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.