25 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
My only thought was that this was the best news Nowak got all week. |
I’ve never understand why people were fascinated by here. (Or Paris Hilton) |
Ho ho! |
Scott Simon offered a moving eulogy of her today. The link isn’t working at the moment, but it should be by later today. See here |
Funny, DKL, but ultimately in poor taste. |
Just to be clear, I’m not making fun of Anna Nicole Smith. I’m using her traditional association with tabloid news as a backdrop to poke fun at the fabled Mormon habit of doing temple work for prominent dead people, Tonya Harding (surely she’s fair game), and Lisa Nowak. I think that this makes it slightly better taste than if I were making fun of Anna Nicole Smith directly. So, you’re right, PDOE. It’s not in the best of taste. I’m not the high-minded, tactful, tasteful, polite fellow people make me out to be ;) . In fact, I’ve never been one to let taste get in the way of a good laugh. And since celebrity feeds on curiosity, I don’t see the harm in capitalizing on one women’s exploitation of that curiosity for a good laugh. Besides, people have been making fun of Elvis’s death for decades. That said, both Elvis Aaron Presley and Anna Nicole Smith are children of our Heavenly Father. They and their loved ones deserve our love and understanding. Plus, it’s a safe bet that Elvis can still wear his white jump suits in heaven — take away the embroidery and the beads, and they bear more than a passing resemblance to the old-fashioned, white temple jump-suits. Incidentally, I’ve changed my post as a consequence of your comment. I’m not sure it’s in any better taste, but I hope it is (at least) more substantive. |
Jay: You do know Elvis is dead, right? Kay: No, Elvis is not dead. He just went home. |
Wow. You’ve got a lot of guts, DKL… Let’s just say, uh, I know where you are coming from, and leave it at that. |
I like the addendum, DKL. I didn’t mean that I hadn’t laughed at it, but then I felt a bit guilty. You do add a certain something with your later thoughts. It is sad that she died so relatively young, that she lost one child and leaves behind another not even a year old but in the end, it is a pretty normal life. Well, minus the natioanlly famous for removing her clothes aspect. My husband and I have been puzzling over why horny RMs would pressure their girlfriends to do Mz. Smith’s temple work though. I still don’t get it. |
Thanks, PDOE. I’m glad you like the addendum. I’m also glad you made your initial comment. This ends up being the third obituary I’ve written in the bloggernacle. I rather like the other two, and your point made me realize that I should make my 3rd obituary more in line with those others. I don’t know that horny RMs (is “horny RMs” redundant?) would actually pressure their girlfriends. I just thought it was kind of a funny image is all. |
David, When you die, I will write you a tactless, cheap, uncharitable and unflattering eulogy that only the self-loathing will find amusing. There is an old Jewish tradition that says when a person dies, you dont say anything unflattering about them. The wisdom of such a tradition is obviously beyond explanation at this point. |
Kurt, I’m willing to bet that when I die, nobody will care to read an obituary. I am, however, flattered that you think otherwise. Even so, if you want to annoy everyone who just wants to move on, then by all means, go ahead and re-focus their attention back onto the unpleasant past that they’re trying to forget. It’s the perfect opportunity for you to write your dream piece: an attack on DKL where he doesn’t respond by tearing your argument to shreds. I remain curious about one thing: What exactly do I say about Anna Nicole Smith that you find to be tactless, cheap, uncharitable, or unflattering? Even my first paragraph does not make fun of Anna Nicole Smith. Flippant though it may be, it merely uses her traditional association with tabloid news as a backdrop to poke fun at the fabled Mormon habit of doing temple work for prominent dead people, at Tonya Harding, and at Lisa Nowak (as I stated previously in my response to PDOE). |
DKL: what a revealing post! (Pun intended, ugh, cough, cough, ugh.) |
Her death was a study of the tragedy that occurs when people behave in a totally selfish and amoral way. I felt sorry for her, too. She was a joke. But she repulsed me as well. That being said, I always thought she should get the money. The guy married her. The fact that he was a crazy old rich guy couldn’t negate that. I heard an interview where she said, “he saved me and I saved him.” I think that’s the truth. It was a sick relationship, but it was legal. It’s odd to feel a kinship with this person for whom I had little respect, but I do. I believe her son’s death destroyed her. Despite her faults, she loved her child. And she had no faith, nothing and no one to sustain her through it. My heart just aches for that baby, because the child has no chance unless one of those guys really is the dad and turns out to be half decent. I remember feeling the same way about Christina Onassis’ daughter. Sorry to rain on your parade, David. If her baby didn’t exist, I’d just think there was some kind of poetic justice here. |
David, Only you could characterize something you yourself have written as “cheap” and then challenge someone who then agrees with your label as such. I suppose it is the context. You consider “cheap” something acceptable, I consider it demeaning to both you and your target. As for what is demeaning about what you have written, others have already pointed that out, as have you, so why are you asking all over again, save to “respond by tearing your argument to shreds”? Which I am still waiting for you to do at some point in the future, since you have never done that to date, despite your delusions of doing so. I will defer on restating the eminently obvious, so as to avoid being viciously lacerated by your unparalleled brilliance and invulnerable logic. As for dredging up the past, which you obviously want to put behind you, you are the only one doing that. My comments are dealing strictly with your present behavior. If you find your present behavior as indicative of your past behavior, then so be it. I made no such allusion. As for mixing up horny RMs, temple work, pornography, train-wrecked lives and early demises, how is it you such “cheap laughs” to fill your life with, and why do you do it? Cheap is cheap, David. We learn more about DKL in this post than we learn about Anna Nicole Smith. |
Kurt: …I am still waiting for you to [tear my argument to shreds] at some point in the future, since you have never done that to date, despite your delusions of doing so. ROTFLMAO Kurt: As for dredging up the past, which you obviously want to put behind you, you are the only one doing that. My comments are dealing strictly with your present behavior. My reference to dredging up the past referred to the impact the obituary you’d write for me would have. So, do you make the preceding statement because you (a) think I’m already dead, (b) don’t understand how death works, or (c) didn’t actually read what you responded to? Kurt: We learn more about DKL in this post than we learn about Anna Nicole Smith. Perhaps that explains why there are so few comments. |
Is anyone else now thinking of Orson Scott Card’s “Speaker for the Dead” idea? |
DKL, I enjoyed this post and look forward to future, similarly cheap eulogies of the celebrities that you have seen naked, when they die. I’m sure this helps the healing process; I hope that I have the same thoughts when the sex-symbols of my generation give up the ghost. And the tie-in to temple rituals was especially important, I think. P.S. I also think labeling the recently deceased as ‘selfish’ (comment 14), ‘amoral’ (14), ‘a joke’ (14), and repulsive (14) is important as well. |
DKL:ROTFLMAO Sorry, David, but this hardly constitutes an intelligent response. But, it is typical for you. Every time someone backs you up against the wall you pull one of these out and mix with ad hominems…which brings us to… DKL: My reference to dredging up the past referred to the impact the obituary you’d write for me would have. Ah, please do forgive me for failing to understand your vague self-depricating comments about the quality, or predicted lack thereof, of your yet future life couched in the past tense. DKL: So, do you make the preceding statement because you (a) think I’m already dead, (b) don’t understand how death works, or (c) didn’t actually read what you responded to? Or, (d) rather than explain your own obtuse comments for clarity’s sake, you instead to resort to pointless ad hominems. David, I did note you failed to answer the questions posited you in the last paragraph of comment #15. I would like you to respond to them, as I do think it would shed some light as far as your motivations in writing such things. |
Kurt: David, I did note you failed to answer the questions posited you in the last paragraph of comment #15. I can’t slip anything past you, can I? |
Kurt, is your argument something like, “You admitted that you made a cheap joke that mentions Anna Nicole Smith, therefore the post is tactless, cheap, uncharitable and unflattering”? Surely that’s a non-sequitor. Look, Kurt. I don’t dislike you. I just think it’s funny (and weird) how dead-set you are on trying to find some justification for attacking me. Let me be the first to say: You do have value as a person, Kurt, whether or not you’re able to prevail against me argumentatively. At any rate, you’ve misunderstood this post, and that you’re taking my admission to appealing to cheap humor out of context. I make a cheap joke in the first paragraph about the tabloid nature of the Anna Nicole Smith news coverage. I’ve explained repeatedly that this isn’t making fun of the deceased herself, but of Mormons and of the media frenzy that always seemed to surround her. The main problem with talking to you is your unwillingness to acknowledge that the conversation has moved on. It’s not inappropriate to mention that we’ve seen her naked, since if we hadn’t seen her naked I wouldn’t have written the post to begin with. And if she hadn’t have posed naked for photos and videos, then we wouldn’t even be talking about her. Not mentioning that we saw her naked is like not pointing out that the recently deceased Gerald Ford served as president. The overall tone of the post is unapologetically positive. So much so, that I end up defending her from the LA Times columnist, who is not altogether un-positive himself. I state plainly, she lived well. She was successful. She had reason to be proud of her place in the world. I think it’s important to say so, because it won’t do for the media to create a huge spectacle of her during her life, capitalize on that spectacle, and then bemoan that spectacle when she’s dead. |
I totally think she was murdered. Come on, the whole thing is just TOO WEIRD. The lawyer did it. For sure. He killed the son too. |
On a related note. Due to painfully cold weather and a a broken furnace a week ago, we had testimony meeting yesterday. One of our more colorful bearers used ANS as an example of how fragile life is. Only she couldn’t remember ANS’ name. And spent what seemed like three minutes trying to remember her name. I’m in the bishopric. Bishop had is head in his hands he was laughing so hard. Other counselor kept looking at us as though he were making profound comments about who should be called to what all the while grinning ear to ear, and I tried my best to pay attention to the testimony and hold a straight face. Until I looked at one particularly, very distinguished, member of the audience who was looking at us and busting a gut. I couldn’t hold it in. Quite a moment for our little ward. |
David, What is genuinely weird is the way you fault me for personally attacking you, when I didnt. I am only discussing the merits of this post, and not your person, while you are consistently addressing my person, attempting to impugn my character. I am not dead-set on attacking your person, as I have no interest in your person. I am discussing what you posted. Whether I “win” or “lose” the argument is irrelevant to me, but it does seem to be of interest to you, since you keep bringing it up. The main problem with talking to you is your unwillingness to acknowledge that the conversation has moved on. David, this might bear some weight if you didnt have a habit of consistently attempting to change the subject and distract people with ad hominems in order avoid the subject at hand and pointed questions directed at you. Forgive me for being tenacious and not easily distracted by dust kicked up. But, regardless, the general consensus is the post was in poor taste. Whether you were mocking Anna Nicole Smith or the Mormons who take a prurient interest in dead celebrities, either way, your presentation leaves a lot to be desired. I am surely not the only one who failed to grasp the veiled and obtuse intentions you now claim were your original intentions. Rather, it seems like an after-the-fact attempt to legitimize a smug and unseemly critical comment mixing up an attack on both Anna Nicole Smith and Mormondom. I mean, why didnt you write this comment upon Gerald Ford’s demise? No, instead, you wait for Anna Nicole Smith, and talk about pornography and horny RMs to ventilate your disdain for Mormons who do celebrity Temple work. If you find such things amusing, so be it. |
I would just like to state for the record that I’ve never seen any celebrity naked, film or otherwise. Although a lady who I visit teach has seen the Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson video and painted a very interesting picture for me when I took her to lunch for her birthday. |