Blogcritics: Comments on Nuke and Hitler

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:19:43 EDT

Y'know what would be kewl? Get Fidel Castro nominated to the Baseball Hall of Fame. If flashing a peace sign endangers troops, imagine what having Fidel in the HoF would do? Viva la revolucion!

Comment by InMarin

Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:21:09 EDT

I'd like to dispute the claim that the HOF is "a non-political organization". Cooperstown Museums Collaborate on Third Annual Winter Cultural Series

President Bush's top spokesman, an award-winning National Geographic author and one of America's most celebrated futurists highlight the listings for the third annual Cooperstown Winter Cultural Series, made possible by the National Baseball Hall of Fame & Museum, Fenimore Art Museum and The Farmers' Museum. The Cooperstown Winter Cultural Series, an enlightening and engaging wintertime event, open exclusively to members of the three museums, returns in 2002 with installments in February, March and April. ... "In his first year Ari Fleischer has had a more demanding job than any White House Press Secretary in history" said Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey. "He has managed to be a candid spokesman for the President while clearly and simply articulating the Bush Administration's goals, both foreign and domestic. We are thrilled to welcome him to Cooperstown and hear his perspective on life in the White House and the current political scene which of course includes the war on terrorism."

Well, it appears that the HOF doesn't mind politics as long as it's Republican politics.

Comment by Brian Flemming

Sun, 13 Apr 2003 14:52:01 EDT

There's a clear difference between Gernon's behavior and Petroskey's. Gernon made a comment without claiming he spoke for any organization. Petroskey actually cancelled an event on behalf of an organization. Making a comment and cancelling an official event are clearly in two separate categories, or separated at least by degree. One is a comment. The other is an official action. Gernon can plausibly claim he was only speaking for himself (in fact--it's pretty clear he was). Petroskey can hardly claim he wasn't acting in an official capacity. I don't see what is so controversial about Gernon's comments anyway. Germany reduced civil liberties and adopted an aggressive military posture as a result of fear. That doesn't seem to be in dispute. The United States has publicly adopted a new, aggressive military doctrine (preventive war) and is passing legislation that reduces civil liberties. These facts are not in dispute either. What is in dispute--that we're doing it out of fear? That we should learn from history?