Like Woodstock for Tyrants: Cuba Declares Three Days of Mourning for Kim Jong-il
While the United Nations prattles on about the thankfully dead "Dear Leader" of North Korea's "systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights," the awful human beings running Cuba these days are declaring three days of mourning for good old Kim Jong Il.
Think of it as Woodstock for Tyrants. Maybe they'll even allow a rock show or three.
The Cuban government will observe a three-day mourning period beginning Tuesday to honor the death of North Korean autocrat Kim Jong Il.
For the duration of the mourning period, public buildings and military installations will fly the Cuban flag at half-mast, according to Cuban state media.
As two of the few remaining Communist countries, Cuba and North Korea maintain close ties based on shared ideology.
On Monday, the day after news of Kim Jong Il's death of a heart attack at age 69 was reported, the United Nations General Assembly voted 123 -16 to criticize what it referred to as North Korea's "systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights" — violations that allegedly include public executions, arbitrary detention, the use of the death penalty for political reasons and restrictions on the right to travel within the country….
Meanwhile, in Nicaragua, dictatorial retread Daniel Ortega has taken time off from browsing the latest models in the Sophia Loren Eyeglass Collection to issue heart-broken condolences via an official spokeslady:
"We have wishes for the continuity of the process that the Korean people and its government are living, a process to further build peace and prosperity for all families in that country."
Meanwhile, Slovakia has declared December 23 a day of mourning for former Czechoslovakian president Vaclav Havel, who oversaw first the peaceful "Velvet Revolution" in which the country ended communism and then the split of the state into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good grief.
Hitchens.
So what's the difference?
He was an ex troskyite. That's different.
He didn't kill and starve millions of people. Yeah, I don't forgive Hitchens being a commie either. But, he is still not Kim Jong Il.
So if you kill and starve millions of American Indians, but you're a capitalist, is it ok?
Yes. That's what he said.
Define "capitalist." This should be amusing.
Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.
Capitalism. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006.
Amused, fuckwit?
So far, you haven't shown us that you understand what either "capitalism" or the verb "to define" means.
That's why it's amusing. Injun can't think.
Remember, NORK has free everything for everybody -- that's as good an excuse as anything else.
...shows us yet again that he is a fucking COMMUNIST.
whaa? pussy's never free
It is, provided that you later allow them to build large casinos for people to gambol in.
Casinos are the key to world peace.
Great, and now I'm the weirdo who laughs out loud at work.
Quetzalcoatl, please come to Room 107.
No one alive today is responsible for even one "kill and starve millions of American Indians" incident, Jason.
So if you kill and starve millions of American Indians, but you're a capitalist, is it ok?
You go on and on about the red man, but what about the black man? For like 600 years, he was held in bondage by the indian, doing his yard work and working in his factories. Isn't the black man due some reparations? Nothing but silence from you.
Why do you hate the black man, White Indian?
Injuns held slaves. They had no reservations* about human bondage.
*yes, pun intended
If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.
I just watched the Vice guide to North Korea last night (someone on here recommended it, I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it). "If it wasn't so sad it woudl be funny" seems to apply to just about everything about NK.
Are they renaming Christmas "Dead Dictator Day"?
Don't think they were ever that big into christmas in the first place, so they might as well.
Hm. Good idea.
I remember how happy some Roumanian friends of mine were when the offed the Ceaucescus on Christmas Day.
My friends' literal words were "The Anti-Christ died on Christmas Day!"
How about just "Dead Dick" day?
Sponsored by Viagra!
Woodstock for Tyrants...thought OWS claimed that one...
NORTH KOREA ISN'T TRUE SOCIALISM!!!!
DON'T LISTEN TO THESE DOLTS, KIDS...SIGN UP FOR MY CLASS NEXT SEMESTER!
HY 492: SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM, SOCIALISM!
True Capitalist Believer: "It's not capitalism, it's cronyism."
True Communist Believer: "It's not communism, it's cronyism."
White Indian: Left or Right, they are all brutal Gambol Prohibitionist.
THATS NOT FUNNY!
Yes, you are right. Now please go away and wait quietly for civilization to collapse.
It's hard to believe Hugo Chavez let Ortega and the thugs in Cuba get out ahead of him on the public relations front...
Maybe Chavez is feeling really under the weather. Or maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Chavez is dying of cancer. Now, if he can just kick it before the new year to add to the tally.
Here's hoping for a Festivus miracle!
If Chavez dies a painful death before the New Year, I might start believing in Festivus.
nothing is going to STOP me believing!
Woops! Spoke too soon:
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sent condolences expressing his "sincere sorrow" for the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, according to a Foreign Ministry statement.
...
The government expressed its "solidarity" with North Korea and said that Venezuela is willing to "continue fighting along with sovereign nations for the auto-determination of countries and world peace."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....ng-il.html
Cuba might fall apart at the seams without the assistance it gets from Chavez in Venezuela. At this point, I'm not sure that the Cubans aren't taking their orders directly from Chavez--when it comes to public statements anyway.
How pathetic of a country do you have to be to depend on Venezuela for your survival?
It's about oil.
And Castro havin' to depend on a fanboy like Chavez is probably easier than when the other dyin' Castro had to depend on the Soviet Union.
It's amazing how much brutality there still is in the world. And most of it doesn't have anything to do with ideology.
The military in Egypt is clinging to power just like like the dictatorship in Cuba. It isn't about ideology; it's just about clinging to power.
I guess it's still about ideology for Chavez, but in some ways, that just makes him worse. Mubarak probably had a lot less leeway than anyone realized--his military probably wouldn't have let him liberalize even if he'd wanted to liberalize.
The NKOTB in North Korea is probably the same way, too.
It probably isn't about the figurehead at the top. It's about how you find a way to offer the military something better than what they already have, when what they already have is more or less power absolutely.
Different countries: North Korea, Egypt, Cuba, but it's all the same problem. As much as I knock on Democracy as being the tyranny of the majority and inferior to personal autonomy and individual rights, if democracy tends to bring about civilian control of the military, then that really is something to cheer for.
Mostly Ken the brutality is in self defense. One of the great misnomers in politics is the idea that a free government should fear its people. It is actually just the opposite. It is authoritarian governments who fear their people. And that is what drives them to more and more brutality.
Look at it this way. When the US Congress wakes up every morning, their biggest fear is being voted out of office. When someone like Chavez or Assad wakes up, their biggest fear is the masses finally rising up and killing them, their supporters and all of their families. Authoritarian governments are more afraid of their own people than they are of any external enemy. And that fear drives them to brutality which of course gives the populace more reason to hate them which produces more fear and more brutality.
We don't have an authoritarian government?
When the government can dictate to you how many gallons of water go into your toilet, how many gallons of water may pass through your shower head every minute, and what kind of light bulbs you may use, it's authoritarian.
There are degrees of authoritarianism.
"There are degrees of authoritarianism."
Limited mostly by people's expectations, ideas about liberty and justice, etc.
Our politicians are generally no better than anyone else's. If we don't have a Hugo Chavez in the United States, it's because the American people wouldn't put up with Obama going much further than he did.
The reason the Cheney Administration didn't go further than they did in abusing our civil rights wasn't because of the warmness in their hearts. It's because the American people wouldn't accept them going much further than they did.
That's what the Egyptian and Syrian peoples are coming to terms with right now, I think. Who your leaders are isn't as important as how much your neighbors are willing to take lying down.
Authoritarianism is everywhere, but it isn't really the problem. Changing leaders isn't really the solution to authoritarianism either.
The problem is our fellow man. The solution to authoritarianism is convincing our friends, family, neighbors, etc. that they shouldn't accept authoritarian solutions lying down.
Those shower heads are pretty easy to fix.
You mean shower heads and forced water conservation?
I think it's a bigger problem than that.
As of 2009, the U.S. had the highest proportion of its population in prison of any nation in the world.
http://www.webcitation.org/5xRCN8YmR
It's about more than just environmental regulation, etc.
Oh, but we have "representation" don't you know?
We have the same problem here in the U.S.!
It's not as extreme, but to some extent our politicians also ask themselves the same question: why would I want to give myself less power?
Festivus for the rest of us!
The Pope is close as well.
If the Pope goes, they'll just get another one.
Chavez might not be so easily replaceable.
When this Pope goes the battle to pick the next one may take months. This one got the nod because they knew he wouldn't live more than 10 years so both the liberals and the conservatives could live with the choice. The conservatives will be going for a young really conservative Pope this time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Cardinals started going Borga on each other this time.
John, is there anything you don't know?
You're not too far off the mark for a non-Papist, John.
The Church has publicly chafed under Benedict XVIs conservative leadership, but secretly praises and welcomes it. The refusal to pray with members of clergy from other religious groups was a biggie. I personally applaud it even though it was not popular; but we're talking about the Vatican. In theory, the Vatican only answers to God, not the press or the people it purports to serve. Good on him.
Recent changes in the form of Mass have rubbed some people the wrong way, but mice don't like it when you move their cheese. People will adapt. I think it's opening the door for a return to the Extraordinary Form anyhow, which would truly be a step in the direction of fulfilling the meaning of "catholic" in the Catholic church.
Mad Biker,
The changes to the Mass were needed. I am told the English translations were rushed, simplified and pretty horrible. I am not a Latin or Greek scholar but everyone I know who is says the new version is better.
Oh I'm not arguing they are better or worse. Just change, and people initially resist change. Especially when you do rote response every weekend for an hour, week in and week out, for 30-some years or more. It takes some getting used to, is all.
I can't imagine what people felt like when they got rid of Latin Mass. What a change.
I imagine it was something like this "so THAT'S what they've had me saying this whole time?! I missed so much football for this."
umm...werent we supposed to have two more popes after JPII accprding to nostradamus or something? And then the rapture/hell/cubs win series? Dude, I am puttin 1000$ on the Cubs to win in 2012.
Damnit! The astros won't be ready to win until at least 2015. The world can't end before then.
2015 is incredibly optimistic. The Astros are god awful and our farm system has nobody waiting in the wings. It may take a decade to retool if we get good management.
I'm betting we've got better people than most people think we've got. 2015.
Ragnarok
St. Malachy
http://www.bibliotecapleyades......can14a.htm
Money on the Cubs and Ron Paul as president.
Talk about someone without any Seoul...
Well, if North Korea nukes South Korea's capital, then South Korea will be Seoulless.
"Another giant of socalism taken before his work of starving 90% of his people was done," joe wails, "'Ugo! My sweet, 'Ugo... he might be next! O woe!"
joe is often a pissy little wart, but I am sure he has never expressed any approval of the North Korean regime.
Damn you Nick, that alt-text got a Journey song stuck in my head.
You suck.
Don't stop bereaving
That was good.
not bad
if only the internet could combine that song, William Hung, and the video of the mourners, we might have something.
You made me laugh so hard I snorted coffee you bastard!
Good one.
SOLIDARITY
Ron y Rey.
violations that allegedly include public executions, arbitrary detention, the use of the death penalty for political reasons and restrictions on the right to travel within the country....
But what about the trains?
Oh, they ran ON TIME!
I think you mean "what about the oxcarts?".
Starved oxen don't pull carts.
oxen converted to turds dont either.
Fun fact: the capital's subway stations are named according to ideology, not location. Like "Victory", "Construction", "Comrade" and such.
Meanwhile, Slovakia has declared December 23 a day of mourning for former Czechoslovakian president Vaclav Havel
This reminds me of the unfortunate timing of Saint Dwarf Mother Teresa's death the day before the Western world's narcissistic public orgy and funeral of Princess Diana.
so in this analogy, mother T is like Kim, right?
Who presided over more human suffering? Close call.
http://www.slate.com/articles/.....arest.html
That is really a horseshit article. And Hitchens wrote some good ones. But that really is his worse. His argument boils down to "the Catholic Church sucks, Theresa believed in Church doctrine, therefore she sucked."
The whole thing boils down to "she was against contraception and abortion, therefore she was evil". The fact that she gave her entire life to helping people doesn't seem to matter to Hitchens. That article reads like a post on Feministing.
Anyone who believes that poverty and suffering are good things is a monster in my book. Kim and MT shared that morality, tho' they served different gods.
And MT didn't "help" anyone. She ran death hospices, not hospitals.
What the hell do you think hospices do?
They death hospice people to death.
Proper hospice care in the US involves pain meds, and lots of them. Those run by Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (aka "Mother Teresa") in Calcutta were very skimpy with the pain meds. Not because they couldn't get or afford them, but to bring the dying closer to god by means of their suffering. This woman was a monster and the world is well rid of her.
But that is not Hitchens' point. His point was that since she objected to abortion and contraception she wanted poverty and suffering, which is just sophistry.
The women spent her life in poverty helping people who were absolutely at the bottom of the earth. Did she do that much good in the long run or in the grand scheme of things? Probably not. But that doesn't make her individual acts of kindness any less noble. And whatever harm she did was a hell of a lot less than the harm done by all of the Utopians of the last century.
Hitchens was a man who until the day he died admired Lenin, the man who created one of the most monstrous governments in history and personally over saw the deaths of hundreds of thousands. And he has the nerve to rip on Mother Theresa for objecting to abortion?
"The women spent her life in poverty"
Uh,
"Then Hitchens notes that Mother Teresa "has checked into some of the finest and costliest clinics and hospitals in the West during her bouts with heart trouble and old age."
http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm
Some "poverty".
Yeah, a habit she shared with all the world's great dictators. Suffering is good for thee, but not for me.
If you think the MT was comparable to Lenin or Mao, you are a nut or are just trolling.
And the world's dictators don't think suffering is good. They think just the opposite. They think they are building paradise.
What you talkin' 'bout, Tuesday?
So the women went to the hospital when she was sick and that counts as breaking her vow of poverty? Come on guys. That is crap. Look at how she actually lived her life. And further, even if she didn't, that doesn't take away from the actual things she did.
Hitchens was really in many way a nasty bitter fellow. He just wrote that article to be a bomb thrower and out of his own issues with Catholicism. It has nothing to do with Mother Theresa and says nothing of interest about her.
Ross Douthat, that dirty Papist of the Grey Lady, wrote, in a remembrance of Hitchens, something that I think hits the mark:
his atheism was mostly a political romantic's attempt to pick a fight with the biggest Tyrant he could find.
That only works if he secretly believed in God. Which would be a funny thing for an atheist.
Or, I suppose, if he actually believed that the various churches were bigger tyrants than the various governments.
Which, as a lefty, he may well have believed, even though its gobsmackingly stupid in the age of totalitarians with body counts in the millions.
totalitarians with body counts in the millions
Exactly. 1700 years of Christianity. Bloodiest philosophy in the history of the world.
Ahem, I believe our horse won that race, as he covered the distance in a much shorter period of time.
"Exactly. 1700 years of Christianity. Bloodiest philosophy in the history of the world."
That is just profoundly ignorant and stupid. It is no more or less bloody than any other religion. It is not like Islam or Hinduism or Confucianism doesn't have a bloody track record. And the track record of scientific marxist atheism is well documented.
When you say something like that you just reveal yourself to be an idiot. Atheists are like lesbians. Some lesbians are lesbians because they like women. Some lesbians are lesbians because they hate men. Atheists are similar. Some atheists are atheists because they believe there is no God. Others are atheists because they hate religion. The second class are never particularly interesting or serious people since their views are driven by their own internal prejudices and demons rather than rationality.
He was asked to present the counter argument to cannonization by the catholic church itself.
This was not just a hit job.
He may have been asked, but he wrote a hit job.
Arguing against canonization automatically means hit piece, I should think. Did the Church commission him to do so? I think it odd that the Church should ask a thorn to tear apart its rose. Usually it is the job of Catholic scholars to play Devil's advocate; I don't recall the Church going outside of it's walls, historically, to validate it's decisions. Knowledgeable and learned men of faith are considered the ones best suited to argue against doctrine and dogma. Anyone can attack from the outside that of which they have no intimate knowledge.
"The British-American columnist Christopher Hitchens was famously asked to testify against the beatification of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later describe as being akin to "representing the Evil One, as it were, pro bono".[3]"
Thanks wikipedia.
http://www.secularhumanism.org.....chens_24_2
John|12.20.11 @ 11:10AM|#
"So the women went to the hospital when she was sick and that counts as breaking her vow of poverty?"
Well, yes. You could say jetting around the world, getting the best medical care available pretty much puts the lie to any "vow or poverty".
That wasn't a vow; it was a trademark. Pure PR bullshit.
Hitchens was bomb-thrower, and that's not wrong, in and of itself. But of all the people on Planet Earth at whom you aim your fire, you pick . . . Mother Theresa? Really? All the while championing mass murderers (Lenin, Trotsky) and the systematized philosophy that encouraged such tyranny. I enjoyed his writings as much as anyone, but this was an enormous blind spot on his part.
"Look at how she actually lived her life."
I have, John, and she was a monster. No amount of denial, whitewashing or special pleading can make that go away.
A monster? Hyperbole anyone?
So, the question is . . . does hypocrisy cancel out acts of kindness? No, not in my book. If we were to judge acts of kindness by some measure of hypocrisy, we'd all be in trouble. As a non-believer I say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
As a non believer in sin, I throw a fucking huge ass boulder!
I do not believe in sin, at least as it's defined by any religion. I think you missed the point. Oh well.
no, I was just making a joke.
Ok, sorry. Funny joke 😉
I always thought Hitchens was way to hash on Mother Teresa.
You would, Audrey, you would.
MT is just a symbol, of course, of the wider Christian (mostly Catholic) ethic of sanctifying human suffering, of denying individual rights to women (see anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-divorce decrees, for instance).
Abortion is not about rights of women unless you think they have a right to kill their children.
my break with libertarianism hinges on this point.
Property rights, and all. I just can't get behind the idea of fetus as evil invader and worthy of eradication.
Pot stirred, leaving now...
I don't think even libertarianism has the "answer" to abortion. Hence the 50/50 or so split I have seen.
Fail. Embryos are not "children." Go home.
I am as firmly attached to my currently developing embryo as I am to my other two children. It's a child to me already, one that is developing and growing physically and deserving of care and protection, same as the ones already living outside of me. My three year old is not capable of living on her own, she is dependent on us for everything. My in-utero child is dependent on me/us for everything as well. I fail to see the difference that size or age makes in their dependence, or my responsibility to assure their growth and development into healthy individuals.
Of course, I WANT my kids. I think that's the big bugaboo. Someone pregnant by accident (read: couldn't keep her slutty legs closed or bother to get free or almost free birth control and use it or use a condom) can just use abortion as a convenient means of ridding herself of a problem. Or they can have a kid they don't want and just become a welfare mom, with Daddy State as the giver of food and shelter and no real parental responsibility required on her part.
Less than 5% of unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape or incest or because of maternal health problem. 95% of abortions are birth control.
And a father, who might actually want the child, has no say in the matter whatsoever.
"Fail. Embryos are not "children." Go home."
And why is that? Because you say so? I would say the are. They are conceived of humans. And they are in many cases able to live outside the womb months before they are born. They have a heart, a brain, feelings, primitive intelligence, react to pain. I would say that makes them human. What is your reason for thinking them not?
You're confusing embryos with fetuses. Furthermore, and to my point, MT considered contraception itself a crime against her god.
becaues they aren't viable outside of the womb.
2011: Mubarak, Ghaddaffy, Kim, maybe Chavez, Maybe Assad, Newt Gingrich's candidacy. Been a real good year.
And with the 10th pick of the draft, Hell chooses Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County, Arizona!
Let's hope he's been in contact with agents who convince him to declare.
Havel is definitely on team Heaven. Hitchens is a free agent. I guess TPTB are getting ready for 12/21/12
And I don't know why team hell picked OBL for the kicker. He hasn't been able to to hit anything between the uprights.
What, too soon?
Will team heaven get a Keanu Reeves child in time?
except, ironically and unfortunately, it's not such a good year for the people under the more radical regimes that have replaced Mubarak and Gaddafi. At All.
(it's like Iran all over again)
Too bad freedom isn't going to increase in any of those places.
What do you wear to 3 days of mourning?
Rags. Same thing everybody in a workers' paradise wears every day.
I'm hoping that the State Dept. approves my visa to N. Korea. I want to pay my respects.
Q: What do you call a N Korean with three dogs?
A: Rancher.
B: Lancher
Lacist!
It's racist, you plick!
That makes a whole lot of sense to me dude.
http://www.total-anon.tk
That guy looks really goofy to me dude.
http://www.Complete-Anon.tk
Damn you Gillespie! I spit my coffee on my laptop screen. Fucking hilarious observation. Take the rest of the day off, get drunk or something. You've peaked for the day.
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Several Occupy D.C. protesters will likely face charges after they were arrested in a protest outside the White House.
U.S. Park Police say 11 protesters were arrested Monday night because they ignored police orders to leave the grounds. The protesters included some Occupy D.C. participants, though it wasn't immediately clear if all those arrested were part of the Occupy movement.
The group was protesting a defense funding bill that would allow the president to detain people indefinitely if they are suspected of terrorist activities.
"But they cried wolf on some other stupid crap, so no one took them seriously on this serious matter."
The boss says round 'em up, they are suspected of terrorist activities -- besides, one of them was taking photos.
I find it incredible that anyone, anywhere could make that statement unless they were in North Korea with a gun to their head. The "Dear Leader" starved millions of people to death.
Realistically, we are dealing with a Divine Monarchy that chooses to wear the tawdry rags of Communism.
But everyone in N Korea is equal!
Sure they're all equally poor and starving, but they're equal.
Equality, man!
Equality!
Communism is the best! Capitalism is oppressive.
The apparatchiks are awfully plump for starving people.
Name one communist country where the apparatchiks starved right along with the proletariats they claimed to care so much about and I'll literally eat my own gentleman vegetables.
They need to be plump and healthy to administer equality.
That's how equality works.
Usefull codes , the OWS of a subculture
Nothing personal, but I'm not going to your blog. Link to the originating site and I'll consider it.
I respect your paranoia; it's so libertarian male but reason.com 6,084 links, and none of them have died...well there was one death and resurrection
Hmm, you can get my blog anon on WordPress
I'll visit your blog, for a price.
OK, I'll deflower you.
Meet me at 649.65; I'll bring the duct tape
I was talking cash.
Oh honey, you couldn't afford to give me a 'because it's Tuesday' present.
I'll just use you once for entertainment purposes
Maybe the Norks can get Rage Against the Machine to play at the funeral. Morello should feel right at home.
Juche Guevara...