Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) seeks to replace Ulysses Grant with Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill. Grant wrote a better autobiography, but Reagan was a better president. "Our currency ought to be something that unites us," complains Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who notes that Reagan is "controversial." Somebody tell Congressman Sherman that the man on the $20 killed a man in a duel. Isn't that "controversial"? What Rep. Sherman means to say is that Reagan is conservative. Franklin Roosevelt is controversial too me. But I doubt Sherman cares that Roosevelt's inclusion on the dime is a point of division. Reagan certainly deserves a place on money more than most whose faces adorn coins and currency. But aren't there enough presidents on money? We fetishize presidents more than the Brits fetishize kings and queens. It's as though there were only one branch of government. Worse still, politicians like Rep. McHenry predictably seek to honor--who else?--other politicians. Aren't there inventors, explorers, industrialists, artists, authors, and soldiers more deserving of placement on a coin than, say, Millard Filmore?
OybNAB aiaolizlwith, [url=http://twhqjmxqzeor.com/]twhqjmxqzeor[/url], [link=http://ovqucrvqtixn.com/]ovqucrvqtixn[/link], http://nmfpgfudobku.com/
The question is - could ANY of the good Americans pictured on our currency today be selected today?
I think not. These were, for the most part, great men. But the wimpy political correctness that infects us now and the further chickification of our culture would have excluded pretty much all of them.
I'm with you. If we're going to ban "controversial" leaders from our money, I want FDR gone from the dime. I want JFK gone from the half dollar.
As usual, arguing with a liberal is futile because you can't ever get them to drop their pretenses long enough to get to their REAL argument. Not the disengenuous pretext that surrounds their argument, but their argument.
FDR was a terrible president in peacetime and he had the benefit of a united American public in wartime. (That was the last time we had a united American public in wartime). He interned the Vietnamese, restricted civil liberties, attempted to pack the court, ran with a communist as his running mate (Wallace) and schmoozed with Joe Stalin.
Sorry, that should be the Japanese, not the Vietnamese. I've been studying the Vietnam War for six months now. Just this afternoon I was reading a platoon leader's account of his one year tour in Vietnam. I guess it got in my head.
I would agree. The problem is that in today's sensitivity charged, politically correct environment, unless you're a member of a victim group, you are not allowed to have flaws and be revered at the same time. It's all or nothing perfection that would be accepted and overwhelming success with a little imposed controversy would not allow most to make the cut.
