I noted that many Christian executives adore money above all else, and in the 20-minute reality of blog composition, that seemed to me, writing it, fairness and fair spreading of blame. But accusing a Christian of adoring money above all else does not engage any history of ugly stereotypes. Accuse a Jewish person of this and you invoke a thousand years of stereotypes about that which Jews have specific historical reasons to fear. What I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize.

Racism and anti-semitism are not yes or no issues. I really don't quite get why people are ignoring the fact that Easterbrook didn't really apologize for what he did wrong - he apologized for a side issue which compounded the issue. the fact that he stands by the thoughts emphatically makes it all the more troubling.

What troubles me about Easterbrook's remarks isn't that I think that Easterbrook is anti-Semitic in any deliberate or conscious fashion. It's that I think they indicate the way in which anti-Semitic ideas have infiltrated popular discourse in recent years to the point that one needn't be an anti-Semite to start parroting them without realizing it. I think that's the import of Leon Wieseltier's comments, quoted in the article, about Easterbrook not being an anti-Semite but his remarks being "objectively anti-Semitic." (This further comment from Virginia Postrel underscores that point.) I'm afraid that some people want to make Easterbrook the issue here because it's easier and more comfortable than thinking through the implications of that phenomenon.