« We Sure Do Need Some Water* | Main | Movable Type Licenses Right »
F#@& Yourself
So you heard that Dick Cheney told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to F#@& himself the other day, right? Yeah, that's right:
A brief argument between Vice President Cheney and a senior Democratic senator led Cheney to utter a big-time obscenity on the Senate floor this week.
On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.
"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.
Hm. Interesting. Even better, Cheney said yesterday he has no regrets:
So just so I can get this straight: Janet Jackson's boob on tv is cause for huge concern, but the Vice President of the United States stands on the Senate Floor and tells a United States Senator to f#@& himself, and it's "not an issue"? Nice. (Note: I just saw Musclehead pointed this out first. I'm always late to the party.)
Apparently, Leahy had touched one of the Veep's nerves—he doesn't like people pointing out his cozy connections to the administration's number one defense contractor pal:
"I didn't like the fact that after he had done so, then he wanted to act like, you know, everything's peaches and cream," Cheney said. "And I informed him of my view of his conduct in no uncertain terms. And as I say, I felt better afterwards."
The Washington Post calls this "conduct unbecoming" to a Vice President, but really, I appreciate Cheney's candor. Perhaps this is part of a new strategy of honesty. For example, the Bush/Cheney campaign is also using images of Adolf Hitler in its official campaign videos. Perhaps we're finally getting to see Bush/Cheney in all their crass, hateful, and antisocial glory. It's really very refreshing. After all, we've all known that "f#@& yourself" has been the basic attitude of the Bush administration since day one. A few of the most obvious examples of this:
Bush/Cheney to America's public schoolkids, their parents, and local school boards: F#@& yourself. Of course, Bush/Cheney didn't say that exactly; instead, they said something about "No Child Left Behind."
Bush/Cheney to the environment, environmental activists, the Kyoto Protocol, and experts in global warming: F#@& yourself. But again, Bush/Cheney didn't say that exactly; instead, they said something about "Clean Skies and Healthy Forests" and voluntary pollution-reduction programs, etc.
Bush/Cheney to dozens of world governments and the people (if not always the leaders) of Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain and others: F#@& yourself. Of course, Bush/Cheney said something about "weapons of mass destruction" and "terrorism" and "liberating Iraq."
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. See, isn't candor great? I can just see the t-shirts and bumper stickers now:
"Vote Bush/Cheney '04. And F#@& Yourself."
Posted June 26, 2004 08:13 PM | election 2004
You know, it might be worth pointing out--it would certainly make your argument a bit less obviously one-sided--that the use of Hitler in the Bush video is in fact footage taken from a MoveOn.org advertisement. Given that a movie--one you rather like--by a fellow who makes the Bush-Hitler comparison just came out, I'm not sure what the upset about the spot is? Or can we not differentiate between a person who says, 'Candidate X is like Hitler' and someone who says 'These are the kind of people who would make overwrought comparisons to Hitler?'
Posted by: A. Rickey at June 26, 2004 10:05 PM
Besides the one on your head, what exactly is your point? That somehow this usage is justified? That two wrongs make a right? Way to claim the moral high ground. And it would be worth pointing out that the footage did NOT come from a MoveOn.org advertisement but rather from an entry into a contest that MoveOn.org ran back at the beginning of the year. MoveOn.org did not create these ads. They were rather the free speech of individual American citizens, a distinction that both you and the Bush ad (which I watched at, god help me, Bush's website...I'll be up all night getting the filth out of my computer) elide. Further, the ad, which was part of a competition that allowed people to vote on the ad they liked best, received the lowest scores from those viewing it. MoveOn.org pulled the entry and issued an apology calling the entry "in poor taste." Campaign aides for the paragon of moral virtue that is our leader responded to calls for the ads removal by stating it would remain.
So, once again, what is you point? I would say this is a bit convoluted but there simply isn't enough substance here to justify such a claim.
Posted by: Famous P. at June 26, 2004 11:26 PM
So hold on... your claim is that any use of Hitler in a campaign ad would be unjustified? If so, it's an argument that needs a case made for it: it's certainly an extension of Godwin's Law that isn't particularly justified. One can make a case for saying that a comparison to Hitler is too extreme. But it seems to be protesting far too much to say that pointing out that one's opponent's make such a comparison beyond the pale. If nothing else because it would make it difficult to defend oneself.
Whilst I hate Drudge, he does Google well, and he rather crushes your point about the independence of MoveOn from that particular ad. They pulled it after it was shown to be ineffective, but they knew full well that they were making the comparison. It's not like the ad was a post on a comments section, where editorial control only really comes after a post: they selected to put the ad up in the first place. I simply don't see how it wasn't a "MoveOn" ad. (That it carried the tagline 'sponsored by MoveOn.Org' was my hint.)
Posted by: A. Rickey at June 26, 2004 11:43 PM
I really find your first paragraph to be rather nonsensical for reasons that you might be able to grasp by reading below so I'm just going ignore it. And in any event, you forget Quirk's Exception to Godwin's Law: "Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual"
As for your second post, you REALLY over-state your case about Drudge crushing my point. I suggest you read what you dredged up from Drudge a bit more carefully to see how it WASN'T a MoveOn.org ad. Let me point you to a helpful quote from the link you provide "THE CLIP IS PART OF A CONTEST TO FIND THE BEST BUSH-BASHING AD." Notice the word CONTEST. Now let me point you to the website that was set up for the CONTEST (www.bushin30seconds.org). Now here are a few links to news articles on the CONTEST that address some of the issues you raise. This first one is the AP newswire report, which was picked up by a lot of papers around the country (www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-01-06-moveon-ads_x.htm). Here's a relevant quote "a contest sponsored by the liberal online advocacy Web site, MoveOn.org, which generated some 1,500 submissions from amateur videographers." This next one comes from the St. Petersburg Times Floridian and repeats much of the same information about the CONTEST (www.sptimes.com/2003/12/26/Floridian/Political_ads_go_pop.shtml). Here's one from that bastion of liberal thought, USA Today, that includes further information detailing the fact that the ads received low ratings from the people who voted in the CONTEST :"Pariser defended the decision to include the ad at its site along with the hundreds of other submissions, saying the fact that it "sank to the bottom" among voters was a clear indication of the selection process working. "The RNC isn't doing its homework, basically," Pariser said. "To go on TV saying we were promoting these vile ads is factually totally inaccurate." And finally, another bastion of liberal thought, the NY Times, chimes in on the controversy when it first occurred in JANUARY "Wes Boyd, a MoveOn.org founder, fired back, saying Republicans were "deliberately and maliciously" misleading the public by asserting that MoveOn.org had sponsored the advertisements. "None of these was our ad," Mr. Boyd said in a statement. "Nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund." On Monday, MoveOn.org said more than 100,000 visitors to the site had selected 15 finalists, none of them the Hitler advertisements. A panel of celebrities and political experts has been asked to pick a winner, which will be televised. Mr. Boyd conceded that the advertisements were "in poor taste," and said he "deeply regretted" that they had "slipped through." You can find the article at this URL (www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/politics/campaigns/06ADS.html?ex=1088481600&en=b39e0a3717b9d061&ei=5070&ex=1074834000&en=f77026cb158f8f72&ei=5070) though I'd hurry as the story is so old that it's going to go into the archives soon and so will cost money to access.
As for your clever observation that it carried a tagline 'sponsored by MoveOn.Org' I would point out once again that it was a CONTEST soliciting ads that, after voting by the public visiting the contest website mentioned above (hey, remember that thing called democracy? You might want to look up the definition to ascertain its relation to voting) and further selection by a panel of judges, would be run by MoveOn.org as an official MoveOn.org ad. And in any event that it carries said tagline is no more proof that it is in fact a MoveOn ad than my signing this post "A. Rickey" is proof that you wrote it. That is rather something of "an argument that needs a case made for it," as you so judiciously put it. So yeah, there is basically no there there, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, in your "argument."
Posted by: Famous P. at June 27, 2004 02:30 AM
Um, hey fellas. I'm going to be the Tom Daschle here and say: Let's play nice, ok?
I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that MoveOn had a choice to make when it recieved the Hitler ad from some random person who submitted it as an entry in their contest. MoveOn chose to put the ad online (from what I understand) and let the "voters" decide if it had any merit. That's called free speech, liberalism, democratic process, etc. Perhaps we can disagree over whether MoveOn should have allowed that ad (or the other one making Bush-Hitler comparisons -- sounds like there were two of them) to be streamed on the MoveOn site, but that's still a ways from saying it was a MoveOn ad. Famous P is correct -- the contest entrant who made the ad put the "sponsored by MoveOn.org" tag on there, MoveOn didn't do that.
But ok, I'll stipulate that anti-Bush people (not nec. Kerry supporters) were the first to invoke Hitler in this campaign. As far as I know, that's true. Fine. I'll also stipulate the Kerry used the "f-word' first several months ago when he said to a reporter that Bush had "fucked up" the Iraq invasion. I'd make the distinction that Kerry was talking conversationally (if admittedly on the record) to a reporter, while Cheney was on the Senate Floor actually insulting a U.S. Senator. Is there a difference there? Maybe not. I mean, it seems to me there is, but maybe not.
Bottom line: Given those stipulations, I wonder where the hypocrisy begins and ends. A MoveOn contest entrant compares Bush to Hitler, the Bush campaign screams bloody murder. But now, the Bush campaign lumps Kerry, Dean, and Gore with Hitler, and that's ok. Tit for tat? Fine.
But whatever. I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it b/c the Hitler footage wasn't really ever my point. My point is that it's nice to see Bush/Cheney take the gloves off and show us how ruthless, childish, and mean-spirited they really are, and I think that's demonstrated nicely by Cheney's language on the Senate floor. That's all.
Posted by: ambimb at June 27, 2004 06:17 AM
I understand your claim, Famous. I merely think it's irrelevant.
First, Ambimb, do we know that the "Sponsored by MoveOn.org" was placed on the ad by the author? Because the pieces were posted under a Creative Commons license. Notably, I can't find a copy of the rules, or who actually claims ownership of the ads anymore: they're owned under CC, but I can't figure out by whom.
Secondly, if I hold a contest, collect entries, and publish them for votes, I am taking responsibility for them. I am distributing them, I am paying for the bandwidth, and I am putting them out under the aegis of my website. Now, I might cut MoveOn some slack if they'd pulled the ads when editing/posting them, but unless the process for posting them was completely automatic--much like Ambimb's comment section--then they bear responsibility for them. (And I'd argue they do anyway so long as they didn't pull them as soon as they found out about them, as I would a defamatory statement on my site.)
I understand it was 'just a contest,' but frankly, I don't see why I'd care.
And in any event that it carries said tagline is no more proof that it is in fact a MoveOn ad than my signing this post "A. Rickey" is proof that you wrote it. That is rather something of "an argument that needs a case made for it," as you so judiciously put it. So yeah, there is basically no there there, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein, in your "argument."
Except, of course, for the normal flow of editorial control. Let's say you did post under my name, comparing (for sake of argument) Kerry to Hitler, with the line "and by the way, Ambimb thinks so too." It's going to show up on Ambimb's site from an IP address not typically mine. But since I'm on the go, that's not dispositive. I'd expect than Ambimb, instead of just letting it sit here, would probably send me an email asking what the heck I was playing at, and receive as prompt a response as possible from me stating, "Mate, wasn't me." On the other hand, if he did proceed to allow the comment to stand and not comment on it, then challenging him on it is perfectly appropriate.
At the very best MoveOn was negligent, and that's if they were ridiculous and allowed posters to put entries directly onto the site without editing--contrary to my memory, but I can't prove it. Otherwise, I simply don't see that it being a 'contest' voids their responsibility.
As for asking me to look up 'democracy,' your continual allegations of ignorance, etc, dude, I don't know who you are, but grow up.
Posted by: A. Rickey at June 27, 2004 07:34 AM
Sure, I'll grow up as soon as you stop weaseling your arguments. First you claim that the ad is a MoveOn.org ad, a claim made in ignorance of the fact that the ad was not generated by MoveOn.org but rather was an entry into a contest that happened quite a while ago. You make this claim apparently in the name of making an argument "a bit less obviously one-sided" but the whole force of your last sentence is to reduce the situation down to some moral black and white. Or is there another reason why you pose the clumsy and obvious simile to the moral superiority of those pointing out "overwrought" (now there's a nicely normative word. What standard of judgment hides back there?) comparisons? If I might quote from one of your earlier posts "That gross overgeneralization would be... what, a stupid either/or?" And it's to that "gross overgeneralization" that I responded.
Now you claim that somehow MoveOn.org is evading their responsibility or that I am arguing that they somehow evaded their responsibility or some other sort of nonsensical twaddle. My response was to your snide comment that "it carried the tagline 'sponsored by MoveOn.Org' was my hint." A signature is, by itself, not positive proof of authorship, which is what I wanted to point out. And which you underscore by pointing out the "the normal flow of editorial control," which is still not sufficient proof of veracity or authorship; you might consider the recent scandals at the NYT, a paper of record I think they call it, in this regard. Failure of the signature to guarantee anything aside, I have to wonder, as I have from the get-go, whether you've looked very closely into the factual basis of this issue. MoveOn.org DID exercise responsibility. To quote again from the NYT article I mention above
"None of these was our ad," Mr. Boyd said in a statement. "Nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund." On Monday, MoveOn.org said more than 100,000 visitors to the site had selected 15 finalists, none of them the Hitler advertisements. A panel of celebrities and political experts has been asked to pick a winner, which will be televised. Mr. Boyd conceded that the advertisements were "in poor taste," and said he "deeply regretted" that they had "slipped through."
MoveOn.org further pulled the ad from the website once voting had closed for the contest.
Now unless you admit to complete ignorance of these facts, and that despite my citation of them (something I admit seems amply evident in you post) I really don't see how your argument about responsibility is really much of an argument at all. Or perhaps there is a way that pulling the ad from the website or conceding "that the advertisements were "in poor taste," and said he "deeply regretted" that they had "slipped through" is not the action of a responsible person?
If anyone has been irresponsible, it is Bush/Cheney. Not only have they completely obscured the context within which the ad was created and thereby elided the distinction between the individual who created the ad and the organization that posts it (rather as if I was to blame Ambimb for your posts, a manifestly unjust situation, to say nothing of cruel and unusual punishment) but they have done nothing other than reiterate exactly that which they find deplorable. That they have to drag up and distort something that all agreed several months ago was a deplorable situation seems to me not only irresponsible and degrading to whatever shred of decent political discourse still remains in this country, but the act of a fearful politician who has no better leg to stand on.
Posted by: Famous P. at June 27, 2004 12:20 PM
