Another example of why I enjoy Andrew Bacevich

Bacevich heralds the death of the American Century. There's an article that accompanies this video, here. One of the impressive legacies Bacevich taps into is the works of William Appleman Williams (one of the more important American historians of the 20th century) and Charles and Mary Beard. I think he's a leading thinker on American foreign policy, and he offers a sane voice that elevates above the din of exceptionalism. The video is brief but informative.

You hear very few people saying this now: "At the end of the American century, it's time for us to acknowledge the errors we have made along the way. Perhaps we even need to apologize, apologize to the world...."

The genius behind the curtain

Juan Cole on Obama's first 100 days in the Middle East.

Juan Cole's Informed Comment is a good starting point for non-specialists who are interested in Middle Eastern history and current affairs. Cole wanted, it appears, to get in on the spate of "100 Days" analysis. I pulled out the summary points in an overall well-done piece. I presume he didn't want to broach the Chas Freeman imbroglio.

"So, an "A" on style, which is all that could probably be accomplished in 100 days. We need to come back and judge substance a year from now. But the challenges are enormous, especially at a time when domestic economic and health concerns are the primary focus of the American public.

It is too soon to tell whether he can succeed in handling this very full plate. But he has at least stopped digging us into a hole, and there is some prospect of him succeeding on at least some fronts.

It is hard to remember now how bad things were a year ago, in April of 2008, in this regard. How hopeless issues looked on all fronts, how absent and arrogant the supposed decider was, how perfidious and devious the real president-behind-the-scenes was. Obama cannot fix the world's problems simply by taking office or making some speeches. But he does give people hope with his style, intelligence, grasp of issues, and clear ethical imperatives. It is a new day. It is a new day."

Can this be real? The Steve Trifecta.

Recently, I posted what I thought was an entertaining clip of a guy riding a lawn mower getting tased. I've now discovered that the video wasn't the only one. There appears to be a trio of videos. After watching all three in succession, and viewing the website listed, it's apparent that they're staged. Regardless, they're still pretty damned funny.

"My wife said if I didn't get her another beer she would stab me in the face."



"I think I crapped my pants"



"Are you smoking marijuana right in front of me, Steve?"

ABC Poll on Obama's First 100 Days and Country's Direction

Oh noes, does this mean the teabaggers and their lords at Fox news are wrong? A couple of highlights:

• Obama's job approval, according to this poll, is high: 69% of Americans approve of what he's doing.
• Regarding the question if the country's headed in the right direction: "It’s soared from 19 percent just before Obama’s inauguration to 50 percent today – a stunning advance to its highest in six years. But while right-track ratings have gained 50 points since January among Democrats, they’re up by a far milder 9 points among Republicans."
• Roughly 61% of Americans trust the President to handle the economy, and approximately 23% trust the opposition party.

19 Pages of PDF charts and methodology

Conspiracy theory board.

What a funny place. And I mean funny as I tug at my collar and laugh nervously out of the corner of my mouth.

The Boulder Draft House review: the perils of ordering a five dollar shake.

Kate and I joined several friends last night to celebrate our friend Doug Snyder's successful completion of his second PhD exam and entrance into candidacy. Doug selected the Boulder Draft House, which opened this week after replacing Redfish Brewery. Aesthetically, it's pleasing. The room's open and they moved the main bar up front. Previously, the primary bar split the restaurant and, in my opinion, made it somewhat segmented. A new coat of paint and a wagon wheel or two can go a long way in offering a more welcoming feeling than a dark, cave-like atmosphere, which is what Redfish was like.

It was the opening week--if I remember correctly--and they were out of several beers. The room was packed and it's not a surprise that we had four or five choices. I selected the imperial chocolate porter to start and later grabbed an pale ale. The porter was tasty and just right for an afternoon that was turning a bit crisper. The pale ale wasn't bad, but nothing too captivating. I felt the same way about the golden kolsch style ale Kate ordered. Kate and I grabbed a pretzel for an appetizer. It was standard with some decent sweet house mustard. For dinner Kate selected the artichoke po' boy, and I the pitts-burgher. Doug ordered it too, and we were both surprised me with how good it was. It was a simple sandwich comprised of shaved prime-rib with provolone and coleslaw on a decent bun. It was almost good enough to make me want to return to grab another and sample a few more beers, but dessert canceled any gains.

Kate and I wanted something sweet and the cupcake milkshake leapt off the page. Mistake. The restaurant was busy, but I noticed that it took a while to get our shake along with two cheesecake slices, the latter of which I thought was okay but hardly memorable. When the waitress delivered the shake I noticed that it didn't look right at first glance. The first sip confirmed that reaction: it was like sweetened and chilled milk with some sprinkles. It was passed around and several others agreed that it wasn't the correct consistency. When the waitress stopped by, I asked her if they could do something about the fact that it wasn't a shake at all and it was watery. I was polite and she said maybe we can add some ice cream to it and reblend it. I meekly said OK because I wanted to give it a shot. Mistake #2.

After waiting a bit longer to get it back, it was worse than before. They simply added some ice cream and reblended it, but the consistency was still way off and hardly a milk shake. There was a clump of ice cream floating and added sprinkles, but, other than that, it even tasted grainy like a thickening agent (a flour or starch) was added. Kate and I miscommunicated and sent the waitress mixed signals. Even though we might have consumed a bit more than the first time, it was barely touched and the waitress should have noticed a nearly full pint glass on an otherwise empty table. It was merely five dollars, but the experience left a bad taste in my mouth (literally and figuratively) and I don't think Kate and I will travel out of our way to eat there while in Boulder or to recommend the restaurant.

The beer, while good, was hardly memorable and Kate wasn't floored with her food. I didn't hear anyone else at the table raving about their food, but Rhea (Esposito) said she enjoyed the deviled eggs with crab. Despite my complaints, we had a wonderful time chatting with everyone and sharing a few beers to celebrate with Doug for a hard-fought and well deserved accomplishment.

Bill Maher on the GOP, "The GOP: Divorced from Reality"

Bill Maher's op-ed in yesterday's LAT eviscerates the Republican Party. He likens the scare tactics and empty protests to a rejected husband after a divorce: "You're not ready to let go, but the country you love is moving on. And now you want to call it a whore and key its car."

Maher correctly points out that the recent protests and hectoring from the GOP is based solely on losing the white house and not matters of principle. And the wild-eyed claims about taxes (which target a minute portion of American society) and guns (the Obama administration hasn't moved close to an assault weapons ban) are unfounded.

It's an entertaining read, which shouldn't be much of a surprise considering Maher's a comedian. One of my favorites:

"It's sad what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the big tent; now they're the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like Trekkies, but paranoid."

Turkey and Armenia take first steps to normalize relations

It's not everything, but it's something. Turkey and Armenia agreed "in principle to normalize relations," according to the WaPo. Not everyone is jumping out of their seats, and it now enters the steps of ratification in both states. Obama and the folks at State worked on cementing the initial steps, and it's part of Ankara's goal to improve its standing in the region with the backing of the US. I'm sure that this assists Turkey's goal of joining the EU.

You tell 'em, Shep!!!

The Mighty Boosh

I was at a public house imbibing a few libations (listen to me talk), and the bartender put on a BBC tv show called The Mighty Boosh. It's a comedy, which some have described as surreal, but it's difficult for me to explain the humor. Here are a couple of clips to exemplify my confusion. The BBC doesn't allow embedding so I have to post links to youtube clips.

Eels Song
Jazz Trance

Ah, here's something that I can embed

Look at this fucking hipster

Care for some good old fashioned mockery of trends in a non-ironic way? Then point your clicker right over here.

Troubles for labor.

On news that Jim Webb won't publicly voice his support for EFCA, Steve Greenhouse reports on failed organization efforts at Norton Audobon Hospital in Louisville, KY. The story illustrates the need for EFCA, and why Greenhouse is one of the more important reporters on labor in the US.

Greenhouse recounts how organization efforts failed. Subtely, he says that it's symptiomatic of the barriers organizers and workers face. After a preponderance of nurses voiced their support for unionizing in '94, the NLRB election and the fabled "secret ballot" demonstrated the complete opposite of the signed union cards. Why, might you ask? Here's what transpired:

"In the Louisville fight, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that the nurses had changed their minds about the union in 1994 mainly because management conducted an often illegal campaign against unionization.

An N.L.R.B. judge concluded that management had committed so many serious violations of the law — firing and demoting nurses, threatening to close the hospital if the union prevailed — that it made the possibility of a 'free choice by the employees slight to nonexistent.'

Ann Hurst, a pro-union nurse who the board said was illegally demoted, still remembers. “They came after us with a vengeance,” she said. 'They created a lot of fear about what would happen if we had a union.'”

Clear? Intimidation and punitive measures contributed to the failure of the union. Not worker disinterest. One of my students asked me why union's don't do anything any longer, and this is the reason. Organizers and pro-union employers face overwhelming harrassment and obstruction by employers who can get away with it and impede plans for unions. Labor is no longer given the chance to grow, which is why EFCA matters for the fate of unionism in the US.

I hate Illinois nazis

To protest the opening of the new holocaust museum in Skokie, the Illinois National Socialist Front and other sunny folks received a permit to demonstrate at an intersection. It doesn't appear that they got anywhere close to the museum based on this video.

Btw, I should comment that I find this utterly reprehensible.

The Amish begin accepting unemployment.

Due to population pressures and rising costs of land, the Amish population in northern Indiana joined the industrial work force in factories as of recent, according to the Trib. This is a neat story that explains how the Amish are forced to adapt and incorporate more modern technologies or concepts (ie unemployment) in order to survive through economic tough times and the shifting demographic conditions.

About those metal water bottles

According to today's NYT Week in Review section, How Green is My Bottle, "One stainless bottle is obviously much worse than one plastic bottle. Producing that 300-gram stainless steel bottle requires seven times as much fossil fuel, releases 14 times more greenhouse gases, demands the extraction of hundreds of times more metal resources and causes hundreds of times more toxic risk to people and ecosystems than making a 32 gram plastic bottle. If you're planning to take only one drink in your life, buy plastic."

The comparison is to cheap-o plastic bottles, but it stands when comparing them to Nalgenes.

UFCW & Wal-Mart

It's been a hectic week, and I'm getting back to living normally again.

Friday's WSJ featured a story on the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) efforts to organize Wal-Mart workers. Of course, the piece centers on the looming fight for EFCA, which may be further away now that Arlen Specter is pulling a John McCain and distancing himself from anything that is unpalatable to a Republican base. It doesn't matter; he'll lose to Pat Toomey during the primary.

story

Tea Parties

Here's an entertaining and, from my pov, accurate criticism of the tea parties: LAT "What exactly are the protesters protesting? The marginal tax rate rising 3% for millionaires?"

"The Tea Party movement, more than anything else, is a rather garish display of a Republican right that seems to have lost not only the national elections but also any semblance of political bearings. Staying on this course, the GOP risks -- in the words of one pundit -- becoming "the Talk Radio Republican Party."

Better put that kettle on, Marge. It's going to be a long and bizarre four years."

Lebanon in the age of Nasrallah

Qifa Nabki writes a fascinating read on Hezbollah's integration into Lebanese politics by emphasizing unity and placing martial resistance on the back burner. Fun read if you're into that sort of thing.

2 articles worth reading in Today's NYT

1) Illegal immigration, at its core, a 20th century concept (read Mae Ngai's Impossible Subjects), remains an issue of labor. That's not to say people don't emigrate to enjoy our quality of life or to escape various sorts of repression, but the motor of illegal immigration, especially from North to South in the Western Hemisphere, revolves mostly around labor. That's why it's promising to see that the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, according to today's NYT, reached an accord on working with President Obama to forge meaningful legislation to end the squabbling over illegal immigration. The two labor groups are proposing the creation of a non-partisan commission to judge the need for labor in the US. The group will function like a release valve to fulfill the needs of the US labor market. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce (who also launched an anti-EFCA ad blitz in the past week) will oppose it at some level. story

2) Acknowledging that the Bush strategy pertaining to Iranian enrichment failed, Obama has agreed to drop it as a prerequisite for diplomatic discussions. In the diplomatic game of sticks and carrots, the US and its European allies would demand greater levels of inspection and a possible suspension of enrichment as the centerfuges continue to spin, a "warm shutdown." This approach shows the pragmatism of the Obama administration to accept the level of Iranian nuclear achievement. It would be unrealistic to expect Obama to enact such sweeping change as promised during the campaign, but this step, and others in the same vein, offers tangible evidence of how the President and Secretary Clinton can restore the US' diplomatic advantage. story

Review of Rashid Khalidi, Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East

Rashid Khalidi, Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Dominance in the Middle East, 2009.

Faculty profile at Columbia

Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Modern Middle East Studies at Columbia, gained nation-wide attention in the fall after Fox news linked the insidious Khalidi to Obama. He is one of the, if not the, leading scholars on the modern Middle East teaching in the US. Sowing Crisis examines the role of the Cold War on the Middle East, which he also addressed in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East (2004). This work resulted from lectures at Bryn Mawr and a spate of institutions from Alexandria, Egypt to Tufts, and it blends sources from monographs, published primary sources (notably FRUS), and on-line document store-houses, such as the National Security Archive. The book consists of six mixed thematic and chronological chapters examining the roots of the US' policy in the Middle East and the deleterious effects of its Cold War agenda.

If someone asked me to recommend a book for non-specialists on US policy in the region, I would consider this one of the two recommended works. If a person wanted a detailed explanation of how the US acted in the region, Douglas Little's American Orientalism is considered the standard book by an American historian. Little's scholarship, at points, is an accomplished diplomatic history under Edward Said's guiding thought of orientalism. One could argue that outside of a theoretical framework specified in the first chapter, orientalism is loosely applied. Little's prose, base of knowledge, and handle of documentary evidence and scholarship makes the book essential to a student of American policy in the region, and qualifies him as one of the leading diplomatic historians of US policy in the region.

What you get from Khalidi is different. Where Little tends to stand back and let the cards fall where they may, Khalidi judges the nature of policy and assesses how super-power rivalry interfered with regional politics. He offers a generalized view of the US' actions in the region and global events during the Cold War peppered with specific details, which is no surprise considering that each chapter is an adapted lecture. Starting with the importance of Iran and oil, he moves through the 20th century up until the War on Terror, which he considers more of a war on Muslims and the Middle East rather than a true war on terrorism. US policy in the region, the author maintains, stemmed from Cold War justifications and, after 1979, decisions to oppose Iran. He incorporates Odd Arne Westad's conception of the US as an empire of liberty in The Global Cold War, and Khalidi discerns few traces of spreading liberty to the Middle East in American policy. Similarly, viewing the Soviet Union as an empire of justice, he argues that the Soviet presence accomplished little in purveying equality for the working-class or downtrodden fellahin.

Khalidi moves into the post-Cold War era with a predominant focus on GW Bush. As one could guess, Khalidi points to the Bush administration and war as unhinging Iraq and producing regional instability--unrivaled in the US' history of meddling since 1945. He justly criticizes Bush and his team for failing to comprehend not only elemental facts on Iraq, but of regional history. Khalidi's treatment of the period following 1991 centers mostly on the 2003 invasion, and there's a noticeable administration missing. Bill Clinton's continuous punitive measures targeting Iraq (better known as limited or quiet war for nearly all of his presidency) escape notice except for a few oblique references, and Khalidi elides nearly everything after the momentarily successful Madrid peace meeting until 2003.

After skimming the book, I'm left with several other criticisms. Khalidi repeats several items, which isn't a deal breaker considering the book's scope. He also claims, erroneously, that Dwight Eisenhower won the presidency after "Truman's defeat in the 1952 elections" (172). Adlai Stevenson--the Democratic Party's two time loser in the 50s--ran against Ike, not Truman. There are two other interpretive matters that I wish Khalidi would have expanded or addressed. The first relates to oil. The second chapter elucidates the significance of oil for the US and its allies after WWII, but it stops without developing the point further or how petroleum could have influenced US decision making after 1950. After the second chapter, oil disappears as a matter that drove policy. What about Operation Hard Surface and supporting the Saudi state with weapons? Could he have covered the US' interactions with the Shah's Savak? While this wasn't his book, it raises questions on the American century and the black gold that greased the wheels of American hegemony. Specifically, one could ask, could there have been such an expansive American century (abroad and at home) without cheap oil?

Lastly, to borrow a line from the Godfather, American policy in the region wasn't all dollars and cents. Certainly, the Cold War guided the US' actions in the region, but other aspects were at play. Shifting perceptions of Jews following the 1967 war altered US relations; it wasn't simply Cold War politics, as Peter Novick shows in The Holocaust and Collective Memory. The elephant in the room, orientalism, a topic which Khalidi is no stranger to, appears a handful of times. There are two potential explanations. One, that intellectual terrain is a mine field, and he was wise to avoid it at all costs. By doing so, he steers clear of attacks of being anti-semitic. The second results from his overarching framework. He attributes American foreign policy processes to Cold War reasoning, which is correct, but he misses the cultural motives of policy, such as deep seated enmity of Arabs. My money is on the former--he's too good of an historian to make that mistake.

Those criticisms aside, it's a wonderful book for someone who wants to grasp the motors of American foreign relations in the Middle East and how they influenced the state of the region's politics.

Here's a quote I enjoyed and that I find summarizes much of his analysis for the Cold War:
"While these remarks provoke several reflections about the Middle East since the end of the Cold War--a period that has seen a massive upsurge in US interest in the region keyed to terrorism than communism--one reflection is pertinent to this chapter: how much harm to the internal political development of this region, and in particular to peoples' aspirations for democracy, was done by the two superpowers' obsessive focus on each other, sometimes to the exclusion of all else, and their constant, insidious jockeying for Cold War advantage? The evidence of Iran, or Lebanon and Jordan, and also of Iraq and other countries in the region is that it was grave." (200)

Interview with Hezbollah's #2, Naim Qassem, and Hamas's Supreme Leader, Khalid Mishal.

Naim Qassem, #2 behind Shaykh Nasrallah, sat down for an interview with an LAT reporter. "Lebanon's Hezbollah Savors Increasing Legitimacy."

Strangely enough, today's NYT Op-Ed section features snippets from an interview with Khalid Mishal, Hamas's Supreme Leader, in "Hamas Comes Out of Hiding."

Both detail how the resistance groups are finding newfound political recognition among world players, and what that means for US policy in the region.

Annotated Criticism of Glenn Beck's stupid Thomas Paine bit.

Glenn Beck, the self-described rodeo clown, spouts nonsense. For those of who realize that he's crazy or playing crazy, his comments are entertaining. But the sad part is that he's popular and there is a dependable audience who agrees, in whole or part, with his bat shit crazy rants.

Dee Snyder clued me into the wacky Thomas Paine bit. Not only does it compare the Obama administration to the Japanese Imperial Navy at Pearl Harbor and Al-Qaeda, but it encourages Americans to take to the streets to protest the tyranny of the popularly elected president and the Democratic Party.

YOU LOST and he's only been president for a few months. It's going to be a long few years.

CNN Poll: Americans overwhelmingly support diplomatic relations with Cuba

About damned time. According to a poll conducted by CNN, 71% of Americans support restoring diplomatic relations with Cuba, and 64% said the US government should permit Americans (like me!!!) to travel to Cuba.

Why the F did you have a kid?

Whythefuckdidyouhaveakid is a new blog that allows snarky jackasses such as myself to laugh at others. I wanted to post another photo and the commentary, but it features bachelor party with a stripper as a baby looks on. While it's not frontal nudity, I didn't want to sully the wholesome nature of the WCR.

Here's a taste of one the funnier ones, from my chair.

Becuz the cigarette isn't lit (enlarge the photo for a closer look)

Silvio Berlusconi, how I love your antics.

I'm trading substance for...youtube videos over the past few days. I'm working up a review on Rashid Khalidi's new book, but this should be entertaining. SB humps a meter maid around the 13 second mark. I took this from Wonkette.

Teabagging down here, boss.

I don't know that the impending tea parties could be any funnier when politicians or pundits wave tea bags around. Memo to Republicans, Libertarians, and soft Conservatives who don't like to be linked to the Republican Party and call themselves Libertarians: YOU LOST, and this is what Obama ran on and won widely in November.

Intellipedia

In 2006, the crafty folks at the CIA created Intellipedia, a Wikipedia-like interactive site to share information and seek advice. According to the Time story linked above, it's immensely popular within the CIA.

It reveals that the CIA is still behind the curve technologically. The myth of the omnipotent CIA is stronger than the reality, and injecting new, younger blood into the analyst corps could precipitate some changes to increase communication, as Intellipedia seems to achieve.

Oh noes, the gays control the weather!!!

OMG, can it with apocalyptic imagery. This really takes the cake for fearmongering of recent.

Teabagging is so eighteenth century.

I know I'm late to the party for this one, but, apparently, more people are sending congresspeople tea bags and nasty notes to vent their frustration. C'mon, tea? Why don't you pick something that has some relevance or meaning to today's economy or even life. Tea was dumped into the Boston harbor because of taxes and it was a symbol, by extension, of oppression. Similarly, hosting "tea parties" not only sounds haughty, but it is completely at odds with today's life. I see how people are relying on historical events to draw parallels to today, and I appreciate the ostensible use of history. Seriously, though, tea? Protestors need to find an object with some actual contemporary value if they want their issue to resonate. Drawing on the mythical and romantic founding fathers/revolutionaries is nice and all, but it's better to be in touch.

PS. The US has been living beyond it's means ever since Reagan exploded the deficit. Obama's not helping right now, but at some point we're all going to have to pay for the past 30 years of excess and deficit spending.

Why isn't American labor radical anymore?

Steven Greenhouse, the NYT's labor correspondent, tackles this issue in today's Week in Review section. He traces the historical differences in the US' post-war labor history and, briefly, compares the American working-class to its European counterpart. Not a bad article.

I normally would write out a longer response or summary, but I finished the Mann review and I don't have much interest in writing more.

James Mann, The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan

James Mann, The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War, 2009.

James Mann's 2004 Rise of the Vulcans placed him as one of the leading popular voices covering recent American foreign relations history, and Mann's Rebellion continues the trend. In Rebellion Mann argues that Ronald Reagan bucked traditional conservative thinking on Gorbachev and the state of the Soviet Union, and helped end the Cold War. Instead of viewing Gorbachev through the doctrinaire prism of a velvet glove hiding a steel fist ready to crush capitalism and democracy, Dutch realized Gorbachev's fundamental desire to initiate true reform on several fronts, which permitted Gorbachev to enact perestroika and glasnost. Ultimately, Mann concludes:

"Reagan didn't win the Cold War; Gorbachev abandoned it. By recognizing Gorbachev's significance, when many others in the US did not, Reagan helped create the climate in which the Cold War could end." (346)

Mann lays out the challenges Reagan faced internationally and from within the US, including his own dogmatic anti-communism. At points, the book reads like a greatest hits of the Reagan presidency, skipping through the well-worn narrative of events and speeches. The chapters are short and portray events through a speedy, episodic chronology, but the brief nature also tends to increase repitition until parts III and IV. In orther words, the first half is breezy.

That's not to say that the book isn't without substance. Mann goes a long way in debunking the Republican and conservative mythology surrounding Reagan. Mann portrays Dutch as a simple person: a man influenced by his wife; a president who grasped larger ideas but lacked any interest in nuance; and one who made mistakes and gaffes, especially as Alzheimer's Disease reared its head in the final year (or years) of his presidency. The romantic idea of "Reagan" as the Republican paragon is crucial for the Republican Party. Don't get me wrong, Dutch played an important role in demolishing the New Deal alignment of political loyalties and altering how people talked about the place of government, even if their actions didn't mirror rhetoric. (I think that's one of the most valuable legacies of Reagan's presidency, altering the language of the debate on government.) Of course, he didn't shrink government, he exploded the US deficit, and, after seeing the effect of his tax cuts, raised taxes to compensate for his budgets. But if you have any doubts about Reagan's symbolic importance, revisit the imagery and discussion during the 2008 Republican primary and general election campaign.

I learned more about the interaction between Reagan, Nixon, and Kissinger than I knew before, but it points to my strongest criticism. Nixon visited Reagan and sent him letters as Reagan sought the ashamed president's approval for his foreign policy. The Soviets also contacted Nixon for advice on how they should deal with Reagan. Mann uses the interactions with Nixon to symbolize how rebellious Reagan's interactions with Gorbachev were. In many ways, the difference of opinion--continuing throughout Reagan's shift in favor of Gorbachev--serves as the vehicle by which Mann characterizes Republican thinking on the Soviet Union. This, however, is problematic. Mann offers sprinklings of opposition from Buckley, Will, Safire, and the WSJ, but I'm left wondering how "rebellious" Reagan's policy was from mainstream thought? Intellectually, I grasp Mann's point, however, I don't know how well it holds up to the historical record or basic critique. Presidents working with their Soviet counterparts wasn't revolutionary. (See Jeremy Suri's Power and Protest on this point.)

Additionally, how can you be an upstart if you're opposing Nixon but refusing to acknowledge his presence and keeping your meetings and communications entirely secret due to the stigma attached to the shamed ex-president? What was Reagan rejecting? Nixon's and Kissinger's detente? Reagan ran against detente and purposely avoided any language that linked his actions to detente, which was widely unpopular by 1980. So what or who is he rebelling against? Overall, I think Mann exaggerates Reagan's rejection of Cold War orthodoxy, especially since Reagan symbolized it for decades before 1980. (Thanks for the input, Doug.) Finally, the issue of evolution in Reagan's thinking is skimpy and seems forced in Mann's hurry to paint Reagan as rebellious.

Regarding the latter points, Mann wrote the book for a popular audience. A scholarly study of this sort would need to factor in public opinion, congressional opposition, and influence of world leaders. Mann includes some congressional opposition to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987 and 1988. The focus is on Reagan, but Gorbachev occassionaly seems like a side player or someone who reacts to Reagan's initiatives rather than an agent of his own. I find that treatment odd considering the sub-title and the prominence Mann awards Gorbachev for ending the Cold War. Nevertheless, for a popular audience the book isn't bad. It offers factual interpretations (instead of "REAGAN WON THE COLD WAR" mythology), the writing is lucid, and Mann provides a conceptual framework that popular historians have largely eschewed.

Ward Churchill Wins

Huh, like the Cutler trade, I didn't foresee that one coming to fruition. Ward won one (heh) dollar, reinstatement is not guaranteed until the judge decides at a later date, but CU must pay his legal fees.

The Future of NATO? Think of GM, apparently.

Two Op-Eds, Andrew Bacevich's in the LAT Roger Cohen's in the NYT, cover the issue of the US' future in NATO. Bacevich's title reveals his opinion: "How do We Save NATO? We Quit." Bacevich argues that NATO no longer holds a function for US security and Europe's defense needs are no longer wrapped up in Cold War binaries. He considers it outdated and compares it to GM.

Coincidentally, in "America Agonistes," Cohen also alludes to GM when discussing NATO's efficacy and purpose. He's less dismissive than Bacevich, but he questions NATO's role for the future in a world where bi-polarity vanishes and geographic spheres of interest shift. His penultimate paragraph sums up his stance: "My own view, based in the conviction that Pax Americana cannot endure another 60 years in its current form, is that a NATO now tacitly or explicitly working for the defense and expansion of the liberal democratic order — a task with no obvious geographical limit — must in time evolve into an alliance of democracies in which the likes of Japan, India and Australia would logically take their place."

How to make Jay Cutler the Bear's Franchise QB

In today's Trib, David Haugh discusses the Bears' prospects for acquiring Jay Cutler from the Broncos. Haugh lays out the the areas of the team that would benefit the most from Cutler's arm and decision making. Do I think the Bears will wind up with Cutler? Not likely. The Bears don't have anything in QB to match Cutler's star power. Hester or Urlacher, with a smattering of defensive players the Broncos need, could sweeten a deal that could make it possible. I'm not going to hold my breath, but a boy can dream.

Edit: Boy was that wrong, and poorly edited. First rounders in '09 and '10 with K Ort going to Denver. Here's to hoping Cutler can be the Bears' franchise QB that we've all longed for. Cutler grew up a Bears fan, so this might be able to work out well.

Fox News Ambushes Professor Alan Brinkley

Grif Jenkins of Fox News ambushed Alan Brinkley, mild-mannered professor extraordinaire, to challenge him on passages in his two recent text books. Sleazy. Maybe Fox doesn't like Columbia professors after the hit job they pulled on Rashid Khalidi last fall.

"Real good job there."