The Kings of Hypocrisy

[Guest Guest]

I know Mary Jo Kopechne wasn't able to move on. I imagine her family wasn't able to either.

You can always ignore the point if you want to. And if you want to play that game, the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11/01 because Bush ignored the August 6 memo haven't moved on either.

I'll say it again. When a person does something wrong, eventually everyone has to move on. Some things are so wrong that you don't give that person a second chance. High on my list would be lying a country into a war like Bush and Cheney did. Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge accidentally and then didn't report it. It's bad but there's worse. Right or wrong, he was allowed to remain in the Senate - and he used the chance to compile one of the greatest Senate records in history.

So you continue being a one-note child. The American people learned to respect Senator Kennedy, especially most of his colleagues from both parties.

[Guest Guest]

Come on Paul, do we really need to play lawyer word games. The victim is compensated but the money comes from the doctors, insurance companies, and drug companies.

I have know problem when someone has a legitimate claim. I just wonder how many true claims there are.

Isn't it interesting that every time you don't have an answer, you accuse someone else and change the subject. Instead of calling is a "lawyer word game," why not just admit that you don't have a good answer?

Yeah, the money comes from doctors, insurance companies and drug companies. So?

[Guest Paul]

I don't know Paul, what is the point? A person does all this f**ked up stuff in their life yet goes on to live like a king and everybody loves them. It doesn't matter how much wreckage they leave in their wake. Please explain it to me.

If that was done to your child wouldn't you seek justice? Do you think the Kopechne family received justice?

A family who loses a daughter like that never gets justice, no matter what anyone does. If she had been my daughter, I probably would have sued Kennedy. I don't think the Kopechnes did. That was their choice. If they had sued him, I doubt that it would have changed his public career. But either way, they would have had to make their choice before the Statute of Limitations ran; and then once the case was over, it would have been over. Kennedy could still have served in the US Senate.

There’s a fundamental principle in law, which holds that once an issue is addressed and the resolution of that issue is carried out, the matter is considered closed. In criminal law, it’s called paying one’s debt to society. In the civil law, the person just pays the amount of the Judgment. This is a very important principle because it allows people to return to society as productive members instead of being placed on the outside for the remainder of their lives.

In 1969, Kennedy’s conduct may have merited jail or prison time, a civil suit by Kopechne’s relatives and expulsion from the Senate. You can make an excellent argument for every point, though generally with this offense, a first offender will not be incarcerated. After it happened, Kennedy asked the people of Massachusetts whether he should resign; overwhelmingly they said no, they wanted him to remain in office.

Fast forward ten years, to 1979. Kennedy now has ten more years’ experience in the Senate. He’s hasn’t committed any more crimes. You seem to be suggesting that the past should be carried forever. In a way, it was: the incident at Chappaquiddick certainly reduced Kennedy’s chance of ever becoming president. To that extent, it’s appropriate that the people take old behavior into account. Or the people of Massachusetts could have declined to re-elect him; but they didn’t.

Fast forward another fifteen years, to 1994. By this time, Kennedy has remarried. By all accounts, his second marriage has stabilized his character. He is beginning to be regarded as one of our great historic Senators. He’s contributing to society. You don’t at that point demand to turn the clock back and revisit the decisions that were made 25 years earlier. People change and they grow - at least we hope so. By all appearances, he did. You don't suddenly punish a person after he has turned his life around.

Fast forward to 2009. Kennedy has died, and here you come to dig up this old skeleton and complain that he was treated too favorably.

Maybe he was. In fact, let’s just say for the sake of argument that he was. The point remains that you don’t revisit old history decades after the fact, especially when the person has by that time become an outstanding citizen and a national leader, highly regarded by colleagues from both parties. You let him continue to make his contribution to society. That’s why I asked you what point is to be served by demonizing him now. I don’t think you gave much of an answer.

[Guest Paul]

Come on Paul, do we really need to play lawyer word games. The victim is compensated but the money comes from the doctors, insurance companies, and drug companies.

I have know problem when someone has a legitimate claim. I just wonder how many true claims there are.

National studies show that there are more than 100,000 instances of actionable malpractice in the United States every year - cases where a doctor or hospital messed up badly and caused a serious injury. Most of the cases are never brought, for the simple reason that most people never retain an attorney.

My being a lawyer isn't a valid excuse for when you don't have a good answer. You may not wish to accept it, but the fact is that the purpose of the tort system is to compensate the injured parties, not to punish the tortfeasors. I get your point: you think it's punitive by virtue of their having to pay. But we have to make a choice whether we will uphold the right of an injured person to seek redress. Their interests matter, too, as you acknowledge.

[Guest Guest]

You can always ignore the point if you want to. And if you want to play that game, the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11/01 because Bush ignored the August 6 memo haven't moved on either.

I'll say it again. When a person does something wrong, eventually everyone has to move on. Some things are so wrong that you don't give that person a second chance. High on my list would be lying a country into a war like Bush and Cheney did. Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge accidentally and then didn't report it. It's bad but there's worse. Right or wrong, he was allowed to remain in the Senate - and he used the chance to compile one of the greatest Senate records in history.

So you continue being a one-note child. The American people learned to respect Senator Kennedy, especially most of his colleagues from both parties.

What exactly did you want Bush to do? Shut down the air travel. Even after 9/11 people still gripe about the security waits at the airport. You won't let the government profile either, so how exactly was that attack supposed to be stopped?

If Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they didn't do it alone, they had the help of congress also. If they were after oil, where ist it? We should be swimming in it. Why don't you ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they've moved on?

Kennedy himself said his actions that night were inexcusable. He basically got away with murder and then went on with his charmed life.

[Guest Guest]

What exactly did you want Bush to do? Shut down the air travel. Even after 9/11 people still gripe about the security waits at the airport. You won't let the government profile either, so how exactly was that attack supposed to be stopped?

If Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they didn't do it alone, they had the help of congress also. If they were after oil, where ist it? We should be swimming in it. Why don't you ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they've moved on?

Kennedy himself said his actions that night were inexcusable. He basically got away with murder and then went on with his charmed life.

What a lame response!

1. The 9/11 attacks were planned and coordinated. The "pilots" of the four hijacked planes had all taken flying lessons in the United States. They were in regular contact with each other. The activity wasn't that hard to monitor.

2. Bush and Cheney cooked the intelligence and then fed it to Congress. You can blame Congress for not realizing that the President and Vice President were liars but the primary blame lies with the liars and instigators.

3. They have the oil. We're not going to swim in it because that would mean increased supply and lower prices, which is not what Bush's and Cheney's oil-rich friends want. They're going to control supplies to keep the prices up.

4. I don't have to ask the 9/11 victims' families whether they have moved on. I wouldn't be that insensitive, or that stupid. Do you think they have moved on?

5. Ted Kennedy did not murder anyone. You can blame him for driving off the bridge accidentally and then for not reporting it. But he did not murder anyone. That accusation is unfounded.

[Guest Guest]

The last time I checked I hadn't left anyone to drown in a car and not reported it for 10 hours. You're talking like the guy stole a piece of candy from a store when he was a kid. The man spent his life pulling this kind of nonsense all the time. From cheating on exams at college to almost constant drinking and partying. Don't forget to throw in some allegations of being present during a rape. And this is only the stuff the public hears about. Then silly people like you are willing to give him a pass because he spent decades living the high life as a U.S. Senator.

Maybe you can explain Bush cozying up to Qaddafi, head of a government KNOWN to have sponsored the mass murder of Americans, yet HE is allowed to buy his way free from guilt, while Hussein, who did NOTHING to Americans, is deposed?

Or should we just chalk it up to typican NeoConfused hypocrisy?

[Guest 2smart4u]

What exactly did you want Bush to do? Shut down the air travel. Even after 9/11 people still gripe about the security waits at the airport. You won't let the government profile either, so how exactly was that attack supposed to be stopped?

If Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they didn't do it alone, they had the help of congress also. If they were after oil, where ist it? We should be swimming in it. Why don't you ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they've moved on?

Kennedy himself said his actions that night were inexcusable. He basically got away with murder and then went on with his charmed life.

The "Aug. 6 memo" is the big myth the loony left trots out whenever they lie about Bush. In reality there was no memo on that date or any other date that warned of any specific attacks. Bush got daily briefings which always contained rumors of various threats that the CIA, FBI and NSA intercepted.

The Aug. 6 memo was like many others, warning of an imminent attack. With no information as to where, when or how this attack was to happen, there was little anyone could do other than to keep everyone on alert.

Of course, facts are unimportant to the Loonies when they have a myth they can perpetuate.

[Guest Keith]

The "Aug. 6 memo" is the big myth the loony left trots out whenever they lie about Bush. In reality there was no memo on that date or any other date that warned of any specific attacks. Bush got daily briefings which always contained rumors of various threats that the CIA, FBI and NSA intercepted.

The Aug. 6 memo was like many others, warning of an imminent attack. With no information as to where, when or how this attack was to happen, there was little anyone could do other than to keep everyone on alert.

Of course, facts are unimportant to the Loonies when they have a myth they can perpetuate.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass you racist piece of shit!

[Guest SmKat]

The "Aug. 6 memo" is the big myth the loony left trots out whenever they lie about Bush. In reality there was no memo on that date or any other date that warned of any specific attacks. Bush got daily briefings which always contained rumors of various threats that the CIA, FBI and NSA intercepted.

The Aug. 6 memo was like many others, warning of an imminent attack. With no information as to where, when or how this attack was to happen, there was little anyone could do other than to keep everyone on alert.

Of course, facts are unimportant to the Loonies when they have a myth they can perpetuate.

And facts are so very important to you, right? God you're pathetic. Take a look back at all the times people have presented YOU with facts to defeat your idiocy. You've been proven wrong time and time and time again and still you spew your crap. For anyone interested, I proved him wrong yet again a few minutes ago in another discussion.

Part of me thinks that you're someone that is paid to keep the madness going on this forum. No one can be as ignorant as you appear to be. If you are really this way, part of me feels sorry for you. What a miserable, lonely life you must have.

[Guest Guest]

What a lame response!

1. The 9/11 attacks were planned and coordinated. The "pilots" of the four hijacked planes had all taken flying lessons in the United States. They were in regular contact with each other. The activity wasn't that hard to monitor.

2. Bush and Cheney cooked the intelligence and then fed it to Congress. You can blame Congress for not realizing that the President and Vice President were liars but the primary blame lies with the liars and instigators.

3. They have the oil. We're not going to swim in it because that would mean increased supply and lower prices, which is not what Bush's and Cheney's oil-rich friends want. They're going to control supplies to keep the prices up.

4. I don't have to ask the 9/11 victims' families whether they have moved on. I wouldn't be that insensitive, or that stupid. Do you think they have moved on?

5. Ted Kennedy did not murder anyone. You can blame him for driving off the bridge accidentally and then for not reporting it. But he did not murder anyone. That accusation is unfounded.

Wow, paranoia running wild! Next you're going to tell me that Bush had the World Trade Center buildings demolished by explosives. One minute your claiming Bush is too stupid to get out of his own way and the next you've got him leading the largest plot in history.

I guess you've got me, technically Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo. But he did drive his car into the water, probably because he was loaded, and left her to die. Did you know she may have survived in an air pocket for quite awhile after the accident? I guess Kennedy was too busy saving himself to get help. What character he had. If that was your relative in that car I doubt that you think he was such a great man.

[Guest Guest]

A family who loses a daughter like that never gets justice, no matter what anyone does. If she had been my daughter, I probably would have sued Kennedy. I don't think the Kopechnes did. That was their choice. If they had sued him, I doubt that it would have changed his public career. But either way, they would have had to make their choice before the Statute of Limitations ran; and then once the case was over, it would have been over. Kennedy could still have served in the US Senate.

There’s a fundamental principle in law, which holds that once an issue is addressed and the resolution of that issue is carried out, the matter is considered closed. In criminal law, it’s called paying one’s debt to society. In the civil law, the person just pays the amount of the Judgment. This is a very important principle because it allows people to return to society as productive members instead of being placed on the outside for the remainder of their lives.

In 1969, Kennedy’s conduct may have merited jail or prison time, a civil suit by Kopechne’s relatives and expulsion from the Senate. You can make an excellent argument for every point, though generally with this offense, a first offender will not be incarcerated. After it happened, Kennedy asked the people of Massachusetts whether he should resign; overwhelmingly they said no, they wanted him to remain in office.

Fast forward ten years, to 1979. Kennedy now has ten more years’ experience in the Senate. He’s hasn’t committed any more crimes. You seem to be suggesting that the past should be carried forever. In a way, it was: the incident at Chappaquiddick certainly reduced Kennedy’s chance of ever becoming president. To that extent, it’s appropriate that the people take old behavior into account. Or the people of Massachusetts could have declined to re-elect him; but they didn’t.

Fast forward another fifteen years, to 1994. By this time, Kennedy has remarried. By all accounts, his second marriage has stabilized his character. He is beginning to be regarded as one of our great historic Senators. He’s contributing to society. You don’t at that point demand to turn the clock back and revisit the decisions that were made 25 years earlier. People change and they grow - at least we hope so. By all appearances, he did. You don't suddenly punish a person after he has turned his life around.

Fast forward to 2009. Kennedy has died, and here you come to dig up this old skeleton and complain that he was treated too favorably.

Maybe he was. In fact, let’s just say for the sake of argument that he was. The point remains that you don’t revisit old history decades after the fact, especially when the person has by that time become an outstanding citizen and a national leader, highly regarded by colleagues from both parties. You let him continue to make his contribution to society. That’s why I asked you what point is to be served by demonizing him now. I don’t think you gave much of an answer.

The thread is about hypocrisy. And I think that Ted Kennedy has been treated too favorably for his whole life. But it is nice to see that you would drill the guy for everything you could get if he did that to your daughter.

[Guest Guest]

Wow, paranoia running wild! Next you're going to tell me that Bush had the World Trade Center buildings demolished by explosives. One minute your claiming Bush is too stupid to get out of his own way and the next you've got him leading the largest plot in history.

Whoa! You should learn to read. The 9/11 attacks were coordinated - by the terrorists. I didn't say Bush did it. Because they were coordinated, they were easier to detect. That was the point.

I guess you've got me, technically Kennedy didn't kill Mary Jo. But he did drive his car into the water, probably because he was loaded, and left her to die. Did you know she may have survived in an air pocket for quite awhile after the accident? I guess Kennedy was too busy saving himself to get help. What character he had. If that was your relative in that car I doubt that you think he was such a great man.

Yes, I did get you. You made an over-the-top statement that Kennedy committed murder. He did not. Then you speculate about what might have happened. That's not proof either, is it. He didn't have great character at that time. He also cheated in college. But then he lived another forty years, during which he improved his character and contributed to our country. That's a good thing. Why is it so hard for you to accept? Why do you absolutely insist on rendering a final judgment on a person, especially now that he is gone?

[Guest Paul]

The thread is about hypocrisy.

Whose hypocrisy are you talking about? Kennedy’s? After Chappaquiddick, what better choice did he have, except to go on and do the best he could? It went in fits and starts but overall he improved his character and served his country. That’s not hypocrisy.

His supporters’? No doubt some of them are hypocrites, just as many right-wing Republicans are hypocrites. But there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about recognizing Kennedy’s flaws and still thinking he did a good job serving his country in his later years.

So where’s the hypocrisy? I’m not saying there isn’t any. There’s some hypocrisy in all of us. I’m just asking you what you’re referring to.

I’m also asking what is the point of judging Ted Kennedy, or anyone else, up or down? Not only do I see no point in that, I think it’s harmful. I can learn something from just about anyone’s life, both the good and the bad. That isn’t served by thinking in black and white terms or by failing to distinguish the present and future from the past. To me, that’s just useless sanctimony.

Oddly, this is exactly what Jesus is said to have forbidden, and yet we see many people who call themselves Christians leading the judgment charge. That’s hypocrisy. And don’t accuse me of voting the perpetrators up or down because I’m not; I’m just saying that if this is a basic precept of one’s religion, then not following it represents a serious departure from what one claims to believe. And since this is going on right now, asking people to conform to their own standards is an important thing to do. In other words, Kennedy is dead, the people judging him are alive. It’s more important, and more useful, to examine our own conduct today than it is to judge a dead man. That’s my point.

[Guest Guest]

Whoa! You should learn to read. The 9/11 attacks were coordinated - by the terrorists. I didn't say Bush did it. Because they were coordinated, they were easier to detect. That was the point.

I said that next you were going to tell me Bush did it. What exactly was supposed to be done to detect theses activities? In a free society are you going to track every person that takes some flying lessons or buys Microsoft's Flight Simulator? You'd be the first one saying your rights were being violated.

Yes, I did get you. You made an over-the-top statement that Kennedy committed murder. He did not. Then you speculate about what might have happened. That's not proof either, is it. He didn't have great character at that time. He also cheated in college. But then he lived another forty years, during which he improved his character and contributed to our country. That's a good thing. Why is it so hard for you to accept? Why do you absolutely insist on rendering a final judgment on a person, especially now that he is gone?

It's not over the top at all. What's over the top is everyone putting him on par with the founders. Kennedy's actions that night directly led to a persons death. I'm not speculating at all; Kennedy drove off the road into the water, saved himself, and left another person to drown, then he didn't report it for several hours. That's quite a character flaw. He was probably pissed at himself for loosing out on some trim. Was he loaded? I guess you've got me there, but given his history and the fact that he was driving after a party I'd say there was a pretty good chance he was lit. It's hard to accept because I think people should pay for their crimes and I think Kennedy skated. I just feel like there are so many other people that could be used as examples of a life well lived.

[Guest Guest]

And facts are so very important to you, right? God you're pathetic. Take a look back at all the times people have presented YOU with facts to defeat your idiocy. You've been proven wrong time and time and time again and still you spew your crap. For anyone interested, I proved him wrong yet again a few minutes ago in another discussion.

Part of me thinks that you're someone that is paid to keep the madness going on this forum. No one can be as ignorant as you appear to be. If you are really this way, part of me feels sorry for you. What a miserable, lonely life you must have.

I notice you totally dodged 2smart's post. No answer for it? Or you can't handle the truth?

[Guest Guest]

Whose hypocrisy are you talking about? Kennedy’s? After Chappaquiddick, what better choice did he have, except to go on and do the best he could? It went in fits and starts but overall he improved his character and served his country. That’s not hypocrisy.

His supporters’? No doubt some of them are hypocrites, just as many right-wing Republicans are hypocrites. But there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about recognizing Kennedy’s flaws and still thinking he did a good job serving his country in his later years.

So where’s the hypocrisy? I’m not saying there isn’t any. There’s some hypocrisy in all of us. I’m just asking you what you’re referring to.

I’m also asking what is the point of judging Ted Kennedy, or anyone else, up or down? Not only do I see no point in that, I think it’s harmful. I can learn something from just about anyone’s life, both the good and the bad. That isn’t served by thinking in black and white terms or by failing to distinguish the present and future from the past. To me, that’s just useless sanctimony.

Oddly, this is exactly what Jesus is said to have forbidden, and yet we see many people who call themselves Christians leading the judgment charge. That’s hypocrisy. And don’t accuse me of voting the perpetrators up or down because I’m not; I’m just saying that if this is a basic precept of one’s religion, then not following it represents a serious departure from what one claims to believe. And since this is going on right now, asking people to conform to their own standards is an important thing to do. In other words, Kennedy is dead, the people judging him are alive. It’s more important, and more useful, to examine our own conduct today than it is to judge a dead man. That’s my point.

It's the hypocrisy of people condeming him at the time and now him praising like nothing happened.

It's difficult to understand you. You work in a field where people are judged up and down all of the time. Sometime those judgements cost people a lifetime of freedom or their life itself. Then you say it's wrong to judge. My point is that Kennedy got away with a big one (and many others over the years) and went on with his life like nothing happened. I feel that's wrong.

You're implying that we can do whatever bad thing that we want to do as long as we balance it out with good acts.

[Guest SmKat]

I notice you totally dodged 2smart's post. No answer for it? Or you can't handle the truth?

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?

[Guest Keith]

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?

No,no no.... you're not a loonie. Your an asshole!

[Guest Paul]

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?

We don't know that the 9/11 attacks could not have been prevented. We do know that nothing can be accomplished without trying. We know that the Bush administration did not try to stop this.

The information the FBI had about "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings" wasn't general. It was specific. It should have been followed closely. If it had been, this is a specific enough description of what was going on that there is a high likelihood the attacks would have been prevented - certainly a better chance than if the warning is ignored.

The point is that Bush ignored a high-level warning that was sent to him for a very good and important reason. That is inexcusable.

[Guest 2smart4u]

We don't know that the 9/11 attacks could not have been prevented. We do know that nothing can be accomplished without trying. We know that the Bush administration did not try to stop this.

The information the FBI had about "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings" wasn't general. It was specific. It should have been followed closely. If it had been, this is a specific enough description of what was going on that there is a high likelihood the attacks would have been prevented - certainly a better chance than if the warning is ignored.

The point is that Bush ignored a high-level warning that was sent to him for a very good and important reason. That is inexcusable.

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

[Guest Guest]

It's not over the top at all. What's over the top is everyone putting him on par with the founders.

Who put him on a par with the founders? That would just be another meaningless comparison. His life speaks for itself, both good and bad. No comparison is needed.

I'm not speculating at all; Kennedy drove off the road into the water, saved himself, and left another person to drown, then he didn't report it for several hours. That's quite a character flaw.

Yes it is quite a character flaw. No one says otherwise. You're not listening.

But you do not know that he left her to drown. According to him, he tried to save her and could not. You have no reason to doubt that. You're exaggerating again, which proves yet again that you are not looking at this objectively.

He was probably pissed at himself for loosing out on some trim. Was he loaded? I guess you've got me there, but given his history and the fact that he was driving after a party I'd say there was a pretty good chance he was lit.

But you don't know any of that, so it would be wrong to punish him or hold it against him.

It's hard to accept because I think people should pay for their crimes and I think Kennedy skated.

Maybe he did but how long do you continue to harp on this?

I just feel like there are so many other people that could be used as examples of a life well lived.

So use them. Start a topic and post an example of an extraordinary person every day. That would be constructive. But somewhere on that list is Ted Kennedy, who demonstrated how a person can grow, mature and lead an extraordinary life after having some major problems of his own making. We can learn from that, too, and whether you will admit it or not, he did contribute to our country and he won the respect and admiration of his colleagues, including the Republicans. Don't you think maybe they knew him better than you do?

What does it take to get people to see things for what they are and not just what you've made up your mind they are?

[Guest Guest]

It's the hypocrisy of people condeming him at the time and now him praising like nothing happened.

It's difficult to understand you. You work in a field where people are judged up and down all of the time. Sometime those judgements cost people a lifetime of freedom or their life itself. Then you say it's wrong to judge. My point is that Kennedy got away with a big one (and many others over the years) and went on with his life like nothing happened. I feel that's wrong.

You're implying that we can do whatever bad thing that we want to do as long as we balance it out with good acts.

He's not saying that. Read what he writes instead of feeding your own biases into it.

[Guest Paul]

It's the hypocrisy of people condeming him at the time and now him praising like nothing happened.

It's difficult to understand you. You work in a field where people are judged up and down all of the time. Sometime those judgements cost people a lifetime of freedom or their life itself. Then you say it's wrong to judge. My point is that Kennedy got away with a big one (and many others over the years) and went on with his life like nothing happened. I feel that's wrong.

You're implying that we can do whatever bad thing that we want to do as long as we balance it out with good acts.

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.

[Guest SmKat]

No,no no.... you're not a loonie. Your an asshole!

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