Cheney: Office not part of executive branch

[Patroklos]

If you can fine me one parallel that is not a complete fantasy on your part I will give you a cookie.

I will help you out, Winston used razor blades to shave and so does Dick. Yep that is about as close as it gets.

Incidentally so did Hitler OMFG THEY ARE THE SAME
SAME

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Patroklos
If you can fine me one parallel that is not a complete fantasy on your part I will give you a cookie.

You need to work on your motivation skills, but in any case:

Mr. Cheney’s office had said that his dual role meant that he was technically not part of the executive branch.
...
In interviews over the last two days, officials have said that while the vice president does, in fact, have the right of refusal, it is for the very opposite reason: He is not required to cooperate with National Archives officials seeking the data because he is a member of the executive branch
...
The vice president’s chief of staff, David S. Addington, had argued that the executive order pertained to “entities” of the executive branch. The vice president’s office, he had argued, was clearly not such an executive entity because of the vice president’s function as head of the Senate.
...
A White House official placed further distance from the dual role argument by adding that Mr. Cheney did not necessarily agree with it.

So, the fearless (sub)leader of a vastly powerful state asserts certain facts, but when those facts become inconvenient, the fearless (sub)leader announces that those facts never in fact existed, and here are the new facts. If you don't see a parallel there, you need to reread the book.

[Patroklos]

What facts are you talking about for one, and where were their existance denied?

But I see there are no black helicopters, thought police, telescreens, victory gin, hate periods, ministies of truth or floating fortresses involved.

Apolyton fear mongering as usual. Congratulations

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, this time I'll quote, bold, and underline. Don't make me use italics.

A White House official placed further distance from the dual role argument by adding that Mr. Cheney did not necessarily agree with it.

[Kuciwalker]

Sorry Patty, Koy is on the money.

[Patroklos]

Not so much, when was this considered a fact in law, public opinion, or overall executive branch policy?

The VP put forth a position and was shouted down, thus changing his position. Hardly the same as erasing the history of who invented the airplane is it?

The level of exaggeration is absurd. You would have more luck calling Iraq is just like Vietnam. Just as ridiculous but much more popular.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Sorry Patty, Koy is on the money.

in the sense that cheney looks stupid yes.

In the sense that quibbling over a fine point of con law, and then retreating from your position and denying you ever made it, is not quite like denying major historical fact, and using a vast censorship apparatus to protect the denial.

See, I DID read the book.

Way back BEFORE 1984, BTW.

But then that quote is often trivialized that way, so its not Koys fault, its almost part of the culture that way now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I will help you out, Winston used razor blades to shave and so does Dick. Yep that is about as close as it gets.

winston churchill, winston smith, or winston of poly?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
in the sense that cheney looks stupid yes.

In the sense that quibbling over a fine point of con law, and then retreating from your position and denying you ever made it, is not quite like denying major historical fact, and using a vast censorship apparatus to protect the denial.

Except that the criticism in 1984 wasn't of that vast apparatus (it didn't exist as described in the book, obviously) but the simple practice of doublethink.

See, I DID read the book.

Way back BEFORE 1984, BTW.

Cheater.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Not so much, when was this considered a fact in law, public opinion, or overall executive branch policy?

Maybe during the years it was used as a reason for deny the archives access?

The VP put forth a position and was shouted down, thus changing his position.

He then asserted that he never in fact held the old position.

The level of exaggeration is absurd. You would have more luck calling Iraq just like Vietnam. Just a ridiculous but much more popular.

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to the concept of allegory. It is, in fact, possible for a narrative work to have both a literal and a symbolic meaning. For those with the proper insight, it is possible to reference one of these meanings without invoking all the details of the other. So, while there may not be an apparatus of government dedicated to scrubbing history, the concept of attempting to appear to have always held a position when you in fact publicly said you did otherwise may, in fact, be similar.

(Though, if you want to draw more parallels, we can always go into surveillance, people disappearing off the streets of Europe into hidden prison, and a singular leader who the government portrays as a visionary, decision-making hero out for our protection but is really a misguided fool who makes up the rules as he goes. At least we have the benefit of knowing it's a real person...if you want to call that a benefit. That, however, is not the issue at hand, since you said you only wanted on parallel. But I'm still not interested in the cookie.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Except that the criticism in 1984 wasn't of that vast apparatus but the simple practice of doublethink.

IIRC, there WAS no explicit criticism in the book. The situation was simply presented as it was. One naturally took away from it both that the doublethink was absurd, that the censorship was bad, and that the doublethink and the censorship were intimately related. Without the censorship,including esp the constant rewriting of history, it would be impossible to hide that the country that the ruling party was demonizing was the same one it had praised earlier. and vice versa. which would lead to questioning the infallibility of the party.

Now when Orwell wrote it, he had two models in mind, IIUC. The USSR itself, with its practices such as editng folks out of pictures (years before photoshop) and sending corrected encyclopedia articles out, to cover up changes in party policy. And the practice at the BBC (where he worked for a while) which praised the USSR AFTER it had entered the war, having denounced it earlier. But there was no hiding what the BBC had done.

It may be partly aimed at the BBC kind of doublethink, but its power came from the context (in the book) of the USSR style doublethink.

[Kuciwalker]

IIRC, there WAS no explicit criticism in the book.

I never said there was.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi


(Though, if you want to draw more parallels, we can always go into surveillance, people disappearing off the streets of Europe into hidden prison, and a singular leader who the government portrays as a visionary, decision-making hero out for our protection but is really a misguided fool who makes up the rules as he goes. At least we have the benefit of knowing it's a real person...if you want to call that a benefit.

the folks whove been taken, are not US citizens - a govt using that mechanism to maintain itself in power a la 1984 would almost only be concerned about its own citizens.

And I cant recall anyone seriously portraying Dubya as visionary. He definitely does make decisions - it would be very odd to have govt official who didnt. It would also be unique to have a US president who didnt claim to be out for the protection of the US - can you think of any?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

IIRC, there WAS no explicit criticism in the book.

I never said there was.

"Except that the criticism in 1984 wasn't "

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see the word explicit anywhere in that.