Blogcritics: Comments on Easterbrook Donnybrook

Comment by Taloran

Fri, 24 Oct 2003 21:31:35 EDT

In carefully analyzing the debated section of text of Easterbrook's argument as it appeared on Blogcritics a few days ago and in my local paper today, it is my considered opinion that what Easterbrook said was stupid, but that it was neither morally wrong nor anti-Semitic. He made the mistake of voicing an inflammatory statement and including the religion of his two targets as a part of that statement. Dumb, yes. Worthy of a heartfelt apology for being a dumbass, yes. Bile spewing, no. Worthy of getting fired, no. I'm afraid that political correctness has gone too far in this country. I certainly don't want to return to the days when someone could put in their shop window "Hiring - no Irish need apply", but an American is entitled to his own stupid opinion. I think the time has come for the Anti-Defamation League, NAACP, Al Sharpton, and all the others who try to find hatred, intolerance or racism in every statement to examine the content of things a bit more carefully, and not see hatred in everything everyone says.

Comment by Thomas

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:03:56 EDT

If reasonable folks can't even come to an agreement as to whether Gregg Easterbrook's words were racist or anti-Semitic, then I think this issue being blown all out of proportion. I would be willing to bet that Michael Eisner fired Easterbrook for being insubordinate, not because he felt insulted as a Jewish person. But, then again, what the hell do I know? For what it's worth, I agree with Professor Volokh: Easterbrook's comments were unpersuasive but not anti-Semitic. I think he was just trying to make a religious appeal to Eisner and Weinstein and it came out sounding a whole lot like anti-Semitism--though the substance of his argument was mostly innocuous.

Comment by Bill Wallo

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:45:03 EDT

The only good mouse is a dead mouse. Or something like that. :) You know, I can only claim that I came up with the title of this post independently from Mickey Klaus (this being further evidence of the concept of simultaneous development of ideas). Klaus likewise posted his "Donnybrook" post over the noon hour as well. I did not see it until just now (via the Volokh Conspiracy). It has some interesting stuff in it, for those - er, interested.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:37:31 EDT

Like Harlan Ellison said: "Don't fuck with the mouse".

Comment by Bill

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:35:27 EDT

Hey, wait a minute - who said I said anything stupid? :) As for Sapp v. the NFL, boy is that an interesting can of worms: you have the whole debate over whether so-called middle class America only thinks of African-Americans in terms of athletics or entertainment (i.e., Michael, Prince, or the rapper of your choice), combined with the counter-argument that athletes and entertainers often make a whole lot more money than your basic middle class American. Be curious to see if Sapp's comment truly gets "lost" - it may fuel some debate somewhere, we'll see. What the heck, maybe you just gave me fodder for another post. :)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:25:50 EDT

Clearly it would be if slaves only had to work half the year and average a million dollars per pickin' season.

Comment by Chris

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:13:49 EDT

In the context of being able to be told you are stupid, yeah I can see the point. In all the huffing and puffing about whether Easterbrook hates Jews, Warren Sapp calls the NFL a Slave System and no one says a word . . .

Comment by Bill Wallo

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:57:05 EDT

Thanks Eric. Chris - why can't I lump Easterbrook in with Limbaugh, Rocker, Shockey, et al? I wasn't focusing on the relative weight of their comments (i.e., is one set of comments better/worse than another). I was getting at the nature of debate in general: if I say something, others are entitled to argue with me, and say I'm wrong, stupid, etc - just like people did in each of those instances, be it Easterbrook or the others. However, I understand that Easterbrook might not like to have his comments tossed into the same general class as those made by the other gentlemen. ;)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:48:00 EDT

A fine and reasoned wrap-up Bill, thanks! I agree, the firing was an overreaction and one that rightly or wrongly gives fodder to the anti-media consolidation argument. He was wrong - we've all said so - but not so wrong or so offensive that it calls his job into question, especially since he didn't make the offending comments on ESPN. We all have the right to make mistakes, to be told we are stupid, wrong and deserve to be beaten with canes, without our employers overreacting and dumping our dead asses.

Comment by Chris

Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:23:25 EDT

Only one disagreement -- you can't really use the name of Easterbrook in the same sentence as Rush/Rocker/Shockey.