September 25, 2006

"What's human sacrifice... if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?"

Mad Mel. Not just for right-wingers anymore.

55 comments:

Doyle said...

Um, no, sorry. We're not taking him.

The right cast their lot w/ Mel on the Passion and they're not passing him off on us just because he, like most people, recognizes Iraq was a mistake.

Fenrisulven said...

Doyle, if you are so confident that Iraq was a mistake, why do you feel it necessary to make an Appeal to Conformity? ;)

George said...

When 9/11 happened, I thought that was our nation's unifying Pearl Harbor event.

God forbid, something is looming that would make 9/11 look like a firecracker.

If so, the folks who now so cruelly lambast Bush and his efforts, even if flawed, to defend us and spread liberty will rue their words and deeds.

I recently finished "Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer." Booth thought he would be acclaimed as a hero. He was shocked to learn that Lincoln, villified while alive, instantly became a titan of the ages.

God bless President Bush.

nypundit said...

Since he already blamed the Jews for the war it was the next logical step for Mel to take.

Word Verification: lefhp - what Patricia Dunn did on Friday

David said...

Mel Gibson is an alchoholic anti-semitic who, like Danny Glover embracing Hugo Citgo Chavez, has lost touch with reality.

The reality is that Islam is attempting to control the movie industry in Indonesia and India as we speak. If successful there, expect the Islamic leaders in the U.S., Canada, and France to begin complaining about content in those countries.

The drumbeat towards dhimmitude continues through posters like Doyle and Hollywood intellectual lightweights like Gibson and Glover.

dklittl said...

Wow, well that was a weird interpretation George. I'm guessing that liberals are now John Wilkes Booth attempting to assisinate the President. I guess.

But your right that 9/11 should have been a unifying event. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and George Bush didn't.

Elizabeth said...

David, what a lot of nonsense, and what a typical, hysterical rightwing response. Doyle thinks Iraq was a mistake. You leap from there to Doyle ushering in the Caliphate in the West. Idiotic. Opposing our war in Iraq is not equatable with supporting, or ignoring, the threats of Islamic fundamentalism.

Invading Iraq has strengthened the Islamist agenda, at the very least by transforming Iraq from a secular tyranny to an Islamic government racked by sectarian rivalry. Iraq was no threat to us, so invading it has done nothing to "protect us"; there's no reason to admire flawed efforts that haven't done a damn thing to make us safer. God bless us, every one.

As for Mel? He's an equal opportunity gadfly. No one need claim him; his ego will expand to fill any available space.

wadikitty said...

Mel made a huge mistake -- being bigoted while conservative. He was hammered unmercifully, and, being conservative, or at least perceived as conservative, he knew that he would be given no quarter. He knew he had no chance of rehabilitation in the eyes of the people who matter in his line of work.

How to rehabilitate one's image when abject apology and checking in to the usual substance abuse facility isn't enough (he is conservative after all)? Hmmmmm, what to do....

I've got it! Denounce Bush, America and the war in Iraq. Yeah, that's the ticket. Instant forgiveness.

Zeb Quinn said...

I submit that, in good measure, what this is about is Mel doing the obvious one sure thing that will bring him back into the good graces of the Hollywood establishment.

Sloanasaurus said...

"....Iraq was no threat to us, so invading it has done nothing to "protect us"; there's no reason to admire flawed efforts that haven't done a damn thing to make us safer......"

Wait, wasn't Saddam's dream to develop and produce nuclear weapons? With Saddam and his sons in power and with a $30 billion per year piggy bank, Iraq eventually developing Nukes was almost certain. Now, there is no such thing as an Iraq capable of such programs.

How can you say Iraq was never a threat???

Mortimer Brezny said...

Mel's trick might just backfire if he slips up and blames Jewish neocons for the Iraq war.

Tim said...

"But your right that 9/11 should have been a unifying event. Unfortunately, Karl Rove and George Bush didn't.",


Right. They appropriately believe we win wars by taking the offensive, seizing the initiative, taking the fight to the enemy.

As best as can be discerned from the absence of anything looking like a strategy whatsoever from the Left, it would, at best, cede the initiative to the enemy by retreating to secured ports and unified radio systems for first responders to out right appeasement.

Yes, the country is not unified because too many Americans haven't the confidence and the will to fight this war. Yes, the country is not unified because too many Americans believe George Bush and Karl Rove are the enemy, not militant Islamic fascism. But don't blame us who won't join the ranks of the quitters, and don't blame us who believe militant Islamic fascism is the enemy and George Bush and Karl Rove are trying to defeat our enemies. Tell us instead how you plan to defeat the enemy. Convince us instead you hate the militant Islamic fascists more than you hate George Bush and Karl Rove. Until then, look in the mirror for those to blame for opting out of unity.

John Thacker said...

The right cast their lot w/ Mel on the Passion and they're not passing him off on us just because he, like most people, recognizes Iraq was a mistake.

Well, Mel was against the Iraqi War from the beginning. He was born in New York, but his family moved to Australia because his father:
1) Hated hippies and thought that the counterculture was making things go to hell, and
2) Hated the Vietnam War (again, considering that Australia sent men, kind of odd).

Mel's just being like his father. People are always confused that his family is so strongly on the most conservative side of the culture wars, but also in the most paranoid side of the antiwar movements as well.

Troy said...

I thought bloodletting for God was good in Mel's sight?

I love the fact that Mel doesn't even give Bush credit for a flawed reason. After all, Bush is evil and likes to see thousands killed -- why? Perhaps to protect Israel which is filled with oh, I don't know... Jews? They do cause wars don't you know.

This statement dovetails perfectly with Mel's anti-semitism and with the virulent left (not the reasonable left -- yes I do know the difference).

The above comment may be right also about Mel's Hollywood rehabilitation which would go something like this... We know he hates Jews, but he hates Bush too. He can't be all that bad!

Freeman Hunt said...

I don't know about "anymore." Gibson's never been particularly politically conservative, and as others have commented, he's always been against the war in the Iraq.

David said...

Elizabeth and Doyle;

Take the long view and connect the dots! The Pope did just that by having the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Pan-Arabism and Islam! He has done the dirty work of the West by reminding Islamic Clerics of the violent side of their religion. A violence that has been going on since Sirhan Sirhan, the assasination of Sadat, and the bloody three decades since!

Your thesis that opposing the war in Iraq does not equate to opposing fundamentalism is flawed. The lesson of VietNam, out of General Giap's playbook, is to lose the war militarily and win it politically. Islam cannot win this war militarily but it can win it politically.

Dissent in this country, indeed the western cultures, is a constant, steady erosion of will that weakens the resolve of good people to avoid creeping suicide.

Mistakes have been made in the prosecution of this war. The war itself is not a mistake! The cognoscenti among us can see the Islamic propaganda machine tailoring news to the ummah using people like Glover and Gibson as representative of western mainstream public opinion.

Everyday we in the west arise to our comfortable lives as seen through a gaussian blur of latte steam. Some of us realize that the crimes against us committed yesterday will be repeated yet again in the future!

Whether you agree or not, the fight was correctly taken to them! I challenge you and Doyle to expend some of the vitriol on the barbarian Islamic hordes that you reserve for 'idiots' like me!

WV; nudyxcls

I hope that is prophetic!

Henry said...

"The precursors to a civilization that's going under are the same, time and time again," [Mel said,] drawing parallels between the Mayan civilization on the brink of collapse and America's present situation.

We eat a ton of chocolate in this country, too.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It's possible to survive the chocolate-- look at Switzerland. What worries me is our ritual human sacrifice and base 20 numbering system.

Elizabeth said...

David, I have plenty of vitriol for Islamist violence, misogyny, and barbarism. That doesn't get in the way of calling you on making bullshit moral equivalencies between opposing the war in Iraq--which was not the frontline for Islamists--and beating the drum for dhimmitude. That kind of rhetoric, claiming your political opponents are lackies for our common enemy, is base and won't go unanswered.


Sloan, my reply to David was about what I state above. If you want to argue about what Saddam was dreaming, go ahead. I'm used to the mental gymnastics the right engages in to get from 9/11 to invading Iraq. I doubt we'll discuss it any more fruitfully than we've done in the past, anyway, so I'm not going off on that tangent. So, other than world peace and such, how're things with you?

Freeman is correct; Mel G. has been opposed to the Iraq war for a long time now, and has made statements to that effect preceding his arrest for drunk driving.

Elizabeth said...

David,

I missed the "gaussian blur of latte steam" image the first time around. Kudos on that. But make mine cafe au lait, if you don't mind.

Sloanasaurus said...

Elizabeth, some people believe that the war on terror (against Al Qaeda) is interconnected to the terrorist states and failed states in the muslim world. Thus, the invasion of Iraq makes a lot of sense to them in achieving a comprehensive victory. These same people see your opposition to Iraq as an opposition to the entire effort.

You obviously do not see the connection between Iraq and WOT. I am not sure why you don't? Perhaps it is your way to oppose Bush and support the war, I don't know....

It reminds me of the argument that Bin Ladin thought Saddam an unbeliever so therefore Bin Ladin and Saddam would never cooperate. This appears to be a good logical argument, except that there are hundreds of historical examples disproving it - the most famous of course being the 1939 pact between Hitler and Stalin.

Fenrisulven said...

That doesn't get in the way of calling you on making bullshit moral equivalencies between opposing the war in Iraq--which was not the frontline for Islamists--and beating the drum for dhimmitude

Iraq is the frontline for Islamists. They have said so. They rightfully see it as the key battleground in the war on terror.

J. Peden said...

"In describing its portrait of a civilization in decline, Gibson [is projecting]...."

The recovery is not going well. Or else he's in "group" with a bunch of self-loathing Parrots.

Sloanasaurus said...

Despite Gibson's outrages, I am interested in seeing the movie. I heard on Drudge last night a critic who saw a pre-screening and said that the movie was outstanding.

It is an intriguing question as to why certain civilizations just cease to exist. I wonder who was the last person to turn off the lights as they abandoned Tikal and the other cities.

Freeman Hunt said...

Despite Gibson's outrages, I am interested in seeing the movie.

Same here. Passion of the Christ wasn't given its artistic due because of its religious content. It was an excellent movie. I'll definitely be seeing his next movie no matter what sort of political message or content it includes.

Goesh said...

The Brits just killed a senior AQ commander in Basra name al-Faruq, which despite having a name that sounds like a cigar brand, is quite significant since he has origins in the Philippines and Indonesia and was a key player with the Moro islamists. Of course Iraq is drawing them in. Why does the Left think the Iraqi borders were left so porous? When 1500+ are killed in a place like Fallujah alone, their ranks are seriously depleted. The Left persists in laboring under the false assumption that trained, blooded fighters arise from the slums of Damascus and Cairo and West Bank and instantly morph. From the ol' used shoe stall in a Cairo back alley to a highly competent urban fighter in a matter of days. You can do that when you wear a Che t-shirt and suscribe to the notion that radical chic is a viable political statement. 3rd world countries do not teach guerilla/urban warfare tactics, so let's not hear the contention that former military are filling the ranks of terrorists by the thousands every day. There is a reason the US does not list enemy KIA rates in countless actions that have occured and are occuring, and it's not because we are the good guys and don't brag about such things. Many a blooded fighter from Chechnya, Gaza, Somalia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, West Bank, Kasmir, etc have come to Iraq to die and we have obliged them, by the thousands. The Left would have us believe that Abdul the coffee server can cross the Iraqi border and instantly take command of men and logistics and engage even our Special Ops forces. Attrition is a real bitch when all you get for your effort is some virgins in the sky.

Elizabeth said...

Goesh, you should go into writing thrillers. I don't know where you get your fantasies about what "the left" believes, though. I don't have any misconceptions about who is pouring into Iraq through the borders we opened after our invasion. I think it's morally outrageous that we chose this country to fight our battles in, putting the people of that country in great jeopardy. Of course, as Fen says, Iraq is the frontline. Now. Not before 2003.

Sloan, I replied to you as well, but blogspot ate it, and as of 1 pm, I am preparing for tonight's football game, so I'm going to have to beg off yet another repeat of Iraq: Yes or No? I must don my black and gold, and go mingle with my people in search of beer and a good defense that can stop the run. I'll be way up high in the cheap seats; I'm sure you'll see me wave if you watch carefully.

Goesh said...

I have no fantasy about the Left since the Left suscribes to the Law Enforcement model to address terrorism, believing terrorists are so stupid they had to use box cutters to kill 3,000 of us with. How many of the cigar man's (al-Faruq) aides were with him do you suppose? What do you suppose they were trained in? How many taken alive and interrogated by Iraqi forces who probably think John Roberts is an American goat herder? How many laptops were taken do you think and what would be on them? What about cell phones? What about collateral logistics, i.e. those harboring him, providing a home and car? What do you suppose they can tell when questioned by Iraqi intelligence agents who think the Geneva Conventions are a brand of tampax? Stick to hugging your whales and petting the spotted owl and leave the killing of our enemies to those best suited to the dirty task at hand. I have no fantasies about that, young lady.

Revenant said...

There have been plenty of high-profile conservatives who have been against the war, or at least skeptical of it, from the beginning. The right isn't like the left -- you don't get thrown out and ostracized, Hitchens/Lieberman style, for having the temerity to hold a heretical belief or two.

Sigivald said...

Off topic, every time I load the main page here, I see the "Despite its pedigree, the programming remains anodyne and apolitical." post from last Tuesday; to get current posts I need to go to the Archives.

Is this happening to anyone else, or is it just me?

AST said...

What interests me is Mel's claim that sending troops to Iraq is "human sacrifice."

I've thought that sending young men and women out to blow themselves up along with as many Jews, Americans or Sunnis/Shiites as possible in the name of Allah is far more like sacrifice than sending the Army into Iraq. The military doesn't glorify its casualties. All that armor, training and technology is aimed at protecting our own troops and non-combatants. Although we honor those who die fighting to protect and spread liberty, we try to keep our own folks unharmed.

Mel has become a pinball. When he speaks, people should avert their eyes and pay him no attention.

Harkonnendog said...

I wonder if it is just a cynical way to enter the left's good graces. So much of the left is already anti-Semitic. Surely they'll forgive his comments if he does a little Bush bashing.

The right already forgave him because of Lethal Weapon and Mad Max. (No, not because of The Passion. That might have worked on the Christian Right, but the gun-loving, take no crap right is all about Mad Max and Lethal Weapon.)

nypundit said...

Sigivald: I would suggest that you clear out your cache. It always works for me.

Pat Patterson said...

So Mr. Gibson makes an anti-war comment in front of a room full of Trekkies. How exactly is that either important or interesting? Producers, directors and actors can, with tear stained faces, lie, lie and when the applause abates lie some more. It is their inclination and training to say whatever is needed in hopes that the audience will buy tickets.

John in Nashville said...

Who says that the administration is "sending guys off to Iraq for no reason"? They have plenty of reason. The Cheerleader-in-chief has had a hard-on for Saddam Hussein since Saddam tried to have the first President Bush assassinated. That's reason enough when the only question is how does a particular policy affect those whose names begin with "Bu" and end with "sh".

The current administation combines the diplomatic instincts of Sonny Corleone, the smarts of Fredo, the ruthlessness of Michael and the respect for law of Tom Hagan.

BTW, Sonny Corleone went after the wrong man, too.

Harkonnendog said...

"The current administation combines the diplomatic instincts of Sonny Corleone, the smarts of Fredo, the ruthlessness of Michael and the respect for law of Tom Hagan."

This is a neat idea.

Clinton combined the diplomatic instincts of Fredo, the smarts of Tom Hagen, the ruthlessness of Michael, and the respect for law of Sonny.

Reaganed combined the diplomatic instincts of Vito, the smarts of Sonny, the ruthlessness of Hagen, and the respect for the law of Michael.

Carter combined the diplomatic instinces of Sonny, the smarts of Sonny, the ruthlessness of Sonny, and the respect for the law of Kay.

David said...

Elizabeth;

Glad you liked the image! Does it have the same effect as:

The gaussian blur of bubbled effervescence from Old Milwaukee?"

I didn't think so! Kind of like nail polish named Midnight Over Detroit!

Hope the view was good from the cheap seats!

Revenant said...

What's human sacrifice... if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?

Sending your only begotten son to die in order that others might have eternal life? :)

Richard said...

>>> David wrote: "Mel Gibson is an alchoholic anti-semitic ..."

Dave- Why the trash talk about alchoholics?

The Exalted said...

here's something i find strange in the "iraq is the key in the GWOT"

1. the bush crowd wanted to invade iraq since day 1.

2. there was no GWOT on day 1.

3. in fact, the bush crowd wanted nothing to do with any fight against terror pre 9-11.

4. yet, iraq is some mythical key to the GWOT.

explain, discuss.

also, are all tinpot dictators worth $300 billion and 2k+ american lives to remove?

just askin'

Richard Dolan said...

So it's "sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?" There are many good reasons to have sent the "guys off to Iraq," which is why in 2003 almost every major politician, including Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore and HR Clinton, supported that decision (she and Lieberman still do). Support has waned because the task is difficult and expensive, and many former supporters of the Iraqi policy only have the stomach for things like this when they are relatively cheap and easy. Sorry, but life is more complicated than that.

Since we dealing with people in the arts, I thought the following report (courtesy of lgf) was apropos:

"A Berlin opera house has canceled a performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo, after German police warned of possible Islamic attacks—because in the opera’s epilogue, the main character enters with a bloody bag and triumphantly pulls out the severed heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha, and ... you guessed it ... Mohammed.

The opera house did not receive threats or demands to cancel the show; they did it preemptively, out of simple fear. Welcome to Mozart Year 2006.

The original article in German: Oper aus Angst vor Anschl├Ągen abgesetzt. (Hat tip: DHH.)

UPDATE at 9/25/06 1:11:34 pm:

I should point out that the severed head scene is not in Mozart’s original opera; it’s an addition by the director of this production.

UPDATE at 9/25/06 1:15:37 pm."

If that's the reaction to Idomeneo, wait till one of the jihadis figures out what Abduction is all about.

If you want a reason to support the fight against Islamofascism, here's an idea: do it for Mozart. Even Mel might get in line with the good guys if it's framed that way.

Revenant said...

1. the bush crowd wanted to invade iraq since day 1.

Some of Bush's advisors did, yes.

2. there was no GWOT on day 1.

We weren't fighting back yet, at any rate.

3. in fact, the bush crowd wanted nothing to do with any fight against terror pre 9-11.

They pursued terrorists in the same halfassed way Clinton had, yes.

4. yet, iraq is some mythical key to the GWOT.

Replacing Muslim dictatorships with democracies is key to the GWOT. Iraq was the best target because (a) it was in open violation of UN resolutions, (b) it had been in a state of war with America since the early 90s, and (c) there was a nearly-unanimous bipartisan consensus in Washington, dating back to the late 90s, that regime change in Iraq was in the best interests of the United States.

also, are all tinpot dictators worth $300 billion and 2k+ american lives to remove

Removing Hussein from power cost a few tens of billions of dollars and 140 American lives -- a trivial cost for the removal of an enemy.

What's been expensive has been the attempt to establish a democracy in its place. Whether you think that cost has been worth it depends on whether you think it is in America's best interests for Iraq to be a democracy.

shergar said...

"So Mr. Gibson makes an anti-war comment in front of a room full of Trekkies. How exactly is that either important or interesting...."


It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead Jim, dead Jim
It's worse than that, he's dead,
Jim, dead Jim, dead.

Alan said...

Exalted,

There wasn't a GWoT before we ousted Saddam? Well yeah, we were sticking our heads in the sand and pretending it didn't exist.

Coco said...

There was a time, not too long ago, when Ann declared that she purposely avoided linking to articles discussing Iraq, terrorism, Bush, and such other overtly political issues because the discussions that ensued were unoriginal partisan screech fests. This comments discussion, alas, like many of the similar subject discussions of past days and weeks reminds me how much I miss those days from not too long ago. Just a plea from a long time reader.

Cedarford said...

Well, I like Mel Gibson. The guy has his faults, but if we say anyone with a depressional nature and substance abuse problem who is creative and has a bone to pick with this group or that should be rejected - well - there go over half our writers, poets, and artists.

I like a person with guts to go into the lair of the "enemy" and criticize that group - especially one that tells others they are not sacrosanct from criticism, as claimed.

Chris Hitchens did a great one ripping down Mother Theresa's outfit as bad for poor Indians in Kolkuta - then offering to go to the Vatican and be Devil's Advocate for why she should be denied Sainthood. Doubly cheeky since Hitchens is an atheist.

Now, Mel has been in low-level warfare with the Jews that dominate Hollywood, for years - about his father, about "Players" ripping him and other actors off with byzantine accounting practices..then things came to a head with the "Passion". For not giving Jews in the Sanhedrin a total pass as previous films did, and for saying certain powerful Jews were out to ruin him and block the film and distribution and making threats that Gibson would "never wotk again". Jewish critic Medved said about the controversy - "Yes, as Gibson said, the Jews do dominate Hollywood, a simple fact - and yes, many are trying to ruin Mel over the "thou shalt not criticize the Jews" taboo."

What has saved Gibson is that many, even inside Hollywood, admire him for his courage and independence. They secretly wish they could get away with it like Mel did - and get an anti-Communist or pro-business movie made that would never get the Mogul's assent. Mel gets away with it because he packs people into theaters, is seen by the public as sincere in his beliefs and honest to a fault, and is not just a star but a risk-taking actor and producer that does not play it safe and has achieved great critical and popular successes from that.

From early comments, "Apocalypto" appears to be another memorable, highly popular film on the way.

We also separate out artists from their personal lives. Pushkin was very anti-Semetic. Famous writers have run the gamut from flaming communist sympathizers to suicidal Japanese right-wing militarists (Mishima).

If we indulge people their personal beefs with Islamism, WASPS, the French, and Catholicism (in Hitchen's and many Jews case) why not people with beefs about communists, Jews, gay lifestyle, or a dislike of Albanians? It's just their opinion..

If there is an immunity from criticism card, available to only certain groups, how might the rest of us apply? I would appreciate obtaining one as a hetero male, for the ability to say "How-Dare-You-Criticize-Me, member of a certified victim's group*!!" for the next wifely criticism I get..

*(Hetero men are victims because they die on average, 5 years earlier than hetero women! That's serious victimhoodishness!!)

As for Iraq, Gibson is hardly alone in the ranks of conservative-minded family values types that had deep reservations about the War on Christian "Just War Doctrine" grounds - or about the bungling in the post-war insurgency.

David said...

Richard;

Gibson is an alcoholic antisemitic who believes his own PR. He makes his living portraying characters with beliefs he can never be himself i.e. Patriot, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, etc.

He is a poseur and a delusional drunk who plays the victim. Spending a few days at a rehab-come-spa clinic in Southern California hardly qualifies for the tough love counseling he requires. He insulted the police that arrested him and the Rabbi who was asked to help him was street theater.

Gibson reminds me of how small Hollywood sets are when viewed in person and not in Cinemascope on the big screen!

knoxgirl said...

Mel Gibson is no different from any other celebrities who think we actually care what they have to say about well, anything serious, and who revel--in a shamefully masturbatory way--in their counter-cultural bravery and rebellious criticism of an American president. [ clarification: republican president. ]

Of course, these are the same chickenshits who had exactly *zero* to say about the assassination of one in their own ranks, Theo Van Gogh, by radical Muslims.

Elizabeth said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elizabeth said...

Goesh, were you wagging your finger and looking over your glasses when you lectured me and called me "young lady"? I'm 46, so that makes an old broad. Get your sexist, demeaning terms straight. Thanks for the entertainment; I'm particularly amused when you completely ignore my comments and just rant on about "the left" and what "it" believes. Rage on, old fart.

Elizabeth said...

david, the seats were much better than I'd thought, and we had a great view. Thanks for asking.

All I have to say now is "Who Dat!?"

Fenrisulven said...

BTW Elizabeth, the "asshat" link I promised you didn't pan out. Turns out its just a gimmie cap with team logo on it. Sorry about that.

Sigivald said...

He makes his living portraying characters with beliefs he can never be himself i.e. Patriot, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, etc.

Well, he is an actor, is he not? That is typically what actors do.

(PS. My site loading fixed itself, though I'm sure nypundit's idea would have worked, and thank him for providing it.)

Aaron said...

I think it is funny how folks seem surprised about Mel - as if every anti-semite hasn't been against the Iraq war from the beginning. They have also all blamed it on the Jews. Those folks are thrown out of the mainstream right unlike the left's inability to do the same with their anti-semitic wackadoos.

Revenant said...

They secretly wish they could get away with it like Mel did - and get an anti-Communist or pro-business movie made that would never get the Mogul's assent.

Uh, yeah...

See, the problem with your Protocols of the Elders of Hollywood theory there is that the "big six" movie studios in Hollywood (News Corp, Disney, Viacom, Sony, Time Warner, and NBC Universal), have only two moguls between them -- Murdoch and Redstone. And I wish you lots of luck explaining why the latter two might have communist or anti-business sympathies.