Academics From The United States

27339 quotes
0 likes
0Verified
1264Authors

Timeline

First Quote Added

April 10, 2026

Latest Quote Added

April 10, 2026

All Quotes

"To judge from what he has to say about the past, he is unlikely to lose sleep over presidential abuses of power in the present or future. Indeed, Gaddis admonishes Americans for placing restrictions on their elected rulers. Describing what he clearly sees as the regrettable overreaction to Watergate and Vietnam in the 1970s, he writes: “The United States Congress was passing laws—always blunt instruments—to constrain the use of United States military and intelligence capabilities. It was as if the nation had become its own worst enemy.” Retrospectively frustrated by such constraints, Gaddis admires the boldness and vision of President George W. Bush. A keen supporter of the recent Iraq war, Gaddis in 2004 even published a guide for the use of American policymakers, showing how preemptive and preventive war making has an honorable place in American history and is to be encouraged—where appropriate—as part of an ongoing project of benevolent interventionism. Thus, while it may seem tempting to dismiss John Lewis Gaddis’s history of the cold war as a naively self-congratulatory account that leaves out much of what makes its subject interesting and of continuing relevance, that would be a mistake. Gaddis’s version is perfectly adapted for contemporary America: an anxious country curiously detached from its own past as well as from the rest of the world and hungry for “a fireside fairytale with a happy ending.” The Cold War: A New History is likely to be widely read in the U.S.: both as history and, in the admiring words of a blurb on the dust jacket, for the “lessons” it can teach us in how to “deal with new threats.” That is a depressing thought."

- John Lewis Gaddis

• 0 likes• academics-from-the-united-states• non-fiction-authors-from-the-united-states• historians-from-the-united-states• yale-university-faculty• people-from-texas•
"John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, says there are “serious questions” about the integrity of the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG is locked in an increasingly contentious fight with Clinton’s campaign on a host of issues, including her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of State... source within the OIG contacted The Hill claiming that the office has grown increasingly partisan, accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton” bias. Told by The Hill about the remarks, Podesta described the source as a “whistleblower” whose comments called into question the integrity of the OIG investigations. “This person’s account is highly troubling, and is cause to ask serious questions about the independence of this office,” Podesta said of the source. The Clinton campaign says it does not know the identity of the source. An OIG official strongly disputed the source’s account. “Partisan politics play no role in OIG’s work,” the spokesman said Monday. The source charges that State Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)... The source also charged that Linick is “more or less under her control, possibly out of a desire for a more prestigious appointed position.” ... The OIG spokesman noted that Linick, a two-time appointee of President Obama, was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry last year to investigate how the department handles records management, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the archiving of emails."

- Steve Linick

• 0 likes• academics-from-the-united-states• united-states-federal-government-officials•
"What Dr. Buckberg and I did for 35 years is, we looked at... ischemia reperfusion... What Gerry and I did for all of that time was to look at how can we avoid that injury. How can we let those cells repair themselves rather than being damaged with reperfusion? ...How do we protect the heart? Because every heart surgery, or the majority of them, you have to stop the heart so we can operate... while it's not having blood supply and while it's not beating. That means... you may have a reperfusion injury... [S]olutions that Dr. Buckberg pioneered probably helped save more people that any surgeon alive, because those solutions protect the heart. But we took it to the next levels because there are a lot of diseases like heart attacks... nothing more than a part of the heart gets no blood supply, and that part eventually dies. A stroke... transplants where we take organs out and they're ischemic. ...[W]e apply that concept to these other things. ...If we have a patient that has a heart attack... the cardiologist... will open up the artery, and suddenly the blood goes in there and the patient's pain goes away... but they've still killed that area of the heart. ...What we would recommend is... avoiding that reperfusion injury. ...[T]hose patients with some of this dead muscle, 1/3 - 40% of them will go into heart failure... 4 to 5 years later... which is a huge cost to society."

- Gerald Buckberg

• 0 likes• academics-from-the-united-states• physicians-from-the-united-states• cardiologists•