There is an excellent point raised by a commenter concerning the repeated plunging into the suject of Chappaquiddick.
There is nobody left who really knows exactly what happened that night 40 years ago.Ah, can't we just forget all of this, in the midst of the moral ambiguity?
One would think that given the inherent ambiguity in that night's events that commentators could cut Kennedy some slack - particularly in death.
No no no no no, a thousand repetitions of no, and again: get stuffed.
Here are the two points I raised last Saturday on the FMJRA post [thanks, Dandapani], with some more elaboration:
- We flatter ourselves as having a justice system that treats citizens equally. I should point out that IANAL, and the following represents a common-sense take on the legal system, as opposed to what one frequently encounters.
- If you're a terrorist thug who's sought American lives currently in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, you are getting more respectful treatment from the American legal system (military or civil) than Mary Jo. Explain the tolerability of this.
- You can make the argument that the court of public opinion in Massachusetts obviously acquitted the subject, as they kept returning the individual to the Senate for decades. Yet, a Senator's scope exceeds that of his state. I'd be more inclined to say, "Aw, those goofy Mass-hats" if there was not substantial evidence of Soviet collaboration. So not only do we have someone demonstrating a two-tier justice system apparently because of their last name, but that person goes on to engage in what appears to be fishy activity. What else do we not know, and how much better off would we be absent this purportedly illustrious Senate career?
- Finally, we have a disgusting thought balloon that maybe Mary Jo would have approved of the whole turn of events. I suppose such a hyper-utilitarian-cum-suicidal thought process is theoretically possible. But one wonders if Melissa Lafsky understands that her argument could be seen as an approval of capital punishment. Mary Jo certainly stands convicted of no crime. Yet the thought seems to be that the possibly improved societal outcome of an arguably useful political career, in some way, justifies Mary Jo's death. Those of you on the left: substitute a picture of Mary Jo on the face of someone facing capital punishment next time the cable news networks are in death porn mode, and give me your best shot of righteous indignation about the horror of the death penalty.
- Having flogged the multi-tier legal system a bit, let us turn to this concept of Camel Snot. Screw your horrible, un-American, elitist, intellectually untenable propaganda. To the wall. With a big drill press. Politico calls the vacant seat a "once-in-a-generation opening". A what? Does this mean that generations are a six-year occurrence in Massachusetts? Either:
- The subject clan is really a superior source of leadership *snort*,
- The people of Massachusetts are significantly challenged in ways I can't explore without becoming insulting,
- Or someone is working the poles, IYKWIM
Arguably, in ways no one short of the Almighty can calculate, the subject may have atoned for Chappaquiddick. Yes, we should not fall short of admitting that our topic did good things and took care of his state during his career. At the same time, let us not expect the propaganda machine to consider matters of justice or egalitarianism, and do the work of balancing the dialogue for them.
There, see: I talked about injustice and the egalitarian roots of this country, and never mentioned the deceased by name as much as a single time.