.12?

That's not a whole lot of alcohol. The state says it's enough to make one impaired in driving an automobile. But is it enough to make one lose control of one's tongue? That usually occurs well beyond the legal limit. But .12? That's barely drunk. Drinkers have to let bygones be bygones when it comes to the words said the night before. But when the words are said after a not particularly heavy night of drinking, do we say that's the alcohol talking or do we say that's Mel Gibson talking? Perhaps that blood alcohol test, which might excuse Mel Gibson's late-night rant for some, is actually the most damning item: Gibson's tirade against the police and Jews happened not in an incoherently drunken state, but happened at a level of drunkeness that just exceeds the threshold for drunk driving.

On the other hand, many drunks that I know--real drunks, hardcore drunks--contradicting conventional wisdom, actually get sauced really, really, quickly. In other words, their tolerance level is lower than the average person's. Their buzz happens immediately and it quickly evolves to complete inebriation. Is this because alcohol is always in their bloodstream? Is this because their tolerance level, once it reaches a lifetime peak, comes down, or, to put it another way, comes full circle to that of an inexperienced drinker's? I don't know why it is. I just know it is. Big drinkers may take many, many drinks to get drunk. But drunks get drunk easily.

Is Gibson done? No. He's too talented, too driven, and too powerful. He can bankroll, as he proved with The Passion of the Christ, his own movies. If Elvis Costello can have a career after calling Ray Charles a "blind, ignorant n-----" from his barstool, if Ted Kennedy can win reelection at will after driving a woman off a bridge, if Norman Mailer can write bestsellers after stabbing his wife while drunk, then Mel Gibson's career will survive this.

A more important question than "what of his career?", particularly for a man of Christ such as Gibson, is: What of his soul? Hate, not to mention too much drink, can be soul consuming. Why waste time hating anyone, let alone any massive group of people? The quirk is usually worse for the hater than the hated. Alas, to put a man on the couch when he's not actually on the couch is unfair. This is particularly true when we're examining that man (who's not actually there to be examined) at a low moment--relapsed, drunk, and under arrest certainly qualifies.

We don't know what's in Mel Gibson's heart. We do know what came out of his mouth. And for those believing in the old dictum "in wine there is truth" what came out of his mouth says something bad about his heart.

Maybe there was an hidden agenda to his making of "The Passion" after all?

If there was an agenda and it was so well hidden that no one noticed it, then what good was the agenda?

Some noticed:
[quote]"Mel Gibson's apology is unremorseful and insufficient," said Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who added: "His tirade finally reveals his true self and shows that his protestations during the debate over his film 'The Passion of the Christ,' that he is such a tolerant, loving person, were a sham."

Foxman called on Hollywood executives to "realize the bigot in their midst" and "distance themselves from this anti-Semite."[end quote] -LA Times

I doubt he believed a word of what he said. He was drunk, and he babbled incoherently. Hardly behavior limited to him.

I would also like somebody to point out behavior that is directly targetted at Jews to make them seem evil in The Passion.

Theres the seen were the Jewish soldiers are excessively cruel, but there are also myriad seens where Roman soldiers are excessively cruel. Pontius Pilate is maybe not made out to be as cruel as he probably was, historically, but he is hardly very caring, either. He is apathetic at best about killing an innocent man to please Caiaphas.

And as for Caiaphas and his priests, just because the villains ARE Jews doesn't mean the villains are THE Jews.

Abe Foxman sees anti-semitism under every rock, behind every tree, and in the subconscious of every goy.

Actually, the fact that he made this weird statement:

"The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."

Makes it seem like maybe he was telling the truth.

I don't know. Theres a good chance both ways, I guess.

OB: on the contrary, many did notice. There was much discussion regarding what many saw as anti-Semitism in "The Passion". Personally, I didn't see it. But, now I wonder if Mel didn't really have an agenda and that some were not correct to point it out.

asdf, Most of the "discussion" took place before anyone had even seen the movie.

Really? Why would it be so discussed before people had seen the movie? Where they guessing that it contained anti-Semitic sentiment? Based on what?

"You know, I was having lunch with some guys from NBC, so I said, 'Did you eat yet or what?' And Tom Christie said, 'No, JEW?' Not 'Did you?'...JEW eat? JEW?" -- Woody Allen in Annie Hall.

This is a weak post Dan, rather mealy-mouthed. I feel bad for Gibson, who has clearly always shown the symptoms of being an addict. Every interview of him he is always in constant motion, very fidgety, almost shaky, etc. He chain smokes and always seems too hyper. Clearly Hollywood turned him into a hard live-r (as the euphemism goes) years ago and he is still struggling w/ his recalcitrant will and addictive psyche.

But look at what he reportedly said: "F---ing Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." This is supposed to prove that he is a hater? That he is an anti-Semite? First off, it doesn't make any sense. I am sure Gibson knows that Jews had nothing to do w/ starting The Civil War or the Mexican-American War, among almost every other war in history. Second, what is dominating the news right now? Israel's war against Lebanon, the instability of the Mid-East and (sort-of being ignored actually) the Iraq War which everyone knows many American Jewish neoconservatives were strategically important in pushing for. So, in his inebriated rantings what he said seemed to draw from current events (obviously not reflective history) maybe mush as our dreams at night often distort things that occurred during our day. And if that is the worst thing he said about Jews then it just isn't a clear revelation of anything any more invidious in his soul then what exists in all of our souls in one form or another.

Seriously, given the way Foxman and his cohorts demonized him and attacked him viciously and personally, particularly by going after his father (yes, I know Hutton is clearly an anti-Semite of some sort, but he is his father) during the Passion controversy then this coming out of him in a moment where he has no self-control is almost tame. I would practically expect him to be paranoid of Jews, given how Foxman tried to ruin him for making a Christian movie and is redoubling his efforts after this event. Gibson seems to have repeatedly said he would "F--- the cop" . . . and the focus on his ranting is on the possible revelation of his soul found in his abstract conspiratorial statement? So, does he really wants to F--- cops too? Does he really believe that he "owns Malibu"?

And c'mon given how he acted he was clearly out of it whether just from a little alcohol or from w/e, medications maybe?

He needs prayers now not our condemnation, and if Foxman wasn't a non-believing fundraising opportunist then he would understand that too. Any Christian should be well aware of how many times they deny Christ in a day through jealousy, envy, and yes hate. To talk about whether or not there is "hate" in Gibson's heart is rather ridiculous, there is "hate," at least as a frequent temptation, in all of our hearts. This is what a dedicated sacramental and prayer life is for, to avoid succumbing to the temptations within all of us. Usually we experience hate as a momentary surge and passion (like when I read an article by a woman blithely describing her abortion or some such); but just b/c most of us don't succumb to that momentary feeling and don't turn it into a deep-seated vice doesn't mean we can be smug about our supposed lack of hate. "There but for the grace of God . . ." Moral righteousness is also a dangerous temptation . . . and boy don't I know it!

I have thought about that phrase in vino veritas before and I don't know what the truth of it is. It seems from my experience that drunkenness makes almost a stream of consciousness more likely, that one will say what pops in their head at that moment much more readily than otherwise, but why do certain things pop in our heads at certain times? Assuredly sometimes what we say when drunk is something to some particular person we have been thinking of saying for a long time but for some reason haven't, maybe from lack of courage, probably just as often from lack of conviction. This would be testified to by the break-ups that occur when drunk. One lesson of drinking I am rather confident in is that it enhances our mood and mindframe of that specific time when we had been drinking. So that someone who is depressed will become more depressed and someone who is angry becomes angrier (that seems to have been the case w/ Mel). Does it mean the person is always depressed or always angry
?, well, not necessarily.

Socrates is described by Plato remaining standing, and still drinking, while discoursing on the true nature of beauty and love while his companions have all collapsed in drunken sleep. THAT is the real truth in wine. Namely, remain in self-control at all times.

Oh look, ABC News is already saying "like father like son":

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2256719&page=1

Seriously, the anti-Christian bigotry of people like Foxman and the Anti-Catholic bigotry of the media elites and intelligentsia in general is so much more vicious and grinding from day to day than what Gibson said while in a drunken rant. If anyone saw fit to attack my father viciously then I can only hope I would have shown the restraint that Gibson did during the Passion controversy.

These anti semitic rants will not harm Mel Gibson's career. Anti-semitic rants generally cost very little. Anti-Israel rants cost even less. In fact, anti-Israel rants can even be profitable. The biggest concern is that Abe Foxman and his cohorts will use this an excuse to further target the "religous right." This is not a very good move on the part of the ADL. Jews and Israel have no greater friend than evangelical Christians.

Had Mel Gibson engaged in an anti-Islamic rant that could be damaging to his career.

I'm sorry for returning after I vowed never to post here again, but I'd feel guilty if Brian's repulsive idiocy went unchallenged.

Firstly, I love his justification of Gibson's tirade. "[L]ook at what he reportedly said: "F---ing Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." This is supposed to prove that he is a hater? That he is an anti-Semite? First off, it doesn't make any sense."

Does the proposition that Jews use Gentile blood in matzot "make any sense"? Surely even Brian would recognize that 1) It doesn't, and 2) It's a pretty good sign of antisemitism.

Secondly, does anyone need wonder what Brian's reaction would be if, instead of a traditional Catholic doing the silly, drunken yelping, it was, say, a drug-addicted Alan Dershowitz? It seems to me that we wouldn't be reading pleas on Dershowitz's behalf, calls for sympathy toward his addiction, etc.

On to my favorite quote:
"Any Christian should be well aware of how many times they deny Christ in a day through jealousy, envy, and yes hate."

Who is "they," out of curiosity? The Jews? (Can't stand that we're still around, can you?) The idea that Jews are more hateful or envious of Christians is so patently absurd, so detached from reality, and so devoid of basic historical understanding.

"To talk about whether or not there is "hate" in Gibson's heart is rather ridiculous, there is "hate," at least as a frequent temptation, in all of our hearts.""

Of course some degree of hate arises in all of us at various points in time. But the question is: How intense is the hatred within us, and to what extent does it motivate our behavior in life? Most sane people understand this. That's why we can make a distinction between an Adolf Hitler and some guy who has a distaste for transsexuals.

In the end, I couldn't care less about Mel Gibson. He's just another clown who hates us.

A helpful Christian pal pointed out that I misconstrued that quote about denying Christ above (that it's actually about individual Christians). The "they" threw me off, and I apologize for my mistake.

I actually don't disagree w/ anything you wrote Ben except 1) thinking I have justified or attempted to justify what Gibson said, that suggests I think it is either fine he said it or that I agree with what he said, that he was justified in saying it; and 2) that I was using the pronoun "they" in the sentence about Christians to refer to something other than the subject of the sentence, Christians, as the grammar shows.

1) My response is towards the claims that people have made about what Gibsons rantings demonstrate, I don't think those claims are justified based on what he said. Of course he shouldnt have said any of it, he also shouldn't have asked a female cop "what are you looking at sugar t-ts?" But does the fact that he said that prove he is a misogynist? In the midst of a drunken rant? I don't know if it does but I don't think it does and so I think condemnation of him is wrong.

2) you already took that back so no problem there.

Seriously, read what I wrote again and this comment, we don't disagree. All the aspersions you cast at me, for the 100th time, are off the mark buddy.

I suppose I have to be more specific by "don't disagree w/ anything you wrote" Ben since you like to misconstrue me and attack me w/ ad hominems repeatedly. I don't mean that your hypothetical claims and attacks on me are true, sheesh. I meant that I agree w/ your two basic points made, that his rant shouldn't be "justified," and that the "intensity of hate" is an issue of concern. Both claims do not disagree w/ my original comments.

Brian, setting aside any animosity between us, do you really think it was unfair to take your comments as a justification for his remarks? Especially considering your third post:

"Seriously, the anti-Christian bigotry of people like Foxman and the Anti-Catholic bigotry of the media elites and intelligentsia in general is so much more vicious and grinding from day to day than what Gibson said while in a drunken rant. If anyone saw fit to attack my father viciously then I can only hope I would have shown the restraint that Gibson did during the Passion controversy."

(Also, not to be petty, but the "denying Christ" line was preceded by one in which Foxman was called "non-believing." However, I completely understand your intent in hindsight, and again express my regret for the error.)

In response to 1)

Events cannot be judged as though they occur in a vacuum. Insofar as you argue that one instance of inebriated babbling is insufficient to accuse a man of being a bigot, you're correct. Yet as you know, this man was raised by a vicious, antisemitic Holocaust denier. (This is not his *fault*, obviously, but how can there be any doubt that parents influence their children?) And many believe his film was easy on Pontius Pilate while portraying the Jews in the worst possible light (I cannot attest to the accuracy of this interpretation since I haven't seen it). His outburst merely confirms what many suspected to be the case.

As far as his hilarious "sugar t-ts" remark, I think what it proves is that he's a heterosexual. Alcohol seems to remove people's inhibitions, allowing them to say things they'd normally have the good sense to suppress.

This doesn't mean they should be granted license for their irresponsibility and shielded from condemnation. Gibson deserves to be judged harshly, even in the unlikely event that he has not an antisemitic bone in his body. Why? Because he behaved in the manner of an immature frat boy. I think your time would be better spent praying for Sudanese slaves instead of a rich, middle-aged drunk.

Ben,

Since I think everything I wrote stands alone as not justifying what Gibson said I don't think I should have been construed as trying to do so. Yes, I was giving a defense of a specific sort though not of what he said but only against the level of, in my view, hyperbolic condemnation of him and moral grandstanding by various media figures. To be justifying him I would have to think that it was either okay that he said those things or that what he said about Jews causing wars was true, neither of which is the case and neither of which I stated above.

I was only really arguing in the first post (and Dan's post was the guide for my comments) that instead of condemnation and sneers he is pitiable for what he did. Would I feel pity towards anyone else in similar situations? Well, yes most likely. I may at first gloat or sneer if it was someone I disliked but I usually come around to feeling bad for people who screw up royally. And that doesn't make me soft on him as regards punishment, He should be charged with drunk driving, speeding and resisting arrest and punished as is determined just. But I don't think that any words spoken deserve punishment beyond making sure he is ashamed and apologetic. That means I think hate speech laws and pc-righteousness are a crock across the board.

So when you refer to the sentences on Foxman, that was in a separate post and stands alone as well as a reaction to the abc article i had just read. I do think that the bigotry expressed against Catholics by media elites (who are usually Catholic btw as odd as that sounds) or his organization, when not in drunken rages, is worse than some stars drunken outburst. You can disagree with my characterization of the media or the ADL as often expressing anti-Catholic or anti-Christian bigotry, but I am being specific about the context for these examples of bigotry. Like the later post by Dan about the brother and the Jewish girl in the bar saying violent things, context matters.

So to that same end, I think Hutton Gibson's anti-Semitic writings are worse than Mel's drunken outburst. My point as regards Hutton is that he is probably the age of your grandfather, and many grandfathers hold views we find anathema, which in no way justifies those views. But if some outsider attacked yours, wouldn't you defend him like a pit bull? And you don't have to defend their views either; I wouldn't defend some racist views a family member held but I wouldn't want others attacking them when speaking to me. Mel never even defended anything Hutton ever said or wrote, he seemed careful not to actually, instead he just said "don't go there" and I respected him for that. You don't have to, but that difference doesn't imply that I am justifying him beyond being a loyal son, something I do find admirable.

As for calling Foxman non-believing I was referring to his being non-observant and the ADL has defended atheist positions on a number of occasions. I may be mistaken on this but I had recalled having read during the Passion brouhaha that he wasn't actually a believing Jew but only a "cultural one" as Derschowitz defines himself and other non-believers. So I wasn't implying that he needed to be Christian to share my take only that his atheism and his work as a fundraiser made him someone with a vested interest in attacking Mel. I don't want to line up with him to pile it on.

So is saying that Jews start all the wars a standard slur? If so, then I totally missed that. It seems to be a much less vile thing to say then the blood libel you mention as an ana-logy. I would think something akin to the latter would be more indicative of an unhinged view of Jews. My assumption was that it likely came out of his mouth b/c of the Iraq War and the current Israeli war with Lebanon b/c otherwise I don't know why he would make that claim and I mean that even assuming he is is a hardcore bigot and paranoid about Jews. I mean wouldn't someone like that use a more recognizable slur and make a more directly violent attack, especially when they are clearly in a drunken rage? Maybe I am all wet on that but I found it a really strange way to attack Jews compared to the way I have sadly heard other drunks attack various ethnic groups.

I find it really funny that Ben boycotted FFs because he was sick of arguing with non-supporters of the Iraq War, then he comes back just to falsely accuse Brian of antisemitism, then he takes the accusation back, and then he blames Brian for the mistaken accusation (as though we all shouldn't be innocent until proven guilty regarding antisemitism) because Brian's text wasn't clear enough for Ben (Note to self, to avoid accusations of antisemitism, never use pronouns). Wow. Soap opera.

PS: Welcome back. Now let's talk about something else.

According to the etiquette guide of New York magazine, 'racist' statements only come out after someone has a few drinks.

I just find it a bit odd that no one says what they really think about energy policy or social security when they get drunk.

What people say when they are drunk says more about societies tabboos than the drinkers themselves.

Had Mel Gibson engaged in an anti-Islamic rant that could be damaging to his career.

Yes, we all know the Muslims run hollywood.

Seriously "anti-semitism" is occasionally acceptable when left wingers decide what's good for the goose is good for the gander and hold Israel to the same standards of political correctness that they would hold the US or a European Nation.

In those cases, some on the left will let it pass, but you can still expect Alan Dershowitz, Abe Foxman, amd every single professional conservative anti-anti semite on the right to go nuts.

If someone on the right is "anti-semitic" then the consequences are far greater.

"Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."

I don't care how much you feel it makes sense for someone to say it, its a simple, clear, sweeping, statement. 100% of the wars, at least the wars currently going on on the planet Earth were started by Jews. It's not possible to get around it.

I am still not convinced either way, on whether Gibson meant what he said, but the comment itself, you really can't get around.

As for the Passion, it is probably not hard enough on Pontius, but it doesn't portray him as very good either. He is apathetic at best. The main problem with the anti-semitism charge is that, according to a very strict interpretation of Jewish law, and certainly according to the interpretation of Jewish law being used around 33 A.D., if a Rabbi walked around claiming to be God, the right reaction WOULD BE to have him killed.

P.S: "Jewish law" there refers to the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament. I know next to nothing about the Talmudic laws or the oral tradition.

Out of curiosity, Ben L., what do you think of Gibson's apology? It struck me as authored by himself, grown-up, and sincere, and thus as unusual for celebrity/politician public apologies. Do I see it that way just because I share his and Brian's view of sin and repentence?

"But I don't think that any words spoken deserve punishment beyond making sure he is ashamed and apologetic. That means I think hate speech laws and pc-righteousness are a crock across the board."

I'm also against hate speech laws. Your initial words did not suggest that you thought he had much to be ashamed and apologetic about.

"But if some outsider attacked [your grandfather], wouldn't you defend him like a pit bull? And you don't have to defend their views either; I wouldn't defend some racist views a family member held but I wouldn't want others attacking them when speaking to me."

Yes, I would. But that's not particularly relevant, since I referred to the *influence* parents' views have on their children, in order to provide some context for Gibson's yammerings. As you recently admitted, context matters.

"So is saying that Jews start all the wars a standard slur? If so, then I totally missed that."

I believe you have. It's been a standard part of any Jew-hater's repertoire for nearly a century, at least. No one means it literally; it's an allusion to the Protocols-type image of scheming, nefarious Jews pulling the strings from above, causing all major world events.

Julia,

The charge that I "boycotted FFs because [I] was sick of arguing with non-supporters of the Iraq War" is false on both counts. 1) I continued to read and enjoy Dan's blog, but refrained from posting since it seemed to be a futile effort to spend so much time arguing with people with whom I shared little agreement on matters of simple decency. It had nothing to do with the Iraq War, which several of my friends oppose. It is equally mendacious to suggest that I returned "just to falsely accuse Brian of antisemitism" as my posts clearly show. I apologized for my mistake, as usual, but I don't expect to see the same from you.

"Out of curiosity, Ben L., what do you think of Gibson's apology?"

It was the right and decent thing for him to do.

In response to Marcus, who never takes a break from adding his insightful commentary (Republicans are the stupid party!, etc.):

"What people say when they are drunk says more about societies tabboos than the drinkers themselves."

Just to be sure I don't misconstrue you, I'll merely ask a question -- are you arguing that there shouldn't be a taboo against bigotry?

"Yes, we all know the Muslims run hollywood."

Funny! Yes, the proportion of Jewish people in the entertainment industry is larger than our proportion in the general population, but to suggest that that means Hollywood has a steadfast dedication to Jewish interests is laughable. B. Poster was essentially right, as the brouhaha over the villains in "The Sum of All Fears" showed (in Clancy's book, they were Islamic fundamentalists, but they were changed to Nazis in the film). Also, have you heard of the Golden Globe-winning film which glorifies suicide bombers, "Paradise Now"? These are but two brief examples. Do facts matter at all to you?

Ben-T,

Are you referring to me when you say "I don't care how much you feel it makes sense for someone to say it"? Nobody in this thread ever said it made sense for him to say it.

Ben L.,

I don't know if Gibson is an anti-Semite and I don't know if he shares the disgusting views of his father. You think so. Fine. I gave more detail about his father only to explain to you why I respected his DEFENSE of his father which took the form of simple decent family loyalty. As for your assertion that racist parents have racist children, well yes, I have seen American History X too, but there is no hard and fast rule for parental influence so I don't really know either way.

Thanks for tying the Jews start all wars comment to the more familiar one of "ruling the world." Now it makes more sense to me as to why it is an anti-Semitic slur. It is still an unusual formulation of it though, particularly given how everyone is assuming that our true inner beliefs come out when we are drunk. Maybe the police report doesn't reflect the full extent of what he ranted and raved about anyway so it could have been worse.

"Are you referring to me when you say "I don't care how much you feel it makes sense for someone to say it"? Nobody in this thread ever said it made sense for him to say it."-Brian

I worded it poorly, it wasn't really meant to be directed at anybody, more just a general statement, where "you" is general.

But it was partly in response to your suggestion that he didn't mean the Jews start all the wars of the world based on the fact that saying so is obviously insane. Just because its crazy doesn't meant thats not what he said.

I'm not arguing he believes it (by it I mean anti-semitism), I remain unsure. I lean towards thinking that he does not. But the statement itself is clear.

Ben-T we are so close to talking to each other instead of past each other . . .

I KNOW that Jews start all wars is what he said according to the police report. I never indicated otherwise so why write: "Just because its crazy doesn't meant thats not what he said."?

And if you aren't sure of whether he means or believes it then we are agreed there. I suggested that the fact that what he said is so clearly impossible to believe as fact and struck me as a very obtuse way to attack Jews, and b/c he was drunk, means that it doesn't magically "reveal what is in his heart" in some manner that makes me want to add to all the condemnation of him.

Ben L. helpfully explained why saying Jews start all wars isn't actually the most opaque way of being anti-Semitic, that it is similar to the Jews control the world canard. Okay, I accept that point and that softens my reaction towards those who are condemning Mel.

. . . .

A fundamental issue here that motivates me in not heaping on the condemnation is that I really disagree with what I see as a Christian heresy in moral philosophy made most prominent by Kant. That is the total emphasis on the hidden motivations/beliefs/thoughts/intentions of the "heart." Kant says that the only truly good thing in the world is the Good Will, that is a will which wills correctly . . . but he then astutely observes that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever be certain of the rectitude of anyone's will, he even include's Christ's will in this state of affairs. For Kant the fact of our ultimate ignorance even when searching our OWN souls/hearts/wills is a stimulus towards rectitude. But, it also makes talking about morality well-nigh impossible, or at least can give it a vicious and personal tinge and make self-righteousness much more common. Because instead of looking at words and actions, and evaluating context of words and actions as well as there nature as voluntary/involuntary, etc., we are instead left attempting to ferret out the "real" intent/will/belief deep in a person's soul.

I find such a procedure a) impossible; and b) obscene. Examining one's own conscience is an absolute must for anyone serious about being a moral person but the inner state of someone's soul is known only to God and the occasional saint who has the spiritual gift of discernment.

For the rest of us we do better to criticize actions and words and hold people accountable for that. Leave the searching of people's souls to between the individual and there confessor priest and God.

I don't think its that unusual for a Jew-hater to see Jews behind every conflict and malady in the world. Really it has nothing to do specifically with Jews, it happens with all kinds of things.

When you hate something you at first hate something real about it, and then slowly come to create fictional things to hate about it which are more dramatic. Hating the Jewry is no different.

So Jew-haters might be, if not expected, at least believed to purport that all of, or at least the majority of, the world's wars, are caused by the Jewry.

P.S: The point you made earlier about Gibson's other statements is a good one. Just because he said he was going to f*ck the cop, and called the woman "sugar tits" doesn't mean he is a mysoginist who has sexual fantasies about officers of the law.

Ben L: I really beleive that you boycotted commenting here because you thought that it was futile to continuie arguing with people you considered unreasonable about the Iraq war, which is what all arguments turned into with you, right? Am I really wrong about that?

And, as I pointed out, sure you corrected your mistake and apologized, but then you turned around blamed Brian for it. So if I apologize for stepping on your toe and then blame you for having your foot there, well, I guess that is still an 'apology' of sorts, but not quite as well done as Mel's. Why do some people care so little about falsely accusing people of bigotry?

Julia, you can "really believe" whatever you'd like, but that doesn't change the facts. If you insist on bringing it up, all the arguments basically turned into my bewilderment at your (collective) inability to say that 1) scribbling furiously against miscegenation, and 2) chumming it up with Holocaust deniers are sickening. And though this is getting tiresome, I didn't "blame Brian" for the mistake. I explained what led me to the false reading and immediately apologized -- twice, actually.

You are right about one thing: I'm no Mel Gibson.

I've been away too long: that's one of the the best takes on the Gibson incident I've read yet.

Ben L of the couple hundred posts that have been on this site over the past few months you have picked this one to come back to from your self exile. Why?

Ben: See, more loose insinuations that people are bigots.

Now you deny that you blamed Brian for your misunderstanding of him. But you did say (after your 'apology') that it was fair of you "to take [his] comments as a justification for [Gibson's] remarks," which is absurd, and this is another insinuation that someone is a bigot. I mean seriously, Brian makes a comment about the sinfulness of mankind and you think he's bashing Jews. If you indiscriminately accuse people of hating you, I suspect it might get in the way of your living a good life, making friends, etc. If I knew you I'd be afraid that you were always watching for me to say some little thing that you thought was bigoted. Doesn't this reaction on your part -- this idiotic misreading of Brian's statement about man's sinfulness -- indicate to you that you are a bit trigger happy looking for and naming bigots? I don't know you, but that's what it indicates to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

And for the record, I think miscengenation is fine (and a real good in fact), I think that Holocost denials are false and Holocost deniers are sickening and repulsive (not to mention just wackjobs), so please don't accuse me of "repulsive idiocy." I'm not going to post again on this because this type of conversation goes no where typically, so accuse me of whatever you want, but do consider whether triggerhappiness contributes to a happy life and whether it is fair to others.

John Derbyshire is a breath of fresh air.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE1MzMwOTM3NTQxNDJjOTM2MDlhODM2YTE4NjUxOWE=

Interesting note, Horowitz was defending Gibson last night on Fox.

That's odd. A few days ago I briefly skimmed an article on Frontpage that I thought was from Horowitz (Don Feder also wrote one a day or so after). The piece certainly wasn't kind. Can't find it now. Maybe he pulled it for fear of angering the evangelicals that send him cash.

This is really bugging me. I swear I saw an article Monday on FP with the title In Vino Veritas. Anyone else read FP?
">http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/GetArticlesByDate.asp?M=7&D=31&Y=2006

Files fanclub, a few times I had some specific quibbles and just e-mailed (read: wasted the time of) Mr. Flynn. (For instance, a post about South Park spawned a momentous debate. I reigned victorious! Man, I'm *so* cool.) I bit my tongue whenever there was any nastiness directed at Israel from the usual suspects in the comments. I predicted someone would complain about this completely fair-minded post, and when that proved correct, I had to say something. Sorry for breaking my word.

Julia,

There were no insinuations of bigotry in my post. I don't remember your name from back then (though your writing style is reminiscent of short's, so maybe that's you) but feel free to check the archives if you don't believe me. Perhaps I'm forgetting, but I can't recall a single person admitting that Sam Francis was a racist. (The other writer I referred to was Joey Sobran.) I'm glad you agree with me about racism and Holocaust denial.

As for my life, it seems to be going pretty well thus far. I'm fortunate enough to have a great family. I have no desire to accumulate hundreds of friends. The ones I have are pretty close, and we jokingly insult each other hellaciously, on every level, without fear of offense.

"Who is "they," out of curiosity? The Jews? (Can't stand that we're still around, can you?)"

"There were no insinuations of bigotry in my post."

I was referring to my most recent post, just as she had, sweetie pie.