June 09, 2004
You Couldn't Pay Me
You couldn't pay me to read or watch this interview, and I am beginning to wonder if Jesse Taylor is a masochist.
Reagan Funeral
It occurred to me that while many people might be watching the Reagan funeral this evening, many of you might not know or remember the origins of many of the military traditions. I will continue to update these as they occur.
1.) Origin of the 21 Gun Salute-
The use of gun salutes for military occasions is traced to early warriors who demonstrated their peaceful intentions by placing their weapons in a position that rendered them ineffective. Apparently this custom was universal, with the specific act varying with time and place, depending on the weapons being used. A North African tribe, for example, trailed the points of their spears on the ground to indicate that they did not mean to be hostile.The tradition of rendering a salute by cannon originated in the 14th century as firearms and cannons came into use. Since these early devices contained only one projectile, discharging them once rendered them ineffective. Originally warships fired seven-gun salutes--the number seven probably selected because of its astrological and Biblical significance. Seven planets had been identified and the phases of the moon changed every seven days. The Bible states that God rested on the seventh day after Creation, that every seventh year was sabbatical and that the seven times seventh year ushered in the Jubilee year.
Land batteries, having a greater supply of gunpowder, were able to fire three guns for every shot fired afloat, hence the salute by shore batteries was 21 guns. The multiple of three probably was chosen because of the mystical significance of the number three in many ancient civilizations. Early gunpowder, composed mainly of sodium nitrate, spoiled easily at sea, but could be kept cooler and drier in land magazines. When potassium nitrate improved the quality of gunpowder, ships at sea adopted the salute of 21 guns.
The 21-gun salute became the highest honor a nation rendered. Varying customs among the maritime powers led to confusion in saluting and return of salutes. Great Britain, the world's preeminent seapower in the 18th and 19th centuries, compelled weaker nations to salute first, and for a time monarchies received more guns than did republics. Eventually, by agreement, the international salute was established at 21 guns, although the United States did not agree on this procedure until August 1875.
2.) Origin of the Riderless Horse-
When a Roman soldier died, his horse was led behind his coffin in the funeral procession. Once the marchers reached the cemetery, the soldier would be buried and his horse would be killed and buried with him not only as a tribute but also as a way of equipping him to ride into battle in the afterlife. The belief was that a horse trained for battle by its rider could not have two masters, and as a result, the horse was retired. The addition of the boots appears to be of later origin. The belief is that the empty boots signify that their owner is gone and that with boots in the stirrups, no one else can ride the horse. The riderless horse in today's procession is simply a ceremonial reflection of an ancient military tradition. No animals are harmed.
3.) Why Are Flags Draped on the Casket-
This custom began during the Napoleonic Wars (1796-1815). The dead carried from the field of battle on a caisson were covered with flags. When the U.S. flag covers the casket, it is placed so the union blue field is at the head and over the left shoulder. It is not placed in the grave and is not allowed to touch the ground. The flags that draped the caskets of the Unknown Soldiers are on display in the Memorial Display Room of the Memorial Amphitheater.
4.) What is the ominous sounding drum solo during the procession to the Capitol Rotunda? - That is known as the Funeral Dirge, with muffled drums.
5.) What is the origin of TAPS?- Well, contrary to what you read on the internet, it has nothing to do with a father and son meeting on the battlefield in the Civil War.
6.) Are there words to TAPS?- Yes. Words were put to the music after TAPS was sonded out. The lyrics are:
"Day is done, gone the sun,
From the hills, from the lake,
From the skies.
All is well, safely rest,
God is nigh.
Go to sleep, peaceful sleep,
May the soldier or sailor,
God keep.
On the land or the deep,
Safe in sleep.
Love, good night, Must thou go,
When the day, And the night
Need thee so?
All is well. Speedeth all
To their rest.
Fades the light; And afar
Goeth day, And the stars
Shineth bright,
Fare thee well; Day has gone,
Night is on.
Thanks and praise, For our days,
'Neath the sun, Neath the stars,
'Neath the sky,
As we go, This we know,
God is nigh."
7.) Why is the Flag hlown at half-staff?- This is all I could find:
The earliest record we have of the lowering of a flag to signify a death was an occasion in 1612, when the Master of the 'Hearts Ease', William Hall, was murdered by Eskimos while taking part in an expedition in search of the North West Passage. On rejoining her consort, the vessel's flag was flown trailing over the stern as a mark of mourning. On her return to London, the 'Hearts Ease' again flew her flag over the stern and it was recognised as an appropriate gesture of mourning. It was the habit, after the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, for ships of the Royal Navy to fly their flags at half-mast on the anniversary of the execution of King Charles I on 30th January 1649, and it is from this custom that, so far as we can trace, the present practice of announcing a death by the flying of a flag at half-mast has evolved. The earlier pracice at sea was to fly a black flag or to set a black sail.We know that the hoisting of black sails was a sign of mourning from the very earliest times. The black sail was superseded by the black flag, probably because it was a nuisance to have to carry black sails for use only on rare occasions. It was probably the position,rather than the colour, that caught the attention, particularly at a distance.
8.) When did the tradition of lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda start, and who has had this honor?-
The Rotunda of the United States Capitol, completed in 1824, has since been considered the most suitable place for the nation to pay final tribute to its most eminent citizens by having their remains lie in state or in honor. These occasions are either authorized by a congressional resolution or approved by the congressional leadership, when permission is granted by survivors.
I will post more as they occur. IF you find anyany factual errors, please let me know. I am working on memory to confirm what I found on the net, and as you are all well aware, I make mistakes.
Surprise, Surprise
Oliver Willis and I have been chatting this week (contrary to what you may think- we have a lot in common), and Oliver has stated several times that he believes we should keep a keen eye out for revisionism regarding Reagan and his legacy.
With that in mind, Matthew Yglesias has some stunning news for President Dukakis, President Gore, Speaker ofthe House Tom Foley, and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd:
"Hatchet Man- So Reagan was the guy who saved conservatism? Actually, he buried it."
Is It Just Me
IS it just me, or does anyone else think the word "Volokhian" reminds them of Star Trek?
Brokaw's Interview
I saw this interview, and I had no idea it had been edited like this. I am not sure why Brokaw/NBC would remove all of those pieces, because id did make Bus less coherent, and it did seem to distort the over-all feel of the interview.
Then again, maybe I do know why they edited it the way they did.
*** Update ***
Even my pinko-communist co-worker thinks this was a travesty. In his words, "it is one thing to show part of a speech, but to interview someone and leave out half the answer is ridiculous."
Project 21
I received this email in my SPAM folder today:
Black Activists Mourn the Passing of Ronald ReaganProject 21 Members Call Former President "Great Leader"
As the nation's capital prepares for the public viewing and state funeral of former President Ronald Reagan, members of the African-American leadership network Project 21 are expressing their profound sympathies to the late president's family and friends and celebrating his achievements in making America stronger and spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world.
To follow are personal comments from Project 21 members about President Reagan and his legacy:
(Testimonials deleted to save Space- the whole email is in the extended entry below)
Project 21 has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi or Virgil Beato at (202) 371-1400 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html online.
Has anyone ever heard of Project 21 before?
Reagan's Legacy
There simply is no excuse for corporate welfare, and you would think Republicans would know better. Perhaps they better think twice about invoking Reagan's legacy every five minutes if they keep trying nonsense like this:
House Republicans are trying to slip through a measure that would provide almost $10 billion in buyout payments to tobacco growers in return for eliminating an outmoded price support system under which many of them are losing out to foreign competition anyway. The buyout is a bad idea in principle. Farmers should not be bribed every time Washington decides to end a subsidy program. But the particular buyout proposal being pushed through the House is especially harmful. It would use general revenues rather than tobacco industry funds to pay for the buyout, drive up the federal deficit and provide no role for the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.The tobacco proposal is one of many questionable measures that are being loaded onto a bill whose main purpose is to repeal an export tax break that was ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization and led to punitive tariffs by the European Union. The underlying bill has been slow to gain support, so House Ways and Means Committee leaders have added sweeteners to gain backing.
Not only is the funding a bad idea, but they are attempting sneak it through the process.
If Bush loses the election, I think a good portion of the blame can be placed on the utter fiscal irresponsibility of the 'conservative' House of Representatives. This does not let Bush off the hook, as he has not vetoed one bill in his term.
Quote of The Day
"Still, I'm not a knee-jerk left-wing guy," ******************** said. "I am an advocate of the Second Amendment; I don't believe in abortion as birth control; and I was the first to call for Clinton's impeachment. I think that this country has shifted so far over to the right that anyone who is a garden-variety Democrat circa 1972 is painted as a Marxist-Leninist."
Conservative Discount
If you want to see something rather amusing, click on the BlogAd for the George Claus to the right. When you get to the Conservative Discount page, you will see a description of the collectible, and down to the lower left, the question:
"Where is the Liberal Discount"
in hyperlink format. Click on it.
June 08, 2004
Last On Clinton and the Funeral
Alright, Ezra, DU denizens, and Clinton supporters:
Why SHOULD Clinton speak at Reagan's funeral?
Bear in mind, the only reason a Democrat spoke at Nixon's funeral was because clinton was the current President, I believe Nixon was the only Republican (he was the sitting President) to speak at LBJ's state funeral, and no Republicans gave eulogies at JFK's funeral.
So, explain to me- Why should Clinton speak at Reagan's funeral, and shouldn't Reagan and his family have a say in the matter?
*** Update ***
Stupid Comment #1- "For balance. To make the whole thing non-partisan."
Someone take the time to explain non-partisan, partisan, and bi-partisan to these people. I have lost the desire to try to even talk to the intentionally obtuse.
Funniest Comment Yet
This is the funniest comment yet in the whole 'Bill Clinton not speaking at Reagan's funeral" nonsense:
Do you idiots actually think Clinton (or Carter) would actually step up to a mic and denounce Reagan at his own funeral?This is a classic example of Clinton-hating on the Right being much stronger than any Reagan-hating I've seen in the last week.
Clinton is an eloquent speaker, who would read a well-prepared speech, that would represent the HALF of this country who aren't Republicans. After all, Reagan was everybody's President, not just you wingnuts.
After Dubya is halfway through screwing up his speech, you'll be wishing it was Clinton up there speaking.
- Mr. Furious
We certainly have set a high bar, haven't we? The qualifications for speaking at someone's funeral now are only that the person won't 'step up to a mic' and denounce them.
And hell, if we are choosing who will speak at the funeral based on who is the best public speaker, put me down for Jesse Jackson.
What is funny about this is that the funeral is about Reagan, not about partisan politics, and not about Clinton. Can't you guys get it?
Bush will speak at the funeral because he is the current President. Clinton will not speak, because there is simply no reason for him to say anything? How hard is that to understand? I mean, if it bothers him that much, can't he just stage his own press conference/memorial for reagan, ala the 2000 Inauguration?
Ezra and the War On Straw
Ezra can't read.
A.) I did not call you idiotic. I called your attack on Rumsfeld. As Democrats are the smart people, I am sure you can figure out the distinction.
B.) The attack I called idiotic was a series of links and an assertion of general incompetence of the current administration. IN your words:
"Exactly what, may I ask, are these people doing all day?"
C.) If he had bothered to follow the links in the post (alas- he was too busy seeking victim status to peruse all the links), or to read the Tagorda post and the entire transcript, he would note that Rumsfeld was talking about the collective effort in the War on Terror. Had Ezra read that (better yet, comprehended it), he would not make flippant statements like:
"I actually suggest reading the whole quote as it proves that Rumsfeld is quite aware of what needs to be done in the war on terror. Oddly enough, he's not doing it."
He would clearly understand that the quote references the global fight, the collective fight.
Make sure you read the rest of the silliness that Ezra passes on as informed commentary by hitting the Continue reading "Idiotic? Hardly," and recognize how Ezra's opinions aboutthe current war in Iraq overshadow anything that was actually said in thetranscript provided by Tagorda.
Projection, Ezra. Projection.
Transparency
People keep talking about revisionist history, so I think it is important to remember how much the left really HATED Ronald Reagan. We are talking a level of hatred on par with the ugliest of the Clinton bashers- he was 'the dumbest President ever,' he was a 'cowboy,' a 'warmongerer,' and on and on and on.
That is why I am laughing every time I see a Liberal praising Reagan in order to attack George Bush- as in today's Krugman article, which I will save you the time of reading.
Shorter Paul Krugman- Reagan was Bad. Bush is Worse.
Can these guys be more transparent and phony?
Like I Said
Yesterday, I dismissed Oliver and other left-winger's attempts at distorting Rumsfeld's words for short-term political gain in ham-handed attacks on the administration. The idiotic attacks continue today, but, as I stated, they are simply distorting Rumsfeld and making something out of nothing.
Which, I guess, is to bexpected. At any rate, if you don't believe me, ask Robert Tagorda.
(Kudos to the Political Animal for noting this)
Another Diplomatic Failure
Can't wait to hear howJuan Cole and Josh Marshall are going to dismiss this as a failure:
The Security Council was expected to vote unanimously late today in favor of an American-British resolution to end the formal occupation of Iraq on June 30 and transfer "full sovereignty" to an Iraqi interim government.In addition to giving international legitimacy to the new caretaker government, the resolution authorizes an American-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use "all necessary measures" in "partnership" with Iraqi forces to bring peace. It also defines the United Nations role in post-transition Iraq.
All together now:
"QQQQQQQQQQuagmire. Brutal AFghan Winter."
OH, Boo-HOO, The Spotlight Won't Be On You
This made me giggle:
Former President Bill Clinton has privately expressed anger he has apparently been left off the speakers list of Friday's Reagan State Funeral, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned."President Clinton really held out all hope the funeral would be a nonpartisan event, like Nixon's was," a top Clinton source said on Tuesday morning. "He's angry and disappointed neither he nor President Carter have been asked to speak, as of yet."
The top source says Clinton has been critical that both Bush presidents will address the crowd gathered at National Cathedral.
Nixon's vice president Gerald Ford did not speak at Nixon's funeral.
Clinton's inner circle is convinced Nancy Reagan has personally shut out Clinton from any high-profile participation.
Does anyone ever remember one polite- screw polite, one positive thing that the Clinton's ever said about Ronald Reagan? I mean, just one. All I remember is the 'decade of greed' mantra along with systematically blaming Reagan for all the ills of society.
Is anyone really surprised he will not be a keynote speaker at Reagan's funeral? Does anyone want him to be the speaker at Reagan's funeral? Did anyone expect him to be the speaker? I didnn't think so...
How would Clinton feel about Ken Starr speaking at his funeral? Just curious, you know.
*** Update ***
I am aware who Ken Starr is- and the analogy I was trying to make was not between comparable persons, but people who held comparable opinions. Having listened to Clinton prattle on about the decade of greed during his entire Presidency, my point was that Clinton feels about Reagan the way Ken Starr probably feels about Clinton.
Sorry to confuse you, sweetheart.
PS- are you natural blonde?
PPS- At Nixon's funeral, Billy Graham, Bill Clinton (the current President), Bob Dole, Henry Kissinger (someone who knew the man well and served in his administration), and Pete Wilson spoke. No Carter. Was that political?
Name one reason Clinton should speak, other than his Schumeresque desire to be on camera 24/7?
If all the prominent Democrats are booed when they enter the funeral, and, if Reagan's son comes on stage, starts pointing at Democrats, and wails for them to vote for George Bush to maintain Reagan's legacy, I would agree it is as tacky and tasteless as the Wellstone pep-rally.
*** Update #2 ***
Question: Who are Earl Warren, Mike Mansfield, and John McCormack, and why would I ask this question?
June 07, 2004
At Least He Is Consistent
Ronald Reagan gets a colorful send-off from Christopher Hitchens that is worthy of, well, in Hitchens case, Bob Hope and Mother Theresa.
Hunh?
Someone please try to make some sense out of this bloody mess of a post:
I admit to having little to add on Ronald Reagan. I've had a magnificently cynical fear that his death would come in an election year and lead to conservative resurgence -- or at least unification -- fueled by his spectral presence. That may be happening, showing that cynicism isn't always misplaced.As for the man himself, I was born in 1984, so the Reagan revolution didn't impinge on my consciousness all that much. Josh Green has a terrific article on how unconservative Reagan was, but I'm really in no place to evaluate the tussle over his legacy. What I will say is that focusing on his approval ratings to debunk the myth of his popularity misses the point -- America decided retroactively that he was popular, probably for reasons connected to the era of good and evil more than anything else. To attempt to diminish a myth at the exact moment that man becomes martyr isn't very smart politically and misses a truth of human nature. People like legends and, when they attempt to create them, rarely look fondly upon those who stand in the way. They're not even supposed to be based on past's truth (MLK Jr. was quite the womanizer), they're made for the future.
People decided they liked Reagan after the fact?
1980 General Election:
Reagan- 43,901,812 votes, or 50.9% of the vote, equalling 489 electoral college votes.
Carter- 35,483,820 votes, or 41.1% of the vote, equalling 49 electoral college votes.
1984 General Election
Reagan- 54,455,000 votes, or 58.8%, equalling 525 electoral college votes.
Mondale- 37,577,000 votes, or 40.5%, equalling 13 electoral college votes.
Seems like they liked him from the beginning, and as his vote count increased in his second election, perhaps they liked hime even more. By comparison, the most people to ever vote for Clinton were 47 million. Is Ezra arguing Clinton was unpopular, or that Clinton's popularity was a myth?
Here, btw, is a graph of the Gallup approval ratings of the past seven Presidents, here is a head to head match up between Clinton and Reagan, which is frighteningly similar with Clinton pulling out ahead.
Tomorrow, as a continued public service, Ezra will take on the myth of gravity and then explain to us that Cheers, Seinfeld, and MASH really weren't that popular.
Here We Go Again
When your partisan blinders are so snugly fit on your skull, it is easy to take anything out of context. Today's example- Oliver looks at a Rumsfeld statement as a scathing indictment of the administration:
The Failure Of Donald RumsfeldI can't believe he said this.
Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists -- whom he termed "zealots and despots" bent on destroying the global system of nation-states -- are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
"It's quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this," Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.
It is quite clear to me that Rumsfeld, far from being a failure, is doing what he should be doing- asking the tough questions, questioning our policies, trying to make sure we are doing the right thing. Why do I say this? Because this is EXACTLY THE SAME DAMNED THING HE SAID 8 months ago in a memo the Democrats tried to distort and use for partisan gain then:
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How did Oliver try to spin the rhetorical questions posed in the memo when it first came out? There was this:
This administration has not screwed up this fight completely, and the battle is long and complicated, but I honestly feel we haven't been using our full brain on this. We do what feels like may be good, but then it fades away to bite us in the rear another day.
Then there was this post, in which he tried to use the memo as proof that we were failing in Iraq.
They sold us a war. And our kids will be paying the bills.
I will give the Democrats this much- they are not intellectually honest, but they sure are consistent.
Amusing
Here is a quick test to tell if you have succumbed to irrational Bush Hatred. Read your posts back to yourself, and if it sounds like something Maureen Dowd wrote after two cosmopolitans, you are an irrational Bush hater. Check out this ridiculousness:
Sopranos FinaleI think last night's episode sort of made up for a rather slow and lackluster season. All-in-all the decision-making reminded me of the Bush administration interagency process. As one of the captains said, "I'm willing to die for a good cause, but this is bullshit." Meanwhile, the fearless leaders stuffs his face with ice cream while dreaming of Rommel.
It's all there- projection, distortion, and contempt, all wrapped up in a condescending wrapper of references to pop culture.
BTW- that wasn't written by Dowd. That was written by the 'moderate' Matt Yglesias (who, btw, went to Harvard), and is really smart- just ask him. At anyrate, Dowd would probably need more than two cosmopolitans before writing that crap.
June 06, 2004
Hey Lunatics- Take A Hint from Max
Look- I don't expect liberals and the left to mourn Reagan. I understand they don't like his policies. I doubt very much I will be building a shrine to Clinton when he passes, nor will I shed many tears at Carter's passing. However, I will not try to take away from the positive aspects of Clinton's presidency- Clinton presided over a booming economy without hindering it, Rubin's refinancing of debt drastically helped our finances, Clinton did sign a balanced budget and ran a surplus (yes- I know who ran Congress- but they have been running Congress under Bush, too), went against his party and signed NAFTA, he stood up to his party and did not gut the military, and he did the right thing in Kosovo.
Clinton was also exceptionally popular, an extremely gifted public speaker and an engaging person, and maybe it was his inborn Machiavellianism that has blinded even me, but I honestly think that Clinton did what he felt was right, most of the time, and honestly liked and cared about people. That final characteristic is not a bad measure of any man, and it is to Clinton's credit.
Many would say that he only did so in attempts to build his legacy, but I believe Clinton honestly tried to be a broker for peace regarding the whole Israel/Palestine mess. Clinton had a whole number of shortcomings, failures, and things I don't want to go into here, but if someone with such a distatse for Clinton as me can still list his positive aspects, why can't the left admit Reagan's successes, of which there were just as many, many of which had far greater historical importance than the achievments of the Clinton era.
At any rate, jerks like Atrios, Democrats.Com, the Democratic Underground should take a cue from Max:
I won't be mourning. I disliked him a lot, but gloating would be stupid and obnoxious, and expressions of homage insincere. He doesn't need any pity. He was a lucky man, he had a pretty good life, and in his own right he was successful. You can't beat him because he has already won. Fortunately the game has more innings.Respect is due the bereaved, as well as to those who have a good feeling about him. It's just the decent thing to do.
Maybe they will listen to John Kerry, who struck exactly the right tone (and, IMHO, his statement was better than Bush's):
Ronald Reagan's love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. Despite the disagreements, he lived by that noble ideal that at 5pm we weren't Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends. President Reagan and Tip O'Neill fought hard and honorably on many issues, and sat down together to happily swap jokes and the stories of their lives. The differences were real, but because of the way President Reagan led, he taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship.He was the voice of America in good times and in grief. When we lost the brave astronauts in the Challenger tragedy, he reminded us that, 'Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.'
"Now, his own journey has ended-a long and storied trip that spanned most of the American century-and shaped one of the greatest victories of freedom. Today in the face of new challenges, his example reminds us that we must move forward with optimism and resolve. He was our oldest president, but he made America young again.
"Our prayers are with his family, and the wife he loved in a way all the world could see. And to the end, she loved him with courage and complete devotion. She helped all of us better understand the cruel disease that took him away before it took his life, and what we must do to prevent and cure it.
"Teresa and I and our family extend our deepest sympathies to Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family. Today, from California to Maine - 'from sea to shining sea' - Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved."
Max is right: "Respect is due the bereaved, as well as to those who have a good feeling about him. It's just the decent thing to do."
Unfortunately, decency is something that simply escapes many in the current climate.
Atrios and His Fools
You just knew there would be some pretty energetic attempts to shit all over Reagan and to try to distort his legacy, and with the level of hatred among the modern left at anything to the right of Al Gore, this was to be expected. At any rate, Atrios has spent the last 36 hours with some of the most dextrous attempts at re-writing history mixed in with some venal Clinton worship. This one made me giggle:
The number of nondefense federal employees grew under Reagan, as they did under the first Bush. The number shrunk when Clinton was in office.The economy under Reagan grew at an average rate of 3.5%, a healthy clip matched by the economy under Bill Clinton. The unemployment rate averaged 7.3%.
How bout this yardstick, jackass. How about we measure the before and after. Like, for example, what was the economic condition prior to Reagan taking office, what was it like when he left office. Just asking. BTW- Clinton inherited a recovering economy poised for a boom with a whole new sector taking off. That does not take away from Clinton not screwing it up, but Christ, you pissant, at least try to be objective.
It was hard to stifle a giggle with this idiotic post, too:
Sorry, Senator, but you're just wrong.Fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn called Mr. Reagan "one of our greatest presidents." - an assessment shared by more and more historians over the years. "He left the Oval Office as the most popular president in the modern era. Ronald Reagan loved America - and America loved him back."
Atrios then posts Clinton's approval ratings when he left office (65%) and Reagan's (63%), using that as proof that Clinton was more popular. Which is great, except it proves that the Senator was exactly right. When Reagan left office, he was the most popular president in the modern era. Clinton was President after Reagan, unless my recollection history is as screwed up as Atrios's.
Then there is this post:
From those crack reporters at NPR (specifically, Neal Conan):Growing up in the little town America of Dixon, Illinois, during the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan was interested in sports and acting.
Reagan was 18 when the stock market crashed.
Apparently, we now have it codified that the physical age of 18 officially means that you have grown up, and any experiences afterward, however traumatic, mean nothing. BTW- if you are wondering why Atrios hates NPR, it is because they are not liberal enough. But really- Atrios is a moderate.
I understand there may be those who dislike intensely what Reagan did in office. However, this sort of revisionism is not going to stand, and Atrios and the haters can go to hell. The very fact that the mainstream left of the blogging community takes their marching orders from this jackass should be an embarassment (and dont tell me they don't- if it appears on the anonymous slanderer's sight, it will be linked by damn near everyone on my liberal blogroll by the end of the day.
All together now, guys:
"Really, Atrios may be a liberal, but he is really moderate."
Not content with the bile and venom they leveled at him during his entire Presidency, they now want to shit on his grave, selectively misrepresent his record, and re-write history. Because, you know, everything was perfect in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, and just went to hell afterwards.
The Benefits of Nuclear Power
Mark Kleiman has a must-read piece on nulear power, in which he cogently outlines the case for nuclear power. However, as a partisan and a polemicist, I shall choose to focus on this part of his post:
Nuclear waste. This is a problem only if you think that we need to plan waste disposal that will (no, I'm not making this up) survive the end of civilization and be safe for the ignorant primitive nomads who will wander the earth 10,000 years from now. Actually, the solution isn't technically very hard.Current plans are to deal with all the waste, high-level and low-level, together. The idea is bury the stuff in deep salt caves and pray the water table doesn't rise. And of course no one wants to have the burial site nearby; that fact just might cost George Bush, who broke a campaign promise and did the right thing, Nevada's electoral votes.
In the Washington Post today, George Will writes:
John Kerry recently stopped in Las Vegas to say: "Rest assured, Nevada. If I'm president, Yucca Mountain will not be a depository..."But in 1996 President Bill Clinton promised to veto any attempt to make Nevada even a temporary repository. That promise helped him beat Bob Dole there by just 4,730 votes, the smallest state margin that year.
In 2000 George W. Bush promised not to make Nevada a temporary repository, but said "sound science" would guide him regarding establishing a permanent repository there. He beat Al Gore 50-46 (301,575 to 279,978). A switch of 10,799 votes would have made Gore president.
In 2002 Bush approved Yucca Mountain as the permanent site. Congress said Nevada's governor could veto the selection but that his veto could be overridden by majorities in both houses. He vetoed it; Congress overrode him.
By this protracted dance of democracy the interests of an American majority -- 161 million live within 75 miles of today's storage sites -- prevailed, respectfully, over the objections of an intense minority, the approximately 2 million people who live in southern Nevada. Kerry's willingness to overturn this accommodation reflects a cold, and factually correct, calculation having nothing to do with the national interest: For the intense and compact Nevada minority, unlike for the diffuse American majority, this is a vote-determining issue.
Two points:
1.) Bush flip-flopped to do the right thing. Kerry seems to have changed his mind as a result of political calculations.
2.) It isn't the GOP and the mainstream media unfairly portraying Kerry as having consistently changing positions. It is the fact that Kerry has consistently changing positions, based on crass political opportunism.
June 05, 2004
That Didn't Take Long
A man, who happened to be President, died at 1 o'clock, and by 4:00 pm the Democratic Underground idiots are already pissing on his grave:
"R.I.P. In Hell" - Flagg"The hysteric media outburst has already begun, his crimes against humanity notwithstanding. The blunt idiocy of that national self-deprecating spectacle makes me sick to my stomach.
Other than that, I'll proceed to celebrate the news in private." - NV1962
"That said, Raygun was soulless and, before DimSon, the most vacuous sock puppet in our history. He was, and still is, a tool." - Tahitinut
"that was putting a spring in my step.
an evil force has been removed from the continuum.
what a goddaman beautiful fucking day- i think i may just burst into song at any moment...
Ding-Dong! Ding-Dong!...the evil fuck is Dead!" - Beaker
"May your ideas die with you. You were a terrible president and your administration was a band of criminals. Your poisonous legacy is still hurting the country in the policies of George W. Bush. " - Sandpiper
The rest of the posts debate whether Reagan was worse than the current President, although the thread does contain several reasonable people stating while they did not like his policy, they see no joy in his death. What is wrong with the rest of the posters, though?