The Kings of Hypocrisy

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, I am not implying that. If you read that into what I write, you are incorrect. You are ignoring the time element. People behave differently at different times in their lives. I am simply accounting for that fact.

Let's try to think about it from another perspective. Did you ever have the power to punish Ted Kennedy? No.

Did I ever have the power to punish Ted Kennedy? No.

What did we and do we have the power to do? We have the power to talk about him and to draw lessons from his life. To do that, we need not and in my view should not pass a final judgment on him, either for good or for ill.

So you can feel that he got away with one until the day you die. You will accomplish nothing by that. I choose to accomplish a little something by acknowledging his moral failings (this is not acting as though nothing had happened) and also pointing out how he seems to have improved his character in his later years. There is a moral and ethical lesson in that, which I choose to draw upon. In fact, I have website under construction where I will be presenting human stories, both real and fictional, for the purpose of illustrating moral and ethical principles. I intend to include Ted Kennedy under the category of redemption because I think that is what his later years represent. This does not mean that he could ever make it up to the Kopechnes. Sometimes redemption is what we do when we’ve done something we can never pay for, never make right. Having grown up as a Christian, I continue to believe that this is one of the things Christianity gets right. However, as Gandhi once said of Christianity (I’m paraphrasing): “sounds like a great idea, they should try it.”

Praising Kennedy for his work as a Senator over nearly five decades is not hypocritical. In civilized society, one does not generally continue to bring up an unsavory event in someone’s past. Boors do that but people with class do not.

You are the one who refuses to acknowledge what happened, in refusing to acknowledge the remainder of his life. We have an obligation to do the right thing at all times. But sometimes we fail, and then we face the question: what do we do now. The only sensible answer is that we move on and try to make a positive contribution. There are people serving life sentences for murder who have redeemed themselves spiritually. Some of them have written inspirational books that others have drawn on for spiritual guidance. Others live lives of service to others while in prison. Good for them. This is a predominantly Christian culture, supposedly, and yet a central teaching of Christianity – forgiveness and redemption – is routinely rejected and even mocked. You may or may not be a Christian, but I see this coming from Christians, and others, here in Kearny and all over the USA all the time. That is hypocrisy.

Finally, just because I am an attorney does not mean that I agree with every aspect of our legal system. I think we are too enamored of the prison system in the United States, which probably explains why we have more prisoners per capita than any other similar country. However, when a person is a danger to society, prison may be our only recourse.

Passing a life sentence of imprisonment does not imply the kind of moral judgment that Jesus of Nazareth is said to have forbidden. Granted, a life sentence implies a judgment that we do not feel safe trusting the person, but that is a necessary judgment motivated by a concern for the community’s safety. By contrast, a moral judgment about Ted Kennedy decades after every legal disposition of the Kopechne matter had been completed, and especially now that he is dead, is unnecessary and merely gratuitous; it is judgment for the sake of judgment alone and as such it serves no good purpose. Such judgments are invitations to sanctimony, which is a form of self-indulgence.

Pithy, Paul, Pithy.

[Guest Guest]

There you go again, whistling Dixie through your butt. Don't you know any other tunes?

How about: Too Dumb's an A$$hole, Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah?

[Guest Guest]

I can handle the truth just fine, thank you. And the truth is that there was evidence in the President's Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 that indicated that Bin Laden was planning an attack. While the exact date of the planned attack was indeed not mentioned in the memo, it was mentioned that (and I quote directly from the briefing itself-you can look it up too if you want)

Here's the quote:

"Nevertheless FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

Now, I am not crazy enough to believe that President Bush could have prevented the attacks. This daily briefing was like many others that indicated potential terrorist attacks (2smart finally got something right.)

I don't mind admitting when my right-wing brethren are right about something.

The problem is that I doubt I would get the same courtesy extended to me when I am right. In fact, I don't have to doubt. I've been right many many times (as have other people) and people call us loonies.

Or am I wrong?

So what? Bin Laden is always planning attacks.

[Guest Keith]

How very erudite of you to share your opinion. And I thought you were on my side all this time.

Sorry about that, I didn't type in all that I had meant to say before I hit submit. I meant to point out that for the right, the term loonie is merely code for asshole. I was in too big of a hurry. Sorry.

[Guest 2smart4u]

No, I am not implying that. If you read that into what I write, you are incorrect. You are ignoring the time element. People behave differently at different times in their lives. I am simply accounting for that fact.

Let's try to think about it from another perspective. Did you ever have the power to punish Ted Kennedy? No.

Did I ever have the power to punish Ted Kennedy? No.

What did we and do we have the power to do? We have the power to talk about him and to draw lessons from his life. To do that, we need not and in my view should not pass a final judgment on him, either for good or for ill.

So you can feel that he got away with one until the day you die. You will accomplish nothing by that. I choose to accomplish a little something by acknowledging his moral failings (this is not acting as though nothing had happened) and also pointing out how he seems to have improved his character in his later years. There is a moral and ethical lesson in that, which I choose to draw upon. In fact, I have website under construction where I will be presenting human stories, both real and fictional, for the purpose of illustrating moral and ethical principles. I intend to include Ted Kennedy under the category of redemption because I think that is what his later years represent. This does not mean that he could ever make it up to the Kopechnes. Sometimes redemption is what we do when we’ve done something we can never pay for, never make right. Having grown up as a Christian, I continue to believe that this is one of the things Christianity gets right. However, as Gandhi once said of Christianity (I’m paraphrasing): “sounds like a great idea, they should try it.”

Praising Kennedy for his work as a Senator over nearly five decades is not hypocritical. In civilized society, one does not generally continue to bring up an unsavory event in someone’s past. Boors do that but people with class do not.

You are the one who refuses to acknowledge what happened, in refusing to acknowledge the remainder of his life. We have an obligation to do the right thing at all times. But sometimes we fail, and then we face the question: what do we do now. The only sensible answer is that we move on and try to make a positive contribution. There are people serving life sentences for murder who have redeemed themselves spiritually. Some of them have written inspirational books that others have drawn on for spiritual guidance. Others live lives of service to others while in prison. Good for them. This is a predominantly Christian culture, supposedly, and yet a central teaching of Christianity – forgiveness and redemption – is routinely rejected and even mocked. You may or may not be a Christian, but I see this coming from Christians, and others, here in Kearny and all over the USA all the time. That is hypocrisy.

Finally, just because I am an attorney does not mean that I agree with every aspect of our legal system. I think we are too enamored of the prison system in the United States, which probably explains why we have more prisoners per capita than any other similar country. However, when a person is a danger to society, prison may be our only recourse.

Passing a life sentence of imprisonment does not imply the kind of moral judgment that Jesus of Nazareth is said to have forbidden. Granted, a life sentence implies a judgment that we do not feel safe trusting the person, but that is a necessary judgment motivated by a concern for the community’s safety. By contrast, a moral judgment about Ted Kennedy decades after every legal disposition of the Kopechne matter had been completed, and especially now that he is dead, is unnecessary and merely gratuitous; it is judgment for the sake of judgment alone and as such it serves no good purpose. Such judgments are invitations to sanctimony, which is a form of self-indulgence.

I've seen it all now. Avowed atheist Paul using Jesus of Nazareth to make a point.

[Guest Guest]

So what? Bin Laden is always planning attacks.

What a lame excuse. The President doesn't get a specific memo of a planned attack in the US every day. It's rare and he has to pay attention.

[Guest guest]

It the Governor of MA was a Republican, I promise you would be SCREAMING for the special election.

I don't live in MA, and don't care how they replace their officials, but when the Dems change the law five years ago for fear of Romney replacing Kerry with another Republican, then that law should apply equally and impartially to all.

Just one set of rules, they can make them, I just think they should abide by them once THEY make them. Sorry if the logic is lost on you. I tried to keep it simple.

I agree with you 100%...... The Democrats like to make and change the rules only when it is suitable to their needs....

[Guest Patriot]

What a lame excuse. The President doesn't get a specific memo of a planned attack in the US every day. It's rare and he has to pay attention.

You must have been part of the presidents inner circle to be privy to that info. I'm impressed.

[Guest Paul]

I've seen it all now. Avowed atheist Paul using Jesus of Nazareth to make a point.

Obviously, you did not understand that point. The judging of Ted Kennedy is coming mainly from people who call themselves Christians, who are hypocritical to pass that kind of judgment on the man.

Moreover, I agree with the lesson in the admonition not to judge others. For me, its virtue has nothing to do with who said it. I have quoted and referred to Jesus of Nazareth many times; also the Buddha, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and many others. Having grown up a Catholic, I am familiar with the teachings attributed to Jesus, many of which are superb in my opinion.

For the record, I consider myself a Humanist - a born-again Humanist, in fact. A respectful person would allow me to avow for myself. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be such a person.

[Guest Guest]

What a lame excuse. The President doesn't get a specific memo of a planned attack in the US every day. It's rare and he has to pay attention.

Really? President Clinton received very specific information on Bin Laden a number of times and could have dealt with him years before 9/11 and didn't.

You'd have probably been right up front, maybe behind Paul, protesting the Bush Administartion if they had done what was necessary to try to prevent 9/11.

[Guest SmKat]

Sorry about that, I didn't type in all that I had meant to say before I hit submit. I meant to point out that for the right, the term loonie is merely code for asshole. I was in too big of a hurry. Sorry.

No worries.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Obviously, you did not understand that point. The judging of Ted Kennedy is coming mainly from people who call themselves Christians, who are hypocritical to pass that kind of judgment on the man.

Moreover, I agree with the lesson in the admonition not to judge others. For me, its virtue has nothing to do with who said it. I have quoted and referred to Jesus of Nazareth many times; also the Buddha, Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and many others. Having grown up a Catholic, I am familiar with the teachings attributed to Jesus, many of which are superb in my opinion.

For the record, I consider myself a Humanist - a born-again Humanist, in fact. A respectful person would allow me to avow for myself. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be such a person.

The point is that you have repeatedly in the past denied the existence of God, claiming to be an atheist. In that context it's odd you would cite Jesus.