ronnie and mikey

i posted a letter from ronald reagan a few days ago that was sentimental and touching (i love to be touched), but i want to make it abundantly clear that i do not approve of reagan's politics. of course there is respect for the office and deference for the passing of a fellow human being and all, but as far as policies go it seems to me that he was just another overly-clandestine rightie.

concession: all politicians are clandestine by nature, but you have to compare the varying degrees. i find that nine times out of ten the righties go much further over the line than the democrats.

while i'm making side notes: democrats are not necessarily liberal, and liberals are not necessarily democrats.

so i was too young during the time of reagan's tenure to really give a shit about politics, so most of my opinion comes posthumously from information i've gathered recently. i've been hearing nasty-sounding words like "iran-contra" and "iraqi aid" (please read this one, it's amazing). all in all i'm not impressed. and keep in mind, bush sr. was veep under reagan, and probably much more than veep in the second term when reagan's mental capacities were waning. i could come up with a plethera of jokes about george w. and waning mental capacity right here, just insert your own.

reagan didn't end communism, communism did. did reagan have anything to do with it? his economic policies concerning the soviet union certainly didn't hurt the downfall. but it seems that the u.s.s.r.'s economic woes came from the inherent flaws of communism itself, not from reagan telling gorbachav to "tear down this wall". it doesn't matter though, since ronnie went on tv telling mikey to do it and it was subsequently done, there must be a cause-effect relationship there right? nah. but for us americans who only read headlines and look at purty pictures, it's enough. reagan's a hero (who said hindsight is 20/20?).

but reagan is dead now, and there's a possibility that the widow reagan may now be a persuasive ally in the fight for stem cell research. i heard joe conason say on the radio today that the conflict in the stem cell research issue is that between reason and stubbornness, or something to that effect. doesn't it seem that reason and tradition are at the foundation of every political controversy? think about gay marriage, anything religion-related, terrorism (and dealing with terrorism)... if you really look you'll see these at the heart of everything. then you have to really wonder why it is that people are so afraid of progress contributing to the greater good ($$$ maybe?). i've said it before, people are terrified of change, unless they're getting it back from a hundred-dollar bill.

album du jour: the cranes particles and waves