Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

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

He had most of the landowners run off at the end of the machete.

This merely papers it as a formality.

My question now is, does the Congressional Black Caucus now present him with an "Business Development Award"?

[SlaveNoMore]

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

I would characterize that simply as a "law school professor"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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 . . .

Why do you think that? Why didn't (e.g.) Chernenko think that? Why was 1987 different from 1977 that way? Maybe there are answers to those questions, but I'd like to hear them from someone who knows Soviet politics and economics (which I do not).

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

I'm not sure what you mean here. A massive proportion of GDP was going to the military. That's just a symptom of more fundamental problems with the sort of system they had. This spending certainly wasn't necessary to defend Mother Russia, but, OTOH, there were political and structural reasons why they could just cut military spending.

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.

I think you've got the rate of increase a little high, but I could be wrong. I just Googled it unsuccessfully. This build-up started under Carter, and there is no question that military spending was going to have increase considerable in his second term to pay for all of the new weapons systems that were in the works in the late 1970s. Let us not forget that Carter had a military background, and was no dove. So the question there is, how much difference did Reagan have on the margin? Maybe some, but not much, I submit.

The doves were upset more by things other than spending. The threat of nuclear annihilation, e.g. Notwithstanding that the gamble paid off, one can argue whether it was wise to choose a path of confrontation which increased the chances of conflict with the USSR. I'm not wanting to have that argument now, only saying that your perspective ex post is different from the perspective ex ante.

Find me something that Reagan said before the Wall came down that suggests he had a plan to bankrupt the USSR by outspending them. At the time, his administration was furiously selling the idea that we had to hike military spending to keep up with new Soviet weapons systems. Remember a glossy booklet put out by the Pentagon in the mid-/late-80s called (I think) "The Threat"? It was full of pictures of all the things the USSR was building that we needed to match.

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.

The containment strategy articulated by George Kennan and others from the late 1940s contemplated pushing back on the Soviet Union, although there was always debate about how much to do this. In 1950 or so, Paul Nitze won a bureaucratic battle in favor of "the adroit and vigilant application of counterforce," or something like that. While I concur that Reagan did this, I don't see how this was different in major part from what his predecessors did.

I'm not sure this is accurate, but I'd be willing to be educated. What did Nixon/Carter do in order to embolden?

Helsinki happened during the Ford Administration, as I recall, and both Ford and Carter did things to encourage dissent in Soviet Bloc countries. Reagan continued this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
My question now is, does the Congressional Black Caucus now present him with an "Business Development Award"?

At least one pro-Mugabe whack-job seems to think the Congressional Black Caucus is on the other side of this one:

• Charles Rangels and Sheila Jackson-Lee of the Congressional Black Caucus of the Democratic Party support the lawlessness of the Zimbabwean White landed gentry and agri-capitalist in that they backed the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. The only thing that Democratic Party members like Charles Rangels and Sheila Jackson-Lee are trying to recover in Zimbabwe are the economic interests of capital, and to maintain the presence of those interests in Zimbabwe. The objective is not "democracy" and "economic recovery" in Zimbabwe.

[bilmore]

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.

Umm, yeah, two years ago. Josh didn't notice?

[bilmore]

Not to question your ultimate point re: Mugabe, . . .

The idea of you, here, defending Mugabe, doesn't surprise me a bit.

Not a bit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Umm, yeah, two years ago. Josh didn't notice?

Perhaps it's hard for you to pay attention to what odious dictators are doing if we're not actually, y'know, invading them, but while Mugabe's political party has been taking farms from white farmers for four (not just two) years now, this announcement that they are nationalizing all farm land is new.

[NotFromHere]

So I just opened my own personal letter from John Kerry today. Yes, THE John Kerry. It's the second one this month. Both times he's enclosed a return envelope addressed to his attention. He must really want to hear from me. Along with a lovely personal letter, personally signed by John, he told me how much he loved me, and to check one of the boxes -- 25, 50 100 or other. This had me confused.

[SlaveNoMore]

bilmore
The idea of you, here, defending Mugabe, doesn't surprise me a bit.

Not a bit.

FWIW, I didn't get the impression he was actually defending Mugabe.

Now Atticus* on the other hand...

* had I known you were going, I would have sent my regards

[SlaveNoMore]

NotFromHere
So I just opened my own personal letter from John Kerry today.

It's shameful how the Democrats try to take advantage of retarded citizens.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
FWIW, I didn't get the impression he was actually defending Mugabe.

Now Atticus* on the other hand...

* had I known you were going, I would have sent my regards

Um, I'm ashamed to admit this, but I have read <1,000 pages on Mugabe. I'm just going to cry "preemptive Uncle" rather than resort to the coinflip.

I had to bow out early, as usual. Prior commitment. These tinpot dictators don't kowtow to themselves, you know.

ETA: I did not skip out on the tab this time, I swear. Ask CD. I remain, however, a lightweight.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
It's shameful how the Democrats try to take advantage of retarded citizens.

Hey hey be careful of the name calling....You'll get letters..."Lindsay Lohan has been upsetting some advocates for the mentally disabled by using the word “retarded” as an insult.

When asked about rumors she’d had breast implants, for example, Lindsay replied, “That’s retarded.” And, referring to reports that she was feuding with Hilary Duff, Linsay said, “It’s retarded.”

The Arc, a group that advocates the rights of people with mental disabilities, is so concerned about Lohan’s language that they’re writing her a letter."

Ha. As if Lindsay Lohan could read.

cite. as if you care

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I did not skip out on the tab this time, I swear. Ask CD. I remain, however, a lightweight.

If you can't drink long enough for me to show up, that may not be the right word.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Carter did things to encourage dissent in Soviet Bloc countries.

What? Show that any idiot, with zero personality or ability can make it under a democratically elected system?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by NotFromHere
So I just opened my own personal letter from John Kerry today. Yes, THE John Kerry. It's the second one this month. Both times he's enclosed a return envelope addressed to his attention. He must really want to hear from me. Along with a lovely personal letter, personally signed by John, he told me how much he loved me, and to check one of the boxes -- 25, 50 100 or other. This had me confused.

Hold out. By November the Dems start giving away cigarettes if you vote for their guy.