Sometimes anonymous copy editors deserve recognition for the boldface blurbs that end up at the top of most pieces of journalistic writing. We at Balloon Juice have a thing for alliteration, but this effort from the WaPo deserves credit:
Test Determines Your Risk of Death
I dare you not to click on the link.
In other news, Cheney finally said he’s sorry…to Brit Hume. I guess that interviewing himself would have been too obvious.
In a similar vein, my vote for comment of the day goes to someone over at Drum’s.
Consider this an open thread.
srv
That must have been an emotional interview for those two. I get sleepy just thinking about it.
Zifnab
You know what would be absolutely, fantastically super cool? A Vice President with balls.
Seriously, if shooting tame, caged birds as a sport doesn’t label Dick as dickless, then hiding from the media for three days only to peak his head up on Faux News for a quick apologiy before he scrambles back to his fallout shelter truly pegs our VP as sans testicles.
Pooh
“yes, it is true. This man has no dick.”
Pb
Back off, man–I’m a scientist!
Ancient Purple
Frankly, I can never see Cheney as a sympathetic character. He just has this air about him that makes him seem so smug and cold. I swear, he wouldn’t show emotion if his ass was on fire.
Every time I look at Cheney I just get the feeling that if he had a heart attack and died, the response would be a collective “oh” and then everyone who go back about their business in three seconds.
srv
Hey, has anyone come up with a colloquialism for this type of hunting. We need something that will last for generations. How about:
Dick-birding?
srv
Or a ChickenHawk Hunt?
The Random Yak
Great. According to that test, I died last Wednesday – I just didn’t know it yet.
Kazinski
Why is it OK to lie about sex, but not about hunting?
Pb
Kazinski,
Believe it or not, those two situations aren’t precisely analagous. For example, I haven’t seen a blowjob to the head put anyone in the ICU yet. Similarly, I haven’t heard that much about people being consensually shot in the face.
rachel
Well, I have heard many people would rather go that way than any other… :-)
Wouldn’t have made a great excuse for the VP? :D
But seriously, did Cheney actually say he was sorry he shot Mr. Whittington? I didn’t see the words “Sorry” or “Apologize” in the transcript… Not that I care. Cheney has plenty he should apologize to the American public for, but the apology for shooting Mr. Whittington (and perhaps hinting it was somehow his fault he got shot) should be for him and his family alone since they were the injured ones.
Off Colfax
Quote-Of-The-Day status to Pb.
MrSnrub
Did Cheney apologize? I haven’t seen the interview or read all of the transcript, but I’m under the impression that he “took responsibility for it”. He has yet to apologize.
neil
Huh. According to that test, I’m not going to die after all.
Boy, is that a load off my shoulders.
neil
I have never been one to doubt the Bush administration’s ability to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, so I was quite receptive to John’s idea the other day that this shooting-a-man-in-the-face story might end up being a net positive for Bush by sucking up all the media oxygen from all the other wicked shit they’ve got going on.
But I now think I have changed my mind. I don’t see Cheney getting out of this at all. And according to this article linked from DailyKos, Cheney is in a world of trouble with the Fitz. I can’t imagine that Cheney’s newfound publicity is going to help him avoid attention from this trouble; nor will the recent clear-cut evidence that he has ordered friends (in this case, K. Armstrong; in other cases, surely I. Libby) to lie for his public benefit particularly help his image.
Bob In Pacifica
The big news from the Hume interview is the new legal theory that the Vice President can declassify anything he wants because of an Executive Order. Maybe there’s an executive order involving hunting accidents.
As for the other thing about “risks of death,” a great philosopher once said, “No one here gets out alive.”
Alexandra
Okay. The risk of death quiz. How is it that a BMI of 25 is of greater danger than a BMI of say, 35 or 40. I meet people in Weight Watchers who by losing 50 or 100 pounds have been able to cut their heart medication in half, who are able to walk around the block, who stop having asthma attacks, who are infinitely healthier than they were before they lost the weight. You can see that some of these people are in constant physical pain from excess weight and that it puts strain on their bones and all their internal organs. How is being 6 feet and weighing 175 pounds unhealthier than that?
Krista
ICU, probably not. ER? I have heard of that happening…
Par R
Scanning through those comments Linked to by Tim leads one to conclude that they may have wandered into a cesspool by mistake. Certainly, a shower is in order after reading a few of them. I get the impression that at any moment the heads of some of these intelligence-challenged morons are going to start exploding.
DecidedFenceSitter
Actually reading the article, it is for people in their twilight years (50+). At which point, being underweight is apparently of greater risk then being overweight.
carpeicthus
When you leave out the “in four years” part, that’s a pretty easy test.
Don Surber
I have a hundred percent chance of death.
So does everyone
reader_iam
Re: comment of the day
Yes! Made me laugh harder than anything I’ve read since I came across that WaPo headline the other day.
But then, I amuse easily.
KCinDC
Within four years, Don? Do you know something we don’t?