Paranormal Columnists Read Reagan's Mind
Although this column by Leonard "The" Pitts, Jr., deserves a full
fusking, I'll only fusk the chewy bits:
Now, this is ``Must-See TV.''
I mean, I had no intention of watching CBS' Ronald Reagan miniseries. But given the furor raised by the Republican party and assorted conservative pundits over what they perceive as a hatchet job on the former president, I don't see how I can afford to miss it.
This week, CBS gave in to the pressure and announced that it had pulled The Reagans from its November schedule. The movie has instead been shipped off to the Showtime cable network, which is expected to run it next year.
The Republican faithful are counting that as only a partial victory. They're pleased the show won't be run on a major broadcast network. They'd prefer it not be run at all.
Mind you, they haven't actually seen the movie. Their antipathy is based on a number of other factors, including the fact that Reagan is portrayed by James Brolin, husband of the über-liberal herself, Barbra Streisand. Then there are the script excerpts published by The New York Times, particularly one that portrays Reagan as lacking in compassion for gay people dying from a then-new disease called AIDS.
Yet as everyone knows, the Reagan administration stood silent on the sidelines in the early years of that plague. Reagan may never have said the words the script reportedly puts into his mouth -- ''They that live in sin shall die in sin'' -- but the sentiment was certainly there. That's an unalterable element of his legacy.
Oh, for crying out loud, Lenny, enough with the deduction of the interiors of men, huh? I understand that to a certain segment of the population, it's the heart and not the actual
words or
deeds of men that matter. I even suspect that when Leonard Pitts, Jr., Googles himself and this site comes up, Lenny would reject any argument that intuition is a good source of premises for argument. Because it probably
feels right to him. You like it, Lenny?
I just know what you're thinking!
Which is ultimately what this argument is about, the battle for Reagan's legacy.
Legacy, truth, they're all a part of the great pastiche of grey that comprises relativism in all its beatuiful monochrome.