Letters: Understanding Teddy

His name was his ticket to a senatorial seat, but Kennedy never would have remained there if he hadn't produced. He talked the talk and walked the walk.
Joann Lee Frank, Clearwater, Fla.

Sen. Edward Kennedy served as a powerful voice for the voiceless and marginalized. As Asian immigrants, my family owes him a debt of gratitude. Because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that he supported, we were able to come to this country and build a new life of opportunity.
Cheers Echevarria-Leary, Pinole, Calif.

Sen. Edward Kennedy's passing has left a big gap in America's political landscape. Despite personal failings, he rose above his family's "born with a silver spoon in their mouths" status to devote his career to the concerns of the downtrodden and disadvantaged. That will be his legacy.
Werner Radtke, Paderborn, Germany

Anyone other than a Kennedy would have been arrested and sentenced to prison for leaving the scene of the fatal Chappaquiddick accident. Had justice been done at that time, Ted Kennedy would likely have had a criminal record and not been able to remain a senator. The rest of his life was just penance.
Dominick Dececco, Slingerlands, N.Y.

I am saddened that the Obama administration will not have his wisdom, his passion, and his support for the elderly, the disadvantaged, and the disabled.
Lawrence Elliott, Ghent, N.Y.

'The Five Biggest Lies in the Health-care Debate'
A shift from health care as a moral right to health care as a personal moral responsibility would move the debate to firmer ground. Nutrition, rest, exercise, avoiding substance abuse, and obtaining adequate health insurance are people's own responsibilities and the key to well-being. Also critical is shifting the debate from controlling insurance costs to controlling health-care delivery costs. A reduction in the rate of increase in insurance costs is not enough. The overall, annual price tag of the services themselves must be reduced.
Jay Jarrell, McMurray, Pa.

'Did Britain Wreck the World?'
Your list of countries (Back Story, Aug. 24 & 31) once controlled by Britain that have ongoing conflicts misrepresents Israel's history and manages—in the space of one sentence—to get mostly wrong the facts about the root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The most egregious error is the assertion that the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan was "rejected by both sides." That is utterly false: the Zionist leadership accepted the plan, while the Arabs rejected it outright. If only the Arabs had accepted the plan instead of going to war. Today, there might have been two states for two peoples, one Palestinian and one Israeli, thereby negating the need for an entry on your list.
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation league, New York, N.Y.

After the U.N. General Assembly passed the Partition Plan on Nov. 29, 1947, Israel's soon-to-be prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, arrived in Jerusalem to a scene of Jews dancing and singing in the streets. In his diary he wrote that he felt as if he were a "man in mourning among the celebrators"—for he knew that, with the Arab states' rejection of partition, they would take his people to war, a premonition that tragically came true.
Jonathan Peled, Spokesman, Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C.