Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (44835)	10/21/2003 3:46:18 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50167

Overkill It is clear to me that Gregg Easterbrook was hoping to get some sort of a reaction from Disney when he wrote: The New Republic Online: Easterbrook: ...Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of... other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else.... 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. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself. I mean, you don't accuse anybody of worshipping Mammon rather than The One Who Is, of desecrating the graves of their murdered relatives, and of moral complicity in suicide bombings in Israel--not unless you are hoping that something will come out of the hole into which you are poking your stick, do you? Nevertheless, it is clear that Easterbrook did not expect what has emerged: Daniel Drezner: Finally, The Power Line reprints an e-mail from Easterbrook that is making the rounds.... Some of the disconcerting sections: Yesterday I was told to expect to be fired by ESPN. It hasn't happened yet, but seems likely [he has since been fired by ESPN]. Friday the top officers of ESPN refused several orders from Michael Eisner, the head of Disney, that I be fired. By the end of the day it seemed likely they would give in.... Yesterday I was told by an ally within Disney corporate that Eisner has assigned people to try to destroy the book [The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse] -- to get Time to drop the serial, to keep me off interview shows, even to get Random House to kill the book. In a published body of work that now extends to millions of words, I have written three foolish and wrong sentences. Now I've not only lost reputation and half my income (ESPN): what matters to me most in all the world, my book writing, is in jeopardy at the worst possible time. And I'm up against one of the richest, most vindictive men in the world. (emphasis added) I certainly think that such massive retaliation against Gregg Easterbrook would be vast overkill, and unworthy of Michael Eisner's dignity. Nevertheless, if I were Michael Eisner, I would be angry about two things. First, where is Easterbrook's personal apology to Eisner and Weinstein? One would expect self-preservation alone to elicit some kind of abject personal apology from somebody who has just grossly and personally insulted one of the most vindictive people in the world. Second, what kind of apology is it to say that you "defend the thoughts" in the first paragraph quoted above? What are these thoughts, exactly, and how do you defend them? How can you separate thoughts from the manner of expression that gives them shape, anyway? Posted by DeLong at 10:19 PM \| Permanent Link