Remembering Reagan

Today is the 100th aniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, an event which has prompted many retrospectives and reminiscences in the MSM and blogosphere alike. 

I would date the beginning of my own real political awareness to Reagan's campaign and election in 1980.  Nearly all of my high school teachers went out of their way to denigrate him and offer dire prophesies of the manifold ills that would befall us if he was elected.  "Ronnie Ray-gun", they called him; "a dangerous cowboy" who "confuses his movies with reality".  Some seemed sincerly and utterly convinced that he'd instantly provoke the nuclear armageddon which hed been hanging over our heads for all of our young lives.  Full of the rebelliousness of youth, I wondered about the shock-value of professing to admire Reagan, how "bad" one might seem to ones right-thinking" (actually left-thinking!) elders!

But before long I discovered that there were some opinions contra the groupthink I'd encountered.  Many of them were offered grudgingly, in a backhanded manner: "he's actually a pretty smart guy for an actor", "too bad he's not younger, he did a decent job as Governor of California", "anyone's got to be better than Carter", and "at least he'll have Nixon on speed-dial when he has to deal with the Russkies!".

My opinion of the man was alrerady beginning to change when I saw a clip on the news one night in 1980.  "Controversy", the newscaster informed us, "at the Republican candidates' debate in  New Hampshire".  On-screen I watched the now-famous footage of a bespectacled moderator asking the sound man to turn Reagan's microphone off and a controlled but visibly angry Reagan's icy response: "Mr Green, I am PAYING for this microphone!" as the crowd erupted in cheers.  Believe me, it made an impression on me, as it apparently did on many others.  I think that brief incident did more to demolish the negative stereotypes held by many of the public who really knew nothing about Reagan other than what they'd seen in the movies and heard from the left-leaning media.

Many years later, I learned of another interesting incident which has only recently become slightly known (thanks to the Internet).  In 1967, Governor Reagan and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were guests on a CBS program called "Town Meeting of the World" which featured a panel of students representing various nations who were given an opportunity to question Reagan and Kennedy on the hottest issue of the day, the Vietnam War.  At the time Kennedy was regarded as a front-runner for the 1968 Democrat presidential nomination, the heir-apparent to the "Camelot Dynasty", while Reagan was something of a curiosity to many people, the actor-turned-politician who was a fledgling governor ("only in California") and presumed to be wholly ignorant of foreign policy.

A funny thing happened.  Ronald Reagan made "Bobby" Kennedy look like a rank amateur.  The "actor" parried every thrust from the hostile students, challenging their erroneous statements and presenting an alternative viewpoint to their generally anti-American rhetoric.  With cool confidence he reeled-off facts and figures, and delivered cogent answers which demonstrated real mastery of the subject.  By contrast Kennedy came off as weak and uncertain, seemingly trying to claim both sides of the issues, and spoke mainly in generalities.

Kennedy's assassination less than thirteen months later has enshrouded his memory in a mixture of legend and myth, and it is extremely difficult to locate any publicly-available footage of the show.  A brief segment is available on Youtube which gives some of the flavor of the exchanges:

Robert Kennedy excoriated the aide who agreed to the joint appearance with Reagan and vowed (in rather salty language) never to appear with him again.

There were plenty of defining moments during Reagan's presidency - four in particular that I hope to comment upon in a future post - but since the current post has gotten awfully long I'll conclude with one of my favrorite parodies of Reagan, from the days when Saturday Night Live was funny:

Where are the bishops?

We have just returned from our annual midwinter sojourn to D.C. for the March for Life.  Every year on (or about) the 22nd of January, pro-life Americans converge on the capitol to observe the anniversary of the lamentable decision by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

The Archlady and I - and each of the five archscions as they've arrived on the scene - have been making he trip for nearly fifteen years.  The March itself has been going on for thirty-eight years now.  We assemble, rally, march, tie-up traffic, mill-around outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court, visit our Senators and Representatives, and then quietly return home to begin making plans for next year.  The MSM barely deigns to acknowledge the March, much less provide any in-depth coverage or editorial examination of the serious issue at hand.  They know they can get away with it because with each passing year, even as polls indicate Americans are growing more and more pro-life, abortion-on-demand becomes a more entrenched element of the status quo.

You see, nothing has changed.  The immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade was a time of raw emotion and righteous indignation that the Greatest Nation on Earth could grant legal protection to such a barbaric and immoral act.  The Eighties were a time of hope and promise, with the election of President Reagan and the effort to pass the "Human Life Amendment".  Alas, it failed, most of the activity since then has been in the direction of further broadening or at least codifying various abortion-related "rights".

Joseph Stalin famously said that "a single death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic".  This seems to be the attitude of the media, who are able to work themselves into a well-lathered state of agitation about a single death, as long as it's the death of a "suspect" who initiated a gunfight with the police and lost, the long-delayed execution of a convicted criminal whose guilt is beyond questions, or a cute animal.  Meanwhile the million-plus babies aborted each year are only a footnote, and afterthought, and certainly not someting that merits a mention in the nightly newscast or the morning paper.

Since 1973 the Catholic Bishops have leading the fight against abortion - sort of.  It is of course the unambiguous teaching of the Church, to which all of the bishops are to give assent, that direct abortion for any reason is gravely sinful and can never be permitted.  Many individual bishops have been staunch and visible leaders, the late Edward Cardinal O'Connor of New York comes to mind, but others seem to display a curious detachment from this issue.  I find it particularly scandalous that each and every bishop is not on hand for the annual observances in Washington, D.C. each and every year.  Sure, there will be a few who can't come for authentic reasons, but I really wonder whether the presence of the entire U.S. episcopate, in person or represented by a senior member of their local curia, would help us to extinguish this enduring holocaust even a little bit sooner. 

Why cannot the bishops resolve to do this?  It is not as though they don't know where Washington is, and none of them seems to have embraced poverty to such an extent that they are unwilling to fly - if only in coach!  They certainly find their way to the Nation's Capitol when one of their pet political issues is being legislated, and of course the U.S.C.C.B. has its headquarters there.  Speaking of this "sorry bench of bishops", as His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska called them a few years ago, one wonders why they haven't done this.  Here we are, in an era when far too many bishops abdicate their God-given rights and responsibilities to govern, teach, and sacntify their own flock in favor of some lowest-common-denominator "policy" of the U.S.C.C.B., whom they seems to regard as the supreme authority in the Church.  How about having one of their annual meetings in D.C. during the week of the March?  Would the MSM dare ignore the entire episcopate - cardinals in scarlet and bishops in purple - marching at the head of +200k citizens down one of the main throughfares of the Capitol?  Perhaps they ask themselves, right now at least, "if this isn't important enough for ALL of the Catholic bishops to be there, why should we take any notice of it?"

Let me close by thanking all of those bishops who *do* come to the March every year, I didn't mean to imply that there were not many of them; my lament is that that even their witness is diminshed and diluted when so many of their brothers in the episcopate stay away.

Another Year Begins...

Wow - I didn't realize that it had been a whole month since I'd posted.  With this sort of performance I'm liable to lose my readership - all six of them!  Seriously, Merry Christmastide and Happy Hew Year!

it's been about a year since I started this little adventure and I'm wondering whether to wrap it up or continue a bit longer.  It's not that I haven't got anything to say - perish the thought - but I have so little free time that I don't feel that I am able to do justice to the subjects which matter to me. 

No, I'm not trolling for someone to beg me to keep blogging, just sharing what's on my mind.  That's sort of the purpose of this whole enterprise.  Anyway, I'm not one for "New Year's Resolutions" but if I'm going to continue I should "resolve" to post at least once a week to make it worthwhile.  But it's not a "New Year's Resolution"!!!

OK, if you've read this far you deserve some content.  So here goes:

1.) Tucson - MSM Frenzy - Obama's speech:

The events in Tucson were horrible, terrible, acts.  Acts of a deranged individual who actually wasn't a charter member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", the hyperventilations of the left and the MSM notwithstanding.  It is a lamentable shame that some leftist politicians and their allies in the MSM have sought to gain political advantage from it.  Fortunately the American people seem to be seeing through it.  The "alternative media" of the blogosphere has much to do with that.  The President gave easily the best speech of his term, probably his best since his single previous lifetime achievement, the speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention which nominated J.F. "Reporting-for-Duty" Kerry.

2.) Palin and Mania (not Palin-mania!):

It's astounding to me how the same folks in the MSM who've vilified Governor Palin in the most personal manner have been trying to claim the moral high ground in attempting to blame her for "inciting" the Tucson shooter.  Her response was quite good, but she shouldn't have had to make it.  Undoubtedly she'll be further pilloried for bothering to respond, at least one leftist pundit was castigating her on the air yesterday for "politicizing" the shootings  What is perhaps the most amazing is how commentators who otherwise strive to be taken seriously completely lose it at the mere mention of Mrs. Palin's name.  Personally I like her style but I question whether she's the right candidate for the G.O.P. in 2012, however I'd certainly vote for her if only to stick a finger in the eye of the MSM.  Which leads us to an interesting question:

3.) Obama and Palin (no Tucson):

According to their political opponents neither of them had sufficient experience to be president or vice president (repsectively).  Each has celebrity "star power" but they've both proven to be polarizing figures.  Has anyone else wondered whether things would be better or worse had the other become president?  Let's say McCain had been elected, pulled a "Harrison" (as in William Henry) and caught pneumonia during his inaugural address, and passed from this vale of tears in short order.  As of 1 February 2009 we'd have had an inexperienced, untested president thoroughly distrusted by the opposing party.  OK, that happened anyway.  But could things have been worse?  Or would they have been better?  I believe that three positive things would have happened: first, we wouldn't now have the albatross of "Obamacare" around our national neck, secondly the business community wouldn't have had to endure two years of uncertainty as to what direction the gevernment would take to try to influence the economy; and thirdly there would have been a real public debate about the judicial philosphies of type of justices nominated to the Sopreme Court (and neither of them would have been Sotomayer or Kagan!)

4.) Double-standard for quarterbacks?

Just thinking about the recent and not-so-recent travails of a couple of NFL QBs from the Deep South.  What if their trangressions - or their skin color - were reversed?  What if Brett Favre had been guilty of dogfighting and killing dogs, would he have been jailed?  Would he have even been suspended?  And what if Michael Vick had been guilty of "sexting" pictures of his nether regions to a female sports reporter?  How quickly would he have been suspended?  And for how long?  You know I'm not a grievance-monger but I couldn't help contrasting these two cases and wondering.  Sports is a great meritocracy, and there is probably less racism on the field and at the contract table than in any other sphere of American life.  And we've made enormous progress since the 1960's, to the point where most accusations of racism in today's world would be laughable to our forebears.  But again, I look at these two cases and wonder...

Worth 1,000 10,000 words...

Nothing I can say would add to the eloquence of this:



I can only hope that America's REAL enemies - not the "enemies" of those who seek blanket amnesty or the "hostage-takers" who fail to express sufficient enthusiasm for The Messiah's last-minute plan to retain the Bush-era tax rates, but those nations and political movements which wish America ill - don't view this image the same way I do...

God Bless America, now more than ever. Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above.  This is one dark night we're going through right now.

Christmas comes early for Red Sox Nation

I really can't believe that the Sox acquired Adrian Gonzales - their hearts' desire - from San Diego for three prospects.  This is huge, a bona fide 3 or 4 hitter who's not yet thirty and had averaged over 30 homers and 100 RBI playing half his games in the spacious and pither-friendly Petco Park.

Of course they traded their two best prospects, Kelly and Rizzo, and Fuentes has to be in their top ten.  And, rumor has it, there will also be a PTBNL heading San Diego's way.  But still, it looks like a real steal from where I sit.  Gonzales is virtually an identical player to Mark Teixeira, who the Sox ardently wooed before he signed with the Evil Empire in Gotham.  Tex is a switch-hitter and his numbers are slightly better, but he's played in better lineups and MUCH more hitter-friendly parks for the past five seasons.  But AG may be an even better fielder, which is no small feat; at least he seems to have superior range although that is hardly the most important attribute for a first baseman.

Of course, the reason AG was available is that he will be a free agent after 2011 and he's looking for a contract comparable to the one the Yankees gave Tex.  I have little doubt that the Sox will pony up, probably before the weekend is over.  They want this guy - they need this guy - Theo Epstein has been dreaming and scheming how to get this guy - and they're not going to let him slip away over a measly difference of ten or twenty millions of dollars.

Meanhile they're not done - they could still re-sign Adrian Beltre if they were intent on leading the league in Adrians, and there is some speculation that they might do so with an eye toward moving Youk temporarily to left field - egad!  Sort of a Yaz-in reverse - everyone remembers that Yaz was a superlative left fielder who became an decent first baseman, but not so many remember (and those of us who do would prefer to forget) his monthlong stint at third at the end of the '73 season, after he volunteered to fill-in for the injured Rico Petrocelli.

Youk is a decent third baseman who has made himself into a superlative first baseman but whose brief stints in left field were reminiscent of Yastrzemski's efforts at the hot corner.  Really gives one some appreciation for guys like Steve Lyons, Tony Phillips, Ben Zobrist, et al; who the manager can plug-in just about anywhere knowng that they won't embarrass themselves or the team.  But I digress.

I'm still a little woried about the catching situation - in Salty we trust, and let's hope they keep a good supply of Geritol onhand for Tek - and they need some major help in the bullpen, but this one move does a ton to solidify the batting order for 2011 and many years to come.

Can't wait for Spring Training!

More Catholic Eye Candy

Amongst the new cardinals created at the recent consistory was the Archbishop of Columbo in Sri Lanka, H. E. Malcolm Ranjith.  Some of you might remember Archbishop Ranjith from his time as the secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and his high-profile support of liturgical sanity and tradition.  It is well-known that he shares Pope Benedict XVI's vision for the Church and enjoys the Pope's confidence.  Many think he will be papabile at the next conclave...

Meanwhile I got quite the kick out of some of the photos from the homecoming festivities for the new cardinal.  These people know how to be joyous in their faith, no over-scrupulous quaverings about "triumphalism".  Of course Catholics - all Christians, actually - comprise less than a tenth of the population of Sri Lanka which makes me wonder what kind of relationship they have with the Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists of that land.  Must be fairly good, nobody seems to have objected to the Galeromobile being driven down the thoroughfares of their fair city. 

 
Pretty cool if you ask me - I challenge the Archdiocese of Braintree to rig up something like this next time we get a new Cardinal!

(For more photos of Cardinal Ranjith's joyous homecoming go here)

In which we finally DO complain...

The recent groundswell of dissatisfaction with the intrusive airport security measures visited upon ordinary Americans bade me to wonder what the late William F. Buckley, Jr. would have thought of it all.  Many years ago Buckley wrote an essay entitled "Why Don't We Complain?" in which he lamented the apathy with which most Americans supinely accept the ever-increasing incursions upon their freedom and autonomy by the government.

It would, of course, have been seen as quite impolitic had Buckley publicly expressed his chagrin at any of the enhanced security measures which were hastily enacted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.  But with the benefit of nine years experience and hindsight it is readily apparent that the basic approach to airport security, in which everyone is treates as equally suspicious, is simply the gesture of a bloated government which lacks the will to put your safety ahead of the totem of political correctness.

Any measure of security requires us to relinquish some of our personal liberty.  In many cases that's a fully acceptable trade-off; I am quite content to be disallowed to stroll blithely into the Pentagon carrying a concealed weapon because the odds are quite overwhelming that someone less trustworthy than little ol' me could try the same thing with malicious intent and purpose.  But the requirement that each and every passenger - even a nun in her habit, an infant, a grandmother in a wheelchair - all must submit to a full body scan or an invasive patdown - either of which is a gross affront to modesty - is sheer politically correct cowardice, required because the government is afraid to admit the truth.

We need only look at the practices which Israeil uses to see that these invasive measures need not be applied to every man, woman, and child that attempts to board an airplane.  The elephant in the room is "profiling", which we durst not even consider.  But every single attempted act of terrorism using airplanes against the United States has been perpetrated by indivduals who fit a certain "profile" - and I'm not speaking only of appearance or national origin.  Israel has lived under a constant threat from the same enemies who have now begun to target America and it has successfully protected it's air travelers through the use of intelligent screening and... "profiling"!

Perhaps enough finally is enough.  The Tea Party movement, which is a true grassroots American phenomenon, grew out of Americans' frustration at the erosion of their liberties at the hands of an ever-more intrusive and overreaching government.  I think the recent spate of airport security incidents is a manifestation of the same sort, representing a further awakening by Americans to the dangers posed by our government's aproach to governing.  William F. Buckley would no doubt be pleased by this turn of events and might note that we've finally started to complain!

Ironically, even after the results of the recent election and the MSM's coverage of the airport security controversy, the Obama administration still doesn't seem to get it.  We heard this week that Secretary of "Homeland Security" Janet Napolitano is considering a waiver of the intrusive screening requirements for... whom?  Nuns?  Infants?  Grandmothers in wheelchairs?  Nope, Muslim women!  You can't make this stuff up, as another Buckley - WFB's son Christopher, a novelist - has said: we're living in the post-satirical age!

But don't get me wrong, I'm fine with excluding Muslim women - and Catholic women, and Jewish women, and protestant women, and Mormon women, and Buddhist women, and lots of other women - and men - too.  99% of the traveling public ought to be able to answer a few questions from a screener, keep our shoes on, pass our carry-on baggage through an x-ray machine, and walk through a metal detector.  But we ought to adopt some common-sense "profiling" of passengers which would reserve these extraordinary screening methods for those indivuduals whose circumstances raise reasonable suspicions about their trustworthiness.  Even The Boston Daily Worker (a.k.a. The Globe) permitted publication of an op-ed piece recognizing this as long ago as 2006, but of course this isn't really the paper's editorial stance.  And the majority of the left, in particular the A.C.L.U., vehemently opposes any such practices. 

So - keep complaining, America; but in the meantime prepare to be exposed, humiliated, and groped.  Unless you're wearing a hijab and burkha, in which case you will probably sail through airport security with nary a touch...

UPDATE: lest anyone think I plagiarized George Will's column in Sunday's Washington Post, be assured that I didn't read it until several hours after posting the above.  But do read it yourselves, he has some good things to say - including the pithy description of the airport screening charade as "security theater"!  Pitch perfect!