why can't we call "no more bullshit"?
i've gotten into podcasts a bit since i got here, in the netherlands, for this three month stint. one of the podcasts i grab regulary is the 'meet the press' podcast. i listen to these on my way to work in the morning.
last sunday's, in particular, just flat-out pissed me off. but i suppose it's not like i shouldn't have expected it.
and yes, it was about that dick cheney face-shooting thing.
the talking points memo has a good summary of the problem (and yes. it is a partisan blog. but i don't care. that doesn't automatically make it untrue. the facts speak for themselves. look.):On Meet the Press today Mary Matalin claimed that Vice President Cheney never sent surrogates out to blame Harry Whittington for last weekend's hunting accident in the first days after the news broke ......In the first story it was clear from his spokesman and Katharine Armstrong that he took responsibility and he was apologetic. He did not send anybody out to take the blame. I’ve explained how these stories go from putting out facts to issuing denials. He wasn’t out-he wasn’t out-and he wasn’t not out for four days. If you go through those four days, the first day the story was out there in as complete a fashion as we could humanly do.
here's the damn problem: she says things like "he didn't send anybody out..." because it's an unproveable whether or not cheney actively sent people out. but the simple fact is THERE WERE people "out" putting the blame on the man who was shot in the face.
let's take point one: implying (the lobbyist) armstrong made it "clear" that cheney took responsibility.Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.
uhhhmmm... making sure that you point out what someone "did not" do, that would have invariably resulted in them not getting shot i think absolutely qualifies as placing fault.
but that's not all, folks. one of them, WAS HER:"The vice president was concerned," said Mary Matalin, a Cheney adviser who spoke with him yesterday morning. "He felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do."
if you can't see how this applies, lemme break it down for you:
a man was shot. there are two people involved in this event. the shooter, and the shootee. now, if the shooter "didn't do anything they weren't supposed to do", then you have two scenarios.
i think what makes this most salient, is that previously in the broadcast, NBC white house guy david gregory actually apologized for a confrontation between mcclellan and himself which happened off camera. where mcclellan pretty much called gregory an attention-whore.Scott McClellan: “David, hold on, the cameras aren’t on right now. You can do this later.”
so gregory apologizes for snapping back at mcclellan for that insult, on the grounds of some sort of decorum issue.
heh. decorum.
here's the thing: i understand that everyone thinks we're all supposed to act docile and unimpassioned in these situations. everyone's supposed to "behave themself".
well i say that doesn't just apply to behavior. i say that equally applies to speech. bullshitting the way matalin did on meet the press, is the verbal equivalent of giving her fellow panelists the finger. and maybe even adding a little "fuck you". because if you don't have her lying ass's quote right in front of you, there's no way to counter such bullshittery. and it floats out there. becomes one of those all-powerful sound bites. and conveys to the public a very false impression of the real story.
so i say, if people like tim russert aren't going to enforce verbal decorum on their shows, then people like david gregory should just look people like matalin in the face and say, point blank:
"ya know what? you're full of shit."
and she's gonna hafta sit there and take it.
last sunday's, in particular, just flat-out pissed me off. but i suppose it's not like i shouldn't have expected it.
and yes, it was about that dick cheney face-shooting thing.
the talking points memo has a good summary of the problem (and yes. it is a partisan blog. but i don't care. that doesn't automatically make it untrue. the facts speak for themselves. look.):On Meet the Press today Mary Matalin claimed that Vice President Cheney never sent surrogates out to blame Harry Whittington for last weekend's hunting accident in the first days after the news broke ......In the first story it was clear from his spokesman and Katharine Armstrong that he took responsibility and he was apologetic. He did not send anybody out to take the blame. I’ve explained how these stories go from putting out facts to issuing denials. He wasn’t out-he wasn’t out-and he wasn’t not out for four days. If you go through those four days, the first day the story was out there in as complete a fashion as we could humanly do.
here's the damn problem: she says things like "he didn't send anybody out..." because it's an unproveable whether or not cheney actively sent people out. but the simple fact is THERE WERE people "out" putting the blame on the man who was shot in the face.
let's take point one: implying (the lobbyist) armstrong made it "clear" that cheney took responsibility.Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.
uhhhmmm... making sure that you point out what someone "did not" do, that would have invariably resulted in them not getting shot i think absolutely qualifies as placing fault.
but that's not all, folks. one of them, WAS HER:"The vice president was concerned," said Mary Matalin, a Cheney adviser who spoke with him yesterday morning. "He felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do."
if you can't see how this applies, lemme break it down for you:
a man was shot. there are two people involved in this event. the shooter, and the shootee. now, if the shooter "didn't do anything they weren't supposed to do", then you have two scenarios.
- it was the shootee's fault
- people getting shot is an unavoidable side effect of hunting
i think what makes this most salient, is that previously in the broadcast, NBC white house guy david gregory actually apologized for a confrontation between mcclellan and himself which happened off camera. where mcclellan pretty much called gregory an attention-whore.Scott McClellan: “David, hold on, the cameras aren’t on right now. You can do this later.”
so gregory apologizes for snapping back at mcclellan for that insult, on the grounds of some sort of decorum issue.
heh. decorum.
here's the thing: i understand that everyone thinks we're all supposed to act docile and unimpassioned in these situations. everyone's supposed to "behave themself".
well i say that doesn't just apply to behavior. i say that equally applies to speech. bullshitting the way matalin did on meet the press, is the verbal equivalent of giving her fellow panelists the finger. and maybe even adding a little "fuck you". because if you don't have her lying ass's quote right in front of you, there's no way to counter such bullshittery. and it floats out there. becomes one of those all-powerful sound bites. and conveys to the public a very false impression of the real story.
so i say, if people like tim russert aren't going to enforce verbal decorum on their shows, then people like david gregory should just look people like matalin in the face and say, point blank:
"ya know what? you're full of shit."
and she's gonna hafta sit there and take it.