Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan evil?: re to jj
Message-ID: <550@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Mar-86 19:22:00 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.550
Posted: Sat Mar  1 19:22:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 20:59:47 EST
References: <155@jc3b21.UUCP> <1405@mhuxt.UUCP> <560@whuts.UUCP>, <1410@mhuxt.UUCP> <5044@alice.uUCp> <1011@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 120

> > from jj: 
> > You know, Tim, over the years you've blamed Reagan for a lot
> > of things. No, make that EVERYthing.
> > It's very interesting how you are very careful to not acknowledge
> > when Reagan does something you agree with, now isn't it, or is it perhaps
> > that you don't notice, since you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that
> > the man is evil beyond imagnination?  
>  
>    Reagan's character:
>    What is one to make of Ronald Reagan's constant distortions
>    and untruths?  For example:
>    "Trees pollute"

Tim, they do.  Reagan, as usual, garbled the facts, but essentially it
is correct that trees and shrubs produce a class of air pollution called
xylenes.  They're are the reason the Great Smoky Mountains are smokey.
This is one of the reasons that some Air Quality Managment Districts
in California resisted installing vapor recovery nozzles before the
state forced them -- 75% of the hydrocarbon emissions in some counties
here are plants.

>    "There are more forests now than in Washington's day"

Perhaps depends on the context in which it was said.  Remember when the
news media quoted Jesse Jackson as saying that acid rain was "chemical
warfare" against Canada?  Jackson said something considerably more
sensible, but the thrill of an exciting quote caused the media to 
grossly misquote Jackson.  How much more a President the news media
disagree with 180 degrees?

>    "The US unilaterally disarmed during the 70's"

Giggle, giggle.  At best, I would call this hyperbole.

>    "The SS troops at Bitburg were victims "

Depends whether they were draftees or not.

>    "A Jewish girl just bat mitzvahed suggested I lay a
>     wreath at Bitburg"
>    "There is no segregation in South Africa"
>    "Sending Margaret Heckler to Ireland is a promotion"
>    "There was violence and fraud from both sides in the Phillipines"
>        etc, etc, etc ad nauseum

Probably true.  News coverage I saw indicated that there were problems
on both sides.  (Marcos' side, much more than Aquino's side.)

> My explanation is a combination of all three causes.  Reagan is
> very ill-informed on very many issues but not necessarily
> stupid.  However he is also a pathological liar, i.e. somebody
> who not only incessantly lies, but somebody who *believes* his
> own lies and made-up stories.  The pathological liar can never
> be uncovered on a lie detector test (or by the shifty eye test)
> because he comes to believe his own lies.  Reagan used to simply
> make-up play by play announcements on radio when the ticker-tape
> broke.  He does the same with  making up stories about teenage
> welfare mothers living high on the hog, or students on
> student aid living in luxury, or the "communist dictatorship"
> in Nicaragua.  He makes up convenient fictions which accord with
> his narrowminded view of the world.  Does this mean he is "evil"?
> Not necessarily.  Certainly his *intentions* are good given
> his narrowminded view of the world - everything would be a
> paradise if one could really perform such miracles as 
> quadrupling the military budget, cutting taxes and still balance
> the budget.  Or if one could have a magic technological wand
> to make nuclear weapons obsolete.  But this is the type of
> fantastic thinking that pathological liars and the deranged
> engage in.  But should a nation be so deranged?
> These types of fantasy may be comforting but they are *dangerous*.

I hate to disappoint you, but the ideas President Reagan expresses
have substantial support in America.  I support some of the ideas
above (and retch).  I guess democracy just isn't a very reliable
system for making decisions. :-)  Don't worry, I'm sure your buddies
in the Kremlin will run America much better.

> While Reagan spins out such fantasies, both the US and the Soviet
> Union are building 5 new nuclear weapons every *day*.  Reagan plans

How many nuclear weapons are being removed from service at the same
time?  My understanding is that total megatonnage has declined on
both sides by 30% over the last ten years.  (Number of weapons has
increased, but the weapons being built are of lower yield than weapons
being retired from service.)  I realize that presenting all the facts
isn't your style, Tim (people might think for themselves and come to
different conclusions.)

> on building 17,000 more nuclear weapons in the next decade.
> (Scientific American, Nov. 1982, charts on projected weapons)
> The MX missile, the Trident D-5 missile are *first-strike* capable
> weapons which make the nuclear standoff even more precarious.
> While the world spends $900 billion this year on weapons
> people are starving, without shelter, and desperately poor 
> throughout the world.

It's a waste -- but remember, all of that money isn't wasted.  A lot
of goes back into the economy.  The money is taken in taxes, paid
to defense contractors, who pay it to employees, who buy houses, and
groceries, and personal computers, and give it to charitable organizations.
Just think Tim, defense spending is just like WPA!  Think of all the
good the government does preparing to kill a billion people. :-)
In truth, the money is NOT as well spent as a real WPA style system,
but don't delude yourself that it's spent a lot worse -- and don't
delude yourself that if the money weren't spent on defense it would
be available for the Welfare State.  Those days are PAST.  Too many
of us grew up hungry and poor to believe that everyone needs a free
ride.

> I think supporting such a policy is morally wrong, just as it
> was wrong to support slavery and wrong to support segregation.
> Most especially to support these policies by a web of lies
> is particularly repugnant.  The lies should be exposed.
> That is what my articles are intended to do.
>            tim sevener   whuxn!orb

Your tone and unwillingness to present all the facts make Reagan
look more credible.  A little more calmness would help.  (And maybe
a little more willingness to see Reagan's substantial evils in the
entire class of politicians -- including the left.)