Would the Wall Street Journal have written this editorial opposing the creation of voting House seats for its residents? Probably not, but what's a little hypocrisy among partisan mouthpieces?
I mean it's not like, just friggin yesterday, the Journal attacked the NYT's coverage of civilian deaths in Iraq. The Journal seemed to argue that 218,000 widowed Iraqi women was an acceptable trade-off for the creation of a democracy rather than having Saddam Hussein in power. Now it's an interesting question if democracy is worth that cost of human life, but the Journal's position appears to be that democracy is worth a very high price.
IF the Journal is really willing to defend democracy to the tune of more than 200,000 killed in civil war, why not defend the right of people in DC to get representation even if it leads to more support for the opposition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting question, Fundman. What if we really did a cost analysis of life? Would that mean that if we could kill 10,000,000 to save 100,000,000 that it would be the most ethical outcome? Avian flu might lead to this question sooner that we might imagine.
ReplyDelete