If only John Galliano's hate rant was a one-off | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The Observer

It's interesting that John Galliano could just have got away with his antisemitic ravings, some caught on video in a Paris bar, had it not been for Jewish actress Natalie Portman.

Nicole Kidman and Sharon Stone still wore Dior to the Oscars. It was Portman, the "face" of Dior perfumes, who wore Rodarte. It was Portman who immediately stated she was "shocked and disgusted" and "would not be associated with Mr Galliano". She added: "I hope these terrible comments remind us to reflect and act upon combating these still-existing prejudices that are the opposite of all that is beautiful."

"The opposite of all that is beautiful" – a melodramatic, very actressy statement? Perhaps it was de trop considering this isn't the Middle Eastern conflict, darling, just a sloshed fashion designer, slurring vilely, but also fashion enfant terrible-style, about "dirty Jews", "gassing" and "I love Hitler".

However, Portman wasn't being melodramatic. She was what she said she was and had every right to be: "shocked and disgusted". Since when was casual antisemitism something to be taken casually?

Casual antisemitism appears to be having a "moment" right now. Casual antisemitism is "hot" and seemingly nowhere "hotter" than in the US entertainment industry. This is the very industry everyone is always moaning about being "controlled by Jews", making the whole thing even more bizarre or, arguably, more understandable, if you stir envy and resentment into the mix.

There's Charlie Sheen with his comment about Two and a Half Men creator Chuck Lorre's "real name" being "Chaim Levine"; Sheen's other alleged comments about his manager, Mark Burg, being a "stooped Jew pig"; Mel Gibson's "Jews responsible for all the wars in the world" outburst; Oliver Stone's "Jewish domination of the media".

Nearer to home, there are Julian Assange's "Jewish conspiracy" comments, as reported by Ian Hislop in Private Eye; also Assange's friendship with Holocaust-denier Israel Shamir (not his real name).

Burg points out that his client has several personal and professional Jewish relationships. (Sheen has relationships with women – that doesn't stop him abusing them.) Assange claims to have been misrepresented by Hislop (but still buddies with Shamir?). And so it goes on. Oliver Stone is half-Jewish. Galliano was pissed and now claiming Jewish roots. Gibson is (sigh) just Gibson.

And these are just the "breakthrough performances". Saying that, does it matter? With all the terrible problems going on in the world, some involving Jewish issues, does it matter if some well-known types, some of whom, frankly, aren't the brightest, let their masks slip? Yes, it does.

Upbringing, personal experiences, business deals gone awry – all, or some, of these could lie behind the sudden ooze of antisemitism in Hollywood. It almost doesn't matter. What truly matters is that this is the kind of thing ordinary people around the world can relate to. Gossipy, accessible, easy to understand, full of scandal and famous faces. Its antisemitism for dummies – for people who otherwise would probably barely be aware of what antisemitism is.

Just as some say marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs, so could such incidents serve as gateways to much nastier, more-focused antisemitism. "Hmm, says here, Jews control Hollywood"; "Duh, just read that Jews cause all the wars." People unable to grasp the complexities of the Middle East, or WikiLeaks, or even Two and a Half Men, can come in on this lower intellectual rung – absorbing,  repeating, and spreading antisemitic bilge without even realising it.

At a time when Jewish people can barely even point out antisemitism without being shouted down as over-sensitive, paranoid or enthralled by their own victimhood, such exposure, unchecked, could become incredibly powerful.

Natalie Portman was not only brave to speak out, without hesitation, about the Galliano incident, but this Harvard-educated actress was also bright enough to realise that she effectively had no choice.

Jamie's kids may be feral but at least they're not as stuck up as Starkey

Jamie Oliver's latest series, Jamie's Dream School, was a watershed moment for schadenfreude television. What a treat to watch celebrity experts, puffed up with self-importance, who think it's their preordained right to be fawned over, treated with "Who's that?" bewilderment by the admittedly feral but still desperately sweet "failed" schoolchildren. Modern-day Bash Street Kids, complete with asbos, the pupils were brazenly using mobiles and iPods, today's equivalent of throwing paper darts or apple cores at "teech".

Parents should love it because it shows the sort of painful dilemmas they have to deal with and not exclusively in a class-based way. There were some posh parents, sighing and fretting over their misguided progeny, in their fab, Provence-inspired kitchens. Le Creuset of despair, anyone?

Most of all, this should be cathode catnip for the hordes of battered, criticised teachers, not only because it shows what they have to deal with (pupil attention spans that make fruit flies look geriatric), but because it shows the great and good being unable to cope.

In particular, David Starkey, teaching history (and randomly insulting a boy about his weight), came across as Captain Mainwaring meets Stalin by way of Chipping Norton – getting meaner, more pompous and dictatorial the more he wasn't automatically "respected". Hey, Babs E sends word to the Starkster man, this respect fing, you gotta earn it, innit? Or something like that.

Bravo to Jamie Oliver for exposing the lack of insight so many people have into today's teenagers. Maybe now we will see more sympathy for these blighted but vulnerable children and the people who try to help them, day in, day out, even when the cameras aren't rolling.

Why I'm a weasel on zebra crossings

Just as there are dangerous drivers, is it possible to be a dangerous pedestrian? In my area of south-west London, it's the law that only one set of traffic lights is allowed to function at a time, with the result that crossing the road has now become a dangerous sport.

So it's probably not surprising that I've subconsciously started operating the system of "They'll cop it first". TCIF basically means that, in a perilous crossing situation, you try to "piggyback" a more assertive crosser. They are the primary crosser. You are a secondary crosser. You're also a bit of a tosser, for reasons that will become clear.

As the primary crosser plunges across the road, the secondary crosser(s) lurks in their slipstream. Crucially, the primary crosser is always positioned nearest to oncoming traffic, so if anything (cough) "unfortunate" happens, they would, well, cop it first, giving the secondary crosser time to scatter.

When it dawned on me what I was doing, my immediate thought was: "Am I evil? Or just practical?" Is this an urban phenomenon? Then a man told me about some advice he'd been given in Africa that suggested the basic tenet could be universal. "Always travel with a woman because they will be attacked by lions first. A child is even better." Lovely.

Traffic, lions, it makes no odds. Some of us, cowards, weasels, people like me, think nothing of using others as human shields. It can backfire, though. People have tried to use TCIF on me, resulting in silently menacing TCIF face-offs on busy roads ("You first", "No, you first"). What I'm really trying to say is, if you ever hear that I've been run over, you're entitled to say: "Serves her right."

via guardian.co.uk