Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

In case you ever questioned the importance of the Takings Clause, consider the case of Zimbabwe, which has just nationalized all farm land. What a mess Mugabe has made of that country.

eta: Found this on CNN trying to figure out what Hello is talking about re Belgium. Still in the dark on that one.

[Atticus Grinch]

W = N^2 + C, where W = 43; N = 37; and C = 39.

A bunch of left wing press crackpots ask a bunch of off-the-record WH staffers the question we're dying to know: Is the President batshit crazy?

• In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.
  
  * * *
  
  West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: Found this on CNN trying to figure out what Hello is talking about re Belgium. Still in the dark on that one.

Sorry about that. It took a minute through Google news (couldn't find it on Yahoo, but I knew I read the quote. The part about the quick investigation is at the bottom of the article.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5374344

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Things were going to shit there for a while, but Gorbachev's predecessors (e.g., Chernenko and Andropov) lacked either the will or the inclination to attempt reform. Why was Gorbachev different? Did the Politburo elect him because there was a recognition that they needed to try something different, or did he spring this on them? It would take a Kremlinologist to answer that question.

Those are good questions, but I would posit, again, that Gorby didn't have much choice in the matter. It was either reform and attempt to hold power, or not reform and . . .

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop By underlying economic conditions, I mean the whole state of the country. It was a corrupt, festering mess. In the 80s, I recall reading a book by/about a MiG-25 who defected, and his account of living there before he left. There were many such accounts at the time, but I don't know anyone who concluded at the time that the Soviet Union was doomed, even though it now seems obvious in hindsight.

I assume what you mean, among other things, is that revenues far outweighed "necessary" expeditures (i.e., military)?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop We spent a lot of money on defense even before Reagan was elected. The question I'm asking is, why do you think the relatively small (relative to the overall budget, not relative to the size of increases in other years) increases in spending under Reagan put "tremendous" pressure on the Soviet Union? Is there some sort of tipping point involved? If so, did Reagan know this, or was it dumb luck?

From my recollection, Reagan doubled military spending. I can't remember over what period, but I'm pretty certain our military spending doubled, and to me that is not relatively small. It wasn't to most of the doves at that time either. Don't you remember all the protests? the "Day After" TV show? The "War mongerer" moniker? And to answer your question, basd on my readings this was a conscious decision.

As for SDI, there were a number of good reasons for the Soviets to want SDI off the table. Doubtless cost is one. But something more needs to be shown to establish that this is what brought the empire down. We made the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan more expensive by supplying Stingers to the mujahedin, but was that the expense that made the difference? Without more, call me skeptical.

Like all of pressures we put on the USSR, no one of them was sufficient to bring them down. It was a hollistic approach. Aphganistan was part of it. So was Grenada, which was the first time in history where a country that had turned communist was turned away from communism. Funding (even prior to Iran-Contra) the contras was further pressure. Working with the Pope and the AFL-CIO in Poland was still more. Deploying the Pershings in Western Europe was more. Etc.

What you call "lip service" nevertheless emboldened dissent within the Eastern Bloc, and it was these forces that brought the whole thing crashing down. And what do you think Reagan did in this regard that was any different?

I'm not sure this is accurate, but I'd be willing to be educated. The doctrine pre-Reagan was one of containment. What did Nixon/Carter do in order to embolden?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In case you ever questioned the importance of the Takings Clause, consider the case of Zimbabwe, which has just nationalized all farm land. What a mess Mugabe has made of that country.

Not to question your ultimate point re: Mugabe, but the issue of how you redress the seizure of land by white colonists is a bit more complicated then "you should institute a Takings Clause." Why should farmers be paid for land that they stole in the first place (and stole not so very long ago)?

(Note to the Repubs who will now chime in to call me a commie traitor -- do you support paying the government of Cuba for property that it seized from US companies?)

Land reform under Mugabe has been an absolute disaster, destroying both the food supply and the one export crop the country had (tobacco). Other factors were at work, of course -- including drought and a declining tobacco market worldwide -- but still.

But lack of land reform was also a disaster. Zimbabwe agreed to no land reform for 10 years after independence, and postponed land reform for some time thereafter. The result was a thriving tobacco economy, on the one hand, and a rural black population that starved on land that was too small and too infertile to support them.

Back when Mugabe was still nearly sane, initial land reform efforts were gradual and measured -- generally, seizing land that large commercial or private farmers had chosen not to plant, and dividing it among black subsistence farmers. But this was too slow to satisfy the starving population. And, as with most things in Zimbabwe, it was plagued by corruption and, ultimately, completely torpedoed by Mugabe's general slide into utter whackjobdom.

Still, what would you do? Many Zimbabweans would compare the suggestion that the country should buy land from white farmers to the suggestion that the US should have compensated slaveowners in 1865.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In case you ever questioned the importance of the Takings Clause, consider the case of Zimbabwe, which has just nationalized all farm land. What a mess Mugabe has made of that country.

eta: Found this on CNN trying to figure out what Hello is talking about re Belgium. Still in the dark on that one.

I thought he had done this a while ago. He should be in the top 10 of our hit list.

[sgtclub]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=13678

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I assume what you mean, among other things, is that revenues far outweighed "necessary" expeditures (i.e., military)?

Where were the bulk of Soviet military expenditures? In more missiles to point at the US, or in conventional forces to fight in Afghanistan and to control Eastern Europe?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
According to the many Reagan bios I've read, including the not so favorable one by Morris, Hitchy gets it a little wrong. The consensus seems to be that statements like these, while clearly untrue, were not intentional lies because Reagan lived in a sort of make believe world where he actually believed the things he was saying were true.

That kind of excuse would not have worked for Clinton, and I don't see it as a good thing. I see that as a significant character flaw (though perhaps morally preferable to intentionally lying).

[Unless you're saying that RR's unfortunate illness began to appear 10-15 years before it was announced (which you're not).]

Your statement ties nicely into a column I saw today in the WaPo Metro Section (or all places), to which I will post a link in my next post. I thought that the column explained fairly well (without being nasty) why lots of us folks who did not worship Reagan saw a much more mixed message in his performance, economic policy, etc.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun7.html

Title: "Rosy Outlook His Ugly Facts from Reagan"

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Where were the bulk of Soviet military expenditures? In more missiles to point at the US, or in conventional forces to fight in Afghanistan and to control Eastern Europe?

I honestly don't know. Not sure that information is knowable. Soviet books were not exactly transparent.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That kind of excuse would not have worked for Clinton, and I don't see it as a good thing. I see that as a significant character flaw (though perhaps morally preferable to intentionally lying).

[Unless you're saying that RR's unfortunate illness began to appear 10-15 years before it was announced (which you're not).]

Your statement ties nicely into a column I saw today in the WaPo Metro Section (or all places), to which I will post a link in my next post. I thought that the column explained fairly well (without being nasty) why lots of us folks who did not worship Reagan saw a much more mixed message in his performance, economic policy, etc.

S_A_M

I wouldn't characterize it as a flaw of character, but it certainly wasn't a virtue.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I wouldn't characterize it as a flaw of character, but it certainly wasn't a virtue.

You wouldn't characterize "living in a make-believe world" where you believe false things to be true as a character flaw?

Wow. I mean, wow.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
My god. Didn't I post a speech by Gorby where he said the arms race help kill the USSR? Wait. Did I forget to post it? Is there no such thing as a point conceded here?

I have no interest in fighting about this, but you seem to think that the "arms race" started with Reagan? It did not. What do you think Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, etc. were doing? The difference is, I think, that a protest movement coalesced in the 1980s, and the term came into vogue.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

(Note to the Repubs who will now chime in to call me a commie traitor -- do you support paying the government of Cuba for property that it seized from US companies?)

...
Still, what would you do? Many Zimbabweans would compare the suggestion that the country should buy land from white farmers to the suggestion that the US should have compensated slaveowners in 1865.

Hi Sidd. I promise I'm still looking for the right quotes to show you in response to your "cite please" from last week. Yesterday, an article in the Chicago Suntimes stated, without attribution, that most homicides in Chicago originate from gangs fighting over drug turf. I've seen it, with attribution to knowledgeable authorities, before. Bottom line, lots of places will say the majority are caused by gangs, and a few will tie it more directly into gangs fighting over drug turf.

Anyway, re: your first question above, I'd answer: it depends. There have been excesses by friends of the U.S. government that we would not support except under limited circumstances, like Pakistan. In cases where the gains derive from things like corporate bribes, colonial decree, etc..., (and I think this describes some of what Cuba took back), I wouldn't give the American losers a dime in compensation (in the moral sense). Ditto, the Mugabe thing. The problem for Mugabe is the way this works. I'm not against retaking Africa for Africans, at least not in those cases where Africa was taken away by Colonial decree, but (as you noted), there has got to be a better way than what this guy is doing. And there should probably be some civil procedure for the government to justify each and every taken. Something like, uhm, Mr. Johnson, we can't find any record of your ancestors or the preceding titleholders ever getting this land from anybody but (ahem), the British crown or something like that. And (ahem) we don't have a record of the British crown buying it from anyone.

Basically, some justification, and a (much) more efficient process, would at least satisfy my rational thought process. Surprising? I'd like to see if other Repubs disagree.

As for your point about slaveholders, I basically agree.

Hello