Monday, April 07, 2008

"The Bush regime has been divisive — but not in Africa. I read it has been incompetent — but not in Africa. It has created bitterness — but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives.",8599,1717934,00.html


-Dave said...

I appreciate the article all the more because of the writer's disagreement with President Bush over the war in Iraq.

I wonder how refined this principle is for him: "One thing I will say: Human suffering should preempt commercial interest."

The capitalist will tend to say that following commercial interest best removes human suffering in the long run. A government interventionist will tend to say that to eliminate X human suffering (poverty, hunger, singler payer health care, government housing, mandated parks, etc) it is allowable to encroach on Y commercial interest (taxes, mandates, quotas, etc.)

It's an easy statement that anyone can agree with. But it's tough in the details, because both sides believe they are pursuing that end.

kennyching said...

To me, you raise an important point. Although the Democrats are known for being better for the poor, the Republicans have a reasonable argument that they are actually better.

But, in reverse, this doesn't hold true on an issue like abortion.