Mel Gibson And Time Magazine

Time magazine refers to Mel Gibson as a "toxic" superstar. You see you can't do a story about a new Mel Gibson movie unless you distance yourself from his attitude toward Jews. You have to make that clear so that non-Jews won't come up to you and ask you angrily if you are anti Semitic. Anti Semitic means "Jew hater." Mel Gibson is considered to be Jew hater because when he was arrested once he said Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. He didn't elaborate and for some reason no one has ever asked him why he says that is the case. If the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world I would find that to be an interesting lecture series. And if they aren't - well, I have to say I haven't heard about even one Jew ever responding to Mel Gibson's opinion with "No we're not!!" Or responding with "That's true!! Everyone's trying to kill us and we don't want them to!!" Something. Anything. But that never happened. The statement "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world" never got spread-out onto the table like a Mercator Projection of the earth and analyzed. It was more like - the Press Response was more like - You can't say that. Don't ask why you can't say that, you just can't say that. So Richard Corliss, the fellow who passes Corlissian Judgement on the hard work of others and is convinced the movie industry needs him and not the other way around, he refers to Mel Gibson as a "toxic" superstar. What he means by this, since I understand shitty writers, being one, is that Mel Gibson is toxic to himself. This is how you avoid a fight with someone who can kick your ass. You say they are their own worst enemy. You do not say YOU are the guy's worst enemy. Otherwise he might come looking for you to smooth things over. With the backside of a shovel, calmly smoothing and leveling-off the terrain above you as you stare up at it from 6 feet down. Corliss should be nervous about calling Gibson names because a snitty little movie sycophant for the WB named Sam Rubin once stuck a microphone in Gibson's face and suggested he should quit acting because of the remarks attributed to him. Remarks about the Jews. Gibson paused on his journey toward greatness to turn and put his angry face close to Rubin's probably-suddenly-peeing one and said "That's right: 'attributed' to me. That means I may or may not have said it. Now let me ask YOU something: you don't have a dog in this fight do you? Or do you." There is no record of the response made by Rubin-The-Jew to this inquiry about his Jew ancestry. He was probably unconscious from fear. He LOOKS like baby ducklings waddling toward him on the sidewalk would scare the shit out of him. The reason Corliss went to all this necessary-in-journalism trouble to cover his own ass by writing a ten million word preamble to separate himself from Gibson was so that he could say something positive about the movie since that's what he REALLY wanted to do but didn't want to get into trouble for saying something positive about a Mel Gibson movie without first going through the drill of reminding everyone that Mel Gibson said something bad about ALL THE JEWS. Saying something bad about an entire race or religion or ethnicity or tribe or species or
group or any aggregation of more than one - is wrong. According to everyone but me. Not only is an OPINION liable to get you
"shunned and vilified," even using a bad adjective or noun or pronoun or part of speech or item of VOCABULARY - like nigger for example, will do it, will "ruin" you. Or saying Mexican around white people. White people - gringos - become enraged that you would use such language to refer to someone from Mexico or of Mexican ancestry in their presence, the proper word is hispanic. To me the proper word is spic or wetback or beaner. But I settle for Mexican often because that is saying the same thing. And white people know this, they know that "mexican" is basically an insult so they won't say Mexican around Mexicans. This pisses Mexicans off, white people calling them hispanics, a lot more than it would piss them off calling them Mexicans - at least the Mexicans I know, which is the dangerous variety. "NOT ALL OF THEM ARE DANGEROUS!!!" Yeah, I know, I was stunned when I learned that firsthand myself. A lot of them are meek and mild and happy and work long hours and are up at dawn and down at midnight and like to have falmily fun and breed hot chicks that are hot until they are 16 then something bad happens to them, and grow good cigars and make good tequila and have good dope. Corliss then closes his basically-approving article with the notion that Gibson would be great as Nixon in a Richard Nixon movie because - of course, this is Time - Nixon was a tortured, disturbed, ruthless man. Commies, like the ones at Time, HATE Richard Nixon because Nixon thought commies were the scum of the earth and said so. Which they are. However I have seen the Mel Gibson movie, Edge of Darkness, and have to disagree: Mel Gibson should not be playing Nixon. Mel Gibson should be playing Batman. THAT would be fucking GREAT!!!! In the new Mel Gibson movie he plays a hate-filled vengeance-machine. Which is what Batman is. And since Mel Gibson seems to be actually deranged and full of hate - which tells me he is aware of things - and since he is portraying this emotion a whole lot better than the people who have played Batman so far have been able to do......i mean, really, George Clooney, Mr Lib Douchebag 2010?.....Christian Slater? alias Mr Mumbles, alias maybe I hit her maybe i didnt?.....Michael Keaton?....Well, I guess he wasn't so bad. VAL KILMER?????? Why not just use Johnny Weir. No, I think Mel Gibson is the guy for the job. And I guarantee you, if Mel Gibson was playing Batman, whether the movie was good or whether the movie was bad, when the movie was over there'd be no more Jews in Gotham City.