One poll shrinks his lead to single digiits and he’s ready to join the Westboro Baptist Church.
AP reports: “‘I think that the people of Massachusetts have a right to say that they do not want that terrorist to be buried on the soil of Massachusetts,’ said Democratic U.S. Rep. Edward Markey.”
Please share widely!
I fear that “gutless piece of … work” is overstating the disappointment, though.
that he skipped an opportunity to show common sense and compassion at the same time.
In this country we bury people, and plenty of villains like Lee Harvey Oswald and the shooters at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech have been buried privately.
From Margery Eegan, who lists All the bumbling pols
I believe that cemetaries have the right to refuse to bury people who are not of their denomination or who present the potential to attract wackjob pilgrims who would disrupt and/or disrespect the grave sites of those in close proximity to the dead person in question. If they have this right, and it appears that they do, then why do we need to change the rules for this terrorist. Let him be cremated or buried at sea! Personally, if he ended up in a hefty trash bag and dumped in a land fill, I would not care.
There are private and public cemetaries. Public is open to the public. Since he is was legal resident, he’s entitled to use the facility.
Here’s something I don’t understand. Does the medical examiner inquire into the political beliefs, criminal record, or other factor, for unclaimed and/or unidientified bodies? Why isn’t he just buried as Unmarked Grave #4587?
I GET that cemetary officials are worried about vandalism, picketing, etc. So why is he not buried at an undisclosed location? As far as public interest goes, if we can withhold Senatorial papers for a 50 year cooling off period, we can put a hold on this as well.
It’s nobody’s business but the family’s where the burial takes place. If there are mobs trying to intimidate cemetery owners and bully the family, it’s not too much to expect from even a run-of-the-mill pol like Markey to show a sense of right and wrong.
It’s not as there aren’t plenty of unsavory dead people in Massachusetts cemeteries.
You’re right, Mike not to care whether someone ends up in a cemetery or in a hefty bag tossed in a landfill–because, Mike, it’s none of your f’n business.
But it’s wrong–evil– to use the burial process to inflict pain on the family of the deceased. That applies equally to the Westboro Baptist Church, the witless morons protesting in Worcester, or the gutless politicians, Markey and Gomez both, who approve of this bullying.
The people protesting the funeral home are idiots. I think we both agree on that. But if various cemeteries are refusing the body, then how is Markey being “gutless”? No where in anything that I have read leads me to believe that Markey is agreeing with the protesters, I believe he is agreeing with the Massachusetts cemetery owners only! If I am wrong, show me where he is explicitly supporting these wackjob protesters, because I don’t see it!
service based on denomination or some other potential problem. Hmmmm. there is a can of worms that will come back to bite you in the ass (pardon the mixed thoughts there). I see the far right using that claim every time some business refuses to serve a gay couple or other bigoted activity they want to claim private business has the right to.
So let the body be sent to Russia. No where in the Globe article is Markey suggesting that we have a referendum vote on this, so I strongly disagree with the post. My reading of the comment, in context, is that the cemetaries cannot be force to bury someone. If this is the current state of the law in Mass, then what is the big F’n deal with Markey agreeing with the law as it stands.
I believe the charge of “gutless” is completely uncalled for! Let the family do what it wants with the body.
Please read Charlie Peirce’s Esquire Mag piece in the Bury or not to Bury issue of the day… http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Worcester_Should_Please_Shut_Up
Then let’s discuss.
no shock here.
Thank you for the link.
they handed out the Profile in Courage award.
I’ll say one thing about Markey and Gomez. They have a sense of timing.
There is hardly a post here. There are plenty of people who think that Markey is right. You are implying that he doesn’t actually feel that way, and is only saying this to get votes, but do you have any evidence that is the case?
“I think that the people of Massachusetts have a right to say that they do not want that terrorist to be buried on the soil of Massachusetts.”
First he describes the wackjob protesters as “the people of Massachusetts.”
Second, he dignifies the wackjob protesters by charactarizing their harrassment as a desire to not to have “that terrorist . . . be buried on the soil of Massachusetts.”
To me it’s pretty clear that Ed Markey is trying to stay on the popular side of an emotional issue, even if it means siding with people who are harassing and bullying the family of a dead person. I think any other interpretation of Markey’s statement is strained, to put it mildly.
To hrs-kevin: If you have any evidence that Ed Markey ever, in the last thirty of forty years, expressed concern over who had the moral right to be buried “on the soil of Massachusetts” I’ll be glad to hear it. Until then, I’m going to assume that there’s a connection between his narrow lead in this election and what he said today.
Even “wackjob protesters” have 1st Amendment rights. Are you denying that they have the right to say what they did? Markey’s only mistake in your quote was to say “the people of Massachusetts,” but I seriously doubt that he thinks the protesters were speaking for all MA citizens.
If you have any evidence that Ed Markey ever expressed a view opposite to the one in this statement, bring it out. Until then, I’m not going to accept your claim that this is election-year pandering.
. . .well, I guess you can convince yourself of anything. You have a bright future of reality-based blogging, Kirth.
You have presented absolutely no evidence that Markey is not saying what he personally believes. You are the one making the claim, so it is up to you to present evidence, not for us to prove that Markey said something similar in the past. This is an extremely rare issue, so it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that we assume that Markey would have been on the public record on it in the past.
Go ahead and argue that Markey was wrong. I have no problem with that, but it is totally bogus to assert that he is pandering without providing some more evidence that is so.
It’s not totally bogus to assume that a statement made by a politician to the media in the middle of a campaign for the Senate has a political context. There may be a planet somewhere where politicians spontaneously unburden themselves in front of cameras, and reveal unpopular opinions–but that’s not this planet.
Markey’s statement was designed (read it again) to appeal to the worst instincts of people who are in a position to help him get elected. That’s pandering. I can’t think of a more obvious example of pandering. Can you?
an American, right?
I don’t care. Let’s talk about substance. On actual substance Markey will deliver for single payer, labor rights, regulating Wall Street with Liz, a sensible foreign policy and stopping climate change in it’s tracks. Gomez can’t say any of that with a straight face, unless he is pretending to be a Democrat again. Anything else is silly.
Why should Massachusetts have to accept the body?
Should the government be allowed to deny burial only to accused terrorists, or to all accused killers? How about child molesters? Drunk drivers? Should tax evaders also be denied burial?
Just want to know how this system should work. Maybe no system is necessary- we could just have the media or a few protesters decide who gets buried.
…you can buy a plot in a private cemetary and spend eternity only with those you approve of.
Sort of like a Democratic State Committee meeting…
The humane, and possibly legal, thing to do is to turn his body over to his family and let them bury him as they will, whether in Russia or locally and presumably in accordance with Muslim practice.
I think the protests are silly. Markey is, of course, right that people the the right to say they don’t want the body buried here. I so think these protesters are trying to go one further here, to intimidate cemeteries out of accepting the body. So I don’t love what Markey said.
But jconway’s 100 percent right. We have a Senate election in seven weeks. There are only two candidates. There are differences between them on plenty of important policy issues that could impact the whole country for decades. So I’m not about to start bashing the candidate I support over something so unimportant. Last time I checked U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators didn’t have any say in whether bodies are buried in Massachusetts anyway.
Frankly, I was surprised by that. And given his Senate assignments, it’s especially tasteless.