Layton Lionisation Excessive

[Guest American Woman]

Again the majority of people who have been opposition leaders have gotten stat funerals.

According to the National Post, it's "without precedent," which doesn't mean it's wrong. Anything that's done for the first time is "without precedent," yet often becomes tradition over time.

[CPCFTW]

I would say that anytime an esteemed public figure dies the reaction and funeral are "excessive." It's human nature. It isn't any different for Layton, and why should it be?

He was a "leader" in the government, albeit an "opposition leader," but the Canadians he represented are just as important as the Canadians the PM represents, and that's what a state funeral is, in effect, recognizing. As I said before, I think it would be odd of a politician of his stature - ie: a "leader" by definition and vote - didn't receive a state funeral.

I think people are more touched by the fragility of human life. Layton seemed like a healthy, ageless, and charismatic person. Everyone saw that person on live TV debating with the leader of this country less than 6 months ago. No one expected him to be struck down by cancer so quickly afterwards. I'm no fan of Layton but I was certainly shocked to hear he had died so quickly.. If I was more sensitive and effeminate like many lefties, I might also be in tears over the shock. It's sort of like when you're a kid and you trip and scrape your knee and cry over the shock rather than the actual pain. Canada is filled with little kids with scraped knees right now.

[Guest Peeves]

You guys just can't wait until the man is finally six feet under to throw in a couple more kicks at him.

Just let the guy be dead in peace!

He was the leader of the opposition,many believed he would be the next prime minister.A prominent position in Canadian politics.

Like it or lump it he deserves the state funeral.

What bothers me is the motivation behind the criticism towards the media attention given to Jacks passing.

Shame on you!

WWWTT

many believed he would be the next prime minister

Where? Who, When? Why?

[punked]

Aren’t you picking fly poop from pepper? Did this majority of former opposition leaders that received state funerals have something else in common? Like, I dunno, also becoming Prime Minister?

Yah because they didn't die in office while being opposition leader.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is filled with little kids with scraped knees right now.

Then the world "is filled with little kids with scraped knees" - because as I said, anytime an esteemed public figure dies the reaction and funeral are "excessive." People are upset.

If I was more sensitive and effeminate like many lefties, I might also be in tears over the shock.

It's certainly not "effeminate" to be sensitive and/or cry - not by any means. In fact, it can be a sign of strength. Also, as I said, it's "anytime an esteemed public figure dies" - many a "rightie" has been upset over the death of an esteemed conservative/republican - and I doubt it was just the "lefties" of the world who were upset upon hearing the news of Diana's death.

[Michael Hardner]

I didn't like him when he was alive. Why would I love him when dead?

You're not expected to love him when he's dead, but you are expected to allow those who loved him to grieve at least until the funeral. Despite the disagreements I have had with conservatives, I have always broadly held them in high esteem when it comes to matters of protocol and tact. Until now.

[g_bambino]

Yah because they didn't die in office while being opposition leader.

Exactly. Had that happened, they wouldn't have received a state funeral. Glad you've finally got it.

[g_bambino]

You're not expected to love him when he's dead, but you are expected to allow those who loved him to grieve at least until the funeral.

I think there's some questions to be asked about that, though: How much of what we're seeing is really expression of loss for someone loved? Can one love a politician one has never met even once? I find it hard to say yes to either.

[Guest Derek L]

Yah because they didn't die in office while being opposition leader.

Huh?

[Guest American Woman]

I think there's some questions to be asked about that, though: How much of what we're seeing is really expression of loss for someone loved? Can one love a politician one has never met even once? I find it hard to say yes to either.

There are different kinds of "love;" we have different kinds of love for parents, spouses, children, lovers, friends, but it's all a form of love. I think politicians and public figures are beloved for the things they do to help people have better lives - they are esteemed, which is another aspect of "love."

[Guest Peeves]

You're not expected to love him when he's dead, but you are expected to allow those who loved him to grieve at least until the funeral. Despite the disagreements I have had with conservatives, I have always broadly held them in high esteem when it comes to matters of protocol and tact. Until now.

Why do you conclude those commenting are conservatives. That's rather presumptuous isn't it?

[g_bambino]

Canada is filled with little kids with scraped knees right now.

There is a kind of emotional immaturity to it all. Though, as AW points out, it isn't on display just with this latest death of a public figure. It was there when Michael Jackson died; it was there when Diana, Princess of Wales, died; it was there in Poland last year when their president, Lech Kaczyński, died. It, therefore, isn't a left- or right-wing issue, either.

[Guest American Woman]

There is a kind of emotional immaturity to it all.

What's "immature" about it? Feelings and emotions and reactions to them aren't "immature." It's human nature. We aren't unfeeling robots - thankfully.

[Michael Hardner]

I think there's some questions to be asked about that, though: How much of what we're seeing is really expression of loss for someone loved? Can one love a politician one has never met even once? I find it hard to say yes to either.

Why do you feel the need to make that assessment ? Another thing I used to like about conservatives is 'live and let live'.

[g_bambino]

There are different kinds of "love;"

Perhaps. But, I personally could never see myself loving a politician, especially one I never met, or even one I'd met a few times, so much that I'd weep openly over his passing. To me, that kind of emotion is reserved for people to whom I'm close and is expressed with other friends and family, not in public, on the internet, or in front of cameras.

[c/e]

Edited August 27, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Why do you feel the need to make that assessment?

I didn't feel any need. Nor did I make much of an assessment; I asked a couple of questions. But this is a message board in which people engage in debate, so it seemed the apt place to ask.

Another thing I used to like about conservatives is 'live and let live'.

Are you presuming I'm a conservative?

[c/e]

Edited August 27, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps. But, I personally could never see myself loving a politician, especially one I never met, or even one I'd met a few times, so much that I wept openly over his passing. To me, that kind of emotion is reserved for people to whom I'm close and is expressed with other friends and family, not in public, on the internet, or in front of cameras.

I think many people cried when JFK, Martin Luther King, Diana, et al died, and to say it isn't an appropriate reaction is difficult to understand - and when or how we express it isn't something that can always be turned on and off - that's the nature of "emotions." Of course our emotions for those we are close to are deeper and longer lasting, but that doesn't make emotions for others any less valid at the time they are being felt.

Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

We aren't unfeeling robots - thankfully.

No we aren't, thankfully. But we're also capable or rational thought and self-control, also thankfully. I say "emotional immaturity" because, as I said in another post a few days ago, there's a relatively new trend of letting self-control fly out the window at times like these (again, Diana, Michael Jackson, etc.), as well as a certain "look at me! Comfort me!" aspect to it, since the hysteria is carried out very much in public.

[punked]

No we aren't, thankfully. But we're also capable or rational thought and self-control, also thankfully. I say "emotional immaturity" because, as I said in another post a few days ago, there's a relatively new trend of letting self-control fly out the window at times like these (again, Diana, Michael Jackson, etc.), as well as a certain "look at me! Comfort me!" aspect to it, since the hysteria is carried out very much in public.

200,000 people lined the streets for Huey Long's death. That was in 1935, seriously this is not a new thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Are you presuming I'm a conservative?

[c/e]

I guess I am. Are you?

If you're not, and if you're a socialist then your desire to assess and audit public discourse is a little more understandable.

[g_bambino]

I think many people cried when JFK... died...

Mmmm... JFK is a good example; I hadn't thought of him and the reaction to his death until now. That's interesting, since I was thinking the aftermath of Diana's death was the first real instance of that somewhat distrubing very public, mass hysteria. I wasn't alive in 1963, so I don't know if what happened in 1997 was worse. I think it might have been, though.

[fix]

Edited August 27, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

200,000 people lined the streets for Huey Long's death. That was in 1935, seriously this is not a new thing.

No, it isn't a new thing. What might be more "new" is the acceptance of freely expressing emotion - especially for men - men were supposed to be "strong" and not show emotion.

I don't see why suppressing emotion is akin to "lack of self control" or lack of strength. Crying certainly isn't carrying it too far - we show joy and excitement in public in spades - think winning the World Cup or the Olympic Hockey Gold, for example - so why should people show restrain/suppress their emotions when it comes to sorrow? - and why do some consider it admirable to do so?

Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman

[CPCFTW]

No, it isn't a new thing. What might be more "new" is the acceptance of freely expressing emotion - especially for men - men were supposed to be "strong" and not show emotion.

I don't see why suppressing emotion is akin to "lack of self control" or lack of strength. Crying certainly isn't carrying it too far - we show joy and excitement in public in spades - think winning the World Cup or the Olympic Hockey Gold, for example - so why should people show restrain/suppress their emotions when it comes to sorrow? - and why do some consider it admirable to do so?

It's not about considering it admirable, showing restrain., or suppressing emotions Men are just less emotional than women in general. You have to have lived a pretty sheltered life as a man in order to cry over Jack Layton's death. Trust me, I am not fighting back tears in a valiant effort to be manly.

[CPCFTW]

And another thing.. It's not just crying but openly weeping/bawling.

That's just people looking for attention or the "scraped knee" effect I mentioned earlier.

I can honestly say I haven't weeped since I was probably less than 12 years old. And I probably won't again until I lose a parent or sibling or close friend. And when I do, it will probably be alone in my room, not in public on live TV.

Put on some damn sunglasses and let the tears well up in your eyes if you're emotional about Layton's death at his funeral. It doesn't "show strength" to show up bawling your eyes out like a pre-pubescent girl.

Edited August 27, 2011 by CPCFTW

[Guest American Woman]

It's not about considering it admirable, showing restrain., or suppressing emotions Men are just less emotional than women in general. You have to have lived a pretty sheltered life as a man in order to cry over Jack Layton's death. Trust me, I am not fighting back tears in a valiant effort to be manly.

It's not all about you though. It's about those who are upset and crying over Layton's death, whoever they may be. There's criticism being thrown at those who are being "emotional" in such a manner, so I just thought I'd add to the fact that "it's not new" that it's become more acceptable for men to cry. And when I look at men cheering on hockey and the disappointment at the loss of a World Cup or Olympic Gold, for example, I doubt if they're "less emotional" than women. Furthermore, one could say they are living a life lacking in whatever to take a game so seriously. It's all relative - because people are all different - but at the same time, it's the same concept.

Edited to add: And according to g_bambino, it is about showing restraint:

... we're also capable or rational thought and self-control, also thankfully. I say "emotional immaturity" because, as I said in another post a few days ago, there's a relatively new trend of letting self-control fly out the window .....

Edited August 27, 2011 by American Woman