The Little Way to Big Money

Wow, lots of news today! As I was copying the link for the famous book, Crunchy Conservatism earlier, I noticed that the new offering of the famed author, Rod Dreher, is now available for pre-order. Yes: The Little Way of Ruthie Leming is coming out in April 2013, almost 7 years and 2 months after Dreher's ground-breaking debut.

We knew this was coming and discussed it excitedly earlier here and here. And, of course, our parody song was required reading and meditation material.

Now—guess what I'm going to do for all of you? I, humble Pauli, am going to purchase (most likely on Kindle), read and excerpt this million dollar biography right here on Est Quod Est when Little Way makes its big debut in April. We'll praise and condemn, share the joys and sorrows, analyze and critique this monumental writing. We'll laugh, we'll cry, we'll dream... etc. Also we'll post times for promotional media appearances, especially on call-in shows so we can band together to ask the famous author really good questions which, if you think of any, please post below. ("Baba-Booey! Baba-Booey!")

And... don't forget to check this link from time to time.

A Dose of Lunarity

I was thinking, "What do I want to look at on the old internets before I retire this fine Sunday evening?" Then I applied the ol' V8 slap. "Of course, some Danse Macabre from one of my favorite bloggers, Oengus Moonbones!" Excerpt:

"Well, how's it going today, Charon?" Cerberus asked. "Meh," said Charon after taking a drag on his smoke, "I had a busy day. What a crowd." Cerberus, knowing Charon well and looking past his phony reticence, sensed that he wanted to tell a story. Charon can be very talkative when he feels like it. "Well, what happened? Tell me," said Cerberus as he sat on his haunches, listening as he wagged his tail. Tossing the butt away into the slimy Acheron river, Charon leaned on his oar and began talking: "Rock stars! What can you do about them?...."

That's a teaser, read the rest. The man cracks me up.

"I'm your snarly myrmidon."

Oengus Moonbones gives us the inside scoop about the meeting between death and the President of the United States. Boomers beware!

John Kass Says Good Riddance to Camelot

I agree with him; "'tis a silly place".

His is a good article, avoiding invectives and shooting for the almost impossible journalistic objectivity when dealing with the mythologized celebrity of the Kennedy family. His conclusion deals with an image which could have changed our political iconography substantially.

During her interview with White, Mrs. Kennedy also spoke of drama and history in those moments before photographers made the iconic pictures on the day the president was assassinated.

"Everybody kept saying to me to put a cold towel around my head and wipe the blood off. Later I saw myself in the mirror, my whole face spattered with blood and hair. ... I wiped it off with Kleenex. ... History! ... I thought, no one really wants me there. Then one second later, I thought, why did I wash the blood off? I should have left it there. Let them see what they've done.

"If I'd just had the blood and caked hair when they took the picture. ... Then later I said to Bobby -- what's the line between history and drama? I should have kept the blood on."

That line between history and drama for the Kennedys was never very thick, like the line between American realism and our yearning for royalty, and for comforting political myths.

He's right about the confusion of drama with history where the Kennedys are concerned. I'm not sure I "yearn for royalty" as an American, though. To me and many others, the neck brace on young Teddy at Mary Jo's funeral is the best icon of the Kennedys: it’s all about appearances, perceptions of the camera, excuses, an officially-accepted narrative for followers to trumpet and getting people to feel sorry for you when others suffer more.

News Heading of the Week

From this article, about halfway down: Some Never Forgave Kennedy for Chappaquiddick. What? Who would those ignoramuses be? Forgive and forget–we're talking about one girl here, jeez.

I liked the following question posed by Ted Kennedy biographer Edward Klein: "How could he be one of most trusted members of Senate–and they trusted his word as good as gold–be an out of control frat boy most of his life?" Then he answers his question: "Life is complicated and people aren't as simple as we'd like them to be."

After that night, the word Chappaquiddick became synonymous with deception and abuse of power, and for decades until this day, each anniversary was dredged up in newspapers around the country.

But oddly, the darkest moment in Kennedy's career also sealed his fate as a work-horse senator and ultimately transformed him into one of the most highly regarded politicians in Congress.

Yeah, "highly regarded" because no one could win an election against him. With the Kennedy machine behind him, the guy could do whatever he wanted.

Well that's that. Wanted to make sure I had the word "chappaquiddick" on the blog for some hits.

Yes, he DID have a chance!

I can't believe I'm recommending comments to a post over at the Crunchy Conservative Blog, but there are some good ones. I mean, a poster-boy for Mr. Dreher's favorite topic–child molestation–dies, and we get this one line in an otherwise plaintive piece: "If Jackson really did behave indecently with children, then he was a kind of monster." A kind of monster. I'm not the only person who notices the disconnect and the inaccuracy of the assertion that someone is not responsible for their choices as an adult just because they had a bad childhood. Commenter "alkali" nails it:

alkali
June 26, 2009 9:09 AM
1) Without disputing that Michael Jackson's father was a tyrannical and indeed abusive show business parent, I'm not aware of any evidence that he was history's greatest monster. To the extent we have reason to attribute Michael Jackson's odd behavior to his father's abuse, it's because Jackson himself constantly excused his behavior on that basis. To some extent, I'm willing to credit that, but the extremity of Jackson's behavior over the last 27 years (since he recorded Thriller in 1982) suggests that that claim was somewhat self-serving.

It is sort of a smack in the face to all the people I know who overcame abusive childhoods and didn't end up as hideous perverts to say that Michael Jackson didn't have a chance. (There's a part 2 to this comment with a great Bill Murray quote, but it wasn't as relavant to my point.)

Observer
June 26, 2009 10:22 AM
As a parent myself, I'd like to insert a caveat into this discussion, along the lines suggested by alkali.

The data we have suggests that Michael Jackson's father was something short of ideal. But it's quite a jump from there to attributing all of Michael's oddness and bad decisions back to dad. Even if (especially if) Michael himself was inclined to blame his father for all this.

Michael Jackson was an adult when he decided to change his skin color, to have his nose disastrously re-engineered, when he decided to go around talking (and singing) in a falsetto voice (and maybe, some have suggested, taking female hormones), when he started wearing lipstick, when he dangled his infant son off a second-story railing, when he formed what are at best inappropriate relationships with small children, on and on. Some of these decisions, the ones around blurring the distinctions between white and black, male and female, were also highly profitable decisions, part of his art.

However bad a daddy Daddy was, and however evil a place Hollywood might be, I just don't see the justice in allocating all the blame for this behavior away from Michael Jackson himself.

Yeah, does everyone in Hollywood mess around with little kids?

The only reason I would be tempted to make excuses for Michael Jackson's behavior is that I liked his work, at least to some degree. But don't you think this would be like making excuses for a priest who molested children by pointing out that he celebrated so many Masses and gave up every Saturday afternoon hearing confessions?

Now, next topic: Andrew Sullivan. I didn't read his eulogy for Jacko which Rod linked to; no time for nonsense right now. However a commenter named "Nomilk" starts off with a great, unanswered question:

Nomilk
June 25, 2009 9:33 PM
My question is why would a crunchy con read, promote, link to, or hat tip Andrew Sullivan?

Ah, but that is the great question. There are several lame answers and non-answers provided in the comments, and one typical call for him to "shut up". Maybe my commenters will do a better job?