Slashdot Mirror
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan Dead At 94 (nbcnews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Former first lady Nancy Reagan has died, according to a spokeswoman with the Reagan Library. She was 94. The cause of death was congestive heart failure, according to her rep Joanne Drake. "Mrs. Reagan will be buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, next to her husband, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who died on June 5, 2004," Drake wrote in a statement. May she rest in peace.
stuff that matters
On average.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Try Facebook next time.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Nancy Reagan had nowhere near the level of awesomeness that was Eleanor Roosevelt, but she did a few things.
After Ronald Reagan's term in office, she devoted most of her time to caring for her him. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, until his death at the age of 93 in 2004. Nancy remained active within the Reagan Library and in politics, particularly in support of embryonic stem cell research, until her death in 2016.
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Americans don't care what their politicians do, only what they say. Reagan talked like a conservative, but governed like a liberal, running big deficits, negotiating with Gorbachev, continuing and expanding most social spending, etc. So conservatives loved him and liberals hated him. Bill Clinton did the opposite: he talked like a liberal, but governed as a conservative. He cut welfare, balanced the budget, pushed through free market reforms and free trade agreements, and sent bombers into the Balkans. So liberals loved him, and conservatives hated him.
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read).
Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
I am sure she'd like it. It's such a wholesome family friendly song!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
Then read "firehose". Or become a patron and see news items after they're vetted but before they hit the front page.
I see two complaints a lot:
- It's not news for nerds / stuff that matters.
- It's slow.
You can't have both fast and filtered. It takes time to sift the jems from the slush.
Further: faster processing means more errors, while better (though still "imperfect") filtering means later stories. And there's no way to get the filtering right for all readers: I'm constantly finding stories I consider "news for me (a nerd) and stuff that matters (to me, a nerd)" to attract a chorus of one, or (as in this case) both, complaints.
I like Slashdot's setting of the fast - filtered tweak knob. I can always skip stuff *I* don't consider interesting, and it has a HELL of a lot of stuff I *AM* interested in, presented in a timely enough manner to be useful (when the rest of the media ignores it completely or warps it out of recognition).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh man. Where to start?
http://listverse.com/2015/01/1...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Reagan Administration stands as the only US administration that was ever convicted of crimes against humanity.
And that doesn't even count his domestic policies that hollowed out the middle class and started our slide into the economic inequality we have today. He dumped crack cocaine into the inner cities to fund illegal wars in Central America and turned the School of the Americas into a training center for hit squads that massacred innocent people, including Jesuit priests and nuns.
He was by far the president that did the most lasting damage to the United States of America.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Liberals don't run deficits. Liberals tax and spend. Under Obama the deficit has come down at a record rate.
Clinton gave Bush a budget surplus, Bush blew that so fast that people don't remember.
It's the Republicans' near demonic desire to defund government that drives debt and deficits, because you can't cut your way to prosperity, but you can cut yourself into a recession.
See Iraq and Afghanistan wars for proof, you would think you'd raise taxes during war, instead, Bush sent everyone a check. Literally.
You're repeating a common line about things that are easily disproven.
You may not like that liberals want to use government to solve problems with your tax money, but they will raise taxes to pay for things. Conservatives seem to think bombs and tanks are free, because America!
Nancy Reagan was born the same year the flow chart was first described in the literature. You can read the paper here.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Reagan did not govern like a liberal. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard and considering some of the conservative comments around here that's saying a lot.
Yes, he ran up huge deficits. So has every other modern 'conservative'. It's part of their playbook--literally. Look up the Two Santa Claus Theory. When conservatives are in power they spend like drunken sailors to pump up the economy and make themselves look good (and their corporate buddies rich). See Dick Cheney's 'deficits don't matter' quote. They don't matter--until a liberal is in office, at which point conservatives start screaming about the debt in an attempt to make sure that liberal programs don't get enacted.
See, liberal economic policies gave us a nation with a huge middle class, strong unions and worker protection, and massive economic prosperity because those things are how you get massive economic prosperity for all. So much so that the middle and lower classes started getting politically active in the 60s because they had the economic freedom to do so. This scared the hell out of conservative strategists because their policies only lead to bubbles followed by crashes and are generally deeply unpopular. The destruction of the middle class has been deliberate and cynical, to make sure people are too busy working multiple jobs and worrying about things like paying for college and retirement on salaries designed to support neither. Such things used to be benefits of living and working here.
The whole business of attributing things like massive debts to 'liberals' when it's actually conservatives doing it is just another part of the strategy. The federal government was cut in size while Clinton was in office and increased in size massively under W's frat boy administration, but people like you never admit that if you even know it because Fox News doesn't cover that.
So Reagan governed EXACTLY how conservatives govern. Hell, he wrote the modern book on it. His biggest 'failing' in that regard was he was pragmatic and actually worked with the other side. That is also unacceptable in modern conservative 'my way or the highway, even if I'm in the minority' thinking.
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Caused Americans to imprison more of its population than China.
Hmm. Maybe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1988. So, he started as President after the curve of prison rate started to rise, but before it has significantly diverged from baseline. The curve continued to get steeper after he left, with the steepest part right at the transistion from (George H.W.) Bush to Clinton
Unless you are Reagan and use the CIA to buy crack in Latin America to fight the left-wing workers. Then have the CIA import the crack into the inner cities of the US.
Watch the movie "Kill The Messenger". But, by the time the CIA admitted it, the media cared more about Clinton getting a BJ.
So, yes, I will "just say no" to caring about this anymore.
Hmm, why is it clear that Serbs were the major dicks? There was no good party in the Balkan wars. The US did choose to side with Muslim terrorist organizations and as thank for the support veterans of the Muslim terrorist army in the Balkan destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 and became the inspiration of what is now IS. Yet we insist to say that the Serbs were the wrong doers while the others were the victims.
If the IS threat isn't controlled soon, the Balkan will become a new battleground again. There are already village whose population fully support IS and have replaced any Bosnian flags with IS flags. Will the US again support the Muslim terrorist organizations? Or is it now clear that you should never support any Muslim organization, whether they claim to be moderate, conservative or claim they are the victims?
She was predeceased by her astrologer by more than a year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
One of them may have seen it coming. Or not.
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
That was seriously frightening, since their response to what they perceived as preparations by us for war was to move to launch-on-warning status, which means that an error could have catastrophic consequences.
In terms of technology, this was all a consequence of the adoption of MIRV warheads in the 70s, in which a small number of missiles launched could take out most, or possibly all, of the missiles of the other side, giving the first side to launch an overwhelming advantage.
It apparently never occurred to Reagan that the Soviets might find our moves threatening. He was so fixed in the viewpoint that the Soviets were the ones with evil intent, that he was unable to consider that they might see us as the aggressors.
Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read). Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
He had good and bad points.
One of the big reasons that the debt "exploded" under Obama is that the Bush administration used accounting tricks to keep the cost of Afghanistan/Iraq off the books until Obama decided it was time to be honest about it. That plus the great recession he was handed upon entering office.
Yeah, I thought that too for years. But it turns out, like MK-ULTRA, the Reagain/Crack Cocaine connection is absolutely true. Documents have come to light since the 80s that prove it.
In fact, the Reagan Administration admitted to it in secret testimony to Congress.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEB...
You are welcome on my lawn.
because he rolled back decades of banking, Wall Street and Commodities trading reform, not because of what he said. He also supported horrifying acts of violence in South America, helped destroy Unions and oversaw the end of American Manufacturing. His Rhetoric also paved the way for the dismantling of what little safety net we had (which to be fair Clinton actually did, but actual liberals don't like him either).
As a rule, the American left hate people for what they did, not what they said. But then again the American left has gotten so small over the years that I don't blame you for not noticing us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Take a look at the debt I linked to. You cannot "hide" things off the books - spending above income still shows up in the national debt regardless of on-or-off budget. You'll find that Obama racked up debt a lot quicker than the Bush. It's not military spending - it's Government largesse to millions of people. The facts don't lie - spending has skyrocketed under President Obama, and the debt reflects that very fact.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually, SSI and Medicare are not self-funding; they've been running in the red for several years now. They are drawing out of the total Federal revenues. And the funds are not a "lock box" for you - the Supreme Court has ruled there is no right to any Social Security payment. Its funds have been part of the official budget for nearly 50 years, and funds have been used to buy T-bills (loans to the Federal Government) since the beginning, by statute. FICA payments are made to the Federal Government, those funds are loaned to the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has no legal requirement to pay back any of it. Does that mean it's separate and self-funding? In any real sense of those words - not a chance.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Uh, no. The ADDED debt per year is what I'm talking about. Ignore the reported "deficit" numbers, they're cooked big time. Look how much is added to the national debt every year - that will tell you how much excess spending went on. President Bush was terrible, adding $5 trillion to the national debt. President Obama has doubled that, adding nearly $10 TRILLION to the national debt. That's the problem - and the real way to look at spending/revenue. And the last time we had an actual surplus - our debt went down - was back when Eisenhower was in the White House, about 60 years ago.
As far as SSI and intragovernmental debt, per GAAP standards that is debt and must be accounted for. It's owed money - it's not just "disappeared". Yes, the Government can welch on its promised obligations to people, but until it does so - that debt is legitimate and must be accounted for. Even if the CBO and the Government try to claim it isn't. If you have a loan from your 401K (like the Federal Government taking loans from the Social Security fund), then lenders will consider that as debt - which is correct (a financial obligation you have to pay).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Do not forget to mention that she was responsible for the use of astrology in the decision-making process at the highest level.
To be fair, if we are to criticise people for consulting astrologers before making decisions, then we should do the same when they consult their imaginary friend. Astrology is as valid as any religion, which in my view isn't very much; and at least they can claim to make use of actual computations. And I think, also, that we shouldn't be completely blind to the fact, that things like prayer, meditation or consulting with oracles and horoscopes can potentially be a way to reflect more deeply over the decision you are about to make, regardless of whether your life-lie of choice is in itself bonkers.