25 additional things about me

A continuation of my first and second “25 things about me” posts.

Actually, Republican presidents DON'T spend more

“[The Congress shall have the power] To borrow money on the credit of the United States … ”

– Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

Democrats often point to bogus studies claiming that the “Republican presidents spend more” …

I have often criticized the federal government for its continually spendthrift ways. People on both sides are often alarmed at the extent to which our federal deficit spending and national debt are growing. But who is really to blame for this situation? My friends on the left often point fingers at the Republicans, and tell me that “the Republican presidents have historically spent more than the Democrat presidents.” Many of them point to bogus studies that seem to support this argument (often the same studies), with data about “which presidential administrations have spent the most.” These studies point fingers at virtually every Republican president in recent times, but tend to criticize Ronald Reagan in particular, I have noticed. By contrast, they credit the Bill Clinton administration with much lower deficit spending levels, saying that “he is the only recent president who hasn't increased the deficit.”

Ronald Reagan

… but presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country (Congress does)

What's wrong with these studies? For starters, presidents don't actually control the purse strings in this country – Congress does. Presidents can only veto the budgets passed by the Congress. The influence of a president is not insignificant, of course, but nor is it the “primary factor,” as these studies erroneously seem to imply it to be. Ronald Reagan faced a Democratic Congress for all of his administration (excepting the first 17 days of it), while Bill Clinton faced a Republican Congress for all but the first two years of his eight-year administration. During the last six years of his administration, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. In light of who controls the nation's purse strings in this country, it would thus seem that the blame for this massive deficit spending during the Reagan administration belongs to the Democratic Congress that then controlled the nation's purse strings. By the same logic, it would also seem that the credit for the lower deficit spending during the Clinton administration belongs to the Republican Congress of that time. I could easily cite other examples of presidents who have faced hostile Congresses (there are many), but suffice it to mention just the most prominent two of them for this debate for now. I can provide others upon request, if need be. While presidents obviously play an important role in the budget process, it would seem that their role is somewhat junior to that of the Congress. Congress is the senior partner in this process, and has far more influence over the budget process than any president does.

Bill Clinton

In defense of Ronald Reagan: Helping the mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War

During the Reagan administration, we were allied with both Iraq and Afghanistan …

In the Ronald Reagan era, America had two allies that seem somewhat ironic today: Iraq and Afghanistan. In the twenty-first century, America would later go to war with both of these countries. Thus, some have perceived a contradiction between the earlier alliance and the later hostilities. But to me, it would seem that there is a common theme running through both of these policies, which is American national interest. I will attempt to explain this interest in this post, and show why Reagan's support for the mujahideen was both justified and worthwhile.

Three “mujahideen”  in Asmar – Afghanistan, 1985

A review of PBS's “Walt Disney” movie

“We're not trying to entertain the critics … I'll take my chances with the public.”

– Walter Elias Disney

It's not often that you see art and commerce combined into one person. For whatever reason, most artists are lousy businessmen, and never really get the hang of the game of business. But Walter Elias Disney was an exception to this rule. He was a brilliant artist and a brilliant businessman. And by “art,” I don't just mean the visual arts, although Walt Disney had some helpful experience in hand-drawn animations that would be useful to him later on. All of movie-making is an art, it would seem, and Walt Disney excelled at this art. Although he started out drawing some of the animations himself, he quickly realized that there were others around him who were much better at this than he was, and he made sure to hire them. But his real talent was for producing, and he made one movie after another from very early on in his adulthood.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the Cold War: Latin America

If the Cold War were a chess game, Latin Americans were often the pawns …

Long before the Cold War began, American president James Monroe had introduced the now-famous “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. This doctrine said, in essence, that “the American continents … are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” (Source: Monroe Doctrine, 1823) Theodore Roosevelt later added a corollary of his own to this doctrine in 1904, in response to the Venezuelan Crisis of 1902-1903. This “Roosevelt Corollary” basically said that “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” (Source: Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, 1904)

Fidel Castro visits United States, 1959

Keeping European powers (like the Soviet Union) out of the New World …

The United States has not always adhered to this doctrine, but it has often been involved in Latin American politics under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (and the original, for that matter). During the Cold War, the Soviet Union actually supported left-wing regimes throughout Latin America, and were thus interfering in the Americas. True adherence to the Monroe Doctrine thus required that we try to keep them out of the Americas, and prevent communism from gaining a foothold in our own “backyard.”

Map of Latin America

A review of Ken Burns’ “Mark Twain” (PBS)

“I was sorry to have my name mentioned as one of the great authors, because they have a sad habit of dying off. Chaucer is dead, Spencer is dead, so is Milton, so is Shakespeare, and I’m not feeling so well myself.”

– Mark Twain, in a “Speech to the Savage Club,” 9 June 1899 (about ten years before his death)

I should give a disclaimer that I’ve never read a single book that Mark Twain wrote. I watched a movie or two based on “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” and have often heard of his masterpiece “Huckleberry Finn.” But since I didn’t take Honors English in high school, I was never required to read any of his works (although I have heard bits and pieces of them). But I have often been amused by some of his quips, and have admired the quality of his language despite this. Nonetheless, I don’t claim to be an expert on Mark Twain, and can give only a layperson’s view of this documentary. I shall leave the literary criticism to reviewers more qualified to engage in it.

A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).

What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?

But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.

Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades