An Australian news program obtained some of the photos showing mistreatment of detainees that the government did not want released because it would antagonize things. As some suggest, the actual mistreatment probably did that well enough as it is so that the pictures will not change things too much -- just put it in our faces just what was done.
Pictures use the visual to force us to come face to face respecting things we might wish to avoid. Only a few were released in the last few years, though they were bad enough. Maybe not. After all, it did not convince enough people that re-electing the people in charge amount to almost as big a crime as they are committing, partly because we would hope the electorate as a whole has more shame. But, as on Republican dissident noted, the other option was Carter redux.
So, instead of electing a religious sort with his heart in the right place (and who actually did a bit of good in the Middle East) that in various ways paved the way to the conservative '80s, including in respect to deregulation, even if he was trouble in various ways -- though not too many criminal that I know of -- they had to vote for someone they knew was incompetent. Give him a mulligan, doncha know. Better than electing Kerry! The fact Carter actually was popularly elected the first time around and had a Congress of the same party that actually had a spine when it came to his actions probably threw them as well. Seriously ... this administration is incompetent and criminal. And, you RE-ELECTED HIM! Toss aside Ohio ... the popular vote was not within the margin of error overall. It should not even have been close.
This probably is why so many are focusing on Cheney shooting someone hunting and trying to hide what he did. Reckless secrecy is par for the course in this administration, but at least here we get to make fun of the guy without anything too serious like War in Iraq being at stake. Yes, a guy was hurt, but you almost don't care, since the two morons were hunting raised quail (Carter's rabbit is more deadly) in a bloody canned hunt. Now, I am no fan of hunting overall, but this is just sad. Bush v. Gore wasn't this stacked in their favor.
Not that the whole thing does not get tired fast. A local columnist that I often like did have a wicked song parody. Still, at some point, "who cares" is the major response. Ridicule does help, but this is Cheney -- how much respect does he have left anyway? [In the process, other game might be missed. Bush just said Homeland Security Chertoff is doing a great job ... atta boy Mikey! Still glad you resigned an appellate judgeship for this?] And, we have to deal with ... oh look ... talk about gun regulation! I comment on a Slate piece here.* Federal gun regulation is just not too relevant when the question of pellets is at stake. Did background checks, for instance, really factor in here? Come on.
But, as with presidential blowjobs, this stuff is gold ... it basically boils down to something not too important, even if we try to make it into something much more. This allows lots of empty calorie fun while still claiming the meal is totally nutritious. It is not like torturing prisoners and having pictures released not by our own media ... but Australian media. So our claims of freedom appear doubly ridiculous. Heck, religious upsetting cartoons ... those Danish are wankers.
And, especially if only conservative lawyer friends of Dick are harmed not innocent birds, who loses? That Nintendo Cheney Duck Hunt game should be coming out soon ... with the right code, you can get to the "Scalia" round. Shoot him just right and Justice Ginsburg laughs coquettishly.
---
* One "solution" offered was insurance, but only if it was run by private companies within certain contours -- in other words, private per public regulations. Does not sound too good even if it actually was put into place just that way, which it would surely not be. Trouble arose from the start when regulation of what is deemed by a majority of the population to be constitutionally protected on some level was compared to automobile insurance.
Private insurance also leads to inequitable results. This might be okay if you do not think a constitutional right is at stake, but since that is not quite the case ... Anyway, civil litigation provides a means to deal with recklessness, if monetary cost is your concern. The criminal justice system also deals with other misuse. Some want to make guns special in this respect, but even the recent law passed by Congress had enough loopholes to make it somewhat harmless.