You’re pissed, too. And like Rene Gonzalez, you don’t know what you’re talking about. First of all, he wasn’t a has-been celebrity. The only thing he’s ever been famous for is leaving the NFL for the Rangers, and he did that in the early prime of his career. He was 27 years old. On what planet does that make him a has-been? Nevertheless, you’d be an asshole for insulting him, even if what you said had been true.
Maybe you should look up the word symbolic again. Of course his death, while not less tragic, is more symbolic than the average soldier’s. Pat Tillman gave up millions of dollars and a relatively glamorous lifestyle to go get killed in Afghanistan. How can you not see that that carries a more publicly recognizeable message of sacrifice? That doesn’t mean none of the other soldiers sacrificed, or that anyone thinks Pat Tillman was a hero and the rest of our soldiers are bums.
It means that America’s most visible soldier was killed, and that’s symbolic of what all the soldiers are doing. It also didn’t hurt that Tillman was a hero long before that ambush. Just like that guy (shit, doesn’t help my argument that I forget his name) on Flight 93 who said “Let’s Roll,” Tillman was a name and a face representing all the others who died. No other soldier will suffer a loss of recognition due to increased recognition given to Tillman… if anything Tillman directed more attention to their sacrifice.
Thank you for this, Rysler. I think the press coverage of this is sickening (in the sense that every single one of the servicemen and women who have died deserve to be the lead story on every news cast every night).
The Trib has articles about the servicemen and women who have been killed, letting us know who they were as people, who they have left behind. I wish I could read them everyday, but it breaks my heart. They are all people. They all have something compelling about them that deserves our acknowledgement and reverence. I hope that all the focus on Mr. Tillman will inspire more of us to reflect on all of those who have died and take a moment to pray for them and their families and friends. I wish that would be the outcome, but I don’t think it will be.
Bravery? No, I don’t think it takes bravery at all. I think it takes having the morals to call someone on writing something that was reprehensible. The student who wrote this is not getting kicked out as a result, or suffering any disciplinary action. The student has every right to voice their opinion, but should have no expectation that it will be condoned by the university.
Of course he appears to validate your assumption, he agrees with you. (And he picked two horrible examples to confirm it. If the place was so full of leftist nuts, shouldn’t more people have been spitting on him? My allegedly left-leaning university - really it’s no such thing - has never had any incidents of the sort.) I would be very surprised if college political culture hasn’t changed in 20 years, even in Massachusetts.
I think that’s what “having a pair” is usually interpreted to mean.
I think Pat did what he thought was right, and it takes guts. But so did the journalist who pissed off all the patriots by calling the truth as he sees it. If you think he’s not putting his life on the line, guess again. I wrote protests of the first Gulf War in my college paper, and I can tell you what high regard our patriots have for the freedom of the press – regular threats via phone, anonymous letter, etc. And that was just local. Now that the national press corp has made this their outrage of the week, every rube in America will jump in the pile on… and not all of them will be content to vent their spleen on bulletin boards. This kid will probably spend the next year of his life being bullied by every self-proclaimed defender of justice in America. He might have to move to Canada to be safe.
The truth is neither the sentimental story of “ultimate sacrifice” and romantic glurge by the right-wing sports media, nor the crazed vitriol of this college journalist, who knew something stank about this but took it out on the wrong guy. It’s not Pat’s fault he’s being made into a poster boy for the American “war on terror,” and from what I’ve read he wouldn’t have wanted it.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Of course he appears to validate your assumption, he agrees with you. (And he picked two horrible examples to confirm it. If the place was so full of leftist nuts, shouldn’t more people have been spitting on him? My allegedly left-leaning university - really it’s no such thing - has never had any incidents of the sort.) I would be very surprised if college political culture hasn’t changed in 20 years, even in Massachusetts.
Okay, would you like to hear about the sit in by the leftist student group in the ROTC building, or about the empty ring of seats that was always surrounding me when I wore my uniform to classes? How about the folks in my Marxian Economics class who couldn’t even engage me in a conversation without becoming insulting? I got more, buddy.
I don’t want to make this thread about Marley. (Although I wish he would have taken the high road and accepted my apology for any unintended slights).
His defensiveness about campus liberalism is understandable. Perhaps he doesn’t see what the big deal is.
I’ve noticed that the left in general has become more strident of late. Gonzales’s musings are just a symptom of that. Perhaps it’s the frustration of holding a minority point of view that more people would hold if they were just smart enough, dammit!
naah. He’ll just move back to “his neighborhood” and I’ll be the one stuck with the displeasure of hearing/reading him interviewed in local media outlets about what a martyr he is for standing up to the mean old white folk. (And to tell the truth, the Tillman incident, here in PR, has just been a non-issue, newswise, since very few here follow the NFL so it was just one more casualty report to us.)
I’m a Umass alum (1995 - 1999) and I still have a couple friends there. The Collegian is a free newspaper that few kids read, some do the crossword while skipping class, and most use it as a placemat in the D.C. or toilet paper (in an emergency).
Back in the day, it wasn’t a particularly political campus but I do remember a sit-in by the ALANA students about funding that got next to no support from the general student population and the grad T.A.'s and R.A.‘s lobbied for health insurance/contracts - that’s all the politics I remember. Just money issues. The community as a whole was pretty apathetic. Post-9/11, I understand that things have become pretty polarized. Umass has been struggling with budget issues for almost a decade and the interim President is just a p.r. person basically (after the fiasco that is Bulger).
Rene Gonzalez is totally not a typical Umass student and he has probably brought a lot of pain and harrassment upon himself by writing that editorial. Now, Umass’ president has criticized him, the Daily Collegian had to run a disclaimer about him, he has provoked a deluge of editorial letters, and he has apologized. Don’t give the son of a bitch any more time in the sun. He’s probably loving all the publicity. :rolleyes:
It appears that your intent was to use Gonzales as a paintbrush with which to paint all liberals.
You want to bitch about what the kid wrote? Fine. I’ll join you.
But this:
is a bit beyond the pale.
See, you know nothing about his ‘peers’. How could you? Neither you nor I have seen what they have written. The students at UMASS may think this kid is a complete nimrod. He may be openly laughed at by his ‘peers’.
I think Marley’s beef is that you should make this about Gonzales, not about UMASS or acedemia or liberals in general.
While I don’t think this is a “watershed” moment, I do believe that this is one in a long series of abuses that will eventually lead to a constitutional distinction between “media” and “press”.
While we cherish our freedom of press, at what point does it become obvious that that freedom is being abused to point where its obvious the press is driven by dollars and not Truth. Let’s face it, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, etc are driven by ratings. Pure and simple. If it sells it’s news.
This shit at UMass is not anything more than the next in a long line of people who think that everything they say is right because they were even able to say it is a Right. I’d like to think that he’s an aberation (sp), but he is just another in a long line of idiots exercising their RIGHT to free speach without understanding the RESPONSIBILTY of free speech.
This is anti-first-amendment bullshit. Freedom of the press means you can say whatever the fuck you want, even if (gasp) you are tipping sacred cows, like disrespecting the men and women in uniform. The first amendment exists precisely so such cows can be tipped. There is not “responsibility” to say only shit that is acceptable to you and the status quo.
Sure, as a member of the press he is allowed to write anything he wants. But how is pointing out that the major news networks are driven more by ratings than anything else “anti-first-amendment bullshit”?
I agree with that part, but something in me gets very reactive when people talk about “responsibility” in connection with free speech. For one thing, it’s never followed by a “to ________,” as in, Free speech comes with responsibility to ________." Because I suspect what people want to say is, “free speech comes with a responsibility to say things that are acceptable or fall within certain guidelines of what the I consider correct.” I disagree. There is no clause on the first amendment. People have no responsibility to say what other people think they oughta say. If they do, the amendment loses it’s meaning.
While we cherish our freedom of press, at what point does it become obvious that that freedom is being abused to point where its obvious the press is driven by dollars and not Truth. James Carrol’s seeming desire to separate “the media” from “the press” is one of the most dangerous ideas regarding the first ammendment I’ve ever come across. Where exactly would you draw that line?
We allready have laws regarding libel, slander, and charcater defamation in regards to the press. If we were to go the extra mile and restrict the first ammendment to news based on “truth”, as Mr. Carrol seems to be proposing, the ramifications would be huge. Editorials aren’t “news”. Satire isn’t “news”. ART isn’t “news”. Possibly more important, who decides what’s “truth” in matters related to opinion?