Bush takes on his rivals

Going back to Smith’s statement (see prior post), he had an insight which I think people fail to keep in mind. Even those who are considered “enemies” and “evil” almost always consider themselves on the side of good. Going even a step further, they probably have some decent reasons to think how they do (even if the actions are out of line).

Please bear with me non-American readers; I’m going to use some examples who are considered US rivals, but may or may not be for your country.

Hugo Chavez, socialist extraordinaire: His attempts to consolidate power smack heavily of authoritarianism, whether he sees it that way or not. But his desire to better the country seems sincere enough, and he continues to receive massive support from the poor–which indicates that probably they are a bit better off than before.

Robert Mugabe: Famed for an ill-fated land redistribution program, which took the farmland away from white colonial descendants and gave it to blacks. Yes, the program lacked foresight and was a wrong way to go about things. But can you blame a black African for feeling bitter about white possession of the land that was the result of imperialism?

Osama bin Laden: We all know about him. He’s not insane in the usual sense, and not all of his reasoning is nuts, including his displeasure at the US abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven back in 1988.

So how would you compare Bush, morally, to some of these other leaders?*

vs Osama: Osama favors blowing up people because they happen to live in the wrong country. Bush doesn’t kill civilians (at least not intentionally). We’ll give Bush the nod here.

vs Mugabe: If the Bush administration is dumb, Mugabe’s government is beneath retarded. (That’s not a moral issue, but just had to mention it.) The Republican party doesn’t actually go out beating up Democrats and jail them for trying to run for office. Mugabe prefers a more pro-active approach to maintaining his power. Advantage: Bush.

vs Chavez: Chavez has been active in suppressing media unfavorable to his cause and attempted to change the constitution so he could run unlimited times for office. But then again, Bush doesn’t have a problem kidnapping terrorist suspects on foreign soil and using “alternative interrogation techniques”. We’ll call this one a draw.

December 27th, 2007 15 comments
Posted by Donnie Filed under Uncomfortability, Weaksauce Losers

Will Smith, you have our sympathies

Today’s post is not silly, funny, or demented. I apologize.

—

“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, `let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was `good.’” — Will Smith

There’s no part of that statement which indicates Smith actually supports Hitler, correct?

I thought so.

Well, the tabloids have been jumping on this, claiming Smith stated the former dictator was a good person. The Anti-Defamation League believes Smith wasn’t praising Hitler, so that should help things. But what about the unwashed masses who read tabloids but haven’t even heard of the ADL?

—

A tiger escaped a zoo enclosure, killing one person and mauling two. In this case, someone died, while in the story above, Will Smith took a slight reputation hit. So why does the tiger incident induce so much less emotion in me? Probably because the tabloid distortions are intentional and malicious, while the tiger escape is likely accidental. But looking at the results of the incidents it doesn’t seem to make sense.

December 27th, 2007 3 comments
Posted by Donnie Filed under Uncomfortability