Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Torture, Gonzales, Bush, Davos What is most distressing about the torture issue is that, once discovered (early on warnings), the administration has not felt compelled to do anything to counter the emerging public horror. The implication seems to be that we have an administration with a lead ear when it comes to how it is perceived, a bit like a farmer on a  combine mowing the grass and not (daring to) think about the animal life underneath the blades.   BBC News — Some 23 prisoners tried to hang or strangle themselves during a protest at Guantanamo Bay in 2003, the US military says.   As just one example. The fact is beyond the tolerable in any US administration under any circumstances. The Declaration of Independence starts with "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires…" and this admin has not even attempted. Amazing given the PR capacity. But maybe the message is, "hey, so what's your problem?"  Some admire it, some are cowed.   On Gonzales, everyone's own community must take responsibility. This one is a good sign. From www.dailykos.com yesterday.   Mexican American Legal Defense Fund: No On Gonzales Daily Kos — In a significant and welcome move, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund ("MALDEF") has publicly stated that it "cannot support [Alberto Gonzales'] confirmation" as Attorney General.   MALDEF was very careful to praise Gonzales for his life achievements and to state that they expect to work with him if he is confirmed. But the headline is MALDEF's refusal to support his confirmation. I applaud them. I am sure it was not an easy thing to do, as they faced considerable pressure internally and externally on this. Consider that they are opposing the first Mexican American nominated to be Attorney General. It may seem mealy mouthed, but I believe it is a courageous act.   From a purely political point of view, Democratic Senators have no excuse now. This is all the political cover they could possibly need. Their votes now are truly votes of conscience. A yes vote will condone torture. They must vote no.   The future of the Democratic party. With the war in Ira moving towards more and more negative perception, we get this quoted from the NYT.   While Republicans listed changes in Social Security as their No. 1 objective, Democrats made enlarging the armed forces and providing new military benefits as their top goal, rejecting the idea that the retirement program needed urgent repair   Pasted from <http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_23.php>   That Kerry and the mainstream democratic party may be more republican than the Republicans: , more elitist, more military, less concerned with the poor (the red voters are lower in income and get some consideration from the Republican leadership, if not on financial issues, cultural ones that matter. There is no equivalent Democratic response to the lower half).  I know I am jumping over months of thinking here, but what the heck. The struggle for the leadership of the DNC is revealing that thre hardly is a party (mnot that the republicans have much in depth leadership), and the idea that going more right would help means that there is not a good understanding of the potential for a strong democratic party that was also for lower taxes (but in different proportions), for smaller government (but a good one of principle, not a tool of ideology like this one), and that security comes not from arms but from a just society world wide.   The Inaugural speech leads to the following dilemma:   A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll taken Thursday showed that 62 percent rated Mr. Bush's inaugural speech as either excellent or good. But 60 percent said the United States cannot achieve the president's stated goal of “ending tyranny in the world.” Just 35 percent thought it was possible. (Read the article for commentary, on both sides, as to whether Bush’s speech was overambitious or inline with past presidential inaugural speeches.) http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050123-112457-3614r.htm   Note that the possibility that the goals can be met but not by Bush's methods leaves the respondents and the writer without a clear logic.   The next few days will be taken with Davos, the yearly power conference.   You will see, if you click through the run-up to this year's Davos, that the tone is high and the realism seems robust. The problem, as I see it, is that the market rationalization forced by competition means more poor at the margins, and more concentration of wealth (in scarce protected positions, through regulation). The consumer is too pushed by cost cutting to have any income, and the few who are rich want other products, such as ranches and golf courses, which drive prices higher. The mechanization of the economy (I mean is mathematical modeling - see the wonderful book Machine Dreams: how economics became a cyborg science by Mirowski) is the real driver, and interest in the poor, the environment, education, health, and broad political participation give way at every point to market logic, and the need for security systems to deal with the new malcontents. Joseph Tainter's book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, says that societies, as they expand, spend an increasing percentage on infrastructure, such as transportation, jails, wars, and environmental remediation, until they go broke and collapse. The elites own the businesses that do the infrastructure and will hold on to their centrality in the economy, and their diminishing benefits, until they collapse. Jarad Diamond's new book Collapse, lays out the logic of bad decisions and failure to notice what is going on. My guess is the tough financial advisers tell their clients, "It is falling apart, get what you can NOW so you can enclave yourselves." Those who remain optimistic for the most part are those who run currently benefiting businesses. The others who are optimistic still have faith in human nature, education, art, science, and human compassion. The real question is, is there any real model besides that of market rationalization, with its winners and losers? Which I posted at   Pasted from <http://www.forumblog.org/blog/2005/01/taking_responsi.html>   There is the Forum Blog http://www.forumblog.org/   There is the Forum home page http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2005   http://www.weforum.org/       Posted by douglass carmichael 4:55:06 PM    comment []