Although Ronald Reagan is officially gone at the age of 93, I think we all know that he’s been mentally gone for years. And I think it was incredibly gutsy of Nancy Reagan–a woman whom I didn’t have much of an opinion of before–to come out publicly and stump for Stem Cell Research, which must have had the Bushites çráppìņg a brick. Reagan is/was practically the patron saint of the GOP, and Mrs. Patron Saint stepped up to the plate and waved the banner for scientific advancement that’s currently being washed up on the shoals of theological dogma.
With Mrs. Reagan no longer in the position of caretaker to her husband who, as she delicately and sorrowfully put it, had long ago embarked on a twilight journey where she could not follow (or something to that effect), I’m hoping she barnstorms the country and manages to turn around Neocon thinking about the incredible benefits of stem cell research.
PAD
• 
Ðámņìŧ. That should be SARATOGA.
Sheesh.
*You seem to be saying I was talking about what a horrible person Reagan was. Since I wasn’t, you might want to indulge in respect for accuracy while you’re at it.*
Sorry Peter, I think I took the “mental capacities” comment as a shot. You reinterated what you mean and I apologize. Thanks! Carl
Bloody hëll, an ex-pres turns into a corpse and I’m bombarded with overly sappy news coverage. The guy was president, he croaked, get over it. I’m sick of seeing Reagan’s face plastered on every TV screen and newspaper I look at.
Andrew,
What would you RATHER see? More images from Iraq to get you in a bad mood like a few weeks ago? You have no clue and even less class, to tastelessly bash someone who has just died, and whose life impacted all of us in some way, whether we agreed with him or not.
Karen,
Extremely classy comments, especially coming from someone who I KNOW disagreed with Reagan more often than not.
And I agree with you on supporting structures and the like named after leaders who cared about and gave to this country. I mean, I am no big fan of the Kennedys and their “mystique”, but it was much cooler (and appropriate, IMO) to have the Redskins playing in RFK Stadium (named after Bobby, natch) than the current FedEx Field.
And I miss Veterans Stadium, too.
PAD,
Your comments throughout this blog have been totally respectful, and the majority of the posters have followed your lead.
Reagan’s death has hit me hard, so I thank you.
Chuck,
Re: The “deifying of dead politicians”.
I underdstand what you say to a point. Yes, they are human.
But mythmaking is extremely important. It is why we have always had fictional characters, from The Iliad and the Odyssey to Superman. It is good to have an ideal not just for “escapism”, but to have something to aspire to. Because if Rocky Balboa can overcome his daunting challenges then maybe we can as well. And if Peter Parker can still be unappreciated after saving the world for the 1000th time, well it makes it easier to take your boss or whoever not appreciating you.
In the same way, I do feel the best of our leaders are heroes as well. They make decisions, tough decisions that affect lives. Reagan was quoted as saying he set out to change the nation and wound up changing the world. Shouldn’t such a man be remembered. Shouldn’t we demand it? So that someone may say, “Who was this guy?” and maybe learn about his/her accomplishments? In the same way, don’t Martin Luther King, Jr.; Gandhi; and others’ names be honored, revered and remembered.
Yes, we’re all people. But some choose to do more with their lives than others do. They deserve to be honored and remembered.
Here’s a link to one story about Nancy Reagan’s coming out in favor of stem cell research:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/050904_nw_reagan.html
I don’t see any problem with Nancy having an opinion that differs from any other conservative or “neocom” (whatever that means this week). Will she change many minds? Probably not, but it’s always good to see a differing of opinions instead of all members of any group agreeing on everything.
Mitch,
“In 40 years, nothing has changed.”
Uh, NOTHING has changed in the past 40 years? This is an extremely cynical statement, and flies in the face of reality.
“He served the status quo with the best of them.”
What are you talking about? For starters, he employed a much more aggressive strategy against the Soviet Union, which helped bring about the end of the Cold War, which had had many scared about Mutually Assured Destruction/ Nuclear Annihilation for decades.
We also enjoyed a prosperity and economic expansion that we had not seen since the ’50s, due to drastically slashing tax rates, especially insane 70% and 90% ones. The economic policies he initiated wound up helping Clinton with his equally impressive economic expansion.
“On the subject of monuments, well, I just roll my eyes everytime they waste money on one.”
Why? Honoring our history and important figures is important.
“Anyone who is truly working for the people would be thoroughly disturbed by such things”.
Please get off your high horse. Parents are SUPPOSED to take care of their children, but acknowledgement in the form of a Mother’s Day or birthday gift or whatever by their children would hardly be considered out of bounds. You’re SUPPOSED to do your job at work, but if you do it very well, you may be named Employee of the Week or the month or get a bonus or whatever.
Why begrudge someone recognition and honors?
“I often wonder why no one asks where the money comes from”
Because for those of us who actually pay attention to such things, we know that the money for things such as the long overdue World War II Memorial and the in development Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial usually comes entirely by donations by the public. I know, because I have already sent some money for the MLK one. Because I WANTED to.
“What cutbacks are made, when these monuments are built”
None. Okay?
“Can’t we just slap their faces on a coin”.
Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan’s visage on American currency. This will only gather steam now. The three options discussed are:
1.) Replacing FDR on the dime
2.) Having FDR be on half the dim4es, and reagan on the other half
3.) Replacing Alexander Hamilton on the Ten-Dollar bill. Right now, this option is the leading candidate to see fruition. as one pushing for the move said, “He wasn’t a President, and he wasn’t a very good shot.”
And on that ‘note’, wouldn’t be nice to see MLK on some denomination?
I think you’ve got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy.
The idea of the “neocon” seems to indicate, not what you state, but more of a return to the hard-core values that the Republicans hold so dear.
For comparision, it’s not unlike the idea of neo-Nazi’s taking to heart the things that real Nazi’s believed in.
What are you talking about? For starters, he employed a much more aggressive strategy against the Soviet Union, which helped bring about the end of the Cold War, which had had many scared about Mutually Assured Destruction/ Nuclear Annihilation for decades.
And that aggressive strategy, in the beginning, included putting the Arms Race into fifth gear. Sure, in the end, it accelerated the spending of the Soviets so the gov’t collapsed upon itself, but it also means we’ve got more nukes to deal with in the long run.
The Cold War would’ve ended regardless, and for exactly the reason I stated above (the gov’t collapsing upon itself). Reagan just sped up the process, and it hasn’t exactly done the Russians alot of good.
“So–he allowed exactly sixty derivations out of the thousands of possible stem cell lines to be used, thus putting a stop to further research.”
Nope. As I stated, and as even you stated, you didn’t limited any of the thousands of possible stem cell lines to be used. He just limited it to 60 which will be allowed to use federal funds.
And send the lines are self replicating, the 60 provides a significant amount to the researchers which rely on federal funds.
Again, the major pharm companies, the ones that will most likely make the big breakthroughs, don’t need nor deserve federal funding for the research they are doing. Do you expect them to not make BILLIONS on whatever they develope?
AIDS research gets more money in this country than breast cancer (Which kills many more people) yet have you seen how expensive the drugs are?
Regardless, you had a republican president, who under pressure by the repub base to totally ban all stem cell research, came out with a compromise. As I said in my first post, it wasn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than it could have been.
Mr. Maida,
Thank your for taking the time to respond to my rantings and for answering some of my questions. I intend to respond to you in greater detail later today. I’m currently at work so an in-depth response is out for the time being.
Salutations,
Mitch Evans
“3.) Replacing Alexander Hamilton on the Ten-Dollar bill. Right now, this option is the leading candidate to see fruition. as one pushing for the move said, “He wasn’t a President, and he wasn’t a very good shot.” “
Oh, boy…
First of all, so what if he wasn’t President? He served in two cabinet positions under two administrations and he invented the American economy. From scratch. That’s a pretty mind-boggling achievement, and it’s been more enduring than a lot of the achievements of others, including many Presidents. (See Forrest MacDonald’s “Hamilton: A Biography” for the gory economic details.)
Secondly, it’s not that Hamilton was a bad shot. Hëll, he was a war hero. He charged Cornwallis’s forces and came out alive at the age of 23. He had no INTENTION of shooting at Burr at all. (When he was pulled into his boat by his friends after being shot, he handed over his gun and warned his second to be careful, as it was still loaded. In his delirium, he didn’t realize that he had pulled the trigger, probably a reflex when he heard/felt Burr’s shot.)
Sorry. I’m sort of a Hamilton fan. 🙂 I’d hate to see him taken off the ten-spot. Once upon a time, he was very highly regarded, considered the second most important American in history, after Washington. These days, we seem to have forgotten his achievements.
Those who think Reagan’s death has hit you hard, why? You weren’t prepared for it?
When it comes to the death of a famous person, I think first of the family that is left behind. In this case, the family has had several years to prepare themselves. They knew it was coming. And it’s probably (I’m not in their minds so I can’t know for sure) a relief.
Reagan’s life wasn’t cut short. He did not die a young man. He was in his 90s, and it was his time. This is not a reflection of my support or lack of support of his policies. People die every day — why should the death of a 90+ year old man suffering from Alzheimer’s hit anyone outside of close family and friends hard?
She tells every one “just say no to drugs” and she’s an idiot.
She comes out for Stem Cell Research and she’s the next Stephen Hawking.
What’s next? Desperate for a kidney? Have a kid and take one of theirs.
>>”Moral question: If sacrificing a new born >>child’s life would save 100 people, would it >>be worth it?”
>>
>>Depends. Does the child grow up to be Hitler? >>And are the 100 people liberals or >>conservatives?
>>
>>PAD
Ok, PAD, you made me laugh. Which is why I still read you (most of the time)even when I am probably the opposite on so many issues.
I notice that no one has answered my central question: If adult stem cells work, why is there a demand to use stem cells from embryoes (or however you spell it!)? It at least appears that there is a bigger agenda at work (on both sides of the argument).
Jim in Iowa
To Grev:
>To answer, let me ask you a question: Is it any >different when a soldier sacrifices himself to >save a city, and the residents never know his >name? They’re both sacrifices. In reality, what >is the difference between a soldier dying while >saving a city and the stem cells from a baby >who’ll never be born saving millions of people >from a variety of diseases?
There is one very clear difference: One sacrifice was by choice, the other was not. A soldier, even if he was drafted, still is making some choice to be there and some choice in what he does. If he at all conciously chooses to try to save another, it is a deliberate sacrifice.
If, as I believe, an unborn child is a human being, it is clear the child has no choice. In fact, that choice is taken away.
If you cannot see this difference, then our views of reality don’t even intersect. You don’t have to agree with me that the child is an innocent human being, but please understand my position at least enough to recognize that your question is patently absurd. I would no more advocate sacrificing an unborn child than I would a one year old kid.
Jim in Iowa
“Several times in your comments you use the term “neocon” to describe the wing of the Republican party that strongly opposes embryonic stem sell research. I think you’ve got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy. As a general rule, the neo-con wing of the GOP (along with the relatively small group libertarian-leaning Republican) would be the least likely group to oppose stem cell research.”
Thanks for the clarification. At this point I was pretty much using Neocon to cover the most extreme aspects of Bush’s right wing supporters. I didn’t know there was that kind of distinction.
PAD
“In reality, what is the difference between a soldier dying while saving a city and the stem cells from a baby who’ll never be born saving millions of people from a variety of diseases?”
That the former might just have volunteered for it and the latter did not?
“yeah, really admirable the way she abandonned deeply held convinctions and start supporting stem cell research just because her husband had something to gain by it. Selfish and self-centered if you ask me.”
If he’s already dead, she has nothing more to gain by it. If she continues her efforts that alone should prove her sincerity.
“Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan’s visage on American currency. This will only gather steam now. The three options discussed are:
1.) Replacing FDR on the dime…”
Why can’t North American currency be like the Japanese one? They don’t have politicians on theirs. Rather, it’s USEFUL people such as writers, teachers, so forth. On the paper currency, anyway. The coins have objects/symbols.
“3) Put sign next to pill reading “If you don’t remember why this pill is here, take it.”
I’m *not* joking.
You say your not joking, but it’s pretty funny; in a sad way, (considering that you will do this.)”
Sad, yes. But the alternative?
I took mother to a small chapel for Christmas Eve service last year. This chapel was located in an old folks’ home literally two doors down from her place. The two front rows of pews were missing, and the space was occupied by a couple of rows of wheelchair-bound residents.
Partway through the service, there was a brief interruption while a couple of nurses came in and handed them various medicines. This drew my attention in their direction and I wish it hadn’t because it really threw a damper on the evening noting the blank, barely-there expression on those faces, eyes devoid of any real life or awareness.
There are those (including my mother) who think I should try to eat a little healthier and take a little better care of myself. Maybe I should. But, given a choice between dying of a heart attack before I reach 60, and living to be 90, but as a vegetable for the last few years, well …
Jim,
To adress your question, the problem with using adult stem cells (from what I have read) is that they are very limited in what can be done with them. An adult stem cell is still somewhat ‘programed’ with what functions they can perform. You cannot, for example, use an adult stem cell to repair nerv damage. The fetal stem cell is still essentially a blank slate and can be made (theoretically) to do all manner of things.
And while I’m here, I might as well gripe some. I’m all for stem cell research, and have no moral qualms in the use of fertilized cells that would otherwise have been discarded. However, I think that other supporters are overzealous in their claims that this research WILL cure this or that. It only has the potential right now. Nothing is assured. I think to go around and state that it CAN cure disease x gives people the wrong impression.
Now, I’m not talking to anyone specific, or any one comment made in particular. Its just someting I pick up on posts from time to time. No personal attacks, please.
One thing that I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned on this blog…apparently, Mr. Reagan’s favorite newspaper strip was Spider-Man (I saw that on 60 Minutes last night).
That almost makes me like him. Actually, that’s unfair; in the case of every president whose time in office gave me the heebie-jeebies, once they were out of office (and couldn’t hurt me any longer), I stopped being grumpy at them.
As far as having to deal with something personally causing someone to do a one-eighty on their convictions, I’m going to have to go with PAD on this one; until my mother developed dementia, I didn’t give it a second thought (apart from it being unfortunate for everyone involved). If her position on Alzheimer’s research has changed, well…life is change.
Regardless of one’s opinion of Mrs. Reagan, she’s comported herself admirably since Mr. Reagan’s condition became public. I only hope that I do half as well as she has.
While I don’t exactly share the opinion of being a huge fan of Hamilton, I don’t think he ought to be replaced on the ten. Did anybody notice that the bicentennial of his death is in about a month? (July 11, 1804). I relish in being able to whip out a ten to exlain who Hamilton was. It occurs to me that much of the point of memorializing people on things like money is so that these figures remain in our consciousness, so that the younger generations that follow their passing can look at these everyday symbols (or statues) and ask, “Who’s that?” and learn something. To start replacing the old icons with fresher ones strikes me as turning our back on our history.
If there must be some monetary memorial to Reagan, how about the back of quarters, which hardly seems sacrosanct in light of the state series (which I think is real cool, by the way)
Pete
It’s good that Mr. David doesn’t wish to “talk trash about the dead,” as he says. It’s nice to have manners. However, on the other side of the aisle, people like Rush, Michael Wiener and Hannity have rarely shown that kind of consideration for their opponents. I don’t recall that kind of consideration when Paul Wellstone died. And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying “God Hates Fágš” or “He’s Burning in Hëll Now” at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals.
It’s always accepted that the left is supposed to have manners, and the right is permitted not to. Now that there are some liberals taking Rush’s liberties for their own, the right is getting offended. Gee, does it hurt much?
We’ve already got the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, the Reagan International Airport, the Reagan Building, and, in northern LA, the Reagan Freeway (often the butt of jokes by Angelinos, who used to say it was just like a Reagan speech – starting nowhere in particular, ending nowhere near any point of interest, and wandering all over the place in between). Why would we need to put Reagan on money, or a mountain?
Thomas E. Reed,
Actually, unless you have some quotes to back it up, everything I recall about when Paul Wellstone died, Rush didn’t attack him at all. He merely broke the news, spoke his regrets, and moved on. Did he spend the day speaking Wellstone’s praise? Nope. But neither did he attack him. Not sure anyone else did either. The Right was fairly respectful of Wellstone after his death, until the election rally disguies as a funeral.
But if you have quotes or evidence to back up your statements, I’d love to see them. Other than, well, “everyone just knows Rush would say that”.
And as for the “”God Hates Fágš” or “He’s Burning in Hëll Now” signs at a funeral, most leading republican and even people such as Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity and more codemn that type of behavior…there are always wackos….I don’t group all liberals in with the people who’ve been posting as some sites hoping that Reagan is burning in hëll, or hoping that America gets nuked. But there are liberals saying those things….
You can always find extremes to make your point. How bout we just deal with rational people. Al Franken and Ann Coultie remain outside please…lol
I agree with Nancy’s new stance on stemcell research. But, let’s face it, it was inspired purely by self-interest and not a longing to better humanity, much like Chris Reave. Now if she had said it BEFORE the Gipper had to start wearing Depends, THEN I’d be impressed! (And, is it just me, or does Nancy look EXACTLY like the Joker?!?)
*****
“Do you suppose that waiting hands on eyes/Veronica has gone to hide/And all the time she laughs at those/Who call her name and steal her clothes.” –Elvis Costello’s take on Alzheimer’s
“And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying “God Hates Fágš” or “He’s Burning in Hëll Now” at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals.”
Wow, if that isn’t the most insulting thing I’ve heard this week (though, admittedly, it’s early). Christians, by and large, love people. That a nut job like Phelps hides behind a label is sad; that someone actually believes he represents the rest of us, that’s worse.
Christians, by and large, love people. That a nut job like Phelps hides behind a label is sad; that someone actually believes he represents the rest of us, that’s worse.
The problem ends up being that perhaps Christians don’t do enough in general to try and put themselves above the bad ones that say and do such things.
All in all, thinking about the whole Reagan thing, some things come to mind.
First, everybody goes on about how he was a great speaker. Well, he ought to be – he started out as a sports announcer in the Quad Cities and Des Moines, IA and then became a rather successful actor.
Second, while I think his death is important, it’s rather a shame that it is overshadowing the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. Something I heard recently said that WWII vets are dying by the thousands every day.
So when they had a moment of silence for Reagan before the vets at the Cubs game yesterday, I could only shake my head.
But overall, I’m still stuck looking at his presidency from a pair of binoculars, as I wasn’t really old enough to remember anything he did in office.
Shortdawg the comment about the man wearing Depends is unnecessary,there is nothing funny about the effects of Alzheimers.As far as Mrs Reagans ‘appearance she is 80 some odd years old
why do you care how she looks??
As far as it be self serving maybe so,but if her interest changes peoples’opinions or gets more interest in it ,i can live with her being self serving.By the way ,its Reeve not Reave.
There was another comment earlier from someone about artificial means of conception to help barren women concieve.Just a thought ,maybe there is reason not all people should be able to have children,there are alot of abused,neglected and unwanted kids on this planet.Maybe that same time could be spent to care for the kids we already have instead of making new ones for those who cant procreate on their own.
By the way i was kinda pìššëd the coverage was taken away from the veterans.The news really should have been all about them.There is a patient at my job who was all over the pacific and i believe lost brother or cousin during D-Day.I get the importance of a presidents’ death
but if not for these guys he made not have had a chance to be President of the U.S.
Jerome: I miss the Vet too 🙁
Does anyone know what
“And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying “God Hates Fágš” or “He’s Burning in Hëll Now” at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals.”
To tar all evangelicals with having the level of hatred of Fred Phelps–a guy who can find no real church that would want him–puts you a whole lot closer to his way of thinking than the people you tried to condemn.
I support stem cell research but my own experiences in bioresearch make me question PAD’s statement about “the incredible benefits of stem cell research”. It needs the word “potential”. Dropping fetal cells on the brains of victims of wasting brain diseases has the potential to cure them…or kill them quickly from multiple tumors. Time will tell.
Personally I’m expecting a lot more from nanotechnology, and this is from someone who just a few years ago thought that it was DNA research that was going to solve all of our problems…
Attempts to clone research chimps has shown that there seems to be something in the genome of primates that resists cloning by any means we have available today. I don’t think masses of cloned humans are any kind of worry right now…
We are cloning cattle to feed people. It works fine – as long as you don’t tell people the beef is cloned. They seem to have a tendency to freak out and assume there’s something inherently more dangerous about the meat, just because it was subjected to a high-tech procedure early in its genesis. However, the real problem with starvation today doesn’t seem to be a matter of food supply – it’s a matter of getting the food to the people who need to eat. Somalia makes a wonderful example. For decades, the warlords of Somalia have maintained a grip on the region, long after the logic of history would have suggested their obsolescence, by controlling the availability of food – rebel against your local warlord, and starve. We tried to ship food in there once. Some of you are old enough to remember the result.
As for living space, perhaps we will exceed the carrying capacity of this planet. However, there are eight other planets in this system, along with a large number of moons, a larger number of asteroids, quite a few comets, and an unending supply of solar energy. There’s no good reason why we can’t take advantage of all that…
Personally, I dislike that most national-level memorials/tributes (currency, etc.) are given to a whopping two groups; politicians and soldiers. And I count folk like Martin Luther King as politicians/leaders of a large group of people. I suspect it’s not a coincidence that it’s politicians deciding to honor other politicians.
Personally, I think life is much more impacted by scientists/engineers (admittedly I have my own personal bias here) and perhaps writers. If you had to pick the most worldclass influential person of the 1990s, would you go with Bush I, Clinton, or Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web? But Bush and Clinton get libraries and similar memorials, while Berners-Lee almost certainly won’t.
Re: No more USS Saratoga
Actually, Chuck, the shift is much more subtle. Traditionally battleships were named for states, cruisers for cities, destroyers for people, carriers for battles (hence the USS Saratoga you mentioned) and submarines for fish. Following World War II the naming system was changed. Ballistic missile submarines are named for states (Ohio Class), attack submarines for cities (Los Angeles Class), cruisers for battles (Ticonderoga Class), and both carriers and destroyers for people (Nimitz and Arleigh Burke Classes… you might do better complaining about the Navy naming everything after retired CNOs). It’s the fish that get shafted, not the historic names.
Deano,
Nice comments. Thanks for addressing the tastelessness of the depends and joker remarks.
I also understand what you are saying in regard to “neglected, unwanted” kids. But I don’t think that necessarily goes hand in hand with “too many” children.
In Philly last year, there were a horrifically high number of high-profile incidents involving the death/torture/rape of children.
Most of these, unfortunately, are by friends or family members.
How can we protect them all? The sad and scary answer is we can’t.
No matter how many children there are.
“Several times in your comments you use the term “neocon” to describe the wing of the Republican party that strongly opposes embryonic stem sell research. I think you’ve got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy. As a general rule, the neo-con wing of the GOP (along with the relatively small group libertarian-leaning Republican) would be the least likely group to oppose stem cell research.”
Thanks for the clarification. At this point I was pretty much using Neocon to cover the most extreme aspects of Bush’s right wing supporters. I didn’t know there was that kind of distinction.
PAD
Me neither. I didn’t even know there was a term for people like me. Apart from “áššhølë lawyer” of course.
Mr. Maida,
As promised, my responses…
“Uh, NOTHING has changed in the past 40 years? This is an extremely cynical statement, and flies in the face of reality.”
Yes, I am cynical (for reasons I won’t go into here) and I’ll admit that my cynicism tends to skew my ‘world-view.’ The point I was trying to make, and I should have articulated it far better than I did, was that the issues of 1964 are still issues in 2004. That in 40 years time these issues have not been adequately adressed or acted upon. If I knew where to find a transcript of that speach I’d direct you to it because it’s quite interesting and it illustrates, quite well if you ask me, the stagnation that we are in with the two-party system.
The “status quo” comment I made was not so much a shot at Reagan as it was at the career polititians, those that have a vested interest in the status quo as it helps to maintain their power-base.
Monuments. I think of them as a waste of money because, and this may just be a ‘Mitch thing’, I believe that the best way to honor and show our gratitude to those that came before us is to demonstrate it in our deeds. Think of it as an ‘actions speak louder than words’ aproach. On the other hand, since a good deal of these monuments are funded by donations (thanks for that tidbit by the way. I wasn’t aware of that), who am I to tell you how to spend your money?
“What cutbacks are made, when these monuments are built”
None. Okay?”
Okay.
“Please get off your high horse.”
It would seem that I attempted to lead my high horse to water and, indeed, it wouldn’t drink. Consider me dismounted.
“Can’t we just slap their faces on a coin”.
“Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan’s visage on American currency”
Someone had mentioned the back of the quarter in response to your statement. I don’t think that would be a bad idea. Perhaps an “American Heroes” series for the back sides of paper money would work as well? Maybe have two fronts. The five dollar bill could have one front with the visage of Martin Luther King along with the current front of Lincoln. Sort of a testament to “Ever Growing Freedom.” I think something like that would be justifyable. Personally, I’d like to see a Rosa Parks Silver Dollar. To my mind she’s a real hero. I bet she wouldn’t think so.
In any case Mr. Maida, thanks again for making me think. Always a good thing.
Salutations,
Mitch Evans
When you disagree with a politican, are you disagreeing with the person or their opinions?
When Reagan was in office, I disagreed with a lot of his domestic policies because most of them affected people below a certain income level. Usually me and my family.
When Reagan left office, the first Bush continued those same ideals, but my disagreement was still with the policies, not the person.
My sympathy actually went out to Reagan when the Alzheimers news first went public.
Regardless of your political ideals, you have to have at least some sympthay for a family who just lost a member, as well as respect for a woman who put up with who knows what for the last ten years before the end.
Mitch,
You’re welcome. Thanks for the conversation! You make valid points as well. The “Ever Growing Freedom” idea is pretty cool. And, yes, actions are more a tribute than ststues or museums, but sometimes the people honored by the statues/museums can inspire someone to take action!
Mr. Maida,
You’re welcome as well. I agree that inspiration is an important factor in life. Not to toot my own horn, but the more I think about this ‘Ever Growing Freedom’ idea the more I like it. I just wish I had a way to impliment it.
Until next time Mr. Maida.
Salutations,
Mitch
The comments above about overpopulation may have to be rethought–there is growing evidence that the problem of the next 100 years may well be the economic fallout of reduced birthrates in most parts of the world.
read THE EMPTY CRADLE for an interesting perspective. The USA will be ok for a while due mostly to our immigration rate but Europe and especially Japan will be facing serious problems soon. I know that this flies in the face of everything we’ve been told (and what I’ve been teaching my students) but it is definitely worth pondering.
The population statistics are for developed nations. Overpopulation is really hurting 3rd world countries.
Karen,
Yes. That is why democracy, better education and prosperity are so important. It seems insane, but one of the reasons so many Third World nations have such high birthrates is BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE DIE YOUNG. Due to starvation, war, AIDS, etc. So they have a lot of children in the hopes that some make it to adulthood.
Religion and culture plays a large role in a lot of these areas as well.
But women, when empowered and educated, will almost always choose to have less children.
And, yes, i feel the conventional wisdom about “overpopulation” is horrifically incorrect, and will be proven to be so.
We are paying our farmers NOT to grow food, for heaven’s sake.
We have more than enough food and resources to keep everyone healthy and fed, but it is an enormous international political problem that prevents us from doing so. In some countries, famine is used as a WEAPON instead of war against certain groups.
We have plenty of space, too. We would just need to show a capacity to share.
Craig,
1.)It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold “AIDS KILLS FÃGS DEAD” signs. I have seen such behavior in Philadelphia, and it really is repulsive. But to tar all Christians with the same brush would be like those who tar all members of the Islamic faith with a “terrorist” brush.
2.) The Cold War would not have ended regardless. That is revisionist history. I remember those who said Communism in general and the USSR could never be truly defeated (much like people talking about terrorism today). It’s easy to say something was inevitable after the hard work has been done to achieve it. It is also incorrect.
3.) As far as the Russians, they had to live through Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler (somehow, this is ignored by EVERYONE) and decades of “bad harvests”. Slowly but surely things are getting better for them, which was impossible under the rule of the Sickle and Hammer (and many are immigrating here as well).
It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold “AIDS KILLS FÃGS DEAD” signs.
Yes, it is extremely unfair. Now, what are the Christians going to do about it?
(somehow, this is ignored by EVERYONE)
Actually, I just made a comment somewhere else the other night on this fact.
“Personally, I’d like to see a Rosa Parks Silver Dollar. To my mind she’s a real hero. I bet she wouldn’t think so.”
My wife once had the privilege of meeting Rosa Parks in person. She asked Ms. Parks what led her to her act of rebellion on that bus. Ms. Parks’ reply: “Rebellion? Heavens, child, I was just tired and wanted to sit down!”
That simple reply, although Ms. Parks still wouldn’t think so, was another life-changing act – it made Hillary rethink a lot of her militant attitude of the time, which meant that by the time she met me, she was ready to see me as a person, not as a color… 🙂
“My wife once had the privilege of meeting Rosa Parks in person. She asked Ms. Parks what led her to her act of rebellion on that bus. Ms. Parks’ reply: “Rebellion? Heavens, child, I was just tired and wanted to sit down!”
That simple reply, although Ms. Parks still wouldn’t think so, was another life-changing act – it made Hillary rethink a lot of her militant attitude of the time, which meant that by the time she met me, she was ready to see me as a person, not as a color… :)”
That’s a cool story. And it’s why I think highly of Rosa Parks. One doesn’t have to be militant to have a huge impact. In fact I’d say that being militant is taking the easy way out and only serves ones ego.
Salutations,
Mitch
“It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold “AIDS KILLS FÃGS DEAD” signs.”
“Yes, it is extremely unfair. Now, what are the Christians going to do about it?”
Um…hope that the people who are so ignorant that they yield to their bigotry against an entire group based on the actions of a few will learn the error of their ways before they allow their hatred to make them even more miserable than they doubtless already are? I mean, what the hëll CAN one do? If a person is determined to be a hater there is precious little that one can reasonable do.
I would hope that they don’t sweat it too much. If you know a person hates you and you know the reason, and the reason is a defect in the haters logic…go on with your life, there are plenty of better people to spend time on.