Skip to main content

Warriors! Come out and play-e-yaay!: Say no, to Cheney' taunt


The former vice president is just taking a cheap shot here that aids his overall goal: Delegitimizing this president, and he's been doing it from day one. Cheney has emerged as the leader of the Republican Party, and some of his recent obnoxiousness seems at least partly directed at his old boss, President Bush, who by contrast has acted the way former U.S. chief executives traditionally do: Keeping quiet and respectful. Cheney's still angry that Bush wouldn't pardon his buddy Scooter Libby and that he began to put some limits on torture and interrogation. So he's aiming at two presidents with his belligerence.

But I wonder where it stops. Clearly Cheney's aiming to take over the Republican party and bring about a neocon restoration. I'm blown away by the immediate disrespect and political posturing by people like Cheney, Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Pete Hoekstra have shown the president at a time of real threat. (Oh, and Pete Hoekstra: I think raising money to fight the "Obama/Pelosi" approach to national security by running for Michigan governor is a little backwards; you have a tiny bit more influence on such issues on the House Intelligence Committee.) Way to aid the terrorists, guys: Undermine the president as a naïve weakling unready to fight. I think the kneejerk partisan savaging of Obama is un-American, it's what Republicans would have called traitorous had anyone tried criticizing Bush this way any time after 9/11 (actually, you were called a traitor for challenging the Iraq war in 2003). (Joan Walsh, “Let’s get Dick Cheny on facebook!” Salon, 31 Dec. 2009)

I prefer it when you don't allow him into your mind

Boy I like you and Chris. Such good people. And you just feel the level of sadism on the right, and the exasperating self-delusion. But you can also feel how dealing with huge unfortunates like this can really lure "you" to do such things as make the war, once again, in essence, Bush's mess, and so far away from considering that it might just be the way the Obama administration wants things too. The concern for those of us who believe Obama is not just a good man who's doing his damndest in hugely trying situations, but someone who will be abandoning -- who would abandon, even without opposition from a largely insane right --many of the people the left has for so long been trying to empower and protect, is that the need to put these guys in their place is so alluring, so, alright, this has gone on long enough!, that we're kinda going to lose you for awhile. I mean both you and Chris. If you have to deal with them, deal with them. Please consider, though, that it is possible to see people like this, and actually think mental illness, and therefore not be so much drawn to want to crush them. It is true that Obama has been under attack from day one, and the unreasonableness of this, the unAmericanness of this sort of behavior, toward the people's choice -- their hope, their extension into the future --makes fully emotioned attacks against them a sign of one's clear headedness, because its degree of unreasonableness is such that it should not be bearable to any at all the least bit sane, but I suspect that also true is that they may agitate some significant putuponness that you've known a long, long while, that still draws your return fire -- your, no, I will not let you do that to me! -- and can carry you away.

Obama is the perfect aesthetic to make continued war sacrifice, possible. The relief at his measuredness can so readily allow corporate appeasement, to become the only thing to be done. This kind of thing can just go on and on and on. Some of us can see 8 years on, a largely expanded war (with, quite possibly, some talk of the draft), students, young people, largely ignored -- if not now the newly suspicious -- and an increasingly expanding lower class (with many now being shaped to seem responsible for their fate, if not actually in truth most responsible for the ills of all Americans) -- and also a left exasperatingly still so readily drawn to talk of Cheney et al.'s latest disregard. Scares me. We're afraid we won't be seen, by people who could protect us. And we are a left that will do immense good, if we can make it on through.

Link: Let’s get Dick Cheney on facebook! (Salon)


Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...