The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Passion Fodder

8.2.06 @ 12:02AM

MEL OF A MESS
Re: Clinton W. Taylor's Braveheart's Tequila Sunrise:

Having just read Clinton Taylor's article, "Braveheart's Tequila Sunset," I feel as though I have been injected with a new sense of hope that there are still clear-headed thinkers among our society who can actually use their intelligence to sort through significant events of the day. In the lop-sided and often predetermined reporting of news by a clearly leftist media, it almost seems as though no one really thinks for themselves anymore, but mindlessly suck down the reconstituted pre-arranged gruel that is constantly dished out by the daily news. Clinton's process of examination and consideration of the real issues underlying Mel Gibson's arrest and the surrounding events are refreshing, and a reminder to all of us that the events that march across our television screens and blare at us from the headlines, are not always accurate or factual. Instead, and sadly in a lot of cases, they are a clear bending of the facts and a sort of journalistic fantasizing by the ratings-hungry and media power mongers who would call themselves members of the fourth estate, but who are, in reality, nothing more than mind-police, who tell us what they want us to think happened, and as if that were not enough, go on to tell us what to think of what they think.

In particular, I enjoyed Clinton's tongue-in-cheek premise, "If one tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth when snockered, then perhaps our courts ought to require witnesses to demonstrate a sufficiently elevated BAC to testify." In dismissing this suggestion correctly as a very stupid idea, we would have to then go back and apply this same logic to the instant situation that was reported on. This is precisely what we all should be doing, i.e., taking the findings of an unbalanced media and carrying out these premises to their logical conclusions. It is only then we would dismiss them as completely preposterous, but it seems that today's average American thinkers don't customarily get that far. Heck, it would mean they would have to shut off the TV and ponder amongst their own thoughts for a bit. In today's media-driven, politically correct, "don't offend anyone" society, it's just not popular to express one's personal opinion, (or even actually have one, for that matter) especially if it reflects one's own often repressed and deeply-held beliefs.

It has become an extremely painful event to become a subject of the evening news. Instead of objective and accurate reporting of events, the media today seems more intent on beating the ratings game, leaping to foregone conclusions, and destroying anyone who dares to hold sway to personal beliefs and feelings that do not coincide with their own liberal bent. It is disgusting, irresponsible, and loathsome, that because of media focus and attention, people are often convicted in the court of public opinion long before they ever see a courtroom. But whose fault is that? The mainstream media mixologists who routinely concoct our daily cuisine, or the ones who so eagerly line up to gulp and swallow it all? Mel Gibson had defied the establishment for a long time, and has been hugely successful without their help or intervention. For that reason, the media-driven court of public opinion has long been spring-loaded against him, only waiting for a purely human mistake in order to unleash the forces of media hell against him.

I am told that most DUI defendants, upon seeing a video of their drunken behavior, rarely ever challenge the DUI charges in court, for obvious reasons. What we must all remember regarding this incident is that someday it might not be a Mel Gibson on that video, it might be one of us. It is then we would recognize the obvious flaw of judging a person's entire character on the basis of a singular unfortunate event.
-- Bill Cassada
North Port, Florida

I will admit to being a movie buff, mostly pre-1960 ones and an avid fan of film noir. I will also admit to being a fan of Mel Gibson, one of the very, very few of contemporary actors I do like, so his recent brush with the law and the self-righteous element of Hollywood is a little distressing (but not much). Mr. Gibson is far from perfect, as we all know. What he has done in his film career, especially recently, seems to be counter to what he does in his private life. He has a problem with alcohol and, yes, he may even feel the way he talked but compared to the rest of the Hollywoodheads, he's a saint. There is no excuse for his excesses or his behavior, that is true, but there is a point where it has to get so he, himself, can address his problem. Now, he may very well think as he talked and that is unfortunate but also it may very well cause him to reflect upon that also. Mr. Gibson is a professed Christian and made a movie about the life of Jesus at his own expense. He is a sinner like all of us and he admits to that. That is attested by this recent event. However, unlike the Hollywoodheads, who are condemning him, Mr. Gibson is contrite about his failings, understands his problem, and wants to change it. That is more than his detractors are willing to do about theirs, so I am willing to give him a chance to show his repentance and wish him luck in overcoming the demons that have taken over his body.
-- Pete Chagnon

Sounded like Martin Riggs on speed to me. Not attractive, but let's keep our eye on the ball here. Gibson is an artist and artists spend a lot of time in pain. Who knew that he thought it was the Jews? He has acknowledged it was socially unacceptable. If he is really burning that much inside about the Jews, that will be its own punishment. This is exactly why we have organized our society the way we have -- so that a very rich, successful person is just another schmoe. Although I like Mel as an actor, the joy of the U-S-of-A is who really gives a damn what he thinks?
-- Greg Richards

I really think you ought to inform Mr. Taylor that Christopher Hitchens is not a man of the left any longer. Taylor seems to be not only confused about the anti-Semite Gibson, but about the ideology of Mr. Hitchens. It seems Mr. Taylor is uninformed and quite myopic. Mr. Taylor's Christianity seems to get in his way of making clear and succinct judgments that are so very apparent. You really ought to find another person to write about Gibson's anti-Semite family and beliefs.
-- E. A. Hoffman, Ph.D.

I couldn't agree more with Clinton Taylor. After all, if saying something anti-Semitic brands you an anti-Semite, then Hillary Clinton is an anti-Semite for calling Paul Fray a "F****** Jew B******." She's also a racist for her sick Gandhi joke, and don't forget her plantation crack at the NAACP dinner this past January. And she wasn't even drunk!

I'm not defending Gibson, but I find people's intolerance of Mel hypocritical. His sin wasn't his drunken tirade but his sobering movie The Passion of the Christ.

We all wished Patrick Kennedy well last May (he received kid glove treatment). I wish the same for Gibson and, especially, his family. They must be suffering as well.
-- Kitty Myers
Painted Post, New York

Why didn't the jackals of the press create such an inquisition-like furor with Patrick Kennedy with his DUI and slurs at the airport? Mel has been a marked man since he made the Passion. I can't believe he was off guard enough to get sucked in.
-- Tommy Burleson
Allen, Texas

By now few remember the name of Paul Fray. He was a (former) campaign manager for then Governor of Arkansas Bill Clinton. While Clinton was as good a campaigner as he has at parsing words and deeds (lying), he didn't always get away with lying, and he didn't always win elections. Such was the case when managed by Mr. Fray.

Some of us will even recall the interview on television with a very sober Paul Fray recalling the very night of Clinton's loss of the governorship, and Hillary Clinton's non-drunken outburst at the culpable Mr. Fray: "You F****** Jew B******!" Several witnesses reported seeing and hearing Hillary hollering those words, not drunk, but possessed with that "anger" she is famous for.

But the same apologists for Clinton are nowhere to be found for Mel, whom may have a problem that needs intervention. But the apologists failed to intervene with Hillary's husband, who had a similar problem.
-- P. Aaron Jones
Huntington Woods, Michigan

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Trade, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Mainstream Media, Television, Islam, Abortion, Hollywood, Movies, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Africa, Immigration, Oil