“I have to disagree with you on the “no sign of antisemitism”. Singling out any group for special treatment/expectations is a problem, even if the current statement is not overtly “bad” to the reader at that time.

In this case, the article seems to state that Jews are “responsible” for the violent movies and they should know better.”

A half-truth, if even that – quoting the allegedly antisemitic blogger:

“Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.”

Leah, don’t let the Ellis Island – imposed Celtic sounding surname fool you; I’ve probably been in Shul more times than you have. You and I both know that these words, issuing from the mouth of a rabbi, would hardly make anybody blink. Like any people, we have our history, the history will teach lessons, and we should learn from them. Why us more than others? Wrong question – why us less than others?

How can one be Jewish, and not have any thoughts about the Holocaust? Having had those thoughts, how can one not think of what happens when one ceases to feel empathy for one’s fellow man, a reaction that casual nihilism will encourage? That’s the question that somebody is asking, and the fact that this question has been responded to with personal attacks directed against the asker is shameful. Apologies are called for, but not from the man who has been fired, if this is all that he was fired over.

Democrats.com Announces Disney Boycott

Democrats.com, the leading web site for Democratic activists, today launched a boycott of the Walt Disney Company to protest its refusal to distribute Michael Moore’s new film, “Fahrenheit 911.”

The film is highly critical of Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and his actions leading up the attacks. It links Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden.

“As Americans, we are outraged that Disney would use its enormous power to censor Michael Moore, one of America’s most important filmmakers,” said Democrats.com president Bob Fertik.

“As Democrats, we are outraged that Disney would use its enormous power to prevent Americans from learning important and disturbing facts about George W. Bush, in order to keep voters from considering those facts when they vote in November,” Fertik added.

Participants in the boycott will refuse to purchase Disney products until the company agrees to distribute “Fahrenheit 911.” Those products include films, theme parks, toys, and TV networks. Activists can sign the boycott petition by visiting http://democrats.com/disney.

Disney forbids distribution of film that criticizes Bush – NYT By Jim Rutenberg

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, “Fahrenheit 911,” links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis – including the family of Osama bin Laden – and criticizes Mr. Bush’s actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore’s project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: “We’re discussing the issue with Disney. We’re looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably.”

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

“We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,” said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore’s agent. “That decision stands.”

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson’s company, backed out.

Mr. Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney’s chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush’s brother, Jeb, is governor.

Continued http://tinyurl.com/ysjjz

I am hoping for input from people regarding all things bad (and good) from Disney.

If you have personal experiences of being harmed by disney, I also host a support group at http://www.geocities.com/skews_me/supportgroup.html

“He criticized Eisner, WHO MAKES NO PROCLAMATION ABOUT HIS RELIGION IN HIS CAREER, because he IS Jewish.”

Should be, something to the effect of, “The fact that he makes Eisner’s religion an issue, despite the fact that Eisner makes no such proclaimation about his religion, is a double standard based on the religion of the subject. There is no clearer definition of bigotry.”

He criticized Gibson, WHO PROCLAIMS HIS DEVOUT AND INTENSE RELIGION TO THE DEGREE THAT HE HAS SPENT MILLIONS OF HIS OWN MONEY ON A MOVIE, for making violent movies.

He criticized Eisner, WHO MAKES NO PROCLAMATION ABOUT HIS RELIGION IN HIS CAREER, because he IS Jewish.

To criticize one for actions in contradiction with a public profession of intense faith is not the same as criticizing someone who is, by all accounts, commonly called a secular Jew.

The fact that Easterbrook seems to be unable to separate the two is religious bigotry.

You can translate the plain meaning of the paragraph–which, despite attemps here to obfuscate it, is clear on the face of the words–to any number of groups just by changing the hateful stereotype/historical event/modern event. The apologists on here should keep doing it over and over until they find one that offends them. (How this bunch of American white devils can justify religious bigotry after having been driven out of Europe in the 18th Century by religious persecution only highlights that they’re only concerned with perpetuating racism and claiming to own every human being who doesn’t eat mayo sandwiches on wonder bread.)

(Yes, that was sarcasm and an example.)

As a side note, it’s cute that he also assumes all Jews come from Europe. I suppose if you’re going to make one generalization, you might as well make a bunch. What a repugnant tool.

If you’ve seen Kill Bill, you might have noticed that the only people being killed are a huge army of back-flipping superhuman evil Yakuza assassins, plus some other people who are even more deadly and nasty. Excuse me, helpless?!

So, if I get this right, he’s taking his tough moral stand so that some impressionable movie-viewer doesn’t walk out of the theater and start single-handedly challenging a zillion motorcycle-riding ninjas to a swordfight?

* That Eisner should be ashamed of himself for putting out something like “Kill Bill”.

* That Eisner is a money grubbing Jew, and his Jewish avarice that makes him put out films like this.

Any number of people have read what he wrote in both ways.

If it was done for the first reason, this is cause for concern.

If it was for the second, there isn’t. Even when acting more or less privately, as on a blog, throwing racial epithets at your boss is a legitimate cause for termination.