http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2009/08/ … neral.html
Do you think it was appropriate to pray for health care for everyone at Kennedy's funeral mass?
Personally I thought it was extremely distasteful and was appalled that one of his grandsons was used as a pawn to push the current legislation stalled in the house and meeting increasing opposition by the American people!
It's disgraceful how politicians will use this sort of thing in order to push their agendas. Still it's the fault of the American people. We let our kids be taught that you really can get something for nothing and forgot to mention to them that hard work will get you ahead in life, so now we have kids that grow up more and more immature, in arrested development. A nation of eternal adolescents.
Just as the country put into effect the civil rights legislation that JFK had been pushing for after his death -- as a tribute to him, there is a parallel with his brother EMK. Ted Kennedy worked for many causes over the years. Many have admitted that with Kennedy sidelined with brain cancer the current healthcare reform has suffered.
What else would you expect at the funeral of a CAREER POLITICIAN? Of COURSE it's going to be politicized. And healthcare for all Americans just happened to be one of Ted Kennedy's pet projects.
When his sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver died and they tied it in with the Special Olympics was that a problem for you people? I doubt it.
I was too young to pay attention, but I am 99.99% sure that when Martin Luther King died they talked about civil rights -- his legacy -- at his funeral. When you are talking about a man (or woman) whose life has been devoted to a cause, why would you shy away from that fact in eulogizing him/her?
What would you who have such a problem with this prefer be said or done?
Um, Kennedy wasn't pushing for civil rights legislation. In fact, he was in Dallas trying to shore up support among southern Democrats who are opposed the civil rights laws that were being debated in Congress at the time. You've bought the misconception that just because JFK was murdered, he was really just white knight in shining armor that was going to solve all of our countries ills. In fact, had it not been for Kennedy's death, the legislation may never passed. Not due to Republican opposition, mind you, but due to Democratic opposition. But then again who reads history anymore?
Actually I find it kind of funny that they would use the senator's death as an excuse to get up in campaign some more. In a sick kind of way, it's really fitting, proving once again that most politicians are self-serving scum. As for Eunice Kennedy Shriver, that was a bit different. The Special Olympics is a charity, which means that you can choose to support that charity or not. Government run universal healthcare, on the other hand, is involuntary. Should it be passed, you won't have a choice but to participate in it. That's the difference, I know it's kind of subtle and you might not understand it, but there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary support something.
Honestly, if those people had any shame whatsoever, they would've had a very restrained funeral, one that did not elicit very much attention. To give you an example from history, Pope Pius XII held that office during the Holocaust. Some people have considered him a collaborator, which I believe is unfair. The reason being, is that his tune, unlike those of other popes is very restrained, even hidden under the Vatican. The fact that he did this, speaks volumes about what he must have thought about his actions, or more importantly inactions during his reign as Pope. Likewise, Ted Kennedy should have been shamed for his actions, or more to the point, inaction during his tenure as a politician. In looking over Sen. Kennedy's life one finds it hard to pinpoint any to take your event in which he redeemed himself for Chappaquiddick. Again, something else speaks volumes about the character of a person.
"You People"??? What is that supposed to mean?
You better be careful there, Misha. Just yesterday I defended you as NOT being a Commie:-)!
Politicizing Kennedy's funeral is essentially an honor to him; it was the biggest part of his life. It may come across as distasteful to some, but that is truly what any career politician would want and obviously his family felt comfortable with. I've been to several lower-key 'political' funerals and there is always mention of the deceased's work with whatever cause or goal. It's what they'd want. IMO, it is really no different than a person working with a charity or organization their whole life and having that mentioned at their funeral.
Talking about one's life and their accomplishment and unrealized goals is one thing, praying for passage of the health care bill is something different entirely and using one's grandchild to do it even lower!
Poppa -- You People means the people here on the Forum who are espousing the view that Ted Kennedy's funeral should not have mentioned health care reform. Who did you think it referred to?
Shall I name you by name? You, LDT, Madame X, Maven 101
Ledefensetech -- You said, "Government run universal healthcare, on the other hand, is involuntary. Should it be passed, you won't have a choice but to participate in it. That's the difference, I know it's kind of subtle and you might not understand it, but there is a difference between voluntary and involuntary support something."
Yes, I am way too stupid to understand such subtle differences between voluntary and involuntary. Maybe I should ask for my money back from Wellesley as they obviously did not teach me anything.
Thanks anyway, but I do not need either history lessons from you or an explanation of how government run universal healthcare works. God forbid you ever find yourself in the position of 47 million + Americans who cannot obtain health insurance. Oh wait, since you are obviously so perfect in mind and body (or think you are) maybe you could VOLUNTARILY give up your own coverage for someone who needs it.Oh no. Silly MM. That would require a heart, which you demonstrate on a daily basis you are lacking. You are a condescending, little prig.
PS. If the people of Massachusetts saw fit to reelect Ted Kennedy all these years, they obviously looked past Chappaquidick. Who the f^# are you to sit in judgment?
Why the personal attacks, MM?
As for the people of MA, re-electing Kennedy for all those years says it all. Kennedy was a murderer who got off scot free because of his money and connections. That stinks. If it was one of us peasants we'd probably still be in jail. AND, if he was a republican, the liberal outrage would deafening.
How do you explain so many Republican's being good friends with him and respecting him so much? Including Ronald Reagan?
Good question, I wouldn't have fancied being mates with the drunk, lecherous, terrorist supporter, myself.
This is only a "Devil's Advocate" type of response, but one explanation could be that a lot of Republicans aren't much better than a lot of Democrats when it comes to character. I think a whole lot of people in higher levels (and lower levels) of government are the type who believe in overlooking "personal weaknesses" and "mistakes in judgment". There's a lot of "kettles" in Congress who are, I'm guessing, a little reluctant to be "really picky" about the color of any of the "pots".
Screw you MM, I am one of those uninsured and have diabetes to boot. So piss off. I however, won't sacrifice the future of this nation to pay for something today, especially when people are ignorant of the true causes of the rising costs of healthcare. It would seem that for all of your supposedly great education, they neglected to teach you simple economics. You might want to get your money back, they obviously didn't educate you.
10 million of those 47 million can afford insurance and CHOOSE not to buy it! Forcing them to purchase insurance against their will is morally wrong! The mandate on small business to provide health insurance for their workers is estimated to result in a loss of 5.2 million jobs! Do Americans have a right to employment? Will government mandate that next? Where will the money come from to employ all Americans? Wiil it come from government profits from health insurance?
I know it's a ridiculous notion, but after all the governmnet does own quite a few businesses these days! Health care for all that want it can be accomplished, but it won't be by the government!
Another 10 million or so are illegal aliens. Another 5 million or so are already covered by other programs like medicaid. The numbers have been cooked by the left.
The bill says that it will impose an 8% tax on (small) businesses that do not provide some sort of coverage. Ok, so they'll START with 8%, much in the same vein as the income tax started in 1912 at only 1% and only "for the rich". They can then increase that tax and destroy small business at will. Gee, sounds great . . .
According to Nancy Reagan, Ted and Ronnie were personal friends. Orrin Hatch was a personal friend, who disagreed politically but was a good friend. I kept hearing others talk about their friendship.
And all those parents of children who died in the war, whose funerals Kennedy attended and kept in touch with the families to see how they were coping. Most of that was done out of the public eye. That is a lot of why he kept being reelected, because he went to bat for his people.
"Those sitting vigil in one-hour shifts include the family of Brian Hart, who was killed in an unarmored Humvee in Iraq. After Hart's death, Kennedy worked with his relatives to seek more body armor for troops."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art … wD9ABFRAG5
He called everyone in his state who had had someone they love die on 9/11 and kept in touch with them.
How is that for inaction?
There is more.
He had his good side, as you point out. But using his funeral to push a bill of growing unpopularity is sordid.
This thread is getting too touchy feely Better than kitten pictures...
Hello? Ted Kennedy is dead. He did not use his funeral for any purpose, low or otherwise. His family organized the funeral they thought most befitting of him personally and professionally (which in his case were intertwined).
He did not "use" his nieces and nephews for anything. They volunteered to read.
If the legislation in question happened to be legislation you personally favor (Poppa, Madame, et al)would this be a non-issue? In other words, is it using a funeral as a platform for ANY legislation what is irking you? Or is it just that you personally oppose this particular legislation? Just curious.
Using a funeral for as a platform for any legislation is immoral. Unlike you, some of us are consistent and live our lives according to our values, not just supporting those things which benefit us.
I'm one of those people. With the amount of tax my OH, my parents and I pay between us, we'd be better off without national health care here in the UK.
But we'd only be better off in purely financial terms.
Hey girly, long time no see. Yeah, we've discussed that before and I applaud your actions. I still think there are more efficient ways to things like that, but again that's your decision and I respect that.
And what are your plans, LDT, since you have no health insurance? You said you have diabetes?
Well between school and getting a job, I should be able to lash something together. Luckily I'm Type 2 and as long as I watch what I eat I can control it pretty well. Thank God for the Wal-Mart $4 prescriptions. They also have an HbA1c test for $9, which I need to do every three months or so. My fiance will be doing the test with me and comparing her results from the $9 test with what she gets from her doctor. Should they be pretty close, I can be sure that the results I'm getting are pretty accurate.
Otherwise I have to pay about $250 for blood tests every three months in addition to whatever the doctor's visit will cost me.
Regardless of who set it up, it's sick and twisted to exploit children during a solemn Catholic ceremony to gain political points.
I'm sure he does not feel like he was exploited. God forbid, praying that people have health care...the bastards!
God forbid you read the transcript or listen to the ceremony. it was hardly a generic plea for a morally correct social movement.
I actually watched the entire funeral.
They were not exploited...they each read quotes from their grandfather/uncle. He did not say "please get the health reform bill that President Obama is pushing through" he said "as my grandfather said... that every American will have decent quality health care as a fundamental right and not as a priviledge."
I resent your implication MM. It would be sordid no matter what legislation it was.
LOL, Ledefensetech. Marshall Goldman is one of the most famous econ professors in the country and guess where he happens to teach?
47 million people can afford health insurance and choose not to buy it? Where in the hell did you get that idea? Define "afford" How about if you are making $2,000 a month and your health insurance premium for your family is $1,400. Is that something you can "afford" and still feed and shelter your family? Not really.
But the reality is, with health insurance in the greedy hands of the PROFIT MAKING insurance companies, they are denying coverage to millions of Americans based on the fact that they don't want to have to actually pay out any claims. You see, they want you to pay in your monthly premium but they bank on the fact you won't actually get sick. So if you even once went to a doctor and your blood pressure was elevated? Guess what -- your application for health insurance will be DENIED.
Don't tell me that anywhere close to a majority of Americans want and can afford health insurance unless their employer offers it.
And the point is, providing health insurance for employees should not be a burden on employers either!
Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics, but he's still an idiot. What's your point? MM, you need to read more. The problem with healthcare is that the supply of doctors, etc. is restricted. By government intervention no less. Remove those and presto! costs of healthcare go down. The only downside would be doctors would make less money, heck you're all against evil "profiteering", you should be able to get behind such a program. Are you sure you got a good value for your education? I'd be asking for my money back if I were you.
Providing health insurance should not be a burden on employers? Where exactly is the money going to come from. People don't work for free, don't you know, they have families to support too. So where does the money come from?
PS I believe he said 10 million of the 47 million uninsured don't choose to have healthcare. That leaves 37 million that can't afford it. Are you sure you got a good education?
I see this is turning into another health care debate. I found this interesting article today:
http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/pol … form2.html
That's nice. So does a Fox News article. It works both ways.
Gag! I just tried to read it. Even the headlines are biased. You seriously can't take that drivel seriously.
Here's the title:
"Health Care Reform: The Assault on Truth"
That's not biased!
Ok. So now you are calling the Kennedy family IMMORAL because they chose to say things at their dead family member's funeral that you believe are against some moral code -- even though those things relate directly to what Ted Kennedy believed in and wanted for this country, which he had served for decades. And the fact that the funeral was a Catholic mass is relevant how? Only in that the Kennedys are Catholics. And if the presiding Catholic officiants had no problem with what was read, how can it be a problem? Or immoral in the Catholic (or really, even true "Christian" sense of the word?)
LDT: Once again, you are sitting on some high throne looking down making statements that have no basis in anything but your highly inflated opinion of yourself.
You said: Unlike you, some of us are consistent and live our lives according to our values, not just supporting those things which benefit us."
You know absolutely nothing about me, my values, how consistenly I live my life or anything else.
WTF "not just supporting those things which benefit us?" Us who?
I have tried to stay off the Kennedy thread because it is just way too hypocritical in some ways. Many of Kennedy's supporters have even told me they had a hard time forgiving him for Mary Jo, which goes to show people do not see this as Kennedy as 100% absolved for what he did. Yes he acted wrong, but we cannot change the past. People can learn not to do what he did, and I am sure it was a good life lesson for many. However, he has done a great deal to help further civil rights in this country, and I think he can be respected for the contribution he did make. The Kennedy family has every right to speak well of their dead father, uncle, grandfather, and why should they have to feel bad about that. Some things are just way too politicized if you ask me.
Never, in a million years, would I ever go home, sleep it off, and return 10 hours later to "see if" someone I left in a car under water needed my help.
I am referring to wild men in politics that like to drink and drive. There are quite a few, and I highly doubted you fell into this category. Anyway, I think people dwell way too much on the demons of Kennedy's past. He is dead now, so there is no going back and fixing it.
You're right, he's dead, but look at the hypocrisy he engaged in during his lifetime. He literally had the power of life or death over people and this is how he comported himself. Personally I believe we give too much power to our politicians, nobody is trustworthy enough for that kind of power. Kennedy is a perfect example of why we should not give such people access to that much power. That is the lesson to take away from all of this.
No you can't go back and fix it. But people are still outraged over his unofficial "acquittal".
I'm not sure how to navigate through this moral dilemna. I'm going to watch Glenn Beck then Kieth Olbermann and see who makes the most convincing case.
I'll be back tommorrow.
haaha. OBVIOUSLY a joke. And a very funny one considering the crowd, too. !
My humble apologies to Poppa. He did say 10 million of the 47 million. Thank you for that correction.
I still question that number and how "afforable" health care really is for anyone currently.
And I also worry about even 37 million Americans going without health insurance -- I believe we all deserve access to quality health care without worrying that we will have to file bankruptcy if we find ourselves underinsured.
Guess it's just a different priority.
Too bad the USA pissed away so many billions of dollars in Iraq. That "war" (or was it a crusade for democracy -- I always get those things confused) could have bought a lot of healthcare.
It's not even 37 million. Subtract illegal aliens and also folks who already have Medicaid coverage.
MM, you keep bumping up against the insurance thing. There is no real economic reason we need insurance to go see a doctor. For major surgeries or emergencies, sure. Like house, fire and auto, insurance should be used to deal with catastrophic events. Consider this. For every dollar you use insuring people to go to the doctor for routine visits there's one less dollar use for some sort of catastrophic illness.
There is no real economic reason for healthcare costs to be rising the way they are. Have you ever considered why they are rising the way they are? What the mechanism behind it is? Profiteering is an intellectually lazy term. You've been educated, use that education. What mechanism causes prices to rise in a particular market?
How on earth does asking someone if they got a good education contribute to any argument?
Personal attacks always negate the powerful presentation of factual information. Always. It cheapens your argument. It gives the other person more ammunition and the ability to spin.
I always come across as firmly assertive in my arguments, but remain respectful. (As always, call me on this if you ever see it, you won't.) I present with factual information and I leave personal feelings and emotions OUT of it.
You are never right just because you are right. You have to prove it. There are always skeptics. Why weaken yourself with bringing personal attacks into it? This is what any opponent thrives off of, negativity.
Anyways, that's my humble little bit of advice to any one around here who wants to be taken seriously. Use the facts, get rid of everything else. It is purely U-S-E-L-E-S-S to get personal. Show some restrain. It'll make any reasonable, fact based concept you have to discuss 1,000x more effective.
I am shying away from this political forum because it is no longer stimulating; it bores me now. Personal attacks are not something I enjoy reading or participating in "for fun".
Girly, I extend the same courtesy to people that they extend me. If I engage in personal attacks it's only because someone else started it first. Even so, retaliating in that instance is only to show the tactics of the opposite party. Conservatives are losing their battles because they refuse to call a spade a spade and take the fight to the enemy. Look at that pitiful excuse for a campaign McCain ran against Obama. Of course him as President would only have been slightly less bad than what we have today, but still.
@Madame, of course, I'm just curious about how many "educated" people understand that. Early on Progressives targeted the intelligentsia of this county. If we want to move back to a nation that enshrines the concept of liberty we have to fight their mistaken ideas with good ones. Finding out how well or how poorly people are educated in this nation is a good way to determine how much work there is to do.
You and I differ in our approach to debate. That is fine. I was just trying to offer some helpful advice that has benefited me greatly in the past. Perhaps others will find it useful.
My methodology - "fight" with facts, not with personal attacks. If they choose to do the opposite, it simply amplifies the positivity in your message and highlights the negativity in theirs.
For the most part I agree with you. However, some people are so outrageous in presenting their "facts" that they deserve to be called on it. And then when they are, they shout "personal attack". I agree with tech in this instance - call a spade a spade.
I always call out on personal attacks. Absolutely agreed. This is a given! Calling them out on it without acting the same way is where you'll gain much ground. Getting personal first is never acceptable, getting personal after they have is highly highly destructive, in any circumstance. I believe it shows lack of restrain, thus greatly weakening your argument.
Do you believe that I engaged in personal attacks first?
That is neither here nor there. My point is that I never find it effective to resort to personal attacks, no matter the circumstance.
It is very possible to stand up and assert yourself without getting personal.
I admire your stance girly - but I can forgive those who can't always live up to it - having been there myself
Sure it is. That we don't fight dirty is exactly why the communists among us are winning the fight. Politics, like war, is sordid. Because like war, you are talking about the life and death of your fellow citizens. Stakes don't get any higher than that.
But, in a way, you don't fight fair either. You get up on a high horse and assume everyone who disagrees with you has no beliefs or morals or is uneducated or stupid or brainwashed. You may not think you do, but you do... And I don't mean this to be a personal attack, I am just stating that that is how some people see you.
I don't care. The difference is that I can support my views from sources other than myself. Which I do on a regular basis. I don't just use the huffy, moralistic way out and say that's the way it is. All I and people like me want is to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit. We don't need some empty-headed politician telling us how we have to do this or that. The only thing a politician is there for is to maintain our military. That's it. Says so right in the Constitution.
othey showed any understanding of the history and philosophy of politics, especially as it has been practiced in this country. You'll note, I hope, that I don't talk about other countries' politicians, because I don't live there and I'd be talking out of my rear end if I did talk about them. If you bother to read my posts, I'll always admit when I don't know much about a particular subject and ask someone who knows something about it, questions. Unlike some of the people I regularly argue with.
Not you, I'm sure, but many people who don't like the idea of universal health care have been telling some dreadful lies about the National Health Service in the UK. That's fighting dirty.
My problem has never been that the system doesn't work. It does. My belief is that it doesn't work very well. It's wasteful and there is no real way to tell how wasteful it is, so you can't really make good decisions because you don't really know what's going on. In Socialism, Ludwig von Mises stated that the reason socialist economies go into boom and bust phases or collapse entirely is because there is no profit mechanism to tell people if they are doing a good job.
The problem is that markets have to be unhampered by any outside force, otherwise the forecasting ability of price is skewed. Look at the housing market. Low interest rates caused people to buy houses. Even people who couldn't normally afford them. This uptick in sales signaled to builders that more houses were needed. So they built more houses. This led people to think that they could flip homes since housing prices often appreciated between the time a house was in the blueprint state and when it was sold.
Problem is that, sooner or later, you run out of buyers and/or people who couldn't afford homes start to default. Now the whole system falls apart. In a regular economy there would have been signals from banks and lenders that would have told builders to stop or slow building. The mechanism for this would have been the interest rate. As loans became more and more risky, interest rates would have gone up and fewer and fewer people would have bought homes. The bubble would have been arrested.
Instead, the interest rate was held below market value for years. There was no signal that the housing market was too hot and now we have massive overcapacity with regards to houses. All because the market was not allowed to function and was held hostage to political manipulation. Healthcare is not much different the housing market.
I think that GG is saying that she doesn't go in for the "But Miss! He started it!" line (-:
Back on the topic of the actual funeral, I don't see what the big deal is. Every so often at any Mass, you can hear prayers that politicians pass laws to protect the unborn, disabled, elderly, sick, poor, et cetera,.
Not any Mass I've ever been to. We ask for intercession for the sick and dying as well as those who have suffered misfortune, but never prayed for the passage of laws.
Not for any specific law, but I hear in the general intercessions prayers for an end to elective abortion and that politicians enact wise and just laws to protect the sick, disabled, and such.
I also hear prayers for an end to the war and the safe return of our troops.
What you're hearing is a prayer that our leaders show good judgment in making their decisions. That's just shows a tacit understanding that our leaders have undue influence over our lives. Also what is wrong with praying for people to show good judgment or for the safe return of our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters who wear the uniform?
I didn't say it was wrong. My point is that "politicizing" Mass, such as praying that health care is regarded as a fundamental right as happened at Ted Kennedy's funeral, or praying that our leaders recognize life as a universal human right isn't all that unusual, and I don't think it's inappropriate.
Seems I have heard of many, many people saying priests have told them to vote against laws and politicians...
Preaching religious doctrine is not the same as a funeral eulogy.
Um, there's a difference between asking a congregation to support or oppose a law and praying for passage or defeat of a law. Heh, old habits die hard. In Catholicism, receiving Holy Orders makes you something more than just a lay brethren. That's one of the main reasons, by the way, the Church has been so criminal when dealing with pedophile priests. By their definition, someone who has received Holy Orders cannot do such things.
Whatever, I assume people have some freedom in planning their or their loved ones funerals...
There was absolutely nothing sordid about the funeral.
One quote from one grandson which took 30 seconds that someone took exception with.
Yes, I'm sure all the Republican politicians who were at the funeral said...aww, a cute little boy quoted from the Senator...we better change our minds and pass that bill...
Regardless of what was said, it is not going to change anything that is going on in Washington right now.
Why do you care so much? It's not like what they decide about this issue in Washington is going to affect you anyway. We're the ones who have to live with the consequences of it, leave us to decide for ourselves.
sorry ledefensetech , quit sounding so insular , America likes to be in the face of other countries ( when they see fit) so I do not see anything wrong with non- americans sharing their opinion. At the end of the day ,thats all any of it is anyway,words, between ourselves. Its not like Washington is on my RSS feed ,or anyone elses
Correction, some Americans like to be in the face of other countries. I don't believe that is the way we need to act either. You'll note I hope that I haven't suggested that other countries get rid of their universal healthcare, after all they have to live with it.
The original point was the inappropriateness of the comment, not it's result.
Well, I think it would have been more inappropriate if that with all the quotes from the Senator they left out quotes about when he considered "the cause of his life."
Anyway, I'm done with this "discussion"
This is not a "fact-based" discussion. It is an opinion sharing pure and simple.
Those who believe it was in poor taste, immoral, inappropriate or whatever negative you wish to ascribe to it are stating just that -- their opinion.
There is no fact related to it. It has nothing to do with the actual healthcare bill per se. As I have been assured by those doing the accusing that Mr. Kennedy's funeral was ______ fill in the blank to cover your own level of PERSONAL outrage over the mention of the HC bill, it would have been equally _____ fill in adjective to mention the passage of any other piece of legislation in this context.
Those who believe that it was not in poor taste, but was, given Mr. Kennedy's passion for the topic of healthcare for all Americans, appropriate, are stating their opinions as well.
We are talking about OPINIONS. Or, perhaps I should say "were" as those of us on the "defending" side are no longer participating. See you all later elsewhere.
Opinions? - Ok. It is also my considered opinion that to let my dog sh*t in the living room is inappropriate. Of course, that's just my opinion . . .
Same thing really huh , your dog sh***tting in your living room dont affect me , neither does what anyone says or does at someones funeral
The issue is "appropriateness" - not specific opinions and how they effect you.
Their whole life was politicised ,why would his death be anything different
I'm not one of the Massachusetts people who are "starry-eyed" when it comes to the Kennedy family, by any means (and I mean ANY MEANS); so my opinions isn't based on being a supporter. I thought, though, the whole "death thing" was handled well and handled the way it would be expected. There's footage of Kennedy talking about health care for all way back in the 60's (like 1964 or something). It was his "thing". There has been a lot of talk about people (him, included) hoping he'd live to see something done with health care. He "thing" was also being a politician. If he had been a teacher who worked to, say, get flowers put along all the highways; people wouldn't have seen bringing up the "cause" as "politicizing". Anyone who has any kind of "cause" in his life knows that he wouldn't mind knowing if his family decided to pick up the cause after he died. Most people who have lost family members know what it's like to want to pick up on something that was important to that person, and that he didn't get to finish. I don't see it as exploiting the grandchildren to let them take part.
Someone mentioned EMK's keeping being elected for all these years. Part of that has to do with many people (Republicans included) who would rather vote for someone with experience and clout than someone they didn't know well. Also, there are thousands of people who have been impressed by the fact that Kennedy made it a point to individually acknowledge (and try to help) people going through bad stuff. It was said he shared Tip O'Neil's philosophy that "all politics is local" - so whether or not his responsiveness and kindness to "the little, individual, guy" was out of caring or a wish to establish a reputation of caring (or both), I don't know; but a lot of people thought he was wonderful (based on something he or his staff did for them).
Memorial services and funerals are done by family members and friends and are for them and anyone else who liked/loved the person. Over and over it was mentioned that he "wasn't perfect". It was said his family and politics were his life. The man (like him, hate him, or don't give two hoots one way or another) put in decades of times to the Senate. I don't really see any fault in the way his death was handled. I do think, though, that "Camelot" has been over for 40-plus years; and I don't think a "new Kennedy" (who doesn't have the experience in the Senate that their relative had) is going to "automatically inherit" the Senate seat made available by EMK's death.
"Appropriateness" is a matter of opinion. This issue is not covered by law. It is not even covered by rules of etiquette. It is your view vs. the view of the Kennedy family and those who went to pay their last respects to Ted Kennedy.
Note: If you happened to see any women wearing white shoes at the funeral it's ok. It's still before Labor Day and thus "appropriate."
No need to get snippy.
There is such a thing that is appropriate in a given situation and then there are things that are not. Not everything is "equal". This is not a hard concept but liberals seem to have an issue with it.
If you want to be a stickler on this particular subject then yes, it is my opinion that what was said, in the way it was said, was in poor taste.
It's useless arguing with a moral relativist. They'll support whatever morality validates their position rather than stake out a position according to moral principles. That, in a nutshell, is why there can never be any kind of a bipartisan coalition. You're either a moral relativist or you are not.
I agree tech - it's what makes the forums so dull sometimes. But wait a minute . . . aren't you making a "personal attack"?
There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Well then, the crux of the matter is this: two moral absolutists are passing their moral judgment on the funeral of an admitted moral relativist/liberal.
By your definition one could hardly expect Mr. Kennedy or his family of equally liberal moral relativists to hold a funeral in any fashion other than their own relative morality. But the funeral mass was Catholic -- so I'm not entirely sure -- are you also saying the Church is also a body of moral relativists for letting the Kennedys have this so-called immoral funeral(?).
And there is a big difference between "poor taste" and "immoral."
I would argue that bringing guns to a town hall meeting is in extremely questionable taste. But unless said guns are used to harm or kill anyone, there is nothing immoral about it.
Well, if you expect Indian attack, this could be a prudent move, screw morality.
MM... Hmmmm. I see! Except for a few spotty areas, I do believe you are actually on fire through this thread. lol...it must be that PR/marketing director for law firms thing coming out in you. Very well reasoned, though out, in my book. And I even understand that undermining the personal credibility...a few lil attacks...of a witness is fair game, so? All's fair in....culture wars. Especially when the other side's 'evidence' is so very...well, to say the least, lame.
Obviously the Kennedys (a legendary political family) are allowed to honor their dead relative in any way they damned well see fit.
Damned right! You never know when you might have to call up an armed militia.
That's why it's important to not only keep your arms at home in your gun safe, but bear them out in public.
BTW, Misha -- they're not INDIANS they are NATIVE AMERICANS
But I'll cut you some slack on that one since you're from Washington Redskins territory
The native people here refer to themselves as Indians when talking with non Indians and Dine' among themselves. They get a little prickly though if you shorten it to Injuns.
You mean your ancestors a few hundred years ago were fighting NATIVE AMERICANS? Gimme a break, go back in time and tell this to them!
Oh, don't tempt me to do that! Imagine if I went back in time a couple hundred years ago and took some of my moral relativist friends with me. Egads -- our Constitution might be totally rewritten with rights taken out and other rights put in!! *Gasp*
You are right, of course. Indian is the true politically corret term. But the ones round here aren't going to come round threatening any town hall meetings. They're busy running casinos!
Oh hello, Ron!
Welcome back to the fun (although I guess it (meaning "we") got too "dull" for some people).
Did you do your research? YOu said you were going to go watch Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann to see whose commentary made more sense. Any decision on that?
Bluff? Bummer! I was really looking forward to a compare and contrast essay from you!
Oh well. Now we're talking about Indians. Which, I suppose, could (if we were so inclined) lead us back to Chappaquidick, which is an Indian name....
There are all kinds of arcane laws still on the books all over the place. So does that mean you take your Glock to services with you on Sunday??? Seriously, maybe you should take Ricky Dee and his cast of idiots (what a well named band!) Play disco duck -- that would scare away even the fiercest Indians (and devils, too).
No, Ted Kennedy spent a huge part of his life fighting for this very cause. If you attended a funeral of someone who had spent their life's passion trying to save the whales, seems pretty evident that topic would make it's way into the eulogy, otherwise it would be disrespectful.
Who defines appropriate anyway?
Some would deem an Irish wake as inappropriate ,or so many non-traditional funerals.
Let them bury their dead anyway they want .
That indeed is the most appropriate
Honestly, my comment wasn't directed at you personally, as I've seen nothing like that from you, at all.
But some people in the USA have been telling bare-faced, outrageous lies about the National Health Service, and that's fighting dirty, surely?
Some idiot even ranted about Stephen Hawking, saying he'd be dead if he was English.
Yes, there are a lot of lies circulating about in the US, promulgated by Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the like...(plus other interests). Some (who get it) have likened it to a P.T. Barnum act for the $$$. Some among us are...unfortunately...gullible or dumb enough to believe it.
Ultimately, (and humanely), I'd express that many are just plain fearful. Others, especially here on Hubpages of late, are extraordinarily angry, and I cannot help but think that the controversies that have been stoked have actually allowed for some rather scary tendencies (towards paranoia and hate) to find easy expression.
I saw that. It was a politician, what else can you expect from them? I know you didn't comment towards me personally. Much like Lita, I see the ignorance, willful and otherwise, on all sides and despair. So much is already taken from us, we're nickled and dimed to death with taxes already. That, I think, is the root cause of all the lies and fearmongering. As you know, I think that we're focusing on the wrong reasons and formulating solutions based on that faulty premise. It's supply, not cost that is the issue. We should be looking at ways to increase the supply of healthcare or removing barriers to supply. Do that and price will take care of itself.
geez, I hope when I die that my grandchildren (hopefully I will have some) are able to express freely what they believe was important in my life.
Apparently only if its 'appropriate
Like of all the nerve..geeze
I think I'm going to write into my will all of my political beliefs and leave word that if my grandchildren or great-grandchildren (if I ever have any of either) must talk about my political beliefs, favorite color, and favorite song - or else they won't get their vast inheritance! If I don't have grandchildren or great-grandchildren (or if none of them are under 14, preferably 8); I'll offer that vast inheritance to any child willing to talk about my political beliefs, favorite color, and favorite song. Also, I want some kindergarten student (relative or otherwise) to read of a list of all the people I hated in my life (and with feeling!).
hmmm, how does one politicize a politician? or how does one politicize his longsuffering dream? he was a politician and he was at the forefront of this issue for many years. I think he started it from seeing families affected by cancer not be able to afford the treatment needed to save them. The fact that it was brought up at his funeral was more or less expected by all. I am a Republican and see nothing wrong with it. thank you. peace, CC
by Danny R Hand7 years ago
WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY!!!!! We live in a Republic. Does everyone not read and just settle for being indoctrined these days? There is a big difference between the two!
by OLYHOOCH6 years ago
And the so-called “moderate Democrats” are merely socialists.It wasn’t so long ago that much loved Democrat President John F. Kennedy told the nation in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do...
by PrettyPanther19 months ago
I choose to support a candidate based on issues, which is not to say that I wouldn't rule out a candidate based on behavior alone (Trump, for example). However, I overwhelmingly base my vote on who I most agree...
by Cagsil5 years ago
Is the party that wants to be rich.He is seriously trying to sell this BS to the general pubic?JACKSON, Miss. - At a fundraiser at a country club in Mississippi this evening that was expected to raise a record-breaking...
by marinealways248 years ago
I believe all politicians should have a maximum salary amount of 60 thousand a year. Someone should want to be a politician for country, not for money. This set limit would disrupt greedy lying politicians from entering...
by Josak3 years ago
Some thoughts:No campaign contributions allowed all campaigns are funded by a tiny flat tax every party receives a given amount to publicize their views so long as they can get say 50 000 party members. Yearly full IRS...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.