Friday, December 17, 2004
Did anyone see anything wrong with this passage in that latest email he posted?Once, as a teenager, when I offered one of my mother’s friends a bite of my roast beef sandwich, he replied with heavy sarcasm, “I’ll take a bite of your ‘sandwich’ any time.”
Excuse us ... a woman’s gay male friend hits on her teenage son, even in jest, and Sullivan doesn’t at least note that this is inappropriate?
Now, granted, we don’t know how old this boy was at the time. But we do think the fact that he might or might not have been over the age of consent is beside the point. If we had been that woman, gay friend doing that at the lunch table in our own house would have gotten at least a cold stare. You just don't do that. Adults are generally not allowed to have sex with teenagers, irrespective of sexual orientation. And even when they do, it is extremely bad manners to flirt with the child of a friend, in the friend’s presence.
Put it this way ... imagine a man saying that to a friend’s daughter? Or, to move to ground Sullivan has covered relentlessly, imagine a Catholic priest saying this. Wouldn’t be allowed to pass without comment, we think.
And he wonders why Mary Eberhard keeps getting writing jobs ...
posted by Sully 12/17/2004 01:59:00 PM
FRUM HELL FREEZES OVER, FILM AT 11:
Jo Fish agrees with David Frum that Sully’s embrace of federalism is indeed tactical ... but at the same time disabuses him of any notion that this is somehow unique to causes on the political left.[H]e’s totally correct in substance if not in scope ... Der Duchess’s continual whining about Federalism is “tactical.” Why in scope? Because everything Sullivan whines about is for a reason: to make sure everyone loves him. Sullivan is a man more bent than a pretzel, who has the certitude of weathervane. Tactical because it’s Practical.
posted by Sully 12/17/2004 01:48:00 PM
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
NOT REALLY:By the way, isn’t this a great mini-moment for the blogosphere? Here we have one of the smartest writers in the country testing a hypothesis against the collective brain of the blogosphere. It couldn’t have happened before.Uh, no. Strip out the ass-kissing (not that there’s any shame in kissing Michael Kinsley’s ass, we think) and what you have is what basically goes on in the blogosphere all day, every day, by and from many people who aren’t former New Republic editors.
It has happened before. Times too numerous to count.
QUICK UPDATE: Max Sawicky, who knows a lot about this, also responds.
posted by Sully 12/15/2004 06:24:00 PM
SOME OTHER DRUGS HE MUST HAVE PLENTY OF:A NEW HIV DRUG? Some promising news Rutgers.
For some strange reason the missing “from” was there in the morning, which begs the question of what he might have wanted to put in and then changed his mind about.
posted by Sully 12/15/2004 06:21:00 PM
We were going to link to at least one of the leftblogs pointing out that Kristol is letting Bush off the hook, but Quiddity Quack already has.
posted by Sully 12/15/2004 06:19:00 PM
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
WOLFE IN THE FOLD:
We’re not surprised, not surprised at all, that Wolfe’s latest nadir would pull in the prize for bad sex writing.
We’re surprised that no one would see that, even without reading it (one might say especially without reading it) without the Tom Wolfe name on it this book is little more than an envious and increasingly dirty old man’s fantasy of being reincarnated as a horny and voluptuous coed (doesn’t the title tell you that?) that would have trouble getting past the killfiles of most alt.sex.stories readers, of true interest only to those like to the author.
There is a great parody novel to be written here. It might even be able to see literature on a clear day. More than will ever be said of its overhyped and overheated inspiration.
UPDATE: In that vein, Steve Mussina reminds us (and us, particularly, not just us, generally) that Wolfe used Samuel Richardson’s 18th-century classic Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded, as his template — a book still read in college English classes today although, as Steve also points, it inspired not just one but two better parodies by the much more talented Henry Fielding.
ANOTHER UPDATE: World O’Crap sees things our way in reviewing a Chuck Colson review of the book.Chuck is the latest conservative Christian pundit to enthuse over Tom Wolfe’s I Am Charlotte Simmons because of its insights into all the steamy (but ultimately unfufilling) sex that college girls are having these days.
posted by Sully 12/14/2004 05:34:00 PM
AS ALWAYS, THEY CAN DISH IT OUT ...:
Jarvis, fresh off a real puffer in the Times last week, is in a uniquely surly mood this time. And uniquely disingenuous.
So Cole suggested that Iraq the Model might be some sort of propaganda mouthpiece? Or, rather, quoted and linked to someone who asked some interesting questions that Jarvis himself largely doesn’t address, and continues to do so? No wonder Jarvis won’t link to the guy.
Deal with it.
As if anybody opposed to the war hasn’t been accused of being Saddam’s p.r agent for the last couple of years (or now, the insurgency’s). As if Riverbend herself hasn’t been accused of the same thing, especially after she greeted news of Saddam’s capture with less than the required elation (but guess what, she was right). Sorry if you’re experiencing it as a bitter anniversary, Jeff, but that’s not our problem.
Over and above that ... Jarvis cannot claim he is ignorant of what “libel” means, not after all his years as a fearless ... TV critic for People.
Cole came nowhere near doing anything legally actionable in his post. All he did was link, summarize and note that there are some interesting questions. Jarvis knows this. To make spurious, frivolous and unfounded accusations of libel or defamation that have absolutely no basis in law or fact meets our definition of “reckless disregard.” But Cole is too much of a gentleman to pursue this any further, and perhaps it’s just as well.
And check out this sleight of hand:...they met with Howard Kurtz of the notoriously liberal Washington Post.Well, for our part no paper that continues to employ “Steno Sue” BullSchmidt, whos editorial page is captained by Fred Hiatt, should be so honored with the epithet “notoriously liberal.” But Kurtz himself is not a liberal (and, we should add, not a conservative either, just an opportunist whose wife has done PR work for the GOP).
And there are plenty of pro- (or at least not anti-) American Iraqi blogs whose bloggers do not do things that raise eyebrows among those who know how these propaganda ploys work. Here’s one Sullivan used to link to a lot but now no longer does.We don’t wonder why.
We also watched with horror the video of the Marine soldier shooting an injured Iraqi inside a Fallujah mosque. Everyone in Baghdad was talking about the incident. The casual manner in which it was done suggests that this was not something out of the ordinary.
I heard all the justifications from the US military; insurgents were placing booby traps on their dead and injured, the soldier was disturbed, he had a bad day, etc. None of them stand the test. This was a vile and despicable act, a crime of war, pure and simple. True, the man might have been a foreign fighter, a potential suicide bomber, a baby killer, whatever, but he might have also been an injured civilian caught in cross fire during the heat of battle crawling to what he perceived a safe area.
posted by Sully 12/14/2004 05:05:00 PM
ANOTHER GREAT DAY IN EDITING AT 421 COMMERCIAL ... LOOKS LIKE WE CAN’T ALWAYS FIND THE SHIFT KEY:... the Democratic party. why is failure inevitable? ...
posted by Sully 12/14/2004 01:15:00 AM
WELL, OKAY, CALVIN:But there have been some subsequent developments.
“Further bulletins as events warrant ...”
posted by Sully 12/14/2004 01:14:00 AM
Monday, December 13, 2004
All it needed was “We’re the Iraqi resistance and we approved this message” at the end.
Seriously, the way Sullivan mischaracterized this says volumes about where he still is, and isn’t.
It’s not the best piece of work, even given the conditions under which it was produced ... we could do without that music (interesting that a) they used music at all, which severe Islamic fundamentalists probably wouldn’t, and b) they used Western-sounding, albeit trite, music (one wonders if someone found some old vinyl with a title like The People’s Philharmonic Salutes The October Revolution and liked it)) and we wondered just what the point of showing all those people standing around in grassy fields was. The narration isn’t totally coherent, but then again neither are a great many bloggers.
But seriously ... “murderous, Jihadist creed”? The narration is surprisingly secular, after the invocation of Allah the most compassionate and merciful at the beginning (granted, we couldn’t read the stuff before it). Of course, that could be by design, but note that the narrator disclaims responsibility for 9/11, speaks mainly of expelling U.S. and British forces from Iraq, says it will not take the fight elsewhere, much less asks to spread the struggle to something like restoring the Caliphate or slaughter all the infidels.
Antisemitic? The video calls on listeners to struggle against Zionism, yes, but never mentions Israel or the Palestinians by name ... in the Middle East, we think, that would be a significant omission.
As for the exhortation to use the euro, well, wouldn’t that just be sound economic sense right now? (In fact, anyone wishing to give us a Christmas gift, if you could do it in euros, that would be nice). The speaker sounds, in fact, at times as if he spends a lot more time reading The Economist than loading all those mortars and RPGs.
posted by Sully 12/13/2004 11:54:00 PM
YES, SOMETHING IS VERY AWRY:
Don’t you just love the way he keeps saying “More troops, please,” like he was some old drunk at the bar confronting the sight of wood through the bottom of his glass?
posted by Sully 12/13/2004 07:46:00 PM
Even though he acknowledged it this time, he has absolutely no right to make fun of any other blogger for self-parody.
Except Lileks, who deserves it.
posted by Sully 12/13/2004 07:44:00 PM
SEEING A GHOST:
Sorry for the light blogging lately but, between a paucity of time and material on Sullivan’s part, we’ve not been able to.
However, we did a double take when we saw this obit in yesterday’s Times. Did Andrew have a slightly younger clone somewhere he didn’t know about?
posted by Sully 12/13/2004 07:40:00 PM
Sunday, December 12, 2004
UH, SURE, BUT DID YOU THINK BEFORE YOU POSTED THAT ONE?:JIHADISTS VERSUS WHORES: You know whose side I’m on, don’t you?
The Horse would love this.
posted by Sully 12/12/2004 11:57:00 AM