- The Washington Times - Sunday, August 1, 2004

‘Rock bottom’

“After its glittering launch in the ‘80s, Spike Lee’s career has been in steady decline. Perhaps the joy went out of Spike’s filmmaking in 1991 when his father and employee, score composer Bill Lee, was arrested for heroin possession. …

“Spike reaches rock bottom in his new ‘She Hate Me,’ one of the more embarrassing movies ever made by a famous director. …

“For white conservatives, Spike has always been an intriguing and disturbing photographic negative because, like his hero Malcolm X, he is a classic grumpy social reactionary: nepotistic, capitalistic, elitist, sexist, and racist. In ‘She Hate Me,’ Spike takes his stand slightly to the right of Shaka Zulu as he endorses family values, extremely traditional African family values: namely, polygamy. Hey, if gays can get married, Spike implicitly asks, why can’t a Big Man have as many wives as he can keep amused?”

Steve Sailer, writing on “Spike Lee Hits Bottom,” in the Aug. 30 issue of the American Conservative

Equally insulting

“There has always been a strong tradition within Jewish comedy of what one might call underdog humor — the voice of the nebbishy little guy using his wits to fend off or beguile or distract a hostile world. [Don] Rickles, it must be understood, has no truck with this tradition. He is neither underdog nor nebbish. He is a tough Jew — a confronter, an imposer, a hawk. …

“The racial and sexual stereotypes in which Rickles trades have, for the most part, a distinctly period flavor. Poles are dumb Polacks. Gay men are mincing fairies. Women are broads. … Many of his caricatures — his goose-stepping Krauts and bucktoothed Japs — are so antique as to be positively quaint. … But he is still capable of creating a scandalized frisson with the audacity of his incorrectness. …

“The stated intention of this genial racism is a liberal one. Rickles is an equal-opportunity offender … deploying stereotype to demonstrate that we are all different and all equal.”

Zoe Heller, writing on “Don’t Call Me Sir,” in the New Yorker today


“Homosexuality may be no more vile in God’s eyes than pornography, adultery or any other sexual sin.

“But as evil as those other sins are, their practitioners don’t pose the overt threat to our society that the homosexual agenda does. No one insists on teaching 5-year-olds that adultery is just another lifestyle. No one demands that unrepentant adulterers be ordained. No one threatens legal actions against people who call adultery a sin.

“I don’t know any Christians who engage in those other sins who have the audacity to claim that what they do is not sinful. Homosexuals claim what they do is not sinful.

“Neither do I know of any who engage in adultery and insist on normalizing the behavior for society, or recognizing it as a constitutional right. Homosexuals insist their behavior is normal, and that they have a constitutional right to engage in it. …

“It is one thing to sin. We all do. Christians, however, repent, seek forgiveness and try to do as the Lord commands, ‘Go and sin no more.’

“It is quite another thing to sin and then claim it is not a sin. This is to be willfully unrepentant, compounding the original sin. …

“The homosexual movement seeks to make what is an abomination in God’s eyes (you can look it up, it’s in the Bible) into a right that increasingly cannot even be spoken against.”

Mark Landsbaum, writing on “Do Christians ‘Obsess’ about Homosexuality?” July 26 in the Culture and Family Report

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide