Thursday, April 15, 2004
Yesterday in the Daily News there was an article in the sports section that derided sports journalists and athletes who used war metaphors during a time when America is at war. Basically the article said that these people had no concept of what it was like to put their lives on the line and they should not throw around such serious terms so lightly.
I'm not going to get into that. When was the last time an athlete ever had anything profound to say? The last great sports biography by someone who wasn't in the WWF was probably Bill Lee's "The Wrong Stuff" and that came out over 20 years ago. I really am not going to get bothered by a baseball player referring to a game as "a real war". Ever see those guys interviewed after a game on tv?
So why didn't you guys win tonight?
We just didn't want it enough. The other nine guys out there they wanted it and they won it, y'know? Sometimes 4 runs is enough, sometimes it isn't. Tonight it wasn't.
Tomorrow night you face this same squad at home. Any thoughts on what will change when you play them?
We just have to play harder and win. That's it!
Never any groundbreaking stuff coming from these diamond philosophers. So why should we expect them to be held to some standard of political correctness and conciousness when it comes to war metaphors?
Ok back to my point. Later on in the article, the author says (and this is a paraphrase) "Regardless of your feelings on the war, at least these soldiers are standing for something." My eyes sort of bulged out of my head as I read this. They're standing for something? So what!
Those that piloted planes into the World Trade Centres on...what's that day again...I have to check my notes...anyway sometime in Fall of 2001 were standing for something too. They believed in something so much that they forfeitted their lives to do it. Why don't we celebrate them? or say things like "Regardless of your feelings on the World Trade Centre attacks at least those young men stood for something."
I'm not purposely being foolish here. If serious, 'impartial', journalists are willing to praise young men and women for giving their lives in the service of their country why don't we share that praise around a little bit. Those 'terrorists' that hijacked those flights believed in their cause. They believed they had the blessing of their god and they believed that the only way to live a righteous life was to participate in action that would undoubtedly lead in the end of theirs as well as the end of the lives of thousands of innocents. How is that any different than someone who's in the army?
I realize that it's easy for me as someone who is middle class and comfortably employed to criticize how someone in the army could be 'blind' to the atrocities that are committed in the name of their country and keeping the pace. Maybe that's something you have to do in order to keep yourself sane when lacking money, lacking a career, lacking an education, you join the army. If however that is the case and we are allowing them the benefit of the doubt, then why don't we allow that same benefit of the doubt to those fighting on the other side. They're considered terrorists not combatants and thus do not fall under the Geneva convention, but why? Why is that it's ok to be a part of an action that many see as unjust and unnecessary that leads to the deaths of plenty of innocents when you're poor and American, but it's not ok when you're poor and a devout Muslim?
Aw fuck it, I should stick to writing about how Carl Everett (an outfielder for the Montreal Expos) doesn't believe that dinosaurs ever existed.
I'm not going to get into that. When was the last time an athlete ever had anything profound to say? The last great sports biography by someone who wasn't in the WWF was probably Bill Lee's "The Wrong Stuff" and that came out over 20 years ago. I really am not going to get bothered by a baseball player referring to a game as "a real war". Ever see those guys interviewed after a game on tv?
So why didn't you guys win tonight?
We just didn't want it enough. The other nine guys out there they wanted it and they won it, y'know? Sometimes 4 runs is enough, sometimes it isn't. Tonight it wasn't.
Tomorrow night you face this same squad at home. Any thoughts on what will change when you play them?
We just have to play harder and win. That's it!
Never any groundbreaking stuff coming from these diamond philosophers. So why should we expect them to be held to some standard of political correctness and conciousness when it comes to war metaphors?
Ok back to my point. Later on in the article, the author says (and this is a paraphrase) "Regardless of your feelings on the war, at least these soldiers are standing for something." My eyes sort of bulged out of my head as I read this. They're standing for something? So what!
Those that piloted planes into the World Trade Centres on...what's that day again...I have to check my notes...anyway sometime in Fall of 2001 were standing for something too. They believed in something so much that they forfeitted their lives to do it. Why don't we celebrate them? or say things like "Regardless of your feelings on the World Trade Centre attacks at least those young men stood for something."
I'm not purposely being foolish here. If serious, 'impartial', journalists are willing to praise young men and women for giving their lives in the service of their country why don't we share that praise around a little bit. Those 'terrorists' that hijacked those flights believed in their cause. They believed they had the blessing of their god and they believed that the only way to live a righteous life was to participate in action that would undoubtedly lead in the end of theirs as well as the end of the lives of thousands of innocents. How is that any different than someone who's in the army?
I realize that it's easy for me as someone who is middle class and comfortably employed to criticize how someone in the army could be 'blind' to the atrocities that are committed in the name of their country and keeping the pace. Maybe that's something you have to do in order to keep yourself sane when lacking money, lacking a career, lacking an education, you join the army. If however that is the case and we are allowing them the benefit of the doubt, then why don't we allow that same benefit of the doubt to those fighting on the other side. They're considered terrorists not combatants and thus do not fall under the Geneva convention, but why? Why is that it's ok to be a part of an action that many see as unjust and unnecessary that leads to the deaths of plenty of innocents when you're poor and American, but it's not ok when you're poor and a devout Muslim?
Aw fuck it, I should stick to writing about how Carl Everett (an outfielder for the Montreal Expos) doesn't believe that dinosaurs ever existed.
# posted by Die Brucke @ 6:48 PM 
