Friday, July 23, 2010

Oliver Stone's South of the Border ***

Oliver Stone presents in limited release in the US and Europe, a documentary film called South of the Border. A tidal wave of leftist governments has been flowing throughout the Americas. If in 2006 Manuel López Obrador had won, Mexico would have joined the surge. In light of how these events are covered even in the countries where the changes occurred, by the main media outlets, this movie is a welcomed change.

This movement towards the left, was started in reaction to the US controlled International Monetary Fund and its neoliberal policies. That is the unifying factor that spurred what is called the Bolivarian Movement. Stone jetsets to five countries to meet seven Latin American heads of state. Besides Hugo Chavez who is the main focus of the movie, he visits Evo Morales of Bolivia; Cristina Kirchner of Argentina (and her husband, ex-president Nestor Kirchner); Lula da Silva of Brazil; Fernando Lugo of Paraguay; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; and Raul Castro of Cuba. It's uncommon to hear words that aren't just sound bites to portray them as monsters. They are humanized here, Chavez visits the home of his birth, and falls off and breaks a bicycle. We see Chavez driving around Caracas, and casually being approached without a wall of security. Evo Morales teaches Stone how to eat coca, and plays some soccer with him.

The biggest part of the movie focuses on Hugo Chavez. Included is footage of the coup by Chavez against Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1992. Chavez taking responsibility for the coup and surrendering is shown, as is hero status after being let out of prison. Much of what was covered better in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised about the 2002 coup was recapped. This is shown alternately with mostly Fox News coverage of events for joke effect.

George W. Bush (43) was castigated for the US's immediate support for the 2002 coup. This film was made the time when Barack Obama was inaugurated president of the US. All of the leaders are shown watching an inauguration speech by Obama. Chavez hopes he will be like Roosevelt, and initiate a New Deal. Not only Oliver Stone had illusions Obama would be different than other imperialists.

Lula da Silva told about how the IMF tried to discourage him from paying off all of Brazil's debt to the IMF. We meet Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, who came to power with a background in Liberation Theology. The Nestors tell Stone, we now have presidents in South America who look like the people. Bolivia had a president who didn't speak Spanish. Rafael Correa says the US can have a military base in Ecuador, if he can in Miami.

Oliver Stone made it clear near the end of the movie, he wasn't socialist. He believes in a "benign capitalism." I wouldn't use that point to condemn the movie, but rather as a good point for discussion. The Bolivarian leaders are not a monolith. Stone makes them all seem as equals. The subject of the revolutionary tide in Latin America is dealt with superficially, still the positives of this movie outweigh the negatives.



Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Worth going to see just to learn more about that part of the word and to see the leaders up close and personal.

I will go and seek it out in London.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Is this another one of Ollie's good old conspiracy theory movies? I can't wait to see the one he's going to make about the Jewish dominated media. Maybe he'll pass out funny little white pointed caps to the audience. Don't look now, but if somebody cries out "Fire!" in that crowded theater, it might not be abuse of free speech, it might just be some old cross burning somewhere up in the balcony.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

How's this for a thought...

How about you go and see it before you presume to know what it is and accuse him of all kinds of shiz?

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I saw a screening of the movie. If it was a conspiracy movie, I'd have said so. I don't agree with him about benign capitalism.

Historically Jewish people made gains in entertainment, because Christians thought it was sinful.

Daniel H-G: He does a good job with recent Venezuelan history.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: What makes you jump so often to the most ridiculous conclusion? Look to your own mind for conspiracies.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Stone is the one who said the Jews dominate the media, I didn't. Is it going to be my fault next that Robert Byrd was a Kleagle? I didn't do it.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I didn't know what you were talking about. I just found out about what Stone said. He has apologized.

The Sentinel said...

So when is this (Jewish) journalist going to be publicly condemned for his article and issue an apology for saying the same thing and actually going out of his way to try to prove it then?

LA Times

Frank Partisan said...

I read he issued an apology last night.

The Sentinel said...

I think we are on cross lines here Renegade Eye, I mean the journalist and article linked to.

Frank Partisan said...

See this.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Stone joins Gibson in the anti-Semetic camp, albeit briefly.

There is a big difference between pointing out who is Jewish in Hollywood (which also doesn't mean anything about whether they are actual practicing Jews or are merely ethnically Jewish and/or of jewish heritage, which is quite frankly irrelevant, everyone on that list is also, I think American and white) and using jewishness as a pejorative, as an insult.

It is about what you are inferring by highlighting the ethnicity of someone.

As I said, influential people in Hollywood are white Americans, I can observe that but if I start saying that because they are white Americans they are keeping, for example, black Americans down with their propaganda, I'm slipping into nut-job territory.

Oliver Stone wasn't merely pointing out the number of Jews in Hollywood, he was inferring something negative from that and drifting dangerously close to Holocaust denial.

The Sentinel said...

There are some odd remarks in that piece you linked to Renegade eye.

One being the contention that Henry Ford didn’t apologise for his stance, when he in fact did, several times including a very public apology in 1927:

“… Ford's 1927 apology had been well received. "Four-Fifths of the hundreds of letters addressed to Ford in July of 1927 were from Jews, and almost without exception they praised the Industrialist."

A reference

Another one is the assertion that “Gibson’s sin against Hollywood was producing 'The Passion of the Christ,' not the vile things that came out of his mouth.”

But anyhow my main point was that why should he apologise for saying something that a Jewish journalist (in article linked to above) not only goes out of his way to prove as the case, but also brags about too – he didn’t have to apologise. Why is it OK for a Jew to say what is quite frankly the bleeding obvious, but no one else?

I haven’t read the full interview because I think you have to subscribe to the Sunday Times to do that, but on the portions presented I cannot see anything anti-Semitic, and certainly nothing anywhere near holocaust denial.

From what I can see he accurately pointed out that the Russians suffered more dead in WW2 then the Jews and that the Israeli lobby is the most powerful in the US.

I would say the point he was trying to make was akin to that if Hollywood had, say, more Ukrainian dominance then Jewish, there would almost certainly be lots of films and focus on the Holodomor – the biggest genocide the world has ever seen and carried out by the communists 10 years before the Holocaust – and that people all over the world would know that at least it happened.

I cannot think of one Hollywood film on that greatest act of genocide in human history and anecdotal I know that very few people have any inkling of that horrific crime. I think that is the gist of the point he was making.

As an aside, technically if all of those Hollywood moguls listed by that Jewish journalist are ethnically Jewish – and I doubt they are religious converts, but feel free to prove me wrong – then they are actually Asian, rather then white.

Frank Partisan said...

Oliver Stone ruined my post, by making that dumb statement.

The South America movie, is ok if you are new to the subject. As a movie it doesn't have much emotional impact.

Daniel H-G: Entertainment was open to Jews, because Christians thought it was sinful. I find that to be a compliment.

I was uncomfortable with what Stone said.

His Bush movie was sympathetic to him.

Politically he was all over the place.

Sentinel: I'm an old guy. It was all over the Jewish community, that Ford was an antisemite. I'm not going to argue that he didn't apologize.

Genocide is a legalistic concept. Many don't agree the Ukrainian situation was genocide. Many Ukrainians fought with Hitler.

The best anti-Stalinist director is Ken Loach.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...


Stone did indeed ruin the post with his very dumb statement.

And with regards to the historical reasons why Jews are involved in entertainment, it's all good, not that it really matters at all. There are more non-Jews in entertainment than Jews.


Henry Ford was a prejudiced bigot and an anti-Semite, whether he said sorry or not is irrelevant, he still courted Hitler and Nazi Germany, not that he was alone in this but apologising after he was involved in such wilfully vile things makes little difference.

"The Passion of Christ" was an awful film, littered with Gibson's anti-Semitism, he is entitled to his opinions on the death of Christ (a Jew) but he is then open to be questioned on the anti-Semitism in the film, bearing in mind that the man is an avowed anti-Semite.

To repeat what I have already said:

There is no similarity between the linked article at the LA Times about Jewish people running various film companies (also, the executive roles do not mean they oversee every single part of the operation, there are more non-Jews in the film business, in all of the numerous departments, than Jews...but even typing that sentence makes me compelled to say, so what?) and Oliver Stone's anit-Semitic screed, for which he has apologised.

To repeat, the two are not the same thing and it has nothing to do with the authors and everything to do with the tone of the articles.

Stone himself has already confessed to the comments not being appropriate and apologising for the demeaning of the Holocaust. He meant them as insults and pejoratives.

As for comparing body counts, that is a pretty disgusting exercise in futility, does it really need explaining that the deaths of Russians mostly came about in direct warfare, not systematic racial extermination. There is a difference between the two things.

With regards to who is the most powerful lobby in America, that cannot be proven as a fact, it can be guessed at and obviously, Israel carries clout but any use of that as a pejorative is dangerous. The NRA, Pro-lifers and big business in all it's many forms also lobby fervently.

A list can be found here, out of date somewhat but covering the period 98-06 of lobbying expenditure.

The American film industry has been the largest in the world until recently with the rise of the film market in India. According to wikipedia 326 films have been made about the Holocaust, with 124 of them made in the USA, so a fair proportion but considering America's dominance in the film industry, I'm surprised it is not more.

Also, it would be odd if the world's greatest film industry was not making movies about one the world's most awful events in living memory. It is not a Jewish conspiracy.

To once again repeat my point, just because someone is ethnically Jewish, doesn't mean they are a practicing Jew. The suggestion that Jewishness is some kind of cabal and gang and that all Jews stick together and work together is a dangerous, offensive pejorative, one with deep roots in anti-Semitism.

Their Jewishness shouldn't be an issue, to Oliver Stone or anyone else for that matter, Jews are not a hegemony, a homogenous mass that thinks or works as one.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I agree with everything Daniel said here, with the one difference veeing I consider The Passion Of The Christ to be a pretty damn good film, which is just a difference in taste I guess.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

I have no idea whether Ford meant his apology or not; I was just pointing out the inaccuracy in the article.

But to perfectly frank, I find it absolutely bizarre that people find it perfectly acceptable to question the legitimacy of the Holodomor as a genocide, or any other aspect of it, when it is absolutely forbidden to do so with the Holocaust – indeed it is a criminal offence to do so in many countries.

I am not saying the legitimacy of the Holocaust should be questioned, what I am saying is that it is perfectly clear that the Communists tried to exterminate the Ukrainian people for resisting their policies.

It has been officially recognised as genocide by many countries - including the United States - and the Ukrainian government explains why it was a genocide in detail on an official site:


So why can people question or deny one with impunity, but in many places face jail for doing the same with the other?

Anomalies like these do not sit well with people.

As for many Ukrainians fighting for the Germans, this is true. Indeed many Ukrainians appeared to have enthusiastically embraced the violent anti-Semitic actions of that era too.

But nothing in history is ever black and white and these two pieces below may go some way to explain - certainly not to excuse – the perceptions that may have fuelled it.



The Sentinel said...


I didn’t say it mattered whether Ford said sorry or not. I merely pointed out that he did in fact say sorry contrary to the contention in that article.

I haven’t really watched Passions of the Christ, bits of it, it’s not really my thing but I would say the important issue really is if it is an accurate portrayal of the relevant tracts of the bible, as the release material claimed. If it is, then the bible would have be judged as anti-Semitic rather then Gibson.

I haven’t suggested any conspiracy, what I have said - and it would seem to be spot on - is that there are no Hollywood films of the biggest genocide in history and I would say it would be very safe to say that if Hollywood was constituted with as many Ukrainians rather then Jews there would be and that would seem to me to be the kind of point Stone was making; that would seem a perfectly natural and innocuous observation to me.

Maybe he could have sugar-coated his point or made it more eloquently. But I don’t think it would have made any difference.

Just as innocuous would be pointing out that that list that Jewish journalist produced wasn’t just a few companies, they are the main companies. In fact a chart produced in 2006 by some media site list the parent companies by ownership and the various subsidiaries they own that account for the vast majority of the worlds media output and showed that 5 out of the 6 were headed by Jews. Having briefly checked, it would seem to be factual, which would mean that what Stone said in that regard wasn’t inaccurate at all (and given his long career in that business I would imagine he knows a thing or two about it.)


So what is the real issue here? Is it a forbidden subject? Taboo? If so, how do you think that may help form perceptions?

To be an anti-Semite means to literally be anti-Jewish – pretty much all out hate - not to make some remarks that some people may not find tasteful.

I would personally say that Stone apologised to save his career rather then having such a dramatic and sudden change of heart.

As for AIPAC, I am not really going to bother dredging up statistics and so on unless anyone really wants to see them but a simple straw poll is to google ‘AIPAC US presidents’ and look at image output (below) and then do the same with the various other lobbyists.

Google output

And to be frank, Israel doesn’t help its own case in countering the perceptions that they frequently object to (nor that for the Diaspora) when its Foreign Ministers says things like this:

“The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office.

"Believe me, America accepts all our decisions," Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.”


Nor strangely titled articles like this one:


Frank Partisan said...

I agree with Daniel.

Sentinel: A Kurdish-Turkish blogger who comments here occasionally, told me about a conference on the Armenian genocide, near where I live. At the conference were 90% lawyers and law students. In the real world genocide is a legalistic concept.

The simple explanation for no Ukrainian holocaust movie, is that the cause and number of people killed is debatable.

The relationship between the US and Israel is dialectical. Overall Israel doesn't buck the US. Much of what Israel does, is rhetorical, as is what Iran does. The US will never allow Israel to bomb Iran, because Iran's help is needed in Iraq. If Israel goes to far, the US would abandon it in a heartbeat. The whole Middle East is fragile. Not one regime is stable.

I believe I posted about Passion when it came out.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

Pagan & Ren:



The author does not say that Ford didn't say sorry, he said that there was not much in the way of apologies from the collective bunch of anti-Semites he listed. There is a difference.

Why you feel the need to pick this out, I have no idea, it is to attempt to weaken the value of the article?

"Passions of the Christ" is not an accurate portrayal of the relevant tracts of the bible, all art is interpretation, Gibson embossed, enhanced and altered and many bits that appear have no basis in the Gospels at all, or are lifted from other sections of the bible and inserted 'out of order' and context.

The Bible is not anti-Semitic, it is a Jewish text but as the Christ cult has moved further and further away from its jewish roots, it has drifted into opposite ground and developed anti-Semtic elements.

You have already posited your opinion that Holodomor was genocide but it is just that, your opinion, an opinion not shared by everyone and for now, Holodomor is not considered a genocide.

So when you speak of no films of the biggest genocide in history, you are getting ahead of yourself, Holodomor wasn't a genocide.

Also, there have been many genocides that have not been turned into a great number of films, whether it be Cambodia or Rwanda, which for the volume of dead in the period of time far outstripped any other genocide.

This is not because Cambodian or Rwandan people are not involved in Hollywood, it is because is there a market in the US for those films? An interest? Some but not as much as there is a market and interest in films regarding the Holocaust.

Also, I am a little uncomfortable with talking of genocides in such a way, as in body counts and some bizarre equation where body count leads to film making. It is unsavoury.

Art does not work like that, other factors lead to making films.

I have already pointed out the differences between the two articles, if you do not agree then that is fine. If you cannot, or will not see that Oliver Stone was being anti-Semitic, than that is up to you.

As I have said, it is about inference, it is about context and it is about why you are saying it.

You cannot be ignorant Sentinel to the anti-Semitic myth of Jewish dominance? Of the Jewish clique and Jewish lobby? These are classic anti-Semetic attacks that are used to suggest that Jews runs the world and are some kind of hegemony and homogenous unit that has to be toppled.

It is dangerous stuff and Oliver Stone was treading that line. Also dangerous by the way, is trying to define anti-Semitism within your own parameters to fit your own opinions, which is what you are doing it seems to me.

You are guilty of upping the hate bar to let Stone slip under it, which means subtle and pervasive anti-Semitism (Jews have all the money, Jews run big business, Jews run Hollywood) can be fobbed off, when it is actually more dangerous than some pathetic moron calling someone a kike scumbag, or some such.

"I would personally say that Stone apologised to save his career rather then having such a dramatic and sudden change of heart."

Well, you would have that opinion because it fits your narrative that Stone has done no wrong, which is fine but we don't know that as fact do we?

Also, I do not find your Google image test to be an accurate measure of the influence of APIC upon the US government.

I will repeat that the US suffers from many, many lobby groups exerting huge influence, the APIC, no doubt, is one of them but it being the largest is clearly not the case with regards to money and in influence, unmeasurable.

The only area I agree with you on is that Israel certainly makes a rod for its own back with the way it talks of its special relationship with the US but what is said and what actually happens are tow very different things.

The Sentinel said...

Renegade Eye:

I have already provided the official Ukrainian stance on the Holodomor and the fact that is recognised as genocide by many countries – including the one you reside in.

Again, I find it absolutely bizarre that it seems entirely acceptable to question the cause and numbers of the Holodomor but not the Holocaust. And I am far from alone in this.

But aside from that, given the two pieces I linked to, does that go someway to explaining why so many Ukrainians may have perceived they were taking revenge not only in part for the genocide of 10 million of their people less then 10 years hence but also against the massively disproportionate numbers involved in the whole Communist murder, torture, oppression and gulag organisations?

It doesn’t excuse anything but it may explain the perceived reasoning and put historical context on an apparent paradox.

Out of interest were you aware of the information in the second article?

The Sentinel said...


By saying that Ford didn’t has “never done much in the way of apologizing” is to effectively say that Ford didn’t really apologise at all; but the fact is that he did apologise and his apology was accepted by a consensus of the majority of contemporary Jewish respondents.

I have already mentioned why I pointed this out: It was inaccurate.

I would be interested in which bits of the Passions of the Christ were ‘embossed, enhanced, altered and out of context’ as the main selling point of the film was its accuracy (I cannot find any specific examples of this allegation) down to the use of an ‘endangered’ language.

But the actual reason I raised this in the first place as a very odd assertion in that article…

“Gibson’s sin against Hollywood was producing 'The Passion of the Christ,' not the vile things that came out of his mouth”

… is that the article itself (and of course the Jewish author) was clearly expressing that Hollywood is a unified Jewish entity that is capable of taking collective offence at something it perceives to be hostile to it, and you seemed to agree with this stance commenting only what you believe to be the anti-Semitic nature of the film, tacitly agreeing with the reasoning behind the comment.

On the other point, whilst it is true that the Old Testament is a Hebrew tract, the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek around 50 years after Christ’s alleged death and by non-Jews – and it is in the New Testament we find the narrative of Christ and his demise.

It is not in fact, just my opinion that the Holodomor was genocide and that kind of assertion is effectively Holodomor Denial. The Holodomor was genocide – quite clearly in every sense of the word – and I have already mentioned that many countries officially recognise it as such including the United States, Australia, Canada and Spain, amongst others.

It is also incorporated into Ukrainian law that the Holodomor was genocide. I have already provided a link to the official Ukrainian position and explanation as to why this was a genocide of 10 million Ukrainians and if you are really going to deny the Holodomor point blank then you really should provide a detailed explanation as to why.

Offical Source


One thing is certain: It was the greatest mass-murder of innocent civilians carried out in recorded history and despite that, it would appear that not one Hollywood film has been made about the event – and so the point still stands – if Ukrainians occupied the same positions as Jews demonstrably do in that industry it is inconceivable that there would not be at least one film about it.

The Sentinel said...

I am not trying to define anti-Semitism – that has long been done and I merely conveyed the definition, but the meaning of the word is self evident by its pre-fix ‘anti’ – if what Stone said was true, and everything in the portions I have seen appears to be, then it was not anti-anything.

The reason I said I don’t think Stone really meant his apology is pretty obvious really in that I think most people would find it very unlikely that he would make these comments of what is clearly a strongly held opinion only to find that he didn’t really believe them after all only scores of hours later and after intense pressure to apologize in a career threatening storm.

As I said, if you really don’t believe AIPAC is the most powerful lobby in the US then I can dredge up some statistics and the like – I have seen much over the years – but if you had carried out that straw poll you would have found that pretty much every president for generations is pictured standing in front of dozens of different AIPAC backdrops on dozens of different occasions – I cannot find any similar output from the lobbies you listed.

But a more accurate measure would be the actions of the US. For instance, there have been 84 UN Resolutions condemning Israeli crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. But that number would have been 125 if it were not for the US – entirely alone – vetoing no less the 41 additional UN resolutions against Israel. How many other countries has it done this for? None.

(And Iraq had only one UN resolution against it, and even that was lie but we all know how that ended.)

But the only point I have been trying to make is that Stone only said what a Jewish journalist went out his way to prove – and that journalist didn’t have to apologise – and what Stone said in that regard would appear to be accurate given the information linked to above and the point he was making about the focus on the Holocaust was in relation to this.

Saying that more Russians were killed then Jews was also true, if not comparable.

But to believe that given that Jewish journalists list of Hollywood moguls (and the other source) that shared Jewish ethnicity, commonality and culture of the top men in the top companies plays no part whatsoever in Hollywood would be divorced from reality. It is quite natural that it does play a role.

It doesn’t mean that there are shadowy meetings behind closed doors of agenda based cohesive direction; it merely means that human nature and shared commonality provide a loose but tangible theme.

The concept of a non-conspiratorial yet nonetheless directed organizational theme is now firmly ingrained in the UK – and was enthusiastically lapped up by Liberals, and the ‘left’ in general – when describing the Met Police and entire sections of society as ‘institutionally racist.’

The basic idea is that no central meetings are held, no official direction is established but the ethnic make-up and commonality of culture and attitudes of the societal strand in question contributes to an overall tangible theme.

I am not saying that Hollywood is racist – it may be, I don’t know – what I am saying is that is already accepted as the conceptual norm there doesn’t have to be a physical conspiracy for an outcome of loose cohesion.

But at the end of the day, even the ADL has accepted Stone’s apology now so that should be him exonerated, no?


Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

This will be my final comment because otherwise this will just go on and on and on; the argument has already gotten totally circular with utter intransigence and repetition.

This post by Ren is not about Oliver Stone but about the movie that I am still going to go and see.

How far we have drifted off-topic is that we are still talking about Holodomor, which is indeed recognised as genocide by 12 countries and of course the Ukrainians but it's status as genocide is not universally accepted as such, so its official status is not as a genocide. It is that simple.

Also Sentinel, I'm sure you're aware of Ukraine's problem with anti-Semtism and also the allusion that Jews refuse to accept Holodomor as genocide so that the Holocaust maintains its privileged status.

This is all pretty vulgar and grotesque stuff.

It is a common tactic of anti-Semties to use Holodomor as a stick with which to beat Jews and the Holocaust. You must be aware of this tactic and this mis-use of the tragedy of Holodomor?

With regards to Ford (again, I can't believe we are even talking about this), your opinion is clear, you read whatever you wish into that sentence, to me it is not a full denial that Ford did not apologise, to you it is so you can attack the source. Also your presumption that he was forgiven by Jews all around the world is yet another assumption to fit your opinion. Thus the piece isn't inaccurate but you will protest it is.

With regards to "Passions of the Christ" (again, this is pointless) many elements in the film do not occur in the Gospels, other bits that are shown are taken from bits of the Old Testament but were not mentioned in the New. You'd know this if you'd seen it and read the bible. Here is one of many sources that prove Gibson and you wrong.

Again, your opinion of what Stone said is that he was not anti-Semitic, the opinion of many others is that it was and even Stone shares this opinion by apologising.

Once again you presume to know Oliver Stone's mind to fit your agenda.

Again, Google Image search does not cut it as a means by which to perpetuate the myth that Jews run the White House. You are treading a fine line yourself with regards to perpetuating these anti-Semetic myths, which is why I am withdrawing from the debate before it gets any messier.

I know you will not move from your position and I know that unless I withdraw, you will just keep commenting endlessly.

With regards to UN resolutions, we all know about those, that doesn't mean Jews run America. We all know that israel and the US has a special relationship.

You can justify Stone's anti-Semetic remarks all you wish but I think that reflects very badly on you.

I'm unsubscribing from the comments.

Frank Partisan said...

The endless circular threads are nightmare.

As soon as Oliver Stoner became the topic, the thread went to hell.

Considering the unique nature of this blog, with diversity of opinion across the political spectrum, the discussion is best narrow, only dealing with the matter of the post.

I have no particular stake in defending or bashing Stone. I have no reason to go in circles about Ukrainian genocide or Henry Ford.