![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 13:35:24
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 13:09:54
I think that the fact that he didn't volunteer the information to the press was in keeping with his general personality, as I see it. He seems a man who values his privacy. The only major adjustment I needed to make to my impression of him is that I now see him as a guy who drinks a beer while shooting things with friends. I somehow had the impression that he was a guy who'd have a glass of wine at a fine restaurant. Transference, I guess. Something about the position of vice president. I can't imagine that, with his health problems, he's a heavy or binge drinker or he probably wouldn't still be around. So I doubt he was hunting while totally blasted.
I do have a moral problem with hunting. I think it's the recreational aspect of it that bothers me. I eat chicken with no qualms, but the idea of having fun taking a chicken's life is bothersome. It was always an unpleasant chore for grandma. I eat mammal I'm afraid, but I feel dreadfully guilty about it and wish I could stop. However many friends, and many of my relatives, enjoy hunting mammals as well as fowl. I shouldn't hold that against the vice president, I guess.
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 13:38:51
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 13:09:54
My grandpa used to kill his own cows. I heard that he always petted them and apologized to them first. That somehow makes the idea marginally better. Sort of like the Native American custom after taking the life of an animal or plant?
Although I still haven't forgiven them for having me eat my "pet" rabbit without my knowledge. Yuck. I don't care if he did apologize first. Poor Thumper.
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:53:19
In reply to I gotta admit, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 12:36:13
I don't get the whole "a car can be a lethal weapon so its just like a gun" argument.
What is the main purpose of a car? To drive people around.
What is the main purpose of a gun? To kill something.
I fail to understand how the two can be compared.
++
Cheney did NOT have the correct licenses. Though he has bought the correct license since the event. He had an out of towners license, but did not have a bird shooting license.
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:58:59
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 13:38:51
I have killed and eaten my own food. I have no qualms about it. My husband is vegetarian, and so would never do it, but I'm not. If I am happy to eat meat, I also have to be happy to do what ever is required in order to eat the meat.
When it comes to hunting anf fishing, I am also perfectly happy aslong as the hunter then takes the catch home and eats it, or shares it amongst his friends and family to eat. Somehow, I get the feeling that Cheney hunts for the fun of the kill, not the fun of the cooking.
Nikki
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 13:59:08
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:53:19
If he's cited for that I have no problem. There's no reason to believe (as far as I can tell) that it was deliberate.
As far as the car, I always keep in mind that it's a weapon that can kill as easily as a gun. Not all weapons have killing as their primary purpose. It helps me respect the act of driving a vehicle, and take it very seriously indeed. I'm not sure how I originally associated the two. Probably something to do with drunk driving and criminal responsibility.
Posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 14:02:39
In reply to killing of animals, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:58:59
Like I said, many of my friends and relatives do it.
I just have a problem associating death and fun. It's my problem, I'm not saying everyone should have it.
I had a friend who tried to explain that it wasn't the kill that was fun. That it could be photography and be as much fun. But I couldn't quite understand why, as he was a photographer himself, he didn't just bring his camera.
But that's just me. I'm not saying it should be anyone else.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 16:34:29
In reply to killing of animals, posted by NikkiT2 on February 17, 2006, at 13:58:59
"When it comes to hunting anf fishing, I am also perfectly happy aslong as the hunter then takes the catch home and eats it, or shares it amongst his friends and family to eat. Somehow, I get the feeling that Cheney hunts for the fun of the kill, not the fun of the cooking."
I'm not so sure. Hunting is so common around here - and most people *do* eat what they bag. Fresh game is a delicacy.
But they were probably going to give them to the ranch hands to clean, who would then take them to the cook.
Posted by Bobby on February 17, 2006, at 21:54:36
In reply to I gotta admit, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 12:36:13
that Bush is the only one in the administration who can shoot straight? :)
Posted by James K on February 18, 2006, at 2:54:04
In reply to Re: killing of animals » NikkiT2, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2006, at 16:34:29
eating little birds full of pellets is like eating fish full of bones, it takes tooth sifting. I don't agree with no. 2 man in country spending all day in hot field with loud noise and heart problems, then waiting around for possible chocking meal at his age. I think some things should be given up for the good of the country. In a few years, he can do whatever, but right now his time belongs to us.
James K
Posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 6:10:23
In reply to I gotta admit, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 12:36:13
If the only offense was to fail to inform the press, I just don't get it. Isn't it the press's responsibility to find the news? Are they now going on the assumption that the news will and should come to them? That a public figure's press secretary owes them an update?>>
Then I think each newspaper that considers itself worthy of the name should start planting spies around the country so news can be found despite government secrecy. It would be wonderful if say a President's press secretary were in fact a reporter for the new York Times.
It's called transparency. This country prides itself on being a transparent society. Our officials are accountable to the people. If that isn't so anymore, then let's get some secret agents (from the press) into the White House and cheney's bunker. I want to read an American newspaper, not Tass.
-z
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 10:17:31
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 6:10:23
If the vice president had shot someone while in the course of his work, I would agree with you. If his secret service agents had shot any person in the course of their work, I would agree with you. If the vice president had committed a felony, I would agree with you.
However, I would feel no particular urge to tell the news media about an accident that I had as a private citizen just because I was also a public figure.
Of course I'm not advocating spies.
But I see no reason why transparency should have to extend to a public official's private life. It's bad enough that doctors release the particulars of a sitting president's colon polyps when said colon polyps do not affect the president's ability to govern.
If Cheney, the man shot, the owner of the ranch, or anybody there had decided to call the Washington Post (or the National Enquirer) to tell their stories, fine. And that's what happened. If the press chooses to circle the vacation spot of a vice president like they did the Princess of Wales, fine. They'd likely find out. But I see no duty for the vice president to call himself.
Any more than I felt it uncumbent upon President Clinton to inform the press the particulars of any encounters he might have had with whatever her name was. It escapes me at the moment.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 18, 2006, at 14:00:19
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » zeugma, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 10:17:31
I'm not sure I agree, but I think your argument is sound.
But what about not talking to the sheriff's office until the following day? I do not think his position voids his obligation to be interviewed by law enforcement.
gg
Posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 14:22:55
In reply to Re: I gotta admit, posted by gardenergirl on February 18, 2006, at 14:00:19
> I'm not sure I agree, but I think your argument is sound.
>
> But what about not talking to the sheriff's office until the following day? I do not think his position voids his obligation to be interviewed by law enforcement.>>that is the essence, he is NOT a private citizen as i understand the word, i cannot tell the sherriff to come back later while i determine the extent of the injuries i have inflicted.
the sherriff and his men were turned away at the gate without explanation.
he is a public servant, he is NOT the law.
hence the need for prompt compliance with local authorities, as well as disclosure to the public. Because he can, if he wished, abuse his power.
his vacations are paid for by our taxes. hence the responsibility to abide by the laws we pay taxes to enforce. but it seems like our taxes are paying for him to put himself above the law, to tell the sherriff to come knocking later.
that is not right.
-z
>
> gg
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 14:55:16
In reply to Re: I gotta admit, posted by gardenergirl on February 18, 2006, at 14:00:19
If he sent the sheriffs away, in a way a private citizen could not do, that was wrong and both he and the sheriff who allowed himself to be turned away should be censured.
That's a different matter than the press.
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 14:57:41
In reply to Re: I gotta admit, posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 14:22:55
I'll agree about the sheriff.
I have to disagree about public disclosure.
Posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 16:47:08
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » zeugma, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 10:17:31
Any more than I felt it uncumbent upon President Clinton to inform the press the particulars of any encounters he might have had with whatever her name was. It escapes me at the moment. >>
No one wound up in the Intensive Care Unit as a result of these encounters.
I would say, as a general rule, if a President or Vice President puts someone else in the hospital as a direct result of his or her actions, then DISCLOSE. Immediately.
and I agree with you about the sheriff.
-z
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 17:35:01
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 16:47:08
Just the president or vice president? How about governors, congressmen, mayors, etc? All elected officials?
That could certainly be your personal yardstick. Where you draw the line.
Mine is whether something was done in the course of one's official duties, or if someone takes advantage of their position whether or not it was technically illegal.
I'm sure any number of other people have any number of other yardsticks. And that's ok.
But I am not sure that we can expect public officials to live by your line or my line or any other constituent's line. They have their own lines, and unless a line gets codified into law, I imagine they'll live by what they think falls into the public's right to know as opposed to their right to privacy.
But there's always the legislature. Where you can lobby for the codification into law. :)
Posted by annierose on February 18, 2006, at 20:25:50
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » Dinah, posted by zeugma on February 18, 2006, at 16:47:08
# 1 : He didn't have a hunting license.
# 2 : He blamed the victim immediately afterwards, that it wasn't his fault ... he has since recanted that statement. It reminded me of my 12 year old daughter when she breaks something, "Mom, my brother distracted me." Instead of, "I'm really sorry that I broke that vase. I'll try to be more careful next time." That would be something a grown up should be able to come up with on their own.
# 3 : He asked a private citizen to tell the press, dodged questions afterwards, it wasn't the public's business. He is a public servant, he shot someone (by accident). The press has a right to ask the questions. He should respond.
Posted by annierose on February 18, 2006, at 20:27:10
In reply to Does this mean, posted by Bobby on February 17, 2006, at 21:54:36
No. I don't think he can either.
Posted by annierose on February 18, 2006, at 20:29:15
In reply to I gotta admit, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2006, at 12:36:13
At the press conference, when asked about the delay in reporting the accident, the press secretary said,
"We wanted to make sure that we had all our facts straight."
To paraphrase a late-night comic, "that's never stopped them before ...."
Posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 22:32:14
In reply to Re: The fuss is about ... » zeugma, posted by annierose on February 18, 2006, at 20:25:50
I thought he had a hunting license, just not the specific stamp he needed for the specific type of hunting he was doing?
And that the owner of the ranch volunteered the information to the press because she thought it would be public knowledge anyway, and she preferred telling the story to her local newspaper, not because she was asked to? And that when she told the vice president what she planned to do, he merely told her to do what she felt she needed to do? Which is more or less what I'd tell a friend who was about to tell a story about me to the press. Especially if I were of a particularly private nature. Which isn't really a bad thing. It used to be considered a virtue, although I suppose it isn't anymore these days. Am I old fashioned to regret that?
I can't seem to find any confirmation that an investigating sheriff was turned away? I'm not saying it didn't happen. I just don't see any mention of it in the news reports by major agencies.
I must confess that I would be inclined to stress that I hadn't seen the person I'd shot, or hadn't known he was out there collecting a bird when I told the story, but again wasn't it the ranch owner and a friend who made the comments about the man not having announced himself per proper hunting protocol? As far as I can see, Cheney himself took full responsibility.
I'll grant that the vice president doesn't make a great politician, and that he doesn't handle media relations well. But that's not particularly a negative for me personally. I think it's almost refreshing. Of course, I backed Tsongas for admitting up front that he was going to raise taxes.
I'm not an apologist, or giving the party line. I just don't understand this as the issue it's become, which come to think of it is true for me of most news stories that garner public attention.
I'd rather see the attention given to the extensive invoking of executive privilege or the domestic surveillance issue. Perhaps especially the domestic surveillance issue, which bothers me no end on the same basis - the right to privacy. Or to question whether the staffing decisions for key government agencies have been based on qualifications and extensive experience for the specific jobs involved. Because as we have discovered to our detriment, it really does make a difference. And the readiness of the Department of Homeland Security to respond to potential crises. I'm not overly confident. And while my main focus has been on local news lately, isn't there some issue about inconsistencies in the official policies on leaks to the press that involves the same principal party? Could be wrong on that one.
I'd rather see investigative zeal poured into the boring but necessary task of seeing whether the tax cuts did indeed pay for themselves, as advertised, or if they were fiscally disastrous and should be repealed, or at least not extended. Especially given the cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of disaster recovery.
To me, what *appears* to me to be a tipping of the balance of power towards the executive branch of government deserves more attention than it's getting. Which is not an anti-executive branch statement. I am similarly concerned about a long term tipping towards the judicial branch that seems to be correcting itself somewhat, against all odds. And I would be equally concerned, and have been from time to time, with a tipping towards the legislative branch. Although my gut feeling is that such a large body isn't in too much danger of keeping enough unity to amass more power than it has been intended to have on a long term basis.
I hate to see the public's attention to political matters directed towards Cheney's hunting accident and away from the very important issues that appear to be at least temporarily eclipsed by it.
Posted by Bobby on February 18, 2006, at 22:58:14
In reply to Re: Does this mean » Bobby, posted by annierose on February 18, 2006, at 20:27:10
He shoots straight--just maybe at the wrong targets.
Posted by Dinah on February 19, 2006, at 0:10:34
In reply to Re: The fuss is about ... » annierose, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 22:32:14
Sigh. I have just spent an entire day when I should be working reading about a man for whom I had no particular fondness, and liking what I read about him enough to begin to suspect I'd like and respect him as a human being quite well enough.
I have no time for that right now.
So I'd best leave this discussion and return to my labors. The ones I'm paid for.
I've too great a tendency to obsess. :(
Posted by SLS on February 20, 2006, at 0:47:47
In reply to Does this mean, posted by Bobby on February 17, 2006, at 21:54:36
> that Bush is the only one in the administration who can shoot straight? :)
Even if he were, I question whether he really does the aiming in the first place. He might just be pulling the trigger.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by zeugma on February 21, 2006, at 15:27:50
In reply to Re: I gotta admit » zeugma, posted by Dinah on February 18, 2006, at 17:35:01
> Just the president or vice president? How about governors, congressmen, mayors, etc? All elected officials?
>
Here in N.Y. we were getting hourly updates on the state of Gov. Pataki's colon, or pancreas, or whatever it was. It didn't seem inappropriate- in this era in which states must take responsibility because no one else will, and our Administration may or not be violating the Fourth Amendment and most likely FISA in the name of averting terror attacks which will most definitely call for SOMEBODY to be in charge- well, someone's got to let us know what's going on. A terror attack on N.Y. would need evacuation plans and emergency management, and who is going to do this except our mayor, our governor, and other local leaders?I am not going to wait for Secretary Chertoff to blame the Acting Director of FEMA before moving, or President Bush to explain that New York "dodged a bullet" before acknowledging the severity of the situation. Our local leaders, and Congress, are our recourse. Our government appears to have excused itself from these matters.I am not interested in what Dick Cheney does for pleasure or business. I am, however, greatly interested in seeing him turn up (in blaze orange or not) before Patrick Fitzgerald's jury to give sworn testimony about whether and why he ordered I. Lewis Libby to leak Valerie Plame's identity to the press.
and I am interested in knowing that someone is in operational condition, and not torn apart by "the worst day of his life," or off preening as a "fashion god," when the next disaster unfolds.
I pay for these people to serve me, hence my interest in what they are up to. This interest is heightened when my rights and yours may be violated by such. They are not doing me a favor by making their actions known. They are being accountable. Or one would think.
-z
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.