Like many college journalist wannabes they assume that petulance and bombast is the road to "journalism" and this fellow, Ted Rogers, is no different. He begins by smearing Reagan admirers as sexual perverts:
I think I might be the only person who still has this opinion, but I need to get it out there. I think the inappropriate loving of dead people, commonly known as necrophilia, is just plain wrong and weird. There, I said it.
I have a bit of advice to young Mr. Rogers. Get thee to a dictionary. Reverence of the dead is in no way similar to sexual interest in the dead. And, I should let you know, Mr. Rogers, you aren't the "only person who still has" that opinion. You are the only one. What's more, you are the only one who ever has. And the fact that some 75% of the country disagrees with you, even by your own reckoning, should tell you that you are on the nut, fringe.
Then, young Mr. Rogers goes on to regurgitate all the old, hatemongering from the left that is left over from the rhetoric wars of the 1980s, none of which he has any real proof for, but just hands us as if it were patently true.
Ever since the ex-president kicked the bucket in 2004, it seems that every man, woman and child in politics has rushed to make a comparison between themselves and Reagan. Oddly enough, they somehow mean it in a good way. The problem I see with this is that, to put it lightly, Reagan was not a good president. More than any other administration, present included, Reagan's was the most forwardly corrupt. Anything that brought shame to the nation could be brushed away with a sheepish grin and a timely invasion of a third world country.
The "timely invasion of a third world country" line is particularly disingenuous. Reagan didn't make a habit out of "invading third world nations" during his tenure in the White House. In fact, he has just one to his credit, the Caribbean nation of Grenada. If you'll remember, Reagan had two 4-year terms, yet only one small, quick military action that could be considered an invasion.
That's it.
One.
So much for Rogers' veracity.
There are so many lies and foolish claims in this childish piece that it boggles the mind. Rogers says, for instance, that Reagan created "a huge military industrial complex that drains away into our literal national debt." Yet, during Reagan's era, military spending was never higher than 6.1% of GDP. Today it is less than 4% of GDP. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP was higher under Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman and F.D.R. than it has been since Reagan got in office in 1980.
So much for Rogers' ability to do any research.
Then he gives us the left's newest Reagan canard.
However, more than any other president in the past, we can thank Reagan for the mess we are in now. It was under Reagan's administration that Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan were given all sorts of weapons, training and money to help solve the threat of the Soviets.
This is also patently untrue. The US did not arm the Osama bin Ladens and other "Muslim fanatics" back then. We did, however, arm the local warlords, tribal chiefs and militias to fight the Russians. It helped us win the Cold War, too. There was no US training for Saudi foreign fighters and Pakistani fanatics that streamed during that same era to fight the Soviets.
It is a shame that so much space was given to this tyro journie. It is obvious that the Collegian hasn't the capability to do any competent research. Worse, the professors that are responsible for this poor kid's education are failing him miserably. And even worse than that, no one at the Daily Collegian seems to be able to spell.
"Regan," indeed.
