If both the US and the USSR knew that missile defense was an impossibility, why did they bother with the ABM treaty? According to this theory, the meaning of the ABM treaty is, "We'll sign a deal that precludes either of us from doing something we wouldn't bother doing anyway."
Dave says it was an attempt by Nixon to look good at home; Klic2Con10ue argues it was a way of avoiding a costly arms race. (The idea of spending the Soviets into the ground had not taken hold …)
Abraham, Martin, and Trent: Post-BET appearance, the Lott debate in Ballot Box has moved well past his "problems" and even past the problems Democrats and Republicans have condemning him. It is now in the meta-meta-phase where the questions are: 1. who has been duplicitous in giving Lott a pass while condemning Clinton and the other way around (too complicated for me to sort out) and 2. how will it play out? Don offers this:
I have to smile when I think of the left running with this Lott thing for the next two years. An amazing amount of energy will be expended to reinforce stereotypes to the constituency that already buys into them. I can already see the DNC's "what we should have done" writings after the 2004 elections.
(Check out Don and Shelia's posts under Tempo's thread for more of the "who will have said what" debate .)
Burning sensations: The Explainer Fray on Klan cross-burnings is filled with lots of Klan-hating (um, good!) and alternately vicious claims that the Klan is anti-Christian or just Christianity's inherent evil revealed (under hoods, but you get the point). For those who think that all this talk of the Klan and Dixiecrats (and last week's squirrel heads) is putting an anti-Southern spin on the holidays, raprap stresses the Midwestern power of the Klan here ... 11:30 a.m.
Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002
"[S]tates rights," for better or for worse, is not just a brief in favor of limited government. It also is an argument in favor of a nation that looks a lot more like the Confederacy than the U.S., in which the central government cannot prevent discrimination against blacks, women and others, and in which individual rights (including the right to vote, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the protections of the 6th Amendment) can be trumped by the local majority.
Legis doesn't think Lott is the secessionist Hitchens makes him out to be; zinya provides some needed details beginning here. Abre_los_ojos has some kind words for Kissinger's legacy here, the point being that
Lott and Law are and always have been lightweights, destined to be soon forgotten other than as footnotes. At most they will be remembered only insofar as their fallacious actions and falls from grace might lead to cleansings of the Republican Party and the Catholic Church. By contrast, Kissinger was a major world figure, a heavyweight.