Cherniak Pulls a Cherniak - Again

Welcome to tonite's drama in three parts:

Part 1: The Rumour

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.

Part 2: The Rumour - Redux

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.

Part 3: The Quasi Apology

I'll be honest. When I get upset and feel attacked, my initial reaction is to attack back. It certainly doesn't help when most of the people complaining are accusing me of foul play. However, after reading this post and this post by two bloggers who I greatly respect, I have realized that I was wrong.
[...]
...this still does not change the fact that people believe such rumours. The fact that I believed it was reasonable when it is so clearly unlikely has only strengthened my conviction that we need better laws to ensure confidence in our voting system.

Okay, this time Cherniak has really pissed me off...

I'm sick this weekend...sick, sick, sick...with a bad cold, headaches, endless waves of nausea, and about 4 hours sleep a nite which I have to make up for with fitful naps during the day. When I'm sick, I'm cranky. When I'm cranky, I anger easily. I don't like being angry.

Now, knowing that background to this rant, you'll understand why this is one of those rare times that I'm posting based on my emotions and I have one thing to say: this time, Jason Cherniak, you've gone too far.

It was bad enough when you called Noam Chomsky a "holocaust denier" and an "anti-semite" - ridiculous, libelous accusations that prompted me to leave Liblogs. Then I discovered that you banned Audacious Ontology for posting NDP ads which, as I pointed out earlier today, was nothing but hypocrisy on your part.

Predictably, you've now posted another whiny diary at Progressive Bloggers - your pattern when you're feeling persecuted, even though ProgBlogs has nothing to do with any of this. Why didn't you post your whinefest on your site?

In that ProgBlogs diary, I discovered that you posted your extremely condensed versions of private (yes, that's right Jason - PRIVATE) e-mail conversations I and others had with you.

Who the fuck gave you permission to post the content of private e-mail discussions? Not me. That's for damn sure.

And, to add insult to that injury, you pulled only one point I made about your totally asinine argument that Chomsky is, in your oh-so-learned opinion, a "holocaust denier" - because Alan Dershowitz said so. (Probably not a swift move on your part anyway since Dershowitz is such an obvious shill.)

1) Catnip demanded to be removed from Liblogs because of my opinions on Chomsky and anti-Semitism. In private correspondence, she explained that she thought my reliance on facts provided by Alan Dershowitz was suspect;

Alan Dershowitz - supporter of the "ticking time bomb" theory of torture - which has been totally discredited. Alan Dershowitz - plagairist. Alan Dershowitz - defender of collective punishment. Alan Dershowitz - a favoured pundit of the right-wing.

Next week a vastly important book will be published: "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways" by Alan Dershowitz. Yes, that Alan Dershowitz: the very liberal civil libertarian, anti-capital punishment Harvard Law School professor. And but for my lack of his legal scholarship, there is nary a sentence in the book that I -- a very conservative editor of the Washington Times, and former press secretary to Newt Gingrich -- couldn't have written.

The premise of his book is that in this age of terror, there is a potential need for such devices as profiling, preventive detention, anticipatory mass inoculation, prior restraint of dangerous speech, targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorists and preemptive military action including full-scale preventive war.
- Tony Blankley

You know damn well Cherniak that my e-mails with you were about more than Dershowitz (as if your reliance on his opinion of Chomsky was enough of a so-called defence of your opinion - which it obviously is not). I wrote about my reasons in my post here as well as in my e-mails to you. And no, you still don't have the right to say anything more about all that I did write in those e-mails.

Let me tell you something: as a lawyer, you should know better than to breach a person's confidentiality. You should know better than to use absolutely tortured fucking logic to try to make your points. You're supposed to be a professional. Start acting like one.

1. Stop posting the contents or your summaries of peoples' private e-mail correspondence.
2. Whine on your own blog. Progressive Bloggers is not a complaint desk. (And that is my personal opinion, since I recently agreed to be a moderator there and don't speak on behalf of the site. You just have a nasty habit of dumping your beefs there. It's annoying and childish.)
3. Buy a clue. Big sale on clues at the Clue Store this week. Don't miss out. Limited Time Offer.
4. If I was your mom, and I'm old enough to be, I'd tell you to grow up and I'd stick you in the corner until your tantrum was done.
5. If you can't defend your decisions and your blog posts, too bad. Don't expect people to feel sorry for you. You post it. You own it.

And this, young man, is getting pretty damn old:

It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who hate Israel so much that they consider it their duty to attack me personally for supporting Israel. I suppose that when you don't have the facts on your side, there aren't many other options.

Stop playing the fucking martyr and get over yourself. Seriously. I know all about martyrs. You should meet my mother. She has the back of her hand permanently attached to her forehead in the "woe is me" position. You're no different.

You need to read Mike's post over at Rational Reasons about anti-semitism so you can figure out who your "enemies" really are. Here's a clue: it's not people who criticize Israeli government policies. No country's government is off the table when it comes to discussing human rights - not Israel, not Canada - no country. The sooner you learn that, the easier your life will be.

Finally, as I said before, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the (blogging and political) kitchen and stop blaming the rest of us who are just as entitled to having opinions as you are.

I will now return to my regularly scheduled headache - the real one - not the one you've given me.

And to anyone reading this: be warned that your e-mail exchanges with Cherniak are not to be considered private - as he has so obviously shown everyone now.
 

To Cherniak: Blogger, banish thyself!

In case you missed the latest blog drama, Jason Cherniak has banished the Audacious Ontology blog from Liblogs because one of that blog's members posted the recent NDP ads. Blasphemy!

Now I have a question for Cherniak: will you banish your own blog from the Liblogs roster as well? Why?, you ask.

Take a look at what I found on your site just this morning in the green box on the left:


Yes. That's right. Links to not only NDP sites via Google, but Green party sites as well.

Blasphemy! (Not to mention your Blogging Tory, NDP and Green party blogger links on your blogroll).

For those who've been following the bouncing ball here, you'll know that I recently left Liblogs after Cherniak called Noam Chomsky a "holocaust denier" and an "anti-semite". Certainly no love lost there. However, kicking someone off Liblogs for posting the new NDP ads when his rotating Google ads actually promote that party and others seems more than a tad bit hypocritical to me. And before you chime in with, "Don't blame me, blame Google" Jason, you might want to rethink hosting those Google ads (and your blogroll) on your site in the first place if you're going to act like such a Liberal party purist on Liblogs.

And one more thing, the Audacious Ontology blogger who posted those NDP ads received nothing from the party for doing so (as far as I know). You, on the other hand, actually make money from your Google ads promoting other parties. Think about that.
 

I'm Leaving Liblogs

And it's because of statements made by its owner Jason Cherniak on his blog in this post.

Some people take issue with me for calling Chomsky an anti-Semite. I did so in my comments section and I linked to this article that describes the issue. Some people who disagree begin by saying "Chomsky is a Jew". Sorry, but that doesn't mean much. Rumour has it that Himler [sic] was a Jew, but that didn't stop him from being one of the most terrible and "successful" anti-Semites in history. The other argument is that Chomsky only defended a Holocaust denier's right to free speech. That doesn't fly because what Chomsky actually did is say that the Holocaust denier's opinion was based on "extensive research". The final defence is often that Chomsky was just making the "obvious" point that you can deny that the victims of the Holocaust were killed in gas chambers, without denying the Holocaust. Sorry, but why would a person deny such a thing? Doesn't denying the Nazi use of the gas chambers that can still be visited in Eastern Europe only feed the notion that there is some sort of world-wide conspiracy to mislead people into believing that the Nazis killed millions of Jews in gas chambers? Perhaps Chomsky is not a direct anti-Semite, but the adverse effects of his argument are to feed anti-Semitism.

Can Cherniak possibly be any more selective and absolutely wrong about Chomsky's opinions on these matters? Can you believe he actually uses Himmler's and Chomsky's names in the same sentence? Does he actually provide any proof that Himmler, whose mother was Roman Catholic, was a Jew? No. Instead he relies on some "rumour" as justification to attack Chomsky. What kind of argument is that?

and...

Allow me to give one obvious example. In this world, there are many countries that defy human rights. We know that suspected terrorists are tortured in Syria. We know that Tibetans are punished in China. We know that Palestinians are denied true political rights in Jordan. Why, then, is Israel singled out by the United Nations every year? I have nothing against pointing out the human rights flaws of other countries, but I do have a problem with singling out one country each and every year. How can you justify that? While this singling out of Israel can be called "anti-Zionism", the reality is that it is no different than anti-Semitism. It is the singling out of Jews (indeed, an entire country of Jews) amongst all the people of the world for condemnation. I don't see how else you can view it. While there may be no direct anti-Semitism, the adverse effects are obvious.

That's is so completely illogical (and Cherniak is a lawyer) that it's not even worth deconstructing. If I point out human rights abuses in this country, does that mean I'm "anti-Canadian"? Of course not.

There's a discussion of that post over at Progressive Bloggers in this diary where I posted the following comment:

I was simply astounded when I read Cherniak's comment that Chomsky is a holocaust denier.

Chomsky:

"My views are quite explicitly stated: the Holocaust was the most extreme atrocity in human history, and we lose our humanity if we are even willing to enter the arena of debate with those who seek to deny or underplay Nazi crimes. Subsequent writings take the same stand, without variation. In brief, anyone who was actually interested in my opinions could quickly determine them."

What was Jason's motive in peddling that lie?

He uses the now infamous Faurisson petition about which Chomsky says this in a 1992 letter:

"The statement you quote about the petition on Faurisson is false. The petition called upon the Courts to defend F's civil rights; it did not imply that his work in this area had any significance or should be pursued."

and...

"While I have no interest in his writings, I am much interested in the scandalous violation of elementary civil rights, and therefore followed the judicial proceedings as reported in the French press. The Court condemned him for "allowing others" to use his writings for nefarious ends, for lack of care in use of documents, etc.; not for anti-Semitism."

link

Further, Cherniak's whining about Israel's human rights record being brought up year after year (as are all countries that abuse human rights, btw - a UN panel just criticized Canada again for its appalling treatment of aboriginal people) is simply that - whining. Israel has ignored decades of UN resolutions regarding its record and has been allowed to persist in that mode because it is protected by the US government practically every time. Don't believe me and have the urge to call me an anti-semite now? Read this:

List of the UN Resolutions concerning Israel.

That's wiki - just the facts.

Frankly, I'm considering removing my blog from the Liblogs list now. How dare he slur Chomsky that way? And why? Just because he's more of a leftist than Cherniak? And to call Chomsky an anti-semite when he IS a semite? Let's get real.

I had my disagreements with Jason during the Israel/Lebanon war last year but this takes the cake. I don't think I want to be associated with him anymore.

And, in fact, I've made my decision. Cherniak's comments have infuriated me. This entire affair started when another blogger made a wholly inappropriate comment and was summarily banned from the Progressive Bloggers aggregator. I support that decision and it's been discussed enough. However, this latest post by Cherniak in which he calls Noam Chomsky a "holocaust denier" is unacceptable as well. Do I think he should be banned from Progressive Bloggers over it? That's not for me to say - especially not right now while I'm angry, but I do know this: I have a choice about where my blog name appears and it won't be on Liblogs anymore. Calling someone a "holocaust denier" is a very serious charge and, in this case, it has absolutely no basis in fact. That's shameful. And I don't care how much traffic I'll lose by disassociating myself from Liblogs because of it. My integrity is worth a helluva lot more than blog stats and I refuse to be associated with Cherniak anymore.

Related: Noam Chomsky's site