What Fresh Hell Is This?

April 5, 2005

WPTT and Michael Reagan

I heard the most amazing thing on WPTT last afternoon. I was walking home and I happened to hear a few minutes of the Michael Reagan program on the radio (it's a Radio Shack portable that eats batteries as quickly as I scarf down my mothers gnocchi). I was aghast.

For those who don't yet know it, Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Ronald Reagan when secular saint of the family values crowd was married to his first wife, Jane Wyman.

He was (I believe) discussing this story. Well, perhaps not that specific news story, but the story of the "mini-marathon" in Pakistan where a row was caused by the fact that men and women would be running side-by-side.

This, to Michael Reagan, was yet more evidence of the Islamic world's backwardness and intolerance. Let me first say that I have to agree that the idea of protesting an all-gender marathon on account of its gender-inclusiveness is, indeed, goofy.

But Mr Reagan didn't end his discussion there. He used it to begin a rant where all Islamic men are hypocrites.

On what, do you ask, did he base that assumption?

He said that they're hypocrites because while they hate the idea of a mixed gender marathon they (now watch this very closely) "all have whores in London."

I stopped dead in my tracks as I wasn't sure exactly what I heard. I recognized all the words ("whores" and "in" and "London"), but I'd never heard them all strung together in that way. Indeed the word "whore" is abit of an anachronism in this corner of Dayvoe's universe. Why not "prostitute" or "hooker"? Any linguists in the audience?

In any event, he repeated the "whores in London" triad enough times for me to get it. And he went on to explain why he know they all had whores in London. It was a story when he and his wife were actually in London with Secret Service protection. The story revolved around the Secret Service and London police clearing out a space for the Reagans. The remaining Moslems were all upset that their whores were sent away.

Something like that.

But take a look at the details. Does the US Secret Service routinely protect conservative radio talk-show hosts on their visits to the UK? Here's info straight from the official source:

Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:
  1. the President, the Vice President, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the President-elect and Vice President-elect;
  2. the immediate families of the above individuals;
  3. former Presidents, their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse re-marries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office.
  4. children of former presidents until age 16;
  5. visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official epresentatives of the United States performing special missions abroad;
  6. major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general Presidential election.

We can pretty much reject the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th points. That leaves the 2nd:

the immediate families of the above individuals;

and the 4th:

children of former presidents until age 16;

Since Michael Reagan was last 16 in 1961 we can reject the 4th point. And since the 3rd point uses the phrase "former Presidents", while the 2nd point ("immediate families...") only references the "above individuals" (i.e. current families of the President and Vice-President etc)
we can safely assume Michael Reagan last had Secret Service protection while his father was President - in 1988. So Michael Reagan's story is at least 17 years old.

He also pointed out that the Moslems he saw with their whores in London "looked bad and smelled bad."

Why am I making such a fuss with this?

Because WPTT is the radio station of Lynn Cullen and Jerry Bowyer and because Michael Reagan broadcasts over WPTT and John McIntire doesn't.

Go figure.


xranger said...

Pretty simple to figure:

People will listen to Reagan. Radio stations are in business to make money, and that station already has enough dead air when Cullen is on.

Jonathan Potts said...

Why is it necessary to mention that he was adopted?

dayvoe said...

Why not?

Jonathan Potts said...

I guess because it is not relevant in that context. I have no idea what kind of relationship he had to his father (and has to his mother) but there's no reason to believe the Reagans loved him any less or treated him differently merely because he was adopted. Perhaps I'm too sensitive since I have an adopted nephew and my mother was adopted, but dropping the term in as a qualifier when it has no bearing on what is being discussed implies a certain stigma.

Maria said...

Regarding his relationship with the Reagans:

"Michael's 1988 memoir, "Michael Reagan: On the Outside Looking In," provides a disturbing, albeit perhaps self-pitying, look at his childhood, much of which was spent in boarding school. On page 89, for example, he recalls a painful confrontation with his step-mother, Nancy, in which the second Mrs. Reagan, brandishing his birth records - which had been sealed by the courts, but which she had nevertheless gotten hold of - suggested that Michael abandon his Reagan surname and leave the family home. He was 16 at the time.

Later in the book, Michael describes how his father didn't even recognize him at his own high school graduation."

(from http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1396 )

dayvoe said...

It was not my intent to criticize or otherwise extend any negative stigma over adoption. I apologize to those who took it that way.


Maria does bring up an interesting point. Her portrait of the Reagans would seem to show that THEY are more guilty of perpetuating that stigma than I am. It looks like Mrs Reagan was waving those "birth records" in a teenagers face to prove to him that he really wasn't his father's son. Just because he was adopted.

Family values? Hardly. Respectful of the practice of adoption? No dice there, either.

Jonathan Potts said...

You didn't offend me, and if you are trying to make a point about how the Reagans conducted their family lives, than all is fair. It is also important to note, if I recall correctly, that Reagan had troubled relationships with all his children, including his biological children. Clearly, these people were not Ward and June Cleaver. It is also important to note that Jane Wyman, not Nancy Reagan, was Michael Reagan's mother. Again, I have no idea what their relationship was like.

Anonymous said...

WPTT is dumping that loser, Michael Reagan, effective July 4th.

They also have Thom Hartmann on from 12-3 now. If you haven't heard him, he's a great progressive voice.