Ronald Reagan - R.I.P.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
glorify PEOPLE (not just dead presidents) .

I kind of liked their music in the 80's....

[Shapley]

In honouring the memory, We honour the life, not the death. If a person simply lived and died, there would be no mourning, but since life is so much more than that, we mourn the passing. The larger the life, the greater the loss. I have known many who have died, some I mourn greatly, some less, and some not at all. The level of mourning is generally in direct proportion to how much of a positive impression they have left on my being.

I don't believe death is the end, but it is the last we shall know of them in this life. mourning is mostly for those left behind, because they have lost a part of their being. For President Reagan, and for his family, death has probably come as a friend, to end his suffering, and the burden it imposed on his loved ones. But even so, he has been taken from them. Even if our body is but a clay shell, it is a clay shell we can hold and touch and see, a shell that reminds us of the soul inside. When the shell grows cold, it is because the warmth of the soul has left it to go beyond, beyond this world and beyond our sight, and so I, and many others, mourn.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
Love how, once again, she did not take a moment to see what I was talking about.

I did, in fact, read what you wrote. Would you kindly do me the service of reading exactly what I posted, and refrain from adding to or subtracting from it?

[EJA]

Getting back to the subject, personally, I think Reagan was a fantastic President and a fantastic man. Hearing the recordings of his speeches recently has brought back fond childhood memories of a President who could speak. Not only did he say great and uplifting things, he said them in a great and uplifting way. He was always able to rise above the mudslinging and address the issues while still retaining a humble demeanor. I have the utmost respect for him and consider his leadership of our nation to have been instrumental in ending the cold war. I also appreciate his revitalizing of our national defense, and his economic policy that brought about the unparalleled prosperity of the '90s. The Iran-Contra affair may have been a blot, but it certainly was no cause to resign. Once he found out about it, he put the kibosh on it, which was probably quite appropriate (Although, frankly, it just wasn't that big of a deal. Arming Iran was the only drawback as far as I'm concerned, and that just served to prune the Iraqi army, so wasn't really a net loss.) It wouldn't have been different if Reagan had been complicit in the matter, but I've seen no evidence that he was, and therefore, I think he did exactly the right thing, as usual. The burgeoning deficit was undesirable to say the least, but if you will refer to the Constitution of the United States, you will find that Congress holds the purse strings, so the Congresses of that era are responsible for the deficit, not Reagan. Furthermore, the economic power generated by Reagan's economic policy was able to nearly erase that deficit during the '90s. Since 9/11, of course, it has begun to grow phenomenally, but this to be expected in a time of war. (Furthermore, Congress continues to be irresponsible with pork, AKA vote buying.)

Ronald Reagan restored dignity to America. He gave the American people hope. I think the thing that distinguished him most was his faith in Americans. I remember the '80s as a time when the possibilities seemed limitless, and Reagan was largely responsible for that. The dark cloud of impending totalitarianism had been lifted from our shoulders and we were able to flex our muscles and breathe deeply of freedom. True, Reagan was not solely responsible for this; the hard work and dedication of many Americans was instrumental in it. However, Reagan was the galvanizing force, the hub of the mighty American wheel, the charismatic leader in the endless battle against the law of increasing entropy. I think that his very presence, to say nothing of his words, boosted the morale of every American, and instilled deep fear in the heart of every enemy of America. He has moved on now to a better place, and it remains to us to carry on. I hope that within my lifetime God will raise up another leader of Reagan's caliber to pilot the grand American ship of state through the foreboding waters that lie ahead, guiding us past the threatening shoals of terrorism in the narrow neck betwixt anarchy and totalitarianism, and bringing us safely at last into the celebrated port of freedom. I would not be the least surprised if Ronald Reagan is just now making the case for such providence in the heavenly court.

[Nicole Marie]

Put the cat claws away Selma. You are as hot headed as me, and I think you can find a better way of addressing the issue.

Shapley, I see your point but I have a question. I understand that Reagan was Pres. He was also Pres at a time that you may have more vivid memories of him (I was in grade school and jr. high at the time). But for those that have never met him, does all this "grieveing" really matter? Yes, he was Pres and the US should honor those that have served the country but does it really mean we spend over 4 days with media coverage? I can not find any TV station providing information on the war. People are loosing lives there too, why is Reagan's death more important then a US soldiers? He had a full life etc. time to move past it. Time to pay attention to the rest of the world.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by EJA:
(Although, frankly, it just wasn't that big of a deal. Arming Iran was the only drawback as far as I'm concerned, and that just served to prune the Iraqi army, so wasn't really a net loss.)

You'd probably have thought it was a big deal if you were one of the 52 American hostages who were held longer than they probably would have been because of the deal.

Jimmy Carter's administration looked at trading arms for the hostages, but rejected the idea as giving in to terrorists, inconsistent with our ideals and policies, and not serving the greater good.

[Shapley]

Nicole,

As I said, the level of mourning is proportional to the impression he made. President Reagan impressed many people, and his death is being mourned worldwide.

This does not make his life more important than that of a soldier, nor even of a cockroach, only that a greater number of people will remember him after he is gone, because he meant something to him when he was with us.

I just logged onto MSNBC com: here are the news headlines:

News Front Page
Bush returns to U.S. to host G-8 summit
Reagan's casket taken to presidential library
Leaders honor D-Day vets in Normandy
Fineman: How Reagan's passing helps Bush
World marks Reagan's death
How Reagan hobbled the Democrats
S. Korea: U.S. wants to pull out a third of troops
Alleged al-Qaida vow against airlines
Explosions rock Kufa mosque compound
Nine Iraqi militias to disband under pact
North Texas hit again by rain, high wind
BBC journalist killed in Saudi Arabia
Sharon faces vote over Gaza plan
Defense begins effort to save Nichols' life
Governments can be sued for war wrongs
Special Report: The legacy of Ronald Reagan
Special Report: Wildfires 2004

Looks like quite a variety. While President Reagan's passing is covered extensively, it is not limiting access to other important events. I don't watch TV news often, so I don't know what their covering, but I doubt all the reporters have boarded plans and flown from Iraq and Afghanistan to go to Simi Valley. I'm sure they are there, and the news will break in with important events. In the meantime, President Reagan's funeral is the most out-of-the ordinary event happening today. We don't bury a President very often, and we bury a great even less so!

Ethan: I'm glad to see someone feels the same as I do about "Ol' Dutch", and can say so more elequently than I could have hoped to myself.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 06-07-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT:

The "Arms for hostages" deal you speak of, usually called the "October surprise", is only a figment of the imagination, and is kept alive by the pens of journalists who refuse to accept that it never happened.

The "Arms for hostages" deal the Reagan took responsibility for occured in 1986, when he was president, and thus in position to actually be involved in foreign policy.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Shapley-

Well, I can tell you all the news stations are covering the Reagan death. CNN has reporters in CA and are doing joint coverage from Atlanta, interviewing people who worked with him and giving updates on where the body is. Fox is doing the same and the networks are running promo's for tonights news that only talk on Reagan. I am not seeing much variety.

Sure, folks will miss him but I still find the level of coverage outrageous.

Oh wait.... Fox news just said the markets are up today b/c the US and France made up and then they tied in Reagan's policies with France and went into his life again. Nice crossover but really, I think they could have went a bit further on the markets then Reagan's policies with France.

[barfle]

Ethan, we've found something we're pretty much in agreement on. Reagan's major strength was his ability to lead Americans from a feeling of impotence (the hostages in Iran and double-digit inflation) back into greatness.

Sure, over eight years, he screwed up some stuff, but I do believe in the old saw "If you're not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough." I remember presidents back to Eisenhower, and every one of them did things I thought were either short-sighted, misguided, or simply wrong.

No doubt he had excellent speech writers, and no doubt his skills as an actor (marginal by Hollywood standards) gave him excellent delivery. But at the time, we needed that kind of leadership. Jimmy Carter was probably one of the few genuinely good men to hold the office of President, but unfortunately he wasn't able to lead when leadership was required. That's why he lost something like 45 states to Reagan, and why Mondale lost 49 states when he tried to unseat him.

[Shapley]

Nicole,

I recall the coverage during the Colombine shootings. All the networks, even the local ones, switched to full time coverage of the events, except that there weren't any, not at that point. The shooting was over, the evacuees had gone home, the news crews weren't allowed close enough to interview anyone that new anything. So we got replays of the earlier footage, interviews with some gas station attendant two blocks away, and replays of footage of weeping students shot hours earlier. This was interspersed with still footage of the school building [i]I'm sorry, did I call it a school. It was actually a warehouse where parents stored their kids for the day.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

I think there is a big difference in kids walking into a school and shooting class mates, than an old pres who died a peaceful death. You can not compare it. I don't think an old man dieing is unusual. And for those who may wonder, I will still feel the same when Clinton kicks it so no it's not about politics.

But is this really how we want him remembered? The media is tracking the movement of his body across the country, come on now, let's have a bit of respect. It's toeing the line of exploitation all in the name of ratings and ad dollars. And giving they are only looking at one side of him, well that ticks me off even more. As barfle hinted at there is nothing wrong with pointing out the "bad" stuff that he did too. But I think it's not being pointed out b/c we have issues with death in the country. The don't talk ill of the dead mojo jo jo we often fear.

[BigJon]

Tra dish unnnnnnnnnnnnnn, tradition . . .tradition!

You are fighting it HRHNM. We have 200 years of history of treating dead presidents as near diety. Relax, go with the flow, and remember how quickly Tricky Dick dropped off the media screens after he died.

"Don't watch TV news" is my advice to everyone, unless it is the Beeb.

BigJon

<small>[ 06-07-2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: BigJon ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

You know Nicole, my husband would get along so well with you (and I think I would too).
He really gets perturbed when the news focuses on "famous" people (especially) who've died recently. He feels that famous people should not be treated any differently than us regular joes, which is what we all are underneath.
He frequently goes on and on about the state of our society, focusing on the third marriage of Jennifer Lopez, rather than the importance of what is going on right now around the world (our fight against terrorists, etc.)
I, for one, agree with him. Famous people are not special, just rich.
I would only watch the parts of the news that interest you, and avoid it for the most part. Or just change the channel, like I do, when the annoyances of public media make their ugly faces known.
I quoted George Bernard Shaw on one of the boards last week, and I'll do it again here:

"Newspapers are unable, seeingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilisation."

I agree with him. . .they make everything into a mountain, or some huge scandal.
For the most part, I use the CNN and Foxnews websites to get my news, rather than the live news that I can't change or pick between topics.

One more week, and things will settle down again!

[Nicole Marie]

Big: It's not tradition to suck up ad dollars off of someone's dead body. If that's tradition then we need to rethink this one.

Tradition is honoring him, not making a buck for a CEO. If we go with the flow and allow it to happen, then you be worried. Can you say BIIIIG DIIIIFFFF EEER EEENNNNCCEEE.

Saxy: You're welcome to dinner any time.

<small>[ 06-07-2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

Well, it would be a very long flight, but I'll keep that in mind the next time (well, first time) I'm ever in Connecticut!

[BigJon]

We also have a 200 year history of trying to make a buck off of anything that moves and somethings that don't, (like corpses!) What's different is the efficiency with which we can hoover it up if we can ride the crest of the wave. Have you ever seen how many death souvenirs were sold when presidents died in the 1800s?

BigJon

[Nicole Marie]

Still doesn't make it right.

[mmichaelson]

I agree. I do not think that it is right. When bonfire fell in 1999 here, I was right there. I lost one of my dear friends that night. And you know what I have endured every year since then? I have endured person after person trying to make a quick buck off of our collective loss. There is nothing worse than people who do not care who try and make a profit from others' loss.
I see what Nicole is saying. I agree that we should be able to mourn, but I fail to see why it's neccessary that others profit, even if it is a tradition. Believe me, coming from Texas A&M, I could tell you a thing or to about traditions, and exactly what they get you sometimes.
I say mourn and then let the dead rest in peace.

[Nicole Marie]

Thank you Saxy. To me it's similar to 911. You could not go to ground zero without some street seller trying to sell you a "Never Forget" T Shirt. The media is close to toeing the line on Reagan. If anything, from this posting we've seen that death is very personal and we should be allowed to do it our own personal way. Not how Fox/CNN thinks it should be done.