True. Some history is in order. So is some mathematics.

You are right that these labels are dubious. Why? Because they are vague. What makes a "best" or "worst" regime? If we define the criteria, the label gains legitimacy.

One good way to measure (quantify?) how bad a regime is might be body count. What single dictator has the largest number of victims to his credit? Not Adolf Hitler. His 16-million victims included six-million Jews and another ten-million gypsies, gays, political prisoners, low I.Q. sufferers, etc. But he's NOT EVEN NUMBER TWO! That silver medal goes to Josef Stalin with his 20-million victims including a particularly heinous genocide against the Ukrainians. The number-one spot belongs to Mao Tse Tung. The Chinese demon of the 20th century has 35-million victims to his credit, notably those he willfully starved to death during the Great Leap Forward. If we consider the math, you can easily guess how I voted in today's poll.

I, too think surperlatives are suspicious. The Brits are notorious for it: Alfred the Great, Great Britain, the Great War, the Great Game. We're just as bad. The World series, the World Champs of this or that sport. But calling Burma's problems the worst is a little far-fetched. I can think of the less-than-human conditions that poor people live under in the heart of Bombay, the slums of Sao Paolo, Brazil, or any number of third world cess pools.

The movies about Burma are quite good, so are the books.....Orwell's "Burmese Days" is a very interesting one. After reading that book it's no wonder the Burmese generals don't want any outsiders to help.

However, the problem is an interesting one for the civilized world to contemplate. Should we overthrow the Burmese generals to to restore human rights? Why not? We invaded Panama to get Noriega, a drug dealing leader, we've invaded Iraq because we thought Saddam had weapons we didn't want him to have, we invaded Afghanistan because they wouldn't turn Bin laden over to us.

So what's the problem? What's holding us back? I don't know. Why don't we invade the Darfur region and stop the genocide of Christian farmers at the hands of Bin laden supported Muslim nomadic tribes? What about the madman who runs North Korea? Why should his people starve while he eats and watches old Hollywood movies?

If we are to be the world's policemen then lets take action.Now look at our own country. We have poverty, hunger, homelessness, the mentally ill walking the streets, a gap between the rich and the poor, a vanishing middle class, privileged celebrities who get special treatment, a continuing mess in New Orleans, among other things. I'm surprised the U.N. hasn't decided to station blue helmet troops and international aid groups to take care of all the suffering illegal immigrants in the Soutwest. Oh, sorry.....they're undocumented refugees.

Oh, I forgot we have a thing for "great" also: the Great Depression, the Greatest Generation, the Great Society, and wasn't the star of the Honeymooner's, Jackie Gleason, supposed to be the "Greatest"? Or was that his long-suffering t.v wife, Alice, who never did get that free ride to the moon that Ralph promised?

And exactly what does "great minds think alike" really mean? And who is the "Great McGillacutty"?

I do believe that bad things happen in our world because it's really not the best of all possible worlds, as Liebnitz said. It is what it is. The rest of the world should be grateful for what we try to do. No other "empire" was as generous and charitable as we are. If the u.S. were to leave the stage, the world the lights would go out quickly. Does the rest of the world think the Chinese, the French, the Iranians, or the Burmese would step up to the plate and be the new America?

I think we are going to have "great" discussion today.

To: DreadPirateRoberts:

I voted for China. Mao was another nutcase, he who wrote poetry and ordered millions to die.

Past Chinese regimes use to order men castrated for displeasing the emperor.

And the Chinese have a thing for "great", too: the Great Khan, the Great Wall of China.

While I generally agree with the article and comments thus far submitted, I believe there's some justification for calling Alfred of Wessex 'the Great'; had he not been where and what he was at the right time, I'd (arguably) be writing this in Danish.

I'll weigh in this morning solely on the use of superlatives. They are simply lazy writing or desperate pleas for approval in a down market. As a copy writer, for me they fall into the category of all, none, never, always, very. These words add little value to communication, sometimes are true for only a moment, or worse just downright deceptive. I certainly wouldn't want to say, though, that they all are always very useless and never add value. Have a good day!

BEST. POST. EVER.

Superlatives provide the greatest way ever for a writer to create a sense of instant history. History and tradition are no longer a match for today's technology and it's ability to bring instant everything to the reader (history, perspective, interest, and indifference). We're a 30-second Minute Rice kind of society that will forget today's "worst ever" or "greatest ever" when the next one comes along.

While not quote the same use of superlatives, Mark Twain puts thing in perspective with this: "Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be."

I wonder if that works with other superlatives?

ExPat raises an interesting point when he mentions that we in the U.S. have homelessness, poverty, and other such difficulties that we traditionally associate with the regimes we've spent the morning condemning. It inspires (provokes?) the question, "What is the practical difference between a comparatively free state such as the U.S., and a slave state along the lines of the Soviet Union?"

I know I've been quoting my father a lot lately but, what can I say, he was a brilliant man. Once again, I turn to an old saying of his: "There can be no such thing as a perfect society, only a perfectly FREE society. Even in a perfectly free society, people will continue to fight with their spouses and over-estimate their capacity for strong drink."

The comparative freedom of a nation like the U.S. cannot provide absolute protection against horrendous misfortune such as homelessness. It CAN (and must) refrain from actively and deliberately contributing to the problem. It is one thing to allow homelessness, but quite another to erect gulags and fill them with people.

Whenever I engage in political conversation in which there is criticism of the U.S. (and I do not for a moment deny that certain such criticisms are richly deserved), I always remember to be grateful for the fact that we can have such conversations in the first place. Any American can bellow at the top of his voice that his government is awful and he has no fear of being shot. The same is not so in other places to this day.

As for superlatives, I like the poetry that they lend to their subjects. As I head of to work, I leave you with the thought of that Macedonian general who conquered 60% of the known world. Let's call him Alexander the Better than Average.

To: rustic39:

I think I'll reconsider, and call Alfred "the Great". I like speaking english. Just think if William the Conqueror had driven the Danes out, we'd be speaking French! Can you imagine future Brits calling the current Prince Charles "Charlie the Great"?

Although being of Irish heritage am not opposed to calling my Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland "Great Scott!" (Hey, we could be speaking Gaelic if those pesky Anglo-Saxons had stayed home)

To: cherann:

Is "have a good day" a superlative? I've often wondered if the opposite could be used: "have a bad day"? A good day compared to what? (Ha!Ha!)

To: Agent666:

Have a "damn" good day!

To ExPat:

Nicely done. Right back at ya!

"Great Scott"....you better watch your language ExPat, or you'll be hearing from Spinner! (ha,ha)

To La Donna:

Better believe I'm here... and taking notes...

I live in the home town of "The Greatest", Ali. So with that as my benchmark, there is little else that can compare as a superlative. After all, he would have defined himself as the "epicenter of all things global" as Nordo so aptly put it. There is a Mohamed Ali Center downtown which not only is a museum of Ali's life, but an outreach center working to bring equality and peace to all. There are all sorts of seminars, meetings and workshops that bring in people from all over the place. It hasn't been up and running long, but it does seem to me that this is exactly the sort of focus that those that are the "Greatest" should have.

To: LaDonna:

I know....thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow!

I too have a healthy cynicism toward, but must also plead guilty to, the overuse of superlatives. The only time they are accurate is when they are only applied to those things that have been quantified without any subjective judgment applied such as amounts, distances, speed, heights, depths and weights. Even in these instances there is always the caveat of “up until now” ‘cos someone or something will go faster, jump higher or discover a new non-detectable performance enhancer and become the new “All Time Greatest Home Run King*) ever, numerically at least.

As far as subjective superlatives, I am at peace with the positive ones that we encounter on a day-to-day basis. They seem to me to be pretty harmless for the most part, after all, who really believes they have just had the “Best Coffee in Town” no matter where you get it. Who would want to believe they just had the “Greatest Day of their Life” and that it’s all downhill from here, and besides, what would happen to all of the “Shaggy Dog” stories if everyone had to defend the casual, spur of the moment, superlative. Of course superlatives are used to sell things (which is, coincidentally, the prime reason to distrust their use in the first place), ‘cos who wants to spend big bucks on a “better than average automobile”.

I think the root problem here is that there are just not enough unique words around to really adequately describe all of these subjective “greatest” things, and unfortunately, the all too many “worst” things and events that occur. If the Eskimo’s have over fifty words just to describe snow, can you imagine how much memory you would need to store the various qualifiers, quantifiers, and perspectives of what our few, overused, superlatives do so efficiently today?

As far as the superlatives that are so often used and repeated to describe the horrors and injustices that human kind, its governments, and societies is capable of inflicting onto others; it’s a shame we need any.

Oh, and let’s not forget the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. I think they merit at least an honorable mention under atrocities.

Reading through, Stephen Colbert's favorite question to pols and talking heads came to mind instantly -- "President Bush -- great president or the greatest president?"

Hmmmm. Perhaps the use of superlatives says more about the describer than the described.

I don't think we have to go back as far as Alfred -- Great or not -- to be thankful that we speak English. The names Churchill, Patton and Doolittle come immediately to mind.

And regardless of what you think about our current immigration situation, who isn't grateful that the English -- and not the Spanish -- settled North America?

Apropo to the use of superlatives in marketing, remember the story of the attempt to sell the Chevy Nova in Mexico? No-va...no go in Spanish. Couldn't understand why they weren't selling! Maybe a lesson is just why honesty doesn't work in marketing...

To: Spinner:

The military has the same problem as Chevy. During the Vietnam War I was in a special unit that was called the Combined Action Program or C.A.P. We lived in the villages and trained a village self-defense force to fight with us against the Viet Cong. We also did security and intelligence work. The original name of the "program" was C.A.C or Combined Action Command. We couldn't get the Vietnamese interested in joing the C.A.C. We finally figured out why. The word CAC in Vietnamese means the same as a four letter word starting with "s" that is used to described human waste.

Of course, you realize that Vietnam was brought to you by a Secretary of Defense whose claim to fame was marketing the Edsel for Ford!

Thanks for keeping an eye on LaDonna and me, we don't want to run afoul of the morals and standards committee.........

To: ExPat....

Now, your using the "s" word! I would say you are running "afoul"!

Okay children... Let's keep this supremely excellent conversation on the extremely highest level we have been able to obtain thus far. Howz that?

To: LaDonna:

I love to take a risk....a calculated risk at least, so running "afoul" of the committee is a chance I'm willing to take. Are you with me? (Ha!Ha!)

ExPat (The Scoundrel)

To: ExPat...

Now, you know if I say I'm with you, Spinner is going to be all over it!

Where's my @#$%^&* ruler?!

"ye gods and little fishes"

To: South-Side John... "ye gods and little fishes" I love this!

To: ExPat....Is Spinner swearing!?!

Okay, as long as we continue to condemn the use of superlatives, we can say goodbye to Alfred the Adequate and Peter the Pretty Good.

In the meantime, I would like to address the issue of America seeing itself as an epicenter. A definite problem of shortsightedness to be sure, but we don't want to become guilty of the very thing about which we complain. It is easy to assume that this sort of thing is unique to America and, by so assuming, we fail to look past our own borders as surely as the people we criticize do.

A few years ago, I was chatting with some colleagues about the story of Ferdinand the Bull. I was shocked when I learned that none of them had grown up with it and had no idea what I was talking about. I went to our manager who had two young children and mentioned it to her. She replied, "Remember I'm Irish so I'm not likely to know American stories." When I pointed out that the story actually originated in Spain, she replied, "Well then I've DEFINITELY never heard of it!" in a tone that suggested it was utterly silly to expect her to.

No one ever has any perspective other than their own. Try as I might, my own eyes are the only ones from which I can see. We can learn about the rest of the world but our perspective will still be one of a student observer. Those Americans who never think beyond their own borders may be nearsighted but they are in good company. For good or for ill, it is the way of the world.

Thank you, DPR, for getting us back on track. The anthropological term here is "ethnocentric". We all, and that means everybody world wide, tend to think that "our way is the only and right way". Thus we blunder into Iraq without understanding the tribal form of organization, etc., etc. Democracy is the ONLY right way of governance and everybody else should want that as well. How could it be otherwise? That is what we have been taught and therefore that is the only way the world stays in balance.

I will stop here with the social organization argument and not get into the religion thing. But in Iraq, that, too, is something we have not taken into account and look where it has taken us.

As we enter into this world economy and global communication, all peoples, including us, must step back and stop with the superlatives and realize that there are other choices that can be as valid as what we ourselves believe to be "The Best". Of course, this does not mean we should condone Vlad that Impaler.

But I do indeed like the idea of Peter the Pretty Good...

Quite right, Spinner. "Ethnocentric" is precisely the term I was looking for and I appreciate the recognition that it is not unique to Americans. Imagining so is, itself, ethnocentric.

But, as you also pointed out, this does not mean we should condone Vlad the Impaler. The thing that is important to take away from a discussion like this is, how do we determine the difference? When is the spread of democracy a case of ethnocentrism and when is it a necessary alternative to a culture's previous habit of summarily beheading women in the street?

In many cases, it's not even a matter of considering oneself "the best", but rather a failure to even consider the possibility of an alternative. My sister-in-law is from western China and is a Sunni Muslim. But she doesn't call herself that; she simply says Muslim. Before she met my brother, she did not know Shiites existed. Literally, she had never heard of them! Ethnocentrism tends, more often than not, to be a feeling of exclusivity rather than superiority.

DPR and Spinner,
I’m not sure we are ready to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” on this but I really do appreciate, and respect your thoughts on the subject of the USA’s self-image and role relative to the rest of the world. I believe we as a nation need to remember our humble beginnings and grand dreams. We revolted and became a free nation because of the arrogance of those who governed us. To view ourselves as the epicenter or role model for planet earth is to become what the founding fathers feared most, and that I think is a slippery slope for any society.

I’m pretty tired so I hope this comes out the way I intended

To: LaDonna:

I do believe Spinner was swearing! We're certainly together in this journey! It's fun to mis-behave.......in fact it's "great" to mis-behave!