Showing posts with label Cherniak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cherniak. Show all posts

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Promises, Promises

File this under As Above, So Below or the Microcosm is a reflection of the Macrocosm.

Jason Cherniak truly is a Liberal. Like his leader he does not know whether he is coming or going. He threatens and blusters to shut down his blog and then doesn't. Sort of like Dion's threats over the Throne Speech.And like his leader he gags those whom he disagrees with or who disagree with him.


As I wrote last week, I'm not sure how much longer this blog will be around. However, as long as it is it will be my board to advertise my ideas. I will allow comments that disagree with me, but only if they disagree in a reasonable way.

Don't keep us in suspense like your flip flopping leader, don't change your comment policy yet again just shut your blog down already and get over it.


The image “http://www.ndp.ca/xfer/html/2007-10-12/LiberalWarningHeader-en.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,


Thursday, August 09, 2007

Conservative Cherniak



If anyone was in doubt that Jason Cherniak is a conservative, as in a classic parliamentary Tory, this should be the final nail in that coffin.

As if we needed any more evidence.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Cherniak Admits He Is Ukrainian

Special To Le Revue Gauche
By lirpa sloof

Rumor has it that Liberal Blog boss Jason Cherniak will be celebrating Ukrainian Easter this year.

It is alleged, by those in the know, that Cherniak is claiming Ukrainian Easter is a secular celebration not a religious one. One that celebrates the ethnic diaspora of Ukrainians in Canada.

Those in the know say Cherniak was seen making pysanka at his baba's house.

Those in the know claim that Ukrainian Easter is actually an ancient pagan celebration and the Pysanka, or Easter Egg is a pagan symbol of the ancient bird goddess of the Slavs as well as the rebirth of Spring from death of Winter.

It is also alleged by these same people that Cherniak was seen in his backyard whipping himself with pussy willows this Palm Sunday crying; "Dion, Dion, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Asked if he thought it was a contradiction to celebrate Passover and Ukrainian Easter, Cherniak was alleged to have replied;
Lev Davidovich Bronstein didn't think so.



See

Cherniak

Ukrainian


Paganism

April Fools


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Cherniak Apologizes Sort Of

Jason Cherniak just cannot say; I am sorry, I was wrong, I won't do it again. Jason tries to use weasel words to justify what he did, even when he says he was wrong.

In a convoluted legalistic manner he does apologize sort of, after a whirlwind of protests from Progressive Bloggers of all political stripes. But first he whined about the protests;


For the record, I never expected this sort of reaction. The purpose of the post was to argue for a good compromise on the hijab issue. I only mentioned the Chow rumour because I thought it was the best example of why the hijab thing is about voter fraud and not about religion. In hindsight, I wish I had used a less controversial example because the real point was lost in all the yelling. Frankly, though, I didn't realize that so many bloggers were so clueless about the rumours out there.


Then he decided to publish a sort of retraction. And it took him till 11 pm EDT today to finally do it.

However he only links to his apology in a link in his original article and in his second article. Which is not identified as his apology, and is one link amongst many.

He has not removed the offending article perse, nor struck through, nor removed the offending statements about Olivia Chow. Nor has he attached a correction apology statement link at the beginning of the offending article. All these are the proper journalistic procedures to be done to avoid charges of libel and defamation in Canadian law. And as a lawyer and media consultant he should know that.

Instead he posted this;


UPDATE

I'm sorry if you read this and don't like me reporting the rumour about Trinity-Spadina, but it IS a real rumour. It is not the same as accusing her of having relations with sheep, because that is not a real rumour that is circulating in Toronto. Further, I am not demanding that she deny it.


And as you can see below he says in his post I Was Wrong that he made a mistake, but still no; I am sorry I was wrong. Because of course Jason can never be wrong.

Jason there is no such thing as good faith when you rumour monger.


I initially used the Chow rumour as an example because I have heard it a few times from reliable people and thought it was a fair example to give. As a partisan, I think I was too quick to just assume that the rumour was reasonable to believe. The people I have spoken too probably made the same mistake.

So, to be clear, I am sorry for using Trinity-Spadina as an example in my initial post. However, that does not change the fact that I made the mistake in good faith.

My error here was in failing to look more closely at the rumour before assuming that it was believable. The truth is that if the rumour were about a Liberal, I would have done more research and figured out that it was bogus before posting it.

Yes you would have and that shows your intolerance towards other progressive political competitors in the body politic . But the point is you posted it and still have not removed the offending post. So lets get with it and do the right thing, re- write your article and re-post it without the references to Olivia Chow.

See

Cherniak


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

Rumour Monger


Once again Jason Cherniak engages in drive by smearing of the NDP. In this case contrary to all rules of law and of accepted legal process, to say nothing of standard journalistic rules, he uses hearsay. Not even attributed hearsay. In fact the lowest kind of hearsay; rumour. Nor can he attribute the rumours. In fact he may have made it up himself.

And Jason as a lawyer and a blogging journalist knows these rules. He uses a rumour to justify by implication his blog accusation that federal NDP MP Olivia Chow cheated to get elected!

Worse he attempts to weasel out of any responsibility for promoting this rumour and thus this smear, by saying he does not suggest the rumour is true. What B.S. The minute he publishes it he gives it validity. Thus the rumour becomes true. It is there in black and white, to be quoted, to be used out of context, to be referenced back to.

"Let's face it. People cheat in politics. It's not a good thing. It shouldn't happen. But it does.The rumour around TO (Let me be very clear; I am not suggesting that the rumour is true. I am only stating that it is out there.) is that Olivia Chow won because NDP supporters from across the city voted early and often at different polling stations in Trinity-Spadina. I don't know if it's true, but just the rumour led the federal Liberals to fight for a new rule that voters must show ID before receiving their ballot."
Jason Cherniak

The damage is done, he has once again smeared the NDP and this is the second time he has done this. His first smear campaign was against Ontario NDP candidate and now MPP, Christi DiNovo. Notice how Jason aims at NDP Women for his smears. Now he smears Olivia Chow.

The man is sexist. He deliberately attacks women dippers. Worse yet, this is just the introduction to his comment on why veil wearing Muslim women should disrobe to be identified to vote in the up coming Quebec election. Heck Charset who demanded this, is not even a liberal, he is a neo-con and former federal leader of the Progressive Conservatives. And in Jason defending this, he is in effect defending the current racist assault on Muslims occurring in Quebec.
And for that matter he is abetting the anti-Asian racism that has cropped up in the election.

There should be no room in Progressive Bloggers for this kind of sexism or racism, let alone personal slanders that are deliberate and aimed at discrediting political opponents through the use of rumour, innuendo, and slander.

That being said this particular blog post invective with no factual basis deserves an immediate apology and retraction. Failing that I ask the moderators at Progressive Bloggers to review the serious legal implications of this post, which spreads a malicious rumour as fact; "the rumour led the federal Liberals to fight for a new rule", that such slander and defamation should be grounds for banishment from Progressive Bloggers.

Fair is fair. This is his second offense. For that he should be banned from Progressive Bloggers as has been done with other offenders.

For more reactions to Jason's slanderous article see:

Rumour has it that some people on the internet make shit up

dick head award , and the award goes to Jason ...

But he's just the messenger

Bending The Pretzel

For my articles on Jason see: Cherniak


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Joseph Cherniak














The difference between them is the mustache.

Jason goes on another purge.
To Cherniak: Blogger, banish thyself!

He suffers from political bulimia and the strong man syndrome; that need to purge, purge, purge.

Luckily it was only from his personal commercial Liberal blog roll.

No Progressive Bloggers were harmed. Since Audacious Ontology still is a member of the PB blog roll.

While Cherniak claims he purged AO for posting NDP material on their blog perhaps it was actually because they were critical of Israel. Nah Jason would never do that.

France acknowledges Palestinian unity; will canada, or continue to bow to the US and Israeli Lobby?



See:

Cherniak


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , ,

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Cherniak vs. Chomsky

In another slagging debate about Robert McClelland of My Blahg

Jason Cherniak says the following;
... I think (assume) he means the extreme left. People who follow the likes of Chomsky.

So I said:
"I think (assume) he means the extreme left. People who follow the likes of Chomsky." Once again Cherniak you are equating principled anti-Zionism/Anti-statism with antisemitism, as usual with you a cheap shot.

Then he said:
Jason Cherniak said...

Eugene, Chomsky is a Holocaust denier.


This is not factual it is an old slander from the right wing much like this one;Red Baiting Chomsky

"I have always supported a Jewish ethnic homeland in Palestine. That is different from a Jewish state. There's a strong case to be made for an ethnic homeland, but as to whether there should be a Jewish state, or a Muslim state, or a Christian state, or a white state — that's entirely another matter." Noam Chomsky

You have said you see a "hint of anti-Semitic implications" in the work of Robert Faurisson, the notorious French Holocaust denier. Is Jew-baiting merely a hobby of yours, or is it vocational? LAURENCE COLE, KENT

The facts and the principle have been spelled out dozens of times since 1980 (so it is a bit boring), but once again, briefly.

The last time I had anything to do with this affair, Faurisson was accused of raising questions about gas chambers. Several years later, he was tried and sentenced for "Falsification of History", but there was no charge of Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism (according to Le Monde). The only issue concerning my connection with this sordid affair is whether we should adopt the Goebbels-Zhdanov doctrine that the State has the right to determine Historical Truth and punish deviation from it. As I wrote then, and am happy to repeat, it is a gross insult to the memory of victims of the Holocaust to adopt the doctrines of their murderers. The remark you are misrepresenting is from a personal letter - an interesting source. It reviewed the facts and went on to point out that even denial of huge atrocities would not in itself be evidence for racism, giving a few of the many examples. Thus neither you, nor I, conclude that Americans are vicious racists because they estimate Vietnamese deaths at about 5 per cent of the official figure, or because for centuries even scholarship vastly understated the scale and character of the destruction of the indigenous population. The point generalises to England and others, of course. There can be many reasons for denying horrendous crimes, even in the cases that are the most serious on moral grounds: our own. One special case - purely hypothetical in this personal correspondence - was that denial of the Holocaust would not establish anti-Semitism, for exactly the same reasons.


Cherniak is a Zionist
. As I have pointed out before Zionism is just another right wing nationalist ideology. Being Jewish is irrelevant to his defense of Zionism and Israel. Just as it is for his pal Warren Kinsella who is not Jewish but defends Zionism and the 'State' of Israel.

Cherniak is a politically a right wing statist and a nationalist. Being a Liberal he is also a statist when it comes to the Canadian State. And as I have pointed out before he is a right winger when it comes to progressive left issues in Canada.

He hates the left and he hates the anti-statist left especially. And he despises and disparages the Jewish Left, especially those who do not equate Israel and
Zionism with being Jewish and do not equate Anti-Zionism with knee jerk painting of ones opponents as Anti-Semites.


With regard to anti-Semitism, the distinguished Israeli statesman Abba Eban pointed out the main task of Israeli propaganda (they would call it exclamation, what's called 'propaganda' when others do it) is to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. By anti-Zionism he meant criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel. So there's no difference between criticism of policies of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism, because if he can establish 'that' then he can undercut all criticism by invoking the Nazis and that will silence people. We should bear it in mind when there's talk in the US about anti-Semitism. Noam Chomsky

Being Jewish is all for Cherniak, yet like many Jews his roots like Chomsky's are in the Slavic community, Cherniak being a common Russian/Ukrainian last name.

Chomsky was born in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Hebrew scholar and IWW member William Chomsky, who was from a town in Ukraine. His mother, Elsie Chomsky (born Simonofsky), came from what is now Belarus, but unlike her husband she grew up in the United States and spoke "ordinary New York English".

But Cherniak never embraces this aspect of his cultural heritage. When I first read his Blog I considered Cherniak a fellow honky, as in Bohunk, that self depreciating racist epithet used for Ukrainians, Hungarians and Poles. The fact is that in the North American Diaspora one can be both, a honky and a Jew.

By emphasizing his Jewish roots and denying his Slavic ones
he is selective in his cultural identity. In defining himself as a Jewish Nationalist a Zionist, hence a right winger he has made a political decision and a statement of his realpoliticks.

He has made his Jewishness a political fetish.One with which he uses to bash other Jews to his left. Depreciating them as crazy, nuts, etc.

His Zionism is anti-semitic, he hates Jews who disagree with him with a passion. Hence his specific attack on Chomsky. He posted his canard and link to a right wing anti-Chomsky blog because he wants to discredit Chomsky while avoiding arguing about Chomsky's politics; anarchism.

What makes Mr. Chomsky unique is that his criticism of the capitalist economic order takes its point of departure from the classical liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment. His heroes are not Lenin and Marx but Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt. He argues that the free market envisaged by these thinkers has never materialized in the world and that what we have gotten instead is a collusion of the state with private interests. Moreover he has repeatedly stressed that the attacks on democracy and the market by the big multinationals go hand-in-hand. The rich, he claims, echoing Adam Smith, are too keen to preach the benefits of market discipline to the poor while they reserve for themselves the right to be bailed out by the state whenever the going gets rough. As he puts it : “The free market is socialism for the rich. Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich.” He has spoken positively about the work of Peruvian liberal economist Hernando De Soto who sees the problem of poverty in the Third World as being related to the fact that the poor usually lack clearly defined property rights.

Chomsky has repeatedly stressed that the attacks on democracy and the market by the big multinationals go hand-in-hand

Another aspect of his political work that has been overlooked by foes and critics alike is Mr. Chomsky’s fight against the forces of irrationality that tend to dominate the humanities in the universities. His dismissal of Marxism as a religious “pseudoscience” devoid of all scientific pretensions is one such case. Another is his insistence that the social “sciences” and economics do not meet the methodological criteria that would qualify them as sciences and should thus give up any pretence to being so.


Cherniak hates the left, whether it is the Jewish left or Canadian left, he hates socialism and socialists as his attacks on the NDP in his blog show. But he dresses up his conservative religious and political/social values as progressive because he is a Liberal.

But the only difference between him and the social conservatives on the right is well, actually not much. He is in good company with Stockwell Day, a 'good friend' of Zionism and Israel. Birds of a feather.

Accusations of anti-semitism

Partially because of these criticisms, Chomsky has been accused of being anti-semitic on many occasions. The most outspoken of his critics include writer David Horowitz, who has toured college campuses distributing anti-Chomsky pamphlets, attorney/professor Alan Dershowitz, with whom Chomsky has engaged in many verbal battles through the media, and sociology professor emeritus Werner Cohn, who has written an entire book; Partners in Hate about Chomsky's relationship to Faurisson One of the most common charges is that the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is theoretical, and in practice anti-Zionism is a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

Chomsky's support for Israel Shahak, author of Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, a book that claims that Judaism is a fundamentally chauvinistic religion, has led to more accusations of anti-semitism.

Chomsky rejects charges of anti-Semitism, citing that the definition presented by Israeli apologists is itself racist and ethnocentric. Claiming to speak out against bigotry of all forms, including anti-Semitism, Chomsky is nevertheless often accused of anti-Semitism, which he dismisses as "ad-hominem attacks" and "typical propaganda."


QUESTION: I ask you this question because I know that you have been plagued and hounded around the United States specifically on this issue of the Holocaust. It's been said that Noam Chomsky is somehow agnostic on the issue of whether the Holocaust occurred or not.

CHOMSKY: My "agnosticism" is in print. I described the Holocaust years ago as the most fantastic outburst of insanity in human history, so much so that if we even agree to discuss the matter we demean ourselves. Those statements and numerous others like them are in print, but they're basically irrelevant because you have to understand that this is part of a Stalinist-style technique to silence critics of the holy state and therefore the truth is entirely irrelevant, you just tell as many lies as you can and hope that some of the mud will stick. It's a standard technique used by the Stalinist parties, by the Nazis and by these guys.

QUESTION: There's tremendous support for Israel in the United States at least in elite groups. There's also on another level a very steady, virulent anti-Semitism that goes on. Can you talk about that?

CHOMSKY: Anti-Semitism has changed, during my lifetime at least. Where I grew up we were virtually the only Jewish family, I think there was one other. Of course being the only Jewish family in a largely Irish-Catholic and German-Catholic community--

QUESTION: In Philadelphia?

CHOMSKY: In Philadelphia. And the anti-Semitism was very real. There were certain paths I could take to walk to the store without getting beaten up. It was the late 1930s and the area was openly pro-Nazi. I remember beer parties when Paris fell and things like that. It's not like living under Hitler, but it's a very unpleasant thing. There was a really rabid anti-Semitism in that neighborhood where I grew up as a kid and it continued. By the time I got to Harvard in the early 1950s there was still very detectable anti-Semitism. It wasn't that they beat you up on the way to school or something, but other ways, kind of WASP-ish anti-Semitism. There were very few Jewish professors on the faculty at that time. There was beginning to be a scattering of them, but still very few. This was the tail end of a long time of WASP-ish anti-Semitism at the elite institutions. Over the last thirty years that's changed very radically. Anti-Semitism undoubtedly exists, but it's now on a par, in my view, with other kinds of prejudice of all sorts. I don't think it's more than anti-Italianism or anti-Irishism, and that's been a very significant change in the last generation, one that I've experienced myself in my own life, and it's very visible throughout the society.

QUESTION: How would you account for that?

CHOMSKY: How would I account for it? I think partly that the Holocaust did have an effect. It brought out the horrifying consequences of anti-Semitism in a way that certainly is striking. I presume, I can't prove this, but there must be, at least I hope there is, a kind of guilt feeling involved, because the role of the United States during the Holocaust was awful, before and during. They didn't act to save Jews, and they could have in many respects. The role of the Zionist organization is not very pretty either. In the late 1940s there were plenty of displaced persons in the Jewish DP camps. Some survived. It remained awful, they stayed in the DP camps, in fact, for a while they were dying at almost the same rate they were under the Nazis. Many of those people, if they had been given a chance, surely would have wanted to come to the United States. There are debates about how many, but it's just unimaginable that if they'd been given a chance they wouldn't have wanted to come here. They didn't. A tiny scattering came. There was an immigration bill, the Stratton bill, which I think admitted about 400,000 people, if I remember, to the United States, very few Jews among them. Plenty of Nazis, incidentally, straight out of their SS uniforms. The reason that bill passed, I think it was 1947, was that it was the beginning of the Cold War and priority was being given to basically the Nazis, because we were resurrecting them all over the world, a lot of them were brought in, a lot of Nazi war criminals, and others, but very few Jews. That's not a very pretty sight. You say, during the war you could have given some argument, not an acceptable argument, but you could have given at least a not ridiculous argument that you had to fight the war and not worry about the people being sent to the gas chambers, but after the war you couldn't give any argu- ment. It was a matter of saving the survivors, and we didn't do it. I should say the Zionist organization didn't support it either, they didn't even lobby for the bill. The only Jewish organizations that lobbied for the admission of Jewish refugees to the United States were the non-Zionist or the anti-Zionist organizations. The reason was that they wanted to send them off to Palestine. Whether they wanted to go there or not is another story, the same matter being relived today, incidentally, with the Russian emigres. The Zionist organization wants to force them to go to Israel. Most of them, especially from the European parts of Russia, want to come to the United States, and all sorts of pressures are being brought to bear to prevent that. It's kind of a reenactment at a less hideous level of the same story. I suppose there's some element of guilt, certainly over the Holocaust and maybe over the post-war matter.


See:

Chomsky

Cherniak


Israel

Zionism

Anarchism


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,