|
December 04, 2006
How about a little moral equivalancy?
Speaking of hackery, I have a question: when elderly murderous tyrants are dying, what should journalists say about them? Are there rules? Is it, like "have respect for the anticipatorily deceased?" The reason I'm asking is because two elderly murderous tyrants are getting close to the being returned to their maker (if you believe they had one and he'll take them), and the media doesn't refer to them in quite the same way. Without getting into which tyrant was better, here's one: Castro, who has ruled Cuba since 1959, was too sick to attend his belated 80th-birthday celebrations last week, and he is widely believed to be terminally ill. Citing "an acute intestinal crisis, with sustained bleeding," he temporarily transferred his powers as president and Communist Party first secretary to his younger brother Raul, the defense minister, on July 31. He has since been seen by the public only in videos and photos.And here's the other: SANTIAGO, Chile - Gen. Augusto Pinochet, whose 17-year dictatorship carried out thousands of political killings and widespread torture, was fighting for his life last night in a Chilean hospital after suffering a heart attack early yesterday. But doctors said his condition was improving after an emergency procedure to restore blood flow to his heart.Same day, same paper. But if you read them both (and didn't know much history), you might think that General Pinochet was the only dictator who killed thousands. And that the only torture in Cuba is carried out by the United States at Guantanamo. While Pinochet killed 3,000, Castro has him beaten by far. From the Miami Herald: ...[T]he Cuba Archive puts a human face on the people who have suffered at the hands of the revolution. The individual stories show the lie of Fidel Castro's benevolent society and counter the revolution's propaganda with facts.According to the Rettig Human Rights Commission Report Pinochet's tally is 3,000 -- close to the number of people Castro killed before he even took power. Castro killed ten times more people than Pinochet, yet the stories make it appear that Pinochet was ten times worse. If only the newspapers could engage in a little moral equivalency! What do I have to do? Design another T-shirt? posted by Eric on 12.04.06 at 07:54 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The right to be irrational?
I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts art not codes?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
And in Pinochet's defence, those killed by his troops were by and large communist revolutionaries trying to impose a Castro style dictatorship by force of arms.
By our standards, living without the threat of communist revolution, it doesn't entirely justify widespread extra-judicial executions but, looking at the murderous and pernicious Castro regime, it does put them in perspective.
Reluctant as I am to embrace the bogeyman of my youth, there's a heroic quality to Pinochet. At a time when communist tyranny seemed the destiny of every South American country, he totally eliminated that threat in Chile, at the cost of being ranked alongside Hitler, Atilla the Hun and Pontius Pilate.