The "liberal" press has bowed to violent conservative complaints. This kind of closed-mindedness is frightening, IMHO. If you won't hear the other side, how can you be sure your on the right one? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20040504/en_bpiep/rallstillmancartoonpulledbymsnbccom A cartoon questioning late footballer-turned-soldier Pat Tillman's credentials as a "hero" was pulled from MSNBC.com this afternoon. The drawing also brought Ted Rall 110 e-mails in less than 15 minutes. The volume of mail had much to do with the cartoon being mentioned on the Drudge Report site, seen by many conservatives. Drudge linked to MSNBC.com until the cartoon was yanked. Then Drudge linked to the cartoon at Universal Press Syndicate's site (http://www.ucomics.com). In a statement posted on its site, MSNBC.com said Rall's cartoons, like those by other creators, are "published daily on the site via an automated syndication feed. Such feeds are rarely reviewed. However, MSNBC.com Editor in Chief Dean Wright concluded Monday's Rall item did not meet MSNBC.com standards of fairness and taste." Rall said in the cartoon that Tillman -- who gave up a $3.6-million National Football League contract to join the military and then died last month -- "falsely believed Bush's wars against Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) had something to do with 9/11. Actually, he was a cog in a low-rent occupation Army that shot more innocent civilians than terrorists to prop up puppet rulers and exploit gas and oil resources. So when Tillman got killed by the Afghan resistance, one word naturally came to mind: 'Uh -- idiot?' [says one person in the cartoon's final panel]. 'Sap?' [says another]. 'Hero!' [says an editor]." When E&P called Rall, he had only received one message about the cartoon. But, as the interview went on, the messages started pouring in. A few were positive, but most were vicious. As Rall opened each e-mail for the first time, he quoted briefly from each one. "You make me sick"; "lies and distortions"; "move to France"; "I pity you"; "disgusting"; "sad and pathetic"; "f--- you, you coward b*stard"; "I will s--t on your grave"; "horrendous"; "rot in hell"; "freak"; "I hope you're killed by an Arab terrorist attack"; "people died to publish the b.s. you do." Rall, who risked his life in Afghanistan himself as a visiting cartoonist/writer after 9/11, told E&P: "The word 'hero' has been bandied about a lot to refer to anyone killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. But anyone who voluntarily goes to Afghanistan or Iraq [as a soldier] is fighting for an evil cause under an evil commander in chief." "Tillman gave up millions of dollars," Rall added. "To that extent I think he's admirable, but the cause is not. ... He would have been a better person and a better husband if he took the $3.6 million and played football and left the poor and beleaguered people of Afghanistan and Iraq alone." Rall's editorial cartoons have 140 clients (roughly half of them print newspapers). Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr said today that there has been "no reaction from editors as of yet, but a few e-mails from readers who oppose" the cartoon.
I love Ted Rall's stuff, but I didn't like that strip. Tillman died for a greater cause he believed in. To me, that's a hero. But yanking the strip because it was offensive? C'mon. Let the reader decide that.
To me this one is an example of " I hate what you have to say..." etc. It may have an underlying point, but uses a veery poor means of illustrating it, considering Tillman, mistaken or not, was a human being who gave his life in defense of what he saw as his nation's security. The man also has a family. Yeah, they have a right to print this, and pulling something for political purposes is wrong, but aside from that I could have lived my life without reading this and gone on just fine.
Reading that cartoon was like going to the dentist to get a tooth drilled... terrible! Why someone would think that that was appropriate is beyond me, but the fellow is free to express his misguided humor as he will. No one is required to publish it, thank goodness.
I would guess the point he is making is Pat Tillman didn't participate during that time period - he would still have been in basic training if he signed up on 9/12. When he was killed, Al Qaeda operated freely in *Pakistan* not Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is able to make hit and run attacks in Afghanistan by retreating to the safety of *Pakistan*.
I don't think that's his point since the caption talks about the war in Afghanistan not being about 9/11 at all. Even if you accept that he meant that al Qaeda's days in Afghanistan were over by the time Tillman got there, I would maintain that the reason US soldiers are still there still has to do with al Qaeda. If anything, we've not dedicated enough to rebuilding Afghanistan. Does Rall then support the invasion of Pakistan and overthrow of their government in an effort to further hunt down al Qaeda? Was that the only proper response to 9/11 (since he seems to maintain that Afghanistan was not related to 9/11)? But according to Rall, the invasion of Afghanistan didn't have anything to do with 9/11.
On second reading, I'll grant you that about Rall's intention. I disagree with him about Afghanistan but agree with his other opinions.
this strip is just way over the top. it is extremely disrespectful to tillman and his family and anyone who ever put their life in danger for america. maybe you can say he had it coming to him, but in my eyes its like saying MLK had it coming to him. i'm not trying to compare the causes but i am trying to compare that they selflessly put themselves in danger for the greater good of society and something they believed in. tillman gave up things that i'm sure none of would to help out his country. this isn't about the war in iraq or the war for oil in afghanistan??? its about someone who gave up riches to help his country. it was the right thing to do on his part and what he did was noble because it was a selfless act. its pretty offensive that the writer even says the he joined just to kill arabs too. i mean give me a break...this guy is a freaking joke.
I certainly do not agree with the first panel of the cartoon. I think that is offensive. But I'm irritated with the reaction, particularly because it seems so "normal" nowadays. The reaction is: Don't respond with a counterpoint, just censor it out. Applied to more intelligent arguments the backlash against the anti-war folks remains the same -- somehow anti-war == anti-american. Here, where the pretense is extra ludicrous, the backlash is even more extreme. In this case, I want the cartoon to remain viewable even more than if I thought it was truly poignant, strictly because it is an extreme viewpoint. The hypocrisy of the folks who are mad at Rall is obvious: It's anti-american to be against the war, yet pro-american to censor speech? I think that's apalling.
Don't know if you're referring to me, but I never said to censor it. Thank goodness no one has to publish it. There is as much right for a free press not to publish something, for whatever the reasons, as there is the right to create it by the author. Works both ways.
its not about censoring speech its about showing a complete lack of respect for the dead. its not about anti-war being anti-american...its about a commentator making outrageous statement that offended people. it's not about simple disagreement and point/counterpoint...it's about showing not respect for a dead soldier and making outlandish allegations that he only joined to kill arabs. the guy made no counterpoint...he just made an outrageous and offensive statement. he indirectly labeled tillman an idiot and a sap and also said he was some sort of racially motivated killer. way to pick on a dead man!! great counterpoint!!!!
"Tillman gave up millions of dollars," Rall added. "To that extent I think he's admirable, but the cause is not. ... He would have been a better person and a better husband if he took the $3.6 million and played football and left the poor and beleaguered people of Afghanistan and Iraq alone." - Rall from that yahoo link in the first post a better person? I don't think he would have been a better person
That's a very ignorant statement. I understand what he's trying to say (and agree with the principle behind it), but he's just talking out of his ass here. There are much better ways to get your idea across.
Who exactly "censored" it? MSNBC took it down by their own accord. Nobody made them. How is that censorship?
