WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-15 16:41:16 +0000

from a completely statistical standpoint: what is the percentage of 78 year olds that have heart attacks every year?

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-15 17:04:54 +0000

Continuing with that train of thought: How many have birdshot pellets lodged near their heart?

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-15 17:44:02 +0000

14 million men over the age of 65 in America and 400,000 have diagnosed heart attackes per year: 2.8% I am not a doctor, but it would seem that the birdshot in the chest might be a factor in this case. (sources: big health report pdf, census by age)

Posted by lrf on 2006-02-15 18:03:01 +0000

birdshot is awesome

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-15 19:34:33 +0000

This T-shirt: OR this button: ???

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-15 20:01:08 +0000

<mirth> t-shirt, all the way.

Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-02-16 00:44:43 +0000

where do i get a pin?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-16 04:05:08 +0000

An array of "S is for Shot in the face by Dick Cheney" pins can be purchased here.

Posted by buzzorhowl on 2006-02-16 04:52:24 +0000

Hot!

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-16 13:07:45 +0000

"I shot my friend" --Dick Cheney Doesn't openness and honesty make you feel good, Mr. V.P.? Have you told your boss yet?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-16 16:52:26 +0000

Cheney doesn't have a boss.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-16 17:40:33 +0000

Great quote. Too bad Libby is indicted for lying to a grand jury, not for disseminating classified information; even if the information was declassified by the Vice himself. Does Cheney need to let anyone know when he has declassified something? Maybe it's just a "his will be done" sort of thing.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-17 19:40:15 +0000

Wow - the victim forgives Cheney. It would probably be too ridiculous of a suggestion to have any of the rest of us to use such a tactic.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-17 19:59:17 +0000

I'll be waiting on Karl Rove to forgive Valerie Plame for losing her job as a nuclear weapons analyst.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-17 20:54:07 +0000

Wasnt aware that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were the same person.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-17 21:08:46 +0000

Oh! I get it. I thought the "rest of us" was for other people to try out forgiveness for a change, didn't realize it was the "rest of us" specifically forgiving Cheney. Sounds like Whittington walked into the line of fire by all reports, not even Cheney's fault. Which is why I haven't been blaming Cheney for the accident. I've been blaming his handling of it. How many people get a 16 hour reprieve between being involved in a hunting accident and being interviewed by the police? Why give McClellan such a hard time by letting him face the press corps without knowing that the victim had a heart attack?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-19 05:36:47 +0000

Was there any doubt? Wittington has been giving money to Bush/Cheney for over a decade. How much time did Wittington have to formulate a press conference with Cheney and Armstrong, 2 whole days? I think we can all agree (except perhaps NP) with the raging Republicans at the WSJ Opinion Journal: IT IS TIME TO DUMP DICK.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-19 05:40:54 +0000

Some good natured, friendly advice for NP: Don't patronize. It's ugly, and selective forgiveness is uglier.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-19 05:47:01 +0000

No, it was Cheney's fault. Every hunter knows this, Cheny said so, and I have yet to hear differently. Cheney forgot where his quadrant was, didn't have Wittington accounted for, and shot him in the face.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-19 13:19:42 +0000

The Noonan "Hate Magnet" article was a good one for sure - What I got from reading it was that she was saying something a bit more complicated than "Lets get rid of Cheney because he was involved in a hunting accident" though. If my thought about forgiveness came across as patronizing - I apologize. It wasn't my intent. Sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes others can chose either a grudge or forgiveness for the person who made a mistake. I hope that when I do (or have done)something stupid in my life that ultimately the people that I am close to or work with or whatever will ultimately forgive me.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-19 15:54:45 +0000

Again, it isn't that Cheney was involved in an accident. Few think we should get rid of Cheney because he was involved in a hunting accident, no one thinks he did it on purpose, and it is good that Wittington is able to forgive him. The problem is Cheney's handling of the matter. He f-ed up badly by not being open about it, pissed off Bush, and according to the Brit Hume interview he STILL THINKS HE DID THE RIGHT THING.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-20 13:47:04 +0000

Im not advocating a delay of one day or whatever it was in notifying the press, but it does make sense to me that Whittington's family be given the opportunity to hear the news first-hand as opposed to some of the rabid foaming at the mouth White House press corps people. The press has a right to know, no question, and I even think they had a right to know earlier than they did - but Cheney accepted responsibility for his actions which IMHO is the main point here. Also, as a gentle point of clarification, Noonan didn't speak for the WSJ staff or other republicans as a whole: Dick Cheney: My first reaction, Brit, was not to think, "I need to call the press." My first reaction was, "My friend Harry's been shot and we've got to take care of him." Gigot: Vice President Dick Cheney broke his silence to Fox's Brit Hume Wednesday, answering questions, for the first time, about last weekend's accident shooting of hunting companion Harry Whittington. But he was unapologetic about the delay in revealing the accident to the national media, a decision that had the White House Press Corps in a rage. Unidentified male: Was the vice president immediately clear that he had accidentally shot his friend or not? Unidentified male: How is that the word of the shooting and the fact that the vice president was involved could have been confused or delayed? Unidentified male: Under Texas law, is this kind of accidental shooting a possible criminal offense? Unidentified female: Is that his gun, that shotgun? Unidentified female: Is it proper for the vice president to offer his resignation, or has he offered his resignation? Unidentified male: Do you think it reflects a feeling in the country that this just doesn't the sniff test? Unidentified male: I'm not getting answers here, Scotty. Gigot: Dan, has the White House Press Corps had a kind of collective nervous breakdown here? Henninger: No, I don't think so. I think it was malice aforethought. I mean, let's face it, Dick Cheney is, for a lot of the media, the biggest Republican quail in the political sky. And if they see a sighting, they come out with the shotguns. And it goes all the way back to Halliburton, right? Whenever Dick Cheney gets into the news this way, this is what happens. You know, if they wanted to do a 5,000-word take-out on whether the vice president is giving quality advice to the president that would be legitimate. We'd all read it. Instead, this is what we get. Gigot: It's been a fascinating thing to watch, this transformation, because I can recall in the late '80s when Dick Cheney was perceived by the press corps as the sensible, sane, calm, you know, mature Republican. The contrast to those lunatic Newt Gingrich faction. And now, he's the new Darth Vader. What explains that transformation? Pollock: Well, exactly. And I think that's what drives the Left nuts is that, you know, this is a man that the vast majority of the public has absolute confidence in being a heartbeat away from the presidency. And they must discredit him for that reason alone. Gigot: What do you think is going on here, Bret? Stephens: Well, I think it's like watching an episode of the "X-Files." You know, the truth is out there, at least according to the Washington press corps. I mean, it really is bizarre. Here you have an incident that really couldn't be plainer. The vice president couldn't have been forthcoming. And any sort of normal American out there would say, "Well, he probably reacted just about the way anyone would." In fact, there's a Rasmussen poll in which 57% of Americans, or those polled, said, "This is just one of those embarrassing things that happen to people." But 27% say, "There's got to be something more to it," and raises serious, serious questions. And you have a mainstream media that is more responsive to those 27% and, I would say, a hard core of conspiracy theorists, then they are to their reading public that-- Pollock: Now that's-- Stephens: Go ahead. Pollock: --not just embarrassing, but traumatizing. And that's what the press can't seem to understand here is that you shoot your friend, you know, you're probably not thinking straight. You're probably upset. If it takes you a few extra hours to get the news out is that really a big deal? Is that abnormal? Gigot: I think there is something here by the fact that this White House has been more successful than a lot of others, certainly more than the porous Clinton administration, in keeping secrets. It's a pretty close-knit bunch. They don't do a lot of leaking, at least, not official leaking. And I think this has begun to chaff on the press corps, particularly as you get into a second term and they know these guys are leaving so "let's go after them." Henninger: Yes, I think there's something to that. There's a real competition there between the government and the press corps. But, on the other hand, there really has been a five year narrative of negative impressions of this administration, whether it's Halliburton or Abu Ghraib or WMD or Bush lied. Any time there's an opportunity to create this kind of static around discovery, it happens. Gigot: Rob, Peggy Noonan, our columnist, wrote this week that, maybe, the vice president should take it upon himself to recognize he's a liability and withdraw so that somebody else can take his place. Do you agree with that? Pollock: Not at, I mean, just on confidence along he's probably the best vice president we've ever had. And politically, I think, you know, the base loves Cheney. It would be incredibly dangerous to thrown him overboard. No. Stephens: Yes, I mean, you know, the vice president is not a cabinet secretary. He doesn't serve at the pleasure of the president. Americans elected him. And I don't think he should be treated as if he serves that way and be thrown overboard. And I think Rob is right. He is amazingly popular with the base. And I think the administration would be doing itself huge damage. Henninger: It would only build the bonfire bigger. It would be the biggest story of the second term if that happened. Gigot: Yes. There is three and a half years left in this presidency. And there's a thing called governing, which means you actually want people who have, maybe, the ability to give you good advice. Stephens: Absolutely. Gigot: And if the president likes Cheney's advice, why shouldn't he stick with him? It seems to me that that would be a mistake to, at this stage, pull somebody over and think, "Oh, well, this is somebody we need for 2008." OK, thank you all. We have to take one more break. When we come back, our "Hits and Misses" of the week.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-20 15:17:14 +0000

I'm willing to delay notification of the press in deference to notification of the family, but, the timeline doesn't really play that out: Sat. 6:30pm Harry takes it in the face. Sun. 8:00am Sheriff gets around to interviewing Cheney. Mon. AM press briefing McClellan doesn't know Harry has had a heart attack. Mon. PM press briefing McClellan knows about Harry's condition, but keeps mum. If the problem was just press notification, doesn't 12 hours seem sufficient to locate the family of a wealthy 78-year-old donor? Maybe they couldn't find his last address. Maybe they were waiting to make _sure_ it was a heart attack before notifying his family. I thought one of the benefits of the GOP is that they bring organization and competence to the table... oops. Cheney instructed his staff to not give information to the President's staff! It makes one wonder who is setting policy up at 1600 Penn Ave. I love how the same people who condemned Clinton, "not for what he did" but "how he handled it", are now throwing stones at the press. Beautiful. ---- I can certainly appreciate that Noonan does not speak for every GOP partisan out there.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-20 16:31:10 +0000

Hold on NP, Mrs. Whittington was hunting in a seperate party and was called minutes after the shooting. That is an absurd argument. For the record, that is one ugly piece. Gigot's infamous credibility aside, it's bias makes me feel icky. "They don't do a lot of leaking" - hilarious, maybe Bush and Cheney made the most famous executive leak of all time. Plus why praise secrecy in national news? It's my fucking government, I want to know what's going on. "The vice president couldn't have been forthcoming." Why not? Cheney waits to see if the "It was Whittington's fault" angle plays out. It doesn't and 3 days later he accepts blame. Gross. Why couldn't he have said, "I pulled the trigger" on Monday? There is no good answer for that. As I have said before, the WSJ has gone the way of FoxNews, and seem more intent on making friends with the GOP than reporting. Yes, the above piece isn't a news report, it's a discussion, but 3 men enjoying the Bush/Cheney gangbang doesn't make for objective discussion. I bet when Gigot leaves things might become more earnest.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-20 16:50:22 +0000

I, for one, had bought the line that Whittington had failed to announce his presence when approaching the hunting party. Interesting. Is it possible that these sorts of things (cover-ups) are not so much directed as they are naturally occuring? People are personally invested in a politician --or a party-- and their immediate reaction is to defend the politician above all else, regardless of the facts. So the "blame Whittington" stories were more organic in nature rather than an edict from the Vice?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-20 22:47:51 +0000

Probably. Another example of the conservative media distorting the news to us all?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-02-20 23:51:54 +0000

I cant say it better than Dan Henninger said it, so I will repost: Henninger: I mean, let's face it, Dick Cheney is, for a lot of the media, the biggest Republican quail in the political sky. And if they see a sighting, they come out with the shotguns. And it goes all the way back to Halliburton, right? Whenever Dick Cheney gets into the news this way, this is what happens. You know, if they wanted to do a 5,000-word take-out on whether the vice president is giving quality advice to the president that would be legitimate. We'd all read it. Instead, this is what we get.

Posted by tgl on 2006-02-21 13:33:49 +0000

Actually, no, they wouldn't read a 5,000-word essay on the ill advice of Cheney. If they had, they'd be criticising this administration with the rest of us. Nearly every issue of The Atlantic --a magazine of the Establishment, if there ever was one-- contains thoughtful and considered articles on the paucity of competence in this administration. What does the WSJ do in return? Publish unsubstantiated smears about the quality of the reporting. Thanks for the legitimate criticism, Dan. People hear what they want to hear... on both sides.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-02-21 15:06:11 +0000

Yes, the better question isn't why "they" do not a piece take-out on Cheney's adivce, it's why the WSJ doesn't read them.