08-27-2009, 10:47 AM
I don’t know about the other stations, but NBC Nightly News devoted an entire hour to remembering Ted Kennedy. Considering his prolific run in the Senate, it’s warranted, though I think conservative news networks should be quick to point out that when Strom Thurmond died, he certainly didn’t get that kind of coverage. Anyway, the point is that the last of the Kennedy brothers is dead, and by all public accounts, he was a great man, a great leader, all those double entendres about his big heart, etc.
Well, I disagree, about all the Kennedys really, but especially Ted. Firstly, his character as a human being was questionable, not all the time obviously, but enough to build himself a pretty strong reputation as a philanderer and a boozer for much of his life. It’s funny (convenient) how a Catholic repented and got a second marriage in the twilight of his life. He did work hard (for a senator, anyway) toward the end, but I think for most of his life, one could probably draw some pretty strong comparisons to George W. Bush.
Despite coming from a well-off lifestyle, Ted Kennedy “fought” for improved quality of life for everyone. You can look at it that way, and it’s probably true that he believed in most of what he said in his speeches, but from another perspective, his prerogatives were shortsighted pandering. That’s where, I believe, the current healthcare legislation, his baby, a bill likely to be his namesake, enters this tirade.
Is healthcare reform a priority for America? Absolutely. Should congress be working right now to cut costs and make healthcare affordable for everyone? Definitely. Should we drastically increase the national debt in order to cover all uninsured Americans, including those who would be denied coverage for preexisting conditions? Should we be fulfilling Ted Kennedy’s dream right now as our top priority no matter the cost or the long-term sense in the plan? I don’t think so.
This is what separates the Kennedys, issue-wise, from less salacious and more pragmatic liberals. Al Gore is the only one who comes to mind, but his push to overhaul the power grid and make it run (eventually) entirely on renewable resources, while more expensive than insuring all Americans in the short term, is the smartest long-term investment we could make. Not only would it greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil (when combined with electric cars), it could quite possibly prevent Greenland from melting, which will prevent about a hundred or so more Hurricane Katrinas.
Call me selfish, but I think that saving the lives and quality of life for billions of people on the planet, not to mention the planet’s proverbial health, should come before delaying the deaths of a small minority of Americans. The thing is: It’s not as sexy, not as Kennedy-esque, as the healthcare bill. It was a dynasty of social compassion, but also a dynasty of living fast and dying young. I don’t think that’s the outlook we should have for our own lives, for our country and planet’s future. If this is the “end of an era,” as it was dubbed several times by reporters tonight, I say good riddance.
Well, I disagree, about all the Kennedys really, but especially Ted. Firstly, his character as a human being was questionable, not all the time obviously, but enough to build himself a pretty strong reputation as a philanderer and a boozer for much of his life. It’s funny (convenient) how a Catholic repented and got a second marriage in the twilight of his life. He did work hard (for a senator, anyway) toward the end, but I think for most of his life, one could probably draw some pretty strong comparisons to George W. Bush.
Despite coming from a well-off lifestyle, Ted Kennedy “fought” for improved quality of life for everyone. You can look at it that way, and it’s probably true that he believed in most of what he said in his speeches, but from another perspective, his prerogatives were shortsighted pandering. That’s where, I believe, the current healthcare legislation, his baby, a bill likely to be his namesake, enters this tirade.
Is healthcare reform a priority for America? Absolutely. Should congress be working right now to cut costs and make healthcare affordable for everyone? Definitely. Should we drastically increase the national debt in order to cover all uninsured Americans, including those who would be denied coverage for preexisting conditions? Should we be fulfilling Ted Kennedy’s dream right now as our top priority no matter the cost or the long-term sense in the plan? I don’t think so.
This is what separates the Kennedys, issue-wise, from less salacious and more pragmatic liberals. Al Gore is the only one who comes to mind, but his push to overhaul the power grid and make it run (eventually) entirely on renewable resources, while more expensive than insuring all Americans in the short term, is the smartest long-term investment we could make. Not only would it greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil (when combined with electric cars), it could quite possibly prevent Greenland from melting, which will prevent about a hundred or so more Hurricane Katrinas.
Call me selfish, but I think that saving the lives and quality of life for billions of people on the planet, not to mention the planet’s proverbial health, should come before delaying the deaths of a small minority of Americans. The thing is: It’s not as sexy, not as Kennedy-esque, as the healthcare bill. It was a dynasty of social compassion, but also a dynasty of living fast and dying young. I don’t think that’s the outlook we should have for our own lives, for our country and planet’s future. If this is the “end of an era,” as it was dubbed several times by reporters tonight, I say good riddance.