SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News/Letter to the Editor "Who’s the bully?"

"Editor:

The word “bully,” originally meaning “sweetheart” in the 1500s, evolved by the 1680s to its current meaning, “harasser of the weak.” Mr. Doug Allen, writing in last Friday’s Aspen Daily News, labels Ms. Marilyn Marks as a “bully.” He characterizes her supporters as a “small handful” and ascribes their collective attitude as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” Mr. Allen goes on to insinuate that Ms. Marks is a jerk, disparages her business success as a CEO, defines her stature as a “divisive political figure,” and her influence on the city’s election commission as “improper.” He concludes by summarizing her political views as nothing more than the rants of a “political malcontent” and presumes to speak for us all by stating that “we don’t want you involved in our city government.” 

I would first like to comment on Mr. Allen’s use of the term “bully.” By definition, a bully must occupy a position of power over the bullied. Mr. Allen never states exactly who has been bullied by Ms. Marks. For Mr. Allen to be judged accurate in the use of this term, one would have to conclude that, in the power relationship between Ms. Marks and the unmentioned victims, presumably Aspen’s politicians or administrators, she held the power position and they were the powerless, she the harasser and they the weak. Is this the power dynamic when a lone citizen challenges a government body? At best, ascribing the term “bully” to Ms. Marks is inaccurate.

The accuracy of Mr. Allen’s comment, “small handful of supporters,” cannot easily be verified as he offers no information in support of this description. One could use Ms. Mark’s vote tally when she ran for council. Ms. Marks received 34 percent, or 877 votes compared to 43 percent or 1,090 votes for Mr. Ireland. Ms. Marks’ supporters could accurately be described as a minority of Aspen voters. They might also be described as a significant minority since the next highest vote tally was 17 percent or 421 votes. Ms. Marks’ supporters could reasonably take exception to being classified as a “small handful.” They might also take exception to being characterized as “turned on by her constant anti-everything antics.” I took the liberty of calling a few people who I know support and voted for Ms. Marks. They unanimously denied supporting Ms. Marks for the reason Mr. Allen stated. I could hardly refer to this small sample size as scientific, being that it was such a “small handful.”

The bully analogy continues and morphs into “jerk.” The exact meaning of the word “jerk” is difficult to determine. It is certainly pejorative, a word intended to disparage or belittle, I might suggest, a word intended to bully. Mr. Allen continues to slight Ms. Marks by casually disparaging her business success as a CEO of a large corporation by referring to it as “unclear.” It isn’t enough that a woman rises to the top of a traditionally male business; Mr. Allen finds it necessary to demean that success by suggesting it may have been less than we might imagine. No facts, just a not-so subtle insult.

Mr. Allen goes on to describe Ms. Marks as a “divisive political figure.” I Googled the term “divisive political figure” and found names as diverse as Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Nelson Mandella. It seems the term can be used to make any point one wishes. The choice of such a term appears to say more about its user than its target.

Mr. Allen refers to Ms. Marks’ “improper influence over the city’s election commission” as “well documented accusations,” as if the fact that any accusation that is well documented is true. Can any reader of this commentary think of a well-documented accusation that has later proven false?

I suggest, based on Ms. Marks’ behavior as it relates to her political activities, stated positions, court challenges or verbal exchanges, that she is more aptly described as a political activist, a person who is a vigorous advocate for a cause. Most Americans cherish the right of free speech and understand the responsibility that the majority has to protect and defend that right. I suggest that anyone who seeks to diminish that right, to intimidate others into silence or submission, need only look in the mirror to know what a bully looks like..."
(Steve Kaufman, Carbondale)

SandBox Comments: Aspen Daily News/Doug Allen "Nobody likes a bully"

Bullying?

Self-Defense or defense of a group?

Communication or free speech?

Effective communication on a level another will hear you?

Doug Allen of Aspen gives his definition.  Up on The Aspen Daily News.

(...whisper..whisper...wonder who "we" is....whisper...whisper...wonder who "our" government is...whisper...whisper....)

"...I found a variety of different definitions for “bully” online, and they can all be generally summarized as a person with a desire for conflict who is habitually cruel or overbearing, typically to force a person or persons to do as they want.....

.....Disturbingly, the article also quotes Commissioner Rob Ittner, who voted for Marks, as saying “I just find it incredibly hypocritical to be judging her on her desire to have conflict.” I find it equally incredible that Ittner doesn’t understand a “desire for conflict” is about as welcome and useful on a volunteer advisory board as a clown is at a funeral.

Commissioners Richards, Hatfield and Owsley are to be commended for refusing to give this perennial malcontent yet another platform from which to bully the community. Through the democratic process, the majority of Aspen voters have time and again rejected Marks and Co.’s positions and behaviors, and the commissioners honored their constituents with this decision.

The people of Aspen have done nothing to deserve Marks’ brand of community service. And no, Marilyn, we don’t even want you to volunteer on the Noxious Weed Board, although the childhood rhyme “takes one to know one” does spring to mind. How many times, and in how many ways, must we tell you that we don’t want you involved in our city government?....."
(Doug Allen)

(Learn more?  Click title or comment to start discussion)

"Truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."