http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012081.php Maybe it doesn't belong here, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Basically, Greg Easterbrook wrote a column in The New Republic about the new movie Kill Bill, in which these couple of paragraphs drew attention: Here's a link to the full article: http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844 After some press coverage, and an apology, ESPN decided to relieve him of his duties writing the Tuesday Morning Quarterback column for their Page 2 website because of The New Republic article. But here's where it gets interesting. Not only did ESPN fire him, but they retroactively deleted all of his previous columns, making it appear as though he never worked for them. You can get hits to his previous articles by using keyword searches at ESPN.com, but all the links now give you a 404 error message. IIRC he wrote there for about two years. So is this: A) Just punishment for possible anti-semitic remarks and/or slamming a company product, or B) Somewhere we don't want to go?
Easterbrook's apology seems sincere, if a bit naive. Here's the heart of the apology: The entire paragraph was completely superfluous to his main point, which is that depictions of random violence is America's most popular export, and we wonder why the random violence of terrorism is an acceptable form of protest. But I think this has more to do with the fact that he slammed a corporate product than any anti-Semitism charge. Just to firmly connect the dots that Glenn Reynolds insinuates, Miramax and ESPN are both owned by Disney. Easterbrook disses a Miramax product, and Disney takes it out on him by pulling the plug on his (very popular) ESPN gig. I liked TMQ. Easterbrook should not have written what he wrote, but his apology was honest and should have been enough to avoid charges of anti-Semitism. He could not defend himself from charges of being anti-corporate, however.
I disagree. What does being of Jewish descent have to do with the makers of this movie ? If the studio heads purported to be orthodox or highly religious than its fair to accuse them of hypocrisy and sell out. Does the author know this to be the case ? All he knows is that they of Jewish descent. They could be atheists at this point for all he knows. Maybe they are both left handed as well - should he bring that up in the argument ? That left handed people love money over principles ? The fact that they are of Jewish descent is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with the facts at hand. Easterbrook has a right to be outraged about Hollywood's sell out for a buck but this line of thought reveals he is truly, deeply anti-semitic. The fact that he blasted his corporate bosses so blatantly and in such a fashion shows him to be naive or stupid as well.
Is this Easterbrook Jewish? I haven't read it in years, but I recollect The New Republic editorial staff being very Jewish, and often attacking other Jews in a way that often came across as being "inside the family", so to speak. Its very difficult to imagine a non-Jew speaking that way, if he had enough sense to hold down a media job for any length of time.
His point was that people of all religions make movies that feature violence against innocent people for fun. But, given the 20th-century history of Judaism, it'd be nice to think that people like Eisner and the Weinsteins would look at these things under a different light. I hate to use the term "out of context" in any case, but you have to know something about Easterbrook in order to fully understand his rant. He calls out Hollywood for glorifying violence all the time, and he was just trying to take a different slant on a subject that he has discussed regularly for years. If he said "those greedy Jews" it would be out-and-out anti-Semitism, but he insinuated it in a way that, he says, looks worse than what he meant. Given his history, he's probably being honest. It's in his apology -- he's a Presbyterian, in a church that shares worship space with a Jewish congregation. He's talked about this arrangement before. I know nothing about the prevailing religion of other TNR staff. Listen, he dissed his boss publicly -- that would be enough to get me fired from my job. But I really don't think that he was trying to make this into a "those evil Jews" rant.
To be fair to Miramax, they did turn down the opportunity to distribute Mel Gibson's gory movie, The Passion. [/sarcasm]
1- wasn't the matrix the favorite movie of the columbine idiots? 2- the thesis of scream had nothing to do with murdering classmates because they teased the killer i'm gonna go with: he's a stupid loudmouth... i wonder what his bigsoccer screenname is...
Gregg Easterbrook is no anti-Semite. He makes the same arguments about many others as well, but nobody cares. This is total bs.
I see what he meant with that passage, he assumed that jewish ppl because of pogroms and holocaust should have a different attitude regarding "the killing of the helpless". They've been the helpless killed for many years in Europe, not to mention the holocaust. The argument is silly. But it has nothing to do with antisemitism. The argument is silly because any man, any ppl is capable to do atrocities. As any man of any religion/ethnicity can like money more than anything other. You ppl are a little too oversensitive, btw. All seem to read only "worship money above all else" and "jewish" put in the same sentence. But the logical link was "glorifing the killing of helpless" - "jewish - the helpless 60 years ago". He didn't say "all the jews worship money above all else". This would be clearly antisemitism. If he talked about christians and mammon he had had no problems. (For example pointing out that those christians devoted to mammon are not christians). Not difficult to understand since the holocaust dates 60 years, a fresh terrible hurt. Anyway I see only a man who despises movies that glorify the killing of helpless, not really hard to agree with him. btw i will reveal you something, a jew can "worship money above all else" as any other ppl. Though i don't think it is a jewish attitude, it's an attitude of too many (always too many) human beings.