Vice President Cheney sets a bad example for America
I just want to publicly congratulate Dick Cheney on all the fun he had last weekend and elaborate on a theory circulating in the news. We have all heard the story of Mr. Cheney’s hunting incident, whether from Jon Stewart, The Washington Post or Fox News, and we all chuckled at the headline after, of course, we found out the lawyer a.k.a. Mr. Old Rich Lobbyist was ok. Many of you might be wondering, why the delay in reporting the incident?
First the facts: Cheney was hunting illegally; he had not paid a $7 stamp required for quail hunting in that area. Also, some deputy sheriffs were turned away because the Secret Service had already “explained” things to the Sheriff. To me, the most damning piece of evidence is that one of the first things Cheney did after the accident was eat dinner.
I am no Sherlock Holmes, but I am an active drinking college student. It seems like Cheney was tossing back a few with some good ol’ boys, wasn’t as careful as he should have been and hurt his friend in the process. This I could forgive – we all make mistakes. I think every drinking college student at the university has one or two things they regret doing under the influence.
Yet what an example Cheney makes by adding to his illegal hunting with a cover-up of sorts. If you’re wealthy and powerful enough you can do stupid, illegal stuff when you’re drunk.
So, aspiring politicos of Maryland, you may get in trouble for dorm room shenanigans now, but don’t worry, because in the future you will have an entire staff to enlist in your cover-up. Cheney isn’t making a good case for upstanding politicians or providing a good example.
Shannon Dawkins
Senior
Government and Politics
Outrage is not the answer
The president of the Organization of Arab Students argued in a previous letter that the correct attitude toward the infamous Denmark cartoons of late should be outrage at both the cartoons and the violent protests that resulted. In support of the idea that the cartoons should not be tolerated or printed, the president presented a “thought experiment”: “Would it be similarly acceptable,” he asked, “for The Diamondback to publish cartoons mocking black culture or Jewish people?”
Also, the president made a point that while many autocratic Islamic governments can be expected to have hate propaganda in their media, this cannot be compared to the standard in nations with free press.
With regard to the president’s first point, I would like to point out that this “thought experiment” is not only a theoretical possibility. To the contrary, Western media caricatures blacks and Jews frequently on shows such as Family Guy, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Seinfeld, South Park, and The Simpsons, just to name a few.
Although the anti-Jewish or anti -black Western media is meant in good humor and the president contends that the Danish cartoons were meant to “incite hatred and violence toward Muslim immigrants across Europe,” the president’s assertion is speculation at best and an exaggeration at worst. In fact, many people believe the cartoon was meant to express the artist’s frustration in finding an artist to draw Muhammad for a book.
With regard to the letter’s other point about the autocratic government standard for media versus free media, I concede a valid point. However, if one is willing to recognize a double standard for autocratic media, can one not also view certain reactions of offense that come from autocratic government with more skepticism than offense that comes from a free nation? Should one simply assume that all “offense” and “hurt” claimed from within these autocratic governments are real and not tainted by aspirations of political gain from sympathy?
George Weiss
Senior
Criminology and Criminal Justice
