In the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten has highlighted the same Easterbrook quote on the ADL that I referenced on Friday. Easterbrook wrote in his blog:

"The ADL has a financial self-interest in accusing Gibson of anti-Semitism, as the organization raises money using this charge. There's plenty of actual anti-Semitism to fight in the world. But anti-Semitism accusations against a Hollywood star--how better to get publicity and pry open checkbooks?"

According to Rutten, Easterbrook has said "that neither those remarks [regarding the ADL] nor those to the New York Times were meant 'to suggest a conspiracy or anything like that. I was simply making a statement of fact.'"

Is Easterbrook claiming he has factual evidence the Anti-Defamation League is not making the charges against Mel Gibson in good faith but rather is knowingly making a spurious charge against Gibson simply to raise money? If so, I'd like to see those facts.

My point is not that Eisner or the ADL or anyone is above criticism for what they do or say. Rather, my criticism of Easterbrook is that he frequently ascribes base motives to anyone he doesn't like -- such as the "greedy" 9/11 survivors and the "financial[ly] self-interest[ed]" ADL. If I was in the habit of telling Anglo-Saxons how to be good Christians, I might tell Easterbrook that the principle of Christian charity requires one not to assume the worst of others. (At least I assume it does.)