The Kennedys...then there were none

I first remember Ted Kennedy from his delivery of his brother Bobby's Eulogy on June 8, 1968.

Many have called it the greatest speech Ted ever gave and I class myself among them. The following words, originally penned by George Bernard Shaw, but made known to the world through Ted's eulogy, stand out in my mind still - some 41 years later:

Some men see things as they are and ask why; I dream of things that never were and ask why not.

A fitting epitaph for all the Kennedy men.

Joe jr. - a naval pilot died over Europe in 1944. His father - Ambassodor Joseph Kennedy had targetted young Joe to become the first Kennedy in the White House. Had he lived, would that have happened and if so, how would it have changed things for the USA / the world?

John F. Kennedy - survived the destruction of his PT Boat in the Pacific and did become the 35th President of the United States for 3 short years. I can still recall my mother telling me about his assassination on Friday November 22, 1963 when I returned home from school. I had exams starting that Monday but stayed glued to the TV all that weekend.

Kennedy botched the Bay of Pigs but redeemed himself during the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961. His generals were demanding that they be allowed to attack Cuba but unknown to them, Russian soldiers were present there with orders to release atomic bombs on the USA should such an attack take place. With Bobby's counsel and his own cool judgment he resisted his generals demands and saved the world from atomic war. We were all on the edge of our seats - young and old knowing fully what was at stake.

But I think the greatest tragedy for the world in losing John Kennedy prematurely was what took place in Vietnam. Under the heading 'things that never were', would Kennedy have stopped the build-up of US forces in Vietnam thereby sparing the lives of nearly 60,000 american service men and women and the countless broken from the ordeal over the course of 1965 to 1973. I suspect he would have, but again, we'll never know.

Bobby Kennedy - probably the deepest of the Kennedy men, also was gunned down on what was looking more and more like a victory toward winning the Democratic nomination and the following general election in 1968. Again I remember where I was: it was June 7, 1968 (he'd been shot at a California Hotel the night prior), I was still a student and was getting ready to go off to my summer job, at a 401 service station when the news came over the radio. I was stunned - not to the same extent as in the case of President Kennedy's assassination, but shaken severely nevertheless.

Only 2 months earlier with Martin Luther King's assassination, Bobby had gone into the Black areas, which were on fire, to speak to them from the heart - to sooth their hurt. He too had lost dear ones and he felt their pain. He was brave beyond imagination.

I dream of things that never were and ask why not. These are among the words that Ted bequeathed to Bobby's memory. What would the world have been like had Bobby become President? Would it be different today. I like to think that it would be a kinder, gentler place but again, due to an assassin's bullet we'll never know.

Ted Kennedy - the last of the line of brothers. What if Chappaquidick had not happened? Would he too have become President? We'll never know.

Would he have a least beaten Jimmy Carter for the Democatic nomination in 1976. Again, we'll never know, but I like to think he would have and thereby have spared the United States from electing its weekest President in memory.

I doubt that a year or two from now I will recall where I was when I heard of Ted Kennedy's death, but he once delivered a great Eulogy that I will forever remember and he did not run away from public service when he easily could have done so by saying his family had already paid a dear enough price. And for that, we should all be thankful for his time on earth.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

Where Have Harper's Principles Gone?

No I am not talking about his Senate appointees since I believe he really did not have much choice but to do otherwise - but an argument can be made to the contrary.

What I am talking about this morning is Harper's public support for the asbestos industry in Quebec.

Given the vast evidence that asbestos is a serious carcinogen, why would he and his party be supporting it, other than for his small political purposes - ie in a bid to not offend Quebec.

Give Ignatieff his due, he opposes this death trade and from my perspective he has the most to lose politically by doing so. I say this since the Liberals, for the first time in a long time, have a legitimate chance of winning more seats in Quebec. Harper and his Tories are virtually shut out of Quebec and have little or nothing to gain from taking such a position.

One of Harper's own Members - Donna Cadman is quoted as saying: "we're ripping it out of our walls in Ottawa and yet we are manufacturing it." Remember that Ms. Cadman's husband died recently from cancer - but that does not excuse her other caucus colleagues from also speaking out against this travesty.

I will likely vote for Harper and crew, whenever the next election comes round, simply because there is no alternative, but I am constantly amazed at how easy the Prime Minister finds it to jettison principles that just a few short years ago he strongly endorsed.

Enough said.

"Galagher"

The United States Should Have Apologized

Let me say at the outset that I am a fan of the United States. I even like George W. Bush although I could see some of his shortcomings. A Blog for another time.

My wife just returned from Ireland after a 2 week visit with our daughter. I did not accompany them but had been there with my wife 5 or 6 years ago.

My wife told me how much Ireland had declined economically since we were there last and she was stunned with the change. Much has been written about Ireland's economic troubles - and indeed the whole world has suffered as a result of America's housing crash and financial meltdown.

All countries have suffered, not the least of which the USA.

But through it all there has been one thing lacking - a heart-felt apology from the US Leaders. The damage, both human and economic, caused by their negligence in failing to properly oversee their markets, goes beyond the imagination. Their unique position in the world places upon them a certain position of trust to act for the benefit of all.

In that regard, I would have thought that they would have taken a greater responsibility for what transpired. That they would have reached out more to those countries who they so severely damaged - Ireland being but one of many.

Their actions - or lack of action, has also severely tarnished the reputation of the capitalist system. As I said in a previous Blog - the free market has no soul nor conscience it simply and effectively allows women and men to operate freely within the limits imposed. If critical oversight and limits are lacking - greed and self-interest will prevail.

I believe it is too late now for an apology, but I sincerely believe that the US has been even more diminished in the eyes of the world for its failure to provide one.

Enough said.

"Galagher"

A 'Poor' Childless Couple

In the Observer Section of this weekend's Ottawa Citizen appears an article entitled "Babies for those who can afford them" (Page B7).

The article is written by a couple - one a Ph.D in law and the other a Professor of Law and Medicine. Both apparently destitute and of course childless. I warn you it is a real tear jerker.

The gist of the story is that unlike some other childless couples, the Ph.D and the Professor of Law cannot get their fertility treatments paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario.

They have taken their case to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario because of this blatant discrimination and because - in their own words, the current system is "costing the taxpayer a fortune".

I am so glad to see such conscientious citizens as the Ph.D and Professor of Law worrying about the poor old taxpayer. Be that as it may, I do wonder though how that fits with their wish to see fertility treatments extended to a wider group of people and the costs associated with a human rights complaint.

But I have an even better solution and one that I am sure they themselves would support given again their interest in the welfare of the taxpayer.

Simply speaking, I would cease government funding for all fertilty treatments thereby ending any actual or perceived discrimination as well as the current expenditures devoted to these procedures.

I say this since I believe that government paid for medical treatments should only be done for reasons of health. With health costs consuming about 40% of government budgets and rising way beyond the annual cost of living, we just no longer can afford the extras.

So what is the alternative? Status Quo, Adoption, or Pay for it Themselves.

I am just guessing in this case but I would suspect that the Ph.D and the Professor might just be able find the wherewithal to pay for their owns fertility treatments.

More on Human Rights Tribunals later...

"Galagher"