I have a few things to say about the death of Reagan (I must warn you that this is written mostly out of anger at not being able to mail things today
( Read more... )
The best part (cause i'm very 'zine-like recently with all this publishing shit) is that all the magazines had this issue all set to go the moment he died. They'd prepared it like years in advance, and were just waiting for him to go to send it to the printers. I think that part is great. You have to admit though, that his daughter's speech at his funeral was pretty good. Although, if you plan your own funeral, i guess nothing could go wrong. And I liked how his son was like...my dad didn't use his religion as overtly as some other presidents do might have done.
I agree and disagree with you. The long reaching effects of his presidency i think haven't yet been realized. I think in like a couple days things will be back to "damn reaganomics." He's still a person though.
i think you're leaving out iran contra, the highest unemployment levels since the great depression, and virtual silence on AIDS ("who cares if gays die?")... but yea...almost too much to enumerate
i've been pretty surprised at just how many people are gushing at how "wonderful" he was. my mom, my own mother, who voted against him twice, was crying tonight while watching the funeral.
basically the only major media critiques of reagan i've seen lately have been paul krugman's columns in the new york times. but those only really touch on his economic policies.
glad i'm not the only one experiencing a gag-reflex during this whole thing.
i almost cried...but more because of the impact it was having on Nancy than because he was dead. I don't think anyone should have to bury their significant other or family on national television - no matter how famous.
To be fair, unemployment was at a record low by the end of his second term. This, you might claim, would indicate that his policies were in fact successful, since one should expect some lag time between establishment of policy and its effect. Even more importantly, it seems futile to try and tie presidential performance to US economic strength; most of the relevant factors are not under the president's direct control. It would be more effective to attack the theory of supply-side economics.
Reagan's AIDS stance was depressing, but none of the recent presidents have lived up to expectations (even Clinton; he promised to make the issue a priority, but ended up mostly blaming the previous administration as to why he couldn't act on it).
Also, as the governor of California, Reagan was able to stay his religious beliefs and oppose such things as the 1978 Briggs proposition.
I think the problem here is bigger than just Reagan: why are we unable to elect a president that both sides can, at least, tolerate?
I'm glad you posted this...the deification is getting WAY out of hand. In the past ten years, did we ever hear Reagan's name, save for brief references to Iran Contra, "Reaganomics," and government excesses? The world forgot him, then felt guilty for doing so when he actually died. If Bush's approval rating goes up one iota because of all this sentimental hoopla, I'm going to be royally pissed.
And the mail thing is definitely unnecessary. Did the powers that be think that everyone would be crying too hard to notice the inconvenience?
Comments 5
I agree and disagree with you. The long reaching effects of his presidency i think haven't yet been realized. I think in like a couple days things will be back to "damn reaganomics." He's still a person though.
Reply
i've been pretty surprised at just how many people are gushing at how "wonderful" he was. my mom, my own mother, who voted against him twice, was crying tonight while watching the funeral.
basically the only major media critiques of reagan i've seen lately have been paul krugman's columns in the new york times. but those only really touch on his economic policies.
glad i'm not the only one experiencing a gag-reflex during this whole thing.
Reply
Reply
Reagan's AIDS stance was depressing, but none of the recent presidents have lived up to expectations (even Clinton; he promised to make the issue a priority, but ended up mostly blaming the previous administration as to why he couldn't act on it).
Also, as the governor of California, Reagan was able to stay his religious beliefs and oppose such things as the 1978 Briggs proposition.
I think the problem here is bigger than just Reagan: why are we unable to elect a president that both sides can, at least, tolerate?
Reply
And the mail thing is definitely unnecessary. Did the powers that be think that everyone would be crying too hard to notice the inconvenience?
Reply
Leave a comment