Oliver Stone - Brain Of Stone

Reuters has posted a story explaining that Oliver Stone's new film on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a bit slanted. Not that we expect much of a balanced presentation from Mr. Stone, but it is what it is and from his perspective, he thinks the U.S. demonizes the South American leader.

Director Oliver Stone says the U.S. media and government have demonised Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other leftist South American leaders, and argues in a new film that they were right to stand up to Washington.

We can safely assume that Stone is referring to the previous administration, because the present one has appeared to be more receptive, at least in public. But the reality of the situation must escape Mr. Stone, as he clearly demonstrates a total lack of the critical thinking skills necessary to form an intelligent opinion.

For instance, I doubt Ollie has even done an internet news search using the words "Obama criticizes Chavez". If he had, this is what would have popped up. Dropping the word "criticizes" yields a different result. In the latter search, we see that the demonizing isn't coming from Obama. Note some of the the stories that pop up:

Chavez: Obama Ignores Real Issues Facing Blacks

Chavez Likens Obama's Stench To Bush's

Chavez: Obama "A Poor Ignoramus"

So, it's anyone's guess why this Administration doesn't make any effort to defend against the demonizing rhetoric from Chavez. But for whatever reason, it just isn't happening.

Therefore, we must assume that the Stone position is solely based on the opinions of Bush, Cheney, and those "evil" right-wingers who desperately seek to vilify those they do not understand. But if we are astute enough to keep out political senses honed, we can take note of another article, from the same Reuters agency that tells us of Stone's view.

Venezuela will pull the plug on 29 more radio stations, a top official in President Hugo Chavez's government said on Saturday, just weeks after dozens of other outlets were closed in a media clampdown.

Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello closed 34 radio stations in July, saying the government was "democratizing" media ownership. Critics say the move limits freedom of expression and has taken critical voices off the airwaves.

The powerful Chavez ally has threatened to close over 100 stations in total, part of a long-term campaign against private media that the government says are biased against Chavez's government.

I would ask Mr. Stone a question, if I had the opportunity. But I don't have the platform that others have and I doubt he'd really be man enough to answer, anyway. So I will pose it to my loyal readers:

How is it demonizing Hugo Chavez by merely criticizing his government, for shutting down voices of opposition?

One of the things that Stone has never taken into consideration is something that may be beyond his ability to comprehend: Freedom to voice opposition to any government is an essential component of a healthy democratic republic.

If this nation had a leader like Chavez in the White House when Stone made his movie about Bush, it would have never seen the light of day and there is a good chance that he would have been in jail now (or at least under house arrest). Not only that, Obama wouldn't have been elected, because the deck would have been stacked to allow Bush to maneuver into a president-for-life situation by trying to do what Hugo's buddy in Honduras just tried to do, on the sly.

If there was any doubt beforehand, it should now be abundantly clear to even the unlearned mind: Stone is not one of the smartest people working in Hollywood. But then again, it's the same medium that continues to allow Michael Moore to make garbage and call them documentaries.

Another Terrorist Tale

Guest Post written by Greg, a PYY regular.


An interesting anti-terrorist trial just finished up. The defendants: at least four men of Arab descent living in a large city, and belonging to a terrorist cell that sent men to Iraq to kill Americans.

The two ring leaders recruited young men with the same objective, according to the prosecutor: making jihad against the Americans in Iraq. They got 8 years in prison, 2/3 of it guaranteed.

One of the men – Mohammen El Ayouni – who managed to reach Iraq and fight against the Marines in Fallouja, lost an eye and an arm there. He claimed to have saved a woman and her children from a bombed house, though, as the prosecutor noted, the house never would have been bombed were it not for the presence of “terrorists” like Ayouni. He got four years in prison.

Two other men were arrested just before their departure for Iraq. Their sentence is three years in prison.

Ayouni’s defense lawyer claimed that these were “above all else, a group of friends who empathized with people who were suffering in a country where American military intervention has killed thousands of civilians.” The defendants claimed without proof that they were tortured while in custody.

The prosecutor, for his part, said there was no doubt about the defendant’s “terrorist motivations” and stressed that “claiming that the American military intervention in Iraq was illegal does not suffice to excuse these men, who adherence to a group that resorted to suicide bombings is incompatible with fundamental international human rights law.”

Prison sentences for men who had not actually picked up weapon. Claims by the defendants of torture and arbitrary detention. Claims by terrorists that they are simple humanitarians. Sounds like a typical trial in the context of the “war on terror.” Except that this trial didn’t take place in New York or Miami or Chicago. It took place in Paris.

(French Text: Here)