Breaking ranks?
According to the Hindistani Times the US "has rejected the view aired by External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha that an Indian pre-emptive strike against Pakistan [would be] as justified as the one now being carried out by the US against Iraq." State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said "you can't - should never consider military force the first option. You should never consider that a situation has to be dealt with militarily. You should always look for other ways of dealing with it."
Is Boucher breaking ranks with the Bush doctrine of "if you're big enough, you can slap down whoever you want" or does the doctrine need an erratum note to add "do as we say, not as we do"?
Friday, April 11, 2003
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Water for conversion
The story so far:
Over the weekend, a number of the lefty blogs that I read carried a story about an army chaplain in Iraq. The story was by Meg Laughlin and syndicated by Knight-Ridder (and published in, at least, The San Jose Mercury and The Miami Herald) and concerned a chaplain named Josh Llano who had somehow found himself controlling a large quantity of water in a very hot and arid place. The story doesn't explain how he he found himself in this monopoly position. The good chaplain capitalized on his market dominance by insisting that any soldiers who want a bath must first sit through one of Llano's sermons (estimated at 90 minutes) and agree to be baptized (another hour). Laughlin treated the story as a cute human-interest piece about American entrepreneurship.
Most of the blogger response was outrage and disbelief (see Atrios, CalPundit, and Yglesias). And rightly so, I think. Some took action, tracked down the commanding general of the chaplain's corps, Maj. Gen. Gaylord T. Gunhus, and wrote complaints about Llano's behavior. American's United for Separation of Church and State, one of the premier religious liberty watchdog groups, had its legal department dash off their own letter. Gen. Gunhus promised an investigation and prompt action.
So far no one has managed to confirm the facts of the story or provide any follow up from Iraq. The whole business raises a bunch of questions. Does this guy really exist? How did he get a monopoly over that much water? The unit named is a supply unit; they should be handing water out, not sitting on it and making troops come beg to use it. In the article, Llano describes himself as a "Southern Baptist evangelist" and affiliated with the North American Mission Board, yet using coercion to gain converts is against their teaching. Is this just some late and not very funny April Fool's joke or reject from The Onion?
But if it is true, what's the big deal? Why do we lefties have our panties in such a collective bunch? After all, isn't the good chaplain just doing his job, doing what men of the cloth are supposed to do: using the tools at hand to try and save a few souls? Well no. That's not his job.
Chaplains are government employees. They get around the wall of separation by being regarded as necessary for the free practice of religion by the soldiers. Since the military is kept in a society that is often apart from many of the supporting institutions of civilian life, the government feels that it has an obligation to provide parallel institutions, so as not to create unnecessary, and possibly unconstitutional, hardship for the troops. Because soldiers are called on to work under extraordinary-potentially fatal-stresses, their desire for spiritual comfort is eminently reasonable. However, the responsibility of the government only extends as far as providing for the practice of a soldier's existing religion. The government does not have a duty to bring religion to those who do not have it. The government is strictly prohibited by the constitution from supporting one religion over any other. When a government employee uses his position to proselytize, he is in violation of the law. When he uses a strangle-hold over water in a climate with midday highs of 110 degrees to compel conversion he is in violation of common human decency.
Americans United's letter to the Army sums it up:
If there is an ounce of truth in the story, Chaplain Llano should be relieved of his position, shipped home, and subjected to the severest discipline available to the chaplain's corps. If the whole business is a hoax, someone needs to expose it as it is a terrible slander on an otherwise honorable and little publicised branch of the service.
The story so far:
Over the weekend, a number of the lefty blogs that I read carried a story about an army chaplain in Iraq. The story was by Meg Laughlin and syndicated by Knight-Ridder (and published in, at least, The San Jose Mercury and The Miami Herald) and concerned a chaplain named Josh Llano who had somehow found himself controlling a large quantity of water in a very hot and arid place. The story doesn't explain how he he found himself in this monopoly position. The good chaplain capitalized on his market dominance by insisting that any soldiers who want a bath must first sit through one of Llano's sermons (estimated at 90 minutes) and agree to be baptized (another hour). Laughlin treated the story as a cute human-interest piece about American entrepreneurship.
Most of the blogger response was outrage and disbelief (see Atrios, CalPundit, and Yglesias). And rightly so, I think. Some took action, tracked down the commanding general of the chaplain's corps, Maj. Gen. Gaylord T. Gunhus, and wrote complaints about Llano's behavior. American's United for Separation of Church and State, one of the premier religious liberty watchdog groups, had its legal department dash off their own letter. Gen. Gunhus promised an investigation and prompt action.
So far no one has managed to confirm the facts of the story or provide any follow up from Iraq. The whole business raises a bunch of questions. Does this guy really exist? How did he get a monopoly over that much water? The unit named is a supply unit; they should be handing water out, not sitting on it and making troops come beg to use it. In the article, Llano describes himself as a "Southern Baptist evangelist" and affiliated with the North American Mission Board, yet using coercion to gain converts is against their teaching. Is this just some late and not very funny April Fool's joke or reject from The Onion?
But if it is true, what's the big deal? Why do we lefties have our panties in such a collective bunch? After all, isn't the good chaplain just doing his job, doing what men of the cloth are supposed to do: using the tools at hand to try and save a few souls? Well no. That's not his job.
Chaplains are government employees. They get around the wall of separation by being regarded as necessary for the free practice of religion by the soldiers. Since the military is kept in a society that is often apart from many of the supporting institutions of civilian life, the government feels that it has an obligation to provide parallel institutions, so as not to create unnecessary, and possibly unconstitutional, hardship for the troops. Because soldiers are called on to work under extraordinary-potentially fatal-stresses, their desire for spiritual comfort is eminently reasonable. However, the responsibility of the government only extends as far as providing for the practice of a soldier's existing religion. The government does not have a duty to bring religion to those who do not have it. The government is strictly prohibited by the constitution from supporting one religion over any other. When a government employee uses his position to proselytize, he is in violation of the law. When he uses a strangle-hold over water in a climate with midday highs of 110 degrees to compel conversion he is in violation of common human decency.
Americans United's letter to the Army sums it up:
Especially at this time, it is imperative to be sensitive to the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of all our soldiers regardless of faith. In fact, that is one of the requirements of the job description of an army chaplain. According to the U.S. Army Chaplain Corps, a chaplain is required to be "[s]ensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army." Chaplain Llano's actions do not exemplify this commitment to religious pluralism and are therefore not in the best interest of our troops.
If there is an ounce of truth in the story, Chaplain Llano should be relieved of his position, shipped home, and subjected to the severest discipline available to the chaplain's corps. If the whole business is a hoax, someone needs to expose it as it is a terrible slander on an otherwise honorable and little publicised branch of the service.
The Bush revolution marches on
As with so many other things, the administration isn't even trying to hide its intentions anymore. They want to return us to some mythical "good old days" that they imagine existed before World War One. No unions. No income tax. Naked imperial power. Lesser peoples (women, foreigners, the non-rich) know their place. And equal public education...
This kind of naked reversal of all things that America stood for in the twentieth century outrages me. This man should not be able to hold any kind of public office. Yet, I imagine the public reaction will be deafening by its silence.
I'll have more on this tonight.
As with so many other things, the administration isn't even trying to hide its intentions anymore. They want to return us to some mythical "good old days" that they imagine existed before World War One. No unions. No income tax. Naked imperial power. Lesser peoples (women, foreigners, the non-rich) know their place. And equal public education...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's public education leader has drawn fire for expressing a preference for schools that appreciate "the values of the Christian community."
"The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system," Education Secretary Rod Paige said....
"In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values," he said.
"All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith," Paige said in the interview with Union University, a Baptist-affiliated school in Tennessee. "Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves."
To critics, Paige said, he would offer "my prayers."
This kind of naked reversal of all things that America stood for in the twentieth century outrages me. This man should not be able to hold any kind of public office. Yet, I imagine the public reaction will be deafening by its silence.
I'll have more on this tonight.
Monday, April 07, 2003
Quote of the day
The late, great Tom Lehrer gave an interview to The Sydney Morning Herald last weekend which proves that while he isn't late (a rumor he encourages in the forelorn hope that he'll get less junk mail if we all think he's dead), he's still great. When asked if he won't come out of retirement to satirize times that seem so ripe for it, he responded: "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W.Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirise George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporise them."
The late, great Tom Lehrer gave an interview to The Sydney Morning Herald last weekend which proves that while he isn't late (a rumor he encourages in the forelorn hope that he'll get less junk mail if we all think he's dead), he's still great. When asked if he won't come out of retirement to satirize times that seem so ripe for it, he responded: "I'm not tempted to write a song about George W.Bush. I couldn't figure out what sort of song I would write. That's the problem: I don't want to satirise George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporise them."
Sunday, April 06, 2003
I also hate it when this happens
Earlier that same Wednesday, I had thought about ignoring the real world for a while and taking up a subject that has rattled around in my mind for about a quarter century: an exposition of the value of discarding the right-left political scale for some sort of two axis analysis. Many of you can anticipate where this is going. Christian, the Mighty Reason Man, wrote my article before I could.
I came to find the traditional right-left scale flawed when I was in college in the seventies. The political science classes I took were strongly flavored by the then popular totalitarianism theories. These theories taught that ideology was meaningless at the extremes. All extremist governments behave the same: they become rights-denying, violent, and probably anti-Semitic dictatorships. Only the justifications differ. I still have one of my textbooks, ca. 1976. The back cover shows the right-left scale as a two-headed arrow, bent into a circle, with the names of countries around the perimeter. Red China and Burma pass each other at the extremes going in opposite directions. The US, of course, sits perfectly balanced at the center.
Aside from the obvious objections to this representation (ideology does matter, there are meaningful differences in communism and fascism, the US is not the golden mean), I was bothered by the lack of any place for an anti-state or anti-authoritarian philosophy. My first impulse was to draw a second circle for anarchists and libertarians of the right and left. The resulting figure eight looked stupid, so I spread the whole thing out into a graph with the previous four extremists at the corners. Authoritarian and anti-authoritarian-ness made the vertical axis to compliment the right-left scale.
I left it there for a couple years. A few weeks after the 1980 election, I thought about this idea again. I sat in a bar and doodled on cocktail napkins. At this point it occurred to me that leftness and rightness are highly subjective terms. What, I asked myself, is this thing we represent on this scale? To this day, I don’t have a clear answer. Every few years I try something different and then map different political philosophies and parties onto the chart. I also usually draw the current spectrum of American politics onto the chart, producing some interesting curves.
One of the best fits is to say the left-right axis represents a scale of collectivism-individualism. Collectivist-authoritarianism is state communism. Collectivist-anti-authoritarianism is some form of highly democratic anarchist commune. Individualist- anti-authoritarianism is something similar to Ayn Rand libertarianism. Individualist-authoritarianism is similar to a “triumph of the will” sort of fascism. Populism can be all over the chart.
One final note: when I returned for graduate school (in Balkan history) during the late eighties, I found a couple books that used the two-axis method for modeling factions in political groups. None of them seemed to feel that the chart needed to have a citation, so I don’t know if this is a common idea among hard core political philosophy people or not. The earliest use of it I’ve seen is from the late fifties. I'd love to know if this chart has a name and what the axes usually are.
Earlier that same Wednesday, I had thought about ignoring the real world for a while and taking up a subject that has rattled around in my mind for about a quarter century: an exposition of the value of discarding the right-left political scale for some sort of two axis analysis. Many of you can anticipate where this is going. Christian, the Mighty Reason Man, wrote my article before I could.
I came to find the traditional right-left scale flawed when I was in college in the seventies. The political science classes I took were strongly flavored by the then popular totalitarianism theories. These theories taught that ideology was meaningless at the extremes. All extremist governments behave the same: they become rights-denying, violent, and probably anti-Semitic dictatorships. Only the justifications differ. I still have one of my textbooks, ca. 1976. The back cover shows the right-left scale as a two-headed arrow, bent into a circle, with the names of countries around the perimeter. Red China and Burma pass each other at the extremes going in opposite directions. The US, of course, sits perfectly balanced at the center.
Aside from the obvious objections to this representation (ideology does matter, there are meaningful differences in communism and fascism, the US is not the golden mean), I was bothered by the lack of any place for an anti-state or anti-authoritarian philosophy. My first impulse was to draw a second circle for anarchists and libertarians of the right and left. The resulting figure eight looked stupid, so I spread the whole thing out into a graph with the previous four extremists at the corners. Authoritarian and anti-authoritarian-ness made the vertical axis to compliment the right-left scale.
I left it there for a couple years. A few weeks after the 1980 election, I thought about this idea again. I sat in a bar and doodled on cocktail napkins. At this point it occurred to me that leftness and rightness are highly subjective terms. What, I asked myself, is this thing we represent on this scale? To this day, I don’t have a clear answer. Every few years I try something different and then map different political philosophies and parties onto the chart. I also usually draw the current spectrum of American politics onto the chart, producing some interesting curves.
One of the best fits is to say the left-right axis represents a scale of collectivism-individualism. Collectivist-authoritarianism is state communism. Collectivist-anti-authoritarianism is some form of highly democratic anarchist commune. Individualist- anti-authoritarianism is something similar to Ayn Rand libertarianism. Individualist-authoritarianism is similar to a “triumph of the will” sort of fascism. Populism can be all over the chart.
One final note: when I returned for graduate school (in Balkan history) during the late eighties, I found a couple books that used the two-axis method for modeling factions in political groups. None of them seemed to feel that the chart needed to have a citation, so I don’t know if this is a common idea among hard core political philosophy people or not. The earliest use of it I’ve seen is from the late fifties. I'd love to know if this chart has a name and what the axes usually are.
Friday, April 04, 2003
I hate it when this happens
Wednesday my wife and I were staying home with a head cold (yes, one head cold. Two heads, one head cold, it's that kind of a marriage). I was online reading the blogs through my snot-clouded brain. I thought, since I'm not capable of nuanced socio-political thought, this would be a good day to write about my choice of blog title: why Archie. I went and got my most recent copy of Archy and Mehitabel. At this point the love of my life walked up, looked over my shoulder at the blog masthead, and said, "isn't Archy spelled with a 'Y'?"
"What?" I inquired, in the spirit of intellectual discourse. "Oh crap!" I conceded.
And so, my friends, as we sadly go to our blogroles to remove the late and lamented "Left in the West," please take a moment to correct the spelling of Archy. It is spelled with a 'Y.'
Wednesday my wife and I were staying home with a head cold (yes, one head cold. Two heads, one head cold, it's that kind of a marriage). I was online reading the blogs through my snot-clouded brain. I thought, since I'm not capable of nuanced socio-political thought, this would be a good day to write about my choice of blog title: why Archie. I went and got my most recent copy of Archy and Mehitabel. At this point the love of my life walked up, looked over my shoulder at the blog masthead, and said, "isn't Archy spelled with a 'Y'?"
"What?" I inquired, in the spirit of intellectual discourse. "Oh crap!" I conceded.
And so, my friends, as we sadly go to our blogroles to remove the late and lamented "Left in the West," please take a moment to correct the spelling of Archy. It is spelled with a 'Y.'
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
Some notes on fascism, note 2
I have two words for you
After all our discussion of fascism, I'm not sure the word has any practical use in the situation we face. I'm speaking just of the word. I say this for two reasons.
First, the other side won't play along with us. Even if my worst paranoid fantasies come true and we have a police state by summer, they will not put on the black and brown shirts. They will not use the swastika. They will not put the politicians in uniforms. When they take umbrage at the word they will be genuine and sincere, because they will not see themselves as fascists.
Second, for the last forty years lefties of all stripes have so generously spread the word around that it has become a parody. Now that rightists are using it for any lefties to whom they object, it really is a joke. However accurate and perceptive its application may be, it has no impact on most audiences.
Imperialism has the same problem. We ruined it through overuse. By calling even silly exercises of authority like restaurant dress codes "fascist" or "imperialist" we have denied ourselves the use of the terms when faced with real fascists and imperialists. In the coming days, as we try to oppose these trends in our society, we will need to make up a new vocabulary.
I'm open for suggestions.
I have two words for you
After all our discussion of fascism, I'm not sure the word has any practical use in the situation we face. I'm speaking just of the word. I say this for two reasons.
First, the other side won't play along with us. Even if my worst paranoid fantasies come true and we have a police state by summer, they will not put on the black and brown shirts. They will not use the swastika. They will not put the politicians in uniforms. When they take umbrage at the word they will be genuine and sincere, because they will not see themselves as fascists.
Second, for the last forty years lefties of all stripes have so generously spread the word around that it has become a parody. Now that rightists are using it for any lefties to whom they object, it really is a joke. However accurate and perceptive its application may be, it has no impact on most audiences.
Imperialism has the same problem. We ruined it through overuse. By calling even silly exercises of authority like restaurant dress codes "fascist" or "imperialist" we have denied ourselves the use of the terms when faced with real fascists and imperialists. In the coming days, as we try to oppose these trends in our society, we will need to make up a new vocabulary.
I'm open for suggestions.
Some notes on fascism, note 1
Don't panic yet, but do be ready to make panicy noises
I promised some thoughts on my friend David Neiwert's series on fascism. David did an excellent job of discussing what it is and identifying some fascist trends in current political discourse. From my perspective, the most important part of his series were those parts that examined how ideas can migrate inward from a previously isolated fringe to be given reputability nearer the center. In part, this process is carried out through a marriage of convenience whereby groups on the fringe mutually exploit each other. This is not always a bad thing. Just because groups are relegated to the fringe does not always mean their ideas are bad. The fringe is often the incubator of new ideas (universal adult suffrage, abolition of slavery, and social security all started as dangerous extremist ideas).
Just so this doesn't get too abstract, let's be clear that we are talking about the Republican Party and the far right (although the same model works for the Democrats and the far left off and on from the 1890's to the 1970's). Since the Southern Strategy of the sixties, the Republican Party has played wink and nod with the far right to get their votes. The unplanned for result is that as these people vote and move into the party they have slowly become a more important part of it. As liberal Republicans ceased to exist and moderate Republicans have become an endangered species it has become a whole new party.
The party has absorbed racists, supply-siders, and fundamentalists. It has now moved far enough right that it is in direct contact with a potentially violent antidemocratic and xenophobic crowd. By most definitions, the Republicans are now rather openly flirting with fascists. They are, however, not themselves fascists (though a few individuals may as close as makes no difference).
The danger to our republic is that the far right is now offering to perform street-thug services for the administration. Right now it is all in a wink and nod spirit of plausibly denied "kidding" from talk radio hosts. That may change if the war goes really bad (today the Army started getting us ready for large casualties as we move to besiege Baghdad). When their exhortations to their listeners to break a few liberal heads escalate to serious violence, the administration could move to criminalize dissent in the name of public safety. This administration has shown itself eager to have us trade our freedoms for security. Already various laws have been proposed and hinted at that could do just that (Patriot II and the Oregon law to call blocking traffic an act of terrorism).
Are we just weeks away from a martial law, cancelled elections, and an overtly fascist dictatorship? Probably not. But we are on a very ugly trajectory and need have some sort of national dialog on what our country will be in this century. Already the international order has been irreparably changed in a cloud of spin and misdirection. We may be becoming an empire with all of the burdens and costs that that entails. Our representatives let themselves be stampeded into passing the first Patriot act in some cases without even reading it. Despite the damage that it did to the Bill of Rights, it was not enough for the administration. They hold numerous prisoners without observing any legal niceties-even citizens-and they want an expanded Patriot act to give them even more arbitrary power. We've seen that their ideal judge has some very scary ideas on the nature of sovereignty and rights.
It would be nice if the Democratic candidates took up the burden of conducting this dialog. It's not enough to hope that they will reverse everything after January 20, 2005. They need to use the bully pulpit of the election circuit to force the administration to defend its direction. The press needs to ask hard questions and shine some very bright lights on the working of this administration.
I'm not sure the candidates or the press are inclined to conduct this dialog without some pushing from below. I guess this is where we come in.
Don't panic yet, but do be ready to make panicy noises
I promised some thoughts on my friend David Neiwert's series on fascism. David did an excellent job of discussing what it is and identifying some fascist trends in current political discourse. From my perspective, the most important part of his series were those parts that examined how ideas can migrate inward from a previously isolated fringe to be given reputability nearer the center. In part, this process is carried out through a marriage of convenience whereby groups on the fringe mutually exploit each other. This is not always a bad thing. Just because groups are relegated to the fringe does not always mean their ideas are bad. The fringe is often the incubator of new ideas (universal adult suffrage, abolition of slavery, and social security all started as dangerous extremist ideas).
Just so this doesn't get too abstract, let's be clear that we are talking about the Republican Party and the far right (although the same model works for the Democrats and the far left off and on from the 1890's to the 1970's). Since the Southern Strategy of the sixties, the Republican Party has played wink and nod with the far right to get their votes. The unplanned for result is that as these people vote and move into the party they have slowly become a more important part of it. As liberal Republicans ceased to exist and moderate Republicans have become an endangered species it has become a whole new party.
The party has absorbed racists, supply-siders, and fundamentalists. It has now moved far enough right that it is in direct contact with a potentially violent antidemocratic and xenophobic crowd. By most definitions, the Republicans are now rather openly flirting with fascists. They are, however, not themselves fascists (though a few individuals may as close as makes no difference).
The danger to our republic is that the far right is now offering to perform street-thug services for the administration. Right now it is all in a wink and nod spirit of plausibly denied "kidding" from talk radio hosts. That may change if the war goes really bad (today the Army started getting us ready for large casualties as we move to besiege Baghdad). When their exhortations to their listeners to break a few liberal heads escalate to serious violence, the administration could move to criminalize dissent in the name of public safety. This administration has shown itself eager to have us trade our freedoms for security. Already various laws have been proposed and hinted at that could do just that (Patriot II and the Oregon law to call blocking traffic an act of terrorism).
Are we just weeks away from a martial law, cancelled elections, and an overtly fascist dictatorship? Probably not. But we are on a very ugly trajectory and need have some sort of national dialog on what our country will be in this century. Already the international order has been irreparably changed in a cloud of spin and misdirection. We may be becoming an empire with all of the burdens and costs that that entails. Our representatives let themselves be stampeded into passing the first Patriot act in some cases without even reading it. Despite the damage that it did to the Bill of Rights, it was not enough for the administration. They hold numerous prisoners without observing any legal niceties-even citizens-and they want an expanded Patriot act to give them even more arbitrary power. We've seen that their ideal judge has some very scary ideas on the nature of sovereignty and rights.
It would be nice if the Democratic candidates took up the burden of conducting this dialog. It's not enough to hope that they will reverse everything after January 20, 2005. They need to use the bully pulpit of the election circuit to force the administration to defend its direction. The press needs to ask hard questions and shine some very bright lights on the working of this administration.
I'm not sure the candidates or the press are inclined to conduct this dialog without some pushing from below. I guess this is where we come in.
Call for nominations
Reuters had a little story this morning:
In the published transcript the Department of Defense amended her comment to read: “the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before [SIC -- is one of the worst in history].” Now whether we call Saddam the worst dictator ever, one of the worst, orpPretty bad for that neighborhood is not a something that should be determined by military/industrial complex bureaucrats or by reporter. It should be determined by middle-aged history graduate students over vast quantities of beer. Lacking that, dear friends, I turn this over to you.
I’m putting out a call for nominations for worst dictator ever. All nominations must be accompanied by the reasons this nominee deserves this honor. Feel free to create subcategories (worst dressed, most insane, evilest). Also feel free to engage in pointless digressions on the proper criteria for determining “worst.” Prizes will be given for obscurity of historical references.
Reuters had a little story this morning:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Forget Stalin or Hitler
The worst ruler in world history is Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon says.
"The Iraqi people will be free of decades and decades and decades of torture and oppression the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told a Pentagon news conference on Monday.
Clarke's comment was in line with a mounting stream of comments from Washington that have demonised the Iraqi leader as U.S. and British troops now look as if they may take longer than expected in removing him from power.
Saddam has been condemned for his exceptional brutality against his own people but historians generally agree that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and Soviet leader Josef Stalin were responsible for killing more people than any other dictators in world history.
In the published transcript the Department of Defense amended her comment to read: “the likes of which I think the world has not ever seen before [SIC -- is one of the worst in history].” Now whether we call Saddam the worst dictator ever, one of the worst, orpPretty bad for that neighborhood is not a something that should be determined by military/industrial complex bureaucrats or by reporter. It should be determined by middle-aged history graduate students over vast quantities of beer. Lacking that, dear friends, I turn this over to you.
I’m putting out a call for nominations for worst dictator ever. All nominations must be accompanied by the reasons this nominee deserves this honor. Feel free to create subcategories (worst dressed, most insane, evilest). Also feel free to engage in pointless digressions on the proper criteria for determining “worst.” Prizes will be given for obscurity of historical references.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
