Taken from ![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
anti_righty
Aug. 26th, 2004 01:57 pmconuly
Here
"Mrs. Clinton got herself in a certain amount of trouble by operating from a platform where she really didn't have a mandate from the voters to establish policy," Cheney sniped to the Daily Telegraph of London in 2001. And in a Hillary-bashing forum at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in 2000, Cheney remarked about the then-first lady: "The hypocrisy is the thing that is most distressing."
But now, unelected and unappointed, Lynne Cheney is back in charge at the National Endowment for the Humanities, operating without that pesky "mandate from the voters" through handpicked surrogates in key positions.
I can't think of anything funnier than that to go with it. So I'll just point and snicker. Point. Snicker. Point. Snicker.
Now conservatives view the agency as a useful tool for propagating the kind of uplifting and generally uncritical version of American history they believe necessary for national greatness, as Cheney explained in a CNN interview last year: "American history that's taught in as positive and upbeat a way as our national story deserves."
Well. While I could quibble about how "positive and upbeat" our national story deserves to be, instead I'm going to ask where she got those words. Those sound like words you'd use when talking to ten-year-olds. Honestly, when has anything described as "positive and upbeat" been intended to be taken seriously? Is this really what she wants? (I'm curious how a war for freedom could be upbeat in any way, but that's another issue).
The problem was that Cheney discovered that the ancient natives of Mexico had practiced human sacrifice. "She went nuts on that. She threw her hands in the air and said, 'How can we look into the cultures of these savages?'" Iovino said. "We just looked at each other. What do you say to something like that? We just stared, mutely. She didn't really foster conversation."
I'm strongly reminded of Mr. God-is-not-a-cause. VERY strongly.
"If I were still there, what would be driving me up the wall was when 9/11 broke out, and Lynne Cheney came out with a statement saying something like, 'This just shows we need to know more about American history and the founding fathers.' Well, of course my feeling was, this demonstrated Americans' need to know a lot more about the rest of the world," Robinson said.
*blinks* Because, of course, a knowledge of our FOUNDING FATHERS would have prevented this. Of course. Does anybody understand this logic?
Go read the whole article. It'll make your head spin round and round. Better than any drugs I've ever heard of.
"Mrs. Clinton got herself in a certain amount of trouble by operating from a platform where she really didn't have a mandate from the voters to establish policy," Cheney sniped to the Daily Telegraph of London in 2001. And in a Hillary-bashing forum at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in 2000, Cheney remarked about the then-first lady: "The hypocrisy is the thing that is most distressing."
But now, unelected and unappointed, Lynne Cheney is back in charge at the National Endowment for the Humanities, operating without that pesky "mandate from the voters" through handpicked surrogates in key positions.
I can't think of anything funnier than that to go with it. So I'll just point and snicker. Point. Snicker. Point. Snicker.
Now conservatives view the agency as a useful tool for propagating the kind of uplifting and generally uncritical version of American history they believe necessary for national greatness, as Cheney explained in a CNN interview last year: "American history that's taught in as positive and upbeat a way as our national story deserves."
Well. While I could quibble about how "positive and upbeat" our national story deserves to be, instead I'm going to ask where she got those words. Those sound like words you'd use when talking to ten-year-olds. Honestly, when has anything described as "positive and upbeat" been intended to be taken seriously? Is this really what she wants? (I'm curious how a war for freedom could be upbeat in any way, but that's another issue).
The problem was that Cheney discovered that the ancient natives of Mexico had practiced human sacrifice. "She went nuts on that. She threw her hands in the air and said, 'How can we look into the cultures of these savages?'" Iovino said. "We just looked at each other. What do you say to something like that? We just stared, mutely. She didn't really foster conversation."
I'm strongly reminded of Mr. God-is-not-a-cause. VERY strongly.
"If I were still there, what would be driving me up the wall was when 9/11 broke out, and Lynne Cheney came out with a statement saying something like, 'This just shows we need to know more about American history and the founding fathers.' Well, of course my feeling was, this demonstrated Americans' need to know a lot more about the rest of the world," Robinson said.
*blinks* Because, of course, a knowledge of our FOUNDING FATHERS would have prevented this. Of course. Does anybody understand this logic?
Go read the whole article. It'll make your head spin round and round. Better than any drugs I've ever heard of.
