Fidel Castro either did or did not turn 80 yesterday, depending of course on whether or not he’s either 1) alive, or 2) in hell. At this point the evidence is inconclusive.
The rumors of his imminent demise have had the effect of bringing into the spotlight those who secretly get the vapors in the presence of the right brand of tyranny. Also, in what may constitute double counting, certain newspeople.
But I rather wish that everyone would get their language right. First, too many news articles point out almost gushingly that Castro has lasted longer than 9 US presidents. Which for a dictator has to be faint praise, considering that the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution makes that, you know: Nearly inevitable, at least for those tyrants who do not choose the retirement plan.
Also, that earlier BBC link mentions that Castro is the world’s longest-serving leader, which is neither true (Taranto points out that Britain’s Queen Elizabeth superannuates him – the BBC can google her, if they need help) nor precise: Over the course of 50 years of despotic power, hasn’t served anybody but himself.
Is this a British thing?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean‚Äîneither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master‚Äîthat’s all.”
–Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
Also, the King Of Thailand, Rama IX has served WAY longer than Castro.Not that that matters to the boot-lickers in the media.
BBC- “worlds longest serving leader”
SERVING. That’s rich.
B2
Hear! Hear! I’ve been reading this ‘longest serving’ nonsense all around the MSM and wonder at how stupid the writers and editors are. For the Beep to screw up on this is pathetic.
Fidel Castro would always be an icon of history evethough he is against the U.S.-`,