“You cannot do anything to make America not like you. You’re one of those people…[like] Charlie Sheen…I always kid him. I say ‘You could beat a nun to death in a pile of dead puppies’ and America would just go, ‘Oh that Charlie, we love him, he’s hysterical!’…and you’re the same way.”

- Bill Maher to Brad Pitt

Yesterday’s post How To Ruin Your Reputation Instantly And Permanently was about how easy it is to shatter your reputation by acting unethically for a short term gain. In the comments, Chad at Sentient Money said:

“True, but reputation is secondary to making money. If you can make money for someone else they will hire you even if you are a baby killer…sure there are companies who won’t hire ‘baby killers who make money,’ but there are tons that will. Just ask Goldman Sachs, GE, Morgan Stanley, Citi, virtually any of the oil companies and large international construction firms, the Fed, etc.”

While I’m not exactly thrilled that this is true, it definitely is. And that got me thinking about why people vary so much in their ability to get away with things. Of course, money is one way to get a free pass.

I’m normally not a fan of ruining someone’s career just because they slipped up and said something they shouldn’t have, but John Rocker would be an exception. It would be hard to come up with something more racist, homophobic, and sexist than what he said about New York in 2000.

But when people speculated about whether it would ruin his career, a common thought was “Yeah, but he still throws the ball at 95 miles per hour.” Translation: he makes money, so he’s untouchable.

His career did fall apart, but only because his pitching performance declined, not because of what he said. (BTW, I haven’t closely followed many of the stories referenced in this post, so correct me if I’m wrong on anything.)

If John Rocker is someone who got off too easy, Tiger Woods is someone who’s taking far more heat than he deserves. Yeah, affairs are bad, I get that. But I haven’t heard a decent explanation as to why what Tiger did is so much worse than what David Letterman did.

What is so different in Tiger’s case? Is it the number of affairs? Is it because he has more money and therefore more responsibility? Is it because his image was a bit more squeaky clean?

The main reason I’m hearing is that Letterman apologized before the public found out. But what difference does that make? He only did it because he had been caught and knew the truth was coming out whether he liked it or not.

Do you really feel that Tiger Woods owes you an apology? His wife certainly, but why is it any of our business? (I just learned that he’s issuing an apology later today, though I doubt it will change anything.)

Chad also said, “In 2 years no one will care that Tiger Woods got caught having a massive number of affairs. He will get back all his sponsors and more.” Yes, I believe so, assuming that his performance doesn’t tank from staying out of the game too long, losing focus, etc. But today, why is it such a huge controversy compared to some much worse offenses?

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and no one really cared. In fact, his first fight out of prison set a pay-per-view record of $63 million. And his career wasn’t ruined by biting off part of Evander Holyfield’s ear, assaulting two people in a road rage attack, throwing punches after the bell, knocking down a referee, failing one drug test and refusing to take another, racking up more sexual assault accusations, or saying he wanted to eat Lennox Lewis’ children. Nope, his career ended only when his performance declined.

But it’s not just money making ability that gives someone immunity. There’s something else, though I’m not sure what. Why can Brad Pitt and Charlie Sheen do no wrong, while other people of similar stature pay dearly for offenses that should be within the bounds of forgiveness?

John Kerry’s 2008 presidential hopes were dashed when he waited too long to apologize for a botched joke. Seriously? Why is that even an issue?

On the other hand, George W. Bush got re-elected after, in some peoples’ minds, bombing the World Trade Center. (No, I don’t think he deserves any blame for the 9/11 attacks, but a lot of people think it was his fault for ignoring the threat and allowing it to happen, and some people actually think he planned it…people like Charlie Sheen.)

Shock jock Don Imus found that your immunity can wear off. He was fired for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment, despite apologizing immediately. Yeah, it’s offensive, and I’m certainly not a fan of his, but that comment was consistent with the material that won him honors such as a place in Talkers magazine’s 25 greatest radio talk show hosts of all time. So why did the line suddenly move for him? He’s said some things that were far worse, without much consequence.

Does anyone really expect Simon Cowell to apologize to everyone he’s judged?

Anyway, if anyone knows what the rules are, let me know.

I expected 10 Reasons Japan Is Better Than America and 10 Reasons America Is Better Than Japan to be slightly controversial, but I still didn’t understand why there were so many angry comments (some of which have been edited for language or deleted). Then I checked my stats, and found that the pro-Japan post has gotten almost 12,000 hits so far from StumbleUpon (thanks, Evelyn!). Given the traffic, it’s not surprising that some people felt the need to stick up for their country.

One of the anonymous commenters, calling himself “k,” said “No country is better than another. That’s a nationalistic and somewhat dangerous attitude…Every place has it’s good sides/bad sides…Get over the nationalism.”

I certainly agree that every country has its pluses and minuses. In fact, that was exactly the point of those two posts. But consider the statement “No country is better than another.” Are you sure about that? Are you sure you don’t think that France is better than North Korea? Or is “k” right, just like many parents say they couldn’t possibly have a favorite child?

I was comparing the U.S. and Japan in terms of things that are important to me, but of course I’m biased. I can’t really say that the U.S. is better in an objective sense. Can we ever say that one country is better than another, not just in our opinion, but on some objective scale?

On Bill Maher’s show, he once had an interesting discussion about cultural superiority. He said:

“[Jack Straw] said that he does not want to talk to women in burkhas. He said it is a visible statement of separation and difference. And, you know what? I agree with him. I think a lot of people think tolerance goes to the level of tolerating intolerance. And, to me, the burkha is a symbol of intolerance…There are countries in the world where they’re living in the 14th century. Why come to the West and maintain the burkha? It doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.”

Then Ben Affleck said:

“I don’t know. Why show up and still sing your Irish songs in Boston or bring your Italian cultural traditions? [applause] … to imply the superiority of one race or culture over another is the definition of racism.”

To which Maher responded:

“…we’re not implying that the race is superior. We’re implying that what that culture, our culture, has adopted as our mores is – is superior…Rule of law, equality of the sexes, they are superior.”

Bill Clinton once said of the U.S., “This is not a perfect society, but it is one that is stumbling in the right direction.” That implies that there’s a “right” direction to stumble towards, that some cultures are better than others. Not just different, but better.

Of course, we could argue forever about what the right direction is. Henry David Thoreau said “I have no doubt that it is part of the destiny of the human race in its gradual development to leave off the eating of animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came into contact with the more civilized.” There’s plenty of room for disagreement there.

But your personal preferences aside, do you think one country can truly be superior to another? Or are all cultures equally valid?