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.

Halloween cards, or something wicked this way shuffles...

I see that I have been neglecting my pitiful blog again. Well, just in time for Halloween (since I probably won't post again before that), here is a picture of some of the cards I made yesterday. Scary! But I won't frighten you with tales of even scarier things...

9/11 and the Truman Show

Nine years on, it is still hard to describe the effect that September 11 had on me.

The only analogy that comes close is "The Truman Show", a movie where the main character grew up believing that he was leading a normal life, only to find out that his whole world was constructed as the set of a reality television show. I think that when he discovered the truth, it must have been similar to how I felt on that day.

It was as if my life up to that point had been a pleasant illusion, where crazy people in distant lands went around screaming "Death to America," but never really did anything about it, because our government was strong and could keep us safe.

The thing that was most shocking for me was that the people who died in the World Trade Center were mostly just drones like me, sitting in cubicles, checking their email, doing and thinking the same kinds of things that I did every day. In an instant everything was transformed for them into a world of fire and death.

I naively thought that our government would avenge their deaths, that we would quickly find and destroy our enemies. All too soon, I realized that September 11 was just another "crisis" that could not be allowed to go to waste, that petty party allegiances were far more important to our "representatives" than uniting as one behind this life-or-death mission. The legitimate goals of our military were subordinated to a twisted political correctness and a "battle for hearts and minds."

"Islam is a religion of peace," we were told repeatedly, until it became a running joke. After every subsequent security breach, we were assured that there was no indication that the perpetrators were motivated by Islamic beliefs. Surrounded as we were by images of barbarism, of so-called moderate Muslims dancing in the streets to celebrate our misfortune, I came to despise the mealy-mouthed posturing of our leaders and the media, and to distrust them entirely. Sadly, nothing since has served to change my new opinion of reality.

Sometimes I think I just want my world back the way it was. I don't know if I am better off for discovering the truth. I love my country but I fear what the future holds for me and my children.

If Andrew Sullivan Wants To Do It, It Must Not Be A Sin, Ctd.

It's time for another episode in the long-running series, "If Andrew Sullivan wants to do it, it must not be a sin!"

Andrew's latest examination of quaint, outdated, restrictive Christianist beliefs delves into the question of monogamy.

Yes, that's right, even though he is now married, he seeks to justify the promiscuous lifestyle he desires. Perhaps in restrospect, all those Christianists weren't so silly, thinking that "marriage equality" might pose a threat to traditional mores.

The jist of his argument is that there is no evolutionary basis for monogamy. Might there be other behaviors whose prohibition would appear to have no evolutionary basis? For instance, if I am starving, would it not benefit me to kill and eat my neighbor? If someone else's property would make me happy, should I not steal it and then lie about the theft? If I am able to control another person, why should I not force him to labor for me, to preserve my own energy? Since children are generally free of disease, shouldn't I have sex with them instead of other adults?

Whether or not you are an adherent of any religion, all of these seem abhorrent and disturbing. The notion that because monogamy is "unnatural", it is to be disdained, is equally so.

The foundations of modern-day civilization are based on an ethic of striving for moral purity, whatever its origins. To undermine the value of such an ethic is to invite the destruction of society as we know it.

I suppose one could argue that it's only sex, and if Andrew's husband is OK with an "open relationship," it is none of my business. I just wish that he would refrain from propagating his novel philosophies on his website, where many unhappy spouses will undoubtedly grasp them as an excuse to justify their own infidelity.

Edit: a commenter has requested links to the relevant Sullivan posts, this one contains links to several of them.