That's Why They Call It Filthy Lucre

So Felisa Miceli, Argentina's Economy Minister resigns over an investigation into $60,000 found in a bag in her office bathroom? She used to be president of Banco de la Nacion? Has she never heard of safety deposit boxes?

The truly abominable judgment of those in positions of power never ceases to amaze me. Boz seems to think that this was good for the Kirchners before the campaign starts and I certainly agree. Nothing is gained through festering.

Still, one must wonder what - or even if - she was thinking.

Comments

[leftside]

You KNOW she is guilty, or was she perhaps slayed by the Kirchner's before things got too late in the season?

[Randinho]

Did I say she was guilty? There is something unseemly about it, and I think under the circumstances, she should have resigned. I didn't slam the Kirchners at all. In fact, as I have said before, I like them.

For someone who frequently assumes the worst (usually with no foundation) about those with whom one disagrees politically, you're entering pot-kettle-black territory.

[leftside]

Umm, the use of "filthy lucre" seemed to imply you felt foul play was at work...

I know you like Kirchner, as do I. But if it turns out Micelli was innocent and they cut her loose for political reasons, that would leave a bad taste.

All I assume about you is that you disapprove of attempts to build socialism. Perhaps I get more frustrated when I know the person is smart and understands that capitalism must be tamed and powerful forces stand in the way of progress... but choose to single out exciting experiements like Venezuela for criticism... when they are doing more for the poor and real participatory democracy than anything else around.

[Randinho]

The word filthy had more to do with the location of the money.

I probably would have had no problem with Allende. I'm skeptical of demagogues and I'm dubious of governments that push the cult of the personality over building institutions.

You don't build lasting change by calling people esqualidos or gusanos no matter how much you may dislike them, jailing people for the nonviolent expression of their beliefs. Among the most compelling passages in Ariel Dorfman's Heading South, Looking North were the regrets he articulated about people who were cast aside because they did not embrace the UP (neither did they fight it).

No matter how much one may dislike George Bush, allying yourself with the likes of Ahmadinejad just makes you look stupid.

[leftside]

Fair enough, but I guess I don't judge governments based on the personality of the President. And the fact that people have genuine love for Fidel and Chavez is not a downside. Good leaders are able to inspire people - to study, to be active, to work hard. I am waiting for someone from the left, even if imperfect, to have such charisma. The masses do not understand turn the other cheek. When you fight back with words, you are showing them you care.

It hurts to see you echo the Bush Administration's talking points on Venezuela (ally of Ahmadinejad). I mean come on, backing Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy (as most countries do) and working together on oil project does not make them best friends. As Washington's demons, of course there is some sympatico. Let's remember, most countries have normal relations with both.

[Randinho]

It hurts to see you echo the Bush Administration's talking points on Venezuela (ally of Ahmadinejad). I mean come on, backing Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy (as most countries do) and working together on oil project does not make them best friends

Do you honestly think I'm stupid?

He referred to Ahmadinejad as his "brother" recently. Last year he gladly accepted Iran's highest civilian honor. This from a government that executes gays for being gay and just stoned to death an adulterer. Perhaps you should ask Nestor Kirchner how he feels about Ahmadinejad, in light of his efforts to get justice for the victims of the AMIA and Israeli Embassy bombings.

Instead of accusing me of echoing the Bush administration talking points, a comment I find personally insulting as it assumes that I couldn't be offended by Chavez's alliance with Ahmadinejad on my own, perhaps you should ask yourself why someone who considers himself a revolutionary would not apparently be bothered by this alliance.

If you're going to come here and insult me, perhaps you should stay away.

[leftside]

I really don't know why this seems to keep getting personal. I can be abrasive perhaps in my writing, but these are just ideas, my friend.

Rather than asking Kirchner about Ahmadinejad, ask him about getting attacked for being friendly with Chavez (today in fact). Or the CIA using Allende's friendship with Havana as a reason to depose him, and on and on. This is a petty and ultimately pointless game.

Countries are forced into relationships they may not always prefer due to geopolitics. You can pin more blame on Washington for the Tehran-Caracas relationship than any natural affinity. Voters in Venezuela can recall Chavez any time they want if they don't like it. Frankly it affects the economic and social experiment in Venezuela (which I care most about) not one iota.

I don't want to get into Iran, but suffice to say I feel it is the job of progressives to counter lies and misttatements before we go on another war based on BS. It is also important to compare the state of women in Iran versus US allies (that we actually have a duty to affect) Saudi Arabia or American occupied Afghanistan. That said, I hate Sharia and Ahmadinejad is in waaay over his head. But I don't see them as a threat to he US or Israel, except in constraining imperialism. Why does Ayatollah Khameini's fatwa against WMDs always get ignored or buried?

[Randinho]

I really don't know why this seems to keep getting personal. I can be abrasive perhaps in my writing, but these are just ideas, my friend.

Oh, probably because of sentences like this:

It hurts to see you echo the Bush Administration's talking points on Venezuela (ally of Ahmadinejad).

You assume that the fact that I criticize Chavez means that I am unable to come to this criticism on my own. You don't know squat about me.

I did active volunteer work for Amnesty International from 1983 to 1997 and I still participate in their activities. I believe that there are certain fundamental freedoms that all governments - whether I support them or not - must observe. If the Bush administration criticizes a repressive government and AI and HRW does so, I am not so tendentiously dimwitted as to not also share in that criticism.

I do not like the military's historic role in Latin America. That's why I will vigorously condemn both Chavez's coup of 1992 and the coup against him ten years later.

My brain is not a zero-sum brain. I'm fully capable of condemning human rights abuses by governments of both left and right. I'd much rather be intellectually honest and morally consistent than partisan and willfully blind.

[leftside]

Once more (with feeling), I did not assume anything like you suggest. Not in my wildest lefty dreams did I think you were actually taking cues from Bush or the right. Likewise I trust you know that I resist some of your notions because i believe otherwise, not because I believe everything that comes out of Havana and Caracas...

As for your work for AI, I imagine this is another reason why our views diverge. I used to go to meetings in college and they were obsessed with China at a time when they were lifting more people out of misery than any country in the history of mankind (and making good strides in human rights). They never mentioned any of this. Fine, social justice is not their thing. But they pay little more than lip service to social and cultural rights like housing - or acknowledge positive, prroactive steps government can make to enhance the freedoms and rights of humans in fulfilling their human potential (as more than just workers).

[Randinho]

With regard to your criticisms of AI, they don't deal with that because it doesn't fall within their mandate.

I was giving a speech about AI's work in Central and South America in 1991 here in NYC and a man accused AI of having an anti-Israel bias. I asked him why he believed tht and he told me that AI should not criticize Israel because Israel was in a state of war. I pointed out to him that Israel was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions and bound by their terms. He told me that Israel should be viewed differently. I then asked him if he believed that Israel should not be subject to the same standards as the rest of the world, to which he replied, no they shouldn't. At that point I told him that we had nothing to talk about.

Similarly, when someone praises China and thinks China's efforts to provide housing for its citizens should take precedence over the fact that the nation is torturing Tibetan Buddhist monks (I worked on a POC case involving one such monk), in spite of the fact that China has signed and ratified the Convention Against Torture, it's merely the other side of the same coin.

If you start putting political considerations ahead of a basic standard of human rights - that you shall not torture, nor imprison people for the non-violent expression of their beliefs, for example, then you can probably rationalize anything. It's what the pro-Pinochet side did throughout his rule.

[leftside]

"Putting political considerations over basic standard of human rights..."

My point is that aleviation of desperate living conditions IS a basic standard of human rights - one AI and most Western human rights groups refuse to recognize. If you also do not recognize poverty, hunger and "freedom from want" as basic human rights, fine. But understand this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I have no problem with doing the hard work to call out torture wherever it occurs. I just happen to think when one writes an overview of human rights in China, and minimizes the larger collassal advancements in living conditions of 300 millions, they discredit themselves in much of the world, most importantly in China. It is not putting one ahead of the other, but proper context.

[Randinho]

I just happen to think when one writes an overview of human rights in China, and minimizes the larger collassal advancements in living conditions of 300 millions, they discredit themselves in much of the world, most importantly in China. [my emphasis]

If you want to see why I have such a difficult time taking you seriously, read the boldfaced section of the quote. "Much of the world" my ass.

There are plenty of NGO's that address the issues you want to address. AI's mandate doesn't encompass that. Glad to see that you and Kissinger are on the same side here.

[leftside]

AIs mandate is supposed to be human rights... I hope you agree human rights are wider than AIs concerns.

The world knows China is not perfect. They are also in awe over what it has accomplished. They wish their own leaders could devise a way to meaningfully improve their standard of living and options in life. The world disagrees with Washington's hypocritical blame and shame China policy. They disagree with AI's narrow conception of human rights. They also disagree with torture, of course. I was talking about balance in the world's most important Human Rights wrap up.

Kissinger recognized China for his geo-political reasons, not their anti poverty efforts..

[Randinho]

With regard to AI, you do not know what you are talking about. AI's mandate is as follows:

1.) Calling for the unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience; a a prisoner of conscience being defined as someone who is imprisoned for the expression of their political beliefs, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., provided they have not used nor advocated violence.

2.) That all political prisoners, including those who may have used or advocated violence, be given fair and prompt trials in accordance wioth internationally recognized judicial standards.

3.) That torture and the death penalty be abolished in all situations.

That's it. Simply because you don't seem to be troubled by China's treatment of its own citizens as long as they are lifting some o them out of poverty, doesn't mean they "discredit themselves in much of the world."

Indeed, it takes a special brand of tendentiousness to think that they speak for the world as you seem to think you do. Much of the world, as evidenced by the worldwide support for the refugees from Darfur, seems to be concerned by China's support of the brutal regime in Sudan simply because they supply China with oil.

"They disagree with AI's narrow conception of human rights."

Utter unsupported bullshit. You do and your friends who put political considerations above basic human freedoms, but you don't supply one scintilla of proof. If you plan to come here and make those sorts of arguments that really amount to contradiction a la John Cleese in a Monty Pythion sketch and nothing else, I'd rather you stayed away.

Kissinger praised China for his own reasons as do you, while both of you ignore their brutal human rights record. You're peas in a pod.

[leftside]

Wow, I did not see that I am no longer welcome until now. For someone who obviously loves ideas, as I do, I find this very hard to comprehend...

As for this stale argument goes, my only point is that it is possible to be critical of China on one hand for continuing human rights violations AND at the same time praise it for raising the living standards of hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people. This single-mindedness is exactly what I was criticizing AI for. Sure their mandate is narrow, but their first description of themselves is a "worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights." They routinely comment beyond political prisoners and torture (as all the top stories on their front page attests).

I stand by my (pretty tame) assertion that the world has a much broader conception of human rights than most Western groups like AI and HRW. I thought it was pretty uncontrovertial to say that they would do themselves a favor to look at things like social, economic and cultural rights in their reports. Poverty is not just some fancy of the left, it is the #1 denier of human rights in the world.