Laughing at Dictators
Sometimes It's all you can do
By Ericka Andersen Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Time Magazine revealed Russia's Vladmir Putin as their "Man of the Year," so I thought it only appropriate to roll out some humor. Sometimes a writer or artist can capture irony so clearly and in this case, it must be shared.
 |
As dictators gather more power, aligning dedicated soldiers to their right and left, they resign themselves to a continually jaded perspective of the world. One notable characteristic being their notorious wealth in the midst of a poverty-stricken country.
Despite corrupt agendas and money grubbing tactics, some dictators (and often murderers) receive support from the free world. Sean Penn and Naomi Campbell both visited Hugo Chavez and American college students tout Che Guevera t-shirts as if he were a trendy peacemaker to emulate.
 |
I cannot delete the image of Barbara Walters hugging Chavez after an interview. Ugh. But recently, a Venezuelan cartoonist hit the mark with three depictions. She was inspired to create them after the Interior Minister Pedro Carroña was caught wearing a Louis Vuitton tie.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Rep Joe Donnelly continues to bite the hand that claims to have fed him. — Comments (6) »
Laughing at Dictators 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You don't have to like the guy to think he has made a major impact on the world this year, and I'm pretty sure no one at Time would say that they admire the man.
I think the problem with Petraeus is that it is so soon after the success of the surge. Too much can change too quickly; the risk is too great that things turn sour. He would be a great choice for next year, though, assuming things continue on the current path.
It's easy to blame media bias, but it's also important to note that they are calling the Gorical their first runner-up. If they were really deranged, he would have won. Putin was a solid, responsible choice.
Where is your logic exactly?
General Petraeus has taken a country on the brink of all out chaos and has turned it around entirely and with it he has beaten back some of the worst terrorists in the world. He has held back nations on each border and he has done all of this with almost no help from the central government that is supposed to be doing the work he is doing.
How exactly is Putin's accomplishment more extraordinary.
Putin is a provacative choice, but in no way has he had the impact that Petraeus has had.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
it's just that picking Petraeus is a risk, and I can understand why Time would be worried about looking stupid if the progress in Iraq were to stall or reverse itself. You could have called the Titanic the "ship of the year" in 1911 or you could wait a while and see how things work out. I'm not saying that I think Iraq will fall apart again, but it is so early and we've seen evidence of progress before. Caution is warranted because it isn't over yet -- future events will either enhance or diminish Petraeus' role.
As for Putin, his story is largely written, and there is little chance that future actions will change our overall understanding of events. It isn't so much what has happened this year, but an overall look at his total term in office, triggered by his act of "stepping down" (which, of course, is an act). He came into a fledgling democracy and economic basketcase, and transformed it into an authoritarian economic basketcase. He brought Russia out of the Bolsheviks and back to the Tsars. He is even reasserting control over the freed nations of eastern Europe.
Now he's voluntarily giving up power, unheard of for his type of leader. He's clearly leaving himself a powerful role in Russia's future, but the act of allowing someone else to lead the nation is, again, pretty remarkable.
I'm just glad Time didn't choose me again. The press last year was awful.
the Russian people turn on Putin what then. What is your point? No one knows the future and Putin is no less likely to hold onto his gains next year than Petraeus. Your arguement is the perfect example of what I would refer to as a straw man's arguement. Everyone could have whatever accomplishments wiped out in the future. So what? Why is this suddenly a risk for Petraeus but not for anyone else?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Any issue with that? For years liberals have talked about how we (The US) need to do more in this world. Fighting a war, giving your blood every day, rebuilding infrastructure, providing food, healthcare, safety, etc., etc. Certainly, all worthy of accolades, since the end result is a safer world and a large population which each day knows more that it can trust us, no?
Instead, we get a communist dictator who uses murder, subjugation, intimidation, petro-terrorism, military threats, weapons proliferation (nuclear and conventional) as man of the year because his actions make an impact? Please using that standard, we could probably qualify the worst human beings ever existing as "man of the year".
No wonder that magazine is better used as birdcage liner...
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
The American soldier is not an individual but a group and thus it is against the logic of Man, not Men, of the year.
Since those soldiers are lead by one man who is singularly responsible for the plan they are carrying out, it makes more sense to give the award to their leader, General David Patreaus.
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
The American Soldier was Time's Man of the Year in 2003.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
You guys deserve to start working on a "Hat Trick".
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Petraeus gets it next year, after he has actually WON.
"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus
I must have dozed off because I don't remember Putin doing anything but mouthing off.
Dude even has a restaurant in his honor here in Dallas. My jaw dropped when I first saw it. It's got his picture on the sign, just like the t-shirts. I wonder how many of their patrons even know who this clown is. One of these days I'll take a pic of the place. If you're in the area, you can see it here.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
what is the deal? What is his story and why are some so fascinated with him?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
Homeboy of Castro. Responsible for the deaths of hundreds of military & civilian leaders associated with the previous Cuban regime. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Why do I see so many people wearing shirts with his picture? Is it some sort of a populist message?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
do you think some people see him as some sort of an updated version of William Wallace roaming the countryside protecting the commoners against tyrants?
Always tell the truth, George; it's the easiest thing to remember.
They see him as a revolutionary, an anti-establishment sort of fellow. It's puzzling. I've been searching the internet this afternoon trying to figure it out myself and I haven't come up with an answer except to say that I don't think most of the people wearing his t-shirt know anything about who he was or what he did. It seems like a fashion statement more than anything else, like Madonna wearing a crucifix.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
To me this is the MSM showing their solidarity with Putin and nothing more. Both are America haters that look to undermine us with every possibility that presents itself. The fact that China's Hu was a runner-up, raises even more suspicions.
From Radio Netherlands Worldwide this is the actual headline
Chávez offers oil for bananas deal
a long line of examples of blatant media left wing bias that you lose track quickly. I think every reasonable person in America would agree that the obvious choice for Time Man of the Year is General David Petraeus however in order to do that you actually have to admit that he has turned Iraq around. The media would never do that so instead they make this sociopath, former KGB agent, who has nothing but bad intentions for everything their man of the year.
I don't think this is humorous but rather sad.
Proprietor Nation