Second thoughts

When Ronald Reagan made his famous speech denouncing the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire," I thought he was wrong. Although I had no allusions about the Soviets being anything other than tyrants, I thought at the time Reagan's name-calling was juvenile and harmful to the cause of world peace.

I was wrong. From all I learned later, being called the Evil Empire shocked the Kremlin's idea of itself and led some officials to look at themselves anew, a theme eventually picked up by Gorbachev. But the thing that really impressed me - and made me change my mind - was the later news that dissidents took great encouragement in what Reagan had said. It gave them hope and heart.

Tomorrow my column defends the Nobel committee - sort of - for giving the Peace Prize to Obama. (Be warned, like this blog today, it is not a laff fest). Everybody has condemned the award -- even liberals like me thought it was ridiculious -- and if you feel like that, the following AP story is for you. Just as I had second thoughts about Reagan once, perhaps you will too about this award to Obama....

Leading Cuban dissidents cheer Obama's Nobel prize

HAVANA (AP) - Many of the 75 activists jailed in a 2003 Cuban government crackdown on political dissent are congratulating Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a letter released Monday to international journalists, 29 of those imprisoned six years ago said Obama "has become a global symbol, especially for us who, under difficult conditions, are defending Cubans' right to democracy."

In another letter, 21 of their wives, mothers and other female relatives also cheered Obama.

Fifty-four dissidents remain imprisoned on allegations they conspired with the U.S. to topple Cuba's government. Those freed were granted medical parole or forced into exile in Spain. One was released after completing a six-year sentence.

 


Posted Oct 13 2009, 05:48 PM by Reg Henry

Comments

myooz wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 1:48 PM

Anything that gives Kelly, Krauthammer, Crystal, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Cheney et al fits is well deserved.

Titan Lee wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 1:54 PM

Reagan's "we win, they lose" definition of the Cold War was not intended to have the Russians look in the mirror and realized they were the bad guys.  They knew they were the bad guys and intended to prove it unless someone stopped them.  Reagan made it extremely clear that stopping them is exactly what we would do.  The USSR was not looked at as an equal.  Reagan wouldn't sit down at the table and "talk" as an equal, as someone now is claiming we should do with all other countries, since we're all "equal".  Dissents were aware that the US was listening.  They were right.  It would be more than "talking the talk" if necessary.

Distorting history to elevate Obama is wrong.  But since we're allowing our kid's history books to do the same thing, why shouldn't a reporter do the same?

Titan Lee wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 2:02 PM

Myooz,

"Fits" of laughter never hurt anyone.  The "left" doesn't even know how to react to embarrassment.  Now that's funny.

Ladyburg wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 3:17 PM

I was out of town when Regie wrote his "Name calling season", so I will reply here. Gone for six days and it is the same old, same old.

Regie, yet again tries to convince us (and himself) that he is a middl-y. He really tried to drive that point by saying he "might" actually vote for a Republican, if....  LOL! I guess I can understand Regie denying his liberalism. Who wants to admit to that. And it is the easy way out. He bashes the right on a regular  basis and when they slap back to his liberalism he cries, "not not me, I'm in the middle."  Give it up, Regie.

I'm not in "ill humor" Regie. You just don't recognize my humor because I'm laughing AT you, not WITH you.

As far as Rush goes, I'll agree he dishes out the name-calling.

However, if anyone can take it, it is Rush. Unlike, the other guy (POTUS) who constantly whines and cries when the same is done to him.

Rush is only the leader of the Republican party in the minds of the Dems. And with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being the leaders of that party, I would think thou shall not be laughing at Rush. Now the man that REALLY runs that party, George Soros is a whole other story. Why don't you do a funny piece on him?

Callsigntist: Did you decide to play nice before or after you and your buddy couldn't make up your minds(?) as to whether I was brain-dead, oblivious or dishonest?

Here is a FYI for you and the other little boys that like to tell jokes - I don't crave, need or want your attention. I'm simply expressing my views on the letters. If you prefer to tell jokes that have nothing to do with the lettters, why don't you and your little playmates form some sort of chat room and have fun? And what's up with the "something was happening.? You call me delusional?

Clejai - You forgot to mention a few other names: racist, tea-baggers, fear-mongers, war-mongers and religious fanatics amoung others. Oops, those are the  trash-mouth slogans from the left. Guess you didn't hear those because you only seem to have one ear that,I assume, goes right along with your one-sided brain.

MyReply - Of course, they attacked you when you asked a question. It's what they do. No, they don't like it when you become as rude as they do. No, they are they only ones that can be rude. Yes, it is OK that they act like unruley children, but not you. Yes, the 1st amendment right is OK for them and not you.

It's how they operate - it's the game they play. They call you a name (because, heaven forbid you have dared to disagree) so, you call them one. Then they repremand you for being so childish and pretend they want to play nice. You fall for it. Then they kick you in the teeth AGAIN. Well, I'm sure you get the picture. It is one big vicious circle. Then they expect you to run away with your tail between your legs.

Yes "humorus." does excuse all boorish behavior. Look at Letterman, Joy Bauer, Bill Maher (and Regie, of course). They make fun of people and think it is "humorus. They get away with it because they are "comedians".

They make the rules of their game that YOU, not THEM, are supposed to follow.

callsigntourist wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 5:02 PM

Ladyburg:

Hi!  Welcome back!

You said:  “Callsigntist: Did you decide to play nice before or after you and your buddy couldn't make up your minds(?) as to whether I was brain-dead, oblivious or dishonest? . . . You call me delusional?”

Just for the record, I said none of those things about you.  

So I guess either dishonest or delusional must be right.

myooz wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 6:49 PM

Titan,

The NeoCons are incapable of laughter

" Reagan wouldn't sit down at the table and "talk" as an equal"

REALLY?

www.reagan.utexas.edu/.../gorby.html

thescarletpumpernickel wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 7:59 PM

"Illusions" , Reg.

(It's great to be (pretend) editor. (Proofreader?))

Ladyburg wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:04 PM

Poll for Brain Dead blog:

Myooz to tourist: You give her the undeserved attention she craves.

Callsigntourist: "Undeserved is part of the point. I hope this highlights that not everyone turning out to speak has something to say. To one extent, we are obligated to listen, then we have to ignore them if we are going to get anything done. Besides, I still have one question about this: oblivious or dishonest?

I didn't say you said I was delusional. Re-read above.

callsigntourist wrote re: Second thoughts
on Wed, Oct 14 2009 10:23 PM

Ladyburg:

Not guilty.  Again for the record:  (1)  You purport to quote me, but you typed it, rather than copied it, and you mangled it.  (2)  The exchange between myooz and me was not about you.  Start where you quoted and work your way up.

regbuddy wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 4:49 AM

Obama, the great, does exactly the opposite of Reagan.  He cozies up to illegitimate Iranian leaders (cannot spell him name) and gives no comfort to those who want democracy and a relationship with the west.  Where was the great leader when the election was stolen and the people were trammeled?  

callsigntourist wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 5:49 AM

regbuddy:

Can't spell his name?  

Can't find it either?

Witness, people, conservative foreign policy in the flesh.

Titan Lee wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 8:50 AM

Myozz,

Yes, really.  "Meeting" does not mean "meeting as an equal".  The quote "we win, you lose" was not interpretted as "we both win" or "we both tie".  Just keep agreeing with those who want to apologize for the greatness this country once had.  Hopefully one day we can be known as France West.

myooz wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 11:27 AM

tourist,

"The exchange between myooz and me was not about you."

"oblivious or dishonest?" I think paranoid should be added to the choices and I.m thinking -all the above

myooz wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 11:52 AM

Titan

As a former  Republican I can usually somewhat empathize with your conservative views but I fear you are locked in a 80’s time warp.

You say I should "Just keep agreeing with those who want to apologize for the greatness this country once had." The converse of this to you is- just keep apologizing for those (GWB/NeoCons) who effectively destroyed the greatness this country once had.

Titan Lee wrote re: Second thoughts
on Thu, Oct 15 2009 1:55 PM

Really?

Because I'm discussing Reagan since the topic was Reagan?

Gore or Obama elected Pres in 2000.  9/11 happens.  How would we have shown our greatness? (which is a tough question, since we're now apologizing going back to WW2).

myooz wrote re: Second thoughts
on Fri, Oct 16 2009 1:12 PM

Titan,

"How would we have shown our greatness?"

We could have shown our greatness by facing the facts of why 9/11 happened and why Muslims almost universally hate us (our goverment). And please do not regurgitate the NeoCon claptrap that they hate us because of our way of life.

my opinion wrote re: Second thoughts
on Fri, Oct 23 2009 1:47 AM

myooz - why do they hate us and want to kill us, sorry actually killed us?  What are the facts that justify them doing what they did?  This didn't start with 9/11.  How about the first tower bombing in 1993 and the many others in the 90's.  If you are going to spout the normal left wing dribble, don't bother to answer.  Specific things we did to deserve what they did or nothing please.

my opinion wrote re: Second thoughts
on Tue, Oct 27 2009 10:25 PM

myooz my psot of 10/23 asked for specifics of why we deserved what happened 9/11.  Either you are still writing or you have nothing.

Your comment "We could have shown our greatness by facing the facts of why 9/11 happened and why Muslims almost universally hate us (our goverment"  By 9/11 President Bush did not have enough time to *** all those fine people off.  Comments like yours that are designed to attack President Bush, as a veteran, I find very offensive.

Facing the facts?  Please list those facts.  If they are so obvious you should be able to come up with a list very quickly.  Please do, I have a need to hear those "facts".