I was in Mass General Hospital about a year ago on the exact day that Kennedy was. Strangely enough, I found out I had brain cancer too that night. Luckily, mine was not as serious as his. I feel fortunate.
Right on. Those of us outside the states just don't care that one of your politicians died - unless he was a competent computer expert. I come here for "Hacker News", not political death notices.
Shall I post here when a long-serving New Zealand politician dies?
The influence of America on the rest of the world, particularly insignificant antipodean islands like yours and mine, is massive and the death of Democratic Senator #60 (I'm counting the two independents where they caucus) has potentially large consequences for the power struggle in Washington.
That's it's Teddy Kennedy, long-time driver of Health Care reform at a time when that's either the #1 or 2 issue in the States, makes it even more so. You don't think efficiencies for Big Pharma in the US would affect our health care?
Admittedly, I'm a bit of an amerophile, particularly US politics. The US Electoral College? Possibly the greatest social hack of the 18th Century.
"Shall I post here when a long-serving New Zealand politician dies?"
Ahh but you aren't going to get the upvotes to get it onto the HN front page. HN membership is dominated by Americans. No harm in that really except for stuff like this.
As an Indian, I don't particularly care to have US politics / news of the demise of sundry USA politicians on the HN front page either, but the "intellectually interesting" filter is wide enough to allow this kind of thing to happen occasionally. I think of it as static on an otherwise clear channel, and wait for it to pass.
As long as there are enough people to upvote these stories, I don't think there is anything anyone can do about it. Just wait for it to drop off the front page.
But otoh, perhaps the non USA contingent on HN should vote up the news of the death of some non US politician and keep it on the front page? Maybe one of the communist bosses of China when he goes to the big Party Office in The Sky.
"If enough of us flag it, then the article gets killed."
I am sure many people are flagging this article.
That said, I'd be very surprised if this story got killed. I think the "get enough flags and the story gets automatically killed" feature is overridden for stories with a large number of upvotes and needs moderator approval.
I suspect this is one of those cases where the majority of American HN users can't see why this submission is not significant and worthy of HN attention and the majority of non Americans are wondering why it is.
As a thought experiment, if the majority of HN users were, say, Russians, I doubt this story would be on the front page or the top news item. But then the occasional Russian political news would leak through the "intellectually interesting" lens and the non Russians would be complaining!
I'm not sure it's American vs non-American. As originally pointed out, this will be covered in great detail in the American mainstream media.
It was on the radio as I woke up this morning, it was on the TV as I headed out the door. It's in the NYT. It already is and will be everywhere. Thus even for Americans, what's the point of ALSO having it on HN?
The discussion? But how can any discussion on this topic be anything other then politics?
I doubt many people were flagging the story because the "flag" feature is very subtle. Maybe now that someone has mentioned flagging, this story will soon be dead. I guess time will tell.
Please don't post "not Hacker News" comments. It makes for extremely uninteresting reading. Now the first thing anyone sees when they click on the comments for this story is this boring thread.
Firstly, I think this has a place here, and I think the votes reflect that (I'd also be happy if it were submitted and received no votes - that's the purpose of the site).
I'd be interested in any discussion about the impact this may have on more relevant areas of ours lives - areas that unite us under the HN brand, that probably won't be discussed in newspapers.
How might this impact the Health Care debate, with the subsequent impact on start-ups hiring staff or freelancers / solo businesses for whom illness might sicken them but kill their business aspirations?
Kennedy's death also minimises the possibility of Cloture in the Senate, since short-term Democrat thinking in the Mass. congress means their Senate seats can only be filled by special election, not appointment. If the Washington Democrats were to push for legislation that would support tech development, broadband access, or small business, might it be blocked by filibuster techniques?
Perhaps even a broader debate on hacker perception of the role of politicians, using Kennedy's legacy as a focal point, or the role of power in an age of information far removed from when Jackie, Bobby and Teddy sought politics as the only way to influence national policy?
I'm not saying politics has no place here. That's why I didn't want to flag the article. But the linked to article is plain headline news, not the kind of interesting debate you describe.
America's got a fucked-up sense of morality. Everybody's messed up in one way or another romantically. We have a distorted sense of expectation, mixed with a bunch of weird ideas about what's appropriate and what isn't.
There've been many perfect gentlemen politicians that were terrible. I hope one day we start judging politicians the way we would businessmen, wherein personal life matters less than performance.
Just a minor quibble, not meant to detract your point: it's curious that even as you criticize America's sense of morality, you seem to use "gentlemen" as opposed to "womanizer".
Politicians have a lot of power, and that power can easily be misused. All other things being equal, I'd much prefer to elect an honest politician with strong moral fibre to a dishonest one with few scruples.
If a guy can't resist the temptation to break a promise he made to his wife for the sake of a few cheap kicks, it's less likely that he can resist the temptation to, say, hand out political favours to his favourite campaign donors.
> I have always wondered why citizens expect politicians to be 'moral' and whether 'immoral' politicians are necessarily bad leader
I think its the need to relate it to something easier to understand. Policy positions can be complex and subtle, but for a lot of people, "don't cheat on your wife/husband" is an absolute and a convenient/simple (albeit horribly inaccurate) metric.
While Ted was a pretty cool guy, eh garnered appropriations and doesn't afraid of anything, I don't think anyone could really live up to his brothers.
John was an order of magnitude greater, and Bobby was at least an order of magnitude greater than that!
Bobby was everything Obama aspires to be and more. His assassination was probably the worst event of '68 -- and a fuckton of awful shit happened that year: the crushing of Prague Spring, the events of May in Paris, MLK's assassination, the DNC in Chicago, the burning of DC, Nixon's election -- it was the last gasp of modernity. I can't think about it without crying.
I was just thinking of those events this past week as I see how the media is assisting corporate/industry status quo to fight health care reform. Regardless of what you think of the details of this current legislation (I'm not a fan of some details myself), a key thing, and HN appropriate, to understand is this is the battle ground for change of any sort, not just health care. Industry will fight these sweeping changes since if they win this battle, they feel the momentum for other change may be curtailed.
Media doesn't work for the viewer/reader, they work for the advertiser. This fundamental is mostly the same since 1968. A key difference between 1968 and 2009 is the level of refinement and completeness of this control.
Is this comment HN appropriate? Most startups talk about being disruptive. That's not so hard to do if your building a web-widget. But that's hardly being disruptive. You want to do something BIG? Be prepared for lots of opposition from industry status quo.
You want to be disruptive like John or Bobby Kennedy or MLK Jr.? You have to be prepared to die to be that kind of Hacker.
An alternative viewpoint from Reason - Ted Kennedy and the Death (Hopefully) of an Era: The controversial senator belonged to a different age, one ill-suited to today's increasingly decentralized world (http://www.reason.com/news/show/135658.html)
Excerpt: "The legislation for which he will be remembered is precisely the sort of top-down, centralized legislation that needs to be jettisoned in the 21st century. [...] Bigger was better, and government at every level but especially at the highest level, had to lead the way. In an increasingly flat, dispersed, networked world in which power, information, knowledge, purchasing power, and more was rapidly decentralizing, Kennedy was all for sitting at the top of a pyramid and directing activity."
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
Both of you, stop it. There is a place for both government and the free market in society. An unchecked free market is insanely unstable; an unchecked government is controlling and corrupt. To suggest that entrepreneurs are largely wasting money is as wrong as suggesting that politicians are leeches.
spking: Implying that Ted Kennedy didn't fight hard every day of his life in politics is as cruel and stupid as suggesting that a man can't grow up after a reckless youth is as cruel and stupid as a reaction to a man's death being "Good riddance." While I find the bickering on both sides to be tasteless, akd isn't being a douche the same way you are.
unalone: Having a strong opinion about something (or someone, in this case) doesn't make me tasteless or a douche. And frankly, the issue isn't whether or not Ted Kennedy fought "hard every day of his life in politics". Pirates fight very hard every day in their lives of theft. I'd say get off your high horse, but I think instead that you should enjoy your false sense of superiority. Clearly, it gives you great pleasure.
Yeah, superiority on a web site. Not everybody online with a sense of propriety has it to look good. Some of us might hope that people learn from what they read online.
The issue I'm talking about isn't whether Ted Kennedy is good or bad. The issue is that he was a man who spent a lifetime doing what he thought was right, and that it takes a fool or a sociopath to look at a lifetime and spit at it. There's a difference between being critical and being destructive. Your attitude is the latter.
If you're going to attempt to put me down, can you at least attempt to be clever with it? The only thing worse than negativity is bluster.
Actually, unalone, I think your quip is correct... I think entrepreneurs are largely wasting money, and politicians are mostly leeches. But it's the exceptions that make the whole enterprise worthwhile -- one Google makes up for the money wasted by literally 10,000 startups. And one Ted Kennedy makes up for several hundred leech politicians. It's why both professions, if you intend to do them well, are among the most important in our society.
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...
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.
I have experienced shockingly mean service in the quasi-private sector. Like idlewords said, it was something where I didn't have a choice.
At the University of Pittsburgh, Sodexho is the exclusive provider of on-campus food. The food and service have since gotten better, but my freshman year, Sodexho had a policy of hiring many ex-convicts for their food service positions. I ate at the sub place on campus a lot because it was close to my dorm and decent enough. The full-time workers there were two men 70+ in age, though maybe the hard living had aged them beyond their years. They had faded ink tattoos visible on their arms and had clearly recently been released from prison after near-lifetime sentences.
I cannot express how much these men hated their jobs. They hated their customers. Every time I ate there and made the mistake of looking them in the eye, I could tell that they wished death upon me and everyone that ever ate a sub made by their hands.
Since then, I have eaten in the private sector, and while every worker is not happy, they are usually at worst indifferent. Never has an employee wished death upon me with malice and hatred like those two sub shop workers.
Sodexho seems to have an exclusive contract to provide lousy, overpriced food at just about every US university I've been to. I've never understood how they keep getting these contracts. But this is, of course, the problem with the quasi-private sector... they don't have to please their customers, they just have to please the university administration once every N years so they get an exclusive monopoly on every outlet within walking distance.
I'm not quite sure as to what your preferred alternative is. You excoriate Kennedy for not having had a "real job," so the mere fact that he is a Senator, rather than the way he conducts himself as a Senator, is what gets your goat. So you would prefer not to have a Senate?
Well, I'm not him, but I'll weigh in - term limits on all civil service would probably be a good thing, and that includes changing roles/branches. Serving the country for a few years with passion and vigor is noble and heroic, but long term civil service risks stagnation, politicking, and corruption.
A Senator going out into the world to work on problems without government behind them would bolster their worldview. Perhaps after two terms in the Senate, a mandatory one or two terms off, then the Senator could run again. But definitely, lifetime politicians are a big potential problem. It certainly seems like they become more brazen and aristocratic over time.
Unless you live in a place like North Korea, no-one is forcing you to live in your country. If you don't think your government is spending your tax money wisely, then move. There are many developed nations out there that aren't accumulating huge amounts of debt.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps those of us that like Ted Kennedy weren't the ones bashing Michael Jackson?
I'm inclined to forgive people their many, many errors. I see no harm in looking at a man's accomplishments and ignoring his failures.
Michael Jackson was a man who changed the entertainment world. Ted Kennedy spent decades fighting for his causes without rest. Each did unpleasant things, but those things don't eliminate the good each did.
I do see a problem in ignoring a fault when that fault is "killed someone and received no punishment for it". It's an injustice to the victim to do anything else.
If Justice is not an ideal you hold than you wouldn't agree with me on that.
It's an injustice to the victim to do anything else.
Justice is not the same as revenge, and often quite the opposite. In this particular case, especially in hindsight, I find it hard to imagine a heavy-handed prosecution and jail time having been a good idea.
Suggesting I don't believe in justice because I like Ted Kennedy? That's a bit vicious, don't you think?
Look, I think that Ted deserved punishment for what he did. Of course he did. At the same time, I can't blame him for using connections to get out of that mess. I'll be totally honest and say that if I fucked up big-time, I'd do everything I could to avoid years in prison for it. Not because I think people should get away with killing people, but because years in prison is a terrifying punishment. So while I kind of wish he'd been given more than a slap on the wrist, I don't hold it against him that he wasn't punished.
To suggest that he wasn't changed by what he did, however, is ludicrous. I'm certain he was haunted by that incident for a long, long time, and that it changed who he was as a person. Certainly the Ted Kennedy that died today was not the Ted Kennedy that once abandoned a dying woman.
We all grow up and leave our tragic youths behind. Some youths are just much more tragic than others.
> Certainly the Ted Kennedy that died today was not the Ted Kennedy that once abandoned a dying woman.
In my experience that is a fallacy. Besides he was a politician - they know all about expected response. I don't think anyone here can make a statement like that.
(I know nothing about him, but it was a pretty sick thing to do. He certainly deserved a worse punishment)
He did. But avoiding punishment for that crime does not immediately make him a terrible human being, or a human being that's incapable of changing. He certainly changed, and for the better.
(I'll ignore the "he was a politician" quip, which proves nothing and says nothing.)
> (I'll ignore the "he was a politician" quip, which proves nothing and says nothing.
That wasn't meant in the way you probably read it. Being a politician is a skill just like any job
As I said I don't know much about the guy, but in my experience of people in such a position (a public post) there is a difference between real change and the change we see :)
I'm just saying: only a few people (i.e. the close family) really could make a statement like that :)
I have always believed "the end justifies the means" to be a statement of evil, and I guess I see "I see no harm in looking at a man's accomplishments and ignoring his failures" to be uncomfortably close.
The problem I see with that attitude is that it opens up a whole lot of people (who are broadly agreed to be better off unborn) to lionization. Maybe Kennedy did help a lot of people, but maybe someone else would have done more in his position. At the moment that tested his personal beliefs, that required action rather then crafted words, he failed and someone died.
When powerful people can get away with acts that would damn the normal people, I see precious little hope that government will be about what would actually help the people.
[...] it is right to balance their failures and accomplishments [...] Chappaquiddick is a huge mark against him
The terminologies you're using suggest somehow ranking him, or judging him. I don't think that's useful at all. Ted Kennedy is dead. Most likely, I'll never think of him much after today. While he was alive, I never had to vote for him, or vote on his policies. So to me, and I'm sure to you, he is an abstract celebrity.
I gain nothing by judging him on Chappaquiddick. How do I balance that against his push for health care? What does the one have to do with the other? Nothing: I can judge each on its own merits. As it happens, the health care debate is far from over; Chappaquiddick is an ancient tragedy.
When I think about a life that's just died, I see no wrong in thinking about only the good. That's not to say I'll go about pretending Ted Kennedy was a hero of mine. It just says that I won't pretend that I'm using his death as a moral lesson, and so won't pretend that I care much about his murky past or that I see any value in damning a dead man.
> The terminologies you're using suggest somehow ranking him, or judging him.
Fair point, bad writing on my part. Ok, really bad writing.
But to go back to the top of the thread, the discussion was about lessons to be learned. The fact that he get got off so lightly does teach us something about how much influence rich/powerful families have. You may think its obvious, but I think its a) a bit of an eye opener though most people won't admit it and b) good to be reminded of it.
On the other hand, there are positive lessons to learn from his efforts in the senate.
My point is that its important to learn all the lessons if your going to try to look at someone's life and learn them at all.
Edit: Also, I'm not really a huge fan of treading softly just because someone has died. I'm not going to go around and bash the guy, but I think its good to have an honest discussion (at least here on HN, obviously not in other situations).
Honest discussion? Right now people are just flaming. I don't see much point in discussing the dead at all - it's not going to change a thing about their lives - and I don't see the point in us all gathering round and arguing about how best to judge his life. The way I see it, if we're going to talk about the dead on Hacker News, it should be about the dead's accomplishments and not about the dead person himself.
Given the free choice of X number of years in jail or not being able to become president, I have a feeling the vast majority of people being tried for the various forms of manslaughter, murder, etc. would be thrilled to choose the second. That's probably a solid sign that the punishment is not really all that comparable in magnitude.
"Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either on the physical and emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the police immediately." -Ted Kennedy
The point of the quote you are using is that judgement should be left to God and not man (the statement itself is kind of judgmental but I guess that's accepted because Jesus and God are both part of the trinity in Christianity). If you subscribe to that theory of life than more power to you. I do not. I have no problem passing judgement on someone who killed an innocent young woman and honestly my experience is that most Christians will pass judgement on a person for far less.
Do you not see any possible explanation for why a public figure such as Ted Kennedy would have wanted to walk away from the scene of that accident? Isn't it the most human response, to walk away ashamed of what you have done? Don't you think he regretted it, probably for the rest of his life? And now I would ask you, have you ever done anything you didn't intend to that you were ashamed of?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, now I see why we should stay away from politics on HN. Too many people are downvoting/upvoting based on their political perceptions of TK. Do you really need to downvote someone into the negative for simply saying they liked the guy?
For those of you who are questioning why this deserves to be here: obviously HN is predominantly tech/entrepreneur related, but don't be so fundamentalist about it. Ted Kennedy was a prolific senator who was one of the most influential members of the most powerful government in the world -- his death deserves discussion not just among those interested in politics but in other circles as well. HN has a great community where people value good analysis and feedback, why not occasionally apply those positive aspects to other topics as well?
> why not occasionally apply those positive aspects to other topics as well
Because some of us believe strongly that "other topics" (well, specifically politics and lots of economics) don't mix well with the continued existence of the aforementioned positive aspects.
There's a value in asking whether something's Hacker News or not. In the end, we are the users, and we decide what we want to see. When we don't like what we see, however, there's no harm in discussing it, in the hope that like-minded people see it and are inspired.
That's what the voting buttons next to the story are for. If you discuss the article itself, then you should add value to the discussion. Complaining about the presence of the story itself when the community obviously voted it up to the top is not adding value, it's only adding negativity.
I would agree if there was a downvote option, so that people who don't like a story could have a say. As it is, a vocal-and-irritating minority can push stories to the top without anybody else being able to stop it.
(I don't refer to this story when I say that, mind you. We all have our pet peeves.)
It is interesting to me because it closes a chapter in American history as the last of the Kennedy brothers. Plus I have already learned a few things I didn't know.
It shouldn't be, but politics is a religion for many who lean left. One of the biggest liberal names just passed away, so it's here. My comment is way out of line, but so is this submission, but that's what happens when politics is introduced.
Saying "politics is a religion for many who lean left" is deliberately inflammatory. You don't get to blame the topic of conversation for your own bad behaviour.
It shouldn't be, but politics is a religion for many who lean left
Aw crap, you and I are now gong to start a political argument on HN. Well it's a Ted Kennedy story so here we go.
A clear majority of hackers, including me, are libertarians, not liberals. And I guess (but actually mostly hope) most of the HN readership is libertarian.
And I definitely don't think this belongs on HN. But I also very much doubt "liberals" are voting it up.
If still alive he'd be a major force for passing the kind of healthcare legislation that could have liberated Americans from employer-provided insurance as the only option. This would have freed a great deal of energy for risks like starting a business. That he became sick and died now is a a loss of leadership in the effort to make the dynamism of entrepreneurship, among other things, available to more people.
The government is treaty-obligated to provide health care to a section of the population and are doing a offensive job. If they can't do it right for ~7 million Native Americans, what chance do they have to do it right for the rest of the USA?
From personal experience of friends, they mess up a lot of veterans' lives, and that, in my mind, is a serious breach of trust. Look at the recent scandals in the VA for incidents.
Seriously even with the scandals the veterans' lives are not peachy until they hit the VA. Iraq?
I was in and out of a lot of Veterans hospitals when I worked in an ambulance, they have fantastic care if you give it some context with the rest of the healthcare system.
On a serious note, I wrote the comment mainly because people ignore manslaughter, which is inexcusable. But also because a person that spends years in public office isn't there "for the public good". That's just rhetoric that gets people elected. I'm amazed people still buy into the idea that politicians are good people. Enterprising startup founders, or even miscellaneous hackers working on interesting projects, do far more for the public good.
I avoid driving them home while drunk and then abandoning them underwater. I also try not to pat myself on the back for using my family connections to get into a position where I can spend other people's money on my pet projects.
So far, the New York Times hasn't said anything nice about me. On the other hand, I can sleep at night.
The comment was probably in reference to the incident at Chappaquiddick rather than a suggestion that one would be more effective at saving lives as a lifeguard than as a Senator wielding enormous influence.
In the version of events most favorable to Kennedy, he suffered a tragic lapse in judgment (failing to summon aid) which compounded the results of an unfortunate auto accident, and a young woman drowned as a result.
The version which is more charitable to the truth and less charitable to Kennedy: He was drunk driving late at night on an isolated road with a young woman who was not his wife. He got into a car accident, which involved his car falling into the water with the two of them in it. After extracting himself from the car, he went home, went to sleep, woke up, talked to his political advisers, then called the police and informed them that there had been an accident.
For normal Americans, that would have resulted in an investigation followed by manslaughter charges. Kennedy was never a normal American. He got off with a wrist slap after pleading guilty to leaving the scene of an accident.
The whitewashing of this incident has always been a stitch in the craw of his political opponents. His political supporters say some variant of the following every time it gets brought up: mistakes were made, it is long in the past, nothing was ever proven, and now is not the right time to mention it.
I'm sort of unsure about the etiquette myself. What's the polite way to say "Ted Kennedy was a man who did many things unrelated to causing the death of his paramour in the cause of protecting his political career"?
I wasn't aware, Jacques, that it was our responsibility to be aware of every tragedy and every death in the history of mankind.
I could spend years studying every genocide, every cruelty, going on in the world today, all of which are worse than a single drunk driving accident. I could spend years and plummet into the darker parts of the world. I choose not to.
Not knowing who Ted Kennedy is an ignorance that can surely be forgiven.
But if someone insists on having a strong opinion on something without studying it and then uses the 'before I was born' argument to be excused I think that's pretty weak.
The fact that a man has died is no reason to drop objectivity about that man.
There was plenty good about Ted Kennedy, there was plenty of bad stuff too. Like almost any human being alive today, I'd imagine.
Some of the stuff he did was at best misguided, at worst criminal neglect. He seemed to have been more protective of his career than of the life of a human being when it mattered most. I know politicians are 'survival masters' but that particular incident should have cost him his career and some jail time at a minimum.
What kind of an example does that set for 'lesser' mortals ?
Not a flattering portrayal at all of Kennedy the man. Then again, not a great legislative record either - from Reason - Ted Kennedy and the Death (Hopefully) of an Era: http://reason.com/news/show/135658.html
(edit: I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it. You don't have to upvote it but it isn't meant as a comment to be downvoted either, just an acknowledgment).
