Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Belated comments on the Reagan movie:
I kind of wish they'd gone ahead and broadcast it with the most outrageous falsehoods intact, thus discrediting CBS and the Left in general. But who cares what I think? Here's what that astute and objective observer, Barbara Streisand(tm) has to say:
~ B . S . ~
What is going on instead is that the Republicans, who deify President Reagan, cannot stand that some of the more unpleasant truths about his character and presidency might be depicted in the movie, along with his positive actions. In fact, the film, we're told, presents a balanced portrait of a complicated man who said, when confronted with the AIDS crisis, "Maybe the lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the ten commandments." This has been changed in the film to, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin," but clearly the sentiment behind that statement is the same. No less a source than the World Health Organization recently said that Reagan was slow in responding to AIDS as a public health crisis, and could have even stopped the epidemic if he had taken it more seriously. Public records and multiple sources show that everything in the film, including his controversial statement about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts.~ B . S . ~
Of personal interest to this blogger is how this exemplifies a left-wing quirk I never tire of pointing out: The reflexive implication that saying one thing is exactly the same as saying another ("reducing taxes will stimulate the economy" is code for "let's not let women vote anymore"). Here we see it asserted that the sentiment behind a teleological speculation about the possible cosmic explanation for a disease ("Maybe the lord (sic)...") is "clearly the same" as the talibesque injunction, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin".
If such is the case, then why change it?
As long as I've reprinted the above B.S. statement, I may as well mention that it says that falsehoods are "unpleasant truths", that those who object to lying about him "deify President Reagan", twice refers to a theologically speculative question as a "statement", and alleges that WHO said that Reagan could have stopped the AIDS epidemic at a time when there was no medical treatment for it, and the only conceivable political solution would have been quarantine.
I kind of wish they'd gone ahead and broadcast it with the most outrageous falsehoods intact, thus discrediting CBS and the Left in general. But who cares what I think? Here's what that astute and objective observer, Barbara Streisand(tm) has to say:
What is going on instead is that the Republicans, who deify President Reagan, cannot stand that some of the more unpleasant truths about his character and presidency might be depicted in the movie, along with his positive actions. In fact, the film, we're told, presents a balanced portrait of a complicated man who said, when confronted with the AIDS crisis, "Maybe the lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the ten commandments." This has been changed in the film to, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin," but clearly the sentiment behind that statement is the same. No less a source than the World Health Organization recently said that Reagan was slow in responding to AIDS as a public health crisis, and could have even stopped the epidemic if he had taken it more seriously. Public records and multiple sources show that everything in the film, including his controversial statement about AIDS, is based on irrefutable facts.
Of personal interest to this blogger is how this exemplifies a left-wing quirk I never tire of pointing out: The reflexive implication that saying one thing is exactly the same as saying another ("reducing taxes will stimulate the economy" is code for "let's not let women vote anymore"). Here we see it asserted that the sentiment behind a teleological speculation about the possible cosmic explanation for a disease ("Maybe the lord (sic)...") is "clearly the same" as the talibesque injunction, "Those who live in sin shall die by sin".
If such is the case, then why change it?
As long as I've reprinted the above B.S. statement, I may as well mention that it says that falsehoods are "unpleasant truths", that those who object to lying about him "deify President Reagan", twice refers to a theologically speculative question as a "statement", and alleges that WHO said that Reagan could have stopped the AIDS epidemic at a time when there was no medical treatment for it, and the only conceivable political solution would have been quarantine.
