Politics As Usual

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
One hopes that the 7E7 will even things out on that score.

I'm very curious about the A380. The idea of spending 6-8 hours with 700+ other people is not particularly appealing. Yet the airlines seem to be contracting for them like hotcakes.

And I doubt too many airlines will include the "air lounges" or whatever nice amenities are possible for anyone other than first class passengers.

That plane could put either Boeing or Airbus out of business. More likely the latter.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
One hopes that the 7E7 will even things out on that score. From what I can tell, the airlines are practically swooning over it, and if the 20% greater fuel efficiency thing is true, I think Boeing is going to have a lot of good years on the commercial side.

Predictions are that there's going to be a rather large excess of capacity for the next couple of years. Hopefully, people are ordering based on long term forecasts and not one or two years out. Boeing needs cashflow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
True, but Gorbachev didn't really have any choice. And remember, he came to office to save communism, not to reform it. Making the jump was very adept, politically, but let's not pretend that this had been his intent all along.

I'm saying I don't believe things are inevitable, and you're saying they are. There are some things that were beyond Gorbachev's power, doubtless, but if he tried less reform, or more, or repression, etc., who knows what would have happened. The Soviet Union careened on that course for a long time before it cratered. I'm sure Gorbachev's intent was not to preside over what happened. He was a reformer, not a revolutionary.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm saying I don't believe things are inevitable, and you're saying they are. There are some things that were beyond Gorbachev's power, doubtless, but if he tried less reform, or more, or repression, etc., who knows what would have happened. The Soviet Union careened on that course for a long time before it cratered. I'm sure Gorbachev's intent was not to preside over what happened. He was a reformer, not a revolutionary.

You misunderstand me. I tend to agree that it was not inevitable. I thought what you were suggesting is that Gorbachev was the real driving force behind the collapse. I view someone like him, at best, as one of the necessary preconditions, but not as the driving force.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You misunderstand me. I tend to agree that it was not inevitable. I thought what you were suggesting is that Gorbachev was the real driving force behind the collapse. I view someone like him, at best, as one of the necessary preconditions, but not as the driving force.

I'm too much of a Marxist (hi Slave!) not to believe that the underlying economic conditions didn't a huge effect on what happened. But Gorbachev's efforts at reform may have been the spark that set off the kindling. As you say, this was surely not what he intended.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think our increases in military spending made the difference. Something else that Reagan did -- and Carter and Ford before him -- was to use human rights as an element of foreign policy against the Soviets. I've read that the 1975 Helsinki Accords were a huge blow to the USSR, because they emboldened internal dissent behind the Iron Curtain.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm too much of a Marxist (hi Slave!) not to believe that the underlying economic conditions didn't a huge effect on what happened. But Gorbachev's efforts at reform may have been the spark that set off the kindling. As you say, this was surely not what he intended.

I think we're fooling ourselves if we think our increases in military spending made the difference. Something else that Reagan did -- and Carter and Ford before him -- was to use human rights as an element of foreign policy against the Soviets. I've read that the 1975 Helsinki Accords were a huge blow to the USSR, because they emboldened internal dissent behind the Iron Curtain.

But what (or more appropriate who) pushed Gorbachev torwards reform and what do you mean by "underlying economic conditions."

I believe our increases in military spending put tremendous pressure on the "underlying economic conditions," especially with regards to SDI, and this is why Gorbachev wanted so eagerly for us to pull SDI off the table. In fact, this is what cratered the talks in Switzerland.

And what do you mean by "use human rights." My understanding is that, at best, this was given lip service by previous administrations, but never with any teeth.

efs

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That was my boy Alexander Hamilton.

Washington and Jefferson would still have us plowing fields for a living.

Jefferson perhaps, but Washington? Highly doubtful. Hamilton wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Washington's support (nor would anyone else).


(I know, I know -- take it to Greedy History.)

[sgtclub]

Anybody know specifically what is being protested at the biotech conference today?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But what (or more appropriate who) pushed Gorbachev torwards reform and what do you mean by "underlying economic conditions."

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.

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 believe our increases in military spending put tremendous pressure on the "underlying economic conditions," especially with regards to SDI, and this is why Gorbachev wanted so eagerly for us to pull SDI off the table. In fact, this is what cratered the talks in Switzerland.

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?

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.

And what do you mean by "use human rights." My understanding is that, at best, this was given lip service by previous administrations, but never with any teeth.

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?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody know specifically what is being protested at the biotech conference today?

From the Boston Herald (no verification, but found via Google's news tab... Newgle?):

A group called Reclaim the Commons wanted to shut down the conference to protest the proliferation of genetically modified foods developed by biotechnology corporations.

``There's a few hundred people,'' said Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the convention organized by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. ``There's plenty of security, so there is no one who is being prevented from attending the convention. Everything is going on as expected.''

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Without more, call me skeptical.

I expect that when Clinton dies you will similarly express scepticism about his connection to the greatest expansion of America's economy.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody know specifically what is being protested at the biotech conference today?

Progress?

Seriously, though, I assume it's GMOs. For the record, that's an area in which my platform differs from the Hippie Party.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That was my boy Alexander Hamilton.

Washington and Jefferson would still have us plowing fields for a living.

Wait, was this a joke based on the proposal to dump Hamilton and replace him with Ronnie on the $10 bill?

[Atticus Grinch]

When you see a headline scroll like "Support grows for new Iraq draft" and you're a male between the ages of 18 and 35, you might just need a fresh pair of boxers.*

*Confidential to Not Me: Save it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
When you see a headline scroll like "Support grows for new Iraq draft" and you're a male between the ages of 18 and 35, you might just need a fresh pair of boxers.*

You do realize that by moving from the Bay Area, you would likely escape the draft? Everywhere else it's men 18-25. You all get special treatment because, well, you're special.