The NY Times article is great, but certainly not unbiased.
I don't think I can add much to that artcle... but I would like to point out that wow this story inspired a lot of arguing betwween people. I saw a lot of arguing on Hacker News about what kind of person he was (great or not great) a lot of it centering around the Chappaquiddick incident. Some people thought it completely marred his record and some people were more than willing to ignore it in favor of his accomplishments as as senator.
I'm curious what people think. Is it right to ignore someone's faults and focus on their accompishments after they've died or is it better to look at eveything someone has done?
No comments:
Post a Comment