11/05/24
April 29, 2004
"They should call Pat Tillman's army life 'Rambo 4: Rambo Attempts to Strike Back at His Former Rambo 3 Taliban Friends, and Gets Killed.'": UMass grad student takes on the Legend of Pat Tillman. Most people aren't pleased with his thoughts on the matter and think he should stick to playing Ghosts and Goblins. Amazingly, this American college student with strident opinions doesn't have a blog I can find. And his web site looks a bit out-of-date.
That Ghosts and Goblins dig was inspired. Geek. The Daily Collegian ran an item today patting itself on the back for running Gonzalez' column. I've been a college newspaper editor, so I know that if you don't admire yourself, you might not have any fans at all. Though it's good to welcome controversial opinions, I'd be embarrassed to run something that was so obviously ill-researched. The writer made it clear with statements about Tillman's "scowling face" and other remarks that he did no research on the subject at all. It reads like he wrote the column between bong hits. Pat Tillman carried a 3.84 GPA in college and won six academic awards, including the Sporting News Honda Scholar-Athlete of the Year. He was looking at law school or teaching after his sports career. Gonzalez's caricature of Tillman as a Rambo meathead has no resemblance to reality. If he submitted an essay like that to a professor instead of the school paper, he would've been laughed out of class.
posted by rcade at 01:01 PM on April 29, 2004
People are wrapped up in his story because it's unusual for the times. There's talk of the draft coming back, and every one I talk to says they'll move to Canada with their kids. (Never mind that you can't dodge the draft there anymore) Folks are content to watch the combat on television, but when it comes time to actually contribute, few do. Even fewer join the armed forces. Even fewer give up a contract worth millions of dollars to go fight. It's unique, and I think it's heroic.
posted by rocketman at 01:08 PM on April 29, 2004
The only reason this ill-informed rant is newsworthy is that it was published in a newspaper instead of the usual, expected location on somebody's personal Web site. Pat Tillman may, in fact, be a hero. But what he is truly becoming is a martyr for the Republican cause. I expect his memory will be recalled frequently during Dubya's re-election campaign. I wonder if that's what Pat Tillman would have wanted to die for.
posted by Scott Carefoot at 01:28 PM on April 29, 2004
Amount of Americans I hear say they're moving to Canada, but they never do. As for this Tillman story, well... 1) Hundreds have been killed in Iraq. Why should we make a fuss over some guy just because he's from the NFL? His life is of no more value than the others who've died out there. 2) Go to war expecting to die. If you don't, you're an idiot. Of course, given the recruitment methods of the US Army these days, they probably dupe a lot of people into thinking "It's a video game come to life!" rather than "There's a bullet with your name on it." 3) I say kudos to the guy for writing something like that. I don't agree with his rhetoric, it may be badly written, but it's refreshing to see something, ANYTHING other than "Oh this is so tragic" when the other 700 or so soldiers out there who've been killed have been completely ignored. I say this as someone who knows two people closely involved in the Falklands War (One of the people died, the other was lucky to get out alive.) Footnote: I don't follow the NFL as football bores the crap out of me, but I did read something the other day that someone said about Tillman, how when he was talking about signing up, his first thought was "He wants to die a hero".
posted by Drood at 01:29 PM on April 29, 2004
Okay, reading that back, my wording stinks in the first one. Not implying they're all worthless lives. What I MEANT was that the others who have died, their lives have as much value as Tillman's. Just wanted to make that clear.
posted by Drood at 01:30 PM on April 29, 2004
Diminishing the death of Pat Tillman doesn't elevate the death of the others killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If someone's upset by the amount of attention paid to Tillman or celebrity journalists like Michael Kelly and David Bloom who died there, I think a better response is to call attention to people whose sacrifice was unjustly overlooked. I knew when Tillman's death hit the news that he'd be a political football. But his courage and his commitment to the country ought to be respected, regardless of where somoene stands on the war against Tara. Unless you are a person who opposes war in any form, you gotta have people like Pat Tillman out there willing to fight and die for the country.
posted by rcade at 01:37 PM on April 29, 2004
You know, I think Tillman's desire to place his values before his pocketbook are admirable in this day and age. That being said... Why is the opinion of one college reporter worthy of national attention? Is it that much of a heresy to have an opinion outside of the mainstream in print in the United States? College newspapers are a bastion of free speech, unencumbered by the drives of the market. Any bonehead who knows how to put two words together can write at most college papers, and thank God they can. The USA should be a big enough place for a stoner with an attitude to be able to disagree with the rest of the country. That all being said, as I wrote at MeFi, based on Tillman's statements about not wanting to be the media focus when there were so many other men and women in the armed services, I can only conclude that he would want his death to make us reflect on all of the soldiers serving in Afghanistsan and Iraq. He would, perhaps, be apalled at the amount of attention his untimely death received.
posted by Joey Michaels at 02:11 PM on April 29, 2004
war against Tara A little slow on the uptake today: for 30 seconds or so, I was going to page Oliver Cromwell.
posted by yerfatma at 03:10 PM on April 29, 2004
If he submitted an essay like that to a professor instead of the school paper, he would've been laughed out of class. rcade, he probably wrote it at 3 a.m.!
posted by billsaysthis at 03:15 PM on April 29, 2004
I say kudos to the guy for writing something like that. I don't agree with his rhetoric, it may be badly written, but it's refreshing to see something, ANYTHING other than "Oh this is so tragic" when the other 700 or so soldiers out there who've been killed have been completely ignored. I don't see how this celebrates the 700 or so others that died, but I'm glad you're refreshed. Why is the opinion of one college reporter worthy of national attention? Is it that much of a heresy to have an opinion outside of the mainstream in print in the United States? It amazes me that when someone's obnoxious pseudo-politcal comments garner attention (as they were surely meant to do) he is defended as being a heretic challenging society. On the other hand, when an obnoxious pseudo-celebrity sex tape appears and garners attention (as it was surely meant to do) everyone knows it was just a publicity stunt. By your formulation of unwarrented attention=challenge to society, Paris Hilton is an icon of social rebellion. College newspapers are a bastion of free speech No, college newspapers are a bastion of idiocy. Free speech is not dependent on the airing of idiocy. Why, in God's name, should we be grateful that an editor is thoughtless enough to approve for publication the work of any bonehead who can put two words together. We, as a society, get no benefit from that. We may be grateful that he could if he wanted, but we shouldn't be grateful that he does.
posted by dzot at 04:06 PM on April 29, 2004
OOPS. Drood: sorry about that -- I missed your follow up.
posted by dzot at 04:08 PM on April 29, 2004
3) I say kudos to the guy for writing something like that. I don't agree with his rhetoric, it may be badly written, but it's refreshing to see something, ANYTHING other than "Oh this is so tragic" when the other 700 or so soldiers out there who've been killed have been completely ignored. You know, I read the editorial and the author lost me at: I could tell he was that type of macho guy, from his scowling, beefy face on the CNN pictures I'm suprised no one has said anything but the author clearly is carrying around some prejudices that have nothing to do with Pat Tillman. Nothing in the news indicates that Tillman is a "macho" guy, the author just inferred it from "the CNN pictures". From everything I've read (from newspaper accounts, to a post from someone who went High School with Tillman), Tillman was an intelligent, thoughtfull and genuine person. So the author projected his prejudices onto Tillman which just happen to be dead wrong. So Drood, was it the bigotry that you found refreshing?
posted by Mike McD at 05:02 PM on April 29, 2004
I'm ashamed for grad students everywhere. What a tool.
posted by garfield at 05:31 PM on April 29, 2004
dzot: Well, see, in my opinion, free speech means that any idiot with an opinion gets to state it. Ergo, a bastion of idiocy is a bastion of free speech. In addition, most college papers don't have to choose what they publish based on demands of the market, which makes it easier for them to run unpopular opinions. It amazes me that when someone's obnoxious pseudo-politcal comments garner attention (as they were surely meant to do) he is defended as being a heretic challenging society. On the other hand, when an obnoxious pseudo-celebrity sex tape appears and garners attention (as it was surely meant to do) everyone knows it was just a publicity stunt. By your formulation of unwarrented attention=challenge to society, Paris Hilton is an icon of social rebellion. That's not really what I meant, though I confess I can see why you read it that way. The point I was intending to get across is that this is just one moron shooting off his mouth in a college paper. As you mentioned, virtually any idiot can shoot his mouth of in a college paper. What makes this idiot's op-ed piece worth of national news? There were probably 500 poorly written college op ed pieces about Tillman portraying him as a hero. None of them made national news. One guy, with an opinion that I think we all acknowledge is ill-informed and based largely on stereotypes of football players, writes an asinine op-ed that unfairly characterizes and attacks a (IMO) hero. Why don't we just shrug the moron's article off with "he's an ass?" Why give him national attention? Well, because he was the one ass who had a different view. What is the point of bringing it in the limelight? In my opinion, it is because it stirs up strong emotional reactions from people during a time when they still have strong feelings about Tillman's sacrifice. I blew things a bit out of proportion with the choice of the word "heresy," but it seems to me that this guy's article is being brought to the nation's attention so that the nation has an opportunity to slap him down. What happens at the UMass newspaper now? Will the President step in and ask to approve their stories? Will their be a call across the nation for college Presidents to keep their school newspapers in line? Or maybe the jerk who wrote it will just get a ton of hate mail from angry, grief stricken friends and fans of Tillman. Were that to happen, that would certainly teach him to keep his opinions to himself. I confess, I have no idea whether he wanted national attention or not (much as I have no idea whether Hilton wanted attention via the porn tape or not - is there proof now that she did want this?). I can't read his mind. I suspect that the writer has no idea that one poorly written piece would garner this sort of attention. If he had realized this, one hopes that he would have put more time into writing it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 05:34 PM on April 29, 2004
To be honest, I haven't been exactly sure what has qualified Pat Tillman as a "hero". That he went to war and died? Fine, but the hundreds of other "heroes" who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't getting feature articles written about them. If the people calling Tillman a "hero" really considered those others to be equally heroic, they'd know their names and spend as much time celebrating them. Then, there are a lot of folks who seem to regard Tillman as "heroic" because he gave up a lot of money to go to war when he didn't have to. This, too, I find troubling. The modern reality is that the backbone of our armed services -- and the bulk of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are men and women who can't get a job at the factory because the factory's moved to Malaysia (and was it really ever any different in a non-draft situation?). Tillman had many choices; they had few. Does absence of a million dollar paycheck make one less heroic? And let's not forget that when Pat Tillman went to Afghanistan, he didn't leave his family eating ramen noodles. Pat Tillman gave up a lot to enlist, but other people who enlisted were not rich to start off with, and they and their families ended up with a lot less. To tie this all back into sports, I wonder just why we praise highly-paid athletes whenever they do something that ordinary shlubs do all the time. Look, he spends time with his kids! Hey, she's getting an MBA! Wow, he cuts his mama's grass! Come on. You can only praise their sense of duty and dedication for a very short while before it descends into absurdity. You want to praise those who died in Afghanistan, do so. But learn some names besides Tillman. They all volunteered.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:29 AM on April 30, 2004
You want to praise those who died in Afghanistan, do so. But learn some names besides Tillman. They all volunteered. Great point. I think people have jumped on this because they do not know anyone else that has served, so Tillman puts a face on the cause. And it may also be because he carries a form of celebrity and has been on tv that for some strange reason, people think they already know him. Sometimes I think our country really is that simple, that TV is another extension of their social life. My cousin flies Blackhawks in the 101st and he was already in Iraq for 8 1/2 months. He came home 2 days before last Thanksgiving and he just received orders that he will be heading back in the Fall. The family is none too happy nor is he, but as he puts it, "This is what I signed up for." Is he a hero? I doubt he thinks so. I'm proud as hell of him, but he is merely fulfilling the obligations of attending West Point. The guys I feel sorry for are the ones who saw the Service as a means of financial support and are now over there fighting. Sure, they all knew the risks going in, but they probably thought their own neighborhoods were more dangerous than anything they could possibly see.
posted by usfbull at 07:07 AM on April 30, 2004
As you mentioned, virtually any idiot can shoot his mouth of in a college paper. What makes this idiot's op-ed piece worth of national news? I think it's a chicken and egg situation. Do you ignore the fact that a contrarian's opinion is so boldly obnoxious that it's getting attention all over the world, simply because he shouldn't be getting so much attention? Dramatically stupid people make the news all the time.
posted by rcade at 08:20 AM on April 30, 2004
By the way, he's sorry now. He didn't respond to phone calls or e-mails, but we're sure Gonazlez wrote this apology? How did they verify it? I find this interesting also ... UMass president Jack Wilson issued a statement saying the comments in The Daily Collegian on Wednesday were "a disgusting, arrogant and intellectually immature attack on a human being who died in service to his country. Uhhh, dude? YOU guys admitted him. Is it really necessary for the president of the University of Massachusetts to come out and denouce one of his own students like this? If you're looking for a capitalizing, arrogant and intellectually immature person in this whole mess ...
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:11 AM on April 30, 2004
I have no doubt he's sorry. I have no doubt everyone concerned is sorry. We're gonna hear eight mea culpas apiece for everyone who ever met this guy. But as an idiot who writes things for public comsumption myself (as are all of you, need it be said), how many people have died in foreign wars over the last two-plus centuries so that we have the right to write whatever damned fool half-thought-out thing comes into our minds? I understand the backlash against the canonization of Pat Tillman. From what I've read about him, if Pat were here he'd be as pissed at it as any of us. But what I see (aside from the backtracking and hand-washing) is the first amendment working exactly like it should. Gonzalez spoke his mind, and the people who disagreed with him got to speak theirs. Ain't America Great(tm)? By the way, I don't think it's a stretch to say Paris Hilton is an icon of social rebellion, for what it's worth.
posted by chicobangs at 10:22 AM on April 30, 2004
But as an idiot who writes things for public comsumption myself (as are all of you, need it be said), how many people have died in foreign wars over the last two-plus centuries so that we have the right to write whatever damned fool half-thought-out thing comes into our minds? Why is it that everyone has to treat this as if it is a issue of free speech? I saw no one calling for this asshat to be skinned, jailed or tied to a chair and forced to watch reruns of Playmakers. Everyone is just calling him an dick. Calling someone a dick is not forbidden by the first amendment.
posted by dzot at 02:18 PM on April 30, 2004
Apparently, he's getting some death threats.
posted by rcade at 02:26 PM on April 30, 2004
Call me Canadian if you will, but as far as Tillman's concerned if a guy's position is that the only way he feels he's doing his part for freedom is to go kill a bunch of other people across the globe, I'm switching tables in the cafeteria. These pro-military guys are always a little too eager to show me how they read about 43 ways to kill a man with his own spoon.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:35 AM on May 01, 2004
Tillman joined an elite combat unit, and was killed in combat. This may be sad, but it's not tragic or surprising. I don't know why people are so wrapped up in his story.