Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Angry Reagan takedown...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Angry Reagan takedown...

    Always interesting to see facts as opposed to revisionist history...

    http://exiledonline.com/reagan%E2%80...rl/#more-28769

    I’ve had Reagan all my life. In 1967, 13 years before the rest of you got President Reagan, he became governor of California. It was the terrarium in which Reagan’s tinkerers figured out how to stimulate the beasts in the tract houses to hatred and bathos, the tools with which they ruled and destroyed the nation.
    Nixon usually gets the blame for that, but I’ve always found Nixon a rather sympathetic figure: wretched, ugly, and without much malice for either the forests or the ordinary American. Nixon didn’t even share the worship of “business” forced on us all in Reagan’s reign. Nixon’s dreams were old-fashioned Soviet machinations, full of maps and coups; he was willing enough to toss the rest of us a few bones if we’d let him play with his schemes undisturbed. And some of the bones he tossed us were rather significant. It was Nixon who created the EPA and OSHA. Reagan would have strangled both in the cradle.
    Reagan did it often enough once he had power, in a thousand blunt, cruel mandates that no one ever mentions. The one I always remember is one of the more trivial: he vetoed the airbag requirement Carter planned to introduce for all 1980 cars sold in the US. Everyone who died in a head-on crash during the next decade can thank Reagan. And you know, they probably would thank him. There is no end to the groveling masochism of this nation where Reagan is concerned. All his victims love him. No wonder the checkers at Safeway wear nose rings; they belong to the world’s biggest submissive website, “Reagan’s Slaves: Real Submissives, Live 24/7.” Before Reagan they would have had decent blue-collar jobs—there really were such things back then—and bought a house of their own. Now they share garage apartments with the scum of the earth and are saving up for a car that runs.
    That’s why it always shocks me when I see another manifestation of the consensus view that Nixon was the evil Republican. I just saw a Futurama episode with Nixon’s head in a jar, planning to take over the world. Reagan never gets that treatment; he’s a god.
    I suppose it proves what I knew already: he was good at what he did. After all, if he really was the perfect evil spirit for this tribe, why should I be surprised or disgusted that we worship him? Like I once said to this Women’s Studies professor, “Why get upset at all this sexism? It’s your living; it’s like a marine biologist getting furious at all the salt water on the planet.”
    But she was still mad—and she was goddamn well right to be mad. And I’m still sick every time I see headlines like the one I just caught: “Ronald Reagan: How Do GOP Candidates Measure Up?
    The sad thing is, they don’t really have to “measure up.” Reagan transformed this country; that much of what his adorers say is true. His successors only have to hit the same notes to make their zombie army move in the desired manner. Reagan and his stage managers did the difficult part, experimenting relentlessly until they found the notes that worked.

    When you say “Reagan,” you’re using a synechdoche of the classic container-for-the-contained sort. Reagan was the face of a little clique who were the essence of California plutocracy. They took shares in him, the way poorer folk do in a racehorse, funded his campaigns, and stayed with him all the way to the presidency. They were remarkable only for their lack of any distinction. Perhaps the most typical was Holmes Tuttle, a car dealer who came from Oklahoma to get rich. He did, but not the way Bill Gates did. Tuttle was so dumb that he turned down a chance to have the first Volkswagen dealership in California because he was sure no American would ever buy a car made by our erstwhile enemies. Like many successful Californians of his generation, he got rich because he was there, on the spot while the population of California exploded, and the average income soared—and because he had the perfect pathology for a rising tide: unreflecting, smug self-confidence. Tuttle made his money in cars, then picked Reagan as his new product and marketed him like a Ford, using Reagan’s front-man status as a selling point: “[Wouldn’t] you rather have a candidate who is backed by very successful capitalists who have created dozens of companies and tens of thousands of jobs, people who know what it takes to attain success within our system?”
    Reagan’s other backers were even less distinguished. There was Alfred Bloomingdale, who inherited his money and made the papers in his own right only by buying an underage prostitute, Vicky Morgan, making her his ponygirl, complete with saddle, then dumping her when she was of boring legal age. Bloomingdale died before the palimony suit, but his wife fought to the end not to give the wretched girl a cent. Vicky Morgan was eventually beaten to death with a baseball bat; Bloomingdale was mourned by all of Reagan’s America.
    Bedtime for Bloomingdale’s slave: One day she’s making Reagan look bad (above)… The next day, Jesus pinch-hits one for the Gipper (below)
    Then there was Charles Wick, Reagan’s communications guy, the man who taught the Great Communicator how to communicate. Reagan made Wick director of the US Information Agency, but before that, he’d made his bones as a “very successful capitalist” by producing one film: Snow White and the Three Stooges.
    The most grotesque of Reagan’s owners was Joseph Coors, an outright lunatic whose family money is behind nearly every sleazy fascist initiative in recent US history. Coors was Reagan’s mentor on campus radicalism. Coors even had his own hilarious stint on the Board of Regents of the University of Colorado, doing his best to destroy that institution before he realized that it was better to work through the camera-ready Reagan. He made sure Reagan’s hatred of the public universities never let up, but stepped back to let the group refine its techniques for stirring bile among the sullen majority.
    It’s tempting sometimes to think what one grenade, detonated at one of this “kitchen cabinet’s” meetings, could have done to change history. California could have been, was on the verge of becoming, something truly extraordinary. It’s no accident that Philip K. Dick’s Martian colonists in their hovels choose to dream of San Francisco in the mid-1960s, out of all the fantasylands they could visit. All the worst of America seemed to be melting away. The South of evil memory: melting away, not without blood and horror, but melting, doomed. The mean, stupid bullies’ world of jocks and losers to which all American children were violently introduced at an early age–melting away in a warmer and more humorous pantheon of possible identities. The dullards’ worship of Coolidge’s “business,” melting away in contemptuous laughter.
    It’s easy to see now that this was a delusion, the absurd dream of a tiny fraction of rich kids and middle-class brains. There was another world out there, a thousand times bigger and ferociously devoted to the old hatreds. I grew up in that other world. Actually, I grew up on the border, literally, between those two Californias that Reagan would soon set at each others’ throats: a place called Pleasant Hill, California, 13 miles east of Berkeley, but across the hills, the other side of Caldecott Tunnel. The hot, tract-home side—Reagan’s side. I could cross over; every summer the summer school took us to the Berkeley Folk Festival to listen vaguely to cleaned-up songs about murdered maidens but mainly to look at those magnificent hippie girls, who were in my little mind a complete refutation of the politics, aesthetics and in fact the entire culture of the Reagan side.
    But that was once a year. The rest of the time, we were Reaganites before Reagan. You have to realize that in the mid-sixties, what is now called “the Right” was hopelessly confused about what was going on. There really was a sort of silent majority, because no one could figure out to say what it wanted to say in public. What it wanted to say, what I heard every time we watched the news, was simple: “Kill them!” But before Reagan, no one knew how to say that out loud.
    It was the students who gave Reagan’s managers their chance. Nobody remembers now how insanely those students were hated by the people out on the hot, sullen side of the California divide. To understand where that hate came from, you have to pan back a little. Reagan’s “Greatest Generation” (which they certainly were not, but that’s another story) created the G.I. Bill, enfranchising a huge number of veterans who would never have dreamed of doing something like going to college if the state hadn’t waved money in their faces while they were being demobilized. In America, higher education had been something for rich kids—rich boys, in the beginning, slowly expanding to include some rich girls as well. Everyone else was supposed to go to work, and count themselves lucky if they found a job.
    The G.I. Bill made college a normal option, for a huge chunk of families who weren’t particularly rich. And soon, like many perks that once marked the aristocracy, it became something desirable, then something almost required of those who were striving. My father’s family was one of those. They grew up, ten kids, in a house about the size of your garage in the slums of Jersey City. The war freed them from that claustrophobic Irish-Catholic ghetto and they strove successfully—most of them, anyway. Our failed outpost in the California suburbs was the exception. It wasn’t easy for educated white people to fail completely in California in the post-war years, but we managed it. And still we gave our allegiance to Reagan’s counterrevolution, his long war to destroy the government initiatives that had given all our successful uncles their chance. In fact, our poverty contributed to the virulence of our resentment of those students, those lucky swarms of Berkeley kids who mouthed off and didn’t have to work.
    Their world was at once too tempting and too sinful for us, but to most of the other families on our street, it was simply alien, offensive for suggesting that there could or should be a gentler, more literate world. I had a foot in both worlds, and my parents, though fiercely reactionary, were gentle with their children, devoted to our education. So we ended up going to those colleges. But no one else from that neighborhood did. The only way you’ll ever understand how Reagan came to rule is if you actually remember his people. These are some who lived on my street:
    My friend Kenny Tamblyn, three houses down: his dad was a welder at the refinery, used to beat Kenny with a belt when he came home in a bad mood. Mr. Tamblyn was pure white and wanted you to know it, too—he was from Oklahoma—but he had these slitty eyes, looked like a cross between a Mongol and an Orc. Liked to shoot things.
    The Hansens, up the street with the pickup. Also worked at the refinery, but Mr. Tamblyn didn’t deign to know him; some guild snobbery I never understood. Mr. Hansen was loud and fat and stupid even by local standards. A few years on, he had Wallace signs all over his tiny lawn, but in the mid-60s he settled for threatening to shoot our dog when we walked it past his place. Two sons, roughly my age, sullen, silent, special ed. His wife was rarely allowed out of the house. She was tiny, less than five feet, and I think retarded, with a severe speech impediment. When she escaped and wandered down Belle Avenue, she’d babble about Jesus. (That’s another big, big change since Reagan’s time: it was eccentric, embarrassing, to talk about God in California before Reagan took over.)
    The Mastranos at the corner had one son. He was killed in their garage by a DEA agent. Supposedly he was going for a gun. He didn’t own any guns. No one objected; it was clear to everyone that somehow or other he had it coming. His mother went insane.
    My brother’s friend Brian, one of the smartest and most delightful little kids I knew. He and my brother met at one of those gifted summer schools. We used to make “civilizations” out of mud and scraps by the creek. But Brian’s dad, who worked at the gas station, would come home pissed off and scream down to the creek, telling Brian to get his butt in there. Once Brian was inside…yeah, you guessed it. With a belt. We tried to walk away fast so we wouldn’t hear Brian screaming.
    Brian, IQ or no IQ, was not going to UC Berkeley or anyplace else. None of those kids were going to Berkeley. None of their parents wanted them to. Some of those parents were sick monsters like Brian’s dad, or my friend Calvin’s dad, who once interrupted Calvin’s sleepover birthday party to chase Calvin around the yard with the inevitable belt. Most of the others were just standard human issue: mean, dumb, resentful. They didn’t want the fanciful pre-Raphaelite hippie enclave of Berkeley to exist. That it should not merely exist but talk back to their appointed masters, the real-estate developers and car dealers who were the anointed of California, provoked these people to insane rage.
    They weren’t poor. You have to remember that. Reagan would see to it that their kids were poor, but their generation was coasting happily on the well-paid, for-life blue-collar jobs that were plentiful back then. Most of them had far more money than we did, as well as virtually free medical care through “Kaiser.” They were willing to give all that up in the name of what was nearest their hearts: a world in which all public discourse was bland and epideictic, and privilege was restricted to those who were restrained enough to keep it secret. It was the cracking open of American discourse, with the “Free Speech” profanity, people talking about sex, and parading their pleasures on the streets of San Francisco, that made them murderously angry. That rage was even stronger than their hatred of black people. Although Reagan used coded and not-so-coded race triggers in his speeches (“welfare bums” was a favorite of his, as was “militants”), it was the hatred of those students, who were overwhelmingly white and middle-class, that made the people of the inland tracts love him.
    And it was that gloating, taunting exhibition of pleasures properly reserved for the back rooms of the elite that drove the inlanders craziest. That was the one thing that made my parents, gentle and erudite people in many ways, make common cause with their neighbors, whom they were in the habit of dismissing as noising, self-indulgent Protestants in most contexts. I’ll always remember my mother’s first day in a writing class at Diablo Valley College, the local community college. She came home in a daze and said, “This woman in my class…one of these hippie women..read her ‘poem’ [you could hear the quotes around the word as she spoke]…and do you know how this ‘poem’ began?”
    My brothers and I grunted cautiously. We weren’t sure whose side we were on in this one. In fact, I didn’t come down on the inland side until the local hippie girls made it clear I was not a potential consort.
    My mother said, “This is her ‘poem’:
    ‘My husband’s ass
    Is the most beautiful ass
    In the world.’”
    Silence reigned in our family room. That word “ass,” spoken—twice!—for the first time inside our house, made us all a little dizzy. You could hear the linebreaks, too, and budding poet that I was, I thought, “Maybe she should’ve put the second ‘ass’ on a line by itself.” Then, in one of the sudden switch-flips you do at 12, I imagined, very vividly, tearing out the tongue of the woman who had recited that poem in front of my mother. My brothers were already running from the room, making “la la la” noises so they wouldn’t have to hear whatever else my mother had experienced in class.
    I suppose we were a rather high-strung family. Catholics were, in those days. The only people who remind me of them now are the Muslims.
    What cemented my allegiance once and for all to that doomed, absurd code was the fact that somehow in the cornucopia of 1960s California, we were completely bankrupt, utter failures.
    Disloyalty was not an option as it was for rich kids. If your parents have made it, you can sneer; when the family narrative is an endless replay of disastrous failure, defecting to the comfy and victorious is unthinkable. My parents voted for Reagan, largely on the strength of that poem and a few news shots of Berkeley women dancing to rock with their tops off. I’m sure everyone on Belle Avenue voted the same way, mostly because Wallace wasn’t running in California yet.
    But in their case it made sense. Most of them were brutal and illiterate. We weren’t. We were the kind of family who most needed the public sector Reagan set about destroying: penniless, hyperliterate and ambitious. My brothers and I spent most of our free time at the wonderful library near our house. Last time I checked it was open for about 15 hours a week. We gloried in the art and music classes that were soon to be dropped by the public schools. We loved the forests, the one point we grudgingly shared with the VW Bus crowd that voted liberal. And when I applied for college and was turned down by the expensive private schools, Berkeley, center of Belle Avenue’s hatred, accepted me, gave me a chance for a decent education.
    It was the public universities like Berkeley that were Reagan’s special target. He didn’t have any interest in starving Stanford, even if he’d had the power; Stanford was for the rich, and only very belatedly joined the student revolt. It was the public universities, above all the Berkeley campus, that he and his public hated. One of Reagan’s famous lines from the time makes clear the basis of that hate: “Education is a privilege, not a right.” Education, at university level, had always been a “privilege” in the United States. In fact, it was the mark of privilege, a sign of belonging to the upper class. After WW II, that changed, and at least in public universities in a few states like California, there really was something like admission on merit. There was no tuition at public universities—imagine, you could get a degree from UC Berkeley without paying a dollar in tuition, if you were good enough. UC official history page evokes that time with something like disbelief in its timeline: “1960 – The California Master Plan for Higher Education affirmed that UC should remain tuitionfree (a widely held view at the time)…”
    Yes, “a widely held view at the time,” but that was going to change, thanks to people like our neighbors on Belle Avenue. They hated the notion that kids no better than their own (or so they believed) were daring to ape the rich by getting respected university degrees—and worse still, they lacked the patronizing discretion of the truly privileged who’d preceded them. The people on my street never resented the really rich. What they hated was middle-class people having pleasure, having sex without punishment, ease without the grasshopper’s winter comeuppance.
    Reagan plugged that hate into his owners’ agent and, with an assist from Prop 13, managed to destroy everything that was best about the state: the park system, the libraries, the protected shorelines, forests and rivers. He was just in time; when he took power, coastal California was reaching critical mass. There was a moment, as Hunter Thompson says in Fear and Loathing, when it seemed that whole littoral would just lift up, a reversal of the earthquake the inlanders were praying to sink it, and float away from the dead mass of the continent. Reagan came to fix that.
    His method was simple: Reagan was the first to talk straight-out hate. Strange as it seems now, nobody was talking hate then, in public. In the living rooms, over dinner, oh yeah! Every house on our street. But not on the air, not yet. Reagan showed the way. This was Reagan 1.0, the California-only issue. This version had not yet learned his second great innovation: the smile. This early Reagan was angry, as Mark Ames discovered in a search of archived stories from the 1960s. The headlines of those stories would shock fans of the later “amiable” Reagan: “Angry Reagan Shouts Back at Heckling Students”; “Reagan Prepared to Attack Militant Student Leaders”; “Reagan Explains Angry Words.”
    Rage at the students not only got Reagan elected, it powered his entire career. He took that show on the road in 1969, delivering a major speech reviling insolent student protestors in DC just before the Vietnam Moratorium demonstrations. As a reporter noted at the time, this was Reagan’s chance to impress the national Republican cadre, which was finally experiencing the sort of student infestation Reagan had been battling for years: “It is an opportunity for [Reagan] to test in a national forum whether his militant stand on California’s campuses…has support among the great middle class nationwide as well as in his own state.”
    Of course that’s reporter-speak. They knew by then it would work. If hatred could work in California in the sixties, did anybody really doubt it would work in Missouri? Winning the governorship of California was the hard part, as Nixon found in 1962. From there to the presidency was all downhill for a hate man. All you have to do is start your campaign in Mississippi, as Reagan did in 1979—because in a countrywide election, “blacks” played better than “students.”
    There’s another, far stranger, California political story that proves decisively how far you could get by smacking down students: the strange career of S. I. Hayakawa. Until 1968 Hayakawa was an academic wacko, one of those bypassed relics whose office at the end of the corridor is avoided by all. He had pursued a number of bizarre crusades, including one against replacing alphabet prefixes on phone numbers with digits, and by the mid-sixties was marking time, waiting for retirement at the undistinguished CSU-San Francisco. Then his history of rightwing nuttiness lifted him to fame: in 1968 Reagan appointed him president of the university, and a few months later Hayakawa was on the front page of every newspaper in the country, pulling the speaker wires off a student loudspeaker van during a demonstration.
    Ten years later Hayakawa was a US senator from California, solely on the strength of that one photo. Belle Avenue had long memories, at least for hate.
    Ronald Reagan rose to power much faster. He was sworn in as governor at a few minutes to midnight on January 3, 1967. He was such a hick nutcase that when his astrologer told him that would be the most auspicious moment, Reagan insisted on it, placating the sucker reporters with the usual garbage about wanting to get to work undoing his democrat predecessor’s big-gov’t boondoggles. They all bought it. I never heard a word about Reagan and “his wizened co-star” Nancy’s astrological and UFO creepiness until the late 80s, and no one cared even then.
    By that time, Reagan 2.0 had been in power for some time, relying on a lesson learned the hard way during his governorship: use the hate to get in power, but if you want to stay there, you need that Colgate smile they coached you on in Hollywood. This was the smiling Reagan that amnesiac America chooses to recall, the nice grandpa nobody ever had.
    But that’s not the Reagan who vivisected my home state. It was his snarl they loved in those days. And even after he learned to smile, the snarl was there, a Cheshire snarl that stayed when the smile faded. Reagan was by that time defined more by a wink than a smile. The wink said to his vast, vile constituency that the smile was simply the best face to wear while the malign enterprise proceeded apace. Like Limbaugh’s little jokes about himself as “a harmless puffball,” Reagan’s smile was meant to be seen through. It was useful for the undecided suckers, because it distinguished him from the other Phalangist contenders, who could not, no matter how long they were coached, stop looking like they were smiling over some hideous memory.
    It was a wonderful smile. It suited America right down to the ground: part gloat, part taunt, part utter void. By the time Reagan went to DC, he no longer had to do the grunt work of stoking all that hate. His techniques worked so incredibly well that a whole army of little hate commissars was on the air, all day, every day, keeping Belle Avenue pissed off and stupid. And over all of them presided that terrible smile, at once a taunt, a gloat, and a claim of complete innocence, or at least amnesia.

  • #2
    Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
    Always interesting to see facts as opposed to revisionist history...

    http://exiledonline.com/reagan%E2%80...rl/#more-28769
    Entertaining article.

    It seems to me that a big difference between Nixon and Reagan was that Nixon never really believed in Starve the Beast the way Reagan did. Reagan had good reason to do so after Prop. 13.

    He did not really see how it was not a transferable policy. A state (in this case CA in the U.S.) cannot create a monetary base by fiat. A nation can. Starve the Beast at the national level will have no effect other than bankrupting a nation.

    Its repercussions, if followed through to their logical conclusion, will amount to something tantamount to treason.

    Five days ago, Reagan's budget (OMB) director David Stockman himself commented on Starve the Beast. He said:

    "The lesson of the last twenty-five years is that it doesn't work."

    If only we would listen to him now, as Reagan did in 1980 when they concocted the Starve the Beast approach.

    http://www.asymptosis.com/david-stoc...game-over.html
    (The article above is partisan. Stockman's views are all I was getting at, not the commentary after them)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

      The OP speaks a lot of hate, but the tone sure shows hate on the part of the author.

      Personally I rather liked Reagan. At a time when Jimmy Carter had so demoralized th nation, Reagain was a breath of fresh air. Sure he had his faults, what President does not? I know one guy who spends all his days hating the deficits of Reagan, while remaining blind and silent to those of Obama. I hear the left decry the Bush years, but fail to see that Obama is a simple continuation of them on steroids.

      Partisan politics brings out all kinds of kooks. Me, I don't trust any of them anymore.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

        I was a student at U of Michigan when Reagan was elected. This whole hate students thing is news to me.

        Dolan seems to have some serious issues. Reagan has been out of office how long? The guy is long dead and Dloan is still seething.

        I bet this Dolan guy claims to be "tolerant" too.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

          Any long time Berkley residents out there?

          Thanks Clue for the introduction to The Exiled website.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

            Originally posted by LorenS
            Dolan seems to have some serious issues. Reagan has been out of office how long? The guy is long dead and Dloan is still seething.

            I bet this Dolan guy claims to be "tolerant" too.
            Absolutely agree, Dolan is an angry guy.

            However, the question is whether the facts in the article are correct or not.

            The newspaper excerpts certainly paint a very different picture of Reagan as a California politician - especially as compared to his image once he hit the national stage.

            For example, it is documented fact that Reagan called out the National Guard:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park

            During its first three weeks, People's Park was enjoyed and appreciated by university students and local residents alike. Telegraph Avenue merchants were particularly appreciative of the community's efforts to improve the neighborhood.[10][11] Objections to the expropriation of university property tended to be mild, even among school administrators.
            Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of university administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus, and he had received enormous popular support for his 1966 gubernatorial campaign promise to crack down on what was perceived as the generally lax attitude at California's public universities. Reagan called the Berkeley campus "a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants."[12]
            Reagan considered the creation of the park a direct leftist challenge to the property rights of the university, and he found in it an opportunity to fulfill his campaign promise.
            Governor Reagan overrode Chancellor Heyns' May 6 promise that nothing would be done without warning, and on Thursday, 15 May 1969 at 4:30 a.m., he sent 300 California Highway Patrol and Berkeley police officers into People's Park. The officers cleared an 8-block area around the park while a large section of what had been planted was destroyed and an 8-foot (2.4 m) tall perimeter chain-link wire fence was installed to keep people out and to prevent the planting of more trees, grass, flowers and shrubs.
            Beginning at noon, about 3,000 people appeared in Sproul Plaza at nearby U.C. Berkeley for a rally, the original purpose of which was to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict. Several people spoke, then Michael Lerner ceded the Free Speech platform to ASUC Student Body President Dan Siegel because students were concerned about the fencing-off and destruction of the park. Siegel said later that he never intended to precipitate a riot; however when he shouted "Let's take the park!,"[13] police turned off the sound system.[14] This angered some people, and the crowd responded spontaneously, moving down Telegraph Avenue toward People's Park chanting "We want the park!"[15]
            Arriving in the early afternoon, the protesters were met by the remaining 159 Berkeley and university police officers assigned to guard the fenced-off park site. The protesters opened a fire hydrant, the officers fired tear gas canisters, some protesters attempted to tear down the fence, and bottles, rocks, and bricks[16] were thrown. A major confrontation ensued between police and the crowd. Initial attempts by the police to disperse the protesters were not successful, so more officers were called in from surrounding cities.
            At least one car was set on fire.[16]
            Reagan's Chief of Staff, Edwin Meese III, a former district attorney from Alameda County, had established a reputation for firm opposition to those protesting the Vietnam War at the Oakland Induction Center and elsewhere. Meese assumed responsibility for the governmental response to the People's Park protest, and he called in the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies, which brought the total police presence to 791 officers from various jurisdictions.[12]
            Under Meese's direction, the police were permitted to use whatever methods they chose against the crowds, which had swelled to approximately 6,000 people. Officers in full riot gear (helmets, shields and gas masks) obscured their badges to avoid being identified and headed into the crowds with nightsticks swinging ."[17]
            The most aggressive were the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies —later dubbed "The Blue Meanies"—who resorted to using shotguns loaded with "00" buckshot. "00" buckshot consists of lead pellets that are much larger, and thus more lethal, than the birdshot that is occasionally used for crowd control.
            After people on the roof of an adjacent building threw bricks at the police[18], the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies used shotguns to fire "00" buckshot at people sitting on the roof at the Telegraph Repertory Cinema, fatally wounding student James Rector and permanently blinding carpenter Alan Blanchard. According to Time Magazine, Rector was a bystander, not a protester.[18] The University of California Police Department (UCPD) claims Rector threw steel rebar down onto the police, however that claim has never been substantiated.[16] The Alameda County Sheriff's deputies fired at bystanders on roofs even as they were leaving.[5]
            As the protesters retreated, the Alameda County Sheriff's deputies chased them several blocks down Telegraph Avenue as far as Willard Junior High School at Derby Street, firing tear gas canisters and "00" buckshot into their backs as they fled. At least one tear gas canister landed on the school grounds.[citation needed] Many people, including innocent bystanders, suffered permanent injuries, some with as many as a hundred lead pellet wounds in their scalps, necks, backs, buttocks and thighs. One man, John Willard, lived for years in intractable pain with lead pellets lodged near his spine.
            At least 128 Berkeley residents were admitted to local hospitals for head trauma, shotgun wounds, and other serious injuries inflicted by police. The actual number of seriously wounded was likely much higher, because many of the injured did not seek treatment at local hospitals to avoid being arrested.[19] Many more protesters and bystanders were treated for minor injuries. Local hospital logs show that 19 police officers or Alameda County Sheriff's deputies were treated for minor injuries; none were hospitalized.[20] However, the UCPD claims that 111 police officers were injured, including one who was knifed in the chest.[16]
            The authorities initially claimed that only birdshot had been used as shotgun ammunition. When physicians provided "00" pellets removed from the wounded as evidence that buckshot had been used,[21] Sheriff Frank Madigan of Alameda County justified the use of shotguns loaded with lethal buckshot by stating "... the choice was essentially this: to use shotguns — because we didn't have the available manpower — or retreat and abandon the City of Berkeley to the mob."[17] Sheriff Madigan did admit, however, that some of his deputies (many of whom were Vietnam War veterans) had been overly aggressive in their pursuit of the protesters, "as though they were Viet Cong."[22][23]
            Governor Reagan declared a state of emergency in Berkeley and sent in 2,700 National Guard troops — ironically some Guardsmen were students called to active duty.[12] The Berkeley City Council voted 8–1 against the decision to occupy their city,[20][22] however this vote was ignored. For two weeks the streets of Berkeley were barricaded with rolls of barbed wire, and freedom of assembly was denied as National Guardsmen sent tear gas canisters skittling along the street toward any group of more than two people together. ."[17] On Wednesday, 21 May 1969, a midday memorial was held for student James Rector at Sproul Plaza on the university campus. Rector had suffered massive internal injuries from his shotgun wounds, finally dying at Herrick Hospital on May 19. In his honor, several thousand people peacefully assembled to listen to speakers remembering his life. Without warning, National Guard troops surrounded Sproul Plaza, donned their gas masks, and pointed their bayonets inward, while helicopters dropped CS gas directly on the trapped crowd. No escape was possible, and the gas caused acute respiratory distress, disorientation, temporary blindness and vomiting. Many people, including children and the elderly, were injured during the ensuing panic. The gas was so intense that breezes carried it into Cowell Memorial Hospital, endangering patients, interrupting operations and incapacitating nurses. Students at nearby Jefferson and Franklin elementary schools were also affected.[18][20]
            During the People's Park incident, National Guard troops were stationed in front of Berkeley's empty lots to prevent protesters from planting flowers, shrubs, or trees. Young hippie women taunted and teased the troops, on one occasion handing out marijuana-laced brownies and lemonade spiked with LSD.[18] A few stripped to the waist and danced for the young recruits, who tried to hide their smiles from superiors. Initially, Guardsmen were occasionally seen walking hand in hand with young Berkeley women, and they often expressed sympathy with the protesters. After about a week, however, local National Guardsmen were sent home and replaced with National Guardsmen from the more conservative Orange County south of Los Angeles. Citizens who dared ask questions of National Guard commanders, or engage them in debate, were threatened with violence.
            A curfew was established, and protesters jumped fences after dark to plant flowers in the guarded lots. Guardsmen destroyed the flowers each morning. Some protesters, their faces hidden with scarves, challenged police and National Guard troops. Hundreds were arrested, and Berkeley citizens who found it necessary to venture out during curfew hours risked police harassment and beatings. Berkeley city police officers were discovered to be parking several blocks away from the Annex park, removing their badges/identification and donning grotesque Halloween type masks (ironically including pig faces) to attack citizens they found in the park annex.."[17]
            Flower Children vs.The Establishment; these differing perspectives mirrored widespread 1960s societal tensions that tended to flow along generational lines regarding the war in Vietnam, race relations, sexual customs, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychedelic drugs and opposing interpretations of the American Dream.[24]
            In a university referendum held soon after, the U.C. Berkeley students themselves voted 12,719 to 2,175 in favor of keeping the park.[18]
            On 30 May 1969, 30,000 Berkeley citizens (out of a population of 100,000) secured a Berkeley city permit and marched without incident past barricaded People's Park to protest Governor Reagan's occupation of their city, the death of James Rector, the blinding of Alan Blanchard and the many injuries inflicted by police.[25] Young girls slid flowers down the muzzles of bayoneted National Guard rifles,[20] and a small airplane flew over the city trailing a banner that read, "Let A Thousand Parks Bloom."[25][26]
            Almost a year after "Bloody Thursday" and the death of James Rector, addressing the California Council of Growers at Yosemite, Reagan defended his actions, saying: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement."[27] Less than a month later, on 4 May 1970, similar violence erupted at Kent State University, killing four students and seriously wounding nine.
            In fact this type of behavior is wholly consistent with his breaking the Air Traffic Controllers during his Presidency.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

              And what you posted was what? I'd guess revisionist history because I wouldn't confuse a screed with "facts."
              Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                Meh. I like to read the Exiled purely for entertainment value, it is the literary equivalent of a 75-car pileup. Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames (founders of the Exiled) are well known to be deranged lunatics, and they attracted a number of similar personalities to that publication. Now, I will allow how Taibbi is the kind of deranged lunatic who can really get things right once in a while (viz. "vampire squid") but in general, the editorial tone of the publication seems to be fueled by alcohol, lust, and rage. This piece certainly fits.

                I was a Reagan hater back in the 80s, when I was a sponge-headed dipshit of a college student. Eventually I grew up and, one day, I finally learned that Reagan was not just a great american but A GREAT AMERICAN THINKER. The dopey liberal media made him out to be stupid, but they just hated him because he was a man of rock-solid principles, the kind of principles that a man arrives at through years of thoughtful study. Haters would be advised to examine the pivotal years of Reagan's life (1972-1976) when he really came into his own as an intellectual giant of conservative thought.

                It is a real shame that Bush and his crowd hijacked the Reagan presidency pretty early on in Reagan's first term.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                  Originally posted by LorenS View Post
                  Reagan has been out of office how long? The guy is long dead and Dloan is still seething.
                  Reagan may be dead, but he is the rhetorical battlefield of today's political landscape. His legacy will be very important to every campaign and every speech for the next 20 years. He's probably the most important Republican since Hoover. Every Republican will claim to be his rightful heir.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                    Originally posted by Master Shake View Post
                    And what you posted was what? I'd guess revisionist history because I wouldn't confuse a screed with "facts."
                    Truth be told, it's all revisionist history at this point.

                    Here's a pretty good example, apparently intended to be used as a primary source for students of history:

                    One casualty was James Rector, who was standing on the top of Gramma's Book Store on Telegraph, throwing metal rebarb down on the police.
                    That's not a typographical error; it's a lexical or vocabulary error: the author didn't know what he or she was talking about. Not a smoking gun, but enough to call into question the authority of the source.

                    Certainly the state funeral in 2004 was a remarkable work of propaganda.

                    In any case, I agree: the facts are what are important here. The anger and the tone only serve to weaken the argument.
                    Last edited by bpr; February 11, 2011, 12:50 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                      I was a Reagan hater back in the 80s, when I was a sponge-headed dipshit of a college student. Eventually I grew up and, one day, I finally learned that Reagan was not just a great american but A GREAT AMERICAN THINKER.
                      I took exactly the opposite journey. From liking the guy to thinking he was just another muppet put up for the crowed to "manage their perception". In the days when Reagan policies really kicked in I saw with my own eyes the results of his "thinking". The results were to be found under bridges, mentally ill people who should have been institutionalized but to get the government off the people's backs Reagan the Savior let these people lose on the streets. They were just free loaders.

                      One of the comments here expresses this very very well (apparent eye witness of the events).

                      Posted by bardamu
                      2011-02-08 15:25



                      I lived in Santa Monica, California when Ronald Reagan cut funding and dumped the mental patients on the street, cold turkey, without their medications and without resources, during a term in which he set new world records for deficit spending.
                      Every night, some of the homeless patients would scream
                      and stop for breath
                      and scream
                      and stop to rest
                      and scream
                      and stop to rest
                      and scream
                      all night, for hours on end, and sometimes reaching into the next day.
                      I was in my 20's, but having grown up in a more affluent and in some ways kinder United States, I had never before seen homeless women and children.
                      I granted requests that they use my bathroom until I found that they often trashed it, the last time even tearing and shredding shower curtains and leaving me with little explanation to my roomates.
                      With every fresh proposal to cut services, with every fresh proposal to increase military spending for nought, with no correspondence to actual security needs, I hear again those screams that became one for me, that I listened to while eating and while sleeping, that I sometimes forgot while they were actually happening in earshot, that I sometimes would suddenly remember in the middle of one or another night when they would suddenly stop.
                      I wish I could play them over, over the top of presidential speeches,
                      over
                      and over again
                      through the microphones and PA's and recordings of power
                      until they might be in some sense understood.
                      http://www.commondreams.org/video/20...omment-1752305

                      I suppose that in the Politic-speak of US they will ramble off "Another Lefty".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                        I can just imagine a recent graduate asking someone 65 years old...

                        "How did you graduate from college without any debt. I guess higher education was a lot cheaper back then."

                        "Try free."

                        "College was free? You're kidding!"

                        "Not kidding, if you were in the top 12% of your high school class in California, you could go to state universities for free."


                        Searching for the best book on Reagan's transformation of California. Will get back to you. Title suggestions welcome.


                        "On Nov. 8, 1966, Reagan beat Brown by 845,000 votes. Inaugurated in a midnight ceremony on Jan. 2, 1967, California's 33rd governor turned to his old Hollywood friend George Murphy (then a U.S. senator) and said, "Well, here we are on the late show again." After inaugural festivities arranged by Walt Disney Studios, Reagan set about translating his tax-cutting rhetoric into action. Promising to "squeeze and cut and trim" state expenses, he began with a proposal to reduce the University of California's budget by 25% and introduce tuition to make up the difference--thus obliterating the prestigious university's 100-year tradition of free education for the top 12% of the state's students. Tuition, said the governor, "would help get rid of undesirables." Students and educators saw this plan as retaliation for campus demonstrations. Evidently Reagan agreed with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Max Rafferty, that the University of California offered a "four-year course in sex, drugs, and treason", moreover, he had tapped a huge reservoir of public resentment against liberalism on campus. With popular support, Reagan arranged the dismissal of UC President Clark Kerr. Before his first month in office was over, Reagan had been hanged in effigy on the Berkeley campus. Reagan relished his war with the universities. When students at San Francisco State College went on strike, demanding the creation of black and ethnic studies departments, Reagan committed 600 police a day to the campus to restore order. When students and locals in Berkeley turned a vacant lot owned by the University of California into a park, Reagan ordered that it be destroyed. Later he lauded the efforts of the police after they fired into a crowd, killing one bystander and wounding 100 other people."

                        http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biog...a-governor.htm

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                          the University of California's budget by 25% and introduce tuition to make up the difference--thus obliterating the prestigious university's 100-year tradition of free education for the top 12% of the state's students.
                          Didn't know that anything so "radical" existed .
                          A mechanism like that surely motivated like hell young people to do their utmost best to study and become a strong foundation for the countries development. Now wealth can get you that piece of paper or indebtedness.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                            If you want to blame someone for the de-institutionalization of mental patients, I suggest pointing the finger at people like Ken Kesey (Cuckoo's Nest) and Thomas Szasz, who popularized the notion that mental illness was a social construct and asylums were a type of gulag for "sane" or idiosyncratic people reacting normally to an insane world.
                            Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Angry Reagan takedown...

                              Originally posted by Master Shake View Post
                              If you want to blame someone for the de-institutionalization of mental patients, I suggest pointing the finger at people like Ken Kesey (Cuckoo's Nest) and Thomas Szasz, who popularized the notion that mental illness was a social construct and asylums were a type of gulag for "sane" or idiosyncratic people reacting normally to an insane world.
                              Right, blame artists, as opposed to public officials that set policy?

                              I'm thinking you should not have been let out of the asylum.

                              Keep looking...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X