Just Above Sunset
March 21, 2004 - Mel Gibson again, and an item on labor law...













Home | Question Time | Something Is Up | Connecting Dots | Stay Away | Overload | Our Man in Paris | WLJ Weekly | Book Wrangler | Cobras | The Edge of the Pacific | The Surreal Beach | On Location | Botanicals | Quotes
































Mel Gibson is NOT anti-Semitic after all.

_________

 

And to prove Mel Gibson is not anti-Semitic – really?

Check out this Reuters item:

Mel Gibson: Hanukkah tale next?
Director of 'The Passion of Christ' admits fascination with heroism of the Maccabees
March 17, 2004: 5:12 PM EST

Reuters reports Gibson says he is now “intrigued” by the revolt of the Maccabees.  You know that one - the story behind Hanukkah.

Well, strange things happen when you appear on Fox News and chat with Sean Hannity.  Gibson is quoted as saying to the pious and noble Sean, "The story that's always fired my imagination ...  is the Book of Maccabees.  The Maccabees family stood up, and they made war.  They stuck by their guns and they came out winning.  It's like a Western."

Huh?   Well, maybe so.  The background given is that the Maccabees led a three-year war, some two hundred years before the birth of Jesus, against Antiochus, a king who forced the Jews to worship what the Jews considered false gods.  And this war led to the liberation of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple that is celebrated in the Hanukkah holiday. 

I’m not sure I remember a western much like that.  But you have to give Mel the benefit of the doubt.  He’s a film guy.  He makes lots of money.  So if he thinks this is like a western, well, it must be like a western. 

And the film he might make here could be epic, and bloody and gruesome.  We’re talking BIG box office, baby!

Reuters reports also that the Anti-Defamation League national director Abe Foxman is not impressed with Gibson's interest in Jewish history.  His view?   "My answer would be 'thanks but no thanks.’ The last thing we need in Jewish history is to convert our history into a Western.  In his hands we may wind up losing.”

Jewish comedians….  Abe is channeling Woody Allen.  But it is a good line. 

So Abe doesn’t like Mel, I guess.  Or at least he doesn’t trust him. 

But Mel’s film is doing great business.  Mel gets the last laugh. 

___

Oh yes, do check out the two best selling books from Sean Hannity. 

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism

 

A little light reading like this will make you love Mel. 






The law is what you say the law is…

________________

 

In a companion piece to the item elsewhere in these pages (see Stop the judges! Send the gay folks somewhere else!) regarding Dayton "Home of the Scopes Trial" Tennessee, one might note this.

LGBT Federal Workers Lose Job Protections
Paul Johnson, Newscenter Washington Bureau Chief
365Gay.com - Posted: March 17, 2004 2:01 p.m. ET

Here’s the scoop:

 

(Washington, D.C.) Gay and lesbians in the entire federal workforce have had their job protections officially removed by the office of Special Counsel.   The new Special Counsel, Scott Bloch, says his interpretation of a 1978 law intended to protect employees and job applicants from adverse personnel actions is that gay and lesbian workers are not covered.  

Bloch said that the while a gay employee would have no recourse for being fired or demoted for being gay, that same worker could not be fired for attending a gay Pride event.  

In his interpretation, Bloch is making a distinction between one’s conduct as a gay or lesbian and one’s status as a gay or lesbian.  

“People confuse conduct and sexual orientation as the same thing, and I don’t think they are,” Bloch said in an interview with Federal Times, a publication for government employees.  

Bloch said gays, lesbians and bisexuals cannot be covered as a protected class because they are not protected under the nation’s civil rights laws.  

“When you’re interpreting a statute, you have to be very careful to interpret strictly according to how it’s written and not get into loose interpretations,” Bloch said.  

“Someone may have jumped to the conclusion that conduct equals sexual orientation, but they are essentially very different.   One is a class... and one is behavior.”

It is the first time that Bloch has explained his position on the issue of gay workers despite pressure from unions and Federal Globe an organization that represents LGBT government workers after the OSC began removing references to sexual orientation-based discrimination from its complaint form, the OSC basic brochure, training slides and a two-page flier entitled "Your Rights as a Federal Employee."

Bloch's position is a marked departure from how the previous special counsel, Elaine Kaplan, enforced the law.   The legal position that he is taking, that there is some distinction between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on conduct, is absurd,” Kaplan told Federal Times.  

Bloch indicated that he may amend his position.   He said he is initiating a review of the issue and plans to meet with the Office of Personnel Management and congressional staff to hear their opinions before making a final decision on how his office will handle complaints alleging sexual orientation discrimination.   The review will not get completely under way until next month, when Bloch’s senior legal adviser begins work, he said.  

Bloch was appointed by President Bush to a five year term beginning in January.

 

Clear enough?   

Because I am not gay – by nature I am actually rather morose and gloomy – I suppose this should not bother me.   But it does.  
 
The special counsel here is reversing the position of the federal government.  You can be fired for being a homosexual – it’s quit legal.  The previous special counsel had it wrong?  Guess so.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume homosexuality is a condition one finds one simply has, like left-handedness or having red hair.  That is to assume homosexuality is not something one chooses as a “lifestyle” – it is simply what is.  Should “having that condition” be necessary and sufficient cause for dismissal from your job - even if having “that condition” alone is the one, and only, determining cause?  It would seem so.

Well, it doesn’t seem fair.  But then again, homosexual folks seem to make the majority of mainstream, born-again Christian Americans very uncomfortable.  Something must be done, they believe.

It seems to me we live in a dangerous world.  There are the terrorists out to get us.  Forty-four million folks are without health insurance.  Thirty-five million folks live below the poverty line.  Jobs are hard to get – the percentage of adults working is the lowest it has been in forty or fifty years.  And there’s global warming and AIDS (SIDA) and lot of things to worry about.

Worrying about gay marriages and spending time making sure we can fire folks for being born a bit different than John Ashcroft – or so I’m assuming about him – just seems pointlessly mean.

Or maybe I just miss the point.



























 
 
 
 

Copyright 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
 
_______________________________________________
The inclusion of any text from others is quotation
for the purpose of illustration and commentary,
as permitted by the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law. 
See the Details page for the relevant citation.

This issue updated and published on...

Paris readers add nine hours....























Visitors:

________