Advertisement

Protective Feelings Toward Reagan

June 30, 1987

The media cover-up of President Reagan's behavior has always been apparent. If one listens to and watches his speeches, it is obvious that he is less than brilliant but the instant analysis gives one the impression that "they" and "you" were watching different people--one doddering, the other wonderful.

I have wanted, for some time, to write a " J'accuse " to the media but it will have to wait for more time. However, I do not share Ellen Goodman's protective feelings toward this "favorite grandfather" (Editorial Pages, June 17). He does not elicit family feelings from me.

Rather, he scares the hell out of me.

A Times headline (June 17) says Reagan intends to pursue a course in the Persian Gulf that could lead to war and possibly some more American dead youths. My family (father, grandfather) loved their children. They would not put them in death's way to change the Iran- contra headlines or create a new hysterical surge of flag waving that would engulf the President in a cloak of patriotic love.

He asks the American people to let their representatives know how we feel about the budget and the deficit that he created (doesn't he remember?). There is far too much money in war machinery, much of which doesn't work, all or most of it unneeded, and great gobs of money taken from the government (i.e., taxpayers) by pals or members of the Administration.

This taxpayer is against more money for death or any for "Star Wars." How about some money for people and life--medical care, food, education, housing?

The illiteracy problem is obvious from the very top of government down. If one is able to read and doesn't read, one is illiterate. No one in the government reads documents, they shred them. How else do you get cannon fodder except by encouraging illiteracy?

Reagan is not my father, nor my grandfather. My feelings toward him are anything but protective. I think it is dangerous to have a dodderer with a finger on THE button or in an obscene gesture in the faces of "we, the people."

Let him resign--he's not darling, he's dangerous. He is a menace and he shouldn't be protected. It is we who need to be protected from him.

IRIS SCHOENFELD

Los Angeles

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|