February 19, 2010 - February 12, 2010
Okay. We at InstaPunk are officially embarrassed. The truth is, in all
our years of blogging, we have never formally and directly posted a
post expressly designed to defend Vice-President Dick Cheney. And it's
even worse than that. Because most of us have always liked and admired
Dick Cheney. But we were relatively silent anyway. We never wrote an
essay like the one that appeared today, "Three Cheers for Dick Cheney,"
written by a confessed liberal critic of Cheney on key issues, which
included these specific insights and conclusions (among others -- uh,
yeah, read the whole
thing) in defense of the former Vice President:
When I read this piece, I did a search of this site (which you can do,
too, by typing cheney with no
diacriticals into the Instapunk search function on this page). He's
mentioned a bunch of times, but only twice in what you might consider a
truly supportive advocacy way, albeit indirectly and humorously. (Here.
So why were we so shy about backing him explicitly and non-satirically?
Well, there are two interesting points I discovered by asking this self-incriminating question. I'd like to explain them to you because they relate both to our last post and to the decisions sites like ours make, sometimes unconsciously, about how we fight for what we believe. Which lead us sometimes into errors of omission and commission. Which this was.
Make no mistake. I'm eating crow here. I do admire Dick Cheney. Despite his Darth Vader approach to public relations. Despite his five draft deferments and two DWIs. As I get older myself, I'm more and more often reminded of an offhand remark by F. Scott Fitzgerald that (forgive my inaccurate paraphrase) "physical bravery is largely a matter of being in shape." I myself can no longer comprehend some of the physical risks I took as a young man. I know better than to say I was simply stupid and unimaginative then. I was physically braver. I always had a vivid sensory imagination of the feel, the pain, of broken bones and smashed internal organs. I just prized the joy of defying those outcomes more than I feared them. Now I feel differently. I place more importance on simply being with my family and friends, I am more disposed to savor the middle feelings between ennui and adrenalin highs. Not dying has become a value -- not unalloyed, not absolute by any means -- but greater than I would ever have conceived as a teen or twenty-something. I don't need to go 130 mph on a back road to experience the sensory rush I get from when my infant granddaughter smiles at me and grabs my little finger with her whole hand. And don't think that I have forgotten 130 mph. I haven't. It was great. But it was always a placeholder, an incredibly strong substitute -- even a practice -- emotion for the strong emotions you experience only by living long enough to start living not through machines and athletic feats but through other people and other lives.
Sorry for the digression. But physical bravery is a much bigger deal for old men than young ones. I don't care how many draft deferments Dick Cheney received. He's a very brave man. His heart is somewhere between forty and sixty percent dead. He's known this for a long time. He has nevertheless continuously exposed himself to stress that would kill much healthier men, and he has done it without the single most powerful incentive any man can have for accepting the back-handed honor of the vice-presidency of the United States. He never intended to run for President. And he didn't. Now, when he could be luxuriating in the last-years comfort of a loving family, he comes back again to do battle in the political arena, where he can legitimately expect nothing but abuse, contempt, and ridicule. Why? Because he's a patriot. Because he believes in what he advocates. Period.
Why have we never given him his due before? We have a good excuse and a less good truth to share. The excuse, which is valid, is that the leftists were so determined to portray him as the real president of the United States, manipulating the idiot puppet Bush, that to make him the center of any post was to authenticate the false notion that he was something more than a particularly hard-working and involved vice-president. We didn't want to seem to be exalting the lie that President Bush was not the man truly in charge.
The less good truth is that the left succeeded so spectacularly in demonizing Cheney that it was simply easier, even for those of us who trafficked in satire, to forfeit that game. They ran the score up so unfairly but amazingly high against him that defending him in any but the most cursory way felt like a self-destructive wound to our own credibility. That one's on us. We should have defended him personally, just as we defended Bush for quite similar reasons. We chose not to, because we were being more political than honorable. A bitter pill to swallow, especially when it's administered by a liberal journalist who doesn't agree, as we do, with most of Cheney's positions over the years.
As I said. We're embarrassed.
But there's also an interesting sidelight to this mea culpa. When I did the InstaPunk search of posts that mentioned Cheney, I discovered a slew of entries that don't seem to turn up on other searches, many of them as snide and funny as the best ever published here. Entries I'd completely forgotten. Maybe that's how the subconscious fights back. The satirical urge pushes through rational inhibitions and can't help rattling cages even prudence wants to keep locked down.
Well, think about it. I know I am. Cheers for Dick Cheney.
God, I am so sick of "fair" conservatives.
Here's the official mainstream media version of the setup to this post from the New York Times:
Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. So fucking funny. Especially when you
consider what Miss California looks like and what George Axelrod looks
Like this guy gets to decide who's a dog and who isn't. This is a
schmuck who's absolutely never gotten laid in his entire life, probably
not even by his wife, who must have married him for his connections and
the fact that he wouldn't bother her late at night, under the covers,
because how could he possibly hope to score? When a putz like this
attacks a genuine fox, every sentient person on earth, except
Democrats, knows why. Envy, jealousy, frustrated lust, and bitter
misogyny. Except Democrats. Who know it's all about philosophical
superiority. Ideological purity versus neanderthal stupidity. Right.
Forget the world of beautiful Hollywood people who may know enough to realize that beauty is not always synonymous with virtue. Else, how would they explain away Bo Derek, Mel Gibson, and Angie Harmon? What I'm interested in is the oh-so-dispassionate fairness of conservatives who keep looking into the remotest possible corners for exculpatory explanations of what are obviously sick-minded attacks on the most vulnerable possible victims. Here's the even-handed analysis of HotAir's Allahpundit of the absurd assault on Carrie Prejean:
"He can’t possibly mean this the way it sounds." Right.
Wake the fuck up. How many others of you are out there who will join me in wanting to SCREAM at this kind of moderate "Hugh Hewitt" bullshit?
These are not nice people. They will do anything to win. Our one chance to turn them back is to highlight the instances when they are demonstrably absurd. As when a dickless dork like Axelrod tries to pretend superiority to a chick who would never give him a second look.
Not credible. The only woman who looks like Carrie Prejean who would ever sleep with George Axelrod is a professional call-girl who charges thousands of dollars a night. Who, besides the libs and Democrats, would ever take his assessments of her seriously? And if you do take his assessments seriously, it's time to admit that you're a fucking lunatic -- either too queer to see that Carrie Prejean is beautiful or too sunk in your ideological squalor to remember the transcendent power of female beauty.
Either way, you're a loser. And I mean a Big Time Loser. The common people you think you can touch with your terrible needs are well aware that Carrie Prejean is a beautiful, maybe not that bright girl. They don't think she should be crucified. Torment her and they will hate you. Guaranteed. Why? No philosophy required. They all want to fuck her. Sorry to put it so baldly. But that's the great divide, isn't it? You gays can't imagine wanting to fuck her. So you actually think that if you ridicule her, it's the same thing as dissing Madonna's latest incarnation. You think you can make her unattractive by objecting to her style, her accessories, her statements, her hairdo, her gown, her manner of speech, her opinions.
Well, you can't. Guess what. She's attractive. Men feel protective of her. When you bully her, they get pissed off. Your bullying makes them want to hurt you. The more you attack her, the more they will forgive her for every kind of lapse in intelligence, argument, and consistency. If she posed nude, they will hold it against you for even bringing it up. That's how this game works.
God knows, I don't want yet another idiot on the "curvy couch" at Fox & Friends. The idiots who already occupy that piece of unfortunate furniture are more than enough to make me tear my hair out. BUT:
You guys act like you're the ones who are in touch with your bodies, and sex, and the naturalness of being purely physical beings. But you're also the ones who champion Janeane Garofalo over Carrie Prejean. As a woman. Huh.
You're losing. LOSING. The war. Regardless of what you think, men don't want women whose whole purpose in life is to tell them how awful men are and have always been. Women don't want that either.
We've written about this before. But you just don't ever learn.
. Sometimes you have to let the cacophony reverberate. You
Let all the shrieking and crashing noises speak for themselves. We've
let some days go by because even though everything is happening apace,
it's also true that very little is happening. Think of the scene in the
Poseidon movies where the ship
is turning upside down. Yes, there's lot of screaming and angst, things
breaking, large pieces of furniture first sliding then tumbling through
the air, and finally an intermission of sorts when we see who has been
killed, who has been pinned down by what, and who is still alive. Even
though the cacophony continues and only one legitimate fact has been
ship has turned upside down.
During the past week, President Obama has ordered Israel not to attack
Iran, exercised his arrogantly uneducated penchant for business micro-management
on the Chrysler
advertising budget, and begun (inevitably) blaming
American citizens for charging too much on their credit cards with
no apparent recognition of any analogous offense by his own
administration. Meanwhile, the lefty media has continued its
vituperative sideshow attacks on Miss
California and Sarah
Palin, and the poster
girl for irresponsible lefty opportunism in
congress has lied
the whole country into a self-destructive and unnecessary embarrassment
over an issue that could have been tabled momentarily for such pressing
matters as the imminent collapse of the Pakistani government and the
accelerating death spiral of our economy. (uh, whatever you do, do NOT
jump on board with the stage-managed Suckers Rally in the stock market.
It, too, will be turning upside down shortly.) And, oh yeah, George
Will has finally
deigned to notice, in his polite
way, that the Obama administration is behaving like a gang of
Chicago thugs. RATTLE CLANG BANG CRUNCH.
So while we were letting you listen to the unfolding catastrophe unfiltered, we were doing some listening of our own, seeking out what very few voices we could find on the Internet who appear to be making sense of some kind. We found five links. Five links that also seem to be linked to one another, as if properly interpreted they might represent a helpful chain of reasoning. Here they are. But we're not going to braid them together or otherwise connect them for you. We're enjoying the cacophony too much, or -- rather -- are so steeped in it that we can barely bring ourselves to utter a word. Read them all. Every word. And then have at it. Or, at them. They're all interesting gents who actually said something this week. Which is quite an accomplishment. But what if they're also the blind men separately describing the same elephant from different perspectives? Can somebody explain that to us?
This is a test.
We'll be back with the customary persiflage later. You know. Silly graphics, wild exaggerations, and the like. Everything will be all better. Promise.