# Peter, Paul and Mary sang, "Where have all the flowers gone?"



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

.....and it is with appologies in advance that I paraphrase to ask,

Where have all our manners gone?
...not long in passing.
Where have all our manners gone?
...can we bring them back?

It was really distressing to witness, in a recent thread, recognizing the passing of one of our elected political leaders, the willingness of several of our membership's attempts to literally torment the deceased's memory. Even after a moderator politely asked the membership to show some degree of respect and proper decorum in choosing their words to note the passing of the deceased, three members posts so far exceeded the guidance offered that their posts were deleted...and then others found it impossible to resist labeling those efforts to maintain some minimal level of decorum as censorship. Have our personal manners devolved to the point that we are unable to resist the urge to act at a level of maturity not much greater than that displayed by psychopathic children, tormenting the carcass of a dead animal? Can we not honor the memory of someone who has passed, without including a concerted effort to disparage their memory?

I offer these thoughts not as a Democrat (I am a registered Republican), not as a fan of the late Senator Kennedy (though I do admire his legislative accomplishments and how he carried out his politics but, also recognize he had feet of clay, just like the rest of us!), and perhaps most importantly, not as a moderator but rather, as a fellow forum member. I enjoy a vigorous disagreement just as much as the next guy but, must we discard any sense of manners or personal restraint at the door when we enter..."the Interchange!" What say you?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I wish that your wish would come true.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

The management should have chopped heads long ago. Here is the result.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I agree that there is a time and place to simply say nothing if you have nothing nice to say. There will be plenty of time later to discuss the negatives if that is what one wishes to do.

I was reminded of the recent death of former NFL football star Steve McNair. For those not familiar, his death occurred amidst some very sordid circumstances. At the same time he was a popular public figure who had made significant contributions to society with his extremely unselfish charitable works and good deeds to his community. In that regard he was truly one of the good guys.

Community leaders grappled with how to deal with his memorial service. In the end good manners and decency prevailed as he was recognized for the good that he did. Only the two ministers who presided over the two memorial services addressed the more sordid side, and they both did so by reminding everyone that we have all fallen short in our lives at some point in time and at this time we should dwell on the good things that the man did. 

Cruiser


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

A thoughtful lament, Eagle.



eagle2250 said:


> ....What say you?


About those who "...are unable to resist the urge to act at a level of maturity not much greater than that displayed by psychopathic children" one is tempted to say that one tries to persuade them to act like civilized human beings, but it isn't any use. They can't do imitations.

While that saying is more clever than witty it does contain a kernel of truth that Orsini notes as well. Nothing was chopped and the bad odor of a few persistent unwashed & uncivil folk seems to permeate the whole place.

"...there is a good side and a bad side to most people, and in accordance with your own character and disposition you will bring out one of them and the other will remain a sealed book to you." - Mark Twain, unpublished Autobiographical Dictation, reprinted in _Notebooks & Journals, Vol. 3_.


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ...Even after a moderator politely asked the membership to show some degree of respect and proper decorum in choosing their words to note the passing of the deceased, three members posts so far exceeded the guidance offered that *their posts were deleted*...and then others found it impossible to resist labeling those efforts to maintain some minimal level of decorum as censorship...


First, let me say that I AGREE with you. No matter how well you try to dress them up some people will always let their lack of class shine through.

Second, they WERE censored!
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------*

*Cen·sor·ship* 

Pronunciation: \_ˈ_sen(t)-sər-_ˌ_ship\
Function: _noun_
Date: circa 1591
*1 a* *:* the institution, system, or practice of censoring *b* *:* the actions or practices of censors; _especially_ *: *censorial control exercised repressively

*Censor* 

Function: _transitive verb_
Inflected Form(s): *cen·sored*; *cen·sor·ing *\_ˈ_sen(t)-sə-riŋ, _ˈ_sen(t)s-riŋ\
Date: 1882
*:* to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <_censor_ the news>; _also_ *:* to suppress or delete as objectionable <_censor_ out indecent passages>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Eagle: You can't censor someone and then be upset when it is remarked that they were censored! :icon_smile_wink:

On the other hand, this forum is not required to allow just any post to stand. This is Andy's house and Andy's rules. If he wants to censor (i.e. delete) any post that doesn't talk about green socks then that is his right. Anyone who doesn't agree with his choices can argue the fact until they are censored again :icon_smile: (or better yet, suspended)! Posting on this forum was not mentioned in the Constitution. It is not a right; it is a privilege!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wizard said:


> Second, they WERE censored!


While I can't speak for eagle, I didn't get the impression that he wasn't using the word by a strict Dictionary definition (although the fact is there are many different definitions for this word), but rather by the way we normally think of the word. Most folks think of censorship as the State, or other organization, restricting their "right" to free speech.

For example, if you have a guest at your home and he/she starts using vulgar language in front of your family, is it censorship if you tell him/her to not use that language in your home? Perhaps by some definitions; however, most of us would not think of it in those terms. The person wasn't being prohibited from using vulgar language but merely being told to not use it in your home. I don't think most would refer to that as censorship, even if it technically is.

And you did say this was Andy's home.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Speaking of how ugly things get, those people from the Westboro Baptist Church are coming to Montpelier next week to protest our new gay marriage law, including harassing the high school students on their way into school.

No matter what your politics, I can't imagine there is anyone around here who supports their methods or message.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Speaking of how ugly things get, those people from the Westboro Baptist Church are coming to Montpelier next week to protest our new gay marriage law, including harassing the high school students on their way into school.
> 
> No matter what your politics, I can't imagine there is anyone around here who supports their methods or message.


Jack if you mean ugly as in someone in their blog https://www.rationalresistance.blogspot.com/ calling Michael Steele an obvious dope with demagogic demands; or intentionally misrepresenting this discussion https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112281170 as Mr. Steele getting "totally irate at having his position described as nuanced"; then I would agree with you 100%.

Steve didn't have to tell him what nuanced meant or that it was not a bad thing and Steele didn't get totally irate. He just asked for him to back up that label as to what was nuanced about his position. Fred was either being obtuse or dishonest - avoiding answering the question Steele posed:


> *INSKEEP:* You're giving me, nevertheless, a nuanced position, a careful...
> *Mr. STEELE:* What's nuanced? What don't you understand?
> *INSKEEP:* What nuance means is you're not doing it absolutely black and white.


To think that Steele was asking for a definition of nuanced instead of asking for facts to back up the charge of "what is nuanced about my position" or that he is an obvious dope exposes your own hatred and bias for those that disagree with you. It's telling that you fail to see the obvious relationship between your blog and it's hypocrisy and your own dislike of the Phelps group.

When Steve finally answered Steeles question for clarity he actually discussed it with him - partially agreeing that it was complicated, but disagreeing that it was a challenge that couldn't be overcome. He wasn't irate. So obvious dope is as obvious dope does.


> *INSKEEP:* Maybe we're getting hung up on the word nuance. Maybe I should say complicated. Do you find it challenging to get into this complicated debate and explain things to people in a way that it's honest to the facts and still very clear and doesn't just kind of scare people with soundbites?
> *Mr. STEELE:* That's a good point, then. Well no. Look, no one's trying to scare people with soundbites. I mean, you know, I've not done that, and I don't know any of the leaders in the House and Senate that have done that. And so, yeah, it's complicated, and you want to break it down.
> I remember when Reg D came in and all the things that my sister - who's a doctor, and I am a lawyer - had to do with my parents to sit down to help them understand exactly what this meant, what forms they had to fill out, etcetera, etcetera. It was a complicated...


I would go so far as to say, it is my opinion is that having such hate-speech and name calling that clearly violates the TOS of this forum linked to this forum should not be tolerated.

If you're going to misrepresent something perhaps you should not admonish people, "You really should listen to the whole thing."

Frankly I'm tired of all the whining by certain democrats and liberals in here. We routinely see republicans and conservatives called pigs, jerks, dopes, and every other name by the left and when someone on the right posts something critical it's suddenly beyond the pale. Then we hear this lie that the left is outnumbered here and shouted down. Look at how far the mods have bent-over-backwards to protect the memory and dignity of Senator Kennedy. And then we get all this back-patting while your signature links to the same sort of intolerance and rudeness you are self-righteously opposing. Rational? Not hardly!

I digress. You were busy educating us on what types of methods and messages should be supported by members of the forum and what is and is not acceptable dialogue ... please continue ... ic12337:


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Where have all the flowers gone?"

I will respond with another oldie:

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"

It has long been a fact in our society that intolerance, in the forms of rudeness, out shouting any perceived opposition and bullying is the pattern for trying to sway everyone within earshot to either change their views or cower in terror. We are no longer a society but have devolved into a mob. The last few weeks have shown that in the USA facts and truth are of no value and have been replaced by the vocal ramblings of thugs. Disagreeing with the position of an opponent is valued in a society. Denigrating the dead to further such goals is the act of a thug.
While we all pretend to be good citizens in our public lives, we find the true spirit when we can hide behind an assumed identity and rant our vilest thoughts. I suggest that if one of us has to stoop to baser tactics in the forums, please offset the poor judgment by posting your true identity so we can assign the thoughts to the person.
Feeling the need to demean others to make the appearance of superiority does not fool the reader. They see the bully for what he is.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Hiding in society*

I, for one, Mr. Irish, don't care to hide. Unlike Ted Kennedy, I have never murdered a young woman and used my wealth and position to escape the consequences of that cowardly deed. And. My name is Hubert Whittington and my phone number is 903-603-8112. How's that?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Country Irish said:


> "Where have all the flowers gone?"
> 
> I will respond with another oldie:
> 
> ...


There are a lot of forums that do exactly that. Usernames must be actual names. It's a wise idea.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You people are becoming increasingly tedious.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PetroLandman said:


> Unlike Ted Kennedy, I have never murdered a young woman and used my wealth and position to escape the consequences of that cowardly deed. And. My name is Hubert Whittington and my phone number is 903-603-8112. How's that?


I am tempted to call, but are you sure your mother allows you to receive calls this late?​


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Where have all our manners gone?
> ...not long in passing.
> Where have all our manners gone?
> ...can we bring them back?


I don't know what happened to manners either,they are simply a thing of the past.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Country Irish said:


> "Where have all the flowers gone?"
> 
> I will respond with another oldie:
> 
> ...


+1. Well said, Country Irish!

Now, if there were only a path that we might walk, leading to a restoration of civility, the consistent demonstration of human compassion, and a resurgence of good character within societies soul (or perhaps within our small slice of that soul)...perhaps something as simple as, just stopping to think a moment before putting our respective fingers to the keyboard?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Jack if you mean ugly as in someone in their blog https://www.rationalresistance.blogspot.com/ calling Michael Steele an obvious dope with demagogic demands; or intentionally misrepresenting this discussion https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112281170 as Mr. Steele getting "totally irate at having his position described as nuanced"; then I would agree with you 100%.
> 
> Steve didn't have to tell him what nuanced meant or that it was not a bad thing and Steele didn't get totally irate. He just asked for him to back up that label as to what was nuanced about his position. Fred was either being obtuse or dishonest - avoiding answering the question Steele posed:
> 
> ...


Believe me. The people on the left have the same things to say. Egdon, who posts here by a different name wants to kick me and Eagle in the groin per a post made on styleforum. This person is almost certainly a lefty.

I guess for both sides, that the end justifies the means. That is a huge problem in our society, and to me, just as big of a problem as the extreme direction each side wants to takes us.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

We have not devolved into a mob. We have devolved into several, and therein lies much of the problem.

Ted Kennedy, no matter what you think of his politics, exemplified something which has become rare - he was a political man who did not consider political people who disagreed with him to be evil tools of the devil. In much political discourse, both sides seem incapable of thinking of any opinion other than their own as being a sure and planned path to despotism. Such charges were leveled against Bush and Cheney, and now we have ridiculous charges being made against Obama. Both are/were wrong, but too many of us are unwilling to listen to an opposing viewpoint or even reason. Is there any reasonable person out there who truly believes that a government health plan would feature the purposeful killing of healthy citizens? I heard just such a claim being made last week.

Why has this happened? And what can be done about it? I think that one contributing factor is the proliferation of "news" sources. Psychologists have long recognized that when people of like mind get together, their positions on the subject at hand get more extreme, as a competition of sorts takes over the group. Radio and television programs, web sites, and the like provide the gathering place where this hardening of positions occurs. Limbaugh and Beck are guilty of much, and Maher and Olberman are as well. But again, what can be done about it? I fear that it will take a collective act of good sense, which becomes less likely every day.

I used to post in a few political forums, looking for open debate. Instead, I got screaming fits. I have been called many names, just for the crime of pointing out things like you can see in the second paragraph above. I gave up, because there was absolutely no point in trying to engage in a serious and reasonable discussion when everyone else only wants to shout absurdities. Cheney was not planning a military coup, and Obama is not trying to institute communist government in America (both claims were indeed made in the forums I gave up on). 

Ted Kennedy dedicated much of his life to helping people. If you dislike what he saw as "helping", at least recognize that his approach was a thoughtful one, and disagree in a thoughtful way. Vulgar and disrespectful diatribes are not welcome in my house, and they appear to be not welcome in Andy's. Mom (and, to tell the truth, especially Dad) taught me to always respect my host's wishes. We should all do the same.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Eagle, Forsberg, Jack, et al, I am with you on this. Some people are just plain jerks.

I might have not been a fan of Ted Kennedy's politics, but I am saddened at his passing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Believe me. The people on the left have the same things to say. Egdon, who posts here by a different name wants to kick me and Eagle in the groin per a post made on styleforum. This person is almost certainly a lefty.
> 
> I guess for both sides, that the end justifies the means. That is a huge problem in our society, and to me, just as big of a problem as the extreme direction each side wants to takes us.


My thinking is that while that appears reasonable and moderate it exacerbates the problem. It's easy to say "yes you are right" and go along to get along, blame everybody and nobody and watch the problem continue. We could even sing a view bars of Kumbaya! :icon_smile_big:

I will explain. The root cause of the problem is personal accountability. So, by painting so broadly and saying all sides do it or it is a general problem continues to give individuals an out.

What this breeds is the attitude that, for example, my post is engaging in the behavior instead of exposing the behavior. And then I get lumped in as part of all sides do it. I am NOT engaging in the same behavior, but it frequently serves the purpose of some to claim it's a general disagreement over politics; or incivility. Actually it is a rejection of this very thing. When the bluntness of accountability offends someone usually there is a reason beyond the face value. Just my experience. I find that usual actors know this and so they try to "dare" people to challenge them because they take advantage of intellectual laziness with their intellectual dishonesty. They say if you read the entire transcript as I did, you would know what I know, expecting that no one actually will and confront them with the truth. This is not a civility problem, this is an integrity problem.

I can point to many examples where actor 1 says X which is untrue or unsubstantiated, then actor 2 calls them on it and the end judgment is both actors where wrong. And I'm not speaking about moderation, but general consensus. As long as this persists where people are unwilling to hold specific individuals accountable for specific and individual comments we will have this problem.

Another example is saying regardless of politics. In Senator Kennedy's example the MJK incident has nothing to do with political disagreement with the Senator and to lump it in with political combat is IMHO furthering the lack of personal accountability.

Just my view. I would disagree that as a rule the Left has the exact same view; at least as it is demonstrated and implemented in these fora. There are few exceptions. For me it generally has nothing to do with left or right. Take Quay as an example. We frequently disagree "politically", but sometimes I am to the left of him and vice versa, but he is always accountable for his view. Disrespecting someone's view because it is unsubstantiated is not the same as disrespecting them personally. This happens all the time here where one side responds with name-calling to facts and when pressed to provide facts they continue with name-calling, then both are painted with the same brush. It's like a no-fault State.

I realize Mods cannot be judges of the truth, but unless they do; the situation Eagle points out will continue because individuals will continue to misrepresent and revise history. 99% of the issues with Senator Kennedy are personal not political disdain for him. Yes; he was a long tenured and maybe effective Senator, but if people don't want to discuss him personally they should not express personal condolences. It's the old "you ask for it; you get it" rule.

Sure, if you have nothing nice to say you should probably not say it, but when opportunists are at work I think it's wrong to blame those that object to it. They could easily have a quiet, peaceful, respectful rememberance of their family who they love and I think others would respectfully keep their views out of it, but when we are all expected to show respect for a man regardless of how he lived his life, that's asking a bit much.

To demonstrate remove the current topic and take an extreme example like Hitler or Stalin. In those extremes, what would the consensus be if someone posted RIP Hitler or RIP Stalin? Or RIP "Son of Sam" or "Ted Bundy"; and someone said "I hope he rots in hell"; where is the line? Would that be uncivil?

It only sounds similar because we (society) allow this lack of personal accountability to stand unchallenged. I had the same view when WFB, Jr. died, but I know a lot of people objected to comments about him and the mods always played fair. I only comment because I think Eagle purposeful pulled this outside a discussion of moderation and to a discussion of general behavior. Once everything is relative then there is no distinction and that is what we are suffering from in this society. Relativism.

Just my view... I accept that I will be egged; tarred-n-feathered, whatever ... the fact that Jack is generally a nice/good guy notwithstanding. I don't bash people that don't ask for it and as I demonstrated the hypocrisy and the non-sequitor of Phelps was "begging for it" IMHO. And when calling a spade a spade is uncivil we are all doomed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

KenR said:


> Eagle, Forsberg, Jack, et al, I am with you on this. Some people are just plain jerks.
> 
> I might have not been a fan of Ted Kennedy's politics, but I am saddened at his passing.


It was an interesting reminder to watch the eulogies that almost everyone is neither universally good or bad; is loved by someone; and will be missed. The comments by the nephew Joe II and others who Ted stepped up for as a Father were definitely emotional and you have to respect his loyalty and duty to his family. No question about that.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

*Personal v. Political*

First of all, Mr. Pine, the mother to whom you refer has been dead for more than 24 years a victim of Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS, as am I and four other family members plus our grandfather. I wish she were here to monitor my phone calls, even though I am 58 years old, the president of my company and grandfather to four beautiful kids. I miss her a lot and appreciate any support you and others may give to 'Jerry's kids' of which I am one.

Second, I do not accept the premise that upon a person's death we, the survivors, are under some sort of obligation to deify the deceased or to edit the events of their lives. The fact that Mr Kennedy is now dead does not erase the blot on the judicial system in Massachusetts nor the blot on his name. The question of agreeing or disagreeing with his politics is a completely separate discussion.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"I, for one, Mr. Irish, don't care to hide..."

I actually saw this earlier and left alone it in case you decided to edit a bit of the information related. As it stands I hope this is a disposable telephone number. Every crank caller on earth now has an invitation to chat with you at 3:00 am.

It has already been mentioned, quite properly, that we must sometimes separate the politician from the person. This is one instance where it is difficult to do since he did have his faults as a man but tried to be a good politician as an offset. I'm not even a fan but he did try.

As for MURDER, it is a legal term which varies from state to state. Thus I can not confirm or refute it. I do suggest that you take the anger from this incident and direct it toward a larger cause. Our courts system is broken. I do agree with that. The current experiment of rule by law has failed. Thus a more suitable outlet for the anger is to work to change the system. 
Finally, a dead guy does not care what you might say but his innocent family could be devastated. Thanks for posting the name but it would have been simpler not to have posted at all.

BTW, Good luck with that upcoming phone problem.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

KSINC said
"There are a lot of forums that do exactly that. Usernames must be actual names. It's a wise idea."

In a couple of forums I do use my real name and do try to be specific and accurate even though in doing so my views might be perceived as hostile. My goal is to only say what is provable and to encourage change in regard to what ever topic is being discussed. Using a real name means I endorse the subject matter and to do so it must be true for the sake of self respect. For me it becomes a matter of self moderation. 

As for an assumed name here, I am of a small minority that loves my black suits. On AAAC that seems to be a sin with no possible chance of absolution.
Thus I remain
Country Irish


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...my post is...exposing the behavior....I don't bash people that don't ask for it and as I demonstrated the hypocrisy and the non-sequitor of Phelps was "begging for it" IMHO....


Thank you for finally spelling out your mission. Exposing the behavior of those who are begging for it, and doing with humble opinions. Now we know!



Country Irish said:


> ...I am of a small minority that loves my black suits. On AAAC that seems to be a sin with no possible chance of absolution.
> Thus I remain
> Country Irish


Heretic! Reprobate! Funereal-Sartorial! Off with his head!

Then again, we could all just go get a pint. What'll you have? :icon_smile:


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

When one accuses another of hiding behind a user name, and that is taken off the table, it is usually the retreat of the ill-prepared to make another accusation. In many cases the accusation makes reference to 'anger'. For the record, my life is in no way guided by anger. Please, in the future, allow those with whom you disagree to go free of such a broadly brushed and baseless smear.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Thank you for finally spelling out your mission. Exposing the behavior of those who are begging for it, and doing with humble opinions. Now we know!


It was nice of you to demonstrate my primary point so ably in remarking on the second. That's why I complimented you. Of course, now you have to live up to the expectation created ... or not.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Country Irish said:


> As for an assumed name here, I am of a small minority that loves my black suits. On AAAC that seems to be a sin with no possible chance of absolution.
> Thus I remain
> Country Irish


You make a good point.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

coynedj said:


> Ted Kennedy, no matter what you think of his politics, exemplified something which has become rare - he was a political man who did not consider political people who disagreed with him to be evil tools of the devil. In much political discourse, both sides seem incapable of thinking of any opinion other than their own as being a sure and planned path to despotism.


Robert Bork called. He wants his reputation back. 



> Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.


I don't know what kind of infantile fantasy world you live in, coynedj, but Kennedy plainly demonized Bork and accused him of supporting a path to despotism.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Excellent point! There's a great old article on NR about how we got here where the political leaders on both sides have adopted the same "Ted Kennedy" tactics used on Judge Bork. I just love the Biden example myself.

https://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjdhNDY1NmY4NmM4ODJiZDNlNDFmZDQ2ODRhZjQ3OTY=


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."- Mark Twain in _Autobiography of Mark Twain

_Along the lines of the opening lament, perhaps part of the solution is to do more thinking for oneself and then kindly express any revelations or conclusions in a manner that won't offend one's fellows.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

Mr. Phinn:

You have shown that I was incorrect in my statement, at least regarding one instance in a long career. Senator Kennedy did indeed savage Mr. Bork in the statement you quoted.

But it appears that you have proven my main point, that reasoned political discourse no longer seems possible. You could have respectfully made your point, but instead preferred to sling personal insults at someone you know almost completely nothing about. Accusing someone of living in an "infantile fantasy world" based on a single statement hardly seems "all grown up".

The point of the original post regarded appropriateness. Just as one would not wear morning dress to a baseball game, one should not hurl abuse in threads specifically intended to be for honoring the dead. Just as war protesters were wrong to disrupt the funerals of military servicemen and women a few years back, invective toward Senator Kennedy should have been kept to it's appropriate place.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Edward Kennedy was a notorious ultra-partisan firebrand, and his regular, day-to-day political skills included predicting that his opponents' proposals would result in utter doom, along with a generous sprinkling of accusations of bad faith and corrupt motives.

But that is the nature of politics.

Your assertion, however, was not only contrary to observable fact, but you were purporting to make a comprehensive and global assertion about Kennedy's character and personality. The Bork quote was not an isolated incident. Your assertion that Kennedy "exemplified" something noble and principled and was somehow the epitome of restraint and decorum was completely wrong in every respect.

What happened to reasoned political discourse? Guys like Edward Kennedy killed it.

As for "honoring the dead," I have a few contrary opinions on the subject. First, the dead don't care. That's because they're dead. So, all of the rigmarole, pageantry and ceremony is pure theater, a contrived role-playing exercise for the sole benefit of the living. It's quite hypocritical and craven, if you think about it, to pretend that one is behaving for the benefit of a dead person, when the only true explanation is that you are doing it for yourself.

In this case, the theater had nothing to do with Kennedy personally, and everything to do with politics as usual. Kennedy's political supporters had no qualms about using his death as an opportunity to score political points, so I fail to see how one could tolerate that sort of behavior from Kennedy's former supporters while condemning it on the part of his former opponents.

Second, the mere fact that one believes that Edward Kennedy should be "honored" at all is, _*in itself*_, a political assertion. Political assertions invite political responses. You should not be surprised when, in the guise of purporting to honor the dead, one receives political commentary in return.

The "Let's Honor Kennedy" sentiment, expressed here and on wall-to-wall TV coverage, was a transparent attempt to (a) make a whole slew of political assertions, while at the same time (b) silence the political response that such assertions naturally invite. It's like claiming that you should be allowed to play 3 minutes of game time while the other team is on the bench. Life doesn't work that way.

What is the hidden message behind the beatification of dead men like Kennedy? What is the unspoken, implicit political assertion? It consists of the non-partisan claim that the State is legitimate. That the State must be recognized as an authority. State pageantry serves the interests of the State. In this case, even if we disregard the partisanship angle for a moment, the political message behind State funerals is clear -- Washington is the locus of all power. Obey. Submit. The fundamental assertion is that, no matter what Washington decides to do in this particular instance, one thing is clear -- Washington shall be the decider.

Kennedy was a state official. He had no authority over me or anyone else. He was a criminal, a thief, a mafia don. A lifetime of incivility invites an uncivil response.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Classy as usual Phinn.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

*Re Edward Kennedy*

My initial intention in starting a post to the memory of Senator Kennedy was an honest expression at paying my respects at the passing of a remarkable man and the ending of a specific historical narrative on the world stage.

I have waited till Senator Kennedy was laid to rest before commenting further.

I strongly disagree that taking disparaging commentary from a post set up to pay respects to the dead is a censorship. I started the post as a respectful way for myself and others to express what they felt over the passing of Senator Kennedy.

I know Senator Kennedy had his faults we all do but to quote Hemmingway 'the world breaks everyone and afterwards many are strong at the broken places.' Senator Kennedy had to endure the loss by assassination of his two brothers, and at the same time spend the rest of his life in their shadow. And, let us not forget Chappaquiddick, some have claimed that is was only the "Kennedy Brand" that saved him and a lesser man would have been jailed for his actions that night. That may well be the case but that's not what happened, this is not to detract from the tragedy of those events or his culpability for them. 
We are all human and for our faults and transgressions this life does offer us the chance at redemption, but redemption is not found in prayer but in empowering belief through actions which are beneficial to the society in which we live.

From great personal tragedy a man arose who inspired others and made a commitment to public service. He was constantly re-elected by his constituents for 47 years. He worked tirelessly for better education and social services for the downtrodden and oppressed of society. Any one with any sense realises that education is the key to social advancement. I believe that education is a right not a privilege, increased access to education assists in the construction of civic mined citizens who are more able and willing to contribute to the commonwealth of society.

His opposition to the war in Iraq is but one highlight of an illustrious career, and I must add millions of people in democratic nations around the globe agreed with his opposition to this war. "My vote against this misbegotten war was the best vote that I have cast since I was elected in 1962". In 2003 he stood up for US troops in Iraq, "Then Kennedy went to war in Congress, fighting for and winning huge advances in funding for protective body armour and armoured vehicles. Production of armoured Humvees climbed from 800 to 10,000 a year; previously 1 or 2 percent of all vehicles, they became standard equipment. " Some have derided him as a Leftist, as if it was deprecating slur, but I ask you are these not the actions of a patriot?

As an individual whose cultural and ancestral origins lie in the Irish Catholic Diaspora I identify with the ideas and practice of public service and assistance to others. Both of my parents grew up in the milieu and poverty of the great depression and I was formed by the values, ethics and ideology of the Catholic working class. This provided me the springboard for the basis of my own ethical development as an individual. As JFK stated, "to those whom much is given much is expected". Form JFK onwards the Kennedys were a global brand that embodied those ideas, which were inspirational in shaping notions of public service and community involvement on a global front.

With the passing the of Senator Kennedy the Myth of Camelot, has drawn to a close but the ideas and dreams behind the Myth live on in the actions of the individuals who were inspired by those dreams.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ajo said:


> We are all human and for our faults and transgressions this life does offer us the chance at redemption, but *redemption is not found in prayer but in empowering belief through actions which are beneficial to the society in which we live. *


:icon_pale:

Since I'm not Catholic I have to ask, do the following verses not exist in the Catholic Bible or something?

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
man should boast."
Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no
more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
Romans 11:6, KJV

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness,
which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of
Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"
Philippians 3:9, KJV

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
Titus 3:5, KJV


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ajo said:


> With the passing the of Senator Kennedy the Myth of Camelot, has drawn to a close but* the ideas and dreams behind the Myth* live on in the actions of the individuals who were inspired by those dreams.


It's too bad the dreams of those inspired by the myth of National-Socialism can't draw to a close as well. Since we're discussing fake names in this thread; frankly, I have more respect for someone like Christopher Hitchens and other self-proclaimed "Trotskyists" then those who hide behind the ignoble "Myth of Camelot" tag. I guess that would screw up the whole "devout Roman Catholic" myth too though; as if by definition seeking redemption by means other than prayer wasn't enough. No wonder the Pope is speechless.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Christopher Hitchens a 'Trotskyite' ? That's news an atheist yes and critic of the left these days. 

  All societies create myths they explain who what and why we are and in this sense I am speaking of myth as defined by Barthes, myth as social narrative. 

 And as for redemption, 'actions speak louder than words.' To quote St Cyprian 'you can attain to the vision of God if you deserve it by your life and works.'  In the end its not for us to judge, that is left to a higher authority.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ajo said:


> Christopher Hitchens a 'Trotskyite' ? That's news an atheist yes and critic of the left these days.
> 
> All societies create myths they explain who what and why we are and in this sense I am speaking of myth as defined by Barthes, myth as social narrative.
> 
> And as for redemption, 'actions speak louder than words.' To quote St Cyprian 'you can attain to the vision of God if you deserve it by your life and works.' In the end its not for us to judge, that is left to a higher authority.


To clarify:

Hitchens = Self-proclaimed and old, old news.

Myths. Yes; Barthes' usage of "myth" is exactly what I am referring to and described as well. As you point out it is not a way to describe who, what, and where we are, but a way to foist and justify values on society that have no previous basis; such as morality. It's a favored technique of nationalists and socialists; even false prophets.

I'm sorry, but St. Cyprian's well-intentioned admonition is clearly not Biblical and his significant influences on the Church were largely based on his previous pagan background and not Church teachings (there is no doubt St. Cyprian had a habit of making it up as he went along.)

Regardless, his view is irrelevant unless I missed a memo. In the end, it's for a higher authority than St. Cyprian.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I realize Mods cannot be judges of the truth, but unless they do; the situation Eagle points out will continue because individuals will continue to misrepresent and revise history. 99% of the issues with Senator Kennedy are personal not political disdain for him. Yes; he was a long tenured and maybe effective Senator, but if people don't want to discuss him personally they should not express personal condolences. It's the old "you ask for it; you get it" rule.
> 
> Sure, if you have nothing nice to say you should probably not say it, but when opportunists are at work I think it's wrong to blame those that object to it. They could easily have a quiet, peaceful, respectful rememberance of their family who they love and I think others would respectfully keep their views out of it, but when we are all expected to show respect for a man regardless of how he lived his life, that's asking a bit much.


Whether one likes or dislikes people such as Senator Kennedy is their business. Nobody's asking anyone to respect him, much less have him in their prayers. We are, however, asking people to show some tact... especially a few DAYS after their death.



Phinn said:


> Edward Kennedy was a notorious ultra-partisan firebrand, and his regular, day-to-day political skills included predicting that his opponents' proposals would result in utter doom, along with a generous sprinkling of accusations of bad faith and corrupt motives.
> 
> But that is the nature of politics.
> 
> ...


That's nice. How would you like it if someone who thought your husband, father, uncle or what have you was corrupt and just plain ol' no-good spouted all sorts of vitriol days after they passed away? Whether you think the dead care is not the issue. It's tact.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Whether one likes or dislikes people such as Senator Kennedy is their business. Nobody's asking anyone to respect him, much less have him in their prayers. We are, however, asking people to show some tact... especially a few DAYS after their death.
> 
> ... How would you like it if someone who thought your husband, father, uncle or what have you was corrupt and just plain ol' no-good spouted all sorts of vitriol days after they passed away? Whether you think the dead care is not the issue. It's tact.


Is anyone here related in the first degree to the late Edward Kennedy? Anyone ... anyone?

If so, did you come to AAAC looking for apolitical condolences?

Anyone?

Until we get an answer to these questions, I have one for you, Jovan -- Do you have the same feelings about Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their agenda?

Reagan and Nixon died not too long ago. How exactly did you feel about the popular reactions, pro and anti, surrounding the deaths of those two men? I am genuinely curious.

Also, do you agree or disagree with the general proposition that the funerary rituals surrounding Kennedy, including any and all media coverage thereof, carry an implicit political subtext, or do you sincerely believe that they are entirely non-political? I am more interested in your views on the nature of media and political propaganda generally.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I have expressed no opinions, good or bad, regarding the late Senator Kennedy here or in the original thread. Maybe you shouldn't assume I'm defending him because of that.

Knock it off. Let the man rest in peace.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*lack of manners unmaketh man*

my old dad says 'nobody drives like an ass---- on his own street,' meaning that accountability is the father of deportment.

technology means that no one need be married to eat and get the laundry done, so we divorce. commuting means we need not know our neighbours. apart from in the office, to whom are we accountable anymore? why need we dress well and for whom? why need we be polite to waiters and shop assistants whom we may never see again? why be courteous to strangers on the road?

it was once that parents taught behaviour, our communities demanded it, and so elsewhere we behaved well on autopilot, as it were. Members of this fine forum may say that self-esteem is enough, but it is not enough for many, alas. i do not know how we get the selfish genie back in his bottle.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I have expressed no opinions, good or bad, regarding the late Senator Kennedy here or in the original thread. Maybe you shouldn't assume I'm defending him because of that.
> 
> Knock it off. Let the man rest in peace.


I didn't ask you about your feelings about Kennedy. I asked you about your attitude toward the use of Kennedy's death by his own party to promote his party's agenda. And about the existence or non-existence of a political subtext in any of the funerary activities.

As for resting in peace, he will do that regardless of what I may say.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Whether one likes or dislikes people such as Senator Kennedy is their business. Nobody's asking anyone to respect him, much less have him in their prayers. We are, however, asking people to show some tact... especially a few DAYS after their death.


That's true to the extent of your statement, but in practice some people are trying to have it both ways; i.e. sing his praises, but not hear him damned. One is an invitation to the other. I wish everyone abided by keeping their positive and negative views of the Senator to themselves, but they don't. It's unequitable to expect those with negative views to watch a parade go down their own street in silence. Tact would be not celebrating the man out of respect for MJK, et al.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

And who's forcing them to watch the parade?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> That's nice. How would you like it if someone who thought your husband, father, uncle or what have you was corrupt and just plain ol' no-good spouted all sorts of vitriol days after they passed away? Whether you think the dead care is not the issue. It's tact.


It does make one wonder how they would feel watching an entire political party celebrate the life of someone that contributed to the the death of my daughter, sister, wife, mother or what have you.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> And who's forcing them to watch the parade?


The posters of and in the thread. Obviously. And on TV and in every media. Heck you have people saying "we have to pass healthcare to honor Kennedy's dreams."

More he's being buried at Arlington National Cemetary with his brothers. That honor is tacitly endorsed by Americans; and it's being shoved down some of our throats. JFK was a legitimate hero. But Teddy is legitimately criminally negligent at best. His life was not a justification for that honor. That he technically meets the requirements because he held elective office is no excuse either IMHO.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Phinn said:


> What is the hidden message behind the beatification of dead men like Kennedy? What is the unspoken, implicit political assertion? It consists of the non-partisan claim that the State is legitimate. That the State must be recognized as an authority. State pageantry serves the interests of the State. In this case, even if we disregard the partisanship angle for a moment, the political message behind State funerals is clear -- Washington is the locus of all power. Obey. Submit. The fundamental assertion is that, no matter what Washington decides to do in this particular instance, one thing is clear -- Washington shall be the decider.
> 
> Kennedy was a state official. He had no authority over me or anyone else. He was a criminal, a thief, a mafia don. A lifetime of incivility invites an uncivil response.


Wow. Did you write that from your bunker?​


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

turban1 said:


> my old dad says 'nobody drives like an ass---- on his own street,' meaning that accountability is the father of deportment.


I like that. It's something you learn up here in Vermont, where the jerk who cut you off on the way into work might be the judge you're about to appear before, so maybe you shouldn't give him the finger.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

ksinc said:


> To clarify:
> 
> Hitchens = Self-proclaimed and old, old news.
> 
> ...


Maybe news travels slow where you are but Hitchens he renounced the left years ago. Just look at he dedication in his biography of Thomas Payne The rights of Man. And if that is not enough try these quotes from 2001.

_But there is no such thing as a radical left anymore. __�__a n'existe pas__. The world of Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson, let's say, has all been, though it doesn't realize it, hopelessly compromised by selling out to Clintonism. It became, under no pressure at all, and with no excuse, and in no danger, a voluntary apologist for abuse of power._

And further _I forget whether I said I was an ex-socialist, or recovering Marxist, or whatever, but that would have been provisional or stylistic._

And if more proof is required._ But I did realize that by subtracting my vote from the Labour Party, I was effectively voting for Thatcher to win. That's how I discovered that that's what I secretly hoped would happen. And I'm very glad I did._

As for Bathes I'll quote him direct _Myth is a type of speech_. That is all it is, myths are not partisan they are observations based in semiotic responses. Myth is not a value based assessment its a semiotic deconstruction of how language/image works in society. Myths have no ideological structure, we the viewers or interpreters apply value to the myth.

And seeing as I only did a semester of theology combined with a psychology of religion course I quote in abridged form from the Cloud of Unknowing, which I still have in my library; _Each one must be careful not to presume to blame and condemn other men's faults. Judge your self if you like. Leave the others well alone._

The life of Edward Kennedy has been passed on to a higher authority to pass judgment upon.

And seeing that the theme of this thread is the reinstatement of civility and manners in discourse,I add in closing_ 'Ksinc, Dominus vobiscum. Pax vobiscum.'_


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> That he technically meets the requirements because he held elective office is no excuse either IMHO.


He "technically" meets the requirements because he held elective office AND served in the military.

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/guide.interment.html


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Those long I Loathe Ted posts above, is the intent to vent, or is it to persuade those of us who really like the Kennedys that perhaps we shouldn't?

I don't know; the writers are way too windy to catch my interest. I've skimmed a few and this is the impression I get: the views aren't new to the posters. They've probably been choking on this anti Ted Kennedy vitriol for years. And if they're writing like this within days of his death, I can imagine the sort of stuff being spewed while he was alive.

I join with Eagle and F'burg, odd as that feels; the remarks here are far more telling about the writers than they are of ol' Ted, god bless him. And to the bitter little personalities that have inhabited this thread: those Kennedys, they just keep on a-coming, there are scores more in the wings so you need not fear of ever running out of living ones on which to scathe.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> He "technically" meets the requirements because he held elective office AND served in the military.
> 
> https://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/guide.interment.html


Yes; that's obviously what I meant. I was listing the qualifier. I'm sorry if that was unclear.



> Any former member of the Armed Forces who served on active duty (other than for training) and who held any of the following positions:
> An elective office of the U.S. Government
> ....


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ajo said:


> Maybe news travels slow where you are but Hitchens he renounced the left years ago. Just look at he dedication in his biography of Thomas Payne The rights of Man. And if that is not enough try these quotes from 2001.
> 
> _But there is no such thing as a radical left anymore. __�__a n'existe pas__. The world of Gloria Steinem and Jesse Jackson, let's say, has all been, though it doesn't realize it, hopelessly compromised by selling out to Clintonism. It became, under no pressure at all, and with no excuse, and in no danger, a voluntary apologist for abuse of power._
> 
> ...


I think Hitchens only renounced the pseudo-Trotskyists who have no real knowlege of what they speak; the modern left as mentioned by name in the quotation. I think they would also be called romanticists. IMHO you are misinterpreting his dedication and I would point you to his recent interview with Peter Robinson to explain the distinction he makes. I certainly don't identify with his views, particularly his fiercely anti-Catholic stance. I'm simply a protestant skeptical of institutional religion, but I have great respect for many of the Popes as men of faith.

You specifically said you were using myths as Barthes' "social narrative" which of course you point out correctly is semiotics, but it is also by definition cognitive. I did not say they were partisan by their own nature, but they are certainly philosophical and when that is substituted as ideology they do become partisan tools; quite effective ones; as in the case "Myth of Camelot."

You will I hope forgive me for not wanting to switch focus to generalities from the specifics you first proposed. I simply haven't the stamina to compare The Cloud of the Unknowing (on which I am not an expert) to the Institutional Church (on which I am an intermediate observer) ala St. Cyprian, but you obviously know the distinction and I hope the history. And since you brought up St. Cyprian as a defense, I would simply ask if you can support your view with anything resembling church doctrine or scripture relevant to the deceased? I think that his is the relevant context of the redemption in question. I don't mean to force a foolish test.

And with you. Thanks. :icon_smile:


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Ksinc

If we are to take the writings of the Saints off the table, and I would regard their writings as 'memos' then I can not cite any reference to the Old Testament. 

However I would cite The Gospel of Matthew 6:14/15 in relation to Edward Kennedy.

As I stated I am no theologian my interest in the Saints, aside from specific European texts, The Imitation of Christ, Julian of Norwich, to cite a couple of works, was specifically focused on the work and lives of the Desert Fathers, and their metaphysical impact on Christianity.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Wow. Did you write that from your bunker?


Is this the part where you try to tell me that life under the American state isn't all that bad so what right do I have to complain? 'Cause I never get tired of hearing that. I especially enjoy the part where statists think they get to tell me what level of taxation and economic control that I am allowed to find objectionable.

Please tell me that, as your follow-up zinger, you have something more original than "America: Love It or Leave It." 'Cause that's about as shop-worn as the whole 'bunker' thing.



Peak and Pine said:


> I don't know; the writers are way too windy to catch my interest.


I don't know; in light of the fact that you bothered to write three paragraphs explaining how aloof and disinterested you are, it's obvious that you are neither.

I'm still waiting for responses to my media-related questions:

1. Do you [Kennedy supporters] have the same [hostile] feelings about Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their agenda, compared to your feelings about his critics?

2. Reagan and Nixon died not too long ago. How exactly did you feel about the popular reactions, pro and anti, surrounding the deaths of those two men?

3. Do you agree or disagree with the general proposition that the [public] funerary rituals surrounding Kennedy, including any and all media coverage thereof, carry an implicit political subtext, or do you sincerely believe that they are entirely non-political?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Phinn said:


> ....
> I'm still waiting for responses to my media-related questions:
> 
> 1. Do you [Kennedy supporters] have the same [hostile] feelings about Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their agenda, compared to your feelings about his critics?
> ...


Phinn (and others): We digress! I don't think anyone is suggesting that (reasonably civil) discussions of a public figure's political beliefs/activities are improper or off-limits but rather, that such discussions are misplaced, perhaps poorly timed and clearly in bad taste when woven into the fabric of a thread intended to recognize and honor that public officials passing. Your suggestion of "Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their own (political) agendas" and gain political advantage, as an appropriate subject for discussion, is spot-on. However, such discussions should not be part of the thread, honoring that person's passing. A bit of common sense would serve us all well here!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ajo said:


> Ksinc
> 
> If we are to take the writings of the Saints off the table, and I would regard their writings as 'memos' then I can not cite any reference to the Old Testament.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% with your passage citation. Well done and Thank You.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Phinn (and others): We digress! I don't think anyone is suggesting that (reasonably civil) discussions of a public figure's political beliefs/activities are improper or off-limits but rather, that such discussions are misplaced, perhaps poorly timed and clearly in bad taste when woven into the fabric of a thread intended to recognize and honor that public officials passing. Your suggestion of "Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their own (political) agendas" and gain political advantage, as an appropriate subject for discussion, is spot-on. However, such discussions should not be part of the thread, honoring that person's passing. A bit of common sense would serve us all well here!


The Speaker of the House has deliberately and explicitly interwoven her version of "honoring the passing" of Kennedy with the promotion of her party's agenda.

It would appear, therefore, to the casual observer, that honoring the passing of Kennedy has already been co-opted as a method of promoting a political agenda.

When that happens, even comments that are, superficially, non-political appear to be an attempt to bolster the man's esteem and status for the purpose of then using those emotions to propel the agenda forward.

The reputation of the man has been intimately linked with the advancement of the agenda _du jour_, by the most powerful person in Congress, no less. Now that she has done that, she has tainted even ordinary non-political comments about Kennedy, and thereby turned his funeral into a propaganda tool. She and her followers have created a situation where the more Kennedy is vaunted and venerated, the more powerful the agenda-driving political argument becomes.

Naturally, in such an environment, whenever someone starts talking up Kennedy's life, character, reputation, etc., anyone opposing that political agenda can smell what's coming -- even apolitical comments have been transformed by the country's top political leaders from ordinary politeness into an agenda-advancing campaign. What once may have been apolitical social courtesies have been transformed into political arguments that people have the right to oppose.

Kennedy's opponents did not do this. Kennedy's party did this.

It makes no sense to get testy and annoyed with people who make political responses to political campaigns. If anyone here truly resents the politicization of the man's death, and you want to be angry at someone for having no class or social grace or tact, look no further than Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Excellent post Phinn.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Phinn said:


> The Speaker of the House has deliberately and explicitly interwoven her version of "honoring the passing" of Kennedy with the promotion of her party's agenda.
> 
> It would appear, therefore, to the casual observer, that honoring the passing of Kennedy has already been co-opted as a method of promoting a political agenda.
> 
> ...


+1 Outstanding post.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

At least nothing as tacky as the Paul Wellstone celebration occured.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Phinn, no one was doing anything political in that thread except the people who got their posts deleted. I'm sure you already know that.

I usually don't read your posts except about clothing (which are usually pretty interesting and or informative). 

You have a right to your political beliefs. No one had a right to post them in that thread.

Yes, some Kennedy praise got in there. However, I would do the same if Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh died.

I'm neither a righty or a lefty and am frequently dismayed by the behavior of those on both extremes.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Kennedy's opponents did not do this. Kennedy's party did this.


YEAH RIGHT. You keep believing that.

 The day after Ted Kennedy passed, your boy Rush was already jumping in on the health care debate and using the Senator as a pawn.

""No government of ours should ever become a partner in snuffing out a life," Rush declared on the air. "Ted Kennedy didn't have to read a death book. Ted Kennedy wasn't asked to say, `Is my life worth living?'" 

That's unsightly enough on its own. But it turns out Rush's broadside comes a day after the Vietnam Veterans of America, a national advocacy group, defended the manual and strongly denounced "death book" claims as "hysteria" and as "cruel" to veterans themselves.

"This booklet was developed with guidance from clerics, and it addresses options most of us and our loved ones will have to sort through as we live our final years," the group said in a little-noticed statement that was sent my way. "To play politics with veterans' end-of-life choices is not only irresponsible politically, but it is cruel."


Lets see what Rush, a man with 3 DRAFT DEFERMENTS from Vietnam has to say about that.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> YEAH RIGHT. You keep believing that.
> 
> The day after Ted Kennedy passed, your boy Rush was already jumping in on the health care debate and using the Senator as a pawn.


I accept without equivocation your statement "the day after."



> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office sent an email to reporters at around 2:30 a.m. today,* just hours after his death*, calling for the passage of health care overhaul. "Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration," the statement read.


https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/26/kennedys-death-spurs-calls-to-pass-health-legislation/


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I accept without equivocation your statement "the day after."


Glad to hear it. Wouldnt what your buddy Phinn to fall off his high horse.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Glad to hear it. Wouldnt what your buddy Phinn to fall off his high horse.


You have a strange way of retracting your counter-claim when confronted with facts.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> You have a strange way of retracting your counter-claim when confronted with facts.


Lets see, Phinn said "Kennedy's opponents did not do this. Kennedy's party did this."

The FACTS are that BOTH PARTIES are trying to use it to their political advantage.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> Nothing in here is particularly new -- Kennedy will help the cause, Dodd gets to carry the banner, Kennedy's work remains undone. *But the* *straight-shooting Reid does have a gift for saying non-controversial things in the most controversial way possible.*


https://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Reid_Teddys_death_going_to_help_us.html


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Lets see, Phinn said "Kennedy's opponents did not do this. Kennedy's party did this."
> 
> The FACTS are that BOTH PARTIES are trying to use it to their political advantage.


Better to quote the following, "I'm a little confused by the positions you take because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."

Context matters. Phinn was responding to what Eagle said.



eagle2250 said:


> Phinn (and others): ... when woven into the fabric of a thread intended to recognize and honor that public officials passing. Your suggestion of "Kennedy's supporters using his death to promote their own (political) agendas" and gain political advantage, as an appropriate subject for discussion, is spot-on. However, such discussions should not be part of the thread, honoring that person's passing.


As Phinn pointed out it is Kennedy's own party leader weaving it in. Unless you want to argue Rush was "honoring" Senator Kennedy.

I agree with Eagle and with Phinn. It's distasteful. But then, what isn't about Nancy Pelosi?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Better to quote the following, "I'm a little confused by the positions you take because you're giving me a very nice nuanced position here."


Solid. Quoting a line from an interview with the GOP's Village Idiot.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

mrkleen said:


> Solid. Quoting a line from an interview with the GOP's Village Idiot.


That's unduly harsh! Inskeep is much more of a fool than an idiot.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Phinn, no one was doing anything political in that thread except the people who got their posts deleted. I'm sure you already know that.
> 
> ... You have a right to your political beliefs. No one had a right to post them in that thread.


I guess, in all the deleting of other posts, you missed this one:



jackmccullough said:


> The work goes on, *the cause endures*, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.


This post included a link to Mr. McCullough's personal website, where he made the following statement:



> In recent weeks it has often been remarked that the Obama administration and Senate Democrats are adrift in the health care debate because Kennedy was not there to guide the effort and the legislative strategy. *What better tribute than to actually adopt true health care reform this year?*


Now, let's return to my original point -- political commentary invites a political response.

But Jovan, Mr Kleen, etc. all seem to get angry at the politicization of Kennedy's death, but only in one direction. I must therefore conclude that the calls to refrain from political commentary were insincere.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not arguing against _politicisation_. I'm saying that trashing someone after their death is tactless. It's frowned upon just about everywhere in the world.

Me and the other moderators would say the same thing even if Michael Moore, George Bush, Anne Coulter, Jesse Jackson or any other controversial person died.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

> I'm saying that trashing someone after their death is tactless.


I wouldn't characterize it as such. I would say it's pointless. There is no defense for accusations, no remediation for deeds.

That said, IMO as he chose to spend his life in the spotlight, it's fair game to posthumously laud or criticize. It comes with the territory.

IMO, ajo summed it up quite well


> The life of Edward Kennedy has been passed on to a higher authority to pass judgment upon.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Mad Hatter said:


> That said, IMO as he chose to spend his life in the spotlight, it's fair game to posthumously laud or criticize. It comes with the territory.


I don't disagree with you on this; however, I think you are missing the point. An honorable person would not go to the memorial service for the deceased and trash him/her in that venue. You do it elsewhere if that is what you choose to do.

The OP was referring to the behavior of some who kept posting their negative comments in a thread where they were specifically asked to not do so. They were not told that they couldn't go elsewhere and do this. They were just asked to not do it in that particular thread.

Do you see the difference?

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Phinn said:


> The Speaker of the House has deliberately and explicitly interwoven her version of "honoring the passing" of Kennedy with the promotion of her party's agenda.


And you are amazed at this?

The current number one political issue in America is heath care reform. The legendary life-long champion of the cause drops dead. And you find it odd or unseemly that his death would be used as a rallying cry?

Are you equally amazed by Nancy Reagan using her husband's death to promote stem cell research, by Mathew Sheppard's family to promote hate crime legislation and by James Brady's wife to promote gun purchase waiting?​


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> And you are amazed at this?
> 
> The current number one political issue in America is heath care reform. The legendary life-long champion of the cause drops dead. And you find it odd or unseemly that his death would be used as a rallying cry?
> 
> Are you equally amazed by Nancy Reagan using her husband's death to promote stem cell research, by Mathew Sheppard's family to promote hate crime legislation and by James Brady's wife to promote gun purchase waiting?​


Good point. I would add that in the Kennedy case promoting health care reform is something he would be doing if he were alive. It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that his family and friends would want to continue his work. The others you mentioned did not support those groups until after their family member had passed away. Either way, both are part of the grieving process, a way to remember a family member. My family does the same with ALS/Lou Gehrig's and the lymphoma society.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> And you are amazed at this?
> 
> The current number one political issue in America is heath care reform. The legendary life-long champion of the cause drops dead. And you find it odd or unseemly that his death would be used as a rallying cry?
> 
> Are you equally amazed by Nancy Reagan using her husband's death to promote stem cell research, by Mathew Sheppard's family to promote hate crime legislation and by James Brady's wife to promote gun purchase waiting?​





Laxplayer said:


> Good point. I would add that in the Kennedy case promoting health care reform is something he would be doing if he were alive. It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that his family and friends would want to continue his work. The others you mentioned did not support those groups until after their family member had passed away. Either way, both are part of the grieving process, a way to remember a family member. My family does the same with ALS/Lou Gehrig's and the lymphoma society.


I think we just never knew Nancy and Ted hooked up like that. NTTAWWT, but ewww! :devil:


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I don't disagree with you on this; however, I think you are missing the point. An honorable person would not go to the memorial service for the deceased and trash him/her in that venue. You do it elsewhere if that is what you choose to do.
> 
> The OP was referring to the behavior of some who kept posting their negative comments in a thread where they were specifically asked to not do so. They were not told that they couldn't go elsewhere and do this. They were just asked to not do it in that particular thread.
> 
> ...


I do understand the point of the OP. The thread is going in different directions, though-from refusing a moderator request, to timing of complaints, to political leverage of death, etc. I took the line I quoted to be a durable belief, not necessarily referencing the original premise.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Life is complicated and frequently unpleasant but, in many instances, unnecessarily so. Life could be so much more pleasant and less complicated if we would just apply the wonderful lessons our sainted Mothers taught us, in going about our daily lives.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> Life is complicated and frequently unpleasant but, in many instances, unnecessarily so. Life could be so much more pleasant and less complicated if we would just apply the wonderful lessons our sainted Mothers taught us, in going about our daily lives.


Bird, don't get all hang-dog on us; things are getting better already. Even in this thread. Look here:



ksinc said:


> I think we just never knew Nancy and Ted hooked up like that. NTTAWWT, but ewww! :devil:


At last, a* brief and even funny post* from K (although I'm not quite getting it 'cause I'm fogged up over the (internet?) abbreviation NTTAWWT.
​


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> At last, a* brief and even funny post* from K (although I'm not quite getting it 'cause I'm fogged up over the (internet?) abbreviation NTTAWWT.
> 
> [/INDENT]


Not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outing


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Phinn said:


> I guess, in all the deleting of other posts, you missed this one:
> 
> This post included a link to Mr. McCullough's personal website, where he made the following statement:
> 
> ...


If you are half the attorney you claim to be (and I suspect that you are an EXCELLENT attorney and I would love to have you on my side if I needed one) you already know that I am against lambasting the dead. In that context, people who agree with the deceased can probably get away with a lot more than people who disagree.

I'm not in the interchange much and we don't moderate it much. That said, now that we have been through this, I would avoid allowing lefties to trash a prominent conservative in the funeral thread.

I suspect you already know this. Oh well. Carry on. I'm not so worried about this thread and maybe the discussion is theraputic/cathartic.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Bird, don't get all hang-dog on us; things are getting better already. Even in this thread. Look here:
> 
> At last, a* brief and even funny post* from K (although I'm not quite getting it 'cause I'm fogged up over the (internet?) abbreviation NTTAWWT.
> ​


No time for Seinfeld, Peak?????? (That's where that phrase came from. It was a hilarious episode.)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Trashing someone after their death is tactless. Me (sic) and the other moderators would say the same thing even if Michael Moore, George Bush, Anne Coulter, Jesse Jackson or any other controversial person died.


Ooooo. But since they're not dead, does that mean we _can_ trash them? Lead me to that thread please.​


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

How about we all refrain from trashing anyone??? :idea:


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

DCLawyer68 said:


> How about we all refrain from trashing anyone??? :idea:


What, and discuss clothing? What fun would that be?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fenway said:


> What, and discuss clothing? What fun would that be?


Yeah,that wouldn't be as fun.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Geez! You characters still at it? Can't you say anything nice?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Orsini said:


> Geez! You characters still at it? Can't you say anything nice?


What were they discussing?


----------

