Them's Fightin' Words

When I was in college, I was in the enviable position of Token Rightie in my group of friends. This is a gig that requires a strong sense of self, and the amazing capacity to nod and smile at what you find annoying. You do this not because you have no argument with the assumptions of your left-leaning pals, but because raising the argument requires more energy than it's worth. I'll never forget being buttonholed by three pals who were positive that the U.S. should slash the Defense Department to ribbons because they couldn't imagine us ever being at war again ("C'mon, whose gonna fight us?" they asked, as if I had a magic 8-ball that would percieve all conflicts). Eventually, you learn to just let them be.


All this is preface to the fisking I am about to impart against one such member of the old gang. As I said when I put Jon's Department of Homeland Security Blog on the linksheet, Jon's a cool cat and a quick wit, and sharp when he knows what he's talking about. But today he doesn't, and so I propose to show:

i know that it's unpopular to speak out against the war in iraq and afghanistan. i know that it's especially unpopular to speak out against someone like ex-NFL football player, pat tillman, who died during combat in afghanistan. yet, rene gonzalez of the daily collegian did just that, writing an article describing how pat tillman "got what he deserved."

The preceding is dripping with a pose that pisses me off. Since when is it "unpopular" to speak against the war? Everybody that had a mind has been speaking against the war since it started. They're called Democrats, and they really need to lose the martyrdom complex they seem to have developed. We do not have mobs running through the streets erecting guillotines to punish thoughtcrime. We do not have an Un-American Activities Committee bringing people before it and asking them if they've ever spoke against the Great Patriotic War Against the Forces of Satan. You're not a lone voice boldly bucking the trend. People happen to disagree with you, and they say so. Get over yourself.

now, i don't agree with everything that mr. gonzalez has to say. he does make some good points in his article, but unjustifiably takes blatant cheap shots at pat tillman. i mean, c'mon, dude, the guy just died in a war. and it would take an extreme circumstance for me to ever say that someone who was brutally killed "got what he deserved." but, aside from the childish attacks, which are unfortunately overabundant, gonzalez does have some good points.

Which are...?

not surprisingly, gonzalez is being lambasted. surely, the attacks against gonzalez' childish insults are warranted. but, to say that he is an american hater? that's basically just taking it to the other extreme. of course, the people criticizing gonzalez don't see it that way. they think, "how dare he say that pat tillman is not a hero?! the man died for our country! he died for you! for me! for us!"



yeah. great. what were you saying? sorry, i wasn't really paying attention. i was too busy picking out all the chocolate pieces in my chips ahoy.

I'm assuming that somewhere in this flippancy there's an argument, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you should eat something before you engage in debate. Or you should learn to like chocolate.

look, it's not that i'm unsympathetic. any man who serves in the military of any country has my utmost respect in regards to self-sacrifice. of course pat tillman showed tremendous courage. of course pat tillman is not your typical american. in fact, the irony of this is that pat tillman is the most celebrated unamerican american in recent memory. after all, what is more american than hoarding money? yet tillman turned down millions to go fight in afghanistan. that is definitely unamerican. i mean, what true american is going to throw away a few million dollars for a chance to die?

It begs the question of why this non-american threw away his life to save us greedy american pustules. Maybe Tillman saw in us something worth saving.


Incidentally, Jon, I'm an American and I don't, to my knowledge, hoard money. I save some for the day when I won't be able to work, but that's about it. I'm pretty sure you don't hoard money, either. Who do you know that does?

the real problem here is that no distinction is being made between what tillman believed he was doing and what he was actually doing.



pat tillman believed that what he was doing was important. in actuality? well, apparently he wasn't too bright. or he was a republican. and let's be honest, there's not much difference.

Oh, touchez, D'Artagnan. Where DO you come up with them?

as gonzalez pointed out, it's not as if the united states was under attack and mr. tillman was defending his country. he volunteered to go overseas, to a hostile environment, to participate in a war that was started by the united states to protect the interests of united states politicians. that doesn't necessarily include your and my "security."

So no war that Americans fight overseas has anything to do with our security or defending ourselves. That would seem to include every war we've fought since Appomatox. Gee, too bad for those guys that got zilched storming the beaches of Normandy. They must not have been too bright. Maybe they were Democrats. DAMN I'm funny!

it's a tricky situation. i mean, the war that tillman fought in is a complete travesty. but it's unfair to criticize him for being so blinded. after all, ingorance can't be seen by the ignorant. so were his actions heroic? it's hard to say.

The first statement here is offered without evidence. The second is patronizing to the point of being insulting. The third has a glaring spelling error of too-perfect irony.


I believe you've scored a hat trick.

let's say that, for example, you are standing in the woods. all of a sudden, a big, scary looking wild animal approaches you. in the immediate proximity of that animal you are by yourself, but off to the side there are two animal experts who are close by. one expert tells you that the animal could attack you at any moment, and there's not really much you can do to prevent him from attacking you should it decide to, so to be aware of whats going on. the other expert tells you that the chances of that animal attacking you are extremely low unless you provoke it, so you should just slowly walk away from the animal and no harm will come to you.

The last thing I ought to be doing after my "charity organization" analogy this week ("I'm Vague Man! I live in a house! I drive a car! I go to a job! I do stuff!"), is peeing on somebody else's analogy. But I think the "wild animal" here should have a few more descriptors to make it appropriate to the war. Like the fact that the wild animal just ate a family of four in an SUV. It might not do the same to you, true, but...

so, you start to back away... then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a random person comes charging at the animal. he fights the wild animal valiantly, as you quickly move to safety. unfortunately, the animal kills the man.



so, is that man a hero? did he save your life? did he protect you?



maybe. but, it was probably pointless. you probably would've been fine without his help. so, should you laud his stupidity?

Or maybe he knew something that you didn't know. It's arrogant in the extreme to assume that you would have been fine just because one of the two experts said so. The other expert and they guy who just laid down his life said otherwise. Why are their viewpoints thrown aside?


I do like your use of the word "laud" though. It's one of my favorites.

it's a yes and no kind of thing. yes, he was brave and did what he did because he thought he was being helpful. but, no, he really didn't do anything except get himself killed.



it's sort of like not being religious and having someone tell you they're going to pray for you. to them, what they're doing is helpful. to you, it's like, "whoop-de-shit."

OR, maybe they know something you don't know. And if the reverse is true, perhaps you could just try saying "thanks," and moving on with your day.


And before you conclude that what Tillman did didn't help in anyway, you'll need to find an explanation for this.

I'm down with the MST3K movie reference, though. well done.

i guess i just don't understand why this is such a big deal. i mean, do i really need to see his eulogy on television? two hours on espnews? fuck. enough is enough. i don't need to keep seeing pat tillman on television for a month and a half. just like i didn't need to see michael jackson holding his baby over the hotel balcony for a month, or howard dean screaming like a buffoon for two weeks.

Then. Turn. The. Damn. Thing. Off.

personally, i'd feel worse for a guy who got killed while trying to save a 7-11 clerk from getting shot, or a woman from getting raped, or a boy from being kidnapped, than i would pat tillman. that's just how i see it, and i'm not going to apologize for it.

Would you still feel that way if you had to watch two weeks of maudlin TV on the subject?

look, i don't have anything against the guy. he's not the one who is pissing me off. again, i do think that what he did was incredibly brave and totally unselfish, and he certainly deserves credit for giving up a shitload of money for something he believed in. but, truthfully, it shouldn't be automatically labeled as "heroic."

So...doing something incredibly brave and totally unselfish, and giving up piles of cash for something you believe in is not necessarily "heroic." What exactly IS "heroic," then?

let's be honest. if he, for example, became a born again christian and decided that he wanted to serve god and be a priest, would people think that what he did was great? maybe a few. but most people would be saying to themselves, "this guy passed up millions of dollars to violate the poop chutes of little boys? what a moron."

Oh, of course. That MUST be the only real reason why anyone would become a priest. Because the reasons they SAY they're doing it can't possibly be valid. I've seen x+1 news reports about priests making boys play hide-the-bratwurst, so that's all Christianity means to me. By the way, Republicans are ingorant!


Incidentally, catholic priests are not "born-again." That tedious phrase is reserved for evangelical protestants who, to their credit, have generally NOT been accused of molestation. Just helping you out.

it hurts me when i hear about the stories of other famous athletes whose lives were tragically taken from them, as well.



roberto clemente. thurman munson. darryl kile. reggie lewis. hank gathers.



those are just a few men whose deaths will always sadden me. now i will add pat tillman's name to that list. but, the difference between pat tillman and those other athletes is that he put himself in harm's way.

So a sports guy who dies in a plane crash is a bigger loss than a sports guy who dies in a war, because he didn't have to do that. Which is why we call it "heroic".

the bottom line is that the problem i have is not with pat tillman. it's with the media, who once again is oversaturating the shit out of something and making it more relevant that it really is; and it's with assholes who can't accept that some people don't find what pat tillman did heroic. in fact, some of us find it kind of dumb.



that doesn't make his death any less sad or tragic. on the contrary. from where i stand, his death is more disturbing.

We've now managed to work our way to the position where the battlefield death of a guy who gives up the good life to fight for his country is not "heroic," but "dumb," or "disturbing." Yet we persist in believing that we know what "most people" think.

look, whether or not you agree with the opinions that mr. gonzalez and i have (although, mine is certainly more forgiving than gonzalez'), at least give us the right to express them, especially if they are educated and well-thought (which, to be fair, much of gonzalez' weren't). it's one of the rights we have under the constitution that pat tillman thought he was fighting for.

PLEASE climb off the cross. No one is nailing you to it. All we're doing is arguing that what you're saying is poorly-thought-out. It's one of the rights we have under the constitutions that Pat Tillman thought he was fighting for.




I have no doubt that I'm going to feel guilty about this later. Or I might get madder when Jon returns fire. The future, she is a sneaky wench, always running away...