Shannon Jacobs wrote:

> Gerry wrote:

>>Nevertheless my criticisms above and before were about Bush. How long
>>after Reagan's season of honorment can we begin discussing Bush again?
> 
> Hmmm.... Doubtless I shouldn't say anything, but Google managed to pique my
> interest in the thread, and peaking at a few posts at random, this one
> managed to hook me.

For someone who holds this newsgroup's frivolities in such disdain, you
seem to spend an awwwwful amount of time here. Doctor's orders? Some
kind of therapy?

> On the first part above, I'll say that the "true" historical perspective is
> very difficult to achieve, and that's one of the few things that Dubya
> actually managed to say almost correctly, though he cast it from his
> typically selfish perspective about why he shouldn't care. Historical
> judgment does have to wait until the actors are all dead, and it takes a
> long time. (The last wife of a Civil War veteran just died recently.)

The best histories we have so far of WWI, the Anglo-Irish and Irish
civil wars etc have only recently been written. I doubt it would be any
different in sepponia.

> Now the real reason I was hooked into commenting: Y'all can blame Reagan for
> my presence here. If that doesn't destroy the Reagan worship, I can't
> imagine what would.
> 
> The short history according to Garp:
<melodrama snipped>
There is such a thing as dissent and loyal opposition. And if "sickness"
in the political system is the major problem you have with your country,
why would you consider Japan's political system to be somehow more
healthy? If the mere existence of a conservative right wing presidency
upsets you that much, why not go home and try to change it?

-- 
"Oh don't give me none more of that Old Janx Spirit/ No, don't you give
me none more of that Old Janx Spirit/ For my head will fly, my tongue
will lie, my eyes will fry and I may die/ Won't you pour me one more of
that sinful Old Janx Spirit"