RE: More on Gibson...
Scene: Tommy Lee googling himself with a cup of coffee on a Tuesday morning...
Riiiight. Like Tommy Lee has been conscious between the hours of 8 am and 2 pm at any time in the last thirty years.
If you elect to make your living via fame, elevating yourself and your behavior above the average person, the public court is rightfully where your mistakes will be judged. Like it or hate it.
Indeed it is. I believe I have made this point a number of times before and have been refuted on more than one occasion by you. I find it interesting that you are willing to concede the point when it doesn't involve one of your "heroes."
Good for the sheriff for trying to treat Gibson as an average Joe and control the madness, but reporting Gibson's despicable behavior (and the sheriff's attempt to keep the details under wraps) doesn't make you a goon.
If you're going to rebut, you have to rebut what I actually said, instead of what you wished I said. I already pointed out that TMZ's goon-ness was in no way a result of their reporting on what Gibson said. As much as you would like for me to take that position, I did not. The Sheriff made no attempt to cover anything up. As I said (and you ignored), every third idiot who gets pulled for DUI spouts some madness. The Sheriff's Department doesn't call a press conference to announce the details. Because the Sheriff appears not to be an attention whore, and because Gibson is not part of the Hollywood Radical Left, TMZ is trying to invent a cover-up where there isn't one. They are, therefore, goons. QED.
It is my experience that members of the entertainment culture don't understand people who are not relentless attention whores. Therefore, when someone acts in a manner that is not solely directed at gaining attention, entertainers assign ulterior, mostly sinister motives to such behavior. Entertainers are generally immature and have weak personalities, so this behavior can be well understood when considered in the context of how the average five-year-old behaves.
To paraphrase a slogan from Hebrew National hotdogs, Gibson portrays himself as one who answers to a higher authority. His tirade doesn't reflect that; it shows him to be not one bit better than any other self-absorbed Hollywood problem child. Matter of fact, his tirade makes him sound much worse than his 'Hollyweird' peers.
Do you offer parachutes for these huge logical leaps?
Can we assume from your characterization that you don't think Gibson honest when he says he answers to a higher authority? You used the word portray, which implies you believe it to be a sham. What evidence can you provide that indicates Gibson does not believe himself to be subordinate to God? Are you offering nothing more than his drunken tirade? Are you suggesting that anyone who says or does anything that isn't error-free, from a Godly perspective, is less than honest when they profess their devotion to God? Furthermore, are you assigning moral equivalence between a drunken rant about Jews and the act of beating the crap out of one's wife? Standard liberal doctrine applies moral equivalence between "hate speech" and physical assault. Are you sure you want to go there?
As a point of 'Hollyweird' comparison, Lee - a drummer in a seminal heavy metal band - wouldn't feel the same moral responsibility to behave as Gibson should, but still, you certainly never hear Lee spouting anti-Semitic hate speak. That's probably because he doesn't hate Jews.
What??!! Let me see if I follow your twisted reasoning. Tommy Lee, because he is a drummer in a heavy metal band, can be excused all sorts of sociopathic behavior simply because of what he "should" be. That is, drummers in heavy metal bands are supposed to be drunken, drugged-up louts who beat their wives, so they should be held to a different moral standard. That's messed up, Strother. You need to really think about that.
As for whether Tommy Lee or Mel Gibson hate Jews, you don't know either way. Gibson's rant certainly doesn't bode well for his acquittal on the social charge of anti-Semitism, but you can't make any assumptions about Lee's opinion based on the absence of evidence. Your stance is exactly the same as mine would be if I asserted that Strother is a Nazi because I've never heard him say he isn't.
Considering Gibson's decision to become a secular actor pursuing the respect, admiration, and support of Christians around the world, he should be expected to behave better than his peers. He, with much fanfare and carefully executed self-promotion, directed a definitive blockbuster of a biblical story of Christ. Now, he has dealt himself a wicked blow and insulted not only those he addressed, but those who respect and support him, his vision, and his work.
I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Gibson is a "secular" actor. For many, many years, long before The Passion, a lot of us who don't even superficially follow the lives of celebrities have known Gibson to be a self-professed practicing Roman Catholic. And once again, are you suggesting that we shouldn't hold other entertainers to the same moral standards, simply because they choose to be Godless heathens? That's stupid, Strother, and I hope you don't really believe it. As for the fanfare and self-promotion regarding The Passion, was it any more than the fanfare and self-promotion surrounding The Kingdom of Heaven? I am utterly amazed that such a big deal is made out of the fact that someone attempted to use the Hollywood promotion engine for a movie that faithfully and accurately depicted the last 24 hours of Christ's life, without revisionism or agenda. No such standard has been applied to any of a dozen different films with anti-faith, anti-religion, or anti-Christian messages and agendas in the last twenty years.
You seem to want it both ways, Strother. You position Gibson as a member of the Hollywood elite who is no different than his peers, yet you want to hold him to a more stringent standard than his peers simply because he had the audacity to be openly religious. You, like your peers in the industry, or, more accurately culture, feel so threatened by the mere presence of the message, that you choose to find an attempt by those who present the message to impose a moral context. The message isn't even aimed at you, yet you feel the need to refute it and hold it up for contempt. Furthermore, when the messenger falls short of the moral imperative you have assigned him, you castigate him for his failure.
Worst of all, he has now provided way too much fodder for all kinds of Anti-Somebody Nutcases: "Mel Gibson said...," "He's the guy that directed the 'Passion of the Christ'," and "See? Those people are..."
Wow, Strother. Why aren't you curled up in a fetal position somewhere? If we all had to fear what some nutcase would do with what we said, most of us would have our tongues removed. What's up next for you? Assigning blame for the holocaust to the Johannine Community for preserving the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles? You live in an odd version of reality.
Truth be told, when Lee was accused of spousal abuse, he publicly admitted his own anger management problems and his desire to do something about it. He didn't have to 'admit that he had a problem with alcohol' because his problem was really about anger.
And if you twist your neck around, hold your hand over both eyes, and dive deeply into the sand, it almost looks the same, sort of. That had to hurt, Strother. Anger management??!! Please, drop the psycho-babble on someone else. First of all, Tommy didn't admit anything. He never said a thing about his supposed "anger management" problem until he was threatened with jail time. And he never, ever freely offered to suffer the consequences and never, ever offered so much as a simple apology. According to Pam Anderson, all the beatings she took were on the wrong end of a bottle of whiskey. While she's not the most unimpeachable source, the assertion certainly fits the facts available.
Your attempt at demonstrating a moral equivalence is as pathetic as it is weak.
Anyone familiar with the effects of alcohol knows that the problem with Gibson isn't really about alcohol. Alcohol most often acts as a truth elixir. It's most likely that it didn't make him say anything he doesn't already believe.
Who are you trying to convince, Strother, yourself? How much experience do you have with alcohol? Not much, I'll wager. Let me tell you, as someone who has that experience, what you are asserting is utter BS. As someone who has been on the giving as well as receiving end of such alcoholic utterances, I can promise you that people say and do things under the influence that they do not and would not support otherwise. This reason, if no other, is the prime one behind avoiding the abuse of alcohol.
His apology is a dishonest smokescreen, a copout, and an attempt to salvage his career. Sure, he very well may be an alcoholic, but that's not the only thing he needs help with.
You can tell all that from a few lines in a news story? You must be nearly clairvoyant, Strother. Why I'll bet you can just walk around and look at people and diagnose their every problem. In case you weren't aware, Strother, that's known as prejudice, bordering on bigotry.
Don't fool yourself, Steve. He is one of the Hollyweird elite.
I guess that's why no one would back him on The Passion and why he had to spend a considerable amount of his own money to create a whole parallel distribution system.
Make no mistake, I am not trying to beatify Gibson. He did a dumb thing and I'd bet real money that it had a lot to do with ego and self-gratification. He should be ashamed. In the early going, he at least appears to actually be ashamed, an emotion with which 99.9% of his peers have not even a passing familiarity. He should suffer the consequences of his actions, just as Joe Everyman would. I don't buy into this stupid notion of "role models," whether they are good or bad ones. That's just a form of the same social disease that created our society of victims. I don't hold Tommy Lee up for criticism because I think he is some kind of role model who fails at his assigned duties. I hold him up for criticism because he is a low-life scumbag. But moreso, I hold people like you up for criticism because you are so willing to give him a pass on his behavior.
I am completely unwilling to give Gibson a pass. I have no patience for drunk drivers. I think he should lose his license forever at this point. I also think a little jail time and a big, fat fine is a great idea. He said mea culpa and has offered to suffer the consequences. So be it, levy them.
Riiiight. Like Tommy Lee has been conscious between the hours of 8 am and 2 pm at any time in the last thirty years.
If you elect to make your living via fame, elevating yourself and your behavior above the average person, the public court is rightfully where your mistakes will be judged. Like it or hate it.
Indeed it is. I believe I have made this point a number of times before and have been refuted on more than one occasion by you. I find it interesting that you are willing to concede the point when it doesn't involve one of your "heroes."
Good for the sheriff for trying to treat Gibson as an average Joe and control the madness, but reporting Gibson's despicable behavior (and the sheriff's attempt to keep the details under wraps) doesn't make you a goon.
If you're going to rebut, you have to rebut what I actually said, instead of what you wished I said. I already pointed out that TMZ's goon-ness was in no way a result of their reporting on what Gibson said. As much as you would like for me to take that position, I did not. The Sheriff made no attempt to cover anything up. As I said (and you ignored), every third idiot who gets pulled for DUI spouts some madness. The Sheriff's Department doesn't call a press conference to announce the details. Because the Sheriff appears not to be an attention whore, and because Gibson is not part of the Hollywood Radical Left, TMZ is trying to invent a cover-up where there isn't one. They are, therefore, goons. QED.
It is my experience that members of the entertainment culture don't understand people who are not relentless attention whores. Therefore, when someone acts in a manner that is not solely directed at gaining attention, entertainers assign ulterior, mostly sinister motives to such behavior. Entertainers are generally immature and have weak personalities, so this behavior can be well understood when considered in the context of how the average five-year-old behaves.
To paraphrase a slogan from Hebrew National hotdogs, Gibson portrays himself as one who answers to a higher authority. His tirade doesn't reflect that; it shows him to be not one bit better than any other self-absorbed Hollywood problem child. Matter of fact, his tirade makes him sound much worse than his 'Hollyweird' peers.
Do you offer parachutes for these huge logical leaps?
Can we assume from your characterization that you don't think Gibson honest when he says he answers to a higher authority? You used the word portray, which implies you believe it to be a sham. What evidence can you provide that indicates Gibson does not believe himself to be subordinate to God? Are you offering nothing more than his drunken tirade? Are you suggesting that anyone who says or does anything that isn't error-free, from a Godly perspective, is less than honest when they profess their devotion to God? Furthermore, are you assigning moral equivalence between a drunken rant about Jews and the act of beating the crap out of one's wife? Standard liberal doctrine applies moral equivalence between "hate speech" and physical assault. Are you sure you want to go there?
As a point of 'Hollyweird' comparison, Lee - a drummer in a seminal heavy metal band - wouldn't feel the same moral responsibility to behave as Gibson should, but still, you certainly never hear Lee spouting anti-Semitic hate speak. That's probably because he doesn't hate Jews.
What??!! Let me see if I follow your twisted reasoning. Tommy Lee, because he is a drummer in a heavy metal band, can be excused all sorts of sociopathic behavior simply because of what he "should" be. That is, drummers in heavy metal bands are supposed to be drunken, drugged-up louts who beat their wives, so they should be held to a different moral standard. That's messed up, Strother. You need to really think about that.
As for whether Tommy Lee or Mel Gibson hate Jews, you don't know either way. Gibson's rant certainly doesn't bode well for his acquittal on the social charge of anti-Semitism, but you can't make any assumptions about Lee's opinion based on the absence of evidence. Your stance is exactly the same as mine would be if I asserted that Strother is a Nazi because I've never heard him say he isn't.
Considering Gibson's decision to become a secular actor pursuing the respect, admiration, and support of Christians around the world, he should be expected to behave better than his peers. He, with much fanfare and carefully executed self-promotion, directed a definitive blockbuster of a biblical story of Christ. Now, he has dealt himself a wicked blow and insulted not only those he addressed, but those who respect and support him, his vision, and his work.
I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Gibson is a "secular" actor. For many, many years, long before The Passion, a lot of us who don't even superficially follow the lives of celebrities have known Gibson to be a self-professed practicing Roman Catholic. And once again, are you suggesting that we shouldn't hold other entertainers to the same moral standards, simply because they choose to be Godless heathens? That's stupid, Strother, and I hope you don't really believe it. As for the fanfare and self-promotion regarding The Passion, was it any more than the fanfare and self-promotion surrounding The Kingdom of Heaven? I am utterly amazed that such a big deal is made out of the fact that someone attempted to use the Hollywood promotion engine for a movie that faithfully and accurately depicted the last 24 hours of Christ's life, without revisionism or agenda. No such standard has been applied to any of a dozen different films with anti-faith, anti-religion, or anti-Christian messages and agendas in the last twenty years.
You seem to want it both ways, Strother. You position Gibson as a member of the Hollywood elite who is no different than his peers, yet you want to hold him to a more stringent standard than his peers simply because he had the audacity to be openly religious. You, like your peers in the industry, or, more accurately culture, feel so threatened by the mere presence of the message, that you choose to find an attempt by those who present the message to impose a moral context. The message isn't even aimed at you, yet you feel the need to refute it and hold it up for contempt. Furthermore, when the messenger falls short of the moral imperative you have assigned him, you castigate him for his failure.
Worst of all, he has now provided way too much fodder for all kinds of Anti-Somebody Nutcases: "Mel Gibson said...," "He's the guy that directed the 'Passion of the Christ'," and "See? Those people are..."
Wow, Strother. Why aren't you curled up in a fetal position somewhere? If we all had to fear what some nutcase would do with what we said, most of us would have our tongues removed. What's up next for you? Assigning blame for the holocaust to the Johannine Community for preserving the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles? You live in an odd version of reality.
Truth be told, when Lee was accused of spousal abuse, he publicly admitted his own anger management problems and his desire to do something about it. He didn't have to 'admit that he had a problem with alcohol' because his problem was really about anger.
And if you twist your neck around, hold your hand over both eyes, and dive deeply into the sand, it almost looks the same, sort of. That had to hurt, Strother. Anger management??!! Please, drop the psycho-babble on someone else. First of all, Tommy didn't admit anything. He never said a thing about his supposed "anger management" problem until he was threatened with jail time. And he never, ever freely offered to suffer the consequences and never, ever offered so much as a simple apology. According to Pam Anderson, all the beatings she took were on the wrong end of a bottle of whiskey. While she's not the most unimpeachable source, the assertion certainly fits the facts available.
Your attempt at demonstrating a moral equivalence is as pathetic as it is weak.
Anyone familiar with the effects of alcohol knows that the problem with Gibson isn't really about alcohol. Alcohol most often acts as a truth elixir. It's most likely that it didn't make him say anything he doesn't already believe.
Who are you trying to convince, Strother, yourself? How much experience do you have with alcohol? Not much, I'll wager. Let me tell you, as someone who has that experience, what you are asserting is utter BS. As someone who has been on the giving as well as receiving end of such alcoholic utterances, I can promise you that people say and do things under the influence that they do not and would not support otherwise. This reason, if no other, is the prime one behind avoiding the abuse of alcohol.
His apology is a dishonest smokescreen, a copout, and an attempt to salvage his career. Sure, he very well may be an alcoholic, but that's not the only thing he needs help with.
You can tell all that from a few lines in a news story? You must be nearly clairvoyant, Strother. Why I'll bet you can just walk around and look at people and diagnose their every problem. In case you weren't aware, Strother, that's known as prejudice, bordering on bigotry.
Don't fool yourself, Steve. He is one of the Hollyweird elite.
I guess that's why no one would back him on The Passion and why he had to spend a considerable amount of his own money to create a whole parallel distribution system.
Make no mistake, I am not trying to beatify Gibson. He did a dumb thing and I'd bet real money that it had a lot to do with ego and self-gratification. He should be ashamed. In the early going, he at least appears to actually be ashamed, an emotion with which 99.9% of his peers have not even a passing familiarity. He should suffer the consequences of his actions, just as Joe Everyman would. I don't buy into this stupid notion of "role models," whether they are good or bad ones. That's just a form of the same social disease that created our society of victims. I don't hold Tommy Lee up for criticism because I think he is some kind of role model who fails at his assigned duties. I hold him up for criticism because he is a low-life scumbag. But moreso, I hold people like you up for criticism because you are so willing to give him a pass on his behavior.
I am completely unwilling to give Gibson a pass. I have no patience for drunk drivers. I think he should lose his license forever at this point. I also think a little jail time and a big, fat fine is a great idea. He said mea culpa and has offered to suffer the consequences. So be it, levy them.
posted by Anonymous | 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home