Easterbrook, on Thursday, explained the thinking behind his offensive remarks and apologized. Fair enough, I find his thinking convoluted but I accept he’s sincere in his attempt to make amends.
Funnily enough, the paragraph Easterbrook has apologized for is not the part that caused me the most difficulty. Here's what I had a problem with:
Why do we suppose that, with Hollywood's violence-glorifying films now shown all around the world to billions of people--remember, mass distribution of Hollywood movies to the developing world and Islamic states is a recent phenomenon--young terrorists around the globe now seem to view killing the innocent as a positive thing, even, a norm?Is Easterbrook really saying that movie violence is one of the causes of terrorism? Because, if he is, then he seems also (in the article as a whole) to be saying that Jewish movie producers are partly to blame for Islamic terrorism.
Maybe Easterbrook wasn’t expressing himself too well, again, but I'd like to have seen him explain that one in his recent apology.
