I’m in Phoenix now. It’s hot here. I’m only now catching up on email.
Anyway, I guess the charity and diplomacy of my earlier post was somewhat lost on some people, particularly of the gloating anti-Gibsonite variety. I’m not going to take their bait. But a few points are worth making (even if they may give the baiters some satisfaction) after reading a day’s worth of email.
1) I do not think the “most favorable interpretation” I referenced in my original post is the most likely scenario. Except for a few vultures, I think most readers understood that. I simply thought that the proper thing to do in response to his apology — and without all the facts in – was to leave it at that.
2) People who suspect I’m cutting Gibson slack because he’s a conservative icon are off base. It’s more likely that if I’m being too soft on him it’s because I’ve seen addicts screw up their lives stupidly and because I find the whole thing so unpleasent.
3) Nonetheless, his comments are inexcusable, as Gibson admitted, and are evidence of serious deficiencies in his thinking and character.
4) I sincerely doubt some of the people emailing me would be as quick to condemn if the person involved was, say, Michael Moore.
5) If Gibson is a full-blown alcoholic it isn’t necessarily damning that his blood alcohol level wasn’t that high. I’ve known alcoholics to go batty after a single drink.
6) It seems, if the allegations are true, it’s a losing proposition to argue that Gibson isn’t at all anti-Semitic. The question is only a matter of degree.
7) I don’t know whether Gibson’s apparent anti-Semitism is the product of his father’s influence or not. But if it is, I guess we have one more example of why fathers matter.