Saturday, August 29, 2009
Airbrushing out Mary Jo Kopechne
Only a Kennedy could get away with it.
By Mark Steyn
We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.
In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.”
That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”
Read the rest!
By Mark Steyn
We are enjoined not to speak ill of the dead. But, when an entire nation — or, at any rate, its “mainstream” media culture — declines to speak the truth about the dead, we are certainly entitled to speak ill of such false eulogists. In its coverage of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s passing, America’s TV networks are creepily reminiscent of those plays Sam Shepard used to write about some dysfunctional inbred hardscrabble Appalachian household where there’s a baby buried in the backyard but everyone agreed years ago never to mention it.
In this case, the unmentionable corpse is Mary Jo Kopechne, 1940–1969. If you have to bring up the, ah, circumstances of that year of decease, keep it general, keep it vague. As Kennedy flack Ted Sorensen put it in Time magazine: “Both a plane crash in Massachusetts in 1964 and the ugly automobile accident on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969 almost cost him his life.”
That’s the way to do it! An “accident,” “ugly” in some unspecified way, just happened to happen — and only to him, nobody else. Ted’s the star, and there’s no room to namecheck the bit players. What befell him was . . . a thing, a place. As Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe: “Like all figures in history — and like those in the Bible, for that matter — Kennedy came with flaws. Moses had a temper. Peter betrayed Jesus. Kennedy had Chappaquiddick, a moment of tremendous moral collapse.”
Read the rest!
There's a Surprise...
...the government is giving us our money for trading cars that we like for cars we dislike and THEN taking some of our money back.
Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax
The Cash For Clunkers program is adding to the activity at treasurers' offices all around South Dakota. First, people were asking for proof of ownership, so they could show they owned their vehicle for a full year, allowing them to cash it in. Now, they'll be returning to register their new vehicle. And when they do, new owners need to bring every bit of paperwork provided to them by their dealer.
"That means they need their title, their damage disclosure, their bill of sale and the dealers have 30 days to get that to them," Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson said.
But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.
"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.
For now, the biggest impact of the program hasn't hit this office yet, as most of the paperwork is still in the hands of the dealers. But Nelson expects to see move activity in her office in the next month.
"I'm anxious to see what it's going to be like. I have no idea how many people we're going to see. Hopefully the dealers can process their paperwork in 30 days," Nelson said.
And that's when the line at this office will give some indication of how many cars the government program moved off of local lots.
Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
Some Surprised By 'Clunker' Tax
The Cash For Clunkers program is adding to the activity at treasurers' offices all around South Dakota. First, people were asking for proof of ownership, so they could show they owned their vehicle for a full year, allowing them to cash it in. Now, they'll be returning to register their new vehicle. And when they do, new owners need to bring every bit of paperwork provided to them by their dealer.
"That means they need their title, their damage disclosure, their bill of sale and the dealers have 30 days to get that to them," Minnehaha County Treasurer Pam Nelson said.
But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.
"They didn't realize that would be taxable. A lot of people don't realize that. So they're not happy and kind of surprised when they find that out," Nelson said.
For now, the biggest impact of the program hasn't hit this office yet, as most of the paperwork is still in the hands of the dealers. But Nelson expects to see move activity in her office in the next month.
"I'm anxious to see what it's going to be like. I have no idea how many people we're going to see. Hopefully the dealers can process their paperwork in 30 days," Nelson said.
And that's when the line at this office will give some indication of how many cars the government program moved off of local lots.
Nelson adds that if you did recently purchase a vehicle, ensure your dealer gets you the paperwork in time because if they don't you could pay extra interest and penalties.
"Then they came for me..."
While Congress rests up from its latest assault on our republic, WSJ offers 5 fictional narratives that may help us to keep one step ahead of them.
:::cue 'Twilight Zone' music:::
:::cue 'Twilight Zone' music:::
Thursday, August 27, 2009
EVIL MUTANT ATTACK SQUIRREL OF DEATH
I never dreamed that slowly cruising on my motorcycle through a residential neighborhood could be so incredibly dangerous!
Little did I suspect... (Click here for the rest!)
Organ transplant ethics
[I posted this on my personal blog a day or two ago. I guess I will post things on here as well if I think they might interest everyone. :::smile:::)
Coming out of China…
"The majority of transplanted organs in China come from executed prisoners, state media reported Wednesday in a rare disclosure about an industry often criticized for being opaque and unethical….
Condemned prisoners are “definitely not a proper source for organ transplants,” the report quoted Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu as saying. He has publicly acknowledged that most transplant organs are taken from executed prisoners, but only with prior consent.
Foreign medical and human rights groups have long criticized China’s organ transplant trade as being opaque, profit-driven and unethical. Critics say death row prisoners may feel compelled to become donors.
…
China has acknowledged that kidneys, livers, corneas and other organs are routinely removed from prisoners sentenced to death, but gave no details. Chinese transplant specialists estimate at least 90 percent of transplanted organs come from executed prisoners, human rights groups say."
Read the rest of the article here.
Sigh. What do you do when people need transplants to live, but the living are not nearly meeting the demand as donors? I for one would love to be an organ donor (not a living donor, mind you, but donate my body after I’m dead) but there are no cut-and-dry laws in Maryland about when exactly someone is dead and their organs can be removed. And this is not the case in MD alone; unfortunately there is no consensus on the definition of death.
Is a person dead when they are brain dead?
Is a person dead when there is no brain stem function?
Is a person dead when their heart stops?
Is a person dead when a combination of the above occurs?
Who knows. I come down with those who assert that a person is actually dead when there is no longer holistic bodily function. Philosophically, at this point the human body no longer has a telos or end toward which it is working. Instead, different machines are keeping different parts of the body “machine” working separately. Nothing is integrated; the body is working like parts of car work, but there is no life, no soul.
In the end, though, it is the doctor’s call. Whether the rest of us without white coats agree with it or not, the doctor is the one who is there and who has to make the decision: is the thing in front of me on the table a person or a cadaver?
We need to pray for our doctors, that more of them recognize the weighty responsibility they carry, and we need to encourage them to continue to live their vocations as doctors rather than bow to the utilitarian society in which we live.
Coming out of China…
"The majority of transplanted organs in China come from executed prisoners, state media reported Wednesday in a rare disclosure about an industry often criticized for being opaque and unethical….
Condemned prisoners are “definitely not a proper source for organ transplants,” the report quoted Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu as saying. He has publicly acknowledged that most transplant organs are taken from executed prisoners, but only with prior consent.
Foreign medical and human rights groups have long criticized China’s organ transplant trade as being opaque, profit-driven and unethical. Critics say death row prisoners may feel compelled to become donors.
…
China has acknowledged that kidneys, livers, corneas and other organs are routinely removed from prisoners sentenced to death, but gave no details. Chinese transplant specialists estimate at least 90 percent of transplanted organs come from executed prisoners, human rights groups say."
Read the rest of the article here.
Sigh. What do you do when people need transplants to live, but the living are not nearly meeting the demand as donors? I for one would love to be an organ donor (not a living donor, mind you, but donate my body after I’m dead) but there are no cut-and-dry laws in Maryland about when exactly someone is dead and their organs can be removed. And this is not the case in MD alone; unfortunately there is no consensus on the definition of death.
Is a person dead when they are brain dead?
Is a person dead when there is no brain stem function?
Is a person dead when their heart stops?
Is a person dead when a combination of the above occurs?
Who knows. I come down with those who assert that a person is actually dead when there is no longer holistic bodily function. Philosophically, at this point the human body no longer has a telos or end toward which it is working. Instead, different machines are keeping different parts of the body “machine” working separately. Nothing is integrated; the body is working like parts of car work, but there is no life, no soul.
In the end, though, it is the doctor’s call. Whether the rest of us without white coats agree with it or not, the doctor is the one who is there and who has to make the decision: is the thing in front of me on the table a person or a cadaver?
We need to pray for our doctors, that more of them recognize the weighty responsibility they carry, and we need to encourage them to continue to live their vocations as doctors rather than bow to the utilitarian society in which we live.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
There are three of them and Alleline.
Genna and I started a great analytical conversation last night with the greatest mini-series ever as our topic.
Since so many of us have seen and loved this story, I though I'd open the floor generally for insight and analysis. (I am particularly interested to get the KWhites' take on it since they just finished it last night!)
For those who have yet to see it: SEE IT!! For those who have seen it and are joining the discussion, make sure you clearly label spoilers in the usual manner (ie. police tape, sirens, brass bands, etc.)
SPOILERS BELOW!!!!
ABANDON HOPE YE WHO ENTER INTO THE SPOILERS!!!!
Genna and my discussion thus far has centered around the ambiguous relationship of Bill & Jim. As I told Genna: I think the implication is that Jim had a "crush" on Bill when they were at Oxford and remained devoted to him throughout his Circus career. That being said, I believe the relationship was platonic -- with Jim being the doggedly devoted one and Bill relishing the devotion.
I think this is very important when considered in light of the strong Biblical thread that runs through the screenplay. (Bill & Jim as David and Jonathan? Perhaps that's reaching...) As part of my research into the topic, I'm going to try to discover the source of the Biblical quotation cited by Jim at the end. If memory serves it's a line from the story of Joseph (he of the Amazing Technicolored Dreamcoat.) On a basic level, this reference serves to underscore Jim's betrayal by his "brother" who surrendered him to a foreign power and only barely intervened to "preserve" Jim's life.
Jim is probably my favorite character.
Since so many of us have seen and loved this story, I though I'd open the floor generally for insight and analysis. (I am particularly interested to get the KWhites' take on it since they just finished it last night!)
For those who have yet to see it: SEE IT!! For those who have seen it and are joining the discussion, make sure you clearly label spoilers in the usual manner (ie. police tape, sirens, brass bands, etc.)
SPOILERS BELOW!!!!
ABANDON HOPE YE WHO ENTER INTO THE SPOILERS!!!!
Genna and my discussion thus far has centered around the ambiguous relationship of Bill & Jim. As I told Genna: I think the implication is that Jim had a "crush" on Bill when they were at Oxford and remained devoted to him throughout his Circus career. That being said, I believe the relationship was platonic -- with Jim being the doggedly devoted one and Bill relishing the devotion.
I think this is very important when considered in light of the strong Biblical thread that runs through the screenplay. (Bill & Jim as David and Jonathan? Perhaps that's reaching...) As part of my research into the topic, I'm going to try to discover the source of the Biblical quotation cited by Jim at the end. If memory serves it's a line from the story of Joseph (he of the Amazing Technicolored Dreamcoat.) On a basic level, this reference serves to underscore Jim's betrayal by his "brother" who surrendered him to a foreign power and only barely intervened to "preserve" Jim's life.
Jim is probably my favorite character.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Naughty Nineties
Izzy and I have been watching Abbot and Costello skits today and, even though everyone has seen this bazillions of times I just thought I'd post it anyway. Classic.
Alive Again
Matt Maher's newest cd is available for pre-order! SHRIEK! You can listen to his single there too.
Disney can be positive about marriage??!!??
So, this is not exactly an extremely intense movie, but David & I went with Nathanael (who'd already seen it) to watch the newest Pixar/Disney movie yesterday. I for once was actually fairly impressed with how Disney portrayed marriage and family (usually they score LOW in my book for that one). Anyhow, it was a cute watch...
Also, it turns out being married helps one survive cancer...
Six-Month Book Review
No Man Is An
Vital Friends by Tom Rath. Very quick read, but Rath offers a great, fresh perspective on our friendships that is well worth the time. The Archdiocese of Washington has been basing their recent popular lecture series regarding relationships on this book. ****
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. Re-read this one for the third time. It is balm for the soul. :) ****
Introduction to Metaphysics by Martin Heidegger. I admit it: I love Heidegger, and I love this book in particular. It embodies my own personal philosophy that has developed over time. *****
Misanthrope/Tartuffe by Moliere. Two hilarious (yet meaty) plays that have made me an undying fan of Moliere. Mommy and I are going to see his grave in Paris! ****
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume. Although Hume makes great sense, I honestly don't like him at all. But if you want to see where a lot of the problems of modern/contemporary philosophy are born, this is a great work to read. **
The Unity of Philosophical Experience by Etienne Gilson. Although Gilson ultimately has a rather depressing thesis, his roundup of the history of philosophy is positively delicious. ***
Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution by C.P. Snow. Snow identifies a major problem that is only growing exponentially with each and every day. But because the writing style leaves something to be desired, I cannot give it a high rating. If you are interested, you can read my book review from May 2009. **
Mysterious
Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. Great work of science fiction. As all really decent sci-fi should do, it gives plenty of food for thought. *****
The World’s First Love by Fulton Sheen. As always, Sheen dates himself a bit with all the discussion of the evils of Communism, but even that can't ruin this beautiful work of love by a devoted son who truly, deeply, loves his Mother. *****
The Tasks of Philosophy by Alasdair McIntyre. We only had to read a chapter or two of this book for class, but I ended up reading the entire thing in my free time. McIntyre is slightly cynical (realistic?) about where philosophy is headed; however, the way he meshes classical, medieval, and contemporary philosophy so that they are constructive and relevant is the work of genius. I cannot WAIT to hear McIntyre lecture in person at CUA in a couple months. *****
Phenomenology of the Human Person by Robert Sokolowski. As always, Monsignor Sokolowski shows us the beauty of truth as evident in the world around us. I do not find his works as philosophical per se as those of McIntyre, Heidegger, or Descartes - Sokolowski's seem more meditative in nature - but that does not detract from "Fr. Soko's" (as his students term him) wisdom. ****
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Speaking of book recommendations...
I thought it might be fun to do a six-month book review. (Or, is that "revue"? :::practicing high-kicking:::) Herewith enclosed are the books I read between January- August 2009:
Nothing Serious by PG Wodehouse. A better than average Wodehouse collection. (And since Plum’s 'average' is sublimity incarnate, you know his 'better than average' is positively superhuman.) The golf stories are particularly good. *****
The Vicar of Wakefield by Oliver Goldsmith. It felt unintentionally hilarious which considerably heightened my enjoyment. ***
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day by Winifred Watson. Charming! Hat tip to auntlori & el for this terrific recommendation! *****
Cover Her Face by PD James. I have a lot of admiration for James the Christian (not to be confused with James the Lesser or the Greater or the Surfer) and so am sorry to say I found James the Mystery Writer rather disappointing. The story just didn’t move as I expected and hoped it would do. But, I'm no quitter and will likely take another stab (huh huh. get it. "stab".) at her crime fiction. **
Young Men In Spate by PG Wodehouse. Funny. Natch. *****
The Sailor from Gibraltar by Marguerite Duras. Perfectly captures the feeling of post-WW II malaise. But, is that a good thing? **
Under the Yum Yum Tree by Lawrence Roman. Waaaaay better than the movie. ***
Hot Water by PG Wodehouse. *****
She Fell Among Thieves by Dornford Yates. I enjoyed this period piece immensely! Not only was the story quite thrilling, but the first person narration was chock-full of unintentional hilarity. ****
The Light In the Piazza by Elizabeth Spencer. Haunting. ****
Esther’s Inheritance by Sandor Marai. My least favorite of the Marai translations. I just couldn’t detect that thread of grace necessary to redeem this relentlessly depressing tale. **
Mariana by Monica Dickens. Loved it! Loved it! Loved it! ‘I Capture the Castle’ for adults. *****
Cheerful Weather for the Wedding by Julia Strachey. Remarkable for its economy of prose and insightful asides. But, sad. ***
Scott-King’s Modern Europe by Evelyn Waugh. Very funny. Very angry. Very Waugh. ****
:::impatiently awaiting the six-month book reviews (and accompanying chorus lines) of fellow contra-mundites:::
Nothing Serious by PG Wodehouse. A better than average Wodehouse collection. (And since Plum’s 'average' is sublimity incarnate, you know his 'better than average' is positively superhuman.) The golf stories are particularly good. *****
The Vicar of Wakefield by Oliver Goldsmith. It felt unintentionally hilarious which considerably heightened my enjoyment. ***
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day by Winifred Watson. Charming! Hat tip to auntlori & el for this terrific recommendation! *****
Cover Her Face by PD James. I have a lot of admiration for James the Christian (not to be confused with James the Lesser or the Greater or the Surfer) and so am sorry to say I found James the Mystery Writer rather disappointing. The story just didn’t move as I expected and hoped it would do. But, I'm no quitter and will likely take another stab (huh huh. get it. "stab".) at her crime fiction. **
Young Men In Spate by PG Wodehouse. Funny. Natch. *****
The Sailor from Gibraltar by Marguerite Duras. Perfectly captures the feeling of post-WW II malaise. But, is that a good thing? **
Under the Yum Yum Tree by Lawrence Roman. Waaaaay better than the movie. ***
Hot Water by PG Wodehouse. *****
She Fell Among Thieves by Dornford Yates. I enjoyed this period piece immensely! Not only was the story quite thrilling, but the first person narration was chock-full of unintentional hilarity. ****
The Light In the Piazza by Elizabeth Spencer. Haunting. ****
Esther’s Inheritance by Sandor Marai. My least favorite of the Marai translations. I just couldn’t detect that thread of grace necessary to redeem this relentlessly depressing tale. **
Mariana by Monica Dickens. Loved it! Loved it! Loved it! ‘I Capture the Castle’ for adults. *****
Cheerful Weather for the Wedding by Julia Strachey. Remarkable for its economy of prose and insightful asides. But, sad. ***
Scott-King’s Modern Europe by Evelyn Waugh. Very funny. Very angry. Very Waugh. ****
:::impatiently awaiting the six-month book reviews (and accompanying chorus lines) of fellow contra-mundites:::
YOU RAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
eleanor is a total rat
great minds think alike.....
AWESOMENESS, JANICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Call me Ishmael
It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open . . .Boris Karloff still scares the snot out of me.
Frankenstein's Monster
"IT'S ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!!!!"
At least, I hope Contra Mundum may be resuscitated as a means of familial communication. In the tradition of the old, much-revered Contra Mundum site, this is a space in which we can all share book/movie recommendations, political analysis, hilarious YouTube links and deep thoughts.
At least, I hope Contra Mundum may be resuscitated as a means of familial communication. In the tradition of the old, much-revered Contra Mundum site, this is a space in which we can all share book/movie recommendations, political analysis, hilarious YouTube links and deep thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)