I just saw a fair bit of the US presidential debate, and I thought Kerry came across very well. However, since I am compelled to "get both sides" of the story, I chanced upon a blog that is pro-Bush, and saw some of what they had to say. Unfortunately, it makes me realize that the world is so complicated. Why? Because although I have my own views on matters such as the war, the other side also seems to offer their view coherently. Which then, is in the right? It is times like this that I feel quite small, because I am unable to comprehend matters deep enough to form a clear argument to support my case. So, for instance, I cannot give clear reasons why I believe Bush should not get re-elected, but I feel like I should.

Indecisive is the word that comes to mind, and that has been thrown a lot at Kerry, and I also think it is an appropriate description of me. I suppose another problem is that one cannot really tell where the spin stops - after all, a blatantly pro-Bus site is bound to have bias, but where does prejudice and opinion stop to give way to fact and reason? I don't think I have the ability to deduce such things, unfortunately.

Of course, with some matters, even one such as I can tell it's clearly prejudice. Some of the posters on this particular site see it fit to hurl ad-hominens in their typically smug manner, while turning a blind eye to the problems that Bush has (after all, he is human, no?). At the same time, behind some of their acidic quips lies some element of fact and truth, which makes things even harder.

Does the war boil down at some level to the question of whether the ends justify the means? I suppose even such a weighty question in an over-simplification of such a complex issue.

After saying all that, if we abstract away the seriousness of the matter, it is funny what different view points two people can have, and how two people can see something in a completely different light. For instance, this site remarks that Bush's comment about him being a pretty calm guy "sums it up, and people can see that", and that he did the debate very nicley. I, however, saw the whole thing in a totally different way, indeed I saw Kerry as being the calm one, and thought him to clearly be the victor! Put it down to me being misinformed, I suppose.

So, I guess part of what I'm getting at here is that the outcome is shaped greatly by your own biases and prejudices. This is exemplified by the startling thought that just occured to me - I cannot think of anything that Bush could say that would make me change my stance. Maybe it shows conviction, but where does conviction in your beliefs turn into flat out dismissal of your opponent's ideas? I can (and have) accept some of the things he says, but not the whole package as it were, no, I can't see myself doing that. Is that the way it should be?

I believe everyone makes mistakes, but unfortunately I don't think a lot of politicians want to admit that. I think it would be a lot better if they did, but I suppose that is rather quixotic of me.

Incidentally, my greatest weapons are self-disarming (thanks to Those Barren Leaves for introducing the idea to a very impressionable, younger me!) and the passive-aggressive.