Friday, June 10, 2005
WHEN YOU WISH UPON A BLOG ...:
It seems that our once-expressed desire to take the Andrew Sullivan of one particular day by the hand and introduce him to the guy he contradicted with the same name, blog and raw muscled glutes two weeks later, or earlier, has come to pass after all. This time it’s the 2005 Andrew Sullivan meeting his 2002 Blog Queen counterpart and confusing him with Neal Cavuto (a onetime subject of Paul Krugman’s wrath, so obviously they agree on something).
Roger Ailes makes the more obvious comment.
posted by Sully 6/10/2005 03:39:00 PM
Thursday, June 09, 2005
OK, HE’S NOT THE ONLY ONE LATE TO BIG STORIES:
Lileks is commenting on Revenge of the Sith NOW? Excuse us, but as topics for your blog go that is so last month.
And requoting it in your own blog ... well, that’s ... Andrew Sullivan.
Is he that much a fan of Minnesota Butt-Boy that he still wants to give him traffic? What in that excerpt is even original, or artfully phrased for that matter?
posted by Sully 6/09/2005 04:20:00 PM
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
WHAT A BITCH!:
He makes snippy remarks about Alterman and Raines on the same day?
Grudges die hard at 421 Commercial Street. Or wherever he is now.
posted by Sully 6/08/2005 12:29:00 PM
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
One of the things we have consistently found most distasteful about Sullivan is his fixation on genetic determinism of traits. It again manifested itself in his brief post last week linking to Drezner, and although we wanted to do something about it, we lacked the time.
Fortunately, P O’Neill found that, once again, always click on the link.And yet Sullivan would benefit from reading Drezner’s blog more carefully than he seems to, because Dan observes that one of the authors of the paper linking Jewish genes and intelligenceYou know, in a weird way, maybe Sullivan would actually agree with that.
has also advanced the idea that, "homosexuality is caused by an infection."
posted by Sully 6/07/2005 02:37:00 PM
Since we were first, even before Blumenthal, to note the unsettling similarities of the administration’s scattered and secretive detention system for war on terror suspects to the Stalinist GULag (and we seconded it when Blumenthal put it up, and again later on), we take this personally.
Andrew dear boy, we know our history where this is concerned (as opposed to conservatives, who from the available evidence merely know about it and take that knowledge and twist whatever way they wish, away from the lessons it has for all of us). We have actually read all three volumes of Solzhenitsyn’s work. So we are taking this personally.
And we think that the comparison of the administration’s fundamentally lawless and unaccountable terror-detention system to that of Stalin’s regime is entirely apt and appropriate. That conservatives wish to protect it as some sort of apogee of Ultimate Evil is moot here ... if anything, given that less people than should be are aware of just how extensive and pernicious the Gulag truly was in Soviet society (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich would make an excellent companion piece to Night in the typical high-school English curriculum), it should be made more often, not less. We fail to learn from history when we set it off-limits.
Oh, by the way, we did also read Applebaum’s book, which we recommend highly. And note that in her column nowhere does she belittle Amnesty’s use of the term or otherwise mention the word “Gulag” or “Stalin.”
Not that that should be taken in any way to indicate that she is or isn’t taking a position (although if we were conservatives, we’d go so far as to say that the absence of such a statement indicates, as a matter of course, that she agrees with us). But for Sullivan to use her this way is cheap and dishonorable and he owes her an apology and a retraction.
posted by Sully 6/07/2005 01:23:00 PM
We’re — how shall we put this? — perplexed by Sullivan’s ascription of the term “wilderness” and “they’re not getting any saner” to Gitlin’s post.
When he said that, we expected to read some Chomskian extreme of anti-Americanism, which made it all the more puzzling when we found that Gitlin was the poster, as he usually tends to avoid that and has often made criticisms of that aspect of the left similar to those made by conservatives.
Perhaps it was something he quoted, then.
Nope, it was just a very reflective item about what he accurately describes as “perenially the deepest divide on the left side”: the fact that some people are, so to speak, more interested in being right than being President, and others can’t make up their mind.
You’d think that, whatever the tactical flaws of this, a pundit who once lauded George Bush for his deep commitment to unswerving moral values would at least appreciate a movement that mires itself in this debate. You’d think that if conservatives, as David Frum once urged, cared about this, they might have made more headway in changing the culture that so vexes them than they already have. You’d think that if conservatives had at least once put some underlying principle over a short-term plan to gain power, they would have avoided the Schiavo albatross around their necks, among other things (We’re going to go long, right now, on the idea that in 20 years Schiavo will have the same effect on conservatives that Leonard Bernstein’s party for the Black Panthers had on liberals).
But nooooooo! Sullivan thinks this is the symptom of a movement lost in the wilderness, that it actually cares about its underlying issues.
It says more about him and his time with the right than it does about the left.
QUICK UPDATE: Hmm, note this passage from Clive Davis’s Q&A with whatshisface about Michael Moore that Smalltown Boy links to so frothingly:As someone on the Left myself, as a matter of honour I don’t want to win by using Karl Rove’s tactics, and as a matter of practical politics I don’t think the Left can win that way. The Left has been almost criminally negligent in fact-checking the Right; the Right has been absolutely vigilant in fact-checking the Left, and the Right controls the US media (more on this later; I know you don't agree.) This forces the Left to play by a higher standard than the right. Which, while it may be unfair, is not a bad thing.Emphasis ours.
Don’t hold your breath for Sullivan to say this is a bad thing for the Left.
FURTHER (WELL, ACTUALLY AT THE SAME TIME) UPDATE: The more you read this Q&A, the “Moore” you realize that Sullivan, as usual, has barely bothered to read it himself.
We, as actual people of the left, tel quel, have been aware for a long time that his acclaim on that side of the spectrum has been far from universal. Roger & Me took a lot of hits from lefties who were concerned, as the United Auto Workers was, that ... the film was unfair to General Motors! And there were specific criticisms (like, when Moore makes a big deal out of Reagan’s visit to Flint and how the diner he ate at with unemployed autoworkers whom he told to move to Texas was robbed, it was actually robbed the very next day, not that afternoon! Shocking!). We were about to post something here to that effect with perhaps some links, but then we came across this Larner person actually admitting it:The idea of Moore as the universal darling of the Left is, I think, a product of the right-wing media. There’s been quite a lot of criticism of Moore in the left-wing press — or what passes for it — off the top of my head I can think of pieces in Dissent, The New Republic, Salon, Slate, LA Weekly, Blueprint, Open Democracy, and numerous left-wing blogs. Believe it or not, there are great numbers of thoughtful liberals who despise Moore and consider him very bad for the left. Most of my friends are on the Left, and none of them respect him. Well, maybe one or two, with reservations and caveats. Far from “excommunicating” me, my friends have encouraged me by saying that what I’m doing is important for the health of the Left, and wished me success.And then Larner makes another important point: how come you never see this among conservatives:
Really, if we’re going to go after lies and manipulations on the Left — as we should — let’s hold the right to the same standard, shall we? I actually interviewed David Hardy, although the interview didn’t make it into the book. At one point I asked him if he would now go after Ann Coulter’s nonsense. “No,” he chuckled, “She’s too cute.” I could easily assume that it was Coulter’s political positions, more sympathetic to Hardy than Moore’s, rather than her physical charms that won Coulter her free pass. But Coulter and Rush Limbaugh take more liberties with the truth in an hour than Moore does in a week. And there just isn’t anyone on the right who’s willing to call them out in the way that I’ve called out Moore in my book. Why is that?Davis just lets that pass there (but allows sympathy with that on his main page). But the answer to the question is easy. While there have been some scattered jabs at Coulter from her own side (Sullivan’s among them) there has been no sustained criticism equivalent to that Moore gets because a) attack Coulter or Rush and legions of self-directed brownshirts will phone in death threats to your house, and every conservative knows this, and b) more importantly, criticizing either of them for their misleading arguments would result in fundamental tenets of the right being called into question, intellectual as well as popular, and they all know that, too. So nobody says anything too loudly.
Also c) Only with the Party can we be right. Every conservative can see what happened to David Brock once he really started going off the reservation. And they know better.
posted by Sully 6/07/2005 01:07:00 PM