Cheney Roast

Snide Remarks #539

"Cheney Roast"

by Eric D. Snider

Published in EricDSnider.com on April 23, 2007

I kind of feel bad for Vice President Dick Cheney. First of all, the two things he is best known for are shooting an old man in the face and telling a senator "go f*** yourself" during an exchange on the senate floor. That's Cheney's legacy: almost killing a senior citizen, and hurling the F-bomb at a congressman.

The sad part is, most of us actually agree that more old people need to be put to death, and that more senators need to be verbally abused. If Clinton had done either of these things, people would be saying, "Good for him! I'm glad he's sticking up for himself!" But since it's Cheney, everyone jumps all over his case.

Another reason I feel bad for Cheney is that some people are talking about trying to impeach him and his supervisor, George W. Bush. That has got to be annoying, to have the people you work for wanting you fired. Not that there's much chance of it happening, of course. The pro-impeachment people don't really have a case, considering Cheney has never lied under oath about his sex life.

But the main reason I think it must suck to be Cheney right now is that he's speaking at Brigham Young University's graduation ceremony this Thursday, and many students and professors are protesting his appearance. Now, BYU (motto: "Keep Those Ankles Covered, Ladies!") is in the heart of Utah, the most Republican-voting state in the country. Bush took 67 percent of the vote there in 2000, and 71 percent in 2004 -- higher percentages than in any other state. Utah is overwhelmingly Mormon, and Mormons are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. The Republican Party could put up a jar of angry bees as its presidential candidate and Utahns would still vote for it. If the Lord Himself came down from heaven and ran as a Democrat, He would not win in Utah. "What's with all this 'love thy neighbor' business?" Utahns would say. "How are we going to win the War on Terror with that attitude?!"

So Cheney undoubtedly thought BYU would be a safe, receptive place for him to speak ... and then, whoops, people are protesting. Man alive, when Dick Cheney gets the cold shoulder in PROVO, UTAH, that's a sure sign of trouble. That's like Gandalf getting booed in Hobbiton.

The protesters are in the minority, mind you. BYU is still quite conservative and quite Republican. The campus paper still publishes at least one letter per semester from a male student urging the females to dress more modestly so as not to tempt him. (I'm not making that up, either: "Be modest," April 9.) But I was surprised, and I suspect Cheney was surprised, that the minority has been so vocal and adamant about not wanting him to speak at BYU. The reasons the dissenters give are as follows:

- Cheney is a politician, and graduation should not be a political affair.

- Cheney said the F-word once, and is therefore not a moral person.

- Cheney is evil, and therefore violates BYU's anti-evil policies.

The LDS Church, which owns and operates BYU, has said that inviting Cheney should not be construed as an endorsement of his political views. "The invitation is seen by the university's board of trustees as one extended to someone holding the high office of vice president of the United States rather than to a partisan political figure," says a statement on the church's Web site. In other words: Dude, it's the VICE PRESIDENT! Who wouldn't want someone that powerful and famous to speak at their graduation? So what if he supports torture and illegal wiretapping, and so what if he has the general demeanor of Burgess Meredith as the Penguin? He's the VICE PRESIDENT!! Getting him is a coup!

Vice President Dick Cheney.

You might wonder, with a minority of BYU students against Cheney's appearance, how the majority are responding to their protests. As always, no matter how complex or multi-faceted an issue may be, you can count on BYU students to boil it down to a matter of "we're right and you're wrong." The letters that have appeared this month in BYU's campus paper, The Daily Universe, have been full of statements like this:

"I understand people may oppose Dick Cheney politically; they have spoken and have made their point. Isn't it time to unite with the rest of the university and focus on the reason for commencement? Commencement is about the students. It was never a political statement until you made it one." ("Why alternative?," April 13.)

"What a great honor for such a position to come to the university. His address to graduates is not about politics. It's about graduation and having an impact on the world. Surely this graduation is one instance in which we can look past bipartisan politics." ("Misplaced concerns," April 3)

"To me, the only thing that seems to be against 'LDS beliefs' is organizing angry protests to silence anyone with a different viewpoint than your own." ("VP visit an honor," March 26)

Keeping this in mind, let us imagine an alternate scenario. Let's imagine BYU invited former president Bill Clinton to speak at graduation. I feel confident in saying that this would result in the greatest number of apoplectic, foaming-at-the-mouth, sputtering tirades that the world has ever seen. BYU students would be out of their minds with righteous indignation. Their heads would explode. The number of people boycotting the graduation ceremonies would be in the thousands, not the hundreds that Cheney has prompted. People wouldn't talk about how the time for protest has passed, and now we need to be united, or how we need to look past "bipartisan politics." They wouldn't say that organizing angry protests is against LDS beliefs. They would stage protests every single day. And since it's BYU, each protest would start 5 minutes late and with a prayer.

Just look at what happened in 2004, up the road at Utah Valley State College, when Michael Moore was invited to speak. Now, Moore isn't an elected official, and it wasn't a graduation -- UVSC doesn't have "graduations," per se; it simply presents its students with a Chili's gift certificate and a balloon -- but I think the situation is similar enough to warrant examination. Moore's invitation to speak at UVSC set off a firestorm of controversy. To use a clinical term, the locals freaked right the hell out. They protested; they marched; they withdrew their financial contributions to UVSC; they expressed shock and outrage that the college would stab them in the back by inviting such a non-conservative person to speak. The streets were filled with people screaming and sobbing, rending their clothes in anguish, praying for cleansing fire to fall from the sky and prevent the wicked man from entering their precincts. I doubt even Adolf Hitler would have created such a stir. "Well, let's give him a chance," Utahns would have said, had the Fuhrer been invited to speak. "He was duly elected by his country, and we ought to respect the office, if not the man himself."

That philosophy has been expressed a lot lately at BYU: You may not agree with Cheney's politics, but he does hold a high office, and that office deserves respect. That is what people say when they agree with a person's politics and want people who disagree to shut up. When someone they don't like holds a high office, they stop saying it.

I've been wondering what I would do if I were still a student at BYU. What if I were graduating this year, instead of back in 1999? Well, first of all, there would be a lot of questions, like why I needed an additional eight years just to get a bachelor's degree, and why I had failed Biology 100 a total of eight times. (Answer: Because it's boring, and I never went to class.) But what would I do about Cheney? I don't like him much as a vice president, and he hasn't given me much reason to like him as a person -- not exactly the warm, grandfatherly type, ol' Dick -- but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get involved in the protests. Why? Too much work. I'm not interested in activism. I mean, the word "active" is right there in the name. Even if it's something I have a strong opinion about, it's too much hassle to do anything more than write about it, and even that usually requires a lot of pizza. Whenever people get pushy and say, "Be glad that others have fought so that you could have the freedoms you have!," I always think: I AM glad! Better them than me! YIKES! Do you know how few freedoms we would have now if I'd been in charge of fighting for them? All we'd have is the right to not fight for stuff.

The fact is, no matter how many protests were held, BYU was never going to change its mind about Cheney's appearance at graduation. The school wouldn't change its mind in the hypothetical Bill Clinton scenario, either, even if 90 percent of the students were upset about it. BYU, like most large institutions, doesn't change its mind very often about anything, and certainly not just because its constituents want it to (which I guess is something BYU and Dick Cheney have in common). Does that mean that, in the words of one student, "When all is said and done, [BYU College Democrats] fail to make any real difference"? ("Common Sense 101 Exam," April 6) Maybe so, but since when does being in the minority mean you should just shut up and go along with what everyone else is doing? I seem to recall that BYU students are very big on Making Your Voice Heard, and Speaking Up for What You Believe In, and Taking a Stand Against the Things You Feel Are Wrong, regardless of whether your views are popular or not.

And how does Cheney feel about the whole thing? I'm sure he's gotten used to the low approval ratings he and Bush have had for the last couple years, so I doubt he's losing any sleep over dissenters in Utah. Who knows, maybe on graduation day he'll tell the protesters what they should go do to themselves.

Comments & Reaction:

The title, "Cheney Roast," only works (as a play on "weenie roast") if you pronounce the veep's name "Chee-ney" rather than "Chay-ney." And in fact, "Chee-ney" is what the man himself prefers, according to a Chicago Sun-Times article from 2000.

BYU actually did invite Bill Clinton to speak, back in the summer of 1992, when he was a presidential candidate, though not for graduation. Then-president George H.W. Bush was invited, too, and he accepted, which Clinton did not.

A slight change was made in the opening paragraph 12 hours or so after the column was first posted. I originally said (and the podcast version says) that Cheney's retort to the senator was during "a debate." My friend Mike the Liberal Lawyer pointed out that it wasn't a "debate" in the sense of occurring during a hearing or some other on-the-record congressional business, but was rather an exchange between the two men that occurred on the senate floor. So I corrected the sentence to reflect that.

(Mike also wondered if "congressman" was the right way to refer to a senator, and while he's right that the word usually refers to a member of the House of Representatives, it does technically refer to U.S. Senators, too, since they're all part of the U.S. Congress.)

Another angle I was going to address in the column but chose not to was the one where some BYU students, early on, insisted that criticizing the decision to invite Cheney was essentially criticizing the LDS Church's First Presidency, who are considered by Mormons to be God's mouthpieces. If they invited Cheney, then it must have been an inspired decision, right? But then the LDS Church made its announcement, linked in the column, explaining that no, the three members of the First Presidency were NOT acting in their capacity as spiritual leaders when they invited Cheney; they were acting in their more secular capacity as members of BYU's board of trustees. The Daily Universe stopped printing letters from those people after that, and I assumed that meant most folks had gotten the message that opposing Cheney's speech was not the same thing as opposing the First Presidency. And I figured since that point of view had apparently gone by the wayside, there was no reason to make fun of those people in the column.

The speech occurred without incident (the protesters elsewhere in Provo didn't cause any major trouble), and it was a pleasant ceremony. I wrote a blog entry about it afterward.

This item has 111 comments

Cameron says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:15 am
I, for one, am happy to see a return to UVSC bashing...oh how I've missed it! Great column!
Talm says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:56 am
I'm sad that the title 'By the hair of his Cheney chin chin' didn't make it to the final.
lolly says:
April 23, 2007 at 5:32 am
"BYU students would be out of their minds with righteous indignation. Their heads would explode." LOVE it! As a former BYU student, and a current resident of Provo, I thoroughly enjoyed this column.
Andrew D says:
April 23, 2007 at 5:48 am
I'm not graduating, but I'm a student at BYU right now (just taking a break from an all-nighter for finals)... kinda creepy that I brought up the same Clinton and Hitler hypothetical examples in conversation before... I also noted that it reminded me of the Michael Moore debacle. I even came to the same basic conclusions.

The whole protest thing on campus was mildly amusing, at best. I didn't see the actual protest, but there was an anti-protest being held at the same time which I did happen to pass by unintentionally. It was swarming with cameramen and people with signs. For me, participating in a normal protest over something this trivial means you have too much time on your hands. Protesting that same protest just makes my head hurt.

I enjoyed a parody some guys did in the same area the original protest took place, though. With accompanying signs, they petitioned for another Jamba Juice establishment to be added in the Wilk: "We are sick and tired of waiting in long lines to get our juice!!"
Zimm says:
April 23, 2007 at 6:04 am
"BYU, like most large institutions, doesn't change its mind very often about anything, and certainly not just because its constituents want it to (which I guess is something BYU and Dick Cheney have in common)."

HA!
treen says:
April 23, 2007 at 6:24 am
"... look past bipartisan politics"?!?! Right. Isn't BI-partisan politics what we want in this country, when both sides work together? Sounds to me like that's one of the concerns of the anti-Cheney crowd - that he will indeed look right past bipartisan politics and get into one of his "If you question us one bit, you're with the terrorists" screeds, which happens, as near as I can tell, every time a microphone is in front of his face.
Lowdogg says:
April 23, 2007 at 7:42 am
I won't waste time pointing out factual inaccuracies in the column, because Eric is a humor columnist and not a political columnist (but I will slyly mention the presence of inaccuracies to make a point- see how I did that?).

I loved the UVSC-Chili's thing. That redeemed any part I didn't like.

I think that the College Democrats were thrilled that they had something to protest that actually gained some traction on campus. It's definitely a good thing for people to feel like they have a measure of free expression at BYU. I always felt that way, but being a conservative it was probably easier for me.

I do wish Eric has included some of the inane letters that were upset with Cheney's coming, as there were a few.
rachel says:
April 23, 2007 at 7:47 am
"UVSC doesn't have "graduations," per se; it simply presents its students with a Chili's gift certificate and a balloon..."

Oh, I needed that laugh. Priceless image!
Jack says:
April 23, 2007 at 8:20 am
Great Work....
UVSC bashing is great, but imagine what we'll have to do once they're officially Utah Valley University...
"To use a clinical term, the locals freaked right the hell out."

You know... I wouldn't have been surprised if Hitler was invited to speak at BYU, he was pretty far right wing, not protests there.
Sorry, Mental Broadjump.

Oh, and the links don't work quite right.
Jennifer says:
April 23, 2007 at 8:53 am
This was one of the better Snide Remarks I've read in a while. I laughed out loud at least five times, especially when I scrolled down and saw the picture of Burgess Meredith. I definitely prefer the social-commentary Eric over the commentary-on-my-life Eric.
Brandon says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:01 am
1. I support free speech. These students had a right to protest Cheney's speaking at commencement. And I have a right to call them idiots for doing so.

2. BYU invited a Democrat to speak at 2001. Tom Lantos, D-California, spoke at commencement in 2001. Gasp! And what's even more shocking, widespread discontent and protest did not occur. And as you noted, the university did invite Bill Clinton to speak at the school.

3. Comparing Michael Moore to the Vice President of the United States is ridiculous. I know the Democratic party holds him in high regard and even features him prominently in their conventions, but the man holds no political office and is best known for creating very biased "documentaries" filled with inaccuracies.
Lowdogg says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:07 am
I gotta side with Brandon on this one.
Randy Tayler says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:36 am
I'm actually more offended that Kieth Merrill is speaking at the Fine Arts and Communications Convocation or somesuch the next day.
BeeDub says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:40 am
Really? Wow. What I wouldn't give to see THAT speech after the events of the past couple weeks...
Nate says:
April 23, 2007 at 10:14 am
Seemed to me that the protests and all the ridiculous letters (from both sides of the political divide) were more about self-aggrandizement than for any real opposition to Cheney.

I too was disappointed that Eric didn't add any of the inane arguments against Cheney's visit. My favorites are the arguments that the war is all about lining corporate pockets, particularly beause the biggest occurrences of corporate skulduggery occurred under the Clinton administration (I'm thinking of Tyco, Worldcom, Enron etc).

As I found the letters quite entertaining to read, I hope there is widespread dissent when the Senate majority leader and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court visit in the fall. Actually it would be great if they visited at the same time.
Robert says:
April 23, 2007 at 11:19 am
As a BYU student, I have to say that I think BYU is less Republican than people sometimes assume; MOST of the people I talk to don't like Cheney, but, like Eric, don't want to go through the trouble of protesting. I've only personally talked to one person who is staunchly pro-Cheney (and I'm not even a democrat or within democratic circles; I'm just a left-leaning Republican).

I've seen letters of both kinds. Conservative people complain BYU students are too liberal (again, see the "Be Modest" letter Eric referenced), and liberal people complain that BYU students are too Republican. I think most BYU students are actually closer to the middle. It's just that the extreme cases are the ones vocal enough to make it into the Daily Universe.
John Doe says:
April 23, 2007 at 11:34 am
I expected a little more equal mocking from Eric, but he is biased and he can't help but show it. I agree with Brandon and Lowdogg. I'm a BYU student and what I find most ironic is that these people who criticize the invitation are indirectly criticizing the First Presidency. President Samuelson said President Hinkley and his counselors don't see their position on the Board of Trustees as seperate from their calling in the church. Since I think their position is created by the revelation governing the disposition of the tithing of the church, I wouldn't think they'd consider it seperate from God.

They did invite Clinton, he declined. Senate Majority leader is invited to speak (a democrat no less) and has spoken in the past. Again, no protests. The article was funny, but way biased. There are idiots on both sides of the debate, yet Eric only focused on the conservatives. No real surprise, but a little disappointed because it detracts from a funny column.
Jesse Harris says:
April 23, 2007 at 11:44 am
The concurrent visit of the Senate majority leader and Chief Justice would only work if the Mortal Kombat theme was playing in the background and they then engaged in a kung fu fight to the death. I'd pay to see that.
card says:
April 23, 2007 at 11:49 am
I was wondering if you were going to write something about this, Eric. I am still unclear: why are the students protesting Cheney speaking at graduation? Is it because he is a "bad man?"
David says:
April 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm
#11: It's not about inviting just any old Democrat. Obviously that's happened before, and Harry Reed is coming this fall. I think the point was that if it was a Democrat that people had very, very strong feelings about, like Clinton, then people would freak out. Cheney is a very polarizing figure, and so is Clinton. They could have invited a lot of Republicans, too, and there wouldn't have been any controversy. It's only because it's Cheney specifically.
Aaron says:
April 23, 2007 at 12:37 pm
As a former BYU student who wouldn't have cared less to see Cheney speak at my personal commencement, I've been delighted to see the news coverage of the protests outside of Utah. The Washington State University student newspaper ran an AP article on the protests, and I was able to show my friends here that BYU is not the conservative bastion of non-thinking Mormon clones that many assume it to be.

I would like to say that arguments that criticism of the Cheney invitation = criticism of the Church/1st Presidency/God Himself are lame and alarming and likely to come from some non-thinking conservative Mormon clone
Brian says:
April 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Funny, but biased. We all know that if there is a foamy-mouthed protest trying to squash a political figure from speaking, 90% chance the speaker is on the right and the foamy-mouthed protesters are on the left.
Holly says:
April 23, 2007 at 12:40 pm
We shouldn't forget that this is a humor column, not a serious political commentary. Thus, trying to decide about Eric's bias on the subject doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm guessing if Eric had attended an ultra-liberal university like Berkeley, and had an intimate knowledge of its foibles and follies, he'd be likely to write columns making fun of that school and its students, too. (Maybe not--just guessing.)

This reminds me of reading/hearing criticisms of The Simpsons. Many people get upset when their particular sacred cows are mocked and ignore the fact that The Simpsons mocks everything--all religions, all political parties, all types of music, all races etc. Anything and anyone is fair game.
Greg says:
April 23, 2007 at 1:36 pm
BYU should invite Satan next time. He's only minutely more evil than Cheney. And then the majority can say "Well, he was 2nd in line behind Jesus before he turned evil, so we should respect his old position".
Andrew says:
April 23, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I just got my Chili's gift certificate from UVSC and am LOVING it!
Brandon says:
April 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm
#24 and 20: Please feel free to outline reasons why Dick Cheney is so evil, instead of employing vague character assassinations.

#23: Eric has shown his liberal bias in the past; most notably when he became smitten with An Inconvenient Truth. Longtime readers recognize this. I love the Simpsons. I love South Park. I love them both because they will lambast anyone. When the Simpsons criticized Republicans, I laughed because they are equally as apt to lay the smack down on liberals next week. When South Park portrayed the Mormon faith somewhat critically, I was okay with that, too, because they have attacked Scientology and Catholicism.

I don't feel Eric has that same level of equal-opportunity mocking. Heck, he grew up in California and lives in Portland now. What else can we expect?
pizzatheface says:
April 23, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I wonder why some BYU students hate the Penguin so much? Sure, he may have loaded all the busts at a theater with noxious gasses to steal some small amount of cash from a register, but Batman and Robin recovered it all, so no harm done! Sheesh. It's that damn Riddler they should be protesting!
Amp says:
April 23, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I think Eric's liberal bias is clearly shown when he sums up two of the dissenters' reasons for protesting as "Cheney said the F-word once, and is therefore not a moral person" and "Cheney is evil, and therefore violates BYU's anti-evil policies." I don't detect ANY mocking of the left there.
Godwin says:
April 23, 2007 at 3:53 pm
That was quick. The probably hit 1 before the commenting even started...

Godwin's Law
Matt says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Are we really arguing about whether a humor piece on a private web site is factually accurate or politically biased? Wow.
Jared says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm
BYU actually had Janet Reno speak along with the First Presidency a few years back. They're not nearly so narrow minded as they are portrayed, (but it sure is much funnier to focus on that side of things--honestly GREAT COLUMN, Eric!)
Jeff J. Snider says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I agree. There is no point dissecting where the bias comes from or whether it exists. And in the interest of not being an A-hole, I will refrain from discussing this topic (or any other topic, I reckon) with Brandon.
Eric D. Snider says:
April 23, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I've updated the Comments & Reaction section a bit, so have a look at that if you care to.

And let's keep it civil here, folks. We can disagree about things and still be nice to each other.
Joshua Lutes says:
April 23, 2007 at 6:03 pm
My sister and I got shirts that say "I'm alright with DICK." above a stylized picture of Cheny's head. I really don't care one way another. It just seems like the BYU democrats are making a hullaballoo when they needn't. The attitude amongst the BYU democrats after the protest was pretty much one of "Look what a cool thing we did! Now everyone knows that not everyone at BYU likes Dick Cheney," which I found annoying. Why should they care?
Robert says:
April 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Really enjoyed this one. Even though I've never lived remotely near BYU, I always enjoy the columns in which Eric talks about the school. And I think some of his columns are related to people's indignation over something (to use a clinical term, their freaking right the hell out).

Bravo, Eric.
Robert says:
April 23, 2007 at 6:57 pm
To join those people who lament the lack of an edit button, I would like to add that my penultimate sentence should say, "And I think some of his best columns..."

Though I think that whatever your political beliefs, you can agree with the original sentence that says that some of his columns are related to people's indignation.
Mark in Portland says:
April 23, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I live in Portland, too, so evidently my opinions are invalid, but I'll try to make them anyway. As a BYU alum, I was REALLY troubled to hear that Cheney was speaking at BYU commencement. I was even more troubled when the BYU spokesperson directly pointed out that he was invited by the Board of Trustees and the First Presidency, specificially. With that not-so-subtle code, which most people in the church take to mean "the Prophet said it, so get in line," it's really not surprising that so many letters to the editor took the initial tack of saying "don't disagree with the Prophet."

At any rate, there's a whole list of reasons that Cheney isn't a worthy choice to speak at BYU commencement, and a lot of them have been given already in various forums. If nothing else, he IS an extremely polarizing figure (Hillary Clinton would be the same, especially nine years ago or so when she was embroiled in controversy, and I'd be no less bothered if she had been asked to speak at graduation).

If you ask me, Cheney and Bush are both on the cusp of, if not being impeached, leaving a legacy much similar to Richard Nixon in terms of how history has regarded them. As second-in-command of the administration, and a very active second-in-command, something Bush was proud of back at the beginning of the administration, Cheney has played a major part in the torture policies, suspension of basic rights in the criminal justice process, suspension of basic rights for the average american, injection of politics into the justice department, of how the Consitution is being co-opted by the executive branch of government, and more that I'm sure will come to light. All of this has diminished our ability as a country to take any sort of moral high ground, and lessened our ability to be an example of the goodness of freedom and democracy.

With all of this controversy surrounding Cheney, the BYU board of trustees comes in and says "We don't care, he's the vice president, and we're making a secular judgment call that it's okay for him to speak." In my opinion, this shows a weird lack of knowledge or regard for what it means to the rest of the world, and therefore a lack of judgment.

Really, aren't there enough things we can use to point fingers at each other over within the Church, about who is more or less righteous? By inviting a polarizing political figure to speak at BYU commencement, BYU creates exactly the sturm and drang that you saw in the Daily Universe, and now here in the comments of Snide Remarks. Is that a good or necessary thing?

I DO think it's a big deal.
HomestarJr says:
April 23, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Brandon, I'm going to assume you live in a fairly conservative home in a fairly conservative community in a fairly conservative state. There is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone outside of Utah thinks that Michael Moore's documentaries are chock full of inaccuracies. When I lived in Oregon, I met many seemingly well adjusted people that accepted Moore's work as the complete truth. It all depends on your perspective and upbringing.

Conservative politicians are only slightly less evil on average than Liberals, and you might even give them the edge in the evilness battle if you give them credit for pretending to be more holy than they really are. In California, illegal immigrants get taken advantage of at the expense of low wage earning citizens because of evil in both parties. Democrats want all those that cross the border to have babies that will end up voting democrat. Republicans want them around for cheap labor for all their business owning friends in high places. Neither party gives a rats a** that hospitals are closing down, and poor natural citizens and legal immegrants of our country are getting squeezed.

Nice column Eric.
Lane says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Just repeating what others have said, but I loved the Chili's gift certificate thing.
Meg says:
April 23, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I love how people make comments, say the exact same kinds of things that are mocked in this column, and then expect not to be mocked.

Proof that you can never underestimate infinite stupidity.

Good column, Eric. Great, actually
Momma Snider says:
April 23, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Probably totally beside the point, but I'm sure Bill Clinton would not ever be invited to speak at BYU since his Monica Lewinsky days.
Peter says:
April 24, 2007 at 12:15 am
"Do you know how few freedoms we would have now if I'd been in charge of fighting for them?"

Snider Crossing the Delaware

Any photoshoppers out there?
Carrie says:
April 24, 2007 at 1:00 am
I'm trying to decide whether or not I would have been involved in any of the protesting if I were still at BYU. Politically, I have been historically lazy, so part of me thinks that I would have just observed the whole thing from afar and discussed it at lunches and dinners with friends. However, over the last four years, I have acquired an increasing distaste for the Bush/Cheney administration and their willy-nilly wars and threatenings of wars in other countries. And for that reason, the other part of me thinks I would have joined the protests. I have absolutely NO desire to ever listen to Cheney speak ever again, and I would be pissed if he were chosen to speak at my graduation. I am so grateful that I had a quiet humanitarian speak at my commencement. His address was a perfect end to my time at BYU.
Craig says:
April 24, 2007 at 10:17 am
Having been a "left-leaning Republican" (see #16 above) myself during my sojourn as a graduate student at the Y, I have to wonder that isn't also code-speak for pre-apostate. At least, that seems to be my impression from large numbers of my fellow LLRs, centrists, and *gasp* Democrats from the FLSR. (Of course, that being said, the FLSR was itself pretty much shorthand for "I'm probably liberal and on the verge of apostasy".)
Eric in Bogota says:
April 24, 2007 at 10:20 am
#26: I'm sorry, did you say, "Heck?" There's no call for that kind of Utah-profanity here. Out in the real world, er, sorry, "mission field," heck isn't even a real word.
John Doe says:
April 24, 2007 at 10:37 am
"I love how people make comments, say the exact same kinds of things that are mocked in this column, and then expect not to be mocked."
Seems Meg believes there is a double standard in the article too, as only conservatives can say dumb things that deserve to be mocked.

Conservatives/Utah:apoplectic, foaming-at-the-mouth, sputtering tirades/stupid/supporters of Cheney agree with "torture and illegal wiretapping"/only care when people lie under oath about sex.
Liberals:Cheney is evil (but Eric pretty much agrees with that, right?)

All with the underlying message that anybody who actually doesn't hate the man must be a moron.
The nigh mocking official statements from the Church should at least give people cause for pause. I personally don't seperate statements put out by the Church on the Church website by the First Presidency to be "uninspired". To say that Church leaders are supporting torture and Hitler-esque idealogies/techniques seems more "foaming at the mouth" and extreme than anything conservatives have ever said. But comparing Cheney to Hitler and assuming that the First Presidency would invite Hitler to graduation are both incredibly intelligent and rational responses because they are from liberals.
Jeff J. Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:16 am
Let's keep it simple, people: this is a humor column. Either you found it humorous or you didn't. There is absolutely no question among rational adults that Eric takes jabs at both sides of the political spectrum, and there's no point creating a spreadsheet to track them all and figure out which side he leans towards. Knowing Eric as I do (which is better than any of you, for the record), his interest in politics is basically on the level of "know enough to find the jokes." With the Republicans in power the past several years, it is natural that they have provided more fodder for jokes. But to deduce actual opinions from the jokes he makes (especially when your deduction is based only on the portion of his jokes that support your point) is pointless.

So let's remember that it's a humor column, and let's try to refrain from putting words in people's mouths and telling them what they believe.
Amp says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:27 am
John Doe and Brandon seem so bent out of shape that Eric mocks the right. If it bothers you so much, and you can't find the humor in it, why do you read his columns? Are you looking for a fight?
John Doe says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:43 am
Amp, I don't care that Eric mocks the Right. I think the article has some really funny parts. But I compare this to his review of "Apocalypto"; it was marred by his bias and took away from the humor of the article and belied his intelligence. There were just as many irrational anti-cheney letters, but the focus was on mocking pro-cheney. He has done a good job in the past mocking both sides, but this time he seemed biased. It's not the first time he's had at least an anti-Bush/cheney bias if not a more liberal bias, and it's ok in the sense that it's the popular opinion of the day. But that doesn't mean rational and intelligent people don't disagree with the tone of the article.

Then you read the responses. Out of about 40 (because there are repeat posters like me) only 3 people seem to have a more conservative perspective. Many of the rest see this article as an opportunity to say "Cheney is evil, the First Presidency are morons". I don't have a right to post my opinion, but Eric has granted that priviledge and I'm using it. Maybe he'll mock me in his "Angry letters" :D That would be an honor.
Jennifer says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:57 am
When my dad was attending BYU in the early 70's, Neil Diamond was scheduled to come give a concert. Some of the students protested because his sideburns were longer than specified in the Honor Code.

If it were my graduation I would gladly attend to hear Cheney speak. I like hearing from the leaders of our country so I can judge for myself whether or not to vote for them in the future. What you hear from others is always biased. What you hear for yourself, you can judge for yourself.
Jeff J. Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:58 am
Actually, John Doe, of the 48 comments so far, I count at least 25 that are decidedly neutral with regards to politics, instead addressing it as, ya know, a humor column. A couple have seen it as an opportunity to say Cheney is evil, but no one outside of your head has even implied that "the First Presidency are morons."

Bias can be found everywhere. Once in a great while, it even exists where it is found.
kevith says:
April 24, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I found it humorous. I find the ongoing commentary humorous. That is all.
Eric D. Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Just to clarify, lest anyone take John Doe's comments at face value: I never compared Cheney to Hitler (comment #46). The only time I mentioned Hitler was in the Michael Moore paragraph -- completely unrelated to Cheney.

Furthermore, John Doe, if you want to continue believing that to protest Cheney's apperance at BYU is to criticize the LDS Church's top leaders, you are welcome to do so -- but bear in mind, the LDS Church's top leaders have come out and said that you are wrong! That statement on the church's Web site was very clear -- I mean, it was the whole point of the statement -- that the First Presidency were acting in their capacity as BYU trustees, NOT as prophets, when they invited Cheney. The trustees do a lot of things, lots of mundane, everyday things relating to BYU. Are you saying that anytime you disagree with ANY major BYU policy, you're disagreeing with the First Presidency? I hope not, because I suspect there are BYU policies you disagree with yourself, and I'd hate for you to be calling the First Presidency morons.

Finally, when I quoted the passage from the church's Web site in the column, and then extrapolated from it ("Dude, it's the VICE PRESIDENT," etc., etc.), my point was not to mock the First Presidency. As already clearly established, again and again, if I was mocking anyone, I was mocking the BYU board of trustees. I was summing up what I figured must have been the thought process: "Dick Cheney is the vice president of the United States, which is a high and powerful office. It would be an honor to have such an esteemed officer speak at graduation, regardless of who, specifically, the man is, or what he has done."

I'm not going to make fun of the church's First Presidency or criticize the LDS Church (and I've already deleted comments from people who were doing just that). But I am going to make fun of BYU policies and procedures, just as I've done off and on for like 10 years or something.

Now stop twisting my words around. I don't like having to post comments on my own Web site.
Carrie says:
April 24, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Craig, your comment about the FLSR, having spent much time there myself, is funny and so true. It's ironic that that is the case since some of my most spiritually uplifting experiences happened there and it was the only ward I was actually happy in while at BYU.
John Doe says:
April 24, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I didn't know my words were so inflammatory that Eric needed to clarify what he said. I could've been clearer, but I didn't want to take up too much space. The Hitler remarks weren't meant to comment on what Eric wrote, but several commenters have said that inviting Cheney is like inviting Hitler. I felt what Eric said gave this idea some credence, especially since right after posting the Church statement he talks about inviting someone who endorses torture and illegal wire-tapping. I'm the only one to get the smackdown for saying anything thus far.

I disagree with BYU policy all the time. I don't believe that the First Presidency get involved in the nitty-gritty, down and dirty stuff. They are specifically inviting Cheney. Perhaps I am just reacting to the fact that others (here and elsewhere) have pointed out that if you don't disagree that Cheney is evil and a blight on BYU graduation, then you are an idiot (I am at BYU, and there are plenty of people saying that). To me, equating Cheney with evil and inviting him to speak with stupidity directly goes to the First Presidency. Perhaps I wish Eric had made fun of those people since they feel justified in saying something I consider ludicous, but again their insinuations are all A-OK apparently.

Those I considered implying against the first Presidency: #4, #9, #21, #24,#37, #40. I don't think I'm reading too much when I see what posts get smacked down and which are ignored, coupled with the article. If inviting Cheney is like inviting Hitler, Satan then the leaders of the Church, whether acting as men or not, are inviting evil to the only campus they control. Yet these posts are acceptable and intelligent, right?

I will apologise because Eric has done nothing wrong (as you all know). People have taken his words, run with them or inserted their own opinions. I responded to them more than to the article, and for that I'm sorry.
david says:
April 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm
what??? i don't see anything against the first presidency in any of those comments. what are you talking about?
Matt says:
April 24, 2007 at 3:26 pm
As often as I, a non-LDS fellow living in Provo, get pounded into my head that the First Presidency is only considered to be acting as an infallible agent of God during very specific circumstances, I'm surprised at how people like John Doe here consider sincere criticisms of this decision to be a bad thing because of the implication that the First Presidency may be wrong. It's been made very clear to me that, as a matter of doctrine, there is no guarantee that the First Presidency cannot be wrong on any number of things they do or say outside those circumstances.
Matt says:
April 24, 2007 at 3:32 pm
David, I think John believes that any complaints about the decision to invite Cheney are "against the First Presidency."
Amp says:
April 24, 2007 at 3:42 pm
I fail to see how #4, #21, #24, and especially #40 are in any way "against" the First Presidency. That logical leap is ridiculous.
kevith says:
April 24, 2007 at 4:00 pm
In the above comment Eric says that he has deleted any comments that "make fun of the church's First Presidency or criticize the LDS Church." Maybe we're looking at the comments now that they have been renumbered and that's why some of the ones specifically referred to by John Doe don't now say what he says they do (did).
Eric D. Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm
No, the ones I deleted were in the "to be approved" queue and never got posted.
Aaron says:
April 24, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I posted comment #21. It reads: "...arguments that criticism of the Cheney invitation = criticism of the Church/1st Presidency/God Himself are lame and alarming..." I meant that it is a ridiculous to stifle any discussion (or criticism) about what the 1st Presidency does as board of trustees of BYU simply because they are the 1st Presidency. I did not imply (or mean to imply) that the 1st Presidency is stupid or that Dick Cheney is evil. John Doe, you're reading too much into these comments.
Rob D says:
April 24, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Funny article. I agree that Jesus would be too soft on the war on terror. I do have to disagree with the fact that BYU would protest Clinton. You can't compare the Michael Moore thing. Most of the protests that take place are when liberals protest conservative speakers. It is very rare when it is the other way around.
Geoff with a G says:
April 24, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Although I generally refrain from making such postings, I feel that a little balance is called for among these comments.

Many here would label me rabidly right-wing in my political philosophy and personal ideology for actually believing in the policies of the current administration. I happen to think Cheney is great, and I think history will prove the Bush Administration--much like Truman's--suffered withering attacks that won't hold up over time, although I won't make that argument here.

I also think Eric is great, and I particularly enjoyed this skewering of the entire BYU invite situation. While I find many attacks against the Bushies and Zoobies to be so off-the-wall as to merit immediate disregard, Eric didn't resort to any such easy or low ball tactics to find humor in his Cheney roast. Neither did he necessarily expose a bias in his remarks. It was just hilariously satirical and typically enjoyable Snider humor.

One can indeed appreciate the comic nature of such a situation regardless of one's personal political proclivities.
Momma Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm
#50 Jennifer, I just want to tell you that I was also at BYU in the early 70s when Neil Diamond did a concert. I didn't hear about the sideburn protest, which I would have found totally ridiculous, but I thought he appeared to be drunk when he performed. He was probably afraid of the angry crowd after hearing about the sideburn thing.
card says:
April 24, 2007 at 7:34 pm
On that "Be Modest" link, there was one titled "Lose skinny jeans, guys." I found it to be amazingly hilarious.
Deb says:
April 24, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Ok. I will wade in, although I may regret it. First, It was a FUNNY column. I needed that laugh! I loved the comments about the inane letters to the editor; they never change!!! (Does any other BYU graduate find it totally ironic that you can pick up a Daily Unifarce and the letters look like rehashed stuff from when you were there? "Can anyone do something about the worms on the sidewalk after it rains or they water the grass? They gross me out!" etc, suddenly becomes a major controversy.)

I loved the UVSC gift certificate (LOL) and I want to know why I didn't get a balloon when I graduated from BYU? Oh, wait a minute--I got a pencil. :)

About having Dick Cheney as a commencement speaker: Well, I know that a lot of graduates skip out on the main commencement and just attend their college ceremonies. I know they always have to encourage people to attend the main one, they being the administration and your parents/family, because they think they can get a picture of you in that mass of humanity to prove that you really did graduate. At least it wasn't Hillary, but I probably wouldn't want to go to her speech, either. From this comment, you can probably tell I don't like politics (or long-winded commencement speeches) in general. And the seats get uncomfortable.

As a historical note, I went to the Neil Diamond concert. I thought the big controversery was if he would be allowed to perform because he customarily had a glass of wine before going on. But the concert, as I remember, was great. Of course, being young and impressionable, I didn't have a lot of concerts to compare it with. But I still thought it was great.

Who knows? maybe the speech given at commencement will be good. But to tell the truth, I went to the main commencement and the college one, and I can't remember a thing from the speeches that were given. (Now I am in for it, I know.)
Native Minnow says:
April 24, 2007 at 8:48 pm
There are so many things that made me laugh in this column that I've finally decided to go to the trouble to type in my personal info and let you know that I think you're hilarious. I particularly liked being reminded of the hilarity that can be found in the letters to the editor. I should really visit the Daily Universe's page and start reading those again.
Cafe_Au_Lait says:
April 24, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Melodramatic letters to the editor, and Snide Remarks. Two things in the Daily Universe that kept me laughing all the way through 7 years at BYU (I was lazy and indecisive, and then they made me graduate).
Cafe_Au_Lait says:
April 24, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Oops. Snide Remarks started after I got there and ended before I left. But the books kept me happy.
Queen of Everything says:
April 24, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Lol, all you funny people making arguments out of humor. I think that according to at least a possible informal, socially-accepted definition of "humor" it generally means "not serious." Ergo, "not necessarily an actual opinion, but that's for me to know and you to...well, go do something destructive in your anger."

#63, " I agree that Jesus would be too soft on the war on terror." Um, I think if He had to intervene, that would pretty much be the end of it all--I mean, Judaism and Islam would be pretty much dead disproven by then, and people wouldn't feel too much like breaking any more commandments, like killing and lying and so on and so forth....I'm just sayin!
As for the column, well, I thought it was pretty flipping hilarious, considering Dick Cheney comes from where I live, and I guess I've been not on earth and I only heard about the guy getting shot by him, but nothing else. So, i don't have much of an opinion on the man, but insinuating that the First Presidency are morons because they invited the Vice President to speak, and they not acting from their FP authority but as members of the board, is pretty blatantly dumb. Duh. Because a guy is a bullfighter and that is how people normally see him does not mean that later when he's cooking noodles for a fancy dinner that his bullfighter tendencies will dictate if he cuts up beef to eat with it or bok choy.

Also, if BYU asked Hitler to speak, that would be messy. I mean, Roger Hunsaker could probably consider him his crazy German cousin, but still! BYU students could protest the fact that a zombie is addressing them, and to heck that he was evil in life! Who's going to clean up the various zombie paraphernalia dripping from him?! Nobody! And who's to say he wouldn't eat somebody?! And don't even get us started on the Jews...

lol, the comments are almost as entertaining as the column! just had to be a part of it.
tia juanna says:
April 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Dang, you really know how to get folks in a writing frenzy don't ya, Eric? I have never seen so many comments before. You are a funny man with a funny way of looking at just about everything.
Eric D. Snider says:
April 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I had a brief e-mail exchange with John Doe because I truly wanted to understand his seemingly un-understandable position. And I understand it now, and it's a perfectly reasonable, defensible position. He was hesitant to post again, since he'd done a poor job of explaining himself already, and he didn't want to write some big long manifesto on my site. But since so many of us were puzzled by what he was trying to say, I hope he won't mind if I summarize it here for him.

He has no problem with people criticizing the Cheney invitation if they're doing it for reasons other than morality. You don't think graduation should be a political affair, you fear inviting Cheney might imply a Mormon church endorsement of Republicans in general, or whatever -- fine. John Doe doesn't equate that with criticizing the First Presidency. Criticize away.

It's only if your reasons for opposing the Cheney visit are moral (Cheney is evil, Cheney supports torture, etc.) that he has problem with it. In his view, you're questioning the moral judgment of the First Presidency -- and even if they were acting as trustee-board members and not prophets when they invited Cheney, John is not comfortable with people questioning those men's morality under any circumstances.
Shane says:
April 25, 2007 at 12:12 am
Fantastic of Eric to go out of his way to discuss with John Doe and listen to him and then write down John's opinion in a way that (I'm guessing) is fair to him. You're a good man, Charlie Brown. Classy.
Amp says:
April 25, 2007 at 11:33 am
According to a Daily Universe article posted online 22 March 2007 (sorry, I can't do a fancy link like some people here), the White House asked if Cheney could speak:

"The vice president's speech will essentially be fulfilling a rain check for President George W. Bush, who was asked to speak last year and couldn't.

The White House contacted BYU in January of this year to see if having Cheney speak would be acceptable, McGinn said. Church officials then invited Cheney to some." [sic]

Granted the esteemed journalists and/or editors at the Daily Universe wrote that Cheney was invited to "some", not "come", but nevertheless, I think the import of this fact plays into the debate. Whether you like Cheney or not, it would have put BYU and the Church in a very awkward position to have turned down the White House's proposal of having Cheney speak. I suspect that would have immediately thrown the Church and BYU into a far messier political debate, and it would have called the Church's political neutrality into question even more than now. I think the Board of Trustees/First Presidency made the right choice, even though I personally dislike Cheney's politics.
Amp says:
April 25, 2007 at 11:37 am
To clarify, the "McGinn" quoted is Megan McGinn, Cheney's spokeswoman.
Jeff says:
April 25, 2007 at 12:19 pm
"That's like Gandalf getting booed in Hobbiton."

I'm going to have to revoke your geek card Eric.

If you remember Gandalf was NOT liked at all in Hobbiton. The Hobbits in general preferred a very laid-back, almost boring lifestyle and frowned on "adventures". Gandalf (and most other travelers) was seen as bringing adventure and mischief so he wasn't always accepted in Hobbiton by the majority of the populace.
Greg says:
April 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Interestingly enough, articles of impeachment against Cheney were introduced today.

And for the guy asking why Cheney is evil, well, for one he falsified evidence to start a war that lead to thousands of deaths so his former coworkers could make billions of dollars. I'm surprised you need it spelled out; you must not pay much attention.
Mark in Portland says:
April 25, 2007 at 1:30 pm
#75, good point... except that the query from the White House as to whether it would be okay for Cheney to come speak rather than the president was not extended publicly. It could have been handled with some sort of diplomacy, I'm sure, where BYU could have said "I'm sorry, we've already invited Angelina Jolie to come speak at commencement" or some other reason that lets EVERYONE off the hook.And then everyone would skip commencement like they always do, no controversy, etc. I'll be interested to hear what Cheney actually said...
Amp says:
April 25, 2007 at 3:42 pm
#79, I agree, but I think that turning down the White House--whether public or not--would have made more of a political statement because unless they had a better-known speaker already lined up, their only reason for declining would have had to have been political.
controversy says:
April 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm
my work here is finished.

good roast, eric. bravo, bravo.
Justin says:
April 25, 2007 at 5:07 pm
WTF? Salt Lake Tribune headline: Vice president to receive honorary degree from BYU http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5747897
Mark in Portland says:
April 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm
An honorary degree... I HOPE that's something they give to EVERY commencement speaker, and can't really be called some sort of honor more than BYU has already given Cheney by allowing him to speak at commencement. ~Sigh!~
Brandon says:
April 25, 2007 at 6:32 pm
"And for the guy asking why Cheney is evil, well, for one he falsified evidence to start a war that lead to thousands of deaths so his former coworkers could make billions of dollars. I'm surprised you need it spelled out; you must not pay much attention."

In the interest of being nice, I'll just ask you to explain your response, and maybe supply some proof.

Because frankly, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest "Cheney lied, people died" is a valid statement. Every intelligence agency on earth reported Saddam had WMDs. You're telling me Cheney knew different and intentionally withheld that information so he could profit off the deaths of American men and women?
Matt says:
April 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm
June 21, 2004, on whether an Al Qaeda agent had met with members of Saddam's regime:

CNBC: "You have said in the past that it was quote "pretty well confirmed..."
Cheney: "No, I never said that. Never said that. Absolutely not."

December 9, 2001 on Meet the Press:
Cheney: "...it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

That one's straightforward enough to quote here. There are several other cases of apparently trumped up evidence, misleading statements, and inappropriately biased selection of intelligence made to garner public (and congressional) support for the war, but this isn't the venue for that conversation.
Justin says:
April 25, 2007 at 9:24 pm
"The invitation is seen by the university's board of trustees as one extended to someone holding the high office of vice president of the United States rather than to a partisan political figure..." WAIT...so the invitation and the bestowing of an honorary degree are coincidental? If Bush came to the commencement instead, would he be the one receiving the degree instead? BYU needs to get it's story straight.
Matt says:
April 25, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Honorary degrees are often given to visiting dignitaries. Margaret Thatcher also received one when she visited BYU, as did Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, a handful of past Church leaders and other prominent figures.
Cutlass Supreme says:
April 26, 2007 at 12:59 am
â€œI was so awestruck, I donâ€™t know what else he said.â€

Sound like the words of someone who isn't biased in favor the Bush-Cheney administration?

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/churchupdate/040626whitehouse3.html
Frankey Shankey says:
April 26, 2007 at 1:08 am
If the First Presidency doesn't act as prophets when they're doing their BYU Board of Trustees work, why are they even on the Board of Trustees to begin with? Seriously, isn't the main attraction of having them onboard their prophet-ness? So if they turn all that stuff off and are just acting as men... what's the point?

The way I see it: they don't turn it off. One person can't be two different people.
My Kah says:
April 26, 2007 at 1:14 am
#88: No one ever said President Hinckley personally wasn't a Bush fan. and besides, i can't stand Bush myself, but come on, if I met the president, I'd be pretty awestruck too, wouldn't you?

#89: What's the point in having regular, non-prophet men on the board of trustees? is that your question? i mean, they have to have someone on the board, and since the school is owned by the LDS Church, why not have church leaders, prophets or not? and if you say they can't "turn it off," and insist that they ARE acting prophets even when they say they're not, then i guess you'll have to take it up with them, as they're the ones "lying," apparently.....
Justin says:
April 26, 2007 at 10:51 am
To respond to #87, From the Deseret News article by Tad Walch dated 4/26...BYU has awarded just one honorary degree since 2003, an honorary doctorate of Christian service bestowed on former BYU President Merrill Bateman last year.
The last time the university awarded the honorary public service degree it is giving Cheney was in 2001, when it granted the honor to Kim Clark, then the dean of faculty at Harvard University and now the president of BYU-Idaho, and to John Gallivan, former publisher of the Salt Lake Tribune.
The first to earn the public service honor from BYU was Elder Ezra Taft Benson, an LDS church leader who was serving in 1955 as the U.S. secretary of Agriculture. He later was church president from 1985-94.
Others awarded the honorary public service doctorate in BYU's history include U.S. Secretary of Education T. H. Bell (1984), U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek (1995) and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1996).

I agree with Dr. Hawkin's sentiments: "One does wonder what message BYU intends to send with this," political science professor Darren Hawkins said. "Honorary degrees are sometimes conferred by universities to proclaim their approval of the honoree's character and qualities, and if that's what BYU intends to do, I disagree wholeheartedly with the award of an honorary degree. I don't think BYU should be commending Vice President Cheney's character or actions to anyone."
Amp says:
April 26, 2007 at 11:38 am
I think BYU always gives some sort of honorary something or other to their commencement speakers. Marjorie Hinckley got some citation or award or something when she was the commencement speaker at my graduation.
jennyanydots says:
April 26, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Thanks, Eric. As a BYU grad, I have been distraught over what the message of inviting Cheney to speak says to the world (because whatever distinctions those of us familiar with both the institution and the LDS church may be able to make between the two, the rest of the world sees the two as inextricably linked), and then don't get me started about the news of the honorary degree! I won't get into the political discussion of what I think about Cheney or the Bush administration or why it upsets me to have BYU at least "seem" to be endorsing both. All I wanted to say is that your clever humor and writing has allowed me to laugh and laugh and overcome the blues! This has been my favorite column of yours in a long time (and I like them all).

P.S. But "Mark in Portland" (#37) I also appreciate your post quite a bit!
mselden says:
April 26, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Wow. There are a lot of comments on this one. I will make mine brief. If either Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton had been invited to speak at my BYU graduation, I might have actually attended. Cheers.
TheDarci says:
April 27, 2007 at 12:53 am
I just got back from Commencement. I wasn't planning to go at all, until I found out Dick Cheney was coming. I was kind of disappointed when neither Bill Clinton, Hitler, nor Satan showed up. It would have made the two hour wait more entertaining. Although I don't know if they would have made it through security. That pitch fork would definitely have raised some eyebrows. (I'm referring to Bill Clinton, by the way.) I find it highly amusing that Eric's posts to his own article will soon rival it in length.
Shawn says:
April 27, 2007 at 2:43 pm
My idiot friend thought it was somehow significant that Pres. Hinkley and some members of the 12 came to commencement... He basically equates their attendance as a statement of solidarity against protests against him.

Maybe it's that.. or maybe it's because they always come to commencement. Sometimes it's hard not to slap him.

I interned for Sen. Reid. It's going to be fun times when he comes and people get all sensitive. I don't anticipate protest, even though he's a democrat, BYU students are completely conditioned to bend over to authority.

Anyway, Eric, you're getting hotlinked today.
Talm says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:40 am
Just doing my part to make this comment list in the triple digits. My beef with Michael Moore's attendance wasn't his opinions, but that a few students used a lot of student funds to bring someone that most students didn't really want to see. But then the event totally sold out. Basically what I'm saying is, don't ask me for lotto numbers.
Mark B. says:
April 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm
You'd think all those rabid Republicans in the Marriott Center would have booed Cheney for the ruin that Bush/Cheney have brought to the Republican Party and its hope for future success.

Snider says the Lord himself couldn't win in Utah County if he were a Democrat. Well, He couldn't win in the U.S. in 2008 if He ran as a Republican. The soon-to-be (but not soon enough) 8 years of incompetence of the Republicans, with Georgie and Dickie at the head, has brought us (1) a quagmire in Iraq, (2) multi-billion dollar Federal budget deficits, (3) distrust from all our (former?) allies, (4) a renascent Russia, no longer worried about overwhelming U.S. military force, (5) a Congress controlled by the Democrats, and (6) still no Osama bin Laden's head on a platter.

With a record like that, why were all those folks cheering?
Brandon says:
April 30, 2007 at 6:13 pm
#98: No idea. Obviously Cheney is Satan in disguise... I don't know how so many people fail to see that.
Gregory Thornock says:
May 1, 2007 at 10:23 am
What Eric failed to mention about my Chili's gift certificate and balloon was that my balloon had my diploma printed on it and it was signed by Micheal Moore. Top that BYU.
Lowdogg says:
May 2, 2007 at 11:31 pm
#96: Pres. Hinckley does not always go to BYU commencement, but there is always a least one member of the 12, usually Elder Eyring as he heads the education committee (or whatever it's called).
Ben says:
May 3, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I disagree with the assumption that inviting Bill Clinton would entice all the rabid hedgehogs to come out from the woodwork here on campus and yell and scream about how improper it is that such an individual could be allowed to speak on campus. I think that, if there even *was* a protest, it would be on the same scale as the VP Cheney protest. I feel that on both the left and right side, we have wild and crazy people who just like to make a scene, and it will happen no matter what. But for the most part, the average BYU student is pretty reserved and open-minded.

Drawing comparisons to Michael Moore is somewhat inaccurate. Most people were pissed because of the money that was spent on bringing Michael Moore to speak to the students. Granted, ticket sales and donations covered the costs regardless, but the problem was that funds set aside for use for events relating to the entire student body were initially blown for Michael Moore. I think if BYU misapplied funds for a speaker in a similar situation, then everyone would be up in arms, similar to what happened with Michael Moore.

Also, Michael Moore came to UVSC to discuss totally different issues than Dick Cheney did at BYU. That makes a big difference.

Now, if there's one thing we can agree on, that is this: if BYU took the money they normally gave to BYUSA, and blew it on any speaker, even Hitler as was said, I think we could all even be happy about that.
Future Turtle says:
May 9, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I once saw the Cheney feeding on a stray cat in an alley. Before my mind could process the horror I was witnessing the creature withdrew into a swirling vortex of anti-light.

Several weeks later I awoke to find a stray cat sitting at the foot of my bed. It's eyes aglow like embers. It was missing it's left ear.
karen says:
May 20, 2007 at 10:17 pm
The comments on BYU and Bill Clinton remind me of the presidential election of 1992. I was a freshman living in Deseret Towers, and the day after the election results were announced, there were many students who wore black, I assume in mourning. Only at BYU would such a thing happen.
Brandon says:
May 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm
"Only at BYU would such a thing happen."

You underestimate how large the world is if you believe that BYU is the "only" place something like that would happen.
Cory says:
June 11, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Very true. There is, after all, BYU-Idaho.
Argus Skyhawk says:
November 29, 2007 at 8:21 am
I remember that it was a gloomy day for many students at Ricks College when Bill Clinton won in 1992. It came as quite a shock to some, which surprised me since the polls had made it pretty obvious he was going to win.
Kourtney says:
January 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Although I don't agree with Cheney's politics, I definitely would have attended his speech at my college graduation, a college that is located between Eric's childhood in SoCal and his adulthood in Portland. And we all know what that means, don't we #26? Not only would it have been interesting to hear what kind of advice a 549-year-old man has for a bunch of 21-year-olds, but I like attending events where I can see how a political figure operates in person, regardless of who it is. Kind of like seeing a musician in concert instead of listening to the CD.

And I'm really glad that Eric took the time to teach us the correct pronunciation for the title of this column. I thought "CHAY-nee" Roast sounded too hum-drum for his taste, but now that I know it's "CHEE-nee" Roast, it fits right in with the rest. And now I would like a non-partisan hot dog for dinner.
Fly Paper says:
November 3, 2008 at 11:36 am
I was in an institute class the Wednesday after Cheney's reelection, and the old lady testified that this was what God wanted. And something snapped inside of me and I could not believe in God anymore. And I was finally happy again.

But now I know the old lady was right. We had to have Cheney, so that we could have Obama.
John Doe says:
November 7, 2008 at 2:11 am
To #109/Fly Paper

I totally agree. Because believing that God wanted Bush in the White House is a sign of ignorance, insanity, and overall stupidity. Only an insane/stupid redneck who knows nothing of God would believe God thought anything good of Bush or Cheney.

The thought that God wants Obama in the White House is a sign of enlightenment and higher plane spirituality. Only the most intelligent/inspired folks know that God's plan since the creation has been preparing for the coming of Obama and his presidency.
matt says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm
It's funny, John Doe, that you would respond to a joke with biting sarcasm. Like you understand one kind of humor, but are incapable of understanding another.

And when I say it's funny, I mean that it isn't.

This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.

Eric D. Snider