I need to have someone explain an article to me

The article, at the New York Times, is called "Another Kennedy Living Dangerously."  The little promo for it at the NY Times website — the one that's supposed to have you clicking over to read the full article, says "The environmentalist turns crusader and goes out on a political limb. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. takes on a cause that Democrats shy away from and Republicans scorn as a conspiracy theory." 

Read the article and you get a reminder that Kennedy wrote yet one more "coming from the Left" article about how the Republicans stole the 2004 election.  Because of his Kennedy cachet, he got the Rolling Stones as the venue for his conspiracy theory.  He also got to tout it a lot at Air America.  The article also says he, in concert with Al Gore and Laurie David, is an "environmental crusader."  

The article implies that Kennedy is living on some sort of political cliff, with one foot over the edge.  Considering that he's espousing causes near and dear to the liberal heart, and that he's in synch with everything the NY Times believes, where's the danger?  Is it that he likes slightly risky sports?  Is the NY Times actually implying that, if you have a political agenda contrary to the Republicans, your life is at risk?

Can anyone explain this to me? 

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    It’s the speaking truth to power bit. They make Kennedy out to be an underdog, which they get all aroused over, and so they’re pitting their dog (Kennedy) in the fight (crusade). The motivation to seek danger, while avoiding real danger, has become an unconscious guilt trip that they have self-imposed upon themselves. Which ends up as behavior, like leaking national secrets, and heralding that as “check and balancing”.

    These people don’t look inward for enlightenment, because they’d rather avoid the moral and physical cowardice that is at their heart. So they’ll avoid Muslim cartoons, justifying it subconscioiusly as being multilateral and sensitive, when it’s really two layers deep beneath that lies the problem.

    Kennedy and the global media can’t and won’t get out into the real world and tackle the life and death issues. You ask then, why then do reporters go into dangerous circumstances, aren’t they braving life and death? Ah, but they don’t matter, they aren’t the ones who decide which stories get published. Again, the ones that get to decide, are living in air coditioned rooms like Keller and the NYTimes, and Newsweek, and the LA Times. Editors and smateitors. A reporter can post pictures of Tal Affar, and none of it will be published, by the editors and the publishers at their hub.

    Not to attach too much significance to a dead salamander, but, oh, what the heck: the photo distills some Bobby Kennedy essentials — his matter-of-fact presence in royal circles, his boyish chutzpah and a lifelong appreciation for animals (even those he has killed).

    Can you just imagine someone writing this about Bush and his dog?

    Clearly he was traumatized by his youthful act of environmental insensitivity and vowed as an adult to become a fervent protector of all the planet’s salamanders.

    This isn’t news, this is some guy trying to do amateur psychology. Which is almost as bad as amateur war analysis. No editorials need be included.

    (with Stephen Colbert, Wolf Blitzer, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews).

    *Rude sound* They actually have a link to Stephen Colbert and more articles on him. Sorry Wolf, guess you’re going ot have to be more outrageous to trump that.

    “He’s the only speaker in the environmental movement who can say he’ll speak for 20 minutes, then speak for 40 and you want him to go on longer,” said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club.

    They even make people who break their promises into a gushing positive thing.

    Mr. Kennedy has always lived his life close to nature and to the edge. The third of 11 children born to Ethel Skakel Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, he used to fixate on ants from his crib, he said his mother recalls. As a boy he assembled a zoo at his family’s home in Virginia, comprising about 40 reptiles and birds at any one time. He started racing homing pigeons at 7 and falconing at 9 and has always been given to the family penchant for recreational abandon: high-speed pursuits like skiing, water-skiing and hockey.

    This ain’t the edge people. This is the rich pampered life style of a playboy, and given the global media opinion of rich pampered life styles, it is interesting that they would seek to make Bush’s non-existent rich life style into a bad thing and try and make the Kennedy family’s real rich and loaded lifestyle into a virtue.

    Again, like with the vices of cowardice and lack of integrity, these people have pushed it so far down that they don’t even recognize when what they see is not what they get. It is like they got two personalities, what is true for one is not true for the other.

    In 1983 he entered a drug treatment program after having been arrested for heroin possession in South Dakota. He has been clean ever since and attends regular meetings, Mr. Kennedy said, declining to discuss his sobriety further for the record.

    Now a normal conservative might say, “look, their heroes do worse drugs than Bush was accused of, yet they gush about it for Kennedy”. I do this. When people accuse Bush of doing something, it is not because they believe Bush is like that, it is because their rich playboys are like that, and they expect all rich dudes *like bush* to be like their social elites. When Bush isn’t like them, Bush has given them the cut, and they fume about it.

    They are among the litany of exhaustively documented Kennedy tragedies

    A tragedy? If this was happening in the ghettoe, they’d be calling child protective services and investigating family drug abuse.

  2. Kevin says

    I took a somewhat different read on it:

    “hypercompetitive Capture the Flag games”

    I guess as opposed to killer croquet? Bit of a sticky wicket, that.

    “…Mr. Kennedy’s penchant for risk taking and full-on recreation. At what point is he tempting fate?”

    Maybe neighborhood kick-the-can? Those rusty cans of caviar can deliver quite a nasty cut–tetanus you know.

    “As is the family custom, he is not given to public hand-wringing about his family losses. ‘I think God’s in charge of that,’ he said of whether he lives or dies. ‘You’re supposed to do what you’re supposed to do. And whatever happens, happens.’”

    Bravo Mr. Kennedy! Throw caution to the wind, go for the gusto and capture that flag my liege.

  3. jg says

    Because at the time it provoked my Anglo-leanings, I recall a (whatever name) Kennedy-family- congressman who, sometime during the last 10 years, was BIG on fomenting IRA terrorism. Do you remember his arrogance or his crimes?
    The wisdom of NOT keeping a royal family can be seen by the twisted history of the Kennedy clan. For decades the Northeast electorate has foisted these deplorable fools on America.
    Certainly the MSM has exploited/glorified these figures, in much the same way the British press has exposed and destroyed–somewhat deservedly–the British royal family.

  4. says

    Bush has a national guard record, Ted Kennedy has a womanslaughter record. In such cases, he is like OJ. Money (and other stuff) does matter in the court of law, since after all it ain’t the court of justice. The adversarial system only works when all things are equal, all things are not equal for the Kennedies.

    The best royal families are feudal royal families, and as such we do not see many of them for there are not that many wars for feudalistic families to gain power from. We have our military lineage families, just like any other segment of the human race, but they don’t tend to go into politics. But just imagine the same honor, dedication, and loyalty that US Marines show to the Constitution, inherent in an entire family, a royal family destined to rule.

    Caesar, popular with the people and popular with the military. The only people that didn’t like him were the special interest Senators and their rich brethren, that liked the status quo. They didn’t want to give power over to the plebeians, that’d be crude.

Leave a Reply