“If they object so passionately to “socialized health,” why don’t they block their 911 service to socialized police and fire services, disconnect themselves from socialized sewers and avoid socialized interstate highways?”
I touched on Ted Kennedy’s human fallibility last week in the wake of his death, and suggested that true Christians — those who don’t let their politics get in their way of their “faith” — would forgive the man in death for his human failings while on Earth.
Well, it turns out the Senator was thinking along those lines, too, by way of a letter to the Pope seeking forgiveness, which was hand-delivered by his President.
Wearing my talk radio hat, I was lucky enough to shake hands with Ted Kennedy a few years ago, just before he got sick. (No pictures, alas.) Digesting the media obituaries regarding the late, great Senior Senator from Massachusetts, I am consistently amazed at the editorial choices which were made while covering the great man’s life:
How many personal demons would you possess if you’d suffered the family tragedies that he did, all while under the gaze of the public eye, much of which was directed at himbecause of those tragedies?
How easy is it for people to take one tragedy out of a man’s life — now, almost forty years gone — and demonize that person for it? I’m looking at you, Christian conservatives, who seemingly would never forgive Kennedy for anything — but was it for his actions, or just leverage for their hating his politics? Must be politics, because their memories and lack of forgiveness regarding similar acts do seem party-sensitive.
Amidst all the thousands of hours of wasting television “news” coverage of OJ, the Buttafucos, John and Kate and all such similarly inane crap, why did we never know Kennedy was such good friends with Republicans, like Orrin Hatch? All sorts of talking heads know enough to speak glowingly of it, but why wasn’t that personal behavior covered over the years decades that our politics have become so polarized? Why couldn’t that be role modeling for kids to observe on TV, instead of types like the Gosselins and the Hiltons?
Finally, Joe Scarborough keeps suggesting this one particular 1990 GQ takeout story on Kennedy as being a turning point in his life. Perhaps, but, Joe, was that the only magazine article you’ve ever read?
And, now, what a wonderful (totally memorized) coda to a great life:
In a politically divided country, this is all quite tricky and potentially sticky, looking to criminalize the actions of CIA agents when under the management of a bunch of malicious doofuses will only be further divisive.
I still think going the truth and reconciliation commission route would be the best for all concerned. Facing the truth with no political gain on the line — even if only perceived — would truly be Change to believe in.
The Today Show’s opening this morning teased a piece about “the topless model hosting Michelle Obama around Italy,” as if the two are BFFs. And then, at 7:49 — after holding the perverted voyeuristic interested audience for all four quarter-hours — they finally got around to the piece.
The host for the current G8 summit is Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who, for a number of reasons ranging from pathetic to entertaining, is in the midst of a divorce. So, he needed a hostess for all the wives, or as our U.K. friends call them, WAGs, and picked former Italian showgirl Mara Carfagna, who he appointed to be the country’s equal opportunities minister, to show the WAGs around.
The young lady apparently has modeled in various states of undress. Whoop-de-doo. Others in the political discourse, whether intentional or accidental, have done the same. As long as she does her job well, y’know?
But, ooooh, the word “topless” on morning television. How racy.
Look, dude, I don’t care if you hooked up with a llama when you were in Argentina, as long as you are competent in your position and you aren’t a raging hypocrite about it.
When you once upon a time said this about a fellow sinner:
You then should check out this piece about this extremely interesting graphic that indicates Red Staters “sin” (as they would define it) more than Blue Staters.
I enjoy Esquire magazine, especially its “What I’ve Learned” feature. Going through the magazine pile, I caught up with ex-Disney chief Michael Eisner’s take in the April 2009 edition, wherein he opined:
— snip —
The auto industry situation is incredibly complex, and it would be a little silly of me to try to reduce it. But you could say it was like the entertainment business. They didn’t make movies that people wanted to see. They had the infrastructure, they had the technology, they had the manpower. They just didn’t make vehicles that enough people wanted to buy. They ended up trying to protect their existing business and not concentrating on the future.
— snip —
Why, yes, that was silly. That’s all easy to say from a guy in a business where new product development is a fraction of that for car companies, outsourcing animation is a bit easier than outsourcing car parts, and the health insurance legacy costs of the car industry have proven to be an ultimately debilitating quirk of post-World War II history, because our country has never realized that the U.S. and China are the only car-making countries where the government does not acknowledge that being healthy is a citizen’s human right.
Talk about competitive disadvantages.
I’ve thought from the beginning of the auto company assistance: if the Feds had offered to take every employee and retiree the Big Detroit 3 auto companies cover with health insurance, and move them over to Medicare or a new subsidiary of it, the carmakers probably would have jumped at that, it would’ve been cheaper, and it would’ve been a good base for moving forward on long-overdue national health care.
Above: “Don’t breathe too deeply. Those costumes? Cheap — recycled asbestos. At least they’re green, right?”
There is no such thing as “judicial activism,” or “legislating from the bench.” When judges act, they adjudicate objectively through the prisim of their personal legal philosophy, which creates a subjective result: by definition, courts must pick a winner.
On the other hand, when legislators act, they legislate. Similarly, judges’ acts do, in fact, have repercussions, because they have to wade through the grey areas, or unclear language, or pandering unconstitutional provisions crafted by legislators who want to get re-elected by constituents who don’t know any better than to buy into sound-bite buzzword catch phrases. And, yes, as Sonia Sotomayor said at a symposium (below), if appeals court judges do set “policy,” it’s because their written opinions have been followed to interpret the work of the above-described legislators since the beginning of the Republic.
