More on Cheney
In this Washington Post article about Cheney’s hunting accident, I happened to see the pictured ad for a Slate editorial on the subject. The world is finally starting to catch on to some of my brilliant observations.
Marginally more seriously, I do tend to wonder how big an issue some of this is. Yes, it stinks that Cheney shot his friend, but is the whole disclosure thing really that big a deal? I mean, of course it needs to be disclosed that Cheney shot somebody, but who really cares whether it was reported by his friend or by him? This seems only tangentially related to the general air of secrecy surrounding the current administration. I can’t help thinking some of the mainstream media (to use a politically charged right-wing buzz word) is blowing this out of proportion. On the other hand, plenty of right wingers are being reactionary and characteristically judgmental as well. Fanaticism and irrationality cut both ways, I guess.
Update.
So I just ran across another article that voices an outcry that Cheney should come forward about the shooting. WTF? It’s not like there’s a shroud of mystery around what happened. Do we really need to hear him publicly say that he feels bad about shooting his friend? Of course he feels bad about it, to the extent that a cyborg can feel bad. I’m as opposed to this administration’s politics as anybody, but let’s not let that bleed into our evaluation of the man’s basic humanity. Well, let’s do so where it’s appropriate. Some of his policies seem sort of inhumane from some perspectives, though his supporters would probably argue that sometimes torture, abridgments of rights, and other things this administration has embraced may represent sad means to necessary ends. But let’s not jump on the guy for not coming forward and making some politically expedient speech about how sad he is to have shot his friend in the face when of fucking course he feels bad about it. Geez.
Mike said,
July 15, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
From what i can put together, dick shot the man, then kept all quiet. The owner of the ranch went public with the story, and this may have been against the whitehouse’s “wishes.” The story does seem week, “Dick talked with the owner (a day later) and decided it was best for her to announce this.” Isn’t this what we have a press secretary for? If this were anyone else, there would a Texas Trooper on TV going, “we haven’t decided on if there was any criminal negligence on Dick’s part, and I cannot comment further on an ongoing investigation”
But yea, where the hell was all this concern for the Iraq war WMD, the on going lie we will “be out soon” or the goverment domestic spying? This probably isn’t even the first guy Dick’s shot, only the first by mistake.
Pamela said,
July 15, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
I think there are a couple of issues. First, why the delay? Accidents happen. Why couldn’t Dick come out - or have an appropriate rep come out - and say, “Man, this happened, it sucks, I’m sorry.” No, he has someone who was not actually an eyewitness come out and pretend to be an eyewitness and do the job of a press secretary, and what does she say? That the man shot was more bruised than bloodied. (Lie) That she saw the whole thing (lie - she thought at first it was a problem with Dick’s heart) and that the whole shooting was the fault of the man who got shot because, well, he didn’t announce himself.
You don’t shoot a guy in the face and then blame it on him. And then take him to a small hospital with less capacity to take care of the kinds of injuries he had in the hopes that nobody will find out that you shot a guy. And then delay reporting it because you hope it’ll just blow over and nobody’ll find out. So there’s the attempt to brush it under the carpet (if not actually cover it up), there’s the lying about something that seems pretty straightforward, and there’s the blaming of the victim. If it was just a simple accident, why do these things? I believe it was a simple accident, but I think that the response to it was completely wrong, and completely indicative of patterns of behavior that the administration engages in regularly on more important matters.
I agree that there are far more important things going on that the media isn’t dogging like they have been this story, and it sucks that it takes something like this to get them to pay attention, but I guess you watch the news with the media you have, not the media you want. At least they’re paying a little bit of attention to something that doesn’t require tonguing the assholes of the administration, which hasn’t always been the case. And the coverup attempt, the truthiness without actual full truth, the lack of regard for the guy who’d been shot (it’s his fault he stepped in front of my gun!) - are metaphors for the way the administration conducts itself. The story itself is sexier than discussions of the unitary executive. So people are paying attention in a way that they haven’t to the Alito discussion, the Abu Ghraib matter, other more important matters than Dick Cheney fucking up and shooting a friend and then trying to cover it up (or at least not address it).
I guess wall-to-wall coverage of a minor event with some metaphorical appeal is better than not covering anything of importance, which is what happened before Dick Cheney’s hunting accident.
It’s not just the right wing who’s been shrill about this. : )