Avatar is James Cameron's first project since the decade-old Titanic. Whereas Titanic was a megahit because it touched a hundred million teeny-bopper hearts (thus being one of the great 'chick-flicks' of all time) Avatar is far more hard-nosed. Superficially it is about a much-improved 3D technology ('cinema will never be the same') but underneath that gloss Cameron makes a thinly-disguised assault on American neo-imperialism shown most nakedly in the takeover of Iraq but which has had catastrophic impacts on dozens of nations around the globe, as documented by the likes of Noam Chomsky.
The word 'avatar' comes from East Indian mythology, in which divinity 'becomes flesh' from time to time, to destroy the forces of unrighteousness. And consequently the resonances with American history are clear - the military commander's contemptuous reference to the Navi people of Pandora whose planet is being colonized for resources as 'savages' (and later - monkeys) mirrors America's destruction of millions of native Americans from whom the continent was wrested; and alludes to similar racial policies in Asia. The use of gas (chemical weapons) to drive the Navi away from lands where the resource is located mirrors the use of similar weapons in Colombia to displace nearly 3 million people.
The conflict between the scientist (Sigourney Weaver) who finds Pandora's trees and ecology have a living and precious intelligence to be preserved and studied, and the colonizing force who simply bulldoze the trees that provide a spiritual haven for the Navi, mirrors the present divide on Earth on the environmental question.
In the movie the would-be colonizers are defeated. When arrows shot from a seemingly primitive Navi bow penetrate the brutal heart of the military commander to whom the Navi are a pestilence to be crushed, it seems Cameron wants to herald the end of American empire......
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Letter to the National Post on judicial abuse of power
The Post's article (by Mr. Jacob Ziegel of the law faculty at the University of Toront0) in December 14's edition on 'muzzled lawyers' raises an important and troubling issue – the abuse of authority by Canadian judges. Regrettably though, the quote highlighted in the center of the article (“Legal professionals may be the wrong people to trust with protecting freedom of speech”), though technically correct as Law Societies inflicted the punishments, 'muzzles' the real target of the article, which is not lawyers, but judges. Mr. Ziegel however correctly remarks that freedom of speech, in theory guaranteed by the Charter, is in jeopardy by the very people – judges – who should be committed to its protection.
Both cases cited in the article deal with lawyers whose punishments for expressing criticism of judges were upheld by higher level judges at the Nova Scotia and Manitoba Courts of Appeal. Mr. Ziegel writes 'Surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refused leave to appeal' the Manitoba Court's decision which 'found that derogatory remarks about a judge were not part of the core values protected by the Charter ' (italics added). I am not surprised. This extraordinary finding, with which the SCC implicitly concurred, speaks volumes about the nature of judicial power and way judges (including our top-most ones) view themselves. Clearly judges see themselves beyond the law – above it, as it were. Core values protected by the Charter do not include the freedom to criticise judges? Justice is in this arrogant view brought into disrepute when a judge is criticised, but not when injustices are meted out by judges, which is hardly infrequently, as more and more cases of wrongful convictions emerge.
When coupled with the historical immunity judges gave themselves – immunity from suit for wrongful decisions, euphemistically called 'errors' by a legal system coerced into deference and fear – these matters constitute an odious double-standard which 21st century democracy must not tolerate. The 2 cases mentioned were in themselves comparatively minor. Every instance of 'miscarriage' of justice, and some deserve to be called abortions – has resulted in catastrophic harm to innocent individuals with no accountability for the judges responsible. And so far the legal system has not even begun to identify abortions of justice in the civil domain.
Both cases cited in the article deal with lawyers whose punishments for expressing criticism of judges were upheld by higher level judges at the Nova Scotia and Manitoba Courts of Appeal. Mr. Ziegel writes 'Surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refused leave to appeal' the Manitoba Court's decision which 'found that derogatory remarks about a judge were not part of the core values protected by the Charter ' (italics added). I am not surprised. This extraordinary finding, with which the SCC implicitly concurred, speaks volumes about the nature of judicial power and way judges (including our top-most ones) view themselves. Clearly judges see themselves beyond the law – above it, as it were. Core values protected by the Charter do not include the freedom to criticise judges? Justice is in this arrogant view brought into disrepute when a judge is criticised, but not when injustices are meted out by judges, which is hardly infrequently, as more and more cases of wrongful convictions emerge.
When coupled with the historical immunity judges gave themselves – immunity from suit for wrongful decisions, euphemistically called 'errors' by a legal system coerced into deference and fear – these matters constitute an odious double-standard which 21st century democracy must not tolerate. The 2 cases mentioned were in themselves comparatively minor. Every instance of 'miscarriage' of justice, and some deserve to be called abortions – has resulted in catastrophic harm to innocent individuals with no accountability for the judges responsible. And so far the legal system has not even begun to identify abortions of justice in the civil domain.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Letter to the Star on its Nov. 20 piece on Martin Amis
Martin Amis is of the view that feminism 'lost its nerve' and accepted second-class status to 'multiculturalism'. He claims the 'race question mutes everything else', and 911 provided a soul-rattling shock that he suggests was seismic, and to which he believes rational debate has been intimidated by the supposed race question. He further opines that it's 'self-evident that it's horrible the way they (Islamists) treat women.'
The article mentions Amis has been called a racist, misogynist, and hate-mongerer. What emanates with crystal clarity from the Star article is how ignorant Amis is, and how poor his judgment is. Yes 911 shook America up. But as world-shaking events go, it has been greatly exaggerated. The most significant aspect of it was simply that a serious attack took place on American soil, something which had never occurred before. And that civilian airliners were hijacked to destroy civilian buildings. Aside from that it was a relatively small event. Less than 3000 people died. The use of civilian airliners is a matter of means and ends. If Al-Qaeda had a military airforce, conceivably that is what they would have used. But weapons of mass-destruction are controlled by the powers that be, and denied to those deemed undesirable, regardless of the merit of their claim to them.
In World War II, not just buildings but entire cities were flattened. Horrific bombings killing hundreds of thousands of civilians or more were also carried out in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Amis seems oblivious to these far more catastrophic events, in comparison to which 911 was but a drop in the ocean of Terror by Western countries. He seems equally ignorant of the real conflict, which is not the much-hyped but misleading 'Clash of Civilizations', but a battle over resources (principally oil) which belong to Muslim countries and which the US and UK in particular have coveted and robbed with overwhelming force, interfering in democratic processes such as the ouster of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
Debate on these matters is suppressed, not by the 'race question', but by massive American and British propaganda, such as the lies used to justify the post-911 destruction and occupation of a helpless Iraq, where upto a million people have been killed and several times as many turned into refugees. The number of Afghan victims is not known but may safely be presumed to be in the tens of thousands at the least.
911 was arguably provoked by far worse crimes by the West, and has been avenged a thousand times over with the attacks on Afghanistan and the rape of Iraq. (As for the great American 'sorrow' over 'Ground Zero' - they can stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. They have created a thousand Ground Zero's in a hundred different locations around the globe.....)
On the gender question, Amis is equally misinformed. Perhaps he ought to consider the plight of men in the West, who are routinely 'raped' by a system which has sold them out to feminist ideology. Any woman can have her spouse or boyfriend ejected from the home and charged criminally with the barest of allegations, proven or not. The presumption of innocence has been replaced with one of guilt as lives of men are casually destroyed upon female allegations which may not be true.
Mr. Amis should stick to writing fiction. As far as political and social realities go, he seems to be an utter fool.
The article mentions Amis has been called a racist, misogynist, and hate-mongerer. What emanates with crystal clarity from the Star article is how ignorant Amis is, and how poor his judgment is. Yes 911 shook America up. But as world-shaking events go, it has been greatly exaggerated. The most significant aspect of it was simply that a serious attack took place on American soil, something which had never occurred before. And that civilian airliners were hijacked to destroy civilian buildings. Aside from that it was a relatively small event. Less than 3000 people died. The use of civilian airliners is a matter of means and ends. If Al-Qaeda had a military airforce, conceivably that is what they would have used. But weapons of mass-destruction are controlled by the powers that be, and denied to those deemed undesirable, regardless of the merit of their claim to them.
In World War II, not just buildings but entire cities were flattened. Horrific bombings killing hundreds of thousands of civilians or more were also carried out in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Amis seems oblivious to these far more catastrophic events, in comparison to which 911 was but a drop in the ocean of Terror by Western countries. He seems equally ignorant of the real conflict, which is not the much-hyped but misleading 'Clash of Civilizations', but a battle over resources (principally oil) which belong to Muslim countries and which the US and UK in particular have coveted and robbed with overwhelming force, interfering in democratic processes such as the ouster of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953.
Debate on these matters is suppressed, not by the 'race question', but by massive American and British propaganda, such as the lies used to justify the post-911 destruction and occupation of a helpless Iraq, where upto a million people have been killed and several times as many turned into refugees. The number of Afghan victims is not known but may safely be presumed to be in the tens of thousands at the least.
911 was arguably provoked by far worse crimes by the West, and has been avenged a thousand times over with the attacks on Afghanistan and the rape of Iraq. (As for the great American 'sorrow' over 'Ground Zero' - they can stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. They have created a thousand Ground Zero's in a hundred different locations around the globe.....)
On the gender question, Amis is equally misinformed. Perhaps he ought to consider the plight of men in the West, who are routinely 'raped' by a system which has sold them out to feminist ideology. Any woman can have her spouse or boyfriend ejected from the home and charged criminally with the barest of allegations, proven or not. The presumption of innocence has been replaced with one of guilt as lives of men are casually destroyed upon female allegations which may not be true.
Mr. Amis should stick to writing fiction. As far as political and social realities go, he seems to be an utter fool.
Monday, October 19, 2009
A POST-FEMINIST ERA MALE ANTHEM
(Strictly for Men not afraid to be Men, and for the select few women who understand them)
Meet Marvin, men's answer to Maxine
Men strike back!
How many men does it take to open a beer?
None.... It should be opened when she brings it.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
why is a Laundromat a really bad place to pick up a woman?
Because a woman who can't even afford a washing machine will probably
never be able to support you.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
Why do women have smaller feet than men?
It's one of those 'evolutionary things' that allows them to stand closer to the kitchen sink.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart?
When she starts a sentence with 'A man once told me....'
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
How do you fix a woman's watch?
You don't. There is a clock on the oven.
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the
front door, who do you let in first?
The dog, of course He'll shut up once you let him in.
> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------
Scientists have discovered a food that diminishes a woman's sex drive by
90%.
It's called a Wedding Cake.
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
Why do men die before their wives?
They want to.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
Women will never be equal to men
Until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and
still think they are sexy.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> Send this to a few good men who need a laugh and
> >> To the select few women who can handle it!
Meet Marvin, men's answer to Maxine
Men strike back!
How many men does it take to open a beer?
None.... It should be opened when she brings it.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
why is a Laundromat a really bad place to pick up a woman?
Because a woman who can't even afford a washing machine will probably
never be able to support you.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
Why do women have smaller feet than men?
It's one of those 'evolutionary things' that allows them to stand closer to the kitchen sink.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart?
When she starts a sentence with 'A man once told me....'
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
How do you fix a woman's watch?
You don't. There is a clock on the oven.
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the
front door, who do you let in first?
The dog, of course He'll shut up once you let him in.
> >> -- --------------------------------------------------------
Scientists have discovered a food that diminishes a woman's sex drive by
90%.
It's called a Wedding Cake.
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
Why do men die before their wives?
They want to.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
Women will never be equal to men
Until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and
still think they are sexy.
> >> ------------------------------------------------------
> >> Send this to a few good men who need a laugh and
> >> To the select few women who can handle it!
Thursday, August 27, 2009
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
I have never been a strong admirer of Tarantino. Reservoir Dogs left me cold, and the world-wide acclaim for Pulp Fiction left me bemused. There was no denying the craft and skill in the movie but the characters and plot were loathsome – as if a world-class chef had made a sumptuous-looking delicacy made of mud and perhaps excrement. Kill Bill 1&2 were the only Tarantino movies I liked – even though they were simply revenge fantasies.
Inglourious Basterds is an anomaly – being utterly different in subject than any of Tarantino's former films. As history it is flatout rubbish, with its Jew-sympathizing and Nazi-hating plot. History is clear – America and most allies were largely indifferent to the plight of Jews, and American corporate and government support lay with the Nazis at the beginning of the war, and only turned against it after Nazi Germany became so powerful it threatened American interests. And after the war the OSS-CIA sought out and protected surviving Nazis, for intelligence, weapons research, and strategic reasons. So the raison-d'etre of the movie – with its depiction of an American-Jewish guerilla group inflicting terror on Nazis, and physically scarring them with the swastika to brand them Nazis for life - is sheer fantasy, despite the movie's claim to be based on real events.
How is it as film? Three of the five chapters are brilliant. The first one - in which the SS colonel dubbed 'Jew-hunter' ferrets out the truth from a French farmer who is hiding Jews by effortlessly gliding from exaggerated, almost obsequious courtesy which only serves to terrify the French farmer more, so that the brusque switch to cold intimidation elicits an immediate confession - is reminiscent of the brilliant scene from Schindler's List in which Ralph Fiennes praises the forced rabbi laborer that he is 'doing well' in making a hinge before ruthlessly changing tone to demanding why the rabbi had only managed a few hinges in the morning. But even there one wonders why the German soldiers don't pursue or shoot the escaping Jewish daughter (Shoshanna), whose survival is no doubt necessary for what ensues.
Likewise the 'Chapter 3' restaurant scene in which the colonel interrogates the theatre-owning Shoshanna (who he almost recognizes) as prelude to the holding of the Nazi premiere in her theater is superb. Not just 'Tarantino dialogue', this is the same cat-baiting-mouse strategy of the 'Jew-hunter'. The Operation Kino scenes are also excellent, particularly the tavern scene which is painstakingly built to show how the best plans can be ruined by trivial unexpected events – in this case the presence of German soldiers enjoying a night off awarded by a superior to celebrate one of them becoming a father.
But despite the brilliance of this scene, which includes card-games inspired by a Satyajit Ray film, giant plot-holes now appear. An SS major who conveniently happens to be in the tavern - 24 miles north of Paris though it is - immediately smells a rat upon hearing the accent of the Brit masquerading a German officer, but fails to recognize Hugo Stiglitz, who we are told is 'known to every German soldier for being the notorious murderer of 13 SS officers', even though he sits right next to him. Further Tarantino resorts to cheap misandry by having revolvers held under the table pointed at 'testicles' with a low probability of accuracy. Despite scores of gunshots fired in the ensuing shootout, no police (civilian or military) or German soldiers appear on the scene, and the remaining 'basterds' are able to escort the surviving German actress/spy out of the place, sans le moindre probleme....
But it is the final chapter which is literally 'unbelievable'. A film premiere at which the entire Nazi leadership including the Fuehrer is present is held without even a proper inspection of the cinema. Apparently the Nazis are ignorant that '350 films of highly inflammable nitrate stock' stored in the cinema are a security risk. There are no soldiers guarding the lobby, and Shoshanna's African helper/lover is able to bring massive rods into the lobby and lock the theatre doors shut with nary a problem, thus allowing the fantasy of a Jew burning the trapped Nazis including 'Hitler, Goebbels. Goering and Bormann' alive (to the flickering image of the gloating Shoshanna). Simply absurd.
Tarantino should stick to doing what he knows best - creating clever, sophisticated junk - or as he calls it - pulp fiction. History seems outside his league.
Inglourious Basterds is an anomaly – being utterly different in subject than any of Tarantino's former films. As history it is flatout rubbish, with its Jew-sympathizing and Nazi-hating plot. History is clear – America and most allies were largely indifferent to the plight of Jews, and American corporate and government support lay with the Nazis at the beginning of the war, and only turned against it after Nazi Germany became so powerful it threatened American interests. And after the war the OSS-CIA sought out and protected surviving Nazis, for intelligence, weapons research, and strategic reasons. So the raison-d'etre of the movie – with its depiction of an American-Jewish guerilla group inflicting terror on Nazis, and physically scarring them with the swastika to brand them Nazis for life - is sheer fantasy, despite the movie's claim to be based on real events.
How is it as film? Three of the five chapters are brilliant. The first one - in which the SS colonel dubbed 'Jew-hunter' ferrets out the truth from a French farmer who is hiding Jews by effortlessly gliding from exaggerated, almost obsequious courtesy which only serves to terrify the French farmer more, so that the brusque switch to cold intimidation elicits an immediate confession - is reminiscent of the brilliant scene from Schindler's List in which Ralph Fiennes praises the forced rabbi laborer that he is 'doing well' in making a hinge before ruthlessly changing tone to demanding why the rabbi had only managed a few hinges in the morning. But even there one wonders why the German soldiers don't pursue or shoot the escaping Jewish daughter (Shoshanna), whose survival is no doubt necessary for what ensues.
Likewise the 'Chapter 3' restaurant scene in which the colonel interrogates the theatre-owning Shoshanna (who he almost recognizes) as prelude to the holding of the Nazi premiere in her theater is superb. Not just 'Tarantino dialogue', this is the same cat-baiting-mouse strategy of the 'Jew-hunter'. The Operation Kino scenes are also excellent, particularly the tavern scene which is painstakingly built to show how the best plans can be ruined by trivial unexpected events – in this case the presence of German soldiers enjoying a night off awarded by a superior to celebrate one of them becoming a father.
But despite the brilliance of this scene, which includes card-games inspired by a Satyajit Ray film, giant plot-holes now appear. An SS major who conveniently happens to be in the tavern - 24 miles north of Paris though it is - immediately smells a rat upon hearing the accent of the Brit masquerading a German officer, but fails to recognize Hugo Stiglitz, who we are told is 'known to every German soldier for being the notorious murderer of 13 SS officers', even though he sits right next to him. Further Tarantino resorts to cheap misandry by having revolvers held under the table pointed at 'testicles' with a low probability of accuracy. Despite scores of gunshots fired in the ensuing shootout, no police (civilian or military) or German soldiers appear on the scene, and the remaining 'basterds' are able to escort the surviving German actress/spy out of the place, sans le moindre probleme....
But it is the final chapter which is literally 'unbelievable'. A film premiere at which the entire Nazi leadership including the Fuehrer is present is held without even a proper inspection of the cinema. Apparently the Nazis are ignorant that '350 films of highly inflammable nitrate stock' stored in the cinema are a security risk. There are no soldiers guarding the lobby, and Shoshanna's African helper/lover is able to bring massive rods into the lobby and lock the theatre doors shut with nary a problem, thus allowing the fantasy of a Jew burning the trapped Nazis including 'Hitler, Goebbels. Goering and Bormann' alive (to the flickering image of the gloating Shoshanna). Simply absurd.
Tarantino should stick to doing what he knows best - creating clever, sophisticated junk - or as he calls it - pulp fiction. History seems outside his league.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
'MADMEN' OF NORTH KOREA AND IRAN
It is a truism that victors write the history. Less acknowledged is that history once written even if false (also more usual than acknowledged) continues through the ages as propaganda. So it is with the Western portrayal of two members of Bush II's infamous 'axis-of-evil' – North Korea and Iran.
North Korea earned international ire with its recent nuclear test, and Iran has been the victim of hysterical propaganda by America and Israel, its two principal foes for several years now. Forgotten are the facts. For example, that North Korea was flattened by American bombing in the Korean civil war in which both North and South plotted attacks on each other with the former beating the latter to the punch. Not satisfied with merely flattening the North's cities and killing millions, the US went on to destroy the North's dams, flooding its rice paddies. Inspite of such crimes, it is North Korea that is regarded as the 'evil' nation. Such is the power of propaganda and the loathsome complicity of the North American media, who did not become evil just after 911 or before the invasion of Iraq.
As Eric Margolis has argued in 'American Raj', however, the North Korean leader may be much saner than imagined. His nuclear capability has been a successful deterrent against the American forces camped at the 38th parallel since the 1950s, although recently they have moved out of artillery range, alarming the North Koreans. So it is with Iran, which was invaded 4 times in the 20th century, and subjected to a proxy colonialism by the US with its puppet 'democrat' the Shah who between 1953 and his ouster in 1979 tortured, imprisoned and killed thousands of Iranians while keeping the Americans ecstatic by selling them Iranian oil for a song, and buying American weapons with the petty cash so earned. That is why Iranians had to be punished when they threw out American 'democracy' in 1979 and took 50 hostages. That is why Reagan/Rumsfeld and Thatcher had to supply the other great 'democrat' in the region, Saddam Hussein, with weapons so he could kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians in an 8-year war.
Iran must love punishment. It eschews dollars for euros, increasing pressure for ending the dollar's status as a reserve currency (pretty much toast anyway with the financial 'crimes' of the market fundamentalists who have manufactured the present economic crisis), and supports resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq (Hamas and Hezbollah). It does so in the face of incomparable military superiority in just about every way of the Israelis (not just with their 200 nukes) - let alone the American colossus.
Another way of looking at this is that Iran is taking a principled stand against American and Israeli crimes of occupation. Iran is being encircled by these two powers and getting a few nukes may be the best deterrent for Iran, as Margolis persuasively argues.
As an American madman visits Toronto to give another speech full of lies, it is worth remembering that truth and victory rarely walk hand in hand.
North Korea earned international ire with its recent nuclear test, and Iran has been the victim of hysterical propaganda by America and Israel, its two principal foes for several years now. Forgotten are the facts. For example, that North Korea was flattened by American bombing in the Korean civil war in which both North and South plotted attacks on each other with the former beating the latter to the punch. Not satisfied with merely flattening the North's cities and killing millions, the US went on to destroy the North's dams, flooding its rice paddies. Inspite of such crimes, it is North Korea that is regarded as the 'evil' nation. Such is the power of propaganda and the loathsome complicity of the North American media, who did not become evil just after 911 or before the invasion of Iraq.
As Eric Margolis has argued in 'American Raj', however, the North Korean leader may be much saner than imagined. His nuclear capability has been a successful deterrent against the American forces camped at the 38th parallel since the 1950s, although recently they have moved out of artillery range, alarming the North Koreans. So it is with Iran, which was invaded 4 times in the 20th century, and subjected to a proxy colonialism by the US with its puppet 'democrat' the Shah who between 1953 and his ouster in 1979 tortured, imprisoned and killed thousands of Iranians while keeping the Americans ecstatic by selling them Iranian oil for a song, and buying American weapons with the petty cash so earned. That is why Iranians had to be punished when they threw out American 'democracy' in 1979 and took 50 hostages. That is why Reagan/Rumsfeld and Thatcher had to supply the other great 'democrat' in the region, Saddam Hussein, with weapons so he could kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians in an 8-year war.
Iran must love punishment. It eschews dollars for euros, increasing pressure for ending the dollar's status as a reserve currency (pretty much toast anyway with the financial 'crimes' of the market fundamentalists who have manufactured the present economic crisis), and supports resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq (Hamas and Hezbollah). It does so in the face of incomparable military superiority in just about every way of the Israelis (not just with their 200 nukes) - let alone the American colossus.
Another way of looking at this is that Iran is taking a principled stand against American and Israeli crimes of occupation. Iran is being encircled by these two powers and getting a few nukes may be the best deterrent for Iran, as Margolis persuasively argues.
As an American madman visits Toronto to give another speech full of lies, it is worth remembering that truth and victory rarely walk hand in hand.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
LETTER TO NATIONAL POST ON ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S ARTICLE OF MAY 15
On Friday May 15, the National Post published an 'edited excerpt' of Harvard law professor and famed apologist for Israel, to Canada's subcommittee on International Human Rights of the standing committee on foreign affairs and international development
Here is my response, sent to the Post for publication:
LETTER RE. ALAN DERSHOWITZ ARTICLE ON IRAN
1.'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'. Shakespeare in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78 .
2. Lawyers are liars. Age-old axiom.
Alan Dershowitz enjoys a near-legendary reputation as defender of high-profile (usually rich) clients. He is also a law professor at Harvard. But as Professor Chomsky has written, he is not to be trusted, especially on the question of Israel, and its supposed arch-enemy Iran. The age-old axiom quoted above arises from the centuries-old legal tradition of the 'adversary-system' of justice, by which lawyers with clearly defined interests (of their opposing clients) are allowed to represent (and usually twist) reality to argue a biased point of view, with the judge(s) and jury empowered to separate fact from fiction.
There is plenty of fiction in Professor Dershowitz's statement to the Canadian subcommittee on International Human Rights of the standing committee on foreign affairs and international development. The principal fiction is that Dershowitz takes Ahmadinejad's guilt as proven. A fundamental element of justice is the presumption of innocence. Dershowitz takes the distorted presentation of Ahmadinejad's statements by the American-dominated media as proven facts, rather than the propaganda they are.
It is true Ahmadinejad is virtually alone among international leaders in condemning Israel. But what he has been asking, publicly and repeatedly, is for a referendum of all Palestinian people – including the Israeli Jews from Europe who forcibly conquered (stole) land by displacing the local inhabitants – to determine the future of the political state of Palestine, from which the Zionist state of Israel was brutally created. For this Dershowitz seeks to silence Ahmadinejad, by painting him an 'international criminal' who incites genocide. Ahmadinejad incites no such thing. He calls for a political solution, a referendum. But Israel (and its sponsor America) cannot allow such a referendum for obvious reasons.
Here are some very inconvenient facts the liar Dershowitz fails to mention:
1.It is Israel that possesses over 200 nuclear bombs which can easily evaporate Iran in totality. It owns more nuclear weapons (land, air and sea-based) than Britain and France! Only America, Russia and China own more nukes, and this immense nuclear power Israel is being 'marketed' by the same corrupt and genocidal elite in America that are responsible for 700,000 Iraqi deaths under false pretences, as under threat from a nation that possesses no nukes. As Eric Margolis has argued in American Raj, even if Iran acquires some nukes, it can only be for defensive purposes, as it has no ICBM capabilities and in any event would be completely destroyed by Israel or the US if it attempted an attack on Israel.
It is precisely the American-Israeli axis of evil which seeks to deny Islamic nations access to nuclear energy, that drives ambitions to acquire nuclear bombs. A little like the 'forbidden fruit'. Israel has also been given every biological, chemical and conventional weapon (including the most sophisticated air-force in NATO barring the US) and has used them repeatedly (for decades) to commit genocides against the Palestinians, the most recent example being Gaza, and earlier ones including not only the West Bank, but Lebanon.
2. Many orthodox Jewish rabbi (see worldtorahjewry.com) in New York support Ahmadinejad's denunciation of Zionism, which they say has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish religion. They honored him during his 2006 visit to New York and expressed their support, a fact too inconvenient for the major American media to report.
(However, quite naturally many corrupt Jewish priests also exist, infected by Zionism and its powerful allures, principally wealth and power. Zionism is at least as obscene and criminal a perversion of Judaism as Islamic terror is of Islam, or as 'Christianity' has been ever since its founding, down to its latest crime - the invasion and occupation of Iraq by a supposed 'born-again Christian'.
With one crucial distinction: unlike Zionism, Islamic terror is not motivated by greed for lands and resources stolen from or belonging to others, but is a response to American, British and Israeli crimes. Islamic terror seeks justice, which American and British power are denying them, with international institutions like the UN largely helpless.)
America's arming of Israel is only partly at the behest of powerful Zionist lobbies in the US; it has more alarming and devious purposes in keeping Islamic oil flowing to America cheaply – at the point of a gun, the gun being Israel. And of course, Iran itself has been the victim of such imperialist policy since 1953 – another fact which is well-known but which no one talks about. The real facts, as Dr. Chomsky has oft written, are 'off the agenda', which is dictated by the real international criminals, the governments of America, Britain, and Israel. Such naked imperialism may soon plunge this planet in another global war, with consequences that would match our worst fears.
What remains to be seen is if the National Post will print this response. That will depend on whether or not it is owned or controlled by powerful Zionist interests.
Finally - what Dershowitz wants with his anti-Iran rant - is the genocide of Iranian people, through an American-Israeli invasion. America has been openly threatening Iran with obliteration for many years now, with even Democratic candidates like Hilary Clinton joining the chorus, and has also supplied Israel with the latest bombers which Israel has been using to conduct flights along the Iranian border, to rattle and provoke the Iranians.
One major advantage of America's occupying Afghanistan (the other being access to Central Asian oil) would be to 'encircle' Iran. Already threatened by Israel and US-controlled Iraq on the west, Iran would face a 2-front war if the US took over Afghanistan. But these invasion plans would be rendered ineffective if Iran were (like North Korea) to acquire a nuclear deterrent. But all of this is outside the biased purview of the loathsome liar Dershowitz. By his own argument, it is he who deserves to be prosecuted for inciting genocide.
Here is my response, sent to the Post for publication:
LETTER RE. ALAN DERSHOWITZ ARTICLE ON IRAN
1.'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers'. Shakespeare in Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78 .
2. Lawyers are liars. Age-old axiom.
Alan Dershowitz enjoys a near-legendary reputation as defender of high-profile (usually rich) clients. He is also a law professor at Harvard. But as Professor Chomsky has written, he is not to be trusted, especially on the question of Israel, and its supposed arch-enemy Iran. The age-old axiom quoted above arises from the centuries-old legal tradition of the 'adversary-system' of justice, by which lawyers with clearly defined interests (of their opposing clients) are allowed to represent (and usually twist) reality to argue a biased point of view, with the judge(s) and jury empowered to separate fact from fiction.
There is plenty of fiction in Professor Dershowitz's statement to the Canadian subcommittee on International Human Rights of the standing committee on foreign affairs and international development. The principal fiction is that Dershowitz takes Ahmadinejad's guilt as proven. A fundamental element of justice is the presumption of innocence. Dershowitz takes the distorted presentation of Ahmadinejad's statements by the American-dominated media as proven facts, rather than the propaganda they are.
It is true Ahmadinejad is virtually alone among international leaders in condemning Israel. But what he has been asking, publicly and repeatedly, is for a referendum of all Palestinian people – including the Israeli Jews from Europe who forcibly conquered (stole) land by displacing the local inhabitants – to determine the future of the political state of Palestine, from which the Zionist state of Israel was brutally created. For this Dershowitz seeks to silence Ahmadinejad, by painting him an 'international criminal' who incites genocide. Ahmadinejad incites no such thing. He calls for a political solution, a referendum. But Israel (and its sponsor America) cannot allow such a referendum for obvious reasons.
Here are some very inconvenient facts the liar Dershowitz fails to mention:
1.It is Israel that possesses over 200 nuclear bombs which can easily evaporate Iran in totality. It owns more nuclear weapons (land, air and sea-based) than Britain and France! Only America, Russia and China own more nukes, and this immense nuclear power Israel is being 'marketed' by the same corrupt and genocidal elite in America that are responsible for 700,000 Iraqi deaths under false pretences, as under threat from a nation that possesses no nukes. As Eric Margolis has argued in American Raj, even if Iran acquires some nukes, it can only be for defensive purposes, as it has no ICBM capabilities and in any event would be completely destroyed by Israel or the US if it attempted an attack on Israel.
It is precisely the American-Israeli axis of evil which seeks to deny Islamic nations access to nuclear energy, that drives ambitions to acquire nuclear bombs. A little like the 'forbidden fruit'. Israel has also been given every biological, chemical and conventional weapon (including the most sophisticated air-force in NATO barring the US) and has used them repeatedly (for decades) to commit genocides against the Palestinians, the most recent example being Gaza, and earlier ones including not only the West Bank, but Lebanon.
2. Many orthodox Jewish rabbi (see worldtorahjewry.com) in New York support Ahmadinejad's denunciation of Zionism, which they say has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jewish religion. They honored him during his 2006 visit to New York and expressed their support, a fact too inconvenient for the major American media to report.
(However, quite naturally many corrupt Jewish priests also exist, infected by Zionism and its powerful allures, principally wealth and power. Zionism is at least as obscene and criminal a perversion of Judaism as Islamic terror is of Islam, or as 'Christianity' has been ever since its founding, down to its latest crime - the invasion and occupation of Iraq by a supposed 'born-again Christian'.
With one crucial distinction: unlike Zionism, Islamic terror is not motivated by greed for lands and resources stolen from or belonging to others, but is a response to American, British and Israeli crimes. Islamic terror seeks justice, which American and British power are denying them, with international institutions like the UN largely helpless.)
America's arming of Israel is only partly at the behest of powerful Zionist lobbies in the US; it has more alarming and devious purposes in keeping Islamic oil flowing to America cheaply – at the point of a gun, the gun being Israel. And of course, Iran itself has been the victim of such imperialist policy since 1953 – another fact which is well-known but which no one talks about. The real facts, as Dr. Chomsky has oft written, are 'off the agenda', which is dictated by the real international criminals, the governments of America, Britain, and Israel. Such naked imperialism may soon plunge this planet in another global war, with consequences that would match our worst fears.
What remains to be seen is if the National Post will print this response. That will depend on whether or not it is owned or controlled by powerful Zionist interests.
Finally - what Dershowitz wants with his anti-Iran rant - is the genocide of Iranian people, through an American-Israeli invasion. America has been openly threatening Iran with obliteration for many years now, with even Democratic candidates like Hilary Clinton joining the chorus, and has also supplied Israel with the latest bombers which Israel has been using to conduct flights along the Iranian border, to rattle and provoke the Iranians.
One major advantage of America's occupying Afghanistan (the other being access to Central Asian oil) would be to 'encircle' Iran. Already threatened by Israel and US-controlled Iraq on the west, Iran would face a 2-front war if the US took over Afghanistan. But these invasion plans would be rendered ineffective if Iran were (like North Korea) to acquire a nuclear deterrent. But all of this is outside the biased purview of the loathsome liar Dershowitz. By his own argument, it is he who deserves to be prosecuted for inciting genocide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)