Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Is it news or not?

Normally I don't like to comment on things I don't think are news, such as Dick Cheney's "incident" over the weekend. But The Daily Show did such a tremendous treatment of it that it's worth mentioning them. And this post tries to copy the right-wing technique of taking every little bit of news and showing why it's important.

Meanwhile, though, the victim of the shooting just had a heart attack from birdshot lodged in his heart, so I am not sure it's funny anymore.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

The man Cheney shot just had a heart attack. Dick Cheney may be the first American vice president since Aaron Burr to kill a man while in office. I guess there is something about the job of waiting for death that makes VPs want to encourage it. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

He may also be (together with Bush) the greatest threat to constitutional democracy since Aaron Burr.

I say it's news. Anything that shows the people for the callous plutocrats they are is fair game. Anything that hurts them politically in any way is good for the country. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

It seems the real news is focused on what happened in the 12 hour interval between the actual shooting and the press releases. I was thinking that whole thing was being blown out of proportion. But then I found myself wondering how you shoot someone in the face? Was Dick drunk or something? I started reading Media Matters  site and I saw that someone commented with the following:

Above the Law

The most sensible reason for someone to be so mysterious and evasive about the details of an accidental shooting is because there may be criminal liability.

These people didn't notify law enforcement authorities of the shooting, and are claiming that they weren't required to.

But if they had notified a law enforcement officer, a report would have to be made, and questions asked; and among the questions an officer would ask the shooter, in order to determine if there were criminal negligence:

"Were you drinking at the time? Did you have anything at all to drink today; and if so, how much?"

All in order to determine whether the shooter was intoxicated at the time of the accident; and one of the reasons someone might not right away report an accidental shooting to the police, is so the officer can't otherwise tell if they've been drinking.

And another reason is to avoid lying to the above questions, which is yet another crime.

That is an interesting point of view. 

// posted by USWest

Anonymous said...

Yes, I think this was hushed up long enough for the better part of a pint of scotch to work it's way out of Cheney's system (he has two DUI's on his record). By the way, I heard the ranch owner say that the "hunting" party was driving too.

That 21 hour delay (or whatever it was) served to keep Cheney from being revealed as some upper class twit driving around in his escalade half crocked with a shotgun looking for caged birds to blow away. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

"That 21 hour delay (or whatever it was) served to keep Cheney from being revealed as some upper class twit driving around in his escalade half crocked with a shotgun looking for caged birds to blow away." 

Other than the half-crocked, that's still what he looks like now. 

// posted by Bell Curve

Anonymous said...

Does this remind anyone of Russell Weller, old man in Santa Monica who plowed into a farmer's market, killing ten people, including a baby? The basic explanation was that old people mess up sometimes, no biggie, and besides he looks so cute when he's befuddled. If a young man had done this, he'd be in jail.

Latest Weller news: On March 18, 2005, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Neill denied a motion by Weller's attorneys to dismiss the manslaughter charges, remarking that "hitting the accelerator instead of the brake seems to me to be a clearly negligent act." He remains free on his own recognizance.

What I'm waiting for is for someone to finally ask Dick Cheney if he was drinking, and to have him say "No." Because, of course, nobody drinks when they go hunting.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

I think the drinking issue is huge. If Cheney was drunk at the time, he was being criminally negligent (LTG correct me if I've abused a legal term). That's a lot worse than simply looking like a crass asshole with money.

This missing 24 hours is 100% the story. To paraphrase "Deep Throat": Follow the booze. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Well, let's be careful about how quickly we jump on the drinking theory. We don't know that for a fact and we should be careful not to use the blog to perpetuate myth- although I am the one who first brought up the possibility.
 

// posted by USwest

Anonymous said...

US West is right.

We should be very clear that we are only speculating when we suggest that Dick Cheney is a drunken homocidal idiot.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

For reasons I can't explain, I'm obsessed with the whole "hunting caged birds" thing. I didn't realize how horrific Cheney's 2003 birdslaughter was at the time. Here's a link , although only the first half describes the 2003 "hunting" incident.

The Daily Show and RbR above both indicate that this was a similar sort of hunting expedition, with pen-raised birds pre-released for the bold adventurers to find and shoot at. I've been able to find no useful (web-based) resources reporting the conditions of the animals at Armstrong Ranch.

(Understandably, most news is focused on whether the VP did something wrong, how Mr. Whittington is doing, whether there's some sort of coverup, etc. Like I said, I don't know why such a relatively trivial detail is niggling at me, but it is.)

Does anyone have some reportage on what sort of hunting this was? 

// posted by Bob

Anonymous said...

I saw a TV interview (unfortunately can't remember where) with the owner of the ranch. She described the shooting as follows:

"The Vice President and two friends drove up, got out of their car and walking up on the birds..."

Seems to me that driving up in your SUV isn't how a real hunt works.

Also, I just heard last night that my mom works with a woman who is a big GOP donner and has met Cheney et al. This woman said that there is a group of "friends" that go hunting on a regular basis with Cheney on ranches like this. All the hunts involve hundreds of secret service (at tax payer expense) to secure the wide open spaces and they all involved "canned hunting." This GOP donner is upset about it because of the cost of the secret service protection to secure such enormous wide open areas. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Is that how we're spelling "donor" these days? Wow.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Now, now, easy on the non-speller.

Seriously, this hunting caged birds thing shocked me too. Is this common practice? Sounds horrible to me. 

// posted by Bell Curve

Anonymous said...

Non-speller... he's a professor for goodness sake. I have higher standards. Sorry RBR. I've got a weed up my ass. 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Why LTG, have you been crouching in the grass waiting for the birds to be released from their cages (i.e. Flushed)

Why are you all so surprised at this type of hunting? What do you think Fox hunting was all about? Same idea. Fox never stood a chance. 

// posted by UNwest

Anonymous said...

Okay, sorry about the "donner" comment. Having a weedectomy. It's just that I basically proofread for a living.

Are foxes released from captivity for fox hunts? 

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

I proof read the stuff I actually care about too.

But this is just play time and I'll be ding dong diddely damned if I'm gonna lose sleep over spelling. Hell, you're lucky it doesn't come out complete giberish...well, at least not more often than it does. 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

According to my source -- my English girlfriend, who has owned horses in the south west of England -- the foxes are wild. Unlike quail these animals are vermin who kill every hen in a henhouse given half a chance. 90% of the time on a hunt they actually get away, and when killed it is by the hunters and not the dogs: the dogs just get to play with the body afterwards. One story my girlfriend related to me was of on fox who would lead the pack of dogs in front of a moving train deliberately to get away: the fox in question did it more than once.

Although some people claim it as barbaric fox hunting tends to stimulate the local economy, make sure the countryside is cared for, and all with giving the fox -- a single animal -- a decent chance of getting away. Plus the dogs and, especially, the horses love it. Sound more sporting to me than shooting a chicken at short range with a high-powered weapon. 

// posted by Numbat of Death

Anonymous said...

I would have very little problem with fox hunting as you describe it, Numbat. Thanks for the clarification on that mysterious and controversial Pommy subculture.

I think what Cheney does is more like the Monty Python skit about the Upper Class Twit of the Year.  

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

I would not want to risk Numbat's domestic bliss, but I daresay it sounds a bit like propaganda. To begin with, I'm skeptical that horses love being mounted and ridden hard with people shooting guns and blowing trumpets. I am skeptical that non-pet animals like or 'love' anything we do to them.

Others  have different views. There is, according to many sources, a frightful toll in dogs and horses.

To quote PETA UK: The fox-hunting season starts at the end of August with the highly controversial practise of cubbing, the slaughter of fox cubs who have little chance of escape. The hunting fraternity launched a PR offensive in recent years to change the name to “autumn hunting” because the term “cubbing” sounded too much like what it is.

There's quite a bit of pro and con on fox hunting. The "pro" sounds a lot like Numbat's main squeeze above. Most of the "con" is predictable as well.

Those opposed to fox hunting dispute vigorously that foxes are vermin, which they claim is a term promoted by the pro-fox-hunting crowd. Out here in CA, we are desperately trying to save our island foxes - special tiny foxes on the Santa Catalina islands, who galapagos-like differ on each island. So, except in news coverage, I'm pro-fox.

My favorite statistic from the "con" side is that fox hunts are nowhere near as effective at controlling foxes as motor vehicles, which (according to them) kill about 8 times as many foxes as the hunters.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

As a recant victum of LTG's speling inforcemant patroll, I'd like to point out that a young fox is a "kit" not a "cub." ;-) 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Ah, but I was quoting. And according to this disinterested website website , there are three alternate terms: kit, pup, and cub.  

// posted by LTG

Anonymous said...

Oh grow up, LTG. The comment was in response to asking about fox hunting: in comparison to "American" hunting it is benign. So which propaganda are you going to believe: PETA's or pro-hunt? Which ever fits your world model? You even point out that hunts don't kill many foxes.

To address some of your comments. There are very few guns on a hunt and they are not fired all over the place: that would just be dangerous (and would end up with someone being shot in the face). The horses LOVE it: they get to run in a herd cross country. The horses get excited when they know they are going cross country running. It is very hard to force a horse to do something it does not want to do.

Your argument on foxes in Santa Catalina is frivilous. I can bring up the fact that european foxes have been introduced to Australia and are responsible for a greater loss in species than exist on those tiny islands. So I am anti-fox. So what? You are talking about a different kind of fox.

Maybe The Citizens should be spending more time on thinking about the real issues, rather than pedantic tit-for-tat arguments about something that was simply meant to be illustrative. 

// posted by Numbat of Death

Anonymous said...

Ah, come on, Numbat. We've had some pretty intense conversations on this blog of late. So why not have a little fun. Pull the weed out your backside and and laugh it off! (I am still finding LTG's phrase funny.) 

// posted by USwest

Anonymous said...

Speaking of weeds..."This the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick in a pot, you can hold it in your hand...Australia! Australia! Australia!" 

// posted by Raised By Republicans

Anonymous said...

Fox hunting is very controversial, and there are plenty of well-informed people who dispute the view that Numbat put forth. My basic problem with most forms of modern hunting (leaving aside the particulars of the fox hunt) is that it glorifies violence and, especially, killing. The sort of "hunting" that Cheney was doing is even worse, to my mind: it is no more than killing as pastime. It is amazing that a man like Cheney can just go shoot helpless animals for fun, then say that the most important thing for him is "respect for life." The only kind of hunting I firmly believe in is the deliberate and vicious murder of any insect that comes inside my bathtub or near my vegetable garden. But that, I suggest, is merely self-defense.  

// posted by LTG