pcmcgeer (07/23/82)
RICK'S REPLY TO JTR "I happen to see strong parallels between Hinckley's behavior and Reagan's. I believe Hinckley is insane in the conventional sense; I believe Reagan is insane in an acceptable sense." - JTR Good God. In my first, rather acidic note, I ticked JTR off for what I believed was a rather tasteless joke. It now appears that JTR was serious. Well, leaving aside the question of how one can be said to be insane in an 'acceptable' sense (can one have a cold in an 'acceptable' sense?), let's hear about the "strong parallels" between Reagan's behaviour and Hinckley's. Is Reagan a fan of Taxi Driver? Does he send notes to Jodie Foster? Is he fond of gunning down famous people for the attention he'll gain? If JTR has evidence of any of that, or of *any* certifiable or aberrant behaviour on Reagan's part, he has a clear and present duty to inform the Vice-President, since in that case Reagan would be unfit to hold office. The Vice-President could then act under the provisions of the XXVth Amendment. However, it might be wise to get a second opinion before we give the President of the United States a one-way ticket from 1600 Pennsylvania to St. Elizabeth's. Just to confirm JTR's expert diagnosis, of course. "I'll also be happy to debate the propriety of my remarks with you. Down here, few of us regard our Chief Executive as the Son of Heaven. Our presidents have long had to contend with potshots, literal and otherwise. Some survive." - JTR It's hardly germane to my central point, but I can't help noting that JTR's last two sentences are a marvellous comment on the thrills associated with holding the office of President. Sounds like an exciting job. Back on the central issue, JTR's earlier comments would have been just as repugnant had the victim been anyone else. Election to the post of Chief Executive does not rob a man of his humanity, nor free his family of worry and grief. It is not JTR's attack on the President, but rather his equality of the victim and the perpetrator of that most violent of crimes that offends me so. Finally, I'll admit that it's easier for a Canadian to hold his Chief of State in awe than it is for an American. However, I should point out that no one here believes that Elizabeth II is the Son of Heaven. Daughter is more like it. "And if you're just trying to provoke a verbal slug-fest, I can oblige you there, too." - JTR No, I'm not trying to provoke a verbal slug-fest. It would be a written one in any case. I'm trying to point out that there are limits to civilized, civil, political debate. Calling a man insane because you don't agree with his political views is beyond them. It says far more about you than it does about him. It's empty, cheap rhetoric, devoid of meaning, and injurious to that precious societal thread that Garry Wills called "the bonds of affection". JTR closes off the note with an excerpt from a San Francisco Chronicle article, which piece claims that Reagan told a NATO meeting last month that America was at war with the Soviet Union. This is presumably to be taken as evidence of the President's madness. It would be easy to point out that the article gave paraphrased remarks, a month old and taken third hand from unnamed and unidentified sources, who presumably have their own axes to grind. As evidence of *anything* the piece is worthless, and a discriminating and intelligent reader should know better than to credit it. The piece does not quote the President, nor does it give any hint of the context of his remarks. Evidence of the importance the Chronicle attaches to the story is found in their placement of it - they clearly don't find it banner headline stuff. However, even if the remarks attributed to the President are accurate and in context (highly unlikely, given reporters and sources), that still wouldn't be proof of madness. For thirty-odd years most of us spoke of the Cold War, and surely tensions now are as high as they were during some of those years. If the President is mad now, were we all mad then? We can't accuse anyone of insanity for holding that view. We can accuse them of poor judgement; rhetorical excess; of ill-formed policy; but not of madness. The President surely deserves, at a minimum, the courtesies we'd ordinarily give anyone else. And we aren't going to call anyone else a nut on the strength of evidence like that. Rick McGeer.
djj (07/24/82)
Bravo, bravo Rick!!!!! I think this piece should wrap up the long (and at times tedious) insanity discussion in this newsgroup. This reply was direct and very well thought-out. Enough about the victim (the unfortunate cowboy actor); let's get into the teeth of determining the viability of a "innocent by reason of insanity verdict." This is the real issue here. Dave Johnson BTL - Piscataway