Ronald Reagan: Say What You Like Thread

[shereads]

I'm still waiting to hear a single comment from the right about the prioritization of tax breaks for millionaires over combat pay and family housing of soldiers.

Anybody?

Ask quietly, or you'll attract Amicus. This is just the kind of question he loves. He'll blame the lousy benefits for soldiers and veterans on the greed of public schoolteachers and elderly Medicaid scammers, plus Bill Clinton who was a known serial rapist. I have Amicus on Permanent Ignore, for his own sake. It's the only way to keep him calm and on his meds.

The ironic thing is that all of the economic and military advantages this nation enjoys flow directly from science and technology. One inevitable result, if the Christian neo-cons have their way, would be a precipitous drop in our scientific and technical infrastructure capabilities, and thus in our economy and power.

Not to worry, smut. Jesus will be here by then and we won't need an economy.

 

[cantdog]

from the pen of the smutpen man:
The ironic thing is that all of the economic and military advantages this nation enjoys flow directly from science and technology. One inevitable result, if the Christian neo-cons have their way, would be a precipitous drop in our scientific and technical infrastructure capabilities, and thus in our economy and power.

I think some kinds of capitalism, you get blinders. You simply get shortsighted at first, tunnel visioned on your bottom line. After a while, the blinders grow. Soon you have to wilfully ignore things so they'll fit with your ideas of how things really go.

I saw it happen to my father. Less and less of what was happening around him could be acknowledged as he went further to the right. Once he passed Genghis Khan, he could see very little.

He still believed patent absurdities like that he was a good father. Everything he allowed himself to see confirmed him.

Thus America-boosters cutting schools and spreading poisons around the landscape. It's the blinders.

 

[Pure]

Colly said, I do not mind the concentration on what the author sees as overt racism in the Reagan administration. I don't mind the attack aimed at Trent Lott. I don't mind the rememberance of things that happened in the past either. But I am terribly weary of the intimation that being Mississippian and white means you are a racist.

Is is so wrong of me to mention that there was an extremely good reason, politically, to open in Neshoba, at the fair, that had nothing to do with skin color? Or to take offense to the fact that being from Mississippi, it hurts that people who fight for equality manage to tar us all with the same brush, intentionally or no?

I don't see any 'intimation' by the authors quoted or by me 'that being a Mississippian and white means you are a racist' or that y'all are being tarred with the same brush.

Quote it for me.

As far as I know, you are fair minded, in race areas, and the discussion did not refer or implicate your presumed attitudes.

What the author was noting, imo, was Reagan's, and now GWB's efforts to appeal to those white Southerners who are racists. (Widely noted by commentators.) The percentage of racists is not the key issue, since even were just 10% of white southerners racist, that's a lot of votes.

This appeal has been done with some success, it appears. (How do I know, by the *reduction in votes for the clear racists, like Wallace and others.)

No doubt Ronnie and W also appeal to NON racist southerners for a number of reasons; some are connected Christianity, and to moral issues referred to in code phrases like 'family values.'

We're in an era of 'code words', and 'states rights', in this context is one, I submit. Even presence and location can be a code. The one county in the South with famous multiple murders of white and black 'agitators.'

The Argentine ambassador was being feted at about the time of the invasion of the Falklands.

Reagan much later visited a German cemetery where many SS folks were buried.

Damn clever. Deniability plus a clear signal to those in the know.

I can't find a transcript of the Neshoba speech, but do you suppose it might have *failed* to mention civil rights or justice for Black people? Hmmm... Suppose that were so, what would it mean?

The fact that the issue is even being debated is a tribute to the Great Communicator and his advisers and handlers. Surely RR was as 'slick' as Willy ever was, especially when his mental limitations are taken into account.

Regards to my learned and fairminded friend, Colly; almost the only conservative here who bothers to deal with facts and or include any in postings.

J.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm going to touch on the visiting and laying a wreath at the cemetary where SS soldiers were burried, but very lightly.

The SS had a lot of offices, divisions, and groupings. The Totenkompf of Death's head were mostly prision guards, The reich's security office, or gestapo also fell under the SS, as did multiple transportation, supply, logisistics and clerical units.

The Waffen SS, was the armed SS or it's military formations. The included the Libenstarte Adolf Hitler, 12th SS Hitler Youth, the Panzer Leher and Herman Georing panzers.

Some SS field divisions were as horrible as their other branches, the 12th was well known for fanatical zeal and barbarity. Panzer Leher, however, was a first class fighting unit, formed mostly out of older men with prior military experience who had been instructors. It was something of an elite, within an elite. To my knowledge, that division was never accused of any atrocities on the field.

There were sadists, like Pfifer. There were political generals like Sepp Dietrich. All armies had them. Excluding the 12th and 1st, these units were more soldiers than idealogues, and with notable exceptions, they were no worse or better than any other units in terms of commiting atrocities. They were all tough opponents and they had the allies respect as fighting formations.

Now, these formations were voluntary at first, only prime SS men, but as the war ground on, the 12th, 1st, Panzer Leher and Herman Georing panzer's all suffed huge casualties. Operation Market Garden failed in large part due to a pair of these formations being sent to the Arnham area for rest & refitting. I would note here, that Brits captured in Arnham, were pretty much all in agreement that they were treated not only humanely, but very well by their captors and better than the rules of war demanded.

By war's end, these formations were filled with soldiers, not SS indoctrinated idealogues, but basically men who had survived and seen their own units decimated. this is particualrly true after the carnage in the Falaise pocket.

It's a long, roundabout way to say that just because a man was wearing an SS uniform when he died, it does not carry over that he was a criminal, or had anything to do with atrocities or the final solution. It may very well be that the SS soldiers burried in that cemetary were just soldiers, fighting for their country.

While I don't know, I tend to lean towards that being the case. RR's foes are quick to point out SS men were burried there, but considering the attack style of those who reported it and were opposed, if they had been men whose units were linked to atrocities, we probably would have heard about it. To date I have only heard it touted as SS men.

I do not see the great problem in laying a wreath at a cemetary where war dead are burried. Even if those was dead were killed fighting us. Defending your country should never carry a stigma, and by 1944 most German soldiers were doing just that, they were defending their country, homes & families.

If someone knows the units these men were in, or knows that they were SS men who were involved in Malmady or some other atrocity I will retract my statements and gladly admit it was a very insensitive move on Mr. Reagans part, as well as thanking who ever provides such information for correcting me.

If they were just soldiers, who happened to be in the uniform of the Waffen SS when they were killed, then I don't see that shunning a cemetary where they lie would have been correct. Many men gave their lives defending their contry, I don't see where you can make some heros and some villians, simply because some came from one country and some from another.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

I don't necessarily want to spit on anyone's grave, even Nazi's.

We're talking about the subtle science of 'signals', perfected by Reagan's handlers, and friends like Lott. Carried on with expertise by GWB, with guidance of Rove, etc.

Republican 'wink, wink' nudge nudge in the South, and elsewhere, for the South.

I think we might all agree that timely appearances at Bob Jones U, are of the nature of 'signals' (subtle overtures to possible constituencies).

Speaking of 'signals,' some embarrassing ones by RR (esp. Kirkpatrick) were to Argentina, before the Falklands. The *most embarrassing one of Bush Sr. was the American ambassador's (the lady) {Added: April Glaspie} statement to Saddam that Kuwait might be viewed as an internal Iraqi problm.

In general, US signals to dictators 'you're OK', sharing the podium, hugging etc. are worth noting; by no means specific to Republicans. I guess the 'hug Chalabi' ones are being withdrawn from circulation. Remember the *seating of Chalabi next to Bush's wife, iirc? at one big speach? Again, symbol and signal.

PS. I have more sympathy for Joe Shmo 'defending his country' as you say, if he hasn't just retreated there from a campaign a thousand miles away, on Soviet soil. But every low level soldier is a victim of his/her respective war machine, and deserves human compassion.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't necessarily want to spit on anyone's grave, even Nazi's.

We're talking about the subtle science of 'signals', perfected by Reagan's handlers, and friends like Lott. Carried on with expertise by GWB, with guidance of Rove, etc.

Republican 'wink, wink' nudge nudge in the South, and elsewhere, for the South.

I think we might all agree that timely appearances at Bob Jones U, are of the nature of 'signals' (subtle overtures to possible constituencies).

Speaking of 'signals,' some embarrassing ones by RR (esp. Kirkpatrick) were to Argentina, before the Falklands. The *most embarrassing one of Bush Sr. was the American ambassador's (the lady) statement to Saddam that Kuwait might be viewed as an internal Iraqi problm.

In general, US signals to dictators 'you're OK', sharing the podium, hugging etc. are worth noting; by no means specific to Republicans. I guess the 'hug Chalabi' ones are being withdrawn from circulation. Remember the *seating of Chalabi next to Bush's wife, iirc? at one big speach? Again, symbol and signal.

PS. I have more sympathy for Joe Shmo 'defending his country' as you say, if he hasn't just retreated there from a campaign a thousand miles away, on Soviet soil. But every low level soldier is a victim of his/her respective war machine, and deserves human compassion.

War on the Eatern front was different. Most historians agree it was something new in warfare, or more precicely, somethig ancient. It harkens back to the biblical wars, where the population were to be slain as well as the army of your enemy.

It is the individual soldier, who always pays the price. Sometimes with his life, sometimes with a shattered body, sometimes with a shattered psyche and sometime just with the memories of freinds who weren't as lucky as he was. Strip away the uniform,idealogy, weapons and accountraments and you find they are not so very different across countries, or across the gulf of time. In conscript armies even more so.

They are usually young men, who believe in the rightness of their cause and in defending their loved ones and homeland. There is a famous stroy about an unoffical peace that broke out on the western front in World War I, despite the generals adamant refusal to sanction one. It happened on Christmas eve. And a soccer game where the Germans were surprised to find that scotsmen didn't wear drawers under their kilts.

More alike than different and all deserving of compassion, as most would have loved to be anywhere else, doing anything other than what they were.

As I said, the particular unit of those buirred there might make a difference, their circumstance, etc.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

War on the Eatern front was different. Most historians agree it was something new in warfare, or more precicely, somethig ancient. It harkens back to the biblical wars, where the population were to be slain as well as the army of your enemy.

It is the individual soldier, who always pays the price. Sometimes with his life, sometimes with a shattered body, sometimes with a shattered psyche and sometime just with the memories of freinds who weren't as lucky as he was. Strip away the uniform,idealogy, weapons and accountraments and you find they are not so very different across countries, or across the gulf of time. In conscript armies even more so.

They are usually young men, who believe in the rightness of their cause and in defending their loved ones and homeland. There is a famous stroy about an unoffical peace that broke out on the western front in World War I, despite the generals adamant refusal to sanction one. It happened on Christmas eve. And a soccer game where the Germans were surprised to find that scotsmen didn't wear drawers under their kilts.

More alike than different and all deserving of compassion, as most would have loved to be anywhere else, doing anything other than what they were.

As I said, the particular unit of those buirred there might make a difference, their circumstance, etc.

-Colly

When you refer to the "Eastern Front" I assume you mean in Europe. In the Pacific, it was another matter. It is well documented that the Japanese carried our large-scale slaughter in cities they occupied, most notably Nanking but also Manila, Singapore and others. I mention Manila because have heard first-hand descriptions froml some of my in-laws.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

When you refer to the "Eastern Front" I assume you mean in Europe. In the Pacific, it was another matter. It is well documented that the Japanese carried our large-scale slaughter in cities they occupied, most notably Nanking but also Manila, Singapore and others. I mention Manila because have heard first-hand descriptions froml some of my in-laws.

Actually, by eastern front I mean the war against the Soviets. It's well documented that Hitler suspened even the rules of was as they applied to prisoners, civilians etc. Total war there meant a war of anihilation and it was brutish in the extreme.

Obviously the excesses and actions of troops in the pacific theater were also excessive and in some extremes beyond comprehension.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

Actually, by eastern front I mean the war against the Soviets. It's well documented that Hitler suspened even the rules of was as they applied to prisoners, civilians etc. Total war there meant a war of anihilation and it was brutish in the extreme.

Obviously the excesses and actions of troops in the pacific theater were also excessive and in some extremes beyond comprehension.

-Colly

Just to keep things in perspective, it should be mentioned that Stalin also suspended the rules of combat. Hitler and Stalin were both monsters and there isn't much to choose betwen them.

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen? I'm going to challenge you on a minor technical point. As far as I know Panzer Lehr and Hermann Georing were not SS units.

Panzer Lehr was Army (Heer) and Herman Goering was Luftwaffe. Both were elite units, but neither was SS.

However your point about soldiers being the same everywhere is true. Bill Mauldin, the guy who drew the Willie and Joe cartoons, said there is a 'Loyal and Fraternal Brotherhood of Them What Has Been Shot At'.

Mauldin noted that if you are under fire, eventually you get to feel for everybody in the same boat. "The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry," he wrote.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen? I'm going to challenge you on a minor technical point. As far as I know Panzer Lehr and Hermann Georing were not SS units.

Panzer Lehr was Army (Heer) and Herman Goering was Luftwaffe. Both were elite units, but neither was SS.

However your point about soldiers being the same everywhere is true. Bill Mauldin, the guy who drew the Willie and Joe cartoons, said there is a 'Loyal and Fraternal Brotherhood of Them What Has Been Shot At'.

Mauldin noted that if you are under fire, eventually you get to feel for everybody in the same boat. "The surest way to become a pacifist is to join the infantry," he wrote.

Actually, you are right RG. Had to do a little digging, but I stand corrected.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Speaking of 'signals,' some embarrassing ones by RR (esp. Kirkpatrick) were to Argentina, before the Falklands. The *most embarrassing one of Bush Sr. was the American ambassador's (the lady) statement to Saddam that Kuwait might be viewed as an internal Iraqi problm.

Oh god. I had forgotten that one.

When Bush Sr. announced the bold initiative to free Kuwait, I'd have given a month's pay to help fund a Times Square billboard replaying that quote, over and over: Bush's ambassador telling Saddam Hussein that America viewed Kuwait as an "internal Iraqi problem."

How quickly the media forget these incidents when the White House rolls out one of its "With Us Or Against Us" campaigns.

A liberal media, if it really existed, would give these sleights-of-hand and not-quite-hidden agendas the attention they deserve. And maybe the oil industry would have a more difficult time getting their orders filled when they want a war.

 

[Pure]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/lies_told_to_support_desert_stor.htm

Lies by or on behalf of Bush Sr. The 'green light' signal for going into Kuwait.

[start]
1. In 1991 “Nayirah” testified before Congress, as a Kuwaiti hospital worker, that Iraqis had slaughtered 312 babies in Kuwaiti hospitals. This was later exposed as false after momentum for going to war had mounted. “Nayirah” was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to America and in Washington when the supposed incident took place.

2. Another critical piece of information that compelled Americans to support Desert Storm was a statement that Iraqi troops were on the border of Saudi Arabia and ready to invade. This proof has never been given to the public by American intelligence and there are photos from outside sources of the same area at the same time that show no troops present. That does not verify that that the statement is a lie, but no proof has ever been presented to the public to prove that it was true on the grounds of "national security".

3. The American public was not informed by President Bush Sr. that the area Kuwait was in fact a part of Iraqi region up until 1921, when Britain separated it from Iraq in order to remove Iraq’s access to its greatest harbor. The area of Kuwait had been part of the region of Iraq for over 1,000 years prior to this move. This does not make invasion okay, but it certainly makes it more understandable, and not the act of regional aggression that it was claimed to be by the Bush administration.

4. The American public was not informed that four days prior to Saddam's occupation of Kuwait American Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam Hussein:

“We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. "
[end]

 

[overthebow]

Putting some prespective on things, here is a blog from Baghdad

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

 

[shereads]

Thank you for the link, overthebow. Seeing this mess through the eyes of an ordinary Iraqi is something new for me, other than an article or two on Salon.

I followed the blog's link to journalist Chris Albritton's journal, and was so moved by the perspective of a man who admits he resents the Iraqis for resenting him - but "loves Baghdad for its artists."

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

The kindness I encountered last year is absent; a western face brings a sullen welcome, calibrated to the bare minimum. <snip>

This feeling of trusting no one has gotten to me; it’s palpable and the constant vigilance is exhausting. My mood is black and I can feel a depression that is never far away. Not writing for the blog is a source of guilt, too, but TIME has kept me so busy with stories that don’t bring me in touch with average Iraqis much. I’ve been moving between the CPA and the former members of the Governing Council.

I also can’t seem to get excited over stories of abused Iraqis. There are so many and they have a numbing quality. Also, the hostility I encounter from Iraqis makes me — shamefully — less empathetic to their complaints. But nor do I feel much sympathy for Americans who point guns at me. The tragic part of this is that there is no way to blame anyone in this situation. The Iraqis will naturally hate an occupying army. And soldiers will naturally grow to hate a people they think they came to liberate but who continue trying to kill them.

These three paragraphs have done more to humanize the situation in Iraq, and what it is inflicting on everyone involved, than anything else I've read or heard ~ SR

I wish I could see more of the goodness in Iraqis that I know is there. And likewise, I wish they could see the goodness in Americans. But people here — the Iraqis, the CPA, the military and even some journalists — have become blinded to each other’s concerns and qualities. Those of us here, all of us, we’re not all bad people, I don’t believe. And I say “we” because no matter our nationality, this place hammers us into a collective body. The Iraqi selling me delicious juice concoctions, the American soldiers at the checkpoints missing his wife, the CPA employee who truly believed the Bush rhetoric, we are all in this together now.

But this environment is killing our ability to give a damn about anything other than staying alive. It’s burying our better angels. The lack of empathy is a bad quality for a journalist, and it’s a worse one for a human being. <snip>

We — Iraqis and the Americans here — are caged by fear, and we are all conquered people now.

 

[Pure]

I was wondering how this 'sovereignty' thing got both US and French approval.

Then I realized, South Vietnam was a sovereign government.

After Diem was installed, I remember Madame Nhu coming to speak, accompanied by her daughter. I believe she was Diem's sister in law. She extolled the new democracy in the sovereign country, and trashed the commie agitators trying to wreck it.

(She became famous for her remarks about buddhist monks torching themselves. Like the rest of the family and Diem, she was R.Catholic.)

Likewise the Philippines, since wwII and S. Korea since 1950.

Reagan, forefather of it all, installed a 'sovereign' government in Grenada, and kept a firm hand on Panama.

IN FACT, unlike the old colonial powers, the US prefers 'sovereign' client states.

Factoid of the day: The American embassy in the new sovereign Iraq will have about a thousand employees (what? a whole section of the CIA?).

[Apparently Ambassador Negropointe ran a similar operation in another country. Anyone remember the details.?]

That, plus the 150,000 troops should benevolently 'guide' the sovereign nation to respect US and West European interests.

 

[Pure]

Roe and Reagan and Kuhl

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=10477

Reagan's efforts to nullify Roe v Wade

Carolyn Kuhl’s Hearing Strengthened the Case Against Her Confirmation

{GWB, Spring 2003, nominated Kuhl to Federal Appeals Ct; one step below SC}

Trying to overturn Roe v. Wade

Senators’ concerns:

When Kuhl served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General [under Reagan], she specifically urged that the Department of Justice seek to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. According to Charles Fried, Acting Solicitor General at the time, Kuhl was the co-author of “[t]he most aggressive memo” to him from within the Justice Department urging the Department to file an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in the Thornburgh case calling for “outright reversal of Roe.”1

Kuhl then co-authored precisely such a brief, which contended that Roe was “so far flawed that this Court should overrule it and return the law to the condition in which it was before that case was decided.”2 The Supreme Court rejected Kuhl’s attack on Roe.

Kuhl’s testimony: In response to questions about her role in the Thornburgh case, Kuhl attempted to deflect Senators’ concerns about her troubling position by asserting that she was merely representing a client, President Reagan, who believed that Roe should be overruled.3 Kuhl specifically and repeatedly declined to answer Senator Feinstein’s question as to whether she believes that Roe was correctly decided. Kuhl Hearing, at 45-47.

The facts: To the extent Kuhl claimed that as a Justice Department attorney she was representing the President in Thornburgh, the same could be said of every attorney in the Justice Department, including everyone who weighed in with Acting Solicitor General Fried as to whether the government should even file an amicus brief in this case (since it was not a party), let alone what position it should take.

The fact remains that, as reported by Fried — who was the recipient of all of those memos — “[t]he most aggressive memo came from my friends Richard Willard and Carolyn Kuhl in Civil, who recommended that we urge outright reversal of Roe.”4 Notwithstanding Kuhl’s refusal now to disclose her views, it is clear that she went far beyond her role as a Justice Department attorney in her “aggressive” efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.
-----

Endnotes:


Endnotes

1 Charles Fried, Order and Law: Arguing the Reagan Revolution – A Firsthand Account, at 33 (1991) (hereafter “Order and Law”).

2 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, at 10 (July 15, 1985) (LEXIS pagination).

3 Committee on the Judiciary, Nomination of Carolyn B. Kuhl of California to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Unofficial Transcript of Proceedings (Apr. 1, 2003) (hereafter “Kuhl Hearing”), at 46; 118.

4 Order and Law, at 33.
5 Brief of the American Academy of Medical Ethics as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, Rust v. Sullivan, at 1 (LEXIS pagination; quoting Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 814 (O’Connor, J., dissenting)).
6 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S 57, 68 (1986) (emphasis added).
7 Senator Feinstein’s post-hearing questions to Kuhl (ques. 2).
8 See Kuhl’s answers to Senator Feinstein’s post-hearing questions (ans. 2a) (Apr. 9, 2003). See also Kuhl’s answers to Senator Biden’s post-hearing questions (at 5-6) (Apr. 29, 2003).

 

[Pure]

A neat Reagan timeline/chronology is at

http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/1982.html

one can click to the year before or after.

[excerpt]
1/15/82
President Reagan phones The Washington Post to explain that when his new policy toward segregated schools was announced, he "didn't know at the time that there was a legal case pending." CBS quickly obtains a memo in which intervention in the Bob Jones University case was specifically requested, and on which Reagan had written, "I think we should." (see 2/24/82 and

5/10/82)
Press Secretary Sheila Tate says that Nancy Reagan "has derived no personal benefit" from her acceptance of thousands of dollars worth of free clothing from American designers, explaining that the First Lady's sole motive is to help the national fashion industry. It seems getting fabulous clothes for free isn't considered a personal benefit.

1/19/82
At his seventh press conference, President Reagan:

· Claims there are "a million more working than there were in 1980," though statistics show that 100,000 fewer people are employed. (see 2/24/82)

· Contends his attempt to grant tax-exempt status to segregated schools was to correct "a procedure that we thought had no basis in law," though the Supreme Court had clearly upheld a ruling barring such exemptions a decade earlier.

· Claims he has received a letter from Pope John Paul II in which he "approves what we've done so far" regarding U.S. Sanctions against the USSR, though the sanctions were not mentioned in the papal message.

· Responds to a question about the 17% black unemployment rate by pointing out that "in this time of great unemployment," Sunday's paper had "24 full pages of ... employers looking for employees," though most of the jobs available - computer operator, or cellular immunologist - require special training, for which his administration has cut funds by over 30%.

· Misstates facts about California's abortion law and an Arizona program to aid the elderly (see 2/24/82)

· Responds to a question about private charity by observing, "I also happen to be someone who believes in tithing - the giving of a tenth," though his latest tax returns show charitable contributions amounting to 1.4%. (see 2/24/82)

2/9/82
George Bush denies that he ever used the phrase "voodoo economics" and challenges "anybody to find it." NBC's Ken Bode promptly broadcasts the 1980 tape.

2/16/82
"She really just got tired of people misinterpreting what she was doing." - Aide telling the public that Nancy Reagan will no longer accept free clothing "on loan" from top designers.

[end excerpt]

 

[shereads]

From The Onion:

Reagan Honored With Record Budget Deficit

 

[Pure]

There was a little documentary on Neshoba country. Reminded me of Ronnie's foray there to 'reach out' to the white folks.

The murderers were never found or prosecuted in Mississippi.

A few culprits did 5 years for violation of civil rights (i.e, killing).

Odd thing: The Black folks want the stain expunged. (I think some hold office in the town.)

The white folks interviewed said, "we've been through enough; let it alone. the races are in harmony here." (A variation of Ronnies 'jeez, i can't remember'.)

The site of the murder is now a city landmark, i take it.