Hmm.

Bob Piper's blog, while it's obviously never going to be quite my cup of tea, has the definite advantage that it provides an insight into the thinking of a traditional Labour man - and one at that who has the commitment to stand for office. Anyone prepared to be a local Councillor needs to be committed (and you can construe that as you will). That being said, in this post he illustrates a problem I have occasionally encountered before. In the comments to a post that slates Dizzy for his post wondering why Mugabe hasn't yet been bumped off, Bob says the following:

Actually, Cassilis, newmania, chas, I can see the difference between Bush and Mugabe. I think the US war for oil has led to far more deaths than Mugabe['s] vile regime.

Now, this leads to the obvious question: does Bob really think that Bush is worse than Mugabe? Because if he does, then there is literally no point in arguing. The basic conditions for debate - that antagonists occupy the same framework of reference - doesn't exist. You just end up with one of those ghastly fights where neither party addresses the other's argument and instead restates their own point louder and louder.

'Mugabe is a despotic, racist tyrant who bankrupted his country and is murdering his opponents!'

'Bush stole the election in Florida and murdered hundreds of thousands in Iraq!'

Hopeless. It's like going back to the college bar, except that this time I have to get up in the morning.