Too bad it wasn't (insert your [Blank] Awareness Month here).

March 5, 2007 2:43 PM

[HealthNews Filter]: Dick Cheney has a DVT (deep vein thrombosis). Ironically, it occurs right at the start of DVT Awareness Month. Fortunately, he'll have plenty of DVT-related activities to keep him occupied. Like designing his own DVT socks (which should, really, be T.E.D. Hose).
posted by scblackman (108 comments total)

Damn - I almost posted something like this. But you forgot one critical element...
posted by docpops at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2007

I look forward to the day when Cheney is a private citizen and has to go through airport security with stents behind his knees and a pacemaker. Even if he gets a pass through security, it will be a good day when he is out of office.
posted by Cranberry at 2:56 PM on March 5, 2007

The likelihood is that this is probably a by-product of weight and lifestyle and a hell of a lot of sitting in planes.

But there is a long-established correlation between occult cancers and recent DVT's.
posted by docpops at 2:58 PM on March 5, 2007

Dude, occult cancers? I knew Cheney was up to no good!
posted by Richard Daly at 3:00 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

A friend of mine's father had a Ventricular fibrillation a couple of months ago at a hotel. The people at the hotel had one of those little portable difbrulators right on hand and got his heart back to normal.

No big deal? Well, the survival rate of a VF outside a hospital is four percent if he'd almost certainly be dead.
posted by delmoi at 3:00 PM on March 5, 2007

docpops, I never thought of Cheney's malignancy as being occult!
posted by Skeptic at 3:02 PM on March 5, 2007

I am reminded of Michael Palin's character's reaction in A Fish Called Wanda when he is told that Kevin Kline's character was beaten as a child.
posted by Flunkie at 3:05 PM on March 5, 2007

even his body wants him dead.

when will it finally win out over his black heart?

please don't scold me for wanting this asshole dead.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 3:09 PM on March 5, 2007

Please die.
posted by vito90 at 3:15 PM on March 5, 2007

Yeah, that'll happen when you eat nothing but human flesh.
posted by staggernation at 3:22 PM on March 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

even his body wants him dead.

when will it finally win out over his black heart?

His body, rotting, shambling, and stinking of evil as his flesh becomes ever more and more corrupted, will continue to roam the halls the power like a leprous, vile, mobile tower of rotted pustulence until the day that the Devil finally decides to call in his due.

We can only pray that it's sooner rather than later.
posted by jokeefe at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2007 [5 favorites]

I don't know whether to hope Cheney dies immediately, removing his evil presence from this earth, or survives long enough to be convicted and imprisoned for the remainder of his unnatural life.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:24 PM on March 5, 2007

The bugger is going to be around forever, even if it's his brain in a jar. This kind of evil will not die. Why? Well, he's not going to heaven. In hell, he'd be a destabilizing influence. I think Beelzebub and Yahweh have a deal. He stays, boots on the ground, alive in his earthly domain. Forever.
posted by nj_subgenius at 3:31 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Move, clot! You can do it! Good clot! it's hardly but a few feet north!
posted by stenseng at 3:31 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Experts consider
a blood clot in the leg to be dangerous
because it can move to the heart
and cause a heart attack,
to the lungs
and cause a pulmonary embolism
or to the brain
and cause a stroke.
or to the brain
and cause a stroke.


Don't mind me, I'm just working on the song version.
posted by Brian B. at 3:36 PM on March 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

please don't scold me for wanting this asshole dead.

Hardly. I think the "die slowly and painfully you vile war criminal" school of thought is well-neigh universal here.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2007

You know who else was the sole source of pure evil and totally did not have a whole cadre and enough popular support to execute his policies?
posted by Smedleyman at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2007

nigh. whinny!
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:39 PM on March 5, 2007

Dick Cheney's heart will keep beating beneath thick layers of marbled fat and pacemaker electrodes long after his body dies.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:41 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

No worries, if the DVT can't be treated with his stent, they'll replace his leg with a mechnical one.

Here's more machine than man now, anyway.
posted by psmealey at 3:44 PM on March 5, 2007

the Cheney is in its last throembosis
posted by pruner at 3:45 PM on March 5, 2007

Time for more Bob the Angry Flower...
posted by anthill at 3:58 PM on March 5, 2007

I look forward to the day when Cheney is a private citizen and has to go through airport security with stents behind his knees and a pacemaker. in shackles.

(Personal preference.)
posted by LordSludge at 4:14 PM on March 5, 2007

Does Dick Cheney remind anyone else of Jason Vorhees -- surviving wave after wave of assaults that would mean the death of 10 men many times over, just so he can keep terrorizing the world?
posted by clevershark at 4:19 PM on March 5, 2007

I read a headline that said "Dick Cheney has blood clot in leg." I thought "That's nothing compared to the blood on his hands."
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:22 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

Here's hoping the clot goes to his brain and he lives an Ariel Sharon-long time. That bastard doesn't deserve to die in office.
posted by furtive at 4:26 PM on March 5, 2007

For what it's worth, the deep vein thrombosis I suffered was the absolute worst pain I've ever experienced in my life, bar none. It put me into screaming fits and shock that demerol and morphine could barely touch.

The course of treatment? Blood thinners, pain killers, and three weeks of bed rest followed by a month of time on disability. If he had half the pain I did, he's gotten quite the dose. If he has the same course as me, that's 1/12 of the remaining term out of commission. Good.
posted by plinth at 4:33 PM on March 5, 2007

Now we don't want Cheney going all House of the Dead on us. You KNOW he'd be the zombie who bust out the wall carrying the chaingun.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 4:40 PM on March 5, 2007

Man, I love beautiful Cheney. No nonsense type of guy that just doesn't give a fuck what you think about him. Why can't we have many, many more like him in politics. Oh yeah, that's right, he's not "feel good" enough for you. My bad.
posted by markulus at 4:44 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

markulus writes "No nonsense type of guy that just doesn't give a fuck what you think about him."

Are you fucking kidding me?! Have you been paying any attention to the Libby trial? Cheney's a vain Washington insider who's obsessed with how he appears in the press. He's a piddling little operator who can play the inside-the-beltway game like a champ, but is a complete failure when it comes to real-world strategy and policymaking.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:51 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

No nonsense type of guy that just doesn't give a fuck what you think about him.

You could say that about a lot of political figures in history, like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Stalin, or that Austrian fella. Near as I can tell none of them were the "feel good" type either.
posted by clevershark at 5:03 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can't wait to piss on his grave.
posted by Balisong at 5:09 PM on March 5, 2007

Cheney. What a Dick.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:10 PM on March 5, 2007

What I mean is, he is a very straight forward type of guy. He has no future in politics. He is not concerned with staying in power or what people think of him. He's not in it for the polls. I love the guy. Sweet him.
posted by markulus at 5:10 PM on March 5, 2007

All I ask is that everybody send him a letter and let him know you are praying for him.
posted by Mr_Zero at 5:12 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

He has no future in politics. He is not concerned with staying in power or what people think of him.

Dude, I want some of what you're smoking. He's been a lazy, lying, sniveling political game player for more than thirty years. Maybe he doesn't give a shit about polls, but only because he's in the business of politics.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:13 PM on March 5, 2007

A blood clot? You'd need kryptonite to get rid of him.
posted by Rangeboy at 5:22 PM on March 5, 2007

Oh yeah, that's right, he's not "feel good" enough for you. My bad.

Do you honestly believe that it's the lack of charisma that's at the root of Cheney's unpopularity?

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wholesale mistruths that have resulted in the deaths of thousands, ruthless intimidation, underhandedness and double dealing, now could it?

No nonsense type of guy that just doesn't give a fuck what you think about him.

You know who else was a no nonsense guy that didn't give a fuck what his people thought of him?

Pol Pot.
posted by psmealey at 5:24 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

What I mean is, he is a very straight forward type of guy. He has no future in politics. He is not concerned with staying in power or what people think of him. He's not in it for the polls. I love the guy. Sweet him.

Well he's been the (real) President for almost two full terms now, what more could he possibly want? Besides a resumption of his Halliburton CEO gig once he leaves the administration, of course.

But, you know, glad you like Cheney. Someone has to.
posted by clevershark at 5:25 PM on March 5, 2007

I just hope his son-in-law is okay. He's keeping us safe from terrorists.
posted by homunculus at 5:28 PM on March 5, 2007

Oops.

I hope he gets treated at Water Reed.

(Say, what's that clicking noise on my phone line?)
posted by scblackman at 5:46 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nobody expects the oncogenesis!

markulus has to be somebody's sock puppet.
posted by oncogenesis at 5:48 PM on March 5, 2007

For what it's worth, the deep vein thrombosis I suffered was the absolute worst pain I've ever experienced in my life, bar none. It put me into screaming fits and shock that demerol and morphine could barely touch.

Excellent. I hope that while in the throes of agony he considers, even for a moment, what it's like to be a wounded Iraqi child lying in a bed in a Baghdad hospital that's run out of morphine. Yeah, that's it, Dick. You like that, huh? There's plenty more where that came from, you betcha, when you finally arrive at the black pits of hell.

(I actually surprise myself with how vengeful I feel. Huh.)
posted by jokeefe at 5:48 PM on March 5, 2007

If he were to be killed by DVT his life might mean something. He could be the posterboy (poster ogre) for DVT and a warning to all long haul air travelers to get up and move about the cockpit instead of just sitting motionless in their seats. Little placards warning passengers of Cheney's Syndrome might just save a life. He'd be a martyr.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:51 PM on March 5, 2007

Kryptonite, nothing. Garlic, silver bullets, very large pieces of the One True Cross, and and old priest and a young priest couldn't kill that guy. Not till Satan calls him home.
posted by emjaybee at 5:52 PM on March 5, 2007

Let's see here... the Scooter Libby trial is winding down. Whether Libby is convicted or not (and there's a good chance some of the charges will stick), Fitzgerald has obtained more than enough evidence under oath in the trial to continue the leak investigation where he had to leave off at to pursue Libby. And it looks like he's got Cheney in the investigation's sights.

So, don't be surprised if this is the "heath reason" that Cheney resigns for. The timing is pretty well right on.
posted by azpenguin at 5:52 PM on March 5, 2007

Health reason, even. Pardon me while I go back to spelling class.
posted by azpenguin at 6:01 PM on March 5, 2007

Snark: How funny is it that the whole DVT Awareness Month campaign is currently being promoted by the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis, maker of the anticoagulant (blood-thinner) enoxaparin (Lovenox). I'm bettin' that Dick didn't ask for the Freedom Anticoagulant.
posted by scblackman at 6:12 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

cheney is a blood clot in the leg of america.
posted by brevator at 6:13 PM on March 5, 2007 [4 favorites]

OK, wait. Let me just play devil's advocate here for a minute.

.

Thanks. You may continue.
posted by staggernation at 6:13 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I wonder if he's going to have to use a cane.
posted by Rhomboid at 6:49 PM on March 5, 2007

I wish that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would suffer debilitating strokes and die slowly in great pain.

Actually, I don't wish that. Not even a little bit. But if you bristled when you read it (and I hope you did, out of simple human decency) then why is it OK to wish for equally horrible things to happen to Dick Cheney?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:28 PM on March 5, 2007 [3 favorites]

Actually that's a very good point, Steven, and well made.
posted by yhbc at 7:41 PM on March 5, 2007

He is a little man who has heart trouble (not enough, however). With apologies to Peter Benchley.
posted by jet_silver at 7:42 PM on March 5, 2007

Eh. The other one. Robert.
posted by jet_silver at 7:43 PM on March 5, 2007

Because Dick Cheney really is a terrible human being who harms people by the million through his forceful adherence to evil policies, while Clinton and Obama are at worst misguided.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:50 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good?
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could?
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I'll follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
Till I'm sure that you're dead.
posted by EarBucket at 8:00 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I look forward to the day when Cheney is a private citizen and has to go through airport security with stents behind his knees and a pacemaker.

I'd look forward to the day when Cheney got to see what it's like when you don't have cushy Federal health insurance. (Or in his case, his own physician and ambulance following him around at the taxpayers' expenses.)

When you can't afford prescriptions or a simple office visit, let alone more expensive procedures.
posted by NorthernLite at 8:03 PM on March 5, 2007

I can't wait for Obama to get sickle cell so you can all pile on him too.
Way to show(again) your true selves.

The guy is a dick, you don't like him, I think normal people took that for granted about 5 or 6 years ago now.

Best of the web, remember that? I guess not.
posted by a3matrix at 8:10 PM on March 5, 2007

I can't wait for Obama to get sickle cell so you can all pile on him too.
Way to show(again) your true selves.

That's a good one. Since when is it inappropriate not to shed a tear for the misfortunes of a sickening, venal criminal?
posted by docpops at 8:19 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I wish I cared but the only thought I had in hearing this news was that it was too late anyway and he'll probably live another fifty years. Dick Cheney has done his damage, now its just about enjoying his personal FUD.

And yeah, I feel a little guilty writing that. A little.
posted by fenriq at 8:20 PM on March 5, 2007

a3matrix, if Obama does as much harm to this country and steals as much money then I will happily cheer his illnesses. Dick Cheney is a criminal scumbag who put his and his friends' interests above the interests of the nation he swore to serve and protect. You'll pardon me for not wishing him a speedy recovery. Actually, you probably won't but I couldn't really care less.

Dick Cheney is the kind of man that someone will jab with a pin when he's in the coffin on display, just to make sure he's really dead.
posted by fenriq at 8:24 PM on March 5, 2007 [1 favorite]

I hope Dick Cheney lives longer than any previous VP, and remains mentally competent enough to see and understand the consequences of his actions-- but then, I have always had a terrible cruel streak.
posted by jamjam at 8:35 PM on March 5, 2007

Because Dick Cheney really is a terrible human being who harms people by the million through his forceful adherence to evil policies, while Clinton and Obama are at worst misguided.

What you write here will have exactly no effect on Cheney's health or his fate. It doesn't harm him in the slightest.

But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.

And it harms us all by poisoning the process of political process. (Via)

This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.

What we see today I am afraid, is an accelerating competition between the left and the right to see which side can inflict the most damage with the hammer of incivility. Increasingly, those who take part in public debates appear to be exchanging ideas when, in fact, they are trading insults: idiot, liar, moron, traitor.

posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:37 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

That should have been "...by poisoning the political process".
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:38 PM on March 5, 2007

How did he contract it? My money is on this:

DVT - may result from injecting suspension of tablets into groin.

Cheyney's obviously been shooting up Oxycontin for years, and now he's paying the price.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:39 PM on March 5, 2007

But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
etc.
etc.
etc.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:48 PM on March 5, 2007

Peter, those people have nothing to do with me. I'm just me, myself, and I've always tried to avoid this kind of vicious rhetoric and tried to stick to the issues.

And I'm an atheist and have little interest in what the Bible says.

Besides which, if "they" do it, does that make it right for you to do the same? If they're wrong to do it, then if you do it in turn doesn't it legitimize their original wrong act?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:57 PM on March 5, 2007

Just for the record, I can't wait to piss on Hillary's or Obama's or McCain's grave either.
posted by Balisong at 9:06 PM on March 5, 2007

Actually, I don't wish that. Not even a little bit. But if you bristled when you read it (and I hope you did, out of simple human decency) then why is it OK to wish for equally horrible things to happen to Dick Cheney?

Steven, I hope you're not the kind of guy who jokes about "pound me in the ass" prison. Because if you don't bristle about the savagery of the prison system, you sure as hell best not be bristling about the abuse Cheney is taking here.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:33 PM on March 5, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'm big on moral relativism myself, but Steven, I can honestly say that America would really be improved with Cheney's passing.
posted by tehloki at 9:36 PM on March 5, 2007

then why is it OK to wish for equally horrible things to happen to Dick Cheney?

Because it is justice. If Cheney was a mass murderer on the loose, this would not be an issue. How about a mass torturer and traitor? Are my standards too high or what? There is no moral confusion here generally, and there rarely is when one sees the enemy late in coming and knows that it might be too late. The only moral confusion I see in this thread are among those who equate wanting Cheney gone with random hatred.
posted by Brian B. at 10:03 PM on March 5, 2007

But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. I'll be sure to give it all the consideration that I would to any random stranger offering psychological advice.

Some people are objectively contemptible because of the wake of destruction they leave behind them, and fully deserve the contempt they reap.

Incidentally, the lovely graduation speech you linked to also contains this gem:

I also happen to believe that our President, George W. Bush, is a model of civil discourse, and I only wish that everyone else in the political arena would take a lesson from his example.

Let me follow meekly in his mighty footsteps of civility and note that Cheney is, to use his words, a major league asshole. I don't feel I've learned enough from his example to employ the subtle gestures of civil discourse that he mastered long ago.

To answer the inevitable question, this is relevant because anyone who thinks that Bush is a model of civility has nothing useful to say about civility, incivility, or its consequences.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 PM on March 5, 2007

SCDB, despite having very different political views from you, I agree with you here.

Out of curiosity (genuine curiosity, not trying to imply either that you would or that you wouldn't), would you use a similar argument to defend, say, the likes of Saddam Hussein from ill wishes? I did, on a metafilter thread some time ago, and was soundly excoriated for doing so from all sides of the political spectrum.
posted by kyrademon at 11:01 PM on March 5, 2007

Kyrademon, the situations are not really comparable. Saddam wasn't a fellow citizen who held a different political position.

I don't grant the idea that Cheney is some sort of mass murderer, but there's no doubt whatever that Saddam was. So I didn't mourn even slightly when he was hung.

I don't think that kind of rhetoric about Saddam is as poisonous as what I'm seeing here, but I do think it's pointless and juvenile. I wouldn't have argued against it, but I would have thought less of those who engaged in it.

I confess that I did, on occasion, wish that Arafat would die painfully, but I don't think I ever felt the need to publicly voice that, or to try to describe in intricate detail the painful death I imagined for him.

The problem here-and-now is that we're moving towards a point in this country where it is not possible for many people to disagree with someone else about political issues without also hating them viciously -- and that is a very bad thing.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:39 PM on March 5, 2007

Hmm. Well, there are a couple of points to make here, then ...

1) As has already been pointed out a couple of times in this thread, many on the left are frustrated because this kind of rhetoric is used frequently by *those in power* on the right -- respected pundits, commentators, important religious leaders, and even well-known politicians -- who then complain about such language by those *with no power* on the left -- such as bloggers, obscure professors, and commentors on metafilter. It seems to be not only a double standard, but an unbalanced one, and leaves many on the left feeling that calls for "civility" by those on the right are hypocritical at best.

2) There are those who *do* think that Cheney is, essentially, a mass murderer. This is not even an unreasonable position if you believe that is one of the architects of a war built on deliberate lies for his own personal gain, and there is certainly evidence to support that position - whether you agree or not, it is, frankly, not an insane position. So where is the line? When is it "OK" to wish for someone's death? When is it not "OK"?


The divisiveness that currently exists does not come from nowhere. I feel that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens have been degraded and many thousands have been injured or killed for no reason I can support. Personally, I don't wish for anyone's death, or pain. But I do think, without particularly hating him viciously, that Cheney is, for a variety of reasons, a criminal who should be in jail.

Given that stance, how do I engage with people who believe I am a traitor for saying so?

Rather than looking for civility in discourse, I think we should all be working hard at reforming the system which has created such divides.
posted by kyrademon at 12:30 AM on March 6, 2007

It's just not very cool anymore doing the 'Cheney=Evil' jokes when Jon Stewart does them every single night on the Daily Show.

The au courant huddle on the floor at the mention of his name and whimper like they're being buggered by Satan's red-hot thorny dick, instead.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:32 AM on March 6, 2007

The problem here-and-now is that we're moving towards a point in this country where it is not possible for many people to disagree with someone else about political issues without also hating them viciously

Moving towards?! Thanks to slash and burn tactics used by the "if you're not with us, you're a terrarist" crowd for the past six years, one could argue we've already arrived at this point long ago.

Saddam wasn't a fellow citizen who held a different political position.

Ah, got it. Arguably responsible for thousands of deaths but have a US passport? Hey, stop hatin' on the man; he's American. Try this on for size:

Saddam wasn't a fellow citizen who held a different political position. was a fellow human being.

Not a very good one, but a human being nonetheless. If one wants to argue against division and hatred based on political views, it behooves one to stop thinking in the constricted terms of US(a) vs. Them.
posted by romakimmy at 3:16 AM on March 6, 2007

a3matrix: I can't wait for Obama to get sickle cell so you can all pile on him too.

Sickle cell anemia is due to a genetic mutation. You are born with it. Nobody "gets" sickle cell.
posted by scblackman at 3:20 AM on March 6, 2007

Pain in an undisclosed location
posted by Mocata at 3:20 AM on March 6, 2007

Cheyney's obviously been shooting up Oxycontin for years, and now he's paying the price.

Not so fast, Dr. Frist. A good friend of mine was treated for DVT a couple of years ago (when he was 38), and he had never done anything of the sort. The doctors thought his was brought on by his work style, he's a software developer that would spend hours each day in the same position hunched over his computer. He's also a very large man that averaged at least two plane trips per week, which is also a contributing factor. This condition is much more common in people over 60.

The problem here-and-now is that we're moving towards a point in this country where it is not possible for many people to disagree with someone else about political issues without also hating them viciously -- and that is a very bad thing.

I would say that we already went well past that point in 2004, and are seemingly on the road to recovery. I see what's going on in this thread (and the one last week) as a bit of a hangover of that, rather than a continuing trend.

I also think that using the feelings expressed on this thread is not an accurate barometer of the phenomena you're describing. I doubt that if, say, Sam Brownback were in a similar predicament, you'd be seeing this much bile. Cheney is an extreme example. More than simply being an odious person (which he may or may not be), for many Cheney has come to symbolize something important to a lot of people: government out of control, arrogant, duplicitous and unaccountable. Most people see the country as being damaged and dangerously off track, and Cheney seems to be the one person at the highest levels of power that most hold responsible for it.

Probably doesn't excuse a lot of the ill-wishing here, but it certainly explains a lot of it.
posted by psmealey at 4:33 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning.

Sorry, can't get on this bandwagon. Pulmonary embolism, Heparin IV drip for a couple of weeks, rat poison Coumadin and no salads for the better part of a year? Been there done that, wouldn't wish DVT on anybody, even Darth Cheney. Besides, a quick but painful death would be too easy.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:04 AM on March 6, 2007

Nothing is good enough for our Dick.

Hating these bastards has kept me sane for 6 years. I am going to keep hating them until they go away forever.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:21 AM on March 6, 2007

Whoa, fuse theorem -- no SALADS?
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:21 AM on March 6, 2007

This is the real danger of incivility. Our free, self-governing society requires an open exchange of ideas, which in turn requires a certain level of civility rooted in mutual respect for each other's opinions and viewpoints.

Brash death-dealing and his insidious power grabs are not "opinions and viewpoints."
posted by effwerd at 5:25 AM on March 6, 2007

But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.

Steven, if only you had been as poetic during the Bush-Kerry elections, when Republicans walked around with Purple Heart band-aids on their fat, bloated chins, saying Kerry hadn't bled enough during his tour of service in Vietnam.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:38 AM on March 6, 2007

Fourcheesemac: Whoa, fuse theorem -- no SALADS?

No leafy greens high in vitamin K (e.g., spinach), or other foods rich in vitamin K. Warfarin (coumadin) works by inhibiting vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors. Take too much vitamin K and you reverse the anti-coagulant effect.
posted by scblackman at 7:39 AM on March 6, 2007

I don't think that kind of rhetoric about Saddam is as poisonous as what I'm seeing here

Idiotic statements like this are the primary reason why people here consistently fail to take you seriously, Steven.
posted by clevershark at 7:41 AM on March 6, 2007

Actually here's a great article by Glenn Greenwald in Salon about the subject of civility in contemporary political discourse.
posted by clevershark at 7:51 AM on March 6, 2007

clevershark:

Excellent find. Very astute article. Too bad the "conservatives" don't realize they're being yanked around by their cranks -and not just by Coulter.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:16 AM on March 6, 2007

“But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.”

Well said.


“The only moral confusion I see in this thread are among those who equate wanting Cheney gone with random hatred.”
posted by Brian B.

Indeed. Some folks were morally certain we needed to be in Iraq. Morally certain we need to bomb. Morally certain that some retarded guy deserves to be executed by the state. Morally certain we need to kill, maim, any number of things.
My question to you is the same I put to them - what makes you so fucking right that you get to judge who should live and who should die?

There are people now - killing and dying - who are morally certain of what they are doing. What they are fighting for. The difference between those men in the field and most of the internet tough guys wishing pain and death on Cheney is they actually y’know, have the balls to act on their position.
What’s your excuse?

(Kyrademon - I part from Steven C. Den Beste here - there is no death or pain in the world I truly rejoice in. I may take gratification in justice being done, but no pleasure in the pain that may cause)

Of course, that argument doesn’t apply to people just sounding off (hell we all get pissed and ‘hate’ some asshole), but to those who seriously defend the position that it’s just peachy to revel in someone else’s pain ‘cos he’s a ‘bad guy.’

That’s the exact same position ‘bad guys’ take. It’s why people torture other people in Gitmo. It’s why they are fucking ‘bad guys’ in the first place.

When I saw that smirking fat old woman with the purple heart band-aid on her cheek it really pissed me off and yeah, I ‘hated’ her. That passed with the initial rage. Ultimately what I really want is for her to see the error of her ways, to understand the meaning of what it is she’s doing and why it’s so harmful to so many disabled veterans. I feel the same way about Cheney. I don’t think anyone is beyond redemption. The only reason anyone needs to be killed is because they are a direct and immediate threat and we don’t have the power or time to sort things out. Any death caused like that is a failure. Always.
Unless you want to somehow morally justify war and executions (as opposed to practical justifications out of necessity) - and then what makes you different from Bush or Cheney and their moral justifications? Oh, but you’re right and they’re wrong.

Many comments on Saddam’s hanging seemed to understand what an ultimately pointless act it was.

Similarly hating an individual is a poor excuse for actively working for a better world - if that’s indeed what one wants. And it’s misguided anyway. It’s not going to get anything anywhere - it’s a luxury and a dangerous one and winds up sabotaging practical necessities because it blinds you to other options.
And that’s one of the main reasons why those in power always fall.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:41 AM on March 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Indeed. Some folks were morally certain we needed to be in Iraq. Morally certain we need to bomb. Morally certain that some retarded guy deserves to be executed by the state. Morally certain we need to kill, maim, any number of things.

Equivocation, a fallacy of ambiguity. If "some folks" said they were morally certain, but they created a moral disaster, then they were really morally confused. Minor mistake, but you made it worse by indulging yourself with moral outrage after dismissing morals. Try using "dogmatic certainty" next time, because their moral confusion is dictated for them. It seems that everyone's moral confusion is dictated for them.

My question to you is the same I put to them - what makes you so fucking right that you get to judge who should live and who should die?

Aren't you confusing me for our dear dead God? As a mortal citizen I don't get to judge by myself, merely for myself. Big difference. I can only wish for the best before the country is bankrupted by their corruption, because the good guys lost the vote. By the way, as many have noted, he started a projected 2-trillion dollar war with tens of thousands of innocent deaths and will make around 100 million from it. With certainty like that, we only need morals to judge.
posted by Brian B. at 3:44 PM on March 6, 2007

Fourcheesemac: Whoa, fuse theorem -- no SALADS? Hey, I eat A LOT of salads. Giving them up all that time annoyed me way more that all the needle pricks for all the months of blood tests to check the clotting factors and adjust the Coumadin dosage. It was a huge pain in the ass arm.

No leafy greens high in vitamin K (e.g., spinach), or other foods rich in vitamin K. Warfarin (coumadin) works by inhibiting vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors. Take too much vitamin K and you reverse the anti-coagulant effect.Yeah, and you'd think the doctors would know that. About a week on the Heparin IV drip was because they were letting me eat scrambled eggs and it turns out the eggs (or whatever they were cooked with) were antagonizing the Heparin. I'm telling ya, I don't wish DVT or any clotting issues on anybody, not even the VP, because if it doesn't kill you you might still want to die just from the aggravation.
posted by fuse theorem at 5:27 PM on March 6, 2007

“Try using "dogmatic certainty" next time, because their moral confusion is dictated for them.”

Ah, will do. So what differentiates your dogmatic certainty (and other statements here) that Cheney should die from any other dogmatic certainty?

“As a mortal citizen I don't get to judge by myself, merely for myself. Big difference.”

I see. So as a mortal citizen it’s ok for you to wish for horrible things to happen to Cheney - because it is justice. And you define justice for yourself. Sounds a lot like God to me.

“By the way, as many have noted, he started a projected 2-trillion dollar war with tens of thousands of innocent deaths and will make around 100 million from it. With certainty like that, we only need morals to judge.”

Guess I missed the part where you need trials and procedure and proof and such to administer justice. Nope, just need ‘certainty’ and morals. He’s just like a mass murder on the loose. Go geddim! We’ll be right behind you with the rope there sparky.

Sorry I can’t order my comments to avoid fallacies to your satisfaction, but y’know, at least I can support the rule of law and work for actual change rather than wishing for the best before the county is bankrupted. Or wishin’ someone was dead as a cure for policy. Good luck with that wishin’. I’m sure it’ll accomplish a whole bunch.

Actually, what the hell am I apologizing for?
I don’t think you know what you’re defending or understand what I’m arguing (of course since your ‘fallacy’ rebuttle was so tangential I’m forced to speculate).
Enjoying someone else’s suffering is bad mental hygiene, but beyond the “we will be no better than those we are fighting” argument it’s a poor subtitute for thinking rationally about an issue. Manifestly - Q.E.D. your own peevishness. Now I know none of this is real, and it’s a minor point writ large, but someone says to me it’s perfectly alright to eat three dozen donuts a day as part of a healthy diet I’m going to contest the point.
But hating Cheney isn’t a solution to anything. And as I’ve said, there’s a difference between blowing off steam, saying something in anger (eating maybe a couple of donuts), and allowing hatred to overthrow the rule of law and the right of due process (all donut diet). In those terms I’m arguing hatred is indefensible. That you do not merely become as bad as the enemy, you are, in fact, the enemy.
I’d like to see Cheney gone as well, but some prices are too high.


(My analogies are colored with donuts because of all this salad talk)
posted by Smedleyman at 5:32 PM on March 6, 2007

Smedleyman, even when I mention "dogmatic certainty" for your replacement enjoyment (in lieu of using moral certainty), you think I'm advocating it. You're comprehension isn't any better than your arguments, and I never cared what exactly you think is right from wrong.

Sorry I can’t order my comments to avoid fallacies to your satisfaction,

Don't spend too much time at it.

but y’know, at least I can support the rule of law

That's certainly a start on your way to being moral.
posted by Brian B. at 5:55 PM on March 6, 2007

"You're comprehension isn't any better than your arguments, and I never cared what exactly you think is right from wrong."

Care what I think about you're English usage? But that'd be the issue wouldn't it. It's not about what anyone thinks about right or wrong. There are standards.

"That's certainly a start on your way to being moral."

I dunno presented with the choice - it's good to hate and wish for someone's death vs. it's not good to direct your energy into hate and wishing for someone to die - seems fairly simple.
Particularly with the concession for being pissed off.

I'd think any "oh, but it's THIS guy" argument not withstanding since "THIS guy" seems fairly arbitrary.
But yeah, ok, if I missed something a straight answer to that would be just fine by me. I missed a joke or something I'll apologize.
Or maybe you're just fucking with me for some reason.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:37 PM on March 6, 2007

Steven C Den Beste: But it harms you. It desensitizes you to hatred. It gets you into the habit of hating those you disagree with. It teaches you to deal with them with invective and insults instead of reasoned debate.

I agree, but you're just asking the other side to flinch in what's become a race to the bottom.

Susceptibility to rational argument, etiquette, and mercy are viewed as competitive disadvantages. No side will employ them unless the other does first...
posted by kid ichorous at 12:00 AM on March 7, 2007

I'd think any "oh, but it's THIS guy" argument not withstanding since "THIS guy" seems fairly arbitrary.
But yeah, ok, if I missed something a straight answer to that would be just fine by me. I missed a joke or something I'll apologize.


Smedleyman, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Regardless, Cheney doesn't get my sympathy because I don't arbitrarily extend it to evildoers, especially after they are given the national trust to prosecute a war justly without personally profiting from it. Tell it to Saddam if you really believe it.
posted by Brian B. at 4:41 PM on March 7, 2007

You said: "...I mention "dogmatic certainty" for your replacement enjoyment (in lieu of using moral certainty), you think I'm advocating it."

and implied my comprehesion was poor. Therefore I suspected you were either joking or I missed some point. If it was the former I was prepared to apologise, if it was the latter I asked for a clearer position.

"Cheney doesn't get my sympathy..."

That's not being contested. And not an argument I'd consider valid. I do not argue you should have sympathy for Cheney.

"because I don't arbitrarily extend it to evildoers."

That's one of the minor points at issue. One man's evil doer is another's hero just as one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. He is not "evil" simply because you think he is. Nor is he "evil" because you happen to agree with newspaper articles or any other media that happens to support your opinion. There is plenty of opinion and similarly relevant media to support Cheney and his policies. Many, many other people seem to like him. And they have just as much information to back up their opinions as you do.

Now I grant, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But your position seems to be that it's just fine to wish for someone to die, suffer horribly, etc. and to express that wish based on that opinion - that he's an evildoer.

I disagree.
With several concessions. The first being only evidence can prove he is an actual evildoer. That would require a fair trial which - while he's not entitled to your sympathy - is something he and everyone else is entitled to.
Secondly, it is not healthy personally and for the sake of communication to constantly use that level of discourse - for all the reasons I mentioned above - BUT - hey, people get pissed off and say things, so I concede that as long as it's not constantly reiterated, as long as it's not a habit, then it's not that bad a thing. In fact, it can be a healthy sort of blowing off steam in moderation. Insofar as I argue that one can't judge others without evidence, it'd be hypocritical of me to assert that someone is a bad person just because they fly off the handle on occasion and wish that SOB Cheney would suffer and die. So that's another out.

You, apparently, did not take any of those. And my argument was limited only to actively wishing Cheney dead, saying it all the time, and asserting it's a good thing to do.

To me this is a mindset similar to the people who wait outside jails and thrill in the execution of someone. With the caviat that that person has (presumably) had a fair trial, so in this case it's even worse.

But to be as absolutely clear as I possibly can - I suspect Cheney is a traitor not only for the reasons you mentioned - which I agree with (but as I said - opinion - I suspect I'm emotionally even closer than you are as I have brothers actively serving in the field) but for Plame and a number of other things I'm aware of but have no proof of. I would like to see him tried in a court of law for treason. I would not like to see him executed, but that is the penalty. I'd prefer it be rescinded and he get a lesser sentence - life in prison perhaps - because I'm opposed to the death penalty. But having no proof, and apparently no one else having any, it's currently very unlikely. So, parallel with my assertions that it's unhealthy for others to harp on negative things - I don't dwell on it. If someone comes up with evidence, great. If not, I'm still going to oppose his policies in every ethical way I can.

"Tell it to Saddam if you really believe it."

As I do really believe it, I'd be happy to. But he's dead isn't he? And the manner in which he was executed was, I think, barbaric. I suspect his trial wasn't entirely above board as well, but that's opinion. If necessary and if he was an immediate threat I would have killed Saddam myself. But once he is neutralized and in jail, serving time, incommunicado, I have no reason to fear him. So I don't hate him, or need to kill him or wish him dead or suffering. His imprisonment and the destruction of his policies would be punishment enough for me. It's what people like that care about. They've obviously not focused on being a human being with empathy and developing human relationships, so they punish themselves with impotent rage (particularly in prison).

But I think the same thing happens with people who fixate on wishing others dead. And I'm saying that's not good for you. Whether anyone has the right to engage in it is another matter entirely. One I support, but don't have to hear or read if I don't want to. But y'know, empathy. Someone overeats I say "maybe you should cut down on the snacks" they tell me to go to hell - ok. None of my business. But it still ain't healthy.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:29 AM on March 8, 2007

And - perhaps redundant to mention - I didn't thrill in Saddam's execution or indeed even wish him suffering and dead. I might have killed him if necessary, but if he is neutralized, I see no reason to execute him.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:36 AM on March 8, 2007

Smedleyman, your strawmen are multiplying. For you to make your point, you pretend I am fixated on Cheney and that Cheney is being lynched without a trial. Nice try, but you are trying to convince yourself first.

I might add a moral certainty parable here, since you first choked on this and then moralized your way all through the debate like a hypocrite.

Let's say that I met someone I knew in a restaurant one day during lunch. Let's say that the next day he was accused of robbing a bank across town at exactly the same time, resulting in the death of someone. Let's say that dozens of people claim to have "seen" his face at the scene of the crime, but in fact I conversed with him face to face during lunch. Let's say that everyone else in the restaurant at first agreed with me, but then backed out from their uncertainty when confronted with more witnesses at the scene of the crime. Of course, I am unyielding and would immediately campaign in his defense. That's moral certainty.
posted by Brian B. at 11:30 AM on March 8, 2007

“Smedleyman, your strawmen are multiplying...since you first choked on this and then moralized your way all through the debate like a hypocrite.”

Yeah. It’s insult and condescention like that which makes it tough for me to hold my temper (as I lost it above) and interferes with communication.

“For you to make your point, you pretend I am fixated on Cheney and that Cheney is being lynched without a trial. Nice try, but you are trying to convince yourself first.”

I’m not pretending anything. Nor asserting he’s being lynched without a trial. I don’t know how much more clearly or simply I can state that my point is that it’s not very nice to wish harm upon someone and less nice to speak it. And that as a matter of practice it can lead to poor discourse. That’s about it. Everything else is analogy.
I’ve stated quite plainly what I’m reading as your argument and I’d prefer you correct me where I’m wrong so we can understand each other than you playing contrarian or trying to “win”.

It’s not nice to say you wish someone dead or wish them to suffer. Neither is it nice to speak ill of the dead. And getting into the habit can impede communication with others. That’s probably why it’s common politeness. But this a blog and people let off steam - ok. Doesn’t make it right, but it is understandable. That is and has been my only point.
I don’t know how many times I can reiterate that or concede to a variety of situations where it’s allowable or try and convince you I’m not offering counters to your argument but trying to express that simple point - which you seem to be missing. Presumably I’m not being clear enough so I’ve broken it down to very simple terms. And I’ll reiterate: wishing harm on people - bad. saying it - bad. If the person in question is a bad person - it’s understandable occasionally, but bad as any sort of bad habit is bad.
But as a matter of taste - not of principle or morals - I’m fairly adamant in not liking to (although I concede doing it when I’m upset as well) wish harm on people myself. You seem to be trying to convince me otherwise. In addition to insulting me. What’s your moral bellwether on that? Perfectly ok to call me a hypocrite because we misunderstand each other? And clearly I’m a bad person for missing something, so you can go around telling people you hope I have a heart attack or something?

Ok, you’re way more intelligent than I am - you win. Your point - which I wasn’t contesting in the first place - on moral certainty is perfectly solid.

What then is your response to my position: that it’s not nice, polite, or ultimately conducive to communication to habitually and acrimoniously express a wish for someone to die when they become ill?

And to further be clear I’m not accusing you of doing that, or anyone else, merely noting there are people like that who seem to be fanatic in their positions and unreasonable in other ways which makes reasoning with them problematic.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:58 PM on March 8, 2007

“And my argument was limited only to actively wishing Cheney dead, saying it all the time, and asserting it's a good thing to do.” - Smedleyman

Yeah, man, I’m so unclear. What is it I’m trying to say here? It is some hypocritical point about morality? Why do I keep singling out Brian B. as fixated on Cheney? What do I mean by it’s not a good thing to actively wish Cheney dead and say it all the time? Clearly I’m trying to refute larger points on moral certainty - I mean I said it right there - but why do I keep posing these facile strawman arguments? Do I mean by saying my argument is limited ONLY to actively wishing Cheney dead and saying it and that it’s bad and impedes communication that Brian B. should have sympathy for him? No, no, it must be that I’m saying we must arbitrarialy pay lip service to anyone that prosecutes a war to personally profit from it by violating the national trust. Or is it? If only I would explain myself! And what do I mean I’ll “apologise if I’m wrong”? I must be some kind of hypocrite.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:20 PM on March 8, 2007

I’d prefer you correct me where I’m wrong so we can understand each other than you playing contrarian or trying to “win”.

I already did. You originally confused dogmatic belief with moral certainty, apparently unaware that one could have moral certainty by being morally responsive to the known facts, instead of pretending we don't know enough to judge for ourselves (moral confusion), as you did. It had nothing to do with believing anything. You then responded with long and irrelevant ramblings asking more from me. I don't need you to agree with me. We were done long ago and I'm just repeating myself now.
posted by Brian B. at 10:17 PM on March 8, 2007

"You originally confused dogmatic belief with moral certainty, apparently unaware that one could have moral certainty by being morally responsive to the known facts, instead of pretending we don't know enough to judge for ourselves (moral confusion), as you did."

Yeah, nice job there of responding to a straightforward question.

"We were done long ago and I'm just repeating myself now."

That's because you enjoy doing so long after someone's conceded your point. Did I mention that? Oh, gee, twice now. Nice comprehension yourself there Bri.
It's nothing to do with judging for ourselves. The man may deserve scorn. We may be morally certain he's wrong - that's got nothing to do with the point I've made. And apparently my effort in making it IS irrelevant if you refuse to address it and continually defend something I've - to reiterate - ceded.

"You then responded with long and irrelevant ramblings asking more from me. I don't need you to agree with me."

Indeed. Nor do you need to show integrity enough to admit you've missed something nor the common courtesy to be willing to apologize apparently.
But then, that's what's at issue isn't it? Common courtesy?
Oh, but wait, not for you. Just not required up there on your moral high ground then?
At least not to honestly address a straight question put to you.
Well, if we're going to engage on that level - fuck off troll.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:25 PM on March 8, 2007

Well, if we're going to engage on that level - fuck off troll.

I win!
posted by Brian B. at 11:22 AM on March 9, 2007

“I win!”

Indeed. QED.
Never said I was immune to it or above it. Just said it’s a bad idea.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:43 PM on March 9, 2007