Eunice Kennedy, the crusading sister of John, Robert and Ted Kennedy was laid to rest today.
Notably, Ted Kennedy, the senior Senator from Massachusetts was absent. His absence is ominous - and signals his life is doubtless drawing to a close as he succumbs to the brain cancer which afflicts him, and reduces his voice and vigor. (Full disclosure, I like Ted Kennedy, I worked for his campaign in 1980 (as a teenager)).
Whether you agree with the politics of the Kennedy's in general, it would be hard to argue that they have (as a set of siblings), championed a cause of compassion, much like Paul Wellstone did in Minnesota, throughout their entire lives. They sometimes had feet of clay, as most of us do under scrutiny - but they often stood for what is best in us, kindness, charity, humility and generosity without scorn, derision or judgment.
Eunice Kennedy spent such a life outside the realm of politics, and Ted spent it within it. When Ted passes, the world will be just a little cheaper and just a little meaner for their loss.
Even China embraced the Special Olympics, which owe much to Shriver.
ReplyDeleteK-Rod,
ReplyDeleteYour post is in poor taste. I'll leave it, but it's pretty loathsome.
Perhaps we should also point out that George Bush has more DUI's than your have gun violations?
Perhaps we'd do well to point out that David Durand has more DUI convictions than Ted Kennedy?
But all of them would be moot as it relates to this topic, which is that Eunice Kennedy (Shriver) was burried today, and the world lost a great soul. It will soon also lose another, albeit one with feet of clay to some regard. There was no call nor reason to focus on those feet other than pure mendacity.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver was a woman who dedicated her life to helping those much less fortunate than others. As such, she exemplified the best of America. Her passing is indeed a loss. Let us all, in remembering her life, strive to help another in just one small way each day. Truly she was a great American.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we'd do well to point out that David Durand has more DUI convictions than Ted Kennedy?"
ReplyDeleteI think you mean a different Durand, although I don't recall any of those DUIs resulting in fatalities, unlike Teddy back in the day. I think it is fair to point out that both Kennedy AND Bush successfully overcame their problems with alcohol, and went on after overcoming those obstacles to positions of great power.
Eunice Shriver managed some remarkable accomplishments and acts of compassion without benefit of politics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKR wrote:
ReplyDelete"This is not only a time to recognize her accomplishments, but also a time to recognize others that volunteer and help others.
There are some, for example a mother that not only has a part time job and raises three kids but also takes time to help others... that should be commended as much if not more."
One of the programs on public radio / public television suggested that women tend to donate even more as a demographic than men do, as a generality. Certainly all those who volunteer to help others should be commended for their efforts.
I was brought up from the time I was a small child to participate in community projects; my parents stressed the notion that it was not sufficient to write a check (although that was also stressed) but that it was importnt to donate time and effort and expetise. The way it was presented to me was that by receiving much, much was in turn expected and required of us, including to help others.
I can see how Eunice Shriver lived that example. Teddy took a different route of finding the unique satisfaction of service to others, but he did definitely find it. As deplorable as his conduct at Chappaquidick was, it was not his entire life. I would hope that none of us have to be defined ONLY by our greatest faults and failures, while ignoring all of the rest of our lives that might weigh in the balance to the good as accomplishments or good deeds.
K-Rod, in relation to Sen. Ted Kennedy, I refer you to the Gospel according to Matthew, 7:1-5. " 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
ReplyDeleteThis tells us that it is God who judges a person's actions, not you. The laity aren't empowered to judge, and only those who are so empowered through the doctrine of Apostolic Succession shall judge and may forgive. The ultimate power to forgive, however, comes from Christ.
I applaud the sincerity of your writing about Eunice Kennedy, and your comments about those even less fortunate than her who volunteer every day are poignant and on point. Let's leave Ted Kennedy's transgressions, whatever they are, to something for him to share with his priest or his God.
Oh, K-Rod,
ReplyDeleteI heard a rumor that your birthday is sometime in the near future or was just passed. Happy Birthday, and may you enjoy many more.
"Poor taste? It's not like I left a woman in a car to drown, Penigma, that part of that night was no accident."
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying Ted Kennedy murdered her?
K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteIt was a choice he made, not an accident, to leave her to drown.
August 19, 2009 12:29 PM"
My recollection of the events was that the car landed upside down under water, that Kennedy says he tried to rescue Mary Jo Koepechne, and that others also tried to rescue her after he went for help. That is not quite the same thing as leaving her to drown.
I think Kennedy used appallingly bad judgement; it is questionable what his intentions were with Koepechne, given he was supposed to be taking her to her hotel but she did not have her key with her (it was left at the party). That the Kennedy brothers were known for philandering is a matter of record. The events leading up to the accident could be one of those instances. I think Kennedy should have acted differently after the accident happened, particularly in reporting it to authorities much earlier. There are questions raised as well about his alcohol consumption and his condition to be driving.
But given the position of the car, the currents, etc., I don't know that it is fairly established that anyone could have saved that young woman from drowning. I condemn nearly everything Kennedy did that night, but I do stop short of agreeing that he left her to drown.
KR wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe diver, John Farrar, that found her said, "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."
That call could have been made from a house just 150 yards away from the bridge."
That doesn't negate that Kennedy himself and others did try to rescue the woman, and that he and others did also report the accident (albeit well after the fact). Those others who assisted Kennedy in diving to save Koepechne seemed to think that it was more difficult. In any case, it was decisions made by Kennedy that put her in the water in the first place, making him responsible for the circumstances. We are not in significant disagreement here, only in minor disagreement at most.
That still brings us back to the point I made earlier; however bad his conduct at Chappaquiddick was - and we agree that it was bad - does it negate everything else he does for the rest of his life that helps others? I would agree that it is a serious mark against him, but it would be an awfully harsh thing to take the position that he deserves no other mark in his favor no matter what he does for the good of others the rest of his life.
That is harsh KR; and I would hope that none of us takes so cruel a view of anyone else regardless of their politics. That would be judging in a way that we are not legally empowered to judge, and in a way that religion and wisdome advise us not to do.
You gave a fair statement of the facts, KR, and I don't substantively disagree with them. I just don't have the heart to trash an old man suffering with a difficult and painful form of cancer on the occasion of his sister's death.
It is the essence of mercy and grace to show compassion under those circumstances, and it benefits none of us in any way to be more harsh instead. Not because of deserving that compassion, but because of needing it. I think we each gain something in the giving as much or more than Kennedy could ever gain in the receiving of it.
But maybe you think that just makes me foolish. I hope not.
K-Rod said...
ReplyDelete"I just don't have the heart to trash an old man..."
KR, Kennedy has suffered a loss, no doubt is grieving, as are others. It does nothing constructive on behalf of Mary Jo Koepechne's memory, or her family and friends and admirers to say these things at this moment of loss.
You disagree; so be it.
I feel at greater peace with myself NOT joining you; grieving deserves a little more kindness and consideraion. If anything, it might be a good time to give additional respect to those grieving Kopechne as well.
KR wrote: K-Rod said...
ReplyDeleteI find your double standard quite amusing, DG, typical of left-wing-liberals.
Think that if you like KR; at the moment my sympathies go out equally to the friends and family of Mr. Novak. Believe something less complimentary if that pleases you. I empathize with both sets of people; I feel sorry for you if you cannot.
I empathize as well, but I won't lose any sleep because of it.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised at the lack of response to my 2:10 PM comment.
I am not surprised at the lack of response to my 2:10 PM comment.
ReplyDeleteI do occasionally refrain from comment...Sometimes I just need to catch my breath between Penigma, other demands, and other correspondence, LOL.
KR, leaving a scene and murder aren't the same thing. You've accused him of leaving her in a car to drown, and that it was no accident - under the standards of law I understand, that is murder. It is called depraved indifference to the knowable outcome of one's actions.
ReplyDeleteI think you have no idea whatsoever what was in Kennedy's mind - so you can't know what was or was not an accident. Clearly, had the authorities felt it was intentional, they'd have said so. They never concluded any such thing, but we should, apparently, go with your opinion of intent, 40 years, and 1000 miles removed from the accident.
At the time, driving drunk and having an accident wasn't criminal - nor were there laws about vehicular homicide related to drinking. What Kennedy did then, if done now, would result in a criminal complaint, and almost certainly a conviction, and so, we can say what he did would NOW be considered a crime, but we cannot conclude we knew his mind, such a claim is 'tin-foil' hat land stuff.
You have no knowledge of his intent - zero.
KR, which words do you feel Trent Lott spoke which were compassionate, but incorrectly interpreted?
ReplyDeleteNo, KR, you left out what Lott ACTUALLY said.
ReplyDeleteI asked you what he said, you didn't provide it, and made claims about people inferring intent in error.
Conversely, you claim to know what Kennedy thought. However, you decry the Dems for (your claim) inferring intent as wrong, but apparently it's okay for you to do so with Kennedy??
Double-standard much?
KR,
ReplyDeleteAsking a quesiton implies waiting for a reply before feigning you knew the answer and someone didn't reply.
Yes, I EASILY have a quote for you -
"It's not like I left a woman in a car to drown, "
KR, that means the person made a CHOICE, that he LEFT her there to die, what was in his head was that she would die - which implies deparaved indifference if he KNEW she would die.
That's the quote. Either he knew she was there in the car drowning - which you are saying he LEFT her there, which means by choice - or you are holding him accountable for something he couldn't know.
So, yes, there's your quote, or are you saying we should NOT hold Kennedy accountable for what happened because, as he claimed at the time, he tried to save her, but couldnt' find her... therefore, he DIDNT know where she was and he DIDN'T leave here there to die.
If you keep tossing up softballs, I'm happy to hit them.
*pull*
ReplyDeleteI'm sorr, did you say "bull" :)?
"It's not like I left a woman in a car to drown, "
Fact!
There you go, you admit you think you knew he MEANT to leave her to drown, what follows from that is you KNEW what was in his mind - that's the more than logical inference.
"*pull* Kennedy was guilty of leaving the scene and Mary Jo drowned. Kennedy was guilty!"
Guilty of what? Guilty of leaving a scene where he tried to find his passenger, yes, he was and should have not left - but as that wasn't a crime then, what exactly was he guilty of?
Fact!
Just the facts.
NO, just your suggestion of what was in his mind.. that's all. You KNEW he meant to leave her to die - meaning he meant for her to die. Those were your words, you asked for a quote, you got a quote - now you want to talk facts, here's the facts.
Ted Kennedy got drunk
Ted Kennedy got in a car with MJ Kopechne
Ted Kennedy crashed
Ted Kennedy SAYS he tried to find her
Ted Kennedy left the scene and went home
She died
The next morning Ted Kennedy went back (iirc) - with law enforcement in tow.
THOSE are the facts.
Kennedy being guilty of anything is just your semantics - and more, you accused him of purposefully leaving the scene meaning for her to drown. That's not fact, that's utter hyperbole and speculation, and that's all it is.
Once again we're faced with a situation where you want to make statements, demand answers, etc.. but can't stand up to scrutiny and won't answer questions...
Double standards seem to be your standard comment practice.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete"Kennedy was guilty of leaving the scene and Mary Jo drowned. Kennedy was guilty!"
Yes, KR, he was guilty, responsible, the bad guy in the event.
He is apparently dying of brain cancer, his sister to whom he appears to have been devoted, just died, and he was too ill to even attend the funeral. In spite of his guilt, I feel compassion for the man's grief. I feel compassion for the grief of the family of Novak as well.
Can you feel anything other than anger towards Kennedy? I have never met you in person, but in getting to know you KR through your comments, I perceive you as a person of strong passions and deep convictions. Even when you have been cross with me, I think of you a being ...a bit stern I think would be the best word; but not mean, and when you are not cross with me you are very kind. (well, except for maybe that 'screaming liberal' comment, lol). I'm hoping the kind, compassionate side comes out on top in spite of Kennedy's guilt all those decades ago.
KR said, "t's not like I left a woman in a car to drown, Penigma, that part of that night was no accident."
ReplyDeleteThat means, he left her on purpose, which in this context means, he left KNOWING she would drown, which constitutes depraved indifference murder my friend. THAT's what you accused him of, probably without meaning to, possibly without knowing it, I agree, but that IS what you accused him of by saying a. he left her to drown, and it was no accident.
That's not reconcilable with this:
"He left and she drowned. Two guys fishing the next morning saw the car and notified the authorities. What was Teddy *hickup* thinking? Only he and God truly know."
Now, either it WAS an accident that he left her to drown, or it wasn't. You said it wasn't, you SAID she left her to drown, not just he left her, but he left her to drown, but NOW you say only God knows what he meant. That's called an UNPROVEN allegation of intent - MAYBE it was an accident, mabye it wasn't - he MIGHT have wanted to cold-bloodedly KILL his passenger.. .sure KR, that's a sensible, reasonable accusation - it's also chicken-shlitz - either you think he meant to or you don't.
Once again, your statements bear out that you felt you know what he meant to do - he meant to leave her to drown, now that you're being hoisted by your own petard, you say "only he and God knew." Ok, I'll go with that, you are admitting you have no idea whether it was 'an accident', in fact, you admit it may well have been, and that only Ted and God know.
That said, you owe Kennedy an apology for saying his leaving her was no accident. He says otherwise, he says he didn't think she was still in the car, he said he tried to find her - so actually KR, we DO know, if we believe Kennedy at all, that he didn't mean to leave her to drown - and anything else is just hyperbole. He may not have tried hard enough, he CERTAINLY showed exceedingly poor judgment leaving the scene, but, he WAS drunk, poor judgment is assumed. Past that, everything else is speculation.
KR said:
ReplyDelete""That means, he left her on purpose,"
FACT!
Uh, let' see, only God knows, or it's a fact, which is it?
By "on purpose" do you mean, he left on purpose? Ok, agreed. But that's FAR different from he LEFT HER TO DROWN on purpose, which was your quote, and no amount of cutting out words to shade your past usage changes that. You pretended to know what was in his head, that he meant to leave her to drown - that's the FACT, jack.
-----------------------
"...murder my friend..."
And leave you with no friends? I'm not that cold hearted. ;-)"
HA! That was almost funny. Good for you! Soon you may actually not take yourself or much of this too seriously. Ted Kennedy is dying, what he did in 1968 is hardly relevant any more than was GWB's DUI in 1974. Someone died, it was a tragic accident - you have no proof his conduct would have, if done differently, resulted in anything other than her being equally dead. In fact, if he attempted to get to her, and failed, as he said, if he then had gone for help, it is virtually certain she was already dead by the time he left the water and would have absolutely been dead by the time he reached help.
He assumed, wrongly, that she had gotten out, much like him, when he couldn't find her. He assumed (wrongly) as a result the accident was nothing more serious than the fact his car was upturned in the water - he was dumb for making the assumption given someone was possibly still unaccounted for - but the point is, your so-called facts, are nothing of the kind, my little striving to be humorous friend.
KR,
ReplyDeleteDespite your cut/paste attempts to recharacterize this into something else, the fact is, you said Kennedy left her to drown - meaning he MEANT for her to drown - not just he left her.
He tried, several times, to save her. He notified his aides of the situation. He plead guilty to leaving the scene while causing injury, he did NOT plead guilty to 'leaving her to drown' and so is NOT guilty of any such thing, nor was he charged with depraved indifference murder.
Whether some trained diver could get to her in 25 minutes is rather immaterial. It's beyond lunacy to suggest that you know FOR CERTAIN or even likely that air would have been sufficient, that she was concious, that she was not incapacited, and so could have been able to access any air pocket to stay alive 25 minutes (or whatever amount of time) - in fact, 25 minutes of air is a rather larger amount of air than you might think - and frankly, your quote is simply yet more speculation.
If anything KR, you need to stop digging. You accused him of leaving her TO DROWN - that's the point, that was always the point, it continues to be the point, you accuse him of INTENT, meaning you knew what he MEANT to do with respect to her dying - not just whether he could save her, but rather that it was his purpose to leave her to drown.
Rephrase all you like, characterize by misquoting all you like, those were your words, and you get to live up to them. Posting some HIGHLY speculative claim doesn't make Kennedy anymore guilty of murder than any of the rest of the blather you've tossed out. You need to grasp that claiming he left her TO DROWN is far different than he left her - without knowing her fate, or with some hope of changing her fate - and saying it was 'no accident' means he intentionally left her TO DROWN. If you mean to say, he knew she couldn't get out and didn't do anything to stop it and left - yes, that's frankly pretty horrid, I'd go straight to get more help, so would you, probably even drunk, he made a poor choice, but he didn't simply WANT her to drown, he didn't try to kill her - he did leave her, but undoubtedly he had no desire that she die and THAT's the point, your words imply he wanted her death.
Look,
ReplyDeleteLet's put an end to this..
Do you think Ted Kennedy WANTED Mary Jo to die?
Do you think he did something which essentially constituted depraved indifference to her death?
Yes/No?
No, KR, I don't.
ReplyDeleteTo imply is to suggest, to infer is to interpret.
KR - what was he found guilty of, exactly?
and those 5000 words you want to ignore, they are ALL the difference.
Answer the qeustion - do you think he MEANT to cause her death, yes or no?
If yes, then, bluntly, you're once again straying off into tin-foil hat land.
If no, then what's your point again?
He (probably) was drunk, he says he wasn't but there is good reason to believe he was.
He had an accident, he tried to save her, she died - he should have called authorities, he didn't, instead he left, and for which he was rightly charged with leaving the scene where INJURY occured, not of leaving the scene CAUSING her death. There is a OCEAN of difference.
BTW, your desire to be pedantic certainly can be met head on - you said it was NO accident, he left her to drown implies intent, we may INFER your meaning logically to be that you IMPLIED he acted with depraved indifference.
So, do you think he meant to simply casually leave the scene uncaring whether she lived or died, with the full knowledge that by doing so, AND IN FACT, she would die because of his leaving the scene? Yes/no?
Simple question, try to answer. All else is jusr your 50th try to repeat the same schlock.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete"Kennedy was guilty. (as charged, in a court of law)"
I didn't remember that he was convicted, but it has been awhile since I reviewed those facts. Was there an actual conviction?
As you have pointed out, even charged one is innocent until proven guilty. Charged but not convicted is still innnocent.
KR wrote:
ReplyDelete" K-Rod said...
"To imply is to suggest, to infer is to interpret."
"your words imply""
So, KR are you ever going to get around to addressing the whole implication, suggestion, inference, interpretation that the anti-strib piece had pro-birther elements in it?
Because I'm still looking for some proof that Obama spent $1 million dollars to hide his real records, and the validated birth certificate from Hawaii for his half-sister that was, if I understand correctly, born in Kenya (different mother, I'm assuming).
Because I'm still well, kinda skeptical about some things, LOL.
ReplyDeleteA note in favor of KR's statement; Ted Kennedy was not only charged but convicted of leaving the scene of an accident, and given a two month suspended sentence for it.
ReplyDelete