Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Shot A Man in Texas Just to Watch Him Die

You only get one shot at a joke, and as far as having Cheney singing 911 is a Joke, I thought I chose pretty good, but at some point I should have had him humming Johnny Cash's Fulsome County Blues, with the famous lyric "shot a man in Texas just to watch him die."

The Washington Times today had an article with interviews of several hunters who unanimously say, based on their understanding of the story, that it was Cheney's fault. Now that is informative, because I had read that the guy had violated protocal by not announcing that he was coming up from the rear. Interesting that it takes the Washington Times to do the very simple task of interviewing a couple hunters, whereas NBC ties themselves in knots trying to understand what the President knew and when he knew. Because the story is always the scandal. Of course, the Washington Times is a conservative rag, so they need only interview each other to talk to a hunter. The Washington Post, in contrast, wouldn't know where to find a hunter.

Many funny comments and stories yesterday. Professor Vic's craving the Colonel's chicken forthnightly deserves mention, as does the story of Garrett's thwarted assassination attempt of GWB in New Hampshire. Greg Hindsley (a cousin of the Hatcher) made us all feel old and entirely unhip by cleverly inserting the entire catalog of Public Enemy songs into a comment. And I especially enjoyed Lime's parallel universe press conference concerning the Clinton shooting of a blue dress - inspired. The Chartruese alcoholic lawyer, Snake, chimed in several times. That's what it is all about.

On an entirely separate note related to the Super Bowl, a co-worker informed me that on ESPN's the Sports Reporters, one of the participants was trying to make the point that the offensive pass interference call that negated the Seattle touchdown was an absurd call by saying that if that was offensive interference, then Michael Jordan's push off of Byron Russell prior to sinking the game and championship series winning shot against Utah was also a foul. Now, they are 2 separate sports, so I hate to have to tie them together, because I'd like to cling to conspiracy theories in both sports - in the case of the Super Bowl, the refs were on the payroll; in the case of the Bulls, Jordan was spotted 10-15 points per game due to favorable calls or non-calls, whichever the case may be.

But I cannot believe that someone would actually bring up the Jordan push-off as an example of a very obviously clean play. I always thought that the conspiracy involved showing it over and over again without ever having a sportscaster make the very obvious point that it was a clear and obvious blatant foul, for fear of exposing professional basketball as a sport one notch above professional wrestling (only without the personality). And that by force of not pointing it out, but showing it over and over again, we would all just question our own vision. But now it appears to me that the powers of David Stern extend to downright brainwashing. Impressive.


Blogger pbryon said...

Another take on the blue dress. Warning to Hatcher and friends: adult language, and liberal viewpoint.

(Given his choice of language, would you believe that he's an English Professor at an east coast college? That being said, I like reading him.)

And sharing a strangely spelled first name with him, I've always felt for Bryon Russell. He didn't get burned--he got pushed out of the way.

And while we're on sports, wouldn't snowboarders like Hatcher's hero fly better without all those baggy clothes?

10:03 AM  
Blogger pbryon said...

Now there are stories saying that it was Cheney and Whittington and two women who weren't their wives. Maybe the blue dress analogy isn't so bad after all...

10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason the White House sat on the story was not that Cheney and Whittington were with two women who weren't their wives; the real reason is that all four were drunk on Chartreuse. Obviously, Bush's religious constituency would not like to hear that! Well, maybe the Cathloics would be ok with drinking Chartreuse to excess. After all, Chartreuse sales do support the monistary.

11:00 AM  
Anonymous lime said...

Hey mean to tell me there's an English professor at an East coast college who's actually a liberal? No way!!

As far as your second comment, let me get this straight, I'm cheating on my wife with some nubile young Washington piece of ass, and I'm looking for a romantic Valentines day weekend get-away so I can get me some. I then choose that lovers paradise of Corpus Christi, Texas to put on big rubber boots, a large orange trench coat, grab my bird gun, and take my paramour quail hunting. Yeah, I'll wake her up at 5:00 am and we'll go walking through the swamp hand in hand lost in passion. I'll shoot me some dinner and then get all hornied up and take her right in the weeds. At night we'll pick the bird shot out of each others asses, to the tunes of Barry White, of course. Yeeaah baby!

Besides, I heard it was actually aliens who shot the guy. Roswell...ROSWELL!!!!!

7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cheney now admits to drinking a beer. Is an admission of a couple of bottles of Chartreuse too far away?

4:22 AM  
Blogger Professor Vic said...

At the esteemed pbyron's suggestion, I took a look at the rudepundit. Interesting and occasionally funny, but not my cup of tea. Not that I am a prude, but I'm not sure I need my political commentary quite that profrane. At least the rudepundit isn't guilty of flase advertising.

What I found interesting, however, is that the rudepundit, Lee Papa, is a Professor of Drama and Creative Writing at the City University of New York/College of Staten Island. (I wonder what his department chair thinks about his alter ego.)

Anyway, here's a guy with, apparently, a fairly large following, writing a political blog who is essentially actor. I guess it is easy to argue that Rush Limbaugh is more actor than policial scientist as well.

Still, it seems to me an unfortunate fact of lilfe that it is far to easy for substance to get squeezed out by flash. (Not that I would ever accuse Hatch of being guilty of either substance or flash.)

7:56 AM  
Blogger pbryon said...

Hopefully I did not offend by linking to the Rude Pundit. A few friends of mine also teach at College of Staten Island, and turned me on to his, er, unique blogging style.

Echoing Professor Vic, many of his posts are not my cup of tea, with language and visuals just for shock. But on other topics--for example, he clearly has friends in New Orleans--I find he shows a passion that clearly comes through. Perhaps his theatre and acting training helps with that.

I guess with any blog, there are good posts and bad posts, right Hatcher?

9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding public enemy...if public enemy #1 is friends with public enemy #2, does that make public enemy number #2 actually public friend #1?

10:03 AM  
Blogger Pulvarizer said...

Ahh, if only the press, particularly the WP, was as liberally biased as Hatcher says they are. Here's what the WP reported on 2/14 about the incident: "But the experts also said hunters are taught to learn where everyone in their party is before firing. "If you are squeezing the trigger, you will not get that shot back and you need to make sure of the target and surrounding area and make sure it is safe to shoot into to," said Mark Birkhauser of the International Hunter Education Association.

So, I guess someone at the WP is doing their job according to Hatcher's expectations. When your party's leaders are (1) idiots, and (2) secretive bastards, hay will be made over their buffoonery.

Here's the link to the story.

1:50 PM  
Blogger Clupbert said...

Isn't it, "shot a man in Reno"?

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, what is the truth here ?
Were they slogging through the mud or were they actually driving around the ranch and when the spotted the quail merely left the automobiles and loaded up ?
I have heard several different versions of this story - a lesson to Dick Cheney, it works better if your story actually makes it out first - not the interpretation of others.
So, were Dick and friend (target, if you choose to see it that way) out with some other folks wives loaded up on Chartruese driving around the ranch ?
What is the real story here, that we have the attention span of goldfish and needed a supposed controversy to take care of the news for a while ?
Was this whole thing a set up to deflect attention from the Valerie Plame-Wilson case ?
Was it done to deflect attention from the Abramoff photos ?
Did Dick have his friend take one for the team so that we could concentrate on other topics besides the debacle the admin started in Iraq ?

8:54 AM  
Blogger Hatcher said...

Clupbert is right - it is Reno. I knew Texas didn't sound quite right, but I couldn't for the life of me think of Reno.

1:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

powered by