Breaking: Mel Gibson enters rehab

posted at 5:28 pm on July 31, 2006 by Allahpundit

Just across on CNN. Shrewd. Disney won’t want to be seen as kicking him when he’s down.

The inevitable weepy all-is-forgiven with Diane Sawyer is right on schedule.

The LA sheriff’s office said today that the D.A. will review its handling of Gibson’s arrest. I know just the man for the job. He’s famously diligent, his integrity’s beyond reproach, and he has a knack for prosecuting people unfavorably disposed towards Jews.

I think the sheriff should hire Glenn Greenwald for his defense. Or Rick Ellensburg, or Thomas Ellers. Or even Wilson.

Or just hire them all and have his own little dream team.

Hollywood executives are outraged at Gibson’s remarks, although not quite outraged enough to go on the record:

Although many of the town’s senior executives are Jewish and Hollywood has a long history of supporting Israel and Jewish causes, there was no widespread public condemnation of Gibson’s comments over the weekend. Although some high-level executives privately expressed dismay at the statements attributed to Gibson after his arrest, none of those contacted would speak on the record.

“Apocalypto” isn’t the only project Gibson’s working on with Disney. The other one’s a miniseries for ABC about … well, just go look. In this version, Hitler’s an alcoholic who goes on a 12-year bender. He finally sobers up in May 1945, and boy is he surprised.

I hate myself for it, but I really want to see “Apocalypto.” It looks like “Aguirre, Wrath of God,” and I’m a sucker for Herzog stuff. But I don’t want to give this jackass any of my money. What should I do? Download the Torrent bootleg or buy a ticket and make a donation to the ADL?

Update: Hitchens answers the bell: “One does not abruptly decide, between the first and second vodka, or the ticks of the indicator of velocity, that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are valid after all.”

Update: The D.A.’s investigation could prove more interesting than expected: turns out Gibson has been stopped twice before for reckless driving. And each time they let him go.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Poor Mel. I’ll light a Menorah for him.

gary on July 31, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Hitch really took Mel to the woodshed, although I don’t agree with his (Hitch’s) assessment of Mel’s talent as an actor or director, and still consider Braveheart and The Patriot among my favorite movies. Hitch could have done better if he just focused on Mel’s comments (indefensible) instead of using it as an excuse to bash his movies (defensible).

thirteen28 on July 31, 2006 at 5:57 PM

I find it interesting that now anti-semitism is such a big sin for lefties.

Iblis on July 31, 2006 at 6:04 PM

A lot of these people who are still criticizing Gibson after he apologized for his remarks and entered re-hab are still calling “The Passion of the Christ” an “anti-Semitic snuff film.” Those critics, I can’t take them seriously. I feel like they’re just jumping on Gibson’s back because they were offended by a film about Jesus Christ that accurately reflects what is told in the new testament, without any Da Vinci Code twists. This is all a bunch of latent grief about PotC.

I’m not saying that he didn’t say “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and I’m not saying that it’s not reprehensible that he said that. But the man was drunk when he said it, he apologized for what he said, what more do you want? Consider me a paramedic in the Waaaahmbulance if you will, but I really do hope Gibson gets treatment for his alcoholism and gets back on track. He’s been known to go on violent, self destructive benders off and on for the past twenty years.

And consider if you will that he also called a female officer “sugar tits,” yet nobody jumps on him for being a mysoginistic sexist. But one remark about Jews, and its evidence that he’s a flaming anti-Semite and that Passion of the Christ was made to incite violence against Jews.

Gah. I will print this page and use it to line my bird cage with.

Savage on July 31, 2006 at 6:05 PM

How depressing.

The list of Hollywood types I’ll admit being able to enjoy is short enough as it is – and now I have to zilch Mel?

Oh, well. I was bummed about losing the Lethal Weapon franchise after Glover went nuts. At least now I’ve got two reasons. Although that purportedly South African blonde cutie in LW2 makes me want to abandon this vow.

I realize that it’s silly (and oh-so-liberal) to admire actors and celebrities … but I had Mel in a different category. Seemed like a genuinely admirable kinda guy.

Well … I guess I can play liberal, abandon my ethics, swallow some intellectual dishonesty pills … and still watch Braveheart.

Actually, I heard that if you drink enough, you’ll do damn near anything. So maybe a bottle of Stolichnaya pre-movie will do the trick.

Professor Blather on July 31, 2006 at 6:35 PM

I’m not saying that he didn’t say “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and I’m not saying that it’s not reprehensible that he said that. But the man was drunk when he said it, he apologized for what he said, what more do you want?

Sorry – that doesn’t cut it. What do I want? A little intellectual honesty.

And anyone being intellectually honest will admit on simple truth: it doesn’t matter how drunk you are, you don’t start spouting crap that is the opposite of what you feel. In fact, get most people drunk enough and they just start telling the truth, consequences be damned.

If Gibson had got ripped, put a lampshade on his head, run down Sunset Blvd. naked, and was found later in a vat of jello with every Playboy Playmate since mid-1994, I’d agree with you. Got drunk, went nuts, might need a little help …

But that’s not what he did. He got drunk and showed his true colors. Could YOU get drunk enough to spout bigoted comments like that? Could ANYONE here suddenly blurt out that crap (assuming they don’t think it consciously now)?

Not a chance. Mel was just … showing who he is. He wasn’t being foolish. He was being honest.

It’s not highjinks. It’s hypocrisy and hate. Which crosses him right off my Christmas gift list. Too bad for him. I had him down for a very cool tie this year.

Professor Blather on July 31, 2006 at 6:40 PM

We all need a little re-hab from time to time in our lives.
Not necessarily from addictions to drugs or alcohol either.
Mel probably works quite hard and has a family life with all the problems present as any of rhe rest of us do.
Having spent some time in AA meetings myself, I was initially surprised to see the Cadillacs parked outside on my first visit. And ,no, alcohol does not bring out your true feelings when drunk, it changes your true feelings. Some people have stated that Mel’s statements were of his
true feelings because he was drunk. If you believe that guys, then why didn’t you marry the ugly gal you woke up with?? lol. Or, gals, why didn’t you marry the ugly guy you …etc.?
Fortunately, for Mel, he was arrested before he ran into someone.
I am currently dealing with my sons DWI. My son decided to have a few beers with buddies and then drove home, but not before running up into the neighbors yard. The emotional costs are running high and the financial costs are as well.

gary on July 31, 2006 at 6:42 PM

But I don’t want to give this jackass any of my money. What should I do? Download the Torrent bootleg or buy a ticket and make a donation to the ADL?

Do you boycott all art from authors with politically offensive views? If I did that, I’d be writing off most of it, at least since modern times.

However, you could just buy a ticket for something else in the same theater and sneak in.

Alex K on July 31, 2006 at 6:50 PM

Anyone here still go see Woody Allen films? Cameron Diaz? Roman Polanski?

Why was Hillary Clinton elected NY senator when she used the phrase “Jew Bastard” while perfectly sober?

Gibson’s remarks were, indeed, vile and anti-semitic. But does that translate into Gibson being an anti-semitic? And if he is sincerely trying to make amends for his transgression … well

I think many of us know the rest of that prayer.

Darleen on July 31, 2006 at 6:58 PM

Woody Allen is still making films and invited to the “A” parties.

What about Victor Salva? Cameron Diaz? Charlie Sheen?

What about Hillary Clinton still being elected to senator even after the “Jew bastard” remark?

If Gibson is truly sincere in his apology and is taking this incident of vile, anti-semitic ravings while falling off the alcoholic’s wagon as THE bottom from which to make amends, why should we reject his redemption from sin?

I don’t get the double standard.

Darleen on July 31, 2006 at 7:03 PM

sorry about the double post… I thought the first one went into the bit bucket

There seems to be a delay of several minutes until a comment shows up, that’s why I rewrote it.

Darleen on July 31, 2006 at 7:10 PM

Glen Campbell fell off the wagon a couple years ago after a successful decade or so of singing Gospel music. Alcoholism affects the rich and the poor.

gary on July 31, 2006 at 7:15 PM

Professor,

For the first time I disagree with one of your comments. You might look at some of the previous threads on this topic for some differing views, backed up with facts.

While addictionology is not my specialty, I’m a doc, and also a recovering drunk. I have absolutely done and said things while impaired I would never have done sober. I once described to a bunch of friends about my previous life as a tick, living on a deer, going to Tick University, etc. No memory whatsoever (that was alcohol plus Ambien). That’s mildly humorous, but I’ve done worse.

And I’ll go ahead and preemptively condemn myself :-(

mikeyboss on July 31, 2006 at 7:16 PM

But that’s not what he did. He got drunk and showed his true colors. Could YOU get drunk enough to spout bigoted comments like that? Could ANYONE here suddenly blurt out that crap (assuming they don’t think it consciously now)?

Yes, of course anyone could. Alcohol destroys a person’s inhibitions and good judgement. Believe it or not, Mel Gibson is probably not the first drunk man to ever say something wild.

Also, you’re talking about “intellectual honesty.” That ephemeral want you have only really applies to college research papers, not how a drunk guy feels on a pissed off whim after getting busted for DWI. He was just a ranting, screaming, pissed off drunk who was angry that he got caught. Not a dyed in the wool anti-Semite Nazi like all these online personalities are using an excuse to pop out of the woodwork to say, “I told you so,” and link to their three year old review of Passion of the Christ are framing him as. After all, how anti-Semitic can a man with such a passion for The Three Stooges possibly really be?

Savage on July 31, 2006 at 7:24 PM

Allah, you could also accompany Barbra Streisand and she’d get you both in for free.

It has been obvious for some time to the most meager intelligence that he is sick to his empty core with Jew-hatred.

Only Christopher Hitchens can express equivalence for ‘stupid’ or ‘low I.Q.’ as elegantly as “meager intelligence”. About in vino veritas Mr. Hitchens knows a bit or two about inebriation – he speaks from experience. It’s no secret that I adore his writing style and his clarity on the war on terror. I forgive him much for his former political/philosophical views due to his capacity to assess the important points of life.

None on this board or otherwise are angels or saints, self happily included.

Contrary to leftie mono-rantings, couldn’t we hold 2+ thoughts in our otherwise fairly good heads?

Mel Gibson could at once be: a relatively good or at least well-known actor and producer, a shmuck with anti-Semitic and sexist views, a drunk who has apologized and is trying to get treated and perhaps do some good later to atone, regardless of how any of us feel about the POTC.

I had a drunkard grandpa who loved wine, women and song, in any which order. Generations suffered to no end.

No need to make excuses for Mel (or to condemn him further), psychological, religious, alcohol-behaviour-related or otherwise. He behaved disgustingly, he apologized and he’s hopefully trying hard to untangle the clusterf–k he has knotted himself into.

Entelechy on July 31, 2006 at 7:26 PM

Seems Allah has a vendetta against Mel, Christians, truth et al or maybe just a hard line apologist for Jews. As if the state of Israel and Jews are not the center of many wars throughout history (and I am sure they never had a hand in causing, exacerbating any of them (sarcasm); Nor has a person of Jewish origin never caused a problem, complete innocence I am certain (more sarcasm). My suggestion is grow up, act mature and quit your silly finger pointing because you choose to interpet a movie a certain way.

Why do you bow to the whims of political correctness?? Where is this pathetic little line one needs to walk, to not offend anyone, nor anger anyone??

Mel is fine, his movies are fine. For him making what many deem inappropriate remarks while intoxicated is not the standard to judge someone by. That you choose to do it speaks more to your intellectual dishonesty on this matter, than any shortcomings of Mr. Gibson.

MarkB on July 31, 2006 at 7:31 PM

Pardon me, MarkB? He blames Jews for causing all the wars in history and I’m the one whose at fault?

I’ve never lapsed into racism while drunk. Have any of you guys? Please let me know, I’d be very curious to hear.

Allahpundit on July 31, 2006 at 7:36 PM

Allah, I can’t tell you if I’ve ever lapsed into racism while drunk because I’ve never been drunk. I don’t drink – I don’t like the taste and I don’t like the idea of being out of control.

I will pray for Mel. He seems to have everything in the world except peace of mind and serenity of soul. I pray he finds them.

Ellen on July 31, 2006 at 7:46 PM

You can’t take this in isolation, though. You’ve got his father’s comments about the Holocaust and the questionable aspects of “the Passion” — for which I defended him — as context.

Can’t all be a coincidence.

Allahpundit on July 31, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Gibson – Kennedy 2008!

Ropera on July 31, 2006 at 8:09 PM

You put a lot of emphasis on “all” being uttered by a man intoxicated. Then you build a house of cards to condemn him and apparently retract a previous defense of his film if I understand your subsequent post correctly. And you include comments by his father concerning the holocaust…come on!!

In reading comments by “Savage” he/she is much more objective on this matter.

The whole matter in my opinion is much ado about little.

MarkB on July 31, 2006 at 8:34 PM

Well, if anyone would know about the 1st, 2nd, or even 10th vodka, it would be Hitchens.

Rightwingsparkle on July 31, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Wait. Allah, you may not see “Apocalypto” because Mel Gibson is a jerk? You are now going to base your movie habits on the character of the producer? Or actor?

Geeze. If I did that my movie viewing would be down to about…0.

Rightwingsparkle on July 31, 2006 at 8:41 PM

Allah, you may not see “Apocalypto” because Mel Gibson is a jerk? You are now going to base your movie habits on the character of the producer? Or actor?

Not because he’s a jerk. Because he’s an anti-semite.

And I said I might see it anyway.

Allahpundit on July 31, 2006 at 8:45 PM

A few thoughts on “Mad Mel”:
1) Mel had a father who probably filled his head full of anti-semitic rantings the likes of which we wouldn’t want to imagine. Whether he agreed with his father or not, he clearly loved his father dearly, and even though his rational mind might have known that his father was deeply anti-semitic, he probably worked hard to suppress this ugly truth from his conscious mind whenever he could. Jeez, people, he’s a human being! He has hang-ups! When Mel comes out stone-cold sober and says, “lets kill all the Jews”, and it actually appears any sane person is listening and willing to take action, (aside from Muslim militants in the religion of peace – we needn’t worry about Mel getting inside their heads – it’ll never happen) then we can start the paperwork to send Mel away for good. By the way, who in here can claim that their parents had absolutely NO INFLUENCE whatsoever on their thinking? Yes, he is an adult now, should think for himself, but we battle childhood demons throughout our lives.
2) The PotC = circumstantial evidence against Mel? Yeah, he made that movie ALONE – no Jewish actors took part, or assisted in any way with it. No Jewish person ever watched it and said, “big deal,” nothing new here…move along! Was there anything in the movie that is not found in some part of the Gospels? (Even if in only one?) Did his movie inspire a sudden rash of anti-Jewish hatred and rampages by Christians, Muslims, etc. throughout the world? (Oh yeah, Islamic militants were waiting with bated breath for Mel’s movie to come out so they could use it to re-inflate their sagging anti-semitic jihadi spirits…)
3) No one in any science seems able to pinpoint exactly why alcohol influences people to behave in certain ways, but I guess “conventional wisdom” just wins the day here. After all, in vino veritas. Please give it a rest. People have already posted numerous examples of completely opposite behavior when drunk to one’s true nature. As gary (above) put it: “Why didn’t you stick with that ugly girl/guy you ended up in bed with the next morning?
4) We have a sitting Senator who used to be a Grand Who-Ha (Klaxon, Kleagle, whatever he was) of the KKK…and I think he MAY have bit more influence over our lives than Mel Gibson ever will – where’s the outrage?! Even if his drunken tirade absolutely convinces everyone that Mel is an anti-semite, I guess he could never recognize that he has this warped ideology, and genuinely make an effort to try to work things out – with the help of a professional counselor/therapist? Or do we believe that Senator Byrd still holds everything he used to believe as a KKK leader with the same burning intensity he had years ago?
5) As MarkB above said, lets ease up on the PC here. Anyone ever see “Jesus is Magic” with Sarah Silverman? Please watch that and then comment on why its OK for a jewish woman to say the things she said in that movie under the guise of “comedy.” Example, “Yeah, the Jews DID kill Christ! I don’t know why they keep trying to pass if off on the Romans, you know? Yeah…and I’d F***ing do it again in a minute too! If I saw his little Birkenstocks clapping my way!” (paraphrasing.)
In any case, when did being anti-semitic become such an unforgiveable sin among the left of this country? You’ve got liberals across this country blaming Israel and the Jews for all the worlds ills, (Yes, you Howard Dean, looking at you…Hillary, Mother Sheehan and all her moonbat supporters) So drunken Mel makes some ugly comments and he is un-redeemable?

Maybe Mel Gibson IS just a dyed-in-the-wool anti-semitic, maybe he’ll never change. But if so, remember the above, and remember too, he’s just a person, not an elected official with any power over our lives. We can ignore him -tune him out – not go to his movies – whatever. We didn’t vote for him and we don’t condone antying he does in his personal life. Its NOT OK to be an anti-semite, but let’s try to keep everything in balance. He admits he is battling demons – but how many people are honest enough to admit that in public (even if he did wait until he was busted to do so?)

Con Ky on July 31, 2006 at 9:01 PM

Allah, You can of course choose to go to any movie that you wish for any reason, but I have a feeling many of the Producers in hollywood would not hesitate to call someone like myself a “theocrat” or a “rightwing religious zealot” or worse and they wouldn’t have to be drunk to do it. Being anti-Christian is just fine and dandy. I just think the same standard that is being applied (rightfully so) to Mel, should be applied to all no matter what their prejudices.

My point is that if I were to stop seeing movies based on people’s idiotic beliefs, then I would see none.

Rightwingsparkle on July 31, 2006 at 9:12 PM

One more thing. You have to wonder why Jewish executives didn’t go on the record condemning Mel.

One answer. They could not give a rat’s butt about being insulted by Mel Gibson. They probably say worse things to each other on a daily basis. Do you guys get hollywood at all? There is no moral standard there OF ANY KIND.

Rightwingsparkle on July 31, 2006 at 9:14 PM

You can’t take this in isolation, though. You’ve got his father’s comments about the Holocaust and the questionable aspects of “the Passion” — for which I defended him — as context.

Can’t all be a coincidence.

So…

Step 1: Make film about Jesus Christ
Step 2: Let ninety year old dad speak to the news media
Step 3: Get drunk, call a cop a “Jew”
Step 4: No more Jews.

I’m not seeing a pattern of anti-Semitism. I’m seeing a pattern of him being accused of anti-Semitism. So far, we’ve established that an apology is not enough. What is? An anger management course? Cultural sensitivity training? A mandatory stay in Haifa? Or are we just waiting for him to melt down, blow out his liver on a gallon of Captain Morgan, tear off his shirt and scream to the heavens, “JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!” with clenched fists trembling angrily at God?

Savage on July 31, 2006 at 9:18 PM

Say, does anyone remember whatever became of Saul of Tarsus? Yeah…remember? The guy who hated Christians so much…? Yeah….THAT guy. Did he ever go on to DO anything with his life?

“Saul was a brilliant man. He was a Pharisee, and zealous for Judaism. He was very committed to whatever he did. He was zealous in killing Christians. When he became converted, his commitment became a great asset–he redirected all the zeal he had into the right channels.”
(quoted from http://www.biblebb.com)

Mel’s conversion on the road to Malibu?

Con Ky on July 31, 2006 at 10:47 PM

Allahpundit

I have always had a great deal of respect for you, but I don’t think Gibson is an anti-semite based on one alcoholic rant.

And PoTC stands on its own, regardless of the flawed man who made it.

And I actually feel sorry for him for having a raving maniac father. One gets caught by the embarrassment of a parent’s views and the fact they ARE the parent and one is under an obligation to ‘honor’ them (which you can do even if you do not love them).

Gov. Arnold has had to endure years of rumor, slander and libel as a “closest Nazi” because his father WAS a Nazi. He still gets it.

We DO NOT hold even adult children responsible for the views of their parents.

Certainly, Gibson’s tirade was anti-semitic, but does that define him? No. What defines him is how he handles his redemption from this grievous trespass. If he was pull a Kennedy “I was on cold medicine” crap, or trying to excuse his behavior as mere drunkeness whats-the-big-deal, I’d be incensed. But I hear a man who is geniunely ashamed and willing to make amends, first by getting himself professional help.

Woody Allen merely “legalized” his pedophilia by marrying his victim.

Have you stopped seeing his films?

Darleen on July 31, 2006 at 11:45 PM

oh for heaven’s sake…why do some comments get eatten?

Allahpundit

As much as I respect you, I don’t think you can write Gibson off as AN anti-semite based on the ravings of an alcoholic who fell off the wagon.

And yes…they can say things they don’t believe because they look for the most awful cutting things their poisoned minds can find. If anti-semitic comments are rightfully forbidden because they are so hurtful, that’s why he’d reach for ‘em. Didn’t he get steeped in hurtful talk via his dad growing up?

You wouldn’t believe the stuff that my ex husband would say and do while on a alcoholic’s binge. I didn’t divorce him because he was an alcoholic, but because he refused to get help.

And speaking of that, we do NOT hold even adult children responsible for their parents. Gov Arnold has endured years of sneering and slander accusing him of being a “closet Nazi” because his dad was a Nazi.

Woody Allen “legalized” his creepy borderline pedophilia by marrying his victim. Why is Gibson’s behavior more reprehensible than Allen’s?

Darleen on August 1, 2006 at 12:10 AM

Forgive me for picking fights with 1/2 the people on this board, but – you’re all making excuses for Mel Gibson. I’m not interested in his apologies per se, because I know he’s a mature individual that will make the right (and smart) decisions on those questions, once he’s in complete control of his emotions. At the moment I’m only interested in one question:

Does he believe what he said the other day, or not?

At the end of the day this question doesn’t go away by ignoring it or making excuses for it, nor by Mr. Gibson issuing apologies to the press. Does he believe what he said [or not], and if so, why [not]? If any of you are compelled to respond – which you may not be – I urge you to resist the temptation to argue any of the following, all of which leave the question unanswered:

1. It’s not important because he apologized.
2. Whatever his views are, they’re none of our business.
3. Whatever his views are, they’re not significant enough for us to care.

Those who argue these points are dodging the question. Actually that’s fine, as long as you admit you’re dodging the question and move on. It’s better to have clarity than agreement – and I don’t believe in forcing Mr. Gibson (or you) to say or claim anything he doesn’t actually believe! But it’s not okay to dance around the question and then claim there’s nothing here to examine…

If I’m being too harsh or unfair IYO, then make the argument; but once you’re done making it, would you please answer the question?

RD on August 1, 2006 at 12:53 AM

[Savage] A lot of these people who are still criticizing Gibson after he apologized for his remarks and entered re-hab are still calling “The Passion of the Christ” an “anti-Semitic snuff film.”

Criticisms aside, a lot of people who are alarmed by his remarks are actually supporters of the Passion. That includes me, FWIW.

Those critics, I can’t take them seriously.

Fine. What about the rest of us? Saying this doesn’t give you the out to ignore the rest of us.

I feel like they’re just jumping on Gibson’s back because they were offended by a film about Jesus Christ that accurately reflects what is told in the new testament, without any Da Vinci Code twists. This is all a bunch of latent grief about PotC.

Not for me it isn’t. (Allah, how ’bout you?)

And consider if you will that he also called a female officer “sugar tits,” yet nobody jumps on him for being a mysoginistic sexist. But one remark about Jews, and its evidence that he’s a flaming anti-Semite and that Passion of the Christ was made to incite violence against Jews.

Whoa. There’s a bogus analogy and strawman argument rolled into one. First the bogus analogy: it wasn’t one remark about Jews, it was several – part of a tirade which included declarative propositions about world Jewry – when nothing remotely similar was said or implied about women. Second, the strawman argument about PotC: we do not oppose the Passion of the Christ and reject any dismissals of the controversy by lumping us in with those people. As someone in the thread has already remarked, Gibson’s personal views – which are the subject of our concern – do not necessarily make the content of PotC any more or less valid.

[Darleen] Gibson’s remarks were, indeed, vile and anti-semitic. But does that translate into Gibson being an anti-semitic?

If and only if he believes what he said – no more, no less. Thus the question -

[Darleen] If Gibson is truly sincere in his apology and is taking this incident of vile, anti-semitic ravings while falling off the alcoholic’s wagon as THE bottom from which to make amends, why should we reject his redemption from sin?

For some of us that’s not the question. Each of us is free to choose his or her subject of interest, as it were, in this affair. For some of us that will be Mel’s journey of redemption from sin; for others, it will be the degree of candor with which he has expressed his beliefs. Still others will say those were not his beliefs, just the random lashing-out of someone used to long drinking binges on the one hand, yet so fragile on the other hand that only four drinks rendered him unable to express himself accurately.

Others may prefer agreement; I prefer clarity.

Apologies and redemptions offer the prospect of agreement (with the majority, with the prevailing point of view, and so on); they don’t necessarily offer clarity. That’s why I’m not as moved as are some by his apology – and also why I don’t believes it absolves his Ursuende.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 12:56 AM

[mikeyboss] While addictionology is not my specialty, I’m a doc, and also a recovering drunk. I have absolutely done and said things while impaired I would never have done sober. I once described to a bunch of friends about my previous life as a tick, living on a deer, going to Tick University, etc. No memory whatsoever (that was alcohol plus Ambien).

Makes sense :-) I wouldn’t dream of making light of your situation, and can understand the erratic behavior that comes with excessive inebriation. But there’s a long way to go until some of us are convinced that Mel Gibson was so impaired – at .12 BAL, just slightly over the legal DWI limit of .10 – that he didn’t remember what he said. (Unless he was on some sort of other medication?) As far as I know, no one’s yet claimed that he blacked out. (Though I could be wrong…)

As to the theory about his alcoholism and impaired liver playing havoc with his enzymes: that’s the most I’ve heard in support of his “innocence”, the only reed propping it up. That’s not enough to dismiss the question in toto.

But that’s not what he did. He got drunk and showed his true colors. Could YOU get drunk enough to spout bigoted comments like that? Could ANYONE here suddenly blurt out that crap (assuming they don’t think it consciously now)?

[Savage] Yes, of course anyone could. Alcohol destroys a person’s inhibitions and good judgement.

Precisely. It’s bad judgment to reveal your inner hatreds to the whole world. Perhaps this was something else, but I don’t quite believe it.

[Darleen] Woody Allen “legalized” his creepy borderline pedophilia by marrying his victim. Why is Gibson’s behavior more reprehensible than Allen’s?

“Tu quoque” arguments – and comparisons of relative morality – don’t help advance Mel’s case. Many on the board and elsewhere have criticized “liberals” for this sort of logical fallacy. That’s not to say the argument is wrong – FWIW I agree – but IMO it’s off-topic, attempting to argue priority when the subject of the day is Mel Gibson and the degree to which he may be an anti-Semite.

And if it pales in comparison to Woody Allen’s travesties, so be it.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 1:15 AM

RD

Does he believe what he said the other day, or not?

You tell me. How are you going to judge that? If his apology and subsequent behavior to make amends ‘doesnt count’, by which criteria are you using to judge him anti-semite or alcoholic who used anti-semitic language?

Darleen on August 1, 2006 at 2:00 AM

At the moment I’m only interested in one question:

Does he believe what he said the other day, or not?

Answer
1. Fact: You cannot possibly know for sure
2. Fact: Mel doesn’t have a history of acting out what he said on the drunk
3. Fact:The guy was raised by a man who apparently talked like this all the time.

Mel was on a bender. He may or may not be a hard core alcoholic. If he is, and if he has reached the level of brain damage they can reach he may be at a stage where he does not have a single, contiguous persona, but could be at the blackout stage. In that state, which can last days, parts of the brain function well. He may be able to drive, walk, talk, go to work, and yet say and do things totally out of character. In these stages, which involve the disruptive brain damage inevitable in long term alcoholism, the original ‘persona’ is not all there. The full ‘persona’ often has total amnesia of the disruption. Sometimes they ‘wake up’ three days later in a hotel room with strangers. Yet, the many, many lessons of childhood are often available for instant recall in this same brain.

And that does not include the possiblility of mental illness, drug interactions.

All speculation, but so is the belief that Mel’s words represented the inner Mel.

I need more proof.

I need to hear him say or act out those same ideas sober.

The cheap shot is not enough proof. I have heard too many cheap shots slung at me by sober persons mad at me who I knew did not believe the cheap shot, but used it because it was the worst they could conjure up at the moment.

I still like Hitchens. I wish Hitchens liked Hitchens too, and then maybe he would not drink so much, which is too sad.

entagor on August 1, 2006 at 2:18 AM

Looking into the man’s personal history for ten minutes on google, he’s had a long, checkered past with alcoholism and wild behavior. I don’t think it’s hard to put two and two together and realize, dur deh dur, Gibson said something stupid while drunk. I think it’s advanced college calculus to vaguely remember some anti-Semitic accusastions being thrown at the man years ago, to the power of comments his ninety year old dad made to Barbara Walters, multiply that by an off the cuff insult he threw at an arresting officer while drunk, and come out with x=HE’S A FILTHY DAMN NAZI LIAR.

Trust him, or don’t. But I think that all this blog drama we’ve been exposed to over the past week has turned a lot of people into Berklified conspiracy theorists. And just so nobody can accuse me of dodging the question: No, I don’t believe that Mel Gibson is a filthy damn Nazi liar.

Savage on August 1, 2006 at 2:26 AM

I’d have more to say, except that it appears the posting software has snarfed my last two posts, made shortly after the one at 12:53 AM.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 3:53 AM

[Darleen] Gibson’s remarks were, indeed, vile and anti-semitic. But does that translate into Gibson being an anti-semitic?

If and only if he believes what he said – no more, no less. Thus the question -

[Darleen] If Gibson is truly sincere in his apology and is taking this incident of vile, anti-semitic ravings while falling off the alcoholic’s wagon as THE bottom from which to make amends, why should we reject his redemption from sin?

For some of us that’s not the question. Each of us is free to choose his or her subject of interest, as it were, in this affair. For some of us that will be Mel’s journey of redemption from sin; for others, it will be the degree of candor with which he has expressed his beliefs. Still others will say those were not his beliefs, just the random lashing-out of someone used to long drinking binges on the one hand, yet so fragile on the other hand that only four drinks rendered him unable to express himself accurately.

Others may prefer agreement; I prefer clarity.

Apologies and redemptions offer the prospect of agreement (with the majority, with the prevailing point of view, and so on); they don’t necessarily offer clarity. That’s why I’m not as moved as are some by his apology – and also why I don’t believes it absolves his Ursuende.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 4:01 AM

[mikeyboss] While addictionology is not my specialty, I’m a doc, and also a recovering drunk. I have absolutely done and said things while impaired I would never have done sober. I once described to a bunch of friends about my previous life as a tick, living on a deer, going to Tick University, etc. No memory whatsoever (that was alcohol plus Ambien).

Makes sense :-) I wouldn’t dream of making light of your situation, and can understand the erratic behavior that comes with excessive inebriation. But there’s a long way to go until some of us are convinced that Mel Gibson was so impaired – at .12 BAL, just slightly over the legal DWI limit of .10 – that he didn’t remember what he said. (Unless he was on some sort of other medication?) As far as I know, no one’s yet claimed that he blacked out. (Though I could be wrong…)

As to the theory about his alcoholism and impaired liver playing havoc with his enzymes: that’s the most I’ve heard in support of his “innocence”, the only reed propping it up. That’s not enough to dismiss the question in toto.

[Darleen] Woody Allen “legalized” his creepy borderline pedophilia by marrying his victim. Why is Gibson’s behavior more reprehensible than Allen’s?

“Tu quoque” arguments – and comparisons of relative morality – don’t help advance Mel’s case. Many on the board and elsewhere have criticized “liberals” for this sort of logical fallacy. I’m not saying the argument is wrong – FWIW I agree – but IMO it’s off-topic, attempting to argue priority when the subject of the day is Mel Gibson and the degree to which he may be an anti-Semite.

And if it pales in comparison to Woody Allen’s travesties, so be it.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 4:10 AM

entagor: From where I stand (for one, an ardent supporter of Mel’s PotC), it’s not important that his “true” beliefs are knowable from a single incident; what’s important is that the question is not so quickly swept under the rug, and that Mel Gibson is not excused on this question by pre-emptively chalking up every behavior to some uncontrollable force of nature. If it’s as you say, then he ought to turn up “clean” in due course. (And clearly, those taking advantage of Mel’s predicament for their own gain ought to be just as vigorously condemned.) But can we at least agree that “due course” ought to last more than a day or two?

Thanks all.

RD on August 1, 2006 at 4:20 AM

Can you all see the difference between us and the liberal Democrats?

We, the conservatives, Republicans, and the libertarians here, are HAVING A DEBATE about Gibson. Some defend him. Some excuse his actions. Some harshly criticize him, promising to boycot his movies and TV shows. Regardless, we are discussing him, openly and frankly, and are not, in a knee-jerk fashion, “closing ranks” around him.

Our opponents don’t do this. And this is the difference between them and us.

Clinton got caught in outright perjury, in having sex in the oval office with an intern (grounds for being fired anywhere in Corporate America — except at Penthouse, perhaps), with the unwanted groping of Kathleen Wille who was a staffer, and in harrassing and exposing himself to Paula Jones, not to mention the alleged rape of Juanita Broadrick.

And what did HIS supporters do?

Did they publicly harshly attack him, the way some of us are attacking Gibson?

Nope.

They closed ranks and defended him. Hillary went on Today and sat down with Couric and told a cock-and-bull story about a “vast right wing conspiracy” centered around Richard Scaife, and that the incident with Monica was all lies told by Scaife’s minions to descredit the Clintons.

And so, every liberal Democrat bigwig received their marching orders that day: Defend Clinton at all costs.

In the end, they universally “excused” him — after all it was only about sex. Or everybody does it (lies about having illicit sex in the workplace). And that oral sex really isn’t having sex. ‘

And, anyway, it all depends upon what the meaning of the word “is” is.

And not one Democrat in the Senate voted to remove him from office for the crime of perjury. Not one.

Bob Just, in 2000, wrote at article in Worldnetdaily.com describing how the desire to win at all costs has consumed his former party (the Democrats), and that any lie told, any tactic utilized, was justified because it was the “party uber alles.”

What we are dealing with here has nothing to do with American politics. In fact, I worry that as the Democrats increasingly adopt fascist tactics they will cease being a genuine political party, focused on honest debate and decision by fair ballot. They could become one day something more related to the fascists of 1930s Germany. The SA “brown shirts” were not interested in debate and civil rule; they wanted power in order to force the democratic nation to accept their Nazi agenda. If I am right about the fanatical direction my party is taking, then America has never faced a danger like this, and real Democrats who stand by and watch will be as guilty before history as the actual leaders of this corruption movement.

Just was right then, and it is even more true today.

By having this frank debate about one of OUR icons, we prove that we love honesty and openess more than cover up.

Don’t think that the electorate doesn’t notice this.

georgej on August 1, 2006 at 5:31 AM

Georgej, I hope the electorate does notice this, but I’ll admit to being cynical. I know too many voters who vote for someone “because he seems like such a nice man” or they are like my aunt who votes democratic in every freaking election even though she abhors their views. Why does she do this? I dunno, and neither does she – she’s just always voted democratic. Back in the day of Scoop Jackson, that was not such a bad thing, but I can’t make her realize that Dick Durbin, Howard Dean and John Kerry are not the kind of men we want running the defense of this country.

Ellen on August 1, 2006 at 7:51 AM

uh, RD? Legal BAC in CA is .08

And please don’t confuse the effects of alcohol on a normal person with one who is an alcoholic. For a recovering alcoholic who has been sober for some time, a relapse means even a couple of drinks puts them right back where they left off. Their brains physically act different with alcohol then other people.

I don’t excuse Gibson’s remarks. Gibson doesn’t excuse Gibson’s remarks. But I find the GLEE of some in his fall unseemly and I see it being used (since Gibson is a Catholic) by some capering about and pointing “see? scratch a Christian, find a Jew hater!” Good lord, how many times do I get in arguments with leftists who dismiss ALL Christian supporters of Israel because they think Christians only support Jews so they can eventually “get rid of ‘em.”

I brought up Allen only to point out the hypocrisy of Hollywood.

Darleen on August 1, 2006 at 9:50 AM

Unrelated to Mel (but, indirectly so) The Mayor of Houstons daughter was arrested last night for DUI. 17 years old. I haven’t heard yet if she spewed any hate speech toward Jews during the arrest, but I suspect she will be wishing she wasn’t so Popular soon. Her dad has been pushing a juvenile curfew lately and his daughter was arrested at midnight. mmmmm

gary on August 1, 2006 at 5:55 PM