posted on June 12, 2004 04:42:15 AM new
Jimmy Breslin
June 11, 2004
I offered my small prayer for Ronald Reagan when he was shot by this Hinckley. I said another prayer for him when I read this graceful note that he issued about his Alzheimer's.
Having said this, I now strongly endorse a suitable memorial for him.
Ronald Reagan belongs on a $3-bill.
You are supposed to honor and respect the dead. But you also must respect the truth, and live for the living - and this funeral has gone on for almost a week. I am in a car and I hear the radio announcer, who is supposed to be telling you news, whisper:
"The color guard quietly leaves the casket viewing area and marches with the colors towards the two hearses; they are taking no chances and have a backup ... "
I was waiting for him, or somebody next to him, to let out a sob.
For the funeral of Ronald Reagan, they took the body from Beverly Hills to Simi Valley, the white Los Angeles suburb, where it stayed for a day and a half or so then they drove it in one of these two hearses to the airport and flew it to Washington and then they had a march and afterwards put the casket into the Capitol for crowds to pass by and now there was to be another march and a religous service and then a drive to the airport, where the casket will be shuttled back to the airport south of Los Angeles and in a hearse to the final ceremony at his library on Friday. That is quite a funeral. They buried George Washingon in half the time.
You keep thinking of Harry Truman, whose code was, "Do not impose." He left an order that there were to be no eulogies at his funeral.
This man Reagan was 93 years old and out of it with Alzheimer's for many years and I don't see how anybody can summon grief. They proclaimed it a deep religious ceremony. Which it is not. His whole weeklong funeral is cheap, utterly distasteful American publicity.
The great American news industry, the Pekinese of the Press with so much room and time and nothing to say, compared Reagan to Lincoln and Hamilton, they really did. This is like claiming that the maintenance man wrote the Bill of Rights. And almost all the reporters agreed that Reagan was the man who brought down Russia in the Cold War.
Just saying this is absolutely sinful. The Cold War was won by a long memo written by George Kennan, who worked in the State Department and sent the memo by telegram about the need for a "Policy of Containment" on Russia. Kennan said the contradictions in their system would ruin them. Keep them where they are and they will tear themselves apart. We followed Kennan's policy for over 40 years. The Soviets made it worse on themselves by building a wall in East Berlin. When they had to tear it down and give up their system, Kennan was in Princeton and he sat down to dinner.
I thought that children were taught this. Instead, all week, reporters told us that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Beautiful.
Ronald Reagan was an actor. He was as real as the line he used to keep his fame alive. "Win one for the Gipper."
The line was complete Hollywood, down to agents who fought over it.
In 1938, a radio show, "Cavalcade of America," had a segment about coach Knute Rockne of Notre Dame and his star back, George Gipp, who was dying of pneumonia and supposedly said to Rockne, "Someday, when the team's up against it, the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got! Win one for the Gipper."
Warner Brothers bought the radio segment and assigned screen writer Robert Buckner to put the "Win one" line into his otherwise original screenplay of "Knute Rockne All American."
Pat O'Brien was Rockne and Reagan was George Gipp. Reagan delivered "Win one for the Gipper" extremely well; he was a lot better actor than he was supposed to be.
When the writers of the radio show saw the movie, they realized that this guy was getting their best line. "Win one ... "
"Where is ours?" they asked. Warner Brothers made a quick settlement and the film was released with Reagan's famous speech.
But for a television release, the line was taken out of the film because Warner didn't want to pay any more. It is back in the video, my friend Harry Haun notes in his book, "The Cinematic Century."
In government, he was as real as his trademark line. He was a callous man with a smile who cut taxes in 1981 and left this city and state without funds for such things as help for dependent children. He proudly hurt the boroughs of this city more than anyone before or after him. If you live in Brooklyn, the record shows that Ronald Reagan hated children. The city and state had to raise taxes to make up for money lost because of Reagan's great conservative movement. Reagan then raised taxes six times. He walked off, leaving us an enormous deficit but with a smile on his face that even the Gipper's fakery couldn't help us with.
I rec'd these interesting thoughts from a friend of mine in London regarding Ronald Reagan. Thought you'd find them interesting:
"Reagan was the guy who invaded Grenada, a country which is a part of the Commonwealth and hence has our Queen as its Head of State.
His motives may have been good, but should he not have told us in advance? It caused a stink at the time.
The Wall itself came down by accident rather than design (a rather stupid public misstatement by one of the East German Politburo, Günter Schabowski).
The collapse of the old East German regime a few months previously was organised by a guy called Gorbachev...
The West had nothing to do with either.
As far as Reagan is concerned, it is interesting to note that, at the time, we viewed him as a dangerous right-wing extremist. But now we have Bush, Reagan seems a moderate by comparison..."
The citizens of the UK would like to pass this message along to Bush:
The Queen is not only Queen of the United Kingdom, but Head of the Commonwealth, a voluntary association of 53 independent countries.
"The Queen is Queen not only of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu."
So, if you have any plans to attack anyone of these countries, please notify the Queen. LOL!
posted on June 12, 2004 06:14:36 AM new
Cheryl., that's not a problem! I did the same thing and after editing I was accused of writing something "nasty". Then, I found a recipe for pancakes in a political thread! Hahaha. Maybe, boredom is affecting us.
I enjoyed reading that article and I agree with Truman. This should have been a brief ceremony or mention in Washington with a private funeral for his family. A week long televised funeral was excessive - expecially for a president with Reagan's history. Unfortunately, he accomplished nothing that could be considered "great".
posted on June 12, 2004 09:39:39 AM new
That would be nice Helen, but its always been deceased Presidents, with the exception of Franklin (is there more? )
posted on June 12, 2004 09:52:27 AM new
Right, Nearthesea...Have fun but don't spend too many dead presidents!
A hundred dollar Franklin is really sweet
A five hundred McKinley is the one for me
If I get a Cleveland, I'm really set
A thousand dollar Cleveland is hard to get
posted on June 12, 2004 11:26:56 AM new
Let's see, a three dollar bill. I know what someone means when they tell me someone else is a three dollar bill. So, you want Reagan's picture on a bill that personifies the homosexual lifestyle. I guess that is a back-handed honor to RR in a way. OK, I support this movement, take three dollar bill away from the homosexuals and give it dignity. Sorta similar to the way the youngsters took 'gay' away from them and redefined it to mean 'really lame'.
Is it a prerequisite to not think things through to be homosexual? Or does it just come with the package like the tiresome in your face barbra streisand?
Personally I hope homosexual marriage gets legalized and then divorce gets outlawed. Wonder what THAT would do to the murder statistics?
__________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 12, 2004 02:58:11 PM new
I've heard the reference made when referring to someone or something 'being as phony as a $3.00 bill' before. And some referring to a $3.00 bill when speaking of something the believe is counterfeit.
But neither of those would be descriptive of President Reagan, so I'm just so sure that's not what was meant here.
posted on June 12, 2004 05:21:24 PM new
Couldn't but Reagan on a $3.00 bill. Clintons already on it.
------------------
Apparently the Pole's appreciate Reagan more that those supposed Americans knows as libs.
-----------------
REMEMBERING REAGAN
In Solidarity
The Polish people, hungry for justice, preferred "cowboys" over Communists.
BY LECH WALESA
Friday, June 11, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
GDANSK, Poland--When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989.
Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they would consider their life and work pointless. Only such politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was one of them.
The 1980s were a curious time--a time of realization that a new age was upon us. Communism was coming to an end. It had used up its means and possibilities. The ground was set for change. But this change needed the cooperation, or unspoken understanding, of different political players. Now, from the perspective of our time, it is obvious that like the pieces of a global chain of events, Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and even Mikhail Gorbachev helped bring about this new age in Europe. We at Solidarity like to claim more than a little credit, too, for bringing about the end of the Cold War.
In the Europe of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan presented a vision. For us in Central and Eastern Europe, that meant freedom from the Soviets. Mr. Reagan was no ostrich who hoped that problems might just go away. He thought that problems are there to be faced. This is exactly what he did.
Every time I met President Reagan, at his private estate in California or at the Lenin shipyard here in Gdansk, I was amazed by his modesty and even temper. He didn't fit the stereotype of the world leader that he was. Privately, we were like opposite sides of a magnet: He was always composed; I was a raging tower of emotions eager to act. We were so different yet we never had a problem with understanding one another. I respected his honesty and good humor. It gave me confidence in his policies and his resolve. He supported my struggle, but what unified us, unmistakably, were our similar values and shared goals.
I have often been asked in the United States to sign the poster that many Americans consider very significant. Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, the poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll. It was a simple but effective gimmick that, at the time, was misunderstood by the Communists. They, in fact, tried to ridicule the freedom movement in Poland as an invention of the "Wild" West, especially the U.S.
But the poster had the opposite impact: Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland. It is always so touching when people bring this poster up to me to autograph it. They have cherished it for so many years and it has become the emblem of the battle that we all fought together.
As I say repeatedly, we owe so much to all those who supported us. Perhaps in the early years, we didn't express enough gratitude. We were so busy introducing all the necessary economic and political reforms in our reborn country. Yet President Ronald Reagan must have realized what remarkable changes he brought to Poland, and indeed the rest of the world. And I hope he felt gratified. He should have.
Mr. Walesa, winner of the 1983 Nobel Peace Prize, was president of Poland from 1990 to 1995.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on June 13, 2004 12:18:54 PM new
I'm sorry, kraftdinner, but some ideas are difficult to articulate with words limited to four position holders or less.
You are so gay, as used now.
I had to re-structure the concepts and condense them to fit the prerequisite conceptualization to meet kraftdinner's comprehension criteria, I cogitate kraftdinner ultimately thanking me for my observation or being duly offended. Either paradigm is acceptable.
___________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 13, 2004 12:50:17 PM new
Parklane, you're a million times smarter than I'll ever be. By the time I look up the meaning of all your big words, then try to figure out how you meant them, I'll be dead.
