Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Collapse of Judgment
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If you could save the victims of one of the following four events, which group would you save?

1. The victims of Fidel Castro's "revolution?"

2. The victims of Hezbollah's ambushes, rockets and missiles over the past three weeks?

3. The victims of the Seattle attack on the Jewish federation?

4. The victims of Mel Gibson's repulsive outburst of anti-Semitic venom?

If all human life is valued equally, you'd have to save Castro's millions of victims, the Hezbollah's thousands, then the one dead and many injured in Seattle, and then Gibson's offended.

As an extraordinary week draws to a close, though, you wouldn't have any sense of scale or importance if you had been watching American media or reading American commentary.

To MSM, Castro is the aging but charismatic leader of a defiant island-state, still bearded and wearing fatigues.

Hezbollah is the little terrorist organization that could hold out against the mighty IDF.

Naveed Haq, according to his lawyer, "had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had been taking medication to help control its symptoms, which generally include drastic mood swings."

And Gibson is the anti-Semitic rant-maker and Oscar-winner in whose explosive wrath upon arrest Arianna Huffington found "a chance for reasonable people to stand up and be counted. For the sane among us to identify, separate, and condemn the extremists, the fanatics, the fundamentalists, the bigots, the hate-mongers and say 'no more.' "

We are, it seems, in danger of losing any sense of priority, of scale, of genuine importance.

Abe Foxman, as my new guest blogger Dean Barnett has noted, is deep into Mel commentary. As was Andrew Sullivan. As were and still are many thousands of others.

We are three weeks and two days into the longest, sustained terrorist attack since the V-2s fell on England. It is a war crime --recognized everywhere-- to employ indiscriminate weapons. More than 2,000 have fallen on Israel in a little over three weeks, every one of which is intended to kill civilians.

Castro, if we are lucky, is in renal shutdown or some similar panic-and-repentance initiating slow-shut down of his internal organs that might lead him to beg forgiveness of God and the people he so cruelly used. Tens of thousands executed; hundreds of thousands imprisoned. Millions impoverished. That is Castro's record, and it makes him --easily-- the Most Evil Man of the 20th Century, Western Hemisphere Division.

And Haq is just the most recent of a series of alarming but largely uninvestigated-by-the-MSM events: the arrest of seven in Miami; of 17 in Toronto; the UNC SUV attack; the El Al killings at LAX.

Mel, however, is covered.

In a passage from her famous book, Eichmann on Trial, Hannah Arendt asked: "Could the activity of thinking as such, the habit of examining and reflecting upon whatever happens to come to pass, regardless of specific content and quite independent of results, could this activity be of such a nature that it 'conditions' men against evildoing?" I will leave it to folks far more skilled than I to apply Arendt's observation to the effects of MSM on the public's appreciation of priorities, but here's a bit of background:

From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

As far as Arendt could discern, Eichmann came to his willing involvement with the program of genocide through a failure or absence of the faculties of sound thinking and judgement. From Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem (where he had been brought after Israeli agents found him in hiding in Argentina), Arendt concluded that far from exhibiting a malevolent hatred of Jews which could have accounted psychologically for his participation in the Holocaust, Eichmann was an utterly innocuous individual. He operated unthinkingly, following orders, efficiently carrying them out, with no consideration of their effects upon those he targeted. The human dimension of these activities were not entertained, so the extermination of the Jews became indistinguishable from any other bureaucratically assigned and discharged responsibility for Eichmann and his cohorts.

Arendt concluded that Eichmann was constitutively incapable of exercising the kind of judgment that would have made his victims' suffering real or apparent for him. It was not the presence of hatred that enabled Eichmann to perpetrate the genocide, but the absence of the imaginative capacities that would have made the human and moral dimensions of his activities tangible for him. Eichmann failed to exercise his capacity of thinking, of having an internal dialogue with himself, which would have permitted self-awareness of the evil nature of his deeds. This amounted to a failure to use self-reflection as a basis for judgment, the faculty that would have required Eichmann to exercise his imagination so as to contemplate the nature of his deeds from the experiential standpoint of his victims. This connection between the complicity with political evil and the failure of thinking and judgment inspired the last phase of Arendt's work, which sought to explicate the nature of these faculties and their constitutive role for politically and morally responsible choices.It is easy to comment on the events of Malibu. It can be very hard to comment on Qana. It is inconvenient to bring up Armando Valladares as that requires some reading.

And it can be frightening to consider Haq.

The MSM never surprises, and almost always disappoints.

We are awash in Gibson denunciations, but very short on Castro and Hezbollah condemnations. "I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel," Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell rambled on Detroit television. Of course not. Nor have his colleagues commented on his ambivalence between the Jewish homeland and the terrorist killers of 241 Ameircan Marines and soldiers in 1983.

As blogger Major Mike at MySandmen has noted, it is hard to imagine winning this war with a media incapable of basic judgments about priorities; about obvious good and obvious evil. To save you the click through, I offer half of his post:

It has occurred to me over the past couple of weeks, with the Middle East and Afghanistan in turmoil, because of the likes of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Iraqi Insurgents, Hamas and Hezbollah; that we now live in a world where governments, borders, diplomatic protocols, and indeed, civilizations are on the brink of becoming extinct and obsolete.

These groups, some quasi-governmental entities, (Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah), others simply terror organizations (AQ, and the AQ led Iraqi insurgents) are on the verge of collapsing the existing, and long recognized, international conventions of government, and governmental interactions. Operating outside the frameworks of established political systems, these groups are capable of destroying the very essence of our existing, global, civilization.

While they are attacking with conventional and non-traditional martial weapons, they are also attacking on many asymmetrical fronts, many of which we are either slow to recognize, or refusing to acknowledge. Their asymmetric attacks…IEDs, kidnappings, border incursions, unguided rocket attacks, Gitmo prison suicides, 24/7 MSM wind farm manipulation, are designed to create a perpetual din of violence that we soon become numb to, and are expected to submit to out into the future.

All the while, they receive unsolicited and unwitting help in their messaging by a blinded and prejudiced free press that has let its loathing of Western culture, the culture that gave it birth, create a dire and slanted world view that leaves many apathetic and hopeless. The MSM, with their crass empathies for murderous nationalists and terror mongers, is fueling these anarchistic endeavors through publicity, supportive messaging and storytelling, tacit encouragement, and continual anti-government campaigning.

Their first target is the erosion of institutional and governmental confidence worldwide. They are not seeking to defeat the US in battle. They are not seeking to defeat Israel in battle. They are seeking the destruction of our social, economic, and governmental structures through the simple erosion of public confidence over time. In essence, they are trying to drive the international community into an international malaise, similar to the one that the US experienced after the Vietnam War. And they will leverage this motive vacuum as an opportunity for cultural imposition and theocratic domination. And when successful, they will spiral the current civilized world into chaos, confusion, and repressive dominance that will eventually ruin modern Western society.

They have already changed the government in Spain. They have infiltrated the fledgling democracy in Lebanon and pulled it into a devastating war. They have won control of the Palestinian government, and nearly immediately engaged Israel in a war. Their goal is not victory, it is anarchy. And anarchy is their entry into power. Afghanistan the first time around. Somalia in its current state of affairs.

We are deep into this erosion of confidence and already on the path to ruin. 

Major Mike's been around. He's never been on Hardball, written for The New York Times, or been to Davos.

But he's got a clue. Many, in fact, and he hasn't been writing about Mel.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

Be the first to read Hugh Hewitt's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Where is Kofi Annan?
Shouldn't the UN be doing more to enforce their resolutions? That's a rhetorical question. Shouldn't they at least condemn evil? That's hard to do when you were immersed up to your eyeballs in the oil for food scandal. Any American politician and especially the President who states his intention to work through the UN in its current state and with its current leadership will have the blood of innocents on his hands. How many innocent Iraqis died because of the oil for food scandal? Where is the outrage? The UN is worse than useless, it is evil and makes situations worse. It is no friend to US security.

MSM celebrates moral relativisim
This column is, sadly, dead-on. We are living in a world which for many reasons tells us every day that all issues are "grey", "nuanced". Right and wrong and the ramifications of choice are seemingly gone. When a grown man walks into a Jewish center, shoots the place up and kills someone, why should anyone outside of the judge assigned to the case ever even hear from his lawyer? The "trial" should be a formality. It's not a whodunnit; HE did it! Whether he has mental issues doesn't matter -- lock him up and let him talk to the prison shrink. But, no, the MSM has to give us his side, his lawyer's side, his mother's side, etc. The same with the Hezzbos, Osama, Hamas, Castro, Jong-Il, and so on. Why? I don't need to know their motives for the evil they do; I just know that what they do is wrong and they must be stopped. But the liberals and MSM types have lost their compass and can't even call evil by its' name anymore. And we as a society will suffer greatly because of it.

great column
This nation and its media have our priorities waaay out of whack. We ignore a war in Israel, backburner the war in Iraq, make excuses for a homicidal maniac while we rake a celebrity over the coals for making a bigotd statement while totally drunk! I was watching Special Report on Fox last night and the roundtable gave a segment at the end for Krauthammer, Barnes, and Liasson to castigate Mel Gibson, when that time could have ben spent dicussing John Bolton, or something that has a real consequence in the world. We conservatives, sadly, fall victim to the same temptations to follow celebs as everyone else. What we need to do is focus on things that really matter and let E! tv cover the Mel Gibson story.

This "column" IS moral relativism
It's also a big ol' stark-raving lie.

"You wouldn't have any sense of scale or importance if you had been watching American media or reading American commentary . . ."

Yes, you would.

That's a lie.

On networks and in newspapers, Lebanon and Castro have generated more, and more leading, coverage than Melzbollah.

Every hour.

Every day.

Why would a so-called "columnist" not detect that?

Probably because the few blogs he mentions (which he absurdly paints as representative of MSM in a trademark turn of obfuscation), have taken this very same faux "commentator" to the woodshed for his astonishing ineptitude back in 2004, when he repeatedly and erroneously defended Melzbollah.

Melzbollah deserves a ton of coverage this week; in fact, it deserves fourth billing, even while it has gotten third.

It should play behind Lebanon (as it has), behind Castro (as it has), and behind Iraq (as it hasn't, which is sad, because Iraq's a bigger catastrophe than anything on earth, yet conveniently ignored up top here EVEN in an admittedly phony column pontificating about proportion).

It's fraudulent to go around proclaiming Melzbollah's movie "The Passion" a cultural watershed, its director a role model, then say it's not a cultural watershed when the director turns out to be a fascist.

Malibu Melzbollah provides a rare peek at a real conman in Hollywood's endless sell-and-spin job, plus a hint at why things like Seattle can occur.

A good editor would've killed this "column" for inaccuracy, not to mention nonsense.

Hannah Aredt in the 21st Century
Well said. Very pleased to see Arendt cited. Voegelin next?


Priorities and Objectivity
The MSM wants to castigate Mel Gibson rather than the terrorist Islamic fascists in the middle east, who have KILLED THOUSANDS of Jews and Christians (not to mention the 3,000 Americans on 9/11). It's a media world without perspective or priorities. HELLO! MEL GIBSON HASN'T KILLED ANYONE!

It's about celebrity
The MSM focus on Mel is less a matter of moral relativism than it is an example of American focus on media celebrities. The same sort of coverage would have been given to an American Idol winner or a TV talk show host if he or she had said the same things Mel evidently did.


Castro's tyranny, Israel's battle, and the like are just not as interesting to most Americans as a celebrity's outbursts.

There's enough moral relativism to go around, but I don't think that's quite what's going on here. Note that none of the celebrities who've weighed in on Mel has been a moral relativist.

QUESTION FOR YOU
Hugh, why are three out of the four choices on who would you save have Jews needing to be saved? and the only one that does not reference the Jews is saving a foreign country, is this the best you have to offer? The United States has plenty of groups of people that need to be saved, such as our young and elderly who are either homeless or have nothing to eat day after day right here in the good old United States Of America. Your article is an insult to many.
Heads Need To Roll LLC.

"Double Cappuccino" misses the point
Double Cappuccino writes:

"On networks and in newspapers, Lebanon and Castro have generated more, and more leading, coverage than Melzbollah.

Every hour.

Every day."

Double Cap accuses Hewitt of lying about the QUANTITY of coverage given to recent events, but that's not at all the point that Hewitt was trying to make.
He was comparing the amount of CRITICISM that the MSM dished out to Castro and Hezbollah(scant), to that given to Mel Gibson(enormous).


Answer for hntr
Hntr asks:

"Hugh, why are three out of the four choices on who would you save have Jews needing to be saved? and the only one that does not reference the Jews is saving a foreign country, is this the best you have to offer?"

I believe Hewitt chose these examples because they have been dominating recent headlines, and he is using them to compare the level of criticism the MSM gives to each one. He doesn't use "starving" senior citizens as an example because there haven't been any stories about them on the front pages of our newspapers.

In Vino Veritas???
One of the reasons for not getting drunk, let alone really, really drunk, is that all forms of judgment and impulse control are
very impaired. The prefrontal cortex central to critical thinking & the integration of values gets a big hit too. Anyone who has had a conversation with a drunk will know what I mean. And an angry,
frustrated drunk wanting to get back at the powers-that-be in uniform... well, it is usually a train wreck. And so it was. Cops see this all the time. So have I.
As to Mel Gibson's rant, I would
like to make the following points:
(1) He is an rock-solid, old-time Traditionalist Roman Catholic who got his starter-set of ideas about other religions from a now somewhat reformed church that spent 400 years burning and persecuting heretics & Jews during the inquisition.
(2) Beyond the Catholic church, which has just lately admitted that Christ was lynched by Romans not Jews, we have the undercurrent of
anti-semitism that is residual in our culture.
(3) Where the vituperation came from is easy to guess. We ALL get a dose of anti-semitism as children along with other dreck. In fact, I have met or read the remarks of quite a few individual Jews (of ethnic origin) who have said and done things that reflect irrational stereotyping of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. Their shame and distain is palpable.
(4) If Mel Gibson, says that the drink was talking and not his sane and sober self, I can believe it - lacking any real-life corroboration
that he is an ignorant & irrational bigot. He strikes me as kind, talented, generous and intelligent. I place a lot more confidence in his actions while sober than drunken rants that dredged up unfortunate childhood imprinting.
(5) He won't be the first guy to wake up to shame and remorse for the acts done under the influence.
He has to face his family, friends and colleagues. Cheap shots by the "Gottcha Press" are absolutely
gratuitous. If he is mortified, as his apologies would demonstrate,
then 'nuff said. If he is a hypocrite,
than nothing we can say will help.
(6) Hugh Hewitt is correct, lets not make too much of a drunken rant, while neglecting the serious issues that will directly affect the survival of Israel and the Jews.
(7) The bigots I fear hide their hatred beneath calls for actions that will cripple the war on Islamic Jihadis and their masters in Tehran, Damascus, Moscow and Beijing. After they do for the Jews, they will come for us. Ohh right, they already have!! :-(

Mac


double cappuccino needs decaf
First of all, dc, I think Hugh is referring to the quality of coverage in MSM and not quantity.
Liberals have been quick and loud in their condemnation of Gibson. Rightfully so. However I think it has more to do with Gibson's political leanings and religious conviction than with what he said. They've been lining up to bash Mel after 3 weeks of refusing to say anything condemnatory about Hezbollah and criticizing Israel for "disproportionate" use of force. Its an attempt at establishing anti-anti-Semitic bona fides. "Look! I hate Mel Gibson! I'm not an anti-Semite!"
It would be easier to swallow if it accompanied criticism of liberal anti-Semites like Cindy Sheehan and her Hollywood followers, Noam Chomsky, various KosKids etc.
Libs have been eager to grind Gibson under their heels after he revealed his Catholic faith and gave the Hollywood establishment a big multi-million brush-off with The Passion. With this incident they can kill two birds with one stone.
JMO
Franklin

Why Mel Gibson said what he did
Who knows why Mel Gibson said what he did? I'll guess: He was upset and angry that he risked arrest. Potted as he was, his judgment was severely impaired. He knew or guessed that the arresting officer, James Mee, was Jewish. So he pushed buttons to say the most offensive things he could think of saying.

He spouted nonsense. Making Jews responsible for all wars? Absurd. I suspect that something in Mr. Gibson kept him from saying something hurtful, but arguably true. Did he get his thoughts from anything in his "Traditional Catholic" background? I doubt that. This writer, 72, had a highly devout mother and attended parochial school and a high school with many priests from France on the faculty. I had zero exposure to anti-Semitism from any of those sources or my community, heavily populated by kids a generation or two from Ireland. (I know an anti-Semite, but know he didn’t get his attitude from his family’s Catholic faith.)

Catholics weren't going after Jews during the Inquisition; much that they are accused of doing occurred in Protestant lands. It wasn’t fun to be a Catholic in England for a very, very long time. But blame Catholics for ghettos and many European equivalents of pogroms, with many murders over the centuries, though I’d blame ignorance & not Catholicism for such sins. It's my theory that much of the hostility derived from the ethnic nature of European societies; if we have learned anything from Yugoslavia and Iraq, it is that ethnic, tribal, and clan solidarities lead to rejection of Others, with religion a factor, but not the only one. The greatest mass murderers of history did so with secularist ideas and beliefs. They were children of the Enlightenment, not of any religious faith. Blame secularism? No. Blame flawed humans.

I got the message from the astoundingly nasty and irrational hostility to The Passion of the Christ in the MSM and elsewhere that Catholics have enemies, too, enemies who have itched to get a reason to ostracize Mel Gibson. (My local paper put the initial story above the fold on Page One.) I dismiss much of the fuss because I have so little regard for Mr. Gibson's critics, e.g., Frank Rich; I respect their power, but loathe and despise their ethics. I look forward to the next film Mr. Gibson has produced, because so many other films push abhorrent ideas and practices.. (Think of recent Academy awards.)

Still, many Jews in this country are one or two generations away from the Holocaust and most are a few generations from pogroms or their equivalents. Anti-Semitism had real victims in Europe. Mr. Gibson knows that. Some things one cannot, should not, must not ever say. He said some of them. He also knows that he can't afford ever again to have a drop of alcohol in his mouth, because, well, what he said, though nonsense, raked too close to still-livid scars. Yes, attend synagogue on a Day of Atonement. Seems the right thing to do.

It's easy--
nobody is going to come attack you physically for blaming Mel Gibson. Plus, all your friends are against Mel from the start, and against anything President Bush is for. You don't risk losing social status, either.

You get to rant and rave about right and wrong, at no cost and with no downside.

Mac
Mac writes, "we have the undercurrent of
anti-semitism that is residual in our culture." We do? Or maybe you have some guilt you need to work through. Christianity is inherently pro-jew because (queue drumroll)... Christ was a Jew, and not just a Jew, but according to the New Testament, the only perfect human. This means that as a Jew, he kept the law, perfectly. So Christians worship, are you ready, the Perfect Jew.

Yeah, I know European history does not bear this out very well, but the reform movement Christians that got the ball rolling on this side of the Atlantic brought the right ideas with them. I would also add that the era of strong anti-Semitism in the Christian Church was during the time when the Bible was written in Latin and literacy was a luxury. The more the common Christian knows the scriptures, the less hate pointed at the Jews.

People say stupid things when they are drinking. Sometimes they don't even need drinking as an excuse. I recently had dinner with some friends in Dallas. One was a graduate of the University of Texas Law school who had also done his undergrad there. He is the son of a very well known jewish physician in Fort Worth.

He asked me where I went to school and I told him the University of Houston. Before he could get over patting himself on the back about referring to us as cougar high, he made a point of calling us the Cougros. This is a racist term used by longhorns which criticices UofH for having the nerve to recruit black athletes before they deemed it okay.

Anyway, racism or anti-anyism are out there. But let's not hold Mel more accountable than anyone else.

Correcting myself
I corrected Mac's claim of "persecuting heretics & Jews during the inquisition." Since the (Spanish) Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptized Christians, then one could imply, as I did, that Jews weren't persecuted as Jews in the Inquisition. However, the pressure to convert was great. Many Jews converted publicly, but retained their faith at home. At least 5,000 conversos, or converted Jews, went before the Inquisition from 1560 to 1700. Practially, then, Mac was correct and I was not. (I questioned what I wrote and found good information in Wikipedia.)

Mac wrote: "We ALL get a dose of anti-semitism as children along with other dreck."

No! We didn't all get it. My mother was raised Southern Baptist, she was a bad one, she did her own thinking. My father was raised Episcopal, he was a really bad one, he was outside the law most of his life. However, neither of them tolerated bigotry of any kind and made damn sure my sister and I understood the ignorance displayed when we heard it outside the home. Though divorced because of my father's extralegal proclivities, until he died he could not tolerate a bigot, nor was he quiet about it. My mother is still with us and she is still a bad Southern Baptist, she actually believes others will also go to heaven. She prays for me.

We didn't all get a helping of anti-semitism growing up. Or anti-anybody else, either. Unless based upon their behavior.

On Mel
This Mel Gibson craze is best understood as an exposure of how desperate the MSM to rip apart anyone opposing liberal agendas.

Ask yourself..would this entire fiasco be blown up to so much as a mere fraction of what it is right now had it been a leftwing hollywood posterboy, such as Tim Robbins or Alec Baldwin who made those drunken remarks?

Absolutely not, and you will be proven wrong if you think otherwise, just watch.

Mel Gibson has been labeled as an "enemy of liberalism" and becomes, ironically, targetted by the polarized zealotry they claim to oppose.

This blatent bias in regards to what's covered and what isn't is seen in other ways right this very day.

Unless you're watching fox you won't hear much if anything about Israeli casualties or suffering. NPR focuses their entire coverage on lebanese sympathy campaigns, and has done so over the past several weeks, almost completely ignoring anything that might inspire support or sympathy for Israel.

Plastered everywhere is Hillary's broadway performance of "I'm a serious, tough senator! Watch me ruthlessly rip apart D.R. because this is how I am! ...oh America is watching? What a coincidence!" which comes off as nothing more than a petty fanservice and popularity appeal to all of the blind bandwagon Bush-Admin haters.

When was the last time you saw anything positive - anything - said or reported about the Bush-Admin when you weren't watching Fox?

Moments of charisma and levity, accomplishments of domestic and foreign policies, or even conservative views expressed rationally - nowhere to be found. Clinton media love is abundant despite the fact that many americans feel he's pure slime. Positive accomplishments are always attributed to democrats - or they're not mentioned at all.

It's simple, really. The MSM doesn't try to shape your oppinions by telling you what you should think, they simply shift focus to anything supporting liberal views and ignore anything supporting the Bush-Admin or conservative politics.

With this in mind, it's very easy for me to see why so many people my age have hopped on the ignorant-bush-basher bandwagon - after all, what good has bush ever done? When is he not a moron? When are republicans not stupid religeous zealots and uneducated hicks? Why should I support isreal when NPR focuses 99% of all middle-east coverage on the suffering lebanese civilians at the hands of the Israelis who purposefully bomb civilians and red cross trucks?

It's all they're shown, and they make their decisions based on what they know, like anyone else. Should they be shown any contradictive information it's immediately dismissed as "Fox propaganda" and "rightwing zealotry" and thus begins the brainwashing process.

Hugh, read Major Mike again
Come on, Hugh. Give us a break. You started out by inferring that if there was any perspective at all, the media attention would be on Castro before Hezbollah. Get real. Yours and Ben Shapiro's lack of perspective in harping on about Castro is an opportunistic shot at best.

You then refer to Major Mike's blog as an example of someone who shows real perspective. But he focuses solely on Islamic fascism (and rightly so: the greatest threat facing the world).

You finish with "he hasn't been writing about Mel" to which you should have added "....and he hasn't been writing about Castro, either."


Lots of words about nothing
Major Mike is right. The rest is garbage. Who cares what MSM talk or write about and as for celebrities... Most seem to be whacked out on SOMETHING or at least their own self importance.

Sure, occasionally other things are temporarily of interest, but the war against Islamofacists is the MOST IMPORTANT of anyone alive today. If you don't believe it, are you speaking Arabic?


racism, anti-semitism, etc.
Sad to say I have to believe that at least one of those foul qualities resides in just about all of us, myself included, and if (when?) we give voice to one of them we are properly ashamed and remorseful, as is Mr. Gibson.

What does one say, then, about a faith whose Clerics not only embrace anti-semitism, but proclaim it and teach it - proudly?

I refer you to the site WWW.MEMRI.ORG. Just one of many examples should suffice.

Special Report #11, November 1, 2002:
'Based on Koranic Verses, Interpretations and Traditions, Muslim Clerics State: The Jews Are the Descendants of Apes, Pigs and Other Animals.'

Hypocrits
Pharisees & Marxists hate Christians while Christians despise the attitudes of Pharisees & Marxists. Like most groups with "victim status", the Parisees & Marxists can't take anything near what they dish out.

Mel And Everyone Else
I agree that "racism and any-ism are out there." Every rational human being harbors a prejudice or distrust of some other nationality or religion.

Some enjoy letting others know what groups they dislike, caring not a whit about whether their listeners agree or not.

Then there's a segment of society which essentially believes that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is wrong. Yet they cannot deny that stereotypes hold a certain amount of truth.

Finally, we are left with the "self-righteous" types who swear up and down that they have absolutely NO prejudices. I don't believe them.

As to Mel Gibson, we will mostly agree that, according to the individual, at some point alcohol loosens tongues and inhibitions in a lot of cases. That the effects can cause a person to say things that are completely opposed to his/her true beliefs, I really don't know.

I do know that anyone who has vilified Mel Gibson yet never raged against even one attack made on the Catholic Church or the whole Christian community deserves to be named a hypocrite. That's just what they are.

woh sould I save???
You left out the victims of Israel’s assault upon Lebanon. They are as deserving as any of the others that you named.

You also left out the civilians in Iraq that Bush has murdered "in the name of democratization".

All are "equally deserving" of being “saved”.

Quality
[quote]You also left out the civilians in Iraq that Bush has murdered "in the name of democratization".
[/quote]

Thankyou for demonstrating to us just how effective the leftwing drivel is at brainwashing people into believing absurdities.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.