Former First Lady Nancy Reagan Dead At 94 (nbcnews.com) 216
An anonymous reader writes: Former first lady Nancy Reagan has died, according to a spokeswoman with the Reagan Library. She was 94. The cause of death was congestive heart failure, according to her rep Joanne Drake. "Mrs. Reagan will be buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, next to her husband, Ronald Wilson Reagan, who died on June 5, 2004," Drake wrote in a statement. May she rest in peace.
news for nerds (Score:2, Insightful)
stuff that matters
Re: news for nerds (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't say that on the masthead anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't say that on the masthead anymore.
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago! Slashdot still hasen't done a follow-up on the Wu Tang album thing...
Re: news for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
It doesn't matter.
First up, I didn't read about this on TMZ or any other site five hours ago because I start my "news" day here because Slashdot has the mix of topics most interesting to me.
Secondly, since this isn't "news" I can/will act on, being behind five hours or even a couple days doesn't change anything.
Then become a patron or read the firehose. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, Slashdot is behind the curve, I read this on TMZ 5 hours ago!
Then read "firehose". Or become a patron and see news items after they're vetted but before they hit the front page.
I see two complaints a lot:
- It's not news for nerds / stuff that matters.
- It's slow.
You can't have both fast and filtered. It takes time to sift the jems from the slush.
Further: faster processing means more errors, while better (though still "imperfect") filtering means later stories. And there's no way to get the filtering right for all readers: I'm constantly finding stories I consider "news for me (a nerd) and stuff that matters (to me, a nerd)" to attract a chorus of one, or (as in this case) both, complaints.
I like Slashdot's setting of the fast - filtered tweak knob. I can always skip stuff *I* don't consider interesting, and it has a HELL of a lot of stuff I *AM* interested in, presented in a timely enough manner to be useful (when the rest of the media ignores it completely or warps it out of recognition).
Re: (Score:3)
As our former glorious leader once said: http://www.g4tv.com/articles/49932/Ten_Minutes_with_CmdrTaco/ [g4tv.com]:
What's the magic Slashdot formula that keeps attracting more people?
I think that the site's slogan pretty much sums it up: "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." It's a very simple motto, and I think that appeals to a lot of people. You can go to CNN and see very straight-laced, spell-checked, fact-checked summary of the day's events. Or you can go somewhere like Slashdot and you can see maybe a little bit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't say that on the masthead anymore.
Granted, but then what exactly is the scope of /. coverage? I don't have anything against Nancy Reagan, but I do wonder whether her passing is relevant to this site?
Re: (Score:2)
She did some stuff. (Score:4, Informative)
Nancy Reagan had nowhere near the level of awesomeness that was Eleanor Roosevelt, but she did a few things.
After Ronald Reagan's term in office, she devoted most of her time to caring for her him. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, until his death at the age of 93 in 2004. Nancy remained active within the Reagan Library and in politics, particularly in support of embryonic stem cell research, until her death in 2016.
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
Re:She did some stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
Yup. You can thank Nancy and 2 stoner train engineers for having to pee in a jar before you can get a job now. Before 1980, you could apply for most jobs without presenting your papers or proving you weren't a druggie.
Like old Ron said, "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank Nancy and 2 stoner train engineers for having to pee in a jar before you can get a job now
I've never had to subject myself to such a test, and I've worked with very sensitive information on behalf of some large operations. Maybe you're thinking about jobs where an employee's alertness and quick reflexes, when compromised, could cost large numbers of lives? Nah, that's just silly talk.
Re: (Score:2)
"On behalf of" sounds suspiciously like "independent contractor".
If you had worked directly for these large operation, I doubt you would have been unaffected. It has been standard hiring procedure for every full-time corporate job I've worked since 1984. And about the closest my duties have been to requiring quick reflexes is that I don't slam the door on my fingers when I put the cover back on my computer.
Besides, while Nancy foisted the quilty-until-proven-innocent drug test on me, her hubby can take the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, a couple of my biggest customers are in turn defense contractors, or do work for DoJ, or for the federal courts, or for some large non-profits that serve active duty people in uniform, etc. I am thrilled to death that I don't work for the government, but am glad I can pick and choose projects directly or indirectly impact things in that arena I find interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried carbon dating?
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "I do not recall" is quite possibly a dodge and could be a boldfaced lie, although it seems like the people who don't like Reagan can't seem to decide whether to bash him for being senile or bash him for lying. Not being able to recall things seems to be about the right place for a senile person to be, albeit a very convenient place to be if he had been doing bad things.
Clinton saying that he didn't have sexual relations with Monica was a flat out lie, by a definitely non-senile person.
Since I was n
Re:news for nerds (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like the penultimate Cancer! Good job!
The second-to-last Cancer?
Re: (Score:2)
Because nerds can't be interested in anything but technology, gaming, and pop-culture.
In case you haven't figured out, that's sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Cause of death: congestive heart failure . . .
. . . when she was attacked by sharks with lasers . . .
INB4 "Just say no!" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless you are Reagan and use the CIA to buy crack in Latin America to fight the left-wing workers. Then have the CIA import the crack into the inner cities of the US.
Watch the movie "Kill The Messenger". But, by the time the CIA admitted it, the media cared more about Clinton getting a BJ.
So, yes, I will "just say no" to caring about this anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
First man jumping from window [denverpost.com]. Note is says cookies, not brownies.
Second man to jump [coloradoan.com] though this time it was from eating marijuana brownies.
Man kills wife after eating edible marijuana [cbsnews.com].
Man shoots, kills self after eating marijuana candy [cbsnews.com].
Shall I continue to post facts or do yo
Re: (Score:2)
So there was just marijuana in their system I take it? It of course doesn't say that in any of the articles. And mixing drugs is common, just like the people who will go out and start slamming back booze, then follow it up with their favorite tranqs.
She was 94 (Score:3)
On average.
In memoriam: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Already done.
Why do we care? (Score:3, Insightful)
Try Facebook next time.
This just in! (Score:1)
Other random people dead at ages other than 94!!!
No news articles about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Other random people dead at ages other than 94!!!
Granted, this is hardly "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters", and Slashdot did away with that slogan a long time ago, and the New Masters don't seem inclined to bring that ethos back.... But... Nancy Raygun was not a "random person", Miss Raygun was a respected porn actress with many titles, er, under her belt. Have some respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Just say no to (Score:2)
heart failure.
What?! (Score:1)
Let me be the first/second/upmteenth one to say: news for nerds, stuff that matters? In what possible way this relates to anything that might even remotely interest anyone technically/computer inclined?
Alright (Score:3)
Nancy Reagan was born the same year the flow chart was first described in the literature. You can read the paper here [openlibrary.org].
Allow me to choose the funeral march, please! (Score:4, Funny)
I am sure she'd like it. It's such a wholesome family friendly song [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the version for Thatcher's disposal was completely different [youtube.com]!
Trump alive from neck up WOULD be news. (Score:2)
Former First Lady Nancy Reagan Dead at 94 (Score:2, Funny)
How can they tell?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netcraft confirms it.
Beware the Ides of March (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She was predeceased by her astrologer by more than a year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
One of them may have seen it coming. Or not.
BeauHD is polluting /. with trivia. (Score:2)
skeletons (Score:2)
Said Nancy's skeleton
Just say No
Said the Rasta skeleton
Blow Nancy Blow
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Re:She lived longer than most poor voters... (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Americans don't care what their politicians do, only what they say. Reagan talked like a conservative, but governed like a liberal, running big deficits, negotiating with Gorbachev, continuing and expanding most social spending, etc. So conservatives loved him and liberals hated him. Bill Clinton did the opposite: he talked like a liberal, but governed as a conservative. He cut welfare, balanced the budget, pushed through free market reforms and free trade agreements, and sent bombers into the Balkans. So liberals loved him, and conservatives hated him.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read).
Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
Russians-- (Score:4, Informative)
Reagan did not start out negotiating with the Soviets, he initially scared the crap of them and they were convinced that Reagan was going to start a war with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
That was seriously frightening, since their response to what they perceived as preparations by us for war was to move to launch-on-warning status, which means that an error could have catastrophic consequences.
In terms of technology, this was all a consequence of the adoption of MIRV warheads in the 70s, in which a small number of missiles launched could take out most, or possibly all, of the missiles of the other side, giving the first side to launch an overwhelming advantage.
It apparently never occurred to Reagan that the Soviets might find our moves threatening. He was so fixed in the viewpoint that the Soviets were the ones with evil intent, that he was unable to consider that they might see us as the aggressors.
Reagan slowly transitioned to a defensive posture and then finally to a de-arming posture (The Dead Hand by David Hoffman touches on this and the Soviet militaries view of the west... it's a great read). Reagan is not a demi-god but he was a lot shrewder and capable than a lot of people want to give him credit for.
He had good and bad points.
Re: (Score:2)
Both were standing against strongly opposed congresses for most of their administrations.
We're still waiting for the 'spending cut' parts of Grahm-Rudman. We should never accept another 'taxes now, spending cuts later' deal until the first is fulfilled.
What you are putting on Ron and Bill is more on Tip and Newt. If that's credit or blame will depend on your views.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Liberals don't run deficits. Liberals tax and spend. Under Obama the deficit has come down at a record rate.
Clinton gave Bush a budget surplus, Bush blew that so fast that people don't remember.
It's the Republicans' near demonic desire to defund government that drives debt and deficits, because you can't cut your way to prosperity, but you can cut yourself into a recession.
See Iraq and Afghanistan wars for proof, you would think you'd raise taxes during war, instead, Bush sent everyone a check. Literally.
Yo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One of the big reasons that the debt "exploded" under Obama is that the Bush administration used accounting tricks to keep the cost of Afghanistan/Iraq off the books until Obama decided it was time to be honest about it. That plus the great recession he was handed upon entering office.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the deficit IS THE CHANGE.
its added to it EVERY YEAR.
f'ing moron.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you "f'ing moron", the reported deficit is NOT the change in the debt every year. The reported deficit is for the ON-BUDGET items only, not all items. For example, the 2014 budget deficit was reported as $483 billion [wsj.com]. Yet if you look at the debt added [treasurydirect.gov], it was nearly $1.1 trillion.
I guess if you want to swallow what the Government is peddling, be my guest. But in any rational, thinking mind - adding $1.1 trillion in debt does not equate to only a $483 billion deficit. Those two numbers are not equ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"averaging 2.4 times that of President Bush"
This kind of cherry picking of numbers is dishonest. If Bush runs up a huge debt (he did) , then Obama would have had to run an enormous *surplus* in order to achieve the same debt average. Slashdot users have all had algebra, so this shouldn't fool them.
"we accumulated debt every single year since Ike,"
That depends on whether you consider intra-government debt a real part of the debt. If you consider social security to be another government program with its o
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no. The ADDED debt per year is what I'm talking about. Ignore the reported "deficit" numbers, they're cooked big time. Look how much is added to the national debt every year - that will tell you how much excess spending went on. President Bush was terrible, adding $5 trillion to the national debt. President Obama has doubled that, adding nearly $10 TRILLION to the national debt. That's the problem - and the real way to look at spending/revenue. And the last time we had an actual surplus - our deb
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. The ADDED debt per year is what I'm talking about. Ignore the reported "deficit" numbers, they're cooked big time. Look how much is added to the national debt every year - that will tell you how much excess spending went on.
I mean, if only there was some commonly agreed upon definition for the word 'deficit' and some publically available data or source to determine what it was. but you know those dictionaries...you cant trust them.
and that congress...they never ever tell us what budget they've passed
and trying to get revenues and expenditures out of the treasury dept, or the CBO? impossible!
your ignorance would be hysterical if it wasn't also so sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Deficit [dictionary.com]: 1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
Now, somehow the Federal Government claimed the deficit in 2014 was "just" $483 billion. Yet it had to borrow nearly $1.1 trillion to cover what it decided to spend. So which is correct? What was the actual shortage? HINT: it wasn't $483 billion.
So what's your definition for deficit? In fact, when have you EVER posted a link to anything? I've backed up what I've posted, and apparently that gets your panties in a bind.
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton did have surpluses
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/... [factcheck.org]
And most of the debt under Obama is STILL related to the ongoing War on Terror and recovering economy.
And while the Average may be high, that ignores that the actual year-year values have been trending downward.
So again.
You posted BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. Let me explain this to you, so perhaps you can learn a bit. It's OK to admit your error - we are all wrong until we learn what is correct.
The measure of a deficit is how much you spend beyond your income. If you make $100,000, but spend $120,000 then you have a $20,000 deficit. Your debt - what you owe others - increases by $20,000. With me so far?
Now, check the national debt records [treasurydirect.gov]
. What will you discover? Every year since Eisenhower, the national debt has gone up. Every Single Year.
Go bac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social security and medicare are paid into by workers separately from the general budget (and social security is only paid out to workers who've paid in). They're self-funding, so it's disingenuous to lump them in with the general federal budget.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing disingenuous about totaling government taxes and expenses to find the deficit. The legal construction of social security is political game playing. Lumping it in with everything else is not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
no, they are not running in the red (patently false misinformation)
speaking to SS, which you evidently need a lesson on, yes, it is a pay-as-you-go system, which is a sort of self-funding setup.
as long as there are workers paying it, there are payments going out.
SS is not a savings account you pay into and then withdrawal from.
SS is a direct cash transfer from current workers to current beneficiaries.
It has a defined benefit amount.
The Trust Fund exists because for decades they took in more money than they
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Do we believe dywolf's ramblings, or the OASDI's trustees [ssa.gov] who state "Social Security’s cost exceeded its tax income in 2013, and also exceeded its non-interest income, as it has since 2010." Personally, I'll trust the SSI trustees over you - they have a bit better handle on the situation, and they legally put their own butts on the line with their annual reports (which have reported a negative income balance since 2010 - like their summary states).
Now, you may not be aware of the term "running
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if the deficit has come down at a record rate under Obama but he certainly has reduced the deficit from where he started. Here is a post by David Brin that shows how the rate of increase in the national debt increases under Republican administrations and drops under Democratic administrations, at least since Nixon:
So Do Outcomes Matter More than Rhetoric? [blogspot.com]
Re: She lived longer than most poor voters... (Score:4, Insightful)
Reagan did not govern like a liberal. That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard and considering some of the conservative comments around here that's saying a lot.
Yes, he ran up huge deficits. So has every other modern 'conservative'. It's part of their playbook--literally. Look up the Two Santa Claus Theory. When conservatives are in power they spend like drunken sailors to pump up the economy and make themselves look good (and their corporate buddies rich). See Dick Cheney's 'deficits don't matter' quote. They don't matter--until a liberal is in office, at which point conservatives start screaming about the debt in an attempt to make sure that liberal programs don't get enacted.
See, liberal economic policies gave us a nation with a huge middle class, strong unions and worker protection, and massive economic prosperity because those things are how you get massive economic prosperity for all. So much so that the middle and lower classes started getting politically active in the 60s because they had the economic freedom to do so. This scared the hell out of conservative strategists because their policies only lead to bubbles followed by crashes and are generally deeply unpopular. The destruction of the middle class has been deliberate and cynical, to make sure people are too busy working multiple jobs and worrying about things like paying for college and retirement on salaries designed to support neither. Such things used to be benefits of living and working here.
The whole business of attributing things like massive debts to 'liberals' when it's actually conservatives doing it is just another part of the strategy. The federal government was cut in size while Clinton was in office and increased in size massively under W's frat boy administration, but people like you never admit that if you even know it because Fox News doesn't cover that.
So Reagan governed EXACTLY how conservatives govern. Hell, he wrote the modern book on it. His biggest 'failing' in that regard was he was pragmatic and actually worked with the other side. That is also unacceptable in modern conservative 'my way or the highway, even if I'm in the minority' thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
It was Clinton's tax increase in '93 that lead to the huge decrease in deficit. Democrats ran congress at that time, and basically lost control because of that increase.
Each year that reagan proposed a budget, his proposed deficit was higher than the budgets that were eventually passed by the Democratic congress.
"Before Obamacare it was becoming common for even fast food jobs to offer healthcare benefit."
Pure fantasy land. Under Obamacare, the only way a fast food worker can't afford insurance is if the
False dichotomy (Score:2)
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Americans don't care what their politicians do, only what they say. Reagan talked like a conservative, but governed like a liberal, running big deficits, negotiating with Gorbachev, continuing and expanding most social spending, etc. So conservatives loved him and liberals hated him. Bill Clinton did the opposite: he talked like a liberal, but governed as a conservative. He cut welfare, balanced the budget, pushed through free market reforms and free trade agreements, and sent bombers into the Balkans. So liberals loved him, and conservatives hated him.
Both Presidents (and in fact, all Presidents since) have been Corporatist. Left, Right, sure it matters on many issues, - but both were "open for business" - ie, sellling off or leasing public lands [Both], enacting corporate friendly legislation like the DMCA [Clinton] repealing Glass-Steagall [Clinton] tax rate reform (lowering the top marginal tax rate to 28%) [Reagan], Union-busting (PATCO) [Reagan], and expanding the military industrial complex [Reagan].
All of these helped businesses. Sometimes they
We liberals hated him (Score:4, Informative)
As a rule, the American left hate people for what they did, not what they said. But then again the American left has gotten so small over the years that I don't blame you for not noticing us.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm, why is it clear that Serbs were the major dicks? There was no good party in the Balkan wars. The US did choose to side with Muslim terrorist organizations and as thank for the support veterans of the Muslim terrorist army in the Balkan destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11 and became the inspiration of what is now IS. Yet we insist to say that the Serbs were the wrong doers while the others were the victims.
If the IS threat isn't controlled soon, the Balkan will become a new battleground again. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, why is it clear that Serbs were the major dicks?
Murdering 8000 civilians [wikipedia.org] at Srebrenica was certainly dickish.
Re:She lived longer than most poor voters... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh man. Where to start?
http://listverse.com/2015/01/1... [listverse.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Reagan Administration stands as the only US administration that was ever convicted of crimes against humanity.
And that doesn't even count his domestic policies that hollowed out the middle class and started our slide into the economic inequality we have today. He dumped crack cocaine into the inner cities to fund illegal wars in Central America and turned the School of the Americas into a training center for hit squads that massacred innocent people, including Jesuit priests and nuns.
He was by far the president that did the most lasting damage to the United States of America.
Re:She lived longer than most poor voters... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I thought that too for years. But it turns out, like MK-ULTRA, the Reagain/Crack Cocaine connection is absolutely true. Documents have come to light since the 80s that prove it.
In fact, the Reagan Administration admitted to it in secret testimony to Congress.
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEB... [gwu.edu]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And Reagan had ties to them all.
So the best you can say is Reagan gave tacit approval to the CIA flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. The documents that survived Ollie North's "shredding party" confirm this.
And never forget:
Re: (Score:2)
And how many were pardoned by Bush?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if someone already posted that he slashed spending for long-term care and mental health facilities, putting incapable people in the streets where they remain today and making us the black sheep of both the civilized world and our own consciences. /S but that's a small price to pay for slashing taxes on the wealthy and enabling the take-over of the electoral system by people with too much money not to spend it investing in more perks for their classes.
Re: (Score:2)
In Reagan's defense, he did sign the law requiring emergency rooms to treat patients who don't have money -- so his legacy on health care is mixed.
Re: (Score:2)
A good idea, but it really shows the contradiction in Republican healthcare thinking. Without any good healthcare coverage, the emergency room becomes the walk in clinic for the uninsured, who must then pretend that they can't pay.
logic... and proportion... have fallen sloppy dead (Score:2)
The logic (or lack of it) implied by your question:
1) Some people have murdered other people
2) Some new guy murders someone
3) It's not to be considered, because others did it before him
Prison rate [Re:She lived longer than most...] (Score:5, Interesting)
What exactly did Reagan do that previous administrations back to Truman's hadn't done?
Caused Americans to imprison more of its population than China.
Hmm. Maybe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1988. So, he started as President after the curve of prison rate started to rise, but before it has significantly diverged from baseline. The curve continued to get steeper after he left, with the steepest part right at the transistion from (George H.W.) Bush to Clinton
Re: Prison rate [Re:She lived longer than most...] (Score:2)
Policies like jailing scumbag crimi als instead of pleaing down and probation?
I bet you wonder why so many are in nail since crime is so low.
Re: (Score:2)
Policies like jailing scumbag crimi als instead of pleaing down and probation?
I bet you wonder why so many are in nail since crime is so low.
No, he clearly means all the tough on crime, mandatory minimums, three strikes and you're out, and war on drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to be a government and a net creditor. That means that *you* are left holding the bag when everyone else defaults.
It sounds nice to be the country that "owns" other countries, but the thing to remember is that sovereign states can't be forced to pay up at bankruptcy court. If they default, they go into the shitter and all, but they were probably already in serious trouble to begin with. So holding the now worthless IOUs when that happens is not a plus.
Yes, I understand how one might rebel
Re: (Score:2)
But to be fair she lived much longer than most rich voters.
Re: (Score:2)
My first "-1 Troll", and for a non-troll post!
Most don't appear to recognize the bona fides of this J.G. Ballard piece and its relevance to the Nancy Reagan story.
Re: (Score:2)
You have too much time on one of your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please tell the whole story (Score:5, Interesting)
Do not forget to mention that she was responsible for the use of astrology in the decision-making process at the highest level.
To be fair, if we are to criticise people for consulting astrologers before making decisions, then we should do the same when they consult their imaginary friend. Astrology is as valid as any religion, which in my view isn't very much; and at least they can claim to make use of actual computations. And I think, also, that we shouldn't be completely blind to the fact, that things like prayer, meditation or consulting with oracles and horoscopes can potentially be a way to reflect more deeply over the decision you are about to make, regardless of whether your life-lie of choice is in itself bonkers.