Slashdot Mirror
Washington Post: Criticizing Leaders is Wrong
Dazan writes: "The Washington Post has an interesting op-ed piece on its website today, Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bank. The Post, a popular liberal paper, says that now that Paul Wolfowitz is heading the World Bank, 'People... should think carefully before they damage [the Bank] by attacking its new boss,' and that bringing up Wolfowitz's record is unhealthy. Of course it doesn't hurt for us all to watch what we say, expecially our newspapers. What does the Slashdot community think?"
The Cold War is over, one hero lies dying, one monster is elevated to a position to restrict the flow of aid to countries which don't fall into line. Call a Spade a Spade. That's what the 1st Amendment is really for.
Be near me when my light is low,
When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick
And tingle; and the heart is sick,
And all the wheels of Being slow. -Tennyson
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...but "liberal" newspapers often have conservative stuff show up on their op-ed page -- witness David Brooks @ NYT.
I mean, come on, why the hell would a Pentagon official, the very guy who started the Iraq War, be a good person to help 3rd world countries? Does this suggest something? Am I thinking what you're thinking?
The Slashdot community really, really wishes that the Slashdot management would stop posting flamebait stories to drive up page views.
"What does the Slashdot community think?"
Well, at the speed new stories are being posted, this one will scroll off the main page before anyon...
Screw Pope
Screw RMS
Screw Blair
Screw Putin
Screw April
Screw May
Screw that nice looking chick across the street
aah, screw it.
You can't handle the truth.
The fact that you have a right to say something doesn't mean that it's right to say that thing. There's such a thing as restraint, you know?
Reasonable people can differ on what things it's okay to say. But all people should be able to agree that restraint is a virtue.
The submitter seemed to read what seemed to fit his view. The quote with context:
To be more precise, the article (for those of you who haven't read it) says that Wolfowitz should not be prematurely criticized because of his role in the Iraq war.
All the Washington Post's editors are saying is that we should criticize him for the work he does at the World Bank, not for past deeds.
-David Ziegler
-
... wait a minute ... it isn't
Two thoughts:
#1 What a sublime joke from the Slashdot editors, slipping in a real news article among the obvious jokes. A NASA paper airplane is far more believable than thinking the Washington Post editoralizing like Pravda. I was suitably misled.
#2 Be afraid for our nation. Be very afraid.
The article doesn't suggest that criticising leaders is wrong in any way. What it does suggest is that perhaps Europeans were somewhat hypocritical in their objections to Wolfowitz.
Once again we're forced to recognise that 'there are no good guys' in government -- either American or European.
Yes it is wrong for the Europeans to be *more* critical of Wolfowitz than any other European candidate (as European selection processes and motivations are no more or less egalitarian than America's). But what we should (and by 'we' I mean Europeans and Americans) all be doing is being more critical of leadership in general.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
The guy is saying don't criticize Wolfowitz just because of his connection to the Iraqi War, wait until he has actually started doing something within the bank and see what he does. He might not be evil after all, is the hope of the editor, I believe.
I don't believe that skeleton autopsies will matter much considering the menagerie we currently have at the UN from all countries.
...?
Dialog at this point is best limited to the following:
o What is your agenda in solving this problem with
o What mistakes will you try to avoid in your new role?
o How will you build consensus with other world players?
o How will make the results of your department visible to the world and insure that all transactions are on the up-and-up?
o To what special interests are you beholden to?
o Under what circumstances/conflicts would you resign to protect the World Bank?
(Yes I am being blisfully ignorant of his past.)
(Perhaps this would be snowballed into a Slashdot Interview.B=)
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
So if the guy's a dangerous, unprincipled hack, with a history of putting corporate profit ahead of human rights and life, we should just ignore all the past evidence of that and wait and see what happens when he runs the freaking World Bank?!
Freedom: "I won't!"
No one noticed that this editorial is from _yesterday_? "Thursday, March 31, 2005"
Bush may be a moron, but his administration isn't stupid. When they appoint people like Wolfowitz or Bolton to participate in international organizations, they know full well what the consequences are inevitably going to be.
If people acquiesce like the WP suggests, then you just let these people get away with murder. If you speak up and expose these people for what they are, then you do indeed risk of damaging those organizations, but if people like those can come to power in those organizations, then maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with the way those organizations are set up, and maybe those organizations should be replaced.
Pre-emptive war is ok, but pre-emptive criticism is bad?!
The article says that the World will approved a highly controversial dam in Laos, noting that this dam will endanger the environment and the indigenous people's lifestyle. In the past projects similar to this have been shown to have caused irreperable damage to the environment. And how does the article justify this? Laos needs 'electricity and development'. A dam like this isn't going to improve the quality of life overnight. There are far more effective ways to help developing countries, both economically and environmentally. I really don't understand why the World Bank keeps on pushing dangerous projects like this without any recourse to common sense.
And then "People who care about this institution and its mission -- as many of Mr. Wolfowitz's detractors do -- should think carefully before they damage it by attacking its new boss." I think that statement is hugely inflated with hyperbole. I say that leaders should be criticised. No leader is going to do things in such a way as to satisfy everybody, and so if a leader exists that doesn't have their detractors, I'd say that's a fair indication that somebody is suppressing free speech. And by telling people not to criticise Wolfowitz, that's exactly what the Post is trying to do. Sure, it's a very minor attempt, and not entirely effective, but that's how these things always start out, with little insignificant things. And lets face it, Wolfowitz has done some bad things in the past, so there is no reason why he shouldn't be criticised.
This article also assumes that the people doing the 'attacking' do care about the institution. I certainly don't. I reckon we'd all me much better off if the World Bank had never existed. I read another comment saying how the World Bank shouldn't cancel the debts of developing countries, because their whole purpose is to give out loans. But this comment misses a very fundamental point. Banks don't give out loans to people who can't repay them. For a start it's not ethical. And yet the World Bank encourages the developing countries to take out huge loans, knowing that these countries would be indebted to them for ever. That's right, interest on these loans is piling up faster than the countries can repay, so the loans will never be paid off. If any normal bank tried a scam like this, they'd be in court faster than you can scream "Cancel the debt!" If developing countries had been allowed to develop at their own pace, without any meddling from oppurtunistic money grabbers like this, they would be far more developed than they are now.
Santa's suicide mission go!