Dead Presidents
August 10, 2005 4:08 PM   Subscribe

This guy is pretty much living the dream of many MeFites, I'd wager.
posted by keswick (65 comments total)
Yeah, what I wouldn't give to be a thin, white guy in my 20s again.
posted by felix at 4:10 PM on August 10, 2005

I'm sorry, this is pretty damned funny.

Its a silly thing but its pretty amazing how angry it makes some people. I could see them getting so pissed off if he dropped trou and left a steaming pile but all he did was dance a little bit and mug for a camera.

The other thing that struck me is who do you have to piss off to get presidential grave protecting duty? Its like an MP for dead people. And its kind of telling that they are actually needed.
posted by fenriq at 4:15 PM on August 10, 2005

It's not the worst Photoshop dream I've ever seen, but not a good one either.
posted by paulsc at 4:22 PM on August 10, 2005

I bet that dude was at Comic Con. I may even have sold him some comics.
posted by zoogleplex at 4:31 PM on August 10, 2005

Somebody should inform the guy that Nixon and Reagan are dead, and, as such, probably don't really care.
posted by Bugbread at 4:32 PM on August 10, 2005

Of course Reagan's foreign policy is what ultimately gave us Osama, but who remembers that sort of trifling detail? He sure didn't.
posted by clevershark at 4:32 PM on August 10, 2005

You're onto a winner with that wager because it's always been my dream to be the subject of a crap fpp.
posted by fire&wings at 4:35 PM on August 10, 2005

Great. Let's all bash Reagan. Again.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:35 PM on August 10, 2005

monju_bosatsu : "Great. Let's all bash Reagan. Again."

You've got a weird definition of "all". 8 comments, one of which bashes Reagan.
posted by Bugbread at 4:42 PM on August 10, 2005

Meh. I didn't like the policies of the Reagan administration, but I also try to avoid celebrating anyone's death. Besides, much evidence exists to indicate that Reagan was just a figurehead for various cabinet members who actually set policy. Them I can be grumpy with, but I have a difficult time seeing Reagan himself as anything but a confused old man who said what he was told to say.

Anyway, dancing on people's grave is just tacky.
posted by sotonohito at 4:45 PM on August 10, 2005

It's nice to see people self-actualize.
posted by stevis at 4:47 PM on August 10, 2005

I've often dreamt of being pictured on a right-wing blog, dressed in an American flag. It usually follows with waking up in a cold sweat, though.
posted by Rothko at 4:47 PM on August 10, 2005

great. now everyone who wants to dance on reagan's grave is a satanist.
posted by 3.2.3 at 4:52 PM on August 10, 2005

If the photos are real, I'm impressed. Seriously. It's funny and I appreciate the sentiment.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:55 PM on August 10, 2005

MetaFilter: Warning: Vulgar Site

Not just a Satanist, but a +3 Satanist. I think the headlines would have been much funnier if he'd used one of his cohorts taglines.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 4:58 PM on August 10, 2005

2 down, 39 to go.
posted by Ndwright at 5:20 PM on August 10, 2005

Er, 37 to go. 39 total are dead. Stupid subtraction.
posted by Ndwright at 5:20 PM on August 10, 2005

First of all, Zombie Reagan is going to be pissed when he hears about this.

Second, why the AC/DC t-shirt? He should have been wearing a Dead Prez shirt. Duh.

Third, we expect this sort of shit from avowed ‘Satanists’ – why not be an avowed Pentecostal or Nation of Islam convert? Anything to make it interesting. Any person of faith worth their salt can have a whole slew of reasons to want to dance on Reagan’s grave.

Anyone want to place a wager on how long it takes the talk radio fascists to whip their audiences into a frenzy over this childish prank? I’m thinking if they do find this guy he will either be beaten/shot in the street or some sort of law will be invented just for prosecuting him.
posted by wfrgms at 5:23 PM on August 10, 2005

"This guy is pretty much living the dream of many MeFites, I'd wager."

I bet most MeFites have more class than that..

My dreams, anyway, don't include this particular act....
posted by HuronBob at 5:24 PM on August 10, 2005

Meh. Childish, yet very American. Most places wouldn't take well to dancing on the grave of a former leader, especially of similar ideology to the current one.

Just don't whine when you get 10,000 letters calling you a commie and telling you to go back to France. Stupid free speech for stupid free speech, after all.

Admittedly, I snickered. Not out of animosity towards Reagan, but the fact that this guy was on a President's grave, dancing like a fool.
posted by Saydur at 5:26 PM on August 10, 2005

I can't believe this is a news story, even on some fake-news blog. This deserves to be treated like it actually matters to anyone, anywhere? Slow news day on the Internets, I guess.

Perhaps for an encore they ought to post another story talking about how they'll post any stupid thing that comes to mind.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 5:29 PM on August 10, 2005

Roger that on the right-wing blowhards. This is their meat, and a perfect distraction from an act of real courage happening in Crawford, Texas this month that has lately actually been demanding attention. Damn pissant twerp.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:30 PM on August 10, 2005

. . . and now some host called "ImageCove" has disabled his account so that the pictures do not display on the original forum discussion. I imagine they smoked a few Pentiums today. Just fabulous. More weapons of mass distraction.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:33 PM on August 10, 2005

Anyway, dancing on people's grave is just tacky.

Agreed. I detest Reagan's policies and all that, but grave dancing/pissing is really infantile, and gives righties a reason to say that dissenters lack decorum. Just sayin'
posted by moonbird at 5:41 PM on August 10, 2005

FWIW dancing on anyone's grave is a waste of time.
posted by clevershark at 5:42 PM on August 10, 2005

moonbird writes "gives righties a reason to say that dissenters lack decorum"

Personally I'd hate to think that I spend my life wondering what some dittohead might say about me. Then again I guess some people give righties a lot more power over their lives than I do.
posted by clevershark at 5:44 PM on August 10, 2005

Late on the On Preview: what realcountrymusic said.
posted by moonbird at 5:45 PM on August 10, 2005

What a jerk. We gave that guy the long robe, star pendant and red candles because we told him we worshipped Stalin. Some people never listen.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:47 PM on August 10, 2005

Clevershark: i could care less what they say also, but things like this are how they distract, like realcountrymusic suggested. I'd rather not give them stupid things to rile up their minions with, but in fact give them nothing to whine about, which deflates their whole schtick.
posted by moonbird at 5:48 PM on August 10, 2005

Dude/Dudette, who cares what "they" think.

There is no way to control it any more than they control what "we" think. Not that "we" think anything, but "they" wouldn't have any influence over "it" if "it" "existed" to "us".
posted by parallax7d at 6:07 PM on August 10, 2005

Right wing types will always have something to be upset about. You've either got to ignore it, or be willing to rant back at 'em. Pat Robertson alone proves that crazy/stupid things aren't limited to Berkley, and the Westboro Baptist Church in and of itself shows that the crazies (theoretically) on our side aren't nearly as bad as the crazies (theoretically) on their side.

My brother once demonstrated that the best way to end someone ranting crazy stuff at you is to rant back with even crazier stuff. I've found that referencing Ann Coulter's latest ravings usually ends any "liberals are crazy/stupid/evil" rant quickly.

I hope we on the left start ranting back more and louder. Its a stupid playground game to play (the whole "your side has crazy/stupid people, ha ha!" thing I mean), but if we don't respond Joe Average starts to think that crazy/stupid is limited to the left.
posted by sotonohito at 6:08 PM on August 10, 2005

"...but if we don't respond Joe Average starts to think that crazy/stupid is limited to the left."

Agreed wholeheartedly, and good points. But doesn't grave dancing/pissing just totally lower the dialog into meaningless, childish acts? What if Karl Rove danced on MLK's grave, or Limbaugh pinched a loaf of his hate into Kennedy's eternal flame? Would we be in an uproar? Sure. Would we respond with the same sort of rage the righties have? Yes. We would be appalled by the indignity of it. The thing is that we winner respond rationally. The losers resort to shock and awe. I want us to win, but not be being cheap and tawdry in how we express our disdain for historically awful presidencies.
posted by moonbird at 6:21 PM on August 10, 2005

Since this seems to have turned into another Reagan bashfest, I suppose I'll inject some much-needed praise for the man:

He was a pretty good actor.
posted by wakko at 6:27 PM on August 10, 2005

If I piss on this thread, does that make me a satanist? Pissing on keswick seems like a viable option, too.

I could totally go with that, man. You know, cause the thread really ties the room together.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:32 PM on August 10, 2005

I agree with all your points, but the fact is that we can't control the actions of everyone (theoretically) on our side. There will always be a twit who pisses on Nixon's grave, and while I'm perfectly willing to call him a twit I will *not* do so without mentioning that Ann Coulter thinks it'd be hilarious if dozens of children were killed at the New York Times building. Or that Pat Robertson thinks that 9/11 happened because of the ACLU.

Simply saying "this guy is a twit and he doesn't speak for me" isn't enough, it lets them control the debate, and lets them attempt to appear as if there were no twits on their side. Both sides have twits, neither side can control them. By choosing to spend media attention on the twits (theoretically) allied with us the right has set the rules. If liberals everywhere are to be lambasted for the actions of a single liberal twit then we must lambast conservatives everywhere for the actions of all conservative twits. Anything less is surrender.

I have no problem with the (false, defamatory, and outright lying) NARAL anti-Roberts ads because the right chose not to condemn the (false, defamatory, and outright lying) Swift Boat Vets ads. If they hit us we've got to hit them back the same way. When they use a previously off limits tactic on us we must immediately hit back. For that reason I'm in favor of blatiently gerrymandering California and New York in retalliation for the gerrymandering of Texas. Heck, for that matter I'm in favor of impeaching Bush for no reason simply because they impeached Clinton for no reason. An eye for an eye isn't good, but it beats "you take my eye and I do nothing".
posted by sotonohito at 6:38 PM on August 10, 2005

This is the best we can do nowadays?

"He died on 24 February 1732, and the London crowds threw dead cats into his grave."
posted by Aknaton at 6:49 PM on August 10, 2005

I'm sick of this polarization. Is there a less partisan MeFi out there? The whole us vs. them paradigm is incredibly small minded, cliche, repetitive, pointless, unproductive and numbing.
posted by parallax7d at 7:00 PM on August 10, 2005

funny, I wasn't "partisan" at all in 2000. Sure, I voted for Gore and thought Bush wasn't all that he was cracked up to be, but I also voted for the nice moderate Republican Senate candidate instead of that bitch Feinstein (who in the 5 years since has voted the wrong way countless times).

Things is, parallax, there is a real Us & Them in play now.

The Bush admin inherited a $5.8T national debt, after 4 years it now stands $2T higher, and the Bushites have no real plan to address this other than keeping the spending spigots open and the taxes "lowered". One gets the impression they are intentionally spending this country into bankruptcy, and I just can't understand how anyone could support that.

The Bush admin lied us into this silly war that has cost us $200-300B and thousands of US casualties, not to mention tens of thousands of Iraq killed and maimed, and I just can't understand how anyone could still make excuses for this administration.

The Bush admin and the present Republicans have been playing partisan games with the Culture War -- stem cell compromise of 2001, the anti-homo measures on state ballots in Nov 2004, recently pushing ID creationism and attacking evolution as godless, blaming liberalism for 9/11, that whole Shiavo right-to-life kabuki show... Republicans are a joke right now and I just can't understand how anyone with a brain in their head identifies with them or their causes.

So viva the polarization, I say, as a lefty-libertarian. The Dems don't do much for me, really, but they're all we got right now.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:19 PM on August 10, 2005

sotonohito, that's simply rediculous. Adding to shrillness and insanity is nothe way to fight shrillness and insanity. Conservatives will *always* look like the level-headed side ina screaming match because they are "conservative" and can claim that history and God is on their side. Moderates and liberals should promote clear-headed, non-manipulative debate whenever possible.

or were you kidding?
posted by es_de_bah at 7:38 PM on August 10, 2005

wakko writes "Since this seems to have turned into another Reagan bashfest..."

It has?
posted by clevershark at 8:12 PM on August 10, 2005

i don't see what the big deal is ... thousands of detroiters a day drive over jimmy hoffa's grave and nobody says a thing
posted by pyramid termite at 8:39 PM on August 10, 2005

...the photos show a thin, white man likely in his 20s wearing an AC/DC T-shirt...

posted by rocket88 at 9:09 PM on August 10, 2005

The thing about dancing on a grave that people dislike? It's a symbol.

The thing about burning the American flag that people dislike? It's a symbol.

The thing about crashing jets into the World Trade Centers that terrorists like? It's a symbol.

These fucking symbols will be the end of us all.
posted by JHarris at 9:18 PM on August 10, 2005

Reagan was just a figurehead for various cabinet members...
The bummer about being the figurehead is that you have to take the crap as well as the praise. It's in the job description.
posted by dabitch at 9:28 PM on August 10, 2005

These fucking symbols will be the end of us all.

armageddon sick of it, aren't you?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 PM on August 10, 2005

You know, it strikes me that the grave does look a lot like a stage area, so it's not that surprising that someone would have got the wrong idea. Maybe if they didn't want people dancing on it they should build something that looked like this or this. Harder to climb on, you see, and no flat surfaces. The dancers would fall off.
posted by talitha_kumi at 1:03 AM on August 11, 2005

spock: what's so impressive about a sign-up page?
posted by biffa at 2:01 AM on August 11, 2005

From the article...

Most responding to the post were congratulatory, with one poster exclaiming, "That is spectacular."

Now I'm not sure it really comes under the banner of 'spectacular'.

He's also a 'satanist' which automatically makes me believe he's a white middle class suburban fuckwit...
posted by Meccabilly at 2:28 AM on August 11, 2005

These fucking symbols will be the end of us all.

Oh, shit -- this sentence? It's made up of symbols.

This post, this website, these Internets -- many discrete symbols taken together to represent a whole!

Shit, JHarris, you're right: We are doomed.

As for the topic at hand, or underfoot, let the guy "desecrate" a grave or two or 39. Why should it bother anyone? There's a good six feet of dirt, at least, between that guy's urine stream and the long-rotten corpse of Nixon, and evidently plenty of dirt and concrete between his shoes and Reagan. Would it bother me if someone danced on FDR's grave or pissed on Kennedy's? Probably not. I'd probably think, "That's an absurd and ineffectual act, but certainly an audacious and slightly amusing one as well."

Of course, the difference is that conservatives, unlike me, are super uptight about stuff like that. Sure, I'm glossing over a bunch of stuff, but, seriously, who is he really hurting when it comes right down to it? Hell -- he's keeping security guards employed.

My dream is that America's religious right will really start getting on people's nerves with their constant getting upset over essentially nothing, like some guy dancing on a grave, and all of our apathetic moral relativists will find the motivation to get up and vote them out of office. (I said it was a dream.)

[That's not a very picturesque dream, is it? Mister, we could use another MLK, Jr. again.]

Metafilter: These fucking symbols will be the death of us all.
posted by gohlkus at 2:47 AM on August 11, 2005

Warning: vulgar site

Hey, if freakin' World Net Daily thinks so, then sign me right up.
posted by Vidiot at 4:11 AM on August 11, 2005

es_de_bah: no, I wasn't joking. I'm not suggesting we become shrill, but if you try to take the moral high ground while your opponent repeatedly kicks you in the balls you loose. They are the ones who tossed the Marques de Queensbury out the window so its time to adapt our tactics. I'd much rather see politics run on an issues and sane debate standard but its kinda hard to do that when the other side has Coulter, Limbaugh, et al screaming to Joe Average that liberals love terrorists. Sitting back and not dignifying their insanity with a response has a) lost us several elections, and b) is letting them drag America to the right becuase we look like ineffective fops.

We try to have a sane, sensable, reasonable, debate on why its a bad idea to get into racial profiling, secret trials with secret evidence, etc and they start shouting "liberals coddle terrorists, nener nener nener!". If Joe Average was saying "that's incredibly childish and stupid of the right" and rejecting their incredibly childish and stupid arguments we could continue to sit back and be civil. But Joe Average isn't saying that. Joe Average is voting for the people who fight dirtiest, and have the most pseudo-macho soundbites.

A bit of brutal honesty wouldn't be bad, and it doesn't seem to hurt candidates. Hackett, who came within a hair of winning, just recently called Limbaugh a "fatass drug addict", and in context it was entirely appropriate (Kos link because I couldn't find a transcript anywhere else).

A layered approach is necessary. We need the Senators and House members working on legislative retaliation (gerrymandering New York and California and giving speeches explaining that they don't like gerrymandering, but the actions of Republicans in Texas have forced their hands, lots of "more in sorrow than in anger" stuff). We also need to match the right on the other levels: lefty talk radio, a lefty cable news network, and lefty writers turning out books on how the right is destroying America. What we *really* need is for no elected Democrat to ever appologize for any of that. All Republican demands for appology must me met with a counterdemand for an appology for Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.

I'm even in favor of publically stating that all this is retialiation for the bad behavior of the right wing. But we can't continue to simply decry that bad behavior and do nothing in response.

For a microcosom of this, see any Creationist debating a scientist. The scientist goes out and talks about carbon dating, mutation, etc and the Creationist tears into the athiestic, immoral, and destructive philosophy of secular humanism. One side was being sane, polite, and reasoned, the other wasn't. Who is winning? The proper response is to liken Creationism to a cult, compare it to flat-earth-ism, ask how many witches they've burned lately, etc. Again, its a good idea to point out that you'd like a reasoned debate, but are forced to this position. Something like "My opponent has stated that many scientists are athiests, and has from that repeatedly called evolution an athiest philosophy. Many Creationists believe in a flat Earth. Now, [insert opponent's name here] why do you believe that our children should be taught that the Earth is flat? Haven't you seen the photographs from our weather satelites? Obviously my opponent believes that the space program is also a hoax, apparently he thinks that space ships won't work because there's nothing to push against in a vacuum." and so on.

I say it again: we were not the ones to choose to abandon the idea of civilized debate, but since they have tossed civil debate out the window we must fight dirty if we are to survive. Maybe after we kick them around in the mud for a while they'll call a truce and we can go back to civil debate.
posted by sotonohito at 4:45 AM on August 11, 2005

This guy is pretty much living the dream of many MeFites, I'd wager.
posted by keswick at 7:08 PM EST

I'll take that bet. $100 too much?
I'd wager that you are practicing a bit of wing nut projection myself, just like Rush does so often.
posted by nofundy at 7:18 AM on August 11, 2005

The thing about dancing on a grave that people dislike? It's a symbol.

The thing about burning the American flag that people dislike? It's a symbol.

The thing about crashing jets into the World Trade Centers that terrorists like? It's a symbol.

/me rolls eyes.

9/11 wasn't a "symbol" unless you'd say that Hiroshima, the Battle of Stalingrad and the First World War are "symbols".

Dancing on a grave or burning a flag is symbolic because the actual event is trivial and causes no actual damage -- what's important is only the informational content.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:18 AM on August 11, 2005

It's Mourning in America!
posted by Floydd at 7:28 AM on August 11, 2005

sotonohito, sounds nice in theory, and we could definitely use some hardball, down-to-earth lefty radio and tv folks (someone who is the opposite of Carville!). Still, the right will rip us down whenever we look tough. A tough conservative is a cowboy. A tough liberal is a wacko (see Dean).

Though, perhaps Dean would still be kicking ass if the left hadn't shrunk away from him and apologized and acted all embarrassed. Not enough people called bullshit on the scream non-event. So maybe you're right.

I just think of the clowned-up yahoos who generally show up to anti-war rallies and cringe. They can't compete with good ol' mom-and-pop rednecks.
posted by es_de_bah at 7:51 AM on August 11, 2005

He was a pretty good actor.

Eh, Bonzo upstaged him every time.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM on August 11, 2005

Poor judgement aside, this dancing on Reagan's grave thing is pretty funny.

It's not as grotesque as the Neocon excreta left on the Bill of Rights by ridiculious GOP utopianists in government and on talk radio/Fox.
posted by Skygazer at 11:26 AM on August 11, 2005

They have turned the case over to their lawyers and have been in the process of determining if there is any legal action they can take against this individual.

posted by Specklet at 12:07 PM on August 11, 2005

Just wait until Clinton goes. Then the right-wingers can have their NSFW revenge, and out of bi-partisanism, I promise I'll laugh then, too.
posted by hellbient at 12:45 PM on August 11, 2005

I think it's very interesting the replies this FPP got. I deliberately made the write-up non-partisan, and it was interesting to watch people project their biases on it.

For the record, while the Reagan dance was disrepectful, I thought it funny in an Abbey Hoffman kind of way. I didn't really approve of the Nixon would, but I have to admit there is somebody's grave I would go out of my way to piss on once he passes on.
posted by keswick at 6:51 PM on August 11, 2005

I deliberately made the write-up non-partisan, and it was interesting to watch people project their biases on it.

um, how the hell is suggesting that many MeFites dream of dancing on Reagan's grave non-partisan?
posted by MikeKD at 7:42 PM on August 11, 2005

Can you dispute that assertion? Notice I did not condemn or celebrate the practice.
posted by keswick at 7:44 PM on August 11, 2005

Can you dispute that assertion?

Yes, I can. My humor is often "off limits" for many here and this probably would be too. StaidFilter?
posted by nofundy at 12:00 PM on August 12, 2005

When I die in 60+ years, you can dance on my grave anytime. Think about. Who here would mind if someone danced on your grave? It seems to me like once your dead you don't care. He didn't seem to me (although I didn't personally know him) to be easily offended.
posted by Suparnova at 10:58 AM on August 13, 2005

« Older Bush league   |   War Zone Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments