POSTED BY SEVEN DAYS FREELANCE REPORTER KEVIN J. KELLEY
Add this one to the “Only in Burlington” file:
Two veteran peace activists called a news conference on Friday to condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden as an act of “murder” on the part of the Obama administration. The shooting of the unarmed Al Qaeda leader constitutes an assassination that violates standards of international justice as well as the founding principles of the United States, declared Burlington attorney Sandy Baird and Peace and Justice Center cofounder Robin Lloyd.
The two women acknowledged that very few Americans will share their view that bin Laden should have been arrested and put on trial rather than being, in Baird’s words, “summarily executed.” But it’s wrong to sacrifice principle for the sake of popularity, Baird and Lloyd argued.
“We are the only voices that don’t seem entirely gleeful about the assassination of Osama bin Laden,” Baird said, likening the reaction to the killing to “crowds cheering as though it were a sports event.” She criticized Vermont’s three congressional representatives for praising the action carried out by a U.S. Special Forces Team on May 1.
Related Stories
This article appears in May 4-10, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Tyler, did you intend to be punny when you referred to “beating” a dead horse?Anyway, at the risk of further beating it, I’ll repeat that, upon reflection, I agree my comment was takedown-worthy. No issue there.But, Jimmy has a point. Personally, I believe your continued attempts to rationalize a posting that accused the President of “masturbating over a centerfold” is, frankly, wearing a little thin. (Certainly, it’s protected by the First Amendement, but that’s not the issue here.) You wrote: “We want our comments to be a place where people can express their views, but do so in a constructive and civil manner.” Fair enough. Strat had the right to express his disagreement with the President’s action against Bin Laden. But you think that expressing his disagreement by characterizing the President as “masturbating” is “constructive and civil”? Gee, I guess I don’t.And maybe you’ll at least consider the possibility that your total, complete, and unilateral discretion to decide what is abusive and what isn’t — reflecting your personal judgment — is, well, just a little questionable? Sure, my response to Comrade Strat’s comment was angry and pointed. But I was (and still am) outraged at what he said, and apparently I’m not the only one. He gets to say something outrageous and offensive, and I don’t get to respond with my own outrage at him? Was I just supposed to say, “Gee, gentle poster, your pornographic reference to our President was a terrible thing to say and I’m offended”? If, instead of making a reference to his cranium and rectum (which was obviously figurative), I had told him that his posting was outrageous and stupid, wouldn’t that ALSO have been an “attack on another poster”?Anyway, I’ll try to be nice, even when other posters are allowed to submit things that fall into the category of offensive, indecent, and inappropriate (my words) and also awkward, outrageous, and in bad taste (your words). PS, I’ll offically dispute, for the record, that my comment violated Godwin’s Law, and I’ll be happy to debate that particular point with you, if you want. I think you overreached on that indictment.PPS, I’ll echo JCarter’s point that calling me a “jerk” (twice) was a personal attack that violated your own alleged policy. But, apology accepted.
“You’re too hung up on the words, Jimmy.”Maybe that’s because that’s 100% of what we’re talking about.”Maybe this would make more sense if I framed it as philosophy rather than policy.”Then you should change your blog commenting policy, which is an actual, carefully worded document with legal disclaimers and so forth, to a blog commenting philosophy. Might I suggest: “we have a kid working here who will delete any comments he wants to.”
First of all, Jimmy, I’m taking down your response to Tim. It wasn’t the worst thing I’ve read here, but it’s a good working example. Try that again if you want, but this time, don’t be disrespectful. Anyway. I feel sorry for the dead horse we’re beating.You’re too hung up on the words, Jimmy. It’s not a black-or-white thing, this comment-moderation biz. If it was simple as coming up with a list of “abusive” words, then I could just set up a filter to block comments with those words, call it a day and spend my working hours watching cute cat videos on Youtube. But context matters too. One comment was directed at a public figure (arguably THE public figure) as an admittedly crude political expression. The other comment was an insult, directed at another commenter to tell him/her that he/she is stupid. Not the same thing.Maybe this would make more sense if I framed it as philosophy rather than policy. We want our comments to be a place where people can express their views, but do so in a constructive and civil manner. If you disagree with each other, or us, that’s fine — but express that constructively, don’t insult the other person. Tossing insults around has an effect on the community that an exaggerated figurative statement about an important political figure does not. All we’re asking is that commenters express their disagreement in a nice, respectful, constructive way. If you can’t disagree with someone without tossing an insult in there, then I suggest you…well, you know where I’m going with this.
Perhaps we need to ask Mistress Maeve what the suitable and polite euphemisms for wacking off are. I doubt Emily Post can help on this.
Abusive language is that which is harsh and insulting. You don’t think that characterizing Obama as “masturbating over his new bin Laden centerfold photos” rises to that standard? You called the comment satirical, as if this softens it – do you believe the suggestion that someone had their head up their ass was meant literally?At least strive for consistency *within the same thread.*
Ok, Tyler was right to take down my comment.
A personal attack on another commenter is abusive and harassing. Not sure what I’d call the Obama comment…awkward, outrageous, and in bad taste are all possible answers, but it wasn’t abusive.
You’re right, young Tyler. The Obama comment was far worse. In fact, I would call that quite “abusive.”Which part of the commenting policy, exactly, was violated wrt “other commenters” or “someone else in this community”? I see no explicit or implicit references to such a subgroup of the general populace.
Not really, other david. There is a difference between saying another commenter has his/her head up his/her ass and saying that the president is “masturbating over his new bin Laden centerfold photos” — chiefly, that one is a direct attack on someone else in this community, and the other is an exaggerated over-the-top satirical statement of a public figure. These statements are simply not equal — has nothing to do with left- or right-wing.And if it makes you feel any better, the only person I’ve banned (YET) from commenting during my tenure at 7D was on the left.
As I recall, our own legislature is looking at making some blog comments criminal. Perhaps we will see the infamous Ms. Luhrs put on trial for daring to suggest that Barack Obama commits the sin of Onan.