In that regard, the whole argument really hinges on Easterbrook's initial assertion that Tarantino's films are nothing but "junk." If they are indeed cinematic crap, like so many of the gore-splattered straight-to-video releases that line the shelves at Blockbuster, it might make sense to ponder why they exist at all. But if there is some sort of meaning in them, or if intelligent people can find some merit in them, the argument falters. If Kill Bill is open to some sort of interpretation regarding the meaning of violence (rather like say, Unforgiven), isn't it fair to say that reasonable minds might differ as to whether the violent images are as unworthy as Easterbrook contends? And certainly, to continue to think that Jewish people should all adhere to the same interpretation of how much cinematic violence is "too much" makes no sense, especially when nobody else seems to be able to reach a consensus on that point.

Note: The author wastes a fair amount of time blogging about a variety of subjects over at Walloworld, where this post originally appeared.