cathartic to apologize besides, it is the right thing to do.
However, to bring up ones opponents ethnicity or religion when arguing a point is morally unjust.
Furthermore it puts the emphasis on what they (the opposition) believe in as a supposition for why they allegedly went wrong. Too many people throughout history have truly suffered at the hands of those who despised them for their religious beliefs. Hate has ugly
tentacles from the most innocuous to the very most extreme. For this it would behoove Gregg Easterbrook to do some soul searching. Just because he attends a joint Christian/Jewish congregation (meaning some of my best friends are Christians and Jews) does not impress me at all. Since when does attending religious services halt violence, hate and prejudice?

#25

Yes--but more than fifty years have passed since the Holocaust, which is more a source of "discomfort" than horrible understanding, and the Jews are now doing their own "oppressing." So, why change scapegoats in midstream? The world has been comfortable on the olg goat for so long.

OT well a bit at least:

The word weasel in the orignial post made me think of what our friends in France are up to.

Where is the humor in poking fun of American soldiers being killed by terrorist?

My attempt to connect my perfectly justified horror at an ugly and corrupting movie to the religious faith and ethnic identity of certain executives was hopelessly clumsy.

Clumsy? What was it he really meant to say then, when he introduced the topic of religion suddenly in the final paragraph of his essay? I think the apology was lame, in a "I'm sorry that my words were poorly chosen" kind of way, as opposed to I'm sorry for WHAT I SAID. He's still got a way's to go before I stop thinking he's a jerk.

And how does it matter that his church shares space with a synagogue? It reminds me of whenever a vendor calls me at work to sell me something, and thinks that he'll have a better chance by telling me he's Jewish, or his step-son's half-sister's brother's former girlfriend's kid is Jewish. That's when I know I won't want whatever he's selling. Same goes here.

However, to bring up ones opponents ethnicity or religion when arguing a point is morally unjust.

Is it?

Let me give you a for-instance. (I used this one the other day). 50% of prison populations are black, but blacks only make up 11.7% of the US population.

Is it morally unjust to bring this up? I bet you Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would say it is.

My point is this - we as a society are hyper-sensitive. Because of this, you can't even mention someone's ethnicity. On the TV news, when they report a story about a fugitive, a lot of times they don't even mention the race. Even though that would help apprehend that fugitive quicker.

There are more evil things in the world than mentioning someone's race or religion. It's really small potatoes.

TV (Harry)

The apology is fine and good. It does Easterbrook some credit.

Nevertheless, what he said was horrible. Apologizing doesn't take that away. I don't know whether Easterbrook's an anti-semite. I do know that apology or no, I won't read his stuff quite the same way for a long time to come.

#2 James; #22 Carlyle

Shouldn't we also alert Woody Allen (even though he recently shilled for French tourism)?

#25 Psychobarb

I think we are "on guard about anti-Semitic canards." I'd say, in fact, we're on high alert, which is why we're so sensitive--and even somewhat paranoid--about any remark with even a trace of Jew-hating. At the same time, there is good reason for our paranoia. It's like that old joke, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't talking behind your back."

#9 ralph

Here's a photo of the handiwork of the Religion of Tollerance (tm).

[Link: www.reuters.com...]

At the same time, there is good reason for our paranoia.

If you live in Europe, or the Middle East.

Why would you be paranoid here in the good ol USA?

TV (Harry)

Spoons #39 my sentiments exactly. What he said was antisemitic. I think he realizes why it was, and will do his best to address why he said it.

I think his apology was sincere and I do not think that his intent was to malign Jews, however, words are powerful in the hands of the haters and statements like this further their agenda.

#42 Inspector Callahan

Gee, why should we be paranoid? Just because synagogues are being firebombed in California? Just because Jewish students, Jewish speakers, and Jewish sites are getting attacked on college campuses across the U.S.? Just because Jews are by far suffering the most hate crimes of any religious group in this country?

Please. Things certainly aren't as bad here as they are in France or the Mideast, but that doesn't mean they're good.

I have a lot of respect for both Charles and Gregg Easterbrook. I have been genuinely upset for the last few days because of Charles' strong take on the "Kill Bill" post. I thought Charles over-reacted, but I also know that he has a extremely sensitive anti-Semitism detector to which I defer. Since Charles thought that Easterbrook's writing was anti-Semitic, I accepted Charles' opinion with dismay, all the while hoping that Easterbrook had some explanation. I know in my heart, having read Easterbrook extensively, that he is no anti-Semite. However, once that charge was out there, made by someone like Charles, all Easterbrook could do was to sincerely apologize. He has done so to my satisfaction, and I see now, to Charles' satisfaction as well. Today is a good day.

The apoligy should not have been neccessary. He should never have made the bigoted comments in the first place. Nor should the column been published.

33 Inspector Callahan
I don't agree with you. Who am I to say his apology was not genuine. I accepted it but I do have the right to explain that sometimes apology's are not enough.

Through my life and the life of my parents and grandparents we have been accused of all kinds of things simply because we are Jews. We are greedy, we like to screw our business partners out of money,
we are loud......(all Jews are, you know) we are untrustworthy and on and on, worse to much worse. This is why Jews were slaughtered from time in memorial. Prejudice is serious business. As a minor example but still serious because of prejudice Jews were not allowed access to certain places and opportunities. And surely Jews have not been the only ones by a long shot who came up on the short end or the dead end because of pre-conceived notions gone wild.
Pre-conceived notions some innocuous in intent to extreme in intent spread out of control like a raging wildfire!!
Yet once again, the perpetrator should be understood not the victim. Is that being politically correct?
Sure seems that way to me.

#42

Why would you be paranoid here in the good ol USA?

The welfare of Jews in Europe and the ME is of concern to American Jews.

#35 Carlyle:

Jews are now doing their own "oppressing."

WTF are you talking about?

#22 carlyle

If you're right, shouldn't some one tell Jerry Lewis? He could stop distribution of his films in France and they'd have nothing to laught at

I don't know about that. For some reason I think the French would think this film is brilliant:
The Day the Clown Cried

"I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them? "

So he stands by his words but wishes he had phrased them differently?

"When I reread my own words and beheld how I'd written things that could be misunderstood, I felt awful. To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent."

See, it's our fault for misunderstanding. It's also our fault for being offended.

"Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear."

So you see, even though he is prepared to defend his words and believes them to be true, it was wrong to say because it invokes stereotypes. This guy isn't apologising for anythging he said, he's only sorry that we misunderstood and it was badly written.

I wouldn't be so quick to let him off the hook and this is the same old mealy-mouthed "Gee, I'm so sorry you misunderstood me but I stand by every word I said" style of 'apology' we're all so used to seeing.

When I was growing up my mother used to tell me "sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you."

She was wrong.

I agree with Laura SF #44

People on the far left and far right are more brazenly anti Semitic thanks to the anonymity of the Internet. I can't tell you how many times I've been called anti-American because I support Israel. I've been called a Zionazi over and over by people here in the US. It's not France but things are definitely getting worse here.

There are more evil things in the world than mentioning someone's race or religion. It's really small potatoes.

It is the evil things which grow from small potatoes!!
BTW: This has nothing to do with hyper political correctness. But by the mere act of admonishing those who are rightly hurt by his comments is political correctness in its purest form.

Speaking of movie critics taking cheap shots:

Sadly, not only are Erin (Jessica Biehl) and her friends not in shape, some of them have been getting high, making them easy targets for the inbred freaks that populate many small Texas towns (particularly Crawford).

Link

(Yeah, I know Mr. Cranky is supposed to be... well... cranky... but it still seems gratuitous.

Selpaw,

I guess my point is this:

What WILL be enough?

He made the statement, he apologized unequivocally, and some people on this thread (and the prior thread) are still sore as hell.

And Laura in SF,

Every ethnic group has some stupid stereotypes. Each ethnic group has gone through racist persecution. And each of those groups believes it is worse for their group than any other. We Catholics have heard things as well, deserved or not.

Do you really believe that things are not good for Jewish people in the US? I really don't know how to counter that. It seems Jews are worse off in Israel than they are here. I guess I could be wrong.

To all,

I mean no harm to any of my fellow posters here. I never have in the 1-1/2 years I've been posting here. I just see this country as having a very hyper-sensitive side, and that I don't think it helps.

Sorry, just my opinion.

TV (Harry)

#49

"Oppressing" in quotation marks--ie, as told in the left and Arab press. But, it serves as a convenient excuse for much else to too many.

#51 Laughing Buddha, et al. who thinks this isn't enough of an apology.

I think what Easterbrook has done is delivered an honest apology as well as an explanaition. Would you rather him simply lie and say he's sorry when he still believes the point he put forth?

In his original review, I believe what he was trying to say is that Jewish executives in Hollywood have an extra responsability to ward off the temptation to use gatuitous violence for a quick buck because of the horrors inflicted upon them in WWII.

To me its no different than saying black producers should be warry of glorifying gang violence in inner cities.

Easterbrook even goes as far as to say he knows of many Christian executives out for the quick buck (i.e. the syndrome is not a Jewish trait).

IMO, his apology for giving offense, and explanaition of his intention is quite good enough.

#49 Carlyle:

Ah Ha! Sorry to be so hyper-sensitive (which seems to be a theme on this thread).

Point very well taken.

Have a great weekend and...Chag Sameyach, everyone!

It is the evil things which grow from small potatoes!

And

When I was growing up my mother used to tell me "sticks and stones can break your bones, but names can never hurt you." She was wrong.

I respectfully disagree. I believe the hyper-sensitivity to such things is just as hurtful. It keeps people from saying what's on their minds. How are you going to really know who the anti-semites are if they are required to keep quiet? It's better to know who they are. This PC hyper-sensitivity will just silence them - they'll still be anti-semitic.

If people are going to hate Jews, they'll hate Jews. And I don't think ethnic stereotypes are the cause as much as a symptom.

JMHO

TV (Harry)

Easterbrook even goes as far as to say he knows of many Christian executives out for the quick buck (i.e. the syndrome is not a Jewish trait).

Why doesn't he name a couple? I bet he can't name two offhand.

#42 Inspector Callahan

Personally, I am not paranoid that a holocaust is brewing in the US, if that is what you are getting at.

However, I have been noticing a sharp increase in antisemitism for many years now (since before Sept 11th, by the way), something I never really gave a second thought to before. I believe the increase is due to a combination of Islamic intiatives, white supremacists, LLL idiots, and the convenient medium of the Internet.

Now, as a totally secular, born-assimilated NY Jew who never experienced antisemitism until about 5-6 years ago, why should I be paranoid?

Some reasons to be paranoid: Swastikas at Rutgers, Swastikas in Brooklyn, Swastikas in many places, casual antisemitic comments cropping up in "polite" company, antisemitic indoctrination in the black community and the memory of Crown Heights riot, immensely popular online multiplayer shoot-em-up video games that feature nazi imagery (yes, real nazi imagery for the kids), and many other examples that Charles documents here daily.

I only wish I was merely being paranoid. Unfortunately, the world is giving me ample reason to be genuinely concerned.

#56 Inspector Callahan

Things are worse in Israel, of course - but is that your standard? "Oh well, at least in the US no one's getting murdered on a daily basis for being Jewish."

Sure, the US is a great place to be Jewish - by and large. But think about this: things are worse for Jews now on college campuses and in places like the Bay Area than they were ten or fifteen years ago. That alone gives us a right to be "paranoid."

Finally, I'm sorry, but I'm not very impressed by "we've all suffered for our ethnicities." As I said in my other post, nationally the hate crimes against Jews are (and have been) far, far more frequent than the hate crimes against other religious groups. Northern California had a huge upsurge in hate crimes against Jews in 2001. Minimizing these facts doesn't make them go away... it just means you personally don't care. And that's certainly your perogative.

#4

"One of the shortcomings of Christianity is that most adherents downplay the faith's interweaving with Judaism."

Interesting.

I used to waste a lot of time earnestly explaining to my fellow Christians that Christianity evolved out of Judaism but Islam is somethingelse altogether. I got tired of open mouths and stunned expressions so I stopped.

#56 Inspector Callahan

Selpaw - I guess my point is this: What WILL be enough?

First, as to what will be enough? Forget the "misunderstanding", and the "clarification", and "intention".

He should have just simply said, "you know, I never thought of myself as an anti-semite, and yet there it is deep inside me and coming out. I apologize to everyone I've offending, and I guess it's time for some soul searching."

IC, that would have been enough.

Second, the reactions of Selpaw, Laughing Buddha, and others, are NOT hypersensitive. Getting offended by a "There's a Priest, a Minister, and a Rabbi..." joke may be hypersensitive. Feeling dissed over a writer using a 1000 year old stereotype as a premise to a serious discussion is not.

However, I have been noticing a sharp increase in antisemitism for many years now (since before Sept 11th, by the way), something I never really gave a second thought to before. I believe the increase is due to a combination of Islamic intiatives, white supremacists, LLL idiots, and the convenient medium of the Internet.

I don't disagree with you that it's more prevalent now. I just believe that it was always there. It's just more in the open now. Those people have always existed, they just have a forum now.

I've got to assume this is what people want, isn't it? Now you know who and where they are. It's easier to combat a foe when you know where he is

Just ask the Army in Iraq :)

I really believe that 20 years ago, anti-semitism was worse - it just didn't have a medium to broadcast its views. I would say that Christians (as a whole) now support Jews and Israel MORE than they did maybe 20 years ago.

JMHO

TV (Harry)

Inspector Callahan--With all due respect, I wasn't referring to ordinary disagreements between reasonable people. I was talking about the explosion of hate speech against Jews that has made what happened in the 1930s seem like, well, small potatoes. That kind of namecalling, as we have learned to our sorrow, lays the groundwork for the sticks and stones that usually follow.

#25

Just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you? True.

*grins* my colleague has a notice above his desk that says Only the paranoid survive.

Charles,

"No weaseling..."? Please! Check this out...

"I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them?"

Laughing Buddha (51), I'm not so quick to let Easterbrook off the hook either. Because if he can really defend the thoughts behind his words -- words like "Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?" -- then he is clearly defending his raising of the ethnic, national and/or religious affiliation of Eisner and Weinstein at all. Regardless of how he "expresses" it, what he insists is that Jews should know better, and non-Jews should hold Jews to a higher standard than they hold to themselves. Nice.

When will the Jews stop being a biblical apparition to so many Christians? And when will they get over themselves and let us back into the human race with all its (and our) warts and boogers?

Inspector Callahan (56), "hyper-sensitive" my ass.

I'd like to add another comment on being "paranoid"

There is a poster here who talkes about Christian Soldiers and how Jews are beholden to American Christians for saving Jews in WWII. This type of thinking and posting becomes more and more prevalent every day.

Tell me again why I shouldn't be "paranoid"

I discussed this on my livejournal, as follows:

Gregg Easterbrook attempts to apologize for his Jew-hating remarks. He gets it wrong in a couple of particulars. In the first place, he weasels in a few places about how his righteous anger simply led to a few poor word choices. In the second place, To anyone who was offended I offer my apology, because offense was not my intent. is not an apology--he doesn't admit to having done anything wrong, it's all of us *interpreting* him wrongly and daring to get offended who did the wrong thing.

In the third place he pulls the classic ploy of claiming he's okay because some of his friends are Jews: I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States. [...] I and my family sought out a place where Christians and Jews express their faith cooperatively, which seems to me a good idea.

In the fourth place and most important to me, he's only apologizing for the smaller part of what he did wrong. Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. No, Gregg, where you failed is in holding Jews to a higher standard because they've suffered so much persecution. Expecting better behavior, better moral choices out of Jews because they've been the victim of other people's bad behavior and evil moral choices. And you obviously still don't get it.

Kayawanee (65),

He should have just simply said, "you know, I never thought of myself as an anti-semite, and yet there it is deep inside me and coming out

Maybe he doesn't believe that he's an anti-semite. I have to admit the statement was clumsy, but I seriously don't believe it was anti-semitic. And I don't believe Easterbrook is an anti-semite.

And what if he did admit that? He'd probably lose his job at TNR for being anti-semitic. You know there'd be a call for his head if he admitted to that. Which gets back to my point. Because people are so sensitive about this, they can only apologize and not say how they really feel. Because the repercussions would be worse.

This is what PC has wrought.

TV (Harry)

Zionista says,

Inspector Callahan (56), "hyper-sensitive" my ass

Case in point.

TV (Harry)

#66 Inspector Callahan

I don't disagree with you either, except about whether I should be concerned or not.

I would say that Christians (as a whole) now support Jews and Israel MORE than they did maybe 20 years ago.

Again I agree, but I think this may be part of our misunderstanding. I said nothing about Christians, nor do I even think in those terms.

I believe you may be hypersensitive yourself in this area and are making some wrong assumptions here.

#71 Kris Hasson-Jones

Exactly! Very well spoken.

#65 kayawanee
I'm so glad I missed this original thread...

Does making one comment, in one article, out of literally thousands qualify one for anit-Semitism? -- especially if the comment in question is marginally ethnically derisive?

Read his original review again. Now, pretend for a moment that you know for certain Easterbrook is not an anti-Semite. Can you not see where he may have meant that he believes Jewish executives have an responsibility to their heritage and ancestry not to use gratuitous violence to score a quick buck?

Can someone use a lifetime of writings lacking any hint of bigotry to gain the benefit of doubt for one slip-up?

There are real madmen out there waiting to kill every American (Jewish or otherwise) at the first opportunity. I'm willing to venture that Easterbrook is on our side and not theirs.

There is a poster here who talkes about Christian Soldiers and how Jews are beholden to American Christians for saving Jews in WWII.

Rob, don't count me in with that group. I really don't know enough about the history behind that. I don't really care about that.

Let me simplify this. I think of you as Americans (if you are). Not necessarily as Jews. If a building were burning, and you were in it, I'd risk my life for you. It wouldn't cross my mind what religion or ethnicity you are.

I just wish everyone would feel that way. If it were that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That would be great, wouldn't it?

JMHO

TV (Harry)

Alex (58): "Would you rather him simply lie and say he's sorry when he still believes the point he put forth?"

Isn't that exactly what he does when he says "I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them?"?

I'm Jewish and say Easterbrook had the right idea but expressed it poorly. He's kinda right. Jewish people do run HollyWeird and way too much trash is turned out there. It's actually a disgrace how low they'll (Hollyweird in general) sink to make a buck out there. Trashing our American culture is not an issue for them .... they like the anarchy just so long as it doesn't reach their gated communities and expensive private schools.
It's a lot more than those too piggies who are making Jews look bad. Weinstein is a maverick and lover of film but he loves degenerate films too much and churns them out. Welcome to the dark side

I adore money above (almost) all else. You should too. What's the problem?

I believe you may be hypersensitive yourself in this area and are making some wrong assumptions here.

That's possible. But I was only referring to your point that anti-semitism is on the rise. I was just using that as an example that maybe it isn't. Maybe anti-semitism is just more visible now, not that it is more prevalent.

Just trying to clear that up.

TV (Harry)

#77 Inspector Callahan

I am not putting you the same group as the person I used as an example. I just think you are not aware of what Jews do face since it's not directed at you.

#71 Kris Hasson Jones.

Your fourth point is exactly my take on the matter - you said it more eloquently than I could.

#71 Kris H.J.

No, Gregg, where you failed is in holding Jews to a higher standard because they've suffered so much persecution. Expecting better behavior, better moral choices out of Jews because they've been the victim of other people's bad behavior and evil moral choices.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

If one's sister is hit and paralyzed by a drunk driver... shouldn't that person be less likely to drink and drive?

I have many times in my life heard people say of some particularly bad natured individual, "that is not the Christian way," or, "not the Jewish way." People of faith hold themselves to different standards than those with none.

Is admitting that fact a racist or bigoted statement as well?

Rob (70),

There is a poster here who talkes about Christian Soldiers and how Jews are beholden to American Christians for saving Jews in WWII.

Is there now! Why don't you refer people to the thread so they can decide for themselves about that?

#72 Inspector Callahan

Kayawanee (65) - And what if he did admit that? He'd probably lose his job at TNR for being anti-semitic.

I understand your point, if he's not anti-semetic, then he shouldn't say he is. But the apology he offered was too mealy mouthed for me. What I wrote was just a suggestion, but there are millions of ways of saying I'm sorry without the "I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I meant to say" bullshit.

And for your second point, that he needs to word his apology to save his job and his ass--he's gotta do what's best for himself, but I don't have to "cut him slack" for using wording that saves his own ass.

The number of antisemitic incidents in 2002 in the United States increased by eight percent from 2001. More dramatic was the 24 percent jump in antisemitic incidents on American college campuses – the third consecutive annual increase. Antisemitic incidents on campus grew out of anti-Israel or anti-Zionist demonstrations related to events in the Middle East.

The total number of antisemitic incidents in 2002 increased slightly from 2001. More striking, however, was the 24 percent increase in campus incidents. After a five-year trend of decline, campus incidents have risen for three consecutive years. Many of the 2002 incidents grew out of anti-Israel or “anti-Zionist” demonstrations or other actions in which some participants engaged in overt expression of anti-Jewish sentiments, including name-calling directed at Jewish students, placards comparing the Star of David to a swastika or vandalism of Jewish property, such as Hillel buildings. One of the most troubling episodes took place at the University of Colorado, where Jewish students were confronted by an angry, threatening crowd yelling “Nazis!” and other epithets as they held a peace vigil in September 2002. In the ensuing weeks, “Jews rot in Hell” was spray-painted on a Jewish fraternity house, and a Sukkah was defaced with a swastika.

In 2002, forty-one states and the District of Columbia reported 1,599 antisemitic incidents. That figure was up more than 8 percent from the 1,432 incidents reported in 2001.

Violence, Vandalism and Harassment
More than two-thirds, or 1,028, of all incidents reported in 2002 consisted of acts of harassment, including intimidation, threats and physical and verbal assaults directed at individuals and institutions), a 17 percent increase over 2001. This is probably due to the fact that those hostile toward Jews are resorting to forums such as Internet chat rooms, bulletin board and e-mail in greater numbers. There were 531 reports of antisemitic vandalism (including property damage, cemetery desecration and antisemitic graffiti) in 2002, the lowest in 20 years and a four percent decrease from 2001. Over the past three years, the number of vandalism incidents reported annually has declined by 27 percent. This decrease may be attributable to the increased focus of Jewish institutions on security, in light of current events, as well as the increased presence of law enforcement agents working with communities to prevent attacks

Antisemitism 2002/3 America

#78 Zionista

No that isn't what he's doing. He's telling the truth.

He's saying, "I believe the point I was trying to make. What I can't believe is how I made it in such an offensive manner. For that I'm sorry." (my interpretation of Easterbrook's comments)

New Republic is owned by a righteous Zionist Jew named Martin Peretz. My cousin went to Brandeis with him some years back. I think they were trying to kick up some dust with Easterbrook's article and boost circulation.

FWI >>> Peretz has supported Al Gore for years and leans Democratic, But not loony left Democratic.

I just wish everyone would feel that way. If it were that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That would be great, wouldn't it?

Hell yeah. Like those Yankees (sorry, first thing that came to mind) hugging and kissing after the game last night; black, white, hispanic, Japanese, all together as one. That is how I was brought up and is very much a part of my world view.

Imagine my surprise to discover that after a lifetime of believing in tolerance of all people, that among a growing segment of the population today there is a new (or revived, as you point out) view that I or my people alone should no longer be included in that brotherhood.

Talk about a wake up call. No, I don't think I am just paranoid. I think it will pass eventually, but I do worry that there will be some violence before then.

Zionista says,

Inspector Callahan (56), "hyper-sensitive" my ass

Case in point.

Feel free to expand on that thought.

#85 Marianne

Is there now! Why don't you refer people to the thread so they can decide for themselves about that?

You know damn well there is since you were part of that thread. I hold you in the same group as Robert Brandtjen

You could have posted the link yourself.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8542 _Easterbrook-_Greedy_Hollywood_Jews#comments

Alex:

I think what Easterbrook has done is delivered an honest apology as well as an explanaition. Would you rather him simply lie and say he's sorry when he still believes the point he put forth?

I don't think Gregg Easterbrook is an anti-semite, in any remotely relevant sense of the word. But I don't think he's much of a cultural critic, either.

I haven't seen Kill Bill but I've seen a lot of Tarantino in the past (True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction) and obviously these aren't films for children. Titus Andronicus isn't for children, either. For that matter, I once read about a kid who decided to kill his parents after seeing Romeo and Juliet.

The problem isn't Tarantino, or movie producers (Jewish, Christian, or other). It's people who let their kids go to R-rated movies, or allow them to be raised by cable television, while providing them with no values along the way.

dennisdw (89),

FYI, Easterbrook's article appears on his blog at thr.com, not in the magazine.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8542 #c0265

265 Robert Brandtjen 10/15/2003 09:11PM PST

BTW, kiddies, reminding you (after being told relentlessly how evil we are) that it was mainly Christian soldiers who saved what was left of European Jewry is neither anti-semitic nor is it crass (better fit here then "uncouth")- it is simply the truth.

If you cannot deal with truth, then you have a problem, not I.

Alex (88),

I intepret your interpretation as flawed.

Rob, how about linking to your own charming comments on that thread? Never mind, people can review the thread in its entirety -- including my posts, too -- and decide for themselves.

97 Marianne

I stand by every word I posted. I'd say them again. I won't be a second class citizen beholden to people like you.

Monday I wrote an item about the disgusting movie Kill Bill, which so glorifies violence as to border on filth. I was indignant that a major company whose work is mainly good, Disney, would distribute such awfulness, in this case through its Miramax subsidiary. I wondered how any top executive could live with his or her conscience by seeking profits from Kill Bill, oblivious to the psychological studies showing that positive depiction of violence in entertainment causes actual violence in children. I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.

Zionista,

Feel free to expand on that thought.

My point was (you won't agree with this) that anyone that uses "my ass" at the end of a sentence is being hyper-sensitive.

That's what I meant.

And Rob, I believe all of those stats. I guess I'm confused as to what anti-semitism means. Does it mean Jew-hatred? Or does it mean the manifestation of that hatred?

If you mean jew-hatred itself, I believe that anti-semitism has probably decreased for the reasons I've stated above. If you mean the manifestation of that jew-hatred, then I would have to say it is on the rise based on those stats.

TV (Harry)

#79 dennisw

A little history: In the 1930s, Jewish movie moguls were accused of corrupting the morals of God-fearing Americans with their salacious films. The moguls panicked, and established a code guiding movie production. The code that comical, even fanciful, in its restrictions of what could and could not be shown. (Bad guys always had to get their just deserts; no sexual hanky panky, and no double beds etc. etc.)

There was a strong element of anti-Semitism in this Hollywood backlash--alien, sinful Jews getting their money-grubbing mitts on--and sullying--decent Christian minds. At one time a raving anti-Semite of the first order named Joseph Breen was in charge of policing the film industry to ensure that everything conformed to this Draconian code.

I don't think you're suggesting that evil Jews in Hollywood are still at it today. But forgive me if I'm a bit sensitive when anyone talks about Hollywood Jews corrupting America to make a buck.

What happens when you never preview: People get "just deserts" instead of "just desserts."

Rob,

And what did I say to deserve that?

#93 Glen Wishard

Ok, your point is a bit of a side issue. Does art create violence in our world... or does our world create violent art?

And if art plays a role in global violence, is it the artist's/producer's fault, or the fault of the parent that lets their child see such graphic imagery?

Completely separate than the, is Easterbrook a racist bigot conversation.

But for my 2 cents, I think that both the parents and the producers each hold some level of responsibility. Many in the film industry will say, "if I don't make it, someone else is." That's like saying, if I don't sell this H to kids, someone else will. In my opinion, however, the final responsibility does sit with the parent(s).

By the time I went to see my first slasher flick, I was well aware that it just wasn't nice to don a hockey mask and lop off the limbs of fellow campers.

For proof that the parents (in a community sense not in a hereditary one) are primarily responsible, we need look no further than the West Bank.

The kids there volunteer to walk into diners and blow everyone up because they've been taught that's the way to score babes in the afterlife. Whereas we learned the best course was to make tons of money, drive a fast car and be cool enough turn on juke boxes with a simple thump and an, "ayy", so that's what we do.

#100 Inspector Callahan

If you mean jew-hatred itself, I believe that anti-semitism has probably decreased for the reasons I've stated above. If you mean the manifestation of that jew-hatred, then I would have to say it is on the rise based on those stats.

IC, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here. Are you trying to say that "hatred of Jews for being Jews" is down, but Jew hatred incidents (swasticas on synagogues, burning of temples, etc.) are up?

If so, I'd have to ask the question, what is the source of these hate incidents? Are you suggesting that these incidents are fueled by something other than hate or distrust or dissatisfaction with Jews?

Let me withdraw my question, which I posted without thinking it through. I've said nothing to deserve that. It's just more of Rob's spewed garbage. Anyone can go to the thread he linked, to see what I mean.

#96 Zionista

What Easterbrook said:

"I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them?"

My interpretation:

He's saying, "I believe the point I was trying to make. What I can't believe is how I made it in such an offensive manner. For that I'm sorry." (my interpretation of Easterbrook's comments)

If you disagree with my interpretation, please tell me why. And would you kindly also tell me what you understood his comment to mean.

# 103 Marianne

And what did I say to deserve that?

You denial in post #85 of what your friend said. Your comments in post #329 in the other thread. I can only surmise that you agree with Robert.

Thats why you deserve it.

Are you trying to say that "hatred of Jews for being Jews" is down, but Jew hatred incidents (swasticas on synagogues, burning of temples, etc.) are up?

To be thoroughly honest, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The anonymity of the Internet has emboldened anti-semites all around the world. Now they have somewhere they can go.

That doesn't mean that there are more new anti-semites in the world now than there were 30 years ago, for instance.

I can't prove it - it's just my opinion. However, I don't think it can't be proven the other way either.

TV (Harry)

Maybe I just don't get it. Why would ANYONE cite the religion of studio heads in a review of movie COMPLETELY UNRELATED to religion?

I'm glad he apologized. We all make mistakes, and we all need forgiveness. But something seems rotten in Denmark.

#109 Inspector Callahan

...the Internet has emboldened anti-semites all around the world....

That doesn't mean that there are more new anti-semites in the world...

Harry, where do you think new antisemites come from? Besides the madrassa, that is.

#109 Inspector Callahan

Ok. I think I know why you might believe that. For many years it was very taboo to talk "bad" about Jews, blacks, Poles, and many other ethnic groups, particularly in mixed company. At a minimum, it was not very classy to do so. However, I don't think that a lack of that type of talk translates into less hatred/distrust/dissatisfaction (etc.) of a particular ethnic group. It just sends the talk underground. The feelings are still there.

Personally, I don't think a rise in anti-semetic incidents indicates that anti-semitism is on the rise. To me it signals that it's just a little more acceptable out the open than it was a few years ago.

Rob,

To accuse me of viewing Jews as second-class citizens of this country is garbage.

Just garbage.

Inspector Callahan (100): "My point was (you won't agree with this) that anyone that uses 'my ass' at the end of a sentence is being hyper-sensitive."

Just means that I disagreed with your initial statement is all. But thanks for confirming the wisdom of it.

dennisw:

Jewish people do run HollyWeird and way too much trash is turned out there. It's actually a disgrace how low they'll (Hollyweird in general) sink to make a buck out there.

A couple of things: Not every Hollywood producer or director is Jewish, and even if they were they would not be uniquely responsible for the crap you see down at the old Cineplex.

Hollywood's product is determined by a number of things, like the demands of theater owners who are their first customers for any film project. These people are not uniformly Jewish by any means, and they tend to have definite ideas about what kind of stuff will sell. Even the video store chains swing some weight here. Then there are the investors who pay for the films. Then there are marketing analysts (typically idiots and sociopaths) who tell everybody what the public wants.

Finally, there's the public. If millions of benighted teenagers go to see Friday the 13th Part Fourteen then there will be a part Fifteen, no matter what anybody tries to do to stop it. This can be explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics alone.

#113 Marianne

If you defend the trash posted by Robert Brandtjen then you are no better then he. Here is some of that trash he posted about Jews.

ahh, I see, but it's ok for those who are beholden to spit in the face of those they are beholden to? Hmmm?

Jews beholden

Harry, where do you think new antisemites come from? Besides the madrassa, that is.

That's the point. I don't believe there are necessarily a new influx if anti-semites. Read my above posts for more details.

However, I don't think that a lack of that type of talk translates into less hatred/distrust/dissatisfaction (etc.) of a particular ethnic group. It just sends the talk underground. The feelings are still there.

Personally, I don't think a rise in anti-semetic incidents indicates that anti-semitism is on the rise. To me it signals that it's just a little more acceptable out the open than it was a few years ago.

Kayawanee, you made my point exactly how I tried to make it. Thanx.

TV (Harry)

'of' anti-semites.

I should use this neat "Preview" feature.

My bad.

TV (Harry)

But thanks for confirming the wisdom of it.

We're having a civil conversation here, Zionista. No need to be uncivil. I just tried to answer your question.

TV (Harry)

#117 Inspector Callahan

All your post shows is that there has always been a lot of anti semitism here in the US it just wasn't publicized.

Nice.

Alex (107): "If you disagree with my interpretation, please tell me why. And would you kindly also tell me what you understood his comment to mean."

Easterbrook writes in his apology, "I'm ready to defend all the thoughts in that paragraph. But how could I have done such a poor job of expressing them?"

Those thoughts are these:

"Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?"

If he is defending these thoughts, then he is clearly defending his raising of Jewish identity of Eisner and Weinstein in connection with a perceived immorality (or at best a perceived amorality). Regardless of how he "expresses" it, what he insists is that Jews should know better, and non-Jews should hold Jews to a higher standard than they hold to themselves.

Or as Kris Hasson-Jones (#71) eloquently put it, "he's only apologizing for the smaller part of what he did wrong. Where I failed most is in the two sentences about adoration of money. No, Gregg, where you failed is in holding Jews to a higher standard because they've suffered so much persecution. Expecting better behavior, better moral choices out of Jews because they've been the victim of other people's bad behavior and evil moral choices. And you obviously still don't get it."

#115 Glen Wishard

This can be explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics alone.

Lisa creates a perpetual motion machine for a Science Fair of something of that nature and Homer replies:

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermo-dynamics!"

Sorry, had to interject some humor into a quickly devolving thread.

Rob, don't tell me what I believe and don't believe. Again: to accuse me of viewing Jews as second-class citizens is nothing but garbage.

We're having a civil conversation here, Zionista. No need to be uncivil. I just tried to answer your question.

I know... I know.... "Those people are so touch," right?

Buttinski sez:

If millions of benighted teenagers go to see Friday the 13th Part Fourteen then there will be a part Fifteen, no matter what anybody tries to do to stop it. This can be explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics alone.

Forgive me for quoting myself, but I think I'm on to something here.

I propose a variation of the Darwin-Lottka Law: Natural Selection favors those movies that make the best possible use of all money controlled by neglected and poorly-educated teenagers.

Personally, I don't think a rise in anti-semetic incidents indicates that anti-semitism is on the rise. To me it signals that it's just a little more acceptable out the open than it was a few years ago.

Uh, I'm confused. If anti-semitism is "more acceptable out [in] the open," doesn't that by definition mean anti-semitism is on the rise?

If anti-Semitism was mostly expressed in "country club" ways (badmouthing privately, covertly restricting access where possible, etc.) for the past thirty years, but now it can be expressed openly and publicly, even violently - then either a) more people are anti-Semitic, thus making it "acceptable"; or b) the degree of hatred has grown.

In either case, that's a rise in anti-Semitism - whether a rise in numbers of haters, or a rise in degree of hate.

And its very openness is a bad, bad sign - this is exactly what happened in the 30's - mostly in Europe, but even here. Saying "Well, there's always been anti-Semites" is ignoring a very dangerous development.

But of course, some will still call this paranoid...

#122 RIP Ford

Sorry, had to interject some humor into a quickly devolving thread.

Thanks. I remember line. What a hilarious show.

65 kayawanee

He should have just simply said, "you know, I never thought of myself as an anti-semite, and yet there it is deep inside me and coming out. I apologize to everyone I've offending, and I guess it's time for some soul searching."

Exactly!

79 dennisw

He's kinda right. Jewish people do run HollyWeird and way too much trash is turned out there.

Shame on you! Read again what you wrote and think of how harmful that was.
It is hollywood 'capitalist' moguls who are producing films. The same kind of capitalism which most of you promote! What their religious affiliation is means nothing nor should it ever come up in a conversation or be used as a tool to describe them!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My grandfather was from Latvia. His last name is one which both Jews and gentiles share. He had strawberry blond hair, very fair skin and freckles. Once he went to the bank to borrow money. When he was denied for no good reason, he asked the banker how many Jews
had gotten loans at that bank. The banker hesitated for a moment then honestly said, 'none.' Then the banker continues to tell my grandfather that at first he thought he was Christian but that his hook nose was a dead give away.
After knocking the guy to the floor my grandpa spent a couple days in jail. The judge (deacon of a large church and pillar of the community) told him that the banker meant no harm and that he should not have taken offense by an innocent remark

To the rest of you who think we have gone bonkers here over this, are expecting the victims to turn the other cheek and become the understanding ones, sorry......you have it the wrong way. That expectation is dead and gone.
Matter of fact, there were some statements on this threat that truly saddened me-
BTW: If anyone tells me Jews are hanging on to the past as was suggested in one comment, I will find you as much as my enemy as the real enemies are.

Wow. What a double meaning mistake I just made. (128)
I meant to write thread and wrote threat instead. I'm sorry, sort of.

Glen Wishard: "I propose a variation of the Darwin-Lottka Law: Natural Selection favors those movies that make the best possible use of all money controlled by neglected and poorly-educated teenagers."

Uh-oh! Then maybe a free market needs some regulation after all....

Nah, that would mean the liberals would be right about something.

Rob,

All your post shows is that there has always been a lot of anti semitism here in the US it just wasn't publicized. Nice.

Sorry. I'm not to blame for it, I'm just stating my opinion. Do you believe that's the case?

Laura,

Uh, I'm confused. If anti-semitism is "more acceptable out [in] the open," doesn't that by definition mean anti-semitism is on the rise?

Once again, what is anti-semitism? Read my post #100. I'm not sure what the definition is. If there are less people who hate jews now than 30 years ago, which is my contention, is anti-semitism on the rise? Or is the manifestation of the hatred of those n% less jew-haters on the planet, signal a rise in anti-semitism?

Now I'm confused...

TV (Harry)

#126 Laura SF

But of course, some will still call this paranoid...

If so, then you have good reason to be paranoid. More openess of anti-semitism is a bad omen for the future treatment of Jews worldwide.

I definitely misstated something in my post to IC. The acceptability of anti-semetic talk is DEFINITELY on the rise.

All I'm trying to say is "Don't be fooled!", when the A-S talk is on the QT. That says absolutely nothing about how many people actually dislike Jews, or how much they dislike them. The undercurrent is always there.

The fact that more people feel free to use these epithets, does not necessarily mean there are MORE anti-semites, just that they are a little bolder now. Either way, it's not good for worldwide Jewry. Catastrophic events seem likely to befall us.

# 123 Marianne

You may be right Marianne. In your twisted little mind Jews may not even rank as second class citizens.

Keep defending that Christian supremacist Robert Brandtjen

That's the point. I don't believe there are necessarily a new influx if anti-semites. Read my above posts for more details.

Ok, I understood your point (don't have to re-read it) but now you are not addressing mine.

Can we agree that there must be some new antisemites? Seems logical to assume so, else all the old ones would have died out already and we wouldn't be having this discussion, right? My point is that this type of hatred must be taught.

You agree that the Internet is a powerful tool that antisemites use to disseminate their hate propaganda. Do you believe they do so simply to express their hatred? They are many other ways to do that, such as the ever-popular spray painting of swastikas. I would suggest to you that the reason they use the Internet is rather to recruit more people to their hate ideology. And it is working.

As an example, I would point to the majority of so-called liberals who have for years prided themselves on their alleged tolerance for all people, but who now find it quite reasonable to express antisemitic views. That is but one example of the success of the above-mentioned spread of propaganda.

No, I cannot prove to you that there are more antisemites today anymore than you can prove that there are less. What we do seem to agree on is that acts of antisemitism are on the rise. It seems counter-intuitive and a real stretch to draw the opposite conclusion (as a correlation of the fact that acts of antisemitism are up) that there are now less antisemites.

Zionista

First: Ok, so you may still believe what he said was anti-Semitic, but that still doesn't mean my interpretation of Easterbrooks comments today were wrong. (see 107 again)

And that is the point of contention. I'm saying that Easterbrook stands by his opinion (that maybe Jewish movie execs should be a bit more careful than non Jewish execs about their use of over-the-top violence) but he apologizes for how he conveyed them.

I don't see how you can argue with that assessment.

Second: As to the point of is Easterbrook now an anti-Semite. IMO, the answer is clearly no. He made a mistake, he offended a great number of people, and he apologized for that.

He has a right to believe the Jewish executives should possibly be more sensitive to creating violent films. Its just his opinion. Its not a law, he doesn't want it to be, and he's not making anyone a second class citizen.

If anything its an elevation to a higher moral ground on this issue.

I believe that African-American should be more against slavery than other groups of Americans. Does that make me racist?

I believe Americans who immigrated here from Moscow in the 60s or 70s should be against Communism and should be wary of making films which glorify it.

Let's be honest, its safe to say that 90%+ of big time movie execs are looking to make a ton of money with their films. Jewish execs are as free as any other religious or ethnic group to use violent to meet that goal. Easterbrook was merely saying that he believes, because of the extreme violence which has been perpetrated against the Jewish people throughout history, that maybe they shouldn't.

Disagree with the idea if you want, but it alone does not make the man an Anti-Semite.

Inspector Callahan

I'm not blaming you for anything except maybe ignorance on anti-semitism and trying to downplay it.

I agree you are confused but that is probably because your contention can not be back up by any facts.

#131 QueenEsther

I agree with you and some others on this thread. While I'm pleased with Easterbrook's apology, and I think it's better & more sincere than most, he still doesn't see that there's a problem with identifying Hollywood people as Jews - particularly in the context of criticizing them.

It's absolutely unnecessary, and it's misleading, since these people may never have fasted on Yom Kippur or gone into a synagogue in their whole lives! The implication is that if Jewish, you're marked for life - you have different obligations, different moral standards than other people. I can accept the Chabadniks saying this (because it's part of their religious viewpoint), but I have a real problem with a non-Jew (of all people!) saying it.

Frankly, anytime someone's Jewishness becomes the issue, I tend to consider it anti-Semitic (unless there's a very very good reason for it). All movie producers care about money over everything else - that's their job. Ditto Wall Street stock brokers. So to single out the Jewishness of movie producers or the Jewishness of stock brokers (a la HWSNBN) is just anti-Semitism, plain and simple.

So in my view, Easterbrook does have "issues" around Jews - but at least he's willing to apologize for them.

(sorry for the typos above) that's what happens when con. calls interrupt more important discussions about Easterbrook's movie reviews.

This thread, and the other one, is very sad.

I was born and raised a Catholic and experienced plenty of anti-Catholic bigotry. As the years went by, I gave up on the Church and belief in God. My kids have been to church twice, with their grandparents.

So, in the face of this secular background, my son asks me yesterday, "What's so terrible about being a Jew?" I asked him who told him that it was bad to be a Jew? Turns out one of his "friends" thinks he is Jewish and has been making fun of him with comments like "You're just a dirty Jew." The anti-semite in question is 9 years old.

So I get to explain to my 9 year old what antisemitism is, what and who Jews are, and some of their long history and why they are hated by many sick and twisted people. He asks, "so are we Jewish?" and I tell him "no" but they're good and decent people and I'd be proud of being Jewish if I were. Concluding with, "Buddy, your 'friend' is a very dangerous and hateful person. If I were you I would stay far away from him."

I guess this has nothing to do with Easterbrook, but I just wanted to share my pain with people who would understand.

Inspector Callahan (131): "Once again, what is anti-semitism? ...I'm not sure what the definition is."

Antisemitism can be described as a fear and loathing of Jews, and of Jews' participation, influence, or the ultimate domination of Jewish interests within a given culture or multiple cultures, perhaps even of the whole world (as we've seen from Maylasia's Prime Minister and Syria's president this week at the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conferences). This should not necessarily be confused with Nazism, which remains a highly extreme example of antisemitic ideology, but there are degrees way below it. I have yet to see a convincing argument here that absolves Easterbrook of the antisemitism that seemed very clear to me in the initial comments in his collumn about Kill Bill, vol. I.

What Easterbrook failed to mention is those "Jews" who "run" the studios do so at the pleasure of the stockholders and board of directors. They are not an island to themselves and they do not represent Jews or Judaism as the heads of those studios. They do represent the studios who operate in a secular capitalistic society. And can anyone deny that America is a violent society? He was wrong and he's still wrong.

Am I (and #137 Laura) imagining things, or did my last post just disappear? This is what it said:

#84 Alex

If one's sister is hit and paralyzed by a drunk driver... shouldn't that person be less likely to drink and drive?

Probably. But if you said "shouldn't that person be EXPECTED not to drink and drive" I'd say the question goes too far. And that was the equivalent of Easterbrook's argument (for which he has apologized for its "clumsy" expression).

The Jews running Hollywood studios do not claim to be rabbinic ethicists or Torah scholars. They are secular individuals who, living in America, have the right to work in any line of work they choose -- no matter how scuzzy.

When will the world get over its obsession with designating the proper placement for Jews in the world?

For some weird reason, inside my head I'm humming Bayom Hahu yihiyeh Adoshem echad u'shmo echad.
(On that day the Lord shall be One and his Name shall be One).

I don't think I'll hold my breath, though.

#84 Alex:

If one's sister is hit and paralyzed by a drunk driver... shouldn't that person be less likely to drink and drive?

Well, sure--they're paralyzed. But seriously, why? Why impose an additional punishment on them by expecting a higher standard of behavior from them? They're only human. They have the right to make their own mistakes and learn from them (or not).

In fact, victims may have an impaired ability to act morally until they are healed from the trauma, so the morally and ethically correct viewpoint (in my world) is to cut them more slack than you would a perpetrator or neutral party.

dennisw (#79):

It's a lot more than those too piggies who are making Jews look bad.

Don't take it the wrong way, but those are the words of a dhimmi.

Even IF one accepts the premise of their piggishness (which is a highly disputable point):

First, they dont make Jews look bad, they make Hollywood movie executives look bad.

Second, Jews have as much right to be pigs as anyone else.

#139 Thom

Wow, that's awful. I'm sorry your son had to be exposed to that, but I'm glad he had you for a father to set him right!

#135 Alex
Come on. This is simple, if you don't like the content of
movies, don't go. Period. Who makes them means nothing except to those who are anti-Semites and bigots. BTW: They are both republicans and democrats. The ones where I lived as a child were very religious and quite conservative. Nothing has changed except now they are more dangerous in many ways.

126 Laura SF
No need to split hairs. We have anti-Semites all around us, ones who admit it and ones who don't.
They are both dangerous as far as I am concerned.

But of course, some will still call this paranoid...

Guess who they are ; - ))

Alex: "And that is the point of contention. I'm saying that Easterbrook stands by his opinion (that maybe Jewish movie execs should be a bit more careful than non Jewish execs about their use of over-the-top violence) but he apologizes for how he conveyed them.

I don't see how you can argue with that assessment."

If he stands by his opinion, then what exactly is he apologizing for? What even is an apology, then? If the words that he says he defends express an antisemitic thought, then he's not revisiting the intention of his act of writing and publishing them.

#142 QueenEsther

But if you said "shouldn't that person be EXPECTED not to drink and drive" I'd say the question goes too far. And that was the equivalent of Easterbrook's argument (for which he has apologized for its "clumsy" expression).

I completely agree. Its not something someone should have to do, by law or by the judgement of others, but something they may want to consider because of their higher level of "enlightenment" to its effects.

The question with Easterbrook is, is he antisemetic because he implied EXPECTED instead of MAYBE SHOULD THINK ABOUT?

I say no.

He apologized for clumsy wording. End of story (in my book at least).

#139 Thom

I hear ya and share your pain. I mentioned video games earlier.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I am not the type to blame violent video games or violent movies for all of society's ills. But, I have a little story to tell that may help explain in part why some kids (like your son's "friend") have such views.

Several years ago I was one of the last people I know to buy a home PC. I was new to the Internet and was exploring all that the PC had to offer. Naturally, I also explored computer games.

One particular game which was quite popular at the time was a game called "HalfLife," maybe you have heard of it. In any case, there is an online multiplayer component to the game, called "Team Fortress." So I checked it out.

I was shocked to find that every other word out of most players' mouths was "Jew this," and "Jew that." WTF was going on here I wondered? I think I found my answer a short while later.

Certain servers, when you connected to them to play, would automatically download a new level of the game onto your PC. This new level or "map" as they called it was full of authentic nazi-era propaganda posters plastered on the virtual walls within the game. I couldn't believe my fucking eyes.

I took screen shots (still have them on disk somewhere, maybe I should post them for all to see), I complained, I sent copies to every major news carrier in the NY area. Now, understand that this was at a time when the media was blaming violent games for everything, including Columbine. But no one would touch it.

I never received a response and I never heard a word about it. As far as I know it is still played today, and nazi imagery is still automatically downloaded to players' PCs.

Now, can you imagine young boys caught up in the excitement of the game and what exposure to this imagery does? It creates a positive connotation with the excitement they feel when playing the game.

Simply sick.

#143 Kris Hasson-Jones

Well, we differ here. Yes I believe someone who has personally experienced tramau should be given some slack.

What I don't believe is that those who bare witness, up close and personal witness... should go out and promote the same tragedy to occur again.

Either way, believing what you do or what I do, DOES NOT make one of us antisemitic, or racist, or bigotted.

Queen Esther (142): "When will the world get over its obsession with designating the proper placement for Jews in the world?"

Bullseye! It seems as if the world has a serious need to resent the Jews for the introduction of messianic redemption among the popularly surviving theologies of human civilization. In other words, when we aren't condemned for killing Jesus, we are condemned for not living up to the commandments he ostensibly came to relieve the nations of.

146 selpaw

Oh, I agree with that completely too. I'm not arguing that Easterbrook is right about violent movies. The only thing I'm debating here is, does his opinion make him antisemitic?

I say no. It may make him foolish, in a do we even have to go there? sense a-la Rush Limbaugh.

But antisemitic? I just don't think so.

#145 Laura SF

Thank you - I'm glad he does too. :)

#149 freedomsound

Good grief. I didn't know about that although I've heard of HalfLife. I don't let him play games online, but he's a big fan of Unreal, Tiberian Sun, Morrowind, and Age of Empires and some Tom Clancy game, Rainbow 6 or something. Come to think of it, I'm a big fan myself. (Maybe that's why I have kids - so I can play computer games without feeling guilty.)

Rob, your last comment directed to me --

... In your twisted little mind Jews may not even rank as second class citizens...

is just more of the same. I've already said twice now, it's garbage. I can't stop you from spewing, but I don't need to keep responding to it, either. Other people are trying to have a discussion here, and I'm not going them to keep interrupting them, just to continue this with you. And I sure as hell can't reason with you, so that's that. To use an apt expression I've seen here before: I'm done with you.

#150 Alex

What I don't believe is that those who bare witness, up close and personal witness... should go out and promote the same tragedy to occur again.

You do realize that Eisner and Weinstein aren't Holocaust survivors? I suppose you further realize that Kill Bill, a movie in which a bunch of murderers murder each other, isn't "the same tragedy" as the Holocaust, or most violent Holywood movies for that fact.

Easterbrook's point was crap, forget about the words he chose to convey his crap point.

OT The BBC has a positive photo journal on the Iraqi police:
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

James, do I remember correctly that you were one of the people here who was troubled by the Mel Gibson movie? Commentary magazine had an essay by Michael Novak about it, followed by a Letter to the Editor regarding Novak's essay from a rabbi disputing what Novak had to say, if I remember correctly. Quite interesting. But I don't know if the material is available online without paying.

zionista

Final post on this topic (although I will come back to read your reply if there is one).

Queen Esther (142): "When will the world get over its obsession with designating the proper placement for Jews in the world?"

I can agree with that. I think Easterbrooks bottom line points were:

Excessive violence in films contributes to violence in society. (a point which I really don't support too strongly)

Jewish film makers and financers maybe should be even more sensitive to creating violent films because of the history of oppression against them. (a tenuous position at best)

Does that make him anti-Semitic? In my opinion, no.

New Republic Editor's Apology for Anti-Semitic Column 'Insufficient'

New York, NY, October 17, 2003 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said that today's mea culpa by New Republic Senior Editor Gregg Easterbrook for his anti-Semitic writings on the Hollywood film industry was "insufficient," and called on Easterbrook and the magazine to make a clear statement of apology. The League responded after Easterbrook published "An Apology" on the New Republic's Web site, where he characterized his original remarks as a "poor wording."

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We expect more from The New Republic. Gregg Easterbrook's mea culpa is insufficient. It's a rationalization. There is no excuse for bringing religion into a discussion about greed and the film industry. Greed is a human frailty. Money is not only colorless, it is faithless.

By injecting religion into his criticism about the film industry – in his identifying Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Michael Eisner of Disney as Jewish – Mr. Easterbrook summons up classic stereotypes that Jews are greedy, money-grubbing and morally deficient. His column feeds into the classic canard of "Jewish control" of Hollywood, a charge that has led to blaming Jews for contributing to the general decline of society through their "control" of popular culture.

Sadly, instead of making a clear apology and a rejection of anti-Semitic stereotypes, Mr. Easterbrook says he "wrote poorly" and was misunderstood. Mr. Easterbrook's remarks reflect either absolute ignorance or total bigotry. We find it hard to fathom that a senior editor at The New Republic could have absolutely no knowledge of the hateful canards about greed and Jewish moneylenders that have contributed to two-thousand years of persecution against the Jewish people.

Freedomsound (134),

Alas, you may be right. I hope you're not, but you may be right.

I guess only time will tell.

TV (Harry)

152 Alex
I have lived a whole life hearing both veiled innuendoes and ones in the open. I can spot one a mile away. I have heard them from both friends and strangers.
Some of the meanest ones being "Just get over it."

Easterbrook's comments are nothing new. He made his point with one of the oldest in the book and that is Jews and greed go hand in hand. His entire premise was way over the top and quite unnecessary, indeed.
I thought rather transparent to tell you the truth. He felt a bit ashamed of writing about them and that is why he used the analogy of Jews having suffered. I have heard many variations on that theme as well, believe me.

Look. I am wasting precious time defending myself!
I don't need to defend myself.....How absurd. How foolish. I did nothing.
Not one thing has changed except that I fell into that trap of defending myself once again.

I agree you are confused but that is probably because your contention can not be back up by any facts.

And the tension thickens...

All right, Rob. You're reaching your pissed-off point (if you haven't crossed it already).

It is my opinion. My opinion is based on some facts - maybe not all of them, but then again you don't have that luxury either.

It is my opinion that this is a dead horse. You're going to believe what you want, I'm going to believe what I want. Like I said before, I can't back my opinion any more than my own beliefs and interactions with others.

I lived near a Jewish neighborhood near Detroit, have worked in a Jewish neighborhood for the last 14 years, and I don't see ONE LICK of anti-semitism. Anywhere.

That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because you've seen it more often, it doesn't mean that it's on the rise either.

Like I said, it is just my opinion. You don't have to agree. Let's agree to disagree and call a truce, OK?

TV (Harry)

#161 selpaw

I have lived a whole life hearing both veiled innuendoes and ones in the open. I can spot one a mile away. I have heard them from both friends and strangers.

So have I. But then, we all have our prejudices.

I hope you don't feel as though you were defending yourself, as much as you were presenting your point of view on this issue. I'm not trying to attack you, or anyone else.

I think in the end, we all just have different thresh holds for what we will let pass as foolish and harmless vs. racist or anti-Semitic.

Alex (158),

I have no fear that Gregg Easterbrook will have me shipped to a death camp. But he did publish comments asserting that Jews have an inordinate amount of responsibility for the adverse effects of the entertainment industry on American culture, and he defended it on followup. This does not make him a Nazi. He may not even reach the level of antisemitic ideologue. But the sentiment inside of him that he expressed, published, and subsequently defended sustains an antisemitic canard.

Marianne (#123)

Rob, don't tell me what I believe and don't believe.

Oh but it doesn't suit you when your sincerity is questioned, eh? You're such a phony.

Alex (152): "The only thing I'm debating here is, does his opinion make him antisemitic?"

If not an opinion, I am curious about what would make someone an antisemite? Hitler had the opinion that Jews exerted too much influence on German society. Bashar al-Assad has the opinion that Jews are a decadent foreign element in a rightfully Arab region. Easterbrook defends the notion that Jewish film producers have an inordinate responsibility for the proliferation of violence in American culture, and that their being Jewish as opposed to film producers or Americans makes them so.

With what definition are you using the word "antisemitic" here?

And when does an opinion cross over that line?

I'm closer to being in Roger Simon's camp than Charles' because I do agree some self examination is in order. I believe Greg Easterbrook is sorry about offending and understands why what he said was offensive but what he said and alleged really can't be chalked off as a misformed series of statements poorly and inaccurately condensed by the free form succint nature of the blog format. Ask yourself this: WHY is religion a factor? Does he even make any kind of compelling argument along that line? The BEST answer you can come up with (and is probably on the mark) is that Easterbrook genuinely feels that Jewish people should be held to a higher standard of morality and in this case specifically, what a scandal that greedy Jewish directors contribute to human desensitization towards violence. Even when you remove the ugly insinuation about Jewish supergreed (which Easterbrook recognizes conjures up long existing gross stereotypes of Jews) I find it deeply disturbing the warped and morally inverted idea that Jews who were the victims (and let's be fair and say that most Jewish directors and media moguls were not direct or even indirect second generation Holocaust victims) have a moral DEBT to pay because of it and somehow that they dont do it to satisfaction leaves many people uneasy.

a movie in which a bunch of murderers murder each other, isn't "the same tragedy" as the Holocaust

Yes! I was thinking about this very issue a minute ago... Not only did he use the "Jews = amoral money-grubbers" trope, not only did he imply that the Jews should be more moral than other people, not only did he point out the Jewishness of 2 people who might not even identify themselves as Jews, but he basically trivialized the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorism.

A violent movie is not real. There is no evidence that viewing violent movies makes people into mass murderers. So what was his point in implying some connection? To blame Jewish producers for causing mass murder? I don't think so. Or to suggest that the violence caused by exposure to violent movies is "almost as bad as" the Holocaust? Again, that's trivializing the Holocaust, and I'm utterly sick of it.

Heck, I'm a little sick of this thread, too. Ciao!

Here's my take from my blog:

The strong points of this apology are as follows:

1) It is, truly, an apology. He doesn't claim to be the victim of PC hypersensitivity. He doesn't say he was misinterpreted. He doesn't offer a million qualifiers. He says "I'm sorry". And, he correclty identifies a major part, but not all, of what he has to be sorry about.

2) In the second paragraph that I pasted here, he correctly surmises how his qualifier regarding non-Jewish executives also worshipping money fell woefully short in negating the poisonous anti-Semitism of accusing Jews of worshipping money. He apologizes for this unequivocally, fully understanding what the implications of his statement as written and posted are. It seems to me now that in this part at least he is guilty of no more than woefully sloppy writing and thinking. Bad enough for a professional writer, but not as bad as bigotry. This is the strongest part of the apology.

3) He brings up the important exculpatory point that he has also excoriated Mel Gibson for glorifying violence on film while professing to be a Christian.

The apology, however, has several severe flaws:

1) He does not at all elaborate on his most contentious point: that Jews, because of having suffered the Holocaust, now have a special duty to not participate in glorifying violence. Why is this true? Do those of other faiths and ethnicities also have this special duty?

2) He does not explain why, of all the people involved in the production and distribution of this film, he found it most relevant to note two Jewish executives.

3) He does not answer the charge that seeming to hold members of a certain group to a higher moral standard than members of other groups constitutes bigotry against that group.

4) Most importantly, in the manner of all anti-Semites throughout history, he utterly conflates Jewish ethnicity and religion. This weakens his point that he has made analogous statements regarding Mel Gibson. Gibson is a professed, active Catholic. Does he know whether or not Weinstein and Eisner are Observant Jews? Or, is he making these statements simply because they have Jewish sounding family names? For all he knows Weinstein and Eisner are totally secular Jews who have never been to Temple in their life, don't give a damn about Israel etc. etc. If this is the case, it completely negates his argument that they have a certain faith which should preclude them from financing or distributing Kill Bill Conflating Jewish culture, religion, and ethnicity is a classic anti-Semitic trope. In essence, he is singling out Weinstein and Eisner simply for being born Jewish, i. e. he is simply being anti-Semitic.

Apology not accepted.

I believe there will be a Tim Rutten piece in tomorrow's LAT on this controversy for which Easterbrook has been interviewed as have I. It should be interesting.

#168 Laura SF

[deep breath]

So what was his point in implying some connection? To blame Jewish producers for causing mass murder? I don't think so. Or to suggest that the violence caused by exposure to violent movies is "almost as bad as" the Holocaust?

Some people (right or wrong) believe violent imagery on television and movies leads to increased violence in society. Easterbrook is not saying the producers killed anyone, but he is allowed to hold the view that perceived violence creates violence -- if nothing else then from desensitization.

He does not compare the violence caused by exposure to violence to the Holocaust. Not even close.

What he does caution against is "glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice." It would be hard to argue against the fact that groups such as Neo Nazis, Skinheads, the KKK, al Qaeda, etc. use violent recruiting films to glorify their murderous actions.

(pre-emptive strike, yes I know Kill Bill is not a recruiting film for the KKK)

#166 Zionista

Of course opinions are precisely what makes one anti-Semitic. What I was asking is, does this particular opinion qualify him for such dark compay?

In my opinion no.

What he said was foolish. I'm glad he issued an apology. And it does not make him anti-Semitic in my opinion.

OK, I said I was going away, and I do have to run, but -

he is allowed to hold the view that perceived violence creates violence -- if nothing else then from desensitization.

We won't argue the facts, though I could. But by bringing up the Holocaust and terrorism, he's putting it on a par with the kind of violence created by violent films. And they are nothing like "senseless violence" - they are highly political, highly organized, and socially embraced.

I very much doubt the KKK recruits with randomly violent films - they no doubt require a certain ideology. And that's the difference - a film that is violent without conveying a particular ideology may be gross, stupid, and a waste of talent, but it's not going to lead to organized, hate-ridden violence. So why did he imply otherwise?

Gotta run! Nice "talking" to you, Alex!

162 162 Inspector Callahan 10/17/2003 12:21PM PST

I agree you are confused but that is probably because your contention can not be back up by any facts.

And the tension thickens...

All right, Rob. You're reaching your pissed-off point (if you haven't crossed it already).

Now thats rich. Pointing out the fact that you haven't been able to back up one thing you've said here means I'm reaching the pissed off point? That's pretty lame. I love how you a non Jew is going to say anything about anti-semitism when it has never been directed at you. I'd have to say on reason why people find it so easy to be anti-semetic is because of all the denials that it exists in the first place. or that it isn't so bad.

#154 Marianne

Other people are trying to have a discussion here, and I'm not going them to keep interrupting them, just to continue this with you

You are the one who posted to me. You are psycho.

Zulubaby, I answered you on the other thread, and that's my answer. You want to spew over here, go ahead, I can't stop you. But my answer stands as it is.

#163 Alex

I hope you don't feel as though you were defending yourself, as much as you were presenting your point of view on this issue. I'm not trying to attack you, or anyone else.

Wait a minute. I 'was' having to defend myself from others who are rationalizing this thing to the point of being ridiculous. Read through the posts again. I heard more name calling and silly accusations thrown to the victims then to the victimizer. How sick is that?
And Alex, this is not my point of view this is reality and it is getting old. People can say what ever they want without the least concern for it's awful long lasting consequences. Then they issue an apology and those like myself that question not the apology in and of itself but the basis of what that person said are the ones who go under the fire and become challenged. It is bullshit.
Both the left and right are apologists. I heard it here today and frankly it nauseates me. No more half hearted apologies and no more people making excuses for those that end up putting both feet in their mouth. One step further, I am sick to death of people telling me I am hysterical, reading too much into it and to move on and turn the other cheek, etc.

#153 Thom

Yeah, we are big kids sometimes, and I like computer games just as much as the next guy. Anyway, just wanted to share that story.

I posted a screenshot of what I'm talking about here:
[Link: img.villagephotos.com...]
so people can see just what I'm talking about.

I will leave it up only for a short while, as I don't want to pollute the Internet with such filth.

Keep in mind that this was accessed through the standard in-game interface, and downloaded automatically by the server. In other words, you don't have to go searching for it, it finds you.

Rob,

Your reply to me:

I love how you a non Jew is going to say anything about anti-semitism when it has never been directed at you. I'd have to say on reason why people find it so easy to be anti-semetic is because of all the denials that it exists in the first place. or that it isn't so bad.

Complete and utter bullshit. You don't know a damn thing about me, so don't think you can read my mind, and don't put words in my mouth.

Only Jews can talk about anti-semitism? Only Catholics can talk about anti-Catholicism? Only Arabs can talk about anti-Islamofascism? I guess we'd have to shut down this blog if that were the case.

I stated that we had two different opinions, and it seems no one is changing anyone else's mind. I know you think you're right. I think I'm right. We just disagree.

As for everyone else on this thread but Rob, I'm sorry if I ruffled some feathers. It was not my intent. Just a good discussion of a major issue. I find this fun.

As for Rob: I tried to give you a peace offering, you threw it in my face. So kindly kiss my ass.

TV (Harry)

Marianne (#175)

Zulubaby, I answered you on the other thread, and that's my answer.

Again mistaking me for someone who cares what you think.

You want to spew over here, go ahead, I can't stop you.

Thanks, your majesty, for giving me permission to "spew".

But my answer stands as it is.

Good because people will see what a phony you are. You addressed me, remember? And now it upsets you when I respond? Tough luck. If you don't like my "spew" then may I suggest that you stop antagonizing me? Quite frankly, you have this strange obsession with me which is creepy. You're bloody psycho!

Some peace offereing Harry.

All right, Rob. You're reaching your pissed-off point (if you haven't crossed it already).

Go kiss your own ass jerk.

177 freedomsound
Right on, friend!! It is a sick world. There is so much anti-Semitism out there that we can't even begin to see it all or know about it all......so much so that when you reflect on all that hate you just want to sit down and cry.

And this is the in your face, out in the open, ugly stuff. Sometimes I think it is the veiled innuendoes that are the worst. Then there are even layers beneath that to which we need to worry about as well. It is the tiny seeds of hate which sometimes does not appear to be out and out hate which take root and grows and flourishes over time. It never ends.

I truly think it is the people who rationalize and worse marginalis it make me the most angry.

Oh yes Harry, You don't no diddley about Anti-Semitism.

On Topic and wonderful:

They said that during the month of Nisan, Jews from as far away as Baghdad would celebrate the "Festival of the Prophet Nahum." It would be a great celebration that would last for a few days and everybody in the town would enjoy it. The Jews, my hosts related, were known for being great scribes, and masters of the Aramaic language, and Jews and Christians would come from all over Iraq to learn from them.

As we prepared to leave, they asked us if there was anything we could do to restore the synagogue. We told them we could not. But would a Jewish house of worship in the middle of their village be welcome?

Their answer gave us hope in humanity. They said they would be honored to have such a holy place restored to its original condition. They felt it was a national treasure. The caretaker told us that as long as God granted him life he would defend the holiness of the place. As he said this, the other villagers nodded in agreement.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Inspector Callahan (178): "So kindly kiss my ass."*

*
My point was (you won't agree with this) that anyone that uses "my ass" at the end of a sentence is being hyper-sensitive. (#100)

Does that only work for Jews?

who is kissing ass?

184 Zionista

>---------> Good for you

Nu..? Who's hypersensitive?

I wasn't going to respond, but I'm forced to.

Zionista, you're right, I'm hyper-sensitive. When I'm insulted, and told that because I am not of a particular ethnic group, I can't form a particular opinion, that's an insult. I'm a human being - I know what anti-semitism is, I don't need to be told by some stranger what it is.

It took me a longer time than you to get to that sensitive point, so my sensitivity level must be hardier than yours...

And once again Rob, how the hell do you know what I know? Because I don't agree with you? You don't know shit about me. Just what you read from posts from one thread. And you think guys like me are prejudiced. Look in the mirror. You're making judgments about me and you don't know the first thing about me.

And selpaw - "Good for you"? What does that mean?

Folks, all I did was present my opinion. I was quite clear that it was only my opinion.

Once again, if I've offended, it's not intentional. But my opinion is my opinion. You don't have to like it.

TV (Harry)

Inspector Callahan (188): "Zionista, you're right, I'm hyper-sensitive. When I'm insulted, and told that because I am not of a particular ethnic group, I can't form a particular opinion, that's an insult...."

What a wuss! Who the fuck is keeping you from forming your own opinion anyway? There's a difference between censorship and disagreement that you should really compel yourself to learn. Your opinion is nothing anyone has to bow down to.

Inspector Callahan and everyone else,

When I said "Hypersensitivity my ass," I was being immature and impulsive. At least some of the time I am immature and impulsive. Sometimes folks are touchy. Sometimes folks really are antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic. And occasionally we all get to be right and wrong about things.

#190 zionista
Please read this link. You need some joy and wonder.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

good for you?

Intended to congratulate #184 Zionista.

Hey Harry I never called you prejudiced. I never called you anything. All I did was point out that you made a claim and then you never backed it up even though you had ample chance to.

This is a subject that Jews take very seriously. Your dismissal of the views of people who are subject to it is a big deal.

So go on Harry, tell me what your experience with anti semitism is. Tell me what I need to know about you.

191 ralph

What a WONDERFUL story! I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes.

Time to finish prepping supper and call the family togather.

Bless you all.

191 ralph

Nice. Very nice.

Here is something I found a few months ago.

The Jews of Iraq
Commentary by Dr. Gerhard Falk

The Jewish community in Iraq has lived in that country for 2,700 years, longer than the Arabs and much longer than any Moslem, since Islam was not founded until 630.

The first Jews to come to ancient Mesopotamia (Greek = between the rivers) were brought there by Assyria after some of the northern tribes of Israel were defeated by that powerful empire in 722 before the Common Era. Then, in 586 BCE the Babylonians, living in the area now called Iraq, conquered the southern part of Israel and enslaved the Jews. Those Jews who then lived in the Babylonian Exile produced the Babylonian Talmud between 500 and 700 C.E. (Common Era).

Baghdad and the whole of the Mesopotamian area became part of the Byzantine Empire after the Roman Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Byzantium, a small town located in present day Turkey. He called the new capital Constantinople or The City of Constantine (Greek). Greek was spoken in the Byzantine Empire and Latin in the Western part of the Empire. That led to the dissolution of the Roman Empire, with the result that in 1453 Constantinople was overrun by the Turks who ruled there until the British defeated the Turks during the First World War. That made the British the overlords of the erstwhile Turkish Empire.

The British therefore ruled Iraq from 1918 until 1932, when Iraq was given its independence. The new king was appointed by the British but did not last long. He was deposed by a military “coup” which finally seized all power under Saddam Hussein.

During the second World War, the British returned to Iraq. Then, during 1941, some Iraqi officers sided with the Nazi Germans and forced the British to temporarily withdraw. At once anti-Jewish riots led to the murder of 180 Jews. The British returned shortly and stayed until the end of World War II.

Thereafter the Jewish community continued in Iraq until 1948, when almost all Jews were dispossessed and forced to flee their most ancient home because the Arabs, defeated in their effort to destroy Israel, vented their disappointment on their local Jewish neighbors. Terrible persecutions of the Iraqi Jews ensued after May 1948 when Israel became an independent country. 113 thousand Jews fled Iraq that year. Thereafter Iraq would no longer allow Jews to emigrate, although many Jews escaped from there just the same.

Constant surveillance was then used to “keep the Jews from leaving.” However in 1950 the policy was changed and Jews were permitted to leave. These Jews then migrated to Israel, the United States and Australia. Between 1949 and 1951, 104,000 Jews emigrated from Baghdad as Zionism i.e. Judaism became a capital crime. The property of these refugee Jews was stolen by the Iraqi population just as it was stolen from all the Jews forced to leave other Arab countries.

A few Jews remained in Iraq even after 1951. These Jews were forced to carry yellow identity cards (as in Nazi Germany). Jews were placed under house arrest, their telephones were disconnected, and eleven Jews were hanged in public to the enjoyment of screaming crowds of barbarians who shouted “death to the Jews.”

This lead to the smuggling of more Jews out of Iraq into Israel, so that today only 38 Jews are left in Baghdad.

In 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, which would have been used in the production of atomic bombs by that Nazi country. The whole world condemned Israel, of course. The so-called U.N. condemned Israel and the anti-Jewish hate mongers in our State Department wanted to use this bombardment to deprive Israel of American support. President Reagan vetoed both of these efforts and stood by Israel.

Consider what would have been our situation if the Iraqis had the nuclear bomb in 1991 and now. We were the beneficiaries of the bombing of the Osirak reactor and did not have to face an atomic power in Iraq then or now. All those who screamed their head off because Israel destroyed that reactor ought to apologize to Israel for their stupidity at that time. They should also let Jonathan Pollard out of prison because it was Pollard who alerted Israel to that danger and it was Pollard who has saved many American lives by giving Israel that information.

Today, we have a President who understands the danger that Iraq and Syria and Iran pose for this country and anyone else who values freedom and democracy. The anti-Jewish hate mongers who demonstrate in the streets for Hussein and his bloody dictatorship are the only crowd still in love with that Nazi. These demonstrators were born too late. Had they been born seventy years ago they could have demonstrated for Hitler, as did so many of their grandfathers.

Shalom u’vracha.

Dr. Gerhard Falk is the author of numerous publications, including Grandparents: A New Look at the Supporting Generation (with Dr. Ursula A., Falk, 2002), & Man's Ascent to Reason (2003).

Bensmom (#194)

I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes

I am too. Thanks for the link, ralph.

194 Bensmom
When I read the sacred quest earlier in the day it reminded me there truly is goodness and hope in this world. Sometimes I forget that-

Thank you for in the end it was you who rescued this angry thread and brought us all to our senses.

195 Rob
Here is the link for Jews of Iraq

#155 James

Easterbrook's point was crap, forget about the words he chose to convey his crap point.

I like the way you think!

#148 Alex
It's nice that you agree with me, but your drunk driving analogy doesn't support Easterbrook. He should neither "expect" nor "maybe should think about" whether or not another person ought to be held to a higher standard. And I don't care to ponder whether he's an antiSemite or not. He has proven himself - at least on this topic - to be ignorant.

Same to #178 Inspector Callahan - Only an individual can determine his or her own ethical behavior.

Only Jews can talk about anti-semitism?

In this case, yes. And only a Black person can use the N word.

I don't need Easterbrook telling me how a Jew ought to behave. Then, now or ever.

#151   Zionista
As to the collective behavior of the Jewish People, given the circumstances over the millennia, its can only be described as exemplary.

Elie Wiesel said that after the Holocaust, it would have been understandable if groups of Jews were to burn down entire cities. But they did not.

That's good enough for me.

#181 selpaw

It is the tiny seeds of hate which sometimes does not appear to be out and out hate which take root and grows and flourishes over time.

So true. And in that case they certainly have a very receptive, impressionable target audience in young kids.

#51 Laughing Buddha

I wouldn't be so quick to let him off the hook and this is the same old mealy-mouthed "Gee, I'm so sorry you misunderstood me but I stand by every word I said" style of 'apology' we're all so used to seeing.

Exactly. I'm not impressed either.

Agree also with Laura SF #168 and EriC Dreamer #169, and selpaw and others not thinking much of this "apology".

His whole point about movies was crap, but, he could have simply directed his criticism either to Hollywood and the movie industry in general (not to mention, like someone has noted, that a lot of violent movies also come from places like Hong Kong, Japan, etc.), or, at specific producers/directors based on the actual films they made, not what ethnic or religious group they belong to.

Also, about his "Jews should be extra careful in depicting violence because of the Holocaust" - wasn't anyone reminded of the classic antisemitic demonisation of any self-defence measure Israel takes, as in "Jews should be even more sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians because that's what they suffered too".

Ok, it is a different context, and the second case is a lot more direct and overt not to mention entire distorting history - but it's based on the same smug double standards crap. Stay in your place, victims! More or less overtly or subtly, that's what it is. Doesn't seem to me his apology is retracting that, in fact, it's making that even clearer.

Apply his "reasoning" to any other ethnic group, and see how it sounds. And again, imagine this had been written in The Guardian.

Also, check out Easterbrook's attack on that scholar who criticised Gibson and exposed his tactics, Paula Fredriksen. How lame is this:

Fredriksen quotes Gibson as agreeing his film might "upset Jews," then immediately declares, "You do not have to be Jewish to find anti-Semitism alarming and morally repulsive." Of course. But wait, merely to "upset" Jewish men or women constitutes anti-Semitism?

And to justify that, he goes and contradicts his point about violence in movies, and in an even more idiotic way:

Disturbing the audience is the prerogative (sometimes, the obligation) of artists; if upsetting audiences means you are demonstrating ethnic hatred, then most of the world's great art must go into a bonfire

And then:

Have we gotten to the point where anyone who merely disagrees with the ADL worldview is guilty of anti-Semitism?

Hence missing the main point of the whole controversy and of the argument by Fredriksen, which was perfectly logical and very well supported. He's accusing her of wanting to censor Gibson, when she merely expressed her views. His own reasoning is full of holes and leaps. It's really irritating. I don't know how this guy can be taken seriously at all. He "apologised" merely to try and save face but he must have been cursing under his breath the fact he got so "easily" accused of antisemitism, and probably blaming the ADL for it...

#177 freedomsound

Dang. I wasn't around last night and I missed your file. You could email it to me if you want, I'd like to see what you're describing.

Thom

Sorry about that. I put some images up again so you can see. Try these links and keep your barfbag handy:

[Link: img.villagephotos.com...]

[Link: img.villagephotos.com...]

[Link: img.villagephotos.com...]

#203 freedomsound

Lovely.

Castle Wolfenstein had similar things in it, but if I recall correctly the point of that game was specifically to kill Nazis.

I can't make out the third word in the untitled.bmp. Can you make it out?

"Am ende *?* der Sieg!" Maybe it's "steht"?

#204 Thom

I think that's it, if that makes sense.

Man, this shit really bothers me.

Thom

By the way, forgot to mention that when I stumbled upon this crap (about 5 or 6 years ago) there were players on the game using names like "The Jew Exterminator" and "Oven Fresh Jews." Really repulsive shit.

199 freedomsound

So true. And in that case they certainly have a very receptive, impressionable target audience in young kids.

This is why parents must be parents!
Unfortunately, parents don't do the best job guiding their children and watching where they go on the internet. Then of course there is the problem of kids hearing what their parents say, Some of what kids
are and what they become begins in the home! We can't forget the influence by friends which of course is enormous.
Anyway, for as much anti-Semitism as there is, kids needn't look far.

#201 zaza
You made some awesome points. The more I think about it, Easterbrook is a sicko. The best thing he could do now is keep his mouth shut.
I wish he would be fired but then we would get into all the rationalizations on free speech which would only attract more attention to him and more on us as to how misguided we are for criticizing him! The old tactic of shift the blame is making me crazy.

Zulubaby wrote in #139:

Good because people will see what a phony you are. You addressed me, remember? And now it upsets you when I respond? Tough luck. If you don't like my "spew" then may I suggest that you stop antagonizing me? Quite frankly, you have this strange obsession with me which is creepy. You're bloody psycho!

Anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of creepy hang-up, according to you, and they're always out to get you, according to you.
_______________________________

A few recent examples:

Zulubaby to Zionista - "U.N. Day of Shame"
#364 zulubaby 9/21/2003 11:43AM PST
... You've got a bitch on about something that I suspect has nothing to do with the UN or view from Ireland... Interesting that after reading the abuse that Yair dished out to me and several others on this thread you write:["Shavua Tov to [Zair]]... Yet you ignore... me...

Zulubaby to Eugene - "Soundvision Kidz..."
#108 zulubaby 8/26/2003 11:27AM PST
... Interesting that you take this up with me and not with the "nuke 'em all" posters themselves. Why is that? Seems a little passive-aggressive..."

Zulubaby to Eugene - again - from "Soundvision Kidz"
#113 zulubaby 8/26/2003 12:27PM PST
Funny that you take this opportunity to attack me but have not a word to say about any of the "others". Why is that?...

Zulubaby to reaganite - from "Soundvision Kidz"
[After reaganite questions zulubaby's reaction to Eugene]
#135 zulubaby 8/26/2003 08:33PM PST
... Other people responded to [Eugene's] post too, but he's decided to take it up with me, and only me, as have you, it seems. Interesting. ... You chose to push the issue... You're looking for a fight, and why! I'm the perfect candidate!... Go beat up on someone else reaganite...
_______________________________

Do all these people have psychological problems, or is it just you, Zulubaby? I'm not going to review all 2,450 threads where you've posted comments, but in looking through a few of the early ones, the pattern was already pretty clear way-back-when:

Zulubaby to Mr. Mist - "Rest in Peace, Gal"
#191 zulubaby 6/24/2002 10:42PM PST
... You are obviously enjoying yourself enormously.... Your entire attitude is insensitive and spiteful, and don't be coy, you are just thrilled that you've antagonized people... I’m glad you’re enjoying yourself... The pleasure you take in upsetting others, that is what makes you spiteful.

Zulubaby to A.F. - "Rest in Peace, Gal"
[After A.F. questions Zulubaby's "rather strange" reaction to Mr. Mist]
#194 zulubaby 6/26/2002 12:56AM PST
... I find it strange that you find my reaction strange... I think Misty is someone who takes enormous pleasure in stirring things up for the sake of getting a reaction...

________________________________

No, I don't think you're a psycho, Zulubaby.
I just think you're incredibly spiteful and you take enormous pleasure in it. As you so frequently accuse others of doing.

Keep spewing, the more the better. You will only prove my point.

Marianne, you really a sick person. I'm starting to feel sorry for you. Get help.

Anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of creepy hang-up, according to you, and they're always out to get you, according to you.

No, just you, and you really do creep me out. I don't believe I've ever addressed you but you insist on repeatedly antagonizing me. You would be creeped out too. By the way, do you know who Mr. Mist is? Thought not.

I just think you're incredibly spiteful and you take enormous pleasure in it.

Classic projection. Go read Oprah or something. And again, Marianne, you're mistaking me for someone who cares what you think. How many times do I have to repeat that?

#201 zaza

interesting analysis.:-)

Just for the record ... you have taken my comments out of context which illustrates just how dishonest you are. Further, I fail to understand what my debates with other posters has to do with you. You occasionally post links to articles and the rest of the time, for the most part, you write nasty posts about me. There's no denying that. I, on the other hand, ignore you except when you start your psycho-twirling with me. I pegged you for the phony that you are long ago. Getting back to your dishonesty with regards to taking my comments out of context, when you recently did the same to SoCalJustice (whose comments you included in a post addressed, once again, to me), you wrote, "... the omission of the number for your comment, was just inadvertent." What's your excuse for taking my words out of context? You appear to be motivated by nothing other than pure malice.

You thoroughly embarrassed yourself on that SoundVision thread, so I wouldn't be so quick to bring that up if I were you. You make a habit of jumping in at the end of threads to post some bitchy comment about me. I think you need to ask yourself why you can't seem to stop obsessing about me? It's a little sick, and I'm not the only one who thinks so, nor am I the only one who finds you creepy. Please, seek help.

Here's your comment to me on the Easterbrook thread. Here's my response (oooh, how nasty can I possibly be!), and here is you again, dismissing what I say out of hand. Read the rest of the thread again. SoCalJustice got his little excuse from you, zaza "made some good points" (I happen to agree) but you dismissed what I said (not that it was addressed to you in the first place, but that's beside the point). So, now you're twisting in the wind because your sincerity is called into question? You only expose yourself by doing this, nothing more. And it ain't pretty.

May I suggest that you try to ignore me? It's for the best really and I find it so easy to do with you. Give it a try, say for a week, see how it goes. There is nothing to be achieved by doing this and I consider it an utter waste of time (and waste of Charles' bandwidth). The world is in grave danger and we have much to worry about. Surely you have other things to concern yourself with besides me? Or is your world really that small, shallow and petty?

Zulubaby, I'll say it again, people can read and decide things for themselves. You may as well give it a rest.

#204 Thom: I think it says, "Am Ende führt der Sieg."

#214 Juliette

Ah ha! I think you're right. Thanks.