The New Republic

“But I do believe that, without seeing Stone's kind of trash, we will never be able to grasp the dumb weight of ideas that now go for progressive thought in America.” I just finished reading the article in the NY Times and couldn’t believe my eyes. I didn’t think Stone could have sunk any lower. If he is a “progressive” then so was Leni Riefenstahl.

- jdyer

June 25, 2010 at 11:45pm

Stone has to blow off the left's disappointment with "W". And get some buzz for the September release of "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps". The real dilemma is using the documentary format because so many, especially the college age + cohort, seem to think documentaries are 100% fact, and could not possibility have a point of view. I wish Stone had solely focussed on Evo Morales and Bolivia as THAT would be fascinating. Actually, I wish Stone would stop with the Big Men of History and either retire, or try his hand at something like the 1879-1884 Chile-Bolivia War of the Pacific, which helps explain Bolivia today, lithium capital of the world until the US conveniently handed that title to Afghanistan. There is always some truth in every narrative. It is such a shame that movies get politicized, e.g., boycotts of a) of "Amazing Grace" because it was funded by an Evangelical and the left did not want to know that Britain's anti-slavery crusade was driven by Evangelicals, and b) "The Golden Compass" was anti-Christian. By today's 'standards', "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz" would flame the culture wars. If Oliver Stone were smart, he would make movies that star DOGS. TNR: enough of the 3-D oil spill!

- K2K

June 26, 2010 at 12:44am

Here's a better link to Radosh http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326901733289566.html

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 2:32am

Not. Sorry! Here you go: The red carpet was rolled out this Wednesday night for director Oliver Stone at the premiere of his new documentary, "South of the Border," at the Silverdocs Film Festival in Silver Spring, Md. Mr. Stone told the enthusiastic crowd that his intent in making the film was to correct Americans' negative view of the Latin American left, particularly of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez. Americans, Mr. Stone said following the screening, "have a false view of these countries, as they do of Saddam Hussein, Iran and any country that crosses our path." In "South of the Border," Mr. Chávez is portrayed as a hero, a humble man of the people dedicated to elevating the poor who have democratically elected him time and again. The villains are all the usual suspects: capitalists and local oligarchies that are slaves to foreign interests, the Western press, the International Monetary Fund, and, of course, George W. Bush. Both the subject and the filmmaker had high hopes for Barack Obama, who is shown near the end of the film warmly shaking Mr. Chávez's hand. While the film's major focus is on Mr. Chávez, it also covers Bolivia's Evo Morales, Brazil's Lula da Silva, Argentina's Cristina Kirchner, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, and Fidel Castro's younger brother, Raul. By Mr. Stone's lights, all of these heads of state should be celebrated for daring to take on our country, the imperialist giant. "It is the big story that hasn't been told," Mr. Stone said. "These leaders are being trashed as dictators because our leaders don't like them." Competently filmed by renowned documentarian Albert Maysles, "South of the Border" follows a well-established pattern first used in the 1960s and '70s by the filmmaker Saul Landau. He followed Castro around Cuba in a jeep, portraying him as a beloved leader dedicated to making a better country for the Cuban poor. Mr. Stone rides in the front seat of an SUV as throngs surround Mr. Chávez, cheering. The intent is clear: Such a popular man can't be an evil dictator. The film depicts the ups and downs of Mr. Chávez's rise to power, including his failed 1992 coup. It recounts how he was saved from death by armed forces loyal to him, and was brought back to power in large part by Gen. Raul Baduel. The general is shown discussing the role he played in Mr. Chávez's restoration. A small detail Mr. Stone conveniently leaves out is that in 2009, Gen. Baduel, who Mr. Chávez had appointed as defense minister, was stripped of power, indicted for corruption, and imprisoned because he had opposed Mr. Chávez's attempts to institute constitutional changes that would transform Venezuela into a formal dictatorship. What Mr. Stone and his writers have presented is a standard far-left narrative that is part of a long line of propaganda films, a modern American version of the old agitprop. There are no dissenting voices in this film. Nor is there any mention of the fact that Mr. Chávez has closed down television and radio stations that disagree with him and arrested dissenting political figures. Another sin of omission: Mr. Stone makes no mention of Chile, which in the 1970s embraced economic liberalization and successfully reduced poverty much more than Mr. Chávez has managed to do in his own country. As writer Tariq Ali argued after the film ended, even under the recent socialist government Chile did not make the kind of structural Marxist changes that he and Mr. Stone believe is necessary for real change. Thus moderate leftist countries south of our border simply don't count as "progressive." Perhaps that's why the filmmakers only praise those regimes that use their elected office to quickly institute an end to all limitations on their power. Those interested in the truth about Latin America should save their money when "South of the Border" opens this weekend, and rent Ofra Bikel's "The Hugo Chavez Show" from Netflix, or watch it for free on the PBS Frontline website instead.

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 2:38am

The WSJ does not like bloggers posting the URL to paid content. The trick to getting any subscriber-only WSJ article is to web google the author's name and one or two words from the title. The Economist is much trickier, but news.google search for words in the title often works.

- K2K

June 26, 2010 at 9:33am

...Oliver Stone's new venture in trashing our own past by ritual adoration of the iconic tyrants who bring unbelievable suffering to their subjects... I'm not following this. I don't understand how the "ritual adoration of the iconic tyrants..." is a "trashing of our (yours, not mine) own past". Why does the"trashing" follow from the "adoration"? America's history in the southerly regions has been hegemonic and unlovely, to say the least. And one can say that and still be critical of the "adoration".

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 11:47am

p.s. Plus, on my reading of Radosh's little piece there is no gainsaying of that past.

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 11:51am

Anyone who wants to see how one of Chavez's neighbors regard him should go to YouTube and enter "El Especial Del Humor Chavez y Fidel" and watch in numerous skits two great comedians, Carlos Alvarez and Jorge Benavides, skewer these two tyrants. You don't have to understand Spanish to laugh your head off.

- NR114746

June 26, 2010 at 1:42pm

Jack, just for fun, just my own probabaly, while I have the rare visit of a relaxing, rainy, not much- to-do Saturday, I'm going to answer your comments on Miller's essay. I'll let you know when I have posted it for such interest as my answer may have for you.

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 2:19pm

Family on my husband's side have been screwed by that piece of shit Chaevez. They were professors of engineering until Chavez put them on the list for Chavez haters. Now they don't have jobs--or any country that would allow them to be gainfully employed. As you already know, there aren't many job opportunities for professors in late middle-age.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 26, 2010 at 2:42pm

Jack it's posted there. here for your convenience is a link: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/75618/the-logistical-sublime#comment-281204

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 4:01pm

Marty: Per your very last comment about Stone's view of Israel. I guess you missed his recent appearance on "Real Time" with Bill Maher on HBO. Stone began to viciously trash Israel, but he was cut off at the knees by Maher, who passionately defended Israel's Gaza policy. Stone looked like he was going to implode. It was very gratifying to watch.

- mg81992

June 26, 2010 at 6:52pm

smg1510 I saw that and your description is right on the money.

- basman

June 26, 2010 at 7:30pm

Unbelievable bile from Oliver Stone. Conspiracies on his mind.

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 7:54pm

MOLLYSIMON “Family on my husband's side have been screwed by that piece of shit Chaevez. They were professors of engineering until Chavez put them on the list for Chavez haters. Now they don't have jobs--or any country that would allow them to be gainfully employed. As you already know, there aren't many job opportunities for professors in late middle-age.” Too bad about your family in Venezuela, Molly; did they at least get out of the country without losing too much of their property. Chavez reminds me of the dictator Montero in Joseph Conrad’s novel Nostromo.

- jdyer

June 26, 2010 at 8:00pm

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between World War I and World War II. "I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated." So how is this any different from the opinion of all those who claimed that Bin Laden, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism have to be understood in the context of US policies in the Muslim world? How strange that this man can have the kind of imagination that can develop empathy with historical monsters like Hitler and Stalin and yet does not have the very little thinking needed to understand why Israel cannot allow ships free access to Gaza? Why is he set on demonizing Israel while exonerating Hitler? This is one of those men who complain that criticism of Israel is always termed as antisemitic. How does one account for his criticism, that is, in the context of his project to rehabilitate Hitler and Stalin? What would you call it?

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 10:14pm

"... I started looking from face to face in the audience, and what I saw were the gapes and frowns, not of disagreement, but of disbelief. Then a young woman spoke up, in a voice near-tearful with passionate self-righteousness, saying that it was the Americans who had armed the Islamists in Afghanistan, and that therefore the US, in its response to September 11, “should be dropping bombs on themselves”! I had time to imagine the F16s yowling in over Chicago, and the USS Abraham Lincoln pumping shells the size of Volkswagens into downtown Miami – in bold atonement for the World Trade Center, for the Pentagon, for United 93, United 175, American 11, and American 77. But then my thoughts were scattered by the sound of unanimous applause. We are drowsily accustomed, by now, to the fetishisation of “balance”, the ground rule of “moral equivalence” in all conflicts between West and East, the 100-per-cent and 360-degree inability to pass judgment on any ethnicity other than our own (except in the case of Israel). And yet the handclappers of Question Time had moved beyond the old formula of pious paralysis. This was not equivalence; this was hemispherical abjection. Accordingly, given the choice between George Bush and Osama bin Laden, the liberal relativist, it seems, is obliged to plump for the Saudi, thus becoming the appeaser of an armed doctrine with the following tenets: it is racist, misogynist, homophobic, totalitarian, inquisitional, imperialist, and genocidal. " http://www.martinamisweb.com/commentary_files/911_cultofdeath.pdf

- noga1

June 26, 2010 at 10:18pm

lot of dirty stuff south of the border. Pinochet remains a hero in far right circles. Samoza, and the death squads dedicated in his honor, remain revered by many in the republican party. So spare us the right-wing finger-pointing. The mistake is supporting the dictator because you can control him, even though he butchers civilians. ....because his replacement will never be your friend. See Iran; see Cuba; see much of Central and South America.

- OscarPeck

June 26, 2010 at 11:17pm

one other question...did anyone actually see the movie?

- OscarPeck

June 26, 2010 at 11:19pm

They're still in the country! It's not so easy to immigrate at that age. However, they have three sons who are now either studying or working abroad. You all know, I assume, that at one point Stone was a complete coke whore. He had his dealer on set, according someone involved in one of his movies (I can't be more specific, sorry). Also, I assume you know that Stone is Jewish. Or at least one of his parents is. Crazy, crazy world.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 26, 2010 at 11:42pm

"Stone was born in New York City, the son of Jacqueline (née Goddet) and Louis Stone, a stockbroker.[2] He grew up affluent and lived in townhouses in Manhattan and Stamford, Connecticut. His father was Jewish and his mother a Roman Catholic of French birth, and Stone was raised an Episcopalian as a compromise[3] but has since converted to Buddhism." No wonder the poor boy is confused. I am glad Molly posted about her family in Venezuela since it puts a face on these general and generalized discussions.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 12:20am

Noga or malahat or anyone who knows the meaning of this Hebrew song? "nitsariti akol" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL3Fj0KR0_I&feature=PlayList&p=A6B2CBFD73F30AE6&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 12:47am

"You all know, I assume, that at one point Stone was a complete coke whore. He had his dealer on set, according someone involved in one of his movies (I can't be more specific, sorry)." No, I didn't know. And I don't care. Is there any difference between the above and total character assassination of the McCarthy hearings type? What is it that demands that we demonstrate the quality of our arguments by implying the person with the position we reject is a lesser human being than we are? I don't like most of Stone's movies, incidentally, and I regarded "JFK" as a walking rolling disaster.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 1:52am

Noga or malahat or anyone who knows the meaning of this Hebrew song? "nitsariti akol" Specifically, I'd like to know how you would translate the song’s title.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 7:47am

"Is there any difference between the above and total character assassination of the McCarthy hearings type? What is it that demands that we demonstrate the quality of our arguments by implying the person with the position we reject is a lesser human being than we are?" My thoughts exactly. However one wonders why it is Oliver Stone and his egregious opinions that move you to such righteous indignation. I don't recall you being moved to protest when it was my character that was being assassinated by Molly not that long ago. (Or by roi, for that matter). It cannot be that you consider my opinions more loathsome than Stone's, do you, or that you agree with the assessment. So I remain truly puzzled. Here is a person you know who is being demonized, and you remain aloof and unperturbed. And here is Oliver Stone being mocked and you are full of indignation. What can it mean?

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 8:10am

The English transcript didn't make sense so I had to find the lyrics to figure out the meaning. It's the last line in the third verse: וניצחת איתי הכל (Ve-nitsahcht ee-t-ee hakol) מזל שיש אותך תמיד את מנגנת תמיד שלמה עם עצמך ברוך את מלטפת את מיתרי אהבתך איזה מזל מזל שיש אותך את מבינה אותי ואת מראה לי את עצמי מתלהב כמו ילד מתפנק בך ואז אני נשאר בסוף כל לילה אני בא את רזי צניעותך את נותנת לי ללמוד וריחמת עלי כמו אם וניצחת איתי הכל מזל שיש אותך אני שקוע בנסתר שבך אוהב מה שגלוי אני עבד לחוכמה שלך ואין בך כלום שפוי איזה מזל בסוף כל לילה אני בא את רזי צניעותך את נותנת לי ללמוד וריחמת עלי כמו אם וניצחת איתי הכל At the end of each night I come to you And you let me learn the secrets of your chastity And like a mother you took pity on me And triumphed with me over everything.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 8:33am

Thanks Noga for the translation. I too couldn't make any sense of the transliterated title. I am glad you posted the lyrics to the song. I'll try to translate it for myself.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 10:32am

Irony, McCarthy himself was a drunk and it's often brought up by people who attack McCarthyism. So too are other miscreants on the right with a drinking problem. So, why is it all of the sudden McCarthyism when someone mentions that Stone was a junkie at one time? What's fair for the goose....

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 10:35am

Joke of the day: Here is more Chavez wisdom which I am sure that Stone (Stoned?) would probably approve. "'Genocidal' Israel will be put in its place - Chavez" http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE65Q0DS20100627?sp=true Notice what Chavez says about Syria: "Chavez said he supported a peaceful struggle for the return to Syria of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967. "The territory will one day return to the Syrian hands," Chavez said. "Of course we want it to be peaceful because we don't want more war." "But one day the genocidal state of Israel will be put into its place, and let's hope that a really democratic state emerges there, with which we can share a path and ideas." Chavez did not offer further details of what putting Israel "in its place" would entail." Presumably he think that Syria is a "democatic state," and of course Venezuela too.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 10:41am

The point for me is that it is irrelevant in the immediate context of his comments. When Marlon Brando blamed the Jews for something or another on Larry King years ago, I read some indignant responses which included references to his considerable girth. As if the fact that he was an unattractive, very fat man somehow was related to his disgusting ideas. And what about Mel Gibson, who is a rather handsome and lithe looking antisemite? Does it render his antisemitism any less egregious? Are bad opinions any less bad because they are uttered by good looking or morally-unimpeachable characters?

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 10:48am

"..with which we can share a path and ideas." A scary prospect.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 10:50am

noga1 "The point for me is that it is irrelevant in the immediate context of his comments." I disagree; one’s character should be judged in toto which includes one’s ideas and ones’ conduct. Is it possible that what led to his converting to say Buddhism also led to his using cocaine, or vice versa? I agree though that most character attacks on line are not to be taken seriously (yes, including mine), that they are merely part of an antagonistic game (sometime amusing, often not) and not real, since very few posters know the posters they are attacking intimately. All we know is what we people tell us about themselves.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 12:20pm

"I disagree; one’s character should be judged in toto which includes one’s ideas and ones’ conduct. " I agree that one's conduct and ideas are fair game for criticism and mockery. However, what's Stone's drug addiction got to do with his particular set of ideas about Hitler and Israel? Is there an intrinsic cause and effect between weakness of character and conspiratorial views?

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 12:36pm

JD: I don't understand. If we discovered that Shakespeare was a regular glue-sniffer, would we suddenly find the plays to be weak and clichéed? If we know that Agatha Christie lived a life of iron virtue and principle, does that mean she should have been awarded the Nobel Prize? My point was merely about ad hominem arguments. Noga: I try not to get involved in highly personal and unpleasant exchanges between other commenters (although I have now and then, I guess). I don't recall anything serious between you and Molly, but roid seems to be subject to a kind of derangement with a lack of self-control, and quite frankly I don't know how to deal with it. I don't interact with him any more. I will confess that some of your own responses to what I write -- e.g. deliberate out-of-context quoting, or ignoring obvious main points to the benefit of unimportant asides -- make me less ready to defend you than I was. I often feel abused and under indictment for things I haven't said and attitudes I don't hold, and that wasn't the case earlier. I'm very much a "I see your point but I disagree on this and this" kind of poster, and the scorched-earth rhetoric that seems to be the accepted norm now alienates me more and more. But perhaps I have been guilty of dereliction of duty and abandoning solidarity to subjective feelings of resentment. I'll think about that.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 12:54pm

Please ironyroad, don't do me any favours. I did not ask you to defend me. I was wondering at the in-built filtering system that you have, which creates strange contradictions in your choice of expressions, of which you seem completely unaware, hat's all. Unlike your smooth and aggrieved explanation, I think your righteous indignation is triggered through a political filter. There is nothing cool headed or particularly intellectual about your constant resort to "howaboutery" or your inability to take a stand when a fellow-poster is unduly vilified. I see who you treat with affection and solicitude on these boards and I draw my conclusions.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 1:06pm

“However, what's Stone's drug addiction got to do with his particular set of ideas about Hitler and Israel? Is there an intrinsic cause and effect between weakness of character and conspiratorial views?” There may very well be. Religion may not be the opium of the people, but it surely is the opium of weak minded people, and people attracted to strong leaders, to Buddhism, to cocaine and to conspiracy theories are not people of strong character. However, I do take your point that there may not be a direct cause and effect relation between being a cocaine addict and having a liking for Chavez. Still one wonders...

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 1:18pm

ironyroad “JD: I don't understand. If we discovered that Shakespeare was a regular glue-sniffer, would we suddenly find the plays to be weak and clichéed? If we know that Agatha Christie lived a life of iron virtue and principle, does that mean she should have been awarded the Nobel Prize? My point was merely about ad hominem arguments.” Well, some hominem are better than others; and I wouldn’t compare Agatha to Will. Did they have glue in Will’s day?

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 1:21pm

"I see who you treat with affection and solicitude on these boards and I draw my conclusions." Who? An example would help to explain what you are talking about -- it doesn't work if you have one or more specific references in mind and I can't intuit what you mean. And why complain about something I didn't do and then say that you don't care whether I did it or not? I find that puzzling and a little weird. Either you think I should have exercised some solidarity if you felt you were "unduly villified," or you don't care. And if you don't care, why mention it in the first place? And where's the righteous indignation? I don't see that anywhere either. All I asked was what you asked too, is there any appropriate connection between citing Stone's purported drug use and evalutating the political attitudes in his films? Why is my asking the question indignant but your asking it not so also? I wish you would pay more attention to content rather than rhetorical style. I think my own writing is generally fairly chunky rather than smooth, but that doesn't seem to be the main issue one way or the other.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 2:50pm

Clearly, ironyroad, the reference includes me--who you adore.

- basman

June 27, 2010 at 4:15pm

The thing is, our brains are not regenerative. You don't make a full recovery after coke addiction. It changes your brain, the way long term depression or being bi-polar or taking too much ecstasy. So yes, it really might be completely beside the point, but if you're addled, then you certainly cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, Oliver Stone may be a classic case of Hollywood narcissism. People say yes to you all the time and you start believing it. Or maybe he's a crack-pot with a bigger audience than than any of us could command. Also, I find his views on Israel/the middle east interesting given that he is half-Jewish. Noga: I have apologized to you. And I did so in a really genuine way. I didn't kill anyone, I didn't steal from anyone. I acted like an asshole. Beyond that, I don't know what to say. I am sure you will have a witty and cutting answer but just know that I don't plan on getting into any pissing match over matters of personal character. You say a lot with which I disagree, but anything personal I'm staying out of. I had my fill and I got burned.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 27, 2010 at 5:10pm

basman -- that was a "whom," right? JD -- well yes, some homines set themselves up to be targets for attack more than others. And then it's justified. But in Stone's case it looked like a mudslinging deal on the lines of "I don't like his opinions, so let me discover/reveal that he's a drug-soaked loser too. Oh he is. There you go." Note to TNR staff: your oil-spill publicity ad is turning an already difficult and subscriber-unfriendly web site into a nightmare.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 5:36pm

"well yes, some homines set themselves up to be targets for attack more than others. And then it's justified. But in Stone's case it looked like a mudslinging deal on the lines of "I don't like his opinions, so let me discover/reveal that he's a drug-soaked loser too. Oh he is. There you go." Well, ironyroad, you are not beyond joining the mudslinging crowds yourself, and cheering on others, when the target is a hominem that happens to be on the other side of the tracks. Please. You must remember the wisdom of that great Jewish rabbi who said: Let he who is without sin sling the first mud! http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/why-are-listening-newt-gingrich ______________ Molls: Please pipe down. I've very little interest in speaking to you. You just served as an example which you can hardly deny is pretty valid.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 6:27pm

I second ironyroad's "Note to TNR staff: your oil-spill publicity ad is turning an already difficult and subscriber-unfriendly web site into a nightmare." just after reading how the U.S. government turned the BP oil spill into a nightmare, or "Avertible Catastrophe", from Canada on June 26, 2010: http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html

- K2K

June 27, 2010 at 6:27pm

Link: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/why-are-listening-newt-gingrich

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 6:28pm

Mollysimon: please pipe down. You served as a valid example, that's all. I'm now going back to ignoring you.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 6:30pm

irony, who/whom, let's call the whole thing off.

- basman

June 27, 2010 at 7:06pm

Noga -- that was indeed an interesting and very fast-moving thread that time. But against whom was I guilty of joining in mob-mudslinging? I couldn't see where I did that. You don't mean when you said the ironyroad privileges included being singled out by Noga? That doesn't quite make sense in terms of mudslinging but it gave me a good laugh when I saw it.

- ironyroad

June 27, 2010 at 7:37pm

ironyroad: When you complained that "What is it that demands that we demonstrate the quality of our arguments by implying the person with the position we reject is a lesser human being than we are?" I assumed you meant the general outcry that ensued against Stone. In the thread I linked to you cheered on icarusr's first shot at Newt Gingrich which was full of disgusting shit imagery by imitating his spoof. If that is not joining a mudslinging crowd I don't know what is. It's interesting that you couldn't figure it out. I really think you don't quite get it. "It" being that you have a blind spot when it comes to posters who express themselves incontinently, as long as they share your politics and your respect for Obama. You are very quick to notice when breaches of decorum are done by posters who oppose your politics. It's almost a tribal instinct. Only I had expected that you would be more aware of it.

- noga1

June 27, 2010 at 9:05pm

Ironyroad: JD -- well yes, some homines set themselves up to be targets for attack more than others. And then it's justified. But in Stone's case it looked like a mudslinging deal on the lines of "I don't like his opinions, so let me discover/reveal that he's a drug-soaked loser too. Oh he is. There you go." The mudslinging cam from Molly and not without justification: I think her comment can be translated into something like this: “this bastard” Stone “has embraced the tyrant Chavez who is making life very difficult for my family in Venezuela.” Then, Molly tried to suggest that Oliver’s drug addiction may be behind his embrace of people like Chavez. In fact, Molly was being too clinical and too polite for my taste. If it were my family that was affected by Chavez’ evil machinations, I wouldn’t waste any good mud on him. I’d be throwing stones at Stone and hoping to hit Chavez at the same time. Killing two crazy malevolent vultures with one Stone, is what I would be after.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 11:03pm

Ironyroad: “JD -- well yes, some homines set themselves up to be targets for attack more than others. And then it's justified. But in Stone's case it looked like a mudslinging deal on the lines of "I don't like his opinions, so let me discover/reveal that he's a drug-soaked loser too. Oh he is. There you go." The mudslinging came from Molly and not without justification: I think her comment can be translated into something like this: “this bastard” Stone “has embraced the tyrant Chavez who is making life very difficult for my family in Venezuela.” Then, Molly tried to suggest that Oliver’s drug addiction may be behind his embrace of people like Chavez. In fact, Molly was being to clinical and too polite for my taste. If it were my family that was affected by Chavez’ evil machinations, I wouldn’t waste any good mud on him. I’d be throwing stones at Stone and hoping to hit Chavez at the same time. Killing two crazy malevolent vultures with one Stone, is what I would be after.

- jdyer

June 27, 2010 at 11:05pm

Molly It pains me to scroll this thread and see you caught in the noga fun house. You know, over the years, I have disagreed with you, jackson, sleepy, basman, and many others. Yet, I never felt like there was ever a time when an apology - usually on my part - wouldn't heal the wound or make for a better day. And even in the disagreement, I always felt an affection for almost all the tnr posters, and even for the Spine regs like yourself and jackson. I respected you and always thought, I sure wish that someday, I can meet Molly or Sleepy or Jackson or Ginzy or Basman. Unfortunately, over the past year, I have seen much of the old bonhomie of tnr, even among those of us who crossed swords, evaporate. I do not know exactly why or what caused it but reading this thread, seeing the just downright mean spirited rejection of your civilized apology by noga has finally broken the cord for me. If the Spine has become a hostile place for Molly Simon, then it is no longer a place that I even want to visit. Life moves on and our interests and commitments change. I find that I no longer really have the time or the heart to indulge in tnr on line. It is no longer any fun. So, adieu to all of you and good luck. Molly, jack, bas, sleepy, if you want to keep in touch, send me an email at mrcookie1@comcast.net and I will give you my Facebook name and we can hook up via that platform. I find that FB brings to me the kind of fun that I used to associate with tnr on line. I do have several tnr posters, past and present, as my facebook friends and I would love to include you. I focus on all kinds of things, movies, literature, a little politics, you name it. The people who respond - JackR is one of my most frequent compadres - bring laughter and fun to my computer time. Cheerio Molly and I hope that we can remain in touch on another venue. Adieu Jack. I will fondly remember the times that gnawed each others ears to shreds. Noga, you did what no other poster at tnr could do: you drove me away. Congratulations.

- MrCookie1

June 27, 2010 at 11:57pm

Noga -- I think the attack on Gingrich (which was a remarkable font of humor and satire) was based more upon the blatant discrepancy between his claim to superior moral virtue and the provable reality of his personal life and political career. I think politicians don't get protection -- nobody forced them to run for office. But if they do, they have to expect to be called out in respect of their previous lives. They can defend themselves by truth or lies. What has Obama got to do with this issue? He has been called out many times, in relation to Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and Chicago in general. He doesn't go around saying, "as a professor of law I think this is the way to go . . ." Of course Obama can be attacked, and legitimately -- but it's useful to find out first what areas he's vulnerable in. One of them isn't claiming academic qualification for a silly purpose.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 2:01am

always important to give everyone a second chance. except for Chavez. it took two years, but I can now watch Tom Cruise movies again.

- K2K

June 28, 2010 at 3:25am

For anyone not up-to-speed on exactly how nastily anti-semitic the Chavez gov't truly is, here's a useful backgrounder: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121685054638578771.html "Since Mr. Chávez took the oath of office at the beginning of 1999, there has been an unprecedented surge in anti-Semitism throughout Venezuela. Government-owned media outlets have published anti-Semitic tracts with increasing frequency. Pro-Chávez groups have publicly disseminated copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the early-20th-century czarist forgery outlining an alleged world-wide Jewish conspiracy to seize control of the world. Prominent Jewish figures have been publicly denounced for supposed disloyalty to the "Bolívarian" cause, and "Semitic banks" have been accused of plotting against the regime. Citing suspicions of such plots, Mr. Chávez's government has gone so far as to stage raids on Jewish elementary schools and other places of meeting. The anti-Zionism expressed by the government is steadily spilling over into street-level anti-Semitism, in which synagogues are vandalized with a frequency and viciousness never before seen in the country. The details are arresting. Graffiti, often bearing the signature of the Venezuelan Communist Party and its youth organization, have appeared on synagogues and Jewish buildings, with messages like "mata niños" ("child killers"), "judios afuera" ("Jews get out") and "judios perros" ("Jews are dogs"), and swastikas linked to stars of David by an equals sign." One-third of Venezuela's Jews have already fled.

- willjames77

June 28, 2010 at 6:22am

"- I think the attack on Gingrich (which was a remarkable font of humor and satire) was based more upon the blatant discrepancy between his claim to superior moral virtue and the provable reality of his personal life and political career." In other words, he deserved it. Stone - does not. THAT "was a remarkable font of humor and satire" - you say - so it's not mudslinging. Here, it was just outright criticism and anger - so it's mudslinging. Or as I see it; Gingrich was attacked for denigrating Obama (the gall!) so it's OK to join an aleihum and describe a scatological attack with nothing to recommend it except a lot of knowledge on body secretions as "satire" rather than a mudslinging mob. Stone is attacked for lying about Israel and Jews, (big deal, everyone does it, so what's outrage about, eh?) so it's not OK. Stone is a movie maker. Nobody forced him to make this kind of slanderous movies, or to propagandize his political priorities, but if he does, he has to expect to be called out in respect of his other life choices.

- noga1

June 28, 2010 at 6:23am

If criticizing Israel should never be confused with anti-semitism, maybe someone can explain where the one ends the other begins in this nightmarish scenario: The original call-to-action on the pro-Chavez website of the NGO Aporrea,org has since been removed, but highlights were captured on Harry's Place: http://hurryupharry.org/2009/01/31/anti-zionism-in-venezuela/ The action plan: - publicly denouncing by name, the members of powerful Jewish groups in Venezuela, names of their companies and businesses in order to boycott them - avoiding products, stores, supermarkets, restaurants, and where Kosher food is sold which either belongs or has links with ‘Zionist Jews’ - questioning the existence of Jewish educational institutions - shouting pro-Palestine and anti-Israel slogans at Jews on the street - inviting anti-Zionist Jews living in Venezuela to publicly express their disassociation from ‘Zionist war crimes’ and the imposition of artificial State of Israel on Palestine - nationalization of companies, confiscation of properties of those Jews who support the Zionist atrocities of the Nazi-State of Israel, and donate this property to the Palestinian victims of today’s Holocaust - sending all type of aid to Palestinians including weapons - hacking pro-Zionist websites including governments or institutions that have relations with Israel - organizing an international conference about the creation of the theocratic - Nazi state of Israel as a genocidal European colony, and about the myths and facts of the alleged Jewish Holocaust or Holohoax (a blackmailing industry) - support the dissolution of the artificial State of Israel

- willjames77

June 28, 2010 at 7:08am

The distinction between criticizing Israel and anti-semitism has always been much simpler to see and understand for Israelis and their advocates than to anti-Israel denigrators. After all, how do you distinguish between Holocaust victims and their children and grandchildren who live in Israel? The former are righteous victims; their offspring are Nazi incarnate. How do you distinguish between Israeli Jews who comprise half the Jewish people and the other half of diaspora Jews most of whom support them and are related to them in one way or another? When the entire family has a history of being demonized and dehumanized, humiliated and murdered with impunity, how do you make the case that one brother is really innocent? Most people cannot make the difference. People are ruled by their superstitions, fears and joys of hatred. Someone like Chavez knows how to capitalize on these rich resources of solidarity. The future does not look good for Venezuelan Jews and this photo will be live in infamy long after Obama is out of office. There is nothing perfunctory or half hearted about this handshake: http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/president-obama-hugo-chavez-4-17-09.jpg

- noga1

June 28, 2010 at 7:35am

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support; U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies; Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam Just saying, is all.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 28, 2010 at 2:52pm

"U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES" I thank MollySimon for making my point for me by providing an illustration on how these happy moments of moral compromise live in infamy long after the actors are out of office.

- noga1

June 28, 2010 at 3:46pm

Noga -- I have a fairly limited definition of mudslinging (something on the lines of "the issuing of unfounded, speculative, or largely irrelevant accusations in order to leave the impression that the target has to be guilty of something") and I don't think that was going on vis-a-vis Gingrich. There, it was more a kind of derisive mocking of Newt and his smug pretentiousness. I have to say that I still see a distinction worth making between (1) attacking, by way of satire, Gingrich as a pompous poseur and (2) tossing in an unsupported accusation of major drug abuse to strengthen a political criticism of Stone's ideas. malahat -- I have to admit I'm in two minds on this. On the one hand, if Stone openly declares political intentions, then he and his movie work become liable for a challenge based on political and not artistic criteria. If you think his opinions and his films are both evil, then you have a perfect right to say so. I think what bothers me is not so much the ad hominem attack as such, or its relevance, as an accusation based on absolutely zero evidence. Whether we're talking Obama, Gingrich, or Chavez, unfounded accusations, e.g. of criminal or otherwise socially negative activities, used to buttress political opposition are simply malicious inventions and often damage the accuser's case.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 5:50pm

Not necessarily, after all, Israel didn't pay too much by allying itself with Turkey and South Africa if we want to go back even further. Or to make a more contemporary argument, America's alliance with Israel, a country that has no probles taking private property from Arabs. And if you think this has no consequences for the US, you are living in the same delusions as my Israeli relatives, who claim that the only news network that gets them is Fox. Yes, I know, Fox. Interesting, but I don't recall you ever showing much concern about the Kurds until now. Now that they've started turning their back on Israel. You're like the rest of those self-satisfied hypocrites. Israel first, and Only Israel. By the way, how does it feel to be so despised? For a while, I thought Roi was going too far--if only because his excellent arguments were crowded out by his insults. But maybe not so much.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 28, 2010 at 5:53pm

Dear ironyroad: As I repeated at least twice, I agree that MollySimon's "unfounded, speculative, or largely irrelevant accusations in order to leave the impression that the target has to be guilty of something" was not at all a good form of argument. But I completely disagree that attacking Gingrich the way it was done was any more acceptable. The kickoff might have had some satirical intent but it was followed with an unusual quantity of scatological imagery which simply cannot be subsumed under the satire category. I have to assume that you are just as disgusted as I am by these images but you ignored the shit and joined in the jeering. Now how could you do that, ironyroad? How could you compartmentalize the shit from the satire, unless somewhere you didn't mind the shit being flung at Gingrich, or you ignored it, or you just didn't care, because the target was someone you loath politically?? It's not the same as the malicious and irrelevant gossip Molly was propagating about Stone but it's quite on par with the intent: generate disgust at a person whose opinion you find objectionable through means that have nothing to do with the substance of his opinions. So the one smears Stone with tales from his past and the other smears him with feces.

- noga1

June 28, 2010 at 7:09pm

Just for the record: Salvador: good Platoon: bearable, has moments Talk Radio: forgettable Wall Street: bearable, has moments JFK: complete effing disaster Nixon: suprisingly, not so bad at all W: ho-hum Haven't seen the others.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 7:18pm

I reviewed the entire thread again, Noga, and I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one. From where I stand (after I cease and desist from admiring a couple of my own pieces) you are overvaluing two or three contributions from ick and undervaluing some great stuff from rhubarbs, trofnats, K2K and others. The scatalogical isn't my cup of tea either, but I think that's more of an anomaly than anything from icarus, who has made some pretty impressive contributions, both humorous and in regular discussion. Leaving aside those particular comments, I will say that you are indisputably correct about us piling it on as far as Gingrich is concerned, but consider: this is a liberal/left-of-center publication and the bulk of the readership probably has very jaundiced memories of the Newt's destructive congressional career in the 1990s. I'd also draw your attention to K2K's remark about the American tendency to lavatory humor.

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 9:29pm

"I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one." When did we ever agree about anything?

- noga1

June 28, 2010 at 10:06pm

this thread is still going? thanks irony - I would just like to point out that this Stone effort on Chavez is a DOCUMENTARY, not a movie, and I do find a real danger with documentaries in general because the impressionable believe they are fact checked and without bias. The plus side is that documentaries get very limited release. I worry more about why the Horror genre rules [disclosure: Horror is the only genre I avoid] btw, I really enjoyed 'W'; 'Platoon' was a searing Vietnam film; and 'Born on the Fourth of July' was terrific though I can never watch either a second time.

- K2K

June 28, 2010 at 10:09pm

"When did we ever agree about anything?" Not sure. Here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF4iWIE77Ts&feature=PlayList&p=FD92DE3B362FFE95&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=7

- ironyroad

June 28, 2010 at 10:52pm

What I miss most about the world football games is the three tenors.

- noga1

June 29, 2010 at 11:12pm

Oh I know! I also used to get three tenners for commenting on the game, and the money really came in useful.

- ironyroad

June 30, 2010 at 1:26am

Smartypants.

- noga1

June 30, 2010 at 6:32am