Sunday, October 19, 2003

Roger Simon's Hair Trigger. Roger Simon smacked Gregg Easterbrook pretty hard.  Now Gregg is out of a job at ESPN.  Here's the "offensive" paragraph that Gregg wrote, on violence in Hollywood films: Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. 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? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself. It occurs to me that when we fire someone for being racist, that person should actually _be_ racist.  Or anti-semitic, or whatever.  It doesn't seem like there's a single person who knows Easterbrook who will say that he is anti-semitic.  He worships in a church that is co-located (and even commingled) with a Jewish congregation. I read his paragraph about ten times.  Each time I read it, I got the same message -- should Jews not hold themselves to a higher standard, given their history?  What is wrong with the reading comprehension of you rabid reactionists?  I'll tell you what it is.  You saw the words money and Jew somewhere close to each other in a paragraph, your internal red lights went on, and you weren't able to read the entire thing.  You weren't able to apply any form of tolerance in this situation.  Let me simplify the paragraph, because you, Mr. Reactionary, don't want to: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Is it anti-semitic of me to say that perhaps Jews ought to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to tolerance?  Show the world, by example, what tolerance means.  Show them that what has happened in the past is wrong, and that there is a better way. These days, the cry of racist, in a context like this, is more or less like an accusation of sexual misconduct.  Your brush is out; you've painted with it. How about you get off your hair-trigger, high horse, and think about what you write before you wreck another man's career in the name of tolerance and goodwill? I wonder if your entire set of previous writings would withstand an intimate parsing for anything that could be interpreted to be, say, sexist?  Or perhaps racist in any way?  Am I an anti-semite too?  Funny -- I've never considered, from the time I was a child, Jewish people to be any different from anyone else in any way.  I still don't, except that I know about some terrible events in history that have directly affected the Jewish people. 9:31:25 PM     | comment [] | trackback []

CalPundit On Progress In Iraq. We don't have much to go on -- so far we've either had to believe media reports (which come in all shapes and sizes), or the Administration's "everything is peachy" outlook.  Kevin Drum gives us a few ideas on how to parse the situation.  As always, he's worth reading. 6:20:48 PM     | comment [] | trackback []