Wednesday, February 15, 2006

I'd rather hunt with Dick Cheney....

The first reactions in the press to Mr. Cheney's hunting accident, I thought, were measured and not out of line. There was an appearance of the Washington Post's Dana Milbank on Fox News, I think where he showed up in a hunting vest and cap in a very "Saturday Night Live" type interview that was -- I have to say, actually pretty funny. I thought the typically level-headed Michelle Malkin overreacted a bit on this one when she took him to task over it.

However, as predicted, it appears that the enemies of this administration actually are going to go ahead with making a mountain out of this molehill incident. Frankly, it's between friends. It's really nobody's business but the Cheney's and the Whittington's.

First, there's the whining that the Whitehouse Press Corps wasn't immediately notified of this obvious threat to the security and well being of our nation. Screams of "cover-up" are being forwarded by the left-lounging press (no, they stopped merely leaning that way long ago and built quite a cozy parlor to ensconce themselves in.) If they were going to cover it up, why would they bother telling the local press?

Ok, now to what REALLY prompted this post...

This story, by one David Ignatious in the Washington Post. What this story illustrates to me is a fine example of starting with a premise, and trying to fit everything you see into a structure that supports the premise. Almost the opposite of scientific method. It almost always leads you to the same conclusion you started with.

I've said it before -- and I'll say it again. Scientific Method 101 (for poets) should be a required course in any Journalism School, and it should not be taught by the Journalism department.

Here's the headline (mind you, he launches right into the Cheney hunting accident incident from here)

An Arrogance of Power

It has become more and more apparent to me over the last 6 years that, to the Left, "arrogance" means "continuing to flatly disagree with our opionions and not admitting or acting as if we are right, which we are. But you're the arrogant ones."

Here's what comes pretty much right after that headline:

The most vivid example is the long delay in informing the country that Vice President Cheney had accidentally shot a man last Saturday while hunting in Texas.

Wow. What depths has this administration sunk to? God! The nerve! I mean, really. No crime, no charges pressed... and they have the nerve not to immediately notify the Whitehouse Press Corps. Just... shocking!

But let us assume the obvious: It was an attempt to delay and perhaps suppress embarrassing news.

Could be, with people like Mr. Ignatious salivating for any uncovered sneeze to weave in to the fabric of the assumed nefarous Bush-Cheney-Rove plot. On the other hand, it could be that it was a minor hunting accident between friends, Cheney himself wiped the blood from the man's face. I'm certain he was quite concerned, apologetic, and maybe even embarrassed. Any decent person would be.

But here's the kicker. The ugly head of moral equivalence is conjured up by Ignatious, when he asserts:

Nobody died at Armstrong Ranch, but this incident reminds me a bit of Sen. Edward Kennedy's delay in informing Massachusetts authorities about his role in the fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick in 1969.


Accidentally hitting a buddy with a few shotgun pellets while hunting together and making sure the man is taken care of to the point of personally tending the man's minor inuries while he waited for medics to take over


Driving drunk and going off a bridge into a body of water and leaving his female passenger to drown while he goes back to his hotel room overnight to cook up an alibi

I can't believe he went there. But he did. Still...

In the rest of the article he goes on to repeat the littany of charges (far more serious than a hunting accident -- which, I remind you Ignatious says is the most vivid example) that we've heard ad nauseum in the MSM as if the leftist assessment is undeniably correct and the administration goes arrogantly on disagreeing with them. As do I. And a lot of lawyers.

People voted for Bush and Cheney because they seem like basically decent and responsible people. They still seem like basically decent and responsible people.

1 comment:

Daniel in Brookline said...

Good stuff, Phil!

Jerry Pournelle wrote, several years ago, that "you can prove anything you want if you make up your own data... you can prove almost anything, if you permit yourself to throw away the data you don't like".

In other words, if you're allowed to cherry-pick data to fit your conclusions, the only way you can fail is if there's no data supporting you at all.

That's not scientific, and it is not a way of arriving at the truth. True scientists do their best to disprove their own theories... and accept them as provisional truth, grudgingly, if the theories stand up to all attempts to disprove them.

I propose that we start the "Dick Cheney Hunting Club", composed of people who would jump at the chance to hunt with the Vice President, recent events notwithstanding. Interested?

Daniel in Brookline