Bearded Bruce,

I share your view that too many here only post on political threads if Bush or at least the Western World in general can be blamed. If the blame is obviously with someone with a darker shade of skin they somehow are not interested. Kind of reverse racism in my eyes (though I must admit that I have much more liking in my gut feeling for this new than for the traditional racism).

I even pondered about starting a thread about the bushifiability of threads claiming that all but the most unlikely threads can be bushified within the first few posts. The average post to bushify the thread is the sixth in my perception. These posters think that we need to be reminded of global warming if the discussion is about the Burmese government and its inability to deal with a flood or that Bush is a good addition to the theme when we discuss misappropriation of a petty dictator in the third world. Their only contribution to a discussion is the "we too" or "but we" gambit.

But what bothers me a lot about your "should we care" threads is that I have the (wrong?) impression that you are more interested to rub these themes under the noses of the "Mudcat Left" than in the actual theme. Why? You invariably choose themes that are unlikely candidates for bushification and that make a left leaning poster uneasy.

Where I do not at all agree with you is the wording of the unchanging part of the title and your (mostly only) implicit idea of what could be a good action in these cases. "Should we care" implies that not caring is a viable option (in the eyes of those who do not respond). It isn't. All of your cases are human rights violations or other sufferings which must move any person here. Your idea of action seems to me to be in most of these cases international (or even national?) intervention even without the invitation of the respective government which in many cases would mean armed intervention.

I too deplore the inability of the UN to act quickly and strongly. But could lack of immediate action in these cases be equated with not caring? I strongly disagree. Let's take Burma as an example. Burma (Myanmar) is governed by a bunch most people from left to right would like to disappear soon. But would armed intervention be a good idea (even with no strings attached as in some recent cases of armed intervention) that would help the people? I am far from indifferent to the fate of the Burmese people but I think they are better off with a big flood and an ineffective and oppressing government than with an armed interference in addition to a flood.

I deplore the fate of the Tibetans in China but I think the idea of an armed intervention would not be in the interest of the world as a whole. I'd love to see Guantanamo closed but in this case too more foreign interference than letters or complaints or starting international law cases also would be a bad idea.

Sometimes inaction (with the fist in the pocket) can be better than open interference and should never be confused with lack of caring about.

Wolfgang