Join 3,495 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Reagan should be on a $3 bill
June 11, 2004 4:03 PM   Subscribe

Reagan should be on a $3 bill "For the funeral of Ronald Reagan, they took the body from Beverly Hills to Simi Valley, the white Los Angeles suburb, where it stayed for a day and a half or so then they drove it in one of these two hearses to the airport and flew it to Washington and then they had a march and afterwards put the casket into the Capitol for crowds to pass by and now there was to be another march and a religous service and then a drive to the airport, where the casket will be shuttled back to the airport south of Los Angeles and in a hearse to the final ceremony at his library on Friday. That is quite a funeral. They buried George Washingon in half the time. You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral."
posted by Postroad (104 comments total)

 
Reagan's still dead, right? I mean, nothing has changes since I last saw his coffin on television, right? I'd hate to be out of the loop if there is some change in his deadness.
posted by xmutex at 4:09 PM on June 11, 2004


Jebus, Postroad. we know you don't read MetaTalk, but do you read the sidebar, at least?

"If you have something to post about Reagan, please post about it here in lieu of making a new post. Thanks."
posted by trharlan at 4:09 PM on June 11, 2004


Funerals are for the living. The dead get the service that the living require. So, you can make the argument that it's our fault.
posted by ColdChef at 4:09 PM on June 11, 2004


Man, do I have Reagan fatigue or what ?

*Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........*
posted by y2karl at 4:23 PM on June 11, 2004


I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine.
posted by MrAnonymous at 4:31 PM on June 11, 2004


They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity.
The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights.


I've always loved Breslin, and never more so than today. : >
posted by amberglow at 4:36 PM on June 11, 2004


I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine.

What about tax?
posted by delmoi at 4:37 PM on June 11, 2004


Would that make some of us queer as a 4 dollar bill?

Although tough call, Reagan vs. Andrew Jackson for most dispised banknote figure. If I was king of the USA, I'd probably avoid the historical issues and just go with critters.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:42 PM on June 11, 2004


we should do arts figures--Ray Charles on the 50.
posted by amberglow at 4:44 PM on June 11, 2004


Hey, you think you're sick of it...poor Nancy must be tough as titanium to get thru this week.
posted by konolia at 4:45 PM on June 11, 2004


Dan, Peter and the other guy also squirmed in their seats at the thought of having to honor *him*. However, the nets took one look at the ratings and told them to put a sock in it.

On the plus side, when Bill Clinton pegs, he'll be put in a nice canvas bag inside a trailer, and Hillary (or Ken Starr) will get to kick the chocks out, so it falls into the abandoned quarry. The Marine honor guard will then shoot the trailer full of holes so it will sink.
posted by kablam at 4:53 PM on June 11, 2004


Warren Gamaliel Harding had a big funeral, too.
posted by y2karl at 5:06 PM on June 11, 2004


I think he should be on a $0.99 bill. So when you buy something for $2.99, you can take out two one's and a ninety-nine.

What about tax?


Not here in Montana -- no sales tax. Price says $2.99, you pay $2.99.
posted by davidmsc at 5:17 PM on June 11, 2004


Canvas bag? Trailer? Must really rot your socks that Clinton was more popular than Reagan:

The highest approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization:
Ronald Reagan: 68%
Bill Clinton: 71%

Total term average approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization:
Ronald Reagan: 53%
Bill Clinton: 55%

Final approval ratings recorded by the Gallup organization in the final weeks of their administrations:

Ronald Reagan:
21-Oct-88: 51%
11-Nov-88: 57%
27-Dec-88: 63%

Bill Clinton:
15-Dec-00: 66%
5-Jan-01: 65%
10-Jan-01: 66%

posted by palancik at 5:19 PM on June 11, 2004 [1 favorite]


You know what? I think, really, that it might be worth working toward a two-week funeral for President Clinton, when his time comes. Preferably with just as much historical-comparison aggrandization (many more deserved, frankly) and religious platitudes and appearances. They could put the coffin on a bus, and drive it around, especially if it's campaign season!

I think this would be especially effective in Texas and Florida.

We'll all join hands and celebrate our glorious national unity, which we were led to with loving kindness by the wise and knowing grasp of detail that President Clinton showered upon our happy, happy land!

In fact, if it's at all possible, could we arrange for this sort of treatment to be provided for Jimmy Carter as well? It's clearly a great way to unify the country in joyous celebration of the flawless historical legacy of our beloved leaders.

Also, did I just hear John Kerry, on the radio, note that RR would always remain a great President to him? Would someone please tell me if that is in fact what I heard?
posted by mwhybark at 5:20 PM on June 11, 2004


kablam: I'm sure Hillary & Ken are both one step ahead of you planning it.

As far as Breslin: what a disgusting pig. "He was a callous man..." and "Ronald Reagan hated children...".

And this: "And almost all the reporters agreed that Reagan was the man who brought down Russia in the Cold War. Just saying this is absolutely sinful." What a jackass. Surely he can't be THAT stupid, can he? What the reporters -- and most Americans & other people, too -- know is that more than any other SINGLE person, it was Reagan who contributed to the demise of the U.S.S.R. Of course he didn't do a literal Rambo on the Kremlin - but it was his policies, ideals, and unwavering conviction that forced the Soviets to abandon their decades-long nightare.

Oh, and real smooth, Jimmy - referring to the Soviet Union as "Russia." Big difference.
posted by davidmsc at 5:23 PM on June 11, 2004


Pickle their bodies and put them on tour. All of them. Candidates for future elections, too, while you're at it; they can lie in state in the back row. It'd be like Tussaud's, only better.
posted by ook at 5:24 PM on June 11, 2004


FDR always stated that if a monument was ever built in his honor, it should be no bigger than his desk.

So at the northwest corner of the National Archives building, shaded by some trees on the lawn, stands a single block of granite the size of the presidential desk used by FDR.
Apparently, however, that simple block of granite wasn't enough for the politicians of the 1990s, so in 1997 a newer, larger memorial to the nation's 32nd president was dedicated along the cherry-tree walk next to the Tidal Basin across from the Jefferson Memorial.


That small National Archives memorial is one of my favorite landmarks in DC, actually.
I was also impressed, when I visited Truman's Little White House in Key West, by how Spartan the accomodations were.
nowadays an obscure State Senator would probably insist on 5-star luxury treatment, nevermind the President

(btw there was no air conditioning in Camp David, when it was first built and it was called Shangri-La. very little hot water, too. only for the President and his family, not even for the top aides. but it was good enough for FDR, Churchill, Truman, etc. I seem to remember that it was Eisenhower who decided to put air conditioning. back then, Camp David was only open 3 months a year, in the summer. now it's a luxury resort)
posted by matteo at 5:24 PM on June 11, 2004


but it was his policies, ideals, and unwavering conviction that forced the Soviets to abandon their decades-long nightare.

Bull.
posted by amberglow at 5:26 PM on June 11, 2004


(and davidmsc, did you stop reading at the paragraph you quoted? Because the one after that must have really pissed you off.)
posted by ook at 5:27 PM on June 11, 2004


Kerry Leads Bush By Seven Percent is what I heard--plus a majority of US voters now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq.

The Reagan bounce, as it were...
posted by y2karl at 5:28 PM on June 11, 2004



re Shangri-La: I've always loved anecdotes of FDR and Churchill and a chaffeur going for a drive to kill time, and stopping to drink a whiskey and soda in country bars. no security detail, no press. just the three of them.
bah

posted by matteo at 5:29 PM on June 11, 2004


> They buried George Washingon in half the time.

By contrast it took them what, ninety years, to bury Lenin? Imagine how sick your average rooski got of Vladimir Ilyich, and rest content.

Speaking of rooskies, I notice Gorbachev came and waited through the line for his moment to stand respectfully at the coffin. But then both men were incomparable greater than any of the pipsqueak snarkoids one meets around here. That's the knowledge that really brings out the hate, I daresay.
posted by jfuller at 5:31 PM on June 11, 2004


poor Nancy must be tough as titanium to get thru this week.

No kidding. Sometimes you can really see the pain and loneliness in her eyes, though. I feel very sad for Nancy.
posted by homunculus at 6:02 PM on June 11, 2004


Geez...stop the whining! You guys will get your chance for a state funeral (and the media gush) when Clinton dies someday. Of course, if he lives to be as old as Reagan, the funeral will be in in 2039.....
posted by Durwood at 6:05 PM on June 11, 2004


I bet Ford is next. And when Carter goes, i demand equal time, funeralwise.
posted by amberglow at 6:07 PM on June 11, 2004


"They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity."

It's the media's porn.
posted by homunculus at 6:13 PM on June 11, 2004


Must really rot your socks that Clinton was more popular than Reagan

How about real number instead of samples:

First Term Election
Reagan wins with 51% of the vote in 1980.
Clinton wins with 43% of the vote in 1992.

Second Term Election
Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984.
Clinton wins with 49% of the vote in 1992.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:13 PM on June 11, 2004


1996, rather
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:15 PM on June 11, 2004


Westboro Baptist Church honors the late former president in their own inimitable style.
posted by RylandDotNet at 6:46 PM on June 11, 2004


For partisan crying out loud!

A former President of the United States has passed away. That is pretty significant - for the Americans among us, anyway - and a little pomp and ceremony about his funeral is not out of place.

And yes, just as much attention should be paid when Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, etc. pass on. Loathe one side or the other, all these men served as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It is about respect for the office they held.

Grow up and stop counting tit for tat over who is going to be mourned more.
posted by John Smallberries at 6:47 PM on June 11, 2004


Thank you, S@L.
posted by davidmsc at 6:49 PM on June 11, 2004


I'm glad to see Steve suddenly embracing the merits of the popular vote.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:57 PM on June 11, 2004


BWAHAHAHAHA
posted by matteo at 6:59 PM on June 11, 2004


Ryland, i think this was them
posted by amberglow at 7:01 PM on June 11, 2004


Jeez, we don't like that much when Fred Phelps does it, do we?
posted by jonmc at 7:04 PM on June 11, 2004


George Kennan gets most of the thanks. You'd have to be on crack to argue otherwise, if you'd ever studied history or int'l relations in more than a cursory fashion. Do not mess with George K.
posted by raysmj at 7:09 PM on June 11, 2004


How about real number instead of samples:

First Term Election
Reagan wins with 51% of the vote in 1980.
Clinton wins with 43% of the vote in 1992.

Second Term Election
Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984.
Clinton wins with 49% of the vote in 1992.


Faulty and meaningless comparisons. In 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidate (Perot) got 19% and 8% of the popular vote, respectively. Of course the winner got less of the popular vote than he would have otherwise. Apples and oranges.
posted by ChrisTN at 7:11 PM on June 11, 2004


So anyway... think he's actually in that box?

[/refuse to take this whole darn thing so seriously]
posted by PsychoKick at 7:19 PM on June 11, 2004


Somewhat following up on what ColdChef said, this weeklong ceremony wasn't for you amberglow, y2karl, ook, postroad, etc. It was for the millions of people who approved of him as president, and liked him as a man. I don't fall into the former camp, and didn't much fall into the latter, either. But I don't begrudge the millions who did -- they're Americans, too. So suck it up -- stop watching, stop snarking. Let the ceremony be for the people who want it. Most importantly, now that I'm watching the actual burial, for the family. I'm sure your favorite president(s) will get a ceremony commensurate with the wishes of the people who loved and supported them.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:23 PM on June 11, 2004


I did like that little Ron got bitchy just now at the funeral...clearly poking Bush about religion.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 PM on June 11, 2004


This Reagan... he's dead?
posted by owillis at 7:36 PM on June 11, 2004


Ron Jr. has expressed displeasure with Bush before.
posted by homunculus at 7:38 PM on June 11, 2004


Well, finally, at least, I can see one advantage to Joe Lieberman being President. When he kicks the bucket--boom!--he's planted.
posted by y2karl at 7:43 PM on June 11, 2004


Just happened to catch the ceremony at his gravesite. I feel so sorry for Mrs. Reagan. She looks utterly devastated, but still is maintaining a dignified aura.

(and this is coming from someone who lined up for 5 hours to pay my respects to Trudeau, so can people drop the sniping for a few days)
posted by smcniven at 7:48 PM on June 11, 2004


I wish they turn the damn camera's off and let her grieve in peace.
posted by smcniven at 7:49 PM on June 11, 2004


It's a made-for-tv thing. Multiple cameras, closeups, a preacher right out of central casting.
posted by amberglow at 7:59 PM on June 11, 2004


I wish they turn the damn camera's off and let her grieve in peace.

It's my understanding this all was long planned to the tiniest detail. She wanted to do right by her guy--I don't fault her for that. She has suffered for so long previous to all this. And certainly the surrounding pundit hoopla--which is the source for my fatigue--is not her doing.
posted by y2karl at 8:05 PM on June 11, 2004


on MSNBC they just said it was the ultimate starring role for him.
posted by amberglow at 8:16 PM on June 11, 2004


> This Reagan... he's dead?

This owillis...he's alive? O, you used to be, like, underfoot. Now I have to search to find you. Welcome back, silly opinions and all.
posted by jfuller at 8:32 PM on June 11, 2004


on MSNBC they just said it was the ultimate starring role for him.

Well, Bush gave the eulogy, so he's still co-starring with chimps.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2004


was Maureen adopted too?
posted by amberglow at 8:38 PM on June 11, 2004


How about real number instead of samples:

Since not all people vote, it is indeed a sample as well.

One is no more "real" than the other.
posted by Ynoxas at 8:41 PM on June 11, 2004


On the plus side, when Bill Clinton pegs, he'll be put in a nice canvas bag inside a trailer, and Hillary (or Ken Starr) will get to kick the chocks out, so it falls into the abandoned quarry. The Marine honor guard will then shoot the trailer full of holes so it will sink.

This is comedy gold.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:41 PM on June 11, 2004


Refugees and AIDS activists mark Reagan's funeral with protests
posted by homunculus at 8:45 PM on June 11, 2004


"His failure, their deaths, our mourning"
exactly.
posted by amberglow at 8:49 PM on June 11, 2004


pardonyou? -- Thank you for your honest assessment and advice. No snark - I appreciate it - seriously.

And Oliver -- come on, Dub, that was just lame.
posted by davidmsc at 8:52 PM on June 11, 2004


This seems somehow appropriate here.


posted by David Dark at 9:17 PM on June 11, 2004


You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral."
posted by clavdivs at 9:24 PM on June 11, 2004


Transcript: Reagan's Children Deliver Remarks at Service
posted by homunculus at 9:26 PM on June 11, 2004


David- are you one of those conspiracy loonies and you think Reagan was murdered or something? That's the only way I can figure how you want to compare the coverage of a 93-year old man dying to the fact that an ongoing developing criminal investigation has... umm.... ongoing developments. Is there supposed to be a joke there or something?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:38 PM on June 11, 2004


Thanks, homunculus. Ron Jr's jab at Bush was genius.

"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."
posted by shoepal at 9:45 PM on June 11, 2004


This seems somehow appropriate here, too !
posted by y2karl at 9:54 PM on June 11, 2004


Hey, look, a Reagan thread! What are the odds? Okay, fine, people have been relatively well behaved about it. Still.

Has anyone skull-fucked Reagan's lifeless body? 'Cause I'd turn on the TV to see that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:12 PM on June 11, 2004


This seems somehow appropriate here.

That's the dumbest analogy I've ever seen.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:20 PM on June 11, 2004


I'm glad to see Steve suddenly embracing the merits of the popular vote.

In so far as as show of popularity. The Electoral College is still how the President of the United States is elected. Again, if you want to scrap the Electoral College that is a valid debate. Call your Congressman.

Faulty and meaningless comparisons. In 1992 and 1996, a third-party candidate (Perot) got 19% and 8% of the popular vote, respectively. Of course the winner got less of the popular vote than he would have otherwise. Apples and oranges.

Not faulty or meaningless. In 1980 there was a strong third-party candidate, John Anderson who got 7% of the popular vote, near that what Perot got in 1996, and Reagan still received a majority. Aside from that, a third-party candidate has little to do with how popular someone is. Plenty of Democrats voted for Reagan, even though there was a Democrat in the race. Just because a third-party candidate in in the race, it doesn't mean any one will vote for them. There are third-party candidate in every election, it is just that they rarely get anyone to vote for them. (Nader has ran how many times, and just last election actually got a noticeable percentage of the vote.)

Since not all people vote, it is indeed a sample as well.

Opinion polls are a sample of likely* voters, not the country at large. So, no, the popular vote is not a sample, it is the whole.



*This isn't even registered voters. The polling organizations use some formula to narrow the field from registered voters to registered voters who are actually likely to vote.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:38 PM on June 11, 2004


A few of us know that Reagan died months ago and the Bush camp was saving the whole funeral deal to cover up something worse than we can imagine. The whole thing is so scripted it's too obvious. Remember Jodie Foster's Army?!!
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 10:40 PM on June 11, 2004


From the link:

The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights.

Jimmy Breslin is awesome.
posted by interrobang at 11:31 PM on June 11, 2004



posted by majcher at 1:07 AM on June 12, 2004


From the Breslin article: In government, he was as real as his trademark line. He was a callous man with a smile who cut taxes in 1981 and left this city and state without funds for such things as help for dependent children. He proudly hurt the boroughs of this city more than anyone before or after him. If you live in Brooklyn, the record shows that Ronald Reagan hated children. The city and state had to raise taxes to make up for money lost because of Reagan's great conservative movement. Reagan then raised taxes six times. He walked off, leaving us an enormous deficit but with a smile on his face that even the Gipper's fakery couldn't help us with.

Reagan, one of the phoniest presidents we've ever had, is dead and finally buried. Rest in peace.

Far better men and women than he are dying right this moment, without a whisper of recognition.

But I'm mildly intrigued with this popularity nonsense. First, the Repubs clamor that Reagan is more popular than "any recent President". When that's shown to be a lie, they start scrambling for any statistic that might rationalize their initial exaggeration.

(The Repubs have had plenty of recent practice at this kind of backpedaling: Terrorist alliances --> WMDs --> "Roadmap to Peace (sic)" --> liberating Iraqis from "torture", etc etc).

The latest dumb spin above is apparently that Reagan must have been popular because of "the popular vote", a magnificent snapshot of American opinion on a grand total of, uh, one or two days.

Being the Political Animal I am (and despite the statistical duncery at work here) I couldn't wait to try out the brilliant new Steve@Linnwood Presidential Popularity Predictor, since popular vote is now really the last word in measures of a president's lasting popularity and all (unfortunately, Stevie conveniently ducks the fact that voter turnout for presidential elections over the last 40 years has been a "sample" of only 50-60% of voting age Americans on those, uh, one or two days, but never mind that now...)

Reagan wins with 59% of the vote in 1984.

But Tricky Dick Nixon wins with 60.7% of the vote in 1972. Oh. Sweet Beloved Nixon was a more popular president than Reagan.

But "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson wins with 61.1% of the vote in 1964. Oh. Dear Cherished Johnson was a more popular president than Reagan.

No word yet on when we can expect the exhumed bodies of The Cherished Nixon (I think his body was drawn, quartered, and may have been buried in unmarked graves) and The Lovable Johnson to be flown into Washington for a belated outpouring of carefully orchestrated national grief, revisionist history, and political coattail surfing.

'Course, we can go even farther back and find such hallowed and idolized figures as, um, Warren Harding with 60.5% of the vote. Gosh, Steve@Linnwood and the other Repubs touting Reagan's popular vote must have outright, worshipful wet dreams over Big Warren's historical star appeal....and popularity.

~ahem~

39.8% Abraham Lincoln 1860

~chortle~

Yeah, hell. Popular vote really describes the lasting "popularity" of a president....probably as well as any of the other "statistics" used by silly propagandists trying desperately to prop up the Republican party any way they can.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 2:11 AM on June 12, 2004


Seriously, we need to add some graphite to soak up the neutrons before this pile--and I use the term advisedly--has a total radioactive meltdown.

Bring on the inanimate carbon rods! Keep these guys apart!



Jeez, where's the Stan Chin on this one?

memo to majcher: punk, if not dead, is--at least--in the same shape Reagan was three weeks ago. Dead or alive: what's the difference ?
posted by y2karl at 5:49 AM on June 12, 2004


S@L: Unless every person voted, it is still a "sample". This is not a political discussion, but a technical one.

You're implying that the voter turnout is more "real" than other sampling methods, and it simply is not.

Both are samples. To deny it is just to show a fundamental ignorance of statistics and what they mean.

Also: foldy wins.
posted by Ynoxas at 5:49 AM on June 12, 2004


Not faulty or meaningless. In 1980 there was a strong third-party candidate, John Anderson who got 7% of the popular vote, near that what Perot got in 1996, and Reagan still received a majority. Aside from that, a third-party candidate has little to do with how popular someone is. Plenty of Democrats voted for Reagan, even though there was a Democrat in the race. Just because a third-party candidate in in the race, it doesn't mean any one will vote for them. There are third-party candidate in every election, it is just that they rarely get anyone to vote for them.

You're making my point...the winner's percentage of popular vote, by itself, stripped of its context, is meaningless. You have to look at the particular election in which it took place, who the other candidate(s) were, how similar/distinct their platforms were, etc. The fact that a third-party candidate just happens to capture public attention in some years and not others doesn't automatically say anything meaningful about the popularity of the eventual winner--only that election politics can be more nuanced than the American system likes to give it credit for. So just because Reagan's winning numbers happen to be higher than Clinton's--so what?
posted by ChrisTN at 5:57 AM on June 12, 2004


President Reaganesque
posted by amberglow at 6:04 AM on June 12, 2004


I'm Jim Nantz welcoming you to the Quaker State Halftime Show presented by Budweiser, and so far, this has been just the way you want to determine a Nextel Greatest American President of the 20th Century. I'm joined here as always by Billy Packer, the nation's foremost college hoops analyst, and one of the country's leading political commentators, Bill Schneider.

Turning first to you, Billy: F.D.R. is definitely bringing the pressure we all expected him to, but Ronald Reagan is more than withstanding it. Surprise?

Packer: Not at all, Jim. The big problem when you go up against F.D.R., of course, is his tremendous length, something Reagan didn't see in his matchups against Eisenhower and Wilson. But, to his credit, Reagan's maintaining excellent communication on the floor.

Nantz: Putting the lie to those who thought the Roosevelt-Roosevelt semifinal was the real championship. Bill Schneider, your analysis?

Schneider: There are strong arguments to be made on both sides, Jim...


from Who Was the Greatest President of the 20th Century?
posted by y2karl at 6:20 AM on June 12, 2004


Patti Davis rose in my estimation last night, and Ron Reagan Jr sank like a stone. He can be bitchy all he likes about Bush in other places and other venues....but there at the burial service
it was NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEAST. Not least of all because it is the kind of thing his father would have never ever done.

Oh, and someone needed to tell that pastor that the service was not about him...and it was so jarring to hear him praise Nancy for her composure-when just minutes later she basically broke down over her husband's casket. That poor woman.
posted by konolia at 7:36 AM on June 12, 2004


I am sorry. I do not read the sidebar...I read very little. My only excuse? I spend much time with my taped Jerry Springer shows...I have a tape of every show he has so far done! It gives me insights into my family life.
posted by Postroad at 7:37 AM on June 12, 2004


Now--especially, coming after konolia's prattle--that is comedy gold!
posted by y2karl at 11:05 AM on June 12, 2004


y2karl, I am hurt. I do contribute my fair share of prattle to this enterprise but that last post came deep from my heart. (Yes, even though I am a registered Republican, I still have one.)
posted by konolia at 11:19 AM on June 12, 2004


Oh, do tell, Ms. Nancy's-grieving-let-but-fuck-the-son-if-he-speaks-from-the-heart-and-doesn't-follow-my-political-wishlist. Here's a clue: he's grieving, too. He's entitled to speak his piece.
posted by y2karl at 11:33 AM on June 12, 2004


So's Nancy, even though Reagan's devoted followers want her to shut up when she mentions, you know, the stuff she supported that could have eased her husband's suffering. When are people going to shut up about a goddamn Reagan dollar bill and start LISTENING to his family and work on the Ronald Reagan memorial research fund?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:57 AM on June 12, 2004


Y2karl, it isn't like Bush drove a stake into Reagan's heart. Junior just saw an opportunity to diss Bush and he took it, and it was opportunistic as Hades.

And at the same time he managed to prove that Reagan's civility was not genetic.

I have been to some doozies of a funeral...one where the sister of the deceaced got up and stomped out when the husband of the deceased got up to speak, one where a Mormon pulled out a book of Mormon and read from it -at a Charismatic Christian funeral (the deceaced was NOT Mormon nor were any of the family.) I could go on and on.

A funeral is the place to honor the deceased and give comfort to the family. It is not the place to give opinions on whether or not the spirituality of other people is genuine or not. It is not Ron's place to judge Bush's faith-or my faith, or your faith-to begin with, but if he has something to say about Bush let him be a man and say it directly in a real interview and not at a ceremony where they are about to stick his father in the ground and no one can challenge him. A lot of us who were watching tv are actually MOURNING Ronald Reagan and it was a slap in the face to us. Especially as it was one of the last speeches given this week....what a petty thing to do. It was hurtful and mean.
posted by konolia at 12:05 PM on June 12, 2004


This was not a normal funeral. It was the very definition of a public event, and in the context of politics. Ron's comment was entirely appropriate.

If you and other people who have had no personal relationship with the man and his family had not been watching the funeral of television, for crying out loud, on a federal holiday declared in the deceased's honor, you'd have a point. But you were and you don't.

This wasn't an ordinary funeral.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 PM on June 12, 2004


That was my President.

And yes, that was no ordinary funeral. It was the funeral of a great man, and one of the things that made his so great was his civility.

Oh, and not that it matters, but I happen to BE a Reagan.
posted by konolia at 12:42 PM on June 12, 2004


in 1986, the commemorative works act prohibited the authorization of a memorial to an event, individual, or group before the 25th anniversary of the event or the death of the individual or the death of the last surviving member of the group. The premise behind the 25-year stipulation is that succeeding generations can often provide a more objective viewpoint when evaluating the most appropriate way to honor people of historical significance or historical events (http://www.doi.gov/ocl/2001/hr452.htm)


that bill was signed into law by:


president ronald reagan.
posted by 11235813 at 1:23 PM on June 12, 2004


and now thinking of it
what a perfect suggestion ... imho

regan on a $4 bill .... i mean ... given regan

and the expression "queer as a" .....
posted by 11235813 at 1:33 PM on June 12, 2004


i mean 'reagan' ....... seriously i did ......... ughh
posted by 11235813 at 1:33 PM on June 12, 2004


Oh, and not that it matters, but I happen to BE a Reagan.

(How do you mean? You share a surname or you're actually a blood relative? Just curious...)
posted by dhoyt at 3:03 PM on June 12, 2004


Konolia, my apologies for my intemperate remarks. You did not need to read them. I wish I had not posted them.
posted by y2karl at 3:06 PM on June 12, 2004


My celebration was to reread: "Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan" from J G Ballard's The Atrocity Exhibition (1970)

http://www.univ-perp.fr/master-heterologies/cours/1/girard/master1litimp16.html
posted by lathrop at 3:48 PM on June 12, 2004


No harm done, y2karl. We're cool.
posted by konolia at 3:54 PM on June 12, 2004


Alzheimer's: Beyond Stem Cells
posted by homunculus at 5:46 PM on June 12, 2004


Reagan tributes to be followed by Clinton memoir.
posted by homunculus at 10:39 PM on June 12, 2004


good catch on that commemoration thing, 1123...

here's my last word on the subject
posted by amberglow at 12:54 PM on June 13, 2004


Perhaps Ron Jr. really does admire his fatehr's keeping his faith a personal thing. You know, it is a good quality.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:53 PM on June 13, 2004


Jesus wouldn't agree with you, Space Coyote.
posted by konolia at 4:26 PM on June 13, 2004


Jesus wouldn't agree with you, Space Coyote.

Oh? I don't imagine you could trot out a few silly lines of scripture to serve as the be-all and end-all of this debate?

I prefer the statements of a son for a dead father than the hollow sentiments of the Bush reelection campaign that has already begun trying to take full political advantage of Reagan's death...

Maybe they could do something meaningful in his honor, like support the stem cell research that would have possibly eased his burden when he was still alive.
posted by crank at 5:01 PM on June 13, 2004


Jesus said if we were ashamed of Him before men He would be ashamed of us before His Father.
posted by konolia at 5:46 PM on June 13, 2004


Didn't he say something about praying in private, too? Unlike the pharisees who made such a show of their professed faith? It seems to me that using Jesus to make yourself right by making someone else wrong counts more toward the latter. You are defending your own self-indulgence here of belaboring us with your personal opinions of a celebrity's children, i.e., your gossip. I understand He had a low opinion of hypocrites.
posted by y2karl at 6:07 PM on June 13, 2004


Jesus preached against displays of piety for show. Otherwise, though, the Christian ethos is evangelistic and proselytizing. You have no more right to avoid being offended by Christian sensibilities than they have a right to avoid being offended by your non-Christian sensibilities.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:29 PM on June 13, 2004


I dug out my coffee table book about Ronald Reagan and he was not secretive about his faith. How soon people forget.
posted by konolia at 4:30 AM on June 14, 2004


He can be bitchy all he likes about Bush in other places and other venues....but there at the burial service it was NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE LEAST. Not least of all because it is the kind of thing his father would have never ever done.

Um, konolia, I don't think you have any fucking right to pontificate about what someone says at his father's funeral. And Reagan may have not been 'secretive', but he was much less of a whited sepulchre than Appointed-By-God Bush.

(Curious, that, about the 80s; the same applied to Thatcher, apart from that absurd capitalist re-reading of the Good Samaritan. But we're in Antinomian Land now, where those who consider themselves 'elect' are convinced that no amount of immorality will keep them from salvation.)

You have no more right to avoid being offended by Christian sensibilities than they have a right to avoid being offended by your non-Christian sensibilities.

Um, 'sensibility' in its classic definition is entirely about show: the idea that if you fake it well enough, you become it. (Read some Jane Austen to learn more.) Reagan faked statesmanship sufficiently well to become statesmanlike (though, now he's in his tomb, I can say that he was a rotten statesman). Bush, on the other hand, has a pious sensibility with no piety, no humility, and no conscience.
posted by riviera at 7:33 AM on June 14, 2004


Bush rejects calls from Nancy Reagan, John Kerry to relax stem-cell policy
posted by homunculus at 11:46 AM on June 14, 2004


well put, riviera.
posted by shoepal at 6:48 AM on June 15, 2004


« Older Most.Tasteless.Journal.Evar?!...  |  The Son of Sam has a blog.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments