Crap Throwing Monkey

I heard he threw the first test. The second one's more accurate. And it's all just a great big conspiracy to piss you off.

I never got that. Isn't she a democrat too? Don't they believe in free speech to the point of protecting a feces-smeared crucifix as art? But Dee Snider uses a bad word on his album, and Tipper Gore screams across the rooftops for censorship? Seriously...I still don't get it.

DoD unquestionably has the tools to do so; I'll wager that no one in the world has more experience marshalling that level of resources into situations like that (i.e. dangerous ones, where all the support for the incoming resources has to be trucked in from somewhere else). Most people think you throw sh-- and people in the trucks and go...I know just enough about how large military units move and the organization and planning that goes into it to marvel at how bloody fast things went when the DoD finally took over. Just the idea determining the order in which elements go in overwhelms me. If anything comes out of this, it should be the reorganization of FEMA along military lines (yeah, they're not a military organization...but so what? Most municipal emergency response borrows from military organizations - fire companies and battalions, for example. That's not accidental.) Maybe put a retired general in charge with logistics experience, since disaster relief is fundamentally a logistical exercise in moving massive amounts of stuff to a point in a hostile environment largely unready to accept it, which is roughly a working definition of military logistics. The partisan bitching gets old after a while, and the incessant quoting of DNC talking points eventually masks the fact that you can actually think for yourself.

Not publicly. The DoD's one of the better organizations for learning from their mistakes, however. Since Vietnam, they've developed and fostered a culture of constructive self-criticism and improvement at every level that, while it doesn't always work (and sure as sh-- doesn't in budgetary matters), is neither co-opted by PR or political motivations all that often either. I'd trust a DoD investigation before I'd trust a Congressional one. Plus...if anyone would bother to look back at events, Defense didn't get involved until the city and state governments and DHS had already dropped the ball. When they DID get involved, they got things sorted out rather rapidly (startlingly so, IMO). So what, exactly, is the criticism of the DoD here? That they didn't anticipate cleaning up the mess left by those ACTUALLY responsible?

Off the top of my head...I'd probably announce it, but through the normal press release cycle. Which is to say, on Monday morning, at the daily White House briefing ("Oh, by the way, the VP was involved in a hunting accident Saturday. One of his hunting companions was injured, and is in the hospital, but sufferred no permanent injury" - Or "Is in stable condition..." Or whatever the guy's status is. - "and is expected to recover fully. Now, about Iran...") I certainly wouldn't call an emergency press conference Saturday to announce a not uncommon type of accident, as people seem to be implying should happen. Nor would I think I'd be required to report it to the media...I'd simply do so as a courtesy, and because it's smart PR... ...which gets back to the point I keep harping on, that the administration's marketing sucks. When are people going to realize that most every !@#$-up the administration's perpetrated can be explained by the simple fact that collectively these bozos couldn't sell space heaters to eskimos? We're talking about a group of people who couldn't sell the world on an important issue like eliminating a brutal dictator that NO ONE liked...why would we expect them to handle a prosaic hunting accident any better?

I'm not dismissing it as a minor story (though I will if you want; hunting accidents are not infrequent occurrences, and the fact that the VP involved does not change the fact that this was a hunting accident). I'm just questioning the assumption that the White House is REQUIRED to announce it to the press. There'd be an investigation...but unless egregious carelessness or irresponsibility (e.g. a few six-packs were slammed beforehand) was found, I would assume that at worst it would result in confiscation of a hunting license. Probably not even. As far as I know, there's no "dumbass use of a shotgun" charge in Texas.

A congressional investigation couldn't find their ass with both hands and a map. Bunch of guys who know nothing about the subject they're investigating thinking if they talk about it enough they'll reach some sort of Holy Truth without leaving the confines of their cushy offices. There are people with 20+ field experience years in disaster response and large-scale resource management in this country whose expertise will be ignored by Congress simply because it's politically inexpedient to listen to them, you realize...

While I agree that the White House could have mitigated political damage by being more forthcoming...I'm also failing to see why the White House should be required to be forthcoming about such a thing as this. Particularly when the political damage seems to stem from them not being forthcoming. So the White House is in trouble because they didn't do something they weren't required to do? That's as stupid a principle now as it was when Clinton was getting his pole waxed by a fat broad.

There are, I think, two issues at work here that I keep harping on: 1) This administration's marketing sucks. Big-time. It's not that they don't know what they're doing...they just haven't the slightest idea how to sell it. I've been screaming about that since...November of '03. 2) There has not been a clear, intelligent public debate about whether the war on terrorism is based in criminal justice or military action. Bush treats it as largely a military issue (as opposed to Clinton, who treated it as largely criminal. Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.) That's pretty much the issue driving the whole wiretap controversy...and pretty much the issue behind not notifying the mayor of what's happening in his city: if counter-terrorism is a military action, why would you be required to notify someone as far outside the chain of command as the mayor of a city? I'm not saying it's not an issue as much as I'm saying it's one small detail of a much bigger issue no one's addressed.

Trusting ANY administration not to abuse this power is a symptom of clinical insanity.

But I have a news flash for you and the billions of Catholics out there: if the ovum doesn't attach to the uterine wall, there is no pregnancy. As Coli said...if "fertilization" is the definition of pregnancy then the Vatican defines a petri dish as pregnant. Which, of course, they don't. The whole flap against "test tube babies" was based on the idea that, since fertilization occurred ex utero, such babies would technically not be alive. So, regardless of what you THINK the Catholic Church says, they've already established their position as pregnancy requiring not just the union of two gametes, but implantation into the uterus...which means that emergency contraception, by the Vatican's own precedent, is not abortion. Which is a moot point anyway, since the Vatican's against contraception as well.

So basically, you believe such a drug aborts a pregnancy in a woman who isn't pregnant. Which is fine...if you want to believe that, go ahead. But it doesn't mean we have to take you seriously.

But at least you're unbiased.

Did you read my earlier post? The "emergency contraception" pill interferes with ovulation, fertilization, and/or implantation of the ovum in the uterine wall. All actions that take place before pregnancy is established...i.e., contraception. Chemical abortion interferes with an already-established pregnancy...i.e. it is NOT contraception. Two different things.

Does this idiot even remember 9/11?

But...but...but...I thought it was complete, abject failure of everyone even remotely connected with the federal government. Al Sharpton said so! Stop trying to spread these lies and neo-con propaganda!

If it were a liberal who shot another liberal you'd be making as many tasteless jokes as you possibly could. But keep pretending you're somehow better than them...

Are we talking about chemical abortions, or contraception? Because I was under the impression that Coli was talking about contraception. In general, it aids in discussion when the people having said discussion are talking about the same damned thing. Y'all might want to verify that...

This discussion is getting surreal...

And weren't there people here who wanted Martz in Buffalo?

Of course not. He married Hilary.

I hope we don't see "Dead Eye Dick" or "QMD's", as those are pretty lame jokes. But you're right, the cartoonists and comedians will have a field day with this. Who do you think will have the better Cheney joke tonight, Letterman or Leno?

Apparently his hunting companion had gone into the brush to retreive a bird, and come back behind the party without announcing himself...meanwhile, Cheney's got a bead on another bird. Bird flies around and behind Cheney, Cheney tracks the bird with his gun, fires, and hits his hunting buddy because he never sees him. Sounds like an "ah, sh--" on everyone's part: the guy who got shot, for not making his presence known, Cheney's for taking a shot not having everyone in his party accounted for (and presumably for taking a shot in a direction he should have known a member of his party went off in), and the friggin' ranch owner, who's statement to the effect of "Big deal. I get shot by bird shot all the time." makes one question their competency in running a hunting ranch. About the only one blameless in this thing is the damned quail.

That would be funnier if MSNBC didn't run their original headline with "accidentally" in quotes.

Yeah, I guess you are. Only man in the world who never had a condom break...