Hi. Thanks for the good read….

I found it very useful. Thanks for the knowledge. I am personally trying to follow the advice & try to be independent….

Your blog posts are insightful. I will take them into deep thought and consideration. Your point of view is very smart and intellectual. Charlie…

As A Freelance Greeting Card Artist, You Would Focus Only On Designing…

Download the ringtone of the popular song: Barefoot Floors …

homemade wax, madam tuso, meguires,
zaino car wax…

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/04/christopher_hit.html

Still doesn’t explain how a guy who had obviously more in common with social democrats than Stalinists in terms of his core beliefs could have risen to the highest position in the Soviet leadership and allow the breakup of Eastern Europe without a shot fired if, in fact, the Evil Empire was a totalitarian system with essentially the same proclivities as Hitlerism, bent on our destruction and unresponsive to “detente”. There was no mass movement inside of Russia – just scattered dissidents, including a handful of celebrities – so, as far as I can tell, Gorbachev’s ascension was obviously the outcome of tendencies that had evolved within the Soviet establishment for years. I just don’t see how one can get from “Reagan’s World, circa 1981 when he took office, to a man with Gorby’s open, flexible outlook in four years.

Of course the older layers of the Brezhnevite establishment had to die off, but I believe that the rise of some post-Brezhnev reformist faction was probably inevitable – and that, in fact, this tendency can be traced back to Khruschev, who for all of his flaws and inability to rise above the circumstances and beliefs of his generation, was a pivotal, if contradictory, figure in Soviet politics who deserves at least as much credit as calumny. I’ve always thought the “Soviet threat” was to a great extent overblown and politicized.

(Nixon was a one-man lesson in using communism as a domestic club against political enemies, while fully recognizing that in the “real world” it was a complex issue, to the extent that he could successfully engage the Chinese while they were still in thrall of Maoism. I think this is a lesson that Bush could take from Nixon as regards Iran, frankly – but we don’t really have statesmen any more. Not even one’s who I have the luxury of detesting, like Nixon. At this point I’d vote for Nixon’s corpse in a matchup with Bush. The guy was sinister, but he was also canny and shrewd on the big issues of global confrontation in a way that deserves respect. A serious Poker player vs. the current crew where Condi appears to specialize in Old Maid, Bush in Charades, Cheney in Shadow Puppets and Rummy in Dodgeball.)

Two deaths of leadership had something to do with it.

I am disappointed reg. I specifically did not imply Reagan was a genius and agree with all the other contributing factors you mention, but to diminish Reagan’s contribution to the Berlin Wall coming down when it did exposes an inability for a smart man to recognize his biases.

Still doesn’t explain how a guy who had obviously more in common with social democrats than Stalinists in terms of his core beliefs could have risen to the highest position in the Soviet leadership and allow the breakup of Eastern Europe without a shot fired if, in fact, the Evil Empire was a totalitarian system with essentially the same proclivities as Hitlerism, bent on our destruction and unresponsive to “detente”. There was no mass movement inside of Russia – just scattered dissidents, including a handful of celebrities – so, as far as I can tell, Gorbachev’s ascension was obviously the outcome of tendencies that had evolved within the Soviet establishment for years. I just don’t see how one can get from “Reagan’s World, circa 1981 when he took office, to a man with Gorby’s open, flexible outlook in four years.

Of course the older layers of the Brezhnevite establishment had to die off, but I believe that the rise of some post-Brezhnev reformist faction was probably inevitable – and that, in fact, this tendency can be traced back to Khruschev, who for all of his flaws and inability to rise above the circumstances and beliefs of his generation, was a pivotal, if contradictory, figure in Soviet politics who deserves at least as much credit as calumny. I’ve always thought the “Soviet threat” was to a great extent overblown and politicized.

(Nixon was a one-man lesson in using communism as a domestic club against political enemies, while fully recognizing that in the “real world” it was a complex issue, to the extent that he could successfully engage the Chinese while they were still in thrall of Maoism. I think this is a lesson that Bush could take from Nixon as regards Iran, frankly – but we don’t really have statesmen any more. Not even one’s who I have the luxury of detesting, like Nixon. At this point I’d vote for Nixon’s corpse in a matchup with Bush. The guy was sinister, but he was also canny and shrewd on the big issues of global confrontation in a way that deserves respect. A serious Poker player vs. the current crew where Condi appears to specialize in Old Maid, Bush in Charades, Cheney in Shadow Puppets and Rummy in Dodgeball.)