What's So "Civil" about Civil Wars?

Civility was a form of social "lubricant" that reduced friction between people so that they could function smoothly together to get things done without heat and subsequent breakdown. "Manners" and etiquette were not empty forms of ritual to "flatter" people. They were the slick cartilage between bones in joints so they could bend and flex and not grind each other down while working.

As the literacy of modern peoples deteriorates arguments become more heated, and in the absence of rational proposals and "evidence," heated vocabulary and sensational expression crops up.

This leads to such divisiveness that, in the 2000 elections, half the voters of America moved to reject one side and another half the other side. The vast majority of voters wanted to oust their opponents, and both sides have remained bitter about the results to this day.

I don't partake of the Rush Limbaughs and Molly Ivins. They do not limit themselves to ridiculing ideas they disagree with. They ridicule individuals.

Laura Ingraham, on her radio program, cracks wise about Michael Moore's weight. Well, if someone called Ms. Ingraham a scrawny (ahem) bench how inclined would she be to listen to the speaker's opinion?

I don't speak or write to impress myself or others. I don't speak or write to reinforce already-held ideologies. I communicate my thoughts to provoke others to reconsider their own positions and, perhaps, improve upon them. Also, people may respond to my opinions with insights and information that help ME to refine my OWN thoughts.

If I get into name-calling and sarcasm I unplug the modem cable between myself and the people I want to reach, and to be reached by.

If my concepts do not stand on intellectual merits, emotional rhetoric will not save them, others, or me.

What was the old saying? "Divide, and conquer?"

Without civility, and reason based on broad experience and thought, America is doomed to fall in a "civil" war of words.

The Revolution Will Not Happen Because it is Televised

In business the term "micromanagement" means to cripple an organization with excessive "command and control" from supervisors. One person is monitoring and directing even the smallest details of another person's job. This means 2 people are doing the work of one, in effect.

I hate micromanagement. Train me, let me know what needs to get done, then get out of my way and tend to YOUR tasks, pal.

Media's insistence that the American public "needs" to know every detail of every sensational story is an insidious and crippling form of MASS micromanagement. That is not one person paying too much attention to a few people's activities and making their decisions for them, or second-guessing and reversing their decisions. Mass micromanagement is when a vast number of people are watching the details of a few people and ... second-guessing and reversing their decisions.

An officer in Iraq is faced with a tough situation, but he has to sweat what the American public will think and say about his decision, based only on their sound bite information. The man in the field has hours, days, maybe even months and years of background on the entire situation, but somehow thousands of amateurs are more expert?

People who will not be involved in the courts martial of military people who allegedly abused prisoners in Iraq believe (because the media has told them it is so) that they NEED to know if the female soldier's nipples were hard or soft when she posed with the prisoner, or the dead body.

Now THAT'S democracy.

"Gloves Off" means...

I am not a fan of American politics. I feel that both branches of the Status Quo tree are in it for themselves, even at the expense of the public. But there is still enough integrity and public sentiment among the ranks of the idealistic "grunts" (FBI field agents, fire fighters, CIA analysts, cops-in-the-street, etc.) that bad guys get caught, or scared away. Neighbors paying attention to odd vehicles and phoning it in. "America's Most Wanted." Amber alerts. With enough communication, America is able to "police itself" to a great extent.

Anyway, I believe we need to retire the "standing" army and beef up our Special Operations capabilities, as well as intelligence. We need to know who's who and who's WHERE, and be able to send dangerous men in the dark and take them out. Al Qaeda isn't marching in rank and file against us. They are sneaking around. We need to "sneak back." And we need to do this until we get the HEAD(s) of the snake(s).

I'm not sure we shouldn't leaflet Fallujah (et al) with this message: "Run!" Then order our troops to pull out and away as rapidly as possible. Then drop a neutron bomb. Infrastructure in tact. Bad guys fled (and picked up by the ring of forces outside the blast radius) or dead. Fools who didn't run ... sorry.

Next time a note is sent anywhere ("Run!") there would be an exodus. Big time.

We need to politely require that Saudi Arabia allow our SpecFor to go in after guys like Paul Johnson. Publicly we announce that the Saudi's have invited U.S. participation (even if they have not done so, but it is our way of keeping them from resisting to much when we start landing troops). Then we have the Green Beret go in and do what they do really, really well. Let the SAS go along, too. They make an excellent team, SAS and Green Beret. Find Johnson (or his killers, if too late), and video their take-down. Broadcast the destruction of the bad guys. If any are captured, turn them over to the locals for trial (don't burden our own system, or send the signal that we are not interested in "justice"), and remind the locals (the national government, I mean), "We trust that you will do justice here. If not, and you let these creeps get away, you may expect a note from us."

RUN!

Power to the People?

The state of Colorado has passed a land-mark law that allows the jury in some trials … with the permission and oversight of the judge and the input of the attorneys … to submit questions to witnesses.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Not surprisingly, of course, the attorneys are the largest group resisting this experiment in improving a seemingly ancient justice system.

This is topical because it has been decided in the Kobe Bryant rape trial jurors may submit questions to the judge, who will review the questions, consulting the attorneys. Rather than being spectators, the jurors become a vital part of the process. Is it any wonder that attorneys … who specialize in taking reality, translating it into their priestly Latin (a DEAD language, except in the American justice system), and establishing complex rituals and boundaries so the uninitiated cannot hope to grasp, let alone participate … is it any wonder that these elitists are upset that jurors may encroach on their ludicrous source of income?

In their own defense, the legal profession proclaims magnanimously that their complex and arcane system of mumbo-jumbo exists to protect the rights of individuals to a fair trial. Of course, thanks to the mumbo-jumbo, “common” folk have no way of knowing if their rights were protected. All that most Americans have to rely on is the justice industry’s assertion that, “We have gone to many years of college and endured crushing examinations, so we MUST be smarter and better qualified. You can trust us.” Says the spider to the fly.

This is a case of the people who invented “Blernsball” …

(1) deciding on the rules,
(2) passing the rules along to insiders,
(3) keeping the vast majority from learning about the rules,
(4) changing the rules occasionally,
(5) making it unlawful to practice the sport without excessive licensing and training,
(6) guaranteeing that everyone with a problem is required to play for a chance to gain relief,
(7) supplying misleading and false information about the game through popular media programs and novels,
(8) and charging handsomely for the expert coaching of the progeny of the inventors.

As a rule of thumb, when something comes up that is opposed by my adversary, I am inclined to support it in order to level the playing field somewhat against the others.

So let the jurors, who decide the case, ultimately, participate in the process of the case. It’s hard to imagine that “regular” people can do more to damage the system than the experts, who break it so they can be called upon to fix it every hour of every day.

The Captain Ouimette "Snooze" Email

There is an email being circulated alleged to be written by a Navy Captain. It speaks of not hitting the snooze button and makes an excellent case that America came under attack in 1979, the 9/11 attacks only being the most recent and biggest "domestic" attack. The email, regardless of the source, is an excellent wake-up call, except....

I don't believe that non-traditional warfare should be answered with traditional warfare. True, it is not a "criminal justice" case, but it isn't a march-in-formation situation, either. Since our intelligence and Special Forces groups have atrophied, I suppose a "regular Army" response is all we could muster in time, but the best response is what we did in Afghanistan ... send in what spooks we had and activate the Green Beret. Afghanistan was a resounding success until Tommy Franks got his traditional feeelings hurt and wanted to send the cannon fodder in to justify their existence.

Here's how I would "get out of bed." Start bringing regular Army troops home from Korea, Germany, etc. Build the SpecFor numbers of all branches to ten times what they are today. Quintuple the CIA funding and personnel. Transfer standing Army types from regular duty to National Guard, or into the SpecFor/CIA ranks being developed.

If Red Chinese (or Mexican) land forces decide to invade us, we would be doomed, but our responses to CONTEMPORARY threats would be quick, agile, and breathtakingly effective. Our military would also be far more cost-effective. 100 Green Berets took Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.

Capt. Ouimette only went so far in his prescription for "getting out of bed." Yes, America is under attack, but it is not a standard, traditional war, and as his own article indicated, a regular warfare response is ineffective. His alarm is sound, but his method of response is outdated.

Marriage Is ...

... saying ....

"There are others who are smarter than you are. More attractive than you are. Funnier, richer, etc. You are not the best and most perfect person I know, or am likely to meet, in any one category. But you are excellent enough in enough areas that I don't NEED or WANT to wait for anyone better! You are more than sufficient to bring me joy for the rest of my life."

Marriage is like binocular vision. With only one eye there is no perspective, no perception of depth. So a single person's personal vision is joined by a spouse's similar, but slightly different perspective, and suddenly the depth appears! It is not two distinct visions, but two different vantage points aimed and focused in the same direction.

And marriage is saying: In order to end the flat world I endure alone, I decide to be your best and most faithful friend, champion, defender, promoter, guardian, playmate, lover, advisor and companion until I die. When you are down and the entire world is against you, it will have to come through me to touch you. I will love you when I am angry with you, and I will love you when I am ashamed of myself. From this time forward I am your own, personal man. When you need a man for whatever you may need a man for, as much as I am able, I will be that for you. I take into my counsel the benefit of your vision.

My personal belief is that the man is created to protect the woman, and that a two-headed monster is a freak show. A fifty-fifty partnership is a monstrosity. When the house is on fire, or careers collide, one or the other has to have the 'tie-breaker,' deciding 'vote.' Because of my background and temperament, I believe the man is the one to make the final decision when the man and woman have opposite ideas. This is terrifying, because so many women today refuse to allow this. They will walk out on a man who refuses to agree with their side of the decision (and that is NOT 'commitment' on their parts, by the way). Of course, a man who isn't worried about power games (because his wife is not interested in power games!) can ask for and often accept the woman's input! He can say, 'Gosh, I don't know if we should take the job in Denver or transfer here in Phoenix.' She says her piece and he considers it and says, 'Thanks! I didn't see that aspect! Let's go!' But if she says Denver and he says Phoenix ... what do they do? In a modern American 'partnership' she goes her way and he goes his ... or he gives in to her and they both resent it afterwards and it poisons their relationship.

But in my idea of marriage, the woman trusts the man to lead ... and to repent and make corrections if his leadership turns out wrong. She supports his decision, even if she disagrees at first, and tries to help him make it ... and when he sees his error (if any), she supports him just as excellently as he tries to make it work, or as he changes his mind, admits his mistake, and moves to correct things. He was wrong, but he is confident to admit it and move on because she has not judged him and gone against him. She supported him and found out he was right all along, or he was righteous enough to change, and she supports his courage and integrity to make the changes necessary.

That sort of trust and commitment is not, by its nature, something 'temporary' or conditional. So, in that sort of 'old fashioned' marriage, there is no turning back. It is, ultimately, very unselfish. The man realizes that he cannot blame the woman for his failures, but can count on her to work for their mutual success, and he begins to depend on and covet her insights, and he works, studies and prays to make right decisions. The woman realizes that the man will not go against her just to prove himself somehow, and that her success is related to his, so she genuinely works to help him succeed at whatever he decides to do. Both people are fully engaged in seeing that they both make out okay, and they do not compete with each other ... they complete each other and back each other up.

My definition of marriage used to be traditional, and you had people staying together for 50 and 60 years, raising successful and happy kids, grandkids and great-grandkids. Today the traditional marriage is always 'on probation' and is conditional. War breaks out? Disaster strikes? Someone gets cancer? Someone younger or richer comes along? Someone disagrees? "I'm outta here!"

I am hopelessly old fashioned. But I can look myself in the eyes in the mirror and not flinch. I have never 'lorded over' a woman, nor been 'whipped.' I take some small joy in both of those 'accomplishments.'"

Whom, and What, Do I Forgive?

I wrote the following to a wounded person online, and felt like sharing it with others.

#

To me, forgiveness is taking any crap thrown at me and "giving it back." I don't mean returning evil for evil. Someone cusses me and I cuss back at them.

The "crap" thrown at me is the destructive entropy, or "negative energy" that comes with a slap, an angry glare, a moody silence, a bullet, a lie, etc.

Forgiveness "cleans" the entropy away. The wound remains. The memory continues. But the destruction is no longer maintained. The plug is pulled on the vibrating, buzzing, grinding teeth of the affront, and the erosion of the soul ceases.

So, you forgive anything (and everything) you want to stop destroying you.

When someone personally (or even IM-personally) wrongs you, it is tough to forgive the person. But it is possible to forgive the wrong they did. Not to "excuse" or "justify" it. Just hand the entropy back.

"Okay. You slapped me. It hurt. You shouldn't have done that, and I don't want to face you, at least not right now. But I don't want the slap to keep on stinging, the bruise to get wider and deeper and darker. So I dismiss the evil of the slap and minimize the damage already done. You will not get any more victory from me AFTER-the-fact. You had your moment and abused it ... and ME ... but I take back charge and I control all my moments from this point forward. Have as nice a day as possible while being so mean, but I am not as much a victim as you may have wanted. In fact, I only lost for as long as it took for you to hurt me, and for me to recover. From this point on, by getting rid of the entropy your assault transmitted to me, I win. For a moment (or two) I lost, but for all the moments ahead, I win. So long, loser. Hope ya grow up some day."

First Amendment for Dummies

There is so much crap in the media and in public debate about the First Amendment, a.k.a. "The Establishment Clause."

Five words can really trim off a lot of the fatty rhetoric surrounding issues of free speech and religion, etc.

Handily, yet somehow stealthily, these five words are "hidden" right in the Amendment itself. In fact, those clever Founders pulled a serious "hide in plain sight" trick and put those five words right at the very front of the entire Bill of Rights! Wow! Were they geniuses (geniusi?) or what?!?

Congress
Shall
Make
No
Law

In case the numbness induced by media (including infotainment programs like Court TV shows and "Law & Order") has made this simple phrase difficult to grasp, here are some comparisons to help establish what is NOT meant.

Your local county shall make no law....
The President shall make no law....
The P.T.A. shall make no fliers....
The A.C.L.U. shall make no public statements....

As this may point out, the only thing "Constitutional" about the Amendment in question is that CONGRESS is not allowed to pass any laws at all to do with religious expression, free speech and assembly.

Counties can do any (ir)religious thing they desire and which their constituents allow them to get away with. They can have Baby Jesus doing a Kwazaa dance holding a Menorah if they so choose. Just as long as Congress keeps their legislative hands off of it.

Public money going to public schools that allow the Ten Commandments to be posted? As long as Congress has made no law regarding this ... requiring it or prohibiting it ... it is as "Constitutional" as allowing textbooks or sex education.

Of course, if everyone knew this Reaganly simple precept, attorneys (and, by definition, most legislators) would not be in such high demand to read the entrails of Latin re-phrasings and historical precedents. Poor folks! This would be a serious blow to the rights of attorneys to get braces and new cars for their teens and send them off to college to learn Latin and become post-modern priests like their parents! Oh no!

DNA Records and Privacy

So California is considering a law that allows/requires law enforcement to collect DNA samples along with fingerprints and pics of folks picked up for felony crimes. If the person is later acquitted of felony charges, the DNA file(s) may be expunged (or gotten rid of, I suppose), although probably only by some sort of written request and forms filling, etc.

Some say this is an invasion of privacy.

Fingerprinting is NOT the same sort of invasion? I think they are the same.

And, as things stand now, the only people who need to fear having their DNA filed are people who have committed felonies in the past, or PLAN to commit felonies in the future. If I am not a former, current, or potential felon, what reason do I have to sweat about it?

Some day it may be possible for filed DNA records to be used to make a race of atomic mutant monster clones of me, producing a mighty army of killer bloviators! Yikes! Eek! Flee for your liiiiiiiiiives!

Or, perhaps, some totalitarian government may assume power and decide that everyone with the "prone towards heterosexual interests in females" code are threats to society and can hunt us down and execute us. Yeah. That's gonna happen in MY lifetime.

The only downsides I can imagine are just that ... in my imagination, and in this case, highly improbable.

So I say, get the sample and see if we might not be able to put away a few more felons BEFORE they rack up a higher score of violent crimes, stopping some serials from becoming so legendary, and saving even a few more lives.

What is Meant by "Middle Class"?

middle class n.
The socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class.
mid'dle-class' (m?d'l-kl?s') adj.

Looked this definition up at www.GuruNet.com.

One of the "blessings" proclaimed in the Plus Column for Mr. Reagan (the bastard) was that he reduced the tax code from [multiple] tax brackets to only three. In the Guru definition above (taken from some established dictionary I didn't pay attention to) there appear to be three (gasp at the coincidence!) socioeconomic classes. So I wonder if a "technical" definition with numbers involved might read like this: Americans in the lowest tax bracket are "working class," people in the middle bracket are "middle class," and people in the top bracket are "upper class"? Sound fair?

Since I don't know what bracket I'm in, I can't say which "class" I belong to. I suppose this means that ... wait for it! ...


I have no class!

I Me My Mine!

Even before Nancy Reagan had a chance to complete her ordeal of allowing a nation to mourn her husband, some people wrote about Reagan's colossal failures.

I'm not talking about media pundits, either. These are "normal" people online. Even some friends of mine.

Some of these complainers were not old enough to cross the street alone when Mr. Reagan left office, yet they felt justified in making pronouncements that included calling Reagan a "bastard" and claiming that they "hated" him.

I wondered why someone too young to have an informed opinion on the subject might feel that way, and it occurred to me that the sharpest critic was the child of a union lackey. This person was echoing the disgruntled sentiments of someone invested so deeply in the liberal "You Owe Me" culture that only a hateful reaction would suffice.

I read some of the arguments to support disapproval and was amazed that zero credit was given for the positive aspects of Reagan's service. Failure to stop apartheid in South Africa was more important than contributing to the demise of Soviet communism. Of course, apartheid ended, but that's not the point! Failure to cure AIDS was more crucial than doing a lump-ectomy on a 70% tax bracket. Of course, these same people spent the tax rebate they got from Mr. Bush without complaint, but that's different, somehow. (They were too young to spend anything from the Reagan cuts, but their parents probably spent any money they enjoyed from that, and probably griped about it as they did so.)

It dawned on me that, as a rule, the grumblers (without even the grace to withhold their "historical" opposition until after some of us were finished grieving) were upset that their personal favorite issues were not addressed by Mr. Reagan. Mr. Clinton, by contrast, was a champion of these touchy-feely, domestic, hand-out issues.

Interestingly (to me), Mr. Clinton gutted defense and intelligence ... contributing to the environment that made the September 11th attacks such a resounding success for the terrorists.

This post is NOT an attack on Mr. Clinton. This is a laser-pointer indicating that no president has the time, energy and clout to address all grievances, foreign and domestic. Every president has to prioritize and go with what they are good at, or care about the most. Clinton enjoyed being the maternal "Here's baby's pacifier" president. Reagan enjoyed being the paternal "Here's the belt, Mr. Gorbachev, and don't make me use it" president.

While I was personally, deeply disturbed by much of Mr. Clinton's conduct, I recognize that he did some important things for the benefit of the nation. He was also a charming and influential speaker. While Mr. Reagan is called "The Great Communicator," I feel that Mr. Clinton had similar clout in that area. His persuasiveness was different, somehow ... more on the level of a personal "seduction" of sorts, but not in a bad way ... but equally as powerful, I think.

The people I know who personally insulted Mr. Reagan, and, by extension, me, are upset that Reagan did not pander to their selfish demands, or the selfish demands of their parents (or teachers?)

Reagan's 80's were the most productive and prosperous times for me, personally, as a working adult. Because of this I am inclined to favor the man and his presidency. Some people suffered under his tenure, and I suppose their bias is equally understandable. If I had been a union "titty-baby," a South African tribal militant or someone terrified of AIDS, perhaps I would have felt the same way. As it was, however, I was an employee with dreams of becoming an entrepreneur.

My dreams are alligned toward producing more than consuming. I feel that this makes my opinion less-selfish, but I admit I am biased in this way.

Before Reagan

It occurs to me that many readers have no way of grasping what some people from my generation and before were facing when Reagan took office. Here's a picture of American life just prior to Reagan's presidency so you can get an idea of why some of us reacted to him as we did.

JFK was prez during a time when Americans believed they were just tha Bomb and the Poo. He said we would go to the moon and we went there. He spoke eloquently and was movie star handsome. His wife was a beauty. He was a Catholic and therefore at least moderately "moral."

There was an excellent movie made for TV called "The Missiles of October" that painted a picture of the nuclear terror we faced back then. I saw short films in school about what to do if an atom bomb exploded! That can only mess with the mind of a child. Recently there was a Costner film called "Thirteen Days." I saw it a few days ago at a truck stop drivers lounge and was gripped by it again (even after seeing it in the cinema when it was released). That was the world during JFK's reign. And when Kennedy successfully out-stared the Soviets and nuclear missiles were removed from Cuba, suddenly America felt like maybe we would dodge the radioactive bullet.

Then he took a bullet to the brain.

His vice-prez — Lyndon Bains Johnson, or LBJ — moved in and cranked up Vietnam. Vietnam stained every American achievement in the eyes of most of the world, and most Americans. We became ashamed of ourselves, and at the same time we dreaded the nukes of the Soviet Union and of Red China.

Then Richard Nixon came into office. Nukes were still a horrible, black ceiling of demonic clouds over our heads and Vietnam was still a stinking albatross around our necks. We continued to be fearful AND ashamed, as a nation. Then the president participated in stupid crimes and resigned. More shame.

Ford maybe did the best for the country by just being quiet and not rocking any boats, but we continued to worry over nukes and our loss in Vietnam. At last the United States had been defeated in war.

Score so far: an assassinated president, nuclear insecurity, a criminal president, a wrongful war that failed.

Jimmy Carter came to office. Gasoline went over $1 a gallon for the first time and stayed there. Then our embassy in Tehran, Iran, was captured and the best Carter could do was send in a rescue mission that panicked and pulled out, leaving dead service people in the desert that we had to beg the Iranians to return.

We were embarrassed, fearful and believed that the United States of America had gone from Good Guys to Three Stooges. The world feared our weapons and our stupidity to maybe use them. We no longer ruled the oil producing world. We no longer ruled in space exploration.

That is the environment Ronald "The Actor" Reagan found when he ran for and won the office of the presidency.

Whatever else may be said for or against him, when he left office a big percentage of the country was back on the road to confidence and national self esteem. And the Soviet nukes were no longer dangling over our heads.

Mean People Suck

I wrote a post about my melancholy at the passing of Ronald Reagan, not offering explanations (hence the flipping title) or trying to "sell" anyone on Mr. Reagan. I know many people who have bad opinions of the man. But for those who thought well of him (or of me) I wanted to give a little salute and vent my mild sorrow.

Alex Bennett (left-wing commentator) said on radio that being a "bleeding heart liberal" makes him a "better person." I was amazed. Being liberal or conservative does not make anyone better or worse.

I have no real respect for Rush Limbaugh because he did not just oppose and debate against ideas he disagreed with, he made personal attacks on individuals. That's asshole behavior. I agreed with many of Limbaugh's positions, but could not support his conduct. Robin Williams made a crack about Barbara Bush looking like George Washington, and I thought it was a cheap shot and a low blow to attack the Other Side by demeaning the wife of the president.

Then some of my more liberal-minded friends dogged Reagan after I posted about my feelings of loss.

Yeah. "Better people."

It sort of surprised me for people to respond to my feelings by sort of throwing a grenade at me like that, but I realize it probably wasn't personal, so I won't take it that way.

But when some liberal "hero" dies or falls on hard times, you won't read anything "mean" from me here. When a person, no matter how inept, suffers loss, it does not make my life better at all. If Mr. Clinton, for example, were to die suddenly, I wouldn't drag out a bunch of "evidence" to justify my disapproval of the man. Out of respect for the people who DO "love" or admire him, I would be inclined to mention his good qualities.

But that's how I was raised. I was taught that, even when I disagree, I don't hate. Am I "old" or what?

Our Facts Don't Match

My "facts" don't match yours.

This is a really serious problem in a democracy, too! If your facts say "X" and mine say "Y" someone's facts are wrong — and we have no way to prove which. Seriously! Maybe your facts are correct, but I can't prove it, so I make bad decisions. And so do you when my facts are right.

Some politicians and reporters claim that Mr. Clinton left a surplus and trot out real numbers to prove it. Some politicians and reporters claim that Mr. Clinton left a deficit that was camouflaged, and trot out real numbers to prove it. I have no idea which numbers (or interpretation) are correct.

This, I believe, is part of why democracy is decreasingly efficient here. If we don't shrink and simplify government, and demand better reporting from the media (and from politicians), we make worse and worse decisions (voting).

No Explanation

So I'm reading a magazine in 1988-1989 and in the back of something like People there's one of those one-page editorial kinds of pieces. There's a pic of Reagan in a plaid cowboy shirt. He's kinda half turned away, but has turned his head to smile at at someone just off camera, and he has his cowboy hat in his right hand and has it raised in a friendly wave. The headline says something like, "So long, Gipper. And thanks." It dawned on me that I was going to miss the big lug.

Jimmy Carter was my commander in chief back inna day. He embarrassed the living shit out of me. Since then I have decided he's just a really swell guy ... but he was a really lousy president, and is a pretty lousy EX-president, too. Anyway, I'm disgusted with Mr. Carter's inept presidenthood, but Ronnie Ray-Gun was just itching to "throw down" with them big nuclear six-guns, so I voted for the intellectual Independent, Anderson in 1980 (first year I voted, I think).

Fast forward to 1984. I don't recall who was running against Reagan, but in four years I had come to really like the Gipper, and I voted for him. As a guy who had literally sweated under the stress of living on a strategic USAF base with Soviet nuclear cross-hairs painted on it, I had bought into the media prophecies of Reagan being nuke-happy. Four years later I realized that the press had pantsed me and that Mr. Reagan was not as dangerous as they had tried to convince me he would be. He was highly quotable and fun as hell to watch and listen to.

He also made a lot of sense to me.

So, in 1984 (George Orwell territory) I voted for the guy who scared me before based on media spin and hype.

When he left in 1988 and I saw that headline and pic, I got kinda misty for a moment.

That was the first thing I thought of when I heard that Mr. Reagan had died. "So long, Gipper. And thanks."

I have no explanation for why, but from the time I have been aware of presidents, Mr. Reagan is the only president I ever loved. There was a pic of Ike in a frame on a wall in my folks house when I was a pre-schooler. I was in like 2nd or 3rd grade when JFK was shot on my birthday. LBJ was from Texas but I was still too young to notice or care about presidents. Nixon was the anti-Christ in my high school days protesting the Vietnam war. Ford was just sort of a nobody after the thrills of Tricky Dickie (Nixon). Then came kindly, limp-wristed Carter.

Since Mr. Reagan we've had Bush 41, Clinton, and now Bush 43.

Other presidents have stood up and addressed the press in photo-opportunities when there have been disasters (like the shuttle Columbia), but when Mr. Reagan spoke about the Challenger disaster, he sat in the White House and symbolically brought us into his "home/office" and spoke warmly to us in our grief. He quoted the cool poem which contains the lines, "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth ... reached out my hand, and touched the face of God." Imagine Clinton or Bush 42 doing that.

I enjoyed having a president with some class, style and a poetic heart.

As much as Republicans are trying to spin Bush into being a new Reagan, it is only vaguely accurate. I'm not trying to stir up sentiment on the side of Republicans at all.

I just felt like Mr. Reagan was a friend, and I wanted to say goodbye to him and "brag" on him.