Skip to main content

View Diary: 10 Reasons Dick Cheney's Memoir Belongs in the Crime Section (And How to Get It Placed There) (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have no problem with people (14+ / 0-)

    saying whatever they want about Cheney or his book.  (I'm a HUGE First Amendment proponent.)

    I DO have a problem with people going in and deliberately attempting to disrupt the business of local bookstores, or even your local Barnes & Noble.  

    Someone -- probably a store cashier -- has to go right behind these "activists" and spend a lot of time putting everything back.  So, the recipient of these "protests" is not Cheney at all -- instead, it is the bookstore cashier, or even the owner of the local bookstore, who has his entire business disrupted, or maybe has to make someone work overtime, to go behind the "activists" and put their business back in order.  

    People who are angry with Cheney should direct their attention to Cheney, not the people who work in their local bookstores.  

    •  Fair comment. I think this is a good critique of (5+ / 0-)

      this particular "activist" move.

      Thanks, coffeetalk.

      I'm "THE" Troubadour," and not "Troubadour" without the article. We're different people here at DK :)

      by David Harris Gershon on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 06:48:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But don't forget the media attention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Troubadour

      Sure, on the surface it seems like the action would not impact Cheney.

      But it's a symbolic action and if it is carried out effectively it should garner some good media attention to the littany of Cheney crimes.

      That's the potential power in it.

      Without media coverage, it would be nothing more than an irritant and hassle for bookstore employees, as you say.

      Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

      by Happy Days on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 06:54:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So it's worth an "attack" on a local bookstore (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        COBALT1928, VClib, anotherdemocrat

        owner or worker -- going in and intentionally and deliberately disrupting their business (and this would be much more disruptive to a local bookstore than to your basic Barnes & Noble) -- to get media attention for the fact that you don't like Cheney?  

        I don't think bookstore owners or workers should be used that way.  

        There are other ways of getting the same point across without using people who work in bookstores or those who own local bookstores as pawns in an attempt to get media attention.  

        •  "Don't like". (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          COBALT1928, Tonedevil

          Now that's just intellectually dishonest.

          Even you are better than that. Whether you agree or not -- the activists involved believe that Cheney is a war-criminal, not someone "they dislike".

          A much fairer criticism is that if they do in fact believe that Cheney is a mass-murdering criminal who should be tried in the Hague, this is weak-tea, mere political theater.

          They should at least be getting themselves arrested for throwing shoes at the man's head.

          •  Ok. I'll play. No matter how bad Cheney is, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib, anotherdemocrat

            It's inappropriate, in my opinion, to take that out on local bookstore owners and workers.  

            Rather than convince me of anything, that would anger me toward the protesters.

            •  Inappropriate versus ineffective? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              murrayewv

              Those are two different questions.

              Ineffective you might have a point. "Inappropriate" is just whimpy rationalization.

              Seriously -- you can't mean that if I believed that Cheney ate babies, that a very minor disruption of bookstores (one that in fact will bring attention to them and more than likely make them money) would be "inappropriate"?

              Be serious. Folks literally believe that Cheney is responsible for the death of 4000 Americans, 30000 American casualties and upwards of 100000 Iraqi deaths of men, women and children.

              Are you going to tell me that if Osama Bin Laden was walking the streets selling his memoirs, it would be "inappropriate" to disrupt those sales in any way?

              If that's the case, it sure as hell much more "inappropriate" to end up killing umpteen Afghani civilians in an attempt to get him, right?

              Unless your morality reduces simply to authoritarianism -- possible, but then you should be honest about it.

              •  Inappropriate. There are legitimate (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Xapulin, VClib, anotherdemocrat

                ways to address that without taking it out on someone (a local bookstore owner) who HAD NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CHENEY.

                The Osama bin Laden argument is bogus since, even before he was killed, he wouldn't be "walking around" doing anything.

                But let's say one of his children wrote a book defending his actions.  Is it appropriate to do something to show that you believe that is offensive?  Of course.  Should the "something" be directed at an innocent bystander who had absolutely nothing to do with bin Landen?  Of course not.  

                •  Bogus? (0+ / 0-)

                  Because he wouldn't be walking around?

                  But Cheney is walking around, and plenty of people have a very good argument that he is a much, much worse criminal than Bin Laden.

                  So you're seriously saying that if I thought that an effective way to get Pakistan to turn Bin Laden over 4 years ago would have been to disrupt hot dog sales in his neighborhood to bring attention to his location, that would have been wrong because the innocent vendor would have to move his business?

                  I read about this long ago in psych class -- but I never thought I'd actually communicate with some one who actually seems to be stuck in an early Piaget stage with limited ability to generalize and abstract. Maybe I've misinterpreted so many right wing trolls -- I've always thought they were pulling my leg. I'm not implying you're a troll -- I'm just honestly shocked to find an adult sincerely advancing this class of argument.

                  This must be the source of legalistic reasoning, which I've always failed to understand.

                  •  The flaw in your example: (0+ / 0-)

                    So, we disrupt hotdog sales, which inconveniences some innocent neighborhood, but, as a result, we apprehend a dangerous criminal.  Okay, that makes sense.  
                    Now, to get back to the diary subject.  We move a few books around in a store, which inconveniences some bookstore employees, but, as a result... um, what does this actually do?  I'm not getting the part where there is some tangible result to this action.  Does this bring Dick Cheney to justice somehow?

        •  A polite request to a bookstore (0+ / 0-)

          to place a book in a different section, under "crimes" isn't a disruption in the business or an "attack". It's a request to communicate the truth that is lacking the book itself.

          •  Of course, that's different. (0+ / 0-)

            But what the diary appears to be suggesting is that people go into bookstores and move the books themselves.  I don't think anyone would have a problem with asking stores to shelve the book in a different section.

    •  Mass murder versus making cashiers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928, Tonedevil

      re-shelve books.

      Oh my. The complete lack of proportionality among some conservatives is shocking. (Conservatives here is descriptive -- and not the DKos slur referring to fascists and other right-wing radicals).

      I'm glad that coffeetalk points out this absolute abomination of moving books. My God -- what's next? Allowing war-criminals to roam free without trial among our media and political elite? Cats and dogs living together?

      Coffee-talk may have the vapors next.

      •  Bogus argument. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        The bookstore workers did nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.  And they had nothing to do with Cheney's actions.  Nada.  Zilch.  So, taking your anger towards Cheney out ON THEM is not appropriate.  And comparing Cheney's actions to the impact on them is a bogus argument.  

        Can I pick whomever I want to take out my anger at somebody in Washington?   Can I say "Cheney is a mass murder, I feel like punching somebody, I'll punch you"?  After all, it's just one punch, right?  What's one punch compared to mass murder?  That's basically your argument: Cheney's so bad, I can take that out on whomever I want -- after all, what I'm doing to this innocent bystander is nothing compared to what Cheney did.    

        If a sense of right and wrong doesn't matter here, consider this.  If someone did this in the local bookstores I frequent, if I were browsing the local bookstore and a group of idiots came in and starting moving things around and disrupting the business, it wouldn't persuade me of anything -- other than that the "activists" who decided unilaterally that they had the right to disrupt a local business to show their anger at someone completely unrelated to that local business, are arrogant idiots.

        I don't know what makes people think they have the right to take out their anger towards Cheney on some innocent bystander.  Pure arrogance and disregard for others, it seems to me.  And that I can't admire.  Sorry.  

        •  Do you have the morality of a small child? (0+ / 0-)
          That's basically your argument: Cheney's so bad, I can take that out on whomever I want -- after all, what I'm doing to this innocent bystander is nothing compared to what Cheney did.  

          That's not at all what I'm saying. It's so far from what I'm saying that I'm having trouble understanding how your capability to infer and empathize could be so defective.

          If you want a catchy simplification, I'm saying that you can blow up a bomb in Hitler's headquarters, even if you know that it'll also hurt his dog.

          If you cause even extremely minor damage to advance a worthy goal, it has to be proportional and effective. Everyone (who is a moral adult) does this every day -- recognizes and makes this moral calculation that you will inconvenience someone, to some extent in your normal business.

          Now -- it has to be effective to be proportional. That's a good point. But to apply automatic, legalistic reasoning is to be stuck at a conventional, adolescent level of moral reasoning.

          I'm not saying that "right and wrong" don't matter -- I'm saying that your judgement of right and wrong seem stunted. You seem to fail to recognize this mechanism -- and it's a safe bet that you are entirely unaware of the price you continually put on others in day to day existence, or else you would recognize exactly this template.

          You're not arguing that this is wrong because both there is a price to be paid by innocent bystanders, and because that price is not an effective way to avoid a proportionally greater evil -- that would be a grown-up way to reason about morality (one that in fact I'd agree with). No, you seem to not follow the game beyond one step -- as if the goal was to punish the cashiers.

      •  I think I'd be more sympathetic... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RandomSequence

        ...toward this action and the admittedly minor inconvenience it may cause to what will probably be very few bookstore employees if I thought it was actually going to accomplish something.  It strikes me as the kind of action that you can have a good laugh about afterwards but will have zero effect on Cheney or the larger issue of war crimes.

        •  I do this quite a lot (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          murrayewv, Tonedevil

          and I don't ever think about the people that have to reshelve the books. Didn't cross my mind.
          But when I see offensive people selling their offensive books, I hide them.
          I was in the library yesterday and saw Bachmann's book. So, I hid it high up where it won't be found for sometime.
          It is the idea of a war criminal, or a bigot's book being out for people to read.
          Yes, it is censorship on my part.

          Obama is complicit in the Bush/Cheney war crimes and every vote for him in 2012 is a vote approving of the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes.

          by snoopydawg on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 08:26:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Me too.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            snoopydawg, Tonedevil

            I often put them behind another book in the same shelf in the bookstore.  It is petty but there you go, at least it is nondestructive.

            You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

            by murrayewv on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 09:08:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just an aggravation for the store clerk (0+ / 0-)

              who has to go find the books and move them back.  (Yes, bookstores keep an inventory so they have to find and account for those books you move).  

              So the petty move is only petty against the store clerk.  That's all you are accomplishing.  

              •  Coffee (0+ / 0-)

                I do understand what you are saying over and over.  But I find the lies of these people offensive, and I know it is petty. But just so much fun

                Obama is complicit in the Bush/Cheney war crimes and every vote for him in 2012 is a vote approving of the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes.

                by snoopydawg on Wed Aug 31, 2011 at 10:21:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I guess I take it more personally (0+ / 0-)

                  because I see the local bookstores that I love having a harder and harder time surviving against Amazon and other web-based booksellers.  And I don't think the local owners need this kind of additional aggravation.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site