Andrew Refudiates Himself

This week, among the many wondrous, logic-free emanations from the towering intellect that is Andrew Sullivan, we find this post:

How Many Likudniks Can You Quote In One Article?

Amusingly, the post contains the following two phrases:

There is not a single quote from a single Palestinian in the entire piece

There is one - count it, one - quote from the Palestinians

I guess the Atlantic's blog software does not include a "preview" function, or else Andrew just doesn't read what he writes before posting it.

Why Willow Palin Might Be "Homophobic" - Exhibit A

This week Andrew Sullivan goes after 16-year-old Willow Palin, who had the audacity to call someone a "faggot" on Facebook.

Take a moment to digest the earth-shattering news that teenagers call each other "faggots." OH THE HUMANITY!

Have you collected yourself now? Ready to read on? While I don't condone the use of "gay" or "faggot" as casual insults, it is unfortunately very common. Andrew, however, suggests that young Willow, by the use of these terms, might cause young homosexuals to commit suicide.

Seriously? When Christopher Hitchens called Andrew a "lesbian" on national TV, I don't recall him suggesting that this would motivate young lesbians to kill themselves; rather he suggested that some people need to get a sense of humor.

Also, I seem to recall Obama denigrating his bowling performance as worthy of the "Special Olympics," and Rahm Emanuel's use of "retarded" as a pejorative, but Andrew's concern apparently does not extend to the possibility of suicidal ideation in the cognitively impaired.

May I suggest that Andrew needs to get a grip? For an adult Harvard graduate to attack a sixteen-year-old girl in this way is truly demented, no matter who the girl's mother is.

If Willow Palin is "homophobic" it is surely the result of encounters with people like Andrew Sullivan. Who wouldn't be afraid of someone that behaves this way?

Irony, thy name is Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan illustrates his oblivousness and complete lack of self-awareness this week, with a post entitled "Bush And The Right: The Dysfunctional Slobber". Yes, he actually accused someone else of "slobbering" over a political figure.

Bush And The Right: The Dysfunctional Slobber

"The interview encapsulates the conservative incoherence of the past ten years. Their partisanship made them - for the most part - blind to Bush's attack on real conservatism in his presidency. The fiscal catastrophe, the "deficits-don't-matter" lunacy, the off-budget nation-building endless wars, the budget-busting Medicare entitlement, the executive power supremacy, the descent into war crimes: all of this violated core conservative principles, and, even now, the alleged guardian of such principles, Rush Limbaugh, slobbers pathetically in front of a president he should have been debunking from the get-go."

Now I don't really disagree with all the points Andrew makes about Bush, but this is coming from a man who repeatedly informs us that Obama is the right man for our time, that we are lucky to have him, that he uses "political jiujitsu" on his insane "Christianist" opponents, that Obama should cause us to "Know Hope." Speaking of "slobbering pathetically," Andrew,

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/last-nights-pre.html

"He gets the mood. And seriously: he's obviously up to the job. That was as competent a presser as I've seen in my years covering politics, and light years better than his predecessor's.
...
I said it in the campaign and I'll say it again. He has flaws; he deserves pushback; he needs criticism. But we're lucky to have him right now, in my fallible judgment. Extremely lucky."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/your-toryism-is-showing.html

"My belief in 2008 was that Obama represented the best practical way forward. And although I'm going to criticize him when warranted, I stand by that 1000 percent. We're lucky to have him. "

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/sorry-no-detail.html

"As I've said repeatedly for the last two years, we're lucky to have him."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7069622.ece

"Imagine the narrative shift if this bill is passed. Obama will not have imposed this monstrosity on the country from on high; he will have ground it through the bloggers, and the pundits will declare a resurrection. The narrative will be about his persistence and his grit, rather than his near-divinity and his authority. And suddenly it will appear — lo! — as if this lone figure has not just rescued the US economy from the abyss, but also passed the biggest piece of social legislation in decades.

There is only one story better than Icarus falling to earth; and it’s Icarus getting back up and putting on some shades. The media will fall for it. The public will merely notice that the guy can come back and fight. Even when they don’t always agree with such a figure on the issues, they can admire him."

(Snicker)

Andrew Sullivan's Hypocrisy (again)

Once again we explore the subject of Andrew Sullivan's double standards. This time the subject is conservative attacks on the Ivy League. He quotes Jonah Goldberg trying to explain why conservatives distrust political figures with elite educations. I would summarize Jonah as saying that conservatives do not resent high-end educational achievement in itself, but the mindset which too often accompanies it, of "I know more than you about what you what should do, and what I know should be encoded in the laws by which you are governed."


On this blog I have previously examined Andrew's views on Ivy League education, in a post questioning whether he is a misogynist. His own opinions vary widely depending on the person in question. For David Cameron, elite educational background is good. For Elena Kagan, it is bad, or at least not a positive attribute. In his most recent post, quoted from David Frum and linked above, it seems to be good again, as "they [conservatives] only mean to indict such members as disagree with them." I think that accurately sums up Andrew's position as well, except that his "indictments" seem also to be based in gender.

The Odd Lies of Andrew Sullivan, Ctd.

Alert the media!  Mercede Johnston (Levi Johnston's sister) has a new blog! Levi, you will recall, is the baby-daddy of Tripp, the infant son of Bristol Palin. Andrew Sullivan, naturally, has gone over every post with a fine-tooth comb, looking for confirmation of his interesting theories of Trig's parentage.

So far, no success. But he did find this! Independent confirmation that Sarah Palin called her son a retard!

Except, there is no "independent confirmation" of anything except that Mercede says that Levi says that Sarah Palin said that. In other words, she said, he said, she said. I sent an email to Andrew:

I realize that you take every opportunity to criticize Sarah Palin, but what you have said in this post is just not true:

"So we now have independent confirmation that Palin, ... referred to her own Down Syndrome son - literally - as "retarded" in front of him at home."

I agree that the kerfuffle over Rahm Emanuel's use of the word was stupid and unnecessary, although I very much dislike the use of "retard", "retarded", or "short bus" as an insult, since these are descriptive of a disabling medical condition, like "crip" or "spaz".

However, "independent confirmation" would imply that Mercede herself heard Palin call Trig "retarded" (which in itself is not inappropriate, my 24-year-old son is also retarded and I describe him that way to strangers so that they will have an idea how they can interact and converse with him when they meet him for the first time).

What Mercede said in her blog post was, AS YOU DIRECTLY QUOTED, "No I have not personally heard her use that term, but I do remember my brother twice coming home and telling me about it." So what you have is "independent confirmation" that Levi said that Sarah used the term, and nothing more. Whether you believe Levi is a reliable source or not is irrelevant. The assertion by Mercede that her brother said it does not rise to the level of "independent confirmation" by Mercede (whose reliability as a source, as someone also hostile to Palin, could also be questioned).

I have given you somewhat of a pass on Palin coverage, as some of your fears seem justified, but I really think you should update this post to remove the phrase "independent confirmation." It is false and unfair as originally posted.

I am eagerly awaiting Andrew's retraction, as we all know that he is a scrupulously fair "journalist" in matters related to Sarah Palin.

Andrew Sullivan and the Path of Least Resistance

Christianity recognizes that mankind’s path of least resistance leads to the embrace of sin and evil – “For we like sheep, have gone astray, each to his own way.” Even the apostle Paul struggled with temptation: “that which I do not want to do, these things I do. What a wretched man am I! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” Without Christ as our moral leader, and the hope of our redemption, there is little to lose and much to gain in casting off the quaint burdens of guilt and self-discipline.

Ignoring small cracks in my own moral foundation has been very destructive to me in the past. The justification of my favorite, seemingly trivial sins has repeatedly led me to a life of debauchery, licentiousness, and utter disregard for my own spiritual well-being. My personal quest for reconciliation with God has not been a straight line, but more like a “Family Circus” cartoon, where little Billy wanders around in circles, distracted by all of the attractive nuisances in his path.

So where am I going with this, and how does it relate to Andrew Sullivan? I admire Andrew as a person, but I find his public moral journey to be a distressing example of the consequence of trying to rationalize one’s favored sins. His defense of homosexual behavior, contrary to the tenets of Catholicism, has brought him to a point where he proclaims that “doubt” is a necessary and beneficial component of “faith”. Doubt and faith are antonyms, and mutually exclusive. I don’t condemn Andrew for having homosexual tendencies, or even for indulging them. I only condemn his attempts to to re-interpret God’s laws to soothe his own conscience.

I place little value on moral certitude, nor do I insist on legalistic adherence to biblical doctrine. There are many questions that mankind cannot answer with divine authority. Why does God allow His children to suffer? Is it possible to lose one’s salvation? Can “faith without works” be genuine? Will the “heathen” who has never heard the Gospel be saved? These have been the subject of scholarly debate for centuries, and their answers are “seen through a glass darkly”. However, for many other questions, the scriptures provide us with straightforward guidelines. We undermine the foundations of our faith, when we deny these simple truths for personal gain.

Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient to purchase salvation for all mankind. If we truly believe this, there remains no motivation for us to deny our sinful natures, or to attempt, through our own efforts, to reconcile ourselves to God. Why defend ourselves against the judgment of our fellow man, when through faith, we can lay claim to all the righteousness of Christ?