With Mikhail Gorbachev's breathtaking renunciation of the use of force (a luminous example of the importance of the individual in history), a nuclear-armed empire that had seemed to many Europeans as enduring and impregnable as the Alps, not least because it possessed those weapons of total annihilation, just softly and suddenly vanished.Nowhere in this article does Ash so much as mention Ronald Reagan's name ... nor should he.
Monday, November 09, 2009
But it was a peachy photo-op, wasn't it?
In the Guardian, Timothy Garton Ash recalls the fall of the Berlin Wall in the context of the year 1989, "the biggest year in world history since 1945."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Reagan's response to the 1981-1982 recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, was to declare ketchup a vegetable, release federal cheese surpluses, and shackle the strike leaders of the air traffic control union hand and foot and lead them off to jail.
My most pronounced memories of the Reagan years are the three hour cheese line and the German care packages to unemployed workers in Detroit. In the first two years of the Reagan administration, his policy was a forced economic recession and de- industrialization of the United Stated. He cut federal low income housing funds by 84%; his tax cuts for the rich, his "trickle-on" the poor and working class economics ended up tripling all previously existing U.S. government debt.
So, when I think of the Reagan legacy, I think of urban decay, crack, homelessness, racism, rampant corporatism and the destruction of the American dream. Amidst the growing homelessness and despair, I remember seeing graffiti all over inner-city Detroit that simply said: "Ronald Wilson Reagan 666." Reagan's policies so marked him as "the beast" in Detroit, blue-collar workers actually cheered when he was shot. The hottest song on underground radio was "Hinckley had a Vision." The song's refrain, "He knew, he knew."
from Ronald Reagan: A Legacy of Crack and Cheese by Bob Fitrakis, 2004, The Free Press
Wow...when I think of Reagan, I think of crack? That is because you are on it.
This "blog" has taken left wing lunacy to new heights and jumped.
One writer doesn't mention Reagan, and a thousand do. Big deal. Next topic.
Now summon the minions to your defense. I tossed them a juicy steak to devour.
You're right, Daniel. A lot of writers mention Reagan, just not in the amnesia-ridden circumstance to which you've become accustomed.
The Wall fell because Gorbachev withdrew the Soviet blank check militarily, and effectively ditched the Brezhnev doctrine.
Without that, it would have taken a lot longer for the internal decay to kill the Bloc.
My guess is that after 1956, whe they made the mistake of believing our bluster, few people in the Pact ever took any American insinuations or pronouncements very seriously, even though many admired the USA in various ways.
The Hungarians (and to a lesser extent, the Czechs) learned the hard way that we had no intention of sacrificing lives for places without petroleum.
I remember watching an interview with Walter Cronkite, a few years after his retirement. He was asked to speak briefly on each of the Presidents that he had covered. On President Reagan, his comment was, "I don't think that he brought very much to the Presidency." He was clearly uncomfortable speaking "badly" about a former President. He even had decent things to say about Nixon--mainly about China and such.
Of course, Walter was just a left wing, pinko stooge.
"This "blog" has taken left wing lunacy to new heights and jumped."
And your 'blog' is a shining beacon of mainstream, rational thought? Glass houses, my friend.
Oh, I have never claimed my blog is mainstream. With me, you know my conservative viewpoint will be front and center.
Are you all really trying to dismiss Reagan as "not bringing that much to the presidency"? Really? There may have been cheese lines as he was mopping up the Carter fiasco, but the 80's were prosperous. That would be like me saying that the Clinton era was inconsequential. Clearly it was not, and neither was the Reagan administration. The worst part of the Reagan legacy is what his VP did with the office after him.
So which Reagan funded and armed 80s dictator was your favorite, Daniel?
Yeah and my father missed it all, he passed away in April of 1989; would loved to seen it fall, as he was another of his era whom fought in WWII but loathed the concept of what happened in Berlin.
Oh, Jeff, two can play that game. Which of Clinton's sexual exploits is your favorite? Which of Carter's growth restricting policies is your favorite. On and on we go...
As for Reagan, he had the tough choice of picking between what he perceived as the lesser of two evils at the height of the cold war. At the time, it was the correct choice to make. The USSSR controlling a strategic piece of real estated was not an option.
Actually it was Mr. Cronkite, who was a wee bit closer to what was really going on than you or me.
If dictators and sexual exploits are equal in your book, we really don't have much to discuss--but it explains a lot.
When you are fighting a war of attrition and a move is made to secure a strategic channel, you must act. Reagan did what had to be done. When Clinton was presented with an opportunity to take down Bin Laden he passed. He did bomb an aspirin factory in the desert though.
Mark nailed it.
Daniel calls using tax dollars, with congressional approval, to fund medical coverage for U.S. citizens tyranny. Using tax dollars, sometimes illegally, to fund and arm not one but multiple murderous dictators and juntas in foreign countries, however, is described as a "tough choice".
Do we still have a constitution is this country? If so, do writers here believe in it? Reagan acted within the bounds of his office to facilitate the defeat of one dictator over another. It was a tough choice. Our current congress is trying to enact legislation that forces, with possibility of imprisonment if one chooses otherwise, people to purchase insurance that they may not want. Someone explain how this is constitutional, please. And do not bring up the automobile insurance racket. There is no basis, other than pure arrogance, that allows for this type of legislation to stand.
The general welfare clause, the commerce clause, and the 8th amendment at the very least are applicable and open to interpretation, as their scope has been debated since before the Constitution was even ratified.
Much to the dismay of some conservatives, the Constitution grants the authority to take up such questions on an ongoing basis to the judiciary.
Sorry. Meant 9th amendment.
Daniel,
Are you prepared to turn away anyone who declines health insurance, if they can't pay for services when the need arises?
No one anywhere in this country is turned away....EVER. You know that, I know that. The system is broken no doubt about it, but this is not the way to fix it.
is it a constitutional issue? This is not a draft. No one will be ‘forced” to buy health insurance. There will be economic disincentives for not buying though. Having to pay some tax penalty for failing to be insured is hardly akin to imprisonment and really distorts your reasoning.
People are not turned away, but they won't go knowing that they cannot afford to go. They wait until they cannot stand the sickness/pain anymore. Then, the taxpayers pick up the bill anyway through indigent programs and higher hospital/insurance costs.
Daniel, you should work where I do and listen to grown men completely break down in tears while trying to figure out how to get insurance because they don't qualify for assistance through the state and cannot afford insurance on their own nor can they afford to go to the hospital.
In the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen, that is a travesty. And it happens far too often.
Bayern, that's the crux of it.
A sizeable element of the rightist population regards those tears as admission of responsibility on the sufferer's own part.
They prefer the scenario you describe because it fulfills their wacko religious mandate to blame the victim. That dude crying should have worked harder and prayed to God -- then he wouldn't be in that position, would he?
They'll dole out the health care payments after the fact so long as they can do it from a position of moral superiority.
That's why the whole twisted argument makes me ill.
Going, going, going...Gone. A mighty homerun by the cleanup hitter for the A's, Roger Baylor.
I was just trying to make contact.
H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
ACTUAL FINES AND IMPRISONMENT!
Look this bill up or live in a fantasy world.
For $100 billion we can insure all the uninsured. This is a power grab plain and simple.
"willful behavior"
In another words, tax evasion is illegal just like it was before this bill was introduced.
"For $100 billion we can insure all the uninsured"
Sweet! Do tell.
"Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. ACTUAL FINES AND IMPRISONMENT!"
"willful" underline.
If the head of a family willfully drinks his families health care money and his children suffer the consequences, I think he should go to jail. This imprisonment provision Mr Short is speaking of I read as a protection for children. We already send people to jail for neglecting their children's medical care, this is the same thing.
Otherwise a tax penalty for not buying insurance for your family helps the whole country if for no other reason than to offer your family the finest emergency health care in the world.
WOW! To the citizens of Fantasy Island, please read the bills.
$100 billion if the figure that has been put forth by many legislatures for insuring the roughly 40 million Americans currently without insurance. This works out to about $2500 per year for each individual. When pooled together, this figure is adecquate for coverage.
Obama has taken over car companies, banks and now health care - if this passes. He has mandated what types of cars can be built, the pay for certain employees and now will threaten fines, taxes and imprisonment for those that don't get in line.
What we get in return is cars that we don't really like, constrained credit markets that stifle business growth, a weakened dollar and rationed health care being ran by a government that cannot run a cash for clunkers program.
$750 billion for TARP, even more for the financial bailout, and for what? The economy is still tanking. The government is not the answer for reform. They can help by picking up the few that truly need help as I stated above.
$100 billion if the figure that has been put forth by many legislatures for insuring the roughly 40 million Americans currently without insurance. This works out to about $2500 per year for each individual. When pooled together, this figure is adecquate for coverage.
So, in other words, if we pool our resources together at the national level, we can provide medical coverage for a lot more people for a lot less per person than the private insurers currently do.
ROTFLMAO
Yet, we are the ones who refuse to "see". Unbelievable.
Groups pool resources all the time. Trade associations, chambers of commerce, unions...but not the government. When the government gets involved, competition is crushed and the price goes through the roof. I want health care reform, but this is going to be a bloated government entitlement that will spin out of control quickly.
At least conservatives are now discussing health care reform. If McOld and Barbie Bookburner were in office, we'd not have heard one word about health care...well, except stories on all the great profits being reaped by the health care industry.
Post a Comment