Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Joyce Carol Oates: Was Suffocating Mary Jo Kopechne a "fortunate fall"?
When Melissa Lafsky–whose blog Opinionistas.com, I hear, "became internationally known for its relentless skewering of the corporate world"–wrote about Mary Jo Kopechne over at The Huffington Post the following hideous phrase:
Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.
... I figured it must be link-bait. But now comes a better known writer, Joyce Carol Oates, to ponder the broken egg, and wonder if it didn't in fact help make the omelette of Teddy Kennedy's career so delicious.
Yet, ironically, following this nadir in his life/ career, Ted Kennedy seemed to have genuinely refashioned himself as a serious, idealistic, tirelessly energetic liberal Democrat in the mold of 1960s/1970s American liberalism, arguably the greatest Democratic senator of the 20th century. His tireless advocacy of civil rights, rights for disabled Americans, health care, voting reform, his courageous vote against the Iraq war (when numerous Democrats including Hillary Clinton voted for it) suggest that there are not only "second acts" in American lives, but that the Renaissance concept of the "fortunate fall" may be relevant here: one "falls" as Adam and Eve "fell"; one sins and repents and is forgiven, provided that one remakes one's life. [...]
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?
Though Oates (I think) is more ambivalent than this passage would suggest, the sentiment is a timely reminder of the seductive awfulness of political ideologies everywhere and always. The ends are always worth a few strangled means, especially to those wielding or sympathizing with power. If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question, you're answering it.
Nephilium|8.31.09 @ 10:16PM|#
Gods damn it... just when I didn't think I could become
more cynical... These two cuntpickles think that
the death of an innocent is good because it might have led
someone down a path that matched theirs ideologically?
Nephilium
|8.31.09 @ 10:18PM|#
If Kennedy had died with Kopechne then it may have indeed been a "fortunate fall".
Nipplemancer|8.31.09 @ 10:26PM|#
so... liberal policies are justified even if the innocent suffer? hmmm...
Joe M|8.31.09 @ 10:29PM|#
I'm going to have indigestion for a while from all the bile that just brought up.
|8.31.09 @ 10:33PM|#
Let's see if this is just the beginning of a vomit-inducing trend. I wouldn't be surprised to see this start to propagate around certain circles.
anarch|8.31.09 @ 10:36PM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history,
what isone has ceased to think?.
We have met the
emetic.
|8.31.09 @ 10:38PM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?
Holy fuck! This is yet another reminder of why modern liberals are
not at all liberal. They're fucking fascists with a weepy
attitude.
Fist of Etiquette|8.31.09 @ 10:39PM|#
Yeah, I have to agree with the above. Are we actually pretending
that the young woman's death was the catalyst to make Kennedy the
great man his followers have deluded themselves into believing he
became? I mean, seriously, wtf? As the senator's inclination to
find humor in the incident suggests, Kopechne was barely a blip on
Ted Kennedy's radar.
So, to sum up:
a) Kennedy, not a great man but, in fact, a self-important,
self-serving dick.
b) The death of Mary Jo Kopechne meant very little to Kennedy,
beyond possibly as a political nuisance.
Mary Jo|8.31.09 @ 10:40PM|#
Oh, y'all, I'm just so privileged and grateful to have been of service to the Senator's career. Truly I am, truly.
twv|8.31.09 @ 10:40PM|#
Oates does pose the comment as a question. Questions can be
answered. Even in explanatory fashion.
Too much shouldn't be made of this passage. One should be able to
answer how dangerous it is to weigh lives this way. When historical
circumstance pushes you to ask such questions, one should begin
questioning the circumstance, and reminding oneself that, living
within history, and not "after" it, we are not morally honorable to
phrase the question in this way. It tempts us to dangerous ideas.
Ideas of sacrificing some for the sake of others.
There are utilitarians who would even argue against this kind of
thing.
And Oates no doubt knows this. Her readers? Who knows?
Robert|8.31.09 @ 11:03PM|#
Questions like this depend enormously on what it's like to be dead. The big unknown. When somebody succeeds at answering that one reliably, it will probably have a greater effect than any other discovery to that time.
|8.31.09 @ 11:04PM|#
So, their theory is he felt so guilty at abandoning someone to
die by drowning that he devoted the rest of his life to become a
rampat statist forcing everyone to be as good and sacrificing as he
should have been?
You know, I can understand a person might panic and save themselves
and leave someone to die, (I can't understand not dialing 911
after, or doing anything at all). But even then, people who panic
and abandon girls to die are not the sorts that make good leaders.
They might be an average cowardly person, but not a leader.
|8.31.09 @ 11:09PM|#
I can't understand not dialing 911 after, or doing anything
at all
Because he was wasted? They didn't call the cops for something like
10 hours...just the amount of time one might need to sober up.
|8.31.09 @ 11:09PM|#
If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust
sacrifice of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged
legislative improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging
question, you're answering it.
I would go rather farther than that, and say that if you're
wondering whether the death of an innocent is less important than a
politician's career, you're hopelessly depraved.
-jcr
The Libertarian Guy|8.31.09 @ 11:19PM|#
Wonder if Oates factored in that Mary Jo's death kept Teddy out
of the White House...
Meh, Oates was never the same after the split with Hall.
mark|8.31.09 @ 11:23PM|#
It's sickening that some people think of Ted Kennedy's "guilt" over the incident was somehow "redeemed" by his expansion of the welfare state, making the connection in their heads that this somehow corresponds to the redemption of America's "guilt" of being a capitalist country.
Rhywun|8.31.09 @ 11:24PM|#
The whole article is indeed more "ambivalent" than the quoted passage would suggest... but the quoted passage (and several others) are so fucking vile that it doesn't matter. The whole "he was a bad guy but shit, he was the bestest liberal ever" meme is just revolting. On every level.
|8.31.09 @ 11:26PM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the
accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest
Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?
I need to drop my irony meter off at the shop in the morning.
smartass sob|8.31.09 @ 11:37PM|#
I can't understand not dialing 911 after...
The 911 service did not yet exist in those days. But of course, he
could have called the Law.
iowahawk|8.31.09 @ 11:49PM|#
Did somebody say link bait?
"Lion of Leinenkugel" Norm Snitker Laid to Rest
D.R.M.|8.31.09 @ 11:53PM|#
They didn't call the cops for something like 10
hours.
More precisely, Ted Kennedy didn't tell the cops about driving his
car into the water until after he personally saw that Ms.
Kopechne's body had been discovered in his car.
|9.1.09 @ 12:02AM|#
And all that stuff wouldn't have happened if Teddy's big
brothers hadn't been murdered either. Will liberals take the view
that Lee Harvey Oswald acted for the greater good, too?
Now I can see how you can weigh the life of an innocent against
some terrible global catastrophe that you know can only be
prevented by that innocent's death -- a sort of "City on the Edge
of Forever" scenario. Problem is you don't know that's the case at
the time you have to make the choice, and, barring the intervention
of a pointy eared safe cracker, you won't know in the future
either.
Murderous Kennedy Tuesday|9.1.09 @ 12:05AM|#
Christopher "Huck" Look was a deputy sheriff working as a
special police officer at the Edgartown regatta dance that night.
At 12:30 am he left the dance, crossed over to Chappaquiddick in
the yacht club's launch, got into his parked car and drove home. He
testified that between 12:30 and 12:45 am he had seen a dark car
containing a man driving and a woman in the front seat approaching
the intersection with Dike Road. The car had gone first onto the
private Cemetery Road and stopped there. Thinking that the
occupants of the car might be lost, Look had gotten out of his car
and walked towards it. When he was 25 to 30 feet away, the car
started backing up towards him. When Look called out to offer his
help, the car took off down Dike Road in a cloud of dust.[5] Look
recalled that the car's license plate began with an "L" and
contained the number "7" twice, both details true of Kennedy's 1967
Oldsmobile Delmont 88.
Kennedy later recalled that he was able to swim free of the
vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed at the inquest that
he called Kopechne's name several times from the shore, then tried
to swim down to reach her seven or eight times, then rested on the
bank for around fifteen minutes before returning on foot to
Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other
"Boiler Room Girls" had occurred. Kennedy denied seeing any house
with a light on during his journey back to Lawrence
Cottage.[7]
In addition to the working telephone at the Lawrence Cottage,
according to one commentator, his route back to the cottage would
have taken him past four houses from which he could have telephoned
and summoned help; however, he did not do so.[8] The first of those
houses, referred to as "Dike House", was only 150 yards away from
the bridge, and was occupied by Sylvia Malm and her family at the
time of the incident. Malm later stated that she had left a light
on at the residence when she retired for that evening.[9]
|9.1.09 @ 12:13AM|#
According to his own testimony, Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed.[12] Hearing noises, he later put on dry clothes and asked someone what the time was: it was something like 2:30 a.m., the senator recalled. He testified that, as the night went on, "I almost tossed and turned and walked around that room ... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car."[13]
Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party.[2] By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[2] At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation." According to Kennedy's testimony, the two men asked why he had not reported the accident. Kennedy responded by telling them "about my own thoughts and feelings as I swam across that channel ... that somehow when they arrived in the morning that they were going to say that Mary Jo was still alive".[13] The three men subsequently crossed back to Chappaquiddick Island on the ferry, where Kennedy made a series of phone calls from a payphone by the crossing. The phone calls were to his friends for advice and again, he did not report the accident to authorities.[2]
Well, the part about the wishful liberal thinking seems about
right. Just hope hard enough that the girl you dumped in the drink
would be rescued and maybe she will be.
|9.1.09 @ 12:14AM|#
I like the phrase "seductive awfulness," Welch.
From the Booklist review of Oates' Rape: A Love Story on
Amazon.com:
Men as predators preying on girls and women have always piqued
Oates' depthless imagination, and her home ground, beautiful but
backward rural New York State, is often the setting for her tales
of demented bloodlust.
OK, Joycey, we need to distinguish between the fictional violent
fantasies and actual violence.
|9.1.09 @ 12:19AM|#
#: Laura Bush wasn't drunk. She didn't leave anybody to slowly
die while she sobered up and didn't get help. She didn't cover
anything up. She didn't run for office. She didn't promote herself
as some paragon of righteousness, helping the downtrodden with
massive federal programs. She is not lionized by the usual suspects
as some sort of modern Solon.
But other than that, the situations are exactly the same. Kudos on
your hypocrisy detection skills.
Michael|9.1.09 @ 12:20AM|#
I'm sorry if this offends anyone (actually, I'm not), but you could affix that particular surname to a fucking tapeworm and in a few decades you'll have "arguably the greatest Democratic senator of the 20th century."
Hugh Akston|9.1.09 @ 12:47AM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the
accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest
Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?
One is to think that such moral calculus goes out the window like
an emptied bottle of twelve-year-old scotch once we start weighing
lives against votes.
|9.1.09 @ 1:18AM|#
If a libertarian is coyly mocking the "seductive awfulness of political ideologies everywhere", he's not raising interesting political questions, he just doesn't like looking in the mirror.
|9.1.09 @ 1:25AM|#
If I weighed the life of a single ant against the accomplishments of Ted Kennedy, I, for one, would welcome our new insect overlord.
Abdul|9.1.09 @ 1:37AM|#
Joyce Carol Oates must be regretting that the Boston strangler
never ran for office. With thirteen victims, he woulda been
thirteen times more awesome as a Massachusetts senator.
Albert DeSalvo, we hardly knew ye.
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 1:38AM|#
Ooh, very clever Will! I'm sure no one ever thought of that! That must be the most insightful observation ever! Do they give you a MacArthur genius grant to comment on blogs?
oncogenesis|9.1.09 @ 2:42AM|#
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So I have been told...
anarch|9.1.09 @ 3:47AM|#
Wiki's
plot-summary of Oates's noveliztion:
At this point, The Senator uses Kelly's body to jettison himself upwards,out of the driver's side door. She tries to hold on to him to pull herself free; he kicks her, leaving his shoe in her hand. Kelly, badly injured and delirious, continually imagines that he will come back to "save" her, and also that he has gone for help. She repeatedly imagines seeing him outside of the car, or that she feels the car shaking as he tries to get her out. She trusts The Senator until the very end of her life, certain that he will save her; it is possible that, because of this, she misses out on highly important lucid moments in which she could possibly save herself.
In reality, the senator has stumbled to an outdoor phone booth, carefully staying out of sight of passing cars, to call Ray Annick. He Tells Annick that Kelly became emotional and pushed the wheel because she was drunk, thus causing the accident, and that she is already dead.
Meanwhile, Kelly is following an ever-shrinking bubble of air to the top of the car as is fills with water. She becomes more panicked and delirious, and imagines that she is rescued...
Who would have guessed that Oates writes allegories about
Keynesianism?
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|9.1.09 @ 4:11AM|#
"If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice
of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative
improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question,
you're answering it."
It doesn't get any better than this. The same reminder that Matt is
calling for is one that Libertarians seem entirely unmoved
buy.
To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other
anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the
less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual liberty.
After all, it's not their problem. This is a routine response to
people who press Libertarians on the potential consequences of
their policies, yet many of them seem conveniently put off by this
utilitarian questioning. Now it's an important reminder.
It certainly says a lot.
|9.1.09 @ 5:02AM|#
Kennedy claimed at the inquest that he called Kopechne's
name several times from the shore, then tried to swim down to reach
her seven or eight times,
The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet
deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was
only seven years old.
Teddy either couldn't swim, or didn't want to save her.
-jcr
|9.1.09 @ 5:04AM|#
To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other
anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the
less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual
liberty.
Fuck you, you lying pinko sack of shit.
Libertarians know that individual liberty is the way to alleviate
the suffering of the less fortunate. Go take a look at North Korea
and tell us how the less fortunate are doing there.
-jcr
mark|9.1.09 @ 5:13AM|#
Teddy either couldn't swim, or didn't want to save
her.
-jcr
I'm still up and having read a bunch of material about this
incident, it seems that the Senator was drunk and hit his head, and
probably tried to rescue the girl once or twice before giving up.
It's entirely possible that the current was too strong at the
time.
I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but criminally negligent?
No.
A T|9.1.09 @ 5:20AM|#
If I take some leeches of my back, yes, I am depriving them of
sustenance, my blood, therefore I cause them so suffer. Poor
unfortunate leeches.
But I sure as hell didn't cause them to lose any individual
liberty...
|9.1.09 @ 5:31AM|#
teddy did the dirty work for bobby, and daddy
covered. that sounds plausible. did he bash her in the head first.
that sounds plausible.
what did she know. what did she tell her parents? who threatened
them? sounds plausible.
why do these backslapping shitbags go around praising each other
all day? does obama want to be an elitist so bad that he will sell
his soul for a chance to hob nob with the powerful?
it all sound plausible to me.
|9.1.09 @ 5:39AM|#
nephilium,(did i get that right? and what does it mean
anyway?
i will also use cuntpickle, but only in extreme
situations like this. i have never heard it.
it has a "nice" ring to it. i propose
beaverscratchers, kind of like a german compound.
davius rex
anarch of clerihew|9.1.09 @ 6:11AM|#
Joyce Carol Oates
Approves making rivers into moats,
And cars into boats,
Up from which truth, regrettably, floats.
double-dactyl anarch|9.1.09 @ 6:33AM|#
Theodore Kennedy
Sailor extraordinaire's
Nephew Bill K. Smith
Too loved cars, girls, bed;
Handily chauffeured them
Littoralistically,
Cooing, "My uncle
Could drive you instead."
The Frith™|9.1.09 @ 6:34AM|#
Nipplemancer: liberal policies are justified *especially* if the innocent suffer
|9.1.09 @ 7:07AM|#
In the time it took Matt Welch to write his post, Oates wrote and published seven more incoherent novels.
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|9.1.09 @ 7:19AM|#
"Fuck you, you lying pinko sack of shit."
Wow. That didn't take long.
"Libertarians know that individual liberty is the way to alleviate
the suffering of the less fortunate."
Wait, what? Libertarians "know" what? Libertarians don't know that.
That's merely an opinion. So, if someone were to ask you what would
happen if your strategies were implemented, and increased poverty,
what would you say?
Would you be prepared to abandon your Libertarian principles to
address that failure? Or would you maintain those policies in
obedience to your ideology?
Again, I'm speaking hypothetically here, since you're speaking out
in favor of a hypothetical government.
"Go take a look at North Korea and tell us how the less fortunate
are doing there."
This is suppossed to prove what? You're not even debating at the
standard of a hack Libertarian. No, you're simply relying on the
cloistered old fart rhetoric that makes you seem more like a narrow
minded crank.
I could ask you to look at numerous Western countries that refute
your poor analogy.
Libertarians seem to enjoy employing a form of Lawyer Logic, where
they slip in these broad assumptions within their chain of logic
that are suppossed to lead to an obvious conclusion.
Seth Finklestein explains this well in his essay: "Libertarianism
Makes You Stupid."
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
"Libertarians are for "individual rights", and against "force" and
"fraud" - just as THEY define it. Their use of these words,
however, when examined in detail, is not likely to accord with the
common meanings of these terms. What person would proclaim
themselves in favor of "force and fraud"? One of the little tricks
Libertarians use in debate is to confuse the ordinary sense of
these words with the meaning as "terms of art" in Libertarian
axioms. They try to set up a situation where if you say you're
against "force and fraud", then obviously you must agree with
Libertarian ideology, since those are the definitions. If you are
in favor of "force and fraud", well, isn't that highly immoral? So
you're either one of them, or some sort of degenerate (note the
cultish aspect again), one who doesn't think "force and fraud must
be banished from human relationships".
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 7:32AM|#
lol @Nooge
"Markets", if setting up strawmen makes a person stupid, then I'm
guessing Finkelstein is now operating somewhere around the
cognitive capacity of Forrest Gump. But, I mean, if you like
sophistry then the guy's all right, I guess.
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 7:37AM|#
Finklestein*, damn...that doesn't count as a joe'z memorial law example.
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|9.1.09 @ 7:37AM|#
"If I take some leeches of my back, yes, I am depriving them of
sustenance, my blood, therefore I cause them so suffer. Poor
unfortunate leeches.
But I sure as hell didn't cause them to lose any individual
liberty..."
Well, at least your honest, and I don't have to drill you for a
confession.
Now if only the others would have the guts to "come out."
@|9.1.09 @ 7:41AM|#
the unwilling, unjust sacrifice of an innocent
Mary Jo Kopechne was innocent? She got in a car with a
notorious skirt-chaser and boozer--but not just any
skirt-chaser and boozer: a Kennedy--after a night of
debauchery, for what reason? She made some choices herself that
evening, of no small consequence, and paid the price.
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 7:44AM|#
"Markets", what A T said makes good sense. Sure, the analogy's kind of harsh, but it's pretty damn succinct.
@|9.1.09 @ 7:45AM|#
John C. Randolph | September 1, 2009, 5:02am | #
The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet
deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was
only seven years old.
At night? When you were drunk? With a hard-on?
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 7:47AM|#
Hmmm...be that as it may, @, drowning seems a tad unfortunate as a consequence.
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|9.1.09 @ 7:59AM|#
"Markets", if setting up strawmen makes a person stupid, then
I'm guessing Finkelstein is now operating somewhere around the
cognitive capacity of Forrest Gump. But, I mean, if you like
sophistry then the guy's all right, I guess."
In other words, if someone has seen through your bullshit, then
it's only because they're bullshitting, right? Of course,there was
no attempt to address the arguments. Libertarians are too good for
arguments. The truth should be self-evident, right?
Finklestein's deconstruction of the Libertarian sales pitch is
hardly some obtuse rendering of Libertarian thought. He referenced
the party's own website. I seriously doubt that you even read the
essay, or you would have seen that your accusations were addressed
early on by Finklestein.
It seems like only Libertarians can understand Libertarianism.
However, according to many other Libertarians, they probably don't
truly understand Libertarianism either. Talk about Sophistry.
The standards that Libertarians have set for others in debate, and
the standards that they tend to live up to in debate, represent a
truly cartoonish imbalance.
|9.1.09 @ 8:20AM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the
accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest
Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?,
When you say that the rules and standards that apply to others
don't apply to those who agree with you politically, you're also
saying the rules don't apply to you (its a tautology that you agree
with yourself), and that Oats has just said she's allowed to kill
to get her way politically. Being generous, I'll assume its only
allowed if she can make a claim it was an accident.
The individual life of anyone reading this is expendable in
comparison to her political goals. Never forget that. Joyce Carol
Oats will literally kill you to get her way politically.
\"Markets Are Magical!\"|9.1.09 @ 8:25AM|#
"Markets", what A T said makes good sense. Sure, the analogy's
kind of harsh, but it's pretty damn succinct."
No, it doesn't make any sense at all. North Korea's culture,
policies, and approach to government have nothing to do with the
silliness that often is Libertarian reasoning.
What is being offered up is an either/or fallacy. People don't have
to choose between a North Korea style government, or a Libertarian
style government. Of course, you guys tend to see things in an
either/or fashion. It's a personality type. You simply have a
reasoning blind spot that may, or may not be correctable.
What surprises me is how poor these arguments are. I get the
feeling that many of you are not used to being contradicted, and I
think that is a direct result of the echo chamber effect that is a
by-product of Internet discussion forums.
You're being manipulated by well funded Think Tanks. Some of you
will grow to understand the importance of nuance, and some of you
won't.
Whatever your path, good luck.
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Yes, "Markets", because he sets up a strawman and preemptively
defends it by saying that others will attack him by calling him out
on his fallacy. How terribly clever.
Libertarians are too good for arguments. The truth should be self-evident, right?
Where do you come up wih this stuff? From the mystical place whence trolls draw their dire powers?
Art-P.O.G.|9.1.09 @ 8:37AM|#
You're being manipulated by well funded Think Tanks
Wow, no wonder libertarianism has dominated political discourse
for decades. It all makes sense now.
From the incoherence of your post, I can only assume you're being
ironic. Bravo.
@|9.1.09 @ 8:45AM|#
well funded Think Tanks
There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets"
publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and advertising.
Not that there's anything wrong with having a sugar daddy.
|9.1.09 @ 8:53AM|#
Mary Jo was an only child. I doubt her parents were very happy to sacrifice their daughter. The same people who think it is horrible to waterboard KSM to stop a terrorist attack apparrently think it is laudable to drown an innocent woman to save a Senate career. Liberals are just sick. They really have lost it.
|9.1.09 @ 8:55AM|#
The same people who think it is horrible to waterboard KSM
to stop a terrorist attack apparrently think it is laudable to
drown an innocent woman to save a Senate career.
While I disagree about the waterboarding actually accomplishing
anything, this is otherwise a good point.
|9.1.09 @ 9:02AM|#
It is not about whether you agree with the waterboarding or not. It is about the cognitive dissonance of people being outraged over the rough treatment of one of the most despicable human beings on earth finding the downing of an innocent woman to be a good thing when it benefits their cause. That is sick.
Cabeza de Vaca|9.1.09 @ 9:02AM|#
Why do trolls think they can fool people just by changing their name? You keep coming back here repeating the same tired arguement. No one wants to debate with you, because we already have many times.
|9.1.09 @ 9:10AM|#
To Libertarians, the ends of deregulation, and other
anti-government measures are worth whatever degree of suffering the
less fortunate might experience, at the cost of individual liberty.
After all, it's not their problem. This is a routine response to
people who press Libertarians on the potential consequences of
their policies, yet many of them seem conveniently put off by this
utilitarian questioning. Now it's an important reminder.
Why would more people suffer with unhindered growth and wealth
creation. More jobs that actually produce something lead to even
more jobs, so the people that have them can buy food, shelter,
healthcare, and whatever else they need with their own money.
There is a reason communism has failed everywhere it has been tried
while capitalism has succeeded everywhere it has been tried.
|9.1.09 @ 9:51AM|#
I don't read the Huffington Post article as suggesting that Kopechne's death was a net positive, except in a sarcastic tone.
|9.1.09 @ 9:56AM|#
[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman against the
accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest
Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?
I need some help? I must be out of my mind? What is wrong with me
that I would think that leaving some poor woman to die a horrible
death should ever be weighed on the scales of a political
career?
Men as predators preying on girls and women have always piqued
Oates' depthless imagination,
Depthless = having no depth at all. I wonder if the reviewer meant
such a brutal slam, or is only semi-literate?
|9.1.09 @ 10:04AM|#
"Depthless = having no depth at all. I wonder if the reviewer
meant such a brutal slam, or is only semi-literate?"
Semi literate.
The Libertarian Guy|9.1.09 @ 10:06AM|#
"Collectivism means individuals"
Collectivism abhors individuals.
|9.1.09 @ 10:07AM|#
I'm not saying he wasn't responsible, but criminally
negligent? No.
Even if you believe his version of events (which is highly
implausible to my mind, especially with the deputy sheriff's
testimony quoted in the "Murderous Kennedy" post), at the very
least he was driving way too fast for conditions (20MPH on a gravel
road heading onto a wooden bridge at night!), failed to call for
help despite numerous opportunities to do such, and this resulted
in someone dying. If his last name is Koslowski instead of Kennedy
he does time for manslaughter, at a minimum.
The car was only eight feet deep. I routinely dove fifteen feet
deep to retrieve toys from the floor of swimming pools when I was
only seven years old.
To be fair, trying to retrieve a possibly unconcious person from
inside an overturned vehicle in murky water (a car slamming into
the bottom is going to raise up a pretty nasty cloud of sediment),
possibly dealing with a current, is not comparable to picking up a
toy in the bottom of a crystal-clear swimming pool.
I don't blame him for not rescuing her himself; that's what the
professionals are paid to do. Which is why you have to call the
police when something like this happens... (The local emergency
services diver testified that he would have been able to retrieve
her within 25 minutes of recieving a phone call.)
anarch|9.1.09 @ 10:09AM|#
I dunno - though it ain't depthless prose, or then maybe it be. Bothers me fewer than some other sillyschisms.
|9.1.09 @ 10:11AM|#
And if he had acted in a morally responsible way, he could just as easily reformed himself and gone on to have an influential political career. This was a woman's life at stake - and he chose the coward's way out.
|9.1.09 @ 10:14AM|#
Kennedy was drunk and taking a woman to the beach to bang her and took a wrong turn and ran into the water. HE couldn't get her out and she died. He then went back and failed to report a fatal accident (a felony) and waited to sober up before reporting it the next day. He was guilty of vehicular manslaughter and failing to report a fatal accident. He should have been convicted of two felonies and done at least a few months in prison.
|9.1.09 @ 10:20AM|#
"If you're openly musing whether the unwilling, unjust sacrifice
of an innocent is worth a broad set of alleged legislative
improvements, you're not asking a morally challenging question,
you're answering it."
Good hit!
|9.1.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Tulpa: "I don't blame him for not rescuing her himself; that's
what the professionals are paid to do."
We don't pay emergency services people to be human beings, just so
we don't have to be. People who become senators aren't so good at
rescues, unless you're Bob Dole or John McCain.
You can be a wimp and still be elected a Democtratic Senator. As
Democratic Senator 'Stewart Smalley' would say: and that's...
ok.
|9.1.09 @ 10:37AM|#
Aren't liberals the ones who are always saying that by NOT helping someone, you are in fact, hurting them? That by being able to help people, we have a duty to do so and it is worth the sacrifices? Yet they defend this scumbag every chance they get. Hypocrites.
Joan of Argghh!|9.1.09 @ 10:43AM|#
Teddy's real legacy:
"Every uncorrected error and unrepented sin is, in its own right, a
fountain of fresh error and fresh sin flowing on to the end of
time." -C. S. Lewis
He lived long enough to prove Lewis right.
|9.1.09 @ 10:48AM|#
one sins and repents and is forgiven, provided that one
remakes one's life.
Was the "repentance" bit before or after Teddy went around asking
people, "Have you heard any more hilarious jokes about the time I
killed that chick?"
|9.1.09 @ 10:57AM|#
This is so vile and disgusting it defies words. Gee....how nice
to be that "lucky woman" who got to be sacrificed by a selfish
asshole who couldn't see his way clear to fucking make a phone
call. WOW. The whole story would be totally different had he
thought of anyone but himself and his dick.
You can argue all you want about all the "good" he did, however,
you cannot change the fact that he was a pig. (and that's insulting
pigs, actually)
He was a murderer. The fact he made jokes, and collected jokes
about Chappaquidick makes my point with no additional verbiage.
|9.1.09 @ 10:58AM|#
Cuntpickles...I am LOVING this word and it has so many applications....thank you so very much. :)
|9.1.09 @ 11:03AM|#
God bless Mary Jo. These f*&^ing morons who are singing Uncle Teddy's praises- Do they think Mary Jo was worried about the future political career of Ted while she was drowning! Unbelievable.
|9.1.09 @ 11:27AM|#
The freaking "Elephant in the Room" is what kind of nut would
want Leftists who have so little morality that they would openly
wonder whether the death of this young women was inconsequential
against advance of the Leftist agenda to be given complete control
of our nation's health care?
That sure is a group of people who I would want making such
decisions. People who think they are being just too clever by
belittle the death of a young woman against the "vast
accomplishments of the Leftist agenda".
No freaking thanks, you damn jackals.
So whom and what people would they be willing to sacrifice so that
Obama or the next Kennedy can be glorified as the Marxist messiah
and to have their Leftist utopia?
|9.1.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Wow, that Seth Finklestein essay (from 1997) was a hunk of crap.
The math exercises were fun, though, and I'm definitely going to
add them to a book I'm creating of exercises for my kids to try
when they get older.
Hint: The first exercise just says to "cancel out" a term, which
actually implies dividing by a value of zero, which is obviously a
mathematical fallacy. I didn't take the time to find the error in
the second one. But they would be great exercises for any kid to
try!
creech|9.1.09 @ 11:34AM|#
I recall, at the time, his supporters were making Ms. Kopechne
out to be some kind of slut who seduced the good senator.
I've never heard before that Teddy actually collected jokes about
the incident. What is the attribution for this? His good friend,
Sen. Hatch? If true, anyone with anything good to say about Kennedy
-- and they knew of his joke collection -- is scum.
Bo|9.1.09 @ 11:35AM|#
If Kennedy would've been a man and owned up to the consequences and lost his political career, I'm sure Massachusetts could've found another leftist Senator to champion statist causes for the last 30+ years.
|9.1.09 @ 11:51AM|#
"It all depends what "kill" is...."
So true, doesn't everyone remember that the Left was willing to
overlook the serial sexual harassment episodes of Bill
Clinton...
Is it any wonder why every Leftist utopia of communism has devolved
into a totalitarian "killing field" when they are allowed total
control? The NY Times even bragged in the 1930s about the glorious
Soviets that "you couldn't make an omelette without breaking a few
eggs".
All during the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's the Leftist came up with
all sort of "apologies and excuses" for their dreamy Soviets. Even
today they idolize such thugs as Mao, Castro and Chavez. Leftists
should never be allowed anywhere near power of any kind.
Matt Welch|9.1.09 @ 11:56AM|#
There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets"
publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and advertising.
Not that there's anything wrong with having a sugar
daddy.
Magazines of opinion, from every point on the political spectrum,
are money-losers, when measured by subscription and advertising
revenue. Which is why they are typically run by explicit
nonprofits, or by rich men who don't mind losing money. Both of
which setups indicate that there is more to this market than ads
& subs revenue.
|9.1.09 @ 12:14PM|#
It's only fair to say the sacrifice is worth it if you would be willing to change places with the person who was sacrificed.
|9.1.09 @ 12:19PM|#
"She got in a car with a notorious skirt-chaser and
boozer"
So what you're saying is: she was asking for it?
|9.1.09 @ 12:23PM|#
John-
It is also despicable to waterboard and otherwise torture so called
"terrorists"-particularly if the one inflicting the torture is one
of the King's men. As libertarians, we must emphasixe the moral
hazards of being one of the King's men-like, for starters, its just
plain immoral.
|9.1.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Mike,
There is nothing so called about KSM. He is a terrorist. It may
have been wrong to water board him, but that doesn't make him
anything but what he is. When Libertarians say things like "so
called terrorist" they just give people a reason not to take them
seriously.
|9.1.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Reminds me of the scene from Godfather II, where the senator
gets drunk and murders a prostitute. "The girl has no family,"
we're told, and the senator's going to do good works for the
Corleones. By the logic of Lafsky and Oates, there would be nothing
immoral about helping conceal the crime.
No? Why not? Because senator's working for gangsters? But would it
be all right if he went on to champion progressive causes?
Yes? How about if the victim weren't a prostitute, but a campaign
worker? How about if she were underage? If the perpetrator is going
to do good works, is there any level of depravity that's
unacceptable? Cannibalism? Necrophilia? Anything?
And so the intelligencia steps off smartly into the abyss.
JB|9.1.09 @ 12:43PM|#
I wouldn't mind seeing both of these women drowned.
It would make my world a better place.
|9.1.09 @ 12:49PM|#
I'm curious; what did Kennedy actually do himself, instead of
taking from others to spend their resources doing?
Wouldn't say a heart surgeon, or an ER doctor be a more "noble"
person?
Assuming you agree that an ER doctor might be more noble; how would
you consider an ER doctor claiming because of the good he's done in
his life; he now gets to go kill a girl or two... and society owes
him enough that he should not be punished in any way.
If I'd known that having a "noble" job would allow one freedom to
commit crimes without risk; I might have taken another career
path.
I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the money;
for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those as my
freebie?
|9.1.09 @ 12:52PM|#
Look at it this way: Kennedy mistrusted the government so much
(for whatever reason) that he allowed a girl to die rather than
involve them in the matter. Instead he supposedly attempted to
heroically rescue her himself and definitely passed by a house with
a light on (and presumably a phone) when leaving the scene.
What a hypocrite for spending his life trying to make government
the solution for everyone else when he wouldn't even rely on them
when it obviously was best.
Fiat Pecunia|9.1.09 @ 12:55PM|#
I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the
money; for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those
as my freebie?
Get elected or appointed.
|9.1.09 @ 1:04PM|#
This simply shows you that intellectual skills in one area do not necessarily transfer over to other areas, whether intellectual or moral. Such crassness demonstrates a deep moral vacuum in many of the so-called intelligentsia. It's scary how ideology can make dum dums out of so many.
Zabrina|9.1.09 @ 1:17PM|#
No telling what Mary Jo might have accomplished, given the chance, either. Her career and accomplishments might have eclipsed Kennedy's--so who's arrogant enough to judge what sacrifice was worth what? It's all just self-serving blather to continue to burnish Kennedy's (and liberalism's) sagging reputation. But it's not working. Unless you call liberals continuing to lull themselves into their dream world effective.
|9.1.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I don't know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite
topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask
people, "have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?"-Ed
Klein
Teddy was such a kidder. He kills me.
Oh no not this again|9.1.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I see Reason has another dead horse to beat into the ground. With all the economic shenanagans going on, i would assume Reason would have a post or something, but no, another two minutes of hate. Dude's dead, and damn if i hadn't forgotten about it. Thanks "REASON", for reminding me about something i really don't give two shits about. But you all keep on with the team spirit, I'm sure someone is impressed. RED BLUE VARIATION RAH RAH RAH
Cabeza de Vaca|9.1.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"I always thought bank robbery just looked fun; not for the
money; for the thrill... what do I have to do to get one of those
as my freebie?"
Get appointed chairman of The Federal Reserve.
There is no God|9.1.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Couldn't the funeral motorcade have driven off a bridge for old times' sake?
|9.1.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Perhaps Miss Oates will further those causes she sees so
important and willingly allow herself to be drowned in furtherance
of some up-and-comer politician's career. That is what she
advocates that Miss Kopechne resolve post mortem, that her
sacrifice was worthwhile in the long run.
Miss Oates intellectualizing is harmless until real human beings
are involved. That Miss Oates conveniently glosses over that Mary
Jo was in fact a living breathing human being speaks volumes of her
prioritization of politics over even human life itself.
|9.1.09 @ 2:15PM|#
In "Night of the Generals", Peter O'Toole played a SS general
who held the position that, since he did such a good job
slaughtering his country's enemy, he should be forgiven for finding
much needed release in butchering the occasional trollop. The
modern progressive seems to have come around to his way of
thinking.
FYI: it wasn't just Mary Jo in 1969. Let's not forget:
Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit from 1963
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html
Ted's sexual abuse of women, especially wait staff as in this
episode from 1985
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=5
and the Borking of American politics since the 1980s:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjdhNDY1NmY4NmM4ODJiZDNlNDFmZDQ2ODRhZjQ3OTY=
|9.1.09 @ 2:25PM|#
There is something ironic about a "free minds and markets"
publication being unable to exist on subscriptions and
advertising.
There's nothing ironic about a "free minds and markets" publication
that exists on subscription and advertising and voluntary
contributions. Or do you think that the voluntary
contributions have something to do with unfree minds or
markets?
Michael Ejercito|9.1.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Paul Wellstone did not leave anyone to drown.
Neither did Glenn Poshard.
It is also despicable to waterboard and otherwise torture so called "terrorists"-particularly if the one inflicting the torture is one of the King's men.
Indeed, our troops should not torture terrorists.
But we can not control what happens to terrorists who are in the
custody of our allies. Look up Shawki Salama Attiya for
details.
|9.1.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Let me make sure I have this straight. Causing the death of a young girl - okay, as long as it causes you to advance liberial positions. Pouring water down the nose of a terriorist in defense of innocent life - bad?!
|9.1.09 @ 2:55PM|#
One wonders if those persons feeling Miss Kopechne's death was
"worth it" have a daughter or granddaughter of their own.
And, if so, would they be willing to kill that daughter or
granddaughter if it meant another Ted Kennedy in the Senate.
After all... it's just one girl's life, right?
lurkyloo|9.1.09 @ 3:02PM|#
I wonder why Mary Jo couldn't get out, if it's true that she was
conscious enough to seek the air bubble, and yet Kennedy could swim
to the surface while wearing a back brace. I guess it's
unknowable.
A decent person would have turned himself in immediately, served
time, and/or become a hermit. Even practically speaking, I can't
figure out why he thought cowardice was the right choice for his
career. Self-delusion and inability to imagine the public's
reaction? How stupid did he think they were?* Drunk and honest
beats sobered-up and lying any day.
*Stupid enough to re-elect him, apparently. Guess Massholes saw him
differently than the rest of the country.
JB|9.1.09 @ 3:19PM|#
Guess Massholes saw him differently than the rest of the
country.
Stupid fetuses.
|9.1.09 @ 3:52PM|#
Laurence: Good points! Also, during the rape trial, his description of their activities as: "A traditional Kennedy family Easter celebration" when it turned out that he and the boys were out at 1 am in the morning cruising bars and picking up girls to bring back to the compound, showed that his idea of a traditional Easter celebration and mine, were vastly different. I am a liberal, and his callous abuse of power and women makes me sick, and should not be ignored.
RS|9.1.09 @ 4:32PM|#
What a stunning mis-reading of Oates's article. You conveniently quote her setup, which accurately mirrors the prevailing current of public thought, but fail to note her conclusion, that the public sphere blinds people to central questions of morality. If you're really think Oates is ambivalent on this topic, you might want to read her novella, the cover of which so boldly illustrates your post. Plot summary: the Senator is not the hero.
|9.1.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Would the world have been better, worse, or pretty much the same
had Mary Jo Kopechne bobbed to the surface instead of Ted
Kennedy?
I'll go with "Pretty much the same." There's little that Kennedy
accomplished after Chappaquiddick that someone else couldn't have
done. Another pol might have beaten Carter in the '80 primary but I
doubt it. I can't think of anything he did legislatively that no
one else could have or wouldn't have happened pretty much the same.
There'd be one fewer traumatized waitress in DC but that wouldn't
change the world noticeably.
Ted Kennedy just wasn't all that important to the world. Someone
else would have stepped up for almost all of what he did after
Chappaquiddick, possibly without the boozing. It's sad to say but
the wrong person survived.
ELC|9.1.09 @ 6:56PM|#
This kind of thinking (referring to Lafsky's and Oates's remarks) is typical of Leftist thought: The People in the abstract, or as a concept, are very important, but actual individual people are expendable.
|9.1.09 @ 8:12PM|#
These are liberals we're talking about, here.
Kennedy wouldn't have rated on their political radar, no matter
what his ideological "accomplishments", unless he had snuffed the
life out of at least one innocent.
|9.1.09 @ 8:40PM|#
How lucky for liberals that Kennedy killed Kopechne while she
was still a young woman-- and not after she had been elected to the
Senate and then appointed Special Emissary to the Middle East,
where she would resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict years
before the 2nd Intifada could take place. Considering Kennedy's
utter lack of accomplishments at the time, he wouldn't even be a
blip on the legislative radar if she had survived and he had
not.
How emblematic that even posing the Oates/Lasky question also
requires ignoring the fact that Kennedy continued to lionize, so to
speak, young innocents at every turn for the rest of his life, much
of which was spent in an unembarrassed alcoholic stupor. He
managed to avoid actually killing anyone else, but all the other
lives he despoiled or ruined apparently aren't even worth
mentioning, let alone factoring into the self-serving post mortems
which now proliferate.
It's one thing to set aside the viciousness with which Kennedy
attacked his political foes in public in order laud Kennedy's
supposedly bipartisan achievements. It's an entirely different
matter to proffer his public career in a crass attempt to buy
indulgences for his morally bankrupt private life.
|9.1.09 @ 9:08PM|#
Just to repeat my earlier comment -- if you read Lafsky's
article, it's clear that she was being ironic/sarcastic, and isn't
seriously questioning whether Ms. Kopechne might think her
sacrifice was worth it.
If Oates's article has the same tone (as someone above states),
then really no one is suggesting that Kopechne's death was worth
it. So, maybe we shouldn't get all worked up about a position that
no one has taken.
Billy Beck|9.1.09 @ 9:29PM|#
"...if you read Lafsky's article, it's clear that she was
being ironic/sarcastic..."
Bullshit. I read it. No: it's not.
The Libertarian Guy|9.1.09 @ 9:29PM|#
Does "The Nation" depend solely on itself, or does it need other sources of income?
|9.1.09 @ 10:56PM|#
I think Joyce Carol Oates is really onto something. Had it not been for slavery, Americans would never have heard of the Supremes, who gave joy and pleasure to many. Or never had a Martin Luther King Day giving them an opportunity to honor a great American who would have remained obscure in the jungles of Africa. Had it not been for Adolf Hitler, the USA may not have developed nuclear power which is responsible for so much. Had it not been for JFK's expansion of the Vietnam War, John Kerry , may never have come into prominence, using the accusation of war crimes committed by those with whom he heroically served on that dangerous mission to Cambodia, as a catapult to fame. If it had not been for the Inquisition, many Jews would have stayed in Spain and failed to found the delis of Manhatten. I think this is a wonderful concept from Joyce Carol Oates... I don't know. How about if it hadn't been for Hitler, there never would have been a Battle of Stalingrad and the Soviet Union might have been powerful enough to win the Cold War. You go, girl.
|9.1.09 @ 11:16PM|#
Oates wrote, "[I]f one weighs the life of a single young woman
against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called
the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to
think?"
It was only one life. What is one life in the affairs of a state?
--Mussolini, after hitting a child with his car and driving on.
(attrib., by Gen. Smedley Butler)
This is particularly appropriate to the title of this blog.
(What actually happened, according to Cornelius Vanderbilt, Jr.: "I
was riding with Mussolini, who drove. A small child ran in front of
the machine . . . and was hit. I looked back to see if the child
was hurt. Mussolini placed his hand on my knee and said: 'Never
look back, Vanderbilt, always look ahead in life.' ")
|9.2.09 @ 6:45AM|#
In all fairness to Joyce Carol Oates - I agree with RS's
comment.
In her short novel "BLACK WATER," the senator is inded "not the
hero." While the book was nominated for several prize, the NYT
reviewer largely dismissed the novel, finding it voyeuristic:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/24/books/books-of-the-times-taking-the-plot-from-the-news-even-old-news.html?scp=7&sq=%22black%20water%22%20oates&st=cse
RE:
RS
What a stunning mis-reading of Oates's article. You conveniently
quote her setup, which accurately mirrors the prevailing current of
public thought, but fail to note her conclusion, that the public
sphere blinds people to central questions of morality. If you're
really think Oates is ambivalent on this topic, you might want to
read her novella, the cover of which so boldly illustrates your
post. Plot summary: the Senator is not the hero.
|9.2.09 @ 7:03AM|#
Libertarians don't know that. That's merely an
opinion.
No, it's a fact demonstrated repeatedly throughout history, whether
you choose to acknowledge it or not.
-jcr
|9.2.09 @ 7:05AM|#
There is nothing so called about KSM. He is a
terrorist.
I agree that KSM is a terrorist. He should be tried for his
crimes and then he should get the death penalty,
unless the government fucks up the prosecution so badly that they
let him walk like O. J. SImpson. We have laws for a reason.
-jcr
|9.2.09 @ 7:10AM|#
doesn't everyone remember that the Left was willing to
overlook the serial sexual harassment episodes of Bill
Clinton...
Yeah, I always wondered why the feminist insistence that women
never, ever lie about rape wasn't applied to Bill's rape of Juanita
Broaddrick, and sexual assault of Kathleen Willey. Two allegations
is supposed to be enough to demand castration, right?
-jcr
|9.2.09 @ 7:18AM|#
Seth Finklestein explains this well
No, he just ladles out baseless slander like you do.
-jcr
|9.2.09 @ 7:35AM|#
Never look back, Vanderbilt, always look ahead in
life
Never had much opinion about Vanderbilt one way or the other before
now, but now I fault him for not stabbing the bastard in the throat
when he had the chance.
-jcr
jo|9.2.09 @ 9:00AM|#
PS
5 years later, the same NYT reviewer alludes to "Black Water" as
"abysmal":
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/29/books/like-mother-alas-like-daughter.html
and in 2000, as "embarassing":
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=20000409&id=FOARAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6660,2193631
again on grounds of voyeurism, sensationalism, and the mixing of
fact and fiction, which the reviewer in principle finds a
disservice to both history and literature.
jo|9.2.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Ha!
I wondered if Joyce Carol Oates was in danger of being thrown out
of the liberal club - both Oates's BLACK WATER and the later
(Marilyn Monroe) novel BLONDE don't exactly enhance the Kennedys's
image. (And |I might be unfair here, but I also wondered if the
reviewer would have been as hot and heavy against a novel based on
the sins and failings of some real life rightwing figure).
My main point is that Oates has hardly toed a liberal apologist
line for the Kennedys.
The Libertarian Guy|9.2.09 @ 5:35PM|#
"Yeah, I always wondered why the feminist insistence that women
never, ever lie about rape wasn't applied to Bill's rape of Juanita
Broaddrick, and sexual assault of Kathleen Willey. Two allegations
is supposed to be enough to demand castration, right?"
But... but... it was Bill Clinton. That makes it okay. Haven't you
been to reeducation camp yet?
|9.3.09 @ 4:26AM|#
I read the editorial by Joyce Carol Oates as profondly critical
of both Kennedy, AND the attempt to mitigate the death of Mary Jo
Kopechne by weighing it against his career as a lawmaker.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2009/08/joyce_carol_oates_begs_to_diff.html
deacondee|9.14.09 @ 7:48PM|#
The question is - would Ted Kennedy, at the end of his life, have traded his career for the life of Mary Jo Kopechne?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245