Not So "Dolce" Musto

i've kinda refrained from weighing in on reagan much on this board and that's been intentional. i have a great deal of admiration for ronnie and many of the accomplishments of his presidency. i believe that much of the heady 90's economy had it's roots in the deregulation of the 80's and that reagan was the right guy at the right time during a crucial phase in the cold war (plus i'm a sucker for that bombing open mic gaffe). however, ronald reagan was president during a crucial time in the beginning of the aids crisis.

i lost friends. many people i know and love lost more friends. no one in that time did enough. no one spent enough. no one tried hard enough. and no one cared enough. for all of his accomplishements ronnie was president of one of two superpowers at the time an epidemic was in its infancy and he did not do enough. does that poison his whole presidency and ruin him as a human being to me? no, but i can certainly understand how it could to some, especially those people who lived through that time watching their friends die and waiting for action that came too late to save many of them.

old adages that used to rule our daily lives such as not talking sex, politics or religion in polite company (although that would excuse this board), don't speak ill of the dead, if you can't say something nice don't say anything and a thousand other platitudes that used to form so much of our society have been trampled under foot by abuses over time that require people to speak out. some argue that society is worse for their losses and i go back and forth on that, but it's folly to expect people who did not respect a man in life to offer him that respect in death especially if they hold him culpable for as many deaths as aids has claimed.

like i said earlier, i don't hold reagan as personally responsible for the epidemic, but he could have done a lot more. everyone could have. but this is a deeply personal issue as it was, in the beginning, a semi-localized phenomenon and decimated a segment of society. had aids first victims been middle aged wealthy straight white men would a different course have been charted? i think it's conceivable to believe so. would the end result still be remarkably similar? i think it would. but that's all speculation. woulda coulda shoulda. so, dp, why don't ya cut musto some slack? if a war mongering imperialist breeder like me can see the need to do so, shouldn't a fellow homosexual?

---

Updated On: 6/9/04 at 10:16 AM

Namo, it's during the immediate weeks after a person's death that we refrain from saying harsh things about them. I mean, I have said some pretty dreadful things about Attila the Hun without fear of breaching social etiquette.

---

My grandmother told me that the reason you do not speak ill of the dead during is that they will come back to haunt you. unless you believe that supersticion, what reason would you have for being phony and pretending to mourn or even for holding your tongue about someone you didn't like?

Out of respect for the deceased? He doesn't know what's being said and if he does, he wouldn't care at this point.

Out of respect for the family? They are very much aware that there are many people who did not like Dutch.

when a person chooses to run for office, they are aware that every thing thy do in the capacity of that office is open to criticism even after death

---

I fail to see the problem with saying things that are consistent with what one has always said about a public figure who has opened his life and actions up for public comment by the life he chose to live. From my perspective, Mr. Reagan's death has provided the stimulus to review his contribution to the state of our nation. One can't turn on the television or radio without hearing about his 'legacy'. To suppress unflattering input distorts a valid analysis. And frankly, NOW is the time to look at the big picture, because a month from now (or whenever it is no longer deemed disrespectful to talk truthfully about one's feelings toward the man), most of us will no longer be interested. The moment will have passed.

While I wouldn't dream of walking up to Nancy and telling her what I thought of her husband, I fail to see where a controversial public figure's non-traumatic demise at the age of 93 necessitates phony respect not held for him when he was among the living. Especially on a board, such as this, which is unlikely to personally hurt one of the people in mourning with the insensitive timing of negative content.

---

I was just wondering, if we were to follow this rule of showing respect in the immediate weeks after a person dies, does this mean that if Osama Bin Laden dies tomorrow we have to wait a respectable amount of time to cheer?

---

BRILLIANT! Put that on a t-shirt JRB.

---

Does that mean that as they parade his body through the streets, old Italian ladies will come up and pin money to his coffin?

---

You know, he's kind of like the American Evita being dragged around the country on a post mortum tour so that he can be seen and adored.

Reagan, The Farewell Tour.

---

There's nothing special in Reagan-bashing. It's the same stuff we hear about every president whether they're campaigning, been elected, residing, retiring, or dying. No matter who the president, we will bash them into oblivion for whatever the issues were for the time because it has replaced baseball as the national pastime. No president is ever given respect for anything, Republican or Democrat, so why expect it now for Reagan or Bush or Clinton or whoever is next. Whoever gets elected this year will be shredded by the public and press for the next 4-8 years no matter what he does. He will be the butt of late-night variety show jokes and his every move will be second-guessed as conspiratorial or self-capitalizing. It's no wonder our Presidents show little respect for the public. The public shows no respect for them.

No matter what anyone says about Reagan, the past cannot be changed and his death does not change what he did or did not do.

---

orion - I see what you mean, but my intent was that griping about Reagan just because he died doesn't change a thing. There was little said about Reagan for years while he was still alive, but it isn't until he dies that people start up again. I guess it's just a knee-jerk reaction to his death, but what's the point? What's that saying about beating a dead horse? It's no more productive than beating a dead Reagan. Why not use all that energy towards something productive and worthwhile?

---

Matt, I know that "somewhere in the middle" is your stomping ground, it's your thing, it's the plot of land you stake out. But I would be willing to wager that the fact that you can state, "...griping about Reagan just because he died doesn't change a thing. There was little said about Reagan for years while he was still alive, but it isn't until he dies that people start up again...." is more a reflection of the circles you travel in than actual fact about a whole lot of other citizens who lived through his regime. And since most people gravitate towards people with at least similar political positions as them, I'm sure you DIDN'T hear a lot about Reagan in his twilight years.

---

strangely like this board, for some.

---