This headline is a perfect example of people who live in glass houses. He was intoxicated they claim, most likely irritable because of it, and certainly like most celebs thought he had special privileges. I don't think this is as bad as the Couric princess having the pilot of that Delta plane stop his take-off to allow for one of her producers running late. Mel's problem is that he was human, her's is that she thinks she's def better than us mortals.

Posted by: eltoroviejo at July 31, 2006 02:06 PM

---

"These people have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general."

Jews are not an extension of Israel. Israel is a country, Jews are a people. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, as much as the right-wing may try to cast it as such even when Israel pursues disastrous courses of action.

Equating Israel with Jews has negative effects beyond labelling Jewish critics of Israel as traitors (there are many, in Israel and out). It also gives ammunition to real anti-Semites, who can then make the claim that when Israel acts, it is actually the Jewish people that is acting.

In other words, equating Israel with Jews helps neo-Nazis and other extreme rightists by allowing them to blame Israel's wrongs on Jews in general. For this reason, some European governments are keen to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian situation because they see it fuelling anti-Semitism in their own countries. That wouldn't happen to the same degree if right-wingers would stop equating Israel with Jews, and criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Ade at July 31, 2006 02:10 PM

---

At the time of Passion's Gibson spent a lot of energy denying that he, and therefore his movie, were not anti-semetic. I think his recent words have proven the movie's initial detractors right.

I read your post as a defence of Passion, considering that it's now under the microscope again.

Also, when it comes to Hollywood, it's the audience that 'tolerates' the behaviour of the filmmaker. If the audience avoided Woddy Allen's movies because of his lack of morals, then he wouldn't be able to make movies, it's that simple.

I think in Gibson's case, his fans (made up of the evangelical Christians that loved the Passion) will quickly forgive him. Especially considering he's the only filmmaker to make a big religious movie in 20+ years.

Apocalypto will bomb though, I thought it was doomed even before this incident. I'm guessing he got pissed after seeing the test screening results.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 31, 2006 02:16 PM

---

Ade: A recent study has found a STRONG correlation between anti-zionism and anti-semetism.

I agree that one can be critical of Israel's actions without hating Jews. The problem arises in that so MANY people so STRONGLY hate Israel. Is Israel really that BAD? The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that people are expressing their deep seeded HATE of Jews in the form of HATE for Israel. Yes, Israel makes mistakes, so does every nation. Israel is fighting for its existence! Sometimes it responds too strongly, but that's because if it responded too weakly it would be destroyed.

Please don't be so naive to think that all criticism of Israel is due to honest critical analysis of the facts. Where is all the criticism of Syria (no one seemed to care that they are the true occupiers of Lebanon), Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia (with it's treatment of the Chechens).

http://hnn.us/articles/28503.html

Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 31, 2006 02:27 PM

---

I'm not defending Passion. How could I? I haven't even seen it. But it is clear that purely religious movie, that is, one that does not hide a religious message inside of a popular secular wrapper (Superman Returns?) can make money. That ran counter to studio wisdom. But even more significant, a movie not issued and distributed under a studio name can find a wide audience and make huge money. That is even more terrifying for the studio movie makers.

I think the studios can use this incident as leverage to freeze Gibson out. Make it clear that an actor that works with Gibson will be blacklisted, that sort of thing. Turn him into a pariah, ostensibly because his apparent anti-Semitism, but really because of his threat to their financial health.

As for Israel == Jews, I don't buy that myself. But again, I'm talking about how others tend to behave. I think more than a few Hollywood types would have no problem with the "Jews cause wars" theory, internally translating that into "Israel causes wars", not spotting the distinct difference, or caring even if they did. In other words, I'm not certain Mel's rant is sufficient to kill his career, but he might well have handed his enemies the lit match they need set off the bomb that does, a bomb constructed out of jealousy of his success and fear of his power as an independent.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 31, 2006 02:38 PM

---

Can he bounce back? He's worth $850 million. He lives in the middle of out-of-touch Malibu.

His star power is still substancial regardless of his blatant anti-semitism. Money talks, personal beliefs walk.

The only consequences will be he'll need to be driven around Malibu in a limo for a year..and pay a $500 fine...and maybe Babs Streisand won't let James Brolin golf with him for awhile.

Mel Gibson will get off publicly because anti-semitism is en vogue these days.

Posted by: Turner at July 31, 2006 02:52 PM

---

Personally, I think that Mel Gibson was thinking of RICH INTERNATIONAL Jewish people who 'armed' both sides in WWI and WWII. Jewish people have been either scorned or fawned over by 'gentiles' for as long as I can remember. They are people with beliefs that the rest of us do not identify with or understand so the msm "talking heads" either vilify the entire race (as they once did in the case of Indian people in NA) or they fawn over them (as 'they' do now over the Indian people of NA). If the Canadian and American people would use their own judgement to evaluate how they relate to all INDIVIDUALS, instead of using a msm preconception to base their opinions; we would not be so wrung out with knashing of teeth and pulling of hair. Why would anyone in their right mind go into a frenzy about what someone said while drunk??? Drunks are not themselves - they do not call it the 'demon drink' for nothing. It is common knowledge what Rockerfellers and their 'ilk' have done in the past to gain POWER. What Mel Gibson reportably said was a drunk's generalization. Anyone who has ever been around drunk people knows that that type of irrational generalizations are common. I do not join in the condemnation of this good man (Mel Gibson) and I never will because I know from study that certain Jewish people are just as guilty as the M. Strong and the Liebrals in their no holes barred lust for power and the unmitigated hatred the latter have for anyone who will not buy into their hatred for all people. I think that the Socialist groups in Isreal are just as human unfriendly as their Communist 'heros' in Cuba, Canada, USA and Russia. I know that all Jewish people are not Communist/ people hating - I am pretty sure Mel Gibson knows this also. He has said he was sorry for his rant so why don't people just leave it there? I would be happy to join in a rant about the individual Marice Strong and his hate for people - visit the 'habitats for humanity' website to contemplate how lovely living in a beehive as a government slave could be. Thanks, angry, for your take on the situation. I tend to agree with you.

Posted by: Jema54 at July 31, 2006 04:38 PM

---

Come on, guys, if a video camera (or a cop) recorded everything you said when you were drunk, wouldn't you be in some trouble? And another thing, criticizing Israel is not anti-semetic. Israelis do it all the time--just read Haaretz!

Posted by: Ryan at July 31, 2006 05:00 PM

---

I heard plenty of stuff about the movie when it came out but went to see it anyways, it was okay. I was able to leave any opinions behind while watching and, because I am not religious, I did not find it anti semetic, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

What Mel did last week does give me a second thought now and I am not feeling overly forgiving yet - I am not a fan of the drunk defense.

Ade, I am not so certain that the average person can separate the two even though what you say is true. An increase in hate crimes committed against Jewish property or people (like the shooting last week) indicates this.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 31, 2006 05:12 PM

---

Gibson "dissed" the current anministration...he was set up big time...show me the video-audio evidence and stop "interpreting them to the media in a manner that trashes Gibson with no supporting evidence....what a frikkin' hatchet job by the ruling establishment.

If the liberty or freedom of a society is guaged by the way they treat dissenters or extremists that strain the limits of expression...modern America is failing the test dismally.

Don't knock the "Boss" or we ruin you...there's the message and the trail of the fallen is almost as long as Klinton's white water body count.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at July 31, 2006 06:49 PM

---

He was driving while very drunk and that alone puts him in my badbook

Posted by: kelly at July 31, 2006 07:08 PM

---

I don't think he will be in any Mel Brooks movies any time soon...

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 07:22 PM

---

What about Stephen Speilberg movies?

Kelly, quite right about the drunk driving thing. That was the first and only thing I heard in the media, the rest came later, guess I was already pissed off at him just for that.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 31, 2006 07:35 PM

---

full disclosure, i'm jewish and i support a strong and secure israel.

jema54 is a lot nuttier or at least more drunk than mel was.

i read that his bal was 1.2. that's not very high and since he drinks heavily that would probably mean he was only in second gear at the time, i.e. not very drunk. considering his father's point of view, it's not a stretch that he's no jew lover.

in any event, his career won't suffer for a couple of reasons. he didn't say anything many, if not most, people believe. and, he doesn't need producers to back him anymore. he risked all his money making the passion and hit a financial homerun. he can do it alone.

Posted by: allen at July 31, 2006 07:45 PM

---

To Ade: It's convenient how "conventional" anti-semitism suddenly disappeared around the 1950s-1960s and anti-Zionism suddenly appeared in equal or greater amounts - almost as if much anti-Zionism was in fact poorly-disguised anti-semitism...

And really, you're telling us not to associate Israel with Jews? I know it's a fairly secular state, but honestly, have you looked at their flag recently? Have you seen the photos of IDF operatives wearing tefillin? A bit naïve to be telling us that nobody thinks of Jews when they hear about Israel. Ridiculous, in fact.

On the topic at hand, I really don't think Mel Gibson is going to suffer that much as a result of this. Think about it - who is going to be truly upset? Most Liberals think it's perfectly natural to hate the Jews, and most Conservatives are smart enough to see through Hollywood's pathetic hypocrisy. Mel Gibson's statements are tame compared to some of the other crap you hear from Hollywood, not to mention several news organizations like the AP.

I don't condone what he did - and I have as much reason as anyone here to be upset and/or offended - but I'd still be much happier to see the New York Times disappear into obscurity than Mel Gibson. I think we've all embarrassed ourselves to some degree before; at least Mel had the decency to immediately apologize and admit that what he said was wrong. That shows at least some modicum of moral character to me, much unlike any of the seething, unadulterated, unrelenting, unabashed hatred for Israel/Jews we've been witnessing in the MSM recently.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 31, 2006 09:38 PM

---

I just thought this CTV online poll was relevant:

Is Mel Gibson's major movie career finished?

Yes, I won't ever buy a ticket to his movies again 2131 votes (19 %)

No, he'll bounce back after a long break 9065 votes (81 %)

Total Votes: 11196

(as of about an hour ago).

I was quite surprised. It sounds like people are ready to forgive him.

I hope he goes to jail for driving drunk. It won't stop me from seeing his movies (well, the religious ones, anyway). I don't think he really meant what he said. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He took responsibility for his actions.

Posted by: SUZANNE at July 31, 2006 09:41 PM

---

Strange, I always thought that the standard irrational knee-jerk accusation of Hollywood was that it was overrun with Jews. Now you're saying that in fact it's the opposite that's true? That much of Hollywood is actually filled with anti-Semites who "have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general." So confused! Which prejudicial overgeneralization to blindly embrace?! I hate it when two perfect good racist stereotypes collide. It's enough to make you want to not perpetuate racist statements at all.

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 10:30 PM

---

The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-semitic movie. Of course protestant fundies loved it; as if they need an excuse to be heretical or anti-semitic. Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now. That your man Harper is courting both these camps sadly speaks volumes about the poverty of contemporary conservatism.

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 11:38 PM

---

A story is told of a Jewish man who was riding on the subway reading an Arab newspaper. A friend of his, who happened to be riding in the same subway car, noticed this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approached the newspaper reader.

"Moshe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an Arab newspaper?"

Moshe replied, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to the Arab newspaper. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!"

.............
Most liberals are not anti semites. Most liberals were strongly in favor of Israel when it was first formed. However many liberals do not support war as it is now being waged by both the US and Israel.

Gibson made a religious film that has influenced people around the world. He claimed the film was not anti semitic. His comments while drunk make it appear that he might be anti semitic and the film may have anti semitism in it. The world doesn't need any more hate. 6 million jews died in horrific conditions because of anti semitism and a purportedly religious film that might encourage anti semitism in today's world is something to be concerned about. For once its not about the money.

Posted by: Chris at August 1, 2006 12:12 AM

---

>>The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-Semitic movie.

Wrong on both counts. The movie stayed true to the accounts recorded in the 4 gospels and the teachings of orthodox Christianity. And unfortunately, charges of anti-Semitism will remain as long as people misunderstand why and how Jesus died.

>> Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now.

As a conservative Christian who is supportive of Israel, I can tell you, as with most generalizations, this is not accurate. There are differing views on the interpretation of end-times prophecy, for example I lean towards orthodox preterism (or partial-preterism) - according to this view there is no special place or requirement for a physical Israel prior to the end of this age. Yet I support Israel, not because I think it is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather I side with a country fighting against those who with full intent attack and kill innocent men, women and children and then celebrate when they succeed.

Posted by: at August 1, 2006 11:50 AM

---

>>The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-Semitic movie.

Wrong on both counts. The movie stayed true to the accounts recorded in the 4 gospels and the teachings of orthodox Christianity. And unfortunately, charges of anti-Semitism will remain as long as people misunderstand why and how Jesus died.

>> Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now.

As a conservative Christian who is supportive of Israel, I can tell you, as with most generalizations, this is not accurate. There are differing views on the interpretation of end-times prophecy, for example I lean towards orthodox preterism (or partial-preterism) - according to this view there is no special place or requirement for a physical Israel prior to the end of this age. Yet I support Israel, not because I think it is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather I side with a country fighting against those who with full intent attack and kill innocent men, women and children and then celebrate when they succeed.

Posted by: Denis at August 1, 2006 12:22 PM

---

Denis,
Orthodox Christianity is inherently anti-literal. There is God and there is man. Any time man presumes to know the mind of God or The Truth (which is what literalism entails) one has crossed the river into hereticism. Everyone in the Know knows that is why Orthodox Christianity is the thinking persons religion because it has a built in guard against literalism and therefore dogma.

As for the second point. Cheney's brand of fundamentalism certainly entertains the Armageddon in the here and now narrative. So sure not all fundies entertain this millenarianist bent but then not all fundies support the hawks in Israel. The most outspoken ones these days sure do and they sure seem to talk about the end of days a lot . Now if your point is that some fundies are really out there you will get no disagreement from us.

Now as for the fact that you support Israel bully for you. So do we! If what you mean by this is that you think Jews have a right to homeland where they can feel safe and conduct their lives according to the organic evolution of their culture/society. But in that sense we support the right of all peoples to such sovereignty.
Moreover, and more importantly, one can be supportive of Israel without condoning the actions of the IDF which have consciously lead to the killing of civilians. Either it is wrong to kill civilians or it is not. We do not get to choose when we apply this moral maxim. Selectivity leads to inconsistency and such inconsistency leads to the undermining of the very moral invocation we are trying hold others accountable to.
If we are serious that the main reason we ought to denounce terrorism is because it leads to the killing of innocent people then we must judge any strategy of conflict as equally repugnant that, a priori, accepts that a disproportional number of non-combatants will be killed in order to achieve a military goal. If you do not apply this rule consistently you have no moral foundation to condemn Hamas's suicide bombers or Hizbollah's rockets when they kill civilians.
Friends do not let friends drink and drive nor should they let them go on what is effectively a murderous rampage no matter how aggrieved they may be. Such actions are the provenance of God not man.

In solidarity,

Goodwin Ginger
www.canadianobserver.wordpress.com

Posted by: goodwin ginger at August 1, 2006 04:05 PM

---

Mel was drunk enough to become imparticular with semantic distinctions. That's what getting drunk does.

The semantic distinction he failed to make was that between 'the Jews', and the particular policies of the State of Israel, a creation of the Zionist ideology, a relatively new ideaology amongst the Jews, and an ideology that many Jews differ with vociferously. See 'Jews Against Zionism' and similar web sites.

For this semantic drunk impolity, he is to be blacklisted? Why? What if he had said: 'The Muslims are always starting wars' or 'The Russians are always starting wars' or 'The germans are always starting wars'...would this have caused a similar stir?

One aspect of racism is when one racism is condemned and punished more severely than another racism. What if a black comedian had said, 'The honkies are always starting all the wars' ?

This incident and mel's predicament is just part and parcel of the post war world learning to shed past paradigms and learning to grow up. In this, Mel has made a public service.

Posted by: hoff at August 1, 2006 04:10 PM

---

If we are serious that the main reason we ought to denounce terrorism is because it leads to the killing of innocent people then we must judge any strategy of conflict as equally repugnant that, a priori, accepts that a disproportional number of non-combatants will be killed in order to achieve a military goal. If you do not apply this rule consistently you have no moral foundation to condemn Hamas's suicide bombers or Hizbollah's rockets when they kill civilians.

Well said, 'Goodwin Ginger'! Bully for you too! ;-)

Posted by: A at August 1, 2006 04:29 PM

---

>> Any time man presumes to know the mind of God or The Truth (which is what literalism entails) one has crossed the river into hereticism.

I'm not sure I understand your use of the term "literalism". Literalism, as I would argue it, means to read and comprehend a document according to the style of literature it is written in. For example, a document which follows the pattern of a historic account should be interpreted as a historic account, a document written in poetic form should be interpreted as a poem, etc. Literalism, in this usage, simply means we read a document using its style(s) as context to help understand how we are to interpret its meaning.

When it comes to Scripture, literalism does not suppose we know the mind of God, it simply means we interpret what He has revealed to us based on the form of the literature it is recorded in. Since we hold Scripture to be inspired by God, literary style is a tool to help us understand what God is communicating.

>> Now if your point is that some fundies are really out there you will get no disagreement from us.

That's not really my point; my point is there is diversity, even amongst us "fundies", when it comes to eschatology. I will concede however that there are those out there that support Israel for reasons I would find debatable.

>> Either it is wrong to kill civilians or it is not. We do not get to choose when we apply this moral maxim. Selectivity leads to inconsistency and such inconsistency leads to the undermining of the very moral invocation we are trying hold others accountable to.

I find no inconsistency in my logic.

Hezbollah purposefully and systematically targets civilians, murdering innocent men women and children. They hail men like Samir Kuntar as heroes. Hezbollah's goal is to spill the blood of innocents.

Israel on the other hand is conducting itself in a way that shows me they are trying to avoid civilian casualties. And when they fail and innocent blood is shed, they are remorseful not jubilant. I add this to my belief that Israel is justified in trying to destroy Hezbollah and its military capabilities in an effort to save Israeli citizens. They have tolerated more incursions than any sovereign nation should be expected to.

As unpalatable as it may be, I see no way to avoid the death of innocents in this current environment. If Israel were to immediately withdraw, Lebanese innocents may be safe from the IDF but inevitably the blood of innocent Israelis would continue to flow. I don't think this is a solution any government should be forced to make.

>> Friends do not let friends drink and drive nor should they let them go on what is effectively a murderous rampage no matter how aggrieved they may be. Such actions are the provenance of God not man.

I have not seen evidence to convince me that Israel is engaging in a "murderous rampage", i.e., purposefully and systematically targeting civilians. If this evidence were to arise, though I honestly doubt it will, I will definitely revisit my position on this current war.

In the mean time, I stand by Israel in their attempt to destroy Hezbollah.

Posted by: Denis at August 1, 2006 05:26 PM

---

"A", what the hell is wrong with you? You say that the "standard irrational knee-jerk accusation" that Hollywood is overrun with Jews, then proceed to provide "proof" in the form of a link to one of the most infamous sites for revisionist history and Jew-hatred, citing that as an example of what Conservatives think? Are you totally off your nut, or are you just desperately scrounging for evidence of our non-existent hypocrisy?

I believe the "standard" criticism of Hollywood, supported by copious evidence, is that it is overrun with moonbats, not Jews. The accusation you claim to be "standard" is only standard in the fevered imaginations of the looney-bin tinfoil hat crowd.

But thanks for providing the revisionist-history link. You've shown your true colours for all of us.

Posted by: Aaron G at August 1, 2006 08:36 PM

---

It is my understanding that people in the creative end in Hollywood are under tremendous pressure to produce. It is also a fact his father Hutton is a dyed in the wool anti-semite,so Gibson grew up listening to this siht. Toss in the fact that he was drunk and I dont find his behaviour surprising. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: rick at August 2, 2006 10:05 AM

---

I have a better question.

Who the hell cares?

He has money, he has fame.... he is set for the rest of his life. He can retire and tell the world to kiss his ass.

Posted by: Ed at August 2, 2006 11:33 AM

---

Aaron G: I never claimed that the views of the Institute for Historical Review, which I'm fully aware is infamous for its anti-Jewish propaganda, were shared either by myself or by conservatives. I do not believe that Hollywood is "overrun by Jews", but nor do believe Mr. Janke's claim that:

...a lot of Hollywood is populated by Bush-hating ranters cut from the same cloth as Michael Moore and Alex Baldwin. These people have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general.

The point of my post, as you will glean if you reread it with a little more care, is that any "irrational knee-jerk" overgeneralization (to which we may add your own view that "...the 'standard' criticism of Hollywood, supported by copious evidence, is that it is overrun with moonbats...") is flawed and that we should refrain from making them at all. In fact, thanks for proving my point!

Posted by: A at August 2, 2006 12:33 PM

---

Testing...haven't been able to get on for days...fingers crossed...

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 2, 2006 02:44 PM

---

Mel Gibson's biggest "sin" in Hollywood is not his misdemeanours of the past weekend, so much as the fact that he is a practising Roman Catholic Christian, and an extremely conservative one at that.

The Christian religion/faith is the big boogeyman in Hollywood, far more than Mel Gibson's independence and his massive financial success with "The Passion of the Christ," which people were earlier saying was why Hollywood is mad at him. Don't forget, it wasn't his original idea to produce The Passion independently. He couldn't get any Hollywood studio to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

I feel for Mel's family, for his wife and six or seven kids; this public humiliation has got to be extremely difficult for them. Mel shouldn't have been drunk while driving, but he's taken full and personal responsibility for his actions and has apologized to those whom he has offended.

If people want more than that, too bad. A pound of flesh? What? I believe in forgiveness when someone is sincerely sorry for what they've done, and Mel Gibson appears have said a heartfelt "I'm sorry."

I like the guy. He did a really stupid thing, and now he's going to pay the price. But I'll go and see his next movie, and I'll pray for him, too.

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 2, 2006 02:55 PM

---

PS--What family doesn't have alcoholism rear its ugly head from time to time? For most of us, we're fortunate that the world's press aren't following our loved ones' every move and quoting everything they've said.

I'm not for a minute justifying or excusing what Mel Gibson did, but it's not like he's the only person who's fallen off the wagon and done or said something really stupid or offensive. He has had the misfortune, however, of doing it in the glare of public scrutiny.

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 2, 2006 03:05 PM

---

The issue is not what Gibson said when he was arrested. What he said might be an indication of what he thinks about Jews.

The issue is that he made a film that many Jews think was anti semitic and he was now doing a series on the Holocaust. That series was stopped.

If Gibson has anti semitic leanings (which he may not even be aware of) and he is doing films about Jews he is influencing people to think like him. That is the issue. His simple statement when arrested was not very anti semitic, but his films might be fueling anti semitism.

Posted by: Chris at August 4, 2006 01:13 PM

---