The country is split down the middle as usual -- or maybe, as never before. I won't mince words: Unfortunately, there seem to be more dummies out there than the other kind. While many of us see a perfectly obvious choice between one smart guy and another guy who barely aspires to mediocrity, for even more people the choice comes down to one guy whose lackluster laziness feels quite comfortable to them in comparison with the brainy guy who too often reminds them just how little they have on the ball.
The smart guy is ill at ease when pretending to be a Regular Joe; he does his best to act the part because the job demands it, but that pesky wit keeps peeking through, often to his own detriment. He has shown real leadership, not the fake, flag-waving kind. At a dark time when others shirked their responsibilities, he stepped up in the most patriotic, inspiring way. At that very moment, his nemesis -- the lame guy -- was cowering somewhere out of sight, unable to meet that occasion with the courage it demanded.
The lame guy's vapidity is made obvious by his choice of friends and by his lowest-common-denominator rhetoric, which tends toward childish ridicule rather than deft satire. The smart guy even has better taste in music, as you'd expect. The lame guy panders to smarmy performers who don't challenge his cherished, lazy assumptions about life in general.
It's America, after all, so we're probably stuck with the lame guy. The numbers say that most people just love him, incomprehensible though that is to the discerning minority. Fortunately, though, the smart guy isn't going away anytime soon. Last night he pulled a bold upset, pulling ahead of his opponent in the ratings for the first time in ages. There's still hope for this Leno Nation.
Posted by Vernam at September 21, 2004 10:29 PMIf not a trick, then what "bait" did you think I took a few posts back.
I think 100 years from now our writings will be right up there with Lincoln and Springsteen.
Posted by: olamdom at September 22, 2004 05:15 PMIt's scary to think someone might read this 100 years from now. But probably not!
It wasn't intended as a trap. I'm not that smart. ;^)
Posted by: VC at September 22, 2004 03:58 PMOf course I got it it. You're quickly becoming Vernam Obvious. I made my points without breeching the allegorical context as you hoped I would. Sorry.
The Rove I talked to works for CBS news.
Posted by: TOF at September 22, 2004 02:13 PMBTW, isn't that the same Karl Rove who lied to your face?!
Posted by: VC at September 22, 2004 12:46 PMThe _joke_ is how a bunch of stuff about Letterman vs. Leno that is patently true would get me pilloried as an elitist if I said the same things about certain political candidates. There should have been a moment of recoginition where it became obvious, for example, that the patriotic act I referred to was not Kerry's war heroism but Letterman's first shows right after 9/11, which were among the medium's all-time greatest moments. He trusted his audience enough to level with them. No BS. He explained how distraught he was, without being maudlin or condescending. He expressed anger without resorting to jingoism. In short, he got up and told the truth in a way that showed complete respect for his audience. The kind of truth your boy has no interest in understanding or conveying. Yes, "Leno" is a pimp for the status quo. But don't take my word for it: http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/47/deadline-finke.php
If, on the other hand, you are not an ardent Leno supporter, then you have better taste in comedians than in political candidates. 8^P In either case, one way to have indicated you got the joke would have been to reply in a similarly ironic fashion. Maybe: "Yes, Leno's a turd, but Letterman is the mother of all flip-floppers. Is he pro- or anti-Paris Hilton?" Instead, you resorted to the hoariest Limbaughesque response, which gave every indication you weren't paying enough attention and/or are on the wrong side of the truth. Again, sort of like the election itself . . .
Posted by: VC at September 22, 2004 12:43 PMKarl Rove told me that you can bait an allegorist by hypothesizing and questioning. He was right. Again, I never said you were referring to Kerry. I asked if you were. SORRY if you don't know the difference.
Posted by: at September 22, 2004 10:13 AMAnd oh yes, the irony. It was ironic. Until further notice, everything I post is ironic, sardonic, or outright sarcastic. As if that needed clarification! You're a Paul Harvey fan, too, probably. Now you know . . . the . . . rest of the story.
You did take the bait, despite this backpedaling. "The liberal mantra that Americans are too dumb to know what's good for them." Haw!!! What does that have to do with Dave Letterman?! But if you insist, our candidate isn't the one insulting the whole world's intelligence by claiming Iraq is a success. SORRY if pointing that out is an elitist proposition. It won't be for long, God willing.
Did you read mine? I immediately picked up on the allegorical nature of your post and never assumed that you were writing about Kerry. I "asked" if you were were referring to certain activities. Then I concluded that "if" you're referreing to Kerry you have the right guy. An astute allegorist would not misconstrue clearly stated (and punctuated) questions and hypotheticals.
The last sentence is an allegory and does not refer to VC.
Posted by: at September 22, 2004 09:42 AMDid you read the whole post? It's called an "allegory." Didn't have anything to do w/ Kerry. ;^) You must go to bed too early to watch late-night tv.
Thx for noting my overuse of that word, though, as I'm ever-vigilant, stylistically speaking. Be watching for the Cipherdom Concordance, to be published soon by Regnery Press. Guaranteed to unlock all sorts of subliminable messages in my writings about Dear Leader. No coincidence that "pesky" comes up so often -- I bet it's right up there with "imbecile!"
Posted by: VC at September 22, 2004 09:13 AMIllegal use of the word “pesky” ... three times in the last month.
Are you talking about the leadership Kerry showed when he met with enemy leaders in Paris though we were still at war and Americans were being held in enemy prison camps? Are you referreing to North Vienamese flag waving? If so, you've selected the right guy.
This is a variation of the old liberal mantra “Americans are too dumb to know what’s good for them.” Did Hillary help you write that?
Here’s what Americans know: The woods are always empty if you’re a lousy hunter.
Posted by: TOF at September 22, 2004 07:21 AM