"Hawke" wrote in message
...


By the way, regarding Barack Hussein Obama's stated desire to
eliminate nuclear weapons. I think that it is election talk and is
not
realistic.

The US would, in fact, have an even greater mililtary advantage over
current nuclear countries if everyone got rid of nuclear weapons.
But
they are not stupid and would not do such a dumb thing as to get rid
of nuclear weapons. So it is not going to happen.

Historically, nuclear weapons are a guarantor of peace and are very
inexpensive compared to their value.

i

Nuclear weapons have only one value; deterrence. Aside from that they
are
of
no value to anyone. In today's world the use of a nuclear weapon would
accomplish nothing good but would bring about vast harm. Not something
you
would actually want to use. Good for threatening but not for using.



This is one of the areas in which Ronald Reagan had important
insights,
and
one of those in which he unraveled the claims that he was an "amiable
dunce." I'd put his thoughts on this subject near the top of that
list.

The dunce part was correct. Amiable, not so much.

I take it you knew him personally, then?

Me, no. But my parents knew him when they were part of the Orange county,
Reagan country republican support system. Since I lived in California
since
1961 and mainly in Orange county I do know a lot about Reagan. I also knew
all about his politics and about the things said about him by people in
the
community who had known him for years.


I'll tell you who I take it from: George Will. Will knew Reagan, and said
he
was a smart guy with exceptional insights. I knew George Will -- even
before
he wore bowties -- and he's a smart guy with exceptional insights. He's
also
the most acutely critical person I've ever known. That is, the most
critical
*intelligent* person. So I've always been wary of the leftish criticisms
of
Reagan's intelligence.

I know about George Will too. I'll agree with you that he is a smart guy
and
very knowledgable. But he's got his head so far up the ass of the
republican
party leadership that his "insight" about republicans is worthless. He's
one
of those guys who very cleverly finds every minute flaw with Democrats but
finds nothing to complain about when it comes to his beloved republicans.
No
credibility on republicans from him because of extreme bias, sorry.

It appears you're confusing him with someone else. He's often quite critical
of Republicans, especially Dubya, and most especially on his policies in
Iraq.

As to Reagan's intelligence it's not a matter of what "leftists" say. You
can discount them all you want. The fact is that like George W. nobody
ever
went around bragging about how smart and well educated Ronald Reagan was.
Except for his mindless followers who did see him as a diety. Oh, by the
way, Will is one of the Kool Aid drinkers when it comes to Reagan.

I don't know what you mean by that expression. He knew and advised Reagan,
and, as I said, Will thinks Reagan was underestimated. The jury is out as
far as I'm concerned.

Like you, most of Reagan's detractors have been leftish and I question how
informed they really are. Your estimate of George Will, if it's equal in
quality to your estimate of Reagan, is not something I'd put stock in. As I
said, I knew George Will. He was my professor and academic advisor; he got
me my opportunity to study international politics at the University of
Lausanne. I have high regard for the clarity of his vision and his judgment,
even though I often disagree with his politics.



The "amiable dunce" line came from Clark Clifford, JFK whiz-kid (although
he
was a very elder "kid"). The people who respect Reagn's judgment are not
part of that crowd. Some of his writings in his memoirs suggest a person
who
was distant and vague in informal contacts, but not like that at all
inside.

The problem with Reagan
was that none of us knew the truth about his mental deterioration the
same
way the public was unaware of FDR's disability. I've lived in
California
for
over 30 years so I know all about Reagan.

Aha. Is this anything like you knowing all about the Surpreme Court
justices? g

Kind of.

Then you have a problem here. d8-)

I finished the "Nine" by the way. No insights there other than that
justice Thomas likes to RV. It did confirm what I said earlier about the
court, it's not a legal body. It's a political one. Which is why the
presidents pick the justices they do, they know ahead of time the way the
judges will rule, except when they get an occasional curveball. It doesn't
take a genius to know why Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were chosen. They
were
chosen because their politics is perfectly in synch with republican
politics. What I learned about the Supreme Court I learned in Grad school.
I
learned about Reagan by living under his governing for too many years.
Both
were good learning experiences. Living under Reagan as a leader was not.

You can spare us your idea of what the Court should be as a "legal body."
There are various doctrines of jurisprudence, and the Justices reflect a
broad spectrum of those doctrines. Even at the most conservative end, for
example, you have two "originalists" -- Scalia and Thomas -- who have very
different views of precedent.

And I think you're too quick to cross-identify those jurisprudential
doctines with politics. Politically conservative judges tend toward more
originalist interpretations of the Constitution, but not always. Some favor
states rights, but not all of them. They *often* surprise, and anger, the
presidents who nominate them, with their decisions in particular cases. And
so on.

--
Ed Huntress