historical revisionism, or standing on the shoulders of giants

Ronald Reagan may have presided over the decline and fall of the old USSR and its empire but he didn’t bring down the Berlin Wall or end communism. The policy that led to the empire’s implosion was the work of a career foreign service officer.

New York City: Reagan should be on a $3 bill:

The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights. And almost all the reporters agreed that Reagan was the man who brought down Russia in the Cold War.

Just saying this is absolutely sinful. The Cold War was won by a long memo written by George Kennan, who worked in the State Department and sent the memo[1] by telegram about the need for a “Policy of Containment” on Russia. Kennan said the contradictions in their system would ruin them. Keep them where they are and they will tear themselves apart. We followed Kennan’s policy for over 40 years. The Soviets made it worse on themselves by building a wall in East Berlin. When they had to tear it down and give up their system, Kennan was in Princeton and he sat down to dinner.

Kennan and Containment:

George F. Kennan, a career Foreign Service Officer, formulated the policy of “containment,” the basic United States strategy for fighting the cold war (1947-1989) with the Soviet Union. Kennan’s ideas, which became the basis of the Truman administration’s foreign policy, first came to public attention in 1947 in the form of an anonymous contribution to the journal Foreign Affairs, the so-called “X-Article.” “The main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union,” Kennan wrote, “must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” To that end, he called for countering “Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world” through the “adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy.” Such a policy, Kennan predicted, would “promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power.”
[ . . . ]
Despite all the criticisms and the various policy defeats that Kennan suffered in the early 1950’s, containment in the more general sense of blocking the expansion of Soviet influence remained the basic strategy of the United States throughout the cold war. On the one hand, the United States did not withdraw into isolationism; on the other, it did not move to “roll back” Soviet power, as John Foster Dulles briefly advocated. It is possible to say that each succeeding administration after Truman’s, until the collapse of communism in 1989, adopted a variation of Kennan’s containment policy and made it their own.

fn1. George Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” (1947)

are you qualified to vote?

VoteBook Citizenship Test Final Score:

You have completed the VoteBook Citizenship Test

Your score was 9 out of 10.

Congratulations! You are qualified to be a U.S. citizen!

via [MeFi]

Some of these were easy: the one I missed was about the Allies in WWII which was a surprising question to see on there. I wasn’t aware the test had that many historical questions or of that depth.
Continue reading “are you qualified to vote?”

CNet wants you back

Restoring CNET’s RSS Feed

Companies start to get the instant message. Just because everyone’s using it won’t mean anyone’s making much money on it.” [CNET News.com]

Recently, Robert Scoble noticed that CNET had stopped including summaries in its RSS feed, so he unsubscribed. That’s one of the great things about RSS – if a feed doesn’t interest you anymore, for whatever reason, you just unsubscribe.

I was preparing to unsubscribe from their feed myself, noticing that I hadn’t clicked out to any of their articles since the summaries had disappeared. Then, all of a sudden, the summaries magically reappeared. I guess CNET listened to its users and brought them back. That’s another great thing about RSS – CNET was able to restore the summaries through no effort on the part of its readers.

So now I find myself reading the summaries and clicking out to their site again, which is, of course, the whole point of RSS. šŸ˜‰

[The Shifted Librarian]

Hmm, I hadn’t noticed service was restored until Jenny mentioned it. Good for them (and us).

Enlightenment? Who needs it?

Crooked Timber: The Durbin amendment :

This memo was prepared by a group of highly-educated men and women at the top of my government. They are people who doubtlessly consider themselves patriots, probably with good reason. They were willing to sell out the principles of our Constitution, one of the greatest accomplishments of humankind, in order to torture other human beings.

This knowledge has made me want to cry, out of fury and shame. I hope that the people who wrote this, and the people that authorized it, are driven from the government and disbarred. I hope that they live the rest of their lives in shame, hoping that the next person they meet doesn’t remember their names.

This is being talked about everywhere, it seems (the CT crowd pick it up again later here).

I’m having a hard time trying to make sense of this: did the US government really ask a group of lawyers to find a justification that would permit the president to order torture? Did it create a legal defense for the president to ignore internationally accepted norms of behavior? I keep thinking of a previous witch hunt and one exchange, of which this is the most memorable line, comes to mind.

Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you left no sense of decency?

My guess is no, not the least bit.

is a little self-respect too much to ask for?

Political Correction: The White Man’s Burden:
what_would_reagan_do

Most of the people there to view the casket are in shorts and flip-flops — maybe they’re Kerry supporters or something, but if we ran the Capitol, we’d be handing out jackets and ties and turning people away if they had a visible panty line. And, you know, putting a flag on an article of clothing doesn’t make “nice.” Sheesh. At least they seem to have left their beer helmet hats at home.

A cheap shot? Maybe. Is it asking too much for someone in the viewing line to wear long pants and a shirt with buttons? I don’t think so, at least not if you’re there to respect the person. And the flag code — that thing that the flag burning amendment folks refer to without showing that they’ve ever read it — proscribes using the flag as clothing.

the Emperor’s new clothes, 2000 edition

Josh Marshall wonders about the blatant use of the death of Ronald Reagan in the Bush/Cheney campaign: visitors to the Bush campaign website are greeted by a full screen tribute to Reagan with no mention of Bush at all.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: June 06, 2004 – June 12, 2004 Archives:

I’ve got a number of notes from people (few of them Bush supporters in the first case, of course) who are outraged by the Bush campaign’s unabashed exploitation of Reagan’s passing as part of their reelection campaign effort — the morphing of the Bush website into the Reagan tribute website being a key example.

Yes, it’s crass and cynical. But it’s also a tad desperate. And that’s the more important point, I think. Having watched the Bush White House for some time and seen them try all manner of crude and crass political gambits, very few of them, in my recollection, haven’t ended up biting them in the behind.

I suspect this case will be the same.

I wonder if anyone will notice: are we overstating the importance of websites here? If the BC04 campaign were using Reagan in their TV ads (for all I know, they are) or otherwise replacing Bush with Reagan with the implication that a vote for Bush is a vote for the Gipper, that would be one thing. I think websites resonate in their space, but TV and to a lesser degree print ads are where the rubber meets the road.
Continue reading “the Emperor’s new clothes, 2000 edition”

airline bailout, part deux

CNN.com – Report: Pentagon wasted $100M on unused airline tickets – Jun 8, 2004:

Defense Department spent an estimated $100 million for airline tickets that were not used over a six-year period and failed to seek refunds even though the tickets were reimbursable, congressional investigators say.

The department compounded the problem by reimbursing employee claims for tickets bought by the Pentagon, the investigators said.
[ . . . ]
A prior report, issued last November, found that the Pentagon bought 68,000 first-class or business-class airline seats for employees who should have flown coach.

68,000 seats would fill 123 Boeing 777-300s or 119 747-400s. Didn’t we already bail out the airlines in the wake of 9/11?

And this all occurs on the party of fiscal restraint’s watch?