Michael Ancram, the UK’s Conservative foreign affairs spokesman and, remarkably, Tory party deputy leader, is one of those decent, well-intentioned and utterly ineffectual people who make their way to the top in Western democracies. Here’s his big new idea:

“Michael Ancram has called for renewed co-operation and dialogue between mainstream Islamic countries and the West – in a move to outflank the international terrorist organization al Qaeda. The Deputy Conservative leader has written to Tony Blair highlighting his paper “From Clash to Dialogue: an answer to al Qaeda”, in which he proposes a “big initiative” based around a new Grand Congress of Reconciliation.”

Oh yes, yup, sure, that’ll do the trick.

Why do I call them ‘health mullahs’? Well, because of the way in which they will use any information, however irrelevant, to justify their faith and their fanaticism:

“When the Commons health committee published its reflections on Britain's obesity epidemic two weeks ago it provoked an immediate media feeding frenzy. The revelation that a three-year-old girl had become the youngest casualty of the epidemic made headlines both here and abroad. It was contained in the second paragraph of the 146-page report and was clearly placed to add drama to the central message that the Government, the food industry and parents had to wake up to the threat.”

Well, this it turns out is the truth about that poor child:

“Then it emerged that the girl was not, after all, a victim of the "obesogenic" environment - one which encourages over-eating and sedentary behaviour. Instead, she had a rare genetic defect which affected the appetite control mechanism located in the hypothalamus in her brain. The result was she had a ravenous appetite immune to the efforts of her parents to control it and unaffected by junk food advertising, school sports policy or government behaviour.”

And then, of course, there’s this charming story:

“Birthday kids at Duxbury's Chandler School next fall will get dragon stickers, special seat covers and starred birthday sashes they can wear all day. But no cupcakes - they're bad for you. The tradition of cupcakes at school birthday parties died last month when the School Committee unanimously ratified a new handbook that redefines the way students celebrate in class.

Words fail me, but, given stern Corner injunctions against profanity, that’s probably just as well.

From John Reid, the UK’s health minister, of all people. Check out this report from the Guardian:

“Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."

He’s right on any number of counts, although, as we have discovered in billionaire Nurse Bloomberg’s New York City, it’s not just the “middle classes” who are obsessed with bossing about the plebs. The war on tobacco has long since ceased to have any connection with public health (everyone knows that it’s a dangerous pastime). What it’s mainly about these days is public penitence (the drama of the ‘reformed’ smoker), power (people like pushing other people around) and an expression of social superiority.

Two other gems from this report: the first was the criticism from the thugs over at Action on Smoking and Health that Reid was somehow being “patronizing”. To hear that claim from an organization dedicated to the proposition that adults are incapable of taking decisions for themselves is, quite frankly, quite remarkable. The second comes from the reliably pointless British Medical Association (it’s sort of like the AMA but, somehow, even worse) gibbering on about the ‘damage’ caused by passive smoking. I always thought that doctors were meant to dispense accurate information. The BMA clearly does not think that rule applies to its own pronouncements. It’s time to scrap it.

Whatever you might think of SUVs (as for me, I don’t even own a car), there’s no doubt that they have become a handy symbol for the puritans, scolds and busybodies who make up far too much of the enviromentalist movement. It’s no surprise, therefore, to see that the city of Paris is looking to ban them (at the same time, needless to say, as expanding facilities for bicyclists, some of the most annoying people ever to weave across a road, but I guess that’s a controversy for another time…) and that London’s mayor Ken “endorsed by the Economist Livingstone " has had this to say on SUVs:

They were "bad for London -- completely unnecessary." Their owners were "complete idiots."

Hmmm. “bad for London,” “completely unnecessary,” a “complete idiot”, now those words remind me of somebody.

Ken…Ken..Ken?

Another portent of prudery on display in the UK. Thong sellers put up a (entertaining) poster of some of their products near a mosque. A couple of complaints ensued, followed by a warning from the Advertising Standards Authority. What nonsense. If worshipers at a mosque (or, for that matter, a church) want to act as aesthetic policemen for their immediate environs, they should do so the old fashioned way – by coming to a (paid) accommodation with the owners of the billboards in question. Freedom of religion is one thing, exquisitive over-sensitivity to the customs of each particular sect is quite another.

Now, about the FCC...

Dismal regional election results for Tony Blair over in the UK, in part, undoubtedly, because of his support for the Iraq war, but to blame this debacle purely on Iraq (as some will do) would be wrong. Beyond Iraq, Blair’s government has also done much to alienate support on the left for its supposedly centrist tendencies, while many on the center-right who supported Labour in the general election will have returned to the Tories both attracted by that party’s more effective leadership and repelled by the government’s fixation with regulation, taxation and the EU. The perception that Blair is a little, how shall we put this, flexible in his attitude to both truth and, more generally, honesty, will not have helped his party either.

There was a dismaying result in London where the demagogic Ken Livingstone, a politician whose viciousness is matched only by his incompetence and dishonesty, was (relatively) narrowly re-elected as mayor. Incredibly, he was endorsed by the usually sensible Economist and the usually even more sensible Stephen Pollard. The reason for this folly? The ‘congestion charge,’ which has (repeat after me) absolutely nothing to do with market forces and absolutely everything to with Livingstone’s longstanding dislike of the autonomy and the freedom that the automobile can bring.

So can we look forward to Michael Howard in Number Ten next year? No. At this stage in the electoral cycle, the Conservatives need to be doing far better than this. Under Howard they are back, but they are not yet in.

Bernie Shaw: “I’d just like to say something…We failed the American people with our coverage…I certainly missed a lot.”

Wolf Blitzer: “We’ve learned a lot about this presidency since his two terms in office.”

Paula Zahn: “I just wanted to add, Wolf, I do think there is new material coming out now about Ronald Reagan. With the distance of years we have the ability to get information…When there is a death, I think there is a respectful difference. I’ve heard people say the media is going overboard. In fact, it is entirely appropriate to go back and find what this man meant in the news media, to the world.”

I appreciate the posting--it surprised me. It also happened to be on my birthday, since you posted 14 minutes after midnight. You've made the week of the President's passing even more unforgettable for me, which I didn't think was possible.

However, I apologize if I left out some info that may be misleading people. The Russians were civilian contractors, not soldiers. And although I'm sure President Reagan would appreciate the irony of Russian soldiers noting his death with quiet solemnity, I think maybe your average Joe Schmoe (Ivan Schmoevovitch?) Russky appreciates his new version of Russia just as much as Russian soldiers do.

I just read your earlier post from the Air Force captain and the enormity of it all hit me. Our guys fighting with the Russians as allies in Afghanistan as liberators. Amazing. Trying to wrap my head around the all the changes brought by Reagan is mind-bending.

I would be quite pleased if some publisher decided to print Lady Thatcher’s eulogy (and perhaps all those given yesterday) on a card, so bookstore clerks can hand it out to customers each time someone purchases Edmund Morris's "Dutch."

On the top of the card, it'll just say "Read this, and you can skip the book. You will understand him better this way."

Lady Thatcher must have known that the "The Soviet Union imploded on it's own-Reagan just happened to be there, and besides, it was all Gorbachev" types would be out immediately and she called them all out. She did it elegantly, but she did it, and her use of "Great Liberator" and the checking off of the East European capitals left no doubt where the credit belongs. (She's probably the only person in the world who could do it.)

To fallen soldiers, let us sing,
Where no rockets fly or bullets wing
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord

No more bleeding, no more fight
No prayers pleading through the night,
Just devine embrace, eternal light
In the Mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry and no children weep
We will stand and guard though the angels sleep
Through the ages safely keep
The Mansions of the Lord

So I'm sitting in my home office, lump in throat, tears on cheeks. Watching the precision of the honor guard and the unbelievable reverence and beauty of the moment. And it dawns on me: he's done it again. He has an entire nation realizing again how beautiful this country is. Its people. It's respect for things great. Tradition. Class. There could not have been a departing gift so powerful. His first lesson to me in 1980, when I was 10. His last, today.

Although I was not old enough to vote for Reagan, my parents followed his administration very closely and I, consequently, heard many of his speeches. From his speeches I gained a greater appreciation of, and interest in, the ideas and principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution. So much so that years later while I was reading Donald Kagan's Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy I was struck by the following statement:

"Every leader who makes any impression at all acts as an educator for good or ill, knowingly or not. His people pay attention to his words and deeds as to few others, and he contributes to their vision of the world, their nation and themselves, and the relations among them."

No better statement could be made of the impact that Reagan had on our nation in general and my generation specifically. he reintroduced us to the principles upon which our nation, and its greatness, was based. If the aforementioned quote was an accurate description of the impact of Pericles on Athenian society it is certainly true of President Reagan's impact on America.

I stood in line from 8pm to 1am last night for the Rotunda viewing. I met a man who came all the way from Granada to pay his respects. I met an 11-year-old boy who, when I asked him what he knew about Ronald Reagan said, "He told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall and he ended the Cold War." He told me in a school assembly he got to be President Reagan and read that part of the Berlin Wall speech (I'd like to send my kid to that school!). And then, when I finally stood in front of President Reagan's casket at 1:10am et, I had intended to say a prayer, but I was so awe-struck I couldn't think of anything to say. As I walked down the West Front steps upon exiting, I started to admonish myself for forgetting to say the prayer, but then I cut myself a break for not knowing how to act in the presence of greatness -- I'd never been there before.

Leta Hix
Arlington, VA

I took a train from NYC to DC last night and returned immediately this morning after viewing the President's coffin.

I waited in line for 4.5 hours (1 AM - 5:30 AM) with thousands of members of the Reagan Revolution and it was worth every minute. The crowds were in good spirits as they made their way through the mazes of lines, but after we got through the metal detectors, the mood changed. When you exit the final security check, you walk out onto the main level of the Capitol's West Front and there was silence. A solemnity took over as people made their way to the entrance into the Capitol. The line moved from the south side of the House to the middle of the Capitol and from there people ascended a staircase into the Rotunda. I passed through a doorway into the Rotunda filled with the faithful, the honor guard, the great artwork of the Rotunda, and the flag draped coffin. Several people cried and the whole minute inside the Rotunda was exceptional.

Brian F. Gardner

What a glorious sendoff Washington is giving our late President. Not wanting to be redundant, I do want to share my experience from standing in line from 7:30 p.m. until we entered the Rotunda at 12:10 a.m. I was surrounded by a real snapshop of America -- the most diverse crowd I have ever seen.... But [what impressed me the most] were the two blind people in line. Think about it for a minute -- blind people standing in the heat for hours on end to pay tribute to someone they [likely] had never seen or would never see. Amazing -- God bless America and God bless the Gipper.

John Hawkins
Alexandria, VA

From a reader:

Don't over-analyze about the Spider-Man anecdote. I have a friend who loves telling that story about Reagan, and the actual quote was something like "the first thing I read in the paper is Spider-Man, to see if those wrestlers have gotten down to the ring yet." He was making fun of Stan Lee's ridiculously slow pacing.

GILLETT-NETTING v. BARNHART, No. 03-15442 (9th Cir. June 09, 2004) Two minor children conceived by in-vitro fertilization after their father's death are entitled to insurance benefits under the Social Security Act because they are their father's legitimate children and thus his dependants under Arizona law.

To read the full text of this opinion, go [here].

The LA Times story on the problems of the "neocons" offers this by way of definition:

"Neocons" — best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military policies — are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the group's leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in the future.

Let's see. Goldwater talked about winning nuclear wars and lobbing warheads through Kremlin windows. National Review called for rollback, not containment. Meanwhile, Krauthammer and Frum opposed the war in Yugoslavia while National Review supported (and Pat Buchanan wanted to send the US Navy to protect Croatia). When Bill Kristol offered his plan for a new foreign policy, he deliberately did not use the word "neoconservative" but neo-Reaganite. Etc, etc, etc. Is anybody seeing my point yet?

Another reader who was there:

I was at the funeral procession with a group of friends yesterday. Three things really got my attention, some of which have been commented on elsewhere. First, obvoiusly there were people from all over the country. I talked to one lady who owned a marine salvage business in Texas and had come up for the procession, and was going to the Capitol later last night. She thought it was the least she could do in return for all Reagan did for us. I met many more like her.

The second thing that I noticed was the mood - I had expected it to be more somber than it was. People were laughing, telling stories about when they first voted for him, how bad it was in the 70s, what a wienie Carter was (is) and how much Reagan had accomplished. Obviously people were appropriately somber when the caisson and riderless horse passed by, but all in all the atmosphere was one of celebration rather than grief.

The third thing that really captured my attention was how the crowd pulled for the members of the military as they stood at attention in parade order prior to the start. It must have been brutally hot standing in the middle of Constitution Avenue in parade dress, much of the time at attention. After the first few servicemen were overcome and collapsed (to be immediately replaced by the person behind them in formation), the crowd began watching for signs of distress. As people in the crowd saw a serviceman who was having trouble holding their salute, or showing other signs of fatigue, they would almost will them to stand up, and then alert rescue workers who would go to their assistance. Having participated in the World War II Veterans' Parade on Memorial Day, I've now seen up close twice the way the public supports our military.

As they say, not bad, not bad at all.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg:
The funny thing is, of course, is that Wilson was quite reluctant to enter the war and was harshly criticized for his attempts at isolation--especially by the likes of Republican internationalists Theodore Roosevelt, Leonard Wood, and Henry Cabot Lodge--during World War I. But five months after being elected on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War," and a month after being inaugurated for his second term, Wilson asked for the war declaration--and it was granted to great applause in Congress and among the public.

Insofar as American involvement in the war is concerned, almost from the beginning, the United States was supporting the allies--and the Germans were bound and determined to stop it (to include acts of sabotage--for an example, see Jules Witcover's Sabotage at Black Tom). American financiers and manufacturers readily provided money and raw materials to the Allies and American volunteers were found in the ranks of the Allied armies--and were never pursued by U.S. authorities, despite strong German protests. And let's be frank, the Germans did not do themselves any favors with their own high-handedness especially as it related to unrestricted submarine warfare and the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

Odd as it may seem today, among our WWI allies, France was much preferred over the United Kingdom by Americans. First, there were the historical associations dating back to the American Revolution; many Americans saw helping France and serving in the French military as akin to paying a debt owed to France for our own independence. Second, France was a sister republic in a world of crowned heads and autocrats. Third, one of the Democratic Party's constituencies--Irish Americans--were suspicious of Britain as were many American policymakers who were upset by the British blockade against Germany that often resulted in U.S. ships being halted on the high seas. Fourth, in the face of the Americans' determination to establish their own independent army on the Western Front, the French dropped their idea of integrating American soldiers into French units and generously offered to help train and equip the American Expeditionary Force. The British kept asking or demanding that American men be used as a replacement pool for the British Army. This did not go over well with the U.S. Army--who took it correctly as a slight on its professional potential--or the U.S. public which not like the idea of its young men being used as a natural resource. Finally, the French military had an air of la glorie that was born of the First Empire (American officers were quite fond of Napoleonic comparisons) and buttressed by such battles as the Marne and Verdun.

After World War I, there were plenty of conspiracy theories about how the United States was goaded and beguiled into war by Allied propaganda and pushed into war by industrialists and financiers who wanted to make scads of money on armaments and the like. The "we fought the war for Halliburton" routine we hear today is at least a collaterial descendant of the post-1918 accusations about why the United States entered the Great War. Thus, as World War II approached, Congress passed some strong legislation to ensure that we would not be dragged into another European war. As soon as the war began in earnest, however, FDR began to think of ways to help the allies--which meant maneuvering around Neutrality Act--especially after, to the surprise of many, France fell in June 1940. It is interesting to note as well that, almost immediately after 1918, the U.S. Army and Navy fully expected to fight in another European war and during the interwar years laid the plans for the military expansion and industrial moblization that won World War 2.

Regards,
Scott Belliveau
Lexington, Virginia (and you may use my name)

Jon - I don't really disagree with any of that. Though someone recently told me that Norman Podhoretz now says in his new book that he coined the term neocon in the mid-1950s. We'll just put that aside.

Anyway, again I don't necessarily say that neoconservative means a former liberal. That was Ramesh's response. Though the former liberal thing is obviously a big part of the intellectual history. Here's how I put it in my much maligned three parter ( Here, here, and here) on "neoconservatism":

The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler." Or perhaps the "neo" was intended to conjure "neo-Nazi," the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described."

And speaking of that endless column, my whole point about neoconservatism is that it is a word which distorts more than it reveals, is used irresponsibly by critics and adherents alike and should be interred along with all of the once-important distinctions of the left -- Schactmanites, Lovestonians, Fabians etc. Those on the so-called paleo right love the neocon label because it allows them to perpetuate a myth that the conservative movement has been hijacked. The reasons liberals and many self-described neoconservatives use the term are many, but one of them is as a way of asserting moral or intellectual superiority to just plain old "conservatives."

Indeed, I continue to find it hilarious that self-described neoconservatives (and the liberal New York media establishment which listens to them) still talks of National Review as if it is a "paleo" or "Old Right" publication, while the self-described paleos claim that NR has been completely taken over by neoconservatism. These assertions cannot both be true and it is further evidence that the word should be thrown away. NR is merely and proudly conservative and needs no prefixes. At least that's how I see it.

Dear K-Lo,

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend President Reagan’s funeral procession yesterday as well.

I won't tell you about all the pomp and circumstance, or the sad beauty of a state funeral procession for the death of a beloved president, other than to say that it was like the death of a king. I’ll leave the sweeping descriptions to the media though. The things you won't read about are the many beautiful little moments that took place.

Grown men weeping openly, and young children standing in awe, not quite able to understand whom this President Reagan was, but fully aware of the solemnity of the moment and that something very important was happening.

So many small things happened that I will never forget. Like the ten year old with the too large glasses looking up at the big Marine Corps photographer saying, "You're a reporter? I'm a reporter too. I write for my school newspaper. We're not as big as your paper is though. And I'm not so much a writer as a cartoonist really."

Overhearing the old men who didn't know each other figure out that they’d stayed at the same hotel at the '76 convention when Reagan challenged the incumbent President Ford, and where they heard the concession speech that ignited a movement. The father and his two sons who'd driven straight through the night from Missouri, who simply said, "We had to be here." Or the five year old that instinctively took his baseball cap off as the caisson passed by who looked up at has father and whispered, "Daddy, take your hat off", and his father nodding and smiling at his son through his tears, having been so completely overcome with emotion that he had forgotten to remove it.

The fighter jets buzzing the crowd in the missing man formation. Seeing the first flight group, then the second, then the third, and finally the fourth. And just as they reached Constitution Avenue seeing one of them take off at a 90-degree angle straight up until it was forever gone from sight, a beautiful symbol of Reagan’s entrance into Heaven.

What a beautiful day.

Sincerely,

Jordan Gehrke

Who knew a post about the Reagan dime would take us here? From a reader:

You’re getting into my enemy’s enemy territory, here. I wish the USA could have stayed neutral or at worst joined the Brits, but the Brits wouldn’t let us. They forced the issue by impressing American sailors of English/Irish origin/descent.

The challenge was posed to us by the British, but on behalf of all of old Europe, including France. What was at stake was America’s novel definition of nationality, that an Irishman born a subject of George III’s conquered Ireland could in fact choose to become an American. We had to fight that war with old Europe and win it.

From a reader with an intriguing email disclaimer:

Strangely enough, I am also on the side of the British during the Napoleonic wars. I say “strangely enough” because the United States joined Napoleon (Reference the war of 1812).

------------------

... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader.

From a reader:

Paul Johnson wrote one of those short "Penguin Life" bios of Napoleon.

Here's the Publishers Weekly recap:

From Publishers Weekly
The career of a different kind of celebrity hound is examined in historian
Paul Johnson's Napoleon. Johnson (A History of the American People) contends
that Bonaparte sowed the seeds of the devastating warfare and totalitarian
regimes of the 20th century. Stressing that the Corsican general was
motivated by opportunism alone, Johnson traces his rise to power and
expansionist bids, arguing that the most important legacies of his rule were
the eclipse of France as the leading European power and the introduction of
such enduring institutions as the secret police and government propaganda
operations

From a reader:

Jonah:

In reading your "Buffy" column Friday, with the references to
Spiderman, I remembered that Reagan once said that in reading the
newspaper, he would read the comic page first, and the first strip he would
read was Spiderman. The media, of course, implied that this was further
proof that Reagan was a simpleton.

But it occurred to me that so many of the qualities of Spiderman were
apparent in Reagan. First is the philosophical starting point that with
great power comes great responsibility. And that responsibility is to
actively fight against evil, wherever it may be found. In the Spiderman
story, Uncle Ben dies because Peter Parker chose to step aside and not get
involved in a situation that didn't appear to be his problem. Reagan
could have taken the position that rolling back communism was not really
America's problem-- so long as it was contained and not causing us any
problems, what did it matter. Instead, he did what he did.

The notion that there is good and evil in the world, though not
specific to Spiderman, is a very comic-book type worldview, and Reagan
wasn't afraid to express express that worldview even though he was
lampooned for it. Which leads me to another similarity. Reagan, like
Spidey, was a happy warrior. Throughout the years, how many times has
Spiderman thanklessly rescued J. Jonah Jameson from various predicaments,
with nothing to show for it but more bad press ? Even though Jameson
continually says hateful and untrue things about him, Spiderman just sort
of laughs it off, and jokes that it is all part of being a super-hero.
Spiderman also always displayed a sense of humor when dealing with
villains, and a certain self-effacement that was similar to Reagan's. He
never displayed the anger of Batman, or the self-righteousness of Superman.
He did what he did because that was his duty, knowing that, as the song
goes, "action is his reward."

In writing this, I realize I run the risk of portraying Reagan as a
crudely drawn, comic-book figure-- but what I'm trying to say is that the
values that Reagan represented were in many ways mythic and transcendant.
Its not so much that Reagan was like Spiderman, but that Reagan embodied
the heroic qualities that too many people think only exist in comic books.

Rereading my Wilson post I noticed that it might seem like I think Napoleon was an obviously bad guy. I don't know that I believe that. He did put a stop to the French Revolution -- surely a favor to us all. As as for all the war and invading, I don't know what to make of that in the modern context. Obviously, when in doubt, I side with the British. So in that sense alone, I'm anti-Napoleon. Also, I've developed a soft spot for the Austro-Hungarian Empire thanks to reading a lot of Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn over the last year (and listening to my Slovakian father-in-law). So I don't know.

Derb, Rick, other Cornerites? Any thoughts on what we're supposed to think about Napoleon?

John - I don't want to get bogged-down in this either. But, I will throw in a few things I believe to be true. World War I was not really a war we needed to be in. It laid the groundwork for much that has gone wrong in America and the world since then (including World War II). The manner in which the liberal Wilson and liberal intellectuals fomented and exploited war fever in this country remains unprecedented in American history and was, in a great many respects, fascist. If you think McCarthyism was bad, the Red Scare of the Wilson Administration was far worse in almost every respect. The Fourteen Points may have had beneficial consequences for some Europeans, indeed I'm sure it did. But, Wilson himself used them as much as anything else to buy the support of liberals and leftists at home. Napoleon, was hailed as the "great liberator" by much of Europe. Indeed, so was Hitler, at first, by Ukranians eager to get out from under the yoke of Stalin. Wilson wasn't a Hitler -- or a Napoleon -- but you can come pretty far short of that standard and still be a bad dude.

Also, I think the rule at National Review is that every time you say something nice about Woodrow Wilson, Charles Kessler drives up to your house, rings the door bell, and leaves a burning paper bag full of dog droppings on your doorstep. So don't answer the door barefoot.

John that works for me. But, truth be told, renaming the Moscow stock market after Ronald Reagan would give me goosebumps.

It's not that outlandish, there are quite a few things in Eastern Europe named after US presidents, particularly Woodrow Wilson (grr. boo).

John - "Ironic" would be one word for it. "Awful" would be another. How about we demolish the Reagan building (or any number of other Federal buildings) and name the hole after Reagan. He'd like that better.

But what he'd really like is if we established a government program of privatization called the Reagan Free Market Initiative. It could go around privatizing government agenices and afterwards we could put up a little sign saying "another government agency privatized by the Reagan Free Market Initiative."

Or something like that.