Plum Crazy

I agree completely.

Well I'm afraid I'll have to be the bad guy here...I have no problem with Gibsons answers to Noonans questions. He answered them , clearly in my opinion. I guess you have to word it in a way that a 5 year old can understand just so some Jews can be appeased. Sorry if this seems insensitive...I'm not Jewish nor a Roman Catholic.
Besides...aren't we giving him a little too much attention here? He is, after all, just an actor/film-maker.....not the all-mighty.

Well, bully for you, Randy. I'm glad you have no problem with them. I do, however, and I didn't see you at all refute anything I wrote about why I have a problem with them, other than making a slur about intelligence levels and appeasement. If you think I am just some sort of pathetic Jew who needs to be appeased by answers written clearly enough for 5-year-olds to understand, then you are seriously mistaken. And make no mistake, you are talking about me when you talk about those "some Jews" who "can be appeased."

Nor do I particularly care about your religion. I know you aren't Jewish or Roman Catholic. I've seen Jews who expressed no problem with his words, and non-Jews (and non-Roman Catholics) who did have a problem.

As for giving him too much attention, I hardly think that the 10 people who regularly read my blog constitute "too much attention". Mel Gibson himself will almost certainly never know I said a word. This isn't Oprah. It is, however, my blog, the purpose of which is to write about what I feel like writing about. Writing one post about Mel Gibson is hardly treating him like the all-mighty. If it were, Mikey Bloomberg would be like the uber-all-mighty, given that I have an entire blog category dedicated to him.

Besides, given my family's background, there just may be a reason that such a topic interests me. Would you be happy if I only paid attention to people who speak on that topic who you deem worthy of attention? Give me a list. On second thought, give me a break.

You don't watch Arnold? That's grounds for suspicion under the Patriot Act.

One of my former bosses always jokingly accused me of not really being American because I haven't ever seen "The Godfather" and don't own a car. Although I now plan on watching "The Godfather" soon and buying a car this year. Do you think that'll get me past the non-Arnold-watching charges?

Hey, you have the same unholy triumverate I do. :) I occasionally ad Charlton Heston to that list, but dang if I don't like a lot of old Heston movies...

You're dead right....yes, people died in the Ukraine. Yes, people died under Stalin. And yes, people died under Hitler. But whenever anyone starts with the "well yeah, 6 million Jews died but Stalin killed 20 million...." my radar goes up. Same with "some", or any comparative data...it is all Holocaust denial to me. Stalin indeed murdered millions of people, but not because they were, oh lets say Russian Orthodox, and not because he intended to wipe out an entire race of people. On the other hand, Hitler did just that thing, and that is why it was a Holocaust and not just another wacky murderous dictator on the loose.

Why Arnold, Lesley?

I'm with you on the other two, and will raise you a John Travolta and any other scientologist.

However, I plan to see Gibson's "Passion." I want to be able to say "yes" to anyone asking me if I've seen it after I rip it to shreds.

Though I am dreading the final scenes. Braveheart was excruciatingly boring the last hour. This, by all accounts, is Jesus Does Braveheart or something like that.

This is nothing compared to the revisionism that will set in when those of us who were alive at the time of the Holocaust are gone.

I just can't watch Arnold anymore without wondering how many women he groped. I can't enjoy the film.

I'm holding my tongue on this one for the sake of friendship.

Mel Gibson, by all accounts, is one of the most decent people in Hollywood (that's not a particularly impressive feat I realize). He gave Robert Downey, Jewish by the way, a job when no one else would.

He was hardly denying the Holocaust, though he was probably implying it's been exploited to an abysmally nauseating degree by people who wouldn't be able to raise money and pay their own salaries otherwise.

People like Abraham Foxman.

All Gibson has done is make a movie incorporating a literal interpretation of the book of Matthew--which no one in mainstream Christianity denies the historical authenticity of.

My post has not one thing to do with the movie. I didn't mention it, and I'm tired of people assuming they know my views on it. Obviously, I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've heard, I, personally, don't have an issue with it. Apparently this is amazingly difficult for people to comprehend, but the two aren't the same thing or even mutually inclusive. You're also assuming that other people who do have a problem with the movie wouldn't react to his comments this way had he never made such a movie. You really don't know that.

Further, I laid out my reasons why I feel the way I do about his intent, and not one person has yet to say why they disagree with them, other than issuing blanket statements that I'm either (1) in need of statements made clear enough for 5-year-olds and appeasement, (2) [on Jay and Jane's blog the comment was that Jews like me are] playing super-victim, or (3) just wrong. Oddly, not one of those is particularly persuasive. And the first two are extremely condescending.

As for the whole Robert Downey Jr. thing (incidentally, not that it matters but since you brought it up, he isn't Jewish; his father was, but he is not), big deal. Mel was nice to a Jew! Therefore, he can't possibly believe any bad things about Jews! You know, I bet Mel's father has been nice to individual Jews too. Guess what - Hutton Gibson is still a Holocaust denier. It's like people saying "I can't be racist, because some of my best friends are black." It proves nothing.

BTW, holding one's tongue for the sake of friendship means just that. Telling someone you're going to hold your tongue for the sake of friendship is tantamount to not holding your tongue at all. Honestly. Just say whatever it is you want to say. Otherwise, my thoughts about what you might have said might be far worse than the reality. Or not. But either way, you've already suffered downside, because I think you're lumping me in some "whiny super-victim Jew" category in your mind.

Lesley,
I'm particularly interested on your take about this film (and the press surrounding it), so please keep updating on the subject.

[/selfishrequest]

The fact Downey is sort of Jewish was incidental. I used the story to illustrate Gibson is a nice guy.

Actually I didn't really hold my tongue. I believe the Holocaust has been exploited to a nauseating absurdity for political purposes. Because of that I think it has tragically lost some of it's value to teach future generations of the horror humanity can wreak.

The attack on Mel Gibson is just the latest slander and libel disinformation campaign from the Anti-Defamation League, who really should be called the Pro-Defamation League since they mostly defame people and no one more than themselves. Maybe they should be rechristened the Anti-Defecation League, then they can start with cleaning up their own act.

I realize you weren't taking issue with the film, but I still think you might be letting yourself get a little wrapped up in all the hysteria surrounding it.

Hell if I didn't know better I'd say the ADL and other Jewish organizations must be the biggest investors in this project.

It's in Greek and Latin. Besides the Vatican, some monastic theologians and a few Cannes patrons, who would have paid to see it?

Lets be real. This wasn't a daft political maneuver by some dumb Jews who had no idea they would generate more publicity than Mel Gibson ever dreamed for a film with no commercial viability otherwise.

Both Gibson and Abraham Foxman know exactly what they’re doing.

Gibson is doing what Hollywood producers--not a few of them Jewish--always do; he’s milking as much publicity as he can by saying things like "I know some Jews who 'worked'--as if they had collective bargaining and a 401k--in French concentration camps."

On the other side some whiney face-time whoring Jews who do real frankly have a tendency to think of themselves as perpetual victims, are once more reaping the dividends from a controversy that never existed until they created it... mostly so they can fill up the coffers of their little smear mills.

Who do I mean? I mean the Weisenthal Center--since when do they get involved in things that have zero to do with the Holocaust--and the Anti-Defamation League.

Every Christian worth his salt--which Gibson is, he spent $millions making and distributing a film based strictly on his convictions--has the utmost respect and admiration for Judaism and Jews. Yes we think you should convert to Messianic Judaism, but we still love you. You might note the Catholic Church which Gibson repudiates is the same Catholic Church that did the soft-shoe with Hitler.

Gibson wasn't denying the Holocaust. I have no idea what his father thinks and don‘t particularly care. My father voted for Bill Clinton.

While we're on the subject, saying the purges during Stalinization (which a number of my relatives undoubtedly perished in) or the millions of Ukrainians killed in WWII are great tragedies in themselves, does not deny anything. It simply communicates to how much of a degree they haven't been exploited for political purposes 60 years and half a world removed.

You love us? Sorry, but patronization isn't love in my book. If it is, please, stop loving us so much. Who needs that? Your entire response is filled with patronizing remarks about Jews. I know, it's only the Jews you don't like, not all of us. Sorry, but I will always side with Jews when someone makes smarmy remarks about them. Especially when the other Jews are saying something I agree with. So if the Jews complaining about Gibson's remarks are attention-whoring and whiny in your book, committing libel and spreading disinformation for political purposes, then I'm in the same category they are, because I'm complaining about Gibson's remarks. I refuse your parsing of Jews. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself and came to my own conclusions on this, so I'm not the victim of a disinformation campaign. Your thoughts about my mental state regarding the movie are, quite frankly, wrong. Ergo, side me with them, not you.

Further I might note that the Catholic Church that Gibson repudiates is NOT the same Catholic Church that did the soft-shoe with Hitler. That's the Catholic Church Gibson wants to return to. Remember, he wants to overturn Vatican II. Vatican II, you may recall, was sponsored by Pope John XXIII, the man formerly known as Monsignor Roncalli. Monsignor Roncalli saved many Jews during the Holocaust. He wanted the part of Vatican II which absolved every last Jew, past, present, and future, from responsibility for killing Jesus, because he had seen how that was twisted into justifying the atrocities of the Holocaust ("the Jews deserved it because they killed Jesus"). Gibson wants to overturn all of Vatican II, including that part. So, no, I might note no such thing as you suggest, because it's positively false.

While we're on the subject, I didn't make any mention of his statements about the Ukraine and Stalin in my reasons why I believe Gibson was using the language of Holocaust deniers. You have yet to refute one of my reasons. You just say he wasn't denying the Holocaust. Still not persuasive.

Incidentally, the movie is in Aramaic and Latin, not Greek and Latin. And it will have subtitles.

My point about his father wasn't intended to indicate that because his father believes something Mel must believe it too. It was to point out that showing that someone has been nice doesn't prove anything other than they have been nice. Lots of nice people believe not so nice things.

I'll have to respond at length later, if I feel like it, but your argument about the Catholic Church is uncompelling.

The Vatican--the same Vatican that convened Vatican II, I assume that's why it was called VaticanII--is the entity that turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the Holocaust.

Gibson is repudiating the fluctuating political character of the Catholic Church in favor of fundamentalism.

It's that political element that lead to the Church doing the soft-shoe with Hitler.

Also, I wasn't attacking people complaining about the remarks primarily, I was complaining about people taking issue with the movie mostly. I said his remark was stupid essentially, but I don't think it equates to anti-Semitism.

And yes some Jews with ulterior motives are engaged in a smear campaign against Gibson, I'm taking issue with them as well.

Respond as you see fit, but the only response I have any interest in seeing from anyone is one that addresses my points. If the basis of a response is going to be that my post is, effectively, not worthy of being taken seriously on its merits because I'm being an overly sensitive Jew, or a whiny Jew, or a Jew playing victim games, I have no interest in furthering the discussion. All I've seen so far are effective dismissals of any worth in the points I made; points I did not make lightly. I seriously considered making the post to assure myself I was not simply reacting out of over-sensitivity. I am so assured. Therefore any response that is based upon a disbelief of that is not one I will consider worth taking seriously.

I'll cop to being patronizing. I'm a cynic and an asshole and when I start questioning motives (not yours) I quit respecting people and respond accordingly. I'm questioning motives on this one. I think a lot of division is being created by assholes who are using what shouldn't be such a huge controversy to promote themselves and their particular brand of exclusionary sectarianism. People like Abraham Foxman and Rabbi Heir are not about bringing Jews and Christians together. I'm surprised someone of your character with your level of intelligence would lump themselves in with that crowd.

I can name you any number of well respected Jews who believe Mel Gibson is someone of the utmost character with good will toward Jew and Gentile alike.

You have Gibson denying the Holocaust when all he really said was that Jews weren't the only people who were slaughtered en masse in the last century. The way you put it was "he's sounding a lot like his father" which is guilt by association. Guilt by association is a form of character assassination, you know that.

Most pogroms, Kyrstalnact (sp) and the Holocaust were not about religion. There was nothing religious about the Nazis, their religion was the state and nationalism. Their beef with Jews was a political one. They thought Jews had too much power and influence in Germany and Russia and were responsible for the treaty of Versailles. The Holocaust had absolute zero to do with anything the Sadducees or Pharisees might have done 2000 years ago, so I don't even know why the heck Rabbi Heir and the Weisenthal Center feel the need to be involved here.

This campaign against Gibson is a crock.

Why take my word though, here's someone saying almost exactly the same thing.

Maybe I wasn't so patronizing afterall. Had no idea the ADL had a budget of $40 million. Wonder how they raise that much...

I guess you have linking shut off.

Klinghoffer editorial

Editor's Note: I haven't shut off linking.

Jim, you are simply ill-informed as to how the local populace felt about Jews. I'm not talking specifically about Hitler and the Tsars, but the people themselves. Hitler and the Tsars could never have committed those atrocities without the tacit, and even explicit, consent of their subjects. And, quite frankly, you really don't know what you're talking about. The beliefs of the populace had a lot to do with religion. Ever hear of the blood libel? That was a political belief? What an utter crock. Hitler used the religious beliefs of the Germans and other Europeans to get them to play into his hands. It was successful. I suggest you look into people like Theodor Fritsch, Julius Streicher, and the Lutheran bishops Martin Sasse and Otto Dibelius, to name but a few. Here's a link to a "lovely" children's book published during the Nazi era, which clearly picks up on religious themes in antisemitism, specifically referring to Jews as "the Devil in human form," picking up on historical lies about the Talmud, and referring to Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus. This is just one example, so please, spare me your theory that Christian antisemitism was not at the root of the Holocaust.

As for your appeal to any number of well-respected Jews beliefs about Mel Gibson, well, bully for them. As I already said, I think for myself. I have reached my conclusions based upon my own thought process. I have not been brainwashed by anyone's views about a damn movie I don't even care about.

I also see you still have not refuted one of my points, still choosing to attack the post on the basis of my being irrational. I do not believe Gibson only said what you claim he did, and I gave specific reasons why not. You have never once bothered to refute those specific reasons or provided specific reasons of your own why your claim is accurate. As for his father, I said he was sounding a lot like his father, because I believe he is actually sounding a lot like his father. That was not guilt by association. The statement wasn't that his father believes X, so Mel must believe it too, which would be guilt by association. It was a direct condemnation of Mel Gibson. I brought his father into it because I was previously on record specifically stating that even though his father clearly was a Holocaust denier, there was no reason to believe that Mel Gibson was. Well, now I have reason, so my earlier statement is wrong. I was acknowledging that.

But it's like this - either put up or shut up. Because I've had just about enough of your condescension as I'm going to take.

BTW, you are, in fact, being patronizing, and the budget of the ADL is utterly irrelevant to that fact. How dare you excuse yourself by such a slimy tactic. Listen, asshole, I hadn't even read what the ADL had to say on the issue, nor am I in the habit of regularly reading anything they have to say on any issue. You simply can't seem to get it through your skull that I believe this for reasons that have nothing to do with the ADL, the Wiesenthal Center, or anything anybody else has had to say. Reasons I even stated explicitly. Maybe you need to ask yourself why you can't seem to accept that fact. Because I sure as hell am asking.

I have now read the Klinghoffer piece, and he in no way is saying almost exactly the same thing that you are saying.

To wit - You are basically saying that the ADL and Abraham Foxman are a bunch of slimy characters (or "assholes") who are muck-raking to increase their power. Klinghoffer on Foxman: "The ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman, genuinely cares about the Jewish people, but his group is inevitably affected by the pressures of funding a large, nonprofit organization. The imperative to convince donors that you fight an urgent fight is overwhelming. The ADL has a $40 million yearly budget to raise."

Klinghoffer attributes Foxman's motives to far purer causes than you deign to. He does not bash Foxman; he does not call him an "asshole" or even insinuate that he is one. He questions whether or not Foxman's views might be colored by his need to raise donations, but he does not decry him as a money-grubbing, power-hungry asshole. He gives him the benefit of the doubt of having good motives. You do not. I don't think Klinghoffer would appreciate having his piece equated (even "almost") with your insults.

And, of course, Klinghoffer's piece is ABOUT THE MOVIE, not mentioning word one about Gibson's comments to Noonan. If you want to address what I think ABOUT THE MOVIE, then go read my post ABOUT THE MOVIE. For the last damn time, this post is not ABOUT THE MOVIE.

The movie has everything to do with the comments and all hullabalou surrounding them.

Klinghoffer: The perilous logic of the anti-defamation business demands that the ADL find "dangers" to denounce, even when those dangers, if left alone, would have been neutralized simply by their own nature — in this case, by the eccentricity of a Latin-Aramaic screenplay. Gibson's purposes positively required that he be denounced.

He played the ADL as William Wallace played the bagpipe. The relationship between anti-defamation watchdogs and alleged defamer is symbiotic and mutually beneficial. What dangers it has unleashed for the rest of us remain to be seen.

Me: Lets be real. This wasn't a daft political maneuver by some dumb Jews who had no idea they would generate more publicity than Mel Gibson ever dreamed for a film with no commercial viability otherwise...it's in Greek and Latin (I mistakenly said Greek rather than Aramaic).

Both Gibson and Abraham Foxman know exactly what they're doing.

Gibson is doing what Hollywood producers—not a few of them Jewish—always do; he's milking as much publicity as he can by saying things like "I know some Jews who 'worked'—as if they had collective bargaining and a 401k—in French concentration camps."

On the other side some whiney face-time whoring Jews who do real frankly have a tendency to think of themselves as perpetual victims, are once more reaping the dividends from a controversy that never existed until they created it... mostly so they can fill up the coffers of their little smear mills.

Note: Although in hindsight this is a bit more pugnacious than I wish I'd have offered, I think I was clear I'm talking about Rabbi Heir and Abraham Foxman, not the vast majority of those they claim to represent.

You're right, Kilinghoffer is more understated than I am, as you know subtlety is not my forte. But if you think he isn't suggesting the ADL created a mountain out of a molehill to suit their own purposes--yet another mountain that will needlessly divide peoples like so many before it--then I just don't know what editorial you're reading. Clearly he is pointing to ulterior motives on the part of the ADL. They serve their agenda at the expense of a decent man's reputation and character and in so doing bring dishonor on themselves. The ADL hasn't just attacked the movie, they have gone after Gibson. Like you, they have brought his father and comments he has made about the Holocaust into the debate about it. Why do you figure Noonan asked the question? No one who comes up with some stupid new-age gobbledeegook like "1000 points of light" has enough of an imagination to pose such a question independent of a controversy.

Your point about the blood libel and other religious propaganda is not one I failed to consider before I wrote what I did. I happen to believe however, that without envy of Jews--due to a perception they were better off materially and enjoyed vastly more favor than the average citizen--and general political and social apathy (which was caused not by any indifference to the plight of Jews because they killed Jesus, but rather livelihoods that dictated a struggle for survival and later trust in the political entity which eased it--there were afterall no elections after 1933) there would not have been a Holocaust.

Did perceptions on the part of a few uneducated morons that Jews were exclusively responsible for the crucifixion help the Jewish plight? I have to assume not, but I don't think it was to blame.

The irony here is that Christians generally teach that the crucifixion is on all men, that Jews are the chosen people from which Christianity and salvation sprung. Yet some of those who would most suppress this message are activist Jews in groups like the ADL. Again I say they really seem to be about dividing people.

The ADL and Wiesenthal Center want to make politics out of art and Gibson wisely is telling them to go to hell. His movie does not.

As to your contention I haven't addressed any of your points, I most certainly did. Your main point was that Gibson has become a "Holocaust denier." My main point is that his comments reveal no such thing, that misinterpreting and reading too much into them is just part of a larger smear campaign associated with the movie. Do I believe you are consciously and premeditatedly part of that campaign? No. Do I believe it has somewhat influenced you? Yes. Do I think you're eminently capable of thinking very well and independently for yourself when you're not being so far fetched and possibly even defensive? Of course. Do I still respect and love you? Absolutely.

Since I'm so condescending and patronizing, I'm just going to hold my nose up sneeringly and largely ignore the "asshole" comment (which wasn't in quotes in your post).

I did a shitty job of italicizing, but I think you can figure out who said what in what context.

Forget it, Jim. You haven't actually addressed my specifics, and if you don't believe that the basis of my reasons have nothing to do with the movie and the hullabaloo about it, then there is no point in furthering this discussion. They don't. I am in a far better position to know that than you are, but you apparently believe you know more about my state of mind than I do. And, yes, that is eminently condescending. Since we're playing that game, here's what I think about your frame of mind - you are trying to find reasons acceptable to you for what I believe regarding his comments, because the real reasons are ones you don't like and would cast me in your mind in a way that you can't accept.

You do realize you're going beyond even Abraham Foxman and the Weisenthal Center in encouraging a boycott of Gibson, right? At the very least you're justifying one by saying his comments which might suppose the Holocaust never happened (not what he said) make it impossible for you to enjoy his films and you'll no longer watch them. That's your choice but it's closed-minded and assumes quite a bit.

You're questioning the man's character, certainly implying anti-Semitism by associating him with his father and basing your contentions wholly on supposition.

Where is Roman Polanski on your list? Does he get a pass because his mother fell victim to the Nazis, is that how it works?

I think Gibson is under a microscope right now, and that all kinds of things which are not at all definitive are being used to paint a vague unflattering portrait because he's done something that doesn't sit well with a few people.

I think you're a good person but you're wrong here.

Gibson was clearly annoyed by Noonan's question, and if you look at how she prefaced it, she knew it was going to annoy him. His film is not about the Holocaust, it's about Jesus Christ. Since you're assuming so much, I'm going to assume he resents that some have made his film about the Holocaust for their own benefit. I think that frustration dictated the way he answered, I don't think there was any "dancing around the question" going on. I think like me, Gibson is sick of seeing and hearing one of the great human catastrophes of modern times exploited for personal political gain some 60 years and half a world removed.

I certainly don't deny the Holocaust, but in a similar circumstance I could see myself answering the question almost the way he did--I would not have said "worked in a concentration camp." I guess that means despite all my protestations to the contrary, which isn't the usual modus operandi of anti-Semites who mostly wear the distinction proudly, I must be a Jew-hater.

There's a report out today that Gibson is dropping a scene from the film because it "didn't appeal" to a friendly audience during a pre final-production screening. It's the scene about Caiphas, the Jewish high priest who exclaimed something to the effect of "his blood be on our hands." The episode is well documented in the New Testament, so already politics has won out over artistic freedom.

Wonderful.

Ask me what I think about filmmaking by committee. Nevermind. I think about as much of it as I do opinion polling.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never encouraged a boycott of Gibson. I said, quite truthfully, that I wouldn't be able to enjoy his films. That is me, not anyone else. I never said others should stop seeing his films. That's a personal choice.

I see no reason to pay money to watch something I won't be able to enjoy. I won't be able to enjoy them because each time I see him I will be wondering the whole time if he believes the Holocaust didn't really happen. The reason I don't watch Woody Allen any longer is because I can't see him without thinking about Soon Yi. However, I can watch "What's Up, Tiger Lily", because I don't have to see Allen himself. I don't watch Arnold because I can't see him without thinking about the women he groped. So if Gibson directs a film I want to see, but doesn't star in it, I'll go see it. That is why I can watch Roman Polanski movies. I never have to see Roman Polanski. I will not watch anything in which Roman Polanski appears and wholeheartedly believe he shouldn't have been given an Oscar. So shove your assumptions about my giving him a pass because of his background. BTW, I also can't watch Bill Clinton speak.

The reason I won't go see The Passion, even though Gibson doesn't appear in it, is because I just won't enjoy it. Sorry, but another movie about the life story of Jesus isn't interesting to me (note the word "me" at the end of the sentence, indicating that I don't expect others to feel the same way). I didn't go see The Last Temptation of Christ either.

Before somebody decides to blast me for being anti-Christian because the subject matter isn't interesting to me, allow me to point out that I wouldn't expect anyone else to find the subject matter of one of my favorite books interesting - namely, Daniel Deronda by George Eliot. Daniel Deronda is the story of an Englishman raised as an upper-class Christian who later finds out that he is actually Jewish. He then goes and explores Judaism and winds up practicing it and marrying a Jewish woman. I think this is a wonderful book and read it because I found the subject matter interesting. However, I wouldn't consider anyone who didn't to be antisemitic.

life