All of these years, I’ve been taught that it was the sainted Ronald Reagan who single handedly brought the Russian Bear to his knees in spite of the Democratic Congress, communist sympathizers, one and all. Now I come across this article by Yegor Gaidar that suggests it was something more mundane: grain and oil.

Basically, Mr. Gaidar argues that grain production was stagnant due to limitations associated with forced collectivization of agriculture. The Soviets had to eat, so they had to import grain. Having no real industrial exports to offer, they relied on raw commodities, mainly oil and gas, to purchase their grain. When oil prices collapsed in the 80s, the Soviets were in a bind. They needed money to eat. The only money available was from Western governments. Their money came with strings attached. One string, for example, was a prohibition on crushing democratic initiatives in Socialist bloc countries. And, while there was no direct support of independence movements inside the Soviet Union, home grown ones were assisted by a realization that the Soviet Union would not get its grain loans if it used military force to crush such movements.

Of course, the West was still careful about directly supporting independence movements inside the Soviet Union. When the Lithuanian authorities approached the American embassy in Moscow to ask whether the United States would lend support to the independence of Lithuania, the immediate response was negative. When the Soviet Union tried to use force to reestablish control in Baltic states in January 1991, however, the reaction from the West–including from the United States–was fairly straightforward: “Do as you wish, this is your country. You can choose any solution, but please forget about the $100 billion credit.”

What were Gorbachev’s options at the time? He could not easily dissolve the Soviet empire; the conservative elements inside the Soviet leadership were strongly against this notion. Yet he could not prevent the dissolution of the empire without a massive use of force. But if force was employed, the Soviet state would not get the necessary funds from the West, without which Gorbachev had no chance of staying in power.

This conundrum was the source of Gorbachev’s dilemma, forcing him to strike a deal with both the military and Boris Yeltsin. Hardliners from the KGB and the army who perceived that Gorbachev was simply too weak of a leader staged a coup in August 1991 under the banner of the State Committee for a State of Emergency (GKChP).

Within three days it was clear, however, that the plot had failed because its leaders did not know how to deal with the situation. Even if they found one division able to crush all the people who demonstrated against the GKChP, would the grain appear? Where would they find the food necessary to feed the larger cities? Would the West rapidly give the $100 billion? Their case, like the Soviet state itself, was entirely lost.

On August 22, 1991, the story of the Soviet Union came to an end. A state that does not control its borders or military forces and has no revenue simply cannot exist. The document which effectively concluded the history of the Soviet Union was a letter from the Vneshekonombank in November 1991 to the Soviet leadership, informing them that the Soviet state had not a cent in its coffers.[11]

Tim Zank posted Newt Gingrich’s 10 step plan on immigration. One of them is:

Ensure that becoming an American citizen requires passing a test on American history in English and giving up the right to vote in any other country.

I think maybe I could get behind this if it was required of every would-be American, whether born in the country or out. There is also a provision about making everybody learn English. Again, there are plenty of native born Americans with abysmal knowledge of English. I think making people pass a basic American history test and a basic grammar test before they can vote would dramatically alter electoral politics in this country.

No time to comment, but check out Sylvia Smith’s article in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette entitled Disability-claim backlog painful. I come across these folks routinely in my collection business, and from my perspective the delay seems ridiculous. (On the other hand, some of the folks clogging up the system with claims seem a bit ridiculous as well — look at that, I guess I did have time to comment a little.)

This post at DailyKos made me ponder Dick Cheney for a few moments. Just letting you know the trigger-point for this post, I’m not saying it really told me anything new or which I didn’t suspect. But, when this administration is reviewed in its entirety sometime decades hence, I think we’ll find that there was widespread disregard for the niceties of the law — be it with respect to proper use of classified materials, observance of due process, compliance with open door laws, observance of civil service laws, observance of campaign finance laws, observance of election laws, observance of the laws against torture, and other niggling details. I further think that we’ll find that George W. Bush didn’t really know what was going on, didn’t really know what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I think we’ll find that Cheney knew exactly what was going on, knew exactly what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

The Evansville Courier Press has an article entitled Scooter Libby that is rather remarkable. It stands for the proposition that Scooter Libby, convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal prosecutors, received too harsh a sentence when the judge sentenced him to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Just to provide a bit of perspective, by my not at all expert calculations, this is about the same sentence as one might receive for possessing about 40 pounds of marijuana.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with investigating the circumstances leading to Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s outing of undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. In the course of his investigation, Libby apparently lied to him repeatedly, thereby hindering an effective investigation.

With respect to this investigation, the Evansville Courier Press makes the rather startling assertion “it was known from the outset that no crime had occurred and who the leakers were.” Known by whom? When? Editor & Publisher has a nice run down of the White House Press Secretary’s statements on the matter:

9/29/03 – White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. And yet, as it turns out, he was. McClellan says, “I’ve made it very clear, [Rove] was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.”

10/7/03 – McClellan says he spoke to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Elliott Abrams and they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity.

10/10/03 – McClellan reports that he spoke with Libby, Rove, and Abrams about the Plame leak and those individuals “assured me that they were not involved in this.”

After that, the White House clammed up and claimed they wouldn’t comment on an “ongoing investigation.” So for the Courier Journal to claim that “it was known at the outset” who the leakers were is preposterous.

The editorial goes on to say:

Much about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is still not public, including why Libby felt compelled to lie. Was it to protect his boss, as administration critics suspect, or simply an overzealous defense of the White House rationale for going to war, as his defenders insist?

Protect his boss from what? The Courier Press has assured us that “it was known from the outset that no crime occurred.”

The Courier Press ends with this eyebrow raiser:

A pardon issued on the eve of Libby’s scheduled arrival at federal prison would be seen for what it is — hypocrisy and favoritism.

But Bush’s standing is so low that a pardon couldn’t do him much more damage, and it seems little enough to do for a loyal aide who is one of the dwindling few who still believe in this White House.

“Go on, George. Give him the pardon. Sure, it’s wrong, but what have you got to lose?”

From the What Was the Hold Up Department?: ABC News: Louisiana Rep. Jefferson Indicted in Bribery Probe.

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long-running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa.
. . .
Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson’s home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer. . . . Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotape taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson’s home.

House Democrats stripped Jefferson of his Ways & Means committee membership last year. If he’s on any other committees, he needs to be bounced.

Via Balloon Juice:

The Commissar has handily assembled authoritative statements from every major official at the DOJ denying a significant role in creating the list of axed Attorneys. It just appeared one day under their noses and then some mysterious, unexplained force compelled them to act on it. I tell you, that’s pretty spooky. If it weren’t for my doggone empiricism I would join them lest the List grow angry and smite me.

Reminds me of Ash’s disembodied hand in Evil Dead II. Groovy!

Tim F. at Balloon Juice has an interesting take on the “digital divide” between Conservatives and Liberals on the Internet. Generally speaking, it seems that Democratic candidates have thriving online operations and liberal netizens have some degree of influence on Democratic politicians. Meanwhile, Republican candidates don’t seem to be having nearly the online success of their Democratic counterparts and conservative netizens don’t have the same degree of influence on their preferred politicians. Says former Republican Congressional aide David All: “For the most part Republicans are stuck in Internet circa 2000.”

I don’t know if there is any scientific basis, but, as one reason for the divide, Tim F. asserts what I’ve seen passing as the common wisdom about the disposition of conservatives versus liberals. Conservatives respond better to authority than do liberals. Liberals are less organized. “Ask 3 Democrats, get 4 opinions.” The result is that radio is a more effective communication tool for conservative political operations than the Internet. Radio is one-to-many without a lot of that anti-authority “feedback” messing things up. Internet is more of a “many-to-many” form of communication. The ability for the liberal rabble rousers to argue among themselves ends up being a positive thing for Democratic political operations:

“What was once seen as a liability for Democrats and progressives in the past—they couldn’t get 20 people to agree to the same thing, they could never finish anything, they couldn’t stay on message—is now an asset,” Leyden said. “All this talking and discussing and fighting energizes everyone, involves everyone, and gets people totally into it.”

Tim F. says:

Researchers like Bob Altmeyer have exhaustively demonstrated that conservative followers like being told what to think and conservative leaders don’t tolerate input from the masses. In that way radio is the perfect medium, sending the Party line through a select group of reliable disseminators to the polloi with little chance for feedback, which liberals value but authoritarians hate. It helps explain why few conservative blogs allow comments and why Clear Channel radio often jettisons popular local conservatives to make room for a Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage monoculture. Feedback is a bug and the more mouthpieces you have the harder it gets to control the Party line.

Interesting theory, though it obviously paints with an awfully broad brush. I have noticed that conservative bloggers tend not to open up their comments as much as liberal bloggers seem to. That’s just one data point — coming from me, it’s also an anectdotal one. Even if there are these tendencies among Republican and Democratic voters, I suspect that these tendencies are very susceptible to being overridden as the political times change. With Iraq and George W. Bush’s betrayal of articulated conservative pricniples hanging as albatrosses around their neck, I think the Democrats will find themselves with considerably more power in the near future. Power will work its corrupting influence. Institutional players with huge money will seek to influence the Democrats even more and, as they gain influence, online liberal citizens will lose what influence they do have. Meanwhile, the Republicans will regroup, become more responsive to citizens, and will use the Internet more effectively.

Just a guess.

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired wrote a letter to President Bush on the subject of his veto of legislation funding the troops and setting a timeline for getting them out of Iraq. It’s strong stuff.

Dear Mr. President,

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear — most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops’ peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power – military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking – or have been broken already – by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable – and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military’s finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

So, President Bush has vetoed 2 bills now – one on stem cell research and one on funding the troops.

The cover up is always worse than the original scandal. Looks like the Attorney General scandal may get to a new level of bad for AG Alberto Gonzales. Murray Waas, reporting for the National Journal, says that the AG’s political lackeys, Kyle Sampson (resigned) and Monica Goodling (taking the 5th) were given extraordinary power over the hirings and firings of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. These two were supposedly working closely with the White House and the delegation of authority to them “was an attempt to make the department [of Justice] more responsive to the political side of the White House.”

That’s interesting in its own right. But the delegation of authority was apparently not disclosed to the House or Senate Judiciary committees investigating the matter. Senator Leahy is not amused. I know, I know. I’ll bet this delegation of authority just slipped Alberto Gonzales’s sieve-like mind. At the end of the day, hiding this delegation of authority is going to do more damage to Gonzales and the Bush administration than the original decision to politicize the Department of Justice.

Update Alberto Gonzales had quite a quote on the subject of the memo:

“I was reminded that it was shown to me yesterday. I haven’t studied it. Let me study it. And I don’t want to comment on it, but I was reminded that it was shown to me. But I didn’t study it and so before commenting on it I’d like to have the opportunity to study it and find out what happened here because again I need to look at it.”

Oh my. (H/t Monticello for the quote via WISH-TV)