Well, okay, so there may have accidently turned out to be a grain of truth in Reagan’s statement…But me thinks you are sort of inventing a connection after-the-fact. I believe that Reagan’s statement at the time had to do with a confusion on different oxides of nitrogen. Now, it may be true that certain recent scientific studies have now shown that trees and other plants emit some pollutants, but unless you have evidence that Reagan was “the one who read the then-obscure scientific papers that were showing the relationships”, I remain skeptical. In fact, as near as I can tell, you might have to claim that he was reading papers that hadn’t even been published yet.
Actually, what I just said was not quite right either…Here are a couple of articles that try to explain a bit more about the connection between tree emissions and NOx compounds:
It seems that the evidence of tree’s emissions of compounds that could react to form haze and smog was known at Reagan’s time and probably is what he was talking about. However, he misrepresented (and probably also overstated) the problem as being caused by trees alone rather than trees in combination with manmade emissions. And, he left out the countervalling ways in which trees filter out pollutants and improve air quality.
I can’t find the original Reagan quote, but I found lots of fake ones. But I did find a quote of his rebutting Ted Kennedy’s speech at the DNC where he ridiculed Reagan for saying it:
Reagan didn’t know this because some wonk pushed a factoid in front of him. He knew it because he read it himself in a scientific journal. Reagan was a voracious reader. Everyone who knew him commented on that - he always had some book with him, and he read through vast quantities of material. Sometimes it got him into trouble because he had so many facts and factoids in his head that occasionally he quoted them out of context.
But why do you feel such a strong compulsion to deny the fact that he might actually have been smart? You guys have retreated from, “He was an idiot for saying that” (never saying that some handler told him to say it - that wouldn’t suit your purpose), but when it turns out that he was actually right (or at least not totally out to lunch), then suddenly it must have been something some handler told him.
This is a uniquely liberal affliction. There is so much made-up crap out there designed to make Republicans look stupid that it’s getting hard to dig up real information any more. I must have to debunk fake ‘proof’ of some Republican’s stupidity a couple of times a week. Lately, there’s been a picture of Bush holding a book upside down floating around the net. It’s a fake. A while ago there was a study on the IQ of presidents which purported to show that Reagan and Bush were two of the dumbest presidents in history. It too was a complete forgery. Then there were all the Quayle quotes that everyone now thinks are real, and at least half of which were made up.
What gives? I don’t see a lot of outright fabrications about Democrats floating around. I haven’t come across tons of fake pictures of Carter doing something dumb. I don’t remember fake Clinton quotes floating around.
You know, you can disagree with people without having to believe that they are drooling morons or puppets of shadowy big businessmen.
Back to Trees causing pollution: You might find this article from Berkeley, that hotbed of Reagan support, interesting:
Something Reagan or anyone else wouldn’t have known at the time, but Reagan was certainly FAR more correct than any of his detractors on this issue, including an awful lot of sanctimonious people who like to spout the ‘Trees cause pollution’ quote as an example of Reagan’s ignorance. Pot, kettle, black.
Here’s what the Geological Society said in 2001:
[Trees cause pollution after all – Reagan vindicated
[/quote]
Just did some more research… I think Reagan’s original information came from a research paper by Dr. Reinhold Rasmussen:
DR. RASMUSSEN KNEW IT ALL ALONG March 1999
The Wall Street Journal reported, in a cover story to the March 16, 1999 that Dr. Rasmussen is largely responsible for the often lambasted idea that trees are among the primary culprits behind smog.
“We thought Reinhold was crazy initially,” says Joseph Bufalini, a retired Environmental Protection Agency air scientist. “Testing air gathered from plastic bags that he wrapped around tree branches, Dr. Rasmussen was electrified to discover that his trees were pumping out huge amounts of isoprene, a natural hydrocarbon that is a key ingredient in the chemical interactions that create smog. Previously, trees weren’t believed to emit significant amounts of iso-prene or any other hydrocarbons. While most atmospheric scientists focused on factories and cars, Dr. Rasmussen began publishing papers on trees’ smog connection in the mid-1960s.”
“Despite the “killer trees” flap of the Reagan years, the EPA and various academics eventually did begin looking into Dr. Rasmussen’s theories on tree emissions. Still, it remained an obscure backwater of research until 1988. (emphasis mine)”
[/quote
Anyone who has any illusions about Reagan’s intellectual abilities should read some of the descriptions of him in David Stockman’s book about his economic policy . There are some telling anecdotes about how for instance Reagan would completely fail to understand elementary points that Stockman would make about budget deficits and then respond with irrelevant stories from his experience in Hollywood.
There are similar anecdotes in Kissinger’s Diplomacy (which praises some of his administration’s policies btw). In one of them IIRC(been a while since I read the book) Reagan made some absurd historical analogy and Kissinger wanted to correct him. He was told that that would only reinforce the analogy in Reagan’s mind and make him more likely to repeat it.
As for Jimmy Carter’s presidency it is generally understimated. Many of the economic problems which cost him the re-election were inherited or outside his control: a result of the Vietnam war, loose monetary policy, the two oil price shocks etc. Moreover he had a number of policy succesess to his credit: deregualation, the Camp David accord, the appointment of Paul Volcker to the Fed(who ultimately beat inflation), recognition of China etc. There were failures too, to be sure, but his presidency was nowhere close to the disaster that conservatives like to portray it as.
Cyberpundit: Why settle for secondary sources? I posted links above to volumes of Reagan’s writings. I also posted a complete interview he did in 1975. Read them.
“I don’t see a lot of outright fabrications about Democrats floating around”
Actually before the election I remember reading a supposed collection of Gore gaffes which turned out to be Quale gaffes switched to fit Gore. Not to mention the many absurd conspiracy theories about Clinton and the Vince Foster suicide and other allegedly suspicous deaths.
So, if we just get those darned redwoods (“seen one, you’ve seen them all”) out of the way, we can have more SUV’s, and air quality will remain acceptable. Wow!
If only we had known. The path to true ecological balance lies in turning the Amazon into Pez dispensers!
All kidding aside, Jimmy had this coming twentyfive years ago. I only regret those asshole Norwegians couldn’t give it to him without loading it down with political agenda (however much I agree with it). Like they couldn’t wait a week.
What a bunch of dinks. I’m going to boycott Norwegian products in protest. If the tag says “Made in Lapland”. I aint buying any, and definitely will not play any reindeer games.
“Why settle for secondary sources?”
Well it is telling, isn’t it, that conservatives like Kissinger and Stockman understood the intellectual limitations of your hero. So it isn’t just a bunch partisan liberalis claiming this.
Maybe I will read some of your links later but you seem to be confusing a good memory with a good intellect. Reagan may indeed have had a knack for memorizing lots of facts. His problem was sorting those facts in any coherent fashion. He particularly seems to have had problems understanding arguments and facts which contradicted his prior beliefs (like tax cuts reducing deficits). Reagan also did have the knack of communicating his ideas in an effective manner but again that is different from coming to grips with difficult policy issues.
Sam is your hijack never going to end? The OP is a congratulatory thread on Jimmy Carter’s Nobel Peace Prize, not yet, still more demonification of liberals.
If you want to go on about how Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union, deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (and possibly the Nobel Chemistry Prize also) find another thread or forum [preferably the Pit] I am sure you will have plenty of company.
To the Nobel Peace Prize Committee: this award to Jimmy Carter is well-deserved and long overdue.
*On the one hand, I’d agree as an a priori supposition that making it to the White House requires some smarts. On the other hand, it seems to me that Reagan is the exception that proves the rule. There is plenty of evidence that he was a moron, if you care to review it. Certainly, as you point out, there is also evidence that he was not.
All in all, this seems a waste of time to me – unless, of course, you have access to an IQ test taken by ole Ron, such as could possibly resolve it. Otherwise, your claim that Reagan was ”above-average” in intelligence is purely anecdotal, based on your own judgement, and just as valid or invalid as my own.
I’ve read part of the interview you linked to, by the way, and skimmed through most of the rest of it. I’m not sure why you think it’s such a brilliant piece of literature, but to each his own I guess.
*It is natural to assume, since this post is addressed directly to me, that the phrase ”you liberals” is also directed at me – i.e., that you, Sam, group me into that category of people whom you label “liberal.” I second Guin’s objection to such a tactic, and would prefer that you address me and my arguments for what they are, rather than assuming that they (or I) somehow belong to a specific political group. Matters of fact are not bound by ideological commitment. If a democrat is an idiot, then he’s an idiot; same with a republican. My opinion of Reagan has nothing to with his party membership, but is based on the years I spent living under his administration, and watching him work.
Regarding your Gorbachev quote: that’s very sweet of Mr. Gorbachev, commending Reagan and all that. You might note that he says diddly about Reagan’s role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was our topic of discussion, I believe. Anyway, Mr. Gorbachev is perhaps too diplomatic to criticize Reagan, and inclined to whisper polite nothings about his role as a world leader, especially in a CNN interview. Your quote here does not impress me. Sorry.
Regarding this:
*You are, as is becoming all too common I fear, mistaken. To be absolutely specific, Reagan said the following:
**80% of the world’s pollution coming from plants and trees would mean, if my math is correct, that 20% of the world’s pollution resulted from industry (and cars). Such a statement is not ”absolutely correct.” By the way, I submit the above quote as my first small piece of evidence that Reagan was a moron.
*Well, Sam, having grown up there, and spent many happy days of my youth wandering the park, the answer to that question would be, ”yup.” We call ’em the Smokies because during the Fall, Winter, and Spring, especially in the higher elevations, the mountains tend to be swathed in patches of fog. Very, very beautiful, I might add. Fog, as you may know, is composed of water vapor. Water vapor is composed of H2O. It does not contain isoprene or monoterpene. I mention this just for future reference.
That is totally and absolutely ludicrous. It’s fog, Sam. Water vapor.
I see now that not only do you believe Reagan to be of above average intelligence, you also seem to believe that he was prescient. Perhaps you wish to wander about under the delusion that the Smoky Mountain Biosphere, one of the most botanically diverse regions on the surface of the planet, actually consists of an unbroken swath of Calafornia Sycamores, emitting a haze of deadly monoterpene, and that Reagan was able to predict, in 1979, scientific findings that were not reported until the year 2001. Let us now see you locate solid scientific evidence that 80% of the pollution in the world is a product of vegetation.
Also, let me know when you wish to return to the real world, and perhaps we can have a serious discussion.
I skimmed through the Reason interview. He is indeed quite articulate in expounding his philosophy and position but that doesn’t contradict his very real limitations in coming to grip to with difficult policy issues as explained in the Stockman book. And I noticed one blunder where he says that half of every dollar is taken by government (at all levels). Actually it was about a third of every dollar.
Well, Sam, actually there are a lot of them (fabrications) if you look. They may not play on the dumb theme really (although I don’t know how you would characterize the Carter killer rabbit story) but that is because Clinton and Gore, for example, were such policy wonks that the dumb theme wouldn’t have fit well. So, instead you have the conniving and womanizing themes for Clinton, and the “making stuff up” theme for Gore.
I think it is simply that the Dems haven’t run such intellectual lightweights as G.W., Quayle, and Reagan for such high-profile public offices (although I am sure we could probably identify many at the Senate / Congressional level).
And, I don’t think we argue that all Republicans / conservatives are dumb. I don’t see a lot of people questioning the intelligence of Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Anton Scalia, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush Senior… I may not like them and what they work for, but I don’t question their intelligence.
Well, we didn’t actually install Somoza. He managed to lead a coup in 1936 all by himself. Admittedly, we weren’t opposed to Somoza. FDR supposedly said about him “He may be a son of a bitch, but at least he’s our son of a bitch.” (which actually describes Central American politics pretty well.) Remember also what Roosevelt’s policy towards Central and South America was. His “Good Neighbor” policy said that the US wasn’t going to get involved in the internal affairs of Latin American governments. Doing anything against Somoza would count as getting involved.
Good man? Yes, but a real shit-hole President. At one point (approx 77,500 votes taken) a CNN poll showed only 2% believed Carter deserved the award for works done during his term of office.
I’m also sorry to say that he served in the USN; wish the pointy head had served in the Salvation Army; it would have been more fitting, and left less of a stain on the Navy.
“History teaches that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” - R Regan.
“Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.” - R. Regan
“Facts are stupid things.” - R. Regan
“I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gun point if necessary.” - R. Regan.
“I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” - R. Regan
For pete’s sake, Reagan didn’t win the Cold War. The US’s strategy of containment, which is what won the Cold War, was first outlined in 1947, some 33 years before Reagan took office. All Reagan did is follow the containment policy of his predecessors, rattle his saber a bit, and blow taxpayer money on research on a “peace umbrella” that to this day does not work (or even exist).
The containment policy was premised on the fact that the Soviet economic system was, over the long-run, totally unworkable and doomed to failure. So, as elucidator says, the West didn’t “win” the Cold War, we allowed the Soviets to lose it by shooting themselves in the foot (and the legs, and the guts, and the chest…)