tuesday morning quarterback sacked
Oct. 21st, 2003 01:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, Gregg Easterbrook, a fancy-pants brie-eatin' chardonnay-sippin' elitist who makes a living as a writer and editor, was the writer of Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com's Page 2 until sometime after last week's entry when he was canned by ESPN.com due to an entry in his Easterblogg in which he brutalizes Quentin Tarantino and his latest movie due to the violence and general lack of substance therein (and in all of Tarantino's oeuvre). So far so good... but then he runs off the rails and starts dissing Miramax, run by some guy named Weinstein, which is owned by Disney, run by some guy named Eisner. Then he points out that they're Jewish, then he talks about the worship of money. His editor lays blame about this whole mess on, among other things, "the hubris of this whole blogging enterprise." Easterbrook has apologized with the unimpressive-sounding, "Of mangling words, I am guilty." The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz has a good collection of quotes (and links thereto). Here's a choice of quotes:
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * * *
Don't forget, kids! Arabs are Semites, too! Fight back against people who use "anti-Semite" in lieu of "anti-Jew".
On a lighter note, Easterbrook's "Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish" is very evidently a ripoff of Cartman's classic "Spielberg? Jew. Lucas? Jew. Kyle? Jew. Coincidence?"
So what was my point after all this natter? People is dumb. And ESPN should have never canned Easterbrook over this crap, because it obviously didn't affect them — but because Easterbrook named Eisner (and outed him as a Jew! *gasp*), it looks to anyone like good ol' fashioned payback.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 02:08 pm (UTC)"Fight back against a century of common usage!"
Ahem.
(I'm happy to replace it as soon as anyone suggests a euphonious and obvious candidate.)
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 02:20 pm (UTC)And what's wrong with "anti-Jew" or "anti-Judaism", anyway?
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 02:22 pm (UTC)Intrinsically, nothing. Doesn't scan as easily though, but I'll happily admit that that's an entirely idiosyncratic asthetic judgment.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 06:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 06:50 pm (UTC)Of course, all too often we see people who criticize Israel labeled as anti-Semitic, and that's just plain braindead. From what i hear, it's much worse in Germany, too.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 10:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 03:10 pm (UTC)It was no less an essayist than Montaigne who essayed, "Those who would combat usage with grammar make fools of themselves." This after a couple of paragraphs of same, though, which was entertaining.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 02:17 pm (UTC)The article in question, though, could have, at the least, been more thought out. Or something.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 03:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 03:53 pm (UTC)I guess all i wanted to see out of him was football. If i want science/quasi-science stuff, i'll go read Bad Astronomy or something. It's easy to find sites like that; it's hard to find someone who actually knows what he's talking about in football, or at least looks at things from a different perspective.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 04:15 pm (UTC)Never saw it. From the few commercials for it, it didn't look remotely interesting or funny.
Agreed, it's easy to find Bad Astronomy/Physics/whatever, but I enjoyed the general ramble-ness of it all (call it a personal weakness), and liked mentioning to people random weirdness that I read about in "a football column."
But yes, I also really liked his football vies.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 04:28 pm (UTC)The reason to use "anti-semitism" instead of "anti-Jewish" is because "anti-semitism" refers specifically to Jews. The argument that Arabs are Semites, too, is an argument that some Arabs have used to justify their anti-semitism.
When you come over tonight, take a look at my copy of Rabbi Telushkin's Jewish Literacy for a more indepth explanation of the issue and why this argument is inadvertently offensive.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 04:43 pm (UTC)If Arabs are Semites, then to call a systematic or general hatred of Judaism "anti-Semitism" is, at best, inaccurate. If Arabs are actually NOT Semites, then i withdraw the above comment. Anything else is semantic noodling.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 04:51 pm (UTC)Why does bias matter? Just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean that their research and work is flawed. Telushkin is a highly respected source, both inside and outside of Jewish circles.
If Arabs are Semites, then to call a systematic or general hatred of Judaism "anti-Semitism" is, at best, inaccurate.
Take a look at the definition and history of the word rather than parsing it. "Anti-semitism" has always referred to Jews and only recently have some Arabs tried to use its English parts to justify their views. I'll post the relevant section later this evening when I have the book handy.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 05:05 pm (UTC)If "anti-semitism" (i wonder if the lower-case 's' is significant) was meant to refer to anti-Jewish sentiment from the very start, then it was a poorly chosen term, and i wonder if it was chosen in order to further distance Jews from Arabs.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 05:23 pm (UTC)So, fine, 'anti-Semitism' and 'anti-Semite' are valid terms due to over 125 years of usage. They're still inaccurate and confusing terms, and that's why we should call a spade a spade, just so you don't have asshole Arabs and Bobby Fischer and me getting all funny and cute with language.
Common usage... BAH. This is why the common person shouldn't be allowed to use language. If grunts and gestures were good enough 10000 years ago, they're good enough now.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 05:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-10-21 07:46 pm (UTC)they also mangled the use of the use of aryan. thousands of years ago some aryans wound up in europe and others wound up on the indian subcontinent. i doubt that hilter had the indian aryans in mind when he was using the term.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 07:32 am (UTC)Also, I thought the Arabs were "Hamitic", sons of Ham. There's some joke here, if only I could work it out.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 09:03 am (UTC)The Hamites were the Canaanites, as i understand it. Arabs and Jews came from Abraham, who came from Shem.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 10:34 am (UTC)The term "Queer" has sometimes been embraced in this way by gay people or the gay community, though I haven't seen much of the term in years. Why by queer when you can be gay?
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 03:26 pm (UTC)"You kissed a girl! That is so gay!"