I guess it was only a matter of time when an idiot on America's anti-war Left wanted to speak his mind about former NFL player Pat Tillman and his death while in action in Afghanistan. I give you Rene Gonzalez, graduate student at the University of Massachusetts:
I've been mystified at the absolute nonsense of being in "awe" of Tillman's "sacrifice" that has been the American response. Mystified, but not surprised. True, it's not everyday that you forgo a $3.6 million contract for joining the military. And, not just the regular army, but the elite Army Rangers. You know he was a real Rambo, who wanted to be in the "real" thick of things. I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures. Well, he got his wish.
Just when you think it can't get worse, it does:
Tillman, probably acting out his nationalist-patriotic fantasies forged in years of exposure to Clint Eastwood and Rambo movies, decided to insert himself into a conflict he didn't need to insert himself into. It wasn't like he was defending the East coast from an invasion of a foreign power. THAT would have been heroic and laudable. What he did was make himself useful to a foreign invading army, and he paid for it. It's hard to say I have any sympathy for his death because I don't feel like his "service" was necessary. He wasn't defending me, nor was he defending the Afghani people. He was acting out his macho, patriotic crap and I guess someone with a bigger gun did him in.
Last time I checked, both al Qaeda and the Taliban were still active in Afghanistan. Guess some folks don't read the papers.
You can read an editorial from the paper's Editorial Board defending the decision to run the piece here. And as much as I might despise both Mr. Gonzalez and his arguments, I'm happy to support the paper's decision to run his editorial.
What we have next is a test in a number of ways. Here's hoping the administration at the university protects the freedom of expression of Mr. Gonzalez, those who would criticize him, as well as the newspaper that ran the offending article.
Fight free speech with more free speech -- no matter how stupid and heinous your opponent might be.
Link via ESPN.com.
I’m definitely on the left and against the war in Iraq (though I think anyone who can’t tell the difference between the war in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan is an idiot), and I think that editorial is despicable. Tillman did what he thought was right and made a great sacrifice to do so, then made the ultimate sacrifice while serving. He deserves his nation’s gratitude.
In other news, Marines love the Stanley Cup
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/00C07F2BA9B1AB7E85256D3A0002B71C?opendocument
These guys are best ignored.
The real issue is the college paper’s inconsistency. Free speech for me but not for thee, more or less.
I’m getting too cynical in my approaching middle age – I think this guy just wanted to draw attention to himself, wanted to be the columnist who’s out there with radical opinions.
In this instance, it just made him look foolish and pathetic, and if he just conjured up this take so he could establish a little fame for himself, I’ll bet he’s regretting it now. At least I hope he is….
For what it’s worth (not much) the guy has since apologized for his column and said the column wasn’t worth publishing.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1792673
I read a report where the College president called it intellectually immature or something similar.
Couple of things: The newspaper would have been well within its rights if they had refused to run the piece, after all the first amendment guarantees freedom only from government suppression of speech.
THe second point is, this is the same newspaper that refused to run an ad from David Horowitz against reparations from slavery because they deemed it offensive. Where was their claim of only wanting to protect the first amendment then?
I would call that a semi-apology.
I thought the paper’s defense of their decision to run the piece was ridiculous. They’re not obligated by the First Amendment to run every crazy op-ed that gets sent in. If they want to engender a discussion, they should avoid highly inflammatory pieces from either side. A piece titled “Pat Tillman made an amazing sacrifice, but he’s not a hero” could be a voice in a reasoned debate; “Pat Tillman got what he deserved” could not.
I’m a UMass grad student too, BTW.
First off, I