So today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Go on any news website and they have a plethora of pics from all over Europe. Huzzah!
While I'm happy for Berlin/Germany/Europe, this made me think of is this exhibit that the ICRC put on last fall. I had the opportunity to see it, and was amazed at how much I learned. They created a maze-like exhibit and all pictures and such were placed on walls. Take a look, and maybe you'll be inspired to look up more info about the highlighted walls/conflicts.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Communist One-Two
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Thesis Paragraph:
This 20th anniversary has seen yet another crop of boring articles about how so many people, especially in former East Germany, are supposedly "nostalgic" for the security of the old Stalinist system. Such sentimental piffle—which got a good airing in that irritating movie Good Bye Lenin!—would not long survive a reading of another new book: Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Victor Sebestyen. Making effective use of archives opened since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Sebestyen describes the day in late October 1989 when the head of State Planning in the German Democratic Republic, Gerhard Schürer, presented the party leadership with the unvarnished economic news. "Nearly 60 per cent of East Germany's entire economic base could be written off as scrap, and productivity in mines and factories was nearly 50 per cent behind the West." Even more appalling was the 12-fold increase in the GDR's national debt—a situation so grotesque that it had been classified as a state secret lest loans from Western creditors dry up. "Just to avoid further indebtedness," wrote Schürer, "would mean a lowering next year of living standards by 25 to 30 per cent, and make the GDR ungovernable." So the wall came down just before the hermetic state that it enclosed would have imploded. I doubt that there would have been much "nostalgia" for that.
Applebaum: Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism?
Thesis Paragraph:
Everything comes around again, in the end; every debate needs to be held twice. For the past few years, the Russians have been conducting an extraordinary national argument about whether Stalin was bad, a question one would have thought was settled long ago. And now, to celebrate the 20thanniversary of 1989, we have two books, both by eminent historians, both seeking to start an argument about whether there was an anti-Communist opposition in Central Europe. In Uncivil Society Stephen Kotkin, a Soviet historian at Princeton, makes an unusually strident version of the case that there was not. Konstantin Pleshakov, a Soviet historian at Mount Holyoke, presents a milder and more complicated version in There Is No Freedom Without Bread.
Thesis Paragraph:
This 20th anniversary has seen yet another crop of boring articles about how so many people, especially in former East Germany, are supposedly "nostalgic" for the security of the old Stalinist system. Such sentimental piffle—which got a good airing in that irritating movie Good Bye Lenin!—would not long survive a reading of another new book: Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire, by Victor Sebestyen. Making effective use of archives opened since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Sebestyen describes the day in late October 1989 when the head of State Planning in the German Democratic Republic, Gerhard Schürer, presented the party leadership with the unvarnished economic news. "Nearly 60 per cent of East Germany's entire economic base could be written off as scrap, and productivity in mines and factories was nearly 50 per cent behind the West." Even more appalling was the 12-fold increase in the GDR's national debt—a situation so grotesque that it had been classified as a state secret lest loans from Western creditors dry up. "Just to avoid further indebtedness," wrote Schürer, "would mean a lowering next year of living standards by 25 to 30 per cent, and make the GDR ungovernable." So the wall came down just before the hermetic state that it enclosed would have imploded. I doubt that there would have been much "nostalgia" for that.
Applebaum: Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism?
Thesis Paragraph:
Everything comes around again, in the end; every debate needs to be held twice. For the past few years, the Russians have been conducting an extraordinary national argument about whether Stalin was bad, a question one would have thought was settled long ago. And now, to celebrate the 20thanniversary of 1989, we have two books, both by eminent historians, both seeking to start an argument about whether there was an anti-Communist opposition in Central Europe. In Uncivil Society Stephen Kotkin, a Soviet historian at Princeton, makes an unusually strident version of the case that there was not. Konstantin Pleshakov, a Soviet historian at Mount Holyoke, presents a milder and more complicated version in There Is No Freedom Without Bread.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Obama's Report Card
A NY Times article from today celebrating/scoring Obama's election anniversary.
Skip down to the Nukes bit... I think (opinion, opinion!)... that this bit: "President Obama came into office with a plan to move toward zero American nuclear weapons – as long as he can persuade the rest of the world to move with him..." is ridiculous. Call me a bit of a realist, but why would anyone, ANYONE ever get rid of their nukes? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Also, could this platform have influenced the actions of the Iranis and North Koreans these past few months? Both have stepped up their nuclear activity; is this because they think they can get away with it with Obama? Scary.
Skip down to the Nukes bit... I think (opinion, opinion!)... that this bit: "President Obama came into office with a plan to move toward zero American nuclear weapons – as long as he can persuade the rest of the world to move with him..." is ridiculous. Call me a bit of a realist, but why would anyone, ANYONE ever get rid of their nukes? Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Also, could this platform have influenced the actions of the Iranis and North Koreans these past few months? Both have stepped up their nuclear activity; is this because they think they can get away with it with Obama? Scary.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
The U.N.'s Shameful Complicity in this Year's Corrupt Afghan Elections
An excellently opinionated article with which (witness TJ and Angela!) I completely agree.
By Christopher Hitchens.
Brilliant concluding quote:
"...but there is one thing that did disfigure South Vietnam and is essential to avoid in any case: the commitment of American forces to a government that contrives to be both enriched and bankrupt at the same time and makes its own people want to spit."
By Christopher Hitchens.
Brilliant concluding quote:
"...but there is one thing that did disfigure South Vietnam and is essential to avoid in any case: the commitment of American forces to a government that contrives to be both enriched and bankrupt at the same time and makes its own people want to spit."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Challenge
I challenge you people (YOU PEOPLE!) to convince me of the following:
The United States has a responsibility to commit manpower to peacekeeping efforts worldwide, regardless of whether or not it precipitated the non-peaceful conditions to begin with.
I offer the following statements (without proof) for my argument to the contrary:
1) Any peacekeeping efforts by the U.S. would need to be paid for
2) Only U.S. taxpayers or semipermanent consumers can pay for sustained U.S. peacekeeping efforts
3) The only responsibilities the U.S. governing apparatus inherently has are to its taxpayers or semipermanent consumers.
4) If the U.S. governing apparatus precipitates any non-peaceful conditions, it adds to that list of responsibilities.
5) Otherwise, it doesn't.
6) If the U.S. government indeed commits manpower to peacekeeping efforts, the need of which it did not precipitate, such commitment is extraneous and ancillary to its real responsibilities.
7) I am awesome, and therefore am correct.
Kidding. But for real, 1-6.
Done.
The United States has a responsibility to commit manpower to peacekeeping efforts worldwide, regardless of whether or not it precipitated the non-peaceful conditions to begin with.
I offer the following statements (without proof) for my argument to the contrary:
1) Any peacekeeping efforts by the U.S. would need to be paid for
2) Only U.S. taxpayers or semipermanent consumers can pay for sustained U.S. peacekeeping efforts
3) The only responsibilities the U.S. governing apparatus inherently has are to its taxpayers or semipermanent consumers.
4) If the U.S. governing apparatus precipitates any non-peaceful conditions, it adds to that list of responsibilities.
5) Otherwise, it doesn't.
6) If the U.S. government indeed commits manpower to peacekeeping efforts, the need of which it did not precipitate, such commitment is extraneous and ancillary to its real responsibilities.
7) I am awesome, and therefore am correct.
Kidding. But for real, 1-6.
Done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)