Does anyone else think it is remarkable that when their wars turned south, both Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz were ‘fired’ by being offered a position as head of the World Bank?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Well, they WERE experts in harming third world countries, so maybe it makes sense.
My brother didn`t have much good to say about Wolfowitz.
He should know about affairs involving the World Bank, having been a major player(read the head of) in the Bank of North African States, (I might have the title wrong) & lived in Tunis for five years while holding his position.{ He spent his whole working career working in third world countries, from when I brought him to Dorval Airport, (Montreal Canada) in 1968/9(my mind is weakened) when he was shipping out to Mali.}
He returned a few years ago, but suffered a heart attack on the way to work, at the United Nations building in New York, as a consul from the Canadian delegation/mission.
Thankfully he is OK now but retired. I`m happy for him.
He is my brother.
Instead of war criminals, which I consider Wolfowitz to be, along with McNamara, (speak well of the dead, not withstanding) my brother would not have lent his name to an organization that blackmailed countries into concessions, without working from within, to actually do good, as best he could.
He is my hero.
Hey Frankie.
What is up with that “don’t speak ill of the dead” business. I mean, it’s OK to say whatever you want while they’re alive, but once they’re dead you have to shut up? Does that mean that if George W. Bush dies he stops being a stupid, narcissistic, incompetent, lying criminal?
I don’t get it.
I was once told by an elderly family member that if you spoke ill of the dead you were just inviting them to show up and haunt you so it was better just to not say anything at all. I don’t know if that is a widespread superstition or not – the only folks I’ve ever known who thought that way are all long dead now.
I’ve always thought that the “don’t speak ill of the dead” thing was just an extension of the Golden Rule (“Do unto others…”) mixed with a bit of the wisdom of the philosopher Thumper the Rabbit (“If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all”). I don’t tend to stick with it myself since I’m not superstitious, I don’t really care what people say about me after I’m dead (I’ll be dead, WTF do I care?), and I’ve never thought much of the wisdom of rabbit philosophers other than Bugs.
OK, I can understand it as a superstition, but seriously, if a person was an evil a**** while alive, dying does not change that. Furthermore, it’s a WHOLE lot safer to speak ill of a person who will never find out what you said about him than one who will and might seek revenge!
I think “don’t speak ill of the living, wait ’til they’re dead” is much more sensible and practical!
Hurria,
It is just something that was mentioned to me by a seven year old neighbor boy, when, as 14 year olds, myself & a few friends, may have said some not so nice, things about a local person who had died.
I always remembered being schooled by a young boy.
He was right, at the time, & as I grew older, realized that I had harbored unwarranted prejudice against the one who had died.
I therefore try to keep that in mind, when some has passed away, out of respect for the ones who survive the dead person, who may be hurt by my comments, & who were never party to the actions of the deceased.
I understand the animosity towards someone who has caused much harm, but I prefer to speak truth to them when they are alive, & rejoice that they can no longer cause harm, once deceased.
My policy is a personal one & is never meant to defend the monsters of history.
I wouldn’t speak ill of someone to those who would be hurt by it, whether the person is alive or dead. I just don’t see how a person’s being dead should make them immune to criticism they earned while alive.
Immunity from criticism should not stop because of death, for as we all know, some decisions made by the living, may affect others long after the death of the decider.
There are many people who I shall never tire of deriding, but always with the caveat of, striving to not hurt those who would be incidental recipients of my harsh words.
I only strive to temper my anger. Things I`ve done in the past should not be placed upon the heads of my children. It`s really a personal battle I fight, with myself.
It is not ever meant to be a judgement on others, many who may be victims of inhumane decisions, by now dead people.
.
My understanding it refers to speaking in a slanderous manner of someone who can’t defend him/herself, similar to gossip.
Some thoughts
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thank you very much.
Slander and malicious gossip are equally wrong whether the subject is alive or dead.
nonynony
That`s quite a humorous take on it, though with a ring of sensitivity.
One must always remember that Karma is a boomerang, no matter if it was thrown by a rabbit.