Patrick Kennedy is a truly sad little guy. He's obviously combating some serious personal demons. I believe he should resign because I don't think someone so dysfunctional can adequately represent his constituents. That's really the end of the whole Patrick Kennedy story. As Gypsy Rose Lee used to say when she didn't strip down to nothing, "That's all there is, Folks. There isn't any more." Or, as the cops say, "Move along, Folks. Move along." Starring at this poor man has the same crudity as staring at someone who as accidentally wet himself in public.
I find it interesting, therefore, that the media is so excited about this Kennedy's humiliating and repeated failures. I can assume only that it's a sleight of hand, intended to keep the public's eye from the real scandal: namely, that the responding police were given orders not to treat him like a regular drunk driving suspect, apparently in an effort to avoid the scandal (unavoidable, as it turned out) of having to arrest him as a DUI suspect. In other words, the scandal isn't one pathetic wretch's failings, it's the fact that there was a cover-up, something that seems to be getting less airplay than I think it should.
Incidentally, this cover-up may, in the end, prove to be the Democrats' undoing. While I believe they are no more corrupt than any who flock to the core of power in D.C., I see an overweening sense of arrogance currently infecting them. Because they keep getting passes from the media and from sympathetic law enforcement agencies, they're being less and less discrete about their various acts of wrongdoing. Republicans, on the other hand, who know there will be no leniency should they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar, are still being discrete about their peccadilloes.
Talking to Technorati: Patrick Kennedy, Drunk driving, DUI, DWI, Media, Hubris, Corruption
Filed under: Crime and punishment, Democrats, Media matters
It’s worth the fallout because once the alcohol/drugs are out of his system, there’s no evidence to charge him with. It worked for his father and it’ll work for him.
Lucky there wasn’t a girl in the car.
DC runs by patronage. Arresting people in power, doesn’t get you any patronage. So don’t arrest people is the policy. Cynthia McKinney knows this, that’s why she bugged out, all the Democratic experience she had was of patronage in DC. She the patron, everyone else a bunch of peons that follow her lead. This time, she got out of line of course, but there were many times in which she got away with it. I think Hillary ran a checkpoint somewhere in Iraq.
If I was a vindictive guy, I’d destroy Patrick and then tell Ted Kennedy we did it cause we decided the Kennedies needed some blood balancing given Ted’s attacks on Bush.
The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must. That, definitely has not changed from the Ancient Times.
It’s worth the fallout because once the alcohol/drugs are out of his system, there’s no evidence to charge him with. It worked for his father and it’ll work for him– Earl
Dick Cheney was said to have been drunk when he shot that old guy in the face, too. But since he wasn’t questioned by the police until the following day, who is to say?
Both he and G.W have had two DUIs, while Mr. Bush, whose been arrested at least three times more often than any other president, has also had preferential treatment regarding his arrest record.
I really hope that the Democrats are hurt by Kennedy’s cover-up, however and that we can all agree that anyone who points out Bush and Cheney’s shorcomings suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Being fair-minded is such a bother.
Dick Cheney was said to have been drunk when he shot that old guy in the face, too. But since he wasn’t questioned by the police until the following day, who is to say?
See? Rope a Dope. Tu Quoque. I’m not bad, you’re worse. He said she said. I may have killed a woman, but you blew up a baby!!
Palestinians do bad stuff, but let’s be fair minded and check out the murdering terroist theocracy that is Israel at the same time.
All in all, that kind of fair mindedness is one step removed from 1984’s brain dead totalitarian state.
To clarify some aspects. There’s a big difference if TS said, ” I don’t like what Kennedy did and he should pay, but I also think Dick and Bush should be jailed because people said Dick was drunk when he harmed someone and Bush had a DUI and alcoholic problem in his youth” than if he had said “Bush and Cheney got the same problem, and…. Kennedy will pay”.
Fair mindedness is not moral relativism. It is not the belief that to call people bad, you have to call everyone else bad as well. It is not the belief that you can’t liberate a country unless you liberate everybody else in the world. Good is not about perfection, Evil is about perfection, the unattainable goal which justifies every slaughter and sacrifice imaginable.
The hubris you talk about is worrisome. Here in Nebraska we’ve got a university regent who broke campaign financing rules, got elected, and then refused to resign. The legislature has turned the issue over to the state supreme court for impeachment proceedings. Too, we passed term limits for state senators back in 2000, and when the time came for many to leave this year a bunch of them tried to challenge the limits in court. Fortunately, they failed.
The sense of entitlement these politicians seem to have is unbelievable. And dangerous in the extreme. Look at the fallout from Election 2000. Is it possible we’re going to see someone refuse to leave the White House in our lifetime? I wouldn’t be surprised. Already we heard the media discuss, with sad faces, the fact that Clinton had to leave office after two terms. I’ve seen similar sentiment about W.
Throw in the fact that we seem to be moving to a system where families–the Houses of Clinton, Bush, and Kennedy being only three examples–pass down political office to their offspring, and the future looks mighty grim. It plays into that sense of entitlement. Also, I don’t want to live in an aristocracy.
Thanks for the e-mail, Bookworm. I’m horrendous about replying to messages, so I apologize for not sending you one back. I noticed tonight that the reply field is sitting mighty snug up against the comments section. Can’t miss seeing it now!
See? Rope a Dope. Tu Quoque. I’m not bad, you’re worse. He said she said. I may have killed a woman, but you blew up a baby!! – Yam.
Nope. that wasn’t my point. Jaleach made my point when he said, “The sense of entitlement these politicians seem to have is unbelievable.”
I agree.
But you can’t comdemn Kennedy while overlooking the same behavior in Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.
It’s all the same, whether there is a “D” or an “R” after the name.
Yes, TS, and you can’t discuss Patrick Kennedy without dragging in Bush and Cheney, relevant to the discussion or not. I do not attribute this to Bush Derangement Syndrome. You’re merely an ass. Asses bray. Their nature to do so. Have a nice day.
My two cents on Patrick Kennedy
Bookworm stole my thunder. The only caveat is that Kennedy was afforded special treatment which he accepted. Making excuses for himself does not exonerate him from the fact that he was driving while under the influence of something.
…
Epistemologically speaking, it isn’t required that you outline your logic circuit by attaching it to everything else. As I pointed out before, in efforts to clarify my original post so you don’t selectively quote it and dismiss the better arguments.
It isn’t about tu quoque on your part, but rather that you demand that something be “true” or to be believed to be true, only if it applies to everything else you believe is true.
That’s not recommended. For example, if one thing is true, and it contradicts something else, truth has weight. What is true is true regardless of what else anyone else believes is true, correctly or incorrectl. Thus, to apply it to this situation, the liberation of Iraq is justified and the people wanted to liberate it, independent of whether they wanted to liberate any other country or not. Saying that because someone doesn’t want to liberate other countries, means that they never wanted to liberate Iraq, is bad logic and not a reasonable rationale for the justification of beliefs.
I’m not refering to the D or the R. I’m refering directly to the point, that how you began and styled your justification for your beliefs began with tu quoque, then you elaborated and said that you think that they are all bad. Those are your beliefs, I am neither required to justify your beliefs or make my own belief systems consistent with your logical axioms.
This is not militant agnosticism. Where you say to me, you don’t believe in a God and neither should I. No, if you don’t believe in A, you don’t believe in A, that has nothing to do with Republicans or Cheney or any other subject or anyone else’s beliefs.
For the ally of a party that is notorious for complaining that their belief systems are tied to superfulous subjects like “patriotism” all the time, there’s not a lot of consistency in the things people advocate and their behavior.
The accussation that I or Bookworm or anyone else are ignoring George W. Bush or Cheney, is a non sequitor to this subject. You brought it up, it interests you, therefore you should justify it. It is not a demand any conscentious citizen must abide by.
It’s all the same? I keep hearing that from Libertarians when talking about Israelis and Palestinians. But regardless, it is “all the same” is not an epistemologically justified belief.
To channel Neo, she was the one who made this argument, blogging is about writing about what you want to write about. You are free to comment, she is free to blog and post. Freedom is met by freedom, producing more freedom.
The belief that people who don’t talk about certain subjects are in denial about them, could be justified, if you had explained why you believed it is so, T.S. and why you believed that it applies to this specific scenario and this specific blogger.
The accusation that Democrates are aiding and abetting the enemy because they don’t “talk” against the enemy, is debatable. I’m not nearly afraid of conflict enough to concede the point just in return for not being attacked about “Cheney’s hunting accident”.
The point is, these accussations are debatable, meaning you are required to justify them using epistemology and perhaps even ethics, if you purport to believe “it is all the same”.
I highlight the logical fallacy tu quoque. When I highlight a fallacy, it does not mean I believe that is your point. It would be rather ridiculous to have as a point that things go in circle because things go in circle.
Rather, the main thing I point out, although perhaps not with a lot of elaboration, is that the only thing you to use and present to us as a justification for your belief, is the statement that both are bad, therefore… you are right. That’s about it. Thus, what other argument are you using other than tu quoque? Are you explaining why Bush’s problems are different and similar to Kennedy’s? Are you going to highlight the fact that Bush got kicked out of his house because his father believes the dynasty needs to build up roots independent of rich bailout?
There’s a lot more arguments to justify why Bush is the same as Kennedy in terms of preferential treatment than the statement that says “This is right because people behave the same way”.
While that is different from tu quoque in that you aren’t taking a side, neither Democrats nor Republicans, Bush or Kennedy, it is not so different in the fact that it is a logical fallacious way of argumentation. It is still a form of argument, and people wouldn’t use logical fallacies if they weren’t effective.
I do suggest to Zhombre not to call people names, regardless of how much you dislike T.S’s arguments.
The reason why I mention Neo’s argument for why the way she writes is justified, is just to present a counter-argument if T.S. wants to make the argument similar to that one Neo rebutted. Saves time. If T.S. chooses not to make such an argument, then that’s fine too, you can disregard the point about Neo and blogging.
Agreed. My apologies. Bad karma day. Better tomorrow.
I like aggression, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m some calm intellectual who won’t stab you in the eye and break your kneecap cause “society frowns upon that sort of thing”. Some things ought to be hated. Some things ought to be obliterated from the face of existence.
But my philosophy is always, for every twitch of anger and hate you feel, you must obtain 10 times the control for it.
Control, discipline. These things are what separates people who are violent but also good citizens and Americans, from murdering jihadists. Courage is not what separates us, our belief in the justness of our cause is not what separates us. It is discipline and control. I control my anger and my hate, it does not control me. The terroists can’t really say that now can they.
It is always hard to control anger and hate. I know, when I was young and dumb, a believer in the utopian beliefs of hollywood tv, my anger would come upon me as if a sickness. It felt very weird, almost as if it was a madness that I could not get rid of.
It was always a tug of war. You always had this feeling that you should feel angry at this or that thing or action. But as you feel the anger, it makes you lose control, it tells you to do things you don’t want to do or will get you in trouble. Fighting anger however, almost felt like a betrayal of justice, because it was like saying the thing I am angry at is NOT WRONG. But it was wrong, Catch 22.
The solution was of course, cold anger. Frozen helium. About the same kick, no loss in control at all. It’s very peaceful, very serene.
I think any strong emotion can be put to good or bad uses. Grief, in Nataly Hollway, can be converted to justice and determination. Fear to courage, pain to endurance.
It’s always funny when you see people at Neo Neocon’s site go crazy over this that or the other. Do I pity them? I pity anyone that is a slave to their emotions, regardless of who they are. It makes you such an inviting target for elimination. And I never will understand why people consciously choose to let their emotions rule them, and not the other way around. I suppose it is easier, the righteous anger of rage, very seductive, it makes you feel so alive, so just, so sure. But that’s why I don’t understand. I get just as much satisfaction out of feeling rage as the Democrats do, but I also understand that it is a corrosion on the human spirit, and that you only should use it when you need it, when you need it to fight for your life or the life of your loved ones.
Why do people expend their anger, rage, and fury over inconsequential things, that they know are inconsequential? Hate and fury are bottomless, you will never run out of it. They, however, can run you out easily.
This is the same argument I put out for why propaganda is more destructive than WMDs. WMDs are like furious rage out of control craziness. Very powerful, unstoppable even. But kind of hard to control, and very hard to duplicate all the time, without running into some obstacles. Propaganda is just as destructive because propaganda can be used far more often and at a much higher rate of fire. Propaganda can get people to use WMDs on themselves, that’s how powerful it is. Its power is not in direct application, enraged fist meeting someone’s face, its power is in its surgical precision and logical functionality. It seeks out your vitals, and strikes hard and fast. A shark bite that you don’t even feel, the teeth are so sharp, you only see that your entire hand is gone.
One reason I’m not vindictive against Ted Kennedy or Patrick, is because they are contemptible human beings. They’re not worth my time, regardless of how despicable they are. Power they may have, but talent is no where to be found.
For the love o’ Mike, a functional alcoholic can handle a job like Congressman, all you have to do is to show up once in awhile, say “yay” or “nay,” mouth pious platitudes, dodge direct questions, and not get caught feeling up the staff. Just about ANYBODY could handle that with a couple of shots in him.
It’s stuff like “airline pilot” or “trapeze artist” or “heart surgeon” that worries me. Jobs that require hand/eye coordination, a sense of balance, and not falling asleep on the job – those are the jobs that need to be kept out of the hands of the drinking class.
And jeepers, he was on his way to vote, wasn’t he? That shows dedication, even if it was in the middle of the night.