Recent articles in the Rocky Mountain News: Al Jazeera makes a blatantly false claim against Joe Biden, and gets other facts wrong, too. Plus: Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion--the story from the 19th century shows that some things haven't changed. (Both stories in same link).
Just posted: Democratic prayer celebration with Sister Helen Prejean and the head of the Islamic Society of North America should have spurred media queries.
Coming soon: The Obama biographies recently published in the Washington Post, Newsweek, and Time.
Personal note: I was in the convention hall for Senator Kennedy's speech, almost certainly his last to a Democratic National Convention. Back at the 1956 Democratic Convention, Adlai Stevenson threw open the Vice-Presidential nomination, and let the delegates pick. Young Senator John F. Kennedy tried, but was defeated by Estes Kefauver. For over half a century since then, the Kennedys have been a major part of every Democratic National Convention. All three of the brothers had successes and failures, good ideas and not-so-good ones. The mass of delegates at the Denver Convention waving their white-on-blue "Kennedy" signs were remembering the many positive parts of the Kennedy record. Senator Edward Kennedy's final speech to a Convention was dignified, gracious, beautiful, and exemplified the Kennedy family at its best.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
In Search of Jefferson's Moose
Sources on the Second Amendment
But Ted seems to be a particularly weak vessel for the preservation of the Kennedy mystique. Next year by the time of the double 40th anniversary of the moon landing and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, perhaps we will have finished with the unfortunate family.
Despite all this, the world would have been a better place had he never been born. The rise of the Kennedys is but one of the myriad horrors stemming from Prohibition...
Suffocated- no water in her lungs. Died with her face pressed, inside, against the ceiling of the car's roof, depleting what air there was trapped there. Probably took a while.
You get my drift.
He's a
manperson you wouldn't leave alone in a room with any of your female relatives.The media coverage of the elections is getting to be so hopelessly disappointing. We have so many serious problems, and these silly things are being raised? If we're concerned about Obama and McCain's views on the death penalty, well, what ever happened to asking for a position and then debating the merits?
And, of course, we cannot forget Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, who headed Barack Obama's Presidential search team. In other words, the Kennedy family will continue to make its mark for years to come in American politics.
I thought of Maria as well but didn't include her because she has no apparent political ambition (unlike her cousins).
I am guessing that once Arnold leaves office, she will want to go back to one of the networks and leave the quest for political office to others.
A slurring, staggering, drunken oaf with (unfortunately only) one foot in the grave babbling inanities? Sadly, you're correct: that is the best the Kennedys have ever managed. At least he got to the stage and back without drowning any women or children in the process.
"drown a young girl[...]"
And her unborn child with her. A lot of people forget that (although Teddy had it very much in mind at the time).
FYI, Wikipedia describes Mr. Kopel as a "life-long Democrat," albeit one who is strongly Zionist and a strong 2nd amendment advocate. I wouldn't exactly describe him as "right wing".
It is analogous to a common misconception about professional economists. Most people think them "right wing" because, across the political spectrum, they favor market solutions over government regulations (all things being equal). Despite this wide-held belief, it is well known to professional economists themselves that the average professional economist is a moderate Democrat, albeit one who favors free trade over protectionism.
"Then we get to Israel. Bishara writes that Biden is “reported to be a self-proclaimed Zionist who advocates strong relations with Israel as the cornerstone of US policy in the region. In other words, expect more of the same imbalanced Washington policies towards the so-called Middle East ‘peace process.'”
The passive voice is odd. Who “reported” that Biden is “a self-proclaimed Zionist”? Why not cite the reporting source?
The source, which I found in less than a minute of Internet searching, is Shalom TV, an American cable TV station. In a March 2007 interview on Shalom TV, Biden stated, “I am a Zionist.”
So Bishara claims that Biden is a SELF-proclaimed Zionist, Kopel takes him to task for not citing a source, and then himself finds the source, to wit Biden.
I would have thought the source of a "self-proclaimed" statement to be rather obvious and not quite evidence of "blantant"ly false claims.
I stand corrected. I assumed the organizing theme for the bloggers was some version of center to right libertarianism. I thought Jim Lindgren, who seems sort of Reagan Democratish, was as far left as they get.
Ted didn't have many positive points.
Even if he did, he left a woman in a car to die. Pretty darn big negative.
I don't see much reason to be classy about fat Teddy.
Indeed. (Whatever Kopel's leanings, I doubt that Ted Kennedy has been much to his taste on the Second Amendment.)
Kicking a dying man is amusing, to some people.
That may be true--though from what I understand, the only Bush who may have future political ambitions is George P. Bush (famously referred to as "the little brown one" by his grandfather in 1988, and son of Jeb).
But I agree with your overall point. I am honestly a little disgusted at the idea that parentage (or even who you are married to) is considered more important than actual merit.
Honestly, how many other women do you want politicians to murder? Can't you be satisfied with Mary Jo Kopechne?
This obviously depends on your point of view, but here are a few items on which people of a variety of views might find consensus:
(a) immigration reform. Senator Kennedy has been a leader in immigration reform for several decades, beginning with the legislation that repealed the appallingly racist Immigration Act of 1924;
(b) energy. He has been a long-term supporter of the search for alternative energy sources.
(c) gay rights. He has been a major supporter of LGBT rights.
He has also shown a willingness to change his mind and exhibited some moral courage. For example, though a supporter of the Republican cause in Northern Ireland, in 2005 he publicly snubbed Gerry Adams and criticized IRA for its criminal activity and contempt for the rule of law.
Except for near his home on the cape.
So if I played Russian Roulette and happened not to blow my brains out, anyone who had urged me not to play was just being a killjoy?
If the worst thing you can think of to say about Jeb is that he delayed euthanizing a women who wasn't even in any pain, Jeb must be one hell of a good governor.
There's the secret wish of your conservative "pro-life" guy. Kill all those you don't like.
I'd agree with you if it were any other forum, but as I understand it, perfect ideological conformity is being required on all matters, down to (or up to) the food the delegates are allowed to eat.
Maybe. On the other hand, perhaps he sincerely believes that the project would harm fisherman, like the Cape Code Commission does, hurt the environment, as many opponents do, or damage the local economy. I note that former governor Mitt Romney also opposes the Cape Wind project.
The autopsy merely confirmed what was known before she "died". There wasn't a scintilla of evidence of consciousness or hope that she would ever recover. If not for the barbaric superstition of some people, who believe that they must prove their devotion to their evil deity by suffering whatever torment he delivers and forcing others to do the same, terminating the feeding of an empty shell of a body would not have been an issue.
Moreover, the autopsy entirely demolishes the credibility of her parents when they asserted that she recognized them and attempted to communicate. In fact, the evidence shows that she was, without any doubt, totally blind. They saw what they wanted to see and duped half the rest of the country into believing it. I saw duped because the video commonly shown on the news was a deceptively edited 6 minutes from a 6 hour long tape -- when viewed in its entirety, it shows that she "clearly does not consistently respond to her mother".
As we now know every single statement Kennedy made was false. Whether this consequences are desirable is a another matter. Kennedy deliberately mislead Congress and the public on this bill and we still live with the consequences.
Explain to me why Schiavo could not be released to her parents so that they could diagnose and treat her at their expense. Moreover, to my knowledge she never had a PET scan, which would have shown no metabolic activity and ended the controversy. Why was it so important to kill her?
Isn't this a bit hard on Obama voters?
"evil deity" insults millions, we confine our scorn to one man.
Because when she was still healthy she expressed her wishes to the contrary to her husband. And to save you the trouble of arguing that her parents claimed otherwise, the final venue for resolving disagreements like that is a courtroom, and the judge believed him, not them.
"Despite all this, the world would have been a better place had he never been born..."
with
"There's the secret wish of your [sic] conservative "pro-life" guy. Kill all those you don't like."
Psalm, learn to read for content. Do you seriously believe there is no difference between claiming the world would have been better off if X had never been born and the claim X should be killed? And, BTW, what have I *EVER* said that suggests I'm a conservative "pro-life" guy??!!
That begs the question. Just because some judge says something doesn't mean it's the right decision. Judges make wrong decisions all the time.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em. But seriously, isn't an individual singled out for scorn generally more seriously hurt than one of a large group?
Senator Kennedy misled no one about the Immigration Act of 1965.
(1) immigration only reached one million per year in 2000. In the years immediately following 1965 the number of visas was set around 300,000. The Act hardly opened the floodgates. The level has gradually increased. Congress could have put an end to the increase at any time.
(2) The ethnic mix did not change in any unexpected way. It was quite explicit that the Act would remove the preference for Europeans and cause a shift to some extent to non-Europeans. The US has not been flooded with immigrants from the poorest countries. How many immigrants do you think come from Burkina Faso or Malawi?
Read:
That's why "she never had a PET scan."
Good point. So the solution to that problem is to have the federal government jump in when there's "a great political issue" to exploit, right? Because making sure "the pro-life base will be excited" has a lot of electoral value, right?
That is an overboard, unnecessary, ad hominem attack of "leftist[s]." Further, it took absolutely zero meaningful reflection, and it adds nothing to the substance of the debate on this blog. This sort of statement isn't typically met with criticism on the VC b/c this blog's commenters have formed what functions as a right-wing echo chamber. Further, this statement is absolutely no different than the following (false) statement: those rightists hate gays and minorities, they are bigoted rednecks that should be ashamed of themselves.
Regarding Ted Kennedy, he is in no way the sole example of the problem of dynastic politics. The Bushes immediately spring to mind, as do the Clintons. This is not a question of left or right -- rule by family is not a sound form of governance. The fact that anyone has automatic wealth, privilege, connections, and name-recognition because of birth into a specific family does not mean that person is competent or trustworthy.
I would like to see the voting public mature past emotional attachments to ruling families to evaluate candidates and their conduct on the merits.
if someone wants to tear up for a specimen of humanity like Kennedy, knock yourself out-don't expect the commoners to forget what he did when things got tough. if the standard is "let he who has not left a girl to die while saving his own rear cast the first stone", I imagine everyone posting here qualifies.
"Senator Kennedy misled no one about the Immigration Act of 1965."
Kennedy misled everyone who listened to his opening remarks at the hearing. But the real deception lies in the "fine print" of the act which established an unlimited non-quota immigration which includes immediate family members. Kennedy and other supporters used the magician's technique of misdirection by focusing attention on the modest change in the quota-immigration while ignoring the non-quota part. And you're trying the same trick. Here's an example of the deceptive tactics used. From the hearings.
Scott went on to say the bill would only add 8,000 per year, concealing the fact that number only applied to non-Western Hemisphere quota-immigrants. In reality the real increase in immigration would be gigantic.
"... more than adequate to diagnose PVS to the highest degree of medical certainty,..."
Not true. Those tests might have been adequate to achieve a high degree, but not the highest. For that you need a PET scan. Moreover a legal forum, and a politically charged one at that, is prone to error. The "facts" established by experts in court sometimes get overturned as in the silicon implant case and many others.
I don't see why her parents were not allowed to pay for additional diagnostic tests. What's the harm-- it's their money? If you want to find out about the world: measure it. Don't rely on so-called expert judgment. I have followed that philosophy for my whole career and it has served me well. Measure it!
Indeed. Take John McCain, for example.
The person you're contradicting is Ronald Cranford. I know something about his credentials. I know nothing about yours. So you need to explain what you know that he doesn't.
Yes, it makes much more sense to trust some random guy on the internet.
Because that was contrary to the instructions she gave when there was still a person living inside her body. Then again, why should the state respect the wishes of an individual, regarding such a personal matter?
How can we achieve a higher degree of certainty with less information? Now that's possible if the additional information were pure noise. But PET scans don't produce pure noise because they provide the gold standard for brain function. Thus the PET scan would confirm the diagnosis and decrease the uncertainty about the patient's condition. So you can't achieve the "highest possible degree of uncertainty" without it.
I'm sure Cranford really said the PET was unnecessary because a sufficient degree of certainty had already been achieved. But sufficient is different from "the highest possible." If a PET scan were done, it would have harmed no one except for wasting the parent's own money. It's their money waste, and if that would make them feel better and help end the dispute, then why not?
"Then again, why should the state respect the wishes of an individual, regarding such a personal matter?"
The state frequently frustrates the wishes of an individual. Look at what happened with the Buck Estate. But let's look at something more on point-- DeBakey. His doctors explicitly ignored his instructions and did heart surgery on him at age 97 saving his life and returning him to health. Later he said that he was glad his doctors disregarded his instructions. Note they used the very procedure that he pioneered, so he was certainly qualified to judge whether to operate.
So you can't achieve the "highest possible degree of certainty" without it.
I already told you why not. Because someone had the authority to decide, and it wasn't them. And please don't expect any reasonable person to believe that this one thing would have finally shut them up. Yeah, right.
So this means that when people leave instructions, those instructions should be ignored, because Zarkov has decided to invoke the DeBakey Anecdote. Right?
"I already told you why not. Because someone had the authority to decide, and it wasn't them."
So we come full circle. You can't really give me any reason other than some authority said so. That's it.
It wasn't "some authority." It was the patient herself. You're the one who's arguing that "some authority," i.e., the government, should be allowed to ignore a patient's decision about her own care.
That was sharply contested. Given that the family insisted that she never issued that instruction, and the guy who claimed she did stood to personally gain from seeing her killed, the question became should that guy's claims be accepted?
If she had actually expressed that desire, there would have been better evidence of that fact than the allegations of someone who stood to gain personally from her death.
That question was raised, and the courts provided an answer. But you didn't like the answer, so you think the federal government should get involved.
And speaking of who "stood to gain," we know the federal government got involved because it was "a great political issue" to exploit, because they knew "the pro-life base will be excited."
The GOP used to be the party of law and order, and state's rights, and small, non-intrusive government. Now, not so much. Now it's the party of exploiting culture wars to win elections.
I am not a person of faith in court infallibility. Courts get things wrong every day. Though Nancy Pelosi might think that a court order is "almost as though God has spoken," I do not.
"But you didn't like the answer, so you think the federal government should get involved."
Actually, I never said anything about the federal government. My position is this: Since Michael Schiavo's evidence was so weak and self-serving; the results of killing her irrevocable; and the family was completely willing to assume the costs and labor of her care; any error should have been made on the side of life.
And I strongly oppose slowly starving/dehydrating people to death over the course of several weeks, as opposed to quickly ending a life (when that result is proper) by dint of, e.g., quick and painless injection.
He engaged in espionage with the dying Soviet Union, as substantiated by records freed from Soviet archives (the commies keep records of everything, just like the German Nazis did) after 1990. A drunken, power bloated lout? Sure. An unindicted killer? Certainly. But the traitor label is the one that should have been sufficient to consign him to the hell of having no publicity for even the Dhims of this party.
Of all the evil that Ted ever did, breaking his oath of office is the only one that I would hang him for. The rest was condoned and coopted by the heirs of the Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts who always sent him back to the Senate.
Our court system is imperfect, like everything else ever created by humans. But it's all we've got. It's like democracy. Democracy is a highly imperfect system, but it's way ahead of whatever's in second place. The only thing worse than relying on our court system is to choose to not rely on our court system. Trouble is, that's the idea you're promoting.
It's nice to know your position, but what's infinitely more important is the position taken by the court. If you claim the court should be ignored, then who should we rely on instead? You?
It's nice to know that you have a preference, and I hope your preference is respected, if the time ever comes when someone else has to make a decision about whether or not to respect your preference, as it applies to your own body. Because there seem to be some people who think that their opinion of what's right for you counts more than the preference you expressed for yourself.
By the way, people who have studied the process of death and dying might contradict some of the assumptions I think you're making, about the nature of the experiences you described.
Why even bother to respond if you are going to attack a series of strawmen? Have fun with yourself.
If you're claiming that I'm using a straw-man argument you should be specific and tell us where it is. I don't see it.
You said "I never said anything about the federal government." You also said you don't trust the court. So what's your solution? You're whining about the outcome, while not saying what you think the solution is. Instead you're hiding behind generalities.