The Emptiness Of Moral Equivalency

My friend Rick from The Real Ugly American has a post up that shows what is so wrong and so very empty on the left. He took quite a lot of exception to the "incredible courage" of the photographer who "heroically" took a picture of a "heroic" Mahdi Army sniper "heroically" trying to kill Americans for the "heroic" New York Times. Which the NYT "heroically" published to much self-produced public gushing about how "heroic" they were.

I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers.
Only by coincidence searching Memeorandum for other topics of the day did I come across this post by Glenn Greenwald. I felt compelled to ask him a question. Again I am stunned.

Here is my question:

Would you stand there and watch a terrorist shoot at Americans and take a picture?

Here was his answer:

Personally, I would not, because I’m not a jouranlist. But if I were a photographer assigned to that region and to cover the insurgency, of course I would. I’d want Americans to see the reality of the forces we are fighting, rather than suppressing their images.

Photographers should take pictures of all newsworthy events – good and bad. They’re journalists, not propagandists. I want to read about what the insurgents are doing and I want to see them doing it. That’s how people who want to know about the world thing, and it’s what journalists are supposed to do.

What good would possibly come from ignoring the insurgency and pretending that it didn’t exist? That’s what the Bush administration did for the last three years and look where it brought us.

I will address Mr. Greenwald’s nonsensical answer only by saying that it is beyond comprehension. How far removed do you have to be to become detached and unconcerned of the outcome of the event?

Would any of you stand silently and take a picture of a person preparing to shoot your mother, or brother, or child? How about your uncle?

How about the President of the United States, or a Senator? How about a General commanding American forces in a battle?

Would you as an American allow this to happen? Furthermore personally profit from it? Either financially or by gaining praise from your fellow feckless, unconscionable, amoral peers?

Mr. Greenwald posted a comment to Rick's post:

Personally if I were a journalist and happened to be in this position I would attempt to alert American forces to his position if possible or attempt to kill the sniper depending on the circumstances of the situation.

What I really don’t understand about people like you is you are always talking so tough from your house – calling on this photographer to risk his life even further and kill someone who is standing there holding a rifle. And yet you don’t do that yourself. If you think the photographer should be roaming around Iraq killing insurgents, seriously – why aren’t you doing that yourself?

What right do you have to demand that this photographer risk his life in a way that you obviously won’t do yourself?

Comment by Glenn Greenwald � July 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm

Which, I think shows the emptiness of the moral equivalency that people like Mr. Greenwald espouse. Here's a shocker for you, Mr. Greenwald, I have a very personal stake in this matter. Not a theoretical stance, not a smartass, smarmy, self-righteous "position" on it. A personal stake. It could have been my son on the other end of that sniper's sights. Want to try to lecture me about what I am and am not willing to do? Want to make book on it?

Mr. Greenwald, by your logic, if you are not an expert on any given subject you are not allowed to comment. If you are not willing to take additional risks, you have no right to comment. I expect you will be closing your blog immediately. For you do not have any military experience, but you comment on the military. You don't have any published credentials on a number of subjects you comment on, but you seem to have no trouble commenting. You are a lawyer. You might be competent to discuss that, although I have no proof of that. So you'll of course immediately refrain from discussing anything but the law, right? I mean, you want to live up to the standard you demand from others, right?

Rick hits this one just right, in my opinion. Greenwald just shows how shallow and clueless he and his political beliefs are. There is right and wrong in the world, Mr. Greenwald. I think you've shown which side you live on.

UPDATE: Oh, and by the way, Mr. Greenwald, you really need to read what Sarge wrote in comments. It kind of puts your equivalency in perspective. Better than I could, since he's over there, Mr. Greenwald. While you're pontificating from where? Oh, your house.

UPDATE: The prediction I made earlier about the – ahem – "news" that the NYT saw fit to print would cost them is already coming true. The Anchoress' husband cancelled his subscription today. My guess is there are a lot more than just him. Have a nice day, Pinch. Next board meeting, buddy.