Persons who assume the average Swedish electrician earns 30k US$ per month might not understand the significant difference between selling futures at market value or making their party friends an early christmas present by selling out the country.
Macri: The 11 Of December There Will Be One Dollar
- Thread starter ElCordobés
- Start date
wineguy999
Registered
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,284
- Likes
- 1,732
See, there's the rub. The only evidence displayed that the good "doctor" is actually a lawyer is his unbridled arrogance, incessant condescension, and a lack of desire to treat others with even a modicum of common respect. He has never shown any ability to actually think like a lawyer.
As I recall, he mentioned that this is what his father told him that he earned. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
My father used to tell me many things, most of them true, but as I grew up I realized he wasn't infallible...
EdRooney
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 2,065
Ben,
Likewise, I have nothing but the highest respect for you. Even so, your arguments (correct me if i misunderstand you) essentially boil down to: "well its realpolitik, so we have to ditch morals for the greater good".
The first time I heard this argument was when we studied how it was made by Lenin to justify his crackdown on royalists and anarchists in 1918. But it was not coined by Lenin; it has rather been the rallying cry of practically every revolutionary regime that wanted to justify why it wanted to become the exact regime it had just overthrown: Robespierre, Mao, Rosas, Khomeini... "The people wanted an end to corruption, nepotism and oppression, but we need to be oppressive, nepotistic and corrupt to achieve that." It has never worked. The oppressed inevitably become the oppressor.
Furthermore, it's rather telling that you (unwittingly?) quote Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon in your post (moving forward for the good of the country)-- perhaps the greatest example ever of suspending the rule of law in the name of corruption. If we believe in the rule of law and Vanoli has committed a crime, then he must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law... no negotiations.
As far as I'm concerned, if you feel the best tactic is to use the K's methods to support Macri, then you are really just a K with a different colour flag.
Likewise, I have nothing but the highest respect for you. Even so, your arguments (correct me if i misunderstand you) essentially boil down to: "well its realpolitik, so we have to ditch morals for the greater good".
The first time I heard this argument was when we studied how it was made by Lenin to justify his crackdown on royalists and anarchists in 1918. But it was not coined by Lenin; it has rather been the rallying cry of practically every revolutionary regime that wanted to justify why it wanted to become the exact regime it had just overthrown: Robespierre, Mao, Rosas, Khomeini... "The people wanted an end to corruption, nepotism and oppression, but we need to be oppressive, nepotistic and corrupt to achieve that." It has never worked. The oppressed inevitably become the oppressor.
Furthermore, it's rather telling that you (unwittingly?) quote Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon in your post (moving forward for the good of the country)-- perhaps the greatest example ever of suspending the rule of law in the name of corruption. If we believe in the rule of law and Vanoli has committed a crime, then he must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law... no negotiations.
As far as I'm concerned, if you feel the best tactic is to use the K's methods to support Macri, then you are really just a K with a different colour flag.
EdRooney
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 2,065
Gringoboy:
Sorry, I dont get how your point relates to my post. You think the K's are nepotistic? So do I. You think that's evil? So do I.
My point is that the K method of nepotism was to remove officials who disagreed with them from their posts, often using blackmail. I would like to see that change in Argentina (and elsewhere), and thus Vanoli should not be given legal leniency for leaving his job voluntarily. Suggestions to continue this type of nepotism/blackmail are abhorrent to me.
Sorry, I dont get how your point relates to my post. You think the K's are nepotistic? So do I. You think that's evil? So do I.
My point is that the K method of nepotism was to remove officials who disagreed with them from their posts, often using blackmail. I would like to see that change in Argentina (and elsewhere), and thus Vanoli should not be given legal leniency for leaving his job voluntarily. Suggestions to continue this type of nepotism/blackmail are abhorrent to me.
ben
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,870
- Likes
- 2,271
Ed, I think we're talking a bit past each other. What K methods are you talking about? What ditching of morals are you talking about?
As I wrote, I think - in fact, to me it's quite obvious - that there is a big difference between encouraging corruption among proteges, cracking down on opponents, and not pursuing a case which it is - at this point in time - impossible to keep within the law and outside of politics.
One the one hand, there is favoring and tolerating own corruption, cracking down on the opposition, etc - all in the name of whatever ideals, in which case I largely agree with your point.
On the other hand, there is forbearing from raising absolute hell by prosecutions that - at this point - don't have a chance in hell of getting anyone to a better place.
This non-prosecuting is not being done to protect your friends, or punish your enemies. For all I know, Macri and a lot of his supporters would love to have a whole bunch of K's stewing in jail. But do you really think that if CFK gets indicted within the next 6 months, on valid grounds, that it would go anywhere? Would La Campora not paralyze the country with demonstrations and more? Even without that, would at least half the country not believe that Macri is doing precisely what you mention in your post - carrying on a political vendetta, and all of the country would be for or against for reasons that have little to do with right and wrong?
No, it is a completely different thing to refrain from prosecuting someone - particularly an opponent - because there are simply bigger fish to fry. Building your credibility with the 48.5% of the country that didn't vote for you (after 12 years of K rule!), or that did but did so while holding their nose. Dealing with current problems in as non-political a manner as possible. Solving the economic disaster. Establishing a general attitude of law and order, (and yes that includes prosecuting anything that happens from now on, on your watch, particularly in your government). Fostering trust and beneficial relations between business and labor. Building education. Dealing with general crime and lawlessness. Etc.
Now, I have no problem with you holding otherwise. You may well think that prosecuting Vanoli, D'Elia, Boudou etc. is more important than all of the above, that it must be attempted, consequences be damned. I would disagree with you, strenuously so, but I get your position. What I do have a problem is when you call the other position immoral; when you compare it with nepotism, corruption, Lenin, etc. That's not what it is, quite the opposite.
And yes, Gerald Ford - whom I quoted unwittingly, I understood that was his reasoning, but did not know that he actually uttered the line I used - paid dearly for his pardon. Perhaps he would have been better understood had he been a Democrat; just as only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only a Democrat could pardon Nixon. But what he did - pardoning Nixon, and thus ending the show - was possibly a supremely wise move. Nixon had not killed anyone, and he did not go unpunished; he forfeited the presidency, and was reviled for a generation. It cost Ford reelection, but it was very possibly the right thing to do.
UPDATE: Maybe the point can be distilled thusly; when some things become too deeply political, time must be allowed to run its course. Videla etc. were not prosecuted in the 80's, and perhaps they couldn't have been without swinging back too deeply. Argentina had to recover first. Sometimes the hornet's nest must simply be allowed to die or disperse.
Would you press a button and send Vanoli to jail without any regard to the consequences for other people? Would you press that button if you knew that half the country would see him as a freedom fighter of sorts, and that precisely his jailing would result in Cristina's return as well as his own pardon and release, including fragata-Libertad-style hero's welcome as a victim of the evil Macrismo?
Perhaps there will be a time when the rule of law in Argentina is strong enough to hang all evil. Today is not the day. Society must be rebuilt first.
As I wrote, I think - in fact, to me it's quite obvious - that there is a big difference between encouraging corruption among proteges, cracking down on opponents, and not pursuing a case which it is - at this point in time - impossible to keep within the law and outside of politics.
One the one hand, there is favoring and tolerating own corruption, cracking down on the opposition, etc - all in the name of whatever ideals, in which case I largely agree with your point.
On the other hand, there is forbearing from raising absolute hell by prosecutions that - at this point - don't have a chance in hell of getting anyone to a better place.
This non-prosecuting is not being done to protect your friends, or punish your enemies. For all I know, Macri and a lot of his supporters would love to have a whole bunch of K's stewing in jail. But do you really think that if CFK gets indicted within the next 6 months, on valid grounds, that it would go anywhere? Would La Campora not paralyze the country with demonstrations and more? Even without that, would at least half the country not believe that Macri is doing precisely what you mention in your post - carrying on a political vendetta, and all of the country would be for or against for reasons that have little to do with right and wrong?
No, it is a completely different thing to refrain from prosecuting someone - particularly an opponent - because there are simply bigger fish to fry. Building your credibility with the 48.5% of the country that didn't vote for you (after 12 years of K rule!), or that did but did so while holding their nose. Dealing with current problems in as non-political a manner as possible. Solving the economic disaster. Establishing a general attitude of law and order, (and yes that includes prosecuting anything that happens from now on, on your watch, particularly in your government). Fostering trust and beneficial relations between business and labor. Building education. Dealing with general crime and lawlessness. Etc.
Now, I have no problem with you holding otherwise. You may well think that prosecuting Vanoli, D'Elia, Boudou etc. is more important than all of the above, that it must be attempted, consequences be damned. I would disagree with you, strenuously so, but I get your position. What I do have a problem is when you call the other position immoral; when you compare it with nepotism, corruption, Lenin, etc. That's not what it is, quite the opposite.
And yes, Gerald Ford - whom I quoted unwittingly, I understood that was his reasoning, but did not know that he actually uttered the line I used - paid dearly for his pardon. Perhaps he would have been better understood had he been a Democrat; just as only Nixon could go to China, perhaps only a Democrat could pardon Nixon. But what he did - pardoning Nixon, and thus ending the show - was possibly a supremely wise move. Nixon had not killed anyone, and he did not go unpunished; he forfeited the presidency, and was reviled for a generation. It cost Ford reelection, but it was very possibly the right thing to do.
UPDATE: Maybe the point can be distilled thusly; when some things become too deeply political, time must be allowed to run its course. Videla etc. were not prosecuted in the 80's, and perhaps they couldn't have been without swinging back too deeply. Argentina had to recover first. Sometimes the hornet's nest must simply be allowed to die or disperse.
Would you press a button and send Vanoli to jail without any regard to the consequences for other people? Would you press that button if you knew that half the country would see him as a freedom fighter of sorts, and that precisely his jailing would result in Cristina's return as well as his own pardon and release, including fragata-Libertad-style hero's welcome as a victim of the evil Macrismo?
Perhaps there will be a time when the rule of law in Argentina is strong enough to hang all evil. Today is not the day. Society must be rebuilt first.
I feel pretty much like you do, Ed.
I posted about this a couple of weeks ago when talking about what Macri would face if he won the election. He's promising an open, honest government that abides by the rules. To remove Vanoli by decree without the approval of congress would be breaking those rules, as Cristina has done as well. Cristina and her ilk certainly believe that the ends justify whatever means they could get away with. They are akin to wild-eyed fanatics, they have the only answer to their, and the world's, problems and they would do what they needed to do to bring paradise to Argentina. (at least that's their stated goals - personally, I'm very skeptical at best that their motivations are so pure).
So if one side can't justify breaking the rules and get called on it, how can the other side, who is claiming honesty and openness, do the same thing?
Of course, this an example of one of the many times where I have a problem with a government to begin with. It is a giant behemoth squishing people beneath its feet, sometimes randomly, sometimes targeted. Individually or in groups. But within the last 12 years, the elephant has put on too much weight and can't hardly carry its own mass, much less many passengers. It's caroming back and forth on the path to the future and cutting a swath through spectators who came to see a dangerous sport.
Maybe the driver has to be removed forcibly. Maybe that's the worst thing that could happen.
The bureaucracy itself is a problem at this point in that it is full of drivers that were a part of the team that were controlling the caroming elephant. Including Vanini. Who has been accused of being dirty. And I can hear Bajo and Matias screaming "but Macri's dirty too! He's been charged or is under indictment on 204 different charges!". And I think they have a point, but this is where I get lost in Argentine politics. How can a man get elected that has 204 (apparently) serious charges or indictments pending?
So what's BS then? All (or even many) of the charges either officially or publicly laid against the K's and all their group? All(or even many) of the charges either officially or publicly laid against the Macri and his group? The fact that people with so many criminal charges outstanding can be successfully elected to high public office up to and including the chief executive?
My head spins. The dirtiness I see when talking about Argentine politics is all-pervading. It's the way the game is played here - at this time in Argentina's history. (I'm not saying Argentina's alone in the world, we're just talking about Argentina right now)
I don't see how it can be changed without a little bit of the same kind of politics. The system rot is too pervasive.
But I do keep coming back to the question: "how can you use illegal tactics to do good?"
I have to think of it as baby steps in this case. Argentina as a country is not ready to do things completely above board in its entirety. The only hope is for people like Macri to force openness on everyone and over time it will become second nature.
And then again, how on Earth can you make a claim that you know better, and know better well and clear enough, to make decisions to act outside of the law to bring about your vision?
See? I keep going back and forth. It is a true, real-world moral dilemma. And one of the biggest weaknesses, as well as dangers, of government by force.
I feel disgusted with political movements in general. I feel disgusted with a lot of things related to governments around the world, even the best ones. I don't believe, personally, in political expediency. I try to be as honest a person as I can, but I know I'm fooling myself some of the time anyway. It would be impossible to be a successful politician and be true and honest to everything I stand for. I believe a saint is called for in such situations and these type of people are few and far between and really hard to come by.
As I believe it was Ben that mentioned, the reality of politics is doing things that are disgusting in order to get something for your ideals or goals. In many places things run well enough that one doesn't have to stoop to illegal means to enforce your will. Here, things aren't done like that. When the population decides that they will demand honesty and integrity in the social processes, people like Macri claim to be won't have to resort to illegal means to get their reforms pushed through.
But it is a dirty, awful process, growing out of corruption. I still sit on the edge of the dilemma and don't know which side I fall on in such a case as Argentina.
I posted about this a couple of weeks ago when talking about what Macri would face if he won the election. He's promising an open, honest government that abides by the rules. To remove Vanoli by decree without the approval of congress would be breaking those rules, as Cristina has done as well. Cristina and her ilk certainly believe that the ends justify whatever means they could get away with. They are akin to wild-eyed fanatics, they have the only answer to their, and the world's, problems and they would do what they needed to do to bring paradise to Argentina. (at least that's their stated goals - personally, I'm very skeptical at best that their motivations are so pure).
So if one side can't justify breaking the rules and get called on it, how can the other side, who is claiming honesty and openness, do the same thing?
Of course, this an example of one of the many times where I have a problem with a government to begin with. It is a giant behemoth squishing people beneath its feet, sometimes randomly, sometimes targeted. Individually or in groups. But within the last 12 years, the elephant has put on too much weight and can't hardly carry its own mass, much less many passengers. It's caroming back and forth on the path to the future and cutting a swath through spectators who came to see a dangerous sport.
Maybe the driver has to be removed forcibly. Maybe that's the worst thing that could happen.
The bureaucracy itself is a problem at this point in that it is full of drivers that were a part of the team that were controlling the caroming elephant. Including Vanini. Who has been accused of being dirty. And I can hear Bajo and Matias screaming "but Macri's dirty too! He's been charged or is under indictment on 204 different charges!". And I think they have a point, but this is where I get lost in Argentine politics. How can a man get elected that has 204 (apparently) serious charges or indictments pending?
So what's BS then? All (or even many) of the charges either officially or publicly laid against the K's and all their group? All(or even many) of the charges either officially or publicly laid against the Macri and his group? The fact that people with so many criminal charges outstanding can be successfully elected to high public office up to and including the chief executive?
My head spins. The dirtiness I see when talking about Argentine politics is all-pervading. It's the way the game is played here - at this time in Argentina's history. (I'm not saying Argentina's alone in the world, we're just talking about Argentina right now)
I don't see how it can be changed without a little bit of the same kind of politics. The system rot is too pervasive.
But I do keep coming back to the question: "how can you use illegal tactics to do good?"
I have to think of it as baby steps in this case. Argentina as a country is not ready to do things completely above board in its entirety. The only hope is for people like Macri to force openness on everyone and over time it will become second nature.
And then again, how on Earth can you make a claim that you know better, and know better well and clear enough, to make decisions to act outside of the law to bring about your vision?
See? I keep going back and forth. It is a true, real-world moral dilemma. And one of the biggest weaknesses, as well as dangers, of government by force.
I feel disgusted with political movements in general. I feel disgusted with a lot of things related to governments around the world, even the best ones. I don't believe, personally, in political expediency. I try to be as honest a person as I can, but I know I'm fooling myself some of the time anyway. It would be impossible to be a successful politician and be true and honest to everything I stand for. I believe a saint is called for in such situations and these type of people are few and far between and really hard to come by.
As I believe it was Ben that mentioned, the reality of politics is doing things that are disgusting in order to get something for your ideals or goals. In many places things run well enough that one doesn't have to stoop to illegal means to enforce your will. Here, things aren't done like that. When the population decides that they will demand honesty and integrity in the social processes, people like Macri claim to be won't have to resort to illegal means to get their reforms pushed through.
But it is a dirty, awful process, growing out of corruption. I still sit on the edge of the dilemma and don't know which side I fall on in such a case as Argentina.
AmigoArtistico
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 541
- Likes
- 742
Here's how it's going to go. There's no need to make any deal with the Congress. Don't you know how the laws work in your own country? You really don't seem to know what's going on.
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1844638-la-oposicion-ya-planifica-la-destitucion-del-funcionario
AmigoArtistico
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 541
- Likes
- 742
Deleted: duplicate.
AmigoArtistico
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 541
- Likes
- 742
This is simply not true. The rules on this are very clear. Follow the link two posts above. It provides very specific details about the process.
Vanoli can and will be removed. Hopefully he will also be prosecuted, but that is a separate issue with its own process.
