I understand your offense, but it’s taken more I think from confusion over what this blog is. In other words, I’d agree and see your point if this were an op-ed piece splashed onto the Opinion page of the Albany Times Union. But it isn’t. If we’re going to talk appropriateness, we need to examine the content in relation to its context. Which is, again, my personal reaction on a personal blog called “Kevin Marshall’s America.”

So if you’re still offended that I used a blog called Kevin Marshall’s America to describe Kevin Marshall’s reaction to an event, I don’t know what on Earth to tell you.

but first back to comment 20…I think my comment actually bordered a bit on personal insult territory instead of…my normal erudite pointing out bad blogging flaws etc…I’m glad you put it through so I could start a conversation and get you lots of comments/traffic KM…but I apologize for…especially my last comment…the excessive…lack of politeness on my part…

so to be polite and genuine as possible…and to respond to some of the folks who said they agreed with my comment…

My point is that celebrating, not celebrating, deep emotion or no emotion at all over OBL being killed, all responses lack a moral content. None are wrong or right in my opinion…I’m not being relativistic.

What was wrong was using the event, serious as it was, was to use it to turn the focus onto yourself Kevin, especially by providing such a romantic pastiche of your night and near 24 hour log off from social media, and promote your self proclaimed moral superiority from other people.

There were serious thinkers, citizens here and international personally affected by OBL who have had joyous and non-joyous reactions. The vast, vast majority of ink spilled in the last 48 hours whatever the reaction has not been used to hold up one’s reaction to another’s/a different groups, and that comparison used to describe how the author is morally superior and emotionally affected by their disappointment in the moral inferiority of others.

This was not the time or place to make such an event about yourself and whatever superiority you might think you have.

My point was certainly not that celebration was the correct response or that someone not celebrating or disappointed in those who felt joy was incorrect, immoral or in any way less worthy.

John,

It frightens me that some find it so offensive that other Americans might want the US to put being a better global citizen on a higher priority. That it’s offensive to some that I disagree that only American lives and livelihoods are priceless, where others may fall to our special interests.

Too bad that purely jingositic motives aren’t relevant in today’s world, but so many prescribe to them. We’re a growing global population, in the face of diminishing natural resources to support us, not to mention other problems. So what do we do as we Americans get more outnumbered in the world, John, crush those that would take what they feel is their fair share of what’s left, or even what’s half of their fair share? Is that not imperialistic? How can one country be the “great liberator” that Daniel believes in, but the imperialistic survival-of-the-fittest human rights monstrosity that you want to believe in?

But then again maybe I’m wrong, it’s so hard for me to think right with all that yelling that you’re doing. I’m done with this thread, it’s gone too far off-topic from the original post, and it’s quite clear that no one’s opinion is changing here.

My point is that Kevin promotes himself as a proud, FIGHTING American. Therefore, he should not condemn or judge others for celebrating their American fighters. BTW he should not be promoting himself as a local treasure either.

Talking about LOL, this is good “If it’s elitist to laugh at a completely absurd comment, one that is both factually incorrect and so drenched in patriotic drivel, then color me elitist. I would love for you to tell me how I was “factually incorrect” in my argument!!!! Believe me Cihan, your barking up the wrong tree if you want to start debating about American and World history and about U.S aggressive foreign policy. Our 1st president warned us about getting involved with foreign affairs and the dangers associated with it, but somtimes the trouble finds you whether it be “warrented or unwarrented.” So I would rather have a government with an aggressive foreign policy instead of being caught on our heels like we did during 9/11. Our government is in charge of protecting AMERICAN INTERESTS AND AMERICAN INTERESTS ALONE.