5 ms·

This man's presence was earth-shattering. His legend will be even more so. The world has a lot to learn from him. RIP

by sev 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
idlewords 17y ago
What is Ted Kennedy's lesson for the world? From my perspective, the guy was a career politician and part of an unpleasant dynastic trend in American government. How would the world be different had Kennedy not lived?
- spking 17y ago
  Exactly. I'm so sick of politician worshipping by the left and the right. Did Ted Kennedy ever have a real (i.e. private sector) job in his entire life? No. He was a drunken womanizer who spent other people's money. Good riddance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy
  - akd 17y ago
    I'm as sick of politician hatred by the peanut gallery. Think back 250 years in this country's history, when blacks were slaves, non-landowners couldn't vote, and women weren't sent to school. The difference between that world and today's world is due to the efforts of politicians and activists. Do you think that Johnson's Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were not "real" accomplishments?
    - spking 17y ago
      Interesting that you went straight for the "peanut gallery" categorization because my opinion happens to differ from yours. I paid just over $38,000 in Federal, state and local taxes last year. I simply don't like people (like Ted Kennedy) who have never worked an honest job in their entire lives and have contributed to bankrupting this country. The real heroes are not politicians who run up a massive credit card bill in our collective names. The true heroes are entrepreneurs who innovate, produce and create value. Politicians produce nothing. They simply take from the productive sectors of society and create huge distortions in the marketplace. Obviously, there have been some necessary and admirable laws passed in the brief history of this country, but they are the exception and not the rule.
      - akd 17y ago
        Useless companies which simply take from the productive sectors of the economy are also the rule, with the few amazing companies being the exception. You can't have a new Google or Voting Rights Act every week.
        spking 17y ago
        The difference here is that any exchange with a useless company is on a voluntary basis, whereas any exchange with the government is completely compulsory. If I don't give Useless Company X my money, they go out of business for not adding enough value. If I don't give my money to the government, they garnish my wages, put liens on my house and put me in prison, and continue to run inefficiently whilst piling up massive debt in my name. See the difference?
        idlewords 17y ago
        I think this idea that we can punish ineffectiveness in the private sector is pleasant to think about, but doesn't reflect our actual experience. Think of all the ineffective or downright hateful businesses you give your money to because there is no practical alternative: cable and internet providers, health insurers, banks, credit cards, ticketmaster, airlines, big box stores, domain registrars...
        lionhearted 17y ago
        I find it strange that this comment is getting upvoted. For instance, you can fly to literally the other side of the world in one day for less than two week's pay at even a poorly paying job. Not that long ago, it took a few days to go from Boston to New York on horseback. Credit cards facilitated online shopping and the internet as we know it. As someone whose taken credit cards, I hate giving up the 2.x%, but it's well worth it. Many businesses wouldn't be possible without credit cards. They're massively convenient. And AMEX totally washes the consumer's hands of fraud and damaged goods. Business does well. Even the above cross-section of "downright hateful companies" are still pretty good businesses. And the scummiest ones are scummy because they're in bed with government. Cable/internet local monopolies, health insurers with the tax code, and banks with the... well, that's a long discussion and you've probably heard some of it. Government branches can't go out of business. When they do poorly, they always say it's because they don't have enough money, and they get more. Business has a natural check on it - people have to like it enough to use it. You could skip airlines and take a boat or train or horse, you could use only cash and keep it in your mattress, you could use other alternatives. You don't, because those companies aren't perfect, but they do a pretty good job. I wish I could just "not use" the IRS, I wish I could just "not use" TSA, I wish I could just "pass" on going to the DMV and giving them money for a sticker or laminated piece of plastic. No private sector company that isn't in bed with the government or run by powerful violent criminals is as nasty as the DMV, IRS, or TSA to its customers. And they don't go out of business.
    - splat 17y ago
      Yes, let's think back to these ills you mentioned.... Who put them in place? Oh yes, it was politicians. I'm glad they eventually corrected their mistakes, but I won't deify them simply because they did so.
  - sho 17y ago
    Hey, what have you got against drunken womanisers ... edit: so it's immoral to drink and womanise or something? He was using those words in a perjorative manner. I complain and get downvoted, is this Church Day or something? Hm, all this talk is making me thirsty .. (grabs beer)
- akd 17y ago
  For 50 years Ted Kennedy has been the US government's leading defender of the poor. If he hasn't impacted your life, you probably aren't poor.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    He was a remarkably ineffective leading defender of the poor, then. Compare income inequality at the start of his political career with income inequality now.
    - akd 17y ago
      Income inequality is the wrong metric - the right metric is real income for the bottom 10% of America in 1950 vs. today. Of course there are many factors at work, but rising income inequality isn't bad if it's bringing everyone up. Also keep in mind that today's healthcare debate is one that he has been fighting for 50 years (along with many others), and that whatever does happen, whenever it happens, will have more of his fingerprint on it than Obama's.
      - idlewords 17y ago
        The decades after 1950 were times of huge growth in real income across the developed world for reasons that didn't have much to do with Senator Kennedy. I'm evaluating his accomplishments with a bias to what he did in his later career, when he was presumably at the peak of his influence. And there the answer seems to be 'was skillfully co-opted by the Bush administration'. I do agree that he was tireless in pushing health policy. I just don't think he was effective - but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised by what comes out of the health reform meat grinder in a few months.
        akd 17y ago
        Yes, you cannot attribute economic growth to Sen. Kennedy. That's why you have to look beyond the numbers to see his impact. You're incorrect if you think that the peak of his influence was in his later career, when the glamour of the Kennedys had largely passed, and the House, Senate, and White House were controlled by Republicans. The peak of his influence was in the 60s-80s, but from that day onward he has been pushing health policy, and although he didn't get the ball to the top of the hill he's pushed it farther than anyone else. To say that he was ineffective because the goal wasn't accomplished on his watch is like saying that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not an effective suffragette because she died 20 years before women got the vote.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  Especially this one. I'm hesitant to comment on this because this article really doesn't belong here. But the fact remains Ted Kennedy left a woman for dead after driving his car into a body of water. He didn't contact the authorities when it happened, he instead went back to his hotel. When at his hotel (and I take this quote from the Wikipedia entry) he... "According to his own testimony, Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed. Hearing noises, he later put on dry clothes and asked someone what the time was: it was something like 2:30 a.m., the senator recalled. He testified that, as the night went on, "I almost tossed and turned and walked around that room ... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party" So he's complaining about the noise keeping him up while this woman's still at the bottom of the sea. The next morning (again from Wikipedia)... "By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[2] At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation." According to Kennedy's testimony, the two men asked why he hadn't reported the accident. Kennedy responded by telling them "about my own thoughts and feelings as I swam across that channel ... that somehow when they arrived in the morning that they were going to say that Mary Jo was still alive" And the final kicker, he didn't contact the authorities until the body was found and the woman probably survived the crash. One last quote... "Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the nearest cottage to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am.[14] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am.[15] The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that "Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car." So had he contacted the authorities she could have lived. And for all that he got a suspended sentence because he's rich and has a powerful family. I won't demonize the dead but I'm not going to sit by and let people lionize him either. How is it that people can bash Michael Jackson after unproven accusations but let Kennedy off even though he admits to everything laid out above?
- jsares 17y ago
  Surprisingly from Digg: o The Civil Rights Act of 1964 o The Voting Rights Act of 1965 o The COBRA Act of 1985 (ever lost a job and still managed to keep your health insurance for 18 months?) o The Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 o The Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 o Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
  - idlewords 17y ago
    The Civil Rights act and Voting Rights act aren't something you can credit Kennedy with - he was a junior senator. That leaves four pieces of major legislation (or six, if we throw in a couple of increases in minimum wage) in a fifty year career. This seems out of proportion to the hagiography; I would be curious to know how we would be covering this story if his name weren't Kennedy.
    - jsares 17y ago
      I wasn't a huge fan of Ted Kennedy but after reading the list of major legislation he was involved with I have to admire the work he did.
    - encoderer 17y ago
      But the Civil Rights act took every vote, even if he didn't personally craft the bill. He was a vote for the bill, and more, he was a vote for cloture. And that's no small thing.. At that time, cloture hadn't been achieved in 40 years. And even more, it very nearly killed him. The plane crash on the way out of DC after staying late to vote on the bill left him in a hospital bed for months.
      - gaius 17y ago
        So he knew the plane would crash and stayed and voted anyway? Or are the two entirely unrelated?

This man's presence was earth-shattering. His legend will be even more so. The world has a lot to learn from him. RIP

by sev 17y ago

This man's presence was earth-shattering. His legend will be even more so. The world has a lot to learn from him. RIP

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

idlewords 17y ago

What is Ted Kennedy's lesson for the world? From my perspective, the guy was a career politician and part of an unpleasant dynastic trend in American government. How would the world be different had Kennedy not lived?

spking 17y ago
Exactly. I'm so sick of politician worshipping by the left and the right. Did Ted Kennedy ever have a real (i.e. private sector) job in his entire life? No. He was a drunken womanizer who spent other people's money. Good riddance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy
- akd 17y ago
  I'm as sick of politician hatred by the peanut gallery. Think back 250 years in this country's history, when blacks were slaves, non-landowners couldn't vote, and women weren't sent to school. The difference between that world and today's world is due to the efforts of politicians and activists. Do you think that Johnson's Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were not "real" accomplishments?
  - spking 17y ago
    Interesting that you went straight for the "peanut gallery" categorization because my opinion happens to differ from yours. I paid just over $38,000 in Federal, state and local taxes last year. I simply don't like people (like Ted Kennedy) who have never worked an honest job in their entire lives and have contributed to bankrupting this country. The real heroes are not politicians who run up a massive credit card bill in our collective names. The true heroes are entrepreneurs who innovate, produce and create value. Politicians produce nothing. They simply take from the productive sectors of society and create huge distortions in the marketplace. Obviously, there have been some necessary and admirable laws passed in the brief history of this country, but they are the exception and not the rule.
    - akd 17y ago
      Useless companies which simply take from the productive sectors of the economy are also the rule, with the few amazing companies being the exception. You can't have a new Google or Voting Rights Act every week.
      - spking 17y ago
        The difference here is that any exchange with a useless company is on a voluntary basis, whereas any exchange with the government is completely compulsory. If I don't give Useless Company X my money, they go out of business for not adding enough value. If I don't give my money to the government, they garnish my wages, put liens on my house and put me in prison, and continue to run inefficiently whilst piling up massive debt in my name. See the difference?
        idlewords 17y ago
        I think this idea that we can punish ineffectiveness in the private sector is pleasant to think about, but doesn't reflect our actual experience. Think of all the ineffective or downright hateful businesses you give your money to because there is no practical alternative: cable and internet providers, health insurers, banks, credit cards, ticketmaster, airlines, big box stores, domain registrars...
        lionhearted 17y ago
        I find it strange that this comment is getting upvoted. For instance, you can fly to literally the other side of the world in one day for less than two week's pay at even a poorly paying job. Not that long ago, it took a few days to go from Boston to New York on horseback. Credit cards facilitated online shopping and the internet as we know it. As someone whose taken credit cards, I hate giving up the 2.x%, but it's well worth it. Many businesses wouldn't be possible without credit cards. They're massively convenient. And AMEX totally washes the consumer's hands of fraud and damaged goods. Business does well. Even the above cross-section of "downright hateful companies" are still pretty good businesses. And the scummiest ones are scummy because they're in bed with government. Cable/internet local monopolies, health insurers with the tax code, and banks with the... well, that's a long discussion and you've probably heard some of it. Government branches can't go out of business. When they do poorly, they always say it's because they don't have enough money, and they get more. Business has a natural check on it - people have to like it enough to use it. You could skip airlines and take a boat or train or horse, you could use only cash and keep it in your mattress, you could use other alternatives. You don't, because those companies aren't perfect, but they do a pretty good job. I wish I could just "not use" the IRS, I wish I could just "not use" TSA, I wish I could just "pass" on going to the DMV and giving them money for a sticker or laminated piece of plastic. No private sector company that isn't in bed with the government or run by powerful violent criminals is as nasty as the DMV, IRS, or TSA to its customers. And they don't go out of business.
  - splat 17y ago
    Yes, let's think back to these ills you mentioned.... Who put them in place? Oh yes, it was politicians. I'm glad they eventually corrected their mistakes, but I won't deify them simply because they did so.
- sho 17y ago
  Hey, what have you got against drunken womanisers ... edit: so it's immoral to drink and womanise or something? He was using those words in a perjorative manner. I complain and get downvoted, is this Church Day or something? Hm, all this talk is making me thirsty .. (grabs beer)
akd 17y ago
For 50 years Ted Kennedy has been the US government's leading defender of the poor. If he hasn't impacted your life, you probably aren't poor.
- idlewords 17y ago
  He was a remarkably ineffective leading defender of the poor, then. Compare income inequality at the start of his political career with income inequality now.
  - akd 17y ago
    Income inequality is the wrong metric - the right metric is real income for the bottom 10% of America in 1950 vs. today. Of course there are many factors at work, but rising income inequality isn't bad if it's bringing everyone up. Also keep in mind that today's healthcare debate is one that he has been fighting for 50 years (along with many others), and that whatever does happen, whenever it happens, will have more of his fingerprint on it than Obama's.
    - idlewords 17y ago
      The decades after 1950 were times of huge growth in real income across the developed world for reasons that didn't have much to do with Senator Kennedy. I'm evaluating his accomplishments with a bias to what he did in his later career, when he was presumably at the peak of his influence. And there the answer seems to be 'was skillfully co-opted by the Bush administration'. I do agree that he was tireless in pushing health policy. I just don't think he was effective - but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised by what comes out of the health reform meat grinder in a few months.
      - akd 17y ago
        Yes, you cannot attribute economic growth to Sen. Kennedy. That's why you have to look beyond the numbers to see his impact. You're incorrect if you think that the peak of his influence was in his later career, when the glamour of the Kennedys had largely passed, and the House, Senate, and White House were controlled by Republicans. The peak of his influence was in the 60s-80s, but from that day onward he has been pushing health policy, and although he didn't get the ball to the top of the hill he's pushed it farther than anyone else. To say that he was ineffective because the goal wasn't accomplished on his watch is like saying that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not an effective suffragette because she died 20 years before women got the vote.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
Especially this one. I'm hesitant to comment on this because this article really doesn't belong here. But the fact remains Ted Kennedy left a woman for dead after driving his car into a body of water. He didn't contact the authorities when it happened, he instead went back to his hotel. When at his hotel (and I take this quote from the Wikipedia entry) he... "According to his own testimony, Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed. Hearing noises, he later put on dry clothes and asked someone what the time was: it was something like 2:30 a.m., the senator recalled. He testified that, as the night went on, "I almost tossed and turned and walked around that room ... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party" So he's complaining about the noise keeping him up while this woman's still at the bottom of the sea. The next morning (again from Wikipedia)... "By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[2] At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation." According to Kennedy's testimony, the two men asked why he hadn't reported the accident. Kennedy responded by telling them "about my own thoughts and feelings as I swam across that channel ... that somehow when they arrived in the morning that they were going to say that Mary Jo was still alive" And the final kicker, he didn't contact the authorities until the body was found and the woman probably survived the crash. One last quote... "Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the nearest cottage to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am.[14] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am.[15] The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that "Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car." So had he contacted the authorities she could have lived. And for all that he got a suspended sentence because he's rich and has a powerful family. I won't demonize the dead but I'm not going to sit by and let people lionize him either. How is it that people can bash Michael Jackson after unproven accusations but let Kennedy off even though he admits to everything laid out above?
jsares 17y ago
Surprisingly from Digg: o The Civil Rights Act of 1964 o The Voting Rights Act of 1965 o The COBRA Act of 1985 (ever lost a job and still managed to keep your health insurance for 18 months?) o The Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 o The Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993 o Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
- idlewords 17y ago
  The Civil Rights act and Voting Rights act aren't something you can credit Kennedy with - he was a junior senator. That leaves four pieces of major legislation (or six, if we throw in a couple of increases in minimum wage) in a fifty year career. This seems out of proportion to the hagiography; I would be curious to know how we would be covering this story if his name weren't Kennedy.
  - jsares 17y ago
    I wasn't a huge fan of Ted Kennedy but after reading the list of major legislation he was involved with I have to admire the work he did.
  - encoderer 17y ago
    But the Civil Rights act took every vote, even if he didn't personally craft the bill. He was a vote for the bill, and more, he was a vote for cloture. And that's no small thing.. At that time, cloture hadn't been achieved in 40 years. And even more, it very nearly killed him. The plane crash on the way out of DC after staying late to vote on the bill left him in a hospital bed for months.
    - gaius 17y ago
      So he knew the plane would crash and stayed and voted anyway? Or are the two entirely unrelated?