Shooting

I know this is a bit out of date, now that the furor is beginning to die down, and my object certainly is not to stir things back up. I just want to express my opinion about the press's excoriation of Dick Cheney in regards to his recent hunting accident.

First, the good. No one in the mainstream press that I saw ever tried to imply that the shooting was anything other than accidental. I have heard (on either Rush or Bennett, can't remember which) that some wackos have tried to say that Harry Whittington allowed himself to be shot by Cheney on purpose to draw media attention away from government leaks or the domestic spying issue or some such. No reasonable person believes that, and I appreciate the mainstream press staying away from such bizarre theories.

And now the bad. The assertion that Cheney did something wrong by not talking to the press about the shooting for a few days is ridiculous. Obviously Cheney's first concern was Whittington's health; seeing to that matter, making sure his friend had the best medical care available, was of primary concern and the press shouldn't have even been a blip on the radar by comparison.

Also, Cheney is under no obligation to do the press's job for them. It is the press's job to get the story, not Cheney's to provide it for them. He is the vice president of the country, for Christ's sake, not a junior reporter.

And another thing...just about the right time for Cheney to make some kind of statement, the story radically changed when Whittington had his heart problem. It only stands to reason that Cheney would delay comment about the incident until he discovered whether Whittington was going to pull through or whether he would be facing possible (if unfounded) manslaughter charges.

The vice president's office was also under no obligation to provide medical details about Whittington's heart attack or condition in general. In fact, there is probably some legal barrier to him doing so; the HIPAA laws provide penalties for revealing a patient's medical condition. I know that if I was in the hospital, I wouldn't want details of my medical condition to be a matter of public record, especially to be bantered all over the news.

Cheney has acted appropriately, forthrightly, and honestly during the entire matter. It's the strident clamoring of the press that is an outrage here. Throughout this whole ordeal, reporters have failed to focus on the true story, the shooting, and instead manufactured a story about Cheney's supposed refusal to address the situation. They sound like spoiled a spoiled child whose mommy won't buy them a toy at the grocery store. They should grow up and focus on reporting the news.

Leave the interpretation up to the public.

Religious riots

Several years ago, an American artist named Andres Serrano took a photograph of a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of his own urine. Serrano submitted the photo, which he titled “Piss Christ,” in a prestigious art contest. The outrageously sacrilegious piece, uniformly offensive to Christians and most reasonable people, won the contest

Of course, “Piss Christ” touched off violent, weeks-long riots by outraged Christians, who demonstrated worldwide. Embassies were assaulted, American and (inexplicably) Russian flags were burned, and several people were killed in the riots.

Don’t remember that? Well, it didn’t happen that way. Sure, there was a controversy. The controversy surrounding Serrano’s “art” was not about his right to produce such blasphemous filth, but about money. The art contest which Serrano won was funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a government bureau.

In September 2005, a Danish magazine, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 political cartoons featuring caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed. These cartoons were irreverent as opposed to hate-filled. Unfortunately, ANY depiction of Mohammed is considered blasphemous in the Muslim community. The Danish cartoons, of course, did spawn violent protest of the type hypothesized above. Muslims around the world have been storming Danish embassies, burning Danish and American (why American?) flags, and killing people.

Over cartoons.

So what’s the difference? Violence is an irrational response to criticism. Peaceful demonstrations such as picketing, boycotting, marching, writing letters to the editor…these are appropriate responses to speech such as literature, artwork, or journalism that an individual or a group finds offensive. The difference is cultural freedom, and highlights the strengths of western culture and the weaknesses of the more repressive Muslim regimes.

Traditionally, Muslims have had no peaceful outlet for political dissent. Those that spoke out against their religious or secular dictators suffered imprisonment or worse. Most Muslims just don’t have the experience with political freedom to participate in a reasonable, even-tempered discourse or protest. Violence is the only recourse they understand because they haven’t been exposed to more peaceful methods.

True, some of the protesters are in countries which are not predominantly Muslim. While excuses might be made for the ignorance of protesters who live in oppression, the actions of Muslims in free nations is inexcusable. These are people that should understand that problems can be worked out through peaceful demonstration and debate, without storming embassies and killing innocents.

While there I make no call for the American government to support the content of Jyllands-Posten, it should support the freedom of the press guaranteed in the American constitution and condemn the violence spawned by this tiny bit of political fluff.

After all, they’re just cartoons.