I don't know.

For one, it is a real apology-- he's not just apologizing for getting caught.

Secondly, he does say that he said things that he does not believe are true. I guess the vagueness of this statement does call things into question-- but also, there is the double-security element: You can't inform everyone that they havent changed their security codes from the default because then everyone would become a security hazard to each other-- likewise, Mel seems to not want to repeat the things he said while drunk, because to do so would let everyone know he said them. And I can hardly think of a reason why he would want that?

Anyway, it may be a loaded assumption: assuming that he is like his father, this should be damning evidence-- but I don't know that we can really assume that.

To reiterate, I think that his apology seems a little vague, but geniune. This might end his time in the spotlight, at least for awhile. Unfortunately, it is ammo for hard leftists trying to shift the anti-semite label from themselves to conservatives... which may serve them well if depending on how things go with Israel & the Middle East.

Just my two cents.

Enjoying your blog!

I like Mel Gibson. He has made some great movies. But he is beginning to look more and more unhinged. That said, I suppose it's par for the course in Hollywood. Everyone struggles with their demons, and I certainly have enough of my own.

I personally didn't see any anti-Semitism in the Passion of the Christ. I saw an accurate depiction of Scripture.

I think that most of these people who blame the Jews fail to make the distinction between the Hebrews, who are a people, and the Jews, who are the religious leaders. In that light, it was indeed the Jews who killed Christ, since the Crucifixion was in the end a political execution brought about by the Sanhedrin. But not a people.

What I liked most about the Passion was the cinematography. Gibson studied the great paintings from the Medieval and Rennaisance periods, and structured each scene as a visual realization of a masterpiece. For that he is to be commemorated.

For getting drunk out of his mind and cursing a people, he is to be condemned.

Just don't allow the condemnation of his conduct to be confused with the commemoration of his art.

The remarks are certainly condemnable, but maybe the reason Gibson drunkenly states that Jews are out to get him is because, you know, so many Jews soberly stated that they were going to make him a pariah in Hollywood. That includes the head of the most powerful studio in Hollywood, who stated proudly and publicly that he would see to it that Gibson and those who did business with him would not do business with his studio. And all that for making a movie that portrays the fundamental beliefs of Christians, that Jesus died on the cross.
Gibson drunkenly said some very ugly things, but at least he is not proud of his bigoted remarks, unlike his antagonists.

mikem may have a point concerning Gibson's business relations in Hollywood, but you know, he was also drunk off his ass, and 'in vino veritas' and all that.

Mel better hope Apocolypto makes him lots of money.

Um.. small nits

Alcohol is not truth serum, and how alcohol affects the brains of alcoholics is different than the way if affects normal people.

I believe Gibson didn't denounce publicly denounce his dad is because, you know, it was his father..grandfather to his seven kids. Many people have parents who have some very embarrassing quirks, we usually don't go around badmouthing them in public.

Unless someone has some evidence of Gibson's functional anti-semitism, I'd make him as much of an "anti-semite" for random ravings of an alcoholic that has fallen off the wagon, as I would consider Hillary Clinton an anti-semite for an angry (but sober) rant about a person being a "Jew bastard."

You may be right, Darleen, but I think if Gibson did not mean what he said, he should say so unequivocally. For the rest of his life, people are going to want to know what he thinks about Jews. I haven't heard him say clearly whatever it is he thinks.

I don't think he needs to denounce his father, either, but his refusal to disagree with what he has said troubles me, as do the evasive answers about the Holocaust in David Bernstein's link above. (Disagreeing with someone is not denouncing the person.)

All of this aside, I think the calls for hate speech legislation and prosecution are completely wrong. Gibson has a First Amendment right to say anything he wants, but that doesn't mean he should escape criticism.

I think he has made the issue of what he thinks about Jews highly relevant. If he is not an anti-Semite, I'd like to hear him explain why.

(I realize it's unfair to judge the world by my standards, but if something like this happened to me -- say I left a drunken psychotic comment somehere -- I would certainly explain in full. It all sounds like damage control, which strikes me as too arrogant, given the totality of the circumstances)

Why are some holding Gibson to a standard they aren't holding Noam Chomsky? or Tony Judt? Or Hillary Clinton? Or Charlie Sheen?

I read Gibson's apology and found it very straightforward. Were my ex-husband (alcoholic) ever that honest!!! (been divorced almost 10 years and he still has never once apologized for any of the awful stuff he put me and our children through ...)