Friday, March 05, 2004
Fair and balanced, baby. Fair and balanced.
Kerry supporters don't see the big deal about Kim Jong Il preferring their guy. (Note - the supporters are the commentators.)
Dictators want one thing - to continue dictating. They want to deal with leaders who are willing to sign off on that for various reasons. People with...more European worldviews, who understand the need to overlook the odd torture chamber or summary execution in service of a more harmonious global community.
World leaders who go along with this are buttnuggets. All of them, whether I otherwise like them or not. I understand not invading every two-bit country whose Supreme Leader requires portraits of himself in every home, but the only encouragement that should be coming from us is encouragement to leave.
George Bush is guilty of this himself, and its not a good thing. Pakistan's Pervaz Musharraf is the most common example, but there's another, worse one. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov is a crapsack of the first order who boils enemies alive and is generally unpleasant to be around. Fortunately for him, Uzbekistan was stragetically located when the Taliban's ass needed kicking. Though down, the Taliban are not out, which must greatly tempt Bush to close his eyes a little when the independant journalists and human rights activists suddenly go missing.
The deal struck with Karimov is a good one, and the sort of thing I can live with President's doing. (It's discussed in the Post article - the basics are he gets aid if he presents verifiable proof of democritization and general reduction in buttnuggety behavior.) The problem is Karimov doesn't want to act like a human, since opening up his country is likely to put his ass in the hotseat. And very few people in Uzbekistan have gotten the memo that murderers are victims of society who need help and love, and Karimov is likely to be in many, many pieces by the time the memo is translated in Uzbek. (Which is reasonable. Come on, how many people do you know who speak Uzbek?) The onus is on the U.S. to hold Karimov to the agreement he signed, accepting that one cost may be giving him the top bunk in Aristide's room in the Central African Republic. (However, we keep all royalties from any resulting reality show.)
If I believe Bush is letting Karimov off the hook, I am prepared to dock the man points on my Who-The-Hell-Am-I-Going-To-Vote-For Beauty Pageant Scorecard. If Karimov prefers Bush in office, Bush is doing, or is about to do, something wrong. Of course, same thing applies to Kerry vis-a-vis Kim Jong-Il, and Karimov is Double-A Ball next to the New York Yankees of Repression that Kim Jong-Steinbrenner's North Korea.
I'd be curious to know who the rest of the world's crapsacks would rather have around. Burma's Than Shwe? Turkmenistan's Niyazov? Mugabe? Castro?
OK, I can guess who Castro's pulling for.
Kerry supporters don't see the big deal about Kim Jong Il preferring their guy. (Note - the supporters are the commentators.)
Dictators want one thing - to continue dictating. They want to deal with leaders who are willing to sign off on that for various reasons. People with...more European worldviews, who understand the need to overlook the odd torture chamber or summary execution in service of a more harmonious global community.
World leaders who go along with this are buttnuggets. All of them, whether I otherwise like them or not. I understand not invading every two-bit country whose Supreme Leader requires portraits of himself in every home, but the only encouragement that should be coming from us is encouragement to leave.
George Bush is guilty of this himself, and its not a good thing. Pakistan's Pervaz Musharraf is the most common example, but there's another, worse one. Uzbekistan's Islam Karimov is a crapsack of the first order who boils enemies alive and is generally unpleasant to be around. Fortunately for him, Uzbekistan was stragetically located when the Taliban's ass needed kicking. Though down, the Taliban are not out, which must greatly tempt Bush to close his eyes a little when the independant journalists and human rights activists suddenly go missing.
The deal struck with Karimov is a good one, and the sort of thing I can live with President's doing. (It's discussed in the Post article - the basics are he gets aid if he presents verifiable proof of democritization and general reduction in buttnuggety behavior.) The problem is Karimov doesn't want to act like a human, since opening up his country is likely to put his ass in the hotseat. And very few people in Uzbekistan have gotten the memo that murderers are victims of society who need help and love, and Karimov is likely to be in many, many pieces by the time the memo is translated in Uzbek. (Which is reasonable. Come on, how many people do you know who speak Uzbek?) The onus is on the U.S. to hold Karimov to the agreement he signed, accepting that one cost may be giving him the top bunk in Aristide's room in the Central African Republic. (However, we keep all royalties from any resulting reality show.)
If I believe Bush is letting Karimov off the hook, I am prepared to dock the man points on my Who-The-Hell-Am-I-Going-To-Vote-For Beauty Pageant Scorecard. If Karimov prefers Bush in office, Bush is doing, or is about to do, something wrong. Of course, same thing applies to Kerry vis-a-vis Kim Jong-Il, and Karimov is Double-A Ball next to the New York Yankees of Repression that Kim Jong-Steinbrenner's North Korea.
I'd be curious to know who the rest of the world's crapsacks would rather have around. Burma's Than Shwe? Turkmenistan's Niyazov? Mugabe? Castro?
OK, I can guess who Castro's pulling for.
