Comments on: Good Ted Kennedy, Bad Ted Kennedy

By: restrainedradical

restrainedradical — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:42:10 +0000

Do you have another source for S.J. Res. 178 (1976)? The source you link to seems to say that Kennedy took the pro-choice position.

By: bobshanbrom

bobshanbrom — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:11:09 +0000

The best info comes from Center for Immigration Studies. The US population went up 33 million between 1990 and 2000 (more than half the population of France). At least 13 million, probably more like 15.5 million immigrants, 10m legal and 5.5m illegal, are accounted for between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. Their much higher fertility rate accounts for about an additonal 7 million babies. Therefore about 22 million of the 33 million increase was directly and indirectly due to immigration. That’s about 2/3.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/censuspr.html
This is disturbing in a nearly endless number of ways–congestion, quality of life, crime, lawless, apartheid, fiscal, wage suppression, environmental impacts, sprawl . . .
The US should stabilize/reduce its population and reduce its consumption by half.

By: libtree09

libtree09 — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 00:22:12 +0000

bobshanbrom,

Where do you get your immigration figures and are you including illegal immigrants in that figure. It was my understanding that Kennedy’s intention was to open up immigration to Eastern countries in parity to Europe.

By: Fragile Families Network » Thank You Senator Edward Kennedy

Fragile Families Network » Thank You Senator Edward Kennedy — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:24:45 +0000

[...] you, Senator Kennedy for using the brokenness experienced by you and your family to develop resources to help those who have been made frail and fragile by [...]

By: bobshanbrom

bobshanbrom — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:08:41 +0000

I think Mark’s contribution boils down to this question: Are you comfortable with thinking of Kennedy as the voice of liberal conscience for the last 40 years or so? I think I would agree with the thrust of Mark’s point of view from the personal behavior aspect, but I would disagree from the political (pro-choice) aspect. The political aspect that rankles me is not abortion but another population-related issue: that Kennedy opened the floodgates to mass immigration.
I equate this with his catholicity, if not his Catholicity. It was an outgrowth of the civil rights movement but it has had devastating effects on wages, the environment and many aspects of the quality of life in America. Much of our fiscal mess is due to the costs of absorbing some 33 million new people a decade, about 2/3 due to immigration.
When are Catholics going to come up with a practical plan to stabilize population, nationally and globally? I’m not sure the idea that if we love God, love mankind, enough the Lord will do the rest.

By: kevinjjones

kevinjjones — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:08:01 +0000

I recently talked to a pro-life Democratic veteran of my city’s politics. He told me how much his political career has been hamstrung because he won’t go over to the pro-choice side.

It made me realize that Democrats who become pro-choice do not simply undergo a change of opinion. They become part of the political network which would otherwise suppress them.

Who was the last Massachusetts pro-life Democrat Sen. Kennedy threw his weight behind? Since his change of view, has he ever supported a pro-life Democrat in a primary race against a pro-choice Democrat?

I fear Kennedy helped strangle the careers of many pro-life Democrats in his state and his party. Am I wrong?

Given Kennedy’s rakish behavior with women, it’s hard not to think he has had a personal interest in the availability of legal abortion.

I’ve focused too much on these negative aspects. May Sen. Kennedy RIP.

(Aside: My charming contact’s pro-life talking point with pro-choice Dems is “I’m so glad your mother didn’t have an abortion, because otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.”)

By: libtree09

libtree09 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:52:46 +0000

Seems there is no mercy in the Catholic Church for the sin defying the doctrine of the men who proclaim the truth for others. I left the church on the day of my confirmation, exiting by a side door because I couldn’t bring myself to kiss the ring of the bishop. It is one thing to worship Jesus quite another to worship an institution and its leaders and doctrines. God gave us free will and the ability to reason. Perhaps God will punish Ted Kennedy but the church has no such power. Especially a church that has yet to demonstrate any atonement or shame for its sins against the innocence.

Ted Kennedy was a human being like the rest of us, filled with contradicting emotions and actions yet Kennedy tried to rise above his failings and succeeded far more than most of us. I for one will have a drink in his memory tipping a bit into the wind so he can have a bit of Irish fortitude to get him through judgment day.

By: bobshanbrom

bobshanbrom — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:19:58 +0000

The only real Christian to serve in the White House in the last 40 years, Jimmy Carter, had a very common sensical approach to abortion. He said that since no one thinks abortion is a good thing we should do everything in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies. An excellent option is oral sex and mutual masturbation. Alas, when Clinton’s SG Joyce Elders said as much some 15 years later ( “I think that (masturbation) it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught”) Bill Clinton canned her.
Last I heard the Catholic Church teaches that masturbation is a sin. Seems like there are lots of dead ends for Catholics who don’t wish to overpopulate the world but do wish to find expression of their God-given sexuality.

By: Mark Stricherz

Mark Stricherz — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:09:51 +0000

The baby has no choice. She depends on others for her protection.

By: Jeff McMahon

Jeff McMahon — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:19:14 +0000

Hey. What’s the deal with trying to dictate other people’s choices?