Reagan May Have Died, Cannot Recall At This Time

I take great offense at the title of this thread. Alzheimer's runs in my family on both sides. I helped my parents care for my grandmother who suffered from it during her last years. It is a cruel disease, and the likelihood is that I will one day suffer the same fate.You enjoy taking cheap shots at people who can't defend themselves, do you?

You often provide a humorous touch to arguments against intolerance on this forum and I appreciate that. However, I consider insensitivity to be just as bad as intolerance, and I must say that I'm surprised at you. I thought you were better than that.I think most anyone seeing the title to this thread is going to think of Alzheimer's, not Iran-Contra. IMO there is much more than IC about which to criticize Ronald Reagan. However, out of respect for his family I will not offer any criticism of the man until a decent period of mourning has passed. Maybe, as Absholam seems to imply, this is a Southern thing. For whatever reason, though, I will reserve my judgement of Reagan for another day and another thread.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

...if you're a dead guy, lord forbid anybody point out that you were a man and not a god...

---

That's not at all what I'm saying, crash. I already said there is much about which to criticize Reagan. However, it goes against everything I believe to criticize a man or woman during the period when family and friends are mourning their death. I would observe the same formality no matter who died, except perhaps for a murderer or rapist. There are plenty of ex-presidents who I would be more than happy to condemn publicly, but I would ignore the period of mourning for none of them.But even that wasn't the point of my original post. I took offense at the title to this thread. The IC scandal did not instantly pop to mind, although Dan is correct, I do remember the quote and I remember how it was repeated endlessly. The IC scandal occurred almost two decades ago, however; it isn't fresh in my memory.Since the topic has been opened, I will offer a thought or two about Nancy: when Reagan was in office I thought she was perhaps the most shallow and self-centered first lady ever. Since Reagan became sick with Alzheimer's I've seen another side of her and I tip my hat to her. She's been through hell these past years (I know this from my own experiences with my grandmother) and she deserves the respect of anyone who cares about the victims of cruel diseases like Alzheimer's. I have no doubt that she will be an eloquent spokesperson for stem cell research now that she will have time to devote to the cause. I have a personal stake in this research and I welcome and appreciate anyone who is willing to speak out in favor of it, especially someone who has the sympathy of so many millions of people as Nancy does.

Am I really being that unclear? I said that I would observe the formality. I didn't say that you had to. If you consider Reagan a murderer or if you think he knowingly funded murderers and you can't wait a few days to say so then, by all means, knock yourself out.I repeat, my problem was with the title to this thread. I added that I would wait until after the period of mourning to offer my criticism of the man. If you have a problem with that then it's your problem, not mine.

Dan Carroll writes:

quote:

---

But you do seem to have felt the need to pop on the thread and comment on the subject of breaching formality, and I'm just curious as to how far it extends.

---

No, I didn't comment on the subject of breaching formality. That was Ab, and even though I understand where he's coming from I don't impose my standards on anyone else. I mentioned what my standard is, but I don't think I ever said that others must behave in the same way.This formality of observing a mourning period may indeed be a product of Southern upbringing. I never thought of it before. I've travelled to the North many times but I can't recall ever attending a funeral up there so I really don't know what the standards are.I will add, though, that even if I thought Reagan was himself a murderer, I wouldn't say so until after the mourning period was over. That would have nothing to do with him, rather it would have everything to do with respect for the family, in particular Nancy. If I thought she was no better than him I might ignore the mourning period, but that isn't the case.

I hope I am not mistaken as having said that Reagan should not be criticised because he is dead. I simply acknowledged that some people, myself included, will observe a period of mourning for those we respect or those whose families we respect. It may be a custom unique to the South, but in any case it is one I rather like and one I hate to see others abandon. I don't wish to impose this formality on anyone and I certainly don't want to stifle free speech.One thing I will say now is that I've had about enough of the wall-to-wall coverage in the news. The networks should save some of it for Friday, which is after all the national day of mourning. The coverage I've been seeing has become so over-the-top that it's beginning to border on idolatry, and that in itself is a form of disrespect imo.

It strikes me as utterly unbelievable that otherwise highly intelligent people require that something as simple as mourning customs must be spelled out in the starkest possible terms in order that they might understand. To wit...Chiroptera writes:

quote:

---

Now you seem to be sending mixed signals here. Do we only observe a period of mourning for those we respect?

---

As I stated in the very sentence you quoted, I would observe this formality for anyone I respect or for anyone whose family I respect. Is my use of the word 'or' the source of your confusion?

quote:

---

I have no respect whatsoever for Reagan. Am I therefore exempted from a period of mourning?

---

As I said in message 17, message 20 and message 27 I do not hold anyone else to this standard. You are free to damn Reagan to your heart's content.I don't see why everyone feels the need to justify their anger at Reagan with me. I'm NOT a Reagan Republican, as should be obvious from most any one of my posts dealing with any issue related even tangentially to politics. If you want to criticize Reagan it is far more likely that I will agree with you than challenge you. However, out of respect I will refrain from serious criticism during the period that the family is mourning his death.This has nothing to do with whether or not Nancy drops by evcforum. It has to do with the fact that this is a public forum.For the record, I do not consider Reagan to be a war criminal. If I did I should have to think the same thing of quite a number of other presidents I admire.

quote:

---

If so, then what are you complaining about?

---

No, no, what was I complaining about. That was some time ago, back at message 4. I was complaining about the title of this thread. One or two posts later I unwisely attempted to explain an apparently cryptic Southern custom, and since that time I seem to have been placed in the position of defending it.

crashfrog asks:

quote:

---

If it's not your purpose to defend the custom, then why are you doing it? Why did you even bring it up if not to condemn us for not following it?

---

I was explaining to Dan Carroll that I was more upset with his presentation and timing than I was with his message. I suppose in a way I wanted to be sure that my observance of custom was not mistaken for endorsement of Ronald Reagan.Again, it's not about breaking arms (to use your analogy), it's simply about what one says in public vs. what one says in private. Of course no member of the Reagan family is going to drop in on us. But Reagan sympathizers will. I'm willing to let them have a few days of peace to mourn one of their leaders. I'm not so dedicated to this man's memory that I will try to stop you if you wish to ignore the custom.I think I see what you're driving at, crash, and I'll concede the point on logic. However, customs like this are emotional, not logical. You do it because you yourself might want the same courtesy when a death occurs in your family.You've given me an opportunity to make (or, to be correct, reiterate) one more point: the person in all of this whom I admire most, if I haven't already made clear, is Nancy. She is the one person who can do the most for stem cell studies. She has the sympathy and respect of millions of people who otherwise would be highly unlikely to ever support this controversial research. She has the potential to become a great lady. If she rises to that potential, she herself will be the Reagan with the greatest legacy.

You keep quoting the word "Yankee". Where did I use it?ADDED IN EDIT: How is restraint equal to hypocrisy? I'm not saying one thing and believing another. I'm simply saying very little in public although I might say a lot in private. You call that hypocrisy?This message has been edited by berberry, 06-09-2004 03:40 AM

I'm still sick of the constant news coverage. It's beginning to remind me of the death of those two popes back in the 70s. There were only three TV networks back then, and all of them provided constant coverage of a chimney at the Vatican. The whole world waited, and waited, and waited, and waited some more for a wisp of smoke to come out of that chimney. I had a Catholic friend at the time, and I remember being stunned one of those days when he said he wanted to get home and watch that chimney. He was just sure it was going to smoke soon.For anyone who doesn't know, according to Catholic ritual, when the cardinals have completed the process of electing a new pope they send out smoke signals.Does anyone else remember this? Do you think the news networks will provide round-the-clock live coverage of that chimney when the current pope dies?

I've already objected to the idolatry, crash. Are you honestly trying to make the case that I cannot avoid the label of hypocrisy unless I openly rant about Reagan during his period of mourning? I didn't rant about Watergate or Vietnam during Nixon's mourning period, but I'm perfectly willing to do so now if you want. Does that mean I'm a hypocrit when it comes to Nixon?I'm not implying that you are any less a gentlemen because you don't honor this custom. I'm not trying to be superior. Please point out any language I've used that causes you to believe otherwise.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

No, but if you self-censor or otherwise obfuscate your real views, you're putting forth pleasant fictions instead of truth.

---

If I were putting forth fictions then I'd be lying. I haven't lied. I haven't praised Ronald Reagan in any way. Perhaps you take the biblical view that man and wife are one flesh. If that's the case, then I suppose I have praised the man by way of praising his wife. I suppose I'll just have to live with that and try to sleep at night in spite of it.

quote:

---

But if your point wasn't to condemn our position, then what is your point? Why didn't you just let it go in the first place?

---

I only intended to explain my position, not condemn anyone else's beyond the title and timing of this thread. Perhaps I was misleading in so doing but that wasn't my intent. I accept Dan's explanation that he meant no offense regarding Alzheimer's and I recognize your right, his right and everyone else's right to say whatever you wish.I didn't let it go because I kept being challenged on it. This custom may seem quaint to you, but I respect it and will abide by it. If I've offended you or anyone else I sincerely apologize.

Chiroptera observes:

quote:

---

...newspapers and television didn't observe any period of mourning before they began to offer a completely fabricated history of his administration.

---

With a little lattitude allowed to your use of the word 'completely', I agree, and I'm getting sick of it. As I see it (and I believe I mentioned this earlier) it is also disrespectful to offer fulsome praise during the mourning period, and that is precisely what the news media seem to be doing.

holmes,Glad to see you back. I've missed you.Yes, I see that virtualy everyone understood the title of this thread except for me. Thanks for once again bringing this up. It's so nice when people continue to point out my mistakes, not being satisfied with the fact that they've already been pointed out repeatedly. I have not kept myself immersed in the 1980s and therefore the Iran-Contra quote did not instantly come to mind. I believe I've already said (more than once but I'll repeat it for you since you don't seem to have read much of this thread) that I accept Dan's explanation and that, after being reminded, I do in fact remember the quote.Had the title been a reference to Alzheimer's, I think it would have gone beyond merely being tacky. It would have been the height of insensitivity, as far as I'm concerned. There is so much to criticize Reagan about that I would consider it beneath contempt to hone in on something he couldn't help.My respect is for Nancy more than anyone else, as I believe I've already stated. I said that when Reagan was in office, I thought of her as probably the most shallow, self-centered woman in Washington. I still think that that description fit her AT THAT TIME. The Alzheimer's experience changed her. I disagree that she "turned traitor". I think she came to realize that she (or more to the point, her husband) had been wrong. You don't think it's possible for a selfish woman to change? She's out there fighting one of the good fights and I support what she's doing 1000%. Why must I question her motives?I have already said, over and over and over again, that whenever I have respect for the deceased OR his/her family, I will observe the period of mourning. It's that simple. If you think that means that I'm a shallow, weak-willed person then I suppose I'll just have to find a way to live with that.AIDS is not the only health problem facing America, and it's not the only health problem I have to be concerned about. I remember how Reagan ignored AIDS. I remember protesting his inaction (AIDS protests are the ONLY protests I've ever participated in). Come tomorrow I will be more than happy to tell you what I really think of the man and his AIDS policies (or lack of same).I admire Nancy for being able to turn her grief - and let's face it, she didn't suddenly start grieving last weekend, she's been at it for years now - into a platform from which to speak in favor of stem cell research. I don't believe she's doing it only for selfish reasons, but even I did I would still say that she deserves respect for doing it.And now as I understand it she's come to blows with George Bush over this issue and has refused to attend this year's Republican convention unless she is granted a forum to speak in favor of stem cell research. I may be reluctant to tell you entirely what I think of Reagan on this specific day, but I will gladly tell you that I can't stand Bush. Nancy's spat with him only enhances her image in my eyes.As it happens, I don't think my condemnation of Reagan is much needed. My sentiments for the most part have already been expressed by others, including you. I argued against 90% of Reagan's policies during the time he was in office and during the first years of his retirement. It's all been a long time ago and my memory isn't fresh to the point that I could maintain a debate for long without having to spend time digging into old information to be sure I was right in making this or that point. You folks are doing a fine job, and come tomorrow the only thing I am likely to do is express agreement with some of what has already been said. I don't feel like arguing these points with Reagan's supporters all over again. The issues have changed, and I'd rather spend my time arguing against Bush and his policies.

Sorry to be so late getting back to this, I've been away for a few days.holmes, you're taking this way too seriously. As I told crashfrog several pages upthread, mourning customs can only be justified in emotional terms. They don't stand on logic.But on that emotional score, I do respect this custom that most of you seem to classify somewhere between 'quaint' and 'sinister'. As long as I don't believe that your family member, friend, leader or hero is a murderer, rapist or other violent criminal, I will observe this custom at the time of your grief.I've lost dear family members who some might describe as hateful people. They had enemies, but thankfully by custom almost no one spoke ill of them while the family was in town for the funeral. Even the most bitter former spouses seem to hold their tounge until after the funeral. It's just the way we do things here in the South. I'm not saying that our way is better than any other way, I'm just saying that it's our way.There's no way to justify this except to say that, for me, it just feels like the right thing to do. I assume no superiority for doing it, and I will think no less of you if you choose to ignore it.Of course, the mourning period is over now. I can damn Reagan to my heart's content, but for some reason I don't feel motivated to. It's been so many years that I'm just not very excited about the prospect of getting into an argument about Ronald Reagan's presidency. I'd rather talk about what's going on now. Besides, most of what I feel has already been expressed, particularly by schraf and chiroptera.There's not much I would give Reagan credit for. I agree with you that he deserves some for the end of the cold war. The only other thing I can think of that will have a lasting impact is one aspect of his tax reform: the destruction of many of the old tax shelters, particularly one by which wealthy people and/or companies were able to park their money in unproductive, losing enterprises deliberately for tax purposes. The whole point was to lose money and thereby reap benefits from Uncle Sam. Reagan was right to push for reforms that ended most of those old tax shelters.I don't remember supporting anything else about that tax reform package.I am curious about your condemnation of Nancy, though. I believe some of the most sincere people of all are those whose opinions have been changed by personal circumstance. You might look at it this way: her mind was changed because she was presented with convincing evidence that she was wrong. In this light, she is rather like the fundamentalist Christain who goes to college and learns about evolution. He or she is forced to confront what they've always been taught in a way that many of us can never really understand. I admire them when they are able to recognize the fact that they were wrong, even if they don't immediately see how they've been wrong about other things as well.