What?! No Kennedy memorial thread?

[jamiebk]

I don't think anyone on this board has canonized Mr. Kennedy so I am not sure why you feel you must counter this horrible imbalance in reporting. It is you sir, who is creating the imbalance.

[Shapley]

I'm merely commenting on the news of the day. I can't post on CNN, CBS, or NBC. This is my sounding board.

Serenity did post a link to Mr. Obama's eulogy of Mr. Kennedy, so there is a bit of canonizing to be found here. I didn't start it. I did honour the requisite wait until after his burial before speaking ill of the dead.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I haven't noticed a whole lot of canonization attempts here on the board. Teddy the Runt has gotten a lot fewer prostrations and genuflections than, say, the Dead Actor whom a certain right wing individual persists in referring to as "Ronaldus Maximus". (One of the problems about throwing rocks is what they do to your glass walls...) GW of the Bushes, Teddy of Joe's Midnight Liquor Delivery Service, and many another scion of many another politically prominent family, adjust the law to suit their own convenience. We're all aware of it. It's not the sort of thing that you include in a eulogy, though. Their purpose is to speak well of the dead, and to comfort the living.

The Chappaquiddick flap is another thing. It will never go away. There is no political spin that can save it. Teddy behaved in a manner we don't encourage: he crashed and abandoned his lady. While the car was sinking. This is not a desirable course of behavior - "criminally negligent" is the least of it, in that he made no timely attempt to rescue his companion. Or call for help. This is not what one hopes for in a Gentleman Companion, and it left me with a permanent aversion to the man. If I, or one of mine, is on a date with a man, I expect that she'll be returned to her home alive and well, or that he'll be doing his very best to achieve that ideal. All the other details, such as marital status or various recreational chemical levels, are peripheral: the core of the nastiness is that Ted abandoned a lady in distress. Left her to the Fates. Scuttled off into his hole and hid.

[Giant Communist Robot]

. It is for this reason that I am hesitant to refer to her death as 'accidental' and move it towards 'manslaughter'. I have not used the term 'murder', however, as I do not view it as such.

Don't equivocate! Driving off the road into the water was an accident. Manslaughter sounds lawyerly, but let me remind you no manslaughter charges were made, therefore in lawyerly terms, there was no manslaughter.

But, as I said, this is my opinion. I merely expressed it here as a counter to the current canonization being offered by those who worship at the Kennedy altar.

What's this? Some attempt to make all those who don't agree with you look foolish?

[Giant Communist Robot]

The charge was leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. Good luck trying to prove he used his connections to avoid serious charges.

[Giant Communist Robot]

Serenity did post a link to Mr. Obama's eulogy of Mr. Kennedy, so there is a bit of canonizing to be found here.

A eulogy is where one speaks good of the dead. Its a convention for funerals, not a device for expounding your political platform that might upset those who care about the deceased. Its an orthodox form of respect. You know, its likely some people might have cared about Kennedy and would be interested in the eulogy. You aren't required to click on any links. Even the worst person may get a eulogy. No one says "He was a piece of crap, good riddance!" even if its true. In a eulogy some good is looked for in the person. It isn't glorifying at all, just meant to comfort some. No canonizing.

[Shapley]

Manslaughter sounds lawyerly, but let me remind you no manslaughter charges were made, therefore in lawyerly terms, there was no manslaughter.

Oh! But I disagree. There have been many a murder committed that resulted in no murder charges. That does not mean no murder was committed. There are thefts, robberies, beatings, purse snatchings, and rapes that exist sans charges, why would this be different for manslaughter. Manslaughter, by defition, is

the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

. I certainly don't consider Miss Kopechne's killing lawful, as a lawful killing would require due process or self defense (IMHO), both of which appear to missing in this instance. Murder requires express or implied malice, which also appears to be missing in this instance. That leaves manslaughter, IMHO.

What's this? Some attempt to make all those who don't agree with you look foolish?

No. [sigh]. Just another Juvenal attempt at satire, which apparently failed. I was trying to make a vague reference to 'worshipping at the corporate altar', in order to be jarring. Satire doesn't appear to be long suit.

[Giant Communist Robot]

I certainly don't consider Miss Kopechne's killing lawful,

She died in an accident. This manslaughter stuff just exists in your imagination. If the circumstances had fit the definition for manslaughter, those charges would have been filed. The circumstances fit the charge I posted above.

[Shapley]

She died in an accident. This manslaughter stuff just exists in your imagination. If the circumstances had fit the definition for manslaughter, those charges would have been filed. The circumstances fit the charge I posted above.

Again, I disagree. Now, I admit I'm no expert on Massachusetts law in the 1960s, but I do know enough to know that not every crime is charged as the circumstances fit. This is where the family connections would come into play. Mr. Kennedy agrees to plead 'guilty' to a lesser charge of leaving the scene of an accident, no greater charges are filed, and the prosecutor gets to keep his job, or gets promoted in a couple of weeks, or his brother-in-law gets a pass on that tax-evasion thing... Who knows what deals may have been made behind closed doors. I don't. All I know is that a death that would have been ambitiously pursued as manslaughter in other areas pretty well gets a pass in this case.

If Bob Dylan had had written The Lonesome Death of Mary Jo Kopechne, perhaps the case would have been viewed differently.

.....In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavel
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed with his auto
Who just happened to be worryin' 'bout his political future'
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
Edward Kennedy with a two-month suspended sentence.

Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.

- my apologies to Mr. Dylan -

[Giant Communist Robot]

Oh! But I disagree. There have been many a murder committed that resulted in no murder charges. That does not mean no murder was committed. There are thefts, robberies, beatings, purse snatchings, and rapes that exist sans charges, why would this be different for manslaughter. Manslaughter, by defition, is

As a general term, we all understand that murder is when someone kills another, but manslaughter becomes a finer legal point--its lawyerspeak. Thefts, robberies, beatings, purse snatchings, and rapes are all easily understood crimes, but manslaughter is different. It has specific legal requirements that take it out of the realm of experience of most (I mean even those that watch CSI). At any rate, the criteria for manslaughter were not met and charges were not filed. For murder, when they have a suspect, charges are not filed when there is insufficient evidence. It doesn't mean the suspect got away with it. Maybe they have the wrong guy. Manslaughter likely has a much lower threshold for evidence and consequently easier to prove. Even with all that is known about this those charges weren't filed. Yeah, I know, someone died but I don't have to look up "death" to understand it. Was it manslaugher? Crikey, gotta rush down to the library and grab some law books to find out!

Of course not.

[Giant Communist Robot]

This is where the family connections would come into play. Mr. Kennedy agrees to plead 'guilty' to a lesser charge of leaving the scene of an accident, no greater charges are filed, and the prosecutor gets to keep his job, or gets promoted in a couple of weeks, or his brother-in-law gets a pass on that tax-evasion thing

I know this is what you feel. And I knew it was coming. Your argument rests on claims that can't be substantiated.

[Shapley]

I know this is what you feel. And I knew it was coming. Your argument rests on claims that can't be substantiated.

True. However, the admonition that one be considered 'innocent unless proven guilty' is only applicable in legal terms. O.J. Simpson was found 'not guilty' of murder in the eyes of the law, and in any legal sense, we have to accept that ruling. However, on the personal level, we are free to conclude that he is guilty as charged. Nor is this a new concept. Lizzie Borden may, indeed, have taken an axe and gave her mother forty whacks. It is perhaps even true that when she saw what she had done, she gave her father forty-one. Certainly, a large share of people in Fall River, Massachusetts and beyond believed it to be true, which is. Nonetheless, she was found 'not guilty' and thus, in the eyes of the law, the rhyme is incorrect.

Nor am I alone in my belief that he is guilty of manslaughter, although many I hear from refer to it as 'murder'. I make a distinction between the two. The claims on which my argument rests can neither be proven nor disproven at this point, so it comes down to what one chooses to believe.

[OperaTenor]

GCR, your tin foil hat is obviously out of adjustment.

[piqaboo]

I'll go w Selma: his behaviour was that of a Coward, and a Cad.

No matter what else he accomplished in a positive sense, he branded himself forever the night he abandoned that young woman.
The brand was deep enough that he only ran once for the presidency, and it was clear subsequent attempts would fare no better.

[Giant Communist Robot]

from The tao of Mrs. Wei

feet of clay do not change how high
these tall men reached. Heroes have feet
ugly with wars and dirt. Let them rest
with their bodies. Better to remember how
they led a nation's feet to high places.
Eyes that watch the ground never see
the sky, never think flying is possible

[Shapley]

from The tao of Mrs. Wei

feet of clay do not change how high
these tall men reached. Heroes have feet
ugly with wars and dirt. Let them rest
with their bodies. Better to remember how
they led a nation's feet to high places.
Eyes that watch the ground never see
the sky, never think flying is possible

My point is simply that I don't believe he led our nation's feet to high places. He orchestrated the betrayal of our South Vietnamese allies, leading to the death of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians in the aftermath. Our nation still bears the shame of that betrayal.

He led the fight for free and unfettered abortions, resulting in the death of millions of innocent, unborn children. This he did while calling himself 'Catholic', in spite of consistent Papal proclamations against abortion. There was no ambiguity regarding the positions Catholics are expected to take on the issue.

His most famous stance has been his consistent call for an unconstitutional expansion of federal power, this despite his repeated oath to 'uphold and defend the Constitution'.

It is my belief that he sought to assuage his guilt at the expense of the entire nation.

I am willing to overlook the clay feet of heroes, but I am not willing to regard as heroes those who claim theft as charity and vice as virtue.

V/R
Shapley

[Giant Communist Robot]

My point is simply that I don't believe he led our nation's feet to high places.

Oh, please. He served as the main defense against the radical Republicans and saved democracy in our country. If not for him, the Republicans would have turned this country into a theocracy (so convenient for some to forget about those times). Children would be taught Usshers' age for the earth instead of billions of years, and evolution would be banned from textbooks. They would learn that dinosaurs and humans coexisted and other nonsense. But this stuff only represented the vanguard of the Republican agenda and no doubt their plans for us were grim.

Kennedy never gave up and forced them time after time to compromise on their radical ideas, wore them down, and hammered away at their spurious beliefs until their power was gone. We have free speech today because he beat them. Today scientists have peer review instead of a bible committee. He's the reason we have elections today instead of the Christian equivalent of an Ayatollah telling us what to think.

This country was headed into a fundamentalist nightmare and he stayed the course, when it wasn't fashionable, when he was considered old-fashioned. His core beliefs kept us out of that hellish scenario of the Republicans and gave us the basic rights our country's founders promised us. We owe our freedom to him.

[Shapley]

Uhh, yeah.... whatever.

I Mr. Obama was Ayatollah. He will be coming down from the mountain shortly to tell us that we must have Universal health coverage, or else.

[Giant Communist Robot]

The whole point of the liberal philosophy in this country is that there is too much money and power in too few hands. Making those who can afford to pay the cost for those who can't is simply an attempt to correct this error. Obama cares about those marginalized people; you can bet wealthy Republican Congressmen don't.

[Giant Communist Robot]

Uhh, yeah.... whatever.

I Mr. Obama was Ayatollah. He will be coming down from the mountain shortly to tell us that we must have Universal health coverage, or else.

Obama has never claimed religious grounds as the foundation for UHC. Ayatollahs routinely make pronouncements on issues based on their interpretations of religious texts. Does that sound more like the Republican Party or what? Don't tell me "what" because they pointed to the bible as their authority. You have things confused, here. The Democratic Party is not about replacing the constitution with the bible, but insuring social justice. Justice for all, including those who can't pay.