The five of us who were in that party ...
... were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence. [Link.]
That's Dick Cheney on Fox. Wonder why he had to stress "nobody was under the influence" if "nobody was drinking" anyway!
Here's Cheney on that day's hunting:
-
We weren't all together, but about 10 guests at the ranch. There were three of us who had gotten out of the vehicle and walked up on a covey of quail that had been pointed by the dogs. The covey is flushed, we've shot, and each of us got a bird.
-
Brit Hume: Some organizations have said they hoped you would find a less violent pastime.
Dick Cheney: Well, it's brought me great pleasure over the years. I love the people that I've hunted with and do hunt with; love the outdoors, it's part of my heritage, growing up in Wyoming. It's part of who I am. But as I say, the season is ending, I'm going to let some time pass over it and think about the future.
posted by Anand @ 2/16/2006
8 comments
8 Comments:
I think the most outrageous part is that they pen-raise these birds so they are basically domesticated with no survival instincts and then let them out in a flock of 400 so that Cheney and his buddies can slaughter them en-masse. Even considering a man who says he likes to hunt for sport, where is the sport in this? It's a fake hunter complex, similar to George Bush's fake cowboy complex.
Wonder if the most powerful man in the US indulges in such a primitive pasttime. Says a lot about where things are headed these days.
As they say these are truly modern day decadent neros.
Salman Khan and PAtaudi are now in August company
there (often) is not all that much difference between hunting for food and hunting for fun. the former becomes a necessity only in very few contexts (the arctic, some remote islands, some famished tribal villages in india...) and is very often done to provide some exotic meat (or 'medicines') to folks who can very well manage without it.
nandakumAr, in terms of necessity or consequence on the victims there may not be a difference. But there is a difference in the attitudes with which they do it. The hunter, in some sense, isn't too conscious ( I don't know how to make this notion precise ) of the other choices; probably he/she, due to upbringing, will find it difficult to change. I don't think that is the case with Cheney. The typical human arrogance that human beings are more "sacred" ( even many atheists seem to subscribe to this! ) and are the sole masters of the earth and that all other creatures are only for his/her enjoyment - this manifests to a greater degree here. Also in a subtler non-obvious form, the philosophy that having fun is a greater virtue than non-injury to other beings ( which is where, I am afraid, the modern epicurean society may
eventually head ).
P. S. : In case you believe in bhagavad gIta etc. : I think one of the
teachings of the gIta is that what is actually done isn't important *at all*. Only the attitude/awareness with which it is done matters.
For some reason I'm reminded of George Orwell's short story, 'Shooting an Elephant'."I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things". Cheney's defense for his choice of sport smacks of colonial/macho snobbery, though why he should have it is my next question.
Hunting for fun is the sickest kind of sport. "I love the outdoors, Part of my heritage" crap is the common excuse given by many.
There are many TV channels dedicated to propagating this sick sport. ESPN (Disney) is one of them. I remember seeing a guy and his wife jumping in joy after shooting a deer with an arrow. The deer was however jumping in sheer agony. Sad Sad Sad!
What would be more interesting is if "out of shape" & "without a mind" morons like Dick & Salman be released into a ranch full of hungry hyenas. "Survivor Morons" would make for interesting prime time viewing
Sometimes, when someone is said to be "under the influence" it could mean they were under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. Perhaps Cheney wanted to clarify that no one was under the influence of drugs also which is why he said that "no one was under the influence"
What I find really funny is how Cheney stresses at the start of the interview that Whittington is just an acquaintance and not his friend and then later on in the interview he goes on to say how shooting his friend was the worst thing in his life.
I would assume that the 'heritage' in wyoming would have been to hunt for food and not for pleasure.
Post a Comment
<< Home